Cudahy City Council
July 15, 2025

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #2
QUESTION #2

POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED WALKING AND BICYCLING, ESPECIALLY AMONG STUDENTS, INCLUDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF

WALKING AND BICYCLING ROUTES TO AND FROM SCHOOLS, TRANSIT FACILITIES, COMMUNITY CENTERS, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, AND OTHER DESTINATIONS; AND INCLUDING INCREASING AND IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY OF NONMOTORIZED USERS. (0-40 POINTS) Safe Routes to School projects: The following information related to the Safe Routes to School Projects data was already entered in part 3 of the application.

School Total Student
Enrollment
Approx. # of Students
Living Along School
Route Proposed
Teresa Hughes Elementary
Sh l
576 500
Total 576 500
A. Statement of project need. Describe the community and the issue(s) that this project will address. How will the proposed project benefit the non-motorized users of all ages and varying abilities, including students, older adults, and persons with disabilities? What is the project's desired outcome and how will the project best deliver that outcome? (0-20 points) Discuss:
x Destinations and key connectivity the project will achieve x How the project will increase walking and/or biking
x The lack of mobility if applicable - Does the population have limited access to cars? bikes? and transit? Does the project have an unserved or underserved demand? x The local health concern responses should focus on:

Specific local public health concerns, health disparity, and/or conditions in the built and social environment that affect the project community and can be addressed through the proposed project. Please provide detailed and locally relevant answers instead of general descriptions on the health benefits of walking and biking (i.e. "walking and biking increase physical activity").

Local public health data demonstrating the above public health concern or health disparity. Data should be at the smallest geography available (state or national data is not sufficient). One potential source is the Healthy Places Index (HPI) (http:// healthyplacesindex.org)
x For combined I/NI projects: Discuss need for an encouragement and education program. (Max of 900 Words) Words Remaining: 578
The City of Cudahy is a highly dense disadvantaged community, with approximately 23,000 residents inhabiting a 1.2 mile area. Despite having such a dense population, the City only has one walkable major avenue, since Salt Lake Avenue is too narrow. The unsafe conditions have deterred residents from using Salt Lake Avenue as a pedestrian route. This is problematic for multiple reasons.

First, Salt Lake Avenue has been identified as a pedestrian route to Teresa Hughes Elementary School, as well as Lugo Park and the youth center. However, due to its unsafe conditions from being too narrow, residents do not walk on this street, or do not feel safe when doing so. Because it is too narrow, the street is not ADA compliant, which substantially hinders our disabled community. Therefore, the street widening project would convert all of Salt Lake Avenue into a pedestrian route, which would allow residents access to schools and community resources by increasing walking along the avenue.

Second, Salt Lake Avenue will be a primary connection to four major developments in the City. The first is KIPP Charter School that will be by Salt Lake Avenue as well as a proposed pocket park across the school. A pedestrian friendly Salt Lake Avenue ensures that residents have a safe way of walking to both these projects. The other two developments are the Firestone and Florence WSAB stations on the South and North border of Salt Lake Avenue, respectively. The WSAB stations are major transit stations that will connect the region. Salt Lake Avenue will be the primary connector of both these stations. Therefore, it is fundamental that the street is converted to a pedestrian route, to allow residents walking access to both these stations.

This street widening project would connect the entire N-S side of Cudahy through Salt Lake Avenue which would give residents walking access to two schools, two parks, a community center, and two proposed major transit lines.

B. Describe how the proposed project will address the active transportation need: (0-20 points)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
x Closes a gap?
x Creates new routes?
x Removes barrier to mobility?
x Other improvements to existing routes?
x Implements a non-infrastructure program?
No. of gaps: 1 Total length of gap(s) (feet): 7,100
Gap closure = Construction of a missing segment of an existing facility in order to make that facility continuous.

New route = Construction of a new facility that did not previously exist for non-motorized users that provides a course or way to get from one place to another.

Type of barrier: Other If Other, please explain Street widening enhances pedestrian mobility and safety a. Describe how the project links or connects, or encourages use of existing routes to transportation-related and community identified destinations, including but not limited to: schools, school facilities, transit facilities, community, social service or medical centers, employment centers, high density or affordable housing, regional, State or national trail system, recreational and visitor destinations or other community identified destinations. Specific destinations must be identified. And/or describe the existing negative effects of the barrier to be removed and how the project addresses the existing barrier. (Max of 750 Words) The project links Teresa Hughes Elementary, Lugo Park, and its community center (7810 Otis Avenue) to the western portion of the City.

Additionally, it is going to provide a pedestrian route connection to the Firestone and Florence WSAB Stations, which would have regional impacts. Not only would city residents have walking access to both these stations via Salt Lake Avenue, WSAB station users can use Salt Lake Avenue to walk to and from rail lines.

Words Remaining: 675
b. For projects with a non-infrastructure element, describe the NI program, the population it will serve, and how the program will use NI components (e.g., encouragement and education) to address the need(s) identified above with the goal of increasing walking and/ or biking to community identified destinations within the program area. (Max of 500 Words) NA
Words Remaining: 499
Gap Connection.pdf
c. Applicants must provide a map of each gap closure identifying the gap and connections, and/or of the new route location, and/or the barrier location and improvement. For projects with non-infrastructure elements, applicants must include the NI program boundaries and if its a SRTS NI program, identify the school locations.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #3
QUESTION #3

POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER AND/OR RATE OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST FATALITIES AND INJURIES, INCLUDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY HAZARDS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS. (0-25 POINTS) A. Describe project location’s history of pedestrian and bicycle collisions resulting in fatalities and injuries to non-motorized users, which this project will mitigate. (12 points max)
Applicants are encouraged to use the UC Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS-tool, which was specifically designed for the ATP to produce these documents in an efficient manner. Applicants with access to alternative collision data tools and training can utilize their choice of methods/tools. Applicants must respond to question 1 or 2, and have the option to respond to both.

1. For applications using the TIMS ATP tool, attach the following:
a. Collision Heat-map of the area surrounding the project limits - demonstrating the relative collision history of the project limits in relation to the overall jurisdiction/community's collision history b. Project Area Collision Map - identifying the past crash locations within the project limits c. Collision Summaries and collision lists/reports - demonstrating collision trends, collision types, and collision details d. For a Combined I/NI project - If the NI project area is different than the infrastructure portion, the applicant may attach NI related heat-maps, etc in Attachment J

Combine the various maps/summaries into one PDF file and attach it in the field below.

PART B - QUESTION 3 - CUDAHY ATP 6.pdf

2. Applications that do not have the collision data above OR that prefer to provide additional collision data and/or safety in a different format can provide this data below. (Examples include: Collision Rates, Community Observations, surveys, Street Story ( https:// streetstory.berkeley.edu/), Crowd Source, etc.)

The data and corresponding methodologies can be included in written/text form and/or via a separate attachment in the field below. (Max of 200 Words) (optional) Words Remaining:

Data and methodologies Attachment (optional)

3. From the project-area collision summaries/data provided in questions 1 and/or 2, enter the total reported pedestrian and/or bicycle collisions using the most recent 5 to 11 years of available data:

How many years of collision data were used in the Heat Maps and collision summaries: 10 # of Crashes Pedestrian Bicycle Total Average Per Year
Fatalities 1 0 1 0.1
Injuries 2 3 5 0.5
Total 3 3 6 0.6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1

4. Referencing the project-area collision summaries/data provided in questions 1 and/or 2, discuss the extent to which the proposed project limits represents one of the agency's top priorities for addressing ongoing safety and discuss how the proposed safety improvements correspond to the types and locations of the past collisions. Consider the safety concerns of students, older adults, and persons with disabilities in your response.

For Projects with Non-Infrastructure elements (Combined I/NI projects):

As appropriate, describe how the NI program elements:
● educates bicyclists, pedestrians, and/or drivers about safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists; and ● encourages safe behavior
(Max of 900 Words) Words Remaining: 804
The City's top priority is to have safe, pedestrian friendly streets citywide. Specifically, emphasis is given to its major avenues. The Salt Lake Avenue street widening project directly address pedestrian safety concerns in the street by making it accessible to residents and its disabled community. All of Salt Lake Avenue is currently too narrow which is a major concern for pedestrian safety, especially along an avenue that is used heavily by motorized vehicles, including trucks. Therefore, the proposed project directly addresses increasing pedestrian safety along Salt Lake Avenue by ensuring residents have ample space to walk.

B. Safety Countermeasures (13 points max)
Describe how the project improvements will remedy (one or more) potential safety hazards that contribute to pedestrian and/or bicyclist injuries or fatalities. Referencing the information you provided in Part A, demonstrate how the proposed countermeasures directly address the underlying factors that are contributing to the occurrence of pedestrian and/or bicyclist collisions. Combined I/NI projects should address both infrastructure and non-infrastructure elements. a. Reduces speed or volume of motor vehicles in the proximity of non-motorized users? Discuss current speed and volume and anticipated speed and volume. b. Improves sight distance and visibility between motorized and non-motorized users? Discuss current sight distance and/or visibility issue(s) and anticipated issue resolution. c. Eliminates potential conflict points between motorized and non-motorized users, including creating physical separation between motorized and non-motorized users?
Discuss current conflict point description and anticipated issue resolution. d. Improves compliance with local traffic laws for both motorized and non-motorized users? Discuss which law(s) and how the project will improve compliance. e. Addresses inadequate vehicular traffic control devices? Discuss which devices are inadequate, how they are inadequate and how the project will address the issues. f. Inadequate or unsafe bicycle facilities, trails, crosswalks and/or sidewalks? Identify which facilities are inadequate, how they are inadequate and how the project will address the issues. g. Eliminates or reduces behaviors that lead to collisions involving non-motorized users? Identify the behaviors and how the project will address them. (Max of 1500 Words) Words Remaining: 1336
Currently, Salt Lake Avenue is inadequate because it is too narrow. Therefore, the project proposes to widen the sidewalk by 4 feet.

The City's findings show one pedestrian fatality and two injuries as well as three cyclist injuries that can be directly a result of the street being too narrow, and therefore pedestrians walking on a pedestrian sidewalk. The numbers are more worrisome due to the fact that Salt Lake Avenue is not a particularly active pedestrian route. Therefore, pedestrian/cyclists injuries and deaths may exacerbate in the following years as a new school and two train stations develop and pedestrians are made to walk on a narrow Salt Lake Avenue.

The intent of this project is to remedy current and future pedestrian injuries and fatalities, by widening the sidewalk and providing pedestrians sufficient space to safely walk along the Avenue. Doing so would reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities. This project is needed as a direct countermeasures to the collisions found in the City's data.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #4
QUESTION #4
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and PLANNING (0-10 POINTS)
Describe the community based public participation process that culminated in the project. Combined I/NI projects should address both infrastructure and non-infrastructure elements.

A. What is/was the process of defining designs to prepare for future needs of users of this project? How did the applicant analyze the alternatives and impacts on the transportation system to influence beneficial outcomes? (0-6 Points) (Max of 500 words) Words Remaining: 322
Designs have not yet been developed for this project. However, the project was identified by the City's Safe Routes to School Plan. Project identification involved receiving feedback from the City's five public schools via one on one meetings with the principals, as well as collecting data from parents via bilingual surveys. Community engagement included conducting workshops and collection feedback from the community during special events and gatherings. A Technical Advisory Committee was also formed to provide specific feedback on the plan. The body consisted of neighboring cities, city staff, and key stakeholders/ policy experts such as the LA County Sheriff's Department, the LA County of Public Health, LA Unified School District School Police, Kaiser Permanente, and UC Los Angeles.

Defining designs to prepare for future needs was conducted by identifying future developments along Salt Lake Avenue and analyzing the impacts it would have on pedestrian activity along the street. The analysis found that Salt Lake Avenue needs to be converted to a pedestrian friendly street via street widening to ensure residents have safe walking access to essential services.

B. Describe who was/will be engaged in the identification and development of this project. Describe how stakeholders will continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project. Describe the strategies used to address engagement challenges that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic and any unique engagement challenges that the community faced. (0-4 Points) (Max of 700 words) The City went through a thorough stakeholder and community outreach campaign when it identified Salt Lake Avenue as a street in need of enhancing to increase pedestrian accessibility. The SRTS Plan was approved in 2015. Therefore, the there were no engagement challenged that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A common barrier is the City's predominantly Spanish speaking community. Due to a vast majority of residents being Spanish speaking, our community outreach efforts focused on conducting Spanish only workshops, flyers, and surveys to ensure there is no language barrier as well as maximizing community output.

Stakeholders and the community will continue to be engaged as a follow up to the adopted Safe Routes to School Plan. This would include updating members of the Technical Advisory Committee, all school principals, specifically Teresa Hughes Elementary, and a public outreach campaign that would include bilingual social media posts, press releases, and public announcements at Council meetings, Public Safety Commission meetings, and other community events. If awarded, the City would also work with its design consultant to include and receive feedback from the public and relevant stakeholders during the design phase of the project, when possible.

Words Remaining: 508
Attach any applicable Public Participation & Planning documents Cudahy SRTS Plan - Summary.pdf

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #5
QUESTION #5
CONTEXT SENSITIVE BIKEWAYS/WALKWAYS and INNOVATIVE PROJECT ELEMENTS (0-5 POINTS) A. How are the "recognized best" solutions employed in this project appropriate to maximize user comfort and for the local community context?
As you address this question, consider the following:
● The posted speed limits and actual speed;
● The existing and future motorized and non-motorized traffic volume; ● The widths for each facility;
● The amount of physical separation from vehicular traffic; ● The adjacent land use; and
● How the project is advancing a low(er) stress environment on each facility or a low stress network:

What is the current stress level? (low, medium, or high?) If the stress level is medium or high, is the project going beyond minimum design standards to maximize comfort for all ages and abilities?
What features are included to promote low-stress, comfortable, and safe walking and/or biking conditions? Does the project expand on or create a low-stress network? (Max of 700 words) Words Remaining: 559
The width of the street will be extending by 4 feet which would substantially increase pedestrian safety along the avenue as it would provide adequate separation from vehicular traffic. 47 trees will be planted throughout the avenue to provide shading and encourage pedestrian activity. There will be benches to serve as rest areas for pedestrians as well as installation of 47 pedestrian lighting throughout the Avenue to ensure pedestrian visibility throughout the avenue. These amenities to the project increase pedestrian safety, comfort, practicality, and encourages pedestrians to take Salt Lake Avenue to reach their desired destination. The adjacent land use allows a future school, as well as already has a current school and green space. These consistent land use developments as well as the two proposed WSAB projects will greatly encourage pedestrians to use Salt Lake avenue as a pedestrian route.

B. Innovative Project Elements
Does this project propose any solutions that are new to the region? Were any innovative elements considered, but not selected? Explain why they were not selected. Combined I/NI projects should address both infrastructure and non-infrastructure elements. (Max of 500 words) Words Remaining: 467
No new solutions are being proposed that are new to the region. The City wants Salt Lake Avenue to be pedestrian accessible and consistent with neighboring Huntington Park's side of Salt Lake Avenue.

NA.

Words Remaining: 499
C. NI Evaluation and Sustainability
For projects with non-infrastructure elements, describe how effectiveness of the program will be measured and how the program will be sustained after completion. (Max of 500 words)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #6
QUESTION #6
LEVERAGING FUNDS (0-5 POINTS)
Projects submitted by Tribal Governments and/or that are on Tribal Lands will get the full Leveraging points for both Medium and Large Infrastructure Applications.

This project is being submitted by a Tribal Government and/or is on Tribal Lands A. The application funding plan will show all federal, state and local funding for the project: (5 points max) Based on the project funding information provided earlier in the application (Part 6: Project Funding), the following Leveraging amounts are designated for this project. These amounts should match the amounts shown in Part A6: Project Funding.

Non-ATP funding can only be considered "Leveraging" funding if it goes towards ATP eligible costs. If the project includes ineligible costs, the application must confirm the leveraging funding shown below does not include the non-ATP funds for ineligible items.

PA&ED Phase Project Delivery Costs:

Leveraging Funding: $0 Designate the Funding Type:

PS&E Phase Project Delivery Costs:

Leveraging Funding: $0 Designate the Funding Type:

Right of Way Phase Project Delivery Costs:

Leveraging Funding: $0 Designate the Funding Type:

Construction Phase Project Delivery Costs:

Leveraging Funding: $0 Designate the Funding Type:

Projects with NON-INFRASTRUCTURE (NI) elements:

Leveraging Funding: $0 Designate the Funding Type:

OVERALL TOTALS FOR PROJECT/APPLICATION:

Total Project Costs: $7,125
Leveraging Funding: $0
% of Total Project 0.00 %
Total Points received for “leveraging funding”: (Auto-calculated) 1 Point At least 1% to 5% of total project cost
2 Points More than 5% to less than 10% of total project cost 3 Points At least 10% to 15% of total project cost
4 Points More than 15% to 20% of the project cost
5 Points More than 20% of the total project cost
Applicants must attach a signed letter of commitment indicating the amounts and sources of leveraged funds. Applicants may also include other documentation to substantiate leveraging, including meeting minutes from a governing body, a budget sheet, a board or council resolution, etc.

Leverage Justification Attachment
Based on the project funding information provided earlier in the application (Part 6: Project Funding), the following Leveraging amounts are designated for this project. These amounts should match the amounts shown in Part A6: Project Funding.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Optional: If desired, clarifications can be added to explain the leveraging funding and its intended use on the ATP project. (Max of 100 Words)
NA.

Words Remaining: 99

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #7
QUESTION #7
SCOPE AND PLAN CONSISTENCY (0 - 5 points)
A. The evaluators will consider the following: (5 points max) • Consistency between the Layouts/maps, Engineer's estimate and Proposed scope • Compliance with the Engineer’s Checklist and cost effectiveness • Complete project schedule
B. For combination I/NI projects, the 25-R will be evaluated for:
• How well it reflects the applicant's responses throughout this application • How well the overall scope meets the Purpose and Goals for the ATP, as defined by the CTC Guidelines • Compliance with the ATP Non-Infrastructure Program Guidance

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #8
QUESTION #8

USE OF CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS (CCC) OR CERTIFIED LOCAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION CORPS (CALCC) (-5 to 0 POINTS)
Applicant has not coordinated with both corps, or Tribal Corps (if applicable) (-5 points) Applicant contacted the corps; but does not intend to partner with any corps (-5 points) Applicant is not requesting Construction funds (0 points) Step 1: The applicant must submit the ATP Corps Consultation Form to both the CCC and CALCC at least ten (10) business days prior to the application submittal to Caltrans. The CCC and CALCC will respond within ten (10) business days from receipt of the information.

Links to the ATP Corps Consultation Form, instructions and contact information for submission or questions can be found at:

California Conservation Corps ATP webpage
Or
Certified Local Conservation Corps ATP webpage
The applicant must also attach any email correspondence from the CCC and CALCC or Tribal Corps (if applicable) to the application verifying communication/participation. Failure to attach their email responses will result in a loss of 5 points.

Attach submittal email, response email and any attachment(s) from the CCC:

CCC.pdf
Attach submittal email, response email and any attachment(s) from the CALCC:

CALCC.pdf
Attach submittal email, response email and any attachment(s) from the Tribal Corps (If applicable):

Step 2: The applicant has coordinated with the CCC AND with the CALCC, or the Tribal Corps and determined the following: (check appropriate box)
Applicant intends to utilize the CCC, CALCC, or the Tribal Corps on the following items listed below. (0 points) (Max of 100 Words)
No corps can participate in the project. (0 points)
At the time that the application was submitted, the applicant had not received a response from the following corps: (0 points) the CCC the CALCC the Tribal Corps (if applicable)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part B: Narrative Questions
Question #9
APPLICANT'S PERFORMANCE ON PAST ATP FUNDED PROJECTS (0 to -10 points) For CTC use only.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATP APPLICATION FORM
LAPG 25-U (REV 05/2022) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 7-Cudahy, City of-1
Part C: Application Attachments
Applicants must ensure all data in this part of the application is fully consistent with the other parts of the application. See the Application Instructions and Guidance document for more information and requirements related to Part C.

List of Application Attachments
The following attachment names and order must be maintained for all applications. Depending on the Project Type (I, NI or Plans) some attachments will be intentionally left blank. All non-blank attachments must be identified in hard-copy applications using “tabs” with appropriate letter designations.

Application Signature Page (Required for all applications) Attachment A Attachment-A-Signature-Page - CUDAHY ATP-6.pdf
Engineer's Checklist (Required for Infrastructure & Combo Projects) Attachment B Attachment-B-Engr-Checklist - CUDAHY ATP-6.pdf
Project Location Map (Required for all applications) Attachment C Attachment C - CUDAHY ATP-6.pdf
Project Layout/Plans showing existing and proposed conditions Attachment D (Required for all Infrastructure Projects)
Attachment D - CUDAHY ATP-6.pdf
Photos of Existing Conditions (Required for all applications) Attachment E Attachment E - CUDAHY ATP-6.pdf
Project Estimate (Required for all Infrastructure Projects) Attachment F Attachment-F-Project-Estimate - CUDAHY ATP-6.xlsx
Non-Infrastructure Work Plan (Exhibit 25-R) Attachment G (Required for all projects with Non-Infrastructure Elements) Plan Scope of Work (Exhibit 25-Plan) Attachment H
(Required for all Plan Projects)
Letters of Support (10 maximum) and Support Documentation Attachment I (Required or recommended for all projects as designated in the instructions) (All letters must be scanned into one document.) Attachment I - CUDAHY ATP-6.pdf
Exhibit 25-F State Funding Attachment J
Additional Attachments Attachment K
(Additional attachments may be included. They should be organized in a way that allows application reviewers easy identification and review of the information.) (All additional attachments must be scanned into one document.) Attachment K - CUDAHY ATP-6.pdf

6DOW/DNH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLEOH3URMHFW
352-(&7/2&$7,210$3
352-(&76,7(
6$/./$.($9(18(352-(&7/,0,76
:$/18767$7/$17,&$9(
&8'$+<&,7<%281'$5,(6

352326('352-(&7,6/2&$7(':,7+,1&,7<2)&8'$+<-85,6',&7,21 %HOO
&8'$+<
6RXWK*DWH
+XQWLQJWRQ3DUN 352-(&76,7(

$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17&


$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17&


6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW
352-(&7/2&$7,210$3

:6$%)8785(75$,167$7,216:,7+,1&,7<2)&8'$+<%281'$5,(6

352-(&7 /,0,76

$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17'


6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW
(;,67,1*&21',7,216

352-(&7/$<2870$3

6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD(GLVRQ

6&(
3ROHVORFDWHGLQWKH
PLGGOHRIVLGHZDON
([LVWLQJVWUHHW
ZLGWK 
0LQ
0D[
([LVWLQJQDUURZVLGHZDON

QRQ$'$&RPSOLDQFH

RQHDVWVLGHRIVWUHHWRQO\

$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17'


6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW
352326(',03529(0(176

352-(&7/$<2870$3

62:
)W6LGHZDONH[WHQVLRQWRH[LVWLQJQRQ$'$
FRPSOLDQFHVLGHZDONDORQJ6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
:DOQXW6W
WR$WODQWLF$YHWRFRQQHFWIXWXUH:6$%WUDLQVWDWLRQVLQ +XQWLQJWRQ3DUNDQG6RXWK*DWHSHGHVWULDQOLJKWLQJ
ZD\ILQGLQJVLJQDJHDQG$'$UDPSVFRQVWUXFWLRQ
)XWXUH:6$%
7UDQVLW&RUULGRU

$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17'


6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW
(;,67,1*&21',7,216

&52666(&7,216(/(9$7,216

x ([LVWLQJVLGHZDONRQO\RQHDVWVLGHRIWKHVWUHHWx ([LVWLQJVLGHZDON QRQ$'$FRPSOLDQFH

x 6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD(GLVRQ
6&(

3ROHVDQGILUHK\GUDQWVORFDWHG
ULJKWLQWKHPLGGOHRIH[LVWLQJQDUURZVLGHZDON
675((7:,'7+ 
0LQ

0D[

([LVWLQJ
6WUHHWZLGWK 
0LQ

0D[

([LVWLQJ

$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17'


6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW
352326(',03529(0(176

&52666(&7,216(/(9$7,216

x )W6LGHZDONH[WHQVLRQWRH[LVWLQJVLGHZDONWRDOORZ SHGHVWULDQDFWLYLW\DORQJ6DOW/DNH$YHQXH



x )W6LGHZDONH[WHQVLRQWR
H[LVWLQJVLGHZDONIRU$'$
FRPSOLDQFHDVZHOODVSHGHVWULDQ
OLJKWLQJZD\ILQGLQJVLJQDJHDQG
VWUHHWUHKDELOLWDWLRQ
&LW\%RXQGDU\ &LW\%RXQGDU\

$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17(
6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW
$77$&+0(17(
3+27262)(;,67,1*&21',7,216

Detailed Project Estimate and Total Project Costs- Cycle 6 Important: Read the Instructions in the first sheet (tab) before entering data. Do not enter data in shaded fields (with formulas).

Project Information:

Agency: Date:

Project Description:

Project Location:

Licensed Engineer in responsible charge of preparing or reviewing this PSR-Equivalent Cost Estimate: License #: C70103 Project Estimate and Cost Breakdown:

Cost Breakdown
Project Estimate (for Construction Items Only) ATP Eligible ATP Ineligible Corps/CCC Costs/Items Costs/Items to construct
Item No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Item Cost %$ %$ % $
General Overhead-Related Construction Items
1 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 100% $50,000
2 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 100% $100,000
3 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 100% $50,000
4 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000 100% $35,000
5 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000 100% $75,000
6 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000 100% $35,000
7 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 100% $25,000
8LS 100%
9LS 100%
10 LS 100%
General Construction Items
11 7100 LF $15.00 $106,500 100% $106,500
12 30175 SF $5.00 $150,875 100% $150,875
13 42600 SF $3.50 $149,100 100% $149,100
14 7100 LF $77.00 $546,700 100% $546,700
15 56800 SF $22.00 $1,249,600 100% $1,249,600
16 20 EA $27,500.00 $550,000 100% $550,000
17 14200 SF $14.00 $198,800 100% $198,800
18 16500 SF $2.50 $41,250 100% $41,250
19 47 EA $8,500.00 $399,500 100% $399,500
20 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000 100% $250,000
21 1 LS $85,000.00 $85,000 100% $85,000
22 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 100% $100,000
23 25 EA $1,500.00 $37,500 100% $37,500
24 5 EA $2,500.00 $12,500 100% $12,500
25 47 EA $2,000.00 $94,000 100% $94,000
26 100%
27 100%
28 100%
29 100%
30 100%
31 100%
32 100%
33 100%
34 100%
35 100%
36 100%
37 100%
38 100%
39 100%
40 100%
41 100%
42 100%
43 100%
44 100%
45 100%
46 100%
47 100%
48 100%
49 100%
50 100%
51 100%
52 100%
Subtotal of Construction Items: $4,341,325 $4,341,325
Construction Item Contingencies (% of Construction Items): 12.00% $520,959 $520,959 Total (Construction Items & Contingencies) cost: $4,862,284 $4,862,284 Project Delivery Costs:

Type of Project Cost Cost $
Preliminary Engineering (PE) ATP Eligible Costs Non-participating Costs Environmental Studies and Permits(PA&ED): $275,000
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E): $632,097 "PE" costs / "CON" costs Total PE: $ 907,097 $907,097 19% 25% Max
Right of Way (RW)
Right of Way Engineering: $175,000
Acquisitions and Utilities: $500,000
Total RW: $ 675,000 $675,000
$ 175,000
$ 500,000
$ 632,097
$ 275,000
Mobilization
Traffic Control
Stormwater Protection Plan
Construction Area Signs
Construction Surevy/ Staking
Permits
Demobilization and Final Cleanup
N/A
N/A
N/A
Removal, demolition, hauling and proper disposal of existing concrete curb and gutter Removal, demolition, hauling and proper disposal of existing concrete sidewalk (includes demolition of driveways). Salvage existing water meter, utility boxes and Removal, demolition, hauling and proper disposal of existing asphalt concrete to allow room for new sidewalk (includes sawcutting work prior to removal). Salvage existing Construction of new concrete curb & gutter per Caltrans/ Greenbook Standard Specifications
Construction of new concrete sidewalk per Caltrans/ Greenbook Standard Specifications (includes construction of driveways)
Removal and reconstrcution of concrete curb ramps for ADA complianc; add medium to large curb extensions at all skewed interesections; utility manholes and valves Reconstruction of pavement/ 2ft slot patch immediate adjacent to new concrete curb & gutter construction within sidewalk limits
Slurry seal at pedestrian crosswalk areas between new ADA ramps at intersections to receive new traffic striping
Install new pedestrian lighting along the Salt Lake Avenue corridor (Iincludes foundation work and all required apputenances)
Electric service / system and installation for new pedestrian lighting (includes instalation of new conduit, SCE cabinets, and other required appurtennances) Install wayfinding signs per code compliance (includes foundation work, pole and signs)
Traffic Striping (thermoplastic traffic striping at intersections for pedestrian crosswalkswhite and/or yellow zebra-stripe crosswalk) Install trash receptacles along the Salt Lake Avenue corridor Install benches for pedestrians
Plant trees to provide shade for pedestrians along the Sat Lake corridor (15 ga) includes root barrier
City of Cudahy, California 6/12/2022
Infrastructure Project. The project focuses on providing pedestrian access to future WSAB stations within City limits.

Salt Lake Avenue between Walnut St and Atlantic Ave (Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project) Aaron Hernandez-Torres


 RI

Detailed Project Estimate and Total Project Costs- Cycle 6 Important: Read the Instructions in the first sheet (tab) before entering data. Do not enter data in shaded fields (with formulas).

Project Information:

Agency: Date:

Project Description:

Project Location:

Licensed Engineer in responsible charge of preparing or reviewing this PSR-Equivalent Cost Estimate: License #: C70103 City of Cudahy, California 6/12/2022
Infrastructure Project. The project focuses on providing pedestrian access to future WSAB stations within City limits.

Salt Lake Avenue between Walnut St and Atlantic Ave (Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project) Aaron Hernandez-Torres
Total Pre-Construction Costs (PE+RW): $1,582,097 $1,582,097 Construction Engineering (CE) "CE" costs / "CON" costs
Construction Engineering (CE): $680,720 14% 15% Max
Total Construction Costs: $5,543,004 $5,543,004
ATP Eligible Costs Non-participating Costs
Total Project Cost: $7,125,101
Documentation of Ineligible (Non-Participating) Costs:

The Engineer's logic and/or calculations for splitting costs between ATP-Eligible and Non-participating costs must be documented in this section of the Estimate form.

Separate logic is required for each item which is partly ineligible for ATP funding or is required for the construction of an ineligible item/element of the project.

Item #: Description of Engineer's Logic: (See examples shown in the Instructions) $7,125,101
$ 680,720


 RI

$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17,
6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW
$77$&+0(17,
/(77(562)6833257

June 10, 2022
Mr. Steven Keck
Acting Director
California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street, MS 49
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Letter of Support for Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6 Application Dear Director Keck:

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) supports the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6 funding request for the Salt Lake Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project in the City of Cudahy.

We are committed to promoting goals such as increasing safety and mobility, enhancing public health, and helping achieve greenhouse gas reduction across all of our communities. Active transportation is key to achieving these outcomes.

In furthering these regional goals, we have developed multiple initiatives and programs to address issues associated with bicycling and walking trips, including the Active Transportation Strategic Plan, Complete Streets Policy, Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy, First/Last Mile Strategic Plan, 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, and our Vision 2028 Plan. We implement these policies as part of a larger regional effort to support the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS) which identifies active transportation as key to addressing Southern California’s mobility challenges.

This project is consistent with our plans and policies and the 2020 RTP/SCS, as well as the shared priorities and goals of our agency and the ATP. If successful in securing ATP funding, this project will require coordination with and/or approvals from Metro due to proximity to Metro projects or Right-ofWay, in addition to Metro funding programs where project scope elements may overlap. With this understanding, we endorse the efforts and contribution of the City of Cudahy towards a sustainable transportation future, and respectfully request favorable consideration of this project for ATP funding.

Sincerely,
James de la Loza
Chief Planning Officer

BOARD OF SUPERV ISORS

CO UNT Y OF LO S ANGE LES
.(11(7++$+1+$//2)$'0,1,675$7,21/26$1*(/(6&$/,)251,$ 
Telephone (213) 974-4444 / FAX (213) 229-3676

J A N I C E H A H N
)RXUWK'LVWULFW
-XQH
0U6WHYHQ.HFN
$FWLQJ'LUHFWRU
&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
16WUHHW06

6DFUDPHQWR&$

6XEMHFW
/HWWHURI6XSSRUWIRU6DOW /DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW ± $FWLYH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3URJUDP&\FOH
'HDU'LUHFWRU.HFN

,DPSOHDVHGWRVXEPLWWKLVOHWWHULQVXSSRUWRIWKH&LW\RI&XGDK\¶VHIIRUWVWRVHFXUHIXQGLQJXQGHUWKH$FWLYH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3URJUDP &\FOH
$73
IRUWKH6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW 7KHSURMHFW IRFXVHV RQSURYLGLQJSHGHVWULDQDFFHVVWRWKH:HVW6DQWD$QD%UDQFK :6$%
XSFRPLQJWUDLQVWDWLRQVWREH
ORFDWHGMXVWQRUWKDQGVRXWKRI&XGDK\¶V &LW\OLPLWV7KH&LW\ LVIRFXVHGRQLPSURYLQJWKHVDIHW\RIIXWXUH:6$% FRPPXWHUVDQGUHVLGHQWVRQ6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
5HFHLYLQJIXQGVXQGHUWKLVSURJUDPZLOOKHOSWKH&LW\LPSURYHLWVSRWHQWLDOIRULQFUHDVHGZDONLQJ DORQJWKH6DOW /DNH FRUULGRU UHGXFHWKHQXPEHUDQGRU UDWHRISHGHVWULDQDFFLGHQWVDQGLPSURYHWKH FRQQHFWLYLW\EHWZHHQ IXWXUH:6$%WUDLQVWDWLRQVZKLOHHQFRXUDJLQJPRUHZDONLQJDQGUHGXFLQJ YHKLFXODUWUDIILF 0RUHRYHUWKHSURMHFW ZLOOLQFOXGHRWKHUHOHPHQWVVXFKDVSHGHVWULDQOLJKWLQJZD\ILQGLQJVLJQDJHDQGSXEOLFDUWWKDWZLOOEHDXWLI\WKH DUHD
7KH LPSURYHPHQWV SURSRVHG E\WKH &LW\ ZLOO HQKDQFH SHGHVWULDQ VDIHW\ EHWZHHQWKH QHZ:6$% VWDWLRQV LQ +XQWLQJWRQ3DUNDQG6RXWK*DWHDQG ZLOOHQFRXUDJHIXWXUHFRPPXWHUVDQGORFDOUHVLGHQWVWRFRQVLGHUZDONLQJ EHWZHHQVWDWLRQV7KLVSURMHFWLVYHU\LPSRUWDQWWRWKH&LW\RI&XGDK\DVZHFRQWLQXHWRILQGZD\VWRPLWLJDWH SHGHVWULDQPRWRULVWLQFLGHQWV7KH SURSRVHGSURMHFWZLOODGGUHVVUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRXWOLQHGLQLWV*HQHUDO3ODQ DQGLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK0HWURSROLFLHVDQGJRDOV
:HVXSSRUWWKH&LW\ LQWKHLUJUDQWDSSOLFDWLRQDQGHQFRXUDJH\RXWRFRQVLGHUWKHLUUHTXHVWIRUIXQGLQJ 6LQFHUHO\
-$1,&(+$+1
6XSHUYLVRU)RXUWK'LVWULFW
&RXQW\RI/RV $QJHOHV

3DUDPRXQW%RXOHYDUGƒ3DUDPRXQWƒ&DOLIRUQLD ‚

‚ ZZZHFRUDSLGRUJ
(FR5DSLG7UDQVLWIRUPHUO\
NQRZQDVWKH2UDQJHOLQH
'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\LVDMRLQW
SRZHUVDXWKRULW\
-3$
FUHDWHG
WRSXUVXHGHYHORSPHQWRID
WUDQVLWV\VWHPWKDW PRYHVDV
UDSLGO\DVSRVVLEOHXVHVJUDGH
VHSDUDWLRQDVDSSURSULDWHDQGLV
HQYLURQPHQWDOO\IULHQGO\DQG
HQHUJ\HIILFLHQW7KHV\VWHPLV
GHVLJQHGWRHQKDQFHDQG
LQFUHDVHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQRSWLRQV
IRUULGHUVRIWKLVUHJLRQXWLOL]LQJ
VDIHDGYDQFHGWUDQVLW
WHFKQRORJ\WR H[SDQGHFRQRPLF
JURZWKWKDWPD[LPL]HV ULGHUVKLS
LQ6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD
7KH$XWKRULW\LVFRPSRVHGRIWKH
IROORZLQJSXEOLFDJHQFLHV

&LW\RI$UWHVLD
&LW\RI%HOO
&LW\RI%HOO*DUGHQV
&LW\RI&HUULWRV
&LW\RI&XGDK\
&LW\RI'RZQH\
&LW\RI*OHQGDOH
&LW\RI+XQWLQJWRQ3DUN
&LW\RI0D\ZRRG
&LW\RI3DUDPRXQW
&LW\RI6RXWK*DWH
%XUEDQN*OHQGDOH3DVDGHQD
$LUSRUW$XWKRULW\
&KDLU
$OL6DMMDG7DM
&RXQFLO0HPEHU
&LW\RI$UWHVLD
9LFH&KDLU
9UHM$JDMDQLDQ
&RXQFLOPHPEHU
&LW\RI*OHQGDOH
6HFUHWDU\
-RVH5*RQ]DOH]
9LFH0D\RU
&LW\RI&XGDK\
7UHDVXUHU,QWHUQDO$XGLWRU
$OHMDQGUD&RUWH]
&RXQFLOPHPEHU
&LW\RI%HOO*DUGHQV
([HFXWLYH'LUHFWRU
0LFKDHO5.RGDPD
*HQHUDO &RXQVHO
0DWWKHZ76XPPHUV
([2IILFLR
5LFDUGR5H\HV
&LW\0DQDJHU5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
June 13, 2022
Mr. Steven Keck
Acting Director
California Department of Transportation
1120 N. Street, MS 49
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Letter of Support for Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project – Active Transportation Program Cycle 6
Dear Director Keck:

I am pleased to submit this letter in support of the City of Cudahy’s efforts to secure funding under the Active Transportation Program Cycle 6 (ATP-6) for the Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project. The project focuses on providing pedestrian access to the West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) upcoming train stations to be located just north and south of Cudahy’s City limits. The City is focused on improving the safety of future WSAB commuters and residents on Salt Lake Avenue.

Receiving funds under this program will help the City improve its potential to increase walkability along the Salt Lake corridor, reduce the number and/or rate of pedestrian accidents, and improve the connectivity between two future WSAB train stations while encouraging more walking and reducing vehicular traffic. Moreover, the project will include other elements such as pedestrian lighting, wayfinding signage and public art that will beautify the area.

The improvements proposed by the City will enhance pedestrian safety between the new WSAB stations in Huntington Park and South Gate and will encourage future commuters and local residents to consider walking to and between stations. This project is very important to the City of Cudahy and the entire region as we continue to find ways to mitigate pedestrian-motorist incidents. The proposed project will address recommendations outlined in the Cudahy General Plan and is consistent with Metro policies and goals.

We support the City in their grant application and encourage you to consider their request for funding.

Sincerely,
Michael R. Kodama
Executive Director

3DUDPRXQW%RXOHYDUGƒ3DUDPRXQWƒ&DOLIRUQLD ‚

‚ ZZZHFRUDSLGRUJ
(FR5DSLG7UDQVLWIRUPHUO\
NQRZQDVWKH2UDQJHOLQH
'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\LVDMRLQW
SRZHUVDXWKRULW\
-3$
FUHDWHG
WRSXUVXHGHYHORSPHQWRID
WUDQVLWV\VWHPWKDW PRYHVDV
UDSLGO\DVSRVVLEOHXVHVJUDGH
VHSDUDWLRQDVDSSURSULDWHDQGLV
HQYLURQPHQWDOO\IULHQGO\DQG
HQHUJ\HIILFLHQW7KHV\VWHPLV
GHVLJQHGWRHQKDQFHDQG
LQFUHDVHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQRSWLRQV
IRUULGHUVRIWKLVUHJLRQXWLOL]LQJ
VDIHDGYDQFHGWUDQVLW
WHFKQRORJ\WR H[SDQGHFRQRPLF
JURZWKWKDWPD[LPL]HV ULGHUVKLS
LQ6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD
7KH$XWKRULW\LVFRPSRVHGRIWKH
IROORZLQJSXEOLFDJHQFLHV

&LW\RI$UWHVLD
&LW\RI%HOO
&LW\RI%HOO*DUGHQV
&LW\RI&HUULWRV
&LW\RI&XGDK\
&LW\RI'RZQH\
&LW\RI*OHQGDOH
&LW\RI+XQWLQJWRQ3DUN
&LW\RI0D\ZRRG
&LW\RI3DUDPRXQW
&LW\RI6RXWK*DWH
%XUEDQN*OHQGDOH3DVDGHQD
$LUSRUW$XWKRULW\
&KDLU
$OL6DMMDG7DM
&RXQFLO0HPEHU
&LW\RI$UWHVLD
9LFH&KDLU
9UHM$JDMDQLDQ
&RXQFLOPHPEHU
&LW\RI*OHQGDOH
6HFUHWDU\
-RVH5*RQ]DOH]
9LFH0D\RU
&LW\RI&XGDK\
7UHDVXUHU,QWHUQDO$XGLWRU
$OHMDQGUD&RUWH]
&RXQFLOPHPEHU
&LW\RI%HOO*DUGHQV
([HFXWLYH'LUHFWRU
0LFKDHO5.RGDPD
*HQHUDO &RXQVHO
0DWWKHZ76XPPHUV
([2IILFLR
5LFDUGR5H\HV
&LW\0DQDJHU5HSUHVHQWDWLYH

$GULDQD)LJXHURD
3DUDPRXQW
%RDUG&KDLU x .HOOL3LFNOHU
/DNHZRRG
9LFH&KDLU x 7KRPDV%HNHOH
6LJQDO+LOO
6HFUHWDU\7UHDVXUHU
3URXGO\VHUYLQJ*DWHZD\FLWLHVDQGDJHQFLHVLQ6RXWKHDVWHUQ/RV$QJHOHV&RXQW\ 0HPEHUV
$UWHVLDā%HOOā%HOO*DUGHQVā%HOOIORZHUā&HQWUDO%DVLQ0XQLFLSDO:DWHU'LVWULFWā&HUULWRVā&RPPHUFHā&RPSWRQā&XGDK\ā'RZQH\ +DZDLLDQ*DUGHQVā+XQWLQJWRQ3DUNā/D0LUDGDā/DNHZRRGā/RQJ%HDFKā/RQJ%HDFK:DWHU'HSDUWPHQWā/\QZRRGā0D\ZRRGā0RQWHEHOORā1RUZDONā3DUDPRXQW 3LFR5LYHUDā3RUWRI/RQJ%HDFKā6DQWD)H6SULQJVā6LJQDO+LOOā6RXWK*DWHā9HUQRQā:DWHU5HSOHQLVKPHQW'LVWULFWRI6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLDā:KLWWLHU :ith Technical Support From The Sanitation Districts Of Los Angeles County 16401 Paramount Boulevard
Paramount, CA 90723
562.663.6850 phone
562-634-8216 fax
www.gatewaywater.org
Los Angeles Gateway Region
Integrated Regional Water Management
Joint Powers Authority
-XQH
0U6WHYHQ.HFN
$FWLQJ'LUHFWRU
&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
16WUHHW06

6DFUDPHQWR&$

6XEMHFW
/HWWHURI6XSSRUWIRU6DOW /DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW ± $FWLYH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3URJUDP&\FOH
'HDU'LUHFWRU.HFN

,DPSOHDVHGWRVXEPLWWKLVOHWWHULQVXSSRUWRIWKH&LW\RI&XGDK\¶VHIIRUWVWRVHFXUHIXQGLQJXQGHUWKH $FWLYH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3URJUDP &\FOH 
$73
IRUWKH 6DOW /DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\
3URMHFW 7KHSURMHFWIRFXVHV RQSURYLGLQJSHGHVWULDQDFFHVVWRWKH:HVW6DQWD$QD%UDQFK :6$%

XSFRPLQJWUDLQVWDWLRQVWREHORFDWHGMXVWQRUWKDQGVRXWKRI&XGDK\¶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
*UDFH-.DVW
([HFXWLYH2IILFHU
*:0$

352-(&7/2&$7,210$3
6&+22/6

6&+22/6:,7+,1352-(&7$5($2),1)/8(1&(
$&7,9(
75$163257$7,21
352*5$0
$73

&\FOH
$77$&+0(17.
7(5(6$+8*+(66&+22/
(;,67,1*/26$1*(/(681,),('6&+22/',675,&7
/$86'
6&+22/
.,33&+$57(56&+22/
1(:6&+22/81'(5&216758&7,21
12'$7$$9$,/$%/(

2 12
1 6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW







 







Acknowledgements
City of Cudahy City Council Chris Garcia, Mayor Cristian Markovich, Vice Mayor Jack Guerrero, Council Member Diane Oliva, Council Member Baru Sanchez, Council Member Planning Commission Gilbert Cuevas, Chairman Martin Fuentes, Vice Chairman Elizabeth Alcantar, Commissioner Susie de Santiago, Commissioner* Public Safety Commission Frank Parish, Commissioner Joaquin Carrera, Commissioner* Enrique Cardonne, Commissioner Emmanuel D. Cruz, Commissioner Walter Geldar, Commissioner City Staff Jose Pulido, City Manager Michael Allen, Acting Community Development Director* Aaron Hernandez-Torres, Assistant City Engineer* Didier Murillo, Planning Technician* Victor Santiago, Administrative Assistant, Parks and Recreation Raul Mazariegos, Code Enforcement

Cudahy Schools
Adriana Cortez, Principal of Teresa Hughes Elementary Beth Fuller, Principal of Jaime Escalante Elementary Christina Cordova, Principal of Teresa Hughes Elementary Damian Lenon, Principal of Elizabeth Learning Center Mara Bommarito, Principal of Ellen Ochoa Learning Center Los Angeles County Department Of Public Health Uyen Ngo, Policy Analyst, PLACE Program* Chanda Singh, Policy Analyst, PLACE Program* Heidi Lopez, Community Liaison Public Health Nurse, Service Planning Areas 7 and 8* Arnold Lopez, Intern, PLACE Program Jaime Lopez, Intern, PLACE Program Technical Advisory Committee Sheri Bathurst, Kaiser Permanente Sergeant Cynthia Bearse, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Officer Ron Chacon, Los Angeles Unified School District School Police Linda Khamoushian, University of California, Los Angeles Da Hi Lee, City of Bell Raul Mazariegos, Code Enforcement Ryan Snyder, Ryan Snyder Associates *Additional members of Technical Advisory Committee Ryan Snyder Associates – Consultant Ryan Snyder Melody Wu Michele Weisbart Jewel DeGuzman

Thank you to all the stakeholders who played a role in shaping this citywide Safe Routes to School Plan. Without your individual contributions, creating a document that reflects community concerns around walking and bicycling to school in Cudahy would not have been possible. Made possible with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

1 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table of ContentsIntroduction.......................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Why Safe Routes to School? .......................................................................................................................................................................5What is a Safe Routes to School Program? .................................................................................................................................................6Who Created this Plan? ...............................................................................................................................................................................7 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................................................................................8 Location ......................................................................................................................................................................................................8Demographics .............................................................................................................................................................................................8Street Network ............................................................................................................................................................................................9Pedestrian Access.......................................................................................................................................................................................9Bicycle Access ..........................................................................................................................................................................................10Transit .......................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Planning Context.............................................................................................................................................................................................11 General Plan ..............................................................................................................................................................................................11Pedestrian Safety Assessment (PSA) .........................................................................................................................................................14Active Transportation Program, Cycle 1 Application...................................................................................................................................17Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant ............................................................................................................................................18Crash History.............................................................................................................................................................................................19 Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................................................................................22Outreach to Inform the Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................28 School-specific Feedback..........................................................................................................................................................................32 Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................................................................41 General Guide to Program Development....................................................................................................................................................41Education ..................................................................................................................................................................................................42Encouragement .........................................................................................................................................................................................44Enforcement ..............................................................................................................................................................................................46Evaluation..................................................................................................................................................................................................47Engineering (Conceptual) ...........................................................................................................................................................................48Existing Conditions and Engineering Recommendations ............................................................................................................................52 Live Oak Street..................................................................................................................................................................................75

2 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Clara Street from Salt Lake Avenue to Atlantic Avenue ......................................................................................................................76Clara Street from Atlantic Avenue to River Road Turn-off ...................................................................................................................77Santa Ana Street from Salt Lake Avenue to Atlantic Avenue ..............................................................................................................78Salt Lake Avenue from Walnut Street to Elizabeth Street....................................................................................................................78Salt Lake Avenue from Elizabeth Street to Atlantic Avenue.................................................................................................................78Wilcox Avenue...................................................................................................................................................................................78Salt Lake Avenue from Walnut Street to Elizabeth Street....................................................................................................................79Salt Lake Avenue from Elizabeth Street to Atlantic Avenue.................................................................................................................80Florence Avenue................................................................................................................................................................................81 Policies, Procedures and Grant Opportunities .................................................................................................................................................84 Policies ......................................................................................................................................................................................................84Procedures................................................................................................................................................................................................85Grant Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................................................................87 Implementation ...............................................................................................................................................................................................90 Cost ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................90Schedule ...................................................................................................................................................................................................92 Tables
Table 1: Metro Buses That Serve Cudahy......................................................................................................................................................11Table 2: Pedestrian Behavior by School ........................................................................................................................................................18Table 3: Bicycle and Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Within ½ Mile of Each School (2008–2012) (TIMS).....................................................21Table 4: Baseline Commute to School Tally—4/2/14 Morning Commute ......................................................................................................23 Figure 1: Baseline Commute to School Tally by Percentage—4/2/14 Morning Commute ...............................................................23 Table 5: Baseline Commute to School Tally—4/2/14 Afternoon Commute ....................................................................................................24 Figure 2: Baseline Commute to School Tally by Percentage—4/2/14 Afternoon Commute.............................................................24 Table 6: Parent Surveys—How Far Does Your Child Live From School?.......................................................................................................25Table 7: Parent Surveys—Has Your Child Asked You Permission to Walk or Bike to/from School in the Last Year?....................................25Table 8: Parent Surveys—What of the Following Issues Affect Your Decision to Allow Your Child to Walk or Bike to/from School?............26Table 9: Parent Surveys—On Most Days, How Does Your Child Arrive to School? ......................................................................................27Table 10. Education Programs.......................................................................................................................................................................43Table 11. Encouragement Programs .............................................................................................................................................................45Table 12. Enforcement Programs...................................................................................................................................................................46

3 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 13. Evaluation Programs ......................................................................................................................................................................47Table 14. Existing & Proposed Street Configurations in Cudahy...................................................................................................................72Table 15: Planning-Level Cost Estimate for All Projects ................................................................................................................................91Table 16: Active Transportation Planning Grant (ATP 2014) .........................................................................................................................92Table 17: Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant (HSIP 2013) ...........................................................................................................92Table 18: Short-Term and Long-Term Devices and Measures ......................................................................................................................93Table 19: Short-Term Projects........................................................................................................................................................................94Table 20: Medium-Term Projects ...................................................................................................................................................................95Table 21: Long-Term Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................95Table 22: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Short-Term Projects.................................................................................................................96Table 23: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Medium-Term Projects ............................................................................................................97Table 24: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Long-Term Projects .................................................................................................................98 Maps
Map 1. Bicycle & Pedestrian Collisions (Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2012)...........................................................................................................20Map 2. Common Routes to School .................................................................................................................................................................51Map 3. Planned Bikeways ...............................................................................................................................................................................74 Appendix A
California Manual on Uniform Trffic Control Devices (MUTCD)........................................................................................................................ A-1Other Treatments .......................................................................................................................................................................................... A-4Bikeways....................................................................................................................................................................................................... A-6Bicycle Parking.............................................................................................................................................................................................. A-9

4 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Appendix B
City of Bell ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... B-1 Bicycle Improvements .............................................................................................................................................................................. B-1Pedestrian Projects .................................................................................................................................................................................. B-2Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................................................ B-4 Appendix C
City Resolutions.............................................................................................................................................................................................C-1

5 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Introduction The City of Cudahy is continuing its efforts to improve the safety of students who walk or bicycle to all of its public schools through the creation of a citywide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan. This Plan is a guiding document for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, policies, and programs around schools in Cudahy. Through implementation of this Plan, the City aims to enhance the safety and comfort of residents when walking or bicycling to and from schools. While Cudahy is a small city of 1.2 square miles, it is home to nearly 24,000 residents with a large student population. Despite being geographically small, Cudahy has five public schools within its boundaries. Families in Cudahy have 81.4 percent of their children enrolled in preschool through high school. As a result of this small city footprint, but dense population, the implementation of improvements and programs recommended in this Plan will positively impact all residents and visitors to the city.Why Safe Routes to School? The City of Cudahy is committed to creating an environment where residents can lead healthy lives in a livable city. In 2012, the City passed a “Healthy Eating Active Living” resolution (Resolution No. 12-48), which states that while individual lifestyle changes are necessary, individual effort alone is insufficient to combat impacts of obesity. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that children engage in 60 minutes (1 hour) or more of physical activity each day, and that the bulk of this physical activity come through aerobic exercise, such as walking and bicycling. For children and adolescents, regular physical activity helps build and maintain healthy bones and muscles, reduces the risk of developing obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes or asthma, reduces feelings of depression and anxiety, and promotes psychological well-being. In addition, motor-vehicle collisions are the leading cause of premature death for children aged one to four, and the second leading cause of death among five to 24 year olds. In Cudahy, the childhood obesity rate is 28.2 percent compared with the county average of 22.4 percent. The California Office of Traffic Safety ranked Cudahy eight out of 98 cities for number of pedestrian collisions by average population in the “number of pedestrians injured or killed” category, with first being the worst ranking. In addition, when looking at the ranking based on daily vehicle miles traveled for cities in the same population group, Cudahy ranked second out of 93. By enhancing walking and bicycling facilities, the City hopes to increase access to physical activity for its residents, as well as create a safer environment for walkers and cyclists. In addition to the health benefits from increases in physical activity, there are environmental benefits that come from fewer parents driving their children to school every day, such as improved air quality, reduced road particulate accumulation, and

6 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
decreased run-off pollutants. Additionally, as children and families adopt more active lifestyles, their quality of life may increase, as they may have more free time from driving less, and community relationships are strengthened. All of these benefits combine to create more livable neighborhoods surrounding schools. What Is a Safe Routes to School Program? Safe Routes to School is a comprehensive approach to address the safety of children walking and bicycling to and from school. The Safe Routes to School concept originated in the 1970s in Odense, Denmark, and has since spread internationally due to its multiple benefits to students and communities. There are two primary purposes to Safe Routes to School programs:

To make it safer for students to walk and bicycle to school, and To increase the number of students walking and bicycling to school.

Safe Routes to School programs are part of the solution to increase physical activity and improve unsafe walking and bicycling conditions. The school setting provides a unique opportunity to create an environment that encourages walking and bicycling as a way to travel to and from school. This Plan contains a program for a “5 E” approach to make walking and bicycling safer and more attractive to Cudahy’s students and parents. A comprehensive Safe Routes to School project will incorporate the 5 Es in its plan and programs. The 5 Es are the following:

Engineering—to make physical improvements to the streets, routes, and environments around schools that students use to walk or bicycle to school. Recommendations often include strategies to 1) reduce motor vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and, 2) calm or slow down motor vehicle traffic around schools.

Education—to teach students, parents, and neighbors safe walking and bicycling habits, to teach parents and residents the importance of safe driving habits, and to emphasize health and environmental benefits for the school community at large.

Encouragement—to promote walking and bicycling to school so more students and families get excited and choose to do so often.

Encouragement programs also provide opportunities for school staff, parents, and neighbors to get involved, help plan events, and increase social cohesion and community resiliency by working together.

7 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Enforcement—to ensure that the rules and laws of the road and safe pick-up and drop-off practices are adhered to at all schools.

Partnering with law enforcement officials can help address concerns about speeding motor vehicles or threats of crime and violence.

Evaluation—to track the Plan’s implementation, assess its success, and modify it accordingly. This can be done by collecting and analyzing current travel behavior of students through parent surveys, in-classroom tallies, walk audits, bicycle and pedestrianinfrastructure inventories, bicycle and pedestrian counts, motor vehicle collision data, motor vehicle counts, etc.

Evidence shows that this comprehensive “5 E” approach yields successful results in both making communities safer to walk and bicycle in and increasing the number of people walking and bicycling.

Who Created This Plan? This Plan is the product of an iterative process emphasizing stakeholder participation and public input. It is a joint project between the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) and the City involving:

Elizabeth Learning Center Ellen Ochoa Learning Center Jaime Escalante Elementary Park Avenue Elementary Teresa Hughes Elementary The partners on this project collaborated with a variety of stakeholders, including school staff, parents, city officials, and community stakeholders, to gather feedback to inform this Plan. The City’s goal is to competitively leverage this community-informed planning document in upcoming funding opportunities. This funding will help implement the Plan and address community concerns around safe walking and biking. To ensure consistency with the General Plan, this Plan should be revised regularly as needed.

8 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Existing ConditionsThis section describes existing conditions in Cudahy that not only showcase the need for this Plan but also informed the Plan’s final projects and programsLocationWith a population of 23,805, Cudahy is the tenth-densest city in the United States, covering a region of only 1.18 square miles. As the second smallest city in Los Angeles County, the sheer size of its population contributes to challenges ensuring a safe transportation system and improving the health of its residents.Its small size and location context create challenges for implementation of new infrastructure, as the city is often traversed as a regional connector. However, due to its density, many of Cudahy’s residents are walking and bicycling regularly for everyday travel needs. Cudahy borders the cities of South Gate, Huntington Park, Bell, and Bell Gardens. The city lies just west of the Los Angeles River and the 710 freeway, between Downtown Los Angeles and the Harbor Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The five schools are in a High Density Residential zone, and three out of the five schools have direct access to the LA River Bike/Pedestrian Path via Clara Street and River Road. The remaining two schools are approximately ½ mile and 1 mile away from the LA River Pedestrian/Bike Path respectively.DemographicsCitywide, persons of Hispanic or Latino origin make up 96% of the community, with 2.1% White (of non-Hispanic origin), 1.4% Black, and less than 1% Asian or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Forty-eight percent (48%) are foreign born, and 90.8% speak a language other than English at home. Additionally, 40.7% are high school graduates, with less than 4% attending secondary education past high school (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010). Within the city, there are roughly 4.26 persons per household, 32% higher than the state average, with a median household income of $41,805, which is 31% less than the state average. A total of 24.3% of Cudahy residents live below the poverty line, almost twice the state average of 13.7% (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010).

9 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
The percent of adults who reported having eaten five or more servings of fruit/vegetables in the past day was 12.4%, according to the Los Angeles County Health Survey. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 48.3% of adults meet physical activity guidelines. In 2008, 29.2% of adolescents were diagnosed as obese in the city, rising sharply to 49.5% in 2010. Cudahy has the 13th highest rate of overweight and obese children among cities statewide, and the 7th highest in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, September 2011).Street NetworkCudahy has 27 streets that are laid out in primarily a grid fashion in east-west and north-south directions, with Atlantic Avenue and Salt Lake Avenue crossing through the city at an angle. Two streets categorized as major highways provide access to and around Cudahy. Atlantic Avenue, classified as a “major highway,” serves as the primary north-south street. Florence Avenue, which is in the city of Bell, lies just north of Cudahy and provides primary east-west access, as well as access to the 710 freeway. Clara Street, Elizabeth Street, and Santa Ana Street are east-west collector streets. Salt Lake Avenue, Otis Avenue, and Wilcox Avenue are north-south collectors. Atlantic Avenue is by far the busiest street, with a 41,000 average daily traffic (ADT). Atlantic Avenue and Florence Avenue carry most of the truck traffic in the city. Traffic volumes on collector streets all fall below 16,000 ADT, and many stretches are well under 10,000 ADT. Although many of Cudahy’s streets have lower volumes, many of the segments still have poor auto levels-of-service due to the timing of vehicle use. Cudahy has long east-west blocks, some of which are over 0.5 miles in length. With few cross streets, vehicle and pedestrian travel is limited to very few north-south streets, which contributes to traffic congestion. Pedestrian AccessMost of Cudahy’s streets have sidewalks on both sides of the street, with the exception of Live Oak Lane. However, many of these sidewalks are narrow and do not have any planted buffer between the sidewalk and the street (parkway). This creates a walking environment that is not always pleasant or safe, due to lack of shade, lack of separation between vehicles and pedestrians, and occasionally poles, utility boxes, and other street furniture blocking sidewalks. Additionally, many of the sidewalks are not flat, as numerous driveways for each residential access point interrupt them.

10 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Intersections of major highways and collector streets have transverse-line marked crosswalks and curb ramps, and are typically signalized or stop-controlled. Some intersections near schools and parks have yellow, ladder-style crosswalks, indicating a preferred route to school. None of the signalized intersections have pedestrian countdown signals, and very few of the intersections (controlled and uncontrolled) have advanced stop markings.The City provides crossing guards at four locations near schools. The locations are:

At Clara Street and Otis Avenue for Teresa Hughes Elementary School On Elizabeth Street between Atlantic Avenue and Wilcox Avenue for the Elizabeth Learning Center At Atlantic Avenue and Live Oak Street for Jaime Escalante Elementary School On Clara Street between Atlantic Avenue and Wilcox Avenue for the Elizabeth Learning Center The City of Bell provides a crossing guard at Florence Avenue and Wilcox Avenue for the Ellen Ochoa Learning Center.Bicycle AccessMany Cudahy residents are bicycling, despite having few designated bikeways. The only designated bikeway in the vicinity of Cudahy is the bike path along the Los Angeles River. There are three access points to the Los Angeles River Bicycle Path on River Road, which is in close proximity to Park Avenue Elementary School. Although none of the streets are designated as bikeways, most of Cudahy’s streets are residential in nature, narrow, and have low traffic volumes, which create an environment conducive to bicycling. Jaime Escalante Elementary School provides bicycle parking in a locked area just off of Atlantic Avenue. TransitNo rail transit serves Cudahy; however, Cudahy is served by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) buses. Table 1 shows which Metro buses run on Cudahy’s streets. Cudahy also operates Cudahy Area Rapid Transit (CART), which is a dial-a-ride service.

11 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 1: Metro Buses That Serve Cudahy
Street Bus Number Origin Destination
Atlantic Avenue 260 Artesia Station Pasadena Atlantic Avenue 762 Compton Pasadena Florence Avenue 111 LAX Norwalk Florence Avenue 311 LAX Norwalk
Santa Ana Street/Wilcox Avenue
611 Loop: Cecilia & Atlantic, Florence & Pacific, Florence Station, Pacific & Santa Fe, Atlantic & Slauson
Otis Avenue 612 Loop: Willowbrook Station, Watts Towers Station, Santa Fe & Firestone, Florence & Pacific, Florence & Otis, Atlantic & Imperial, Imperial & Long Beach Planning ContextThis Plan must be consistent with existing planning, policy, and regulatory documents, which include the City’s own documents, such as the General Plan. Cudahy must also design pedestrian and bicyclist facilities that complement the facilities planned in other documents, including those that City has received funding for, such as the State Active Transportation Program and Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program. This section provides context for existing planning documents that impact and support this Plan.General Plan The City’s General Plan (updated on September 15, 2010) is a 30-year guide for local government decision-making on growth, capital investment, and physical development in Cudahy. It guides future development plans and gives direction on how to bring the City’s desired vision to fruition. The roadway classification recommendations use trip generation standards and apply them to the General Plan build out based on what the General Plan allows in new construction. This method projects increases in traffic volume, which result in recommendations to accommodate more vehicles, such as widening streets, restriping lanes, and bringing the streets up to Los Angeles County standards. The Los Angeles County standards call for wide lanes and adding capacity through street widening. The California Complete Streets Act requires cities to plan for a street network that meets the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and people with disabilities as well as motorists the next time the Transportation Element of the General Plan is updated. The existing General Plan was prepared prior to this legislation, so this will be in effect the next time the City updates the Transportation Element. This Safe Routes to School Plan (Plan) marks a major step in this direction and can form parts of the next Transportation Element.

12 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
The City has no bicycle plan and no bicycle component to the Transportation Element. The Plan’s recommendations resonate and reflect the goals and policies of three specific elements within the General Plan document, as described below.Transportation Element The General Plan’s Transportation Element provides an overview of current transportation conditions, goals, and policies, roadway classification recommendations, and implementation programs. It evaluates the existing roadway circulation system and identifies measures to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, as well as other issues, including public transit parking and alternative forms of transportation.Transportation Element Goal 1 calls for maximizing the efficiency, convenience, and safety of the existing transportation system. The Plan contains recommendations to make physical improvements to the streets, routes, and environments around schools that students use to walk or bicycle to school. These physical recommendations include strategies to 1) reduce motor vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and 2) calm or slow down motor vehicle traffic around schools. Transportation Element Goal 2 is to work to improve roadway conditions and promote safety in the community. The physical improvement recommendations as well as educational and encouragement program recommendations within the Plan seek to promote safety in the community through high visibility crosswalks, bulb-outs, pedestrian refuges, marked intersections, etc. Transportation Element Policy 2.4 calls for promoting the use of crossing guards at school crossings. The Plan recommends use of crossing guards where feasible, and provides suggestions through physical improvements and programming to facilitate heavy foot and bicycle traffic at intersections unsupported by crossing guards. Transportation Element Policy 2.5 stipulates that the City will provide convenient, safe, and efficient pedestrian and vehicular access throughout the city. Through its physical and programmatic recommendations, the Plan seeks to increase and make safer pedestrian access throughout the city while maintaining vehicular access. Transportation Element Goal 3 seeks to encourage the expansion of existing public transportation routes and facilities. The Plan audited existing public transit routes and suggested road improvements to highlight or facilitate usage of existing public transportation facilities through signage, lighting, optimal bus stop location, etc. The Plan also contains recommendations to propose bicycle improvements throughout the city, such as bicycle lanes, routes, sharrows, etc. These recommendations seek to encourage the expansion of transportation alternatives throughout the city.

13 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Safety ElementThe General Plan’s Safety Element provides a citywide approach for preventing the creation of hazards in the planning area and for minimizing the potential for injury, damage, and disruption brought by natural elements. The Element establishes safety standards and programs designed to protect life and property and address the major safety issues, such as hazard reduction, emergency preparedness, and crime prevention. Safety Element Goal 1 calls for work to provide an environment that is reasonably safe from hazards. The Plan’s recommendations focus on reducing traffic collisions and providing safe routes to school for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the city. Safety Element Goal 2 promotes emergency preparedness. The Plan’s recommendations to the physical environment will facilitate safer and more efficient travel for pedestrians and bicyclists in the event of an emergency. The Plan’s educational and encouragement programmatic recommendations seek to improve community resiliency and knowledge of city landscapes, both skill sets that would serve the community in the event of an emergency. Safety Element Goal 3 works to minimize crime incidence in the city. Several of the Plan’s recommendations address community concerns of safety around schools through additional pedestrian scale street lighting, pedestrian and bicycle safety classes, walking school buses, collaboration with law enforcement officials, etc.Air Quality ElementThe General Plan’s Air Quality Element focuses on local initiatives that will be effective in improving air quality locally as well as for the surrounding region and identifies air quality standards that new development must meet. Policies and programs included in the required elements mirror sustainable development concepts that are effective both in reducing dependence on the private automobile and reducing vehicle miles traveled and hence air pollution. Air Quality Element Goal 1 is to reduce automobile use. The Plan’s education and encouragement programs seek to increase walking and bicycling to school for school-age children. Successful programs may help to reduce automobile use for shorter trips in the city. Air Quality Element Goal 2 encourages the use of non-motorized transportation. The Plan supports this goal by providing recommendations throughout the document to increase and encourage safe walking and bicycling to school by school-age children and parents.

14 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Air Quality Element Goal 4 is to reduce roadway congestion. The primary goals of the Plan and its programs are to make walking safer for children and parents and to encourage more to do so. This could result in less congested streets around the city’s schools. Pedestrian Safety Assessment (PSA)The City partnered with the University of California, Berkeley’s Institute of Transportation Studies on a Pedestrian Safety Assessment in June 2013. It was the first direct and substantial effort to address pedestrian safety with the City’s Transportation Element Goal 2 of promoting safety in the community by addressing roadway improvements. It represents a departure from past emphasis on auto mobility. ThisAssessment summarized the pedestrian collision history between 2008 and 2010, identifying the locations with the highest numbers of pedestrian-involved collisions. These locations, all of which are in the proximity of the five city schools, include:

Elizabeth Street and Atlantic Avenue Santa Ana Street and Atlantic Avenue Elizabeth Street and Wilcox Avenue Clara Street and Wilcox Ave Crafton Avenue and Live Oak Street Atlantic Avenue and Live Oak Street The Assessment recommended several new actions to enhance safety. The following are related to this Plan:

Collection of pedestrian volumes Collision history and collision reports Crosswalk installation, removal, and enhancement policy Enforcement Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements and ADA Transition Plan Inventory of sidewalks, informal pathways, and key pedestrian opportunity areas Neighborhood-sized schools Pedestrian Master Plan Pedestrian safety program and walking audits Pedestrian traffic control audit

15 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Pedestrian/bicycle coordinator Pedestrian-oriented speed limits and speed surveys Pedestrian-oriented traffic signal and stop sign warrants Safe-Routes-to-School program and grant funding Use of leading pedestrian intervals As part of the Pedestrian Safety Assessment, project leads engaged stakeholders in walk audits on Atlantic Avenue, at Elizabeth Learning Center, and at Teresa Hughes Elementary School. The walk audits produced general citywide street design recommendations for pedestrians and location-specific recommendations for the three focus sites. Citywide street design recommendations included:

Maintain sidewalk clear zones Install directional curb ramps, rather than diagonal ramps Ensure green times are adequate for pedestrians (3.5 feet/second or less) Install fluorescent yellow-green signage for uncontrolled marked crossings Install high-visibility crosswalk striping pattern for uncontrolled crosswalks Implement drop-off/pick-up “valet” programs at local schools Install curb extensions for pedestrian crossings Install parallel crosswalk striping pattern for controlled crosswalks Include a pedestrian buffer zone between street and sidewalks, including street trees Add stop bars for stop sign or signal controlled crossings Strive for “pedestrian-friendly” medians Trim hedges along the Los Angeles River Bike Path and at intersections where landscaping may obstruct sight distance Add yield limit lines for uncontrolled crossings

16 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Site-Specific Design Recommendations From PSAAtlantic Avenue Enhance the intersections through signal treatments Explore opportunities to provide north-south bicycle facilities in Cudahy Install curb extensions at intersections Elizabeth Learning Center
Add east-west bicycle lanes, between Salt Lake Avenue and the Los Angeles River Bike Path, which improves bicycle access between residences, open space, schools, commercial uses, and the Los Angeles River Bike Path Enhance the Elizabeth Street and Wilcox Avenue intersection by placing high-visibility yellow school crosswalks and installing flashing stop signs
Enhance the uncontrolled midblock crossing on Elizabeth Street by adding a rectangular rapid flashing beacon and installing yield limit lines, triple-four crosswalk stripping, and a curb extension on the south end of Elizabeth Street Implement consistent crossing treatments at the two midblock crossings on Clara Street Increase effectiveness of drop-off/pick-up area by modifying school’s parking lot to run as a counterclockwise loop Request additional enforcement in the area to deter illegal pedestrian and motorist behaviors Modify signal to address pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at Clara Street and Wilcox Avenue Teresa Hughes Elementary School
Enhance signalized midblock crossing on Clara Street by installing a curb extension on the south side and a triple-four crosswalk striping pattern with reflective pavement markers on the leading edge Implement a drop-off/pick-up “valet” program to facilitate traffic flow utilizing volunteers Implement suggested bicycle lane on Clara Street Install high-visibility yellow school crosswalks on all crossings of the all-way stop-controlled intersections on Otis Avenue between Clara Street and Salk Lake Avenue
Recommendations from the PSA have been incorporated into this Plan, and through implementation, many of the goals of the PSA will be met.

17 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Active Transportation Program, Cycle 1 ApplicationIn spring 2014, the City submitted an application for Caltrans Active Transportation Program funds. The purpose of this funding is to address the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists by 1) increasing the safety of all crosswalks directly in front and within the immediate vicinity of the five schools located in Cudahy, 2) increase safety and usage of the city’s access points to the LA River Pedestrian/Bike Path, and 3) installation of other traffic calming measures. The application seeks funds for:

A blinker sign pedestrian and bike path LED warning system Curb extensions/bulb-outs Flashing stop signs In-road warning lights An LED crosswalk warning system Overhead signs and flashing beacons Raised medians Reconstruction of curb ramps Rectangular rapid-flash beacons Redesign of school pick-up/drop off areas Signage Traffic calming measures Triple four crosswalks with reflective markers Upgrades to pedestrian crosswalks near schools In summer 2014, the City was awarded the Caltrans Active Transportation Program grant. Once implemented, these projects will enhance both pedestrian safety and access to schools. All five schools will receive improvements. This Safe Routes to School Plan incorporates the elements identified in the Active Transportation Program, and recommends further improvements. As part of the preparation of the ATP application, City staff and California State University students collected pedestrian behavior information at the five target schools and the LA River Path access point. Each location included morning and afternoon data collection, which focused on

18 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
the amount of children and adults and the percentage that illegally crossed the streets. Staff collected data between April 23, 2014, and May 7, 2014. The results are summarized in Table 2.Table 2: Pedestrian Behavior by SchoolHighway Safety Improvement Program GrantThe City won a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant in 2013 that will fund protected left-turn phases and pedestriancountdown signals along Atlantic Avenue. When left-turn phases are installed in combination with pedestrian countdown signals at intersections, the safety of pedestrians is improved while decreasing the severity of vehicle collisions. These improvements will be implemented at the following intersections:

Atlantic Avenue and Florence Avenue Atlantic Avenue and Live Oak Street Atlantic Avenue and Clara Street Morning Afternoon
Location Children % crossing
illegally
Adults % crossing
illegally
Children % crossing
illegally
Adults % crossing
illegally
1 Elizabeth Learning Center 533 2% 59 5% 520 4% 53 15% 2 Ellen Ochoa Learning Center 84 2% 42 7% 122 8% 20 5% 3 Jaime Escalante Elementary School
46 48% 48 60% 143 10% 85 16%
4 Park Avenue Elementary 110 29% 63 30% 122 21% 64 28%
5 Teresa Hughes Elementary School
105 11% 76 24% 143 15% 74 12%
6 City access point to LA River Pedestrian/Bike Path
31 97% 32 22% 12 75% 15 34%

19 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Atlantic Avenue and Elizabeth Street Atlantic Avenue and Santa Ana Street Atlantic Avenue and Cecilia Street Atlantic Avenue and Patata Street HSIP projects are noted in this Plan’s recommendations.

Crash HistoryThis analysis of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved collisions in Cudahy aims to determine the number and severity of recent crashes and crash locations. The analysis looks for spatial cluster and patterns of injuries and fatalities. The following map shows pedestrian and bicycle-involved crashes in Cudahy for the most recent five-year period (2008–2012) that data areavailable through the California Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The data show 38 pedestrian collisions and 18 bicycle collisions. Among these collisions, one pedestrian collision was fatal. The crashes are heavily concentrated along Atlantic Avenue and the collector streets. The intersection of Clara Street and Wilcox Avenue had the greatest number (8), followed by Atlantic Avenue and Santa Ana Street (5), Atlantic Boulevard and Live Oak Street (4) and Atlantic Avenue and Elizabeth Street (4). Atlantic Avenue is one of the major thoroughfares of the South East Los Angeles region, and is heavily trafficked by neighboring city motor vehicles as well as large trucks moving goods. Because Atlantic Avenue is such a busy street, and is the location of so many collisions, the citywide Safe Routes to School plan has closely analyzed the street to recommend specific pedestrian and bicyclist safety enhancements. Pedestrian right-of-way violations (13), pedestrian violations (11), automobile right-of-way violations (7), and improper turning (7) comprised the largest numbers of Primary Collision Factors (PCFs).

20 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Map 1. Bicycle & Pedestrian Collisions (Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2012) Elizabeth
Learning Center
Ellen Ochoa
Learning Center
Park Avenue
Elementary School
Teresa Hughes
Elemenary School
Jaime Escalante
Elementary School
Wilcox
Elizabeth
River
Hartle
Salt Lake
Clara
Otis
Cecelia
Olive
Santa Ana
Live Oak
Flower
Ardine
Park
Atlantic
Bear
Walnut
Walker
Patata
Fostoria
Alamo
710
  
0LOHV
Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2012) City of Cudahy
Source of Data: University of California Transportation Injury Mapping System Collision Type
Bicycle-Involved Injury CollisionPedestrian-Involved Injury CollisionPedestrian-Involved Fatal CollisionCity Limits

21 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 3 below displays the TIMS numbers and severity of bicycle and pedestrian-involved collisions during the 2008 to 2012 time period by school. TIMS has no data for Jaime Escalante Elementary School. The definitions of the crash severity columns follow.Fatal—death within 30 days resulting from the collision.Severe injury—includes broken bones, dislocated limbs, severe lacerations, severe burns, unconsciousness, or other injuries that go beyond those that are visible.Visible injuries—bruises, discoloration, swelling, minor lacerations, or minor burns.Complaint of pain—internal, non-visible injuries, confusion, limping, nausea, awakened from unconsciousness.Table 3: Bicycle and Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Within ½ Mile of Each School (2008–2012) (TIMS) School Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Bicycle Total Elizabeth Learning Center 1 7 15 28 32 19 51 Ellen Ochoa Learning Center 0 6 10 27 26 17 43 Jamie Escalante Elementary School 1 1 4 6 8 4 12 Park Avenue Elementary School 0 5 6 11 16 6 22
Teresa Hughes Elementary School 1 4 19 27 27 24 51
In addition to the data referenced above, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provided the City with more recent traffic collision data from January 1, 2013, to March 30, 2014. The sheriff’s department found 43 incidents with 43 injuries and 0 fatalities. Out of the 43 incidents,less than 1% directly involved pedestrians and bicyclists.

22 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
EvaluationStaff administered baseline surveys at each school to understand existing school commute patterns. As the Plan’s programs unfold, new surveys should show increases in the number of students walking and bicycling to school, as well as attitudinal changes toward walking and bicycling. Since engineering improvements (physical modifications made to streets and intersections) will be made several years into the future, initial improvements will result from the programs alone. Further increases can be expected once the physical improvements are made. The tables and figures below show results of the first baseline tally conducted in classrooms on Wednesday, April 2, 2014. Students identified the way they commute to school by all the modes that are commonly used in both the morning and the afternoon. “Other” may includeskateboards, scooters, or taxis.

23 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 4: Baseline Commute to School Tally—4/2/14 Morning Commute School Walk Bicycle Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Elizabeth Learning Center 265 59% 2 <1% 0 0% 159 36% 14 3% 3 <1% 3 <1% Ellen Ochoa Learning Center 187 51% 3 <1% 2 <1% 166 45% 7 2% 1 <1% 4 <1% Jaime Escalante Elementary School 107 41% 1 <1% 0 0% 132 51% 16 6% 2 <1% 3 1%
Park Avenue Elementary School
106 44% 0 0% 8 3% 116 49% 4 2% 3 1% 2 <1%
Teresa Hughes Elementary School*
175 50% 2 <1% 22 6% 133 38% 8 2% 4 1% 7 2%
TOTAL 840 50% 8 <1% 32 2% 706 42% 49 3% 13 <1% 19 1%
*Data for Teresa Hughes Elementary School is based on the average of a 3-day counting effort.

Figure 1: Baseline Commute to School Tally by Percentage—4/2/14 Morning Commute 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Teresa Hughes Elementary School
Park Avenue Elementary School
Jaime Escalante Elementary School
Ellen Ochoa Learning Center
Elizabeth Learning Center
WalkBicycleBusFamily VehicleCarpool
Transit
Other

24 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 5: Baseline Commute to School Tally—4/2/14 Afternoon Commute School Walk Bicycle Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Elizabeth Learning Center 257 60% 2 <1% 4 <1% 140 33% 15 4% 3 <1% 5 1% Ellen Ochoa Learning Center 217 59% 3 <1% 0 0% 132 36% 13 4% 0 0% 4 1% Jaime Escalante Elementary School 111 46% 0 0% 0 0% 123 51% 2 <1% 2 <1% 3 1%
Park Avenue Elementary School
119 56% 0 0% 1 <1% 90 42% 2 <1% 2 <1% 0 0%
Teresa Hughes Elementary School*
174 52% 0 0% 21 6% 128 38% 6 2% 2 <1% 4 1%
TOTAL 878 55% 5 <1% 26 1% 613 39% 38 2% 9 <1% 16 1%
*Data for Teresa Hughes Elementary School is based on the average of a three-day counting effort.

Figure 2: Baseline Commute to School Tally by Percentage—4/2/14 Afternoon Commute 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Teresa Hughes Elementary School
Park Avenue Elementary School
Jaime Escalante Elementary School
Ellen Ochoa Learning Center
Elizabeth Learning Center
Walk Bicycle Bus Family Vehicle Carpool
Transit
Other

25 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 6: Parent Surveys—How Far Does Your Child Live From School? Elizabeth Learning
Center
Ellen Ochoa Learning
Center
Jaime Escalante
Elementary School
Park Avenue
Elementary School
Teresa Hughes
Elementary School
Less than ¼ mile 56% 54% 51% 61% 57% ¼ mile up to ½ mile 17% 19% 21% 20% 18% ½ mile up to 1 mile 10% 11% 14% 3% 12% 1 mile up to 2 miles 6% 4% 7% 3% 5%
More than 2 miles 1% 3% 1% 4% 3%
Don’t know 10% 9% 6% 9% 6%
Table 7: Parent Surveys—Has Your Child Asked You Permission to Walk or Bike to/from School in the Last Year? Elizabeth Learning
Center
Ellen Ochoa Learning
Center
Jaime Escalante
Elementary School
Park Avenue
Elementary School
Teresa Hughes
Elementary School
Yes 32% 30% 30% 31% 27% No 68% 70% 70% 69% 73%

26 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 8: Parent Surveys—What of the Following Issues Affect Your Decision to Allow Your Child to Walk or Bike to/from School? Elizabeth Learning
Center
Ellen Ochoa Learning
Center
Jaime Escalante
Elementary School
Park Avenue
Elementary School
Teresa Hughes
Elementary School
Distance 11% 16% 18% 17% 17% Convenience of driving 5% 4% 7% 8% 5% Child’s before or after-school activities 5% 4% 4% 4% 5%
Time 7% 9% 10% 13% 8%
Speed of traffic along route 13% 30% 26% 18% 22%
Adults to walk or bike with 10% 9% 16% 12% 11%
Amount of traffic along route 16% 32% 27% 23% 23%
Crossing guards 9% 19% 10% 20% 11%
Safety of intersections and crossings
22% 32% 27% 32% 28%
Weather or climate 13% 17% 24% 21% 19%
Sidewalks or pathways 8% 7% 8% 7% 10%
Violence or crime 25% 26% 25% 29% 28%

27 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 9: Parent Surveys—On Most Days, How Does Your Child Arrive to School? Elizabeth Learning
Center
Ellen Ochoa Learning
Center
Jaime Escalante
Elementary School
Park Avenue
Elementary School
Teresa Hughes
Elementary School
Bike 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Carpool 4% 1% 1% 2% 1% Family Vehicle 29% 40% 45% 30% 33% School Bus 0% (1 person) 0% (1 person) 2% 5% 1%
Skateboard 0% (1 person) 0% (1 person) 0% 0% 0%
Transit 0% (1 person) 0% (1 person) 0% 1% 1%
Walk 66% 58% 52% 62% 65%

28 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Outreach to Inform the PlanIn order to develop a robust and action-oriented citywide Safe Routes to School Plan that represents the specific needs of each school and the City of Cudahy, the Project Team engaged a wide variety of audiences through different methods. The Project Team included City of Cudahy and Department of Public Health staff.The Project Team wanted to ensure that feedback from each individual school provided the basis of this Plan. Outreach began to the five public schools in November 2013 with a series of one-on-one meetings with each principal in order to introduce the concept of Safe Routes to School and discuss the goals of the citywide Plan. Next, the Project Team attended and presented at existing parent meetings at each school to introduce the project and gain support from active parents. In spring and summer 2014, the Project Team distributed parent surveys and student tallies to understand school habits, and to learn more about parent concerns regarding walking and bicycling to school. These surveys also provided an opportunity to engage more parents with the project.Simultaneously, the Project Team also began outreach and presentations at larger City meetings and events to ensure the Plan received citywide attention. This included introductory presentations at City Council, Public Safety Commission, and Planning Commission meetings, as well as at a citywide Town Hall meeting and the Cudahy Book Fair. These meetings and events offered key city leadership and the public an opportunity to engage the Project Team, and ask questions about the planning process and next steps. The Project Team also set up a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to guide the Plan’s development. The goal of the TAC was to provide specific feedback on the policies, programs, and projects in the Plan, and to discuss future implementation. This coordinating body included representatives from the following agencies and organizations:

City of Bell City of Cudahy
o City Manager’s officeo Code Enforcemento Community Development Departmento Planning Commissiono Public Safety Commission

29 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
o Public Works
Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Los Angeles Unified School District School Police Project Consultant University of California Los Angeles Initial outreach focused on distributing information about Safe Routes to School and engaging stakeholders for participation in the planning process. This outreach culminated in workshops at each school bringing different stakeholders together to talk about specific barriers at each school. In August 2014, a nationally certified Safe Routes to School workshop leader facilitated workshops for stakeholders at each of the five target schools. These half-day workshops began with a presentation that described why Safe Routes to School is important and provided examples of effective education, encouragement, and enforcement programs, and potential engineering devices that can be applied to make walking and bicycling safer. The workshops provided monolingual Spanish-speaking residents at all the schools with translated presentation slides and simultaneous interpretation with headphones. Workshop attendees included:

City of Cudahy representatives from Code Enforcement, the Community Development Department, the Planning Commission, the Public Safety Commission, and the Public Works Department Community residents Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Los Angeles Unified School District School Police Office of Congresswoman Roybal-Allard Project consultant and Spanish-language interpreter School parents School principal School staff School volunteers

30 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
After the presentation, stakeholder attendees walked around the school and identified safety concerns at particular locations along common routes to school. Upon returning to the workshop room, stakeholders drew common walking and bicycling routes to their school and identified key issues and locations needing improvement on large-scale maps. Participants identified general safety issues, as well as location-specific safety issues. Stakeholders also brainstormed potential education, encouragement, and enforcement programs that would be effective at their school. The workshops provided an important platform for different stakeholders to engage with each other and identify solutions that were both agency and school-driven.In parallel with the preparation of this Plan, and as part of the citywide Safe Routes to School initiative, the Project Team worked with each of the schools and parent groups to form Safe Routes to School Committees at each school. These Committees plan and implement education and encouragement programs. One program that encourages students and their families to walk and bike to school more is the “walking school bus.” Instead of being driven to school in a traditional yellow bus, walking school buses are adult-supervised group walks of students to or from school. The Project Team facilitated trainings for all Committees interested in starting their own walking school bus. With technical assistance, all five public schools launched their walking school buses on October 8th, International Walk to School Day. This is a day where schools around the world show their support for walking to school by organizing walking to school events. After the successful launch of International Walk to School Day, the hope is for schools and the community at large to feel empowered and prepared to sustain other education and encouragement programs for their students.The citywide Safe Routes to School initiative has actively engaged Cudahy residents and community stakeholders to document their thoughts and concerns around walking and bicycling in their city. The following is a list of specific events where the Project Team engaged stakeholders about Safe Routes to School in 2013 and 2014:School-Specific Outreach Elizabeth Learning Center
o Back to School Nighto Parent ESL (English as a Second Language) meetingso Principal meetingso Safe Routes to School workshop Ellen Ochoa Learning Center

31 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
o Parent meetingso Principal meetingso Safe Routes to School workshop o Walking school bus training Jaime Escalante Elementary
o Parent ESL (English as a Second Language) meetingso Safe Routes to School workshop o Staff and parent leadership meetings Park Avenue Elementary
o Parent meetings o Principal meetings o Safe Routes to School workshop Teresa Hughes Elementary
o Principal meetings o Safe Routes to School workshop o Staff meeting Community-Wide Outreach
City Council meetings Cudahy Book Fair First city-wide International Walk to School Day International Walk to School Day planning meetings National Night Out Planning Commission meeting Public Safety Commission meeting Southeast Los Angeles Civic Leaders Network meetings Town Hall meetings Walking school bus training

32 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
School-Specific FeedbackDuring each of the events referenced above, the Project Team gathered information about citywide and school-specific concerns around walking and bicycling to school safely. Below is a summary of feedback by school. Elizabeth Learning Center Safety Issues and BarriersGeneral Created 3-minute parking zones Criminals harassing students Dangerous dogs Double parking K-Mart, Superior, big box concerns Littering Loitering, transients, gang members in the park Narrow sidewalks with many driveways Nearby liquor stores Need more bicycle facilities No bus stop No drop-off/pick-up zone Not enough parental involvement Parents dropping of students in the middle of the street Registered sex offenders in the area Students crossing at bad locations Substance abuse Traffic Vandalism/criminal activity

33 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Location-Specific Issues
Atlantic Ave. & Clara St. Atlantic Ave. & Live Oak St. Clara Park Extension o Drugs, loitering, inebriated people, exhibitionistso No lightingo Narrow sidewalks Clara Street Park
o Gangs, people using drugs
Elizabeth St. & Atlantic Ave.
o Drugs, loitering, inebriated people, exhibitionistso The crosswalk push button does not worko The walk cycle is too short Elizabeth St. between Atlantic Ave. & Wilcox Ave.
o Drugs, loitering, inebriated people, exhibitionistso Need a pick-up/drop-off lane west of the schoolo Scary dogso Speedingo The sidewalks are dirty and smellyo Traffic Elizabeth St. in front of the school
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrians
Elizabeth St. & Wilcox St.
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrianso The crosswalk push button does not work Santa Ana St. & Atlantic Ave.
o Drugs, loitering, inebriated people, exhibitionistso The walk cycle is too short Wilcox St. & Clara St.

34 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Wilcox St. & Santa Ana St.
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrians
Ellen Ochoa Learning Center Safety Issues and BarriersGeneral Cars stopping in the crosswalks Crime, drugs, gangs, harassment, possible sex offenders, smoking, tagging Double parking Heavy traffic Lack of interest in parents participating Motorists not following the rules Motorists running red lights Parents driving unsafely Parking in the red zone Unsafe pedestrian behavior Location-Specific Issues
Clara St. near Walker St.
o Crime, drugs, exhibitionists, gangs, drinking, fighting, transients, harassment Crafton Ave. & Florence Ave.
o Crossing the street is difficulto Motorists disregard the crosswalko Motorists disrespect pedestrians in the crosswalko Need another crossing guard Crafton Ave. between Florence Ave. & Live Oak St.
o Motorists speedo The speed hump on Crafton Ave. does not cross the entire street—cars go around it Crafton Ave. & Live Oak St.

35 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
o Cars turning into an apartment complexo Crosswalk light not workingo Crosswalk paint is fadedo Motorists disrespect pedestrians in the crosswalko Motorists making U-turns Florence Ave. & Wilcox Ave.
o Need crossing guards
In front of the school on Live Oak St.
o Cars block the crosswalko Double parkingo Garbage bin on the south side blocks motorists’ view of the crosswalko Motorists disobey parking restrictionso Motorists making U-turnso Motorists not respecting pedestrians in the crosswalk Live Oak St. & Wilcox Ave.
o Cars block the crosswalks when turning onto Live Oak St.o Cars park in the red zone north of the intersection and block school buseso Inadequate crosswalkso Motorists not stopping for pedestrianso Motorists speed around the corner Wilcox Ave. & Clara St.
o Electrical pole on SE corner blocks pedestrians’ view Jaime Escalante Elementary School Safety Issues and BarriersGeneral Add skateboard racks Drunk drivers Lack of respect from some parents to those in the valet program Loitering

36 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Motorists disregarding traffic signals Motorists making U-turns Need a crossing guard at Atlantic Ave. and Florence Ave. (used to be funded by the City of Bell) Need more enforcement Need more marked crosswalks especially on long blocks Some students do not wear bicycle helmets Speeding Stray dogs Students crossing major streets away from signals Substance abuse Too many liquor stores Transients Location-Specific Issues
Atlantic Ave. & Florence Ave.
o Motorists disregard the no right-turn-on-red prohibitiono The crossing guard that the City of Bell paid for was removedo The Walk cycle is too shorto Wide, difficult intersection to cross Atlantic Ave. & Live Oak St.
o The Walk cycle is too short
Along Live Oak St. east of Atlantic Ave.
o Loiteringo Man taunting femaleso Narrow sidewalkso No painted crosswalkso Substance abuse Along Live Oak St. west of Atlantic Ave.
o A liquor store is too close to the school on Atlantic Ave.

37 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
o Drugs, loitering, harassmento Motorists driving around the speed humpo Narrow sidewalkso No crosswalk on a long blocko Speeding In front of the school
o Special education buses cannot always get througho Speedingo Students crossing without a crosswalk Superior driveway on Live Oak St. just east of Atlantic Ave. o Driveway needs to be leveled offo Motorists disregard pedestrians while entering and exiting Park Avenue Elementary School Safety Issues and BarriersGeneral Consider using barriers on Park Ave. and requiring parents to turn around after drop-off and pick-up Double parking Transients and dogs in the park Many driveways without good visibility Motorists making U-turns Need better loading signage Parents dropping off students in the street Special education buses have difficulty getting through Students crossing at unsafe locations

38 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Location-Specific Issues
Los Angeles River
o Want to connect to the school
Park Ave. & Elizabeth St.
o Crossing lights do not worko Motorists not stopping for pedestrianso No crossing guardo Pedestrians not stopping Park Ave. & Santa Ana St.
o Buses having difficulty getting througho Crossing lights do not worko Parents making U-turnso Pedestrians crossing between carso Traffic Wilcox Ave. & Cecelia St.
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrianso Pedestrians not stopping Wilcox Ave. & Elizabeth St.
o Crossing the street is difficulto Motorists not stopping for pedestrianso Pedestrians not stoppingo Traffic issues from other schools Wilcox Ave. & Live Oak St.
o Motorists don’t respect traffic signals
Wilcox Ave. & Santa Ana St.
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrianso Pedestrians not stoppingo Traffic issues from other schools

39 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Teresa Hughes Elementary School Safety Issues and BarriersGeneral Double parking Graffiti Lack of enforcement Parents letting students out to cross on the other side of the street Parking in the bus area Speed humps not effective Speeding U-turns Location-Specific Issues
Clara St. in front of the school
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrianso Parents’ cars conflict with school buses, especially in the afternoono Speedingo Would like a crossing guard here Clara St. & Otis Ave.
o Southbound left turns onto Clara St. conflict with pedestrians crossingo The Walk cycle is too short Elizabeth St. & Atlantic Ave.
o The Walk cycle is too short
Elizabeth St. at the back entrance to the school
o No marked crosswalk
Live Oak St. & Otis Ave. Live Oak St. between Salt Lake Ave. & Otis Ave. o Speeding

40 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Otis Ave. & Elizabeth St.
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrians crossing Otis Ave.o Speeding Otis Ave. & Flower St.
o Motorists not stopping for pedestrians
Otis Ave. & Santa Ana St. Salt Lake Ave. & Elizabeth St./Otis Ave. o Difficult to cross

41 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
RecommendationsThe recommendations that follow are the result of school and community outreach, background research, fieldwork, and experience for what makes effective Safe Routes to School programs and plans. Throughout the outreach process, each school identified specific programs for education, encouragement, and enforcement that would work best for it. What follows here are programs the City should consider offering and implementing citywide, with the opportunity for each school to tailor the programs to its needs. The City must use a “5 E” approach to have the greatest impact. The Education programs will teach students, parents, and neighbors safe walking, bicycling, and driving habits, as well as the health and environment benefits of SRTS. The Encouragement programs aim to engage students, parents, school staff, and neighbors to promote walking and cycling to and from school. The Enforcement efforts seek to ensure that traffic laws and drop-off and pick-up procedures are followed. Evaluation tracks the program to assess what is effective and what might be modified. The Engineering improvements make physical changes to streets and intersections to remedy safety issues, and create a more comfortable environment for people walking and bicycling. General Guide to Program DevelopmentAs the City develops each program, staff should keep in mind the following concepts recommended by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC):1. Make walking and bicycling “try-able.” Give people a chance to try walking and bicycling instead of driving. This could be by organizing a group ride to school or providing route maps for a citywide walk event, etc.

2. Communicate the behavior you want to see. Bumper stickers, banners, signs, pamphlets, and public service announcements can all convey messages to encourage travel by foot or bicycle.

3. Reward behavior. Provide incentives and gifts to motivate people to try walking and bicycling for a trip. These strategies are especially effective for school children.

4. Make it convenient. Design pedestrian and bike-friendly places throughout the city; prioritize improvements to key destinations. 5. Institutionalize support for walking and bicycling. Strong policies that support walking and bicycling will help guide programs and ensure ideas have staying power.

6. Capitalize on other agendas. Make walking and bicycling part of the solution to a wider range of issues the community faces, such as obesity, health, environmental concerns, and economic development.

42 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
EducationEducational programs must be tailored to specific audiences in order to effectively address the behaviors the programs seek to modify. For example, a child bicyclist will need different education on how to ride than an adult bicyclist. Similarly, different messaging will resonate with teen drivers than adult drivers. The most common audiences that will benefit from education programs include:

Commuters and employers Officials and policy makers—engineers, planners, council members, law enforcement Road users—drivers (young, adult, older), bicyclists and pedestrians (children, teens, adults, parents, neighbors, seniors) Visitors For each group, the City should consider when and how the audience should receive the information, and the demographic factors that may affect how the audience understands and perceives the information. Descriptions of educational campaigns and programs that were prioritized during the SRTS outreach process are detailed below.

43 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 10. Education Programs
Program Description Implementation Steps
Bicycle rodeo A bicycle safety clinic featuring bike safety inspections and a safety lecture, followed by a ride on a miniature "chalk street" course where young cyclists are shown where and how to apply the rules.

Work with LA County Sheriff’s Department, LAUSD, each school, and LAUSD School Police to sponsor at least annual bicycle rodeos for each school.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Skills course for adults
Adults often do not know current regulations or protocols for safe walking or bicycling. These skills are important for parents to pass on to their children.

Work with organizations such as the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, League of American Bicyclists, LA County Sheriff’s Department, and LAUSD School Police to offer regularly scheduled multilingual skills courses in walking and bicycling for adults at local parks and the civic center.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Skills course for youth
These courses provide hands-on learning for young children on how to walk safely and ride a bicycle. Pedestrian skills training should be targeted to first and third graders, and bicycle skills training for third and fifth graders.

Work with organizations such as the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, League of American Bicyclists, LA County Sheriff’s Department, and LAUSD School Police to offer regularly scheduled, multilingual skills courses in walking and bicycling for adults at local parks and/or each school. Work with LAUSD to institutionalize bicycle and pedestrian skills course training at each school.

Personal Safety Training Training on personal safety prepares students to address any issues on their way to school, where they feel unsafe due to crime, harassment or violence.

Work with the LA County Sheriff’s Department and LAUSD School Police to understand what materials exist around personal safety to train and distribute to students and parents.

Print and media campaign with safe walking, bicycling, and driving messages Promote educational messages such as “STOP! It could be someone you love in the crosswalk” or “Use the other pedal and slow down” into media coverage, events, street banners, maps, posters, stickers, guides, etc. Consider distributing “neighborhood slow zone” signage for residents to place in their yards, and flyers to schools. Messaging should be multilingual.

The City can develop or adapt nationally recognized media campaign materials, including flyers, stickers, and talking points, and distribute to the schools. Communication channels include messages from the principal through tele-parent (automatic calls), parent meetings, the family center, flyers, coffee with the principal, back to school night, parent-teacher meetings, school marquis, a monthly newsletter, and social media Safe driving tips Information about safe driving in Cudahy and around schools. Create and/or adapt existing materials on safe driving to distribute to community members and parents who are dropping off or picking up their children at school.

Safe walking and bicycling tips
Information about safe walking and bicycling. Create and/or adapt existing materials on safe walking and bicycling to distribute to community members and parents. Materials are available through the National Center for Safe Routes to School, FHWA, and others.

44 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
EncouragementThese programs generate excitement about walking and bicycling, and help spread the message that walking and bicycling is not only beneficial for health, social, and economic reasons, but enjoyable as well. Encouragement strategies are especially important when working with youth. Coordinating with individual schools to select prizes that are appropriate and customized will enhance encouragement programs. In addition to youth, parents should also be targeted in order to increase their involvement in SRTS.

45 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 11. Encouragement Programs
Program Description Implementation Steps
“Caught being good” Law enforcement officers distribute “tickets” to students that are “caught being good,” which means they were following safety rules. The “tickets” are typically coupons for discounts at local businesses or a certificate.

The City can approach law enforcement officials to see whether they are interested in spearheading such an encouragement program, as well as coordinate with local businesses to receive coupons that appeal to youth.

International Walk to School Day
International Walk to School Day, held in October each year, joins children and adults from around the world to celebrate walking and bicycling to school.

All schools in Cudahy participated in International Walk to School Day in 2014. Generally, the City can help provide support to schools by providing incentive items, law enforcement support along predetermined walking routes, and meeting locations throughout the city, as well as participating in the event.

Open streets events Local streets are closed to vehicle traffic for a short period of time, so residents and visitors can experience this public space in a new way. CicLAvia in Los Angeles helps residents get used to walking and bicycling in a safe environment without cars.

The City can work with organizations such as CicLAvia, Community Arts Resources, and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition to organize an open streets event in the community and encourage attendance. Volunteers are needed to support the event. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority may provide funding for events as well.

Parent awards Distribute awards to parents that support the SRTS program. Provide the schools with certificates to recognize parents who have been exemplary volunteers to support SRTS. Recognize key school and parent staff at City Council meetings.

Park and walk A pre-determined parking lot acts as the meeting area for families who drive and then park and walk the remaining distance to school.

Work with local businesses to create agreements that allow their parking lots to serve as park and walk meeting locations. Distribute this information to the schools and promote the opportunity throughout the community.

Principal, mayor, and/or teacher-led walks
Key community leaders, such as the mayor, council members, principals and teachers, can lead regular walks in the community outside of school hours to encourage walking.

The City can organize staff to help lead walking events and/or a separate walk as part of existing events, such as the Cudahy Book Fair.

Student or classroom competitions with prizes
Contests encourage children either to begin walking and bicycling to school or to increase their current amount of physical activity by making it fun and rewarding. Competitions can be between students (e.g., student with most miles walked), or between classrooms (e.g., classroom with the most students walking to school). Generally, children track their progress and get a small gift or a chance to win a prize after they reach a certain goal.

The implementation of student or classroom competitions is typically school-driven. There are many existing templates for tracking progress. These include templates for punch cards that are marked whenever a child walks and programs such as “Fire up your Feet” which track information online. The City can support a citywide competition and provide materials for competitions, such as pedometers, reflectors, stickers, and plaques.

Walk and Roll Wednesdays
Designated day where students are encouraged to ride their bicycles or walk together to school and/or for short trips.

The City can promote a regular walking and bicycling day of the week or month for the community, and advertise it through available channels (at school, town hall, council meetings, etc.).

Walking school bus A walking school bus consists of groups of students accompanied by adults who walk a pre-planned route to school.

The implementation of a walking school bus is typically parent and school-driven. The City can support walking school buses by volunteering to lead walks, providing police support along predetermined walking routes, and reviewing walking school bus routes for any safety concerns.

46 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
EnforcementEnforcement programs help deter unsafe behaviors of drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and encourage all road users to obey traffic laws and share the road safely. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, LAUSD School Police, and other law enforcement agencies will need to be involved in the execution of these programs.

Table 12. Enforcement Programs
Program Description Implementation Steps
Corner captains Adult volunteers stand at corners along routes to school so they can monitor students walking and deter any activity that may be harmful to students.

The City can alert neighbors along key routes to school to participate in the corner captain program by coming out to their front yard during the morning walk to school.

Crossing Guards Crossing guards promote safe behaviors at crosswalks by helping children safely cross the street at key locations and reminding drivers of the presence of pedestrians The City already has a crossing guard program, which can be expanded to cover additional intersections near each school.

Law enforcement presence Provide an enforcement presence that discourages dangerous behaviors on and off the school campus. This may mean issuing warnings to drivers breaking traffic laws. Drivers who have made a minor error will often respond to a warning from an officer by being more careful. Drivers who continue to violate traffic laws need to be ticketed.

The City can work with the Sheriff’s Department and LAUSD School Police to target enforcement based on areas of most concern.

Neighborhood watch Neighborhoods work with police to observe motor vehicle speeds and report crimes.

The City can provide regular updates to the local Neighborhood Watch group about any activity, and on the Safe Routes to School program.

Pedestrian decoy program This program is used in areas where drivers are not yielding to pedestrians in marked crosswalks. Plainclothes police officers cross the street, while another officer monitors driver behavior from a distance. The officer then will issue a warning or citation and educational materials depending on the situation.

The City can share this idea with the LA County Sheriff’s Department, and collect data from observational surveys to understand appropriate locations for law enforcement to monitor.

Radar enforcement Strict enforcement of speed laws in school zones can improve the safety for children walking and bicycling to school. A ‘zero tolerance’ policy for speeders in school zones, and an increase in fines for drivers who violate the posted school zone speed limit, are both potential approaches.

The City can work with the Sheriff’s Department and LAUSD School Police to target enforcement based on areas of most concern.

Speed trailers, active speed monitors, and photo enforcement Speed trailers and active speed monitors display the speed of oncoming vehicles. Both devices help officers track motorist speed, display current speed to motorists, and create awareness of the posted speed limit.

The City can work with the Sheriff’s Department to use and/or purchase equipment to monitor and enforce speed, and target areas of known speeding.

Student safety patrol (valet) Student safety patrols enhance enforcement of drop-off and pick-up procedures at school by increasing safety for students and traffic flow efficiency for parents.

The school typically spearheads a student safety patrol or valet system. The City can assist by providing vests for participating students, as well as information material about setting up successful valet programs.

47 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
EvaluationEvaluation of this program will consist of periodic surveys to determine how commute to school patterns have changed, as well as to assess what is working and what may need modifying. Annual student tallies like the baseline tallies conducted for this Plan will inform the City and schools if fewer students are arriving by car and more are walking or bicycling, and by how much.

Table 13. Evaluation Programs
Program Description Implementation Steps
Bicycle and pedestrian counts
Counting numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians around the City can help staff prioritize improvements. These counts can also be included in travel demand models. The Southern California Association of Governments developed a count methodology that is now available for use by local jurisdictions.

The City should conduct a pedestrian and bicycle count at least every other year and preferably annually. The City can work with organizations such as the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition to organize and administer a count. The counts typically require volunteers.

Parent attitudinal surveys Survey questions, such as “what deters you from bicycling?” or “what mode do you use for short trips?” aim to understand attitudes toward walking, bicycling, and common concerns with letting students walk or bicycle to school.

The National Center for Safe Routes to School has a standard parent survey form that the City should distribute to schools annually for administration. The City should collect completed forms, analyze data, and submit results to the schools and the National Center.

Student tallies This survey asks what mode a respondent used for a certain trip. Mode of travel surveys are commonly done in schools as part of SRTS to find out how many children walked, bicycled, were driven, etc.

The National Center for Safe Routes to School has a standard student tally form that the City should distribute to schools annually for administration. The City should collect completed forms, analyze data, and submit results to the schools and the National Center.

48 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Engineering (Conceptual)The City of Cudahy aspires to have streets that enhance quality of life available to all residents and provide safe and comfortable means of travel by foot, bicycle, transit, and vehicle. The pedestrian and bicycle engineering treatments included in this Plan will certainly help the City towards this goal. However, the recommendations included here are specific to the trip to and from school, with an eye toward students safely walking and bicycling to school. The City will continue to actively engage the community to ensure safety of all street users is a priority. The recommendations included here are a direct result of feedback from the community during outreach events. Each treatment is designed to address specific safety concerns, such as speeding, long crossing distances, low-visibility of pedestrians, etc., along the route to school. The “Design Guidance” section at the end of this document provides definitions and further guidance on these improvements.In addition, these recommendations are planning-level, and will require further analysis and technical feasibility studies prior to implementation. Recommended treatments will need to meet State and/or Federal design guidelines and standards. Some may require proceeding with an experimental process. As the City implements the Plan, accepted standards may evolve and change and the City will continue to use the most current and proven technically-feasible treatments to address the concerns of residents.Pedestrian ImprovementsThe goal of specific engineering improvements outlined is to improve safety and address key concerns identified by residents at each location. The design section of this document contains more information about the specific engineering recommendations at each location. The treatments were chosen in consideration of the following key principles:

Ensure delineation between pedestrian and vehicle zones Increase visibility of pedestrians to vehicles Increase visibility of vehicles to pedestrians Reduce pedestrian crossing distances, to minimize pedestrian exposure to vehicles Slow vehicle speeds in order to minimize severity and occurrences of collisions Beyond the specific recommendations identified here, there are general citywide improvements that have the potential to drastically improve the comfort and safety of pedestrians in Cudahy. For example, the City should consider an assessment of pedestrian-scale lighting needs.

49 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Currently, many of the City’s streets have lighting; however, not all are at a pedestrian scale, and some need upgrades. A citywide assessment would ensure adequate lighting during evening hours for the entire City, allow the City to prioritize improvements, and address resident concerns about safety around schools after hours.In addition, increasing crossing times at all signalized intersections will ensure that people of all ages and abilities can cross the street safely. Many residents have concerns crossing major streets such as Atlantic Avenue. The City should coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, such as Bell, and with local regional agencies and Los Angeles County, to increase pedestrian crossing times. Improvements such as curb extensions offer an opportunity to not only beautify Cudahy’s streets through new trees and landscaping, but also address climate change and water runoff. The City adopted a Green Streets policy and an accompanying Green Streets Manual in 2013 that should be consulted before construction of these improvements.The City should also consider implementation as an opportunity to do further improvements at each location that are not called out specifically under each recommendation. They include:

Add audible signals to all signalized crossings Add dual curb ramps with tactile devices (truncated domes) when changing the curb lines at corners Address drainage concerns and storm water recapture when changing the curb line The City has already begun to actively apply for grant funding to address many resident safety concerns. Sources of funding include the Statewide Active Transportation Program in 2014 (ATP 2014), as well as the State Highway Safety Improvement Program in 2014 (HSIP 2014). Specific grant sources are identified when applicable.The map on the following page illustrates common routes that students take to get to school and proposed pedestrian improvements that were planned along these routes.The planned physical improvements along school routes are described in the following pages. The Design Guidance section at the end of this document provides definition and guidance on these improvements. All bulb‐outs and curb extensions will include perpendicular curb ramps and truncated dome tactile devices for the sight impaired. All pedestrian signals include audible signals for the sight impaired. All signals will add audio detection for every crossing.

50 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Many of the sidewalks in Cudahy have a small, two- to three-foot concrete buffer between the sidewalk and curb. There are many locations along these sidewalks where driveway ramps create a crossing slope in the sidewalks. This Plan recommends that these be retrofitted with concrete that creates a flat surface for the sidewalks and places the ramps in the buffer area.Crossing improvements are numbered according to their location in this document.The map on the following page illustrates common routes that students take to get to school and proposed pedestrian improvements that were planned along these routes.

51 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Map 2. Common Routes to School

52 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Existing Conditions and Engineering RecommendationsPedestrian Improvements1. Santa Ana St. & Park Ave.Existing L-intersection 2-way stop Yellow ladder crosswalks on the north and west crossings Assembly B and D signs on the approaches to the north and west crossing crossings In-pavement flashers on both crosswalks (not fully functioning) Advance stop line (3’ in advance) on the approach to the north crossing crosswalk Proposed
Add yellow zebra-stripe crosswalks to the north and west crossings (2) (ATP 2014) Add raised crosswalks to the north and west crossings (2) Add curb extensions to both sides of the north and west crossings (4) Advance stop line to 6’ to the west crossing crosswalk (1) (ATP 2014) Replace both stop signs with flashing stop signs (2)

53 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

2. Park Ave. & Elizabeth St.Existing
T-intersection 3-way stop Yellow ladder crosswalks on the east and south crossings Advance stop lines on the east and south crossings Assembly B signs on the east and south crossings In-pavement flashers on both crosswalks (not fully functioning) Proposed
Add zebra-stripe crosswalks to the east, west, and south crossings (3) (ATP includes 2 crosswalks) Add white raised zebra-stripe crosswalks to the east, west, and south crossings (3) Add curb extensions to both sides of the east, west, and south crossings (6) Advance stop lines to 6’ to the east, west, and south crossings (3) Replace all stop signs with flashing stop signs (3)

54 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

3. Wilcox Ave. & Santa Ana St.Existing
4-way stop Ladder crosswalks on the north and south crossings Advance stop lines on the north and south crossings Bus stops on the NE and NW corners of Wilcox Ave.

Proposed Option 1
Add zebra-stripe crosswalks to the east and west crossings (2) Add advance stop lines to the east and west crossings (2) Add curb extensions to both sides of the east, west, and south crossings (6) Reduce the curb returns on both corners of the north crossing (2) Add crossing islands to the north crossing (1 pair)

Proposed Option 2
Add a roundabout (including splitter islands, markings, and signs) Add Assembly B signs at all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to create deflection on all crossings; smaller ones where bus stops exist Remove existing signs and markings (4)

Option 1 Option 2

55 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

4. Wilcox Ave. & Elizabeth St.Existing
4-way stop Yellow ladder crosswalks on the north and south crossings Advance stop lines (3’ in advance) on the north and south crossings Proposed Option 1
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) (ATP 2014) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) (ATP 2014) Add curb extensions to both sides of all crossings (8) Replace all stop signs with flashing stop signs (4) (ATP 2014) Proposed Option 2
Add a roundabout (including splitter islands, markings, and signs) Add Assembly B signs at all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to create deflection on all crossings (4) Remove existing signs and markings (4) Option 1 Option 2

56 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

5. Wilcox Ave. & Clara St.Existing
Signalized intersection Yellow ladder crosswalks on all crossings Advance stop lines (3’ in advance) on all crossings Right-turn lanes northbound on Wilcox Ave. and westbound on Clara St. Bus stops on SE and SW corners on Wilcox Ave.

Proposed Option 1
Replace signals with a roundabout (including splitter islands, markings, and signs (ATP 2014 funded crosswalks)
Add Assembly B signs at all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to create deflection on all crossings; smaller ones where bus stops exist (4) Remove pavement markings (4)

Proposed Option 2
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) (ATP 2014) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to both sides of north, east, and west crossings (6) Remove right-turn lanes with a curb extension on the east crossing and a bus bulb on the south crossing (2)
Add bus bulbs to the south crossing (2) Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) Add a Leading Pedestrian Interval (4) (ATP 2014)

Proposed Option 3
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) (ATP 2014) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) (ATP 2014) Add curb extensions to the north, east, and west crossings (6) Reduce the curb returns on the south crossing (2) Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) Add islands to separate the northbound right-turn lane on Wilcox Ave. from the travel lanes (1 pair) Add a Leading Pedestrian Interval (4) (ATP 2014)

57 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Option 1 Option 2
Option 3

58 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

6. Wilcox Ave. & Live Oak St.Existing
Signalized intersection Yellow ladder crosswalks on the north and south crossings Yellow transverse-line crosswalks on east and west crossings Advance stop lines (3’ in advance) on all crossings Right-turn lanes northbound on Wilcox Ave. and westbound on Clara St. Bus stops on the NW and SE corners on Wilcox Ave.

Proposed Option 1
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to the east and west crossings (2) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to both sides of east and west crossings, and to the NE corner of the north crossing and SW corner of the south crossing (6)
Add bus bulbs to the NW corner of the north crossing, and SE corner of the south crossing; this requires removing left-turn lanes (2)
Add countdown signals to all crossings (8)
Proposed Option 2
Replace signals with a roundabout (including splitter islands, markings, and signs (ATP 2014 funded crosswalks)
Add Assembly B signs at all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to create deflection on all crossings; smaller ones where bus stops exist Remove existing signs and markings (4)

Option 1 Option 2

59 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

7. Mid-Block Crossing of Live Oak St. Between Wilcox Ave. and Crafton Ave.Existing Yellow ladder crosswalk In-pavement flashers (not fully functioning) Assembly B and Assembly D signs Proposed
Add a raised crosswalk (1) (ATP 2014) Add a yellow zebra-stripe crosswalk (1) Add a curb extension to both sides (2) Add crossing islands (1 pair) Add R1-6 signs (2) Add advance yield lines to both approaches (2) (ATP 2014) Add R1-5 signs to both approaches (2) Add Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (ATP 2014)

8. Crafton Ave. & Live Oak St.Existing
T-intersection 3-way stop Yellow transverse-line crosswalk on the west crossing Yellow ladder crosswalk on the north crossing Advance stop lines on the west and north crossings In-pavement flashers on both crosswalks (not fully functioning) Proposed
Add yellow zebra-stripe crosswalk to the west crossing (1) (ATP 2014) Add curb extensions to north crossing (2) Add crossing islands to the west crossing (1 pair) Replace all stop signs with flashing stop signs (3)

60 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

9. Atlantic Ave. & Live Oak St.Existing
Signalized intersection Yellow transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings Advance stop line on all crossings (3’ in advance) Bus stops on the NE and NW corners on Atlantic Ave.

Proposed
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add protected left-turns from Atlantic Ave. (2) (HSIP 2013) Add curb extensions to the east, west, and south crossings (6) Add bus bulbs to the north crossing (2) Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) (HSIP 2013) Put the “Walk” signals on automatic recall Increase crossing times in coordination with Los Angeles County Add median noses to the north and south crossings (2) Note: all proposed recommendations will need to be consistent with regional plans for Atlantic Ave. per the Gateway Cities Council of Government and Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan

10. Superior Driveway on Live Oak St.Existing
Driveway with stop line
Proposed
Raise the sidewalk over the driveway (approximately 150 sq. ft.) Narrow the driveway to 24’ by moving the curbs in (2) Add a stop sign for motorists exiting the driveway (1)

61 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

11. In Front of Jaime Escalante Elementary School on Live Oak St.Existing No marked crosswalk
Proposed
Add a raised crosswalk between the bus loading area and the passenger loading area (1) Add a yellow zebra-stripe crosswalk (1) Add curb extensions to both sides of the new crosswalk (2) Add R1-6 signs to the new crosswalk (2) Add advance yield lines to both approaches to the new crosswalk (2) Add R1-5 signs to both approaches to the new crosswalk (2) Add Assembly D signs to both approaches to the new crosswalk (2)

62 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

12. Atlantic Ave. & Clara St.Existing
Signalized intersection Yellow transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings Advance stop line on all crossings (3’ in advance) Bus stops on the NE and SW corners on Atlantic Ave.

Proposed
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add protected left-turns from Atlantic Ave. (2) (HSIP 2013) Add curb extensions to the east and west crossings, to the NW corner and SE corner to cross Atlantic Ave. (6)
Add bus bulbs to the NE and SW corners of Atlantic Ave. (2) Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) (HSIP 2013) Put the “Walk” signals on automatic recall Add median noses to the north and south crossings (2) Increase crossing times in coordination with Los Angeles County Note: all proposed recommendations will need to be consistent with regional plans for Atlantic Ave. per the Gateway Cities Council of Government and Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan

63 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

13. Atlantic Ave. & Elizabeth St.Existing
Signalized intersection Yellow transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings Advance stop line on all crossings (3’ in advance) Bus stops on the NE and SW corners on Atlantic Ave.

Proposed
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add protected left-turns from Atlantic Ave. (2) (HSIP 2013) Add curb extensions to the east crossing, to the NW corner and SE corner to cross Atlantic Ave., and to the SW corner to cross Elizabeth St. (4)
Add a large curb extension on the NW corner to cross both directions (2) Add bus bulbs to the NE and SW corners of Atlantic Ave. (2) Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) (HSIP 2013) Put the “Walk” signals on automatic recall Increase crossing times in coordination with Los Angeles County Add median noses to the north and south crossings (2) Note: all proposed recommendations will need to be consistent with regional plans for Atlantic Ave. per the Gateway Cities Council of Government and Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan

64 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

14. Atlantic Ave. & Santa Ana St.Existing
Signalized intersection Transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings Advance stop line on all crossings (3’ in advance) Bus stops on the NE and SW corners on Atlantic Ave.

Proposed
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add protected left-turns from Atlantic Ave. (2) (HSIP 2013) Add curb extensions to the east crossing, to the SE corner to cross Atlantic Ave., and to the SW corner to cross Elizabeth St. (4)
Add a large curb extension on the NW corner to cross both directions (2) Add bus bulbs to the NE and SW corners of Atlantic Ave. (2) Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) (HSIP 2013) Put the “Walk” signals on automatic recall Increase crossing times in coordination with Los Angeles County Add median noses to the north and south crossings (2) Note: all proposed recommendations will need to be consistent with regional plans for Atlantic Ave. per the Gateway Cities Council of Government and SCAG Regional Transportation Plan

15. Mid-Block Crossing of Elizabeth St. between Atlantic Ave. and Wilcox Ave.Existing Yellow ladder crosswalks on the north and south crossings In-pavement flashers (not fully functioning) Assembly B signs SLOW SCHOOL XING pavement markers on both approaches Assembly C signs on both approaches Proposed
Add a raised crosswalk (1) Add a yellow zebra-stripe crosswalk (1) Add crossing islands (1 pair) Add R1-6 signs (2) Add Assembly D signs (2) Add advance yield lines to both approaches (2) Add R1-5 signs to both approaches (2)

65 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

16. Salt Lake St. & Santa Ana St. Existing
4-way stop Skewed intersection No marked crosswalk
Proposed
Add a white zebra-stripe crosswalk on the east crossing (1) Add large curb extension on the east crossing (2) Add a curb extension on the SW corner of the west crossing (1) Move the bus stop on the NE corner south to the new curb extension (1) Add an advance stop line to the east crossing (1) Add a new sidewalk to cross the railroad on the south side of the railroad right-of-way (approximately 110’) Add a zebra-stripe crosswalk on the south crossing and connect it to the new curb extension (1) Add edge lines to channel pedestrians across the RR track (1) Add pedestrian gate arms to the RR track crossing (2) Add W82-1 signs to warn of the RR track crossing (2) This project will need to be coordinated with the City of Huntington Park

66 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

17. Salt Lake St. & Otis Ave. Existing
4-way stop Skewed intersection No marked crosswalk
Proposed
Add a white zebra-stripe crosswalk on the north crossing (1) Add a curb extension on the NW corner to cross Otis Ave. (1) Add a large curb extension on the NE corner to cross Otis Ave. (1) Add a large curb extension on the SE corner to cross Salt Lake St. (1) Add an advance stop line to the north crossing (1) Add a new sidewalk to cross the railroad on the east side of the railroad right-of-way (approximately 90’) Add a zebra-stripe crosswalk on the east crossing and connect it to the new curb extensions (1) Add edge lines to channel pedestrians across the RR track (1) Add pedestrian gate arms to the RR track crossing (2) Add W82-1 signs to warn of the RR track crossing (2) Replace the stop sign on Otis Ave. at Salt Lake St. with a flashing stop sign (1) This project will need to be coordinated with the City of Huntington Park

18. Otis Ave. & Elizabeth St.Existing
2-way stop for Elizabeth St. Yellow zebra-stripe crosswalk on north and west crossings Proposed
Replace the crosswalks on the north and west crossings with a white zebra-stripe crosswalks (2) Add curb extensions to the crosswalk on the north crossing of Elizabeth St. (2) Add advance yield lines to both approaches to the crosswalk on the north crossing of Elizabeth St. (2) Add R1-5 signs to both approaches to the crosswalk on the north crossing of Elizabeth St. (2) Add Assembly D signs to both approaches to the crosswalk on the north crossing of Elizabeth St. (2) Add R1-6 signs to the crosswalk on the north crossing of Elizabeth St. (2)

67 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

19. Back Gate to the School on Elizabeth St.Existing
No marked crosswalk
Proposed
Replace the speed hump with a raised crosswalk (1) Add yellow zebra-stripe crosswalk (1) Add curb extensions to the new crosswalk (2) Add advance yield lines to both approaches to the new crosswalk (2) Add R1-5 signs to both approaches to the new crosswalk (2) Add Assembly D signs to both approaches to the new crosswalk (2) Add R1-6 signs to the new crosswalk (2)

20. On Clara St. in Front of School
Designate a bus loading area in the pullout

21. Otis Ave. & Olive St.Existing
T intersection 3-way stop Ladder crosswalks on the north and west crossings Red flashers on the north crossing Proposed
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to the north, south, and west crossings (3) Add advance stop lines to the north, south, and west crossings (3) Add curb extensions to the north crossing (2) Add more time to the “Walk” cycles Replace all stop signs with flashing stop signs (3) (ATP 2014)

68 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

22. Otis Ave. & Clara St.Existing
Signalized intersection Yellow ladder crosswalks on all crossings Advance stop line on all crossings (3’ in advance) Bus stops on the NE and SW corners on Otis Ave.

Proposed Option 1
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to the east and west crossings, the west side of the north crossing, and the east side of the south crossing (6)
Add countdown signals to all crossings (8)
Proposed Option 2
Remove the signals Add a mini-roundabout with painted splitter islands Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add Assembly B signs to all crosswalks (4) Option 1 Option 2

69 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

23. Otis Ave. & Live Oak St.Existing
Signalized intersection Yellow transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings Advance stop line on all crossings (3’ in advance) Bus stops on the SE and SW corners on Otis Ave.

Proposed Option 1
Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) Add curb extensions to the north, east and west crossings (6) Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) Proposed Option 2
Remove the signals Add a mini-roundabout with painted splitter islands Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) Add Assembly B signs to all crosswalks (4) Option 1 Option 2

70 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Bicycle ImprovementsThis section details the network of bikeways proposed in Cudahy. Every street that has potential to become a bikeway was field checked and measured. The recommendations resulted from available width and what type of bikeway is most appropriate for each. The following describes each type of bikeway that is proposed for Cudahy. The proposed bikeways will use the following definitions.

Bike paths—exclusive paved paths separated from the roadway for bicyclists and other non-motorized users Bike lanes—striped, stenciled, and signed lanes in the street dedicated for bicycles Colored bike lanes—bike lanes that are colored with a standard green background Buffered bike lanes—bike lanes that have a painted buffer between either the travel lane and the bike lane, or between the bike lane and parking lane
Double buffered bike lanes—bike lanes with painted buffers between the bike lane and travel lane, and between the bike lane and parking lane
Bike routes—signed bicycle routes that are shared with other traffic Sharrows—shared lane markings that are bicycle stencils in the street that provide more visibility for bicyclists along bike routes Greenback sharrows—stencils that are more prominent than regular sharrows by having a green painted background underneath Separated bike lanes—bike lanes that are in the street and are physically separated from the other travel lanes by parked cars, a painted area, planters, or other barriers
The Design Guidance section of this Plan contains more detail about each bikeway type. The following design principles apply to selecting each bikeway type and its configuration.

1. Where possible, bikeways are designed to maximize comfort and safety for a range of types of bicyclists and bicycling abilities, with a focus on creating bikeways that are comfortable for new and vulnerable cyclists, such as children and seniors. This means creating bikeways that are separated from vehicle traffic with a physical or painted barrier as much as possible, especially on high-speed, hightraffic volume streets.

2. The minimum width of a travel lane is 10’, the minimum turn-lane width is 10’, and the minimum width for parking lanes is 7’. 3. The minimum width of a bike lane outside of parking is 5’, but 6’ is preferred.

71 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

4. Coloring bike lanes adds more visibility and is helpful where traffic volumes are high, where the bike lanes are narrow, and where traffic speeds are high.

5. Sharrows (shared lane markings) are recommended where bike lanes won’t fit. Greenback sharrows are recommended for greater visibility where appropriate.

6. Bikeways are intended to connect to key destinations such as schools, transit stops, parks, stores, and the Los Angeles River Bike Path.

7. Bikeways are intended to connect cyclists to other bikeways in Cudahy, but also to adjacent cities so residents can bicycle throughout the region.

8. Removing parking from low traffic volume residential streets is discouraged. In order to facilitate bicycling on these streets, it is recommended to slow vehicle speeds through traffic calming features such as skinny streets, bulb-outs, chicanes, reduced curb radii, parkways, etc.

The following tables show existing conditions for streets that have potential to become part of a bikeway network. Each bikeway is broken into segments corresponding with major changes in roadway configuration or width. Each segment describes the existing roadway configuration and width, then lists proposed modifications to add bikeways.

72 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 14. Existing & Proposed Street Configurations in Cudahy Street From To
Street Data Proposed Bikeways
Additional
Recommendations Street
Width
(Ft.)
To
Median
(x)
# of
Lanes
Center
Turn
Lane/
Median
(C,M)
Parking
(x)
Class I
Bike
Path
Class II
Bike
Lane
Colored
Bike
Lanes
Double
Buffered
Bike
Lanes
Class
III Bike
Route
Class III
Bike Route
with
Greenback
Sharrows
Separated
Bike Lanes
Widen
Sidewalk
Add
Median
Live Oak St. Salt Lake Ave. River Rd. 40 2 x South side North side 6' bike lane on south sideClara St. Salt Lake Ave. Atlantic Ave. 40 2 x North side South side 6' bike lane on north sideClara St. Atlantic Ave. River Rd. turn- off 44 2 x x 5' lanesElizabeth St. Salt Lake Ave. River Rd. 35-36 2 x x Santa Ana St. Salt Lake Ave. Atlantic Ave. 56 2 x Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Santa Ana St. Atlantic Ave. Park Ave. 36 2 x x Patata St. Atlantic Ave. Wilcox Ave. 40 2 x Option 1 Option 2 Option 1: Work with the RR company and South Gate for a bike path in the RR right-ofway Salt Lake Ave. Walnut St. Elizabeth St. 35 2 NE side only Option 1 Option 3, SW side Option 3, NE side Option 2, west side Option 1: Work with the RR company and South Gate for a bike path in the RR right-ofwayOption 2: Obtain 8’ of RR right-of-way and put 2-way separated bike lanes on the southwest sideOption 3: 6’-wide colored bike lane on the SW side, and bike route with Type B sharrows on the NE side Salt Lake Ave. Elizabeth St. Atlantic Ave. 34 2 Option 1 Option 3 Option 2, west side Option 1: Work with the RR company and South Gate for a bike path in the RR right-ofwayOption 2: 2-way separated bike lanes on the southwest sideOption 3: 6’ colored bike lanes

73 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Street From To
Street Data Proposed Bikeways
Additional
Recommendations Street
Width
(Ft.)
To
Median
(x)
# of
Lanes
Center
Turn
Lane/
Median
(C,M)
Parking
(x)
Class I
Bike
Path
Class II
Bike
Lane
Colored
Bike
Lanes
Double
Buffered
Bike
Lanes
Class
III Bike
Route
Class III
Bike Route
with
Greenback
Sharrows
Separated
Bike Lanes
Widen
Sidewalk
Add
Median
Otis St. Walnut St. Salt Lake Ave. 38 2 x x Atlantic Ave. Florence Ave. Cecilia St. 30 x 2 M x x Atlantic Ave. Cecilia St. Salt Lake Ave. 37 x 2 M x x Wilcox Ave. Florence Ave. Cecelia St. 46 2 x Option 1 Option 2 Option 2 6' lanesWilcox Ave. Cecelia St. Patata St. 40 2 West side only Option 1 Option 2 Option 2 6' lanes; remove on-street parkingPark Ave. Elizabeth St. Santa Ana St. 40 2 x x River Rd. Clara St. Fostoria St. 25 2 x Clara Park Bike Path Live Oak St. East side of Clara Park x Work with the property owner to pave a path along the western perimeter of the property to the east side of Clara Park; could be done through a purchase, easement, or requirement of new development

74 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Map 3. Planned Bikeways

75 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Live Oak Street
Colored Bike Lane & Class III Bike Route With Greenback Sharrows

76 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Clara Street From Salt Lake Avenue to Atlantic Avenue
Colored Bike Lane & Class III Bike Route with Greenback Sharrows

77 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Clara Street From Atlantic Avenue to River Road Turn-Off Colored Bike Lanes

78 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Santa Ana Street From Salt Lake Avenue to Atlantic Avenue Double Buffered Bike Lanes
Salt Lake Avenue from Walnut Street to Elizabeth Street Option 1: Class I Bike Path, Option 2: Double Buffered Bike Lakes, Option 3: Colored Bike Lane & Class III Bike Route with Type B Sharrows Salt Lake Avenue from Elizabeth Street to Atlantic Avenue Option 1: Class I Bike Path, Option 2: Double Buffered Bike Lakes, Option 3: Colored Bike Lanes Wilcox Avenue
Colored Bike Lanes

79 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Salt Lake Avenue From Walnut Street to Elizabeth Street Option 1: Class I Bike Path, Option 2: Separated Bike Lanes, Option 3: Colored Bike Lane & Class III Bike Route With Type B Sharrows

80 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Salt Lake Avenue From Elizabeth Street to Atlantic Avenue Option 1: Class I Bike Path, Option 2: Separated Bike Lanes, Option 3: Colored Bike Lanes

81 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Florence Avenue
Colored Bike Lanes

82 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Bicycle Path AmenitiesThe Los Angeles River bike path runs directly east of Park Avenue Elementary School and Cudahy River Park. This leaves strong potential to encourage people to bicycle to the school and park. Bike path amenities could strengthen this link and attract cyclists from the path to the park. These could include such amenities as:

Restrooms Drinking fountains Shaded benches Trash/recycling receptacles Maps of the area Bicycle, Skateboard, and Scooter ParkingThe location of bike and scooter racks is important. Ideally they should be located in an area that is convenient and close to the front door of the school. Visibility is important as well to prevent theft. The racks should have paved access and be placed on a solid platform.

Add racks for 10 bicycles as described in the Design Guidance section at the Park Avenue and Teresa Hughes Elementary Schools, and 30 at the Ellen Ochoa and Elizabeth Learning Centers.

Add racks for 10 skateboards or scooters at the elementary schools, and 30 at the Ellen Ochoa and Elizabeth Learning Centers. Add more if needed.

Traffic CalmingSpeeding is an issue citywide. The text below recommends traffic calming measures that can be employed at specific locations. In other locations some common traffic calming measures can also help. Wide streets can benefit from bike lanes, wider sidewalks and medians, or dispersed median islands. Curb extensions at intersections calm traffic where it is especially needed. Replacing traffic signals with roundabouts or traffic circles tames speeds while accommodating more through put. Replacing 4-way stop signs with mini traffic circles also calms traffic with greater capacity. Roundabouts and circles also benefit people riding bicycles because they don’t have to come to a full stop. Properly placed raised crosswalks also tame speed. The devices and measures recommended in this Plan will have traffic calming benefit and will cover large portions of Cudahy.

83 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Live Oak St. between Wilcox Ave. and Crafton Ave. and between Atlantic Ave. and Otis Ave.

Speed humps exist Conduct an engineering study to add 15 mph Assembly C signs (4) Add landscaped islands in front of the schools (4) The raised crosswalks, islands, and curb extensions for the crosswalks will complement these measures Otis Ave. between Live Oak St. and Clara St.

Add dispersed landscaped islands (3) Add dispersed mid-block curb extensions (3)

84 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Policies, Procedures, and Grant OpportunitiesPoliciesThe City can complement its Safe Routes to School program by making the streets safer for all users both with supporting physical features as well as operational practices. The following efforts would enhance the environment for students walking or cycling to school, as well as for anyone walking or bicycling in Cudahy.Transportation and Land UseLiving Streets PolicyThe City could adopt a Living Streets Policy that contains elements to prioritize walking, bicycling, and transit, as well as a plan for all users of the streets. A comprehensive policy would also address street features that enhance the aesthetics, comfort, economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and social functions of the streets. A Living Streets Policy should contain all 10 elements recommended by the National Complete Streets Coalition. The Policy should address issues and set priorities, such as which street projects are enacted, in what order, how sidewalks are maintained, and how bike lanes are kept clear with trash collection practices, among others. More information about Living and Complete Streets can be found at: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streetsComplete and Enact PlansThe City can complete and enact vital plans that move to the next step in implementation. In addition to this Plan, the most important to implement are:

General Plan Transportation Element Bicycle Plan Pedestrian Plan Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Pedestrian and bicyclist-focused programs

85 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Having these plans in place enables the City to seek funds and to direct new development to be pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit-friendly.These plans should each contain a list of capital improvement projects that the City can make over time as opportunities arise or funding becomes available. Implementing these plans can address a wide range of issues, such as pedestrians interacting with trucks on Atlantic Avenue, making it safe to bicycle throughout the community, or having convenient bicycle parking installed where it is needed. Developer Requirements and IncentivesThe City can adopt ordinances or offer incentives for land developers to include bicycle parking, showers, and clothing lockers in new projects.Zoning and building codes should create incentives for mixing land uses, require buildings to open onto sidewalks, set design requirements for driveways to minimize impact on pedestrians, etc.Healthy Eating Active LivingPolicies that promote healthier lifestyles and communities are essential to address the rising obesity epidemic. Significant societal and environmental changes help support individual efforts in making healthier choices. The City’s Healthy Eating Active Living resolution was passed, approved, and adopted on October 2012. This resolution aligns well with this Plan, and should be used as a guiding document in order to inform future policies.ProceduresLiving Streets Design ManualThe City can adopt a street design manual that provides guidance to City staff, policy makers, and land developers as to how to design and construct modifications to the streets and sidewalks that encourage active and vibrant streets.

86 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Pedestrian Safety AssessmentThe City should implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Safety Assessment. Some of these include new capital improvementprojects, and the crash analysis can be used to help prioritize projects.Bike Share ProgramThe City may want to consider having a bike sharing program with parking stations placed strategically around the community that enable users to take community bikes and return them at another location.TrainingThe City can make significant progress over time by ensuring that City staff are well trained in practices that impact Safe Routes to School.The types of training that are useful and available include, but are not limited to:

Living /Complete streets policies Planning and designing for bicycles Planning and designing for pedestrians Planning and designing for people with disabilities Planning and designing living streets Funding sources and grant application training StaffingLarger cities are now dedicating full-time staff as bicycle, pedestrian, Safe Routes to School, mobility, and active transportation coordinators.Cudahy may be small for full-time staff, but dedicating someone that specializes in this realm at least part-time would enable the City to stay on top of this field and to become more bicycle and pedestrian friendly faster.

87 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Community InvolvementActive community involvement will be critical for ongoing support for Cudahy to become more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The City may want to formalize community involvement through advisory committees comprised of local stakeholders. The school-based Committees will play a major role in keeping programs in place, while others can support them. Grant OpportunitiesA variety of federal, state, and local funding sources may be used to pay for the physical improvements and ongoing programs in this SRTS Plan. The most relevant are identified below.FederalMap-21Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP- 21) determines how most federal transportation money will be spent until it expires. After that, Congress may decide to extend it or adopt a new federal funding formula. The current formula sets up an Alternative Transportation fund that is eligible to be used for Safe Routes to School projects. Half of Map-21 funds are distributed to and by Caltrans in its Active Transportation Program, and Metro distributes the other half. More information can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfmHighway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)The HSIP aims to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious accidents through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements. Any physical improvement that contributes to safety is eligible. HSIP funds are administered by Caltrans.

88 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
More information can be found at:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.htmhttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fact_sheets/ftsht1401.cfmhttp://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/highway_ safety_improvement_program.pdfStateActive Transportation ProgramThe Active Transportation Program combines federal Alternative Transportation funds and former separate bicycle, pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School funds into one program. Caltrans administers these funds and will likely have a call for projects approximately every year. When this fund was established through state legislation the amount of the funds was increased to $360 million for three years. Cities may apply for funds to construct projects, carry out programs, and prepare active transportation plans. More information can be found at:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/bta/btawebPage.htmOffice of Traffic Safety (OTS)The California OTS provides funding for safety programs. Bicycle and pedestrian safety education or similar programs are eligible for these funds.More information can be found at:http://www.ots.ca.gov/Grants/Apply/Proposals_2011.asp Transportation Planning Grant ProgramThe Transportation Planning Grant Program has two grant programs that can aid the planning and development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Environmental Justice/ Context Sensitive Planning (EJ) Grant promotes the involvement of low-income and minority groups in the planning of transportation projects. The Community Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) program funds coordinated transportation and land use planning projects that encourage community involvement and partnerships. These projects must support livable and sustainable community concepts. The Transportation Planning Grants may be used for planning efforts for bicycles or pedestrians.

89 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
More information can be found at:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html LocalMetro Call for ProjectsThe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) combines federal and state funds allocated to MPOs, as well as Proposition C funds, and distributes them through a countywide Call for Projects. Categorical money is set aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Local Return MoneyLocal governments receive a portion of both Los Angeles County Proposition C and Proposition R revenues for local transportation. Cities may use part of this money for bicycle and pedestrian projects.Resurfacing, Repaving, and ReconstructionWhenever streets are resurfaced or repaved any street marking such as bike lanes, sharrows, crosswalks, and advance stop/yield markings can be put in for little cost. The least expensive and disruptive time to widen sidewalks, install bikeways, and put surface markings in is when reconstruction takes place.MiscellaneousThe City may be able to fund Safe Routes to School projects through benefit assessments, parking meter revenues, business improvement districts, or general funds.

90 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
ImplementationCostThe following table shows planning level cost estimates for the physical components of this Plan that aren’t paid for with existing grants. More accurate costs will be determined upon engineering. Where options are planned, Option 1 cost estimates are provided.

91 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 15: Planning-Level Cost Estimate for All Projects Improvement Units Per Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Bike route with sharrows linear mile $15,000 0.6 $9,000 Bike route with greenback sharrows linear mile $50,000 3.4 $170,000 Colored bike lanes linear mile $100,000 1.8 $180,000 Bike lane one side, bike route with greenback sharrows on the other side linear mile $50,000 2.4 $120,000
Double buffered bike lanes linear mile $75,000 0.4 $30,000 Bike path with lighting linear mile $2,000,000 1.9 $3,800,000 Bike and scooter/skateboard racks number $250 170 $42,500 Advanced stop lines/yield markings number $1,000 44 $44,000 Curb extensions with curb ramps number $10,000 78 $780,000 Large curb extensions with curb ramps number $15,000 8 $120,000 Bus bulbs number $15,000 10 $150,000
Reduce curb returns (count each face) number $3,000 2 $6,000 Protected left turns number $31,000 2 $62,000
Audible pedestrian signals number $500 56 $28,000
Countdown signals number $4,000 32 $128,000
Crossing islands (pair) number $4,000 4 $16,000
Move bus stops number $5,000 1 $5,000
Raised crosswalks number $18,000 6 $108,000
Median nose number $1,000 8 $8,000
Sidewalk linear feet $50 200 $10,000
Signs number $250 37 $9,250
Remove pavement markings number $150 4 $600
Remove signals (per intersection) number $10,000 1 $10,000 Stop signs with flashing LED lights number $4,000 9 $36,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 2-lane streets number $1,500 39 $58,500 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 4-lane streets number $3,000 6 $18,000 Roundabouts number $250,000 1 $250,000
RR pedestrian gate with edge line number $2,000 4 $8,000 Landscaped islands number $2,000 7 $14,000
Mid-block curb extensions number $5,000 3 $15,000
Flatten sidewalks with driveway ramps in buffer
number $2,000 100 $200,000
Raised sidewalk square
feet
$12 150 $1,800
Move curbs in to narrow driveway number $1,000 2 $2,000 Designate bus loading area number $800 1 $800
TOTAL $6,440,450

92 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
The City has received grant funding from the 2013 Highway Safety Improvement Program and the 2014 Active Transportation Program to pay for some of these costs. The two tables below show what items each of these grants funds that are included in this Plan.Table 16: Active Transportation Planning Grant (ATP 2014) Improvement Units Per Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Advanced stop lines/yield markings number $1,000 6 $6,000 Raised crosswalks number $18,000 1 $18,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 2-lane streets number $1,500 10 $15,000 Stop signs with flashing LED lights number $4,000 7 $28,000 Rectangular rapid-flash beacons (1 set) number $18,000 1 $18,000 TOTAL $85,000
Table 17: Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant (HSIP 2013) Improvement Units Per Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Protected left-turns number $31,000 6 $186,000 Countdown signals number $4,000 24 $96,000 TOTAL $282,000
ScheduleThe City should consider implementing some of the less expensive items first. Some items are relatively inexpensive and many can be put in within a short time frame after this Plan has been adopted. On the other hand, devices that require construction, and perhaps drainage modification, are significantly more expensive and may become long-term expenditures. The table below shows some of the devices for consideration of short-term or long-term implementation. Implementation of projects will also depend upon technical feasibility, based on survey data collected by the City.

93 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 18: Short-Term and Long-Term Devices and Measures Short-Term Devices Long-Term Devices and Measures
Crosswalks Curb extensions Advanced stop lines/yield markings Islands/median nose Signs Bus bulbs Countdown/audio signals Raised crosswalks
Curb ramps Sidewalks
Bike routes and lanes Paths
Stop signs with flashing LED lights Drainage modifications Protected left turns Roundabouts
Bike and scooter/skateboard racks Traffic calming islands and curb extensions The City should also seek opportunities to piggyback on other projects. For example, resurfacing projects present ideal opportunities to stripe bike lanes, crosswalks, advanced yield lines, etc. In addition to cost, the City should also consider means of prioritizing projects. The City won’t be able to fund all of the improvements at once so they will have to be phased in. In order to prioritize projects, the City can apply such criteria as, but not limited to:

Crash history Pedestrian volumes Bicycle volumes Traffic volumes Number of travel lanes Width of the street Traffic speed Size of the school Proximity to the school Community support Opportunity to piggy back on resurfacing and other projects Based on these factors, this Plan recommends implementing projects in the following tiers. Each tier may be five to 10 years, depending on funding.

94 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 19: Short-Term Projects
Pedestrian Projects Bikeway and Bicycle Parking Projects Santa Ana St. & Park Ave. Live Oak St. from Salt Lake Ave. to River Rd. Wilcox Ave. & Clara St. Clara St. from Salt Lake Ave. to River Rd. Wilcox Ave. & Live Oak St. Elizabeth St. from Salt Lake Ave. to River Rd.

Mid-block crossing of Live Oak St. between Wilcox Ave. & Crafton Ave.

Wilcox Ave. from Florence Ave. to Patata St.

Atlantic Ave. & Live Oak St. Add all bicycle and scooter/skateboard parking In front of Jaime Escalante Elementary School on Live Oak St.

Mid-block crossing of Elizabeth St. between Atlantic Ave. & Wilcox Ave. Atlantic Ave. & Elizabeth St. Otis Ave. & Clara St.

95 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 20: Medium-Term Projects
Pedestrian Projects Bikeway Projects Traffic Calming
Park Ave. & Elizabeth St. Santa Ana St. from Salt Lake Ave. to Park Ave.

Along Live Oak St.

Wilcox Ave. & Santa Ana St. Otis St. from Walnut St. to Salt Lake Ave. Along Otis Ave. Wilcox Ave. & Elizabeth St. Atlantic Ave. from Florence Ave. to Salt Lake Ave.

Crafton Ave. & Live Oak St. Atlantic Ave. & Clara St. Atlantic Ave. & Santa Ana St. Otis Ave. & Elizabeth St. Clara St. in front of Teresa Hughes Elementary School Flatten sidewalks with driveway ramps Table 21: Long-Term Projects
Pedestrian Projects Bikeway Projects
Superior driveway on Live Oak St. Patata St. from Atlantic Ave. to Wilcox Ave. Salt Lake Ave. & Santa Ana St. Salt Lake Ave. from Walnut St. to Atlantic Ave. Salt Lake Ave. & Otis Ave. Park Ave. from Elizabeth St. to Santa Ana St.

Back gate of Teresa Hughes Elementary School on Elizabeth St. River Rd. from Clara St. to Fostoria St.

Otis Ave. & Olive St. Clara St. Bike Path from Live Oak St. to East side of Clara Park
Otis Ave. & Live Oak St.

96 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
The cost breakdown for each of these phases follows.Table 22: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Short-Term Projects Improvement Units Per Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Bike route with greenback sharrows linear mile $50,000 1.2 $60,000 Colored bike lanes linear mile $100,000 1.8 $180,000 Bike lane one side, bike route with greenback sharrows on the other side linear mile $50,000 2.4 $120,000
Bike and scooter/skateboard racks number $250 170 $42,500 Advanced stop lines/yield markings number $1,000 20 $20,000 Curb extensions with curb ramps number $10,000 32 $320,000 Large curb extensions with curb ramps number $15,000 2 $30,000 Bus bulbs number $15,000 6 $90,000
Protected left turns number $31,000 2 $62,000
Audible pedestrian signals number $500 32 $16,000
Countdown signals number $4,000 24 $96,000
Crossing islands (pair) number $4,000 2 $8,000
Raised crosswalks number $18,000 4 $72,000
Median nose number $1,000 4 $4,000
Signs number $250 20 $5,000
Remove pavement markings number $150 4 $600
Remove signals (per intersection) number $10,000 1 $10,000 Stop signs with flashing LED lights number $4,000 2 $8,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 2-lane streets number $1,500 15 $22,500 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 4-lane streets number $3,000 2 $6,000 Roundabouts number $250,000 1 $250,000
TOTAL $1,422,600

97 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 23: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Medium-Term Projects Improvement Units Per Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Bike route with greenback sharrows linear mile $50,000 2.1 $105,000 Double buffered bike lanes linear mile $75,000 0.4 $30,000 Advanced stop lines/yield markings number $1,000 13 $13,000 Curb extensions with curb ramps number $10,000 34 $340,000 Large curb extensions with curb ramps number $15,000 2 $30,000 Bus bulbs number $15,000 4 $60,000
Reduce curb returns (count each face) number $3,000 2 $6,000 Audible pedestrian signals number $500 16 $8,000
Crossing islands (pair) number $4,000 2 $8,000
Raised crosswalks number $18,000 1 $18,000
Median nose number $1,000 4 $4,000
Signs number $250 6 $1,500
Stop signs with flashing LED lights number $4,000 6 $24,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 2-lane streets number $1,500 14 $21,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 4-lane streets number $3,000 4 $12,000 Landscaped islands number $2,000 7 $14,000
Mid-block curb extensions number $5,000 3 $15,000
Flatten sidewalks with driveway ramps in buffer
number $2,000 100 $200,000
Designate bus loading area number $800 1 $800
TOTAL $910,300

98 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Table 24: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Long-Term Projects Improvement Units Per Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Bike route with sharrows linear mile $15,000 0.6 $9,000 Bike route with greenback sharrows linear mile $50,000 0.1 $5,000 Bike path with lighting linear mile $2,000,000 1.9 $3,800,000 Advanced stop lines/yield markings number $1,000 11 $11,000 Curb extensions with curb ramps number $10,000 12 $120,000 Large curb extensions with curb ramps number $15,000 4 $60,000 Audible pedestrian signals number $500 8 $4,000
Countdown signals number $4,000 8 $32,000
Move bus stops number $5,000 1 $5,000
Raised crosswalks number $18,000 1 $18,000
Sidewalk linear feet $50 200 $10,000
Signs number $250 11 $2,750
Stop signs with flashing LED lights number $4,000 1 $4,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 2-lane streets number $1,500 10 $15,000 RR pedestrian gate with edge line number $2,000 4 $8,000 Raised sidewalk square
feet
$12 150 $1,800
Move curbs in to narrow driveway number $1,000 2 $2,000 Designate bus loading area number $800
TOTAL $4,107,550

A-1 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Appendix A - Design GuidanceMany traffic control devices, signs, markings, and other street design features can be used to make walking and bicycling to school safer. This appendix describes general design guidelines for facilities identified in this plan. The City will need to follow standard manuals such as the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, California Highway Design Manual (HDM), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,” National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and others. Many traffic control devices, signs, markings, and other street design features can be used to make walking and bicycling to school safer. This section highlights some of the most important and most commonly recommended.California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Signs and MarkingsThe California MUTCD has developed standards and guidance to be used for signs and markings. Some are mandatory, others are advisory, and some are optional. The following subsection shows the basic signs and markings used around schools.Signs Many school signs begin with the basic School Advanced Warning sign labeled “S1-1”. It is used to notify street users that they are entering a School Area that includes school buildings or grounds, a school crossing, or a related activity adjacent to the street. It can identify the location of the beginning of a School Zone. It also combines with other signs to designate the location of school crossings.

The School Warning Assembly A includes the School (SP-4) plaque. This should be posted at the school boundary, and may be posted up to 500 feet in advance of the school boundary. It may also be accompanied with arrows pointing to the school if on another street.The School Crosswalk Warning Assembly B includes S1-1 with an arrow. It shall be posted at a crosswalk that is not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal.The School Advanced Warning Assembly D includes the S1-1 sign along with either Ahead (W16-9P) or a distance sign e.g. “200 FT” (W16-2aP). It should be used on the approach of a crosswalk that is not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal. It is optional where an S1-1 sign is S1-1
Assembly A
Assembly B Assembly D

A-2 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
posted. It may also be accompanied with arrows pointing to the school if on another street.

The School Speed Limit Sign (Assembly C) includes a Speed Limit (R2-1) sign, with a School (S4-3P) sign, and When Children Are Present (S4-2P). The Assembly C sign should be used where a reduced school speed limit zone has been established based on an engineering study or where a reduced school speed limit is specified by statute. The sign should be placed where the reduced school speed limit exists. It may be placed up to 500 feet in advance of the school boundary. The sign should be used on streets where speed limits contiguous to a school or school grounds are greater than 25 mph. The prima facie speed limit of 25 mph is in effect for Assembly C. With an engineering study (designated by the CA MUTCD) a city may reduce the school speed limit to 15 mph on a residential street where some other conditions are met.

In-Street signs Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5) signs should be placed at the location of Advanced Yield Lines.(R1-6) may include a School (S4-3P) and be placed in a crosswalk that is not controlled by a traffic signal. Railroad warning signs (W82-1) signs can be used to alert pedestrians of railroad crossings.MarkingsHigh-visibility crosswalks generally have longitudinal lines that run in the same direction as the street. They are sometimes called “zebra-stripe” crosswalks, or “continental” crosswalks. If they have lateral (transverse) lines along with longitudinal lines they are called “ladder” crosswalks. Motorists can see these much better than typical transverse-line or “transverse” crosswalks.

Assembly C
R1-6
R1-5
W82-1
Transverse-line Crosswalk Zebra-stripe Crosswalk Ladder Crosswalk

A-3 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Crosswalks must be yellow where the street is contiguous to a school building or school grounds. It may be yellow if it is within 600 feet of the school grounds. If there are no other crosswalks between the intersection and school, the crosswalk may be yellow up to 2,800 feet from the school grounds. Outside of the school area all crosswalks should be white. However, white crosswalks may be more visible than yellow crosswalks especially when the markings fade, so it may be advisable to color them white everywhere away not adjacent to school grounds. SLOW SCHOOL XING markings may be used in advance of yellow school crosswalks where there are not stop signs, traffic signals or yield signs. They shall be yellow with the word XING at least 100 feet in advance of the crosswalk. SCHOOL markings may be used with School Assemblies A or C and shall be yellow. They should be adjacent to the signs. They should not be used where SLOW SCHOOL XING markings exist. Advanced Yield Lines indicate where motorists and bicyclists are required to yield to pedestrians in an upcoming crosswalk. They may be used in advance of marked crosswalks at locations not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal. They are white and are designed as “shark’s teeth”. They shall be placed between 20 and 50 feet in advance of the crosswalk and parking shall be prohibited between the markings and the crosswalk. They are marked along with posting of R1-5 signs.Advanced Stop Lines indicate where motorists and bicyclists are required to stop where there are marked crosswalks with stop signs or traffic signals. They should be placed at least four feet in advance of the marked crosswalk. They shall be white.

SLOW SCHOOL XING Marking
Advanced StoAdvanced Yield Line
p Line

A-4 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Other TreatmentsCurb ExtensionsCurb extensions are used to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, to improve visibility, and to slow turning motorists. They provide space and geometry for perpendicular curb ramps. They are also called “curb extensions” at intersections. Curb extensions may be irregular in shape to fit into the context. They may be solid and flush with the curb (shown in next photograph), or broken up into islands to compensate for drainage issues as shown in the diagram.

Crossing IslandsCrossing islands break up the distance pedestrians have to cross streets into two phases. This allows them to wait for a gap in traffic to cross in one direction only at a time. They are especially important to cross multi-lane streets at locations not controlled by stop signs or traffic signals. Raised CrosswalksRaised crosswalks slow traffic, improve visibility and make pedestrians more prominent. They are especially useful at crosswalks that are not controlled by traffic signals.

Flush Curb Extension
Curb Extension with Islands
Crossing Islands
Raised Crosswalk

A-5 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Sidewalk WideningThe following treatments can be used to improve sidewalks that are too narrow:
• If curb exists with a landscaped parkway, part or all of the parkway can be paved.• The sidewalk can be widened into the street (may require drainage modifications).• The sidewalk can be widened into the adjacent property if an easement exists. Sidewalks can be routed around driveway ramps.• Where poles, signs, and other obstructions block sidewalks that have no parkway and there is on-street parking, curb extensions can be interspersed in the street to create a place to locate signs and poles.

Requirements for new development or redevelopment of the adjacent land should mandate that adequately wide and designed sidewalks be automatically installed. Where driveways cross sidewalks and create cross slope, and where a buffer zone exists between the sidewalk and street, these can be retrofitted with concrete to make the sidewalk flat and place a steeper ramp in the buffer zone.Flashing Stop Signs Flashing stop signs contain LED lights around the perimeter of standard stop signs to provide more visibility. These make the stop signs more noticeable where people disregard stop signs. RoundaboutsRoundabouts replace signal and stop controls at intersections and cause motorists and bicyclists to go around the perimeter of the intersection in order to proceed through the intersection. This design eliminates key conflict points for crashes and slows traffic. As a result, fewer crashes occur and those that do tend to be less severe. Roundabouts typically have splitter islands on the approaches to deflect users to the desired course and for slow entry and exit. These constrained entries and exits create narrow lanes that are easy for pedestrians to cross. Roundabouts usually have mountable aprons for trucks and buses. Single-lane roundabouts should be placed at the intersection of two Curb Extension with Lamp
Roundabout
Flashing Stop Sign

A-6 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
2-lane streets or at the intersection of two 2-lane streets with midblock center-turn lanes. The diagonal cross section of the intersection needs to be at least 76’ across. Roundabouts must be carefully designed in order to fully meet their many potential benefits. The City should work with a roundabout expert during design and construction. Mini-roundabouts are smaller and may have painted or mountable splitter islands.BikewaysThe following guidelines present the recommended minimum design standards and other recommended ancillary support items for bikeways.Bike PathsBike path (Class I bikeway) – exclusive paved path separated from the roadway for bicyclists and other non-motorized users. • Class I bike paths should conform to the design guidelines set forth by the HDM 1000.• Class I bike paths are commonly planned along rights-of-way such as waterways, utility corridors, railroads, and the like that offer continuous separated riding opportunities.
• Bike paths should have a minimum of eight feet of pavement, with at least two feet of unpaved shoulders for pedestrians/runners, or a separate pathway for pedestrians/runners where feasible. A pavement width of 12 feet is preferred. • Class I bike path roadway crossings should be carefully engineered to accommodate safe and visible crossing for users. Crossings of low-volume streets may require simple stop signs. Crossings of streets with Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of over 15,000 vehicles per hour should be assessed for signalized crossing, flashing LED beacons, crossing islands, or other devices. Roundabouts may be a desirable treatment for a bike path intersecting with roadways where the bike path is not next to a parallel street. • Lighting should be provided where bicyclists will likely use the bike path in the late evening, such as along commuter routes.

Bike LanesBike lane (Class II bikeway) – a striped, stenciled and signed lane in the street dedicated for bicycles Class II Bike Lane facilities should conform to the minimum design standard of 5 feet in width in the direction of vehicle travel adjacent to the curb lane. Where space is available, a width of 6 to 8 feet is preferred, especially on busy arterial streets, on grades, and adjacent to parallel parking.

Bike path
Bike lane

A-7 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Under certain circumstances, bike lanes may be 4 feet in • Bike lanes located between through traffic lanes and right turn pockets at intersection approaches • Where there is no parking, the gutter pan is no more than 12” wide, and the pavement is smooth and flush with the gutter pan Bike lanes with two stripes are more visible than those with one and are preferred. The second inside stripe (4 inch solid white) would differentiate the bike lane from the parking lane where appropriate. Where space permits, intersection treatments should include bike lane ‘pockets’ as shown in the adjacent photo.At signalized intersections, loops or other means of bicycle detection should be installed near the limit line in the bike lane and all vehicle lanesthat have detection. Signal timing and phasing should be set to accommodate bicycle acceleration speeds. Painted bicycle detector stencils may be placed at detection zones located within the bike lane to notify bicyclists where they can actuate the signal. Colored Bike LanesColored bike lanes increase visibility for cyclists. The State of California has requested and received approval from the FHA to implement these statewide. Consequently, the City may implement green bike lanes without need to notify the State or FHA, provided the CAMUTCDguidelines are followed. The federally accepted color is a bright greenBuffered Bike LanesBuffered bike lanes – bike lanes that have a painted buffer between either the travel lane and the bike lane, or between the bike lane and parking laneThis additional space can improve the comfort of cyclists as they don’t have to ride as close to motor vehicles. The buffer may be used between parked cars and bike lanes to direct cyclists to ride outside of the door zone of the parked cars. Double buffered bike lanes include buffers on both sides.

Colored bicycle lane
Buffered bicycle lane schematic

A-8 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Bike RoutesBike route (Class III bikeway) – a signed bicycle route that is shared with other trafficWith proper route signage, design, and maintenance, bike routes can be effective in guiding bicyclists along a route suited for bicycling that does not have enough roadway space for a dedicated Class II bike lane. Bike routes can become more useful when coupled with the following techniques:
• Route, directional, and distance signage• Wide curb lanes• Shared lane marking stencils painted in the traffic lane along the appropriate path of where a bicyclist would ride in the lane • Accelerated pavement maintenance Shared lane markings (Sharrows) Sharrows – Shared lane markings that are bicycle stencils in the street that provide more visibility for bicyclists along bike routesSharrows (officially known as “shared lane markings”) indicate to cyclists the proper position to ride within the travel lane and assist with wayfinding. They also alert motorists that the travel lane is to be shared with bicyclists.When used on streets with on-street parking, sharrows are to be placed such that the centers of the markings are a minimum of 11 feet from the curb face or edge of paved shoulder on streets with on-street parallel parking. On streets without on-street parking that have an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the sharrows should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb.Greenback sharrowsGreenback sharrows highlight the sharrow with a square of green paint to make them more visible. They are most useful on busy streets or on high-speed streets.

Shared lane marking
placement graphic
Shared lane marking

A-9 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Separated Bike LanesSeparated bike lanes, also known as protected bike lanes or cycle tracks, are bikeways located on or adjacent to streets where bicycle traffic is separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical barriers. These barriers provide a sense of comfort and safety over and above that provided by typical bike lanes. Where on-street parking exists, cycle tracks are installed between the parking and the curb. Where no on-street parking exists they are located between the curb and travel lanes. The area to be used by bicycles should be of adequate width for street sweeping to ensure that debris will not accumulate. Separated bike lanes tend to work most effectively where there are few uncontrolled crossing points with unexpected traffic conflicts. • The protective area should generally be a minimum of 3 feet wide. Where space is limited 2 feet may be considered acceptable.

Protective barriers may include posts/bollards, curbing, parking stops and landscaped islands. • Parking near driveways and intersections should be prohibited to allow for good visibility. • Where motorists cross, separated bike lanes to enter driveways, the opening should be constrained so that they have to slow down and turn at a right angle.
• Coloring, yield markings and “Yield to Bikes” signs should be used in areas where motorists cross separated bike lanes. • Separated bike lanes at intersections require deliberate design solutions. Typically, this entails adding a separate signal phase that corresponds with motor vehicles travelling the same direction. Separated bike lanes should have a red phase when conflicting turning movements of vehicles in the travel lanes have a green phase, and vice versa. • Separated bike lanes should be colored and stenciled through both signalized and unsignalized intersections to notify motorists that they are crossing a bikeway.

Bicycle ParkingBicycle racks should offer adequate support for the bicycles and should be easy to lock to. The most common design is shaped as aninverted-U to accomplish this. Some multi-bicycle racks also work well. Racks next to each other should be placed at least 36 inches apart (48 inches is recommended), so bicycles can be loaded on both sides of the rack. Inverted-U bicycle rack.

Separated bike lane intersection
treatment

Separated bicycle lane

A-10 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Bicycle parking should be located close to the front door of the school in order to provide for the convenience, visibility, and safety of those who park their bicycles. They should be enclosed either by putting them inside the school fence, or by creating a separate enclosed area that can be locked during school hours. Bicycle and scooter parking should have paved access and be placed on a paved or solid surface.

Multi-bike bicycle rack

B-1 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Appendix BCity of Bell As described in the “pedestrian” project section, Cudahy students live in Bell, and Bell students bicycle in Cudahy. The City of Cudahy will work closely to implement projects that impact residents from both cities. The recommended bikeway project on Florence Avenue is in Bell so the City of Bell can consider implementing it.Bicycle Improvements Table B-1. Existing & Proposed Street Configurations in Cudahy Street From To
Street Data Proposed Bikeways
Additional
Recommendations Street
Width
(Ft.)
To
Median
(x)
# of
Lanes
Center
Turn
Lane/
Median
(C,M)
Parking
(x)
Class I
Bike
Path
Class II
Bike
Lane
Colored
Bike
Lanes
Double
Buffered
Bike
Lanes
Class
III Bike
Route
Class III
Bike Route
with
Greenback
Sharrows
Separated
Bike Lanes
Widen
Sidewalk
Add
Median
Florence Ave. (In Bell) Bear Ave. Los Angeles River 76 4 C x x 6' lanes

B-2 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Pedestrian ProjectsStudents that live in the city of Bell attend school in Cudahy, and vice versa. This is especially true for students of Teresa Hughes Elementary and Ellen Ochoa Learning Center. During the outreach process, stakeholders identified several locations that needed improvements that are in Bell’s jurisdiction. The City of Cudahy already works closely with the City of Bell, and staff from Bell has been part of the Technical Advisory Committee to develop this Safe Routes to School Plan. The following recommendations are included to showcase the importance of continuing to work across jurisdiction boundaries to improve student safety; however, the City of Bell will be responsible for implementation, and can choose to use these recommendations as they see fit.

1. Florence Ave. & Crafton Ave.Existing
• Signalized intersection• Yellow transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings• Protected left turns from Florence Ave.

Proposed
• Add yellow zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) • Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) • Add curb extensions to both sides of the north and south crossings, and to the NE and NW corners to cross Florence Ave. (6)
• Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) • Add a median nose on the east crossing (1) • Increase crossing times in coordination with Los Angeles County

B-3 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan

2. Atlantic Ave. & Florence Ave. Existing
• Signalized intersection• Transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings• Protected left turns from Florence Ave.

Proposed
• Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4) • Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4) • Reduce the curb returns of all corners (8) • Add countdown signals to all crossings (8) • Put the “Walk” signals on automatic recall• Increase crossing times in coordination with Los Angeles County

3. Otis Ave. & Florence Ave.Existing
• Signalized intersection• Transverse-line crosswalks on all crossings• Advance stop line on all crossings (3’ in advance)• Protected left turns from Florence Ave.• Bus stops on the NW and SW corners on Florence Ave.

Proposed
• Add white zebra-stripe crosswalks to all crossings (4)• Add advance stop lines (6’ in advance) to all crossings (4)• Add curb extensions to the north, south and east crossings (6) • Add small curb extensions on the west crossing (2)• Add countdown signals to all crossings (8)

B-4 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
ImplementationThe following table shows planning level costs for planned projects in Bell.Table B-2: Planning-Level Cost Estimate for Projects in Bell Improvement Units Per Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Advanced stop lines/yield markings number $1,000 12 $12,000 Curb extensions with curb ramps number $10,000 14 $140,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 2-lane streets number $1,500 4 $6,000 Zebra-stripe crosswalks on 4-lane streets number $3,000 8 $24,000 Countdown signals number $4,000 24 $96,000
Median nose number $1,000 1 $1,000
Reduce curb returns (count each face) number $3,000 8 $24,000 Colored Bike Lanes linear
mile
$100,000 1.65 $165,000
TOTAL $468,000

C-1 Cudahy Safe Routes To School Plan
Appendix CCity ResolutionsPublic Safety Commission Resolution No. PSC-15-01A resolution of the Public Safety Commission of the City of Cudahy recommending approval by resolution PSC-15-01 supporting thedevelopment and implementation of the Cudahy City-wide Safe Routes to School Plan and Program; as well as, the approval of the associated environmental document in the form of a Negative Declaration.Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-15-01A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Cudahy recommending approval by resolution PSC-15-01 supporting the development and implementation of the Cudahy City-wide Safe Routes to School Plan and Program; as well as, the approval of the associated environmental document in the form of a Negative Declaration.City Council Resolution No. CC-15-03A resolution of the City Council of the City of Cudahy approving the development and implementation of the Cudahy City-wide Safe Routes to School Plan and Program; as well as, the approval of the associated environmental document in the form of a Negative Declaration.

WEST SANTA ANA BRANCH
TRANSIT CORRIDORSTATION AREA CONCEPTSFOR THE CITIES OF:HUNTINGTON PARKCUDAHYSOUTH GATEDOWNEY FINAL MARCH 2018

MAYWOOD
VERNON

UNINCORPORATED

BELL GARDENS

COMMERCE

MONTEBELLO

PICO RIVERA BELL

WALNUT PARK

LOS ANGELES

LYNWOOD
SOUTH
GATE
CUDAHY
DOWNEY
BELL

HUNTINGTON
PARK

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the first half of the twentieth century, the Pacific Electric (PE) Railway operated Red Car service along many rail lines throughout Southern California, including one running from downtown Los Angeles to downtown Santa Ana. Today, the northern portion of this former PE alignment is used by the Metro Blue Line, and the southern 20-mile segment, known as the West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) Corridor in Los Angeles County and the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PEROW) in Orange County, is now vacant. Red Car rail service shaped this Corridor’s communities in many ways from the early 1900s through 1961 when it ceased operations. The PE rail system connected the region’s growing communities and created memories of fast, friendly transit service, first homes, walkable downtowns, and reliable transportation to work and shopping. After sitting vacant for more than 50 years, plans are underway to build a new Corridor rail system. Reuse of this once active transit corridor, along with implementing station area visions and plans, provides the opportunity to recreate the once vibrant “transit main street” that connected Corridor communities with each other and with the rest of the Southern California region – and beyond. Future rail service will connect Corridor residents to the regional five-county commuter rail system and to the statewide California High-Speed Rail system. Corridor cities have spent countless hours envisioning and planning for the future as documented in the Station Concepts Plan prepared as part of the PEROW/WSAB Corridor Alternatives Analysis (AA) effort. This AA proved the viability of reintroducing rail service Figure E.1 - Red Car service operating in Corridor in 1950s and led to development of preferred station locations and initial station area visions. This study builds on those previous planning efforts to provide more detailed station area land use concept plans and design plans for four of the Corridor’s station areas. These plans will Figure E.2 - View of WSAB Corridor today in city of Paramount Figure E.3 - Future Bellflower station area with light rail operation Figure E.4 - WSAB Transit Corridor ensure Corridor cities are ready for the future transit system and the related transit oriented development and revitalization efforts. Future rail station area visioning and planning efforts offer the opportunity to focus private real estate and public investment in a way that best serves each city. With adoption of supportive zoning and development policies, along with the use of economic development incentives, Corridor cities can encourage private investment creating station areas that provide needed housing, retail, commercial, public, and cultural development. And while station area planning is traditionally done by each city through preparation of individual station area plans, the WSAB Corridor offers the unique opportunity for a new vision – creation of a Transit Oriented Development Corridor with all of the cities working together to create a unique Corridor identity, while celebrating each city’s unique role and vision.

West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 6 7

CITY OF CUDAHY
COMMUNITY GATEWAYThe City of Cudahy is a predominantly residential city located in southeast Los Angeles County just west of the I-710 and Los Angeles River. Bordered by the cities of Bell, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, and South Gate, Cudahy is located in the “Gateway Cities” subregion. Just over one square mile in size, Cudahy has one of the highest population densities in Los Angeles County. In 2010, it had a population density of 20,250 residents per square mile, which is 2.5 times denser than the City of Los Angeles with 8,000 residents per square mile and ten times the population density of Los Angeles County as a whole (approximately 2,500 residents per square mile). In 2011, the city’s unemployment rate was 16.0%, which was 40% higher than the county rate of 11.5%. In 2012, the city’s median household income was 73% of that for the county, and 28% of city residents were living below the federal poverty line, resulting in one of the county’s lowest home ownership rates (18%). With few employment opportunities in the city, and almost 50% of the city’s households investing over 1/3 of their monthly income in housing, it can be argued that new public transit options are a significant need for this community.In 2012, Cudahy’s population was approximately 24,000 residents – a nominal decline from the 2000 Census, while the number of households increased slightly with approximately 200 new households. The city has an average household size of 4.3 people – higher than the County of Los Angeles’ average household size (3.0). Cudahy’s median household income grew between 2000 and 2012, but remained 27% lower than the County average. The city has a high percentage of single-family housing stock (60%) and multi-family housing of five units or more (27%). A significant majority (82%) of Cudahy’s residents were renters in 2012, which is 1/3 of the county average. The total number of jobs located in Cudahy numbered approximately 3,300 in 2012 – a decrease of 7% from the 2000 employment numbers. In 2012, the top three employers for Cudahy residents, representing more than 60%, were Education, Manufacturing, and Retail. Employment in Education, which includes health care, increased by 3% between 2000 and 2012, while Manufacturing declined by 3%.Of the top places where residents commuted to work in 2010, the City of Los Angeles was by far the top employment destination, attracting more than 25% of Cudahy job travel. Cudahy residents make their work trip predominantly by automobile, which increased from 57% in 2000 to 70% in 2012, with a corresponding decrease in carpool commute travel. This is a significant percentage of auto work travel when compared with the fact that 47% of the city’s total households have either one or no vehicles registered, indicating a highly transit-dependent population. The transit mode share for work trips in 2012 declined from the 10 and 12% reported in 2000 and 2010 respectively. The share of commuters traveling by transit and other alternative methods (including biking and walking) was consistent at 15% between 2000 and 2012.

3.3 FLORENCE (CUDAHY)
Figure 3.24 - Map of Station Area in the context of the City Figure 3.25 - Current rail right-of-way conditions

3.3.1 OVERVIEW ANALYSISTHE STATION AREAThe West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) Transit Corridor is planned to operate along the western edge of the city traveling along the Ports-owned, UPRR-operated San Pedro Subdivision right-of-way (ROW), adjacent to Salt Lake Ave During the PEROW/WSAB Corridor Alternatives Analysis study effort, the City of Huntington Park had requested the station be located at Gage Ave as the conceptual ridership analysis showed strong demand at this station. Since then the proposed station has been relocated to Florence Ave at the request of the Huntington Park City Council. This is a much opportune location both from an existing and future transit ridership perspective and the station’s ability to conveniently serve the cities of Huntington Park, Cudahy, and Bell all in one.The Florence Ave Station is proposed to be located just south of Florence Ave on the San Pedro Subdivision ROW adjacent to Salt Lake Ave The station area is primarily surrounded by single-family housing with a range of commercial uses along Florence Ave and Salt Lake Park on the northwest corner of Florence Ave and California Ave While a two-story commercial development is located just west of the tracks fronting on Florence Ave, Huntington Park staff identified the site as a future transit oriented development opportunity. This station area would serve the densely developed adjacent community residents who would arrive by foot, Figure3.26 - Florence Station Area Context
Florence Ave
Walnut St
Bell Ave
Live Oak St
Hope St
Bear Ave
California Ave
State St
California Ave
Gage Ave
State St Mission Pl
Florence Ave
Otis Ave
Olive St
HIll St
Broadway
Santa Ana St
Bell Ave
Zoe Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Salt Lake Ave

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF

HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITY OF CUDAHY
  
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of Huntington ParkCity of BellWalnut Park (Unincorporated)City Boundaries

FLORENCE STATION
West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 42 43 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

auto drop-off, or the frequent bus service on Florence
Ave, which is one of the busiest transit corridors in the region. LAND USEThe Florence & Salt Lake station area is almost entirely residential. Heavily-traveled Florence Ave is lined by 1-2 story commercial uses between State St. on the west side of the study area and Otis Ave on the eastern edge. The current commercial land uses are primarily auto repair shops with some restaurants and retail. Huntington Park’s large water tank, located on the southeast corner of Florence Ave and Salt Lake Ave, serves as a local icon. Located at the backside of commercial development along Florence Ave are primarily single-family and multi-family residential uses. Salt Lake Park is located northwest of the station and provides residents with much needed open space and recreational amenities.Currently, the general plans of Cudahy, Bell, and Huntington Park do not identify future development in the proposed station area since the transit corridor is still in an early planning stage. Huntington Park and Bell’s general plans have not been updated since the 1990’s, while that of Cudahy’s is currently undergoing revision. This presents an opportunity to develop station area-specific plans for inclusion in the next round of general plan updates.

Florence Ave
Walnut St
Bell Ave
Live Oak St
Hope St
Bear Ave
California Ave
State St
California Ave
Gage Ave
State St Mission Pl
Florence Ave
Otis Ave
Olive St
HIll St
Broadway
Santa Ana St
Bell Ave
Zoe Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Salt Lake Ave

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF

HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITY OF CUDAHY
  
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of Huntington ParkCity of BellWalnut Park (Unincorporated)City BoundariesCommercialMixed-UseParks/Open SpacePublic Current Land Uses
Low Density ResidentialMed-High DensityResidentialIndustrialUtility/TransportationFacility FLORENCE STATION:LAND USES
Source: SCAG 2008 Land Use; City ofHuntington Park General Plan; City of Cudahy General Plan; City of Bell GeneralPlan Figure 3.27 - Florence Station Area Existing Land Uses
AUTOMOBILE ACCESSFlorence Ave is a major east-west corridor in the station area serving heavy vehicular, truck, and bus transit traffic. Identified as a primary arterial by the cities of Cudahy, Bell, and Huntington Park, Florence Ave has 4-6 lanes in the segment between State St. on the western edge of the study area and Otis Ave on the eastern edge. Commercial parking is provided on both sides of Florence Ave at various locations. Salt Lake Ave, on the other hand, is classified as a secondary arterial north of Florence Ave. According to the Purpose and Need Report that was part of the WSAB/PEROW Alternatives Analysis Study, Florence Ave east of California Ave, and California Ave north of Florence Ave, currently operate at a Level of Service (LOS) of F, which means that the corridors are operating beyond their capacity in those segments. TRANSIT ACCESSDue to its compact size, the City of Cudahy has relatively limited transit service provided by two Metro Shuttle Lines (611 and 612), a Metro Local Line (260), and Metro Rapid Line (762) along Atlantic Ave. Lines 611 and 612 connect Cudahy with surrounding communities, including South Gate, Lynwood, Huntington Park, Maywood, and Vernon. Both Metro Florence Ave
Walnut St
Bell Ave
Live Oak St
Hope St
Bear Ave
California Ave
State St
California Ave
Gage Ave
State St Mission Pl
Florence Ave
Otis Ave
Olive St
HIll St
Broadway
Santa Ana St
Bell Ave
Zoe Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Salt Lake Ave

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF

HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITY OF CUDAHY
  
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of Huntington ParkCity of BellWalnut Park (Unincorporated)City BoundariesMajor ArterialPrimary ArterialSecondary ArterialCollector Road Classification
Truck Route
FLORENCE STATION:ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Source: City of Huntington Park GeneralPlan; City of Cudahy General Plan; City ofBell General Plan Figure 3.28 Florence Station Area Existing Street Access West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 44 45 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

Local Line 260 and Metro Rapid Line 762 connect
residents south to North Long Beach and north to Pasadena and Altadena. In addition, the city operates its own additional circulator – the Cudahy Area Rapid Transit (CART). The proposed station area is currently served by a variety of bus and shuttle options, including three Metro Bus Lines, one Metro Shuttle, Cudahy’s CART service, and the Huntington Park-operated COMBI shuttle. Transit ridership along Florence Ave especially is significantly and consistently high. Given the high existing bus and shuttle ridership and the transit-dependent population living in the station area, the Florence Ave Station ridership is anticipated to be higher than that originally identified for the Gage Ave Station in the WSAB/PEROW Alternatives Analysis Study.BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSThe cities of Cudahy, Huntington Park, and Bell do not have bicycle facilities currently in place. The Gateway Cities Council of Governments is currently working on an “Active Transportation Element” under its Strategic Transportation Plan being prepared for the subregion, with the aim of identifying projects that can increase active transportation and promote safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Several corridors in the station area have been identified as potential bicycle projects, including the WSAB Transit Corridor, Gage Ave, and Santa Fe Ave.

Florence Ave
Walnut St
Bell Ave
Live Oak St
Hope St
Bear Ave
California Ave
State St
California Ave
Gage Ave
State St Mission Pl
Florence Ave
Otis Ave
Olive St
HIll St
Broadway
Santa Ana St
Bell Ave
Zoe Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Salt Lake Ave
111
612
251
251
110
110
111
612
612

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF BELL

CITY OF

HUNTINGTON PARK

CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITY OF CUDAHY
  
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of Huntington ParkCity of BellWalnut Park (Unincorporated)City Boundaries Metro Local Circulator LineMetro Local Bus LineMetro Rapid Bus LineThe Gate Circulator Transit Facilities
Huntington Park COMBI
Source: LACMTA; City of Huntington Park*Note: Ridership Data for June 2013 1 - 4950 - 100101 - 199200 and above
Weekday Bus
Boardings and Alightings*
Circulator Bus Line StopLocal Bus Line StopMultiple Bus Line Stop FLORENCE STATION:TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
Figure 3.29 Florence Station Area Existing Transit Access and Ridership Patterns

3.3.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES
USE THE WATER TOWER AS A CENTRAL PLACEMAKING FEATURE.Maintain the existing water tower infrastructure and use a central placemaking feature unique to the station area.CLUSTER JOBS AND HOMES.Develop TOD opportunity parcels by clustering jobs and homes directly adjacent to the station.CONNECT TO SALT LAKE PARK.Improve pedestrian linkages to the Salt Lake Park, a regional recreational destination, across the street.IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES.Improve pedestrian linkages (via public realm improvements) beyond the station area to adjacent neighborhoods. 1 1
2 3
4 4
4 234
Figure 3.30 Florence Station Area Sketch Diagram
West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 46 47 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

Florence Ave
Salt Lake Ave
California Ave
1/4 mi el rad ui s (5-minute walk)

3.3.3 STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTSFLORENCE AT-GRADE RAILThe Florence Ave and Salt Lake Ave station takes on a more residential and community-focused character than its neighbor stations along the transit corridor. Because of adjacent residential uses and its proximity to Salt Lake Park, the station area can embrace new, medium-density multi-family residential development immediately adjacent to the station. At the ground floor level, new active uses (like retail) help to enliven street life and reinvigorate existing commercial uses along Florence Ave The existing iconic Huntington Park water tower can be reused as a central place-making feature unique to the station area - doubling as a new bus/car drop off zone for transit riders arriving and departing from the station.

Figure 3.31 - Conceptual sketch plan of the 1/4-mile radius station area at Florence Station Area N
1/4 mile (5-min walk)
Figure 3.32 - Conceptual rendering looking east at Florence Ave and Salt Lake Ave Existing Conditions New multi-family
residential with active,
ground floor retail below
New multi-family
residential with active,
ground floor retail below
New multi-family
residential with active,
ground floor retail below
Maintain the existing iconic Huntington Park water tower as a central placemaking feature unique to the station area. Configure a new bus/car drop off zone around the water tower.

FLORENCE, AT-GRADE RAIL
Salt Lake Ave Florence Ave
Activate Florence Ave with new development.Maintain the existing water tower as a central place-making feature.New transit plaza and bus/car drop off zone.New shared parking garage.New multi-family residential with active ground floor retail (typical).

Explore opportunities to allow the station canopy to extend above Florence Ave, making it visible to drivers and pedestrians from afar.

West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 48 49 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

CITY OF SOUTH GATE
“CENTER OF THE REGION”The City of South Gate is located in southeast Los Angeles County. Bisected by the I-710 and lying only a few miles north of the I-105, the City of South Gate is central to the “Gateway Cities” region. The I-710 and Firestone Blvd cut through the middle of the city, and provide major highway access to, from and through the city. A once thriving manufacturing base with a variety of major automotive companies such as Firestone Tire Co. and General Motors, it has faced the same challenges that many other neighboring cities have encountered with the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Today, it faces the challenges of generating employment opportunities and driving economic revitalization with limited vacant land available. Despite these challenges, South Gate’s efforts in regenerating its local economy and increasing employment opportunities for its residents are clearly reflected in its most recent general plan goals, specific plans, and projects currently under construction. In 2012, South Gate’s population was 94,320 residents, reflecting an approximately 2% decline, or the loss of 2,055 residents from 2000. The total number of households also declined while the city’s household size (4.1 persons) remained larger than the Los Angeles County average (3.0 persons). Median household income grew between 2000 and 2012, but remained 24% lower than the county average. South Gate’s housing stock is primarily single-family (71%) with a wide range of multifamily housing types. The total jobs located in the city numbered 18,944 in 2012 – a decrease of 6.5% from 2007. In 2010, the top three employers, representing approximately 60%, were education, manufacturing, and retail. Employment in education, which includes health care, increased by 2.8% between 2000 and 2010, while manufacturing employment declined by 2.5% and dropped from the second highest job category for residents to the third highest. Retail employment, now the second highest employment category, remained steady between 2000 and 2010 as did professional (5.5%) and wholesale employment (5.1%).Of the top places where residents commuted to work in 2010, the city of Los Angeles was by far the top employment destination – attracting more than 25% of job travel. The next top job destinations, totaling approximately 16%, were Vernon, Long Beach, and Commerce. South Gate residents predominantly make their work trip by automobile, which increased from 65% in 2000 to 75% in 2012, with a corresponding decrease in carpool commute travel. During the same time period, commuting by public transit and other, which includes walk and bike access, remained steady at approximately 8% and 4% respectively.

3.4 FIRESTONE/ATLANTIC (SOUTH GATE)
Figure 3.35 - Map of Station Area in the context of the City Figure 3.36 - Looking south on Atlantic Ave.

3.4.1 OVERVIEW ANALYSISTHE STATION AREAThe proposed station is located within the Ports-owned, UPRR-operated San Pedro Subdivision right-of-way (ROW) just east of Atlantic Ave in the central northern portion of the City of South Gate. The proposed location is only a block away from one of South Gate’s busiest intersections – Firestone Blvd and Atlantic Ave. The City of South Gate has already identified various opportunities for development in the area including a station area plan for the city’s proposed station and a regional retail center currently under construction. Firestone Blvd and Atlantic Ave are major travel corridors and are two of the busiest highways in the city. A variety of small-scale retail, automobile dealerships, manufacturing, and warehouse uses are located along both corridors. Across the street from the proposed station on Atlantic Ave, is a new development featuring retail, restaurants, and, in future phases, multi-family housing. Known as the Azalea Shopping Center, the new development brings new entertainment and employment opportunities to South Gate. Conveniently located across from the proposed station location, the Azalea Regional Shopping Center is an example of the city’s efforts in planning for diverse and economically robust destinations for city residents and even regional visitors. The shopping center opened in 2014.

Figure 3.37 - Firestone/Atlantic Station Area Context
Los Angeles River
Firestone Blvd
Southern Ave
Duane Ave
Missouri Ave
Atlantic Ave
Southern Ave
Southern Ave
Rayo Ave
Atlantic Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Cecelia St
Patata St
Santa Ana St
Wilcox Ave
Hildreth Ave
Annetta Ave
Kauffman Ave
Dorothy Ave
Hunt Ave
Bryson Ave
Firestone Blvd
Elizabeth St
Burke St
Dudlext Ave
Vossler Ave

§¨¦
  
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of South GateCity BoundariesStation Area PlanAzalea Regional ShoppingCenter Firestone and AtlanticStation Area: Context
West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 52 53 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

LAND USE
In the city’s general plan, both Firestone Ave and Atlantic Ave are currently characterized primarily by retail and service commercial uses. The Azalea Regional Shopping Center has set a precedent for future development in the area, and has contributed to the city’s diverse land use plans surrounding the proposed station location. The following policies from the General Plan reflect the city’s vision for development of a transit-oriented station area with supporting land uses:• Coordinate the provision of non-motorized networks (bicycle and pedestrian) with adjacent jurisdictions to maximize connectivity (Mobility Element 2.1-Policy 8). • Encourage Metro to enhance regional transit
connections in South Gate through additional routes and increased service frequency (Mobility Element 2.2-Policy 2). • Encourage and support all potential rail transit
serving the city, including a high speed, grade
separated, environmentally friendly transit system along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (Mobility Element 2.2-Policy 7).

Currently, a majority of the proposed station area is occupied by industrial land uses. Retail and commercial Los Angeles River
Firestone Blvd
Southern Ave
Duane Ave
Missouri Ave
Atlantic Ave
Southern Ave
Southern Ave
Rayo Ave
Atlantic Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Cecelia St
Patata St
Santa Ana St
Wilcox Ave
Hildreth Ave
Annetta Ave
Kauffman Ave
Dorothy Ave
Hunt Ave
Bryson Ave
Firestone Blvd
Elizabeth St
Burke St
Dudlext Ave
Vossler Ave

§¨¦

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE
  
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of South GateCity BoundariesProposed Station Area PlanAzalea Regional ShoppingCenterCommercialMixed-UseParks/Open SpacePublic Current Land Use
Low Density ResidentialMed-High DensityResidentialIndustrialUtilities and Transportation Firestone and AtlanticStation Area: Land Uses
Source: SCAG 2008 Land Use; City ofSouth Gate General Plan 2006 Figure 3.38 Firestone/Atlantic Station Area - Existing Land Uses uses extend along Firestone Blvd and south on Atlantic Ave with single-family residential uses located southwest of the intersection of Firestone Blvd and Atlantic Ave Industrial uses occupy a majority of the existing land use surrounding the station area, and will pose challenges to reusing station area land and connecting north to Cudahy’s residential neighborhoods.The city of South Gate has identified 6 community specific plans in and adjacent to the station area. All plans propose a transition to a wider variety of land uses –ranging from flex industrial, office, commercial, mixed-use and medium and high density residential. Specifically, the “Gateway District Plan” addresses the station area, and identifies development to serve as a “gateway” into the city from Cudahy, the I-710 Freeway, and Firestone Blvd. The plan envisions a major transition from a primarily industrial zone to a mixeduse district that includes retail, a transit village, office and research and development, and higher density residential development. The plan’s boundaries include the Azalea Regional Shopping Center, and the city’s proposed Firestone and Atlantic Station Area Plan. The “Firestone and Atlantic Station Area Plan” addresses the portion of the station area located on the northeastern corner of the Firestone Blvd and Atlantic Ave intersection, and extends north to Patata St bordering Cudahy and east to the proposed Wilcox Los Angeles River
Firestone Blvd
Southern Ave
Duane Ave
Missouri Ave
Atlantic Ave
Southern Ave
Southern Ave
Rayo Ave
Atlantic Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Cecelia St
Patata St
Santa Ana St
Wilcox Ave
Hildreth Ave
Annetta Ave
Kauffman Ave
Dorothy Ave
Hunt Ave
Bryson Ave
Firestone Blvd
Elizabeth St
Burke St
Dudlext Ave
Vossler Ave

§¨¦

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE
 
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of South GateCity BoundariesStation Area PlanAzalea Regional ShoppingCenter Gateway DistrictRayo Industrial DistrictFirestone Industrial District South Gate Distric and Corridor
Plans
Ardine Industrial DistrictFirestone CorridorAtlantic Corridor Source: City of South Gate, General Plan 2006
Firestone and AtlanticStation Area: CommunityPlans
Figure 3.39 Firestone/Atlantic Station Area - Existing Plans West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 54 55 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

Ave extension. Separated into three phases, the first
phase of the plan features multi-family residential developments with some ground-level commercial uses between the ROW and Firestone Blvd and a new transit plaza surrounding the proposed station. The second phase proposes an extension of Wilcox Ave south to Firestone Blvd and extending a new perpendicular street to Atlantic Ave The station and its surrounding plaza would link the station with the Azalea Regional Shopping Center and the new housing development. Additionally, phase 2 features multi-family housing and a day care center just northeast of the ROW and west of the proposed Wilcox Ave extension. The third phase proposes a mixed-use, transit-oriented development that would include office buildings just north of the proposed station, single family town-homes, and a shared 4-level parking structure. AUTOMOBILE ACCESSThe city of South Gate’s main regional access corridor into the city via automobile is the I-710 on the eastern portion of the city. Major corridors providing intercity travel and direct connections to neighboring cities include Imperial Highway, Long Beach Blvd, Garfield Ave, Paramount Blvd and, in the study area, Firestone Blvd and Atlantic Ave These corridors serve as the city’s main arterials exceeding four lanes in many segments and at times reaching eight lanes. Currently, Firestone Blvd experiences an average daily traffic Firestone Bl
Southern Ave
Duane Ave
Missouri Ave
Atlantic Ave
Southern Ave
Southern Ave
Rayo Ave
Atlantic Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Cecelia St
Patata St
Santa Ana St
Wilcox Ave
Hildreth Ave
Annetta Ave
Kauffman Ave
Dorothy Ave
Hunt Ave
Bryson Ave
Firestone Bl
Elizabeth St
Burke St
Dudlext Ave
Vossler Ave

§¨¦
1/2 Mile
  
0LOHV ¯
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of South GateCity BoundariesStation Area PlanAzalea Shooping SiteMajor ArterialPrimary ArterialSecondary ArterialCollector Road Classification
Proposed Collector
Truck Route
Proposed Truck Route
Firestone and AtlanticStation Area:Road Classification
Source: City of South Gate General Plan 2006
Figure 3.40 Firestone/Atlantic Station Area - Existing Street Access (ADT) of 43,000 vehicles west of Atlantic Ave and 50,200 east of Atlantic Ave. Atlantic Ave carries 36,500 vehicles north of Firestone Blvd and 18,500 south of the same intersection. Several corridors in the study area, including Atlantic Ave, Firestone Blvd, and Rayo Ave, also serve as major truck routes.TRANSIT ACCESSThe city of South Gate is currently served by a combination of Metro Local and Rapid service, as well as by two city-operated GATE circulators. The City also provides affordable local transit via its GATE Express covering both the western portion of South Gate as well as its Hollydale community in the city’s eastern edge across the Los Angeles River.The proposed station is located near the city’s busiest intersection – Firestone Blvd and Atlantic Ave. The station area is served by two Metro Local Bus Lines, Line 115 along Firestone Blvd and Line 260 along Atlantic Ave. The two lines carry 17,470 and 12,940 daily passengers, respectively. Additionally, Metro Rapid Line 762 carries 4,580 daily passengers along Atlantic Ave, and Metro Local Line 611 serves 1,930 daily passengers just north of the future station and operates throughout the city of Cudahy. South Gate’s GATE Express Eastside Route also serves the station area along Firestone Blvd. The three Metro bus lines operating along Firestone Blvd and Atlantic Ave generate a combined ridership of Los Angeles River
260
260
115
115
762
762
611
611
GE
GW
GW
GE
GE
Firestone Blvd
Southern Ave
Duane Ave
Missouri Ave
Atlantic Ave
Southern Ave
Southern Ave
Rayo Ave
Atlantic Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Cecelia St
Patata St
Santa Ana St
Wilcox Ave
Hildreth Ave
Annetta Ave
Kauffman Ave
Dorothy Ave
Hunt Ave
Bryson Ave
Firestone Blvd
Elizabeth St
Burke St
Dudlext Ave
Vossler Ave

§¨¦
  
0LOHV ¯
1/2 Mile

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE

CITY OF CUDAHY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of South GateCity BoundariesStation Area PlanAzalea Regional ShoppingCenter Metro Rapid Bus LineMetro Local Bus LineMetro Local Circulator LineGATE Westside Route Source: LACMTA; City of South Gate*Note: Ridership Data for November 2012 Local Bus Line StopCirculator Bus Line StopMultiple Bus Line Stop 1 - 4950 - 99100 - 199200 - above
Weekday Bus Boardings and Alightings*
Transit Facilities
Firestone and AtlanticStation Area: Transit
GATE Eastside Route
Figure 3.41 Firestone/Atlantic Station Area - Existing Transit Access and Ridership Patterns West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 56 57 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

1,830 daily passengers at bus stops in this intersection; the majority produced by line 115. With implementation of WSAB Transit Corridor rail service, the future Firestone and Atlantic Station would attract a high level of ridership, including new riders who currently do not use transit. The initial ridership analysis prepared as part of the Pacific Electric Right of Way/West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternative Analysis Study showed the Atlantic and Firestone station as being the 3rd busiest station in Los Angeles County. Only Union Station and the Metro Green Line transfer station were estimated to have higher ridership in 2035 after several years in operation. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSThe City of South Gate has limited existing bicycle infrastructure, but has ambitious plans to extend the existing network throughout the city. Currently, the Los Angeles River Class I Bike Path crosses the city on the east side traveling as far south as Long Beach. In efforts to increase safety, support bicycling and promote healthy lifestyles, the city has prepared a Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan identifying goals, and implementation strategies to expand its existing bicycle infrastructure. Class I Bike Paths are proposed along the San Pedro Subdivision (the future WSAB transit corridor) and Patata St, with Class II Bike Lanes along Firestone Blvd, and Class III Bike Routes along Atlantic Ave and Hildreth Ave.

Los Angeles River
Firestone Blvd
Southern Ave
Duane Ave
Missouri Ave
Atlantic Ave
Southern Ave
Southern Ave
Rayo Ave
Atlantic Ave
Salt Lake Ave
Cecelia St
Patata St
Santa Ana St
Wilcox Ave
Hildreth Ave
Annetta Ave
Kauffman Ave
Dorothy Ave
Hunt Ave
Bryson Ave
Firestone Blvd
Elizabeth St
Burke St
Dudlext Ave
Vossler Ave

§¨¦
1/2 Mile
  
0LOHV ¯
Proposed WSAB TransitCorridorProposed Station LocationCity of CudahyCity of South GateCity BoundariesStation Area PlanAzalea Regional ShoppingCenter Firestone and AtlanticStation Area:Road Classification
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Facilities
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)Proposed Bike Path (Class I)Proposed Bike Lane (Class II)Proposed Bike Route (Class III) Figure 3.42 Firestone/Atlantic Station Area Existing Proposed Bicycle Facilities

3.4.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES
CENTRAL ORGANIZING FEATURE.Organize the proposed development around a central transit plaza and open space amenity.CONNECT TO CUDAHY.Provide a new pedestrian and bike connection to Cecilia St to provide transit access to Cudahy residents.CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL AWAY FROM FIRESTONE AND ATLANTIC.Develop TOD opportunity parcels, but cluster residential units away from Firestone and Atlantic Blvd - the station area’s busiest industrial corridors. COMPLEMENT RETAIL AT AZALEA.Complement St. retail at the Azalea Center across the St. by programming active, ground floor commercial uses along Atlantic AveIMPROVE PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES.Improve pedestrian linkages (via public realm improvements) beyond the station area to adjacent neighborhoods. 4 3
5 5
1 12345
2 Figure 3.43 Firestone/Atlantic Station Area - Sketch Diagram West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 58 59 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

Firestone Ave
AtlanƟc lvĚ
1/4 mi el rad ui s (5-minute walk)

3.4.3 STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTSFIRESTONE/ATLANTIC,ALTERNATIVE A:ELEVATED RAIL WITH RETAIL BELOW To mitigate against potentially unsafe traffic impacts along Firestone Ave, an elevated station platform is arguably the best solution for the Firestone and Atlantic Station. From an urban design perspective, en elevated station platform may make it more difficult to “activate” the ground floor level, since transit riders arriving/departing from the station are removed this level. Instead of letting the ground floor level give way to unusable, empty space, it is important to program it with active uses, (i.e. retail), and allow it to become part of a larger public space to be used by other visitors.In this alternative, retail and other ancillary uses (ticketing booth, transit office) are tucked below the elevated station platform (see Chapter 3.1.4), and help to frame a large central transit plaza that welcomes pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists (via a drop-off zone). The plaza can play home to farmers markets, etc. Commercial uses (office and retail) line the edges of Firestone and Atlantic, which are heavily trafficked, and at the same time compliments the Azalea Shopping Center across the street. Multi-family residential uses are located interior to the parcel and are organized around a central green/open space paseo, which also serves as a direct access connection to Cudahy in the northeast.

Provide a pedestrian and bike connection to Cudahy residents.Central “paseo” and central park connects pedestrians throughout new development. “Park & Ride” parking structure.Retail tucked underneath rail line.Prominent transit plaza.Auto and bus drop-off zone.Active ground floor retail with office above fronting Firestone.

Figure 3.44 - Conceptual sketch plan of the 1/4-mile radius station area at Firestone/Atlantic N
1/4 mile (5-min walk)
FIRESTONE/ATLANTIC,ALTERNATIVE A: ELEVATED RAIL WITH RETAIL BELOWFigure3.45 - Conceptual rendering looking north and Firestone and Atlantic Station architecture can be iconic and unique to each community, representing a prominent arrival space for transit riders. In this scenario, retail is tucked underneath the elevated rail line above.

Existing Conditions
New office with active,
ground floor retail below
New office with active,
ground floor retail below
New multi-family
residential with active,
ground floor retail below
New multi-family
residential with active,
ground floor retail below
Park & Ride
parking structure
Transit plaza should welcome pedestrians from Firestone and Atlantic and establish a clear access path to the station.

Atlantic Blvd
West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 60 61 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

Firestone Ave
AtlanƟc
lvĚ
1/4 mi el rad ui s (5-minute walk) FIRESTONE/ATLANTIC, ALTERNATIVE B:

ELEVATED RAIL STRADDLING STREETLike Alternative A, this alternative also places commercial uses along Firestone and Atlantic, while residential uses are located interior to the parcel, all organized around a central green/open space paseo. In this case, the elevated station platform straddles a street below (see Chapter 3.1.3), allowing cars to maneuver underneath the rail line. Transit riders can access the elevated platform from side stairs or elevators from the ground level.

Provide a pedestrian and bike connection to Cudahy residents.Central “paseo” and central park connects pedestrians throughout new development. “Park & Ride” parking structure.Prominent transit plaza.Elevated rail line straddles St..Auto and bus drop-off zone.Active ground floor retail with office above fronting Firestone.

Figure 3.46 - Conceptual sketch plan of the 1/4-mile radius station area at Firestone/Atlantic N
1/4 mile (5-min walk)
FIRESTONE/ATLANTIC,ALTERNATIVE A: ELEVATED RAIL WITH RETAIL BELOWIn this alternative, retail and other ancillary uses (i.e. cafes, transit offices, ticketing booth, etc). can be tucked underneath the elevated rail line above. This helps to activate the ground floor even though the rail is elevated above.

Existing Conditions Figure 3.47 - Conceptual sketch vignette looking southeast along Firestone/Atlantic Station West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 62 63 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

Firestone Ave
AtlanƟc
lvĚ
1/4 mi el rad ui s (5-minute walk) FIRESTONE/ATLANTIC, ALTERNATIVE C:

BUILDING INTEGRATED ELEVATED RAILLike Alternative A, this alternative also places commercial uses along Firestone and Atlantic, while residential uses are located interior to the parcel, all organized around a central green/open space paseo. In this case, the elevated station platform is integrated into the second story of a building (see Chapter 3.1.5) into one seamless system. While ground floor spaces are occupied by retail and other commercial uses, the second story becomes the station platform. Floors above beyond the station platform can be occupied by offices or residential.

Figure 3.48 - Conceptual sketch plan of the 1/4-mile radius station area at Firestone/Atlantic Provide a pedestrian and bike connection to Cudahy residents.Central “paseo” and central park connects pedestrians throughout new development. “Park & Ride” parking structure.Prominent transit plaza.Building-integrated rail.Auto and bus drop-off zone.Active ground floor retail with office above fronting Firestone.

N
1/4 mile (5-min walk)
Existing Conditions Figure 3.49 - Conceptual sketch vignette looking southeast along Firestone Ave.

FIRESTONE/ATLANTIC,ALTERNATIVE C:BUILDING INTEGRATED ELEVATED RAILIn this alternative, the elevated station platform is integrated into the second story of a building. While ground floor spaces are occupied by retail and other commercial uses, the second story becomes the station platform.

West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS 64 65 Chapter 3: STATION AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS

23 EXHIBIT B

CONSULTANT PROPOSAL

Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design
Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue
Pedestrian Accessibility Project
Prepared for City of Cudahy

Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project 660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
TEL 213.261.4040
City of Cudahy ƒ TRCALAD006266.2025 ƒ1

COVER LETTER
March 19, 2025
Raul Diaz, Public Works Director
City of Cudahy
5220 Santa Ana Street
Cudahy, CA 90201
RE: Technical Proposal for Environmental and Design Engineering Services for ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project
Dear Mr. Diaz and Members of the Selection Committee:

The City of Cudahy (City) is seeking a consultant partner to provide design phase engineering services for the preparation of plans, VSHFLƂFDWLRQVDQGHVWLPDWHV
36 (
IRUWKH6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFWKimley-Horn has experience working with WKH&LW\DQGSURYLGLQJGHVLJQVHUYLFHVRQFRPSOH[FRPSOHWHVWUHHWVSURMHFWVLQDQXPEHURIFLWLHVWKURXJKRXW6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD:HSULGH ourselves in our ability to deliver technical excellence that is built around timely service, practical feasibility, and innovative solutions. In SDUWLFXODUWRWKLVSURMHFWWKH.LPOH\+RUQWHDPFDQRIIHU\RXWKHIROORZLQJDGGHGEHQHƂWV

Proven Project Management and Tailored Team.2XU3URMHFW0DQDJHUJean Fares, PEKDVRYHU\HDUVRIWUDIƂF WUDQVSRUWDWLRQDQGFLYLOHQJLQHHULQJDQGSURMHFWPDQDJHPHQWH[SHULHQFH+HKDVVXFFHVVIXOO\OHGDYDULHW\RISURMHFWVLQFOXGLQJ FRPSOHWHVWUHHWVSURMHFWVERWKELJDQGVPDOOIRUYDULRXVFOLHQWVWKURXJKRXW6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLDJean will leverage his extensive active transportation experience to seamlessly transition into the project manager role and oversee both the design and support services and advance every stage of this project. Jean will be supported by Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Manager, Sherry Ranta, PE, ENV SPZKREULQJVPRUHWKDQ\HDUVRIURDGZD\H[SHULHQFHDQG3ULQFLSDOLQ&KDUJHDarren Adrian, PE, ZKREULQJV\HDUVRIGHVLJQPDQDJHPHQWDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQH[SHULHQFHRQVLPLODUDFWLYHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSURMHFWVDQGSURMHFWVUHTXLULQJ &DOWUDQVDSSURYDOV2XUWHDPpVOHDGHUVKLSKDVORQJVWDQGLQJH[SHULHQFHWRJHWKHUHQVXULQJVZLIWFRPPXQLFDWLRQDQGKLJKTXDOLW\VHUYLFHVIRU WKH&LW\2XUWHDPDOVRFRQVLVWVRIWKUHHVXEFRQVXOWDQWVZKRPZHIUHTXHQWO\ZRUNZLWKDQGWKH\ZLOOKHOSGHOLYHUWKHEUHDGWKRIVHUYLFHVWR you: Avant-Garde for grant administration; Calvada Surveying, Inc. (Calvada) for surveying; and Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta) for geotechnical engineering.
5HƂQHG3URMHFW8QGHUVWDQGLQJDQG$SSURDFK6DOW/DNH$YHQXHLVDQLPSRUWDQWFRUULGRUIRUWKH&XGDK\FRPPXQLW\GXHWRLWV SUR[LPLW\DQGLQWHUDFWLRQZLWKPXOWLSOHWUDQVLWIDFLOLWLHVDQGURXWHVLWVIXQFWLRQDVDPDMRUWUXFNURXWHDQGLWVFRQQHFWLRQZLWK VXUURXQGLQJFLWLHV2XUSURMHFWDSSURDFKLVJURXQGHGLQDWKRURXJKXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHSURMHFWVFRSHWRDGGUHVVDOOFKDOOHQJHV and critical elements. We understand the nuances and risks of the Caltrans approvals process, so we will leverage our strong working knowledge of Caltrans standards, procedures, and established relationships to resolve agency concerns and obtain necessary approvals and SHUPLWVLQDWLPHO\DQGHIƂFLHQWPDQQHU:HDOVRXQGHUVWDQGKRZWKLVSURMHFWFRUULGRULVLQWHUFRQQHFWHGZLWKWKH&LW\pVSUHYLRXVDQGRQJRLQJ VDIHW\SODQVSURJUDPVDQGSURMHFWVDQGZLOOXVHWKLVNQRZOHGJHZKHQGHYHORSLQJWKHGHVLJQWRDGYDQFHWKH&LW\pVJRDOV.LPOH\+RUQLVD ZHOOURXQGHGWHDPWKDWFDQDGGUHVVWKHVHFKDOOHQJHVZLWKDFRKHVLYHGHVLJQWKDWHVWDEOLVKHVKDUPRQ\DPRQJRIWHQFRPSHWLQJWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ modes to improve safety and mobility for road users.

Strong Active Transportation Portfolio..LPOH\+RUQVWURQJO\EHOLHYHVLQWKHEHQHƂWVRIPXOWLPRGDOFRQQHFWLYLW\DQGH[HFXWLQJ WKH&LW\pVYLVLRQIRUDVDIHUPRUHHTXLWDEOHFRQQHFWHGDFWLYHDQGLQWHJUDWHGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNWRHQKDQFHWKHTXDOLW\RIOLIH IRUUHVLGHQWVDQGYLVLWRUV:HHIIHFWLYHO\GHSOR\VWDQGDUGVWRVROYHSURMHFWFKDOOHQJHVDQGDGGUHVVWKHFRPPXQLW\pVQHHGVDQGDUH NQRZOHGJHDEOHLQ1DWLRQDO$VVRFLDWLRQRI&LW\7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2IƂFLDOV 1$&72
JXLGHOLQHVDVLWUHODWHVWRWKLVSURMHFW:KHQZHPDNHGHFLVLRQV ZHWKLQNVHYHUDOVWHSVDKHDGFRQVLGHULQJLPSDFWVRQSHUPLWWLQJSURFHVVFRQVWUXFWLRQORQJWHUPPDLQWHQDQFHWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGIXWXUH JHQHUDWLRQV2XUUHOHYDQWSURMHFWH[SHULHQFHVKRZVWKDWRXUWHDPKDVWKHWHFKQLFDOH[SHUWLVHDQGNQRZOHGJHWRPDNHWKH&LW\pVYLVLRQIRUWKH 3URMHFWDVXFFHVVZLWKLQQRYDWLYHVROXWLRQVWRVWD\RQVFKHGXOHDQGZLWKLQEXGJHW2XUH[SHULHQFHLQFOXGHVWKHWilson Avenue Multi-Modal Improvements Project for the City of Glendale, MOVE 2023 and Overland Avenue Bike Lane, Pedestrian, and High Friction Surface Treatment Improvement Project for the City of Culver City, and the Newhall Bike Boulevard IRUWKH&LW\RI6DQWD&ODULWD2XUWHDPLVPXOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\ EULQJLQJIRUWKWKHUHVRXUFHVWRGHYHORSYLVLRQDU\SODQQLQJSULQFLSOHVDQGDFRPSUHKHQVLYHRXWUHDFKVWUDWHJ\ZKLOHDOVRH[HFXWLQJWKHSURMHFW WKURXJKWKHWHFKQLFDOH[SHUWLVHRIDUREXVWHQJLQHHULQJWHDPWKDWXQGHUVWDQGVXWLOLWLHVGUDLQDJHURDGZD\GHVLJQDQGWUDIƂFHQJLQHHULQJ 7KHVHFRPELQHGVNLOOVKHOSXVSXVKRXUSURMHFWVEH\RQGPHUHFRPSOHWLRQDQGLQWKHGLUHFWLRQRILQQRYDWLRQ:LWKWKLV.LPOH\+RUQKDVWKH ULJKWWRROVWRGHOLYHUWKLVSURMHFWVXFFHVVIXOO\IRUWKH&LW\

Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project City of Cudahy ƒ TRCALAD006266.2025 ƒ2
7KDQN\RXIRUFRQVLGHULQJRXUSURSRVDO.LPOH\+RUQLVH[FLWHGDERXWWKLVRSSRUWXQLW\WRFRQWLQXHRXUSDUWQHUVKLSDQGEXLOGRQRXUUHODWLRQVKLS ZLWKWKH&LW\6KRXOG\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQV3URMHFW0DQDJHUJean Fares, PE will serve as our point of contact for this proposal and can be UHDFKHGGLUHFWO\DW
E\HPDLODWMHDQIDUHV#NLPHO\KRUQFRPRUDWWKHDGGUHVVOLVWHGRQWKHSUHYLRXVSDJH Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Jean Fares, PE
3URMHFW0DQDJHU6HQLRU9LFH3UHVLGHQW

$V6HQLRU9LFH3UHVLGHQW-HDQLVDXWKRUL]HGWRELQG.LPOH\+RUQWRDFRQWUDFWIRUH[HFXWLRQRIWKHZRUN .LPOH\+RUQpVSURSRVDOZLOOUHPDLQYDOLGIRU
GD\VIURP0DUFK


Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project City of Cudahy ƒ TRCALAD006266.2025 ƒi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Letter..............................................................................................................................................1 Section 1. Approach and Scope of Work ..................................................................................................3 Section 2: Schedule................................................................................................................................29 Section 3. Project Team, Key Personnel and Resumes ..........................................................................30 6HFWLRQ&RPSDQ\4XDOLƂFDWLRQV.........................................................................................................45 Section 5. References ............................................................................................................................59 Section 6. City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement ................................................................60 Section 7. Addenda Acknowledgement..................................................................................................61 Section 8. Required Attachments...........................................................................................................62

Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project City of Cudahy ƒ TRCALAD006266.2025 ƒ3
SECTION 1. APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK

THE SETTING
7KH&LW\pV6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3HGHVWULDQ$FFHVVLELOLW\3URMHFW 3URMHFW
LVORFDWHGDORQJ6DOW/DNH$YHQXHIURP:DOQXW6WUHHWWR$WODQWLF$YHQXH spanning approximately 7,100 linear feet.
6DOW/DNH$YHQXHUXQVLQWKHQRUWKVRXWKGLUHFWLRQDQGKDVRQHODQHLQHDFKGLUHFWLRQ7KHQRUWKERXQGGLUHFWLRQKDVDGGLWLRQDOVSDFHIRUVWUHHW SDUNLQJWKURXJKRXWWKHFRUULGRU7KHH[LVWLQJVWUHHWZLGWKDORQJWKH3URMHFWOLPLWVYDULHVEHWZHHQIHHWDQGIHHWZLWKDPLOHSHUKRXU VSHHGOLPLW7KHVHJPHQWLVVWRSFRQWUROOHGZLWKVWRSVLJQVRQDOOVLGHVDW/LYH2DN6WUHHW)ORZHU6WUHHW&ODUD6WUHHW2WLV$YHQXH6DQWD $QD6WUHHWDQG$UGLQH6WUHHW7KHVHJPHQWLVVWRSFRQWUROOHGZLWKVWRSVLJQVRQO\RQWKHVLGHVWUHHWVDW:DOQXW6WUHHW2OLYH6WUHHW(OL]DEHWK Street, and Cecilia Street. Atlantic Avenue is the only intersection that is currently signalized. 7KHH[LVWLQJSHGHVWULDQIDFLOLWLHVLQFOXGHIHHWZLGHFRQFUHWHVLGHZDONVRQWKHHDVWVLGHRIWKHVWUHHWZLWKQRQ$PHULFDQVZLWK'LVDELOLWLHV $FWFRPSOLDQWFXUEDFFHVVUDPSVDWHDFKRIWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQVDQGSHGHVWULDQFURVVLQJVDW$WODQWLF$YHQXH&XUUHQWO\WKHUHDUHQRPDUNHG pedestrian crossings for all intersections and no designated bicycle facilities along the corridor. There are multiple driveways that serve the DGMDFHQWSURSHUWLHVRYHUKHDGXWLOLW\SROHVDQGVWUHHWOLJKWLQJ 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHVHUYHVWKHFRPPXQLW\LQPDQ\ZD\V,WLVDPDMRUURXWHIRUODUJHIUHLJKWWUXFNVGXHWRLWVSUR[LPLW\WRLQGXVWULDOODQGXVH7KH corridor also runs parallel to two train tracks to the west, where the future West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) light rail will be installed. Currently, WKHUDLOVHUYLFHWUDYHOVWKURXJKWKH&LW\EXWGRHVQRWVWRS7KH0HWUR/RFDO&LUFXODWRU/LQHEXVURXWHLQWHUVHFWV6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDW6DQWD $QD6WUHHWZKLFKFRQQHFWV&XGDK\WRVXUURXQGLQJFLWLHVVXFKDV6RXWK*DWHDQG+XQWLQJWRQ3DUN7KH&LW\DOVRKDVWKH&XGDK\$UHD5DSLG 7UDQVLW
&$57
URXWHWKDWUXQVEHWZHHQ&ODUD6WUHHWDQG)ORZHU6WUHHWSURYLGLQJORFDOWUDQVLWDFFHVV3HUWKH&LW\pV*HQHUDO3ODQWKH3URMHFWpV VXUURXQGLQJODQGXVHLVORZGHQVLW\UHVLGHQWLDOQRUWKRI(OL]DEHWK6WUHHWDQGPHGLXPGHQVLW\UHVLGHQWLDODQGLQQRYDWLYHLQGXVWULDOEHWZHHQ (OL]DEHWK6WUHHWDQG$UGLQH6WUHHW7KHODQGXVHIRUWKHUHPDLQGHURIWKHFRUULGRUEHWZHHQ$UGLQH6WUHHWDQG$WODQWLF$YHQXHLVHQWHUWDLQPHQW 7HUHVD+XJKHV6FKRRODQG.LSS&KDUWHU6FKRRODUHERWKZLWKLQWKH3URMHFWpVDUHDRILQƃXHQFH 7KHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVRIWKH3URMHFWFRUULGRUEHDUQRWDEOHFKDOOHQJHVIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\&XUUHQWO\WKHH[LVWLQJVLGHZDONLVQRWFRPSOLDQW ZLWK$'$VWDQGDUGVGXHWRODUJHXWLOLW\SROHVSURYLGLQJLQDGHTXDWHFOHDUDQFHIRUSHGHVWULDQV7KHUHLVDODFNRIIDFLOLWLHVIRUELF\FOLVWVDQG RWKHUQRQPRWRUL]HGXVHUV7KDWFRPELQHGZLWKKLJKYHKLFXODUVSHHGDQGORZVDIHW\OLJKWLQJUHGXFHVFRPIRUWDELOLW\GLVFRXUDJHVELF\FOHXVH and encourages the use of alternative routes. The corridor also lacks landscaping in certain segments, which reduces walkability appeal and creates heat islands in areas without shade.

THE HISTORY
6$)(5287(6726&+22/6
In 2015, the City developed a Safe Routes to Schools Plan that focused on constructing facilities to increase the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Providing better facilities will promote more walking and cycling, leading to a healthier population. This plan reviewed collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians between 2008 and 2012. 7KH6DIH5RXWHVWR6FKRRO3ODQHYDOXDWHGFROOLVLRQGDWDIURPRYHU\HDUVDJRVR.LPOH\+RUQH[WUDFWHGUHFHQWFROOLVLRQGDWDDORQJWKH6DOW /DNH$YHQXHIURP-DQXDU\WR'HFHPEHU7KHUHZHUHFROOLVLRQVWKURXJKRXWWKH&LW\RIZKLFKRFFXUUHGDORQJWKH FRUULGRU7KUHHRIWKRVHFROOLVLRQVLQYROYHGSHGHVWULDQVDQGRQHLQYROYHGDELF\FOLVW:HKDYHRXWOLQHGWKH6DOW/DNH$YHQXHFROOLVLRQGDWDLQ order of north to south of the corridor in the table below.

Date and Time Location of Collision Type of Collision
5/24/2019 | 17:15 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG/LYH2DN6WUHHW ,QYROYHG3HGHVWULDQ,QMXU\ 3/22/2022 | 07:37 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG)ORZHU6WUHHW%HDU$YHQXH ,QYROYHG3HGHVWULDQ,QMXU\ 10/10/2022 | 19:46 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQGpQRUWKRI&ODUD6WUHHW 6LGHVZLSHG3DUNHG0RWRU9HKLFOH 6/16/2019 | 01:37 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG&ODUD6WUHHW ,QYROYHG3HGHVWULDQ)DWDO 11/3/2019 | 16:31 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG
pQRUWKRI2WLV$YHQXH 5HDUHQGHG9HKLFOH
8/24/2019 | 01:15 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQGpVRXWKRI2WLV$YHQXH 5HDUHQGHG3DUNHG9HKLFOH

Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project City of Cudahy ƒ TRCALAD006266.2025 ƒ4
Date and Time Location of Collision Type of Collision
10/17/2022 | 23:00 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQGpQRUWKRI6DQWD$QD6WUHHW +HDGRQ&ROOLVLRQZLWK 3DUNHG0RWRU9HKLFOH
11/25/2021 | 21:01 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQGpQRUWKRI6DQWD$QD6WUHHW 6LGHVZLSHG3DUNHG0RWRU9HKLFOH 6/27/2018 | 18:00 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQGpVRXWKRI6DQWD$QD6WUHHW Broadside Collision 11/22/2018 | 22:00 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG6DQWD$QD6WUHHW Sideswipe Collision 7/23/2018 | 13:15 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG6DQWD$QD6WUHHW Sideswipe Collision 8/31/2019 | 19:44 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQGpQRUWKRI&HFLOLD6WUHHW 5HDUHQG&ROOLVLRQ 9/14/2018 | 08:00 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG&HFLOLD6WUHHW Sideswipe Collision 7/3/2021 | 15:40 6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG$UGLQH6WUHHW Involved Bicycle 2QHRIWKHSHGHVWULDQFROOLVLRQVZDVIDWDODQGWRRNSODFHIHHWZHVWRIWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQRI&ODUD6WUHHWDQG6DOW/DNH$YHQXH,WLVDOVR LPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWIRXUFROOLVLRQVRFFXUUHGZLWKSDUNHGYHKLFOHVVKRZLQJWKDWWKHUHLVLQVXIƂFLHQWVWULSLQJWRJXLGHYHKLFOHVDZD\IURP parked vehicles.
7KH6DIH5RXWHVWR6FKRRO3ODQSURYLGHGPXOWLSOHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDWVHOHFWHGORFDWLRQVWKURXJKRXWWKH&LW\6SHFLƂFDOO\WKHLQWHUVHFWLRQV DW6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG6DQWD$QD6WUHHWDQG6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG2WLV$YHQXHZHUHHYDOXDWHGIRULPSURYHPHQWVVXFKDVKLJKYLVLELOLW\ crosswalks, curb extensions, new sidewalk, and railroad improvements. The plan also discussed implementing a bike path, double buffered &ODVV,9ELNHODQHVRU&ODVV,,DQG,,,ELNHODQHVDORQJ6DOW/DNH$YHQXH

GENERAL PLAN
The Cudahy 2040 General Plan, adopted in March 2018, plans on improving multimodal mobility and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit riders, and drivers.
7KH/DQG8VH3ODQVKRZV:DOQXW6WUHHW)ORZHU6WUHHWDQG2OLYH6WUHHWWREHFRPHIXWXUHFXOGHVDFV7KLVLVWRPLQLPL]HWKHXVHRIWKHVH streets as shortcuts and providing a recreation or gathering space for residents. The City plans on adding bollards or other permanent structures with landscaping, street furniture, and shade. 7KHSODQDOVRVKRZVDVHJPHQWRI(OL]DEHWK6WUHHWEHWZHHQ6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG2WLV$YHQXHWREHFORVHGWRYHKLFOHVDQGWXUQHGLQWRD SRFNHWSDUN7KLVZLOODOVRPLQLPL]HFRQƃLFWSRLQWVDQGGHOD\VDORQJ6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDVWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQRI6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG(OL]DEHWK 6WUHHWLVH[WUHPHO\FORVHWRWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQRI6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG2WLV$YHQXH The Circulation Plan emphasizes the importance of pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity throughout the City. This plan, similar to the Safe 5RXWHVWR6FKRROV3ODQVKRZVSODQVIRUELF\FOHODQHVWREHLQVWDOOHGDORQJ6DOW/DNH$YHQXH7KLVSODQDOVRVKRZVLQWHUVHFWLRQLPSURYHPHQWV DW$WODQWLF$YHQXHDW6DOW/DNH$YHQXHZLWKDUHVWULSLQJRIWKHZHVWERXQGDSSURDFKWRKDYHDGHGLFDWHGOHIWWXUQODQHWKURXJKODQHDQG ULJKWWXUQRQO\ODQH
HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (HSIP) CYCLE 11
7KH&LW\ZDVDZDUGHG+6,3&\FOHIXQGLQJWRLPSURYHVDIHW\DQGRSHUDELOLW\DWH[LVWLQJVLJQDOL]HGLQWHUVHFWLRQVE\LQVWDOOLQJUHWUR UHƃHFWLYHEDFNSODWHVKLJKYLVLELOLW\FURVVZDONVDQG/HDGLQJ3HGHVWULDQ,QWHUYDO /3,
WLPLQJ.LPOH\+RUQZDVVHOHFWHGWRGHYHORSWKHGHVLJQ IRUWKLV+6,3SURMHFWDQGZHKDYHDOUHDG\FRPSOHWHGƂHOGUHFRQQDLVVDQFHDQGFDELQHWLQYHQWRU\7KLV+6,3ZRUNZLOORYHUODSZLWKWKH3URMHFW DWWKH$WODQWLF$YHQXHDQG6DOW/DNH$YHQXHLQWHUVHFWLRQ

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
.LPOH\+RUQGHYHORSHGWKH/563IRUWKH&LW\LQ0D\ZKLFKIRFXVHVRQLGHQWLI\LQJVDIHW\ULVNVWKURXJKRXWWKH&LW\WRLQIRUPD VDIHUPXOWLPRGDOWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNIRUGULYHUVELF\FOLVWVDQGSHGHVWULDQV7KLVDOLJQVZLWKWKH9LVLRQ=HURJRDOWRHOLPLQDWHWUDIƂF deaths by 2050.

Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project City of Cudahy ƒ TRCALAD006266.2025 ƒ5
7KH/563pVFDVHVWXG\DQDO\VLVLGHQWLƂHGWKHIROORZLQJFRXQWHUPHDVXUHVIRUWZRLQWHUVHFWLRQVWKDWRYHUODSZLWKWKH3URMHFW 
• Walnut Street at Salt Lake Avenue
» Add roundabout
» Realign western leg, remove curve east of intersection » Intersection control evaluation
» Refresh limit line
» Improve pavement conditions
» /('VWRSVLJQV
» 2YHUKHDGƃDVKLQJEHDFRQV
» (GJHOLQHV
• Santa Ana Street at Salt Lake Avenue
» ,QVWDOOWUDIƂFVLJQDO
» 8SJUDGHSHGHVWULDQFURVVLQJ
» Improve pavement markings
» Provide advance dilemma zone detection
These countermeasures align with the City’s General Plan and Safe Routes to School Plan.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) 2025-2029
7KH&LW\pV&,3IRUƂVFDO\HDUVDQG
ZDVDSSURYHGDWWKH)HEUXDU\FRXQFLOPHHWLQJ7KLV&,3FDOOVIRUWKH IROORZLQJVWRSFRQWUROOHGLQWHUVHFWLRQVWREHXSJUDGHGWRVLJQDOL]HGLQWHUVHFWLRQV

• 2WLV$YHQXH(OL]DEHWK6WUHHWDW6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
• 6DQWD$QD6WUHHWDW6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
• $UGLQH6WUHHWDW6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
0(7526287+($67*$7(:$</,1(352-(&7:6$%352-(&7
)XWXUHSODQVIRUWKHUDLOLPSURYHPHQWVRQWKH6DQ3HGUR6XEGLYLVLRQ6HJPHQWDORQJWKHH[LVWLQJIUHLJKWUDLOWUDFNVSDUDOOHOWR6DOW/DNH$YHQXH DUHLQSURJUHVV7KHUHZLOOEHWZRVWDWLRQVQRUWKDQGVRXWKRIWKHFLW\OLPLWV RQHDWWKHVRXWKZHVWFRUQHURI6DOW/DNH$YHQXHDQG)ORUHQFH $YHQXHLQWKH&LW\RI+XQWLQJWRQ3DUNDQGWKHRWKHUDWWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI$WODQWLF$YHQXHDQG6DOW/DNH$YHQXH3DWDWD6WUHHWLQWKH&LW\ of South Gate. There are also plans for a light rail track to be installed in addition to the existing rail track. 7KLVSURMHFWFDOOVIRUWKHIROORZLQJVWRSFRQWUROOHGLQWHUVHFWLRQVWREHXSJUDGHGWRVLJQDOL]HGLQWHUVHFWLRQV

• 2WLV$YHQXH(OL]DEHWK6WUHHWDW6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
• 6DQWD$QD6WUHHWDW6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
• $UGLQH6WUHHWDW6DOW/DNH$YHQXH
&XUUHQWO\WKHUHDUHQR$'$FRPSOLDQWSHGHVWULDQRUELNHIDFLOLWLHVFRQQHFWLQJWKHWZRIXWXUHVWDWLRQV ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) CYCLE 6
7KH&LW\VXEPLWWHGDQDSSOLFDWLRQIRUJUDQWIXQGLQJXQGHU&\FOHRIWKH$737KH3URMHFWZDVDZDUGHGVWDWHIXQGLQJWKURXJKWKH0HWURSROLWDQ Planning Organization Component of the ATP Cycle 6 to implement the community’s vision. .LPOH\+RUQKDVSDUWQHUHGZLWKAvant-GardeZKRZHpYHZRUNHGZLWKRQRYHUVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOIXQGHGSURMHFWVDQGKDYHVXFFHVVIXOO\ QDYLJDWHGWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOULJKWRIZD\DQGFRQVWUXFWLRQDOORFDWLRQGRFXPHQWVQHFHVVDU\E\IXQGLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH$73JUDQWSURYLGHVIXQGLQJWRZLGHQWKHH[LVWLQJVLGHZDONE\IRXUIHHWDORQJWKHHDVWVLGHRI6DOW/DNH$YHQXHWRSURYLGH$'$FRPSOLDQW SHGHVWULDQIDFLOLWLHVDORQJWKH6DOW/DNH$YHQXH&RUULGRU7KHJUDQWSURYLGHVIXQGVIRUFXUEH[WHQVLRQVWRUHGXFHSHGHVWULDQFURVVLQJGLVWDQFH and improve crossing angles at existing skewed intersections, ADA curb ramps, high visibility crosswalks at intersections, pedestrian lighting to increase safety at night, appropriate signing and striping, benches for pedestrians to rest, trash receptacles, and trees to provide canopies and VKDGH7KHLPSURYHPHQWVIRUWKH3URMHFWZLOOEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHDSSURYHG&RQVWUXFWLRQLWHPVSHUWKH$73JUDQW 7KH$73JUDQWLVVWDWHIXQGHGVLPSOLI\LQJWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOSURFHVVDQGFHUWLƂFDWLRQVUHTXLUHGWRSUHSDUHWKHSURMHFWIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQ

Technical Proposal
Environmental and Design Engineering Services for
ATPL-5369(017) Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project City of Cudahy ƒ TRCALAD006266.2025 ƒ6

THE VISION
7KHJRDORIDOORIWKHVHSODQVSURJUDPVDQGSURMHFWVLVWKHVDPH increase the safety of all road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers). Although we cannot implement all the improvements mentioned in the plans and programs through ATP funding, they are LPSRUWDQWWRXQGHUVWDQGDQGFRQVLGHUZKHQGHYHORSLQJWKHGHVLJQIRUWKH3URMHFW2XUREMHFWLYHLVWRPLQLPL]HWKHDPRXQWRIUHSHDWZRUN IRUWKH&LW\ZKHQIXWXUHLPSURYHPHQWVIRUWKLVFRUULGRUDUHUHDG\WREHLPSOHPHQWHG7KH&LW\QHHGVDZHOOURXQGHGWHDPWKDWFDQDGGUHVV this challenge with a cohesive design that establishes harmony among often competing transportation modes. This process will incorporate WHFKQLFDONQRZOHGJHYLVLRQDU\FUHDWLYLW\DQGFRPPXQLW\FROODERUDWLRQWRFUHDWHDSURMHFWWKDWWKH&LW\ZLOOEHSURXGWRVKRZFDVHIRUUHVLGHQWV businesses, and visitors.

ANTICIPATED CHALLENGES
:KLOHGHYHORSLQJWKHSODQWRLQLWLDWHWKLVSURMHFW.LPOH\+RUQKDVFRQVLGHUHGWKHIROORZLQJFKDOOHQJHVWRGLVFXVVZLWKWKH&LW\

PROXIMITY TO CITY BOUNDARY
Challenge:6DOW/DNH$YHQXHUXQVSDUDOOHOWRWKH&LW\pVERXQGDU\ZLWKWKH&LW\RI+XQWLQJWRQ3DUNDQGWKH8QLRQ3DFLƂF5DLOURDG 8355

7KH&LW\ERXQGDU\VWDUWVDWWKHIDFHRIWKHFXUERQWKHZHVWVLGHRIWKHVWUHHW7KH3URMHFWpVSUR[LPLW\WRWKHERXQGDU\GRHVQRWSURYLGHWKH FOHDUDQFHUHTXLUHGWRLQFRUSRUDWHSHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHVRQWKHZHVWVLGHRIWKHFRUULGRUDQGZLOOUHTXLUHH[WUDFRRUGLQDWLRQ Solution:%DVHGRQWKHFRQVWUDLQWPDSDQGVLWHYLVLWV.LPOH\+RUQSUHGLFWVWKHLPSDFWVWRDGMDFHQWDJHQFLHVZLOOEHPLQLPDOWRQRQH .LPOH\+RUQZLOOQRWLI\WKH&LW\GXULQJWKH3URMHFW$SSURYDODQG(QYLURQPHQWDO'RFXPHQW 3$ ('
SKDVHDQGEHSURDFWLYHLQJHWWLQJWKH
affected agencies involved.

EXISTING ROADWAY AND SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES
Challenge:,QPRVWDUHDVWKHH[LVWLQJURDGZD\FURVV
slope varies between approximately 2% to 7% from
WKHFHQWHUOLQHWRWKHHDVWƃRZOLQH
VHHPhoto 1). The
existing sidewalk cross slope varies between 2% to
IURPWKHULJKWRIZD\WRWKHƃRZOLQH
VHHPhoto
2). At Otis Avenue and Santa Ana Street intersections,
the roadway cross slopes are steeper than 7% in some
areas due to the elevation of the rail grade crossing.
7KHFXUEKHLJKWWKURXJKRXWWKHSURMHFWLVDSSUR[LPDWHO\ 8 inches. Widening the sidewalk into the roadway has
a high likelihood of triggering roadway reconstruction
to the crown in some areas, to meet ADA and drainage
UHTXLUHPHQWV7KHGHVLJQZLOOUHTXLUHDEDODQFH
EHWZHHQSURYLGLQJ$'$FRPSOLDQWLPSURYHPHQWV
avoiding impacts to private property, and limiting
roadway reconstruction and drainage impacts.

Solution:,QWKH3$ ('SKDVHZLWKWKHXVHRI
WRSRJUDSKLFVXUYH\LQIRUPDWLRQ.LPOH\+RUQZLOO
DVVHVVH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[LVWLQJURDGZD\DQGVLGHZDONFURVVVORSHVSDYHPHQWVHFWLRQVFXUEKHLJKWVDQGGUDLQDJHSDWWHUQVDQG IHDWXUHVWRGHYHORSWKHSUHIHUUHGGHVLJQ:HZLOONHHSLQPLQGWKHFRVW$73JUDQWUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGPDLQWHQDQFHFRQVLGHUDWLRQV '5$,1$*($1':$7(548$/,7<81'(567$1',1*

DRAINAGE
7KHGUDLQDJHGHVLJQPDQXDOVWKDWDSSO\WRWKLVSURMHFWDUH

• /RV$QJHOHV&RXQW\'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF:RUNV+\GURORJ\0DQXDO:DWHU5HVRXUFHV'LYLVLRQ-DQXDU\ • /RV$QJHOHV&RXQW\)ORRG&RQWURO'LVWULFW+\GUDXOLF'HVLJQ0DQXDO0DUFK 
• &RXQW\RI/RV$QJHOHV'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF:RUNV6WRUPZDWHU%HVW0DQDJHPHQW3UDFWLFH'HVLJQDQG0DLQWHQDQFH0DQXDO)RU3XEOLFO\ Maintained Storm Drian Systems, May 2009
Photo 1: Existing 6.25% roadway cross slope
between Santa Ana Street and Cecelia Street
Photo 2: Existing 3.10% sidewalk cross slope
south of Live Oak Street