Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Imperial County BMP Final Draft
Imperial County BMP Final Draft
December 2011 PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: Imperial County
Prepared by:
Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp, AICP, Principal Sam Corbett, Senior Associate Andrea Garland, EIT, Planner
Final Plan
November 2011
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................i 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 1.2 1.3 Purpose of the Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Benefits of Bicycling ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Setting and Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3
Table of Contents
Encouragement ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6-5 Enforcement ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-8 Evaluation and Planning ..........................................................................................................................................................................6-11 Additional Resources .................................................................................................................................................................................6-15
Appendix A. BTA Compliance Checklist ......................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents .................................................................................. B-1
B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 City of Brawley Bicycle Master Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ B-1 Calexico Bicycle Master Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... B-4 El Centro Bicycle Master Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... B-6 Holtville Bicycle Master Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... B-8 Westmorland Bicycle Master Plan........................................................................................................................................................... B-9 City of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan .....................................................................................................................................................B-10 Calipatria Bicycle Master Plan.................................................................................................................................................................B-12
Appendix C. Imperial Valley Transit Routes ................................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D. Bikeway Signage .........................................................................................................................D-1
D.1 D.2 On-Street Bikeway Regulatory & Warning Signage ........................................................................................................................ D-2 Wayfinding Signage .................................................................................................................................................................................... D-3
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: County of Imperial Overview and Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-2: County of Imperial Existing Land Uses (2008) ................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Figure 3-1: County of Imperial Existing Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: County of Imperial Opportunities and Constraints ......................................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3: Existing Conditions Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3-4: Existing Conditions Roadway Speed Limits ..................................................................................................................................3-11 Figure 4-1: Bicycle Collisions in the County of Imperial (2006-2010) .............................................................................................................. 4-4 Figure 4-2: Distribution of Primary Factors Involved in Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions ....................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-3: Average age of Cyclist Involved in Collisions .................................................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-4: County of Imperial Population Density (2000) ................................................................................................................................4-12 Figure 4-5: County of Imperial Employment Density (2008) ............................................................................................................................4-13 Figure 4-6: County of Imperial Zero-Vehicle Household (2000) ......................................................................................................................4-14 Figure 4-7: County of Imperial Bicycle Commuters as Percent of Total Commuters (2000) .................................................................4-15 Figure 4-8: County of Imperial Walking Commuters as Percent of Total Commuters (2000) ..............................................................4-16 Figure 4-9: County of Imperial Transit Commuters as Percent of Total Commuters (2000) .................................................................4-17 Figure 4-10: County of Imperial Key Attractive Land Uses for Bicycle Trips................................................................................................4-19 Figure 5-1: County of Imperial Existing and Proposed Bikeways....................................................................................................................5-12 Figure 5-2: Salton Sea Communities Proposed Bikeways .................................................................................................................................5-13 Figure 5-3: East County Proposed Bikeways...........................................................................................................................................................5-14 Figure 5-4: Potential End of Trip Facilities ...............................................................................................................................................................5-22 Figure B-1: City of Brawley Proposed Bicycle Facilites .......................................................................................................................................... B-3 Figure B-2: City of Calexico Proposed Bicycle Facilites ......................................................................................................................................... B-5 Figure B-3: City of El Centro Proposed Bicycle Facilites........................................................................................................................................ B-7 Figure B-4: City of Holtville Proposed Bicycle Facilites ......................................................................................................................................... B-8 Figure B-5: City of Westmorland Proposed Bicycle Facilites ............................................................................................................................... B-9 Figure B-6: City of Imperial Proposed Bicycle Facilites .......................................................................................................................................B-11 Figure B-7: City of Calipatria Proposed Bicycle Facilites .....................................................................................................................................B-13
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Bicycle Needs Analysis Summary............................................................................................................................................................... ii Table 1-1: County of Imperial Existing Land Uses................................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2: County of Imperial Reported Collisions 2006 2010........................................................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-3: Location of Collisions in the County of Imperial ................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Table 4-4: Current Demand and Air Quality Benefits Estimates ......................................................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-5: Potential Future Demand and Air Quality Benefits Estimates ........................................................................................................ 4-8 Table 4-6: Conditions Affecting Willingness to Cycle..........................................................................................................................................4-23 Table 4-7: Level of Cycling Interest by Facility Type ............................................................................................................................................4-24 Table 4-8: Preferred Location of Facility Types by General Location.............................................................................................................4-24
Table of Contents
Table 4-9: Program Types and Willingness to Cycle ............................................................................................................................................4-25 Table 5-1: California Bikeway Classifications Class I Bicycle Path ................................................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2: California Bikeway Classifications- Class II Bicycle Lanes.................................................................................................................. 5-4 Table 5-3: California Bikeway Classifications-Class III Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-5 Table 5-4: Recommended Class I Bike Paths ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-7 Table 5-5: Recommended Class II Bike Lanes ............................................................................................................................................................ 5-8 Table 5-6: Recommended Class III Bicycle Routes .................................................................................................................................................5-10 Table 5-7: Recommended Shoulder Class III Bicycle Routes on State Routes .............................................................................................5-11 Table 7-1: Proposed Facilities Ranking Criteria......................................................................................................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-2: Proposed Facilities by Rank......................................................................................................................................................................... 7-4 Table 7-3: County of Imperial Bicycle Lane Expenditures, 2005-2010 ............................................................................................................ 7-7 Table 7-4: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 7-8 Table 7-5: Planning Level Cost Summary by Bikeway Type ................................................................................................................................ 7-8 Table 7-6: Recommended Bikeway Network, Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates ................................................... 7-9 Table A-1: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan BTA Compliance Checklist............................................................................................A-1
Executive Summary
The County of Imperials Bicycle Master Plan is intended to serve as the guiding document for the development of an integrated network of bicycle facilities and supporting programs designed to link the unincorporated areas and attractive land uses throughout the County. The network will not only make cycling a more viable mode of transportation, but will contribute to an enhanced quality of life for residents and visitors. The major components of the Plan are described below.
One of the goals of the Bicycle Master Plan is to expand the existing bicycle network and end of trip support facilities in the County of Imperial.
The purpose of this Plan is to expand the existing network, complete network gaps with new facilities, provide greater connectivity among facilities, educate and encourage cyclists, and maximize access to funding sources. This Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision, strategies, and actions for improvements to the bicycling environment in the County of Imperial. It envisions a bicycling environment that takes a comprehensive approach to the Six Es of a Bicycle Friendly Community Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Encouragement, Evaluation, and Equity by establishing the following vision elements: 1. Engineering: An inviting network of bicycling facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities and destinations that support bicycling.
2. Education: Community understanding and respect for the roles and responsibilities of cyclists. 3. Encouragement: Increased bicycle ridership and support for a strong bicycle advocacy community and bicycle culture. 4. Enforcement: A safer environment for cyclists and other transportation modes. 5. Evaluation & Planning: Institutional support and collaboration for bicycling. 6. Equity: A community that serves a diverse population and provides for the needs of those who ride out of necessity, as well as those who choose to cycle.
Executive Summary
Results
0.4% 4.7% 3,716 2,122,649 Roadway conditions and motorists behavior Bike Lanes Safe Routes to School
Data Source
US Census (2005-2009) SWITRS (2006-2010) Alta Planning+ Design Air Quality Benefits model Imperial County Bicycle Master Plan Survey (2011)
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
The Bicycle Master Plan (The Plan) lays out a framework for creating and expanding programs and improvements designed to increase bicycling activity in the County of Imperial. The Vision, Goals, and Objectives of the County Bicycle Master Plan are principles that guide the development and implementation of the County bicycle network and related programming for years to come. Goals and objectives are intended to inform and guide decisions about where public improvements are to be made, where resources are allocated, how programs are operated, and how County priorities are determined.
One purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan is to expand the existing bicycle network in the County of Imperial.
Chapter 1 | Introduction
Public health professionals have become increasingly aware that the impacts of automobiles on public health extend far beyond asthma and other respiratory conditions caused by air pollution. There is a much deeper understanding of the connection between the lack of physical activity resulting from auto-oriented community designs and various health-related problems, such as obesity and other chronic diseases. Although diet and genetic predisposition contribute to these conditions, physical inactivity is now widely understood to play a significant role in the most common chronic diseases in the US, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Creating bicycle-friendly communities is one of several effective ways to encourage active lifestyles.
Replacing vehicular trips with bicycle trips reduces humangenerated greenhouse gases that are associated with climate change.
Jacobsen, P. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, 9: 205-209. 2003.
2 3 4
Gotschi, T. 2011. Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Improvements in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Physical Activity and Health,8, S49-S58. Frumkin, H. 2002. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports 117: 20117. Leyden, K. 2003. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 93: 1546 U.S Census Bureau: 2010 United State Census Data
51.
5
Chapter 1 | Introduction
County. Much of the incorporated land is located in the Imperial Valley, which extends southward for 50 miles from the southern end of the Salton Sea into Mexico. The County of Imperial is a desert community with a warm, dry climate. Summers are extremely hot and dry while winters are temperate. This Plan focuses on the unincorporated areas of the County of Imperial. Figure 1-1 displays the regional setting and study area. Figure 1-2 shows the County of Imperials existing land uses. The majority of the County is comprised of agricultural land uses. Approximately one-fifth of the nearly 3 million acres of the County is irrigated for agricultural purposes. Additionally, approximately 50 percent of County land is undeveloped and under federal military ownership. The developed areas, which include incorporated cities and unincorporated communities, comprise less than one-percent of County land.6 Table 1-1 summarizes the percent of each land use type in the County. The incorporated cities of Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, El Centro, Holtville, Imperial and Westmorland constitute the developed areas, containing most of the residential, commercial, and facility land uses in the County. This area also accounts for 78.3 percent of the total population in the County. State facilities include Anza-Borrego State Park, Ocotillo Wells State Recreation Area, the Salton Sea State Recreational Area and Picacho State Recreational Area in the Colorado River. Military activities are centered at the Naval Air Facility El Centro, located north of Seeley, at the Salton Sea Test Base, and at other smaller sites throughout the County. Other federal sites include National Wildlife Refuges at the south end of the Salton Sea, and two sites at the Colorado River. The County has three U.S. Border ports of entry, two of which are located in unincorporated land- the Gateway of America is located east of the City of Calexico, and the Algodones Port of Entry near the California/Arizona border. The third port of entry is located in the City of Calexico. Table 1-1: County of Imperial Existing Land Uses Land Use Type
Agriculture Developed Areas Salton Sea Open Space/Desert/ Mountains Military
Percentage
18.2% 0.6% 7.2% 24% 50%
Land Use Element of the Imperial County General Plan. Planning & Development Services Department. Imperial County, 2008.
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
111
115
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
Existing Land Uses Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Other Residential General Office Facilities
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
Education Industrial
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
CITY of BRAWLEY
SHANK RD
Vacant
County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
S30
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
To encourage and promote cycling in the County through the development of a regional bicycle facility network that integrates bicycling in the valley as a safe and convenient form of transportation achieved through engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement.
The County of Imperial desires to encourage and promote bicycling as a safe and convenient form of transportation and recreation achieved through engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement.
Goal 1.0: Create a complete and comprehensive bicycle network A comprehensive, rational and equitable bikeway system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, civic buildings, and existing and future employment locations based on the General Plan land use designations. Objectives 1.1. Provide bicycle access to major employment and retail centers, schools, parks and other destinations. 1.2. Plan, design and construct roadways that include facilities for bicyclists and where feasible, Class I multi-use paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, and disabled persons. 1.3. When developing new schools, parks, residential communities, and retail/employment centers, include bicycle facilities that expand the bicycle network or connect to proposed or existing routes. 1.4. Reduce vehicle fuel consumption and the number of vehicular miles traveled by increasing non-motorized transportation trips.
Goal 1.0: Create a complete and comprehensive bicycle network 1.5. Increase the number of transit facilities with bicycle facilities, which should include bicycle parking, bikeways connecting to bus stops and stations, and installation of bicycle racks on busses. 1.6. Integrate bicycle facilities as part of the design and construction of new roadways and upgrades or resurfacing of existing roadways. 1.7. Establish a bicycle network that offers opportunities for cycling for all ages and abilities. 1.8. Maintain the bikeway network by establishing a regular maintenance program. 1.9. Pursue grant-funding programs for implementing the bikeway network. 1.10.Assign a staff person or appoint a committee to coordinate and implement and maintain the bikeway system. 1.11. Cooperatively pursue joint multi-agency funding applications for implementation that will expand the regional bikeway network.
Goal 2.0: Create a Safe Bicycle Environment Increased safety of roadways for bicyclists. Objectives 2.1. Implement projects that improve the safety of bicyclists at key destinations. 2.2. Support traffic enforcement activities that increase bicyclists safety. 2.3. Evaluate impacts on bicyclists when designing new or reconfiguring streets.
Goal 3.0: Improve Bicycle Wayfinding School and commuter bikeways that are easily recognized by signs and accessible from residential areas through appropriate design. Objectives 3.1. Develop educational programs that promote the safe and efficient travel of cyclists. 3.2. Establish a regular education program that targets schools and adults to inform and educate about safety techniques, both for cyclists and for vehicles. 3.3. Develop maps and wayfinding signage and striping to assist navigating the regional bikeways.
Goal 4.0: Ensure an Enduring Bicycling Culture County residents that are encouraged to walk or ride a bike for transportation and recreation. Objective 4.1. Support organized rides or cycling events, including those that may include periodic street closures in the unincorporated areas of the County. Goal 5.0: Improve End of Trip Facilities Bicycle storage facilities and/or bicycle racks located at parks, schools, civic buildings and at new retail and employment centers or during renovations of existing retail and employment centers. Objectives 5.1. Provide bicycle access and bicycle parking at new employment, commercial, and transit destinations and at existing parks. 5.2. Develop guidelines and/or standards to require bicycle parking with new commercial, industrial development and all new schools and civic buildings.
A Circulation Element Goal C-2: Consider all modes of transportation including motor vehicle, rail, transit, air transportation, and non-motorized transportation. Objective C-2.2 Encourage a mix of transportation modes to meet community needs, including access to medical, educational, economic and social service facilities. The local circulation system should include pedestrian, bicycle and transit methods to enable residents to choose alternate modes in lieu of reliance on the automobile.
A Circulation Element Goal C-3: Develop alternative transportation strategies designed to reduce traffic volumes and improve traffic flow. This includes providing alternatives to residents such as pedestrian, bicycle and public transit options. Objectives C-3.6 Develop and improve bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Consider the needs of bicyclists in the design, construction, and maintenance of all County roads, with specific attention to those roads established and defined in a network of key bicycling routes in the most current approved County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan. The Bicycle Master Plan is made a part of the County Circulation Element by reference. Ensure the safety of the traveling public, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Attempt to reduce motor vehicle air pollution. Encourage the incorporation of bicycle facilities, such as bike lockers and showers at workplaces, and bicycle racks on buses, to better facilitate bicycle travel. Maintain the pedestrian and bicycle system, including improving the road surface and sidewalk, to reduce the safety hazard associated with drainage grates, manholes, potholes and uneven surfaces.
C-3.11
Goal C-4: The County shall make every effort to develop a circulation system that highlights and preserves the environmental and scenic amenities of the area. Objective C-4.1 Establish various systems of scenic recreational travel utilizing multiple transportation modes.
Goal C-5: Participate in and assist with coordinating regional efforts which integrate the County Transportation System with the Regional Transportation System. Objective C-5.2 The County shall provide and/or requires as appropriate the necessary facilities to obtain balanced use of all travel modes to address the transportation needs of all ages and to provide mobility for a variety of trip purposes. The County shall generally recognize the following priorities for new transportation facilities: vehicular, freight movement, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle.
In addition, the Circulation Element of the General Plan provides specific policies in regards with bicycle transportation through the Non-Motorized Transportation Program. The Policies associated with this program are presented as follows:
B Circulation Element- Non-Motorized Transportation Program Goal: Provide an integrated bicycle circulation system which facilities shall provide mobility and safety to all persons and areas within the County of Imperial Policies C-1 Class II bikeways (on-street bike lanes) shall be planned into appropriate Expressways, Prime Arterials, Minor Arterials, and Collectors in accordance with the most current County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan. C-2 C-3 C-4 The County shall cooperate with other governmental agencies to provide connection and continuation of bicycle corridors. The utilization of land shall integrate the bicycle circulation system with auto, pedestrian, and transit systems. The County shall seek funds at the private, local, state, and federal levels for the bicycle circulation system.
C Conservation and Open Space Element Goal O-10: Open space shall be maintained to protect the aesthetic character of the region, protect natural resources, provide recreational opportunities, and minimize hazards to human activity. Objectives O-10.6 Encourage the development and improvement of recreational facilities in County of Imperial. O-10.7 Coordinate federal, state, and local agencies for trail-oriented recreational uses.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads, and highways" means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. Deputy Directive 64 & Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted two policies in recent years that are relevant to bicycle planning initiatives such as this Bicycle Master Plan. Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64-R1) sets forth that Caltrans address the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding. In a more specific application of complete streets goals, Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 presents bicycle detection requirements. For example, 09-06 requires that new and modified signal detectors provide bicyclist detection if they are to remain in operation. Further, the standard states that new and modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections provide bicycle detection or a bicyclist pushbutton if detection is required. California SB 375 Sustainable Communities (2008) Senate Bill (SB) 375 is intended to compliment Assembly Bill (AB) 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and encourage local governments to reduce emissions through improved planning. Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the States 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Each of Californias MPOs will then prepare a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning. One way to help meet the emissions targets is to increase the bicycle mode share by substituting bicycle trips for automobile trips. The County of Imperials efforts to encourage bicycling and other alternative modes of transportation will contribute to the regional attainment of these targets. In addition to these policies, the California Highway Design Manual contains bikeway design standards, while the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes specifications for traffic control devices, signs and pavement markings that must be adhered to in California. The design recommendations for the bicycle facilities proposed in this Plan adhere to these manuals.
3 Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle network in the County of Imperial consists of 2.0 miles of a Class I bicycle path located along Aten Road at the southern border of Imperial Valley College and 8.4 miles of Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for a total of 10.4 miles. Figure 3-1 displays the County of Imperials 10.4 miles of existing bikeways. As shown, bike lanes exist along Drew Road from State Route 8 to Evan Hewes Highway, along Ross Road from Drew Road to El Centros city limits, along La Brucherie Road from Neckel Road to Worthington Road, and along Dogwood Road from Black Hills Road to State Existing bike path along Aten Road. Highway 86 on the Westside and from State Highway 86 to Correll Road on the Eastside. The Drew Road, La Brucherie Road and Ross Road facilities are oneway couplets. There is a railroad crossing traversing Drew Road about 300 feet south of the intersection with Evan Hewes Highway. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes along these routes are low, varying between 700 and 8,700 vehicles per day. The existing bicycle path located along Aten Road between Dogwood Road and State Highway 111 is a non-conforming bike path. Generally the pavement is in poor condition and pavement markings are barely visible throughout the path extents. The 2003 Bicycle Master Plan Update proposes improvements to this path, including widening the existing pathway to a standard Class I bike path and extending its limits to State Route 86, for a total length of 3.8 miles. Among the incorporated cities within the County of Imperial, the cities of El Centro, Imperial and Brawley have existing bicycle networks. The City of El Centro bicycle network includes about 1.4 miles of Class I (bike path), 0.75 miles of Class II (bike lanes), and 39.5 miles of Class III (bicycle routes). The City of Imperials existing bicycle network consists of 0.75 miles of Class I, known as The Imperial College Bike Path, 1 mile of Class II and 0.5 miles of Class III facilities along Aten Road. The City of Brawleys existing bicycle facilities include 1.7 miles of Class I, 2.55 miles of Class II, and 0.25 miles of Class III bicycle facilities.
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
111
115
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CALIPATRIA
LA BRUCHERIE RD
WESTMORLAND
CITY of IMPERIAL
111
115
S28
B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
ATEN RD
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
ROSS RD
DREW RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
McCABE RD
DOGWOOD RD
WY
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S29
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
3.1.1 Opportunities
The County of Imperial is predominantly an agricultural community consisting of flat terrain. Dry conditions exist throughout the year, and temperatures range from 30 degrees in January to over 110 degrees in July. From October to May, daytime temperatures are generally mild. The flat topography in addition to the moderate weather for much of the year makes for an ideal cycling environment. Economically, the region is situated adjacent to the manufacturing-oriented Mexican border and serves as a port of entry and a major area for commercial transport. As Cole Road, East of Calexico. a result, many employees commute by bicycle over the border because bicycling offers the most feasible, affordable, and efficient mode of transportation for crossing. Therefore, there is a growing demand for bicycle racks, lockers, and bicycle lanes in the border cities. The arterial roadways that connect the region provide an ideal opportunity for a long distance network. Residents have expressed a growing interest in developing long distance facilities for recreational riding. 7 An example of this can be seen along Ross Road and Drew Road directly east of El Centro and south of the Naval Air Station at Seeley. These roadways currently offer 6.9 miles of bicycle facilities.
Recreational Opportunities
The Colorado River, offering a wide variety of recreational activities, is easily accessible via Interstates 8 or 10. Similarly, at the northwest corner of the County of Imperial lies California's largest inland body of water, the Salton Sea. With fifteen miles of shoreline, this popular destination is known for its camping, fishing, duck hunting, and wildlife preserves. The County of Imperials numerous parks offer various recreational opportunities for sports, swimming, equestrian training, picnicking, camping, fishing, and wildlife
April 17th, 2002 public workshop conducted for the City of Calexico Bicycle Master Plan development.
appreciation. Sunbeam Lake, in particular, offers boating and a BMX facility for mountain biking and stunt riding. Moreover, there are several state facilities in the surrounding areas that offer rural natural preserve areas for local wildlife.
Regional Connectivity
The current 2003 Bicycle Master Plan recommends implementation of a 252-mile system of bicycle lanes, routes, and pathways that link schools, shopping, employment centers, and existing and planned residential developments. Providing designated routes for cycling not only strengthens the network but also serves as recognition of a growing cycling community by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists and the legal requirement to share the roadway with bicyclists. The City of El Centro plays a significant role in the development of the regional network, as it is the largest city in the valley. The 2002 El Centro Master Bicycle Plan recommends the implementation of 24 miles of bicycle facilities that will connect with the County regional network and the City of Imperial proposed network. The development of an extensive bikeway network within El Centro sets the stage for improved bikeway connectivity throughout the region.
Multi-Modal Connections
Highland Canal.
Census data indicates that approximately 0.7 percent of the County of Imperial residents use public transit for commute purposes.8 Imperial Valley Transit (IVT) is the public transit agency that operates within the County. Appendix C shows the existing IVT routes that serve the County of Imperial. Bike racks on buses have become an important tool for improving multi-modal connections. Imperial Valley Transit has All Imperial Valley Transit buses are had bike racks on all buses since 2000, and IVT records show equipped with bicycle racks. that annual bicycle ridership almost doubled (between 2005 and Source:SoCal METRO 2008) from 4,371 to 8,496 bicyclists9. A new transit center recently opened at the Imperial Valley College, which presents a great opportunity for increased multimodal trip linking via bicycle and public transit. The City of El Centro is planning for a new Transit Center at the corner of State Street and 7th Street that will have bicycle support facilities such as bicycle racks, lockers, snack machines, and restrooms. Additionally, new transit centers are being planned for the cities of Brawley, Calexico and Imperial. These transit center improvements and bicycle support facilities will offer bicyclists an opportunity to
8 9
American Community Survey, United States Census, 2005-2009. City of El Centro Bicycle Master Plan, October 2009.
live in one area of the County or City and make multi-modal trips via bicycle and public transit to get to work or school in other parts of the County.
Bicycle Activity
The County of Imperial provides many opportunities for avid cyclists who enjoy longer rides, with limited cross traffic, low traffic volumes, and wide expanses of open land. The Imperial Valley Velo Club (IVVC) is a group of local cycling enthusiasts that promote recreational cycling in the region by organizing weekly group rides for all levels. IVVC organizes and stages the Annual Imperial Classic, a criterium race that is part of the Southern California Cup racing series. Through these organized rides and races, the IVVC helps to create local awareness of bicycling activities. Continued and expanded encouragement for bicycling along with the development of a well-connected bicycle network will represent an increase in bicycling rates and bicyclists will be better accommodated.
Imperial County offers many miles of flat roadways with low traffic ideal for long recreational rides.
3.2.1 Constraints
The County of Imperial currently has limited bicycling facilities, which provides plenty of opportunities to expand and improve the existing bicycle network, particularly with regards to the border region. However, with this potential there are also impediments to bicycling that require consideration.
Climate
The County of Imperial experiences summer temperatures well over 100 degrees, which can make it challenging to bicycle during much of the day at this time of the year. However, from October to May, the climate throughout the County is relatively mild and is well-suited to bicycling. During the winter months, the County of Imperial averages eight hours of sunshine per day, which is more than any other location in the United States.
While the hot summer months pose a formidable challenge to bicycling for most residents, there is considerable potential for bicycling during the rest of the year, when the climate is ideally suited for outdoor activity.
System Gaps The County of Imperial currently lacks an extensive bicycle network. Therefore, the Bicycle Master Plan Update serves as a blueprint to develop and implement the necessary system and infrastructure to support bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. Due to the rural nature of the region and the high number of individuals crossing the border and bicycling to their destinations, it is important to develop safe bicycling connections between communities, particularly from Calexico to surrounding cities. Similarly, strengthening bicycle connections to educational facilities utilizing Safe Routes to School program funding is also a priority to encourage ridership amongst younger populations. Roadway Barriers Although truck routes, collectors and agricultural roads are utilized by experienced riders, they can present barriers to more novice riders. Truck routes, serving trucks traveling at high speeds, are undesirable to the majority of bicyclists. Collector roads with lower traffic volumes are a feasible alternative to arterial truck routes, but because they bridge long distances between cities, bicycling for transportation is not in high demand on these roadways. Finally, riders may choose agricultural roads due to low traffic volumes; however, they must be aware of the hazards of large agricultural equipment. With no bicycle infrastructure improvements, these roadway types will remain unattractive to all but the hardiest riders. Bicycling Culture The County of Imperial lacks comprehensive bicycle-related programs and policies to support a strong bicycle culture. Despite this obstacle, there is growing community support for more bicycle-oriented communities as gas prices and public transit fees rise. In addition, creating bicycle-friendly communities is one of the most effective ways to encourage active lifestyles, which ideally could result in a reduction of health-related problems in the County of Imperial, such as obesity and other chronic diseases. Building off this framework requires institutionalizing and supporting bicycling at an administrative level through improvements to bicycle policies, programs, and facilities, which are critical components to becoming a bicycle-friendly region. Low-Density Development Patterns Fairly low density developments prevail throughout the County of Imperial, especially in the unincorporated parts of the County. From a transportation perspective, low-density development translates to longer trip distances, which makes it more challenging to complete utilitarian trips by bicycle. The incorporated cities within the County of Imperial have higher population densities and more mixed use developments than the unincorporated county, both of which are contributing factors towards creating a more bicycle-oriented community. As such, the County of Imperial may opt to prioritize bikeway facilities in close proximity to incorporated cities as they will likely provide greater utility to County residents. Over time, the County could also overcome this constraint by pursuing higher density, mixed-use developments in unincorporated parts of the County, as this development strategy would contribute towards making bicycling a more viable transportation option.
SALTON SEA
GENTRY RD
SINCLAIR RD
| }
NILE DR
86
SALTON CITY
""
M A RI N
DR
SALTON DR
""
"
KALIN RD
7 6 5 4
County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
S22
| } | }
78
86
CITY of WESTMORLAND
""""
" """
""
""
IMPERIAL COUNTY
"
"
ARIZONA
IMLER RD
CA R T E
RR
| }
86
"
CALIPATRIA
"
"
" "
" "
"
" "
"
MEXICO
BENNETT RD
"""
HUFF RD
DUNAWAY RD
IMPERIAL HWY
McCABE RD
BOWKER RD
OCOTILLO
7 6 5 4
S29
! ? HEBER
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
EVA
W HE
""
W SH
"""
""""
"""
! ? j k
"""
j k ! ?
7 6 5 4
DOGWOOD RD LA BRUCHERIE RD
"""""""
"
""
S30
BARBARA WORTH RD
"" "
ANZA RD
""
6 Miles
| }
98
" "
SEELEY
! ?
"""""""" ""
! ? n
"
"""""
" "" " " " " " " " " "" " "
ATEN RD
"""
MEXICALI
""
CALEXICO ""
"" "
"
"
EL CENTRO
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
IMEPERIAL
" " " "
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
"
" BRAWLEY
""
" "
WESTMORLAND
" " " " " " " " " " "
"
AUSTIN RD
"
"
"
YUMA
CITY of IMPERIAL
"""
! ? ! ?
CITY of EL CENTRO
"
" """" "" ""
"
7 6 5 4
S30
! n ?
""""
"""""""
WILLS RD
SHANK RD
" ""
DIETRICH RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
j k
7 6 5 4
S30
"
CITY of CALIPATRIA
a ilro
ad
| }
! ?
111
| }
115
n
H IG
Transit Connection Freeway Barrier Railroad track crossing barrier Parking Constraints Border Ports of Entry
ND H LA CA N
j k
AL
7 6 5 4
S26
! ?
"
""
"
| }
78
" "
""
"
"
7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
| }
111 S27
HIGHLAND CANAL
S33
ve Le
eM
"
gR in in
"
"
"
" "
"
a ilr
"
d oa
"
| }
115
"
"
"
"
" "
"
7 6 5 4
n
HOLTEN RD
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
NORRISH RD
"" "
| }
j k
Existing Conditions
OGIER RD
""""
"""
CITY of CALEXICO
7 6 5 4
S33
""""""""""""
| }
"""""" """""""
! ? n
""""
SR-111, starting at the Mexican border and connecting the cities of Calexico through Calipatria with the northeast Salton Sea. Old Route 111, running parallel to SR-111, it connects the cities of El Centro and Brawley. SR-86, connecting to SR-111 near Calexico and again in Brawley, it continues along the west side of Salton Sea connecting to the City of Westmorland.
County Highway S28.
SR-78 connecting the off-road recreational vehicle area, through Borrego Springs into San Diego County. SR-98, connecting I-8 and crossing through the Calexico border is a major east-west corridor
Roadway Characteristics
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 display the characteristics of the County of Imperials roadway system, including roadway classifications, speed limits and traffic volumes. In general, most cyclists are comfortable riding in the road on lowvolume, low-speed neighborhood streets without any special bicycle facilities. On major roadways with heavier traffic and higher motor vehicle speeds, cyclists and motorists are generally more comfortable with separate bicycle facilities. National bicycle design guidelines recommend facilities to separate bicycle and motor vehicle traffic as motor vehicle volumes exceed 3,000 vehicles per day and traffic speeds exceed 25 mph.10 Multi-lane roads are typically more dangerous for all users because of the increased traffic volume, the potential for higher speeds, and the greater amount of conflict locations due to turning vehicles.
Aten Road.
10
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
DR
SALTON DR
S22
78
86
WESTMORLAND
S26
M A RI N
BRAWLEY
WILLS RD
SHANK RD
78
86
IMPERIAL
111
115
S28
BENNETT RD
HOLTVILLE EL CENTRO
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
HUFF RD
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
OGIER RD HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
HEBER
BONDS CORNER RD BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
MEXICALI
Figure 3-3: Existing Conditions - Average Daily Traffic County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 5/23/11
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
111
115
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
86
WESTMORLAND
S26
BRAWLEY
WILLS RD
SHANK RD
78
86
111
115
IMPERIAL
S28
HOLTVILLE
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
SEELEY
EL CENTRO
EVAN HEWES HWY
DUNAWAY RD
7
OGIER RD HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
HEBER
BONDS CORNER RD BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
MEXICALI
Figure 3-4: Existing Conditions - Roadway Speed Limits County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial General Plan (2008) Date: 5/23/11
4 Needs Analysis
The County of Imperials bicycling needs are diverse, and depend on ones level of experience, confidence, age, trip type and many other factors. This section presents an estimate of current and potential bicycling demand in the County based on bicycle commute and other statistics. Population characteristics and land uses associated with higher rates of bicycling activity are described. Estimates of current bicycle ridership provide an indication of current network usage and establish a baseline against which to measure progress. The section discusses trip attractors and generators to identify where residents are likely to bicycle to and from. The needs analysis concludes with a summary of community input gathered from an online survey and public workshops.
State of California
16,172,152 0.9% 72.9% 12.0% 5.2% 2.8% 1.4% 4.8% 100%
United States
138,541,405 0.5% 75.8% 10.6% 4.9% 2.8% 1.4% 4.0% 100%
According to the estimates shown in Table 4-1, approximately 0.4 percent of unincorporated County residents reported that they travel to work by bicycle. This estimated bicycle mode share is consistent with the national average of one half percent, although it is less than half of the estimated statewide average of 0.9 percent. Interestingly, residents in the unincorporated parts of the County report similar
11
Combined total of incorporated cities of the County of Imperial: Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, El Centro, Holtville, Imperial and Westmorland
bicycle commuting rates to the more urbanized and densely populated incorporated cities within the County. It is important to note that the census figures likely underestimate the true amount of bicycling that occurs for several reasons. First, the data reflects only the journey to work, and therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that often supplement vehicular trips. Also U.S. Census data collection methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips as a response from those who may occasionally bicycle to work, or who may use their bicycle as a part of a longer multimodal trip. According to the 2010 Bicycling and Walking Benchmarking Report, bicyclists and pedestrians make up nearly ten percent of all trips for transportation nation-wide, but those modes of travel are allotted only 1.2 percent of federal transportation dollars.12 Similarly, in average 11.7 percent of utilitarian trips are done by bicycle (1.1%) or foot (10.6%) in California, but receive only 1.5 percent of the States transportation funding. Documentation of pedestrian and bicycle activity is an increasingly important factor for successful and sustained allocation of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
Injury
687 585 475 425 148 2,320
Injury
34 26 25 15 8 108
12
There were 108 reported collisions over the five-year period that involved a bicyclist and a motor vehicle. The number of bicycle crashes reported in the County of Imperial has fluctuated annually from 2006 to 2010. During the five-year period, the annual average number of bicycle related collisions was 21.6, with a range from 8 to 34 collisions. The data shows a progressive reduction in the number of bicycle related collisions per year. The number of bicycle related collisions in 2010 is roughly one-fourth of those reported in 2006. Of the 110 collisions, there were 108 bicycle injuries and two fatalities, both of which were reported within incorporated cities. Overall, less than five percent of reported injury collisions involved bicyclists. SWITRS reports from the five-year period indicate that 14 of the total bicycle-related injury collisions were reported to have happened within the unincorporated areas of the County. Crashes by Location Figure 4-1 displays bicycle collision locations in the study area from January 2006 to December 2010. As shown, bicycle-involved collisions are distributed throughout the County. The higher concentration of collisions occurred within two miles of the cities of El Centro and Imperial. Table 4-3 shows street corridors where bicycle-involved crashes occurred from 2006 to 2010. Note that there is only one crash reported in each of these locations. Table 4-3: Location of Collisions in the County of Imperial Primary Road
Dogwood Road Heber Avenue Monterey Avenue Highway 8 Hovley Road 7 Street Borrego Salton Way D Street Kloke Road McCabe Road Quechan Drive State Route 86 Austin Road Ironwood Drive
th
Secondary Road
Worthington Road 11th Street Mountain View Road Drew Road Andre Road Heber Avenue Jefferson Road 2nd Avenue Cole Road Nichols Road Agnes Drive Carey Road Ross Road Ironwood Terrace
Road Type
Collector Local Collector Highway Collector Local Arterial Local Collector Collector Residential Arterial Arterial Residential
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
111
115
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
86
BAUGHMAN RD ANDRE RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
HOVLEY RD
CITY of WESTMORLAND
S26
SHANK RD
78
S33
CAREY RD
DOGWOOD RD
S27
86
CITY of IMPERIAL
111
115
S28
ATEN RD
AUSTIN RD
BENNETT RD
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY
HUFF RD
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
NICHOLS RD
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
Collisions by Contributing Factor The available data also includes some information about the circumstances of the reported crashes. Figure 4-2 shows the number of crashes for each category of primary factor contributing to the collision. The bicyclist was reported to be a contributor to at least two of the 14 collisions, while riding under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
CollisionsbyContributingFactor
ObstructionofROW ContributingFactor UnsafeSpeed DUI ImproperPassing ImproperTurning Other 0 1 2 3 4
NumberofCollisions
Figure 4-2: Distribution of Primary Factors Involved in Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions Identification of the most common violations in bicycle-related collisions can inform the County of possible engineering or education needs. A specific re-occurring violation can be the result of unclear traffic controls, or roadways not designed for bicycle use. It can also be the result of bicyclists not being aware of or complying with the rules of the road, or not feeling comfortable riding with traffic. The most common traffic violation, with four total occurrences, is one of the parties failing to yield the right-of-way, and the second most common is one or both of the parties involved driving/riding under the influence. This analysis of violations informs the Plans recommendations. These traffic violations suggest the need for bicycle and motorist education. Demographics of Bicyclists in Collisions The average age of bicyclists involved in crashes in the County of Imperial was 28 years of age. The youngest bicyclist involved in a collision with a motor vehicle was four years old and the oldest was 66. Bicycle crash data also reveals that 21 percent of reported bicycle-motor vehicle crashes involved bicyclists under the age of 18, and 28 percent of all crashes involved bicyclists aged 10 or younger, as is shown in Figure 4-3. It should be noted that the small data set does not make it possible to discern whether bicyclists in their forties and fifties are at greater risk of experiencing a bicycle collision or comprise a significantly higher segment of the bicycling population.
AverageAgeofCyclistsInvolvedinCollisions
Male 5 NumberofCollisions 4 3 2 1 0 10orUnder 11to18 19to29 AgeGroup 40to59 60andOver Female
Value
33,862 9,635 0.44% 42 4.4% 21 0.7% 3 5,418
Source
2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Assumes 5% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 5% of transit riders access transit by bicycle. 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates
Variable
Existing school children bicycling mode share Calculated commuters existing school children bike
Value
2.0% 108 2,286 0.5%
Source
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003. School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation. Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips) Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year) Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile for schoolchildren Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year) Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile
Existing number of college students in study area Existing estimated college bicycling mode share
Calculated existing college bike commuters Existing total number of bike commuters Total estimated daily bicycling trips
11 187 374
(Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for GasolineFueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks." 2005.)
Table 4-5: Potential Future Demand and Air Quality Benefits Estimates Variable Current Commuting Statistics
Future study area population Future employed population Future bike-to-work mode share Future number of bike-to-work commuters Future work-at-home mode share Future number of work-at-home bike commuters
Value
90,016 47,102 1.0% 471 3.0% 707
Source
SCAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast SCAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Estimate of the potential mode share increase associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share Estimate based on historic work-at-home population growth (or decline) trends Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip Estimate of the potential mode share increase (or decrease) associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements and transit service improvements/reductions Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle California 2010 K-12 Enrollments Report Estimate of the potential mode share increase associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements School children population multiplied by school children bicycling mode share Estimate based on historic college student population growth (or decline) trends Estimate of the potential mode share increase associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian daily biking trips. Does not include recreation. Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
1.5%
Future transit bicycle commuters Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8) Future school children bicycling mode share Future school children bike commuters Future number of college students in study area Future estimated college bicycling mode share Future college bike commuters Future total number of bicycle commuters Future total daily biking trips
Value
24 0 0 17 222 6,616 6,364 24 23 4,446 58,029 1,726,824
Source
Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile
(Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for GasolineFueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks." 2005.)
This model is based on current projections for population growth and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. As shown, the population growth estimates for the unincorporated area of the County of Imperial are substantial, and thus the benefits model predicts that by 2030 the total number of commuters could increase from the current estimate of 187 to 1,858 which result in a significant reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes an emissions reduction by 2030 of 4,446 pounds of smog forming NOX and 1,726,824 pounds of CO2, the main gas associated with global climate change, annually.
Figure 4-4 displays residential population densities across the County of Imperial. Most concentrations of higher densities are found within the incorporated cities, the largest concentrations of which are in the two largest cities of El Centro and Calexico. The communities of Heber (population approximately 3,000) and Seeley (1,600) are the two largest residential centers within the unincorporated County. Densities comparable to levels in the incorporated cities are found within the central cores of these communities. The population density in Heber is partially explained by its proximity and location between El Centro and Calexico. Seeley is located near Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro, a major employment and activity center. With the exception of Heber and Seeley, the unincorporated area within the Imperial Valley is primarily sparsely-populated agricultural territory with densities of less than one person an acre. There are very few people living outside of the central-southern Imperial Valley area, except for small settlements along the Salton Sea and along Interstate 8 at the western and eastern County borders. Figure 4-5 displays employment density across the County of Imperial. Most employment is found within the incorporated cities; however there are a handful of scattered employment concentrations in unincorporated areas of the County of Imperial, most of which are found adjacent to incorporated cities. The National Beef Packing Company just outside of the City of Brawley employs over 1,000 persons. The Imperial Valley Mall outside of southeastern El Centro, and El Centro Town Center Shopping Mall anchored by Wal-Mart and Costco outside of northern El Centro and southern Imperial, respectively, each employ 600 or more people. Other large employers include Centinela State Prison (1,000 employees) west of Seeley, and NAF El Centro (500 employees) north of Seeley. There are also factories and extractive industries, which provide employment concentrations in other locations around the unincorporated County. However, the dominant labor source across the County of Imperial is agricultural, which is very low density. Figure 4-6 displays the percent of zero-vehicle households in the County of Imperial. The unincorporated area has a relatively low rate of zero-vehicle households at 7.7 percent. The highest concentrations within the unincorporated County are found within the census tracts along the international border, surrounding Calexico, and surrounding the communities of Winterhaven and Heber in the eastern County. Winterhaven has a very high rate of zero-vehicle households at 22 percent, the highest rate for any Census Designated Place in the County of Imperial. The communities along the western shore of the Salton Sea also have a higher rate of no-vehicle households than the County overall. The rate of households who do not own a vehicle is collectively higher within the incorporated cities (12.1%), with the highest rates found in Westmorland and Calexico (15%). Figure 4-7 displays rates of bicycle commuting in the County of Imperial. There are an estimated 215 persons countywide who identified themselves as bicycle commutersabout 35 to 45 of which reside in the unincorporated parts of the County. As percentages, both the unincorporated and incorporated city rates hover between 0.4 and 0.5 percent. These rates are consistent with the national average of 0.5 percent. Figure 4-8 displays the percentage of walking commuters in the County of Imperial. About 3 percent of the County of Imperials workers commute to work on foot. The combined rates of incorporated cities are higher than the unincorporated County rates (3.2% to 2.4%). Interestingly, 11.4 percent of workers in
the small unincorporated community of Ocotillo walk to work. The community of Seeley also has walking commute rates higher than the County average (3.8 %). Figure 4-9 displays the percentage of transit commuters in the County of Imperial. Transit commuting rates within the County of Imperial are lower than state and national averages (0.7% for the unincorporated area and 1.5% for the incorporated cities). The Countys transit operator, Imperial Valley Transit, provides service primarily between the incorporated cities and offers service to key destinations such as Imperial Valley College. Service is typically limited to one hour frequencies for the Imperial Valley Transit bus routes. Unincorporated areas along the routes between the cities are served, and direct destination service is offered to unincorporated communities such as Seeley, Niland and Bombay Beach. Heber has the highest transit commuter mode share in the County, with 2.2 percent of all work commutes made by transit. Appendix C shows the existing Imperial Valley Transit routes that serve the County of Imperial.
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
1.1 - 2 0.1 - 1
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
0.6 - 1
0.1 - 0.5
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL B B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
111
2.1% - 5% 0.1% - 2%
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL B B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
Figure 4-6: Percentage of Households with No Access to Vehicle by Census Tract (2000)
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
0.1% - 0.5% 0%
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
Figure 4-7: Percent of Commuters Who Bicycle to Work by Census Tract (2000)
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
0.1% - 2% 0%
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
S30
86
NILE DR
SALTON CITY
0.1% - 1% 0%
DR
SALTON DR
M A RI N
S22
78
CITY of WESTMORLAND
86
S26
County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
WILLS RD
CITY of BRAWLEY
S30
SHANK RD
78
86 S27
S33
IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARIZONA
CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD
111
115
S28
CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY
SEELEY
DUNAWAY RD
7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
IMPERIAL HWY
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
8 S29
McCABE RD
CITY of EL CENTRO
OGIER RD
CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
S30
HEBER
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
S33 98
MEXICALI
Figure 4-9: Commuters Who Take Public Transportation to Work by Census Tract (2000)
13
Imperial Valley Mexicali Economic Delay Study (Imperial Valley Association of Governments and Caltrans, 2007)
" "
SALTON SEA
_ Employment Center ^
Education Facilities County Facilities Open Space and Recreation
7 6 5 4
"
S30
| }
NILE DR
86
SALTON CITY
| }
Wiest Lake
111
| }
#
Ramer Lake
115
DR
SALTON DR
| } | }
78
M A RI N
86
WESTMORLAND
7 6 5 4
BRAWLEY
SHANK RD
S26
"
Mulberry Elementary
7 6 5 4
S22
WILLS RD
7 6 5 4
| }
86
S30
_ ^
"
"
| }
78
7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
IMPERIAL
S27
S33
| }
"
111
"
| }
115
" "
"
Centinela State Prison Naval Air Facility El Centro
_ ^
"" " "
BENNETT RD
ATEN RD
7 6 5 4
HOLTVILLE
S28
HUFF RD
SEELEY
EL CENTRO
DUNAWAY RD
"
Westside Elementary School
"
_ ^
" "
| }
OGIER RD HUNT RD
IM PE
R IAL
"
OCOTILLO
EVA
NH
EW
ES
WY
" "
"
McCABE RD
VANDERLINDEN RD
BONDS CORNER RD
BOWKER RD
7 6 5 4
S29
7 6 5 4
"
Mount Signal School
S30
" "
HEBER
Jasper-Alamitos Union School HEBER AV Herber Dunes Park
CONNELLY RD
"
7 6 5 4
| }
MEXICALI
98
S33
CALEXICO
"
[
0
| }
3 6 Miles
98
" _ ^ " #
County Facilities In the unincorporated County to the southwest of El Centro, at the corner of Clark Road and McCabe Road is a complex of several large County institutions. They include: the County of Imperial Sheriffs Office, the County Superintendent of Schools offices, the County of Imperial Animal Control, and the Imperial Valley Food Bank. Open Space and Recreation The County has a variety of open space and recreational destinations, which offer a variety of outdoor recreation, including five County parks within its jurisdiction: Sunbeam Lake Park (Seeley), Wiest Lake Park (Brawley), Red Hill Park (Niland), Ocotillo Community Park and Palo Verde Park. There are two California State Parks within the County of Imperial: Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, which is partially located in the northwestern part of the County, and a portion of Salton Sea State Park, to the north of Niland. Both parks offer camping and outdoor recreation to visitors. The County of Imperial is also home to two National Wildlife Refuges, which offer recreational opportunities such as hiking, birding, and hunting. The two National Wildlife Refuges include the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge along the Colorado River watershed in the eastern part of the County, and the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge at the southern end of the Salton Sea.
Corridor gaps: On clearly defined and otherwise well-connected bikeways, corridor gaps are missing links longer than one mile. These gaps will sometimes encompass an entire street corridor where bicycle facilities are desired but do not currently exist. System gaps: Larger geographic areas where few or no bikeways exist would be identified as system gaps. System gaps exist in areas where a minimum of two intersecting bikeways would be required to achieve the target network density.
The County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan of 2003 proposes 252 miles of bikeway network comprised of 42 miles of Class I (bike paths) and 210 miles of Class II (bike lanes). In addition to the 2003 Plans proposed network, County staff identified the following corridor gaps to be included in the Bicycle Master Plan Update: McCabe Road from La Brucherie Road to Barbara Worth Road Clark Road from Willoughby Road to El Centro city limits Willoughby Road from Clark Road to Dogwood Road Aten Road from Austin Road to SR-86 Austin Road from Ross Road to McCabe Road Evan Hewes Highway from Huff Road to S-2 (Ocotillo) Evan Hewes Highway from Holtville to Yuma
Existing Conditions Public comments indicate that currently half of all respondents ride one to four times on average every week. Nearly every respondent (98 percent) indicated that he or she cycles for recreational reasons, followed by job or school access (33 percent), and errands and personal visits with acquaintances (25 percent). Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated that their average ride was in excess of six miles one-way, with the most popular response being a one-way trip distance of 11-20 miles (27 percent). The respondents ages and locations also varied. Roughly one in three respondents was under 36 years of age (32 percent). The most common age category of respondents was 36-45 (26 percent), followed by 46-55 years of age. Facility Improvements Despite the increasing interest in bicycling, there are limited facilities within the County of Imperial. This portion of the survey requested input to determine areas of opportunity and challenges for cyclists. Respondents were given a series of facility types and improvements, and were asked to rate the respective facilitys importance in affecting ones decision to use a bicycle on a 1-to-5 scale, with 1 being very important and 5 being not important. Based on the online survey responses, respondents were most sensitive to the condition of bikeway/roadway and motorists behavior. Table 4-6 presents this information in detail. Table 4-6: Conditions Affecting Willingness to Cycle Conditions
Condition of bikeway/roadway Motorists' behaviors Traffic volumes/speeds Presence of bike paths, lanes, or routes Available information/knowledge of bike routes Amount of street lighting Weather Travel time Access to bike parking and storage Ability to combine bicycle trips with transit trips
Rating Average*
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.5 3.0
Respondents were asked which type of facility was most appealing for their use. The responses followed a similar pattern to other questions, reflecting a cycling population that is familiar with on-road riding from their experience as recreational, mid-to-long-distance cyclists. Class II Bike Lanes were the most
most interesting facility type for respondents, followed closely by Class III Bike Routes and Bicycle Boulevards. Table 4-7 shows the full results. Table 4-7: Level of Cycling Interest by Facility Type Bicycle Facility Type
Bike Lanes Bike Routes Bicycle Boulevards (a shared roadway with signage and safety enhancements designed to give priority to cycling traffic) Unpaved Trails or Dirt Paths Roadways with no bicycle facilities
Rating Average*
1.1 1.3 1.4 2.4 4.2
Respondents were also asked to identify specific locations they felt new facilities should be implemented. Table 4-8 shows that on-street facilities were the highest-scoring facility type, followed by schools (Totals do not equal 100%, as respondents were allowed to select more than one option.) Table 4-8: Preferred Location of Facility Types by General Location Location
On-Street Schools Park Other Public Facilities
Percent of Responses
93.9% 57.1% 30.6% 36.7%
Response Count
46 28 15 18
Programmatic Needs In addition to recommended facilities input, respondents were asked which bicycle implementation programs would best complement the bikeway infrastructure. These programs can take many forms, but often focus on improving the skills and awareness of riders to ensure increased cycling rates, safe riding habits, improved route finding, and other related measures. Table 4-9 highlights the respondents preferences for the potential programs.
Rating Average*
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.5
In addition, the following key principles should be observed: The bicycle and trail environment should be safe. Bicycle routes, pathways, and crossings, should be designed and built to be free of hazards and to minimize conflicts with external factors such as noise, vehicular traffic and protruding architectural elements. The bicycle and trail network should be accessible. Bicycle routes, pathways and crossingsshould ensure the mobility of all users by accommodating the needs of people regardless of age or ability. Bicyclists have a range of skill levels, and facilities should be designed for use by experienced cyclists at a minimum, with a goal of providing for inexperienced / recreational bicyclists (especially children and seniors) to the greatest extent possible. In areas where specific needs have been identified (e.g., near schools), the needs of appropriate types of bicyclists should be accommodated. The bicycle and trail network should connect to places people want to go. The bicycle and trail network should provide a continuous direct routes and convenient connections between
destinations, including homes, schools, shopping areas, public services, recreational opportunities and transit. The bicycling and trail environment should be clear and easy to use. Bicycle routes, pathways and crossings should be designed so people can easily find a direct route to a destination and delays are minimized. The bicycling and trail environment should provide good places. Good design should enhance the feel of the bicycle and trail environment. A complete network of on-street bicycling facilities should connect seamlessly to the existing and proposed off-street pathways to complete recreational and commuting routes around the County. Bicycle and trail improvements should be economical. Improvements should be designed to achieve the maximum benefit for their cost, including initial cost and maintenance cost as well as reduced reliance on more expensive modes of transportation. Where possible, improvements in the right-of-way should stimulate, reinforce and connect with adjacent private improvements.
The skill level of the bicyclist affects his/her expected reaction time and behavior. As such, there are several systems of classification currently in use within the bicycle planning and engineering professions. These classifications can be helpful in understanding the characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists. However, it should be noted that these classifications may change in type or proportion over time as infrastructure and culture evolve. An instructional course can rapidly change a less-confident bicyclist into one that can comfortably and safely share the roadway with vehicular traffic. Bicycle infrastructure should be planned and designed to accommodate as many user types as possible. Separate or parallel facilities should be considered to provide a comfortable experience for the greatest number of bicyclists. A Classification system that is currently in use in the Pacific Northwest and also under consideration in the 1999 AASTHO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities provides the following bicycle user types:
Tables 5-1 through 5-3 summarize the descriptions and design standards for the three bikeway classifications as defined by Chapter 1000- Bikeway Planning and Design of the California Highway Design Manual.
Table 5-1: California Bikeway Classifications Class I Bicycle Path Class I Bicycle Path
Design Summary Width standards: o 8 is the minimum allowed for a two-way multi-use path and is only recommended for lower facility use. o 10 is recommended in most situations and will be adequate for moderate to heavy use. o 12 is recommended for heavy use situations with high concentrations of multiple users such as joggers, bicyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians. Lateral Clearance: 2 or greater shoulder on both sides (required by Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000). Overhead Clearance: 10 minimum recommended. Maximum design speed: 20 mph. Speed bumps or other surface irregularities should never be used to slow bicycles. Recommended maximum grade: 5%. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short distances (see guidelines following). Discussion
A hard surface should be used for multi-use trails. Concrete, while more expensive than asphalt, is the hardest of all trail surfaces and lasts the longest. However, joggers and runners prefer surfaces such as asphalt or decomposed granite due to its relative softness. While most asphalt is black, dyes (such as reddish pigments) can be added to increase the aesthetic value of the trail itself. When concrete is used the trail should be designed and installed using the narrowest possible expansion joints to minimize the amount of bumping bicyclists experience on the trail. Shared-use paths should be designed according to ADA standards. Constructing trails may have limitations that make meeting ADA standards difficult and sometimes prohibitive. Prohibitive impacts include harm to significant cultural or natural resources, a significant change in the intended purpose of the trail, requirements of construction methods that are against federal, state or local regulations, or presence of terrain characteristics that prevent compliance.
Landscaping and fencing adjacent to the trails can be attractive, and are common along railroad rightof-way.
Guidance U.S. Access Board, Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). FHWA (2001). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000).
Table 5-2: California Bikeway Classifications- Class II Bicycle Lanes Class II Bicycle Lane
Design Summary Bike lane width: 4 minimum when no curb & gutter is present (rural road sections). 5 minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter (3 more than the gutter pan width if the gutter pan is wider than 2).
6 recommended where right-of-way allows. Maximum Width: 8 adjacent to arterials with high travel speeds (45 mph+).
Discussion Wider bike lanes are desirable in certain circumstances such as on higher-speed arterials (45 mph+) where a wider bike lane can increase separation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Wide bike lanes are also appropriate in areas with high levels of bicycle use. A bike lane width of six to eight feet makes it possible for bicyclists to ride side-by-side or pass each other without leaving the bike lane, increasing the capacity of the lane. Appropriate signing and stenciling is important with wide bike lanes to ensure motorists do not mistake the lane for a vehicle lane or parking lane. Guidance AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000). California MUTCD (2009). Approved R-81 Sign. Recommend bike lane design.
Table 5-3: California Bikeway Classifications-Class III Bicycle Facilities Class III - Bicycle Route
Design Summary Use D11-1 Bike Route Sign at: Beginning or end of Bike Route (with applicable M4 series sign below). Entrance to bike path (Class I) optional. At major changes in direction or at intersections with other bike routes (with applicable M7 series sign below). At intervals along bike routes not to exceed mile (0.8 km).
Discussion Class III bicycle facilities (Caltrans) are defined as facilities shared with motor vehicles, identified exclusively by signage and / or shared lane markings. They are typically used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes; however, they can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or shoulders. Shared roadways often have a centerline stripe only, and no designated shoulders. Shared lane markings in addition to signage may be more appropriate for roadways with narrow travel lanes and parking. Shared roadways provide key connections to destinations and trails where providing additional separation is not possible. Guidance From Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 1000 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. California MUTCD, Part 9 This bike route in the City of Los Angeles provides a wide outside lane adjacent to on-street parking. Shared roadway recommended configuration.
D11-1 Bike Route sign should be used along designated shared roadways.
Class I - Bike Paths Class II - Bicycle Lanes Class III - Bicycle Routes
The proposed bikeways were developed based on the following guidelines: Varying user group needs The proposed facilities offer a range of facility types, from bike lanes running along regionally-significant arterial roads to low-traffic bike routes. The varying facility types address the varying needs of different cyclist types (Section 5.1). Existing bicycling patterns This Plan proposes facilities along routes used by existing cyclists, as identified by County staff and the community at large, via public workshops and online surveys. Connectivity The proposed facilities connect to both existing and proposed bikeway systems in adjacent incorporated cities. Creating a well-connected regional bikeway system improves cyclists access to major destinations inside and outside the region. Traffic volumes and travel speeds This Plan gives preference to low-speed and low-volume roadways for on-street facilities to maximize cyclist safety and alleviate safety concerns for beginner cyclists. Existing roadway width and right-of-way This Plan recommends facility types based on whether the existing right-of-way can accommodate the proposed facility with minimal changes to the existing facility. Reducing the need for significant changes to the roadway maximizes project feasibility and minimizes project expense.
Public input This Plan accounts for information collected from community members via public workshops and online surveys, including typical trip origins and destinations, desired facilities, and existing bicycling behavior.
From
Imperial city limits Noffsinger Road Seeley city limits El Centro city limits Interstate 8 (East of Holtville)
To
Dogwood Road Norrish Road El Centro city limits Holtville city limits End of road
Mileage
1.0 29.2 6.7 7.7 19.2 63.8
From
Pulliam Road Ferrell Road Austin Road Imperial city limits Keystone Road Ross Road Evan Hewes Hwy Dietrich Road Dean Road McCabe Road Ben Hulse Hwy Webster Road Howenstein Road El Centro city limits Calexico city limits Shank Road Rutherford Road McCabe Road Willoughby Road Danenberg Road Interstate-8 English Road Sinclair Road Huff Road Huff Road Holtville city limits La Brucherie Road Imler Road Carter Road Baughman Road Walker Road Sinclair Road Butters Road Gonder Road Norrish Road
To
Ferrell Road Calexico city limits Imperial city limits State Hwy 86 Ross Road McCabe Road State Hwy 98 Butters Road Kalin Road Anza Road Gonder Road Forrester Road 8 Street Willoughby Road Barbara Worth Road State Hwy 78 Shank Road Willoughby Road State Hwy 98 McCabe Road State Hwy 99 Lyerly Road Eddins Road Drew Road Imperial Hwy U.S Hwy 80 Anza Road Keystone Road Imler Road Carter Road Howenstein Road Walker Road Highline Road Norrish Road Holtville city limits
th
Mileage
4.1 3.4 0.5 0.9 9.1 2.0 7.6 6.1 2.0 6.2 1.6 3.9 0.1 3.9 2.9 1.6 3.2 3.0 2.1 0.9 6.8 1.0 3.5 2.1 16.7 6.9 3.3 0.9 0.6 6.6 2.0 7.0 3.4 8.3 1.0
Austin Road Austin Road Barbara Worth Road Ben Hulse Hwy Boars Road Brockman Road Butters Road Carter Road Center Street Clark Road Cole Road Dietrich Road Dietrich Road Dogwood Road Dogwood Road Dogwood Road Drew Road Eddins Road English Road Evan Hewes Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy Ferrell Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Gentry Road Gonder Road Highline Road Holt Road
Location
Holt Road Huff Road Imler Road Imperial Hwy Imperial Hwy Kalin Road Kalin Road Keystone Road Keystone Road La Brucherie Road La Brucherie Road* La Brucherie Road La Brucherie Road Larsen Road McCabe Road McCabe Road Norrish Road Old Route 111 Old Route 111 Pulliam Road Ross Road Rutherford Road Rutherford Road Shank Road Sinclair Road Walker Road Willoughby Road Worthington Road Worthington Road Worthington Road Total
From
Worthington Road Imler Road Forrester Road Imperial Place Ocotillo Community Park Rutherford Road Boarts Road Forrester Road Austin Road Larsen Road Aten Road Imperial city limits Wake Avenue La Brucherie Road Brockman Road La Brucherie Road Holt Road Worthington Road Brawley city limits (Best Road) State Highway 98 Austin Road Kalin Road State Hwy 111 Dietrich Road Gentry Road Gentry Road Clark Road P Street State Hwy 111 Austin Road
To
Norrish Road Evan Hewes Hwy Huff Road State Hwy 99 Imperial Place Boarts Road Webster Road Austin Road State Hwy 86 Neckel Road Imperial city limits Evan Hewes Hwy Ferrell Road State Hwy 86 La Brucherie Road Barbara Worth Road Highline Road Evan Hewes Hwy Worthington Road Anza Road El Centro city limits State Hwy 111 Dietrich Road Dietrich Road English Road Forrester Road Dogwood Road State Hwy 111 Holt Road La Brucherie Road
Mileage
1.0 10.0 4.3 1.6 1.0 0.5 4.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.5 1.2 4.2 0.5 3.5 8.6 4.0 3.4 8.5 1.0 0.5 3.0 2.2 0.3 4.0 0.5 1.5 3.0 7.5 1.0 220.8
From
Beach Club Beach Club Holt Avenue State Hwy 86 Desert Shores Drive Palm Drive State Hwy 86 Brawley city limits Aten Road Sea View Drive Sea View Drive Atlantic Boulevard Dogwood Road Atlantic Blvd Highline Road Dietrich Road Cristal Avenue State Hwy 86 Salton Bay Drive Beach Club Drive Evan Hewes Hwy
To
Marina Drive Treadwell Boulevard State Hwy 86 End of Road State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 Coolidge Springs Road Aten Road El Centro city limits Atlantic Boulevard State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 111 Treadwell Boulevard Highline Canal Highland Canal Sea View Drive San Diego County Border Marina Drive Azure Avenue Vaughn Road
Mileage
1.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.3 9.0 1.5 1.5 3.1 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.5 9.0 1.0 7.6 0.9 1.4 2.3 50.6
From
Evan Hewes Hwy Rutherford Road Calipatria city limits Calipatria city limits Best Road Keystone Road Brawley city limits Dogwood Road Drew Road Westmorland city limits State Hwy 78 Salton Borrego Seaway Treadwell Boulevard Brawley Avenue Evan Hewes Hwy
To
Calexico city limits Brawley city limits Rutherford Road Bombay Beach Community Dietrich Road Larsen Road Keystone Road Calexico city limits Pulliam Road State Hwy 78 Salton Borrego Seaway Treadwell Boulevard Brawley Avenue Desert Shores Drive Algodones Road
Mileage
6.8 3.0 5.3 24.7 2.0 2.5 3.6 0.8 1.0 15.4 12.6 3.7 3.8 2.5 15.1 102.9
The County of Imperial does not have jurisdiction on these State Routes and therefore these recommended bikeways are not included in the cost estimate and project prioritization outlined in Chapter 7.
"" "" "" "" " " "" " " "" "" "" "" "" " " "" " "
"""" """""""""""
" " " " " " " " " "" "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""""
"
DIETRICH RD
WILLS RD
" """
SHANK RD
""
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
""
"
R ailr
IMLER RD
"
"
" "
"
""
""""""""""""" """""""""
oad
""
CA R T
D RR
| }
86
7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
| }
" " "" " " " " " " "
S33
"
" " " " " " " " " " " "" " ""
AUSTIN RD
"
""""
""
" " " " " " " " " " " "" " "
""""" ""
BENNETT RD
"" """"
HUFF RD
" " " " " " " " "" " " "
"""
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
""""
"
""
""""""""""""
VANDERLINDEN RD
""""""""""""""""""
" " " " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "
"""""""" """""
" """""
BONDS CORNER RD
"""""""" "
DOGWOOD RD
LA BRUCHERIE RD
"""""""
CALEXICO
" " " " "
""""
"
6 Miles
ANZA RD
""
| }
98
""""
""
""
"""""
""
""""""""
CLARK RD
7 6 5 4
"
BARBARA WORTH RD
"
"
Diego-Arizona Easter
" n RR
"
"
"
"
IMPERIAL HWY
"""""
"
"
"
McCABE RD
HEBER
BOWKER RD
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "
7 6 5 4
S29
S30
""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""
"""""""""""
t"e"r " " HWY s " Ea ES " a EW n "" o " N z" A H Ar"i " EV
DUNAWAY RD
" "
"" """
EL CENTRO
" "
SEELEY
" """" " """"" """"""""""""""""""""" """ """""""" HOLTEN RD " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" "" "" """ "" "" EVAN HEWES HWY " " " " " " " " " " " ""
"
""""""""
""
"""""""
S27
" " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
""
IMPERIAL
| }
111
115
""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
7 6 5 4
S28
ATEN RD
HOLTVILLE
"" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" "" "
""
| }
" """""
HEBER AV
"
""""""""
""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""
""
"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" """ "
NORRISH RD
" " " " " " " " " " ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
OGIER RD HUNT RD
"
7 6 5 4
" " "
"
S30
CONNELLY RD
7 6 5 4
| }
98
S33
MEXICO
"
""
"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
"
" " """ " " " " " " " " "
BRAWLEY """""""
" ""
""""
"
""
"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
" ""
"" ""
""
" "
"
"
"
"
""
""
"""""""""""""
"" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " """ "
KALIN RD
| } | }
78
86
"""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""
" " " " " " " " " " ""
WESTMORLAND
7 6 5 4
S26
""
""
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"" ""
""
""
""
| }
111
| }
115
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""""
"
"
"
78
7 6 5 4
S30
"
"
""
"
"
"
""""""""""
CALIPATRIA
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
GENTRY RD
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""""""""
SINCLAIR RD
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
SALTON SEA
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
| }
"" ""
86
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
""
" ""
" ""
Sou t
her n
Pac if
ic R
ailr oad
"" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
""
""
" "" ""
"
"
"
HIG
HLA
" " " " " " " " "" "
ND
"
" "
CA N
"
AL
"
"
| }
78
" "
" " "" " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "
"" "
"
HIGHLAND CAN AL
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "
"
""" " " " " " " " " " ""
"
"
"" "" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
""""
"""
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
""" """ "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
""""
""""
"""""""""
""""
So ut he rn c Pa
DESERT SHORES
COOLIDGE SPRINGS RD
c ifi Ra o ilr ad
S out h e rn P acific Railro
BRAWLEY AV
ad
So ut he rn c Pa
CL
BOMBAY BEACH
ATLANTIC BLVD
DR
c ifi
UB
Ra
BE
AC
o ilr
SALTON CITY
SE AV EI W
ad
O SEAWAY
MA RIN AD R
DR
111
SALTON SEA
S ou
t he
rn P acif
ic R a
ilro a
86
0 3 6 Miles
GENTRY RD
SINCLAIR RD
S30
CALIPATRIA
111
IMPERIAL COUNTY
78
86
S26
BRAWLEY
S30
WILLS RD
SHANK RD
S26
WILLS RD
SHANK RD
DIETRICH RD
LEY
So ut
78
he r
nP ac
ific
Ra ilr o
ad
S33 S27
HIGHLAND CANA L
111
115
S28
ATEN RD
HOLTVILLE
HOLTEN RD
NORRISH RD
So ut
he r
7
OGIER RD HUNT RD
BOWKER RD VANDERLINDEN RD
nP ac
ific
Ra ilr o
ad
HEBER
BARBARA WORTH RD
BONDS CORNER RD
HEBER AV
CONNELLY RD
EVAN
H EW
ES H
8
WY
TO YUMA
S33
CALEXICO
98
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ES TA DO S UN I DO S DE M E XI C O
IMPERIAL COUNTY
6 Miles
Route 1
Ross Road Drew Road La Brucherie Anza Road The following portions of this route have been completed:
o o
Ross Road from Drew Road to Austin Road Drew Road Interstate 8 from Ross Road to
Connects to employment centers in El Centro, Southwest High School, and Sunbeam Lake Park. Total Length: 32 miles
Route 2
McCabe Road Brockman Anza Road - Dogwood Road Connects to employment centers in Mexicali, McCabe Elementary and Junior High School, and Mount Signal School.
Route 3
Austin- Imler Road Huff Road Ross Road Provides connections to Seeley, the City of El Centro, U.S Naval Air Station, Sunbeam Lake Community Park, and McCabe Elementary and High Schools
Route 4
Provides connections to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and Holtville, Magnolia Elementary School, Imperial High School, Brawley High School, and the proposed Highline Canal Bike Path Total Length: 46 miles
Route 5
El Centro Barbara Worth Road Calexico Dogwood Road Connects to 12 schools, local city parks, Imperial Valley Mall, and two major employment centers in Mexicali and El Centro.
Route 6
Provides bicycle lanes to Weist Park, a county park offering areas for picnicking and a lake for fishing. The Route connects to six schools and employment centers in Brawley. Total Length: 12.3 miles
Route 7
Sinclair Gentry Rutherford Road State Route 111 The route would provide connections to Westmorland Union Elementary School, Fremont Elementary School and Calipatria High School, and employment centers in Westmorland and Calipatria
Route 8
Kalin Road Carter Road Forrester Road This route provides a connection to the City of Westmorland and Routes 3, 4 and 7.
Route 9
A nonconforming bicycle path is currently located along Aten Road at the southern border of Imperial Valley College. The proposed improvements would include widening the existing pathway to a standard Class I bicycle path and connect from State Hwy 111 to State Hwy 86. In addition, bicycle lanes are proposed along Aten Road from Austin Road to State Hwy 86. Total Length: 5.5 miles
Route 10
Highline Canal
A scenic bicycle path is proposed along the highline Canal from the community of Niland at the north end of Imperial Valley to Norrish Road, just north of Holtville. The total distance would be approximately 30 miles.
Route 11
This route will provide a direct link from Calexico to Calipatria. Class III shoulders are proposed on State Hwy 111 and a connection to Class II bike lanes on Old Route 111 is proposed between Evan Hewes Highway and the City of Brawley. The total distance of this route is 8.5 miles The Plan also suggests that the Class III facilities continue along State Hwy 111 from Calipatria to the community of Bombay beach in the eastern side of Salton Sea, for a distance of 25 miles.
Route 12 Railway Multi-Use Pathway
An abandoned railway extends from Holtville, bordering Evan Hewes Highway through the City of El Centro and the community of Seeley. This facility would connect to downtown El Centro, the US Naval Air Station and Sunbeam Lake. The total length is approximately 14 miles.
Route 13 Community of Ocotillo
Class II bike lanes would extend from the community of Seeley to downtown Ocotillo along Evan Hewes Highway for a total distance of 19 miles. The purpose of this route is to connect the community of Ocotillo to the central valley of the County of Imperial.
Route 14 Salton Sea Communities
This Plan proposes 38 miles of Class III highway shoulder along State Hwy 86 connecting the City of Westmorland to the western communities of the Salton Sea (see Figure 5.2).
Route 15 East County Route
This route extends for 41 miles beginning at the eastern city limits of Holtville along Evan Hewes Highway and Interstate 8, connecting to the Arizona border in the City of Yuma (See Figure 5.3).
Imperial Valley Transit (IVT) should continue to allow bicycle access on all buses with bus mounted racks, and encourage multimodal trips by the construction of Transit Centers in the incorporated cities. Bicycle travel to bus stops should be enhanced to make the transfer between bicycle and transit as convenient as possible. Specific project types that will improve bicycle access to transit include: Bikeways connecting residential, employment, schools and shopping centers to bus stops. Bike racks at bus stops and transit centers. The installation of electronic bicycle lockers at transit centers. This type of lockers allow rental by the hour so they can be used by multiple bicyclists with a pre-purchased card. This type of project may be considered when bicycling demand is high.
5.3.2 Maintenance
Routine maintenance of bikeway facilities is a critical and often an overlooked element of bikeway planning. Maintenance includes street sweeping of bicycle lanes and shoulders, repainting and replacing bicycle lane striping, and replacing missing or damaged signage. This Plan recommends the following maintenance related actions to improve bicycle conditions: Regular street sweeping including bicycle lanes, shoulders and intersections. Repair and improve the surface of roadways. Potholes and cracks along the shoulder of roadways primarily affect bicyclists and repairs should be a priority for the County. The County should establish a proactive maintenance program through a customer service line and/or website where residents can report maintenance needs for on-street bikeways and paths.
5.3.3 Signage
Bikeway signage includes signs identifying a bike route, lane or path, as well as signs providing regulation or warnings and signs providing wayfinding. Signage is important for numerous reasons. It can identify bikeway routes and can also increase bicyclist visibility and promote bicyclist presence. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and the California Highway Design Manual outline the requirements for bikeway signage, which are included in Appendix D.
Bikeway signage helps identify designated routes and increases awareness of bicycling facilities.
The Bike Lane Sign (R-81) is required at the beginning of each designated bike lane and at each major decision point. The Bike Route Sign (D11-1) is required on Class III Facilities. Multi-Use paths require additional standardized signs to help manage different user groups.
likely trip end points. Lack of secure bicycle parking facilities is often cited as a reason people hesitate to ride a bicycle to certain destinations. The same consideration should be given to cyclists as is given to motorists, who expect convenient and secure parking at their destinations. Bicycle parking facilities are generally classified in two ways: Short Term - Provides a means of locking bicycle frame and both wheels, but does not provide accessory and component security or weather protection unless covered. It is for decentralized parking where the bicycle is left for a short period of time and is visible and convenient to the building entrance. Long Term - Provides complete security and protection from weather. Long-term parking is intended for situations where the bicycle is left unattended for long periods of time, such as housing complexes, schools, places of employment, and transit stops. These usually take the form of lockers, cages or dedicated storage rooms in buildings. In areas of high commercial activity where bicycle traffic is more prevalent, higher levels of bicycle parking are recommended. Increased bicycle parking provides a viable option for individuals who need to make a short trip to the local store to ride their bike, rather than drive their car. Bicycle parking should be incorporated into any new redevelopment projects with the County. A successful bicycle rack design enables the user to properly lock her bicycle. Enabling proper locking means the user must be able to secure a typical size U-lock around the frame and one wheel to the locking area of the rack (providing 2 points of contact). Racks with a single point-of-contact that support the bicycle, but either provide no way to lock the frame or require awkward lifting to enable 2point locking are not acceptable unless security is provided by other means, such as a locked enclosure or attendant monitoring. Further, bicycle racks must be designed so that they: Do not damage the bicycle Do not impede pedestrians Are easily accessed from the street and protected from motor vehicles Accommodate the high security U-shaped bike locks Accommodate locks designed to secure the frame and both wheels Provide cover if they are located in an area where users will leave their bikes for long periods of time
Standard inverted U bicycle rack.
When bikes are secured improperly, the effectiveness of a bicycle parking facility is reduced. Inverted Uracks or other racks that are able to secure the entire bike are preferred and recommended for installation in commercial areas, schools, parks and local businesses. The County of Imperial generally lacks bike parking facilities. The county does not have a bike parking installation program and does not maintain an inventory of bike parking located within public right-of-way or at public facilities such as civic buildings or public parks. Specific locations that would benefit from bicycle parking are identified on Figure 5-4.
Alta Planning + Design |5-21
"" "" "" "" " " "" " " "" "" "" "" "" " " "" " "
"""" """""""""""
" " " " " " " " " "" "
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
"
"
"
"
"" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " """ "
"
""""""""""
"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
DIETRICH RD
WILLS RD
" """
SHANK RD
""
""
""""""""""""""""""""""
""
"
R ailr
IMLER RD
"
"
" "
"
""
""""""""""""" """""""""
oad
""
CA R T
D RR
| }
86
7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
( ! "
Rose Mesquite School
S33
"
" " " " " " " " " " " "" " ""
AUSTIN RD
"
""""
""
" " " " " " " " " " " "" " "
""""" ""
BENNETT RD
HUFF RD
" " " " " " " " "" " " "
"""
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
""
( ! "
""""""""""""
""""
"
VANDERLINDEN RD
"""""""" """""
" " " " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "
" """""
"
BONDS CORNER RD
CLARK RD
7 6 5 4
"
BARBARA WORTH RD
( ! "
"
"
"
"
"""""""" "
DOGWOOD RD
( ! "
""""
LA BRUCHERIE RD
"""""""
CALEXICO
" " " "
""""
6 Miles
ANZA RD
""
| }
98
""
""
"""""
""
""""""""
"
( ! "
"""""
"
"
"
7 6 5 4
S29
S30
HEBER
( ! (" ! ( ! " " ( ! "
BOWKER RD
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "
McCABE RD
( ! "
""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
( ! " ( ! "
"""""""""""""
( ! " ( ! "
""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""
t"e"r " " HWY s " Ea ES " a EW n "" o " N z" A H Ar"i " EV
DUNAWAY RD
" "
( ! "
"" """
EL CENTRO
" "
SEELEY
" Center """" " """"" """"""""""""""""""""" Earl Walker """ """""""" " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" HOLTEN RD " "" "" "" """ County Park "" "" EVAN HEWES HWY " " Meadows " " " " " " " " " ""
Shoping
( ! (" ! "
"
"" """"
"
ATEN RD
( ! ( ! n " "
" " "" " " " " " " "
""""""""
""
"""""""
S27
" " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
""
IMPERIAL
| }
"
111
| }
115
( ! " ( ! "
"
""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
7 6 5 4
S28
HOLTVILLE
( ! "
"" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" "" "
( ! " ( ! "
""
Elementary School
| }
( ! "
" """""
( ! "
( ! "
""""""""""""
"
"
""""""""
" n "
""""
""""""""""""""""""
""
"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" """ "
NORRISH RD
" " " " " " " " " " ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
OGIER RD HUNT RD
"
7 6 5 4
" " "
"
S30
CONNELLY RD
7 6 5 4
| }
98
S33
MEXICO
"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
"
" " """ " " " " " " " " "
""""
n
"
"
""
( ! "
"
"
""
" ""
"" ""
""
"
" "
"
"
"
""
""
"""""""""""""
KALIN RD
| } | }
78
86
"""""""""""""""
( !
( ! "
Elementary
7 6 5 4
""
" " " " " " " " " " ""
S26
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Mulberry """"""""""""""""""""""""
""
WESTMORLAND
Ramer Lake
""
Military Complex
"
""
""
Railroads
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
! Wiest Lake (
"" ""
( ! "
" "
""
""
" Shopping
""
""
| }
111
| }
115
""
""
" School
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
| }
78
7 6 5 4
S30
CALIPATRIA
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
Transit Connection n
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
( !
" ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
GENTRY RD
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""""""""
SINCLAIR RD
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
SALTON SEA
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
| }
"" ""
86
( ! " ( ! "
"" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
""
" ""
" ""
Sou t
her n
Pac if
ic R
ailr oad
""
""
""
"
"
HIG
HLA
" " " " " " " " "" "
"
" "
ND
"
" "
CA N
"
AL
"
| }
78
" " "" " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "
"" "
"
HIGHLAND CAN AL
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "
""" " " " " " " " " " ""
"
"" "" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"""" """"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""" """ "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
""""
"""""""""
6 Program Recommendations
Of the Six Es of bicycle planning, four are related to programs: encouragement, education, enforcement and evaluation. Bicycle-related policies can affect each of the Six Es, but are primarily used as an evaluation and planning tool. The following four vision statements of the Bicycle Master Plan are particularly relevant to the development and implementation of programs and policies: Education: community understanding and respect for the roles and responsibilities of cyclists. Encouragement: increase bicycle ridership and foster the creation of a strong bicycle advocacy community and bicycle culture. Enforcement: a safer environment for cyclists and other transportation modes. Evaluation & Planning: institutional support and collaboration for bicycling.
All of the Six Es work together to enhance the bicycling experience in the County of Imperial. The following section presents recommended programs and policies to support the vision and goals of this plan. These programs have proven to be popular and effective in other bicycle-friendly communities.
6.1 Education
Education programs enable bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists to understand how to travel safely in the roadway environment according to the law. Education programs are available in an array of mediumsfrom long-term courses with detailed instruction, to single sessions focusing on a specific topic. Curriculums should be appropriate to the target audience and to the format of instruction. Community Bicycle Education Courses
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources General Public, County employees Department of Public Works (DPW), Department of Public Health (DPH) Local bicycle groups Educate users of all age groups and skill levels on safe bicycling skills www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php
Most bicyclists do not receive comprehensive instruction on safe and effective bicycling techniques, laws, or bicycle maintenance. Bike skill training courses are an excellent way to improve both cyclist confidence and safety. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) developed a comprehensive bicycle skills curriculum considered the national standard for adults seeking to improve their on-bike skills. The classes available include bicycle safety checks and basic maintenance, basic and advanced on-road skills, commuting, and driver education. The County of Imperial can partner with the local bicycle groups and other non-profit organizations to offer LAB bicycle skills courses, incorporating them into recreation center programs or other County programs.
Purpose Resources
Youth bicycle safety programs educate students about the rules of the road, proper use of bicycle equipment, biking skills, street crossing skills, and the benefits of bicycling. Such education programs are frequently part of Safe Routes to School programs. Bicycle safety education can integrate into classroom time, physical education periods, or after school. Classroom lessons administered by a volunteer, trained professional, law enforcement officer, or teacher can teach children about bicycling and traffic safety. Individual lessons should focus on one or two key issues and include activities that are fun and engaging. Bicycle safety lessons are most appropriate for fourth through eighth grade students16. The National Center for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) online guide summarizes key messages to include in pedestrian and bicycle safety curriculums. In addition to classroom-based activities, periodic safety assemblies can also provide bicycle safety education. Safety assemblies convey a safety message through the use of engaging and visually stimulating presentations, videos, skits, guest speakers, or artistic displays. Assemblies should be relatively brief and focus on one or two topics. Classes receiving on-going instruction on related topics can participate by presenting their lessons to the rest of the school. Schools can reinforce safety assembly lessons by reiterating the message in school announcements, school newsletters, posters, or other means. In addition to providing safety instruction, safety assemblies generate enthusiasm about biking.
16
Bicycle Rodeos
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners School-age Children DPW & DPH School Districts and parent groups, CHP, Sheriffs Department and local law enforcement, bicycle groups Teach children basic bicycle skills through a fun activity Safe Routes to School online guide: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/pdfs/lessonplans/RodeoManualJune2006.pdf
Purpose Resources
Bicycle Rodeos are individual events that help students develop basic bicycling techniques and safety skills through the use of a bicycle safety course. Rodeos use playgrounds or parking lots set-up with stop signs, traffic cones, and other props to simulate the roadway environment. Students receive instruction on how to maneuver, observe stop signs, and look for on-coming traffic before proceeding through intersections. Bicycle Rodeos also provide an opportunity for instructors to ensure childrens helmets and bicycles are appropriately sized. Events can include free or low-cost helmet distribution and bike safety checks. Trained adult volunteers, local police, and the fire department can administer Bicycle Rodeos. The Rodeos can be stand-alone events or can be incorporated into health fairs, back-to-school events, and Walk and Bike to School days. Share the Path Campaign
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Users of multi-use paths and Class I bike paths DPW & Department of Planning and Development Service (PDS) CHP, Sheriffs Department and local law enforcement, bicycle groups, local bicycle retail and rental shops Educate path users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, and dog walkers on being safe and respectful to others on multi-use paths City of Portland, OR: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=163129
Purpose
Resources
Conflicts between path users can occur on popular, well-used path systems. Share the Path campaigns promote safe and courteous behavior among all users. These campaigns typically involve distribution of bicycle bells and other bicycle paraphernalia, and brochures with safety tips, and maps at bicycle rides and other public events. Effective Share the Path campaigns generally involve the following: Developing a simple, clear Share the Path brochure for distribution through local bike shops and wherever bike maps are distributed. Hosting a bicycle bell giveaway event on a popular shared-use path. Volunteers and agency staff can distribute bells to cyclists and Share the Path brochures to other path users, and answer
Alta Planning + Design | 6-3
users questions. Other volunteers may walk along the path and thank bicyclists who use their bells when passing. Conducting media outreach before a bell giveaways event. The event organizers should publicize positive stories about bicycling and use the event as an opportunity for marketing the path system. Media outreach can include public service announcements promoting courtesy and respect among all path users, and encouraging users to share the path safely.
Purpose
Resources
Helping children walk and bicycle to school is good for childrens health and can reduce congestion, traffic dangers and air pollution caused by parents driving children to school. Robust Safe Routes to School programs address five of the Six Es- Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation. The County of Imperial should work with local school districts to implement a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program. The initial phase of a SR2S program is known as a bicycle and pedestrian audit, which helps assess walking and biking conditions of streets adjacent to Safe Routes to School programs increase the number elementary schools. Parents, students, neighbors, and of children walking and biking to school and improve County planners and/or traffic engineers should be traffic safety near schools. invited to join in the audit. Safety concerns, issues, and ideas should be recorded.
After the bicycle and pedestrian audit is conducted, maps for each elementary school showing recommended routes to reach school, along with high-traffic intersections and routes to avoid, should be produced and distributed. As a final step, an initial infrastructure improvement plan should be produced for each elementary school, including cost estimates and a prioritized project list. This infrastructure improvement plan will serve as a blueprint for future investments, and can be used to apply for further grant funding.
6.2 Encouragement
Encouragement programs focus on encouraging people to bicycle more frequently by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make bicycling a more convenient transportation mode.
Bicycling Maps
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose General Public DPW LACMTA, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Assist bicyclists in wayfinding by offering a map with clear symbols and graphics, destinations and services attractive for bicyclists, and good selection of routes City of Long Beach, CA: http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?Blobid=27418 City of Los Angeles, CA: http://www.bicyclela.org/pdf/BikeMapWestsideCC.pdf San Diego Region Bicycle Map: http://www.icommutesd.com/Bike/BikeMap.aspx
Resources
One of the most effective ways of encouraging people to bicycle is to distribute maps and guides to show that bicycle infrastructure exists. A map can also demonstrate the ease in accessing different parts of the community by bike, and highlight unique areas, shopping districts, or recreational areas. Maps can be countywide, community-specific, or neighborhood maps, and can be available on paper and/or online. Schools may create specialized biking and walking maps to direct students to walk and bicycle along the safest routes to school. These specialized maps may include arrows to indicate the routes and show stop signs, signals, crosswalks, sidewalks, trails, overcrossings, and crossing guard locations surrounding the school. The maps should focus on the attendance boundary of a particular school. Routes should take advantage of low volume residential streets and off-street facilities such as bike paths, sidewalks, and pedestrian bridges.
Resources
A signage program can support individuals choosing to make nonmotorized trips by advertising routes and popular destinations. The County may develop a uniform signage concept and plan for bikeways, including uniform sign designs, placement guidelines (e.g. sign location and frequency), a map of proposed bikeways and corridors to receive signage, and guides on the avoidance of placing excessive signage. Signage posted along bikeways should be consistent with other County signage standards.
Sample Bicycle Signage, Berkeley, CA.
A Share the Road campaign educates motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians about their legal rights and responsibilities on the road, and the need for increased courtesy and cooperation among all users. Share the Road campaigns often hold periodic traffic checkpoints along roadways with concentrated bicycle and pedestrian activity. Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians stop at these checkpoints to receive a Share the Road flyer and can give feedback to officers regarding the campaign. Checkpoints can also occur along local bikeways and paths. Public service announcements on radio and television can help promote the Share the Road campaign.
Bicycling Campaigns
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources Motorists, Bicyclists and Pedestrians DPW Bicycle groups, health organizations, local transit agencies (for advertising) Increase awareness of bicycling; promote safety Sonoma County (CA) Transit: http://www.sctransit.com/bikesafe/bikes.htm
Bike to Work and School events are high profile encouragement programs that introduce people to bicycle commuting. These events also serve to change the general publics perceptions and attitudes toward bicycle commuting. Common elements of Bike to Work events include commuting workshops, guided commutes, and group rides to increase comfort and familiarity with bicycling routes. Organizers can supplement these events with stations or bicycle pit stops to reward bicycle commuters with treats and other incentives, team bicycling challenges, and celebrity events (e.g., Mayor bikes to work).
Event Bicycle Parking
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources General Public, event attendees DPW Bicycle groups, local volunteers
Encourage bicycle travel; offer appealing alternative to driving for event attendees LACBC: http://la-bike.org/projects/bike-valet San Francisco Bicycle Coalition: http://www.sfbike.org/?valet
Providing safe and secure bicycle parking helps encourage individuals to bicycle. San Francisco passed a city ordinance that requires all major city events to provide bike parking and pioneered an innovative tool for stacking hundreds of bicycles without racks. The County of Imperial may consider temporary bicycle parking for events with expected large attendance and at regularly occurring events like a Farmers Market.
Community Bikeway/Walkway Adoption programs resemble the widely instituted Adopt-a-Highway programs throughout the country. These programs identify local individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in adopting a bikeway, walkway, or shared-use path. Adopting a facility means that a person or group is responsible for the facilitys maintenance, either through direct action or funding the Countys maintenance of that facility. For example, members of a local recreation group may volunteer every other weekend to sweep a bikeway and identify larger maintenance needs. Alternatively, a local bike shop may adopt a bikeway by providing funding for the maintenance costs. Some adopted bikeways post sponsors names on bikeway signs to display their commitment to bicycling. Community Walks/Bike Tours
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose General Public DPW Bicycle groups, community and other stakeholders Promote healthy, active living by encouraging residents to bike/walk to recreational facilities
Community walks and tours are healthy ways to promote historical and cultural aspects of the region. Groups that can organize community tours include County staff, neighborhood organizations, schools, and other groups that want the public to interact with the physical environment. Community walks and bike tours are effective tools for examining potential improvements to the physical environment and educating participants on resources/amenities available within the County.
6.3 Enforcement
Motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike are sometimes unaware of each others rights as they travel city streets. Enforcement programs target unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and enforce laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and conflicts. Enforcement fosters mutual respect between roadway users and improves safety. These programs generally require coordination between law enforcement, transportation agencies, and bicycling organizations. Educating the public through enforcement policies will supplement the physical improvements made in the County of Imperial.
California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21201 requires bicycles to mount a front white light and red rear reflectors when ridden at night. Bicycling without lights reduces bicyclists visibility and visibility to motor vehicles, and therefore increases bicyclists risks of being involved in bicycle-car crashes. For these reasons, increasing bicycle light use should be a top priority for improving bicycle safety in the County of Imperial. Bicycle light enforcement can effectively impact behavior particularly if bicyclists can avoid penalty by obtaining a bike light. One option is for officers to give offenders warnings, explain the law, and install a free bike light at the time of citation. Alternatively, officers can write fix-it tickets and waive the fine if bicyclists can prove that they have purchased a bike light within a specified timeframe. When citing bicyclists, officers can also provide coupons for free or discounted lights at a local bike shops, if available. Bike light outreach campaigns can include the following components: Placing advertisements on transit benches, transit vehicles, and local newspapers reminding bicyclists about the importance of bike lights. Distributing media releases with statistics about the importance of using bike lights and relevant legal statutes. Partnering with local cycling groups to publicize bicycle light use, especially at schools. Groups should receive campaign materials to distribute to constituents along with coupons for free or discounted bike lights. Stationing volunteers at key intersections and paths to thank bicyclists for bike lights, rewarding cyclists with a small gift. Organizing a community bike light parade with prizes. Providing discounts on bike lights and reflective gear at local bike shops.
Targeted enforcement
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources Cyclists and motorists CHP, Sheriffs Department and local law enforcement agencies DPW Increase safety by promoting awareness of bicycle/motorist issues and conflicts http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/01/30/alice-award-nominee-chief-jon-zeliff/
Traffic enforcement agencies, such as local Police and Sheriffs Departments, enforce laws pertaining to bicycles as part of the responsible normal operations. Targeted enforcement is one way to publicize bicycle laws in a highly visible and public manner. Targeted enforcement may take the form of intersection stings, handing out informational sheets to motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and enforcing speed limits and right-of-way.
Speed Radar Trailer / Permanent Speed Signs
Target Audience: Motorists Speed radar trailers can help reduce traffic speeds and enforce speed limits in areas with speeding problems. Police set up an unmanned trailer that displays the speed of approaching motorists along with a speed limit sign. Speed trailers may be effective on busier arterial roads without bikeway facilities or near schools with reported speeding. The speed trailers roadway placement should not obstruct bicycle traffic. Speed trailers work as both an educational and enforcement tool. By itself, the unmanned trailer educates motorists about their current speed in relation to the speed limit. They can also be transported easily to streets where local residents complain about speeding problems. The Sheriffs Department may station an officer near the trailer to issue speeding citations when speeding continues to occur.
County staff may provide the management role for this program, working with the public and determine which locations are in most need. This program can be administered randomly, cyclically, or as demand necessitates because of the speed trailers portability.
Target Audience: Cyclists and motorists On-bike officers are an excellent tool for community and neighborhood policing because they are more accessible to the public and able to mobilize in areas where patrol cars cannot (e.g., overcrossings and paths). Bike officers undergo special training in bicycle safety and bicyclerelated traffic laws and are therefore especially equipped to enforce laws pertaining to bicycling. Bicycle officers help educate cyclists and motorists through enforcement and also serve as excellent outreach personnel to the public at parades, street fairs, and other gatherings.
Many states, regional agencies, and cities have an official Bicycle Advisory Committee made of citizen volunteers, appointed by Board of Supervisors or the appropriate body, to advise on bicycling issues. An advisory committee establishes the regions commitment to making bicycling safer and more desirable and has the potential to assist the County in getting funding for bicycle-related projects. The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) should be composed of representatives from all bicycle stakeholder groups. The role of the BAC should include some or all of the following: Review and provide citizen input on capital project planning and design as it affects bicycling (e.g., corridor plans, street improvement projects, signing or signal projects, and parking facilities)
Review and comment on changes to zoning, development code, comprehensive plans, and other long-term planning and policy documents Participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of Bicycle Master Plans and bikeway facility standards Provide a formal liaison between local government, staff, and the public Develop and monitor goals and indices related to bicycling in the County Promote bicycling, including bicycle safety and education
Because BAC members are volunteers, it is essential to have strong participation in order for the committee to be successful. A County staff person should be formally assigned to the BAC and should take charge of managing the application process, managing agendas and minutes, scheduling meetings, bringing agency issues to the BAC, and reporting back to the agency and governing body about the BACs recommendations and findings. County Bicycle Coordinator
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Bicycle transportation professionals DPW Imperial County Administration Supervise the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan. Prioritize and increase funding for bicycle related projects and programs. LAB: http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/why_bike_ped_staff_april_2010.pdf
Resources
To assist with implementation of the many projects and programs recommended in this Plan, the County should establish a part/full-time Bicycle Coordinator position, so that staff time is available to administer and advance the Countys bicycle planning and programmatic efforts. The job duties for this staff person would include overseeing the implementation of this plan, prepare for future Bicycle Master Plan updates, coordinating a community stakeholders group and administering the program recommendations listed in this plan, as well as expanding on these programs in the future.
Resources
Local governments adopt Complete Streets policies in order to direct transportation planners and engineers to consistently design roadways with all users in mind (e.g., motorists, transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, older people, children, and people with disabilities). Once a policy is in place, training is recommended for professionals whose work will be affected by the policy (e.g., planners and engineers). The Complete Streets Coalition provides the following guidance on Complete Streets principles and policy: The Principle: Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street. Creating Complete Streets means changing the policies and practices of transportation agencies. A Complete Streets policy ensures that the entire right-of-way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Transportation agencies must ensure that all road projects result in a Complete Street appropriate to local context and needs.
Elements of a Good Complete Streets Policy: Specifies that all users includes pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists, of all ages and abilities. Aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network. Recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced. Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right-of-way. Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.
Directs the use of the latest and best design standards. Directs that complete streets solutions fit within the context of the community. Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.
Resources
Many jurisdictions do not perform regular bicycle counts. As a result, they do not have a mechanism for tracking bicycling trends over time, or for evaluating the impact of projects, policies, and programs. It is recommended that the County of Imperial perform and/or coordinate annual counts of bicyclists (and ideally pedestrians, as well) on both on- and off-street facilities according to national practices. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project has developed a recommended methodology, survey and count forms, and reporting forms. This approach may be modified to serve the needs and interests of individual jurisdictions. The County should manage tracking, analysis, and reporting activities. Counts can be done manually by staff/volunteers or using video or a variety of other technologies.
Bicycle Counts are a benchmark to determine the effectiveness of bicycle improvements based on the growth of bicycle users.
incorporated cities proposed bikeways will eventually become existing bicycle facilities and thus facilities that link to them will enhance future connectivity. Connectivity to Activity Centers Activity centers include major commuter destinations, like commercial and employment centers, as well as outdoor recreational facilities. These locations generate many trips which could be made by bicycle if the proper facilities were available. Bicycle facilities on roadways that connect to activity centers are of priority to the County of Imperial. Safety Bicycle facilities have the potential to increase safety by reducing the potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, which often result in collisions. Proposed facilities that are located on roadways with past bicycle-automobile collisions are important to the County. Public Input The County of Imperial solicited public input through community workshops and an online survey. Facilities that community members identified as desirable for future bicycle facilities are of priority to the network because they address the needs of the public. County Staff Input Bicycle facilities that currently have ongoing funding applications or are part of forecasted capital improvements are identified as priority by County staff.
Score
43
Total
Criteria
Description
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Worthington Road McCabe Road Clark Road Ross Road Dogwood Road Dogwood Road Old Route 111 Austin Road Aten Road Aten Road La Brucherie Road Dogwood Road Austin Road Marina Drive La Brucherie Road McCabe Road Railway Multi-use Pathway Evan Hewes Hwy Drew Road Rutherford Road Cole Road Worthington Road Dogwood Road La Brucherie Road Salton Borrego Seaway Railway Multi-use Path Desert Shores Desert Shores Drive Brawley Avenue Salton Bay Drive
Austin Road La Brucherie Road El Centro city limits Austin Road McCabe Road Brawley city limits Worthington Road Ross Road Imperial city limits Austin Road Imperial city limits Danenberg Road Keystone Road Sea View Drive Larsen Road Brockman Road El Centro city limits Huff Road I-8 Dietrich Road Calexico city limits P Street Aten Road Wake Avenue State Hwy 86 Seeley city limits Palm Drive State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 Cristal Avenue
La Brucherie Road Barbara Worth Road Willoughby Road El Centro city limits Willoughby Road Aten Road Evan Hewes Hwy McCabe Road Dogwood Road Imperial city limits Evan Hewes Hwy McCabe Road Ross Road State Hwy 86 Neckel Road La Brucherie Road Holtville city limits Drew Road State Hwy 99 Highland Canal Barbara Worth Road State Hwy 111 El Centro city limits Ferrell Road Imperial County boarder El Centro city limits State Hwy 86 Coolidge Springs Road End of Road Sea View Drive
1 8.6 3.9 0.5 3.0 9.0 3.4 2.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.9 9.1 3.1 1.0 3.5 7.7 2.1 6.8 9.0 2.9 3.0 1.5 4.2 7.6 6.7 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.1
Final Score
33 29 26 22 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 9 9
Miles
Class
Name
From
To
Project ID
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Sea View Drive Coolidge Springs Road Brawley Avenue Beach Club Drive Meads Road Center Street Eddins Road Holt Road Imperial Hwy Westside Road Old Route 111 Dietrich Road Anza Road Brockman Road Forrester Road Treadwell Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Nile Drive Marina Drive Marina Drive Boars Road Forrester Road Rutherford Road Ben Hulse Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy English Road Sinclair Road Gentry Road Barbara Worth Road Norrish Road
Salton Bay Drive Desert Shores Drive Holt Ave Beach Club Dogwood Road Howenstein Road English Road Norrish Road Ocotillo Community Park Evan Hewes Hwy Brawley city limits (Best Road) Rutherford Road Ferrell Road McCabe Road Baughman Road Beach Club Drive Beach Front Atlantic Boulevard Sea View Drive Atlantic Boulevard Dean Road Walker Road State Hwy 111 Dietrich Road Holtville city limits Sinclair Road Gentry Road Sinclair Road Evan Hewes Hwy Highline Road
Marina Drive State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 Treadwell Boulevard State Hwy 111 8th Street Lyerly Road Holtville city limits Imperial Place Vaughn Road Worthington Road Shank Road Calexico city limits Anza Road Carter Road Azure Avenue Marina Drive Treadwell Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard State Hwy 86 Kalin Road Howenstein Road Dietrich Road Butters Road U.S Hwy 80 Eddins Road English Road Walker Road State Hwy 98 Highline Canal
III III III III III II II II II III II II II II II III III III III III II II II II II II II II II III
0.9 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 8.5 3.3 3.4 6.2 6.6 1.4 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.2 6.1 6.9 3.5 4.0 7.0 7.6 1.5
$2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $10,000 $80,000 $80,000 $81,000 $184,000 $256,000 $261,000 $268,000 $496,000 $527,000 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $4,000 $5,000 $160,000 $162,000 $178,000 $182,000 $206,000 $281,000 $322,000 $557,000 $607,000 $4,000
Final Score
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3
Miles
Class
Name
From
To
Project ID
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Shank Road Walker Road Larsen Road Kalin Road Willoughby Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Holt Road Pulliam Road Keystone Road Keystone Road Butters Road Dietrich Road Imperial Hwy Dogwood Road Rutherford Road Ferrell Road Gonder Road Carter Road Norrish Road Anza Road Imler Road Kalin Road Worthington Road Highline Road Huff Road Evan Hewes Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy Highline Canal Path
Dietrich Road Gentry Road La Brucherie Road Rutherford Road Clark Road Carter Road Imler Road Worthington Road State Highway 98 Austin Road Forrester Road Ben Hulse Hwy Shank Road Imperial Place Willoughby Road Kalin Road La Brucherie Road Butters Road Webster Road Holt Road Pulliam Road Forrester Road Boarts Road State Hwy 111 Gonder Road Imler Road Huff Road U.S. Hwy 8 Noffsinger Road
Dietrich Road Forrester Road State Hwy 86 Boarts Road Dogwood Road Imler Road Keystone Road Norrish Road Anza Road State Hwy 86 Austin Road Gonder Road State Hwy 78 State Hwy 99 State Hwy 98 State Hwy 111 Anza Road Highline Road Forrester Road Highline Road Ferrell Road Huff Road Webster Road Holt Road Norrish Road Evan Hewes Hwy S-2- Imperial Hwy End of Road Norrish Road
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I I
0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.1 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.5 7.5 8.3 10.0 16.7 19.2 29.2
$22,000 $38,000 $39,000 $40,000 $45,000 $49,000 $71,000 $79,000 $82,000 $114,000 $123,000 $125,000 $125,000 $127,000 $164,000 $238,000 $265,000 $275,000 $313,000 $323,000 $329,000 $341,000 $359,000 $600,000 $663,000 $799,000 $1,333,000 $15,366,000 $23,334,000
Final Score
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0
Miles
Class
Name
From
To
Project
Drew Road Bicycle Lane Project: from Interstate 8 to Even Hewes Highway Ross Road Phase III Bicycle Lane Project: From Forrester Road to El Centro city limits Resurfacing of Drew Road: From Ross Road to Evan Hewes Highway (Bicycle lane portion of project, approximately one third of total project).
Amount
$373,270 $468,265
2009-2010 Total
$80,924 $922,459
Table 7-4 provides a detailed summary of the fully burdened costs of the different bikeway facility types. Unit costs presented are planning level cost estimates based on typical or average costs. Planning costs do not reflect project specific factors such as intensive grading, landscaping, intersection modifications, and right-of-way acquisitions that may increase the actual costs of construction. Table 7-4: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Facilities Facility
Standard Class I (per mile) Class II Bike Lanes: Both Roadway Sides (per mile) Class II Bike Lanes: with minor improvements (per mile) Class III Bike Route (per mile) Class III Bike Route widening (per mile) Inverted U Bicycle Rack (ea) Share the Road Signs (ea) Wayfinding/Destination Sign (ea)
Cost Materials
$800,000 $30,000 $80,000 $2,400 $80,000 $200 $250 $500 Construction, signing Striping and signing Striping and signing, minor resurfacing and widening Signing and minor surface repair Signing, markings, roadway widening Rack Signs, posts Signs, posts
Before constructing recommended facilities, additional fieldwork will be required to verify existing conditions. These include but are not limited to: roadway widths, right-of-way, travel lanes, bicycle and motor vehicle travel patterns and conflicts, signal timing, and pavement conditions. Final bikeway treatments should be selected based on verified conditions. The total implementation cost of the County of Imperial proposed bicycle network is estimated at approximately $68 million, as is shown in Table 7-5. Table 7-5: Planning Level Cost Summary by Bikeway Type Bikeway Class
Class I Bike Paths Class II Bike Lanes Class III Bike Routes Total
Length (miles)
63.7 219.4 50.6 333.7
Planning-Level Cost
$50,956,000 $15,522,000 $1,813,000 $68,291,000
closely coordinated with the respective property owners prior to developing detailed construction documents. Bicycle network maintenance unit costs are shown in Table 7-6. Bicycle facility maintenance costs are based on per-mile estimates, which cover labor, supplies, and amortized equipment costs for weekly trash removal, monthly sweeping, and bi-annual resurfacing and repair patrols. Other maintenance costs include restriping bike lane lines, sweeping debris, and calibrating signals for bicycle sensitivity. Table 7-6: Recommended Bikeway Network, Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates Facility Type
Class I Maintenance
Unit Cost
$8,500 per mi/year $2,000 per mi/year $1,000 per mi/year
Notes
Lighting and removal of debris and vegetation overgrowth. Repainting lane stripes and stencils, sign replacement as needed Sign and stencil replacement as needed
Class II Maintenance
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA). Also known as the Federal Transportation Bill, the $286.5 billion SAFETEA-LU bill authorizes federal surface transportation programs for the five-year period between 2005 and 2009. As of September 30, 2009, SAFETEA-LU has expired, though the bills programs have been kept alive at a 30% reduction in funding by Congress through a series of continuing resolutions. Administration of SAFETEA-LU funding occurs through the State (Caltrans and the State Resources Agency) and through regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding programs are oriented toward utilitarian transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections. SAFETEA-LU programs require a local match of 11.47%. Specific funding programs under SAFETEA-LU include, but are not limited to: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Recreational Trails Program Safe Routes to School Program Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program
The following sections describe these and other federal funding sources Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds are programmed by the Federal Transportation Bill for projects that are likely to contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard, and provide congestion mitigation. These funds can be used for a variety of bicycle and pedestrian projects, particularly those that are developed primarily for transportation purposes. The funds can be used either for construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways, or for non-construction projects related to safe bicycle and pedestrian use (maps, brochures, etc.). The projects must be tied to a plan adopted by the State of California and the Regional Government Agency. Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program of SAFETEA-LU provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include bicycling, hiking, in-line skating, and equestrian use. In California, the funds are administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for: Maintenance and restoration of existing trails. Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment. Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails. Acquisition of easements or property for trails. State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a state's funds). Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a state's funds).
In 2009, $4.6 million was available to California jurisdictions through the Recreational Trails Program. More information is available at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/index.htm. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Authorized under Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU, the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program came into effect in August 2005. Consistent with other federal programs, each State Department of Transportation (DOT) is held responsible for the development and implementation of grant funds made available to the states through this new program throughout the life of SAFETEA-LU. Some expected outcomes of the program include: Increased bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety around schools. More children walking and bicycling to and from schools. Decreased traffic congestion around schools. Reduced childhood obesity. Improved air quality, community safety and security, and community involvement. Improved partnerships among schools, local agencies, parents, community groups, and nonprofit organizations.
A minimum of 70 percent of each years apportionment will be made available for infrastructure projects with up to 30 percent for non-infrastructure projects. SRTS Infrastructure Projects Infrastructure projects are engineering projects or capital improvements that will substantially improve safety and the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. They typically involve the planning, design, and construction of facilities within a two-mile radius from a grade school or middle school. The maximum funding cap for an infrastructure project is $1 million. Caltrans does not set minimum caps. The project cost estimate may include eligible direct and indirect costs. Eligible projects may include but are not limited to: New bicycle trails and paths, bicycle racks, bicycle lane striping and widening, new sidewalks, widening of sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, curbs, gutters, and curb ramps. In addition new pedestrian trails, paths, and pedestrian over and under crossings, roundabouts, bulb-outs, speed bumps, raised intersections, median refuges, narrowed traffic lanes, lane reductions, full or halfstreet closures, and other speed reduction techniques are eligible. Included in the category of traffic control devices are new or upgraded traffic signals, crosswalks, pavement markings, traffic signs, traffic stripes, in-roadway crosswalk lights, flashing beacons, bicycle-sensitive signal actuation devices, pedestrian countdown signals, vehicle speed feedback signs, pedestrian activated upgrades, and all other pedestrian and bicycle-related traffic control devices.
Infrastructure projects should directly support increased safety and convenience for children in K-8 (including children with disabilities) to walk and bicycle to school.
SRTS Non-Infrastructure Projects Non-infrastructure projects are education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that are intended to change community behavior, attitudes, and social norms to make it safer for children in grades K-8 to walk and bicycle to school. Non-infrastructure projects should increase the likelihood of programs becoming institutionalized once in place. Deliverables from a non-infrastructure project must be clearly stated in the application and tangible samples must be attached to the final invoice or progress report (i.e., sample training materials or promotional brochures). The funding cap for a non-infrastructure project is $500,000. Multi-year funding allows the applicant to add adequate staff and deliver their project over the course of four years, therefore reducing overhead and increasing project sustainability. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP) Implementation grants under the TCSP Program are intended to provide financial resources to states, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments to enable them to carry out activities that address transportation efficiency while meeting community preservation and environmental goals. Examples of such policies or programs include spending policies that direct funds to high-growth regions of the country, urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan expansion, and green corridors programs that provide access to major highway corridors for areas targeted for efficient and compact development. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The Land and Water Conservation Fund allocates money to state and local governments to acquire new land for recreational purposes, including Bicycle Paths, and support facilities such as bike racks. The Fund is administered by the National Parks Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation and has been reauthorized until 2015. Cities, counties and districts authorized to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain park and recreation facilities are eligible to apply. Applicants must fund the entire project, and will be reimbursed for 50 percent of costs. Property acquired or developed under the program must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use. The grant process for local agencies is competitive, and 60 percent of grants are reserved for Southern California. In 2009, approximately $1.25 million was allocated to fund recommended projects in California. Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) The Rivers Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) is a National Parks Service program which provides technical assistance via direct staff involvement, to establish and restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds, and open space. The RTCA program provides only for planning assistance, as there are no implementation monies available. Projects are prioritized for assistance based upon criteria which include conserving significant community resources, fostering cooperation between agencies, serving a large number of users, encouraging public involvement in planning and implementation and focusing on lasting accomplishments.
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Activities Transportation Enhancement (TE) Activities are a subset of federal Surface Transportation Program funds whose aim is to help expand travel choice and enhance the transportation experience. Included in the list of activities eligible for funding are the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the provision of pedestrian and bicycle safety and educational activities. Californias annual allocation of TE funds through the end of the SAFETEA-LU bill was $74.5 million.
Eligible project activities include project planning, preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction and/or rehabilitation. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) 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, such as trails. State gasoline tax monies fund the EEMP, which annually allocates $10 million for mitigation projects. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a state safety program that funds safety improvements on all public roads and highways. These funds attempt to reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at improved locations. Local agencies compete for HSIP funds each year by submitting candidate safety projects to Caltrans for review and analysis. Caltrans prioritizes these projects statewide and releases an annual HSIP Program Plan that identifies the approved projects. The State disperses funding annually following the federal fiscal year. Approximately $27 million dollars were available in the 2007 funding cycle. The HSIP considers funding two project types: Safety Index and Work Type. Safety Index Projects qualify for funding based on a State-calculated safety index. These projects receive a statewide priority with this index. A project that fails to receive funding under the Safety Index category automatically moves into the Work Type category and competes for funding with other projects in this category. Work Type projects receive approximately 25 percent of the available HSIP funds, while Benefit/Cost projects receive about 75 percent. Projects in the Safety Index category include installing raised median islands, protected left-turn phasing, and widened roadways. Work Type Projects include curb ramps, crosswalks, installation of right turn lanes, and construction of new bus stop aprons. Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant The Office of Traffic Safety Grants (OTS) fund safety programs and equipment. Bicycle and pedestrian safety is a specifically-identified priority. This category of grants includes enforcement and education programs, which can encompass a wide range of activities, including bicycle helmet distribution, design and printing of billboards and bus posters, other public information materials, the development of safety components as part of physical education curriculum, or police safety demonstrations through school visitations. The grant cycle typically begins with a request for proposals in October, which are due the following January. In 2006, OTS awarded $103 million to 290 agencies. Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other non-motorized as well as motorized uses. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for: Maintenance and restoration of existing trails. Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages. Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment.
Construction of new trails (with restrictions for new trails on federal lands). Acquisition of easements or property for trails. State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a state's funds). Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a state's funds).
Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program The state-legislated Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program began in 1999. Since then, seven funding cycles have been completed. The state typically announces the list of awarded projects in the fall. Although both the federal and state programs have similar goals and objectives, they have different funding sources, local funding match requirements, and other program requirements (see previous section). The SR2S program aims to reduce injuries and fatalities to schoolchildren and to encourage increased walking and bicycling among students. The program achieves these goals by constructing facilities that enhance safety for students in grades K-12 who walk or bicycle to school. Enhancing the safety of the pathways, trails, sidewalks, and crossings also attracts and encourages other students to walk and bicycle. The SR2S program is primarily a construction program. Construction improvements must occur on public property. Improvements can occur on public school grounds providing the cost is incidental to the overall project cost. Statewide, the program typically provides approximately $25 million annually. The maximum reimbursement percentage for any SR2S project is ninety percent. The maximum amount that SR2S funds to any single project is $900,000. Eligible project elements include bicycle facilities, traffic control devices and traffic calming measures. Up to ten percent of project funding can go toward outreach, education, encouragement, and/or enforcement activities. The 2009 cycle provided $48.5 million in funding. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III (SB 821) TDA Article III funds are distributed by the State of California and administered at the County level, which can be used by cities for planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) administers this program and establishes its policies. Fund allocation to counties occurs on an annual cycle based on population. Local agencies may either draw down these funds or place them on reserve. Agencies must submit a claim form to SCAG by the end of the allocated fiscal year. Failure to do so may result in losing the allocated funds. TDA Article III 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.
Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including installation of signage, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Route improvements such as signal controls for bicyclists, bicycle loop detectors, rubberized rail crossings, and bicycle-friendly drainage grates. Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, changing rooms, restrooms, 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.
in new developments, and bicycle facilities in tourist districts are good candidate projects for exploring public/private partnerships for funding. Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time, which may be used to implement the network as defined in this Plan.
Table A-1: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan BTA Compliance Checklist
BTA 891.2 (a) (b) Required Plan Elements 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. 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. A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. Location Within the Plan Table 4-4; p. 4-6 Table 4-5; p. 4-8 Text p. 1-4 Table 1-1; p. 1-4 Figure 1-2; p. 1-6 Text p. 3-1 Figure 3-1; p. 3-2 Text p. 5-6 to 5-19 Figures: 5-1, 5-2 & 5-3; p. 5-12 to 514 Text p. 3-3 to 3-4 & 5-19 to 5-20 Figure 5-4; p. 5-22 Text p. 3-3 to 3-4 & 5-19 to 5-20 Figure 5-4; p. 5-22 Appendix C Text p. 5-19 to 5-20 Figure 5-4; p. 5-22 Text p. 3-5 Text p. 6-1 to 6-11
(c)
(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. 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. 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. 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. A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan. 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. A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation. 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.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h) (i)
Text p. 4-22 to 4-23 Text p. 2-3 to 2-6 Appendix B Text p. 7-2 to 7-3 Table 7-2; p. 7-4 Text p. 7-8 Table 7-3; p. 7-7 Table 7-5; p. 7-8 Table 7-6; p. 7-9
(j) (k)
The 2002 City of Brawley Bicycle Master Plan identifies a bicycle network to serve as a tool for planning future bicycle facilities and roadway improvements. This plan examines existing facilities, bicycle needs assessment, planning opportunities, recommended bicycle network, funding costs and a priority list for implementation. Similarly, the City of Brawley General Plan identifies the opportunity to enhance connection linkages by providing more pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The specific goals with regards to the future of bicycling in Brawley include:
Developing and implementing a non-vehicular circulation system through pedestrian facilities and bicycle trails along major street corridors that are consistent with adjacent jurisdictions as an alternative transportation mode and recreational use. Promote the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians by adhering to uniform standards and practices to encourage the safe utilization of easements and/or right-of-ways along flood control channels, public utility right-of-ways, and street right-of-ways and by providing safety clinics/courses. Support and coordinate the development and maintenance of bikeways and trails in conjunction with the master plans of the appropriate agencies throughout the County of Imperial. Require dedication and improvement of these facilities where deemed necessary to meet public needs. Encourage and emphasize the construction and use of HOV lanes, as well as light rail and bus routes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve mobility and air quality. Design an integrated open space system that includes bicycle and pedestrian trail network expansion to establish links to the Citys parks and recreational facilities.
Implementation The General Plan discusses the implementation of the proposed bikeway system over time, with the availability of appropriate funding opportunities through grant programs or through implementation of roadway improvements or regular roadway maintenance. Once fully implemented, the City of Brawleys bikeway network will include 24.21-miles of bikeways that connect to the schools, parks, and the City Center. Existing and Proposed Facilities Figure B-1 presents The City of Brawley existing and proposed bicycle facilities, which include 4.5 miles of bikeways throughout the city. Currently, there are 2 Class I looping paths in both of the citys parks (totaling 1.7 miles of Class I). The Class II facilities run throughout the city and serve as connecting corridors to the center of the city, where most civic activity occurs. The Plan proposes approximately 20 additional miles of bikeways, including 18 miles of proposed Class II lanes. These facilities provide strong connections to the surrounding areas and nearby cities.
Adopted November 8th, 2002, the City of Calexico Bicycle Master Plan identifies key destination areas and determines where appropriate facilities should be located in order to provide cyclists with a comprehensive, wellconnected bicycle network as well as to facilitate obtaining state and federal funding for implementation of the Plan.
Existing Conditions State Route 98 in Calexico. Currently, the City offers relatively few bicycling facilities, including designated bicycle routes and bike racks located at the local schools, San Diego State University, and City Hall. Two primary traffic routes extend through the City: Imperial Avenue (SR 111) extends north and south connecting to Interstate 8, while Birch Street and SR 98 cross Imperial Avenue providing an eastwest roadway through the city. In the City of Calexico, residential neighborhoods are all within two miles (a reasonable cycling distance) of retail centers, employment, schools & public transportation routes. Recommendations
This Master Plan recommends implementation of a 45.11-mile bicycle system that will provide a network of bicycle lanes and routes that connect to the schools, parks, employment centers, and the city center. Figure B-2 shows the recommended bikeway network which consists of: 11.33 miles of Class I bicycle paths (a multi-use two-way pathway eight feet wide), 24.09 miles of Class II bicycle lanes (a five-foot lane within the roadway), 7.69 miles of Class III bicycle routes (a designated route along an existing roadway), and 2.0 mile rural trail along the New River.
The estimated cost to implement the bikeway system is $2 million. The Class I bicycle facilities are estimated at a cost of $1.8 million. The 31.78 miles of on-street facilities are estimated at $122,023. Approximately $80,000 has been estimated to complete a five-foot wide rural pathway along the New River. It is anticipated that rehabilitation of the New River will involve comprehensive planning effort and funding strategies.
Adopted October 2009, the purpose of this Master Plan is to update the 2000 Bicycle Master Plan. This updated Bicycle Master Plan qualifies the City of El Centro for applying for funds through the California Department of Transportations Bicycle Transportation Account. El Centros Bicycle Master Plan update is consistent with the existing County of Imperial and City of Imperial Bicycle Master Plans.
Existing Conditions
Prior to the 2000 Bicycle Master Plan, El Centro had approximately 0.7 mile of Class I, 0.75 mile of Class II, and 14.5 miles of Class III. As a result of the Plan implementation, by 2005 the Citys bicycle network included an additional 25 miles of Class III bicycle routes and 0.7 miles of Class I bike paths. These projects were financed through BTA, SR2S, and TEA funds.
Collisions
The City of El Centros Police Department records indicate that between 2000 and 2008, 125 bicycleinvolved collisions occurred in El Centro, including 2 fatalities and 123 injuries. On average, the City of El Centro has experienced nearly 16 bicycle-related collisions per year during this eight year period. This data only includes bicycle and motor vehicle collisions and does not include collisions between bicycles and obstructions, bicycles and bicycles, or bicycles and pedestrians.
Recommendations
The Master Plan recommends the implementation of 24 miles of bicycle facilities for an estimated cost of $3 million. The plan includes 7 miles of Class-I, 10.90 miles of .Class II and 6.2 miles of Class III bicycle facilities. The proposed network will connect the existing bicycle facilities to County regional bikeway network and the City of Imperial proposed bicycle network. Figure B-3 presents the recommended bike network for the City of El Centro.
The plan is set to be implemented through prioritization at an estimated cost of $932,460 for all proposed bicycle facilities. To minimize costs, all proposed facilities are to fit within the existing infrastructure and are to follow lane striping guidelines. The plan primarily addresses estimated costs, maintenance costs and funding sources.
2. School and commuter bikeways that are easily recognized and accessible from residential areas. 3. Bicycle storage facilities and/or bicycle racks for new parks, retail, and employment centers. 4. Integrate bikeways on roadway improvements and/or new construction projects based on the recommended bikeways network. Figure B-7 shows the City of Calipatria recommended bicycle network.
Signage for on-street bikeways includes standard BIKE LANE and BIKE ROUTE signage, as well as supplemental signage such as SHARE THE ROAD and warning signage for constrained bike lane conditions. The CA MUTCD provides further guidance on bikeway signage.
Graphic
Potential Applications
Various situations, specific to each site. The County should install SHARE THE ROAD signs along all Class III Bike Routes in addition to standard BIKE ROUTE signage. SHARE THE ROAD signs may be installed at one-half mile intervals along the designated route.
Guidelines
Signage should be installed on existing signposts if possible, reducing visual clutter along the path or roadway. Bike route and bike lane signs should be placed at decision points. Where there is significant distance between decision points, bike route and bike lane signs should be repeated at regular intervals to confirm the route.
Wayfinding signage acts as a map on the street for bicyclists and is an important component of a bikeway network. Caltrans D11-1 and D-1 signage should be used on all designated bikeways at decision points, where users can turn onto or off the bikeway such as at an intersection.
Graphic
Potential Applications
Guidelines
Wayfinding signage should be place at all intersections on the bikeway network, at minimum. Signage should be installed on existing signposts if possible, reducing visual clutter along the path or roadway. Where there is significant distance between decision points, wayfinding signage should be located at intervals of one-mile Each sign should have a maximum of three destinations. Signage should be focused on major destinations such as cities and counties; transit stations; and community centers such as parks, schools and recreation centers.