Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan

Transcription

CITY OF DANA POINT
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS MASTER PLAN
In Association with
Ryan Snyder Associates
Kimley-Horn and Associates
February 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Dana Point
City Council
Lara Anderson, Mayor
Russ Chilton, Mayor Pro Tem
Wayne Rayfield, Councilmember
Diane Harkey, Councilmember
James Lacy, Councilmember
City Manager’s Office
Douglas C. Chotkevys, City Manager
Planning Commission
April O'Connor, Chairman
J. Scott Schoeffel, Vice Chair
Norman Denton III, Commissioner
Greg Powers, Commissioner
Steven Weinberg, Commissioner
Community Development Department
Kyle Butterwick, Director of Community Development
Brenda Chase, Senior Planner
Public Works and Engineering Department
Brad Fowler, Director of Public Works/Engineering Services
Matthew Sinacori, Deputy City Engineer
Chris Nguyen, Traffic Engineer
Consulting Team
Alta Planning + Design
Michael Jones, Principal
Mark Brown, Lead Planner
Ryan Snyder Associates
Ryan Snyder, Project Manager
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Dennis Landaal, Civil Engineer
Michael Colety, Civil Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… viii
Chapter 1.0 Introduction........................................................ 1
Chapter 2.0 Goals and Objectives............................................. 3
2.1 Goals ......................................................................................... 3
2.2 Objectives .................................................................................. 3
Chapter 3.0 Existing Conditions ............................................... 7
3.1 Existing and Proposed Land Use Patterns .............................................. 7
3.2 Bikeways .................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Existing Bikeways................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Conditions of Existing Bikeways and Pedestrian Trails ..................... 11
3.2.3 Missing Links....................................................................... 12
3.2.4 Bikeway Connectivity with Adjacent Jurisdictions.......................... 13
3.3 Bicycle Parking ........................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Existing Bicycle Parking in Dana Point ........................................ 14
3.4 Links to Other Transportation Modes ................................................. 15
3.4.1 Existing Links to Other Transportation Modes ............................... 15
3.5 Bicycle Amenities ........................................................................ 15
3.5.1 Existing Amenities................................................................ 15
3.6 Safety Education and Enforcement ................................................... 15
3.6.1 Safety Education Program....................................................... 15
3.6.2 Bicycle Safety and Enforcement ............................................... 15
3.6.3 Bicycle Collisions ................................................................. 16
Chapter 4.0 Proposed Projects and Programs ............................ 17
4.1 Bikeways .................................................................................. 17
4.1.1
Continuity with Existing and Proposed Bikeways in Adjacent
Jurisdictions .......................................................................... 21
4.2 Bicycle Parking ........................................................................... 21
4.3 Links to Other Transportation Modes ................................................. 21
4.4 Bicycle Amenities ........................................................................ 21
4.5 Safety Education and Enforcement ................................................... 22
4.5.1 Implementation................................................................... 22
4.5.2 Promotion.......................................................................... 22
i
Chapter 5.0 Implementation ................................................. 23
5.1 Previous Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities ......................................... 23
5.2 Existing Bicycle Commuters and Commuter Ridership Forecast.................. 23
5.3 Public Process ............................................................................ 24
5.4 Consistency with Other Transportation, Air Quality, and Energy Planning
Efforts ...................................................................................... 24
5.4.1 Coordination with Other City Plans............................................ 24
5.4.2 Coordination with Regional Plans.............................................. 24
5.5 Top Priority Bikeway Projects ......................................................... 25
Project 1: Bicycle Parking Program ................................................... 26
Project 2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program ..................... 27
Project 3: Bikeway Facilities Signage Program ...................................... 29
Project 4: Pedestrian Trail Signage Program ........................................ 30
Project 5: Pacific Coast Highway Bikeway ........................................... 31
Project 6: Stonehill Drive Class II Bikeway ........................................... 33
Project 7: Street of the Blue Lantern Bikeway ...................................... 35
Project 8: La Cresta Drive Connector Bikeway ...................................... 36
Project 9: Via California Bikeway...................................................... 37
Project 10: Doheny Park Road/Coast Highway Bikeway............................ 38
Project 11: Dana Point-Doheny Village-Capistrano Beach Connection Study ... 39
Project 12: Capistrano Beach Rail Trail............................................... 41
5.6 Proposed Pedestrian Trail Projects ................................................... 44
Trail Project 1: Sea Terrace Trail System ............................................ 45
Trail Project 2: Headlands Trail System .............................................. 47
Trail Project 3: Rachel Circle Trail .................................................... 48
Trail Project 4: Dana Woods Canyon Trail............................................ 51
Candidate Trail Not Selected: Camino del Avion/Sea Lion Drive ................ 53
ii
Chapter 6.0 Funding ........................................................... 55
6.1 TEA-21/SAFETEA-LU ..................................................................... 55
6.1.1 Regional Surface Transportation Program Fund (STP) ...................... 55
6.1.2 Transportation Enhancements Program (TE)................................. 56
6.1.3 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)... 56
6.1.4 Hazard Elimination Safety Program (HES) .................................... 56
6.2 State Funding Programs................................................................. 56
6.2.1 TDA Article 3 (SB 821) ........................................................... 56
6.2.2 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) ........................................ 57
6.2.3 Safe Routes to School (AB1475) ................................................ 57
6.2.4 National Recreational Trails Fund (State Parks)............................. 57
6.2.5 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEM) .............. 57
6.2.6 Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) .................................................. 57
6.2.7 AB 2766 ............................................................................ 58
6.3 Local Funding............................................................................. 58
6.3.1 Measure M ......................................................................... 58
6.3.2 New Construction................................................................. 58
6.3.3 Impact Fees and Developer Mitigation ........................................ 59
6.3.4 Mello Roos ......................................................................... 59
6.3.5 Business Improvement Districts ................................................ 59
6.3.6 Other ............................................................................... 59
Chapter 7.0 Design Guidelines ............................................... 64
7.1 Class I Bike Path Design Recommendations.......................................... 64
7.2 Class II Bike Lane Design Recommendations......................................... 66
7.3 Class III Bike Route Design Recommendations ...................................... 69
7.4 Signage and Markings.................................................................... 70
7.5 Bicycle Parking ........................................................................... 70
7.6 Drainage Grates .......................................................................... 74
7.7 Maintenance .............................................................................. 74
7.8 Security.................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX
California Streets and Highways Code 890-894.2 .............................. 76
iii
LIST OF MAPS
Map 3.1 Existing and Future Land Use ........................................................... 8
Map 3.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities .............................................................. 10
Map 4.1 Proposed Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Projects .................................. 20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Existing Bikeway Facilities............................................................. 9
Table 3.2 Existing Bikeway Gaps................................................................ 12
Table 3.3 Bicycle Collision Analysis 1998-2000 ............................................... 16
Table 3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis 2001-2003 ............................................... 16
Table 4.1 Top Priority Projects ................................................................. 18
Table 4.2 2nd Priority Projects................................................................... 19
Table 4.3 3rd Priority Projects................................................................... 19
Table 4.4 Proposed Pedestrian Trail Projects ................................................ 19
Table 5.1 Bicycle Ridership Forecast and Air Quality Analysis ............................. 23
Table 6.1 City of Dana Point Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Facilities Federal
Funding Sources .......................................................................... 60
Table 6.2 City of Dana Point Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Facilities State
Funding Sources .......................................................................... 61
Table 6.3 City of Dana Point Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Facilities Local
Funding Sources .......................................................................... 62
Table 6.4 City of Dana Point Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Facilities Additional
Funding Sources .......................................................................... 63
Table 7.1 Recommended Bikeway Signage and Markings ................................... 73
Table 7.2 Typical Bikeway and Trail Maintenance Check List and Schedule ............ 75
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Doheny State Beach ................................................................ 14
Figure 4.1 Salt Creek Beach Bike Path ....................................................... 17
Figure 5.1 La Cresta Drive ....................................................................... 25
Figure 5.2 Pacific Coast Highway Existing Cross-Section.................................... 32
Figure 5.3 Pacific Coast Highway Proposed Cross-Section .................................. 32
Figure 5.4 Stonehill Drive Existing Cross-Section............................................. 34
Figure 5.5 Stonehill Drive Proposed Cross-Section ........................................... 34
Figure 5.6 South End of Doheny State Beach Parking Lot................................... 43
iv
Figure 5.7 Rail Corridor and Doheny State Beach Parking Lot ............................. 43
Figure 5.8 San Juan Creek Multi-use Trail .................................................... 44
Figure 5.9 Dirt Trail Near the Library (Sea Terrace)......................................... 46
Figure 5.10 Existing Gravel Trail in Undeveloped Sea Terrace Park... ................... 46
Figure 5.11 Existing Vacant Land on Headlands Property .................................. 47
Figure 5.12 Looking Towards the Camino del Avion/Bear Brand Road Intersection .... 49
Figure 5.13 Encroachment onto the Easement near Rachel Circle ........................ 50
Figure 5.14 Looking West Towards Golden Lantern.......................................... 52
Figure 5.15 Looking South from Sea Bridge Drive ............................................ 52
Figure 5.16 Looking east from Sea Lion Drive – Homes to the North and Steep Slope
to the South……. .......................................................................... 54
Figure 5.17 Looking east from Sea Lion Drive - Open Space Corridor Above a
Retaining Wall…. ......................................................................... 54
Figure 7.1 Class I Bike Path/Trail Entrance Treatment ..................................... 65
Figure 7.2 Bike Path/Trail Intersection Treatment Adjacent to Roadway ............... 66
Figure 7.3 Class II Bike Lane Sign (Caltrans) .................................................. 67
Figure 7.4 Bike Lane Treatment at an Intersection (MUTCD, ASHTTO)................... 68
Figure 7.5 Numbered Bikeway Sign............................................................. 69
Figure 7.6 Class III Bike Route Sign (Caltrans) ................................................ 69
Figure 7.7 Newly Approved Class III Bike Route Pavement Stencil ........................ 70
Figure 7.8 “Bike Hitch” Bicycle Rack Parking................................................. 71
Figure 7.9 “Inverted U” Bicycle Rack Parking ................................................ 71
Figure 7.10 “BikeBike” Bicycle Rack Parking ................................................. 71
Figure 7.11 Bicycle Parking Sign (Caltrans) ................................................... 72
Figure 7.12 Conventional Bicycle Locker Storage ............................................ 72
Figure 7.13 Bicycle “e-Locker” Storage ....................................................... 72
Figure 7.14 Samples of Proper Drainage Grate Design ...................................... 74
v
CALTRANS
Bicycle Transportation Account Requirements
Approved
Requirement
Page(s)
Existing and future bicycle
commuters
23
Description of existing and
proposed land use patterns
7
Land use planning map
8
Map of existing bikeways
10
Maps of proposed bikeways
20
Description of existing bikeways
9-13
Description of proposed bikeways
18-19,
25-43
Maps of existing and proposed
bicycle parking facilities
10, 20
proposed bicycle parking facilities
13-14,
21, 26
multi-modal connections
10, 20
proposed multi-modal connections
15, 21
changing and storage facilities
10, 20
proposed changing and storage
facilities
15, 21
vi
Notes/Comments
CALTRANS
Bicycle Transportation Account Requirements
Approved
Requirement
Page(s)
Bicycle safety education and
enforcement programs
15-16, 22,
27-28
Citizen participation
24
Consistency with transportation,
air quality and energy plans
24
Project descriptions and
priority listings
18-19,
26-43
Past expenditures and future
financial needs
23,
26-43
vii
Notes/Comments
DANA POINT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary
A safe and effective bikeway and pedestrian trail network enhances the quality of life for residents and
visitors to the City. This Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan serves as a resource document to guide
the development and maintenance of a bicycle and pedestrian trail network, support facilities and other
programs for Dana Point over the next 20 years. The Plan address important issues related to the City’s
bikeways and pedestrian trails, such as planning, community involvement, utilization of existing
resources, facility design, multi-modal integration, safety and education, support facilities as well as
specific programs, implementation, maintenance and funding.
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the project. Chapter 2 contains Goals and Objectives. The Goals and
Objectives are:
•
Goal 1: Promote Bicycle Transportation and Walking
•
Goal 2: Increase Bicycle Transportation Usage
•
Goal 3: Improve the Local and Regional Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Network
•
Goal 4: Improve Pedestrian Mobility and Enhance Recreational Opportunities
•
Goal 5: Increase Opportunities to Benefit from Bicycling and Walking
Objective A:
Implement the Master Plan, which identifies existing and future needs, and provides specific
recommendations for facilities and programs over the next 20 years.
Objective B:
Identify and Implement a network of bikeways and pedestrian trails that is feasible, fundable, and that
serve users’ needs, especially for travel to employment areas, schools, commercial districts, parks and
recreational areas, and institutions.
Objective C:
Maintain and improve the quality, operation, and integrity of the Dana Point bikeway network and
roadways regularly used by bicyclists.
Objective D:
Provide or encourage short- and long-term bicycle parking and other bicycle amenities in employment
and commercial areas, in multifamily housing complexes, at schools, parks and recreational areas, and at
transit facilities.
Objective E:
Increase the number of bicycle-transit trips.
Objective F:
Develop and implement education and encouragement plans aimed at youth and adults. Increase public
awareness of the benefits of bicycling and walking and of available resources and facilities.
Policy actions follow each objective and provide guidance to the City as to how to meet each of the
objectives.
viii
Chapter 3 describes Existing Conditions of bikeways and pedestrian trails in Dana Point. Much of this
Chapter is required by Caltrans for the City to qualify for Bicycle Transportation Account funds. Chapter
3 identifies:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classification and condition of all existing bikeways
Missing bicycle links
Existing bicycle parking
Existing links to public transit and bicycle amenities
Present bicycle safety and enforcement practices of the Sheriff’s Department
Bicycle-involved collisions in the six years from 1998 to 2003
Chapter 4 contains planned improvements and is the heart of the plan. It lists and prioritizes projects
based on the following criteria:
•
•
•
Regional connectivity
Closing gaps in the bikeway network
Connections with major destinations, such as Dana Point Harbor, the Downtown Business District,
Doheny State Beach, Capistrano Beach County Park, employment centers, shopping centers, and
schools
Completion of the bikeway network
Availability of street width or right-of-way
Existing plans the City has to improve and/or widen streets
•
•
•
The following tables list proposed projects according to priority. Projects that would meet most or all of
the criteria, and/or meet the criteria well, were ranked high. In other words, projects that would make
regional connections, link major destinations, etc. ranked high. This was especially true if they make
particularly good regional connections, or connect with an important destination. Projects that would
meet some criteria, but not as well, were placed into the second priority list. Projects that would meet
just a few of the criteria were placed in the third priority. The first table lists the top priority projects
along with their ends, destinations served, lengths and estimated cost. The second and third tables list
second and third priority projects. The last table shows the pedestrian trail projects.
Chapter 4 also identifies programs to expand bicycle parking, bike racks on buses, amenities and safety
education programs.
Chapter 5 is the Implementation Plan. It discusses:
•
•
•
•
Bicycle commuter ridership forecast
The public process that was followed in producing and adopting the Plan
Consistency with other City and regional plans
Project sheets for each top priority project and pedestrian projects identified in Chapter 4
Chapter 6 provides information on funding sources. It describes various federal, state and local funding
sources that may be used to pay for the projects in this Plan.
Chapter 7 provides detailed design guidelines for the various facilities recommended in this Plan. These
guidelines include those for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bike paths
Bike lanes
Signed bike routes
Signage/markings for bicycle facilities
Bicycle parking
Drainage grates
Maintenance and security
The Appendix contains California Streets and Highways Code 890-894.2 which details the requirements for
bicycle plans to make the City eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account funds.
ix
Top Priority Projects
Project
Number
1
2
3
4
Class
Name
Ownership
From
To
Mileage Estimated Cost1
Destinations
-
Citywide Bicycle Parking Program
-
$54,000
-
-
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program
-
$40,000 per year
-
-
Citywide Bikeway Signage Program
-
$48,500
-
-
Citywide Pedestrian Trail Signage Program
-
$5,500
-
3.50
$138,000
Monarch Bay Plaza,
Sea Terrace Park,
Public Library,
Downtown Business
District,
Regional Route
2.10
$105,000
Crown Valley
Pkwy
Copper
Lantern
Golden
Lantern
Laguna Beach
city limit
II
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
II
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
II
Del Prado Ave
City
III
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
6
II
Stonehill Dr
City
Niguel Rd
7
III
Blue Lantern
City
Stonehill Dr
La Cresta Dr
0.60
$9,000
8
III
La Cresta Dr
City
Selva Rd
end
0.25
$3,750
III
Via California
City
Camino
Capistrano
0.60
$9,000
Connector Route
III
Doheny Park Rd
City
San Clemente
city limit
San Juan
Capistrano city
limit
1.40
$21,000
San Juan Creek
Palisades Dr
Doheny Village,
Doheny State Beach,
Capistrano Beach,
Regional Route
5
9
10
III
11
12
Coast Hwy
City
Blue Lantern
San Juan Creek
Copper Lantern
Crown Valley
Pkwy
San Juan
Capistrano city
limit
Coast Hwy
Dana Hills High School,
Thunderbird Park,
Salt Creek Park
Downtown Business
District, Dana Hills High
School
R. H. Dana Elementary
School,
Connector Route
-
Dana Point-Doheny Village-Capistrano Beach Connection Study
-
$25,000
-
I
Doheny State
Capistrano Beach
Beach Access
Capistrano Beach
path near
City/OCTA
Rail-Trail
Road near
Palisades Dr
Coast Hwy
0.85
$425,000
Capistrano Beach, San
Juan Creek Path,
Regional Route
1. Costs are based on typical costs on a per-mile or per-unit basis and do not include potential costs
related to leasing or easement needs. Actual costs would vary based on the specific alignment
constructed. Costs are for simple bicycle racks shown in Section 7.
*See Projects Sheets starting on page 26 for detailed descriptions.
x
2nd Priority Projects
Class
Name
From
To
I
Doheny State Beach Rail Trail
Doheny State Beach near Coast Hwy
Capistrano Beach Trail
Ownership/
Responsibility
State
I
Headlands Bike Path
Selva Rd
Scenic Dr
City
II
Niguel Rd
Camino del Avion
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
II
Crown Valley Pkwy (southbound) Camino del Avion
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
III
Camino del Avion
Shipside Dr
Del Obispo St
Laguna Niguel
III
Camino Capistrano
Doheny Park Rd
Via Verde
City
III
Cove Rd
Scenic Dr
Dana Point Harbor Dr
County
III
Copper Lantern
Selva Rd
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
III
Avenida Las Palmas
Camino Capistrano
Camino de Estrella
City
3rd Priority Projects
I
San Juan Creek Trail (east bank) San Juan Capistrano city limit
Pacific Coast Hwy
Ownership/
Responsibility
County
II
Camino de Estrella
Camino Capistrano
San Diego Fwy I-5
City/San Clemente
III
Violet Lantern
Selva Rd
Del Prado Ave
City
III
Victoria Blvd
Doheny Park Rd
Camino Capistrano
City
III
Camino El Molino
Via California
Camino de Los Mares
City
III
Calle Valez
Via California
Calle Portola
City
III
Calle Naranja
Calle Portola
Camino de Los Mares
City
Class Name
From
To
Proposed Pedestrian Trail Projects
Name
From
To
Sea Terrace Trail System
Salt Creek/Pacific Coast Hwy
Public Library
Headlands Trail System
Headlands Development Project
Rachel Circle Trail
Dana Woods Canyon Trail
Ownership/
Responsibility
City
Private Ownership
Camino del Avion
Rachel Circle
Private Ownership
Dana Crest Park
Barbados Drive
Private Ownership
Dana Woods Park
Stonehill Drive
Private Ownership
xi
1.0
Introduction
The City of Dana Point recognizes that a safe and effective bikeway and pedestrian trail
network enhances the quality of life for residents and visitors to the City. Dana Point and its
residents have called for a comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan that will
create the foundation for improving the bicycle and pedestrian environment to serve
commuters and recreationalists.
This Master Plan serves as a policy document to guide the development and maintenance of a
bicycle and pedestrian trail network, support facilities and other programs for Dana Point over
the next 20 years. These policies address important issues related to the City’s bikeways and
pedestrian trails, such as planning, community involvement, utilization of existing resources,
facility design, multi-modal integration, safety and education, support facilities as well as
specific programs, implementation, maintenance and funding.
The success of the Plan will only be assured by continued support of City Staff, the bicycling
community, and other residents who recognize the benefits of cycling in their community. This
Plan will allow the City of Dana Point to be eligible for bikeway funding under the State Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA).
With a year 2000 population of 34,851 (U.S. Census), Dana Point is probably known best for its
marina, Dana Point Harbor. The City also has a town center commercial district and Capistrano
Beach, which is popular with residents and visitors during the summer months. Most of Dana
Point’s destinations are located along the arterial streets. Much of Dana Point is located on
hilly bluff areas, which limits easy bicycling to some locations.
The Pacific Coast Highway runs from San Juan Creek to the Laguna Beach city limit, and was
relinquished to the City of Dana Point in August of 2005 from Caltrans. A short section of
Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) from the San Juan Creek bridge north remains under state control.
A recent lawsuit involving Caltrans concluded that bicycles are not allowed access to this
portion of SR-1. Dana Point also has a one-mile portion of the San Diego Freeway (I-5) under
Caltrans control. The arterial roadways that traverse the City include the following.
Pacific Coast Hwy
Crown Valley Pkwy
Niguel Rd
Golden Lantern
Camino del Avion
Stonehill Dr
Selva Rd
Del Obispo St
Doheny Park Dr
Camino Capistrano
Coast Hwy
Camino de Estrella
1
Orange County Transportation Authority bus service is provided to connect Dana Point with
surrounding cities along several routes. Although Amtrak and Metrolink rail service operates
through the City, no stations are located in Dana Point. The closest stations are in San Juan
Capistrano and San Clemente.
2
2.0
Goals and Objectives
2.1
Goals
Goals provide the context for the specific objectives and policy actions discussed in this Master
Plan. The goals provide the long-term vision and serve as the foundation of the plan. Goals are
broad statements of purpose that do not provide specific descriptions. Objectives are more
specific statements of purpose, and policy actions provide a bridge between general policies
and actual implementation guidelines, which are provided in Chapters 6 and 7. These goals
and objectives relate directly to those found in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.
Goal 1: Promote Bicycle Transportation and Walking
Make bicycle and pedestrian travel integral parts of daily life in Dana Point, particularly for
trips of less than five miles, by implementing and maintaining a network of bikeways and
pedestrian trails, providing end-of-trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration,
encouraging bicycle use and walking, and making bicycling and walking safer.
Goal 2: Increase Bicycle Transportation Usage
Make Dana Point a community that makes it easier to travel via alternative transportation by
aiming for a 5 percent mode share of all utilitarian trips to be made by bicycling by the year
2020.
Goal 3: Improve the Local and Regional Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail
Network
Identify an integrated system of bicycle lanes, routes, and paths along with support facilities
that include bicycle lockers and racks to serve local and regional commuting and recreational
bicyclists.
Goal 4: Improve Pedestrian Mobility and Enhance Recreational
Opportunities
Provide a pedestrian trail network that enhances pedestrian mobility and recreation, makes
walking more attractive as a transport mode, and connects with important destinations.
Goal 5: Increase Opportunities to Benefit from Bicycling and Walking
Identify and implement a network of bicycle and pedestrian trail facilities that will
accommodate non-motorized travel and reduce vehicle use, improve air quality, and provide
health benefits.
2.2
Objectives
The following objectives address these goals in detail. More detailed plans for implementation
of these goals and objectives are contained in Chapters 4-7.
3
Objective A:
Implement the Master Plan, which identifies existing and future needs, and
provides specific recommendations for facilities and programs over the
next 20 years.
Objective A Policy Actions
1. Ensure that appropriate staff is available to implement the Plan.
2. Update the Plan periodically as required by Caltrans (currently every four years as
specified in the Caltrans Local Assistance Program Guidelines Chapter 21) to reflect
new policies and/or requirements for bicycle facilities funding.
3. Coordinate with other cities, OCTA, schools, and community organizations to review
and comment on bicycle and trail issues of mutual concern.
4. Regularly monitor bicycle-related collision levels, and seek a reduction in bicycle
collision rates over the next twenty years.
Objective B:
Identify and Implement a network of bikeways and pedestrian trails that is
feasible, fundable, and that serve users’ needs, especially for travel to
employment areas, schools, commercial districts, parks and recreation
areas, and institutions.
Objective B Policy Actions
1. Develop a bikeway network and pedestrian trail system that is continuous, closes gaps
in the existing system, and serves important destinations.
2. Develop a bikeway network that provides connections to bikeways in other cities.
3. Develop a destination-based signage system for the bikeway and trail network.
4. Continue to coordinate and offer assistance to community planners and developers to
ensure appropriate bikeway and trail connections are planned, constructed, and
maintained.
5. Continue to evaluate the impacts on bicycle travel and integrate bicycle facility
improvements into proposed roadway and development projects as part of the project
review process.
6. Implement bicycle and trail facilities based on a priority program that considers
existing deficiencies, safety, commuting needs, connectivity of routes, and community
input.
7. Recognize that bicyclists use all City roadways. Design future roadway improvements
where possible to accommodate bicycle travel. Continue to carry out routine
maintenance of roadways, eliminate hazards to cyclists, and attempt to upgrade
existing roadways to enhance bicycle travel, including the upgrade of actuated traffic
signals to respond to or detect bicycles.
8. Continue to recognize that pedestrians use all sidewalks, trails, and streets in the City.
Future planning should ensure that pedestrians are taken into account.
4
Objective C:
Maintain and improve the quality, operation, and integrity of the Dana
Point bikeway network and roadways regularly used by bicyclists.
Objective C Policy Actions:
1. Continue to undertake routine maintenance of bikeway facilities and trails, such as
sweeping streets regularly traveled by bicyclists and other designated bikeways and
trails. This will include items such as paint and striping, signage, pavement surface
maintenance, tree trimming, and other facets of maintaining the operational integrity
of the bikeway and trail network.
2. Continue to coordinate roadway improvements so that bicycle and trail facilities are
not reduced or eliminated in construction zones and are maintained or incorporated
into future improvements in order to maintain the existing local and regional bicycle
and trail network or provide reasonable alternatives.
3. Continue to ensure that detours through or around construction zones are designed
safely and conveniently, and are accompanied with adequate and proper signage for
cyclists and motorists.
Objective D:
Provide short- and long-term bicycle parking and other bicycle amenities in
employment and commercial areas, in multifamily housing complexes, at
schools, at parks and recreation areas, and at transit facilities.
Objective D Policy Actions:
1. Continue to require bicycle parking accommodation in new development projects of
the type specified in Chapter 7.
2. Install short-term bicycle parking in the public right-of-way for such trips as shopping,
eating, and running errands.
3. Install long-term bicycle parking in the public right-of-way for commuters and other
who made need bicycle storage for longer durations of time.
4. Develop and adopt bicycle storage standards and adjust to require bicycle parking at
major employment centers, schools, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, bus routes,
shopping centers, stadiums, and public and semi-public recreational areas.
Objective E:
Increase the number of bicycle-transit trips.
Objective E Policy Actions:
1. Support and promote bicycle travel via the OCTA bus system, Metrolink commuter rail
service, and Amtrak.
2. Coordinate with OCTA to provide and promote secure bicycle racks and lockers at
major transit stops, such as in the downtown area.
5
Objective F:
Develop and implement education and encouragement plans aimed at
youth and adults. Increase public awareness of the benefits of bicycling
and walking and of available resources and facilities.
Objective F Policy Actions
1. Develop and implement safe and effective adult and youth cycling and walking
programs.
2. Promote the health benefits of bicycling and walking.
3. Promote and pursue funding programs for safety education programs.
4. Support Transportation Demand Management programs at worksites to encourage
commuters to bicycle or walk to work.
5. Implement an effective bicycle registration program to deter bicycle theft.
6. Distribute a regularly updated Dana Point bikeway and pedestrian trail map at local
schools, libraries, bike shops, the Chamber of Commerce, and other areas where the
public can access them.
6
3.0
Existing Conditions
3.1
Existing and Proposed Land Use
The City consists of a mix of high-, medium-, and low-density residential land uses.
Commercial and retail land uses are primarily located in the downtown area, at the harbor,
and in Doheny Village as well as in centers in various neighborhood-serving locations, such as at
the intersection of Golden Lantern and Camino del Avion and at Crown Valley Parkway and
Pacific Coast Highway. The City has three public schools, a community center, a city hall and
several parks and recreation centers. Regional parks include Capistrano State Beach Park,
Doheny State Beach and Salt Creek Beach.
Map 3.1 on page 8 shows the current and future land use patterns in the City of Dana Point.
3.2
Bikeways
Bikeways can be classified into three types (See Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter
1000):
Class I Bikeway – Typically called a bike path, this
provides for bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way
completely separated from any street or highway.
These are particularly popular with novice cyclists and
avoided by experienced cyclists because they can
become overly popular and crowded. Caltrans
guidelines contained in the Highway Design Manual
Chapter 1000 allow for pedestrian use of Class I paths.
Class II Bikeway – These are often referred to as a bike
lane. It provides a striped and stenciled lane for oneway travel on a street or highway. When properly
designed, bike lanes help improve the visibility of
bicyclists.
Class III Bikeway – Generally referred to as a bike
route, it provides for shared use with pedestrian or
motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signing.
This is recommended when there is enough right-ofway for bicyclists and motorists to safely pass.
Although these facilities are designed for bicycle travel, it is important to recognize that all
public roadways, except for those segments of freeways where it is prohibited, are open to
travel by bicycle.
7
8
Existing Bikeways
The following table lists the existing bikeway facilities in the City and the agency responsible for each street or
path. Dana Point currently has a mix of bikeways, including Class I, II, and III. Map 3.2 on page 10 shows
existing bikeways in the City of Dana Point. Existing bikeway mileage in Dana Point totals 3.40 miles of Class I,
9.70 miles of Class II, and 6.85 miles of Class III. Total existing bikeway mileage totals 20.05 miles.
Table 3.1 Existing Bikeway Facilities
Class
Street/Path
Ownership
From
To
Length (mi.)
I
Salt Creek
County
Salt Creek Beach Park
Camino del Avion
1.15
I
Salt Creek Beach Path
County
Salt Creek Trail
Pedestrian Trail
0.40
I
San Juan Creek Trail
County
Doheny State Beach
San Juan Capistrano city limit
1.20
I
La Cresta
City
La Cresta Dr
La Cresta Dr
0.05
I
Capistrano Beach Path
County
Beach Access Rd
Palisades Dr
0.10
I
Sycamore Creek Path
City
Del Obispo St
Stonehill Dr
0.40
I
Del Obispo Park Path
City
Del Obispo St
San Juan Creek Trail
0.10
II*
Crown Valley Parkway
City
Pacific Coast Hwy
Camino del Avion
0.90
II
Selva Rd
City
Pacific Coast Hwy
Stonehill Dr
1.45
II
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
Blue Lantern
Copper Lantern
0.80
II
Del Prado Ave
City
Blue Lantern
Golden Lantern
0.55
II
County
Cove Rd
Pacific Coast Hwy
1.20
II
Del Obispo St
City
Pacific Coast Hwy
north of Quail Run
0.50
II
Del Obispo St
City
Stonehill Dr
Camino del Avion
0.85
II
Coast Hwy
City
Palisades Rd
Camino Capistrano
1.70
II
Golden Lantern
City
Camino del Avion
Acapulco Dr
0.80
II
Golden Lantern
City
Stonehill Dr
La Cresta Dr
0.50
II
Blue Lantern
City
La Cresta Dr
Pacific Coast Hwy
0.25
III
Del Obispo St
City
north of Quail Run
Stonehill Dr
0.15
III
III
III
Golden Lantern
Golden Lantern
Old Golden Lantern
Acapulco Dr
La Cresta Dr
Pacific Coast Hwy
Stonehill Dr
El Camino Capistrano
0.20
0.60
0.15
III
Camino del Avion
City
City
City
City
Crown Valley Pkwy
Salt Creek
0.35
III
Acapulco Dr
City
Elisa Dr
Golden Lantern
0.15
III
Elisa Dr
City
Acapulco Dr
Santiago Dr
0.35
III
III
III
Santiago Dr
Selva Dr
La Cresta Dr
City
Taxco Dr
End
End
Elisa Dr
Pacific Coast Hwy
Copper Lantern
0.10
0.40
0.80
Golden Lantern
Copper Lantern
0.25
Via Verde
Camino Capistrano
San Clemente city limit
Coast Hwy
2.00
0.30
End
1.35
TOTAL EXISTING BIKEWAY MILEAGE
20.05
III
Del Prado Ave
III
III
Camino Capistrano
Palisades Dr
III
Beach Access Rd
City
City
City
City
City
County
* Southbound bike lane on Crown Valley Parkway only. Northbound is striped, but not signed or stenciled.
9
10
3.2.2
Conditions of Existing Bikeways and Pedestrian Trails
Definitions
Good – Fully functional, meeting or exceeding standards and guidelines and well-maintained.
Adequate – Functional, meeting but not exceeding, minimum standards and guidelines.
Proper – Meeting design guidelines as specified or referred to in Chapter 7.
The overall condition of the City’s existing bikeways is good. The primary issues associated
with the condition of the bikeway network include signage, striping, stencils, and pavement
quality. However, there are areas where the bikeway network could be improved as discussed
below.
Class I Multi-use Paths/Trails
o
Class I facilities in the City appear to be in good condition.
o
Pavement quality is in good condition.
o
Signage could be improved upon, specifically at access points and cross streets.
(Table 7.1 provides guidelines for signage.)
Class II Bike Lanes
o
Class II bikeways typically have good pavement quality and most have adequate
striping and stencils. Golden Lantern between Acapulco Drive and Dana Woods
has proper stencils, but has a stripe that does not meet Caltrans design
standards for Class II bikeways.
o
Del Obispo Street, having recently been under construction for the installation
of a center median, has proper signage (Table 7.1) and striping for a Class II
facility.
o
Camino del Avion, Selva Road, Coast Highway, Del Prado Avenue, Pacific Coast
Highway, and Dana Point Harbor Drive Class II bike lane facilities have
adequate signage, striping, and stencils as well as relatively smooth pavement
quality.
Class III Bike Routes
o
Generally, pavement quality along Class III bikeways facilities in Dana Point is
good. Signage is the primary issue that would require additional attention.
More is needed to identify bikeways as shown in Table 7.1.
o
On La Cresta Drive and along Doheny State Beach there are only a few signs
indicating these bike route facilities. It is difficult to determine where they
begin and end. More are needed to identify bikeways as shown in Table 7.1.
o
Signage along Class III Bike Route facilities along Camino Capistrano and Golden
Lantern is adequate and easy to follow.
o
There appears to be a Class III bike route along Doheny State Beach which is in
the jurisdiction of the County. This facility is routed through an access road
that parallels the ocean and allowable parking areas and connects at one end
with a short Class I segment and at the other with Dana Point Harbor Drive. It
11
is unconventional to route bikeways in this fashion except where there is a
clear designation.
3.2.3
Missing Links
As is the case with most cities’ bikeway networks, Dana Point has a network of bikeways that
includes many gaps and missing links. The primary continuous bikeways in Dana Point include
the following.
Del Obispo Street (Class II)
Dana Point Harbor Drive (Class II)
Selva Road (Class II)
Golden Lantern (Classes II and III)
San Juan Creek Trail (Class I)
Salt Creek Trail (Class I)
Crown Valley Parkway (Class II) (southbound only)
Gaps in the existing bikeway network include, but are not limited to those in the following
table. Gaps include street segments where existing bikeways do not link with each other or
create a missing link in the integrity of a more connected and developed bikeway network in
the City.
Table 3.2 Existing Bikeway Gaps
Street Name
Niguel Rd
Camino del Avion
Stonehill Dr
La Cresta Dr
Ownership
City
Majority in San Juan
Capistrano
City
From
To
Camino del Avion
Pacific Coast Hwy
Shipside Dr
Del Obispo St
Niguel Rd
City
Selva Rd
San Juan Capistrano
city limit
R.H. Dana Elementary
School
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
Laguna Beach city limit
Blue Lantern
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
Copper Lantern
San Juan Creek
Coast Hwy
City
San Juan Creek
Palisades Dr
Doheny Park Rd
City
Camino Capistrano
Coast Hwy
Camino Capistrano
City
Doheny Park Rd
Via Verde
Camino de Estrella
Majority in San
Clemente
San Diego Fwy I-5
Camino Capistrano
One of the most critical linkages that have been identified is between Pacific Coast Highway,
Doheny Park Road and Coast Highway. There is no convenient or efficient way for a bicyclist to
travel west from either Coast Highway or Doheny Park Road to the central business district of
Dana Point. An in-depth analysis of this area is needed to resolve this issue. This linkage has
been examined and potential options for resolving this critical gap can be found in the Chapter
5.
12
3.2.4
Bikeway Connectivity with Adjacent Cities
Dana Point currently has many bikeway connections with its surrounding cities. Although there
is no current linkage with the City of Laguna Beach, the other three adjacent cities have
existing bikeways that lead to Dana Point. These include the following.
Laguna Niguel
o
Salt Creek Trail Class I Multi-use Path
o
Pacific Island Drive Class II Bike Lanes
o
Crown Valley Parkway Class II Bike Lanes
o
Niguel Road Class II Bike Lanes
o
Golden Lantern Class II Bike Lanes
o
Camino del Avion Class II Bike Lanes
San Juan Capistrano
o
Del Obispo Street Class II Bike Lanes
o
Camino Capistrano Class II Bike Lanes
o
San Juan Creek Trail Class I Multi-use Path
o
Camino del Avion Class III Bike Route
San Clemente
o
El Camino Real Class II Bike Lanes
o
Camino de Estrella Class III Bike Route
Laguna Beach
o
Pacific Coast Highway (Caltrans) Class III Bike Route
Significant gaps in the Dana Point bikeway network that would connect the City to bikeways in
neighboring cities include the following street segments.
Crown Valley Parkway (to Laguna Niguel)
Niguel Road (to Laguna Niguel)
Camino del Avion (to San Juan Capistrano)
Camino Capistrano (to San Juan Capistrano)
Doheny Park Rd (to San Juan Capistrano)
3.3
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking is an important component in planning bicycle facilities and encouraging
widespread use. Bicycles are often stolen, with components being taken even when a bicycle
is securely locked. Because today’s bicycles often cost between $350 to over $5,000, many
people won’t use a bicycle unless they have secure parking.
In California, parking facilities are classified as follows:
Class I bicycle parking facilities accommodate long-term
users, including employees, students, residents, commuters,
and others expected to park more than two hours. This
parking is to be provided in a secure, weather-protected
13
manner and location. Class I bicycle parking will be either a bicycle locker or a secure
area like a ‘bike corral’ that may be accessed only by bicyclists. The new “bike lid”
locker is a new bicycle locker concept that has also gained popularity recently. This
type of lockers allow for multiple users in the same day without requiring
administration of a lock-and-key program.
Class II bicycle parking facilities are best used to accommodate short-term users,
including visitors, customers, messengers, and others expected to depart within two
hours. Bicycle racks provide support for the bicycle but do not have locking
mechanisms. Racks are relatively low-cost devices that
typically hold between two and eight bicycles, allow
bicyclists to securely lock their frames and wheels, are
secured to the ground, and are located in highly visible
areas. It is recommended that racks not be of a design
that may damage the wheels by causing them to bend.
Bike racks are usually located at schools, commercial
locations, and activity centers such as parks, libraries,
retail locations, and civic centers.
3.3.1
Existing Bicycle Parking in Dana Point
Dana Point currently has several bicycle parking facilities that have been identified. Bike rack
facilities have been observed at the following locations. It is likely that other locations also
exist within the City. The types of racks observed are not of a type that is typically
recommended. The existing racks identified in Dana Point are wheel-support racks that do not
adequately support the bicycle and thereby have a tendency to bend the wheel of a bicycle.
These are not recommended. Recommended bike racks are discussed in Chapter 7 of this Plan.
Doheny State Beach
Ocean Ranch Village Shopping Center
Town Center
Dana Crest Park
Sea Canyon Park
Public Library
Map 3.2 on page 10 shows the locations of existing bicycle parking facilities in Dana Point.
Figure 3.1
Doheny State Beach
14
3.4
Links to Other Transportation Modes
Improving the bicycle-transit link is an important part of making bicycling a part of daily life in
Dana Point. Linking bicycles with transit services, including buses and trains overcomes such
barriers as lengthy trips, personal security concerns, and riding at night, in poor weather, or up
hills. Bicycle parking facilities placed adjacent to bus stops would facilitate links to ridesharing activities. Additionally, bicycling to transit instead of driving benefits communities by
reducing taxpayer costs, air pollution, demand for park-and-ride land, energy consumption,
and traffic congestion with relatively low investment costs.
There are four main components of bicycle-transit integration:
Allowing bicycles on transit
Offering bicycle parking at transit locations
Improving bikeways to transit
Encouraging usage of bicycle and transit programs
3.4.1
Existing Links to Other Transportation Modes
The City is currently served by OCTA transit services, which has bicycle racks equipped on
every bus in its fleet. These state-of-the-art bike racks can carry up to two bicycles per bus
and are very convenient to use for bicyclists. Dana Point has no transit centers or park-andride locations.
3.5
Bicycle Amenities
In addition to parking accommodations, shower and clothing locker facilities make bicycle
commuting a viable option for many bicyclists.
3.5.1
Existing Amenities
In compliance with the County of Orange’s Congestion Management Program, the City’s
Transportation Demand Management (Chapter 9.43 of the Zoning Code) requires new
development employing more than 100 persons shall provide a minimum of two shower,
changing, and locker facilities (one for each gender). The City’s major hotels—the St. Regis,
Ritz Carlton, and Laguna Cliffs Marriott—meet the criteria and have provided shower and
clothing locker facilities for their employees.
3.6
Safety Education and Enforcement
3.6.1
Safety Education Program
The City of Dana Point does not have a bicycle safety education program at this time.
3.6.2
Bicycle Safety and Enforcement
The Dana Point Sheriff’s Department has a patrol of bicycle-mounted officers who are utilized
during special events. These patrols are comprised of both professional and volunteer units.
The Department enforces all traffic laws, for bicycles and motor vehicles as part of their
regular duties. Violations may be issued to bicyclists who break traffic laws, as well as
motorists who disobey traffic laws and make the cycling environment more dangerous. The
level of enforcement depends on the availability of officers.
15
3.6.3
Bicycle Collisions
Table 3.3 shows the number and rate of collisions involving bicyclists in Dana Point for the
three most recent years available: 1998, 1999, and 2000. This information was gathered from
the California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS website, which provides collision information by
jurisdiction. As the table shows, Dana Point had a lower than average number of collisions
involving bicyclists relative to the California state average for such collisions.
Table 3.3 Bicycle Collision Analysis – 1998 to 2000
Number of Bicycle
Involved Collisions
1998 (SWITRS 1998)
Number of Bicycle
Involved Collisions
1999 (SWITRS 1999)
Number of Bicycle
Involved Collisions
2000 (SWITRS 2000)
Fatality
Injury
Fatality
Injury
Fatality
Injury
1
12
0
10
0
9
Index
Total # of Average #
2000
Collisions (relative to
Bicycle
of Bicycle
Population
per 1000 state avg. of
Collisions Collisions
for 3 Years per Year (U.S. Census) people/yr. 0.36/1000)
32
10.67
34,851
0.31
0.86
SWITRS data can be supplemented with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department statistics to
provide for more recent data. The table below displays that data and the six-year totals.
Table 3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis – 2001 to 2003
Number of Bicycle
Involved Collisions
2001 (Orange Co.
Sheriff 2001)
Fatality
Injury
1
6
Number of Bicycle
Involved Collisions
2002 (Orange Co.
Sheriff 2002)
Fatality
Injury
0
7
Number of Bicycle
Involved Collisions
2003 (Orange Co.
Sheriff 2003)
Fatality
Injury
0
5
Index
Total # of Average #
Collisions (relative to
2000
Bicycle
of Bicycle
per 1000 state avg. of
Population
Collisions Collisions
for 6 Years per Year (U.S. Census) people/yr. 0.36/1000)
51
8.5
34,851
0.24
Over the 6-year period, the number of bicycle-involved collisions each year dropped from 13 to
5. The decline appears to be a steady one. This could be due to enforcement efforts of the
Sheriff’s Department or from the new bikeways the City has put in.
16
0.68
4.0
Proposed Projects and Programs
This section identifies specific projects for which the City of Dana Point can apply for funding
as part of a comprehensive plan for bicycle and pedestrian transportation within the City.
4.1
Bikeways
Proposed bikeway projects are selected and ranked by priority using several criteria. These
include:
Regional connectivity
Closing gaps in the bikeway network
Connections with major destinations, such as Dana Point Harbor, the Downtown
Business District, Doheny State Beach, Capistrano Beach County Park, employment
centers, shopping centers, and schools
Completion of the bikeway network
Availability of street width or right-of-way
Existing plans the City has to improve and/or widen streets
The following tables list proposed projects according to priority. Projects that would meet
most or all of the criteria, and/or meet the criteria well, were ranked high. In other words,
projects that would make regional connections, link major destinations, etc. ranked high. This
was especially true if they make particularly good regional connections, or connect with an
important destination. Projects that would meet some criteria, but not as well, were placed
into the second priority list. Projects that would meet just a few of the criteria were placed in
the third priority.
Top priority project costs are based on past expenditures for bikeways throughout California
and are used to provide planning level estimates. Every bikeway cost varies depending on such
factors as the specific components, the need to acquire right-of-way, the need to widen, etc.
Each project will need a more specific estimate just before construction. Costs for individual
projects will vary by location and complexity of the project. Class I projects are estimated at
$500,000 per mile, Class II projects are estimated at $50,000 per mile, and Class III projects are
estimated at $15,000 per mile. These are planning level costs that will be applied, with more
precise estimates to be made at the time of engineering.
The list of proposed bikeway projects is found in the tables on pages 18 and 19.
Figure 4.1
Salt Creek Beach Bike Path
17
Table 4.1: Top Priority Projects
Project
Number
1
2
3
4
Class
Name
Ownership
From
To
Mileage Estimated Cost1
Destinations
-
Citywide Bicycle Parking Program
-
$54,000
-
-
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program
-
$40,000 per year
-
-
Citywide Bikeway Signage Program
-
$48,500
-
-
Citywide Pedestrian Trail Signage Program
-
$5,500
-
3.50
$138,000
Monarch Bay Plaza,
Sea Terrace Park,
Public Library,
Downtown Business
District,
Regional Route
2.10
$105,000
Crown Valley
Pkwy
Copper
Lantern
Golden
Lantern
Laguna Beach
city limit
II
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
II
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
II
Del Prado Ave
City
III
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
6
II
Stonehill Dr
City
Niguel Rd
7
III
Blue Lantern
City
Stonehill Dr
La Cresta Dr
0.60
$9,000
8
III
La Cresta Dr
City
Selva Rd
end
0.25
$3,750
III
Via California
City
Camino
Capistrano
0.60
$9,000
Connector Route
III
Doheny Park Rd
City
San Clemente
city limit
San Juan
Capistrano city
limit
1.40
$21,000
San Juan Creek
Palisades Dr
Doheny Village,
Doheny State Beach,
Capistrano Beach,
Regional Route
5
9
10
III
11
12
Coast Hwy
City
Blue Lantern
San Juan Creek
Copper Lantern
Crown Valley
Pkwy
San Juan
Capistrano city
limit
Coast Hwy
Dana Hills High School,
Thunderbird Park,
Salt Creek Park
Downtown Business
District, Dana Hills High
School
R. H. Dana Elementary
School,
Connector Route
-
Dana Point-Doheny Village-Capistrano Beach Connection Study
-
$25,000
-
I
Doheny State
Capistrano Beach
Capistrano Beach
Beach Access
City/OCTA
path near
Rail-Trail
Road near
Palisades Dr
Coast Hwy
0.85
$425,000
Capistrano Beach, San
Juan Creek Path,
Regional Route
1. Costs are based on typical costs on a per-mile or per-unit basis and do not include potential
costs related to leasing or easement needs. Actual costs would vary based on the specific
alignment constructed.
*See Projects Sheets starting on page 26 for detailed descriptions.
18
Table 4.2: 2nd Priority Projects
Class
Name
From
To
I
Doheny State Beach Rail Trail
Doheny State Beach near Coast Hwy
Capistrano Beach Trail
Ownership/
Responsibility
State
I
Headlands Bike Path
Selva Rd
Scenic Dr
City
II
Niguel Rd
Camino del Avion
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
II
Crown Valley Pkwy (northbound)
Camino del Avion
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
III
Camino del Avion
Shipside Dr
Del Obispo St
Laguna Niguel
III
Camino Capistrano
Doheny Park Rd
Via Verde
City
III
Cove Rd
Scenic Dr
County
III
Copper Lantern
Selva Rd
Pacific Coast Hwy
City
III
Avenida Las Palmas
Camino Capistrano
Camino de Estrella
City
Table 4.3: 3rd Priority Projects
Class
Name
From
To
I
San Juan Creek Trail (east bank)
San Juan Capistrano city limit
Pacific Coast Hwy
Ownership/
Responsibility
County
II
Camino de Estrella
Camino Capistrano
San Diego Fwy I-5
City/San Clemente
III
Violet Lantern
Selva Rd
Del Prado Ave
City
III
Victoria Blvd
Doheny Park Rd
Camino Capistrano
City
III
Camino El Molino
Via California
Camino de Los Mares
City
III
Calle Valez
Via California
Calle Portola
City
III
Calle Naranja
Calle Portola
Camino de Los Mares
City
Table 4.4: Proposed Pedestrian Trail Projects
Name
From
To
Salt Creek/Pacific Coast Hwy
Public Library
Rachel Circle Trail
Dana Woods Canyon Trail
Headlands Development Project
Ownership/
Responsibility
City
Private Ownership
Camino del Avion
Rachel Circle
Private Ownership
Dana Crest Park
Barbados Drive
Private Ownership
Dana Woods Park
Stonehill Drive
Private Ownership
Map 4.1 on page 20 show proposed bikeways and trails identified in the tables above.
19
20
4.1.1
Continuity with Existing and Proposed Bikeways in Adjacent Cities
The proposed bikeways listed in the above tables connect with existing and proposed bikeways
in each of the adjacent cities. Below is a list of the proposed bikeway segments in adjacent
cities that will be linked with proposed bikeways in Dana Point as proposed in this Plan. This
information is based on projects identified in the 2001 OCTA Strategic Bikeways Master Plan
and contact with transportation planners in each city.
Laguna Beach
o
Pacific Coast Highway Class II Bike Lanes
Laguna Niguel
o
No Proposed Bikeways (all connections are existing)
San Juan Capistrano
o
Camino Las Ramblas Class II Bike Lanes
San Clemente
o
Camino de Estrella Class II Bike Lanes
o
Camino de Los Mares Class II Bike Lanes
The map on the previous page shows bikeways in adjacent cities that connect with those
existing and proposed in Dana Point.
4.2
Bicycle Parking
The City of Dana Point has the opportunity to apply for funds to establish a public bicycle
parking program in commercial and retail areas. The program is outlined on page 26. This
Plan also recommends that the City consider requiring new development to provide bicycle
parking for its employees and visitors.
Map 4.1 on page 20 shows the locations of proposed parking facilities identified in this Plan.
4.3
Links to Other Transportation Modes
Dana Point will continue to encourage the maintenance of existing bicycle racks on OCTA
transit buses. It will also seek to provide bicycle racks at major transit stops and will
coordinate with adjacent cities and OCTA to provide adequate parking (racks and lockers) at
regional Metrolink and Amtrak stations in San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano.
4.4
Bicycle Amenities
In compliance with the County of Orange’s Congestion Management Program, the City’s
Transportation Demand Management (Chapter 9.43 of the Zoning Code) requires new
development employing more than 100 persons shall provide a minimum of two shower,
changing, and locker facilities (one for each gender). The City’s major hotels—the St. Regis,
Ritz Carlton, and Laguna Cliffs Marriott—meet the criteria and have provided shower and
clothing locker facilities for their employees. The City will install showers at City Hall in 2006
that will allow employees a greater opportunity to commute by bicycle.
4.5
Safety Education Program
21
The bicycle and pedestrian safety education program should teach bicycle and pedestrian
safety to children, adults, and other groups that encounter bicyclists. A specific curriculum
geared for each audience, along with a handbook or other literature, is recommended and
described in Project 2 on page 27.
4.5.1
Implementation
The implementation of this program should prioritize those groups that are most easily
accessible, and then develop programs for other groups as follows:
City staff
County Sheriffs
School-aged children
Adults at employment sites
Adults in the general public
4.5.2
Promotion
A customized Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, Marketing, and Education Handbook could be
developed that identifies existing local and regional efforts and presents a standardized
approach which can be used by Dana Point. Typical marketing strategies include:
System Identification. The existing and proposed bicycle and trail system could have
its own identifying logo and name that is shown on signs throughout the City.
Directional signage (i.e., Dana Point Harbor) placed at strategic locations will help first
time users in the area find their destinations.
Community Adoption. Maintenance and promotion of trail and bicycle routes can be
achieved by having neighborhoods, employers, or other groups “adopt” a route similar
to that being done on Interstate Highways.
Bike Fairs and Races. Events to promote Dana Point bicycle and trail facilities,
including fairs and races, should be organized to get people excited about riding and
familiar with the facilities.
Employer Incentives. Dana Point may work with major employers to encourage bicycle
commuting by their employees by coordinating promotional events, encouraging the
provision of bicycle lockers and access to shower facilities. Incentives may also be the
provision of commuter bicycles by the employer. Bike-to-Work Week could be
advertised and promoted as a week where employees around the City are encouraged
to bike to work. Some people may start biking to work after participating in this
annual event.
22
Implementation
5.1
Previous Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities
The City of Dana Point has implemented projects that have had a bicycle component, such as
striping and bike parking. Specific expenditures for bicycle facilities in the past five years have
not been identified.
5.2
Existing Bicycle Commuters and Commuter Ridership Forecast
Table 5.1: Bicycle Ridership Forecast and Air Quality Analysis
Forecast Parameters
Dana Point
Methodology Notes
1
Population
34,851
2000 US Census
2
18,499
2000 US Census
78
2000 US Census
5
# of Employed Persons
# Bicycle-to-Work
Commuters
Bicycle-to-Work Mode
Share
Population: Ages 6-14
years
6
# of College Students
3
4
7
8
9
Total # of Bicycle
Commuters
# Miles Ridden by Bicycle
Commuters per Weekday
# of Future Daily Bicycle
Commuters
0.42%
calculated from above
3,600
2000 US Census
2,414
2000 US Census
967
assumes 5% of school students and 10% of college students commute by
bicycle - from national studies and estimates
work commuters (including bike-transit users) x 7 miles + college and school
students x 1 mile (round trip)
1,393
estimated using increase to 279% of baseline from 2000 LACMTA study by Alta
499
15
Future # Miles Ridden by
Bicycle Commuters per
Weekday
Reduced Vehicle Miles per
Weekday
Reduced PM10
(lbs/weekday)
Reduced NOX
(lbs/weekday)
Reduced ROG
(lbs/weekday)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per
Year
16
Reduced PM10 (lbs/year)
7,102
(.0184 lbs. per reduced mile)
17
Reduced NOX (lbs/year)
19,252
18
Reduced ROG (lbs/year)
28,022
10
11
12
13
14
1,732
estimated using increase to 279% of baseline from 2000 LACMTA study by Alta
Transportation
future bicycle miles traveled (row 10) minus existing bicycle miles ridden
(row 8)
31.86
86.37
125.72
385,974
180 days for students, and 256 days for employed persons
2,699
NOX are nitrogen oxides, PM-10 are particulate matter of diameter less than 10 microns, ROG are reactive organic gases.
23
Table 5.1 shows the projected mode share of bicycling for the City of Dana Point. This forecast
is based on census data and a methodology developed by Alta Transportation Consulting to
estimate the number of bicycle commuters if an expanded bikeway network were to be
implemented. The information is based on the 2000 U.S. Census. Data for bicycle boardings on
transit was unavailable from OCTA.
5.3
Public Process
The public process for the development of the Master Plan involved various representative
departments from the City in periodic meetings. Departments that were involved in these
meetings included the following.
Public Works and Engineering Services
Parks and Recreation
Community Development
City Manager
The Plan received input from the public at one public workshop held in conjunction with the
Department of Parks and Recreation with the development of the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan. Public hearings with the City’s Planning Commission and the City Council were also held
subsequent to the public workshops.
5.4
Consistency with other Transportation, Air Quality and Energy
Planning Efforts
State Streets and Highways Code 891.2 (attached as Appendix) requires that all bicycle plans
demonstrate consistency with other transportation, air quality, and energy plans. This section
analyzes the consistency of the Dana Point Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan with local,
regional, and state plans.
5.4.1
Coordination with other City Plans
This Plan updates the City’s bicycle plan and provides for future planning direction. The Plan
will be consistent with the City of Dana Point’s Circulation Element and will be included as an
appendix to the General Plan.
5.4.2
Coordination with Regional Plans
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), with assistance from OCTA,
regularly prepares a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Delegated by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (AQMD) to implement a mobile source clean air plan as an element
of the region’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the RTP is to provide a coordinated
approach to mobility, air quality, and other regional goals related to transportation. In
encouraging bicycling, this Plan will also strive to meet the goals of reducing energy
consumption. This Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan is also consistent with the OCTA
Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, which outlines existing and proposed regional bikeways
throughout the County of Orange.
24
5.5
Top Priority Bikeway Projects
This section of the Plan outlines in greater detail the top priority bikeway projects identified in
Table 4.1 in Chapter 4. These projects have been identified as top priority. The following
project description sheets include a description of each project, a planning-level cost estimate
for implementation, and graphics if appropriate. The listing of projects in this section denotes
no further ranking. They are all considered top priority.
Figure 5.1
La Cresta Drive
25
Project 1: Bicycle Parking Program
•
Existing Problem: Lack of bicycle parking in commercial districts, at some
beaches, and at civic locations
•
Estimated Cost: $54,000
o
Lockers for 30 Bicycles: $24,000 ($800 each)
o
Racks for 300 Bicycles: $30,000 ($100 each)
With nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bicycle trips, users need secure and
convenient bicycle parking. The lack of parking is a major obstacle to using a bicycle. Although
some locations in Dana Point have bicycle parking, many locations do not. A comprehensive
bicycle parking program is one of the most important strategies that jurisdictions can employ
to enhance the bicycling environment. The program can improve the bicycling environment and
increase the visibility of bicycling in a relatively short period of time. Within one or two years
bike parking can be placed throughout the City.
It should be recognized that parking should be provided for two types of trips. Bike racks serve
as effective parking facilities for short-term needs while bicycle storage lockers provide for
long-term needs. Lockers provide a higher level of security for bicyclists. They typically are
located at places of employment, including municipal offices. This project includes the
provision of both racks and lockers.
The City should apply for funds to retrofit existing establishments with bike parking and expand
existing parking accommodations. A public bike parking program typically purchases large
numbers of racks and bike lockers and places them in public locations such as the following.
Map 4.1 on page 20 shows some of the proposed locations of bicycle parking.
•
On sidewalks in front of stores
•
At schools
•
In parks
•
In front of libraries, City Hall, and other civic locations
•
At pools, beaches, and other recreation areas
Public bicycle parking programs can also be coordinated with property owners of commercial
buildings to supply parking for employees and visitors.
26
Project 2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program
•
Existing Problem: Lack of knowledge of safe bicycle riding technique
•
Estimated Cost: $40,000 per year for ten years
Background
Many people don’t ride bicycles or walk because they believe it is not safe to do so.
Respondents to surveys in other cities often cite safety as the top concern preventing people
from riding or walking more. Although physical improvements such as signage and adding more
facilities can make a difference, it is also imperative that all bicyclists know how to ride safely
and pedestrians know how to manage their environment. Knowing how to ride safely will
encourage people to bicycle more confidently, more often, and along more routes. Safety
education programs teach people of all ages and lifestyles how to ride safely and effectively on
paths, streets, and in traffic. They can also inform people about how to walk safely.
The Program
Safety education programs teach bicycle safety to children, adults and other people who would
encounter bicyclists and pedestrians, such as motorists. A specific curriculum geared for each
audience, along with a handbook or other literature is recommended.
Children – Safety education should be comprehensive enough to ensure that all children
in public schools go through a bicycle and pedestrian safety program before they
graduate. Educating children at the appropriate age is important to build life-long
cycling skills that they can use in riding and walking to school and riding for short trips
later in life. In addition, bicycle safety should be taught to students who are taking
drivers education classes to ensure that new motorists respect bicyclists on the road.
Adults – A safety education component can also be available to adults at employment
sites, City Hall, and on selected weekends for the general public. Safety education for
adults can encourage more people to ride bicycles rather than driving because
education can build confidence in riding for people otherwise afraid to ride in traffic.
Motorists – Safety education should reach anyone who would come into contact with
bicyclists and pedestrians even if they were not cyclists themselves. This most certainly
includes motorists on the roadways. Motorists as well as bicyclists need to be informed
of the rules and laws of the road that pertain to bicycling in traffic. Motorist education
will make motorists aware of cyclists’ correct lane positioning and rights on the road to
ensure the safe co-existence of bicyclists and motorists on streets and roadways.
Other Groups – Safety education should be taught to other people who come in to
contact with bicyclists and pedestrians or who are involved in bicycle or pedestrian
programs. These groups of people may include OCTA Transit bus drivers, Dana Point
Sheriffs, and city staff who work with planning, public works and parks projects.
Bicycle safety education can be incorporated into existing training or orientations.
Some items of instruction that should be conveyed to students in safety education sessions
usually include:
Choosing the right bike
Proper bicycling clothing
Helmet use
Riding with lights and reflective clothing at night
27
How to deal with bad weather
Basic bicycle maintenance and repair
Using the gears
Bicycle registration
Rules, regulations and ordinances that govern bicyclists
Proper mounting and dismounting techniques
Recognition and avoidance of common bicycle collisions
Selecting bike routes
Consequences of unsafe bicycle use
Proper braking techniques for hills, wet pavement, sand, rain gutters, debris, car doors
Riding in traffic
How to make left and right-hand turns
Left hand shoulder check
Avoiding hazards
Crossing arterial streets as a pedestrian
Hiking safety
Trail etiquette
The best training includes a mix of in-class and on-road instruction. After these topics have
been taught in a classroom setting, it is important for cyclists and pedestrians to go out and
practice proper technique under the observation of a trained instructor.
Certified instructors should provide safety education programs. They also could be performed
by a number of organizations, including police and sheriff’s departments, school districts, parks
and recreation departments, and municipalities. Other programs exist which provide education
programs to schools and communities across the country. Two of these specialized programs
are Safe Moves and Effective Cycling. These programs have instructors and curricula that can
be sent to schools and organizations in the City to teach different groups of people how to ride
safely and responsibly.
Education programs are often sponsored by municipalities or school districts, and paid for by
grants. The State Office of Traffic Safety has been one important source of grant money for
such programs. Dana Point should seek funds for a bicycle and pedestrian safety education
program. One option may be to pursue funds through the Office of Traffic Safety.
28
Project 3: Bikeway Facilities Signage Program
•
Existing Problem: Lack of adequate and appropriate signage along existing Class
I, II, and III bikeway and multi-use facilities.
•
Existing Bikeway Mileage: 20.20 miles
•
Estimated Cost: $48,500 (194 signs @ $250 each)
Background
Signage is a critical part of any effective bikeway network. Signage is required as a part of
bikeways developed under Caltrans Design Manual Chapter 1000 guidelines. Often, existing
bikeway facilities lack adequate signage as mandated in the Caltrans Manual, and many times
the incorrect signage is used. Class I, II, and III bikeway signage is mandated by Caltrans, but
directional and other informational signage can be provided at the discretion of the city. The
cities of San Diego and San Francisco have developed effective destination and routing signage
programs that assist bicyclists in navigating through the city.
As stated in Chapter 3 on page 11, standard bikeway signage is a component of the existing
bikeway network in Dana Point that could benefit from improvement. Each existing Class I, II,
and III bikeway facility would be retrofitted with appropriate signage under this proposed
project. Typically, bikeway signage would be placed at least every ¼ mile in each direction
along a bikeway. Bikeway signage helps to guide bicyclists so that they are able to stay on the
designated bikeway.
Destination signage is also a component of the bikeway network that can assist bicyclists in
getting from place to place. These small signs can be provided under bikeway signage that can
include destinations with arrows to such locations as Dana Point Harbor, downtown Dana Point,
Doheny State Beach, City Hall, Capistrano Beach, Dana Hills High School, and others.
Destination signage can also serve regional travel by identifying adjacent cities. If other cities
adopt similar signage programs, a truly regional signage network can be developed to guide
bicyclists through the south county region. The City has recently completed an effort to
remove excess signs, so in locating additional bikeway signs, existing poles and posts will be
used where possible.
Provide Class I bikeway signage along existing Class I multi-use path facilities.
Provide Class II bikeway signage along existing Class II bike lane facilities.
Provide Class III bikeway signage along existing Class III bike route facilities.
Provide destination signage along all existing bikeways.
29
Project 4: Pedestrian Trail Signage Program
•
Existing Problem: Lack of adequate signage along existing pedestrian trails.
•
Existing Trail Mileage: 2.20 miles
•
Estimated Cost: $5,500 (22 signs @ $250 each)
Background
Signage is a critical part of any effective trail network. The existing trails in Dana Point have
no accompanying signage. Many trails are only known to local residents on a word-of-mouth
basis. Implementing a signage program for trails can be an effective way of attracting more
people to enjoy their trails for recreation or transportation. Typically, trail signage would be
placed at least every ¼ mile along a trail, and at the intersection of trails with streets,
bikeways, or other trails.
Destination signage is also a component of the trail network that can assist walkers and hikers
in getting from place to place. These signs can include destinations with arrows to such
locations as Salt Creek Beach Park, the Orange County Public Library, the Ritz Carlton Resort,
Dana Hills High School, Sea Canyon Park, and others. A city trail logo could be developed that
can be easily distinguished as a trail logo for the City. Signs can be used to:
•
Provide trail guidance signage along existing trails.
Provide trail destination and distance signage along existing trails.
Since the trails in Dana Point are owned by different entities, common signage is important to
tie them together in a network that is seamless to users.
30
Project 5: Pacific Coast Highway Bikeway
•
Project Limits – Laguna Beach city limit to Doheny Park Road
•
Existing Problem – Lack of a continuous regional link that provides access
through the City.
•
Classification – Classes II and III
•
Length – 3.50 miles
•
Estimated Cost: $138,000 (Costs will be determined by the specifics of the
project. However, typical costs are based on $50,000 per mile for Class II bikeways,
and $15,000 per mile for Class III bikeways.)
This proposed project would provide a critical regional link between Laguna Beach and the
downtown business district. It would serve several destinations, including Monarch Bay Plaza
shopping center, Sea Terrace Park, the Orange County Public Library, and the downtown area.
It would intersect other existing and proposed bikeways and trails in the City and contribute to
the development of a continuous network.
This bikeway would connect with the neighboring city of Laguna Beach, which at this time does
not have the continuing segment of Pacific Coast Highway designated as a current or future
bikeway.
The City has recently assumed control of Pacific Coast Highway between Laguna Beach and San
Juan Creek.
•
Provide Class II bikeway striping, signage, and stencils along the following street
segments.
o
Pacific Coast Highway between Crown Valley Parkway and Blue Lantern
o
Del Prado Avenue between Golden Lantern and Copper Lantern
o
Pacific Coast Highway between Copper Lantern and San Juan Creek
Provide Class III bikeway signage, and stencils along the following street segments.
o
Pacific Coast Highway between Laguna Beach city limit and Crown Valley
Parkway
o
Pacific Coast Highway (southbound only) between San Juan Creek and
Doheny Park Road/Coast Highway
Provide bikeway and destination signage and pavement markings as described on pages
64-73.
Challenges to implementing this bikeway:
Sidewalks and landscaping vs. bike lanes – The City also seeks to provide landscaping along its
roadways. In some locations, bike routes or lanes and landscaping may not be feasible due to
limits of right-of-way width. The City’s traffic engineer will need to evaluate striping plans.
Added expense to widen – The cross sections shown on the next page represent portions of the
roadway. Further investigation is required to determine if Class II and Class III bikeways are
feasible.
Cross sections are samples – The cross sections shown on the next page do not represent the
entire roadway length referenced.
31
Figure 5.2
Pacific Coast Highway Existing Cross Section
(South of Selva Road)
Figure 5.3
Pacific Coast Highway Proposed Cross Section
(South of Selva Road)
32
Project 6: Stonehill Drive Class II Bikeway
•
Project Limits – Niguel Road to San Juan Capistrano city limit
•
Existing Problem – Lack of a continuous east-west link through the City
•
Classification – Class II
•
•
project. However, typical costs are based on $50,000 per mile for Class II
bikeways.)
This proposed project would provide an east-west bike lane facility where feasible through the
heart of Dana Point. It would serve Dana Hills High School, Salt Creek Park, and Thunderbird
Park as well as provide a continuous route to connect with the City of San Juan Capistrano.
This project would intersect existing bikeways in the City, including those along Golden
Lantern, Selva Road, Del Obispo Street, and the San Juan Creek Trail. It would also connect
with other proposed bikeways in this plan, including those along Niguel Road and Blue Lantern.
This bikeway would link with the neighboring city of San Juan Capistrano, which currently has
designated Stonehill Drive as a proposed Class II bike lane facility.
Provide Class II bikeway striping, signage, and stencils along Stonehill Drive between
Niguel Road and the San Juan Capistrano city limit where feasible.
Provide bikeway and destination signage and pavement markings as described in on
pages 64-73.
roadway. Further investigation is required to determine if a Class II bikeway is feasible.
33
Figure 5.4
Stonehill Drive Existing Cross Section
(directly East of Golden Lantern)
Figure 5.5
Stonehill Drive Proposed Cross Section
(directly East of Golden Lantern)
34
Project 7: Street of the Blue Lantern Bikeway
•
Project Limits – Stonehill Drive to La Cresta Drive
•
Existing Problem – Lack of a continuous north-south route with low traffic
volumes through the City
•
Classification – Class III
•
•
Estimated Cost: $9,000 (Costs will be determined by the specifics of the project.
However, typical costs are based on $50,000 per mile for Class II bikeways, and
$15,000 per mile for Class III bikeways.)
This proposed project would provide a III (bike route) facility that will utilize a street with low
traffic volumes and relatively low speeds. This new bike route will go from La Cresta Drive to
Stonehill Drive. It is proposed that this project be a Class III facility due to right-of-way
constraints. South of La Cresta Drive, it will connect with existing Class II bike lanes. This
route would serve less experienced cyclists and those who prefer to ride on less busy roadways.
This bikeway would connect Dana Hills High School with the downtown business district.
This project would intersect existing bikeways along La Cresta Drive and Selva Road.
Provide Class III bikeway signage and stencils along Street of the Blue Lantern between
La Cresta Drive and Stonehill Drive
pages 64-73.
roadway. Further investigation is required to determine if Class II and Class III bikeways are
feasible.
35
Project 8: La Cresta Drive Connector Bikeway
•
Project Limits – Selva Road to R. H. Dana Elementary School
•
Existing Problem – There exists a gap in the route network in this location.
•
•
•
However, typical costs are based on $15,000 per mile for Class III bikeways.)
This proposed project would close a gap in the existing and future bikeway network. Currently
a short Class I segment connects the two segments of La Cresta Drive in front of R. H. Dana
Elementary School. The eastern segment of La Cresta Drive is designated a Class III (bike
route) facility. By designating the western segment of La Cresta Drive as a Class III bikeway, a
continuous bikeway system would be created in combination with the proposed bike lanes on
La Cresta Drive.
Provide Class III bikeway signage and stencils along La Cresta Drive between Selva Road
and R. H. Dana Elementary School.
pages 64-73.
Added expense to widen – Further investigation is required to determine if a Class III bikeway is
feasible.
36
Project 9: Via California Bikeway
•
Project Limits – San Clemente city limit to Camino Capistrano
•
Existing Problem – There currently exists a gap in the regional network in this
area of the City.
•
•
•
This proposed project would provide a bikeway facility in the Capistrano Beach community and
would connect with the cities of San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano. A bikeway along Via
California would provide a designated route for bicyclists coming from Camino Las Ramblas to
find their way around the prohibited limited access section of Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1)
between the San Diego Freeway (I-5) and San Juan Creek. This bikeway would serve
neighboring cities and would be considered a regional route despite its relative short length.
This bikeway would intersect an existing bikeway along Camino Capistrano and would connect
with proposed bikeways along Camino El Molino, Via Valez, and Camino Las Ramblas in the City
of San Juan Capistrano.
Provide Class III bikeway signage and stencils along Via California between the San Juan
Capistrano city limit and Camino Capistrano.
pages 64-73.
feasible.
37
Project 10: Doheny Park Road/Coast Highway Bikeway
•
Project Limits – San Juan Capistrano city limit to Palisades Drive
•
Existing Problem – A lack of a continuous bikeway to connect the eastern part of
the City.
•
•
•
This proposed project would close a gap in the regional bikeway network. Bike lanes currently
exist along Camino Capistrano in the City of San Juan Capistrano and along Coast Highway in
Dana Point between Palisades Drive and the San Clemente city limit. This proposed bikeway
would provide a continuous connection between these two bikeway segments. Due to
constraints of street widths along these roadways, it is proposed that a Class III bike route be
implemented.
This project would intersect existing bikeways along Palisades Drive and Coast Highway. It
would also connect with proposed bikeways in this Plan along Pacific Coast Highway, Camino
Capistrano, and Victoria Boulevard.
Provide Class III bikeway signage and stencils along the following street segments.
o
Doheny Park Road between Camino Capistrano and Pacific Coast Highway
o
Coast Highway between Pacific Coast Highway/Doheny Park Road and
Palisades Drive
pages 64-73.
feasible.
38
Project 11: Dana Point-Doheny Village-Capistrano Beach
Connection Study
•
Project Limits – Del Obispo Street to Doheny Park Road and Coast Highway
•
Existing Problem – A lack of a convenient and direct way of getting through this
area on a bicycle.
•
Estimated Study Cost: $25,000
This proposed project would study the connection between central Dana Point and Doheny
Village and Capistrano Beach. There is a particular problem for northbound bicyclists who wish
to travel from Doheny Park Road and Coast Highway to Pacific Coast Highway near Del Obispo
Street. A recent lawsuit concluded that bicycles are not allowed access to the limited access
portion of Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) that exists between the San Diego Freeway (I-5) and
San Juan Creek. The loss of this access means that there is no direct way of traveling between
these sections of the City.
Currently, the only way to travel west through this area is via a path and parking lot along
Capistrano Beach and Doheny State Beach. For those bicyclists originating their trip in Doheny
Village, this route adds an unnecessary 1.80 miles to their trip. A study of this mobility issue
will be undertaken with input from other affected agencies such as the County, Caltrans and
OCTA to identify alternatives and recommend a final option for improving mobility for
bicyclists through this bottleneck.
An investigation identified potential treatments and route alignments to serve as a primer for
the study described above. Southbound cyclists may be routed continuously along Pacific Coast
Highway. The route for northbound cyclists presents the most challenges. The following route
segment options for northbound were identified:
Route Options From Doheny Park Road to San Juan Creek
•
Add a crosswalk at the signal of Pacific Coast Highway and Doheny Park Road to
cross to the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. Follow the sidewalk as a bike path
to a new crosswalk in front of a hotel between San Juan Creek and the OCTA
railroad tracks. Cross back to the north side of Pacific Coast Highway and follow a
sidewalk bike path or a contra-flow bike lane to the existing maintenance road on
the east side of San Juan Creek.
•
Add a crosswalk at the signal of Pacific Coast Highway and Doheny Park Road to
cross to the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. Follow the sidewalk as a bike path
to a new crosswalk in front of a hotel between San Juan Creek and the OCTA
railroad tracks. Cross to the north side of the Doheny State Park access road.
Follow the road to the existing bike path on the west side of San Juan Creek.
Route cyclists along the bike path under and onto Pacific Coast Highway.
•
Stripe a contra-flow bike lane along the Pacific Coast Highway from Doheny Park
Road to the existing maintenance road on the east side of San Juan Creek.
•
Road to a point just west of the OCTA railroad tracks. Follow along the west side
of the railroad tracks to the east side of San Juan Creek.
39
•
Road to a new crosswalk in front of a hotel between San Juan Creek and the OCTA
railroad tracks. Cross to the north side of the Doheny State Park access road.
Follow the road to the existing bike path on the west side of San Juan Creek.
Route cyclists along the bike path under and onto Pacific Coast Highway.
•
Route cyclists onto Doheny Park Road as far as Las Vegas Avenue. Route cyclists
along Las Vegas Avenue to the OCTA railroad tracks. Use either an at-grade
treatment or a grade-separation to cross over the OCTA railroad tracks.
Route Options From the East Side of San Juan Creek on the Pacific Coast Highway to the West
Side of San Juan Creek
•
From southbound Pacific Coast Highway at the east side of San Juan Creek, follow
an existing bike path north to a point north of the existing SR-1. Route cyclists
along SR-1 and connect directly to the Pacific Coast Highway.
•
From southbound Pacific Coast Highway at the east side of San Juan Creek, follow
an existing bike path north to a point north of the existing SR-1.
•
Add a new bridge over San Juan Creek from a point near Las Vegas Avenue to the
west side of the creek.
These options may be used in various combinations.
Each segment of each route option will need careful analysis. Some of the key challenges will
be:
There is minimal space available under the railroad overpass for a contra-flow bicycle
lane. A southbound left turn lane would need to be removed to accommodate the
bicycle lane.
An individual signal phase or a requirement for bicyclists to dismount and use the
crosswalk would be required for northbound bicyclists on Pacific Coast Highway at
Doheny Park Road. There currently is not a northbound left turn since there is only
southbound traffic on Pacific Coast Highway at this location.
The barrier rail on Highway 1 would need to be retrofitted to allow the path to merge
onto the highway shoulder just prior to the bridge over the creek.
There is not adequate space for a separate Class I multi-use path on the north/south
connection along the creek. The path would share an existing maintenance road.
It may be challenging to reach an agreement to construct the bridge through the creek
since this area is within both a floodplain overlay and a coastal overlay zone.
Hydraulic issues with San Juan Creek.
Crossing the OCTA railroad tracks at-grade would require permission from OCTA and
the Public Utilities Commission and would need to be carefully designed.
Crossing the OCTA railroad tracks with grade separation would require permission from
OCTA and the Public Utilities Commission and would need to be carefully designed.
Cost.
40
Project 12: Capistrano Beach Rail Trail
•
Project Limits – Doheny State Beach access road near Coast Highway to
Capistrano Beach path near Palisades Drive
•
Existing Problem – Existing bikeway utilizes a parking lot. An enhanced bikeway
facility is needed in this area.
•
Classification – Class I
•
•
project. However, typical costs are based on $500,000 per mile for Class I
bikeways. This cost estimate does not include the potential for a lease cost for the
railroad easement. An easement from OCTA may not require a cost. The actual
cost of implementation will vary based on the specific alignment constructed and it
is anticipated that the cost estimate would be refined when the alignment is
further evaluated.)
This project is located along the OCTA railroad corridor between San Juan Creek and Palisades
Drive. This corridor was analyzed east to the city limit, but only the segment between San
Juan Creek and Palisades Drive is recommended for project development. East of Palisades
Drive, a Class II bike lane is available. The adjacent roadways in this corridor are currently
highly utilized by various types of bicyclists and pedestrians. Bicyclists and pedestrians
currently use the Doheny State Beach access road and elongated parking lot to the west of the
railroad tracks along the beach. This parking lot provides access to a short pathway that
connects the southern terminus of the lot with Capistrano Beach Park where access is provided
across the tracks at Palisades Drive. Routing a high volume of pedestrians and bicyclists
through a parking lot is not a desired situation, and a separate Class I trail has been analyzed
as part of this Plan. This trail would be located along the railroad corridor on the east side of
the tracks and possibly be combined with the existing sidewalk. Another option could be the
use of the public right-of-way along the Coast Highway.
A connection at the northern terminus of this project is complex and is related to the
discussion of the Dana Point-Doheny Village-Capistrano Beach connection, which may be found
in Project 11. Efforts in San Diego County are underway to develop a multi-use path, called
the Coastal Rail Trail, along the same railroad corridor. These efforts will culminate in a
continuous bikeway from Oceanside to Downtown San Diego. In the future with cooperative
efforts from adjacent jurisdictions, a continuous path may be developed to connect with the
Coastal Rail Trail in Oceanside. The OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic also identifies
connections to the north of Dana Point along a combination of waterways and the rail corridor.
A continuous Class I facility is envisioned into Irvine and points north.
Challenges
Developing a multi- use path along this corridor has the following challenges:
There may be a need to construct a shared use path within the active railroad right-ofway. Negotiations with the right-of-way owner, OCTA, will need to occur in order to
secure an easement on the property.
41
There is residential development just south of the railroad right-of-way east of
Palisades Drive. Residential structures are currently located within 15 feet of the
tracks.
The available railroad right-of-way is relatively narrow south of Palisades Drive.
The western right-of-way boundary of the railroad is adjacent to the parking lot, now
designated as a bike route, within Doheny State Beach.
Recommendation
The existing usage of this corridor by bicyclists and pedestrians and the opportunities to
improve mobility and safety make this a high priority corridor for a multi-use path. Due to the
complexity of implementing a multi-use path along this corridor, further analysis is needed to
recommend a specific alignment. The following alignments should be considered. Please see
Figures 5.6 and 5.7 for photos of the corridor.
Between Camino Capistrano and Palisades Drive
A path along this segment is not recommended for several reasons listed below.
Class II bike lanes currently exist on Coast Highway along this stretch and provide
sufficient bicycle access.
There is insufficient right-of-way available within the railroad corridor to accommodate
a multi-use path.
The existence of residential development in this area increases the likelihood of public
opposition.
Potential future plans for the double tracking of the rail line through the city preempt
development of a path.
Between Palisades Drive and San Juan Creek
Three options exist for the implementation of a Class I multi-use path in this corridor. They
include the following.
Construct a multi-use path solely within the railroad right-of-way. It is anticipated this
would require an easement from the OCTA of 15 feet within the railroad right-of-way.
Construct a multi-use path partially within the railroad right-of-way and partially on
the Doheny Beach. It is possible that the parking and drive aisles along in the parking
lot on the beach could be narrowed in order that a minimal amount of right-of-way
would be required from the railroad. Further study of this project once it has been
selected for implementation will determine the exact dimensions of the right-of-way
required and the narrowing of the parking lot.
Construct a multi-use path partially within the railroad right-of-way and partially
within the public right-of-way on Coast Highway.
42
Locations for Trail Amenities
It is not expected that amenities will be needed along this alignment because of the proximity
of the path to the beach and the limited amount of available right-of-way. It is anticipated
that the facilities along the beach will be utilized, but it is possible that some facilities along
the beach may be in need of an upgrade.
Figure 5.6
South End of Doheny State Beach Parking Lot
Figure 5.7
Rail Corridor and Doheny State Beach Parking Lot
43
5.6
Proposed Pedestrian Trail Projects
Several trail corridors were identified for exploration as part of this master plan document.
They include trails along the following corridors.
Rachel Circle/Camino del Avion
Dana Woods Canyon
Camino del Avion/Sea Lion Drive (Candidate corridor not selected)
Each of these corridors was analyzed for the potential implementation of a pedestrian trail.
These proposed trails are designed to be earthen pedestrian trails. Bicycling is not intended to
be prohibited, but the design of the trails implies pedestrian usage. Map 4.1 on page 20 shows
the locations of those trails that are recommended for implementation in this Plan. The
following project sheets describe the trails in greater detail, discuss potential issues, and
identify planning-level cost estimates. Only the Sea Terrace Trail System is in City property.
The remaining recommended projects are on private property.
Figure 5.8
San Juan Creek Multi-Use Trail
44
Trail Project 1: Sea Terrace Trail System
•
Project Limits – Within Sea Terrace Park
•
Classification – Pedestrian Trails
•
Length – 1 mile
•
This corridor encompasses the proposed expansion of Sea Terrace Park and is approximately
0.50 miles in length. The Park is bounded by the St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort property to
the north, Salt Creek and the Monarch Links Golf Course to the west, the public library on the
east, and Pacific Coast Highway to the south. The Park has not yet been developed, but the
City received $150,000 from the Recreation Trails Program that is administered by the State,
and the City is pursuing additional grant funds. This corridor has moderate grades with little
vegetation. Many sections of this parcel are graded with several dirt trails currently bisecting
the property. A number of trail segments totaling approximately 1 mile could be developed
within this area trail could be developed as part of the park’s implementation. A tunnel under
Pacific Coast Highway connects the existing Sea Terrace Park adjacent to the library with Salt
Creek Beach. This corridor provides an excellent connection between the Salt Creek Trail, the
St. Regis Resort, the Orange County Public Library, and Salt Creek Beach. Photos of the
existing corridor are shown on the following pages.
Challenges
Developing a series of pedestrian trails along this corridor does not present any significant
challenges. The property is owned by the City and will be developed as a public park in the
near future. Its implementation will be coordinated with adjacent property owners.
Recommendation
Development of the Park would include an extensive trails system. The trails would likely be
developed at the time of the development of Sea Terrace Park in this area. The trails include
an extension of the current trail from the library and five trails splitting off from this main
trail. The network of trails will intersect Niguel Road, the St. Regis Hotel driveway, and the
Salt Creek Trail at Pacific Coast Highway. The trails would be aligned primarily along the
existing graded gravel roads on the property. Two segments would be designated as Class I
bikeways in order to provide connections with other bikeway facilities. These Class I bike
paths would be designed to Caltrans standards and would connect the Sea Terrace tunnel with
the Salt Creek Bike Path and Stonehill Drive.
There is available space for amenities throughout the corridor. Viewpoints with benches could
be located at various points near the up-slope area of the proposed trails. Trash receptacles
and benches should be provided at various intervals along the trails.
45
Cost Estimates
An estimate of the cost of the pedestrian trail is $650,000. The actual cost of implementation
may vary based on factors such as path material, soil type, and landscaping requirements.
Figure 5.9
Dirt Trail near the Library
Figure 5.10
Existing Gravel Trail in Undeveloped Sea Terrace Park
46
Trail Project 2: Headlands Trail System
•
Project Limits – Within Headlands Development
•
Classification – Pedestrian Trails
•
•
Estimated Cost: Private Funds
The Headlands development project, which is proposed at the southwest corner of the City
overlooking the ocean and harbor, is to include a pedestrian trail network. The trails are to
provide pedestrian linkages within the planned development as well as link with Selva Road,
Dana Strand, and Salt Creek Beach Park. Beach access is to be provided as a part of this
development project. Map 4.1 on page 20 shows the approximate location of the trails. One
trail is proposed to be upgraded to a standard Caltrans width for a Class I bike path. This Class
I facility will provide for bicycle travel through the area and will provide a critical bicycle
connection between Selva Road, Salt Creek Beach Park, and Dana Point Harbor. This project is
on private property.
Figure 5.11
Existing Vacant Land on Headlands Property
47
Trail Project 3: Rachel Circle Trail
•
Project Limits – Camino del Avion to Rachel Circle
•
Classification – Pedestrian Trail
•
•
This corridor runs along an easement on private property from Rachel Circle to the northeast
and then parallels Camino del Avion from Bear Brand Road to the west approximately 0.4
miles. The land is currently zoned open space according to the Dana Point General Plan Zoning
Map, revision November 2000. A connection from Rachel Circle to Camino del Avion provides a
direct connection from a residential neighborhood to Bear Brand Park, Saint Anne School, and
the Queen of Life Center. The connection would decrease the trip distance for pedestrians and
bicyclists from approximately 1.25 miles to 0.4 miles. The most direct route from Rachel
Circle would connect at the existing signalized intersection at Camino del Avion/Bear Brand
Road. The potential corridor continues along Camino del Avion from Bear Brand Road to the
western end of the open space, approximately 0.4 miles. Pedestrian connectivity is currently
provided in this section by a sidewalk. Pictures of this corridor are on the following pages.
Another short stretch of this project would link Dana Crest Park to Barbados Drive. This link
would connect two neighborhoods and enable someone to walk from Camino del Avion to
Stonehill Drive and to Sea Canyon Park as well as Dana Hills High School.
Challenges
Developing a multi-use path along this corridor presents the following challenges.
The landowner adjacent to the easement at Rachel Circle has encroached into the
easement.
The potential corridor has an approximate 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope. If the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is followed, there is a maximum 5 percent slope
and switchbacks will likely be needed. This will increase construction costs. However,
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO)
guidelines allow for shared use paths to exceed the 5% grade for short distances, if
terrain dictates, which it does in this case.
The most direct path between Rachel Circle and the Bear Brand/Camino del Avion
intersection is through an undeveloped parcel that is currently zoned Neighborhood
Commercial. The path could be routed a few hundred feet to the west around the
Neighborhood Commercial parcel, or the multi-use trail could be required of the
developer of the adjacent parcel.
The property is privately owned. The City could require construction of this trail with
new development, or solicit property rights.
The trail connecting Dana Crest Park with Barbados Drive would require negotiating
with the property owner to gain access.
Recommendation
An earthen trail is recommended along the alignment from Rachel Circle to Camino del Avion,
either at Bear Brand Road or to the west of the Neighborhood Commercial parcel. The trail
alignment provides a connection from a residential community to a park and a school. In
48
addition, the trail is desirable because crossing Camino del Avion is accommodated at the
existing traffic signal at Bear Brand Road. The path section that continues from Bear Brand
Road to the western end of the open space is not recommended at this time because the
connection is currently provided by the existing sidewalk and there does not appear to be high
demand along the corridor. However, this trail could be added to the plan in the future if the
pedestrian volume is anticipated to increase significantly.
There is ample space for trail amenities along the entire length of the corridor. It is
recommended that a trash receptacle and bench be placed at the beginning, end and at least
once along the path. There should be an informational kiosk adjacent to Camino del Avion
since it is an entry point to Dana Point. Lastly, a W7-5 warning sign that shows a bicyclist on a
steep grade should be placed at the top of the hill.
Cost Estimates
The cost of the recommended trail is dependent on the trail alignment that is implemented
and whether the trail is designed to meet ADA or AASHTO guidelines. An earthen pedestrian
trail that connects from Rachel Circle directly to Bear Brand Road is approximately 0.15 miles
in length and the approximate total cost is $100,000. An alignment that goes to the west of
the Neighborhood Commercial parcel on the south side of the Bear Brand Road/Camino Del
Avion intersection has an additional cost of approximately $50,000. The actual cost of
implementation will vary based on factors such as trail material, soil type, and landscaping
requirements. The total cost estimate for this option is $150,000.
Figure 5.12
Looking Towards the Camino del Avion/Bear Brand Road Intersection
49
Figure 5.13
Encroachment onto the Easement near Rachel Circle
50
Trail Project 4: Dana Woods Canyon Trail
•
Project Limits – Dana Woods to Stonehill Drive
•
Classification – Pedestrian Trail
•
•
Estimated Cost: $200,000 to $1,950,000 depending on trail type.
discussion of cost estimate below.)
(See
This corridor is 0.70 mile in length and is within Recreation, Open Space and Conservation
areas bounded by Dana Woods to the north, Golden Lantern to the west, and Stonehill Drive to
the south. This corridor has steep grades with dense vegetation throughout the canyon. This
corridor provides an improved connection between Dana Woods Park and Stonehill Drive. Even
though there appears to be an unpaved access road through a portion of the corridor, the
corridor does not appear to be currently used by a significant number of pedestrians. Photos of
the corridor are shown on the following pages.
Challenges
Developing a multi-use trail along this corridor has the following challenges:
There is approximately a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope along the corridor.
Constructing a path along this corridor would require a significant amount of grading
and may include the construction of retaining walls. Similar to the Rachel Circle
corridor, the cost will be impacted by whether the design follows ADA or AASHTO
guidelines for percent grade.
The gated community to the west of the corridor may not be interested in providing a
bicycle and pedestrian connection to their community.
There may be environmental concerns with constructing a path in an open space area
that has a steep slope and existing vegetation.
The property is owned by multiple homeowner associations. Creation of public trails
would require dedication.
Recommendation
It is recommended that an earthen trail be included in the Plan with future public involvement
as required. The trail is recommended to be along the top of the canyon along the east side of
the open space area from Dana Woods to Stonehill Drive and then connecting to Golden
Lantern along the north side of the open space.
There is available space for amenities throughout the corridor. A viewpoint with a bench could
be cut into the hillside and supported by a retaining wall. It is recommended that if a
pedestrian trail is developed along this corridor, at least two viewpoints with benches be
provided. Trash receptacles should be provided at the viewpoints if the City of Dana Point or
the adjacent community associations are willing to routinely maintain the pedestrian trail,
even though there will not be motorized access.
51
Cost Estimates
An estimate of the cost of the trail is $200,000. There may be an increase in cost due to
potential environmental issues and the steep grade of the canyon. The actual cost of
implementation will vary based on factors such as trail material, soil type, and landscaping
requirements. This cost estimate is for a single-track walking trail. A wider, more fully
developed trail would cost more. To fully develop this trail as a wide, crushed granite path
would require grading and environmental work. The cost to do this could be as high as
$1,950,000.
Figure 5.14
Looking West Towards Golden Lantern
Figure 5.15
Looking South from Sea Bridge Drive
52
Candidate Trail Not Selected: Camino del Avion/Sea Lion Drive
Corridor Description
This corridor is within a “L” shaped Open Space area from Camino del Avion, approximately
1/2 mile west of Del Obispo Street, to Sea Lion Drive. The north/south section of the open
space slopes downward from the west to east at approximately a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical
slope. The east/west segment of the open space is level with the back yard of homes to the
north of the open space, then transitions at a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope to be
approximately 10 feet above the homes to the south of the open space area. Although there
appears to be a footpath along the east/west segment of the open space, it ended at the
junction with the north/south open space corridor. At the location where the open space area
connects to Sea Lion Drive, it is approximately 10 feet above Sea Lion Drive and held back by a
retaining wall. Photos of the corridor are included on the following pages.
Challenges
The following challenges are expected if a multi-use path is developed along this corridor:
There is approximately a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope along the north/south section
of this corridor. Constructing a trail along this corridor may require a significant
amount of grading and construction of retaining walls. Similar to the Rachel Circle
corridor, the cost will be impacted by whether the design follows ADA or AASHTO
guidelines for percent grade.
It would be difficult to construct a trail along the east/west section of the potential
corridor because of the existing 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope within a narrow
corridor. Constructing a trail in this corridor would require extensive grading and
retaining walls.
There may be environmental concerns with constructing a trail in an open space area
that has a steep slope and existing vegetation.
Most homes to the north of the east/west section have wrought iron fences and there is
direct visibility from the open space into their homes. These adjacent residents would
likely oppose a trail along this segment because the trail would infringe on the privacy
of their homes.
The intersection of the potential corridor and Sea Lion Drive is separated by a retaining
wall of approximately 10 feet in height, as shown in Figure 5.17. This retaining wall
would need to be removed and replaced with a more extensive retaining wall system
and would significantly increase the cost.
Recommendation
A pedestrian trail is not recommended for this corridor based on a comparison of the many
challenges to implement a trail in this location. Its construction is anticipated to be
extremely costly and have many impacts, including neighborhood opposition.
53
Figure 5.16
Looking East from Sea Lion Drive
Homes to the North and a Steep Slope to the South
Figure 5.17
Looking East from Sea Lion Drive
Open Space Corridor Above a Retaining Wall
54
6.0
Funding
There are a variety of potential funding sources including local, state, regional, and federal
funding programs that can be used to construct the proposed bicycle and pedestrian trail
improvements. Most Federal, state, and regional programs are competitive and involve the
completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project need, costs, and
benefits. Local funding for projects can come from sources within jurisdictions that compete
only with other projects in each jurisdiction’s budget. A detailed program-by-program of
available funding programs along with the latest relevant information is provided on the
following pages. The funding sources are also summarized in Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 on
pages 60-63.
6.1
TEA-21/SAFETEA-LU
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was enacted June 9, 1998 as Public Law
105-178. TEA-21 authorized the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway
safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003. TEA-21 has expired and all funds have
been allocated under its authorization. Congress recently passed, and the President signed a
new set of funding programs, funding eligibility guidelines, and funding formulae for allocation.
The new bill is called the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). As of the writing of this Plan, SAFETEA-LU funding programs,
eligibility guidelines and funding formulae for bicycle and pedestrian projects have not been
analyzed and published, so they are not included here.
Federal funding through SAFETEA-LU will likely provide some of outside funding for Dana Point
projects, assuming that SAFETEA-LU contains some or all of the same funding programs as TEA21. TEA-21 contained several programs including the Surface Transportation Program (STP),
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), National Recreational Trails,
Section 402 (Safety), Scenic Byways, and Federal Lands Highway. The Transportation
Enhancement program, which was the largest federal funding program for bicycle and
pedestrian projects, was a set-aside within STP.
Federal funding is administered through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Most, but not all, of the funding
programs are transportation (versus recreation) oriented, with an emphasis on (a) reducing
auto trips and (b) providing inter-modal connections. Funding criteria often requires
quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (such as saved vehicle trips and reduced
air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) compliance, and commitment of some local resources. In most cases, TEA-21 provided
matching grants of 80 to 90 percent--but prefers to leverage other moneys at a lower rate.
The following programs described are those that were in place under TEA-21. The new
SAFETEA-LU may include changes to these programs and/or a complete reorganization of
programs, requirements, and funding allocations.
6.1.1
Regional Surface Transportation Program Fund (STP)
The Surface Transportation Program was a block grant fund. Funds were used for roads,
bridges, transit capital, and pedestrian and bicycle projects, including bicycle transportation
facilities, bike parking facilities, equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transit vehicles
and facilities, bike- and pedestrian-activated traffic control devices, preservation of
abandoned railway corridors for bicycle and pedestrian trails, and improvements for highways
and bridges. TEA-21 allowed the transfer of funds from other TEA-21 programs to the STP
55
funding category. On-street bike lanes and new bicycle- and pedestrian-actuated signals would
be some of the projects Dana Point could have applied for under this program.
6.1.2
Transportation Enhancements Program (TE)
The TE Program was a 10 percent set-aside of funds from the Surface Transportation Program.
Projects must have had a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system through
function, proximity, or impact. Two Enhancement Activities were specifically bicycle related:
(1) provision of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, (2) preservation of abandoned railway
corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for bicycle or pedestrian trails).
6.1.3
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Funds were available for projects that will help attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) identified in the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Projects must have come
from jurisdictions in non-attainment areas, and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District is a non-attainment area in which Dana Point is located. Eligible projects included
bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities intended for transportation purposes, bicycle
route maps, bicyclist- or pedestrian-activated traffic control devices, bicycle and pedestrian
safety and education programs and promotional programs.
6.1.4
Hazard Elimination Safety Program (HES)
The Hazard Elimination Safety program was a federal safety program administered by Caltrans
that provided funds for safety improvements on public roads and highways, with the goal of
eliminating or reducing the number and/or severity of traffic accidents at locations selected
for improvement. Candidate projects could have been on any public road and must have
addressed a specific safety problem using a "quick fix" that did not result in significant
environmental impacts. Proposals were accepted for two general categories: Safety Index or
Work Type. The Safety Index formula evaluated project cost and accident statistics where such
information is available. Otherwise, projects were assessed in a specific Work Type category
such as roadway illumination, utility pole relocation, traffic signals, signs, guardrail upgrades,
and obstacle removal. In California since 2000, the Safe Routes to School program used a large
portion of this funding source to fund school-related transportation safety and pedestrian
access projects.
6.2 State Funding Programs
6.2.1
TDA Article 3 (SB 821)
Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds are used by cities within Orange County for the
planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These funds are allocated
annually on a per capita basis to both cities and the County of Orange. Local agencies may
either draw down these funds or place them on reserve. Agencies must submit a claim form to
OCTA by the end of the fiscal year in which they are allocated. Failure to do so may result in
the lapsing of these allocations.
TDA Article 3 funds may be used for the following activities related to the planning and
construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities:
Engineering expenses leading to construction.
Right-of-way acquisition.
Construction and reconstruction.
56
Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including installation of signage,
to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Route improvements such as signal controls for cyclists, bicycle loop detectors,
rubberized rail crossings and bicycle-friendly drainage grates.
Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities, such as secure bicycle parking, benches,
drinking fountains, changing rooms, rest rooms and showers which are adjacent to
bicycle trails, employment centers, park-and-ride lots, and/or transit terminals and are
accessible to the general public.
6.2.2
Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)
The State 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 emphasis is on projects that benefit bicycling for
commuting purposes. The program is currently funded at $7.2-million annually through fiscal
year 2005/06. Agencies may apply for these funds through the Caltrans Office of Bicycle
Facilities. Applicant cities and counties are required to have a bicycle plan that conforms to
Streets and Highways Code 891.2 in order to qualify to compete for funding on a project-byproject basis. The City of Dana Point may apply for these funds through the Caltrans Office of
Bicycle Facilities. A local match of 10% is required for all awarded funds.
6.2.3
Safe Routes to School (AB1475)
The Safe Routes to School program is a state program using allocated
funds from the Hazard Elimination Safety program of TEA-21. This
program, is meant to improve school commute routes by eliminating
barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel through rehabilitation, new
projects, and traffic calming. A local match of 11.5% is required for this
competitive program, which allocates $18-million annually. Planning
grants are not available through this program.
6.2.4
National Recreational Trails Fund (State Parks)
Funds are available for recreational trails for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and
other non-motorized and motorized users. Projects must be consistent with a
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Projects include
development of urban trail links, maintenance of existing trails, restoration of
trails damaged by use, trail facility development, provision of access for people
with disabilities, administrative costs, environmental and safety education programs,
acquisition of easements, fee simple title for property and construction of new trails. Annual
funding began at $30 million for FY 1998, rose to $40 million for FY 1999 and increased to $50
million per annum for the remaining years.
6.2.5
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEM)
Funds are allocated to projects that offset environmental impacts of modified or new public
transportation facilities including streets, mass transit guideways, park-n-ride facilities, transit
stations, tree planting to equalize the effects of vehicular emissions, and the acquisition or
development of roadside recreational facilities.
6.2.6
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
The primary objective of the program is to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and injuries through
a national highway safety program. Priority areas include police traffic services, alcohol and
57
other drugs, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency medical services,
traffic records, roadway safety and community-based organizations. The Office of Traffic
Safety (OTS) provides grants for one to two years. The California Vehicle Code (Sections 2908
and 2909) authorizes the apportionment of federal highway safety funds to the OTS program.
State, city and county governmental agencies, school districts, fire departments, public
emergency service providers, state colleges and universities. Non-profit and community-based
organizations are eligible through a “host” governmental agency.
A bicycle and pedestrian safety program should strive to increase safety awareness and skills
among pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. The program should include the following three
components: education, enforcement and engineering. Educational efforts may address specific
target groups or the entire community. Enforcement efforts may include speed enforcement,
bicycle helmet and pedestrian violations and the display of radar trailers near schools and
areas of high bicycle and pedestrian usage. Engineering includes developing a “Safe Routes to
School” component to complement educational efforts.
6.2.7
AB 2766
AB 2766 Clean Air Funds are generated by a surcharge on automobile registration. The South
Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) allocates 40 percent 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
pedestrian projects that could encourage people to bicycle or walk in lieu of driving. The other
60 percent is allocated through a competitive grant programs that has specific guidelines for
projects that improve air quality. The guidelines vary and funds are often eligible for a variety
of bicycle or pedestrian projects.
6.3 Local Funding
6.3.1
Measure M
Measure M is a one-half cent sales tax approved by Orange County voters in
November 1990 for a program of countywide transportation improvements.
Measure M is expected to raise more than $3.1 billion over 20 years for projects
and programs that include freeway improvements, maintenance and rehabilitation of local
streets, and transit. Measure M is overseen by a nine-member voter-approved Citizens
Oversight Committee. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a competitive
program under Measure M that includes projects that result in quantifiable reductions in
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, including bicycle and trail facilities. The TDM Program
is limited to a maximum per project limit of $100,000 per year. For every TDM funding cycle,
which occurs every two years, one project of regional significance may be awarded up to
$500,000. A local match is not required for this program. Funds are allocated through the life
of Measure M and funding eligibility is determined annually through the local Turnback
Program.
6.3.2
New Construction
Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bikeways and
pedestrian trails. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide these facilities where
needed, it is important that an effective review process is in place to ensure that new roads
and trails meet the standards and guidelines presented in this Master Plan.
58
6.3.3
Impact Fees and Developer Mitigation
Another potential local source of funding are developer impact fees, typically ties to trip
generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce
the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site bikeway
improvements, which will encourage residents to bicycle or walk rather than drive. In-lieu
parking fees may be used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a
clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project’s impacts is critical in
avoiding a potential lawsuit.
6.3.4
Mello Roos
Bike paths, lanes, and pedestrian facilities can be funded as part of a local assessment or
benefit district. Defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult unless the
facility is part of a larger parks and recreation or public infrastructure program with broad
community benefits and support.
6.3.5
Business Improvement Districts
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements can often be included as part of larger efforts at business
improvement and retail district beautification. Similar to Mello Roos assessments, Business
Improvement Districts 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 pedestrian and bicycle improvements, such as wider sidewalks, landscaping, and
ADA compliance.
6.3.6
Other
Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Parking
meter revenues may be used according to local ordinance. Volunteer programs may
substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways. Use of groups
such as the California Conservation Corp (who offer low cost assistance) will be effective at
reducing project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway or pedestrian
project as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work
parties may be formed to help clear the right of way where needed. A local construction
company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may
be a good source of local funding, where corporations ‘adopt’ a bikeway and help construct
and maintain the facility.
Tables 6.1 through 6.4 on the following pages provide a summary of bicycle and pedestrian trail
facilities funding sources.
59
Table 6.1
City of Dana Point Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Facilities
Federal Funding Sources
Grant Source
Due Date
TEA-21
Surface
Transportation
Program (STP)
Expired
TEA-21
Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
Program
TEA-21
Transportation
Enhancement
Activities (TEA)
TEA-21
National
Recreational
Trails
Expired
Expired
Expired
Agency
Annual
Matching
Total Requirement
Eligible
Applicants
OCTA,
Caltrans,
FHWA
11.47%
federally
non-federal certified
match
jurisdictions
OCTA, CTC
federally
11.47%
match
jurisdictions
FHWA,
OCTA
11.47%
federally
match
jurisdictions
State Dept.
of Parks &
Recreation
no match
required
jurisdictions,
special
districts, nonprofits with
management
responsibilities over the
land
60
Eligible Bicycle Facilities
Commute
X
Recreation
Safety
Education
Pedestrian
Trail
Facilities
Comments
STP funds may have
been exchanged for
local funds for nonfederally certified local
agencies; no match was
required if project
improves safety
X
X
Contact OCTA
X
X
X
X
X
For recreational trails
to benefit bicyclists,
pedestrians, and other
users; contact State
Dept. of Parks & Rec.,
Statewide Trails
Coordinator,
(916) 653-8803
Table 6.2
State Funding Sources
Grant Source
Due Date
Agency
Annual Matching
Total Requirement
Flexible
Congestion Relief
(FCR) Program
Major Projects,
$300,000+
State and Local
Transportation
Partnership
Program (SLPP)
Dec. of
odd #
years
Environmental
Enhancement
and Mitigation
(EEM) Program
Nov.
Bicycle
Transportation
Account (BTA)
Safe Routes to
School (AB1475)
Spring
2001
Caltrans
$7.2-mil. 10%
per year
Varies
Caltrans
$18-mil.
OCTA
Caltrans
none
State
Resources
Agency
not
required
but
favored
11.5%
Eligible
Applicants
cities,
counties,
transit
operators,
Caltrans
Cities,
counties,
assessment
districts
Local, state
and federal
government
non-profit
agencies
Cities and
counties
Government
agencies,
non-profit
groups,
schools,
community
groups
61
Commute
X
Recreation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
Must be included in an
adopted RTP, STIP,
CMP, RTIP
X
X
X
Safety
Education
Pedestrian
Trail
Facilities
X
X
Any road projects being
resurfaced or using
local funds should
include bike lane for
reimbursement through
this program; contact
Caltrans
Projects that enhance
or mitigate future
transportation projects;
contact EEM Project
Manager (916) 653-5800
Contact local Caltrans
district office for
details
Only two years of
funding currently
authorized as of 2000;
submission dates and
deadlines in flux
Table 6.3
Local Funding Sources
Grant Source
Due
Date
Transportation
Development Act
(TDA) Section
99234 (2% of
total TDA)
State Gas Tax
(local share)
Jan.
Measure M
Varies
Developer Fees
or Exactions
(developer fee
for street
improvements DFSI)
Vehicle
Registration
Surcharge Fee
(AB 434)
Agency
Annual Matching
Total Requirement
OCTA
Allocated
by State
Auditor
Controller
OCTA
Cities, or
County
no match
required
no match
required
Varies
no match
required
no match
required
Eligible
Applicants
Cities,
counties;
currently
allocated by
population
local
jurisdictions
local
jurisdictions
Commute
no match
required
local
agencies,
transit
operators,
others
62
Safety
Education
Comments
Contact OCTA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCAQMD
Recreation
Pedestrian
Trail
Facilities
X
X
X
X
X
X
Competitive grant
program under TDM
Mitigation required
during land use
approval process
Competitive program
for projects that
benefit air quality
Table 6.4
City of Dana Point Multi-use Path and Pedestrian Trail Facilities
Additional Funding Sources
Grant Source
Due Date
Agency
Funding Available
in California
Eligible Applicants
Eligible Uses
Various grant
programs
available
Up to $500,000
per grant
Cities, Counties,
other local
jurisdictions
Local jurisdictions
Acquisition, design, construction,
education
Local jurisdictions
California State
Parks Bond (Prop.
12)
Coastal Resources
Grant Program
Nov. 1
State Parks
Varies
California Resources
Agency (CRA)
California
Conservation Corps
Community
Development Block
Grants
Yearround
Depends
on region
California Conservation
Corps (CCC)
Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
No funding,
labor only
$326-million
Coastal
Conservancy
Grants for
Greenways
Rolling
basis
March 1
through
June 1
March 29
Coastal Conservancy
Conservation Fund
Depends on the
year
$500 to $2,500
National Park Service
(NPS)
$28.9-million
nationwide
Urban Park and
Recreation
Recovery Program
63
Local jurisdictions,
State of California
Local jurisdictions
Local jurisdictions
Local jurisdictions
Acquisition, planning, design,
construction, restoration and
management of coastal lands or
waters
Construction, maintenance
construction, maintenance, for
projects that benefit low to
moderate income populations
construction
construction, education
Construction, for projects that
benefit low to moderate income
populations, for neighborhood
park and recreation facility
rehabilitation
7.0
Design Guidelines
This section provides details on the recommended design and operating standards for the City
of Dana Point’s Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Network.
National design guidelines for bikeways have been developed by the American Association of
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Caltrans. These guidelines include the
1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, the 2003 Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, and the MUCTD
California Supplement.
The following section summarizes key operating and design definitions.
Bicycle: The AASHTO (1999) definition of a bicycle is “every vehicle propelled solely by human
power which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, except scooters and similar
devices. The term ‘bicycle’ also includes three- and four-wheeled human-powered vehicles,
but not tricycles for children.”
Class I: Referred to as a bike path, shared-use path, or multi-purpose trail. Provides for
bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. Other
users may also be found on this type of facility, including pedestrians and in-line skaters.
Class II: Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or
highway.
Class III: Referred to as a bike route. Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle
traffic.
The following guidelines present the recommended minimum 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.
7.1
Class I Bike Path Design Recommendations
1. Bike paths should typically be designed with 8 feet minimum of pavement with
minimum 2 feet of shoulder on each side. In areas of high usage, 12 feet of pavement
or more is recommended, and in some cases a separate unpaved parallel path is
optimal.
2. Bike path crossings of roadways require preliminary design review. Generally speaking,
shared use paths that cross roadways with Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes of over
20,000 vehicles per day will typically require signalization or grade separation.
3. Landscaping should generally be low water consuming native vegetation and should
have the least amount of debris.
4. Lighting should be provided where commuters will likely use the shared use path in the
evenings.
5. Barriers to prevent unauthorized use-at shared use path entrances should only be used
if warranted; the least entry restriction is preferred. The barriers should be clearly
marked with reflectors and should be ADA accessible (minimum five feet clearance).
See Figure 7.1 for the proper design of a bollard entrance treatment.
64
6. Shared use path construction should take into consideration maintenance and
emergency vehicles but minimize their impacts on shared use path width, shoulders,
and vertical clearance requirements.
7. Unpaved shoulders of width two feet for pedestrians/runners or a separate tread way
should be provided where feasible. Pedestrians should be directed to right side of the
pathway with signing and/or stenciling.
8. Where paths are heavily used, consideration should be made to install emergency
phone service.
9. Grades that meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions are important to
accommodate users with disabilities. ADA requires that the grade of shared-use paths
not exceed 8 percent.
10. In the design of shared use paths, attention should be paid to preventing illegal use of
the shared use path by motor vehicles.
11. Where shared use path design occurs in environmentally sensitive areas, design
exceptions should be pursued to minimize environmental impacts.
12. Shared-use paths and sidewalk paths located immediately adjacent to the roadway are
discouraged by AASHTO. This is due to several factors including the potential for high
numbers of intersecting roadways, opposite direction travel by bicyclists and resulting
conflicts at intersections, potential insufficient sight distances due to walls and other
obstructions, and possible conflicts within the right-of-way such as utility poles.
13. Shared-use paths and sidewalk bicycle facilities should not be considered a substitute
for on-road bicycle facilities. Paved shoulders or wide curb lanes (14 feet or wider)
should be implemented along roadways that have adjacent paths or sidewalk bicycle
facilities. As stated within AASHTO, many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the
shared-use path or sidewalk because they have found the roadway to be safer, more
convenient, or better maintained.
Figure 7.1
Class I Bike Path/Trail Entrance Treatment
65
Figure 7.2
Bike Path/Trail Intersection Treatment Adjacent to Roadway
7.2
Class II Bike Lane Facilities Design Recommendations
1. All bike lanes should generally conform to the minimum design standard of 5 feet in
width in the direction of vehicle travel adjacent to the curb lane, but should be no
more than 8 feet wide. Under very restricted circumstances, bike lanes may be 4 feet
in width in uncurbed sections. These include bike lanes squeezed between through
traffic lanes and right turn pockets and for paved shoulder locations where right-of-way
is restricted or there are topographical constraints. Please see Figure 7.4.
2. Intersection treatments should include bike lane ‘pockets’ where necessary. Please
see Figure 7.4.
3. Signal loop detectors that sense bicycles should be considered for all arterial/arterial,
arterial/collector, and collector/collector intersections. The location of the detectors
can be identified by a stencil of a bicycle. Video and curbside push buttons should also
be considered where right turn only lanes are not present. Loop detectors and other
66
detection systems can have technological drawbacks. When loop detector sensitivity is
turned up, they can be too easily triggered. Alternative loop configurations that offer
extra detector surface can help cyclists trip them without being too easily triggered.
The City will weigh the pros and cons of various detection systems and apply selected
technology in appropriate locations.
4. Where bottlenecks preclude continuous bike lanes, these segments of bike lanes should
be connected with bike routes as designed in the following section. Bike lane projects
should provide for continuous bike lane travel with minimal interruptions.
Figure 7.3
Bike Lane Sign (Caltrans)
(sign should be 18” x 24” in size and high-intensity reflective)
67
Figure 7.4
Bike Lane Treatment at an Intersection (MUTCD, AASHTO)
68
Figure 7.5
Numbered Bikeway Sign (MUTCD)
7.3
Class III Bike Route Facilities Design Recommendations
Bike routes have been typically designated as simply signed routes along street corridors,
usually local streets and collectors, but sometimes along arterials. With proper route signage,
design, and maintenance, bike routes can be effective in guiding bicyclists along a route that is
more suited for bicycle riding without having enough roadway space to provide a bike lane.
Bike routes can become more useful when coupled with such techniques as:
Route, directional, and distance signage
Wide curb lanes
Accelerated pavement maintenance schedules
Traffic signals timed for cyclists (where warranted)
Traffic calming
There are a variety of other improvements that can enhance the safety and attraction of
streets for bicyclists. Figures 7.6 and 7.7 show signage and stencils used on Bike Routes. Class
III Bike Routes can be designed in a manner that encourages bicycle usage, convenience, and
safety. It is recommended that the City traffic engineer investigate alternatives for
maximizing roadway rights of way for bicycles where Class III routes are proposed.
Figure 7.6
Class III Bike Route Sign
69
Figure 7.7
Newly Approved Class III Bike Route Pavement Stencil
7.4
Signage and Markings
Bikeway signage in Dana Point should conform to the signing identified in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2003) and the Caltrans Traffic Manual. These
documents give specific information on the type and location of signing for the primary bike
system. A list of on-street bikeway signage from the MUTCD is shown in Table 7.1 (Bikeway
Signage and Marking Standards).
Stencils can also be included on bicycle facilities to help cyclists and motorists more easily
identify the bike route. A new stencil has recently been approved for use in California and
should be considered (see Figure 7.7).
7.5
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking is not standardized by any codes. However, there are preferable types of
secure bicycle furnishings available on the market. When bicycle parking is being considered,
the types of bicycle lockers and racks in Figures 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.12, and 7.13 are
recommended. These include the Inverted U-rack, Bike Hitch, and the e-Locker, which is a
new type of bike locker that does not require administration of a bike locker program. The
City may wish to modify requirements for bicycle parking included with new development
projects. Signage is recommended to help cyclists find parking as seen in Figure 7.11.
70
Figure 7.8
”Bike Hitch” Bicycle Rack Parking
Figure 7.9 “Inverted U” Bicycle Rack Parking
Figure 7.10 “BikeBike” Bicycle Rack Parking
71
Figure 7.11
Bicycle Parking Sign (Caltrans)
Figure 7.12 Conventional Bicycle Locker Storage
Figure 7.13 Bicycle “eLocker” Storage
72
Table 7.1
Recommended Bikeway Signage and Markings
Item
Location
Color
MUTCD
Designation
No Motor Vehicles
Entrances to trail
B on W
Use Ped Signal/Yield to Peds
At crosswalks; where sidewalks are being
used
B on W
Bike Lane Ahead: Right Lane Bikes
Only
At beginning of bike lanes
B on W
STOP, YIELD
At trail intersections with roads and Coastal
Bikeways
W on R
Bicycle Crossing
For motorists at trail crossings
B on Y
W11-1
Bike Lane
At the far side of all arterial intersections
B on W
R81
Bike Route
Where route changes and frequent enough
to remind motorists of presence of cyclists
W on G
D11-1
Hazardous Condition
Slippery or rough pavement
B on Y
W8-10
Turns and Curves
At turns and curves which exceed 20 mph
design specifications
B on Y
R5-3
R9-5
R9-6
R3-16
R3-17
R1-1
R1-2
W1-1,2
W1-4,5
W1-6
W2-1, W2-2
W2-3, W2-3
W2-4, W2-5
Trail Intersections
At trail intersections where no STOP or
YIELD required, or sight lines limited
B on Y
STOP Ahead
Where STOP sign is obscured
B,R
on Y
W3-1
Signal Ahead
Where signal is obscured
B,R,G
W3-3
Bikeway Narrows
Where bikeway width narrows or is below 8'
B on Y
W5-4
Downgrade
Where sustained bikeway gradient is above
5%
B on Y
W7-5
Pedestrian Crossing
Where pedestrian walkway crosses trail
B on Y
W11A-2
Restricted Vertical Clearance
Where vertical clearance is less than 8'6"
B on Y
W11A-2
Railroad Crossing
Where trail crosses railway tracks at grade
B on Y
W10-1
Directional Signs (i.e. Cal State LB,
Downtown, Train Station, etc.
At intersections where access to major
destinations is available
W on G
D1-1b(r/l)
D1-1c
Right Lane Must Turn Right;
Begin Right Turn Here, Yield to Bikes
Where bike lanes end before intersection
B on W
R3-7
R4-4
Trail Regulations
All trail entrances
B on W
n/a
All trail entrances
n/a
n/a
Multi-purpose Trail: Bikes Yield to
Pedestrians
Bikes Reduce Speed & Call Out
Before Passing
Please Stay On Trail
Every 2,000 feet
B on W
n/a
In environmentally-sensitive areas
n/a
n/a
Caution: Storm Damaged Trail
Storm damaged locations
B on Y
n/a
Trail Closed: No Entry Until Made
Accessible & Safe for Public Use
Where trail or access points closed due to
hazardous conditions
n/a
n/a
B on W
n/a
R on W
n/a
Speed Limit Signs
Trail Curfew 10PM - 5AM
Near trail entrances: where speed limits should be
reduced from 20 mph
Based on local ordinance
73
7.6
Drainage Grates
Care must be taken to ensure that drainage grates are bicycle-safe. If not, a bicycle wheel may
fall into the slots of the grate causing the cyclist to fall. Replacing existing grates or welding
thin metal straps across the grate perpendicular to the direction of is required. Care must be
taken to ensure that drainage grates are bicycle-safe. If not, a bicycle wheel may fall into the
slots of the grate causing the cyclist to fall. Replacing existing grates or welding thin metal
straps across the grate perpendicular to the direction of is required. 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, as wheelchairs could get caught in the slot. Figure
7.14 shows the appropriate types of drainage grates that should be used.
Figure 7.14
Samples of Proper Drainage Grate Design
7.7
Maintenance
The City should establish street maintenance schedules for the regular sweeping of streets,
including bike lanes and Class I bike paths. Maintenance access on Class I bike paths should be
achieved using standard City pick-up trucks on the pathway itself. Sections with narrow widths
or other clearance restrictions should be clearly marked. Class I bike path maintenance
includes cleaning, resurfacing and restriping the asphalt path, repairs to crossings, cleaning
drainage systems, trash removal, and landscaping. Underbrush and weed abatement should be
performed once in the late spring and again in mid-summer. In addition, these same
maintenance treatments should be performed on Class II and Class III facilities. These facilities
should be prioritized to include an accelerated maintenance plan that is already a part of the
City’s ongoing street maintenance. A maintenance schedule and checklist is provided in Table
7.2.
An effort should be made to improve the maintenance of existing roadways that are regularly
traveled by bicyclists regardless of whether a specific bikeway designation exists on those
roadways.
74
Table 7.2
Typical Bikeway and Trail Maintenance Check List and Schedule
Item
Frequency
Sign Replacement/Repair
1 - 3 years
Pavement Marking Replacement
1 - 3 years
Tree and shrub trimming
4 months - 1 year
Pavement sealing/potholes
5 - 15 years
Pavement sweeping
Weekly-Monthly/As needed
Shoulder and grass mowing
Weekly/As needed
Trash disposal
Weekly/As needed
Lighting Replacement/Repair
1 year
Graffiti removal
Maintain Furniture
6 months - 1 year
Fountain/restroom cleaning/repair
Weekly/Monthly/As needed
Pruning
1 - 4 years
Bridge/Tunnel Inspection
1 year
Remove fallen trees
As needed
Maintain emergency telephones, CCTV
1 year
Irrigate/water plants
7.8
Security
Security may be an issue along portions of the Class I bike paths. The following actions are
recommended to address these concerns.
Enforcement of applicable laws on the bike path should be performed by the Dana Point
Sheriff’s Department, using both bicycles and vehicles. Enforcement of vehicle statutes
relating to bicycle operation should be enforced on Class II and Class III bikeways as part of the
Department’s normal operations. No additional manpower or equipment is anticipated for Class
II or III segments.
75
Appendix
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
SECTION 890-894.2
890. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this article, to establish a bicycle
transportation system. It is the further intent of the Legislature that this transportation system
shall be designed and developed to achieve the functional commuting needs of
the employee, student, business person, and shopper as the foremost consideration in route
selection, to have the physical safety of the bicyclist and bicyclist's property as a major
planning component, and to have the capacity to accommodate bicyclists of all ages and
skills.
890.2. As used in this chapter, "bicycle" means a device upon which any person may ride,
propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having either two or
three wheels in a tandem or tricycle arrangement.
890.3. As used in this article, "bicycle commuter" means a person making a trip by bicycle
primarily for transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, travel to work, school,
shopping, or other destination that is a center of activity, and does not include a trip by
bicycle primarily for physical exercise or recreation without such a destination.
890.4. As used in this article, "bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle
travel. For purposes of this article, bikeways shall be categorized as follows:
(a) Class I bikeways, such as a "bike path," which provide a completely separated right-of-way
designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists
minimized.
(b) Class II bikeways, such as a "bike lane," which provide a restricted right-of-way designated
for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or
pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians
and motorists permitted.
(c) Class III bikeways, such as an onstreet or offstreet "bike route," which provide a right-ofway designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists.
890.6. The department, in cooperation with county and city governments, shall establish
minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways and roadways
where bicycle travel is permitted. The criteria shall include, but not be limited
to, the design speed of the facility, minimum widths and clearances, grade, radius of
curvature, pavement surface, actuation of automatic traffic control devices, drainage, and
general safety. The criteria shall be updated biennially, or more often, as needed.
890.8. The department shall establish uniform specifications and symbols for signs, markers,
and traffic control devices to designate bikeways, regulate traffic, improve safety and
convenience for bicyclists, and alert pedestrians and motorists of the presence of bicyclists on
bikeways and on roadways where bicycle travel is permitted.
76
891. All city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or
operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted shall utilize all minimum
safety design criteria and uniform specifications and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic
control devices established pursuant to Sections 890.6 and 890.8.
891.2. A city or county may prepare a bicycle transportation plan, which shall include, but not
be limited to, the following elements:
(a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated
increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan.
(b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which
shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping
centers, public buildings, and major employment centers.
(c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways.
(d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities.
These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
(e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for
connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be
limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and
landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or
rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
(f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes
and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower
facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
(g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included
within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement
responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists.
(h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the
plan, including, but not limited to, letters of support.
(i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is
consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans,
including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle
commuting.
(j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for
implementation.
(k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for
projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
891.4. (a) A city or county that has prepared a bicycle transportation plan pursuant to Section
891.2 may submit the plan to the county transportation commission or transportation planning
agency for approval. The city or county may submit an approved plan to the department in
connection with an application for funds for bikeways and related facilities which will
implement the plan. If the bicycle transportation plan is prepared, and the facilities are
proposed to be constructed, by a local agency other than a city or county, the city or county
may submit the plan for approval and apply for funds on behalf of that local agency.
(b) The department may grant funds applied for pursuant to subdivision (a) on a matching
basis which provides for the applicant's furnishing of funding for 10 percent of the total cost of
constructing the proposed bikeways and related facilities. The funds may be used, where
feasible, to apply for and match federal grants or loans.
77
891.5. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments, pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
2551, may purchase, operate, and maintain callboxes on class 1 bikeways.
891.8. The governing body of a city, county, or local agency may do
all of the following:
(a) Establish bikeways.
(b) Acquire, by gift, purchase, or condemnation, land, real property, easements, or rights-ofway to establish bikeways.
(c) Establish bikeways pursuant to Section 21207 of the Vehicle Code.
892. (a) Rights-of-way established for other purposes by cities, counties, or local agencies shall
not be abandoned unless the governing body determines that the rights-of-way or parts thereof
are not useful as a nonmotorized transportation facility.
(b) No state highway right-of-way shall be abandoned until the department first consults with
the local agencies having jurisdiction over the areas concerned to determine whether the rightof-way or part thereof could be developed as a nonmotorized transportation facility. If an
affirmative determination is made, before abandoning the right-of-way, the department shall
first make the property available to local agencies for development as nonmotorized
transportation facilities in accordance with Sections 104.15 and 887.6 of this code and Section
14012 of the Government Code.
892.2. (a) The Bicycle Transportation Account is continued in existence in the State
Transportation Fund, and, notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, the money
in the account is continuously appropriated to the department for expenditure for the
purposes specified in Section 892.4. Unexpended moneys shall be retained in the account for
use in subsequent fiscal years.
(b) Any reference in law or regulation to the Bicycle Lane Account is a reference to the
Bicycle Transportation Account.
892.4. The department shall allocate and disburse moneys from the Bicycle Transportation
Account according to the following priorities:
(a) To the department, the amounts necessary to administer this article, not to exceed 1
percent of the funds expended per year.
(b) To counties and cities, for bikeways and related facilities, planning, safety and
education, in accordance with Section 891.4.
892.5. The Bikeway Account, created in the State Transportation Fund by Chapter 1235 of the
Statutes of 1975, is continued in effect, and, notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government
Code, money in the account is hereby continuously appropriated to the department for
expenditure for the purposes specified in this chapter. Unexpended money shall be retained in
the account for use in subsequent fiscal years.
892.6. The Legislature finds and declares that the construction of bikeways pursuant to this
article constitutes a highway purpose under Article XIX of the California Constitution and
justifies the expenditure of highway funds therefor.
78
893. The department shall disburse the money from the Bicycle Transportation Account
pursuant to Section 891.4 for projects that improve the safety and convenience of bicycle
commuters, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(a) New bikeways serving major transportation corridors.
(b) New bikeways removing travel barriers to potential bicycle commuters.
(c) Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park-and-ride lots, rail and transit
terminals, and ferry docks and landings.
(d) Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit vehicles.
(e) Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety and efficiency of bicycle
travel.
(f) Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways.
(g) Planning.
(h) Improvement and maintenance of bikeways.
In recommending projects to be funded, due consideration shall be given to the relative cost
effectiveness of proposed projects.
893.2. The department shall not finance projects with the money in accounts continued in
existence pursuant to this article which could be financed appropriately pursuant to Article 2
(commencing with Section 887), or fully financed with federal financial assistance.
893.4. If available funds are insufficient to finance completely any project whose eligibility is
established pursuant to Section 893, the project shall retain its priority for allocations in
subsequent fiscal years.
893.6. The department shall make a reasonable effort to disburse funds in general proportion
to population. However, no applicant shall receive more than 25 percent of the total amounts
transferred to the Bicycle Transportation Account in a single fiscal year.
894. The department may enter into an agreement with any city or county concerning the
handling and accounting of the money disbursed pursuant to this article, including, but not
limited to, procedures to permit prompt payment for the work accomplished.
894.2. The department, in cooperation with county and city governments, shall adopt the
necessary guidelines for implementing this article.
79

Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Master Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Super Bowl 50 Pedestrian Map and Bike Detours

BICYCLE MERCHANDISING SYSTEM

Work-‐shop kring sin vuxenutbildning

Bicycle Colorado slides - Safe Routes to School National Partnership

Hike a bike

MICHIGANDER BICYCLE TOUR 2016

Bicycle Culture by Design

fix-it-yourself bike stand 1693e, 624172

Model and Serial Numbers

an introduction to chattanooga`s bikeways - Chattanooga