Hermosa Beach City Council
October 14, 2024

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING—STUDY SESSION AGENDA

Call and Notice of Special Meeting:

LIVING STREETS STUDY SESSION

Monday, October 14, 2024
Closed Session at 5:00 PM—Study Session at 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

CITY COUNCIL
Dean Francois, Mayor
Rob Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem
Mike Detoy, Councilmember
Ray Jackson, Councilmember
Justin Massey, Councilmember
Karen Nowicki, City Treasurer

APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
Patrick Donegan, City Attorney

EXECUTIVE TEAM
Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director
Myra Maravilla, City Clerk
Carrie Tai, Community Development Director
Lisa Nichols, Community Resources Director
Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Paul LeBaron, Police Chief
Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at [email protected] at least 48 hours before the meeting.

PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS
Hermosa Beach City Council meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following:

Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89968207828?
pwd=bXZmWS83dmxHWDZLbWRTK2RVaUxaUT092
•
• Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 899 6820 7828, then #; Passcode: 472825 • eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time.

Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to [email protected]. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day.
•
Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time.

Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation.

Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible.

Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers.
• Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach • YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 • Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda
If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View City Council staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda.

Pages
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach has called a Special Meeting of the City Council to take place at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 14, 2024, to consider and take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda below.

1. CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM

2. ROLL CALL

3. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
This public comment period is limited to Closed Session agenda items only.

Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.

4. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

4.a Closed Session Minutes
Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on October 8, 2024.

4.b Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Manager

5. STUDY SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM

6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

7. ROLL CALL

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS

9. STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
The public is invited to attend and provide public comment on the Study Session topic only. No general public comment will be taken during the Study Session.

Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. The time allotted per speaker may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council. Another period is reserved for public comment on the Study Session topic only during item 9.

No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager.

10. OPENING REMARKS

11. STUDY SESSION TOPIC

11.a LIVING STREETS STUDY SESSION - 24-PW-037 5
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

Receive and provide comment on the Living Streets Study Session; and

1. Provide direction to staff regarding Living Streets as future funding and staff resources allow.

2. 12. COUNCIL QUESTIONS

13. STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
The public is invited to attend and provide public comment on the Study Session topic only. No general public comment will be taken during the Study Session.

Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. The time allotted per speaker may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council. Another period is reserved for public comment on the Study Session topic only.

No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager.

14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION

15. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting Date: October 14, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-PW-037
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council

LIVING STREETS STUDY SESSION
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Receive and provide comment on the Living Streets Study Session; and

2. Provide direction to staff regarding Living Streets as future funding and staff resources allow.

Executive Summary:

The Living Streets Study Session details the City’s continued commitment towards creating a living street network, as envisioned in the City’s General Plan, PLAN Hermosa, and the City’s future efforts to encourage safe travel for all users within the public rightof-way.

The study session format provides an opportunity for staff to update Council and community on the City’s efforts to advance living streets elements in City projects and on the coordination with the South Bay Bicycle Coalition Plus (SBBC+) with its Bicycle Master Plan Update. It is also an opportunity for City Council and the community to discuss and provide feedback on those efforts and make suggestions for improvements in the future. While the focus of the study session is largely on bicyclists, a holistic approach must be considered to balance bicyclist needs with the needs of pedestrians, motorists, and all other users.

Background:

In 2012, Hermosa Beach was the first city in the United States to adopt a living streets policy that promotes health and mobility for all users by creating streets that are safe, accessible, sustainable, and inviting. The key goals of living streets are:
 Provide for the needs of all roadway users—motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users—regardless of age or physical abilities;
 Enhance safety and security for all users;
 Incorporate inviting streetscapes with engaging architecture, street furniture, landscaping, and public art – and foster healthy economic development;

 Integrate sustainability and conservation principles addressing water, energy, materials, waste, plant life and other resources; and
 Design for the community with beautification elements and amenities and encourage active and healthy lifestyles.

The City furthered its commitment to living streets principles in the City’s 2017 General Plan, PLAN Hermosa. The General Plan details the City’s long-term vision for the creation of a comprehensive and safe multi-modal transportation system, critical to fulfill Hermosa Beach’s growing desire for additional transportation choices and acknowledges its inability to widen streets for more vehicles and parking due to its narrow street rights-ofway. The creation of a high-quality multi-modal transportation network provides a range of economic, health, sustainability, and safety benefits, which all contribute toward an improved quality of life in Hermosa Beach.

In 2018, staff worked in collaboration with the Beach Cities Health District, Redondo Beach, and Manhattan Beach, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to create the draft Beach Cities Living Streets Design Manual and the Aviation Boulevard Multimodal Corridor Plan. The draft Design Manual was based on the Los Angeles County Model Design Manual for Living Streets, but tailored and updated for the local beach cities. The effort included three public workshops and the development of conceptual design alternatives for the incorporation of living streets elements, such as protected bike lanes, enhanced landscaping, and pedestrian amenities. The manual was presented to the Hermosa Beach City Council on October 29, 2018 as part of a Special Multi-Agency Meeting held in conjunction with the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and the Board of Directors of the Beach Cities Health District.

The City continues to work towards implementing living streets design elements in projects throughout the City; however the rapid rise of electric bikes (e-bikes) in recent years has resulted in increased community concerns regarding bike safety and sidewalk riding as the demand for e-bikes has outpaced the ability to create appropriate infrastructure to accommodate them. In 2022, the City launched the Bike Smart Hermosa safety campaign, in an effort to help address these concerns and prevent bicycle and ebike collisions and injuries through a balanced approach, combining engineering, traffic enforcement, and educational outreach on cycling safety. However, without providing a complete, connected, and safe bicycle network, enforcement efforts will continue to have limited effectiveness as the demand for both bicycles and e-bikes remains strong.

According to the 2021 Route Refinement Study for a South Bay Local Travel Network, completed by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, most vehicle trips, or about 70 percent, made in the South Bay are less than three miles in length; many of these trips could potentially be accommodated by bicycle if appropriate infrastructure were in place.

Past Board, Commission, and Council Actions

Meeting Date Description
September 14, 2011 Public Works Commission recommended the adoption of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan to City Council.

October 25, 2011 Adoption of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan December 11, 2012 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, Adopting a Living Streets Policy for the City of Hermosa Beach
October 29, 2018 Study Session: Presentation regarding the Beach Cities Living Streets Design Manual as part of the Caltrans
Transportation Planning Grant: Beach Cities Living Street Design Manual & Aviation Boulevard Multimodal Corridor
Plan
March 31, 2022 Consideration of taking action and giving direction not staff on items from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Study Session
June 4, 2024 Adoption of an urgency ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adding Section 10.12.175 to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code regarding safety and operational
regulations related to electric/motorized bicycles in the City Discussion:

Past Bike Planning Efforts
In 2011, the City adopted the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan (SBBMP) created by the South Bay Bicycle Coalition (SBBC) in partnership with the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and seven cities of the South Bay including Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, Gardena, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. The SBBMP outlined over 200 miles of a regional bicycle network and proposed a series of interconnected bikeways, bike parking facilities, and associated programs and policies throughout the seven cities. The SBBMP is included in Attachment 1 and shows the proposed bike network in Hermosa Beach.

Many elements of the SBBMP were later incorporated into PLAN Hermosa with some additions including a greater emphasis on east-west connections and identification of multi-use path connections to parks, schools, and other key destinations. Attachment 2 illustrates the Intended Bicycle and Multi-use Facilities from PLAN Hermosa covering approximately 25.7 linear lane miles that included five different facility categories as summarized in the table below.

Bicycle and Multi-use Facility Categories Considered in PLAN Hermosa Type Caltrans
Classification1 Description
Multi-use
Path
Class I A two-way facility separated from motor vehicles (adjacent to or independent of roadways) for use by
pedestrians, joggers, skaters, and bicyclists.

Shared
Roadway
No designation A street segment that functions as a space for multiple users and intermittently as a gathering space, without
delineations for each mode.

Bike Lane Class II Bike lanes, or buffered bike lanes, provide preferential or exclusive use of a portion of the roadway for
bicyclists through striping or markings.

Sharrows Class III Sharrows combine bicycle stencils with chevrons placed in the center of a travel lane. They bring
awareness to drivers that bicycles share the lane and
“may use full lane.”
Bike
Boulevard
Class III Bike boulevards allow bicyclists and motorists to share the same travel lanes to facilitate safe and
convenient bicycle travel. They are low-volume
streets optimized for bicyclists and pedestrians and
typically treated with traffic calming features.

1. Highway Design Manual (HDM), 7th Edition, Caltrans.

2. Per the HDM, sidewalks are not Class I bikeways, because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bikeways, and do not minimize vehicle cross flows.

Class IV facilities, also referred to as separated bikeways, protected bike lanes, or cycle tracks, were not considered in the City’s bicycle plan as it predated their formal introduction to California. The Protected Bikeways Act of 2014 established Class IV Bikeways for California and required the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish design criteria for separated bikeways. This Design Information Bulletin (DIB) was released in 2018, and amended in 2022, providing design criteria and other general design guidance on best practices related to separated facilities.

The facility classifications are generally not considered to be a hierarchy of one preferred over the other as each has its application. However, as detailed in the 2011 South Bay Bicycle Master Plan and the Beach Cities Living Streets Design Manual, based on a classification system developed by the City of Portland, Oregon, bicyclists can generally be categorized into four different user types that may be more, or less, willing to ride in certain bicycle facility types and will depend on the actual level of stress of any particular segment on that travel path:

 Strong and Fearless—Bicyclists who will ride anywhere regardless of roadway conditions. These bicyclists can ride faster than other user types, prefer direct routes, and will typically choose roadways, even if shared with vehicles, over separate bicycle facilities such as paths. Very low percentage of the population (<1 percent).
 Enthused and Confident—This group encompasses intermediate cyclists who are mostly comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities but will usually prefer low traffic streets, bike lanes, or separate paths when available. They may deviate from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes commuters, utilitarian cyclists, and recreational riders, and probably represents about 7 percent of the population.
 Interested but Concerned—This user type makes up the bulk (likely between half and two-thirds) of the cycling or potential cycling population. They are cyclists who typically ride only on low traffic streets or paths under favorable conditions and weather. They perceive traffic and safety as significant barriers towards increased use of cycling. These cyclists may become “Enthused and Confident” with encouragement, education, and experience (about 60 percent of the population).  No Way, No How—People in this category are not cyclists; they perceive severe safety issues with riding in traffic and will never ride a bicycle under any circumstances. But some may eventually give cycling a second look and may progress to the user types above. This group likely composes something between a quarter and a third of the population.

Existing Bicycle Network
Currently only approximately 25 percent of the intended network is fully in place or has been enhanced beyond what was originally proposed in PLAN Hermosa. This group of segments is largely comprised of pre-existing facilities such as The Strand and other bike infrastructure on Hermosa Avenue north of 24th Street. This group of segments also includes the bicycle lanes that were added in the downtown area in 2021 along Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue and along Hermosa Avenue between 10th Street and 14th Street and represent enhanced facilities versus those originally proposed in PLAN Hermosa which called only for sharrows at those locations.

There are also several other segments that are partially complete, bringing the amount of the intended network that is partially complete up to approximately 56 percent. Partially complete segments include segments such as Prospect Avenue that received sharrow markings and signage in 2024 as a first step towards establishing the roadway as a northsouth bicycle corridor; however, the plan calls for future installation of buffered bike lanes.

Other segments, such as the proposed bike boulevard on Monterey Boulevard, require additional infrastructure in order to be considered fully in place. Attachment 3 illustrates the current status of the intended bicycle network.

Planned Bicycle Improvements
Annual Street Improvements Project (CIP 105) will include the resurfacing of Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Valley Drive between Pier Avenue and Herondo Street, which will allow staff the opportunity to further upgrade the existing bicycle markings along those corridors. Staff is currently developing the design for the project to include the installation of limited green bicycle markings on Pier Avenue to enhance visibility, similar to those recently installed by the City of Redondo Beach on Beryl Street. Staff is also exploring the installation of a bicycle lane along Pier Avenue eastbound from Ardmore Avenue to PCH. The Pier Avenue eastbound lane would serve as a “climbing” lane and at this time staff believes it may fit without removal of travel lanes or parking and accommodated by minor narrowing of the existing lanes. The plans would also incorporate the addition of sharrow pavement markings along Valley Drive between Pier Avenue and Herondo Street.

PCH and Aviation Mobility Improvement Project (CIP 143) will consider the potential for the addition of bicycle infrastructure along Aviation Boulevard and PCH, as well as enhanced crossings of PCH. In addition to bicycle improvements, the project also includes evaluation of a wide range of complete street elements to improve mobility, accessibility, aesthetics, and safety for all users along the PCH and Aviation Boulevard corridors as identified in the 2015 Project Study Report prepared by the City and Caltrans.

The project is in the early stage of the alternative development and environmental review process and is being led by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff on behalf of the City in close coordination with Caltrans. Improvements to PCH will require Caltrans approval as it is state right-of-way. On September 30, 2024, Senate Bill (SB) 960 was approved by the Governor, requiring Caltrans to prioritize road improvements for pedestrians, bike riders, and public transit users whenever it performs maintenance or does road work. SB 960 is significant since it forces Caltrans to consider the needs of non-motorized vehicle users and may help further advance goals of this project.

Deferred and Unfunded Future Bicycle Projects
The FY 2024–25 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies a number of Deferred and Unfunded Future Projects awaiting funding and staffing resources in a future budget cycle. There are currently two projects on the Deferred and Unfunded Future Project list that include potential improvements to the bicycle infrastructure:
 The Hermosa Avenue Greenwich Village Street Realignment—this potential improvement project was identified through the 2022 Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Planning Project. That effort produced conceptual designs of potential enhancements at the intersections of Hermosa Avenue and Greenwich

Village and Manhattan Avenue and Greenwich Village/27th Street, including improved bicycle accommodations and visibility and safety improvements for pedestrians and vehicles.
 Strand Bikeway and Walkway Improvements at 35th Street—this project would provide improved accessibility and connectivity for bicyclists travelling between the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach via The Strand at 35th Street by creating a pathway connection where there is currently only access via stairs.

Both projects would require funding and future consideration of appropriateness by City Council for incorporation into the CIP.

South Bay Bicycle Coalition Plus 2024 Bicycle Master Plan Update In August 2024, the SBBC+ announced an update to the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan and launch of an interactive Story Map. The primary update to the Master Plan is the call for Class IV protected bike lanes, where feasible, in lieu of Class II painted bike lanes.

The update aligns with regional plans and promotes the safety and ridership benefits of these enhanced facilities.

The SBBC+’s story map overlays the proposed bicycle network with regional network plans, school locations, the transit network, and collision data. The updated website also has an interactive tool to collect input from the community on desired bicycle infrastructure improvements with the goal of creating a Living Master Plan which can be used to help guide implementation, enhancement, and expansion of the bicycle network both in the City and in the South Bay region. The map details proposed bicycle facilities by classification and estimated completion date. Ongoing outreach and community engagement will be a critical element in this effort. Staff is working in collaboration with the SBBC+ to provide updates to the interactive map.

Existing Sidewalk Network
The City is relatively compact, spanning only about two miles along the shoreline by about one-half to one mile wide. This compact nature combined with a gridded street network, small blocks, and dense land uses make it a highly walkable city. Walking also represents a no-cost transportation mode that can benefit public health, reduce congestion, and improve air quality. While the City has a robust sidewalk network, it does lack continuity in many neighborhoods with missing sidewalk segments or no sidewalks provided either on one or both sides of the street. Many of the existing sidewalk segments are also challenged by missing curb ramps, steep driveways, and sidewalk obstructions, as a result of private encroachments and utilities, that present challenges to users of all abilities and reduce overall walkability.

Staff continues to prioritize improvements to the existing sidewalk network through continued investment in the Capital Improvement Program, maintenance and repair, and through the design approval process for private developments that are generally required to reconstruct sidewalks to current City standards adjacent to their property.

PLAN Hermosa envisions a comprehensive, connected pedestrian network, including a combination of walk streets, local sidewalks, wide sidewalks, and priority sidewalks (Attachment 4). The wide sidewalk segments generally correlate with commercial corridors, while priority sidewalks provide essential connections throughout the City and also overlap with the City’s Safe Routes to School network. Implementation of PLAN Hermosa’s Intended Pedestrian Facilities network will require continued capital investment, planning, and evaluation and each segment will need to consider utility, parking, and private encroachment impacts.

Other Completed Projects and Initiatives
The City has completed several projects and initiatives over the years to advance living street elements. Some of these efforts include:
 2010: Pier Avenue Improvements which widened sidewalks, enhanced crossings, and implemented an all-pedestrian phase at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue.
 2018: Hermosa Avenue paving project which created curb bulb outs and decorative crossing along Hermosa Ave in the downtown area.  2019–2023: PCH Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Sidewalk Improvements which repaired sidewalks, installed ADA curb ramps, and added a new east-west crosswalk at Pier Avenue and PCH with an all-pedestrian phase.  2019: 8th Street Sidewalk Improvements which restored City right-of-way and created a complete and accessible sidewalk route along 8th Street from Valley Drive to Hermosa Avenue on the City’s Safe Routes to School network.  2022: the City adopted an ADA Transition Plan which documents how the City will reconstruct sidewalks and curb ramps in the City right-of-way to meet ADA standards and create accessible paths for all pedestrians in the City.  2023: Business Activity District and School Zone Speed Limit Update which lowered the speed limits by 5 miles per hour on Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue in the downtown area by establishing a business activity district and set a 15-mile per hour speed limit in school zones. This task was done as implementation of a portion of State Assembly Bill (AB) 43.
 2022–2024: Installed approximately 40 bicycle racks, accommodating storage for 80 bikes, at several locations throughout the City including Pier Plaza, Pier Avenue, Valley Park, Hermosa Beach Community Center, and 11th Street and Beach Drive.

 2023: The Strand Pedestrian Safety Pilot Project which installed barricades along The Strand between 11th Street and 14th Street to increase compliance of bicyclist walking their bikes within the “walk only” zone of The Strand and reduce conflict with pedestrians.
 2024: Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements Phase 1 which installed rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFB) at 10 uncontrolled marked crosswalks throughout the City to enhance safe crossings for pedestrians.

Other Ongoing Efforts
The Public Works Department receives approximately 110 requests from the community each year regarding transportation-related safety or operational issues. Many requests require engineering investigation and consideration for future incorporation into the CIP as part of a larger design and construction effort, pending available funding and staff capacity, to effectively address the issue. For example, staff received several community requests for enhanced pedestrian access the Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail across Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue, particularly north of 24
th Street, and receives ongoing
requests for enhanced safety on Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue at their intersections with Pier Avenue and Gould Avenue. The community’s reporting assists staff in understanding where there are needs in the community and helps inform the creation of future capital improvement projects.

The Public Works and Police Departments also work in close coordination to review severe and fatal crashes as they occur to better understand contributing factors and determine if safety improvements could be made through engineering solutions.

Staff is also in the process of evaluating those provisions in Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) that became effective after June 30, 2024 including the potential designation of certain roadway segments as safety corridors. For streets which are designated as a safety corridor, the speed limit can be set 5 miles per hour lower than the traditional 85th percentile; however, a maximum of only 20 percent of any city’s streets can be so designated. Staff is working in collaboration with the City’s Traffic Engineer to evaluate the potential of implementing said corridors in the City, including the necessary data collection and supporting engineering analysis.

The FY 2024–25 CIP budget includes several programmed projects with Living Street elements, that staff is working to advance, including:
 Utility Box Wrapping (CIP 109)—Adds public art to utility boxes found along sidewalks to enhance the pedestrian experience. This project is underway in partnership with Indivisible Arts and is partially complete.

 Gateway and Wayfinding Assessment (CIP 111)—Conceptual design of alternatives to provide downtown wayfinding in a uniform and consistent manner that informs pedestrians of the various downtown establishments.  Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail (CIP 502, et al.)—Removes the existing woodchip surface along the Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail from Pier Avenue to 8th Street and replaces it with an accessible decomposed granite surface.  Hermosa Avenue Green Street (CIP 164)—Removes 5,115 linear feet of existing concrete gutter and replaces with a permeable concrete gutter to allow the infiltration of stormwater and decrease the amount of untreated stormwater discharged into the City’s storm drain system
 CDBG Improvements (CIP 624)—Constructs ADA-accessible ramps throughout the City to provide accessible paths for people of all abilities.  Bus Stop Improvements Phase 2 (CIP 102)—Improvements to bus stops along Hermosa Avenue to enhance functionality and access to public transportation.  Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements Phase 2 (CIP 193) – Improvements to the median island, parking configuration, sidewalks, curb ramps, and crosswalks along Hermosa Avenue to enhance motorist and pedestrian safety and accessible travel.
 Comprehensive Downtown Lighting Design (CIP 621)—Conceptual design of lighting in the downtown area to enhance motorist and pedestrian safety and creating a welcoming and inviting atmosphere.

Looking Ahead
Staff continues to identify opportunities to integrate living streets elements into the planning and design of capital improvement and private development projects. Staff also remains actively engaged with the SBBC+ on the SBBMP Update and continues to evaluate opportunities for collaboration with the bordering cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. The community is encouraged to actively participate in the SBBC+ interactive website to help inform the evolution of the living SBBMP, providing input on desired changes or additions, and consider how future segments would move forward.

Enforcement solutions alone will only have a limited effectiveness at addressing community concerns for bicycle safety, while also pulling limited staffing resources away from other high-priority public safety needs. Larger planning and engineering solutions will continue to be needed to address the issue. However, continued advancement of PLAN Hermosa’s Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities network will become increasingly more difficult given the City’s limited right-of-way and high demand for parking with each and every segment presenting its own unique challenges and requiring careful planning, community buy-in, alternatives assessment, and consideration of impacts during design development. For example, PLAN Hermosa shows Prospect Avenue as having a multi-use path or buffered bike lane; and while there is sufficient rightof-way to accommodate this facility, it does not currently fit within the existing curb-to-curb

cross-section and would require a significant reconstruction of the roadway and use of right-of-way that is currently utilized by private encroachments. Similarly, the planned bike network currently does not provide good north-south travel, particularly along Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue which is heavily utilized by younger and less experienced riders accessing Hermosa Valley School. The shared space on The Strand will also remain a location where there is high potential for conflicts given the limited width and heavy demand and has been an ongoing discussion in the City for many decades.

The community is also encouraged to continue to reach out to City staff regarding location-specific safety concerns throughout the City to help identify issues and inform future CIP budget development.

General Plan Consistency:

This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below:

Land Use and Design Element
Goal 6. A pedestrian-focused urban form that creates visual interest and a comfortable outdoor environment.

Policies:
 6.1 Outdoor amenities. Require all new multi-family and commercial development to be designed and constructed with pedestrian friendly features such as sidewalks, tree-shaded streets, buildings that define the public realm, and, in the case of non-residential uses, have transparent ground floor building facades that activate the street.
 6.2 Streetscaping. Proactively beautify existing streetscapes with street trees, landscaping and pedestrian-scaled lighting.
 6.3 Green open space network. Establish an interconnected green infrastructure network throughout Hermosa Beach that serves as a network for active transportation, recreation and scenic beauty and connects all areas of the city. In particular, connections should be made between the beach, parks, the Downtown, neighborhoods, and other destinations within the city. Consider the following components when designing and implementing the green/open space network:
o Preserved open space areas such as the beach and the Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail
o Living streets with significant landscaping and pedestrian and bicycle amenities
o Community and neighborhood parks, and schools
 6.4 Street lighting for safety. Improve street lighting for public safety and prioritize areas near parks and schools for lighting improvements.

 6.5 Provision of sidewalks. Encourage pedestrian friendly sidewalks on both sides of streets in neighborhoods.
 6.6 Human-scale buildings. Encourage buildings and design to include humanscale details such as windows on the street, awnings and architectural features that create a visually interesting pedestrian environment.  6.7 Pedestrian oriented design. Eliminate urban form conditions that reduce walkability by discouraging surface parking and parking structures along walkways, long blank walls along walkways, and garage-dominated building facades.

Mobility Element
Goal 2. A public realm that is safe, comfortable, and convenient for travel via foot, bicycle, public transit, and automobile and creates vibrant, people-oriented public spaces that encourage active living.

Policies:
 2.1 Prioritize public rights-of-way. Prioritize improvements of public rights-ofway that provide heightened levels of safe, comfortable and attractive public spaces for all non-motorized travelers while balancing the needs of efficient vehicular circulation.
 2.2 Encourage traffic calming. Encourage traffic calming policies and techniques to improve the safety and efficient movement of people and vehicles along residential areas and highly trafficked corridors.

Goal 3. Public rights-of-way supporting a multimodal and people-oriented transportation system that provides diversity and flexibility on how users choose to be mobile.

Policies:
 3.3 Active transportation. Require commercial development or redevelopment projects and residential projects with four or more units to accommodate active transportation by providing on-site amenities, necessary connections to adjacent existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle networks, and incorporate people-oriented design practices.
 3.9 Access for emergency vehicles. Ensure that emergency vehicles have secure and convenient access to the City’s street network.  3.10 Require ADA standards. Require that all public rights-of-way be designed per Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards by incorporating crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and other components to provide ease of access for disabled persons.
 3.11 Site-specific conditions. Evaluate and incorporate any site-specific conditions or restrictions on public property or rights-of-way during the design and engineering phases for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Goal 7. A transportation system that results in zero transportation-related fatalities and which minimizes injuries.

Policies:
 7.1 Safe public rights-of-way. Encourage that all public rights-of-way are safe for all users at all times of day where users of all ages and ability feel comfortable participating in both motorized and non-motorized travel.  7.2 Manage speeds. Monitor vehicle speeds through traffic controls, speed limits, and design features with the intended purpose of minimizing vehicle accidents, creating a pedestrian and bicycle environment, and discouraging cut-through traffic.
 7.4 Traffic safety programs. Prioritize traffic safety programs oriented towards safe access to schools and community facilities that focus on walking, biking, and driving in school zones.

Parks and Open Space
Goal 4. Direct and accessible routes and connections to parks, recreational facilities, and open space are provided.

Policies:
 4.1 Close proximity to parks. Provide a variety and distribution of parks, open space, and recreational facilities to enhance proximity and easy access to all residents.
 4.2 Enhanced access points. Increase and enhance access to parks and open space, particularly across major thoroughfares, as well as access points that promote physical activity such as pedestrian- and bike-oriented access points.  4.3 Safe and efficient trail network. Develop a network of safe and efficient trails, streets, and paths that connect residents, visitors, and neighboring communities to the beach, parks, and activity centers.
 4.4 ADA accessible park access. Install ADA and universally accessible amenities and equipment so that all parks, beach, and trail networks are accessible to all persons.

Parks and Open Space
Goal 10. Abundant landscaping, trees, and green space provided throughout the community.

Policies:
 10.1 Urban forest. Expand the urban forest and green spaces citywide on public and private property.
 10.3 Green space co-benefits. Recognize the many positive qualities provided by landscaping, trees, and green space including reduced heat gain, controlled

stormwater runoff, absorbed noise, reduced soil erosion, improved aesthetic character, and absorption of air pollution.
 10.6 City landscaping. Encourage landscaping, trees, and green spaces across the city consist of non-invasive and drought-tolerant plants.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact related to the recommended action.

Attachments:

1. 2011 South Bay Bicycle Master Plan

2. PLAN Hermosa Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities Map

3. Current State of PLAN Hermosa’s Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities

4. PLAN Hermosa Intended Pedestrian Facilities Map
Respectfully Submitted by: Andrew Nguyen, Associate Engineer Concur: Brandon Araujo, Senior Engineer
Concur: Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director
Concur: Doug Krauss, Environmental Programs Manager
Concur: Paul LeBaron, Chief of Police
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager

The South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan
August 2011

South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Acknowledgements
Prepared for:

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Coalition
Prepared by:

Alta Planning + Design
Brett Hondorp, Principal
Sam Corbett, Senior Associate
Jessie Holzer, Planner

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | i
Table of Contents
Foreword .................................................................................... xi Executive Summary ................................................................. xiii 1 Introduction ................................................................ 3

1.1 Setting ............................................................................................ 3

1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan ....................................... 5

1.3 Bicycle Facility Types ................................................................ 7

1.4 Benefits of Bicycling .................................................................. 11

1.5 Public Participation ................................................................. 14

1.6 Plan Organization ......................................................................16 2 Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions ..................... 21

2.1 South Bay Goals, Objectives, and Policies ......................... 21

2.2 Relevant Regional Existing Plans and Policies ................ 32 3 El Segundo ................................................................ 41

3.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ..... 41

3.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................. 41

3.3 Needs Analysis .......................................................................... 49

3.4 Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................... 58

3.5 Project Costs .............................................................................. 65

3.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................... 66

3.7 Project Sheets ............................................................................. 69 4 Gardena .................................................................... 77

4.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ..... 77

4.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................. 77

4.3 Needs Analysis .......................................................................... 83

4.4 Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................... 92

4.5 Project Costs .............................................................................. 99

4.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................. 100

4.7 Project Sheets ........................................................................... 105 5 Hermosa Beach ...................................................... 113

5.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance .... 113

Table of Contents
ii | Alta Planning + Design

5.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 113

5.3 Needs Analysis ......................................................................... 121

5.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 130

5.5 Project Costs ............................................................................. 137

5.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................. 138

5.7 Project Sheets ........................................................................... 141 6 Lawndale ................................................................ 149

6.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ... 149

6.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................... 149

6.3 Needs Analysis ........................................................................ 155

6.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 164

6.5 Project Costs ............................................................................ 170

6.6 Project Prioritization .............................................................. 171

6.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 174 7 Manhattan Beach ................................................... 181

7.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance .... 181

7.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 181

7.3 Needs Analysis ........................................................................ 188

7.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 198

7.5 Project Costs ........................................................................... 205

7.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................ 206

7.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 210 8 Redondo Beach ...................................................... 219

8.1 Bicycle Transportion Account (BTA) Compliance ....... 219

8.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................... 219

8.3 Needs Analysis ....................................................................... 229

8.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 238

8.5 Project Costs ........................................................................... 245

8.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................ 248

8.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 252 9 Torrance .................................................................. 261

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | iii

9.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ... 261

9.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................... 261

9.3 Needs Analysis ........................................................................ 270

9.4 Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................... 279

9.5 Project Costs ........................................................................... 289

9.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................ 290

9.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 294 10 Recommended Programs ..................................... 303

10.1 Education Programs ............................................................... 303

10.2 Public Awareness Campaigns and Marketing ............... 306

10.3 Enforcement Programs .......................................................... 308

10.4 Encouragement Programs ....................................................309

10.5 Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................. 312 11 Wayfinding and Signage Plan .............................. 317

11.1 1BSignage Design .......................................................................... 317

11.2 2BSignage Locations ................................................................... 333

11.3 Kiosks ......................................................................................... 336

11.4 Collaborative Efforts ............................................................. 340 12 Funding .................................................................. 343 Appendices ............................................................................ 357 Appendix A: Large Scale Maps .......................................................... 359 Appendix B: New York City Bicycle Collision vs Ridership Data ..................................................................................................................... 383 Appendix C: Bicycle Facility Standards ......................................... 384 Appendix D: Online Survey Analysis ............................................... 385 Appendix E: BTA Compliance Tables .............................................. 391 Appendix F: Participating City Existing Bicycle Plan Maps .... 405 Appendix G: City Municipal Code Bicycle Parking Related Sections ..................................................................................................... 413 Appendix H: Bicycle Count Data ...................................................... 417 Appendix I: Opportunities and Constraints .................................. 421

Table of Contents
iv | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix J: Recommended Bicycle Parking Standards ............ 424 Appendix K: Prioritization Methodology ....................................... 427 Appendix L: Proposed Kiosk and Signage Routes ....................... 431 Appendix M: Glossary of Terms ........................................................ 441 Appendix N: Complete Streets Policy Language ......................... 443 Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments Received .............. 449 List of Figures
Figure 1-1: South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region .................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 1-2: Typical Distribution of Bicyclists in the United States .. 5 Figure 1-3: Bicycle Path and Bicycle Lane Recommended Standards8 Figure 1-4: Bicycle Route and Bicycle Friendly Streets
Recommended Standards ............................................................................. 9 Figure 2-1: City of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities .............. 33 Figure 2-2: County of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities ....... 35 Figure 3-1: El Segundo General Plan Land Uses ................................... 42 Figure 3-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo .......................... 46 Figure 3-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo ......................... 61 Figure 3-4: Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities in El Segundo .............. 64 Figure 4-1: Gardena General Plan Land Uses ........................................ 78 Figure 4-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Gardena ................................ 81 Figure 4-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena ............................. 93 Figure 4-4: Gardena Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ........................ 98 Figure 5-1: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map ................................. 114 Figure 5-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach ................. 118 Figure 5-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach ............... 133 Figure 5-4: Hermosa Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ......... 136 Figure 6-1: City of Lawndale General Plan Land Use Map ............. 150 Figure 6-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale .......................... 154 Figure 6-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale ..........................167 Figure 6-4: Lawndale Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities .................... 169 Figure 7-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach ............ 186 Figure 7-2: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach .......... 201 Figure 7-3: Manhattan Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities .... 204 Figure 8-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach .. 224 Figure 8-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach ... 225 Figure 8-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach 242 Figure 8-4: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach .243

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | v
Figure 8-5: North Redondo Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 246 Figure 8-6: South Redondo Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ..........................................................................................................................247 Figure 9-1: City of Torrance General Plan Land Use Policy ............ 263 Figure 9-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Torrance ............................ 267 Figure 9-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Torrance .......................... 283 Figure 9-4: Torrance Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ..................... 287 List of Tables
Table 1-1: Population of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Cities ......................................................................................................................... 3 Table 3-2: El Segundo Bicycle Network ............................................ 47 Table 3-3: Means of Transportation to Work .................................. 50 Table 3-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ................................................ 51 Table 3-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ........................... 52 Table 3-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ......................... 53 Table 3-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ..... 54 Table 3-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in El Segundo ............. 59 Table 3-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in El Segundo .......... 59 Table 3-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in El Segundo ....... 59 Table 3-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in El Segundo ..... 60 Table 3-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types ........................................................................................................... 66 Table 3-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ........... 66 Table 3-15:El Segundo Prioritized Bicycle Projects ........................ 67 Table 4-1: Gardena Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies ................. 80 Table 4-2: Gardena Bicycle Network ................................................. 82 Table 4-3: Means of Transportation to Work ................................. 84 Table 4-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................... 85 Table 4-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ........................... 86 Table 4-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ......................... 87 Table 4-7 Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ..... 88

Table of Contents
vi | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 .................................... 91 Table 4-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Gardena .................. 94 Table 4-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Gardena .............. 94 Table 4-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Gardena ........... 94 Table 4-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Gardena .......... 94 Table 4-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types ........................................................................................................... 99 Table 4-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ........ 100 Table 4-15: Gardena Prioritized Bicycle Projects ........................... 101 Table 5-1: Hermosa Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies .. 117 Table 5-2: Hermosa Beach Bicycle Network ................................... 119 Table 5-3: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 122 Table 5-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................. 123 Table 5-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 124 Table 5-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 125 Table 5-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 126 Table 5-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 129 Table 5-9: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Hermosa Beach . 131 Table 5-10: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Hermosa Beach ...................................................................................................................... 131 Table 5-11: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Hermosa Beach ...................................................................................................................... 131 Table 5-12: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types .......................................................................................................... 137 Table 5-13: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ......... 138 Table 5-14: Hermosa Beach Prioritized Projects ........................... 139 Table 6-1: Lawndale Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies ............ 152 Table 6-2: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 156 Table 6-3: Existing Bicycling Demand .............................................. 157 Table 6-4: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 158 Table 6-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 159 Table 6-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 160

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | vii
Table 6-7: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 163 Table 6-8: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Lawndale .............. 165 Table 6-9: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Lawndale ............ 165 Table 6-10: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Lawndale ...... 165 Table 6-11: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Lawndale....... 165 Table 6-12: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types .......................................................................................................... 171 Table 6-13: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network .......... 171 Table 6-14: Lawndale Prioritized Bicycle Projects ....................... 172 Table 7-1: Manhattan Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies ..................................................................................................................... 184 Table 7-2: Manhattan Beach Bicycle Network .............................. 185 Table 7-3: Means of Transportation to Work ................................ 190 Table 7-4: Existing Bicycling Demand .............................................. 191 Table 7-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 192 Table 7-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 193 Table 7-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 194 Table 7-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 .................................. 197 Table 7-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Manhattan Beach 199 Table 7-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Manhattan Beach ..................................................................................................................... 199 Table 7-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Manhattan Beach .......................................................................................................... 199 Table 7-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Manhattan Beach ......................................................................................................... 200 Figure 7-3: Manhattan Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities 204 Table 7-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types ........................................................................................................ 205 Table 7-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ........ 206 Table 7-15: Manhattan Beach Prioritized Bicycle Projects ......... 207 Table 8-1: Redondo Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies 222 Figure 8-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach .................................................................................................................... 224

Table of Contents
viii | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 8-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach ..................................................................................................................... 225 Table 8-2: Redondo Beach Bicycle Network ................................. 226 Table 8-3: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 230 Table 8-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................. 231 Table 8-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 232 Table 8-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 233 Table 8-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ...234 Table 8-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 237 Table 8-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Redondo Beach ... 239 Table 8-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Redondo Beach239 Table 8-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Redondo Beach ..................................................................................................................... 239 Table 8-12: Proposed Bicycle Friendly Streets in Redondo Beach .................................................................................................................... 240 Table 8-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types ........................................................................................................ 248 Table 8-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ....... 248 Table 8-15: Redondo Beach Prioritized Bicycle Projects ............ 249 Table 9-1: Torrance Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies ............. 264 Table 9-2: Torrance Bicycle Network .............................................. 265 Figure 9-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Torrance ....................... 267 Table 9-3: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 271 Table 9-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................ 272 Table 9-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 273 Table 9-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 274 Table 9-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 275 Table 9-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 278 Table 9-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Torrance .............. 280 Table 9-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Torrance ........... 280 Table 9-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Torrance ....... 280 Table 9-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Torrance ....... 281

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | ix
Table 9-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types ........................................................................................................ 289 Table 9-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ....... 290 Table 9-15: Torrance Prioritized Bicycle Projects ......................... 291 Table 11-1: Design Standards for Recommended Sign Types ..... 319 Table 11-2: Modifications to MUTCD Design Sign Layout
Specifications .......................................................................................... 325 Table 11-3: Specifications for Implementation of signage ........... 333 Table 11-4: Key Destinations by Participating City ...................... 334 Table 12-1: Funding Sources ................................................................ 343 Table D-1: Barriers to Commuting by Bicycle ............................... 388 Table D-2: Barriers to Riding in the South Bay ............................. 388 Table D-3: Factors that Influence Decisions to Ride a Bicycle .. 389 Table D-4: Bicycle Program Interest .................................................390 Table E-1: El Segundo BTA Requirement Check List .................. 391 Table E-2: Gardena BTA Requirement Check List ...................... 393 Table E-3: Hermosa Beach BTA Requirement Check List ......... 395 Table E-4: Lawndale BTA Requirement Check List .................... 397 Table E-5: Manhattan Beach BTA Requirement Check List ..... 399 Table E-6: Redondo Beach BTA Requirement Check List ......... 401 Table E-7: Torrance BTA Requirement Check List ..................... 403 Table H-1: South Bay Bicycle Counts Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. .................................................................. 417 Table H-2: South Bay Bicycle Counts Saturday, November 6, 2010 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. .................................................................. 419 Table K-1: Proposed Facility Weight and Scoring ....................... 429

x | Alta Planning + Design

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xi
Foreword
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is the result of an innovative partnership between long-standing bike advocacy non-profit Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and local grass-roots bike advocates the South Bay Bicycle Coalition (SBBC). The two groups came together with the common goal of improving the safety and convenience of bicycling in Los Angeles County, and specifically in the South Bay Region.

In December of 2009, the South Bay Bicycle Coalition approached a number of South Bay cities (defined as those cities encompassed by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments) to ask for their support and involvement in a multi-city bicycle master planning process. Seven of the cities responded favorably and within the specified time frame for grant eligibility. Those seven responsive cities are the cities that are represented in this master plan. The participating cities include: El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. This plan seeks to provide improved and increased connectivity across these seven cities. All seven City Councils have adopted supportive resolutions and have dedicated in-kind staff time to assist with plan review and data gathering.

Funding for this master planning process is made possible through the Department of Health and Human Services through the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s Renew
Environments for Nutrition, Exercise and Wellness in Los Angeles County (RENEW-LAC) initiative. RENEW-LAC is made possible by funds from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention – Communities Putting Prevention to Work Initiative. RENEW seeks to implement policy, systems and environmental change to improve nutrition, increase physical activity and reduce obesity, especially in disadvantaged communities. Engaging communities in active transportation through pedestrian and bicycle-friendly policies is one objective of the RENEW initiative.

The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the
South Bay Bicycle Coalition are partnering to improve
bicycling in the South Bay.

Photo Source: Kelly Morphy/WALC Institute for Vitality
City

xii | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xiii
Executive Summary
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network and set of programs and policies throughout the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance for the next 20 years. As the firstever multi-jurisdictional bike plan, it has a unique focus on crosscity consistency and connectivity that is often lacking in singular city bike plans. Upon plan adoption, each participating city will be eligible for grant funding sources which they are not currently receiving.

Implementation of this plan is meant to promote and increase bicycle ridership for all levels of ability across the South Bay. The South Bay has an existing base of recreational and enthusiast bicyclists; this plan’s primary objective is to increase the number of those bicyclists, as well as create a larger base of utilitarian bicyclists, including bicycle commuters, through safe, accessible and consistent bicycle infrastructure, and the policies and programs that support it.

As discussed in Chapter One, there are numerous benefits that a bicycle master plan provides to both community members and the cities that implement it, including improved community health and quality of life, increased property values, decreased bicycle collisions and improved air quality mitigation, among others.

For a condensed review of the plan, please see the following sections:
 Chapter Two: Goals, Objectives, and Policies are meant to compliment the proposed network and are focused upon the six Es of a successful bike plan: evaluation and
planning, engineering, education, enforcement,
encouragement, and equity
 Chapters Three through Nine: Individual City Chapters include a discussion of a given city’s existing bikeways, a high-level needs analysis, and the proposed bicycle facility improvements; the verbiage presented in each of these
chapters is very similar to one another; as such it is
recommended that the reader focuses on the city chapter of their preference
Implementation of this plan is meant to promote and
increase bicycle ridership for all levels of ability across the South Bay.

Executive Summary
xiv | Alta Planning + Design
 Chapter Ten: Recommended Programs expands upon a
few of the ideas presented through policy and provides the cities with further toolbox strategies to address the “six E’s” of a successful bike plan
 Chapter Eleven: Wayfinding and Signage presents the
regional wayfinding plan for the participating cities to inform bicyclists how to navigate through the network
 Chapter Twelve: Funding identifies potential funding
sources that the cities could apply for to implement the proposed network presented in this Plan
As previously stated, this plan has a 20-year implementation time line. Adoption of this plan is the first of many steps that will need to be taken prior to implementation of any given proposed facility.

Prior to facility implementation, each city will need to have their traffic engineering staff review the proposed facility and design the appropriate treatments. The majority of these facilities will be exempt from environmental review, although some may be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as further public hearings and Council approval.

This Executive Summary contains a glossary of terms; the existing regional bike network; proposed regional and city-specific bikeway network maps; and a city-by-city breakdown of proposed bikeway mileage.

The following table discusses terms that are presented in this plan.

Word Definition
Assembly Bill 1358
California Assembly Bill 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008, amended the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions.. See section 2.2.2.1 of this plan for more information.

Mobility Coordinator
A part- or full-time employee dedicated to the implementation of alternative transportation, which can include bicycle program administration. As related to bicycles, a mobility coordinator tracks, coordinates and oversees implementation of bike facilities, programs, grant applications and data collection.

Bicycle Facility A street or off-road path designed for bicycle travel Bike Path A completely separated, paved right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
Bike Lane A restricted right-of-way striped on a street and designated for the exclusive use of bicycles, with crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xv
Word Definition
Bike Route An on-street right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings to be shared between bicyclists and motorists
Bicycle
Transportation
Account (BTA)
An annual program of the State of California providing state funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. To establish eligibility for these funds, local agencies must have a Bicycle Transportation Plan that complies with Caltrans requirements in CA Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. This plan complies with BTA requirements.

Class I, II, and III
Bikeways
State of California definitions for Bicycle Paths, Bicycle Lanes, and Bicycle Routes, respectively, in the California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. For additional detail see Section 1.3 of this plan.

Complete Streets
Complete streets refers to the principle that all transportation improvements should address the safety, access, and mobility of all travelers, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and the disabled. Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 formally states that Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve conditions for all users, and adopts such a policy for all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State Highway System.

Bike Friendly Street Local roads that have been enhanced with treatments that prioritize bicycle travel. These treatments include wayfinding signage, pavement markings and traffic calming Bike Station
Modeled after the secure indoor bicycle parking facilities provided by the private firm BikeStation, these are locations that provide bicycle storage and other amenities such as showers and bicycle repair stations. They are often located near transit stations.

Bike Valet The provision of monitored bicycle parking, typically at a large event Sharrows
Pavement markings denoting the safe and legal riding position for bicyclists. The name “sharrows” derives from “shared-use arrows.” Among other things, sharrows clarify bicyclists’ right to occupy the center of a travel lane, and encourage bicyclists to ride away from parked cars, so that they are not in danger of being struck by opening doors.

The following graphics describe the proposed bicycle facility types presented in this Plan: Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bicycle Friendly Streets.

Executive Summary
xvi | Alta Planning + Design

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xvii

Executive Summary
xviii | Alta Planning + Design
The table below displays the mileage of existing and proposed bicycle facilities in each city by facility type. There are 73.2 existing miles of bikeways in the South Bay region. This Plan proposed an additional 213.8 miles of bicycle facilities. Following the table are maps presenting the existing and proposed bikeways in the seven participating cities.

City Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage
El Segundo
Class I Bike Path 1.0 1.2
Class II Bike Lane 2.8 8.7
Class III Bike Route 2.0 5.0
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 6.4
TOTAL 5.8 21.3
Gardena
Class I Bike Path 1.1 0.2
Class II Bike Lane 1.9 10.4
Class III Bike Route 12.7 3.9
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 16.8
TOTAL 15.7 31.3
Hermosa Beach
Class I Bike Path 1.8 0.0
Class II Bike Lane 0.5 0.9
Class III Bike Route 2.8 4.7
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 3.8
TOTAL 5.1 9.4
Lawndale
Class I Bike Path 0.0 0.4
Class II Bike Lane 0.0 9.7
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.4
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 9.2
TOTAL 0.0 19.7

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xix
City Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage
Manhattan Beach
Class I Bike Path 2.1 0.2
Class II Bike Lane 0.0 7.0
Class III Bike Route 1.1 7.1
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 16.7
TOTAL 3.2 31.0
Redondo Beach
Class I Bike Path 3.5 0.8
Class II Bike Lane 5.9 18.9
Class III Bike Route 4.7 7.5
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 10.9
TOTAL 14.1 38.1
Torrance
Class I Bike Path 0.0 0.5
Class II Bike Lane 14.3 28.0
Class III Bike Route 15.0 16.2
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 18.3
TOTAL 29.3 63.0
TOTAL 73.2 213.8
.

Executive Summary
xx | Alta Planning + Design

7.0 Existing Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxi
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region

Executive Summary
xxii | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxiii
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo

Executive Summary
xxiv | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxv
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach

Executive Summary
xxvi | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxvii
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach

Executive Summary
xxviii | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxix
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach

Executive Summary
xxx | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxxi
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Torrance

Executive Summary
xxxii | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank

Alta Planning + Design | 1
Chapter 1
Introduction

Chapter One | Introduction
2 | Alta Planning + Design

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 3
1 Introduction
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network and set of programs throughout the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance for the next 20 years. This chapter introduces the seven participating South Bay cities and the South Bay region as a whole.

It also presents the reasons for creating the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, how the community has been involved in the planning process, and the framework for the ensuing chapters.

1.1 Setting
The South Bay region is located in southwest Los Angeles County and includes the cities along and inland of southern Santa Monica Bay. This bicycle master plan focuses specifically on seven cities within the South Bay region that have agreed to participate in this planning effort. Together, these cities comprise approximately 45 square miles of land area and have a combined population of over 350,000. The seven participating cities vary in size, population, socioeconomic factors, and climate, as well as in existing levels of bicycle infrastructure and bicycle usage. Figure 1-1 displays the South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region, and Table 1-1 shows the population statistics for each city as compared to the project area as a whole.

Table 1-1: Population of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Cities
Location Population Percent Project Area
Population
El Segundo 15,970 4.4%
Gardena 57,818 16.0%
Hermosa Beach 18,442 5.1%
Lawndale 31,729 8.8%
Manhattan Beach 34,039 9.5%
Redondo Beach 63,261 17.6%
Torrance 137,933 38.4%
TOTAL 359,192 100%
Source: U.S. Census 2000
Bicyclists in the South Bay.

Photo Source: Kelly Morphy/WALC Institute for
Vitality City

Chapter One | Introduction
4 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-1: South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 5
The South Bay currently faces several barriers to bicycling. This region is an area dominated by the automobile. Many streets carry high volumes of vehicles traveling at fast speeds (see Appendix A1) creating challenging road conditions for bicyclists. Roads with fewer motorized vehicles are often residential streets that do not connect or end in cul-de-sacs, forcing bicyclists to travel far out of their way to reach their destinations. There is also a lack of regional bicycle connectivity between South Bay cities illustrated by bicycle facilities dropping at city boundaries, such as the bicycle lanes on Sepulveda Boulevard in Torrance stopping once the street enters Redondo Beach (see Appendix A-2).

1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision, as well as strategies and actions, to improve conditions for bicycling throughout the seven participating South Bay cities and address the barriers to bicycling discussed above. As a means of bettering the bicycling environment, this Plan provides direction for expanding the existing bikeway network, connecting gaps in and between the participating cities, and ensuring greater local and regional connectivity. The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan recommends a network in which bicyclists will be able to pass through the participating cities to reach their destinations without losing bicycle facilities at city boundaries, which will also allow residents of adjacent cities to benefit from the bicycle system. In addition to providing recommendations for bikeways and support facilities, the Plan offers recommendations for education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs.

In its recommendations, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan includes facilities and programs that will encourage people of all ages and levels of ability to bike more frequently. Supported by data collected nationally since 2006, planners developed categories to address Americans’ ‘varying attitudes’ towards bicycling, which are shown in Figure 1-2. As illustrated, less than one percent of Americans comprise a group of bicyclists who are ‘Strong and Fearless’. These bicyclists typically ride anywhere on any roadway regardless of roadway conditions, weather, or the availability of bicycle facilities. The strong and fearless bicyclists can ride faster than other user types, prefer direct routes, and will typically choose roadway connections – even if shared with vehicles – over separate bicycle facilities such as bicycle paths. This category of bicyclists will be less affected by this Plan than the following groups.

Figure 1-2: Typical Distribution of Bicyclists
in the United States

Chapter One | Introduction
6 | Alta Planning + Design
Approximately seven percent of Americans fall under the category of ‘Enthused & Confident’ bicyclists who are confident and mostly comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities, but will usually prefer low traffic streets or multi-use pathways when available. These bicyclists may deviate from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes all kinds of bicyclists including commuters, recreationalists, racers, and utilitarian bicyclists. The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan will provide this group of bicyclists more bicycle facility options, which should create a more comfortable bicycling environment for them.

The remainder of the American population does not currently ride a bicycle regularly, in large part due to perceived safety risks from riding with traffic. This Plan will affect the following two groups the most as it will provide for the facilities and programs that should encourage them to ride or ride more often. Approximately 60 percent of the population can be categorized as ‘Interested but Concerned’ and represents bicyclists who typically only ride a bicycle on low traffic streets or bicycle paths under favorable conditions and weather. These bicyclists may ride more regularly with encouragement, education, experience, and the availability of bicycle infrastructure.

Approximately 33 percent of Americans are not bicyclists. They are referred to in the diagram as ‘No Way, No How.’ Some people in this group may eventually consider bicycling and may progress to one of the user types above. A significant portion of these people will never ride a bicycle under any circumstances.

According to results from the South Bay bicycling survey administered in December of 2010 (see Section 1.5) 53 percent of respondents indicated that they are confident bicyclists and ride regardless of the availability of bicycle facilities. However, it is important to note that survey respondents were a self-selected group and are not necessarily representative of the entire South Bay region.

This Plan aims to shift people into higher categories, especially those in the “Interested but concerned” category into the “Enthused and confident” category, by improving the bicycling conditions in the South Bay participating cities. In addition, the Plan targets improvements for recreational and sport bicyclists as there is a large and growing group of them in the South Bay.

The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan should increase the numbers of new bicyclists and bicycle trips in the region by providing a safer Replacing vehicular trips with bicycle trips reduces
human-generated greenhouse gases that are
associated with climate change.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 7
bicycling environment. The availability of bicycle infrastructure has been found to reduce bicycle collision rates and the frequency of injury collisions. In a 2009 study published in Environmental Health, Reynolds et al investigated transportation infrastructure that reduced injuries and crashes of bicyclists. The study found that onstreet bicycle facilities that separated vehicles and bicyclists, mainly bicycle lanes, reduced the number of collisions between bicyclists and motorists. Pavement markings, such as intersection crossing markings, and marked bicycle routes also minimized crashes as they alerted motorists to the presence of bicyclists.

Certain roadway characteristics, including wide streets and lack of lighting, increased the severity of injury collisions.1

The City of New York recently added a significant amount of new bicycle infrastructure and has seen a steady increase in ridership, as well. Along with more bicycle facilities and bicyclists, annual casualties from bicycle collisions have also decreased. Appendix B presents the City’s detailed data.

1.3 Bicycle Facility Types
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan recommends four broad categories of bicycle facilities. The first three, Class I, II, and III, are defined by the State of California in the California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. The fourth category, bicycle-friendly streets, has emerged recently as a distinct facility type. Although bicycle-friendly streets are not yet codified by the State of California, they have been implemented with success in cities such as Berkeley, CA and Long Beach, CA. Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4 illustrate recommended cross-sections for the four types of bicycle facilities, which are discussed in the following sections. Minimum standards are presented in Appendix C.

1 Reynolds, C., Harris, M.A., Teschke, K., Cripton, P.A., Winters, M. (2009).

The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature. Environmental Health 8, 47.

The City of New York recently added a significant amount of bicycle infrastructure and has seen a steady increase in ridership, as well.

Chapter One | Introduction
8 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-3: Bicycle Path and Bicycle Lane Recommended Standards

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 9
Figure 1-4: Bicycle Route and Bicycle Friendly Streets Recommended Standards

Chapter One | Introduction
10 | Alta Planning + Design

1.3.1 Class I Bike Paths
Class I Bike Paths are paved right-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and those using non-motorized modes of transportation. Class I facilities can be constructed in roadway right-of-way or can have exclusive right-of-way off-street, such as in utility corridors. Bike Paths are beneficial to a bicycle network because they provide an alternative for bicyclists that do not feel comfortable riding with automobile traffic. When shared with pedestrians or other non-motorized modes, Class I bike paths are generally slower moving than other facility types. While they can be used by commuters to safely get to and from work, they are generally most popular with recreational cyclists, as illustrated by The Strand in the beach cities.

1.3.2 Class II Bike Lanes
Class II Bike Lanes are striped and signed on-street travel lanes exclusively for bicycles. Bike lanes provide physical separation from automobile traffic and appeal to bicyclists with moderate to high levels of experience. Because they often provide the most direct connections, these facilities tend to be most popular with experienced bicycle commuters.

1.3.3 Class III Bike Routes
Class III Bike Routes share the right-of-way between vehicles and bicyclists with signage and optional shared lane markings to indicate that the road is a shared use facility. Class III facilities are typically recommended for:
 Streets with relatively low traffic speeds (25 mph or less) and lower volumes (<3,000 ADT) such that less
experienced bicyclists will feel comfortable bicycling with mixed traffic
 Streets with traffic speeds in excess of 25 mph and volumes greater than 3,000 ADT that normally warrant bike lanes but because of curb-to-curb or other ROW constraints,
bicyclists must share traffic lanes with motorists; careful consideration must be given to designating these streets as shared roadways to ensure that roadway conditions are
safe for bicyclists
Class I Bike Paths are paved rights-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and those using non-motorized modes of transportation.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 11

1.3.4 Bike Friendly Streets
Bike friendly streets are local roads that have been enhanced with treatments that prioritize children, pedestrians, neighborhood traffic, and bicycles, and discourage cut-through traffic. Bike friendly streets include a wide range of treatment options, and thus the cost of implementation varies dramatically, as well. The list below includes example treatments of bike friendly streets:
 Wayfinding signage
 Pavement markings
 Traffic calming (bulb-outs, traffic diverters, chicanes, speed humps)
 High visibility pedestrian crosswalks
 Bicycle detectors at intersections
 Bicycle crossing signals

1.4 Benefits of Bicycling
Planning to create a more bicycle friendly region contributes to resolving several complex and interrelated issues, including traffic congestion, air quality, climate change, public health, and livability.

By guiding the seven participating cities toward bicycle friendly development, this plan can affect all of these issue areas, which collectively can have a profound influence on the existing and future quality of life in the South Bay.

1.4.1 Environmental/Climate Change Benefits
Replacing vehicular trips with bicycle trips has a measurable impact on reducing human-generated greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that contribute to climate change.2
Fewer vehicle
trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) translates into reduced fuel consumption and subsequently fewer mobile source pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons, being released into the air. Providing transportation options that reduce VMT is an important component of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

1.4.2 Public Health Benefits
Public health professionals have become increasingly aware that the impacts of automobiles on public health extend far beyond

2 Gotschi, Thomas (2011). Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Physical Activity and Health (8), S49-S58.

Bike friendky streets are local roads that have been
enhanced with treatments that prioritize children,
pedestrians, neighborhood traffic, and bicycles, and
discourage cut-through traffic.

Chapter One | Introduction
12 | Alta Planning + Design
asthma and other respiratory conditions caused by air pollution.

There is a much deeper understanding of the connection between the lack of physical activity resulting from auto-oriented community designs and various health-related problems. Although diet and genetic predisposition contribute to these conditions, physical inactivity is now widely understood to play a significant role in the most common chronic diseases in the United States, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, and approximately 280,000 adults in the US die prematurely due to obesity-related illnesses every year.3
A study published in the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine in 2004 by Frank et al reported that for each extra 60 minutes spent in a car there was a six percent increase in the chance of being obese4
. A survey conducted by Vitality City
administered from September 30, 2010 to November 27, 2010 reported that 60 percent of respondents from Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Manhattan Beach considered themselves overweight or obese; 25 percent have had high cholesterol; and 23 percent have had high blood pressure.5
In Los Angeles County as a
whole, more than 20 percent of children in 5th, 7th and 9th grades are obese; 58 percent of adults are overweight or obese; and obesity rates continue to rise among adults, school-age children and kids as young as three to four years of age.6
46 percent of the Beach Cities
respondents of the Vitality City survey also reported feeling stressed for a significant portion of the day.

Creating bicycle-friendly communities is one of several effective ways to encourage active lifestyles, ideally resulting in a higher proportion of residents of the South Bay achieving increased activity levels and lower stress levels. Increased physical activity also has the potential to lower medical expenditures associated with obesity-related illnesses for South Bay residents. In a 2011 study published in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Thomas Gotschi assessed the reduction in medical costs that Portland will

3 Allison D.B., Fontaine K.R., Manson J.E., Stevens J., VanIttallie T.B. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States. JAMA 1999(282), 1530-1538. 4 Frank L.D., Andresen M.A., Schmid T.L. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 4(11), 11-13.
5 http://hermosabeach.patch.com/articles/vitality-city-survey-residentshealthy-but-stressed 6 RENEW-LAC http://www.choosehealthla.com/eat-healthy/
In Los Angeles County as a whole, more than 20 percent
of children in 5th, 7th, and 9th grades are obese. Creating bicycle-friendly environments is one of several effective ways to encourage active lifestyles.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 13
experience from its investments in bicycling. He estimated that a half hour of bicycling everyday will reduce medical costs by $544 per person per year.7

1.4.3 Economic Benefits
Bicycling is economically advantageous to individuals and communities. Replacing driving with bicycling reduces a person’s expenses on vehicle maintenance, fuel costs, and insurance fees.

These savings are accompanied by potential reductions in health care costs by participating in regular exercise and minimizing health complications associated with an inactive lifestyle. On a community scale, bicycle infrastructure projects are generally far less expensive than automobile-related infrastructure. Further, shifting a greater share of daily trips to bike trips reduces the impact on the region’s transportation system, thus reducing the need for improvements and expansion projects. Bicycle-friendly neighborhoods have also been found to increase property values.

Transit Oriented Developments (TODs), for example, are designed to encourage walking, bicycling, and use of public transit so that residents of these developments can be less dependent on motor vehicles. In a 2011 study published in Urban Studies, Michael Duncan reported that people were willing to pay more for condominiums in San Diego, CA located closer to transit stations,8
while homes
within a half mile of bikeway trail improvements experienced a $13,000 increase in property values.9
Increased bicycling also has
the potential to increase sales at local businesses. Bicyclists might have more disposable income from fewer vehicle-related
expenditures and as seen in Toronto’s Bloor Street, cyclists visit their local shops and spend more than their motorist
counterparts.10

7 Gotschi, Thomas (2011). Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Physical Activity and Health (8), S49-S58. 8 Duncan, M. (2011). The impact of transit-oriented development on housing prices in San Diego, CA. Urban Studies 48, 101.
9 Lindsey G, Man J, Payton S, et al. “Property Values, Recreation Values, and Urban Greenways.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(3): 69–90, 2004.
10 Sztabinski, F. (2009). Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business. Clean Air Partnership 18-20.

A 2004 study found that homes within a half mile of
bikeway trail improvements experienced a $13,000 increase in property values.

Chapter One | Introduction
14 | Alta Planning + Design

1.4.4 Community/Quality of Life Benefits
Fostering conditions where bicycling is accepted and encouraged increases a city’s livability from a number of different perspectives that are often difficult to measure, but nevertheless important. The design, land use patterns, and transportation systems that comprise the built environment have a profound impact on quality of life issues. Studies have found that people living in communities with built environments that promote bicycling and walking tend to be more socially active, civically engaged, and are more likely to know their neighbors11; whereas urban sprawl has been correlated with social and mental health problems, including stress.12 The aesthetic quality of a community improves when visual and noise pollution caused by automobiles is reduced and when green space is reserved for facilities that enable people of all ages to recreate and commute in pleasant settings.

1.4.5 Safety Benefits
Conflicts between bicyclists and motorists result from poor riding and/or driving behavior, as well as insufficient or ineffective facility design. Encouraging development and redevelopment in which bicycle travel is fostered improves the overall safety of the roadway environment for all users. Well-designed bicycle facilities improve security for current bicyclists and also encourage more people to bike. This in turn can further improve bicycling safety. Studies have shown that the frequency of bicycle collisions has an inverse relationship to bicycling rates – more people on bicycles equates to fewer crashes.13 Providing information and educational
opportunities about safe and lawful interactions between bicyclists and other roadway users also improves safety.

1.5 Public Participation
Community outreach is a critical part of the planning process as it helps to identify the needs of bicyclists in the study area. The public participated in the creation of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan through an online survey and two community workshops.

11 Leyden, K. 2003. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 93: 1546-51. 12 Frumkin, H. 2002. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports 117: 201-17. 13 Jacobsen, P. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, 9: 205-209. 2003.

The seven participating cities each held two public
workshops to collect public input on the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 15
To reach a broad cross-section of the public, the South Bay Bicycle Coalition, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, and the participating cities employed a variety of media and tactics, including:
 Radio advertisements
 Advertisements in newspapers, both print and online
 Advertisements in fitness magazines
 Flyers posted throughout the participating cities, at schools, bike shops, and community centers
 Advertisements on the city cable stations
 An advertisement on the I-405 digital marquee
 Facebook
 Emails
 In-person presentations to a variety of community groups and volunteer organizations
 Press releases
 Door-to-door flyering
 Presentations at various commission meetings
 Website postings on each City’s homepage and events
calendar
 Communications with Vitality City, an initiative of the Beach Cities Health District

1.5.1 Bicycling Survey
With input from seven participating cities, Alta Planning + Design, the South Bay Bicycle Coalition and Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff developed an online survey to determine the participating South Bay cities’ general needs and concerns surrounding bicycling. The survey was available online from December 15, 2010 to February 8, 2011. It was distributed to the staff liaisons in each of the participating cities and emailed to all members of the South Bay Bicycle Coalition. As an incentive to complete the survey, respondents were entered to win a $100 gift certificate to Hermosa Cyclery in Hermosa Beach. A total of 277 people completed the survey. The data collected from respondents describe the bicycling needs, preferences, and behaviors of the South Bay community. Feedback pertaining to desired bicycle and bicycle support facilities is discussed in each City’s chapter and a detailed summary of the survey results is presented in Appendix D.

LACBC, SBBC, and the participating cities used a variety of media and tactics to reach a broad cross-section of
the public.

Chapter One | Introduction
16 | Alta Planning + Design

1.5.2 Public Workshops
The seven participating cities each held two public workshops throughout the planning process for the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. The first round of workshops were conducted as “open house” style at which attendees had the opportunity to view maps displaying the existing bicycling conditions in the region and provide feedback on what they would like to see implemented in the future. The first round of workshops were very well attended and had a considerable impact on the selection of corridors for improvements and on the content of the proposed programs.

The second round of public workshops took place in June through July of 2011. These workshops were also very well attended and workshop attendees provided input on a draft of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan as well as draft maps of proposed
improvements.

1.6 Plan Organization
For the most part, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is organized by participating city. This makes it easier for local stakeholders – such as city staff, decision makers, and residents – to find the material that is relevant to them. There are a few region-wide topics that are not organized by city, such as the goals, objectives, and policy actions framework established in Chapter 2.

The plan is broken into the following chapters:
 Chapter 2: Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
summarizes existing regional plans and policies that relate to the bicycle planning efforts in the South Bay, as well as region-wide goals, objectives, and policy actions for the seven participating cities
 Chapter 3: El Segundo presents the existing bicycling conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the City of El Segundo
 Chapter 4: Gardena presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the City of Gardena
 Chapter 5: Hermosa Beach presents the existing bicycling conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the City of Hermosa Beach
The first and second round of public workshops for the
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan were well attended.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 17
 Chapter 6: Lawndale presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the City of Lawndale
 Chapter 7: Manhattan Beach presents the existing
bicycling conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the City of Manhattan Beach
 Chapter 8: Redondo Beach presents the existing bicycling conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the City of Redondo Beach
 Chapter 9: Torrance presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the City of Torrance
 Chapter 10: Recommended Programs discusses proposed
education, encouragement, and enforcement programs, as
well as public awareness campaigns to increase bicycling in the participating cities; it also presents methods for monitoring and evaluating the success of the Plan
 Chapter 11: Wayfinding and Signage Plan presents the
region-wide signage plan to make South Bay bikeways and key destinations easier to navigate to by bicycle
 Chapter 12: Funding discusses potential funding sources to help the participating cities to implement their
proposed bicycle networks
Chapter 11: Wayfinding and Signage Plan presentsthe
region-wide signage plan to make South Bay bikeways and key destinations easier to navigate to by bicycle.

18 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Alta Planning + Design | 19
Chapter 2
Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
20 | Alta Planning + Design

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 21
2 Goals, Objectives, and Policy
Actions
The vision of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is to create a bicycle-oriented South Bay region in which bicycling is a safe, convenient, attractive, and viable transportation option for all levels of bicycling abilities. This chapter outlines the goals, objectives, and policies that support this vision and will serve as guidelines in the development of a bicycle-friendly South Bay. These policies provide the framework and accountability for plan implementation. This chapter also includes the goals, objectives, and policy actions’ relationship with regional existing plans and policies as mandated by State law. The relationship to existing City-specific plans and policies is located in each City’s chapter.

2.1 South Bay Goals, Objectives, and
Policies
In order to ensure a thorough and successful planning process, it is important to establish a set of goals, objectives, and policies that will serve as the basis for the recommendations in this Plan. The goals, objectives, and policies in this Plan are derived from information gathered over the course of the planning process, including community input from public workshops, as well as a review of bicycle master plans from other cities.

Goals are broad statements that express general public
priorities. Goals are formulated based on the identification of key issues, opportunities, and problems that affect the bikeway system and were formed by public input.

Objectives are more specific than goals and are usually attainable through strategic planning and implementation activities. Implementation of an objective contributes to the fulfillment of a goal.

Policies are rules and courses of action used to ensure plan implementation. Policies often accomplish a number of
objectives. Policies are generally carried out by the City. In the case that a particular group or individual is identified, the City will ensure those groups or individuals are in place to carry forward their responsibility or will find other means to implement the relevant policies.

The vision of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is to create a bicycle-oriented South Bay region in which bicycling is a safe, convenient, attractive, and viable transportation option for all levels of bicycling abilities.

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
22 | Alta Planning + Design
The following tables outline the goals, objectives, and policies of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. Each policy has an
implementation time frame assigned to it ranging from immediate (2012), to the first 0-5 years (2012-2017), 5-10 years (2017-2022), or ongoing throughout the length of the 20-year plan starting in 2012 (2012-2032).

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 23
Goal 1.0: Create a Bicycle-Friendly South Bay
Create a bicycle-friendly environment throughout the South Bay region for all types of bicycle riders and all trip purposes in accordance with the 6 Es (Equity, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, Evaluation) as a means of improving regional health, increased road safety, reduced carbon emissions and an overall increase in bike ridership.

Objective 1.1 Connectivity through an Expanded Bikeway Network Expand the existing bicycle network to provide a comprehensive, regional network of Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities that increases connectivity between homes, jobs, public transit, schools and recreational resources for a variety of road users in the South Bay.

Policy
Actions

1.1.1 Develop a 20-year implementation strategy for the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan that will begin to implement the policies and facilities herein.

Schedule: 2012

1.1.2 Develop an extensive bikeway network through the use of standard and appropriate innovative treatments as provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or the National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide and other such guidelines and standards, with available funding.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.1.3 Establish Bicycle Friendly Streets to encourage bicycling on streets with low traffic volumes (existing ADT under 7,000 and 3,000 ADT after implementation) and slow speeds (25 mph or under). Appropriate streets will be determined by staff review.

Schedule: 2012 - 2032

1.1.4 Review and encourage implementation of policies and facilities proposed in the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan whenever planning new bicycle facilities or Capital Improvement Projects that may be related to bicycle improvements.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.1.5 Incorporate the proposed policies, facilities and programs from the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan in whole or by reference into the City’s Circulation Element upon future General Plan updates.

Schedule: 0 – 5 years

1.1.6 Coordinate with adjoining jurisdictions on bicycle planning and implementation activities on east-west corridors to link inland cities to coastal resources and on north-south corridors to link the region to neighboring communities.

Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 1.2 Consistent Design and Engineering for Bicycles Promote safe and equitable bicycle access on all roadways by integrating bicycle travel considerations into all roadway planning, design, construction and maintenance, as well as incorporation of Complete Street standards into all Capital improvements, in accordance with AB 1358.

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
24 | Alta Planning + Design
Policy
Actions

1.2.1 Evaluate and encourage reallocation of roadway rights-of-way where appropriate to accommodate bicycling and bicycle facilities.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.2 Consider adopting Complete Streets policies that are incorporated into all Capital Improvements and generally align with the policy elements defined by the National Complete Streets Coalition (see Appendix N for policy language from the Complete Streets Act of 2008 and complete streets policies from the National Complete Streets Coalition ).

Schedule:

1.2.3 Prioritize opportunities that improve walkability and bikeability by utilizing Complete Streets standards for all Capital Improvement Projects.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.4 Consider removal of on-street parking to accommodate striped bike lanes, to the extent feasible.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.5 Ensure that existing on-street bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, and off-street bicycle paths are appropriately signed, marked, and/or traffic-calmed.

Schedule: 0-5 years

1.2.6 Promote consistent signage that directs bicyclists to neighborhood destinations and increases the visibility of the regional bicycle network and is consistent with the signage plan herein.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.7 Provide amenities and enhancements, such as traffic calming treatments, streetscape improvements, bicycle parking and wayfinding signage along City bikeways that increase their utility and convenience for all bicyclists.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.8 Explore the use of the “sharrow” markings on all existing and proposed Class III facilities, as feasible and in accordance with the most current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Schedule: 0-5 years

1.2.9 Coordinate bicycle facility improvements or upgrades with the City’s resurfacing schedule.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.10 Explore opportunities to include bicycle detection as part of all traffic signal improvements in conformance with the current edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to the extent feasible.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 25
Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.11 Considering adopting an updated streets and highways manual that includes comprehensive Complete Streets standards.

Schedule: 0-5 years

1.2.12 Begin to utilize new signage, markings and facility designs as new and innovative treatments become adopted standards at the State and Federal levels.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.2.13 Consider instituting a pilot program that will test new facility types aimed at improving bicycle safety and convenience before they are adopted standards.

Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 1.3 Increased Mobility through Bicycle-Transit Integration Further improve access to major employment and activity centers and encourage multi-modal travel for longer trip distance by supporting bicycle-transit integration.

Policy
Actions

1.3.1 Support the development of bicycle facilities that provide access to regional and local public transit services.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.3.2 Coordinate with transit providers to ensure bicycles can be accommodated on all forms of transit vehicles in the immediate future and that adequate space is devoted to their storage on board whenever possible.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.3.3 Coordinate with transit agencies to install and maintain convenient and secure short-term and long-term bike parking facilities – racks, on-demand bike lockers, in-station bike storage, and staffed or automated bicycle parking facilities – at transit stops, stations, and terminals.

Schedule: 5-10 years

1.3.4 Provide current and relevant information to bicyclists regarding bike parking opportunities and bicycle access located at transit stations through a variety of formats, such as on City websites and regional bike maps.

Schedule: 0-5 years
Objective 1.4 Provide Convenient and Consistent Bicycle Parking Facilities Encourage the use of bicycles for everyday transportation by ensuring the provision of convenient and secure bicycle parking and support facilities region-wide and promote facilities to the public.

Policy
Actions

1.4.1 Establish bicycle parking standards for City-owned bicycle parking facilities that address the location, design and capacity that should be provided by all City bicycle parking facilities.

Schedule: 0-5 years

1.4.2 Install and support high-quality, bicycle parking within the public right-of-way and on public property, especially in high demand locations, such as near commercial centers,

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
26 | Alta Planning + Design
employment centers, schools, colleges and parks.

Schedule: 5-10 years

1.4.3 Consider providing bicycle parking (sheltered where feasible and appropriate) at all new and existing City-owned facilities, public parking lots and recreational facilities that will support an appropriate ratio of the estimated employees and daily visitors of that location.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.4.4 Consider adopting bicycle parking ordinances or modifying existing sections of the municipal code to require bicycle-parking in new large commercial or multi-family developments.

Cities with existing bike parking ordinances or Municipal Code sections exempted.

Schedule: 0-5 years

1.4.5 To the extent feasible, consider conditions of approval or appropriate incentives for new commercial developments and employment to provide showers and clothing lockers along with secure bike parking in areas where employment density warrants.

Schedule: 2012-2032

1.4.6 Consider amending the Municipal Code to decrease the number of required automobile parking spaces in commercial buildings where bicycle parking is provided, as feasible and appropriate.

Schedule: 0-5 years

1.4.7 Require secure bike parking at large or heavily attended events or destinations, by providing permanent bicycle parking facilities at event locations or requiring use of temporary portable facilities, such as bike valets.

Schedule: 0-5 years

1.4.8 Work with Metro, local transit agencies and adjacent property owners to provide bicycle parking in proximity to bus stops and other transit facilities.

Schedule: 2012-2032

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 27
Goal 2.0: Create a Safer Bicycling Environment in the South Bay Create a safe bicycling environment in the South Bay through comprehensive education of all road users, enforcement efforts focused on cycling safety and reduced cycling conflicts, and consistent maintenance of a variety of bikeways.

Objective 2.1 Increase Bicycle Education and Awareness for All Road Users Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of the general public and City employees.

Policy
Actions

2.1.1 Partner with local bike advocacy groups, bicycle related businesses, or other such organizations to provide bicycle-safety curricula to the general public and targeted populations, including diverse age, income, and ethnic groups.

Schedule: 0-5 years

2.1.2 Provide multi-lingual bicycle safety information in languages that are widely used throughout the South Bay region.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.1.3 Work with local bike advocacy groups and schools to develop and provide bicycle-safety curricula for use in elementary, middle, and high schools.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.1.4 Support continuous bicycle education to City staff that are involved in the design or other such decisions that affect roadways; such as traffic engineers, planners, public works engineers, and parks and recreation staff.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.1.5 Support programs and public service announcements that educate motorists, bicyclists, and the general public about bicycle operation, bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities, and safe road-sharing behavior via city’s website, local newspapers, and other such publications.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.1.6 Provide increased bicycle safety education to law enforcement that focuses on safe cycling, relevant traffic laws, and safe sharing of the roadway.

Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 2.2 Enforcement for Improved Cycling Safety
Increase enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths and roadways.

Policy
Actions

2.2.1 As appropriate and feasible, increase enforcement of unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and conflicts, and bike lane obstruction.

Schedule: 2012-2032

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
28 | Alta Planning + Design

2.2.2 Explore opportunities to increase motorist awareness of possibility of the presence of bicyclists, specifically at locations with a high incidence of bicycle collisions.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.2.3 To the extent feasible, consider utilizing bicycle-mounted patrol officers to promote bicycling awareness, prominence and law enforcement accessibility.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.2.4 Develop or promote existing mechanisms for reporting behaviors that endanger cyclists.

Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 2.3 Maintenance for Safe and Consistent Bikeability Maintain bikeways that are clear of debris and provide safe riding conditions.

Policy
Actions

2.3.1 Coordinate with Public Works Department regarding existing routine maintenance schedules for bikeway sweeping, litter removal, landscaping, re-striping, signage, and signal actuation devices to provide increased priority to bike facilities.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.3.2 Prioritize roadways with existing or proposed bike facilities in the City’s street resurfacing plan, as necessary or appropriate.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.3.3 Plan for bicyclist safety during construction and maintenance activities, including prominent signage and public announcements regarding construction and improvements that may affect bicycle travel.

Schedule: 2012-2032

2.3.4 Establish a maintenance reporting program to receive and respond to issues that impact bicyclist safety, such as potholes and street sweeping.

Schedule: 2012-2032

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 29
Goal 3.0: Ensure an Enduring Bicycling Culture
Develop infrastructure and a City-wide culture that respects and accommodates all users of the road, leading to a more balanced transportation system and measurable increases in bike ridership.

Objective 3.1 Partner with Local Bike Advocacy Groups
Foster community support for bicycling by raising public awareness about bicycling and supporting programs that encourage more people to bicycle.

Policy
Actions

3.1.1 Partner with local bike advocacy groups to publicize updated bike maps, safety tips, bike events, classes and commuting advice.

Schedule: 0-5 years

3.1.2 Provide information to local bike groups, such as the South Bay Bicycle Coalition, to assist in promoting bicycling at public events, such as Bike to Work Day/Month and various City events.

Schedule: 0-5 years

3.1.3 Upon meeting eligibility requirements, apply for designation of “Bicycle Friendly Community” through the League of American Bicyclists.

Schedule: 0-5 years

3.1.4 Pending funding availability, expand bicycle promotion and incentive programs for City employees to serve as a model program for other South Bay employers.

Schedule: 0-5 years
Objective 3.2 Continuous Evaluation of Implementation and Performance Establish accountability mechanisms that will ensure the plan’s success through continuous monitoring of the implementation progress of Bicycle Master Plan policies, programs, and projects.

Policy
Actions

3.2.1 Designate a Mobility Coordinator within the City or assist the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) in establishing a regional position to coordinate and oversee implementation of bike facilities, programs, grant applications and data collection, and provide regular updates to SBCCOG’s Livable Communities Working Group and City Councils regarding plan implementation and progress.

Schedule: 2012

3.2.2 Mobility Coordinator or designated city staff will track city and/or region-wide benefits of plan implementation and trends in bicycle commuting through the use of Census data, travel surveys, and volunteer-led bicycle counts.

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.2.3 Mobility Coordinator or designated city staff will also regularly monitor bicycle safety and seek a continuous reduction in bicycle-related collisions on a per capita basis over the next twenty years.

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
30 | Alta Planning + Design
Schedule: 2012-2032

3.2.4 Mobility Coordinator or designated City staff will ensure that Bicycle Master Plan programs and projects are implemented in an equitable manner, both geographically and socioeconomically.

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.2.5 Designate a council liaison to serve on a regional Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) comprised of community members and council members from each City that will meet regularly and will monitor the progress of bikeway implementation for each City.

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.2.6 To ensure continued eligibility for additional funding, update the City’s section of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan every five (5) years.

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.2.7 Amend the Municipal Code to require a public hearing with the appropriate Traffic, Public Works, Planning, or other such Commission for the removal of any existing bikeway. Cities with such existing policy are exempted.

Schedule: 0-5 years

3.2.8 Coordinate with SBCCOG to integrate the electric local use vehicle program with proposed bike facilities and programs, as appropriate and as government code and guidelines allow.

Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 3.3 Consistently Apply for Available Funding Sources Ensure implementation of bikeways in the South Bay is prompt and continuous by consistently applying to the numerous local, state and federal funding sources available for which the City is eligible.

Policy
Actions

3.3.1 To the extent feasible, consistently pursue diverse sources of funding and support efforts to maintain or increase federal, state and local funding for the implementation of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan programs and infrastructures. Funding sources that may be applied for annually or bi-annually as well as apportioned funds that may be partially dedicated to bicycle projects, include the following:

A. Metro Call for Projects (bi-annual)
B. State Safe Routes to School Funding (annual)
C. Office of Traffic Safety Grants (annual)
D. Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (annual) E. Federal Safe Routes to School Funding (annual)
F. Prop A Funds (annual)
G. Coastal Conservancy Funds (annual)
H. Federal Lanes Highway Funds (annual)

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 31
I. Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account (annual)
J. Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning Grant (annual) K. Prop C Transportation Demand Management Funds (annual) Schedule: 2012-2032

3.3.2 Reference the prioritized project list provided in this plan when determining how to prioritize funding applications and City budget allocations for bikeways and support facilities.

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.3.3 Mobility Coordinator or designated City staff should coordinate bicycle improvement funding applications among all involved cities to increase probability of receiving grant funding.

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.3.4 Mobility Coordinator or designated City staff will develop a regular report to City Council that will include a summary of funds applied for, funding applications due in the short term, and an overview of implementation progress.

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.3.5 Consider a bicycle improvements line item in the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP).

Schedule: 2012-2032

3.3.6 Consider allocating a proportional percentage of the City’s local return Measure R funds specifically to active transportation infrastructure, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Schedule: 0-5 years

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
32 | Alta Planning + Design

2.2 Relevant Regional Existing Plans
and Policies
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is an opportunity to coordinate with neighboring communities’ efforts to plan and build bicycle infrastructure. A number of different jurisdictions border the project area, including the City of Los Angeles, unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles, and other incorporated cities.

This section discusses the relationship between the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan and existing plans in neighboring communities.

2.2.1 Local and Regional Plans
There are six incorporated cities that lie adjacent to at least one participating city in the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. These cities include:
 City of Hawthorne
 City of Inglewood
 City of Lomita
 City of Los Angeles
 City of Palos Verdes Estates
 City of Rolling Hills Estates
The City of Los Angeles is the only adjacent community with a Bicycle Master Plan, which is discussed in the following section.

2.2.1.1 City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan (2010)
The City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan proposes 1,680 miles of bicycle facilities to promote bicycling as a viable transportation alternative.

Of the proposed facilities, there are several that link to the participating cities of El Segundo, Gardena, and Torrance. The City of Los Angeles’ proposed bikeways adjacent to the participating South Bay cities are shown in Figure 2-1.

2.2.1.2 Metro Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan
As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the primary local funding source for transportation projects, including bicycle and pedestrian projects.

The Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan (BTSP) developed by Metro provides an inventory of existing and planned facilities within Los Angeles County. This inventory assisted in identifying routes that may eventually provide trans-jurisdictional continuity The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is an opportunity
to coordinate with neighboring communities’ efforts
to plan and build bicycle infrastructure.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 33
Figure 2-1: City of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
34 | Alta Planning + Design
for bicyclists. Secondly, the BTSP outlines a strategy for prioritizing regional bikeway projects. The BTSP outlines a regional strategy to fund projects that improve bicycle access to transit or close gaps in the regional bikeway network. Upon adoption of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, the participating cities will have the opportunity to apply for funding through Metro to implement their proposed bikeways.

2.2.1.3 County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) The County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan guides the development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network and programs within the unincorporated communities of the County of Los Angeles. The implementation of the Los Angeles County BMP will start in 2012 after California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review has been completed. Several proposed bikeways in the County provide potential connection opportunities to the participating South Bay cities of El Segundo, Lawndale, Gardena, and Torrance. These bikeways are shown in the yellow sections in Figure 2-2. The participating cities in the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan are outlined in black.

Appendix A-2 shows the existing bikeways in the County of Los Angeles that provide potential connection opportunities to the participating cities. The Marvin Braude Bikeway is a prominent facility that is maintained by the County of Los Angeles and runs through five of the participating cities: El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. It extends for 21 miles parallel to the Pacific coastline, passing through the City of Santa Monica into the City of Los Angeles at its northernmost portion. Many bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages use the path, both for utilitarian and recreational purposes. As a consequence of its popularity, the path is often congested. Some areas have adopted measures to prevent conflicts between users; for example, when the path is crowded with pedestrians in Hermosa Beach, flashing lights and signs direct bicyclists to dismount and walk their bikes.

The Marvin Braude Bikeway is a prominent facility that is maintained by the County of Los Angeles and runs
through five of the participating cities: El Segundo,
Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and
Torrance.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 35
Figure 2-2: County of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan Area

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
36 | Alta Planning + Design

2.2.1.4 Southern California Association of Governments
Regional Transportation Plan (2008)
This plan presents the transportation objectives through the year 2035 for the areas under the jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which includes the South Bay. The RTP aims to integrate bicycling and other non-motorized transportation with transit to extend the commuting range of bicyclists in Southern California, where the average commute length is approximately 19.2 miles.

Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are addressed as they relate to larger street maintenance and construction projects, and are recommended in general plan updates. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint Program serves as a resource for local municipalities looking to enhance non-motorized transportation infrastructure under the principles of mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability.

The RTP allocates over $1.8 billion for non-motorized
transportation. Specific objectives regarding the future of bicycle transportation in the region and that apply to the South Bay Bicycle Plan include:
 Decrease bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries in the state to 25% below 2000 levels
 Increase accommodation and planning for bicyclists and pedestrians: The needs of non-motorized travel (including pedestrian, bicyclists and persons with disabilities) need to be fully considered for all transportation planning
projects
 Increase bicycle and pedestrian use in the SCAG Region as an alternative to utilitarian vehicle trips: Create and maintain an atmosphere conducive to non-motorized
transportation, including well-maintained bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, easy access to transit facilities, and increasing safety and security. While pedestrian sidewalks are fairly well established in most areas, it is estimated that there are only 3,218 miles of dedicated bicycle facilities in the region, with an additional 3,170 miles planned
 Increase non-motorized transportation data: To make nonmotorized modes an integral part of the region’s intermodal transportation planning process and system,
reliable data for planning are needed. Non-motorized
transportation data needs include, but are not limited to, comprehensive user statistics; user demographics; bicycle The SCAG RTP aims to integrate bicycling and other nonmotorized transportation with transit to extend the commuting range of bicyclists in Southern California.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 37
travel patterns/corridors; accident mapping; bikeway
system characteristics; and sub-regional improvement
projects and funding needs
 Bicyclists and pedestrians should always be included in general plan updates. SCAG also encourages the
development of local Non-Motorized Plans. Also, NonMotorized Plans that have been created or updated within the previous five years are eligible for bicycle
transportation account (BTA) funds. SCAG can assist in
the development of these plans through the Compass
Blueprint Program
 Develop a Regional Non-Motorized Plan: SCAG will work with all counties and their cities to coordinate and
integrate all Non-Motorized Plans from counties and
jurisdictions in the SCAG Region in a collaborative
process, including interested stakeholders

2.2.2 State of California
The State of California has recently passed several policies that affect bicycle planning in the South Bay, which are discussed in the following section.

2.2.2.1 AB 1358 - Complete Streets Act of 2008
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008, amended the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians.

Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions. The Government Code §65302 reads:
(2)(A)Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive
revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs
of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads, and highways" means bicyclists, children, persons with
disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods,
pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.

The Complete Streets Act of 2008 amended the California Government Code to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including
bicyclists and pedestrians.

Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
38 | Alta Planning + Design

2.2.2.2 Deputy Directive 64
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted two policies in recent years relevant to bicycle planning initiatives such as this Bicycle Master Plan, namely, Deputy Directive 64 (DD64-R1) and Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06.

Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64-R1) sets forth that Caltrans addresses the “safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding.”

2.2.2.3 Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06
In a more specific application of complete streets goals, Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 presents bicycle detection requirements. For example, 09-06 requires that new and modified signal detectors provide bicyclist detection if they are to remain in operation. Further, the Policy Directive states that new and modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections must provide bicycle detection or a bicyclist pushbutton if detection is required.

2.2.2.4 SB 375 – Sustainable Communities
Senate Bill (SB) 375 serves to complement Assembly Bill (AB) 32:

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and encourages local governments to reduce emissions through improved planning.

Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a “Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)” that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is preparing the SCS for the County of Los Angeles.

One way to help meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets is to increase the bicycle mode share by substituting bicycle trips for automobile trips. When trips made by bicycle replace vehicle trips they reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from motorized transportation. The South Bay’s efforts to encourage bicycling will contribute to the regional attainment of these targets.

One way to help meet the greenhouse gas emissions
targets is to increase the bicycle mode share by
substituting bicycle trips for automobile trips.

Alta Planning + Design | 39
Chapter 3
El Segundo

Chapter Three | El Segundo
40 | Alta Planning + Design

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 41
3 El Segundo
This chapter presents El Segundo’s portion of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how El Segundo complies with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. The chapter is organized into the following sections:
 Existing conditions
 Needs analysis
 Proposed bicycle network
 Project prioritization
 Project costs

3.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for El Segundo to qualify for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must contain specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The table includes “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing compliance.

3.2 Existing Conditions
The City of El Segundo is located in the northwest portion of the South Bay region. It is bordered by the City of Los Angeles to the north, the County of Los Angeles to the east, the City of Manhattan Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. According to the 2000 census, El Segundo has a population of 15,970. The City was incorporated in 1917.

3.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South Bay Region. Land uses in El Segundo are shown at right. Industrial land uses comprise over half of the land area of the City, demonstrating that El Segundo is a key employment center in the region. Less than 20 percent of the City’s land area consists of residential uses. Due to the disparity between acres of employmentproducing land uses and acres of housing, it is likely that many (See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Existing Land Uses in El Segundo

Chapter Three | El Segundo
42 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 3-1: El Segundo General Plan Land Uses

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 43
persons working in El Segundo are commuting to work from outside of the City.

Figure 3-1 displays proposed land uses for El Segundo. As compared to the existing uses, the City plans to increase office space north of Mariposa Avenue, industrial uses in the southeastern quadrant of the city, and mixed use developments throughout El Segundo.

3.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high population or employment densities or high concentrations of certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle households.

Appendix A-4 shows population density in El Segundo. Of the land area that is residential, most of it is single family, low density housing, with the exception of the Main Street area in Downtown El Segundo and R-3 multi-family zoned parcels. Low density units generally produce fewer trips as there are fewer persons per acre.

Population density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more people living in an area implies more trips to and from that area. The high population densities of urbanized environments also tend to support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected street networks, and shorter trip lengths. Low density areas present challenges to bicycling because there are not as many community services, such as restaurants or grocery stores nearby, so bicyclists must make longer trips to conduct their day-to-day activities.

Appendix A-5 displays employment density in El Segundo. El Segundo has over 50 percent of its land area dedicated to industrial uses, a land use which typically employs large amounts of people, and therefore produces many commute trips. As a major
employment center in the region, El Segundo generates a high number of trips, and therefore has the potential to increase bicycle activity by providing facilities that could encourage commuters to switch to bicycling.

Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7, and Appendix A-8 display the percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual household income, and percent transit commuters by census tract. Overall, households in El Segundo have median annual incomes between $55,001 and $75,000 (in 1999 dollars). Those in central and western Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high employment densities.

Chapter Three | El Segundo
44 | Alta Planning + Design
El Segundo have lower rates of vehicle ownership and higher rates of transit commuting. This part of the city has greater potential for increased bicycling activity because residents who do not have vehicles must use alternative modes and are likely to combine bicycle and transit trips.

In addition to the reasons discussed above, El Segundo has the potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle network that is connected within El Segundo, as well as linked to bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates bicycle traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to driving a motorized vehicle.

3.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 3-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of El Segundo’s Circulation Element, Bicycle Master Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element, Local Coastal Program, and Municipal Code.

Table 3-1: El Segundo Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies Document Description
General Plan
Circulation
Element (2004)
The Circulation Element was adopted in 1992 and most recently updated in 2004. It includes a goal to increase alternative transportation modes, with a corresponding objective to provide a city-wide bikeway system. Policies for implementation include:
 Implement recommendations in the Bicycle Master Plan (below)  Encourage new development to provide bicycle parking, shower, and changing facilities  Develop off-street bicycle paths in appropriate corridors  Encourage bicycle trips to and from schools and public facilities  Coordinate bicycle planning/implementation with adjacent and regional agencies  Encourage design of new streets with Class I or Class II bikeways  Maintain Hillcrest Street link between Imperial Avenue and Imperial Highway  Evaluate bikeway system links with the Metro Green Line rail stations and improve access

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 45
Document Description
Bicycle Master
Plan (1992)
This plan was adopted in 1992 as part of the Circulation Element and left unchanged in the 2004 update. The 2004 update simply consists of a map (Appendix F-1) that outlines existing and proposed routes in the City of El Segundo, the City of Manhattan Beach, and the County of Los Angeles. Proposed routes are designated by possible facility. Some proposed routes are shown to be appropriate for either Class I, II, or III facilities, while others are designated as appropriate for just one Class.

General Plan
Open Space
and Recreation
Element (1992)
The Open Space and Recreation Element discusses bikeways in the context of recreational facilities. This document identifies the County of Los Angeles-maintained beach bicycle path located west of the Chevron Refinery as the primary recreational bikeway in El Segundo. The beach bike path runs along the narrow shoreline and connects with the county paths in the City of Los Angeles to the north and to the community of El Porto to the south. The element also includes an objective to develop utility transmission corridors for active or passive open space and recreational use.

El Segundo
Local Coastal
Program (1978)
The El Segundo Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of an Issue Identification and a Coastal Zone Specific Plan.

The Issue Identification section summarizes coastal issues and the specific plan provides detailed land use proposals and implementing ordinances in the coastal zone. The program states that developments providing recreational opportunities are preferred in the Coastal Zone. Developments that provide recreational bikeways would satisfy this requirement. All other bikeways shall be in compliance with the policies in the LCP.

Municipal Code Minimum parking requirements in El Segundo’s Municipal Code are based on percent of required vehicle parking spaces. In 2010, the City of El Segundo adopted Ordinance 1444, which amended parking and loading requirements to include minimum bicycle parking space requirements for developments of varying sizes and land uses. Spaces shall be a minimum width of two feet and a minimum length of five feet. The City reviews these requirements in plan check by having the plans routed through the applicable departments. Developments of certain sizes are also required to provide information, such as bicycle maps, either on a bulletin board or in a display case or kiosk. Detailed bicycle parking information is presented in Appendix G. El Segundo’s Municipal Code does not prohibit riding bicycles on the sidewalk in the city.

Chapter Three | El Segundo
46 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 3-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 47

3.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 3-2 shows the existing bicycle facilities in El Segundo.

Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle facilities in the South Bay Region as a whole. Bicycle facility types are discussed in Section 1.3. The City of El Segundo has approximately 6 total miles of bikeways. These include Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities, some of which continue outside the City limits. A portion of the Los Angeles County-maintained bike path that runs along the beach is part of the City’s network. Table 3-2 summarizes the classification and mileage of the existing network.

Table 3-2: El Segundo Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 1.0
Class II (Bike Lanes) 2.8
Class III (Bike Route) 2.0
Total Mileage 5.8

3.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible short- and long-term end-of-trip facilities for the members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.

The locations of existing bicycle parking in the South Bay are shown in Appendix A-9. Existing bicycle parking in El Segundo is shown at right. The City has existing bicycle racks located throughout the city, including at schools, civic facilities, and shopping centers. El Segundo does not provide any existing longterm, publicly-accessible end-of-trip bicycle facilities. Existing long-term bicycle storage at transit stops is discussed below.

3.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.

Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of El Segundo. Metro operates several bus lines with routes through the (See Appendix A-9 for larger map)
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in El Segundo

Chapter Three | El Segundo
48 | Alta Planning + Design
City. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Metro also operates the Green Line Light Rail, which has three stations in El Segundo. A fourth station at Aviation/LAX sits very near the eastern boundary of El Segundo.

Bicycles are permitted on Metro Rail. The three stations in El Segundo are:
 Mariposa Avenue
 El Segundo Boulevard
 Douglas Street
LADOT operates the Commuter Express bus service. Line 438 connects the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.

Line 574 connects El Segundo to the City of Encino. Most Commuter Express buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Commuter Express route maps for lines 438 and 574 are shown in Appendix A-11 and Appendix A-12.

Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 109, operated by the City of Redondo Beach, and Torrance Transit Line 8, operated by the City of Torrance, also serve the City of El Segundo. Appendix A-13 shows the BCT System Map and Appendix A-14 shows the
Torrance Transit System Map. Buses are equipped with bike racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit vehicles. The Mariposa Avenue Metro Green Line Station provides bicycle racks and the other two stations provide both bicycle racks and lockers. Metro Green Line stations are shown in Appendix A10. Existing bicycle parking facilities in the South Bay are shown in Appendix A-9 and existing bicycle parking facilities in El Segundo are shown on page 29. Bicycle locker rentals are $24 for six months plus a $50 refundable security key deposit.

3.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. To promote safe bicycling, the City of El Segundo has in the past held “bicycle rodeos,” in which they teach bicycle lessons and awareness during Two of the three Metro Geen Line stations in El Segundo provide both bicycle racks and lockers.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 49
open houses at schools. Bicycle rodeos are not, however, a regular program. The El Segundo Police Department also provides pamphlets and bicycle safety information at all safety fairs, Ride Share Fairs, and booths it attends, which occur several times per year.

El Segundo police officers enforce all bicycle-related rules in the California Vehicle Code and issue citations when they observe violations.

3.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
The City of El Segundo incurred the following bicycle expenditure between 2000 and 2010:
 About $5,000 for bicycle racks at City Hall and signage on North Douglas and Nash Streets

3.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in El Segundo. First, it summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and public workshops. Second, the section provides estimates and forecasts of bicycle commuting to determine the estimated bicycling demand in the city. Finally, it analyzes bicycle collision data between 2007 and 2009 to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility improvements.

3.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to provide input in the planning process through an online survey and two rounds of public workshops. This section summarizes locations in El Segundo that the community identified as desirable for bikeways.

The most frequently identified locations for bicycle facilities include El Segundo Boulevard, Rosecrans Boulevard, and Douglas Street. El Segundo Boulevard and Rosecrans Boulevard are both major arterials. Other streets mentioned by the public as in need of bicycle facilities include Main Street, Grand Avenue, and Mariposa Avenue.

3.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows the percent bicycle commuters in El Segundo by census tract. There is a higher percentage of bicycle commuters in the western portion The public in El Segundo had the opportunity to provide input in the planning process through an online survey and two rounds of public workshops.

Chapter Three | El Segundo
50 | Alta Planning + Design
of El Segundo than in the eastern part, which corresponds with low vehicle ownership rates and a higher percentage of transit users.

Table 3-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by the 2000 US Census for El Segundo. For comparative purposes, the table includes commute to work data for the United States, California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,

0.59 percent of residents in El Segundo commute predominantly by bicycle. The percent of bicycle commuters in El Segundo is consistent with that of the County of Los Angeles. It is below that of California and above the United States as a whole. It is important to note that this figure likely underestimates the true amount of bicycling that occurs in El Segundo for several reasons. First, data reflects respondents’ dominant commute mode and therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer multimodal trip. The percentage of commuters in El Segundo that commute by transit is much lower than that of those that drive alone.

In addition to bicycle commuters in El Segundo, bicyclists from neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate bicyclists passing through El Segundo’s bicycle network in Section

3.4. Table 3-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within El Segundo using US Census data along with several adjustments for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above.

Table 3-5 presents the associated air quality benefits from bicycling.

Table 3-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United States California Los Angeles County El Segundo Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.59%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 85.37% Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 6.27% Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 1.18%

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 51
Mode United States California Los Angeles County El Segundo Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 2.87%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.35%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 3.01%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 3-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 15,970 2000 US Census, P1 Existing employed population 9,092 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.59% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing number of bike-to-work
commuters
54 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 3.01% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters
27 Assumes 10% of population working at home makes at
least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 1.18% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing transit bicycle commuters 27 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.

Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle Existing school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
1,899 2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode
share

2.0% National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.

Existing school children bike commuters 38 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in
study area
1,395 2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling mode
share

5.0% Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of bicycle commute share at the University of California, Los
Angeles
Existing college bike commuters 70 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters 216 Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 431 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Chapter Three | El Segundo
52 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
130
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
33,978
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied
by 261 (weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
901
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
235,048
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles
multiplied by 261 (weekdays / year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 3 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 2 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 25 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 733 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 705 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 492 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 6,426 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 191,213 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Source:

Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.

Table 3-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within El Segundo using California Department of Finance population and school enrollment projections. The projection contains the assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of network implementation.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 53
Table 3-7 presents the associated year 2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.

Table 3-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population 19,873 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.

Future employed population 11,314 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 1.18% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30 Future number of bike-to-work
commuters
134 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share 5.54% Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990 US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters
63 Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 2.36% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30 Future transit bicycle commuters 67 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.

Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by
bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
1,509 Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California
Public K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School
Graduate Projections by County, 2010 Series.

Future school children bicycling mode
share

4.0% Double the rate of national school commute trends.

National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.

Future school children bike commuters 60 School children population multiplied by school children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
1,736 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.

Future estimated college bicycling mode
share

7.0% A slight increase over the existing college bicycle mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other
populations
Future college bike commuters 122 College student population x college student bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters 445 Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian biking trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 890 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Chapter Three | El Segundo
54 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
264
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
68,886
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
1,888
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
492,644
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 6 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 4 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 52 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 1,536 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 1,477 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 6 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 5 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,032 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 13,468 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 400,768 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Source:

Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.

This model uses the latest state projections for population growth and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute trips could increase from the current daily estimate of 430 to almost 900, resulting in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately 1,000 pounds of

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 55
smog forming N0X and roughly 400 thousand pounds of C02, the principal gas associated with global climate change. Providing bicycle facilities will encourage new bicyclists to begin to ride, thus positively impacting air quality by reducing harmful pollutants from driving motorized vehicles. Because this plan recommends local connections throughout and regional links between the participating cities, it has the potential to have even greater air quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as heavily on vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a viable transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.

3.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout El Segundo, volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they manually recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.

3.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also provides guidance on how to select count locations.

Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4, 2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010 from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In El Segundo, volunteers were stationed at nine stations on Thursday and nine stations on Saturday. There were 36 total locations in the South Bay region on each day.

The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.

Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the
seven participating cities in the South Bay.

Chapter Three | El Segundo
56 | Alta Planning + Design

3.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for El Segundo are shown at left. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the El Segundo station that experienced the highest volume was Douglas Street and the Green Line Station with 57 bicyclists during the three hour count period. The station with the most bicyclists on Saturday was Main Street and Grand Avenue with 65 bicyclists during the three hour count period.

On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for recreation on the weekend.

In the region as a whole, approximately 83 percent of bicyclists were male. Approximately 70 percent of those observed did not wear helmets and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there were 18 locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode on the sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the sidewalk can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as bicyclists that are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to ride on the sidewalk instead.

3.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.

Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to local and national surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle collisions in El Segundo. This data does not include any assessment of conditions present at the time of the collision. There are numerous factors that may contribute to a given incident including but not limited to time of day, visibility, (See Appendix A-17 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in El Segundo
(See Appendix A-16 for a larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in El Segundo

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 57
distractions, obstacles or traffic law obedience. This data simply reflects reported incidents, resulting injuries and the party at fault.

This data does not infer faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a baseline of collisions that often decreases in correlation with bike plan implementation and the improvements to facilities and road user behavior and awareness that accompanies it. Fault as determined by law enforcement is discussed below.

Table 3-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in El Segundo are shown at right. There were 15 total reported collisions involving bicyclists from 2007-2009 in the City of El Segundo. Two crashes occurred at the intersection of Mariposa Avenue and Indiana Street, one block west of Sepulveda Boulevard. The remaining 13 collisions in El Segundo occurred at disparate locations, although all occurred on major boulevards: there were five crashes on Mariposa Avenue, three on El Segundo Boulevard, and two on Rosecrans Avenue.

Table 3-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes
Involving
Bicyclists
Number of
Bicyclists
Involved
Persons
Injured
Persons
Severely
Injured
Persons
Killed
15 15 13 1 0
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at fault in 40 percent of collisions involving bicycles (6 crashes) in this time period.

Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York, for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and 2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions decreased (see Appendix B).

Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in El Segundo. El Segundo Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue, two corridors that experienced collisions involving bicyclists, carry large volumes of vehicular traffic traveling at high speeds. Neither (See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Bicycle Collisions in El Segundo 2007-2009

Chapter Three | El Segundo
58 | Alta Planning + Design
street has existing bicycling facilities. Sepulveda Boulevard, Aviation Boulevard, and Imperial Highway also have high volumes of vehicles. Aviation Boulevard does not have bicycle facilities and Sepulveda Boulevard is a Class III bicycle route, requiring bicyclists to share the lanes with automobiles on these streets.

3.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of El Segundo, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon implementation of the proposed network, the City should coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities discussed in this Plan are presented in Section 1.3 and are shown in Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of bikeways in El Segundo, the recommended system ties into the proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating cities to create a connected regional network. This will give bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass through El Segundo to reach their destinations without losing bicycle facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway recommendations are also based on the existing City bicycle plans, public input, topography, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.

3.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network for El Segundo consists of Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike Friendly Streets, and is presented in Figure 3-3. El Segundo’s network connects with the recommended network in Manhattan Beach and the County of Los Angeles bicycle system. Four tables identify the streets on which facilities are proposed, the extents of each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each proposed facility. Table 3-9Table 3-9 lists the proposed bicycle paths, Table 3-10 lists the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 3-11 lists the proposed bicycle routes, and Table 3-12 lists the proposed bicycle friendly streets. The proposed bicycle network for the South Bay region as a whole is presented in Appendix A-19.

There are several constraints to recommending new bicycle facilities in El Segundo. These are shown at left and are referenced by the numbers in Appendix I. Appendix I also presents
opportunities and constraints in the South Bay region as a whole. (See Appendix I for larger map)
Opportunities and Constraints in El Segundo

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 59
First, a proposed Class I bikeway east of the waste processing plant would require the City to gain approval from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as this land is LADWP right-of-way. The facility would run underneath the right-of-way of high-tension power lines. An example of such a facility can be seen in Redondo Beach along the North Redondo Beach Bikeway.

Also, a proposed Class I in El Segundo between Walnut and Holly would require the City to gain similar approval as this land is LADWP right-of-way. The facility would also run underneath the right of way of high-tension power lines.

Table 3-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in El Segundo Street From To Miles
El Segundo Sepulveda Blvd Nash St 0.5
Washington Street Walnut Avenue Holly Avenue 0.7
Total Bicycle Path Mileage 1.2
Table 3-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in El Segundo Street From To Miles
Aviation Boulevard Imperial Highway Rosecrans Avenue 2.0 Douglas Street Imperial Highway Park Place 2.1
El Segundo Main St Illinois St 1.0
El Segundo Nast St East City Limits 0.7
Mariposa Avenue Sepulveda Boulevard Douglas Street 0.7
Rosecrans Avenue West City Limits Aviation Boulevard 2.1 Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 8.7
Table 3-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in El Segundo Street From To Miles
Grand Avenue West end of Street Duley Road 2.1
El Segundo Illinois Sepulveda Boulevard 0.1
Nash Street Imperial Highway El Segundo Boulevard 1.0
Loma Vista Street - Binder Place -
Whiting Street - El Segundo
Boulevard Grand Avenue Main Street 0.5
Utah Avenue Douglas Street Aviation Boulevard 0.3
Main Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 1.0
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 5.0

Chapter Three | El Segundo
60 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in El Segundo Street From To Miles
Imperial Avenue Hillcrest Street East end of street 1.6 Mariposa Avenue West end of Street Sepulveda Boulevard 1.7 Loma Vista Street Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue 0.9
Sheldon Street - Pine Avenue -
Eucalyptus Drive Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue 0.9
Center Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 1.0
Walnut Avenue Center Street Washington Street 0.4
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 6.4

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 61
Figure 3-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo

Chapter Three | El Segundo
62 | Alta Planning + DesignThis page intentionally left blank.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 63

3.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of residents traveling without using an automobile.

The El Segundo Municipal Code currently provides minimum bicycle parking standards. It also requires that all bicycle parking spaces be 2 feet wide by 5 feet long. The City should amend its Municipal Code to include requirements on types of short-term and long-term bicycle parking facility designs. Recommended designs are shown in Appendix J. Bicycle rack designs should include racks that provide two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a higher degree of security and support for the bicycle.

This will more accurately address the bicycle demand at a given development. Long-term bicycle parking should be in the form of:
 Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles
 Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks or
 Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they have a place to clean up before work or school. El Segundo’s Municipal Code should require all new mid-size and large employers, offices, and businesses to supply changing and storing facilities, such as by providing showers and clothes lockers within the buildings or arranging agreements with nearby recreation centers to allow commuters to use their facilities.

Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities in El Segundo are shown in Figure 3-4.

The City should amend its Municipal Code to include
requirements on types of short-term and long-term
bicycle parking facility designs.

Chapter Three | El Segundo
64 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 3-4: Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities in El Segundo

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 65
The City should ensure there is adequate short-term bicycle parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers and transit hubs.

The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking throughout the city, with particular attention directed at the following locations:
 Parks
 Schools
 Commercial/office areas
 Civic/government buildings
 Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs and intermodal facilities should include secure bicycle parking areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, should be considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.

3.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle network in El Segundo.

3.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 3-13 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for each facility type proposed in this plan and Table 3-14 displays the cost to implement the proposed network in the City of El Segundo from the cost assumptions.14 Cost assumptions are based on LA County averages and may vary depending on environmental conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude specific treatments that may vary by location and must be determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures, restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project sheets presented in Section 3.7.

14 Table 3-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking throughout the city, with particular attention directed at locations such as parks.

Chapter Three | El Segundo
66 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types Facility Type Description Estimated Cost15
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
Table 3-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per mile Length of Proposed
Network (miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 1.2 $ 928,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 8.5 $ 339,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 5.2 $ 130,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 6.4 $ 192,000
Total 21.3 $ 1,589,000

3.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of El Segundo in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities presented in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section 3.4.1 is grouped into projects based on feasibility of implementation. Table 3-15 presents the prioritized projects based on the prioritization methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each criterion contains information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or future need in El Segundo. The projects ranked the highest should be implemented first.

15 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary engineering, and construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County Bicycle Master Plan, which are based upon a peer review of Southern California bikeway construction unit costs.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 67
Table 3-15:El Segundo Prioritized Bicycle Projects
Facility
Type* Facility Name From To
Gap Closure
Connectivity:

Existing
Connectivity:

Regional
Connectivity:

Activity
Centers
Connectivity:

Multi-Modal
Safety
Public Input
Underserved
Communities
Project Cost
Parking
Displacement
Total
BL Douglas Street Imperial Highway Rosecrans Avenue 3 6 0 4 4 1 2 1 1 2 24 BL Aviation Boulevard Imperial Highway Rosecrans Avenue 3 6 2 4 4 0 2 1 0 1 23 BR Grand Avenue West end of Street Duley Road 3 6 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 23 BL-BR-BP-BL El Segundo Blvd Main St East City Limits 0 0 2 4 4 2 2 1 2 2 19 BR Nash Street Imperial Highway El Segundo Boulevard 3 6 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 2 18 BL Mariposa Avenue Sepulveda Boulevard Douglas Street 0 3 0 4 4 0 2 0 1 2 16 BFS Imperial Avenue Hillcrest Street East end of street 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 15 BFS Mariposa Avenue West end of Street Sepulveda Boulevard 0 3 0 4 0 2 2 1 1 2 15 BR Loma Vista Street - Binder Place - Whiting Street - El Segundo Boulevard
Grand Avenue Main Street
3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 14
BFS Loma Vista Street Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 13 BR Utah Avenue Douglas Street Aviation Boulevard 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 2 10 BR Main Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 9 BFS Sheldon Street - Pine Avenue - Eucalyptus Drive
Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue
0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 2 9
BFS Center Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 2 9 BP Washington Street Walnut Avenue Holly Avenue 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 2 9 BFS Walnut Avenue Center Street Washington Street 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 BL Rosecrans Avenue West City Limits Aviation Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 4 *BP=Bike Path, BL=Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street

Chapter Three | El Segundo
68 | Alta Planning + DesignThis page intentionally left blank.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 69

3.7 Project Sheets
The City of El Segundo selected two of its top priority projects from the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project sheets are shown on the following pages and include:
 A review of the existing site conditions
 Site challenges
 Recommended improvements
 Estimated cost
 Photos
 Aerial images
 Concept graphics
,

Chapter Three | El Segundo
70 | Alta Planning + Design
El Segundo Project #1: Douglas Street (Imperial Highway to Rosecrans Ave) Project Site Photos
Douglas Street is a north-south arterial located on the eastern portion of the City of El Segundo. It connects to the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and bike lanes on Imperial Highway to the north and to the City of Manhattan Beach to the south. Douglas Street provides access to major employers, such as Northrop Grumman, as well as a Metro Green Line light rail station and a variety of commercial services. There is no on-street parking on Douglas Street.

From Imperial Highway to just south of El Segundo Boulevard, Douglas Street has three travel lanes in both directions of travel and a center turn lane. The roadway width ranges from 85 feet to 100 feet with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. From south of El Segundo Boulevard to Transit Center, Douglas Street drops to two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. This segment has a roadway width of approximately 65 feet and a railroad crossing north of Utah Avenue. South of Transit Center, Douglas Street narrows to two lanes with a center median as it travels under the Metro Green Line bridge until Park Place. The roadway width drops to approximately 23 feet on either side of the center median.

Pedestrian access is located above the road, under the bridge. South of Park Place, the road widens to 65 feet with two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane until the intersection with Rosecrans Avenue where it widens again to accommodate left and right turn pockets.

Looking south on Douglas Street. The northern portion of Douglas Street has wide lanes that could be narrowed to accommodate bicycle lanes.

Project Challenges
Douglas Street has no existing bicycle facilities, thus bicyclists must share the road with relatively high volumes of vehicles traveling at high speeds. Bicyclists must cross at-grade, angled railroad tracks, which creates the potential for collisions as bicycle tires often get trapped in railroad tracks. When Douglas Street narrows as it travels beneath the Metro Green Line bridge, the road has a significant incline and the lanes become narrow, which can create conflicts due to the speed differential between bicyclists and vehicles. If bicyclists choose to ride on the above grade pedestrian path, they create potential conflicts with pedestrians as the path is not wide enough to accommodate both modes.

Proposed Improvements
 Stripe 1 mile of Class II Bike Lanes
 Add bicycle detectors and pavement markings at all signalized intersections
 Widen the pedestrian path under the Metro Green Line bridge to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians
 Realign the bicycle lanes to allow bicyclists to cross perpendicular to the at-grade train tracks
Estimated Cost
$350,000
Travel lanes narrow beneath the Metro Green Line bridge.

The angle of the existing at-grade railroad tracks is challenging for bicyclists to cross.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 71
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Douglas Street
Douglas Street (Imperial Highway to Rosecrans Ave)
Example Bicycle Lane Crossing Railroad Tracks Design

Chapter Three | El Segundo
72 | Alta Planning + Design
El Segundo Project #2: El Segundo Boulevard (Main Street to Douglas Street) Project Site Photos
El Segundo Boulevard is an east-west road located in the center of the City of El Segundo. It connects to the County of Los Angeles to the east and provides secondary connectivity to the Marvin Braude Bikeway to the west. East of Aviation Boulevard, El Segundo Boulevard shares jurisdiction with the County of Los Angeles. El Segundo Boulevard provides access to major employers, such as the Chevron Refinery, as well as a variety of commercial services, residential uses, and Downtown El Segundo. There is no on-street parking on El Segundo Boulevard.

From Main Street to Illinois Street, El Segundo Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction. The roadway width ranges from approximately 50 to 54 feet and has striped edgelines on the north side of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. This segment of El Segundo Boulevard has rolling hills with fairly steep inclines.

From Illinois Street to Sepulveda Boulevard the roadway widens to approximately 86 feet to accommodate turn pockets. Between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street, El Segundo Boulevard has center medians with three travel lanes and turn pockets in each direction. The roadway width (not including turn pockets) is approximately 35 feet on each side of the center median.

Looking east on El Segundo Boulevard. The curb and landscaping on the eastbound side could be removed to accommodate
bicycle lanes.

Project Challenges
El Segundo Boulevard has no existing bicycle facilities, thus bicyclists must share the road with vehicles traveling at high speeds on the eastern portion, as well as trucks accessing the Chevron Refinery on the western segment. Steep inclines and declines create potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists due to the speed differential between the two modes. Between Illinois Street and Sepulveda Boulevard, the roadway width is constrained due to turn pockets. East of Nash Street, the roadway width is also constrained and the City has no current potential for a property easement.

Proposed Improvements
 Stripe 1.2 miles of Class II Bike Lanes
 Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all signalized intersections
 Install 0.2 miles Class III Bike Route
 Remove 1.2 miles of eastbound curb and landscaping to accommodate bike lanes in City right-of-way (no existing sidewalk)
 Widen westbound sidewalk to comply with ADA standards  Install 0.5 miles of bi-directional cycle track
 Add bicycle signal phases at entrances/exits to cycle track to be actuated by the presence of bicyclists
 Stripe intersection crossing markings to guide bicyclists through the intersections and increase their visibility
 Install wayfinding signage to direct bicyclists onto proposed bike lanes on Douglas Street
Estimated Cost
$175,000
East of Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo Boulevard has six travel lanes and high volumes of vehicular traffic. A cycle track will provide protection for bicyclists.

Steep inclines on El Segundo Boulevard can create potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists due to the speed differential between the two modes.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 73
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: El Segundo Boulevard
El Segundo Boulevard (Main Street to Sepulveda Boulevard) El Segundo Boulevard (Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street)

Chapter Three | El Segundo
74 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: El Segundo Boulevard
Bi-directional Cycle Track and Cycle Track Intersection Crossing Markings Bicycle-Only Signals

Alta Planning + Design | 75
Chapter 4
Gardena

Chapter Four | Gardena
76 | Alta Planning + Design

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 77
4 Gardena
This chapter presents Gardena’s portion of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how Gardena complies with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. The chapter is then organized into the following sections:
 Existing conditions
 City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions  Needs analysis
 Proposed bicycle network
 Project prioritization
 Project costs

4.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Gardena to qualify for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must contain specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The tables include “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing compliance.

4.2 Existing Conditions
The City of Gardena is located in the northeast portion of the South Bay. It is bordered by the City of Hawthorne and the County of Los Angeles to the north and west, the City of Torrance to the south, and the City of Los Angeles to the east. According to the 2000 census, Gardena has a population of 57,818. The city was incorporated in 1930.

4.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South Bay Region. Land uses in Gardena are shown at right. Over half of the City’s land area is comprised of residential land uses, most of which is single family. Industrial, commercial, and general office uses make up approximately 30 percent of the land area, which suggests that there are more people living in Gardena than there are jobs available.
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Existing Land Uses in Gardena

Chapter Four | Gardena
78 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 4-1: Gardena General Plan Land Uses

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 79
Figure 4-1 illustrates proposed land uses. As compared to existing land uses, the City plans to increase the residential densities in the southern portion of Gardena east of Normandie Avenue. It also intends on creating mixed use developments along 161st Street and 182nd Street.

4.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high population or employment densities or high concentrations of certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle households.

Appendix A-4 shows population density in Gardena. 70 percent of the residential land area in the City is single family, low density housing. Low density units generally produce fewer trips as there are fewer persons per acre. They also present challenges to bicycling because there are not as many community services, such as restaurants or grocery stores nearby, so bicyclists must make longer trips to conduct their day-to-day activities. Population density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more people living in an area implies more trips to and from that area. The high population densities of urbanized environments also tend to support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected street networks, and shorter trip lengths. The highest population densities in Gardena are in the central and eastern portions of the city.

Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Gardena. The City has high employment densities along major corridors, such as Redondo Beach Boulevard, Western Avenue, and 166th Street. The land uses along Redondo Beach Boulevard are mainly commercial and services, while the land use along Western Avenue is industrial. 166th Street has a mix of industrial, and commercial and services.

These sites have the potential to generate bicycle activity, as they are located in environments with a variety of land uses where trips between uses can be shorter.

Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7, and Appendix A-8 display the number and percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual income, and percent transit commuters by census tract.

Throughout most of Gardena, households have median annual incomes below $35,000 (in 1999 dollars) and at least five percent of households do not own a vehicle. The City also has high percentages of transit commuters. This increases the potential for Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high population or employment densities.

Chapter Four | Gardena
80 | Alta Planning + Design
bicycling activity because residents who do not have vehicles must use alternative modes and are likely to combine bicycle and transit trips.

In addition to the reasons discussed above, Gardena has the potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle network that is connected within Gardena, as well as linked to bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates bicycle traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to driving a motorized vehicle.

4.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 4-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of Gardena’s Circulation Element.

Table 4-1: Gardena Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Circulation Plan
(2006)
The City of Gardena most recently updated its General Plan in 2006. The Circulation Plan, which is part of the Community Development Element, is included in this update. The Circulation Plan contains the Bikeways Map (Appendix F-2), which displays where the existing Class I and Class III bicycle facilities are located in the city. There are no proposed facilities shown on the map. The Circulation Plan also addresses bicycling in its goal to promote safe, efficient, and accessible alternative transportation modes. To do so, the City will maintain a citywide bicycle route and maintenance plan that is integrated with MTA’s regional bicycle system.

Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code requires all bicycles to be registered with the police department and the owner to obtain a bicycle license. Riding bicycles on the sidewalk is prohibited in business districts and prohibited outside of business districts unless roadway conditions are hazardous or unsafe.

4.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 4-2 shows a map of the existing bicycle facilities in Gardena. Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle facilities in the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are discussed in Section 1.3. The City of Gardena has approximately 16 total miles of bikeways, 80 percent of which make up an extensive network of Class III bike routes. Table 4-2 summarizes the classification and mileage of the existing network.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 81
Figure 4-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Gardena

Chapter Four | Gardena
82 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-2: Gardena Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 1.1
Class II (Bike Lanes) 1.9
Class III (Bike Route) 12.7
Total Mileage 15.7

4.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. Gardena does not currently provide any publiclyaccessible end-of-trip bicycle facilities within its jurisdiction.

4.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.

Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of Gardena. Metro operates several bus lines with routes through the City. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. The northern and southern portions of the City are served by bus routes, while the center of the City is left underserved. This requires those commuting to and from the interior of Gardena to travel longer distances to access transit, trips that would be made easier by bicycle given adequate bicycle facilities.

Torrance Transit Lines 1, 2, and 5, operated by the City of Torrance, also serve Gardena. Appendix A-14 shows the Torrance Transit System Map. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit vehicles. Gardena does not currently provide any intermodal endof-trip bicycle facilities within its jurisdiction.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 83

4.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. Gardena does not currently provide any education or enforcement programs that promote bicycle safety.

4.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
Between 2000 and 2010 the City of Gardena has not incurred any bicycle-related expenditure.

4.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Gardena. It first summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and public workshops. The section also provides estimates and forecasts of bicycle commuting to determine the estimated bicycling demand in the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision data between 2007 and 2009 to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility improvements.

4.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to provide input in the planning process through an online survey and the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes locations in Gardena that the community identified as desirable for bikeways and bicycle support facilities.

The most commonly identified locations for bicycle facilities in Gardena were residential streets, such as 139th Street, 146th Street, and 147th Street. The public also frequently mentioned arterial and collector streets, including Budlong Avenue, Normandie Avenue, Western Avenue, and Van Ness Avenue.

The community noted that additional bicycle parking facilities are desirable along transit routes.

4.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows the percent bicycle commuters in Gardena by census tract. The highest percentages of bicycle commuters are located in central Gardena, followed by the northern portion of the City.

Table 4-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by the 2000 US Census for Gardena. For comparative purposes, the table includes commute to work data for the United States, The highest percentage of bicycle commuters in Gardena
are located in the central portion of the city.

Chapter Four | Gardena
84 | Alta Planning + Design
California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,

0.9 percent of residents in Gardena commute predominantly by bicycle. The percent of bicycle commuters in Gardena is higher than that of the County of Los Angeles. It is comparable to that of California and above the United States as a whole. It is important to note that this figure likely underestimates the true amount of bicycling that occurs in Gardena for several reasons. First, data reflects respondents’ dominant commute mode and therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer multimodal trip.

The percentage of commuters in Gardena that commute by transit is lower than that of those that drive alone. Gardena also has a high percentage of carpooling, but a low percentage of walking.

In addition to bicycle commuters in Gardena, bicyclists from neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate bicyclists passing through Gardena’s bicycle network in Section

4.4. Table 4-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United
States California Los Angeles County Gardena
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.90%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 75.21% Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 15.31% Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 4.07%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 1.90%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.55%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 1.90%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 4-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within Gardena using US Census data along with several adjustments for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above. Table 4-5 presents the associated air quality benefits from bicycling.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 85
Table 4-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 57,818 2000 US Census, P1 Existing employed population 23,363 2000 US Census, P30 Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.90% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing number of bike-to-work commuters
210
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 1.90% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters
44 Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 4.07% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing transit bicycle commuters
238
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.

Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle Existing school children, ages 6-14 (grades K8) 7,714 2000 US Census, P8 Existing school children bicycling mode share 2.0% National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.

Existing school children bike commuters
154
School children population multiplied by school
children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in study
area
4,431
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling mode
share

5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of
bicycle commute share at the University of California,
Los Angeles
Existing college bike commuters
222
College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters
868
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 1,736 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Chapter Four | Gardena
86 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
429
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 112,073 Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year) Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
2,863
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
747,195
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 9 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 6 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 78 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 2,329 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 2,240 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 9 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 8 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,565 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 20,426 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 607,847 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Source:

Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.

Table 4-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within Gardena using California Department of Finance population and school enrollment projections. The projection contains the assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of network implementation. Table 4-7 presents the associated year

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 87
2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.

Table 4-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
71,950
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.

Future employed population
29,073
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 1.80% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30 Future number of bike-to-work commuters
523
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share

2.58%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters
75 Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 8.14% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30 Future transit bicycle commuters
592
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.

Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8)
6,130
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.

Future school children bicycling mode share

4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.

National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.

Future school children bike commuters
245
School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in study
area
5,514
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.

Future estimated college bicycling mode share

7.0%
Equal to existing condition assumption from “Review
of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities” (Source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995).

Future college bike commuters
386
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
1,821
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 3,642 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Chapter Four | Gardena
88 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-7 Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
848
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
221,450
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
5,878
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
1,534,186
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 18 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 12 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 161 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 4,782 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 4,600 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 18 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 17 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 3,213 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 41,941 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 1,248,069 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Source:

Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.

This model uses the latest state projections for population growth and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute trips could increase from the current daily estimate of approximately 1,700 to roughly 3,600, resulting in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately 3,200 pounds of smog forming N0X and approximately 1.2

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 89
million pounds of C02, the principal gas associated with global climate change. Providing bicycle facilities will encourage new bicyclists to begin to ride, thus positively impacting air quality by reducing harmful pollutants from driving motorized vehicles.

Because this plan recommends local connections throughout and regional links between the participating cities, it has the potential to have even greater air quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as heavily on vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a viable transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.

4.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Gardena, volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they manually recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.

4.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also provides guidance on how to select count locations.

Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4, 2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010 from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In Gardena, volunteers were stationed at four stations on Thursday and three stations on Saturday. There were 36 total locations in the South Bay region on each day.

The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.

4.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Gardena are shown at Weekday Bicycle Count Results in Gardena
(See Appendix A-16 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in Gardena
(See Appendix A-17 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)

Chapter Four | Gardena
90 | Alta Planning + Design
right. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the Gardena station that experienced the highest volume was Crenshaw Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard with 106 bicyclists during the three hour counting period. The station with the highest number of bicyclists on Saturday was Crenshaw Boulevard and Redondo Beach Boulevard, which had 56 bicyclists during the three hour counting period.

On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for recreation on the weekend.

In the region as a whole, approximately 83 percent of bicyclists were male. About 70 percent of those observed did not wear helmets and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there were 18 locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode on the sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the sidewalk can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as bicyclists that are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to ride on the sidewalk instead.

4.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.

Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to national surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle collisions in Gardena. This data does not include any assessment of conditions present at the time of the collision. There are numerous factors that may contribute to a given incident including but not limited to time of day, visibility, distractions, obstacles or traffic law obedience. This data simply reflects reported incidents, resulting injuries and the party at fault. This data does not infer (See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Bicycle Collisions in Gardena 2007-2009

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 91
faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a baseline of collisions that often decreases in correlation with bike plan implementation and the improvements to facilities and road user behavior and awareness that accompanies it. Fault as determined by law enforcement is discussed below.

Table 4-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in Gardena are shown on the preceding page. There were 40 total reported collisions involving bicyclists in the City of Gardena from 2007- 2009. Most of the crashes in Gardena were dispersed throughout the city, though the intersection of 162nd Street and Normandie Avenue and the intersection of Marine Avenue and Gramercy Place both experienced two collisions. Four collisions involving bicyclists occurred along Redondo Beach Boulevard in the eastern portion of the city. Likewise, six collisions involving bicyclists occurred on Western Avenue in the southern half of the city.

Table 4-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes Involving
Bicyclists
Number of Bicyclists
Involved Persons Injured Persons Severely Injured
Persons Killed
40 40 40 0 0
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at fault in 58 percent of collisions involving bicycles (23 crashes) in this time period.

Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York, for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and 2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions decreased (see Appendix B).

Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in the participating cities. There is no data available for Gardena.

Chapter Four | Gardena
92 | Alta Planning + Design

4.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of Gardena, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon implementation of the proposed network, the City should coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities discussed in this Plan are described in Section 1.3 and shown in Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of bikeways in Gardena, the recommended system ties into the proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating cities to create a connected regional network. This will give bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass through Gardena to reach their destinations without losing bicycle facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway recommendations are also based on the existing City bicycle plans, public input, topography, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.

4.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network for the City of Gardena consists of Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike Friendly Streets, and is shown in Figure 4-3. Four tables identify the streets on which facilities are proposed, the extents of each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each proposed facility. Table 4-9 lists the proposed bicycle paths, Table 4-10 lists the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 4-11 lists the proposed bicycle routes, and Table 4-12 lists the proposed bicycle-friendly streets.

The proposed bicycle network for the South Bay region as a whole is presented in Appendix A-19. The proposed bicycle network in Gardena connects with the recommended networks in Torrance and Lawndale, as well as the Los Angeles County bicycle system.

The proposed bicycle network for the City of Gardena
consists of Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike Friendly Streets.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 93
Figure 4-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena

Chapter Four | Gardena
94 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Gardena
Street From To Miles
132nd Street Cimarron Wilton 0.06
139th St Extension Budlong Avenue Agate Ct 0.07
Carnelian Place Extension W side of Vermont Ave E side of Vermont Ave 0.03 132nd Street Extension W side of Vermont Ave E side of Vermont Ave 0.03 Total Bicycle Path Mileage 0.2
Table 4-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Gardena
Street From To Miles
Western Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 146th Street 1.2
Crenshaw Boulevard El Segundo Boulevard Redondo Beach Boulevard 2.3 El Segundo Boulevard Crenshaw Boulevard Vermont Avenue 2.0 Vermont Avenue El Segundo Boulevard Electric Street 3.5 182nd Street Normandie Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.4
135th Street Crenshaw Boulevard Western Avenue 1.0
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 10.4
Table 4-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Gardena Street From To Miles
Denker Avenue 154th 158th 0.3
Gardena Boulevard - 164th Street Brighton Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.6 Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 0.2
182nd Street Western Avenue Normandie Avenue 0.7
132nd St Western Avenue Budlong Ave 0.7
135th Street Western Avenue Vermont Avenue 1.0
Marine Avenue Halldale Avenue Normandie Avenue 0.1
162nd Street Denker Ave Normandie Avenue 0.3
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 3.9
Table 4-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Gardena Street From To Miles
Budlong Avenue - 155th Street -
Van Buren Avenue - Magnolia
Avenue - Budlong Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 162nd Street 2.3 132nd Street Spinning Avenue
Western Avenue
(excluding BP from
Cimarron to Wilton) 0.5
154th Street Van Ness Avenue Denker Avenue 0.8

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 95
Street From To Miles
Berendo Avenue 162nd Street 170th Street 0.5
Harvard Boulevard 147th Street 154th Street 0.4
154th Street - 154th Place -
Cimarron Way Crenshaw Boulevard 154th Street 0.7
Denker Avenue 146th St 154th Street 0.5
Denker Avenue - 166th Street -
Denker Avenue 158th St 170th Street 0.8
Purch Avenue - 129th Street -
Spinning Avenue - 134th Place El Segundo Boulevard Van Ness Avenue 0.6 158th St Denker Ave Normandie Ave 0.3
Magnolia Ave Normandie Ave Vermont Ave 0.4
139th St Normandie Ave Budlong Ave 0.3
Agate Court - Opal Way - Garnet
Lane - Amber Place - Emerald Lane -
Carnelian Place 139th St Extension Vermont Avenue 0.2
139th Street - Purche Avenue -
141st Place - Ardath Avenue Van Ness Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 0.6 Gramercy Place - Redondo Beach
Boulevard - 161st Street - St
Andrews Place 147th St Gardena Boulevard 1.3
St Andrews Place - 166th St -
Gramercy Place Gardena Boulevard Artesia Blvd 0.7
162nd Street Normandie Avenue Berendo Avenue 0.4
170th St Denker Ave Vermont Avenue 0.8
Spinning Avenue 147th Street Marine Avenue 0.3
Marine Avenue Normandie Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.5
147th Street - 146th Place -
Gramercy Place - 146th Street Crenshaw Boulevard Halldale Avenue 1.4 148th Street - Western Avenue -
147th Street Marine Avenue Halldale Avenue 0.7
Wadkins Avenue - Marine Avenue -
Atkinson Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 154th Street 0.8
132nd Street Budlong Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.3
Halldale Avenue 139th St Marine Avenue 0.8
Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 0.3
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 16.8

Chapter Four | Gardena
96 | Alta Planning + Design

4.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of residents traveling without using an automobile.

The Gardena Municipal Code currently does not provide bicycle parking standards. The City should amend its Municipal Code to include requirements on the quantity and type of bicycle parking to be provided at new and retrofitted multi-family residential, commercial, office, and mixed-use land uses of all sizes. Quantity of bicycle parking should be based on square footage of developments or by number of employees/residents to adequately address the bicycle demand at each development.

The City should also amend its Municipal Code to include requirements on types of both short- and long-term bicycle parking facility designs, which are shown in Appendix J. Bicycle rack designs should include racks that provide two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a high degree of security and support for the bicycle. Long-term bicycle parking should be in the form of:
 Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles;
 Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or
 Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.

When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they have a place to clean up before work or school. Gardena’s Municipal Code should require all new mid-to-large employers, offices, and businesses to supply changing and storing facilities, such as by providing showers and clothes lockers within the buildings or arranging agreements with nearby recreation centers to allow commuters to use their facilities.

The City should also amend its Municipal Code to
include requirements on types of both short- and longterm bicycle parking facility designs.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 97
Figure 4-4 displays proposed short- and long-term bicycle parking locations in Gardena. The City should ensure there is adequate short-term bicycle parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers and transit hubs. The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking throughout the city, with particular attention directed at the following locations:
 Parks
 Schools
 Commercial/office areas
 Civic/government buildings
 Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs and intermodal facilities should include secure bicycle parking areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, should be considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.

High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major commercial districts, should provide more secure, long-term bicycle parking options, such as bicycle lockers.

Chapter Four | Gardena
98 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 4-4: Gardena Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 99

4.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle network in Gardena.

4.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 4-13 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for each facility type proposed in this plan and Table 4-14 displays the cost to implement the proposed network in the City of Gardena from the cost assumptions.16 Cost assumptions are based on LA County averages and may vary depending on environmental conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude specific treatments that may vary by location and must be determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures, restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project sheets presented in Section 4.7.

Table 4-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types Facility Type Description Estimated Cost17
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile

16 Table 4-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
17 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary engineering, and construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County Bicycle Master Plan, which are based upon a peer review of Southern California bikeway construction unit costs.

Chapter Four | Gardena
100 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per
mile
Length of
Proposed Network
(miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 0.2 $ 152,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 10.4 $ 416,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 3.9 $ 97,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 16.8 $ 505,000
Total 31.3 $ 1,170,000

4.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of Gardena in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities presented in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section 4.4.1 is grouped into projects based on feasibility of implementation. Table 4-15 presents the prioritized projects based on the prioritization methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each criterion contains information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or future need in Gardena. The projects ranked the highest should be implemented first.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 101
Table 4-15: Gardena Prioritized Bicycle Projects
Facility
Type* Facility Name From To
Gap Closure
Connectivity:

Existing
Connectivity:

Regional
Connectivity:

Activity Centers
Connectivity:

Multi-Modal
Safety
Public Input
Underserved
Communities
Project Cost
Parking
Displacement Total
BFS
Budlong Avenue - 155th Street - Van Buren Avenue - Magnolia Avenue - Budlong Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 162nd Street 3 6 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 21 BFS 154th Street Van Ness Avenue Denker Avenue 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 18BFS Berendo Avenue 162nd Street 170th Street 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 18BFS Harvard Boulevard 147th Street 154th Street 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 18BFS 158th St Denker Ave Normandie Ave 6 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 18BFS Magnolia Ave Normandie Ave Vermont Ave 6 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 18BFS 154th Street - 154th Place - Cimarron Way
Crenshaw Boulevard 154th Street 3 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 17
BFS Denker Avenue 146th St 154th Street 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 17BR Denker Avenue 154th 158th 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 17BFS Denker Avenue - 166th Street - Denker Avenue 158th St 170th Street 3 6 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 17 BL Western Avenue
El Segundo Boulevard 146th Street 0 6 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 16 BFS
Purch Avenue - 129th Street - Spinning Avenue - 134th Place El Segundo Boulevard Van Ness Avenue 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 16 BL Crenshaw Boulevard
El Segundo Boulevard
Redondo Beach Boulevard 0 6 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 2 16
BR
Gardena Boulevard - 164th Street Brighton Avenue Vermont Avenue 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 16

Chapter Four | Gardena
102 | Alta Planning + Design
Facility
Type* Facility Name From To
Gap Closure
Connectivity:

Existing
Connectivity:

Regional
Connectivity:

Activity Centers
Connectivity:

Multi-Modal
Safety
Public Input
Underserved
Communities
Project Cost
Parking
Displacement Total

BFS - BP - BFS - BP
139th Street - Agate Court - Opal Way - Garnet Lane - Amber Place - Emerald Lane - Carnelian Place Normandie Ave Vermont Ave 3 6 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 16 BFS - BP - BFS 132nd Street Spinning Avenue Western Avenue 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 2 15BL El Segundo Boulevard Crenshaw Boulevard Vermont Avenue 0 6 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 15 BFS
139th Street - Purche Avenue - 141st Place - Ardath Avenue Van Ness Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 15 BL Vermont Avenue
El Segundo Boulevard Electric Street 0 6 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 15 BFS
146th St - Gramercy Place - Redondo Beach Boulevard - 161st Street - St Andrews Place - 166th St - Gramercy Place 147th St Artesia Blvd 0 6 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 15 BFS 162nd Street
Normandie Avenue Berendo Avenue 6 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 15
BFS 170th St Denker Ave Vermont Avenue 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 14BFS Marine Avenue Normandie Avenue Vermont Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 14
BR Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 12BFS 147th Street Crenshaw Boulevard Western Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 12

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 103
Facility
Type* Facility Name From To
Gap Closure
Connectivity:

Existing
Connectivity:

Regional
Connectivity:

Activity Centers
Connectivity:

Multi-Modal
Safety
Public Input
Underserved
Communities
Project Cost
Parking
Displacement Total
BFS
148th Street - Western Avenue - 147th Street Gramercy Pl Halldale Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 12 BFS Spinning Avenue 147th Street Marine Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 11BFS Wadkins Avenue - Marine Avenue - Atkinson Avenue
Rosecrans Avenue 154th Street 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 11
BR - BL 182nd Street Western Avenue Vermont Avenue 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 10BR Marine Avenue Halldale Avenue Normandie Avenue 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 10BFS Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 10BFS - BP 132nd Street Budlong Avenue Vermont Avenue 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 9BR 132nd St Western Avenue Budlong Ave 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 9 BFS Halldale Avenue 139th St Marine Avenue 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 9 BL 135th Street
Crenshaw Boulevard Western Avenue 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1
8 BR 135th Street Western Avenue Vermont Avenue 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 8 BR 162nd Street Denker Ave Normandie Avenue 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 6 *BP=Bike Path, BL=-Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street

Chapter Four | Gardena
104 | Alta Planning + DesignThis page intentionally left blank.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 105

4.7 Project Sheets
The City of Gardena selected two of its top priority projects from the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project sheets are shown on the following pages and include:
 A review of the existing site conditions
 Site challenges
 Recommended improvements
 Estimated cost
 Photos
 Aerial images
 Concept graphics

Chapter Four | Gardena
106 | Alta Planning + Design
Gardena Project #1: Western Avenue (El Segundo Boulevard to 146th Street) Project Site Photos
Western Avenue is a north-south arterial located in the center of the City of Gardena. It connects to the County of Los Angeles to the north and the City of Torrance to the South. Western Avenue provides access to a wide variety of commercial and industrial services. There is existing on-street parallel parking along the entire street.

Western Avenue has two travel lanes in each direction, a center turn lane, and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. From El Segundo Boulevard to 139th Street, Western Avenue has a roadway width of approximately 78 to 80 feet. There are center medians north and south of the intersection of 135th Street with 32 feet of roadway width on each side. South of 139th Street, the roadway width of Western Avenue drops to 75 feet. There is a center median north of Rosecrans with a roadway width of approximately 30 to 31 feet on each side. On the northbound side of the median there are three travel lanes. The third travel lane terminates after the median ends.

Looking north on Western Avenue. Bicyclists must share the road with high volumes of motorized vehicles.

Project Challenges
Western Avenue has no existing bicycle facilities, thus bicyclists must share the road with high volumes of vehicles traveling at high speeds on an arterial street. Center medians and on-street parking reduce the available space for bicycle facilities.

Proposed Improvements
 Stripe 1.2 miles of Class II Bike Lanes
 Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all signalized intersections
 Remove approximately 25 on-street parking spaces and the third northbound travel lane at the center median north of Rosecrans Avenue
 Install wayfinding signage after the implementation of the bike friendly street on 146th Street to guide bicyclists from Western Avenue to bike friendly street
Estimated Cost
$100,000
Bicycle detectors at signalized intersections will position bicyclists to trigger the signal when no vehicles are present.

A third northbound travel lane along the center median at Rosecrans Avenue does not provide adequate roadway width for a bicycle lane.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 107
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Western Avenue
Western Avenue (El Segundo Boulevard to 146th Street)
Bike Lanes Next to On-street Parking and Bike Lane with Buffer

Chapter Four | Gardena
108 | Alta Planning + Design
Gardena Project #2: 146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place (Western Avenue to Artesia Boulevard) Project Site Photos
146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place is a series of primarily residential streets in the center of the City of Gardena. It connects to proposed bike lanes on Western Avenue to the north and connects to Artesia Boulevard to the south. This segment provides access to Chapman Elementary School and several industrial uses. There is on-street parallel parking along most of this segment.
146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place has two travel lanes in each direction.

Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place from Redondo Beach Boulevard to 162nd Street has a striped center lane. There is a signalized intersection at Gramercy Place and Redondo Beach Boulevard, and many stop controlled intersections throughout the segment.

A HAWK across Artesia Boulevard will allow bicyclists and Project Challenges pedestrians to safely cross busy arterials.

While 146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place consists of primarily quiet residential streets, the streets jog from one to the other and lack connectivity making it difficult to navigate by bicycle. Intersections with Western Avenue and Artesia Boulevard are stop controlled on the minor street which makes it challenging for bicyclists to cross the arterials and initiate left turns. South of 166th Street, Gramercy Place has several industrial services which potentially attract vehicular traffic.

Proposed Improvements
 Install signage and stripe pavement markings, such as sharrows or bike friendly street stencils
 Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all signalized intersections
 Install wayfinding signage at locations where the bike route curves
 Stripe bike left turn lanes on 166th Street at St. Andrews Place and 166th Street at Gramercy Place
 Install High Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWKs) across Artesia Boulevard and Western Avenue
 Construct speed humps on Gramercy Place south of 166th Street Estimated Cost
$200,000
A bike left turn pocket on 166th Street at Gramercy Place will provide bicyclists a protected place to queue.

A HAWK across Western Avenue will allow bicyclists and
pedestrians to safely cross busy arterials.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 109
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: 146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place (Western Avenue to Artesia Boulevard) 146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place (Western Avenue to Artesia Boulevard)
Example Bike Left Turn Pocket and HAWK

110 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Alta Planning + Design | 111
Chapter 5
Hermosa Beach

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
112 | Alta Planning + Design

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 113
5 Hermosa Beach
This chapter presents the Hermosa Beach sections of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. It begins with a table that identifies how Hermosa Beach complies with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. The chapter is then organized into the following sections:
 Existing conditions
 City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions  Needs analysis
 Proposed bicycle network
 Project prioritization
 Project costs

5.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Hermosa Beach to qualify for BTA funds, the South B ay Bicycle Master Plan must contain specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The table includes “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing compliance.

5.2 Existing Conditions
Hermosa Beach is located in the western portion of the South Bay region. It is bordered by the City of Manhattan Beach to the north, the City of Redondo Beach to the east and south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. According to the 2000 Census, Hermosa Beach has a population of 18,442. The city was incorporated in 1907.

5.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South Bay Region. Land uses in Hermosa Beach are shown at right. The largest land use is residential: approximately 40 percent of Hermosa Beach’s land area is single family and 21 percent is other residential. The City also is comprised of about 15 percent open space.

Existing Land Uses in Hermosa Beach
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
114 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-1: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 115
Figure 5-1 displays the proposed land uses for Hermosa Beach.

Existing land uses are generally consistent with use types and densities on the zoning map. There is limited potential for increased densities such that future development will be largely comprised of infill on the City’s small lots with negligible increases in density.

5.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high population or employment densities or high concentrations of certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle households.

Appendix A-4 shows population density in Hermosa Beach. Areas of high population density are distributed uniformly throughout the city. Population density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more people living in an area implies more trips to and from that area.

The high population densities of urbanized environments also tend to support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected street networks, and shorter trip lengths.

Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Hermosa Beach.

The City has the highest employment densities along Pier Avenue.

Though not as high as Pier Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway also has high employment densities. While the City’s zoning code provides very limited opportunity to develop new mixed residentialcommercial land uses, the close proximity of the employment corridors to housing facilitates short trips between a variety of land uses and the potential to generate bicycle activity.

Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7, and Appendix A-8 display the number and percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual income, and percent transit commuters by census tract.

Throughout Hermosa Beach, households have median annual incomes between $75,001 and $95,000 (in 1999 dollars). There are high percentages of households that own a vehicle in most of the City, though percentages of household vehicle ownership are lower in the northeastern portion on the border of Manhattan Beach and North Redondo Beach. The northeastern and southwestern parts of Hermosa Beach have higher percentages of transit commuters.

These parts of the city have greater potential for increased bicycling activity because residents who do not have vehicles must use Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters.

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
116 | Alta Planning + Design
alternative modes and are likely to combine bicycle and transit trips.

In addition to the reasons discussed above, Hermosa Beach has the potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle network that is connected within Hermosa Beach, as well as linked to bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates bicycle traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to driving a motorized vehicle.

5.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 5-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of Hermosa Beach’s Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element; Proposed Bicycle Master Plan; and Municipal Code.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 117
Table 5-1: Hermosa Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies Document Description
General Plan
Circulation,
Transportation,
and Parking
Element (1990)
The General Plan Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element contains a map outlining the existing bicycle facilities, as well as key bicycle traffic generating locations, such as the Pier. This map was superseded by the Proposed Bicycle Master Plan (below). The element states that there are no streets in Hermosa Beach that could accommodate properly designed bicycle facilities. This is due to right-of-way constraints, heavy traffic volumes, and conflicts with curb parking. In order to install properly designed facilities, the City would need to widen streets and purchase right-of-ways. For this reason it does not propose any additional bicycle facilities. The Proposed Bicycle Master Plan, however, identifies proposed Class II bike lanes and shared roadways.

To implement the overall goal of providing a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system, the element outlines the following objectives and policies:
 Maximize the use of alternative transportation modes
 Encourage bicycle travel city-wide
 Provide for the transport of bicycles on public transit vehicles wherever possible  Maintain the surfaces of bike paths to maximize safety and ease of travel  Require new developments to accommodate parking consistent with TDM programs Proposed Bicycle
Master Plan
(2009)
The Hermosa Beach Bicycle Master Plan consists of a map (Appendix F-3) that displays existing and proposed bicycle facilities. Existing facilities include two bicycle routes in the City of Hermosa Beach. Those routes are along the Strand from the southerly City boundary to 24th Street connecting to the route on Hermosa Avenue from 24th Street to the north City boundary. The Strand is largely recreational as it is shared with pedestrians and roller-skaters. At various times due to high traffic volumes and the wide variety of users this is not a truly viable connector. The bike route connects to a bike path to the north in Manhattan Beach. The path is a designated bike route in Manhattan Beach which runs north along the beach into the cities of El Segundo, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica. To the south the Strand connects to a designated bike route in Redondo Beach along Harbor Drive.

Proposed Class II bike lanes are on Artesia Boulevard from Ardmore Avenue to Prospect Avenue and Herondo Street from Hermosa Avenue to the southern City limits. Proposed shared roadways are on Hermosa Avenue, 22nd Street, Monterey Boulevard, Valley Drive, Ardmore Avenue, Pier Avenue, and Prospect Avenue. To date, sharrows on Hermosa Avenue have been implemented.

Municipal Code The Municipal Code includes bicycle parking requirements that vary by the size of the development and type of land use as part of its transportation demand and trip reduction measures; however, virtually all projects developed are too small to be subject to these regulations. Minimum parking requirements are based on square footage of the development. Specific Plan Area No. 11 (along a portion of Pier Avenue) has a separate bicycle parking requirement in which minimum requirements can be based on either square footage or number of employees and shall be in the form of bike rack, fully enclosed spaces or lockers or other secure parking. The SPA-11 Zone also provides for an inlieu fee when it is not practical to place bike racks on the property. The Municipal Code provides that vehicle parking for any development may be reduced with a Parking Plan approved by the planning commission based on various factors including bicycle and foot traffic. Bicycle parking is reviewed during the planning process by the planner. The code does not provide any other form of guidance. Detailed bicycle parking information is presented in Appendix G.

The Municipal Code does not prohibit riding bicycles on the sidewalk, though there is not exact language stating this.

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
118 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 119

5.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 5-2 shows the existing bicycle network in Hermosa Beach.

Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle facilities in the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are discussed in Section

1.3. The City of Hermosa Beach has a bicycle network that consists of approximately 5 miles of bicycle facilities. This includes Class I, Class II, and Class III facilities. Its Class I bike path is a portion of the Los Angeles County-maintained bicycle path that runs along the Strand. Table 5-2 summarizes the classification and mileage of the existing network.

Table 5-2: Hermosa Beach Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 1.8
Class II (Bike Lanes) 0.5
Class III (Bike Route) 2.8
Total Mileage 5.1

5.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. Appendix A-9 presents the locations of existing end-of-trip bicycle facilities in the South Bay. Existing bicycle parking in Hermosa Beach is shown at right. Bicycle racks are located in commercial shopping centers, in the Downtown, and along the Strand. Hermosa Beach does have any existing changing or showering facilities.

5.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.

Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of Hermosa Beach. Metro operates several bus lines with routes through the City that connect Hermosa Beach to its neighboring (See Appendix A-9 for larger map)
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in
Hermosa Beach

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
120 | Alta Planning + Design
communities and key activity centers. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.

LADOT operates the Commuter Express bus service. Line 438 connects the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.

Most Commuter Express buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. The Commuter Express Line 438 route map is shown in Appendix A11.

Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 109, operated by the City of Redondo Beach, and Torrance Transit Line 8, operated by the City of Torrance, also serve the City of Hermosa Beach. Appendix A-13 shows the BCT System Map and Appendix A-14 shows the
Torrance Transit System Map. Buses are equipped with bike racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit vehicles. Hermosa Beach does not currently provide any intermodal end-of-trip bicycle facilities within its jurisdiction.

5.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. To promote safe bicycling, the Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission and Police Department put together a “Share the Road” Pamphlet that has been distributed to all the bicycle shops and at bicycle events.

This pamphlet could be made available to all participating South Bay cities. Hermosa Beach has also held three bicycle safety events at Valley Park in May 2009, 2010, and 2011.

The Hermosa Beach Police Department began conducting increased bicycle enforcement in May 2010. To date, this has resulted in thirty citations issued to bicyclists for stop sign and signal violations.

5.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
Between 2000 and 2010 the City of Hermosa Beach incurred the following bicycle-related expenditure:
 $803,000 for shared lane markings and improvements on the Strand
Increased enforcment in Hermosa Beach has led to
more citations to bicyclists for stop sign and signal
violations.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 121

5.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Hermosa Beach. It first summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and public workshops. This section also provides estimates and forecasts of bicycle commuting to determine the estimated bicycling demand in the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision data between 2007 and 2009 to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility improvements.

5.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to provide input in the planning process through an online survey and the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes locations in Hermosa Beach that the community identified as desirable for bikeways.

The locations that the community mentioned the most frequently as in need of bikeways are Valley Drive /Ardmore Avenue and Pier Avenue. The community also noted that it would like to see bicycle facilities on major north-south and east-west routes, including Aviation Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue.

5.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows the percent bicycle commuters in Hermosa Beach by census tract.

There are no bicycle commuters throughout most of Hermosa Beach. The highest percentages of bicycle commuters are located in the southwest portion, which corresponds with higher percentages of transit commuters.

Table 5-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by the 2000 US Census for Hermosa Beach. For comparative purposes, the table includes commute to work data for the United States, California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,

0.22 percent of residents in Hermosa Beach commute primarily by bicycle. This is lower than the percentage of bicycle commuters in Los Angeles County, California, and the U.S. as a whole. Hermosa Beach also has low rates of carpooling and transit riding, which suggests that the city’s high median incomes and high car ownership rates are a primary influence on mode split. It is important to note that this figure likely underestimates the true amount of bicycling that occurs in Hermosa Beach for several reasons. First, data reflects respondents’ dominant commute mode The community noted that it would like to see bicycle
facilities on major north-south and east-west routes,
including Aviation Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue.

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
122 | Alta Planning + Design
and therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer multimodal trip. The percentage of commuters in Hermosa Beach that commute by transit is much lower than that of those that drive alone. Hermosa Beach also has a low percentage of carpooling.

In addition to bicycle commuters in Hermosa Beach, bicyclists from neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate bicyclists passing through Hermosa Beach’s bicycle network in Section 5.4.

Table 5-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United
States California Los Angeles County
Hermosa
Beach
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.22%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 82.61% Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 6.61% Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 0.95%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 2.42%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.71%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 5.98%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 5-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within Hermosa Beach using US Census data along with several
adjustments for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above. Table 5-5 presents the associated air quality benefits from bicycling.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 123
Table 5-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 18,442 2000 US Census, P1 Existing employed population 12,784 2000 US Census, P30 Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.22% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing number of bike-to-work
commuters
28 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 5.98% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters
76 Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 0.950% 2000 US Census, P30 Existing transit bicycle commuters
30 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.

Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle Existing school children, ages 6-14
(grades K-8) 992
2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode
share 2.0%
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.

Existing school children bike commuters
20 School children population multiplied by school
children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in
study area 1,495
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling
mode share

5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of
bicycle commute share at the University of California,
Los Angeles
Existing college bike commuters
75 College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters
230
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 459 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
124 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 5-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
141
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 36,911 Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year) Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
1,058
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
276,076
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 3 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 2 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 29 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 860 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 828 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 578 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 7,547 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 224,589 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi Source:

Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.

Table 5-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within Hermosa Beach using California Department of Finance population and school enrollment projections. The projection contains the assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of network implementation. Table 5-7 presents the associated year

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 125
2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.

Table 5-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
22,950
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.

Future employed population
15,909
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 0.4% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30 Future number of bike-to-work
commuters
70 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share

10.8%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters
172
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 1.9% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30 Future transit bicycle commuters
76 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.

Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
788
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.

Future school children bicycling mode
share 4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.

National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.

Future school children bike commuters
32 School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
1,860
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.

Future estimated college bicycling mode
share

7.0%
A slight increase over the existing college bicycle
mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other populations
Future college bike commuters
130
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
480
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 959 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
126 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 5-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
289
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
75,357
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
2,193
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
572,327
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 7 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 5 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 60 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 1,784 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 1,716 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 7 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 6 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,199 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 15,646 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 465,591 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi Source:

Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.

This model uses the latest state projections for population growth and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute trips could increase from the current daily estimate of 460 to 960, resulting in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately 1,200 pounds of smog forming N0X and roughly 500 thousand pounds of C02, the

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 127
principal gas associated with global climate change. Providing bicycle facilities will encourage new bicyclists to begin to ride, thus positively impacting air quality by reducing harmful pollutants from driving motorized vehicles. Because this plan recommends local connections throughout and regional links between the participating cities, it has the potential to have even greater air quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as heavily on vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a viable transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.

5.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Hermosa Beach, volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they manually recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.

5.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also provides guidance on how to select count locations.

Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4, 2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010 from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In Hermosa Beach, volunteers were stationed at six stations on Thursday and seven stations on Saturday. There were 36 total locations in the South Bay region on each day.

The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.

5.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Hermosa Beach are shown at right. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is Weekday Bicycle Count Results in Hermosa Beach
(See Appendix A-16 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in Hermosa Beach
(See Appendix A-17 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)