Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan
HB in Motion:
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 2 Table of Contents
Introduction
Huntington Beach Today
Stakeholder Engagement
Mobility Plan
Appendix A
Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Calculation Approach Appendix B
Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan (MIP) Toolbox Memorandum Appendix C
Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification and Network Recommendations Memorandum Appendix D
Bicycle Network Recommendations and Implementation Memorandum Appendix E
Beach Path Observations and Recommendations Memorandum
92 106
85 55
46 21
16 03
07 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 3 The City of Huntington Beach initiated
the development of HB in Motion
to explore improving and expanding
mobility options. The Mobility Plan
aims to enhance access and mobility in
Huntington Beach by accommodating
changes in mobility needs and
travel patterns, ultimately making
Huntington Beach a safer, cleaner,
easier-to-navigate city.
Purpose and Need
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 4 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 5 Huntington Beach Community Vision
Historically, cities have focused on creating traditional transportation plans.
These plans typically focus on car travel and seek to reduce commute times for cars. Today, cities like Huntington Beach are developing mobility plans, which by contrast focus on the broader concept of mobility, encompassing walking, biking, transit, and vehicles. Further, mobility plans take a more holistic approach to urban planning by considering the interactions between these different modes and addressing underlying factors that influence travel behavior. Finally, mobility plans aim beyond just reducing travel times and often aim to enhance safety and equity, reduce emissions, improve public health, and foster economic development.
The Mobility Plan was developed to support Huntington Beach’s Community vision.
In 2040, the City of Huntington Beach is...
a desirable destination for all people to live, work, play, and visit. Huntington Beach is a healthy and safe, family-oriented community with flourishing schools and accessible community services for all ages. Natural resources are protected, while parks, open spaces, and the beach provide a variety of recreation opportunities. Community members travel easily by automobile, by bicycle, on foot, and using transit.
Well-maintained, high-quality infrastructure and cutting-edge technology help all businesses throughout the city prosper in a culture of innovation, offering a variety of job opportunities for residents and the region. Development is guided to ensure responsible growth while preserving and enhancing our community character, the beach, Surf City culture, and the environment.
The community and its priorities are resilient, withstanding the challenges posed by a changing coastline and economic base, and shifting demographics. The City, in partnership with the community, is sustainable - considering the needs of future generations while protecting what is valued today.
What is a Mobility Plan?
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 6 Plan Goals and Guiding Principles
Plan Goals
• Improve citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network options and safety for all users
• Improve the comfort and design of the
Beach Path for all users
• Build upon the City’s long term mobility,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit planning
efforts
• Ensure that mobility systems accommodate
both traditional and innovative
transportation modes (e.g. micromobility
and shared mobility)
Guiding Principles
Balance. Balancing the mobility needs of
residents, visitors, and emergency services is
critical to creating a vibrant city.
Implementation Lens. Identifying
strategies and implementable system
improvements that help facilitate a balanced
and equitable mobility system for our residents,
businesses, and visitors, with a variety of
practical mobility options.
Future Proofing. Rethinking street design
to allocate space bikes, electric scooters,
skateboards, and future micromobility devices.
Informed by the stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) engagement, and in-person field observations, the project team developed goals and principles to guide the development of HB in Motion. The community expressed interest in focusing the project on the following key goals.
Saybrook Lane Class II Bike Lane
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 8 Demographics
Population:
208,000
40 years old
106,000
Median Age:
Employment
Disadvantaged
communities
Today, Huntington Beach is known for its world-class beaches, diverse family- friendly community, and popular downtown. The City attracts visitors from around the world each year to enjoy the weather, beaches, shopping and signature events. The City is experiencing steady population and economic growth, which is expected to continue. Despite the growth in population and tourism that will put greater demand on the city’s mobility system, Huntington Beach remains dedicated to preserving its beach city culture, protecting its natural resources, enhancing quality of life, and ensuring all residents and visitors have the flexibility to travel around Huntington Beach safely and efficiently.
The City of Huntington Beach provides a distinctive mix of coastal resources, a large residential harbor and marina, 1,300 acres of protected wetlands, residential neighborhoods, and retail. The majority of the city is comprised of residential neighborhoods with mixed land uses. with 42% of the population between ages 18
and 49 and 17% over the age of 65.
While only one census tract in Huntington
Beach is considered a Disadvantaged
Community (DAC) and two tracts scored
under statewide median household
income ($56,982), there are significant
health outcome disparities within the city,
particularly diabetes and obesity prevalence,
related to mobility and physical activity.
jobs are available in the city. The employment
distribution, shown in the graphic below, is
similar to Orange County as a whole.
Agriculture,
transportation
and construction Service occupations
(government, sales and
office occupations, and
information)
64%
25%
11%
Retail
Huntington Beach employment distribution:
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 9 Vehicular Traffic
Roadways in Huntington Beach are generally laid out on a north-south, east-west grid system, with the exception of the Downtown area where roadways trend northeast-southwest paralleling the Pacific Ocean. The roadway system is organized in a hierarchical fashion based on characteristics such as mobility and access, minimum roadway width made up of public right-of- way width and pavement width, typical number of lanes, and two-way daily traffic volume.
Intersections
The City classifies its intersections into “Principal” and “Secondary” intersections. Principal intersections have strategic importance and remaining signalized intersections are considered secondary. Based on a 2017 intersection level of service analysis, most intersections in Huntington Beach have a level of service at C or above, meaning they have less than 35 seconds of average delay per vehicle. For the 11 intersections where future traffic operations were forecast to be below established level of service standards, a set of recommended improvements were identified and the intersections are forecasted to meet the performance standards with mitigation.
What is “Level of
Service”?
Level of service (LOS) measures
a driver’s experience on the road
and at intersections, based on
the speed and number of cars
using the road. The LOS of a road
is designated by a letter grade of
A (free flow) to F (near gridlock).
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 10 Commute Trips
Commute trips comprised 9.2% of all trips
in 2021, likely a lower percentage than
today due to lingering impacts of the
Covid-19 pandemic.
Because automobiles have
historically been prioritized in
funding and street design, the
majority of commute trips are
completed by personal vehicle.
As a result, the average commute
time by car is 28 minutes
whereas the average commute
time by transit is more than
double that at 66 minutes.
Avg Commute Time (mins) Avg Commute Distance (miles)
Automobile 28.5 12.9
Transit 66 13.3
Walking 10 0.34
Biking 21 2.2
Avg Commute Time (mins) Avg Commute Distance (miles)
Automobile 26.7 12.9
Transit 53.9 12.7
Walking 13 0.37
Biking 21.2 3.2
Huntington Beach Average Commute
Orange County Average Commute
Huntigton Beach commute modes distribution:
Automobile
6% Work
from home
2% Other
1% Transit
1% Walking
1% Biking
89%
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 11 While some parts of the city are highly
accessible and provide a comfortable active
transportation environment, high vehicle
traffic volumes and speeds are present along
many of the major arterials, including the State
Highways of Beach Boulevard and Pacific
Coast Highway, along with local arterials like
Brookhurst, Adams, Goldenwest, Warner, and
Edinger.
Safety
Local Roadway Safety Plan
In September 2022, Huntington Beach
prepared a Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP). The LRSP analyzed collision
data, assessed infrastructure needs
through an inventory of roadway system
elements, and identified roadway safety
solutions on a citywide basis. The LRSP
fulfilled the following purposes:
• Identified the highest occurring
collision types and the roadway
characteristics contributing to the
collisions.
• Identified dominant collision
patterns.
• Proposed safety countermeasures to
address collision patterns.
• Prioritized safety improvement
projects based on benefit/cost ratio
and other considerations.
Although the project team was
not involved in the development of
the LRSP, the LRSP informed the
development of the bike and pedestrian
recommendations contained in this
Plan.
Utica Avenue Bike Boulevard
Source: Toole Design Group
Downtown Huntington Beach is a popular
destination for beachgoers and shoppers. As
such, high demand for the limited parking in
Downtown is dynamic and seasonal. Based on
the City’s 2009 parking study, parking demand
in the downtown area is below 70% of capacity
when schools are in session. On summer
weekdays, parking facilities are approximately
80% occupied and 90% to 100% occupied
during summer weekends with demand
exceeding capacity during summer holidays
and special events. On-street parking in the
neighborhoods just inland of the beach in
downtown also experience very heavy parking
demand along with the metered spaces
along the Pacific Coast Highway. Since 2009,
the City has modified some of the on-street
parking with new bike racks replacing a few
parking spaces, designating a few accessible
on-street parking spaces, and constructing a
new parking lot at the corner of 1st Street and
Orange Avenue.
Parking
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 12 Sustainable Modes
Huntington Beach offers a multi-
modal transportation network
including roadways, bikeways,
equestrian trails, sidewalks and
walking paths, and waterways.
The current state of sustainable
mode services and infrastructure
inform what improvements would
make the most positive impact
throughout the city.
Walking
Huntington Beach’s current
roadway network consists of
collector and arterial roadways that
have relatively high vehicle volumes
and high posted speed limits that
contribute to stressful pedestrian
crossing experiences. There are
also long distances between high-
stress crosswalks and the nearest
low-stress crosswalks. In general,
Huntington Beach’s current network
provides very basic pedestrian
facilities and is not designed for
pedestrian comfort, nor does it
encourage walking or rolling.
The project team conducted
a Pedestrian Crossing Stress
Analysis to better understand the
current pedestrian experience in
Huntington Beach and identify
neighborhoods or areas that would
benefit from design that promotes or enhances walking trips. A highly connected and permeable transportation network that promotes walkability is one with a high number of intersections, and/ or short distances between street crossings. The analysis considers several inputs including traffic volume, posted speed limit, number of vehicle lanes (as a proxy for crossing distance), roadway functional classification, traffic control device, mid-block crossing locations, and pedestrian crossing islands to estimate the level of stress a pedestrian may experience while crossing the street at every crosswalk (marked and unmarked) throughout Huntington Beach. The results of the analysis are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 13 Bicycle Network
The project team conducted two analyses to
evaluate Huntington Beach’s existing bicycle
conditions and level of connectivity.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Analysis
This analysis identified the stress of street
networks for people biking based on the
built environment, traffic speed, and traffic
volume. The results of this analysis indicate
that Huntington Beach’s high-speed and
high-volume arterial streets create barriers and
prevent the numerous pockets of low-stress
streets found in neighborhoods from forming a
connected network. While most of the arterials
in Huntington Beach have Class II Bike Lanes
present, these are insufficient to create a low-
stress environment due to the high vehicle
speeds and multi-lane road configurations.
The analysis identified options for lowering
stress for the bicycle network, including:
• Lane reduction treatments where travel
lanes can be narrowed or reduced to
allow roadway space to be reallocated and
upgraded to Class IV Bike Lanes.
• New traffic control options for two-way
stops, including high intensity activated
crosswalk beacons, or if warranted, full
signalization.
Bicycle Network Analysis
This analysis identifies how connected areas
are to other areas and destinations within
biking distance (defined as a 10-minute bike
ride or 1.67 miles). The analysis quantified the
level of low-stress connectivity between people
and destinations. The results of this analysis
indicate that, while neighborhoods including
Yorktown, Adams, and Sunset Beach, as well
as Downtown are well connected within
the neighborhood or district, there are also
numerous high-stress arterials that prevent
connectivity between these neighborhoods
and districts.
The results of this analysis indicate that
Huntington Beach should aim to reduce the
stress of these arterials so that the otherwise
well-connected pockets of the city have better
access to each other.
Detailed descriptions of the approach to
calculate the Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress can be found in Appendix A.
Atlanta Avenue Class II Buffered Bike Lane
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 14 Figure 2. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 15 Micromobility
Although Huntington Beach has a long
history of micromobility activity, as a popular
destination for skateboarding and bicycling
particularly along the Beach Path, the City
currently has no specific guidance or policies
for micromobility use aside from posted
speed limits. However, new micromobility
devices including electric scooters and bikes,
and recent public response to these mobility
devices, has renewed the City’s interest in
managing micromobility to better serve the
needs of the community.
Transit
Although most trips in the city are made
by automobile, the City has fixed-route and
demand-response services. Fixed route
services are transit lines that operate on
regular schedules along a set route and
demand-responsive services have defined
service areas but do not operate on fixed
routes or schedules. Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates 16
fixed-routes through the city and the number
of lines and routes are adjusted as needed in
response to ridership patterns.
Circuit Program
Circuit currently operates in the City of
Huntington Beach, providing low cost on-
demand rides to visitors and residents within
Downtown Huntington Beach powered by
a fleet of all-electric, low-speed, six-seat golf
carts.
Main Street
In November 2022, Huntington Beach
released “Downtown Dreamin’” a
proposed Main Street streetscape
schematic design. The goals and
priorities of the project included
placemaking, mobility, inclusivity, and
economic vitality. To develop the design,
Huntington Beach engaged the public
through “Share Your Downtown Story”
sessions. The proposed design segments
Main Street into three blocks and makes
recommendations to activate each
block beyond vehicular traffic, including
outdoor dining, enhanced pedestrian
circulation, new trees and paving, and
public art.
Although the project team for HB
in Motion was not involved in the
development of Downtown Dreamin’,
the proposed designs align with and
complement the recommendations
in this Mobility Plan. However, the
implementation of HB in Motion and
Downtown Dreamin’ are independent of
one another.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 17 Stakeholder Engagement
Throughout the development of HB in Motion,
the City sought feedback from a variety of
stakeholders including internal City staff,
community organizations, and the public. This
feedback was used to inform the development
of HB in Motion and, importantly, establish the
key goals and principles that guided the Plan’s
actions and recommendations. Highlights of
the stakeholder engagement include:
Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC)
Members
The TAC was comprised of representatives
across Huntington Beach including the
following departments:
Meeting #1 April 2022
The initial TAC meeting was held to introduce
the Mobility Plan, the public survey, and the
findings from the Existing Conditions Report.
The meeting was informative in nature but
allowed the TAC to ask questions about
next steps in plan development and make
recommendations to the project team on areas
to hone.
Meeting #2 April 2023
The second TAC meeting was held with
the goal of informing and achieving
consensus among TAC members for
the recommendations contained
within the toolkit of improvements and
recommendations for each mode. Much of
the discussion related to feasibility of mobility
infrastructure improvements contained in the
recommendations, which may be necessary
as a future addition to the recommendations
and toolkit. Additionally, there was a discussion
around trade offs and what the City’s and
public’s appetite might be for reallocating
space for bikes and pedestrians. As an
example, there was hesitation around the idea
of removing parking lanes to accommodate
bike lanes. By the conclusion of the meeting,
there was general support for the toolkit and
recommendations from the TAC, with the
lingering questions noted above.
Fire
Police
Community Development
Library Services
Public Works
Huntington Beach Multi-Use Beach Path
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 18 Project Website
The project website (hbmobility.com) was launched in May 2022 to provide the public with information about the Mobility Plan. The project website included highlights of the project goals, details on the public meetings, links to the public surveys, and an open form to contact the team with any questions regarding HB in Motion.
Public Meetings
October 2022
This virtual meeting was held to give an
overview of the project and project schedule,
present findings from the Existing Conditions
Report, and discuss the project website, draft
survey #1 results, and recommendations
for bike, pedestrian, and beach path
improvements. Questions and discussion from
the public primarily centered around safety
and education (especially around bicycle
etiquette) and multi-modal planning.
October 2023
This virtual meeting was held to provide the
public with updates relating to the survey #2
results and the recommendations for bike,
pedestrian, and beach path improvements.
There were 13 members of the public in
attendance. Questions and discussion
from the public primarily centered around
bicyclist safety, ranging from infrastructure
improvements to an increase in enforcement
for vehicle drivers not following laws requiring
three feet of space when passing a cyclist.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 19 Surveys
Phase I Survey
The first public survey was launched in February 2022 to solicit feedback about stakeholders’ preferred mode of travel in Huntington Beach. Respondents could select multiple choices for several of the survey questions. The survey revealed the following findings:
In total, there were over 860 survey responses for the Phase I survey, 93% of whom reside in Huntington Beach, and 77% that were 45 or older.
Mobility
Other than driving, respondents prefer to access
destinations in Huntington Beach via active transportation:
Beach Path
Bicycle Network
Pedestrian Network
76%
prefer to bike
53%
of participants supported
the improvement of existing
bikeways
71%
of participants stated they
walked along the Beach Path
88%
of respondents said
they walk on the
Huntington Beach
pedestrian network
72%
said that the changes mentioned above would increase their use of the pedestrian network 52%
supported expanding
on-street bicycle networks
58%
rode a human-powered
bicycle
81%
an overwhelming percentage of respondents,
indicated interest in reduced speeds on the
Beach Path
55%
of participants
would like to see
improvements to
existing sidewalks
48%
supported expanding
off-street bicycle network
~20%
used an e-bicycle on the
Beach Path
72%
expressed support for creating separate paths
or facilities for bicycles and pedestrians
41%
would like to see
wider sidewalks
39%
supported more trees
or shading along the
sidewalk
71%
prefer to walk
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 20 Phase II Survey
The second public survey was launched in May 2023 to solicit feedback about ongoing beach path improvements and improvements to walking, biking, and recreating throughout Huntington Beach. The survey revealed the following findings:
Separated beach path
Separated bike lane (Delaware)
Speed feedback signs
Planted buffers
Found e-bikes to
be an issue
Beach path pedestrian
crosswalks
Parking protected bike lane (Springdale)
10 mph speed limits
Planters
Do not find e-bikes
to be an issue
Raised medians
Neutral
Slow zones
Buffer bike lane (Algonquin)
Beach Path
On-Street Bike Facilities
Perception of electric bikes (e-bikes)
Strong support:
General: Beach Path specific:
Moderate to strong support:
The top three preferred bike lane
separators were:
The top three preferred on-street bike
facility types were:
81% 56%
77% 53%
70%
None of which
currently exist
within Huntington
Beach
50%
30% 25%
20% 17%
57%
In total, there were over 500 survey responses for the Phase II survey. Roughly 44% of respondents were over the age of 55 and roughly 50% were between the ages of 18 & 54.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 22 This Mobility Plan aims to create
a more balanced, equitable, and
sustainable mobility system for
Huntington Beach.
This plan envisions achieving this
through incremental improvements
to the mobility system, with time
allocated for future community
engagement and evaluation in order
to gain buy-in for improvements.
The Mobility Plan brings together
mobility ideas, needs, and specific
project recommendations to create an
actionable plan for the Department
of Public Works and other City
departments.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 22 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 23 yet been implemented, but may be considered
in the future. This list is not intended to be
prescriptive, but a tailored list of common tools with
a demonstrated history of improving bicycle and
pedestrian experiences.
Two safety factors were considered during
the analysis of improvements - Crash
Modification Factor (CMF) and Proven Safety
Countermeasures. The CMF estimates a
safety countermeasure’s ability to reduce
crashes and crash severity. The Proven
Safety Countermeasures refer to specific
countermeasures highlighted by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) for their
safety effectiveness and benefits.
The full toolkbox with detailed descriptions of
each recommended treatment can be found in
Appendix B.
To provide options and inspiration for
how Huntington Beach might achieve its
mobility goals, the project team developed
a comprehensive list of best practice
roadway treatments that address a variety of
transportation challenges. The team explored
both rapid implementation projects, as well
as permanent projects, and recommended
that any rapid implementation projects
include data collection on effectiveness of
treatments to inform a permanent solution.
The group identified buffered bike lanes and
leading pedestrian intervals as near term or
“low hanging fruit” options to address the
needs of the community. They also identified
longer term projects like separated bike lanes
and mid-block flashers as potential options,
in addition to phased projects, or “capital
improvement” projects like a shared use path
(separated), and median refuge island.
The toolkit is categorized into bicycle, pedestrian,
beach path treatments, and signage. However,
many of these treatments benefit a variety of road
users. Some of these treatments are already used
in some areas of Huntington Beach and can be
expanded to more locations, while others have not
Toolkit of Improvements
Delaware Street Class IV Separated Bikeway
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 24 Resource
Light
Resource
Heavy
Beach Path
Signage
Pedestrian
Countdown
Buffered Bike
Lane
Protected
Bikeway
Lane
Reconfiguration
Before
After
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 25 The project team undertook a data-driven
analysis to identify potential locations to
implement Pedestrian Focus Corridors in
Huntington Beach. This analysis took into
consideration existing conditions, spatial
analyses, City recommendations, and previous
planning efforts. Diverse datasets were
leveraged to target streets where improving
pedestrian comfort, safety, and access would
be most impactful, implementation would be
feasible, and need was high due to elevated
pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic.
The project team loaded the datasets into
GIS software to analyze and visualize where
the need for Pedestrian Focus Corridors are
highest. The datasets included analyses of
stressful crossing locations, high Level of Traffic
Stress (LTS) segments (LTS 3 or LTS 4), land use
data, pedestrian crash data and high injury
networks from the City’s LRSP among others.
Corridors were grouped where factors showed
overlapping and concentrated data along a
corridor.
Detailed descriptions of the factors included
in this analysis can be found in the Pedestrian
Focus Corridors Identification and Network
Recommendations Memo in Appendix C.
Pedestrian Network
Recommendations
Examples of Types of Pedestrian Treatments that may be implemented:
Pedestrian Scramble / Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Source: Toole Design Group
Pedestrian Countdown
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 26 Figure 3. Map of Recommended Pedestrian Corridors in Huntington Beach.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 27 Table 1. Pedestrian Focus Corridors and the Factors that Determined their Inclusion Corridor Corridor Name From To Overlapping Factors
A Edinger Avenue Bolsa Chica
Street
Beach
Boulevard
High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,
Crashes, Destinations
A Goldenwest Street Bolsa
Avenue
Edinger
Avenue
High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,
LTS, Destinations
A Gothard Street Center
Avenue
Edinger
Avenue Destinations, Transit
B Atlanta Avenue/
Magnolia Street 1st Street
Pacific
Coast
Highway
Vulnerable Populations,
Destinations, LTS
B Newland Street/
Hamilton Avenue
Pacific
Coast
Highway
Magnolia
Street Destinations, LTS
C Beach Boulevard Edinger
Avenue
Garfield
Avenue
Transit, Pedestrian High Stress
Corridor, Crashes, Population
Density, LTS
D Goldenwest Street Warner
Avenue
Pacific
Coast
Highway
High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,
Vulnerable Populations,
Destinations, Crossing Distance
E
Warner Avenue/
Algonquin Street/ Heil
Avenue/ Saybrook
Lane
Pacific
Coast
Highway
Edinger
Avenue
LTS, Population Density, Crossing
Distance
F Brookhurst Street/
Indianapolis Avenue
Garfield
Avenue
Lake
Street
High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,
Transit, Destinations, Population
Density
G
Pacific Coast Highway/
17TH Street/ Main
Street
Huntington
Street
Yorktown
Avenue
LTS, Population Density,
Destinations, Transit
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 28 Figure 4. Map of Pedestrian Focus Corridors and Phasing HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 29 Table 2 below groups Pedestrian Focus Corridors by phasing grouping and displays the rough order of magnitude cost. Detailed descriptions of each recommended pedestrian treatment can be found in Appendix C.
Corridor Name Corridor
Grouping
Phasing Rough Order of Magnitude
Cost Estimates
Edinger Avenue A Phase 1 $4,360,000
Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia Street/
Hamilton Avenue B Phase 1 $3,990,000
Warner Avenue/ Algonquin Street/
Heil Avenue/ Saybrook Lane E Phase 1 $4,260,000
Pacific Coast Highway/ 17th Street/
Main Street G Phase 1 $1,340,000
Beach Boulevard C Phase 2 $600,000
Goldenwest Street D Phase 3 $380,000
Brookhurst Street/ Indianapolis
Avenue F Phase 3 $1,300,000
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 30 To develop recommended improvements for
Huntington Beach’s bike network, the project
team analyzed Huntington Beach’s existing
bicycle infrastructure, and considered best
practices from other cities as well as policies
and recommendations from previously
adopted Huntington Beach plans.
Detailed descriptions of the factors
included in this analysis can be found in the
Bicycle Network Recommendations and
Implementation Memo in Appendix D.
Recommendations
and Phasing Strategy
Currently, Huntington Beach’s bike network is
made up of 72% Class II Bike Lanes (73 miles
out of total 101.5 miles), shown in Table 3, with
a map of existing facilities in Figure 6. Bike
Lanes and Boulevards are currently located
The project team generated future focused and
all ages and abilities recommendations based
upon existing conditions and roadway analysis.
However, further analysis is recommended to
assess physical and political feasibility, potential
impacts to movement of freight and vehicular
traffic, and funding constraints. In instances
where recommended facilities are not feasible,
the next best facility should be sought,
following this hierarchy: Class IV - Protected
Bikeways; Class II - Buffered Bike Lanes; Class II
- Bike Lanes; Class III - Bike Boulevards.
on roadways where space is a constraint,
but vehicle traffic and speeds are not high
enough to invest in separation. Separated
Bike Lanes are predominantly found on high
stress roads, and currently Huntington Beach
has few buffered or separated facilities. The
recommended Class I Shared Use Paths are
found along existing City assets or OC Public
Works jurisdiction that could be transformed,
such as abandoned/disused railways and flood
control channels.
Bike Network Recommendations
Huntington Beach has an opportunity
to continue to build on recent progress
toward its Bike Master Plan.
In recent years, the City has implemented the
following projects and pilots:
• Utica Avenue Bike Boulevard
• Atlanta Avenue Buffered Bike Lane
• Delaware Street Class IV Bike Lane
• Saybrook Lane Buffered Bike Lane
• Sidewalk Beautifications
Utica Avenue Bike Boulevard
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 31 Bikeway Facility Types Examples
Recommended treatments are segmented into two implementation phases to progress existing facilities toward more comfortable and inclusive facilities or installing new facilities if none currently exist.
These recommendations are not prescriptive, but are intended to serve as ideal targets. In some cases, the installation and/or upgrade along the proposed corridors may not be feasible, but as priority and political will changes, these can be reconsidered for implementation. In all cases, the highest possible protective facility should be sought as projects are assessed. Phases are explained below, and Table 4 lists the miles of proposed bike corridors for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Table 3. Total Existing Bicycle Network Miles
Off-Street Shared
Use Path
Buffered Bike
Lane
Bicycle
Boulevard
Two-Way
Separated Bikeway
Class I: Class II: Class III: Class IV:
Facility Type Existing (Miles) Existing (Percentage)
Class I Shared Use Path 20 19%
Class II Bike Lane 73 72%
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 6 5%
Class III Shared Lane 2.5 2%
Class III Bicycle Boulevard - -
Class IV Separated Bike Lane 3 2%
TOTAL 101.5 Miles
Phase 1 Bike Network. Easily
implementable projects within
existing roadway sections that can be
considered for implementation in the
next one to five years. Recommends a
total of 26.8 miles of new or upgraded
facilities.
Phase 2 Bike Network. Expansions
and/or upgrades to the existing bike
network that may require more
planning or further analysis, can be
considered for implementation in the
next five to ten years. Recommends a
total of 36.2 miles of new bike facilities.
Off Street Shared Use
Paths. Additional 20.7
miles of independent
off-street multi use
paths recommended
outside of on-street
phasing mileage.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 32 Table 4. Total Miles and Rough Order of Magnitude Costs by Phase Totals for Phase 1
Proposed Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost
Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $ 210,625
Class III - Bike Boulevard 2.5 $ 705,462
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 23.6 $ 11,337,000
TOTAL 26.8 $ 12,253,087
Existing
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 2.3 N/A
Totals for Phase 2
Proposed Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost
Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.0 $ 0
Class III - Bike Boulevard 0.5 $ 172,625
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 35.7 $ 17,124,000
TOTAL 36.2 $ 17,296,625
Existing
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 0.7 N/A
Totals for Phase 1 and Phase 2
Proposed Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost
Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $ 210,625
Class III - Bike Boulevard 3.0 $ 878,087
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 59.3 $ 28,461,000
TOTAL 63.0 $ 29,549,712
Existing
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 3.0 N/A
Proposed Off-Street (Phasing Independent) Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class I – Off-Street Multi-Use Path 20.7 $ 40,423,500
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 33 Figure 5. Phase 1 and 2 Bike Network Recommendations HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 34 Figure 6. Existing and Phase 1 (one to five years) Bike Network Recommendations HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 35 Figure 7. Existing Phase 1 (one to five years) and Phase 2 (five to ten years) Bike Network Recommendations
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 36 The project team developed recommendations to improve the comfort and user experience of rolling and walking on the Beach Path by analyzing existing conditions. Particular focus was given to improving the experience of users of the beach path due to the high traffic of both pedestrians and cyclists as well as the amount of public feedback that was received regarding safety and operations on the path.
Detailed descriptions of the methodology for developing the beach path recommendations can be found in Appendix E: Beach Path Observations and Recommendation Memo.
Beach Path Recommendations
Segment 1:
From Seapoint Street to Goldenwest Street
Segment 2:
From Goldenwest Street (Upper Path) to 11th Street (Upper Path) Segment 4:
From 11th Street to 1st Street
Segment 3:
From Goldenwest Street (Lower Path) to 11th Street (Lower Path) Segment 5:
From 1st Street to Beach Boulevard
For ease of organizing challenges and opportunities, the Project Team separated the Beach Path into the below segments based on path characteristics:
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 37 Issues and Opportunities
The project team conducted a field visit of the Beach Path on August 19, 2022 and recorded observed issues and constraints. Key issues and opportunities identified from this observational period are listed here:
Sight Line Issues
Traffic Mixing
Inconsistent Signage
Constrained Space
Confusing Pavement Markings
Pedestrian and Vendor Activity Spillover
Lack of Centerline and Separation
Blind spots created by garbage cans, building
protrusion, vendors/amenities spill onto path.
Potential crash conflicts may arise from areas in the
path where there is no demarcation to keep pedestrian
and bicycle traffic separate; width is not sufficient.
Posted signs on the path communicate inconsistent
information, causing confusion among Beach Path
users.
Path reaches capacity during peak season, limiting
available space for users and increasing conflict risks.
Particularly in mixing zones, pavement markings
poorly communicate whether pedestrians or bicyclists
are allowed in that segment of the path.
In popular areas where people congregate, pedestrians
and vendors tend to encroach onto the path, creating a
potential crash risk.
Lack of centerline or delineation makes it unclear to
bicyclists where to remain to prevent head on crashes
with other bicyclists.
Segment 4
Segment 4
Segment 1
Segment 3
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 3
Example
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 38 Recommendations
The project team made recommendations built upon previous and proposed Beach Path improvements, ensuring a future-focused Beach Path that is suitable and welcoming to users of all ages and abilities. A seamless user experience, with minimal conflicts arising between bicyclists and pedestrians, will lay the foundation for a positive social experience and a culture that embraces active transportation and suitable Beach Path travel speeds.
Below is a list of the common treatment recommendations:
Centerline
Pedestrian Crossings
Intersection Improvements in Mixing Zones
Establish Uniform Speed Limit
Striping a centerline or striping that separates modes, will help users understand where to travel along the path.
Clear and visible pedestrian crossings, such as artistic crosswalks, will alert bicyclists to reduce their speed as they approach a crossing.
Improvements at mixing zones, such as signalization or
traffic calming treatments, will reduce conflict risk in areas where pedestrians and bicyclists share the Beach path.
A singular display of speed limit expectations will help all users travel at the desired speed.
Segment 3
Segment 1
Segment 3
Segment 4
Example
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 39 Segment 1Segment 2
Specific Treatment Recommendations
The project team outlined specific issues and opportunities as well as proposed recommendations to address these challenges for each segment.
More detail can be found in Appendix E: Beach Path Observations and Recommendation Memo.
Seapoint Street to Goldenwest Street
Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Upper Path)
Recommendations:
• Remove old speed limit signs; establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display
• Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental or diagonal crosswalks • Install signage to clarify preferential ped / bicycle travel along upper and lower paths
Recommendations:
• Install rumble strips near highly trafficked areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks • Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display • Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds
• Clarify preferential bicycle access signage / markings Opportunities identified:
• Pedestrian and bicycle path
separation segment wide
• Radar speed feedback
Opportunities identified:
• Pedestrian and bicycle path
separation segment wide
• Radar speed feedback
Issues identified:
• Inconsistent use of signage
• Confusing pavement markings
Issues identified:
• Confusing pavement markings
• Inconsistent use of signage
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 40 Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Lower Path)
Recommendations - Point Improvements:
• Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display • Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds
• Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
• Install speed feedback sign (numerical or icon)
Recommendations - Corridor Improvements:
• Install centerline striping
• Widen path and include user separation; install centerline striping • Install sand walls
• Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Opportunities identified:
• Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review)
Issues identified:
• Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths
• High volumes of traffic and constrained path width leading to/from dog beach • Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path
• Path does not have separation between users; no centerline • No sand walls to keep path clear
• Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path • High e-bike/bike speeds along path/segment
Segment 3
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 41 11th Street to 1st Street - Between 10th Street
and 6th Street
Recommendations - Point Improvements:
• Establish Slow Zones between 6th Street and the pier and between 1st Street and the pier; replace old flashing beacons
• Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
• Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Recommendations - Corridor Improvements:
• Install centerline striping; widen path horizontally and include user separation • Install sand walls
• Upgrade bike racks to be more secure
• Consider placemaking elements entering slow zone and within the slow zone Opportunities identified:
• Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review)
Issues identified:
• Narrow path width between Main Street and 1st Street
• Ramp is a blind spot for users going northbound
• Lack of secure bike storage along path and under pier • Constrained path width along segment
• No sand walls (10th Street to 7th Street)
• Outdated flashing beacons near 6th Street and 1st Street • Pedestrian / bicycle mixing zone does not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts
• Inconsistent speed limit signage
• Pedestrian and vendor activity encroaches onto path
• Path does not have separation between users; no centerline Segment 4
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 42 1st Street to Beach Boulevard
Recommendations - Point Improvements:
• Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks • Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight
• Move showers farther from path to prevent queuing on path Recommendations - Corridor Improvements:
• Install centerline striping; widen path and include user separation • Upgrade bike racks to be more secure
• Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Opportunities identified:
• Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review)
• Radar speed feedback
• Sand walls prevent sand build up on path
Issues identified:
• Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling across path from those traveling along the path • Constrained path width adjacent to the grade separated parking lot wall • Inconsistent speed limit signage
• Pedestrian and vendor activity encroach onto path
• Path does not have separation between users; no centerline • At grade parking lots have no clear access points - steady stream of pedestrians along path
• Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts
• Lack of secure bike storage along path
Segment 5
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 43 Segment Total Corridor Miles Estimated Total Cost
Segment 2 – Goldenwest Street to 11th Street
(Upper Path) 0.78 $101,000
Segment 3 – Goldenwest Street to 11th Street
(Lower Path) 0.78 $2,660,000
Segment 4 – 11th Street to 1st Street 0.64 $1,129,000
Segment 5 – 1st Street to Beach Boulevard 0.85 $939,000 Total Cost $4,983,000
Table 5. Cost Estimates for the Project Team’s Recommended Improvements.
Huntington Beach Multi-Use Beach Path
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 44 Huntington Beach, like many cities across the country, has seen a large increase in e-bike riders in recent years. Fueled by new features and technologies that range from remote locking, app-enabled settings, and electric-assisted pedaling that flatten hills and shorten trip lengths, the e-bike is being touted as the future of urban mobility.
E-bikes represent an emerging sustainable mode of transportation in coastal cities across California. While e-bikes can bring real benefits to Huntington Beach, such as reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reduced car ownership, and increased accessibility for older adults, among other benefits, e-bike riders have been involved in crashes with other road and beach path users that have resulted in injuries. Some key issues that have been raised with e-bikes in Huntington Beach are:
E-bike Policy and Education
Riders lack education of the rules of the road and how to safely operate an e-bike in a city
Inconsistent data to monitor the effects of e-bikes and for policymakers to make judgments on the safety impacts of these technologies
Shortage of infrastructure to accommodate the growing
need of residents as they shift from using cars as their primary mode of transportation to shared mobility options (e-scooters, e-bikes, bikes, etc.)
Unclear signage of where certain modes of transportation are prohibited and what speed limits are in areas
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 45 Huntington Beach Bike Rodeo (September 2022)
Source: Los Angeles Times
The Huntington Beach Police Department has taken steps to address or mitigate some of these concerns, including:
• Providing e-bike education classes at local schools within Ocean View School District, Huntington Beach Union School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. This safety initiative aims to enhance road safety and awareness and ensure safe commutes for middle and highschool students who use bicycles or e-bicycles to travel to school.
• Hosting a “Bike Rodeo” each month to promote safe riding habits and reduce potential hazards on the road. The rodeo also offers free helmets and safety gear. • Hosting a regional E-bike Summit to foster collaborative exchange of knowledge and resources among leaders from government, educational institutions, and the private sector, with a shared objective of enhancing safety of cyclists and other road users. • Publishing “#TrafficTipTuesday” posts on social media to inform the public of bicycle laws and regulations.
• Offering a bicycle safety class to the general public and to bike law violators in lieu of a fine or other consequence. The class is offered the 2nd Saturday of every month. The class covers:
• Basic bike maintenance and safety checks
• Rules of the road for bicyclists
• Proper hand signals and bike
signaling techniques
• Navigating traffic and
intersections with confidence
• Avoid common hazards and
accidents
• Staying alert and safe around
pedestrians
• Hosting e-bike safety clinics with
private sector partners, like Rad
Power Bikes, to elevate awareness
about e-bike safety.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 46 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 47 Connectivity is a key measure to support route directness for walking, whether it’s for commuting, everyday needs, recreation, or intermodal transportation connections. A highly connected and permeable transportation network that promotes walkability and pedestrian activity is one with a high number of intersections and/or short distances between street crossing opportunities and few dead-end street or culdesacs. The following section details the methodology, assumptions, and results of a pedestrian crossing stress analysis performed for all the streets within Huntington Beach. Leveraging this existing understanding of the pedestrian experience in the city will help identify neighborhoods or areas that would benefit from mobility that promotes or enhances walk-based trips.
Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis
Approach
The presence and quality of crosswalks1 are important components of connectivity. The potential stress a typical pedestrian may experience while crossing streets in Huntington Beach was modeled based on roadway and crossing characteristics using data provided by Huntington Beach. In the process of this work, some data gaps were manually closed using aerial imagery or by assumptions (see Analysis Assumptions, below, for more information). The pedestrian crossing stress methodology used for this analysis follows a modified version of the Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) analysis described in the Oregon DOT Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2, considered an industry best practice. The analysis considers conditions for each input to estimate the level of stress a pedestrian may experience while crossing the street at every crosswalk (marked and unmarked) throughout Huntington Beach. The analysis uses the following inputs:
• Traffic volume
• Number of vehicle lanes, as a proxy for crossing distance • Functional classification
• Posted speed limit
• Traffic control device
• Traffic signal information provided by Huntington Beach • All-way stops manually collected
• Partial-stop signs (i.e., 2-way stops) were modeled at unsignalized locations using functional classification for intersecting streets
• Mid-block crossing locations (manually collected)
• Pedestrian Crossing Island (manually screened network for presence) 1 Crosswalks are either a portion of the road painted with the distinctive white lines that people are familiar seeing, or where two roads meet at approximately right angles, the extensions of the sidewalks through the intersection except when crossing is prevented by a median barrier or otherwise prohibited by signage. Source: CVC 275
Pedestrian
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 48 Scoring criteria are shown in Table 1 through Table 5 and are used to score each crossing, based on the street type of the street being crossed.
Table 1. Criteria for Local / Collector Unsignalized Crossings Table 2. Criteria for Arterial Unsignalized Crossings (with No Median Refuge) Table 3. Criteria for Arterial Unsignalized Crossings (with Median Refuge) HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 49 Analysis Assumptions
Due to gaps in the available datasets some assumptions were made. Assumptions used in this analysis are outlined in Table 6. Complete citywide datasets for pedestrian crossing islands, partial stop- controlled intersections (e.g., two-way stop), number of vehicle travel lanes, observed vehicle speed, and traffic volumes were not available to our team at the time of the analysis. Most major roadways have observed vehicle speed and traffic volumes, but local streets and some collectors are missing data.
Variable Assumption
Traffic
Volumes
Local roads with missing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), assumed volume is 500. Non-local roads with missing AADT received the average AADT from segments with the same street name and/or same functional classification ordered by proximity where volume data is available.
Posted Speed
Limit
Where speed data along local roads are missing, assumed speed is 25 mph.
Non-local roads with missing observed speed receive averaged speed from segments with the same street name or same functional classification ordered by proximity where speed data is available.
Table 6. Analysis Assumptions
Table 4. Criteria for Crossings with All-way Stops, and RRFBs Table 5. Criteria for Signalized Crossings
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 50 Data Development
Intersections
An intersection dataset was developed by creating a point where three or more street centerline segments intersect. Mid-block crosswalks were manually identified and added to this intersection dataset. The number of legs (approaching streets) at the intersection point was calculated by summing the number of street centerlines at the intersection. Intersection points with fewer than 3 legs were removed from the intersection dataset with the exception of mid-block crosswalk2 locations. For the purpose of this analysis, only collector and arterials roadways were included.
Those roadway types generally have the roadway and operational characteristics that contribute to high-stress whereas local/residential roadways generally have slower moving traffic, lower traffic volumes, and shorter crossing distances resulting in low-stress crossing assignments.
Crosswalks
To create the crosswalks (both marked and unmarked) dataset, a point was placed along the street centerlines 50 feet from the intersection point. The buffer around each intersection was adjusted for cartographic and data precision needs. Using an intersection geoprocessing method, a crosswalk data point was created at every instance where the boundary of a buffer intersected a street centerline, shown in the image on page 48. Mid-block crossing locations were added to create a complete crosswalk dataset.
2 Mid-block crosswalk is a term commonly used to refer to crosswalks not located at an intersection but indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the roadway surface often accompanied by signage.
Controlled
Crossing or
Crossing with
RRFB or PHB
Legs that are controlled by a traffic signal, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), or stop sign are considered a “controlled crossing” for the purpose of this analysis.
Crossings at partial-stop (i.e., 2-way, 1-way) controlled intersections are only considered controlled on the non-main crossing (i.e., crossing along the lowest functional classification). Mid-block crossings with RRFB or PHB are considered controlled crossings.
Number of
lanes
Non-local roads were part of a high-level data collection effort. Where the number of lanes is missing or not collected, assumed number of lanes is 2.
Pedestrian
Crossing
Islands
A manual screen of the roadway network found there are no pedestrian crossing islands. There are only a few median islands in the city’s roadway network such as found at the Main/Utica/17th Street and Main/Adams intersections. In addition, there are some “pork chop” islands that channelize right turn movements and provide a pedestrian refuge between the right turn lane and through lanes. Examples of the “pork chop” islands include those located at the intersections of Main/Garfield, Main/Delaware, Main/ Florida, PCH/Warner and Springfield/McFadden.
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 51 This method allows for intersection, street centerlines, and crosswalk attributes to be joined efficiently between the three datasets using a common unique identification number.
Scoring Crosswalk Gaps
Using the crosswalks developed in above steps, each location was fed through the scoring schema outlined in Table 6 through Table 10 for crosswalks only at intersections along collector and arterial roadways.3 This included the crosswalk locations on collector/arterial legs and crosswalks on the residential/local legs. The output of this analysis assigned every crosswalk a PLTS score throughout the city for both marked and unmarked crosswalks. The distance between crosswalks along the same street were measured to flag locations that have long distances between high-stress crossings and the nearest low-stress crossing.
Study limitations
Citywide datasets for the following variables were not available at the time of the analysis:
• Pedestrian crossing islands – the project team scanned the transportation network and did not find any pedestrian crossing islands
• Observed speed – absent for local roadways
• Traffic volumes – absent for local roadways
3 Crosswalks at residential/local intersections were excluded from this analysis as the vast majority of those crosswalks generally score as PLTS 1. Data availability and completeness related to observed vehi- cle speeds and traffic volumes can provide a nuanced look at PLTS at residential crosswalks if that data is available. If available, the data can be used to determine if there are specific residential/local crosswalks that have higher vehicle volumes or observed vehicle speeds that would result in an PLTS 3-4.
Example image of
crossing dataset
generation
Source: Toole Design
Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 52 A connected bicycle network that supports various levels of riders is made up of low-stress op- tions, short travel distances, and direct routes. These features improve convenience and encour- age mode shift. Huntington Beach may be able to see an increase in bicycle mode share by prior- itizing improvements to their bicycle network that focus on these features. The following section details two analyses performed to evaluate Huntington Beach’s existing bicycle conditions and level of connectivity. This includes the approach, methodology, results, and implications of:
• Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
• Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA)
Bicycle Level of Traffic
Stress Approach
LTS analysis identifies the stress of street networks for people bicycling based on the built environ- ment, traffic speed, and traffic volume characteristics. LTS is one of the key inputs to the Bicycle Network Analysis. The methodology used by the planning team is adapted from criteria published by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI).4The LTS analysis scores streets on a scale from 1 to 4, with LTS 1 and 2 indicating low-stress and LTS 3 and 4 indicating high-stress.
The stress that individuals feel when bicycling is inherently subjective. Some people are more comfortable riding with more and/or faster-moving motor vehicle traffic and with less separation.
However, as shown in the image on page 50, people generally identify with four main groups based on differing levels of bicycling comfort:
• Not Interested or Able
• Interested but Concerned
• Somewhat Confident
• Highly Confident
While a small portion of Huntington Beach’s population may be comfortable bicycling in heavy and fast- moving traffic, members of the Interested but Concerned group make up the vast majority of those who can or want to bicycle. This group requires separated facilities, low traffic speeds and volumes, or a combination of both to consider bicycling. Therefore, measuring the LTS of the existing transportation network can help determine the quality of the bike network from the perspective of most residents.
4 Furth (2017). Level of Traffic Stress. Available at: www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-lev- el-of- traffic-stress
Bicycle
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 53 Methodology
The analysis yielded LTS scores for Huntington Beach’s entire street network and off-street path system. The LTS analysis determines comfort level based on facility type. Class III Bike Routes, which do consist of dedicated bicycle infrastructure, were not considered in the LTS analysis because the presence of signs does not influence traffic stress. While Class III Bike Routes help direct bicyclists to key destinations and raise awareness of their presence on the road to drivers, these routes are scored using the “mixed traffic” criteria as there is no physical separation between moving traffic and bicyclists. Class I Paths are included and considered “low-stress”.
For streets, the following inputs determine LTS outputs:
• Bicycle facility presence and type
• Speed limit
• Number of travel lanes per direction
• Average daily traffic (ADT) volume
• Presence and width of on-street parking lanes
• Presence of a centerline
Generally, streets with speeds above 25 miles per hour and with traffic volumes above 1,500 to 3,000 vehicles per day are considered “high-stress” if they do not have some form of a dedicated bikeway (e.g., Class II Bike Lanes or Class IV Protected Bike Lanes). Furthermore, on streets with two or more lanes per direction (or on streets with only one lane per direction when speeds exceed 30 miles per hour), streets are usually only considered “low-stress” if they have Class IV Protected Bike Lanes (currently many of them are Class II Bike Lanes).
See Table 7 through Table 9 for how the LTS methodology is applied.
Types of Bicyclists and Traffic Stress Tolerance
Source: Toole Design Group
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 54 Table 7. Mixed traffic criteria
Table 8. Bike lanes and shoulders not adjacent to a parking lane Table 9. Bike lanes alongside a parking lane
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 55 HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MIP)
TOOLBOX : BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN , AND BEACH PATH
This section provides information on a series of treatments that improve bicycle, pedestrian, and beach path conditions. The treatments featured here are not an extensive list of every available option to improve bicycle pedestrian experiences, but rather a tailored list of common tools that have a demonstrated history of improving safety and access. The City of Huntington Beach can consider both rapid implementation and permanent projects in their Toolkit. Rapid implementation projects can include lower cost solutions and may be installed temporarily before a permanent or more costly solution is provided. Rapid implementation projects should include data collection on the effectiveness of the treatment to inform improvements as part of a permanent solution.
Crash Modification Factor (CMF): “A CMF estimates a safety countermeasure’s ability to reduce crashes and crash severity. Transportation professionals frequently use CMF values to identify countermeasures with the greatest safety benefit for a particular crash type or location.” For more information, see:
http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
Proven Safety Countermeasures: Specific countermeasures are highlighted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for their safety effectiveness and benefits. For more information, see:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Bicycle Treatments
Class I – Shared-Use Path
Class II – Bike Lane / Buffered Bike Lane
Class III – Shared Lane
Class III – Bike Boulevard
Class IV – Protected Bikeway
Bicycle Signal
Bicycle Detection and Actuation
Bike Box
Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Box
Green Pavement
Bicycle intersection crossing markings
Pedestrian Treatments
Sidewalk
High Visibility Crosswalk (Continental
Crosswalk, Ladder Crosswalk, Artistic
Crosswalk)
Unidirectional Curb Ramp – Detectable
Warning Surface
Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS)
Pedestrian Countdown
Pedestrian Recall
Pedestrian Scramble / Exclusive Pedestrian
Phase
Bicycle and Pedestrian Treatments
Tree Canopy and Shade
Street Furniture
Street Lighting
Pedestrian-Activated Flashing
Beacons/Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) / High-
Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) / Leading
Bicycle Interval
Protected Left Turn
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Curb Extension
Curb Radius Reduction
New Traffic Signal
Lane Reconfiguration
Protected Intersection
Right Turn on Red Restriction
Safety Zone (School and Senior)
Slip Lane Closure
Beach Path Traffic Calming Treatments
Rumble Strips
Speed Humps
Signs
Separation of Users
BICYCLE TREATMENTS
CLASS I – SHARED -USE PATH
Class I bikeways (also known as bike paths or shared-use paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway and with minimized cross flows by vehicle traffic. These facilities support both recreational and commuting opportunities, especially along rivers, shorelines, canals, utility rights-of-way, railroad rights-of-way, within school campuses, or within and between parks.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
4 CLASS II – BIKE LANE / BUFFERED BIKE LANE
Also known as bike lanes, Class II Bicycle Facilities are established along streets, defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities, typically striped adjacent to vehicle traffic traveling in the same direction. Buffered bike lanes provide greater separation from an adjacent traffic lane or on-street parking by using painted chevrons or diagonal markings. Buffered bike lanes may be desirable on streets with higher vehicle speeds or volumes.
CMF / CRF: Bike Lanes are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 30% to 49% crash reduction [1].
CLASS III – B
IKE BOULEVARD
5 Class III Bicycle Facilities, also known as bike boulevards, bike routes or shared lanes, are designated streets for bicycle travel shared with vehicles but not served by dedicated bikeways. Bike routes are established by placing signage and/or shared lane markings (i.e., “sharrows”) along roadways and are therefore generally not appropriate for roadways with high vehicle speeds or volumes. In some cases, additional treatments such as traffic circles, curb extensions, chicanes, diverters, speed humps or cushions can be added to further support speed and volume reductions. A Bicycle Boulevard or a Neighborhood Greenway is a type of bike route where bicycle travel is prioritized. These facilities are typically placed on residential streets where biking or walking is the primary mode of transportation. Traffic speed and non-local vehicle access is reduced for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians.
CMF / CRF: Installing a Class III bicycle facility can result in a 63% crash reduction [2].
CLASS IV – P ROTECTED BIKEWAY
Class IV Bicycle Facilities (also known as separated bikeways, protected bikeways, or cycle tracks) are for the exclusive use of bicycles and are physically separated from vehicle traffic, parking lanes, and sidewalks with a vertical and/or horizontal feature. These features include flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, planters, parked vehicles, and curbs. Separated bikeways may be one-way or two-way and may be at street level or sidewalk level. The separation width can vary for these facilities according to roadway geometry. Near transit stops, separated facilities can be incorporated with the use of transit boarding islands.
CMF / CRF: Bike Lanes are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 30% to 49% crash reduction [1].
6 BICYCLE SIGNAL
A bicycle signal is a traffic signal with a green, yellow, and red display intended to control bicycle movements. The display may include arrows or a bicycle symbol shape. Bicycle signals are necessary to indicate a leading or protected phase for bicycle movements. This may sometimes require an additional phase be added to the traffic signal cycle. Initial studies of bicycle signals indicate that their presence may increase signal compliance and improve safety. In 2013, the treatment has been given interim approval to use by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if used for protected bicycle phases but is not included in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This was adopted by California in 2015. FHWA requires an agency to request permission to experiment if using a bicycle signal to apply a leading phase.
Bicycle signals can be activated actively or passively. Active detection requires bicyclists to use a push button.
Push buttons should be placed in such a way that bicyclists do not have to leave the roadway to activate the signal.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
BICYCLE DETECTION AND ACTUATION
7 Properly designed detection can deter unsafe behaviors, such as disregarding red signal indications, by reducing delay at signalized intersections. Bicycle signal detection also increases the convenience of bicycling. Passive detection (i.e., when the signal system automatically detects the presence of the user), is considered best practice where feasible. Loop detectors, commonly used for motor vehicle detection, can also be used to detect bicyclists.
Other passive detection devices include video and microwave detection. Bicycle detection devices can be used to call a phase or to prolong the phase to allow a bicyclist to clear an intersection. This is particularly important at locations where the minimum green has been established to serve motorists and may not be long enough to serve bicyclists, especially older bicyclists, children, or those towing bicycle trailers. Pavement markings and/or signs should be used to notify bicyclists of the proper bicycle detection location. Combining passive bicycle detection with detection confirmation lights or active detection (push buttons) may improve compliance by assuring bicyclists that they have been detected.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
BIKE BOX
Bike boxes provide space for bicyclists to position themselves in front of vehicles while stopped at a signalized intersection. This treatment provides a predictable place for bicyclists to stop and wait at a signal, allowing them to get out ahead of traffic at the onset of a green signal. Bike boxes are intended to reduce the likelihood of a right- or left-hook collision at the on-set of a green signal. In addition to increasing the visibility and predictability of bicyclists, bike boxes provide priority for bicyclists by allowing them to come to the front of the queue. A “No Right Turn on Red” sign can be installed to prevent vehicles from entering the bike box. Bike boxes can also be helpful for bicyclists making left turns who are uncomfortable or unable to merge to a left turn lane. This treatment has been given interim approval to use by FHWA but is not included in the 2009 MUTCD.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
8 TWO- STAGE BICYCLE TURN QUEUE BOX
A two‐stage turn queue box (also known as a Copenhagen‐Left or jug‐handle turn) designates an area outside of vehicle conflicts for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before proceeding in a different direction of travel. It may be used for left or right turns. They may be useful at locations where bicyclists would have to merge across multiple lanes of traffic, would have to wait in a shared travel lane with motorists to turn, or at locations with separated bike lanes or side paths where it is not possible for bicyclists to merge into motor vehicle lanes in advance of the intersection. This can be advantageous on roadways with higher volumes of vehicular traffic or high operating speeds to reduce conflicts between motorists and turning bicyclists. Bicycle symbol and turn arrow pavement markings indicating the appropriate direction for bicyclists to turn and wait within the box are recommended, as well as the prohibition of right turns on red if turning vehicles would travel through the area of the two-stage bicycle turn box.
An agency needs to request permission from FHWA to experiment to use this treatment. The California Department of Transportation has received interim approval (IA).
Caltrans and the California Traffic Control Device Committee (CTCDC) have agreed to review each IA issued by FHWA at their earliest convenience for its application in California. If the IA is recommended for use in California, then Caltrans will request FHWA’s approval for its use on a blanket basis statewide, eliminating the need for individual agencies to seek FHWA approval. If the IA is not recommended for use in California, then Caltrans will publicize the status of the particular IA on this web site.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
9 GREEN PAVEMENT
Green pavement within a bicycle facility increases its visibility to all roadway users and reinforces the priority to bicyclists in conflict areas and in areas where motorists may park in the bike facility. The green pavement can be used either as a corridor treatment along the length of the facility, or as a spot treatment, such as a bike box, conflict area, or intersection conflict marking. Consistent application of green paint across a bike network is important to promote clear understanding for all users. The green color may be applied with paint, Durable Liquid Pavement Markings (DLPM), thermoplastic, or colored asphalt CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
BICYCLE INTERSECTION CROSSING MARKINGS
Bicycle lane intersection crossing markings are intended to provide bicyclists with a clear, highly visible pathway through an intersection. They also help to alert motorists to the presence of bicycle through-traffic and encourage turning motorists to yield to through moving bicyclists. The pavement within the bicycle lane extension can include green color.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
10 PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS
SIDEWALK
Sidewalks provide space along a street for pedestrian travel and are the backbone of a city’s pedestrian network.
For sidewalks to function, they must be kept clear of any obstacles and be wide enough to comfortably accommodate expected pedestrian volumes and different types of pedestrians, including those using mobility assistance devices like wheelchairs, pushing strollers, or pulling carts.
CMF / CRF: Sidewalks are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 65% to 89% crash reduction [1].
HI GH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK, LADDER CROSSWALK,
ARTISTIC CROSSWALK)
11 High-visibility crosswalk markings, such as continental or ladder-style, are preferred over parallel line markings to improve visibility to approaching motorists. High-visibility crosswalk markings reinforce legal crosswalks at intersections and create legal crossings at non-intersection locations. These crosswalk markings warn motorists to expect pedestrian crossings and clarify that motorists are expected to yield right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. At uncontrolled locations, high-visibility crosswalk markings identify a preferred crossing location for pedestrians.
CMF / CRF: High Visibility Crosswalks are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 40% crash reduction [1].
UNIDIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP - DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE
The transition for pedestrians from the sidewalk to the street is provided by a curb ramp. The design of curb ramps is critical for all pedestrians, particularly for persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards require all pedestrian crossings be accessible by providing curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces at all locations where pedestrians can be expected to cross the street. In addition to people with disabilities, curb ramps also benefit people pushing strollers, grocery carts, suitcases, or bicycles. At intersections, directional curb ramps should be installed to orient pedestrians toward the desired line of travel.
Detectable warning surfaces are a hazard warning for pedestrians with low or no vision. Comprised of truncated domes and produced in colors that contrast the sidewalk or curb ramp in which they are placed, detectable warning surfaces function like a pedestrian stop line, alerting persons with vision disabilities to the presence of the street or other vehicular travel way.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
12 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and accessible detectors are devices that communicate information in non- visual formats about the pedestrian crossing to people with visual and/or hearing disabilities. They may include features such as audible tones, speech messages, detectable arrow indications, and/or vibrating surfaces.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN
Pedestrian signals and countdown signals provide guidance to pedestrians regarding the permitted signal interval to cross a street and prohibit pedestrian crossings when conflicting traffic may impact pedestrian safety. Ideally, every signalized intersection should have a pedestrian signal head. Countdown signals are indications designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the clearance interval (flashing “DON’T WALK”) and can be set to fixed-time, push button operation, or passive pedestrian detection. They indicate to the pedestrian how much time is left in the crossing phase. The California MUTCD requires countdown pedestrian indications for all newly installed traffic signals where pedestrian signals are installed.
13 CMF / CRF: Installing a pedestrian countdown signal can result in an 8.8% crash reduction [3].
PEDESTRIAN RECALL
Pedestrian recall is when a signal is set to automatically allow pedestrians to cross the street without the need to push a button during a green interval. It causes the WALK signal to activate on every cycle of the intersection traffic signal. In areas and locations where pedestrian demand is high, pedestrian recall should be considered to minimize crossing delays and provide convenience and comfort for pedestrians.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE / EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE
An exclusive pedestrian phase stops all motor vehicles at the intersection to allow people to cross the street at every crosswalk. It minimizes exposure of people walking and rolling, minimizes delay for people waiting to cross the street, and provides accessibility benefits to people with disabilities.
Like the exclusive pedestrian phase, a pedestrian scramble, or “Barnes Dance”, stops all vehicle movements at the intersection to give priority to pedestrians looking to cross the street. Scrambles also provide diagonal crosswalks in the middle of the intersection to allow for more direct crossing movements, eliminating the need to cross two crosswalks to get to an opposite corner.
CMF / CRF: Installing an exclusive pedestrian phase can result in a 35% crash reduction [4].
14 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS
TREE CANOPY AND SHADING
Street trees provide shade and visual softness to make walking and the use of sidewalks feel more pleasant.
Trees can help reduce peak temperatures during summer months and mitigate air pollution. Tree placement will vary based on type of tree species and amount of space in the right-of-way but should be typically used along sidewalks and trails and in public plazas and parks.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
STREET FURNITURE
15 Street furniture includes an array of elements, including benches, trash and recycling receptacles, bollards, transit stops and shelters, decorative planters and more. Seating is an essential component to each street and includes temporary and permanent fixtures such as chairs, benches, seat walls, steps, public art, and raised planters. The location and type of seating element should respond to adjacent land uses, available shade from either structures or street trees, the presence of parallel parking buffering the seating area from traffic and the width of the amenity zone.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
STREET LIGHTING
Illumination at crosswalks and along the roadway can help increase visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly at approaches to crossings. Studies show that increasing or adding lighting to crosswalks, road segments, and intersections improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety by reducing crashes, increasing yielding and compliance with traffic control devices, and improving visibility.
Pedestrian-scale lighting is lighting directed toward the sidewalk and positioned lower than roadway lighting. It is a crucial element in providing a safe multimodal environment and ensures that a pedestrian environment is used frequently and safely, resulting in a safer and healthier community.
Pedestrian-scale lighting should be installed along streets with existing or anticipated high volumes of pedestrian activity and at intersections and crossings.
CMF / CRF: Lighting is a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 28% to 42% crash reduction [1].
16 PEDESTRIAN -ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS / RECTANGULAR RAPID- FLASHING BEACON
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are pedestrian actuated beacons that use a rapid, irregular flash frequency. They increase driver yielding, increase pedestrian visibility, and slow down vehicle speeds. RRFBs should be installed on roadways with low to medium vehicle volumes and/or roadways with posted speeds under 40mph.
CMF / CRF: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 47% crash reduction [1].
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON / HIGH -INTENSITY ACTIVATED CROSSWALK
17 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also called high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWKs), help pedestrians safely cross busy or higher-speed streets at midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections. The beacon head consists of two red lights above a single yellow light. Once a pedestrian pushes the button to cross, the signal then initiates a yellow to red lighting sequence directing motorists to slow and come to a stop. The pedestrian signal then flashes a WALK display for the pedestrian to cross.
CMF / CRF: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 15% to 55% crash reduction [1].
LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL / LEADING BICYCLE INTERVAL
Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) and Leading Bicycle Intervals (LBIs) give pedestrians and bicyclists a three to seven second head start to establish themselves in the intersection before motorists are given the green light.
This allows pedestrians and bicyclists to enter the intersection prior to turning motorists, increasing visibility between all modes. LPIs especially benefit slower pedestrians, including people with disabilities, seniors, and children.
If an LBI is to be used with a bicycle signal, the agency should request permission to experiment from FHWA.
CMF / CRF: Leading Pedestrian Intervals are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 13% crash reduction [1].
18 PROTECTED LEFT TURN
A protected left turn provides a red arrow for left turning motorists while allows both on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians to cross to eliminate conflicts. It allows pedestrians to cross the intersection at the beginning of a signal cycle, reducing conflicts between pedestrians and motorists, CMF / CRF: Protected Left Turn is a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 28% to 48% crash reduction [1].
PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND
19 Pedestrian refuge islands are raised medians placed in the middle of a street that provide a protected space for people trying to walk across the street. Pedestrian refuge islands improve safety by reducing conflicts with motorists. They are particularly valuable when used at unsignalized crossings along multi-lane streets because they make it easier for pedestrians to find gaps in traffic and allow pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time.
CMF / CRF: Pedestrian Refuge Islands are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 46% crash reduction [1].
CURB EXTENSION
Curb extensions, also known as bulb-outs, reduce the width of the street by extending the sidewalk at corners or mid-block. They help improve visibility, calm traffic, and provide extra space on sidewalks for walking and gathering. In addition to shortening crossing distances, curb extensions create more compact intersections, resulting in smaller corner radii and slower turns by people driving.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
CURB RADIUS REDUCTION
20 Curb radius reductions are a strategy to reduce turning speeds for vehicles by forcing sharper turns; they also create larger waiting areas for crossing pedestrians. All curb radius geometries should be designed to prevent turning vehicles from tracking over the curb which could injure people waiting on the corner. The effective radius is influenced by the presence of on-street parking and bike lanes. A curb radius of 5 to 10 feet on streets with parking can generally result in an effective curb radius of 15 to 20 feet, which can accommodate passenger cars and small trucks. A truck apron can be used to provide a curb radius reduction targeted to slow smaller vehicles while accommodating the needs of larger vehicles.
CMF / CRF: Reducing curb radius can result in an 18% to 59% reduction in pedestrian crashes [5].
NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Traffic signals create gaps in the traffic flow to allow pedestrians and other users to cross the street at locations where users would otherwise experience long delays or have difficulties crossing the street safely. Warrants in the MUTCD govern the installation of traffic signals, which are based on the number of pedestrians and vehicles crossing the intersection, among other factors. However, judgment must also be used on a case-by-case basis.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
21 LANE RECONFIGURATION
The number of lanes on a roadway determines how far pedestrians or bicyclists must cross at an intersection and how many conflict points might exist between turning traffic and bicyclists or pedestrians. Efforts have been made to reduce the number and width of lanes through ‘road diets’ that not only reduce the number of lanes but provide space to implement additional pedestrian and bicyclist safety treatments such as adding bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and reducing travel speed. Road reductions are often completed to improve access management, increase bicycle and pedestrian access, and to enhance roadway safety. The most common road reduction configuration involves converting a four-lane roadway into three lanes, with one travel lane in each direction, a center two-way left-turn lane, and bike lanes in each direction, often supplemented with painted or raised center islands.
CMF / CRF: Road Reductions (Road Reconfigurations) are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 19-47% crash reduction [1].
22 PROTECTED INTERSECTION
P
rotected intersections are a type of intersection design that improves safety by reducing the speed of turning traffic, improving sight lines, and designating space for all road users.
Protected intersections reduce conflict points between drivers, sidewalk users, and bicyclists by separating all modes. The separation is achieved through corner islands that reduce vehicle turning speeds and provide an area for vehicles to wait while yielding to bicyclists and pedestrians in the crosswalk. Protected intersections eliminate the merging and weaving movements from vehicles typically found in conventional bike lanes and shared streets.
By clearly defining pedestrian and bicyclist spaces and mitigating conflicts between vehicles and vulnerable users, protected intersections provide a safer environment for all modes.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
RIGHT -T URN- ON -RED RESTRICTION
23 Right-turn-on-red restrictions prevent motorists from turning right (or left on intersecting one-way streets) while the traffic signal is red. Restricting this movement eliminates conflicts with pedestrians crossing in front of turning motorists.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
SAFETY ZONE (SCHOOL AND SENIOR)
S
afety zones, or slow zones, are streets within a jurisdiction that are designated a slower speed limit, typically 15mph to 20mph. These slower speed limits are often used together with traffic calming elements and specific pavement markings. School, park, and senior area slow zones encourage slow speeds in areas with a high concentration of people who are at special risk on the street. Time-of-day school speed limits can be used when the school is an uncharacteristically sensitive place compared with the rest of the street. Safety zones can be implemented on a larger scale as neighborhood slow zones or district speed zones.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
24 SLIP LANE CLOSURE
E
xclusive right-turn lanes might be desirable at busy intersections, but the design and control of these can have a significant impact on safety for pedestrians. Intersections with right-turns slip lanes (see illustration) are potential candidates for redesign.
When slip lanes are eliminated, they reduce the overall crossing distance for pedestrians and slow the speeds of turning traffic, which in turn improve pedestrian safety.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
25 BEACH PATH TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS
RUM BLE STRIP S
Rumble strips are tactile patterns constructed within the bike path to give bicyclists an audible and tactile cue that they are approaching a conflict zone or pedestrian crossing and need to be alert to the presence of pedestrians. The effect of some rumble strip designs on bicyclists can be significant if not properly mitigated, causing the bicycle to shudder violently and/or the bicyclist to lose control. Sinusoidal rumble strips are an emerging design, which may cause less disruption. Unlike milled rumble strips, the continuous surface makes it easier for bicyclists to traverse while maintaining an effective level of vibration and noise. Raised rumble strips, on the other hand, have not been found to be as effective and are not recommended because they can increase crash risks for bicyclists.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
26 SIGN S
ICON SPEED FEEDBACK
Icon speed feedback signs inform approaching bicyclists that the speed at which they are traveling is appropriate. When installed in conjunction with a speed limit sign, speed feedback signs are proven to be effective in getting the attention of users. It reminds bicyclists of the speed limit and allows them to compare it with their speed to gain compliance. Icon speed feedback signs help to emphasizes the appropriate etiquette on bike paths by using icons instead of displaying the speed at which they are riding.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
SLOW SPEED ZONE , REGULATORY, ETIQUETTE, WAYFINDING
27 Regulatory, guide and wayfinding signs on beach paths helps to emphasize appropriate user etiquette and inform users of intersecting routes, direct them to important destinations, and generally give information that will help them proceed along their way in a simple, direct and safe manner.
Regulatory signs inform bicyclists of the areas
to slow down and yield to pedestrians, while wayfinding and guide signs help path users track their locations and can enhance personal security.
CM
F / CRF: Unavailable.
28 Pedestrians may be separated from bicyclists and other wheeled users on any path where there is sufficient width, and it is desired to improve comfort and safety for all users by separating faster moving users from slower users. Separation of pedestrians from bicyclists may be appropriate for shared use paths with a high volume of users. Users may be separated using pavement markings, traversable surface delineation and/or physical separators like curbs and delineator posts.
CMF / CRF: Unavailable.
SEPARATION OF USERS
29 REFERENCES
[1] "Proven Safety Countermeasures," U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures. [2] E. Minikel, "Cyclist Safety on Bicycle Boulevards and Parallel Arterial Routes in Berkeley, California," January 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=221. [Accessed 2023]. [3] Kitali el al., "Developing Crash Modification Factors to Quantify Impacts of Pedestrian Countdown Signals to D
rivers," January 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=488. [4] Chen et al., "Safety countermeasures and crash reduction in New York City - Experience and lessons learned," January 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=330. [5] "Crash Modification Factor for Corner Radius, Right-Turn Speed, and Prediction of Pedestrian Crashesat Signalized Intersections," U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, January 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/21105/21105.pdf. [Accessed March 2023].
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 56 M E M O R A N D U M
June 4, 2024
To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works
Organization: City of Huntington Beach
From: Trevor Lien and Peter García
Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan
Re: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification and Network Recommendations
This memorandum outlines the methodology and factors considered to recommend potential Pedestrian Focus Corridors in Huntington Beach (HB). Table 1 summarizes potential corridors and Figure 1 displays a map visualizing the network. Table 2 and Figure 2 displays recommended phasing of Pedestrian Focus Corridors, with the phasing process lead by City insight and guidance. Table 2 also displays rough order of magnitude costs.
Methodology
The Project Team used a layered data-driven approach to identify potential corridors for the Pedestrian Focus Corridors network in Huntington Beach. This network relied upon a combination of existing conditions spatial analyses, City recommendations, and previous planning efforts. This approach ensures that the identified streets are those where improving pedestrian comfort, safety, and access in the City would be most impactful. City input and guidance on Pedestrian Priority Corridors’ phasing ensures implementation feasibility.
The diverse datasets and factors that were used in developing the Pedestrian Focus Corridors network ensure that it includes streets where safety improvements are needed due to high levels of traffic stress as well as existing high pedestrian activity. Datasets were loaded into geographic information systems (GIS) software to analyze and visualize where Pedestrian Focus Corridors are highest. Datasets included analyses of stressful crossing locations, high level of traffic stress (LTS) segments (LTS 3 or LTS 4), land use data, among others, which are described in further detail below. The project team also reviewed pedestrian crashes and high-injury networks identified in the City’s recently completed Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Corridors were then grouped where factors, such as high-stress crossings and/or historical crashes, showed overlapping and concentrated data along a corridor. For example, Corridor D – Beach Boulevard has several high-ridership transit stops, higher LTS segments, and historically high crash locations, while Corridor H – Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street/Main Street has a pattern of high-stress crossings, high population density, and a cluster of popular destinations.
The following factors were used to identify the Pedestrian Focus Corridors. The terms in parentheses are used to summarize descriptions in the spatial dataset export and in Table 1. 2 ▪ City-recommended priority intersections and corridors (City Input) » Source: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department ▪ Corridors with high bicycle and pedestrian collisions (Crashes) » Source: HB LRSP 2022 Figure 5.2
» High collisions indicated by higher density of collision clusters ▪ Wide gaps between crossing opportunities (Crossing Distance) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis (Map 1) » Wide gap is determined by nearest low stress of signalized crossing is greater than 0.25 miles away
▪ High pedestrian stress intersections (LTS)
» Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis (Table 1 to Table 5)
» High stress intersection (LTS 3 or LTS 4) based on traffic volumes, number of lanes, speed limit, and traffic control type
▪ High pedestrian stress corridors (High Pedestrian Stress Corridor) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis and GIS repository
» High stress pedestrian corridor if all crossings are high stress (LTS 3 or TS 4) ▪ High ridership transit stops (Transit)
» Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Transit Analysis (Figure 14) » High ridership transit stop if transit stop if one of the top ten transit stops by ridership ▪ Population density by census tract (Population Density) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository (American Communities Survey 2020 data)
» Proximal or intersecting an 80th percentile population density census tract (high density) ▪ Land uses accessed by vulnerable populations such as schools, senior centers, and parks with facilities (Vulnerable Populations)
» Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository » Vulnerable population land use if land use data is school, senior center, and/or park with facilities ▪ Popular destinations and trip generators, such as supermarkets and commercial land uses (Destinations) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository » Popular destination if land use data is supermarket, commercial, and/or retail Table 1 below lists Pedestrian Focus Corridors and factors that determined their inclusion. Corridors that experienced multiple issues that affect pedestrian safety and/or generate pedestrian activity have secondary and tertiary factors assigned. Table 2 below groups Pedestrian Focus Corridors by phasing grouping, and also displays the rough order of magnitude cost. Figure 1 shows a map of recommended Pedestrian Focus Corridors in Huntington Beach. Figure 2 shows a map of Pedestrian Focus Corridors and phasing. 3 EDINGER
AVENUE
A Bolsa Chica Street Beach
Boulevard
High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Crashes,
Destinations
GOLDENWEST
STREET
A Bolsa Avenue Edinger Avenue High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, LTS, Destinations
GOTHARD
STREET
A Center Avenue Edinger Avenue Destinations, Transit
ATLANTA
AVENUE
B Lake Street Magnolia Street Vulnerable Populations, Destinations, LTS
MAGNOLIA
STREET
B Atalanta Avenue Pacific Coast
Highway
Vulnerable Populations, Destinations, LTS
NEWLAND
STREET
B Pacific Coast
Highway
Hamilton
Avenue
Destinations, LTS
HAMILTON
AVENUE
B Newland Street Magnolia Street Destinations, LTS
BEACH
BOULEVARD
C Edinger Avenue Garfield Avenue Transit, Pedestrian High Stress Corridor, Crashes, Population Density, LTS
GOLDENWEST
STREET
D Warner Avenue Pacific Coast
Highway
High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Vulnerable
Populations, Destinations, Crossing Distance
WARNER
AVENUE
E Pacific Coast
Highway
Algonquin
Street
LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance
ALGONQUIN
STREET
E Warner Avenue Heil Avenue LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance HEIL AVENUE E Algonquin Street Saybrook Lane LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance
SAYBROOK
LANE
E Heil Avenue Edinger Avenue LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance
BROOKHURST
STREET
F Garfield Avenue Indianaplos
Avenue
High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Transit,
Destinations, Population Density
INDIANAPOLIS
AVENUE
F Brookhurst Street Lake Street High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Transit, Destinations, Population Density
PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY
G Huntington Street 17th Street LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit 17TH STREET G Pacific Coast
Highway
Main Street LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit MAIN STREET G 17th Street Yorktown
Avenue
LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit
Table 1: Pedestrian Focus Corridors
CORRIDOR
GROUPING
Corridor Name From TO OVERLAPPING FACTORS
4 Table 2: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Phasing and Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates Corridor Name Corridor
Grouping
Phasing Rough Order of Magnitude
Cost Estimates
Edinger Avenue A Phase 1 $4,360,000
Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia
Street/Hamilton Avenue
B Phase 1 $3,990,000
Warner Avenue/ Algonquin Street/
Heil Avenue/ Saybrook Lane
E Phase 1 $4,260,000
Pacific Coast Highway/ 17th
Street/ Main Street
G Phase 1 $1,340,000
Beach Boulevard C Phase 2 $600,000
Goldenwest Street D Phase 3 $380,000
Brookhurst Street/ Indianapolis
Avenue
F Phase 3 $1,300,000
5 Figure 1: Map of Recommended Pedestrian Focus Corridors
6 Figure 2: Map of Recommended Phasing of Pedestrian Focus Corridors
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 57 M E M O R A N D U M
June 4, 2024
To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works
Organization: City of Huntington Beach
From: Trevor Lien, Peter Garcia
Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan
Re: Bicycle Network Recommendations and Implementation Phasing
This memorandum summarizes the methodology used to identify future-focused bicycle network improvements in Huntington Beach (HB), as well as a recommended bicycle facility locations, types, and phasing. These recommendations will close existing bicycle network gaps, support a reduction in the level of traffic stress that people bicycling experience on high speed and volume roadways, and support comfort improvements of all users regardless of age or ability. The methodology is based on the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide, as well as manual recommendations based on local needs (i.e., community needs and existing conditions evaluation) and past plans (i.e., 2017 General Plan – Circulation Element, 2013 Bicycle Master Plan).
Included in this memorandum is a map of the existing bicycle network, a map of the proposed bicycle network, phasing strategies, and the total mileage of existing and recommended bicycle facilities.
Methodology
The bicycle network methodology included a data driven approach reinforced by the Project Team’s local knowledge of the City. The Project Team used a combination of geographic information systems (GIS) software and Structured Query Language (SQL) to develop logic around the generated network. The generated network used the city’s existing roadway conditions (i.e., posted speed limits, street classification, and average daily traffic volumes) to determine the minimum suggested bicycle facility based on the nationally recognized best practice the FHWA’s Bikeway Selection Guide.
The FHWA’s Bikeway Selection Guide recommends the suitable bikeway facility based on a roadway design, traffic volumes, and speed. Figure 1 shows the recommended bikeway type based on a roadway’s traffic volume and speed within an urban context. As the traffic volume and speed on a roadway increases, so does the level of protection needed for people bicycling to feel comfortable in these settings. For instance, shared lanes or bicycle boulevards are most effective when built on slow, low traffic residential streets, but would provide little benefit to lowering the exposure of people bicycling on arterial roadways where separation would be more impactful. 2 Figure 1: Minimum Suggested Bicycle Facility Using FHWA Best Practice Guidance
The Project Team also made manual additions/edits to the network based on variables not captured in the generated bike network, such as policies and recommendations from previously adopted plans. The first round of adjustments added facilities to roadways that provided low stress intra-neighborhood connections, mid-block improvements, and access to popular destinations (i.e., schools, commerce, recreation areas). Further, the Project Team used Strava heatmaps (Figure 2), a fitness based social media website that provides heatmaps of popular bicycling routes, to incorporate network connections to areas with latent demand for bicycling. Strava data utilizes millions of location-based services (LBS) data points to aggregate daily trips; data visualized in the heatmap is from the last two years, and is updated monthly. The off-street network recommendations, made of paths on trails or along channels, were informed by previously adopted off-street recommendations in the 2017 General Plan (Figure CIRC-5), City insights, and Project Team local insight and engineering judgment.
This methodology takes into consideration existing conditions and roadway analysis to recommend the minimum suggested bikeway facility for a given roadway context. The proposed recommendations are future-focused, and rooted in best practices to provide the most inclusive treatments for people of all ages and abilities. However, the recommendations need to be assessed further for physical and political feasibility, potential impacts to movement of freight and vehicular traffic, and funding constraints. In instances where the proposed facility is not feasible, the next best facility should be sought, following this hierarchy: Class IV – Protected Bikeways, then Class II – Buffered Bike Lanes, then Class II – Bike Lanes, then Class III – Bike Boulevards. Alternative facilities should still prioritize the comfort and safety of people bicycling and should still align as closely as possible to the Bikeway Selection Guide chart shown in Figure 1.
3 Figure 2: Huntington Beach Strava Heatmap; shows latent cyclist demand for the last two years (2/1/21 – 2/1/23)
4 Recommendations and Phasing Strategy
The City’s existing bike network is made up of 72% Class II Bike Lanes or 73 miles of a total 101.5 miles (Table 1), a map of existing bike facilities is shown in Figure 3. The recommended bike network reflects the on the ground road conditions in HB. Facilities like Class II Bike Lanes or Class III Bike Boulevards are found on roadways where space is a constraint, but vehicle traffic or speeds are not high enough to invest in separation.
Recommended Class IV Separated Bike Lanes are predominantly found on high stress roads, such as Edinger Avenue or Atlanta Avenue. Currently there are few buffered or separated facilities existing aside from those found on Delaware Street and Atlanta Avenue. Recommended Class I Shared Use Paths are found along existing City assets, or OC Public Works jurisdiction that could be transformed, such as abandoned/disused railways and flood control channels.
Table 1: Total Existing Bicycle Network Miles
Facility Type Existing (Miles) Existing %
Class I Shared Use Path 20 19%
Class II Bike Lane 73 72%
Class II Buffered Bike Lane 6 5%
Class III Shared Lane 2.5 2%
Class III Bicycle Boulevard - -
Class IV Separated Bike Lane 3 2%
TOTAL 101.5 Miles
The bike network recommendations are segmented into two implementation phases. Phasing is intended to progress existing bike facilities toward more comfortable facilities that are suitable for all ages and abilities or installing new bike facilities if none exist. This can mean upgrading a Class II Bike Lane to a Buffered Class II Bike Lane as space permits in Phase 1, and potentially in Phase 2 a further upgrade to a Class IV Separated Bike Lane.
• Phase 1 Bike Network – projects that can be considered for implementation in the next one to five years o Easily implemented (sign/stripe) projects within existing roadway section • Phase 2 Bike Network – projects that can be considered for implementation in the next five to ten years o Expansions and/or upgrades to the existing bike network, but may require more planning or further analysis; can be part of the City’s ten-year repaving capital program for an efficient use of resources
The Phase 1 bike network recommends a total of 26.8 miles of new or upgraded facilities. Along the Phase 1 corridors, 2.3 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways exist. Planned mileage is shown in Table 2. The Phase 2 bike network recommends an additional 36.2 miles of bike facilities. Less than one mile of the Phase 2 corridors is a Class IV Separated Bikeway (0.7 miles). In total, both phases represent 63 miles of proposed bike network improvements. There are 20.7 miles of Class I Off-Street Shared Use Paths independent of the on-street phasing mileage; full details listed in Table 2.
5 Table 2: Phase Recommendation Summary Mileage and Costs Totals for Phase 1
Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost
Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $ 210,625
Class III - Bike Boulevard 2.5 $ 705,462
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 23.6 $ 11,337,000
TOTAL 26.8 $ 12,253,087
Existing
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 2.3 N/A
Total for Phase 2
Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost
Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.0 $ 0
Class III - Bike Boulevard 0.5 $ 172,625
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 35.7 $ 17,124,000
TOTAL 36.2 $ 17,296,625
Existing
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 0.7 N/A
Total for Phase 1 and Phase 2
Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost
Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $ 210,625
Class III - Bike Boulevard 3.0 $ 878,087
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 59.3 $ 28,461,000
TOTAL 63.0 $ 29,549,712
Existing
Class IV - Separated Bikeway 3.0 N/A
Proposed Off-Street (Phasing Independent) Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class I – Off-Street Multi-Use Path 20.7 $ 40,423,500
Figure 4 shows the Phase 1 bike network corridors, and Figure 6 shows the Phase 1 corridors relative to what is existing and proposed based on the methodology describe above. Similarly, Figure 5 and Figure 7 show the Phase 2 bike network corridors and recommendations. Table 2 lists the miles of proposed bike corridors for Phase 1 and Phase 2. The bike network future-focused recommendations recommend 35.7 miles and 59.3 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways in Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively. These represent a majority of network upgrades for each of the two phases. These recommendations are not prescriptive, but intended to be targets to strive for. In some cases, the installation and/or upgrade of bike facilities along the proposed corridors may not be feasible. However, as need, priority, and political will changes these can be re-considered for implementation. The highest possible protective facility should be sought as projects are assessed.
Rough order of magnitude cost estimates presented in Table 2 are based on the per mile costs assumptions listed in Table 3. These assumptions are based on 2023 adjusted numbers for each of the facility types and provide a high-level overview. More detailed cost estimates will need to be developed for specific facility designs. 6 Figure 3: Map of Existing Bike Facilities (Source: City of HB; 2023)
7 Figure 4: Phase 1 (one to five years) Bike Network Corridors
8 Figure 5: Phase 1 (one to five years) and Phase 2 (five to ten years) Bike Network Corridors
9 Figure 6: Map of Existing and Phase 1 (one to five years) Bike Network Recommendations
10 Figure 7: Map of Existing, and Phase 1 (one to five years) and Phase 2 (five to ten years) Bike Network Recommendations
11 Table 3: Cost Assumptions per Bike Facility Type per Mile
Bike Facility Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Assumptions per Mile Class I Off-Street Shared Use Path $ 1,950,000
Class II Bike Lane $ 290,000
Class II Buffered Bike Lane $ 330,000
Class IV Separated Bikeway $ 480,000
Class III Bike Boulevard (traffic circles, and paint
and post for curb extensions) $ 280,000
The following images (Figure 8 to Figure 13) provide examples of each bikeway facility type. Refer to the Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan’s (MIP) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Beach Path Toolkit for further information on each bikeway facility.
12 Figure 8: Class I – Off-Street Shared Use Path
(Huntington Beach Shared Use Path)
Figure 9: Class II – Bike Lane
(Huntington Beach, Edwards Street)
Figure 10: Class II – Buffered Bike Lane
(Huntington Beach, Algonquin Street)
Figure 11: Class III – Bicycle Boulevard
(Huntington Beach, South Pacific Avenue)
13 Figure 12: Class IV – One-Way Separated Bikeway
(Huntington Beach, Delaware Street)
Figure 13: Class IV – Two-Way Separated Bikeway
(Outside of Huntington Beach)
HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 58 M E M O R A N D U M
June 4, 2024
To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works
Organization: City of Huntington Beach
From: Trevor Lien, Peter García, Toole Design
Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Plan
Re: Beach Path Observations & Recommendation
This memorandum includes a review of existing issues and opportunities on the Huntington Beach Bike Path identified during field visits. It also includes recommendations to improve the comfort and user experience of rolling and walking on the Beach Path. Some issues identified include inconsistent signage that may be confusing to the user and problematic mixing of various modes at high-traffic crossings. The recommendations in this memorandum focus on improving the user experience, while ensuring the path is comfortable for users of all ages and abilities. Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are included in Appendix 3.
The Project Team separated the Beach Path into the following segments based on path characteristics and for ease of organizing challenges and opportunities, as shown in Table 1. Exhibit 1 includes a map of the segments.
Table 1: Study Segment Breakdown
Segment Number From To
Segment 1 Seapoint Street Goldenwest Street
Segment 2 Goldenwest Street (Upper Path) 11th Street (Upper Path) Segment 3 Goldenwest Street (Lower Path) 11th Street (Lower Path) Segment 4 11th Street 1st Street
Segment 5 1st Street Beach Boulevard
Exhibit 1: Map of Study Segments
2 Issues and Opportunities
Field Observations
The Project Team conducted a field visit of the Beach Path on August 19, 2022 and recorded observed existing issues and constraints. Key issues and opportunities were categorized for consistency and normalization across the different segments of the paths. The major categories, as found in Appendix 1, are:
▪ Speed
▪ Volume
▪ Width
▪ Comfort
▪ Special Zone
▪ Separation
▪ Intersection
▪ Suitability
▪ Line of Sight
▪ Usage Typology
▪ Path Alignment
▪ Signage
▪ Condition
▪ Traffic Control Devices
On-site observations are documented in the Field Observation Table (Appendix 1). Observations were also documented via photographs. Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4 show a spectrum of typical scenes along the path.
Exhibit 2: Segment 2 - Upper Bluff Path Bicycle and Pedestrian Separation (August 2022); credit Toole Design Group
3 Exhibit 3: Segment 3 - Peak Hour Traffic Proximal to Pier Plaza (August 2022); credit Toole Design Group
Exhibit 4: Segment 5 - Diversity of Users (August 2022); credit Toole Design Group
4 Key Issues and Opportunities
Table 2 summarizes common issues observed along the Beach Path. Issues ranged from modal mixing at pinch points to signage and visual communication inconsistencies that may result in user confusion. Example segments are provided as reference.
Table 2: Common issues found in the Beach Path
Issue Description Example Segment
Sight line issues Blind spots created by garbage
cans, building protrusion, vendors /
amenities spill onto path
Segment 4 – 11th Street to 1St Street
Traffic mixing Potential crash conflicts may arise
from areas in the path where there
is no demarcation to keep
pedestrian and bicyclist traffic
separate; width is not sufficient
Segment 4 – 11th Street to 1St Street
Inconsistent signage Posted signs on the path
communicate inconsistent
information, causing confusion
among Beach Path users. For
example, different posted speeds
within a short distance of each other
may confuse users
Segment 1 – Seapoint Street to
Goldenwest Street
Constrained space Path reaches capacity during peak
season, limiting available space for
users and increasing conflict risks
Segment 3 – Goldenwest Street to
11th Street (Lower Path)
Confusing pavement markings Particularly in mixing zones, pavement markings poorly
communicate whether pedestrians
or bicyclists are allowed in that
segment of the path
Segment 3 – Goldenwest Street to
11th Street (Lower Path)
Pedestrian and vendor activity
spills onto path
In popular areas where people
congregate, pedestrians and
vendors tend to encroach onto the
path, creating a potential crash risk
Segment 4 – 11th Street to 1st Street
Lack of Centerline and Separation Lack of centerline or delineation makes it unclear to bicyclists where
to remain to prevent head on
crashes with other bicyclists
Segment 3 – Goldenwest Street to
11th Street (Lower Path)
5 Recommendations
The following recommendations aim to improve the overall user experience by enhancing comfort. These treatments will build upon previous and planned Beach Path improvements, ensuring a future-focused Beach Path that is suitable and welcoming to users of all ages and abilities. A seamless user experience, with minimal conflicts arising between bicyclists and pedestrians, will lay the foundation for a positive social experience and a culture that embraces active transportation and suitable Beach Path travel speeds.
Table 3 summarizes some treatments represented in the recommendations found in Appendix 2 that seek to improve the user experience on the Beach Path. Maps with more detailed recommendations are provided in Appendix 2. The Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Toolkit (Bicycle, Pedestrian, Beach Path) is a resource that provides more details on additional treatments.
Table 3: Common treatment recommendations
Treatment Description Example Segment
Centerline Striping a centerline or striping that
separates modes, will help users
understand where to travel along the
path
Segment 3 – Goldenwest Street to
11th Street (Lower Path)
Pedestrian crossings Clear and visible pedestrian
crossings, such as artistic
crosswalks, will alert bicyclists to
reduce their speed as they approach
a crossing
Segment 1 – Seapoint Street to
Goldenwest Street
Intersection improvements in
mixing zones
Improvements at mixing zones, such
as signalization or traffic calming
treatments, will reduce conflict risk in
areas where pedestrians and
bicyclists share the Beach Path
Segment 3 – Goldenwest Street to
11th Street (Lower Path)
Establish uniform speed limit A singular display of speed limit expectations will help all users travel
at the desired speed
Segment 4 – 11th Street to 1st Street
A P P E N D I X
Appendix 1 – Beach Path Audit (collected on August 19, 2022 from 10:30am to 2:30pm) Category Specification
Segment 1 (Seapoint
Street to
Goldenwest Street)
Segment 2
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Upper Path)
Segment 3
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Lower Path)
Segment 4 (11th
Street to 1st Street)
Segment 5 (1st Street
to Beach Boulevard)
Speed
No posted speed limit
Posted speed limit 5 mph, 10 mph 5 mph, 10 mph
5 mph, 10 mph;
when peds are
present
10 mph 10 mph
Observed average speed
7-11 mph 8-12 mph 5-10mph 7-11mph 8-12 mph
Observed maximum speed
20-25mph 20-25mph 10-15mph 20-25mph 15-20mph
Volume
At capacity (very slow movement)
High volumes (movement
consistent) X
Medium volumes (movement
consistent) X X X X
Low volumes (movement consistent) X X
7 Category Specification
Segment 1 (Seapoint
Street to
Goldenwest Street)
Segment 2
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Upper Path)
Segment 3
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Lower Path)
Segment 4 (11th
Street to 1st Street)
Segment 5 (1st Street
to Beach Boulevard)
Width
Maximum width 20 feet 18 feet
12 feet (some
short segments 24
feet)
25 feet (some short
areas 40 feet+)
25 feet (some short
areas 30 feet)
Narrowest point (minimum) 10 feet 12 feet 11 feet 12 feet 20 feet Comfort
Lane width allows for side-by-side
travel X X Narrow
Lane width does not always allow for
side-by-side travel X
Lane width does not allow for side-
by-side travel X X
Separation
Shared two way with no separation
between bicycles and pedestrians X X X X
Separated on same path (Bicycle two
way + pedestrian single lane two
way)
X X
Separated by buffer/barrier (Bicycle
two way + pedestrian lane two way) X
Special zone
Sign Display
"Slow Ped Zone 5
mph; 10 mph
maximum"
"Slow Ped Zone 5
mph; 10 mph
maximum"
"Slow Ped Zone 5
mph; 10 mph
maximum"
"Slow Ped Zone 5
mph; 10 mph
maximum"
"Slow Ped Zone 5
mph; 10 mph
maximum"
Walk Zone (time of day or
permanent) X
No regulations
8 Category Specification
Segment 1 (Seapoint
Street to
Goldenwest Street)
Segment 2
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Upper Path)
Segment 3
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Lower Path)
Segment 4 (11th
Street to 1st Street)
Segment 5 (1st Street
to Beach Boulevard)
Intersections (conflicts)
Bicycle and pedestrian conflicts
controlled (stop, yield); and/or no
intersections
X X
Some controlled intersections
(bicycle and pedestrian), some
uncontrolled
X
No controlled intersections between
bicycle and pedestrian Some Some X X X
Suitability (Appropriate for all ages and abilities)
Environment is suitable for people of
all ages and abilities
X
Environment is somewhat suitable
for people of all ages and abilities X X X
Environment is less suitable for
people of all ages and abilities
X X X
Environment is not suitable for
people of all ages and abilities X
Condition
New surface and in good condition X Old pathway but in good condition
Old pathway but in
good condition
Old pathway but in
good condition
New surface with some cracks or
debris
X X X
New surface mixed with faded or
deteriorating (rough) surface
New path, some
old pedestrian
pathways
Faded or deteriorating (rough)
surface
9 Missing significant sections of
pavement; significant deteriorating
along segment
Category Specification
Segment 1 (Seapoint
Street to
Goldenwest Street)
Segment 2
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Upper Path)
Segment 3
(Goldenwest Street
to 11th Street –
Lower Path)
Segment 4 (11th
Street to 1st Street)
Segment 5 (1st Street
to Beach Boulevard)
Line of sight
Clear line of sight with no
interruptions
X X
Some obstructions in line of sight
(landscape or hardscape) X People are line of
sight obstructions X
Frequent line of sight obstructions
(landscape or hardscape)
Path alignment
No abrupt linear alignments (straight
path)
X X
Some changes in alignment X X X
Constant changes in alignment
Signage
List out Regulatory; speed;
advisory
Directional; speed;
advisory Regulatory; speed
Special flashers;
speed; directional;
advisory
Speed; advisory
Traffic control devices
List out
Pavement arrow
markings; conflict
zone; bollard
chicane
Pavement arrow
markings; conflict
zone
None Flashing Beacons None
10 Typical users (aside from pedestrian and bicycle
use)
List out Dogs on leashes; e-
bikes
Pedestrian access
from Pacific Coast
Highway (PCH);
vehicular parking; e-
bikes
Dogs on leashe;
pedestrian access
from PCH; tourists
Tourists; food and
amenities; e-bikes
Food and amenities;
pedestrian access
from parking lots; e-
bikes
11 Appendix 2 – Treatment Recommendations
GOLDENWEST ST
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
Issues & Opportunities
(Issue) Inconsistent use of signage – multiple signs with different speeds and/or directions may cause confusion
(Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations
confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths
(Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation
segment-wide
SEGMENT 1
SEAPOINT STREET TO
GOLDENWEST STREET
2 3
4 (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback1
1 Bluff Parking Lot
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2 34
Focus Area in yellow
GOLDENWEST ST
Segment Boundaries
Radar Feedback Signs
1 1 3
Recommendations
SEGMENT 1
SEAPOINT STREET TO
GOLDENWEST STREET
1 2
Remove old speed limit signs; establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Install signage to clarify preferential pedestrian / bicycle travel along upper and lower paths3 2 2
2 Bluff Parking Lot
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
GOLDENWEST ST
20TH ST
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 2
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (UPPER PATH)
(Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths
(Issue) Inconsistent use of signage – multiple signs with different speeds and/or directions may cause confusion
(Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 1 2
3 32
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
1 Focus Area in yellow
GOLDENWEST ST
20TH ST
Segment Boundaries
Recommendations
SEGMENT 2
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (UPPER PATH)
1 Install rumble strips near highly traffi cked areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Install access gate for traffi c calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds
2 3
1 2
3 2
1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
19TH ST
17TH ST
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 2
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (UPPER PATH)
between 19th Street and 17th Street
(Issue) Inconsistent use of signage – multiple signs with different speeds may cause confusion
(Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 1 2
1 2 1
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Focus Area in yellow
19TH ST
17TH ST
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Recommendations
SEGMENT 2
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (UPPER PATH)
between 19th Street and 17th Street
1 2
Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display 1 1
2 Focus Area in yellow
15TH ST
11TH ST
Segment Boundaries
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 2
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (UPPER PATH)
between 15th Street and 11th Street
(Issue) Inconsistent use of signage – multiple signs with different speeds may cause confusion
(Issue) Minimal signage near path split to/from to
indicate where bicyclists are allowed and/or preferred
(Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation
segment-wide
1 2
3 4 (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback
1 1 4
1 23
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Segment Boundaries
Radar Feedback Signs
Focus Area in yellow
15TH ST
11TH ST
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Recommendations
SEGMENT 2
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (UPPER PATH)
between 15th Street and 11th Street
1 2
3 4Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Clarify preferential bicycle access signage / markings
Install access gate for traffi c calming
and/or square off access approach to
encourage slower speeds
1 2
34 Focus Area in yellow
GOLDENWEST ST
20TH ST
Segment Boundaries
SEGMENT 3
GOLDENWEST STREET TO
11TH STREET (LOWER PATH)
between Goldenwest Street and 20th Street
Issues & Opportunities
(Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations
confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths
(Issue) High volumes of traffi c and constrained path width leading to/from dog beach
(Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path (Issue) Path does not have separation
between users; no centerline
(Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient unobstructed
space along path (will require feasibility and
environmental review)
1 4
5 6
2 3
1 32
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
4 65
Focus Area in yellow
Segment Boundaries
GOLDENWEST ST
GOLDENWEST ST GOLDENWEST ST
20TH ST
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Recommendations
Point Improvements Corridor Improvements
Widen path and include user separation; install
centerline striping
Install sand walls
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular
sign display
1 2
3 4
5 6
Install access gate for traffi c calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds
Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access
points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Install speed feedback sign (numerical or icon)
SEGMENT 3
GOLDENWEST STREET TO
11TH STREET (LOWER PATH)
between Goldenwest Street and 20th Street
2 2
1 46 5 3
Focus Area in yellow
19TH ST
17TH ST
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 3
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (LOWER PATH)
between 19th Street and 17th Street
(Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path (Issue) High e-bike/bike speeds along path/segment
(Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline
1 2
3 4
(Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient
unobstructed space along path (will require
feasibility and environmental review)
5 6
3 421 16 5
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Focus Area in yellow
19TH ST
17TH ST
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Recommendations
Point Improvements
SEGMENT 3
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (LOWER PATH)
between 19th Street and 17th Street
Corridor Improvements
Install centerline striping
Widen path and include user separation
Install sand walls
1 2
3 4
5 Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access
points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
345
2 2
1 1
Focus Area in yellow
15TH ST
11TH ST
Segment Boundaries
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 3
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (LOWER PATH)
between 15th Street and 11th Street
(Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path (Issue) High e-bike speeds along path/segment
(Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline
1 2
3 4
(Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient
unobstructed space along path (will require
feasibility and environmental review)
5 6
3 4 5 2 16
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
15TH ST
11TH ST
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Recommendations
Point Improvements
SEGMENT 3
GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH
STREET (LOWER PATH)
between 15th Street and 11th Street
Corridor Improvements
Install centerline striping
Widen path and include user separation
Install sand walls
1 2
3 4
5 6
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access
points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Install access gate for traffi c calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds
5 6
2 1 34
10TH ST
6TH ST
Focus Area in yellow
HB Playground
HB Condo Complex
Segment Boundaries
Issues & Opportunities
(Issue) Constrained path width along segment
(Issue) No sand walls (10th Street to 7th Street)
(Issue) Outdated fl ashing beacons near 6th Street
(Issue) Pedestrian / bicycle mixing zone does not include suffi cient warning of potential confl icts
(Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage
(Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches
onto path
(Issue) Path does not have separation between
users; no centerline
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient unobstructed
space along path (will require feasibility and
environmental review)
SEGMENT 4
11TH STREET TO 1ST STREET
between 10th Street and 6th Street
1 6
7 8
2 3
4 5
3 4
6 4
1 8
7 5
2 Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
10TH ST
6TH ST
HB Playground
HB Condo Complex
Recommendations
Point Improvements Corridor Improvements
Install centerline striping; widen path
horizontally and include user separation
Install sand walls
Establish Slow Zone beginning at 6th Street towards the pier; replace old fl ashing beacons
Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display SEGMENT 4
11TH STREET TO 1ST STREET
between 10th Street and 6th Street
1 2
3 4
5 1
2 23
4 5
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 4
11TH STREET TO 1ST STREET
between Main Street and 1st Street
MAIN ST
1ST ST
HB Lifeguard HQ
Pier Plaza
(Issue) Narrow path width along segment
(Issue) Outdated fl ashing beacons near 1st Street
(Issue) Pedestrian / bicycle mixing zone does not include suffi cient warning of potential confl icts
(Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage
(Issue) Ramp is a blind spot for users going northbound (Issue) Pedestrian and vendor activity encroach
onto path
(Issue) Path does not have separation between
users; no centerline
(Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path and
under pier
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient unobstructed
space along path (will require feasibility and
environmental review)
1 6
7 8
9 2
3 4
5 23 3
68 53
2 14 47 9
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
Recommendations
Point Improvements Corridor Improvements
SEGMENT 4
11TH STREET TO 1ST STREET
between Main Street and 1st Street
Install centerline striping; widen path and
include user separation
Upgrade bike racks to be more secure
Consider placemaking elements entering slow
zone and within the slow zone
Establish Slow Zone beginning at 1st Street and extending towards the pier; replace fl ashing beacons
Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display 1 2
3 4
5 6
MAIN ST
1ST ST
HB Lifeguard HQ
Pier Plaza
1 34
6 2 2 22
1ST ST
HUNT . ST
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
Kokomo’s Surfside Grill
Raised Parking
Lot with Stairs
Jack’s Concessions
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 5
1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD
between 1st Street and Huntington Street
(Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to
sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling
across path from those traveling along the path
(Issue) Constrained path width adjacent to the grade
separated parking lot wall
(Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage
(Issue) Pedestrian and vendor activity encroach
onto path
(Issue) Path does not have separation between
users; no centerline
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient unobstructed
space along path (will require feasibility and
environmental review)
(Opportunity) Radar speed feedback
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 11
1 1
72 3 5
6 3
Segment Boundaries
Radar Feedback Signs
Focus Area in yellow
1ST ST
HUNT . ST
Kokomo’s Surfside Grill
Raised Parking
Lot with Stairs
Jack’s Concessions
Recommendations
Point Improvements
Corridor Improvements
SEGMENT 5
1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD
between 1st Street and Huntington Street
Install centerline striping; widen path and
include user separation
Upgrade bike racks to be more secure
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular
sign display
Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access
points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight
Move showers farther from path to prevent queuing on path 1 2
3 4
5 6
2 2
2 2
34 56
Focus Area in yellow
At grade parking lot
TWIN DOL-
PHIN DRIVE
Hyatt Bridge
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 5
1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD
between Huntington Street and Hyatt
Bridge
(Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to
sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling
across path from those traveling along the path
(Issue) At grade parking lots have no clear access
points - steady stream of pedestrians across path
(Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage
(Issue) Path does not have separation between users;
no centerline
(Issue) Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does
not include suffi cient warning of potential confl icts
(Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path
(Opportunity) Sand walls prevent sand build up on
path
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient unobstructed
space along path (will require feasibility and
environmental review)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
2 3
5 5 5
7 4
86 2
1 1
1 1
Focus Area in yellow
At grade parking lot
TWIN DOL-
PHIN DRIVE
Hyatt Bridge
Recommendations
Point Improvements
Corridor Improvements
SEGMENT 5
1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD
between Huntington Street and Hyatt
Bridge
Install centerline striping; widen path and
include user separation
Upgrade bike racks to be more secure
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign
display
Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight
Move showers farther away from path to prevent queuing on path 1 2
3 4
5 6
1 6 3
335
54 2
2 1
1 2
2 Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
At grade parking lot
BEACH BLVD
2 2 3
6 6
5 5
7 4 8
1 1
Issues & Opportunities
SEGMENT 5
1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD
between Hyatt Bridge and Beach Boulevard
(Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to
sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling
across path from those traveling along the path
(Issue) At grade parking lots have no clear access
points - steady stream of pedestrians across path
(Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage
(Issue) Path does not have separation between users;
no centerline
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
(Issue) Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does
not include suffi cient warning of potential confl icts
(Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path
(Opportunity) Sand walls prevent sand build up on
path
(Opportunity) Provide suffi cient unobstructed
space along path (will require feasibility and
environmental review)
Segment Boundaries
Focus Area in yellow
66 33
3 55 4
1 1
12 2
At grade parking lot
BEACH BLVD
SEGMENT 5
1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD
between Hyatt Bridge and Beach Boulevard
Recommendations
Point Improvements
Corridor Improvements
Install centerline striping; widen path and
include user separation
Upgrade bike racks to be more secure
Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular
sign display
Install rumble strips near high-traffi c areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and confl ict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks
Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight
Move showers farther away from path to prevent queuing on path 1 2
3 4
5 6
12 Appendix 3 – Cost Estimates
Segment Total Corridor Miles Estimated Total Cost
Segment 1 – Seapoint Street to Goldenwest Street 1.18 $154,000 Segment 2 – Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Upper Path) 0.78 $101,000 Segment 3 – Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Lower Path) 0.78 $2,660,000 Segment 4 – 11th Street to 1st Street 0.64 $1,129,000
Segment 5 – 1st Street to Beach Boulevard 0.85 $939,000 Total Cost $4,983,000