Bakersfield City Council
January 22, 2025

BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL

POST-MEETING AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

January 22, 2025, 3:30 p.m.

Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue

1. ROLL CALL

2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements
b. Agenda Item Public Statements

3. REPORTS
a. Resolution adopting the Active Transportation Plan
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
*1. PowerPoint Presentation
*2. Written material provided by Michael Turnipseed

4. CLOSED SESSION
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) regarding the following two matters:

Tina Marie Tyson v. City of Bakersfield, et al. Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-22-103376

1. Edgar Quincy Sloan v. City of Bakersfield; Bakersfield Fire Department, et al. Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-20-102749

2. 5. CLOSED SESSION ACTION

6. ADJOURNMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: January 22, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Reports TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Zachary Meyer, Public Works Director
DATE: January 8, 2025
SUBJECT: Resolution to Adopt Active Transportation Plan [Document Description]

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with the City’s ongoing and passionate commitment to increasing roadway safety for all users, the City has developed an Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The plan provides a comprehensive set of projects, programs, and policies that aim to i ncrease the proportion of trips made in a community using active transportation, or non-motorized modes of transportation, primarily biking and walking.

The ATP also aims to create safer and more enjoyable streets for residents and visitors by providing a long- term vision for a Citywide network of dedicated and accessible biking and walking corridors. It focuses on expanding and enhancing existing infrastructure to better serve those who rely on active transportation while encouraging people to choose biking and walking to complete short trips within their communities.

In addition to improving mobility and safety by expanding and enhancing infrastructure serving active transportation, this ATP seeks to advance City and statewide goals related to public hea lth, equity, and environmental protection.

The recommendations produced within the ATP were developed based on a detailed review of planning and policy documents guiding transportation and land use within the City and region and a careful analysis of existing biking and walking conditions within the City, combined with input from community members and key stakeholders. The projects recommended within the ATP can be directly incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and implemented usin g discretionary funds, developer requirements, or incorporated into grant funding applications.

The plan had been made available to the public and many other community members. The comments received from the community and specifically the Blue Zone Organization has been incorporated into the ATP. Also the draft plan was presented to Multi-Modal Transportation and Traffic Safety Committee and those comments from the committee members and the public attending those meetings has been valuable to benefit the development of the plan.

The study was funded by the Public Works Department General Fund and was completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., Los Angeles office.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contract was entered into with Kimley -Horn to complete the ATP and it was fully funded by the General Fund. With the completion of the ATP, it will make the City much more competitive to apply for grant funds that will help offset future cost for larger street and infrastructure projects.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Active Transportation Plan Study

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLU TION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BAKERSFIELD ADOPTING AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PLAN (ATP) FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield has an ongoing commitment to increas e roadway safety for all users and reduce, to the extent feasible, adverse traffic impacts, which is consistent with City Council goals of enhancing public safety and quality of life; and

WHEREAS, the City’s 23-24 Fiscal Year Budget included funding to develop an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to provide a comprehensive set of projects, programs, and policies that aim to increase the proportion of trips made in a community using active transportation, or non -motorized modes of transportation, primarily biking and walking; and

WHEREAS, the ATP aims to create safer and more enjoyable streets for residents and visitors by providing a long -term vision for a citywide network of dedicated, safe, and accessible biking and walking corridors. The ATP focuses on expanding and enhancing existing infrastructure to better serve those who rely on active transportation while encouraging people to choose biking and walking to complete short trips within their communities; and

WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has worked with a nationally recognized consulting firm and has developed an Active Transportation Plan

WHEREAS, the City conducted a public involvement program that included one community workshop /summit event , one community outreach event , two informational presentations to the City’s Multimodal Transportation Ad Hoc meeting, as well as provided o pportunity for the entire community to share thoughts and opinions via an online web site.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:

1. The above recitals are found to be true and correct and incorporated by reference herein.

2. The City Council approves the City of Bakersfield Active Transportation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A .

----------o0o----------
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ______________________________ by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCILMEMBER _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER _______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER ______________________________________________________________ _ ___________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: _____________________

By __________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY

By _________________________
ASHLEY E. ZAMBRANO
Deputy City Attorney

Attachments:

Exhibit “A” City of Bakersfield Active Transportation Plan

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Active Transportation Plan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study wouldn’t be possible without the hard work
and support of the following teams and people:

Community Stakeholders:

Bakersfield ARC, Quality Team Inc.

Bike Bakersfield
Kern County Library
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
Kern Council of Governments
City of Bakersfield Police Department
City of Bakersfield Public Works Department
Project Team:

Kimley-Horn & Associates
Blue Zones Project Bakersfield
City of Bakersfield:

Gregg Strakaluse – Former Public Works Director
Zachary Meyer – Public Works Director
Ed Murphy – Public Works Civil Engineer
Ryan Starbuck – Public Works Traffic Engineer
Gordon Hilton – Public Works Engineer
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1
Organization of the Plan 1
Background and Legislative Context 3
Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans 3
Meeting Challenges 5
Vision, Goals, & Objectives 6
Goal 1 – Connectivity & Accessibility 7
Goal 2 – Safety & Comfort 7
Goal 3 – Healthy, Clean, & Green 8
Goal 4 – Equitable Investment & Outcomes 8
Goal 5 – A Strong Economy 9
Goal 6 – Supportive Policy & Programming 9
Goal 7 – Maintenance & Preservation 10
Plan Development Process 11
Process 11
The City’s Role 12
Components of Active Transportation 13
Bicycle Classification System 13
Bicycle Intersection Concepts 15
Bicycle Amenities 16
Pedestrian Safety and Convenience Enhancements 16

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY 17
Demographics 17
Age 17
Transportation Mode Share 18
Biking in Bakersfield 19
Existing Bicycle Infrastructure 19
Bicycle Parking &
End-Trip Facilities 20
Bikeability 21
Existing Pedestrian Facilities 21
Sidewalks and Paths 21
Crossings 22
Walkability 23
Safety Trends 24
Equity 24
Disadvantaged Communities 24
Environmental Considerations 25
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 26
City Website & Interactive Map 26
Active Transportation Survey 26
Interactive Map 26
Outreach Events 27
National Night Out 27
Active Transportation Summit and Festival 28

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 32
Strategies 32
Citywide Trail Network 33
Anticipated Future Demand 36
Methodology 36
Analysis 36
Typologies 36
On-Street 36
Off-Street 37
Local Bike Network 37
Pedestrian Network 37
Enhancements 37
Programs & Policies 38

5. IMPLEMENTATION 42
Projects and Costs 42
Project Prioritization 51
Project Funding Program 56
Federal Programs 59
State Programs 62
Monitoring Implementation 65

6. APPENDICES 66
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report
Appendix B: Conformance with Caltrans
Active Transportation Plan Guidelines
Appendix C: Public Outreach
Appendix D: Trail Profile Overviews
Appendix E: Wayfinding Signage
Appendix F: Typologies
Appendix G: Prioritization Criteria
iii

LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Bakersfield (2020 US Census) 17 Figure 2: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure 19
Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Parking Locations in Bakersfield 20 Figure 4: Current Bicycle Activity 21
Figure 5: Current Pedestrian Activity 23
Figure 6: Collision Severity by Type 24
Figure 7: Bakersfield Urban Heat Hot Spots 25
Figure 8: Bakersfield ATP Interactive Map User Interface 26 Figure 9: Community Members Use Sticky Notes to Indicate Preferred Safety Elements in Bakersfield 28
Figure 10: An Overview of the National Night Out in Bakersfield 28 Figure 11: Attendees Listen to a Presentation at the
Bakersfield Active Transportation Summit 31
Figure 12: Attendees Visit Several Booths at the
Bakersfield Active Transportation Summit 31
Figure 13: Proposed ATP Trail Network 35
Figure 14: Priority Scores by Area and Existing and
Proposed Trail Network 50

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Youth and Senior Population Percentages in
Bakersfield and California 17
Table 2: Means of Transportation to Work 18
Table 3: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure 19
Table 4: What Mode Besides a Car Would You Prefer to
Use to Travel for Trips Shorter Than a Mile? 27
Table 5: What Would You Like to See More of in Bakersfield? 27 Table 6: Public Feedback Summary 30
Table 7: Summary of Proposed ATP Trail Network 33
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail 42
Table 9: Priority Rankings and Implementation Groups of Bakersfield ATP Trail Segments 52
Table 10: Countermeasure Toolbox and Potential Funding Sources 57 iv

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Bakersfield’s (City) Active Transportation Plan (ATP) will create safer and more enjoyable streets for residents and visitors. It provides a long-term vision for the development of a robust citywide network of dedicated bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The ATP will specifically focus on enhancing the existing infrastructure to cater to those who rely on active transportation for their daily needs. The recommendations in the ATP encourage biking and walking trips, and safe, accessible, and connected walking and biking routes for all community members. The ATP’s recommended projects, programs, and actions align with Bakersfield’s existing efforts and goals related to transportation, land use, and population growth. The ATP project team identified existing high-stress environments for pedestrians and cyclists in the project area with input from the public. Using this information, a list of planned projects or policies was proposed that could be considered as part of the ATP. Additionally, this ATP includes an analysis of the current conditions, a summary of community outreach efforts, and a list of proposed projects and programs that can be utilized for future grant applications.

Organization of the Plan
The Bakersfield ATP is organized into the following chapters:
• • Introduction – provides background on active transportation planning and concepts; establishes a vision, goals, and objectives for the plan; and outlines the study process
• • Bakersfield Today – summarizes existing conditions within the City and findings that guided the development of recommended projects and programs
• • Community Engagement – provides an overview of public outreach efforts and feedback
• • Recommendations – presents recommended bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects and programs
• • Implementation – examines the process for prioritizing projects, and establishes a funding plan and implementation strategies • • Appendices
A. Existing Conditions Report – assesses existing conditions related to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, City programs and policies, demographics, equity and environmental factors, and current patterns of activity
B. Conformance with Caltrans ATP Guidelines – outlines
conformance with state guidance on the development of active transportation plans
C. Public Outreach – provides input received from the public during the community engagement process
D. Trail Profile Overviews – provides detailed background on each trail, including key destinations, proposed improvement classifications, connections to existing and planned trails, and locations of any major infrastructure to be constructed as part of trail implementation
E. Wayfinding Signage – provides recommendations for signage along bicycle and pedestrian corridors
F. Typologies – provides visual examples of roadway cross sections with bicycle improvements implemented
G. Prioritization Criteria – provides and in-depth explanation of the factors used to construct the analysis used to calculate the benefit of each trail segment

1. INTRODUCTION
1

1. INTRODUCTION
City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
What is an Active Transportation Plan?
An ATP is a document that provides a comprehensive set of projects, programs, and policies that aim to increase the proportion of trips made in a community by active transportation, or non-motorized modes of transportation, primarily bicycles and pedestrians. In addition to improving mobility and safety by expanding and enhancing infrastructure serving active transportation, an ATP seeks to advance statewide goals related to public health, equity, and environmental protection.

The recommendations produced within an ATP are developed based on a careful analysis of current biking and walking conditions within a City, combined with input from community members and key stakeholders.

The projects recommended within an ATP can be directly incorporated into a City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and implemented using discretionary funds, developer requirements, or incorporated into grant funding applications.

Active Transportation Definition:

Active transportation is any self-propelled, human-powered mode of transportation, such as biking, walking, scooters, skates, skateboards, or wheelchairs. Pedal-assisted or electric mobility options such as e-bicycles, e-scooters, and electric wheelchairs are also considered modes of active transportation.
2

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
Background and Legislative Context
The State of California (State) has increasingly passed legislation requiring that active transportation considerations be included in transportation planning and policy efforts of State, county, and local governments. The goals and recommendations of the Bakersfield ATP were shaped by and align with these legislative efforts.

Active Transportation Program
California’s Active Transportation Program (Program) was established through legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 99 and Assembly Bill (AB) 101, which were signed into law in 2013. The legislation recognized the importance of promoting and increasing walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation in California. It mandated the creation of the Program to provide dedicated funding for projects that improve safety, accessibility, and connectivity for non-motorized transport. The ATP is funded through a combination of federal and state sources, including the federal Transportation Alternatives Program.

This legislation has been instrumental in creating a framework for the Program and ensuring that active transportation is a priority in California’s transportation planning and funding efforts.

California Complete Streets Act
The California Complete Streets Act is a state law that requires transportation agencies to consider the needs of all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, public transportation riders, and motorists, when planning and designing transportation projects. The law, which was enacted via Assembly Bill 1358 (AB 1358) in 2008, requires transportation agencies to adopt a Complete Streets policy that establishes clear objectives and standards for incorporating the needs of all road users into transportation planning and design. It also requires that transportation projects funded with state and federal funds, including those administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), comply with the complete streets policy.

Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans
To ensure that the ATP’s goals and recommendations align with local and regional planning efforts, the following documents were reviewed for their recommended strategies, policies, and potential impacts on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure within the City and region.

Additional information concerning these planning documents can be found in the literature review in Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report. ◢ Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element (2002) The Bakersfield General Plan serves as a guide for the long-term physical development of the community. The Circulation Element is the City of Bakersfield’s plan for addressing its multimodal transportation infrastructure needs for its population.
◢ Kern County Bicycle Master Plan (2012)
The Kern County Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision for increasing bicycle travel, developing strategies and actions to improve conditions, and encourage bicycling throughout the unincorporated portions of Kern County.
◢ Bakersfield Bicycle Transportation Plan (2013)
The Bakersfield Bicycle Transportation Plan provides guidance for the future development of bicycle facilities and programs within the City of Bakersfield to support cycling as a transportation and recreation option, encourage fewer trips by car, and support active lifestyles. ◢ Kern Region Active Transportation Plan (2018)
The Kern Region ATP aims to enhance walking, bicycling, and transit access in cities throughout Kern County, with a particular focus on serving disadvantaged communities.
3

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
◢ Bakersfield Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Plan (2020)
The Bakersfield Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Plan provides a set of collision data collection tools, analysis, and corridor improvements that can be applied throughout the City to improve roadway safety, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians.
◢ Downtown Bakersfield Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan (2020) This Downtown Bakersfield Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan suggests improvements to the pedestrian environment of Downtown Bakersfield to increase connectivity to the area’s existing Amtrak station, planned California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) station, and planned bus rapid transit (BRT) route.
◢ Bakersfield Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
This Bakersfield Local Roadway Safety Plan creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues and recommend countermeasures to reduce crashes resulting in fatal and serious injuries on local roadways.
◢ Caltrans District 6 Active Transportation Plan (2022) The Caltrans District 6 Active Transportation Plan is part of a comprehensive effort to identify locations with bicycle and pedestrian needs in each Caltrans district to guide future planning, construction, and maintenance projects.
◢ Recreation & Parks Master Plan (2024)
The Recreation & Parks Master Plan proposes comprehensive solutions for citywide park access and equity issues, including an investment strategy to address unmet park system maintenance and other needs and new park and facility improvement projects. It also provides guidelines to enhance parks, recreation facilities, trails, events and programs, safety, connectivity, health and wellness, and overall quality of life.
◢ Bakersfield Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (2024) The Bakersfield Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program utilizes traffic control strategies to reduce the negative impacts of motor vehicle use.

Countermeasures proposed as part of the plan are designed to reduce vehicle speeds and through traffic on local streets, reduce the number and severity of collisions, increase safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and improve overall neighborhood quality of life.
◢ Downtown Bakersfield Corridor Enhancement Master Plan (2021) The Downtown Corridor Enhancement Master Plan establishes design guidelines for streetscape improvements that enhance the image and identity of Bakersfield, attract new businesses and residents, and improve walkability, livability and connection of key destinations. 4

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
Meeting Challenges
Bakersfield is facing several challenges that are impacting cities across California, the United States, and globally. The goals and recommendations established in this ATP bolster the City’s commitment to confronting these challenges and support an improved quality of life, environment, and economy for all members of the community.

Managing Growth: Increasing Population
Without Increasing Vehicle Trips
Bakersfield’s population is growing at a steady pace,
creating additional stress on the City’s transportation system, which is due to the communities’ high per-capita reliance on vehicles. By reconfiguring streets to incorporate spaces for all users, the City’s roadway network will be more efficient and the amount of people walking, biking, or taking transit will increase.

Targeting Growth:

Taking Advantage of the Growing Downtown
Downtown Bakersfield can become a central focus of a
new transportation system due to its growing activity
and commerce, and the planned California High Speed Rail Station.

Investing in a lively downtown with considerations for walkability, accessibility, and livability will ensure that it can become a living, shopping, and business destination for the City and the region.

Easy access to downtown can be ensured by reconfiguring the transportation system to cater to many different forms of mobility.

This will also improve pedestrian and cycling connections to the high- speed rail station.

Environmental Considerations:

Climate Change & Air Pollution
Bakersfield, like many other cities, is experiencing
the consequences of climate change, including rising
temperatures, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and changes in precipitation patterns. Additionally, the City faces significant air pollution challenges due to its high concentration of industrial facilities, transportation network, and agricultural activities.

Through encouraging active transportation options, the City can benefit by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improving air quality, promoting physical activity, and alleviating traffic congestion.

Economic Considerations:

Lower Transportation Costs & Livability
Car ownership and maintenance can be expensive. By
implementing safe and well-connected infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, improving integration with public transit, and giving priority to active transportation, residents can experience significant reductions in transportation costs. Emphasizing the importance of walkability and bikeability in communities promotes connectivity, makes neighborhoods appear more human-scale, and creates pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. It also allows residents to seamlessly transition between different modes of transportation, reducing their reliance on private vehicles.
5

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
Health Considerations:

Sedentary Lifestyles & Safety
Encouraging active transportation options like walking
and biking can play a crucial role in combating sedentary lifestyles and improving the overall health and well-being in Bakersfield.

The City is taking steps to promote active transportation by focusing on enhancing infrastructure, including the development of well-maintained sidewalks, designated bike lanes, and safe pedestrian crossings. By promoting active transportation, the City of Bakersfield can foster healthier lifestyles and improve connectivity among residents.

Equity Considerations:

Finance & Health
Low-income individuals, who are disproportionately
people of color, are often burdened by car ownership and have less access to cars. Historically excluded from the transportation planning process, their need for less car-oriented infrastructure is often disregarded, resulting in an unjust lack of mobility. Low income residents will benefit from active transportation infrastructure by having access to convenient, low cost transportation options.

Vision, Goals, & Objectives
The development of the ATP was guided by the vision, goals, and objectives presented in this section. These goals and objectives align with the overall mission of promoting biking and walking, improving public health, and providing accessible transportation options for people of all ages and abilities to reach their destinations within the City, without relying on cars.
6 Vision
To encourage active transportation across
Bakersfield by providing well-connected, safe,
and accessible walking and biking routes;
supportive programs and policies; and a focus
on equity to improve the quality of life for all
members of the community.

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
/ Objective 1.1 – Reduce documented gaps in the City’s bicycle and pedestrian networks.
/ Objective 1.2 – Upgrade and expand upon the City’s
existing bikeways.
/ Objective 1.3 – Provide unobstructed sidewalks along
all City streets.
/ Objective 1.4 – Provide marked crosswalks at reasonably spaced intervals along the City’s roadway network.
/ Objective 1.5 – Maximize connectivity between major
destinations and points of interest with the City’s bicycle and pedestrian networks.
/ Objective 1.6 – Provide sufficient, convenient bicycle parking and end-trip facilities at major destinations.
/ Objective 1.7 – Emphasize accessible and navigable City streets for all, regardless of ability.
/ Objective 1.8 – Develop a wayfinding system that allows all, regardless of ability, to easily navigate the City by bicycle and on foot.
/ Objective 1.9 – Align with regional plans and provide connections to existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian projects in surrounding jurisdictions.
/ Objective 2.1 – Reduce bicycle and pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries.
/ Objective 2.2 – Develop facilities that separate cyclists and pedestrians from vehicle traffic.
/ Objective 2.3 – Improve safety at crosswalks and intersections for cyclists and pedestrians.
/ Objective 2.4 – Provide adequate lighting along the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network.
/ Objective 2.5 – Create comfortable and aesthetically pleasing streetscapes and pathways.
7 Goal 1 – Connectivity & Accessibility Goal 2 – Safety & Comfort

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
/ Objective 3.1 – Increase the percentage of commute trips completed by bicycle and on foot.
/ Objective 3.2 – Expand access to active recreational
opportunities for residents and facilitate active lifestyles. / Objective 3.3 – Support City and state goals toward reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and emissions of pollutants, including climate-warming GHGs.
/ Objective 3.4 – Increase tree canopy coverage along bicycle and pedestrian corridors.
/ Objective 4.1 – Prioritize the provision of bicycle and pedestrian projects in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods.
/ Objective 4.2 – Reduce transportation cost burdens by improving access to multimodal facilities.
/ Objective 4.3 – Use inclusive engagement practices to determine community needs and provide opportunities for all people to engage in decision-making processes.
/ Objective 4.4 – Partner with community and advocacy groups to provide educational resources for residents in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods.
8 Goal 3 – Healthy, Clean, & Green Goal 4 – Equitable Investment & Outcomes

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
/ Objective 5.1 – Create walkable and bikeable communities that foster a high quality of life, attract and retain businesses and employees, and enhance the City’s image.
/ Objective 5.2 – Increase connections for residents to access jobs and commercial centers.
/ Objective 5.3 – Enable more households to go car-lite or car-free, increasing their discretionary income.
/ Objective 5.4 – Improve cost-effectiveness by developing strategies to streamline funding, design, and implementation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.
/ Objective 6.1 – Provide educational opportunities to instruct motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians about their rights and responsibilities and the rules of the road.
/ Objective 6.2 – Develop encouragement programs to promote increased walking and biking.
/ Objective 6.3 – Reduce aggressive, illegal, and careless behavior from all road users through appropriate use of law enforcement resources.
/ Objective 6.4 – Develop a program to evaluate the use, effectiveness, and impacts of implemented active transportation projects and programs.
9 Goal 5 – A Strong Economy Goal 6 – Supportive Policy & Programming

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
/ Objective 7.1 – Establish a multi-year maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement program for cleaning, repairing, and replacing active transportation facilities on City property.
/ Objective 7.2 – Coordinate with stakeholders across departments and jurisdictions to share resources for maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement of active transportation facilities. / Objective 7.3 – Promote use of Bakersfield Mobile, the City’s free smartphone mobile application, to collect information on facilities in need of maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement. 10 Goal 7 – Maintenance & Preservation

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
Plan Development Process
Process
The development of this ATP utilized a comprehensive approach that incorporated an in-depth analysis of existing conditions across the City, community outreach, and stakeholder engagement to produce recommendations. This led to the development of a proposed trail network, with associated costs and benefits. A detailed ranking and prioritization process was then developed for each of the proposed trail improvements. The following list summarizes each of the components in the plan development process:
• • Literature Review: The literature review is a comprehensive review of existing applicable city, county, regional, and statewide documents that provide local context or existing guidelines to be followed. • • Existing Conditions Assessment: The existing conditions assessment is an evaluation of the current characteristics of the transportation system, including its physical condition, functionality, and potential issues and improvements needed.
• • Community Engagement: Our community engagement efforts involved reaching out to the Bakersfield community to develop an ATP that benefits the City’s residents and business owners. • • Stakeholder/Agency Coordination: The ATP team worked with stakeholders and agencies involved with the ATP to achieve common goals.
• • Recommendations: Numerous ATP infrastructure and policy countermeasures were proposed and then summarized into
recommendations, containing components such as:
» Trail System: The trail system proposed is a collection of separated and protected bikeways that link together to form 19 named trails.
» Local Bike Network: The local bike network outlines how the existing bicycle transportation infrastructure can facilitate connections to the proposed trail system, and where
improvements can be made to improve connections.
» Pedestrian Areas of Focus: The pedestrian area of focus outlines recommendations for improved pedestrian infrastructure outside of the proposed trail system.

Recommendations:
/ Trail System
/ Local Bike Network
/ Pedestrian Areas of Focus
/ Policies & Programs
Prioritization
Funding Plan
Implementation
Literature Review
Stakeholder/
Agency Coordination
Community Engagement
Existing Conditions Assessment
11

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
» Policies & Programs: The policies and programs describe how policy and programmatic changes, along with revisions to active transportation-related measures, are necessary to transform the walking and biking environment in Bakersfield.
• • Prioritization: The prioritization scheme analyzes how projects proposed by this ATP contribute to the goals of the ATP and to the betterment of the community, thereby determining the relative importance and rank of each project.
• • Funding Plan: The funding plan provides recommendations for securing funding for the ATP improvements from a
variety of sources.
• • Implementation: The implementation section outlines the process of monitoring projects to ensure that the goals of the ATP are being met.

The City’s Role
The City has a responsibility to change the built environment to encourage more mobility options. The City controls transportation components like rights-of-way, street infrastructure, land use, and signals. For infrastructure outside of the City’s jurisdiction, proper coordination with surrounding jurisdictions can ensure that other infrastructure supports the goals of the ATP.

The City must take the following actions to ensure active transportation goals are met:
• • Create and execute effective evaluation methods. This includes developing a systematic process of evaluating the condition of assets within City-owned rights-of-way, determining the level of priority based on factors such as safety, usage, and community impact, and allocating resources and funding accordingly to ensure the timely and effective completion of necessary repairs, upgrades, and enhancements.
• • Consider the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorized transportation users in land use and urban design.

The City must incorporate features such as bike lanes,
pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and connectivity between different modes of transportation to encourage and facilitate active forms of transportation. This also involves considering the location and design of amenities such as parks, recreational trails, and public transportation stops to encourage people to choose walking, cycling, or public transportation as their primary means of travel. • • Manage streets through regulations and pricing to support active modes. The City must implement policies and strategies to prioritize and encourage walking, cycling, and other forms of active transportation. This can be achieved by implementing regulations that prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety, such as pedestrian-only zones.
• • Partner with regional agencies to promote cohesion in active transportation infrastructure. The City must work closely with regional agencies to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to developing and maintaining active transportation facilities. This collaboration is crucial as it allows different jurisdictions within a region to align their efforts and strategies, leading to a more seamless and effective regional active transportation network. • • Engage and encourage communities to use active modes of transportation. The City must collaborate with community members to encourage and support the use of active transportation modes, such as walking and cycling. This engagement will promote a shift towards sustainable and healthy transportation options, leading to improved community well-being and reduced reliance on private vehicles.
• • Setting active transportation standards both within and beyond the region. The City must take a proactive and innovative approach to developing and implementing active transportation infrastructure.

They must be at the forefront of promoting and adopting best practices, design standards, and policies that prioritize and support active transportation modes, so that others in the region can follow suit. The City must promote a regional active transportation- focused mindset.
12

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
Components of Active Transportation
An active transportation environment consists of infrastructure, policy, and technology that facilitates walking and biking. This section provides an overview of several bike network classification systems, intersection concepts, and amenities intended for use by cyclists, as well as several safety and convenience enhancements for pedestrians. These components, along with policy and technology, are all strategies for enhancing the bike and pedestrian environment in Bakersfield.

Bicycle Classification System
The bicycle classification system covers several types of infrastructure that are recommended for use by cyclists.
• • Class I Bikeways, or “bike paths” colloquially, are paved facilities completely separated from roadways. These are meant to be comfortable facilities for all users, and have the unique potential to provide shorter journeys than motorized vehicle trips. They are typically built for two-way bicycle traffic and may also be used as “multi-use” paths for other modes of non-motorized transportation and recreation.
• • Class II Bikeways, or “bike lanes” colloquially, use pavement markings and signage to reserve portions of the paved roadway exclusively for bicycle travel. Their main purposes are to allow cyclists to ride more comfortably at their own speed and to allow cyclists and motorists to interface on a shared roadway in a predictable manner. They typically run in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic, but may run in the opposite direction where such a configuration is beneficial to the cycling network. Class II Bike lanes may be buffered using roadway striping to provide additional spacing from the vehicle travel lane or from parked vehicles.
• •
Class I (Separated Path) – Goleta, CA
Class II (On-Street Bike Lane) – Pasadena, CA
13

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
• • Class III Bikeways, or “bike routes” colloquially, designate shared roadway space between motor vehicles and bikes where bikes are meant to use vehicle lanes. They may be signified by shared lane pavement markings (also known as “sharrows”), “share the road” signage, or “bike route” signage. Municipalities may also make infrastructure improvements along a bike route to include traffic calming measures, such as traffic circles, lane channelizers, and speed bumps. Bike routes are most effective on streets with low motor vehicle traffic volumes. Municipalities may designate bike routes as “bicycle boulevards,” typically incorporating traffic calming measures, routes with low motor vehicle volumes, and routes with a low concentration of major intersections to reduce bicyclist delay. • • Class IV Bikeways, or “protected bike lanes” colloquially, are Class II bikeways with vertical protection between the bicycle lane and the vehicle travel lane. Protection may include flexible delineators, rigid bollards, concrete islands, vegetated islands, potted plants, parked cars, or any other form of physical protection. Protected bike lanes also include sidewalk-level or intermediate-level bike lanes, where the vertical protection from the vehicle travel lane is the roadway’s curb. Sidewalk-level bike lanes must be separated from the sidewalk through pavement color, pavement texture, or vertical protection.

Protected bike lanes may go one or two ways.

Class III (Shared Lane) – New York City, NY
Class IV (Buffered Bike Lane) – Cambridge, MA
14

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
Bicycle Intersection Concepts
Cyclists must also be provided with the infrastructure to navigate intersections safely. There are multiple ways to ensure this happens. • • A bike box provides a marked area in front of the motorized vehicle stop line at a signalized intersection for a cyclist to wait in during a red signal phase. This allows cyclists to get ahead of a vehicle queue, forcing drivers to be aware of cyclists. Cyclists may also use bike boxes to get in front of vehicles at a red signal phase before making a left turn. When a bike box is present, turning right on red should be prohibited for drivers prevent them from blocking the bike box while attempting a right turn.
• • A two-stage left turn box marks an area within a signalized intersection where a cyclist may pull over to the right side of the bike lane to wait for a green signal phase. Once in the box, the cyclists wait for the green signal phase in the perpendicular direction to activate, turning left to travel in the bike lane to the right of the perpendicular roadway.
• • A bicycle signal provides an independent signal phase for cyclists which eliminates conflicts with vehicle movements. Bicycle signals are installed on the far side of intersections with a near-sided signal for higher visibility being optional. They are distinguished by red, yellow, and green bicycle-shaped indicators.
• • A dedicated intersection provides pavement markings to delineate dedicated space throughout the intersection for bicycle movements, alleviating cyclists’ concern about mixing with motor vehicle traffic.

A dedicated intersection can be used with bicycle signals to provide both dedicated space and dedicated signal phases. A dedicated intersection does not provide vertical protection for cyclists. • • A protected intersection provides both dedicated space and vertical protection for cyclists in an intersection, using raised barriers such as concrete islands and bollards. A protected intersection uses vertical features to reduce vehicle turning radii—reducing vehicle speed—and improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians and cyclists by pushing the motor vehicle stop bar back to where pedestrians and cyclists are more easily seen. They also provide cyclists with a safe path of travel for any intended direction, including left turns, and they reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and cyclists. They often include improvements such as curb extensions.

Protected Intersection
Curb Extensions
Bike Box
Two-Stage Left Turn Box
Bicycle Signal
Dedicated Intersection
15

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

1. INTRODUCTION
Bicycle Amenities
• • Cyclists need to be able to store their bikes securely when not in use, especially in public places. Bicycle racks are used in tandem with a cyclist’s personal bicycle lock to securely store a bike. Bike racks come in different shapes and sizes, each with their own benefits. It is important to provide a style of bike rack that is easy to use, fits different bikes, and prevents theft.
• • Bike lockers are necessary for long-term bicycle storage in public places or storage of high-value bikes. These provide locked, fully enclosed spaces for the storage of a bike.
• • Workplaces may need to provide showers and changing rooms to encourage employees to commute via bicycle. The City can help workplaces to provide these amenities. The City may also provide public showers and changing rooms for cyclists who do not have access to these amenities through their workplaces.
• • Bike share allows individuals who do not own bicycles to borrow or rent them. Bike share may be established through a partnership with a private company or may be developed completely by the City themselves. Bike share works by allowing users to rent bikes from a self-service kiosk or through a smartphone app for a brief period of time by picking up and dropping off the bike at designated bike share stations. Pricing can be adjusted for low-income participants, different age groups, students, or other individuals to ensure equity and encourage usage among all types of individuals.
• • If individuals do not want to be restricted to bike share stations, but still want a City-supported bike rental program, the City can develop a long-term program that supplies bikes to individuals for an established fee and time period.

Pedestrian Safety and Convenience Enhancements
• • With a leading pedestrian interval (LPI), an intersection activates the pedestrian walk phase before activating the vehicle through phase in the same (or parallel) direction. LPIs are particularly useful in a permissive phasing setup, where motor vehicles are permitted to turn left across pedestrian movements. LPIs allows pedestrians to proceed before vehicles can, increasing pedestrians’ visibility and allowing more time for them to cross before possible vehicle conflicts.
• • Mid-block crosswalks can be implemented to provide a safe crossing where distances between intersections are long or where there are two key destinations across from each other on a roadway, and an intersection does not already exist nearby. To make them safe, they should be installed with high-visibility crosswalks, advanced yield lines, median refuge islands, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), and/or High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacons.
• • Traffic calming strategies may be used to improve pedestrian and cycling conditions. Traffic calming measures include any infrastructure used to slow vehicle speeds, such as narrowed lanes, traffic circles at low-volume intersections, chicanes, lane channelizers, and speed bumps.
• • A well-designed street environment will increase walking and cycling. A lively street with wide sidewalks, businesses, low motor vehicle volumes, and slower motor vehicle speeds will attract foot traffic and provide an overall more pleasant walking experience. It will also provide a more pleasant cycling experience due to lower and slower vehicle traffic. Adding amenities like benches, shade trees, shade structures, art, and pedestrian-scale lighting will also contribute to the attractiveness of a street for pedestrians and cyclists.
16

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
This section presents a summary of existing conditions in Bakersfield, including demographics, existing travel patterns, existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure, roadway safety data, and an overview of disadvantaged communities. This information, as well as input from residents and stakeholders, formed a foundational understanding of the key issues that this ATP could target for improvement. This information also allowed for improvements to be proposed in specific areas, corridors, and communities with the need and opportunity for active transportation facilities.

Demographics
Figure 1 below represents the racial and ethnic makeup of the City of Bakersfield as of the 2020 US Census. The largest group are Hispanic and Latino residents, making up over half of the City’s population.

This classifies Bakersfield as a majority-minority city. Compared to the rest of the State of California, Bakersfield has higher proportions of Hispanic/Latino, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations, while having lower percentages of White, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Multiracial/Other Race populations.

Bakersfield’s demographic shift has largely mirrored that of the rest of the State in California in recent decades, with an increase in the proportion of Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Multiracial populations, and a decrease in the proportion of White, Black, Native American/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander populations.

Age
Both youth populations (under 18 years of age) and senior populations (ages 65 and older) are less reliant on private vehicles than the rest of the population and more reliant on alternative forms such as biking and walking. According to the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates, Bakersfield’s youth population is higher than the state average, and the senior population is lower than the state average.

Table 1 compares the youth and senior populations in Bakersfield and the rest of California.

The percentage of the population that is under 18 years of age is distributed across the city, with a higher concentration in Central Bakersfield and Southeast Bakersfield. The percentage of the population that is 65 years of age or older is typically higher in suburban neighborhoods in the outskirts of the City, with especially high concentrations occurring within certain subdivisions in West Bakersfield.

Figure 1: Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Bakersfield (2020 US Census)

52.75%

28.83%

6.54%

7.50%

0.53%

0.13%

3.72%
Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Multiracial or Other Race
Table 1: Youth and Senior Population Percentages in Bakersfield and California Age group Bakersfield California
Youth (under 18) 29.8% 22.3%
Senior (65 and older) 10.5% 14.9%
Source: 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates
17

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
Providing adequate infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians is especially important for youths and senior citizens, who either cannot drive or may prefer not to. Understanding where these populations are concentrated across the City can assist in steering investments in active transportation infrastructure, safety improvements, and encouragement, enforcement, and education efforts toward these populations to ensure they are adequately served.

Transportation Mode Share
Table 2 below displays the commuting characteristics of Bakersfield residents according to 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau. Currently, less than 1% of the population bikes or walks to work, with more than 80% of residents commuting via single
occupancy vehicle.

Households without access to a vehicle often rely on alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, or transit. Neighborhoods within Central and Southeast Bakersfield have higher percentages of households with no vehicle available, while households in suburban neighborhoods further from Downtown tend to have greater vehicle availability.

Table 2: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode Percentage Number
Car, truck, or van 90.2% 152,814
Drove alone 80.3% 10.5%
Carpooled 9.9% -
In 2-person carpool 6.6% -
In 3-person carpool 1.7% -
In 4-or-more person carpool 1.6% -
Workers per car, truck, or van 1.07 -
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 0.8% 1,355
Walked 0.7% 1,186
Bicycle 0.2% 339
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 1.1% 1,864
Worked from home 7.0% 11,859
Total 100% 169,417
18

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Biking in Bakersfield
Existing Bicycle Infrastructure
According to the latest GIS data provided
by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County,
there are roughly 298 miles of dedicated
bicycle facilities located within the City. An
additional 127 miles of dedicated bicycle
facilities exist outside of the City boundary
but within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). Given
the City’s unconventional City boundary, this
includes islands of developed unincorporated
Kern County land surrounded by the City
of Bakersfield that have resisted annexation
as well as adjacent, outlying communities in
East Bakersfield and Rosedale, among other
places. Additional bike facilities exist in the
unincorporated community of Oildale north
of the City, though these are considered
outside of the City’s SOI. Documenting
existing bicycle facilities within the City’s SOI
and beyond is important in understanding
how a connected bicycle network does and
can function across the urbanized area of
Greater Bakersfield.

A summary of the existing bicycle
infrastructure for the City and SOI is
provided in Table 3.

A map of the existing network of bicycle
facilities within the City, its SOI, and
surrounding areas is shown in Figure 2.

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
Table 3: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure
Bikeway
Classification
Miles
(City)
% of Total
(City)
Miles
(SOI)
% of Total
(SOI)
Miles
(City + SOI)
% of Total
(City + SOI)
Class I Bike Path 34.3 11.5% 14.6 11.5% 49.0 11.5%
Class II Bike Lane 169.7 57% 24.0 18.9% 193.7 45.6%
Class III Bike Route 93.9 31.5% 88.2 69.5% 182.1 42.9%
Total 298.0 - 126.9 - 424.8 -
Figure 2: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure
19

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Bicycle Parking &
End-Trip Facilities
Secure, convenient bicycle parking can be
found throughout Bakersfield, especially
Downtown. Since the 2012 Bicycle
Transportation Plan was published, the City
has increased bicycle parking throughout
Downtown Bakersfield by over 150%,
installing over 30 bicycle parking racks
containing 60 additional spaces in 2016,
and an additional 20 bicycle parking racks,
containing 40 additional spaces, installed in
2017. Noteworthy locations providing public
bicycle parking in the City include:
• • City Hall (also provides shower facilities
for employees)
• • Bakersfield Community Development
Building (also provides shower
facilities for employees)
• • California State University, Bakersfield
• • Bakersfield College
• • Bakersfield Sports Village
• • Bike Bakersfield

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Parking Locations in Bakersfield 20

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Existing pedestrian facilities in Bakersfield
consist of two major components: walkways
and crossings. This ATP contains tailored
pedestrian recommendations based on an
audit of existing conditions.

Sidewalks and Paths
Presence
Without walkways, it can be difficult for those
traveling on foot to navigate the City safely,
especially on busy or high-speed roadways.

Some areas of Bakersfield are missing
sidewalks, making it especially difficult for
those using mobility assistance devices to
access destinations within their community.

Character
In addition to the presence of walkways,
their quality, or character, is another
key component. Aspects of walkway
character includes:
• • Width: Some walkways in Bakersfield are
not wide enough to meet the existing
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements, making it more difficult for
those with mobility challenges to traverse
the City. Walkway width may need to be
increased in areas with high pedestrian
traffic volumes to ensure all users can
safely fit in the facility, such as around
schools or entertainment venues.

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
Figure 4: Current Bicycle Activity
Bikeability
As shown in Figure 4, bicycle activity is concentrated near downtown Bakersfield, where there is a higher density of bike infrastructure and parking. Greater investment in infrastructure will create more connections between Bakersfield’s neighborhoods and downtown, creating more options to commute to and from downtown and between residential neighborhoods. The map shows bicycle activity also concentrated on major arterials, many of which feature existing bike lanes or are programmed to receive improvements as part of existing plans or this ATP. 21

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
• • Vehicle Separation: Distance from vehicles influences the perceived safety of sidewalks due to the proximity of high-speed vehicles.

Increased distance or vertical separation could improve the existing character.
• • Vehicle Access: Pedestrians on walkways experience conflict points with motorists at vehicle access points such as driveways. While vehicle access must be maintained, conflict points also pose safety risks to pedestrians.

Conditions
Walkway conditions influence the quality of the pedestrian network. If sidewalks are unusable or pose safety risks due to their condition, they are no longer a fully functioning aspect of the network, especially for those with additional mobility needs.
• • Repairs: Existing walkways with sufficient character but poor conditions should be repaired to restore that aspect of the network. • • Curb Ramps: All users should be able to easily access walkways, even if they are elevated off the roadway. Existing walkways without ADA compliant curb ramps should be upgraded to ensure this portion of the network is accessible to all users.

Crossings
Presence
Clearly marked crosswalks are vital to facilitating safe crossings.

Motorists pose less safety risks to pedestrians when crosswalks are visible since they are more likely to expect the presence of a pedestrian and can react more quickly. Currently, there are numerous intersections throughout Bakersfield that could be improved, such as those with crossings that are:
• • Absent: Without any marked crossings for pedestrians. • • Missing Legs: Have marked crossings on some approaches, but not others.
• • Low-Visibility: Faded or could be improved through restriping using high-visibility techniques.

Crosswalk Type
The existing crosswalks in Bakersfield could be improved by upgrading the crossing type, through modification such as:
• • Advanced Stop Bar: Encourages vehicles to stop 5-10 feet before an intersection, increasing safety for pedestrians as well as providing cyclists a place to stop closer to the intersection.
• • High-Visibility: higher contrast can be achieved between the crosswalk and the roadway through bright colors, retroreflective materials, increased width, or edge lines. Common high-visibility designs include:

Crossing Distance
The length between crosswalks affects the usability of the network.

When crossings are not offered along the routes people would like to use, also known as a desire line, some will cross at unsafe locations to get to their destination. Currently, there are areas in Bakersfield with long distances between marked crossings.

Curb Ramps
For all users to safely cross, accessible curb ramps must be provided on all approaches. Crossings should be upgraded with ADA compliant curb ramps in a state of good repair on all approaches, including at mid- block crossings.

Bar
Pairs
Continental
Crosswalks
Ladder
Crosswalks
Zebra
Crosswalks

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
22

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Walkability
Currently, pedestrian activity is concentrated
around heavily trafficked areas of the City,
including near activity centers and smaller,
denser city blocks like Downtown Bakersfield.

As shown in Figure 5, pedestrian activity is
concentrated in multiple areas rather than
along major corridors. The walkability of
Bakersfield is dependent on several factors,
most notably the city block density, presence
of sidewalks, and the distance between
destinations. Areas of the City that lack
infrastructure but are near activity centers
have the greatest need for pedestrian
infrastructure upgrades and should be
targeted first. These areas include Downtown
Bakersfield, on Arterial/Collector streets
through residential neighborhoods, northeast
of Downtown to Bakersfield College, and the
connection of newer outlying residential areas
(Southwest/West/Northwest Bakersfield) to
commercial corridors.

Figure 5: Current Pedestrian Activity

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
23

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Safety Trends
Everyone deserves to travel safely, regardless of their mode of choice.

Pedestrians and cyclists are significantly overrepresented in fatal and serious injury crashes across Bakersfield, as shown in Figure 6 below.

For a more detailed breakdown of crash history, including a map of high collision activity, please refer to Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report.

Equity
Addressing equity is an important consideration in the ATP plan.

Several equity platforms were analyzed for the analysis, including CalEnviroScreen and Justice40 Communities, as well as locations identified as heat islands / hot spots. Communities in these areas experience disproportionate transportation challenges.

Disadvantaged Communities
CalEnviroScreen and Justice40 are mapping tools developed to identify communities disproportionally affected by environmental and health concerns. The disparity across the City is stark. Central and Southeast Bakersfield contain some of the most pollution-burdened areas in California, while areas of West Bakersfield and Northwest Bakersfield largely show scores below the 40th percentile.

Justice40 results mirror those of CalEnviroScreen. Roughly half of Bakersfield is considered disadvantaged in one or more Justice40 categories, and almost entirely in Central and Southeast Bakersfield.

These communities face transportation barriers, have a greater proportion of low-income households, and experience elevated levels of diesel particulate matter exposure.

Fatal Serious Injury Other
2%
5%
93%
4%
10%
86%
16%
21%
64%
0 20 3010 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

VEHICLE ONLY

BICYCLIST

PEDESTRIAN
Figure 6: Collision Severity by Type

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
24

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Environmental Considerations
In addition to examining CalEnviroScreen results, heat and tree equity within Bakersfield was analyzed. With large areas covered in heat- absorbent concrete and asphalt, urban areas generate a phenomenon known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect that disproportionately exposes urban residents to the negative health impacts of heat stress.

According to Climate Central, a nonprofit that researches and reports on the impacts of climate change, the intensity score for Bakersfield Heat Island is 5.4°F. However, residents in more urban areas of Bakersfield can experience a heat island intensity of over 9°F, as seen in Figure 7 below. Factors influencing the heat island in Bakersfield include:
• • Albedo (the reflectivity /
absorption of heat property
of a surface, such as asphalt)
• • Green Space
• • Population Density
• • Building Height
Trees are another component of urban infrastructure essential to public health and well-being, because they improve air quality and combat the UHI effect by cooling ambient temperatures through the provision of shade and evapotranspiration. The Tree Equity Score for Bakersfield indicates that Central Bakersfield, East Bakersfield, and Southeast Bakersfield have the highest need for investment in an urban tree canopy.

Source: Climate Central Urban Heat Hot Spots
Figure 7: Bakersfield Urban Heat Hot Spots

2. BAKERSFIELD TODAY
25

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The City engaged with community members and stakeholders throughout the ATP process to better understand their unique experiences.

From Fall 2022 to Summer 2023, the City provided opportunities for community members to get involved and provide feedback.

City Website & Interactive Map
To reach residents that were unable to attend
in-person events, the City developed an ATP
website with an interactive map for location-
specific feedback. The Bakersfield ATP
website (www.bakersfieldatp.com) was the
online hub for all information and updates
related to the ATP. The website provided
supporting materials, such as project details,
a project schedule, announcements, and
information in English, Spanish, and Punjabi.

Active Transportation Survey
A full list of responses from the ATP survey
can be found in Appendix C: Public Outreach.

The results indicate protected active
transportation facilities are needed to help
users feel safe. Key takeaways include:
• • Parks and grocery stores were voted the
top destinations respondents wanted to
walk or bike to.
• • Distracted drivers were voted the top
barrier preventing respondents from
walking or biking.
• • All respondents would be more interested
in biking to key destinations if protected
facilities were provided.

Interactive Map
As a vital source of community feedback, the website provided community members with an interactive map. This map allowed users to select a location in Bakersfield and detail their experience with active transportation, identify active transportation barriers, and/or provide recommendations. Website visitors were able to place different color pins based on the type of comment they would like to make, as seen below in Figure 8:

Bike OtherADA WalkDrag to comment
Figure 8: Bakersfield ATP Interactive Map User Interface 26

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Common themes from the interactive map include:
• • High speeds make crossing safely difficult. Vehicles are often given priority over active transportation users. This includes a lack of adequate walking time.
• • Traffic calming is needed around schools and residential streets, indicated by multiple requests for traffic calming measures and more stop signs.
• • Inadequate bike facilities at intersections cause unsafe interactions with vehicles.
• • There is a strong desire for protected bike facilities. • • The lack of quality of curb ramps makes it more difficult for those with disabilities to use sidewalks.

Outreach Events
National Night Out
National Night Out is an annual opportunity for law enforcement agencies to engage with their communities. On October 3rd, 2023, the City attended this event hosted by the Bakersfield Police Department as an avenue to receive input from stakeholders. Two multiple-choice questions were posted on boards:
• • What mode besides a car would you prefer to use to travel for trips shorter than a mile?
• • What would you like to see more of in Bakersfield?
Attendees could place a sticker to indicate their answer. Questions and options on the boards were displayed in English, Spanish, and Punjabi.

The questions and responses are shown in Table 4 and Table 5 below:

Table 4: What Mode Besides a Car Would You Prefer to Use to Travel for Trips Shorter Than a Mile?
Option Percentage of Responses
Bike or Electric Bike 40.0%
Walking 34.5%
Carpool 9.1%
Scooter, Skateboard, or Rollerblade 7.3%
Transit 3.6%
Wheelchair or Other ADA Device 3.6%
Secure Bike Parking 1.8%
Total 100%
Table 5: What Would You Like to See More of in Bakersfield? Option Percentage of Responses
Lighting 20.2%
Landscaping & Shaded Facilities 14.3%
Wider Sidewalks 11.9%
Traffic Calming & Reduced Speeds 10.7%
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings 9.5%
Better Access to Bus Stops & Transit 9.5%
Secure Bike Parking 12.7%
Dedicated Bike Facilities 6.0%
Other:
» Safe Parks (2)
» Volleyball
» More Shade in Parks
» Safety for Kids
» More Shade & Parking
» Tether Balls
» Signalized Crossing

9.5%
Total 100%
27

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Active Transportation Summit and Festival
On Saturday, October 21, 2023, the City, in cooperation with the organization “Blue Zones,” organized the Bakersfield Active Transportation Summit and Festival to hear feedback from community members about enhanced pedestrian crossings, bicycle parking, designated bicycle facilities, and more. The event allowed community members to learn more about the future of active transportation and encouraged residents to provide input on poster boards and surveys about what elements would best support their day-to-day experiences getting around Bakersfield.

Attendance
With over 500 people, the summit and festival drew a wide variety of attendees, including:
• • Approximately 50 participants in the summit portion of the event following the festival
• • 422 attendees registered through Eventbrite
• • Bakersfield community members of all ages
• • Mayor Karen Goh
• • Council Member Bob Smith
• • City Manager Christian Clegg
• • Public Works Director Gregg Strakaluse
• • Assistant Public Works Director Luis Topete
Figure 9: Community Members Use Sticky Notes to Indicate Preferred Safety Elements in Bakersfield
Figure 10: An Overview of the National Night Out in Bakersfield 28

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Local Companies and Organization Booths
The event encouraged attendees to participate in a raffle that required interaction with at least ten of the local companies and organizations that participated in the event. Every attendee received a booklet that allowed them to get a stamp from each booth to enter the raffle. Various activities were sponsored by the local companies and organizations that kept the community entertained with bicycle obstacle courses, smoothie-making bicycles, cornhole, skateboard launch ramps, chalk art, caricature art, and roller-skating challenge courses. The event created a sense of community by encouraging various interactive activities related to active transportation. Booth participants included:
• • Kern County Library
• • Bike Bakersfield
• • Blue Zones Project Bakersfield
• • Bakersfield ARC, Quality Team Inc.
• • A local caricature artist
• • City of Bakersfield Police Department
• • Bakersfield Skate Company
• • Bakersfield Diamond City Minors Derby Team
• • La Rosa Fruit Bars
• • Tailored Burgers
• • City of Bakersfield Public Works Department.

Active Transportation Summit
In the summit portion of the event, a presentation was conducted by the City, Kimley-Horn, and Blue Zones to inform the public about the ongoing process of the ATP. The presentation explained the purpose of an ATP and educated the public about existing walking, biking, and ADA accessibility conditions throughout the city.

The presentation included a national perspective of active transportation improvements that other states have implemented that the City of Bakersfield could adopt to improve mobility. The presentation demonstrated a toolkit to show the public what kind of treatments the City can implement, which included various bike facility classifications, bike intersection treatments, traffic calming treatment, pedestrian signal enhancement, and crossing enhancements.

The end of the presentation interactively engaged attendees to provide their feedback on what active transportation they wanted to see in the city. A creative table was also provided where attendees were asked to imagine a street and what they could improve using Streetmix, which allows users to design a cross-section for how they would like a street to look by choosing the arrangement and dimensions of vehicle lanes, sidewalks, bikeways, landscaping, medians, and more. Additional interactive boards were displayed around the venue to gather feedback from the public on where to implement traffic calming and mid-block crossing improvements, as well as which existing facilities they use and what connectivity they want to improve.
29

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community Feedback
Throughout the event, different platforms were provided for the public to share their input about active transportation within the City of Bakersfield. Feedback from the public was collected through interactive boards, an interactive map, comment cards, and the ATP Map Survey to gain insight into active transportation needs within their community. The feedback received was compiled into different topics, including bike, walk, ADA, transit, traffic calming, and others. Most of the input collected by the public described the need for improvements in bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and connectivity. Table 6: Public Feedback Summary shows feedback topics.
◢ Walking
Feedback about pedestrian facility improvement
involved curb ramp redesign due to safety concerns and
ADA compliance. Installing sidewalks helped address
safety concerns and the need for increased pedestrian
access. The most common comment for pedestrian
facility improvements was crosswalks. Comments described the need for high visibility crosswalks and pedestrian leading intervals due to fatal collisions and safety concerns for children to access schools. ◢ Biking
Comments involving bicycle facility improvements
involved bike lanes and bike pavement markings. Bike
lane concerns were due to connectivity and safety
concerns when sharing the road with vehicles, and for a more enjoyable experience when commuting. Bike
pavement marking concerns were expressed due to safety concerns when sharing the road with vehicles. Additional comments from the public discussed the need to expand the bicycle network connectivity throughout the entire city. The need for additional bike facilities was expressed near residential and new developments.
◢ Traffic Calming
Comments from the public also addressed the need for
roadway improvements, which included lowering the
speed for streets, stop signs, speed bumps, and
chicanes. Residents proposed these improvements were
due to concerns about speeding.

Table 6: Public Feedback Summary
Topic Percentage
ADA 0.7%
Bike 22.7%
Transit 7.1%
Walk 37.6%
Other 12.8%
Traffic Calming 18.4%
Recreation 0.7%
Total 100.0%
30

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Figure 11: Attendees Listen to a Presentation at the
Bakersfield Active Transportation Summit
Figure 12: Attendees Visit Several Booths at the
Bakersfield Active Transportation Summit
Future Outreach Opportunities
Community engagement will continue at a project level as the ATP is implemented. Each trail segment will impact residents, communities, and businesses differently, and continued engagement will ensure that community input solicited and implemented. This will ensure that community needs and concerns are addressed throughout the entirety of the implementation process 31

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, policies, and programs that complement the existing transportation network. This section also outlines the strategy used to develop these recommendations.

Strategies
The ATP considers existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as any planned infrastructure and associated project plans.

Alignment with existing and planned infrastructure ensures that the ATP does not duplicate or conflict with any recent or ongoing active transportation efforts.
/ Removal of Barriers:

The strategy for the ATP is to create a cohesive citywide bicycle network that minimizes the impact of multiple current active transportation barriers. Existing barriers to active transportation in the City of include freeways, canals, railroad tracks, arterial roadways with few pedestrian crossings, and corridors with high Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS). These barriers create limited options for cyclists and pedestrians to travel throughout the City and create safety hazards on routes where active transportation infrastructure already exists. Providing adequate methods to cross these barriers will create more direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians, enticing more people to bike and walk instead of drive.
/ Increasing Connectivity:

The ATP was created to increase connectivity within and between neighborhoods in the City. This provides safe, non-motorized transportation options to schools, parks, libraries, stores, and employment centers throughout the City. It will also allow residents to visit one another without the need for a car. The ATP’s proposed network also serves as an economic development tool for the City of Bakersfield, attracting companies to a city that provides a lower cost of living while still having an expansive multimodal transportation network.

/ Targeting Areas and Populations with the Greatest Need:

The ATP was developed to target improvements in areas with high potential for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, as well as those that improve equity levels for disadvantaged residents and communities.

Several data sources were reviewed to ensure the ATP improvements promote equity. These data sources included areas with high numbers of cyclists or pedestrian-involved vehicle collisions, areas with lower rates of vehicle ownership per household, areas with high senior (65 or older) or youth (17 and younger) populations, and areas with high heat stress and limited shade. Each census tract in the City was also examined using existing equity platforms including CalEnviroScreen (a State of California platform) and Justice40 and United States Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Communities (both USDOT platforms).
/ Community-Focused Approach:

Community engagement is critical for the development of the ATP.

Residents were invited to provide input on both broad and specific improvements through a series of in-person and virtual meetings, an online survey, and an interactive map. Using resident feedback to prioritize improvements can raise public support for the ATP process.

This qualitative input method refines the quantitative data analyzed as part of the ATP.

Finally, the ATP was developed to provide a wide range of possible funding opportunities. Special care was taken to ensure that proposed improvements are compliant with various state and federal funding programs. This will allow for greater financial flexibility for the City and for improvements to be completed promptly.
32

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Citywide Trail Network
Bakersfield’s arterial trail network creates a system for safely navigating the City without motor vehicles. Each of the 19 trails predominately moves users in one direction but connects to other trails, allowing users to easily change direction when needed. Trails will connect to many local streets, where non-motorists can reach their final destinations. Table 7 provides an overview of the key attributes of each of these trails.

Table 7: Summary of Proposed ATP Trail Network
Trail Number Trail Name Trail Type Total Mileage
1 30th Street to Niles Street and Monterey Street Class IV, with limited Class I, II, and III segments 5.92 2 Akers Road & McKee Road Class IV 4.50
3 Ashe Road Class IV, with limited Class III segments 4.28 4 Baker Street, King Street & Lotus Lane Mostly Class II, with significant Class I, III, and IV segments 6.31
5 Brimhall Road Mostly Class IV, with some Class I and III segments 3.28 6 Stine Road & Canal Class I and IV 5.20
7 Columbus & University to Choctaw Valley Mostly Class I and IV with some Class II and III segments 15.10
8 Friant-Kern & Arvin-Edison Canals Class I 11.68
9 H Street Class I and IV, with some class III segments 9.49 10 Jewetta Avenue & Buena Vista Road Class IV with some Class I and III segments 6.73 33

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Trail Number Trail Name Trail Type Total Mileage
11 Ming Ave and Belle Terrace Class IV, with some Class I, II, and III segments 8.55 12 Mount Vernon Avenue Class IV 3.01
13 Kern River & Buena Vista Canals Class I 6.09
14 Panama Lane & Arvin-Edison Canal Class I and IV 8.60 15 Q Street, Kern Island Canal & Central Branch Canal Class I and IV, with some Class III segments 8.28 16 Rosedale Highway & 21st Street Class I and IV 9.01
17 BNSF Rail Line Class I 3.96
18 Asphalto Rail Line & White Lane Class I, with some Class IV segments 8.00 19 Virginia Avenue Class II, III, and IV 7.28
Each trail’s extents, connections, improvements, and key information is presented in Appendix D. Each trail sheet in this appendix also provides a visual overview of what classes of improvements are proposed for each trail section. Several point recommendations are provided along the trails, such as midblock crossings, traffic circles, signals, railroad crossings, and over and underpasses. These point recommendations indicate where new investments will better integrate the trails into the surrounding communities. Each trail will also be integrated into the communities with other elements such as street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting, and additional greenery and canopy trees.

Table 7: Summary of Proposed ATP Trail Network
34

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 13: Proposed ATP Trail Network
35

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Anticipated Future Demand
As components of this ATP are implemented, residents will begin shifting from driving to active modes of transportation. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) 522 methodology was used to estimate the number of new cycling and walking trips based on the expanded network.
• • Estimated new bicycle users: 27,704
• • Estimated new pedestrian users: 21,886
Methodology
The NCHRP 552 Report presents national level research indicating that commute mode share can serve as a basis for estimating the overall mode share for cyclists and pedestrians through extrapolation and the use of a best fit formula. Subsequent validation indicates results of this analysis typically fall within the 95% confidence interval or provide a conservative estimate. For bikes, this involves calculating the population within a half mile, one mile, and one and a half mile buffers around the trails along with the local bicycle commute share from the U.S. Census Bureau into the model. For pedestrians, only the half mile buffer is considered, and the local pedestrian mode share from the U.S. Census Bureau is used.

The following data was utilized from U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2022:
• • Population: Table B01001
• • Mode Share: Table S0801
Analysis
NCHRP 552 methodology was applied to the trail system to estimate the impact of improvements on new bicycle users. To estimate the number of new pedestrian users, the NCHRP 552 was applied to trails that will serve pedestrians within the City. It does not include additional sidewalk improvements that the City is working on.

Each NCHRP 522 analysis generates a low, moderate, and high demand response estimate. For this case, the moderate estimate was chosen because the analysis does not capture programs, policies, or complementary investments that encourage active transportation and could lead to further increases in mode shift. Examples of non-network investments include bike parking and wayfinding.

Typologies
Typologies refer to the classification of roads based on their design, function, and characteristics. Active transportation typologies were developed to streamline the implementation process for the trail system. Typologies were divided into two major categories based on distinct implementation considerations, on-street and off-street. An illustration of the typologies can be found in Appendix F: Typologies.

On-Street
On-street active transportation facilities follow the traditional classification system as detailed in the Bicycle Classification System section of Chapter 1: Setting the Stage. This includes on-street:
• • Class I Multi-Use Paths
• • Class II Bike Lanes
• • Class III Bike Routes
• • Class IV Protected Bike Lanes
As part of the trail network, each of these bicycle facilities will be accompanied by an ADA compliant sidewalk with sufficient room for travel by pedestrians in both directions, whether users are walking or utilizing a device for mobility assistance.

On-Street Typology Factors
Distinguishing factors between on-street typologies include:
• • Roadway functional class, which influences the width, speed, and capacity of a roadway

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
36

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
• • City right-of-way, which is how far the road can extend before interfering with neighboring residences or businesses
• • Number of traffic lanes, which determines the capacity of the roadway, or how many vehicles can be accommodated
• • Bicycle facility type, which must fit the roadway physically and functionally
• • Sidewalk width, which helps determine pedestrian comfort • • Intersection approaches, which influence roadway function due to interactions between pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists Off-Street
Off-street active transportation typologies in this plan are all Class I multi-use paths to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians, since there will not be an adjacent sidewalk in all off-street locations. Off- street trails have increased appeal to recreational users when compared to on-street facilities and can increase safety by separating active transportation users from motorists.

Off-Street Typology Factors
Off-street typologies are separated into corridor types based on the adjacent environment:
• • Roadway
• • Canal
• • Railroad
• • Park
• • River
In addition to the corridor type, distinguishing factors for off-street typologies include:
• • The dimensions of the available right-of-way and active transportation facility
• • Crossing barriers such as freeways, railroads, or waterways Local Bike Network
After completing the core trail network, the City began searching for opportunities to facilitate connections between the core trails and the surrounding community. The process involved:

1. Auditing existing active transportation facilities, including considering opportunities for upgrades to a higher level of comfort

2. Collecting recommendations from other plans and analyzing their overlap (Please refer to Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans in Chapter 1 for more information)

3. Determining points of interest for active transportation users

4. Bridging gaps between and within neighborhoods that are often caused by high-speed roadways

5. Facilitating safe crossings throughout the community, including at high-speed roadways
Pedestrian Network
Enhancements
Additional pedestrian improvements will be needed to provide better neighborhood access to the ATP trail improvements and integrate them into the existing communities in Bakersfield. Examples of pedestrian improvements include:

1. Ensuring that sidewalk standards are met, including pavement condition, slope, and removal of debris

2. Improvements that are ADA compliant and comfortable for users with mobility challenges (these improvements can include haptic push buttons, tactile warning pads, and proper curb ramps)

3. Crosswalks that are updated or installed with new high-visibility striping, countdown heads, up-to-date push buttons, and leading pedestrian interval (LPI)

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
37

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

4. Evaluation of potential for mid-block crossings, particularly in location where trip generating facilities are close together

5. Ensuring that conflict points make pedestrians highly visible, including bulb-outs, pedestrian refuge islands, HAWK signals, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons RRFBs
Programs & Policies
Improving active transportation does not stop at the expansion of the physical network. Policy and programmatic changes significantly impact the popularity of cycling and walking within cities. Revisions to active transportation-related engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation can transform the walking and biking environment within Bakersfield. The City website should be updated to ensure residents can easily access the ATP and all the resources included in this section.

Engineering
• • Senior Pedestrian Phasing: Implement longer pedestrian phasing for crossings adjacent to senior living centers can provide a safer and more comfortable experience for those with mobility issues. • • School Lead Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) with Dynamic Blank Out No Turn On Red (NRTOR): Installing LPIs combined with dynamic blank out NRTOR around schools allows children to safely enter the crosswalk before vehicle traffic begins.
• • Pedestrian Recall: Implement automatic pedestrian phasing along the trail system to decrease travel times for active transportation users.
• • Detection: Implement improved technologies for identifying the presence of active transportation users on a corridor, such as loop detectors or video detection systems. This way, cyclists do not have to dismount to activate the traditional intersection pedestrian push-buttons.
• • E-Bike Speed Limit: Regulate user speed of e-bikes to under 20 mph to increase safety for all users.
• • Bike Parking: Continue the bicycle parking program, which allows residents to request installation of bicycle racks in front of local businesses by emailing [email protected]. Consider adding a request feature to Bakersfield Mobile.
• • Lighting: Provide increased lighting to improve real and perceived safety. Utilize dark-sky lighting, when possible, to reduce light pollution.
• • Shade: Increase tree canopy coverage over active transportation corridors to improve air quality, provide shade, and reduce the effects of urban heat.
• • Placemaking: Create comfortable and aesthetically interesting active transportation corridors through placemaking, such as public art or street furniture.
• • Wayfinding: Implement a wayfinding program as described in Appendix E: Wayfinding Signage to help guide users to their destinations as well as increased awareness of City investments in active transportation.
• • Maintenance: Ensures bicycle and pedestrian facilities remain useable.
» Street & Bike Path Sweeping: Continue the scheduled
maintenance of bicycle facilities by the Streets Division of the Public Works Department on a monthly and as-needed basis. » Bakersfield Mobile: Encourage the use of the mobile app for reporting barriers to walking and biking so they can be more easily tracked by the City. This includes maintenance and safety issues such as potholes, ADA issues, or lack of lighting. » Roadway Maintenance: Continue accepting maintenance requests though an online service request form or through 661-326-3111.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
38

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Education
• • Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS): Offer opportunities to help students increase physical activity, socialization, independence, and academic performance while reducing congestion, environmental impacts, and isolation:
» Update the City website with a comprehensive webpage
dedicated to SRTS, including links to resources provided by the Kern Active Transportation Alliance (KATA).
» Continue updating the Safe Routes to Parks and Schools Web Map, which represents the various infrastructure improvements to school transportation corridors that the City’s Public Works Department has implemented or plans to implement.
» Prioritize active transportation marketing and outreach leading up to the first few weeks of each school year, when commute options are typically decided. Provide back-to-school resources for carpool matching, safety education materials, suggested routes, and enforcement information.
» Provide resources for schools to facilitate a walking school bus or bicycle train program. In these programs, groups of children walk or bike to school together under the supervision of adult volunteers to create a safe and organized way to commute to school without vehicles. Schools can provide safety equipment to students as well as incentives for parent volunteers.
» Facilitate a Golden Sneaker Contest between schools. Schools track the rates of students walking, bicycling, rolling, or carpooling while commuting, and the winner receives a trophy of a golden sneaker as well as other prizes. This promotes awareness and increases active transportation mode share.
» Encourage weekly, monthly, or annual Walk and Roll to School Day(s) to promote active transportation usage in students. » Sponsor student incentive programs where students log their use of alternative modes for commuting to school and receive a prize after earning enough trips.
• • Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program: Continue implementing the traffic calming process outlined in the 2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Report and continue updating the associated map. • • Bicycle Rodeos: Increase active transportation safety education opportunities for children in school through hands-on training provided by Bakersfield Police Department’s or Bike Bakersfield’s bike rodeos. Share public bike rodeos on the City’s social media accounts.
• • Bike Kitchen: Expand access to tools and assistance for bike repair through the existing bike kitchen operated by Bike Bakersfield. • • Road Skills Courses: Promote bike road skill courses offered by Bike Bakersfield to increase cyclists’ knowledge and safety. Share registration opportunities on the City’s social media accounts. Offer internal trainings to staff to ensure understanding of policies and best practices.
• • Free bike Programs: Reduce the financial barrier to owning a bicycle and typically feature an education component. This could include support for:
» Recreation and Parks Department’s Build-A-Bike program.

Children ages 9 through 13 can participate in a two-week program at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center where they learn how to build, repair, maintain, and ride their bike. Bike rodeos are included to practice safety.
» Bike Bakersfield’s Earn a Bike program. After 12 hours of volunteer work, participants of all ages have the opportunity to assemble their own bike.
» Bike Bakersfield’s Loan-to-Own E-Bike program provides a free e-bike and safety accessories for one year to East and Southeast Bakersfield residents. If riders attend required workshops, group rides, and document 30 miles of weekly usage on the bike, they get to keep all the items they received.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
39

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
• • Active Transportation Facilities Map: Publish The proposed trails map on the City’s website as an interactive map, where site visitors can stay up to date on which portions of the network have been implemented.
• • Event Booths: Host booths at farmers markets and other community events to promote active transportation and offer safety resources. • • Bakersfield Police Department Traffic Section’s Education Program: Incorporate active transportation content into this teen- oriented program.

Encouragement
• • Open Street Events: Facilitate an open street event such as Ciclovia, where a road is closed to all vehicles so those walking, biking, or rolling at any age can use the entire street safely.
• • Regional events provide opportunities for increasing active transportation awareness, including:
» Rideshare Week: Bolster encouragement for Rideshare Week, where CommuteKern promotes biking, walking, or public
transportation for traveling to work or school.
» Bike Month: Promote events related to bike safety hosted by local organizations throughout the month of May.
» Bike-to-Work Day: Continue to foster City staff participation through raffles and a group ride. Continue to support Bike Bakersfield commuter booths.
• • Community Rides: Provide a safe environment for cyclists to get outside and practice their skills by participating in
» Full Moon Ride: Continue to advertise the monthly bike ride along the Kern River Bike Path. This ride, which is appropriate for all ages and skill levels, draws approximately 100-175 participants each month.
» Ride Groups: Begin advertising other community rides, such as those organized by the Kern Active Transportation Alliance (KATA), Kern Wheelman, or the Southern Sierra Fat Tire Association.
• • Bike Buddy Program: Publicize the program facilitated by Bike Bakersfield, which matches new bike commuters with an experienced mentor.
• • Kern Rideamigos: Promote the program offered through CommuteKern, where commuters can enter their origin and destination to see existing carpool, transitpool, bike groups, and walking groups traveling the same route. Traveling in groups improves safety, saves money, and reduces emissions.
• • Bike Valet: Increase awareness of the bike valet provided by Bike Bakersfield at concerts, festivals, and other major events using social media.
• • Bus Pass Program: Offer free or discounted bus passes for students to facilitate multi-modal connections.

Enforcement
• • Garage529: Publicize this program, which facilitates the return of stolen or lost bikes to their owners.
• • Targeted Enforcement: Station officers at intersections with high rates of fatal and serious active transportation collisions to ensure safety for all users.
• • Crosswalk Enforcement Program: Implement this initiative spearheaded by the Chicago Police Department. It involves one undercover police officer posing as a crossing pedestrian at a crosswalk. If motorists do not follow the law and stop for pedestrians, they will be pulled over by another officer stationed in a vehicle down the street.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
40

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
• • Automated Enforcement such as red-light cameras can be combined with photo enforcement signage and awareness campaigns to encourage compliance with traffic laws.
• • Law Enforcement Liaison: Create an active transportation law enforcement liaison role within the Bakersfield Police Department to ensure active transportation concerns are adequately addressed. • • Law Enforcement Training: Provide comprehensive training on the traffic laws, legal rights, and collision reporting for active transportation users to law enforcement personnel. Create a one-page overview for distribution to law enforcement as well as the public
Evaluation
• • Walk and Bike Audits: Evaluate walking and biking concerns such as comfort, safety, or access and identify potential solutions.

Collaboration between community members and trained
professionals leads to results drawing from multiple perspectives. • • Roadway Safety Audit (RSA): In areas with high rates of serious injuries and fatalities, perform an RSA, or formal examination of the roadway to identify potential safety issues and recommend appropriate measures to enhance safety.
• • Goal and Objective Updates: Track the effectiveness of the trail improvements in both a quantitative and qualitative manner. This includes resident surveys, community meetings, on-trail canvasing, pop-up events, bike and pedestrian counts, collision data, and bike and pedestrian travel data. Using this data, the City can further refine and adjust metrics and prioritization as needed.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
41

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Projects and Costs
The projects identified as part of the Bakersfield ATP include the 19 trails proposed as part of the overall trail network. Cost estimates were developed for each trail based on the class of improvements proposed and their lengths, along with other significant components such as new bridges that will require large investment. Table 8 displays the total cost for each trail, as well as a total estimated cost for implementation of the entire network.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
1 30th Street to Niles Street and Monterey Street
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1-1 Class I Bike Facility 1.43 Mile $3,077,400 $4,400,700 1-2 Class II Bike Facility 0.06 Mile $515,000 $30,900
1-3 Class III Bike Facility 0.36 Mile $189,800 $68,300
1-4 Class IV Bike Facility 4.08 Mile $706,100 $2,881,000 1-5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge 1 L.S. $2,040,000 $2,040,000 1-6 Intersection Treatments 15 each $12,000 $180,000
1-7 Bike Signals 30 Each $12,500 $375,000
1-8 Pedestrian Lighting 358 Each $13,000 $4,654,000
Subtotal $14,629,900
2 Akers Road & McKee Road
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
2-1 Class IV Bike Facility (Urban) 3.50 Mile $706,100 $2,471,500 2-2 Bike Signal 14 Each $12,500 $175,000
2-3 Intersection Treatments 8 Each $12,000 $96,000
2-4 Pedestrian Lighting 83 Each $13,000 $1,079,000
Subtotal $3,821,500
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
42

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
3 Ashe Road
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
3-1 Class III Bike Facility (Urban) 0.26 Mile $189,800 $49,300 3-2 Class IV Bike Facility (Urban) 4.02 Mile $706,100 $2,838,700 3-3 Intersection Treatments 12 Each $12,000 $144,000
3-4 Pedestrian Lighting 200 Each $13,000 $2,600,000
Subtotal $5,632,000
4 Baker Street, King Street & Lotus Lane
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
4-1 Class I Bike Facility 1.18 Mile $3,077,400 $3,631,300 4-2 Class II Bike Facility 3.27 Mile $515,000 $1,684,000 4-3 Class III Bike Facility 0.75 Mile $189,800 $142,400 4-4 Class IV Bike Facility 1.11 Mile $706,100 $783,800
4-5 Intersection Treatments 23 Each $12,000 $276,000
4-6 Pedestrian Lighting 456 Each $13,000 $5,928,000
Subtotal $12,445,500
5 Brimhall Road
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
5-1 Class I Bike Facility 1.02 Mile $3,077,400 $3,138,900 5-2 Class IV Bike Facility 2.26 Mile $706,100 $1,595,900 5-3 Intersection Treatments 7 Each $12,000 $84,000
5-4 Pedestrian Lighting 0 Each $13,000 $0
Subtotal $4,818,800
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
43

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
6 Stine Road & Canal
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
6-1 Class I Bike Facility 3.59 Mile $3,077,400 $11,047,900 6-2 Class IV Bike Facility 1.61 Mile $706,100 $1,136,900 6-3 Intersection Treatments 13 Each $12,000 $156,000
6-4 Pedestrian Bridge 1 L.S. $17,000,000 $17,000,000
6-5 Pedestrian Lighting 563 Each $13,000 $7,319,000
Subtotal $36,659,700
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
7 Columbus & University to Choctaw Valley
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
7-1 Class I Bike Facility 11.54 Mile $3,077,400 $35,513,200 7-2 Class II Bike Facility 0.18 Mile $515,000 $92,700
7-3 Class III Bike Facility 0.37 Mile $189,800 $70,200
7-4 Class IV Bike Facility 3.01 Mile $706,100 $2,125,500 7-5 Intersection Treatments 19 Each $12,000 $228,000
7-6 Pedestrian Lighting 1416 Each $13,000 $18,408,000
Subtotal $56,437,600
44

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
8 Friant-Kern & Arvin-Edison Canals
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
8-1 Class I Bike Facility (Canal) 5.37 Mile $3,077,400 $16,525,600 8-2 Kern River Pedestrian Bridge 1 L.S. $12,750,000 $12,750,000 8-3 Kern Canal Pedestrian Bridge 1 L.S. $13,600,000 $13,600,000 8-4 Arvin-Edison Canal Pedestrian Bridge 1 L.S. $3,400,000 $3,400,000 8-5 Intersection Treatments 16 each $12,000 $192,000
8-6 Pedestrian Lighting 1087 Each $13,000 $14,131,000
Subtotal $60,598,700
9 H Street
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
9-1 Class I Bike Facility 6.37 Mile $3,077,400 $19,603,000 9-2 Class III Bike Facility 0.52 Mile $189,800 $98,700
9-3 Class IV Bike Facility 2.59 Mile $706,100 $1,828,885 9-4 Intersection Treatments 32 Each $12,000 $384,000
9-5 Pedestrian Lighting 424 Each $13,000 $5,512,000
Subtotal $27,426,600
45

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
10 Jewetta Avenue & Buena Vista Road
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
10-1 Class I Bike Facility 1.74 Mile $3,077,400 $5,354,700 10-2 Class III Bike Facility 0.55 Mile $189,800 $104,400 10-3 Class IV Bike Facility 4.44 Mile $706,100 $3,135,200 10-4 Intersection Treatments 17 Each $12,000 $204,000
10-5 Pedestrian Lighting 267 Each $13,000 $3,471,000
Subtotal $12,269,300
11 Ming Ave and Belle Terrace
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
11-1 Class I Bike Facility 0.41 Mile $3,077,400 $1,261,700 11-2 Class II Bike Facility 0.31 Mile $515,000 $159,700 11-3 Class III Bike Facility 0.19 Mile $189,800 $36,000 11-4 Class IV Bike Facility 7.64 Mile $706,100 $5,394,900 11-5 Intersection Treatments 23 Each $12,000 $276,000
11-6 Pedestrian Bridge 1 L.S. $4,250,000 $4,250,000
11-7 Pedestrian Lighting 343 Each $13,000 $4,459,000
Subtotal $15,837,300
46

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
12 Mount Vernon Avenue
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
12-1 Class I Bike Facility 0.56 Mile $3,077,400 $1,723,300 12-2 Class IV Bike Facility 2.45 Mile $706,100 $1,730,000 12-3 Intersection Treatments 13 Each $12,000 $156,000
12-4 Pedestrian Lighting 9 Each $13,000 $117,000
Subtotal $3,726,400
13 Kern River & Buena Vista Canals
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
13-1 Class I Bike Facility (Canal) 5.91 Mile $3,077,400 $18,187,400 13-2 Class I Bike Facility (Urban, Park) 0.18 Mile $761,300 $137,000 13-3 Intersection Treatments 16 Each $12,000 $192,000
13-4 Pedestrian Lighting 877 Each $13,000 $11,401,000
Subtotal $29,917,500
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
14 Panama Lane & Arvin-Edison Canal
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
14-1 Class I Bike Facility 5.20 Mile $3,077,400 $16,002,500 14-2 Class IV Bike Facility 3.40 Mile $706,100 $2,400,900 14-3 Intersection Treatments 32 Each $12,000 $384,000
14-4 Pedestrian Bridge 1 L.S. $11,900,000 $11,900,000
14-5 Pedestrian Lighting 753 Each $13,000 $9,789,000
Subtotal $40,476,300
47

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
15 Q Street, Kern Island Canal & Central Branch Canal
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
15-1 Class I Bike Facility 6.49 Mile $3,077,400 $19,972,300 15-2 Class III Bike Facility 0.13 Mile $189,800 $24,700 15-3 Class IV Bike Facility 1.67 Mile $706,133 $1,179,200 15-4 Intersection Treatments 29 Each $12,000 $348,000
15-5 Pedestrian Lighting 796 Each $13,000 $10,348,000
Subtotal $31,872,200
16 Rosedale Highway & 21st Street
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
16-1 Class I Bike Facility 4.06 Mile $3,077,400 $12,494,200 16-2 Class IV Bike Facility 4.95 Mile $706,100 $3,495,460 16-3 Intersection Treatments 25 Each $12,000 $300,000
16-4 Pedestrian Lighting 767 Each $13,000 $9,971,000
Subtotal $26,260,600
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
17 BNSF Rail Line
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
17-1 Class I Bike Facility (Railway) 3.96 Mile $3,077,400 $12,186,500 17-2 Intersection Treatments 2 Each $12,000 $24,000
17-3 Pedestrian Lighting 800 Each $13,000 $10,400,000
Subtotal $22,610,500
48

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
18 Asphalto Rail Line & White Lane
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
18-1 Class I Bike Facility (Railway) 5.66 Mile $3,077,400 $17,418,100 18-2 Class I Bike Facility (Canal, Existing to be Modified) 0.99 Mile $3,077,400 $3,046,600 18-3 Class IV Bike Facility 1.35 Mile $706,100 $953,300 18-4 Intersection Treatments 14 Each $12,000 $168,000
18-5 Pedestrian Lighting 579 Each $13,000 $7,527,000
Subtotal $29,113,000
Table 8: Cost of Improvements by Trail
Total ATP Trail Subtotal $456,347,700
Contingency (20%) $91,269,500
Total ATP Trail Subtotal
with Contingency $547,617,200
Design (15%) $68,452,200
Total ATP Trail Subtotal
with Contingency & Design $616,069,400
19 Virginia Avenue
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
19-1 Class I Bike Facility 3.41 Mile $3,077,400 $10,493,900 19-2 Class II Bike Facility 2.66 Mile $515,000 $1,369,900 19-3 Class III Bike Facility 0.67 Mile $189,800 $127,200 19-4 Class IV Bike Facility 0.53 Mile $706,133 $374,300 19-5 Intersection Treatments 24 Each $12,000 $288,000
19-6 Pedestrian Lighting 705 Each $13,000 $9,165,000
Subtotal $21,818,300
49

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Figure 14: Priority Scores by Area and Existing and Proposed Trail Network

5. IMPLEMENTATION
50

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Project Prioritization
Each of the 19 trails proposed as part of the ATP was ranked for implementation in a prioritization scheme. Each of these trails was analyzed for attributes such as:
• • Trip generation
• • Biking and walking propensity
• • Population and job density
• • Estimated number of daily users compared to cost per mile • • Proximity to disadvantaged communities and activity centers • • History of bicyclist and pedestrian-involved crashes.

This allowed each of the trails to be scored relative to the goals and objectives of the ATP. Equity areas were factored into the prioritization process to ensure that improvements that benefit disadvantaged communities are implemented first.

This allowed each of the trails to be scored relative to the goals and objectives of the ATP. Each of the trails was then broken up into 1-4 segments based on any major barriers that may need to be constructed to complete the trail, such as a bridge. Figure 14 on the previous page displays a map developed that indicated which areas of the City feature the highest potential for bike and pedestrian mobility based on an aggregate score of various factors. For more information on this scoring methodology, see Appendix G: Prioritization Criteria. The full list of priority scores and ranking of trail segments are shown in Table 9.

Several factors may be barriers to implementation of the improvements proposed as part of this ATP. Cost is one of the primary barriers.

Build-out of this network is estimated to cost upwards of $640 million.

Therefore, these improvements will need to be constructed piecemeal as funds are available. Another barrier to implementation involves right-of-way acquisition and creation of easements. Some trails in the network run along existing canals and along railroad rights-of-way and will require negotiations with landowners and/or stakeholders.

Acquisition by the City of any additional land required to complete the trail network will also add to the cost of the project. Finally, public opinion could be a barrier to implementation, as the trail network will require modifications to a sizable portion of the City’s road network.

Implementation of the ATP can mitigate the aforementioned barriers in a variety of ways. Prioritization of improvements will ensure that the City will receive more immediate benefits and cost effectiveness of the ATP at early stages. This will also allow the City to position itself to be applicable for multiple funding sources for each trail. Also, continued outreach with stakeholders and residents can mitigate stresses caused by land acquisition. Education programs also play a critical role in the success of the ATP’s implementation. These can include safety campaigns, bike education classes, school events, and community ride-alongs that introduce residents to the trail network, as well as provide more information on what destinations can be accessed via the trails. Finally, monitoring and evaluating the plan’s progress allows for adjustments and improvements to be made as needed.
51

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Rank Trail Trail
Section Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (Miles) Daily Users Total Cost Score Implementation Group 1
1 12 Mount Vernon
Avenue 1 of 1 Columbus/University to
Choctaw Valley Trail Virginia Ave Trail 3.01 1481 $3,727,852 121.3 2 11 Ming Avenue and
Belle Terrace 1 of 2 New Stine Rd Baker/ King/
Madison/ Lotus Trail 3.83 1051 $3,070,563 115.5
3 11 Ming Avenue and
Belle Terrace 2 of 2 Jewetta to
Buena Vista Trail New Stine Rd 4.72 1296 $3,784,089 88.7 4 2 Akers Road &
McKee Road 1 of 1 Pacheco Rd Mountain Ridge Dr 3.50 644 $3,822,111 81.3 5 4 Baker Street, King Street
& Lotus Lane 1 of 2 Columbus/University to
Choctaw Valley Trail
Ming Ave/
Belle Terrace Trail 4.30 1128 $8,495,703 56.8
Implementation Group 2
6 1 30th Street to Niles Street
and Monterey Street 1 of 2 Golden State Ave Vernon Ave 4.44 888 $5,527,253 48.3 7 1 30th Street to Niles Street
and Monterey Street 2 of 2 Kern River Trail Golden State Ave 1.49 298 $1,854,867 44.2 8 6 Stine Road
& Canal 1 of 3 Stockdale Hwy Grissom St 2.27 663 $5,319,771 42.9 9 6 Stine Road
& Canal 2 of 3 Kern River Trail Stockdale Hwy 1.72 502 $4,030,839 40.5 10 3 Ashe
Road 1 of 3 Rio Bravo Dr District Blvd Railroad Spur 2.95 743 $3,882,615 37.4 Table 9: Priority Rankings and Implementation Groups of Bakersfield ATP Trail Segments 52

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Rank Trail Trail
Section Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (Miles) Daily Users Total Cost Score Implementation Group 3
11 4 Baker Street, King Street
& Lotus Lane 2 of 2 Ming Ave/
Belle Terrace Trail
Venola Railway to
White St Trail 2.00 564 $3,951,529 36.9
12 3 Ashe
Road 2 of 3 Venola Railway to
White St Trail
Panama Lane &
Canal Trail 1.01 254 $1,329,302 36.6
13 9 H
Street 1 of 2 Columbus/ University to
Choctaw Valley Trail
Asphalto/
Sunset Railroad Branch 5.67 1578 $16,388,188 36.0
14 19 Virginia
Avenue 1 of 2 Stockdale Christian School Asphalto/
Sunset Railroad Branch 4.48 1224 $13,427,840 33.9
15 9 H
Street 2 of 2 Asphalto/
Sunset Railroad Branch Taft Hwy 3.82 1063 $11,041,072 32.7 Implementation Group 4
16 14 Panama Lane &
Arvin-Edison Canal 1 of 2 Q St to Central Branch/
Kern Island Canal Trail Friant-Kern Canal Trail 4.69 1024 $10,025,604 26.3 17 19 Virginia
Avenue 2 of 2 Asphalto/
Sunset Railroad Branch Fairfax Rd 2.80 765 $8,392,400 25.7 18 18 Asphalto Rail Line
& White Lane 1 of 2 Baker/ King/
Madison/ Lotus Trail Gosford Rd 5.97 1666 $21,727,235 24.8 19 6 Stine Road
& Canal 3 of 3 Grissom St Venola Railway to
White St Trail 1.21 353 $2,835,648 24.2
20 15 Q Street, Kern Island Canal
& Central Branch Canal 1 of 4 BNSF Railroad Main Line SR 58 1.52 375 $5,844,260 23.8 Table 9: Priority Rankings and Implementation Groups of Bakersfield ATP Trail Segments 53

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Rank Trail Trail
Section Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (Miles) Daily Users Total Cost Score Implementation Group 5
21 15 Q Street, Kern Island Canal
& Central Branch Canal 2 of 4 SR 58 Planz Rd 2.37 585 $9,112,432 22.8 22 3 Ashe
Road 3 of 3 District Blvd Railroad Spur Venola Railway to White St Trail 0.32 81 $421,165 20.9
23 5 Brimhall
Road 1 of 1 Allen Rd Friant-Kern Canal Trail 3.28 452 $4,819,261 20.4 24 10 Jewetta Avenue
& Buena Vista Road 1 of 2 Santa Fe Way/
BNSF Railroad Trail
Venola Railway to
White St Trail 5.73 871 $10,447,094 19.9
25 15 Q Street, Kern Island Canal
& Central Branch Canal 3 of 4 Columbus/ University to
Choctaw Valley Trail BNSF Railroad Main Line 1.84 455 $7,074,632 18.6 Implementation Group 6
26 15 Q Street, Kern Island Canal
& Central Branch Canal 4 of 4 Planz Rd Panama Lane &
Canal Trail 2.56 632 $9,842,965 16.6
27 16 Rosedale Highway
& 21st Street 1 of 2 Kern River Trail Baker/ King/
Madison/ Lotus Trail 3.10 501 $9,016,642 15.5
28 14 Panama Lane &
Arvin-Edison Canal 2 of 2 Friant-Kern Canal Trail Old River Rd/Canal Trail 3.92 856 $8,379,610 15.3 29 18 Asphalto Rail Line
& White Lane 2 of 2 Gosford Rd Jewetta to
Buena Vista Trail 2.03 566 $7,387,987 12.9
30 8 Friant-Kern &
Arvin-Edison Canals 1 of 2 Laurelglen Blvd Panama Lane & Canal Trail 2.60 427 $8,001,667 12.4
Table 9: Priority Rankings and Implementation Groups of Bakersfield ATP Trail Segments 54

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

5. IMPLEMENTATION
Rank Trail Trail
Section Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (Miles) Daily Users Total Cost Score Implementation Group 7
31 8 Friant-Kern &
Arvin-Edison Canals 2 of 2 Kern River Laurelglen Blvd 2.77 455 $8,524,853 11.6 32 10 Jewetta Avenue
& Buena Vista Road 2 of 2 Venola Railway to
White St Trail
Panama Lane &
Canal Trail 1.00 152 $1,823,227 10.8
33 16 Rosedale Highway
& 21st Street 2 of 2 Allen Rd Kern River Trail 5.92 956 $17,245,419 10.6 34 7 Columbus & University
to Choctaw Valley 1 of 3 Valley Ln/
Morning Dr
Hart Memorial Park/
Kern River Golf Course 7.40 726 $27,658,879 8.4
35 7 Columbus & University
to Choctaw Valley 2 of 3 Kern River Trail River Blvd 2.26 222 $8,447,172 8.1 Implementation Group 8
36 13 Kern River &
Buena Vista Canals 1 of 2 California State
University Bakersfield Vista Del Mar Ave 4.61 662 $22,647,547 6.6 37 17 BNSF
Rail Line 1 of 2 Calloway Dr Friant-Kern Canal Trail 1.30 263 $7,433,796 6.1 38 17 BNSF
Rail Line 2 of 2 Hageman Rd Calloway Dr 2.66 537 $15,153,508 6.1 39 7 Columbus & University
to Choctaw Valley 3 of 3 River Blvd Morning Dr 5.44 533 $20,333,013 6.0 40 13 Kern River &
Buena Vista Canals 2 of 2 Vista Del Mar Ave Panama Lane & Canal Trail 1.48 212 $7,270,795 5.1
Table 9: Priority Rankings and Implementation Groups of Bakersfield ATP Trail Segments 55

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Project Funding Program
The top five ranked trail segments, which all make up implementation group 1, are as follows:

1. Mount Vernon Trail (full extents)

2. Ming Ave / Belle Terrace Trail Segment 1 (east of New Stine Rd)

3. Ming Ave / Belle Terrace Trail Segment 2 (west of New Stine Rd)

4. Akers / McKee Trail (full extents)

5. Baker / King / Madison / Lotus Trail Segment 1
(north of Ming Ave / Belle Terrace trail connection)
These trails featured the highest priority scores and would provide the highest cost effectiveness of the 40 trail segments. Therefore, these should be implemented before the remaining trail segments.

Each trail segment is a significant investment for the City that will most likely require additional funding beyond what is allocated in the City’s CIP. There are several funding sources available for ATP improvements.

Some of the common funding sources include:
• • Maintenance Funding
• • Developer impact fees
• • VMT mitigation fees
• • Special assessment districts
• • Grant funding, including:
» Active Transportation Program (ATP)
» Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP)
» Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
» RAISE Discretionary Grants
» Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Grant Program » Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
» Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
» Urban Greening
» Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Program
» Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
» Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCCP)
» Local Streets and Roads (LSRP) Program
» Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
» Local Partnership Program
The projects in Implementation Group 1 could begin securing funds for design and construction as early as 2025. Grant funding opportunities for this group include the State of California’s Active Transportation Program, is scheduled to accept applications for Cycle 8 in 2026 for award in early 2027. The state’s Local Partnership Program will accept project nominations through November 20th, 2024 for award in 2025.

This program is also expected to be renewed in 2026 for award in early 2027. Caltrans’ HSIP Cycle 13 is expected to accept applications through the summer of 2026 for award in early 2027. HSIP funds can be used for intersection treatments or for Class II, III, and IV improvements.

Federal grants are also a good opportunity to fund Implementation Group 1. Safe Streets and Roads for All will continue to appropriate funds through 2026, and can be used on a variety of the treatments proposed as part of this plan. If released, additional cycles of the Reconnecting Communities Grant or Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) programs are an attractive option for trail segments passing through disadvantaged communities. Table 10 details several federal and state funding programs as well as eligible countermeasures for each.

The City is not solely limited to these funding sources, and will continue to monitor additional grant and other funding opportunities as they arise. It is also important to note that projects with higher priority scores tend to also have greater cost effectiveness. This is important to consider when applying for grant funding, as project in later implementation groups may not be eligible for the same funding mechanisms as prior projects.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
56

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Countermeasures
Federal Programs State Programs
HSIP
SS4A
STBG
RAISE
RCN
TOD Pilot*
ATP
LPP
SCCP
LRSP & SSARP*
OTS
STP*
Add or enhance lighting / / / / / / / / / /
Bike Boxes / / / / / / / / / / /
Curb extensions / / / / / / / / / / /
Education Programming / / / / /
Drivers Education Programs / / / / /
Visibility Campaigns / / / / /
Active Transportation Rodeos / / / / /
Safety Dashboards / / / / /
Enforcement / / / / /
Increased Patrols / / / / /
Targeted Safety Campaigns / / / / /
Install Bike Lane Through Intersections / / / / / / / / / / / Install Edge-Lines and Rumble Strips / / / / / / / / /
Install Flexible Bollards / / / / / / / / / / /
Install Pedestrian Refuge Island / / / / / / / / / / /
Install Raised Median / / / / / / / / / / /
Install Raised Bicycle Crossing / / / / / / / / / / /
Table 10: Countermeasure Toolbox and Potential Funding Sources *These programs fund planning activities only.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
57

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Countermeasures
Federal Programs State Programs
HSIP
SS4A
STBG
RAISE
RCN
TOD Pilot*
ATP
LPP
SCCP
LRSP & SSARP*
OTS
STP*
Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing / / / / / / / / / / / Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon / / / / / / / / / / / Install Separated Bike Lanes / / / / / / / / / / /
Install Sidewalk / / / / / / / / / / /
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing / / / / / / / / / / / Modify Signal Phasing to Implement
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
/ / / / / / / / / / /
Road Diet / / / / / / / / / / /
Upgrade Pedestrian Countdown Heads / / / / / / / / / / / Widen Shoulder / / / / / / / / /
Table 10: Countermeasure Toolbox and Potential Funding Sources *These programs fund planning activities only.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
58

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Federal Programs
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), administered by the United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is a core federal-aid program that aims to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

Conceived through the Highway Safety Act of 1973, HSIP has been expanded and modified by multiple pieces of legislation in subsequent decades, most recently via the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s (BIL) Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The HSIP apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among various programs. A call-for-projects under HSIP is typically made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

California’s Local HSIP disburses grant funding to infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors. Projects must be identified based on crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, and other data-supported means that have been catalogued in a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRPS) or other qualifying Action Plan. HSIP funds are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or on tribal lands for general use of tribal members.

Projects eligible for HSIP funding must identify a specific safety problem and the proposed countermeasure(s) must be shown to substantially address said problem. The proposed project must be consistent with California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Projects must be designed and constructed expeditiously, not require an acquisition of right-of-way amounting to more than 10% of a project’s construction cost, nor require extensive environmental review or mitigation. Certain countermeasures, such as curve realignments and shoulder widenings, which take longer periods of time to implement will need to show that other, lower-cost countermeasures have not been effective before consideration.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at: https:/ /highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip.

California-specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming calls for projects - can be found at: https:/ /dot.ca.gov/programs/ local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety- improvement-program.

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program, administered by USDOT, has allocated $1 billion annually for multiple years of grants to projects aiming to prevent deaths and serious injuries on the nation’s streets and roadways through planning efforts, educational and enforcement programs, and infrastructure improvements.

Established by the BIL’s IIJA, the grant funds are disbursed directly from the federal government to awarded projects. Eligible applicants include cities, counties, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), other special districts that are political subdivisions of a State, and federally recognized Tribal governments.

Two types of grants are available:

Planning and Demonstration Grants provide the development, completion, or supplement to a comprehensive safety Action Plan with a goal of developing a holistic, well-defined strategy to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries. Demonstration activities are encouraged. An Action Plan that receives funding from the SS4A Program also qualifies a jurisdiction to apply for HSIP funding, even in the absence of an LRSP.

Implementation Grants fund projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan that address roadway safety problems. In addition to implementing physical infrastructure and programmatic improvements,

5. IMPLEMENTATION
59

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Implementation Grants may also be utilized for supplemental action and demonstration activities and project-level planning, design, and development.

Projects funded by SS4A grants can be implemented on any class of public roadway. This program is not based on a benefit-cost analysis (BCA). Evaluation criteria are instead oriented to prospective projects’ alignment with the Safe Systems approach adopted by FHWA. There is a 20% local match requirement, though this can be attained in-kind via billable staff labor hours.

Additional information regarding this program, including specific examples of eligible grant projects and strategies, can be found online at: https:/ /www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A.

Surface Transportation Block Grants
Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG), administered by FHWA, provides flexible grant funding for projects to preserve and improve roadway safety conditions and performance.

The predecessor to the STBG program was first conceived through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA) of 2005. Since then, it has been amended and evolved into its current form and was most recently reauthorized by the 2021 BIL’s IIJA. The STBG apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, amounting to approximately $1.25 billion for California each year, which is then divided among various programs and community sizes.

Projects are proposed by local agencies and the State for selection by a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) or MPO. Projects must be included in an approved Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP). Project nomination schedules vary statewide for each RTPA or MPO. STBG funds are eligible for projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals.

Eligible project types vary considerably, with applicable uses for STBG funds spanning objectives from multimodal safety and operations improvements to environmental restoration, alternative fuels infrastructure, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology deployment.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at: https:/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan- infrastructure-law/stbg.cfm
California-specific STBG information can be found at: https:/ /dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/ guide/funding-guidebook.pdf
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
The Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant program, administered by USDOT, provides large grants to road, rail, transit, and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives and have a significant local or regional impact by improving transportation infrastructure.

Previously known as the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, the RAISE grant program was established in the 2021 BIL’s IIJA, Congress has allocated approximately $14.3 billion for fifteen (15) rounds of projects that have significant local or regional impacts. Funds are disbursed directly from the federal government to project applicants, which may include any public entity including municipalities, counties, port authorities, tribal governments, MPOs, or others. This flexibility allows RAISE grant sponsors at State and local levels to obtain funding for multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional funding programs. The minimum RAISE grant award is $5 million in urban areas and $1 million in rural areas and may not exceed $25 million.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
60

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Available grants including those for Planning Projects and Capital Projects. Eligible Capital Projects include improvements to a wide variety of surface transportation facilities, all of which can include facilities benefiting vulnerable road users even if not the primary focus. Considered especially necessary to advance the goals of the program are public road and non-motorized projects, transit-oriented development projects, mobility on-demand projects, and intermodal projects. Ensuring safe, reliable access for pedestrians and bicyclists is critical to the success of these projects/
Additional information regarding this program can be found online at:
https:/ /www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants/about
Reconnecting Communities and
Neighborhoods (RCN) Program
The Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods (RCN) Program seeks to prioritize disadvantaged communities, improve access to daily needs, and foster equitable development by removing, retrofitting, or mitigating highways or other transportation facilities that currently create barriers to community connectivity, mobility, access, and economic development.

The RCN Program was created by combining the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) established by the BIL’s IIJA and the Neighborhood Access and Equity discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Through this combined funding opportunity, the RCN Program offers three grant types:

Community Planning – projects may address planning to restore community connectivity, public engagement, assessing environmental impacts, and developing local anti-displacement policies and community benefit agreements. Eligible applicants include State, local municipalities, Tribal governments, MPOs, and non-profit organizations.

Capital Construction – projects may address a dividing facility, mitigating a burdening or polluting facility, or improving access and building or improving Complete Streets. Eligible applicants include the owner of the eligible facility proposed in the project or a partnership between said facility owner and any eligible Community Planning grant applicant.

Regional Partnerships Challenge - allows partnership between two or more agencies consisting of local governments, Tribal governments, MPOs/RPOs, State DOTs, and other non-public sector partners to tackle persistent equitable access and mobility challenges and reduce greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Projects are eligible for any transportation facility and its surroundings that serve as a barrier to a community – thus, improvements can be made on any roadway classification. By using the RCN Program to create and/or improve multimodal connections between currently separated communities, projects can readily implement countermeasures that improve safety for vulnerable road users.

Additional information regarding this program can be found online at:
https:/ /www.transportation.gov/grants/rcnprogram
Capital Investment Grants Program –
Transit-Oriented Development Planning
Funded through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Capital Investment Grants Program, the pilot program for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) planning assists efforts to focus growth around transit stations to create compact, mixed-used communities with easy access to jobs and services.

Born out of MAP-21 in 2012, the BIL’s IIJA continued the competitive TOD planning grant program with $14 million of funding through 2026.

Eligible applicants include the State, cities, counties, and other local governmental authorities.

Eligible grant activities include comprehensive or site-specific planning for projects that seek to enhance economic development and transit ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, and increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
61

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Planning must support an eligible transit capital project, defined as either a new fixed guideway project or core capacity improvement project as defined by FTA.

By adding and improving upon facilities serving vulnerable road users accessing transit stations, applicants can easily utilize these grant funds to satisfy the goals of the program and this report.

Additional information regarding this program can be found online at:
https:/ /www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fact-sheet-pilot-program- transit-oriented-development-planning
State Programs
The following is a list of grant programs available from the State of California to fund the planning and implementation of countermeasures.

Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The Active Transportation Program (ATP), administered by Caltrans, funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

The ATP program was created in 2013 via Senate Bill 99 (SB 99) and Assembly Bill 101 (AB 101), consolidating several federal and state transportation programs. In 2017, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act, authorized $100 million annually to be directed from the State’s Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP, significantly augmenting the available funding.

Eligible applicants include local, regional, or state agencies, Caltrans, transit agencies, natural resources or public land agencies, public schools or school districts, Tribal governments, certain non-profit organizations, and any other entity with responsibility for or oversight of transportation and recreational trails.

Projects eligible for this funding can be implemented on any roadway classification, and include pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects, pedestrian and bicycle planning projects, and non-infrastructure programs related to education and enforcement.

This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at: https:/ /dot.ca.gov/programs/local- assistance/fed-and-state-programs/active-transportation-program.

Local Partnership Program (LPP)
The Local Partnership Program (LPP), administered by the Caltrans, provides funding for transportation improvements related to aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, transit, and rail, and those that provide health and safety benefits.

Created by SB 1, the LPP continuously appropriates $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to local and regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees dedicated solely for transportation improvements. Funds are distributed through a 40% statewide competitive grant component and a 60% formulaic grant component.

Projects can be implemented on any roadway classification and may include improvements to the State Highway System or local road system, improvements to transit facilities, improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety or mobility, environmental mitigation, road maintenance and rehabilitation, and other transportation improvement projects.

With dedicated active transportation components and widespread applicability across transportation facilities, the LPP can be utilized in many ways to improve safety for vulnerable road users by implementing infrastructure-related countermeasures from the toolbox.

Additional information regarding this program can be found online at:
https:/ /catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/local-partnership-program

5. IMPLEMENTATION
62

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP)
The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) provides funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion
throughout the State.

Also born out of SB 1, the SCCP makes $250 million available annually to projects that implement specific transportation performance improvements and are already identified in a regional transportation plan (RTP) and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan. Eligible applicants include a regional transportation planning agency or county transportation commission or other authority responsible for preparing an RTP, generally RTPAs or MPOs. SB 1 requires preference to be given to comprehensive corridor plans that demonstrate collaboration between Caltrans and local or regional partners, reflecting a comprehensive planning approach. No more than half the available funding each year can be awarded to projects nominated exclusively by Caltrans.

Eligible projects may be implemented on the State Highway System, local streets and roads, public transit facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or a combination thereof. Project types include adding new or improving existing transit and rail infrastructure, transit hubs, first/ last-mile connections to transit hubs, closing gaps in street and active transportation networks, safety improvements, innovative technologies, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and more, giving a wide range for infrastructure-related countermeasures to be implemented.

Additional information regarding this program can be found online at: https:/ /catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/solutions-for-congested- corridors-program
Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSPs) and
Systemic Safety Analysis Report Programs (SSARP)
Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSPs) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Programs (SSARPs) are programs administered by Caltrans that fund planning and analysis activities at the local agency level.

LRSPs provide a means for providing local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the State’s SHSP. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements, while facilitating the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration. The LRSP produces a prioritized list of improvements and actions that offer a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

The SSARP was established in 2016, with state funding made available by exchanging the local HSIP federal funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds. The intent of this program is similar to the LRSP, assisting local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway networks, and developing a list of systemic low- cost countermeasures.

LRSPs, SSARPs, or an equivalent Action Plan are required by the State to apply for local HSIP funding. All of the countermeasures from the toolbox are applicable for inclusion for planning purposes within an LRSP or SSARP.

Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) offers grant funding for projects aiming to improve traffic safety, including programmatic projects related to enforcement and education. Grant applications must be supported by local crash data and relate to one of OTS’s priority programs, which includes pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as general roadway safety and traffic records.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
63

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Eligible applicants include public entities such as local, regional, or state agencies, transit agencies, public schools or school districts, Tribal governments, and certain non-profit organizations. Projects may be implemented along any roadway classification. Eligible projects must demonstrate how they will reduce traffic injuries and deaths in their respective priority program area.

Additional information regarding this program can be found online at:
https:/ /www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
Sustainable Transportation Planning (STP) Grants
The Sustainable Transportation Planning (STP) Grant Program, administered by Caltrans, aims to support Caltrans’ mission of providing a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The STP Grant Program appropriates funds through three different grant programs:

Sustainable Communities Grants – funded by SB 1, these grants are intended to support and implement RTP Sustainable Communities Strategies/Alternative Planning Strategies (SCS/APS) and achieve State greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. Grants awards are split between a Competitive and Technical grant and a Formula grant.

Eligible applicants include public agencies, Tribal governments, and certain non-profits, with a minimum of 50% of funding reserved for projects in underserved communities, which include Tribal governments and rural communities. Eligible project types are broken into active transportation, corridor and freight, social equity, integrated housing, land use, and transportation, multimodal, safety, technical, and transit funding areas.

Climate Adaptation Planning Grants – funded by Senate Bill 198, these grants support local and regional identification of transportation-related climate vulnerabilities through the development of climate adaptation plans, as well as project-level adaptation planning to identify adaptation projects and strategies for transportation infrastructure. Eligible applicants include public agencies, Tribal governments, and certain non-profits. Eligible projects include planning activities such as climate vulnerability risk assessments, planning for extreme weather events, Transportation Infrastructure Adaptation and Resilience Improvement Plans and project-level planning for capital projects, natural and green infrastructure planning, other technical feasibility studies and technical assistance, and development of educational resources.

Strategic Partnerships Grants – using federal funds, these grants are meant to identify and address statewide, interregional, or regional transportation deficiencies along the State highway system in partnership with Caltrans. A sub-category funds transit-focused planning projects that address multimodal transportation deficiencies.

Eligible applicants include RTPAs and MPOs. Eligible projects include a wide variety of planning activities, studies, and technical assistance for a range of federal planning factors with a transportation nexus, including economic development, safety, security, accessibility, environmental quality, and more.

Sustainable Communities Grants provide the most relevant funding opportunities for planning efforts that assist vulnerable road user safety. While the funds cannot be used to implement countermeasures listed in the toolbox, they can be used for project-level planning for any of the listed infrastructure countermeasures, including data gathering and analysis, reports, procurement of consultants, public outreach and workshops, and up to 30% design and conceptual drawings. Projects can be implemented along any roadway classification.

Additional information regarding this program can be found online at: https:/ /dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division- of-transportation-planning/regional-and-community-planning/ sustainable-transportation-planning-grants

5. IMPLEMENTATION
64

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Monitoring Implementation
Building out the improvements proposed in this ATP will take multiple years to complete. As improvements are implemented, the City must continually monitor the success of the ATP to ensure that improvements are well received and utilized. Successful monitoring relies on collecting useful information, and the City should focus on the following sources of information.
• • Travel and Safety Data: The City can monitor how trail improvements affect the number of bicycle and pedestrian users, and the number of crashes involving active transportation users. Travel data can be collected through surveys, manual counts, or automated methods like censors, cameras, or big data.
• • Performance Metrics: The City can establish performance metrics to monitor the success of the ATP improvements. These metrics can include tracking mode share, safety outcomes, air quality, and tracking usage across target demographic groups.
• • Surveys: The City can distribute surveys to find out quantitative and qualitative information from users and non-users alike, including satisfaction, perceived safety, common origins and destinations, and preferred routes.
• • Cost Benefit Analysis: The City should monitor how the trail improvements impact the local economy, communities, and environment through factors such as traffic congestion, air quality, property values, and external investment.

Engaging with stakeholders, such as local businesses, community organizations, residents, and advocacy groups, can provide valuable feedback on the effectiveness of improvements. Regular meetings and discussions can help identify challenges, address concerns, and track progress of the ATP.

Effective monitoring of the trail improvements outlined in this plan will allow the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the ATP to ensure that it is achieving the goals outlined in this plan, and to make adjustments to the routes and extents of each trail, as needed.

5. IMPLEMENTATION
65

6. APPENDICES
City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

6. APPENDICES
Appendix A Existing Conditions Report
Appendix B Conformance with Caltrans Active Transportation Plan Guidelines Appendix C Public Outreach
Appendix D Trail Profile Overviews
Appendix E Wayfinding Signage
Appendix F Typologies
Appendix G Prioritization Criteria

6. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report
Appendix B: Conformance with Caltrans Active
Transportation Plan Guidelines
Appendix C: Public Outreach
Appendix D: Trail Profile Overviews
Appendix E: Wayfinding Signage
Appendix F: Typologies
Appendix G: Prioritization Criteria
66

EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
Appendix A

CONFORMANCE WITH CALTRANS

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PLAN GUIDELINES
Appendix B

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Item Requirement Section(s)
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 implementation of the plan.
» Ch. 2: Bakersfield Today - Transportation Mode Share, Table 2: Means of Transportation to Work » Ch. 4: Recommendations - Anticipated Future Demand
» Ch. 5: Implementation - Monitoring Implementation
B
Description of Land Use/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. » Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Destinations and Points of Interest 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. » Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Current Infrastructure Inventory, Existing Pedestrian Facilities » Ch. 1: Introduction - Pedestrian Safety and Convenience Enhancements » Ch. 2: Bakersfield Today - Existing Pedestian Facilities » Ch. 4: Recommendations - Pedestrian Network
F 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. » Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Current Infrastructure Inventory, Existing Bicycle Infrastructure » Ch. 2: Bakersfield Today - Biking in Bakersfield, Table 3: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure I
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. » Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Bicycle Parking and End-Trip Facilities » Ch. 2: Bakersfield Today - Biking in Bakersfield, Bicycle Parking & End-Trip Facilities » Ch. 4: Recommendations - Programs & Policies, Engineering J Wayfinding: A description of existing and proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations.
» Appendix D - Wayfinding and Signage
» Ch. 4: Recommendations - Programs & Policies, Engineering K Non-Infrastructure: A description of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian education and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan. » Ch. 4: Recommendations - Programs & Policies
L
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 » Appendix A - Exisiting Conditions Report, Crash History » Ch. 2: Bakersfield Today, Safety Trends

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Item Requirement Section(s)
M
Equity Analysis: Identify census tracts that are considered disadvantaged or low-income and identify bicycle and pedestrian needs of those disadvantaged or low-income residents, including lack connectivity to key destinations, mobility challenges, public health concerns, and safety issues. » Appendix A - Existing Conditions Report, Demographic and Equity Factors » Ch. 1: Introduction - Meeting Challenges, Equity Considerations: Finance & Health » Ch. 2: Bakersfield Today - Equity
N Community Engagement: A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities. » Ch. 3: Community Engagement O
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.
» Ch. 1: Introduction - Plan Development Process
P 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. » Ch. 5: Implementation - Project Prioritization,
Table 2: Priority Rankings and Implementation Groups of Bakersfield ATP Trail Segments » Appendix F - Prioritization Criteria
Q
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.
» Ch. 5: Implementation - Project List
» Ch. 5: Implementation - Project Funding Program
R 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. » Ch. 5: Implementation S
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 .
» Ch. 1: Introduction - Goal 7: Maintenance & Preservation » Ch. 5: Implementation - Project Funding Program
T
Resolution: A resolution showing 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.
» Adoption Resolution to be included upon final plan adoption

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Appendix C

TRAIL PROFILE OVERVIEWS
Appendix D

WAYFINDING SIGNAGE
Appendix E

TYPOLOGIES
Appendix F

PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
Appendix G

6. APPENDICES
City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan

6. APPENDICES
Appendix A Existing Conditions Report
Appendix B Conformance with Caltrans Active Transportation Plan Guidelines Appendix C Public Outreach
Appendix D Trail Profile Overviews
Appendix E Wayfinding Signage
Appendix F Typologies
Appendix G Prioritization Criteria

6. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report
Appendix B: Conformance with Caltrans Active
Transportation Plan Guidelines
Appendix C: Public Outreach
Appendix D: Trail Profile Overviews
Appendix E: Wayfinding Signage
Appendix F: Typologies
Appendix G: Prioritization Criteria
66

EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
Appendix A

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Bakersfield Active Transportation Plan
Existing Conditions Assessment

March 2024

2 Table of Contents
Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 5 Programs & Policy Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 Enforcement ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 8 Encouragement ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 8 Policy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 Current Infrastructure Inventory ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 9 Existing Roadway Network................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9 Existing Bicycle Infrastructure ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 Class I Bicycle Paths ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 10 Class II Bicycle Lanes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 11 Class III Bicycle Routes ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11 Class IV Protected Bicycle Lanes ................................ ................................ ............................. 11 Bicycle Parking and End-Trip Facilities................................ ................................ ......................... 12 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 Sidewalks and Paths ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 14 Crossings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 15 Existing Transit Service................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 16 Demographic and Equity Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 18 Vehicle Ownership ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 CalEnviroScreen Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 23 Justice40 Census Tracts ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 23 Urban Heat Island Intensity ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 27 Tree Equity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 Current Usage Patterns ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 30 Bicycle Activity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 Pedestrian Activity ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 30 Vehicle Traffic ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 33

3 Crash History ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 33 Destinations & Points of Interest ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 34 Analysis of Existing Infrastructure ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 40 Walkability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 40 Bikeability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 42 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42 Islands of Low-Stress Connectivity ................................ ................................ ........................... 45 Needs Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 48 Next Steps ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 48 Appendix A – List of Active Transportation & Roadway Safety Projects ................................ ............ 49 Appendix B – Policy & Programming Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ......... 58 Appendix C – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Scoring Tables ................................ ............................ 62

4 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide an assessment of existing conditions in the City of Bakersfield that will inform the recommendations put forth in the City’s Draft Active Transportation Plan (ATP). This document summarizes information gathered from a review of existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, City programs and policies, demographic and equity factors, current network usage patterns, and community engagement. An analysis of walkability and bikeability across the City’s transportation system is then presented before a discussion of key thematic active transportation needs, including identification of barriers that may inhibit system use and factors that will influence prioritization for recommended projects.

This document is organized into the follow sections:
• Literature Review
• Programs & Policy Review
• Current Infrastructure Inventory
• Demographics & Equity Factors
• Current Usage Patterns
• Analysis of Existing Infrastructure
• Needs Assessment
• Next Steps

5 Literature Review
This section identifies local and regional planning documents that were reviewed for their strategies, policies, and potential impacts on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure within the City and region, and thus, the development of the City’s ATP . From these planning documents, a list was compiled of planned and proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects and other roadway safety projects that will benefit active transportation users. Additional such were identified from the City’s annual published list of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. A full list of these projects is available in Appendix A.

City and regional plans that were reviewed for the ATP are summarized below, listed in order by year of adoption.

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element (2002) The City of Bakersfield General Plan is a planning document which serves as a guide to the long-term physical development of the community in a series of twelve elements cover ing land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, downtown redevelopment, public services and facilities, parks, Kern River plan, and historical resources. The Circulation Element is the City’s plan for addressing its multimodal transportation infrastructure needs for its population . The City is currently undertaking an update to its General Plan with a horizon year of 2045, due for adoption in 2026.

Kern County Bicycle Master Plan (2012)
The Kern County Bicycle Master Plan and Complete Streets Recommendations provides a broad vision for increasing bicycle travel, developing strategies and actions to improve conditions for and encourage bicycling throughout the unincorporated portions of Ke rn County. The plan provides guidance for expanding upon existing bicycle infrastructure with a list of recommended projects that close gaps and increase access to the region’s network of bicycle facilities.

Bakersfield Bicycle Transportation Plan (2013)
The City of Bakersfield Bicycle Transportation Plan guides the future development of bicycle facilities and programs in the City. The plan also proposes recommendations to help the City create an environment and develop programs that support bicycling as a transportation and recreation option, encourage fewer trips by car, and support active lifestyles.

Kern Region Active Transportation Plan (2018)
The Kern Region Active Transportation Plan , led by the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) , aims to enhance walking, bicycling, and transit access in cities throughout Kern County. Aims to serve disadvantaged communities by providing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and increasing access to transportation.

Bakersfield Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Plan (2020)
The City of Bakersfield Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Plan builds upon the recommendations of the Kern County Active Transportation Plan and the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan to deliver a set of collision data collection tools, collision data analysis, and corridor improvements that can be applied throughout the city to improve safety for all.

6 Downtown Bakersfield Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan (2020) The goal of this plan is to suggest improvements to the pedestrian environment in Bakersfield to increase connectivity to planned and existing transit. The plan focuses on pedestrian conditions within a half-mile radius of the existing Amtrak station, the planned California High -Speed Rail (CAHSR) station, and the planned bus rapid transit (BRT) route. Aims to serve disadvantaged communities by providing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and increasing access to transportation.

Bakersfield Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
The City of Bakersfield’s Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend projects and countermeasures. The main goal of the LRSP is to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions through a prioritized list of improvements that can enhance safety on local roadways.

Caltrans District 6 Active Transportation Plan (2022)
The Caltrans Active Transportation Plan for District 6 is part of a comprehensive effort to identify locations with bicycle and pedestrian needs in each Caltrans district. The plan will be used in conjunction with Caltrans’ agency partners to address active transportation needs in future planning, construction, and maintenance projects.

In addition to review of the aforementioned planning documents, coordination was undertaken with the City’s Recreation and Parks Department regarding their Trails Master Plan to ensure recommendations provided within the ATP were not duplicitous yet rather complemented those provided within the Trails Master Plan. The Trails Master Plan is undergoing development concurrently with the ATP and is expected to be adopted in Spring 2024.

7 Programs & Policy Review
This section identifies existing education, encouragement, and enforcement programs , policies, and ordinances relevant to active transportation in the City. Information was acquired from the City website, review of City and regional plans, and a questionnaire conducted with the City’s Public Works Department (PWD). The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

Education
Current educational programming related to active transportation in Bakersfield consists primarily of a mixture of public events offering safety lessons and skills training and demonstration, with the focus of these events often targeting bicyclists more than pedestrians. Additionally, public service messages in print and online media, including the City website, emphasize the importance of safety and the rules of the road.

Bicycle Rodeos
The Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) , in cooperation with Bike Bakersfield, a local nonprofit, hosts bicycle rodeos at various schools, local organizations, and other public functions.

Participants traverse a practical road course designed using props to simulate the roadway environment and receive instruction on proper maneuvering, signage, and traffic safety. Participation is free and bicycle helmets are provided to those in need.

Build-a-Bike Program
The City’s Recreation and Parks Department hosts a two-week Build-A-Bike program that offers children ages 9 through 13 a fun and interactive learning experience where participants are taught how to build their own bike, as well as the fundamentals of bike repair, maintenance, and safety. The program also hosts a bike rodeo.

Safe Streets
The Kern Medical Center operates Safe Streets, a
clinically-led, comprehensive safety program that
provides education on the rules of the road and practical safety tips for bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as
messaging targeting distracted drivers, for Kern County communities.

See and Be Seen
The City, in partnership with KernCOG, the California
Highway Patrol (CHP), BPD, and Bike Bakersfield, has
Bike Rodeo, Bakersfield
Source: Kimley-Horn
Build-a-Bike Program
Source: City of Bakersfield

8 created an educational video branded “Se and Be Seen” to promote awareness and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Enforcement
Enforcement of traffic laws for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians is conducted by the BPD within the City limits, supplemented with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department in unincorporated areas of Kern County and CHP along area freeways.

In addition to standard enforcement of traffic laws, the BPD offers a Bicycle Court Diversion Program, a monthly program for minors cited for bicycle-related violations. Those cited can attend , along with their parent or guardian, a brief instructional safety course in lieu of formal court proceedings.

Encouragement
Encouragement of bicycling and walking is typically conducted through various community outreach activities, The City also collaborates with local organizations such as Bike Bakersfield to provide the community with events such as a “Full Moon Ride” each month along the Kern River Parkway Trail, a monthly “Sunday City Bike Ride”, and services including a free bike valet a concerts, festivals and other major public events. These outreach activities also collect feedback from the public to ensure that the City is pursuing programs and projects that align with community wants and needs. Weekly walking groups are organized by the Kern County Library in collaboration with the Kern County Department of Public Health, while the Rio Bravo Cancer Center offers a “Walk with a Doc” program pairing healthcare professionals with members of the public for monthly, hour-long walks along the Kern River Parkway Trail.

Policy
There is not currently an appointed Active Transportation Coordinator for the City of Bakersfield, though this role is de facto filled by the City engineer. A Multimodal Transportation Ad Hoc committee, consisting of three City Councilmembers, meets once per month to discuss active transportation issues and policy. Additionally, the Bike and Pedestrian Safety Coalition, consisting of representative from Kern County, Bike Bakersfield, the BPD, KernCOG, and local activists meets monthly to further issues of traffic safety for bicycles and pedestrians. The City’s 2023 Complete Streets resolution contains language of an interdepartmental transportation review team. The following sections of the City’s Municipal Code sections contain policies relevant to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and behavior within the City.
• Chapter 10 – Vehicles and Traffic
o Chapter 10.48 - Pedestrians
o Chapter 10.52 – Bicycles and Similar Vehicles
o Chapter 10.80 – Kern River Trail
• Chapter 12 – Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places
o Chapter 12.21 – Skateboard and Bicycle Ramps
o Chapter 12.36 – Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Driveway Approaches, Connecting Pavement and Canal Fencing
o Chapter 12.64 – Specific Trails Plan

9 Current Infrastructure Inventory
This section documents existing transportation infrastructure in the City of Bakersfiel d, including the City’s roadway network, bicycle facilities, pedestrian environment, and transit services. Understanding the current transportation network enables determination of the extent, connectivity, and accessibility of facilities enabling safe and accessible travel for bicyclists and pedestrians across the City.

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
The City of Bakersfield’s 2002 General Plan Circulation Element categorizes the City’s roadways by standard classifications of freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets, though the ongoing update to the Circulation Element also includes expressways and additional roadway classifications. These include residential collector within the McAllister Ranch Specific Plan and city collector, local collector, and town center street within the West Ming Specific Plan, respectively.

Freeways providing regional access to and from the Bakersfield include:
• Interstate 5 (I-5) along the City’s southwest boundary, linking Bakersfield to major metropolitan areas in Northern and Southern California.
• California State Route 99 (SR -99), traveling north-south and connecting Bakersfield with other Central Valley Cities to the north while carrying a large amount of local traffic. • California State Route 58 (SR -58), traveling east -west from SR -99 to points east , with a disjunct freeway segment between Stockdale Highway and the Kern River, with new construction currently ongoing between the Kern River and SR -99 that will link the two segments.
• A portion of California State Route 204 (SR-204), traveling northwest to southeast serving as a connection between SR-99 and SR-178, with the roadway transitioning into a surface arterial between F Street and SR-178.
• A portion of California State Route 178 (SR-178), traveling east-west between SR-204 and point east, transitioning into a surface arterial at its intersection with Canteria Drive/Bedford Green Drive.

The City’s 2021 update to the General Plan’s Circulation Element also maps future freeway segments that aim to create additional connections among the existing freeway system. Both existing freeways and any future freeway construction create considerable barriers to the connectivity and accessibility of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure across the City , often limiting connections to facilities along major arterial roadways that span or pass underneath the freeways.

The City’s surface roadway network has primarily been developed in a grid pattern, with arterial roadways at approximately one-mile intervals, though the concentration is denser in Central/Downtown Bakersfield. Collector streets are typically spaced at approximately half -mile intervals between the arterials. Recent developments further from the Central Bakersfield are more likely to have curvilinear streets with fewer access points to the arterial roadway network and an increased number of cul -de- sacs on local streets in residential areas. The nature of the City’s surface roadway network impacts connectivity and accessibility available for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling within and between neighborhoods.

10 EXISTING BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
According to the latest GIS data provided by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County, there are currently approximately 298 miles of dedicated bicycle facilities located within the City. An additional 127 miles of dedicated bicycle facilities exist outside of the City boundary but within its Sphere of Influence (SOI).

Given the City’s unconventiona l boundary, the SOI includes enclaves of developed unincorporated Kern County land surrounded by the City of Bakersfield that have resisted annexation as well as adjacent, outlying communities such as Rosedale, among other places. Additional bike facilities exist in the unincorporated community of Oildale north of the City, though these are considered outside of the City’s SOI. Documenting existing bicycle facilities within the City’s SOI and beyond are important in understanding how a connected bicycle network does and can function across the urbanized area of Greater Bakersfield.

A summary of existing bicycle infrastructure for the City and SOI is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 – Existing Bicycle Infrastructure
Bikeway
Classification
Miles
(City)
% of
Total
(City)
Miles
(SOI)
% of
Total
(SOI)
Miles
(City +
SOI)
% of
Total
(City +
SOI)
Class I Bicycle Path 34.3 11.5% 14.6 11.5% 49.0 11.5%
Class II Bicycle Lane 169.7 57% 24.0 18.9% 193.7 45.6%
Class III Bicycle Route 93.9 31.5% 88.2 69.5% 182.1 42.9% Total 298.0 100% 126.9 100% 424.8 100%

A map of the existing network of bicycle facilities within the City, its SOI, and surrounding jurisdictions is shown in Figure 1.

Class I Bicycle Paths
There are currently 34.3 miles of dedicated
Class I bicycle paths within the City with an
additional 14.6 miles within the City’s SOI,
totaling approximately 49 miles of Class I
bicycle paths. These facilities are shared use
or multi-use paths available to pedestrians as
well as bicyclists that are fully separated from
vehicle traffic, limiting interaction with
vehicles to locations where the facility
crosses a roadway. The vast majority of Class
I bicycle path mileage within the City and its
SOI comprise the Kern River Parkway Trail ,
which stretches continuously from southwest
to northeast along the Kern River from the
City’s westernmost boundary near Interstate
5 (I -5) at Enos Lane to the interchange
Kern River Parkway Trail Class I Bicycle Path
Source: TrailLink

11 marking the western end of Alfred Harrell Highway. An additional, eastern segment of the Kern River Parkway Trail exists as a Class I bicycle path between Hart Memorial Park and Lake Ming, though this is mostly outside of the City Boundary.

Additional Class I bicycle paths within the City mostly serve as spurs that connect the Kern River Parkway Trail with the City’s broader bicycle network, including between Aera Park and the Park at River Walk, a path through California State University, Bakersfield ( CSUB), and a path following Morning Drive and Paladino Drive connecting the northeast corner of the City.

Class II Bicycle Lanes
There are currently 169.7 miles of dedicated Class II bicycle lanes within the City and an additional 24 miles within the City’s SOI, totaling approximately 194 miles of Class II bi cycle lanes that connect a significant portion of the City. Nearly all of the City’s Class II bicycle lanes are along the City’s network of arterials and collectors . Of the city’s arterial and collectors, approximately 38% provide Class II bicycle lanes. The majority of Class II facilities within the City are bidirectional, though portions of roadway segments in the outskirts of the City’s developed areas may provide facilities in one direction only as vacant lots await development with accompanying roadway upgrades.

While these roadways provide the
benefit of direct paths of travel and
connections between neighborhoods
separated by freeways, canals, and
railroads, they put bicyclists in direct
proximity to high volumes of high-speed
vehicular traffic. In 2021, the City
enhanced Class II bike lanes along A
Street by adding green painted conflict
striping at intersections and intersection
approaches. No Class II facilities
currently exhibit striped buffers
separating bicyclists from vehicular
traffic.

Class III Bicycle Routes
There are currently 93.9 miles of Class III bicycle routes within the City and an additional 88.2 miles within the City’s SOI, totaling approximately 182 miles of Class II bicycle routes. Utilizing signage and “sharrow” pavement markings to alert drivers to share the roadway with bicyclists, these facilities are provided along a combination of arterials, collectors, and local streets across the City, providing additional connections between the Class I and Class II facilities . These facilities are more common along arterials and collectors in southern and eastern Bakersfield than in portions of the City west of the SR-99 freeway, where Class II facilities are more common along these classes of roadway and Class III facilities are more typically seen on local streets. Additionally, Class III bicycle routes are provided along local streets in northeast Bakersfield near Bakersfield College. Class III facilities along Alfred Harrell Highway and Round Mountain Road within the City’s SOI provide connections between the Kern River Parkway Trail’s Class I facilities.

Class IV Protected Bicycle Lanes
Currently, there are no Class IV facilities within the City or its SOI. Class IV facilities constitute on-street bicycle lanes separated from vehicular traffic by a buffer containing vertical protective elements such as flexible delineators, concrete bollards, raised curb, or landscape median islands.

Class II bicycle lanes with conflict striping along A Street Source: BakersfieldNow

12 BICYCLE PARKING AND END -TRIP FACILITIES
Bicycle parking can vary from a simple and convenient bicycle rack located curbside or adjacent to a destination’s entrance to bicycle locker s or storage room that pro vide additional protection from weather, vandalism, and theft. Additional end-trip facilities, such as showers, assist in making bicycle travel more feasible for those who dress formally, travel long distances, and during periods of higher temperatures.

Secure, convenient bicycle parking can be found throughout Bakersfield, especially Downtown. Since the 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan was published, t he City has dramatically increased bicycle parking throughout Downtown Bakersfield by over 150% , installing over 50 bicycle parking racks , containing 100 additional spaces, in 2016 and 2017 alone.

Noteworthy locations providing public bicycle parking in the City include:
• City Hall (also provides shower facilities for employees) • Bakersfield Community Development Building (also provides shower facilities for employees) • California State University, Bakersfield
• Bakersfield College
• Bakersfield Sports Village
• Bike Bakersfield
• Dagny’s Coffee Company
The City website indicates that additional bicycle racks can be made available for installation at local businesses upon request.

Bicycle Racks in Downtown Bakersfield
Source: Google Maps

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 1 – Existing Bicycle Infrastructure

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Sidewalks and Paths
Sidewalks are present along the vast
majority of City streets in all areas of the
City, with the exception of some older local
streets serving residential neighborhoods
adjacent to Downtown Bakersfield.

Unincorporated islands of Kern County
land across the City as significantly less
likely to have sidewalks present. Sidewalks
vary width, with the widest sidewalks of up
to 15 feet located in the commercial center
of Downtown Bakersfield. In most of the
rest of the City, sidewalks are six (6) feet in
width, though the City’s Municipal Code
allows sidewalks as narrow as four and a
half (4.5) feet in width.

Sidewalk condition varies, with older
neighborhoods closer to Downtown
Bakersfield exhibiting a greater degree of
broken and/or damaged sidewalks. These
neighborhoods are also more likely to lack
curb ramps compliant with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The character of the City’s sidewalks
varies markedly across the City . While in
most neighborhoods , sidewalks are
straight and front the street or are
separated from the street by a thin strip of
grass, sidewalks along some arterial
roadways in the City’s newer subdivisions,
particularly in West Bakersfield, follow
meandering paths through wide strips of
landscaping maintained by the City’s
Recreation & Parks Department .

Additionally, some of these newer residential subdivisions in West Bakersfield, such as Seven Oaks and Belcourt Village, are developing off -street pedestrian pathways that link park and recreation facilities with residential neighborhoods, connecting to cul-de-sacs and local streets. However, access to these pathways is restricted to private residents of these communities.

Sidewalks without ADA-compliant curb ramps at Niles
Street and Robinson Street in East Bakersfield.

Source: Google Maps

Meandering sidewalk separated from roadway by
landscaping along Ming Avenue.

Source: Google Maps

15 Crossings
Marked crosswalks are provided at signalized intersections, though are not always present at every leg of the intersection. However, along arterial roadways within the City’s newer subdivisions, the distance between signalized intersections can be a half-mile or more, substantially limiting a pedestrian’s ability to cross arterial roadways between neighborhoods. Outside of portions of Downtown Bakersfield and critical intersections within school zones, marked crosswalks are typically not provided at four-way stop- controlled intersections, to cross minor street approaches at two-way stop-controlled intersections, or at the intersection of local streets.

Recently, the City has invested in improving safety for pedestrians at certain crossing locations, upgrading crosswalk types from simple transverse crosswalks to high -visibility “ladder” crosswalks at signalized intersections and for designated school crossings. The City has also installed two pedestrian hybrid beacons in the form of High-Intensity Activated CrossWalk (HAWK) signals with pedestrian refuge islands crossing Pine Street (CA-178) at 24th Street and crossing Union Avenue (CA-204) at 8th Street. Additionally, push button -
activated rectangular rapid-flashing
beacons (RRFBs) have been
installed at Norris Middle School
and Raffaello Palla Elementary
School to facilitate safer crossings
for school children.

Curb extensions and pedestrian refuge island at Chester Avenue and 19th Street, Downtown Bakersfield.

Source: Google Maps
Pedestrian-activated HAWK signal at
24th Street & Pine Avenue.

Source: Google Maps

16 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Public transit service in Bakersfield is currently provided by Golden Empire Transit and Kern Transit.

Golden Empire Transit operates 16 local bus routes serving the City of Bakersfield and adjacent unincorporated communities, utilizing two hubs for its bus services at the Downtown Transit Center at Chester Avenue and 22nd Street and the Southwest Transit Center along Wible Road just south of the Ming Avenue interchange with the SR-99 freeway. Kern Transit operates 13 regional bus routes connecting the City of Bakersfield to destinations within the Southern San Joaquin Valley, the Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Antelope Valley, and Santa Clarita. Major hubs and transfer points for Kern County Transit within the City of Bakersfield also include the Downtown Transit Center and Southwest Transit Center as well as the Bakersfield Amtrak Station, the Bakersfield Civic Center, Bakersfield College, and the Kern Medical Center.

In addition to public transit service , several private bus lines such as Greyhound, International Bus Lines, and Flixbus offer intercity bus services to and from Bakersfield.

Passenger rail service is currently provided by Amtrak at the Bakersfield Amtrak Station located on Truxtun Avenue and Q Street in Downtown Bakersfield. This location will also service the California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) upon completion of its Initial Operating Segment (IOS), providing connections to other Central Valley cities and, eventually, to the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California.

A new station is slated for construction at this location to accommodate increased and enhanced rail service.

A map of existing transit lines and facilities is shown in Figure 2.

Bakersfield’s Downtown Transit Center
Source: Google Maps

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 2 – Existing Transit Service and Facilities

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Demographic and Equity Factors
This section presents an overview of demographics within the City of Bakersfield as well as a variety of measures of equity to understand how conditions vary across the City that steer how investments are prioritized within the ATP.

DEMOGRAPHICS
According to the 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates, the City of Bakersfield has a population of 404,321 with 128,651 households, giving the City an average household size of 3.14. With an area of 151.3 square miles, the City’s population density is approximately 2,672 people per square mile.

The population of Bakersfield is diverse, with a racial and ethnic makeup that is 52.9% Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 29.8% non -Hispanic White, 7.3% Asian, 6.1% Black, 0.3% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.2% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Approximately 3.5% of the population belongs to some other race or to two or more races. Following statewide trends, in recent years the Hispanic or Latino and Asian populations, as well as the population belonging to two or more races, has grown in number and percentage, while the number and percentage of the non -Hispanic White and Black populations has shrunk.

The age distribution of the population skews young in comparison to the State and nation, with approximately 29.8% under the age of 18 , 9.8% between 18 and 24 years of age, 28.8% ages 25 to 44, 21.1% ages 45 to 64, and only 10.5% of the population 65 years of age or older. The median age was 31.5 years of age, compared to 37.9 in the State of California, and 38.8 for the nation.

19 A map of the percentage of the population that is under 18 years of age at the Census Block Group level can be seen in Figure 3. While this map shows the youth population is distributed fairly evenly across the city, there is a higher concentration in Central Bakersfield and Southeast Bakersfield. A similar map of the percentage of the population that is 65 years of age or older a t the Census Block Group level can be seen in Figure 4. This map shows that the senior population percentage is typically higher in suburban neighborhoods in the outskirts of the City, with high concentrations occurring within certain subdivisions in West Bakersfield.

Providing adequate infrastructure for bicyclists and pedestrians is especially important for youths and senior citizens, who either cannot drive or may prefer not to. Understanding where these populations are concentrated across the City can assist in steering investment s in active transportation infrastructure, safety improvements, and encouragement, enforcement, and education efforts toward these populations to ensure they are adequately served.

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP
According to the 2022 ACS 5 -Year Estimates, the vast majority of households in Bakersfield, 93.3%, have at least one vehicle available, with 6.7% having no vehicle available. Approximately 26.7% have one vehicle available, 40.9% have two vehicles available, and 24.8% have three or more vehicles available. A map of the percentage of households that have no vehicle available at the Census Tract level is shown in Figure 5. Neighborhoods within Central and Southeast Bakersfield have higher percentages of househ olds with no vehicle available , while households in suburban neighborhoods further from Downtown tend to have greater vehicle availability.

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 3 – Percentage of Population Under 18 Years of Age

21 Figure 4 – Percentage of Population Over 65 Years of Age

22 Figure 5 – Percentage of Households with no Vehicle Available

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

CALENVIROSCREEN RESULTS
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is a mapping tool developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that identifies communities within the State that are disproportionately burdened by different sources of pollution . The tool uses a wide array of environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to produce percentile scores for every census tract in the State that allow a comparison of the total pollution burden between communities.

Figure 6 shows the CalEnviroScreen score for census tracts across Bakersfield. The disparity across the City is stark, with areas of Central Bakersfield and Southeast Bakersfield above the 90th percentile for pollution burden within the State, while areas of West Bakersfield and Northwest Bakersfield largely exhibit scores below the 40th percentile.

JUSTICE40 CENSUS TRACTS
The Justice40 Initiative was created by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) to confront and address decades of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities nationwide, with the aim of steering 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments in eight ( 8) key areas to disadvantaged communities. These categories of burdens include climate change impacts , energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water and wastewater, and workforce development.

Figure 7 shows census tracts across Bakersfield that are considered burdened in one or more of these Justice40 categories. Data for the Justice40 Initiative was sourced using the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), a tool created by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Within the City of Bakersfield, roughly half of the city is considered disadvantaged in one or more Justice40 categories, almost entirely in Central and Southeast Bakersfield.

Within the transportation category, census tracts are considered disadvantaged if they meet or exceed the 90th percentile nationally for either diesel particulate matter exposure, transportation barriers, or traffic proximity and volume and also if the proportion of the population considered low-income, defined as households where income is less than or equal to twice the federal poverty level (not including students enrolled in higher education, exceeds the 65 th percentile nationally. Census tracts across Bakersfield considered disadvantaged within the Justice40 transportation category are shown in Figure

8. These census tracts are largely concentrated in Central Bakersfield and Southeast Bakersfield, with diesel particulate matter exposure typically being the qualifying category in addition to proportion of low-income population.

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 6 – CalEnviroScreen Percentile Scores

25 Figure 7 – Justice40 Disadvantaged Census Tracts

26 Figure 8 – USDOT Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

URBAN HEAT ISLAND INTENSITY
With large areas covered in heat-absorbent concrete and asphalt, urban areas generate a phenomenon known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect that disproportionately exposes residents to the negative health impacts of heat stress. Climate Central, a nonprofit that researches and reports on the impacts of climate change, has conducted
an analysis that measures how UHI
intensity varies across major U.S.
cities at the census tract level,
estimating the degree to which
these areas experience elevated
temperatures due to characteristics
of the built environment.

The UHI intensity map for the
Bakersfield metropolitan area is
shown in Figure 9 . This map
shows that ambient temperatures
in Bakersfield are, on average,
anywhere from 5.6 to 9.5 degrees
hotter across the City’s built
environment due to the UHI effect.

TREE EQUITY
Trees are critical urban infrastructure essential to public health and well -being, improving air quality and combating the UHI effect by cooling ambient temperatures through the provision of shade and evapotranspiration. Tree Equity Score, a nonprofit, measures how well the critical benefits of an urban tree canopy are reaching communities with the greatest need, incorporating a variety of measures concerning the built environment and demographics to create a score between 0 and 100. Communities with lower scores have a greater need for investment in an urban tree canopy.

The tree equity score for Bakersfield 1, shown in Figure 10, indicates that Central Bakersfield, East Bakersfield, and Southeast Bakersfield, have the highest need for investment in an urban tree canopy.

1 The Tree Equity Score data set did not provide data for all of the census tracts within the City and its SOI.

Bakersfield Heat Island primary factors and intensity score.

Source: Climate Central

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 9 – Urban Heat Index

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 10 – Tree Equity Score

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Current Usage Patterns
This section presents an overview of how the City’s roadway and active transportation networks are currently being used. Factors examined include current bicycle and pedestrian activity across the City, vehicular traffic volumes, collision history, and the distribution of destinations likely to generate trips of various modes. Understanding current levels of multimodal activity, safety, and trip generators allows for better prioritization of resources as an active transportation infrastructure network is developed.

BICYCLE ACTIVITY
Utilizing anonymized cellular device data acquired from Replica2, a data analysis firm focused on issues concerning the built environment, a heat map was generated of current levels of bicycle activity across the City of Bakersfield, shown in Figure 11. Bicycle activity is generally highest in Downtown Bakersfield, with elevated levels of activity also present in East Bakersfield, Southeast Bakersfield, and certain parts of Northwest Bakersfield.

Particular north/south corridors with elevated bicycle activity include H Street, parts of Chester Avenue in Downtown Bakersfield, Baker Street, Wible Road/Real Road/Airport Drive, parts of Stein Road south of the Kern River, and Patton Way in Northwest Bakersfield. Particular east/west corridors with elevated bicycle activity include Rosedale Highway, 4th Street, and University Avenue in Northeast Bakersfield.

Additional nodes of elevated bicycle activity include Coffee Avenue at Rosedale Highway and at the Kern River Parkway and Olive Drive at Knudsen Drive adjacent to the SR-99 freeway.

Of particular interest is how many of the arterial roadways that provide Class II bike lanes, especially in West Bakersfield and Southeast Bakersfield , exhibit low levels of bicycle activity, while collector roadways between these arterials exhibiting higher levels of bicycle activity. This may indicate the bicyclists do not feel safe using the dedicated bicycle infrastructure provided along these arterial roadways and instead utilize lower-speed collectors and local streets to travel across the City.

PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY
Also utilizing anonymized cellular device data acquired from Replica, a similar heat map was generated of current levels of pedestrian activity across the City, shown in Figure 12. While there is a cluster of elevated pedestrian activity in Downtown Bakersfield, centering on the intersection of Chester Avenue and California Avenue and the business district to the north, the highest levels of pedestrian activity are instead shown to be commercial shopping centers at the intersections of major arterials across the City.

This is likely somewhat misleading, as the pedestrian activity detected involves people walking to and from their vehicles and the retail and restaurants at these locations. However, broader areas of elevated pedestrian activity in neighborhoods outside of these commercial shopping centers indicates where more pedestrian trips are likely being made, particularly in Central Bakersfield, Southern and Southeast Bakersfield, and East and Northeast Bakersfield.

2 https://www.replicahq.com/

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 11 - Current Bicycle Activity

32 Figure 12 - Current Pedestrian Activity

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

VEHICLE TRAFFIC
Also using anonymized cellular data from Replica, Figure 13 shows average daily vehicle traffic (ADT) volumes along the City’s roadways. The ADT volumes shown represent each direction of travel rather than bidirectional travel. By far the highest ADT volumes are along 24th Street and 23rd Street between the SR -99 and SR -178 freeways, where ADT volumes approach 70,000 vehicles per day in each direction. Additionally, Rosedale Highway west of the SR-99 freeway and California Avenue between Stockdale Highway and the SR-99 freeway also exhibit very high ADT volumes in excess of 40,000 vehicles in each direction.

Additional north/south corridors with elevated ADT volumes of between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles in each direction include SR-204/Union Avenue, New Stine Road, Mohawk Street, Coffee Road/Gosford Road, Calloway Drive/Old River Road, and portions of Allen Road, Chester Road, Airport Drive, and Mount Vernon Avenue. Additional east/west corridors with elevated ADT volumes of between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles in each direction include Stockdale Highway/Brundage Lane, White Lane, Panama Lane, and portions of Ming Avenue and Olive Drive.

Understanding where roadways with ADT volumes overlay with corridors of elevated pedestrian and bicycle activity will assist the City with prioritizing resources to ensure provision of adequate active transportation infrastructure and safety improvements.

CRASH HISTORY
Crash data for the past five (5) available years was obtained from the University of California at Berkeley’s (UC-Berkeley) Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) crash dataset, which captures crashes that resulted in death or injury, obtained via police reports from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

Between 2018 and 2022, there were 10,314 crashes within the City of Bakersfield and its SOI that resulted in death or injury, with 7,176 (69.6%) occurring within the City and 3,138 (30.4%) occurring within the City’s SOI. Of these crashes, 858 were vehicle-pedestrian crashes (8.3%) while 414 (4.0%) were vehicle-bicycle crashes. The remaining 9,042 (87.7%) crashes involved only vehicles.

Of these crashes, 343 (3.3%) were fatal crashes, 874 (8.5%) resulted in serious injuries, 3,015 (29.2%) resulted in other visible injuries, and the remaining 6,082 (59%) resulted in complaints of pain. Of fatal crashes, 133 (38.8%) were vehicle-pedestrian crashes and 22 (6.4%) were vehicle-bicycle crashes, while of serious injury crashes, 208 (23.8%) were vehicle -pedestrian crashes and 55 (6.3%) were vehicle-bicycle crashes. This shows that pedestrians and bicyclists are significantly overrepresented in fatal and serious injury crashes across Bakersfield.

A breakdown of vehicle-pedestrian, vehicle-bicycle, and vehicle-only crashes by collision severity for the City, SOI, and the combined City and SOI is shown in Table 2. A map showing the distribution of collisions that resulted in injury or death between 2018 and 2022 is shown for bicycles in Figure 14 and for pedestrians in Figure 15. Collisions that occurred on off -street paths are not reported in the dataset. Collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians are often under-reported, and therefore there is a possibility that such collisions are under-represented in this analysis.

34 Table 2 – Bakersfield & SOI Crashes 2018-2022
Crash Severity
City of Bakersfield Total Veh-Ped Veh-Bike Veh Only
# % # % # % # %
Fatal 97 0.9% 13 0.1% 128 1.2% 238 2.3%
Serious Injury 128 1.2% 32 0.3% 338 3.3% 498 4.8%
Other Visible Injury 244 2.4% 172 1.7% 1693 16.4% 2,109 20.4% Complaint of Pain 155 1.5% 106 1.0% 4070 39.5% 4,331 42.0% Total 624 6.1% 323 3.1% 6,229 60.4% 7,176 69.6%
Crash Severity
Sphere of Influence (SOI) Total Veh-Ped Veh-Bike Veh Only # % # % # % # %
Fatal 36 0.3% 9 0.1% 60 0.6% 105 1.0%
Serious Injury 80 0.8% 23 0.2% 273 2.6% 376 3.6%
Other Visible Injury 75 0.7% 52 0.5% 779 7.6% 906 8.8%
Complaint of Pain 43 0.4% 17 0.2% 1691 16.4% 1,751 17.0% Total 234 2.3% 101 1.0% 2,803 27.2% 3,138 30.4%
Crash Severity
City + Sphere of Influence (SOI) Total Veh-Ped Veh-Bike Veh Only # % # % # % # %
Fatal 133 1.3% 22 0.2% 188 1.8% 343 3.3%
Serious Injury 208 2.0% 55 0.5% 611 5.9% 874 8.5%
Other Visible Injury 319 3.1% 224 2.2% 2472 24.0% 3015 29.2% Complaint of Pain 198 1.9% 123 1.2% 5761 55.9% 6082 59.0% Total 858 8.3% 424 4.1% 9032 87.6% 10,314 100.0%
All percentage (%) columns are calculated against the total number of crashes (10,314).

DESTINATIONS & POINTS OF INTEREST
Understanding how City land uses and points of interest are distributed across the City informs recommendations for closing gaps in the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure networks . It is important to ensure that residents without access to a vehicle can safely and conveniently access commercial centers, public facilities, parks and recreational facilities, and other destinations within their neighborhoods and across the City by bicycling or walking. Figure 16 shows the distribution of land uses across Bakersfield most likely to generate trips by bike or on foot. Figure 17 shows the distribution of neighborhood destinations and points of interest across Bakersfield.

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 13 – Vehicle Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

36 Figure 14 – Collisions Involving Bicycles

37 Figure 15 – Collisions Involving Pedestrians

38 Figure 16 – Multimodal Destination Land Uses

39 Figure 17 – Neighborhood Points of Interest

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Analysis of Existing Infrastructure
This section presents the analysis conducted on the City’s existing transportation infrastructure to better understand connectivity and barriers to connectivity for walkability and bikeability across the City. This analysis assists with identifying neighborhoods that currently lack system connectivity and prioritizing recommendations for a City-wide active transportation network.

WALK AB ILITY
To assess walkability across the City, an analysis of block density was performed using GIS as a proxy to understand where the shortest block distances and greatest number of connections within the street grid occur. Shorter block distances allow pedestrians to navigate a greater number of paths between two points, increasing the number of destinations they can access and enhancing access to goods and services in neighborhoods that allow a mix of uses. Meanwhile, in newer, suburban -style neighborhoods with greater segregation of land uses , analyzing block density assists in determining the level of connectivity within the neighborhood and the extent of connections to commercial uses along the City’s arterial roadways.

A heat map displaying the results of this block density analysis is shown in Figure 18.

To be expected, by far the highest block densities are found in the historic commercial and civic core of Downtown Bakersfield, where streets exhibit a classic grid pattern and contain the highest mix of uses. Additional neighborhoods exhibiting higher block densities than their surroundings include older, primarily residential neighborhoods in close proximity to Downtown Bakersfield, particularly East Bakersfield and Northeast Bakersfield nearing Bakersfield College . Neighborhoods with a street network exh ibiting or closely resembling a grid pattern can more easily improve walkability with pedestrian infrastructure investments than newer, suburban-style neighborhoods with curvilinear street patterns.

Outside of these areas, some clusters of higher block density can be found in the newer residential neighborhoods of Southern Bakersfield. These neighborhoods typify automobile -oriented suburban development, with contained subdivisions exhibiting a curvilinear street pattern of collectors and local streets with a high number of cul-de-sacs. These neighborhoods are separated into superblocks by the arterial roadway network , which more closely resembles a grid pattern. P edestrian connections between these neighborhoods are mostly limited to where neighborhood collectors intersect with the arterial roadway network.

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 18 – Pedestrian Walkability

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

BIKEABILITY
This section provides an overview of the analysis undertaken to determine bikeability across Bakersfield.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS), as defined by the Mineta Transportation Institute’s Low ‐Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity Report, provides thresholds of cyclist tolerance for on‐street bicycle facilities as determined by the roadway conditions of the shared route. An LTS score between 1 and 4 is then assigned to the roadway, where LTS-1 represents a level of stress that the majority of the public, including children, can tolerate while cycling, while LTS-4 represents a level of stress tolerated only by those characterized as “strong and fearless” cyclists. As such, an LTS score of 1 or 2 represents low- stress conditions, while an LTS score of 3 represents moderate-stress conditions, and an LTS score of 4 represents high-stress conditions. Summaries of each LTS scoring category are provided in Table 3.

Table 3 – LTS Categories
Level of
Traffic
Stress
(LTS)
Description
LTS 1
Presenting little traffic stress and demanding little attention from cyclists, and attractive enough for a relaxing bike ride. S uitable for almost all cyclists, including children trained to safely cross intersections. On links, cyclists are either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next to a slow traffic stream with no more than one lane per direction or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low-speed differential. Where cyclists ride alongside a parking lane, they have ample operating space outside the zone into which the car doors are opened. Intersections are easy to approach and cross.

LTS 2
Presenting little traffic stress and therefore suitable to most adult cyclists but demanding more attention than might be expected from children. On links (roadway segments), cyclists are either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next t o a well- confined traffic stream with adequate clearance from a parking lane or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low-speed differential. Where a bike lane lies between a through lane and a right-turn lane, it is configured to give cyclists unambiguous priority where cars cross the bike lane and to keep car speed in the right -turn lane comparable to bicycling speeds. Crossings are not difficult for most adults.

LTS 3
More traffic stress than LTS 2, yet markedly less than the stress of integrating with multilane traffic, and therefore welcome to many peo ple currently riding bikes in American cities.

Offering cyclists either an exclusive riding zone (lane) next to moderate -speed traffic or shared lanes on streets that are not multilane and have moderately low speed. Crossings may be longer or across higher-speed roads than allowed by LTS 2 but are still considered acceptably safe to most adult pedestrians.

LTS 4 A level of stress beyond LTS 3.

43 To determine the bicycle LTS score along each segment of the roadway network across Bakersfield, the following criteria were evaluated:
• Road width (number of through travel lanes)
• Vehicular traffic speed limit
• Roadway functional classification, as defined by Caltrans • The presence and type of a bicycle facility
• The presence of a parking lane
• Density of driveways, calculated with GIS using a parcels layer as a proxy By assigning points to each of the criteria described, a level of bicycle traffic stress (LTS) value was assigned to every segment of the existing roadway network across the City and its SOI . Segments were generally defined as sections of roadway separated by stop ‐controlled intersections or changes in roadway characteristics such as a transition in the number of through travel lanes, a transition in speed limit. As signalized intersections typically provide dedicated crosswalks, they were not used to demarcate different roadway segment. Segments vary by length depending on the roadway functional classification and characteristics. Details regarding the bicycle LTS scoring methodology used in this analysis can be found in Appendix C.

Bicycle LTS scores for Bakersfield’s roadway network are summarized in Table 4 and shown in Figure 19, with bicycle LTS scores differentiated by color: green = LTS‐1, blue = LTS‐2, orange = LTS‐3, and red = LTS ‐4. There is a large proportion of LTS ‐1 segments within the city due to the fact that the majority of the city’s road ‐miles are residential streets with speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less.

These streets typically are either signed as Class III bicycle routes or do not provide dedicated bicycle facilities but are considered low -stress routes due to the low vehicular speed and low volumes.

However, segments with a score of LTS -4 consist over one -quarter of the City’s roadway network, primarily arterial roadways and collectors with more than one through travel lane in each direction and high vehicular speed limits counteracting benefits provided by on-street Class II bicycle lanes.

Table 4 – Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Bicycle LTS Miles % of Total
LTS 1 – Lowest 3,040.7 64.2%
LTS 2 – Low 47.4 1.0%
LTS 3 – Medium 400.9 8.5%
LTS 4 – High 1,250.4 26.4%

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 19 – Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Islands of Low-Stress Connectivity
Even though the majority of Bakersfield’s roadway network is LTS ‐1 (low-stress), the grid of LTS -4 (high-stress) arterials and collectors acts as a major barrier to connectivity and accessibility for most bicyclists. Furthermore, t he physical barriers presented by the regional freeway network, railroad infrastructure, and flood control and irrigation canals present additional obstacles to bicycle connectivity, with the majority of roadways spanning these barriers presenting LTS-3 (moderate-stress) or LTS-4 conditions.

As a result, intra‐city connectivity is limited to “islands” (or pockets) of primarily LTS‐1 streets (and Class I multi-use paths), dramatically reducing the number and length of potential bicycle trips within the City.

These “islands” of low -stress connectivity represent the bicycle network that is acceptable to the majority of the cycling public.

This analysis of low -stress connectivity creates 590 distinct “islands” that provide low -stress travel within themselves but are not connected via low -stress facilities to the rest of the roadway network.

These “islands” of low-stress connectivity are summarized by length in miles in Table 5, while Figure 20 maps them, with each color representing a distinct and isolated connectivity network.

Table 5 – Islands of Low-Stress Connectivity per Length in Miles Length (miles) # of Islands % of
Islands
Sum of Length
(miles)
% of Total
Length (miles)
> 100 miles 1 0.2% 173.78 8%
50 - 100 miles 3 0.5% 177.58 9%
40 - 50 miles 4 0.7% 181.28 9%
30 - 40 miles 3 0.5% 104.18 5%
20 - 30 miles 7 1.2% 159.77 8%
10 - 20 miles 19 3.2% 262.50 13%
5 - 10 miles 34 5.8% 230.21 11%
3 - 5 miles 79 13.4% 300.01 14%
1 -3 miles 200 33.9% 365.73 18%
< 1 mile 240 40.7% 130.51 6%

The “island” of low-stress connectivity with by far the greatest length incorporates most of the Class I multi-use path along the Kern River Parkway Trail as well as low -stress street networks that provide connections to it. However, nearly 75% of these “islands” are each less than three (miles) in total length.

These small islands are not evenly geographically dispersed. Figure 21 shows a heat map of “islands” of low -stress connectivity, calculated using the density of their centroids. By far the greatest concentration of these small “islands” occurs in Southern and Southeast Bakersfield near the SR -99 Freeway.

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Figure 20 – Islands of Low-Stress Connectivity

47 Figure 21 – Density of Islands of Low-Stress Connectivity

kimley-horn.com «Full_Address» Figueroa Street Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 261-4040

Needs Assessment
This section provides an overview of the key thematic needs to be taken into consideration for the development of the Bakersfield ATP. This needs assessment was conducted as a result of the research and analysis conducted to understand existing conditions within and across Bakersfield that were examined in the prior sections.
• Utilizing and building off of existing planning documents and planned active transportation and roadway safety infrastructure projects.
• Developing recommendations for infrastructure projects that address major barriers to connectivity and accessibility across the City. Prominent examples of such barriers include the regional freeway network, railroads, flood control and irrigation canals, and high-speed, high- stress arterials with long distances between crosswalks. • Creating a cohesive citywide network that provides access to major destinations, job centers, and points of interest within and between neighborhoods for bicyclists and pedestrians .

Examples include safe connections to schools, parks, libraries, and other neighborhood amenities, increasing connections to and across commercial/employment centers along high- speed arterials and residential neighborhoods, and enhancements to existing bicycling and walking infrastructure in Downtown Bakersfield.
• Targeting areas with current high demand for bicycling and walking, as determined by existing measured bicycle and pedestrian activity and the mix of adjacent land uses. • Targeting safety improvements toward corridors and intersections with a documented history of vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle crashes resulting in fatal and serious injuries. • Incorporating equity considerations when prioritizing infrastructure recommendations and the allocation of resources utilizing the factors analyzed such as vehicle ownership, demographic considerations, disadvantaged community status, and environmental burdens. • Augmenting and expanding education, enforcement, and encouragement programmatic efforts to support walking and bicycling, foster knowledgeable citizens, and increase visibility of active transportation across Bakersfield.

Next Steps
The findings from the inventory and analyses examined within this report , combined with input from community engagement efforts, will be utilized to determine specific infrastructure projects as well as program and policy recommendations for incorporation into the ATP. As the recommended bicycle and pedestrian network is developed, cost estimates will be drafted, and typologies will be developed to provide guidance for implementing improvements along different roadway types. Recommended infrastructure projects will be assigned prioritization scores based on connectivity, cost, and equity factors, and a project funding plan will be developed to provide a timeline of implementation. These components will be joined by program and policy recommendations in the final ATP report.

49 Appendix A-A – List of Active Transportation & Roadway Safety Projects

50 Project Name Plan Project Description and Location
Baker Street
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Baker Street between
Bernard Avenue and California Avenue.
• Class III bikeway on Baker Street between
California Avenue and S. King Street.

Potomac Avenue
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Potomac Avenue between
S. King Street and Monticello Avenue.

River Bike Trail
Connection
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class I bikeway between Kern River Parkway
and Elm Street.
• River Bike Trail Connection Feasibility Study
E. Pacheco Road
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on E. Pacheco Road between
Hughes Lane and Cottonwood Road.
• Class II bikeway on E. Pacheco Road between
Gasoline Alley and Monitor Street.

Belle Terrace
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Belle Terrace between
Stine Road and Madison Street.

Pin Oak Boulevard
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Pin Oak Boulevard
between Bear Creek Road and District
Boulevard.

Ewoldsen Class III
Route
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway between Oak Grove Street
and N. Half Moon Drive.

Harris Road Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Harris Road between Ashe
Road and Akers Road.
• Class II bikeway on Harris Road between Ashe
Road and Wible Road.
• Class II bikeway on Harris Road between S.

Allen Road and Ashe Road.

Hughes Lane
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Hughes Lane between
Ming Avenue and E. Pacheco Road.

Table A1 – Current and Proposed Active Transportation/Roadway Safety Projects

51 Project Name Plan Project Description and Location
Haley Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Haley Street between
Panorama Drive and Columbus Street.

Akers Road Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Akers Road between
Wilson Road and Taft Highway.

Arvin-Edison Canal
Path
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class I multi-use path between Stockdale
Highway and Cottonwood Road.
• Arvin-Edison Canal Path Feasibility Study
17th Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on 17th Street between A
Street and Truxtun Avenue.

M Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on M Street between 30th
Street and 17th Street.

Sillect Avenue
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Sillect Avenue between
Buck Owens Boulevard and Kern River
Parkway.

H Street Canal Path
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class I multi-use path between Railroad Bridge
to Highway 99.
• H Street Canal Path Feasibility Study
Friant-Kern Canal
Path
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class I multi-use path between Seventh
Standard Road and Kern River.

Beale Avenue
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Beale Avenue between
Grace Street and 21st Street.

Q Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Q Street between Grace
Street and Highway 178.

52 Project Name Plan Project Description and Location
Haggin Oaks Blvd
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Haggin Oaks Blvd
between Camino Media and Limoges Way.

Kentucky Street
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Kentucky Street between
Alta Vista Drive and Mt. Vernon Avenue.

Flower Street
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Flower Street between Alta
Vista Drive and Owens Street.

S. King Street
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on S. King Street between
California Avenue and Brundage Lane.
4th Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on 4th Street between Union
Avenue and City Limits.

Watts Drive Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Watts Drive between
Cottonwood Road and Madison Street.

Brundage Lane
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Brundage lane between
Union Avenue and Oswell Street.

Niles Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Niles Street between Alta
Vista Drive and Virginia Street.

Bernard Street
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Bernard Street between
Chester Avenue and Mt. Vernon Avenue.

Berkshire Road
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Berkshire Road between
Stine Road and Santana Sun Drive.

53 Project Name Plan Project Description and Location
21st Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on 21st Street between Kings
Street and Washington Street.

Highway 178
Overcrossing
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class I multi-use path crossing over Highway
178 between Height Street and Mirador Drive.
• Highway 178 Overcrossing Feasibility Study.

Laurelglen Boulevard
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Laurelglen Boulevard
between Pin Oak Park Boulevard and Gosford
Road.
22nd Street Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on 22nd Street between Elm
Street and F Street.

Christmas Tree Lane
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class III bikeway on Christmas Tree Lan
between Mt Vernon Avenue and Panorama
Drive.

Madison Street
Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Madison Street between
Belle Terrace and White Lane.

Wible Road Bikeway
Bakersfield
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
• Class II bikeway on Wible Road between Planz
Road and Taft Highway.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Ming Avenue and New Stine Road.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Hosking Avenue and Wible Road.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Panama Lane and Colony Street.

54 Project Name Plan Project Description and Location
Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Brundage Lane and Chester Avenue.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Ming Avenue and H Street.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at H
Street and Planz Road.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Wible Road and White Lane.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Ming Avenue and Gosford Road.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
California Avenue and Chester Avenue.

Pedestrian
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of pedestrian crossing and/or raised
pavement markers through the intersection at
Oak Street and California Avenue.

Systemic Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of various systemic pedestrian and
bicycle improvements at Ming Avenue from
Chester Avenue to Gosford Road.

Systemic Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of various systemic pedestrian and
bicycle improvements at Brundage Lane from
Oak Street to Union Avenue.

Systemic Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of various systemic pedestrian and
bicycle improvements at Panama Lane from
Ashe Road to Union Avenue.

55 Project Name Plan Project Description and Location
Systemic Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of various systemic pedestrian and
bicycle improvements at Wilson Road from H
Street to White Lane.

Systemic Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of various systemic pedestrian and
bicycle improvements at Chester Avenue from
Brundage Lane to 24th Street.

Systemic Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Improvements
Bakersfield
Local Road
Safety Plan
• Installation of various systemic pedestrian and
bicycle improvements at Wible Road from Ming
Avenue to Panama Lane.

56 Table A2 –Active Transportation and Roadway Safety Projects from Bakersfield CIP Project Name Timeline Active Transportation Policies/Improvements Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
Improvements
Future
Evaluation and installation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities at various locations around the city. Includes new and
upgraded bike lanes and pedestrian crossing enhancements such as bump outs, higher visibility crosswalks, and
additional signage and flashing beacons at some locations.

Downtown Corridor
Enhancements –
Chester Ave and H
Street
Future
Corridor and Streetscape enhancements will provide
complete streets elements to encourage active
transportation such as cycling and walking and will enhance the streetscape on Chester Ave and H Street.

Bike Path
Beautification along
Pacheco Road
Future
Provides beautification, hardscape, and erosion control as well as street lighting along the north side of Pacheco Road.

Street lighting will provide a safer travelling pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Traffic Calming
Projects Future
Evaluate and install a range of different traffic calming techniques such as crosswalk enhancements and bicycle
facilities at various roadways around the City.

Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods
Alleyway and Street
Funding
Future
Will providing funding to improve existing alleys and streets in disadvantaged neighborhoods to help bring them up to city standards. Improvements may include asphalt, sidewalk, curb & gutter, or other necessary improvements within the right-of-way.

Crosswalk
Repainting/Painting
Project
Future Evaluate and install a range of different crosswalk enhancements at various intersections around the City.

Resurfacing Streets
Division Future
Repaves and resurfaces asphalt pavement; and repair or
install concrete for medians, sidewalks, access ramps, curbs and gutters on City streets.

Ward 1 & 2 Streets
Miscellaneous Future Intended to identify streets in Wards 1 and 2 that need repairs and maintenance to bring up to City standards.

Street Improvement
near Heritage Park Future
Installs lighting along the Mount Vernon Avenue frontage of Heritage Park. Aims to improve safety and security of bikers, joggers, and pedestrians who utilize the crosswalk and park during nighttime hours.

MLK Complete
Streets Future
Funds a feasibility design of complete streets improvements along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd between E California Avenue and SR 58. Design will include but not be limited to, traffic calming, enhanced pedestrian crossings, improved signage and lighting, more resilient pavement markings, and ADA modifications.

57 Project Name Timeline Active Transportation Policies/Improvements Q Street and Espee
Street Pedestrian
Access
Improvements
Future
Will install various improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, or other necessary right of way improvement
projects.

Community
Development Block
Grant Projects
Future
The following projects will install sidewalk, curb and gutter, handicap ramps, and cross-gutters, where needed, to
improve drainage and pedestrian access.
• Jewett Avenue: from 34th Street to 28th Street and K
Street to Q Street
• Ohio drive South of SR 58: Southeast end of Ohio
drive; Ohio Drive cross street Milham Drive and
Tollhouse Drive
• Benton Street: From Ming Avenue to Planz Road
and South H Street to Hughes Lane
• Oleander: From H Street to A Street and California
Avenue to Roosevelt Street
• Madison Area: From Madison Street to Cottonwood
Road between Casa Loma Drive and Brook Street

Hageman Road
Multi-Use Path Future
Project proposes to construct a multi-use path connecting Standard Road west of SR 99 to Buck Owens Blvd east of
SR 99 with an elevated structure crossing over SR 99. The project will provide a connection between the northwest and the downtown area of Bakersfield.

Multi-use Path Along
Friant Kern Canal Future
Project will provide a separate path to be shared by bike users and pedestrians along the Friant Kern Canal. The
infrastructure supports multiple recreation and transportation opportunities, such as walking, bicycling, roller-skating, and mobility for persons in wheelchairs. The aim of the project is to reduce overall vehicular use in the area and reducing emissions and particulate matter.

Bike and Pedestrian
Feasibility Study Future
This project will fund feasibility studies and preliminary designs to develop “shovel ready” bike and pedestrian
projects for future construction funding and grant
opportunities.

Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Future
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) will fund four projects that will make streets throughout the City safer for all modes of transportation. The projects will include traffic calming tools, pedestrian beacons, raised street medians, and reflective signage and signal backplates.

58 Appendix A-B – Policy & Programming Questionnaire

59 Table B1 – Active Transportation Programming, Policy, and Practices Questionnaire Topic Initiatives/ Current Status

COMMITTEES / ROLES
Does the City have an Active
Transportation Coordinator?
There is no official role, but civil engineer is serving as de facto role.

Does the City have an Active
Transportation Advisory
Committee or similar body?
City has a multi-modal committee, which includes 3 council members.

There is also the Bike and Pedestrian Safety Coalition, which consists of representatives from Kern County, Bike Bakersfield, Police Department, Kern COG, local activists, and meets monthly.

2023 Complete Streets resolution has language about an
interdepartmental transportation review team.

Does the City have an Active
Transportation Safety
Education Program?
No, but Bike Bakersfield does bike safety education at
schools. There are issues in the City regarding education and enforcement currently.

POLICY / PLANS
Does the City have a Safe
Routes to School/Safe Routes
for Seniors program?
Yes, the City has received $6 million in ARPA funding for safe routes near schools and parks. The project will fund the identification of missing links, projects trying to fill in. It is an on-going process.

There is no Safe Routes for Seniors program.

Does the city have localized
signal and stop sign warrants?
The City has adopted warrants from the CA MUTCD has
adopted green bike lane standards.

Does the city have a traffic
crash monitoring program with
periodic reviews or hot spot
monitoring? Any proactive
safety investigation? If so,
provide the content of the
program.

Police Department maintains the Crossroads database using SWITRS data. Staff does high collision report quarterly, reviews for any potential patterns. The City uses the crash database for intersection studies.

60 Does the City implement
special crosswalk treatments
at high pedestrian locations?
High visibility crosswalks are standard. The City has also implemented in-crosswalk lights and HAWK signals at
certain locations
What type of traffic
enforcement does the City
conduct?
Bakersfield Police Department provides traffic enforcement and is starting to perform radar traffic enforcement to gather data to analyze for high periods and other trends. If the City receives feedback about speeding vehicles, they will perform speed profile and send to PD for targeted enforcement.

What are the safety
ordinances? Bike helmet laws?
Unsafe pedestrian
movements?
There are no ordinances beyond standard California law.

Does the City have an access
management policy to provide
safe accesses to businesses
and facilities on major and
secondary roadways?
The City’s design standards outline the number, spacing, and size of medians and driveways.

Does the City have an active
traffic signal timing and
operation program? Bicycle
detection or leading pedestrian
interval?
The City has a Traffic Operations Center to upload and
download timing, and monitor traffic flow. Some intersections have Leading Pedestrian Interval timing. Some intersections have bicycle detection.

Has the City received funding
for the previous two cycles of
ATP and HSIP grant program?
The City has received ATP and HSIP funding for last 2
cycles. The City has completed an LRSP with Kern COG.

Does the City have a policy or
best practice for the transit
stop locations?
Transit stop locations determined by design standards.

Golden Empire Transit owns bus stops and shelters. There is ongoing coordination between the City and Golden Empire Transit.

Does the City, in a part of the
roadway resurfacing projects,
attempt to repurpose the
excessive roadway pavement,
or add bicycle lanes where
feasible?
Yes, this is part of Complete Streets resolution being
adopted in July 2023. Striping layouts are in the City’s design standards.

Has the City performed a
Bicycle/Pedestrian Level of
Stress Analysis?
KernCOG performed a bicycle/pedestrian level of stress
analysis.

What types of wayfinding
signage does the City have?
City Parks Department controls the bicycle/pedestrian
wayfinding signages, which is mainly near parks and trails.

61 DATA COLLECTION / INVENTORY
Does the City have an
Inventory of Pedestrian/Bicycle
Signs and Signals?
The City Streets Department maintains sign database. The database includes initial install date and recent
maintenance. Retroreflectivity analysis has been completed.

Does the City have Active
Transportation Volume
Counting?
KernCOG does pedestrian and bicycle counts on a regular basis. There are no permanent count locations.

COORDINATION / FEEDBACK / ENGAGEMENT
What ways can citizens give
feedback about active
transportation infrastructure
and safety?
The City has a website for neighborhood traffic calming and the CitySource mobile app.

What previous engagement
has the City done relating to
active transportation?
Past studies include the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan (outreach); 2020 Bike and Pedestrian Safety Plan (public outreach and community events); 2022 Local Road Safety
Plan (public outreach); 2022 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan (public workshop); 2021 Downtown Corridor
Enhancement Master Plan (public engagement)
How does the City engage with
schools on active
transportation issues?
Schools typically reach out to City with concern to address and issues are usually with pickup/dropoff, crosswalk
concerns, and congestion. School districts hire crossing guards. City uses design standards for school signage and striping.

How does City Public Works
engage with law enforcement
on active transportation
issues?
This engagement is done through the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Safety Coalition, Bakersfield Police Department is a part of. City sends a list of complaints from residents to the City Police Department monthly. There is also as needed coordination
Has the City lowered any
speed limits using the
flexibility from Assembly Bill
43?
City is waiting for incorporation into CA MUTCD in 2024.

How does the City address
bicycle lanes and right turn
lanes?
The bicycle lanes typically goes between the right turn lane and the through lane.

62 Appendix A-C – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Scoring Tables

63 Table C1: Bicycle LTS for Roadways with Existing Bike Lanes and Parking Criteria LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
Total Number of Thru Lanes 1-2 3 4-5 6+
Speed Limit 25 30 35 40+
Roadway Functional Class 7 (Local) 6, 5 4 2,3
# of driveways (ie parcels) 0-24 25-49 50-74 75+

Point per Criteria 1 2 3 4

Table C2: LTS for Roadways with Existing Bike Lanes and No Parking Criteria LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
Total Number of Thru Lanes 1-2 3 4-5 6+
Speed Limit 25-30 35 40 45+
Roadway Functional Class 6,7 5,4 3 2
# of driveways (ie parcels) 0-24 25-49 50-74 75+

Point per Criteria 1 2 3 4
Point Range 4-6 7-10 11-13 14-16

Table C3: LTS for Roadways with Roadways with Mixed Vehicle-Bicycle Traffic Lanes Criteria LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
Speed Limit 25 30 35 40+
Total Number of Thru Lanes 1-2 3 4-5 6+

Point per Criteria 1 2 3 4
Point Range 3-5 6-8 9-10 11-12

CONFORMANCE WITH CALTRANS

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PLAN GUIDELINES
Appendix B

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Item Requirement Section(s)
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 implementation of the plan.
» Ch. 2: Bakersfield Toda
y - Transportation Mode Share, Table 2: Means of Transportation to Work » Ch. 4: Recommenda
tions - Anticipated Future Demand
» Ch. 5: Implementation - Monit
oring Implementation
B
Description of Land Use/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. » Appendix A - Existing C
onditions Report, Destinations and Points of Interest
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. » Appendix A - Existing C
onditions Report, Current Infrastructure Inventory, Existing Pedestrian Facilities » Ch. 1: Introduction - P
edestrian Safety and Convenience Enhancements
» Ch. 2: Bakersfield Toda
y - Existing Pedestian Facilities
» Ch. 4: Recommenda
tions - Pedestrian Network
F 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. » Appendix A - Existing C
onditions Report, Current Infrastructure Inventory, Existing Bicycle Infrastructure » Ch. 2: Bakersfield Toda
y - Biking in Bakersfield, Table 3: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure I
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. » Appendix A - Existing C
onditions Report, Bicycle Parking and End-Trip Facilities » Ch. 2: Bakersfield Toda
y - Biking in Bakersfield, Bicycle Parking & End-Trip Facilities » Ch. 4: Recommenda
tions - Programs & Policies, Engineering
J Wayfinding: A description of existing and proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations.
» Appendix D - Wa
yfinding and Signage
» Ch. 4: Recommenda
tions - Programs & Policies, Engineering
K Non-Infrastructure: A description of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian education and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan. » Ch. 4: Recommenda
tions - Programs & Policies
L
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 » Appendix A - Exisiting Conditions R
eport, Crash History
» Ch. 2: Bakersfield Toda
y, Safety Trends

City of Bakersfield | Active Transportation Plan
Item Requirement Section(s)
M
Equity Analysis: Identify census tracts that are considered disadvantaged or low-income and identify bicycle and pedestrian needs of those disadvantaged or low-income residents, including lack connectivity to key destinations, mobility challenges, public health concerns, and safety issues. » Appendix A - Existing C
onditions Report, Demographic and Equity Factors
» Ch. 1: Introduction - Meeting Challenges, E
quity Considerations: Finance & Health
» Ch. 2: Bakersfield Toda
y - Equity
N Community Engagement: A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities.
» Ch. 3: Community Engagement
O
Coor
dination: 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.
» Ch. 1: Introduction - Plan De
velopment Process
P 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. » Ch. 5: Implementation - Pr
oject Prioritization,
Table 2: Priority Rankings and Implementation Groups of Bakersfield ATP Trail Segments » Appendix F - Prioritization Crit
eria
Q
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.
» Ch. 5: Implementation - Pr
oject List
» Ch. 5: Implementation - Pr
oject Funding Program
R 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. » Ch. 5: Implementation
S
Maintenanc
e: 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 .
» Ch. 1: Introduction - Goal 7: Maint
enance & Preservation
» Ch. 5: Implementation - Pr
oject Funding Program
T
Resolution: A resolution showing 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.
» Adoption Resolution t
o be included upon final plan adoption

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Appendix C

2/13/2024 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach Created on Type Comment Latitude Longitude
2023-10-17
23:21:08 UTC Bike
Hello, I just recently moved to this area of Panama Ln and Union Ave and noticed there are no bike paths available on this side of town. The bike paths that the City of Bakersfield offers are across town, and unfortunatelynot everyone has the opportunityto go across town for this. It would be great to have something available on this side of town for the current population in the area, and for the future population since there has been and continues to be new housing development here. Thank you!

35.292029 -119.000199
2023-10-19
17:35:46 UTC Walk
North/west corner of 28th Street/Eye Street.

The ramp that was designed for this corner is very dangerous. It has trip hazards with the way the concrete goes from high to low. There is no indication of the “rise” or the “step down” of where the concrete comes together.

35.384709 -119.020048
2023-10-20
15:22:32 UTC Walk No side walk or few for the water 35.288738 -119.020914 2023-10-20
15:28:08 UTC Bike Bale Lanes for children so they are able to play safety specially since we don't have a park that we can walk to with out crossing a large street. 35.306743 -119.026695 2023-10-20
16:53:08 UTC Walk
A crosswalk would be beneficial for the employees that park in the street or physician's parking lot behind the AIS Cancer Center. There are many vehicles that speed through the area and sometimes they don't stop for the employees.

35.383771 -119.017467
2023-10-21
19:14:42 UTC Other Active transportation summit attendance 35.377134 -119.00784 2023-10-21
19:16:03 UTC Other Dope 35.379052 -119.040749
2023-10-21
19:16:44 UTC Bike I bike to In-Shape 35.392059 -118.94773 2023-10-21
19:27:18 UTC Other Need to clean more 35.379052 -119.040749 2023-10-21
19:43:07 UTC Other They need to put more stop signs 35.34261 -119.058065 2023-10-21
19:43:10 UTC ADA Lack of adequate curb ramps for disabled people. 35.368368 -119.014699 2023-10-21
19:53:01 UTC Other More stops 35.356271 -118.940921
2023-10-21
20:03:21 UTC Bike
Bike lane ends before the intersection and dovetails with a car lane. Super dangerous every time I bike there (but it’s otherwise a good route which is why I still continue to go this way)

35.367664 -119.03878
2023-10-21
20:08:57 UTC Bike
Starting here and going north all the way to where Q ends at Columbus, there is no longer a bike lane nor is there a share the lane marker. I’ve been harassed multiple times (going both north and south) by drivers here and fear for my safety. Need more visibility/bike lanes/share the lane markers for cyclists on this stretch, especially since Q has them south of this!!

35.381173 -119.010563
2023-10-21
20:12:56 UTC Bike
Bike lane ends before intersection. Whenever this happens, drivers get too close to cyclists. This happens at most intersections and it sucks big time for anyone trying to commute as a cyclist.

35.37512 -119.03856
2023-10-21
21:06:12 UTC Bike The trail walk needs to be updated and possibly a bike ride 35.268043 -118.914342

2/13/2024 Public Website - Interactive Map Comments Appendix C - Public Outreach 2023-10-21
21:07:29 UTC Other
McKinley families have issued concerns over the safety of crossing streets on the corner of 4th and P street. Early in the morning McKinley only has one crossing guard when in reality they need 2-3. They have suggested speed bums and maybe even a red light camera to enforce speed limit and enhance safety for students.

35.361464 -119.012003
2023-10-21
21:13:14 UTC Walk Sidewalk regularly blocked, including on 21st and on the intersection with Union 35.377249 -119.003007
2023-10-21
21:36:30 UTC Other
the area including Polo Park, Patriot Elementary, Frontier HS, generally in a mile range. Could use more bike path and connection in this area. More separate from vehicular traffic the better

35.412487 -119.145112
2023-10-21
22:36:28 UTC Walk
Speeding cars are particularly dangerous with a school here off Buena Vista.

Lowering the speed limit and installing a separated mixed use lane is so important for safety all along this major thoroughfare!

35.329376 -119.127502
2023-10-22
15:17:30 UTC Bike
Cycle track makes no sense. No safe way to enter if you’re heading west bound and the finish under the brake overpass is dangerous as it’s a blind spot with motorists looking to the west for vehicle traffic and not to the right for bicycle traffic exiting the cycle track and having to dangerously cross back to the other side of the lane.

35.377136 -118.985753
2023-10-22
15:54:00 UTC Bike
All of H Street is a biking and walking hazard. There is little to no room and poles in the walkway make it impossible to use. Forcing cyclists to merge into 60mph traffic to go around cars parked on the side if the road. There's more room for the canal then there is for people on a main vein from south to north bakersfield.

35.304977 -119.021303
2023-10-23
22:14:34 UTC Walk
Its been many fatal accidents here..children and adults...dont have enougth time to cross California ave...on Baker st..also green ligths need to be on longer so people crossing California ave in cars have enough time...but pedestrian signs first of course...

35.368436 -118.995891
2023-10-24
09:39:47 UTC Bike Continue bike line from Lamont to Panama ln, for students to use their bike for school safely from both sides of the school as well as recreational use . 35.281781 -118.913612 2023-11-18
03:36:30 UTC Bike
Olive drive would benefit from a bicycle lane, like Stockdale's, that provides a painted buffer for the bike lane. This would stop cars from passing by a cyclist with less than 2 feet to give.

35.416929 -119.120078
2023-11-18
03:37:43 UTC Bike I commute to work on this road and I think it would benefit from a bicycle lane. 35.313112 -119.082028
2023-11-18
03:39:33 UTC Bike Construct a bike trail on all canals in the city. 35.313865 -119.052401 2023-11-18
14:10:38 UTC Bike Class IV bike lane for calloway drive. 35.364801 -119.114585 2023-12-14
19:35:52 UTC Other
This are would benefit from increased bicycle lanes with a buffer (Type 4). I believe if you make cycling safer people will cycle especially lanes with a physical barriers.

35.318067 -119.095573

3/18/2024 Public Website – Active Transportation Survey Appendix C – Public Outreach

3/18/2024 Public Website – Active Transportation Survey Appendix C – Public Outreach

3/18/2024 Public Website – Active Transportation Survey Appendix C – Public Outreach

TRAIL PROFILE OVERVIEWS
Appendix D

1 2 3
4 5
6 7 8
Midblock
Class I Multi-Use Path

PROPOSED TRAIL NETWORK

LOCAL NETWORK
Railroad
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Traffic Circle
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
New Bridge
Class II Bike Lanes
Signal
Trail Intersection
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
New Intersection
Class III Bike Route
Stop
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Underpass
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class Ill Bike Route
Future Class Ill Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected Bike Lane
TRAIL PROFILE:
ƒ Class I – 0.20
ƒ Class II – 0.06
ƒ Class III – 0.36
ƒ Class IV – 5.31
ƒ Total – 5.92
IMPROVEMENTS:

1. Bridge

2. New Intersection

3. Reduce Turn Radius

4. Add Crosswalks

5. Install Sidewalks

6. Pedestrian Refuge Island, New
Intersection Required

7. Install Sidewalks

8. Install Sidewalks
DESTINATIONS:
ƒ Bakersfield Heart Hospital
ƒ Department of Motor Vehicles
ƒ County Public Services Building
ƒ Longfellow Elementary
Trail 1 begins with a Class I connection along the Stine Canal to the existing Kern River Trail. It is followed by two blocks of Class II bike lanes to reach Beech Street where a Class IV bikeway begins. The trail runs predominantly east-west, and takes users from the residential areas around Beech Street to commercial destinations in Northern Downtown Bakersfield along 30th Street.

Here, users will have the opportunity to connect to the north-south corridors Trail 9 at H Street or Trail 15 at Q Street. The trail briefly transitions to a Class III shared-use path along Pacific Street before transitioning back to a Class IV on Alta Vista Drive. Curb bump outs will be added on all major intersections between Alta Vista Drive and Mt Vernon Avenue to facilitate safe crossings in Old Town Kern, where Trail 4 will intersect on Baker Street. The trail terminates in East Bakersfield at the intersection of Niles Street with Mt Vernon Avenue, facilitating easy access to Bakersfield High School through proposed Trail 12. There are currently no dedicated bike facilities along the proposed 6-mile trail.

N
SillectAve
Arrow
St
Oa k
St
O
live
St
Beach Park Dr
N
SillectAve
24th St
E-Z-8 Motel
Bake rsfield
Heart Hospital
St i
ne
Can
al
St in e
Canal
Ke r n
River
30th St
Elm
St
Elm
St
Spruce St
Cedar St
Beech St
Pine St
Ald
er S
t
C St
Lawn St
Bay St
178

RIVIERA

WESTCHESTER
33rd St
F S
tAirport Bus of
Bakers field
U P M
ain Line
M S
t
K
St
28th St
29th St
26t h St
L St
L S
t
Eye St
G
St
32nd St 32nd St
F
St
30th St 30t h St
Drake
St
Encina
St
178
California
Department of
Motor Vehicles
Golden State
Mall
Kaiser
Permanente
Chester Medical
Office
Garces
Memorial Circle
33rd St
Ke r
n
Island
Can a
l
30th St
EspeeSt
25th St
Jewett Ave
32nd St
Cla
flin W
ay
P St
N
St
28th St
Panama S
t
24th S t
Q St
Gold
en State Ave
99 County Public
Services
Building
Joshua Park
Weill Park

HOMAKER
PARK
Longfellow
Elementary
School
Eas t
S i
d e
C an
al
St
ockto
n
St
Stockton St
Quincy St
Or egon St
Sac
ram
ent
o S
t
Flowe r St
Union Ave
F
Proposed Trail Network
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Local Network
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class III Bike Route
Future Class III Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected BIke Lane
Improvement
Midblock
New Bridge
New Intersection
Railroad
Signal
Stop
Traffic Circle
Trail Intersection
Underpass
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
30th St to Niles/Monterey
Trail
1 – 30th Street to Niles Street & Monterey Street
Cross Valley CanalCross Valley Canal
Stine CanalStine Canal
Beech StreetBeech Street
30th Street30th Street
Pacific StreetPacific Street
F StreetF Street
H StreetH Street
Chester AvenueChester Avenue
Jewel AvenueJewel Avenue
M StreetM Street
Q StreetQ Street
Stine CanalStine Canal
Kern Island Canal
Kern Island Canal

Midblock
Class I Multi-Use Path

PROPOSED TRAIL NETWORK

LOCAL NETWORK
Railroad
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Traffic Circle
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
New Bridge
Class II Bike Lanes
Signal
Trail Intersection
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
New Intersection
Class III Bike Route
Stop
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Underpass
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class Ill Bike Route
Future Class Ill Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected Bike Lane
Alta Vi
sta Dr
Stock
ton St
Quincy S t
Quincy St
Magnolia St
Pac ifi c St
Oregon
St Ore gon St
Tular
e
St
Tul
are
St
Inyo St
Linc oln S t
Sacramento St
Flower St
Kern St
Alta V
ist
a
D
r
Mont erey St
Flowe r St
178
Tular
e St
Kern
St
Robinso
n St
Ki
ng St
Gage St
Tulare S
t
Pac ifi c St
Ow
ens St
Quincy St Qu incy S t
Orego n St
Bak
er S
t
Bea
le
Ave
Nile s St
Monterey St
178
Baker Street
Branch L ibrary

OLD TOWN
KERN

BAKER STREET
M
iller StLake St Lake St
Owens St
Bea
le Ave
Kent ucky St
Mo nterey St
Kentucky Street
Post Of fice
Oregon St
Quincy St
M
ille
rSt
O
range Dr
Vi
rgini
a
St
Pac ifi c St
Wes
tD
r
Ha
ley St
Flower St
E ast Si de Can a l
U P Ma in Lin e
Haley St
Kentu cky St
Lake St Lake S t
Oregon St
West Dr
Monterey St
Orange Dr
Pal
m
D
r
Haley St
Niles St
Mon terey St Williams
Elementary
School
Flower St
East Bakers field
High School
Kentucky St
Lake St
Lake St
Monterey St
Monterey St
Ash Dr LocustRavineQui ncy Dr
Palm D
r
Paci fi c St
Oregon St
Cami
no
Prim
avera
Cente r St
Ni les StM
tVernon Ave
F
Proposed Trail Network
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Local Network
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class III Bike Route
Future Class III Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected BIke Lane
Improvement
Midblock
New Bridge
New Intersection
Railroad
Signal
Stop
Traffic Circle
Trail Intersection
Underpass
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
30th St to Niles/Monterey
TRAIL PROFILE:
ƒ Class I – 0.20
ƒ Class II – 0.06
ƒ Class III – 0.36
ƒ Class IV – 5.31
ƒ Total – 5.92
IMPROVEMENTS:

1. Add Crosswalks, Remove Adjacent Parking
for Visibility

2. Curb Bump-Outs, Install Sidewalks

3. Pedestrian Refuge Island, Curb Bump-Outs
DESTINATIONS:
ƒ Baker Street Branch Library
ƒ Armstrong Youth Center, Boys &
Girls Club
ƒ Williams Elementary
ƒ Bakersfield Play Center
ƒ East Bakersfield High
Trail 1 begins with a Class I connection along the Stine Canal to the existing Kern River Trail. It is followed by two blocks of Class II bike lanes to reach Beech Street where a Class IV bikeway begins. The trail runs predominantly east-west, and takes users from the residential areas around Beech Street to commercial destinations in Northern Downtown Bakersfield along 30th Street.

Here, users will have the opportunity to connect to the north-south corridors Trail 9 at H Street or Trail 15 at Q Street. The trail briefly transitions to a Class III shared-use path along Pacific Street before transitioning back to a Class IV on Alta Vista Drive. Curb bump outs will be added on all major intersections between Alta Vista Drive and Mt Vernon Avenue to facilitate safe crossings in Old Town Kern, where Trail 4 will intersect on Baker Street. The trail terminates in East Bakersfield at the intersection of Niles Street with Mt Vernon Avenue, facilitating easy access to Bakersfield High School through proposed Trail 12. There are currently no dedicated bike facilities along the proposed 6-mile trail. 1 2 3
Trail
1 – 30th Street to Niles Street & Monterey Street
Pacific StreetPacific Street
Alta Vista DriveAlta Vista Drive
Baker StreetBaker Street
Beale AvenueBeale Avenue
Haley StreetHaley Street
Mount Vernon AvenueMount Vernon Avenue
Kentucky StreetKentucky Street
Niles StreetNiles Street
Monterey StreetMonterey Street

Midblock
Class I Multi-Use Path

PROPOSED TRAIL NETWORK

LOCAL NETWORK
Railroad
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Traffic Circle
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
New Bridge
Class II Bike Lanes
Signal
Trail Intersection
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
New Intersection
Class III Bike Route
Stop
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Underpass
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class Ill Bike Route
Future Class Ill Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected Bike Lane
Thatch Ave
Milo Ave
Sugar Cane Ave
Annette St
Julie St
Pacheco Rd
Mattnick D
r
Summer fi eld Dr
Cyclo
ne Dr
So
uthern Breeze Dr
Kaytlain AveNoel
la RdRIDGEVIEW

ESTATES
O
ldcastle Ave
Crossh
ave
n A
ve
W
hiteg
ate A
ve
Jackson Rid
ge AveHosking Ave
Ridgem
ont St
Marin St
De Ette Ave
Krista St
Lou
don
St
Akers Rd
Harris Rd
A r v i n - E d
is o n C a
n al
Trojes
Ave
Berksh
ire Rd
Akers Rd
Berkshire
Elementary
School
Stonecreek Jr
High School
Bathurst Av
e
Rockhampton Dr
Brisba
ne Ave
Akers Rd

STONE CREEK
F
Proposed Trail Network
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Local Network
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class III Bike Route
Future Class III Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected BIke Lane
Improvement
Midblock
New Bridge
New Intersection
Railroad
Signal
Stop
Traffic Circle
Trail Intersection
Underpass
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Akers/McKee
DESTINATIONS:
ƒ Berkshire Elementary
ƒ Loudon (Roy W) Elementary
ƒ Stonecreek Junior High
TRAIL PROFILE:
ƒ Class IV – 4.50
ƒ Total – 4.50
Trail 2 provides connectivity to Southern Bakersfield, including residential areas, parks, and schools. It originates at Akers Road and Pacheco Road with a connection to Trail 18. 4.5-miles of Class IV bikeway are planned along Akers Road, McKee Road, and Ashe Road before terminating at Taft Highway. This trail has numerous existing and planned facilities to bolster east-west access, including proposed Trail 14. Class II bike facilities are currently offered on Akers Road and Ashe Road.

Trail
2 – Akers Road & McKee Road
pacheco Roadpacheco Road
Harris RoadHarris Road
P anama LaneP anama Lane
Arvin Edison CanalArvin Edison Canal
Berkshire RoadBerkshire Road
Hosking AveHosking Ave
Akers RoadAkers Road

Midblock
Class I Multi-Use Path

PROPOSED TRAIL NETWORK

LOCAL NETWORK
Railroad
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Traffic Circle
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
New Bridge
Class II Bike Lanes
Signal
Trail Intersection
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
New Intersection
Class III Bike Route
Stop
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Underpass
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class Ill Bike Route
Future Class Ill Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected Bike Lane
N
SillectAve
Arrow
St
Oa k
St
O
live
St
Beach Park Dr
N
SillectAve
24th St
E-Z-8 Motel
Bake rsfield
Heart Hospital
St i
ne
Can
al
St in e
Canal
Ke r n
River
30th St
Elm
St
Elm
St
Spruce St
Cedar St
Beech St
Pine St
Ald
er S
t
C St
Lawn St
Bay St
178

RIVIERA

WESTCHESTER
33rd St
F S
tAirport Bus of
Bakers field
U P M
ain Line
M S
t
K
St
28th St
29th St
26t h St
L St
L S
t
Eye St
G
St
32nd St 32nd St
F
St
30th St 30t h St
Drake
St
Encina
St
178
California
Department of
Motor Vehicles
Golden State
Mall
Kaiser
Permanente
Chester Medical
Office
Garces
Memorial Circle
33rd St
Ke r
n
Island
Can a
l
30th St
EspeeSt
25th St
Jewett Ave
32nd St
Cla
flin W
ay
P St
N
St
28th St
Panama S
t
24th S t
Q St
Gold
en State Ave
99 County Public
Services
Building
Joshua Park
Weill Park

HOMAKER
PARK
Longfellow
Elementary
School
Eas t
S i
d e
C an
al
St
ockto
n
St
Stockton St
Quincy St
Or egon St
Sac
ram
ent
o S
t
Flowe r St
Union Ave
F
Proposed Trail Network
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Local Network
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class III Bike Route
Future Class III Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected BIke Lane
Improvement
Midblock
New Bridge
New Intersection
Railroad
Signal
Stop
Traffic Circle
Trail Intersection
Underpass
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
30th St to Niles/Monterey
Thatch AveMilo Ave
Sugar Cane Ave
Marina
D r
Annette St
Jul ie St
Pacheco Rd
Mattnick Dr
Summer fi eld D r
Cycl
on
e
D
r
Sout
hern
Breez
e D
r
Ch
inta
Dr
Basque
StKaytlain Av
e
N
oella
Rd
Belle Vista
Shopping
Center

RIDGEVIEW
ESTATES Old
castle Ave
Crosshaven Av
e
Whiteg
ate Ave
Jack
son Ridge Ave
Hosking Ave
Ri
dgemont St
Marin St
Sara Jane St
Krista St
Loudon St
Akers Rd
Harris Rd
A r
vi n - E d i s o n C an al
Rhine Dr
Trojes Ave
Akers Rd
Ridgeview
Plaza
Berkshire
Elementary
School Stonecreek Jr
High School
Bathurst Ave
Rockhampton Dr
Br
isbane Ave
Ak ers Rd
Mc Kee Rd

STONE CREEK
IMPROVEMENTS:

1. Curb Bump-Outs, Realign Intersection

2. Road Widening, Curb Bump-Outs
TRAIL PROFILE:
ƒ Class IV – 4.50
ƒ Total – 4.50
Trail 2 provides connectivity to Southern Bakersfield, including residential areas, parks, and schools. It originates at Akers Road and Pacheco Road with a connection to Trail 18. 4.5-miles of Class IV bikeway are planned along Akers Road, McKee Road, and Ashe Road before terminating at Taft Highway. This trail has numerous existing and planned facilities to bolster east-west access, including proposed Trail 14. Class II bike facilities are currently offered on Akers Road and Ashe Road.

Trail
2 – Akers Road & McKee Road
1 2
Asher RoadAsher Road
Mountain Ridge DriveMountain Ridge Drive
Stein Road Stein Road
Akers RoadAkers Road
McKee RoadMcKee Road
Taft HwyTaft Hwy

Midblock
Class I Multi-Use Path

PROPOSED TRAIL NETWORK

LOCAL NETWORK
Railroad
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Traffic Circle
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
New Bridge
Class II Bike Lanes
Signal
Trail Intersection
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
New Intersection
Class III Bike Route
Stop
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Underpass
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class Ill Bike Route
Future Class Ill Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected Bike Lane
Chukkar Ln
Desert H
ills Ave
Carr St
Phe asa nt Ave
Partridg e Ave
Hart
man AveAngell St
Gabriel Dr
Heske
th
Dr
Stockdale Frontage Rd
Stockdale Hwy
Park Stockdale
Club House &
Park

QUAILWOOD
Fai rw ay DrFairway Dr
Hume Ln
Hogan WayRiver Oaks D
r
EllisAve
Mt
Hood Dr
Mt Shasta Dr
Ashe Rd
Olde
Stockdale
Landfa ir Dr
Angels Camp St
Colum
bia
Ln
Kearsa
rge
W
ay
Caswe
llAve
Club
View Dr
Sly Ln
Lo ring Run
Ashe Rd
Barr
ington
St
Nottingh
am
Ln M
anc
hest
er L
n
Kl
am
at
h
Wa
y
Che
sh
ire Dr
Inwo
od
D
r
Belden Ln
Edgem
ont
Dr
Bron
son L
n
Ch
ew
ac
an
Dr
Ashe Rd
Laurelglen
Plaza
Sagepointe
Corvallis Park
Scenic Wa
y
Hartman A
ve
Fria
nt Dr
Carissa
Ave
Daggett
Ave
Stockda
le Fro
ntage Rd
PARK

ST OCKDALE
BelAireW
ay
Peb
ble Beach DrBurke
W
ay
Landfa
ir
Dr
Devo
n D
r
Thunderbird St
Sundale
Country Club
Edg
em
ont D
r
Cardif
fAv
e
Noga
lAve
Pinon Sp ri ng s Ci r W
Castle Park
Castle
Elementary
School
S Half Moo n Dr
F
Proposed Trail Network
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Local Network
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class III Bike Route
Future Class III Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected BIke Lane
Improvement
Midblock
New Bridge
New Intersection
Railroad
Signal
Stop
Traffic Circle
Trail Intersection
Underpass
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Ashe
1 32
TRAIL PROFILE:
ƒ Class III – 0.26
ƒ Class IV – 4.02
ƒ Total – 4.28
DESTINATIONS:
ƒ Castle (Charles H) Elementary
IMPROVEMENTS:

1. Realign Intersection, Install Sidewalks

2. Pedestrian Refuge Island

3. Pedestrian Refuge Island,
Straighten Crosswalk
Trail 3 offers a north-south connection through residential areas from Park Stockdale to Trail 14 on Panama Lane. The trail begins with a quarter mile Class III facility on Stockdale Highway to tie-in with the existing Class II facility on Rio Bravo Drive, followed by over 4 miles of Class IV protected bikeways. There are currently no dedicated bike facilities along the proposed trail.

A portion of the trail overlaps with Trail 11, offering users an easy opportunity to travel in the east-west direction.

Trail
3 – Ashe Road
Stockdale HwyStockdale Hwy
Sundale AvenueSundale Avenue
Ming AvenueMing Avenue
Ashe RoadAshe Road
North Half Moon Drive
North Half Moon Drive

Midblock
Class I Multi-Use Path

PROPOSED TRAIL NETWORK

LOCAL NETWORK
Railroad
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Traffic Circle
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
New Bridge
Class II Bike Lanes
Signal
Trail Intersection
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
New Intersection
Class III Bike Route
Stop
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Underpass
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class Ill Bike Route
Future Class Ill Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected Bike Lane
Nutmeg Dr
Vancouver Dr
Bend Wa
y
Herb W
ay
Spice W
ay
Cum
in
Ln
Yakima Way
Shelby Loo p
Louis ville Dr
Lafa
yet
te
W
ay
Plaq
uem
in
es
D
r
Savory L n
O
lym
pia
Dr
Whi
te Ln
Ashe Rd
The Crossroads
Shopping
Center
Stine
Can a
l
Sti n
e
C a
n al
S t i n e C
an a
l
Asph
alto/S
unset B
ra
nch
District Blvd SpurSchirra Ct
W
oo
dmere
D
r
Mc Div
itt Dr
Di
stric
tBlvd
Department of
Motor Vehicles
A r v i n - E d i s o n C an al
A r v i n - E d i s o n C an al
Ant ig ua Dr
Caracas Ave
Spring Creek Loop
Arc Dome Ave
M
ount
ai
n
Iron Dr
Grogan Dr
Ba rbados Ave
Raven
Pa
ss
St
Lilyd
ale
D
r
Lea
f V
al
ley
Dr
Ashe Rd
Harris Rd
Tul
ia Ln
Tri nid ad Av e
Bangor P
l
Sunchas
e D
r
Tah
itian Pear
lDrSard St
Briolette St
Fire Opal Dr
Hawk Creek Dr
Brewer Creek Dr
Declara tion Way
Fi
reba
ugh St
Drift C
reek St
Slick
rock D
r
Ashe Rd
Panama Ln
S Half Moo n Dr Nutmeg Dr
Fedex Freight Sugar Pine Dr
A r v
i n -
E d is o
n
C a
nal
Green Garden Dr
F
Proposed Trail Network
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Local Network
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class III Bike Route
Future Class III Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected BIke Lane
Improvement
Midblock
New Bridge
New Intersection
Railroad
Signal
Stop
Traffic Circle
Trail Intersection
Underpass
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Ashe
IMPROVEMENTS:

1. Straighten Crosswalk, Add Crosswalk

2. Pedestrian Refuge Island, Straighten Crosswalk

3. Straighten Crosswalk

4. Straighten Crosswalk

5. Straighten Crosswalk, Add Crosswalk, Curb Bump-Outs

6. Curb Bump-Outs

7. Pedestrian Refuge Island, Straighten Crosswalk

8. Pedestrian Refuge Island, Straighten Crosswalk
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TRAIL PROFILE:
ƒ Class III – 0.26
ƒ Class IV – 4.02
ƒ Total – 4.28
Trail 3 offers a north-south connection through residential areas from Park Stockdale to Trail 14 on Panama Lane. The trail begins with a quarter mile Class III facility on Stockdale Highway to tie-in with the existing Class II facility on Rio Bravo Drive, followed by over 4 miles of Class IV protected bikeways. There are currently no dedicated bike facilities along the proposed trail.

A portion of the trail overlaps with Trail 11, offering users an easy opportunity to travel in the east-west direction.

Trail
3 – Ashe RoadSouth Half Moon DriveSouth Half Moon Drive White LaneWhite Lane
Asphalto/Sunset BranchAsphalto/Sunset Branch
Arvin-Edisen CanalArvin-Edisen Canal
Stine CanalStine Canal
Harris RoadHarris Road
Panama LanePanama Lane
Ashe RoadAshe Road

Midblock
Class I Multi-Use Path

PROPOSED TRAIL NETWORK

LOCAL NETWORK
Railroad
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Traffic Circle
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
New Bridge
Class II Bike Lanes
Signal
Trail Intersection
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
New Intersection
Class III Bike Route
Stop
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Underpass
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class Ill Bike Route
Future Class Ill Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected Bike Lane
G
race S
t
Je
fferson St
W
ate
r S
t
Jeffrey St
Haw
thorne Av
e
N Baker St
N Bake
r St
Altura
s Dr
Loma Linda Dr
Lo ma Linda Dr
Waln
ut Av
e
La
Cre
sta Dr
Crawford St
N Kern St
N Tulare St
N King St
Irene
St
Pop
lar
Av
eElmwo
od
Ave Goodman St
Knotts S
t
Ber
nard
St
River B lvd
LA

CRESTA/ALTA
VISTA
La Cresta
U P M
ain L
ine
U P M ain Line
U
P M a
in L
ine
BN
SF
M
ain Li
ne
Quincy St
Qui
ncy St
E 18t
h
St
Bea le Ave
Paci
fic
St
Paci
fic St
Jefferson St
Oregon St
Tulare S t
Tulare St
Lake St
Lake St
Owens St
E
21st S
t
E 19th St
Kentucky St
Ja
ck
son St
King S t
King St
King St
Inyo St
Kern St
Lincoln
St
Flower S
t
Eureka St
Chico St
Do
lores St
Alta Vista Dr
Bak er St
Beale Ave
Sumner St
Flower St
178
Sandstone
Elementary
School

OLD TOWN
KERN

BAKER STREET
S Owens St
Kern St
S Rob inson S t
E 3
rd
St
E 3rd S
t
Clifton St
Clyde St
Northr up St
Augusta St
Mille r St
King St
Chico St
Dolores St
Murdock St
E
11th S
t
E 10
th St
E 10th StE 9th St
S Baker St
Ty ree To live r St
Baker St
E Ca
lifornia Ave
E 4th
St
S Kin g St
Virginia Ave
Dr Ma rtin Luthe r K in g Jr Bl vd
Union Cemetery
Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr.

Park
Bessie E. Owens
Primary School
F
Proposed Trail Network
Class I Multi-Use Path
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Route
Class IV Protected Bikeway
Local Network
Existing Class I Multi-Use Path
Future Class I Multi-Use Path
Existing Class II Bike Lanes
Future Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Class III Bike Route
Future Class III Bike Route
Existing Class IV Protected BIke Lane
Improvement
Midblock
New Bridge
New Intersection
Railroad
Signal
Stop
Traffic Circle
Trail Intersection
Underpass
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Baker/King/Madison/Lotus
TRAIL PROFILE:
ƒ Class I – 1.14
ƒ Class II – 3.27
ƒ Class III – 0.75
ƒ Class IV – 1.14
ƒ Total – 6.31
DESTINATIONS:
ƒ Our Lady Of Perpetual Help
Elementary
ƒ Jefferson Elementary
ƒ Baker Street Branch Library
ƒ Armstrong Youth Center, Boys &
Girls Club
ƒ Kentucky Street Post Office
ƒ Lincoln Junior High School
ƒ Mlk Community Center
ƒ Owens (Bessie E) Primary
1 2 3
4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11 12
Trail 4 runs north-south and originates with a connection to Trail 7 at Wilkins Park, which is adjacent to residential properties, schools, and businesses. It intersects with multiple proposed local connections and east- west trails, such as Trail 1 in Old Town Kern, Trail 16 in Downtown, Trail 19 by Union Cemetery, and Trail 11 at the East Branch Canal, where the trail ends. The trail begins with Class II and Class III facilities while traveling through residential areas, before transitioning to a Class IV bikeway for increased protection through Old Town Kern and the industrial uses surrounding the Union Pacific rail Line. Along this portion of the trail, one lane can be removed to accommodate the facility. From Bernard Street to Sumner Street the two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) can be removed. From Sumner Street to 19th Street, two travel lanes can be removed and replaced with a TWLTL. From 19th Street to Eureka Street, Baker Street will be closed to vehicle traffic and will function as a Class I path across the BNSF rail line. The trail switches back to a Class II facility at Eureka Street to proceed south through Lakeview until it reaches the East Branch Canal, where it transitions to a Class I along the canal. At Casa Loma Drive, the trail continues on Lotus Lane as a Class II, before transitioning to a Class II at Planz Road, and back to a Class I from Brook Street to White Lane, where there is currently no roadway. There are currently no dedicated bike facilities along the proposed 6-mile trail.

Trail
4 – Baker Street, King Street & Lotus Lane
IMPROVEMENTS:

1. RRFB

2. RRFB, Add Crosswalk

3. RRFB

4. Remove TWLTL between Bernard Street and
Sumner Street

5. Remove two travel lanes and replace with a TWLTL

6. Close Baker Street to vehicular traffic from 19th Street to Eureka Street to create a Class I connection along
the railroad.

7. Curb Bump-Outs, Add Crosswalk

8. Install Sidewalks

9. Pedestrian Refuge Island, Curb Bump-Outs,
Remove TWLTL

10. Pedestrian Refuge Island, Realign Intersection

11. Realign Intersection, Remove Parking on One Side from 4th St to Brundage Lane

12. Realign Intersection
Sumner StreetSumner Street
Alta Vista DriveAlta Vista Drive South King StreetSouth King Street Butte StreetButte Street
Truxtun AvenueTruxtun Avenue
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. BlvdDr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd South Baker StreetSouth Baker Street
Columbus StreetColumbus Street
Pacific StreetPacific Street
Niles StreetNiles Street
Flower StreetFlower Street
Bernard StreetBernard Street
Jeffrey StreetJeffrey Street
East 21East 21
stst Street Street
Monterey StreetMonterey Street
Kentucky StreetKentucky Street
Potomoc AvenuePotomoc Avenue
Virginia AvenueVirginia Avenue
Beale StreetBeale Street
Baker StreetBaker Street
North Baker StreetNorth Baker Street
Haw
thorne Avenue
Haw
thorne Avenue