062122 CD ATP Final Plan — City Council - Successor Agency

Active Transportation Plan
Final Plan
June 2022
iii
Acknowledgments
Elected Officials
Fred Jung, Mayor, Council Member - District 1
Bruce Whitaker, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Member - District 4 Nick Dunlap, Council Member - District 2
Jesus Silva, Council Member - District 3
Ahmad Zahra, Council Member - District 5
City of Fullerton
Matt Foulkes, Director of Community and Economic
Development (former)
Heather Allen, Planning Manager (former)
Maribeth Tinio, Senior Planner (former)
Meg McWade, Director of Public Works
David Grantham, Principal Civil Engineer
Dave Langstaff, Senior Traffic Engineering Analyst
Dave Roseman, Traffic Engineer
Derek Wieske, Principal Civil Engineer
Fullerton Active Transportation
Committee
Dr. Alysia J. Odipo
Jane Rands
James H Park
Jeffrey Chase
Mackenzie Chang
Mehul Desai
Miguel Alvarez (former)
Rafael Avila (former)
Vince Buck
Consultant Team
Alta Planning + Design
Fehr & Peers
Fullerton On The Go | Table of Contents
iiii
Table of Contents
01 Introduction 3

THE NEED FOR A DOWNTOWN ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN 4
VISION OF THIS PLAN 6
02 Existing Conditions 8
PROJECT ANALYSIS AREA 9
LAND USE AND DESTINATIONS 12
DEMOGRAPHICS AND EQUITY 14
COMMUTE TRENDS 20
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS 24
BICYCLE FACILITY TYPES 25
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 30
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 34
VEHICULAR MODES OF TRANSPORTATION 50
03 Community Engagement 44
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS 45
ONLINE MAP 46
ONLINE SURVEY 48
MEDIA 49
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 49
MOBILE WORKSHOPS 50
KEY NEEDS 50
TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP 51
04 Policies & Programs 52
POLICIES AND GOALS 53
PROGRAMS 61
PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS 62
iiv
05 Infrastructure Recommendations 68
HOW RECOMMENDED PROJECTS WERE DEVELOPED 69
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE PROJECTS 70
PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS 82
NEW MOBILITY 101
WAYFINDING 102
06 Project Prioritization 104
BICYCLE PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY 106
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY 108
07 Implementation 114
COSTS 115
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 117
FUNDING STRATEGIES 119
MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES 126
Appendices
A. Existing Plans, Policies,
and Procedures 132
LOCAL 133
REGIONAL 141
EXISTING ROADWAY MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 145
B. Additional Collision Data 146
COLLISIONS 147
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COUNTS 162
C. Stakeholder Survey Results
Summary 166
D. Pedestrian Scale Lighting 178
E. Bicycle Recommendations 180
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL BICYCLE PROJECTS 181
F. Fullerton ATC Comments 188

FULLERTON ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMENTS 181
Fullerton On The Go | Table of Tables
iv
Table of Tables
Table 1. Miles of Recommended Bikeways by Class 70
Table 2. Recommended Bicycle Projects 73
Table 3. Bicycle Spot Improvements 78
Table 4. Recommendations for Bicycle Parking
Locations and Quantities 81
Table 5. Toolbox of Pedestrian Facilities by Category 83 Table 6. Summary of Site-Specific Pedestrian
Recommendations 86
Table 7. Criteria for Project Prioritization 106
Table 8. Tier 1 Bicycle Projects 109
Table 9. Tier 2 Bicycle Projects 109
Table 10. Tier 3 Bicycle Projects 110
Table 11. Low Cost Pedestrian Projects 111
Table 12. High Cost Pedestrian Projects 111
Table 13. Capital Costs for Bicycle Projects 115
Table 14. Cost Estimates for Pedestrian Projects 116
Table 15. Goals and Objectives of OCTA Outlook 2035 144 Table 16. Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts by Location 162 Table 17. Pavement Illuminance Criteria for Full
Intersection Lighting (lux/fc) 179
Table 18. Recommended Values for High Pedestrian
Conflict Areas 179
Table 19. Miles of Recommended Bikeways by Class 181
Table 20. Recommended Bicycle Projects 183
ivi
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Project Analysis Areas 11
Figure 2. Land Uses and Destinations 13
Figure 3. Percent of People Without Access to Vehicle 15 Figure 4. CalEnviroScreen Results 17
Figure 5. Healthy Places Index Results 19
Figure 6. Percent of Residents (16+) Who Walk to Work 21 Figure 7. Percent of Residents (16+) Who Bike to Work 22 Figure 8. Existing and Planned Bikeways 26
Figure 9. Existing and Previously Proposed Bikeways 27
Figure 10. Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists 29
Figure 11. Arterial Sidewalk Study (2021) 31
Figure 12. Local Street Sidewalk Study (2021) 32
Figure 13. Pedestrian Collisions within Pedestrian
Access Area (2015-2019) 36
Figure 14. Bicyclist Collisions within Bicycle Access
Area (2015-2019) 38
Figure 15. Transit Network 41
Figure 16. Vehicle Traffic Volumes 42
Figure 17. Recommended Bicycle Projects 71
Figure 18. Map of Site-Specific Pedestrian
Recommendations 86
Figure 19. Recommended Signal Modifications at
Harbor/Commonwealth 89
Figure 20. Location for Potential Vehicle-Free Public
Space on Wilshire Avenue 97
Figure 21. Prioritized Bicycle Recommendations 112
Figure 22. Citywide Pedestrian Collisions (2015-2019) 147 Figure 23. Citywide Pedestrian Collision Density
(2015-2019) 148
Figure 24. Citywide Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) 149
Figure 25. Citywide Bicycle Collision Density
(2015-2019) 150
Figure 26. Pedestrian Collisions by Primary Violation
Category (2015-2019) 151
Figure 27. Bicycle Collisions by Primary Violation
Category (2015-2019) 152
Figure 28. Collision Type for Bicycle Collisions
(2015-2019) 153
Figure 29. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Action
before Collisions (2015-2019) 154
Figure 30. Pedestrian Location (2015-2019) 155
Figure 31. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions with DUI
(2015-2019) 156
Figure 32. Time of Day for Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions (2015-2019) 157
Figure 33. Day of Week Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions (2015-2019) 158
Figure 34. Lighting Conditions for Pedestrian and
Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) 159
Figure 35. Victim Age of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions (2015-2019) 160
Figure 36. Victim Gender of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions (2015-2019) 160
Figure 37. Victim Race of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collisions (2015-2019) 161
Figure 38. Recommended Bicycle Projects 182
Fullerton On The Go | Table of Figures
ivii
2 01 Introduction
Fullerton On The Go | Introduction
3 Introduction
The Downtown Fullerton Active Transportation Plan
(Plan) is a collaborative effort to improve mobility for all residents and visitors traveling to/from and throughout Downtown. With funding provided by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
this Plan provides a set of implementable actions to guide future improvements and serves as a foundation for a
safer, more connected and accessible community.

The Downtown Active Transportation Plan integrates
walking, bicycling, and other transportation modes into a single plan that includes infrastructure recommendations as well as identifying specific funding sources and
implementation strategies. The Plan builds on previous
planning efforts in the City, such as the Fullerton
General Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, the Pedestrian
Safety Assessment, and related work completed on the
draft Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan. In coordination with these prior efforts, the new projects and programs identified in this Plan will work to address mobility needs in Downtown Fullerton.

The Need for a Downtown Active
Transportation Plan
The Plan establishes a long-term vision for improving
walking, biking, and rolling conditions to/from and
throughout Downtown Fullerton, and is a critical tool to support the City in building a balanced transportation
system that is pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly and
encourages residents and visitors to use these modes of transportation.

The Plan identifies infrastructure projects that promote safe and comfortable walking, biking, and transit options.

It considers access to locations important to residents and visitors alike such as schools, workplaces, activity centers, transportation hubs, and neighborhoods
connected to Downtown.
4 CHAPTER
02 Existing Conditions
This chapter provides
an inventory of present-day active transportation
conditions in Downtown
Fullerton.

CHAPTER
03 Community
Engagement
This chapter summarizes
the community outreach
activities completed by the
project team. Outreach
activities asked stakeholders
and residents to identify
barriers to walking and biking
Downtown, and the types
of active transportation
infrastructure that they would
like to see built.

CHAPTER
04 Policies & Programs
This chapter lists existing
and recommended programs
in Fullerton which can
encourage all residents to
use active transportation,
and can educate users about
traveling safely, whether as a
pedestrian, bicyclist, or driver.

What is Included in the Plan
The Downtown Fullerton Active Transportation Plan is
organized as follows:

Fullerton On The Go | Introduction
5 CHAPTER
05 Infrastructure
Recommendations
This section identifies the
recommended bicycle and
pedestrian projects from
previous planning efforts,
stakeholder engagement,
and the existing conditions
assessment.

CHAPTER
06 Project
Prioritization
This chapter is a
description of the
prioritization framework,
which allows Fullerton to
identify priority active
transportation projects
that can be submitted for
competitive grant funding.

CHAPTER
07 Implementation
This chapter details
a practical road-map
for implementing the
proposals within this
Plan, including projects,
costs estimates, and
maintenance strategies.
6 Vision of this Plan
Fullerton residents and commuters have the option to
bike, walk, and roll to/from and around Downtown using
a connected, comfortable, safe, and convenient network
designed for users of all abilities and ages. Downtown
Fullerton destinations are accessible to residents of
surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent cities. By
expanding a safe and convenient active transportation
network, Fullerton can improve community health and
stay committed to local and regional sustainability goals.

This page intentionally left blank
7 8
Existing
Conditions
02 Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
9 Existing Conditions
Project Analysis Area
The Plan’s Core Area is roughly bound by Chapman
Avenue to the north, the railroad tracks owned by the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway to the south, Highland Avenue to the west, and Lemon Street to the
east (Figure 1 on page 11). The study area also includes two additional access areas that allowed the City to look at opportunities to improve connections to and from
Downtown on foot or bike:
• Pedestrian Access Area: a half-mile radius around the Core Area, or about a 10-minute walk to/from Downtown
• Bicycle Access Area: roughly a two-mile radius around the Core Area, including California State University -
Fullerton (CSUF), or about a 15-minute bicycle ride
As shown in Figure 1 on page 11, the study area
contains several key roadways that are regionally
significant—Chapman Avenue, Harbor Boulevard,
Commonwealth Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, and State
College Boulevard.
10 Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
11 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

PROJECT AREA

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Figure 1. Project Analysis Areas
12 Land Use and Destinations
Figure 2 displays the varying types of existing land
use designations and key destinations across the city.

Overall, Fullerton consists primarily of single family
residential, open space and recreation, and multi-family residential land uses. Downtown Fullerton primarily
consists of commercial use, as well as many points of
interest including libraries, museums, and other civic
and cultural institutions. As shown in Figure 2, key
destinations have been categorized as follows:
• Purple/Community: Schools, Churches, Libraries,
Emergency Responder Stations
• Red/Entertainment: Museums, Theaters, Historical
Sites, Public Art, Bars
• Green/Recreation: Parks, Youth Centers, Sports/
Recreation Centers
• Blue/Services: Banks, Daycares, Post Offices
Key destinations within the larger project area include, but are not limited to, the Downtown business district, CSUF, Fullerton College, Fullerton High School, Downtown Plaza, and the Fullerton Transportation Center.

Source: Chris Constea Photography
Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
13 NCIA DR
A IG E

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

USLOW E
ON ALT

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

H AN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS LMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE C E D
L
A

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

USTON AVE

BASQU VE

ORAN THO E AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSD

MAGNOLIA AVE

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM S

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHL VE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROS RANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

ACENTIA
AVE
BAKE
ILLI A

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

MALVERN E
M ALLD

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
Fullerton
Fullerton
Arboretum
Fullerton
Gil n Park
Virgil "Gus"
Griss Park
Le rk
West
Co Hills
Tre ark
West Coyote
s
k
Edward
H. White
Ralph B.

Clark Park
Br
Dam ark
llerton
e Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Lio ield
Hillcrest
Park
Hiltscher
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Preserve
Tri C y
Par
Gil Par
Beechwood
School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Lade
Vist
ool Park
Commo alth
Pac rive chool rk
Sc ark
School
Tr igh
School
llerto i
S ol
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
TES
rd
yK
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
91 0 0.5 1
Miles
Single Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Mobile Homes &
Trailer Parks
Commercial

ORGINS AND DESTINATIONS

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
Office Use
Public Facilities
Education
Industrial
Mixed Residential
Open Space &
Recreation
Community
Entertainment
Key Destinations
Recreation
Services
Land Use
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)

WALNUT AVE

AMERIGE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

LEMON ST

CHAPMAN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

HARBOR BLVD

HIGHLAND AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

MALDEN AVE

WHITING AVE

FORD AVE

JACARANDA PL

WHITING AVE
Amerige Park
Downtown Plaza
Union Pacific Park

CORE AREA CORE AREA
Fullerton
College
Fullerton Union
High School
Fullerton First United
Methodist Preschool
Florence
Crittenton School
Figure 2. Land Uses and Destinations
14 Demographics and Equity
Fullerton is home to 138,638 residents who have a median age of 35.4, similar to surrounding cities. Children and teens under the age of 19 account for approximately 25
percent of the City’s total population. The largest age group is those aged 20-29 years, representing over 17
percent of the City’s total population, which could in part be due to the City’s two colleges. 20 percent of Fullerton residents are aged 60 and over. The median household
income in Fullerton is $93,983, similar to the median
household income of the County and nearby cities.1

NO ACCESS TO VEHICLES
Residents without regular access to a vehicle rely on
transit, walking, bicycling, or carpooling to get to their everyday destinations. An analysis of household vehicle access was conducted using data from the US Census
Bureau, obtained from the 2018 American Community
Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates. Figure 3 displays the percentage of households who do not have regular
access to a vehicle by census tract. Overall, out of 60,899 all Fullerton commuters, there were 3,274 residents (5.4 percent) that stated that they do not have regular access to a vehicle. Figure 3 shows that there are pockets of
communities in Fullerton with higher rates of people
without access to a vehicle, including the neighborhood southwest of Downtown.
1 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2019 1-year estimate Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
15 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

1.2%

5.3%

1.1%

8.8%

4.9%

1.6%

4.2%

9.2%

2.6% 2%

13.8%

10.4% 4.4% 2.3%

3.5%

4.5%
6% 2.9%

14.3%
8%
0% 1.1%

6.5% 6.6%

2.1%

10.1%

11.6% 3.8%

3.6%

5.4%

6.4%

3.2%

4.5%

1.7% 0.9%

0.9%
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
0 - 2%
2 - 4%
4 - 8%
8 - 15%

NO ACCESS TO A VEHICLE

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Percentage of People
Without Access to a Vehicle
Figure 3. Percent of People Without Access to Vehicle
16 CALENVIROSCREEN 3.0
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment developed the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool to
help identify communities that are disproportionately
burdened by multiple sources of pollutants. Areas with
a higher score experience higher pollution burdens
than areas with low scores. This is also a tool used
in California’s Active Transportation Program grant
application scoring. Per State definition, communities
that have a score of 75% or higher are considered to be disadvantaged and can receive a small advantage in the
competitive funding process.

Figure 4 shows CalEnviroScreen scores for all census
tracts in the City of Fullerton. The areas with the highest scores are those considered to be most affected
by pollution sources. According to these scores,
neighborhoods in the southern part of the city qualify
as disadvantaged. This higher pollution burden could in part be due to active rail lines and the 91 Freeway running through these neighborhoods.

Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
17 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

Clark Park
Brea
Dam Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks
School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
94%
87%
59%
71%
68%
89%
39%
36%
48%
36%
81% 83%
67%
58%
53%
65%
81% 82%
81%
42%
34%
84%
76%
84%
84%
80%
61%
47%
33%
46%
10%
83%
41%
61%
50%
79%
91%
47%
28%
71%
51%
43%
77%
59%
47%
46%
75%
74%
90%
91%
45%
56%
58%
64%
77%
63%
37%
33%
63%
52%
53%
80%
24%
34%
23%
49%
34%
37%
38%
46%
41%
46%
44%
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
1-4% (low burden)
5-20%
21-35%
36-50%
51-65%
66-80%
81-95%
96-100% (high burden)
CALENVIROSCREEN 3.0

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Figure 4. CalEnviroScreen Results
18 HEALTHY PLACES INDEX
The Healthy Places Index (HPI) aggregates a collection of community characteristics that predict life expectancy
and allow users to see how public health intersects
with transportation, climate, and other key factors.

Characteristics included in the HPI score consists of
social equity, healthcare access, economic, housing,
transportation, and environmental factors such as air
and water pollutants. Higher scores indicate healthier
community conditions, while lower scores indicate less
healthy conditions.

Figure 5 shows the HPI scores for census tracts in
Fullerton. The areas with the lowest scores are located in the neighborhoods in the southern part of the city, which is also considered to be disadvantaged based on the
CalEnviroScreen score.

Source: Spencer Custodio
Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
19 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

Clark Park
Brea
Dam Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks
School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
53%
68%
58% 33%
50%
70%
92%
48%
74%
37%
52%
65%
10%
5% 28%
26%
56%
55%
58%
61%
71%
71% 58%
62%
28% 38%
61%
38%
44% 74%
26%
67%
74%
78%
58%
70%
69%
80%
59%
86%
75%
65%
15%
67% 60%
56%
44% 31%
58%
68%
90%
34%
84%
43%
29% 37%
81%
81%
76%
45%
0%
71%
29% 79%
52%
81%
87%
43%
40%
42% 12% 21%
50%
24%
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
0-20% (Less Healthy Conditons)
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
80-100% (Healthier Conditions)

HEALTHY PLACES INDEX

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Figure 5. Healthy Places Index Results
20 Commute Trends
Current walking and biking patterns were analyzed
using data from the US Census Bureau and the 2018
American Community Survey (ACS) Five Year Estimates.

Figure 6 shows the percentage of Fullerton residents
16 or older who walk to work, by census tract. Citywide, out of 93,067 residents, 2,323 residents (2.5 percent)
commute by walking. The census tract located in the
eastern part of the city has the highest rate of workers who walk as a means of transportation. California State University, Fullerton is located in this region and could be an underlying contributor to these higher numbers. For
example, students and University staff and faculty may
work on campus and find it easier to commute by active
modes. Downtown also has higher rates of people who
commute to work on foot.

Figure 7 on page 22 shows the percentage of Fullerton
residents 16 or older who ride a bicycle to work, by
census tract. Citywide, out of the 93,067 residents who participated in the survey, 596 residents (0.64 percent) stated that they commute by biking. The census tracts
located in the southeastern part of the city have a higher rate of workers who bicycle as a means of transportation.

This part of the city comprises mostly of single-family and multi-family homes. These Fullerton neighborhoods
surround the University as well as the Downtown area
where residents may commute to work by bicycle.

It is important to note that bicycle ridership and walking rates may be higher than the data is indicating, as
ACS estimates do not account for recreational trips
or trips where commuters use more than one mode of
transportation when traveling to work.

Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
21 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

1.8%

6.4%

1.3%

0.5%
0%
0%

2.5%

1.1%

0.2%

3.4%

1.3% 0.2% 3.4%

0.3%

1.8%

1.2% 1.8%

1.7% 5.4%

0.7%
3%

2.9% 4.5%

4.4%

16.3%

3.2%

1.7%

1.9%

7.4%

1.8%

1.3%

0.5% 4.3%
0 4%

0.5%
1%
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
0 - 1.5%

1.5 - 2.5%

2.5 - 4.5%

4.5 - 7.5%

7.5 - 16.5%

WALKING TO WORK

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Percentage of People
Walking to Work
Figure 6. Percent of Residents (16+) Who Walk to Work
22 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

1.1%
0%
0%
0%

0.4%

1.2%
0%
0%

0.7%

0.3%

0.4% 0% 0%

1.2%

0.3%

2.6% 0%

1.2%
0%
0% 0.7%

2.1% 1.8%

3.2%

0.4%
0%
0%
0%

1.3%

3.8%

0.5%
0% 0.5%
0%

0.4%
0%
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
0 - 0.5%

0.5 - 1.5%

1.5 - 2.0%

2.0 - 4.0%

BIKING TO WORK

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Percentage of People
Biking to Work
Figure 7. Percent of Residents (16+) Who Bike to Work
Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
23 This page intentionally left blank
24 Active Transportation Infrastructure
Conditions
Any human-powered mobility classifies as “active
transportation.” Beyond walking and biking, active
transportation also encompasses people roller skating,
skateboarding, using a scooter, and using a wheelchair
or other mobility device. In addition to people walking, “pedestrian” also refers to people using mobility devices or skateboards in California per the California Vehicle Code. Active transportation promotes positive public
health outcomes, diminishes environmental impacts
related to transportation, expands accessibility and
mobility choices, and decreases the financial burden of getting around.

EXISTING AND PLANNED BIKEWAYS
Within the City’s boundaries, there are approximately
46 miles of existing bicycle facilities. There are 5.5 miles of Class I shared-use paths, 25 miles of Class II bicycle lanes, 13.6 miles of Class III bicycle routes, and 2.4 miles of Class III bicycle boulevards within the city of Fullerton, as described in the chart on the following page. The
majority of the existing bikeways are Class II bicycle lanes, which are on-street facilities dedicated to bicyclists and identified with lane striping and pole signs. The core
project area features a Class III bicycle boulevard along Wilshire Avenue, which creates a connection to Downtown via other existing bicycle facilities in the city such as the existing Class II bicycle lanes on Acacia Avenue
and Berkeley Avenue. This 2.4-mile stretch on Wilshire
was recently redesigned to include traffic circles and
sharrows to prioritize bicycle traffic through this area.

The Fullerton Plan (2012) identifies 54 miles of planned bicycle facilities, demonstrating the City of Fullerton is committed to improving their streets to be more
comfortable for bicyclists. This includes 12 miles of Class I shared-use paths, 18 miles of Class II bicycle lanes, and 25 miles of Class III bicycle routes planned.

Figure 8 on page 26 shows existing versus previously
planned bikeway facilities by class and Figure 9 on page 27 shows a map of the existing and previously planned
bicycle facilities throughout the City.

In Downtown, Wilshire Avenue is an existing Class III Bicycle Boulevard with traffic calming features.

Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
25 Class I

SHARED-USE PATH
• Paths completely separated from
motor vehicle traffic used by people
walking and biking.
• Comfortable for people of all ages
and abilities.
• Typically located immediately adjacent and parallel
to a roadway or in its own independent right-of-way,
such as within a park or along a body of water.

Class II

BICYCLE LANE
• A dedicated lane for bicycle travel
adjacent to traffic.
• A painted white line separates the
bicycle lane from motor vehicle traffic.

Class IIB

BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE
• A dedicated lane for bicycle travel
separated from vehicle traffic by a
painted buffer.
• The buffer provides additional
comfort for users by providing space
from motor vehicles or parked cars.

Class III

BICYCLE ROUTE
• A signed bike route that people
biking share with motor vehicles.
• Can include pavement markings.
• Comfortable facility for more confident
bicyclists.
• Recommended when space for a bike lane may not be
feasible.

Class IIIB

BICYCLE BOULEVARD
• Calm, local streets where bicyclists
have priority but share roadway
space with motor vehicles.
• Shared roadway bicycle markings
on the pavement as well as traffic calming features
such as speed humps and traffic diverters keep these
streets more comfortable for bicyclists.
• Comfortable facility for bicyclists with wider range
of abilities.

Class IV

SEPARATED BIKEWAY
• An on-street bikeway separated
from motor vehicle traffic by a
curb, median, planters, parking
delineators, or other physical barrier.

Bicycle Facility Types
26 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
Class III
Bicycle Boulevard
Class III
Bicycle Route
Class II
Bicycle Lanes
Class I
Shared-use Path
Figure 8. Existing and Planned Bikeways
Existing Planned/Previously Proposed
Miles
Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
27 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

Clark Park
Brea
Dam Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks
School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IIIB Bike Boulevard
Trail

EXISTING & PLANNED BIKEWAYS

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Existing | Planned

CORE AREA CORE AREA
Fullerton College
Fullerton Union High School
Fullerton First United Methodist Preschool
Florence Crittenton School

WALNUT AVE

AMERIGE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE LEMON ST

CHAPMAN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

HARBOR BLVD

HIGHLAND AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

MALDEN AVE

WHITING AVE

FORD AVE

JACARANDA PL

WHITING AVE
Amerige Park
Plaza Park
Downtown Plaza
Union Pacific Park
Figure 9. Existing and Previously Proposed Bikeways
28 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FOR BICYCLISTS
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) indicates the amount of traffic stress a particular facility imposes on bicyclists. The analysis, based on methods developed by the Mineta
Transportation Institute, considers posted speed, number of travel lanes, presence of a bicycle facility, and land use context to calculate a bicyclist’s comfort level.

The combination of these criteria creates four levels of traffic stress for the existing roadway network. However, this Plan introduced a fifth level (LTS 1.5) to differentiate between streets without specific bicycle improvements
which nevertheless remain low-speed and low-stress
for most people on bicycles, versus streets with specific improvements and facilities to create a low-stress
experience for riders (LTS 1). The principle of the scale remains the same: the lower the number, the lower the
stress and the higher the level of comfort for people on bicycles. LTS 1 and 2 roads are typically the roadways
that are appropriate for “All Ages and Abilities” and the “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists, respectively. For this analysis, levels of traffic stress range from 1 to 4:

LTS 1: Most Comfortable: Strong separation from traffic and improvements for people on bicycles. Simple
crossings. Suitable for all ages and abilities.
*LTS 1.5: Streets with low speeds and low traffic volumes, but does not feature a bicycle facility.

LTS 2: Physical separation from higher speed and multi-lane traffic. A level of traffic stress that most adults can tolerate, particularly those sometimes classified as “interested but concerned.”
LTS 3: Involves interaction with moderate speed or multi-lane traffic, or close proximity to higher speed traffic. A level of traffic stress acceptable to those classified as “somewhat confident bicyclists.”
LTS 4: Least Comfortable: Involves interaction with higher speed traffic or close proximity to high-speed traffic.

A level of stress acceptable only to those classified as “highly confident bicyclists”
*Note: LTS 1.5 was introduced for this analysis and is
not found within the Mineta Transportation Institute’s
approach.

Level of Traffic Stress Findings
The level of traffic stress scores shown in Figure 10
illustrate the low connections and gaps throughout
Fullerton. The Bicycle LTS results approximate the
user experience for the majority of Fullerton residents.

However, people may have differing opinions of traffic
stress depending on their own experiences. Many of
Fullerton’s local roads are considered to be between
LTS 1-LTS 2, but major corridors that connect to key
destinations like Chapman Avenue, Euclid Street,
Commonwealth Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, and
Harbor Boulevard have scores of LTS 3 or LTS 4.

Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
29 VA NCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COM NWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

YORBA LINDA BLVD

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE
ND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADO

CAMINO SOL

OAK AVE
KN E

EVERGREEN AVE

OUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHOR VE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

LONGVIEW
DR
C
DR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HI LAND AVE

TERRAZAPL

RICHM E

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSO E

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR BERKELEY

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEE E

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI GTREE RD

BEACH BLVD

MALV AVE

BREA M AL LDR

IMPERIAL HWY

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
Fullerton
Creek
Greenbelt
Chap Park
Emery
Park
Fullerton
Sports
Complex
Gilman Park
Vi us"
m Park
Park
Lemon
Rolling
Hills Park
Vista Park
West Coyote
Hills
Tree Park
West Coyote
Hills
Park
Edward
H. White
II Park
Ralph B.

Clark Park
Brea Dam
Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Parks
Laguna
Lake Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
VD
E B
e
91 0 0.5 1
Miles
LTS 1 - Most Comfortable
LTS 1.5
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4 - Least Comfortable
Level of Traffic Stress

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Existing | Planned
Fullerton College
Fullerton Union High School
Fullerton First United Methodist Preschool
Florence Crittenton School

WALNUT AVE

AMERIGE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

LEMON ST

CHAPMAN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

HARBOR BLVD

HIGHLAND AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

MALDEN AVE

WHITING AVE

FORD AVE

JACARANDA PL

WHITING AVE
Amerige Park
Plaza Park
Downtown Plaza
Union Pacific Park

CORE AREA CORE AREA
Figure 10. Level of Traffic Stress for Bicyclists
30 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Most streets in Fullerton feature sidewalks that provide space for people walking. Existing sidewalks in Downtown Fullerton also feature landscaping and street trees, and other amenities such as benches, trash receptacles,
custom light poles, and wayfinding signage that directs people to key destinations. Recently, the City completed a sidewalk study to identify where sidewalks are missing on arterials and local streets across the city. As shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 on page 32, the majority
of streets in the project area have existing sidewalks.

However, there are missing segments in a few locations
in the project area, such as along Chapman Avenue,
Berkeley Avenue, and Walnut Avenue. There are also
areas with heaving sidewalks due to overgrown tree
roots which impede mobility and create safety issues.

Additionally, tables and chairs used for sidewalk dining at Downtown restaurants and cafes can be a barrier if they take up too much space for people to easily walk by. This can be especially difficult for people using strollers and mobility devices, such as a wheelchair.

Sidewalks in Downtown Fullerton feature signage for businesses, street trees, and other amenities.

Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
31 Figure 11. Arterial Sidewalk Study (2021)
32 Figure 12. Local Street Sidewalk Study (2021)
Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
33 There are existing marked crosswalks at most controlled intersections throughout Downtown, including brick
crosswalk and intersection designs along Harbor
Boulevard. Additionally, multiple existing crossings along Harbor Boulevard also feature curb extensions, as do
midblock crossings on Wilshire Avenue and Amerige
Avenue. High-visibility crosswalks exist at other major intersections in Downtown, along Commonwealth Avenue,
Lemon Street, Malden Avenue, and Chapman Avenue.

In the Pedestrian Access Area around Downtown,
high-visibility crosswalks exist at most signalized
intersections along major arterials. Near Fullerton High School and Fullerton College, multiple yellow high-visibility crosswalks have been striped at intersections and midblock to help safely connect students to
school on foot. Similarly, multiple marked crosswalks
at intersections and midblock help pedestrians
access the Fullerton Transportation Center south of
Downtown. Across major corridors crossing the rail lines, pedestrian bridges help people cross the street safely, and pedestrian-scale lighting exists near some of these underpasses. However, the rail lines may also create
barriers for pedestrians who want to access Downtown
from the southern part of the City.

Similar conditions can be seen south of Downtown and
the railroad tracks. Along Harbor Boulevard and Lemon
Street, high-visibility crosswalks exist at most signalized intersections. Yellow high-visibility crosswalks are marked near Maple Elementary and Richmond Elementary.

There is also a pedestrian bridge crossing Lemon Street, connecting the residential neighborhood east of Lemon
Street to Lemon Park and Maple Elementary School. While there are push button crosswalk mechanisms Downtown,
some, like at Amergie Avenue and Harbor Boulevard are
not ADA accessible, and require pedestrians to step up
onto a concrete block to push the button.

An artistic, high-visibility crosswalk outside of Fullerton Community Park.
34 Active Transportation Safety
Bicycle and pedestrian-related collision data can provide insight into specific locations and roadways that tend to have higher rates of collisions. This analysis uses collision data acquired from UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury
Mapping Systems (TIMS) between the dates of 1/1/2015
and 12/31/2019 to determine high-level collision trends and areas with a history of frequent collisions. It is
important to note that this analysis relies on reported collisions, but not all collisions involving people walking and biking are reported. Additional information and data analysis on collisions can be found in Appendix B.

ALL COLLISIONS
From 2015 to 2019, a total of 3,119 collisions occurred in the City of Fullerton. Of these, 37 collisions were fatal, and 87 collisions resulted in severe injuries (124 killed or severely injured (KSI) total). Most collisions involved only people driving vehicles (2,635 collisions) and the remaining
collisions were split between 277 collisions involving
someone walking and 208 collisions involving someone
biking. While people walking and biking account for 16
percent of all collisions, they disproportionately make up 38 percent of collisions where someone was killed or severely injured (KSI).
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Ped
Bicy
Veh
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
400
300
200
100
600
500
800
700
900
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
All Collisions by Mode (2015-2019)
All Collisions 2015-2019 (3,119 total)
KSI Collisions 2015-2019 (124 total)
84%
62%
28% 9%
10%
7%
Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
35 COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS
Between 2015 and 2019, 84 injury collisions involving
pedestrians occurred within the Pedestrian Access
Area, as shown in Figure 13 on page 36. Of the total
pedestrian collisions, one collision was fatal and 5
collisions resulted in severe injuries. The intersections and street segments with a high density of pedestrian
collisions were:
• Harbor Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue
• Harbor Boulevard and Truslow Avenue
• Lemon Street and Valencia Drive
• Harbor Boulevard between Malvern Avenue and
Valencia Drive
• Lemon Street between Chapman Avenue and Valencia
Drive
• Commonwealth Avenue between Malden Avenue and
Pomona Avenue
Pedestrian Collisions (2015-2019)
Collisions KSI Collisions
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 K
C
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
36 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

Clark Park
Brea
Dam Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks
School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
Fatal Collision
Severe Injury Collision
Other Pedestrian Collisions
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School

PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS
(2015 - 2019)

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA

CORE AREA CORE AREA
Plaza Park
Amerige Park
Union
Pacific Park
POMONA
AVE

JACARANDA PL
WALNUT
WAY
MALDEN
AVE

HIGHLAND AVE

LEMON ST

HIGHLAND AVE

FORD AVE

HARBOR BLVD

WHITING AVE

SANTA FE AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

AMERIGE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

WALNUT AVE
Fullerton
Union High
School
Florence
Crittenton
School
Berkeley
School
Fullerton First
United Methodist
Preschool
Fullerton
College
Figure 13. Pedestrian Collisions within Pedestrian Access Area (2015-2019) Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
37 COLLISIONS INVOLVING BICYCLISTS
Between 2015 and 2019, 142 reported injury collisions
involving bicyclists occurred within the Bicycle Access Area, as shown in Figure 14 on page 38. Of the total
bicycle collisions, 5 collisions resulted in severe injuries.

The intersections and street segments with a high density of bicycle collisions were:
• Highland Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue
• Lemon Street and Orangethorpe Avenue
• Euclid Street and Orangethorpe Avenue
• Brookhurst Road and Orangethorpe Avenue
• Lemon Street and Valencia Drive
• Harbor Boulevard between Jacaranda Place and Santa
Fe Avenue
• Commonwealth Avenue between Citrus Avenue and
Richman Avenue
• Acacia Avenue between Dorothy Lane and
Commonwealth Avenue
• State College Boulevard between Dorothy Lane and
Commonwealth Avenue
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 K
C
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019)
Collisions KSI Collisions
38 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

Clark Park
Brea
Dam Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks
School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
0 0.5 1
Miles
Fatal Collision
Severe Injury Collision
Other Bicycle Collision
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School

BICYCLE-INVOLVED COLLISIONS
(2015 - 2019)

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA

CORE AREA CORE AREA
Plaza Park
Amerige Park
Union
Pacific Park
POMONA
AVE

JACARANDA PL
WALNUT
WAY
MALDEN
AVE

HIGHLAND AVE

LEMON ST

HIGHLAND AVE

FORD AVE

HARBOR BLVD

WHITING AVE

SANTA FE AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

AMERIGE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

WALNUT AVE
Fullerton
Union High
School
Florence
Crittenton
School
Berkeley
School
Fullerton First
United Methodist
Preschool
Fullerton
College
Figure 14. Bicyclist Collisions within Bicycle Access Area (2015-2019) Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
39 40
Vehicular Modes of Transportation

TRANSIT NETWORK
The City of Fullerton is currently served by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), a multimodal
transportation agency serving Orange County. OCTA
currently has approximately 60 total bus routes, including six local routes, five community routes, and one rapid
transit route which provide service to Fullerton. The
Metrolink also provides service through Fullerton.

Fullerton Transportation Center is located in the Core
Area, which is a major station connecting the Metrolink, multiple bus lines, as well as the Pacific Surfliner.

Figure 15 shows the City of Fullerton’s existing transit network.

OCTA operates multiple bus routes throughout Downtown Fullerton.

Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
41 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

YORBA LINDA BLVD

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE
ND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADO
R

CAMINO SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

OUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

LONGVIEW
DR

C MPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HI LAND AVE

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR BERKELEY

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI GTREE RD

BEACH BLVD

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M AL LDR

IMPERIAL HWY

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
Fullerton
Creek
Greenbelt
Chap Park
Emery
Park
Fullerton
Arboretum
Fullerton
Sports
Complex
Gilman Park
Vi us"
m Park
Independence
Park
Lemon Park
Rolling
Hills Park
Vista Park
West Coyote
Hills
Tree Park
West Coyote
Hills
Park
Edward
H. White
II Park
Ralph B.

Clark Park
Brea Dam
Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Parks
Laguna
Lake Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
LE
VD
R
E B
PE A
R AV
BROO
RN
MPUS erto
retu
Park
Fullerton
e
Pano
Natur
serve
91 MO
EPP A
N AV
A
nce
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
Transit Route
Local Bus Route
Community Bus Route
Bus Rapid Transit Route
Xpress Stop Service
Metrolink Rail Line
Metrolink Rail Stop
OCTA Transit Center
Existing Park and Ride
Transit Network

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
Proposed App Based Rideshare
Locations
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Existing | Planned
123
123
29 37
37 37
43 47
26 30 30
26 35
35 35
143
143
143
543
143
26 26
30 153
153
129
xx
57 57X

CORE AREA CORE AREA
Fullerton College
Fullerton Union High School
Fullerton First United Methodist Preschool
Florence Crittenton
School

WALNUT AVE

AMERIGE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE LEMON ST

CHAPMAN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

HARBOR BLVD

HIGHLAND AVE COMMONWEALTH AVE

MALDEN AVE

WHITING AVE

FORD AVE

JACARANDA PL

WHITING AVE
Amerige Park
Plaza Park
Downtown Plaza
Union Pacific Park
Figure 15. Transit Network
42 VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

YORBA LINDA BLVD

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE

RAYM ND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST

ARBOLADODR

CAMINO SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE

BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

LONGVIEW
DR

C MPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

TERRAZAPL

RICHMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR BERKELEY

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI GTREE RD

BEACH BLVD

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M AL LDR

IMPERIAL HWY

LAMBERT RD

Clark Park
Brea Dam
Park
Fullerton
Tennis Center
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton
City Golf
Course
Craig
Regional
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Bastanchury
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama
Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks
Laguna
Lake Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Pacific Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91
LE
RAYM
VD
R
H E B
PE A
R AV
BROO
RN
MPUS erto
retu
Park
Fullerton Fu
e
Pano
Natur
serve
echwood
91 MO
EPP A
GH
N AV
A
nce
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
0 - 12000
12000 - 22000
22000 - 32000
32000 - 42000
420000 - 100000
Traffic Volumes

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Average Annual Daily Traffic
Figure 16. Vehicle Traffic Volumes
Fullerton On The Go | Existing Conditions
43 VEHICLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Figure 16 shows the Average Annual Daily Traffic along
major roadways within the City. The red lines indicate
that those roadways have a vehicular volume of
42,000 to 100,000 AADT. Major roadways that have high
vehicle traffic volumes, such as Harbor Boulevard in
Downtown, create a stressful environment for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling on these major corridors.

Commonwealth Avenue, on the other hand, has lower
traffic volumes and may feel more comfortable for people bicycling and walking.

EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES
To ensure the Downtown Fullerton Active Transportation
Plan is consistent with and builds upon the efforts of
various plans, policies, and regulations, a comprehensive review was conducted of relevant documents. These
include the City’s General Plan, Specific Plans, and
regional plans. The full list and detailed descriptions of plans reviewed are listed in Appendix A. This plan will serve to update policies within the City’s General Plan with respect to active transportation within Downtown.

Drivers in encroach on a yellow school crosswalk near Downtown 44 Community
Engagement
03 Fullerton On The Go | Community Engagement
45 Community Engagement
Engaging the Fullerton community is a priority for the
City’s current active transportation planning efforts.

Since this project kicked off in August 2020, a variety of outreach opportunities were used to seek input from
diverse stakeholders. The City engaged with stakeholders throughout the planning process to:
• Develop a vision for active transportation to/from and around Downtown Fullerton
• Understand challenges and barriers to walking and
bicycling in the City
• Identify and refine active transportation projects to support the City’s goals
Engagement was conducted in two phases:
• Phase 1: Understand community specific challenges
and needs
• Phase 2: Sharing ideas for improvement, gather
feedback, and prioritize investments
This chapter provides an overview of the various
engagement methods used in these phases, as well as a
summary of feedback received.

Community Stakeholders
To help guide this planning process, a number of
stakeholders were engaged throughout this process. The
City’s Active Transportation Commission (ATC), composed of Fullerton residents and advocates convened
throughout the project to help shape the vision and
goals, engagement methods, and recommendations.

Stakeholder Group meetings took place during regularly
scheduled ATC meetings, which are open to participation by the public. During the meetings, community members
were encouraged to share their thoughts on the Plan
topics being discussed.

The City also met with the California State University
- Fullerton Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, which
offers various education and health services designed to improve residents’ well-being. The Center facilitated two bilingual meetings with residents of the neighborhood
south of Downtown Fullerton, a part of the City that
qualifies as disadvantaged per CalEnviroScreen.
46 Residents of this community shared their challenges to traveling to and from Downtown, including:
• limited and uncomfortable opportunities to cross the
railroad tracks on foot or on bike
• lack of pedestrian-scale lighting
• uplifted sidewalks or sidewalks that have vegetation
encroaching on the walkway
• drivers speeding and/or turning into a crosswalk
without looking
• areas where pedestrians tend to cross outside of the
crosswalk or outside of designated times. This behavior is particularly notable near Fullerton High School and
Fullerton College.

Online Map
An interactive public input map was posted on the
Downtown Fullerton Active Transportation Plan website
and used throughout development of this Plan to gather
input and feedback from the community directly on
a map of the project area. The map showed multiple
suggested self-guided audit routes in and around
Downtown that stakeholders were encouraged to
traverse and provide feedback on. However, participants were also able to provide input on other streets and
intersections in the project area. Participants could also review previous comments left by other participants and vote to either like or dislike the comments.

From May to August 2021, stakeholders were encouraged
to place pins on the map and add comments about
existing conditions for four different categories: safety and comfort; sidewalks, paths, and bikeways; crossings
and intersections; and observed driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior. Through these comments, participants identified desired improvements, challenging locations
for bicycling and walking, and other information about
active transportation in and around Downtown Fullerton, including:
• Walk phase signal times that are too brief for
pedestrians to cross the street
• Speeding along arterials and collectors, such as
Chapman Avenue and Malden Avenue, make walking
and biking uncomfortable and unsafe
• Some drivers turn without first looking in the crosswalk, or do not stop at stop signs near crosswalks
• A lack of pedestrian-scale lighting in the pedestrian access area around Downtown
• Spot treatments are needed, such as improved
crossings, for people riding bikes
• Sidewalk treatments are needed, such as fixed uplifted sidewalks and filled in sidewalk gaps. These treatments are especially needed for strollers and people who use
mobility devices like wheelchairs
• Curb ramps are missing at several locations, limiting ADA accessibility
The comments received through this tool informed
the recommended bicycle and pedestrian network
improvements.

Fullerton On The Go | Community Engagement
47 The Fullerton on the Go online input map
48 Online Survey
The City distributed an online survey to gather input
on walking and bicycling challenges, preferences, and
opportunities throughout Downtown. The survey was
made available online and advertised at meetings and
the virtual workshop, and through City email notifications and social media. The survey was open June through
August 2021 and received over 130 responses. Survey
participants were asked about their current modes for
getting to and through Downtown and what types of
improvements might encourage more walking, biking, and
rolling.

Key takeaways from the online survey include:
• Most participants walk or bike in Downtown because
they enjoy it and it saves them money
• The most chosen reasons that participants do not walk Downtown more often is Downtown is too far away to be
practical, and concerns about fast moving traffic and
crossing at intersections
• The most chosen reasons that participants do not bike Downtown more often is concerns about fast moving
traffic, crossing at intersections, and personal safety 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0
10 20
30 40
Less than Never
once
a month
A few
times a
month
Daily or
multiple
times a
week
Less than Never
once
a month
A few
times a
month
Daily or
multiple
times a
week
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0
10 20
30 40
Less than Never
once
a month
A few
times a
month
Daily or
multiple
times a
week
Less than Never
once
a month
A few
times a
month
Daily or
multiple
times a
week
How often survey respondents walk to/from
Downtown Fullerton
36 (27.07%)
12 (9.02%)
36 (27.07%)
15 (11.28%)
55 (41.35%)
26 (19.55%) 22
(16.54%)
34 (25.56%)
How often survey respondents ride a bicycle to/from
Downtown Fullerton
Fullerton On The Go | Community Engagement
49 Media

PROJECT WEBSITE
The City developed a web page for the Plan, where
stakeholders were able to learn about the planning
process, see upcoming outreach events, use digital input tools, and download draft maps and other deliverables at key milestones.

SOCIAL MEDIA
The City has over 12,500 followers on Facebook and
nearly 8,000 followers on Instagram. Throughout the
planning process, posts on these platforms notified
residents of upcoming events, online engagement
tools, draft documents available for review, and other
project milestones. The City also placed multiple ads
on Facebook to increase the number of stakeholders
reached.

Community Workshop
The City hosted a virtual workshop via Zoom meeting
on June 2021 from 5:30-7:00 PM, with 22 stakeholders in attendance. During this workshop, the City presented an overview of the vision and goals of the Plan and existing conditions data collected thus far. Participants were
then given an opportunity to share their concerns and
provide suggestions for improving conditions and better connecting Downtown to its surrounding neighborhoods.

Attendees shared a variety of feedback during the
workshop. Key themes include:

The Fullerton on the Go website was used to share project updates and collect feedback on deliverables.

The City placed branded ads on multiple social media accounts to increase community participation.
50 • Support for new active transportation infrastructure throughout Downtown and surrounding areas
• New and/or improved facilities, such as crossings,
updated sidewalks, longer pedestrian intervals, bike
paths, and bike parking would help biking, walking,
and rolling feel safer and make key destinations more
accessible
• Creating Class I shared use paths along flood control channels and channelized creeks would help connect
active transportation users to destinations Downtown
while being separated from vehicles
• Education is needed to curb dangerous driver,
pedestrian, and bicyclist behaviors such as vehicle
speeding, crossing against red lights, and rolling
through stop signs
• There is support for outdoor dining, but measures
should be taken to ensure pedestrian sidewalk space is
not removed when creating these spaces
• There should be safer pedestrian infrastructure
leading to transit stops Downtown
Mobile Workshops
To help refine draft recommendations and priority
projects, the City held mobile workshops at the Downtown Plaza Farmer’s Market, the Fullerton Community Center
Farmer’s Market, the open street outdoor dining space
Walk on Wilshire, and the Fullerton Transportation Center.

At each event, attendees were encouraged to review
maps of the draft network recommendations and indicate
anything missing as well as their highest priority projects.

Key takeaways from these mobile workshops include:
• Community members would like Walk on Wilshire to be
made permanent
• There was support for the recommended bicycle
network, with suggestions to expand it to connect the
Fullerton Train Station and the Santa Ana Trail and to
include more north-south bicycle facilities
• Additional lighting recommendations should be made
along Commonwealth Avenue, Harbor Boulevard and
Chapman Avenue
• Pedestrian improvements such as curb ramps,
scramble crosswalks, and wider sidewalks would make
walking Downtown feel safer and more accessible
• Traffic calming efforts and driver education is needed to keep active transportation users safe
Key Needs
Community engagement helped identify many
opportunities to improve mobility in Downtown Fullerton and support the goals established in Chapter 2.

Assessing current conditions is a key step to developing recommendations for where and how to invest in
infrastructure and programs that promote walking
and biking as common and convenient modes of
transportation.

Fullerton On The Go | Community Engagement
51 The following key findings from public input helped guide the recommendations process:
• Several high-stress, regional corridors run through
Downtown, which inhibit walking and biking.
• Collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists are
occurring at higher rates along key corridors in
Downtown, such as Harbor Boulevard and Lemon Street.
• The rail prevents safe and convenient access for
Fullerton residents who want to bike and walk to
Downtown from neighborhoods to the south.
• Additional bikeways are needed to create a better
connected, continuous network to Downtown
destinations.
• At Downtown intersections, active transportation users need to be prioritized through crossing improvements,
such as increased crossing time and bicycle signal
detection.

Technical Working Group
In addition to engagement with Fullerton community
members, a Technical Working Group (TWG) was convened
to allow various City staff to provide input on the planning effort and project deliverables. The 15 TWG members
included staff from the Department of Community and
Economic Development - Planning Division and multiple
divisions within Public Works. The TWG reviewed and
commented on recommended bicycle and pedestrian
network improvements with respect to existing plans,
policies, programs, and upcoming projects. This helped
shape how improvements prioritized. The project team discussed issues and ideas at multiple farmers markets in Downtown.
52 Policies &
Programs
04 Fullerton On The Go | Policies & Programs
53 Policies & Programs
Policies and Goals
The policies and goals of this Plan build on other City plans such as the Fullerton General Plan, the Bicycle
Master Plan, the Pedestrian Safety Assessment,
and related work completed on the draft Fullerton
Transportation Specific Plan. This Plan will help
supplement and update the Bicycle Master Plan, focusing primarily on Downtown Fullerton, in the future. The
following goals were refined through collaboration with the Stakeholder Group, Technical Working Group, and
community input.

The Plan is organized around a vision statement and
goals tied to a series of specific policies and actions.

Implementation of the Plan will take place in small steps over many years. Chapter 8 provides a road map for
achieving the vision and goals established here by
outlining implementation strategies, cost estimates,
funding strategies, and maintenance approaches.

GOAL 1: COMMUNITY HEALTH
Empower residents to live a more active lifestyle by
providing a network of safe and comfortable walking
routes and bikeways to support active transportation
to important destinations and amenities in Downtown
Fullerton.

POLICY ACTIONS
A. Promote an active
lifestyle that includes
biking and walking.

1. Consistent with the Fullerton General
Plan increase access to parks, open
spaces, recreational facilities, local
businesses and other key destinations
in Downtown.

2. Make active transportation a viable
option for residents traveling to key
destinations.

3. Generate active, walkable streets, shade
trees, and safe pedestrian crossings.

B. Support community
health of residents by
reducing air pollution,
asthma rates, and
greenhouse gas
emissions.

1. Develop a bicycle and pedestrian
network that allows residents and
visitors of Downtown Fullerton to choose
active modes of transportation by
providing low-stress, well connected
facilities and integrating bicycling and
walking with transit.

2. Revise language under Fullerton
General Plan Existing Policy 5.2 to
implement programs, policies and
physical improvements to support
targeted reductions in automobile
vehicle miles traveled annually as
residents, workers, and visitors meet
daily needs by walking, biking, and
using transit.
54 GOAL 2: ACCESS & COMFORT
Increase access to Downtown destinations such as
libraries, transit stops, and commercial areas. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be accessible and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities to use by reducing fatalities and severe injuries involving people walking and biking through Downtown.

POLICY ACTIONS
A. Increase access to jobs,
shopping centers, parks,
recreation centers, transit,
and other neighborhood
destinations.

1. Maintain a pedestrian through zone free from all types of obstructions including poles, benches, utility boxes, etc.

2. Revise language under Fullerton General Plan Existing Policy 6.2 to work with adjacent cities to eliminate barriers and facilitate ways to get across barriers to travel such as discontinuous bike lanes, sidewalks, and paths.

B. Plan for safe routes to
schools that allow for
increased mode choice and
safety for students traveling
to and from school.

1. Work with School Districts that serve Fullerton students, and the school community (teachers, administrators, students, parents/ caregivers, and neighbors) to identify infrastructure improvements that make walking and bicycling to school a safer option for students.

2. Utilize school walk audits to identify priority infrastructure improvements close to schools within the City to produce a safer walking and biking environment. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop infrastructure improvements close to schools located outside of Fullerton but serve Fullerton residents.

3. Identify infrastructure improvements in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety to adjacent schools.

4. Assist school districts, as needed, with providing bicycle racks to public schools that serve Fullerton students, or add additional racks at schools in need of more bicycle parking.

5. Reduce school zone speeds from 25 mph to 15 mph, particularly in zones with high traffic volumes.

6. Install traffic calming and other speed reduction measures to further incentivize drivers to travel the reduced speed limit in school zones as needed.

7. Create pedestrian and bicycle route maps for parents and students walking and/or biking to school.

C. Develop a wayfinding system
to direct bicyclists and
pedestrians to destinations
in Downtown Fullerton.

1. Implement and integrate a system of wayfinding signage to help expand access to walking and biking destinations.

2. Provide information on wayfinding signs such as distance and time to promote walking and biking.

Fullerton On The Go | Policies & Programs
55 POLICY ACTIONS
A. Establish a
comprehensive network
of low-stress bicycle
facilities that increases
access to regional
destinations and public
transportation routes.

1. Consistent with the Fullerton General
Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan,
continue to build citywide and
regional connections for the bicycle
and pedestrian network.

2. Revise language under Fullerton
General Plan Existing Policy 6.6
to prioritize implementation
of pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure that connects
to schools, parks, healthcare,
community services, employment
centers, grocery stores, and other
key destinations.

B. Expand the bicycle and
pedestrian network
by identifying specific
network gaps.

1. Increase first-last-mile connections
to encourage more bicycle and
pedestrian travel in Downtown
Fullerton.

2. Identifying intersections for
improvements to reduce bicycle
and pedestrian conflicts with
automobiles.

3. When possible, evaluate
intersections and locations for
installing new or enhancing existing
crosswalks, curb extensions,
pedestrian-scale lighting,
bicycle infrastructure and other
improvements.

GOAL 3: EXPAND THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

NETWORK
Identify, develop, and maintain a complete bicycle and
pedestrian network by identifying specific network gaps.

Promote walking and biking for all residents by balancing street design for people of all ages and abilities.
56 GOAL 4: PROVIDE A SAFER MULTI-MODAL NETWORK
Improve safety for active transportation users through
the design and maintenance of sidewalks, streets,
intersections, and other roadway improvements to
enhance the safety of people walking and bicycling.

POLICY ACTIONS
A. Reduce conflicts between
transportation modes by
utilizing a layered approach to
complete streets.

1. Install more street lights and prioritize new lighting installations at locations with higher pedestrian and bicycle activity or where known safety concerns exist.

2. Add language under Fullerton General Plan Existing Policy 6.13 to use innovative designs to create safety enhancements using guidance from organizations such as National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as well as applicable state and federal design guidelines.

B. Facilitate multi-modal
transportation through first-and last-mile mobility options and smooth transitions
between modes as indicated in
the Fullerton General Plan and
Bicycle Master Plan.

1. Install additional bicycle and pedestrian safer crossings across major arterial and collector streets that will connect residents to Downtown Fullerton.

2. Design bikeways and pedestrian facilities that safely facilitate first- and last-mile connections to transit as well as amenities at transit locations such as bike parking.

3. Explore opportunities to provide secure long-term bike parking at transit stops including electric bike charging stations.

4. Partner with shared new mobility providers to ensure everyone has access to a variety of non-vehicle transportation options.

C. Improve streetscape and
public areas to increase safety
for pedestrians and bicycle
users.

1. Provide more pedestrian amenities such as benches and covered waiting areas at transit stops.

2. Support streetscape enhancements, public art, and other placemaking strategies that encourage active transportation.

3. Plant new street trees to provide shade, physical separation from auto traffic, and a more inviting pedestrian realm.

4. Install and/or upgrade streetscape and public amenities to improve access for pedestrians with mobility challenges.

5. Incorporate landscaping as part of the infrastructure projects where feasible.

6. Encourage longer-term outdoor dining options and car-free streets to encourage residents to use active transportation and support local businesses.

Fullerton On The Go | Policies & Programs
57 POLICY ACTIONS
A. Prioritize the needs and trip
patterns of disadvantaged
communities in the City to
access Downtown using active
transportation.

1. Create a more walkable Downtown for all through equity in public engagement, accessibility, planning, and capital investments.

2. Prioritize the construction of facilities that connect existing active transportation networks and address disparities between neighborhoods.

3. Prioritize design that facilitates access, comfort, and ease for all users, including people with physical disabilities, strollers, etc.

4. Partner with community and advocacy groups to provide educational resources and walking and biking accessories (lights, helmets, etc.) to disadvantaged communities.

5. Create accessible and culturally appropriate opportunities for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income to engage in the decision-making process.

B. Address barriers so that
vulnerable populations can
take part in the improvements.1

1. Prioritize the implementation of active transportation facilities in low-income neighborhood areas.

2. Provide low-stress and affordable connections to Downtown.

3. Build an accessible pedestrian and bicycle network that encourages the use of walking and biking as a low-cost transportation options and connects community residents to public transportation.

GOAL 5: EQUITY
Active transportation improvements will prioritize the
needs of neighborhoods that rely on walking, biking,
rolling, and transit.
1 Vulnerable populations are those that historically have less access to active transportation due to various socioeconomic disparities such as income level. 58 GOAL 6: SUSTAINABILITY
Address climate change and enhance the natural
environment including carbon and heat reductions,
clean air, and stormwater management through
implementation of shade, green infrastructure, and more.

POLICY ACTIONS
A. Improve air quality by
encouraging and enabling
residents to travel without the
use of a private vehicle.

1. Encourage local residents to choose modes of transportation other than driving by providing a low-stress network, enhanced pedestrian network, and first-last-mile access to transit.

2. Replace vehicle trips with more sustainable modes such as walking, bicycling and taking transit.

3. Implement programs, policies, and physical improvements to support targeted reductions in automobile vehicle miles traveled annually as residents, workers, and visitors meet daily needs by walking and biking.

Fullerton On The Go | Policies & Programs
59 GOAL 7: EDUCATION
Promote more walking and biking through expanded
pedestrian education campaigns, community events, and
encouragement programs.

POLICY ACTIONS
A. Introduce and promote
education, encouragement,
and outreach for pedestrians
and bicyclists programs.

1. Add language under Fullerton General Plan Existing Policy 6.10 to develop effective safety programs for youths, adults, and seniors that educate pedestrians and drivers of their rights and responsibilities.

2. Continue to support and participate in Bike to Work day and other bike promotion events.

3. Integrate bicycling and walking encouragement programs into existing programs and events where possible.

4. Require large employers to develop and maintain Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by their employees.

5. Encourage businesses to apply for Bicycle Friendly Business status with the League of American Bicyclists.

6. Implement programming to develop awareness in new and changing infrastructure among multi-model users.

B. Conduct comprehensive
community outreach to
engage with students,
parents/caregivers, staff,
and the community to design
and implement a program
that makes using active
transportation modes to
and from schools safer and
increases the percentage of
students arriving using active
transportation.

1. Collaborate with regional safe routes to school programs to increase awareness of existing efforts, programs, and resources.

2. Participate and expand support for Walk to School Day and Bike to School Day.

3. Continue to encourage Walking School Bus and/or Bike Train to incentivize pedestrian and bicycling behavior in a supervised manner and report on progress.

4. Assist the school districts in establishing promotional campaigns to encourage students and parents to walk or roll to school.

5. Explore providing “Drive Your Bike” programming to middle school and high school aged students to prepare them to bicycle safely to school and around their neighborhoods. 60 GOAL 8: FUNDING & IMPLEMENTATION
Implement a pedestrian and bicycle network through
already-funded projects and future grant opportunities.

Coordinate with adjacent cities, the County, other
regional efforts within the area.

POLICY ACTIONS
A. Integrate bicycle and
pedestrian network and
facility needs into all Fullerton
planning documents and
capital improvement projects.

1. Review the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list on an annual basis to ensure that recommended projects from this Plan are incorporated at the earliest stage of both new capital projects and maintenance of existing facilities.

2. Evaluate all streets during pavement resurfacing to determine if additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities can be provided (e.g. bike lanes, wide curb lanes or shoulders, wider sidewalks) when the striping is reapplied.

B. Leverage existing funding to
maximize project delivery.

1. Utilizing City funds as a local match if needed, aggressively pursue funding from available grant sources.

2. Actively develop projects from the Plan to position the City to best compete for grant funding.

3. Continue preparing an annual Work Plan including the status of pedestrian and bicycle projects in this Plan that have been completed, are in progress, and are proposed for the budget year showing scope, schedule, and budget by fund source.

4. Through the CIP process, assess and prepare for upcoming staffing, consultant, and capital funding needs as projects arise.

5. Encourage the development of a Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) to help support the construction and maintenance of street improvement projects.

C. Maintain designated facilities
to be comfortable and free of
hazards to biking and walking.

1. Sweep streets regularly, with priority given to those with higher pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

2. Develop a procedure for inspection and maintenance of bicycle parking facilities in Downtown Fullerton.

3. When roadway projects occur, require roadway to be of satisfactory quality for smoothness and restriping suitable for bicycling.

Fullerton On The Go | Policies & Programs
61 Education
Provide information
to pedestrians,
bicyclists,and
drivers related
to safely sharing
the road. Educate
residents about the
environmental and
financial benefits
of using active
transportation.

Encouragement
Promote active
transportation as fun
and efficient methods
of transportation, and
provide special events
that encourage walking
and biking.

Engagement
Promote community-based engagement
around unsafe travel
behaviors can help
establish norms
and expectations of
those using active
transportation and
those driving motor
vehicles.

Engineering
Install bicycle and
pedestrian physical
infrastructure to
support safe and
comfortable active
transportation.

Equity
All community members,
particularly those
from disadvantaged
communities, should
have equitable access
to active transportation.

Programming materials
should be strategically
targeted to reach these
communities.

Evaluation
The City should monitor
the success of the
programming efforts to
ensure the programs
are achieving the
desired outcomes.

Programs
Active transportation programs help people of all
ages and abilities realize the full potential of this Plan’s recommended Downtown Fullerton active transportation
network. These types of programs help people learn
how to use roads safely, increase access to bicycling
1 National Partnership for Safe Routes to School, 2020. https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/safe-routes-school/101/6-Es and walking, and encourage community and economic
development. Together these efforts can help make riding or walking in Downtown Fullerton a safer, easier, and
more enjoyable experience.

Communities that have high rates of walking and
bicycling often use a “6E’s” approach: 1
62 Programmatic Recommendations
The following section lists examples of programs to
complement the network recommendations in Chapter

6. Some of these programs are already established in
Fullerton and can be expanded upon. When possible, the
City will continue to develop and support the following existing programs in Fullerton, helping to achieve safety and equity goals by educating the public about the new
and recommended network and encouraging people of
all ages and abilities to bike or walk for any trip purpose.

Additional, new programs can be considered for future
implementation to further advance the goals of this
Plan, as funding becomes available. While the City is
responsible for the implementation of this Plan, several of the programs are also an opportunity to work with
stakeholders such as community-based organizations,
school districts, neighboring jurisdictions, and transit providers.

Fullerton On The Go | Policies & Programs
63 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ( )
In line with the 6 E’s approach, National Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs encourage walking, biking, and
rolling to school as safe and fun modes of transportation.

Often, SRTS programs involve an engineering component
in which the City can audit streets around schools
to determine needed infrastructure improvements,
or to identify preferred walking and biking routes for
students. Through SRTS programs, students learn how
to safely cross the street, use pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure, and obey the rules of the road.

These tools help students learn how to navigate their
communities using active transportation, and will
eventually help them become safer drivers. Walking
or biking to school can prepare students for the day
through physical activity, and it also prevents traffic congestion around schools during pick up and drop off
times.

In 2021, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
led a county-wide Safe Routes to School program but,
in Fullerton, these efforts only included Orangethorpe
Elementary. The City can partner with OCTA and local
organizations, such as Orange County Walk ‘n Rollers, to expand these efforts to more schools in the Fullerton’s school districts. Programming could include:
• Teaching active transportation curriculum
• Bicycle rodeos
• Walking school buses and bike trains, during which an adult walks or bikes with a group of students to school • Crossing guards at key intersections near schools
• Helmet fitting events
• Walk and roll to school days, which often feature fun activities and group walks and rides for students and
parents to encourage them to continue walking and
rolling to school
Various policies and actions will help the City implement a Safe Routes to School program and are listed in
Chapter 2.
64 BIKE RODEOS ( )
Bike Rodeos are interactive events for elementary school students to learn the rules of the road as a bicyclist.

Children learn how to signal, where to ride their bikes, and how their helmets should fit. Bike Rodeos are often an after school program, and can encourage parents
and their children to take active transportation to school.

Past bike rodeos have been coordinated by the Fullerton School District and should be supported by the City in
the future, as standalone events or part of a larger Safe Routes to School program.

BICYCLING SKILLS CLASSES ( )
Most adults biking have not received training on safe
bicycling practices, the rules of the road, and bicycle handling skills. Bicycling skills classes can address this education gap. With a large planned increase in bicycle infrastructure in the coming years, the City should
sponsor and partner with other organizations to provide Adult Bicycle Skills classes as a way to encourage people who are inexperienced or less comfortable biking to try out new facilities. The League of American Bicyclists
offers classes taught by certified instructors. Classes can teach residents about proper usage of bicycle
infrastructure, how to bicycle defensively, and how to
navigate the bicycle network. Classes can be taught
by the League of American Cyclists League Cycling
Instructors (LCIs). The Orange County Walk ‘n Rollers lead these types of workshops for all ages.

Fullerton On The Go | Policies & Programs
65 SAFE ROUTES FOR SENIORS ( )
Safe Routes for Seniors programming caters to older
residents to ensure they have safe access to pedestrian infrastructure. These programs can encourage active,
healthy habits through group walks and education
classes, and can bring awareness to necessary street
improvements such as longer crossing times for streets
with high numbers of senior pedestrians. In partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA), seniors in Fullerton have access to the OC Go
Senior Mobility Program (SMP) which provides local
transportation services to the Fullerton Community
Center, and reduced prices for transit services.

CYCLING CLUBS ( )
There are several bicycle shops in Fullerton which host group bicycle rides and events, including East West Bikes in Downtown Fullerton, and Fullerton Bicycles just outside of the project area. Additionally, there are bicycling clubs in the county, such as the Orange County Wheelmen,
which encourage safe and fun group bicycle riding.

OPEN STREET EVENTS ( )
Open streets events temporarily close streets to vehicle traffic, and open up to people walking, biking, and
rolling. These events can promote active transportation, and build connections in the community. Open streets
can also be used to teach bicycle education, test a
demonstration project, and engage with residents. The
annual Downtown Fullerton Fourth of July bicycle parade, which draws hundreds of bicyclists of all ages, is an
example of an open streets event that can encourage
community members to ride their bicycles more
frequently, and give confidence and experience to new
bicyclists.
66 BICYCLE FRIENDLY DESIGNATIONS ( )
The League of American Bicyclists awards various Bicycle Friendly designations including businesses, universities, and communities. Bicycle friendly businesses are
recognized for their efforts in encouraging employees
to bike to work. Employers may offer incentives like
bicycle equipment subsidies and encourage bicycling by
participating in bike to work days and bicycle events in the city, offering shared bicycles for employees, providing bicycle parking, showers, and repair tools, and inviting instructors to teach employees safe bicycling skills.

Bicycle friendly universities are recognized for promoting and providing a more bikeable campus for students, staff, and visitors. Universities can encourage and support
bicycling by incorporating bike share programs, bike
clubs, bike education classes, and policies to promote
bicycling as a preferred means of transportation.

Bicycle friendly communities are recognized for providing safe facilities and encouraging people to bike more
often. This can be done through additional and improved bikeways and amenities like bike parking, as well as
through implementation of programs to encourage
bicycling for transportation and recreation.

The City should encourage Downtown businesses,
Fullerton College, and CSU Fullerton to apply for these awards. The City should apply for a bicycle friendly
community award, particularly as recommended projects
in this Plan get implemented. These designations are
beneficial when the City seeks grant funding.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
67 CARPOOL, VANPOOL AND

TELECOMMUTING ( )
For commuters who must drive to work, carpool options
limit the number of cars on the road and reduce parking spaces needed. OCTA offers Orange County residents
incentives to take and organize carpool and vanpool
routes, and has resources for employers who want to
implement permanent telecommuting systems.

REDUCING PARKING DEMAND ( )
In order to deter residents from driving and parking
in high traffic areas like Downtown Fullerton, parking
should be limited or metered. Parking spaces can be time restricted to prevent long term parking, and can require payment which can then be used by the City to maintain
and build better active transportation infrastructure.

Currently, the City limits most parking Downtown to 2-3 hours during the day, and has launched a night time paid parking pilot program for weekend evenings. The City can reward businesses who subsidize bicycle costs, or transit pass costs, which in turn reduce parking demand.

BIKE LIGHT CHECKPOINTS ( )
Bike light checkpoints are set up in the evening to stop bicyclists who are riding without a light. The checkpoints give lights to bicyclists who need them, and educate
bicyclists about the dangers of riding at night. These
checkpoints can also prevent future citations for
bicyclists riding without a light.

SURVEYS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

COUNTS ( )
Surveys and active transportation counts can track
walking and biking patterns before and after the
installation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
and after a programmatic event to evaluate if the
improvement increased active transportation use.

MINI-DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ( )
Mini-demonstration projects allow Fullerton to test out new infrastructure temporarily, and collect feedback
from community members before permanent installation.

Materials for mini-demonstrations can include traffic
tape, temporary paint, or cones, and work best for
demonstrating bike lanes, curb extensions, traffic
circles, parklets, pedestrian islands, and slow streets.

These projects can last as short as a few hours during a community event, or can last as long as several weeks.
68 Infrastructure
Recommendations
05 Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations 69 Infrastructure
Recommendations
This chapter introduces the active transportation
infrastructure and supporting amenities that can help
improve the City’s existing active transportation network, as well as the overall strategy used to evaluate which
types of facilities could be implemented at specific
locations across Downtown. These recommendations are
considered planning-level, meaning they will be used
as a guide when implementing projects. In some cases,
additional studies, traffic impact analysis, and more
detailed design analysis will be required to determine the best type of facilities for specific locations. Additionally, all recommended improvements are pending availability
of funding.

How Recommended Projects were
Developed
Developing recommendations is a multi-step process
that requires understanding community feedback,
existing conditions, and project feasibility, among other factors. Key themes from stakeholder input guided
the recommendations. Roadways and areas that were
mentioned multiple times across different engagement
methods were a high priority for recommended projects
and included whenever possible.
70 Class III Bicycle Route: Signed routes for bicyclists on low-speed, low-volume streets where roadway space is shared with vehicles.

Class IIIB Bike Boulevard: Bicycle routes that are
further enhanced with traffic calming features or other treatments that prioritize bicycle comfort.

Class IV Separated Bikeways: Class IV facilities are
separated from traffic by a physical barrier, such as a curb, median, or bollards. Also called a “cycle track” or “ protected bike lane”. These facilities are most helpful on streets with high traffic volume.

BIKEWAY CLASS EXISTING
(MILES)

RECOMMENDED

IN THIS PLAN
(MILES)
TOTAL
(MILES)
Class I
Shared-Use Path 5 1.7 6.7
Class II
Bike Lanes 25 11.3 36.3
Class IIb
Buffered Bike
Lanes
0 13.5 13.5
Class III
Bike Routes 14 7.9 21.9
Class IIIb
Bike Boulevards 2 9.9 11.9
Class IV
Separated
Bikeways
0 3.0 3.0
Total 46 47.3 93.3
Table 1. Miles of Recommended Bikeways within Downtown
Bikeshed, by Class
Recommended Bicycle Projects

NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Built on the needs analysis and public outreach, this
section presents the recommended bicycle network for
the City of Fullerton. Prior to the development of this Plan, the City had approximately 46 miles of existing bicycle facilities. An additional 47 miles of upgraded and new
bikeways are proposed in this Plan for Downtown, which
are broken down in Table 1 and shown in Figure 17.

In order to make regional bikeway connections
into Downtown, some recommendations are made
outside of the 2-mile Downtown core bikeshed. The
recommendations outside of this area can be seen in
Appendix E.

Different types of bicycle facilities are better suited for different roadways, based on considerations such as
vehicle speeds, volumes, the roadway width, and other
types of transportation using the space. The following
bicycle facilities have been recommended throughout
Downtown Fullerton.

Class I Bike Path: Class I Bike Paths are off-street facilities located in a separate right-of-way from the roadway and for the exclusive use for bicycles and pedestrians.

Class II Bike Lane: Class II Bike Lanes are on-street
facilities dedicated to bicycles and identified with lane striping.

Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane: Bicycle lanes that include a striped “buffer” area either between the bicycle lane and the travel lane or between the bicycle lane and parked
cars.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
71 ¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

R CI HMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO
RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
Fullerton Creek
Greenbelt
Chapman Park
Emery
Park
Fullerton Arboretum
Fullerton Sports Complex
Gilman Park
Virgil "Gus"
Grissom Park
Independence
Park
Lemon Park
Rolling Hills Park
Vista Park
West
Coyote Hills
Tree Park
West Coyote
Hills
Park
Edward H. White
II Park
Ralph B. Clark Park
Brea
Dam Park
Coyote Hills Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton City Golf
Course
Craig Regional
Park
Muckenthaler Cultural Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Bastanchury Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature
Preserve
Panorama Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Ladera
Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Paci c Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
0 0.5 1
Miles
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IIIB Bike Boulevard
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Long-Term Future Study
Corridor
Trail

EXISTING & PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
Intersection Improvement
Bike/Ped Bridge
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Existing | Proposed

CORE AREA
Ford
Park
Truslow Park
Plaza Park
Amerige Park
Union
Pacific
Park
MALDEN
AVE

TRUSLOW AVE
POMONA
AVE
POMONA
AVE
HARBOR
BLVD

WILSHIRE AVE

TRUSLOW
AVE

FORD AVE

LAWRENCE AVE

MALDEN AVE

H GI HLAND AVE

LIBRARY LN

ELLIS PL

MALVERN AVE

LEMON ST

R CI HMAN AVE

LAWRENCE
AVE

COLLEGE
PL

NEWELL PL

WHITING AVE

WAL N UT WAY

H GI HLAND AVE

R CI HMAN AVE

WALNUT AVE
ELLIS
LN

PATTERSON
WAY

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

AMERIGE AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

JACARANDA PL
Fullerton
Union High
School
Florence
Crittenton
School
Berkeley
School
Fullerton First
United Methodist
Preschool
Fullerton
College
Figure 17. Recommended Bicycle Projects
72 The majority of these recommended bikeways are
new projects where bikeways do not exist today, while
a portion include recommendations to upgrade an
existing or previously planned bikeway. All recommended projects are planning-level and final designs will
depend on additional community engagement, study
by Public Works, and secured funding. On certain
streets, potential trade-offs to implementing dedicated bikeways, like removal or parking or travel lanes, will need to be analyzed before any implementation occurs.

Recommended bicycle projects are shown in Figure 17 on
page 71 and detailed in Table 2.

The recommendations marked with an asterisk indicate
that the recommendation has been upgraded from
the recommendation in the City of Fullerton Bicycle
Master Plan. Since the completion of the Bicycle Master Plan in 2012, standards for bicycle infrastructure have improved, and the recommendations in Table 2 reflect
those improvements. Some of the recommended
projects in this Plan seek to update certain bikeways to address more recent safety data, barriers expressed by
community stakeholders, and/or updated federal bikeway
guidelines.1 These improvements include changes such
as the addition of a buffer on a Class II bike lane, the enhancement of a Class III bike route to a bike boulevard, or a new recommended Class IV separated bikeway.2
1 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf

2. Implementation of the recommended Class IV on State College would require removal of a travel lane in each direction. Feasibility and impact will be studied extensively prior to any implementation.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
73 CORRIDOR ROUTE FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES) COST ESTIMATE

POTENTIAL

PARKING
LOSS1
Bastanchury Rd Malvern Ave to Euclid St Class II 1.3 $503,100 No Bastanchury Rd* Euclid St to State College Blvd Class IIb 3.2 $1,344,000 No Pioneer Ave Sunny Ridge Dr to Gilbert St Class III 0.3 $7,710 No Valencia Mesa Dr Bastanchury Rd to Youth Way Class IIIb 1.6 $1,020,000 No West Valley View Dr Euclid St to Harbor Blvd Class III 1.0 $25,700 No Nicolas St Hughes Dr to Benchley St Class III 0.1 $2,570 No Benchley St Nicolas St to Pioneer Ave Class III 0.4 $10,280 No Hughes Dr* Bastanchury Rd to Nicolas St Class IIIb 0.3 $306,000 No Hughes Dr Nicolas St to Gilbert St Class IIIb 0.4 $408,000 No Madison Ave Placentia Ave to CA-57 Class III 0.2 $5,140 No Gym Dr Folino Dr to E Campus Dr Class I 0.2 $300,000 No Nutwood Ave* Victoria Dr to State College Blvd Class IIIb 0.6 $612,000 No Nutwood Ave* State College Blvd to Placentia Ave Class IIb 0.7 $294,000 No Commonwealth Ave Buena Park City Limit to Woods Ave Class II 2.5 $967,500 Yes Commonwealth Ave Lemon St to Nutwood Ave Class IIb 2.5 $1,050,000 Yes Valencia Dr Highland Dr to Brookhurst Rd Class IIb 1.8 $756,000 Yes 1 Actual impacts to parking will be further determined as part of the design process once projects are funded for implementation.

Table 2. Recommended Bicycle Projects
* Recommendation has been updated from recommendation in the City’s pre-existing Bicycle Master Plan. 74 CORRIDOR ROUTE FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES) COST ESTIMATE

POTENTIAL

PARKING
LOSS1
Walnut Ave* Richman Ave to Highland Ave Class IIb 0.2 $756,000 Yes Brookhurst Rd Commonwealth Ave to CA-91 Class II 1.1 $425,700 Yes Basque Ave* Chapman Ave to Commonwealth Ave Class IIIb 0.3 $306,000 No Basque Ave* Valencia Dr to Baker Ave Class IIIb 0.7 $714,000 No Euclid St La Habra City Limit to Bastanchury Rd Class IIb 1.7 $714,000 Yes Euclid St Bastanchury to CA-91 Class II 2.4 $928,800 No Laguna Rd Euclid St to Valencia Mesa Dr Class II 1.1 $425,700 Yes Sunny Crest Dr Valencia Mesa Dr to Valley View Dr Class III 0.6 $15,420 No Richman Ave* Sunny Crest Dr to Commonwealth Ave Class IIIb 1.3 $1,326,000 No Richman Ave Walnut Ave to Houston Ave Class IIIb 0.9 $918,000 No Highland Ave* Valencia Ave to Baker Ave Class IIb 0.6 $252,000 Yes Harbor Blvd La Habra City Limit to Bastanchury Rd Class IIb 1.1 $462,000 Yes Harbor Blvd Bastanchury Rd to Brea Blvd Class IIb 0.9 $378,000 No Puente St Rosarita Dr to Bastanchury Rd Class III 0.6 $15,420 No Brea Blvd Panorma Rd to Brea Blvd Class IIb 0.8 $336,000 Yes Pomona Ave Union Ave to Santa Fe Ave Class III 1.3 $33,410 No Lemon St Brea Blvd to Berkeley Ave Class III 0.6 $15,420 No Recommended Bicycle Projects, continued
* Recommendation has been updated from recommendation in the City’s pre-existing Bicycle Master Plan.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
75 CORRIDOR ROUTE FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES) COST ESTIMATE

POTENTIAL

PARKING
LOSS1
Lemon St* Berkeley Ave to Chapman Ave Class IIIb 0.3 $306,000 No Lemon St Chapman Ave to Orangethrope Ave Class II 1.0 $387,000 No Longview Dr Brea Blvd to Dorothy Ln Class III 0.8 $20,560 No Raymond Ave Dorothy Ln to Chapman Ave Class III 0.5 $12,850 No Raymond Ave Chapman Ave to Anahiem City Limit Class II 1.0 $387,000 No Riverside Dr Dorothy Ln to Raymond Ave Class III 0.6 $15,420 No Victoria Dr Old River Rd to Hart Pl Class III 0.8 $20,560 No Hart Pl Victoria Dr to Chapman Ave Class III 0.1 $2,570 No State College Blvd* Rolling Hills Dr to Orangethrope Ave Class IV 3.0 $6,939,000 No Trail South of Malvern Ave Buen Park City Limit to Basque Ave Class I 1.5 $2,250,000 No Yorba Linda Blvd N Campus Dr to Placentia Ave Class II 0.9 $348,300 No Pacific Dr Baker Ave to Roberta Ave Class IIIb 0.1 $102,000 No Roberta Ave/Page Ave Pacific Dr to Gilbert St Class IIIb 0.6 $612,000 No Chapman Avenue Woods Ave to Rail Class IIIb 1.2 $1,244,000 No Baker Avenue Pacific Dr to Highland Avenue Class IIIb 1.6 $1,632,000 No Total 47.3 $29,833,130
Recommended Bicycle Projects, continued
* Recommendation has been updated from recommendation in the City’s pre-existing Bicycle Master Plan. 76 SPOT TREATMENTS
In addition to safe and connected bikeway segments, a
fully functioning bicycle network addresses localized spot issues that would otherwise present network barriers.

Spot improvements may include:

Crossing improvements - intersection design strategies
to reduce vehicle speeds at intersections, enhance the
visibility of people riding bicycles, and protect people on bicycles from automobiles as they move or turn through
an intersection. The appropriate design strategies for
each intersection depend upon the characteristics
of the street crossing. Design strategies when large,
arterial roads meet each other require more protection
for bicyclists than when a shared-use path crosses a
residential street.
• Conflict Markings. Special pavement markings, often
painted green, at intersections, driveways, or other
places where there may be conflicts between bicyclists
and drivers that visibly reinforce that through bicyclists have the right-of-way over turning vehicles or vehicles entering the roadway.
• Bicycle Boxes. A marked area, typically painted green, at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. This can help bicyclists position themselves to turn left instead of mixing with traffic to merge across traffic from the bicycle lane.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
77 • Traffic Circles. Also known as mini roundabouts or neighborhood traffic circles, these features include
a raised circular island in the middle of intersections on local neighborhood streets with the intention of
reducing motor vehicle speeds.

Traffic control improvements - design elements and
signalization modifications at intersections or crossings that improve the safety and efficiency of crossing
movements for all roadway users. Traffic control
improvements to improve roadway safety for people
biking include but are not limited to:
• Bicycle Detection Loops, Passive Detection, Video
Detection Signal Timing
• Bicycle Signal Heads
• Signal Phasing
This Plan includes 15 spot improvement recommendations
at key locations within the Bicycle Access Area, as shown in Figure 17 on page 71 and listed in Table 3 on page

78. 78

LOCATION IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
Madison Ave and CA-57 Install a bicycle bridge $15-20 million Commonwealth Ave and Nutwood Ave Install bicycle boxes at all 4 approaches and signal detection $29,200 Chapman Ave and Hart Pl Install green cross-bike markings next to crosswalk $1,300 Chapman Ave and Malden Ave Install conflict markings for Chapman crossings Install RRFBs and advance yield markings for the Chapman crossings Cost covered
under pedestrian
recommendation
Chapman Ave and Pomona Ave Install bike boxes and conflict markings at both Pomona approaches $18,200 Malvern Ave and Bastanchury Rd Install bike boxes and signal detection at both Malvern approaches Install green conflict markings for through bikes on Malvern Install conflict markings at the west Malvern crossing
$25,100
Chapman Ave and Richmond Ave Install bike boxes, signal detection, and cross-bike markings for both Chapman crossings $19,600
Bastanchury Rd and Hughes Dr Consider closing the slip lane and building out the northwest corner Install bike boxes and conflict markings at both Bastanchury approaches $323,200
Bastanchury Rd and Valley View Dr Install conflict markings across W Valley View $3,500 Euclid St and Williamson Ave Install conflict markings on Euclid $3,500 Wilshire Ave and Harbor Blvd Install bike boxes at all approaches $22,400 Chapman Ave and Harbor Blvd Install a bike box at the southern approach. Install conflict markings along Chapman. $9,100
Orangethorpe Ave and Lemon Blvd Install conflict markings and bike boxes at all approaches $35,400 Brea Blvd and Lemon Blvd Install conflict markings across all approaches Install bike boxes at the three Brea and Lemon approaches $30,800
Table 3. Bicycle Spot Improvements
Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
79 SUPPORTING FACILITIES
Bicycle Parking
Convenient and secure bicycle parking completes
a bicycling network. Bicycle parking can take many
different forms, from a simple bicycle rack to a secure locker or gated area. Bicycle parking is available
throughout Downtown Fullerton but certain locations do
not provide an adequate amount of bike parking. Per the Fullerton Zoning Code “secure, adequate and convenient
storage shall be provided to bicycles” at new commercial developments estimated to employ 100 or more people.

During the public outreach process, stakeholders
expressed a desire for more bicycle parking throughout
Downtown Fullerton.

Table 4 on page 81 presents an overview of the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’
(APBP) general guidelines for bicycle parking locations and quantities. These guidelines are based on industry
best practices, as well as APBP’s Essentials of Bicycle Parking Recommendations.

Bicycle parking can be categorized into short- and
long-term parking. The characteristics and appropriate
context for each type of bicycle parking is an important consideration for the City as it installs new bicycle
parking.

Short-term bicycle parking serves people who leave
their bicycles for relatively short periods of time, such as shopping, errands, dining, or recreation. Bicycle racks are the most common device for short-term bicycle parking.

They provide a high level of convenience and a moderate level of security. The City may also choose to partner
with local artists to design customized bicycle racks that serve as both parking and public art. Where possible,
bicycle corrals can be installed to provide higher volumes of bicycle parking in areas of high demand or limited
sidewalk space.

Existing short-term bicycle rack in Fullerton’s SoCo neighborhood. 80 Long-term bicycle parking serves people who intend
to leave their bicycles for longer periods of time. These facilities can provide a higher level of security and
protection from the elements than bicycle racks and are typically found at transit stations, multi-family residential buildings, commercial buildings, and in other areas
where people would benefit from a secure place to leave their bicycle for extended periods of time. Bicycle lockers and secure parking areas, such as those at the Fullerton Transportation Center and CSUF, are common long-term
bicycling parking styles.

As electric bicycles grow in popularity, the City will also need to consider the needs of electric bicycle users,
which are different from other bicyclists, in any study of the provision of bike parking in Downtown. E-bike users need to be able to charge bicycle batteries and also look for enhanced safety/anti-theft parking options.

The City can expand bicycle parking in Downtown
Fullerton as opportunities arise and new development
occurs. The City can also consider adopting a bicycle
parking ordinance that establishes guidelines for bicycle parking minimums, as well as the type and quantity of
bicycle parking needed for new development or major
renovation projects in Downtown. When identifying
locations for new bicycle parking, particularly bike
lockers, visibility, accessibility, and potential for
vandalism should be considered.

The Fullerton Transportation Center provides both short-term bicycle racks and long-term bicycle lockers for users.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
81 LAND USE OR DESTINATION PHYSICAL LOCATION MINIMUM QUANTITY1 Parks Adjacent to restrooms, picnic areas, fields, and other attractions
8 bicycle parking spaces per acre
Schools Near front office and main entrances with good visibility 8 bicycle parking spaces per 40 students2 Public Facilities (e.g., libraries, community
centers)
Near main entrance with good visibility 8 bicycle parking spaces per location Commercial, Retail, and Industrial
Developments (over 10,000 square feet)
Near main entrance with good visibility 1 bicycle parking space per 15 employees or 8 bicycles per 10,000 square feet
Shopping Centers (over 10,000 square feet) Near main entrance with good visibility 8 bicycle parking spaces per 10,000 square feet Transit Stations Near platform, security or ticket booth 1 bicycle parking space or locker per 30 automobile parking spaces
Multi-Family Residential Near main entrance with good visibility 1 short-term bicycle parking space per 10 residential units and 1 long-term bicycle parking
space per 2 residential units
1 California Green Building Standards Code 5.106.4.1 requires new buildings to have bike racks provided within 200 feet of visitor’s entrances. There shall be bicycle parking for 5 percent of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces with a minimuum of one two-bike capacity rack. 2 California Green Building Standards Code 5.106.4.2 requires four two-bike racks per new school building for students and two bicycle parking spaces for staff for each new building.

Table 4. Recommendations for Bicycle Parking Locations and Quantities 82 Pedestrian Recommendations
The City of Fullerton has proposed a variety of
pedestrian infrastructure improvements through the
Fullerton General Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, the
Pedestrian Safety Assessment, and the draft Fullerton
Transportation Center Specific Plan. Improving crossings at high-traffic intersections and where significant
barriers exist, installing new sidewalks where gaps
currently exist, and repairing and maintaining existing sidewalks can provide a safe and enjoyable experience
for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Intersection
improvements can include projects like installing a
high-visibility crosswalk, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible curb ramp, protected intersection, a
rectangular rapid flashing beacon, etc.

Recommended pedestrian projects have been organized
into a toolbox with the following categories:
• General Signing & Striping
• Signal Modifications
• Lighting
• Civil and Structural
• Site-Specific Recommendations
These recommendations reflect needs of pedestrians
per existing conditions analyses and stakeholder
engagement, as well as the anticipated future needs
associated with the unique travel characteristics of
Downtown Fullerton.

PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY DISTRICT
To make Downtown Fullerton more pedestrian-friendly,
it was identified as a Pedestrian Priority District (PPD), which prioritizes pedestrian mobility where foot traffic is currently high. Areas with PPD status allow for some flexibility in City standards to better accommodate
walking, and prioritize pedestrian safety and design
standards. It is recommended that Downtown Fullerton be designated as a Pedestrian Priority District to recognize the high levels of pedestrian activity in the Project Area.

The recommendations listed in the toolbox (Table 5 on
the next page) can be considered for implementation on
a location-by-location basis within this PPD area.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
83 IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS EXAMPLE IMAGE General Signing And Striping
Signing and striping improvements should be implemented in a consistent way. Applied uniformly, these treatments can distinguish the Project Area as a PPD without cluttering of excessive signage and pavement markings.

High-Visibility Crosswalk High visibility crosswalks feature special roadway striping that
enhances visibility. Ladder striping
is an example of a high visibility
crosswalk that currently exists at some
intersections in Downtown Fullerton.

High-visibility crosswalks are
more visible to approaching
motorists and reinforce driver
behavior to yield to pedestrians,
which can increase comfort
and reduce collisions involving
pedestrians.

The City will consider consistent
high-visibility crosswalks in
Downtown to alert drivers of
high pedestrian activity.

Enhanced Crossings
at Unsignalized
Intersections
Marking and enhancing crossings at
locations without a traffic signal give
pedestrians designated locations to
cross at that provide the best sight
distance, visibility, and shortest path.

A marked crossing helps assure
the pedestrian of their legal
right to cross, while creating
reasonable expectations
for drivers about where
pedestrians may be present in
the street.

N/A
Pedestrian Wayfinding
Signs
Wayfinding signs directed at
people walking typically include
information about the direction to
nearby destinations and walk time or
distances.

Downtown Fullerton attracts
visitors who have varying
familiarity with the area. Adding
pedestrian wayfinding signs
would assist visitors to identify
direct routes to destinations.

For more information, see the
wayfinding section at the end of
this chapter.

N/A
Signal Modifications
Signal modifications that prioritize pedestrian safety and movement typically increase cycle lengths and wait times for pedestrians at an intersection. PPD’s give special consideration to these treatments.

Leading Pedestrian
Intervals (LPI)
LPIs are signal phases that allow
pedestrians to cross 3-7 seconds
before drivers are permitted to turn.

Pedestrians are given a “head
start” to enter the crosswalk,
helping avoid conflicts with
turning drivers.

LPI’s should be designed to
give pedestrians enough time
to cross at least one travel
lane before the signal turns
green. LPIs can be paired with
other treatments such as curb
extensions or right-turn-on-red
restrictions.

Table 5. Toolbox of Pedestrian Facilities by Category
84 IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS EXAMPLE IMAGE Scramble/All-Way
Pedestrian Phase
Scramble/all-way pedestrian phases
allow pedestrians to cross in all
directions, including diagonally, while
all vehicles are stopped.

Since vehicle and pedestrian
phases are separated, collisions
involving pedestrians and
turning vehicles are reduced.

Scramble phases can be
implemented with or without
marked diagonal crossings.

Protected Only Left-Turn
Phasing
Protected only left-turn phasing gives
left-turning vehicles the right-of-way in
the same phase.

This phasing separates left-turning vehicles from conflicting vehicle and pedestrian phases,
reducing the likelihood of
conflicts.

To implement this treatment,
left-turns must be protected,
and the intersection must
be able to accommodate the
turning radii of left-turning
vehicles on complementary
approaches.

Increased Pedestrian
Clearance Time
Pedestrian clearance time is when
the “Flash Don’t Walk” signal head
is activated. This is the minimum
amount of crossing time needed for a
pedestrian to walk curb to curb using
the crosswalk.

Increasing the minimum
clearance time is useful in
locations where slower walking
speeds are observed (i.e.
locations with many seniors,
children, large platoons of
pedestrians).

The California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(CA MUTCD) recommends using
the length of the crossing
distance divided by a 3.5 feet/
second speed to calculate the
minimum pedestrian clearance
time.

Add Missing Crosswalk
Legs at Signalized
intersections
Marked crossings at signalized
intersections should support logical
routes and help connect pedestrians
to the destinations.

When the existing pedestrian
route options are circuitous
because no crosswalk exists, the
City can consider installing one
on the missing intersection legs
to create a more direct route.

Conditional Time of
Day Right-Turn-On-Red
(RTOR) Restrictions (LED
Blank-Out)
Conditional RTOR restrictions may
be used at locations where there are
a high number of vehicle right-turn
movements conflicting with a high
number of pedestrians during some
portions of the day.

By restricting RTORs during
peak pedestrian periods,
drivers are not permitted to
enter the crosswalk area while
looking left for oncoming traffic,
which disrupts pedestrian paths
and increases the time required
for pedestrians to cross. This
can decrease the likelihood of
conflicts and collisions between
pedestrians and right-turning
vehicles.

Downtown Fullerton’s heaviest
pedestrian volumes are
observed during off-peak
periods (8:00PM – 2:00AM), when
there is nightlife activity.

Toolbox of Pedestrian Facilities by Category
Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
85 IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS EXAMPLE IMAGE Lighting
Adding new lighting or improving/maintaining existing lighting helps make hazards or other road users more visible to drivers at night. Improved lighting can increase comfort and safety for pedestrians. The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) has recommendations on levels of illumination for pedestrian facilities and intersection areas.

Placement at Large
Signalized Intersections
At intersections, typically there is
one luminaire on each traffic signal
mast arm. For intersections where
one luminaire cannot illuminate the
entire crosswalk (due to long crosswalk
length) a second light fixture should be
considered on the opposite corner.

This would ensure that the
illumination would be provided
for sidewalk corner at the
intersection and within the
crosswalk.

See Appendix C for more
information on lighting criteria.

Pedestrian Scale Lighting
Along Sidewalks (as
needed)
Pedestrian scale lighting is designed
to specifically illuminate sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways.

This treatment can supplement
existing lighting where building
lighting and roadway lighting
is too dim or too far away to
provide illumination to the
sidewalk.

See Appendix D for more
information on lighting criteria.

Walkways and Curb Treatments
Curb Extensions Curb extensions are extensions of the
sidewalk area that can reduce crossing
distance.

They encourage slower vehicle
speeds, and improve visibility
between an approaching
vehicle and pedestrians waiting
to cross the road.

This treatment is particularly
helpful at locations where
intersections have offset curbs,
wide travel lanes, or sight
obstructions.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp
Repair
Sidewalks and curb ramps comprise
the basis for a walkable environment.

They provide a safe separate
space from vehicles and
allow people of all ages and
abilities to walk to destinations
throughout the Project Area.

Sidewalks and curb ramps
should be maintained regularly
to ensure accessibility for all
users.

Toolbox of Pedestrian Facilities by Category
86 SITE SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian improvements recommended at specific
Downtown locations are showing Figure 18 and Table 6.

LOCATION RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT COST
Harbor Boulevard & Commonwealth
Avenue
Increase pedestrian crossing time.

Install protected left-turn signal for vehicles.
$457,600
Harbor Boulevard & Santa Fe Avenue Install a crosswalk along Harbor Boulevard. $7,000 Lemon Street & Commonwealth Avenue Increase pedestrian crossing time.

Install curb extensions to reduce crossing distance.
$181,100
Harbor Boulevard & Truslow Avenue Enhance crossing at this unsignalized intersection for a safer pedestrian environment. $7,000 Harbor Boulevard & Chapman Avenue Increase pedestrian crossing time.

Install protected left-turn signal for vehicles.
$592,400
Harbor Boulevard and Ellis Place Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at the intersection. $211,200 Chapman Avenue and Malden Avenue Install lighting on all corners of the intersection.

Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon on Chapman Avenue.
$228,400
Lemon Street & Chapman Avenue Restrict right turn on red during school hours. $40,000 Lemon Street & Wilshire Boulevard Decrease pedestrian waiting time to cross Lemon Street.

Maintain sidewalks.
$71,600
Lemon Street & Valencia Drive Install curb extensions.

Remove sidewalk obstacles.
$220,000
Table 6. Summary of Site-Specific Pedestrian Recommendations Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
87 "
!

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

EVA MOCLAB

TRUSLOW AVE

TS IDL CUE

ELM VIA

WILSHIRE AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

IA V TUNLA W

MALVERN AVE

CHAPMAN AVE
LEMON

HILL TER

EVA DNOMYAR

DRAKE AVE

GLENWOOD AVE

EVA DROF

EVA NEDLA M

UNION AVE

HILLAVE

EVA ECNER WAL

BROOKDALE PL

FERN DR

GRANDVIEW AVE

EVA SDOO W

I HLLCREST DR

POMONAAVE

LEMON ST

EVA EGNARO

MAPLEWOOD AVE

WESTAVE

KNEPPAVE

ELM AVE

LONGVIEW DR

EVA NL OC INL

NUTWOOD AVE

AI V NOMEL

MELODY LN

WHITING AVE

ASH AVE

EVA NA MH IC R

LUANNE AVE

HIGHLAND AVE

PATTERSON WAY

VALLEY VIEW DR

YALE AVE

WALNUTAVE

HARMONY LN

MAGNOLIA

EVA NOTEC IN RP

EVALLENROC

WILLIAMSON AVE

ROSSLYNN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

JACARANDA PL

FREEDOM AVE

EVAYELEKREB

EL DORADO DR

EVA DROFNATS

IR C NOTEC IN RP

GLENHAVEN AVE

HARBOR BLVD

PORTER AVE

SHEPPARD
DR

DOROTHY LN

PINE VIA

O C E AN VIEW DR

SOUTHGATE AVE

NUTWOOD PL

PRIVATE DR
Byerrum Park
Fullerton Museum Center
Ford
Park
Independence
Park
Lemon
Park
Nicolas
Park
Richman
Park
Downtown Plaza
Plaza
Park
Muckenthaler
Cultural
Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Hiltscher
Park
Amerige
Park
Golden Hill
School Park
Union
Pacific Park
Fullerton
Union High
School
Fullerton
College

ELLIS PL
VE
F
k
Lighting Improvement
Pedestrian Signal
Improvement
No Right-Turn on Red
Crosswalk Improvement Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Pedestrian Recommendations

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Park or Golf Course
School
´ 0 750 1,500
Feet
Accessibility Improvement
Figure 18. Map of Site-Specific Pedestrian Recommendations 88 Harbor Boulevard & Commonwealth Avenue
Large groups of pedestrians that move through the
crosswalks during nighttime hours often do not have
sufficient time to cross. Additionally, drivers attempting to turn right on red often encroach into the crosswalk
area, forcing pedestrians to find a path around the
car and further increasing the amount of time it takes
pedestrians to clear the crossing.

Permissive left turns at the intersection also creates
issues between pedestrians and drivers because it forces left-turning motorists to find a gap in both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, leading to close calls and motorists being stranded in the middle of the intersection until
lagging pedestrians clear the crosswalk.

Recommendations
The City can consider adding the following traffic signal modifications, shown in Figure 19, to decrease the
likelihood of turning vehicle with pedestrian collision types:
• Add protected left turn phase (8:00 PM to 2:00 AM).
• Restrict right turns on red (8:00 PM to 2:00 AM) using LED blank out signs.
• Increase pedestrian signal timing (8:00 PM to 2:00 AM) on weekends.
• Extend curb into Commonwealth parking lane at NW
corner. Add directional curb ramps.
• Extend curb into Commonwealth parking lane at SE
corner. Add directional curb ramps.
• Fill empty tree wells along the north side of
Commonwealth west of Harbor Boulevard.

Cars encroaching into crosswalks at Harbor Boulevard and Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
89 COMMONWEALTH AVE

HARBOR BLV
D
Proposed No Right Turn on Red Blank-Out Sign
Proposed Curb Extension
Proposed Protected Left-Turn Signal
Figure 19. Recommended Signal Modifications at Harbor/Commonwealth 90 Harbor Boulevard & Ellis Place
Based on stakeholder input, the intersection at Harbor
Boulevard and Ellis Place was observed. The intersection has crosswalks on the south leg on Harbor Boulevard
and the east leg on Ellis Place. It was observed that
this crosswalk was used by the students from the
adjacent Fullerton Union High School. Currently there
are advanced yield markings and “yield to pedestrians”
signs on Harbor Boulevard. Harbor Boulevard has high
volumes of traffic, especially during the peak hours.

Some northbound vehicles that turn onto Harbor
Boulevard from the intersection at Harbor Boulevard
and Chapman Avenue speed up as they are approaching
this intersection, were not anticipating having to stop for pedestrians. It was also observed that vehicles were not abiding by the “Keep Clear Signs” at the intersection.

Recommendations
Based on the specific characteristics of this location
and national design guidance , a Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB) should be considered for installation at
this intersection. PHBs are overhead flashing beacons
activated by pedestrians via push button when needed,
and have been proven to significantly increase the rate of drivers who stop for pedestrians at marked crosswalks.

Pedestrian crossing sign at Harbor Boulevard and Ellis Place Cars were observed to block the intersection
Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
91 Chapman Avenue & Malden Avenue
The intersection at Chapman Avenue and Malden Avenue
was observed based on stakeholder input regarding
uncomfortable pedestrian environment at this location.

Currently there are two through lanes and one left-turn pocket on Chapman Avenue on east-west direction. The
approaches from Malden Avenue are stop-controlled
on both north and south legs. Currently there are
“yield to pedestrian” signs on four corners, however,
drivers unwilling to yield to pedestrians were observed on Chapman Avenue. Lighting is only provided at the
northwest and southeast corners of the intersection,
making the southwest and northeast corners difficult
to navigate during nighttime. The current speed limit is 40 mph, but speeding was observed at this intersection.

It was observed that drivers’ sight is obstructed by the sunlight during sunset. Poor yielding compliance by
motorists and inadequate gaps in traffic on both sides of the street lead to long wait times for pedestrians to safely cross the street.

Recommendations
The City should consider the following enhancements
at this unsignalized intersection for a safer pedestrian environment. The improvements could include:
• Lighting on all corners of the intersection to increase visibility of crossing pedestrians at night
• A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon to facilitate crossing of
Chapman Avenue
92 Harbor Boulevard & Santa Fe Avenue
The intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Santa Fe
Avenue has a history of pedestrian collisions resulting in severe injuries, as presented in Chapter 3. This signalized intersection has existing crosswalks on the east and west legs (across Santa Fe Avenue) but is lacking crosswalks on the north and south legs (across Harbor Boulevard).

Pedestrians that would like to continue in the eastbound-westbound direction have three options to continue along Santa Fe Avenue and cross Harbor Boulevard:
• Utilize the signalized crosswalk approximately 250 feet north of Santa Fe Avenue feet of out of direction)
• Utilize the bridge adjacent to the railroad tracks
approximately 220 Feet South of Santa Fe Avenue
• Cross the street where there is no marked crossing
Recommendations
The City can consider installing a crosswalk across
Harbor Boulevard, providing pedestrians with an intuitive eastbound-westbound route. Direct access could reduce
the number of mid-block crossing violations and alert
drivers on the expectation of pedestrian presence in the street. The best candidate for a single crossing would
be the north leg of the signalized intersection due to the angle of the intersection.

Lemon Street & Commonwealth Avenue
At Commonwealth Avenue and Lemon Street, it was
observed that pedestrians did not have adequate time to cross and would still be present in the street by the end of the pedestrian interval. Upon further investigation
of the signal timing sheets, it was observed that the
pedestrian clearance time at the signal was less than the CA MUTCD recommendation.

Pedestrian crossing at Commonwealth Avenue and Lemon Street Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
93 Recommendations
Option 1 - Signal timing modifications could be
considered such that the pedestrian clearance time is
increased to be the crossing distance divided by the CA MUTCD recommended 3.5 feet/second on all pedestrian
phases.

Option 2 - If adjusting signal timing is not feasible
due to delay impacts on vehicle progression, then
reducing crossing distances with curb extensions is
an infrastructural improvement that can be applied to
the northwest, northeast, and southeast corner of the
intersection. The curb extensions could be designed
such that the current pedestrian clearance time would
be adequate to clear the reduced distance to cross. Curb extensions would improve visibility of pedestrians waiting on the corners of the intersection but may also warrant the removal of the south leg right-turn lane to provide space for the treatment.

Option 3 – This option includes a combination of option 1 and 2 with a balanced approach.
94 Harbor Boulevard and Truslow Avenue
Cars were observed to be driven at higher speed to the
south of rail tracks in general. Due to the grade of the roadway, cars turning right in and out from Truslow
Avenue from Harbor Boulevard come in high speed. This
creates a challenging crossing situation for pedestrians.

Recommendation
The City can consider enhanced crossing, including a
high-visibility crosswalk, at this unsignalized intersection for a safer pedestrian environment.

Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue
Both Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue have high
vehicle traffic, and pedestrians were observed not having adequate time to cross these major corridors. Permissive left turns at the intersection also creates issues between pedestrians and motorists.

Recommendation
The City can consider longer pedestrian crossing times
and protected left-turn phase at this intersection.

The existing intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Truslow Avenue Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
95 Lemon Street and Chapman Avenue
This intersection is heavily used by Fullerton College
students during school hours and during the hours
of trains arriving at and departing from the Fullerton
Transit Center. Motorists attempting to turn right on red often encroach into the crosswalk area.

Recommendation
The City can consider restricting right turn on red
during school hours to make crossing safer and more
comfortable for students crossing the street.

Cars at Lemon/Chapman encroach on the crosswalk while waiting for the green signal
Lemon Street and Wilshire Boulevard
Pedestrians were observed to wait at this intersection for a long time to cross Wilshire Boulevard. Sidewalks on the west leg of Lemon Street were in poor condition.

Recommendation
The City can consider improving pedestrian signal timing and repairing sidewalks at this intersection.

Lemon Street and Valencia Drive
This intersection has a high density of pedestrian
collisions, including a fatal collision within the last five years. Due to the nearby Maple Elementary School, this
intersection experiences high pedestrian traffic during school drop-off and pick-up hours. The intersection
currently has high visibility crosswalks on four legs, but obstacles on sidewalks make the space inadequate for
pedestrians.

Recommendation
Crosswalk improvements such as curb extensions
and removing sidewalk obstacles would improve the
pedestrian environment at this intersection.
96 Grade Separated Roadways & Side walks
Lighting at grade separated roadways near the railroad
tracks, shown in Figure 20, is in need of maintenance.

Recommendations
The City should consider upgrading the existing lighting at each railroad track undercrossing in the graphic
below. At grade separated roadways, lighting should
be maintained such that it is in working condition
to reinforce pedestrian safety. Additionally, the City
can consider working with local artists to make the
underpassings more inviting to pedestrians and
bicyclists.

Lighting needing maintenance at grade separated walkway on Lemon Street
In Philadelphia, wayfinding, lighting, and other elements are used to draw people from the waterfront to the downtown.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
97 LEMON ST

HIGHLAND AVE

HARBOR BLV
D
Proposed Lighting Improvements
Figure 20. Locations for Lighting Improvements at Grade Separated Roadways 98 ADDITIONAL NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS
Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance
In some locations in the Pedestrian Access Area,
sidewalks are in poor condition due to overgrown tree
roots and inadequate repair work.

Recommendations
The City will continue to provide regular maintenance to address upheaval in the sidewalk. Curb ramps can be
upgraded to provide running slopes, cross-slopes, widths and other features consistent with federal accessibility standards. All driveways should provide a level walkway at the back of the driveway apron.

Uplifted sidewalk segments
in the Truslow neighborhood
create safety issues for
people walking and using
mobile devices.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
99 Lighting
Several intersections and roadway segments in Downtown
Fullerton have inadequate lighting for pedestrians.

Areas identified for potential lighting improvements are sidewalk segments on Highland Avenue, Valencia Drive,
Commonwealth Avenue, and at the intersection at Santa
Fe Avenue and Highland Avenue.

Recommendations
The City can provide adequate lighting for better visibility in the Downtown Fullerton Area, especially on sidewalk
corners at the intersections, within the crosswalks,
building frontages and alleyways. Providing additional
luminaires extending over each end of crosswalks on
multi-lane streets would improve visibility. For mid-block crossings, the City will consider installing lights on both approaches between crosswalk and approaching vehicle.

Prioritizing pedestrian scale lighting around public
parking facilities would also provide improved walking
experience from parking areas. See Appendix D for more
information.

Maintenance of vegetation, improved lighting, and modified curb radius could improve visibility at the intersection of Santa Fe Avenue and Highland Avenue.
100
Accessibility Improvements
The pedestrian push buttons are not ADA accessible at
these following two intersections:
• Harbor Boulevard and Wilshire Avenue
• Harbor Boulevard and Amerige Avenue
It was observed that the ramps for the sidewalks are ADA compliant, but pedestrians must step up onto a concrete platform to access the push buttons.

Recommendations
The City should consider improving access to the push
buttons to make them ADA accessible.

Pedestrian push buttons are difficult to reach
by people with disabilities.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
101
New Mobility
Over the past 20 years, computer technology, the
internet, and mobile telephones have transformed almost every aspect of daily life, work and communications.

Technology for transportation has likewise changed how
we plan, navigate and pay for travel (including vehicle ownership choices).

The increased prevalence of technology such as electric bicycles (“e-bikes”), ridesharing companies like Lyft
and Uber, shared micro-transit like electric scooters,
autonomous vehicles, and other motor-assisted vehicles
has introduced a new element to “active transportation” considerations, fraught with potential and tensions.

Downtown Fullerton needs to balance multiple goals—
and risks—while navigating the uncertainties of emerging technology. The City will need to monitor and manage
expected shifts in parking as micro-transit and shared
shuttles allow drivers to park in further, inconvenient locations while still easily accessing Downtown.

Competition for curb space may also grow, as shared
micro-transit expands Downtown.

Shared-use is already expanding mobility options
with healthy options and lower impacts to the overall
transportation system. Fullerton will need new models
of flexible street design and land use regulations as
demand changes and shared-use mobility increasingly
competes for space on streets, sidewalks, curbs, and
plazas. This Plan aims to advance and prepare for future new mobility devices so that they support, and not
compromise or inhibit, walking and biking.
102
Wayfinding
A wayfinding system consists of comprehensive signing
and/or pavement markings to guide people to their
destinations. Bicycle wayfinding signs direct bicyclists along the existing bicycle network and to important
Downtown destinations such as Fullerton Public Library, Fullerton Transportation Center, businesses, and civic
buildings. Signs along the bicycle network should
indicate the direction of travel, the locations of major destinations, and the time/distance to these destinations along the network. Class IIIb bike boulevards should
prioritize wayfinding signage to enhance bicyclist
comfort. Wayfinding signage can also be directed
towards people walking and driving, like the existing
signs along Harbor Boulevard that direct people to
destinations within and near Downtown.

To make navigating Downtown Fullerton easier for
people walking, biking, and rolling, the City can develop and implement a comprehensive wayfinding program
directed at these users. The program can be integrated
with the existing wayfinding in Downtown and around the Fullerton Transportation Center. However, this signage
should also communicate Approximate distance and/
or travel time to destinations to make it more useful for active transportation users.

Wayfinding signage in Downtown El Monte aimed at pedestrians indicates direction and distance to key destinations.

Fullerton On The Go | Infrastructure Recommendations
103
This page intentionally left blank
104
Project
Prioritization
06 Fullerton On The Go | Project Prioritization
105
Project Prioritization
With limited funding, the City of Fullerton has to
determine how to prioritize the recommended projects
in this Plan. Some of these prioritized projects can be completed more quickly. For instance, projects with
community support and minimal trade-offs could be
installed as part of the City’s capital improvement funds.

Other prioritized projects may be more complex and
require additional study, or involve multi-jurisdictional coordination. Even if these projects are prioritized as Tier 1, these projects, typically more expensive, will require the City to seek out additional grant funding opportunities.

Prioritization results are flexible concepts that serve as guidelines for the City. Over time, as development occurs or other changes to land uses and the transportation
network take place, this framework can be used to re-evaluate remaining projects and continue pursuing opportunities to implement this Plan. Additionally, when funding opportunities do become available, the City will prioritize the most competitive projects for each grant application. Should opportunities arise to complete
projects in lower tiers of the prioritization list, they will be taken. Some high priority projects may require additional study and funding, taking longer to implement.

Project prioritization was developed through feedback
from the Technical Working Group and various
stakeholders. The process involved evaluating different data to determine the need, feasibility, and benefit of implementing each recommended bicycle and pedestrian
project. The City developed prioritization criteria and determined the importance of each consideration by
assigning each category an appropriate weight. The
criteria and outcomes of prioritization for recommended projects are described in the following sections.
106
Bikeway Prioritization Methodology
Recommended bicycle projects were evaluated using eight criteria that support the vision and goals of the Plan. Each of these criteria has an associated score applied to each project, described in Table 7.

CRITERIA MEASURE SCORING DATA SOURCE
Regional Coordination • Projects that connect directly to the existing regional bicycle network receive higher priority designations than projects with no connections to existing facilities.
• 1 point = Project connects to
existing bicycle facility
• 0 points = No project connection to
existing bicycle facility
SCAG
Access to Key Destinations • Projects located within 1/8th-mile of local destinations receive higher priority designations. Local destinations include schools, parks, transit, and grocery stores. Each of these categories is scored separately, meaning a project may be awarded up to 2 total points (0.5 points per category).

For each destination type:
• 0.5 point = Project within 1/8th mile
of destination
• 0 points = No destination within
1/8th mile.

OCTA, City
of Fullerton,
OpenStreetMap
Safety • Projects along road segments with the highest crash densities between 2016 and 2020 receive higher priority designations than projects along road segments with lower crash densities. When calculating crash densities, extra weight is placed bicycle and pedestrian collisions and those that result in a fatal or severe injury (KSI). Specifically, the following weights apply.
• 10x weight - bicycle/pedestrian KSI
• 5x weight – bicycle/pedestrian
• 1x weight – KSI (All)
• 0.1x weight – Non-KSI (All)
• 0-1 points awarded based on the
percentile rank of each project
location relative to all projects,
rounded to the nearest tenth.

TIMS
Equity • Projects passing through Disadvantaged Communities (top 25% scoring areas) as designated by CalEnviroScreen receive higher scores than projects in non-disadvantaged areas.
• 1 point = Project passes through a
Disadvantaged Community
• 0 points = Project does not
pass through a Disadvantaged
Community
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Table 7. Criteria for Project Prioritization
Fullerton On The Go | Project Prioritization
107

CRITERIA MEASURE SCORING DATA SOURCE
Comfort • Projects on road segments with higher levels of traffic stress (LTS 3 or 4) receive higher priority designations than projects on road segments with more comfortable existing travel conditions.
• 1 point = Project or part of project
is on a road segment with LTS 3
or 4.
• 0 points = All road segments of
project have LTS 1 or 2.

Alta LTS analysis
(from Existing
Conditions
analyses)
Community Support • Projects that address stated community concerns of bicycling in close proximity to fast moving motor vehicular traffic by providing physically separated right-of-way (Class I Shared-Use Paths and Class IV Separated Bikeways) receive higher priority scores.
• 2 points = Project is a Class I or
Class IV facility that provides
physical separation from traffic.
• 0 points = Project facility class
does not provide physical
separation from traffic.

Downtown Fullerton
on the Go Survey,
Public Input Map,
Workshops and
Pop-ups
Cost • Projects with lower implementation costs are given higher priority scores than projects with higher costs to implement.
• 2 points = Project implementation
cost is less than $100,000.
• 1 point = Project implementation
cost is greater than $100,000 but
less than $500,000
• 0 points = Project implementation
cost is greater than $500,000.

Alta
Readiness / Feasibility • Shovel-ready projects that can be implemented more quickly and require only minor modification of existing infrastructure (e.g., paint) receive a point. Projects that require modification of existing infrastructure (e.g., new construction) or potential loss of on-street parking receive no point.
• 1 point = Project implementation
only requires paint (Class II Bike
Lanes, Class IIB Buffered Bike
Lanes, and Class III Bike Routes).
• 0 points = Project implementation
requires physical construction
(Class I Shared-Use Paths, Class
IIIB Bicycle Boulevards, and Class
IV Separated Bikeways) or results
in a loss of on-street parking.

Alta
Maximum Total Points 11
108
Based on the frequency of scores, projects were sorted
into three tiers. The list of projects can be seen in
Table 8-Table 10, and mapped in Figure 21-24.

Tier 1: High Priority Projects: Projects that received total scores of 5.5 or greater. These projects have the highest potential to provide safe, comfortable, and connected
bikeways. The Tier 1 projects that are lower-scale and
lower-cost will be considered for sooner implementation in the coming fiscal years and may be included in the CIP, as feasible.

Tier 2: Medium Priority Projects: Projects that received total scores of 3.5 to 5.4. These projects may be combined with Tier 1 projects to strengthen the network and gap
closure portions of grant applications, and to complement other concurrent projects.

Tier 3: All Other Projects: Projects that received a score of 3.4 or less and will likely be pursued in the longer-term. However, should the City have the opportunity to implement projects from any of the three tiers, the City will work to develop these projects to improve active
transportation to and around Downtown Fullerton.

Pedestrian Prioritization Methodology
Pedestrian projects were prioritized based on each
project’s cost. Costs for each location’s projects were totaled together to encourage projects to be implemented simultaneously, rather than piecemeal. Based on these
costs, the recommendation locations were divided into
short term, under $100,000, and long term, over $100,000 projects. Short term, low cost projects may be built using quick build methods, which are further described on page 118. Although these projects are prioritized by location, if an opportunity to implement an individual improvement arises, the City will implement that project. The low and high cost pedestrian projects can be seen in Table 11 and Table 12.

Fullerton On The Go | Project Prioritization
109

CORRIDOR EXTENTS BIKEWAY CLASS TOTAL SCORE
Raymond Ave Dorothy Ln to Chapman Ave Class III Bicycle Route 7.5 Raymond Ave Chapman Ave to Anaheim City Limit Class II Bicycle Lanes 7.4 State College Blvd Rolling Hills Dr to Orangethorpe Ave Class IV Separated Bikeway 7.3 Lemon St Chapman Ave to Orangethorpe Ave Class II Bicycle Lanes 7 Pomona Ave Highland Ave to Santa Fe Ave Class III Bicycle Route 6.9 Malvern Ave Buena Park City Limit to Basque Ave Class I Shared-Use Path 6.6 W Valley View Dr Euclid St to Harbor Blvd Class III Bicycle Route 6.6 Victoria Dr Old River Rd to Hart Pl Class III Bicycle Route 6.2 Harbor Blvd Bastanchury Rd to Brea Blvd Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 6.2 Yorba Linda Blvd N Campus Dr to Placentia Ave Class II Bicycle Lanes 6 Brookhurst Rd Commonwealth Ave to CA 91 Class II Bicycle Lanes 6 Puente St Rosarita Dr to Bastanchury Rd Class III Bicycle Route 5.9 Lemon St Brea Blvd to Berkeley Ave Class III Bicycle Route 5.7 Euclid St Bastanchury Rd to CA 91 Class II Bicycle Lanes 5.7 Cal State Fullerton Campus CA 57 Bridge to Gymnasium Dr Class I Shared-Use Path 5.5 Nutwood Ave State College Blvd to Placentia Ave Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 5.5 Table 8. Tier 1 Bicycle Projects

CORRIDOR EXTENTS BIKEWAY CLASS TOTAL SCORE
Commonwealth Ave Lemon St to Nutwood Ave Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 5.4 Bastanchury Rd Euclid St to State College Blvd Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 5.4 Bastanchury Rd Malvern Ave to Euclid St Class II Bicycle Lanes 5.3 Longview Dr Brea Blvd to Dorothy Ln Class III Bicycle Route 5.2 Hart Pl Victoria Rd to Chapman Ave Class III Bicycle Route 5.2 Riverside Dr Dorothy Ln to Raymond Ave Class III Bicycle Route 5.1 Benchley St Nicolas St to Pioneer Ave Class III Bicycle Route 4.9 Highland Ave Valencia Ave to Baker Ave Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 4.8 Table 9. Tier 2 Bicycle Projects
110

CORRIDOR EXTENTS BIKEWAY CLASS TOTAL SCORE
Harbor Blvd La Habra City Limit to Bastanchury Rd Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 4.8 Valencia Dr Highland Ave to Buena Park City Limit Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 4.8 Walnut Ave Richman Ave to Highland Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 4.4 Brea Blvd Panorma Rd to Brea Blvd Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 4.2 Madison Ave Placentia Ave to CA 57 Class III Bicycle Route 4.1 Sunny Crest Dr Valencia Mesa Dr to Valley View Dr Class III Bicycle Route 4 Commonwealth Ave Buena Park City Limit to Woods Ave Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 4 Nutwood Ave Victoria Dr to State College Blvd Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 3.7 Lemon St Berkeley Ave to Chapman Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 3.7 Richman Ave Walnut Ave to Houston Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 3.7 Baker Ave Pacific Dr to Highland Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 3.6 Laguna Rd Euclid St to Valencia Mesa Dr Class II Bicycle Lanes / Class III Bicycle Route 3.6 Hughes Dr Nicolas St to Bastanchury Rd Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 3.6 Nicolas St Hughes Dr to Benchley St Class III Bicycle Route 3.5

CORRIDOR EXTENTS BIKEWAY CLASS TOTAL SCORE
Basque Ave Chapman Ave to Commonwealth Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 3.3 Richman Ave Sunny Crest Dr to Commonwealth Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 3.3 Euclid St La Habra City Limit to Bastanchury Class IIb Buffered Bicycle Lanes 3 Chapman Ave Woods Ave to Rail Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 2.8 Valencia Mesa Dr Bastanchury Rd to Youth Way Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 2.6 Roberta Ave/Page Ave Pacific Dr to Gilbert St Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 2.4 Basque Ave Valencia Dr to Baker Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 2.3 Pacific Dr Baker Ave to Roberta Ave Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 2 Hughes Dr Nicolas St to Gilbert St Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard 1.5 Table 10. Tier 3 Bicycle Projects
Tier 2 Bicycle Projects, continued
Fullerton On The Go | Project Prioritization
111
Table 11. Low Cost Pedestrian Projects

LOCATION RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT COST
Harbor Boulevard & Santa Fe Avenue Install a crosswalk along Harbor Boulevard. $7,000 Harbor Boulevard & Truslow Avenue Enhance crossing at this unsignalized intersection for a safer pedestrian environment. $7,000 Lemon Street & Chapman Avenue Restrict right turn on red during school hours. $40,000 Lemon Street & Wilshire Boulevard Decrease pedestrian waiting time to cross Lemon Street.

Maintain sidewalks.
$71,600
Table 12. High Cost Pedestrian Projects

LOCATION RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT COST
Lemon Street & Commonwealth Avenue Increase pedestrian crossing time.

Install curb extensions to reduce crossing distance.
$181,100
Harbor Boulevard & Ellis Place Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at the intersection. $211,200 Lemon Street & Valencia Drive Install curb extensions.

Remove sidewalk obstacles.
$220,000
Chapman Avenue & Malden Avenue Install lighting on all corners of the intersection.

Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon on Chapman Avenue.
$228,400
Harbor Boulevard & Commonwealth
Avenue
Increase pedestrian crossing time.

Install protected left-turn signal for vehicles.
$457,600
Harbor Boulevard & Chapman Avenue Increase pedestrian crossing time.

Install protected left-turn signal for vehicles.
$592,400
112
Figure 21. Prioritized Bicycle Recommendations

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE

RAYMOND AVE BREA
BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

HILL AVE

LEMON ST

LAS PALMAS DR

KNEPP AVE

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

ARBOLADO
DR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

TERRAZA
PL

RICHMAN AVE

LOT E ACCESS

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA
AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURN NI G TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

BROOKHURST RD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

MALVERN AVE
BREA

MA LL DR

LAMBERT RD

TRUSLOW AVE
POMONA
AVE
POMONA
AVE
HARBOR
BLVD

WILSHIRE AVE

TRUSLOW
AVE

WHITING
AVE

FORD AVE

LAWRENCE AVE

MALDEN AVE

H GI HLAND AVE

L BI RARY LN

ELLIS PL

MALVERN AVE

LEMON ST

R CI HMAN AVE

LAWRENCE
AVE

COLLEGE
PL

NEWELL PL

WHITING

AVE WHITING AVE

WALN UT WAY

H GI HLAND AVE

R CI HMAN AVE

WALNUT AVE
ELLIS
LN

PATTERSON
WAY

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

AMERIGE AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

JACARANDA PL
Fullerton
Union High
School
Florence
Crittenton
School
Berkeley
School
Fullerton First
United Methodist
Preschool
Fullerton
College
0 0.5 1
Miles
Existing Bikeway

TIERED BICYCLE PROJECTS

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
City Boundary
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Bicycle Projects

CORE AREA
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Fullerton On The Go | Project Prioritization
113
This page intentionally left blank
114
07 Implementation
Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
115
Implementation
This chapter provides cost estimates, funding strategies and maintenance approaches that can be utilized to
implement the recommended bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. Key funding sources are listed in this chapter, with a more extensive list in Appendix on page 133.

A prioritization methodology was created to organize the pedestrian and bicycle projects, in order to ensure the projects that will most increase safe active transportation use are the top priority for funding. More details about the prioritization methodology and prioritized project
lists can be found in Chapter 5.

Costs
Planning-level capital cost estimates for the facilities recommended in this Plan are listed in Table 13 and

BIKEWAY TYPE COST ESTIMATE PER

MILE (LOW)

COST ESTIMATE PER

MILE (HIGH) MILES TOTAL COST ESTIMATE (LOW)

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE
(HIGH)
Class I Shared-Use Path $700,000 $1,500,000 1.7 $1,190,000 $2,550,000 Class II Bicycle Lane $132,000 $387,000 11.3 $1,491,600 $4,373,100 Class IIb Buffered
Bicycle Lanes $172,000 $420,000 13.5 $2,322,000 $5,670,000 Class III Bicycle Route $15,400 $25,700 7.9 $121,660 $203,030 Class IIIb Bicycle
Boulevard $75,000 $1,020,000 10.2 $765,000 $10,404,000
Class IV Separated
Bikeway $300,000 $2,313,000 3.0 $900,000 $6,939,000
Total 47.6 $6,790,260 $30,139,130
Table 14 on page 116. Low and high cost estimates
account for the unknowns when implementing a project,
including construction costs, design and administration, and environmental studies. In addition to implementation costs, maintenance costs will need to be considered
before construction which can vary.

The estimates are based on design and construction
costs for comparable projects in nearby jurisdictions.

Cost estimates are provided in 2021 dollars and include construction costs, plus a 20% contingency and 10% soft cost. Design costs are not included in these estimates.

Due to annual inflation, cost estimates may increase
in the future. Costs can also change if implementation
occurs simultaneously to other road improvements, such
as a repavement project. Additional studies and detailed engineering designs will be needed to determine the final cost of projects recommended in this document.

Table 13. Capital Costs for Bicycle Projects
116
This Plan recommends at least $6.7 million in bicycle
projects to help Downtown Fullerton become more active
transportation-friendly. Additional cost considerations include the cost of maintaining and replacing bikeways.

For example, Class IV separated bikeways require the City to purchase new street sweeping machines that are small enough to fit inside the facility. In addition, all bikeways need to be restriped when roads are repaved.

Table 14. Cost Estimates for Pedestrian Projects

IMPROVEMENT UNIT QUANTITY COST ESTIMATE

PER UNIT

TOTAL COST

ESTIMATE
Modify Signal Timing EA3 2 $1,300 $2,600
Protected Only Left-Turn
Phasing
PA 6 $145,200 $871,200
Right-Turn on Red Restrictions PA 8 $10,000 $1,161,600
Increase Pedestrian Signal
Timing
PA 16 $2,900 $46,600
Curb Extensions EA 9 $55,000 $495,000
Detectable Warning Surfaces EA 10 $750 $7,500
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon EA 4 $105,600 $422,400
Lighting EA 2 $8,600 $17,200
High Visibility Crosswalk EA 4 $3,500 $14,000
Sidewalk Repair SF 150 $400 $60,000
Total $3,098,100
3 Each (EA), Square Foot (LF), Per Approach (PA)
Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
117
Implementation Strategies
The City will continue to build a strong, connected
active transportation network to/from and throughout
Downtown using a variety of implementation strategies.

QUICK WIN AND QUICK BUILD PROJECTS
Balancing the value of implementing Tier 1 projects
in a timely manner with the City’s overall financial
needs, presented on the following page is a financially constrained set of lower-cost bicycle and pedestrian
improvements. These projects can be built relatively
quickly and cheaply utilizing funds from existing sources such as the City’s Capital Improvement Program or
concurrent road projects. In addition to providing a
cost-effective starting point, these “quick wins” can help build momentum and lay the groundwork for future
implementation of the City’s sustainable mobility network.

Additionally, SCAG funds “quick build” projects, which
are short-term (1 to 5 years) pilot projects that respond to safety needs and implement improvements, enabling
stakeholders to benefit quickly. Quick build projects can be implemented with low-cost materials, may be installed by volunteers, and can be constructed in short time
periods. These projects immediately enhance the walking and biking environment, while still allowing for flexible changes. This allows the public to provide feedback on
the quick build project, and can build enthusiasm for
more permanent infrastructure, similar to the Wilshire
Avenue bicycle boulevard pilot.

To be successful, quick build projects require regular
evaluation. This may include pedestrian counts before
and after installation, collecting traffic data, and
gathering stakeholder and community feedback. This
information can help determine if a quick build project should be made permanent.

Quick-Build Bicycle Projects

LOCATION RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
Raymond Ave (Chapman Ave to
Anaheim City Limit)
Class II Bicycle Lanes
State College Blvd (Rolling Hills
Dr to Orangethorpe Ave)
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Baker Avenue (Pacific Dr to
Highland Ave)
Class IIIb Bicycle Boulevard
Lemon St (Chapman Ave to
Orangethorpe Ave)
Class II Bicycle Lanes
Quick-Build Pedestrian Projects

LOCATION RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
Harbor Boulevard & Santa Fe
Avenue
Install a crosswalk along Harbor
Boulevard.

Harbor Boulevard & Truslow
Avenue
Enhance crossing at this unsignalized
intersection for a safer pedestrian
environment.

Lemon Street & Commonwealth
Avenue
Increase pedestrian crossing time.

Install pilot curb extensions using paint
and delineators
Harbor Boulevard &
Commonwealth Avenue
Increase pedestrian crossing time..

Harbor Boulevard & Chapman
Avenue
Increase pedestrian crossing time.
118

ON-GOING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Implementation of any recommended projects in this
Plan will require ongoing community engagement and
collaboration. The implementation of this Plan offers an opportunity to continue to promote active transportation in Downtown Fullerton. Programs and promotional
campaigns can help educate residents and visitors about the opportunities to walk, bike, and roll to/from and
around Downtown, and encourage people to use active
transportation when traveling throughout the City. For
more information about active transportation programs,
see Chapter 5.

Actions the City can take to continue engaging with
stakeholders about active transportation in Downtown
Fullerton include:
• Continue to engage with stakeholders when
implementing future projects. Quick-build projects,
described above, offer a unique opportunity for
stakeholders to provide on-the-ground feedback to
help shape the final design.
• Implement various programs, promotional campaigns,
and public events to continue to encourage residents
and visitors to walk and bike around Downtown.
• Install additional wayfinding signage, as described in Chapter 6, to further promote biking and walking by
making it more accessible.

REGIONAL COORDINATION
Implementing certain recommended improvements will
require coordination with other agencies. Several of the recommended programs will also require coordination
with other stakeholders such as neighboring cities,
OCTA, SCAG, Downtown businesses, and local community
organizations.

Actions the City can take to coordinate with other
agencies include:
• Coordinate with agency partners and neighboring
jurisdictions to implement recommended projects in
Chapter 6, when applicable.
• Work in partnership with OCTA, SCAG, and other local
jurisdictions to ensure recommended projects are
integrated into the regional network.

Quick build curb extensions are implemented with inexpensive materials like paint and delineators.

Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
119

COMPLIANCE
The majority of the recommendations in this Plan are
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) process, but the design and implementation
of some of the projects may require an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), Categorical Exemption, or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Additionally, all projects will need to comply with the Active Transportation Program (ATP)
and any other relevant grant guidelines to qualify for
funding.

Actions the City can take to ensure compliance with CEQA and grants include:
• When implementing projects, review CEQA guidelines
to determine whether they are exempt from the
environmental review process.
• Consult relevant grant guidelines to understand
project compliance requirements.

CONSTRUCTION
Construction of recommended improvements can
occur as a standalone process or as part of a larger
effort, such as during a road repavement project. To
coordinate construction efforts, the City will integrate recommendations into the City’s Capital Improvement
Plan and repaving program.

Funding Strategies
With limited and competitive funding options,
implementing an expanded Downtown bicycle and
pedestrian network must be prioritized in a thoughtful
and feasible manner. In Chapter 7, the Plan provides a list of prioritized projects, which will be used to determine which funding sources are the most appropriate. Funding sources can come from local, regional, or federal
sources, and can be used for building new bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, maintenance of existing facilities, and programming to encourage safe use of active
transportation methods.

LOCAL GRANTS
Fullerton Adopt-a-Park and Trail
Through the MyFullerton phone app, residents and
community organizations can volunteer to maintain
parks and trails in Fullerton. Volunteers will clean up these areas at least once a month, doing tasks such
as weeding, cleaning up picnic tables, and reporting
repairs. Although there are currently no trails in
Downtown Fullerton, well maintained trails and parks may encourage increased active transportation use through
Downtown to reach these natural areas.
120
OCTA Measure M2
Measure M2, also known as OC Go, is a half-cent sales
tax for transportation improvements in Orange County
through 2041. Fullerton City staff can apply for this grant to fund transit improvements and programs, and street
pavement improvement projects. OCTA administers
the funding, and the Measure M Taxpayer Oversight
Committee upholds the integrity of the funds to ensure it is spent on voter-approved transportation projects.

Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP)
The CTFP is a collection of grant programs which
fund projects related to street safety improvements,
traffic and pedestrian safety near schools, and transit improvements including extensions and stops. The CTFP
streamlines the grant application process by providing
uniform guidelines for multiple funding programs.

Measure M2 provides funding for many of the programs
in the CTFP.

OCTA Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program (BCIP)
The BCIP funds bicycle and pedestrian projects which
reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. The
goals of the program include: increasing walking and
bicycle trips, creating active transportation network
links and closing gaps in the network, encouraging
active transportation through safety improvements,
and working closely with the community to implement
projects. Most of the recommendations in this Plan would meet the goals of the BCIP. $25 million is available to distribute, through fiscal year 2024.

Arterial Pavement Management (APM)
The APM program, administered by OCTA, provides
funding for pavement maintenance and reconstruction.

Strategically coordinated pavement improvements
provide an opportunity to integrate active transportation striping projects on streets in a cost effective manner.

Additionally, the inclusion of an existing or new on-street bikeway or the inclusion of a bus route in a project yields more points on the APM grant application.

Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
121

REGIONAL GRANTS
SCAG Sustainable Communities Program (SCP)
Created in 2005, SCAG’s Sustainable Communities
Program has provided resources and assistance to
jurisdictions to complete local planning efforts. The SCP provides resources to support active transportation
and multimodal efforts and sustainability, equity in
transportation planning, reductions in motorized
vehicle miles traveled and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The SCP also supports quick build projects,
and network visioning to help jurisdictions install active transportation networks.

SCAG Local Community Engagement and Safety Mini-Grant
This mini-grant program is intended to increase
the safety of those most harmed by traffic injuries
and fatalities. Grants are awarded to community
organizations, non-profits, and social enterprises with a focus on organizations that include members of
disadvantaged or underinvested communities. Mini-grants fund projects which educate mobility users on safe practices, increase access to safe routes for users, and envision safety improvements to transportation
infrastructure that prioritizes vulnerable users. Funding is available up to $10,000.

STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement program’s purpose
is to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. Eligible projects from the list of Plan
recommendations include installation of pedestrian
hybrid beacons, roadway improvements that provide
separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, and
other physical infrastructure projects. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway
safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.

Funding is available up to $10 million.

Enhanced Mobility For Seniors and Disabled (EMSD)
The EMSD grant program provides funding for local
public agencies to help meet the transportation needs
of seniors and individuals with disabilities. The grant is available for projects that can provide first-last mile connections, incorporate technology-based mobility
options, and reach disadvantaged communities. OCTA
administers this program. $4 million is available for
projects through fiscal year 2023.

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement program
of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the Transportation
Investment Fund and other funding sources. Funding
consists of two components: Caltrans’ Interregional
Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) and
regional transportation planning agencies’ Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Pedestrian
and bicycle projects may be programmed under ITIP and
122
RTIP. STIP programming occurs every two years. There is $6.960 million available in funding through 2025.

State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
The SHOPP program is designed to maintain the state
highway system, however it includes opportunities
to address Complete Streets elements and improve
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The 2020-2024 program has set aside $42 million for projects with Complete
Streets components, particularly in disadvantaged
neighborhoods. These elements include signage, bike
parking, bike lanes, pedestrian crossing infrastructure, transit stop improvements, and pedestrian lighting.

SHOPP projects are administered by Caltrans and the
California Transportation Commission.

Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA)
TDA provides funding from State Transit Assistance
(STA) and Local Transportation Fund (LTF). This program funds a variety of transportation programs including for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit facilities. The amount of funding is based on sales tax collected in each county.

This fund is administered by Caltrans.

Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The ATP was created to encourage the use of active
transportation through encouragement and safety
measures. Eligible projects include infrastructure
projects, education, encouragement, and enforcement
of non- infrastructure projects which further the goals of the ATP, a combination of infrastructure and non-infrastructure activities, and development of active transportation plans in disadvantaged communities.

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) stipulates that $100,000,000 of revenues from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
will be available annually to the ATP. The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs,
including the Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State
Safe Routes to School (SRTS), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active
transportation. Applications typically submitted in July.

Typical projects funded by the ATP include:
• Safe Routes to School programming
• Safe Routes to Transit programming
• New or improved bicycle infrastructure, including bike lanes and bike parking
• New or improved pedestrian facilities including
sidewalks, and crosswalks
• Network links to trails and parks
• Educational and encourage programming
The goals of the ATP are defined as the following:
• Increase the proportion of walking and biking trips
• Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Enhance public health
• Ensure disadvantaged communities share the benefits
of the program
Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
123
Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP)
Started in 2020, STEP aims to address transportation
equity while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

STEP issues grants for either planning and building
projects or clean transportation projects. The objective of STEP is to provide accessible, affordable, and safe
transportation options for everyone, particularly
disadvantaged communities. Examples of STEP funded
projects include transit stop improvements, pedestrian
infrastructure improvements, and transportation network improvements near key destinations.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program
(AHSC)
The goals of AHSC are to support compact development
in order to preserve land, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and increase the supply of affordable housing near jobs, stores, transit, and other key destinations.

Eligible projects include sustainable transportation
infrastructure, such as new transit vehicles, sidewalks, and bike lanes; transportation-related amenities, such
as bus shelters, benches, or shade trees; and other
programs that encourage residents to walk, bike, and use public transit. Funding is available up to $30 million.

California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
The Office of Traffic Safety’s goal is to prevent serious injury and death from motor vehicle crashes. Funding is available for projects which relate to one of the priority program areas, including pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Bike and pedestrian safety programs include educational outreach particularly for high-risk populations, youth
bicycle trainings and walking courses, and outreach for underserved older communities to identify safety issues.

Grant applications must be submitted by January 31.

California Transportation Commission Local Partnership
Program (LPP)
Created from Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), this program
provides $200 million in funding for local and regional transportation agencies with voter approved taxes, tolls, or fees, which are dedicated solely to transportation
improvements. The program provides funding for aging
infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, transit and rail, and health and safety benefits. The
LPP funds are distributed through a 40% statewide
competitive component and a 60% formulaic component.

Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
The California Strategic Growth Council funds
community-led development and infrastructure projects
that achieve major environmental, health, and economic
benefits in California’s most disadvantaged communities.

Funded by California’s Cap-and-Trade Program, TCC
empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to
choose their community vision, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change – all with data-driven milestones and measurable outcomes. Approximately
$56.4 million is available to use for implementation and planning projects.

Rubberized Pavement Grant Program
The California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (Cal Recycle) provides the Rubberized Pavement Grant Program, formerly called the Rubberized Asphalt
124
Concrete (RAC) Grant Program, to promote markets
for recycled-content surfacing products derived from
waste tires generated in California, and decrease the
adverse environmental impacts created by unlawful
disposal and stockpiling of waste tires. There is $4,000,000 available funding. $350,000 is the maximum for individual applications. If applying for a regional application, the maximum is $500,000.

Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program
supports transportation planning processes which
address local and regional transportation needs
and issues. The program offers two types of grants:

Strategic Partnerships and Sustainable Communities.

The Sustainable Communities Grants has $29.5 million
in funding to encourage local and regional planning
that furthers state goals. The Strategic Partnership
Grant has $4.5 million to identify and address statewide or regional deficiencies on the State highway system in partnership with Caltrans. The overarching objectives to guide grant applications are sustainability, preservation, mobility, safety, innovation, economy, health and social equity. Past awarded projects types include active
transportation, complete streets, transit, and emission reduction.

Rebuilding American Infrastructure With Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
Previously known as the BUILD and TIGER grants,
the RAISE grant funds the building and repair of
transportation networks. Available through the U.S.
department of Transportation, the RAISE grant allows
sponsors at the State and local levels to obtain funding for multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional funding
initiatives. Eligible projects include road or bridge
projects, public transportation projects, and surface
transportation facilities.

Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula
Program
The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program funds
transit capital and transportation- related planning
projects. Funding is available to governors, local officials and private transit operators and can be used for
planning, engineering, and design as well as transit-related studies, crime prevention and security equipment, construction and maintenance of passenger facilities,
and mobility management programs. The federal share
is not to exceed 80% of the net project cost for capital expenditures.

Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
125

OTHER FUNDS
National Endowment For The Arts: Our Town
The Our Town grant program supports projects that
integrate arts, culture, and design activities into efforts that strengthen communities by advancing local
economic, physical, and/or social outcomes. Creative
placemaking is when art is deliberately integrated into community revitalization work - placing arts at the table with land-use, transportation, economic development,
education, housing, infrastructure, and public safety
strategies. Grant applicants require partnerships
between arts organizations and government. Funding
ranges from $25,000-$200,000 per project with a minimum cost share/match equal to the grant amount. This
program occurs on a yearly basis and the application
deadline typically falls in August.

People For Bikes Community Grants
Established in 1999, and funded by partners in the
industry, PeopleForBikes is a partnership of bicycle
advocates that has awarded more than $3.5 million
dollars in grants for bike projects and bike advocacy
initiatives. In 2021, PeopleForBikes contributed $50,000 for investments in bicycle infrastructure, education for children who bike, mountain biking trails, and parklets.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the nation’s
largest philanthropy dedicated to health. Some grants
offered by RWJF support planning and demonstration
projects and programs which are devoted to expanding
public health in the built environment. Grants are
developed in consultation with leading experts in the field and can provide funding and technical assistance.

America Walks Community Change Grant
In partnership with the CDC’s Active People, Healthy
Nation initiative, America Walks awards grants of
$1,500 for projects related to creating healthy, active, and engaged places to live, work, and play. Projects
should have a foundation of equity, and should lead to
increased physical activity and active transportation in a community. Projects can be infrastructure related, or programmatic such as Safe Routes to School programs.

Kresge Foundation
The Kresge Foundation is a national foundation which
invests in arts and culture, education, environment,
health, human services, and community development
with the goal of creating pathways for people with low
incomes to improve their life circumstances and join the economic mainstream. One of the foundation’s eight
focus areas is American Cities, which provides funding to make cities more connected and create reliable public
transportation options. Another of the foundation’s
focuses is the Environment, which offers grants to
projects which help communities reduce and prepare for
the impacts of climate change.
126
Maintenance Strategies
It is imperative that Fullerton acquire funding to maintain streets Downtown in order to adequately maintain
existing and new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Infrastructure that is not maintained can be unsafe and uncomfortable, and may discourage residents from using
active transportation Downtown.

Infrastructure should regularly be cleared of debris and hazards, and traffic control devices, striping, and signage should be maintained to ensure the network continues
to function properly. Additionally, pavement should be
maintained, and vegetation should be cut back when
encroaching into pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Source: City of Fullerton
Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
127

EXISTING FULLERTON MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS
Pavement Management Program (PMP) and Infrastructure
and Natural Resources Advisory Committee (INRAC)
Fullerton Department of Public Works inspects City roads every two to six years to determine pavement conditions and develop rehabilitation plans. The PMP rates each
street using a pavement condition index, and provides
recommendations for improving the streets depending
on the rating. As of the 2020 PMP report, 44% of roads in Fullerton are ranked as “poor” or “very poor”. The report recognizes that deferring maintenance shortens the
lifetime of pavement and leads to increased costs to
repair streets in poorer shape.

Most of the funding for pavement improvements comes
from Measure M2, SB-1, and the state and federal gas tax.

The 2020 PMP Infrastructure Needs presentation reported that the Public Works Department requires $4 million
in additional funding to maintain roads in their current condition, and an increase in $11 million to improve the condition of the roads in the City.

In addition to the PMP, the INRAC reviews infrastructure matters and provides recommendations to the City
Council. The Committee issued its first report in January 2020 with a focus on the critically poor condition of
Fullerton’s streets. The Committee found no dedicated
funding source for streets in the General Plan, and does not expect that grants will be able to adequately address the street improvements needed. The Committee also
recommended a sales tax dedicated to infrastructure
needs, which appeared in November 2020 as Measure S,
a sales tax dedicated to general city services including street repair. Measure S did not pass.

MyFullerton Application
The MyFullerton mobile application allows residents to
report problems including graffiti, potholes, sidewalk
defects, streetlight outages, broken street signs, and
other civic issues. Users can take a picture of the
problem, write a short description, and geo-tag its
location before sending it to the City.

Street Maintenance Division
The Street Maintenance Division is responsible for
street sweeping, street signage, lane striping, pavement, and sidewalks. The Street Maintenance Division asks
residents to relay any issues to them by calling Public Works Maintenance Services, reporting it through the
service request portal on the City website, or by using the MyFullerton App.
128

RECOMMENDATIONS
This Plan recommends the following maintenance
strategies be included in the planning process, to be
implemented through collaboration amongst various City
departments:
• Consider maintenance when designing active
transportation facilities to ensure they remain safe and comfortable to use.
• Consider operational issues such as parking, traffic
enforcement, and traffic operations during the design
of active transportation facilities.
• Update and request funding for annual maintenance
costs to ensure active transportation facilities are
routinely kept up.
• Develop a maintenance plan that specifies timelines for repainting of roadway markings, sweeping equipment
and schedule, specifications for vertical elements, and opportunities for coordination with paving projects.

MAINTENANCE FUNDING STRATEGIES
Benefit Assessment Districts
Benefit assessment districts can pay for the cost of
providing services to California communities, including public works improvements and maintenance.4 Bikeways,
walkways, trails, sidewalks, lighting and related facilities can be funded by the districts. Property owners vote to finance these services, and the services can only directly benefit those properties within the district, therefore care must be taken when defining the community boundary
as active transportation projects have regional benefits.

Benefit assessment districts are created through a public hearing and a majority vote from the affected property
owners. Prior to the vote, an engineer will determine the amount each property owner must pay, based on the
relative benefit the property owner will receive from the service or improvement compared to other property
owners in the district. During the vote, the weight of
the property’s owners vote is in relation to the amount they would pay, with higher weights going to owners
that would pay more. There are several types of benefit assessment districts that a city and property owners can implement:
4 Assessing the Benefits of Benefit Assessments. Senate Governance and Finance Committee of California.https://sgf.senate.ca.gov/sites/sgf.senate. ca.gov/files/BenefitAssessmentsPublication.pdf
5 Source: Special Benefits Funded by Maintenance Assessment Districts. The City of San Diego Parks & Recreation. https://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/general-info/mads/mad1 Fullerton On The Go | Implementation
129
• Maintenance Assessment District (MAD): These districts provide increased maintenance to City property
including higher rates of landscape maintenance like
weeding, pest control and litter removal, hardscape
maintenance like sweeping streets and sidewalks, open
space maintenance like tree trimming, and lighting
maintenance including installing and replacing street
lights as needed. MADs can even fund the construction
of new projects, if the project exists only with the
district.5
• Business Improvement Districts (BID): These districts are formed by private property owners and businesses.

A fee is collected to improve the business area and
helps fund street maintenance, capital improvement
projects, business development, and facade
improvements. The process of creating a BID typically
involves businesses petitioning the local government
to create a BID. The local government determines if
the majority of the businesses in the designated area
would like to participate. After determining this, the
local government enacts legislation to create the BID.

A city’s primary role is to levy the assessment on behalf of the BID and requires that a nonprofit corporation
be responsible for procuring the BID improvements. A
city has full authority to audit and review the financial condition of the BID.
• Lighting and Landscape Assessment District (LLD): An
LLD is an assessment to finance the acquisition of land for parks or open space as well as to install planting
and landscaping features. Funds can be used to
support the maintenance of public amenities.

Development Impact Fees
A development impact fee is a one time expense to a
builder of a new development. The fee offsets some of
the costs of public facilities and mitigates the impacts from new developments. Cities determine these types of
fees in order to raise money for public services including transportation, public art, and environmental protection.

Community Facilities Districts (CFD)
Created by the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, CFDs allow a district to sell tax-exempt bonds to fund public improvement projects within a district. These funds
are flexible and can be used to finance various street
infrastructure projects including bicycle and pedestrian improvements, maintenance of parks and open space,
and environmental cleanup. CFDs require a 2/3 vote of
approval from registered voters.

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
EIFDs were approved by the California Legislature in
2015 to allow communities to establish specific districts in which they can collect local property tax revenues
to fund local infrastructure projects and maintenance
costs. EIFDs do not require voter approval to form,
however strong support from the City and the community
is necessary, as residents have a right to protest the
formation.

Appendices

132
Existing Plans,
Policies, and
Procedures
A
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
133
A. Existing Plans, Policies, and Procedures
Local

THE FULLERTON PLAN (CITY OF FULLERTON
GENERAL PLAN 2012)
Adopted in 2012, the Fullerton Plan is the City’s blueprint for local government decision-making on growth,
capital investment, and physical development in the
City of Fullerton. It guides future development plans and provides direction on how to implement the Plan. The
Fullerton Plan is organized into four Master Elements:

The Fullerton Built Environment, The Fullerton Economy, The Fullerton Community, and The Fullerton Natural
Environment. The following elements of the General Plan support active transportation.

The Fullerton Built Environment
The Fullerton Built Environment Master Element
addresses the physical development of the Fullerton
community’s districts and neighborhoods, including the
mobility connections and public infrastructure that occur within the City. The Fullerton Built Environment includes sections on community development and design. It also
establishes the following goals and policies to support active transportation:

Goal 5: A balanced system promoting transportation
alternatives that enable mobility and an enhanced
quality of life.
• P5.1 Circulation Between Cities: Support regional
and subregional efforts to implement programs that
coordinate the multimodal transportation needs
and requirements across jurisdictions, including but
not limited to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways,
the Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, the Signal
Synchronization Master Plan, the Orange County
Congestion Management Plan, and the Growth
Management Plan.
• P5.2 Reduction of Single Occupant Vehicle Trips:

Support regional and subregional efforts to increase
alternatives to and infrastructure supporting reduction of single occupant vehicle trips.
• P5.7 Complete Streets: Support projects, programs,
policies and regulations to maintain a balanced multi-modal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads and highways – including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users
of public transportation and seniors – for safe and
convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the
suburban and urban contexts within the City.
134
• P5.9 Coordination with Schools: Support projects,
programs, policies and regulations to improve – in
coordination with the school districts – alternatives to the motorized transport of students by parents to and
from school.
• P5.12 Multi-Modal Traffic Analysis: Support programs, policies and regulations to analyze and evaluate urban
streets using an integrated approach from the points
of view of automobile drivers, transit passengers,
bicyclists and pedestrians rather than autocentric
thresholds which conflict with other policies of The
Fullerton Plan – including better environments for
walking and bicycling, safer streets, increased transit use, cost-effective infrastructure investments, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and the preservation of
open space.
• P5.15 Neighborhood and Focus Area Connections:

Support projects, programs, policies and regulations
to connect neighborhoods via a multi-modal network
to each other and to the City’s Focus Areas.

Goal 6: A bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is a safe and convenient alternative to motorized transportation
and a recreational opportunity for people of all ages and abilities.
• P6.1 Consideration of Bicyclists: Support regional
and subregional efforts to ensure bicyclists are
considered when developing new or retrofitting existing transportation facilities and systems.
• P6.2 Inter-Jurisdiction Connections: Support efforts to maintain, expand and create new connections between
the Fullerton bicycle network and the bicycle networks
of adjacent cities, Orange County and the region.
• P6.3 Bicycle Transportation Plan: Support projects,
programs and policies to maintain and update as
necessary a Bicycle Transportation Plan prepared
and approved pursuant to the California Streets and
Highways Code to maintain eligibility for funding for
State Bicycle Transportation Account funds.
• P6.4 Bicyclists Use on All Streets: Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to recognize that
every street in Fullerton is a street that a bicyclist can use.
• P6.5 Bicycling Safety and Convenience: Support
projects, programs, policies and regulations that make
bicycling safer and more convenient for all types of
bicyclists.
• P6.6 Safe Travel to Key Destinations: Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to facilitate
safe travel by bicycle to key destinations within the
community and the larger region.
• P6.7 Development Projects: Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to reduce negative impacts
to and increase opportunities for bicycle users and
the bicycle network in private and public development
projects.
• P6.8 Multi-Tiered Bicycle Network: Support projects,
programs, policies and regulations to develop a multi-tiered network of bicycle travel options that consider traffic volumes and rider experience; and which
recognizes that all streets should be safe for bicycling.

Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
135
• P6.9 Intersection Safety: Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to support the safe and
efficient movement of bicyclists through and across
intersections.
• P6.10 Bicyclist Education: Support projects and
programs in conjunction with local bike shops,
organizations and advocates to foster responsible
ridership and reduce barriers to bicycling.
• P6.11 Neighborhood and Focus Area Connections:

Support projects, programs, policies and regulations
to connect neighborhoods via a multimodal network to
each other, and to and through the City’s Focus Areas.
• P6.12 Bicycle Parking and Facilities: Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to provide
convenient bicycle parking and other bicycle facilities in existing and potential high demand locations within
the City, such as educational institutions, parks,
business districts, transit stops, retail, commercial and employment centers.
• P6.13 Design Standards: Support projects, programs,
policies and regulations to use recognized bicycle
infrastructure design standards of the Federal
Highway Administration, California Department of
Transportation, and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, and participate
in their pilot studies for alternative designs when
appropriate.
• P6.14 Design Technology and Innovation: Support
projects, programs, policies and regulations to
consider bicycle friendly design using new technologies and innovative treatments
The Fullerton Community
The Fullerton Community Master Element addresses
community safety and health elements in order to enrich the quality of life of residents and visitors. It establishes the following goal and policies to support active
transportation:

Goal 14: An environment with opportunities for community health and wellbeing.
• P14.5 Opportunities for Physical Activity: Support
policies, projects, programs and regulations that
provide for convenient and safe areas that facilitate
opportunities for physical activity such as parks, trails, open space, safe streets for bicycling, safe sidewalks
for walking, and recreational facilities for residents of all ages and abilities.
• P14.6 Amenities Within a Walkable Distance: Support
policies and regulations involving land use and zoning
changes that would provide access to daily retail
needs, recreational facilities, and transit stops within a walkable distance (i.e., a quarter- to a half-mile) of established residential uses.
136
City of Fullerton Bicycle Master Plan
(2012)
The City of Fullerton Bicycle Master Plan is an approved bicycle element which was prepared in conjunction
with the City’s General Plan. The Bicycle Master Plan
prepared goals, policies, and actions that support
active transportation. The Plan covers on and off-street paved bicycle facilities for both commuting and recreation bicycling. Some proposed bicycle facilities
near Downtown include a bicycle boulevard along
Wilshire Boulevard and multiple Class III bicycle routes along Lemon Street, Commonwealth Avenue, and Pomona
Avenue. The following goal and policies relate to active transportation:

Goal: A bicycle friendly city where bicycling is a safe and convenient alternative to motorized transportation and
a recreational opportunity for people of all ages and
abilities.
• P1. Support regional and subregional efforts to ensure bicyclists are considered when developing new or
retrofitting existing transportation facilities and
systems.
• P2. Support efforts to maintain, expand and create new connections between Fullerton bicycle network and the
bicycle networks of adjacent cities, Orange County, and the region.
• P3. Support projects, programs and policies to
maintain and update as necessary a Bicycle
Transportation Plan prepared and approved pursuant
to the California Streets and Highways Code to
maintain eligibility for funding for State Bicycle
Transportation Account funds.
• P4. Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to recognize that every street in Fullerton is a street that a bicyclist can use.
• P5. Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations that make bicycling safer and more
convenient for all types of bicyclists.
• P6. Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to facilitate safe travel by bicycle to key destinations within the community and larger region.
• P7. Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to reduce negative impacts and increase
opportunities for bicycle users and bicycle network in
private and public development projects.
• P8. Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to develop a multi-tiered network of bicycle travel options that consider traffic volumes and rider
experience; and which recognizes that all streets
should be safe for bicycling.
• P9. Support projects, programs, policies, and
regulations to support the safe and efficient movement
of bicyclists through and across intersections.
• P10. Support projects and programs in conjunction
with local bike shops, organizations, and advocates
to foster responsible ridership reduce barriers to
bicycling.

Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
137
• P11. Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to connect neighborhoods via multi-modal
network to each other and to and through the City’s
Focus Areas.
• P12. Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to provide convenient bicycle parking and
other bicycle facilities in existing and potential high demand locations within the City, such as educational
institutions, parks, business districts, transit stops, retail, commercial and employment centers.
• P13. Support projects, programs, policies
and regulations to utilize recognized bicycle
infrastructure design standards of the Federal
Highway Administration, California Department of
Transportation, and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials and participate
in their pilot studies for alternative designs when
appropriate.
• P14. Support projects, programs, policies and
regulations to consider bicycle friendly design using
new technologies and innovative treatments.

Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2012)
Technology Transfer Program of the Institute of
Transportation Studies at University of California,
Berkeley conducted a Pedestrian Safety Assessment
study in the City of Fullerton. The study focused on
identifying opportunities and ideas for potential
improvements. The following site-specific suggestions
were made:
• Wilshire Avenue and Harbor Boulevard:

Ì Add protected left turn phase (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM)
Ì Restrict right turns on red (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM) using LED blank out signs
Ì Add a curb extension and a wide curb ramp on the
south side of the marked, unsignalized crossing at
Wilshire Avenue and West Harbor Alley.

Ì Continue practice of prohibiting vehicular traffic on Wilshire at West Harbor Alley (1:00 AM to 2:30 AM)
• Amerige Avenue and Harbor Boulevard:

Ì Add protected left turn phase (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM)
Ì Restrict right turns on red (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM) using LED blank out signs
Ì Continue practice of prohibiting vehicular traffic on Amerige at West Harbor Alley (1:00 AM to 2:30 AM)
Ì Commonwealth Avenue and Harbor Boulevard:

Ì Add protected left turn phase (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM)
Ì Restrict right turns on red (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM) using LED blank out signs
138
Ì Extend curb into Commonwealth parking lane at NW
corner. Add directional curb ramps.

Ì Extend curb into Commonwealth parking lane at SE
corner. Add directional curb ramps.

Ì Fill empty tree wells along north side of
Commonwealth west of Harbor
• Santa Fe Avenue and Harbor Boulevard:

Ì Add marked crosswalks with advance stop bars on
all legs of intersection.

Ì Add protected left turn phase (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM)
Ì Restrict right turns on red (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM) using LED blank out signs
Ì Visibility doesn’t appear to be an issue at the
intersection, however, both demand and visibility
may influence the decision to install the south
crosswalk.

Fullerton Bike Connection Plan (2017)
The Fullerton Bike Connection Plan addresses strategic
gaps in the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network. The
City prioritized two areas that would increase access
to regional transportation points and connect to
recreational trails: Focus Area 1: the Malvern Avenue/
Brea Creek corridor; and Focus Area 2: State Route 57
crossings at Yorba Linda Boulevard, Madison Avenue,
and Nutwood Avenue. The purpose of the Fullerton
Bike Connection Plan evaluated these two gaps in the
pedestrian and bicycle network and developed plans for
the installation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The plan makes various recommendations for pedestrian
facilities and bicycle lane improvements to both focus
areas such as implementing bicycle lane improvements
to Nutwood Avenue corridor, reconstructing curb ramps
throughout Yorba Linda Boulevard, and improving
crossing facilities at Madison Avenue.

Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
139
East Wilshire Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
Study (2016)
The Wilshire Bike Boulevard pilot program utilized
temporary improvements to test bicycle boulevard
concepts and develop guidelines for future
permanent bicycle and pedestrian enhancements for
neighborhoods. The study concluded recommending
traffic circles along East Wilshire Avenue at the following intersections: Balcom Avenue, Berkeley Avenue, Yale
Avenue, Cornell Avenue, and Annin Avenue. In addition
to traffic circles, the study also recommended other
pedestrian safety design features such as widening
sidewalks along Wilshire Avenue and raised, high-visibility crosswalks at Wilshire Avenue and Lawrence Avenue.

CITY OF FULLERTON SPECIFIC PLANS (VARIOUS)
The following specific plans pertain to areas or projects within Downtown Fullerton. Designed to help implement
the General Plan, the specific plans established a link between implementing policies of the general plan and
the development proposals in a defined area.

SOCO Walk/Transit Village (2004)
The Fullerton Transit Village Specific Plan contains
development standards and design guidelines within
the central portion of Fullerton, south of the downtown area. The Plan helps guide and transform the vacant
project site into a planned residential community. The
development proposes a future courtyard over Walnut
Avenue and the train tracks, which the public can access from Truslow Avenue. In addition, a public trail easement will connect to the park site west of Harbor Boulevard
via the existing pedestrian overpass to Fullerton Transit Village.

Harbor Walk Specific Plan (2014)
The Harbor Walk Specific Plan is primarily designed to
encourage new mixed-use developments such as high-density multi-story buildings along Harbor Boulevard.

The Plan contributes to the City’s vision to provide mixed use developments within walking distance of Downtown.

The site’s location also enables non-driving residents
to access retail, restaurant and a variety of business
services either as pedestrians or cyclists. The Plan
supports and encourages cycling developments by
including secured bicycle parking areas on Ash Avenue.

In addition, existing sidewalk, curb, gutter and storm
drain improvements along Harbor Boulevard frontage
near the site should be protected or replaced when
impacted by new construction.
140
Fullerton Transportation Center (Adopted 2010; Revised
2015)
The Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan
purpose is to create a sustainable transit-oriented
district at the Fullerton Transportation Center located within Downtown Fullerton. The Plan supports walking,
bicycling, and transit ridership as well as facilitating development around the project site. Streets along the
project site will be improved with enhanced sidewalks,
pedestrian-scale street lights, and other streetscape
amenities to encourage walking. The existing alleys and paseos will also be enhanced as secondary pedestrian
corridors that accommodate bicycles, such as the
alley west of Pomona Avenue (Fender Alley). In addition, new development projects are to include bike racks to
encourage bicycle ridership. Although the existing street and alley network within the area would generally remain in place with certain improvements, property owners
and developers may propose an alternative street, alley, and bicycle path network for the blocks east of Lemon
Street, north of the railroad corridor. The closure of the existing alley and the realignment of Santa Fe Street and Lawrence Avenue may be considered.

Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
141
Regional
Orange County’s Bike + Pedestrian Plan
(2019)
The Orange County Transportation Authority’s Bike + Ped Plan represents the County’s first active transportation plan. The Plan will help to ensure bicycle and pedestrian improvement efforts are coordinated between local
jurisdictions and reduce the need for local agencies to develop similar plans to compete for state and federal
grants. The Plan aims to:

1. Reduce pedestrian and bicycle collisions. OCTA and
local agencies in Orange County are very interested
in reducing the number of fatal and serious injury
collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians.

Continued investment in the active transportation
network will also close gaps in the system and address
challenges for improved safety.

2. Advance strategic walking and biking network.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide safe and convenient access to major destinations, schools, and
parks are essential to maintaining Orange County’s
high quality of life. Facilities that connect multiple cities are also important to increase mobility and encourage
use of active transportation modes.

3. Enhance walking and biking access to transit. As the regional transit operator in Orange County, OCTA is
interested in improving access to transit for residents throughout Orange County, helping to improve
mobility and increase transit ridership.

4. Improve high-need pedestrian areas. The plan
identifies areas throughout Orange County where
the need for improved pedestrian infrastructure is
high compared to the county as a whole. Mapping the
pedestrian realm’s high need areas will help guide
investment for improved mobility, safety, and equity.

5. Strengthen stakeholders’ partnerships. OC Active
builds on a history of OCTA, the County, and local cities cooperating together to plan and implement regional
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. This plan
identifies strategies and opportunities to continue and strengthen these partnerships going forward.

6. Incorporate diverse community perspectives. The
community outreach effort focused on connecting
with residents throughout Orange County. The plan
strategies and recommendations are strengthened by
the diverse and widespread input received during the
project engagement with the community.

7. Leverage funding opportunities. OCTA is focused on
helping local cities to pursue and obtain grant funding to support the planning, design, and construction of
the active transportation improvements identified in
OC Active. This plan will serve as the foundation for
local agencies to pursue funding opportunities for
project implementation.
142
District 4 Bikeway Strategy (2012)
District 4 Bikeway Strategy report summarizes the results of a collaborative effort focused on the identification of potential regional bikeways within Orange County’s
Supervisorial Districts 4. Six of the identified corridors pass through Fullerton:
• Brea Creek-Bastanchury – This east-west corridor
would run along Brea Creek from Coyote Creek to
Bastanchury Road, then turn and follow Bastanchury
Road through Fullerton and Placentia to Carbon Creek
and the Yorba Linda City Limit.
• Brea Mall-Cal State Fullerton-Santa Ana River –
This north-south corridor would have two northern
branches, a western branch that would start at the
Brea Mall area and an eastern branch that would
connect to the Union Pacific Trail near Birch Street and Associated Road. The corridor would follow Associated
Road to Cal State Fullerton, transitioning to an existing Class I bikeway through the campus. A crossing of the
State Route 57 freeway would be accomplished via a
pedestrian bridge at Madison Avenue or by widening
the Chapman Avenue undercrossing. The corridor
would then follow surface streets in Placentia and
Anaheim to connect to the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink
station and the Santa Ana River near Tustin Avenue.
• Brookhurst-Gilbert – This north-south corridor would
be all Class II bicycle lanes, following the Brookhurst Street corridor through Anaheim from south of Cerritos
Avenue to Fullerton. Within Fullerton and La Habra,
the corridor would follow Gilbert Avenue, Sunny Ridge
Drive, and Idaho Street, to a northern terminus at the
Union Pacific Right-of-Way corridor.
• Edison Transmission – This east-west corridor
would follow an existing Southern California Edison
transmission line through Buena Park and West
Anaheim to Ball Road, using Ball Road, Walnut Street
and Santa Ana Street to connect with the Fullerton
Station corridor on Anaheim Boulevard.
• Fullerton Station – This north-south corridor
transitions from on-street to off-street and back to
on-street, using Euclid Street, the Juanita Cooke Trail right-of-way, Harbor Boulevard, Lemon Street, Anaheim
Boulevard, and Cerritos Avenue to connect La Habra,
Fullerton, and Downtown Anaheim to the Platinum
Triangle and the Santa Ana River. A connection to The
Anaheim Resort area is also provided via Anaheim
Boulevard and Disney Way.
• Santa Ana River to Coyote Creek – This east-west
on-street bikeway would utilize Rosecrans Avenue,
Sunny Ridge Drive, Malvern Avenue, Wilshire Avenue,
Acacia Street, La Palma Avenue, and Frontera Street
to connect Coyote Creek with the Santa Ana River
Trail through Buena Park, Fullerton, and Anaheim. A
bicycle boulevard is proposed along Wilshire Avenue in
Fullerton
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
143
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020)
The SCAG Regional Transportation Plan 2020-2045
includes a commitment to reduce transportation related
emissions to comply with California Senate Bill 375. This Plan will help Fullerton contribute to this goal.

Nonmotorized Metrolink Accessibility
Strategy (2013)
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
has developed the Metrolink Station Nonmotorized
Accessibility Strategy to identify needs and opportunities for improvements that enhance non-motorized
transportation (pedestrian and bicyclist) access to and from Orange County’s Metrolink stations. The most
notable recommendation near Downtown Fullerton is
the proposed bicycle boulevard along Wilshire Avenue
between Highland Avenue and Acacia Avenue. In
addition, several Class III bicycle routes are proposed along Commonwealth Avenue, Brookhurst Road, Basque
Avenue, Pomona Avenue, Lemon Street and Richman
Avenue.
144

GOALS OBJECTIVES
Deliver on
Commitments
• Prioritize OC Go (Measure M) Investments
• Maintain consistency with the Next 10 Plan
Maximize external funds to support OC Go
• (Measure M) and complementary investments
Improve System
Performance
• Deploy transit resources in a cost-effective
manner
• Improve efficiency of highways (freeways and
toll facilities) and roadways
• Leverage emerging technologies and services
Expand System
Choices
• Deploy on-demand transit service and
rideshare options
• Support improved connectivity for active
transportation
• Explore public/private partnerships for new
transportation capacity
Support
Sustainability
• Deliver a financially constrained long-range
transportation plan and identify opportunities
to reduce funding uncertainty
• Explore environmental and emission reduction
strategies
• System maintenance
OCTA Outlook 2035: Long Range
Transportation Plan (2018)
The Long Range Transportation Plan lays out OCTA’s
vision for mobility over the next 20+ years. Orange
County’s long-range transportation plan is updated
every four years to reflect changing demographics,
economic trends, and mobility needs. It also serves as
Orange County’s input into regional planning efforts for southern California. It establishes the following goals and objectives for the region.

OCTA Central Harbor Boulevard Transit
Corridor Study (2018, not adopted)
The Central Harbor Boulevard Transit Corridor Study
focused on an eight-mile segment of Harbor Boulevard
from the Fullerton Transportation Center (FTC) in
Downtown Fullerton, through the cities of Anaheim and
Garden Grove to Westminster Avenue, on the border
of Garden Grove and the City of Santa Ana. The study
developed and evaluated conceptual transit alternatives for the Harbor Boulevard Corridor: enhanced bus,
bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcar, and rapid streetcar.

The cities were divided in terms of the types of transit modes and level of transit capital investment they would support. Fullerton City Council opposed the streetcar
mode option citing concerns about traffic impacts and
costs.

Table 15. Goals and Objectives of OCTA Outlook 2035
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
145
Existing Roadway Maintenance Procedures
Streets and Sidewalks
Fullerton Public Works Street Maintenance Division is
responsible for installing street signs, painting traffic lane and pavement legends, and maintaining public
sidewalks, storm drains, and asphalt over the City’s 285 miles of public streets. Public Works gathers reported
sidewalk damage and prioritizes this information
based on the level of severe damage and proximity to
a community destination (e.g., schools). If tree roots
are causing sidewalk damage, the City’s Tree Inspector
determines a best course of action (root pruning,
removal, etc.). Because the City of Fullerton takes great pride in its trees, trees will not be automatically removed.

Potholes are typically evaluated and repaired within a
week.

Street Sweeping
Public Works’ Street Division sweeps all City streets each week, excluding private streets and streets without a curb and gutter, except for on holidays and days of heavy rain.

Traffic Signals and Street Lights
Fullerton residents are encouraged to submit issues or
malfunctions to Traffic Engineering, who will then assess the individual situation and identify the most appropriate solution.

Landscaping and Vegetation
Fullerton residents are encouraged to submit complaints to Fullerton Public Works about private trees or other
vegetation that is obstructing a public right-of-way
or landscape damage to sidewalk pavement. To help
prevent these obstructions, the City has a Community
Forest Management Plan, which began in 1995. Each
street in Fullerton has a designated species of tree
specifically chosen for it, based on the width of the
existing parkway and the potential growth of the tree.
146
B Additional Data
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
147
B. Additional
Collision Data
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF

GF GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE

RAYMOND AVE BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

HILL AVE LEMON ST

LAS PALMAS DR

KNEPP AVE

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

ARBOLADO DR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUS DR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

TERRAZA PL

RICHMAN AVE

LOT E ACCESS

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURNING TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

BROOKHURST RD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

MALVERN AVE

BREA MA LL DR

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
∙39
∙57
∙90
!" ∙91 5
Citywide Pedestrian Collisions (2014-2019)
GF Fatal Collisions (17)
GF Severe Injury Collisions (30)
! Other Injury Collisions (288)
Core Area
Pedestrian Access Area (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access Area (2 Mile)
Metrolink
School
Green Space
´ 0 0.5 1
Miles
Collisions
Figure 22. Citywide Pedestrian Collisions (2015-2019)
148

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE

RAYMOND AVE BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

HILL AVE LEMON ST

LAS PALMAS DR

KNEPP AVE

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

ARBOLADO DR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUS DR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

TERRAZA PL

RICHMAN AVE

LOT E ACCESS

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURNING TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

BROOKHURST RD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

MALVERN AVE

BREA MA LL DR

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
∙39
∙57
∙90
!" ∙91 5
Citywide Pedestrian Collision Density (2015-2019)
High
Low
GF Fatal Collisions (13)
GF Severe Injury Collisions (22)
Core Area
Pedestrian Access Area (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access Area (2 Mile)
´ 0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 23. Citywide Pedestrian Collision Density (2015-2019) Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
149
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE

RAYMOND AVE BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

HILL AVE LEMON ST

LAS PALMAS DR

KNEPP AVE

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

ARBOLADO DR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUS DR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

TERRAZA PL

RICHMAN AVE

LOT E ACCESS

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURNING TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

BROOKHURST RD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

MALVERN AVE

BREA MA LL DR

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
∙39
∙57
∙90
!" ∙91 5
Citywide Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019)
GF Fatal Collisions (1)
GF Severe Injury Collisions (11)
! Other Injury Collisions (196)
Core Area
Pedestrian Access Area (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access Area (2 Mile)
Metrolink
School
Green Space
´ 0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 24. Citywide Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019)
150
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

DALE ST

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

LA PALMA AVE

RAYMOND AVE BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

MIRALOMA WAY

HILL AVE LEMON ST

LAS PALMAS DR

KNEPP AVE

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

ARBOLADO DR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUS DR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

TERRAZA PL

RICHMAN AVE

LOT E ACCESS

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ROLLING HILLS DR

ASSOCIATED RD

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURNING TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

BROOKHURST RD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

MALVERN AVE

BREA MA LL DR

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
∙39
∙57
∙90
!" ∙91 5
Citywide Bicycle Collision Density (2015-2019)
High
Low
GF Fatal Collisions (1)
GF Severe Injury Collisions (11)
Core Area
Pedestrian Access Area (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access Area (2 Mile)
´ 0 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 25. Citywide Bicycle Collision Density (2015-2019) Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
151
Violation Type
Most common violation type for pedestrian collisions
that occurred in the Pedestrian Access Area between
2015 and 2019 (44 percent) was pedestrian right-of-way
violation, followed by pedestrian violation (29 percent).

The remaining violation types were unsafe speed (6
percent), vehicle right-of-way violation (6 percent), and DUI (5 percent). For KSI collisions, pedestrian right-of-way violation was the most common type (50 percent), followed by pedestrian violation (33 percent).

Figure 26. Pedestrian Collisions by Primary Violation Category (2015-2019) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
KSI Collisions
Collisions
Other
Unknown
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Vehicle Right of Way Violation
Unsafe Speed
Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way Violation
Collisions KSI Collisions
44%
50%
33%
6%
6%
5%
4%
2%
2%
2%
17%
29%
152
Figure 27. Bicycle Collisions by Primary Violation Category (2015-2019) 0 10 20 30 40 50
KSI Collisions
Collisions
Other
Unsafe Speed
Pedestrian Right of Way Violation
Other Hazardous Violation
Unknown
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Vehicle Right of Way Violation
Wrong Side of Road
Collisions KSI Collisions
30%
40%
40%
25%
15%
10%
20%
6%
6%
4%
2%
1%
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
153
Bicycle Collision Type
Most common collision type for bicycle collisions that
occurred in the Bicycle Access Area, broadside collision (62 percent for all bicycle collisions, 100 percent for KSI bicycle collisions) was the most common collision type.

Figure 28. Collision Type for Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) Bicycle Collisions KSI Bicycle Collisions
9%
8%
7%
3%
62%
80%
1%
2%
8%
20%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
KSI Bicycle Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Other
Not Stated
Hit Object
Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Head-On
Vehicle/Pedestrian
154
How and Why

ACTION BEFORE COLLISIONS
The driver or pedestrian/bicycle movement preceding
a collision can influence the severity of the collision.

In pedestrian collisions, 29 percent (25 percent for KSI collisions) of parties at fault were proceeding straight, and 58 percent of parties at fault in bicycle collisions (80 percent for KSI collisions). Drivers are generally
moving at higher speeds when proceeding straight, which is reflected in the distribution of preceding movements for the collisions.

Figure 29. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Action before Collisions (2015-2019) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Other
Making U-Turn
Stopped
Entering Traffic
Making Right Turn
Making Left Turn
Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Collisions KSI Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions KSI Bicycle Collisions 29%
25%
58%
80%
26%
10%
20%
20%
25%
13%
13%
25%
9%
3%
25%
3%
3%
6%
7%
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
155

PEDESTRIAN LOCATION
Most pedestrian collisions (52 percent) within the
Pedestrian Access Area occurred when people were in a
crosswalk. Although crosswalks are designated locations for pedestrians to safely cross streets, 50 percent of the KSI pedestrian collisions occurred when people were not crossing in a crosswalk.

Figure 30. Pedestrian Location (2015-2019)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 KSI Collisions
Collisions
Approaching/ Not Stated
Leaving School Bus
In Road, Not in Road
Including Shoulder
Crossing
Not in
Crosswalk
Crossing in
Crosswalk
Not at
Intersection
Crossing in
Crosswalk
at Intersection
Collisions KSI Collisions
156

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Typically, a person under the influence of alcohol and/ or drugs increases the likelihood of a collision resulting in severe injury or a fatality. From 2015 to 2019 of KSI collisions within the Pedestrian Access Area, 17 percent of collisions involved a driver under the influence. That percentage is zero for bicycle collisions within the Bicycle Access Area.

Figure 31. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions with DUI (2015-2019) Pedestrian Collisions KSI Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions KSI Bicycle Collisions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No Drug or Alcohol
Impairment Involved
or Unknown
Drug or Alcohol
Impairment Involved
15%
17%
85%
83%
100%
100%
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
157
When

TIME OF DAY
Studying the timing of collisions can provide context
about the surrounding traffic and lighting conditions,
which informs the selection of countermeasures. Most
pedestrian collisions in Pedestrian Access Area occurred overnight – between 7 PM and 6 AM (40 percent for all
pedestrian collisions and 67 percent for KSI pedestrian collisions), when the downtown area sees most
pedestrians. Most bicycle collisions within the Bicycle Access Area occurred between 3 PM and 7 PM when
people are returning home from work and school (33
percent for all bicycle collisions and 40 percent for KSI bicycle collisions).

Figure 32. Time of Day for Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) Overnight (7PM-6AM) Morning Peak (6AM-10AM)
Midday (10AM-3PM) Evening Peak (3PM-7PM)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
KSI Bicycle Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
KSI Pedestrian Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions 40%
67% 33%
20% 18% 29% 33%
20% 20% 20% 40%
11% 21% 27%
158

DAY OF WEEK
Pedestrian collisions were slightly higher on Friday and Saturday (18 percent) with the rest distributed evenly
throughout the day of week in the Pedestrian Access
Area. However, KSI pedestrian collisions occurred more
on Tuesdays and Saturdays (33 percent each). Collisions that involved a bicyclist in the Bicycle Access Area
occurred more on weekdays.

Figure 33. Day of Week Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday ollisions
KSI Bicycle Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
KSI Pedestrian Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions KSI Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions KSI Bicycle Collisions Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
159

LIGHTING CONDITION
The lighting conditions can influence the visibility of road users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists, and road
infrastructure. While 43 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred during nighttime, the share of nighttime
collisions increased to 67 percent for KSI pedestrian
collisions. Bicycle collisions occurred more during
daylight (73 percent for all bicycle collisions and 80
percent for KSI bicycle collisions).

Figure 34. Lighting Conditions for Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) Dark-No Street Lights
Dark-Street Lights
Dusk-Dawn
Daylight
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
KSI Bicycle Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
KSI Pedestrian Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Lights
Daylight Dusk-Dawn
Dark-Street Lights Dark-No Streetlights
40%
17% 17% 67%
73% 25%
80% 20%
40% 40% 1%
1% 1%
160
Who

VICTIM AGE
Young people are overrepresented in pedestrian and
bicycle collisions because they are more likely to rely on walking and biking, which also includes walking and
biking to and from transit, making them more vulnerable to being killed or severely injured in a collision than someone driving a vehicle.

VICTIM GENDER
Male victims are overrepresented with 68 percent male
victims in pedestrian collisions and 72 percent in bicycle collisions.

Figure 35. Victim Age of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019)
Figure 36. Victim Gender of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019)
0 10
20 30
40 50
Under 18 19-30 31-64 65 and Over
Pedestrian Bicycle
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Female Male Not Stated
Pedestrian Bicycle
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
161

VICTIM RACE
The highest percentage of victims roughly reflects the
demographics of the City of Fullerton with White victims (59 percent in pedestrian collisions and 43 percent
in bicycle collisions). However, the Hispanic/Latinx
population is overrepresented in bicycle collisions (40 percent).

Figure 37. Victim Race of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Asian Black Hispanic White Other Not Stated
Pedestrian Bicycle
162
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Counts
Pedestrian and bicycle counts were conducted at 12
locations in Downtown Fullerton. Typically, counts allow the project team to evaluate projects and programs,
determine where to prioritize funding, and monitor
the long-term trends of walking and biking. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, counts were delayed and the results
may be skewed (e.g., more people walking and bicycling
than pre-COVID conditions). The data can help explain
where people are walking and bicycling most, supporting future grantwriting efforts.

The counts were obtained through conducting through
the intersection turning movement counts (TMCs).

Per SCAG count methodologies, counts took place
on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7:00 to 9:00am and
from 4:00 to 6:00pm and on Saturdays from 11:00am to
1:00pm. Time slots were kept consistent to compare data accurately. The counts were then uploaded onto the
Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG)
Active Transportation Database (ATD). Table 16 shows
results from each location.

DATE TIME PEDESTRIANS BICYCLISTS

1. HARBOR AT BERKELEY
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
86 30
20 15
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
43 16
10 16
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
69 47
17 8
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 52 23

2. HARBOR AT CHAPMAN
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
28 43
3 2
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
38 43
2 2
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
23 42
7 6
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 76 9

3. WILSHIRE AT FORD
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
48 43
3 4
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
38 42
2 3
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
31 48
1 1
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 39 4
Table 16. Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts by Location
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
163

4. WILSHIRE AT LEMON
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
15 13
6 8
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
20 42
3 14
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
24 19
4 9
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 19 11

5. MALDEN AT AMERIGE
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
13 64
1 4
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
23 26
1 3
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
18 74
2 0
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 48 7

6. COMMONWEALTH AT HIGHLAND
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
17 25
6 8
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
18 12
2 5
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
15 16
4 4
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 27 11

7. COMMONWEALTH AT POMONA
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
40 90
8 12
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
22 94
6 10
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
25 105
12 10
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 296 15

8. COMMONWEALTH AT BALCOM
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
6 10
1 3
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
6 4
2 0
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
9 20
1 2
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 6 2

9. HIGHLAND AT WALNUT
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
3 20
2 2
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
7 3
0 2
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
6 8
1 0
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 8 1
164

10. HARBOR AT TRUSLOW
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
9 44
2 7
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
9 21
3 6
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
12 28
5 5
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 18 4

11. LEMON AT VALENCIA
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
27 46
9 4
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
23 38
11 9
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
20 20
6 10
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 35 14

12. ORANGETHORPE AT HIGHLAND
8/4/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
25 40
6 8
8/5/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
18 54
3 2
8/6/2021 6:30 - 9:30 AM
4:00 - 7:00 PM
26 48
5 6
8/7/2021 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM 66 14
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
165
This page intentionally left blank
166
Stakeholder
Survey Results
Summary
C
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
167
C. Stakeholder Survey Results Summary
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 1/23 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
What is your primary reason for going to Downtown Fullerton? Answered: 133 Skipped: 0
0 20
40 60
80 100
I live in Down... I work in Down... I go to school... I own a busine... I visit Downto... Other, please ...

I live in Downtown 26 19.55%
I work in Downtown 4 3.01%
I go to school close to Downtown 3 2.26%
I own a business in Downtown 1 0.75%
I visit Downtown to shop, eat/drink or to meet friends/socialize 87 65.41% Other, please specify: 12 9.02%
1a. If you WORK IN DOWNTOWN, select the answer which most relates to you:

Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 1/23 Answered: 133 Skipped: 0
0 20
I live in Down... I work in Down... I go to school... I own a busine... I visit Downto... Other, please ...

Answers Count Percentage
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 2/23 Answered: 4 Skipped: 129
0 1
2 3
I walk to work I bike to work I drive to wor... I drive to wor... I drive to wor...

I walk to work 1 0.75%
I bike to work 0 0%
I drive to work and park in the surface parking lots 3 2.26% I drive to work and park on the street 0 0%
I drive to work but park in the parking structure(s) - please spe cify which structure:
0 0%
1b. If you WORK IN DOWNTOWN, select the answer which most relates to you:

Answers Count Percentage
168
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 3/23 Answered: 4 Skipped: 129
0 1
2 3
I generally fe... I generally fe... I generally fe...

I generally feel safe walking in Downtown 3 2.26%
I generally feel safe BUT there are some areas I won’t walk/bi ke/park because I feel unsafe
0 0%
I generally feel unsafe walking in Downtown. 1 0.75%
1c. If you WORK IN DOWNTOWN and sometimes feel unsafe, please share why and where. (Examples: … The word cloud requires at least 20 answers to show.
drugged 1
mentally 1
ill 1
homeless 1
violent 1
Answers Count Percentage
Word Count
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
drunks. 1
1a. If you OWN A BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, What type of business do you have? 2 3
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 4/23 Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
drunks. 1
1a. If you OWN A BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, What type of business do you have? Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
0 1
2 3
Restaurant/caf... Retail Store Healthcare or ... Place of worsh... School or othe... Other, please ...

Restaurant/café/bar 1 0.75%
Retail Store 0 0%
Healthcare or fitness facility 0 0%
Place of worship 0 0%
School or other educational facility 0 0%
Other, please specify: 0 0%
1b. If you OWN A BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, what do you consider your peak operating time? Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 2/23 Answered: 4 Skipped: 129
I bike to work 0 0%
I drive to work and park in the surface parking lots 3 2.26% I drive to work and park on the street 0 0%
I drive to work but park in the parking structure(s) - please spe cify which structure:
0 0%
1b. If you WORK IN DOWNTOWN, select the answer which most relates to you:

Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
169
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 4/23 Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
Healthcare or fitness facility 0 0%
Place of worship 0 0%
School or other educational facility 0 0%
Other, please specify: 0 0%
1b. If you OWN A BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, what do you consider your peak operating time? 8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 5/23 Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
0 1
2 3
Morning Crowd ... Lunch Crowd (e... Dinner Crowd (... Late Night Cro... If more than o...

Morning Crowd (e.g. 7am-11am) 0 0%
Lunch Crowd (e.g. 11am-5pm) 0 0%
Dinner Crowd (e.g. 5pm-12am) 1 0.75%
Late Night Crowd (12am – 2am) 0 0%
If more than one time (e.g. Lunch & Dinner, Lunch-Dinner-Lat e Night, etc.) please specify here:
0 0%
1c. If you OWN A BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, which improvements are most important to you for utilizing… Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 5/23 Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
Dinner Crowd (e.g. 5pm-12am) 1 0.75%
Late Night Crowd (12am – 2am) 0 0%
If more than one time (e.g. Lunch & Dinner, Lunch-Dinner-Lat e Night, etc.) please specify here:
0 0%
1c. If you OWN A BUSINESS DOWNTOWN, which improvements are most important to you for utilizing… 8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 6/23 How frequently do you travel to/from/in Downtown Fullerton in the following ways:

Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
0 2
4 6
8 10
Slower/calmer ...

Common outdoor...

Incorporating ...

Shade
Lighting
Improve crossw...

Providing impr...Private outdoo...

Providing enou...
1 Slower/calmer traffic
2 Common outdoor seating
areas
3 Incorporating landscape
and trees along the
street
4 Shade
5 Lighting
6 Improve crosswalks and
crossings to be more
100%
1 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 100%
1 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 100%
1 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 100%
1 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 100%
1 0%
0 0%
0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

9.00 8.00

7.00 6.00

5.00 4.00
Personal vehicle
Rank Answers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average
score
170
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 7/23 Answered: 128 Skipped: 5
0 20
40 60
80 Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 72 54.14%
A few times a month 37 27.82%
Less than once a month 15 11.28%
Never 4 3.01%
Public transit (bus, train)
Answers Count Percentage
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 7/23 Answered: 128 Skipped: 5
0 20
40 60
80 Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 72 54.14%
A few times a month 37 27.82%
Less than once a month 15 11.28%
Never 4 3.01%
Public transit (bus, train)
Answers Count Percentage
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
Answered: 109 Skipped: 24
0 20
40 60
80 100
Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 5 3.76%
A few times a month 3 2.26%
Less than once a month 14 10.53%
Never 87 65.41%
Walking or using a mobility device
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 8/23 Answered: 109 Skipped: 24
Less than once a month 14 10.53%
Never 87 65.41%
Walking or using a mobility device
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 9/23 Answered: 118 Skipped: 15
0 10
20 30
40 Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 36 27.07%
A few times a month 26 19.55%
Less than once a month 22 16.54%
Never 34 25.56%
Paratransit
Answers Count Percentage
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
Answered: 105 Skipped: 28
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 2 1.5%
A few times a month 1 0.75%
Less than once a month 0 0%
Never 102 76.69%
Bicycle
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 6/23 How frequently do you travel to/from/in Downtown Fullerton in the following ways:

Answered: 1 Skipped: 132
6 Improve crosswalks and
crossings to be more
0000100
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

4.00 Personal vehicle
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
171
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 9/23 Answered: 118 Skipped: 15
Less than once a month 22 16.54%
Never 34 25.56%
Paratransit
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 11/23 Answered: 118 Skipped: 15
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 12 9.02%
A few times a month 36 27.07%
Less than once a month 15 11.28%
Never 55 41.35%
Rideshare with Uber or Lyft
Answers Count Percentage
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
Answered: 110 Skipped: 23
0 10
20 30
40 60
70 50
Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 2 1.5%
A few times a month 7 5.26%
Less than once a month 33 24.81%
Never 68 51.13%
E-scooter
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 12/23 Answered: 110 Skipped: 23
Less than once a month 33 24.81%
Never 68 51.13%
E-scooter
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 13/23 Answered: 105 Skipped: 28
0 20
40 60
80 100
Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 0 0%
A few times a month 1 0.75%
Less than once a month 5 3.76%
Never 99 74.44%
Skateboard
Answers Count Percentage
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
Answered: 107 Skipped: 26
0 20
40 60
80 100
Daily or multi... A few times a ... Less than once... Never Daily or multiple times a week 2 1.5%
A few times a month 3 2.26%
Less than once a month 2 1.5%
Never 100 75.19%
Why do you walk?
Answers Count Percentage
172
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 14/23 Answered: 107 Skipped: 26
Daily or multiple times a week 2 1.5%
A few times a month 3 2.26%
Less than once a month 2 1.5%
Never 100 75.19%
Why do you walk?
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 15/23 Answered: 129 Skipped: 4
0 20
40 60
80 100
It saves money
It’s good for ...

I enjoy it
It’s a good wa...

It’s good for ...

It’s the quick...It’s how I get...

I don’t have a...

I don’t walk
Other, please ...

It saves money 29 21.8%
It’s good for my health 0 0%
I enjoy it 92 69.17%
It’s a good way to spend time with my friends and family 0 0% It’s good for the environment 0 0%
It’s the quickest way to get where I’m going 0 0%
It’s how I get to a bus stop or train station 0 0%
I don’t have access to other transportation 0 0%
I don’t walk 0 0%
Other, please specify: 9 6.77%
Why do you bike or roll (scooter, skateboard, etc.)?
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 15/23 Answered: 129 Skipped: 4
It’s how I get to a bus stop or train station 0 0%
I don’t have access to other transportation 0 0%
I don’t walk 0 0%
Other, please specify: 9 6.77%
Why do you bike or roll (scooter, skateboard, etc.)?
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 16/23 Answered: 127 Skipped: 6
0 20
40 80
60 It saves money
It’s good for ...

I enjoy it
It’s a good wa...

It’s good for ...

It’s the quick...

It’s how I get...

I don’t have a...

I don’t bike
Other, please ...

It saves money 28 21.05%
It’s good for my health 0 0%
I enjoy it 69 51.88%
It’s a good way to spend time with my friends and family 0 0% It’s good for the environment 0 0%
It’s the quickest way to get where I’m going 0 0%
It’s how I get to a bus stop or train station 0 0%
I don’t have access to other transportation 0 0%
I don’t bike 0 0%
Other, please specify: 8 6.02%
What keeps you from walking more often to/from/in Downtown Fullerton? Answers Count Percentage
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
173
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 16/23 Answered: 127 Skipped: 6
It’s how I get to a bus stop or train station 0 0%
I don’t have access to other transportation 0 0%
I don’t bike 0 0%
Other, please specify: 8 6.02%
What keeps you from walking more often to/from/in Downtown Fullerton? 8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 17/23 Answered: 119 Skipped: 14
0 10
20 30
40 50
Concerns about...Concerns about...Concerns about...

Sidewalks don’...

Sidewalks are ...Sidewalks are ...

Downtown is to...

Inadequate lig...

Health issues ...

Share any othe...

Concerns about fast moving traffic 43 32.33%
Concerns about crossing at intersections 45 33.83%
Concerns about personal safety 37 27.82%
Sidewalks don’t connect to where I want/need to go 0 0% Sidewalks are in poor condition 25 18.8%
Sidewalks are not pleasant/comfortable 22 16.54%
Downtown is too far away for walking to be practical 45 33.83% Inadequate lighting along the sidewalks, paths, or undercrossi ngs
21 15.79%
Health issues or disability 5 3.76%
Share any other thoughts: 28 21.05%
What keeps you from biking or rolling (scooter, skateboard, etc.) more often to/from/in Downtown Full… Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 17/23 Answered: 119 Skipped: 14
Inadequate lighting along the sidewalks, paths, or undercrossi ngs
21 15.79%
Health issues or disability 5 3.76%
Share any other thoughts: 28 21.05%
What keeps you from biking or rolling (scooter, skateboard, etc.) more often to/from/in Downtown Full… 8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 18/23 Answered: 122 Skipped: 11
0 20
40 80
60 Concerns about...Concerns about...Concerns about...

Bikeways or co...

Bikeways/roads...Bikeways/roads...

Inadequate lig...

Health issues ...

Downtown is to...

I don’t own a ...

Share any othe...

Concerns about fast moving traffic 64 48.12%
Concerns about crossing at intersections 55 41.35%
Concerns about personal safety 47 35.34%
Bikeways or comfortable roads don’t connect to where I want/ need to go
39 29.32%
Bikeways/roads are in poor condition 39 29.32%
Bikeways/roads are not pleasant/comfortable 44 33.08%
Inadequate lighting along the roads, paths, or undercrossings 23 17.29% Health issues or disability 3 2.26%
Downtown is too far away for biking to be practical 16 12.03% I don’t own a bicycle 0 0%
Share any other thoughts: 33 24.81%

16. How old are you?
Answers Count Percentage
174
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 19/23 Answered: 129 Skipped: 4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Under 18 18-34 35-54 55-74 75+
Under 18 4 3.01%
18-34 37 27.82%
35-54 53 39.85%
55-74 31 23.31%
75+ 4 3.01%

18. With which racial group(s) do you identify?
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 19/23 Answered: 129 Skipped: 4
18-34 37 27.82%
35-54 53 39.85%
55-74 31 23.31%
75+ 4 3.01%

18. With which racial group(s) do you identify?
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 20/23 Answered: 127 Skipped: 6
0 20
40 60
80 100
American India... Asian or Asian... Black or Afric... Native Hawaiia... White Prefer not to ...

American Indian or Alaska Native 3 2.26%
Asian or Asian-American 13 9.77%
Black or African-American 3 2.26%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0.75%
White 89 66.92%
Prefer not to say 25 18.8%
What is your annual household income?
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 18/23 Answered: 122 Skipped: 11
Health issues or disability 3 2.26%
Downtown is too far away for biking to be practical 16 12.03% I don’t own a bicycle 0 0%
Share any other thoughts: 33 24.81%

16. How old are you?
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
175
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 20/23 Answered: 127 Skipped: 6
Black or African-American 3 2.26%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0.75%
White 89 66.92%
Prefer not to say 25 18.8%
What is your annual household income?
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 21/23 Answered: 128 Skipped: 5
0 10
20 30
40 $25,000 or les...
$25,001 - $50,...$50,001 - $75,...
$75,001 - $100...$100,001 - $20...

More than $200...

Prefer not to ...
$25,000 or less 5 3.76%
$25,001 - $50,000 12 9.02%
$50,001 - $75,000 12 9.02%
$75,001 - $100,000 20 15.04%
$100,001 - $200,000 36 27.07%
More than $200,000 21 15.79%
Prefer not to say 22 16.54%
How many vehicles does your household own?
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 21/23 Answered: 128 Skipped: 5
$75,001 - $100,000 20 15.04%
$100,001 - $200,000 36 27.07%
More than $200,000 21 15.79%
Prefer not to say 22 16.54%
How many vehicles does your household own?
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 22/23 Answered: 131 Skipped: 2
0 10
20 30
40 60
70 50
0 1 2 More than 2
0 4 3.01%
1 29 21.8%
2 70 52.63%
More than 2 28 21.05%
What Council District are you located in?
Answers Count Percentage
176
8/30/2021 Downtown Fullerton on the Go Survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 23/23 Answered: 109 Skipped: 24
0 10
20 30
40 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 1 24 18.05%
District 2 36 27.07%
District 3 10 7.52%
District 4 17 12.78%
District 5 22 16.54%
Answers Count Percentage
https://survey123.arcgis.com/surveys/2a3ce9342e9e49e7b860a0961c63a67b/analyze?navigation=open:false 22/23 Answered: 131 Skipped: 2
0 4 3.01%
1 29 21.8%
2 70 52.63%
More than 2 28 21.05%
What Council District are you located in?
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
177
This page intentionally left blank
178
Pedestrian
Scale Lighting
D
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
179
Pedestrian Scale
Lighting
This appendix includes additional information about
criteria for illumination at intersections, as well as
recommendations for improving pedestrian lighting in
conflict areas.

Table 17. Pavement Illuminance Criteria for Full Intersection Lighting (lux/fc)

FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATION

PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY LEVEL

CLASSIFICATION EAVG/EMIN
(LUX/FC)

HIGH MEDIUM LOW
Major/Major 34/3.2 26/2.4 18/1.7 3.0
Major/Collector 29/2.7 22/2.0 15/1.4 3.0
Major/Local 26/2.4 20/1.9 13/1.2 3.0
Collector/Collector 24/2.2 18/1.7 12/1.1 4.0
Collector/Local 21/2.0 16/1.5 10/0.9 4.0
Local/Local 18/1.7 14/1.3 8/0.7 6.0

MAINTAINED ILLUMINANCE VALUES
EAVG
(LUX/FC)
EV,MIN
(LUX/FC)

EAVG/EMIN
(LUX/FC)
Mixed Vehicle 20/1.9 10/0.9 4.0
Pedestrian Only 10/.09 5/.05 4.0
Table 18. Recommended Values for High Pedestrian Conflict Areas Source: IES RP-8-18 Table 17 Source: IES RP-8-18 Table 18
Table Notes:

Eavg: Minimum maintained average horizontal illuminance at pavement Emin: Minimum horizontal illuminance at pavement
Ev,min : Minimum vertical illuminance at 1.5m above the pavement in both directions and parallel to the main pedestrian flow
Pedestrian Only areas apply to areas such as sidewalks. *Horizontal only
180
Bicycle
Recommendations
E
Fullerton On The Go | Pedestrian Scale Lighting
181

BIKEWAY CLASS EXISTING
(MILES)

RECOMMENDED

IN THIS PLAN
(MILES)
TOTAL
(MILES)
Class I
Shared-Use Path 5 1.7 6.7
Class II
Bike Lanes 25 18 43
Class IIb
Buffered Bike
Lanes
0 18 18
Class III
Bike Routes 14 10.5 24.5
Class IIIb
Bike Boulevards 2 10.2 12.2
Class IV
Separated
Bikeways
0 3.0 3.0
Total 46 61.4 107.40
Recommended Table 19. Miles of Recommended Bikeways by Class Regional Bicycle
Projects
In order to make connections to Downtown, some of
the recommendations in this plan fall outside of the
2-mile bikeshed around the Fullerton Downtown core.

This section lists all of the bikeway recommendations
including those outside of Downtown that make regional
connections.

Prior to the development of this Plan, the City had
approximately 46 miles of existing bicycle facilities. An additional 61.4 miles of upgraded and new bikeways are
proposed in this Plan, which are broken down in Table 19.

Asterisks next to the corridor name in the table indicate that the project has been updated from the City of
Fullerton Bicycle Master Plan.
182
¨¦§
¨¦§
91 57
57 91

VALENCIA DR

AMERIGE AVE

SKYLINE DR

YORBA LINDA BLVD

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

EUCLID ST

LOS COYOTES DR

ROMNEYA DR

MELROSE ST

RAYMOND AVE

BREA BLVD

MADISON AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

HILL AVE

LAS PALMAS DR

WOODS AVE

ACACIA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

LAGUNA RD

LEMON ST ARBOLADODR

CAMINO DEL SOL

OAK AVE

KNEPP AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

HOUSTON AVE BASQUE AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

WILSHIRE AVE

HERMOSA DR

CAMPUSDR

MAGNOLIA AVE

DOROTHY LN

BASTANCHURY RD

COYOTE HILLS DR
ELM ST

BIRCH ST

VALENCIA MESA DR

HIGHLAND AVE

DALE ST

TERRAZAPL

R CI HMAN AVE

VALLEY VIEW DR

ROSECRANS AVE

ASSOCIATED RD

ROLLING HILLS DR

DOMINGO RD

PLACENTIA AVE

BAKER AVE

WILLIAMSON AVE

GILBERT ST

MIRAMAR DR

LAKEVIEW DR

WALNUT AVE

FERN DR

BERKELEY AVE

SOUTHGATE AVE

VICTORIA DR

PUENTE ST

HARBOR BLVD

KRAEMER BLVD

PIONEER AVE

KIMBERLY AVE

BURNING TREE RD

BEACH BLVD

IMPERIAL HWY

BROOKHURST RD

MALVERN AVE

BREA M ALLDR

LAMBERT RD

ARTESIA AVE
Fullerton Creek
Greenbelt
Chapman Park
Emery
Park
Fullerton Arboretum
Fullerton Sports Complex
Gilman Park
Virgil "Gus"
Grissom Park
Independence
Park
Lemon Park
Rolling Hills Park
Vista Park
West
Coyote Hills
Tree Park
West Coyote
Hills
Park
Edward H. White
II Park
Ralph B. Clark Park
Brea
Dam Park
Coyote Hills Golf Course
Golfers
Paradise
Fullerton City Golf
Course
Craig Regional
Park
Muckenthaler Cultural Center
Lions Field
Hillcrest
Park
Bastanchury Park
Hiltscher
Park
Robert
E Ward Nature Preserve
Panorama Nature
Preserve
Tri City
Park
Amerige Park
Gilbert Park
Acacia Park
Beechwood
School Park
Parks School Park
Laguna
Lake Park
Laguna Lake
Recreation Park
Ladera Vista
School Park
Commonwealth
Paci c Drive School Park
School Park
Sunny
Hills High
School
Troy High
School
Fullerton Union
High School
Buena
Park High
School
California
State
University
Sonora
High
School
Fullerton
College
0 0.5 1
Miles
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route
Class IIIB Bike Boulevard
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Trail

EXISTING & PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK

CITY OF FULLERTON, CA
Intersection Improvement
Bike/Ped Bridge
City Boundary
Core Area
Pedestrian Access (1/2 Mile)
Bicycle Access (2 Miles)
Park or Golf Course
School
Existing | Proposed

CORE AREA
Ford
Park
Truslow Park
Plaza Park
Amerige Park
Union
Pacific
Park
MALDEN
AVE

TRUSLOW AVE
POMONA

AVE POMONA
AVE
HARBOR
BLVD

WILSHIRE AVE

TRUSLOW
AVE

FORD AVE

LAWRENCE AVE

MALDEN AVE

H GI HLAND AVE

LIBRARY LN

ELLIS PL

MALVERN AVE

LEMON ST

R CI HMAN AVE

LAWRENCE
AVE

COLLEGE
PL
NEW

WHITING AVE
ELL PL

WAL N UT WAY

H GI HLAND AVE

R CH I MAN AVE

WALNUT AVE
ELLIS
LN

PATTERSON
WAY

TRUSLOW AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

AMERIGE AVE

CHAPMAN AVE

SANTA FE AVE

JACARANDA PL
Fullerton
Union High
School
Florence
Crittenton
School
Berkeley
School
Fullerton First
United Methodist
Preschool
Fullerton
College
Figure 38. Recommended Bicycle Projects
Fullerton On The Go | Pedestrian Scale Lighting
183

CORRIDOR ROUTE FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES)

PARKING
LOSS1
Hermosa Dr Lakeview Dr to Puente St Class III 1.3 No
Bastanchury Rd Malvern Ave to Euclid St Class II 1.3 No Bastanchury Rd* Euclid St to State College Blvd Class IIb 3.2 No Bastanchury Rd State College Blvd to Associated Rd Class IIb 0.5 No Bastanchury Rd Associated Rd to Placentia City Limit Class IIb 0.6 No Rosecrans Ave Gilbert St to La Miranda City Limit Class IIb 1.1 No Rosecrans Ave Gilbert St to Euclid St Class II 1.3 No
Pioneer Ave Sunny Ridge Dr to Gilbert St Class III 0.3 No Valencia Mesa Dr Bastanchury Rd to Youth Way Class IIIb 1.6 No West Valley View Dr Euclid St to Harbor Blvd Class III 1 No Nicolas St Hughes Dr to Benchley St Class III 0.1 No
Benchley St Nicolas St to Pioneer Ave Class III 0.4 No
Hughes Dr* Bastanchury Rd to Nicolas St Class IIIb 0.3 No Hughes Dr Nicolas St to Gilbert St Class IIIb 0.4 No
Madison Ave Placentia Ave to Placentia City Limit Class II 0.2 Yes 1 Actual impacts to parking will be further determined as part of the design process once projects are funded for implementation.

Table 20. Recommended Bicycle Projects
184

CORRIDOR ROUTE FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES)

PARKING
LOSS1
Madison Ave Placentia Ave to CA-57 Class III 0.2 No
Gym Dr Folino Dr to E Campus Dr Class I 0.2 No
Nutwood Ave* Victoria Dr to State College Blvd Class IIIb 0.6 No Nutwood Ave* State College Blvd to Placentia Ace Class IIb 0.7 No Artesia Blvd Buena Park City Limit to Gilbert St Class II 1.0 Yes Commonwealth Ave Buena Park City Limit to Woods Ave Class II 2.5 Yes Commonwealth Ave Lemon Street to Nutwood Ave Class IIb 2.5 Yes Valencia Dr Highland Dr to Brookhurst Rd Class IIb 1.8 Yes Walnut Ave* Richman Ave to Highland Ave Class IIb 0.2 Yes Gilbert St La Habra city limit to Castlewood Dr Class IIb 0.4 No Gilbert St Castlewood Dr to Pioneer Ave Class II 1.3 No Gilbert St Malvern Ave to Commonwealth Ave Class II 0.6 No Brookhurst Rd Commonwealth Ave to CA-91 Class II 1.1 Yes Basque Ave* Chapman Ave to Commonwealth Ave Class IIIb 0.3 No Basque Ave* Valencia Dr to Baker Ave Class IIIb 0.7 No
Euclid St La Habra City Limit to Bastanchury Rd Class IIb 1.7 Yes Fullerton On The Go | Pedestrian Scale Lighting
185

CORRIDOR ROUTE FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES)

PARKING
LOSS1
Euclid St Bastanchury to CA-91 Class II 2.4 No
Lakeview Dr La Habra City Limit to Euclid St Class III 0.8 No Laguna Rd Euclid St to Valencia Mesa Dr Class II 1.1 Yes Sunny Crest Dr Valencia Mesa Dr to Valley View Dr Class III 0.6 No Richman Ave* Sunny Crest Dr to Commonwealth Ave Class IIIb 1.3 No Richman Ave Walnut Ave to Houston Ave Class IIIb 0.9 No Highland Ave* Valencia Ave to Baker Ave Class IIb 0.6 Yes Harbor Blvd La Habra City Limit to Bastanchury Rd Class IIb 1.1 Yes Harbor Blvd Bastanchury Rd to Brea Blvd Class IIb 0.9 No Puente St Imperial Hwy to Hermosa Dr Class III 0.5 No
Puente St Rosarita Dr to Bastanchury Rd Class III 0.6 No Brea Blvd Panorma Rd to Brea Blvd Class IIb 0.8 Yes
Pomona Ave Highland Ave to Santa Fe Ave Class III 1.3 No Lemon St Brea Blvd to Berkeley Ave Class III 0.6 No
Lemon St* Berkeley Ave to Chapman Ave Class IIIb 0.3 No Lemon St Chapman Ave to Orangethrope Ave Class II 1.0 No 186

CORRIDOR ROUTE FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES)

PARKING
LOSS1
Longview Dr Brea Blvd to Dorothy Ln Class III 0.8 No
Raymond Ave Dorothy Ln to Chapman Ave Class III 0.5 No
Raymond Ave Chapman Ave to Anahiem City Limit Class II 1.0 No Riverside Dr Dorothy Ln to Raymond Ave Class III 0.6 No Victoria Dr Old River Rd to Hart Pl Class III 0.8 No
Hart Pl Victoria Dr to Chapman Ave Class III 0.1 No
State College Blvd Brea City limit to Rolling Hills Dr Class IIb 0.3 No State College Blvd* Rolling Hills Dr to Orangethrope Ave Class IV 3.0 No Associated Rd* Brea City Limit to Yorba Linda Blvd Class IIb 1.6 No Placentia Ave Brea City Limit to Anaheim City Limit Class II 2.3 No Trail South of Malvern Ave Buen Park City Limit to Basque Ave Class I 1.5 Yes Yorba Linda Blvd N Campus Dr to Placentia Ave Class II 0.9 No Pacific Dr Baker Ave to Roberta Ave Class IIIb 0.1 No
Roberta Ave/ Page Ave Pacific Dr to Gilbert St Class IIIb 0.6 No Chapman Avenue Woods Ave to Rail Class IIIb 1.2 No
Baker Avenue Pacific Dr to Highland Avenue Class IIIb 1.6 No Total 61.1
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
187
This page intentionally left blank
188
Fullerton ATC
Comments
F
Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
189
This appendix documents comments from the City of
Fullerton Active Transportation Committee that were not addressed in this iteration of the Downtown Fullerton
Active Transportation Plan. While many other comments
have been addressed, some require further discussion
and coordination, including but not limited to additional data analyses and projects to consider. These comments
are listed below.

Analyses
• [The data] appears to [show] a decline in collisions. Is it a significant decline, and what might be the possible cause in the reduction of crashes, such as reports not
taken? Or which specific [sites] had a reduction and
[were those collisions] due to a known change in street design or enforcement?
• It would be good to know with whom the bicyclist
collided, such as another cyclist, pedestrian, car,
or solo crash, to help design the most appropriate
remedy. It would be good to analyze the effectiveness
of the Wilshire Ave Bike Blvd, if any, at reducing crashes for bicyclist traveling east/west from Euclid to Acacia. • It would be useful to have a list of places where
damaged pavement is especially dangerous. Also
meandering and undulating sidewalks, as behind the
police station, are not as safe or convenient as straight Fullerton Active Transportation Committee
Comments
flat sidewalks. These should be advised against (and
removed).
• A list of specific places for sidewalk repair would be helpful. For that matter a list of specific streets that are dangerous for bicycles because of the pavement would
be helpful (e.g. Berkeley from Wilshire to Chapman and
Acacia in multiple places).

Requested New Projects
• Can we include an intersection improvement for Brea
and Bastanchury? A cyclist attended a number of
meetings to explain that improvements are needed
where the bike lane ends at the start of a right turn
only lane that creates a conflict between cyclists and
drivers.
• W Valley View between Euclid and Harbor would also
need improvements to cross Euclid (uncontrolled)
and Harbor (light that does not trigger for westbound
cyclists crossing Harbor).
• Nutwood from State College to Placentia was part of
the Connector Plan that addressed getting students
on/off campus safely around the 57 frwy on/off ramps.
• Valencia [from] Highland to Brookhurst - removing
parking is a “no go” due to apartment parking needs.
190
Would be good to focus on improvements between
Euclid and Basque, where cars double park in the
eastbound bike lane. There was an idea some years
ago to place back-in angled parking on [the] south side [of Valencia] and remove parking from the north side,
where residents of the apartments play frogger getting
across.
• Laguna Rd from Euclid to Val Mesa - removing parking
is a “no go” due to the equestrian center, Laguna Lake, and trail access parking not fully accommodated off
road
• Highland Ave from Valencia to Baker - not feasible
to remove parking. I believe overnight parking is
allowed there to accommodate lack of onsite parking
at apartments. However, agree some improvement is
needed there as bike lane has fits and starts due to
width of road changes and it is the safe n/s connector/ alternative to Harbor & Euclid.
• Lemon from Brea to Berkeley - may not be as useful as it appears as Lemon is very steep. Good alternative
is Hornet Way from Berkeley to Dorothy and through
that hood (with some wayfinding signs - I see you have
Longview listed on p.75) to Brea Blvd, [which has] less steep inclines to deal with. Could direct to Panorama to cross Brea with signal.
• Yorba Linda Blvd from N Campus to Placentia - please
see Connector plans that addresses conflict with free
right onto 57 frwy w/ change to right angle controlled
on/off ramps. The way Caltrans has it designed now is
treacherous for peds and cyclists
• Wilshire Ave and Harbor Blvd - bike boxes at all
approaches. Is that needed on Wilshire crossing
Harbor as Wilshire is a Bike Blvd? Seems it would
relegate cyclists to a position where they are not using the full lane
• Acacia - I never want to argue against any proposed
route but Acacia has definite advantages over
Raymond or Lemon. First there are no freeway ramps
to contend with. Second, the bike route on La Palma in
Anaheim starts at Acacia and goes east, most of the
way to Frontera. Routes on Lemon or Raymond would
not connect to a bicycle route to the SART. [Acacia] runs past or near 3 schools and there have been several
accidents at Ladera Vista. It is also the terminus of the Bike Boulevard and the safest route to the SART. Since
it was repaved and re-stripped (unfortunately adding
two traffic lanes but removing parking) it is a smooth
ride from Commonwealth to Orangethorpe. The short
stretch south of this is one of the worst in the city;
and the longer stretch north of that is bad. The Class
II route should be extended to Melody, which would
require removing parking on one side. Importantly
Acacia is a key part of a Regional Bikeway Corridor. If you look at the Fourth District Bikeways Strategy in the Executive Summary (page 5), you can see it is part of
the Santa Ana River to Coyote Creek Link ( an important link for bring cyclists to downtown Fullerton). It would be much easier (and more useful) to repave and
restripe this segment than to try to put a Class II bike lane on Raymond under the Quick Build scenario, for
instance.

Fullerton On The Go | Appendices
191
• Some crosswalks (e.g. State College and Yorba Linda)
were removed to improve traffic flow. Replacing them
would be a good idea.
• There are some areas on Chapman (for instance) east
of the post office that are especially dangerous for
crossing at night due to lack of lighting.
• Malden, Ellis, Hart and Santa Fe all are particularly fraught intersections and need highlighted attention.
• Gym Drive is not a class I route. But there is a Class I route from the arboretum (Associated and West
Campus drive) to Nutwood and Commonwealth). That
should be extended to Nutwood and State College.
• Victoria and Hart Place are not useful projects unless there is a signalized crossing at Chapman (and well lit). hart Place route should continue to the Wilshire Bike
Boulevard. Excellent route to Campus.
• Hart: This street needs a traffic signal at Chapman
to connect the Bike Boulevard to Victoria and then to
Nutwood and Dorothy, the principal western entrances
to the Campus. There does not seem to be much use to
upgrade Victoria and Hart without this crossing.
• Malden: Again, this street needs a full scale traffic signal due to the heavy use by pedestrians to get into
downtown.

Considerations for Implementation
• There should be special consideration in construction to accommodate bicycles. This includes the placement
of signs so they do not present an obstacle in
themselves.
• The cross light on Wilshire at Lemon should be shorter.

This is a bike boulevard. Long lights discourage bicycle riding.
• Not enough attention is given to electric bicycles etc.

They are going to be more common and they can be
a hazard to walking. They are an excellent way to get
from the University to downtown. All bicycles and all
powered vehicles should be prohibited from sidewalks
downtown.
• We have had Class II routes on our plan for 10 years
or more. Most have not been signed and those that
have been, have signs missing. All these signs could
be installed easily for little cost. Certainly for less cost than the street sweeping signs.
• Madison Avenue does not need improvements until the
bridge is built. Should be part of the same project.
• Road Diets: Berkeley is an excellent example of how
they can be effectively used. I use that route daily
and I think it works better now than before (and there
was a fatality on the curve about 30 years ago which
probably would not have happened with the current
configuration).
192
• Pavement: The condition of pavement should be
considered and called out for repair (in this plan) where essential for safe bicycling. I would nominate Berkeley between Chapman and Wilshire; and Acacia from
Orangethorpe to the City line and from Commonwealth
to Melody. Bicycle routes should be a consideration in
setting priorities for re-paving streets.
• I have only skimmed the walking segments, but specific, dangerous sidewalk segments should be called out for
repair. Also narrow, meandering sidewalks such as the
one behind the police station should be identified for
redesign.
• Signage: This is cheap. I do not understand why all the Class III routes identified in the 2012 plan have not been signed (and even some of those that are, are not done
adequately).
• Wayfinding: Ditto, not expensive and very useful
especially in directing people to the education
institutions and back to the downtown and depot.
• Green Paint: Ugly, but useful if used sparingly. The bike lane on Associated leaving the university is an excellent example of a useful design. The are many cars at that
point going straight and turning right. Highlighting the bike lane in between is helpful. I am not convinced of
the safety or usefulness of bike boxes.

Fullerton On The Go | Pedestrian Scale Lighting
193

City Council - Successor Agency - Housing AuthorityJune 21, 2022

City Council - Successor Agency - Housing Authority
June 21, 2022