CC_01092024_Presentation_10a — Glendale City Council, January 9, 2024

COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Glendale
Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP)
City Council
9 January 2024

Collaboratively create a 20-year vision for
the planning, development, design, and
maintenance of a safe, convenient, and
inviting bike network for all of Glendale.

PROJECT CONTEXT
3 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Project Context
 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan
 Freeways and heavy commuter traffic
c
ontribute to uncomfortable and unsafe
biking conditions, especially downtown
• Network mostly sharrows
• Constrained by mountains
 Verdugo Wash and Metro BRT projects will
f
orm spine of upgraded network
 Diverse communities
 Climate change
5 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Context
6  Great weather
 Dense
 Street grid
 Mixed-use
 Short distances
• Downtown
• Dense
• Mixed-use
• Transit
• Major employers
a
nd destinations
• Flat
• Connects to LARP
• Residential with
po
pular commercial
streets
• Lower density
• Hilly
1 4
5 2
3 71. City Center

2. G
lendale Transportation Center

3. West Glendale

4. Glendale Community College

5. Honolulu Ave

6. Foothill Blvd

7. Burbank

8. Parks + Open Space
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 6
Key Destinations
• Mostly residential
• GCC
• Low density
• Very Hilly
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Barriers
7 1. I-5 Golden State Fwy

2. 2 Glendale Fwy

3. 134 Ventura Fwy

4. I-210 Foothill Fwy

5. Railroad

6. Verdugo Wash (future connector)

7. Mountains
1 2
3 4
5 6
1 4
5 2
3 6
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Existing Network
8  Relies heavily on sharrows (Class III)
 Disconnected
 Low coverage
 Doesn’t feel safe or enjoyable to use
Facility Type Length (mi)
Bike Lanes (Class II) 9.7
Climbing Lane (Class II) -
Bike Blvd (Class III) -
Sharrows (Class III) 40.1
Cycle Track (Class IV) <1
Note: lengths are centerline and measure one direction only Glendale is about 10 miles long
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Bike Lane Types
An off-street facility with
exclusive space for
bicyclists and
pedestrians, with
minimal crossings by
vehicle traffic.
8 Class I Multi-Use
Path
Bike lanes that are
physically separated
from vehicle traffic and
parking lanes using
vertical and horizontal
features, such as
bollards, planters, and
parked vehicles.

Class IV Protected
Bike Lane
A conventional striped
bike lane denoted by
pavement markings.

Class II Bike Lane
A striped bike lane in
the uphill direction that
provides separation
between bicyclists and
vehicles for bicyclists
ascending steep hills.

Class II Climbing
Lane
Low-stress, marked
bikeways located on
low-volume, low-speed
local streets that
operate as shared
streets. These require
traffic calming features
such as neighborhood
traffic circles, chicanes,
and traffic diverters to
maintain low vehicle
speeds and volumes.

Class III Bike
Boulevard
Signed bike routes on
low-stress streets that
use a shared lane,
designated through
shared lane markings
and signage.

Class III Bike Routes
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Bicycle boulevards are streets with low
motorized traffic volumes and speeds,
designated and designed to give bicycle
travel priority.

Bicycle boulevards discourage through
trips using:
• Signs
• Pavement markings
• Speed and volume management
A
nd create safe, convenient bicycle
crossings of busy arterial streets.

Bike Boulevard
9 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED  Provides dedicated space for
b
icyclists going uphill while
r
educing the amount of space
allocated to dedicated biking
facilities
• Uphill: Class II bike lane
• Downhill: Class III signed
r
oute/sharrows
Climbing Lanes
10 Uphill
Class II bike lane
Downhill
Class III signed
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

SAFETY ANALYSIS &

EXISTING CONDITIONS
11 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Bicycle Crash Analysis
13 Purpose: Identify hotspots and areas of concern to
inform bike facility recommendations and
prioritization
 10-year time period to align with Pedestrian Study
me
thodology. 2012-2021.
 Includes both injury/fatality and property damage
o
nly (PDO) crashes
• 50 PDO (11%)
• 375 injury (84%)
• 18 severe (4%)
• 2 fatalities (0.4%)
Source: UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), California’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
The corridors with the greatest density of crashes (when weighted for severity) create a list of crash density corridors, also referred to as the High Injury Network (HIN). AB43 allows localities to reduce speed limits on designated Safety Corridors, so the streets in the HIN are also referred to as Safety Corridors.

2. S Brand Blvd

3. Colorado St

4. Broadway

5. S Glendale Ave

6. N Glendale Ave / Verdugo Rd

7. Pacific Ave

8. San Fernando Rd

9. S Central Ave

10. Chevy Chase Dr
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED  Glendale crash patterns
f
ollow a similar trend for LA
County
 Decline in crashes could be
d
ue to a variety of potential
factors:
• Citywide Safety Education
I
nitiative (2018)
• Decline in overall bike
c
ommuting (ACS data, LA
M
etro bike share)
• Other changes due to the
p
andemic
Crashes Over Time
14 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LA County Injury and Fatal Crashes
Glendale Injury and Fatal Crashes
Glendale LA County
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED  Downtown and West Glendale
r
epresent the majority of the
f
actors explored:
• Crashes
• Equity Areas
• Destinations
• Trip Potential
 This area is also flat, mixed-
u
se, and relatively well served
by transit
Summary
16 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
16 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Engagement opportunities include:
• Project Development Team (PDT)
• Co mmunity survey available online and in- person
• Pop-u p events
• Community Open Houses
• Interactive, online draft bike network map for review and com
ment
Information shared through multi-lingual flyers distributed at:
• Community locations
• Email
• Community e-n ewsletters
• The project email interest list
• PDT’s contact lists
• Press releases
• Social media
• Project web page*
BTP Outreach Overview
*https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning/plans-for-mobility/bicycle-transportation-plan

COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Outreach Summary
18 14 Outreach Events
Reached over 600 people
in person
Online survey and
webmap
Reached over 500 people
online
4 languages
English, Armenian,
Spanish, Korean
4 PDT meetings
March, June, Sept, Jan

COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED  Importance of sa fety
 Need for greater c onnectivity and continuity of
bike facilities
• Connections to local destinations
 Desire for u sable bike infrastructure throughout
the city, including bike lanes and parking
• Strong routes to and through downtown
 Accessible b
ike network that people of all-ages
a
nd all-abilities can use
Consistent Themes
19 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GOALS
20 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

3. Accessibility
21 1. Safety 2 . Connectivity 4. Equity

5. Implementable
Project Goals
Create an all-ages, all-
abilities bike network
that is easy and
enjoyable to use.

Create a bike network
that feels safe and
encourages people to
ride.

Decrease frequency
and severity of crashes
while increasing biking
overall.

Create a connected
bike network across
the city.

Create a bike network
that links major
destinations to
primary bike corridors.

Prioritize bike
infrastructure in areas
of equity concern.

Create a plan that is
ambitious yet
implementable,
phased to meet
current and future
challenges.

7. Environment6. Public Health
Reduce single
occupancy vehicle trips
for local trips.

Increase public health
by encouraging active
transportation.

NETWORK DEVELOPMEN T
&

RECOMMENDATIONS
22 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Goals Network
Principles
Facility
Selection
Process
23 • Safety
• Connectivity
• Public Input
(PDT + Public Input)
• Spiderweb
• Connected
N
eighborhood
• FHWA
• NACTO
• Cal
trans
Draft Network #1
#2: CDD+PW
#3: PDT
#4: Open Houses,
Webmap, TPC,
Sustainability
#5: City Council
Network Drafting
We are here
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Safety Connectivity Public Input Draft
Network
Network Selection
24 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Guidance
Guidance
• FHWA
• NACTO
• Caltrans
Set
s the floor for what is an
acceptable and safe facility
type based on the type of
road
• Speed
• ADT
• Width
• Context
25 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Existing Network
27  Relies heavily on sharrows (Class III)
 Disconnected
 Low coverage
 Doesn’t feel safe or enjoyable to use
Facility Type Length
(Miles)
Percent of
Network
Class I Multi-Use Path <1 1%
Class IV Protected Bike Lane
Class IV Protected Bike Lane - Future Focus
Class II Bike Lane 9.7 19%
Class II Climbing Lane
Class III Bike Boulevard
Class III Bike Route 40.1 79%
Total 50.5 100%
Note: lengths are centerline and measure one direction only COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Preliminary Network
28  Safe and Connected network
 Bike Boulevards require extensive traffic calming
to create a comfortable biking environment
• Chicanes, speed bumps, traffic circles (ex., Maple St), diverters, curb extensions, etc.

Note: lengths are centerline and measure one direction only Proposed Facility Type Length
(Miles)
Percent of
Proposed
Network
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.3 0%
Class IV Protected Bike Lane 39.7 47%
Class IV Protected Bike Lane - Future Focus 6.2 7%
Class II Bike Lane 13.9 16%
Class II Climbing Lane 3.5 4%
Class III Bike Boulevard 19.0 22%
Class III Bike Route 1.9 2%
Total 84.5 100%
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phasing (potential)Criteria
Project priorities and phasing will be
determined through a selection criteria
that reflects project goals:

1. Safety

2. Connectivity

3. Community Support

4. Trade-O
ffs

5. Trip Potential

6. Social Equity

7. Geographic Equity
Phasing
 Quick Wins ( 0-2 years): show progress
a
nd start to build a safe and connected
network. Can use demonstration
projects for fast implementation. Will
likely include 2-4 high impact projects
that are not low hanging fruit.
 Near- Term (2-5 years): maintain
progress with high priority corridors
 Mid- Term (5-10 years): build out the
network
 Long- Term (10-20 years): lower priority
and capital-intensive projects
28 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

1. Lower speed limits on high-cra sh corridors: Slower
speeds have been proven to save lives by reducing
the likelihood and severity of crashes.

2. No turn on red lights: Prohibiting right turns at red lights promotes pedestrian and bike safety by
r
educing conflicts with crossing traffic.

3. Legalize sidewalk riding: Allowing cyclists to ride on si
dewalks (when not disruptive to pedestrians)
provides a safe alternative to street riding, often
where there is no safe bike infrastructure.

4. Education campaign:

Public campaign to educate all
road users about their rights and responsibilities to
keep everyone safe. Education on how to use new
biking infrastructure (including signage) and classes
f
or new riders.

1. Bike parking: Provide secure bicycle parking at key destinations such a
s parks, schools, public facilities, shopping centers, transit hubs, and large employers.

2. Bicycle wayfinding: Provide signage and maps throughout the city t
hat directs riders to comfortable biking routes and identifies key d
estinations.

3. End of trip amenities: Encourage the provision of showers and changing rooms, water fountains, fix-it stations, and secure bike p
arking at places of employment and other major destinations.

4. Bike activated traffic signals: Install sensors that detect the presence o
f bicycles at intersections, allowing for the automatic adjustment of traffic lights to prioritize safe passage for cyclists. Pavement markings ca
n indicate where cyclists should rest in order to be detected by the s
ignal.

5. Bike boxes: Delineate designated areas at intersections where cyclists ca
n position themselves in front of motor vehicles during a red light, enhancing their visibility and safety while providing a head start when the light turns green.

NEXT STEPS
31 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Final
Analyses
Develop project
phasing
Develop project
cost estimates
Identify
potential
funding sources
Environmental
documents
(CEQA)
Draft Final
Plan
Public comment
period Present to PDT Present to
Commissions
Final Plan
Incorporate final
feedback
Present to City
Council for
adoption
Next Steps
32

Glendale City CouncilJanuary 9, 2024

Glendale City Council
January 9, 2024