To be considered safe, crossings should be clearly
marked and provide enough time for non-motorized
users to cross the street at a comfortable pace.
• Reduce vehicle speeds. Reducing vehicle speeds is
key to decreasing collisions among roadway users
and minimizing the severity of injuries if a collision
occurs. This is especially true for people walking and
biking, as they travel slower and are more vulnerable
than motorists. This speed differential can negatively
affect a person’s perception of safety, particularly
where there is a lack of separation between vehicles
and active transportation users.
• Provide consistency. Infrastructure designed with
a level of consistency in terms of aesthetics and
function improves safety by promoting predictable
behaviors and helps road users feel more
comfortable following a route.
324
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY | 54
[BLANK PAGE]
325
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
A
PRIORITIZED
BICYCLE
FACILITIES
PROJECT LIST
326
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PRIORITIZED BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJECT LIST | 56
Bicycle Recommendations Project List
Rank Plan
ID Corridor From To Recommended Facility Length (mi)
Total
Length (mi)
Estimated
Cost
1 24 Santa Ana
Ave Clovis Ave Sierra Vista Pkwy Class III Bike Route 0.48 0.48 $6,602 2 23 Shaw Ave Sunnyside
Ave
Temperance
Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.50 1.50 $67,489
3 36 Clovis Ave Herndon
Ave Sierra Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.48 0.48 $21,539
4 6 Barstow Ave Fowler Ave Armstrong Ave Class III Bike Route 0.50 0.50 $6,881 5 28 Helm
Avenue
West
Barstow
Avenue
East Ashlan
Ave
Class III Neighborhood
Greenway 1.65 1.65 $123,697
6 68 Sunnyside
Ave
Herndon
Ave Tarpey Drive
Class II Bike Lane 2.51
2.99 $148,566 Class III Neighborhood
Greenway 0.47
7 69*** Fowler Ave Shepherd
Ave Alluvial Ave
Class II Bike Lane 1.00
1.50 $95,790
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 0.51
8 4 Shaw Ave DeWolf Ave 460ft East of
Leonard Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.59 0.59 $26,328
9 70*** Fowler Ave Herndon
Ave
City Limits
near Griffith
Ave
Class II Bike Lane 0.50
3.36 $313,966
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 2.86
10 51 * Ashlan Ave Leonard Ave McCall Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.48 1.48 $66,537 11 19 Ashlan Ave Fordham
Ave De Wolf Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane 2.34 2.34 $238,789 12 16 Sierra Ave Clovis Ave Sunnyside Ave Class III Bike Lane 0.51 0.51 $23,100 13 65 Villa Ave Herndon
Ave
Gettysburg
Ave
Class II Bike Lane 1.25
2.51 $73,720
Class III Bike Route 1.26
14 11 Minnewawa
Ave
Santa Ana
Ave
Gettysburg
Ave Class III Bike Route 0.26 0.26 $3,546
15 26*** Ashlan Ave Winery Ave Willow Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane 0.24 0.24 $23,993 16 64*** Willow Ave Shepherd
Ave Herndon Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane 2.01 2.01 $204,736 17 73*** Nees Ave Willow Ave Sunnyside Ave
Class III Bike Route 0.50
2.03 $163,396
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 1.53
18 12*** Minnewawa
Ave
Shepherd
Ave Herndon Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane 2.05 2.05 $208,669 19 63**
*** Willow Ave Herndon Ave Shaw Ave
Class II Bike Lane 1.03
2.03 $148,117
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 1.00
20 5 3rd Street Minnewawa
Ave Sunnyside Ave Class III Bike Route 1.00 1.00 $13,820 327
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
57 | PRIORITIZED BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJECT LIST
Rank Plan
ID Corridor From To Recommended Facility Length (mi)
Total
Length (mi)
Estimated
Cost
21 50
Planned
Road 470ft
North of San
Gabriel Ave
DeWolf Ave 1000ft East of
DeWolf Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.21 0.21 $9,353
22 34 Locan Ave Herndon
Ave Bullard Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.01 1.01 $45,226
23 62 Tollhouse
Road
Armstrong
Ave Herndon Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.16 0.16 $7,154
24 60 Loma Visa
Parkway
350ft East of
San Marino
Dr
223ft of
Highland Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.08 0.08 $3,383
25 17 Leonard Ave Bullard Ave
City Limits
Near
Amenecer Ave
Class II Bike Lane 2.61 2.61 $117,413
26 74 Bullard Ave Willow Ave Fowler Ave Class III Bike Route 2.65 2.65 $63,756 27 67 Sunnyside
Ave
Shepherd
Ave Alluvial Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.50 1.50 $67,675
28 35 Locan Ave Powers Ave Sierra Fwy Class II Bike Lane 2.71 2.71 $122,000 29 2 Alluvial Ave Sunnyside
Ave
Proposed Trail
Connection Class II Bike Lane 1.26 1.26 $56,885
30 15 Peach Ave Herndon
Ave Sierra Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.54 0.54 $24,493
31 72*** Temperance
Ave Bullard Ave
City Limits
near Griffith
Ave
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 2.33 2.33 $238,141
32 14 Armstrong
Ave Teague Ave Herndon Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.51 1.51 $68,163 33 20*** Herndon
Ave Willow Ave Fowler Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane 2.52 2.52 $257,201 34 49
U-Shaped
Road
between
DeWolf and
Leonard
Aves
Loma Vista
Pkwy
Loma Vista
Pkwy Class II Bike Lane 0.35 0.35 $15,717
35 43 Peach Ave
Planned
Road 1281ft
North of
Shepherd
Ave
Shepherd Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.24 0.24 $10,886
36 59
Planned
Road 1360ft
East of
DeWolf Ave
San Jose Ave
Planned Road
578ft North
of Loma Vista
Pkwy
Class II Bike Lane 0.39 0.39 $17,478
37 1 Pico Ave Minnewawa
Ave Clovis Ave Class III Neighborhood Greenway 0.58 0.58 $43,280 328
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PRIORITIZED BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJECT LIST | 58
Rank Plan
ID Corridor From To Recommended Facility Length (mi)
Total
Length (mi)
Estimated
Cost
38 58 San Jose Ave DeWolf Ave Leonard Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.50 0.50 $22,422 39 40 Perrin Ave Willow Ave
Planned Road
1370ft East of
Willow Ave
Class II Bike Lane 0.26 0.26 $11,805
40 30 Marion Ave Teague Ave Nees Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.49 0.49 $22,231 41 66 Woodworth
Ave Pollasky Ave Barstow Ave
Class III Bike Route 0.12
1.12 $1,601
Class II Bike Lane 1.01
42 27
Enterprise
Canal
Channel
Sunnyside
Ave
Existing
Enterprise
Canal Trail
Class I Trail 0.26 0.26 $57,483
43 61 Alluvial Ave Locan Ave DeWolf Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.60 0.60 $27,066 44 25
2nd Street/
Minnewawa
Ave
Sierra Ave Bulllard Ave Class III Neighborhood
Greenway 0.61 0.61 $45,653
45 33 DeWolf Ave Herndon
Ave Roberts Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.15 1.15 $51,589
46 76*** Bullard Ave Locan Ave Highland Ave
Class II Bike Lane 0.99
1.49 $95,617
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 0.50
47 10 Leonard Ave Shepherd
Ave
Harlan Ranch
Blvd Class III Bike Route 0.48 0.48 $6,693
48 8
Planned
Road Parallel
to Enterprise
Canal Trail
Planned
Road 2090ft
West of
Sunnyside
Ave
Shepherd Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.70 0.70 $31,305
49 29 Powers Ave De Wolf Ave Harlan Ranch
Blvd
Class III Neighborhood
Greenway 0.61 0.61 $8,361
50 46
Planned
Road 814ft
West of
Minnewawa
Ave
Planned
Road 1300ft
North of
Perrin Rd
Planned Road
1300ft South
of Perrin Ave
Class II Bike Lane 0.51 0.51 $22,843
51 13*** DeWolf Ave Shepherd
Ave
Owens Mt
Pkway Class II Buffered Bike Lane 0.75 0.75 $76,365
52 52 Highland
Ave Ashlan Ave
Southern City
Limits Near
Gould Canal
Class II Bike Lane 0.76 0.76 $34,035
53 3 Peach Ave Gettysburg
Ave Dakota Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.00 1.00 $44,967
54 47
Planned
Road 1350ft
North of
Perrin Ave
Planned
Road 1380ft
East of
Willow Ave
Planned Road
815ft West of
Minnewawa
Ave
Class II Bike Lane 0.61 0.61 $27,568
329
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
59 | PRIORITIZED BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJECT LIST
Rank Plan
ID Corridor From To Recommended Facility Length (mi)
Total
Length (mi)
Estimated
Cost
55 7 Gibson St Sunnyside
Ave
Temperance
Ave
Class III Neighborhood
Greenway 1.63 1.63 $122,225
56 75
Harlan
Ranch
Boulevard
DeWolf Ave Shepherd Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.15 1.15 $51,964 57 39 Perrin Rd
Planned
Road 815ft
West of
Minnewawa
Ave
Clovis Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.40 0.40 $18,169
58 31 Willow Ave
1200ft south
of Via Monte
Verdi Ave
International
Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.80 1.80 $81,033
59 45
Planned
Road 1440ft
East of
Minnewawa
Ave
Behymer
Ave
Planned Road
1385ft South
of Perrin Rd
Class II Bike Lane 0.77 0.77 $34,494
59 53 Dakota Ave Highland
Ave Shockley Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.98 0.98 $44,307
60 44
Planned
Road 1350ft
North of
Perrin Ave
Planned
Road 1380ft
East of
Willow Ave
Minnewawa
Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.77 0.77 $34,726
61 57
Planned
Road 950ft
East of
Thompson
Ave
Shaw Ave Thompson Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.45 0.45 $20,243 62 32 Tollhouse
Road
Enterprise
Canal Trail Shepherd Ave Class II Bike Lane 2.56 2.56 $115,251 63 55 Thompson
Ave
Gettysyburg
Ave Dakota Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.53 1.53 $92,151
63 37 Behymer
Ave Willow Ave Sunnyside Ave Class II Bike Lane 2.05 2.05 $68,964 64 48
Owens
Mountain
Pkwy
Temperance
Ave Sierra Fwy Class II Bike Lane 1.56 1.56 $70,339
65 9 Minnewawa
Ave Copper Ave International Ave Class II Bike Lane 0.56 0.56 $25,081 65 41 Peach Ave Copper Ave
Planned Road
1300ft South
of Behymer
Ave
Class II Bike Lane 1.25 1.25 $56,264
330
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PRIORITIZED BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJECT LIST | 60
*Project has a bike lane only on one side of the street. **This project will require further study to determine the appropriate facility type. Parking removal would be required to convert this facility to a Class II Bike Lane.
***All Class II Buffered Bicycle Lanes will require further study to assess feasibility.
Rank Plan
ID Corridor From To Recommended Facility Length (mi)
Total
Length (mi)
Estimated
Cost
66 54 McCall Ave Shaw Ave Dakota Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.49 1.49 $66,958 67 56 Shaw Ave Highland
Ave McCall Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.19 1.19 $53,352
68 18 Teague Ave Clovis Ave Armstrong Ave Class II Bike Lane 1.50 1.50 $67,715 69 42
International
Ave/Planned
Road 3210ft
East of
Minnewawa
Ave
International
Ave
Enterprise
Canal Trail Class II Bike Lane 1.79 1.79 $80,550
70 38 Clovis Ave Copper Ave Neighborhood
Trail Class II Bike Lane 1.85 1.85 $83,395
71 22 Nees Ave Sunnyside
Ave Locan Ave Class II Bike Lane 2.24 2.24 $100,818
72 21*** Shepherd
Ave
Minnewawa
Ave
Temperance
Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane 2.50 2.50 $255,494
73 71*** Temperance
Ave
Shepherd
Ave Bullard Ave Class II Buffered Bike Lane 3.01 3.01 $307,257 331
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
B
DESIGN
GUIDELINES
332
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 62
Glossary
There are many terms used to describe different
components of the transportation system, treatments,
and bikeway facility types. To promote consistency and
ease of understanding, the following terms are used
throughout this guide. For glossary resources, see the
end of glossary section.
Accessible Pedestrian Signal – Device that
communicates information about the WALK and
DON’T WALK intervals at signalized intersections in
non-visual formats to pedestrians who are blind or
have low vision.8
Amenities – Elements such as benches, kiosks, bicycle
parking, points of interest displays, or trash receptacles that are placed on a sidewalk, pedestrian mall, or at
transit stops in order to improve the convenience and
attractiveness of the facility.1
Arterial Road – Roadway designed for high-speed,
high-volume travel between major points in both urban
and rural areas.1
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – The total volume of
traffic on a street during a given time period divided by the number of days in that time period.1
Bicycle Boulevard – Bicycle boulevards are streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated
and designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bicycle
boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed
and volume management measures to discourage
through trips by motor vehicles and create safe,
convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets.6 Bicycle Box – Designated area on the approach to
a signalized intersection consisting of an advanced
stop line and bicycle symbols. Bicycle boxes should
be primarily considered to mitigate conflicts between
through bicyclists and right-turning motorists and to
reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists at the beginning of the green signal phase.6
Bicycle Detection – A system of hardware and
software that detects the presence of bicyclists at a
traffic signal and calls the green signal for the activated approach. Bicycle detection may consist of inductive
loops, microwave, magnetometers, or pushbutton
technologies.1
Bicycle Pockets - Bicycle pockets are bicycle through
lanes in between vehicle travel lanes and vehicle rightturn lanes at the approach to an intersection. A bicycle pocket carves out space for bicyclists to improve rider visibility and mitigate conflicts with motorists, primarily to prevent right-turn collisions between
riders and motorists.6
Bicycle Signal – Traffic control device used to improve intersection safety and operations for bicyclists. Bicycle signal heads can be installed at signalized intersections to indicate bicycle signal phases and other bicyclespecific timing strategies.3, 6 Bicycle Signal Head – An assembly of one or more
signal faces that is provided for controlling bicycle traffic movements on one or more intersection approaches.3
Bike Lane – A portion of a roadway that has been
designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs.4
Bike Route – A signed route that is preferred for
bicycling due to low traffic or access to destinations.
Does not necessarily have a delineated or dedicated
space for bicycling.1
Bikeway – Generally, any type of bicycle facility,
including paths in separate rights-of-way and on-street bikeways. Includes bike lanes, paved shoulders, signed
bike routes, and sidepaths.12
Centerline – Line dividing the roadway from opposite
moving traffic. Also the survey line with continuous
stationing for the length of the project.9
Cone of Vision – A transportation safety concept
pertaining to the visual acuity of the human eye and
the area of focus by a motorist or other roadway user.
Motorists tend to focus on the roadway at a distance
three to four times the stopping sight distance. Because of this tendency, as motorists drive at higher speeds,
they are less likely to notice objects, pedestrians, or bicyclists in the area of their peripheral vision.3
Conflict Areas – A two-dimensional zone within which
potential travel paths cross and crashes could occur
between users of the same mode or users of differing
modes. Typical conflict areas include approaches to
intersections, intersections, and driveways.1, 6
Contra-Flow Bikeway – A bikeway (usually a bike lane)
in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic on a one-way street. Contra-flow bikeways require careful
consideration of traffic control and conflicts with motor vehicle traffic.6
333
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
63 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Crossing Island – Raised islands placed on a street at
intersections or midblock locations to separate crossing pedestrians from motor vehicles. Also known as refuge
areas, refuge islands, center islands, pedestrian islands, or median slow points.3
Crosswalk – Legal crosswalks exist at all intersections, whether marked or unmarked. Midblock crosswalks
must be marked in order for pedestrians to legally have the right-of-way.6
Curb Extension – Treatment or application designed
to visually and physically narrow the roadway in order
to create safer and shorter crossing distances for
pedestrians while increasing the available space for
street furniture, benches, plantings, and trees.6
Curb Radius – The radius of the arc formed where two
intersecting curbs meet. Smaller curb radii encourage
slower turning speeds at intersections.1
Curb Ramp – The transition for pedestrians from
the sidewalk to the street. ADA Standards require all
pedestrian crossings to be accessible to people with
disabilities by providing curb ramps at intersections and mid-block crossings as well as other locations where
pedestrians can be expected to enter the street.3
Design Speed – Design speed is a selected speed
used to determine various geometric design features
of the roadway. The assumed design speed should
be logical with respect to the topography, anticipated
operating speed, adjacent land uses, and the functional classification of the roadway.1
Detectable Warning – Standardized feature
usually comprised of truncated domes of a contrasting
color, which are built into, or applied to, walking
surfaces. Detectable warnings alert people with
vision impairments that they have reached a location
where caution should be exercised. At these locations,
visually- impaired pedestrians typically stop and
determine their position relative to the roadway before proceeding further.1
Flexible Delineator Posts – Flexible delineator posts,
also called flex posts or flex stakes, are used to provide vertical demarcation of a roadway feature, including
some bike lanes. These posts are typically made of
plastic with an internal spring mechanism mounted
to a base plate. Flexible delineator posts can be
secured to the pavement using bolts, epoxy, or other
techniques. The color of the plastic post should match
the color of the pavement marking or striping with
which it is associated.1, 6
Grade (site) – The grade of a site is determined by the slope of the ground surface. The slope is calculated
by the vertical difference divided by the horizontal
difference. For example, if a 1-foot vertical elevation change is present over a 50-foot distance, the resulting grade is 1/50 = .02 . This equates to a 2 percent site
grade.11
Horizontal Deflection Treatment – Traffic calming
techniques that compel motorists to reduce their travel speed by changing the width or directionality of travel lanes at defined locations along a street. Examples
include narrow lanes, chicanes, neckdowns, traffic
circles, and curb extensions.9
Landing Area – A level area at a curb ramp or raised
crossing with less than 2 percent grade or cross slope, designed for wheelchair users to wait, maneuver into or out of a curb ramp, or to bypass a ramp altogether.1
Lane Diet – See Lane Narrowing.
Lane Narrowing – A design strategy used for traffic
calming effects and for reallocating existing pavement
width to create designated space for other uses,
including bicycle lanes.3
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) – At intersections
with high pedestrian volumes and high conflicting
turning vehicle volumes, a brief leading pedestrian
interval may be used, during which an advance
WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) indication
is displayed for the crosswalk while red indications
continue to be displayed to parallel through and/or
turning traffic. The LPI may be used to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles. If a leading
pedestrian interval is used, it should be timed to allow pedestrians to cross at least one lane of traffic or to travel far enough for pedestrians to establish their
position ahead of the turning traffic before the turning traffic is released. Chapter 4E of the MUTCD provides
specifications regarding pedestrian signals.4
Local Road – Locally classified roads account for the
largest percentage of all roadways in terms of mileage.
Local roads are not intended for long-distance travel,
instead providing direct access to abutting land on the origin and/or destination end of a trip. Local roads are often designed to discourage through traffic.3
Mast Arm – A structure, also referred to as a
cantilevered signal structure, that is rigidly attached to a vertical pole and is used to provide overhead support of traffic signal faces or grade crossing signal units. Traffic control signs may also be mounted to a mast arm.4
334
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 64
Mid-Block Crossing – Designated crosswalks away
from an established intersection provided to facilitate crossings at places where there is a significant
pedestrian desire line such as bus stops, parks, and
building entrances.6
Mixing Zone – A mixing zone requires turning
motorists to merge across a separated bike lane at a
defined location in advance of an intersection. Unlike a standard bike lane, where a motorist can merge across
at any point, a mixing zone design limits bicyclists’
exposure to motor vehicles by defining a limited
merge area for the turning motorist. Mixing zones are
compatible only with one-way separated bike lanes.3
Mountable Curb/Truck Apron – Mountable curbs
with curb aprons deter passenger vehicles from making
higher-speed turns but accommodate the occasional
large vehicle without encroachment or off-tracking into pedestrian areas.3
MUTCD – The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices is a compilation of national standards for all
traffic control devices, including traffic signals.4
Neighborhood Traffic Circles – Raised islands
typically built at the intersections of local residential streets to reduce motor vehicle speeds. They may
be operated without stop control, or as two-way or
all-way stop-controlled intersections. Neighborhood
traffic circles frequently do not include raised
channelization to guide approaching traffic into the
circulatory roadway.3, 7
Offset Intersection – Offset intersections are locations where two segments of a street connection do not
directly align where they meet another street. These
configurations are most challenging for bicyclists
when offset local streets serving as bike routes or
bike boulevards intersect with larger collector or
arterial streets.6
Parking T – A short vertical white line to mark the side of a parking space, coupled with a short horizontal
white line crossing it to mark each end of the space.4
Path – Short for “shared use path” and often
synonymous with the word “trail,” a path is a separated facility, typically in an independent right-of-way such as a greenbelt or abandoned railroad. See Shared
Use Path.
Paved Shoulder – Paved area at the edges of rural
roadways. A paved shoulder is suitable for bicyclists if it is at least 4 feet in width.3
Pavement Markings – Pavement markings are used
to convey messages to roadway (or shared use path)
users. They indicate which part of the road to use,
provide information about conditions ahead, and
indicate where passing is allowed. Yellow lines separate traffic flowing in opposite directions. White lines
separate lanes in which travel is in the same direction.
Symbols are used to indicate permitted lane uses.
The MUTCD provides specifications regarding
pavement markings.4
Pedestrian Change Interval – A pedestrian
change interval consists of a flashing UPRAISED
HAND (symbolizing DON’T WALK) signal indication,
and begins immediately following the WALKING
PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal indication. Chapter
4E of the MUTCD provides specifications regarding
pedestrian signals.4
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon – The pedestrian hybrid
beacon (also known as the High-Intensity Activated
crosswalk, or HAWK) is a pedestrian-activated warning
device located on the roadside or on mast arms over
midblock pedestrian crossings. The beacon head
consists of two red lenses above a single yellow lens.
Chapter 4F of the MUTCD includes information on the
pedestrian hybrid beacon and how it should be used.4
Pedestrian Signal Head – Provide special types
of traffic signal indications exclusively intended for
controlling pedestrian traffic. These signal indications consist of the illuminated symbols of a WALKING
PERSON (symbolizing WALK) and an UPRAISED HAND
(symbolizing DON’T WALK). Chapter 4E of the MUTCD
provides specifications regarding pedestrian signals.4
Raised Crosswalk – Traffic calming device at a
pedestrian crossing or crosswalk that raises the entire wheelbase of a vehicle to encourage motorists to
reduce speed.6
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) – Useractuated amber light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersections
or mid-block crosswalks. They can be activated by
pedestrians manually by a push button or passively by a pedestrian detection system.3
Restroom, Plumbed or Vault – A plumbed restroom
is a toilet facility that is fully plumbed with running water. It is connected to a public water line and
sanitary sewer line. A vault restroom is a toilet that
does not have any running water and typically has a
large tank below ground. A vault toilet requires regular maintenance to clear out the vault.2
335
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
65 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Right(s)-of-Way – Land or property that is used
for public purposes including streets, sidewalks,
utilities, etc.
Road Diet – A short-hand term referring to
reconfiguring a roadway to remove lanes in order to
provide more space for pedestrians and bicyclists. Road diets are most typically performed on roadways where
traffic volumes do not necessitate the existing number
of lanes.3
Roadway – The paved portion of a street, from curb to
curb, designed to convey motor vehicle, bicycle, transit, and/or freight traffic.3
Separated Bike Lane – One- or two-way bikeway that
combines the user experience of a sidepath with the onstreet infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. They are physically separated from both motor vehicle and
pedestrian traffic.3
Shared Lane Marking – Shared lane markings (or
“sharrows”) are pavement markings that denote shared
bicycle and motor vehicle travel lanes. The markings are two chevrons positioned above a bicycle symbol, placed
where the bicyclist is anticipated to operate.6
Shared Roadway – Roadway that is open to both
bicycle and motor vehicle travel.1
Shared Use Path – Shared use paths, also commonly
referred to as trails or greenways, are paths designed
for and generally used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and
other non-motorized users. Shared use paths are
generally the preferred type of infrastructure for the
majority of bicyclists in the “interested but concerned” category, due to their separation from the roadway and
vehicular traffic. In many states, the term “trail” refers to an unimproved recreational facility intended for
uses such as walking, hiking, and mountain biking.
Care should be taken when using this term, as in some
parts of the country, trails have distinctly different
design guidelines.1
Shoulder – The portion of the roadway contiguous with
the traveled way that accommodates stopped vehicles,
emergency use, and lateral support of the subbase,
base, and surface courses. Shoulders, where paved,
are often used by bicyclists.1
Sidepath – A separated path along a roadway that
serves people bicycling and walking within the street
right-of-way. Compared to paths in independent
rights-of-way, sidepaths have a higher likelihood of
interactions with motor vehicles at driveways and
intersections.1
Sidewalk Buffer – The space between the sidewalk
and the adjacent roadway designed to improve
pedestrian safety and to enhance the overall walking
experience. Sidewalk buffers also provide an area
for snow storage and splash protection for pedestrians, as well as space for curb ramps, light poles and
traffic signs.1
Sight Distance – Sight distance is the visually
unobstructed distance required to execute a
stopping maneuver (stopping sight distance), pass
another vehicle (passing sight distance), perform an
unexpected maneuver (decision sight distance), or
execute a movement at an intersection (intersection
sight distance). Sight distances depend on roadway
geometry, travel speeds, deceleration rates, and
reaction times.1
Signal Timing – The process of selecting appropriate
values for timing parameters implemented in traffic
signal controllers and associated system software.8
Signal Warrant – Traffic control signal warrants
define the minimum conditions under which installing
traffic control signals might be justified. An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be
performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C of the MUTCD provides specifications regarding traffic control signal warrants. Warrants for installation of multi-way stop sign control are provided in Chapter 2B of the MUTCD.4
Signalized Intersection – Intersection between two
traveled ways (roadway/roadway or roadway/shared
use path) where user movements are regulated by a
traffic control signal.3
Speed Cushion – Speed cushions are either speed
humps or speed tables that include wheel cutouts to
allow large vehicles to pass unaffected, while reducing passenger car speeds. Speed cushions extend across
one direction of travel from the centerline, with a
longitudinal gap provided to allow vehicles with wide
wheel bases to straddle the hump.6
336
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 66
Speed Hump – Parabolic vertical traffic calming devices intended to slow traffic speeds on low-volume, lowspeed streets.6 Steep Grade – Steep grades in landscaped areas are
grades exceeding a slope of 4 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) or 25 percent. Steep grades along a trail are typically 5 percent or greater. Refer to ADA and AASHTO for steep
grade recommendations.11
Stop Bar – Solid white pavement marking line
extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which a stop is intended or required to be made.4
Street – A public corridor designed to provide access
to businesses, housing, parks, and civic buildings within a city. The entire right-of-way, including sidewalks, the roadway, vegetated buffers, etc. is considered part of
the street.
Street Buffer – The portion of a separated bike
lane design that divides the bike lane from motor
vehicle traffic.5
Traffic Calming – A strategy and toolkit to slow the
speeds of motor vehicle traffic to a “desired speed” by incorporating physical features, such as chicanes, mini traffic circles, speed humps, and curb extensions.3
Traffic Control – Devices such as traffic signals,
warning signs, stop signs, yield signs, and other
regulatory signs.4
Traffic Volume – The number of vehicles passing a
given point over a specific period of time.
Transit Stop– Location where public transportation
vehicles (bus or rail) will stop to allow passengers to board or alight the transit vehicle.10
Transit Stop Wheelchair Landing Pad – The
wheelchair landing is a portion of the waiting pad at a paved bus stop. This landing provides a location with
a curb-height solid surface for buses to “kneel” and
deploy the bus wheelchair ramp. Wheelchair landings
must comply with ADA guidelines.10
Truncated Dome – See Detectable Warning.
Two-Stage Turn Queue Box – Two-stage turn queue
boxes are areas set aside for bicyclists to queue to turn at signalized intersections outside of the traveled path of motor vehicles and other bicycles. In addition to
mitigating conflicts inherent in merging across traffic to turn, two-stage bicycle turn boxes reduce conflicts
between bicycles and pedestrians and separate queued
bicyclists waiting to turn from through bicyclists moving on the green signal.4
Underpass – Grade-separated facility designed to
convey vehicular, bicycle, and/or pedestrian traffic
under an intersecting roadway or railroad.8
Vertical Deflection Treatment – Traffic calming
techniques that compel motorists to reduce their
travel speed by changing the elevation of the roadway
at defined locations along a street. Examples include
speed humps, speed tables, and raised crosswalks.1
Walk Interval – The walk interval is the portion of the signal timing intended for pedestrians to start their
crossing of the roadway. The walk interval should be at least 7 seconds in duration so that pedestrians will have adequate opportunity to leave the curb or shoulder
before the pedestrian clearance time begins, unless
pedestrian volumes and characteristics do not require
a 7-second walk interval, in which case walk intervals
as short as 4 seconds may be used. Chapter 4E of the
MUTCD provides specifications regarding pedestrian
signals.4
Wayfinding – A system of directional signs along
streets or paths that assist people in finding major
destinations. Wayfinding can be designed specifically for drivers, bicyclists, or pedestrians.3
Glossary Resources
1 American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
2 California State Water Resources Control Board
3 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
4 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
5 Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT)
6 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
7 National Center for Safe Routes to School
8 National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP)
9 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
10 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)
11 United States Access Board
12 Caltrans Streets and Highway Manual
337
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
67 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
National Standards and Resources
The publications listed here are excellent resources for planning and design guidance in implementing safe, comfortable accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists in a variety of environments. Many of these resources are available on-line at no cost.
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) (Update anticipated in 2024)
• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)
• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition (2011) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• Bikeway Selection Guide (2019)
Caltrans
• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2014)
• Complete Streets Elements Toolbox
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) • Urban Street Design Guide (2013)
• Transit Street Design Guide (2016)
• Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)
338
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 68
Marked Crosswalks
Legal crosswalks exist at all locations where sidewalks meet the roadway, regardless of whether pavement
markings are present. Drivers are legally required
to yield to pedestrians at intersections, even when
there are no pavement markings. Providing marked
crosswalks communicates to drivers that pedestrians
may be present, and helps guide pedestrians to
locations where they should cross the street. In addition to pavement markings, crosswalks may include signals/
beacons, warning signs, and raised platforms. To help
evaluate marked crosswalk candidates refer to the City
of Clovis Memorandum on Guidance for Uncontrolled
Crosswalk Treatments (2016).
Considerations
• There are many different styles of crosswalk striping and some are more effective than others. Ladder
and continental striping patterns are more visible
to drivers.
• Signal phasing is very important. Pedestrian signal
phases must be timed based on the length of the
crossing. If pedestrians are forced to wait longer than 30 seconds, non- compliance is more likely.
• Raised crossings can calm traffic and increase the
visibility of pedestrians.
• Curb extensions, also known as bulb-outs and bumpouts, reduce the distance pedestrians have to cross and calm traffic.
Guidance
• Place crosswalks on all legs of signalized
intersections, in school zones, and across streets
with more than minimal levels of traffic.
• Crosswalks should be at least 10 feet wide or the
width of the approaching sidewalk if it is greater. In
areas of heavy pedestrian volumes (such as Transit
Station Areas, School Zones, and Main Streets)
crosswalks can be up to 25 feet wide.
• Stop lines at stop-controlled and signalized
intersection approaches should be striped no less
than 4 feet and no more than 30 feet from the edge
of crosswalks.
• For enhanced crossing treatments, refer to the
section of this guide addressing Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons.
• Crosswalks should be oriented perpendicular to
streets, minimizing crossing distances and therefore
limiting the time that pedestrians are exposed to
motor vehicles and other roadway users.
Figure 21: Crosswalks with ladder striping pattern
References
NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide (2013)
ADA Accessibility
Guidelines (2004)
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control
Devices (2009)
Proposed Accessibility
Guidelines for
Pedestrian Facilities
in the Public Right-ofWay (PROWAG) (2011)
Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing
Locations (2018)
Pedestrian Crossing
Treatments
339
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
69 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions, also known as neck downs, bulb-outs,
or bump-outs, are created by extending the sidewalk
at corners or mid-block. Curb extensions are intended
to increase safety, calm traffic, and provide extra space along sidewalks for users and amenities. In addition
to shortening crossing distances, curb extensions
can be used to change the geometry of intersections
resulting in smaller corner radii and slowing turning
motor vehicles.
Considerations
• The turning needs of emergency and larger vehicles
should be considered in curb extension design.
• Care should be taken to maintain direct routes
across intersections by aligning pedestrian desire
lines on either side of the sidewalk. Curb extensions
often make this possible as they provide extra space
for grade transitions.
• Consider providing a 20 feet long curb extension to
restrict parking within 20 feet of an intersection to
enhance visibility.
• When curb extensions conflict with turning
movements, reducing the width and/or length
of the curb extension should be prioritized over
elimination.
• Emergency access is often improved through the use
of curb extensions because intersections are kept
clear of parked cars.
Guidance
• Curb extensions should be considered only where
parking is present or where motor vehicle traffic
deflection is provided through other curbside uses
such as bikeshare stations or parklets.
• Curb extensions are particularly valuable in locations with high volumes of pedestrian traffic, near schools,
at unsignalized pedestrian crossings, or where there
are demonstrated pedestrian safety issues.
• A typical curb extension extends approximately the
width of a parked car (or about 6 feet from the curb).
• The minimum length of a curb extension is the width
of the crosswalk, allowing the curvature of the curb
extension to start after the crosswalk, which should
deter parking; NO STOPPING signs should also be
used to discourage parking. The length of a curb
extension can vary depending on the intended use
(i.e., stormwater management, transit stop waiting
areas, parking restrictions).
• Curb extensions should not reduce a travel lane or a
bicycle lane to an unsafe width.
Figure 22: Curbs extensions
References
AASHTO Guide for
the Development
of Bicycle Facilities
(2012)
NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide (2013) -
Curb Extensions
340
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 70
Median Refuge Islands
Median refuge or crossing islands are raised islands
that provide a pedestrian refuge and allow multi-stage
crossings of wide streets. They can be located mid-block or at intersections and along the centerline of a street, as roundabout splitter islands, or as “pork chop” islands where right-turn slip lanes are present.
Considerations
• There are two primary types of median refuge
islands. The first type provides a cut-through of the
island, keeping pedestrians at street-grade. The
second type ramps pedestrians up above street
grade and may present challenges to constructing
accessible curb ramps unless they are more than
17 feet wide (accommodating for ramp width and
landing area).
• Crossing islands should be considered where
crossing distances are greater than 50 feet. For long
distances, islands can allow multi-stage crossings,
which in turn allow shorter signal phases.
• Crossing islands can be coupled with other traffic
calming features, such as partial diverters and curb
extensions at mid-block and intersection locations.
• At mid-block crossings where width is available,
islands should be designed with a stagger, or in a “Z”
pattern, encouraging pedestrians within the median
to face oncoming traffic before crossing.
Guidance
• Minimum width: 6 feet
• Preferred Width: 10 feet (to accommodate bicyclists
with trailers and wheelchair users)
• Cut-through openings should equal the width of the
crosswalk. Cut-throughs may be wider in order to
allow the clearing of debris but should not encourage
motor vehicles to use the space for U-turns.
• Curb ramps with truncated dome detectable
warnings and 5-foot by 5-foot landing areas are
required when the pedestrians are taken above the
street level.
• A “nose” that extends past the crosswalk is
not required, but is recommended to protect
people waiting on the crossing island and to slow
turning drivers.
• Vegetation and other aesthetic treatments may be
incorporated, but must not obscure visibility.
Figure 23: Intersection Crossing Islands Figure 24: Mid-block Crossing Island with Curb Extensions
References
NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide (2013)
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control
Devices (2009)
341
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
71 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Pedestrian Signals and Leading
Pedestrian Intervals
Pedestrian signal heads display the three intervals of
the pedestrian phase: (1) The Walk Interval, signified
by the WALK indication (or the walking person symbol)
alerts pedestrians to begin crossing the street. (2) The Pedestrian Change Interval, signified by the flashing
DON’T WALK indication (or the flashing hand symbol
and countdown display) alerts pedestrians approaching
the crosswalk that they should not begin crossing the
street. (3) The Don’t Walk Interval, signified by a steady DON’T WALK indication (or the steady upraised hand
symbol) alerts pedestrians that they should not cross
the street.
Considerations
A primary challenge for traffic signal design is
minimizing conflicts between motor vehicle and
pedestrian movements. Intersection geometry and
traffic controls should encourage turning vehicles to
yield the right-of-way to pedestrians. Traffic movements should be analyzed to implement WALK intervals during
non-conflicting phases.
Signal design should also minimize the time that
pedestrians must wait. Requiring pedestrians to wait for extended periods can encourage crossing against the
signal. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual states that
pedestrians have an increased likelihood of risk-taking behavior (crossing against the signal) after waiting
longer than 30 seconds.
Free-flowing right-turn lanes are discouraged at
signalized intersections. Where they are present and
unsignalized, the pedestrian signal and pushbutton
should be located on the channelization (“pork chop”)
island and a yield or crosswalk warning sign should be
placed in advance of the crosswalk.
Guidance: Timing and Activation
• Pedestrian signals should allocate enough time
for pedestrians of all abilities to safely cross the
roadway. The MUTCD specifies a pedestrian
walking speed of 3.5 feet per second to account
for an aging population.
• Countdown pedestrian displays inform pedestrians
of the amount of time in seconds that is available
to safely cross during the flashing DON’T WALK (or
upraised hand) interval. All pedestrian signal heads
should contain a countdown display provided with
the DON’T WALK (or upraised hand) indication.
• In areas with higher pedestrian activity, such as near transit stations, Main Streets, and school zones, push
button actuators may not be appropriate. People
should expect to get a pedestrian cycle at every
signal phase, rather than having to push a button to
call for a pedestrian phase.
Figure 25: Pedestrian signal
References
FHWA. Manual on
Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. 2009.
NACTO. Urban Street
Design Guide. 2013.
342
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 72
Guidance: Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
The Leading Pedestrian Interval initiates the pedestrian WALK indication three to seven seconds before motor
vehicles traveling in the same direction are given the
green indication. This signal timing technique allows
pedestrians to enter the intersection prior to turning
vehicles, increasing visibility between all roadway users. • The LPI should be used at intersections with high
volumes of pedestrians and conflicting turning
vehicles, and at locations with a large population of
elderly or school children who tend to walk slower.
• A lagging protected left arrow for vehicles should be provided to accommodate the LPI.
• If an intersection has particularly high pedestrian
traffic, consider lengthening the leading pedestrian
interval or adding an exclusive pedestrian phase
instead of a leading pedestrian interval.
• If an intersection has such high pedestrian
volumes that motorists are unable to turn across
the crosswalk, the green interval for the parallel
concurrent vehicle traffic can be set to extend
beyond the pedestrian interval to provide turning
drivers with sufficient green time to make their turns. • The LPI should be accompanied by an audible noise
to inform visually-impaired pedestrians that it is safe to cross.
• LPIs may be less effective when used at intersections without right-turn-on-red restrictions.
Guidance: Protected Signal Phasing
Protected phases at intersections provide a way to
separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian and/or
bicyclist movements, particularly for left-turns when
concurrent phasing would result in a conflict with
crossing pedestrians and left-turning vehicles and
right-turns when concurrent phasing would result in a
conflict with through bicyclists or crossing pedestrians and right-turning vehicles.
Signal timing decisions should consider the needs
of pedestrians, bicyclists, trucks, buses, and other
motor vehicles.
Protected signal phasing may be appropriate at the
following locations:
• Urban areas, particularly downtown locations.
• Intersections with a history of left- or right-hook
crashes with pedestrians (or bicyclists).
• Intersections with high volumes of pedestrians (or
bicyclists) and turning vehicles.
343
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
73 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
(PHB)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, including the Highintensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK), are a type of hybrid signal intended to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to stop traffic to cross high-volume arterial streets. This type of signal may be used in lieu of a
full signal that meets any of the traffic signal control warrants in the MUTCD. To help evaluate marked
crosswalk candidates with a PHB refer to the City of
Clovis Memorandum on Guidance for Uncontrolled
Crosswalk Treatments (2016). It may also be used at
locations which do not meet traffic signal warrants but where assistance is needed for pedestrians or bicyclists to cross a high-volume arterial street.
Considerations
• While this type of device is intended for pedestrians, it can be beneficial to retrofit it for bicyclists as
several cities have done, using bicycle detection
and bicycle signal heads on major cycling networks.
Depending upon the detection design, the agency
implementing these devices may have the option to
provide different clearance intervals for bicyclists and pedestrians. The provision of bicycle signal heads
would require permission to experiment from FHWA.
Guidance
• The MUTCD recommends minimum volumes of 20
pedestrians or bicyclists an hour for major arterial
crossings (volumes exceeding 2,000 vehicles/hour).
• This type of device should be considered for all
arterial crossings in a bicycle network and for path
crossings if other engineering measures are found
inadequate to create safe crossings.
• Pushbutton actuators should be “hot” (respond
immediately when pressed), be placed in convenient
locations for all users, and abide by other ADA
standards. Passive signal activation, such as video or
infrared detection, may also be considered.
• See FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian
Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
publication and the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices to determine warrants for traffic
control at midblock crossings.
Figure 26: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
References
NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide (2013)
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control
Devices (2009)
FHWA Guide
for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing
Locations (2018)
344
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 74
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB)
At some uncontrolled crossings, particularly those
with four or more lanes, it can be difficult to achieve compliance with laws that require motorists to yield
to pedestrians. Vehicle speeds and poor pedestrian
visibility combine to create conditions in which very
few drivers are compelled to yield. One type of
device proven to be successful in improving yielding
compliance at these locations is the Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB). RRFBs combine a pedestrian
crossing sign with a bright flashing beacon that is
activated only when a pedestrian is present. To help
evaluate marked crosswalk candidates with a RRFB
refer to the City of Clovis Memorandum on Guidance for
Uncontrolled Crosswalk Treatments (2016).
Considerations
RRFBs are considerably less expensive to install than
mast arm-mounted signals. They can also be installed
with solar power panels to eliminate the need for an
external power source.
RRFBs should be limited to locations with critical safety concerns, and should not be installed in locations with sight distance constraints that limit the driver’s ability to view pedestrians on the approach to the crosswalk.
RRFBs should be used in conjunction with advance stop
bars and signs.
RRFBs are usually implemented at high-volume
pedestrian crossings, but may also be considered for
priority bicycle route crossings or locations where bike facilities cross roads at mid-block locations.
Guidance
• The design of RRFBs should be in accordance with
FHWA’s Interim Approval 11 (IA-11) for Optional
Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons issued
July 16, 2008 and the Interpretation Letter 4(09)-41 (I) - Additional Flash Pattern for RRFBs issued
July 25, 2014.
• RRFBs can be used when a signal is not warranted at
an unsignalized crossing. They are not appropriate at
intersections with signals or STOP signs.
• RRFBs are installed on both sides of the roadway at
the edge of the crosswalk. If there is a pedestrian
refuge or other type of median, an additional beacon
should be installed in the median.
• See FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian
Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
publication and the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices to determine warrants for traffic
control at midblock crossings.
Figure 27: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
References
NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide (2013)
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control
Devices (2009)
FHWA Guide
for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing
Locations (2018)
345
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
75 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing Signs
In-street pedestrian crossing signs (MUTCD R-16)
are a low-cost sign treatment which can be used to
encourage slower driving speeds and increase the
likelihood that drivers will yield to pedestrians crossing the street. The sign may be placed on lane lines or in
the gutter of the roadway by the curb. The placement
of two or more signs at one crossing is referred to as
a gateway treatment and requires motorists to drive
between the signs. Gateway treatments have been
shown to increase motorist awareness of the crossing,
reduce approach speeds, and to improve yielding rates.
Considerations
• Recommended for use in combination with highvisibility crosswalk markings, and curb ramps. May also be combined with curb extensions, crossing
islands, warning signs (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-
15, or S1-1), and lighting.
• On multilane approaches, advance yield/stop
lines and Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here
to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) are
recommended.
• The narrower the gap between the signs, the more
effective the gateway treatment.
• A rubberized curb sign base may increase the
longevity of the device.
Guidance
• Applicable at uncontrolled crossings on roads with
speed limits of 30 miles per hour or less.
• Applicable at uncontrolled crossings on roads with
speed limits of 35 miles per hour with average
annual daily traffic levels below 12,000.
• The signs should be placed on both sides of all
travel lanes.
• The signs may be located on a center line, a median
or crossing island, on a lane line, within a gutter, or near the curb at the edge of the street to create the
gateway effect.
• The signs should be placed at the crosswalk, but
neither the sign nor the sign base should be within
the crosswalk or on the crosswalk lines.
References
Transportation
Research Board
Guidance to Improve
Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Safety at
Intersections (2020)
Figure 28: Crossing Sign
346
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 76
Raised Crossings
Vertical traffic calming treatments such as speed
tables and raised crosswalks compel motorists to
slow their speeds which improves safety and comfort
for pedestrians and bicyclists. Raised crosswalks
are created by raising the crossing to the level of
the sidewalk. Raised crosswalks are speed tables,
or trapezoid-shaped speed humps with a marked
crosswalk across the top of the table. These treatments provide an array of benefits especially for people with mobility and visual impairments because there are no
vertical transitions to navigate. The following is best practice guidance for raised crosswalks.
Considerations
• Consider using raised crosswalks and speed tables
at intersections to slow traffic turning onto a trafficcalmed street from a major street. • Raised crossings and speed tables are appropriate
in areas of high pedestrian demand, including
commercial and shopping districts, campuses, and
school zones. They should also be considered at
locations where pedestrian visibility and motorist
yielding have been identified as issues.
• Raised crossings and speed tables are particularly
valuable at unsignalized mid-block locations,
where drivers are less likely to expect or yield to
pedestrians.
• Raised crossings can be provided along side streets
of major thoroughfares to slow traffic exiting the
main street.
• Raised crossings should provide pavement markings
for motorists and appropriate signage at crosswalks
per the MUTCD.
• Raised crossings and speed tables may not be
appropriate for high-speed roadways. Vehicle
speeds, volumes, and the types of vehicles using
the roadways are also factors to consider when
implementing raised crossings.
Guidance
• Raised crossings require detectable warnings for the
visually impaired at the curb line to indicate where
the roadway begins.
• High-visibility or textured paving materials can
be used to enhance the contrast between the raised
crossing or intersection and the
surrounding roadway.
• Raised crossings can be used as gateway treatments
to signal to drivers when there are transitions to
a slower speed environment that is more
pedestrian-oriented.
• Designs should be carefully thought out to ensure
proper drainage. Raised intersections can simplify
drainage inlet placement by directing water away
from the intersection. If the intersecting streets are
sloped, catch basins should be placed on the high
side of the intersection at the base of the ramp.
• Design speeds and emergency vehicle routes must
be considered when designing approach ramps.
References
NACTO. Urban
Bikeway Design
Guide. 2014.
NACTO. Urban Street
Design Guide. 2013.
347
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
77 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Potential Bicycle Users
The figure below illustrates a typical range of bicyclists.
Estimates show the greatest percentage of the
population—over half—fall into the “Interested but
Concerned” category. The “Interested but Concerned”
are most comfortable biking when separated from
motorized vehicles. On the other end of the spectrum,
“Highly Confident” people are comfortable sharing the
road with motorized vehicles. In the middle, “Somewhat
Confident” people are comfortable biking for short
distances with motorized vehicles.
Source: Dill, Jennifer and McNeil, Nathan, Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, January 12, 2016.
Bicycle facility selection
guidance
51-56%
Interested
but Concerned
31-37%
Not Able or
Interested
Types of
Bicyclists
4-7%
Highly
Confi dent
5-9%
Somewhat
Confi dent
Highly Confident bicyclist will ride in
any road conditions or environment.
These types of bicyclists include
adults who regularly commute by
bicycle and bicyclists who are willing
to ride on roads with little to no
dedicated bicycle infrastructure.
Somewhat Confident bicyclists will
ride comfortably on most types of
streets, but may be uncomfortable in
certain situations or road conditions.
People who identify as Not Able or
Interested will not (or cannot) ride a
bicycle. No matter the circumstances.
Interested but Concerned bicyclists
require physical bicyle infrastructure
improvements before they will want
to ride. They typically do not feel
comfortable sharing the lane with
motor vehicles or riding adjacent to
high-speed and high-volume traffic.
This group represent the largest
segment of the population and
typically includes children, the elderly,
and non-regular adult bicyclists.
These types of riders prefer off-street
bicycle facilities or bicycling on lowspeed low-volume streets. 348
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 78
Facility Selection
The facility selection chart below can be used to guide decisions about which bikeway to install based on
motor vehicle speed and traffic volumes. This chart
is applicable for urban and suburban contexts. It was
developed with the needs of “interested but concerned”
bicyclists in mind.
“Interested but concerned” bicyclists prefer physical
separation as traffic volumes and speeds increase. The
bikeway facility selection chart below identifies bikeway facilities that improve operating environment for this
bicyclist type at different roadway speeds and traffic
volumes. Many “highly confident” bicyclists will also
prefer bikeway treatments noted in this chart. Selecting facility types based on this chart is recommended in
order to serve the largest share of the population and
increase bicycling in the community.
Source: Bikeway Selection Guide, Federal Highway Administration, 2019 349
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
79 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Bicycle facility overview
Shared-Use Paths and Trails
(Class 1)
Shared-use paths can generally be considered on any
road with one or more of the following characteristics:
• Total traffic lanes: 3 lanes or more
• Posted speed limit: 30 miles per hour or higher
• Average Daily Traffic: 9,000 vehicles or more
• Parking turnover: frequent
• Bike lane obstruction: likely to be frequent
• Streets that are designated as truck or bus routes
Shared-use paths may be preferable to separated bike
lanes in low density areas where pedestrian volumes
are anticipated to be fewer than 200 people per hour
on the path.
Separated Bike Lane (Class 4)
Separated bike lanes can generally be considered
on any road with one or more of the following
characteristics:
• Total traffic lanes: 3 lanes or more
• Posted speed limit: 30 miles per hour or higher
• Average Daily Traffic: 9,000 vehicles or more
• Parking turnover: frequent
• Bike lane obstruction: likely to be frequent
• Streets that are designated as truck or bus routes
Preferred in higher density areas, adjacent to
commercial and mixed-use development, and near
major transit stations or locations where observed or
anticipated pedestrian volumes will be higher.
Buffered Bike Lane (Class 2)
Buffered bike lanes can generally be considered on any
road with one or more of the following characteristics:
• Total traffic lanes: 3 lanes or fewer
• Posted speed limit: 30 miles per hour or lower
• Average Daily Traffic: up to 9,000 vehicles
• Parking turnover: infrequent.
• Bike lane obstruction: likely to be infrequent
21 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf • Where a separated bike lane or shared-use path is
infeasible or not desirable due to cost, lack of public support, etc.
• Buffer may be located on the parking lane side of the bike lane, the travel lane side of the bike lane, or on both sides of the bike lane.
Bike Lane (Class 2)
• Conventional bike lanes can generally be considered
on any road with one or more of the following
characteristics:
• Total traffic lanes: 3 lanes or fewer
• Posted speed limit: 30 miles per hour or lower
• Average Daily Traffic: up to 7,500 vehicles
• Parking turnover: infrequent
• Bike lane obstruction: likely to be infrequent
• Where a separated bike lane or shared-use path is
infeasible or not desirable
Shoulder Bikeway (Class 3)
Shoulder bike lanes can generally be considered on any
road without on-street parking and one or more of the
following characteristics:
• Total traffic lanes: 3 lanes or fewer
• Average Daily Traffic: up to 7,500 vehicles
• Shoulder obstruction: likely to be infrequent
• Where a separated bike lane or shared-use path is
infeasible or not desirable
The minimum width of a shoulder bikeway is 4 feet
(exclusive of the gutter if one exists). Wider shoulders should be provided on streets or roads with average
daily traffic higher than 3,500 vehicles. To increase
comfort on Class III bike route shoulders, rumble
strips should be placed between the shoulder and the
adjacent travel lane, and minimum widths should follow
the Federal Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks
guidance.21
Shared Roadway (Class 3)
Shared roadways can be considered on any road with
one or more of the following characteristics:
• Total traffic lanes: 3 lanes or fewer
• Posted speed limit: 25 miles per hour or lower
350
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 80
• Average Daily Traffic: Up to 3,000 vehicles
• Where a separated bike lane or shared-use path is
infeasible or not desirable
Class 1: Shared-Use Paths
and Trails
A shared use-path is a two-way facility that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized
users. Shared-use paths, also referred to as trails, are often located in an independent alignment, such as a
greenbelt or abandoned railroad right-of-way. Shareduse paths may make up a network or system of routes designed specifically for off-street travel and are used for recreation, leisure, and commuting trips.
Considerations
• Shared-use paths should not be used to preclude
on-street bicycle facilities, but rather to supplement a network of on-street bikeways. In some situations it
may be appropriate to provide an on-street bikeway
in addition to a shared-use path along the same
roadway.
• Shared-use paths make up a network or system of
routes designed specifically for off-street travel.
• These paths are located along waterways, within
parks and open spaces, along roadways, and through
easements and rights-of-way for utilities.
• Shared-use paths are appropriate when an onstreet route may be too dangerous due to traffic volumes and speeds, to provide a direct route
between points of interest, or when the majority of
users are recreational or leisure users, ‘interested
but concerned’ users, or users with a slower travel
speed, such as children or older adults.
Guidance
• Shared-use paths typically have a lower design
speed for bicyclists than on-street facilities and may
not provide appropriate accommodation for more
confident bicyclists who desire to travel at greater
speeds. In addition, greater numbers of driveways or
intersections along a sidepath corridor can decrease
bicycle travel speeds and traffic signals can increase
delay for bicyclists on shared-use paths compared to
cyclists using in-street bicycle facilities such as bike lanes. Therefore, paths should not be considered
a substitute to accommodating more confident
bicyclists within the roadway.
• Conflicts between path users and motor vehicles
at intersections and driveways can be reduced
by minimizing the number of driveway and street
crossings present along a path, selecting alignments
with fewer crossings, and otherwise providing
high-visibility crossing treatments. In areas with
high concentrations of driveways and intersections,
on-street accommodations (including bike lanes and
separated bike lanes) are likely to be safer.
• Lighting should be provided at path/roadway
intersections at a minimum and at other locations
where personal security may be an issue or where
nighttime use is likely to be high.
Figure 29: Shared-use path
References
AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012)
FHWA Shared Use
Path Level of Service
Calculator (2006)
351
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
81 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Shared-Use Paths and
Trails: Separation
Considerations
• Trails with high use may require pedestrians and
bicyclists to be separated.
• Trails on steep grades (3 to 5 percent) should be
wider to account for higher bicycle speed in the
downhill direction and additional space for faster
bicyclists to pass slower bicyclists and pedestrians in the uphill direction.
• On sections with long steep grades, provide periodic
sections with a flat grade to permit users to stop
and rest.
• Consider providing amenities such as restrooms,
bike racks, and potable water at trailheads, and
covered rest stops along the trail to ensure that
paths are welcoming to a variety of user types,
including families with children and older adults.
• Consider providing maps and signs to improve
wayfinding for users, such as signs that show
trail names, connections to nearby trails, and/or
nearby destinations.
Minimizing user conflicts
• Vertical objects close to the path edge can endanger
users and reduce the comfortable usable width of
the path. Vertical objects should be set back at
least 3 feet from the edge of the path, for a height
of 8 feet.
• 3 foot wide (minimum) shoulders provide space for
users who step off the path to rest or to allow users
to pass one another.
• Include signage that dictates yielding responsibilities to reduce conflict between different types of
trail users.
• The most applicable design guidance for shareduse path design at intersections is the Dutch CROW Manual. Its guidelines recommend 16-23
feet of setback from the curbline of the parallel
road, with the path offset bend beginning at least
115 feet from the intersection with curve radii
at least 39 feet (which serves to slow bicyclists).
These recommendations are for intersections
between arterial roads and collector/local roads.
For intersections between two arterial roads, the
crossings should be closer to the intersection and
bicycle-specific signal heads should be used.
Figure 30: Two-way shared use path with
mixed users
Figure 31: Two-way shared use path with
separated users
References
FHWA Shared Use
Path Level of Service
Calculator (2006)
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices
(2009)
352
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 82
Class 2: Bicycle Lane
Bicycle lanes provide an exclusive space for bicyclists in the roadway. Bicycle lanes are established through
the use of lines and symbols on the roadway surface.
Bicycle lanes are for one-way travel and are normally
provided in both directions on two-way streets and/
or on one side of a one-way street. Bicyclists are not
required to remain in a bicycle lane when traveling on
a street and may leave the bicycle lane as necessary
to make turns, pass other bicyclists, or to properly
position themselves for other necessary movements.
Bicycle lanes may only be used temporarily by vehicles
accessing parking spaces and entering and exiting
driveways and alleys.
Considerations
• Typically installed by reallocating existing
street space.
• Can be used on one-way or two-way streets.
• Contra flow bicycle lanes may be used on short
segments of streets that are designated for oneway motor vehicle travel to improve bicycle network connectivity. They are best suited on streets in more
urban contexts with lower speeds and volumes.
• Stopping, standing, and parking in bike lanes is
prohibited and may be problematic in areas of
high parking demand and deliveries, especially in
commercial areas.
• Wider bike lanes or buffered bike lanes are
preferable at locations with high parking turnover.
• Bike lanes can be placed on the left side of one-way
streets and some median-divided streets, resulting in
fewer conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles,
particularly on streets with heavy right-turn volumes,
on-street parking, and/or frequent bus service.
Guidance
• The minimum width of a bike lane adjacent to a
curb is 5 feet exclusive of a gutter (4 feet in highly
constrained locations); a desirable width is 6 feet.
• The minimum width of a bike lane adjacent to
parking is 5 feet; a desirable width is 6 feet.
• Optional parking T’s or hatch marks can highlight
the door zone on constrained corridors with high
parking turnover to guide bicyclists away from motor
vehicle doors.
Figure 34: Bike Lane
Adjacent to a Curb
Figure 33: Bike Lane
Adjacent to Parking
Figure 32: Bike Lane with Door
Zone Marking
References
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)
A
A
B
B
C
C
353
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
83 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Class 2: Buffered Bicycle Lane
Buffered bike lanes are created by painting or otherwise creating a flush buffer zone between a bicycle lane and the adjacent travel lane. While buffers are typically used between bicycle lanes and motor vehicle travel lanes to increase bicyclists’ comfort, they can also be provided between bicycle lanes and parking lanes in locations
with high parking turnover to discourage bicyclists from riding too close to parked vehicles.
Considerations
• Preferable to a conventional bicycle lanes when used
as a contra-flow bike lane on one-way streets.
• Typically installed by reallocating existing
street space.
• Can be used on one-way or two-way streets.
• Consider placing buffer next to parking lane where
there is commercial or metered parking.
• Consider placing buffer next to travel lane where
speeds are 30 miles per hour or greater or when
traffic volume exceeds 6,000 vehicles per day.
• Where there is 7 feet of roadway width available for a bicycle lane, a buffered bike lane should be installed
instead of a conventional bike lane. The preferred
configuration is a 5-foot or wider bike lane.
and an 18-inch or wider buffer. Typical buffer widths
are 3 to 5 feet.
• Buffered bike lanes allow bicyclists to ride side by
side or to pass slower moving bicyclists.
• Research has documented buffered bicycle lanes
increase the perception of safety.
Guidance
• The minimum width of a buffered bike lane adjacent
to parking or a curb is 4 feet exclusive of gutter (if
present); a desirable width is 6 feet.
• The minimum buffer width is 18 inches. There is no
maximum width. Diagonal cross hatching should
be used for buffers <3 feet in width. Chevron cross
hatching should be used for buffers >3 feet in width.
• Buffers are to be broken where curbside parking is
present to allow cars to cross the bike lane.
Figure 35: Buffered Bike Lane
Adjacent to Curb
Figure 36: Buffered Bike Lane Adjacent to
a Parking
References
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)
Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track & SW Stark/Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes. Final Report. (2011) A
A
A A
B
B
B B
C
C
354
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 84
Class 3: Shared Roadway/
Bicycle Route
Shared lane markings (or “sharrows”) are pavement
markings that denote shared bicycle and motor
vehicle travel lanes. These markings can be placed on
streets to designate bike routes and to alert drivers
to expect bicyclists in the travel lane. The markings
are two chevrons positioned above a bicycle symbol,
placed where the bicyclist is anticipated to operate. In general, this is a design solution that should only be
used in locations with low traffic speeds and volumes
as part of a signed route or bicycle boulevard. Bike
Routes are sometimes used as a temporary solution on
constrained, higher-traffic streets (up to 10,000 vehicles per day) until additional right-of-way can be acquired, but should not be considered a permanent solution in
these contexts.
Considerations
• Typically used on local, collector, or minor arterial streets with low traffic volumes. Commonly used
on bicycle boulevards to reinforce the priority
for bicyclists.
• Typically feasible within existing right-of-way and
pavement width even in constrained situations that
preclude dedicated facilities.
• May be used as interim treatments to fill gaps
between bike lanes or other dedicated facilities for
short segments where there are space constraints.
• May be used for downhill bicycle travel in
conjunction with climbing lanes intended for
uphill travel.
• Typically supplemented by signs, especially Bikes
May Use Full Lane (R4-11).
Guidance
• Intended for use only on streets with posted speed
limits of up to 25 miles per hour and traffic volumes
of less than 4,000 vehicles per day.
• May be used as a temporary solution on
constrained streets with up to 10,000 vehicles
per day until a more appropriate bikeway facility
can be implemented.
• Intended for use on lanes up to 14 feet wide (up
to 13 feet preferred). For lanes 15 feet wide or
greater, stripe a 4-foot bike lane instead of using
shared lane markings.
• The marking’s centerline must be at least 4 feet
from curb or edge of pavement where parking
is prohibited.
• The marking’s centerline must be at least 11 feet
from curb where parking is permitted, so that it is
outside the door zone of parked vehicles.
• For narrow lanes (11 feet or less), it may be desirable to center shared lane markings along the centerline
of the outside travel lane.
Figure 37: Shared roadway
References
AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012)
NACTO Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
Evaluation of
Innovative Bicycle
Facilities: SW Broadway
Cycle Track & SW Stark/
Oak Street Buffered
Bike Lanes. Final
Report. (2011)
355
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
85 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Class 3: Bicycle Boulevard
Bicycle boulevards are a variation of a shared roadway
that incorporate traffic calming treatments and facilitate crossings of major streets with the primary goal of
prioritizing bicycle through-travel, while discouraging motor vehicle traffic and maintaining relatively low
motor vehicle speeds. These treatments are typically
applied on quiet streets, often through residential
neighborhoods. Treatments vary depending on context,
but often include traffic diverters, speed attenuators
such as speed humps or chicanes, pavement markings,
and signs. Bicycle boulevards are also known as
neighborhood greenways and neighborhood bikeways,
among other locally-preferred terms.
Considerations
Many cities already have signed bike routes along
neighborhood streets that provide an alternative to
traveling on high-volume, high-speed arterials. Applying bicycle boulevard treatments to these routes makes
them more suitable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities and can reduce crashes as well.
Stop signs or traffic signals should be placed along
the bicycle boulevard in a way that prioritizes the
bicycle movement, minimizing stops for bicyclists
whenever possible.
Bicycle boulevard treatments include traffic calming
measures such as street trees, traffic circles, chicanes, and speed humps. Traffic management devices such
as diverters or semi-diverters can redirect cut-through vehicle traffic and reduce traffic volume while still
enabling local access to the street.
Communities can begin by implementing bicycle
boulevard treatments on one pilot corridor to measure
the impacts and gain community support. The pilot
program should include before-and-after crash studies,
motor vehicle counts, and bicyclist counts on both the
bicycle boulevard and parallel streets. Findings from the pilot program can be used to justify bicycle boulevard
treatments on other neighborhood streets.
Additional treatments for major street crossings may be needed, such as median refuge islands, rapid flashing
beacons, bicycle signals, and pedestrian hybrid beacons or half signals.
Guidance
• Maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 3,000
• Preferred ADT: Up to 1,000
• Target speeds for motor vehicle traffic are typically around 20 miles per hour; there should be a
maximum 15 miles per hour speed differential
between bicyclists and vehicles.
References
AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012)
NACTO Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2012)
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices
(2009)
Fundamentals of
Bicycle Boulevard
Planning & Design
(2009)
Figure 38: Bicycle boulevard
356
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 86
Class 4: Separated Bike Lane
Separated Bike Lanes (also known as protected bike
lanes or cycletracks) are an exclusive bikeway facility type that combines the user experience of a path with
the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane.
They are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. Separated Bike Lanes
are more attractive to a wider range of bicyclists than striped bikeways on higher volume and higher speed
roads. They eliminate the risk of a bicyclist being hit by an opening car door and prevent motor vehicles from
driving, stopping or waiting in the bikeway. They also
provide greater comfort to pedestrians by separating
them from bicyclists operating at higher speeds.
Considerations
Separated bike lanes can provide different levels of
separation:
• Separated bike lanes with flexible delineator posts
(“flex posts”) alone offer the least separation from
traffic and are appropriate as an interim solution.
• Separated bike lanes that are raised with a wider
buffer from traffic provide the greatest level of
separation from traffic, but will often require road
reconstruction.
• Separated bike lanes that are protected from traffic
by a row of on-street parking offer a high degree of
separation.
In constrained environments, reductions should be
made to the street and vehicle space before narrowing
sidewalks and other spaces allocated to pedestrians.
This reduction can include decreasing the number of
travel lanes, narrowing existing lanes or adjusting onstreet parking.
Sidewalk-level bike lanes:
• May encourage pedestrian and bicyclist
encroachment unless discouraged with a continuous
sidewalk buffer.
• Requires no transition for raised bicycle crossings at driveways, alleys or streets.
• May provide level landing areas for parking, loading
or bus stops along the street buffer.
• May reduce maintenance needs by prohibiting debris
build up from roadway runoff.
Figure 39: Two way separated bike lanes
References
AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012)
NACTO Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
MassDOT Separated
Bike Lane Planning and
Design Guide (2015)
FHWA Separated Bike
Lane Planning and
Design Guide (2015)
357
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
87 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Figure 40: One-way separated bicycle
lane widths Figure 41: Two-way separated bicycle lane widths Intermediate-level bike lanes:
• Preserve separation between bicyclists and
pedestrians where sidewalk buffers are eliminated.
• Ensures a detectable edge is provided for people
with vision disabilities.
• May reduce maintenance needs by prohibiting debris
build up from roadway runoff.
• May require careful consideration of drainage design
and in some cases may require catch basins to
manage bike lane runoff.
Street-level bike lanes:
• Preserve separation between bicyclists and
pedestrians where sidewalk buffers are eliminated.
• Ensures a detectable edge is provided for people
with vision disabilities.
• May increase maintenance needs to remove debris
from roadway runoff unless street buffer is raised.
• May require careful consideration of drainage design
and in some cases may require catch basins to
manage bike lane runoff.
Guidance
The recommended minimum width of a one-way
separated bicycle lane is shown in Figure 41. A
constrained bicycle lane width of 4 feet (one-way only) may be used for short distances to navigate around
transit stops, accessible parking spaces, or other
obstacles. The recommended minimum width of a twoway separated bicycle lane is shown in Figure 42. 358
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 88
Separated Bike Lanes at
Driveways
Most bicycle facilities will need to cross streets,
driveways, or alleys at multiple locations along a
corridor. At these locations, the crossings should be
designed to 1) delineate a preferred path for people
bicycling through the intersection with the driveway
and 2) to encourage driver yielding behavior, where
applicable. Bicycle crossings may be supplemented with
green pavement, yield lines, and/or regulatory signs.
Considerations
• Supplemental yield lines, otherwise known as shark’s
teeth, can be used to indicate priority for people
bicycling and may be used in advance of unsignalized
crossings at driveways, at signalized intersections
where motorists may turn across a bicycle crossing
during a concurrent phase, and in advance of bicycle
crossings located within roundabouts.
• Raised bicycle crossings further promote driver
yielding behavior by slowing their speed before the
crossing and increasing visibility of people bicycling.
Guidance
• The bicycle crossing may be bounded by 12-
inch (perpendicular) and 24-inch (parallel) white
pavement dashes, otherwise known as elephant’s
feet. Spacing for these markings should be
coordinated with zebra, continental, or ladder
striping of the adjacent crosswalk.
• The bicycle crossing should be at least 6 feet wide
for one-way travel and at least 10 feet wide for twoway travel, as measured from the outer edge of the elephant’s feet. Bicycle lane symbol markings should
be avoided in bicycle crossings. Directional arrows
are preferred within two-way bicycle crossings.
• Dashed green colored pavement may be utilized
within the bicycle crossing to increase the conspicuity of the crossing where permitted conflicts occur.
Green color may be desirable at crossings where
concurrent vehicle crossing movements are allowed
and where sight lines are constrained, or where
motor vehicle turning speeds exceed 10 miles per
hour.
Figure 42: One-way separated bike lane at a driveway
References
MassDOT Separated
Bike Lane Planning and
Design Guide (2015)
FHWA Separated Bike
Lane Planning and
Design Guide (2015)
359
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
89 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Conflict Area Markings
Conflict area markings are intersection pavement
markings designed to improve visibility, alert all
roadway users of expected behaviors, and to reduce
conflicts with turning vehicles.
Considerations
• The appropriate treatment for conflict areas can
depend on the desired emphasis and visibility.
Dotted lane lines (with or without bike symbols)
may be sufficient for guiding bicyclists through
intersections; however, consider providing enhanced
markings with green pavement and/or symbols
at complex intersections or at intersections with
safety concerns.
• Symbol placement within intersections should
consider vehicle wheel paths and minimize
maintenance needs associated with wheel wear.
• Driveways with higher volumes may require
additional pavement markings such as the
solid colored conflict area marking pictured
above and signage.
• Consideration should be given to using intersection
conflict markings as spot treatments or standard
intersection treatments. A corridor-wide treatment
can maintain consistency; however, spot treatments
can be used to highlight conflict locations.
Guidance
• The width of conflict area markings should be
as wide as the bike lanes on either side of the
intersection.
• Dotted white lane lanes should conform to the latest
edition of the MUTCD. These markings can be used
through different types of intersections based on
engineering judgment.
• A variety of pavement marking symbols can enhance
intersection treatments to guide bicyclists and warn
of potential conflicts.
• Green pavement markings can be used along the
length of a corridor or in select conflict locations.
Bicycle Intersection
Design and Spot
Treatments
Figure 43: Conflict area markings
References
AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012)
NACTO Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices
(2009)
360
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 90
Bike Box
A bicycle box provides dedicated space between the
crosswalk and vehicle stop line where bicyclists can
wait during the red light at signalized intersections. The bicycle box allows a bicyclist to take a position in front of motor vehicles at the intersection, which improves
visibility and motorist awareness, and allows bicyclists to “claim the lane” if desired. Bike boxes aid bicyclists in making turning maneuvers at the intersection, and
provide more queuing space for multiple bicyclists than that provided by a typical bicycle lane.
Considerations
In locations with high volumes of turning movements
by bicyclists, a bicycle box should be used to allow
bicyclists to shift towards the desired side of the
travel way. Depending on the position of the bicycle
lane, bicyclists can shift sides of the street to align themselves with vehicles making the same movement
through the intersection.
In locations where motor vehicles can continue straight or cross through a right-side bicycle lane while turning right, the bicycle box allows bicyclists to move to the front of the traffic queue and make their movement
first, minimizing conflicts with the turning. When a
bicycle box is implemented in front of a vehicle lane
that previously allowed right turn on red, the right turn on red movement must be restricted using signage and
enforcement following installation of the bike box.
Guidance
• Bicycle boxes are typically painted green and are a
minimum of 10 feet in depth and are the width of
the entire travel lane(s).
• Bicycle box design should be supplemented with
appropriate signage according to the latest version
of the MUTCD.
• Bicycle box design should include appropriate
signalization adjustment in determining the
minimum green time.
• Where right-turn lanes for motor vehicles exist,
bicycle lanes should be designed to the left of
the turn lane. If right turns on red are permitted,
consider ending the bicycle box at the edge of the
bicycle lane to allow motor vehicles to make this
turning movement.
References
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide - Bike Boxes (2014)
FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide (2015) Figure 44: Bike box placement
361
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
91 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Bicycle Pockets
Bicycle pockets are bicycle through lanes in between
vehicle travel lanes and vehicle right-turn lanes at the approach to an intersection. A bicycle pocket carves
out space for bicyclists to improve rider visibility and mitigate conflicts with motorists, primarily to prevent right-turn collisions between riders and motorists.
Bicycle pockets are something the City is evaluating
and installing wherever right of way allows. It will
be a standard treatment feature for newly installed
roadways.
Considerations
Bicycle pockets should be used on streets with vehicle
right-turn only lanes, where the right lane terminates
into a turn lane, or where a parking lane transitions into a turn lane at an intersection.
Bicycle pockets should not be used on streets with
double right-turn lanes since these lanes are more
difficult to navigate. Instead, sharrows can be used in the outer right-turn lane to indicate that the lane should be shared between motorists and cyclists. The bicycle
lane should not be terminated before the intersection.
For a street that is not wide enough for a bicycle pocket, sharrows can be used to indicate a combined bicycle/
turn lane.
Guidance
• The bicycle pocket should be placed in between the
vehicle travel lane and the vehicle right-turn lane.
• The vehicle right-turn lane should be no less than 9
feet wide. Right-turn only lanes should be as short
as possible to reduce the speed of traffic driving into the lane.
• Required signage is R3-7R Right Lane Must Turn
Right and R4-4 Begin Right Turn Yield to Bikes.
• Dashed white lines that signify the merge area
should begin no less than 50 feet before the
intersection. If the intersection is at a high speed or high-volume roadway, the lines should start no less
than 100 feet before the intersection. Dashed white
lines should be 6 inches wide and 2 feet long with a
6-foot gap between the dashes.
• If the area for vehicles to merge into the right-turn lane occurs at an angle, additional treatments
beyond dashed white lines should be provided, such
as pavement coloring and increased signage.
• A dashed bicycle transition lane into the bicycle
pocket is recommended to be 6 feet wide, with a
minimum width of 4 feet.
• Bicycle detection loops to trigger green signals
for bicyclists when no cars are present should be
provided within the bicycle pocket.
• Maintenance of signage and street marking should
be prioritized, as their effectiveness depends on
References visibility.
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
362
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 92
Two-Stage Turn Box
A two-stage turn queue box should be considered
where bike lanes are continued up to an intersection
and a protected intersection is not provided. The twostage turn queue box designates a space for bicyclists to wait while performing a two-stage turn across a street
at a location outside the path of traffic.
Considerations
FHWA granted interim approval to two-stage turn
queue boxes on July 13, 2017.
Two-stage turn queue box dimensions will vary
based on the street operating conditions, the presence
or absence of a parking lane, traffic volumes and
speeds, and available street space. The turn box may
be placed in a variety of locations including in front of the pedestrian crossing (the crosswalk location may
need to be adjusted), in a ‘jug-handle’ configuration
within a sidewalk, or at the tail end of a parking lane or a median island.
Guidance
• A minimum width of 10 feet is recommended.
• A minimum depth of 6.5 feet is recommended.
• Dashed bike lane extension markings may be used to
indicate the path of travel across the intersection.
• NO TURN ON RED (R10-11) restrictions should
be used to prevent vehicles from entering the
queuing area.
• The use of a supplemental sign instructing bicyclists how to use the box is optional.
• The box should consist of a green box outlined
with solid white lines supplemented with a bicycle
symbol and a turn arrow to emphasize the
crossing direction.
References
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)
MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) FHWA Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Two-Stage Turn Box (2015) Figure 45: Two-stage turn box placement
363
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
93 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Crossing Treatments
While the street segments of a bicycle boulevard
or other traffic-calmed street may be generally
comfortable for bicyclists without significant
improvement, major street crossings must be
addressed to provide safe, convenient and comfortable
travel along the entire route. Treatments provide
waiting space for bicyclists, control cross traffic, or ease bicyclist use by removing traffic control for travel along the bicycle boulevard route.
Considerations
• Adjustments to traffic control such as a Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon or stop sign adjustments may
necessitate a traffic study.
• Median islands may be constructed to require
right-in/right-out turns by motor vehicles while
still allowing left turns by bicyclists at off-set
intersections.
• Numerous treatments exist to accommodate offset
intersection crossings for bicyclists, and the full range of design treatments should be considered in these
situations. These treatments include left turn queue
boxes, two-way center left turn lanes (optionally
designed solely for bicyclists), median left turn
pockets and short sidepath segments.
Guidance
Medians should be a minimum of 6 feet in width,
though 8 feet is desirable to allow adequate space
for a bicycle.
Intersections along a bicycle boulevard route may need
treatment in the following situations:
• Unsignalized crossings of arterial or collector streets with high traffic volumes and speeds.
• Offset intersections where the greenway route
makes two turns in short succession.
Figure 49: Offset Crossing Left Turn Box with Lead-In Bike Lane Figure 46: Bicycle Box with Lead-In Bike Lane
Figure 48: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Figure 47: Median Diverter
References
Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design (2009) NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)
Portland’s Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report (2015) 364
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 94
Bicycle Signals, Detection,
and Actuation
Bicyclists have unique needs at signalized intersections.
Bicycle movements may be controlled by the same
indications that control motor vehicle movements, by
pedestrian signals, or by bicycle-specific traffic signals.
The introduction of separated bike lanes creates
situations that may require leading or protected phases for bicycle traffic, or place bicyclists outside the cone of vision of existing signal equipment. In these situations, provision of signals for bicycle traffic will be required.
Considerations
• Bicycle-specific signals may be appropriate to
provide additional guidance or separate phasing
for bicyclists per the 2012 AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities.
• It may be desirable to install advanced bicycle
detection on the intersection approach to extend
the phase, or to prompt the phase and allow for
continuous bicycle through movements.
• Video detection, microwave and infrared detection
can be an alternative to loop detectors.
• Another strategy in signal timing is coordinating
signals to provide a “green wave”, such that bicycles
will receive a green indication and not be required to
stop. Several cities including Denver, CO, Portland,
OR, and San Francisco, CA have implemented “green
waves” for bicycles.
Guidance
• A stationary, or “standing”, cyclist entering the
intersection at the beginning of the green indication
can typically be accommodated by increasing the
minimum green time on an approach per the 2012
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities.
• A moving, or “rolling”, bicyclist approaching the
intersection towards the end of the phase can
typically be accommodated by increases to the
red times (change and clearance intervals) per the
2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities.
• Set loop detectors to the highest sensitivity level
possible without detecting vehicles in adjacent
lanes and field check. Type D and type Q loops are
preferred for detecting bicyclists.
• Install bicycle detector pavement markings and
signs per the MUTCD, 2012 AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, and the NACTO
Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
Figure 50: Bicycle signal
References
AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012)
NACTO Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (2009)
MassDOT Separated Bike
Lane Planning and Design
Guide (2015)
365
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
95 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Mixing Zones
A mixing zone requires turning motorists to merge
across a separated bike lane at a defined location in
advance of an intersection. Unlike a standard bike lane, where a motorist can merge across at any point, a
mixing zone design limits bicyclists’ exposure to motor vehicles by defining a limited merge area for the turning motorist. Mixing zones are compatible only with oneway separated bike lanes.
Considerations
Protected intersections are preferable to mixing zones.
Mixing zones are generally appropriate as an interim
solution or in situations where severe right-of-way
constraints make it infeasible to provide a protected
intersection.
Mixing zones are only appropriate on street segments
with one-way separated bike lanes. They are not
appropriate for two-way separated bike lanes due to
the contra-flow bicycle movement.
Guidance
• Locate merge points where the entering speeds of
motor vehicles will be 20 miles per hour or less by
(a) minimizing the length of the merge area and (b)
locating the merge point as close as practical to the
intersection.
• Minimize the length of the storage portion of the
turn lane.
• Provide a buffer and physical separation (e.g. flexible delineator posts) from the adjacent through lane
after the merge area, if feasible.
• Highlight the conflict area with green surface coloring and dashed bike lane markings, as necessary, or
shared lane markings placed on a green box.
• Provide a BEGIN RIGHT (or LEFT) TURN LANE YIELD
TO BIKES sign (R4-4) at the beginning of the
merge area.
• Restrict parking within the merge area.
• At locations where raised separated bike lanes
approach the intersection, the bike lane should
transition to street elevation at the point where
parking terminates.
• Where posted speeds are 35 miles per hour or
higher, or at locations where it is necessary to
provide storage for queued vehicles, it may be
necessary to provide a deceleration/storage lane in
advance of the merge point.
Figure 51: Mixing zone placement
References
NACTO Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
MassDOT Separated Bike
Lane Planning and Design
Guide (2015)
FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide
(2015)
366
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 96
References
FHWA The Effects of Traffic
Calming Measures on
Pedestrian and Motorist
Behavior (2001)
ITE Traffic Calming Web site
NACTO Urban Street Design
Guide (2013)
NCHRP Research Report
966: Posted Speed Limit
Setting Procedure and Tool
(2021)
The Effect of Speed and Traffic
Calming Treatments
Traffic calming aims to slow the speeds of motorists
to a “desired speed” (usually 20 miles per hour or less for residential streets and 25 to 35 miles per hour for collectors and minor arterials). The greatest benefit
of traffic calming is increased safety and comfort for
all users on and crossing the street. Compared with
conventionally-designed streets, traffic calmed streets typically have fewer collisions and far fewer injuries
and fatalities. These safety benefits are the result of slower speeds for motorists that result in greater driver awareness, shorter stopping distances, and less kinetic energy during a collision.
Considerations
Traffic calming is a program that incorporates a variety of vertical and horizontal treatments to reduce motor
vehicle speeds. Vertical deflection treatments include
speed cushions, speed humps, and raised crosswalks.
Horizontal treatments include chicanes, neck downs,
curb extensions, and traffic circles.
Prior to permanently implementing a traffic calming
measure, it may be useful to introduce a temporary
measure using paint, cones, or street furniture, as
changes can easily be made to the design.
Guidance
• Vertical deflections such as speed humps and speed
cushions should have a smooth leading edge and
be engineered for a speed of 25 to 30 miles per
hour. Speed humps should be clearly marked with
reflective markings and signs.
• Where traffic calming must not slow an emergency
vehicle, traffic calming should focus on horizontal
treatments. If vertical deflection is desired, speed
cushions should be used. Speed cushions provide
gaps spaced for an emergency vehicle’s wheelbase to
pass through without slowing.
• A typical curb radius of 20 feet should be used
wherever possible, including locations with higher
pedestrian volumes and fewer larger vehicles.
Additional Considerations
367
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
97 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Traffic Calming – Vertical
Deflection Treatments
Vertical traffic calming treatments compel motorists to slow speeds. By lowering the speed differential between bicyclists and motorists, safety and bicyclist comfort is increased. These treatments are typically used where
other types of traffic controls are less frequent, for
instance along a segment where stop signs may have
been removed to ease bicyclist travel. The following is best practice guidance for vertical traffic calming.
Considerations
• Typically, speed humps are 12 to 22 feet in length
(perpendicular to the roadway), with a rise of 4 to 6
inches above the roadway. They should extend the
full width of the roadway and should be tapered to
the gutter to accommodate drainage. Speed humps
are not typically used on roads with rural crosssections; however, if they are used on such roads, they should match the full pavement width (including
paved shoulders).
• Speed humps and raised crosswalks impact bicyclist
comfort. The approach profile should preferably be
sinusoidal or flat.
• Speed humps or speed cushions are not typically
used on collector or arterial streets.
• Consider using raised crosswalks at intersections
to slow traffic turning onto the traffic-calmed street
from a major street.
Guidance
Vertical traffic calming will not be necessary on all
traffic-calmed streets but should be considered on any
street with the following characteristic:
• Locations with measured or observed speeding
issues, with 50th percentile of traffic exceeding the
posted limit.
Devices that are continuous across the roadway,
such as speed humps and raised crosswalks, are
more effective for achieving slower speeds than
speed cushions.
Figure 53: Speed cushion
Figure 54: Raised crosswalk
Figure 52: Speed hump
Figure 55: Curve profile options
References
Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design (2009) NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)
Portland’s Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report (2015) 368
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 98
Traffic Calming –
Horizontal Treatments
Horizontal traffic calming reduces speeds by narrowing
lanes, which creates a sense of enclosure and additional friction between passing vehicles. Narrower conditions
require more careful maneuvering around fixed objects
and when passing bicyclists or oncoming motor vehicle
traffic. Some treatments may slow traffic by creating a yield situation where one driver must wait to pass.
Considerations
• Horizontal traffic calming treatments must be
designed to deflect motor vehicle traffic without
forcing the bicycle path of travel to be directed into a merging motorist.
• Neighborhood traffic circles should be considered
at local street intersections to prioritize the through movement of bicyclists (by removing stop control
or converting to yield control) without enabling an
increase in motorist’s speeds.
• Infrastructure costs will range dependent upon
the complexity and permanence of design. Simple,
interim treatments such as striping and flex posts
are low-cost. Curbed, permanent treatments that
integrate plantings or green infrastructure are
higher-cost.
Guidance
Horizontal traffic calming treatments can be
appropriate along street segments or at
intersections where width contributes to higher
motor vehicle speeds. It can be particularly effective
at locations where:
• On-street parking is low-occupancy during most
times of day.
• There is desire to remove or decrease stop control at a minor intersection.
Horizontal treatments are most effective if they
deflect motorists midblock (with chicanes) or within
intersections (with neighborhood traffic circles).
• The size of chicanes will vary based on the targeted
design speed and roadway width, but must
be 20 feet wide curb-to-curb at a minimum to
accommodate emergency vehicles.
Figure 56: Chicane Figure 57: Neck down
Figure 58: Curb extension Figure 59: Neighborhood traffic circle References
Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design (2009) NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014)
Portland’s Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report (2015) 369
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
99 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Lane Narrowing
Lane narrowing can improve comfort and safety for
vulnerable road users. Narrowing lanes creates space
that can be reallocated to other modes, in the form
of wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and buffers between
bicyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles. Space can
also be dedicated to plantings and amenity zones,
and reduces crossing distances at intersections. The
following is best practice guidance for lane narrowing.
Considerations
Narrowing existing motor vehicle lanes may result
in enough space to create separated bicycle lanes,
widened sidewalks and buffers, or a combination of
on-street bike lanes and enhancements to the
pedestrian corridor.
Narrower lanes can contribute to lower operating
speeds along the roadway, which may be appropriate
in dense, walkable corridors.
Guidance
• Motor vehicle travel lanes as narrow as 10 feet are
allowed in low-speed environments (45 miles per
hour or less) according to the AASHTO Green Book.
• 10-foot travel lanes are not appropriate on 4-lane
undivided arterial roadways.
• Along bus routes, lanes should not be narrowed less
than 11 feet to accommodate standard bus widths.
Figure 62: Roadway Before Narrowing
Figure 60: Narrowing motor vehicle lanes to increase amenity zone and bicycle lanes Figure 61: Narrowing motor vehicle lanes to increase sidewalk and amenity zones References
FHWA Achieving
Multimodal
Networks (2016)
370
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 100
Lane Reconfiguration
A road diet is a reduction in overall roadway width,
typically accomplished by removing motor vehicle travel lanes. This strategy can be applied broadly to a wide
variety of cross sections where one or more travel lanes are re-purposed to provide more space for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Road diets are most typically done on
roadways with excess capacity where anticipated traffic volumes have not materialized to support the need for
additional travel lanes.
Considerations
The most common road diet configuration involves
converting a four-lane road to three lanes: two travel
lanes with a turn lane in the center of the roadway. The center turn lane at intersections often provides a great benefit to traffic congestion. A three-lane configuration with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane is often as productive (or more productive) than a fourlane configuration with two lanes in each direction and no dedicated turn lane.
The space gained for a center turn lane is often
supplemented with painted, textured, or raised
center islands. If considered during reconstruction,
raised center islands may be incorporated in between
intersections to provide improved pedestrian crossings, incorporate landscape elements and reduce
travel speeds.
Guidance
• Four-lane streets with volumes less than 15,000
vehicles per day are generally good candidates for
four- to three-lane conversions.
• Four-lane streets with volumes between 15,000 to
20,000 vehicles per day may be good candidates for
four- to three-lane conversions. A traffic analysis is
needed to determine feasibility.
• Six-lane streets with volumes less than 35,000
vehicles per day may be good candidates for sixto five-lane (including two-way center turn lane) conversions. A traffic analysis is needed to determine
feasibility.
Roadway configurations with two travel lanes and a
center turn lane can:
• Discourage speeding and weaving.
• Reduce the potential for rear end and side swipe
collisions.
• Improve sight distances for left-turning vehicles.
• Reduce pedestrian crossing distances and exposure
to motor vehicle traffic.
References
FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide (2014)
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009)
Figure 63: Typical four-lane road with on-street parking Figure 64: Three-lane road diet (with two-way center turn lane), with on-street parking and separated bicycle lane
371
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
101 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Evolution of a bike lane
Separated bike lanes have been implemented in
many cases as low-cost retrofit projects (e.g. using
flex posts and paint within the existing right-ofway). More permanent forms of separation, such as curb-protected bike lanes, cost more and are less
flexible once implemented. A phased implementation
approach, where “pilot” projects transition to
permanent protected bike lanes may solve both of
these problems, by implementing the facility slowly and troubleshooting before permanent materials and high
costs are necessary.
Considerations
Lower-cost retrofits or demonstration projects allow
for quick implementation, responsiveness to public
perception and ongoing evaluation. Separation types
for short-term separated bike lane designs often include non-permanent separation, such as flexible delineator
posts, planters or parking stops. Pilot projects allow the agency to:
• Test the separated bike lane configuration for
bicyclists and traffic operations.
• Evaluate public reaction, design performance, and
safety effectiveness.
• Make changes if necessary.
• Transition to permanent design.
Guidance
Permanent separation designs provide a high level
of protection and often have greater potential for
placemaking, quality aesthetics, and integration with
features such as green stormwater infrastructure.
Agencies often implement permanent separation
designs by leveraging private development (potentially
through developer contribution), major capital
construction, and including protected bike lanes
in roadway reconstruction designs. Examples of
permanent separation materials include rigid bollards,
raised medians and grade-protected bike lanes at an
intermediate or sidewalk level.
References
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013)
FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) Progression from pilot project to separated bike lane
372
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 102
Bike parking
Bicycle parking enhances the effectiveness of bicycle
networks by providing locations for the secure storage
of bicycles during a trip. Bicycle parking enables
bicyclists to secure their bicycles while patronizing
businesses, recreating, and going to work. Bicycle
parking requires far less space than motor vehicle
parking-- in fact, 10 bicycles can typically park in the area needed for a single car.
Considerations
• Bicycle parking consists of a rack that supports
the bicycle upright and provides a secure place for
locking. Bicycle racks should be permanently affixed
to a paved surface. Movable bicycle racks are only
appropriate for temporary use, such as at major
community gatherings.
• On-street bicycle parking is intended for short
term use. Bicyclists typically find a variety of fixed
objects in the street to which they lock their bicycles.
These include parking meters, tree well fences,
lawn fences or other objects. These objects may
satisfy the need for bicycle parking, but if this is the intent, they should be designed and located with
this use specifically in mind. Otherwise, the use of
such objects for parking may indicate insufficient or
inappropriately located bicycle parking facilities.
Guidance
• Bicycle parking facility should not obstruct pedestrian traffic or interfering with the use of the pedestrian
areas.
• Each parked bicycle should be accessible without
moving another bicycle.
• On-street bicycle parking is intended for short term
use.
• Multiple types of racks exist, but all should adhere
to guidance pictured above regarding providing two
points of contact for bike frames to prevent locked
bikes from falling.
• Bicycle rack footings can be mounted in soil,
concrete, or asphalt, or mounted to stable surfaces
using anchors.
References
FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.
NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.
APBP Essentials of Bike Parking: Selecting and Installing Bike Parking that Works (2015) 373
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
103 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design
Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/
multimodal_networks/
ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). United States
Access Board. 2002. https://www.access-board.gov/
guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/aboutthe-ada-standards/background/adaag APBP Essentials of Bike Parking: Selecting and Installing Bike Parking that Works (2015)
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
6th Edition. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2011. (Errata issued November 2013.)
Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (website). Bicycle and Pedestrian
Program. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
2016. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_
pedestrian/guidance/mutcd/index.cfm
Bicycle Parking Guidelines. 2nd Edition. Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP). 2010.
Bikeway Selection Guide. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). 2019/ https://safety.fhwa.dot.
gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf
Dill, Jennifer and McNeil, Nathan, Revisiting the Four
Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, January 12, 2016.
Don’t Give Up at the Intersection: Designing All Ages and Abilities Bicycle Crossings. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2019. https://nacto.
org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/
e for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 4th
Edition. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2012.
Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on
Highways and Streets. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2014.
Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Huang, H. and M. Cynecki. The Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior.
FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-00-104. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). 2001. http://www.pedbikeinfo.
org/collateral/PSAP%20Training/gettraining_references_
EffectsofTrafficCalming.pdf.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic
Calming Website. http://www.ite.org/traffic/
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. http://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. NCHRP Research Report 966: Posted Speed
Limit Setting Procedure and Tool. 2021
Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG). United
States Access Board. 2011. https://www.access-board.
gov/attachments/article/743/nprm.pdf
Road Diet Informational Guide. FHWA Safety Program.
FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA-14-028. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). 2014. http://safety.fhwa.dot.
gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled
Crossing Locations. Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). 2018. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/
step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_
Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf
Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/
publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/
Shared-Use Path Level of Service Calculator: A User’s
Guide. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/
pedbike/05138/05138.pdf
Resources and
Additional Information
374
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 104
way Design Guide. National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2014. http://nacto.org/ publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Urban Street Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2013. http://nacto.org/ publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Walker, L., M. Tresidder, and M. Birk. Fundamentals
of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design.
Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation
(IBPI) and Portland State University. 2009. https://
www.pdx.edu/ibpi/sites/www.pdx.edu.ibpi/files/
BicycleBoulevardGuidebook%28optimized%29.pdf
375
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
C
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
SUMMARY
REPORT
376
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT | 106
Appendix C
Table of Contents
Overview------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 107 Strategies----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107 Survey and Interactive Webmap--------------------------------------------------------------107 Community Cycling Club Presentation -----------------------------------------------------112 Stakeholder Focus Groups ---------------------------------------------------------------------112 Community Meeting-------------------------------------------------------------------------------113 377
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
107 | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT
Overview
The City of Clovis used a variety of outreach strategies to publicize the Active Transportation Plan Update
process and gather input from community members on
existing and desired walking and bicycling conditions.
The planning process included outreach opportunities
that were designed to:
• Engage the community on issues around bicycle and
pedestrian mobility and transportation safety;
• Seek input from a variety of stakeholders and
viewpoints; and
• Document the everyday transportation experience of
Clovis community members.
Strategies
Public input was collected using a variety of strategies during the planning process. These strategies included:
• A survey and interactive web map
• A meeting with the Fresno Cycling Club
• Stakeholder focus groups
• A community meeting
During the public participation process, the City
adhered to all state and local health guidelines
regarding the Covid-19 Pandemic. These guidelines
shifted during the planning process, and outreach
strategies were adjusted to reflect those changes.
Survey and Interactive
Webmap
The City hosted an online survey and interactive
map to collect public feedback on community
members’ experiences walking and biking in
Clovis. The introductory survey asked questions
regarding the participants’ attitudes and comfort
level walking or biking around Clovis, the treatments
that would encourage people to walk or bike more,
and demographic questions. Participants also
had the opportunity to provide feedback using an
interactive, online map to identify areas where they
felt uncomfortable walking or biking, and areas they
Guiding Questions for Outreach:
• Who is and is not participating in decision
making processes?
• How will the Plan’s outcomes benefit
historically underserved community members?
• What are potential burdens and unintended
consequences that might result from the Plan?
378
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT | 108
would like to walk or bike. Participants were allowed
to respond to other users’ comments to encourage
conversation about treatments and their experiences
walking and biking.
The online survey and map were available to the public
from July 28 to September 2, 2021. The City raised
awareness of the survey and map through social media
posts and through the City’s contacts with communitybased organizations and interest groups. Social media posts and other content were translated to Spanish and
Hmong, while the survey and interactive map included a
tool to translate text via Google Translate. In total, there were approximately 75 responses to the survey and 55
pieces of input submitted on the map. Figure 65 above
shows a screenshot of the interactive map.
Feedback about Walking in Clovis
Survey respondents shared their feelings about
walking and what would encourage them to walk
more frequently. Nearly 50 percent of respondents
indicated that they already felt comfortable walking
to most places, and 30 percent indicated that they
were interested but something prevented them (e.g.,
comfort, safety, ability…etc.). Table 13 displays the full distribution of responses to this question.
Almost 70 percent of respondents indicated that more
sidewalks or trails in the community would encourage
them to walk more, followed by more street trees,
shade, and other amenities (38 percent). Respondents
also valued better maintenance of sidewalks and trails
and better lighting (both 34 percent). Additional factors are listed in Table 14. Percentages sum to more than
100 percent because respondents could select more
than one response option for this question.
The addition of more sidewalks and trails was
identified as the most common factor that
would encourage survey respondents to walk
more frequently.
Approximately 70 percent of respondents
indicated they would ride more frequently if
there were more bike lanes or trails.
More comfortable on-street bikeways would
encourage 57 percent of respondents to bicycle
more frequently.
Figure 65: Screenshot of the online, interactive map
379
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
109 | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT
Table 13: Attitudes towards walking
Table 14: Factors that would encourage walking
Which of the following statements most closely matches your feelings about traveling by walking in Clovis? (Select one)
Percentage of
Respondents
I feel comfortable walking to most places 49%
I’m interested, but something (comfort, safety, ability…etc.) prevents me from walking to most places 30%
I walk to my destinations at least some of the time, but I wish it felt more comfortable 8%
I walk to my destinations at least some of the time 7%
I’m not interested in walking anywhere 6%
What would encourage you to ride or walk more frequently? (Select all that apply) Percentage of Respondents
More sidewalks or trails in the community 68%
More street trees, shade, or other amenities 38%
Better maintenance of sidewalks and trails 34%
Better lighting of sidewalks, trails, and roads 34%
More accessible infrastructure (curb ramps, wheelchair access, wider sidewalks, etc.) 19% Better signs on trails so I know where to go 11%
Knowing I could get home quickly if there was an emergency 6% Nothing would encourage me to walk more 6%
Other 6%
More people to walk with 2%
I already walk for most trips 0%
Note: Approximately 61 people responded to this question.
Note: Approximately 53 people responded to this question. Percentages shown sum to more than 100 percent because participants could select more than one response. 380
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT | 110
Feedback about Bicycling in Clovis
Among survey respondents, 32 percent indicated
that they felt comfortable traveling most places by
bicycle. Another 29 percent indicated they ride some
of the time, while 19 percent indicated an interest in
bicycling but faced a barrier, such as comfort or safety.
Fourteen percent expressed that they ride sometimes,
but wished it was a more comfortable experience.
About six percent indicated they were not interested
in bicycling at all. These results indicate that one-third of respondents are interested in bicycling, or bicycling more often, but do not do so due to barriers, including safety or comfort. Table 15 displays the full distribution of responses to this question.
70 percent of respondents indicated they would be
more encouraged to ride if there were more bike lanes
or trails in the community. More comfortable on-street
bikeways would encourage 57 percent of respondents
to bicycle more frequently. Approximately 34 percent
and 27 percent of respondents would bicycle more
frequently if there was better maintenance of bike
lanes and trails and better lighting of trails and roads, respectively. Additional factors are listed in Table 16.
Percentages sum to more than 100 percent because
respondents could select more than one response
option for this question.
Table 15: Attitudes towards bicycling
Which of the following statements most closely matches your feelings about traveling by bicycling in Clovis? (Select one)
Percentage of
Respondents
I feel comfortable traveling most places by bike 32%
I ride a bicycle to my destinations at least some of the time 29% I’m interested, but something (comfort, safety, ability…etc.) prevents me from using a bicycle to get some/most places. 19%
I ride a bicycle to my destinations at least some of the time, but I wish it felt more comfortable 14% I’m not interested in biking at all. 6%
Table 16: Factors that would encourage bicycling
What would encourage you to ride a bicycle more frequently? (Select all that apply)
Percentage of
Respondents
More bike lanes, or trails in the community 70%
More comfortable on-street bikeways 57%
Better maintenance of bike lanes and trails 34%
Better lighting of trails and roads 27%
More bicycle parking and repair stations 23%
Better signs on roads or trails so I know where to go 20% Showers and lockers at school or work 8%
Other 8%
I already bike for most trips 7%
More people to bike with 7%
Knowing I could get home quickly if there as an emergency 5% A bike share program or an affordable place to buy used bikes 3% Nothing would encourage me to walk or bike more. 1%
Note:
Approximately 74
people responded
to this question.
Percentages
shown sum to
more than 100
percent because
participants could
select more than
one response.
Note: Approximately 65 people responded to this question. 381
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
111 | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT
Feedback from the Online Map
Respondents were able to identify streets, trails, or
crossings where they wanted to walk or bike, or those
where they felt uncomfortable walking or bicycling.
Table 17 lists locations that community members
provided feedback on. Common themes included lack
of existing walking or bicycling infrastructure, unsafe crossings for walking or bicycling, and uncomfortable
existing bicycle facilities.
Respondents identified the following locations as
places where they would like to see facilities for walking or bicycling.
• North Clovis
• W Alluvial Avenue
• Herndon Avenue
• Around educational complexes
• Connection between Dry Creek Trail
and Enterprise Trail
• Along State Highway 168
• De Wolf Avenue
• Bullard Avenue
• Connection between Fowler Ave and Bullard
Avenue/N Locan Avenue
• W Gettysburg Avenue/Minnewawa Avenue/Santa
Ana Avenue
• 3rd Street
• 5th Street
• Canal Bank
Table 17: Comments and themes among online map feedback Location Additional information (if applicable)
Lack of sidewalk Leonard Ave Leonard Ave mentioned frequently Unsafe crossing for walking
Herndon Ave and N Willow Ave -
Wawona Ranch Ln and Clovis Ave -
Lack of bicycle facility N Armstrong Ave Popular crossing over State Route 168 for people bicycling
Temperance Ave Facility ends under the freeway
Uncomfortable existing
bike facility
Tollhouse Rd -
Fowler Ave -
E Bullard Ave -
Aluvial Ave/Owens Mountain Pkwy
and N Temperance Ave -
E Shepherd Ave -
Barstow Ave -
Unsafe crossing for bicycles
Minnewawa Ave and W Bullard Ave -
Herndon Ave and N Peach Ave -
Trail connections
E Shepherd Ave, west of N
Sunnyside Ave
Multiple comments about lack of bicycle
facility and lack of connection to Dry
Creek Trailhead)
Birch Ave/Dartmouth St to
Spruce Ave Connecting neighborhood to shopping center
Leigh Ln and Skylar Ln Bridge over canal to connect existing trail to planned trail
Note: “-“ indicates that no additional information was provided. 382
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT | 112
Community Cycling Club
Presentation
On September 22, 2021, community members from
the Fresno Cycling Club participated in an online pop-in webinar-style presentation.
At the presentation, the City provided an introduction
and background on the Plan, its vision statement,
methodology behind pedestrian and bicycle facilities
recommendations, as well as a timeline and next
steps for the Plan’s completion. At the pop-in event,
participants were asked about opportunities to improve
bicycling, barriers to bicycling, and policies and support programs that the Cycling Club thought would be
helpful. The event also allowed participants to ask
questions about the Plan and its development.
Stakeholder Focus Groups
The City conducted four stakeholder focus groups
with local community-based organizations and
regional agencies to identify how the Clovis Active
Transportation Plan Update fit into stakeholders’
diverse needs. As the State of California loosened public health restrictions during the Summer of 2021, the
stakeholder focus groups were held in a hybrid meeting
format, which allowed participants to attend the
meeting in-person or online through a video platform.
Table 18 presents the dates of the focus groups and the agencies represented.
Stakeholders provided feedback on existing technical
barriers and recommendations for the Active
Transportation Plan Update. School staff discussed
an interest in stronger and more interconnected
Safe Routes to School programming across the city.
Regional and State staff discussed opportunities for
funding. Outside of the Plan’s technical aspect, some
stakeholders also brought up social concerns. For
example, Cultiva La Salud, a non-profit focused on
expanding health equity in the San Joaquin Valley,
raised the issue of police profiling of young Black and Latino pedestrians and bicyclists in Clovis and the lack of safe pedestrian and bicycling facilities in southern Clovis. The group stated that parents of Black and
Latino boys and teenagers discourage their children
from biking and walking to reduce their interaction
with law enforcement, and thus requested that active
transportation infrastructure be safe and also inviting for People of Color.
Clovis’ future developments was as a key topic
among participants in the focus groups. Stakeholders
were interested in establishing a set of guidelines
to regulate design for future developments. This
practice would ensure that new developments in Clovis
support walking and bicycling, and that the facilities
(e.g., sidewalks) that are built as part of these new
development projects meet the current standards.
Table 18: Stakeholder Interview Groups and Interview Dates Date Stakeholder Group
School Districts and
Higher Education
July 28
Clovis Unified School District, Sanger Unified School District, City of Fresno, County of Fresno, Fresno State University, Clovis Community College City of Clovis
July 28
Clovis Department of Public Utilities, City Manager’s Staff, Planning Staff, Engineering Staff, Transit, Senior Center, GIS, Public Information Office Regional and
State Agencies
July 29
Fresno Council of Governments, Caltrans District 6, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Clovis Community Foundation, Community Medical Centers
Community
Organizations
and Developer
July 29
City of Clovis, Fresno Cycling Club, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, Disabled Citizen Representative, Building Industry Association, Cultiva La Salud
383
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
113 | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT
Participants in the focus groups also recognize that
there are opportunities to promote a culture of active
transportation to young children. A more coordinated
effort among schools, such as a citywide Walk to School Day, and infrastructure improvements may encourage
children to be more excited to travel by foot, bike,
or skateboard.
Community Meeting
Like the stakeholder focus groups, the community
meeting was offered as a hybrid, in-person, and online
event. The purpose of this meeting was to present
information about the Plan process and gather
feedback on opportunities and challenges for people
walking and bicycling. The meeting was primarily
attended by City staff, who emphasized that evening
family walks and bike rides could be an opportunity to
promote active transportation. Attendees suggested
that improving existing connectivity would create a
better walking environment and also provide different
travel options to community members. City staff
identified funding as the main challenge to encouraging mode and cultural shift to walking and bicycling.
One specific funding challenge that staff identified is acquiring funding for retrofit projects.
384
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT | 114
[BLANK PAGE]
385
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
D
FUNDING
SOURCES
386
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
FUNDING SOURCES | 116
The following table provides an overview of Federal, State, Regional, and County funds and grant opportunities that can be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs.
Funding Sources Administering
Agency
Availability
of Funding Description Eligible Improvements
Federal Funding Programs
Better Utilizing
Investments
to Leverage
Development
(BUILD)
Transportation
Discretionary
Grants1
U.S.
Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
Annually
BUILD (formerly TIGER) is a
nationally competitive grant for
capital investments on surface
transportation projects that
achieve a significant impact for
a metropolitan area, region, or
the nation. Selection criteria
encompass safety, economic
competitiveness, quality of life,
state of good repair, innovation
and partnerships with a broad
range of stakeholders.
Roads, bridges, transit, rail, ports
or intermodal transportation
Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
Improvement
(CMAQ)
Program2
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Annually
CMAQ provides funding for
state and local governments for
transportation programs and
projects that support the Clean
Air Act, improving air quality and
providing congestion relief.
Bicycle infrastructure
Surface
Transportation
Block Grant 3
FHWA, FAST
Act Program
administered
through
the Fresno
Council of
Governments
Every two
years; next
round
anticipated
to be due
September
2023
Projects must be in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and be consistent
with the Long-Range Statewide
Transportation Plan and
Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
May require 11.47% local match.
Bicycle facilities, including trails.
Transportation
Alternatives
Program (TAP)4
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FWHA)
Yearly;
available
2023
funding is
$1.3 billion
Caltrans controls a share of the
funds to distribute locally through
a competitive process. All potential
TAP projects require a sponsor for
a minimum of 20% of the project
costs. Local governments are
eligible to apply.
TAP funds projects that create
bicycle and pedestrian facilities
and convert abandoned railway
corridors to pedestrian trails,
among others. Eligible activities
include pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and educational
programs, landscaping, rail-to-trail
conversions, among others.
Infrastructure
for Rebuilding
America
(INFRA)5
US
Department of
Transportation
$8 billion
between FY
2022-2026.
One INFRA grant application
that suffices for three different
grants, including the Rural Surface
Transportation Grant.
Eligible uses include projects that
address safety, reduce congestion,
enhance resiliency, and address
freight bottlenecks.
387
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
117 | FUNDING SOURCES
Funding Sources Administering
Agency
Availability
of Funding Description Eligible Improvements
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)6
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
10% of
state’s HSIP
fund
Projects in high-crash locations
are most likely to receive funding.
States that have identified bicycle
safety and pedestrian safety as
Emphasis Areas are more likely to
fund bicycle and pedestrian safety
projects.
Funding for safety projects aimed
at reducing traffic fatalities and
serious injuries. Bike lanes,
roadway shoulders, crosswalks,
intersection improvements,
underpasses and signs are
examples of eligible projects.
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
(SS4A)7
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Grants
typically
open in
spring and
close in early
September
Two types of SS4A grants:
Planning and Demonstration
Grants, which provide funds to
develop, complete, or supplement
a comprehensive safety action
plan, and Implementation Grants,
which fund projects and strategies
identified in an Action Plan to
address a safety issue.
Developing a comprehensive
safety action plan or to carry out
projects and strategies.
Carbon
Reduction
Program8
Federal
Highway
Administration
$1.258
billion in FY
2023
Project must be identified in
the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)/
Transportation Improvement
Program).
Includes a transportation
alternatives project for on- and
off-road trail facilities
National
Highway
Performance
Program (NHPP)9
Federal
Highway
Administration
$29.008
billion in FY
2023.
Projects must be identified in
the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)/
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP).
Requires that bicycle facilities be
for transport purposes only, not
recreation purposes.
State Funding Programs
California Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)10
California
Transportation
Commission
(CTC)
Biennially
The ATP program resulted from
the consolidation of many former
federal State programs and
funds a wide range of capital and
non-capital projects. A strong
preference is given to projects in
disadvantaged communities.
Bicycle and pedestrian capital
infrastructure and noninfrastructure projects (e.g.,
encouragement, education, and
enforcement), and plans (including
active transportation and Safe
Routes to School plans)
California
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
(STEP)11
California Air
Resources
Board (CARB)
Currently a
pilot project;
eligible
funding
source if
continued
STEP is a transportation
equity pilot project for Fiscal
Year 2019-20 that aims to
address community residents’
transportation needs, increase
access to key destinations, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by funding planning, clean
transportation, and
supporting projects.
Active transportation subsidies,
construction of new pedestrian
facilities, new bike routes and
networks (Class I, II, or IV) and
supporting infrastructure
388
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
FUNDING SOURCES | 118
Funding Sources Administering
Agency
Availability
of Funding Description Eligible Improvements
Clean Mobility
Options (CMO)12
California Air
Resource Board
Annually
(based
on capand-trade
dollars)
The Clean Mobility Options
Voucher Pilot Program provides
voucher-based funding for zeroemission carsharing, car- and van-pooling, bike- and scootersharing, innovative transit services, and ride-on-demand
services in California’s historically
underserved communities.
Eligible projects must be in a
community that: (1) is on the
Disadvantaged Communities
List for Climate Investments
in accordance with CalEPA’s
designation (2) is a tribal land
or tribal property within AB
1550 designated low-income
communities, or (3) serves a
deed-restricted affordable
housing facility with at least
five units and located within an
AB 1550 designated low-income
community.
California Office
of Traffic Safety
Grants13
California Office
of Traffic Safety
(OTS)
Annually
For traffic-safety education,
awareness and enforcement
programs aimed at drivers,
pedestrians and cyclists.
Certain activities under the SRTS,
safety/education and enforcement
programs.
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)14
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Varies;
Generally,
every 1-2
years
For projects and programs that
reduce traffic fatalities and serious
injuries by correcting or improving
a specific problem. Highly
competitive at the state level.
Safety-related pedestrian, bikeway
and crossing projects. Certain
activities under the SRTS, safety/
education and enforcement
programs; also, certain spot
improvements. Bike lanes, paved
shoulders, crosswalks, intersection
improvements and signage
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
(AHSC)15
California
Strategic
Growth Council
(SGC)
Annually
Projects that facilitate compact
development, including bicycle
infrastructure and amenities,
with neighborhood scale impacts.
Available to government agencies
and institutions (including local
government, transit agencies and
school districts), developers and
non-profit organizations.
Bicycle and pedestrian corridor
and crossing improvements,
particularly those in the area
covered in specific plans
Sustainable
Transportation
Planning
Grants16
Caltrans Annually
Funds for communities to do
planning, studies, and design work
to identify and evaluate projects,
including conducting outreach or
implementing pilot projects.
Planning, community engagement,
studies to improve bicycle and
pedestrian connections
Recreational
Trails Program17
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
Program is
currently
being
updated
Funds for recreational trails for
active transportation.
Trail maintenance, restoration,
trailhead facilities, new trail
construction, and maintenance
equipment.
389
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
119 | FUNDING SOURCES
Funding Sources Administering
Agency
Availability
of Funding Description Eligible Improvements
Urban Greening
Grants18
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
Annually
A statewide program that allocates
cap-and-trade dollars to projects
that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
Projects that reduce commute
vehicle miles traveled by
constructing bicycle paths, bicycle
lanes or pedestrian facilities that
provide safe routes for travel
between residences, workplaces,
commercial centers, and schools
State
Transportation
Improvement
Program (STIP)19
CTC Biennially
Projects need to be nominated
in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP),
but MTC may nominate fund
categories.
Any transportation project eligible
for State Highway Account or
Federal Funds
State Highway
Operation and
Protection
Program
(SHOPP)20
Caltrans
Biennially
on evennumber
years
The Office of SHOPP Management
is responsible for planning,
developing, managing and
reporting the four-year SHOPP
portfolio of projects. The Program
is the State Highway System’s “fix
it first” program that funds repairs
and preservation, emergency
repairs, safety improvements,
and some highway operational
improvements on the State
Highway System.
Bike & pedestrian elements in the
context of facility type, right of
way, project scope, and quality of
nearby alternative facilities)
Infill
Infrastructure
Grant Program
(IIG)21
California
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development
Varies; every
1-2 years
IIG provides grant assistance for
infrastructure projects that are an
integral part of, of necessary for
the development of a Qualifying
Infill Project or housing within a
Qualifying Infill Area.
Construction, rehabilitation,
demolition, relocation,
preservation, and acquisition of
infrastructure.
Transformative
Climate
Communities
(TCC)22
Strategic
Growth
Council and
Department of
Conservation
Varies
TCC funds community-led
development and infrastructure
projects with economic,
environmental, and health
benefits to disadvantaged
communities in California.
Bicycle and pedestrian corridor
and crossing improvements, bike
share programs
Office of Traffic
Safety Grant
Program23
Office of Traffic
Safety (OTS) Annually
The OTS Grant Program funds
education, encouragement, and
safety programs and campaigns to
prevent serious and fatal injuries
resulting from collisions with
motor vehicles.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety
education and encouragement
programs and campaigns
390
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
FUNDING SOURCES | 120
Funding Sources Administering
Agency
Availability
of Funding Description Eligible Improvements
Local Streets
and Roads (LSR)
Program24
CTC Annually
The LSR program provides funding
to cities and counties for road
maintenance and rehabilitation as
well as for safety projects.
Bicycle and pedestrian corridor
and crossing improvements
(emphasis on safety), maintenance
and rehabilitation
Solutions for
Congested
Corridors
(SCCP)25
CTC Annually
SCCP provides funding with
an ultimate goal of reducing
congestion throughout
California. The program
focuses on multimodal corridor
improvements that maintain and
enhance community character.
Competitive throughout
the state.
Multimodal corridor
improvements
California
Proposition
68 (Parks and
Water Bond
Act of 2018),
Statewide Parks
Program (SSP)26
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
Amount
available is
$395,333M;
grant
applications
should be
between
$200K and
$8.5M
Eligible projects are from the
Statewide Parks Program (SPP)
A variety of park facilities and
types, including linear greenbelt
parks, nonmotorized trails,
pedestrian, and bicycle bridge
Regional Parks
Program27
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
Amount
available is
$23M
Funding for counties and regional
park districts, regional openspace districts, and open-space authorities to create, expand,
or improve regional parks and
regional park facilities. Funding via
Proposition 68.
Acquisition for new or
enhanced public access and
use. Development to create or
renovate:
• Trails (preference to multiuse
trails over single-use trails)
• Regional sports complexes
• Visitor and interpretive facilities
• Other types of recreation and
support facilities in regional parks
Rural Recreation
and Tourism
Program28
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
Amount
available is
$23M
Eligible applicants include
cities with population <50,000
and counties with population
<500,000.
Projects that support economic
and health-related goals for
recreation for residents and
visitors. Includes accessible trails
and bikeways, sports complexes,
visitor centers for historic or
natural resources, access to
waterways
Land and Water
Conservation
Fund29
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
Awards up
to $3M per
application.
Typically due
June 2023.
Provides funding for the
acquisition or development
of land to create new outdoor
recreation opportunities
Acquisition project or
development project for parks,
includes trail corridors connecting
to recreational opportunities.
391
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
121 | FUNDING SOURCES
Funding Sources Administering
Agency
Availability
of Funding Description Eligible Improvements
Habitat
Conservation
Fund30
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
Over $6.5M;
applications
due June
2023
Requires 50% match.
Acquisition or development of
trails which bring urban residents
into park and/or wildlife areas.
Recreational
Infrastructure
Revenue
Enhancement
(RIRE)31
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
$37M
available
from
Proposition
68 Project must be for park and
recreational infrastructure
purposes, either acquisition or
development, for the purposes
described in the revenue
enhancement measure.
Improving or enhancing local
or regional park infrastructure
for the purposes of the revenue
enhancement measure.
Regional and County Funding Programs
Measure C,
Transit -Oriented
Infrastructure32
Fresno
Council of
Governments
Annually
Program created in the 2006
Measure C Extension Plan. TOD
allocation support communitybased transit projects aimed at increasing transit use.
Transit facility improvement,
bicycle and pedestrian facility
improvements, public plaza,
streetscape enhancements
Measure C, Local
Transportation
Program33
Fresno County
Transportation
Authority
Project
funding
decisions
made by the
FCTA Board
The Measure C Extension Plan
provides multi-modal funding
from a percentage of local sales
tax revenue in three programs:
public transit, local transportation,
and regional transportation.
The Local Transportation
Program funds various projects
including street maintenance and
rehabilitation, ADA Compliance,
and pedestrian trails and bicycle
facilities.
Transportation
Development
Act Article 334
Fresno
Council of
Governments
Program is
not currently
active
Allocated among Fresno member
agencies based on population,
taxable sales and transit
performance.
Bikeways, crossing improvements
and safety/ education/training
programs for school children and
the general population
2021 Fresno
COG FTA Section
5310 Grant
Application for
the Fresno/
Clovis Urbanized
Area35
Fresno
Council of
Governments
Biannually
This grant focuses on improving
transportation accessibility for
senior citizens.
Grant projects may include public
transportation projects that
include building accessible paths
to bus stops, including curb cuts,
sidewalks, accessible, pedestrian
signals, detectable warnings, and
wayfinding.
Regional
Sustainable
Infrastructure
Planning Grant36
Fresno Council
of
Governments
Typically
annually.
Cycle 3 grant
application
deadline
was August
2019.
Program objective is to encourage
local and regional multimodal
transportation and land-use
planning and addresses the needs
of disadvantaged communities.
Planning studies, safe routes to
school plans, complete streets
plans, bicycle and pedestrian
plans with safety enhancement
focus (including Vision Zero).
Bike Paths
Grant37
San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
Up to
$150,000
for Class
I bikeway
(Bike path)
Projects considered on first-come,
first-serve basis until funding is
depleted. Project must include
transportation purpose, not
simply recreational focus.
Provides funds to establish bicycle
infrastructure such as Class I or
Class II bicycle paths. Excludes
landscaping and other aesthetic
amenities.
392
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
FUNDING SOURCES | 122
Funding Sources Administering
Agency
Availability
of Funding Description Eligible Improvements
Other Funding Opportunities
Community
Grant Program38 PeopleForBikes
Up to
$10,000.
Grant cycle
typically
opens
annually in
the fall.
Provides funding to bike advocacy
and facility-building projects.
Requires Letter of Interest and full
application
• Bike paths, lanes, and trails
• Mountain bike and BMX facilities
• Bike parks and pump tracks
• Bike racks and bike repair
stations
• Large-scale bicycle advocacy
initiatives.
• Programs that transform city
streets, such as Ciclovías or Open
Streets Days
• Campaigns to increase
investment in bicycle
infrastructure
Land
Conservation
Loan Program39
Conservation
Fund Rolling Provides loans to quickly purchase high-priority lands Trail installation/access National Trails
Fund40
American
Hiking Society
Program not
active.
The establishment, protection,
and maintenance of trails.
Applicant must be an Alliance
Organization Member. Eligible to
nonprofits.
Projects that improve hiking
access or hiker safety. Projects
that promote community building
surrounding specific trail projects.
The
Conservation
Alliance41
The
Conservation
Alliance
Twice
annually
Seeks to protect threatened wild
places for habitat and recreational
values. Eligible to nonprofits.
Seek to secure lasting protection
of a specific wild land or waterway;
engage grassroots citizen action,
have a clear recreational benefit;
have financial success within four
years.
Local
Community
Grants42
Walmart
Applications
reviewed
quarterly
on rolling
basis. Funds
available up
to $5,000
Funding provided directly from
local Walmart and Sam’s Clubs.
May require Letter of Inquiry.
Funding must address one
of three priorities: creating
opportunity, advancing
sustainability, and strengthening
community
393
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
123 | FUNDING SOURCES
Endnotes
1. transportation.gov/BUILDgrants
2. fhwa.dot.gov/envir onment/air_quality/cmaq/
3. https://www.fresnocog.org/project/congestion-mitigation-air-quality-cmaq-program/
4. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_alternatives/
5. https://www.transportation.gov/grants/infra-grants-program
6. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip
7. https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A
8. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/
9. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/nhpp/bil_nhpp_implementation_guidance-05_25_22.pdf
10. dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp
11. arb.ca.gov/msprog/lct/opportunitiesgov/step.htm
12. cleanmobilityoptions.org/eligibility/
13. ots.ca.gov/Grants/default.asp
14. dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html
15. sgc.ca.gov/Grant-Programs/AHSCProgram.html
16. dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/regional-planning/sustainable-transportation-planning-grants
17. parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
18. resources.ca.gov/grants/urban-greening/
19. dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/state-transportation-improvement-program
20. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway-operation-protection-program-shopp-minor-programshopp
21. hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/iigp.shtml
22. sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/
23. ots.ca.gov/Grants/
24. catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/local-streets-roads-program
25. catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/solutions-for-congested-corridors-program
26. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29939
27. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29940
28. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28439
29. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21360
30. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21361
31. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30162
32. https://www.fresnocog. org/measure-c-transit- oriented-development/
33. https://www.fresnocog.org/project/measure-c/
34. https://www.fresnocog.org/project/transportation-development-act-tda/
35. https://2ave3l244ex63mgdyc1u2mfp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2021-FTA-Section-5310- Application-Fresno-Urbanized-Area_FINAL.pdf
36. https://www.fresnocog.org/project/fresno-ogadministered-grantprograms/
37. https://www.valleyair.org/grants/bikepaths.htm
38. https://www.peopleforbikes.org/grants
39. https://www.conservationfund.org/our-work/conservation-loans
40. https://americanhiking.org/National-Trails-Fund/
41. http://www.conservationalliance.com/grants/?yearly=2020
42. https://walmart.org/how-we-give/local-community-grants 394
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
FUNDING SOURCES | 124
[BLANK PAGE]
395
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
E
WAYFINDING
SYSTEM
GUIDELINES
396
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES | 126
Wayfinding System Guidelines
Introduction
These Wayfinding System Guidelines provide the City
of Clovis with the tools to plan, design, and implement an effective bicycle and trail wayfinding system. It is intended to help planners and designers as they
create a wayfinding system for Clovis’ trails, bikeways, and paseos.
What is Wayfinding?
Wayfinding encompasses all the ways in which people
orient themselves in physical space and navigate from
place to place. A wayfinding system designed specifically for bicyclists and pedestrians can help these roadway
and trail users easily and successfully navigate through a network of on-street facilities or trails. The main
purpose of a wayfinding system is to connect people
to the places they want to go. Wayfinding can take
the form of directional signage, mile markers, trail
heads, informational signs, map kiosks, and pavement
markings to reinforce signage.
Bicycle wayfinding signs are signs that guide bicyclists along preferred, designated routes to destinations
throughout the city and region. Bicycle routes may
consist of on-street facilities and off-street trails.
Wayfinding Design User
Wayfinding systems designed for bicyclists and trail
users can enhance the value of a bicycle and trail
network by helping people identify and navigate
designated routes between destinations.
Bicycle Design User
During the design and planning of wayfinding systems,
planners should imagine a casual or new bicycle rider
using the facilities and associated wayfinding. An
experienced bicycle commuter or recreational rider
knows their favorite routes well and may not need a
signed bicycle route system. However, a person who
has just moved into a new neighborhood or who is
exploring a path for the first time will appreciate the guidance provided by a well-signed route.
Pedestrian Design User
Pedestrians are considered vulnerable users in autocentric roadway networks and thus pedestrians benefit from separated facilities like trails and paseos, which provide greater safety and comfort. When designing
and planning a wayfinding system, those pedestrians
who don’t drive or don’t have access to a car, like
older and younger community members are the users
who may have the most need for the wayfinding and,
as such should be the users that the wayfinding is
designed to accommodate. If a system works for those
users, it will most likely work for all pedestrians.
Benefits of Wayfinding
Bicycle and trail wayfinding can be an easy-toimplement, low-cost way to support and promote active travel by:
• Helping people identify and navigate desirable routes between destinations
• Knitting together existing bicycle and trail network
• Encouraging all user of all modes (pedestrian,
bicyclists, and other non-motorized modes) to travel
more confidently
• Reminding drivers of bicyclists’ presence
Core Wayfinding Principles
These core wayfinding principles set the tone for the
design of the overall wayfinding system and will help
create a cohesive wayfinding sign network throughout
the city.
Orient the User and Connect Places
• Easy-to-use and intuitive wayfinding helps bicyclists and trails users navigate and understand where they
are in relation to nearby landmarks and destinations.
Wayfinding should help people travel between
destinations and develop an increased sense of
mobility and connectivity. It should assist both locals and visitors in navigating between destinations and
using services facilities around their neighborhood.
Be Consistent and Predictable
• Wayfinding systems must be designed with a
consistent cohesive design language of materials,
colors, typefaces and symbols so that they are easily
recognizable and helps users quickly understand
and interpret messages. Consistent and predictable
placement throughout a community earns the trust
of users and helps them understand the system and
when they can expect signs.
397
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
127 | WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES
Keep Information Simple and Disclose
Information Progressively
• Wayfinding must provide concise messages,
revealing enough information without overwhelming
the user. Information on each sign should be kept
to a minimum to avoid confusion and facilitate quick
comprehension.
• Clear, logical, and simple wayfinding signage will
help moving bicyclists and trail users make decisions
quickly. Information should be clear, legible, and
simple enough to be understood by a wide audience.
Allow Bicyclists and Trail Users to Maintain
Movement
• Constant stopping and starting can be frustrating
to bicyclists. Information on signs should be simple
and large enough to be viewed in motion, allowing
to maintain momentum along their path. It is also
important to locate signs ahead of potential decision
point to allow for bicyclists to take in the information on the signs and react in a timely way.
1 Technical Guidance
2 Destination & Route Selection
4 Combining the Building
Blocks: Sign Assemblies
6 General Placement and
Clearance Guidelines
3 Building Blocks: Standard
Signs for Bicycle and
Trail Wayfinding
5 Typical Placement Scenarios
Figure 66: Wayfinding System Guideline components
398
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES | 128
Technical Guidance
The design of bicycle wayfinding signs, and this
wayfinding guide rely on guidance from the following
documents:
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD,
2009 edition) includes guidance and standards for:
• Sign design for bicycle guide signs, bicycle routes,
and auxiliary plaques
• Sign installation details such as minimum height of
signs from the ground and horizontal placement
from edge of the roadway or trail
• Symbols and appropriate abbreviations for
destination names
• Sign examples
• Sign placement, mounting height requirements, sign
size, and layout
The MUTCD introduces sign types and provides
additional right-of-way placement guidelines for
directional signs. Finally, the MUTCD has a section on
community wayfinding, which provides information
about customization.
AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and
Operation of Bicycle Facilities, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
The AASHTO Bike Guide provides additional information
that supplements the MUTCD. The guide explains the
use and benefits of different sign types for bicycle
wayfinding. It also provides guidance on where to use
signs: on what types of routes and how to place signs at intersections. A new edition is currently in development and will include expanded guidance in a full chapter
on wayfinding.
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
The NACTO document provides guidance based on
current best practices in large cities. It covers types of signs and destinations, pavement markings, typical
applications, and design guidance.
The benefits of using MUTCD-style wayfinding, as
opposed to custom designed signs, include ease of
implementation and eligibility for federal funding.
Destination & Route
Selection
Destination Selection
Connecting places is the first core principle of bicycle wayfinding system design. Determining where bicyclists
are trying to go will ultimately inform their desired
route, which is why destination selection typically comes prior to route selection.
These guidelines describe the approach used to select
and prioritize potential destinations to be included on the wayfinding signs.
Types of Destinations Considered
Destinations that can be considered for inclusion on
wayfinding signs included:
• Parks
• Business Districts
• Major Sports Venues
• Major Bikeways
• Well-Known Landmarks
• Schools & Universities
• Libraries
Hierarchy of Destinations
Potential destinations can be assigned to one of three
groups, Level 1 (Primary) – Citywide Destinations,
Level 2 (Secondary) – Local Destinations, and Level 3
(Tertiary) – Neighborhood Destinations, based upon
their usefulness as navigational references for bicyclists and their likelihood of being origins or destinations
for bicycling trips. The hierarchy helps planners and
designers determine how far from the destination
references to it will appear on wayfinding sign panels
and helps in the decision about which destinations are
included on wayfinding signs.
The general hierarchy of what to include in Primary,
Secondary, and Tertiary destinations will vary
depending on whether the bike route is in an urban,
suburban, or rural area. In urban areas (most of Clovis), destinations are close together and only the most
significant destinations should be noted as Primary
destinations. However, in rural areas (i.e. outlying
parts of Clovis), destinations are sparsely spaced.
Neighborhoods and small local parks may be included
on wayfinding signage as Tertiary destinations to help
399
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
129 | WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES
as both navigational aids and informational aids for
bicyclists to know where they can access services such
as water and bathrooms.
To establish a hierarchy, consider the following:
• How well-known is the destination and how useful is
it as a navigational reference? The most well-known
destinations and most useful navigational references
should be in the Primary destination group.
• How popular is the destination in terms of annual or
seasonal visitors? How accessible is the destination
by pedestrians and bicyclists? Do these users
commonly access the destination? Does the route
being signed provide good access to the location?
я The venues that have a large number of
visitors and for which the answers to the above
questions are positive, should be in the Primary
or Secondary destination group.
я If the venue is likely only serving nearby
pedestrian and bicycle users, then it should be a
Tertiary destination
• If the destination is a trail or bikeway, is it wellknown outside of the immediate area? Is it well used? Does it connect to other more regional trail/
bikeway networks?
Level 1 (Primary) – Citywide Destinations
Primary destinations include cities, regional
destinations, or other major destinations. These are
often the key destinations included on most signs and
establish the origin and destination of a route. Including these destinations on signs helps users identify where
a route is ultimately going and what they will see if they continue along the route.
Level 2 (Secondary) – Local Destinations
Secondary, or Level 2 destinations, often include
districts, neighborhoods, and major landmarks.
These destinations can be signed to from up to two
miles away, and often include parks, major shopping
districts, etc.
Level 3 (Tertiary) – Neighborhood
Destinations
Tertiary, or Level 3 destinations, include pocket parks, small schools, and other minor landmarks that may
only be visited by pedestrians and bicyclists who live
or work nearby. These destinations may only be listed
on wayfinding signs that are within a quarter mile or
two blocks.
Standards for Measuring
Distance to Destinations
A core principle of wayfinding sign design is
progressively disclosing information by not
overwhelming the bicyclist at any one decision point
or sign assembly. Knowing when to introduce a new
destination depends largely on its importance and
distance from the sign.
Distance to Destination
There will usually be more potential destinations that
could be included on a sign than space available. A
destination hierarchy can be used to guide the designer on what to include. Suggested distance guidelines for
the urban/suburban and rural destination hierarchy
are displayed in Figure 67 below. In practice, however, the distance at which each destination appears on
Figure 67: Measuring Distance to Destinations; Image by Toole Design, Icons by Noun Project 400
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES | 130
wayfinding signs will require the judgement of the
designer(s) of the wayfinding system.
Measure-To Points
If the destination is a neighborhood, municipality, or
a large park, designers will have to establish a measureto point. • For large parks or facilities, it may make sense to
measure distance to the main entrance.
• For smaller destinations, the measure-to point may
be the front entry.
• The distance to a city, district or neighborhood
should be measured to the area’s center point, as
is the practice in highway wayfinding; Google Maps’
bicycle navigation feature also measures distance to
the city’s center point.
Establishing measure-to points after identifying
destinations will keep the distance measurements
consistent throughout the bicycle wayfinding network.
Building Blocks: Standard
Signs for Bicycle and Trail
Wayfinding
The overall approach follows the look and feel of
standard highway guide signs while the detailed design
is tailored for bicyclists. Wayfinding signs can vary in the level of detail and modification, from standard MUTCD
D-series signs to customized signs with unique colors,
logos, and font types. The spectrum of how signage can
be customized is shown in Figure 68.
To maintain compliance with MUTCD standards, no
“assigned” colors were used as the primary base for the wayfinding sign concepts. These colors are used for a
variety of regulatory signs in the MUTCD, including red, orange, yellow, fluorescent yellow-green, fluorescent
pink, and purple.
Figure 68: MUTCD Sign Customization Spectrum
401
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
131 | WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES
These guidelines and recommendations use the standard signs in Table 19 from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
MUTCD SIGN SIGN IMAGE APPLICATION
Bicycle Route
Guide Sign
D11-1 or D11-
1c
• D11-1 is to be used on Class I trails The
phrase“BIKE ROUTE” can be subsituted with a
trail name.
• D11-1c is to be used on Class II, III, and Class IV
bike lanes and Level 1/primary destination name.
• Bicycle Route Guide signs let bicyclists and
pedestrians know they are on a designated
bikeway or trail. In the case of bikeways, they
alert motorists to the likely presence of bicyclists.
• In Clovis, these signs are to be used at the start
of paseos to indicate that they are bicycle/
pedestrian routes.
Destination
Supplemental
Sign
D1-1 to D1-1c
• D1-1 to D1-1c are to be used to indicate single
destinations, or to list destinations separately.
• D1-2, 2a-2c, D1-3, 3a-3c are to be used to
combine multiple destination on a single panel;
this design is recommended as single panels are
easily bent or twisted.
• Destination signs without distances are used on
signs where there is a decision to be made about
which direction to go.
• Destinations signs with distances are used as
confirmation and information at the start of a
bikeway or trail or after a turn/decision point.
• To maintain simplicity, decision signs or sign
assemblies should not display more than three
destinations.
Direction
Arrow
Supplemental
Signs
M5-1/5-2,
M6-1 to M6-7
• Directional arrow signs are used to provide spot
guidance, such as when an on-street route turns
but there is no decision to make.
• These assemblies usually include the main
route confirmation plaque as well as a 6 inch
arrow plaque.
• These signs can also be used when a path splits.
Table 19: MUTCD Guide Signs and Application
402
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES | 132
Figure 69: Example of shared lane markings used on
bike boulevard (Class III bike route)
Figure 70: Example of a bike wayfinding dots
used to guide users through an intersection
MUTCD SIGN SIGN IMAGE APPLICATION
Supplemental
Information
Signs
D1-2 MOD
• Used to provide additional, clarifying information
to the bicyclist or pedestrian, such as how to
navigate an intersection.
• Supplemental signs use a reverse color
scheme: green lettering on a white background.
Supplemental information can be combined with
D1 series panel or made as a separate panel.
Pavement
Markings:
Shared Lane
Markings
(SLMs)/ Bike
wayfinding
dots
Centerline
markings
• SLMs and bike wayfinding dots may be used to
supplement directional signs to help bicyclists
navigate difficult turns or where the direction
of the bike route is not immediately obvious.
They are also used on bike boulevards (Class III
bikeways).
• Centerline markings may be used on trails or side
paths to help delineate space for traffic going in
both directions.
• In areas where there is high traffic of both
pedestrians and bicyclists, pavement markings
can be used to differentiated where different
users can travel to create a safe orderly
environment for all users.
403
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
133 | WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES
Assembling the
Building Blocks
There are four basic steps in wayfinding:
1. Orientation refers to determining one’s location
relative to nearby objects [or landmarks] and the
destination.
2. Route decision refers to choosing a route to get to
the destination.
3. Route monitoring refers to monitoring the chosen
route to confirm that it is leading to the destination.
4. Destination recognition is when the destination
is recognized.
The signs, or building blocks, of the wayfinding system are combined into sign assemblies that respond to the
first three steps of wayfinding:
1. Identification/Confirmation signs provide
orientation and route monitoring, by indicating the
general direction and confirming that a user is on a
designated bikeway or trail.
2. Decision signs indicate where the users can
choose a different route to reach destinations along
the path, or to mark the junction of two or more
bikeways or trails.
3. Turn signs provide spot guidance along a bikeway
where the route turns (but there is not decision to
be made) such as when a bikeway turns from one
street onto another street.
Branding
Part of the creation of a wayfinding signage system is
incorporating trail logos and local branding into the
signage. Figure 72 shows some examples of what that
could look like. Stylistic changes to logos or sign panel designs are something that should be considered when
creating signage plans. For example, the Heritage Grove logo is likely to require the addition of a black outline to be legible on the white sign and would not be legible on a green sign without additional edits.
The MUTCD offers clear guidelines on materials and
the use of “assigned” colors in bicycle/pedestrian
wayfinding signs but allows for cities to individualize their signs using distinctive (unassigned) colors,
typefaces, and symbols.
Figure 71: Sign Assembly Typologies
Figure 72: Local Branding Options
404
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES | 134
Sign panels are combined in assemblies to respond to wayfinding needs.
Table 20: Sign Assemblies
Route Confirmation/
Identification Assembly
ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS PLACEMENT
D11-1 alone or in combination
with D1 series
Placed at the beginning of a bikeway or
after a turn or intersection to reassure
cyclists that they are on the correct route.
In areas where a bicycle route continues
straight along a roadway or shared use
path without any turns or decisions, it
is recommended that a confirmation
assembly be placed every 3-4 blocks or
every quarter to half mile to reassure
bicyclists they are still on the designated
bikeway.
After a turn, confirmation assemblies are
placed on the far-side of the intersection,
preferably visible to the bicyclist who is
engaged in the turning movement, to
confirm the correct direction of travel.
Decision Assembly
ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS PLACEMENT
D1 series signs can be used
alone or in combination with
D11-1 series
D1 series signs can be used
without D11-1 panels if they
include bicycle symbols
Placement of a decision sign from a turn
or transition is determined by bicycle
design speed, sight lines, and roadway
slope. Decision signs should be placed in
advance of a turn or decision point based
on context.
To improve user comprehension,
through-destinations should be placed
at the top of the sign assembly, followed
by destinations that require the bicyclist
to make a turn (left turns are typically
displayed above right turns).
Multiple destinations in the same
direction can be included on one larger
sign with an arrow.
405
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
135 | WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES
General Sign Assembly
Design Guidance
For sign assemblies on shared use paths and on-street,
the following guidelines apply:
• No more than four sign panels should be included
on any single sign pole, due to the need to maintain
head clearance for pedestrians and keep information
simple. Prioritize sign destinations according to the
hierarchy of destinations, from nearest to farthest.
• For assemblies mounted on the same post but
perpendicular to each other, group the panels that
face the same direction together.
• Destinations within an assembly should be ordered
with all through destinations listed first, then
left turning destinations, and finally right turning
destinations. If there are two or more destinations
in the same direction, the closer destination should
be on top. This method helps riders continuing
straight understand where the route is heading, and
prioritizes left turns over right turns, since riders
often need to merge to make a left turn.
General Installation Guidelines
General Guidance
• Typically, bicycle and trail wayfinding signs are placed on the right side of the street or trail.
• Arrows on an assembly should not point to a minor
side street, alley, or driveway that could be mistaken
for the intended turn.
• Where bicyclists are guided to or are likely to use
a crosswalk as part of the route, it is often best to
locate guide signs near walk/wait pedestrian signal
heads.
Turn Sign
ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS PLACEMENT
Each turn sign includes D11-1
series sign and M5 series and/
or M6 series sign.
Sometimes sign assemblies will
have all three sign types (D1
series, D11 series, and M5/6
series)
Turn signs should be placed at points
prior to the turn to give advance notice of
a change in route direction.
406
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES | 136
• Care should be taken to place signs in locations
where they will not be blocked from view by tree
limbs, vegetation, other signs, parked vehicles
(especially large vehicles and trucks), and buses at
bus stops.
• Wayfinding signs can be attached to poles with other
signs, but not warning signs
In Relation to Intersections
To allow adequate notice of left turns, decision and
turn signs should be placed at a distance before the
intersection that is based on the number of turn lanes
the bicyclist needs to merge across to make a legal
left turn.
• Zero-lane merge: 25 feet
• One-lane merge: 100 feet
• Two-lane merge: 200 feet
Typical Sign Placement Scenarios
Figure 73: Intersection of two On-Street Bike Routes
407
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
137 | WAYFINDING SYSTEM GUIDELINES
Figure 74: Intersection of a Trail and On-Road Bike Route Figure 75: Intersection of Two Trail
408
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
Attachment 5
409
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
410
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
411
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
412
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
413
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
414
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
415
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
416
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Utilities Department
DATE: November 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Receive and File – Report Assessment Election Results for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Benefit Zones 2 and 5.
Staff: Paul Armendariz, Assistant Public Utilities Director / Eric Aller, Parks Manager
Recommendation: Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Election Diagram Map: Benefit Zone 2
2. Election Diagram Map: Benefit Zone 5
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmembers should consider recusal if a campaign contribution exceeding $250 has been received from the project proponent (developer, applicant, agent, and/or participants) since January 1, 2023 (Government Code 84308).
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the results of the assessment election and continue with the current assessment rates in LMD Zone 2 and LMD Zone 5.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An election was held to increase assessments within Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Benefit Zones 2 and 5. During the Public Hearing held on November 6, 2023, all ballots were received, and the balloting portion of the election was closed. Ballots were publicly tabulated on November 7, 2023. Balloting results are as follows: the assessment increase failed to pass in both Zone 2 and Zone 5. Zone 2 balloting rejected an assessment increase with 58.58% not in favor, and Zone 5 balloting rejected an assessment increase with 54.01% not in favor.
BACKGROUND
The yearly assessments established for all properties within the LMD provide funding for the City's cost in operation, maintenance, and repair of the public landscaping and parks within each zone. Though staff have implemented several cost-saving measures to postpone the need to increase these assessments, the rates established in 2018 for Zone 2 and in 2013 for Zone 5 are no longer able to sustain the current level of maintenance and provide for the necessary 417
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
capital reserves; therefore, maintenance in both Zones 2 and 5 will be reduced. On August 21, 2023, Council authorized staff to proceed with a Proposition 218 election to increase assessments in LMD Zones 2 and 5. The balloting portion of the election was closed at the end of the Public Hearing on November 6, 2023. The ballots were publicly tabulated in the Police and Fire Headquarters on November 7, 2023.
A majority of returned ballots rejected an assessment rate increase in Zone 2 and Zone 5. The ballot count is as follows:
• Benefit Zone 2: The Assessment Increase Failed 58.58% to 41.42% Weighted
No. of Ballots Assessment Percent
Type of Vote Returned Amount of Votes
Yes 842 $101,311.12 41.42%
No 936 $143,292.80 58.58%
Total 1,778 $244,603.92 100%
Zone 2: Total number of ballots mailed: 5,895 (30% election turn-out) • Benefit Zone 5: The Assessment Increase Failed 54.01% to 45.99% Weighted
No. of Ballots Assessment Percent
Type of Vote Returned Amount of Votes
Yes 519 $61,484.16 45.99%
No 609 $72,218.04 54.01%
Total 1,128 $133,702.20 100%
Zone 5: Total number of ballots mailed: 3,653 (31% election turn-out)
FISCAL IMPACT
In LMD Zone 2 and LMD Zone 5, the assessment rates will not increase. The Zone 2 assessment rate will remain at $99.94/year for a total annual assessment of $660,696.32. The Zone 5 assessment rate will remain at $50.10/year for a total annual assessment of $185,370.00. LMD Zones 1 through 6 do not include annual escalation factors, so additional future elections in these Zones will be needed as costs continue to rise.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The election was held as approved by Council on August 21, 2023. The results are being reported back to Council.
418
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The assessment rates in the Engineer’s Report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, Zones 2 and 5 will reflect the results of the election.
Prepared by: Eric Aller, Parks Manager
Reviewed by: City Manager JH
419
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
ALLUVIAL AVE
SHAW AVE
ASHLAN AVE
SIERRA AVE
BARSTOW AVE
BULLARD AVE
HERNDON AVE
GETTYSBURG AVE
SUNNYSIDE AVE
FOWLER AVE FOWLER AVE
ARMSTRONG AVE ARMSTRONG AVE
TEMPERANCE AVE
TEMPERANCE AVE
LOCAN AVE
DE WOLF AVE
LEONARD AVE
Zone 2
O LMD Zone 2
GENERAL ZONE 2 BOUNDARY
ATTACHMENT 1 ASSESSED PARCELS
420
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
SHAW AVE SHAW AVE
ASHLAN AVE ASHLAN AVE
SIERRA AVE
BARSTOW AVE BARSTOW AVE
BULLARD AVE
HERNDON AVE
ALLUVIAL AVE
GETTYSBURG AVE GETTYSBURG AVE
SUNNYSIDE AVE
FOWLER AVE FOWLER AVE
ARMSTRONG AVE ARMSTRONG AVE
TEMPERANCE AVE TEMPERANCE AVE
LOCAN AVE
DE WOLF AVE
LEONARD AVE
Zone 5
O LMD Zone 5
PARK ZONE 5 BOUNDARY
ATTACHMENT 2 ASSESSED PARCELS
421
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services Department
DATE: November 6, 2023
SUBJECT: Receive and File – Update on City of Clovis Civic Center Landscaping Staff: Nate Stava, Civil Engineer
Recommendation: Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map
2. Concept Drawings
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmembers should consider recusal if a campaign contribution exceeding $250 has been received from the project proponent (developer, applicant, agent, and/or participants) since January 1, 2023 (Government Code 84308).
RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to receive and file an update on the City of Clovis Civic Center Landscaping.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The hardscape, landscaping, and all irrigation on the City of Clovis Civic Center campus is approaching 50 years old (1976) and is in serious need of an overhaul. In early 2022, the City Manager requested for the Planning and Development Services department to issue a proposal for a firm to do some preliminary design work and cost estimates on how the current campus could be upgraded. The selected vendor has completed phase one of the design work which was to create a schematic master plan with renderings and cost estimates for the project. The projected cost of the total improvements came in at approximately $4.1 million, much higher than staff had originally estimated. Staff is now recommending that the City not move forward with any future phases until a funding source can be identified. In addition, the City is currently in the process of acquiring the old County courthouse and at some point, the current library. The addition of these two buildings will slightly expand the footprint of the City Civic Center owned and operated by the City. The purpose of this report and presentation is to provide Council an update on the Civic Center campus and provide a vision of what it could be, if and when, funding could be secured.
422
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
BACKGROUND
The existing Civic Center campus was originally built in the mid-1970’s with the addition of the westerly part of the campus in the early 1980’s when the courthouse was built. Other than accessibility modifications, the Civic Center campus has not had any major improvements since the early 1980’s. With the campus walkways, landscaping and irrigation progressively deteriorating over time, the cost to continually fix the issues has become a financial burden. In 2022, staff sent out Request For Proposals (RFPs) to four Landscape Architect companies to begin the process of beginning design work to revitalize the campus. After scoring the RFPs and conducting interviews, Melton Design Group was awarded a two-phase agreement. The first phase was to create a schematic master plan with renderings and estimates for the project. The schematic plan would have three cost options to spread out the financial impact of the project.
The second phase of the agreement is to finalize the design, create construction documents and assist in bid administration.
The overall goal of the project is to modernize the landscape and hardscape surrounding the Civic Center without clashing with the existing buildings. A phased approach to the construction is recommended due to the high estimate costs and will be reviewed in the future, if and when, a funding source can be found.
The project has now reached the end of the first phase of design. Planning and Development Services is presenting the results of the first phase concepts and projected costs for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The schematic design of this project includes a 3-phase construction schedule to spread out the financial impact.
Phase Cost
1 $2,444,743.75
2 $1,129,668.75
3 $477,081.25
Total $4,051,493.75
Phase 1 of the project includes most of the proposed hardscape for the project. Some key items for this phase include a new entry plaza, a raised stage for events, and new raised planters in the area adjacent to City Hall, Planning and Development Services and Council Chambers. This phase also included the cost for construction documents and bid administration costs with Melton Design Group.
Phase 2 would include the hardscape area north of City Hall adjacent to the parking lot, proposed concrete seating for the raised stage, and hardscape along Fifth Street fronting the library.
Phase 3 would include art pieces/focal points and the remaining hardscape between the existing library and parking lot.
423
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this report and presentation is to provide Council an update on the Civic Center campus and provide a vision of what we could do, if and when, a funding source can be found.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
No action at this time. Staff will continue to seek funding sources for future Civic Center improvements.
Prepared by: Nate Stava, Project Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: City Manager JH
424
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
425
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
ATTACHMENT 2 426
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
427
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
428
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
429
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration
DATE: November 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Receive and File – Update on Measure C, a half-cent sales tax used to fund a portion of Fresno County's Transportation System.
Staff: Lynne Ashbeck, Mayor
Recommendation: Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Fresno County Council of Governments Staff Report on Measure C
2. Group of Ten Summary Document
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None. Councilmembers should consider recusal if a campaign contribution exceeding $250 has been received from the project proponent (developer, applicant, agent, and/or participants) since January 1, 2023 (Government Code 84308).
RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to receive and file an update on Measure C, a half-cent sales tax used to fund a portion of Fresno County's Transportation System.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During Council comments on November 6, 2023, Mayor Ashbeck requested this item be added to a future agenda. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to place the subject item on a future agenda.
Measure C, officially known as the "Fresno County Transportation Authority's Transportation Expenditure Plan," is a transportation sales tax measure in Fresno County, California. This measure was designed to fund transportation and infrastructure projects within the county.
Measure C is funded by a ½ cent sales tax override in Fresno County. The revenue generated by Measure C has been used to fund a variety of transportation-related projects in Fresno County.
Measure C was first approved in Fresno County in 1986, renewed in 2006 and is set to expire in 2027. Measure C renewal was considered by voters in November 2022, but failed to reach 430
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
the two-thirds (66.67%) majority support required to pass a special tax reaching only 58% support.
Over the last several months, a group of 10 proponents and opponents of the recent Measure C renewal effort have been meeting in an effort determine a path forward on a new renewal effort. Based on several conversations with stakeholders who participated, collectively, there does not appear to be consensus for the 2024 election cycle, meaning that Measure C would likely be considered in November 2026 just prior to the 2027 expiration.
After the 2022 vote, representatives from both those in support and opposition to Measure C, agreed to hold a series of meetings - facilitated by the Community Justice Center and Estolano Associates – to determine whether there was a way for the two sides to work together to secure Fresno County's transportation future. The purpose of the discussions was not to determine what would be in a future Measure, when that would be, or any other specifics, but rather to determine if there was a unified path forward. With ten members, the group's intent was to bring together five representatives from each side to evaluate the division caused by the 2022 renewal effort and recommend a process to move Fresno County forward. Attachment 1 is the staff report for the Fresno County Council of Governments (COG) meeting held on October 26, 2023.
Attachment 2 is the Group of Ten Summary report that was presented to COG that evening.
The "Group of Ten" includes the following members (listed alphabetically by first name):
1. Alma Beltran, Mayor of Parlier
2. Gloria Hernandez, Community Organizer and Activist, Mothers Helping Mothers
3. Henry R. Perea, Former County Supervisor
4. Jerry Dyer, Mayor of Fresno
5. Kato Prado, Youth Leadership Institute
6. Lynne Ashbeck, Mayor of Clovis
7. Sandra Celedon, Fresno Building Healthy Communities
8. Scott Miller, Fresno Chamber of Commerce
9. Travis Alexander and David Rivas, Northern California Carpenters Union
10.Veronica Garibay, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
FISCAL IMPACT
Since 1986 Measure C has raised billions of dollars that have been used for transportation projects county wide. The moneys received from Measure C provides funding for Clovis for both Transit and major projects such as the widening of Shaw Avenue currently underway. While the amount the City receives varies each year, as an example last fiscal year the City receive approximately $6.0M. For every dollar that is generated in support of Measure C in the City of Clovis, the City receives approximately 34 cents in return.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
During Council comments on November 6, 2023, Mayor Ashbeck requested this item be added to a future agenda. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to place the subject item on a future agenda.
431
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
This is a receive and file, informational report.
Prepared by: John Holt, City Manager
Reviewed by: City Manager JH
432
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
ATTACHMENT 1
Summary: Over the last several months, a group of 10 proponents and opponents of the recent Measure C renewal effort have been meeting in an effort to determine if there was enough “trust” between both sides to continue work on a new renewal effort. Based on several conversations with stakeholders who participated, collectively, there does not appear to be consensus for the 2024 election cycle.
One of the challenges with a sales tax renewal effort is that the public sector is responsible for developing the expenditure plan, but once that plan has been approved by the appropriate public sector bodies, the process moves into the hands of the private sector, which must raise campaign funds to help ensure passage.
Keep in mind, when it comes to sales tax measures, the public sector can only “educate”, not “advocate.” It is up to the private sector to raise the campaign funds to “advocate” for passage of the measure.
The immediate issue or concern is that the public sector could develop a Measure C Renewal Expenditure Plan for the 2024 ballot that has strong support among the public sector, but if there is no private sector support to raise the campaign funds necessary for passage, the effort would likely be pointless.
In addition, in analyzing the potential for having a Measure C renewal on the 2024 ballot, there are two very important, related, statewide ballot measures to consider. The first is Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1), which the State Legislature recently approved for the November 2024 ballot. In summary, ACA 1:
…would authorize a local government to impose, extend, or increase a sales and use tax or transactions and use tax imposed in accordance with specified law or a parcel tax, as defined, for the purposes of funding the construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of its voters voting on the proposition and the proposition includes specified accountability requirements.
If ACA 1 is approved by the voters (requires 50%+1 to pass), the Measure C renewal would only require a 55% threshold for approval. Keep in mind, the 2022 renewal effort resulted in 58% support despite considerable opposition.
The other statewide ballot measure that has qualified for 2024 is the Taxpayer & Government Accountability Act (TGAA). If passed, this would raise the percentage threshold required for citizen initiative tax increases from the current 50% plus one threshold to a two-thirds (66.1%) vote .
FCTA and COG staff do not believe that sufficient time exists to develop a “new” Measure C Renewal Expenditure Plan with the requisite public outreach and community participation process, and still have time for the private sector to raise campaign funds.
In terms of the renewal planning process, ideally the expenditure plan would be approved by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) sometime in early spring (April/May) 2024. The earlier BOS approval date would then 433
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
allow the private sector to begin its campaign and fundraising efforts much sooner and increase the chances of passage.
Arguably just as important, the results of ACA 1 and TGAA will not be known until after the November 2024 election, so the question when developing an expenditure plan for the 2024 ballot becomes - what is the necessary threshold for passage - 55% or 66%? An expenditure plan that requires 55% voter support for passage will likely look much different than one that requires 66% support.
One of the issues that affected the outcome of the 2022 renewal effort was the last-minute rush to obtain concurrence from each of the cities and the County Board of Supervisors (BOS). Changes offered to the plan near the end of that process led to wavering support from critical constituents and ultimately voter confusion.
Further, as noted above, BOS final approval did not occur until mid-August, which hampered efforts to raise the funds necessary to pursue a successful campaign. As a result, staff believes that a 2026 target for renewal is more appropriate. Given the existing time constraints, the only way to consider a renewal effort in 2024 would be to simply rerun the plan presented in November of 2022.
Somewhat independent of renewal, but critical to identifying the pavement needs within our region, Fresno COG will be hiring a consultant to update our existing countywide pavement condition survey. The last pavement survey was conducted before last year’s significant winter storms.
Based on all three surveys FCTA commissioned, it remains clear that fixing roads remains the public’s No. 1 priority. Data from this new countywide pavement condition survey will be critical for determining the level of investment necessary to bring roads throughout Fresno County from poor/fair to good condition.
Recommendation: Fresno COG and FCTA staff are recommending that both agencies begin preparing for a November 2026 renewal of Measure C. The first step should be a Fresno COG/FCTA review of the summary report of the group of 10 meetings. That would be followed by engaging a survey firm to reassess voter priorities as they relate to renewing Measure C. 434
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
ATTACHMENT 2 435
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
436
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
437
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
438
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
439
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
440
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
441
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
442
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
443
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
444
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration
DATE: November 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Consider – City Participation in the development of a City of Clovis themed children’s book including financial support.
Staff: Lynne Ashbeck, Mayor
Recommendation: Approve
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmembers should consider recusal if a campaign contribution exceeding $250 has been received from the project proponent (developer, applicant, agent, and/or participants) since January 1, 2023 (Government Code 84308).
RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to authorize City participation in the development of a City of Clovis themed children’s book which would require staff time to support and partial funding for production and printing of the book.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mayor Lynne Ashbeck is interested in seeing a children’s book published which focuses on the history and landmarks of the City of Clovis, created, published, and made available to children in the City of Clovis. The intent is to preserve our history, expose young people to the important people and milestones which make our City great. Total cost is estimated to be between $20,000 and $25,000. Clovis Community Foundation has committed to fund 50% of the cost. The remaining cost would be funded by the City Managers office.
BACKGROUND
Some work has been done on the project by city staff, including a first draft of a proposed book, which features Jenna Prandini as a central figure of the story. A run she takes through Clovis introduces the reader to the central landmarks and key moments in our City’s history. Jenna has given her permission to be included in the book and is excited about sharing her, and the city’s story, with young people.
445
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.
FISCAL IMPACT
Currently, the total cost of the project is unknown. The City's funds for the children's book will be equal to the amount provided by the Clovis Community Foundation's commitment. There are some available funds in the City Council and City Manager’s budget to cover the City’s portion of the funding for the project.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
This book accomplishes goals which the City of Clovis has deemed important, including preserving our city’s history while educating our youngest generation of readers. This book also provides a platform to highlight the accomplishments of Jenna Prandini and the importance of physical fitness, setting goals, and accomplishing great things.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If approved, the City will fund a portion of the project and staff will work to complete, publish, and distribute the children’s book. The book will be provided at low cost or at no cost to our city’s children.
Prepared by: Chad McCollum, Economic Development, Housing and Communications Director Reviewed by: City Manager JH
446
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration
DATE: November 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Consider Approval – Change of Council Meeting Schedule.
Staff: John Holt, City Manager
Recommendation: Approve
ATTACHMENTS: None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmembers should consider recusal if a campaign contribution exceeding $250 has been received from the project proponent (developer, applicant, agent, and/or participants) since January 1, 2023 (Government Code 84308).
RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to approve the cancellation of the regular Council meeting scheduled for Monday, November 20, 2023.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is a need to change the schedule of meetings for the City Council in November. Staff is recommending that City Council cancel the meeting of November 20, 2023.
BACKGROUND
Staff is able to consolidate the agenda items to the first and second meetings in November. Staff is recommending that City Council consider canceling the meeting of November 20, 2023. Given adequate notice, staff will be able to amend the timing of actions coming forward so that operations will not be affected by the cancellations.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the Clovis Municipal Code, the City Council meets in regular session on the first, second, and third Monday of each month, except when those Mondays occur on a recognized 447
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
City holiday. The City Council needs to confirm any change to the schedule of meetings in order to properly notice the public of the City Council’s schedule of meetings.
ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
A revised schedule of meetings will be published in conformance with law.
Prepared by: Rebecca Simonian, Executive Assistant
Reviewed by: City Manager JH
448
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.