Agenda packet — Livingston City Council, September 16, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR

MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
SPECIAL MEETING: 6:00 P.M. – 7:00 P.M
REGULAR MEETING: 7:00 P.M.

WE ENCOURAGE ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE BY CALLING (520) 525-8911. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT.

ADDITIONALLY, THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE STREAMED ON YOUTUBE LIVE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB_ZmQZIHELh-ECEPZ2VwZg Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Special and Regular Meeting on September 16, 2025, at the City Council Chambers, 663 Main Street, Livingston, California. Assistance will be provided to those requiring accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Persons requesting accommodation should contact the Deputy City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to this meeting at (209) 394-8041, Ext. 121. Any writings or documents pertaining to an Open Session item provided to a majority of the members of the legislative body less than 72 hours prior to the meeting shall be made available for public inspection by email if requested. Public comments can be submitted via emailed at [email protected]. Comments must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council meeting in order for them to be distributed to the Council prior to consideration of the matter.

You will need to provide: Meeting date, item number, name, email and comment (please limit to 300 words or 3 minutes). Please include: PUBLIC COMMENT in the subject for the email. Written comments will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be reported as received for the record. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt by 4:00 p.m., please call the City Clerk’s Office at (209) 394-8041, Ext. 121 (Note: This technology is not a guaranteed method).

Page 1 of 378 ends

SPECIAL MEETING

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Pledge of Allegiance.

4. Moment of Silence – First Responders and Military Members.

5. Citizen Comments

CLOSED SESSION

6. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Labor Negotiator: Jose Antonio Ramirez, City Manager
Employee Organizations:

OE3- Clerical Bargaining Unit
OE3 - Police Supervisory Employees Association
OE3 - Management/Confidential Bargaining Unit
OE3 - Livingston Police Officer Association
AFSCME- Public Works and Parks Unit

7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code section 54956.9, subd. (d)(1)): In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 19-23749.

8. Conference with Legal Counsel – Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(1): Three (3) Matters.

REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER Next Resolution No.: 2025-113
Next Ordinance No.: 661
Pledge of Allegiance.

Moment of Silence – First Responders and Military Members.

Roll Call.

Closed Session Announcement

Changes to the Agenda.

Page 2 of 378 ends

CITIZEN COMMENTS
This section of the agenda allows members of the public to address the City Council on any item NOT on the agenda. Members of the public, when recognized by the Mayor, should come forward to the lectern, and identify themselves. Comments are normally limited to three (3) minutes. In accordance with State Open Meeting Laws, no action will be taken by the City Council this evening.

AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS

1. Presentation by Leila Benijamali, CEO, Symbium: Accelerating permit issuance with automated compliance checks / SB379.

COUNTY SUPERVISOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
Supervisor Jim Pacheco Announcements and Reports.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
City Staff Announcements and Reports.

City Manager Announcements and Reports.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION
Members of the City Council will declare an actual or apparent conflict of interest before discussions or decisions about any matters in which they or anyone with whom they have a close personal relationship could directly or indirectly benefit or where such a benefit could be perceived.

CONSENT AGENDA
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine or non-controversial and will be enacted by one vote, unless separate action is requested by a member of the public, the City Manager or City Council Member.

There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the public, City Council or City Manager request that specific items be removed. Public comment on consent agenda items shall be limited to three (3) minutes per-person regardless of the number of items contained within the consent agenda

2. RATIFY CHECK WARRANTS
Ratify Warrant Register Dated September 12, 2025.

3. APPROVE MINUTES OF MEETING
Approval of Minutes of Meeting Held on September 2, 2025.

4. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing The City Manager Or Designee To Renew A Five-Year Contract With Axon Enterprise, Inc. For The Replacement Of Body-Worn Cameras And Model 7 Devices Tasers. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

5. Consideration of a Resolution (1) Authorizing The City Manager To Enter Into A 36 Month Contract With Flock Safety For Additional Automated License Plate Readers (Alpr) Not To Exceed $90,000

Page 3 of 378 ends

For The Contract - $30,000 For Fiscal Year 2025/2026, $30,000 For Fiscal Year 2026/2027, And $30,000 For Fiscal Year 2027/2028. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

6. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting The City Of Livingston Element For The Regional Active Transportation Plan Prepared By The Merced County Association Of Governments. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

7. Consideration of a Authorizing The Purchase And Installation Of Police Emergency Equipment For The 2025 Ford Police Interceptor Utility HEV. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

8. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing And Approving The Police Public Assistant Job Description. Authorize Staff To Initiate The Recruitment Process To Fill One (1) Position. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

9. Consideration Of A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Livingston Opting Into National Opioid Settlement Agreement With Distributors Of Opioids (Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Purdue/Sackler Family, Syn, Zydus); Authorizing The City Manager To Execute The Related Subdivision Participation And Release Form; And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute And Enter Into Future Agreements Related To Nationwide Opioid Settlements.

Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

10. Consideration of a Resolution Ratifying Emergency Equipment Procurement And Emergency Repairs To Well 12; 1) Approve The Emergency Procurement Of A New Well Motor And Emergency Service Call From Shannon Pump Co. In The Amount Of $15,182.61; 2) Authorize The Finance Department To Make A Supplement Appropriation To The Water Enterprise Fund In The Amount Of $15,182.61; 3) Authorize The City Manager To Execute All Required Documents. Staff Recommendation:

Approve Resolution.

11. Consideration of a Resolution Authoring The City Manager To Sign A Professional Services Agreement With Stephanie Dietz To Assist With The Organization Planning, Facilities, Personnel And Equipment Needs For A Stand-Alone Fire Department. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

12. Considerations Of Resolutions Approving A Lease Agreement With Toshiba And An Agreement With Power Business Technology For New Printers And Printing Supplies At Livingston City Hall And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Required Documents. Staff Recommendation:

Approve Resolutions.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
City Council Members’ Announcements and Reports.

Mayor’s Announcements and Reports.

Robert Wallis
• Special City Selection Committee of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board –Robert Wallis, Representative and Japjeet Uppal, Alternative.

Page 4 of 378 ends

• City Council Liaison - Livingston Planning Commission – Jason Roth and Alternate Robert Wallis.
• Utility Stakeholders Committee – Japjeet Uppal and Robert Wallis.

Jason Roth
• Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Jason Roth, Representative. • Merced County Mosquito Abatement District Board of Directors – Gurpal Samra, Representative and Jason Roth, Alternate.
• City Council Liaison - Livingston Planning Commission – Jason Roth and Alternate Robert Wallis.

Japjeet Uppal
• Central Valley Division League of California Cities – Jose Moran, Representative and Japjeet Uppal, Alternate.
• Special City Selection Committee of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board – Robert Wallis, Representative and Japjeet Uppal, Alternative. • City Council Liaison - Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission – Jose Moran and Alternate Liaison Japjeet Uppal.
• Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (MIRWMA) – Japjeet Uppal, Representative and Robert Wallis, Alternate Representative. • Utility Stakeholders Committee – Japjeet Uppal and Robert Wallis.

Gurpal Samra
• Merced County Mosquito Abatement District Board of Directors – Gurpal Samra, Representative and Jason Roth, Alternate.
• Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) Governing Board – Gurpal Samra, Representative and Jose Moran, Alternate.

Jose Moran
• Central Valley Division League of California Cities – Jose Moran, Representative and Japjeet Uppal, Alternate.
• Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) Governing Board – Gurpal Samra, Representative and Jose Moran, Alternate.
• City Council Liaison - Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission – Jose Moran and Alternate Liaison Japjeet Uppal.

COUNCIL DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

Page 5 of 378 ends

AGENDA ITEM: Warrant Register September 12, 2025

MEETING DATE: September 16, 2025

PREPARED BY: Laurie Carvalho, Account Clerk
REVIEWED BY: Happy Bains, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Ratify the warrant register dated September 12, 2025
DISCUSSION:

Government Code sections 37208(b) and 37209 provide that accounts payable warrants or checks drawn in payment of demands certified or approved by the finance director as conforming to a budget approved by ordinance or resolution of the legislative body need not be audited by the legislative body prior to payment.

In addition, Government Code section 37208(a) provides that payroll warrants or checks need not be audited by the legislative body prior to payment. Payrolls shall be presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval at the first meeting after delivery of the payroll warrants or checks. The sum of any payroll checks issued within the week prior to the date of the check register is also noted on the accompanying check register.

The following checks have been certified to be in accordance with the City’s approved budget.

The checks have been issued, and the check register is presented to the City Council for ratification:

August 28, 2025 – September 12, 2025

GENERAL WARRANTS……………………. $ 522,255.72 14205 - 14253
PAYROLL/WIRE WARRANTS……….……. $ 287,354.38 3819 - 3828
ACH WARRANTS…………………………… $ 0.00
TOTAL WARRANTS………………………… $ 809,610.10

ATTACHMENTS:

Warrant Register (detailed by date and check number)

Page 6 of 378 ends

Accounts Payable
User:

Printed:
[email protected]
9/12/2025 11:09 AM
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
14206 193 BSK Associates 06/30/2025 983.50
14207 615 McClatchy Company LLC 06/30/2025 2,840.58
14208 277 Valley Farm Supply Stores, Inc. 06/30/2025 706.86 Total for 6/30/2025: 4,530.94
14205 1763 Triple J Construction 09/02/2025 10,000.00
Total for 9/2/2025: 10,000.00
14209 1307 Amazon Capital Services 09/11/2025 377.42
14210 529 American Legal Publishing 09/11/2025 134.50
14211 446 Belkorp Ag, LLC 09/11/2025 126.26
14212 193 BSK Associates 09/11/2025 309.80
14213 272 Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 09/11/2025 233.48 14214 291 City of Livingston c/o L &L District Irrigation09/11/2025 26,500.98 14215 447 Conco West, Inc 09/11/2025 95,185.01
14216 463 CopWare, Inc. 09/11/2025 705.00
14217 293 Department of Justice Accounting Office 09/11/2025 295.00 14218 1148 Domus Building Products 09/11/2025 80.00
14219 258 Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc. 09/11/2025 705.68 14220 163 EZ Auto Supply 09/11/2025 128.54
14221 488 FluidSecure 09/11/2025 532.96
14222 188 Frontier 09/11/2025 1,318.90
14223 164 Garza Tire & Wheel, Inc 09/11/2025 558.59
14224 262 Gilton Solid Waste 09/11/2025 194,409.44
14225 356 Gouveia Engineering, Inc. 09/11/2025 63.53
14226 811 Pete Hulse, DVM, Pa Hilmar Animal Hospital09/11/2025 576.00 14227 501 Hunt & Sons, LLC 09/11/2025 1,429.85
14228 165 J L Analytical Services, Inc. 09/11/2025 68.00 14229 786 J.B, Anderson Land Use Planning 09/11/2025 21,680.13 14230 464 Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP 09/11/2025 1,874.51 14231 238 Sandeep Kaur 09/11/2025 84.50
14232 675 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP 09/11/2025 11,935.00 14233 615 McClatchy Company LLC 09/11/2025 1,740.57
14234 1764 Michels Pacific Energy 09/11/2025 10,000.00
14235 170 MintierHarnish Planning Consulants 09/11/2025 4,663.75 14236 180 Mission Linen Service 09/11/2025 81.90
14237 UB*02134 ANDREW NARSI 09/11/2025 229.19
14238 302 Office Depot, Inc./ODP Business Solutions, LLC 09/11/2025 725.94 14239 203 PG&E 09/11/2025 43.63
14240 430 Quadient Finance USA, Inc. 09/11/2025 568.62
14241 433 Razzari Ford 09/11/2025 811.44
14242 1668 Rincon Consultants, Inc 09/11/2025 587.92
14243 1330 James D Sanders 09/11/2025 550.00
14244 408 Sapien Family Trust 09/11/2025 1,000.00
14245 1606 SVA Architects, Inc. 09/11/2025 10,113.90
AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date (9/12/2025 11:09 AM) Page 1 (irty o,f Uving1sto1n
1416 C Stroot
Livingston, CA 95334

Page 7 of 378 ends

Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
14246 1730 SwiftComply US OpCo, Inc. 09/11/2025 6,100.00 14247 1405 Taylor Backhoe Service, Inc. 09/11/2025 97,634.60 14248 975 The Sign Works 09/11/2025 377.13
14249 1175 UBEO West, LLC 09/11/2025 620.97
14250 1150 Valley 29 Electric, LLC 09/11/2025 250.00
14251 314 Valley Coffee & Water 09/11/2025 66.95
14252 409 Willdan Financial Services 09/11/2025 12,083.19 14253 597 Work Wellness 09/11/2025 162.00
Total for 9/11/2025: 507,724.78
Report Total (49 checks): 522,255.72
AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date (9/12/2025 11:09 AM) Page 2

Page 8 of 378 ends

MEETING MINUTES

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING

LIVINGSTON CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
A Special and Regular Meeting of the Livingston City Council was held on September 2, 2025, in the City Council Chambers with Mayor Moran presiding.

SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Moran called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Mayor Jose A. Moran
Mayor Pro Tem Gurpal Samra (Late Attendance)
Council Member Singh Uppal
Council Member Jason Roth
Council Member Robert Wallis (Absent)
Clerk’s Note: Mayor Pro-Tem Samra was not present during roll call, so he was marked as absent; however, Mr. Samra entered the Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m., so the roll call was switched to him being late.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited

MOMENT OF SILENCE
There was a moment of silence for First Responders and Military Members.

CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mayor Moran opened and closed citizen comments at 6:05 p.m., as there were no comments from the public, the Council went into Closed Session immediately thereafter to discuss the following matters.

IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
□

Page 9 of 378 ends

CLOSED SESSION

6. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Labor Negotiator: Jose Antonio Ramirez, City Manager
Employee Organizations:

7. Conference with Legal Counsel – Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(1): Two (2) Matters.

REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Moran called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited

MOMENT OF SILENCE
There was a moment of silence for First Responders and Military Members.

ROLL CALL
Mayor Jose A. Moran
Mayor Pro Tem Gurpal Samra
Council Member Singh Uppal
Council Member Jason Roth
Council Member Robert Wallis (Absent)

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Attorney Marc Tran noted deliberation occurred for items 6 and 7 of closed session. Directions was given to staff, no final action was taken.

City Attorney Marc Tran stated that per Government Code section 54953, subdivision (I)2, a council member may participate under the just cause exception, which includes medical absences.

Motion: M/S Uppal/Moran to acknowledge Council Member Wallis attending remotely. The motion carried 4-0-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Roth, Samra, Uppal, and Moran
NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: Wallis
Clerk’s Note: Council Member Wallis did not attend remotely.

Page 10 of 378 ends

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
None.

CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mayor Moran opened citizen comments at 7:17 p.m.

Citizen Comments:

Mireya Alvarado
Patricia Zamora
Estella Estrada
Mayor Moran closed citizen comments at 7:28 p.m., as there were no further comments from the public.

AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS

1. Presentation by Sara Bernal from Valley Water Collaborative: Valley Water Collaborative; Safe Drinking Water Community Outreach.

Sara Bernal presented this item. She gave an overview of what Valley Water Collaborative does and how the public can get involved. She responded to Council questions.

Mayor Moran opened public comments at 7:38 p.m.

Public Comments:

Attendee (did not state name)
Attendee (did not state name)
Attendee (did not state name)
Mayor Moran closed public comments at 7:42 p.m., as there were no further comments from the public.

2. Presentation by Keith Myers, Director of Business Development: Well Rehabilitation and Preventive Maintenance with Aqua Freed and Aqua Gard.

Keith Myers presented this item. Keith Myers presented this item. He gave a PowerPoint presentation on Subsurface Technologies, Inc. background and today’s focus on well rehabilitation and preventive maintenance.

Mayor Moran opened and closed public comments at 8:10 p.m., as there were no comments from the public.

COUNTY SUPERVISOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
Supervisor Jim Pacheco Announcements and Reports.
• Mayor Moran reported on behalf of County Supervisor Jim Pacheco.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
City Staff Announcements and Reports.

Page 11 of 378 ends

• John Ramirez, Interim Chief of Police
Mayor Moran opened public comments at 8:34 p.m.

Public Comments:

Attendee (did not state name)
Mayor Moran closed public comments at 8:35 p.m., as there were no further comments from the public.

City Manager Announcements and Reports.
• Jose A. Ramirez, City Manager

RECEIVE AND FILE

1. Receive and File the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ending July 31, 2025.

Deputy City Clerk Cisneros noted that the title of item 1 was not correct. The item should have been the City Treasurer’s Investment Report for the Month Ending July 31, 2025.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. RATIFY CHECK WARRANTS
Ratify Warrant Register Dated August 27, 2025.

2. APPROVE MINUTES OF MEETING
Approval of Minutes of Meeting Held on August 19, 2025.

3. APPROVE MINUTES OF MEETING
Approval of Minutes of Meeting Held on December 17, 2024.

4. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Amendment to Joint Point Powers Agreement of the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

5. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing And Approving The Application For Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program Grant Funds (Fiscal Year 2025-2026 CTFGP Grant Agreement). Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

6. Consideration of a Resolution (1) Approving The Purchase Of Thirteen Solar Light Poles For Main Street, Mont Cliff Way And Barcelona Drive In The Amount Of $74,627.00.00 From Fonroche Lighting America, (2) Waive Formal Bidding Requirements As Outlined In Section 1- 11-16, And (3) Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Required Documents. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

Page 12 of 378 ends

7. Consideration of a Resolution (1) Approving The Three-Year Professional Service Agreement With Holt Of California To Perform Annual Level 2 PM Service, In The Amount Not To Exceed $106,588.06 And (2) Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Required Documents. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

8. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing The Disposal Of City Surplus Items. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

10. Requirements As Outlined In Section 1-11-6, And (3) Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Required Documents. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

11. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing The City Manager To Accept And Allocate Funding From The California Department Of Justice Tobacco Grant Program Through The Merced County Department Of Public Health. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

Council Member Uppal requested that agenda items 9 and 14 be pulled for further discussion.

Mayor Moran opened and closed public comments at 8:42 p.m., as there were no comments from the public.

Motion: M/S Samra/Roth to approve the consent agenda except for agenda items 9 and 14. The motion carried 4-0-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Roth, Samra, Uppal, and Moran
NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: Wallis

9. Consideration of a Resolution (1) Approving The Purchase Of Thirteen Solar Light Poles For Main Street, Mont Cliff Way And Barcelona Drive In The Amount Of $74,627.00.00 From Fonroche Lighting America, (2) Waive Formal Bidding Requirements As Outlined In Section 1- 11-16, And (3) Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Required Documents. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

Public Works Director Anthony Chavarria introduced this item and responded to council questions.

Mayor Moran opened and closed public comments at 9:06 p.m., as there were no comments from the public.

Motion: M/S Uppal/Samra to approve Resolution (1) Approving The Purchase Of Thirteen Solar Light Poles For Main Street, Mont Cliff Way And Barcelona Drive In The Amount Of $74,627.00.00 From Fonroche Lighting America, (2) Waive Formal Bidding Requirements As Outlined In Section 1-11-16, And (3) Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Required Documents. The motion carried 4-0-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Roth, Samra, Uppal, and Moran
NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: Wallis

14. Consideration of a Resolution (1) Accepting The Bid And Awarding A Contract To Loprest, A Division Of Water Remediation Technologies, LLC., For The Total Bid Amount Of $1,408,672.00 For The Supply Of Greensand Filtration Equipment For Arsenic Treatment At

Page 13 of 378 ends

Well No. 8a, And (2) Authorizing the City Manager To Execute The Agreement. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution.

Public Works Director Anthony Chavarria introduced this item and responded to council questions.

Mayor Moran opened public comments at 9:19 p.m.

Public Comments:

Attendee
Mayor Moran closed public comments at 9:20 p.m., as there were no comments from the public.

Motion: M/S Samra/Roth to approve Resolution (1) Accepting the Bid and Awarding A Contract To Loprest, A Division Of Water Remediation Technologies, LLC., For The Total Bid Amount Of $1,408,672.00 For The Supply Of Greensand Filtration Equipment For Arsenic Treatment At Well No. 8a, And (2) Authorizing the City Manager To Execute The Agreement. The motion carried 4-0-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Roth, Samra, Uppal, and Moran
NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: Wallis

DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS

16. Informational: Compensation Analysis For Engineering, Planning And Building Department.

Direction was given to staff to bring the item back at the second meeting in October.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
City Council Members’ Announcements and Reports.
• Council Member Roth
• Council Member Uppal
• Mayor Pro-Tem Samra
Mayor’s Announcements and Reports
• Mayor Moran
Robert Wallis
• Special City Selection Committee of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board – Robert Wallis, Representative and Japjeet Uppal, Alternative. • City Council Liaison - Livingston Planning Commission – Jason Roth and Alternate Robert Wallis.
• Utility Stakeholders Committee – Japjeet Uppal and Robert Wallis.

Page 14 of 378 ends

• City Council Liaison - Livingston Planning Commission – Jason Roth and Alternate Robert Wallis.

COUNCIL DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Uppal requested a discussion on a potential update to the municipal code on justification on sole source.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at approximately 10:46 p.m. __________________________________
Deputy City Clerk of the City of Livingston
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore
The written meeting minutes reflect a summary of specific actions taken by the City Council. They do not necessarily reflect all of the comments or dialogue leading up to the action. All meetings are digitally recorded and are an official record of the meeting’s proceedings. Digitally recorded verbatim minutes are available upon request and may be obtained at Livingston City Hall.

Page 15 of 378 ends

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE

TO RENEW A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH AXON ENTERPRISE,
INC. FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND
MODEL 7 DEVICE TASERS
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2025
PREPARED BY: John Ramirez, Interim Chief of Police
REVIEWED BY: José A. Ramírez, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

To approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to renew a five-year contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for the replacement of body-worn cameras and model 7 devices tasers.

BACKGROUND:

The Livingston Police Department has utilized Axon’s Body Worn Camera system and Taser devices under previous contracts. These contracts are set to terminate this year, and the Department seeks to continue and upgrade its equipment and services through a new five-year agreement.

DISCUSSION:

The integration of Body Worn Cameras (BWCs) and Tasers into law enforcement operations has become a cornerstone of modern policing. These technologies serve distinct yet complementary roles in enhancing transparency, accountability, officer safety, and community trust.

Body Worn Cameras (BWCs)
BWCs have revolutionized the way police departments document interactions with the public.

Their use provides a reliable, objective record of events, which is critical in both routine and high-stress encounters. The benefits of BWCs include:
• Transparency and Accountability: BWCs help ensure that officer conduct is visible and reviewable. This transparency fosters public trust and provides a mechanism for accountability in cases of alleged misconduct or use of force. • Evidence Collection: Video footage from BWCs is invaluable in criminal investigations and prosecutions. It provides real-time documentation of incidents, witness statements, and suspect behavior, often reducing reliance on subjective accounts. • Training and Evaluation: Departments use BWC footage to train officers, identify areas for improvement, and reinforce best practices. This continuous feedback loop enhances professionalism and operational effectiveness.

Page 16 of 378 ends

• Reduction in Complaints and Use of Force: Studies have shown that the presence of BWCs can lead to a decrease in citizen complaints and use-of-force incidents. Knowing that actions are being recorded often encourages deescalation and adherence to protocol. • Protection for Officers and Citizens: BWCs protect officers from false accusations and provide citizens with assurance that their rights are being respected. This mutual protection is vital in maintaining a healthy relationship between law enforcement and the community.

Tasers
Tasers, specifically the newer Taser 7 models, are a critical tool in the continuum of force options available to officers. They offer a non-lethal alternative to firearms and are designed to incapacitate individuals temporarily without causing permanent harm. The importance of Tasers includes:
• De-escalation and Non-Lethal Force: Tasers provide officers with a means to control dangerous situations without resorting to lethal force. This is especially important in encounters involving individuals experiencing mental health crises or those who pose a threat but are not armed with firearms.
• Officer Safety: In situations where physical confrontation is unavoidable, Tasers allow officers to maintain distance and reduce the risk of injury to themselves and others. • Public Safety: Tasers help prevent harm to suspects, bystanders, and officers. Their use can quickly neutralize threats, allowing officers to secure scenes and provide aid or make arrests safely.
• Accountability and Data Integration: Modern Tasers are integrated with digital evidence platforms like Axon Evidence.com, allowing for automatic logging of usage, video capture, and data analysis. This integration supports transparency and ensures that use-of-force incidents are thoroughly documented and reviewed. • Training and Certification: The Axon Taser 7 program includes comprehensive training and certification, ensuring that officers are proficient in the safe and effective use of the device. This training is essential for minimizing misuse and maximizing the tool’s effectiveness.

In conclusion, the deployment of BWCs and Tasers is not merely a technological upgrade, it is a strategic investment in the safety, integrity, and effectiveness of law enforcement. These tools empower officers to perform their duties with greater confidence and accountability, while also reinforcing the community’s trust in the Department. The Livingston Police Department’s continued commitment to these technologies reflects its dedication to progressive policing and public service.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The money to purchase the BWCs and Taser 7 devices was approved in the 2025/2026 Police Department’s fiscal budget (Account # 1100-102-4440) for year 1 of the 5-year contract for the amount of $26,705.39. Funds will be budgeted in subsequent years within the Police Department budget. The total cost over five years is $296,772.07. • Year one – 2025/26 – payment $26,705.39
• Year two – 2026/27 – payment $67,516.66
• Year three – 2027/28 – payment $67,516.66
• Year four – 2028/29 – payment $67,516.66
• Year five – 2029/30 – payment $67,516.70

Page 17 of 378 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Axon Enterprise, Inc. Quote

Page 18 of 378 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO RENEW A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND MODEL 7

DEVICES TASERS
WHEREAS, the Livingston Police Department has utilized Axon’s Body Worn Camera (BWC) system and Taser devices under previous contracts that are set to expire in 2025; and WHEREAS, the Department seeks to continue and upgrade its equipment and services through a new five-year agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Body Worn Cameras provide reliable, objective documentation of police-public interactions, enhance transparency and accountability, support evidence collection, and improve officer training and evaluation; and
WHEREAS, studies have shown that the use of BWCs contributes to reductions in citizen complaints and use-of-force incidents, while also protecting both officers and the public from false accusations and misconduct; and
WHEREAS, the Taser 7 device offers a non-lethal alternative to firearms, supporting de-escalation tactics, enhancing officer and public safety, and integrating with digital evidence platforms for improved documentation and review; and
WHEREAS, the Axon Taser 7 program includes comprehensive training and certification to ensure safe and effective use by officers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livingston hereby:

Section 1. Approves the renewal of a five-year contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for the replacement and continued use of Body Worn Cameras and Taser 7 devices.

Section 2. Authorizes the use of Police Department funds from Account #1100-102-4440 to fund the contract, beginning with the approved Fiscal Year 2025/2026 budget. Future year allocations will be budgeted within each fiscal year as part of the budget.

Section 3. Directs the City Manager, or their designee, to execute all documents necessary to complete the contract renewal and ensure proper budgeting in future fiscal years.

Section 4. The total contract cost is $296,772.07, with year breakdowns as follows:
• Year One (2025/26): $26,705.39
• Year Two (2026/27): $67,516.66
• Year Three (2027/28): $67,516.66

Page 19 of 378 ends

• Year Four (2028/29): $67,516.66
• Year Five (2029/30): $67,516.70
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-___ is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Livingston at a regular meeting thereof duly held on the 16th day of September 2025, by the vote recorded as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By: ______________________________
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of the City of Livingston
ATTEST:

___________________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

____________________________________
Marc Tran, City Attorney
of the City of Livingston

Page 20 of 378 ends

Page 1 ends

Q-668850-45880AS
Issued: 08/11/2025
Quote Expiration: 09/19/2025
Estimated Contract Start Date: 11/01/2025
Account Number: 112515
Payment Terms: N30
Mode of Delivery: UPS-GND
Credit/Debit Amount: $0.00

SHIP TO BILL TO SALES REPRESENTATIVE PRIMARY CONTACT
Livingston Police Dept. - CA
1446 C St
Livingston,
CA
95334-1417
USA
Livingston Police Dept. - CA
1446 C St
Livingston
CA
95334-1417
USA
Email:

Adam Smith
Phone: 602-751-1798
Email: [email protected]
Fax: (480) 463-2201
John Ramirez
Phone: (209) 394-7916
Email: [email protected]
Fax: (209) 394-4358
Quote Summary Discount Summary
Program Length 60 Months Average Savings Per Year $9,583.57 TOTAL COST $285,330.50
ESTIMATED TOTAL W/ TAX $296,772.07 TOTAL SAVINGS $47,917.85 Axon Enterprise, Inc.
17800 N 85th St.

Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
United States
VAT: 86-0741227
Domestic: (800) 978-2737
International: +1.800.978.2737

Page 21 of 378 ends

Page 2 ends

Payment Summary
Date Subtotal Tax Total
Oct 2025 $25,330.50 $1,374.89 $26,705.39
Jul 2026 $65,000.00 $2,516.66 $67,516.66
Jul 2027 $65,000.00 $2,516.66 $67,516.66
Jul 2028 $65,000.00 $2,516.66 $67,516.66
Jul 2029 $65,000.00 $2,516.70 $67,516.70
Total $285,330.50 $11,441.57 $296,772.07

Page 22 of 378 ends

Page 3 ends

Quote Unbundled Price: $333,256.00
Quote List Price: $310,806.40
Quote Subtotal: $285,330.50
Pricing
All deliverables are detailed in Delivery Schedules section lower in proposal Item Description Qty Term Unbundled List Price Net Price Subtotal Tax Total Program
100553 TRANSFER CREDIT - SOFTWARE AND SERVICES 1 $1.00 $50.85 $50.85 $0.00 $50.85 100552 TRANSFER CREDIT - GOODS 1 $1.00 $8,120.30 $8,120.30 $710.52 $8,830.82 BWCamMBDTAP Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle 2 60 $73.05 $62.52 $59.39 $7,126.80 $502.81 $7,629.61 BWCamTAP Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 22 60 $42.20 $33.80 $32.11 $42,385.20 $2,917.75 $45,302.95 C00018 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22 60 $87.81 $80.16 $76.15 $100,518.00 $7,310.49 $107,828.49 A la Carte Hardware
H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 20 $899.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 H00002 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle 2 $1,638.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 2 $899.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 A la Carte Software
73449 AXON BODY - LICENSE - DEVICE CONNECTIVITY 22 60 $5.42 $5.42 $7,154.40 $0.00 $7,154.40 73682 AXON EVIDENCE - AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 22 60 $10.85 $10.85 $14,322.00 $0.00 $14,322.00 73447 AXON FUSUS - LICENSE - PLUS USER 22 60 $15.19 $15.19 $20,050.80 $0.00 $20,050.80 73686 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - UNLIMITED (AXON
DEVICE) 22 60 $27.12 $27.12 $35,798.40 $0.00 $35,798.40 BasicLicense Basic License Bundle 15 60 $16.27 $15.44 $13,893.75 $0.00 $13,893.75 ProLicense Pro License Bundle 12 60 $48.82 $46.31 $33,345.00 $0.00 $33,345.00 A la Carte Services
101208 AXON TASER 10 - 2 DAY INSTRUCTOR COURSE - INSIDE SALES 1 $2,700.00 $2,565.00 $2,565.00 $0.00 $2,565.00
Total $285,330.50 $11,441.57 $296,772.07
Delivery Schedule
Hardware
Bundle Item Description QTY Shipping Location Estimated Delivery Date AB4 Camera Bundle 100147 AXON BODY 4 - CAMERA - NA US FIRST RESPONDER BLK RAPIDLOCK 2 1 10/01/2025
AB4 Camera Bundle 100147 AXON BODY 4 - CAMERA - NA US FIRST RESPONDER BLK RAPIDLOCK 20 1 10/01/2025
AB4 Camera Bundle 100466 AXON BODY 4 - CABLE - USB-C TO USB-C 22 1 10/01/2025 AB4 Camera Bundle 100466 AXON BODY 4 - CABLE - USB-C TO USB-C 3 1 10/01/2025 AB4 Camera Bundle 100775 AXON BODY 4 - MAGNETIC DISCONNECT CABLE 3 1 10/01/2025 AB4 Camera Bundle 100775 AXON BODY 4 - MAGNETIC DISCONNECT CABLE 22 1 10/01/2025 AB4 Camera Bundle 74028 AXON BODY - MOUNT - WING CLIP RAPIDLOCK 3 1 10/01/2025 AB4 Camera Bundle 74028 AXON BODY - MOUNT - WING CLIP RAPIDLOCK 22 1 10/01/2025 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle 100206 AXON BODY 4 - 8 BAY DOCK 2 1 10/01/2025

Page 23 of 378 ends

Page 4 ends

Hardware
Bundle Item Description QTY Shipping Location Estimated Delivery Date AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle 70033 AXON - DOCK WALL MOUNT - BRACKET ASSY 2 1 10/01/2025 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle 71019 AXON BODY - DOCK POWERCORD - NORTH AMERICA 2 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 100591 AXON TASER - CLEANING KIT 1 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 100623 ENHANCED HOOK-AND-LOOP TRAINING (HALT) SUIT (V2) 1 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 20008 AXON TASER 7 - HANDLE - HIGH VIS GRN LASER CLASS 3R YLW 22 1 10/01/2025
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 20018 AXON TASER - BATTERY PACK - TACTICAL 26 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 20063 AXON TASER 7 - HOLSTER - SAFARILAND RH 22 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22175 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE STANDOFF (3.5-DEGREE) NS 110 1 10/01/2025
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22176 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE CLOSE QUART (12- DEGREE) NS 110 1 10/01/2025
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22177 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - HALT STANDOFF NS 44 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22178 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - HALT CLOSE QUART NS 44 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22179 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - INERT STANDOFF (3.5- DEGREE) NS 22 1 10/01/2025
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22181 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - INERT CLOSE QUART (12- DEGREE) NS 22 1 10/01/2025
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 70033 AXON - DOCK WALL MOUNT - BRACKET ASSY 1 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 71019 AXON BODY - DOCK POWERCORD - NORTH AMERICA 1 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 74200 AXON TASER - DOCK - SIX BAY PLUS CORE 1 1 10/01/2025 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 80087 AXON TASER - TARGET - CONDUCTIVE PROFESSIONAL RUGGEDIZED 1 1 10/01/2025
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 80090 AXON TASER - TARGET FRAME - PROFESSIONAL 27.5 IN X 75 IN 1 1 10/01/2025
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22175 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE STANDOFF (3.5-DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2026
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22176 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE CLOSE QUART (12- DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2026
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22175 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE STANDOFF (3.5-DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2027
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22176 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE CLOSE QUART (12- DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2027
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22177 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - HALT STANDOFF NS 44 1 10/01/2027 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22178 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - HALT CLOSE QUART NS 44 1 10/01/2027 Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle 73689 AXON BODY - TAP REFRESH 1 - DOCK MULTI BAY 2 1 04/01/2028 Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 73309 AXON BODY - TAP REFRESH 1 - CAMERA 22 1 04/01/2028 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22175 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE STANDOFF (3.5-DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2028
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22176 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE CLOSE QUART (12- DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2028
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22175 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE STANDOFF (3.5-DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2029
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22176 AXON TASER 7 - CARTRIDGE - LIVE CLOSE QUART (12- DEGREE) NS 44 1 10/01/2029
Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle 73688 AXON BODY - TAP REFRESH 2 - DOCK MULTI BAY 2 1 10/01/2030 Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 73310 AXON BODY - TAP REFRESH 2 - CAMERA 22 1 10/01/2030 Software
Bundle Item Description QTY Estimated Start Date Estimated End Date Basic License Bundle 73683 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - 10GB A LA CARTE 15 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 Basic License Bundle 73840 AXON EVIDENCE - ECOM LICENSE - BASIC 15 11/01/2025 10/31/2030

Page 24 of 378 ends

Page 5 ends

Software
Bundle Item Description QTY Estimated Start Date Estimated End Date BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 101180 AXON TASER - DATA SCIENCE PROGRAM 22 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 20248 AXON TASER - EVIDENCE.COM LICENSE 1 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 20248 AXON TASER - EVIDENCE.COM LICENSE 22 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 Pro License Bundle 73683 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - 10GB A LA CARTE 36 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 Pro License Bundle 73746 AXON EVIDENCE - ECOM LICENSE - PRO 12 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 A la Carte 73447 AXON FUSUS - LICENSE - PLUS USER 22 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 A la Carte 73449 AXON BODY - LICENSE - DEVICE CONNECTIVITY 22 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 A la Carte 73682 AXON EVIDENCE - AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 22 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 A la Carte 73686 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - UNLIMITED (AXON DEVICE) 22 11/01/2025 10/31/2030 Services
Bundle Item Description QTY
BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 101193 AXON TASER - ON DEMAND CERTIFICATION 1 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 20246 AXON TASER 7 - REPLACEMENT ACCESS PROGRAM - DUTY CARTRIDGE 22 A la Carte 101208 AXON TASER 10 - 2 DAY INSTRUCTOR COURSE - INSIDE SALES 1 Warranties
Bundle Item Description QTY Estimated Start Date Estimated End Date Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle 80465 AXON BODY - TAP WARRANTY - MULTI BAY DOCK 2 10/01/2026 10/31/2030 Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 80464 AXON BODY - TAP WARRANTY - CAMERA 22 10/01/2026 10/31/2030 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 80374 AXON TASER - EXT WARRANTY - BATTERY PACK T7/T10 26 10/01/2026 10/31/2030 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 80395 AXON TASER 7 - EXT WARRANTY - HANDLE 22 10/01/2026 10/31/2030 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 80396 AXON TASER - EXT WARRANTY - DOCK SIX BAY T7/T10 1 10/01/2026 10/31/2030

Page 25 of 378 ends

Page 6 ends

Shipping Locations
Location Number Street City State Zip Country
1 1446 C St Livingston CA 95334-1417 USA
Payment Details
Oct 2025
Invoice Plan Item Description Qty Subtotal Tax Total
Year 1 101208 AXON TASER 10 - 2 DAY INSTRUCTOR COURSE - INSIDE SALES 1 $158.80 $0.00 $158.80 Year 1 73447 AXON FUSUS - LICENSE - PLUS USER 22 $1,241.38 $0.00 $1,241.38 Year 1 73449 AXON BODY - LICENSE - DEVICE CONNECTIVITY 22 $442.94 $0.00 $442.94 Year 1 73682 AXON EVIDENCE - AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 22 $886.70 $0.00 $886.70 Year 1 73686 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - UNLIMITED (AXON DEVICE) 22 $2,216.33 $0.00 $2,216.33 Year 1 BasicLicense Basic License Bundle 15 $860.18 $0.00 $860.18 Year 1 BWCamMBDTAP Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle 2 $441.24 $31.13 $472.37 Year 1 BWCamTAP Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 22 $2,624.13 $180.64 $2,804.77 Year 1 C00018 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22 $6,223.21 $452.60 $6,675.81 Year 1 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 1 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 1 H00002 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Year 1 ProLicense Pro License Bundle 12 $2,064.44 $0.00 $2,064.44 Invoice Upon Fulfillment 100552 TRANSFER CREDIT - GOODS 1 $8,120.30 $710.52 $8,830.82 Invoice Upon Fulfillment 100553 TRANSFER CREDIT - SOFTWARE AND SERVICES 1 $50.85 $0.00 $50.85 Total $25,330.50 $1,374.89 $26,705.39
Nov 2025
Invoice Plan Item Description Qty Subtotal Tax Total
Invoice Upon Fulfillment BWCamTAP Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Jul 2026
Invoice Plan Item Description Qty Subtotal Tax Total
Year 2 101208 AXON TASER 10 - 2 DAY INSTRUCTOR COURSE - INSIDE SALES 1 $601.55 $0.00 $601.55 Year 2 73447 AXON FUSUS - LICENSE - PLUS USER 22 $4,702.36 $0.00 $4,702.36 Year 2 73449 AXON BODY - LICENSE - DEVICE CONNECTIVITY 22 $1,677.87 $0.00 $1,677.87 Year 2 73682 AXON EVIDENCE - AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 22 $3,358.83 $0.00 $3,358.83 Year 2 73686 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - UNLIMITED (AXON DEVICE) 22 $8,395.52 $0.00 $8,395.52 Year 2 BasicLicense Basic License Bundle 15 $3,258.39 $0.00 $3,258.39 Year 2 BWCamMBDTAP Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle 2 $1,671.40 $117.92 $1,789.32 Year 2 BWCamTAP Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 22 $9,940.27 $684.27 $10,624.54 Year 2 C00018 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22 $23,573.67 $1,714.47 $25,288.14 Year 2 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 2 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 2 H00002 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Year 2 ProLicense Pro License Bundle 12 $7,820.14 $0.00 $7,820.14 Total $65,000.00 $2,516.66 $67,516.66

Page 26 of 378 ends

Page 7 ends

Jul 2027
Invoice Plan Item Description Qty Subtotal Tax Total
Year 3 101208 AXON TASER 10 - 2 DAY INSTRUCTOR COURSE - INSIDE SALES1 $601.55 $0.00 $601.55 Year 3 73447 AXON FUSUS - LICENSE - PLUS USER 22 $4,702.36 $0.00 $4,702.36 Year 3 73449 AXON BODY - LICENSE - DEVICE CONNECTIVITY 22 $1,677.87 $0.00 $1,677.87 Year 3 73682 AXON EVIDENCE - AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 22 $3,358.83 $0.00 $3,358.83 Year 3 73686 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - UNLIMITED (AXON DEVICE) 22 $8,395.52 $0.00 $8,395.52 Year 3 BasicLicense Basic License Bundle 15 $3,258.39 $0.00 $3,258.39 Year 3 BWCamMBDTAP Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle2 $1,671.40 $117.92 $1,789.32 Year 3 BWCamTAP Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 22 $9,940.27 $684.27 $10,624.54 Year 3 C00018 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22 $23,573.67 $1,714.47 $25,288.14 Year 3 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 3 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 3 H00002 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Year 3 ProLicense Pro License Bundle 12 $7,820.14 $0.00 $7,820.14 Total $65,000.00 $2,516.66 $67,516.66
Jul 2028
Invoice Plan Item Description Qty Subtotal Tax Total
Year 4 101208 AXON TASER 10 - 2 DAY INSTRUCTOR COURSE - INSIDE SALES1 $601.55 $0.00 $601.55 Year 4 73447 AXON FUSUS - LICENSE - PLUS USER 22 $4,702.36 $0.00 $4,702.36 Year 4 73449 AXON BODY - LICENSE - DEVICE CONNECTIVITY 22 $1,677.87 $0.00 $1,677.87 Year 4 73682 AXON EVIDENCE - AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 22 $3,358.83 $0.00 $3,358.83 Year 4 73686 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - UNLIMITED (AXON DEVICE) 22 $8,395.52 $0.00 $8,395.52 Year 4 BasicLicense Basic License Bundle 15 $3,258.39 $0.00 $3,258.39 Year 4 BWCamMBDTAP Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle2 $1,671.40 $117.92 $1,789.32 Year 4 BWCamTAP Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 22 $9,940.27 $684.27 $10,624.54 Year 4 C00018 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22 $23,573.67 $1,714.47 $25,288.14 Year 4 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 4 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 4 H00002 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Year 4 ProLicense Pro License Bundle 12 $7,820.14 $0.00 $7,820.14 Total $65,000.00 $2,516.66 $67,516.66
Jul 2029
Invoice Plan Item Description Qty Subtotal Tax Total
Year 5 101208 AXON TASER 10 - 2 DAY INSTRUCTOR COURSE - INSIDE SALES1 $601.55 $0.00 $601.55 Year 5 73447 AXON FUSUS - LICENSE - PLUS USER 22 $4,702.36 $0.00 $4,702.36 Year 5 73449 AXON BODY - LICENSE - DEVICE CONNECTIVITY 22 $1,677.87 $0.00 $1,677.87 Year 5 73682 AXON EVIDENCE - AUTO TAGGING LICENSE 22 $3,358.83 $0.00 $3,358.83 Year 5 73686 AXON EVIDENCE - STORAGE - UNLIMITED (AXON DEVICE) 22 $8,395.52 $0.00 $8,395.52 Year 5 BasicLicense Basic License Bundle 15 $3,258.39 $0.00 $3,258.39 Year 5 BWCamMBDTAP Body Worn Camera Multi-Bay Dock TAP Bundle2 $1,671.40 $117.92 $1,789.32 Year 5 BWCamTAP Body Worn Camera TAP Bundle 22 $9,940.27 $684.30 $10,624.57 Year 5 C00018 BUNDLE - TASER 7 CERTIFICATION 22 $23,573.67 $1,714.48 $25,288.15 Year 5 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle 20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 5 H00001 AB4 Camera Bundle2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Year 5 H00002 AB4 Multi Bay Dock Bundle2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Year 5 ProLicense Pro License Bundle 12 $7,820.14 $0.00 $7,820.14 Total $65,000.00 $2,516.70 $67,516.70

Page 27 of 378 ends

Page 8 ends

Tax is estimated based on rates applicable at date of quote and subject to change at time of invoicing. If a tax exemption certificate should be applied, please submit prior to invoicing.

Standard Terms and Conditions
Axon Enterprise Inc. Sales Terms and Conditions
Axon Master Services and Purchasing Agreement:

This Quote is limited to and conditional upon your acceptance of the provisions set forth herein and Axon’s Master Services and Purchasing Agreement (posted at https://www.axon.com/sales-terms-and-conditions), as well as the attached Statement of Work (SOW) for Axon Fleet and/or Axon Interview Room purchase, if applicable. In the event you and Axon have entered into a prior agreement to govern all future purchases, that agreement shall govern to the extent it includes the products and services being purchased and does not conflict with the Axon Customer Experience Improvement Program Appendix as described below.

ACEIP:

The Axon Customer Experience Improvement Program Appendix, which includes the sharing of de-identified segments of Agency Content with Axon to develop new products and improve your product experience (posted at www.axon.com/legal/sales-terms-and-conditions), is incorporated herein by reference. By signing below, you agree to the terms of the Axon Customer Experience Improvement Program.

Acceptance of Terms:

Any purchase order issued in response to this Quote is subject solely to the above referenced terms and conditions. By signing below, you represent that you are lawfully able to enter into contracts. If you are signing on behalf of an entity (including but not limited to the company, municipality, or government agency for whom you work), you represent to Axon that you have legal authority to bind that entity. If you do not have this authority, please do not sign this Quote.

Exceptions to Standard Terms and Conditions

Page 28 of 378 ends

Page 9 ends

Agency has existing contract(s) originated via Quote(s):

Q-333151, Q-356332, Q-562092
Agency is terminating those contracts effective 11/1/2025 Any changes in this date will result in modification of the program value which may result in additional fees or credits due to or from Axon.

The parties agree that Axon is applying a Net Transfer Debit of $8,171.15 Any credits contained in this quote are contingent upon payment in full of the following amounts:

Q-333151 - Pending - 8/27/2022 - $0.00
Q-333151 - Pending - 8/27/2023 - $0.00
Q-333151 - Pending - 8/27/2024 - $0.00
100% discounted body-worn camera and docking station hardware contained in this quote reflects a TAP replacement for hardware purchased under existing quotes aforementioned above. All TAP obligations from this contract will be considered fulfilled upon execution of this quote. \s1\ \d1\
Signature Date Signed
8/11/2025

Page 29 of 378 ends

Page 10 ends

Page 30 of 378 ends

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution (1) Authorizing The City Manager To Enter Into A 36 Month Contract With Flock Safety For Additional Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) Not To Exceed $90,000 For The Contract - $30,000 For Fiscal Year 2025/2026, $30,000 For Fiscal Year 2026/2027, And $30,000 For Fiscal Year 2027/2028
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2025
PREPARED BY: John Ramirez, Interim Chief of Police

REVIEWED BY: Happy Bains, Finance Director/Assistant City Manager Jose Antonio Ramirez, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

To approve a resolution (1) authorizing the City Manager to enter into a 36 month contract with flock safety for additional automated license plate readers (ALPR) not to exceed $90,000 for the contract - $30,000 for Fiscal Year 2025/2026, $30,000 for Fiscal Year 2026/2027, and $30,000 for Fiscal Year 2027/2028.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

The Livingston Police Department wishes to add to our current use of technology, information, and intelligence gained from the use of automated license plate readers to combat criminal activity, enhance productivity, and improve officer safety. The automated license plate readers also provide traffic mitigation measures that could potentially have a drastic impact on current traffic issues within the City of Livingston.

The ALPR cameras are installed in fixed locations throughout the city and capture license plates from passing vehicles. Once the license plate is processed by the ALPR camera and sent to the cloud, Livingston Police Officers using the Flock Safety account (or the Department’s Dispatch Center) is notified within seconds whenever a license plate is read that is associated with the following criteria: stolen vehicle, identification of vehicles connected to wanted felons, Amber Alerts, or any other search criteria determined by the Department. This allows investigators to review captured suspect vehicle information to aid in the investigation. The police department has policies and training in place to keep the system from being misused by staff.

The cloud-based database is also searchable for certain descriptors if a full license plate is not known. The searchable descriptors include but, are not limited to vehicle make and model, such as “semi-truck”, color, and certain unique characteristics a vehicle may have.

Currently, the Department has eighteen ALPR Flock cameras. Flock Safety is the only manufacturer that has ALPR cameras that can communicate with our current digital evidence system, Axon – Evidence.com. There is a sole source letter attached to this staff report.

Page 31 of 378 ends

The Department would like to lease 10 cameras in addition to the 18 active cameras, for a total of 28 cameras.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Flock only leases ALPR equipment and their pricing for the first year is $30,000 ($3,000 each for 10 cameras) The total cost for the first year of service is $30,000 with a recurring contract of $30,000 in subsequent years on a year-to-year basis for three years totaling $90,000. The firstyear funds have already been approved in the 2025/2026 Police Department fiscal budget (Account 1100-102-4440). Subsequent years will be budgeted for in the respective fiscal years.

On average, the City will pay $89,900.00 per fiscal year for all 28 cameras.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Flock Safety Resolution

2. Sole Source Letter

3. Flock Safety Agreement

Page 32 of 378 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON (1) AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A 36 MONTH CONTRACT WITH FLOCK SAFETY

FOR ADDITIONAL AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS (ALPR) NOT TO EXCEED $90,000 FOR THE CONTRACT $30,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/2026, $30,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027, AND $30,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027/2028.

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”); and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston is required to provide public safety and police services to the community; and
WHEREAS, the Livingston Police Department would like to lease ten (10) additional Automated License Plate Reader cameras from FLOCK SAFETY not to exceed the amount of $30,000 for fiscal year 2025/2026, $30,000 for fiscal year 2026/2027, and $30,000 for fiscal year 2027/2028, used to increase public safety efforts with the City and continue to enhance investigative abilities; and
WHEREAS, the Livingston Police Department has been using FLOCK SAFETY Automated License Plate Readers for the past three years. The Livingston Police Department also has a current policy in place for the use of Automated License Plate Readers and the information that is collected.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livingston hereby;
Section 1 Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a 36-month contract with FLOCK SAFETY for ten additional automated license plate readers not to exceed $90,000 for the contract, $30,000 for fiscal year 2025/2026, $30,000 for fiscal year 2026/2027, and $30,000 for fiscal year 2027/2028.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-___ is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Livingston at a regular meeting thereof duly held on the 16th day of September 2025, by the vote recorded as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By: ______________________________
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of the City of Livingston

Page 33 of 378 ends

ATTEST:
___________________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
____________________________________
Marc Tran, City Attorney
of the City of Livingston

Page 34 of 378 ends

1170 Howell Mill Rd. NW · Suite 210, Atlanta, GA 30318
2025 Sole Source Letter for Flock Safety® Public Safety Solutions August 19, 2025
CA - Livingston PD
1446 C St.

Livingston, California, 95334
Dear John Ramirez,
This letter serves to confirm that Flock Group Inc. d/b/a Flock Safety is the sole provider of our proprietary public safety technology solution specifically designed for use by law enforcement, communities, and private entities to increase safety and reduce crime. Flock Safety’s unique system integrates hardware and cloud-based software to enable real-time data processing and secure data sharing capabilities that are unavailable through other providers.

As the sole developer and provider of this proprietary technology, Flock Safety retains exclusive rights to manufacture, license, and support the products and software we offer. Our solutions include cutting-edge features such as machine learning analytics, CJIS-compliant data storage, and a centralized system that facilitates collaboration across multiple jurisdictions, supporting a more robust and efficient public safety network. Specifically, Flock Safety provides the ability to access additional cameras from Flock customers, including:

Merced County SO, Atwater PD, Turlock PD, at no additional cost.

No other vendor offers the specific combination of hardware and cloud-based features, CJIScompliant data handling, or the national network capabilities that Flock Safety provides. For these reasons, Flock Safety is the only source available for these services.

Thank you,
Garrett Langley CEO, Flock Safety®
f i'ock safety

Page 35 of 378 ends

1170 Howell Mill Rd. NW · Suite 210, Atlanta, GA 30318
Flock Safety® LPR Cameras
Flock Safety® is the sole manufacturer, developer, and distributor of Flock Safety® LPR Camera, Flock Safety® Long-Range LPR, Flock Safety® Short-Range LPR, Flock Safety® Flex LPR Camera, Flock Safety® LPR Camera for Neighborhoods, and Flock Safety® LPR Video Integration.

Flock Safety® LPR Camera
• Fixed, infrastructure-free license plate recognition (“LPR”) cameras suitable for capturing two (2+) lanes of traffic simultaneously with a single camera from a vertical mass
• Includes Flock Safety® solar LPR camera option (next-gen platform standard range), which may cover up to three (3) lanes of traffic simultaneously Flock Safety® Long-Range LPR
• Fixed, infrastructure-free long-range (“LR”) LPR, suitable for capturing three (3+) lanes of traffic simultaneously with a single camera from a vertical mass • Includes Flock Safety® solar LR LPR option (next-gen platform LR) Flock Safety® Short-Range LPR
• Fixed, infrastructure-free short-range (“SR”) LPR with solar power capability, suitable for wide angle capture (i.e., parking lots or garages)
Flock Safety® Flex LPR Camera
• Location-flexible, infrastructure-free self-installation LPR camera with solar power option
• Ties seamlessly into the Flock Safety® ecosystem with a small and lightweight camera • Ability to read up to 30,000 license plates and vehicle attributes on a single battery charge
Flock Safety® LPR Camera for Neighborhoods
• Infrastructure- and maintenance-free LPR for 24/7 neighborhood security Flock Safety® LPR Video Integration
• Integrates third-party LPR and video cameras into FlockOS® utilizing existing camera infrastructures
The Flock Safety® LPR cameras listed above are the only Law Enforcement Grade LPR cameras to offer the following combination of proprietary features:
• Vehicle Fingerprint Technology®
o Patented proprietary machine vision to analyze vehicle license plate, state recognition, and vehicle attributes such as color, type, make and objects (roof rack, bumper stickers, etc.) based on image analytics (not car registration data) o Machine vision to capture and identify characteristics of vehicles with a paper license plate and vehicles with the absence of a license plate o Ability to “Save Search” based on description of vehicles using Flock’s patented Vehicle Fingerprint Technology® without the need for a license plate, and set f i'ock safety

Page 36 of 378 ends

1170 Howell Mill Rd. NW · Suite 210, Atlanta, GA 30318
up alerts based on vehicle description
o Only LPR provider with “Visual Search,” which can transform digital images from any source into an investigative lead by finding matching vehicles based on the vehicle attributes in the uploaded photo
• Integrated Cloud-Software & Hardware Platform
o Best in class ability to capture and process up to 30,000 vehicles per day with a single camera powered exclusively by solar power
o Wireless deployment of solar powered license plate reading cameras with integrated cellular communication weighing less than 5lbs and able to be powered solely by a solar panel of 65W or less
o Web based footage retrieval tool with filtering capabilities such as vehicle color, vehicle type, vehicle manufacturer, partial or full license plate, state of license plate, and object detection
o Utilizes motion trigger to start and stop recording without the need for a reflective plate
o Motion detection allows for unique vehicle cases such as bicycle capture, ATV, motorcycle, etc.
o On device machine processing to limit LTE bandwidth consumption o All images and metadata is encrypted throughout its entire lifecycle from ondevice to storage in Flock’s US-based CJIS-compliant cloud o Covert industrial design for minimizing visual pollution • Transparency & Ethical Product Design
o One-of-a-kind “Transparency Portal,” a public-facing dashboard that details the customer’s policies, as well as automatically updates metrics from the Flock Safety® system
o Built-in integration with National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) to receive AMBER Alerts to find missing children o Privacy controls to enable certain vehicles to “opt-out” of being captured • Integrated Gunshot Detection
o Ability to pair with Flock Safety® gunshot detection device, which has natively integrated gunshot detection capabilities utilizing machine learning to recognize audio signatures typical of crimes in progress (e.g., gunshots) • Live Video Integration
o Ability to apply computer vision to third-party cameras using the Flock Safety® LPR video integration, transforming them into evidence capture devices using the same Vehicle Fingerprint® technology offered on the Flock Safety® LPR cameras
o Flock Safety® video integration livestream integrates live stream traffic cameras, publicly or privately owned livestream security cameras into one cloud-based situational awareness dashboard to increase response time in mission-critical incidents
o Manage various government intelligence including LPR, livestream cameras, computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”), automatic vehicle location (“AVL”) on Flock Safety® video integration suite
f i'ock safety

Page 37 of 378 ends

1170 Howell Mill Rd. NW · Suite 210, Atlanta, GA 30318
• Situational Awareness
o FlockOS® is the world’s first and only public safety operating system compatible with Flock Safety® LPR video cameras, including live streaming fixed and pan-tilt-zoom (“PTZ”) video cameras, and the Flock Safety® gunshot detection device, while seamlessly integrating first and third-party data across video, LPR, and audio to deliver real-time intelligence and retroactive crime solving in a single-pane real-time crime center
o Ability to enhance situational awareness capacity by layering all intelligence streams onto the FlockOS® ESRI-based map
o FlockOS® features Flock Safety® unique Real-Time Routing feature that analyzes various data sources to determine where a suspect vehicle has been and its direction of travel, providing users with possible outcomes based on a confidence threshold
• Warranty & Service
o Lifetime maintenance and support included in subscription price o Flock Safety® is the only fully integrated LPR one-stop solution from production of the devices to delivery and installation
o Performance monitoring software to predict potential failures, obstructions, tilts, and other critical or minor issues
• Partnerships
o Flock Safety® is the only LPR provider to officially partner with Prepared911 to distribute 911 call audio and transcripts to law enforcement agencies o Through FlockOS®, Flock Safety® is the only LPR provider to officially partner with FirstTwo to enable clicking anywhere on a display map to display the relevant information from FirstTwo
o Access to additional cameras purchased by Flock’s HOA and private business partners, means an ever-increasing amount of cameras and data at no additional cost
f i'ock safety

Page 38 of 378 ends

Flock Safety + CA - Livingston PD
______________
Flock Group Inc.
1170 Howell Mill Rd, Suite 210
Atlanta, GA 30318
______________
MAIN CONTACT:

Lupe Wood
[email protected]
8325998244

Page 39 of 378 ends

ORDER FORM
This order form (“Order Form”) hereby incorporates and includes the terms of the previously executed agreement (the “Terms”) which describe and set forth the general legal terms governing the relationship (collectively, the "Agreement" ). The Terms contain, among other things, warranty disclaimers, liability limitations and use limitations.

This additional services Agreement will be effective when this Order Form is executed by both Parties (the “Effective Date”) Customer: CA - Livingston PD Initial Term: 36 Months
Legal Entity Name: CA - Livingston PD Renewal Term: 36 Months Accounts Payable Email: [email protected] Payment Terms: Net 30 Address: 1446 C St Livingston, California 95334 Billing Frequency: Annual Plan - First Year Invoiced at Signing.

Retention Period: 30 Days
Hardware and Software Products
Annual recurring amounts over subscription term
Item Cost Quantity Total
Flock Safety Platform $30,000.00
Flock Safety LPR Products
Flock Safety LPR, fka Falcon Included 10 Included
Professional Services and One Time Purchases
Item Cost Quantity Total
One Time Fees
Flock Safety Professional Services
Professional Services - Standard Implementation Fee $0.00 10 $0.00 Subtotal Year 1: $30,000.00
Annual Recurring Subtotal: $30,000.00
Discounts: $6,500.00
Estimated Tax: $0.00
Contract Total: $90,000.00
Taxes shown above are provided as an estimate. Actual taxes are the responsibility of the Customer. This Agreement will automatically renew for successive renewal terms of the greater of one year or the length set forth on the Order Form (each, a “Renewal Term”) unless either Party gives the other Party notice of non-renewal at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then-current term.

The Term for Flock Hardware shall commence upon first installation and validation, except that the Term for any Flock Hardware that requires selfinstallation shall commence upon execution of the Agreement. In the event a Customer purchases more than one type of Flock Hardware, the earliest Term start date shall control. In the event a Customer purchases software only, the Term shall commence upon execution of the Agreement. f i'ock safety

Page 40 of 378 ends

Page 41 of 378 ends

Billing Schedule
Billing Schedule Amount (USD)
Year 1
At Contract Signing $30,000.00
Annual Recurring after Year 1 $30,000.00
Contract Total $90,000.00
*Tax not included
Discounts
Discounts Applied Amount (USD)
Flock Safety Platform $0.00
Flock Safety Add-ons $0.00
Flock Safety Professional Services $6,500.00

Page 42 of 378 ends

Product and Services Description
Flock Safety Platform Items Product Description
Flock Safety LPR, fka Falcon
Law enforcement grade infrastructure-free (solar power + LTE) license plate recognition camera with Vehicle Fingerprint ™ technology (proprietary machine learning software) and real-time alerts for unlimited users.

Professional Services - Standard
Implementation Fee
One-time Professional Services engagement. Includes site and safety assessment, camera setup and testing, and shipping and handling in accordance with the Flock Safety Standard Implementation Service Brief.

Page 43 of 378 ends

By executing this Order Form, Customer represents and warrants that it has read and agrees to all of the terms and conditions contained in the previously executed agreement.

The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates set forth below.

FLOCK GROUP, INC. Customer: CA - Livingston PD
By:
\FSSignature2\
By:
\FSSignature1\
Name:
\FSFullname2\
Name:
\FSFullname1\
Title:
\FSTitle2\
Title:
\FSTitle1\
Date:
\FSDateSigned2\
Date:
\FSDateSigned1\
PO Number:

Page 44 of 378 ends

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Adopting The City Of Livingston Element For The Regional Active Transportation Plan Prepared By The Merced County Association Of Governments
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2025
PREPARED BY: Mario Gouveia, PE, City Engineer

REVIEWED BY: Jose Antonio Ramirez, City Manager
Anthony Chavarria, Public Works Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the City of Livingston element for the Regional Active Transportation Plan (Regional ATP) prepared by the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG).

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

The MCAG, in collaboration with the local jurisdictions, stakeholders, and residents, has developed a Regional ATP. The Regional ATP is intended to guide efforts to improve and increase non-motorized trips, such as walking and bicycling throughout the Merced County region. The Regional ATP would promote safe, accessible, and connected pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout the region, including the City of Livingston.

A safe, connected, and equitable network of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that improve access to key destinations, reduce collisions, and encourage active transportation would help advance the region’s strategies for reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As each local jurisdiction must spend at least 20% of their local Measure V funding on alternative mode projects such as bicycle and pedestrian projects, this plan is intended to develop a prioritized list of proposed improvements. The plan also builds upon past efforts by complementing and aligning with several key planning documents and objectives:
• It complies with the California Transportation Commission's 2025 Active Transportation Program Guidelines.
• It is consistent with the 2022 MCAG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy.
• It serves as an implementation tool for the Circulation Element of the Livingston General Plan.

Adoption of the Regional ATP strengthens the City of Livingston’s eligibility for funding from various sources and provides the City with a viable, current resource for competing for funding opportunities from programs such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP) other non-motorized transportation funding sources.

Page 45 of 378 ends

Additionally, adoption of the Regional ATP would solidify the City’s planning and policy basis for bicycle infrastructure and formalize the proposed bike route improvements by the current Self Help Enterprises Project. This plan would provide a clear framework and justification for requiring bicycle-related improvements as conditions of approval, ensuring consistency with regional and local transportation goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There would be no fiscal impact for this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. MCAG Regional Active Transportation Plan

Page 46 of 378 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON ADOPTING THE

CITY OF LIVINGSTON ELEMENT FOR THE REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PLAN PREPARED BY THE MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS, the Merced County Regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP) complies with the California Transportation Commission 2025 Active Transportation Program Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Regional ATP is in compliance with the 2022 Merced County Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy; and WHEREAS, the Regional ATP is an implementation tool to the Livingston General Plan Circulation Element; and
WHEREAS, the Regional ATP promotes walking and biking for transportation and recreation by all members of the community by creating a connected and complete network of trails, walkways, and bikeways that provides safe, convenient, and enjoyable connections to key destinations and neighborhoods in Livingston; and
WHEREAS, the Regional ATP promotes pedestrian and bicyclist safety and collision reduction; and
WHEREAS, the Regional ATP will improve the accessibility of funding for pedestrian and bicycle-related improvements in Livingston; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Regional ATP meets eligibility requirements for Active Transportation Program funding.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livingston hereby:

1. Finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference.

2. Adopts the City of Livingston element for the Regional Active Transportation Plan prepared by the Merced County Association of Governments.

3. Directs this resolution to become effective immediately.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By: ______________________________
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of the City of Livingston
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

Page 47 of 378 ends

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
____________________________________
Marc Tran, City Attorney
of the City of Livingston

Page 48 of 378 ends

prepared for
April 3. 2024
1111 REGIONAL
ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
IVCttG

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
FEHR,1PEERS

Page 49 of 378 ends

(this page intentionally left blank)

Page 50 of 378 ends

3 Table of Contents
Executive Summary 5
Chapter 1 Vision and Guiding Principles 9
Chapter 2 Where The Region Stands 17
Chapter 3 Engaging The Community 49
Chapter 4 Active Transportation Toolbox 55
Chapter 5 Network Recommendations 83
Chapter 6 Implementation & Accountability 107
Appendix A Land Use Maps 122
Appendix B Survey Results 132
Appendix C Prioritization Process 144
Appendix D Project List 148
Appendix E Sample Resolution 162
Appendix F ATP Checklist 164

Page 51 of 378 ends

Page 52 of 378 ends

5 Executive Summary
MCAG is taking strides in its efforts of building
and maintaining safe and connected bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit networks to meet the
community’s need to improve the existing
roadway networks, reduce fatalities and serious
injuries throughout the county, improve public
health, and reduce dependency on single
occupancy vehicles through the development of
a comprehensive Regional Active Transportation
Plan (ATP). Active transportation describes
a means of getting around that is primarily
powered by human energy, such as walking
and bicycling. Throughout this document,
all references to pedestrians are inclusive of
persons with disabilities who use mobility
aids (such as, scooters, manual and powered
wheelchairs) to access public pedestrian
walkways. Land use, the current state of the
economy, institutionalized practices, and society
can shape the active transportation experience.

These factors play into the decision of how
people travel: to get groceries, to go to school,
to get to work, and to upkeep a healthy lifestyle.

This Plan is a regional document that takes
a countywide look at the pedestrian and
bicycle networks and how MCAG and
its member agencies can support active
transportation through education, equity,
policy, and implementation. Walking and biking
recommendations are made for the following
jurisdictions in the region:

The cities of:
• Atwater
• Dos Palos
• Livingston
• Los Banos
• Merced
Larger unincorporated communities within
Merced County:
• Delhi
• Hilmar
• Planada
• Santa Nella
• South Dos Palos
• Winton
The City of Gustine completed an Active
Transportation Plan in 2021, the primary
projects of which are included for reference.

Page 53 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
This plan is structured to provide a guiding vision
and set of goals, a comprehensive overview
existing conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians,
and specific projects, strategies, and actions to
advance and encourage walking and bicycling.
• Chapter 1: Vision and Guiding Principles
provides insight to the purpose and need
for an Active Transportation Plan for Merced
County, including the plan development
process, as well as the overall vision and
goals that grounds the Plan.
• Chapter 2: Where the Region Stands
includes a summary of each of the
jurisdictions existing bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure, major barriers in the network,
an overview of bicycle and pedestrian
related collision trends, and an overview of
the presence of disadvantaged communities
countywide and associated equity analysis.
• Chapter 3: Engaging the Community
highlights the various outreach efforts and
activities conducted to solicit feedback and
input on the development of this plan.
• Chapter 4: Active Transportation Toolbox
includes a primer on national best
practices around design and policy, as well
as infrastructure and non-infrastructure
countermeasures
• Chapter 5: Building Out a Regional
Network provides a list of recommended
improvements for jurisdictions to consider
for implementation. Each project was
prioritized based on various considerations
including feasibility, safety, access, equity,
and connectivity.
• Chapter 6: Implementation and
Accountability includes potential funding
opportunities, how to track progress of
enhancing the transportation network,
and strategies for MCAG and its member
jurisdictions to coordinate to create a
safer, complete, and connected active
transportation network.

Collectively, the recommended plans and
policies in this document reflect a vision where
people of all ages and abilities have access
to safe, connected, and robust facilities for
bicycling and walking.
6

Page 54 of 378 ends

Page 55 of 378 ends

8 1

Page 56 of 378 ends

9 Vision and
Guiding Principles
What we now consider “active transportation”
is very different from when transportation
was limited to walking and bicycling. Active
transportation today also includes using a
skateboard, electric bicycle or scooter, a
wheelchair, or roller skates. Even when we drive
or take transit, every trip we make begins and
ends with active transportation.

The obligation for MCAG and its partner
agencies is to build and maintain a
transportation system that serves every person,
helps the State reach its goals to improve public
health, reduce dependency on single occupancy
vehicles, and rectify historic discrimation
inequity in land use decision-making. The
Merced Regional Active Transportation Plan
provides a foundation for the development
and evolution of the local and regional active
transportation network. As decision makers
take on the task of preparing yearly budgets
and identifying the critical needs of each
partner agency, identifying and prioritizing
active transportation needs is more crucial than
ever. Ultimately, the purpose of this Plan is to
improve the quality of life in Merced County for
everyone – children, young adults, the elderly,
people with disabilities, and future generations
– through connecting the pedestrian and
bicycle network and making travel safer, more
convenient, and more comfortable.

Page 57 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Plan Purpose and Need
The Merced County Regional Active
Transportation Plan is the blueprint for
enhancing active transportation in the region.

It is a combined pedestrian and bicycling plan
which builds off previous projects and programs
established through both local and regional
plans. This ATP intends to:
• Identify and support how active
transportation contributes to the County’s
health, environmental, economic, and land
use goals
• Acknowledge and address the effects of
infrastructure decisions on safety and
mobility, with an emphasis in communities
that have been historically underserved
• Provide decision makers with information in
making policy decisions that affect people
walking and biking
• Provide recommendations on where
to invest in bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure
Embracing the Safe System Approach as part
of this ATP aligns with the 2022 National
Safety Strategy released by the US DOT,1
and
Caltrans’ commitment with the most recent
Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Committing to
and providing a Safe System, especially for
vulnerable road users, committing to providing
a Safe System, especially for vulnerable road
users, is a priority for the region.
1 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_
SafeSystem_ Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf
Plan Development Process
The Plan was developed to serve as a resource
for local agencies to plan and implement walking
and biking improvements, and for MCAG to
prioritize and implement improvements of
countywide significance. The content of the plan
and its recommendations were informed by
several inputs:
• Adopted local plans
• Existing data related to walking and biking
• Identified barriers to walking, biking, and
accessing transit through walk audits
• Benchmark on Safe System best practices
and where challenges may exist
• Input from community members through a
thorough engagement process
10

Page 58 of 378 ends

Priorities
Prioritizing walking, bicycling, and transit allows
people to get to and from their jobs, schools,
retail centers, recreational areas, and all around
the community. Facilitating an increase in active
transportation can confer a variety of benefits
such as improved safety, comfort, health, air
quality, economic vitality, and quality of life.

Increased walking and bicycling will also support
the region’s commitments to state climate goals,
including the reduction of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT).

Benefits of Active Transportation
Walking, biking, and other forms of active
transportation are integral to the health of
individuals and communities. The benefits of
active transportation include:
• Connecting people to schools, retail,
recreational, and transit centers, jobs, and
other members of the community
• Improving health and reducing the incidence
of disease and obesity
• Reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas
production
• Supporting local businesses and economic
vitality
• Creating more vibrant and lively streets
• Saving people money on gas and car
maintenance
Establishing a Safe System Policy
Safe System Approach is an international,
national, and state best practice
framework, and a foundation for
improving roadway safety. A Safe
System acknowledges the vulnerability
of the human body—in terms of the
amount of kinetic energy transfer a
body can withstand—when designing
and operating a transportation network
to minimize serious consequences of
crashes. According to the World Health
Organization, the goal of a Safe System is
to ensure that if crashes occur, they “do
not result in serious human injury.”
The MCAG Local Roadway Safety Plan also
acknowledges the Safe System approach.

Through these two plans, MCAG and
its member agencies are committing
to addressing safety problems, and
identifying and facilitating changes that
need to be implemented to create a safer
environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

MCAG and its member agencies can adopt
a Safe System Policy, which would commit
them to, as a matter of policy, prioritize
the safety of vulnerable users over
multimodal operations in instances where
a tough trade-off decision between the
two is necessary. This can work to ensure a
safe and equitable roadway network.
11 IJIIP!O

Page 59 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Health
In recognition of the importance of physical
activity for health, the United States Surgeon
General and the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) encourage communities to design streets
to make walking and biking safe and easy.2
Using
active modes of transportation is a low-cost and
effective way to incorporate physical activity
into daily routines. Benefits to both physical and
mental health from moderate amounts of daily
exercise include lowered risk of heart disease,
adult-onset diabetes, high-blood pressure, and
stress, as well as more energy, flexibility, and
muscle strength. Physical activity can also help
combat obesity and lower asthma rates.

This advice is pertinent to Merced County,
where health outcomes rank poorly compared
to statewide indicators on a number of fronts.

Merced County has higher obesity rates for
both adults and children than statewide and
nationwide averages, with children in particular
being significantly less likely to be physically
active. In terms of diabetes, Merced County has
the highest age-adjusted death rate for diabetes
in the San Joaquin Valley, and the fifth-highest
amongst California counties. Merced County
also sees a higher prevalence of chronic lower
respiratory diseases like asthma than statewide
averages.3
2 Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “The 3 D’s: Design.

Develop. Deliver.” Retrieved from https://www.cdc.
gov/physicalactivity/inactivity-among-adults-50plus/
infographic.pdf
3 ”Merced County 2023 Community Health
Assessment.” Retried from https://www.countyofmerced.
com/DocumentCenter/View/12213/Merced-CountyCommunity-Health-Assessment.

Equity
Active transportation gives people who cannot
or choose not to drive more and affordable
options for getting around independently to
meet their daily needs. Those who benefit
most from improvements to walking and
biking include children (particularly for going
to school); many seniors and people with
disabilities; and low-income families, for whom
the cost of owning and operating a car can be
prohibitive
Economy
Active transportation can benefit the bottom
line of households, businesses, and cities. The
economic benefits of walking and biking include
lower transportation costs for individuals and
families, increased property values in trafficcalmed neighborhoods, savings to cities from less wear and tear on streets, less demand for
roadway improvements and parking lots, and a
greater ability for communities to attract new
residents and employers. .

Livability
Enabling people to make shorter trips on foot
or by bicycle can help communities improve
quality of life in important ways. More trips out
of the car shifted to walks and bike rides leads
to more interaction with neighbors. Local streets
become calmer and safer, but also livelier with
the increased presence of pedestrian and
bicyclists activity. The most discussed, and
perhaps most critical, environmental benefits of
active transportation are reduced air pollution
and emissions of greenhouse gases. Other
environmental benefits include energy savings,
less noise pollution, less water pollution, and
even reduced pressure to develop agricultural
and open space.
12

Page 60 of 378 ends

Vision
The Merced Region is a place where people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds can safely, conveniently, and comfortably walk, bike, and roll to wherever their destinations may be. The active transportation system promotes healthy communities, improved quality of life, and equitable access to job and educational opportunities.

Guiding Principles
Safety
Create and maintain a safe environment
for people walking, biking, and rolling
Mode Shift
Increase the share of trips made using
active modes throughout the region
Equity
Prioritize active transportation
investments in underserved communities
Connectivity
Create a pedestrian and bicycle network that connects
people to key destinations and public transit
13 IJIIP!O
•
~ ..

Page 61 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Relevant Plans
The following is a review and analysis of existing
policies and programs at the state and local
levels. These plans and documents contain goals
and policies as well as specific requirements
related to active transportation. The following
summarizes the plans and identifies how they
will support the efforts of this ATP.

State Plans and Policies
Caltrans District 10 Active Transportation Plan
(2021)
The District 10 Active Transportation Plan
identifies needs on the State Highway System
and establishes a baseline for assessing future
progress by focusing on four goals: mobility,
safety, equity, and preservation.

This Plan supports the District 10 ATP by building
off its existing conditions, identifying walking
and bicycling needs, and funding to meet active
transportation needs.

Caltrans Complete Streets Evaluation Policy
(2021)
The Caltrans Complete Streets Evaluation
Policy focuses on providing comfortable,
convenient, and connected complete streets
facilities for people walking, biking, and taking
transit or passenger rail unless an exception is
documented and approved.

Regional Plans
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) / Sustainable
Communities Strategy for Merced County (SCS)
(2022)
The RTP/SCS seeks to ensure that the Merced
County transportation system will continue to
operate efficiently over the next 25 years with
sufficient capacity to meet demand and that
mobility options are available for all of Merced
County’s residents.

Merced County Regional Bicycle
Transportation Plan (2008)
The purpose of MCAG’s Merced County Regional
Bicycle Transportation Plan is to provide
a comprehensive long-range view for the
development of an extensive regional bikeway
network that connects cities and unincorporated
areas countywide.

Local Plans
Relevant local plans were reviewed to consider
strategies for developing a complete and
connected walking and bicycling network that
promotes walking and bicycling access and
safety. This ATP aims to link ideas from local
plans and align with them in both incorporated
and unincorporated areas; however, it is the
responsibility of each jurisdiction to fully
implement their respective plans. Plans reviewed
include the Gustine Active Transportation Plan
(2022), City of Merced Active Transportation and
Safe Routes to School Plan (2019), City of Los
Banos Bicycle Pedestrian Plan (2018), Planada
Pedestrian Improvement Plan (2014), FranklinBeachwood Safe Routes to School Plan (2014), City of Merced Bike Transportation Plan (2013),
and City of Livingston Bicycle Plan (2005).
14

Page 62 of 378 ends

Relevant Regional and Local Policies
In recent years, communities across the
region have adopted policies related to active
transportation.

Notable policies at the county level include:
• MCAG’s Regional Transportation Impact Fee
enacted in 2005 provides additional revenue
to mitigate transportation impacts on the
regional road network.
• Measure V is MCAG’s 30-year 1/2 cent
transportation sales tax for the Merced
County region that was passed by voters in
November 2016. The measure is estimated
to generate $15 million in new revenue
annually and $450 million over the life of
the measure. The Expenditure Plan requires
jurisdictions spend at least 20% of their
funding on alternative modes projects for
biking, walking, and other alternative modes
to single-occupant vehicle use.
• MCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategies for
Merced County (RTP/SCS, 2022) identifies
policies to support a regional transportation
system and build out pedestrian and bicyclist
facilities where they do not currently exist.

Many of the RTP/SCS goals align with state
regulatory frameworks, including the
California Complete Streets Act (AB1358).

The RTP/SCS policies focus on actively
pursuing funding for active transportation
projects countywide.
• The 2030 Merced County General Plan
(2013) identifies policies to design an
efficient transportation network, promote
alternative modes of transportation, and
develop Complete Streets improvements
to support multimodal travel. The General
Plan requires all new or major reconstructed
streets within Urban Communities to
accommodate travel by pedestrians
and bicyclists, and coordinating bicycle
lane standards, active transportation
amenities, and funding between the
County’s incorporated and unincorporated
communities.
• MCAG’s Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan
(2008) includes strategies and policies to
connect bikeways throughout the county.

Notable policies at the local level include:
• The City of Merced’s Bicycle Transportation
Plan (2013) establishes a comprehensive
system of Complete Streets policies to
address all modes of transportation. Policies
are tailored to design streets consistent
with circulation function, transit-oriented
development, or site design that promotes
walking, bicycling, and transit usage. The
Complete Streets policies are revisited in the
City of Merced’s Active Transportation and
Safe Route to School Plan in 2019.
• The City of Gustine’s Active Transportation
Plan (2021) includes a policy to integrate
bicycle and pedestrian network and facility
needs into city planning documents and
capital improvement projects where
applicable. In order to do so, the plan
recommends adopting a Complete Streets
resolution or ordinance as a commitment to
developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities
throughout the City.
• The City of Los Banos Bicycle Pedestrian Plan
(2018) uses the City’s 2030 General Plan
as its basis for transportation goals. Tiering
off of the General Plan, the City aims to
incorporate Complete Streets policies into
local planning efforts.
15 IJIIP!O

Page 63 of 378 ends

16 2

Page 64 of 378 ends

17 Where The
Region Stands
Merced County encompasses over 1.2 million
acres, with 81 percent of available land
dedicated to agricultural uses and populations
concentrated throughout six incorporated cities
and numerous unincorporated communities.

While the region’s population remains
under 300,000, the MCAG 2022 Regional
Transportation Plan estimates the County will
increase by approximately 82,000 persons,
27,000 jobs, and 34,000 households by 2046.

A growing population needs a robust
transportation network to support all modes
of travel. Today, driving remains the primary
and main mode choice for many residents. At
the countywide level, only 2.3 percent and 0.4
percent of the population walks and bikes to
work, respectively. This reflects the existing
regional transportation system, which has
historically prioritized vehicles over the safety,
comfortability, and accessibility for bicyclists
and pedestrians. Understanding the conditions
of the transportation network and barriers
provides insight on potential countermeasures
that can be used to mitigate connectivity and
safety issues in the network.

This chapter provides information on the
current state of bicycling and walking through
a discussion of the existing facilities, barriers
to travel, collision data, and disadvantaged
community metrics.

Existing Facilities
Safe and connected active transportation facilities
promote the mode shift from vehicles to walking
and bicycling and provide the first- and last-mile
connection from transit facilities to destinations
such as retail centers, work, school, parks, and
many more facilities. When developing an Active
Transportation Plan for such a large geographical
area, the active transportation landscape can vary
significantly for each unincorporated community.

For instance, the transportation needs of more
densely populated areas, such as the City of
Merced, differ from those of lower-density or
more rural communities, such as Planada in
unincorporated Merced County. Therefore,
understanding user needs is a nuanced process
that must take local context and land use (as
documented in Appendix A) into consideration.

Multimodal facilities primarily consist of
sidewalks, trails, multi-use paths, and bicycle
facilities. Multimodal facilities support people
walking, biking, and all other non-motorized
modes of travel. Currently, Merced County has
approximately 42.1 miles of multi-use paths
and 108.3 miles of roadway with designated
bicycle facilities, as listed in Table 2. While
the exact length of existing sidewalks is
unavailable, sidewalks are provided in most
new developments but are intermittent or
missing in many older neighborhoods and rural
communities.

Page 65 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Bicycle Facilities
Several types of bikeways and supporting
facilities come together to form a complete
bicycle network.

Bicycle parking requirements are provided in
various City and County development codes.

While bike parking is installed at most municipal
buildings and schools, these facilities in some
instances do neet meet the standards or quality
that residents expect.

Bikeways are classified in Chapter 1000 of the
Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2015) into
four primary types:
• Class I bike paths (including shared-use
paths and trails)
• Class II bike lanes (including Class IIB
buffered bike lanes)
• Class III bike routes (including Class IIIB
bicycle boulevards)
• Class IV separated bikeways
Bicycle facilities throughout the region are
mapped in Figures 5-10.

Class I Shared-Use Path
Bike Paths, often referred to as shared-use
paths or trails, are off -street facilities that
provide exclusive use for nonmotorized travel,
including bicyclists and pedestrians, as shown
in Figure 1. Bike paths have minimal cross flow
with motorists and are typically located along
landscaped corridors. Bike paths can be utilized
for both recreational and commute trips. These
paths provide an important recreational amenity
for bicyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers, runners,
skaters, and those using other nonmotorized
forms of travel. They are frequently designed to
offer a benefit to users, such as a connection not
previously included in the bicycle or pedestrian
network or traversing a barrier such as a freeway
or river. Unless specifically allowed by local laws,
equestrians are generally prohibited from using
bike paths. If horses and riders are allowed to
use the facility, paths should be designed to
accommodate all users, typically with wider
widths than traditional multiuse paths.

Class I bike paths currently exist in a few locations
in the county, typically alongside canals or
waterways or adjacent to busier roadways. In Los
Banos, Class I bike paths run along portions of the
Main Canal, Prairie Springs Drive, and Ward Road.

In Gustine, Class I bike paths run along Meredith
Avenue to Harry Schmidt Park. In Atwater, Class
I bike paths run along N Buchach Road and E
Juniper Avenue. The City of Merced and its
surrounding areas have the most robust Class I
bike path network in the County, with facilities
along Black Rascal Creek, Fahrens Creek, Bear
Creek, and Cottonwood Creek. Class I paths also
exist along Lake Road and Campus Parkway.

Table 2
Existing Bicycle Facilities in
Merced County by Facility Type
Facility Type Mileage
Class I shared-use paths 42.1
Class II bike lanes 69.1
Class III bike routes 39.2
Class IV separated bikeways 0
18

Page 66 of 378 ends

Figure 1
Class I shared-use paths on
either side of a large arterial
Class II Bike Lane & Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane
Class II bike lanes are on-street facilities that
use striping, stencils, and signage to denote
preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. Onstreet bike lanes are located adjacent to motor vehicle traffic. Well-designed bike lanes provide
adequate space for comfortable riding and
alert drivers about the predictable movements
of bicyclists. The majority of existing bicycle
facilities throughout the region are categorized
as Class II bicycle lanes, with most located in the
urbanized areas of Los Banos and Merced.

Class IIB, or buffered bike lanes, are standard
bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space,
separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent
motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane,
as shown in Figure 2. This type of bikeway
provides greater distance between vehicles and
bicycles, space for bicyclists to pass each other,
and greater space for bicycling without making
the bike lane appear so wide that it might be
mistaken for a travel lane; and encourages
bicycling by contributing to the perception of
safety.

Figure 2
Class IIB buffered bike lanes
along a three-lane collector
19 IJIIP!O

Page 67 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Class III Bikeways: Bike Route and Bike Boulevard
Bike routes are streets with signage and optional
pavement markings where bicyclists travel
on the shoulder or share a lane with motor
vehicles. Class III bike routes are best suited for
low-speed and low-volume streets, to connect
bike lanes or paths along corridors that do not
provide enough space for dedicated lanes.

Shoulders are preferable but not required on
streets with Class III bike routes.

Bicycle boulevards, as shown in Figure 3, are
designated in this Plan as Class IIIB. They are
similar to bike routes in that they are routes
shared with automobile traffic. They are located
on low-speed and low-volume streets, such as
those found in residential neighborhoods, and
can close important gaps in the bicycle network
on roads with insufficient space for dedicated
lanes. Bicycle boulevards are distinct from
typical bike routes in that further enhancements
are provided to slow speeds and discourage
non-local vehicle traffic via traffic diverters,
chicanes, traffic circles, and/or speed tables.

Bicycle boulevards can also feature special
wayfinding signage to nearby destinations or
other bikeways.

Most bicycle routes run throughout the City
of Gustine and in the City of Merced providing
connections to Class II bike lanes.

Class IV Separated Bikeway
Class IV separated bikeways, commonly known
as cycle tracks, are physically separated bicycle
facilities that are distinct from the sidewalk and
designed for exclusive use by bicyclists. They
are located within the street right-of-way but
provide comfort similar to Class I bike paths.

The key feature of a separated bikeway, as
shown in Figure 4, is a vertical element that
provides further separation from motor
vehicle traffic. Common vertical elements
used for separation include a vertical curb,
a painted buffer with flexible posts, parked
cars, a landscaped area, large planters, or a
fixed barrier. Separated bikeways may also
be constructed by creating a bike lane at a
height above the vehicular lanes. Separated
bikeways can be either one-way or two-way,
accommodating a single direction of travel or
both. No Class IV separated bikeways currently
exist in the region.

Figure 3
A neighborhood residential
street designated as a
Class IIIB bike boulevard
20

Page 68 of 378 ends

Figure 4
Class IV separated bikeways, featuring
plastic bollards installed in a painted
buffer, running along a five-lane arterial
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
165
33 33
165
152 152
H St
Figure 5
Existing Bicycle Network
Los Banos
N
Class I
Class II
Class III
KEY
21 IJIIP!O
L 1
0 !_ ½ .----::a-_ff_, '7
- I
I

Page 69 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N 99
99 59
140
140
Figure 6
Existing Bicycle Network
City of Merced Class I
Class II
Class III
KEY
22 J
I
·+ _J_'
I~
I
-i - I
l_
l
~ J_r ~ . V r 1 T
r o l I
I
F ~ --'---!:=',-+--~~
-~: ~--t-i
T
_-_ ~ J ; i
r--
y
I ~ 71 - / ___ JI

Page 70 of 378 ends

Figure 8
Existing Bicycle Network
Livingston
Figure 7
Existing Bicycle Network
Gustine
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 N
Class I
Class II
Class III
KEY
Class I
Class II
Class III
KEY
N
99 99
99 B St
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
23 -
-
- L->---<....L-J-1~ - ~ ---+---~
- •- --11
[_
.. - -~- Q1---;--....;.-~---+---
o
0 F -
I =
I r
r1
A
-+-

Page 71 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 9
Existing Bicycle Network
Atwater and Winton
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Olive Ave
Olive Ave
Winton WayWalnut Ave
Cypress Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Santa Fe Dr
Santa Fe Dr
N
Cressey Way
Palm Ave
Meadow Dr
Santa Fe Dr
Figure 10
Existing Bicycle Network
Cressey
N
Class I
Class II
Class III
KEY
Class I
Class II
Class III
KEY
24 I
l
I
-
-
~
'-- -1.

Page 72 of 378 ends

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities provide connections for those
rolling and traveling by foot, and include shareduse paths and trails, sidewalks, and crosswalks.

Class I bikeways, discussed previously, are also
used by pedestrians, and thus frequently known
as shared-use paths or multi-use trails.

Sidewalks are paved areas immediately adjacent
to the vehicular right-of-way for the exclusive
use of pedestrians and may be used by people
riding bicycles unless prohibited. Unlike shareduse paths, they are directly adjacent to the main right-of-way. As with trails, shade is important
to encourage walking in Merced County’s hot
summer climate.

A legal crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked,
in California is designed as the extension of the
sidewalk as a desire line across the road at an
intersection. Marked crosswalks feature striping
and other enhancements to delineate a street
crossing for pedestrians. There are two types of
marked crosswalks:
• Controlled crosswalks are located at
intersections with stop signs or traffic
signals. They provide the most protection
for pedestrians since they require drivers
to come to a complete stop for to people
in the crosswalk. Sharks teeth, or yield
markings, are often installed before a
marked crossing without stop control
to notify motorists to stop and yield to
pedestrians. Opportunities for enhancement
may include adding pedestrian countdowns
during the “Flash Don’t Walk” signal phase;
providing the walk phase during each signal
cycle without having to press the push
button (also referred to as “pedestrian
recall”); prohibiting right turn on red; and
automatically giving pedestrians a leading
pedestrian interval (LPI) at crossings.
• Uncontrolled crosswalks are located at
intersections without stop signs or traffic
signals. In some cases, uncontrolled
crosswalks are also found in the middle
of a larger block to provide quicker access
between streets. Under California law,
drivers are legally required to yield to
pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks.

Gaps in sidewalks, missing links in the bikeway
network, and missing crosswalk links are
commonplace in Merced County and pose
significant challenges and barriers to active
transportation.
25 IJIIP!O

Page 73 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Connectivity Across Other Modes
Wayfinding
Wayfinding provides orientation and spatial
relationships for users, particularly bicyclists
and pedestrians. While there are a handful
of wayfinding signs in the City of Merced’s
downtown core, wayfinding signage is scarce in
the rest of Merced County.

Roadway Network
Merced County is served by a multimodal
transportation system that incorporates
roadways, railways, airports, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities to aid in the movement of
people and goods throughout the region.

Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 99 (SR 99)
provide the primary connection to major cities
within the region and link the county to other
parts of California and beyond. Other state
highways in the County include SR 33, SR 140,
SR 152, and SR 165.

Merced County contains a mix of roadway types
that vary in right-of-way, number of travel lanes,
median type, design speed, and bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure. The Transportation
and Circulation Element in the County General
Plan identifies all major roadways that provide
connections throughout the County.

SR 99 is the primary limited-access highway
serving most of Merced County, directly serving
the communities of Delhi, Buhach, Franklin, and
the Cities of Atwater, Livingston, and Merced.

However, for the communities that it serves,
SR 99 also bisects them and acts as a physical
barrier between neighborhoods. Freeway
crossings are infrequent, and the crossing points
that do exist are often at interchanges featuring
heavy, fast-moving traffic as well as complex
intersection geometries and traffic patterns,
all of which pose safety risks, especially for
bicyclists and pedestrians.

In addition to SR 99, the region is connected
by many arterials that serve large volumes of
traffic, often at high speeds. Some of these are
state routes controlled by Caltrans, while other
roads are controlled by Merced County or local
jurisdictions. In addition to serving as regional
connectors, these roads also pass through cities
and towns around the County, where they
sometimes also serve as main streets in city
business districts. When passing through these
districts, the roads serve pedestrians, bicyclists,
and local vehicle traffic as well as traffic moving
between communities. While posted speed
limits on arterial roadways are generally lower
when they pass through cities and towns,
actual observed speeds and traffic volumes are
nonetheless high, which pose safety risks. In
addition, because they are often designed to
prioritize high volumes of through traffic, they
often do not feature sufficient crossing facilities
in terms of quantity and frequency or quality.

Careful design is required to ensure that these
roads serve all users, are safe for all users,
and do not serve as a barrier to bicyclists and
pedestrians.
26

Page 74 of 378 ends

Page 75 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Transit
A well-planned bicycle and pedestrian network
can facilitate transit use by supporting access
to transit routes and creating first- and lastmile connections between transit stops and destinations. However, as a result of the barriers
present in the roadway network, significant
obstacles exist for accessing transit stations
and stops in Merced County, with the active
transportation network leading to and from
transit services facing many of the same issues
facing roadways countywide. The robust
roadway network, critical for travel and goods
movement, likewise creates challenges in
connectivity.

Transit service is provided via both bus and rail
within the region.

Bus
The Bus, Merced’s Regional Transit System, is
the single public transportation service provider
for all of Merced County. The Bus operates
on 15 fixed-route lines and two deviated fixed
routes throughout the region and provides
paratransit service for qualifying individuals who
cannot access the fixed-route service. The Bus
fixed route services operate from 6:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.

The Bus also operates “The Micro Bus” an ondemand microtransit service providing local rides within the communities of Dos Palos, Los
Banos, Santa Nella, and Gustine. Users can make
a reservation via a dispatch phone number,
website, or The Micro Bus application on
smartphones. The Micro Bus operates from 6:00
a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

In addition to The Bus, there are other transit
providers in the area providing connections
to Yosemite Park. These operators include the
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System
(YARTS), VIA Trailways, and Greyhound.
28

Page 76 of 378 ends

Rail
Passenger rail service is currently provided
by Amtrak on the San Joaquins route, which
connects the City of Merced on a route that runs
from Bakersfield to Stockton, with connecting
services via transfer to Los Angeles, Sacramento,
and the Bay Area. The San Joaquins run seven
days a week, with six trains in each direction.

In addition to passenger rail operated by
Amtrak, various freight railroads run through
Merced County, including the Union Pacific
Railroad (UP), California Northern Railroad
(CFNR), and BNSF Railway currently operate
within the region. Most of the railroad crossings
in the County are at-grade, and at-grade rail
crossings can pose significant barriers for
bicyclists and pedestrians. They may have a hard
time navigating at-grade crossings not designed
with bicycle and pedestrian accessibility in
mind, such as those missing key features such as
sidewalks. Furthermore, with increases in freight
traffic and, in particular, lengths of freight trains,
at-grade rail crossings can often be blocked
for significant lengths of time, which can pose
obstacles for travel and make rail lines barriers
in the communities they pass through.

The development of passenger rail in the region
is poised for significant future investment
through the expansion of the Altamont Corridor
Express (ACE) train service into Merced County
from the north, and California High Speed Rail
(HSR) from the south. ACE will establish service
via new stations in Livingston, Atwater, and
Merced. The Merced Station will also be utilized
by HSR through a proposed elevated track
facility.

While increasing investments in passenger rail
will come with many benefits for mode choice,
proper accommodations for pedestrians and
bicyclists will be necessary at proposed doubletracked rail lines and new station locations to avoid the creation of additional crossing and
accessibility barriers.
29 IJIIP!O

Page 77 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Canals and Waterways
Merced County is crisscrossed by a network
of waterways and irrigation canals. While they
are critical to the region’s agricultural industry,
the canals that cover much of Merced County
often suffer from insufficient crossings – the
same issues as the region’s freeways. Moreover,
many crossings that do exist are narrow and lack
sufficient bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
and erosion and environmental are also factors
in the long-term durability of existing facilities,
such as the Bear Creek Trail in the City of
Merced. Many of the existing irrigation canals
are already used informally as walking routes,
such as in the City of Dos Palos as a connection
to O’Banion Park. Formalizing additional paths
along canals may present an opportunity
to expand the trail network if thoughtfully
developed to accommodate both agricultural
and transportation uses.
30

Page 78 of 378 ends

Mode Share and Trip Lengths
The American Community Survey (ACS) collects
statistics on Means of Transportation to Work
for every Census geography level larger than
a block. This dataset estimates the local share
of home-based work travel for workers 16
years and older by foot and bike as well as
other modes. Because the ACS only polls a
representative sample of residents in each
geography per year (on average, about 1% of
the local population), its metrics are bounded by
a margin of error. This analysis only refers to the
ACS mode share metrics at the county level, city
level, and unincorporated community (“Censusdesignated place (CDP)”) level, where sample sizes are large enough and margins of error
small enough for reasonably precise analysis.

The ACS Means of Transportation to Work
dataset is undoubtedly useful for understanding
home-based work commute mode share in
residential areas, but it is less appropriate for
estimating active mode share for all trip types
and beyond residential areas. For example, the
ACS metrics will fail to reflect recreational active
travel in rural areas, active travel by students
from homes to schools, and work-related active
travel to residential areas by domestic workers.

Commute Mode Choice
As seen in Table 3, the walk and bike mode
share for most communities is relatively small, in
the range of zero to three percent. The majority
of residents, 82.7%, commute by car each day.

Zero Vehicle Households
The choice to walk or bike may be impacted by
whether a household has a vehicle available for
trips. If a household has two commuters but
one vehicle, one of the commuters must find
another mode of transportation to work unless
the household carpools. In Merced County, most
households have at least two vehicles available.

Approximately 49.4 percent of households have
over three vehicles available while only 2.6
percent do not have any vehicles available.

Location Total Population of
Workers
Walk Bike Drive Alone
# % # % # %
Merced County
(As A Whole) 106,381 2,481 2.3% 396 0.4% 92,217 87.2%
Merced County
(Unincorporated) 20,514 446 2.2% 0 0% 17,481 87%
Merced County
(Cities) 72,109 1,028 1.4% 391 0.5% 63,069 87.6%
Table 3 Means of Transportation to Work (2022 5-Year Average) Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year data 31 IJIIP!O

Page 79 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Level of Traffic Stress in Bicycle Facilities
Cities and counties around California and
nationwide are using a “level of traffic stress”
(LTS) analysis to help determine the comfort of
bicycling in their communities. An LTS analysis
takes different travel corridor characteristics
into consideration, including the number of
travel lanes, speed of traffic, number of vehicles,
presence of bike lanes, width of bike lanes,
and presence of physical barriers providing
protection from traffic. Based on these variables,
a bicycle facility can be rated with an LTS ranging
from 1 to 4.

The most comfortable (least stressful) facilities
are given an LTS 1 rating. Facilities with this
rating are typically shared-use paths, separated
bikeways, low-volume and low-speed bike
routes, and bike lanes on calm and narrow
streets. The most stressful (least comfortable)
facilities are given an LTS 4 rating. Facilities with
this rating are typically major arterials with
multiple lanes of traffic (with or without bicycle
lanes in some cases, depending on speeds) or
narrower streets with higher speed limits.

Addressing comfort is one of the most
important actions any community can take to
create a more bicycle-friendly transportation
system. Studies have shown that a community’s
interest in biking can be increased by providing
comfortable streets with lower-stress
environments, such as providing protected and
off-road bike facilities, and slowing traffic on
corridors without such facilities.

Attitudes Towards Bicycling
People typically fall into one of four categories
as bicyclists, as shown in Figure 11. When
planning a bicycle network, these categories
can help determine which type of facilities will
provide the most comfortable experience for
riders, thereby encouraging use and mode shift:
• Strong and Fearless People in this group
are highly skilled and have the most riding
experience. They will use their bicycles on
arterials even when there are no bikeways
present. Studies suggest that “strong and
fearless” riders represent less than 1% of
people in a community. This group of riders
will feel comfortable using facilities with any
LTS rating.
• Enthused and Confident This group consists
of skilled riders who are also comfortable
sharing the road but prefer using bikeways
when they are available. “Enthused and
confident” riders make up about 7% of
people in a community. They typically feel
comfortable using facilities with an LTS rating
of 1, 2, or 3.
• Interested but Concerned This group of
people is curious about bicycling and enjoys
riding but are concerned about safety and
therefore do not ride regularly. They typically
avoid riding their bicycles on major arterials
unless there are facilities that provide a
high degree of protection. “Interested but
concerned” riders represent the majority
in a community (around 60%). Riders in
this group may only feel comfortable using
facilities with an LTS rating of 1 or 2.
• No Way No How People in this group are
simply not interested in riding a bicycle.

Riding a bicycle may not appeal to them for
several reasons. It may be inconvenient,
or they may not be physically able to ride.

This group represents approximately 33% of
people in a community.
32

Page 80 of 378 ends

Number of Travel Lanes Speed of Traffic Number of Vehicles Presence of Bike Lanes Width of Bike Lanes Presence of Physical Barrier

THE FOUR TYPES OF BICYCLISTS

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Level of traffic stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience while riding on the road.

It is used to categorize roads by the types of riders above who will be willing to use them based on:

Most children can feel safe riding on these streets.

The mainstream “interested but concerned”
adult population will feel safe riding on these streets.

Streets that are acceptable to “enthused and confident” riders who still prefer having their own dedicated space.

High-stress streets with high speed limits, multiple travel lanes, limited or non-existent bikeways, and long intersection crossing distances. 7% 5% 51% 37%
STRONGandFEARLESS ENTHUSEDandCONFIDENT INTERESTEDbutCONCERNED NOwayNOhow LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Figure 11 Cycling Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 33 IJIIP!O

Page 81 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
34

Page 82 of 378 ends

Collision Analysis
Making streets safer for people walking and
bicycling is a key goal of this Plan. Analysis of
collision records is one way to assess traffic
safety in a community and can help identify
key areas for infrastructure or programmatic
changes that improve safety and comfort for
people walking and bicycling. This section
summarizes the pedestrian- and bicycleinvolved collision trends and high-risk locations in Merced County. This analysis utilizes data
on injury collisions from 2012 through 2021
available through the Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS); this represents the
most recent ten years of data available on TIMS
at the time of the analysis. TIMS reports injury
collisions from the Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS), but excludes collisions
that cause property damage only (PDO) and no
injuries. Geographically, the data includes all
collisions that occur within both incorporated
and unincorporated areas of Merced County.

The data excludes collisions that occur on
limited-access roadways (such as freeways)
but include collisions on all other roadways,
including State highways and other Caltransmaintained roadways, as well as privatelymaintained roadways.

A Note on the Data Source
While collision databases like TIMS remain
the best source of collision data, they
have been found to have certain reporting
biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking, on
bicycles, or on motorcycles are less
likely to be reported than collisions with
people driving
• Younger victims are less likely to report
collisions
• Alcohol-involved collisions may be
underreported
Race, income, immigration status, and
English proficiency may also impact
reporting, but there is limited research on
these factors.
35 IJIIP!O

Page 83 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Overall Trends
Collisions involving active modes are more
likely to result in severe injury and fatality.

During the ten-year analysis period there were
13,539 collisions resulting in injuries in the study
area. Of these collisions, 794 (6%) were pedestrian
collisions and 688 (5%) were bicycle collisions. These
1,482 collisions involving active modes are the
subject of analysis for this Active Transportation Plan.

As shown in Table 4, of these 1,482 collisions
involving active modes, 330, or 22%, are KSI collisions, collisions that result in someone being killed or
severely injured. However, as shown in Figure 12, the
proportion is significantly lower at 13% for all injury collisions across all modes (that is, including injury
collisions involving vehicles only). This speaks to the fact that people walking or biking are particularly
vulnerable in the event of a collision, as they lack the protection afforded to them by being inside a motor
vehicle. As a result, collisions involving active modes are more likely to result in injury and fatality.

Table 4 Collision Summary by Year and Mode
Bicycle Pedestrian Total
2012 80 71 151
2013 64 66 130
2014 86 61 147
2015 56 87 143
2016 78 100 178
2017 68 81 149
2018 82 97 179
2019 63 89 152
2020 55 54 108
2021 56 88 143
Total 688 794 1,482
13%
87%
Figure 13
Percent of KSI Collisions Among
All Injury Collisions, 2012-2021
22%
78%
Figure 12
Percent of KSI Collisions
Among Bicycle and Pedestrian
Injury Collisions, 2012-2021
36

Page 84 of 378 ends

Figures 14 and 15
show the temporal
trends of collisions
involving active
modes in Merced
County. As shown,
both the total number
of injury collisions
and the number of
KSI collisions have
both trended upwards
between 2012 and
2019. While both
the number of all
injury collisions and
the number of KSI
collisions dropped
between 2019 and
2020, this may
reflect traffic trends
during the peak
of the COVID-19
pandemic. The
number of all injury
collisions rebounded
upwards in 2021, and
the number of KSI
collisions hit a new
high in 2021.

Figure 15
Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI
Collisions by Year, 2012-2021
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure 14
Bicycle and Pedestrian Injury
Collisions by Year, 2012-2021
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
37 Pl

I I I I I I - IIIIIIIIPI LI I I I I I I I I
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
IJIIP!O

Page 85 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Areas Near Schools
Areas adjacent to schools account for the vast
majority of collisions involving active modes.

Countywide, 52% of collisions involving active
modes occur within a quarter mile of K-12
schools, and 82% occur within a half mile.

Comparatively, the percentages of roadway
network within a quarter and half mile of K-12
schools are only 14% and 26%, respectively.

Despite having a small geographic footprint,
areas adjacent to schools are typically focal
points of communities with high levels of bicycle
and pedestrian activity and account for the vast
majority of collisions involving active modes.

Geographic Distribution
The geographic distribution of bicycle and
pedestrian collisions resulting in injury is uneven,
with some communities around Merced County
having higher rates of collisions than others.

Table 5 tabulates these comparisons for each of
the six incorporated cities within Merced County,
the unincorporated County as a whole, and major
unincorporated communities.

The following sections explore particular areas
and contexts of concern for these collisions.

Table 5 Collision Summary by Mode, Severity, and Location Bicycle
Collisions
Pedestrian
Collisions
Total
Collisions
Collisions Per
10,000 Residents
Community Population Injury KSI Injury KSI Injury KSI Injury KSI Atwater 31,970 61 6 82 11 143 17 44.7 5.3
Dos Palos 5,798 0 0 1 1 1 1 1.7 1.7
Gustine 6,110 0 0 1 1 1 1 1.6 1.6
Livingston 14,172 7 1 25 8 32 9 22.6 6.4
Los Banos 45,532 81 9 114 36 195 45 42.8 9.9
City of Merced 86,333 438 59 403 104 841 163 97.4 18.9
Delhi 10,656 6 0 20 6 26 6 24.4 5.6
Hilmar 5,164 3 0 9 0 12 0 23.2 N/A
Le Grand 1,592 0 0 1 0 1 0 6.3 N/A
Planada 4,164 5 1 4 1 9 2 21.6 4.8
South Dos Palos 1,747 3 2 4 2 7 4 40.1 22.9
Santa Nella 2,211 1 0 5 2 6 2 27.1 9.0
Winton 11,709 9 2 23 9 32 11 27.3 9.4
Unincorporated
County Total 91,287 101 23 168 71 269 94 29.5 10.3
Countywide 281,202 688 98 794 232 1,482 330 52.7 11.7
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2012-2021 38

Page 86 of 378 ends

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
As shown in Figure 16, drug or alcohol
impairment was involved in 3% of bicycleinvolved collisions and 10% of bicycle KSIs. Drug or alcohol impairment was also involved in 5%
of bicycle-involved collisions and 14% of bicycle
KSIs in Merced County outside Merced and Los
Banos.

As shown in Figure 17, there was drug or alcohol
impairment involved in 11% of pedestrianinvolved collisions and 22% of pedestrian KSIs. 11%
22%
14%
32%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Injury Collisions
Countywide
KSI Collisions
Countywide
Injury Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
KSI Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
Figure 17
PedestrianInvolved
Collisions by
Intoxication
Involvement
3%
10%
5%
14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Injury Collisions
Countywide
KSI Collisions
Countywide
Injury Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
KSI Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
Figure 16
BicycleInvolved
Collisions by
Intoxication
Involvement
Drug or alcohol impairment was also involved in
14% of pedestrian-involved collisions and 32%
of pedestrian KSIs in Merced County outside
Merced and Los Banos.

Data suggests that KSI collisions are overrepresented among collisions involving drug or alcohol impairment. This suggests that
reducing driving under the influence may reduce
the severity of collisions for bicyclists and
pedestrians, especially in rural areas.

DUI
Collisions
DUI
Collisions
39 IJIIP!O

Page 87 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Lighting Conditions
Data shows that large shares of collisions
involving active modes, and especially
pedestrian and KSI collisions, are occuring in
the dark. The lack of lighting is an especially
pressing concern for these KSI collisions.

As shown in Figure 18, 71% of bicycle-involved
injury collisions occurred in daylight, with the
remaining 29% of collisions occurring in the
nighttime – that is, in either dusk, dawn, or fully
dark conditions. Of these, 20% occurred where
there were no streetlights. However, among
bicycle KSI collisions, the number of nighttime
collisions are significantly higher, with a majority
– 52% – occurring at nighttime. Of these, 31%
occurred where there were no streetlights.

Moreover, outside the larger population centers
within the region, Merced and Los Banos, the
rate of nighttime collisions are higher still, and
the proportion occurring in locations without
streetlights is also noticeably higher. Among
bicycle-involved collisions outside Merced
and Los Banos, 66% occurred in daylight, and
34% occurred in the nighttime. Of these, 51%
occurred where there were no streetlights.

Figure 18
BicycleInvolved
Collisions
by Lighting
71%
48%
66%
38%
23%
36%
17%
20%
6%
16% 17%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Injury Collisions
Countywide
KSI Collisions
Countywide
Injury Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
KSI Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
Daytime
Collisions
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Not Present
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Present
40

Page 88 of 378 ends

Among bicycle KSI collisions outside Merced and
Los Banos, just 38% occurred in daylight, and a
full 62% occurred at nighttime. Of these, 67%
occurred where there were no streetlights.

As shown in Figure 19, among pedestrianinvolved collisions, a majority overall – 53% – occurred during the nighttime. Of these, 30%
occurred where there were no streetlights.

Among pedestrian-involved KSIs, more than
three-quarters – 76% – occurred in the nighttime.

Of these, 38% occurred where there were no
streetlights. Outside of Merced and Los Banos,
a similar majority of 54% of pedestrian collisions
occurred during the nighttime. Of these, however,
54% occurred where there were no streetlights.

Among pedestrian KSI collisions outside Merced
and Los Banos, four in five occurred in the
nighttime, with just 20% occurring in daylight.

Of the nighttime collisions, 67% occurred where
there were no streetlights.

Data suggests that a large share of bicycle- and
especially pedestrian-involved collisions are
occurring during the nighttime, and KSI collisions
are especially overrepresented among these.

Furthermore, it suggests a major issue with the
availability of street lighting in Merced County,
especially in areas outside major population
centers. Moreover, even when collisions are
reported as occuring where streetlights are
present and functional, lack of adequate lighting
may still be a major contributing factor. The
quality of lighting can vary widely: streetlights can
be insufficiently bright, placed too widely apart,
or have poor coverage of people walking and
bicycling outside the main travel lanes.

Figure 19
PedestrianInvolved
Collisions
by Lighting
47%
24%
46%
20%
37%
47%
25%
26%
16%
29% 29%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Injury Collisions
Countywide
KSI Collisions
Countywide
Injury Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
KSI Collisions,
Excluding Merced
and Los Banos
Daytime
Collisions
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Not Present
Nighttime
Collisions,
Streetlights
Present
41 IJIIP!O
-
-
-- 1-
-
-
-
-

Page 89 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Demographic Metrics
Disadvantaged communities see
disproportionate numbers of bicycleand pedestrian-involved collisions.

Population analysis identifies the size, structure,
and distribution of people in a study area and
helps understand trends to estimate future
needs. This is particularly important in a diverse
and growing region like Merced County. Table
6 provides a countywide and incorporated
cities’ breakdown of population, age, and racial
identity followed by jurisdictional descriptions.

There are a number of demographic metrics
considered as part of this Plan to identify
disadvantaged communities, including the
Healthy Places Index, CalEnviroScreen 4.0,
median household income, and rate of
eligibility for free or reduced priced meals in the
National School Lunch Program. The California
Transportation Commission (CTC) identifies
these metrics as qualifiers for communities being
disadvantaged in the 2025 Active Transportation
Program Guidelines. This project uses the metrics
for disadvantaged communities identified by the
CTC to identify whether collisions are happening
disproportionately in them. Cross-referencing
collision data indicates that disadvantaged
communities see disproportionate numbers of
bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions.

In addition, the Federal government has
introduced a number of tools that it uses to
identify disadvantaged communities. Two
of these, the Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool (CEJST) and the Equitable
Transportation Communities (ETC) Explorer, are
explored in this section.

Free or Reduced Price Meals
Eligibility to receive free or reduced-price meals
under the National School Lunch Program is an
indicator of child poverty. CTC qualifies areas
where at least 75% of public-school students are
eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals as
disadvantaged.

Areas in Merced within a quarter mile of a
school with 75% or more of students eligible for
free or reduced-price meals are home to 46%
of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions,
but only 10% of the roadway network. Areas in
Merced within a half mile of a school with 75%
or more of students eligible for free or reducedprice meals are home to 75% of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions, but only 22% of the
roadway network.

A Note on Funding
SB99 specifies that 25% of funds for active
transportation plans must directly benefit
disadvantaged communities. To fulfil this
requirement, a proposed project must be
located within or be within reasonable
proximity to a disadvantaged community.
42

Page 90 of 378 ends

Characteristic Merced County Merced County
(Incorporated Areas Only)
Age
Group
0-14 24% 25%
15-24 16% 16%
25-34 15% 15%
35-54 24% 24%
55+ 21% 20%
Racial
Identity
Hispanic/Latinx 61% 63%
White 26% 23%
Black 3% 3%
Native American 0.30% 0%
Asian American or Pacific Islander 8% 8%
Other 2% 0%
Speaks English Less Than Very Well 22% 22%
Table 6 Merced County Population Statistics, 2021
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year data 43 IJIIP!O

Page 91 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
44

Page 92 of 378 ends

CalEnviroScreen
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 aggregates a variety
of metrics to identify communities that are
disproportionately vulnerable to pollution and
environmental burdens. The CTC qualifies areas
that scores in CalEnviroScreen's top quartile
as disadvantaged communities. Areas with a
CalEnviroScreen score above than the 75th
percentile are home to 79% of pedestrian- and
bicycle-involved collisions, but only 65% of the
roadway network.
45 Figure 20
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
Areas in yellow score in the
75th percentile or higher
Merced
Atwater
Los Banos
Dos Palos
Gustine
Livingston
Delhi
Hilmar
Santa Nella
Planada

Page 93 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Healthy Places Index (HPI)
The Healthy Places Index uses 25 community
characteristics to define a composite score of an
area’s health. The CTC qualifies areas that scores
in the Healthy Places Index’s bottom quartile as
disadvantaged communities. Areas with a Healthy
Places Index score below the 25th percentile are
home to 70% of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved
collisions, but only 56% of the roadway network.
46 Merced
Atwater
Los Banos
Dos Palos
Gustine
Livingston
Delhi
Hilmar
Santa Nella
Planada
Figure 21
Healthy Places Index Scores
Areas in yellow score in the
25th percentile or lower

Page 94 of 378 ends

Median Household Income
CTC qualifies areas where the median household
income is less than 80% of the statewide median
income as disadvantaged communities. California’s
median household income in 2018 was $71,228,
and 80% of this is $56,982. Areas where the 2018
median household income was below $56,982 are
home to 75% of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved
collisions, but only 55% of the roadway network.
47 Merced
Atwater
Los Banos
Dos Palos
Gustine
Livingston
Delhi
Hilmar
Santa Nella
Planada
Figure 22
Median Household Income (MHI)
Areas in yellow have MHIs lower
than 80% of statewide MHI
IJIIP!O

Page 95 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
CEJST Results
The Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool
(CEJST) is maintained by the Federal Council on
Environmental Quality and used by many Federal
programs as a means of identifying disadvantaged
communities. Census tracts are screened
based on a variety of factors, including climate,
energy, health, housing, transportation, legacy
pollution, waste, and workforce development.

Figure 23 shows areas in the region considered
disadvantaged by the CEJST.
48 Merced
Atwater
Los Banos
Dos Palos
Gustine
Livingston
Delhi
Hilmar
Santa Nella
Planada
Figure 23
CEJST Results
Areas in yellow are
identified as disadvantaged

Page 96 of 378 ends

Equitable Transportation Communities
The US Department of Transportation (DOT)
created Equitable Transportation Communities
(ETC) Explorer as part of its Justice40 initiative to
complement the CEJST by providing additional
insight into transportation factors specifically. The
ETC Explorer is meant to capture the cumulative
burden of underinvestment in transportation in a
community. Figure 24 shows areas in the region
considered to be disadvantaged.
49 Merced
Atwater
Los Banos
Dos Palos
Gustine
Livingston
Delhi
Hilmar
Santa Nella
Planada
Figure 24
ETC Explorer Results
Areas in yellow are
identified as disadvantaged
IJIIP!O

Page 97 of 378 ends

50 3

Page 98 of 378 ends

51 Engaging The
Community
Input from residents and stakeholders of the
diverse communities across the region was
a fundamental part of the ATP development
process. Comprehensive engagement is critical
to ensure that recommended projects serve
the walking and biking needs of the community.

Outreach to the public helped to identify
locations for needed improvements, important
destinations for access, and refine preferences for
Mayor’s Bike Ride
Merced, 5/20/2023
types of treatments. Participation was solicited
through in-person and virtual workshops and
focus groups with community members, a
landing page on the MCAG website that links
to the project website, which was produced
in English and Spanish and includes a link to a
survey and interactive webmap, as well as various
in-person events throughout the region.

Page 99 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Project Website
A website for the project, accessible from
phones, tablets, and computers, was created
in English and Spanish. The project website
included an overview of the project, dates and
times for outreach events, and an interactive
map and survey that allowed the public to
identify where there are existing challenges
to safety walk or bike and help prioritize the
recommendations included in this plan.

Overall, 195 responses were received on the
survey and 84 comments were received on the
project website.

Feedback provided on the website illustrated
the following themes:
• Safe Routes to School There is broad
support for creating better routes for
children to access schools.
• Speeding Insufficient measures in place to
prevent cars from speeding.
• Need for Sidewalks Need for more sidewalks
throughout the region to complete the
pedestrian network and decrease barriers
for walking.
• Insufficient Lighting Insufficient streetlights
throughout the region, with a particular
emphasis on rural rounds surrounding the
City of Merced.
• Poor Road Infrastructure The conditions of
some roads makes travel feel dangerous due
to potholes, steep slope changes, and a lack
of pavement.
• Difficult Crossings and Intersections A
handful of locations throughout the region
lack safe crossings and proper signage or
control devices.
• Bike Lane Quality Existing bike lanes are too
narrow and often times are on roads with
potholes and uneven surfaces.
• Bike Parking Bicycle parking is insufficient
or in some instances has been removed
without replacement. Respondents have
called for the need of also increasing safety
measures to prevent bicycle theft.
• Bike/Ped Connectivity Numerous segments
throughout the region that have gaps in
the network or end abruptly, impairing the
comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians.
• ADA Accessibility Insufficient opportunities
to cross for users with disabilities.
• Sight Difficulties The topography of the
street such as dips or curves increases
the discomfort for driving and difficulty of
identifying pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Separation of Traffic It is difficult for
bicyclists and vehicles to share the roads due
to road width and lack of protection.
• Traffic Flow Some of the control devices
throughout the region are not optimized for
efficiency, leading to longer queues.
52

Page 100 of 378 ends

Stakeholder Focus Groups
A series of Stakeholder Focus Groups were
conducted in February 2023 as part of the
existing conditions analysis. The goal of
these meetings was to obtain feedback on
existing challenges for biking and walking for
various interest groups, to build community
relationships and inform future engagement
efforts, and to discuss goals and measures of
success for the project overall. Invitations were
sent to representatives from approximately
45 stakeholder organizations and 119 school
sites. Participants in the focus group meetings
included representatives from schools, social
service organizations, transit providers,
non-profits, and agency staff including local
jurisdictions and Caltrans.

Key themes that emerged from these meetings
included:
• Staff resources are limited at local agencies
which makes it challenging to advance
projects
• Lack of knowledge about available funding
and how to pursue competitive grants
• Desire for better connectivity to transit,
including stops for local services and access
to upcoming rail projects
• Need for better crossings over railroad
tracks, which are challenging for people in
wheelchairs or using mobility devices
• Overall lack of accessible pedestrian
treatments countywide, and a particular
need for ramps and audible signals at busy
intersections
• Concern over post-crash care in rural
communities that have long response times,
or don’t have ambulance or emergency
services readily available
• General support for more robust, lowerstress treatments that separate bicyclists and pedestrians from traffic
• Support for raised crosswalks as a way to
calm traffic and increase pedestrian visibility
• Support for programs that promote bicycling
skills and education at all levels of school
• Improvements to social and physical health
should be a goal/outcome of this project
• Desire for safe ways to access places like the
Merced River or more regional recreational
facilities
53 IJIIP!O

Page 101 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Community Pop-Ups
To meet people where they are, rather than
requiring them to come to a meeting specifically
for the ATP, project staff hosted booths at
local events whenever available. These events
provided the opportunity for the engagement of
a broader cross-section of the public than that
which would attend a typical project-specific
public meeting. Pop-ups were held at the
following events.
• Merced Mercado
November 3, 2022
• Delhi Community Meeting with Leadership
Counsel for Justice and Accountability
January 19, 2023
• Merced County Taskforce – Virtual Meeting
January 20, 2023
• South Merced Community Meeting
with Leadership Counsel for Justice and
Accountability
January 26, 2023
• Merced County Spring Fair in Los Banos
May 3-7, 2023
• Mayor’s Bike Ride in Merced
May 20, 2023
• Atwater Bike Rodeo
May 26, 2023
• Atwater Town Hall
May 30, 2023
• Merced County Fair in Merced
June 7-11, 2023
• City of Merced Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission Meeting & Workshop
June 27, 2023
Project Development Field Review
A series of in-person field visits were conducted
in each jurisdiction and unincorporated
communities during the project development
phase. The project team met directly with
agency staff and toured focus areas for
each community on foot and by car. Field
observations and feedback from staff directly
informed project development, as discussed in
Chapter 5.

Draft Plan Virtual Workshops
To solicit feedback on the draft plan, virtual
workshops were held on March 27 and 28 to
present the proposed improvements and gather
feedback from the public. The virtual workshops
were publicized on the project website and
MCAG outreach channels, as well as through the
standing committees of MCAG.

Public comment on the draft plan was solicited
for 30 days. Changes were incorporated into the
final version of this plan based on comments
received, including:
• Minor editorial update---s to text
• Revisions to the City of Livingston project list
and maps
• Project additions in the City of Merced
• Inclusion of projects and maps from the City
of Gustine Active Transportation Plan
• Planning level costs for each proposed
project
54

Page 102 of 378 ends

55 Mayor’s Bike Ride
Merced, 5/20/2023
Community Meeting
Delhi, 1/19/2023
BPAC Workshop
Merced, 6/27/2023
Town Hall
Atwater, 5/30/2023
Staff Walk Audit
Livingston, 6/27/2023
Merced County Spring Fair
Los Banos, 5/4/2023
IJIIP!O

Page 103 of 378 ends

56 4

Page 104 of 378 ends

57 Active Transportation
Toolbox
This chapter discusses best practices for bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure projects and
non-infrastructure programs. It is focused
on recommendations useful for the shared
contextual characteristics of communities
around the region. Because no general design
guide can cover the unique characteristics of
every location, this guidance should be used
in conjunction with study of each individual
location, engineering judgment, and other
necessary considerations as appropriate for
each individual application.

New projects and programs are most likely to
be successful when implemented in partnership
with the community. Strategies for public
engagement include:
• Talking to the community to understand
their desires and priorities
• Implementing new types of facilities
incrementally to generate feedback and
support
• Publicizing projects and educating the public
on the changes to be implemented and their
benefits
This toolbox draws on research and emphasizes
engineering judgment, design flexibility,
documentation, and experimentation.

What Are Complete Streets?
Complete Streets are designed to prioritize
safety, comfort, and access to destinations
for users of all ages and abilities, and
for all modes of travel, including active
transportation modes. Complete Streets are
unique to a community’s context and the
needs of the surrounding area. A complete
street design often balances benefits for
those walking, biking, and taking transit,
including improvements such as safety
enhancements at crosswalks, better bus
stop waiting areas, and enhanced bicycle
facilities.

The best practices discussed in this Toolbox
will contribute to the development of
Complete Streets in the region.

Page 105 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Resources
This chapter is based on a review of existing
studies, guidelines, and manuals related to
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and
strategies. The following documents are general
resources for these topics:
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd Edition
(add years for all)
• NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide
• NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
• FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety
at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
• FHWA Small and Rural Multi-Modal
Networks Guide
• FHWA Separated Bicycle Lane Planning and
Design Guide
• FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019)
• AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition
• Caltrans Highway Design Manual
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94
• Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance DIB 89-
02 • League of American Bicyclists Benchmarking
Bike Networks
• Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW
Manual) (2017)
• ITE Recommended Practices on
Accommodating Pedestrian and Bicyclists at
Interchanges
• Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals Essentials of Bicycle Parking:

Selecting and Installing Bicycle Parking That
Works (2015)
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Figure 25
FHWA Bikeway Selection Guidance
58 Shared Lane
or Bike
Boulevard

Page 106 of 378 ends

Bikeways
Several types of bikeways and supporting
facilities come together to form a complete
bicycle network. Bikeways are classified in
Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual
into four primary types, arranged in order from
most separated and protected to least:
• Class I shared-use paths (bike paths)
• Class IV separated bikeways (cycle tracks)
• Class II bike lanes (includes buffered bike
lanes)
• Class III bike routes (shared lanes or bike
boulevards)
Bikeway Selection
The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide and the
League of American Bicyclists Benchmarking
Bike Networks are good references for selecting
bikeway types based on local conditions. Three
primary goals are important in guiding bikeway
selection:
• Safety: Reducing the frequency and severity
of crashes and minimizing conflicts
between users.
• Comfort: Minimizing stress, anxiety, and
safety concerns for the target design user.
(Comfort and safety are closely related.)
• Connectivity: Making trips direct and
convenient and offering access to all
destinations served by the roadway network
and creating seamless and clear transitions
between bikeways and general roadways.

Figure 25 is a graphic exerpted from from the
guide that indicates the ideal bikeway type
based on vehicle volume and speed. In this
graphic and in the following section, bikeways
are arranged in order from the most separation
and protection from traffic to the least.

Other factors such as available right-of-way
and cost may also influence bikeway selection,
especially when retrofitting bikeways onto
existing streets. Curb-to-curb width and parking
considerations in older neighborhoods can
present challenges to design. As described in the
guide, other such factors include:
• Unusually high peak hour motor vehicle
volumes
• High percentages of trucks and buses
• High parking turnover or curbside activity
• Frequent driveways or intersections
• High concentrations of vulnerable
populations such as children and older
adults
If the preferred bikeway cannot be provided,
the next best bikeway should be considered, as
it still may increase comfort and safety for more
confident bicyclists. Alternative parallel routes
may also be considered trespassing.
59 IJIIP!O

Page 107 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Class I Bikeway: Shared-Use Path
Design Principles
• Use where maximum separation from traffic
is desired and right-of-way is available.
• Best in locations with little cross-flow.
• For a two-way path, provide a width of at
least eight feet with a two-foot shoulder; 10
feet with a two-foot shoulder is preferred.
• For a one-way path, typically only used
when transitioning to an on-street bikeway,
provide a width of at least five feet and a
two-foot shoulder.
• Include street crossings with measures
such as bike and pedestrian activated traffic
signals, median islands, and warning signs.
• At freeways, highways, and railroads,
consider grade-separated crossings.
• Include curb ramps and curb cuts that are
convenient and conform to the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
• Ensure adequate path width, sight distance,
and drainage.
• Include wayfinding signs for easier
navigation.
• Provide shade to encourage use.
• Include scenic attributes such as landscaping
and trail placement highlighting views.

Maintenance
• Conduct maintenance frequently to avoid
hazards such as tree root cracking and
debris.
• Refresh faded striping and repair or replace
damaged or faded signage.
• Maintain adequate vegetation clearance.

Class II Bikeway: Shared-Use Path
Design Principles
• Provide a width of at least five feet. At least
three feet should be clear of any gutter pan.
• Minimize vehicle travel and parking lane
widths to reduce vehicle speeds and create
safer roadway conditions for all users, and to
provide maximum bike lane widths to allow
bicyclists to pass other riders safely and
navigate around parked cars and other road
hazards.
• As available roadway width for the bike lane
increases beyond five feet, consider use of
painted buffers:
• Left-side painted buffers on bike lanes
improve separation between bicycles and
vehicles. They are especially useful in cases
with vehicle speeds that are greater than 25
miles per hour.
• Right-side painted buffers can be added
between parallel parked cars and the bike
lane to create separation from the door
zone, the space in which a driver may open
their car door and hit a bicyclist.
• Lane striping (six inches wide) should be
dashed through heavily trafficked merging
areas, including turn lanes at intersection
approaches. Refer to California MUTCD
Section 9C.04 for guidance.
• May use skipped green markings in conflict
zones.
• Design drainage grates to avoid catching
bicycle tires.

Maintenance
• Conduct maintenance frequently to prevent
and remedy roadway hazards such as
potholes and debris.
• Refresh faded striping and repair or replace
damaged or faded signage.
60

Page 108 of 378 ends

Class III Bikeway: Bike Route
Dedicated visible space for bicyclists to
wait in front of vehicle traffic at a signalized
intersection. Provide bicyclists priority crossing
major streets. May span the entire approach,
allowing bicyclists safe waiting zones for left
turns, or may be placed only in front of the
right-turn lane. Colored pavement, typically
green, should be used to encourage compliance
by motorists.

Design Principles
• Shoulders are preferable but not required.
• Sharrow markings can be used to alert
drivers to presence of bikes.

Maintenance
• Conduct maintenance frequently to prevent
and remedy roadway hazards such as
potholes and debris
• Refresh faded striping and repair or replace
damaged or faded signage.

Class IV Bikeway: Separated Bikeway
Dedicated visible space for bicyclists to
wait in front of vehicle traffic at a signalized
intersection. Provide bicyclists priority crossing
major streets. May span the entire approach,
allowing bicyclists safe waiting zones for left
turns, or may be placed only in front of the
right-turn lane. Colored pavement, typically
green, should be used to encourage compliance
by motorists.

Design Principles
• Preferred bike lane width is seven feet to
allow for passing and maintenance. Also
consider minimum width achievable by
street sweeper.
• Minimum buffer width should be 18 inches,
or three feet with parked cars.
• Best placed in areas with fewer driveways to
minimize conflicts with motor vehicles.
• Require wider right-of-way than Class II bike
lanes.
• Require careful design of appropriate
intersection treatments.
• May use skipped green markings in conflict
zones.
• Design drainage grates to avoid catching
bicycle tires.

Maintenance
• Conduct maintenance frequently to avoid
roadway hazards such as potholes and
debris. Smaller street cleaning equipment
may be required to fit between the curb and
barrier.
• Maintain posts, bollards, or other physical
buffer.
• Refresh faded striping and repair or replace
damaged or faded signage.
61 IJIIP!O

Page 109 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Complementary Bicycle Treatments
Green-Colored Pavement
Green markings used in high volume
intersections and busy driveway locations.

Use skipped green in weaving areas or conflict
zones. May be installed with either paint or
thermoplastic. Thermoplastic is initially more
expensive, but less expensive when considering
maintenance life cycle costs. Although not yet
incorporated into the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the
FHWA MUTCD provides guidance on its use.

Approach, it is important to focus on vulnerable
populations such as school children and seniors.

Use
Supplemental marking in high conflict areas to
improve safety.

Benefits
Calls attention to vehicle/bicycle conflict areas.

Challenges
Less effective if overused.

Through Bike Lanes
Through bike lanes reduce conflicts at
intersections by allowing bicyclists to follow
the preferred travel path, ideally a straight
connection from the preceding bike lane.

Traveling at intersections can be particularly
challenging if the bike lane ends prior to the
intersection forcing a merge with vehicle traffic.

Continuing the bicycle lane to the intersection
approach provides bicyclists the opportunity to
avoid conflicts with turning vehicles. Through
bike lanes should be placed to the left of the
right-turn only lane. Dotted lines are used to
signify the merge area that motorists traverse to
get to the right-turn lane.

Use
Intersections where vehicle lanes conflict with
bike lanes.

Benefits
Reduce conflict between through bicyclists and
turning vehicles.

Challenges
Typically used with Class II bike lanes and not
appropriate for use with Class IV separated
bikeways.

Figure 26
A Bike Lane painted green
through a conflict zone
62

Page 110 of 378 ends

Bicycle Boxes
Dedicated visible space for bicyclists to wait in
front of vehicle traffic at a signalized intersection.

Provide bicyclists priority crossing major streets.

May span the entire approach, allowing bicyclists
safe waiting zones for left turns, or may be placed
only in front of the right-turn lane. Colored
pavement, typically green, should be used to
encourage compliance by motorists.

Use
At signalized intersections with a high volume of
bicycles, especially those making left turns.

Benefits
Facilitate left-turn movements for bicyclists,
reduce right-hook conflicts with right-turning
vehicles and also reduces vehicle encroachment
into crosswalks.

Challenges
Requires restriction of right turns on red and
colored pavement increases maintenance costs.

Two-Stage Turn Box
Space outside of the vehicle path for bicyclists
to make a left turn. During the green signal,
bicyclists proceed through the intersection until
reaching the box on the right-hand side. The
bicyclist will be able to turn left in the bicycle
box and wait for the green signal to continue
through the intersection, thus making a left
turn.

Use
At signalized intersections on roadways with
high speeds and multiple lanes.

Benefits
Increase safety for left turning cyclists.

Challenges
Requires restriction of right turns on red and
colored pavement increases maintenance costs.

December 2023
Section 9D.14 General Service Signing for Bikeways
Option:
01 General Service signs (see Chapter 2I) may be used on bikeways.

Standard:
02 The sizes of General Service signs intended for viewing by both bicyclists and other road users shall comply with the sizes in Table 2I-1.

Option:
03 General Service signs intended for the exclusive use of bicyclists may be of reduced size.

R10-11
Series
D11-20
(optional)
D11-20
(optional if
D11-20 is
used in advance
of intersection)
Figure 9D-7. Example of Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box when Use is Optional D11-20a
(optional)
Legend
Direction of travel
Sect. 9D.14
MUTCD 11th Edition Page 1085
* The use of the R10-11 Series signs is
required (see Section 9E.11).

Figure 28
MUTCD Guidance for Two-Stage Turn Boxes
Source: MUTCD, 11th Edition
Figure 27 Bicycle Box
63 IJIIP!O
NO
TURN
ON
RED

Page 111 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Bicycle Parking
Several types of bikeways and supporting Bicycle
parking encourages ridership by supporting the
final stage of a bicycle trip. Locations with high
ridership are excellent candidates for bicycle
parking, including civic, residential, commercial,
and office spaces. At these locations, both
short-term and long-term parking should be
accommodated.

New bicycle parking should meet the standards
discussed above. Both short- and long-term
bicycle parking should be supplied where
appropriate, such as at schools, parks, grocery
stores, and other key destinations. Business
owners should be encouraged to work with the
City to provide bicycle parking in visible areas in
commercial districts to entice riders to stop and
frequent local businesses.

Short-Term Bicycle Parking
Short-term bicycle parking is temporary bicycle
parking intended for visitors. Bicycle racks
are a common form of short-term parking.

Bicycle racks in front of stores and other
destinations allow patrons to park their bike
for short periods. Bike parking should be
located in well-lit areas to discourage theft.

Installing permanent bicycle racks near main
entrances also helps bicyclists feel welcome and
encourages them to ride their bicycle again on a
return trip. Bicycle racks that allow at least two
points of contact, such as the wheel and frame,
provide the most protection against theft and
accidental damage.

Long-Term Bicycle Parking
Long-term bicycle parking is intended for
employees, students, commuters, and residents
to protect bicycles for extended periods. Longterm facilities are more secure than short-term bicycle parking and should fully protect bicycles
from theft and weather.

Long-term bicycle parking includes bike lockers,
bike cages, and bike rooms:
• Bike lockers are outdoor enclosures that
accommodate one or two bicycles and are
usually leased on a monthly basis or paid
short-term use.
• Bike cages are fully enclosed, roofed shelters
that house racks of bicycle parking, typically
found at schools.
• Bicycle rooms are found inside office or
residential buildings, and provide secure
indoor parking. Bicycle rooms may feature
amenities such as bike pumps and quick-fix
tools for employees and residents.
64

Page 112 of 378 ends

Page 113 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and
crosswalks, which, with some exceptions, are
primarily for pedestrian use. Some types of
facilities are shared by both pedestrians and
bicyclists. Each of these facilities are described
earlier in this toolkit:
• Class I shared-use path
• Class III bike route with multi-use shoulder
Sidewalks
Paved areas immediately adjacent to the
vehicular right-of-way for the exclusive use of
pedestrians. They may be used by people riding
bicycles unless prohibited.

Design Principles
• Usable width should generally be five feet or
more
• Crossings of driveways should be at grade
• Street trees and landscaping provide shade
and comfort
• Slower vehicle speeds on the adjacent
roadway increase comfort
• Pedestrian-scale lighting can increase safety
and security for pedestrian walking outside
of daylight hours.

Marked Crosswalks
Feature striping and other enhancements to
delineate a street crossing for pedestrians.

There are two types of marked crosswalks:
• Controlled: With vehicle stop signs or traffic
signals.
• Uncontrolled: Without stop signs or traffic
signals. Under California law, drivers are
legally required to yield to pedestrians at
uncontrolled crosswalks.

Design Principles
• Although not yet incorporated into the
California MUTCD, the FHWA MUTCD
provides guidance on when to mark a
crosswalk.
• Of the six designs below from the California
MUTCD, all except the Standard markings
are considered to be high visibility, more
easily discerned by drivers.
• Lines in a Continental, Double Continental,
or Bar Pair marking should be spaced to
avoid the wheel path of vehicles and thus
reduce striping maintenance.
• Use stop lines and yield lines in conjunction
with signs at crosswalks, as described in the
California MUTCD, to improve driver yielding
to pedestrians.
66

Page 114 of 378 ends

Complementary Pedestrian Treatments
The following treatments should be used with
sidewalks and crosswalks as warranted. The
FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety
and Uncontrolled Crossing Locations contains
detailed guidance for selecting appropriate
treatments, visualized as the matrix shown in
Figure 29. Key inputs are roadway configuration
(including number of lanes and presence of a
median), vehicle annual average daily traffic
Source: FHWA
(AADT), and posted speed limit. Refer to the
Guide for additional recommendations on
treatment application. The Guide also provides
information on pedestrian collision analysis and
selection of countermeasures base on collision
analysis. Use that information when applying
countermeasures in response to collision history
or systemic safety analysis.

Figure 29
FHWA
Matrix for
Improving
Pedestrian
Safety and
Uncontrolled
Crossing
Locations
67 IJIIP!O
Posted Speed Limit and AADT
Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000-15,000 Vehicle AAOT > 15,000 Roadway Configuration s30 mph 35 mph <!40mph s30 mph 35mph <!40 mph s30 mph 35 mph <!40mph 0 2 0 (i) 0 0 (i) 0 (i) (i) 2 lanes 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 (1 lane In each dlreclion) 7 9 f) 0 7 9 f) 0 1 9 1 9 0 0 2 3 0 €) (D e (D 3 (D e (D e (D €) (D €) (D e 3 lanes wl1h raised median 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 (1 lone In each d irec1ion) 7 9 f) 0 7 9 f) 0 f) 0 7 9 f) 0 0 3 lanes w/o raised median 0 2 3 0 €) (i) €) (i) 3 (i) e (i) e © €) (i) €) (i) €) (1 lone In each dlreclion with a 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 two-way left-rum lone) 7 9 7 9 0 7 9 f) 0 0 7 9 0 0
4+ lanes with ra ised median 0 e 0 €) (D €) (D e (D e (D e © €) (D €) (D €) (2 or more !ones In each direction) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 0 7 8 9 0 8 0 8 0 @ 8 0 8 0 8 0
0 €) (i) €) (i) €) (i) €) (i) €) (i) e (i) €) (i) €) (i) €) 4+ lanes w/o ra ised median 5 6 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 (2 or more !ones In each direction) 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 0 7 8 9 @ 8 0 8 0 @ 8 0 8 0 8 0 Gl11en the set of conditions in a cell. 1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restricti ons on # Signifies that lhe countermeasure ls a candidate crosswalk approach, adequate nightlime lighting levels, lreolmen! at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. and crossing warning signs 2 Raised crosswolk • Signifies lhal lhe countermeasure should always be 3 Advance Yield Here To (Slop He re For) PedeSlrions sign considered, but not mandated or required, based upon engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled and yield (slop) line crossing looallon. 4 In-Street Pedestrian Ctossing sign 0 Signifies thal crosswalk visibility enhancements should 5 Curb extension always occur in conjunction wllh other ldenllfied 6 Pedestrian refuge Island oountermeosures, * 7 Recta ngular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)** The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure 8 Rood Diel is generally not an appropriate trealmenr, bul exceptions may 9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHBr be considered following engineering judgment.
•Refer fD ~4. 'Usi<,g Table f ondTable2bSeled Camlet:msastJJE'S,' ft¥ mae"11Drma~oo abadtrn'lgmtlfffllero1N1fE¥meas!JTes. ••Jr shwlJ be noiBl lllol !he f>RB and Rl,fB "'" na1 J,,lfl ;,,ra.\lod ar Ille"""" """'61Q tirolial.

Page 115 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions, also known as bulb-outs,
decrease the pedestrian crossing distance
at intersections and improve the visibility of
pedestrians waiting to cross the street.

Benefits
Reduces time pedestrians are exposed to
vehicles.

Challenges
Potential for higher cost due to drainage
accommodations.

Median Refuge Islands
Allow pedestrians to cross one direction of
traffic then wait in the center of the street to
cross the other direction of traffic.

Design Principles
• Use on roadways with few gaps in traffic.
• Consider in locations with existing medians.
• If no medians are existing, consider creating
space by eliminating on-street parking or
narrowing vehicle travel lanes.
• Split pedestrian crossover refuge islands,
generally used at uncontrolled mid-block
locations, encourage pedestrians to look
towards the oncoming direction of traffic
before completing the crossing.

Benefits
Reduce time pedestrians are exposed to vehicles
and narrows roadway, reducing speeds.

Challenges
May restrict or inhibit left turning vehicles.

Figure 30 Curb Extensions at an Intersection Figure 31 Median Refuge Island 68

Page 116 of 378 ends

Warning Signage
Improves visibility of crosswalks and increase
the likelihood that a driver will yield or stop
to pedestrians. Additional signage in school
zones helps alert drivers that children, who
are known to make unpredictable movements,
may be present. An example from the MUTCD
demonstrating use of both pavement markings
and signs is shown below.

Design Principles
• In-street signs are ideal for streets with low
vehicle speeds and two lanes. They can be
permanently installed or movable for peak
hours such as pick-up/drop-off times at
schools.
• Overhead signs are more impactful at busier,
wider streets. These are typically installed at
mid-block crossings or intersections.

Raised Crosswalk
Pedestrian crossings raised to sidewalk level or
just below. Act as traffic calming device.

Design principles
• Should not be constructed on streets with
sharp curves or steep grades.
• Tactile treatments are needed at the
sidewalk/street boundary so that visually
impaired pedestrians can identify the edge
of the street.

Benefits
Effective in reducing vehicle speed and allows
pedestrian to cross at a nearly constant grade
without requiring curb ramps.

Challenges
May be have higher costs due to drainage
infrastructure.

Figure 32 Raised Crosswalk
69 IJIIP!O

Page 117 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 33 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
a type of pedestrian activated warning beacon
that improve driver-yielding rates. They consist
of rapid-flash system LED beacons that are
similar in operation to emergency flashers on
police vehicles.

RRFBs have generally shown the greatest
effectiveness among the types of pedestrian
activated warning beacons. Some jurisdictions
also use signs with flashing LEDs within the
border of the sign itself. However, these
treatments have not been demonstrated to have
efficacy comparable to RRFBs.

Benefits
Increases driver yielding and can lead to
reduction in pedestrian crashes.

Challenges
Requires pedestrian activation and does not
stop traffic, but require vehicles to yield.

Traffic Signal
When warranted based on the applicable
signal warrants in the California MUTCD, a
traffic signal to allow pedestrians to utilize a
marked crosswalk safely may be appropriate.

Countdown pedestrian signal heads should
be used at all traffic signals, except where
pedestrian crossing is prohibited.

Use
At signalized intersections on roadways with
high speeds and multiple lanes.

Benefits
Reduces pedestrian-vehicle conflict points.

Challenges
May increase waiting times for pedestrians and
drivers and high cost.
70

Page 118 of 378 ends

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also known
as High-intensity Activated crossWalKs or HAWK
signals, require vehicles to stop at a red light to
allow pedestrians to cross. PHBs are ideal for
roadways that are higher speeds and volumes
than a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, but do
not require a full pedestrian signal. They should
only be installed in locations that include a
marked crosswalk. The MUTCD provides details
on use of PHBs.

PHBs operate with the following phases:

1. Flashing Yellow – Upon actuation, beacon
flashes yellow

2. Solid Yellow – Alerts drivers pedestrians will
soon cross

3. Solid Red – Drivers must stop and remain
stopped

4. Flashing Red – Drivers stop and proceed
when clear, as they would with a stop sign

5. No Indication – Signal is dark when not
actuated
Benefits
Increases driver yielding and can lead to
reduction in pedestrian crashes.

Challenges
Similar cost to a pedestrian signal
Figure 34 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
71 IJIIP!O

Page 119 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Leading Pedestrian Interval
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) allows
pedestrians to begin crossing a signalized
intersection before vehicles begin moving by
providing a walk signal three to seven seconds
before the corresponding vehicle signal turns
green.

Benefits
Makes pedestrians more visible amd emphasizes
pedestrian right-of-way.

Challenges
May increase waiting times for drivers.

Tighten Curb Radii
Tighter curb-return radii require vehicles to slow
to turn more sharply at intersections. Reduced
vehicle speeds increase driver awareness and
thus reduce collision frequency. Slower vehicle
speeds also decrease injury severity when
collisions occur.

Design Principles
• Design should limit turning speeds to 15
miles per hour or less.
• Land use context and design vehicles
should be considered when reducing radii;
industrial areas with frequent truck traffic
may require larger radii than commercial or
residential areas.

Benefits
Reduce vehicle speeds and reduces pedestrian
crossing distances.

Challenges
Can be costly to retrofit on existing streets
and drainage and storm sewers need to be
considered especially when retrofit.

Figure 35
An intersection with Leading Pedestrian
Interval implemented, showing red for
vehicles but walk for pedestrians
72

Page 120 of 378 ends

Pedestrian Scramble
Intersection treatments that include a
pedestrian-only phase in the traffic signal
cycle, when pedestrians are able to cross in all
directions including to the opposite corner by
traveling through the middle of the intersection.

Pedestrian scrambles and diagonal crosswalks
allow pedestrians to cross more efficiently,
directly to their destination. Recommended
for intersections with high pedestrian volumes
crossing multiple crosswalks.

Figure 36
Pedestrian Scramble at an Intersection
Benefits
Allows pedestrians to cross more directly,
emphasizes pedestrian right-of-way and
eliminates conflict between turning vehicles and
pedestrians.

Challenges
Pedestrian-only phase may increase vehicle
waiting time.
73 IJIIP!O

Page 121 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Other Treatments & Support Facilities
Some improvements can serve both bicyclists
and pedestrians and can be used in combination
with other treatments.

Traffic Calming
Traffic calming devices include a wide range
of design treatments capable reducing vehicle
speeds and thus improving the safety and
comfort of the transportation network for all
users. Reducing vehicle speeds makes travel
safer for both bicycles and pedestrians.

Vertical deflection devices cause drivers to
experience a physical response that is aggravated
when traveling at high speeds. Many existing
streets can be retrofitted with vertical measures.

Horizontal deflection devices are used to deflect
vehicles from traveling at high speeds. Horizontal
deflection measures require drivers to navigate
laterally and consequentially reduce speed.

Narrowing traffic calming devices are a subcategory of horizontal deflection traffic calming devices. Wider roads are associated with
greater crash rates and higher impact speeds.

Narrowing roadways often leads to decreased
vehicle speeds and improves safety.

Restriping narrower travel lanes for vehicle
traffic via centerline and edgeline striping
can reduce motor vehicle speed. Cross-hatch
pavement marking applied to outer edge of a
roadway to create a shoulder and reduce lane
widths if the space is not used for a bike lane or
parking. In many locations, interior traffic lanes
can be narrowed to 10 feet or less to encourage
lower speeds. Narrow lanes can make room in
the roadway right of way for painted medians,
center turn lanes, bicycle lanes, or parking.
74

Page 122 of 378 ends

Road Diets
Road diets reduce the number of travel lanes.

This is typically done by converting a four lane
road into a three lane road with a two-way-leftturn lane and bike lanes. The space created by removing lanes can also be used for painted
medians or parking.

Design Principles
Use on roadways with current and expected
future ADT approximately 20,000 or less.

Benefits
Helps to reduce speeds, reduces conflicts
at crossings, can increase the separation of
pedestrians from traffic.

Challenges
Can be expensive.

Wayfinding
Wayfinding refers to the network of
informational signage posted to guide
pedestrians or bicyclists to their destination.

Good wayfinding signage presents destination,
direction, and distance information in a
manner that is easy to read and interpret.

Bicycle specific wayfinding must be tailored
so that bicyclists can see the information from
a comfortable distance. Signs posted at trail
junctions and intersections of trails with arterials
are particularly helpful. Guidance on sign design
and installation is available in Chapter 9B of the
California MUTCD and the National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) design
guidelines. Wayfinding signage can also be
enhanced with average walk times and bike
times to destinations and local branding.

Lighting
Sufficient lighting on bicycle and pedestrian
facilities prevents collisions that occur due to
decreased visibility. Pedestrian walkways should
have lighting that allows people to identify faces
from a distance of about 30 feet. Lighting should
be consistent to reduce deep shadows and
avoid excessive glare. It is necessary to maintain
conventional light fixtures regularly, keeping lamp
bowls clean and promptly replacing bulbs that
have burnt out. Newer light emitting diode (LED)
fixtures, which have much longer bulb life, have
greatly decreased maintenance requirements.

Figure 37
Street Lighting featuring dedicated illumination
for both the roadway and the sidewalk
75 IJIIP!O

Page 123 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Non-Infrastructure Best Practices
In addition to physical changes to the
transportation system, other programs can also
benefit pedestrians and bicyclists.

Education
Bicycle and Pedestrian Education for Children
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs are
effective ways to make walking and bicycling
to school safer and more accessible for
children, including those with disabilities,
and to increase the number of children who
choose to walk and bicycle. Creation of a
SRTS Program typically includes identifying
local stakeholders, identification of issues and
solutions, and creation of a plan including
encouragement, enforcement, education, and
engineering strategies. These strategies should
be accompanied by a timeline with prioritization
and a funding approach3
.

Educating school-aged children on safe bicycling
is important to establish active habits and travel
behaviors early in life. There are a number
of different programs and approaches, both
formal and informal, which are effective in
educating kids about safe bicycling. Kidical
Mass is one event, which closes sections of
roadway to vehicles, usually a route near the
local elementary school, to allow families to ride
their bikes without traffic. This empowers kids
and families to get on their bikes and familiarizes
them with the bike route to school4
.

Bicycle Education for Adults
The League of American Bicyclists has a number
of resources to teach safe bicycling including
informational packets, curricula, and courses
with trained instructors. The Smart Cycling Quick
Guide (http://bikeleague.org/quickguide) is an
easy-to-read booklet that outlines the basics
of a bike, rules of the road, and the knowledge
everyone needs to know to ride a bike on a
range of facility types safely and confidently.

For a short summary, the League of American
Bicyclists has a page of Smart Cycling Tips for
biking safely including maintenance and trail
etiquette5
.

Bicycle Ambassadors
Bicycle ambassadors are either volunteers from
the community or employees of local advocacy
groups that take a leading role in educating,
encouraging, and activating the community
to be a safer and more comfortable place for
bicyclists. Ambassadors have undergone a
safety education course and are also supplied
with maintenance and educational resources to
distribute to the community both formally and
informally. This educational model empowers
community members through a bottom-up
approach to improving bicycle safety and mode
share. Some examples of bicycle ambassador
programs include Fort Collins, Missoula, and
Washington, DC6
.
76

Page 124 of 378 ends

Encouragement
Encouragement can occur through local groups
and regular events and campaigns. Local schools
can encourage biking and walking through
bike rodeos, fun runs, walkathons, and bike/
walk/roll to school events. Programs such as
“walking school buses,” a program where kids
and families walk to school in groups, are other
good opportunities for neighborhood schools
to encourage walking. Local running, walking,
hiking, and biking events also encourage active
engagement for adults. Bike to work events are
also useful to encourage adult bicycling.

Typical campaigns are often focused on
videos and downloadable materials or public
advertisements on buses or public billboards.

These campaign messages can be reformatted
to reach wider audiences through social media
communication tactics. Key messages can be
finessed to reach target areas and groups.

Training
It is important for the police department to
include collision reporting and bicycle and
pedestrian rules of the road into their training.

There are a number of resources from other
communities and national sources that can be
used, such as a video resource created by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHSTA).7
3 Information on Safe Routes To School is located at http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/steps/index.cfm 4 Information on Kidical Mass is located at http://kidicalmassdc.blogspot.com/p/abcs-of-family-biking.html 5 Information on the League of American Bicyclists is located at http://bikeleague.org/content/smart-cycling-tips-0 6 Information on Bicycle Ambassadors in Fort Collins is located at http://bicycleambassadorprogram.org/, in Missoula is located at http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4604, and in Washington, DC is located at http:// www.waba.org/programs/d-c-bike-ambassador/
7 http://www.nhtsa.gov/multimedia/bicycles/bicycle_safety_LE.wmv Enforcement
Proper enforcement is important to ensuring
the safety of the street network for bicyclists
and pedestrians. This is done through proper
training of law enforcement, increasing the
safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, theft
prevention, and the proper pairing of education
and enforcement.

Local law enforcement can partner with schools
to step up enforcement of good motor vehicle
behaviors around pedestrians and bicyclists at
the beginning of the school year. Continuing this
effort periodically throughout the school year
and expanding it to other places frequented by
pedestrians and bicyclists can further help active
transportation.

Bicycle Patrol Units
Bicycle fleet officers improve the relationship
between officers and bicyclists and improve the
effectiveness of enforcement for all modes as it
affects bicyclists’ safety.
77 IJIIP!O

Page 125 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Speed Management
Raising awareness of speeding is important
at a neighborhood level and can be achieved
through local events and education. Residents
are less likely to speed if they know their
neighbors.

Speed monitoring programs train residents in
using radar detectors which then distribute
warnings to speeding vehicles. This type of
program helps residents understand that this is
a local and personal issue and the importance
of driving the speed limit. Pairing education
with enforcement by distributing warnings
and educational materials before giving tickets
provides drivers with a deeper understanding of
the law and its value.

Speed feedback signs and radar trailers that
display real-time signs and flash when drivers
exceed the limit. Radar trailers are appropriate
on a temporary basis only. These treatments
are useful on corridors with prevalent cases of
speeding that lack room for physical measures
or in conjunction with recent construction of
physical measures.

However, speed monitoring and feedback signs
may have only temporary effectiveness as
drivers grow accustomed to their presence.

Police Participation in Education
Safety, as discussed in the Education section,
can also be applied as a responsibility of the
police department. Officers practice this by
distributing literature on safe pedestrian habits
as part of enforcement efforts and meetings and
events with students and the public. This can
include education on proper helmet use, light
giveaways, and targeting infractions.

Bicycle Diversion Programs
Bicycle diversion programs provide bicyclists who
are cited for certain infractions the option to
attend a bicycle safety class rather than paying a
ticket. This educational component is associated
with a greater degree of lasting behavior change.

Bike Theft
The fear and reality of bike theft can be a barrier
to bicycling for all users. Recommendations for
reducing bike theft include improving locking
practices through education, providing adequate
bicycle parking facilities, providing bicycle
registration, providing recovery resources and
programs, and offender detection such as bait
bikes.

Figure 38 Speed Feedback Sign
78

Page 126 of 378 ends

Electric Mobility Devices
Electric bicycles (e-bikes) and other electric
mobility devices such as electric scooters are a
rapidly growing new transportation alternative
in cities and other areas in California. These
devices provide a potential option to cover
longer travel distances and steeper grades. Bike
share companies that include electric bikes and
electric scooter rentals are common in many
cities. By improving personal mobility without
requiring use of a car, these devices may also
be an appealing option to aging but active
populations.

E-Bikes
California Vehicle Code (CVC) designates three
classes of e-bikes (CVC Section 312.5):
• Class 1 – low-speed pedal-assisted electric
bicycle: Bicycle equipped with a motor
that provides assistance only when the
rider is pedaling and that ceases to provide
assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph.
• Class 2 – low-speed throttle-assisted electric
bicycle: Bicycle equipped with a throttleactuated motor that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph.
• Class 3 – speed pedal-assisted electric
bicycle: Bicycle equipped with a motor that
provides assistance only when the rider
is pedaling, and that ceases to provide
assistance when the e-bike reaches 28 mph.

Class 1 and 2 e-bikes are generally treated
similarly to regular bicycles:
• There is no minimum age to ride.
• Helmets are required for ages 17 and under.
• Allowed on all classes of bikeways, unless
prohibited by the local jurisdiction (CVC
Section 21207.5).

Class 3 e-bikes have more limitations on their use:
• Riders must be 16 years of age or older.
• A helmet is required for all riders.
• They are allowed on Class II bike lanes or
Class III bike routes, but not allowed on Class
I shared-use paths or Class IV protected
bikeways (CVC Section 21207.5).
79 IJIIP!O

Page 127 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Electric Scooters
The CVC defines an electric scooter as a
“motorized scooter”: any two-wheeled device
that has handlebars, has a floorboard that is
designed to be stood upon when riding, and is
powered by an electric motor. This device may
also have a driver seat that does not interfere
with the ability of the rider to stand and ride and
may also be designed to be powered by human
propulsion (CVC Section 407.5). Limitations on
their use include:
• Riders must use Class II bike lanes when they
are present (CVC Section 21229).
• Motorized scooters are not allowed on roads
with a speed limit in excess of 25 miles per
hour, unless in a Class II bike lane or Class
IV separated bikeway (CVC section 21235).

This prohibition includes street designated
as Class III bicycle routes. A local authority
may, by ordinance or resolution, authorize
the operation of a motorized scooter outside
of a Class II or Class IV bikeway on a highway
with a speed limit of up to 35 miles per hour.
• Motorized scooters are allowed on all other
classes of bikeways unless prohibited by the
local jurisdiction (CVC Section 21230).
• Riders are prohibited from using sidewalks,
except when entering or leaving adjacent
property.
• A helmet is required for all riders under 18
years of age.
• A valid driver’s license or instruction permit
is required.
• Speeds are limited to 15 miles per hour,
• Leaving a scooter on its side on a sidewalk,
or otherwise parking one so that there was
not an adequate path for pedestrians, is
prohibited.

Electrically Motorized Boards
According to California Vehicle Code, the term
“electrically motorized board” is any wheeled
device that has a floorboard designed to be
stood upon when riding with a maximum
speed of 20 miles per hour. The device may
be designed to also be powered by human
propulsion (CVC Section 313.5).
• Use is restricted to roads with speed limits
of 35 miles per hour or less, unless operated
in a Class II or Class IV bikeway. On other
bikeways, speed is limited to 15 miles per
hour (CVC Section 21294).
• Riders must be 16 years of age or older.
• A helmet is required for all riders.

Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices
According to California Vehicle Code, the term
“electric personal assistive mobility device”
(EPAMD) means a self-balancing, non-tandem
two-wheeled device that can turn in place, with
a maximum speed of 12.5 miles per hour (CVC
Section 313). The most common example is the
Segway. “Pedestrian” includes use of EPMADs
(CVC Section 467). EPAMDs can operate on
bikeways and sidewalks unless prohibited by the
local jurisdiction, but must yield to pedestrians
(CVC Sections 21281.5 and 21282)
80

Page 128 of 378 ends

Access
Laws for each electric device are different.

E-bikes generally have more options for
locations to ride, as summarized in Table 7.

Bike and Scooter Share
In addition to private ownership, bikes, e-bikes,
and scooters are available through short-term
point-to-point rental or “shared” systems. Bike
share systems at first were primarily based on
docks, or unmanned physical locations where
a bike could be rented or returned, with docks
located at destinations across an area.

More recently “dockless” systems, where bikes
or scooters, equipped with appropriate wireless
technology, could be rented at any location
or left at any location, have become more
widespread. The systems can often be deployed
and operated at lower cost that docked systems.

However, concerns have arisen in some
locations about dockless bikes or scooters being
parked in inappropriate locations, in particular
when they have blocked pedestrian flows. Some
cities have responded to this by developing
“corrals,” marked pavement locations where
bikes or scooters can be left standing out of the
way of pedestrians and other traffic.

Considerations When Determining Access Policy
When determining access for electric bicycles
and other electric devices, the following issues
should be considered:
• Electric mobility devices provide increased
mobility for users who are less able to use
regular bicycles due to age or disability.
• Terrain with frequent elevation changes may
discourage some people from walking or
bicycling as transportation. Electric mobility
devices may encourage more people to
reduce use of motor vehicles.
• Higher-speed electric mobility devices may
generally be faster than most bicycles and
pedestrians.
• Some non-electric bike users and
pedestrians may consider e-bikes and other
powered to detract from their experience on
bikeways and trails.
• Consideration should be given to regulating
parking and storage of devices so that they
do not impede pedestrian or other traffic, in
particular through the use of corrals.
• The data that bike and scooter share
companies collect can be valuable to a
jurisdiction seeking to understand the
movement of people and planning for them.

Table 7 State Restrictions* on Electric Mobility Devices by Facility Type Device Type Facility Type: Class I shared
use paths
Class II
bike lanes
Class III
bike routes
Class IV
separated
bikeways
Class 1 E-Bike Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Class 2 E-Bike Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Class 3 E-Bike Prohibited Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Electric Scooter** Allowed** Allowed** Allowed** Allowed** Electrically Motorized Board Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed * Local jurisdictions may enact further restrictions.
** Prohibited on roadways with speed limits above 35 miles per hour 81 IJIIP!O

Page 129 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Policy Options
Use of these devices is expect to continue to
expand, and sharing services are expected to
spread.

Electric scooters have spread rapidly into
different cities, but some concerns have
attended their spread. A large concern with
scooters has been their mixing with much
slower pedestrian traffic. Some cities have
responded by prohibiting sidewalk use, but
on streets with fast vehicles and heavy traffic
without bike lanes, they may be forced t to
mix with vehicular traffic, which may be less
comfortable or safe and reduce overall use.

Speed limits for scooters are another option, but
enforcement may be challenging.

Jurisdictions have several policy options for
e-bikes and other electric mobility devices.

Different policies may be enacted for each
device. Access options include:

Maintain existing access as allowed by state law.

This option provides the most mobility
and accessibility for those who use these
transportation options.

Prohibit access to sidewalks and Class I shareduse paths, where pedestrians are also present, but continue access to other bikeways.
• This option separates the slowest and some
of the fastest users of the path, but will not
eliminate all fast riders, as regular bicycles
may travel as fast as or faster than e-devices.
• This option would result in more e-devices
mixing with motor vehicle traffic.
• In some locations, there may be no access
for electric scooters, which are prohibited
from roads with speed limits greater than 35
mph unless a bike lane or separated bikeway
is available.

For Class 3 e-bikes, prohibit access to all
bikeways except Class III bike routes.
• This option provides the greatest restriction
and separation.
• This option would force e-devices to mix
with vehicular traffic, which may be less
comfortable or safe and reduce overall use
of e-devices, and under some conditions
may be prohibited by state law.

When developing these policies, consideration
should also be given to other issues:
• Develop policies concerning parking and
storage of these devices, especially sharing
systems, to minimize impacts on flows
of pedestrians and other vehicles. These
policies may require use of corrals, prohibit
blocking of entrances, or other aspects.
• Develop data sharing agreements in
conjunction with permitting new shared
services.
82

Page 130 of 378 ends

Page 131 of 378 ends

84 55

Page 132 of 378 ends

Network
Recommendations
This chapter discusses the recommended
networks for walking, bicycling, and supportive
facilities for each city and the unincorporated
county.

Project Development
The proposed projects represent a long-term
vision of active transportation facilities for the
region. This includes shared-use paths and
trails, bike lanes and boulevards, sidewalks,
and crossing enhancements. A focus is placed
on safe routes to school, connections across
barriers, access to destinations, closing gaps, and
recreational opportunities. The recommended
project type is based on the design considerations
and best practices discussed in chapter 4. In
general, project locations were identified based
on the following considerations:
• Connectivity to destinations such as schools,
parks, trails, and civic institutions
• Gaps in or upgrades to the existing network
• Collision history
• Priority projects from previously adopted
plans
• Community input
• Feedback from jurisdiction staff
85

Page 133 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Prioritization and Cost
Prioritizing projects provides an understanding
of how to target investments to meet
community needs and strategically position
projects for competitive grants. Project
prioritization reflects the overall goals of the
ATP by focusing on safety, access to schools
and community destinations, equity, and
connectivity. Each project was scored by a set
of factors, then weighted by significance and
normalized to provide a total score for each
project by jurisdiction. These factors are aligned
with the eligibility criteria for the California
Active Transportation Program, which remains
the primary statewide source of funding for
the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian
projects. Details of the prioritization process can
be found in Appendix C. Prioritization factors
include:

Safety
• History of fatal or severe injury collisions
• Presence on Bike/Ped high injury network
Access and Connectivity
• Contributes to low stress network or closes
critical gap
• Proximity to schools
• Population density
• Proximity to libraries, parks, and transit stops
Equity and Disadvantaged Community Factors
• Student poverty (schools with high rates of
free and reduced-price meal eligibility)
• Healthy Places Index
• CalEnviroScreen
• Median Household Income
• Climate and Environmental Justice Screening
Tool (CEJST)
• Equitable Transportation Community ranking
(ETC)
Projects range in cost and effort and may be
years-long efforts. Feasibility is also dependent
upon the availability, reallocation, and/or
acquisition of funding. Additionally, although
projects are prioritized based on the criteria
noted above, projects may be integrated into
maintenance projects and undertaken for a
lower cost than if implemented separately. In
these cases, some lower priority projects may
be implemented before higher priority projects.

Projects requiring land acquisition,
utility relocation, or substantial drainage
modifications may require extra time to
implement. Detailed feasibility and design
studies based on local conditions will also
be necessary for the implementation of
many projects. To give a general idea of the
anticipated costs to implement and support
funding procurement, cost estimates were
developed at a planning level for each project.

Prioritized project lists that correspond to the
maps in this chapter are provided in Appendix D.

Unit cost estimates for projects are listed
below in Table 8. The cost ranges are based on
construction costs from recent bid documents
throughout California, recognizing regional
variations on construction costs throughout
the state and fluctuations in material and labor
costs over time. The cost estimates are in 2024
dollars, and also assume a 25% contingency,
60% for miscellaneous items, and 55% for soft
costs. Land acquisition, road widening, and
utility relocation costs that may be needed are
not included in the cost estimates.
86

Page 134 of 378 ends

Improvement
Type Assumptions Cost
Class I shareduse paths/trails1 mile of asphalt path (10' path + 2' shoulder), with landscaping (trees) and pedestrian-scale lighting $4,800,000
Class II bike
lanes
1 mile with 4 unsignalized intersections:

Bike lane striping, wayfinding signage, green conflict zones, two-stage turn boxes, bicycle detection-loop
$260,000
Class IIB
buffered bike
lanes
1 mile with 4 unsignalized intersections:

Buffered bike lane striping, wayfinding signage, green conflict zones, two-stage turn boxes, bicycle detection-loop
$415,000
Class III bike
lanes
1 mile with 8 unsignalized intersections:

Green-backed sharrows, wayfinding signage $120,000
Class IIIB bike
boulevards
1 mile with 8 unsignalized intersections:

Green-backed sharrows, bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage and striping
$200,000
Class IV
separated
bikeways
1 mile with 8 unsignalized intersections:

In-roadway cycle track with paint and plastic improvements such as striped buffers, wayfinding signage, green conflict zones, twostage turn boxes, bicycle detection-loop, soft hit posts Green-backed sharrows, bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage and striping $485,000
Sidewalk 1 mile per each side of roadway $1,100,000
Intersection
Improvements
(High Effort)
May include improvements including high visibility striping, raised curb extensions, ADA accessible curb ramps, new signal for a 4 leg intersection
$1,400,000
Intersection
Improvements
(Medium Effort)
May include improvements including high visibility striping, raised curb extensions, ADA accessible curb ramps, PHB, existing signal modifications (Signal head modifications, installing APS, yellow backplate, switching out signal heads, countdown ped heads, detection, timing upgrades (e.g. LPI) for a 4 leg intersection $550,000
Intersection
Improvements
(Low Effort)
May include improvements including high visibility striping, painted curb extensions, ADA accessible curb ramps at an unsignalized intersection
$250,000
Crossing
Improvements
(Midblock/RRFB)
May include improvements such as high visibility striping, RRFB, raised curb extensions, additional signage, median island, and ADA accessible curb ramps for 1 crossing
$125,000
Bike/Ped Bridge Construction of a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge $15,000,000 Railroad
Crossing
Improvements
Bike/ped crossing gates, improvements to smooth cross-ing area $550,000 All project cost estimates are high-level, and detailed study of individual projects will be required to refine them. Costs are not inclusive of engineering, draingage, contingency, and mobilization costs, as well as any land acquisition, road widening, and utility relocation costs that may be needed.

Table 8 Cost Estimates by Improvement Type
87 IJIIP!O

Page 135 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Santa Fe Dr
N
Atwater
The City of Atwater has a population of 31,401
as of 2021 making it the county’s third most
populous city. Its population is expected to
increase by 29 percent by 2046.

Atwater is located proximate to the City of
Merced and to the unincorporated community
of Winton. It is served by SR 99, which runs
along the southern fringe of the city and
connects it to the City of Merced. Winton Way
is a five-lane arterial that connects Atwater
to Winton. Other major corridors in Atwater
include Shafter Road, Bellevue Road, Juniper
Avenue, Shafter Road, Winton Way, Buhach
Road, First Street, and Atwater Boulevard.

Atwater’s bicycle facilities are limited to Class I
shared-use paths along portions of Shaffer Road
north of Bellevue Road and along Buhach Road
between Juniper and Green Sands Avenues, as
well as Class II bike lanes along a small stretch
of Atwater Boulevard on the west side of the
Figure 39
Existing and
Proposed
Bicycle Network
Atwater
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot Improvement
KEY
88 I ( I
r , ~,r 11
~rr•
fu -
__w__,-.-~1r:~~-i~i, ~1tL: ~ ">b -
" ~ I $ ~
@ g ------,- ~-
J

Page 136 of 378 ends

99 99
99 Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Shaffer Rd Winton Way
1st St
Juniper Ave
Hospital Ave
Shaffer Rd
Atwater Blvd
Juniper Ave
Buhach Rd
Applegate Rd
Giannini Rd
Fleming Rd
Green Sands Ave
Olive Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Santa Fe Dr
N
Figure 40
Proposed
Pedestrian
Improvements
Atwater
city. It lacks a comprehensive network of bicycle
facilities that serve the whole city, and most
areas in the city are not currently served by
bicycle facilities.

Key activity centers in the city include the
Atwater Flea Market, Castle Air Museum,
Atwater Skate Park, Atwater Memorial Ballpark,
and the Bellevue Bowling Alley.

Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
89 fu -
-I
"

Page 137 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 41
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network
Dos Palos and South Dos Palos
N
33 33
Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Shain Ave
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd Folsom Ave
Lexington Ave
Reynolds Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot Improvement
KEY
90 r
I
I
\ A
0 I
-

Page 138 of 378 ends

Figure 42
Proposed Pedestrian Improvements
Dos Palos and South Dos Palos
N
33 33
Valeria St
Blossom St
Elgin Ave
Center Ave
California Ave
Shain Ave
Palm Ave Millux Ave
Christian Ave
Almond St
Carmellia Ave
Venice Rd Folsom Ave
Lexington Ave
Reynolds Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Dos Palos
The City of Dos Palos has a 2021 population of
5,651, making it the smallest incorporated city
in the county. The unincorporated community of
South Dos Palos is located just south.

Despite countywide investments in the county’s
active transportation network, Dos Palos does
not have any existing bicycle facilities and
limited pedestrian facilities. SR 33/Elgin Avenue
is the primary highway in the city, serving both
local and through traffic. It cuts through the city
from the west, alternating between two and
four lanes, and between speed limits of 45 and
50 miles per hour. There are no signal-controlled
intersections along this stretch, and one all-way
stop controlled intersection at Blossom Street.

In addition to SR 33, other primary corridors in
the city include Valeria Street, Blossom Street,
Center Avenue, and Almond Street.

Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
91 I
~ 0
0 0
M-'
_l
0

Page 139 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 43
Existing and
Proposed
Bicycle Network
Gustine
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 Gustine
The City of Gustine has a population of 5,990 as
of 2021. The city is located in the northwest part
of the county, and is located at the intersection
of SR 33 and SR 140. The two highways share a
single alignment through the city along South
Avenue and 4th Street, which serves both
through traffic and as the main local arterials.

Other major roadways include North Avenue,
West Avenue, and 5th Street.

While a smaller city, Gustine is home to the
Gustine Municipal Airport, and is near the
Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge. The city’s
parks and schools can be reached through some
N
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These include
Class III bicycle routes along Sullivan Road,
Linde Avenue, Meredith Avenue, Grove Avenue,
East Avenue, North Avenue, West Avenue, 6th
Street, and 3rd Avenue; as well as Class I shared
used paths along Meredith Avenue and around
Harry Schmidt Park.

The City of Gustine recently completed the
development of a citywide Active Transportation
Plan, which was adopted in December 2021.

As such, the ATP does not include new projects
for Gustine and instead defers to the locallydeveloped plan.

Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
KEY Existing/Proposed
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Project for
Further Study
Spot
Improvement
92 I
- o - -A I
- i l J I
I
»
1-----.--r-----.- ..L_ 0 --,
----,
I
I ~
o,JJI ~ J_~-~---o--,,-;
0

Page 140 of 378 ends

Figure 44
Proposed
Pedestrian
Improvements
Gustine
South Ave
West Ave
North Ave
Lucerne Ave
Jensen Rd
Meredith Ave
Sullivan Rd
East Ave
Linden Ave
Grove Ave
3rd Ave
Carnation Rd
140
140
33 33
140
33 140
33 N
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
Project for
Further Study
KEY
93 0 0 0 0 --A
/ '
_ _ ______.. _ _ _ r __ 1._1
- I - o -- i I
___ - o ' c~ ~ ~7-11-f--~
0 -,
----,
0

Page 141 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
N
99 99
99 B St
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
Figure 45
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Livingston
Livingston
The City of Livingston has a 2021 population of
14,078. It is located in northern Merced County,
northwest of Atwater. The city is served by SR
99 as its primary highway. Other key commercial
corridors in the city include B Street, Winton
Parkway, Main Street, Davis Street, C Street, and
Hammatt Avenue.

The city has a mix of residential and commercial
areas, as well as numerous parks. Small
segments of Class II bike lanes have been
provided on one block segments on recently
widened roadways, such as B Street, but the
city otherwise lacks formal bicycle facilities.

Sidewalks are provided on most residential
streets. The SR 99 freeway, which bisects
the city, poses a major barrier for access and
connectivity between the two sides of the city.

Residents also report numerous challenges
with crossing SR 99, as well as issues with
accessibility over the railroad tracks.

Livingston is expected to receive passenger
rail service through ACE in the coming decade.

The anticipated development of a platform and
associated infrastructure in the downtown area
underscore the need for greater pedestrian and
ADA accessibility in this area.

Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
KEY Existing/Proposed
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot
Improvement
94 -
0 ~1 L
_I r~, r fi-E:m-~=.J
_ ,o l
t -

Page 142 of 378 ends

N
99 99
99 B St
F St
Peach Ave
Robin Ave
Main St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Dwight Way
Campbell Ave
Winton Pkwy
Hammatt Ave
Olive Ave
Figure 46
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Livingston
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
95 r_,___j_
~3rrf==!--+-_JI ~
I

Page 143 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Los Banos
The City of Los Banos has a population of 44,421
as of 2021, making it the second largest city in
the county. It is located on the west side of the
county near I-5, but is directly served only by
SR 165, SR 152, and SR 33. All three bisect the
city on arterial roadways that serve both local
and through traffic. SR 165 runs north-south
along Mercey Springs Road, which cuts through
the east side of the city. SR 152 and SR 33 run
concurrently through the city along Pacheco
Boulevard, which runs east-west, bisecting the
city while also serving as its primary commercial
corridor. Other major roadways in the city
include Overland Avenue, West H Street / H
Street, B Street, 7th Street, Ward Road, I Street,
and Ortigalita Road.

Los Banos has a substantial network of bicycle
facilities. Class I facilities in the city include the
Rail Trail and the H.G. Fawcett Canal Trail, as well
as a shared path along a stretch of Place Road.

These are complemented by a network of Class
II bike lanes around the city, including along B,
H, and I Streets, 7th Street, Willmot Avenue,
Nantes Avenue, Overland Road, and Cardoza
Road. However, in many such cases, existing
Class II facilities require upgrades to better
match the current character of the roadways
as well as travel needs of people bicycling
throughout the city.

Key activity centers in and around the city
include the AG Sports Complex and Dog Park,
Los Banos Wildlife Area, the 7th Street Ballfields,
Los Banos Historical Museum, Fairgrounds Park,
and Los Banos Municipal Airport.
96

Page 144 of 378 ends

Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
165
33 33
165
Figure 47
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Los Banos
N
152 152
H St
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Spot Improvement
KEY
97 I
I
I
fPage 145 of 378
Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Overland Ave
H St
Pacheco Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
I St
2nd St
Willmott Rd
Ward Rd
San Luis St
Pioneer Rd
Center Ave
Cardoza Rd
Ortigalita Rd
Place Rd Place Rd
Mercey Springs Rd
7th St
7th St
7th St
B St
165
33 33
165
Figure 48
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Los Banos
N
152 152
H St
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
98 I
I
I
f1
I
--.1___ -- -- ~
\_Jr~ I
~I
0 ...+----...II
- 0 t-
( 00~
---------1- 0 0 --
--r----1li ---h~~__JL_ ' I I I I I I I o I
I t t LI l I
111 -r-- 1 -
1 • I -7
·- ~ - i-( ; ,-

Page 146 of 378 ends

Merced
The City of Merced had a population of 85,993
in 2021, making it the largest city in the
county by both population size and land area.

In addition to serving as the seat of Merced
County and home to many of its government
institutions, it is also home to the newest
campus in the University of California (UC)
system, UC Merced, and its attached medical
center. Other key activity centers in the city
include its Senior Community Center, the
Applegate Park Zoo, Applegate Skate Park, Joe
Herb Park and Ball Field, McNamara Park and
Ball Field, Fahrens Park, Merced Flea & Farmers
Market, Lake Yosemite Park, and Merced Mall.

The City of Merced continues to experience
geographic and population growth, especially
fueled by UC Merced’s continual expansion.

Merced is served by SR 99, SR 59, and SR 140.

SR 99 runs along a fully controlled-access
freeway alignment and is the city’s main
highway connection. SR 140 and SR 59 run
mainly along large arterials such as Yosemite
Parkway and Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

However, all three highways run concurrently
along the freeway segment through the central
part of the city, which bisects it and creates
obstacles for access and connectivity between
north and south sides of the city. Other key
commercial corridors in the city include 16th
and 18th Streets; G, M, and R Streets; Main
Street; Olive Avenue; and Yosemite Avenue.

As the biggest city in the county, Merced has
the most expansive bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The city has a mix of Class I, II, and III
bicycle facilities throughout the city along with
a trail network connecting to recreational areas
outside of the city.

A core network of class I paths are located
along many of the creek corridors that travel
through Merced, including segments of Bear
Creek, Black Rascal Creek, Fahrens Creek, and
Cottonwood Creek. These multi-use paths
serve as important routes for both commuting
and recreational bicycling while preserving the
natural environment. Regional class I facilities on
Lake Road and Campus Parkway, while located
outside of city limits, nevertheless serve as
important connectors for residents traveling to
destinations such as the UC Merced campus.

In addition to the trail network, Class II bicycle
lanes are located on many arterial streets and
within new developments throughout Merced.

Class II bike lanes are located on many major
corridors crossing the city, including Yosemite
Avenue, R Street, M Street, and G Street. In some
instances, as development or adjacent land uses
have changed the character of these roadways,
existing Class II facilities require upgrades to
better match the current character and travel
needs of people bicycling throughout the city.

Class II facilities are located on Buena Vista Drive,
W Olive Avenue, McKee Road, W 26th Street,
Glen Avenue, E 21st Street, W Main Street, E 13th
Street, E 11th Street, and W 8th Street.

Existing Class III bicycle routes are located
throughout the city and are found on sections of
both collectors and arterials, despite only being
appropriate for lower speed streets, such as in
residential areas, to serve specific destinations
such as schools or to close gaps in the broader
bicycle network. Class III facilities are found on
Bellevue Road, Lake Road, G Street, M Street,
Cardella Road, San Jose Avenue, Mercy Avenue,
Mansionette Drive, Yosemite Ave, McKee Road,
W 21st Street, W 18th Street, E Main Street,
W 13th Street, W 11th Street, R Street, V
Street, N West Avenue, and W Childs Avenue.

Community feedback reflect that some of these
routes have not been able to provide sufficiently
comfortable user experience for bicyclists.
99 IJIIP!O

Page 147 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Figure 49
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
City of Merced
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
99 99
59 140
140
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
100
7 l_
; I
T
r
I ~ -1
lPage 148 of 378
Figure 49
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
City of Merced
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
G St
M St
Lake Rd
Bellevue Rd
Snelling Hwy West Ave
Childs Ave Childs Ave G St
R St
V St
M St
Yosemite Ave
Olive Ave
Glen Ave
Parsons Ave
McKee Rd
Campus Pkwy
20th St
11th St
Gerard Ave
N
99 99
59 140
140
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
101
I
~+
/__.__ 0 ~
f
I
-i
I
1 I
.. ' ~~ ~ T
r I O O -----1 I lj_.__
0 F
w
~ ~----l-· - i ~l_.:&
- ~I------'
T
r-- -
) I y

Page 149 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Merced County
The unincorporated portion of Merced
County has an approximate population of
91,616. Most of that population resides
within a number of small, unincorporated
communities, including Ballico, Cressey,
Delhi, Franklin-Beachwood, Hilmar, Le
Grand, McSwain, Planada, Santa Nella,
Snelling, South Dos Palos, Stevinson,
Volta, and Winton.

Each of the unincorporated communities
serves as major activity centers for their
residents and have one to two major
corridors per community connecting
commercial activity, residential areas,
parks, and schools. Many major corridors
connect multiple unincorporated communities
including Santa Fe Drive, Winton Way, Santa Fe
Avenue, Henry Miller Avenue, Bradbury Road,
and August Avenue. These communities are also
served by highways, including SR 140, SR 33, SR
59, SR 165, SR 99, and I-5, which also serve the
incorporated cities.

Focused community plans with an active
transportation emphasis have been recently
undertaken for the Winton and FranklinBeachwood communities, which have resulted in the planning and ongoing implementation of
a variety of improvements, with many focused
around safe routes to schools.

Figure 52
Proposed
Pedestrian
Improvements
Santa Nella
N 33
33 Henry Miller Ave
Luis Ave
Santa Nella Blvd
Comet Rd
5 5
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
Santa Nella
Figure 52
South Dos Palos
Figure 59-60
Le Grand
Figures
65-66
Planada
Figures
63-64
Hilmar
Figures
53-54
Delhi
Figures 57-58
Winton
Figures
61-62
Cressey
Figures 55-56
Figure 51
Unincorporated Communities
with Proposed Improvements
102
0 A

Page 150 of 378 ends

Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
Cressey Way
Palm Ave
Meadow Dr
Santa Fe Dr
Figure 55
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Cressey
N Figure 53
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Hilmar
Lander Ave Lander Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
August Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
N
Lander Ave
Cressey Way
Palm Ave
Meadow Dr
Santa Fe Dr
Figure 56
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Cressey
Figure 54
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Hilmar
Lander Ave Lander Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
Geer Ave
Bloss Ave
American Ave
N
Lander Ave
N 103
I
I -rI
_j I_
t _
rI'=:= I ~ t ------r-r- t=f
J- r
J
-
)
- ----t - -
I
)
, _nL__ - _!,_~
A
I
-r I
1- - A I
A

Page 151 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
99 99
El Capitan Way
North Ave
Palm St
Sycamore St
Vincent Rd
Merced Ave
Flower St
Shanks Rd
Hinton Ave
Letteau Ave
August Ave
Hillside Ave
Schendel Ave
Stephens St
South Ave
Delhi Ave
Figure 58
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Delhi
N
99 99
El Capitan Way
North Ave
Palm St
Sycamore St
Vincent Rd
Merced Ave
Flower St
Shanks Rd
Hinton Ave
Letteau Ave
August Ave
Hillside Ave
Schendel Ave
Stephens St
South Ave
Delhi Ave
Figure 57
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Delhi
N
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
104
r
/ I

Page 152 of 378 ends

105

Page 153 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
33Elgin Ave
Christian Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Figure 61
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Winton
Figure 59
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
South Dos Palos
N
Olive Ave
Winton Way
Walnut Ave
Cypress Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Jones Rd
Gertrude Ave
Almond Ave
Vine Ave
Walnut Ave
N
33Elgin Ave
Christian Ave
Santa Fe Grade
Russell Ave
6th St
L St
Figure 62
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Winton
Figure 60
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
South Dos Palos
N
Olive Ave
Winton Way
Walnut Ave
Cypress Ave
Santa Fe Dr
Jones Rd
Gertrude Ave
Almond Ave
Vine Ave
Walnut Ave
N
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
106
A
A
0

Page 154 of 378 ends

Figure 65
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Le Grand
N
Le Grand Rd
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Fresno Rd
Jefferson St
Hainline Rd
Fresno Rd
Cook St
McKee St
McDowell St Washington Ave
Existing/Proposed
Class I
Class II
Class IIB
Class III
Class IIIB
Class IV
Ped Improvement
Spot Improvement
KEY
Figure 63
Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Network
Planada
N
Childs Ave Childs Ave
Gerard Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Plainsburg Rd
140
140
Stanford Ave
Sutter St
Cody Ave
Figure 66
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Le Grand
N
Le Grand Rd
Santa Fe Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Fresno Rd
Jefferson St
Hainline Rd
Fresno Rd
Cook St
McKee St
McDowell St Washington Ave
Figure 64
Proposed Pedestrian
Improvements
Planada
N
Childs Ave Childs Ave
Gerard Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Plainsburg Rd
140
140
Stanford Ave
Sutter St
Cody Ave
107
I
l
A
-
---
I I

Page 155 of 378 ends

108
6

Page 156 of 378 ends

109
Implementation &
Accountability
The active transportation network will be
implemented in a few ways:
• through individual projects;
• in conjunction with adjacent land
development projects; and
• in conjunction with maintenance and other
capital projects.

Recommendations in this report will be
implemented by local jurisdictions and through
coordination and collaboration with MCAG
and other partners, including Caltrans, the San
Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (ACE Rail), the
San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA),
Amtrak, and other advocacy and community
organizations in Merced County and throughout
the Central Valley.

Completion of projects in this plan will
be reported through periodic reports on
completion by jurisdiction staff to the city
councils and board of supervisors, and on each
agency’s website. MCAG will periodically update
this plan to reflect the evolving needs and
progress towards completion.

As discussed previously, implementation will
depend on the availability of funding and in
some cases occur over many years, with priority
projects being targed for implementation
in the next five years. This chapter provides
an overview of available funding sources
at the time of publication, along with
recommendations for ongoing collaboration and
accountability.

Page 157 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Funding
Multiple federal, state, regional, and local
funding sources are available for bicycle and
pedestrian projects and programs. A full
resource table is provided in Table 9. Some of
the funding sources most relevant to this plan
include the following:

Measure V is a half-cent regional transportation
sales tax measure that is designed to fund
transportation maintenance and improvements
in the Merced region. Local jurisdictions must
spend at least 20 percent of their local Measure
V funding on alternative mode projects, such
as bicycle and pedestrian projects. As such, this
plan may be used as a resource to identify these
projects.

The Active Transportation Program (ATP)
consolidates diverse transportation initiatives
into a single program with an annual budget
of around $123 million from state and federal
sources. ATP aims to increase walking and biking
trips, enhance safety for non-motorized users,
support regional greenhouse gas reduction
efforts, promote public health, and provide a
range of projects benefiting various user groups,
including disadvantaged communities.

Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
are offered by Caltrans to encourage local
and regional planning goals that support the
implementation of Regional Transportation
Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategies
(RTP/SCS) projects. These funds can be used
for a variety of focused community planning
projects, including those that support rural
active transportation, temporary demonstration
projects, and community needs assessments.

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program allocates funds
to states for transportation projects aimed at
alleviating traffic congestion and enhancing
air quality, especially in regions of the country
struggling to meet national air quality standards.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) is a federal-aid initiative designed to
achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities
and serious injuries across all public roads,
including non-state-owned roads and tribal land.

California’s Local HSIP focuses on infrastructure
projects with recognized crash reduction
benefits. Funding can be used for preliminary
engineering, right of way, and construction.

The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
grant program has a budget of $5 billion in
appropriated funds spanning from 2022 to
2026. The SS4A program supports regional,
local, and tribal endeavors through grants to
prevent roadway fatalities and severe injuries.

Projects with a direct link to bicycle and
pedestrian safety will be eligible for funding as
the MCAG Multijurisdictional Local Road Safety
Plan is completed in 2024.

Local Development Fees collected on land
development projects can provide match
funding or full implementation of projects
where there is a nexus to the project.

Federal and State Earmarks present an
opportunity to secure funding at both the
federal and state level. Earmarks often have
short timelines for consideration; proactively
creating fact sheets with funding needs and
benefits of potential projects can support
engagement with Federal and State legislators.
110

Page 158 of 378 ends

LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
Measure V https://www.mcagov.org/315/Measure-V

STATEWIDE FUNDING SOURCES
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/ Active Transportation Program (ATP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/activetransportation-program Clean California (Clean CA) https://cleancalifornia.dot.ca.gov/ Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highwaysafety-improvement-program Local Partnership Program (LPP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/localpartnership-program Reconnecting Communities: Highways to Boulevards
(RC:H2B) https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/rc-h2b Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) &
Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) https://sco.ca.gov/aud_road_maintenance_ sb1.html
Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/solutionsfor-congested-corridors-program Sustainable Transportation Planning (STP) Grant https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportationplanning/regional-planning/sustainabletransportation-planning-grants

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ)
https://arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/
congestion-mitigation-and-air-qualityimprovement-cmaq-program Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative,
Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT)
https://www.transportation.gov/rural/
grant-toolkit/promoting-resilient-operationstransformative-efficient-and-cost-saving Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability
and Equity (RAISE) https://transportation.gov/RAISEgrants Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Grant
Program
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/
rcnprogram
Rural Surface Transportation Grant (RSTG) https://transportation.gov/grants/ruralsurface-transportation-grant Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing
Transportation (SMART) https://transportation.gov/grants/SMART Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) https://transportation.gov/grants/SS4A Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) https://fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/ Table 9
Relevant Local, Statewide, and Federal Funding Sources
111
IJIIP!O

Page 159 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Potential Outcomes
By implementing the planned networks and
supporting programs, significant improvements
may be realized in the share of trips made by
walking or bicycling. By increasing the facilities
available to users and emphasizing low stress
bikeways and connectivity to destinations,
mode share is anticipated to increase. While
specific increases in mode share depend on
many factors, usage may increase to levels seen
cities with comparable characteristics and thus
looking at the walk and bike mode share of
other cities provides a reasonable comparison.

Sacramento is a city in the Central Valley with
a comparable climate to that of the Merced
County region. Sacramento currently has a

3.0% walking mode share and a 1.5% bicycling
mode share. Though no single city is exactly
comparable, this comparison provides a
reasonable targets to achieve by implementing
the ATP. Achieving comparable mode shares
in Merced County jurisdictions would result in
significant increases in the number of walk and
bike trips, as displayed in Table 10. As discussed
in Chapter 2, these numbers are based on
commute trips and do not include shopping,
school, or recreational trips, or commuters
who only walk or bike to work part time. Thus,
the actual number of future trips is likely to be
higher than these estimates.

By implementing this plan, it is also anticipated
that collisions involving bicyclists and
pedestrians may be reduced. A target for the
reduction of injuries and fatalities in roadway
users is being established as part of the MCAG
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (2024),
which will build upon the countermeasures
and projects recommended in this plan. In
addition to these direct health improvements
due to collision reduction, implementation will
also improve health outcomes associated with
increased physical activity by region residents,
such as reduced incidence of heart disease, high
blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

Location
Walking Bicycling
Current Goal Current Goal
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Merced County
(As A Whole) 2,481 2.3% 4,255 4% 396 0.4% 1,596 1.5%
Merced County
(Unincorporated) 446 2.2% 821 4% 0 0% 308 1.5%
Merced County
(Cities) 1,028 1.4% 2,163 3% 391 0.5% 1,082 2%
Table 10
Means of Transportation to Work (2022 5-Year Average)
Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year data.

Workers aged 16 years and older, excludes percentage of employees that work from home. 112

Page 160 of 378 ends

Measures of Effectiveness and Tracking Progress
Communities in which members of the public,
elected officials, and agency staff are all on
the same page of understanding trade-offs to
operations and safety see the most success.

Local jurisdictions have a critical role to play in
building out the region’s active transportation
network, shifting more trips to active modes,
and reducing traffic collisions that kill or
seriously injure people. Cities and the County
own, operate, and maintain the streets and
roadways within the region, except those owned
by Caltrans, and will ultimately prioritize, fund,
build, and permit the construction of most
non-freeway roadway projects in the region.

Dedicated staff time is critical to coordination
of improvements, relaying project benefits to
agency staff, elected officials, and public, and
keeping a project moving forward. This also
includes maintaining policy and design standards
that align with industry best practices.

A sample framework for implementation has
been provided on the following pages. This
framework aligns with the guiding principles
of the ATP, and includes suggested practices
and recommendations that jurisdictions may
choose to adopt or pursue to reduce barriers to
implementation, and track progress over time.

Both individual and collaborative actions by
jurisdictions will aid in meeting the responsibility
agencies have for implementing projects in a
way that is fiscally responsible and yields the
greatest benefit to the health, mobility, and
livelihoods of the residents and communities of
Merced County.

This plan establishes a framework for improving
active transportation across the region.

However, monitoring of progress must occur to
understand whether the goals of this plan are
being achieved and those who walk, bike, and
roll feel safe and comfortable using the active
transportation network. This requires ongoing
collaboration, with roles for local jurisdictions,
MCAG, and the community.

As the regional transportation planning agency,
MCAG serves in a number of transportation
planning roles in Merced County based on
local, state, and federal designations. These
designations offer increased funding and
responsibility for MCAG in transportation
planning, including oversight of several
programs that can contribute to the expansion
and safety of active transportation networks
throughout the region. Without a dedicated
funding source, project implementation will
typically rely on federal or state funding or
capital improvement funding that can include
roadway safety enhancements. MCAG will
continue to serve as the convenor for local
agencies, and play a role in regional facilitation,
including support for priority projects identified
in this ATP.
113
IJIIP!O

Page 161 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Objective 1.1
Reduce pedestrian and bicyclist related
collisions.

Baseline Data
Existing bicycle/pedestrian.

Recommended Strategies
• Adopt a Vision Zero commitment and action
plan, which identifies strategies to eliminate
all traffic fatalities and severe injuries,
consistent with in-progress Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan (MCAG) and Local Road
Safety Plan (County).
• Develop an annual review process
for bicycle and pedestrian crash data
(including causes) to implement ongoing
infrastructure improvements throughout the
transportation system.
• Install safety enhancements to improve
conditions for the most vulnerable road
users, such as people using mobility devices
youth, and older people.
• Prioritize safety improvements, such as high
visibility crosswalks, at intersections and
corridors with high numbers of bicycle and
pedestrian crashes.

Objective 1.2
Reduce traffic stress for non-motorized roadway
users (as measured by Level of Traffic Stress or
LTS).

Baseline Data
• Percentage of roadways at the highest
levels of LTS 3 and 4 (least comfortable) vs
those at lowest levels of LTS 1 and 2 (most
comfortable).
• Percentage of residents living within ¼-mile
of low-stress facilities (LTS 1 or 2).

Recommended Strategies
• Provide more physically separated active
transportation facilities, such as class I
bikeway shared-use paths, class IV separated
bikeways, and sidewalks.
• Provide alternative facilities on lowerstress neighborhood streets, such as wellconnected bicycle boulevards. • Design existing roads to accommodate active
transportation modes.

Traffic-related and personal safety issues are a barrier for people bicycling and walking. Increase opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to easily access local streets and pathways and reduce the number, rate, and severity of collisions involving people walking, biking, and rolling. 1 Safety Create and maintain a safe environment for
people walking, biking, and rolling
114

Page 162 of 378 ends

Objective 1.3
Follow best practices in transportation facility
planning and design.

Recommended Strategies
• Update public works documents that
guide facility development (for example,
Improvement Standards and Specifications)
every 10 years to reflect current Caltrans,
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), and best practice guidance, such
as guidelines from the National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).
• Adopt a Complete Streets ordinance and
corresponding cross-sections for different
street typologies to guide construction
of new streets and retrofitting of existing
streets.
• Provide wider class I bikeway shared-use
paths (approximately 12’ or more where
possible) in areas of high activity.
• Consider the addition and/or improvement
of bikeways, where feasible, when improving
existing roads.

Objective 1.4
Make travel to school via active modes safe,
comfortable, and convenient for students and
families.

Baseline Data
Mode split for students traveling to schools via
tallies and/or surveys.

Recommended Strategies
• Coordinate with agencies such as The
Bus and Merced County Public Health to
implement a comprehensive Safe Routes to
School educational program.
• Prioritize active transportation
improvements in close proximity to schools
throughout Merced County.
115

Page 163 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
2 Objective 2.1
Align local implementation of regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies by
tracking transportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions at the County level, and conduct cost/
benefit analyses of transportation projects using
GHG emissions as a criterion.

Baseline Data
Framework and methodology for tracking
Greenhouse Gas emissions related to
transportation.

Recommended Strategies
• Make a public commitment to reducing GHG
emissions.
• Rely upon GHG emission reduction
calculations as a metric for guiding
investment decisions.
• Modify cost/benefit analyses to incorporate
and consider the GHG emission impact of
transportation investments.

Objective 2.2
Reduce overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Baseline Data
• Number of Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita.
• ACS Mode share.

Recommended Strategies
• Complete VMT-based traffic impact analysis
in compliance with SB743 on residential and
office land use projects, when applicable.
• Support compact growth and integrated
transportation/land use planning.
• Encourage large-scale trip generators,
including County and City facilities, to create
and implement Transportation Demand
Management programs that emphasize the
importance of walking to employees and
visitors.
• Ensure all facilities where public employees
work enforce the State’s parking cash-out
law that requires employers who provide
subsidized parking for their employees
to also offer a cash allowance in lieu of a
parking space.
• Encourage the use of DIBS Rideshare
Program, including carpooling, vanpooling,
and public transportatio
Creating walkable and bikeable communities can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by encouraging people to use active transportation rather than drive, particularly for short trips.

Integrating the implementation of separated and low stress facilities into development and land use processes can make communities more resilient in the face of climate change impacts.

Mode Shift Increase the percent of trips made using active modes throughout the region
116

Page 164 of 378 ends

Objective 2.3
Develop shared-use facilities along canals and
off-road easements.

Baseline Data
Linear miles of canals or levees with
maintenance roads viable for shared-use
facilities.

Recommended Strategies
When upgrading or enhancing irrigation, levee,
and flood control facilities throughout the
region, look for opportunities to implement
shared-use pathways as feasible in conjunction
with maintenance/access needs.

Objective 2.4
Set a goal to increase active mode share of all
trips.

Baseline Data
Percentage of active transportation mode share
of trips.

Recommended Strategies
• Promote active travel as a viable
transportation option.
• Implement proposed active transportation
infrastructure improvements via local CIPs to
create a better-connected network.
117

Page 165 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
Objective 3.1
Improve opportunities for residents to engage in
active transportation.

Baseline Data
• Healthy Places Index.
• Number of existing programs serving
residents.

Recommended Strategies
• Promote existing active transportation
facilities through community events
and programs, signage, and education
campaigns.
• Provide educational materials on the
benefits of physical activity.
• Implement proposed active transportation
improvements throughout disadvantaged
and disconnected communities and
neighborhoods.

Objective 3.2
Address current and historical inequities in the
provision of active transportation infrastructure.

Baseline Data
• Rates of poverty.
• Median household income.
• Employment statistics from the most recent
5 years.
• Mileage of low-stress bikeways in lowincome neighborhoods.

Recommended Strategies
Prioritize the implementation of planned
projects identified in this Active Transportation
Plan based on historical lack of investment and
current need.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities provide affordable, healthy transportation solutions, regardless of ethnicity, age, or income. However, access to transportation options may not be equal across all communities. This Plan increases opportunities for the active transportation network to address current and historic inequities and improves economic opportunities for residents.

Equity Prioritize active transportation investments in 3 underserved communities 118

Page 166 of 378 ends

Objective 3.3
Make the transportation planning and
implementation process more transparent and
open to all community members.

Baseline Data
• Number of events and programs related to
active transportation.
• Number of participants in events and
programs related to active transportation
Recommended Strategies
• Develop outreach materials with context and
in languages that are community-specific;
host community meetings at locations that
are convenient with respect to time and
location as well as accessible by multiple
forms of transportation.
• Host engagement events in areas that
attract significant numbers of people, such
as community events and gatherings
• Ensure information on how to request
public services is available online, in
multiple languages for access by non-English
proficient residents, and that the website is
ADA compliant.
• Develop multilingual education campaigns to
communicate the rights and responsibilities
of all roadway users.
• Develop environmental justice components
in a collaborative fashion with local groups
and stakeholders.
119

Page 167 of 378 ends

Merced Regional Active
Transportation Plan
4 Objective 4.1
Develop a robust and well-connected active
transportation network to provide regional and
local connections throughout communities.

Baseline Data
• Number of miles of existing Class I
bikeway shared-use paths and other active
transportation facilities within and between
communities.
• Number of marked pedestrian crossing
opportunities.

Recommended Strategies
• Utilize existing maintenance roads on
irrigation canals for building shared-use
paths.
• Identify and track the number of existing and
new marked pedestrian crossing locations.
• Identify and develop Mobility Hubs; provide
adequate active transportation facilities and
wayfinding to connect to Mobility Hubs.

Objective 4.2
Provide low-stress access to key destinations
such as employment destinations, grocery
stores, transit stops, parks, libraries, and other
community destinations.

Baseline Data
Number of key destinations that are within ¼
mile of the low-stress active transportation
network.

Recommended Strategies
Prioritize the implementation of pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure that connects to
schools, parks, healthcare, community services,
employment centers, grocery stores, and other
key destinations.

Objective 4.3
Develop a comprehensive facility identification
and wayfinding program.

Baseline Data
Existing network of directional signage directed
towards active transportation users.

Recommended Strategies
• Inventory existing signage and implement
wayfinding program.
• Develop branding and deploy wayfinding
signage to major destinations and between
transportation facilities.

Implementing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure allows residents to access local and regional destinations safely and comfortably on bicycle or by foot.

Connectivity Create a pedestrian and bicycle network that connects people to key destinations and public transit
120

Page 168 of 378 ends

Objective 4.4
Provide adequate end-of-trip facilities for active
transportation users.

Baseline Data
• Number of short-term bike parking facilities
(for example, bicycle racks and corrals).
• Number of long-term bike parking facilities
(for example, bicycle lockers and storage
rooms).

Recommended Strategies
• Install secure, long-term bicycle parking and
storage at major transit hubs.
• Encourage bike parking facilities in new
developments and redevelopment projects
beyond those in the California Building
Code (CBC) and other applicable standards
and guidelines; provide assessment-based
incentives, where feasible, on a case-by-case
basis.
• Conduct a baseline inventory of end-of-trip
facilities in each community.

Objective 4.5
Allow for modes of active transportation and
electric-powered micromobility to expand
options for residents and visitors.

Baseline Data
Percentage of county population using active
transportation and other travel modes to
include emerging trends such as scooters,
e-bikes, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs),
and other non-human powered micro mobility
options.

Recommended Strategies
Incorporate design flexibility into public spaces,
including bus stops and transit hubs, to allow for
new mobility devices in the future.
121

Page 169 of 378 ends

IVC"tG

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

Page 170 of 378 ends

122
A

Page 171 of 378 ends

123
Appendix A
Land Use Maps
General plan land use maps for cities and the
county are provided in this appendix.

Please see the County of Merced’s General Plan
Zoning Maps website to see the general plan
land use maps of additional communities.
https://www.countyofmerced.com/437/
General-Plan-Zoning-Maps

Page 172 of 378 ends

124
§¨¦
§¨¦
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
}þ|·
)
)
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!

LOS BANOS

RESERVOIR

SAN LUIS

RESERVOIR
O NEIL

FOREBAY
LAKE

YOSEMITE

CHOWCH LI LAR VI ER
AS

N JOAQUIN RIVER

MERCED R VI RE

DRG RA MOGNI

EUCALYPTUS RD

ORTIGALITA RD

AUGUST AVE

LE GRAND RD

ARBURUA RD

HENRY MILLER AVE

SHAIN AVE

MONTE VISTA AVE

WILLIAMS AVE

SANTA FE DR

BLOSS AVE

SANDY MUSH RD

EL CAPITAN WAY

OLIVE AVE

HEALY RD

DR TNECNI V

LA GRANGE RD

B LI LY WR GI HT RD

INDIANA RD

SANTA FE AVE

PALM AVE

DR DNALSI RENRUT

SOUTH BEAR CREEK DR

WASHINGTON BLVD

CHILDS AVE

DENTON & LEAK RD

LINCOLN BLVD

RD ANATLUS

MARIPOSA WAY

PALM AVE

ARBOLEDA DR

WHITWORTH RD

BRADBURY RD

PLAINSBURG RD

GURR RD

DR TNUH

EAST AVE

MERCED FALLS RD

MCCABE RD

DR OTTI RB

WASHINGTON RD

EAGLE FIELD RD

CENTER AVE

HEREFORD RD MALLARD RD ALMOND DR

OAKDALE RD

MINTURN RD

VOLTA RD

WESTSIDE BLVD

CARLUCCI RD

DAN MCNAMARA RD

GUN CLUB RD

FIRST AVE
TS G

KEYES RD

SANTA FE GRD

TURLOCK RD

COZZI RD
LEE RD

WALTZ RD

CENTRAL AVE

COX FERRY RD

HORNITOS RD

YOUD RD

POLE LINE RD

HARMON RD

RIVER RD

NS LE I L GN DR

SANTA FE GRD
I-5
I-5
L
L
1 2
3 5
8 7
10 13
15 14
2324
25 BURNS

RESERVOIR
165
33 152
152
33 59
165
99 140
33 140
140
140
59 165
99 O
January 07, 2014 - MA

MERCED COUNTY

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE POLICY DIAGRAM
0 3 6 9 12 1.5
Miles

FRESNO COUNTY

MARIPOSA COUNTY

STANISLAUS COUNTY

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

SAN BENITO COUNTY
Merced County - GIS
Current map reflects revisions thru October 17, 2013

F O O T H I L L

P A S T U R E

F O O T H I L L

P A S T U R E

A G R I C U L T U R E

MADERA COUNTY
CITY PLANNING AREAURBAN COMMUNITIESURBAN COMMUNITY "STUDY AREA"RURAL CENTERSRURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTERSHIGHWAY INTERCHANGE CENTERSISOLATED URBAN DESIGNATIONS

RURAL DESIGNATIONS
A - AgriculturalFP - FootHill Pasture

OTHER FEATURES

MERCED COUNTY
)LANDFILL

LAKESMAJOR ROADSRIVERSHIGHWAYS
!
L

UNIVERSITY

COMMUNITY
CASTLE
TUTTLE

FRANKLIN -

BEACHWOOD

PLANADA

LE GRAND
WINTON

CRESSEY

BALLICO
DELHI
HILMAR
NEWMAN

STEVINSON

VOLTA SANTA NELLA

VILLAGES

OF LAGUNA

SAN LUIS FOX
HILLS
DOS

PALOS Y

EL NIDO

SNELLING
MERCED

ATWATER

LIVINGSTON

YOSEMITE
LAKE

ESTATES

GUSTINE

LOS BANOS

DOS PALOS
Figure LU-1
Merced County

Page 173 of 378 ends

125
" "$

!
!

!

" #
!

!

!

!

!

!

"
!

!
!
" "$

!
!

"
$
!

$
!

!
"

$ "$
"

!

!

!

$ "$

$ "$
!
!

!

!

#

!
!
"

!
!
#

!

!
!
!"
!

$ "$
!"
!

!"
!

! "

"

"

!

!
"

!
%

$ "$

!
"

!
!

"$

$
!

$

!
!

$ #

!
!

"$

$
%

$

!

"
$
!

"$
"$
"$
"$
"$

"$

"$
"$

!

$
!$
!

!

!

!
!
" "$

!
"$

"
$
!

$
!

!

"
!

$

!

$

$

"
$
!
"$

"
$
!

"
$
!
!
$

"
$

!
!

$
" "$

!
"

!
!
"

$ "$

$
$

$

$

!

"

$

!

!
"

$
!

$ "$

$
!

!
#

!

"

"$

$ "$

!

$
!
$
!
"

!

!
"$

!
!

!
$

#
!
$

!
" "$

$

"

!
!
!

!

!

!
$

!
"

!

$

!

"
!

"
!

!
$

!

!

!

"$

!
"
!

"

"

!

!

!

!
"$

!

" !

"$

$

!

%
"$
"

!

$
$
!

$

!

$

!
$

"

!

$
!

!
" "$

!

!
!
!

"$

!

!

!
"
!

"$
"$

!
"$

$
!

"
!

!

!

!
"

!

!

!

!

!

%

"

!
$

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!

$
!

$
!

!

!
!

!

!

!

!

!$
!
$

!

!

%

!

"

!

"$
" #
!

!

"

$

$

" "$

"
"

$
"$

!

!

!

!
!

"$
!

""$

!
!
!
!"
!
"

"$
"

"$
"
!
"$

!
!

$

$

!
!

!

!
!

!$
!

"
""

"
!

!

!

$
!

!

!

!

!

$
!

!

!

"
!

"$

""

"$
$

! "

$
!

!$
!

!

$
!

$
!

!

!
!

!
!
$

"
$

" "

!
!

$
!

$

!

"
$
!

$
!

!

$
!

!
!
!
!

!

!
#

!

$

!

%
!

"
$
!

"
$

"

"

$ "$

$
!
$

!
$

"$

!

!
$

$ !
$
$ !
$

!
$

!

!

$ "$

$
!

"
$

$
"
"

""

$

"$
"#

!

"

"

!

"
!

" "$
"
!

!

$

!

!

"
$
$ "
$

!

!

%
!

"

!

"
$

" "

$
!

$

$

"

!

"

"

$#
!

$ !
!

$

!

!
!
"

$

!

$
!

!

$
!

$

$

"

$

!
!

!

!
!

$!"
"

"

$

"

$
%

!
"

!

"

!

!

!"
$

"
$

$%

!

!
"
$

$
!
$

!

!
$

!

"

!

!

"
$

$
!

"
!

"

"
$
"
$

"
$

!
$

!

!

!
"
$

$
$

$
!

$

"

!

!
1/
1/

1
9
"

%
#8

%

&

&
8

!$0
8
#8
%#"

"
!

(#6
"
!

#25#2'0%+27)'.'0#,/,#.
&

0
82
8

0
82
8

*&
0
8
- &
0
8
,
&
0
8
4
,
&
0
8
-8
8:

$
/8

%

:8
%

:82
8

/8

/8
+

8
1:

(
/8

(
1:

3 98
0

3 98
0
$
/8

0
80
8%

00%
#
:

,')'.&
%,
Atwater

Page 174 of 378 ends

Livingston City CouncilSeptember 16, 2025

Livingston City Council
September 16, 2025