Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout13-084RESOLUTION NO. 13-084 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92- 13 TO AMEND SECTION 3.3 OF THE GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTUCTURE ELEMENT AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On July 25, 2011, Caltrans awarded the City of Carson $90,000.00 for the Community Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant for preparation of the Master Plan of Bikeways. On September 6, 2011, the City Council accepted the 2011 CBTP grant. Section 2. On June 19, 2012, the City Council selected Ryan Snyder Associates (RSA) as the consultant to prepare the Master Plan of Bikeways. Section 3. The vision for the Master Plan of Bikeways is to enhance bicycle transportation in the City. The Master Plan is a guiding document for all bicycle infrastructure, policies, and programs in the City. It is a blueprint that will enable citizens to feel safe and comfortable when bicycling throughout the City, and will encourage more citizens to partake in this healthy, environmentally -conscious transportation choice. Section 4. Workshops were held on September 8, 2012, January 26, 2013, and May 16, 2013, with residents and community groups to determine key connections and important routes throughout the City. On April 13, 2013, the Tour de Carson Bike Tour and Festival was held in the Carson Civic Center. On March 21, 2013, a meeting was held with the Public Safety Commission; on March 27, 2013, a meeting was conducted with outside agencies and businesses stakeholders; on April 9, 2013, a meeting was held with the Carson -Dominguez Employers Alliance (CDEA); and on May 2, 2013, a meeting was held with the Economic Development Commission to explain the Master Plan of Bikeways. Additional meetings with residents and the business community were held on an as -needed basis. Section 5. The Planning Commission held a workshop on September 25, 2012, January 26, 2013, and March 26, 2013, and a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2013 at fi:30 P.M. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 701 East Carson Street, Carson, California to obtain public comments on the proposed Master Plan of Bikeways. After consideration of the evidence and testimony, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Master Plan of Bikeways be adopted. Section 6. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Master Plan of Bikeways on August 6, 2013, at 6:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 701 East [MORE] RESOLUTION NO. 13-084 PAGE 2 OF 3 Carson Street, Carson, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting -was duly given. Section 7. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at the aforesaid meeting, including but not limited to staff reports, along with testimony received by the applicant and other members of the public. Section 8, The City Council finds: a) The Master Plan of Bikeways is a plan for developing a system of bike routes and lanes throughout the City for the safe transportation of bicyclists. It includes development standards and guidelines for the safe implementation of bike circulation throughout the City. b) The Master Plan of Bikeways was last adopted in 1979 and is in need of an update. c) The Master Plan of Bikeways proposes street improvements which will enhance the quality of life for residents and promote a healthy form of transportation. d) The General Plan Transportation and Infrastructure Element sets policies for development of the City's transportation system. Recent daily traffic volumes were collected between 2009 and 2012, which were used for planning purposes in the Master Plan of Bikeways. Amending the General Plan would bring the Transportation and Infrastructure Element up-to-date with recent daily traffic volumes and consistency with the Master Plan of Bikeways. e) The project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and therefore a De Minimis Impact Finding is made relative to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. Section 9. The City Council has determined that the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) since the project has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The General Plan Amendment and adoption of the Master Plan of Bikeways is a guiding document and is not considered to be a project that has a potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No environmental impacts will result. Section 10. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 92-13 by adopting the Carson Master Plan of Bikeways and incorporating the necessary references in the Transportation and Infrastructure Element. Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit.copies of the same to the applicant. [MORE] RESOLUTION NO. 13-084 PAGE 3 OF 3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2013. �S. . 7 ]::) _Z4" Mayor Jim Dear ATTEST: City Clerk Donesia L. Gause, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF CARSON ) I, Donesia L. Gause, City Clerk of the City of Carson, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is five; that the foregoing resolution, being il at a regular Resolution No. 13-084 was duly and regularly ldO ted by said and that the smecwas passed and adopted d by duly and regularly held on the 6tof September, 2013, the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Dear, Santarina, Gipson, Davis -Holmes and Robles NOES:, COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None City Clerk Donesia L. ause, CMC City of Carson Report to Mayor and City Council August 6, 2013 Special Orders of the Day SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 13-084, FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-13 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT AND ADOPT THE CITY OF &RJS R PLAN OF BIKEWAYS Submitted b rd W. Graves A p vel b Jacquelyn Acosta Director of Community Development At � g Ci Manager I. SUMMARY This item was continued from the July 16, 2013 meeting. On June 11, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 92-13 to amend Section 3.3 of the General Plan Transportation and Infrastructure Element and adoption of the City of Carson Master Plan of Bikeways (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2). In the recommendation, the Planning Commission included several modifications to proposed bikeway locations and requested further outreach to the business community prior to the City Council's consideration (Exhibit No. 3). Staff has completed additional outreach, including notification to the top 10 employers and other businesses. II. RECOMMENDATION TAKE the following actions: 1. OPEN the continued Public Hearing, TAKE public testimony, and CLOSE the continued Public Hearing. 2. APPROVE the Master Plan of Bikeways and MODIFY the recommendation of the Planning Commission by eliminating only the proposed bike lane on Watson Center Road. 3. WAIVE further reading and ADOPT Resolution No. 13-084, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-13 TO AMEND SECTION 3.3 OF THE GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS." III. ALTERNATIVES 1. ACCEPT the recommendations of the Planning Commission by eliminating 1) the proposed bike lanes on Watson Center Road; 2) the colored bike lanes on Wilmington Ave. (between 223rd St. and Sepulveda Blvd.); and 3) the cycletrack on Albertoni Street (between Avalon Blvd. and Lysander Dr.). City of Carson Report to Mayor and City Council August 6, 2013 2. MODIFY the recommendation of the Planning Commission by selecting which sections of bike route to be removed or amended. 3. REJECT the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Master Plan of Bikeways as recommended by Ryan Snyder Associates. 4. TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate. IV. BACKGROUND On July 25, 2011, Caltrans awarded the City of Carson $90,000.00 for the Community Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant for preparation of the Master Plan of Bikeways. On September 6, 2011, the City Council accepted the 2011 CBTP grant. In June 2012, the Master Plan of Bikeways project officially commenced. Several community meetings and events were conducted to garner public participation and comments. Events included a City bicycle tour, a bicycle safety/education event, and community meetings. Throughout the process, public involvement and participation was encouraged. The Master Plan of Bikeways identifies bicycle routes/networks, policies for community involvement/integration, utilization of existing resources, facility design, implementation, maintenance, funding, and special programs (Exhibit No. 4). The plan will serve as a planning document to guide future improvements, development and maintenance of the City's bicycle network for local and regional commuters and recreational riders. This plan seeks to improve bicycle safety, mobility, and connectivity within the City and South Bay region. The plan will result in improved mobility and safety, and support reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse -gas emissions. On June 11, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment to the General Plan Transportation and Infrastructure Element and adoption of the Carson Master Plan of Bikeways. The Planning Commission recommended three changes to the -Master Plan which includes: (1) removal of the proposed bike lanes on Watson Center Road; (2) removal of the proposed bike lanes on Wilmington Avenue between 223rd Street and Sepulveda Blvd.; and (3) removal of the proposed cycletrack on Albertoni Street between Avalon Blvd. and Lysander Dr. The first two changes were made at the request of Watson Land Company due to concerns about the incompatibility between trucks and bicycles. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission that Watson Center Road can be removed as a bike route since this street is not anticipated to have significant bicycle use. However, Wilmington Avenue is a key corridor connecting south Carson with the Los Angeles River bike trail and the City of Long Beach. Wilmington Avenue has adequate width to accommodate existing traffic lanes and new bike lanes. Parking is not allowed along the eastern curb because of the adjacent Tesoro (formerly BP) refinery, which makes the street ideal for a new bike lane. The City's Traffic ki City of Carson Report to Mayor and City Council August 6, 2013 Engineer and Ryan Snyder Associates recommend that this section of colored bicycle lane be retained in the plan. There have also been many comments received from the community suggesting that this is an important route for bicyclists. The Planning Commission recommendation to remove the proposed cycletrack on Albertoni Street came at the request of the StubHub Center. They are concerned that elimination of one eastbound lane on Albertoni Street would impact traffic leaving the StubHub Center and entering the eastbound 91 Freeway. However, inclusion of the cycletrack will not impact the two onramp lanes to the 91 Freeway. The only lane that would be eliminated is a through lane that leads to Stevenson Park still leaving one through lane. The reasoning for a cycletrack, which provides two-way direction for bicyclists, is to provide a safe connection between Stevenson Park and adjoining residential area with the businesses along Avalon Boulevard and Albertom Street as requested by the public during the community workshops. The City's Traffic Engineer, Recreation Superintendent and Ryan Snyder Associates recommend that the cycletrack be retained. Based on the discussions above, staff recommends that the Master Plan of Bikeways be unchanged with the exception of removing Watson Center Road. As shown in the Alternatives Section of this report, the City Council may accept the Planning Commission's recommendations or identify other sections of bike route to be removed or amended. Over the past few weeks, staff has spoken to a number of business representatives in the community. A courtesy flyer has been sent to the top 10 employers in the City as well as other key businesses to advise of the Master Plan of Bikeways and this City Council hearing. Additionally, staff has met with businesses and residents on an as -needed basis to discuss the Master Plan of Bikeways. Staff has done an extensive amount of community outreach as summarized below: Public workshops: September 8, 2012, January 26, 2013, and May -16, 2013 Planning Commission workshops: September 25, 2012, January 26, 2013, March 26, 2013 Public Safety Commission: March 21, 2013 Outside agencies and business stakeholders: March 27, 2013 Carson -Dominguez Employers Alliance (CDEA): April 9, 2013 Tour de Carson Bike Tour and Festival: April 13, 2013 Economic Development Commission: May 2, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing: June 11, 2013 Facebook: ongoing posts to update the progress The City's consultant, Ryan Snyder Associates, has prepared and submitted two 3 City of Carson Report to Mayor and City Council August 6, 2013 grant applications to Caltrans for the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Recipients are expected to be announced in October. The City's proposal is expected to be very competitive and would bring up to $2.9 million in grant funds for implementation of the Master Plan of Bikeways. V. FISCAL IMPACT Funds required for the matching portion of this grant have been budgeted in the proposed FY 2013/14 Bicycle Pathway Fund budget under Project No. 1321 — Bicycle Master Plan — Citywide Bicycle Project. VL EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3. 4. Prepared by: TO: R-06-19-1013 Reviewed by Resolution No. 13-084. (pgs. 5-7) Planning Commission Staff Report and Disposition dated June 11, 2013. (pgs. 8-21) Illustrative Map showing the Planning Commission Recommended Deletions to the Master Plan of Bikeways (pg. 22) Master Plan of Bikeways. (pgs. 23-236) John F. Signo, AICP, Senior Planner City Clerk City Treasurer Administrative Services Public Works Community Development Community Services Date Action taken -by City Council Action 11 RESOLUTION NO. 13-084 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-13 TO AMEND SECTION 3.3 OF THE GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTUCTURE ELEMENT AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On July 25, 2011, Caltrans awarded the City of Carson $90,000.00 for the Community Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant for preparation of the Master Plan of Bikeways. On September 6, 2011, the City Council accepted the 2011 CBTP grant. Section 2. On June 19, 2012, the City Council selected Ryan Snyder Associates (RSA) as the consultant to prepare the Master Plan of Bikeways. Section 3. The vision for the Master Plan of Bikeways is to enhance bicycle transportation in the City. The Master Plan is a guiding document for all bicycle infrastructure, policies, and programs in the City. It is a blueprint that will enable citizens to feel safe and comfortable when bicycling throughout the City, and will encourage more citizens to partake in this healthy, environmentally -conscious transportation choice. Section 4. Workshops were held on September 8, 2012, January 26, 2013, and May 16, 2013, with residents and community groups to determine key connections and important routes throughout the City. On April 13, 2013, the Tour de Carson Bike Tour and Festival was held in the Carson Civic Center. On March 21, 2013, a meeting was held with the Public Safety Commission; on March 27, 2013, a meeting was conducted with outside agencies and businesses stakeholders; on April 9, 2013, a meeting was held with the Carson -Dominguez Employers Alliance (CDEA); and on May 2, 2013, a meeting was held with the Economic Development Commission to explain the Master Plan of Bikeways. Additional meetings with residents and the business community were held on an as -needed -basis. Section 5. The Planning Commission held a workshop on September 25, 2012, January 26, 2013, and March 26, 2013, and a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2013 at 6:30 P.M. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 701 East Carson Street, Carson, California to obtain public comments on the proposed Master Plan of Bikeways. After consideration of the evidence and testimony, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Master Plan of Bikeways be adopted. Section 6. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Master Plan of Bikeways on August 6, 2013, at 6:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 701 East Carson Street, Carson, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. [MORE] PYWRIT NO 0 1 RESOLUTION NO. 13-084 PAGE 2 OF 3 Section 7. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at the aforesaid meeting, including but not limited to staff reports, along with testimony received by the applicant and other members of the public. Section 8, The City Council finds: a) The Master Plan of Bikeways is a plan for developing a system of bike routes and lanes throughout the City for the safe transportation of bicyclists. It includes development standards and guidelines for the safe implementation of bike circulation throughout the City. b) The Master Plan of Bikeways was last adopted in 1979 and is in need of an update. C) The Master Plan of Bikeways proposes street improvements which will enhance the quality of life for residents and promote a healthy form of transportation. d) The General Plan Transportation and Infrastructure Element sets policies for development of the City's transportation system. Recent daily traffic volumes were collected between 2009 and 2012, which were used for planning purposes in the Master Plan of Bikeways. Amending the General Plan would bring the Transportation and Infrastructure Element up-to-date with recent daily traffic volumes and consistency with the Master Plan of Bikeways. e) The project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and therefore a De Minimis Impact Finding is made relative to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. Section 9. The City Council has determined that the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) since the project has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The General Plan Amendment and adoption of the Master Plan of Bikeways is a guiding document and is not considered to be a project that has a potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No environmental impacts will result. Section 10. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 92-13 by adopting the Carson Master Plan of Bikeways and incorporating the necessary references in the Transportation and Infrastructure Element. Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of the same to the applicant. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2013. [Signatures on following page] RESOLUTION NO. 13-084 PAGE 3 OF 3 Mayor Jim Dear ATTEST: City Clerk Donesia L. Gause, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney 04 ON, CITY OF CARSON sU�S4% W& sib��' Y 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING: June 11, 2013 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Master Plan of Bikeways City of Carson REQUEST: To consider General Plan Amendment 92-13 to amend the General Plan Circulation Element and adopt the City of Carson Master Plan of Bikeways PROPERTY INVOLVED: City-wide COMMISSION ACTION Concurred with staff Did not concur with staff Other COMMISSIONERS' VOTE AYE NO AYE NO Chairman Faletogo i/ Gordon Vice -Chair Verrett Pinon Brimmer ✓ Saenz i/ Diaz Schaefer Goolsby Item No. 11A EXHIBIT NO 0 2 June 11, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION DISPOSITION Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission Decision: Chairman Faletogo moved, seconded by Commissioner Brimmer, to continue this public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting, asking that more community and business outreach be undertaken. (This motion was ultimately rescinded.) By way of a substitute motion, Commissioner Diaz moved, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to concur with staff recommendation. (This motion was ultimately rescinded.) By way of a friendly amendment, Commissioner Gordon suggested eliminating the cycle track on Albertoni Street. Commissioner Diaz rejected the friendly amendment. Commissioner Gordon withdrew his second on the motion. By way of a substitute motion, Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Chairman Faletogo, to concur with staff recommendation; to eliminate the bike route on Wilmington Avenue between 223rd Street and Sepulveda Boulevard; to eliminate the bike lanes along Watson Center Road; to eliminate the cycle track along Albertoni Street; that further outreach be done to the businesses; and moved to adopt Resolution No. 13-2476. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Brimmer, Faletogo, Goolsby, Pinon, Saenz, Schaefer, Verrett NOES: Diaz, Gordon ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None I. Introduction/Background The last update to the Planning Commission for the Master Plan of Bikeways project was on March 26, 2013 (Exhibit No. 1). A comprehensive background is provided in the March 26, 2013 staff report, therefore only events after that time and/or not included in that report will be discussed below. Since March 26, 2013, staff released the complete draft Master Plan of Bikeways on May 9, 2013 for a 30 -day public review and comment period, held a community meeting, and met with several stakeholder groups. Staff organized a community meeting on May 16, 2013 to present the full draft of the Master Plan of Bikeways to attendees, answer questions, and gather comments. The majority of attendees were in support of the plan, however the StubHub Center (formerly known as the Home Depot Center) expressed concerns with the proposed cycle tracks surrounding their property and California State University, Dominguez Hills (CSUDH). Staff held separate meetings with representatives from the StubHub Center and the University to further discuss their concerns. The results of the meetings are discussed in this report. Staff also attended the Public Safety Commission meeting on March 21, 2013, conducted an outside agency/businesses stakeholders meeting on March 27, 2013, Carson - Dominguez Employers Alliance (CDEA) on April 9, 2013, and the Economic Development Commission meeting on May 2, 2013. The Public Safety Commission was in overwhelming support of the draft plan and recommended approval of the plan to the Planning Commission. Staff had several other meetings with stakeholders throughout this time, including representatives from CSUDH, Watson Land Company, and StubHub Center Issues of Concern StubHub Center/California State University, Dominguez Hills During the review period for the draft _ Master Plan of Bikeways, staff met with representatives of StubHub Center and CSUDH to discuss concerns for the proposed cycle tracks along Victoria Street and University Avenue. Following the meeting, StubHub Center submitted a comment letter to the City (Exhibit No. 2) including, (1) a request to remove the preferred option of cycle tracks along Victoria Street and University Avenue to standard bike lanes, (2) opposition to the lane reduction on Albertoni Street for a cycle track connecting to Stevenson Park, and (3) opposition to the reduction of traffic lanes on Avalon Boulevard between Victoria Street and University Avenue. Based on their concerns for safety and circulation, staff proposes removing the cycle tracks surrounding StubHub Center and CSUDH as the preferred option. Staff requests the option for a cycle track be placed as a "secondary option or option 2", in case circumstances in the future allow for the addition of a cycle track within these streets. Planning Commission Staff Report June 11, 2013 Page 2 of a o The proposed cycle track along Albertoni Street will result in the removal of one eastbound travel lane. Currently, this portion of Albertoni has two westbound travel lanes and three eastbound travel lanes with parking on both sides. The cycle track will remove parking and an excess eastbound travel lane and will not affect the on-ramp capacity to the 91 freeway. There is currently only one dedicated on-ramp for the 91 freeway and this will remain. The cycle track will provide a safe connection from neighborhood and businesses to Stevenson Park. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and is in support of the removal of the excess eastbound travel lane for the cycle track. In reference to comment number three, the plan does not propose a lane reduction for Avalon Boulevard between Victoria Street and University Avenue. Watson Land Company/Economic Development Commission Staff attended the Economic Development Commission (EDC) on May 2, 2013. During that time, the EDC made a motion to recommend the removal of the proposed bike lanes along Wilmington Avenue between 223rd Street and Sepulveda Boulevard, otherwise they were in support of the plan. In addition, staff met several times with representatives from Watson Land Company and they also requested the removal of Wilmington Avenue between 223rd and Sepulveda Boulevard and the bike lanes proposed along Watson Center Road. Staff does not recommend the removal of the proposed bike lanes along Wilmington Avenue, between 223rd Street and Sepulveda Boulevard. Based on traffic data, field surveys, and the existing/proposed conditions, bike lanes on Wilmington Avenue or Watson Center Road will not have an impact on the number of travel lanes. Bike lanes on Wilmington Avenue will provide access for people that work in the industrial facilities along Wilmington Avenue and in the eastern part of Carson. The removal of the Wilmington Avenue connection results in an underserved population to the residents and businesses within east Carson since no other north -south bikeway is provided that serves that area. This section of Wilmington Avenue is one of the few through streets provided in east Carson, therefore no acceptable_ alternative routes are available. The Wilmington Avenue connection will also connect Sepulveda Boulevard to the Dominguez Channel bike path. During field surveys, several cyclists were observed riding along this stretch of Wilmington Avenue even though it is identified as a truck route. Placing bike lanes provide for a safer ride for cyclists and allow for a safe separation from cyclists and trucks. Bike lanes provide additional visibility for truck drivers and other motorists. The installation of bike lanes along Wilmington Ave and Watson Center Road will not result in the removal of a travel lane and will not impede traffic. With the proposed buffered bike lanes (5' bike lane with 3' buffer), the travel lanes will remain 13'-14' wide, which exceed average lane widths of 11'- 12' lanes. The minimum lane width within the State of California is 10 feet. The installation of bike lanes along Wilmington Avenue and Watson Center Road will not compromise Planning Commission Staff Report June 11, 2013 Page 3 of 4 r: � cON, CITY OF CARSON 04 �L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UNUM'"' NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION: March 26, 2043 SUBJECT: Workshop and update on the Paster Plan of Bikeways APPLICANT, City of Carson REQU`ST: Receive and Pile PROPERTY INVOLVED: City-wide Concurred with staff Did not concur with staff Other COMMISSION ACTION COMMISSION ERS° VOTE AYE NO AYE NO Chairman Faietogo Goolsby Vice -Chair Verrett Gordon Drimmer Saenz Diaz Schaefer Exhibit I safety, the number of lanes, or compromise lane widths. The bike lanes will provide safer routes for cyclists and improve safety for trucks, cyclists, and motorists. Staff's recommendation is to maintain the bike lanes along Wilmington Avenue and Watson Center Road since no adverse impacts will result from the proposal, rather safety will improve. li. Environmental Review The proposed project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) since the project has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The General Plan Amendment and adoption of the Master Plan of Bikeways is a guiding document and is not considered to be a project that has a potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No environmental impacts will result. III. Recommendation That the Planning Commission: • WAIVE further reading and ADOPT Resolution No. 13- entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-13 TO AMEND SECTION 3.3 OF THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND ADOPT THE CITY OF CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS"; and • Amend the draft Master Plan of Bikeways to remove the proposed cycle tracks along University Drive and Central Avenue surrounding the California State University, Dominguez Hills campus and StubHub Center as a preferred priority and replace with standard bike lanes. IV. Exhibits 1. Planning Commission Staff Report without exhibits, dated March 26, 2013 2. Letter from StubHub Center, dated June 5, 2013 3. Draft Resolution 4. Draft Master Plan of ' eways Approved by: aron ong, AICP, Associ to P a ner Reviewed by: Approved by: F. Sigbo, AIC erVor planner Sheri Repp Loadsman? Planning Officer Planning Commission Staff Report June 11, 2013 Page 4 of 4 1�� rafr__4 Cid ®I°' CARSONri �L ` PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT �� UNUM"" NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION' March 26, 201 SUBJECT: Workshop and update on the Master Plan of Bikeways APPLICANT: City of Carson REQU`S T : Receive and He PROPERTY INVOLVED: City-wide Concurred with staff Did not concur with staff Other COMMISSION ACTION COMMISSION ERS° VOTE AYE NO AYE NO Chairman Fatetogo Goolsby Vice -Chair Verre'd Gordon Brimmer Saenz Diaz Schaefer Exhibit I L�` Introduction/Background The last update to the Planning Commission in regards to the Master Plan of Bikeways project was on September 25, 2012. Since then, staff organized bicycle counts at 8 locations in the city, held a second workshop on Saturday, January 26, 2013, distributed a survey to learn about the bicycling community and environment in Carson, provided an "interactive online map" to gather feedback and knowledge, and prepared a draft map and networks for public to review and comments (Exhibit No. 1). In addition, staff is organizing the "Tour de Carson Bike Tour and Festival" scheduled for April 13, 2013 at City Hall to gather comments on the draft networks and for the public to participate in an organized bike ride along the proposed routes. The complete draft Master Plan of Bikeways will be made available for public review and comments mid-April 2013 and will be before the Planning Commission for consideration mid -Mian 2013. Second Workshop — Saturday, January 26, 2013 At this workshop, the Master Pian of Bikeways consultant, Ryan Snyder and Associates introduced the draft bikeway network to the pubiic. The goal of the workshop was to invite community members to provide feedback on the draft network and to prioritize draft routes. A brief explanation of the types of bikeways and design treatments were discussed and attendees were asked to participate in two feedback exercises where they could mark their preferences for which projects to prioritize. The projects that received the most dots were: Victoria Street, University Drive, Figueroa Street south of Del Amo Boulevard, and 223rd Street. Another roadway treatment dot exercise was conducted where attendees were asked if they supported the use of road diets and narrow travel lanes to implement bikeways (road diets would only be recommended when traffic impacts are negligible). All attendees supported the use of road diets and narrower travel lanes to implement bikeways. In order to receive additional feedback from the public, staff provided the two surveys/exercises and a copy of the draft networks and map on the City's bikeways website (hftp://ci.carson.ca.us/bikeways) and have made them available until April 13, 2013 (Exhibit No. 2). The results of the surveys will be included in the draft Master Plan of Bikeways. Survey — Bicycling Community and Environment in Carson and Interactive Map The City distributed a survey to learn about the bicycling community and environment in Carson. The survey was available online from July 9, 2012 to October 2, 2012 and paper copies were also available at City Hall and the. Community Center. The survey asked (1) information on the surveyor, (2) reasons for bicycling in Carson, (3) barriers to bicycling in Carson, and (4) suggestions for bikeways and bicycle parking location. 102 people responded to the survey and ages ranged from 13 to 78 years old. The vast majority of respondents (92%) stated one of the major barriers to riding bicycles in Carson is the lack of safe streets to ride on. Complete survey results will be included in the draft Master Plan of Bikeways. Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Tour de Carson Bike Tour and Festival A large component of the project and requirements for the grant funding for the Master Plan of Bikeways includes garnering public participation, educating the public, and encouraging active public involvement throughout the planning process. Therefore, as part of the Master Plan of Bikeways project, staff and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) are organizing a community bicycle event, Tour de Carson Bike Tour and Festival on Saturday, April 13, 2013 at the City Hall parking lot. The event will focus on gathering comments for the draft networks and map currently released for public comments and a guided bike ride of the proposed routes. The event will also include bicycle education sessions to promote bicycle safety and awareness. Local bicycle and health vendors have also been invited to provide additional information for participants: The event is fully funded by the Master Plan of Bikeways grant, therefore is free to the public. Up to 200 people who participate in the event will be offered a free lunch and opportunities to win prizes such as bicyc:ie safei}r wear, lights, helmets and a bicvcle (Exhibit No. 3 and 4). Safety banners will also be displayed in the medians of the major intersections of the bike ride to provide awareness and educate drivers to "Be Safe and Share the Road". Complete Draft Master Plan of Bikeways The results and feedback from the workshops, surveys, and the Tour de Carson bike ride will be fully implemented in the complete draft Master Plan of Bikeways. The Master Plan of Bikeways will, identify bicycle routesinetworks, policies for community involvement/integration, utilization of existing resources, facility design, implementation, maintenance, funding, and special programs, The plan will serve as a planning document to guide future city improvements, development and maintenance of the city's bicycle network for local and regional commuters and recreational riders. The survey results will identify projects for capital improvements and provide a priority list of projects depending on public opinion, public safety, and feasibility. The goals of the Master Plan of Bikeways will reflect the public's needs and comments gathered during this process, which include improving bicycle safety, mobility, and connectivity within the city and South Bay region. The draft networks and map are currently available and under review, however the full draft will be released for public comments after the Tour de Carson event and scheduled for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation in mid=May. Staff anticipates the final Master Plan of Bikeways to be adopted by City Council by June 2013. ll. Recommendation That the Planning Commission: d RECEIVE and FILE. Punning Commission Staff Repor.__ Larch 26, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Exhibits 1. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 25, 2012 2. Draft networks and crap " 3. i-iyer for Tour de Carson and IViocK-up of Safety Banners 4. Drat routes for the Tour de Carson guided Bike Gide Approved by: Sharon Song, AICP, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Johr r_ Signo, AIGP,'SeniiYr Panner Approved by:=--_ Sheri Repp Load n, Planning Officer Planning Commission Staff Report - March 26, 2013 Page 4 of 4' 'W June 5, 2013 Sharon Song Associate Planner City of Carson 701 E. Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 Dear Ms, Song; The Home Depot Center has reviewed the Draft Carson Master Plan of Bikeways. The Home Depot Center supports bicycles as an alternate mode of transportation and is generally supportive of the Plan. However, we do have some concerns regarding some of the proposed improvements in the vicinity of the Home Depot Center. As you know, the Home Depot Center is a world class sports stadium and event center. It is home to two professional MLS soccer teams, the Los Angeles Galaxy and C.D. Chivas USA, numerous community sporting events, and regularly stages concerts and other community events. As such, it is a key economic generator for the City of Carson and the surrounding region. Convenient and efficient access and egress to the facility is essential to its operation. In obtaining environmental clearance and approvals, the Home Depot Center was required. to adopt and implement certain roadway mitigations to eliminate traffic impacts and improve traffic flow. As such, we are very concerned that any of the proposed bikeway improvements and associated facilities may negatively impact the access and egress to the facility and its parking. We note that the draft Bike Plan does not contain any specific roadway cross sections that enable the reviewer to accurately determine if roadway capacity will be reduced to install bike facilities. We are in support of bike lanes where the existing street capacity is maintained. We are not in support of cycletracks if roadway capacity will be reduced on roadways that are adjacent to or approaching the facility from nearby freeways. We are specifically concerned over the following segments: University Avenue between Avalon Boulevard and Central Avenue The Plan proposes to remove one westbound traffic lane and add a 15 -ft cycletrack on the north side. Tlus would negatively impact ingress/egress operation for events. EXHIBIT NO. 2 18400 Avalon Blvd. • Carson, CA 90746 • p.310.630.2000 nrted�pot^e a€ r.0 n Central Avenue between Victoria Street and University Avenue The plan is proposing to install a cycletrack on the west side of the street. Since there is an already existing bike path, this cycletrack is redundant and would not be consistent with the bike facilities in the adjacent area, which are mostly bike lanes and paths. 6 Albertoni/SR-91 FWY between Avalon Boulevard and on/off ramps We are opposed to any lane reduction around the SR -91 on/off ramps as this would negatively impact our ability to move cars to and from the facility. • Avalon Boulevard. between Victoria and University and near I-405 The Plan is also proposing lane reductions on a segment of Avalon between 1-405 and the Dominguez Channel. Reducing auto capacity on one of the main approaches to the Home Depot Center will negatively impact the ability for cars to move to and from the facility. Based on these concerns, we suggest the following alternatives: I. University Avenue Do not remove westbound traffic lane. Do not add cycletrack if it means removing traffic lane. Consider a bike lane with buffers as long as it does not reduce roadway capacity. 2. Central Avenue Install bike lane instead of cycletrack as long as it does not reduce roadway capacity. I Albertoni/SR-91 1 WY Do not reduce number of traffic lanes. 4. Avalon Boulevard Do not reduce number of traffic lanes. The Home Depot Center supports bicycles as an alternate mode of transportation and we are supportive of the Plan. However, we are concerned over some specific improvements and how they would affect the facility. We hope the City makes the proper adjustments to have the Plan not negatively impact traffic operations near the Home Depot Center. Section . The Planning Commission further finds that the adoption of the Master Plan of Bikeways and General Plan Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3), General Rule Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines(CEQA). The General Plan Amendment and adoption of the Master Plan of Bikeways is a guiding document and is not considered to be a project that has a potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. No impacts will result. Section . Based on the aforementioned findings, the Commission hereby recommends approval of the Master Plan of Bikeways and recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 92-13 to amend Section 3.3 of the Circulation Element. Section . The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit copies of the same to.the applicant (City). Section . This action shall become final and effective fifteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of the Carson Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF June, 2013. 1 ATTEST: C-2 SECRETAftY Page 2 of 2 CHAIRMAN FIGURE 6.1 Proposed Carson network of b,keways LEGEND . 1:�`.... .Y . ................. ..j. .............. wo o rctl .e gee �r•� Bke,oe bvffa�a0 hik•la.e ....��.•.........................�... ¢ •nao es u:s c .on : r • c�•�a.a�0w _ - Cycletrack removed from °poo nary Albertoni St. :.,. • P 6-41 ..., .....€...........................:..... •• C C . w B a N� _. ...,. ... V h...... ?' CARSON _ e r; r r _ i ••�, L ry ci . c a = Watson Center Rd. and Wilmington Ave. 0 removed ff•}.YFL"l i4: e.. .I. ............®..... �. ........... ..-._-.......... %'• 4j b r m 3 ------------------- CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS EXHIBIT NO. 4 n M. l d SLR Z ' u ro - fiM'7 t a s:L amu.. ti <Fv f rk�u�i r+v m... ..v 2'.19"' t r +jyt �a¢ ,,� &{: t' � _, �i. stw � 22 t d CITY OF (CARSON 701 E Carson Street Carson., California 90745 310.952.1761 Contact Sharon Song AICP, Associate Planner 310 952.1700 exL. 1365 ssong@bcarson.ca.us CONSULTANT TEAM Ryan Snyder Associates 10501 Wilshire Boulevard #1910 Los Angeles, CA; 90024 31-0.475 3895 RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Park\.vay Irvine, CA 92-618 949.472.3505 Los Angeies,County Bicycle Coalition 634 S. Spring Street, Suite 821 Los Angeles CA, 90014 213.629.2142 relay, 2013 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS COMMUNITY Thank you to all our volunteers, members of the public, and organizations that contributed to the plan CITY OF CARSON. Community Development Department Community Services Department iv Public Works Department CONSULTANT TEAM Ryan Snyder Associates Ryan Snyder, President Herbie Huff, Transportation Planner Cullen McCormick, Transportation Planner -- — RBF Consulting Paul Martin, Senior ,Associate ^richelle Kou Lieberman, Senior Associate Anthony Hernandez, Transporta*ion Planner Jeanette Cappiellc, Transportation Planner Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Alek Bartrosouf, Policy & Campaigns Manager CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS ;tf Z X LIST ©� TABLE 2.1 Locations where ride participants would like to see { bike parking and end of trip amenities..... ... ............................ .... 2-8 TABLESTABLE2.2 Distribution of respondents' ages ............... ......... TABLE 2.3 Respondents' Zip codes....................._................._...........2-i3 TABLE 2.4 Percentage and number of respondents in each category of Roger Geller s bicyclis, type scale.... TABLE 5.1 Existing bikeways in Carson ............................. ..........._....... 5-5 TABLE 5.2 Existing end -of -trip facilities ......................... ..................... 5-6 TABLE 5.3 Comparison of bicycle -involved crash rates, City of Carson and State of California ........ ............. ........._................ ............ 5-12 TABLE 5.4 2012 Carson bicycle count locations ......... ................. 5-13 TABLE 5.5 Numbers of bicyclists counted by time period and location.................... ........ .................. ................................................ .......... 5-14 TABLE 5.6 Comparison between bicycle count volumes in 2010 andthose in 2012. ....................... .................... - ................................... -5-20 TABLE 5.7 Behavioral and demographic variables observed in 2010 and 2012 ................ ......... ............................... .................. ................. 5-21 TABLE 6.7 changing room requirements ........................... _._...._6-45 TABLE 9.1 Bikeway type and treatmer, codes used in cost estimates............................................................................................... 9-3 TABLE 9.2 Estimated costs for proposed bikeways..................9-4 TABLE 10.1 Recommended bikeway signage and markings. -.10-16 TABLE A.1 Results of prioritl=anon exercises,.... .....- _............A-9 TABLE A_2 Do you suppor-- the use of road dies? ..... ........._....4-11 CARSON MASTER PLAN OF 9WE'WAYS FIGURE 10.9 Green bicycle lane ............................ FIGURE 10.10 Buffered bicycle lane ............. ..................... a FIGURE 10.11 Buffered bicycle lane scnematic.................................1G 9 FIGURE 10.12 Bike Route sign (D11-1 )............................ FIGURE 10.13 Sharrow stencil ..... __10-11 FIGURE 10.14 Sharrow placement (top) and photo (bOLI0171)...................................... FIGURE 10.15 Long Beach green SharrolN lane .................. ......10-12 FIGURE 10.16 San Francisco green -backed sharro........... ..._.....10-12 FIGURE 10.17 Brookline, MA Sharrow markings ................ .............10-12 FIGURE 10.18 S'gnage and strloing treatments, for free-flo`v ramp intersections (Source Complete Intersections, Caltrans 2010).................................................................................................. _...10-14 FIGURE 10.19 Interchanges that best accommodate pedestrians and bicyciists (Source: Figure 5022, Caltrans Highway Design Manual)- .1 ............................ anual)................................................................................._._..........10-14 .................... ... .... 11 ....... 11.111, ........ ...... ... 10-14 FIGURE 10.2o Numbered Bike Route sign(M1-8)................ .... .....10-15 FIGURE 10.21 Share the Road sign (W16-1, bottom) with Bike Routesign (D11-1. top) .......... ......................................... ....._............ ..... 10-15 FIGURE 10.22 Glendale wayf;ming sign .............................. FIGURE 10.23 Los .Angeles Bicycle Friendly Street sign ............ 10-15 FIGURE 10.24 Examples of directional signage (left two imaaes) and pavement markings (right two images). .... v 10-17 FIGURE 10.25 inverted -I-) bicycle rack ........ FIGURE 10.26 Multiple inverted -U racks........_ ........................ FIGURE 10.27 High-quality multi -bicycle rack..,......._....................10-i7 FIGURE 10.28 "Bike" bike rack in Carson ............................. ............ 10-18 FIGURE 10.29 Bicycle lockers ..................................... 1 O -18 FIGURE 10.30 Automated bicycle parking ....................... .. FIGURE 10.31 California Bike Parking sign (G93C)............... ..10-18 FIGURE 10.32 Two-tier bike racks... ............ ......... FIGURE 10.34 Bike corrals in Long Beach (left) and Los Angeles (right) .................... .................................................. .......................... ......... ..10-19 FIGURE 10.33 Wall -mounted bike rack (without lock).._ ........... 10-19 FIGURE 10.35 Road diet before (top) and after (bottom).... 10-20 FIGURE 10.36 Proper drainage grate design ................... .......... .... 1C-20 FIGURE 10.37 Blcvcle loop detector marking ...... .... ............. _........1C-21 CARSON MiASTER PLAN O. BIKEWAYS A VISION FOR BICYCLING IN CARSON plan i.wll irhUrot,e hiCy'CifncJ %Or -1 a„ieto Cly l"i�7= 1t V"di The Carson Master Plan of Bikeways lays out a strategic vision for enhancing bicycle transportation in the city This plan is the guiding document for all bicycle infrastructure, policies, and programs in Carson I is a blueprint that will enable citizens to feel safe and comfortabie when bicycling throughou`, the city, and i, will encourage more citizens to partake in this healthy, environmentally conscious transportation choice This document represents a significant milestone for the Citv of Carson. Not only is it the City's first new bicycle plan ire nearly 35 years, it is also the City's first bicycle plan compli- ant with Caltrans` Bicycle Transportation .Account (BTA) stan- dards. Crafting a BTA -compliant plan makes the City eiigible to receive BTA funding from Caltrans By increasing bicycling, the City advances a number of policy goals. First, bicycling contributes to a healthy and active com- munity, where residents can build incidental exercise into their daily lives. Further, bicycling enables people to travel without polluting the city's air, creating carbon emissions, or contribut- ng to traffic congestion. Second the City seeks to invest in its urban form, enhanc- ng quality of life and bringing livability to the forefront. The backbone of this vision is a multimodal transportation system that welcomes travel by foot, bicycle, and public transit, in addition to driving. Creating linkages between bicycling and public transit, establishing bikeways that connect destinations throughout the city, and providing bicycle parking are there- fore integral components of the City's multimodal vision. PLANNINGMomentum for the Carson Master Plan of Bikeways began when the City received a Caltrans Community Based Trans- PROCESS portation Planning Grant to prepare a bicycle master plan. The OVERVIEW City selected the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition to con- duct widespread public outreach and a consultant team led by Rvan Snyder Associates (RSA; to prepare the plan. Work commenced in June 2012. CARSON! MIL.S T EER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS 31" Me,mb7 -., 5 of the Wlit ;ht'!'i�B, -his final plan is the product of an iterative process empha- sizing stakeholder participation and public input_ The Carson Community Development Department's Planning Division worked closely with RSA to set a framework of goals, poli- cies, and actions for the plan. Based on the resul of com- munity outreacri, PSA developed a draft bikeway network and vetted tl,',s network with City staff. The consultant team 'then presented the draft ne:work to the public and received feedback in a cornmunity workshop. Additionally, members of the public were able to ride sec -,ions of the proposed bikeway network and provide comments at a community bike ride. Af- -:er revising the proposed bikeways in accordance with com- munity recommendations, the consultant team produced a complete draft of the �` raster Plan of Bikeways for City staff and the public to review. The PSA. ream then made necessary changes based on City and community feedback. The resin, of this yearlong planning process is this finalized Carson Master Plan of Bikeways. /! ®f E� This plan proposes an extensive network of streets designed to f�F /� THE be safe and comfortable for bicyclists, with the goal o" enhanc- MAS!T.J Elam,n ing the practical use of bicycles as a transpor_ation choice. US- PLAN S - PL /i h R O F ing the planned network, people in Carson can reach schools. © /�1i��/V/� c shopping. jobs, recrea*ional activities and other importan- © E'\ Y Y r-% I des'_inations—all without ':he need ,o drive. CHAPTER 1 INTPOD'IJCTION 1-3 1-4 The City of Carson and its community have been deliberate in selecting innovative bicycle facility designs—such as buffered, colored, and protected bike lanes—that provide comfort anti safety for a wide variety of users. These treatments are partic- ularly warranted around Carson, where dense concentrations of industry and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach gen- erate substantial truck traffic. By implen-renting the network of bikeways envisioned in this plan, Carson can become a place where people of all ages and abilities can travel comfortably by bicycle. In addition to the proposed bikeway network, the Master Plan of Bikeways also contains bikeway design guidelines, recom- mended programs and policies to encourage bicycle travel and increase cyclist safety, potential funding sources for im- plementing the plan, and an implementation framework that, prioritizes the most important bikeway proiects. COMMON TERMS Bike route — 0.n -street accommodate bikeways; preferred travel routes for only recommended Bikeway, bicycle facility bicyclists where bicyclists in conditions where - Catchall terms that I and motorists share lanes removing a travel lane or describe any and all typesmayln(flude wayfinding parking; will not adversely: of bicycle infiastructure signs for brcvclists a°ffe-t driving conditions - sharrows" (see below, or Bike path —° off-street green color Sparrow, shared lane paved corridors for the marking —Pavement exclusive use of bicyclists Cycletrack, protected markings that a) alert and, in some cases:, -.,,.:#like lane — On -street rnotonsts that a particular pedestrians or other non bikeway either one -,or travel lane is -to be shared motorized travelers '' two directional that is with bicyclists,`b) indicate physically se pa ratedIrom to cyclists the preferred Bike lane — On street auto traffic, usually by riding position within lanes reserved for the parked cars, curbs, or the lane, and c) assist exclusive use of'lajcvclists, planters 1icyclists witi� wayfu�drng which may include a'nigh may include agreen- - visrbihty green coloring or r Road diet — Removal of colored background, an additional buffer space at least one travel laneknov✓n as a type S to enhance safety or on street; parkingto sharrow CARSON MASTER PLAN Or BIKE`A/AYS This plan solidifies Dicycling as a legitimate transportation choice within "he city. Moreover, it positions Carson to become a frontrunner in providing safehealthy streets for all users. By enacting this plan the City is illustrating not Just a commit- ment to cycling, but to the holistic wellness of the con-iint N.y as a whole C /� LTR /v N S H/� 1 f�6�6 in order to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account funds. this Master Plan of Bikeways contains the following elements BTA as sped"Jed by California Streets and Highways Cone 89.2 ELEMENTS 1 estimated number of existing bike commuters and esti- 1-5 mated increase -- 2. Map and descrip';ion of existing and proposed land uses 3. Map and description of existing and proposed bicycle routes 4. Map and description of existing and proposed bicycle — C; parking Map and description of existing and proposed links to other transportation modes 6. Map and description of existing and proposed facilities – for changing and storing clothes and equipment -----_ 7 Description of safety education programs. efforts by law = enforcement. and effect on accident rates B Description of public input 9 Description of coordination with other local and regional transportation, air quality, and energy conservation plans 10. Description of proiects and their priorities 11 Description of past expendit1jres and future financial needs T he Caltrans Table of Contents on page v identifies the pages where each of these items can be. found. PLANThe remainder of the Carson Iviaster Plan of Bikeways is orga- ^ R` ` W nized into the following chapters: iE • Chapter 2, Public Outreach, describes the communl:;, invoivement process that 'helped develop this plan • Chapter 3, Planning Context, discusses how this plan relates 'o and is consistent with other pians and oolicies CHAPTER 1 INTPODUCTION 1-6 Chapter 4, Goals, Policies, and Actions, provides the guiding vision for this plan as well as the methods that will be used to implement the plan Chapter 5, Existing Conditions, summarizes current bi- cycling conditions in Carson • Chapter 6, Proposed Bicycle Projects, describes Car- son's proposed bikeway network • Chapter 7, Bicycle Programs, lists activies and strategies to promote bicycle use and make bicycling safer • Chapter 8, Funding, discusses federal. state, and local sources that can be used to fund the projec,_s and pro- grarns in this plan • Chapter g, Implementation, provides cost estimates and other details pertinent for building the bikeways in this Plan Chapter 10, Design Guidelines, describes standards and requirements to be followed when designing bicycle infrastructure • Appendix A, Public Outreach Detail, provides additional informaDon about the outreach process Appendix B, Bicycle Count Methodology, lists the pro- cedures used to perform bicycle counts in Carson CARSON MAST=P PLAN OP gIK_WHY OUTREA CH OVERVIEWIn order to prepare a plan that meets tne needs oflocal bicv- chsts, the City and consultant tearn conducted a robes. pub_ lic outreach effort trat incl_ided community workshops, an interactive website, a bike ride and a questionnaire The City worked with the consultant team to learn about the local bi- cycling environment in Carson, to understand cyclists' needs. and to set priorities forthe Master Plan of Bikeways The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC). in part nership with the City and the consultant team, also conducted 2-� extensive outreach for this Plan. LACBC used multiple media inciuding in-person visits, social media, phone calls. the City,s --- parks and recreation newsletter, and the City's website. --- Carson residents participated in the planning process by: i • Providing feedback at public workshops Sharing potential bike routes using online mapping tools Expressing opinions about cycling conditions in Carson via online surveys • Posting cornments on a project Facebook page Attending community events and bike tours Calling, emailing, or faxing comments to City staff City of Carson staff and the consulting team also held two Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions Workshop allowing public officials to offer input or, the Master Plan's de- velopment. This chapter presents the results of the outreach effort and describes the outreach efforts in more detail. PUBLIC f� � B L I C The City invited the public to participate in the planning pro- cess through a series of community workshops. The City WORKSHOPS and consultant team notified the public about the meetings through multiple channels, including: E-mail • Announcements, fivers, and mailings • Visits to local bike stores and Ca! State Domingue-z Hills Social media CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS • Project website ;http:/%ci.carson.ca.us%content/aepart mentieco dev service;`bil-:eways.asp Ryan Snyder /-'associates and RBr= Consulting organi_cd and facilitated the workshops. The purpose and timing of each workshop is eYp)lained further beiow- WORKSHOP 1 The f'rs- workshop took place on Saturday, September S. 2012 frorr 11 a.m. to 12:30 p m at the Juanita Millender-McDonald Community Center. Approximately 30 participants attended the workshop including local bicycl!sts, college students and I aculty, representatives from homeowners associations, and the mayor of Carson, in addition tc the general public. The workshop began with a brief introductory presentation by City staff and Ryan Snyder Associates (PSA). The presenta- -ion included an overview of the projec-L, process and sched- uie. information about existing conditions in Carson related to bicycling, and educationai information about various potential bikewav facilities, treatments and supportive amenities. F�01- lowing the presentation, the workshop attendees asked ques- tions and made comments, listed below. CHAPTER 2 PUB,i IC OUTP,FA--H 2-3 Implementation priorities • Implement many low-cost projects around the Citi✓ rather than a handful of expensive projec,s • Emphasize cyclis- and driver education programs • Focus efforts on advancing the notion of bicycling an everyday rnode of travel in Carson, and then seek fLrnd- ing • Open gates to paths along the Dominguez Channel to increase access to existing opportunities—an ideal lo%,v- 2-4 cost improvement MiBroadening stakeholder involvement • Involve many levels of enforcement and driver education. including local, state. and Auto Club efforts • Hold bike education events at LAUSD elementar;, schools, partnering with non -profits to provide educa- tion services • Make use of online petitions to generate interest in in- creasing the availability of bike lanes; this may be more _ appropriate after the Plan is completed Opportunities • Develop 'share the road" banners to be used in Carson • Implement a bike share program at transit hubs Safety concerns • Channel paths, both personal safely and securi:w� On -street bikeways, such as througl- the use o` bikeways separated by physical barriers • Bicycle/motorist conflicts at intersections • Shared lanes with slow -speed cyclists • Sidewalk bicycle riding and Conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians on sidewalks The team addressed questions and tool; note of concerns and comments for use in the planning effort. CARSON I'-1AST`P PLAN OF BIKEWAYS nn-- ,;r- The next part of the workshop featured a mapping exercise Attendees drevv desired bikeways, bicycle parking, missing sidewalks, difficult locations for cyclists. and difficult roadway crossings on large-scale maps of Carson. The team used these maps when proceeding with fieldwork and the planning effort. Images of the maps and attendees comments on them are shown in Appendix A. A portion of one of the maps is shown at left. WORKSHOP 2 Carson held a second workshop, again at Juanita Millender- McDonald Community Center, on Saturday, January 26, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Al this workshop, the consultant team introduced the draft bikewav network to the public. The goal of the workshop was to invite community members to provide feedback on the draft bikeway network. and to priori- tize the draft routes. To open the workshop, the consultant team gave a presen- ta ion on the types of bikeways and design trea-men�s that are included in the draft netvvork. These include, for example, bike paths, bike lanes, colored bike lanes. road diets, and oth- ers. The consultant team then showed an image of the draft network: and identified and described each proposed bikeway. ,After this presentation there was a brief question -and -answer session. Some of the comments made by attendees inciuded the following: • Implement the plan as quickly as possible. focusing on cost-effective short-term projects • More education for bike riders is needed • Recreational riding is important, especially for kids. Add bike loops in City parks. Attendees were then given sticker dots and asked to partici- pate in two feedback exercises_ In bo -.h of these, attendees marked their preference using sticker dots on large poster boards. CHAPTER. 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH ill Bikeway Ranking Dot Exercise Wi`h one set of dots. attendees indicated the bikeways thought should have the hi hthey g st- priority. They were given six green dots to indicate their hiahest priority projects and sig; yellow dots to indicate their next -hi The � ghest priority pro erre. y could distribute dots amon ever they liked, i.e. the � g the proposed projects how - could place multiple dot project s on a single 2-6 The projects that received the most dots from workshop af- tendees were: _ - Victoria Street (g ) - University Drive (g) Figueroa Stree south of Del Amo Boulevard (7) 223rd Street (6 ) I This bikeway ranking exercise was also available as an onli survey posted it nmediatel ns in the � after Workshop 2. Participants Tour de Carson also had an opportunity to place dots - h on a map of proposed bikeways to indicate the „-c;e, r }h thought should take n' t e, priority. Appendix A shoves a full sum- mary of the dot exercise results. Roadway Treatments Dot Exercise The second feedback exercise simply askedr- supported the use of road ale; a�,endees if tl_�ey s and narrow travel lanes to implement bikeways. The consultai ` teary, explained that the City 'would only use road diets where they would be expec-- ed to have negligible traffic impacts, and that the use of ten foot lanes would be avoided in areas with heavy truck fret_ fjc. The pester board cited some examples of proposed bike- ways in the draft network that depend upon the use of these treatments...Attendees were given two dots, one to use for 'he question regarding road diets, Question reand ano�i-,er to use for the garding travel lane width. They placed the dot in a „Yes" column or a "No" column = Ali o� tl �e Worksho^ � ees supported+ the use of road o N - atte nd- diets and narrower travel lanes to jrnplement bikeways CARSON MgSTBB PLAN OF BIKEWAYS These dot exercises were also available as an online survey posted immediately after Workshop 2. Participans in 'the Tour de Carson also had the opportunity to place dots on boards identical to the ones used in Workshop 2 A full summary of the results is in Appendix A. WORKSHOP 3 The third workshop took place on Thursday, May 16. The goal of this workshop was to present the full draft of the Master �_7 Plan of Bikeways. The consultant team gave an overview of the contents of the Plan. Attendees were invited to ask questions , and offer comments after the presentation. The questions and comments focused on the proposed bikeways and the pro- cess. Attendees seemed pleased at the plan and progress. INTERACTIVE At the beginning of the public process, Carson stakeholders _ were invited to share their feedback and knowledge in an or - APline interactive map. This was hosted at v/ww.communitywalk. com/bike-carson. Stakeholders could mark where bikeways are needed, dif=;cult intersections: and wnere b ke narking is needed. - Appendix A. includes a screenshot of the final map. Stake'nold- ers indicated their desire for bikeways or most of the major streets in Carson, ;ncluding Dei Amo Blvd. Avalon Blvd- Car- son ..t_, and r -any otners. Difficult intersections included Del Amo Blvd and Santa Fe Ave_ 213th St anti Dominguez Chan- nel, and Carson St and Main 57 Locations where stakehoid ers would like to see bicycle parking included the Community Center at Carson St. and Avalon Blvd; and in front of the busi- nesses at Carson St and Main St. EVENTS Several large bicycling events offered an opportunity to give input into the Plan. These were the Red Ribbon Week Unityy Bike Ride on October 20, 2012. the TriCarson event on Novem ber 4, 2012, and the Tour de Carson on April 13. 2013. CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH 2-8 i BIKE PARKING INPUT The Unity Bike Ride took place on October 20, 2012 ar the beginning of Red Ribbon Week, a celebration of an ant; -drug message with Carson's youth. TriCarson is a triathlon that takes place in the City of Carson and has been held since 201,. Since these events took place early in the process of d weio p TABLE 2.1 Anderson Park Avalon/University Drive Shopping Center Carson Park Del Amo Park Dolphin Park - Dominguez Park He�'gway, Park Stevenson Park Veterans Park Victoria Park _ Carson High School — -- Curtis Middle School CSUDH \Nhite Middle Sc' pool Carson/Av- - orlon Carson/Wilminton DelAmo/Avalon ` igueroa./223rd Main/Carson University,/Wiimington Ave Bonita!Domingue� —�— Center Shopping Home Depot Sho �epuiveda/Main pp�rig Center; South Bay Pavillion" Carson Circuit Bus Stop Locations Community Center CAPSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEW,4YS 1 2 1 1 1 Ing this Plan, staff attended to introduce the effort and seek 2-9 feedback on where people would like to see bike parking. Par- ticipants could place colored stickers to indicate where they would like to see the following things: (1) bike racks, (2) bike _. corrals, (3) long term bike parking, (4) end of trip amenities. Table 2.1 shows the combined results from the two events. _ r. TOUR DE CARSON On April 13, 2013, the City of Carson hosted iIs third commu- nity event to present the draft Master Plan of Bikeways and Solicit input from the community. The event took place at the Carson City Hall main parking lot (a: the corner of ,Avalon Blvd. and Carson St.) from 9:00 am to 1:00 p.m. The event was the first Tour de Carson Festival which included two commu- nity bike tours guided by members of the _os Angeles Coun- ty Bicycle Coalition (LACBC), educa-jonal bicycle safety and maintenance sessions, a community organization fair. and op- portunities to view and comment on the Cty's Draft Compre- hensive Master Plan of Bikeways Approximately 200 people attended the event and approximately 60 people participated in the bike rides. The following is a summar,�, of the event and the community input received. Master Plan Booth Community members had the opportuni v --o vjew and com- ment on the City's Draft Comprehensive Master Plan of Bike- ways at the Master Plan Booth.A'_ the booth, community members were invited to ask questions and provide com- ments. Two activity boards ,vere Presented. The first board provided a color map of the City cf Carson and all proposed CHAPTEP. 2 PUBLIC CUTPcACH r� 2-10 bikeways Participants were asked to place dot stickers on the bikeways that they would like to see constructed first in order to aid the City with implementation of the Master Plan of Bike- ways. The second board provided descriptions and examples of "road diets" and 10 -foot lanes Participants were asked if they supported the use of these roadwav treatments h,,, plat ing a dot on the board in the appropriate boy: (yes or no). A list of the locations of proposed road diets and 10 -foot lanes were provided under each example. The results of these exercises are shown in Appendix A. Comments Participants were given the opportunity to comment on the Master Plan of Bikeways and what they would like to see in Carson. Thev offered the following comments (recorded ver- batim). Lighted bike lanes would assist bikers on busy streets such as Avalon and Sepulveda to ensure drivers get used to lane changes • Curb protected bike lanes • How about placing those white line "bumps" to keep cars out of the bike lanes! So bikers Won't get hit? -'"`i:.ai'dii'S ;^ �';?a Tn�!! P',�'SCn ,�i2;0 r,r Ye CARSON MA.STEP PLAN Or BIKEWAYS Carsor' street from 1-110 to Wilmington Avenue witn physical barriers • Please install bike racks throughout the City m make it easier to ride bicycles around town. Bike Tour Community members were invited to participate in one of two bike rides; advanced and beginner/intermediate riders. Rides were led by the LACBC. The routes for the bike tours followed proposed bikevvays from the Draft Master Plan of Bikeways. LACBC staff and volunteers pointed out the proposed bike- ways along the rides SURVEYSURVEThe City and consultant team disu-ibuted a survey to learn Y i about the bicycling community and environment in Carson. The survey was available online from July 9, 2012 to October 2, 2012. Paper copies of the survey were also available at City Hall during this period, and paper copies were distributed a: the first community workshop. T his section summarizes the survey responses. The findings are organized into four subsections (1) information about the survey respondents, (2) reasons for bicycling in Carson, (3) barriers to bicycling in Carson, and (4) suggestions for bike- ways and bicycle parking locations. RESPONDENTS 102 people responded to the survey. The respondents were demographically diverse. Gender As Figure 2.1 shows, nearly two-thirds of the respondents were male. CHARTER 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH Age Table- 2.2 reveals that respondents' ages ranged from 13 to 78• with a median and mean age of abou` 38. Zip Code The survey requested respondentszip code to get a sense of where they live. All o the top responses were either in or near the City of Carson. As Table 2.3 shows, the majority of respon- dents lived 11-1 zip code 90745. The boundaries that define this Zip code are nearly identical to the City of Carson's boundar- les south of the 1-405. The next moss frequent zip code was 90746, which is also coterminous with the City, and north of the 1-405. The third most frequent zip code, 90810, contain portions of the City of Carson between, Whmington ,Ave. and m� CAP.SON MASTEP PLAN OF -DIKEWAYS Alameda Ave.. and also contains portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach. There v,,ere no respondents from the fourth zip code in Carson, 90248. which covers the northwest portion of the City. TABLE 2.3zc� �FREC�UE=N C, 90745 (Carson) 44 90746 (Carson) l 90810 (Carson and Long Beach) 4 90503 (Torrance) _ 3 90502 ( Torrance) 90803 (Long Beach) 2 90808 (Long Beach) 2 90026 (Los Angeles—Echo Park) 1 90065 (Los Angeles—Atwater Village) 1 90066 (Los Angeles—Mar Vista) 1 90247 (Gardena) 1 90250 (Hawthorne) 1 90260 (Lawndale) 1 90277 (Redondo Beach) 90278 (Redondo Beach) 90501 (Torrance) 90802 (Long Beach) _ 90804 (Long Beach) 1 90805 (Long Beach) 1 90815 (Long Beach) 91105 (Pasadena) As the -.able shoves. all of the top zip codes were ei7her com- pletely in Carson or the areas adjacent to Carson. With 55 re- spondents coming from 90745 and 90746, we can be con- fident that the majority of survey respondents were Carson residents. BICYCLING BEHAVIOR The survey aimed o understand bicyclists general ievei of skill and oonfldence as well as the purlJOse of they" bicycle trips. CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH -f=' 2-13 Bicyclist Type In a now -famous 2006 survey, Poger � � g` yeller asked Portland residents about their attitudes toward bicycling, and to self - identify in one of four categories, g shown belOw, The percer[-- ag'-' of people in each category found b s�miiar sur Y Geller and pater in a vey by Dill is shown in parentheses. 1. Strong and Peadess 0%, 4%) 2-14 2 Enthused and Confident (7 9%) Interested but Concerned (60%, 56;0) 4. No Wav No How (33%, 31%) == Geller foundthat a si — gnificant proportion of the was interested in cycling, populationbut concerned about traffic To attract these people to ride bicycles, he arg1ed danger, to provide bicycle infrastructure that feels safe and`co Ies rleed able t These categories have stood the test of time and have been _ borne out by recent research. Tm he desire to accomodate the _ interested but co rned" group is at the heartof Table 2.4 shows the distthis Plan. scale ribution of respondents along Geller's TABLE 2.4,,:.- c UPTlfli? Strong and fearless —' _'"_�' =— --- NU Enthuse--- 13.190 d and confident 13 ntereste — — --- - - 53.3% d but concerned ----- —_— 53 No way X2.390 y no how% 32 10% , As Table 24 shows, the distribution of survey r� overreprese11tmor s the spondents e confident and experienced cyclists relative to the distribution one ,, Mould expect to find in the gar - era! population. There are u the re many more strong and fear -less cy- clists amon-� spondents tl pan there would be in a tyoical sample of the population and -h hov,,' cvclis V ere are far fey G1 "no way no is than o Id be expected. W CAP,SOt\F rv1a,--�- u I EP PLAN OP BfKEW,AYS /L Trip Purpose riaure 2.5 displays the purposes of bicyclists' trips in Carson. Please note that since respondents could check more than one answer, the sum of the percentages in Figure 2.3 exceeds 100°0. The maiori`y of respondents checked multiple trip pur poses. The mos. common trip purpose was for exercise. Near- ly every respondent (85°lo) listed this as one of their trip pur- poses. _just over a third of respondents ride to run errands. and about a third ride m commute to work, go to a recrea�ional facility or visit friends. FIGURE 2.3 •97% FIGURE 2.4 3% .. BARRIERS is BICYCLING The survey also explored some of the barriers to bicycling in 11 Carson. Bicycle ownership Figure 2.4 shows that although the vast majority of respon- dents owned a bicycle, even among this group .here were some who did riot own a bicycle. The propor ion of people wi-io oven bicycles among the general population in Carson is probably lower than, the 97% observed proportion among re- spondents. CHAPTER 2 PUB! IC OUTREACH -------- -- - _ - { -------------------- 0 :. -.._ Get Run Visit ------ Commute Commute Go to a Access exercise errands friends to work to school recreation public or go or family facility transit shopping FIGURE 2.3 •97% FIGURE 2.4 3% .. BARRIERS is BICYCLING The survey also explored some of the barriers to bicycling in 11 Carson. Bicycle ownership Figure 2.4 shows that although the vast majority of respon- dents owned a bicycle, even among this group .here were some who did riot own a bicycle. The propor ion of people wi-io oven bicycles among the general population in Carson is probably lower than, the 97% observed proportion among re- spondents. CHAPTER 2 PUB! IC OUTREACH SUGGESTIONS FOR BIKEWAYS AND BICYCLE PARKING The survey asked respondents to i where they world like s, up to three locations to see ne�v or improved bikeways. It also asked for uo :o three locations where they or improved bicycle th.,y would like to see y parking. Secause these questions al- iowed for free response people could write in a variery of `ypes of locations, including street types of P _s (e g. "Del ,4mo Blvd.",), destination;_ a d. �g "ratan areas„i, or specific locations �e g "Cal stare Dominguez Hills'). r -figures 2 c and ._ i.7 ores respondentThe l s entereddisp;ay arger a word is, the morefrequently is appeared in the responses. on CARSON MASTER PLAN OF Blk;c `-w'AYs Specific Barriers �igul-e 2.5 indicates some Of the specific barriers to bi=�ycling in Carson. By far the most common barrier is a iacl; of safe streets to ride on The vast maiorit. statca that this � °f respondents �92g�� v✓as a barrier The next mos` common banner was a lack of bicycle parking, pearl half of all re (53%) said this w y spondents as a barrier to bicycling. Responden.s �vho marked 'Other' stated a free 2-16 response describing the barrier. Most of the free responses the City. concerned the lack or bikeways in --- -------------- ----------------- ------------------ .... ----------- - ------------- - - -----. .._.... 3 - - - ... ....._--- ._-... . --- -- _ .. ... .. z ---------------I'M Lac safe streets Lack of bicycle Lack of showers to ride on parking and clothing Destinations Do not are or storage too far lockers at work own a FIGURE 2.5 or school bicycle SUGGESTIONS FOR BIKEWAYS AND BICYCLE PARKING The survey asked respondents to i where they world like s, up to three locations to see ne�v or improved bikeways. It also asked for uo :o three locations where they or improved bicycle th.,y would like to see y parking. Secause these questions al- iowed for free response people could write in a variery of `ypes of locations, including street types of P _s (e g. "Del ,4mo Blvd.",), destination;_ a d. �g "ratan areas„i, or specific locations �e g "Cal stare Dominguez Hills'). r -figures 2 c and ._ i.7 ores respondentThe l s entereddisp;ay arger a word is, the morefrequently is appeared in the responses. on CARSON MASTER PLAN OF Blk;c `-w'AYs 4=j Around tAmo Central ESUDH72. Figueroabike Home Long center A" E ft—y Ave - z connect n way p.1h, 1• 7 ian- S C Santa busy L _ aj.0 LTfd Mai 1-1 Depot,,alongt or S o city__ b Torrance -Sepulveda ';.ver –, I ,carsbn,�, �Mo sepulveda -U� --Sepu 'South le,-Chan6ei 'Wilmington )�4 varks Victoria > to Avenue (A Doryfinguez(j) 'ai CASON Center Cst R 0 L. E R4—J - Ai,-Vdlon > LnrQ FIGURE 2.6 I'l ctS south Hall , M a ff > rl� Target Horne o-- d--7— aroun towards Dominguez". o Sepulvedai opp,ing areall State ' " ' " ` -, — -� z stores iocauon,', shO intersection Plazas - Hi St lverywhere S AR 0- "I p a lry Depot PavI110 suarea V) rks�,El libir 8�chcibl� -�L CSUDHuniversity 11—Flavillon --tr Veterans Cel centersq) > City" v Albertson,'Bay Alb CL r i FIGURE 22-7 CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC OU PEACH 2-17 t ONLINE After Bi I KE6/�/�V rY Workshop and the release or draf` bikewa `n'ork the ;� ;- , - the ) ano i PRIORITIESsurvey consultant -earn released1 ne:- solicit the. a brie; curve;; to publics priorities anion was available online g the araf; bikeway, The AND2013. There w from February 19, 2Gi 2 April 17 ere 22 responses ROADWAYThe to tl-le survey. PREFERENCES survey replicated the dot exercises in W �x, rcises that were. orkshop 2 c°nducteci t SURVEY First, it asked re projects the �pondents o select the three Y considered ro be 2-18 EY -- of hi es4 three projects tine gh_� priority and the Y considered to be second high,, - The projects receiving the moste priority. ,..: s lections were -- Carson Street (10 hi ghest _' -- priorry, 4 second-higne Avalon Boulev st) —� �i d—South of De; timo Bo est priorit, ulevard (E nigh_ 1 second-highest; _; --- University Drive (7 highest priority. 2 sacona' hi n� The surveyg `s`) also --- =- asked respondents If road diets and t i they supported the use en foo; —_ lanes. Eighteen re� do support road diet 'po �ded that the sand Y _ —� Iwo responded that the suppoi-t,oad diets. Nineteen dO n°t respondedy that the the use of 10 -foot y do _ support travel lanes does not and .responded _that ne or she Fuji survey results are shown in Appendix A, CAP,SON M ,STEP PLAN OF DKE\,ti'AYS s NP- 11 TE �(T OVERVIEWThe Carson Master Plan of Bikeways must be consistent with multiple planning, policy, and regulatory documents. These include the City's own documents, such as the General Plan and Municipal Code. Carson mus: also design a bike network that transitions seamlessly with bikeways in other jurisdictions. Therefore, the planning context also includes bicycle master Plans of neighboring jurisdictions. The following summarizes the relevant documents. G I TY OF The City's General Plan (adopted October 11, 2004) is a 30- year guide for local government decision-making on growth, CARSON capital investment, and physical development in the Carson It GENERAL guides future development plans and gives direction on how PLANto bring the desired vision to fruition. The two chapters. or Ele- ments of the General Plan that most influence bikeway plan- ning are the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element. LAND USE ELEMENT The General Plan Land Use Element establishes the develop- ment policies and Land Use Plan for the ultimate build -out of the City (see Figure 3.1) In general, most of the new mixed- use and regional commercial growth is planned to occur along Carson Street between=igueroa Street and I-405 over the next 20 years. Additionally, The Boulevards at South Bay Specific Plan is proposing a 168 -acre mixed-use development located just southeast of 1-405 freeway between Main Street and Avalon Boulevard. Section 5.0 of the Land Use Element identifies goals, policies. and implementation measures with the following being most applicable to the Bicycle Master Plan currently under preparation' • Goal LU -15: As part of a nationwide effort to address urban sprawl, neighborhood safety, pedestrian access and environmental protection, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, of which the Citv of Carson is a Part, has developed a program wl-ich identifies planning concepts to be used creating Livable Communities Policy & implementation Measure LU -15.3: CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE 3.1RMTRUI Lad Use ftn (As Amended December 2086) » Policy - Ensure that community transporta- tion facili:ies are connected to a iaraer transit network » implementation Measure - Continue to \,vork with the appropriate regional agencies to de- velop the regional transportation network Policy & Implementation Measure LU -15.8: Policv - Ensure that street orientation, place- ment of buiidinas and the use of shading in existing and nev,- developments contribute to the eneriy efficiency of the community Irnplemer,ation Measure - Require streets design, to inolude: promotion of pedestrian and blc c:e use, creation of aaraCti e and pedestn- CHAPTER 3 P_AIAN1!\Jv COh T'=YT CARSON &ERElht PLAN iiC' '�JwM H�§au rr,�+.ti `ra!rrir ®1[MM.fIMID u'. ''` i�3�1..'�J� F. ��ii riWr�«+re _rarY•s: Lad Use ftn (As Amended December 2086) » Policy - Ensure that community transporta- tion facili:ies are connected to a iaraer transit network » implementation Measure - Continue to \,vork with the appropriate regional agencies to de- velop the regional transportation network Policy & Implementation Measure LU -15.8: Policv - Ensure that street orientation, place- ment of buiidinas and the use of shading in existing and nev,- developments contribute to the eneriy efficiency of the community Irnplemer,ation Measure - Require streets design, to inolude: promotion of pedestrian and blc c:e use, creation of aaraCti e and pedestn- CHAPTER 3 P_AIAN1!\Jv COh T'=YT an friendly areas through the implementation of traffic calming techniques, human scale desian of buildings, use of trees, landscaping and haht- ing, reduction of road widths, the use of diago- nal parking. and similar measures. Encourage materials and methods of construction which are specific to the region and show compatibil- ity with the climate 3-4 CIRCULATION ELEMENT The General Plan Circulation Element sets policies for devel- opment of the City's transportation system. The Circulation k Element addresses multiple modes of travel in and around — Carson, including automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicvcle. I - -- The Circulation Element defines roadway classifications and four uniform street cross-sections. Included in the cross-sec- tions are standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The -- four cross-sections provided in the General Plan Circulation — Element include the following • Major Highway: Requires a minimum 100 -feet wide right- of-Lvay and 84 -feet wide curb -to -curb width • Secondary Highway: Requires a minimum 80 -fees wide right-of-way and 64 -feet wide curb -to -curb width • Collector Highway. Requires a minimum 64 -feet vide right-of-way and 40 -fee- wide curb -to -curb width • Local Street. Right -of -Way varies between 48 -feet to 60 -feet wide and curb -to -curb width varies between 36 - feet to 40 -feet wide depending on the abutting land use Bike lanes can be engineered to fit into the Major Highway and Secondary Highway cross-sections- The other cross-sections may be designates as bike routes. -laure '.2 identifies daily traffic volumes from 200 The City of Carson provided more recent daily traff'c volumes collected between 2009 and 2012, which vtere used for planning pur- poses in: the !aster Pian of Bikeways. �' CARSON MAST'ER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE 3.2 CARSON GENERAL PLAN 5000 Gtr. :1000 X907 ,000 23.000' Ow. M ris —A—In Lac Traffic Flow -Map etxisR n•z Figure 3.3 lists existing and proposed bikeways as envisioned in Carson's General Plan. This :`figure; along with other previous planning efforts, provides a starting poini for evaluating future bikeway improvements. The General Plan Circulation =lenient identifies the following existing and proposed bikeways. Existing bikeways are noted in parenthesis, and bikeways included in this Master Plan of Bikeways are noted with an asterisk '' j • Bike oaths » Los Angeles Department of Water and Power right- of-wav betvween Sepulveda Boulevard and Carson CHAPTEP. 3 PLANNING CONT -XT 3-5 FIGURE 3:3 \'�,,,:ik,�CARSON GENERAL PUTA S -reef' » Central Avenue between. University Drive ane 169th Street (existing University to Radbard Streety: " 169th Street between Billings Drive and Central Avenue Walnut Street be -,Twee n Figueroa Street and Main Street » Dominguez Channel" Bike ianes Avaion Soule, and between Del Amo Boulevard and 169th Street' Central Avenue between Del Amo aoulevard and MW CARSON NI�,ST=R PLAN OF BIKEWAYS University Drive (existing)` Santa re Avenue between Del Amo Boulevard and I-40�-7' Del Amo Boulevard be,ween Figueroa Street and Santa =e Avenue (existing between Wilmington and Avalon j' Carson Street between Bonita Street and Alameda Street" » Chico Street between 213th Street and Del Amo Boulevard (existing)'' » University Drive between Avalon Boulevard and Wilmington (existing)' » Sepulveda Boulevard be -,ween Figueroa Street and the east City boundary" 192nd Street between Avalon Boulevard and Main Street' • Bike routes Main Street between 213th Street and Walnut Street (included as bike lane in Master Plan of Bikeways)' Dolores Street between Sepulveda Boulevard and 213th Street (existing between Sepulveda Boulevard and Carson Street)` » Victoria Street between Figueroa Street and Wilm- ington Avenue (included as bike lane and cycletrack In Master Pian of Bikeways). » Turmont Street between Avalon Boulevard and Wilmington Avenue (existing)' » 213th Street between Main Street and Wilmington Avenue (included partially as bike lane in Master Plan of Bikeways)` Carson Street be`�ween Alameda Street and Santa Fe Avenue (included partially as bike lane in Master Plan of Bikeways)' 223rd Street between Figueroa Street and Bonita Street (included as bike lane in Master Plan of Bike- ways)' » Torrance Boulevard between Main Street and the west City boundary » Vera Street be --ween Carson Boulevard anu 213th Street (Included as bike lane in Maser Pian of Bike- ways; CHAPTER 3 PLANNING CONTEXT CITYOF The City of Carson Municipal Code states that non-residential ht �-i J ,�C CARSON development of 25.000 square feet or more shall provide the . following: MUNICIPALCurrent maps, routes, and schedules for pubiic transit t routes serving the site ' Telephone numbers for referrals on transportation it for- mation including numbers for the regional ridesharingg, agency and local transit operators • Ridesharing promotional material supplied by commut- 3-8 er-oriented organi_ations Bicycle route and facility information, including regional/ local bicycle reaps and bicycle safety information • A listing of facilities available for carpoolers, vanpooiers, - bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians at the site _ Additionally, bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking shall be provided to accommodate four (4) bicycles for the first -- 50.000 square feet of nor -residential development and one —> (1) bicycle rack for each ach additional 50,000 square feet of non- residential development. CITYOF The Ci;y of Carson Bicycle Master Plan was adopted in 1979. CARSONThe plan stems from the following sources. BICYCL A survey completed by over 1,000 Carson residents • Collision data MASTER Traffic counts PLAN, 197 City staff input The 1979 Bike Plan recommended the following bikeways: Bike paths Greenleaf Boulevard from West City Limits to East Crty Limits Dominguez Channel from West City Limits to 223rd Street » Central Avenue fron-1 190th Street to Greenleaf Cor- ridor » Department of Water and Power Right of Way from Sepuiveda Boulevard to Carson Stree- w� CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS. » Alameda Street from Sepulveda Boulevard to Del Amo Boulevard • Bike lanes » Del Arno Boulevard from eastern City Limits to .Ava- lon Boulevard Avalon Boulevard from Greenleaf (extension) to Del Amo Boulevard » Central Avenue form Del Amo Boulevard to 190th Street » 190th Street from Avalon Boulevard to Central Av- enue Santa Fe Avenue form Carson Street to Del Amo Boulevard » Carson Street from Avalon Boulevard to Santa Fe Avenue • Bike routes » Sepulveda Boulevard from Harbor Freeway to Wilm- ington Avenue » Dolores Street from Sepulveda Boulevard to Carson Street » 223rd Street from Figueroa Street to Department of Water and Power Right of Way » 213th Street from Main Street to Wilmington Avenue Turmont Street from Avalon Boulevard to Central Avenue » Main Street form Victoria to Greenleaf » Victoria from Domingue% Channel to Wilmington Avenue Chico Street from 213th Street to Dominguez Street Leapwood Avenue from Dominguez Street to Del Amo Boulevard CITY OF The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Study utilized Statewide Inte- C ^�1 RSON gration Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision reports for *he period of 1974 to 1976 Results indicated that bicycle c6 - PEDESPEDESTRIAN TRIAN lisions occurred slightiy less than pedestrian collisions. Within BICYCLE � � � "he three-vear period, 95% of bicycle accidents reported In a`'son resulted In injury, and onefaLal!ty occurred. T he primary SAFETYbicycle collision factor was violation of right-of-viay followed STUDY, 1978 by violation of SLop sign or signal Bicyclis were reoorted to CHAPTER 3 P'_ANNING CONTEXT #Z be at fault in about 70% of the cases. Residential and com- mercial areas were both sianificant locations of bicycle colli- sions, which suggested bicycles were being used as a means of transportation to commercial areas. Of all the reported bi- cycle related collisions. 67% involved cyclists less than 15 vears of age. The safety study recommended more safety education should be concentrated at elementary schools. Chapter 7 of the Master Plan of Bikeways provides education and safety programs that the City of Carson can administer. 3-10 SPECIFIC PECIFIC Specific plans pertain to special areas or projects within a cite. A specific plan provides both policy guidance and regulations PLANSfor its coverage area. Within each specific plan, circulation is addressed. Many times, trails or bikeways are included as par: of a specific plan approval. As the specific plan area is devel- oped, proposed trails and bikeways will be constructed as well. There are seven specific plans areas within Carson: • Arbors at Avalon • Dominguez Technology Center Specific Plan - Phase 1 -- Dominguez Technology Center Specific Plan - Phase 2 (notes bike lanes on University Drive) • Carson Town Center Specific Plan (notes that Torrance Boulevard has proposed bike lanesrecommends bicycle harking be provided by individual site developers) • Dominguez Hills Village Specific Plan (notes bike path and lanes on Central Avenue) • Monterey Pines Specific Plan • Villages of Bright and Strathr-cire Specific Plan • The Boulevards at Southbay Specific Plan (includes pro- posed bike lanes and paths within the developrneht) BICYCLE Existing and planned bikeways ir,, the cities and County ad- jacent m Carson were considered in the development of the PLANS (� Master Pian of Bikeways. future bikeways in Carson will be NEIGHBORING designed m align with those of surrounding jurisdictions so V cyclists can seamlessly transverse the region. COMMUNITIES Existing and planned bikeways within neighboring municipali- ties offer a good starting point for providing candidate bic vcle facilities within the City of Carson. CARSON MASTER PLAN 0- BIKEW'S ,4 METRO BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN In 200& the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta- tion Authority (Metro) commissioned a Bicycle Transporta- tion Strategic Plan. This plan designated bike -transit nubs and identified gaps in ti -)e regional bikeway network throughout Los Angeles County. According to the Plan, bike transit nubs are "locations where a combination of elements—numerous transit and/or rail ser- 3-11 vice lines activity, and surrounding demographics—make them prime candidates to improve bicycle access. The goal is L to allocate bikeway resources to areas that will improve both — bicycle and transi- ridership in the form of linked trips." The — Plan identifies the following bike -transit hubs in the immediate vicinity of Carson: r' • Cal State Dominguez Hills • Del Amo Metro Blue Line Station (Los Angeles County) • Artesia Transit Center (City of Los Angeles) • Carson Station on Harbor Freeway transitway (Los An- geles County) The Carson Master" Plan of Bikeways proposes bicycle facllizies that either connect directly to these bike -transit hubs or con- nect to bikeways in other jurisdictions that access the bike - transit hubs. Around Carson, Metros Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan also identifies regional bikeway network gaps along Carson Street (west of Santa Fe Avenue in the City of Long Beach) and Compton Creek in the vicinity of the Del Amo Metro Blue Line Station. The Master Plan of Bikeways proposes bicycle fa- cilities that connect vvith both of the Metro -identified reuional bikeway gaps, should those corridors eventually receive bike ways as well. CHAPT—ER 3 PLANNING COIvT_XT + �� LOS ANGELES COUNTY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Los .Angeles County has jurisdiction over unincorporated ar- eas to the north, east. and west of Carson, The County recently adopted its 2012, Bicycle Master Plan, which is a sub-elemen_ of the County's General Plan Transportation Element This plan includes more than 800 miles of bikeways throughout Los Angeles County. In the vicinity of Carson, the County Bi- cycle Master Pan proposes bike paths among the Dominguez Channel and Compton Creek, bike lanes along Broadway. Ava- lon Boulevard, and Alondra Boulevard to the north of Carson, bike lanes along Rancho Way and Susana Road to the east of Carson, and bike lanes along Del Amo Boulevard, 223rd Street and Lomita Boulevard to the west of Carson. All of the County's proposed bikeways that abut Carson will connect to proposed bikeways within the City of Carson. LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICTS STATION ACCESS STUDY This study assesses bicycle and pedestrian access to nine Metro rail/bus stations in unincorporated Los .Angeles Countv around which the County has estabiished transit -oriented dis- tricts (TODs). The s-ud>, recomYnends infrastructure enthance- ments that improve bicyclist/pedestrian safety on key routes to each of the transit stations. Of the stations in this study, only the Carson Station is proximate to the City of Carson. This station is a freeway bus stop located within the Interstate 110 right-of-way, the east haft of the station is in the City of Cay son and the west half is in unincorporated Los Angeles Cot-rity. The TOD Station Access Study recommends a number of pro- posed bikeways connecting tine Carson Station area with the City of Carson. These include bike lanes on Del Amo Boulevard, Torrance Boulevard, Carson Street, and 223rd Street as v,vell as bike routes on 214th and 228th Streets. Each of these bikeways connects to a proposed bikeway within the City of Carson. CARSON MASTER PLAN CP BIKE'N'.�r5 SOUTH BAY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN The South Bay Bicycle Master plan was prepared in 2011 to guide the development of a comprehensive bicycle network throughout the cities of EI Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndaie, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach. and Torrance. Existing and planned bikeways identified in the South Bay Bi- cycle Master Plan will be considered in the development of Carson's Master Plan of Bikeways. However, since none of the cities.in the South Bay Bicycie Master Plan abut Carson, no di- rect connections will exist between South Bay Bicycie Master Plan bikeways and those in the City of Carson. CITY OF LONG BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN The City of Long Beach, located east of Carson is a regional leader in implementing innovative bikeways. The City's exten- sive network of bikeways includes cycletracks, bicycle bou- levards, and the County's only type B sharrovvs. Long Beach has a Bicycle Master Plan that identifies bikeways, support fa- ciliJes, and other- programs for Long Beach through the year 2020 The City is currently updating the master plan to include new projects and new goals, such as • New proposed bike lanes, bike boulevards, and dedicat- ed bike lanes • Proposed bike facilities such as shower Changing sta- tions and bike share locations at schools, parks, transit stations, and park and ride locations Ideas for proposed signage and bike racks Long Beach has proposed bikeways adjacent to Carson on Susana Road, Del Amo Boulevard, Wardlow Road, and Comp- ton Creek. All of these facilities connect to proposed bikeways. within the City of Carson CHAPTER. 3 PLANNING CONTBXT 3-13 i CITY OF LONG BEACH METRO BLUE LINE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN In 2009. the City of Long Beach developed a bicycle and pe- destrian access plan for all Metro Blue Line stations within and in the immediate vicinity of the city. The Plan focuses on the half -mile radius surrounding each station. It recommends in- frastructure improvements to enhance the safety and acces- 3-14 sibility of biking and walking to the stations. Of the stations included in the Plan, Del Amo is the only station proximate to Carson. For Del Amo Station. the Plan recommenGs • Bike ianes on Del Amo Boulevard east of Compton Creek • A bike bridge across Compton Creek north of Del Arno -- Boulevard • A. continuation of the Compton Geek bike path south- east from Del Amo Boulevard to the Los Angeles River -- A bike bridge over the Los Angeles River connecting the Compton Creek bike path extension with the existing Los Angeles River bike path Of these proposed projects, the bike lanes along Del Amo Boulevard in Long Beac'n will connect with a proposed bike- way on Del Amo Boulvevard in Carson. Further, a section of bike path along Compton Creek is also proposed in the Carson Master Plan. of Blkeways. CITY OF LOS ANGELES BICYCLE PLAN A narrow section of the City of Los .Angeles is located directly to the west of Carson. Additionally, the Wilmington neighbor- hood of Los Angeles is located south of Carson. Los Ange- les adopted its Bicycle Plan in 2010, which designates a more than 1.600 -mile bikeway system and introduces a comprehen- sive collection of bicycle programs and policies. Some of the key elements of the plan include a Citywide Bikeway Svstem comprised of three bikeway nett//orks, Bicycle Friendly Streets. the bundling of programs and policies into ten categories, and a multi -pronged implementation strategy. The plan includes i CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS 10 N bicycle lane connections to Carson via Dei Amo Boulevard, Lomita Boulevard, and Avalon Boulevard. CITY OF COMPTON The City of Compton is iocated northeast of Carson. Althoual- Compton does not have an adopted plan for bikeways, exis,- ing bike lanes inthe City of Compton along Central Avenue and Greenleaf Boulevard connect to proposed bike lanes in the City of Carson. Additionally, the City of Compton has bike lanes on Alondra Boulevard east of Central Avenue, which are close to, although not coterminous with, proposed bike lanes on Alondra Boulevard in Carson. The City of Compton should consider closing this gap to create a continuous inter -city bikeway. CHAPTER 3 P'_ANNING CONTEXT 3-15 r This page intentionally left blank '- _' O\ /�\ /I \A/ This section describes the intentions and aspirations of this V V V V Plan. The consultant team and --ity staff developed this guid- ing framework through a collaborative process. DEFINITIONS GOALS Goals are desired outcomes. They represent the ideal future the City intends to create. They are often general and abstract POLICIES 4-2 Policies are specific statements that guide decision-making. They follow from the goals, and they help to achieve the goals. They indicate a commitment to a particular course of action. M4' ACTIONS Actions are particular programs, procedures, or techniques that carry out policies Actions are listed as bullet points be- low each policy. Each action also identifies the parties who will conduct the action and the intended timeline over which the action will take place. As feasible, some actions also include ways in which the city can measure the success of the action. GOALS, GOAL 1 POLICIES, Create a physical environment where people AND of all ages and physical abilities feel safe and ANIONS comfortable bicycling throughout Carson for everyday purposes Policy 1.1: Create a complete, citywide bikeway network in Carson • Construct the bikeways proposed in this easter Plan of Bikeways over the next 20 years CARSON! MASTEP PLAN O�: BIKEWAYS Policy 1.3: Make bicycle parking available, secure, and convenient throughout Carson • Create design standards for bicycle parking regarding the device type. spacing, and location » Responsible parties: Public Works Departmem— Planning Division, Community Services Department Timeline: 2013-2014 • Require bicycle parking in all new development; in com- merciai development, require showers and clothing lockers as well, Enable developers to reduce the amount CHAPTER 4 GOALS, POLICIES, ANC ACTIONS 4-3 �s » Responsible parties. Public Works Department, GOALS AT Planning Division A GLANCE » Timeline: Phase 1 2013-2020, Phase 2: 2020-2023, Phase 3: 202E-2033 1 Create a physical » How to measure: Mlles of bikeways completed per environment where people of all year • Conduct maintenance of pavement and markings on ages and physical the bikeway and roadway system, and prioritize mainte abilities feel safe nance for bikeways and comfortable » Responsible parties: Public Works Department Eng, - bicycling veering, Traffic, and Maintenance Divisions throughout Carson » Timeline. Ongoing for. everyday n • Add destiation and wayfinding signage along bikeways; purposes' add signs and%or pavement markings labeling cross 2. Make bicycling the streets on bikeways, especially bike paths; and add signs most attractive: directing cyclists to bikeways from streets without bike transportatit�n cho+ce for short ways » Responsible party: Public Works Department trips . » Timeline: To be installed as bikeways are itY plemet 3.. Increase safety for ed all road users • Update the -arson Master Plan of Bikeways every f've 4 Increase economic years to remain eligible for Caltrans funding vitahy by making » Responsible party Planning Division Carson a more » Timeline: Every five years livable city Policy 1.2: Ensure that all Carson streets accommodate safe bicycling • Ensure that bicycl'!sts can activate traffic signals at all vehicle -activated intersections » Responsible party: Public Works Departmen. » Timeline Dngoino„ as intersections are mod,fied Policy 1.3: Make bicycle parking available, secure, and convenient throughout Carson • Create design standards for bicycle parking regarding the device type. spacing, and location » Responsible parties: Public Works Departmem— Planning Division, Community Services Department Timeline: 2013-2014 • Require bicycle parking in all new development; in com- merciai development, require showers and clothing lockers as well, Enable developers to reduce the amount CHAPTER 4 GOALS, POLICIES, ANC ACTIONS 4-3 �s of required auto parking to allow for the placement of bicvcie racks and lockers Responsible parties. Planning Division, Community Services Department Timeline 2013-2015 • Add and maintain bicycle parking at parks, libraries.. and other civic facilities as needed » Responsible parties: Public Works Department, Landscape & Building Maintenance Division, Plan- ning Division » Timeline: Ongoing » How to measure: Number of racks installed per year • Add and maintain bicycle parking in the public right-of- way to serve existing uses » Responsible parties: Public Works Department. Community Development Department, Planning Division Timeline Ongoing How to measure: Number of racks installed per vear • Create program for businesses to request bicycle park- ing in front of their business, which the City would install, at no cost to the business, in the public right-of-way Responsible parties Public Works Department. Planning Division » Timeline: Ongoing » How to measure Number of racks requested and number installed per year • Work with Compton Unified and Los Angeles Unifed School Districts to provide adequate bicycle parking at Carson schools Responsible parties: Public Works Department, Community Development Department, Planning Division, school districts Timeline: Ongoing How to measure: Number of racks installed per year Work with Metro to provide and maintain bicycle lockers, racks, and other parking options at major tran,si-. stoos » Responsible parties: Transportation Services Divi- sion, Metro » Timeline Ongoing CARSON MASTEIR PLAN OF BIKE—WAYS Enact a "bikes in buildings" ordinance requiring owners of commercial office buildings to provide secure bicycle storage for employees and/or allow tenants to bring bicycles into the building Responsible parties. Planning Division, Buildings & Safetv Timeiine. 2016-2018 • Inventory existing publicly owned bicycle parking con- duct periodic surveys to determine where bicycle park- ing is needed create a database of bicycle parking loca- tions, and update database as new parking is added Responsible parties: Public Works Department, GIS. Planning Division Timeline: Inventory exis ing parking and build data- base: 2013, other actions: ongoing Policy 1.4: Conduct regular monitoring of bicycle activity • Conduct recurring manual bicycle and pedestrian courts, integrate bicycle counts into routine traffic studies, and consider purchasing automated bicycle counting infra- structure use these data to inform planning and trans- portation decisions » Responsible parties Planning Division, Public Works Department » Timeline Ongoing, with manual bicycle counts oc- curring annually GOAL 2 Make blcycling the most attractive transportation choice ror short trips Policy 2.1 Create safe bicycling routes to all schools in the City of Carson • Collaborate with Compton !Unified and Los Angeles Unified School Districts to create and implement Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plans that include all "5 =s"— education, engineering evalua-:ion, enforcement. and encouragement—for each school in the city CHAPTER 4 GOALS, POLICIES, AND ,ACTIONS 4-5 i Responsible parties. Planning Division and Commu- nity Services Department will convene a citywide coalition of SRTS stakeholders and form coalitions at each Carson school » Timeline: 2013-2018 • Apply for SRTS funding for both nfrastructure imorove- ments and non -infrastructure programs » Responsible parties Public Works Departmem, Planning Division Timeline: The City will aim w submit at least one ap- 4-6 plication each funding cycle for the next 10 years » How to measure Grant dollars obtained per year Policy 2.2: Ensure that new development -- accommodates and encourages bicycling • Promote land use decisions that support bicycle-, pedes- trian-. and transit -oriented development (see Policy 4.2); require bicycle parking in new develoomems (see Policy --- 1.3 bullet 2) �— » Responsible party: Planning Division -- Timeline. 2013-2018 - Enforce California's Parking Cash -Out law » Responsible party: Planning Division » Timeline Ongoing How to measure: Number of businesses at which employees take advantage of the law Policy 2.3: Encourage bicycling through promotions, fun, and incentives • Provide a dedicated space on the City website for infor- mation abort bicycling Responsible parties Public Information Office, Com- munity Services Department » Timeline: 2015-2015 Carry out promotional efforts to encourage bicycling Responsible parties. Public Information Office, Com- muni*y Services Department » T fineline Ongoing • Initiate and support group bicycle rides, bike -to -work days, biking school buses. educational events. and other activities to encourage more people to ride bicvcles in Carson, CARSON MASTER PLAN 0= EIKEWAYS Responsible parties: Community Services Depart- ment. Public Information Office, Transportation Division Timeline. Ongoing • Assist employers with promotional campaigns to encour- age walking and bicycle commuting Responsible parties: Community Services Depart- ment. Public Inforination Office, Transportation Division » Timeline: Ongoing • Work with outside organizations and agencies to pro- 4-7 vide free helmets and lights to students and low-income cyclists Responsible parties: Community Services Depart- ment, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, City of Lights » Timeline: 2013-2018 • Publish a citywide bikeways map that includes safe bicy- cling tips c Responsible parties: Public Information Office, Plan- nina Division, GIS. Community Services Department, and/or consultant Timeline: 2013-2018 GOAL 3 Increase safety for all road users Policy 3.1: Educate all road users • Educate bicyclists. pedestrians, and motorists about safe use of the streets Responsible parties: Public Information Office, Com- munity Services Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Timeiine: Ongoing • Educate Los Angeles Courcy Sheriffs about bicyclists' rights, pedestrian rights, and the crash report proce- dures desired by the Cita% Re-sponsible parties: Public Works Department, Pub- lic Safetv Division CHAPTER 4 GOALS; POLICIES, AND ACTIONS - ; Ar Timeline: 2013-2018 • Provide bicycle safety education in schools, at worksltes, in parks, and in other public venues Responsible parties. Public Information Office, Con-)- munity Services Department, Los Angeles Countv Sheriff's Department » Timeline: Ongoing Policy 3.2: Systematically reduce crash risk on City streets through design and enforcement • 4-8 Implement traffic calming projects to reduce average vehicle speeds to safe levels » Responsible parties Public Works Engineering and Maintenance Divisions, Planning Division » Timeline: Ongoing » How to measure: Pre- and post -implementation ,speed surveys: number of traffic calming project completed Enforce traffic laws as applicable to bicyclists. pedes- trians, and motorists, focusing enforcement resources -- - on behaviors tha: endanger vulnerable users, such as — speeding, unsafe passing, harassment, and hit -and -runs » Responsible party: Los Angeles County Sheriff's -- Department » Timeline Ongoing How to measure: Number of hit -and -runs per year, number of bicycie- and pedestrian -involved crashes per year • Measure and report on bicycle -involved crash rates and crash factors » Responsible parties: Public Works Department, Los Angeles Countv Sheriffs Department » Timeline: Ongoing. with annual reports GOAL 4 Increase economic vitality by making Carson a more livable city CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS �0 Policy 4.1: Attract customers by creating inviting public places centered around bicycling and walking • Develop streetscape standards that promote bicycling and walking Responsible parties Planning Division, Public Works Department Timeline: 2013-2018 • Require that public spaces associated with new develop- ments, such as plazas and parking lots, seamlessly inter- connect with the Citv's bikeways and sidewalks, rather than create barriers Responsible party: Planning Division Timeline Ongoing • Review and adopt relevant sections of the Model Design Manual for Living Streets » Responsible party: Planning Division Timeline: 2013-2018 Policy 4.2: Encourage new businesses to locate in Carson by promoting walkable and bikeable development • Develop specific plans that cultivate bicycle-, pedes- trian-, and transit -oriented developments with compact, mixed-use form » Responsible parties: Community Development De- partment, Manning Division » Timeline: 2013-2018 • Encouraae large new develoniTien-s and redeveioprnents to be designed with small blocks that have intercon- nected street networks—both internally and with adja- cent development—and direct; convenientbicycling and walking linkages between residences and businesses » Responsible party: Planning Division » TimelineOngoing Policy 4.3: Develop an institutional culture in City government that treats streets as public spaces • Share livable streets resources and best practices be- tween various branches of Carson city staff » Responsible parties. All governmen divisions in- CHAPTER 4 GOALS; POLICIES, AND ACTIONS r.W-1 4-10 I volved with street management and transportation » Timeline Ongoing • Increase collaboration among city bureaus when plan- ning, designing, or otherwise modifying city streets Responsible parties: All government divisions in- volved with street management and transporta-jr » Timeline Ongoing Consider integrating responsibilities for land use and transportation planning/decision-making into a com- bined planning and transportation bureau » Responsible parties: Public Works Department, Planning Division Timeline: As determined by City CARSON M4ST`R PLAN OF BIKEWAY- OVERVIEWThe City of Carson is well poised to expand bicycle transporta- tion in the city. Carson already has a handful of existing bike- ways and bicycle parking at key civic destinations These in- vestments provide a foundation upon which the Ci,y can build a high quality, citywide bicycle transportation system—one ,hat is safe and appealing for everyday use. The following de- tails existing bicycling conditions in Carson. EXISTING f_ This section describes the types of bikeways currently used in Carson and the City's existing bikeway network. "Bikeway" 5-2 BIKEWAYS and "bicycle facility" are catchall terms that describe any and all types of bicycle infrastructure Carson's existing bikeway network includes Class I, II, and III facilities' Class I paths are corridors for the exclusive use of bi- cyclists, pedestrians, and other non -motorized travel E =. modes. Class I paths in Carson take the following forms: i – _ Off-street rights-of-way paralleling waterways Roadway -adjacent sidepaths parallel to streets Class II bike lanes are on -street lanes reserved for the _-- exclusive use of bicyclists • Class III bike routes are preferred travel routes for bi- cyclists on which a separate lane or path is either not feasible or not desirable. Bicyclists and cars share lanes on bike routes (typically the rightmost lane). "Bike Route" signs are the only markings that identity bike routes Carson has a limited existing bikevvay network. which stems largely from the City's 1979 Bicycle Master Plan. Carson has about 10.5 miles of bikeways, and these facilities exist predom- inately in residential areas. There are approximately 1.25 miles of Class I bike paths, 6.75 miles of Class II bike lanes. and 2.5 miles of Class III bike routes. No individual bicycle facility is longer than two miles. Table 51 catalogues the City's existing bikeway network- and Figure 5.1 provides a map of the network. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE LEGEND M 5-3 %C A9.6 TABLE 5.1 L', C,;_son. Bike Central Avenue Aspen Hill Road University Drive North- 0.76 path Sidepath south Bike Dominguez _ 190th Street Main Street North- 0.52 path Channel Path south Bike University Drive Avalon Boulevard Wilmington Avenue East -west 1.76 lane Bike Del Amo Avalon Boulevard Wilmington Avenue East -west 1.76 lane Boulevard Bike Avalon University Del Amo Boulevard North- 0,66 lane Boulevard Drive/192nd Street south Bike Central Avenue University Drive Del Amo Boulevard North- 0.73 lane south Bike Leapwood Del Amo Boulevard Dominguez Street North- 0.43 lane Avenue south Bike Chico Street Dominguez Street 213th Street North- 0.33 lane south Bike Dolores Street 223rd Street Sepulveda North- 1.09 lane Boulevard south Bike Turmont Street Avalon Boulevard Cul-de-sac wes- of East -west 1.79 route Wilmington Avenue Bike Dolores Street 213th Street 223rd Street North- 0.75 route south EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING END—OF—TRIP Bicycle parking can be provided in two general types racks FACILITIES and high -security bicycle parking. Racks are best for short- term needs like quick shopping trips or stops at the library or post office. Racks are also beneficial in commercial corridors where bicyclists may want to get a meal or go from store to store Racks should be placed at dispersed locations to take advantage of the point-to-point flexibility of the bicycle. Com- muters and those who park for longer times need 'nigher se- curity parking. High -security parking may consist of lockers, attendant parking.. or automated parking. As described in the mu:-iicipai code review in Chapter 2, the City requires bicycle racks only for large (greater than 25,000 square feet) non-residential developments. Such develop - CHAPTER 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS ments must provide four bicycle parking spaces fer the first 50,000 square feet and one bicycle parking space for each additional 50,000 square feet of non-residential development. Figure 5.2 and Table 5.2 show that the Cit,,,, provides bicycle parking racks at public buildings parks, and recreation areas. Additionally, Metro provides bicycle racks and lockers at the Artesia Transit Center and Del Amo Blue Line stations, both of which are located immediately outside Carson limits. 5-6 TABLE 5.2 Exrr,n; Anderson Park Multi -bike rack (8 -bike 1 capacity) Calas Park Multi -bike rack (5 -bike capacity) 1 Carson Pool Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 4 Carriage Crest Park Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 1 City Hall Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 1 City Hall Employee -only showers N/A --- — CSU Dominguez Hills Student/faculty-only showers N/A Del Amo Park Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 2 Dolphin Park Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 1 Dominguez Aquatic Center Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 4 Dominguez Park Multi -bike rack (5 -bike capacity) 2 Hemingway Aquatic Center Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 5 Heminavv,ay Park Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 1 Mills Park Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 1 - Scott Park Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 2 Scott Pool Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 15 Stevenson Park Bike rack (2 -bike capacity) 2 Veterans SportsComplex Veterans SportsComplex Watson Land Company Bike rack (2 -bike capacit',") Employee -only showers Employee -only showers N/A N/A OTHER AMENITIES The City of Carson does not have public shovers or clothinc lockers for comrnuters to use. There are showers at Citv Hall CARSON PLAN OF BIKEWAYS LINKS TO OTHER TRANSPORT MODES and the Veterans SportsComplex for staff and other restricted users Watson Land Company Headquarters and CSU Domin- guez Hills both provide showers for their employees and stu- dents, respectively. The City's rnunicipal code does not contain any requirements for bicycle amenities in new development. Multiple agencies offer transit service in and around Carson— namely Carson Circuit and Metro. Other transit service in the City includes Gardena Municipal Bus Lines, Long Beach Transit, and Torrance Transit Figure 5.3 provides a map of the core transit services in the Carson area, which include light rail, bus rapid transit (BP,T), express bus. and rapid bus service. CARSON CIRCUIT The City operates its own local bus service, the Carson Circuit, which runs Monday through Saturday. All buses are equipped with bike racks that accommodate two bicycles. Bus stops do not customarily include bicycle parking. Carson Circuit includes eight lines, lettered A through H, and each operates in a large, one-way loop throughout a oortion of the city. The lines radiate out from the central bus terminai on Del Amo Boulevard just north of the South Bay Pavilion. All buses mee. ever, 40 minutes at this transfer point. Carson also operates a North-South Shuttle. This route links the areas between the Artesia Transit Center and Lomita Bou- levard_ Like the Carson Circuit, the North-South Shuttle oper- ates in a one-way loop. It provides two morning loops and one afternoon loop Mondays through Fridays, METRO Metro is the primary transit provider throughout Los Angeles County. All the agency's buses are equipped with bicycle racks that accommodate two bicycles. Metro trains include desig- nated areas where passengers may ride witn their bikes. Local bus stops typically do not include bicycle parking, however the agency operates two major transit centers in -_he vicinity of Carson—the Artesia Transit Center and the Dei Amo Blue Line CHAPTER 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5-7 ' Ietro ;jus withi r,yc.a rack. Station—each of which includes bicycle racks and lockers. The Artesia Transit Center is located or, 182nd Street, iu -west of rhe city across Interstate 110. The Del Amo Blue Line Station is located jus northeast of Carson at the intersection of Del Amo Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue Metro operates local bus service on a number of streets throughout Carson. These routes include Lines 45 (late-night only), 52%352, 53, 13D, 205, and 246, in addition to local bus service. Metro operates bus rapid transit (BRT), express bus, and haht rail lines with stations immediately outside Carson's cit\/ limits. These services connect Carson with the greater Los Angeles region and include the following: • Silver Line (BRT) runs between EI Monte, Downtown Los Angeles, and the Artesia Transit Center • Metro Express 450 (freeway express bus) links the Ar- tesia Transit Center with San Pedro. It makes select local -stops in northwestern Carson before entering Interstate 110. Once on the freewav, the route makes two stops ad- jacent to Carson, at 1-110/Carson Street and 1-110/Pacific Coast Highway • Blue Line (light rail) extends from Downtown Los An- geles to Long Beach. It stops at the Del Amo Station immediately northeast of Carson OTHER TRANSIT SERVICES Torrance _Transit, Gardena Municipal _Bus Lines and Long Beach Transit provide additional transit service within Carson. All of the agencies' buses are equipped with bicycle racks that accommodate two bicycles. Within Carson, none of the bus stops served by these providers offer bike parking. Additional transit services available in Carson include. • Gardena Municipa: Bus Lines: Line ti • Long Beach Transit: Lines 191 and 192 • Torrance Transit: Lines 1, 3, Papid 3, 6, 7 and 9 ! CARSON MA,STEP PLAN" OF BIKEWIaYs qe 4%. N I: ,S Erk t 2007 16 98,731 0.16 10,646 36,553,215 0.29 2008 16 99,342 0.16 11,814 36,756,666 0.32 2009 18 92,255 0.20 12,150 36,961,664 0.33 2010 17 91,828 0.19 12,763 37,349,363 0.34 5-12 i, .mfr,. _. ._ .. ,�:, .. � .� i� ,�: r ✓_. WHERE ARE THE CRASHES HAPPENING? Figure 5.4 displays the locations of bicyclist -involved crash- es resulting in injury or fatality for the five most recent vears for which there is data available. 2006-2010 The crashes are dispersed throughout the city. The streets on which the most crashes occurred were Carson St.. 223rd St., Main St.. and Ava- ion Blvd. BICYCLE As part of the olanning process for the Master Plan of Bike- ways, the City, consultant team, and L ACBC conduced bicy- AN© cle counts at 8 locations in Carson. PEDESTRIAN The number of locations, time of the count, location selection.. CO V I`ITS and count methodology were all informed ov the National Bi- cycle and Pedestrian Documentation: Projec_ (NBPD) as well as recent count experience in Los Angeles County. LOCATIONS The choice of 8 locations was informed by the NBPD guid- ance which recommends 1 location for every 15:000 people. In Carson, with a population of lust over 90,000, this would be 6 locations. Two additional ioca'-ions were possible because of volunteer capacity. CARSON M''AS T --P PLAN OF BIKEWAYS �'' 44 LACBC, Citv staff, and the consultant team collaborated to choose the locations. Overall, locations were chosen to cover the various portions of the city geographically as well as a va- riety of location types. Table 5.4 shows the locations Tong with the team's reason for counting at each location Each lo- cation is an intersection of'wo streets. with counting takinc: place on two imaginary screenlines, one on each street. TABLE 5.4 2012 Caren [`;;':vc:!e r_-O[ri;t IGUI, EA5NS�7OxGQ1�IT=HEZE'; 5-13 Victoria S_/Avalon Blvd. Proximity to California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Home Depot Center, and bus stops University_ Dr./Central Ave 2010 count location, proximity to CSUDH, existing bicycie facilities Dominguez Channel/Main St. 2010 count location, existing bike path on the channel Turmont St/Avalon Blvd. 2010 count location, existing bicycle facilities Van Buren St./Santa Fe Ave. 2010 count location, proximity to school Carson St./Main.St. Highest number of bicycle -involved crashes at this location Carson S- Avalon Blvd. 2010 count location, proximity to civic and retail destinations Sepulveda Blvd./Figueroa S. 2010 count location, proximity to park and retail LACBC count supervisors recruited,' and trained the volunteers = to ensure an accurate count. Dur'na the counts-LACBC staff and City of Carson staff provided quality checks and breaks for volunteers. DATES ,AND TIMES In order to maximize the sample of bicyclists observed with a limited volunteer labor force, counts took place during peak periods of travel, when the mos7. cyclists would be expected. A count period ori Saturda,,% was included to capture recre- ational cvcling volumes. The count periods were • Wednesday. October 24 20'2 7:00-10:00 AM �Vecinesday% October 24 2012 3:000-6:001 PI`21 • Saturday. October 27 2012 10:30 AM -1:30 PM There periods are referred to as "AM" "PM,` and "\f%1KND' re- spectively throughout this report. CHAPTBP, 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4s CARSON MAST ER PLAN 0-- BIKEWAYS ae PEDESTRIANS Both cyclists and pedestrians were counted, due to the ef- ficiency in counting both modes with a single volunteer. AI - ;hough the analysis in this report focuses on cyclists, the City is also interested in the pedestrian data The City will keep the pedestrian data on file to inform future efforts VOLUMES 5-14 Table 5.5 displays the total volumes counted in each time pe- riod in 2011 The table is sorted by total bicycle volumes. so that the intersections with the most bicycle activity appear at ------ the top. Summary statistics for the mean and median appear at the bottom of the table. TABLE 5.5 Aiu,,m=•a; pF r ��„-/. L: 'UI L� %til); til eID AM`: .. --- Carson St./Main St. 27 142 75 244! -- Carson St./Avalon Blvd, 40 61 28 129 -- Victoria St./Avalon Blvd, 26 42 26 94 Turmont St./Avalon Blvd. 28 33 25 86 Sepulveda Blvd./Figueroa St 25 17 30 Van Buren St./San-,a Fe Ave 6 38 23 67 Dominguez Channel/Main St. 7 12 9 28 University Dr./Central Ave. 9 7 4 20 Mear,,2 1 44 2:.5 9 2. 5 !Median 25.5 35. -)S.-79 Total 168 352 220 740 As Table 5.5 shov,s, the number of cyclists that were counted at each location ranged from a high of 244 to a low of 20 cyclists. Volumes at the intersection of Carson St. and !Mair; St. were nearly three times tine mean volume The very high volumes at Carson St. and Maii St. cause the mean tc exceed the median CARSON MAST ER PLAN 0-- BIKEWAYS ae Hourly Variations Trip volumes typically vary systematically by the hour of the day in a pattern that peaks during the familiar morning and evening rush hours. Similarly. trip patterns on Saturdays differ markedly from trig patterns during the work week =othese reasons; the coun-s target windows of time when we expect the most travel to be happening. It is then interesting to com- pare the volumes observed with the expected trip making pat- terns. In Carson, we find that bicyclist are generally greater in .he PM period than in the AM period. This is particularly the case at Carson St./Main St., Carson St./%valor Blvd.. and Vic- toria StjAvalon Blvd. This may mean that bicyclists are making more after-school and after -work trips for socializing, recre- ation, and shopping, rather than commute trips. By comparing weekend volumes to weekday volumes and making the assumption that most weekday trips are utilitarian while some share of weekend trips are recreational, we can ascertain relative rates of recreational bicycling and utilitar- an bicycling. Any given bicyclist traveling during -any of the three count periods could be bicycling for recreation or for some utilitarian purpose (or both), so this ratio is an indirect proxy. It helps us to understand relative rates of u-illtanan and recreational bicycling, but does not directly cap -lure them. In Carson in 2012, bicyclist trip volumes are roughly equal in the AM and WKND periods and slightl," greater in the PV, period. This means tha- utilitarian bicycle trips probably exceed recre- ational bicycle trips in Carson. BEHAVIOR Counters recorded a number of behavioral variables. They tal- lied cyclists who were riding, on the sidewalk, cyclists riding the wrong way on the street, and cyclists who were not wear- ing helmets. Sidewalk Riding Counters ,marked when bicyc!ists rode on the sidewalk The resulting data is aisplayed in Figure 5.5' q_i r; CHAP T EP, 5 EXISTIN,C CONDI T IONS Al As Figure 5.5 indicates, the percentage of cyclists w'no rode on the sidewalk ranged from ?% to 641/6 by location. The percent- aae across all locations was 361/'L Sidewalk riding is an inclica- tion that bicyclists do not feel comfortable on the street. Espe- cially in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic, it creates potential for conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians and it crowds the sidewalk. By implementing bikeways, the City will enable more people to ride on the street, freeing up room for pedes- trians on the sidewalks. 5-16 - _` ---- V7 - -,..[' .. y IN, ------------- .......... k � _ — LA > Q d vt Z > m N > Q'C N N > �1 a N > A (0 t0 C ,r r N CO ti r O fir O to m r N N> t0 r fu N 01 - �. > Q > U v > Q C m U V > Q > IIl � v L� _ Lr, O u FIGURE 5.5 Wrong Way Riding Counters marked when bicyclists rode the -wrong way on the street. Jo clarify, there is no wrong way to ride on: the side- \,valk.; Figure 5.6 displays the resulting data. Across all locations, 12% of bicyclists rode the wrong way. This ranged from a high of 2,1/o at Victoria St./Avalon Blvd. to a low of 0% at University Dr./Central Ave. Site-specific reasons can often cause wrong way riding. These include sidewalk obstruc- tions and medians and heavy vehicle traffic that make it dif- ficult tc cross to the correct side of the street. The City should investigate locations with consistently high rates of wrong way riding to discover any site-specific reasons for these high rates. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEW,ZYS ---.. _... _.. __... ..................... .- _ - N , > in , , -. .....-. rc Q OR .. p� p p - . rt_--- p Q ,' to Helmets Counters also recorded whether or not bicyclists were wear- ing helmets. Figure 5.7 displays the resulting data N , > in , , rc Q 1 4J p� p p y _ L U p Q LL to v 0 to N ro >> > (D N a)H i C> m 2 U ru m U> v D 1 > Q 'r U♦— Q ti Q LL rn > Ln n c a, 0 C] FIGURES 6 Helmets Counters also recorded whether or not bicyclists were wear- ing helmets. Figure 5.7 displays the resulting data �i ywi e. about half ,Z) 0 or rider- are no- wearing a helme,. This varies from location to location from a low of 34% at Car- son S -',.,/I, -Iain S to a high of 81% at Van Buren St./Santa Ee Ave CHAPTER 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS rc Q 1 4J p� p p y _ L U p p LL 7 L 0 to N ro >> > (D N a)H i C> m 2 U ru m U> v D 1 > Q '= U Q tp rd < LL 0 > a� 0 C] FIGURE 5.7 �i ywi e. about half ,Z) 0 or rider- are no- wearing a helme,. This varies from location to location from a low of 34% at Car- son S -',.,/I, -Iain S to a high of 81% at Van Buren St./Santa Ee Ave CHAPTER 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5-18 EF. DEMOGRAPHICS Gender The percentage of people on bicycles who are female is an accepted indicator of the extent to which a place makes bi- cycling possible for all kinds of people, riot dust the "strong and fearless.' Prom country to country, there is a correlation between the percentage of bicyclists who are female and the share of all trips that are taken by bicycle. Figure 5.8 displays the perceived gender of bicyclists for all locations in 2012. FIGURE 5.8 Citywide, only 4% of all bicyciists counted in Carson were perceived to be female. The percentage ranged from a low of 0% at University Dr./Central .Ave. to a high of only 10% at Turmont St./Avalon Blvd. The gender disparity suggests that people who are risk -averse are not bicycling at high rates in Carson especially in certain locations. Gendered travel pat- terns and needs may also cause the disparity. Women tend co do a disproportionate share of family -serving travel. including transporting children.' This kind of travel is more difficult to do by bicycle. By implementing more bicycle infrastructure that makes risk - averse people feel safe riding their bikes, the City should en- able a better gender balance in its ridership. 1 Taylor. Briar, and Michae' Mauch, 199E. ' "erder. Ra: e, and navel Behavio! Ar An�':ysS c"' Househoid Servi Travei it the Sar Frar.i_cc seg ire-., Vvl-, en's -.ave !,sues Proceedings fro, rye Secono;•iat;o,ra Conrarer,ce. AvaitaLle athtLp:/�� fr'ir J-., g,✓, :oIIim%v✓mens �nap�V pd` CARSON M4,STEP PLAN OPP BIKBWAYS AW -._... -------------------- V) ? p Q Q N> N V N y> o in om .>.' �- ra 'w r C m O a, p 'm a m m o .� O[n v = U O F ill- an v[ p — to v > > > N> M U U> N U >LL Q _�U = HQ rfl Q D > V 2 N N O FIGURE 5.8 Citywide, only 4% of all bicyciists counted in Carson were perceived to be female. The percentage ranged from a low of 0% at University Dr./Central .Ave. to a high of only 10% at Turmont St./Avalon Blvd. The gender disparity suggests that people who are risk -averse are not bicycling at high rates in Carson especially in certain locations. Gendered travel pat- terns and needs may also cause the disparity. Women tend co do a disproportionate share of family -serving travel. including transporting children.' This kind of travel is more difficult to do by bicycle. By implementing more bicycle infrastructure that makes risk - averse people feel safe riding their bikes, the City should en- able a better gender balance in its ridership. 1 Taylor. Briar, and Michae' Mauch, 199E. ' "erder. Ra: e, and navel Behavio! Ar An�':ysS c"' Househoid Servi Travei it the Sar Frar.i_cc seg ire-., Vvl-, en's -.ave !,sues Proceedings fro, rye Secono;•iat;o,ra Conrarer,ce. AvaitaLle athtLp:/�� fr'ir J-., g,✓, :oIIim%v✓mens �nap�V pd` CARSON M4,STEP PLAN OPP BIKBWAYS AW Children The count also tracked the number of children bicycling in each location. Counters marked as a child anyone they perceived to be under the age of 1-�. This figure is of interest for several rea- sons. First the percentage of children in the 11 S who bicycle and walk to school has severely dropped since the 1960s.2 The federal and state Safe Routes zo School programs aim to en- able more children to walk and bike to school, data on the numbers of children who are walking and biking are relevan, to Carson's consideration of when and how to participate in Safe Routes to School. Second, iocalions where many children are walking and bicycling should be considered high priority for safety improvements and traffic calming. Young children have more difficulty navigating t-affic, and they are vulnerable to be more seriously injured if they are in a collision. Third. and most simply, it is useful to track children because the walk- ing and bicycling traffic caused by the beginning and end of the school day can be a major driver of overall count volumes. Counting children allows us to examine if large volumes are driven by packs of schoolchildren. Figure 5.9 displays the per- centage of bicyclists who were perceived as children at each location. The Na[ior:a, Gene- for Safe Routes to School, 2011. "How ;.rnldren Get to School. Schc,6 Travel z'atterns f,om. 1969 to 2009 Available at httrxl:� sate,rvutesinto oriisi�esriiefau',i;flesire,our; es,i NHTS_schoo'_travel_ re��or: 20TI O.pd` ............. o _._.. 0 y.ai � -; cR p > m N < tYi i L V > t� 7 Q V N > < V T O G L vG. t 0 FIGURE S.9 CHAPTER 5 EX!,STING CONDITIONS y.ai � -; "G � }; _ < tYi _ (/1 N — In U) j i ccr N .— rz r m C_ O G L vG. t Ln p ti N > V V > > < z < _ > n �' a FIGURE S.9 CHAPTER 5 EX!,STING CONDITIONS 5-20 The percentage of people bicycling who were perceived to be children ranged from a low of 0% to a high of 37% at Var Bu- ren St./Santa Fe Ave Citywide, children comprised 10% of all cyclists counted. The high percentage of children at Van Buren St/Santa Fe Ave. indicates that much of the bicycling there is probably travel to and from school. COMPARISON T4 2010 COUNT DATA The City also conducted counts in 2010, on Thursday, Novem- ber, 4 and Saturday, November 7, These took place at six loca- tions as rioted in Table 5.4 and below. The 2010 count only in- cluded a PM and a WKND perioci, identical to the 2012 PM and WKND periods. Table 5.6 compares volumes for the six loca- tions that were counted in both 2010 and 2012 There was a slight change in methodology between2010 and 2012 which may account for some of the difference. Appendix B lists methodology details. The totals shown only include PM and TABLE 5.6 vi nversit-y Vr./�-enLral Ave. — 11 10% Dominguez Channel/Main St. — 2� 21 -5oc Turmont S_./Avalon Blvd. 34 J6 vlo, Van Buren St;/Santa Fe Ave — 46 61 3390 Carson St./Avalon Blvd 43 --------- 89 T107'/� Sepulveda Blvd,/Figueroa St. _. 39 4` C 'M' All Locations 194 -- 287 48°% WKND count periods. As Table 5.6 shows, bicycling has Had a massive increase of 48% in Carson since 2010 At C.arsori S_./ Avalon Blvd., the number of cyclists more than doubled. Demographics and Behavior Table 5.7 compares the demographics and behavioral variabies observed in 2010 and 2012. To caiculate the percentages in his table. only the Divi and WKND periods from 2012 are in - CARSON MASTED PLAN! OF BIKEWAYS chided and only the six locations counted in both 2012 and 2010 are included TABLE 5.7 VARiAt, E. �...� -/ li�l 201`0 -% 1N` 2012 Femaie 12°ro 6°io Child under 13 ----- -- 8°�� 16% No Helmet 75% 63% Sidewalk Riding 56% 52% Wrong Way Riding 5°/'c 15918 5-21 As Table 5.7 shows many of these variables are relatively un- changed. which is surprising given the large increase in the number of cyclists. Particularly concerning is that the percent- age of female cyclists dropped, and the rate of wrong way riding increased from 51/o to 1010. _ r. Because trip volumes vary by time of day. the City should con- tinue to count during the same time periods in future years, — to allow for year -over -year comparisons. The City should also consider using automatic counters to count continuously. - These will allow a better understanding of bicyciis-I volumes = and trip -making patterns in Carson. and they enable a much more accurate understanding of trend: over time. POS•► q �� Non -infrastructure programs can be categorized according to �7 f� the 4 non -infrastructure Es of a bicycle -friendly communl These are: • Education • Encouragement • Enforcement • Evaluation The City of Carson does not currentiy conduct any programs related to bicycling. Specifically, the City does not conduct any enforcement programs or safety programs that could have an impact on crash rates Chapter 7 of this plan proposes new oroarams tha the cit\. could undertake CHAPTEEP 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5-22 is This page intentionaliy left blank. CARSON V,4STEP PLAN OF BIKE—EWaYS 62— This chapter details the network of bikeways proposed in Car- OVERVIEW ar- OV RVIEW son ("Bikeways" and "bicycle facilities' are catcl-all terms used to describe any and all types of bicycle infra truc-Lure )_ We begin by defining the various bikeway types recommended for Carson—from standard bike lanes and paths to newer cv- cletracks and colored sharrows- Each bikeway description in dudes a summary of its defining characteristics as well as an. example photo. P, series of tables describes each of Carson's proposed bike ways in detail. Each bikeway is broken into segments corre sponding with major changes in roadway configuration c)'- width, rwidth. For each segment, we describe the existing roadway configuration, width, and speed limit before listing proposed modifications to add bikeways. The tables include both on - and off-street bikeways: they present east -west bikeways first and then show north -south routes. Within these groupings east -west bikeways are ordered from north to south, north - south bikeways, from east to west. All the proposed bikeways are also mapped and shown in a summary table. This chapter concludes witl,,, a discussion of recommended bicycle parking and cyclist amenities, such as showers anti clothing lockers. BIKEWAY TYPES IN CARSON BIKEWAY The following bicycle facility types are proposed in Carson. TYPES Bicycle paths (also known as Class I facilities! • Bicycle lanes (also known as Class II facilities), inc uding. Buffered bike lanes „ Colored bike lanes • Bicycle routes (also known as Class III facilities), includ- ing. Routes with sharrows Routes with type B sharrows -ycletraCkS The pian also recommends a number of .,road dies" tc imple- men! certah) bike lanes and cycletracks. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS �a r n Bl""Je Line it Sart Luis obi;pr, Chapter 10, "Design," includes more details on design features and recommended design guidance for each bikeway type. BICYCLE PATH (CLASS I) Bike paths are paved corrido,s completely separat(, from streets that are reserved for the exclusive use of bicyclists and Pedestrians. it is important to note that sidewalks are not bike paths or multipurpose paths. Sidewalks are typically reserved only for pedestrians and are not designed to accommodate safe or convenient bicycle travel. Bicvcle paths are often planned along uninterrupted linear rights-of-way and com- monly take one of two forms: Off-street rights-of-way, often paralleling waterways or railroad tracks Roadway -adjacent sidepaths parallel to. but separate from, streets BICYCLE LANE (CLASS li) Bike lanes are on -street lanes reserved for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes are pained (or "striped") with a white line and a bicycle stencil. Bike lanes may also include the following additions, either independently or in combination: Buffered bike lanes. which include additional space between' he bike lane and auto travel lanes or on -street parking. This buffer space is painted with a hatched striping pattern • Colored bike lanes pained a bright. chartreuse green, L enhance their visibility. The color may be applied in a contin,,jous strip or used only at conflict points such as intersections and drivev„ays BICYCLE ROUTE (CLASS Ili) Bike routes are preferred travel routes for bicyclists on which a separate lane or path is not feasible or not desirable. Bicy- clists and cars share lanes on bike routes (and fvpically C\,/ - CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICyC_- PROJ=CTS a1 6-3 clists must ride in the rightmost lane). Traditionally, bike routes have been demarcated only with "Bike Route' signs. Recently trough, cities have begun to use the following additional fea- tures to indicate bike routes • Shared lane markings. or "sharrows," which are pave- ment markings that a) alert motorists that a particular travel lane is to be shared with bicyclists, b) indicate to cyclists the preferred riding position within the lane, and c) assist bicyclists with wayfinding Type B sharrows, which are experimental sharrow treat- ments with enhanced visibility. Long Beach, C/ uses a painted green lane underneath the sharrow. Brookline, MA uses large, frequently -spaced sharrows with dashed lateral lines resembling lane lines. • Bicycle wayfinding signage, which helps cyclists navi- gate by illustrating turns in bike routes and providing directions to key destinations Ali planned bike routes in Carson include, at a minimum, one form of sl -arrows anti wayfinding signage. CYCLETRACKS Cycletracks (also referred to as protected bikeways) function like on -street Class i paths and are considered Class I paths in some cities) These facilities, which may either accommodate one-way or two-way bicycles -ravel, are physically separated from auto traffic, usually bbl parkad cabs, curbs, or planters. Cv- cletracks typically require speci_ai treatments at intersections ROAD DIETS This plan recommends a handful of "road diets." A road diet is the removal of at least one travel lane or on -street parking to accommodate a bikeway. Road diets are only recommended in conditions where removing a travel lane or parking will not cause traffic dela;_ More detailed traffic studies may be re- quired prior to implementing road diets. CARSOfxr c ' 4' ; - BII!=WAYS GUIDING ASSUMP- TIONS FOR BIKEWAYS CHOICE OF TREATMENT The type of treatment depends on the street or right -o,` -way, width, adjacent land uses. traffic volumes. and traff c speeds. When exclusive righ,-of-way exists, bike paths are planned. Bike lanes are planned on streets that have enough width to accommodate them. Road diets are planned to create space for bike lanes or- multi -lane streets where traffic volumes allow. Improvements to bike lanes are planned where enough space exists to widen bike lanes or to stripe buffers. Bike routes are planned on streets where ne-,1work connectivity is needed, but insufficient space exists for bike lanes, or where traffic vol umes do not call for bike lanes. The following factors should be considered guidelines, and will be modified and interpreted as necessary for a given situation. The City will use its judgment if it chooses to plan additional bikeways in the future or modify the proposed bikeways due to engineering constraints. The City will also use appropriate experimental processes and guidelines when implementing .devices such as bicycle boxes, pavement wayfindrng markings Type B sharrows, colored bike lanes, etc. Lane Widths • Truck route with 45 MPH speed limit_ MinfmUn-n 12' lanes • Truck route with 40 MPH speed limi-,: Minimum 11' lanes • Anv road with 45 MPH speed limit: Minimum 11' 'lanes • Anv road with 40 MPH speed limit: 11' lanes preferred, minimum of 10' allowable • All other roads: Minimum 10' lanes • Parking lane: Minimum width of ?' Bikeway Type • Minimum width of a bike lane is 5 but prefer to use as the standard wherever possible • Where bike lanes do not fit. but network connectively is necessary, bike routes with sharrows will be planned • Propose bike paths along existing or po'-ential rights -o` - way such as waterways and rail lines CHAPTER 6 PPCPOS-'D BICY'_ PP CJBCTS Li • Buffers are painted between the travel lanes and pike lane and/or between on -street parking and striped.' bike lanes to provide extra comfort to the cyclist where roadway width permits (see note on buffer design and MUTCD compliance below) . Where average daily traffic (ADT) is nigh, in central areas of the city, at confusing intersections and at appropri- ate freeway off and on-ramics, use colored bike lanes to ensure the bikeway is prominent to motorists Consider traffic circles to replace stop -controlled inter - 6 -6 sections to improve bikeways where appropriate Painted buffers greater than 2' in width are legal in California if they are placed outside of a bicycle lane where there is no on - street parking. If there is on -street parking. the City may want AMto go through art experimental process with the California raffic Control Device Committee (CTCDC) to install buffers wider than 2'. Some jurisdictions, such as the City of Los An- geles, have developed striping plans that. they believe comply -- with the California MUTCD and California Vehicle Code, allow- ing them to install wide painted buffers without going through - an experimental process. The striping plans include breaks in the buffers. Colored bike lanes have interim approval from the=ederal Highway Administration. Colored bike lanes have interim ap- proval from the CTCDC. The City simply needs to notify the state in order to implement colored bike lanes. Type B sharrows will also have to go through the experimental process with the CTCDC. The City will consider ins.allation and maintenance costs prior tc implementation. Type B sharrows require more materials than other treatments, and will be implemented a, kev loca- tions first to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Directional signage wil! also be crucial to create a legible network. The Citv v, ill ex- piore experimental directional pavement markinc,s and signs. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS Main St. Avalon .Blvd: • 4 lanes with on -street parking Road diet to 2 lanes, center turn lane. • 63 wide and on -street parking, add 6' bike lanes • 24-hour traffic volume in December with 2' buffer 2009: 5,100 Option: Add sharrows and wavfinding • Posted speed limit. 40 mph signage 6-8 x Figueroa St. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane and Add 6' bike lanes on -street parking • 84' wide curb -to -curb • 35' wide curb -to -median • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph ;;Star of India Ln. F, Avalon.Blvd. • 5 lanes (3 eastbound, 2 westbound) with Add 5' bike lanes with 2' buffer center turn lane and on -street parking on the north side only • 84' wide • Posted speed limit 40 mph CARSON M/,,ST'R PLAN OF BIKEWAYS :< Avalon -Blvd. SR -91: eastbound ,off ramp • 4 lanes with median, on -street parking Remove on -street parking, add 12 -.vlo- on the north side, and on -street parking wav cycletrack on south side of street peak -hour travel lane on the south side Add bicycle and pedestrian crossing • 34' wide curb -to -median of Bltterlake St. to provide access to • 24-hour traffic volume in December Stevenson Park 2009. 13,700 Add bike -only signal phase at Albertoni • Truck route St./Avalon Blvd. intersection where • Posted speed limit: 45 rnph bike lanes on both sides of the sweet • Minimal use of on -street parking transition to the cycletrack on south side observed r,.SR=,'91.eastbound;off-ramp . SR 'M astbo:und .on=ramp • 3 lanes. one-way eastbound only In 34' section, remove l eastbound trave • 34'-55' wide ane and add 12' two-way cycletrack on • 24-hour traffic volume in December south side of street 2009 13.700 In 55' section. add 15' two-wav cycletrack • Truck route on south side oT street • Posted speed limit 45 mph �- SR -91 ;eastbound on-ramp F-ysander:Dr. • 2 lanes, one-way eastbound only, and Remove on -street parking, ado 12' -:wo- on-street parking on the south side only way cycletrack on south side of street • 32' wide Add short bike path connection across • Minimal use of on -street parking landscaped median between terminus of observed proposed cycletrack on .Albertoni St and • Truck route Bitterlake St. • Posted speed limit: 45 mph CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICYC' PROJ-OTS Lysander Dr. Central Ave.. • 2 lanes with on -street parking Add bike roue with sharrows and • 35' wide wayfinding signage • Posted speed Limit: 30,/25 �� �CT�J�I A•5��t.EET �. _ r t ` 6-10 ..i=Figueroa St. (Los,An:geles-city (unit) '. ---- - Main St: n. • 4 lanes with median and on -street Add 5' colored bike lanes parking Option: Add sharrows and wayfinding 32' wide curb -to -median signage e g g _. - Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph --- �_- :.,r..Main.St Avalon Blvd. — 4 lanes with median Add 6bike lanes with 2' buffer • 32' wide curb -to -median • Posted speed limit 40 mph Avalon -Blvd, , Eastern Home Depot :Center Driyevvay> • 4 lanes wi h right turn lane for Home Add o bike lane ,!ith 2' buffer on the Depot Centercenter turn lane, and on- north side street parking on the north side only Add 5' colored bike lane on the south 83' wide side Posted speed limit 40 mph Op:ion: !-add i5' two-way cycle rack on the south side of -,he street 1� CARSON MAST -P PLAN Or BIKEWAYS �w z>- , 1 Eastern`Home.Depot CenterDriveway T. Central :Ave_ • 4 lanes with center turn lane and on- - Add 6' bike lane with 2' duffer on the street parking on the north side only north side • 63' wide Add 6' bike lane with 2' buffer on both • Posted speed limit: 40 mph sides on the south side • Option: Add 15' two-way cycletrack on the south side of the street Central Ave. Wilmington Ave. (Compton city limit) • 4 lanes with center turn lane Add 6' bike lanes with 2' buffer • 63' wide • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph h .... Main'St. West of Victoria Rark,parking lot • 2 lanes with center turn lane and on- Add 5' bike lanes with 2' buffer street parking • 57'-65' wide • Posted speed limit: 35 mph 4: Towne Ave. - Avalon ,Blvd: • 4 lanes with center turn lane and on- Road diet to 2 lanes. center turn lane, street parr'ing and on -scree'_ parking • 65' wide Add 6' bike lanes with 2 IDU Ifer Posted speed limit: 35 mph CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICYCLE PPOJECTS G _„ 6-12 Avalon -Blvd. Central..Ave. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane and Road diet to one westbound lane 5' bike lanes Add 15' two-way cycletrack on north side • 65' wide curb -to -curb Keep eastbound bike lane on south side • Posted speed limit 45 mph and widen it to 6' with a 3' buffer Central Ave. , - —.--- -- -- Wilrriington;Ave. • 4 lanes with median/center-turn lane and Add color to bike lanes bike lanes • 27 wide curb -to -median p._ >. Avalon+:$Ivd. i Wilmington Ave. • 2 lanes with on -street parking Signed bike route • 36 wide • Posted speed limit 35 mph k DominguezChannef.: "Central=Ave. Channelized waterway with parallel paved path CARSON MASTEP PLAN OP BIKEWAYS Add sharrows and wayfindinq signage Add bike path along. wa.erway east of Avalon Blvd., align path with north side of Del Amo Blvd, west of Avaion Blvd. Add signaiized crossing at Avalon Bivd • Coordinate with Los Angeles Countv Plood Control Distri:�_t I-110 (Unincorporated Los Angeles County limit) �;- Main St. 6 lanes with median - Add 5' colored bike lanes with 2' buffer • 40' wide curb -to -median Truck route • Posted speed limit: 45 mph Main St. Avalon,Blvd, • 6 lanes with median Add 5' colored bike lanes with 2' buffer • 35'-37' wide curb -to -median • 24-hour traffic volume in December 2009:16.200 • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 45 mph E Avalon 'Blvd. Wilmington Ave. • 4 lanes with median and 5' bike lane • 37wide curb -to -median • Truck route Posted speed limit: 45 mph Wilmington Ave. Reeves Ave, • 5 lanes (3 eastbound. 2 westbound) with median and on -street parking on the north side only • 35 wide curb -to -median • Traffic volume data not available • Truck route H.ah. vola nes of truck traffic observed • Posted soeed limit: 4-5150 mph • North side of the street is owned by Los Angeles County • Widen bike lanes to 6' and add 3' buffer Add 6' bike lane with 2' buffer on the north side • Add 5 colored bike lane on the south side • If road is widened in the future, add 6' IDike lane with 2' buffer on the south side • Coordinate with -os Angeles County CHAPi_R 6 PPOP0S D BICYCLE PPOJC Reeves Ave. I Alameda Corridor bridge west approach • 6 lanes with median Add 5colored bike lanes • 35' wide curb -to -median If road is widened in the future. add 6' • Traffic volume data not available bike lanes with 2' buffer • High volumes of truck traffic observed Coordinate with Los Angeles County Alameda Corr.i.dor_bri:dge •west approach 6-14 -. Alameda Corr..idorbridge,east:`approach _ 6 lanes with median Add 5' colored bike lanes with 2' buffers - 37' wide curb -to -median Coordinate with Los Angeles County r - ... „Aiameda Coer.idor� ridge east:approach' "RXR" (railroad crossing ahead) stri,prng' east_qf-A latneda4St.taccess`road` - 6 lanes with median _ Add type B sharrows • 32' wide curb -to -median Coordinate with Los Angeles County -; Traffic volume data not available • High volumes of truck traffic observed "RXR";(railroad crossing ahead) striping::east of Alameda St. access road -.. Santa 'Fe Ave.IDel Amo'Metro'Blue Line Station) • 5 lanes (3 eastbound, 2 westbound) with Add 5' bike lane with 2' buffer on the median and on -street parking on the north side north side only • South side option 1: Add 4' bike lane • 34' wide curb -to -median South side option 2: Add type B • Traff:c volume data not available sharrows • High volumes of truck traffic observed Coordinate with LosAngeles County Santa __Fe.Ave.`(.Del`Amo:Metro,Bl:ue Line Station) 1-::710, --------�--Add • 6 lanes with median type B sharrows---------------- • 29-32' wide curb -to -median Add bike lanes in coordination with • T afflc volume data not available Metro 1-710 Corridor Proiect fes' CARSON MAST -R PLAN OF BIKEWAYS ,+ MainSt. Avalon Blvd. ------------------------------------------------------------- ---- — - - - 2 lanes with on -street parking Add type B sharrows • 40' wide Posted speed limit: 30 mph Avalon Blvd. I G Selwyn Ave: 4 lanes with center turn lane and or, Road diet to 2 lanes: center turn lane, street parking on the north side only and on -street parking 64' wide Add 6' bike lanes with 2' buffer 2z -hour traffic volume in December 2009. 5,700 • Posted speed iii -nit. 30 mph CHAPTER 6 PPOD POS=D BICYCLE PROJ-C-S Amo Blvd. Intersection :of.Lenardo:Dr. and'Loop'Rd. A private road, Nev,, Stamps Rd.. will he Add 5-6' bike lane with 2buffer constructed here to serve the Boulevards - Option: add multipurpose path along at South Bay development '_enardc Dr. alignment • New Stamps Rd will be 27-8' from curb - to -median with 4 travel lanes and bike lanes - Intersection of.Lenardo Dr. and;Loop Rd. Avalon -..Blvd. • Bikeway called for by Boulevards at - Add 12' multipurpose path South Bay specific plan ,+ MainSt. Avalon Blvd. ------------------------------------------------------------- ---- — - - - 2 lanes with on -street parking Add type B sharrows • 40' wide Posted speed limit: 30 mph Avalon Blvd. I G Selwyn Ave: 4 lanes with center turn lane and or, Road diet to 2 lanes: center turn lane, street parking on the north side only and on -street parking 64' wide Add 6' bike lanes with 2' buffer 2z -hour traffic volume in December 2009. 5,700 • Posted speed iii -nit. 30 mph CHAPTER 6 PPOD POS=D BICYCLE PROJ-C-S Selwyn Ave. West side of, Dominguez Channel bridge 2 lanes with on-street parking Add 5' bike lanes • 40' wide Remove parking on south side of • Posted speed limit 30 mph street and widen sidewalk/add bike path between proposed path on west side of 1-405 and proposed path along 6-16 — Dominguez Channel -- -: West side of -.Dominguez Channel-bridge • 2 lanes Add 4.5' bike lanes • 29' wide _ Posted speed limit. 30 mph Chico.`St r: ;: l _ Thornas`Dr. • 2 lanes----------- -_ -� –-- — Add 6' bike e lanes • 40 wide • Posted speed limit 30 mph r ThomasDr. Martin S.t. • 2 lanes with on-stree-,I parking on the Add 6' bike lanes south side only • 40' wide • Posted speed limit: 30 mph Martin St. Wilmington Ave. - • 2 lanes with on street parking Add bike route with sharrows and • 40 wide wavfinding signage CARSON MASTEP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS l-110,(Unincorporated Los 'Angeles County limit) Main St. • 2 lanes with on -street parking Add sparrows and wayfinding signage • 33' wide Coordinate with Los Angeles County to connect 214th St. bikeway via existing bridge over 1-110 f. 1-405 Wilmington Ave. • 4 lanes with median and on -street parking • Z5' wide curb -to -median • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph • Add 6colored bike lanes CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICYCLE PPOJEC T S A Wilmington Ave. - `Driveway west of Alameda'.Corridor railroad :bridge 4 lanes with center turn lane and on- - Add 6 colored hike lanes with 2' huffer street parking • 84' wide • High volumes of truck traffic observed • Truck route 6-18 Posted speed limit. 45 mph -::Drivewaywest, of Alameda 'Corridor railroad -'bridge -- Alameda St.-accessramps ' -- 4 lanes with median Add 7' colored bike lanes • 29' wide curb -to -median Option: Add 5' colored bike lanes • High volumes of truck traffic observed Truck route —_- Posted speed limit: 45 mph — AlamedaS.t. access.ramps, Harbor'View.Ave. • 4 lanes, center turn lane. and on -street Option 1: Road diet to 2 lanes, center parking on the south side only turn lane, and on -street parking on both. 60' wide sides, add 6' bike lanes with 2 buffer • 24-hour traffic volume in December Option 2 Add type B sharrows 2009 10,400 • Posted speed limit 35 mph - - - - f Harbor`View.'Ave. — r 4: Santa -Fe Ave. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 lanes with on -street parking Option 1: Road die' to 2 lanes, center • 63' wide . turn lane, and on, -street parking; add 6' 24-hour 'traffic volume it December bike lanes with 2' buffer 2009:10,400 Option 2: Add type B sharrows • Posted soeed limit: 35 mph CARSON MAST'BR PLAN OF BIKEWAYS Figueroa St. 223rd St. • 2 lanes with on -street parking • 36' wide • Posted speed limit. 25%50 mph • Add bike route with sharrows and wavfinding signage rt. .... F ....... 6-19 1--,110 (Unincorporated'LosAngeles County limit) - - <. ..Avalo-Wl3lvd. - • 4 lanes with center turn lane and on- Add 6' bike lanes with 2' buffer street parking • 82'-84' wide • Truck route • Posted speed limit 40 mph ;Avalon Blvd: c. Wilmington Ave. — • 4 lanes with median and on -street Add 5' bike lane on -he north side parking on the north side only Add 6' bike lane with 2' buffer on the • 36' wide curb -to -median south side • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph 'Wilmington -Ave. t, Emergency signalzt City=o'f Carson FIre.Station'127 • 4 lanes with center turn lane and on - street parking • 84' wide • Truck route Posted speed limit: 45 mph • Add 6' colored bike lanes with 2' buffer CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICYCLE PRCJ'=CTS 6-20 Fes,. �• = . -, ^ Emergency signal =at -City of Carson Fire':Station 127 f BP Campus Dr 4 lanes, center turn lane, and on-stree`. Add 6' bike lanes parking on the north side only • 70 wide • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 45 mph BP Campus:Dr, Alameda St. (Los An. geles<city limit) • 6 lanes with median Road diet to 4 lanes, add 6' bike lanes • 32' wide curb -to -median with 2' buffer • 24 -Dour traffic volume in December Coordinate with City of Los Angeles to 2009. 16,200 extend project between Carson city limit • Truck route at Alameda St. and Carson city limit at • Posted speed limit: 45 mph Hesperian Ave. ^Hesperian Ave. "(Los Angeles city limit) - River -Ave. (Long Beach. .city. lirriit) • 4 lanes with median and on -street Add 6 bike lane parking on the south side only Coordinate with City of Long Beach and • 32' wide curb -to -median add type B sharrow.s on the south side • South side of street -is in City of Long Beach i-110 (Unincorporated Los,Angeles County limit) c - Avalon Blvd. • 2 lanes with on -street parking • 36-40' vide Posted speed limit: 30 mph • Add bike route with sharrows and wayfinding signage !� CARSON 1',14ST'EP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS s�� Avalon Blvd. F ; Wilmington Ave. • 2 lanes with on -street parking • 60' wide • Posted speed limit 40 mph • Add 5' bike lanes with 2' puffer a. I-110 (Unincorporated Los.Angeles County limit) Figueroa St. • 6 lanes with median/center turn lane Poad diet to four lanes with median/ • 36' wide curb -to -median center turn lane • Truck route Add 6' bike lanes with 4' buffer • PosLed speed limit 40 mph Color conflict zone at eastbound on- ramp to northbound 1-110 Figueroa St. Avalon'Blvd. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane and • Add 5' colored bike lanes on -street parking • 34' wide curb -to -median • 24-hour traffic volume in f"iay 20'12. 25,700-27,700 Avalon Blvd. Wilmington` Ave. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane and Add 5' colored bike lanes on -street parking • 34,vide curb -to -median • 24-hour traffic ,/olume in May 2012. 17.000 • Truck route • Pos.ed speed limit. 40 mnh CHAPTER 6 PPOPOSEG BICYCLE PPOJ=CTC 6-22 - I .Wilmington Ave. Alameda'St. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane • 35' wide curb -to -median • High volumes of truck traffic observed Alameda St. 1 Los Angeles:city. limit • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane • 35' wide curb -to -median • 52' wide curb -to -curb on bridge over Dominguez Channel • High volumes of truck 'traffic observed • No parking utilization observed Add 6' bile lane with 4' buffe-- • Add 6' bike lane with 2' buffer where space permits • Prohibit parking V1/ilmin;gton Drain Wilmington Ave.. • Wide railroad right-of-way Add bike path along right-of-way�� • Pailroad is active, but sees iimited train Add bridge over Main St. service Connect to proposed bike paths along • East of Avalon Blvd., right-of-way is Wilmington Drain and LADWP utility within the City of Los Angeles corridor Coordinate with BNST Pailway. City of Los Angeles, and Metro CARSON MAST=P PLAN OF BIKEWAYS LA e, 1-110 (Los An.geles'City imit) Figueroa St. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane • 35' wide curb -to -median • 24-hour traffic volume in December 2009 17,000 • Truck route • Posted speed limit. 40 mph • Add 6' bike lanes with 2' buffers • Coordinate implementation with City of Los Angeles :. Figueroa St. I Main St. • 4 lanes, median/center turn lane, and on- Add 7' bike lane with 5' buffer street parking on the south side only Coordinate implementation with City of • 34' wide curb -to -median Los Angeles • No traffic volwne data available • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph _ Main St. Wiimington;Bivd. - — — • 4 lanes, median/center turn lane, and on- On the north side, add 6' bike lane with street parking on the south side only 2' buffer • 34' wide curb -to -median • On the south side, add 6' bike lane • No traffic volume data available Coordinate imolementanon with City of • Truck route - - - Los Angeles - - - - • Posted speed limit. 40 mph, • _;,'Wilmington.Blvd: r Los Angeles city limit • 4 lanes median/center turn lane and on - street par king • 79 wide • 24-hour traffic volume in December 2009. ---.--,0 0 • Truck route • Posted speed limit ZO mph • Add 6' bike lanes • Coordinate implementation with Cit,,, of Los Angeles CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICYCLE PROJECTS 6-23 6-24 a ; NORTH -SOUTH BIKEWAYS e Sepulveda .Blvd. ;west: of Figueroa St. Lomita Blvd. west of 1=110 (in City of Los Angeles) 71 41 • Channelized waterway with unpaved Add bike path along right-of-way path along east side for majority of Add railroad crossing at BNSF railroad corridor Add lighting under 1-110 • Portion south of 1-110 is within City of Coordinate with: Los Angeles and has no parallel unpaved Los Angeles County Flood Control path District • Caltrans • City of Los Angeles • BNSF Railway • California Public Utilities Commission (for railroad crossing) • Adjacent property owners, as necessary Aiondra'Blvd. F,. Del Amo._Blvd. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane and on -street parking 82' wide curb -to -curb 32vide curb -to median • 24-hour traffic volume in Mav 2012 10,100-15,000 Western portion of street is in City of Los Angeles from Alondra Blvd. to Victoria St CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS Road diet to one lane in each direction, make on -street parking permanen., and add 6' bike lanes with 2' buffer on travel lane side and 2' buffer on parking side of bike iane • Coordinate with City of Los .Angeles where jurisdiction over street is shared Del:Amo Blvd. r 223rd St. --- -- — • 4 lanes with rnedian/center turn lane and Add 5-6' coiored bike lanes on -street parking • 82' wide curb -to -curb • 32' wide curb -to -median • 24-hour traffic volume in May 2012 10.800-21,700 - ... - 223rd 'St. Lomita: Blvd. • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane and Road diet to one lane in each direction, on -street parking make on -street parking permanent. and • 82' wide curb -to -curb add 6 bike lanes with 2 buffer on travel • 32' wide curb-io-median lane side and 2' buffer on parking side of • 24-hour traffic volume in May 20':2: bike lane 13.500 arson St. 228th St. • 2 lanes with on-stree. parking Add bike route with sharrows and • 40' wide wayfinding signage • Posted speed limit 30 mph CHAP i ER 6 PROPO= BICYC_`= PP--J-C-'S 6-25 6-26 Alondra'Blvd. Griffith`St. • 4 lanes with center turn lane and on- Add 5' bike lanes street parking • 75' wide • 24-hour traffic volume in December 2009. 3,800-5,700 • Truck route • Posted speed limit 40 mph r� Griffitfi.-St. _, i. Main St. v o =:) • 2 lanes with on -street parking Add 6' bike lanes • 54' wide • Truck route • Posted speed limit 40 mph • Truck route • Posted speed limit 40 mph ¢ - Victoria St. 220th :St. • 4 lanes with center turn lane/median and Add 6' bike lanes to sections with on -street parking median • 83' wide curb -to -curb Add 6bike lanes with 2 buffer to 34' wide curb -to -median sections withou: median • Pos-ed speed limit 45 mE)h CARSON MASTEP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS ,. 220th°St. .223rd St. • 4- lanes with center turn lane/median and on-street parking • 83' wide curb-to-curb • 32' wide curb-to-median • Posted speed lirnit 35 mph ^%;_223rd'-St. Add 5' colored bike lanes to sections with median • Add 6colored bike lanes with 2' buffer to sections without median .: LomitaBlvd. • 4 lanes with median and on -street Add 6' colored bike lanes parking Add type B sharrows at railroad • 34' wide curb -to -median underpass • 22' wide curb -to -median for brief section at BNSP railroad underpass • A portion of this segment is a truck route • Posted speed limit 40 mph 'Main`St. (end:of existing Dominguez Channel path) ., <223rd'.St. • Channelized waterway with parallel Add bike paths along both sides of unpaveb paths along both sides waterway (prioritize implementation on •- -Proposed bike path in Los Angeles the east side) - County Bicycle Master Pian Add access points at existing bridges over channel • Coordinate with Los Angeles County Flood Control District 223rd :St. North of Pacific Coast Highwa,y'(Los An.geles.city,limit) Channelized waterway with parallel Add bike path on east side unpaved paths aiong both, sides Add access point at Sepulveda Blvd. • Proposed bike path in Los Angeles Coordinate with '_os Angeles County County Bicycle Master Pian Blood Control District CHAPTER 6 PROPOS-D BICYCLE PPOJ=CTS .� istn st. 22'3rd St. • 2 lanes with- on -street parking Add bike route with sparrows and • Signed bike route wavfinding signage • 40' wide • Posted speed limit 30 mph a V,223rd5t. — -- 6-28 :Sepulveda Blvd. • 2 lanes, center turn (lane on -street Replace "Bike Route" signs with "Bike Parking, and 5' bike s Lane" signs _ - 56' wide • Option l: Widen bike lanes to 6' • Signed as "Bike Route" at Sepulveda Option 2 Remove Blvd center turn lane, widen bike lanes to 6,' and add 2' buffer 24-hour traffic volume in December on travel lane side and 2' buffer on -= 2009 4.300 -' parking side of bike lane Posted speed limit: 35 mph - _ Carson' Plaza Dr. y,, "'" Lenardo,Dr.,alignment.at -Boulevards 'at,'S.outh'Bay • Utility corridor connecting Dominguez Add bike path along LADWP Utili-y Channel to Southbay Pavilion Corridor right-of-way • Plant nursery located within utility CoordinatAngele e with Los s corridor Department of Water and Power Flood control channel passes underneath nursery, and Los Angeles County Flood i-405 and connects to channel on the Control District perimeter of the Boulevards at South Add bridge over Dominguez Channel Bay project Add bike path along flood control channel to connec, .c proposed multipurpose path on Ler,ardo Dr. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS Alondra :Blvd. Walnut'.St. • 6 lanes with median • 34' curb -to -median • 24-hour traffic volume in May 20:2. 24.000 • Posted speed limit 40 mph Walnut.<St. ~Victoria St. • 6 lanes with median • 49' wide curb -to -median • 24 -Dour traffic volume in May 2012: 29.900 • Posted speed limit: 40 mph Victoria St: University.Dr. 6 lanes with right turn lane for Home Depot Center. rnedian, and on -street parking on the northbound side only 38' wide, curb -to -median southbound side • 4-7wide, curb -to -mediae, northbound Road diet to two lanes in each direction • Add 6 bike lanes with 4' buffers 6-29 • Add 6' bike lanes with 4' buffers ---- • Add 6' colored bike lane northbound • Add 6' colored bike lane with 2' buffer southbound • Option Add 15' two-wa-v cycletrack on the east side of the street side- 21-1-hour ide 24-hour traffic volume in Mav 2012: 23.000 • Posted speed limit 40 mph U n i ve rs ity :Dr. Del Amo,Blvd. 6 lanes with median and 5' bike lanes 47' wide curb -to -median 2^ -hour traffic volume in Niay 20-;2 25.200 Posed speed limit 40 mph • Widen bike lane to 6. add 4' buffer and add color • Option: Continue road diet and use resulting space for sidewalk improvements or addi'.ional bikeway improvements CHAPTER 6 PROPOS -D BICYCLE PPOJEC-B E, Del 'Amo=Blvd. - .: -South side.of-Dominguez Channel':bridge • 6 lanes with median Add 6' colored bike lanes • 32'-48' wide curb -to -median Where right-of-way constraints • 24-hour traffic volume in May 2012 necessitate, add type B sharrows 24,100 • Posted speed limit 35 mph 6-30 Southside of.D.ominguez'Channel bridge j End df -median'-south southbound ramps - – -- 5-6 lanes with median Road diet to 4 lanes --- _ 28'-48' wide curb -to -median Add 6' colored bike lanes with 2' buffer • 24 -Hour traffic volume in May 20112 ME 31,100 -- Posted speed limit 35 mph — --- . J End of mediansouth of.1-405 southbound ramps �. Carson -St. — _ 6 lanes with medianOption 1. Poad diet to 4 lanes, add 6' 34' wide curb -to -median colored bike lanes with 4' buffer • 2z -hour traffic volume in May 20 2: Option 2. Add 4' bike lanes 28,100-31.100 Option 3 Add sharrows and wayfinding • Posted speed limit 35 mph signage Carson St. - - - _ Sepulveda -Blvd: - - • 4 lanes wi,h center turn lane and on- Add 6' colored bike lanes with 2' buffer street parking 83' wide • Posted speed limit, 35 mph CAP.SON MAST -P PLAN Or BIKEWAYS ,. Sepulveda Blvd. South :of BtVSF railroad:crossing'(Los Angeles city limit) • 4 lanes with median and on -street parking • 35' wide curb -to -median • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 -mph • Add 6 bil-;e lanes with buffer U. Turmont,St Le.apwood Ave. • 2 lanes with and on -street parking Add bike route with sharrows and • 40' wide wavfinding signage • Posted speed limit. 25 mph CHAPTER. 6 PROPOSED BICYC'_E PR;)J-CTS "4j 6-32 rz Denwall`br. y $ Del Amo -Blvd. ' 2 lanes with on -street parking Add bike route with • �0 wide sharrows and • Posted speed limit: 25 mph wavfmdrng signage ---------- Dei Amo -'.Blvd. -- -- — — ' Dovle'n Pl. • 2 lanes with center turn lane and 5' bike— --- • No change from existing lanes conditions ' 40' wide • Posted speed limit: 35 mph ;povlen P1. i -.�ominguez St. v • 2 lanes with center turn lane and 5'bike lanes e —=— Wid i bike lanes to 7' • 47' wide • Posted speed limit: 35 mph Dominguez St. -,% '213th ':St. • 2 lanes with center turn lane and 5' bike lanes --- Widen bike lanes to e' and add 2` buffer - -�8 wide _ • Posted speed limit: 45 mph - Civic`Plaza Dr. • 2 lanes with on -street parking 4C' wide Posted speed limit: 25 mph CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS Add bike route with sharrows and wavfinding signage t .Desforcl St.' Roundabout at Merchants': Bank of California`.buildin.g 2 lanes Add bike route with sharrows and • 25' wide wavfinding signage • Posted speed limit. 25 mph Roundabout at Merchants Bank of California :building . „ Carson' St. ---- 2 lanes -------- --- --- Add 6' bike lanes • 40' wide • Posted speed limit 25 mph CHAPTER a PROPOS=D BICYCLE PPOJ=C-S f 213th'St. a BNSF Railway Harbor Subdivision Mostly vacant right-of-way along west side of ;-405 and high-voltage power line corridor Some plant nurseries located within utility corridor south of 223rd St. South of Deloras Dr., right-of-way is within the City of Los Angeles • Add bike path along right-of-wav • Add signal where proposed path crosses Carson St • Link to proposed Dominguez Channel bike path via connecting path along 213th St. (see 213th St. proposed bikeways) Connect to proposed path along BNSP Railway Harbor Subdivision Coordinate with Caltrans, Los Angeles Department of Water- and Power, City of Los Angeles, and utility corridor tenants, as necessary .. .. Greenleaf Blvd. Walnut St. • 4 lanes with median Add 6' bike lanes with 4- buffer • 34' wide curb -to -median CoordinaLe with City of Compton • East side of street is in City of Compton • Truck route • Posted speed limit 40 mph _ a Wainut.St. Artesia'BIvd. • S lanes (2 northbound. 3 southbound) with median 34` wide curb -to -median • Traffic volume data not available East side of street is in Ci_y of COmL)ton • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWA`r'S • Coordinate with City of Compton and add 6' bike lane with 4' buffer on east side of street • West side option l Remove 1 southbound travel lane and add 6' bike lane with 4' buffer Wes- side option 2. Add 4bike lane r Artesia Blvd. F. Albertoni St. 6 lanes with center turn lane Add 6' colored bike lanes 84' wide curb -to -curb Coordinate with City of Compton • Traffic volume data not available • East side of street is in City of Compton • Truck route • Posted speed limit: 40 mph 6-35 F, Albertoni St. } University'Dr, — • 4 lanes with median/center turn lane Add 12' cvcletrack on west side of street — • Wide sidewalk/bicycle sidepath on west Add 6 bike lanes with 4' buffer on east -- side of street between Aspen Hill Rd. and side of street University Dr. Add bike signals at intersections - • 35' wide curb -to -median Option: Add 6' bike lanes with 4 'buffer — • 84' wide curb -to -curb Add "Bike Path" signage and pavement - • Truck route markings Io sidepath; add signage • Posted speed limit: 40 mph notifying motorists of crossing bicyclists at intersec.ions j University.Dr. Del Amo "Blvd. • 4 lanes with median and 5' bike lanes Widen bike lanes to 6and add 4' buffer 35' wide curb -to -median • Posted speed limit 40 mph CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICYC'=E PPOJ=CTS 213th.:5t. T Carson.'St. • 3 lanes with on -street parking • 56' wide • Posted speed limit: 35 mph E .Carson'St. Dominguez Channel 6-36 --------- • 2 lanes with on -street parking --- 40' wide ---' Posted speed limit: 25 mph i C !� CAP.SON MAST=P PLAN OF BIKEWAYS • Add 6' bike lanes • Add bike route with sharrows and wayrinding signage • Connect to proposed Dominguez Channel path via vacant lot southeast of Vera St./213th St. intersection • Add bridge to cross Dominguez Channel FIGURE 6.1 FIGURE 6.2 L,,l'!,,.,n,; LEGEND 6-42 A-; v� 2"K CAPSON E7 PROPOSE® BICYCLE PARKING END -OF -TRIP Chapter 5 discusses that Carson already has bicycle racks at FACILITIES most City parks and City Hall. To enhance the convenience of bicycling for current cyclists and to encourage additional bicycle travel, the City should expand the quantity and types of bicycle parking i; supplies as well as the locations at which it supplies parking. As Figure 6.2 illustrates, the City should provide bicycle park- ing at all public parks. The City may want to add additional bi- 6-43 cycle racks at parks that already have them—both to augment capacity and to replace poor -quality racks that do not meet the design specifications presented in Chapter 10. Further, the City should work with school districts to make sure that all V-12 schools in Carson have adequate bicycle parking facilities. For larger schools, such as Carson High School and California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH). the City must also work to provide bicycle lockers—which may be used by staff c. and for other longer-term bicycle storage needs—in addition to ample bicycle racks. Further in partnership with CSUDH and AEG, the City should supply bike racks at the Home De- _ pd. Center At City Hall, Carson can supplement existing bike parking with additional bike racks, and can provide bicycle lockers for em- ployees Other community destinations. including the Con- gresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald Community Center and -Carson's -libraries, need additional- bicycle -parking as welt: The City of Carson will need to coordinate with Los .Angeles County to provide bicycle parking at libraries. .Additionally, Carson should collaborate with Metro to supply bicycle racks and lockers at the Southbay Pavilion transit hub. in addition to parking recommendations at individual loca- tions. F !gore 62 displays commercial and mixed use zoning for the City of Carson. As appropriate; the City should provide bicycle racks within the public right-of-way throughout these areas. The types of parking provided could include sidewalk racks as well as bike corrals, which replace one or more car parking spaces with several bike parking spaces. As men CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED BICYCLE PPOJ=CTS 6-44 tinned in Chapter 4, the City aims to establish a "request a rack" program. In this program, businesses can request bicycle parking in front of their business that the City would install—at no cost to the business—in the public right-of-way. This pro- gram represents an effective way to prioritize bicycle parking in commercial areas The City snould also install racks where bicycles are regularly seen locked to trees, parking meters, or other fixtures. The City will seek funds for an ongoing bicycle parking pro- gram so it can add parking as discussed above. OTHER AMENITIES Key civic destinations. certain large employers, and CSUDH already provide showers for their employees and students. re- spectively. A potential next step, pending demand, may be to open showers in public buildings to members of the public who commute by bicycle. In addition to bicycle parking requirements. the Citv should require showers and clothing lockers in large new commercial developments. The 2010 California Green Building Standards Code recommends the following Changing rooms. Por buildings with over 10 tenant -oc- cupants, provide changing/shower facilities for tenant - occupants only in accordance with Table 6.1 or document - arrangements with nearby changing/shower facilities. =or Public schools and community colleges provide chana- ing%shower facilities for the "number of administrative/ teaching staff " equal to the "number of tenant occupants" shown in Tabie 6.i. The City should also enact a "bikes in buiidings" ordinance stipulating that owners of commercial office buildings provide secure bicycle storage for employees and/or allow tenants to bring bicycles into the building. Bicycling is a great way to get to work, but often barriers exis1 at the vvorkplace. including tl .e lack of a safe; secure place to store bicycles or private pro- hibitions on bikes in buildings. When commuters are allowed CARSON! MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS to bring bicycles into the workplace, they may be more likely to bicycle to work. City staff should determine appropriate pa- rameters for Carson TABLE 6.1 L'n.3 gi, rr,nv, 0-10 0 0 11-50 1 unisex shower 2 51-100 1 unisex shower 3 101-200 1 shower stall per 4 gender Over 200 1 shower stall per 1 locker for each gender for each 25 additional 200 additional tenant -occupants tenant -occupants ESTIMATEDThe US Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey NUMBER �� 'p1 1 -year estimates show that abou: 780 out of some 39.000 ISE U M BER OF Carson workers age 16 and over commute by bicycle; which is EXISTING G a mode split of abou` 02% BIKEThe City hereby sets a goal of S°ic of all commute trips to be COMMUTERS made by bicycle when this plan is fuller implemented 20 years 1`i tJ J from now Carson's plan is ambitious, hov,/ever o`her cities that A;�_® have -become bicycle -friendly, and have- supported bicycles ESTIMATEDthrough policy engineering, encouragement, enforcement p�� education. and evaluation campaigns, have seen roughly this IN C R EARS E_ level of increase. CHAPTER 6 PPOPOS=D BICYC' S PPOJ=CTS This page intentionally left blank, CARSON MASTER PLAN OFBiKEVVAYS PROPOSE® Cities that implement programs that support bicycling see /� p� greater shifts in behavior among residents than cities that PROGRAMS implement physical projects alone. Although changing the physical environment is very important to make bicycling safe and attractive, non -infrastructure programs help to spark and sustain long-term behavioral change among Carson residents Programs are grouped into four primary categories; each tar- gets different issues that affect bicycling. 7-2 Enforcement programs deter unsafe behaviors of drivers, pe- destrians and bicyclists, and encourage all road users to obey traffic laws and share the road safely. Enforcement is one of -- the complementary strategies that will enable more residents to bike safely. Education activities include teaching safe driving around bicy- clists, safe bicycling, and traffic laws, and creating g awareness of the benefits of a healthy and safe walking and bicycling environment. _ Encouragement programs generate excitement about bicy- cling. They can help spread the message that bicycling is not only beneficial for health, social, and economic reasons, but are enjoyable as well. Encouragement strategies are especially important when working with youth. Evaluation is used to determine if goals are being met, help di- - rect resources, ang expand programsandefforts. Conducting_ regular evaluations will be key to understanding the efficacy of programs. CARSON! MA STEP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) recom- mends six concepts to guide program development: 1. Make walking and bcvclina, "try-abie " Give people a chance to "try out" bicycling instead of driving for something they do regularly. This couid be by organiz- ing a group ride to School or providing route rnaps for a citywide event, etc. 2. Communicate the behavior you want to see. Bumper stickers, billboards, banners, signs. pamphlets, and public service announcements can all convey messages to en- courage travel by bicycle. 3 Reward behavior. Provide incentives and gifts to moti- vate people to try bicycling for a trip. These strategies are especially effective for school children. With rewards in place, people are more likely to continue bicycling once they've tried it. 4. Make it convenient. Design bike -friendly places through- out the City; prioritize improvements to key destinations such as downtown, routes to school. and along commer- cial corridors. 5 Institutionalize support for bicycling. Strong policies tha_ support bicycling will help guide programs and ensure ideas have staying power. 6. Capitalize on other agendas. Making bicycling part of the solution to a wider range of issues the community faces such as obesit,,, environmental concerns and economic depression This can help grow the bicycle movement_ Following ':hese principles will help Carson aevelop a well- rounded program. The Ci:y will consider enacting the following programs within the next five years. The City wil also establish a bicycle coor- dinator position, or will assign bicycle coordinator duties to existing staff. COMMUNITY TASK FORCE -he City_ snould first consider organizing a forma! commun - tv task: force that meets regularly to discuss blcyCling issues. CHAPTER 7 BICYC_E PROGRAMS T hrough the Master Plan of Bikeways process, Carson staff en- gaged many parents, students, and business -owners. These stakeholders can form the task force. Task force members can also include: • City staff from Public Works and Community Services Departments • Students • Parents • Teachers 7_4 Principals • Law enforcement • Fire department Local bicycle and pedestrian organizations Neighborhood business owners • Hospital/public health staff There are several reasons to organize a high-level, community - led task force: _-- 1. Identify key tDroblems Who better than Carson residents business -owners, and employees to identify the barn- _ e -s to walking and bicyciing? This group will be able -o discuss specific issues and locations in Carson that may serve as barriers to bicycling Working as a team, the task force can then address problems with a mul:!-facet- ed approach. Craft messaging Successful campaigns and messaging _ are typically those crafted by and for the community itself. Key stakeholders will know what messaging will resonate with their peers. 3 Organize the community By including a diverse set of stakeholders in the task force. each member will be able to relay messages to his or her constituents. This will help increase the level of public participation. 4 Promote the program Stakeholders will feel ownership over much of the programming, and will likely want to promote the cause. Members can spread the ,message and encourage the rest of the communi-y to get in- volved. CARSON Mo,STEP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS Examples of programming by type (enforcement, education, encouragement, evaluation) that have been successful in other communities are outlined below. With the assistance of the task force, Carson should customize a comprehensive pro- gram for itself. ENFORCEMENT Enforcement activities bring the community together to pro- mote safe walking, bicycling, and driving. Law enforcement 7-5 plays a key role in this effort, however, residents and youth can get involved as well As a first step, the City should convene a meeting with local lav\- enforcement. Officers have first-hand knowledge of un- safe behavior and locations. In addition, mutual understand- ing of the purpose, direction, and benefits of an enforcernent campaign between the law enforcement, staff.. and commu- nity will be critical. A law enforcement representative should be a part of the community task: force. The second step is to identify unsafe behaviors and locations. _ These can range from speeding vehicles to bicycles riding the wrong direction. Outreach at schools, events like "National Night Out," or with the established community task force can help identify hot spots and issues. This will assis law enforce- ment and community members in shaping a campaign. Law Enforcement Methods Law enforcement use a varie'.y of methods to enforce driver pedestrian, and cyclist behavior. Active education campaigns should coincide with targeted enforcement. If officers plan to 'target speeding, a media campaign informing citizens to slo\,^ down and obey the posted speed limit will complemen. the effort. Enforcement methods include 1. Sneed Trailers and Active Speed Monitors. Speed wailers and active speed monitors display the speed of oncom- ing vehicles. Speed trailers are portable, whereas speed monitors are ins.alled at permanent iocat-ions_ Both de - CHAPTER 7 BICYCLE P OG�A.hS j s° 1�� vices help officers trach: motorist speed display current speed to motorists, and create awareness of the posted speed limit. Devices should be placed at known iocaticns with reported speeding, and should be used in conjunc- tion with random ticketing operations. ', Traffic '"omnlain� Hotlines Carson residen-s can repor` non -emergency 'traffic violations to lav, enforcement if there is an established traffic complaint hotline. Officers can target problem areas more effectively wit'^, records of traffic complaints. This also allows the community to engage efficiently with officers. S Photo Enforcement. Automated photo enforcement takes a real-time photo of traffic to record vehicle speeds and behaviors. It can be used to document speeders and those who drive dangerously through crosswalks. Often the presence of cameras alone can help curb dangerous behavior The use of cameras will require a complimentary public education campaign. and should be evaluated by the City Attorney prior to use. 4. Speed Enforcemen* in School Zones Strict enforcement Of speed laws in school zones can improve the safe,;; for children walking and bicycling to school A 'zero toier- ance' policy for speeders in school zones, and an in- crease in fines for drivers who violate the posted school zone speed limit, are both potential approaches. 5 Presence. The presence Of officers at random locatio-:s throughout the City can be an enforcement tool in and - of itself. Drivers fear of getting ticketed can serve o correct behavior. b. Other Personal Safety Concerns Often, people do no-, walk or bike because they are concerned about their personal safety Lave enforcement can increase patrol in areas identified by residents. Officers should wort; \vith the community to create an enforcement strategy that addresses these concerns. CARSON M4STEP PLAN OF EIKEWAYS Community Enforcement Residents have an important part to play in enforcement ini- tiatives. Community members can work with officers to assist with catching repeat offenders letting officers know where there are problems, and setting examples fa- friends and neighbors. 1. Student Safety Patrols. Student safety patrols enhance enforcement of drop-off and pick-up procedures at schools by increasing safety for students and traffic flow efficiency for parents. Having a student safety patrol program at a school requires approval by the school and a committed teacher or parent volunteer to coordinate the student trainings and patrols. Before beginning a program, school officials should be contacted for ap- proval of the program and to determine how liability issues will be addressed. 2. Corner Captains. The corner captain program is effective in neighborhoods with short, grid -like blocks. with clear sight lines from street to street. The program is effec- tive in neighborhoods where lack of adult supervision is a barrier to walking and bicycling. Neighbors or parents agree to stand at a corner of a route to school during the start or end of the school day to supervise kids as they walk to or from school. VVith short blocks and clear sight lines, students will be seen the entire length of the block. Corner captains should wear refle:tive, vests. 3 Neiehborhood Spee{ Wa-ch/Radar Lending Program If speeding is a problem, law enforcement officers can lend their speed radar guns to students or residents to check speeds of passing vehicles. The student or resident re- cords the license plate number of anv speeding vehicies, and law enforcernen': will send a speeding notice warn- ing to the motorist. /`, group of organized neighbors can also commit to periodically monitoring streets for speed- ina vehicles. 4. Pace Vehicle. Residents can set the pace on streets in their neighborhood by driving no faster than the posted speed limit. On streets with only one lane in each direr - tion. this will effectivelyforce othe!' ITlotorl5ts t0 Drive CHAPTER 7 BICYC''E PROGRAtv"S 7-7. I 7_fz slower Many communities distribute stickers that sav "Neighborhood Pace Car - Drive the Speed Limit" which residents can place on their rear windshield. EDUCATION Define the Problems and Goals Much like enforcement campaigns, defining education -related problems and goals should be the first step prior to program- ming. Some of the key education problems have already been identified as part of this planning process. For example, cor - munity members expressed concern about bicyclists traveling fast on the sidewalks, and about bicyclists riding without lights. It is likely that law enforcement Has found motorists speeding on neighborhood streets, or passing bicyclists too closely at high speed. Some examples of common bicycle -related prob- lems that can be addressed through education are • Commuters are unaware of alternative ways of traveling to work • Developers, designers, and engineers are not using the best design practices for bicyclists • Motorists are not aware _hat bicyclists can legally ride in the road • Bicyclists do not know how to ride safely and predict- ably • Motorists and bicvclists do no- understand the meaning of sharrows After the community and city staff identify the key education - related problems, they can create goals and objectives. If pos- sible, they should be measurable. Identify the audiences 'Educational programs must be tailored to specific audiences in order to effectively address the behaviors the programs seek to modify, Por example, a child bicyclist will need differ- ent education on how, to ride than an adult bicyciist. Similarly, different messaging vnll resonate with teen drivers than ad! Ir CARSON MASTE:P MAST-PPLAN OF BIKEWAYS drivers. The most common audiences that will benefit from education prograrns include Road users — drivers (young, adult, older), bicyciis.s and pedestrians (children teens, adulis/parentsineighbors, seniors) 2 Commuters and employers 3. Officials and policy n rakers — engineers, planners, coun- cil members, law enforcement 4. Visitors For each group, the City should consider when and how the audience should receive the information, and the demograph- ic factors that may affect how the audience understands/per- ceives the information. Descriptions of educational campaigns and programs that have been successful in other communities are described below. Each should be tailored to Carson's spe- cific issues and audiences. Citywide Campaigns 1, Public Service Announcements. Carson can promote and educate residents about walking and bicycling through frequent public service announcements (PSAs) on local channels. Organizations such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Safe Kids Coah- . tion, and California Office of Tra`fic Safety, have existing PSAs that Carson can use. Carson can incorporate its own logos and slogans into these PSAs. Carson's mayor or council-rmembers could also record their own radio or television announcements for broadcast. Los Angeles' Mayor recently recorded PSAs alerting motoris.s to give a bicyclist 3 feet when passing, and stressing d e impor- tance of wearing a helme` while riding. 2. Bicycle Maps and Guides. Attractive maps with bicycle routes to destinations in Carson can serve as an educ-a- tional tool. The guide should showcase hove easy it is to get around Carson through alternative modes, and in- clude.ips on safe bicycling. The guide should be distrib- uted at kiosks throughout the City, and at local bicycle shops, CHAPTER 7 BICYCLE PROGRAMS 3. Print and Media Campaign Carson can incorporate edu- cational messages such as "STOP! It could be someone YOU love in the crosswalk" or "Use the other pedal and slow down" into media coverage, events: street banners, maps, posters, stickers, guides, etc Carson should work with the community to craft messaging that addresses specific educational goals. Messaging should be multilin- gual if necessary. 4. Signs/Pavement Markings. Educational signage and pavement markings such as "bicyclists may use full lane", 7-10 and "riding the wrong way'' signs on sidewalks can help spread educational messages. Depending on the type of sign or marking, the City may need to go through an experimental process with the California Traffic Control Device Committee (CTCDC) and/or Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 5 Enforcement Education. The City should work with lo- cal law enforcement to consider creating a Diversion Program. This program serves as "traffic school" for any road user that violates rules concerning walking and bicycling. Rules concerning bicyclist and pedestrian behavior are often misunderstood The program should specifically address motorists on how to irteract vAth bicyclists and.pedestrians. and clarify misconceptions. Huntington Beach is one of the only cities in Southern California tha: has a diversion program, it can serve as an example for Carson. Commuters and Employers 1. Bike -Buddy Program. The City should work with employ- ers to start a "bike -buddy program.- This program would pair experienced cyclists with new cyclists to bicycle to work together. The City could offer organized skills training prior to the progran-i's kick-off tc teach bicycling safety skills to all employees. 2 Economic Health and Environmental Benefits, The City should create a presentation to educate employers on the potential economic, health, and environmental ber- efits if their em,—�loyees walked and bicycled instead of drove. Employers of a cer-,air, size must meet air quali-.y CARSON MASTER PLAN, OF BIKEWAYS I as part of outreach strategies for new development pro- - ects, or as a comprehensive SPTS program. A bicycle ds. E audit leads interested stakeholders on a set course to discuss how comfortable the area is, concerns, and what can be done to improve the area Educational compo- nents to the audit include discussing safety at specific locations and safe riding tips before the audit. 3. Public Transit and Taxi Driver Training. Operators of buses and taxis should receive special training on how to interact with bicyclists. Bus operators should also know how to operate bicycle racks on the bus. 7-13 ENCOURAGEMENT --__ Encouragement strategies promote bicycling as a fun activ- ity, and generate excitement and interest. Encouragement = programs play a key role in making bicycling "the norm " By showcasing how fun and easy it can be to bicycle, there is an opportunity to shift the perceptions of the community. Encouragement programs should target the same audiences ;rs'`- as education campaigns. Many encouragement programs aremost successful when paired with existing institutions - such as schools or large businesses. Strategies to encourage bicycling are limited only by the imag- ination. They can be anything crea-ive such as contests. rides, special districts,_ etc. Getting the community involved to create messaging and programs will be essemia! to program success. Activities :hat can serve as a model to kick-start Carson's en- couragement programs are described beiow. Citywide Campaigns 1 Public Ar-. Public art, such as murals and sculptures, have been used to promote ideals and inform the com- munity of important issues The City can solicit help from local artists children, and volunteers tc create art that would encourage residents to live physically active lives. Mobile Exhibi. The City could organize a traveling ex- hibit promoting bicycling. The exhibit couid have photc CHAPTER 7 BICYCLE PROGRAMS A lot 7_1d displays of new facilities around Carson, videos promot- ing bicycling, maps and guides. etc. This kiosk could be present during community events and local festivals. 3. First Friday Bike Rides The City could initiate a cam- paign to bike in the evening as a community the first Friday of every month. This will help create awareness. make it fun to walk together as families and neighbors, and the City could provide central meeting points or mu- sic during the event in the Downtown area. 4 Two -Wheel Tuesdays. The City can work with community members to start a designated day tha: encourages resi- dents to ride their bicycles together io work or for short trips. The City can promote the days through its website, and offer incentives such as free food or snacks at parks throughout Carson for those who arrive by bicycle. S. Ciclovia. Started in Columbia, a ciclovia is a regular clos- ing of a network of streets for exclusive use by non - motorized users. CicLAvia in Los Angeles draws over 100,000 people during each event. Streets are public space - this event helps residents see a new use for streets, and gets them used to walking and bicycling in a safe environment without cars. Volunteers are needed to support the event. G. Eauipment Giveaways Carson can work with local law enforcement to create a program to give away found bi- cycles to low-income residents. to addition. the Citv can start a heirnet, lights and bicycle fund. 7. Bike-Friendiv Business Distric- (BFBD). Long Beach - began the first 3FBD-program-irr2010. The progran-, encourages merchants and their customers to replace cars with bicvcles. The City works with local business owners in certain retail districts to offer incentives such as discounts for bicyclists, free bike vale free bike tune- upsbicycle parking, and special stickers. This creates an incentive to arrive by bicycle, and works ,Aiel! for the merchants who often see an increase in the number of customers. 8. Bicvcle Sharing. A bicycle sharing program is a service in which bicycles have been purchased by the jurisdiction or in partnership with an oL`Iside organization to orovide bicycles at certain locations for shared use by the corn - CARSON MASTBP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS munity. Many cities throughout the United States and internationally have had success with bicycle sharing programs. These programs are especially useful \,viten there may be a large tourist population, or for use in the central business district. The number. location, type of bicycle, and the payment sys-lem vary from program :o program Youth Specific 1. "Walk and Poll" Wednesdays City staff can work with parents and teachers at local elementary schools to establish a designated walk and bicycle to school day. Tokens such as bicycle lights or stickers can be given to those students that participate by walking or bicycling to school on the specified day. As part of this regular walking and bicycling day, the City can also ;participate on International Walk to School Day. 2, Mileage Club. School administrators can create a mile- age club competition for the most miles bicycled by a student, classroom, or school. Prizes can be given to the group that accrues the most miles over a set period of time. Z. Bicvcle Trains- Bicycle 'trains are organized bicycling groups. An adult supervises and leads a bicycling group of children to of from. school Commuters and Employers -1 - Comrrrtiter-of the Month. Employers could -organize a "commuter of the month" competition for the employee that commutes to work using alternative modes of trans- portation the most trips of the month. Prizes can vai-Y. 2. Bike to Work Month. May is National Bicycle Month. and the City can piggy -back on this designated month with various activities for employers and employees Por example, employers can organize a bicycle to work day or week, with events at -,he employment site or prizes for those who commute by bicycle. 3. Parking Cash -out. California law requires emplo,/ers of a cei­aiin size who provide subsidized parkins, to offer cash allowances in lieu of the parking space. The explicit CHAPT=P. 7 BICYCLE PPOGPAMS purpose of this law is to encourage getting to work by alternative modes. The City should work with employers ,o hold an informational workshop, complete with sl,<ills training guides of how to get to work via transit_ walking or bicycling, and how to participate in parking cash -out, as an educational and encouragement program. EVALUATION 7-16 Evaluation is used to determine whether goals and objectives are being met. The benefits of conducting regular program - and project evaluations will ensure underlying problems are being addressed, will help set reasonable expectations, Iden- - tify changes to improve the program, determine whether the program has the desired results. and help make adjustments _— to the program as needed. Evaluation can take many forms, from bicycle counts to attltudinai surveys. In addition,, evalu- ation is a very important par. of garnering additional funding i - - for bicycle projects. Baseline Data Collection Collecting baseline data about arti-udes toward bicycling. how people travel throughout Carson, infrastructure deficiencies. and crash data, will help inform program develooment. The following are pieces of data the City should consider collect ing, evaluating. and incorporating results into policy and capi- tal improvement projec. decisions 1- -!attitudinal survevs Survey questions such as-' Ghat de-- ters you from bicyclingT" or "what mode do you use for short trips?" aim to understand attitudes toward bicy- cling, and common concerns. These surveys can be done citywide, or as part of a SP.TS program for parents. 2 Mode of travel survey This survey asks what mode a re- spondent used for a certain trip. Mode of travel surveys are commonly done in schools as part o` SPT- to find out.how many children walked, bicycled, were driven, etc- This will help city staff understand the current state ® CARSON M/L,STEP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS z of walkina and bicycling. 3 Bicvcle Counts. Counting numbers of bicyclists around the City can help staff prioritize improvements. These counts can also be included in travel demand models The Southern California Association of Governments is developing a count methodology which should be avail- able for use by jurisdictions in 2013. 4 Crash Data. Analyzing crash data for type of crash, par- ties involved, and location will give a picture of safety of bicyclists, pedestrians and motoris.s. This data can also help set priorities. 7-17 Program -specific Evaluation - Another type of evaluation is to define goals and then cor- responding objectives and measurements to achieve those objectives. For example, suppose the City plans to install bike t: lanes on a street with the objective to increase bicycle activity and decrease bicyclist -involved crashes. Prior to installation, staff" can conduct Bicvcle counts and analyze the location of bicycle Crashes. Periodically after, installation, staff can mea- sure 'hese same factors. Analysis of these data will determine hovv effective the treatment was in achieving these goals. The Pedestrian and Bicvcle Information Center in collaboration with Safe Routes to School experts identify several key goals, objectives, and measurements on saferoutesinfo.org. For ex- ample: • Goa!: Encourage Speed Reduction Objective: Holo one news conference and deliver informational fliers to all parents regarding speed awareness campaign » Mieasure. Number of news conferences and fliers distributed Objective: Reduce average speeds in school zones to 25 mph witnin 1 year » Measure: Speed of vehicles near schools, number of citations CHAPTER 7 BICYCLE PROGRAMS CARSON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The programs identified in this section should be modified and -ailored to conditions in Carson. Tne Citi- commits to startino a comprehensive program with initial steps, and willmodify its programming with recommendations from this Plan as time goes on The City will seek additional outside funding to con- tinue and enhance programming in coming years. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS OVERVOVERVIEW A variety of potential funding sources, including local. state, IEW V� regional, and federal funding programs, may be used to con- struct the proposed bicycle improvements in the Carson Mas- ter Plan of Bikeways. Most of the federal and state programs are competitive, and involve the completion of extensive ap- plications with clear documentation of the prolect need. costs, and benefits. Competition fo funding can also take place at the regional level. A detailed program -by -program explana- tion of available funding along with the latest relevant infor- mation follows. 8-2 -- FEDERAL MAP -21 FUNDING The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP - PROGRAMS21), passed in June 2012, sets the framework for spending fed- eral transportation revenue. MAP -21 consolidates the three main programs that contained dedicated funding for biking and walking under SAFETEA-LU. These were Transporta- tion Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails. They are now a single category, Transportation Alterna- rives. MAP -21 is only a two-year transportation spending bill. It is possible that MAP -21 funding programs may be modified, combined, eliminated or supplemented with new programs in the next federal transportation spending bill Accordingly, the following discussion is subject to change. Under MAP -21, bicycling and walking projects are eligible for the following core programsNational Highway Performance Program (NHPP), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement Proaram (HSIP). and Conges- tion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), Metro- politan Planning, and Transportation Alternatives, MAP -21's Transportation Alternatives combines the following SAFETEA- LU programs: Transportation Enhancements (now known un- der MAP -21 as Transportation .Alternatives. a prolect category within the Transportation Alternatives program), Safe P,outes to School, and Pecreational Trails. Transportation Alternatives program funds are drawn from NHPP, STP, CM.AQ, and Met- ropolitan Planning, and are dedicated funds by and large for bicyciing, walking and safety fo!- al'i users. Biking walking, and trails projects are also eligible for a handful, of other programs CAP.SON MASTEP PLAN OF BIKEyNAYS such as Scenic Byways funds, Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (,TCSP) and Tribal High Priorltyy Projects. The Cardin -Cochran amendment to MAP -21 requires 501,o' of all program funding to be distributed by population directi 1, to local metropolitan planning organizations. The rest of the funding is administered by the States. Thus, MAP -21 funding is administered by the California Department of Transporta- rion (Caltrans) and the local metropolitan planning organiza- tion (MPO). In the past, this has been the Los Angeles Metro- politan Transportation .Authority (Metro), but the law may be interpreted such that the Southern California Association of Governments will play the role of local MPO. MAP -21's approach to distribution of funds among the states is based upon the amount of funds each state received un- der SAFETEA-LU's core programs. A primary difference from SAFETEA-LU is that states have the ability to transfer 50% of any apportionment to another formula program, except no transfers are permitted of Metropolitan Planning funds or funds suballocated ro areas based upon population. Generally. Calrrans distributes funding through each district's Local Assistance Program. Previously, Los Angeles County Metro was responsible for allocating ali discretionary feder- al, stare and local transportation funds to improve all modes of transportation for Los Angeles County, though that may change under MAP -21. Metro has done so primarily, through the Cali for Projects (,CFP) program. The CFP is a competitive process by which these discretionary rands are distributed to regionally significant projects every othel" year. There are seven categories In which projects are comperltivel , I-ankeo, including categories for bikeways improvements and pedes- trian irnprovements. The CFP process is part of the larger Los .Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program. Each sate has its ov✓n method for distributing federal fends The funding allocation process empioyed by Caltrans for core programs under SAFE T EA -LU typically combined some form of state programming with some distribution of funds to re - CHAPTER 8 FUNDING Q_7 gions or local MPOs. Neither Caltrans nor Metro yet knows how funds from the various programs of MAF -21 will be distributed. More infonration can be found at http:/,www.fhwa.do:.gov/map21%summaryinfo cfm Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is reau- thorized under MAP -21, and received a substantial increase in 8-4 funding relative to SAFETEA-LU. It aims to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious accidents through the _ implementation of infrastructure -related highway safety im- provemenis. These improvements may be on any public road - or publicly owned bicycle and pedestrian pathway or trail. and can include the use of devices such as traffic signals, curb ex- tensions, and crosswalks. In 2009, $1.296 billion in funds was _- available nationwide. x' MAP -21 allows each state to use HSIP funds for education and c; enforcement activities, as long as those activities are consis- tent with the states Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSD). California completed its S'HSP in September 2006. anti cre- ated an Implementation Plan in ,April 2008. MAP -21 also re- quires states to focus funds on improvements for pedestrians and the elderly if crashes among these groups are no- beiov✓ a threshold level. Applications are submitted electronically, and must dem- onstrate treat the proposed engineering improvements will increase the safety of the proposed project area These are calculated in the application program using Crash Peduction Factors with-ccompanving financial values. Project areas that i ave a prior history of injuries or fatalities are more liken:, to de funded. More information can be found at: http: /,,vw\A.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms;/hsip.htm http://safety.fh,, a.dot.gov;/'safetealu,.fact_sheets/ftsht1401. cfm CARSON MASTED PLAN OF BIKEWAYS http:/jwww.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/Highway safety_improve rnent_program.pdf Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program is reauthorized under MAP -21. The California State Parks and Recreation Departmen` admin- istered Recreational Trails Program, (RTP) funds under SAFE - TEA -LU, and will likely continue to administer the state's half of the funds under MAP -21. RTF annually funds recreational trails, including bicycle and pedestrian paths. Cities counties, districts, state agencies, federal agencies and non-profit orga- nizations may apply. A 12 percent match is required. Federal, state, local and private funds may be used to match the grant. There is no limit to the grant request: however, there are differ- ent requirements within the grant application depending on whether the project requires more or fewer than $100.000. More information can be found at. Tel (916) 653-7423 localservices@parks.ca.gov http:%/www.parks.ca gov/?Page_0=24Z24 http:%'www.fhwa.dot govjenvironment/rectrails,/ Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP) This program is reauthorized under M4P-21. It provides federal funding for projects that i;l;prove the efficiency of the trans- portation system, reduce the impact on the environmen and generally investigate the relationships between transportation, community and system preservation. Eiigible proiects include mproving conditions for bicycling and walking. better and saf- er operations of existing roads, new signals, and development of new programs States, MPOs and local jurisdictions are eli- gibie to apply for the discretionary grants. Grantees must an- nually report on the status of the proiect and the degree to which the project is attaining the stated goals. The report must include quantitative and qualitative assessments. The =ederal Highway ;`administration administers the program. and dis.rib- uted approximately $29 million na-ionwide in -Y 2012 The FHVVA solicits a call for grant applications annually. CHAPTER 8 FUNDING More information can be found at: .htto:#www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp%index.htmI Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The Land and Water Conversation Fund is reauthorized under MAP -21. States receive individual alloca'.ions of LWCF grant funds based upon a national formula, with state population being the most influential factor. States initiate a statewide competition for the amount available annually. The State then receives, scores, and ranks applications according to certain 8-6 project selection criteria so that only the top-ranked projects (up to the total amount available that year) are chosen for — funding. Chosen applications are then forwarded to the Na- ---- tional Park Service for formal approval and obligation of fed- --. eral grant monies. Bike paths and recreational. trails are eligible ------ uses of this money. Cities, counties, recreation and park dis- tricts, and any other entity that has the authority to develop or maintain a public park is eligible to apply. This program is -- a reimbursement program, and the applicant is expected to initially finance the entire project A one for one match is re- quired, and federal funds cannot be used as a march, except Community Development Bloc: Grants. The California State Parks Department administered the state funds under SAFE - TEA -LU_ More information can be found at http://www.parl<s.ca.gov/?Page_id=21360 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) The CDBG entitlement program aliocates annual grans to larger cities and urban counties to develop viabie communi- ties by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and opportunities to expand economic opportunities, princi- pally for low- and moderate -income persons.:=very year the local governmems receive federal money for a wide variety of community improvements in the form of CDBG funds. Bi- cycle and pedestrian facilities are eligible uses of these funds. CARSON MAST ---P PLANT OF BIKEWAYS CDBG funds only pay for projects in areas of economic need. No match is required. More information can be found at. httrj://www.hud gov/officesjcpd/communitvdeve!opment/ programs," RIVERS, TRAILS, AND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RICA) The Rivers, Trails. and Conservation Assistance Program is the 8-7 community assistance arm of the National Park Service. RTCA provides technical assistance to communities in order co pre- serve open space and develop trails. The assistance that RTCA - provides is not for infrastructure, but rather building plans, en- gaging public participation, and identifying other sources of funding for conservation and outdoor recreation projects More information can be found at. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs%rtca/index.htm htttp://www.nps.govjncrc/programs%rtca%con',actusicu_acni_�i. html STATESTATEState poiicymakers are currently proposing to restructure or combine existing statewide bicycle, pedestrian, and Safe FUNDING1 DING Routes to School funding prograrns however. no firm actions PROGRAMS MS have been taken as of the writing of tlhis plan. Thus, the struc- V V �i 1�6 ,ure, requirements, and availabiiity of the state programs !is -.ed below are su'biect to change TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 (SB 821) TDA Article 3 funds—a!so known as the Local Transportation Fund (LTF)—are used bv cities within Los .Angeles County for the planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facill- ties. Each ci-,v in Los 4ngeles County receives T DA Article 3 funds from Los Angeles County Metro according to popula- tion. CHAPTER 8 FUNDING ?' /Mt TDA Article 3 funds may be used for the following activities related to the planning and construction of bicycle and pedes- trian facilities: • Engineering expenses leading to construction • Right-of-way acquisition. Construction and reconstruction • Retrofitting existing bicycle facilities to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). • Route improvements, such as signal controls for cyclists. bicycle loop detectors, rubberized rail crossings, and 8-8 -- bicycle -friendly drainage grates. • Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities, such as —_ improved intersections, secure bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, changing rooms, rest rooms. and showers adjacent to bicycle trails, employment centers, - park-and-ride lots, and/or transit terminals accessible to the general public. v -- BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT (BTA) The Sate Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit for funding bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the BTA emphasizes projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. Agen- cies may apply for these funds through the Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities. Applicant ci.ies and counties are required to have an approved bicycle plan -.ha', conforms to Streets and Highways Code 891.2 to qualify; and compete for funding on a project -by -project basis. Cities may apply for these funds through the Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities. A local match of 10% is required for all awarded funds. Every year $7.2 million is allocated for bicycle projects statewide. The Non -motorized Transportation Plan establishes a regional network from which local plans can build upon for local -serving blcycie and pedes- ;rian rouses. Once a jurisdiction has an approved bicycle plan that meets the requirements of the Stree-, and Highways Code 8912, they may apply for the Caltrans grant. CAP,SON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS More information can be found at http://www.dot.ca.aov/hq/MassTrans /State-TDA.html http://www.dot.ca.gov,/hq/LocalPrograms/bta/btawebPage htm SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SR2S) The Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program is separate from the federal Safe Routes to School Program. This program, ini- tiated in 2000, is meant to improve school commute routes by improving safety to bicycle and pedestrian travel through bikeways, sidewalks, intersection improvements, traffic calm- ing, and ongoing programs This program funds improvements for elementary, middle, and high schools. A local match of 101/0 is required for this competitive program, which allocates ap- proximately $24.25 million annually, or $40 million to 150 mil- lion in two-year cycles. Each year the state legislature decides whether to allocate funds to the program. Caltrans adminis- ters SR2S f_rnds through its district offices. More information can be found at. http://wwv✓.do-.1-a.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/ saferoutes.htm OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) -1 he California Off -ice of Traffic Safety (OTS;, seeks to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and injuries '71hrough a national high- way safety program. Priority areas include police traffic sar- vices, alcohol and other drugs, occupant protection, pedes- trian anc bicycle safety, emergency medical services, traffic records. roadway safety, and community-based organizations The OTS provides grants for one to -we years. The California Vehicle Code (Sections 2905 and 2909) authorizes tine ap- portionment of federal highway safety funds to the OTS pro- grarY,. Bicycle safety programs are eligible programs for OTS start-up funds. City and coun':v agencies are eligible to ap- ply, as are councils of aovernmens. There is no set maximum for grants. and no match is required, however: contributions of other funds may make projec.s more competitive. CHAPTER 8 FUNDING 01 �� More information can be found at: http:/,/www.ots.ca gov/Grants;Apply/Proposals_2011.asp http://www.clot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/safet-esr/ ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM (EEMP) EEM Program funds are allocated to projects that offset envl- ronmental impacts of modified or new public transportation 8-10 facilities, including streets, mass transit guideways. park -n-ride facilities, transit stations, tree planting to mitigate the effects of vehicular emissions, off-road trails, and the acquisition or -, development of roadside recreational facilities. Every year $10 million dollars is available, with individual grants limited to $350,000. Cities, counties, Councils of governments. state -- agencies, and non-profit organizations may apply. No n-)atch is required, however, additional points will be given for match - Ing funds. The State Resources Agency administers the funds. --- More information can be found at'. http://www.resources.ca.govl/eem/ AB 2766 SUBVENTION PROGRAM AB 2766 Clean Air Funds are generated by a surcharge on automobile regis7ration. The South C oas`. Air Quality Manage- ment District (AQMD) allocates 401/0 of these funds to cities according to their proportion of the South Coast's population for projects that improve air quality. The projects are up to the discretion of the city and may be used for bicycle or pedes- trian projects that could encourage people to bicycle or walk in lieu of driving. The other 60% is aliocated through a com- petitive grant program tha; has specific guidelines for proj- ects :hat improve air quality. The guidelines vary and funds are often eligible for a variety of bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Mobile Source Revievy Committee administers tine discre- -uonary funds CAP.SON MAST=R PLAID O EIKEWAYS .s5 �� More information can be found at. http:/iwww.agmd.gov/iocaIgovt/AB2766.htm http:/iwww.agmd,gov/trans/ab2766 html PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM The Per Capita Grain Program is intended to maintain a high quality of life for California's growing population by provid- ing a continuing investment in parks and recreational facilities Specifically. these funds are for the acquisition and develop- ment of neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation lands and facilities in urban and rural areas Eligible projects include acquisition, development, improve- ment, rehabilitation, restoration, and enhancement projects, and the development of interpretive facilities for local parks and recreational lands and facilities. Per Capita grant funds can only be used for capital outlay. They may be used for bike paths and trails. This grant is given to local governments based on their population. Some cities have used up their full alloca- tion. while others have not. Regional parks and open space districts also receive these funds. The California State Parks Department administers the grant funds. More information can be found at. htip://www.parks.ca.gov;'?page_id=22333 ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS (RZH) GRANT PROGRAM - PROPOSITION 40 Funds for this gran` program are to be allocated for projec's pursuant to the Roberti -%'berg -Harris Urban Open Space and Recreational Gran Prograrn and are to be used fo-: • Hiah priority projects that satisfy the most urgent park and recreation needs, with emphasis on unmet needs in the moss heavily popula`,ed and most economically disadvantaged areas within each jurisdiction. • Projects for which funding suppiements—rather than supplants—local expenditures fo park and recreation fa - I CHAPTER 8 FUNDING hb cilities and does not diminish a local jurisdictions efforts to provide park and recreation services. • Block grants allocated on the basis of population and location in urbanized areas. • Need -basis grants to be awarded competitively To eli- gible entities in urbanized areas and in non -urbanized areas. Eligible projects include. 8-12 Acquisition of park and recreation lands and facilities • Development/rehabilitation of park and recreation lands --- and facilities • Special Major Maintenance of park and recreation lands and facilities • Innovative Recreation Programs The California State Parks Department administers these funds. b ---- Cities, counties, and recreation and parks districts may apply —_--- for them, The maximum grant request is $250,000 per project, - and no match is required. Bike paths and recreational trails are eligible to receive these funds. Therefore funding couid be used for either the Arroyo Seco Bike Path or the Eaton Canyon Bike Path. More information can be found atu http.,/,/www.parks.ca.gov,idefault.asp?page_id=22329 PROPOSITION 84 - STATEWIDE PARK PROGRAM The Statewide Park Act awards grants or a competitive basis to the most critically under -served communities across Cali- fornia for the creation of new parks and new recreational fa- cilities. Altogether; $368 million will be given in two funding cvcles. The f'.rst funding cvcle in 2009 awarded $184 million. Grants range from $100.000 to $5 million. No match is re- quired. Bikeways and traiis can be funded with this program. and the, need not be in a park. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF DIVE:WAYS The creation of new parks in neighborhoods where none cur- rently exist will be given priority. These new parks will meet the recreational, cultural, social: educational. and environmen tal needs of families, youth, senior citizens, and other popula- tion groups. Cities, counties, districts witr­i a park and recreation director, councils of governments, joint power authorities, or nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for these funds. The Cali- fornia State Parks Department administers the Statewide Park Program funds. 8-13 More information can be found at 21 http://www.parks.ca.gov/?Page_id=26025 -- _ PROPOSITION 84 - URBAN - GREENING PROJECT GRANTS In 2006 California voters passed Proposition 84 to expand recreational facilities and to fund environmental quality.proj- ects. Of this. $70 million was set aside to fund urban greening projects that reduce energy consumption, conserve water, im- prove air and water quality, and reduce global warming gases. i iris money will be dispersed in three funding cycles. The first cycle ended in April 2010. Cities, counties, and nonprofit or- ganizations are eligible to apply for these funds. No ma,ching funds are required but they are encouraged. Bike paths and recreational trails are eligible uses of this money. The Sate Of California Strategic Growth Council adminis.ers ,his program. More information can be found at http.//ww^J .resources.ca.gov; bonds_prcp84_urbangreening. html http://sgc.ca.govjurban_greening_gi-ants.ntml CHAPTEP 8 rUNDING .b w TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM The Transportation Planning Grant Program has two grant programs which can aide the planning and development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Environmental Justice. Context Sensitive Planning (EJ) Grant Is to promote the in- volvement of low-income and minority groups in the planning of transportation projects. The program requires a local match of 10% with a 5% in-kind contribution maximum. The Commu- nity Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) program funds co- ordinated transportation and land use planning projects that encourage community involvement and partnerships. These projects must support livable and sustainable community con- cepts. The Office of Community Planning, part of Caltrans's Division of Transportation Planning, is responsible for manag- ing the program and receives approximately $3 million annu- ally for each program. Grants are available up to $300,000 for the Community Based Transportation Planning grant, and $250,000 for the Environmental Justice Context Sensi- tive Planning Grant MPOs, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. cities. counties. and transit agencies are all eligible tc apply for funding. More information can be found at. http://w,,vw.dot ca.govihq/tpp/grants.html For EJ - Tei. (916) 651-6889 For CBTP - Tel. (1916) 651-6886 LOCAL PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUNDINGCountywide, 20 percent of Proposition. C Los Angeles Coun- ty % cen` sales tax revenue returns to the cities according to population. The money may be spent on a variety of transpor- tation projects, including bicycle projects. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS MEASURE R LOCAL RETURN A portion of this Los .Angeles County ';i cent sales tax rev- enue returns to the cities according to population. The money may be spent on a variety of transportation projects, includ- ing bicycle projects. The transit capital funds may be used for bicycle facilities at Gold Line stations. Metro is in the process of creating guidelines as to the uses of Measure R funds and other funds may become eligible. RESURFACING AND REPAVING The City is able to add bicycle lanes and sharrows upon resur- facing and repaving of streets. While other lanes are restriped, the bike facilities can be painted as well. NEW CONSTRUCTION Future road widening and construction projec-'s are one means of providing bike lanes. To ensure that roadway con- struction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is im- portant that an effective review process is in place :o ensure that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this master plan. Developers may also be required to dedi- cate land toward the widening of roadways in order to provide for enhanced bicycle mobility. IMPACT FEES AND DEVELOPER. MITIGATION Impact fees may be assessed on new development tc pay for transportation projects, typically tied to vehicle trip generation rates and traffic mpacts generated by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- or off-site bikeway improvements that encourage residents to bicycle rather than drive. In -lieu parking fees may also be used to contribute to the construc- tion of neve or improved bicycle parking facilities. Establishing a clear nexus, or connection; between the Imoac-L fee and the proiect's impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsui-. CHAPTER 8 FUNDING 8-15 I BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Bike paths, lanes, parking, and related facilities carp be funded as part of a local benefit assessment district. However, defin- ing the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult since the bikeways will have citywide benefit. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Bicycle improvements can often be included as part of larger 8-16 efforts of business improvement and retail district beautifica- tion. Similar to benefit assessments, Business Improvement Districts (BIDS) collect levies on businesses in order to fund area -wide improvements that benefit businesses and improve access for customers. These districts may include provisions for bicycle improvements such as bicycle parking or shower and clothing locker amenities. PARKING METER REVENUES Cities can fund various improvements through parking meter revenues. The ordinance that governs the use of the revenues would specif,,� eligible uses Cities have the option _o pass o!-- dinances that specify bicycie facilities as eligible expenditures ADOPT -A -PATH PROGRAM Maintenance of bicycle paths and recreational trails could be paid for from private funds in exchange for recognition, such as signs along the path saying "Maintained by (name)"_ In or- der for this funding source to be sustainable, a special account can be set up for donors to pay into. GENERAL FUNDS Cities and counties may spend general funds as they see fit. Any bicycle, pedestrian, or trails project can be funder com- pletely through general funds, or general funds can be uses as a local match for grant funds. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS INTERSTATE 710 CORRIDOR PROJECT Caltrans has undertaken a planning effort to make changes To the Interstate 710 Freeway from Long Beach to Interstate The project will widen the freeway and modify interchang- es, access points, and the sweets leading to the freewa,,l The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is working with Caltrans and leading some of the planning ef- forts. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of these agencies along with the cities along the freeway is help- ing to steer the planning effort as well as make sure certain im- provements. such as bicycle access, are incoruorated into the project. Carson has a representative to this TAC Through Car- son s TAC representative, the Citv can ensure that the planned bicycle projects in the 1-710 area are included in the I-710 proj- ect. Total predicted project cost as of September 2012 is $6.5 billion. CHAP T CP. 8 FUNDING 8-17 B-18 This page inter-Aionally left blank CARSON MASTEP PLAN OF BIKIEWAYS- A OVERVIEW � V /ERSV I EW This chapter provides planning -level cost estimates for the V� proposed bikeways, and groups them into three groups: short- term, medium-term, and long-term, based on the priority of their implementation. A more detailed and careful cost esti- mate was prepared for short-term priority projects, which MI facilitate their implementation. These detailed estimates include all "soft" costs such as design, labor, and contingency. /� STo/ w' _ f`1/i 1 V In the past five years. the only expenditures by the City of Car- son on bicycle infrastructure have been about $4.000 for bi- 9-2 D I 1TU R E S cycle parking racks at the Civic Center and the aquatic centers. These were Caltrans Transportation Developmen- Act TDA) funds. COST COST ESTIMATES ,•If�1 GSI MATES The following estimated costs are based on unit costs per mile for the various bikeway types, along with unit costs for spe- AN D PRIORI— tial treatments such as new access ramps to the Dominguez T I Z A �1 T I O A 1 Channel or proposed bike signals where cycle tracks cross in- tersections. The cost estimate table employs abbreviations for the various bikeway types and treatments, as shown In Table 9.1. The total estimated cost for the entire proposed bikeway net- work is about $30.6 million. The City also has ongoing costs for planning, engineering, and other miscellaneous functions, and hopes to initiate bicvcie education, encouragement, and enforcement programs at a cost of $50,000 per year. Facilities must be maintained in order to stay effective. Treat- ments such as colored bicycle lanes and Type E sharrows will require more paint and maintenance than the typical bike lane or sharrow treatment. The City will ensure maintenance bud- get Is set aside prior to implementing these types of bikeways. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS TABLE 9.1 c i "' ^:tit ,t cnii i _ Nrnir de i :! R Access ramps for paths BL Bike Lanes BRBS Bike Route with type B Sharrows BPS Bike Route with Sharrows BRSD Bike route with sharrows and directional Signage Bike signal Bike signal BBL Buffered bike lanes BBLO Buffered bike lanes—one side of street CBL Colored bike lanes CBBL Colored buffered bike lanes CBBLO Colored buffered bike lanes—one side of street CBLO Colored bike lanes—one side of street CT Cycle track Bridge Grade -separated crossing L Lighting Parkina Ts Farming Ts P Path PBS Path both sides PL Path with lighting PBSL Path both sides with lighting BPDG Pre -fabricated bridge RD Road diet RDBL Road diet with bike jar es PDBEP, L Road diet with buffered bike lanes RDCBL Road diet with colored bike lanes PDCBEL Road dietwith colored buffered bike lanes CHAPTER 9 COST S AND lMP_EMENT.ATION PRIORITIZATION This Plan will be implemented as funds become available to the City. Projects are prioritized into three categories: short - Term, medium-teri-n. and long-term, according to the following criteria • Preferences expressed by the community at the public workshops and ti-irough comments received from the public via email and personal contact • City staff preferences 9-4 -- Destinations served — History of bicycle -involved or pedestrian -involved crash- es - • Current availability and/or suitability of right-of-way -- - Likelihood of attracting large numbers of users • Connectivity with the regional bikeway system -- Links to other transportation modes -- Cost effectiveness The City will also seek to implement bikeways based on op- portunity, such as when streets are resurfaced, or other street projects are taking place. The following tables identify all the projects grouped accord- irig to their priority category. The projects are no_ ranked within each priority category. Each project also includes its estimated cost, which. as noted above, is prepared to a higher level of detail for short-term projects to facilitate their imple- mentation. CARSON 114,,STER PL,4N O^ BIKEWAYS TABLE 92 Del Amo Blvd South side of 2 CBL Bl�jla/AY�,� tF-R��l� fi��� T.O kCLASS ;rCODE LE�i�t-1;.. TOfi7>f�L,, � _ $162.000 --- Brioge . 223rd St Los Angeles County Avalon Blvd. 2 EBL � -c $81.36 ` ,6000 Limit Domincuez Chann�,' of 1-405 ramps _223rd St. —_ Avalon Blvd. Wilmington Ave 2 EBL 1.21 223rd St Wilmington Ave. Fire Station sional 2 CBBL _S73,800 0.22 $22.000 223rd St Fire Station signal BP Campus Dr BL &30 $15.000 223rd St. BP Campus Dr Los Angeles City limit _ _ RDBBL 0.27 $32,400 Avalon Blvd. Victoria St University Di 2 CBL Avalon Blvd. University Dr Del Amo Blvd CBBL Avalon Blvd. Del Amo Blvd South side of 2 CBL 0.14 $14.000 -- — Dominguez '-hannel _ $162.000 --- Brioge Avalon Blvd South side of End of median south 2 CBBL- 0-95 Domincuez Chann�,' of 1-405 ramps Bridae Avalon Blvd End of median south Carson S RDC -BBL of 1-405 ramps Avalon Blvc Larson St Sepulveda Bloc 2 CBBL Avalor Blvd -- - --- SeGu vela Blvd ._ _.. -- --._ Los Angeles Cit limit 2BBL --- ---- Carso,- St Los Ang Ies Cocl - - -- walon Blvd BRBS Limit arson St Avaion Bird. 405 2 BRBS arson Si _ 405 V"Ilmington .Ave- 2 _ CBL Carson S:. Wilmington Ave. West of Alameda 2 ;CBBL COrridor Bricige arsor. St West of Alameda Alameda S,, -)--cess 2 Corridorr Bridge ramps, east of Alameda St 0 74 $74,000 9"S 055 $42.000 0.14 $14.000 -- — F2 $162.000 --- O.nS 3� $47,500 -- 043 0-95 572.000 0.5- $57000 524-000 CHAPTEP. 9 CCSTS ^.NC IMPLEMENTL ION CARSON MASTEP. PLAN Or BIKEWAYS Carson SL Alameda St. access Harbor View .Ave 2 RDBBL 012 $14.400 ramos Carson St __ Harbor View Ave Santa Fe Ave 2 RDBBL 0.28 $33.600 Central Ave Albertoni St University Dr. CT 1.04 $104,000 Central Ave Greenleaf Blvd Walnut St. 2 BBL 034 $20,400 Ave_ Walnut St Artesia Blvd 2 BBL 0.10 _ $6,000 __Central Central Ave_ Artesia Blvd Albertoni St. 2 CBL 0.08 $6.000 Central Ave Albertoni St University Dr 2 CBBLO --- -- 1.04 — $52.000 -- 9-6 ---, Central Ave. ----- University Dr. Del Amo Blvd. 2 BBL 075 $45.000 - Central Ave Albertoni St. University Dr Bike Signa! $300:000 -- Del Amo Blvd- Los Angeles Cour-,y Main Sl 2 CBBL. 0.28 $28.000 Limit _ Del AMC) Blvd Main St Avalon Blvd_ CBBL 0 90 $90.000 Del Amo Blvd Avalon Bivd Wilmington Ave 2 BBL i 78 $106.800 Del Amo Bivd _ Wilmington Ave. Reeves Ave 2 BBL 039 $23.400 Del Amo Blvd. Wilmington Aveeeves Ave 2 CBL-� --- 03D $14,040 Del Amo B,"+. ------ Reeves Ave --- Alameda Corricor "EBL 024 $24000 bridge wes, Del Amo B'r;' Alameda Corrido, Alameda Corridor 2 CEBL 25 $28,000 - bridge v✓es+_ bridge east — Del Arno Bivd- RXR east of Alameda Santa Fe 4,v_ BEL C ; % $10,200 access road Del Amo Blvd- -- Alameda Corrtdc, _ RXR east of Alameda 7 BRBS 02. 57.700 bridae east access road Del Amo Bivc Santa Fe Ave -710 3 B•RES 0-35 $12250 Figueroa St Alondra Blvd Del Arno Blvd RDBBL ^J5. $330.000'. Figueroa St Dei Amo Blvd 223rd St 2 CBL 15� $114.000 Figueroa St 223rd St Lomiia Blvd 2 RDBBL 1.82 $218.400 CARSON MASTEP. PLAN Or BIKEWAYS Lomita Blvd. Los Angeles City Limit Figueroa St. 2 BBL 0.17 $10.200 Lomita Blvd Figueroa SL Main SL BBL 0.45 $27,000 Lomita Blvd. Main St, Los Angeles City Limit 2 e•L 0.62 $31.000 Man St Alondra Blvd Victoria St__ 2 BBL 139 $83.400 Main St. Victoria St 220th St -- 2 — – BBL 2.69 $161.400 Main St 220th St 223rd St CBBL 0.26 $_26,000 Main St 223rd St Lomita Bh✓d 2 CBL 177 $132,750 University Dr Avalon Blvd Central Ave. 1 CT _ 1 Oi $101.000 0,_7 Universitv Dr Avalon Blvd Central Ave. _ 2 BBLO 1.0 _ $30,300 --- University Dr Central Ave. Wilmington Ave CBL 0,79 $59,250 7— Victoria St Avalon Blvd entra! Ave, 1 CT 100 $100.000 Victoria St. Los Angeles City Limit Main S', CBL 0 4G $30.000 Victoria St Main St Avalon Blvd 2 BBL O.5 $33.000 — —` `victona St Avaion Bwd Central Ave 2 CBL 1.00 5,75,00C -- Vi�Itona St- Central-A,,,e- .ornptcn Ci'. Limit 2 BBL 074 $=4 400 -- CHAPTER 9 COSTS RNP !Mi"L=MENTATI' iN ® CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIK_WAVS TABLE93.�_a;;;.. SIKE�JUI�Y h `� +,°�,��� -� r "rF� �t�A•S5 � ;.COD.E� L`EiUC�Thi� ��'��",4L; , AM 213th St. Avalon Blvd. Selwyn Ave 2 RDBBL 0.19 $22,800 213th St Selwyn Ave. West side of 2 BL 012 $6,000 Dominguez Channel 213th St. West side of _ Chico St 2 BL 0.06 $3,000 Dominguez Channel 213th St _ _ Chico St. Thomas Dr. 2 BL 0.15 $7.500 213th St. Thomas Dr. Martin St 2 _ _ BL 0.60 $30,000 g_g 213th St Main St. Avalon Blvd _ 3 BRBS 0.28 $30.800 -- 213th St. Martin St. Wilmington Ave 3 BRSD 0.35 $8,750 -- - Albertoni St. Avalon Blvd. SR -91 eastbound off- 1 CT 0.15 $15.000 -- ramp Albertoni St SR -91 eastbound off- SP -91 eastbound on- 1 CT 020 $20,000 ramp ramp Albertoni St SR -91 eastbound on- Lysander Dr 1 T 009 $9,000 ramp Albertoni St Albertoni Dr Bitterlake St P 0.01 $10.000 Albertoni St Figueroa Sl. Star of India Ln 2 BL 0.73 $36,500 Albertoni St. Star of India Lr- Avalon Blvd 2 BBL 0.17 $10.200 Albertoni Si. Avalon Blvd SP, -91 eastbound off- Bike Siana $100,000 ramp - _ Avalon Blvd. Victoria St Universi y Dr CT 0.60 $60,000 Avalon Blvd -------------------------------------------------- Alondra Blvd — Walnut St ----- 2 RDBBL ----$ 0.70 -- $84.000 Avalon Blvd ----------- --- -- --- Walnut St -- -- - ------ - - ---- _ --------__----------------- Victoria St --- -- ------------------- 2 -- ----- ------ BBL - - - .-- ------ --------------------- 062 --- $37,200 Dolores St 22Srd St. Sepulveda Blvd 2 BL 112 ------.—_. $56.000 Dolores St 213th St 23rd S. 3 BRSD 0.77 $i_,250 Dominguez Channel Main St. (end of 22rd. St. PBSL 3.02 $5,456,000 existing path) ® CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIK_WAVS Dominguez Channel 223rd St. Los Angeles City limit 1 PL 2.53 $3,542,000 Dominguez Channel Main St. (end of existing path) 223rd St. R $2.200,000 Dominguez Channel 223rd St. Los Angeles City limit R $200.000 LADWP Corridor near 1-405 213th St. — ENSF Railway Harbor Subdivision I PL ----------------- 2 35 $3,290,000 -------------------- LADWP Corridor near -405 LADWP Corridor near South Bay Pavillion LADWP Corridor near South Bay F'avillion 213th St Carson Plaza Dr. Dominguez Channel --------------------- BNSF Railway Harbor Subdivision Lenardo Dr 1 Bike Signal PL BRDG 044 $100.000 $616,000 $300.000 9-9 — Moneta Ave Carson St _ 228th St 3 BRSD 0.88 $22.000 Santa Fe Ave Del Amo Blvd. Dom nquez St 2 CBBL --o ss $53.000 _ _= Santa Fe Ave Dominguez St Carson St 2 CBL 054 $40.500 = _ Santa Fe Ave Carson St 218th PI _ CBEL 010 $1Q,000 --=- Santa Fe Ave 218th Pi. Long Beach City Limit 3 BRBS 0.30 $10.500 Sepulveda Blvd Los Angeles County Limit Figueroa St 2 RDBBL 019 $22800 •r - Sepulveda Bivd. Figueroa St Avalon Blvd_ _ CBL 1,117 $87.750 --__ Sepulveda Blvd Avalon Blvd Wilmington Ave 2 CBL_ _ 0_51— $38.250 — Sepulveda Blvd _ Wilmington Ave _ — Alameda S1. _ BBL -- 109 _-$65_400 ------ Sepulveda Blvd_ Alameda St. Los Angeles City limit - 2 _-BBL 0.72 _ $43.200 — Watson Center Rd Avalon Blvd. Wilmington Ave BBL 1.02 $61,200 Wilmington Ave Compton City Limit_— Del Amo Blvd CBL 146 x109,500 —! Wilmington Ave Del Amo Blvd _ 213th St _2_— CBBL 0.81 $81,000 Wilmington Ave 213th St. 220th St. 2 _ --BL 0.54 $40.500 Wilmington Ave 223rd SL Sepulveda Blvd 2 CBBL 1.32 — $'32,000 CHAPTER 9 COSTS AhJD IMPLcMENT.'.TION Wilmington Ave. Sepulveda Blvd BNSF Railroad crossing 2 CBL 0.46 $34,500 Wilmington Ave. __ BNSF Railroad crossing _Los Angeles City limit 2 CBL 0.18 $13.500 Wilmington Ave 220th St. 223rd SL 3 BRBS 0.27 $9.450 CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKE'J.'% Y5 TABLE 9.4 192nd St CHAPTER Main St. West of Victoria Park 2 BBL 0.38 $22,800 parking lot 192nd SL Towne Ave. Avalon Blvd. 2 RDBBL 0.11 $13.200 214th St. Los Angeles Countv Main St 2 BRSD Q49 $12.250 Limit 220th St- Lucerne St Figueroa St. 223rd St. 3 BRSD 2.22 $55,500 228th SL Los Angeles County Avalon Blvd 3 BP,SD 135 $33.750 Limit 9-11 Alondra Blvd Los Angeles City Limit Compton City Limit 2 RDBBL 1.27 $152.400 ---- Bitterlake St Amantha Lysander Dr Central Ave 3 BRSD 0.69 $17,000 - -- Ave. - Radbard St BNSF Railway Harbor Wiimington Dram Wilminaton Ave 1 PL 1.78 $2.492,000 Subdivision Bonita St 223rd Si, Watson Center Dr _ BBL 028 $16.800 Bonita St Carson St 223rd. St 3 BRSD 0.51 $12,750 Broadway Alondra Blvd Griffith S. 2 BL 177 $88.500 Broadway Griffith St. Main St. 2 BL 0.28 $111,000 Fes' Campaign Dr University Dr. Turmont St. BP,SD 0 44 $11,000 Civic Plaza Di --- Roundabout at Carson St ---2 -- B_ ---- 0.08 $4.000 —_ - Mechants Bank o` -- - California buildinc -ivic Plaza Dr Desford St. Roundabout at 3 BPS[) 0.1&' $4.500 Mechants Bank of California buildinc -Dmpton Leel: Dei Amo Blvd I-710 (Long Beach city PL 0.24 $336,000 mit) __ __ - Galvvav Ave- - Denwall Turmont St. Leapwood Ave 3 BRSD 0331 - --_ S-1.750 Dr r CHAPTER 9 COSTS AND IMPLEMENTHTI,Jfv' C Gardena Blva Los Angeles City Limit Broadway 2 RDBBL 0.26 $31.200 Gardena Blvd Broadway Main St 2 RDBBL 0,14 $16,800 -- ------ ---- --- Gardena Blvd. — - -- ---- Main St. - Avalon Blvd. --- ------- 2 --- --- ---- RDBBL 0.65 ------ $78.000 Leapwood Ave Chico Dovlen Pi. Dominguez St 2 BL 028 $14,000 St. Leapwood Ave Chico Dominguez St 213th St 2 BBL 035 $21.000 St _ Leapwood Ave Chico Denwall Dr. Del Amo Blvd 3 BRSD 0.05 $1.250 St ------------------------------ 9-12 - ------------------ -, New Stamps Rd - ----- - - - -- New Starnes Rd, Avalon Blvd 1 PL --------- 0.34 $476.000 Lenardo Dr. New Stamps Rd Del Amo Blvd. Lenardo Dr. 2 BBL 0.68 $40.800 Lenardo Dr. Selwvn Ave - Desford 213th St Civic Plaza Dr 3 BRSD 0.18 $4,500 SC Turmont St - Craiglon. Avalon Blvd Wilminaton Ave. 3 BP.SD 1.97 $49.250 _ Ave - Cashdon St Turmont Wash Dominguez Channel CenUal Ave. 1 PL 126 $1,764,000 -- Vera St 213th St. Carson St 2 BL 0.26 $13.000 - " Vera St Carson St. Dominguez Channel BRSD 0.26 $6,500 -_ Vera St BRDG $300.000 Wardiow Rd Los Angeles Citv Lima Long Beach city limit 2 BL 013 $6,500 Wilmington Drain Sepulveda Blvd west Lomita Blvd west of PL 063 $882.000 of Figueroa St 1-110 CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEN/Al'S OVERVIEW /E�-�j� /I EW This chapter describes general design guidelines for the fa- cilities identified in this plan. The City will need to follow stan- dard manuals such as the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, California Highway Design Manual, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' ''A Policy on Geornetri_- Design of Highways and Streets." Nation- al Association of City Transportation Officials' 'Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and others. The City may have to amend its own street design guidelines in order to implement certain facili- Lies Carson should take precaution and research the newest 10-2 bikeway design guidelines and engineering treatments prior to constructing a facility. BIKEWAY DEFINITIONS ---- GUIDELINES Bicycle _------ The American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials' (AASHTO) (1999) definition of a bicycle is "every --_, vehicle propelled solely by human power which any person 1: may ride, having two tandem wheels, except scooters and M721 OU similar devices. The term 'bicycle' also includes three- and - - four -wheeled human -powered vehicles, but not tricycles for -- FIGURE 10.1Cr�ss children.,, .`?7!17 ,'1'!+! E+f)J '_.iN �_ .i. (�:•i,�CC�i'Yi IJii-.."c'14`iVS , Class I �E Referred to as a bike path, shared -use path, or multi-purpose trail Provides for bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way com- pletely separated from any street or highway. Other users may also be found on this type of facility. Class li Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a striped lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. Class III i ! Referred to as a bike route. Provides for shared usewith pe- destrian or motor vehicle traffic. CARSON! MASTEER PLAN Oi= BIKEWAYS DESIGN The following guidelines present the recommended minimur design standards and other recommended ancillary support items for shared use paths, bike lanes. and bike routes. Where possible, it may be desirable to exceed the minimum standards for shared use paths or bike lane widths, signage, lighting, and traffic signal detectors. These guidelines cover basic concepts. Caltrans' Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 contains more detailed standards and guidance and should be followed The City may also reference the AA.SHTO Guide for the Develop- ment of Bicycle Facilities where the HDI -1 is silent. Class I Bike Path Facilities Design Recommendations 1. All Class I bike paths should conform to the design guidelines set forth by Caltrans. 2. Class I bike paths should generally be designed as sepa- rated facilities away from parallel streets. They are com- monly planned along rights-of-way such as woterv.-ays, utility corridors, railroads and the like that offer continu- ous separated riding opportunities. 3 Both AASHTO and Caltrans recommend against using most sidewalks for bike paths. This is due to cor,,flkcts wi',h driveways and intersections. Where sidewalks are used as bike paths, they should be placed in'locations with few driveways and intersections, be oroperly sepa- rated from the roadway. and have carefully designed' intersection crossings. 4. Bike paths should have a minimum of eight feet o -f pavement, with at least two feet of unpaved shoulders for pedestrians/runners, or a separate tread way where feasibie. A pavement width o'112 feet is preferred. 5. Multi -use trails and unpaved facilities that are not funded with federal transportation dollars and that are not des- ignated as Class I bike paths do not need to be designed to Caltrans standards. 6_ Class I bike path crossings of roadways should be care- fully engineered to accommodate safe and visible cross- ing for users The design needs to consider the widtrl o` the road\,vav whether it has a median. and the roaCway s CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES 10-3 average daily and peak -hour traffic volumes. Crossinas of low-volume streets may require simple stop signs Crossings of streets with Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately 15,000 should be assessed for siaralized crossing, flashing LED beacons crossing islands or other devices. Roundabouts can be a desirable treatment for a bike path intersecting with roadways where the bike path is not next to a parallel street. 7. Landscaping should generally consist of native vegeta- tion that consumes little water and produces little debris. 10-4 8. Lighting should be provided where commuters will likely use the bike path in the late evening. 9. Barriers at path entrances to prevent motorized vehicles from entering, such as obstacle posts and gates, can ob- struct bicyclists and may be considered only when other measures to prevent motor vehicles from entering have failed, and where the safety and other issues posed by unauthorized vehicles are more serious than the safety and access issues posed to path users. Signs and other design solutions are preferred. 10. Eike path construction should take into account vertical requirements and the impacts of mainter-�ance and emer- gency vehicles on shoulders Cycletracks Cvcietracks, also known as protected bike lanes. are bike- ways located on or adjacent to streets where bicycle traffic is separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical barriers. These barriers provide a sense of comfor- and safely over and above that provided typica! bike lanes. Where on -street nark- ing exists, cycletracks are installed between the parking and :he curb. Where no on -street parking exists they are ioca.ed between the curb and travel lanes. They can be well suited to downtown areas where there are many people bicycling and walking, and where it is beneficial to get bicyclists off the sidewalk. They may also be used along some suburban streets with high-speed traffic. Streets selected for cycletracks should have minimal pedestrian crossings and driveways. They should also have minimal load inc/unload ing activity and other street activity. The cycletracks should be designed to minimize con - CARSON MAST `_P PLAN OF BIKEWAYS, FIGURE 10.2 Cv-Jetrac flicts with these activities as well as with pedestrians and driveways. Cvcletracks are best suited for existing streets where surplus width is available, the combined width of the cvcletrack and the barrier is more or less tine width of a travel lane. The area to be used by bicycles should be of adequate width for street sweeping to ensure that debris will not accumulate. Cycle - tracks tend to work most effectively where there are few un- controlled crossing points with unexpected traffic conflicts. Cycletrack concerns include treatment at intersections, un- controlled midblock driveways and crossings, wrong -way bi- cycle traffic, and difficulty accessing or exiting the facility at midblock locations. Left turns also present challenges. Early research shows that well-designed cycletracks attract many new cyclists and can be safer. Overall Design Considerations • The protective area should generally be a minirnurn of 3 feet wide. In some circumstances 2 feet is provided. Protective barriers may include posts/bollards, curbing, parking stops and landscaped islands. • Parking near driveways and intersections should be pro- hibited to allow for good visibility. Where motoris s Cross the cvcletrack to ente, drlve\,lfays the opening should be constrained so that they have to slow down and turn at a right angle. • Coloring, yield markings and "Yield to Bikes" signs should be used in areas where motorists cross cycle - tracks. • Cvcletracks at intersections require deliberate design solutions (see Figure 10.2). Typically, this entaiis adding a separate signal phase that corresponds with motor ve- hicies travelling the same direction. The cycletracks will have a red chase when confiiCting turning movements of vehicles in the travel lanes have a green: and vice versa. • Cvcletracks should be colored and stenciled through both signalized and unsignalized intersections to notify motorists that they are crossing a bikeway. CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUiDE_l 10-5 10-6 i FIGURE 10.3 Gaps should be installed in protective barriers to allow people in wheelchairs to cross them. These gaps should be placed where curb ramps allow passage to sidewalks. • Cycletracks need to be carefully designed at bus stops. Passengers will need to cross the cycletracks The bus stop may be located in the orotected area so buses and bicyclists don't cross. This requires that the protected area be as wide as a bus iminimum of ° feet) The pro- tected area can be widened at the bus stops in parallel with on -street parking. Raising the cycletracks at the bus stop to sidewalk and bus stop level allow passengers to access the bus stop easily, and cues the cyclists to yield. This also accommodates people in wheelchairs One -Way Cycfetracks In most circumstances, one-way cycletracks work best be- cause they are much simpler to design at intersections (see Figure 10.3). They are designed similar to bike lanes, although they may be located between parked cars and the curb. On streets where no on -street parking exists, one-way cycletracks are situated between the curb and travel lanes with physi- cal protection between the cycletracks and travel lanes. On streets with no on -street parking, one-way cvcletracks and buffered bike lanes have very similar design and function. The buffered bike lanes have a painted barrier, and the cycletracks have a physical barrier. Thus, these treatments can bc- com- bined along a street, adding the physical protection where it is feasible. and reverting to the buffered bike lane in other sec- tions. The bike lanes should be at least S feet wide, and a mini- mum of 6 feet is preferred. Where bicycle volumes are high, T allows cyclists to pass one another comfortably. Intersections can be designed like typical bike lanes: the physical protec- tion is dropped, and on -street parking is prohibited on the in- tersection approach. Intersections may also be designed such that cyclists stay on the curbside and cross the intersection on the right of the travel lanes an,_-' turning vehicles. This design requires separate signal phasing. Using street sweepers that fit into one-way cycletracks presents one of the primary chal- lenges. Most street sweepers are too wide but smaller ones can be purchased. CARSON M�.ST=R PLAN OF BIKEWAYS L` FIGURE 10.4 lb o w 1-' ycleira-,. FIGURE 10.5 Two -Way Cycletracks Two-way cycletracks take up less space on the street cross sec- tion than one-wav cycletracks since there is only one protec- tive barrier. They are also wide enough for most street sweep- ers. These are the primary advantages. The riding space of two-way cycletracks should generally be at least 12 feet wide. Where they lead directly into a bike pati- or an intersecting cvcletrack, transitioning from two-way cycletracks is seam- less. However, where cycletracks terminate into bike lanes or common travel lanes, the transition requires cyclists to enter and exit from crosswalks if they are travelling opposite traffic. Two-way cycletracks present more potential conflict points at intersections than one-way cycletracks and must be designed with more care. They require separate signal phases at inter- sections. Figure 10.4 shows a two-way cycletrack. Sidewalk -Level Cycletracks Cycletracks that have curbs and are raised above the street level provide protection from midblock traffic (see Figure 10.5). At intersections they have the same issues, challenges and design solutions as one-wa_v or two-way cycletracks. Class II Bike Lane f=acilities Design Recommendations The following guidelines should be used when designing Class II bikeway facilities. These guidelines are provided by the Cal- trans Highwav Design Manual Chapter 1000, the American As- sociation of State Highwav and Transportation Officials (AAS - HTO). the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Caltrans Traffic Manual. 1. Class 11 Bike Lane fadilties should conform to the mini- mum design standard of 5 feet in width in the direction of vehicle travel adjacent to the curb lane. Where space is available, a width of 6 to 8 feet is preferred, especially on busy arterial streets, on grades, and. adjacent to paral- lel parking. 2. Under certain circumstances, bike lanes may be 4 feet in width. Situations where this is permitted include- CHART=P, 10 DESIGN '.GUIDELINES it "FA lr)-R BIKE LANE FIGURE 10.6 ab;o!nia Bile >e FIGURE 10.7 Bke lane shining an,i FIGURE 10.8 Bike lanes located between through traffic lanes and right turn pockets at intersection approaches (see Figure 10.8) » Where there is no parking, the gutter pan is no more than 12" wide, and the pavement is smooth and flush with the gutter k,an Where there is no curb and the pavement is smooth to the edge Z. "Bike Lane" signage, as shown in Figure 10.6, shall be posted after every significant intersection along the route of the bike lane facility. Directional signage may also accompany this sign to guide bicyclists along the route. If a bike lane exists where parking is prohibited.. no parking" signage may accompany bike lane signage. 4. Bike lanes should be striped with a solid white stripe of width at least 6 inches and may be dashed up to 200 feet before the approach to an intersection. This design of a dashed bike lane allows for its dual use as a right - turn pocket for motor vehicles. 5. Stencils shall also be used within the lane on the pave- ment that read "bike lane' and include a stencil of a bi- cycle with an arrow showing the direction of travel (see Figure 10.7). 6. Bike lanes with two stripes are more visible than those with one and are preferred The second stripe would differentiate the bike lane froin the parking lane where appropriate. _7. Where space permits, intersection treatments should inciude bike lane 'pockets' as shown in Figure 10.8. 8. Loop detectors that detect bicycles should be ins,alied near the stop bar in the bike lane at all signalized inter- sections where bicycles are not reasonably accomr-no- dated. Signal timing anc phasing should be set to ac- commodate bicycle acceleration speeds. Colored Bicycle Lanes Green bicycle lanes increase visibility for cyclisrs- The ederal Highway Administration and the-alii`ornia Traffic Control De- vice Committee have approved green bike lanes on an interim basis. Carson would need to notify the state if it chooses to CARSON! NASTFP PL4N OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE 10.9 Green FIGURE 10.10 Bir rered+rcyc.'e r: c FIGURE use this treatment. Colored bike lanes should be painted a bright, chartreuse green as shown in Figure 10.9 Green bicycle lanes are sometimes used as 'conflict zone' treatments. They are short lanes that are used where right - turn pockets or driveways direct motorists through a bicycle lane to turn right. The green lane makes it obvious to motoris-'s that they are crossing the bicycle lane and makes motorists more likely to be cautious and to look for bicycles. Green bi- cycle lanes can also be used as a continuous treatment span- ning an extended length of a bike lane corridor. Buffered Bike Lanes Buffered bike lanes provide a painted divider between the bike lane and the travel lanes (see Figures 10.10 and 10.11). This addi- tional space can improve the comfort of cyclists as they don't have to ride as close to motor vehicles. Buffered bike lanes can also be used to narrow travel lanes. which slows traffic. An additional buffer may be used between parked cars and bike lanes to direct cyclists to ride outside of the door zone of the parked cars. Buffered bike lanes are most alopropriate on wide, busy streets. They can be used on streets vrhere physicaliv separating the bike lanes with cycle tracks is undesirable for cost, operational, or maintenance reasons. CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FIGURE 10.12 Bike Poute sign Class III Bike Routes Bike routes have typically beer; designated as simple signed routes along street corridors, usually local streets and col- lectors. With proper route signage, design, and maintenance bike routes can be effective in guiding bicyclists along a route suited for bicycling without having enough roadway space to provide a dedicated Class II bike lane. Class III Bike Routes can be designed in a manner that encourages bicycle usage, convenience, and safety. There are a variety of other improve- ment5 that can enhance the safety and attraction of streets for bicyclists. Bike routes can become more useful when coupled with such techniques as the following • Route, directional, and distance signage • Wide curb lanes • "Sl arrow" stencils painted in the traffic lane along the ap- propriate path of where a bicyclist would ride in the lane (see Figures 10.15 and 10.14 and discussion below) • Accelerated pavement maintenance schedules • Traffic signals timed and coordinated for cyclists (where appropriate) • Traffic calming measures Proper "Bine Route" signage; as shown in Figure 10.i�_ should be posted after every intersection along the route of the bike- way. This will inform bicyclists that the bikeway facility contin- ues and will alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists along the route. Directional signage may accompany this sign as well to guide bicyclists along the route. Sharrows This Plan recommends using the sharrow s-lencil (Figure 10.13) as a way to enhance the visibility and safety of Class Ill bike routes. Sharrows (also known as shared lane markinas') indi- cate to cyclists the proper position to ride within the travel lane and assist with wayf"inding. They also alert motorlsrs that the travel lane is to be shared with bicyclists. CARSON M "AST -P PLAN OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE 10.13 `.i,� ,I!v. California MUTCD, Section 9C.103(CA) Shared Roadwav Bi- cycle Markings states "The shared roadway bicycle marking shall only be used on a roadway (Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) or Shared Roadway (No Bikeway Designation))." When used on streets with on -street parking, sharrows are to be placed such that the centers of the markings area minimum of 11 feet from the curb face or edge of paved shoulder. On streets with- out on -street parking that have an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the sharrows should be at leas: 4 feet from the face of the curb On two-lane roadways, these minimum distances allow vehi- cles to pass bicyclists on the left within the same lane without encroaching Into the opposite lane of traffic. (On multi -lane roadways, motorists must change lanes to pass a cyclist.) On multi -lane roadways with on -street parking, installing shar- -I 3J0 mm 254 mm 1 165 ni I 216 mm (6.5 inl 810 mm f2a 11 16.5'mJ All rounded corners 991-09 T' 152 mm x 152 mm gnd 25 mm 0 in) radius (6 in x 6 in) CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES 0 10-12 FIGURE 10.14 S'hJ%1'Ovr l ildC ire L gr )4-_ ] /r 3tiC1 , photo (bottom). FIGURE 10.15 _on(:, _­ eer, rows more than 11 feet from the curb will also move the bicy- clist farther from the 'door zone" (see Figure 10.14 Mop]). Sharrow markings should be placed in straight lines to allow the bicyclist to travel in a straight line. This often means the slarrow markings are in the center of the lane greater than the minimum guide of 4 or 11 feet from the curb Snarrow mark- ings should always be placed outside the "door zone" where on -street parking is provided. Sharrovvs should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced no more than 250 feet apart—which translates to roughly one or two sharrows every block, with more frequent markings on long blocks. Placing the sharrows between tire tracks, as shown in Figure 10.14, increases the life of the mark- ings and decreases long-term maintenance costs. Type B Sharrows The Cities of Long Beach and San Francisco are presently experimenting with green coloring of travel lanes with spar- rows, which Ryan Snyder Associates has termed type B shar- rows (see Figures 10.15 and 10.16). The wide green stripe used in Long Beach and green -backed sharrows in San Francisco send a strong signal to cyclists as to where they should ride. They also communicate to motorists than bicyclists are legiti- mate users of the entire travel lane. Although nc standards are established, multi -lane streets with narrow curb lanes are likely the most appropriate for type B sharrows. This treatment has not yet been approved as part of the California Manual on Uni- form Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Until it is approved, FIGURE 10.16 CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE 10.17 3r, the City would have to use this treatment under a sanctioned experimental process. Brookline Massachusetts uses anoth- er form of type B sharrow, which consists of large sharrows placed close together with an additional outer marking (see Figure 10.17). FREEWAY FREEWAY INTERCHANGES ON— AND Interchanges are not always designed to carry bicyclists safe - OFF -RAMP ly and comfortably across a freeway. The California Highway cc Design Manual (HDM) classifies freeway interchanges into 1� CROSSINGS types, and the guide, "Complete Intersections A Guide to Re- constructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians,'.' published by Caltrans in 2010, categorizes which of these types accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Inter- change configurations where ramps are at a near right-angle provide the best accommodation because vehicles are forced to slow down before turning. Short-term Treatments In the short-term, striping and signage canimprove conditions for bicyclists crossing the 91, 110, 405. and 710 freeways. Figure 10.18 shows two options that improve safety and comfort at free-flow ramp intersections. Long-term Treatments In the long-term, an interchange can be reconstructed to elim- inate free flow lanes and reconfigure intersections so ti -)at on and off ramps meet the crossroad at or near 90 degrees. Com- plete Intersections indicates that there are six interchange types that are best suited to accommodate pedestrian arid bicyclists. These are shown in Figure 10.19. SIGNASIGNAGEBikeway signage should conform to the signage standards GE identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Conhol Devices AND (MUTCD, 2009) and the California MU T CD 2010. These docu- MARKINGSmen's give specific information on the type and location of signage for the primary bikeway system. Table 10.1 on the next page provides guidance on some of the most important signs. CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUID'EI_INES 10-13 FIGURE 10.18 Sizplls,-,,a rid 5`nr�ina —nif) TYPE L-1 TYPE L-6 FIGURE 10.19 Snipe bicycle lane to allow b.cyiim, to cross —p traffic at 90 degree angle "..Pn­ieK.fi 1,,— 6 -- CAPSON IA-PSTEP PLAN OF-- BIKE --WAY'S TYPE L-2 rij TYPE L-7 Widen outside lane/shoulder —91, to provide bicycle lane, through me—,t— pan Steno miv.wnrri—Ad. wvrn ovn—) Consider STOP signs or signals to allow pedestrians to cross 1.0.11 yield line and yield here pedestrian sign �— Stripe high visibility crosswalks ---.C—iderpeclestrian-activated flashing beacons install vieldl.—ndpeld he'e to pedestrians sign Stripe bicycle ane, to the left of right -Nm only lane, \Consn.. single, rather Thai, d..I,ightl.,n only lane, TYPE L-8 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE A numbered bike route network may be devised as a conve- nient way for bicyclists to navigate through the City, analogous to the way in which the numbered highway system guides mo- torists effic!ent1v U-i-ouglh the roadway network. This could be used on all classes of bikeways. Figure 10.20 shows a num- bered bikeway sign. Figure 10.21 shovers a supplemental "Share the Road" sign. Carson should launch a wavfinding system to guide bicyclists to their destinations Glendale, CA recently began installing wayfinding signs along their- network, as Figure 10.22 shows. Signs will be typically placed at decision points along routes within the City's bicycle network, which may include the inter- section of two or more bikeways and at key locations leading to and along bikeways. Similarly, Los Angeles recently began marking street signs with bicycles if the street is a bicycle FIGURE friendly street (see Figure 10.23). Efflam"aDIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE It is important to provide information to cyclists where bike routes turn, or where bikeways intersect. This can be done r H with both signs and pavement markings as shown in Figure 10.24. Carson can enhance typical Class III routes with direc- tional signage and pavement markings. These markings allow FIGURE 10.21 `; rar the cyclist to understand how the route continues, especially' if -liry/? iD Yoti" i+ is one that may be less direct. FIGURE 10.22 (LEFT) FIGURE 10.23 (RIGHT) CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES TABLE 10.1'eCom-nen�iJ Bicycle For motorists at a bikeway B on Y N/A W11-15 with Crossing crossing W11 -15P (optional) Bike Lane At the far side of significant B on W R81 R3-17 arterial intersections 10-16 Stop Ahead Where a stop sign is B. R W3-1 W3-1 -_-- obscured on Y Signal Ahead Where signal is obscured B, R, G W3-3 W3-3 Pedestrian Where a pedestrian walkway B on Y Wll-2 W11-2 - Crossing crosses a bikeway Directio-al At intersections where access W on G G7 Di -1 b, Dl -21b, R Signs to major destinations is D1 -3b, DI -1 - available G8 D1 -2c, Dl -3c = Right_ Lane Where a bike lane ends B on VV N/A R3-7 Dust Turn before an intersection Right: Begin R4-4 R4-4 Right Turn Here, Yield to Bikes Share the Where there is need to B on Y W16-1 with W16 -1P with Road warn motorists m watch for W11-1 W11-1 bicyclists along the highway Bicycles May Where travel lanes are too B on W R4-11 R4-11 Use Fuli Lane narrow for bicvclists and motor vehicles to travel side by side CAP,SON MAS T EP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE 10.24 =Yarn A-, : Ct,?'lona! _ _ ge (ie4 iv. ;mare 9!, f ;:>ai-arr;en'r;arr.ir;gs (right tvvc BICYCLEBicycle parking is a critical component of the network and fa- cilitates bicycle travel, especially for commuting and utilitarian PARKINGpurposes. The provision of bicycle parking at every destina- tion ensures that bicyclists have a place to safely secure their mode of travel. Elements of proper bicycle parking accommo- dation are outlined below: FIGURE 10.25 1. Bike racks provide short-term parking. Bicycle racks should offer adequate support for the bicycles and should be easy to lock to. Figures 10.25 and 10.26 display a common inverted -U design that accomplishes this Figure 10.27 depicts a multi -bicycle rack that also works well. Figure 10.28 shows an innovative concept in which the bike rack itself looks like a bicycle 2 Inverted -U racks placed next to each other (as shown in Figure 10.26) should be placed at least 36 inches apart (48 inches is recommended), so bicycles can be loaded on both sides of the rack. 3 Long-term parking should be provided for those need- ing all day storage or enhanced safety;. Bicycle lockers offer good long-term storage. as shown in Figure 10.29. Bicycle lockers should be approximateiy 6' x 2' x 4'. and should consider the needs of folding and recumbent FIGURE 10.26 ;3Cu FIGURE 10.27 CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES 10-17 10-18 I FIGURE 10.28 `Brke"bike rack in FIGURE 10.29 Sicy,de lockers FIGURE 10.30 %w ornareci ic,_; bicycles. Attendant and automated parking also serves long-term uses as shown in Figure 10.30. 4. Bicycle parking should be clearly identified by signage, such as that shown in Figure 10.31. Signage shall also identify the location of racks and lockers at the entrance to shopping centers, buildings. and other establishments where parking is not provided in an obvious location, such as near a front door. 5. Bicycle parking should be located close to the front door of buildings and retail establishments in order to provide for the convenience, visibility, and safety of those who park their bicycles. The City should consider the "wheels to heels' transition. Every bicyclist must become a pe- destrian when entering a building, the City should place bicycle parking in locations that facilitate this process, and discourage sidewalk riding in pedestrian -oriented districts 6. At transit stations and in dense housing complexes, -wo- oer racks can be used (see Figure 10.32). These racks allow bicvcles to be loaded on the top or bottom. wi,h a lever that swings to the ground to allow, or top rack loading Individual racks are also staggered in heigr�t such that bicycle handlebars will not hit each other. The racks are placed very ciosely toge�her (approximately 16" apart). 7. Figure 10.3; shows staggered, wall-rnoumed bicvcle racks suitable for small offices, comirrercial areas, and apartment complexes. Extra precaution should be taker for securi,y including lo --ked entry to the storage area and locks on the racks themselves. If staggered in height, bicycles can be placed 16" apart Figure 10.33 does not include a locking mechanism, which is recommended. S. Bicycle lockers should have informational signage, plac- ards, or stickers placed on or immediately adjacent to them identifying the procedure for how to use a locker. This information at a minimum should include the foliow- mg FIGURE 10.31 or ;. Contact information to obtain a locker at City Hall or other administrating establishment Cost (if any) for locker use Terms of use CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS FIGURE 10.32 Two-tier bike racks. FIGURE 10.33 Wall -mounted bike rack (without lock). FIGURE 10.34 6u%e cc irrals in L:,rng - .. _'; (,eft,- alio' u.,> Ancreles (oght) Emergency contact information 9. Bicycle lockers should be labeled explicitly as such and shall not be used for other types of storage. 10. Bicycle racks and storage lockers should be bored tight- ly to the ground in a manner that prevents tampering. 11 Figure 10.34 shows bike corrals, which are created when a local jurisdiction replaces on -street auto -parking spaces with rows of bicycle racks They should be used where bicycle parking is in high demand. ADDITIONAL ROAD DIETS TREATMENTSA "road diet" describes the reallocation of pavement space ANDD CON _ by removing one or more lanes of travel to add other types f-�1�8 q of facilities vplca! road diets change sLreers with four lanes SI Q E RAT I Q N S (wo lanes of travel in each direction) to two lanes wV, a cen- ter two -Way -left -turn lane and bicycle lanes. Dome road diets may be necessary to create a specified on -street bicycle facll- i`y. Load diets can L)e Implemented during street re-pavlrlgs or re-surf-acings. Not only do they allow for the installation of bi- cycle lanes, but `hey o�'Len present an OpportUnity -�o Improve the vedestrlan environment as well7. heti also p ovlde a tt"8tf c CHAP i =R 10 DESIGN GUiD`LINES 10-20 FIGURE 10.35 Road diet beioro ii Oft) ar-id after ('bot tcirro FIGURE 10.36: calming effect. The City will need to conduct outreach and no- tification for any suggested road diets. Road diets will also re- quire council approval. Figure 10.35 shows a typical road diet. DRAINAGE GRATES Care must be taken to ensure that drainage grates are bicy- cle -safe. If not a bicycle wheel may fall into the slots of the grate, causing the cyclist to tumble. Replacing existing grates or welding thin metal straps across the orate perpendicular to the direction of travel is required to make them bicycle safe. These should be checked periodically to ensure that the straps remain in place. Grates with bars perpendicular to the roadway must not be placed at curb cuts, because wheelchairs could also get caught in the slot. Figure 10.36 shows the appropriate types of drainage grates that should be used. r rtt n v 1 :.r) rrr.r: Uu-- ctl€ori of travel A X11 r'e Ctlo n Of tflavelL B LOOP DETECTORS La -Ir( ct'ioil tr-ivfL C Loop detectors at signalized intersections should be designed to detect when a bicycle rides or stops over them. Loo,-) de- tectors at the signalized intersections of minor streets (minor arterials or collectors) should have rJrlonTy when retrofitting existing detectors where the minor approaches do not call a green rDhase during every signal cycle. EEventually, all signaiized intersections should provide loops or other detection devices. CARSON MASTEP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS C FIGURE 10.37 Eicoc:it?lrior The State of California passed a law that became effective in 2009 requiring local jurisdictions to add bicycle -sensitive loop detectors to all new signals and those that are replaced. The general specifications are that a detection area of 6' by 6 be created behind the limit line, and that bicyclists be given enough time to travel througn the intersection with the clear- ance time calculated using a speed of 14.7 feet per second plus 6 seconds for start-up. As =igure 10.37 shows, painting the loop detectors and adding a bicycle stencil can help to notify cyclists as to where they should position themselves to trip the detectors 10_21 CHAPTER 10 DESIGN GUIDELINES 8 10-22 This page intentionally left blank CARSON MASTEP PL4N OF BIKEWAYS A-2 I OVERVIEW MAP RESULTS FROM WORKSHOP 1 This appendix contains the full results of the public outreach effort. The following are pictures of the maps that attendees drew on at Workshop 1 to indicate where they would like to see bicycle facilities and to identify difficult and dangerous streets. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEVv',�!�'S APPENDI%A PCFJ:`'J'J-P CARSON rl-",TF; P -L.1, OF BiWEVI, I- APPENDIX A PUC -l- -FT- A-5 CARSON f-TFP, Wit.. OF A OPENDIX A PUPLICGJTI,=AC.� ':r.7� CARSON rl, ,.TEP, V_L, ql 1-�� p,, , ,- rdl, RESULTS OF PRIORITIZATION EXERCISES At Workshop 2, a- large poster board listed all the proposed projects in the draft bikeway net- work. Attendees were given twelve dots, six green to place on their highest priority projects, and six yellow to place on their next -highest priority projects. They could place more than one dot on any one project. Along similar lines, the brief online survey distributed after Workshop 2 asked respondents to choose their three highest priority projects and then to choose their three next -most -important projects. Finally, at the Tour de Carson event, attendees could place dots on a map of proposed bikeways in Carson to indicate the projects they thought were the most important. Table A.l shows the results of these exercises. TABLE A.1 Dominguez Channel - North of 220th Stree: Del Amo Boulevard - East of of Central Avenue Victoria Street Dominguez Channel - South of 220th Street 223rd Street Avalon Boulevard - South of Del Arno Boulevard University Drive Central Avenue Wilmington Avenue - South of Del Arno Boulevard -igueroa Street - South of Del Amo Bouievard 213th Street Dei Amo Boulevard - West of of Central Avenue Sepulveda Boulevard Albertoni Street APPENDIX A oUBLIC OUT ,IA D: Ti AI_ A-9 10 _ 4 13 32 q- 1 3 — 22 — 31 4 0 2 3 20 79 7 —2 5 12 28 2 2 z --- 2 ------- 14 23 5 1 � 2 g --- - -- ----- - -- ---- -2 2 2z 6 3 2 2 20 0 -- 0 3 1 16 20 1 4 4 4 - 19 J 4 1 1 6 15 1 4 3 3 4 l 2 1 3 2 6 14 0 3 3 4 4 14 0 3 _ 3 14 APPENDIX A oUBLIC OUT ,IA D: Ti AI_ A-9 auuievarcj - L 1 6 2 13 Avalon Boulevard-North of Del A-10 0 0 Amo Boulevard 4 2 6 12 _--_-_ Wardlow Road 0 Figueroa Street-North of Del _ 2 2 1 4 9 _ Amo Boulevard 1 - 0 0 _ 6 g _ - Moneta Avenue 4 _ - Santa Fe Avenue � 2 7 1 LADWP Utility Corridor near 1 2 1 2 7 - Southbay Pavillion 1 2 2 0 1 h Lomita Boulevard = 1 Dolores S - --= tree 1 1 0 5 2 _ 228th Street 1 0 G 2 5 1 _ 220th Street/Lucerne Street 0 0 — 1 -- G 5 -- Watson Center Road 4 0 0 5 0 Interstate 405 Right-Of-Way/ 2 1 2 0 ADVVP Utility Corridor 1 C 0 4 Tu rm o n t Wash -------- 1 BNSP Railway Harbor Subdivisior, ? C 1 G - on Avenue - North of Del 2,- 0 4 0Wilming AMC) Boulevard 1 2 0 1 Vera Street ------ - - ------ __ Wilmington Drain 0 3 -__ 1 Civic Plaza Drive 2 — 0 0 0 3 --- — — 1 Mair; Stree =North of Del Amo 0 0 1 - 0 — 0 _ Boulevard 0 G 0 � Bonita Street G Turmont Street;/Craigjon Avenue/ 2 0 0 0 2 0 Cashdan Street 0 0 2 0 2 Broadway G _ Loop Road-Lenardo Dr - 1 Aiondra Boulevard 0 ---- 0 0 0 1 0 1 G 0 C CAP.SON MASTER PLAN OF BIE EWAyS mss_ --- - r __U1 VOl U U 1 0 0 O 1 192nd Street 0 1 0 0 O 1 Leapwood Avenue/Chico Street 0 1 0 0 0 1 Bitterlake Street/Amantha 0 0 0 0- 0- -- A-11 Avenue/Radbard Street 0 214th Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campaign Drive 0 —_ - 0 -0 0 0 0 Galway Avenue/Denwall Drive 0 0 0 0 0 --- Selwyn Avenue/Desford Street 0 0 0 0 0 RESULTS OF ROADWAY -= PREFERENCES EXERCISES At Workshop 2. a large poster board displayed the questions, "Do you su - pport using "road diets," _ - which reduce the number of auto lanes on a street to add bike lanes?' and "Do you support us- ing 10 -foot travel lanes on streets to add bike lanes`'' Attendees were given two dots, one to use for the question regarding road diets, and another to use for the auestion regarding -ravel lane width. They placed the dot in a "Yes" column or a "No' column. Along similar lines, the brief on- line survey distributed after Workshop 2 asked respondents to answer yes or no -o the same 1wc questions. Finally, a- the Tour de Carson even:, attendees placed stickers on a board identica! to the one used at Workshop 2 to indicate their ves or no answer to these questions. The resul-s are shown in Table A.2 below TABLE A.2 e .. ' yup: support the 8 0 18 qq use of road diets? Do you support the 10 0 19--- use of 10 -foo-, lanes 48 0 APPENDIX A PUBLIC 01-17 PEACH DETAIL OTHER RESULTS FROM THE ONLINE PRIORITIZATION SURVEY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BIKEWAY NETWORK The survev allowed for open-ended comments on the draft bikeway network. T he following responses are provided verbatim. A-12 On the newly built connector bridge, built to connect Del Amo Blvd from Maple Ave to- Crenshaw oCrenshaw Blvd, which currently prohibits bicycles and pedestrians, they should permit = bicycles by adding in a bike lane on both directions on the bridge. -----_ This is a good start! -- This survey does not allow for those not in favor of supporting the "Comprehensive Master Plan of Bikeways". This is unfair, and objectionable: _ Bikeways selected based on the condition of the street. -- _ - A color coded map could have been helpful • Bikeways are really needed. • I bike to work in carson from long beach almost daily. Sepulveda, Wardlow/223, and Wilmington between 223 and Sepulveda are probably the most dangerous roads to bike in the city. Truck traffic, pot moles, and road debris make the ride vary unsafe. Unfortunately for a bike, there really is no other option. PARTICIPANT STAKEHOLDER STATUS The final cuestions on the survey asked participants to identify what kind o7 stakeholder they are in Carson (resident v. employee. etc.) The majority of the participants indicated that they are a resident of Carson, The majority also ride their bicycles In Carsoi i currently'. Ill� CARSON M.AST=P PLAN OF BIKE WAYS ��..+��` Cy -_� 4 t `�� 12Y^*^ gi y ._� .. �_ COUNTThe City, LACBC, and consultant team developed the countina method used to count bicyclists in October, 2012 We decided METHOD- to deviate from the methodology used in 2010. Although this OLOGYsomewhat limits the accuracy of comparisons between vol- umes in 2010 and 2012, the 2012 methodology will be more robust going forward and more compatible witn screenline or automatic counts. The count forms from 2012 and 2010 are displayed on the fol- lowing pages. B-2 --- 2012: TWO SCREENLINES ---- For the 2012 count, counters marked crossings of two imagi- nary screenlines. A crossing in either direction over either of the screenlines would be recorded with a single tally mark. This means that a westbound bicyclist making a right turn at —- the intersection would be counted twice, while an eastbound bicyclist making a right turn would not be counted at all. The placement of the screenlines on the north and east leg of the ---' intersection was an arbitrary convention. E:- The 2010 definition of what would ioe counted as a 'child" was someone who was perceived to be under 13 years of age. This definition was carried over in the 2012 counts. T he choice of a screenline count was influenced by concurrent work being conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments to establish a standard bike count methodol- ogy and data format for Los Angeles County. Ryan Snyder ,As- sociates was the prime consultant on that project. 2010: INTERSECTION -ENTERING In 2010, volunteer counters marked any bicyclist that entered the intersection. They did not record where bicyclists entered. CARSON MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COUNT FORM - Page 1 0 Count all crossings of imagined m dart screenlines on the north and east approaches. Make additional marks as necessary to indicate wrong way riding, female, no helmet, etc. ­- YCY­ -.-d .1-1 NB S-13N NB S-13 N -P S -p N -P S J"5 JL M11-11--, E -B E -B E -P E -P p, 77) t" r-� li-- wrM, F<rn:k eK.arsu Y FB FFPPW.B WB WWR FB V1/WR NH CB W -p NH C6 W -P c— c— P.111-1 R CID SR CP N -B S-13 N N -B S-13 S -P P-dN-P S -P 66E-13 VM1 ;S1-1 Asx E -P E -P w, 4-, FFPW.B FF W -B WWR FB WWR FB NH CB W -P NH CB W -P 0- 1-- S'P CP SR CP APPENDIX B BICYCLE C-OU1117 METHODOi-OGY B-3 B-4 South Bay Bicycle Counts INA. . FGZA4---aA Data: ThurSda November 4, 2,019 Time: 3:00 6:00 p.m. Location: arson Time Period Startinq 3:00-3:15 Male Female Child (under 13) No Helmet Sidewalk Wrong Way (on 3:15-3:30 130 - 3:45 Ill I ll) 3:45-4:00 4:00-4:15 4:15-4:30 4:30 - 4:45 4:45 - 5:00 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:30 - 5745 5:45-6:00 Totals IL I I'll lilt 3 I 5101� OVJ,+�� bid 1AIV 'A ,�- A r -C �M,!f CARSON MAST!EiP PLAN OF BIKEWAYS LIMITATIONS ON LOCATION - SPECIFIC COMPARISONS Because of the difference in counting method between. 2012 and 2010, differences in observed volumes at a given intersec- tion may derive from turning movement volumes at that loca- tion, rather than changes in the overall number of bicyclists there. Because turning bicyclists could be counted either once, twice. or not at all depending on the direction of their turn, locations with heavy turning volumes in a particular direction could see a substantial change in volumes from 2010 to 2012. Across multiple locations, these differences are less significant APPENDIX B BICYCLE COUNT METHODOLOGY B -S