COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Glendale
Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP)
Draft Recommendations
City Council
30 July 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.
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1. Project Context
2. Safety Analysis & Existing Conditions
3. Public Engagement
4. Goals
5. Network Development
6. Project Phasing
7. Cost Estimate
8. Policy Recommendations
9. Next Steps
Contents
3 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PROJECT CONTEXT
4 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Project Context
§ 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan
§ 2019 Citywide Pedestrian Plan
§ 2025 Vision Zero Plan
§ Freeways and heavy commuter traffic
contribute to uncomfortable and unsafe
biking conditions, especially downtown
• Network mostly sharrows
• Constrained by mountains
§ Verdugo Wash and Metro BRT projects will
form spine of upgraded network
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
and destinations
• Flat
• Connects to LARP
• Residential with
popular commercial
streets
• Lower density
• Hilly
1 4
5 2
3 71. City Center
2. Glendale 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 Bike Lane Types
An off-street facility with
exclusive space for
bicyclists and
pedestrians, with
minimal crossings by
vehicle traffic.
7 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
New to Glendale
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
SAFETY ANALYSIS &
EXISTING CONDITIONS
8 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED § Explored the following factors:
• Bicycle Crashes
• Equity Areas
• Activity Center Destinations
• Trip Potential
• Topography
• Survey Results
§ Determined Downtown and
West Glendale is also generally
flat, mixed-use, and relatively
well served by transit
Existing Conditions
Summary
9 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Safety Corridors
10 The High Injury Network (HIN) is a list of
crash density corridors weighted for
severity. According to AB43,
communities can reduce speed limits on
designated Safety Corridors, which are
HIN streets.
We’ve identified 10 safety corridors to
inform bike facility recommendations and
prioritization, using:
§ The 10-year time period crash data, to
align with Pedestrian Study
methodology (2012-2021)
§ Includes both injury/fatality and
property damage only (PDO) crashes
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
ID Safety Corridors
1 Glenoaks Blvd
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
Griffith Park
Source: UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping
System (TIMS), California’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
11 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Outreach Summary
12 14 Outreach Events
Reached over 600 people
in person
Online survey and
webmap
Reached over 500 people
online
4 languages
English, Armenian,
Spanish, Korean
5 PDT meetings
Critical partners
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Transportation and Parking Commission
Sustainability Commission
Nov 21, 2023
City Council
Dec 6, 2023
Joint: Planning & Sustainability Commissions
Jan 9, 2024
Transportation and Parking Commission
Mar 6, 2024
City Council
Mar 25, 2024
July 30, 2024
City Council
Fall 2024
City Commissions and Council Hearings
13 Project Update +
Early Network
Recommendations
Draft
Recommendations
Final Plan
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED § Importance of safety
§ Need for greater connectivity and continuity of
bike facilities
• Connections to local destinations
§ Desire for usable bike infrastructure throughout
the city, including bike lanes and parking
• Strong routes to and through downtown
§ Accessible bike network that people of all-ages
and all-abilities can use
Consistent Themes
14 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GOALS
15 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 16 Project Goals
2. Connectivity
1. Safety
3. Accessibility
4. Equity
5. Implementable
6. Public Health
7. Environment
• 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.
• Create an all-ages, all-abilities bike
network that is easy and enjoyable to
use.
• Prioritize bike infrastructure in areas of
equity concern.
• Create a plan that is ambitious yet
implementable, phased to meet current
and future challenges
• Increase public health by encouraging
active transportation.
• Reduce single occupancy vehicle trips
for local trips.
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
17 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Network and Bike Facility Class Selection Criteria
Proposed network followed
the Network Selection Factors
and the Bike Facility Class
Criteria
Bike Facility Class Selection
establishes current condition
of the street network dictates
what is an acceptable and safe
facility type based on the type
of road:
• Speed
• ADT
• Width
• Context
18 Guidance: FHWA, NACTO, Caltrans
Safety Connectivity Public Input Draft
Network
Bike Facility Class Selection Criteria
Network Selection Factors
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Existing Network
19 § 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 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 Proposed Network
20 § Safe and Connected network for whole city
§ Extensive network of protected bike lanes
§ Bike boulevards help to fill in the network
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 <1%
Class IV Protected Bike Lane 46.7 52%
Class II Bike Lane 13.2 15%
Class II Climbing Lane 3.5 4%
Class III Bike Boulevard 24.9 28%
Class III Bike Route 1.6 2%
Total 90.2 100%
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Probable Lane Reassignment
21 Creating a safe, protected, and connected bike
network will require that some parking or
moving lanes be reassigned to have enough
width for the bike facility
Whether a trade-off is ultimately needed will
depend on project design, site conditions,
and constraints.
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PROJECT PHASING
22 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED § Recommended phasing of the 90-mile
network over 20-years.
• Four phases, assumed to be 5-years each
§ Regardless of phase, projects should be
implemented in tandem with other
opportunities such as repaving projects
§ Phases were developed based on:
• Connectivity to prior phase(s)
• Weighted Score
• Geographic equity
• Balancing complexity and lane miles
between phases
Project Phasing
23 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Develop Phase 1
• Creates a useable
network based on
our principles of
“spiderweb” and
“connected
neighborhoods.”
• Leverages the Metro
BRT project.
• Emphasizes localized
networks.
Identify projects
connected to previous
phase(s)
• Maintain network
connectivity.
• Connect new areas to
the center.
• Fill in the network.
Weighted Score
• Calculate weighted
score of projects
connected to
previous phase(s) to
identify the next
phase of projects.
Adjustments
• Adjust phasing to
achieve geographic
equity.
• Adjust to balance the
phases in terms of
complexity and lane
miles.
Project Phasing - Process
24 Iterate for Phases 2, 3, and 4
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phase 1
25 § Basic network in North, West, and South
Glendale
§ Adjacent to Metro BRT and Verdugo Wash
projects
§ Includes high ranking segments (e.g., Brand
Blvd, Central Ave, Acacia Ave)
Proposed Facility Type Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Class IV Protected Bike Lane 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4
Class II Climbing Lane 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0
Class III Bike Boulevard 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0
Note: lengths are centerline and measure one direction only COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phase 2
26 § Network expansion with connection between
North and South Glendale on Verdugo Rd
§ Includes high ranking segments (e.g.,
Columbus Ave, San Fernando Rd, and
Verdugo Rd)
Proposed Facility Type Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Class IV Protected Bike Lane 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4
Class II Climbing Lane 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0
Class III Bike Boulevard 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0
Note: lengths are centerline and measure one direction only COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phase 3
27 § Densify network with major projects on
Glendale Ave and Colorado St
§ Captures high-to-medium scoring projects in
South and Central Glendale (e.g., Cañada
Blvd, Opechee Way, San Fernando Rd)
Proposed Facility Type Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Class IV Protected Bike Lane 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4
Class II Climbing Lane 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0
Class III Bike Boulevard 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0
Note: lengths are centerline and measure one direction only COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Phase 4
28 § Final pieces to complete network,
including Brand Blvd
§ Captures medium-to-low ranking
segments (e.g., Cedar St, Lake St,
Rossmoyne Ave)
Proposed Facility Type Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Class IV Protected Bike Lane 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4
Class II Climbing Lane 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0
Class III Bike Boulevard 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0
Note: lengths are centerline and measure one direction only COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
COST ESTIMATE
29 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED § Develop a per-mile cost for each facility
type
• Based on recent bids provided by the
City of Glendale and Caltrans Cost Data
§ Add a conservative contingency for a
range of associated project costs that will
be refined during project development
§ Actual costs may vary based on project
scope and current market conditions
Developing the Cost Estimates
30 Contingency Percent
Engineering, Design, Outreach 25% (of construction cost) Mobilization 5% (of material cost)
Traffic Control 5% (of material cost)
Construction Management 10% (of construction cost)
Construction Cost Contingency 20% (of material cost)
Utility Contingency 5% (of material cost)
Drainage Contingency 5% (of material cost)
Environmental Contingency 5% (of material cost)
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED § Single cost for Class I and III
• Class I – Reconstruct existing sidewalk with raised
path, curb ramps
• Class III Bike Route – Signing and striping
§ Low-cost broadly includes signing & striping, as well as:
• Class II – Removal of existing striping
• Class III Bike Blvd – Speed humps
• Class IV – Bike detection loops, bollards, curb
ramps, traffic signal modifications
§ High-cost reflect low-cost improvements and
additional facility design features, such as:
• Class II – Resurfacing and restriping
• Class III Bike Blvd – Landscaped traffic circles and
curb ramps
• Class IV – Concrete separators, resurfacing, traffic
signal upgrades, curb ramps, and upgraded curb
and gutter
Cost Estimate for bike facilities includes other improvements 31 Facility Type &
Roadway
Improvements
Length
(miles)
Rounded Per Mile Cost Estimate (2023)
Low Cost High Cost
Class I 0.3 $9,000,000
Class II 16.7 $710,000 $3,330,000
Class III –
Bike Route 1.6 $470,000
Class III
Bike Blvd 24.9 $880,000 $1,770,000
Class IV 46.7 $2,590,000 $9,170,000
Unit Cost Estimates
Costs provided by
Glendale Public Works
and Caltrans database
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Cost Estimates
32 Phase Length
(Miles)
Rounded Cost Estimate
(2023)
Low Cost High Cost
1 25 $ 50,232,000 $ 180,219,000
2 31 $ 53,160,000 $ 166,800,000
3 16 $ 30,750,000 $ 103,470,000
4 18 $ 24,418,000 $ 81,451,000
Total 90 $ 158,560,000 $ 531,940,000
Each phase is 5-years long
(20-year plan)
Total Cost by Phase§ Estimate of the proposed 20-year bike network
§ Each phase is 5 years long
§ The high proportion of Class IV protected
bikeways in the network (52% of the network
by mileage) results in a safer and more
inviting network that also costs more on a per
-mile basis.
§ High-cost estimates may also include
roadway enhancements (repaving, signals,
ADA upgrades) not directly related to bike
project
COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
33 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Safety:
§ End penalties for bicycle safety
measures
§ Lower speed limits
§ Improve bicycle safety at
intersections
§ Regularly collect data on
bicycling in Glendale
§ Conduct education outreach
campaigns
Connectivity:
§ Maintain updated bicycle network
map and information
§ Incorporate bicycle network
implementation and
maintenance into regular road
repairs
Accessibility:
§ Provide convenient and
accessible bicycle parking
throughout Glendale
Equity
§ Pilot active transportation
projects to gauge impact and
build support
Implementable:
§ Adopt guidelines for
reconfiguring traffic lanes into
the General Plan Circulation
Element
§ Incorporate bicycle facilities in
new developments through
zoning requirements
§ Implement Design Guidelines
Policy Recommendations
34 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NEXT STEPS
35 COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Next Steps
36 City Council
CEQA Analysis (6-8 weeks)
July
30-day public comment period of Draft Plan
August
Incorporate comments into Final Plan
September / October
City Council votes on adoption
October / November
November