Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Electric Scooters
The CVC defines an electric scooter as a
“motorized scooter”: any two-wheeled device
that has handlebars, has a floorboard that is
designed to be stood upon when riding, and is
powered by an electric motor. This device may
also have a driver seat that does not interfere
with the ability of the rider to stand and ride and
may also be designed to be powered by human
propulsion (CVC Section 407.5). Limitations on
their use include:
• Riders must use Class II bike lanes when they
are present (CVC Section 21229).
• Motorized scooters are not allowed on roads
with a speed limit in excess of 25 miles per
hour, unless in a Class II bike lane or Class
IV separated bikeway (CVC section 21235).
This prohibition includes street designated
as Class III bicycle routes. A local authority
may, by ordinance or resolution, authorize
the operation of a motorized scooter outside
of a Class II or Class IV bikeway on a highway
with a speed limit of up to 35 miles per hour.
• Motorized scooters are allowed on all other
classes of bikeways unless prohibited by the
local jurisdiction (CVC Section 21230).
• Riders are prohibited from using sidewalks,
except when entering or leaving adjacent
property.
• A helmet is required for all riders under 18
years of age.
• A valid driver’s license or instruction permit
is required.
• Speeds are limited to 15 miles per hour,
• Leaving a scooter on its side on a sidewalk,
or otherwise parking one so that there was
not an adequate path for pedestrians, is
prohibited.
Electrically Motorized Boards
According to California Vehicle Code, the term
“electrically motorized board” is any wheeled
device that has a floorboard designed to be
stood upon when riding with a maximum
speed of 20 miles per hour. The device may
be designed to also be powered by human
propulsion (CVC Section 313.5).
• Use is restricted to roads with speed limits
of 35 miles per hour or less, unless operated
in a Class II or Class IV bikeway. On other
bikeways, speed is limited to 15 miles per
hour (CVC Section 21294).
• Riders must be 16 years of age or older.
• A helmet is required for all riders.
Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices
According to California Vehicle Code, the term
“electric personal assistive mobility device”
(EPAMD) means a self-balancing, non-tandem
two-wheeled device that can turn in place, with
a maximum speed of 12.5 miles per hour (CVC
Section 313). The most common example is the
Segway. “Pedestrian” includes use of EPMADs
(CVC Section 467). EPAMDs can operate on
bikeways and sidewalks unless prohibited by the
local jurisdiction, but must yield to pedestrians
(CVC Sections 21281.5 and 21282)
80
Access
Laws for each electric device are different.
E-bikes generally have more options for
locations to ride, as summarized in Table 7.
Bike and Scooter Share
In addition to private ownership, bikes, e-bikes,
and scooters are available through short-term
point-to-point rental or “shared” systems. Bike
share systems at first were primarily based on
docks, or unmanned physical locations where
a bike could be rented or returned, with docks
located at destinations across an area.
More recently “dockless” systems, where bikes
or scooters, equipped with appropriate wireless
technology, could be rented at any location
or left at any location, have become more
widespread. The systems can often be deployed
and operated at lower cost that docked systems.
However, concerns have arisen in some
locations about dockless bikes or scooters being
parked in inappropriate locations, in particular
when they have blocked pedestrian flows. Some
cities have responded to this by developing
“corrals,” marked pavement locations where
bikes or scooters can be left standing out of the
way of pedestrians and other traffic.
Considerations When Determining Access Policy
When determining access for electric bicycles
and other electric devices, the following issues
should be considered:
• Electric mobility devices provide increased
mobility for users who are less able to use
regular bicycles due to age or disability.
• Terrain with frequent elevation changes may
discourage some people from walking or
bicycling as transportation. Electric mobility
devices may encourage more people to
reduce use of motor vehicles.
• Higher-speed electric mobility devices may
generally be faster than most bicycles and
pedestrians.
• Some non-electric bike users and
pedestrians may consider e-bikes and other
powered to detract from their experience on
bikeways and trails.
• Consideration should be given to regulating
parking and storage of devices so that they
do not impede pedestrian or other traffic, in
particular through the use of corrals.
• The data that bike and scooter share
companies collect can be valuable to a
jurisdiction seeking to understand the
movement of people and planning for them.
Table 7 State Restrictions* on Electric Mobility Devices by Facility Type Device Type Facility Type: Class I shared
use paths
Class II
bike lanes
Class III
bike routes
Class IV
separated
bikeways
Class 1 E-Bike Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Class 2 E-Bike Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Class 3 E-Bike Prohibited Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Electric Scooter** Allowed** Allowed** Allowed** Allowed** Electrically Motorized Board Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed * Local jurisdictions may enact further restrictions.
** Prohibited on roadways with speed limits above 35 miles per hour 81 Jllll!U
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Policy Options
Use of these devices is expect to continue to
expand, and sharing services are expected to
spread.
Electric scooters have spread rapidly into
different cities, but some concerns have
attended their spread. A large concern with
scooters has been their mixing with much
slower pedestrian traffic. Some cities have
responded by prohibiting sidewalk use, but
on streets with fast vehicles and heavy traffic
without bike lanes, they may be forced t to
mix with vehicular traffic, which may be less
comfortable or safe and reduce overall use.
Speed limits for scooters are another option, but
enforcement may be challenging.
Jurisdictions have several policy options for
e-bikes and other electric mobility devices.
Different policies may be enacted for each
device. Access options include:
Maintain existing access as allowed by state law.
This option provides the most mobility
and accessibility for those who use these
transportation options.
Prohibit access to sidewalks and Class I shareduse paths, where pedestrians are also present, but continue access to other bikeways.
• This option separates the slowest and some
of the fastest users of the path, but will not
eliminate all fast riders, as regular bicycles
may travel as fast as or faster than e-devices.
• This option would result in more e-devices
mixing with motor vehicle traffic.
• In some locations, there may be no access
for electric scooters, which are prohibited
from roads with speed limits greater than 35
mph unless a bike lane or separated bikeway
is available.
For Class 3 e-bikes, prohibit access to all
bikeways except Class III bike routes.
• This option provides the greatest restriction
and separation.
• This option would force e-devices to mix
with vehicular traffic, which may be less
comfortable or safe and reduce overall use
of e-devices, and under some conditions
may be prohibited by state law.
When developing these policies, consideration
should also be given to other issues:
• Develop policies concerning parking and
storage of these devices, especially sharing
systems, to minimize impacts on flows
of pedestrians and other vehicles. These
policies may require use of corrals, prohibit
blocking of entrances, or other aspects.
• Develop data sharing agreements in
conjunction with permitting new shared
services.
82
83
84 55 I
-------- ------ Page 167 of 256
Network
Recommendations
This chapter discusses the recommended
networks for walking, bicycling, and supportive
facilities for each city and the unincorporated
county.
Project Development
The proposed projects represent a long-term
vision of active transportation facilities for the
region. This includes shared-use paths and
trails, bike lanes and boulevards, sidewalks,
and crossing enhancements. A focus is placed
on safe routes to school, connections across
barriers, access to destinations, closing gaps, and
recreational opportunities. The recommended
project type is based on the design considerations
and best practices discussed in chapter 4. In
general, project locations were identified based
on the following considerations:
• Connectivity to destinations such as schools,
parks, trails, and civic institutions
• Gaps in or upgrades to the existing network
• Collision history
• Priority projects from previously adopted
plans
• Community input
• Feedback from jurisdiction staff
85
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Prioritization and Cost
Prioritizing projects provides an understanding
of how to target investments to meet
community needs and strategically position
projects for competitive grants. Project
prioritization reflects the overall goals of the
ATP by focusing on safety, access to schools
and community destinations, equity, and
connectivity. Each project was scored by a set
of factors, then weighted by significance and
normalized to provide a total score for each
project by jurisdiction. These factors are aligned
with the eligibility criteria for the California
Active Transportation Program, which remains
the primary statewide source of funding for
the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian
projects. Details of the prioritization process can
be found in Appendix C. Prioritization factors
include:
Safety
• History of fatal or severe injury collisions
• Presence on Bike/Ped high injury network
Access and Connectivity
• Contributes to low stress network or closes
critical gap
• Proximity to schools
• Population density
• Proximity to libraries, parks, and transit stops
Equity and Disadvantaged Community Factors
• Student poverty (schools with high rates of
free and reduced-price meal eligibility)
• Healthy Places Index
• CalEnviroScreen
• Median Household Income
• Climate and Environmental Justice Screening
Tool (CEJST)
• Equitable Transportation Community ranking
(ETC)
Projects range in cost and effort and may be
years-long efforts. Feasibility is also dependent
upon the availability, reallocation, and/or
acquisition of funding. Additionally, although
projects are prioritized based on the criteria
noted above, projects may be integrated into
maintenance projects and undertaken for a
lower cost than if implemented separately. In
these cases, some lower priority projects may
be implemented before higher priority projects.
Projects requiring land acquisition,
utility relocation, or substantial drainage
modifications may require extra time to
implement. Detailed feasibility and design
studies based on local conditions will also
be necessary for the implementation of
many projects. To give a general idea of the
anticipated costs to implement and support
funding procurement, cost estimates were
developed at a planning level for each project.
Prioritized project lists that correspond to the
maps in this chapter are provided in Appendix D.
Unit cost estimates for projects are listed
below in Table 8. The cost ranges are based on
construction costs from recent bid documents
throughout California, recognizing regional
variations on construction costs throughout
the state and fluctuations in material and labor
costs over time. The cost estimates are in 2024
dollars, and also assume a 25% contingency,
60% for miscellaneous items, and 55% for soft
costs. Land acquisition, road widening, and
utility relocation costs that may be needed are
not included in the cost estimates.
86
Improvement
Type Assumptions Cost
Class I shareduse paths/trails1 mile of asphalt path (10' path + 2' shoulder), with landscaping (trees) and pedestrian-scale lighting $4,800,000
Class II bike
lanes
1 mile with 4 unsignalized intersections:
Bike lane striping, wayfinding signage, green conflict zones, two-stage turn boxes, bicycle detection-loop
$260,000
Class IIB
buffered bike
lanes
1 mile with 4 unsignalized intersections:
Buffered bike lane striping, wayfinding signage, green conflict zones, two-stage turn boxes, bicycle detection-loop
$415,000
Class III bike
lanes
1 mile with 8 unsignalized intersections:
Green-backed sharrows, wayfinding signage $120,000
Class IIIB bike
boulevards
1 mile with 8 unsignalized intersections:
Green-backed sharrows, bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage and striping
$200,000
Class IV
separated
bikeways
1 mile with 8 unsignalized intersections:
In-roadway cycle track with paint and plastic improvements such as striped buffers, wayfinding signage, green conflict zones, twostage turn boxes, bicycle detection-loop, soft hit posts Green-backed sharrows, bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage and striping $485,000
Sidewalk 1 mile per each side of roadway $1,100,000
Intersection
Improvements
(High Effort)
May include improvements including high visibility striping, raised curb extensions, ADA accessible curb ramps, new signal for a 4 leg intersection
$1,400,000
Intersection
Improvements
(Medium Effort)
May include improvements including high visibility striping, raised curb extensions, ADA accessible curb ramps, PHB, existing signal modifications (Signal head modifications, installing APS, yellow backplate, switching out signal heads, countdown ped heads, detection, timing upgrades (e.g. LPI) for a 4 leg intersection $550,000
Intersection
Improvements
(Low Effort)
May include improvements including high visibility striping, painted curb extensions, ADA accessible curb ramps at an unsignalized intersection
$250,000
Crossing
Improvements
(Midblock/RRFB)
May include improvements such as high visibility striping, RRFB, raised curb extensions, additional signage, median island, and ADA accessible curb ramps for 1 crossing
$125,000
Bike/Ped Bridge Construction of a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge $15,000,000 Railroad
Crossing
Improvements
Bike/ped crossing gates, improvements to smooth cross-ing area $550,000 All project cost estimates are high-level, and detailed study of individual projects will be required to refine them. Costs are not inclusive of engineering, draingage, contingency, and mobilization costs, as well as any land acquisition, road widening, and utility relocation costs that may be needed.
Table 8 Cost Estimates by Improvement Type
87 Jllll!U
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Santa Fe Dr
N
Atwater
The City of Atwater has a population of 31,401
as of 2021 making it the county’s third most
populous city. Its population is expected to
increase by 29 percent by 2046.
Atwater is located proximate to the City of
Merced and to the unincorporated community
of Winton. It is served by SR 99, which runs
along the southern fringe of the city and
connects it to the City of Merced. Winton Way
is a five-lane arterial that connects Atwater
to Winton. Other major corridors in Atwater
include Shafter Road, Bellevue Road, Juniper
Avenue, Shafter Road, Winton Way, Buhach
Road, First Street, and Atwater Boulevard.
Atwater’s bicycle facilities are limited to Class I
shared-use paths along portions of Shaffer Road
north of Bellevue Road and along Buhach Road
between Juniper and Green Sands Avenues, as
well as Class II bike lanes along a small stretch
of Atwater Boulevard on the west side of the
Figure 39
Existing and
Proposed
Bicycle Network
Atwater
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot Improvement
KEY
88
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Santa Fe Dr
N
Figure 40
Proposed
Pedestrian
Improvements
Atwater
city. It lacks a comprehensive network of bicycle
facilities that serve the whole city, and most
areas in the city are not currently served by
bicycle facilities.
Key activity centers in the city include the
Atwater Flea Market, Castle Air Museum,
Atwater Skate Park, Atwater Memorial Ballpark,
and the Bellevue Bowling Alley.
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
89
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 41
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network
Dos Palos and South Dos Palos
N
33 33
Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Shain Ave
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd Folsom Ave
Lexington Ave
Reynolds Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot Improvement
KEY
90 •
0 uir
A --
Figure 42
Proposed Pedestrian Improvements
Dos Palos and South Dos Palos
N
33 33
Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Shain Ave
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd Folsom Ave
Lexington Ave
Reynolds Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Dos Palos
The City of Dos Palos has a 2021 population of
5,651, making it the smallest incorporated city
in the county. The unincorporated community of
South Dos Palos is located just south.
Despite countywide investments in the county’s
active transportation network, Dos Palos does
not have any existing bicycle facilities and
limited pedestrian facilities. SR 33/Elgin Avenue
is the primary highway in the city, serving both
local and through traffic. It cuts through the city
from the west, alternating between two and
four lanes, and between speed limits of 45 and
50 miles per hour. There are no signal-controlled
intersections along this stretch, and one all-way
stop controlled intersection at Blossom Street.
In addition to SR 33, other primary corridors in
the city include Valeria Street, Blossom Street,
Center Avenue, and Almond Street.
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
91 A
0 0 0
0
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 43
Existing and
Proposed
Bicycle Network
Gustine
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 Gustine
The City of Gustine has a population of 5,990 as
of 2021. The city is located in the northwest part
of the county, and is located at the intersection
of SR 33 and SR 140. The two highways share a
single alignment through the city along South
Avenue and 4th Street, which serves both
through traffic and as the main local arterials.
Other major roadways include North Avenue,
West Avenue, and 5th Street.
While a smaller city, Gustine is home to the
Gustine Municipal Airport, and is near the
Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. The city’s
parks and schools can be reached through some
N
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These include
Class III bicycle routes along Sullivan Road,
Linde Avenue, Meredith Avenue, Grove Avenue,
East Avenue, North Avenue, West Avenue, 6th
Street, and 3rd Avenue; as well as Class I shared
used paths along Meredith Avenue and around
Harry Schmidt Park.
The City of Gustine recently completed the
development of a citywide Active Transportation
Plan, which was adopted in December 2021.
As such, the ATP does not include new projects
for Gustine and instead defers to the locallydeveloped plan.
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
KEY Existing/Proposed
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Project for
Further Study
Spot
Improvement
92 0 --A
I r----r,---_J~~ ---i-1 _L
- ___...___- =- J
0 L----i -.-1 ~ I
0 •
Figure 44
Proposed
Pedestrian
Improvements
Gustine
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 N
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
Project for
Further Study
KEY
93 - o- o -A_
0 - 0 -
- I • I
___ -:=_] o
0 ~S..__· ~c-4--ll--_ .....:;,,_L~
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
N
99 99
99 B St
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
Figure 45
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Livingston
Livingston
The City of Livingston has a 2021 population of
14,078. It is located in northern Merced County,
northwest of Atwater. The city is served by SR
99 as its primary highway. Other key commercial
corridors in the city include B Street, Winton
Parkway, Main Street, Davis Street, C Street, and
Hammatt Avenue.
The city has a mix of residential and commercial
areas, as well as numerous parks. Small
segments of Class II bike lanes have been
provided on one block segments on recently
widened roadways, such as B Street, but the
city otherwise lacks formal bicycle facilities.
Sidewalks are provided on most residential
streets. The SR 99 freeway, which bisects
the city, poses a major barrier for access and
connectivity between the two sides of the city.
Residents also report numerous challenges
with crossing SR 99, as well as issues with
accessibility over the railroad tracks.
Livingston is expected to receive passenger
rail service through ACE in the coming decade.
The anticipated development of a platform and
associated infrastructure in the downtown area
underscore the need for greater pedestrian and
ADA accessibility in this area.
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
KEY Existing/Proposed
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot
Improvement
94 0
•
N
99 99
99 B St
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
Figure 46
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Livingston
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
95 0
0 r--L"~ ~
-------i-J_~=-=~"'= I
...,-I
--
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Los Banos
The City of Los Banos has a population of 44,421
as of 2021, making it the second largest city in
the county. It is located on the west side of the
county near I-5, but is directly served only by
SR 165, SR 152, and SR 33. All three bisect the
city on arterial roadways that serve both local
and through traffic. SR 165 runs north-south
along Mercey Springs Road, which cuts through
the east side of the city. SR 152 and SR 33 run
concurrently through the city along Pacheco
Boulevard, which runs east-west, bisecting the
city while also serving as its primary commercial
corridor. Other major roadways in the city
include Overland Avenue, West H Street / H
Street, B Street, 7th Street, Ward Road, I Street,
and Ortigalita Road.
Los Banos has a substantial network of bicycle
facilities. Class I facilities in the city include the
Rail Trail and the H.G. Fawcett Canal Trail, as well
as a shared path along a stretch of Place Road.
These are complemented by a network of Class
II bike lanes around the city, including along B,
H, and I Streets, 7th Street, Willmot Avenue,
Nantes Avenue, Overland Road, and Cardoza
Road. However, in many such cases, existing
Class II facilities require upgrades to better
match the current character of the roadways
as well as travel needs of people bicycling
throughout the city.
Key activity centers in and around the city
include the AG Sports Complex and Dog Park,
Los Banos Wildlife Area, the 7th Street Ballfields,
Los Banos Historical Museum, Fairgrounds Park,
and Los Banos Municipal Airport.
96
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
165
33 33
165
Figure 47
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Los Banos
N
152 152
H St
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot Improvement
KEY
97 I
I- '' I •
J II
-.: m ~II _;__~ -
'-"~
t JJ
0 A -
-(
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
165
33 33
165
Figure 48
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Los Banos
N
152 152
H St
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
98 I
~
7 0
I
-(
Merced
The City of Merced had a population of 85,993
in 2021, making it the largest city in the
county by both population size and land area.
In addition to serving as the seat of Merced
County and home to many of its government
institutions, it is also home to the newest
campus in the University of California (UC)
system, UC Merced, and its attached medical
center. Other key activity centers in the city
include its Senior Community Center, the
Applegate Park Zoo, Applegate Skate Park, Joe
Herb Park and Ball Field, McNamara Park and
Ball Field, Fahrens Park, Merced Flea & Farmers
Market, Lake Yosemite Park, and Merced Mall.
The City of Merced continues to experience
geographic and population growth, especially
fueled by UC Merced’s continual expansion.
Merced is served by SR 99, SR 59, and SR 140.
SR 99 runs along a fully controlled-access
freeway alignment and is the city’s main
highway connection. SR 140 and SR 59 run
mainly along large arterials such as Yosemite
Parkway and Martin Luther King Jr. Way.
However, all three highways run concurrently
along the freeway segment through the central
part of the city, which bisects it and creates
obstacles for access and connectivity between
north and south sides of the city. Other key
commercial corridors in the city include 16th
and 18th Streets; G, M, and R Streets; Main
Street; Olive Avenue; and Yosemite Avenue.
As the biggest city in the county, Merced has
the most expansive bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The city has a mix of Class I, II, and III
bicycle facilities throughout the city along with
a trail network connecting to recreational areas
outside of the city.
A core network of class I paths are located
along many of the creek corridors that travel
through Merced, including segments of Bear
Creek, Black Rascal Creek, Fahrens Creek, and
Cottonwood Creek. These multi-use paths
serve as important routes for both commuting
and recreational bicycling while preserving the
natural environment. Regional class I facilities on
Lake Road and Campus Parkway, while located
outside of city limits, nevertheless serve as
important connectors for residents traveling to
destinations such as the UC Merced campus.
In addition to the trail network, Class II bicycle
lanes are located on many arterial streets and
within new developments throughout Merced.
Class II bike lanes are located on many major
corridors crossing the city, including Yosemite
Avenue, R Street, M Street, and G Street. In some
instances, as development or adjacent land uses
have changed the character of these roadways,
existing Class II facilities require upgrades to
better match the current character and travel
needs of people bicycling throughout the city.
Class II facilities are located on Buena Vista Drive,
W Olive Avenue, McKee Road, W 26th Street,
Glen Avenue, E 21st Street, W Main Street, E 13th
Street, E 11th Street, and W 8th Street.
Existing Class III bicycle routes are located
throughout the city and are found on sections of
both collectors and arterials, despite only being
appropriate for lower speed streets, such as in
residential areas, to serve specific destinations
such as schools or to close gaps in the broader
bicycle network. Class III facilities are found on
Bellevue Road, Lake Road, G Street, M Street,
Cardella Road, San Jose Avenue, Mercy Avenue,
Mansionette Drive, Yosemite Ave, McKee Road,
W 21st Street, W 18th Street, E Main Street,
W 13th Street, W 11th Street, R Street, V
Street, N West Avenue, and W Childs Avenue.
Community feedback reflect that some of these
routes have not been able to provide sufficiently
comfortable user experience for bicyclists.
99 Jllll!U
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 49
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
City of Merced
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
99 99
59 140
140
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
100
-
•
0 _L__
~
Figure 49
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
City of Merced
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
99 99
59 140
140
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
101
0 _L__ -
j
't-----L------1----- -
-------i------r-- 0
I I
- L-+----~~
- - - ___._____..,L___---1--
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Merced County
The unincorporated portion of Merced
County has an approximate population of
91,616. Most of that population resides
within a number of small, unincorporated
communities, including Ballico, Cressey,
Delhi, Franklin-Beachwood, Hilmar, Le
Grand, McSwain, Planada, Santa Nella,
Snelling, South Dos Palos, Stevinson,
Volta, and Winton.
Each of the unincorporated communities
serves as major activity centers for their
residents and have one to two major
corridors per community connecting
commercial activity, residential areas,
parks, and schools. Many major corridors
connect multiple unincorporated communities
including Santa Fe Drive, Winton Way, Santa Fe
Avenue, Henry Miller Avenue, Bradbury Road,
and August Avenue. These communities are also
served by highways, including SR 140, SR 33, SR
59, SR 165, SR 99, and I-5, which also serve the
incorporated cities.
Focused community plans with an active
transportation emphasis have been recently
undertaken for the Winton and FranklinBeachwood communities, which have resulted in the planning and ongoing implementation of
a variety of improvements, with many focused
around safe routes to schools.
Figure 52
Proposed
Pedestrian
Improvements
Santa Nella
N 33
33 Henry Miller Ave
Luis Ave
Santa Nella Blvd
Comet Rd
5 5
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
Santa Nella
Figure 52
South Dos Palos
Figure 59-60
Le Grand
Figures
65-66
Planada
Figures
63-64
Hilmar
Figures
53-54
Delhi
Figures 57-58
Winton
Figures
61-62
Cressey
Figures 55-56
Figure 51
Unincorporated Communities
with Proposed Improvements
102
0 A
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
Cressey Way
Palm Ave
Meadow Dr
Santa Fe Dr
Figure 55
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Cressey
N Figure 53
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Hilmar
Lander Ave Lander Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
August Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
N
Lander Ave
Cressey Way
Palm Ave
Meadow Dr
Santa Fe Dr
Figure 56
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Cressey
Figure 54
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Hilmar
Lander Ave Lander Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
N
Lander Ave
N 103
A
+--- - r- I 1\ -
A -
--i---_J_ "----+- - -
•
A -- A - -----+--l-r
_ - Page 186 of 256
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
99 99
El Capitan Way
North Ave
Palm St
Sycamore St
Vincent Rd
Merced Ave
Flower St
Shanks Rd
Hinton Ave
Letteau Ave
August Ave
Hillside Ave
Schendel Ave
Stephens St
South Ave
Delhi Ave
Figure 58
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Delhi
N
99 99
El Capitan Way
North Ave
Palm St
Sycamore St
Vincent Rd
Merced Ave
Flower St
Shanks Rd
Hinton Ave
Letteau Ave
August Ave
Hillside Ave
Schendel Ave
Stephens St
South Ave
Delhi Ave
Figure 57
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Delhi
N
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
104
A -------__ __,_____. 0
----------
-
-----------~ ~~..:2
-
•
I A --------- 0
,,,,,,..--
c
----------
105
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
33Elgin Ave
Christian Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Figure 61
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Winton
Figure 59
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
South Dos Palos
N
Olive Ave
Winton Way
Walnut Ave
Cypress Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Jones Rd
Gertrude Ave
Almond Ave
Vine Ave
Walnut Ave
N
33Elgin Ave
Christian Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Figure 62
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Winton
Figure 60
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
South Dos Palos
N
Olive Ave
Winton Way
Walnut Ave
Cypress Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Jones Rd
Gertrude Ave
Almond Ave
Vine Ave
Walnut Ave
N
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
106
A uir
T f
~
--- -
A -
•
f-
---- Page 189 of 256
Figure 65
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Le Grand
N
Le Grand Rd
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Fresno Rd
Jefferson St
Hainline Rd
Fresno Rd
Cook St
McKee St
McDowell St Washington Ave
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
Figure 63
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Planada
N
Childs Ave Childs Ave
Gerard Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Plainsburg Rd
140
140
Stanford Ave
Sutter St
Cody Ave
Figure 66
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Le Grand
N
Le Grand Rd
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Fresno Rd
Jefferson St
Hainline Rd
Fresno Rd
Cook St
McKee St
McDowell St Washington Ave
Figure 64
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Planada
N
Childs Ave Childs Ave
Gerard Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Plainsburg Rd
140
140
Stanford Ave
Sutter St
Cody Ave
107
0 L
L
- lill~ 7 0 ---
11 1 - -------
---
_A
-
• JA_
---- :L O -
108
6
109
Implementation &
Accountability
The active transportation network will be
implemented in a few ways:
• through individual projects;
• in conjunction with adjacent land
development projects; and
• in conjunction with maintenance and other
capital projects.
Recommendations in this report will be
implemented by local jurisdictions and through
coordination and collaboration with MCAG
and other partners, including Caltrans, the San
Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (ACE Rail), the
San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA),
Amtrak, and other advocacy and community
organizations in Merced County and throughout
the Central Valley.
Completion of projects in this plan will
be reported through periodic reports on
completion by jurisdiction staff to the city
councils and board of supervisors, and on each
agency’s website. MCAG will periodically update
this plan to reflect the evolving needs and
progress towards completion.
As discussed previously, implementation will
depend on the availability of funding and in
some cases occur over many years, with priority
projects being targed for implementation
in the next five years. This chapter provides
an overview of available funding sources
at the time of publication, along with
recommendations for ongoing collaboration and
accountability.
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Funding
Multiple federal, state, regional, and local
funding sources are available for bicycle and
pedestrian projects and programs. A full
resource table is provided in Table 9. Some of
the funding sources most relevant to this plan
include the following:
Measure V is a half-cent regional transportation
sales tax measure that is designed to fund
transportation maintenance and improvements
in the Merced region. Local jurisdictions must
spend at least 20 percent of their local Measure
V funding on alternative mode projects, such
as bicycle and pedestrian projects. As such, this
plan may be used as a resource to identify these
projects.
The Active Transportation Program (ATP)
consolidates diverse transportation initiatives
into a single program with an annual budget
of around $123 million from state and federal
sources. ATP aims to increase walking and biking
trips, enhance safety for non-motorized users,
support regional greenhouse gas reduction
efforts, promote public health, and provide a
range of projects benefiting various user groups,
including disadvantaged communities.
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
are offered by Caltrans to encourage local
and regional planning goals that support the
implementation of Regional Transportation
Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategies
(RTP/SCS) projects. These funds can be used
for a variety of focused community planning
projects, including those that support rural
active transportation, temporary demonstration
projects, and community needs assessments.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program allocates funds
to states for transportation projects aimed at
alleviating traffic congestion and enhancing
air quality, especially in regions of the country
struggling to meet national air quality standards.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) is a federal-aid initiative designed to
achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities
and serious injuries across all public roads,
including non-state-owned roads and tribal land.
California’s Local HSIP focuses on infrastructure
projects with recognized crash reduction
benefits. Funding can be used for preliminary
engineering, right of way, and construction.
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
grant program has a budget of $5 billion in
appropriated funds spanning from 2022 to
2026. The SS4A program supports regional,
local, and tribal endeavors through grants to
prevent roadway fatalities and severe injuries.
Projects with a direct link to bicycle and
pedestrian safety will be eligible for funding as
the MCAG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety
Plan is completed in 2024.
Local Development Fees collected on land
development projects can provide match
funding or full implementation of projects
where there is a nexus to the project.
Federal and State Earmarks present an
opportunity to secure funding at both the
federal and state level. Earmarks often have
short timelines for consideration; proactively
creating fact sheets with funding needs and
benefits of potential projects can support
engagement with Federal and State legislators.
110
LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
Measure V https://www.mcagov.org/315/Measure-V
STATEWIDE FUNDING SOURCES
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/ Active Transportation Program (ATP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/activetransportation-program Clean California (Clean CA) https://cleancalifornia.dot.ca.gov/ Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highwaysafety-improvement-program Local Partnership Program (LPP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/localpartnership-program Reconnecting Communities: Highways to Boulevards
(RC:H2B) https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/rc-h2b Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) &
Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) https://sco.ca.gov/aud_road_maintenance_ sb1.html
Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/solutionsfor-congested-corridors-program Sustainable Transportation Planning (STP) Grant https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportationplanning/regional-planning/sustainabletransportation-planning-grants
FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ)
https://arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/
congestion-mitigation-and-air-qualityimprovement-cmaq-program Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative,
Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT)
https://www.transportation.gov/rural/
grant-toolkit/promoting-resilient-operationstransformative-efficient-and-cost-saving Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability
and Equity (RAISE) https://transportation.gov/RAISEgrants Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Grant
Program
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/
rcnprogram
Rural Surface Transportation Grant (RSTG) https://transportation.gov/grants/ruralsurface-transportation-grant Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing
Transportation (SMART) https://transportation.gov/grants/SMART Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) https://transportation.gov/grants/SS4A Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) https://fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/ Table 9
Relevant Local, Statewide, and Federal Funding Sources
111
Jllll!U
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Potential Outcomes
By implementing the planned networks and
supporting programs, significant improvements
may be realized in the share of trips made by
walking or bicycling. By increasing the facilities
available to users and emphasizing low stress
bikeways and connectivity to destinations,
mode share is anticipated to increase. While
specific increases in mode share depend on
many factors, usage may increase to levels seen
cities with comparable characteristics and thus
looking at the walk and bike mode share of
other cities provides a reasonable comparison.
Sacramento is a city in the Central Valley with
a comparable climate to that of the Merced
County region. Sacramento currently has a
3.0% walking mode share and a 1.5% bicycling
mode share. Though no single city is exactly
comparable, this comparison provides a
reasonable targets to achieve by implementing
the ATP. Achieving comparable mode shares
in Merced County jurisdictions would result in
significant increases in the number of walk and
bike trips, as displayed in Table 10. As discussed
in Chapter 2, these numbers are based on
commute trips and do not include shopping,
school, or recreational trips, or commuters
who only walk or bike to work part time. Thus,
the actual number of future trips is likely to be
higher than these estimates.
By implementing this plan, it is also anticipated
that collisions involving bicyclists and
pedestrians may be reduced. A target for the
reduction of injuries and fatalities in roadway
users is being established as part of the MCAG
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (2024),
which will build upon the countermeasures
and projects recommended in this plan. In
addition to these direct health improvements
due to collision reduction, implementation will
also improve health outcomes associated with
increased physical activity by region residents,
such as reduced incidence of heart disease, high
blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, and obesity.
Location
Walking Bicycling
Current Goal Current Goal
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Merced County
(As A Whole) 2,481 2.3% 4,255 4% 396 0.4% 1,596 1.5%
Merced County
(Unincorporated) 446 2.2% 821 4% 0 0% 308 1.5%
Merced County
(Cities) 1,028 1.4% 2,163 3% 391 0.5% 1,082 2%
Table 10
Means of Transportation to Work (2022 5-Year Average)
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year data.
Workers aged 16 years and older, excludes percentage of employees that work from home. 112
Measures of Effectiveness and Tracking Progress
Communities in which members of the public,
elected officials, and agency staff are all on
the same page of understanding trade-offs to
operations and safety see the most success.
Local jurisdictions have a critical role to play in
building out the region’s active transportation
network, shifting more trips to active modes,
and reducing traffic collisions that kill or
seriously injure people. Cities and the County
own, operate, and maintain the streets and
roadways within the region, except those owned
by Caltrans, and will ultimately prioritize, fund,
build, and permit the construction of most
non-freeway roadway projects in the region.
Dedicated staff time is critical to coordination
of improvements, relaying project benefits to
agency staff, elected officials, and public, and
keeping a project moving forward. This also
includes maintaining policy and design standards
that align with industry best practices.
A sample framework for implementation has
been provided on the following pages. This
framework aligns with the guiding principles
of the ATP, and includes suggested practices
and recommendations that jurisdictions may
choose to adopt or pursue to reduce barriers to
implementation, and track progress over time.
Both individual and collaborative actions by
jurisdictions will aid in meeting the responsibility
agencies have for implementing projects in a
way that is fiscally responsible and yields the
greatest benefit to the health, mobility, and
livelihoods of the residents and communities of
Merced County.
This plan establishes a framework for improving
active transportation across the region.
However, monitoring of progress must occur to
understand whether the goals of this plan are
being achieved and those who walk, bike, and
roll feel safe and comfortable using the active
transportation network. This requires ongoing
collaboration, with roles for local jurisdictions,
MCAG, and the community.
As the regional transportation planning agency,
MCAG serves in a number of transportation
planning roles in Merced County based on
local, state, and federal designations. These
designations offer increased funding and
responsibility for MCAG in transportation
planning, including oversight of several
programs that can contribute to the expansion
and safety of active transportation networks
throughout the region. Without a dedicated
funding source, project implementation will
typically rely on federal or state funding or
capital improvement funding that can include
roadway safety enhancements. MCAG will
continue to serve as the convenor for local
agencies, and play a role in regional facilitation,
including support for priority projects identified
in this ATP.
113
Jllll!U
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Objective 1.1
Reduce pedestrian and bicyclist related
collisions.
Baseline Data
Existing bicycle/pedestrian.
Recommended Strategies
• Adopt a Vision Zero commitment and action
plan, which identifies strategies to eliminate
all traffic fatalities and severe injuries,
consistent with in-progress Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan (MCAG) and Local Road
Safety Plan (County).
• Develop an annual review process
for bicycle and pedestrian crash data
(including causes) to implement ongoing
infrastructure improvements throughout the
transportation system.
• Install safety enhancements to improve
conditions for the most vulnerable road
users, such as people using mobility devices
youth, and older people.
• Prioritize safety improvements, such as high
visibility crosswalks, at intersections and
corridors with high numbers of bicycle and
pedestrian crashes.
Objective 1.2
Reduce traffic stress for non-motorized roadway
users (as measured by Level of Traffic Stress or
LTS).
Baseline Data
• Percentage of roadways at the highest
levels of LTS 3 and 4 (least comfortable) vs
those at lowest levels of LTS 1 and 2 (most
comfortable).
• Percentage of residents living within ¼-mile
of low-stress facilities (LTS 1 or 2).
Recommended Strategies
• Provide more physically separated active
transportation facilities, such as class I
bikeway shared-use paths, class IV separated
bikeways, and sidewalks.
• Provide alternative facilities on lowerstress neighborhood streets, such as wellconnected bicycle boulevards. • Design existing roads to accommodate active
transportation modes.
Traffic-related and personal safety issues are a barrier for people bicycling and walking. Increase opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to easily access local streets and pathways and reduce the number, rate, and severity of collisions involving people walking, biking, and rolling. 1 Safety Create and maintain a safe environment for
people walking, biking, and rolling
114
Objective 1.3
Follow best practices in transportation facility
planning and design.
Recommended Strategies
• Update public works documents that
guide facility development (for example,
Improvement Standards and Specifications)
every 10 years to reflect current Caltrans,
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), and best practice guidance, such
as guidelines from the National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).
• Adopt a Complete Streets ordinance and
corresponding cross-sections for different
street typologies to guide construction
of new streets and retrofitting of existing
streets.
• Provide wider class I bikeway shared-use
paths (approximately 12’ or more where
possible) in areas of high activity.
• Consider the addition and/or improvement
of bikeways, where feasible, when improving
existing roads.
Objective 1.4
Make travel to school via active modes safe,
comfortable, and convenient for students and
families.
Baseline Data
Mode split for students traveling to schools via
tallies and/or surveys.
Recommended Strategies
• Coordinate with agencies such as The
Bus and Merced County Public Health to
implement a comprehensive Safe Routes to
School educational program.
• Prioritize active transportation
improvements in close proximity to schools
throughout Merced County.
115
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
2 Objective 2.1
Align local implementation of regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies by
tracking transportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions at the County level, and conduct cost/
benefit analyses of transportation projects using
GHG emissions as a criterion.
Baseline Data
Framework and methodology for tracking
Greenhouse Gas emissions related to
transportation.
Recommended Strategies
• Make a public commitment to reducing GHG
emissions.
• Rely upon GHG emission reduction
calculations as a metric for guiding
investment decisions.
• Modify cost/benefit analyses to incorporate
and consider the GHG emission impact of
transportation investments.
Objective 2.2
Reduce overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Baseline Data
• Number of Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita.
• ACS Mode share.
Recommended Strategies
• Complete VMT-based traffic impact analysis
in compliance with SB743 on residential and
office land use projects, when applicable.
• Support compact growth and integrated
transportation/land use planning.
• Encourage large-scale trip generators,
including County and City facilities, to create
and implement Transportation Demand
Management programs that emphasize the
importance of walking to employees and
visitors.
• Ensure all facilities where public employees
work enforce the State’s parking cash-out
law that requires employers who provide
subsidized parking for their employees
to also offer a cash allowance in lieu of a
parking space.
• Encourage the use of DIBS Rideshare
Program, including carpooling, vanpooling,
and public transportatio
Creating walkable and bikeable communities can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by encouraging people to use active transportation rather than drive, particularly for short trips.
Integrating the implementation of separated and low stress facilities into development and land use processes can make communities more resilient in the face of climate change impacts.
Mode Shift Increase the percent of trips made using active modes throughout the region
116
Objective 2.3
Develop shared-use facilities along canals and
off-road easements.
Baseline Data
Linear miles of canals or levees with
maintenance roads viable for shared-use
facilities.
Recommended Strategies
When upgrading or enhancing irrigation, levee,
and flood control facilities throughout the
region, look for opportunities to implement
shared-use pathways as feasible in conjunction
with maintenance/access needs.
Objective 2.4
Set a goal to increase active mode share of all
trips.
Baseline Data
Percentage of active transportation mode share
of trips.
Recommended Strategies
• Promote active travel as a viable
transportation option.
• Implement proposed active transportation
infrastructure improvements via local CIPs to
create a better-connected network.
117
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Objective 3.1
Improve opportunities for residents to engage in
active transportation.
Baseline Data
• Healthy Places Index.
• Number of existing programs serving
residents.
Recommended Strategies
• Promote existing active transportation
facilities through community events
and programs, signage, and education
campaigns.
• Provide educational materials on the
benefits of physical activity.
• Implement proposed active transportation
improvements throughout disadvantaged
and disconnected communities and
neighborhoods.
Objective 3.2
Address current and historical inequities in the
provision of active transportation infrastructure.
Baseline Data
• Rates of poverty.
• Median household income.
• Employment statistics from the most recent
5 years.
• Mileage of low-stress bikeways in lowincome neighborhoods.
Recommended Strategies
Prioritize the implementation of planned
projects identified in this Active Transportation
Plan based on historical lack of investment and
current need.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities provide affordable, healthy transportation solutions, regardless of ethnicity, age, or income. However, access to transportation options may not be equal across all communities. This Plan increases opportunities for the active transportation network to address current and historic inequities and improves economic opportunities for residents.
Equity Prioritize active transportation investments in 3 underserved communities 118
Objective 3.3
Make the transportation planning and
implementation process more transparent and
open to all community members.
Baseline Data
• Number of events and programs related to
active transportation.
• Number of participants in events and
programs related to active transportation
Recommended Strategies
• Develop outreach materials with context and
in languages that are community-specific;
host community meetings at locations that
are convenient with respect to time and
location as well as accessible by multiple
forms of transportation.
• Host engagement events in areas that
attract significant numbers of people, such
as community events and gatherings
• Ensure information on how to request
public services is available online, in
multiple languages for access by non-English
proficient residents, and that the website is
ADA compliant.
• Develop multilingual education campaigns to
communicate the rights and responsibilities
of all roadway users.
• Develop environmental justice components
in a collaborative fashion with local groups
and stakeholders.
119
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
4 Objective 4.1
Develop a robust and well-connected active
transportation network to provide regional and
local connections throughout communities.
Baseline Data
• Number of miles of existing Class I
bikeway shared-use paths and other active
transportation facilities within and between
communities.
• Number of marked pedestrian crossing
opportunities.
Recommended Strategies
• Utilize existing maintenance roads on
irrigation canals for building shared-use
paths.
• Identify and track the number of existing and
new marked pedestrian crossing locations.
• Identify and develop Mobility Hubs; provide
adequate active transportation facilities and
wayfinding to connect to Mobility Hubs.
Objective 4.2
Provide low-stress access to key destinations
such as employment destinations, grocery
stores, transit stops, parks, libraries, and other
community destinations.
Baseline Data
Number of key destinations that are within ¼
mile of the low-stress active transportation
network.
Recommended Strategies
Prioritize the implementation of pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure that connects to
schools, parks, healthcare, community services,
employment centers, grocery stores, and other
key destinations.
Objective 4.3
Develop a comprehensive facility identification
and wayfinding program.
Baseline Data
Existing network of directional signage directed
towards active transportation users.
Recommended Strategies
• Inventory existing signage and implement
wayfinding program.
• Develop branding and deploy wayfinding
signage to major destinations and between
transportation facilities.
Implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure allows residents to access local and regional destinations safely and comfortably on bicycle or by foot.
Connectivity Create a pedestrian and bicycle network that connects people to key destinations and public transit
120
Objective 4.4
Provide adequate end-of-trip facilities for active
transportation users.
Baseline Data
• Number of short-term bike parking facilities
(for example, bicycle racks and corrals).
• Number of long-term bike parking facilities
(for example, bicycle lockers and storage
rooms).
Recommended Strategies
• Install secure, long-term bicycle parking and
storage at major transit hubs.
• Encourage bike parking facilities in new
developments and redevelopment projects
beyond those in the California Building
Code (CBC) and other applicable standards
and guidelines; provide assessment-based
incentives, where feasible, on a case-by-case
basis.
• Conduct a baseline inventory of end-of-trip
facilities in each community.
Objective 4.5
Allow for modes of active transportation and
electric-powered micromobility to expand
options for residents and visitors.
Baseline Data
Percentage of county population using active
transportation and other travel modes to
include emerging trends such as scooters,
e-bikes, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs),
and other non-human powered micro mobility
options.
Recommended Strategies
Incorporate design flexibility into public spaces,
including bus stops and transit hubs, to allow for
new mobility devices in the future.
121
IVCl!G
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
122
A
123
Appendix A
Land Use Maps
General plan land use maps for cities and the
county are provided in this appendix.
Please see the County of Merced’s General Plan
Zoning Maps website to see the general plan
land use maps of additional communities.
https://www.countyofmerced.com/437/
General-Plan-Zoning-Maps
124
§¨¦
§¨¦
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
)
)
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
LOS BANOS
RESERVOIR
SAN LUIS
RESERVOIR
O NEIL
FOREBAY
LAKE
YOSEMITE
CHOWCH LI LAR VI ER
AS
N JOAQUIN RIVER
MERCED R VI RE
DRG RA MOGNI
EUCALYPTUS RD
ORTIGALITA RD
AUGUST AVE
LE GRAND RD
ARBURUA RD
HENRY MILLER AVE
SHAIN AVE
MONTE VISTA AVE
WILLIAMS AVE
SANTA FE DR
BLOSS AVE
SANDY MUSH RD
EL CAPITAN WAY
OLIVE AVE
HEALY RD
DR TNECNI V
LA GRANGE RD
B LI LY WR GI HT RD
INDIANA RD
SANTA FE AVE
PALM AVE
DR DNALSI RENRUT
SOUTH BEAR CREEK DR
WASHINGTON BLVD
CHILDS AVE
DENTON & LEAK RD
LINCOLN BLVD
RD ANATLUS
MARIPOSA WAY
PALM AVE
ARBOLEDA DR
WHITWORTH RD
BRADBURY RD
PLAINSBURG RD
GURR RD
DR TNUH
EAST AVE
MERCED FALLS RD
MCCABE RD
DR OTTI RB
WASHINGTON RD
EAGLE FIELD RD
CENTER AVE
HEREFORD RD MALLARD RD ALMOND DR
OAKDALE RD
MINTURN RD
VOLTA RD
WESTSIDE BLVD
CARLUCCI RD
DAN MCNAMARA RD
GUN CLUB RD
FIRST AVE
TS G
KEYES RD
SANTA FE GRD
TURLOCK RD
COZZI RD
LEE RD
WALTZ RD
CENTRAL AVE
COX FERRY RD
HORNITOS RD
YOUD RD
POLE LINE RD
HARMON RD
RIVER RD
NS LE I L GN DR
SANTA FE GRD
I-5
I-5
L
L
1 2
3 5
8 7
10 13
15 14
2324
25 BURNS
RESERVOIR
165
33 152
152
33 59
165
99 140
33 140
140
140
59 165
99 O
January 07, 2014 - MA
MERCED COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE POLICY DIAGRAM
0 3 6 9 12 1.5
Miles
FRESNO COUNTY
MARIPOSA COUNTY
STANISLAUS COUNTY
STANISLAUS COUNTY
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SAN BENITO COUNTY
Merced County - GIS
Current map reflects revisions thru October 17, 2013
F O O T H I L L
P A S T U R E
F O O T H I L L
P A S T U R E
A G R I C U L T U R E
MADERA COUNTY
CITY PLANNING AREAURBAN COMMUNITIESURBAN COMMUNITY "STUDY AREA"RURAL CENTERSRURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTERSHIGHWAY INTERCHANGE CENTERSISOLATED URBAN DESIGNATIONS
RURAL DESIGNATIONS
A - AgriculturalFP - FootHill Pasture
OTHER FEATURES
MERCED COUNTY
)LANDFILL
LAKESMAJOR ROADSRIVERSHIGHWAYS
!
L
UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
CASTLE
TUTTLE
FRANKLIN -
BEACHWOOD
PLANADA
LE GRAND
WINTON
CRESSEY
BALLICO
DELHI
HILMAR
NEWMAN
STEVINSON
VOLTA SANTA NELLA
VILLAGES
OF LAGUNA
SAN LUIS FOX
HILLS
DOS
PALOS Y
EL NIDO
SNELLING
MERCED
ATWATER
LIVINGSTON
YOSEMITE
LAKE
ESTATES
GUSTINE
LOS BANOS
DOS PALOS
Figure LU-1
Merced County
I
~
•/
~
,.· t,
,-· •i= .
~
.t
,l
,."tS ,_....., . .. , ..
125
" "$
!
!
!
!
" #
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
"
!
!
!
" "$
!
!
!
"
$
!
$
!
!
"
!
!
"
!
"
"
!
$
"
$ "$
"
!
!
!
!
$ "$
$ "$
!
!
!
!
!
#
!
!
"
!
!
#
"
!
"
!
!
!
!"
!
$ "$
!"
!
!"
!
! "
!
!
!
!
$
!
!
"
"
!
$
!
"
$
!
%
!
!
%
$
!
$
"
$ "$
"
!
"
"
"
#
!
#
$
!
!
"$
!
!
$
!
!
$
!
$
!
!
$ #
#
"
!
!
!
!
!
"$
!
#
$
$
%
$
!
"
$
!
"
!
"
!
"
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
"$
!
$
$
!$
!
!
!
"$
!
!
" "$
!
"$
"$
"
$
!
$
!
!
!
"
!
$
!
!
$
$
"$
!
"
$
!
"$
$
"
$
!
!
"
$
!
!
$
"
$
!
!
!
!
$
" "$
!
"
!
!
"
$ "$
$
$
$
$
!
$
"
$
$
!
!
"
$
!
$ "$
$
!
!
!
#
!
"
"$
!
$ "$
!
$
!
$
!
"
!
!
!
"$
!
!
!
#
!
"$
"$
$
!
!
!
$
!
!
!
!
#
!
$
!
!
" "$
$
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$
$
$
!
"$
!
"
!
$
!
"
!
!
"
!
!
!
"$
$
$
!
$
!
#
"$
"
!
!
"$
!
"$
"$
!
"
!
!
$
$
!
"
"
"
"
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
"$
"$
!
!
" !
%
!
!
!
!
!
$
"$
$
!
%
"$
"
!
$
$
!
!
$
$
!
$
!
$
"
!
"
$
!
!
" "$
!
!
!
!
"$
!
!
!
!
"
!
"$
"$
!
"$
$
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
"
"
!
!
!
!
!
%
"
!
$
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
!"
!
!
!
!
$
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!$
!
$
!
!
%
!
"$
"
!
"
"$
" #
!
!
"
!
"
!
!"
$
$
$
" "$
"$
!
"
"
!
"
"
"
"$
$
"$
!
$
%
!
$
"
"
!
!
!
!
!
"$
!
!
"
" "$
!
!
!
!"
!
"
"$
"
"$
"
!
"$
!
!
$
!
$
!
!
""
$
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!$
!
!
"
""
"
""
!
!
"
!
!
!
"
!
!
#
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
#
!
!
$
!
$
!
!
!
!
$
!
!
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
"$
$
$
"
"$
""
"$
$
! "
!
!
$
$
!
!
!
$
!
%
!
!
!
$
!
!$
!
!
$
!
$
!
$
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$
"
$
!
"
$
!
" "
!
!
$
!
!
#
$
!
$
!
"
!
"
$
!
!
"
$
!
!
$
!
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
!
$
!
!
%
!
"
$
!
!
"
$
!
!
"
"
$ "$
$
$
!
$
!
!
$
!
$
!
$
"$
!
!
$
$ !
$
$ !
$
!
$
!
$
"
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
"
$ "$
$
!
"
$
"
!
$
$
"
"
""
$
"$
"#
"
%
$
$
!
!
!!
!
!
"
"
%
!
!
"
!
"
!
"
$
"
" "$
"
!
$
!
$
!
!
!
!
"
$
$ "
$
!
!
!
"
"
%
!
"
!
!
!
"
$
$
!
" "
$
!
$
$
!
"
$
$
"
!
"
"
$
"
!
$#
!
#
!
!
$ !
!
!
$
!
!
!
"
$
!
$
!
!
$
!
$
!
$
$
!
!
$
!
$
" $
!
!
%
$
%
!
$
!
"
$
!
!
$
!
"
"
!
!
!
!"
"
$!"
"
"
!
!
$
$
$
"
$
%
!
"
!
"
!
"
!
!
!"
$
"
$
$%
!
!
"
$
!
$
!
$
!
!
!
$
!
"
!
!
!
"
!
"
!
$
!
!
!
"
$
"
$
!
!
!
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
"
!
!
!
"
"
$
"
$
"
!
!
#
"
#
"
"
$
!
$
!
!
!
"
$
!
"
$
$
$
$
$
$
!
!
$
!
!
!
$
"
!
!
1/
1/
1/
1
9
"
%
#8
%
&
&
8
! $0
8
#8
%#"
"
!
(#6
"
!
#25#2'0%+27)'.'0#,/,#.
&
0
82
8
0
82
8
*&
0
8
- &
0
8
,
&
0
8
4
,
&
0
8
-8
8:
$
/8
%
:8
%
:82
8
/8
/8
+
8
1:
(
/8
(
1:
3 98
0
3 98
0
$
/8
0
80
8%
00%
#
:
,')'.&
%,
Atwater
•
•
D
•
D
D
CJ
•
□
• 1r--t-rr-......,J...-Ull □
□
r,--t-t--+:Jw,--,----_J_JJ □
•
iWTI~.L....L---H-J-J::LJJD
□
-,-----t,-_J_____j----l----LlJ □
□
::-'-,,....U..,,...,..,!...;LlJ [3
~~-,:f:t/f t ~rll I CJ ... □
N
126
DOS PALOS
CARMELLIA RD
FIR AVE
Q ST
PALM AVE
MERRILL AVE
MILLUX AVE
J ST
BLOSSOM ST
OLIVER ST
IDA ST
O ST
MERCED ST
SEVENTH ST
GENERAL AVE
ALMOND ST
CHRISTIAN AVE
IONE ST
AUBREY AVE
AQUA VISTA ST
RUSSELL AVE
SANTA FE GRD
DOS PALOS RD
LEXINGTON AVE
REYNOLDS AVE
LUCERNE AVE
CENTER AVE
GOLDEN GATE AVE
FRANK AVE
FOLSOM AVE
SHAIN AVE
VALERIA ST
CAROL AVE
K ST
P ST
BLOSSOM ST
MADERA
AVE
SIXTH ST
SANTOS ST
CALIFORNIA AVE
GEORGE ST
SHARON LN
IND-R
RR
C
R
R
REC
UR
C R C
LD C
R
R
R
IND C R LD
RR
PU RR PU
R
IND
C
C
R
R
PU
R
C
IND
PU
PU
C
C
R
C
PU
IND
GC
PU
PU
PU
R
PU
R
R
R
R R
C
A-R
A-R
A
A
A
A
A
A
General Plan - Dos Palos Area
Development Services Division - GIS
·
July 6, 2010 - MA
SUDP
City Limit
Agricultural
Light Industrial
Highway Interchange Center
Office Commercial
Commercial General
Golf
Commercial Reserve
Heavy Commercial
Commercial Neighborhood
Undesignated
Regional Community
Public/Government
Urban Expansion Area
Neighborhood Park
Quasi Public Facilities
Open Space
Agricultural-Residential
Commercial
Business Park
Commercial-Reserve
Commercial-Transition
Foothill Pasture
Mixed Use
General Commercial
High Density Res'd
Highway I' Commercial
Industrial
Industrial Reserve
Institutional\Public Facilites
Low Density Res'd
Medium Density Res'd
Neighborhood Commercial
Public Utilities
Residential
Recreational
Residential-Reserve
Rural Residential
Urban Reserve
Very Low Density Res'd
PRODUCED BY MERCED COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Disclaimer: The information displayed on this map is for reference purposes only. Any questions regarding this map should be directed to the Merced County Planning & Community Development Department. 0 0.5 1
Miles
Dos Palos
.~• D - D
- - D D
- D D D
D D
- - -
- -
D
D - - D
D D - D
- D D D
D - D
- - D
D - D
I
MEfiCED~
COUNTY
127
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HWY 140
VIA MILANO
EAST AVE
5TH AVE
SOUTH AVE
LA SALLE WAY
5TH AVE
VIA PALERMO
6TH AVE
MEREDITH AVE
5TH ST
3RD AVE
6TH AVE
4TH AVE
2ND AVE
SOUTH AVE
WALLIS AVE
VIA BASILICATA
VIA BORRELLI
SHERWOOD DR
SYLVIA ST
NORTH AVE
LINDEN AVE
WALLER ST
VIA MARSALA
ASHMOUNT LN
BONTA AVE
VIA JODI DR
VIA DEL PETTORUTO PRIVATE RD
JENSEN RD
HALES DR
OLSON DR
RAILROAD AVE
6TH ST
WALLIS AVE
LAUREL AVE
FAIRVIEW AVE
4TH ST
8TH ST
2ND ST
CARNATION RD
BRENDA DR
VIA FRAGA
POINTE LOUROSE AVE
STEELE AVE
LUCERNE AVE
WALLIS AVE
1ST AVE
4TH AVE
EUREKA CT
2ND AVE
7TH ST
ELM AVE
VIA SANSOSTI
CARNATION AVE
1ST ST
VIA ALBERTI
SULLIVAN RD
HUNT RD
VIA ITALIANO
LEE AVE
BRENTWOOD AVE
WHITWORTH RD
PORTSMOUTH LN
MANOR AVE
3RD ST
SYCAMORE AVE
EDITH DR
VERDE DR
SYCAMORE AVE
FENTEM RD
NOBLE RD
HWY 140
WORTHINGTON RD
HWY 33
PRINCE RD
GUN CLUB RD
MILLS RD
KNIEBES RD GAY ST
KNIEBES RD
BORBA RD
WEST AVE WEST AVE
GROVE AVE
VIA PIEDMONT
PAYNE AVE
WH 3 Y 3
HWY 33
HUNT RD HUNT RD
EVA HSA
33·}þ|
33·}þ|
140 ·}þ|
140 ·}þ|
33·}þ|
33·}þ|
Gustine
General Plan
City Limits
! ! !
! ! !
! ! Sphere of Influence
Residential EstateLow Density2.0 - 6.0 dw/acMedium Density
6.1 - 10.0 dw/ac
Mobile Home Park
RESIDENTIAL
High Density
10.1 - 15.0 dw/ac
Retail Business District
Office
Neighborhood
Highway
General Service
COMMERCIAL
Mixed Use
ParkSchool
PUBLIC USES
Greenway
Agricultural-Commercial
AGRICULTURAL
ManufacturingControlled Industrial
INDUSTRIAL
September 10, 2012
.
Prepared by Merced Data Special Services, Inc.
369 West 18th Street Merced CA 95340
209-723-3153
Planned Development
Railroad
500 0 500 1,000 1,500 250 Feet
Gustine
- I I
- -I
r -
' ' I_J
~
' ' ' ' I
ITJ DI ID 1
!I ~ ..
ii
,:
i!
il ', :,_ ~
I :-= ----- 7 -------- I: I '
}---------J I :!
I I: I --- 'I
• / - ---- ------- ---- -- - ---- --
,... .,....,,,"",.,,,,,,,.,,,.
I I
' ' ,/
/ 11 / /
I
C-----
DOI ID D
I 11 ~
_L )
~ ~===11---- ------~ - --- - ------ ---- , --- ------- - --- - - - -------- _: I =- I 71
~I L
L__
128
F ST
TS NI A M
WALNUT AVE
LUS AT NA DR
WAKAMI DR
Y WKP NOT NI W
RD DOOWRAI RB
TS HT6
AE TS EVA
I ST
AH MM TA EVA T
TS HT4
PEACH AVE
EMERALDDR
MONTCLIFF WAY
KISHI DR
TR GI GER LN
CELIA DR
EVA SDL O
PARAD SI E DR
BURGUNDY DR
TS DN2
TS OSSURP
TS HT9
NEWCASTLE DR
LILAC LN
YA WTHGI WD
ON
TR
M H I A N TS
TS HT5
GRAPEVINE DR
CAMPBELL BLVD
G S
TS TS1 T
SWAN ST
CROWELL ST
DAVISST
PARK ST
J ST
D ST
E ST
B ST
C ST
TS HT7
DVL B NL OCNI L
EVA NI BOR
DVL B NOT GNI HSA W
TS HT8
TS HPESOJ
TS HT7
YA WTHGI WD
CAMPGROUND RD
TS DN2
Y WKP NOT IN W
R VI ER V EI W DR
OLIVE AVE
ELM ST
T S EROMACYS
EV ATT IO RRA M
EUCALYPTUS AVE
MAGNOLIA AVE
BLOSS AVE
BIRD ST
FL NI T AVE FL NI T AVE
VINEWOOD AVE
D R OLL AG
S.P. AVE
I L I V GN TS NO
RC SE ES Y DR
BLOSS CT
OAK ST
HOSK NI S AVE
EVA OT IS RC ET NOM
R D ANATLUS
PACIFIC AVE
DR OTA MAY
D R YELSEEHS
DR RETNUH
99
99
99
99
December 19, 2019
City of Livingston General Plan
1,000 0 1,000 500 Feet
Legend LD - Low Density Residential
MD - Medium Density ResidentialHD - High Density Residential P - Park/Open SpacePF - Public FacilityPFR - Public Facility ReserveUR - Urban Reserve Growth Boundary - Year 2030Growth Boundary - Year 2040Growth Boundary - Year 2050 SC - Service CommercialNC - Neighborhood CommercialCC - Community CommercialCR - Commercial ReserveDC - Downtown CommercialHC - Highway Commercial LI - Limited Industrial
GI - General Industrial
IR - Industrial Reserve
Park Reserve
Railroad
River
Highway
City Limits
Growth Boundary - Year 2020Sphere of Influence
City of Livingston1416 C StreetLivingston, CA(209) 394-8041FAX: (209) 394-4190 Livingston
><.:
fr I I ; I I I I =
129
General Plan Land Use Map
¯
LosBanos_GPLU
GPLU
Agriculture/RuralCivic/InstitutionalCommercialEmployment ParkHigh Density ResidentialIndustrialLow Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialMixed UseNeighborhood CommercialParkProfessional OfficeSR 152 Bypass Corridor Los Banos
DDDDD I
130
Highway 140
Highway 59
Highway 59
Highway 140
• • • • •• ••• •• • •••• ••• •• ••• • •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • •• • • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • •••••••
• • • • •• •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • ••• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • •• • • • • •• • • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • •••• • • • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •• • • • • •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • •• • •• • • • •• • •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • •• • • •• • •• • • • •• • •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • • •• • •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • • •• • • • •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• • •• • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • •• ••• •• •• •••••••••••••••••••
• • ••••
• •• • ••• •••• •• •• •••••••••••••••••••
Date Saved: 11/21/2023
Bellevue Community Plan
UC Community Plan
0 0.4 0.8 1 2Miles
• •• • •• •• • ••••• • •• •• • • • • • • ••• • • •• •• • • •• • ••• •••••••••••••••••• • • • • •• •••• • • •••• • •• • •• •••• • • •• ••• •• ••• • •• • • ••• •• • •••••••••••••• ••• • •• ••• ••• ••• •• •• ••• • •• • •• • • ••• • ••• •• • ••• • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • •• •••• •• •• • ••• • •• • • • • •• •• • •• • • • •• • •• • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• • •• • •• •• • • •••• • ••• • • •• • • •• ••• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• • • • • • • •• ••••••••••••••••
Merced
<
~~ .. -~, ...
.. .. .. .. .. ·*"'< .. <;> .. CJ
.. .. .. CJ
""' ... ... .. .. .. ,, ""'
131
(this page intentionally left blank)
132
B
133
Appendix B
Survey Results
A website for the project, accessible from
phones, tablets, and computers, was created
in English and Spanish. The project website
included an overview of the project, dates and
times for outreach events, and an interactive
map and survey that allowed the public to
identify where there are existing challenges
to safety walk or bike and help prioritize the
recommendations included in this plan.
Overall, 195 responses were received on the
survey and 84 comments were received on the
project website.
Detailed results from this outreach are attached
in this appendix
134
MCAG Project Survey
1. What community do you live in?
Merced 139
Atwater 12
Livingston 24
Gustine0
Dos Palos2
Los Baños5
Planada4
McSwain0
Santa Nella2
Franklin-Beachwood1
South Dos Palos0
Le Grand1
Volta0
Hilmar2
Stevinson0
Delhi1
Cressey0
Ballico0
Snelling0
Winton1
Other4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
140
120
100
80 60
40 w 0 11 -·--------
135
2. Please tell us a bit about yourself - check all that apply
3. How often are you walking to the following places?
I'm a student 75
I'm a parent 65
I work in Merced County 75
I live in Merced County 112
I'm retired 10
Other 5
Everyday A few times a week A few times a month A few times a year Never N/A or does not apply to me
Going to work
Going to/taking children to school
Running errands (market, appointments,
etc.)
Visiting friends or family
Going to a bus or train stop
For exercise or leisure
100% 0% 100%
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 - -
• •
136
4. How often are you biking to the following places?
5. Are there places you would like to walk or bike to that you are not currently? (Select all that apply)
Everyday A few times a week A few times a month A few times a year Never N/A or does not apply to me
Going to work
Going to/taking children to school
Running errands (market, appointments,
etc.)
Visiting friends or family
Going to a bus or train stop
For exercise or leisure
100% 0% 100%
Going to work 48
Going to/taking children to sch… 40
Running errands (market, appoi… 93
Visiting friends or family 70
Going to a bus or train stop 39
For exercise or leisure 101
Other 24
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
120
100
80 60
40 20
0
137
6. What are the top three (3) reasons preventing you from walking? (Select all that apply)
7. What are the top three (3) reasons preventing you from biking? (Select all that apply) Distances between destinations 122
It takes too long to walk to whe… 96
Fear of traffic collision or other … 89
Concern for personal safety 114
Lack of sidewalks/crossings or p… 109
I am pregnant or have children/… 5
I am disabled/unable to walk 7
Other 20
Distances between destinations 47
It takes too long to bike to wher… 42
Fear of traffic collision or other … 116
Concern for personal safety 106
Lack of bike infrastructure or po… 104
I am pregnant or have children/… 4
I do not have a bicycle 68
Lack of secure bike parking 67
My route includes hilly terrain 15
Climate/weather makes biking d… 24
Other 20
• 140
• 120
• 100
• 80
• 60
• 40
• 20
• --• 0
•
• 120
•
• 100
• 80
• 60
• 40
I • I 20
• 0 • -
•
138
8. What design considerations are important to you? (Rank: Less Important to Very Important)
9. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about your experience walking and biking across Merced County?
1 Separating trails or bike lanes fr…
2 Enhancing crossing opportunities
3 Providing safe routes for walkin…
4 Lowering vehicle speeds
5 Reducing congestion and delays…
6 Keeping on-street parking
7 Bicycle parking
8 Connecting regional pathways t…
139
• You need more bike and walking paths in the north. Also more nature parks and reserves. • More sidewalk. Maintenance needed on sidewalks to allow for safe standing at intersections. • Walking and Biking should be separated with at least a painted line. Biking can be a commuting option if bike lanes are treated like lanes.
• I truly like the fact that Merced has biking trails linked throughout town. Our family of 5 went on long bike rides each day during the Covid lockdown which gave us much needed exercise and became an activity that we all enjoyed as a family. • Put more money on all road in Merced. Roads are horrible. • Siento mucho procupacion para mi comunidad, mas para los ninos que van a la escuela porque no tenemos banquetas or reductores de velocidad. No hay luz en nuestra calles so con todo esto se hace dificil caminar en mi calle: South P St. Invitamos que ustedes vayan a hacer encuestas con residentes en mi comunidad.
• There needs to be more sidewalks in north and south merced, also there needs to be bigger bike lanes.
• There are tons of potholes in county roads, we live in the border of county and city limits. • I have waked Bear Creek, Black Rascal Creek, and the bike path behind Lehigh Dr in Merced.
All have become riddled with homeless people and it isn't pleasant to see anymore. They leave garbage everywhere and poop and urinate under bridges. This is why I don't enjoy the biking and walking in Merced anymore.
• Current rail trails need to be cleaned up. They are nice but too many homeless and feels unsafe.
• I wish we could clean up our community and have shelters for the homeless instead of loitering parks, trails, and shopping centers.
• Need more trails and security.
• From my experiences when walking around Merced everything is pretty far, including bus stops. As a student, this makes it difficult for us to run errands because we have to walk a lot between destinations and waiting for the bus makes our trips even longer too which can take away lots of our day. Another thing that affects our experience is the fact that there is no city bus on the weekends. We have to walk a lot to our destinations, and have to find the bus stops for the university bus, which are more confusing than the city bus. • It is difficult to walk most places due to distance.
• The community does not feel safe to walk around in.
• When walking/biking across the Merced County I noticed that there is no real space to bike or walk as there is not a lot of sidewalks.
• I just haven't really figured out where I want to walk yet because most of the time, driving makes more sense.
• When I exercise it is usually later in the day and most streets lack sufficient lighting. • Don't go onto the streets of county too often, so I can't speak on that. • The road has many potholes, many cars speeding, and not enough room for bikes to traverse the road safely, especially at night with little street lighting. • Walking around Merced is tiring.
• Some of the roads are cracked which make it harder to walk/bike without the thought of getting hurt.
• Not enough lights night walks, need more walking trails. Safety for walkers need to be addressed.
• Some sidewalks need to be redone due to large cracks.
140
• It is rare to see biking in the area I live and walking tends to be more popular and I live near a bike trail as well so I wonder if it has more do with crossing opportunities. • I feel like the city should create a bigger bike lane on Bellevue Rd, it is very tight for cars and for bikes. When I drive I drive the slowest I can when passing next to the Bicyclists. I also think there should be more lights to see people walking late at night. It will help create secruity. • I wish it was safer and also more secure when locking bikes. • Merced is not a walking friendly nor really biking friendly place. As beautiful and as expansive as Merced is, it is hard to move around or get anywhere without a car. • There isn't many bike lanes in Merced, so biking can be a hassle at times. • Commuting from UC Merced to the city is relatively far. • Bike shops in Merced ??
• Could use more lights for major intersections.
• The road quality is horrible and unsafe.
• I like how there is always a bike lane and buttons for pedestrians to press with an audio. • My experience in walking and biking in Merced county has always been a beautiful scenery, beautiful nature and sunrises/ sunsets. But one of the problems that is very concerning is when walking at night. Recently, since the sun sets earlier, it becomes really dark at 5pm, and the problem is the Merced county doesn’t have enough street lamps or enough post lights to help illuminate the neighbors. As a woman living in Merced, I would feel much safer being able to feel less frightened if there were more lights instead of walking in a pitch black neighbor in Merced.
• The sidewalks (or lack of) along Franklin Road and Ashby Roads is troublesome, at best. The speeds at which cars are driving on Franklin Road are scary. Congestion during school dropoff/pick-up times is horrific. What happened to the roundabout that was supposed to be installed at Franklin Road and Ashby Road? The congestion at the stop light at Santa Fe and Franklin Road could be easily mitigated by allowing cars in one direction to go while the other waits at a red light (stop lights on Bear Creek are an example of this). • Traffic speeds along M street can feel uncomfortably fast even though there are residential neighborhoods along M.
• The area I walk is downtown, even though it’s the most walkable part of town it’s still car oriented. Just asking for a crosswalk on K St. has gone nowhere. It’s a street with many apartments and pedestrians, disable folks and parents with kids. • Please keep us safe. Please remove homeless encampments. Please clean up the paths. • There is a lack of safe places to ride. Bike lanes are not maintained to the extent roadways, often they fill with water from sprinkler, trash and other items that can damage bike tires. • I highly recommend securing funding to draft and develop a County wide "Shared Mobility Program" that would include Technical Assistance, Grant writing support and Project Implementation monies for local jurisdictions or at least a implement three-year shared mobility pilot program in a County City to learn from.
• It was about 3-4 years that I was walking in my community and fell because of a broken sidewalk. This sidewalk was on Lewis & Circle. My injury was so bad that I had to go to the hospital and the injury still affects me today. There are a lot of outdated/broken sidewalks in my community that make it hard to walk.
• Reduce street size to slow down speeding especially in rural residential streets, e.g. Cone Ave. • As Education and Outreach Coordinator for the Merced Bicycle Coalition, as a League of American Bicyclists licensed instructor, and having chaired the City's BPAC for eight years, I'm happy to share my experiences and hopes for active transportation in Merced.
141
• Sometimes I like to walk around but I do not have a bike at this moment. • No me siento segura, aparte esta el problema de homeless. • It’s very dangerous doing so because of the constant big rigs and cars traveling near restaurants and in our community. Road are not safe, pot holes. Nothing gets fixed. • Know several people who have biked and been hit by car, county roads dangerous to bike. • Since we lack on bike trails we need more speed bumps throughout the neighborhoods. A lot of speeding happens throughout the neighborhoods and drivers do not pay attention. I would walk my children to school but there is a lack of sidewalk at the end of Main Street, I am always fearful when my son walks to the High School.
• Folks driving cars are often too careless about people walking or on their bike. It is often scary to see this behavior and it has stopped from walking or biking in my city, especially with small children.
• The railroad crossing on Main St. by True value is very dangerous. So many stray dogs that chase after people. Not enough street lights there are so many dark streets especially in the older areas of town.
• NEED MORE OF IT. Car dependency sucks. Prioritize people not cars. • It would be nice to have safe bike paths in our community. • The road conditions are gross the patch work is done half ass so that the pot hole appears again and the county road works can keep re-patching (job security). • En mi comunidad de Dos Palos Y , ni tenemos ni banquetas ni alumbrado público, mucho menos espacios para andar en bicicleta, los ciclistas usan las carreteras • No sidewalks, no actual trials for walking.
• I'm Dos Palos Y , no tenemos banquetas ni alumbrado público. • Since my disability it has mad it almost impossible for me to walk or bike anywhere. • At a very minimum, every neighborhood where students live too close for busing to school should have a sidewalk and bikeable options. Golden Valley High School and the Weaver USD really lack options for many of the students.
• Two huge areas of concern for cyclists right now are G Grade between Snelling and Merced.
This route is the most used route and the pavement is horrible and the bike lane is very unmaintained. The cycling community would love to see an 8 foot bike lane between Merced and Snelling. Secondary, McKee Road in its entirety and Olive between McKee and the new parkway.
• It would be very nice to have a actual bike lane from Merced to Snelling. For example, Highway 140 on the west side after Applegate Road has a generous bike lane both directions.
Also the new section of Childs Avenue between Plainsburg Road and to be has an adequate bike lane on each side. We need the same thing to/from Snelling. • 8 foot bike lane from Merced to Snelling.
• Cars are driven as if they’re the only ones on the road, too fast and get really close to cyclists.
We need a large bike path to Snelling and slow cars down on Snelling Road. • Merced/Atwater are not so big they cannot be commuted by bike, as well as around town. • Sidewalks are non existent and may sometimes be small. Gutters are NOT bike lanes.
Crosswalks need to stand out more via reflective paint and signs. Safer and wider bike lanes out to Snelling (8 ft. Wide).
• I enjoy the Bear Creek Bike Path, I hope it will be repaired so that we can safely use it again. • Safety from drivers is bigger concern. Not enough supportive infrastructure. Start with downtown area and make it an example.
142
• Need more bike path, connections.
• I love the idea of regional foot/bike paths connecting cities. This network could create largescale recreational opportunities like marathons, bicycling events, etc. • No sidewalk attached from Yosemite crossings shopping center to Bellevue ranch nor El Capitan high school.
• Need more and safer routes/pathways to parks, businesses and schools. • When walking, there are many sidewalks that end abruptly. When biking, there is a lack of adequate and secure bike parking to allow me to feel comfortable leaving my bike to go inside where I will no longer be able to watch my bike.
• When, the City Los Banos, will start working to Reopening the Anza Way? • More bike paths connected to public transport. We cannot grow without bike paths. • No bike/walking path closer to the UC.
• Bike paths that are just paint in the road are not safe. Drivers ignore them, people park in them. I am safer in a lane than crammed in a shoulder where I’m not seen by cars. • The streets need to be repaired in many areas. It is incredibly rough on bike tires and having to avoid rocks and holes can be very dangerous.
• Too many stray dogs, chased me while biking. Scared when walking. • Merced is SO close to becoming a fully connected, bike-able city — there are just a few major connecting routes that are in dire need of bike/walk infrastructure (e.g., McKee). • Don't make bike routes along two way stop intersections across large roads. • Bumpy.
• Reinforce safety, add more bike lanes, wider sidewalks. Better crosswalks. • Some areas don't feel safe.
• Where we live we don't have sidewalks. The terrain is uneven and with heavy traffic it makes it dangerous to walk.it makes it dangerous to walk.
• Some places it's hard for me to get to unless a friend drives me there . There should be more bus routes.
• Feels unsafe sometimes.
• Wider roads. More signs. More patrols.
• We were trying to start a neighborhood watch but law enforcement were not responding to our calls. More speed bumps are needed.
• Cross streets walking sometimes take long time.
• Provide more lighting.
• Bike path need to kept clean of debris.
• It's often very beautiful and relaxing.
• I'd like the major bike paths to connect. More north South bike paths separate from road. • We need a regional bike lane that starts in Merced and ends in Turlock. • There are a lot of un experience drivers that do not care and are never reprimanded for their actions.
• There is not many trails and it's pretty dangerous.
• It's very hard to walk with small sidewalks.
• Safety.
• Drivers can be reckless.
• More sidewalks can park areas.
• To many bumps on paths.
• More trails.
143
• Love.
• Sidewalks need maintenance and lines need repainting. • Whenever I have the opportunity to walk I take it but sometimes it difficult considering distance and the dangers of street animals.
• More things to do on the path.
• More ducks that eat peas.
• Good.
• Make more sidewalks.
• Please add more bike lanes and more safety for pedestrians, this city one does not feel safe with all the homeless camping on the bike trails and traffic being horrible on the street. • Fun.
• Too many homelessness.
• Need better sidewalks.
• While the bike paths in North Merced are lovely and an important community resource, they are better designed for recreation than for transportation. There should still be well delineated bike lanes on all major thruways for cyclists trying to get to and from work. For example the bike lane only runs East-West and there are not good options North-South. Olive does not have a good bike lane, despite being a central commercial area. • Please look into bike valets at concerts or large shopping venues. Knowing someone is watching over my bike would allow me to enjoy whatever I'm doing fully. • Livingston-Cressy road has no sidewalks and no busses go down that road so I have to walk into town on the street.
• I think there aren't too many sidewalks with proper spacing so this doesn't really encourage me to try and walk around more because it doesn't feel safe. • It’s scary to cross the road sometimes. some roads in Merced is really dark so a lamp would be helpful.
• There are not enough bike road.
• I would like better sidewalk conditions and more cross intersections for pedestrians. • It would be great if there were clearer bike lanes along certain roads/streets. • this county neglects the unique aspects of its wildlife preserves by not providing hiking and bicycle access. This is not a large County, yet it has unique environmentally significant areas not easily accessible. This region can be a healthier region if people are enticed to hike and bicycle more between cities and town within the County. • We have some beautiful bike paths; it would be nice if they were patrolled like they were a few years go with police office on segways. It would let families feel safe and maybe deter the elements that haunt the creek paths. This would encourage more bicycling and pedestrians walking if they knew they were safe on the paths. We are thankful for the effort that has been put into place preserving some of these paths. I believe if we make it more accessible to everyone then it will be utilized more and become a normal way of life in Merced. • Not safe with speeding cars and unprotected bike lanes. crossing at intersections even with traffic lights is VERY scary. Fear for my kids who would otherwise love to be more independent.
144
C
145
Appendix C
Prioritization Process
Prioritization of the projects identified in the
MCAG Active Transportation Plan provides an
understanding of community needs, targets
investments, and strategically positions projects
for competitive grants. Potential factors for
prioritization are proposed in this appendix
in Table 11. These factors are aligned with
the eligibility criteria for the California Active
Transportation Program.
Prioritization factors consider safety, access to
schools and community destinations, equity,
and connectivity. Each factor will be weighted
by significance, then scores for all factors will be
summed and normalized to provide a total score
for each proposed project. A list of proposed
factors for consideration is presented in Table 11.
MCAG staff may also wish to consider
additional factors to prioritize based on the
potential for mode shift, and/or the difficulty of
implementation. Low-stress, separated facilities,
such as a trail, Class I path, or cycletrack are more
likely to contribute to mode shift in the long term
and see additional safety benefits by separating
users from vehicles. However, these projects
also can involve more difficult implementation
considerations, such as tradeoffs around the
reallocation of roadway space and higher
construction costs. Similarly, projects such as
bicycle boulevards, which involve the addition of
traffic calming elements on low-speed roadways,
may have lower implementation costs but are
less likely to increase mode shift.
146
Table 11 List of Prioritization Factors
Input Factor Source Range of Factor
Variable
Score Significance
Safety – 40%
Fatal or severe injury collisions
within 250 feet
UC Berkeley
SAFETREC TIMS /
Points
2+ collisions 2
High 1 collision 1
Presence on Bike/Ped High Injury
Network
MCAG Local Road
Safety Plan and
County Local Road
Safety Plan
Yes 1 High
Need (Access & Connectivity) – 40%
Proximity to Schools CA Dept. of Education
/ Points
Within ¼ mile 2
High Within ½ mile 1
Proximity to Libraries & Parks Points
Within ¼ mile 2
Medium
Within ½ mile 1
Proximity to Transit (Bus) Stops GTFS / Points Within ¼ mile 2Medium Within ½ mile 1
Disadvantaged Communities – 20%
Schools with large share (75%)
of students eligible for free and
reduced-price meals
CA Dept. of Education
/ Polygons
0-0.25 miles 4
0.25-0.5 2 High
0.5-1 1
Health Places Index Polygons Within 25th
percentile or less 1 High
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Polygons Within top 25% 1 High
Low-income communities ACS / Polygons Income below 80%
statewide median 1 High
Climate and Environmental
Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) USDOT / Polygons Identified as disadvantaged 1 High
Equitable Transportation
Community (ETC) Explorer USDOT / Polygons Identified as disadvantaged 1 High
147
(this page intentionally left blank)
148
CD
::. ~ ·-. ~ .·"'"·.
-: ••
"'
,_._:
~. _;~ •
.
"
149
Appendix D
Project List
Prioritized project lists that correspond to
the maps in Chapter 5, broken down by
jurisdiction, are provided in this appendix.
150
Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority
Cost
Estimate
Almador Terrace Juniper Ave Clinton Ave 3B 0.34 $30,000 Almador Terrace Clinton Ave Broadway Ave 2 0.27 $30,000 Atwater Canal N Buhach Rd Olive Ave 1 4.82 High $8,880,000 Ave Two City Limits N Buhach Rd 1 0.55 $1,010,000
Bellevue Rd Atwater Canal Santa Fe Rd 2B 2.52 High $1,040,000 Broadway Ave N Buhach Rd Shaffer Rd 3B 1.18 $100,000
Buhach Rd Bellevue Rd Juniper Ave 3B 0.76 $60,000
Fifth St Bellevue Rd Atwater Blvd 3B 1.03 High $80,000
First St Bellevue Rd Atwater Blvd 2 1.23 High $130,000
Fruitland Ave Shaffer Rd Atwater Canal 3B 0.94 $80,000
Green Sands Ave City limits Broadway Ave 1 0.91 $1,670,000 Juniper Ave Shaffer Rd Winton Way 3B 1.08 High $90,000
Juniper Ave Shaffer Rd Buhach Rd 1 1.06 High $1,950,000 Mitchell Ave N Winton Way Atwater Canal Path 1 0.43 High $800,000 N Buhach Rd Green Sands Ave Juniper Ave 1 0.76 $1,400,000 N Winton Way City Limits Olive Ave 2B 1.32 High $210,000 Shaffer Rd Camellia Dr E Bellevue Rd 1 0.75 $1,390,000
Shaffer Rd Bellevue Rd Atwater Blvd 4 1.34 High $260,000 Location Cross Street Project Type Cost Estimate
5th St Midblock south of Ivy Ave Traffic Calming $250,000 Bellevue Rd Atwater Canal Trail Crossing $130,000
Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Traffic Calming $1,400,000
N Winton Way Fruitland Ave Trail Crossing $130,000
Winton Way Livingston Canal Install RRFB $130,000
Atwater
Spot Improvement Projects
151
Dos Palos
Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority
Cost
Estimate
Bryant Ave Carmelia Ave Valeria Ave 1 1.87 $3,440,000
Bryant MS Valeria St 1 0.41 $760,000
California Ave Colony Branch
Three Canal
Valeria St 3B 0.49 High $40,000
Center Ave Dora St Valeria St 3B 0.39 $30,000
Colony Branch
Three Canal
Golden Gate Ave Reynolds Ave 1 0.94 $1,720,000
Elgin Ave Valeria St Santos St 0 0.59 High $250,000
SR-33 Valerie St County limits 2 2.12 High $220,000
Valeria St Bryant Ave Elgin Ave 3B 1.50 High $120,000
Valeria St Center Ave Elgin Ave 1 0.57 High $1,060,000
Location Cross Street Project Type Cost Estimate
California Ave Almond St Intersection Upgrades $250,000 California Ave Blossom St Intersection Upgrades $250,000 Center Ave Blossom St Intersection Upgrades $550,000
E Blossom St Leonard Ave Crossing Enhancement $250,000
E Blossom St Lucerne Ave Install RRFB $130,000
Frank Ave Almond St Intersection Upgrades $250,000
Frank Ave Blossom St Intersection Upgrades $250,000
Loraine St Center Ave Intersection Upgrades $250,000
Palo Alto St Leonard Ave Crossing Enhancement $250,000
Palo Alto St Mabel Ave Crossing Enhancement $250,000
Spot Improvement Projects
152
Gustine
Improvement Location Start End Length
Priority
Score
Cost
Estimate
New Sidewalk 1st Avenue Alley between West
Ave and 6th St
76 ft 18 $9,800
New Sidewalk 1st Avenue Alley between 5th
and 6th Streets
80 ft 13 $10,400
New Sidewalk 1st Street 2nd Avenue 3rd Avenue 810 ft 3 $105,200 Class III Bicycle
Boulevard
2nd Avenue West Avenue SR 33/140 (4th St) 0.24 mi 11 $4,900 New Sidewalk 2nd Avenue Alley between 5th
and 6th Streets
80 ft 15 $10,400
New Sidewalk 2nd Avenue Alley between West
Ave and 6th St
40 ft 13 $5,200
New Sidewalk 2nd Avenue 2nd Street East Avenue 1,177 ft 3 $153,000 New Sidewalk 2nd Avenue 5th Street 4th Street (SR
33/140)
498 ft 3 $64,700
New Sidewalk 2nd Street North Avenue 5th Avenue 2,205 ft 3 $286,700 New Sidewalk 3rd Avenue Alley between 4th
and 5th Streets
80 ft 10 $10,400
New Sidewalk 3rd Avenue Railroad tracks East Avenue 988 ft 8 $128,400 Class III Bicycle
Boulevard
4th Avenue West Avenue 4th Street 0.29 mi 6 $5,700
New Sidewalk 4th Avenue Alley between West
Ave and 7th St
85 ft 13 $11,100
New Sidewalk 4th Avenue Alley between 6th
and 7th Streets
109 ft 13 $14,200
New Sidewalk 4th Avenue Alley between 2nd
and 3rd Streets
East Avenue 972 ft 3 $126,300
New Sidewalk 5th Avenue Alley between 7th &
8th Streets
80 ft 8 $10,400
New Sidewalk 5th Avenue Alley between 6th
and 7th Streets
80 ft 8 $10,400
New Sidewalk 5th Avenue Alley between 5th
and 6th Streets
80 ft 8 $10,400
New Sidewalk 5th Avenue 7th Street Alley between 6th
and 7th Streets
280 ft 5 $36,400
The City of Gustine recently completed the development of a citywide Active Transportation Plan, which was adopted in December 2021. As such, the ATP does not include new projects for Gustine and instead defers to the locally- developed plan.
The following tables reproduce Appendix C of that 2021 plan.
153
Gustine
Improvement Location Start End Length
Priority
Score
Cost
Estimate
New Sidewalk 5th Avenue Alley between 3rd and
2nd Streets
East Avenue 726 ft 3 $94,400
Class III Bicycle
Boulevard
5th Street SR 33/140 North Avenue 0.39 mi 15 $7,800
New Sidewalk Ash Avenue South Avenue Wallis Avenue 360 ft 11 $46,800 New Sidewalk Carnation
Avenue
355 Carnation Ave Railroad Avenue 338 ft 11 $43,900
Study Carnation
Road
East Avenue Kniebes Road 0.50 mi 0 Varies
New Sidewalk Carolyn
Drive
Elm Avenue Laurel Avenue 559 ft 8 $72,700
Study Drainage
Canal
Access Road
Drainage Canal (West
side of Gustine)
Via del Pettoruto 0.92 mi 10 Varies
New Sidewalk East Avenue 2nd Avenue 5th Avenue 1252 ft 3 $162,800 Study East Avenue Fairview Avenue Railroad Avenue 0.13 mi 5 Varies New Sidewalk Elm Avenue Carolyn Drive SR 33/140 (South
Ave)
624 ft 18 $81,100
New Sidewalk Elm Avenue SR 33/140 (South Ave) Wallis Avenue 1,404 ft 16 $182,500 Class I MultiUse PathGrove
Avenue
430' north of Sullivan
Rd
Sullivan Road 0.08 mi 13 $212,100
Study Kniebes
Road
Carnation Road Meredith Avenue 0.25 mi 0 Varies
Class III Bicycle
Boulevard
Laurel
Avenue
North Avenue Sullivan Road 0.98 mi 11 $19,600
New Sidewalk Laurel
Avenue
Meredith Avenue SR 33/140 2,359 ft 16 $306,700
Class III Bicycle
Boulevard
Laurel
Avenue
North Avenue Sullivan Road 0.98 mi 11 $19,600
New Sidewalk Laurel
Avenue
Meredith Avenue SR 33/140 2,359 ft 16 $306,700
New Sidewalk Laurel
Avenue
Bonta Avenue Sullivan Road 557 ft 11 $72,400
New Sidewalk Laurel
Avenue
SR 33/140 North Avenue 4,874 ft 8 $633,700
Class III Bicycle
Boulevard
Linden
Avenue
Sullivan Road SR 33/140 0.25 mi 11 $5,000
154
Gustine
Improvement Location Start End Length
Priority
Score
Cost
Estimate
New Sidewalk Linden
Avenue
SR 33/140 Wallis Avenue 785 ft 21 $102,000
New Sidewalk Linden AvenueSR 33/140 Lucerne Avenue 998 ft 20 $129,700 New Sidewalk Linden
Avenue
Lucerne Avenue North Avenue 1,131 ft 13 $147,000
New Sidewalk Linden
Avenue
Bonta Avenue Sullivan Road 289 ft 6 $37,600
New Sidewalk Lucerne
Avenue
Jensen Road West Avenue 2,544 ft 20 $330,700
New Sidewalk Lucerne
Avenue
Jensen Road West Avenue 1,271 ft 15 $165,300
New Sidewalk Meredith
Avenue
Railroad Avenue Gustine
Elementary east
property line
407 ft 16 $52,900
New Sidewalk Meredith
Avenue
Grove Avenue Hunt Road 1,441 ft 11 $187,400
New Sidewalk Payne
Avenue
Meredith Avenue Start of existing
sidewalk on Payne
Avenue
137 ft 11 $17,800
Study Railroad
Avenue
North Avenue Sullivan Road 1.07 mi 13 Varies
New Sidewalk South
Avenue
4th Street East Avenue 1,296 ft 13 $168,400
Class IV
Bikeway
South
Avenue (SR
33/140)
Linden Avenue 4th Street 0.60 mi 18 $450,300
Sidewalk
Improvements
South
Avenue (SR
33/140)
Linden Avenue 4th Street 6,165 ft 23 $308,300
Study South of Via
Basilicata
Proposed Trail/
West City Limits
Lucerne Avenue 0.24 mi 5 Varies
Class IV
Bikeway
SR 33/140 6th Avenue Gustine High
School
0.56 mi 13 $416,900
New Sidewalk SR 33/140 North Avenue Carnation Road 3,012 ft 12 $391,500 Class I MultiUse PathSullivan Road Jensen Road Proposed Rail Trail 1.02 mi 16 $2,671,800 New Sidewalk Sycamore
Avenue
North Avenue Sycamore Cul- desac1,299 ft 18 $168,900
155
Gustine
Improvement Location Start End Length
Priority
Score
Cost
Estimate
New Sidewalk Sycamore
Avenue
SR 33/140 (South Ave) Sycamore Ave
(north cul-de- sac)
2,376 ft 13 $308,900
New Sidewalk Sycamore
Avenue
Meredith Avenue 697 Sycamore
Avenue
1,850 ft 11 $240,400
New Sidewalk Wallis
Avenue
Linden Avenue Laurel Avenue 810 ft 16 $105,300
New Sidewalk Wallis
Avenue
150' east of Payne Ave Railroad Avenue 1,508 ft 11 $196,000 New Sidewalk Wallis
Avenue
West Avenue Payne Avenue 209 ft 11 $27,100
Class III Bicycle
Boulevard
West
Avenue
North Avenue Sullivan Road 0.99 mi 13 $19,900
New Sidewalk West
Avenue
SR 33/140 (South Ave) 1,156 ft 11 $150,300
New Sidewalk West
Avenue
SR 33/140 (South Ave) Meredith Avenue 1,093 ft 11 $142,000 Improvement Location Cross Street
Priority
Score
Cost
Estimate
Crossing Improvement 1st Avenue 6th Street 8 $1,900
Curb Ramp Improvement 2nd Avenue 6th Street 15 $20,000
Curb Ramp Improvement 2nd Avenue 5th Street 15 $20,000
Crossing Improvement 3rd Avenue 5th Street 15 $9,200
Curb Ramp Improvement 3rd Avenue Alley between 5th and 6th Streets 13 $20,000 Curb Ramp Improvement 4th Avenue Alley between 5th and 6th Streets 8 $20,000 Curb Ramp Improvement 4th Avenue Alley between 4th and 5th Streets 8 $20,000 Curb Ramp Improvement 5th Avenue Alley between 5th and 4th Streets 8 $20,000 Crossing Improvement 6th Street North Avenue 10 $3,300
Crossing Improvement 6th Street SR 33/140 8 $22,300
Crossing Improvement 8th Street SR 33/140 8 $22,300
Crossing Improvement East Avenue E Wallis Avenue 13 $2,300 Crossing Improvement East Avenue Fairview Avenue 8 $4,600 Crossing Improvement Hunt Road Sullivan Road 10 $54,600 Crossing Improvement Hunt Road Railroad tracks 8 Varies Crossing Improvement Jensen Road North Avenue 5 $2,300
Crossing Improvement Lucerne Avenue West Avenue 15 $3,000,000 Spot Improvement Projects
156
Gustine
Spot Improvement Projects
Improvement Location Cross Street
Priority
Score
Cost
Estimate
Crossing Improvement Lucerne Avenue Laurel Avenue 8 $1,900 Crossing Improvement Meredith Avenue Linden Avenue 20 $9,200 Crossing Improvement Meredith Avenue Railroad Avenue 10 Varies Crossing Improvement Meredith Avenue West Avenue 8 $9,200 Crossing Improvement North Avenue 5th Street 10 $6,900
Crossing Improvement North Avenue Laurel Avenue 7 $22,300 Crossing Improvement North Avenue Sycamore Avenue 7 $22,300 Crossing Improvement North Avenue Linden Avenue 5 $4,600 Crossing Improvement South Avenue East Avenue 10 $4,600 Crossing Improvement South Avenue Railroad Avenue 5 $2,300 Study SR 33/140 Linden Avenue 18 $96,900
Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 Canal Trail Crossing 3 Varies Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (4th St) 3rd Avenue 9 $16,100 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (4th St) 4th Avenue 5 $4,600 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (4th St) 5th Avenue 5 $54,600 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (4th St) 2nd Avenue 5 $4,600 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (South Ave) 5th Street 10 $9,200 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (South Ave) Elm Avenue 18 $1,900 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (South Ave) Sycamore Avenue 13 $4,600 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (South Ave) Laurel Avenue 10 $9,200 Crossing Improvement SR 33/140 (South Ave) West Avenue 8 $96,900 Crossing Improvement Sullivan Road Middle School Entry 10 $52,300 Crossing Improvement Sullivan Road Grove Avenue 10 $2,300 Crossing Improvement Sullivan Road Linden Avenue 5 $2,300 Crossing Improvement Sullivan Road Laurel Avenue 5 $2,300 Crossing Improvement Sullivan Road West Avenue 5 $2,300 Crossing Improvement Via Jodi North Avenue 5 $2,300
Crossing Improvement Via Palermo Fentem Road (North Ave) 5 $22,300
157
(this page intentionally left blank)
158
Livingston
Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority
Cost
Estimate
7th St F St D St 3B 0.14 $30,000
7th St Peach Ave Park St 3B 0.24 $50,000
B St Robin Ave Main St 2 0.98 $260,000
Briarwood Sr Montcliff Way F St 3B 0.23 $50,000
Campbell Dr Stefani Ave Hammatt Ave 1 0.68 $3,260,000
Campbell Dr Hammatt Ave New Trail 2 0.21 $60,000
Canal Trail Joseph Gallo Ct Main St 1 0.69 $3,310,000
Celia Dr N Main St Walnut Ave 3B 0.26 High $60,000
D St 7th St Prusso St 3B 0.44 $90,000
Dwight Way Walnut Ave Trigger Ln 1 0.28 $1,330,000
Emerald Dr / Arena CanalMontcliff Way Peach Ave 1 0.37 $1,790,000 F St Prusso St Robin Ave 2 0.81 $220,000
F St Hammat Ave Prusso St 3 0.70 High $90,000
Hammatt Ave Peach Ave Park St 3 0.24 High $30,000
Hammatt Ave Olive Ave Walnut Ave 2B 0.50 $210,000
Hammatt Ave Park St Walnut Ave 2 0.78 $210,000
I St Main St Amarone Way 3B 0.28 $60,000
Joseph Gallo Ct Winton Parkway Canal Trail 2 0.26 $70,000 Main St Peach Ave D St 2 0.64 High $170,000
Main St Court St D St 3B 0.24 $50,000
Main St Court St Olive Ave 2B 0.71 High $300,000
Montcliff Way Montelena Ave Winton Pkwy 3B 0.28 $60,000 Montelena Ave Amarone Way Latour Way 3B 0.16 $40,000
Olive Ave Main St Ohki St 2B 0.40 $170,000
Park St Hammatt Ave Main St 3B 0.51 High $110,000
Peach Ave Dwight Way Main St 2 1.00 High $270,000
Peach Ave Main St Robin Ave 3 1.01 High $130,000
Prusso St F St B St 3B 0.26 $60,000
Ravenswood Dr /
Arena Canal
Briarwood Dr F St 1 0.37 $1,760,000
Trigger Ave Campbell Dr Dwight Way 1 0.21 $1,030,000
Walnut Ave 365 ft east of
Sycamore St
Stefani Ave 2B 1.01 High $420,000
Winton Pkwy Campbell Blvd Peach Ave 2B 1.27 $530,000
159
Livingston
Spot Improvement Projects
Location Cross Street Project Type Cost Estimate
Celia Dr Hickory Ave Install RRFB $130,000
Celia Dr 230ft SE of Lucero Park Traffic Calming $250,000 F St Hilltop Ave Crossing Enhancement $130,000
Livingston Cressey Rd Celia Dr Crossing Enhancement $130,000 Main St I St Install RRFB $250,000
Main St 300ft N of Peach Ave Crossing Enhancement $130,000 N Main St Campbell Blvd Crossing Enhancement $250,000
N Main St Railroad Tracks Crossing Enhancement $550,000 Park St 5th St Intersection Upgrades $130,000
Park St 7th St Intersection Upgrades $250,000
Peach Ave 7th St Crossing Enhancement $250,000
160
Los Banos
Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority
Cost
Estimate
11th St Pioneer Rd Pachecho Blvd 3B 1.03 $210,000
7th St Madison Ave Willmott Ave 4 1.20 High $590,000
B St Ward Rd 7th St 4 1.35 High $660,000
Badger Flat Rd Prarie Springs Dr Cardoza Rd 3B 0.28 $60,000 Cabernet St Overland Ave Vineyard Dr 3B 0.61 $130,000
Carrdoza Rd Fir Dr Ortigalita Rd 2 0.35 $100,000
Center Ave Madison Ave Cardoza Rd 4 0.25 $130,000
Colorado Ave J St H St 4 0.57 $280,000
Fourth St I St F St 2B 0.08 $40,000
H St Pachecho Blvd Ingomar Grade 4 2.54 High $1,230,000 I St 4th St Cardoza Rd 4 1.63 High $800,000
Madison Ave Center Ave Seventh St 3B 0.36 $80,000
Mercey Springs Rd Del Rio Dr Pacheco Blvd 1 2.16 High $10,360,000 Miller Lane Pacheco Blvd San Luis St 2B 0.33 $140,000
Nantes Ave Overland Ave Capri Ave 2B 0.73 $310,000
Ortigalita Rd Sandra St Pachecho Blvd 4 0.72 $350,000
Overland Ave Okace Rd Johnson Rd 4 1.92 High $930,000
Overland Ave Place Rd Ward Rd 2 0.49 $130,000
Pacheco Blvd Ward Rd Merced College 4 4.22 High $2,050,000 Page Trail Mercey Springs Rd Page St/S 11th St 1 0.23 $1,130,000 Pioneer Rd New West Connector Ward Rd 1 3.75 $18,020,000 Place Rd Mission Dr B St 3B 0.30 $60,000
Rail Trail Ward St 2nd St 1 2.22 High $10,650,000
San Luis St Pachecho Blvd Mercey Springs Rd 4 1.90 High $930,000 Second St H St Willmott Ave 3B 0.37 $80,000
Snow Goose Dr Fallbrook Dr Ward Rd 3B 0.43 $90,000
Stonewood Dr Willmott Ave Woodbridge St 4 0.88 $430,000 Vineyard Dr Nantes Ave Stonewood Dr 4 0.53 $260,000
Ward Rd Pachecho Blvd Snow Goose Dr 4 0.67 High $330,000 Willmott Ave Johnson Rd Las Palmas St 4 1.80 High $880,000 Wisteria Ave B St Willmott Ave 3B 0.15 $30,000
161
Los Banos
Location Cross Street Project Type Cost Estimate
7th St J St Intersection Upgrades $250,000
7th St K St Intersection Upgrades $250,000
E Pachecho Blvd 7th St Intersection Upgrades $1,400,000 E Pachecho Blvd 9th St Crossing Enhancement $250,000
E Pachecho Blvd Mercey Springs Rd Intersection Upgrades $1,400,000 H St 6th St Intersection Upgrades $130,000
Miller Ln Canal Farm Ln Intersection Upgrades $550,000
Place Rd San Luis St Intersection Upgrades $130,000
W H St Johnson Rd Railroad Crossing $550,000
Spot Improvement Projects
162
City of Merced
Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority
Cost
Estimate
26th St Glen Ave O St 3B 1.31 High $270,000
Ahwahnee Dr Cascade Creek Ave Joerg Ave 3B 0.18 $40,000 Bancroft Dr Barclay Way M Cir 4 0.17 $90,000
Barclay Way Portico Dr M St 4 0.66 $330,000
Bear Creek Trail N McKee Rd R St 1 2.53 $12,150,000
Bear Creek Trail S McKee Rd W 25th St 1 2.97 High $14,260,000 Bellevue Rd N Lake Rd M St 1 2.46 $11,830,000
Buena Vista Dr M St R St 2B 0.47 $200,000
Cardella Rd G St Freemark Ave 4 0.76 $380,000
Cascade Creek Ave Black Rascal Creek Ahwahnee Dr 3B 0.36 $80,000 Cassis Dr San Augustine Ave El Redondo Dr 3B 0.23 $50,000 Cottonwood Creek
Trail
Penn Ct / Cottonwood
Creek Trail
G St 1 1.18 $5,650,000
Creekview Dr Path N Lake Rd Creekview Dr 1 1.22 $5,860,000 Dominican Dr Cottonwood Creek Mercy Ave 4 0.18 $90,000
E 21st St Yosemite Pkwy Glen Ave 2 0.66 High $180,000
E 27th St McKee Rd Glen Ave 3B 0.88 $180,000
E Childs Ave Campus Pkwy Delong St 4 2.44 High $1,190,000 E Main St Glen Ave G St 2B 0.57 High $240,000
E Yosemite Ave Campus Pkwy G St 4 2.47 $1,200,000
El Redondo Dr W Yosemite Ave Avignon Dr 2 0.64 $170,000 El Redondo Dr
Path
Santa Fe Park / Fahrens
Creek Trail
W Yosemite Ave 1 0.93 $4,470,000
Fahrens Creek
Path
Cottonwood Creek Trail
/ Theresa Ct
Black Rascal
Creek Path
1 1.96 $9,420,000
G St Childs Ave Bellevue Rd 4 5.17 High $2,510,000
G St E Mission Ave E Childs Ave 2 1.07 $280,000
G St W Cardella Rd Mercy Ave 1 0.54 $2,600,000
Glen Ave Bear Creek Trail E Main St 2B 0.91 High $380,000 Grogan Ave West Ave MacReady Dr 4 0.45 $230,000
Horizons Ave Horizons Ave End Pacific Dr 2B 0.40 $170,000 Joerg Ave Ahwahnee Dr E Yosemite Ave 3B 0.15 $30,000
Lehigh Dr Cottonwood Creek Trail M St 2 0.38 $100,000
M St Childs Ave Bellevue Rd 4 5.27 High $2,560,000
Mandeville Ln Barclay Way M Cir 4 0.17 $90,000
Mansionette Dr Mercy Ave E Yosemite Ave 4 0.44 $220,000 MLK Jr. Blvd Main St 24th St 3B 0.50 $100,000
163
City of Merced
Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority Cost Estimate
McKee Rd E 27th St E Yosemite Ave 4 2.05 $1,000,000
Mercy Ave Mansionette Dr G St 3B 0.27 $60,000
Mission Ave SR-59 S Coffee St 2B 3.01 $1,260,000
Motel Dr Almond Ave Glen Ave 4 0.41 High $200,000
N Parsons Ave Yosemite Ave E 27th St 4 1.92 $940,000
O St 26th St 8th St 4 1.39 High $680,000
Olive Ave Campus Pkwy R St 4 4.52 High $2,200,000
Orion Dr Twilight Ave Horizons Ave 3B 0.10 $20,000
Orion Dr Path R St Twilight Ave 1 0.19 $930,000
Pacific Dr San Augustine Ave Horizons Ave 2 0.69 $180,000 R St W Childs Ave W Yosemite Ave 4 3.23 High $1,570,000 Rascal Bike Path McKee Rd Snelling Hwy 1 4.20 High $20,150,000 S Parsons Ave S Coffee St Yosemite Pkwy 4 1.95 High $950,000 San Augustine Ave Cassis Dr W Yosemite Ave 2B 0.59 $250,000 San Jose Ave Lehigh Dr W Yosemite Ave 2B 0.55 $230,000
Sullivan Bike Path Snelling Hwy Devonwood Dr 1 0.71 $3,390,000 Tyler Rd E Mission Ave E Childs Ave 1 1.01 $4,870,000
V St W 24th St W Main St 3B 0.52 $110,000
V St W Main St SR-140 2B 0.33 High $140,000
W 11th St D St X St 3B 1.82 High $370,000
W 13th St B St R St 3B 1.45 High $300,000
W 16th St G St V St 2 1.37 High $360,000
W 18th St G St V St 2B 1.37 High $570,000
W 21st St Glen Ave R St 3B 1.58 High $320,000
W 8th St MLK Jr Way West Ave 3B 1.20 High $250,000
W Childs Ave De Long St N West Ave 2B 2.10 High $880,000 W Main St G St O St 3B 0.73 High $150,000
W Yosemite Ave G St San Augustine Ave 2B 1.66 High $690,000 West Ave W Childs Ave W 11th St 2B 0.94 High $400,000
Spot
Improvement
Projects
Location Cross Street Project Type Cost Estimate
Heritage Dr West Ave Install RRFB $130,000
Parsons Ave Bear Creek New Bike/Ped Bridge $15,000,000
W 7th St West Ave Intersection Redesign $250,000
W Childs Ave Reyes Elementary School New Crossing $130,000 W Lopes Ave West Ave Install RRFB $130,000
164
Unincorporated County
Community Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority
Cost
Estimate
County/
Atwater/
Merced
Santa Fe Dr City of Atwater City of Merced 1 4.00 High $19,230,000 Cressey 3rd St Cressey St Crocker Ave 1 0.07 $360,000
Cressey Cressey St Cressey Way 3rd St 1 0.09 $460,000
Cressey Cressey Way Crocker Ave Cressey St 1 0.10 $470,000 Cressey Crocker Ave 3rd St Cressey Way 1 0.15 $730,000
Delhi 5th St El Capitan Way Sierra St 1 0.50 High $2,420,000 Delhi El Capitan Way Palm St Stephens St 2 0.66 High $180,000 Delhi Merced Ave August Ave Schendel Ave 0 0.23 High $260,000 Delhi Oslo Rd Letteau Ave Merced Ave 1 0.66 High $3,170,000 Delhi Schendel Ave Stephens St Merced Ave 4 1.14 High $560,000 Delhi Stephens St Johnson St El Capitan Way 2 0.60 High $160,000 Delhi Vincent Rd El Capitan Way Shanks Rd 3B 0.33 High $70,000 Hilmar Geer Ave Lander Ave Scholar Way 1 0.49 $2,360,000 Hilmar Lander Ave Lateral
Number 7
Geer Ave 1 0.38 $1,830,000
Le Grand Brice St Brice St Cook St 3B 0.12 High $30,000 Le Grand Jefferson St Washington St Le Grand Rd 1 0.15 High $750,000 Le Grand S Cook St E Brice St Le Grand Rd 3B 0.14 High $30,000 Le Grand S McKee St Jefferson St 1 0.04 High $180,000
Planada Broderick Ave Fremont St Santa Fe Dr 3B 0.21 $50,000 Planada Fremont St Stanford Ave Broderick Ave 3B 0.17 $40,000 Planada Plainsburg Rd Santa Fe Dr Gerard Ave 4 0.84 High $410,000 Planada Santa Fe Dr Broderick Ave Stanford Ave 3B 0.34 $70,000 Planada Stanford Ave Fremont St Santa Fe Dr 3B 0.37 $80,000 Santa Nella SR-33 I-5 Centinella Ave 0 0.71 High $780,000 Santa Nella W Comet Rd S Jupiter St Neptune St 0 0.47 $520,000 South Dos
Palos
6th St K St P St 3B 0.39 High $80,000
South Dos
Palos
7th Santa Fe Grade L St 3B 0.08 High $20,000
South Dos
Palos
7th St Santa Fe Grade N St 1 0.09 High $430,000
South Dos
Palos
7th St N St W Rice Drain 3B 0.18 $40,000
165
Unincorporated County
Community Location From To
Facility
Type Length Priority
Cost
Estimate
South Dos
Palos
Adobe St L St Santa Fe Grade 3B 0.08 $20,000
South Dos
Palos
Christian Ave SR-33 Lexington Ave 2 1.01 $270,000
South Dos
Palos
L St 7th St Adobe St 3B 0.36 $80,000
South Dos
Palos
Lexington Ave Christian Ave Santa Fe Grade 2 0.68 $180,000 South Dos
Palos
N St 7th St 6th St 2 0.09 $30,000
South Dos
Palos
P St 6th St 7th St 3B 0.10 $30,000
South Dos
Palos
Santa Fe Grade Adobe St 7th St 3B 0.36 High $80,000
Winton Winton Way Atwater City
Limits
Olive Ave 4 2.00 High $970,000
Spot Improvement Projects
Community Location Cross Street Project Type Cost Estimate Delhi Stephen St El Capitan Way Intersection Upgrades $250,000 Delhi Stephen St King St Intersection Upgrades $250,000 Delhi Stephen St Schendel Ave Intersection Upgrades $250,000 Planada E Childs Ave Freemont St Crossing Enhancement $250,000 Planada E Childs Ave Hupp St Crossing Enhancement $250,000 Santa Nella SR-33 Comet St New Crossing $550,000
Winton N Winton Way Almond Ave Crossing Enhancement $550,000 Winton N Winton Way Myrtle Ave Crossing Enhancement $250,000 Winton N Winton Way Olive Ave Crossing Enhancement $250,000 Winton N Winton Way Santa Fe Dr Crossing Enhancement $1,950,000 Winton N Winton Way W Walnut Ave Crossing Enhancement $250,000
166
E
167
Appendix E
Sample Resolution
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF [CITY NAME] APPROVING THE MERCED REGIONAL
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan complies with the California Transportation Commission 2025 Active Transportation Program Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan is in compliance with the 2022 Merced County Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy; and WHEREAS, the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan is an implementation tool to the [City Name] General Plan Circulation Element; and
WHEREAS, the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan promotes walking and biking for transportation and recreation by all members of the community by creating a connected and complete network of trails, walkways, and bikeways that provides safe, convenient, and enjoyable connections to key destinations and neighborhoods in [City Name]; and
WHEREAS, the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan promotes pedestrian and bicyclist safety and collision reduction; and
WHEREAS, the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan will improve the accessibility of funding for pedestrian and bicycle related-related improvements in [City Name]; and WHEREAS, approval of the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan meets eligibility requirements for Active Transportation Program funding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of [City Name] hereby approves the Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan.
168
F ...
169
Appendix F
ATP Checklist
Page numbers that correspond to the
appropriate Caltrans Active Transportation Plan
Checklist items are provided in this appendix.
170
Checklist Item Description Page
A Mode Share The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from the implementation of the plan.
31 B Description
of Land Uses/
Destinations
A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, major transit hubs, and other destinations. Major transit hubs must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals and ferry docks and landings.
Existing: 17
(Appendix A),
88-102
Proposed:
88-102
C Pedestrian
Facilities
A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools.
Existing: 25
Proposed:
88-107
D Bicycle Facilities A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools.
Existing: 18-
24 Proposed:
88-107
E Bicycle Parking A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. Include a description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots, and in new commercial and residential developments. Also, include a map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
Existing: 18
Proposed:
64, 121
F Wayfinding A description of existing and proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to
designated destinations.
Existing: 26
Proposed:
75, 120
G NonInfrastructureA description of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian education and encouragement programs conducted in the
area included within the plan.
76-78
H Collision Analysis The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan 35-37
171
Checklist Item Description Page
I Equity Analysis Identify census tracts that are considered disadvantaged or low income and identify bicycle and pedestrian needs of those disadvantaged or lowincome residents, including lack of connectivity to key destinations, mobility challenges, public health concerns, and safety issues.
42-49
J Community
Engagement
A description of the extent of community involvement in the development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities.
51-55
K Coordination A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, housing, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan, and local or regional housing plans or process improvements that are adopted or in development. 14-15, 51-54
L Prioritization A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.
86-87,
Appendix C
M Funding A description of future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated cost, revenue sources, and potential funding for bicycle and
pedestrian uses.
110-111,
Appendix D
N Implementation A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.
113-121
O Maintenance A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, ADA level surfaces, freedom from encroaching
vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting.
60-61
P Resolution A resolution showing the adoption of the plan by the city, county, or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district, or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located.
Appendix E
GOVERNING BOARD MEETING SUMMARY
January 16, 2025
Directors Present: Scott Silveira, Josh Pedrozo, Shane Smith, Katy Reed, Pat Nagy, Mike Nelson, Daron McDaniel, Lloyd Pareira, Michael Amabile, Gurpal Samra, Jim Pacheco Directors Absent: None
The MCAG Governing Board:
• Authorized the Executive Director to enter into a contract for consultant services to prepare the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the 2026 Regional Transportation Plan in the amount of $248,394 with LSA Associates, Inc.
• Authorized the Executive Director to enter into a contract for consultant services to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2026 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy in the amount of $161,034 with VRPA Technologies. • Approved the 2025 Federal Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 2. • Elected Director Amabile as Board Chairperson to serve the remainder of the fiscal year 2024-25, effective upon the February Governing Board meeting, expiring on July 1, 2025. • Approved transportation overall work program priorities for fiscal year 2025-26. • Approved the 2025 Governing Board meeting calendar.
The MCRWMA Governing Board:
• Received an update for the Highway 59 landfill infrastructure improvements and Billy Wright landfill phase 3 surface impoundment.
• Received an update on the new Battery Collection Program funded through the DOE Grant.
Distribution of collection boxes across Merced County and training for responsible battery disposal to jurisdictional personnel has begun.
OTHER NOTABLE ITEMS:
• Anand Kapoor presented a project-specific Caltrans report. • The upcoming City County Dinner will occur in Gustine on January 30, 2025. • Registration for the Regional Policy Conference, April 9th – 11th, 2025 is open. Director’s if you wish to register and haven’t already done so, please contact Stephanie Jackson, [email protected] and she will register you. • CMCP workshop engagement meetings are being held on February 20th, 26th and 27th. For registration information, you can email [email protected] or call 559-272-4561.