Rancho Cordova City Council
April 6, 2026

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Weighted Average:
• Safety first - 76.61%
• Healthy and sustainable - 22.22%
• Connectivity - sidewalk routes - 67.84%
• Joyful choices - 43.27%
• Deliver and Maintain - 32.16%
Question 8: What is your biggest concern when walking or biking? (Select up to 3) Results: (Full data in Appendix)
• Proximity to traffic or needing to cross traffic - 53.80% • Lack of connected routes to my destinations - 50.29%
• Sidewalks or bikeways don’t match the scale or needs of the street (ex, sidewalk is too narrow for the street it runs along) - 24.56%
• Long signal waits, short walk times, and wide roads make crossing uncomfortable or unsafe - 11.70% • Not being visible to drivers, not enough lighting - 19.30% • Distance between destinations/takes too much time - 30.99% • Personal safety - 43.27%
• Lack of bike parking or concerns around bike parking security - 14.04% • Other (please specify) - 14.62%
Other:

Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety
• No safe way to cross streets, especially after the bridge and near Zinfandel; cars don't stop and drive fast.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
What is your biggest concern when
walking or biking? (Select up to 3)
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

• Bikers often ignore rules and don't stop at lights or stop signs. • Drivers speed, run red lights, and ignore pedestrians and cyclists. • Need stronger enforcement of speed limits (Rod Beaudry Dr, Folsom Blvd) with speed bumps or radar cameras. • Roads and sidewalks feel unsafe for walking, biking, or wheelchair use. • Male harassment and dangerous driver behavior toward cyclists. • Lack of protected bike lanes or hard barriers between bikes and cars.

Accessibility & Infrastructure
• Curb ramps and sidewalks don't connect or are inaccessible for wheelchair users. • Need more pedestrian crossings, especially signalized or button-activated ones across large roads. • Poor transit access below Anatolia and limited connections to light rail. • Lack of benches and shaded rest areas for pedestrians. • No sidewalks or inadequate infrastructure in several neighborhoods.

Public Transportation
• Public transit to schools is unreliable and inefficient, taking 1.5 hours for trips that could be walked in 45 minutes.
• Buses and trains are infrequent or don't show up; long waits in extreme heat. • The transit system is seen as outdated and inconvenient.

Community & Walkability
• No nearby amenities-need parks, grocery stores, and restaurants within walking distance. • Development patterns prioritize cars and large parking lots instead of walkable, community-oriented centers. • Desire for true walkable "town centers," outdoor seating, reduced surface parking, and more mixed-use spaces.

Environmental Comfort
• Extreme heat and sun exposure make walking and biking uncomfortable- we need many more trees and shade. • Cleanliness & Pets
• Dog waste is frequently left on sidewalks, impacting accessibility and cleanliness.

Homelessness & Safety
• Large, visible homeless population leaving garbage and drug paraphernalia. • Some residents perceive safety and sanitation threats from encampments. • Reports of aggressive or threatening behavior, particularly on the Mather Heritage Trail. • Calls to clean up areas and address encampments before investing in other amenities.

Traffic Flow
• Heavy congestion on Sunrise Blvd during commute hours; request to retime lights for better flow.

Question 9: What specific changes would you like to see? What would you prioritize? List the location/intersecting street names and provide your feedback below. Central Map Results: (Full data in Appendix)
Safety and Separation
o Strong calls for protected or separated bike lanes on major roads (Sunrise, Zinfandel, White Rock, Douglas, Folsom Blvd).
o Repeated concerns about unsafe crossings at Highway 50 and White Rock Road—requests for overpasses/underpasses.
o Requests to improve visibility and safety near schools (Sunrise, McGarvey Elementary).

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

o Concerns about homeless encampments and debris along trails (especially the Folsom South Canal Trail).

Connectivity and Access
• Desire for continuous sidewalks and bikeways, especially:
o Along Beclan, Pedro, Olson Dr, and Zinfandel.
o Between Stone Creek, Rio Del Oro, Capital Village, and the Zinfandel Light Rail Station. o Across major arterials like Sunrise Blvd and Highway 50. • Calls to remove barriers and fences (e.g., Stone Creek Trail to Capital Center Drive). • Need for better connections to light rail, shopping areas, and services.

Infrastructure and Design Feedback
• Requests for improved crossings (signals, visibility, and curb design). • Mixed feedback on roundabouts—some find them confusing, others support more to calm traffic. • Interest in bike parking/lockers and clear wayfinding signage on trails. • Comments about trail maintenance, surface quality, and curb transitions.

Community and Urban Design
• Suggestions for more trees and shade along walking routes. • Desire for denser, mixed-use housing with local shops, cafés, and gathering spaces to reduce car dependence. • Comments about needing more resources north of Folsom Blvd and safe crossings in underdeveloped areas.

General Support
• Many participants express support for the proposed bike facility upgrades, particularly along Sunrise Blvd and White Rock Road.
• Several mentioned looking forward to seeing improvements and acknowledged positive recent work (e.g., Baroque Dr, new roundabout).

Question 10: What specific changes would you like to see? What would you prioritize? List the location/intersecting street names and provide your feedback below. North Map Results: (Full data in Appendix)
Traffic Safety & Speed Control
• Reduce speeds on Sunrise, Coloma, McGregor, and Zinfandel. • Add traffic calming (roundabouts, lane reductions, speed bumps, radar enforcement). • Drivers speed and ignore pedestrians near schools, parks, and shops. • Rough, uneven roads and overgrown vegetation make walking and driving unsafe.

Crosswalks & Intersections
• Add more crosswalks near schools and shopping areas (e.g., Olson Dr, Barbera/Federspiel Park, Coloma, Zinfandel).
• Improve visibility and length of pedestrian signals, especially at Coloma/Sunrise. • Consider roundabouts (e.g., McGregor @ Zinfandel).
• Add painted intersections (e.g., Zinfandel/Benita, Zinfandel/Bridlewood) to calm traffic and engage students.

Biking & Walking Infrastructure
• Strong support for protected bike lanes along Coloma, Sunrise, and McGregor. • Coloma Rd cited as unsafe — needs separation from fast traffic and better crossings. • Improve access to the American River Trail and Sunrise Blvd Trail. • Add sidewalks in neighborhoods like Cordova Vineyards and Charbono Way. • Maintain and clean sidewalks and trails; add benches and shade.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Transit & Connectivity
• Public transit to schools and destinations is slow and unreliable. • There is a need for safer, grade-separated walking and biking connections to the light rail. • Improve east–west connectivity across highways and major intersections.

Neighborhood & Corridor Priorities
• Coloma Rd: Top priority for safety, crossings, and protected lanes. • McGregor Dr: Key connector to river trail; needs upgrades. • Sunrise Blvd: Add bike route and improve signal timing. • Zinfandel Dr: Improve crosswalks near schools and shops. • Chassella/Barbera: Add clear crosswalks to Federspiel Park.

Environment & Design
• Add trees and shade for comfort; maintain the river trail free of trash and camps. • Include more greenery and less pavement in street design. • Support for complete streets with art, roundabouts, and walkable business areas.

Question 11: What specific changes would you like to see? What would you prioritize? List the location/intersecting street names and provide your feedback below. Northwest Map Connectivity & Trails
• Strong support for a separated path from the American River to the light rail and for safer crossings on Coloma. • Connect existing trails to avoid Folsom Blvd and create continuous routes (e.g., River Bend Park ‚Rod Beaudry ‚Stirling ‚Mira Del Rio).
• Collaborate with Soil Born Farms to open access from Rinda Drive and add a connecting trail/bridge to the river. • Desire for amenities along the river trail (e.g., bike stop with seating or coffee kiosk).

Traffic & Speeding
• Speeding is common on Rod Beaudry, Rinda, Dawes, and neighborhood streets-need speed bumps, radar enforcement, and roundabouts.
• Request for better control at sharp turns (e.g., Rod Beaudry/Folsom Blvd). • More crosswalks and speed control near schools and in dense residential areas.

Biking & Walking Safety
• Coloma Rd again identified as unsafe, needs protected bike lanes, separation from traffic, and single-lane conversion.
• Improve bike and pedestrian access between Chase Dr and Folsom Blvd, and around Mather Field LRT. • Better crossings at Mather Field & International, Zinfandel/Folsom, and near schools. • Safer bike routes to Hagan Park and Rancho Cordova Library. • Connect neighborhoods like La Loma, Las Casas, and Paseo Dr with protected bike lanes.

Maintenance & Safety Concerns
• Roads and bike lanes (especially Rod Beaudry and Routier) are in disrepair and filled with debris, causing flat tires and safety hazards.
• Ongoing concern about homeless encampments and safety on the Mather Heritage Trail and near the river. • Need for routine cleaning, enforcement, and lighting along trails.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Access & Shade
• Access to the American River Trail from side streets is limited; residents want more entry points. • More trees and shade along Folsom Blvd to make walking comfortable.

Schools & Neighborhoods
• Dawes Street is repeatedly mentioned as unsafe for children walking to nearby schools, which need crosswalks, traffic enforcement, and bike lanes.
• Desire for partnerships with schools to encourage walking and biking. • Requests for sidewalks, trees, and cleaner streets in Charbono/Pedro and nearby neighborhoods.

Question 12: What specific changes would you like to see? What would you prioritize? List the location/intersecting street names and provide your feedback below. West Map Connections & Access
• Strong desire for better bike connections between Rancho Cordova’s trail system and the American River Parkway.
• Need safe crossings over Highway 50 and improved routes connecting to the light rail. • A preference for routes that avoid Folsom Boulevard, where traffic moves too fast. • Suggest connecting existing trails and filling gaps in the network.

Safety & Traffic
• Bradshaw Road is described as dangerous for biking; Routier Road is praised as a safer example. • Calls for more protected bike lanes and traffic calming on key corridors (Folsom, Mather Field, and International).
• Requests for more lighting and shade along Bradshaw, Lincoln Village, and near the Dog Shelter. • Add speed bumps and crosswalks near schools.
• Residents report unsafe or unpleasant conditions due to speeding, dark areas, or a lack of enforcement.

Infrastructure Upgrades
• Support for upgrades to Old Placerville Road, Mather Field Road, and Paseo Drive. • Prioritize safe grade-separated crossings at major intersections and rail lines. • Replace long signal delays (e.g., at Mather/Paseo/Folsom) and consider bridge or underpass solutions like Watt or Sunrise.
• Improve bike facilities around schools and light rail stations for safety and connectivity.

Neighborhood Concerns
• Some worry bike lanes could remove on-street parking in narrow, high-density areas (e.g., Bexley). • Others note that poor visibility, heat, and excessive pavement make walking or biking unpleasant. • Support for denser housing and shaded, community-oriented design to promote walkability. • Traffic congestion near Crawford and Glenmoor during school hours limits access.

Maintenance & Comfort
• More lighting, shade, and regular maintenance are needed for safe use at night and during the heat. • Preference for off-street bike paths away from fast-moving traffic.

Question 13: What specific changes would you like to see? What would you prioritize? List the location/intersecting street names and provide your feedback below. East Map ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Safety & Security
• Slow vehicle speeds on Sunrise Blvd—too fast for safe biking or walking. • Canal Trail feels unsafe, especially for women, isolated, below-grade, and lacks visibility or help if needed. • People prefer open, visible trails over secluded ones for a greater sense of safety. • Need better crossings, especially at the Folsom South Canal and White Rock Rd.

Infrastructure & Design
• Improve Sunrise Blvd with traffic calming, shade, trees, and safer intersections. • Create parallel bikeways on adjacent lower-speed streets to avoid biking directly on Sunrise. • Build protected bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented streets. • Prioritize paths with shade and green infrastructure. • Add crossing lights, bike parking, and connections to light rail.

Connectivity & Access
• Expand and connect the Folsom South Canal Trail to neighborhoods and regional trails. • Connect to key destinations: Americanos Trail, Rancho Cordova Pkwy, Del Rio Oro West Trail, and White Rock Rd.
• Improve access to Prairie City SVRA, Deer Creek Hills, and the American River Parkway. • Extend Sunrise Blvd Trail and connect to parks, schools, and businesses. • Support partnerships with major destinations like Costco to make biking there safe and practical.

Development & Land Use
• New developments should include bike/pedestrian connections to parks, shops, and community centers. • Desire for local amenities within walking/biking distance—coffee shops, markets, salons, etc.—to reduce car dependency.
• Preference for mixed-use, shaded, walkable neighborhoods instead of isolated industrial zones.

General Feedback
• Excitement about proposed new trails, but concern that “almost none of this exists today.” • Strong support for continued trail building, protected lanes, and tree planting throughout Sunrise and White Rock corridors.

Question 14 : What specific changes would you like to see? What would you prioritize? List the location/intersecting street names and provide your feedback below. Southeast Map Connectivity & Access
• Strong desire for safe, continuous connections between neighborhoods, trails, and major destinations. • No access from Kiefer Blvd/Sunrise to the Folsom South Canal Trail. • Gaps between Preserve Trail, Americanos Trail, Powerline Trail, and Chrysanthy/Jaeger Ranch. • Need new connections to the Rio Del Oro Trail, Mather Blvd, and the Douglas Rd Trail. • Requests for midblock crossings or grade-separated crossings on wide arterials (e.g., Rancho Cordova Pkwy). • Desire for loop connections (e.g., Powerline + Americanos + Preserve trails).

Safety & Design
• Douglas Rd and Sunrise Blvd are repeatedly cited as unsafe for biking and walking, with high speeds, gravel shoulders, and a lack of separation.
• Need protected bike lanes and wider shoulders between Sunrise, Zinfandel, Mather, and Grantline. • Add stop signs, speed humps, and crosswalk lights near schools and along major routes. • Safety concerns on bridges and canal crossings-too narrow, poor sightlines, speeding traffic.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

• Improve visibility, lighting, and shade along trails for comfort and safety.

Infrastructure Priorities
• Prioritize Douglas Rd, Sunrise Blvd, Rio Del Oro Trail, Americanos Trail, and Rancho Cordova Pkwy for upgrades. • Add shade trees and shade structures along major trail corridors (e.g., Powerline and Americano Trails). • Include bike lanes and safe crossings to new schools (especially along Chrysanthy, Country Garden, and Cypress Grove).
• Support for more bus service in the Grantline/Chrysanthy area for seniors and residents without cars.

Community & Land Use
• Many comments emphasize lack of walkable destinations-Rancho needs more local shops, cafes, entertainment, and "third places."
• Concern over rapid housing development without supporting infrastructure (schools, transit, shade, parks). • Support for mixed-use zoning and fewer large parking lots to create a community feel and reduce car dependence.

Maintenance & Comfort
• Trail users want clean, shaded, and well-maintained paths that feel safe and connected. • Calls for traffic calming near schools and safer routes for kids (e.g., McGarvey Elementary, future middle/high school).

General Sentiment
• Widespread frustration with disconnection and safety issues, but strong enthusiasm for proposed trails and upgrades.
• Recognition that the current system is "disconnected, dangerous, and car-dependent," but optimism for future improvements.

Question 15: Which of the following bikeway designs would make you feel safer and most comfortable when biking on big busy streets? (Select all that apply) Seperated Bikeway Buffered Bike Lane Shared-Use
Path/Trail
Two-Way
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard Bike Lane

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
Which of the following bikeway designs would make
you feel safer and most comfortable when biking on
big busy streets, such as Douglas Road, Sunrise
Boulevard, Zinfandel Drive, Coloma Road,
International Drive, Kilgore Road, and Mather Field …
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Results:
• Separated Bikeway - 72.00%
• Buffered Bike Lane - 23.00%
• Shared-Use Path/Trail - 58.00%
• Two-Way Separated Bikeway - 48.00%
• Bike Boulevard - 0.00%
• Bike Lane - 7.00%
Question 16: Which of the following bikeway designs would make you feel safer and most comfortable when biking on small busy streets? (Select all that apply) Results:
• Separated Bikeway - 51.00%
• Buffered Bike Lane - 47.00%
• Shared-Use Path/Trail - 43.00%
• Two-Way Separated Bikeway - 45.00%
• Bike Boulevard - 2.00%
• Bike Lane - 18.00%
Seperated Bikeway Buffered Bike Lane Shared-Use
Path/Trail
Two-Way
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard Bike Lane

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
Which of the following bikeway designs would make
you feel safer and most comfortable when biking on
small busy streets, such as Mercantile Drive, Rod
Beaudry Drive, Mills Station Road, Lincoln Village
Drive, Bear Hollow Drive, Baroque Drive, and Olson
Dr
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Question 17: Which of the following bikeway designs would make you feel safer and most comfortable when biking on local/neighborhood streets, such as Anatolia Drive, Ambassador Drive, Klamath River Drive, Malaga Way, La Loma Drive, or Borderlands Drive, among others. (Select all that apply)
Results:
• Separated Bikeway - 33.65%
• Buffered Bike Lane - 49.04%
• Shared-Use Path/Trail - 37.50%
• Two-Way Separated Bikeway - 28.85%
• Bike Boulevard - 27.88%
• Bike Lane - 43.27%
Seperated Bikeway Buffered Bike Lane Shared-Use
Path/Trail
Two-Way
Separated Bikeway
Bike Boulevard Bike Lane

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
Which of the following bikeway designs would make
you feel safer and most comfortable when biking on
local/neighborhood streets, such as Anatolia Drive,
Ambassador Drive, Klamath River Drive, Malaga
Way, La Loma Drive, or Borderlands Drive, among
others.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Question 18: How important is physical separation from cars to you when biking (e.g., posts, curbs, planters)?
Results:
• Very important -66.94%
• Somewhat important - 20.66%
• Neutral - 7.44%
• Not important - 4.96%
Responses to the preference of types of barriers:
• Strong preference for curbs and planters with greenery or trees • Physical barriers that stop cars, not just paint or posts • Concrete medians preferred over flexible bollards
• Parking lanes can serve as separators
• Planters add green space, shade, and beauty
• Desire for natural, visually appealing options
• Needed on busy roads, not in quiet neighborhoods
• In neighborhoods, focus on speed control instead of barriers • Painted lanes and bollards are often ignored or damaged • Separated lanes collect debris and need regular cleaning • Some cyclists feel trapped by tall barriers; others find curbs essential for safety • Support for shared-use paths and buffered lanes like in Folsom Very important Somewhat important Neutral Not important

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%
How important is physical separation from cars to
you when biking (e.g., posts, curbs, planters)?
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Question 19: Would you support removing on-street parking or vehicle lanes if needed to create lower-stress bikeways?
Results:
• Yes – 68.85%
• No – 18.03%
• Undecided – 13.11%
Question 20: Which sidewalk improvements would make walking along busy streets more comfortable and feel safer for you? (Select up to 3)
Yes No Undecided

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
Would you support removing on-street parking or
vehicle lanes if needed to create lower-stress
bikeways?
Landscaping strips
(between sidewalk
and street)
Shade/Tree Canopy Wider sidewalks Benches and
planters
Pedestrian-scale
lighting
Other (please
specify)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%
Which sidewalk improvements would make walking
along busy streets more comfortable and feel safer for
you? (Select up to 3)
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Results:
• Landscaping strips (between sidewalk and street) - 62.30% • Shade/Tree Canopy - 61.48%
• Wider sidewalks - 49.18%
• Benches and planters - 19.67%
• Pedestrian-scale lighting - 41.80%
• Other (please specify) - 9.02%
o Uneven sidewalks caused by roots
o Replace the old sidewalks
o Unhoused
o Trimming trees
o Safe walking areas
Question 21: Which intersection improvements are most important to you in making walking and biking more comfortable and feel safer at busy crossings? (Select all that apply) Results:
• Protected Intersections - 61.32%
• High-Visibility Crosswalks - 69.81%
• Pedestrian Refuge Islands - 47.17%
• Curb Extensions / Bulb-outs - 24.53%
• Longer Signal Timing - 24.53%
Protected Intersections High-Visibility
Crosswalks
Pedestrian Refuge
Islands
Curb Extensions / BulboutsLonger Signal Timing

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%
Which intersection improvements are most important
to you in making walking and biking more comfortable
and feel safer at busy crossings? (Select all that
apply)
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Community Engagement Summary | August – October 2025

Question 22: Are you interested in participating in a focus group on active transportation in Rancho Cordova?
Question 23: Follow-Up Email Address to Question 22
• Over 90 emails have been given to the project team for follow-ups • Data withheld from summary
Awareness and Education
At the initiation of the Active Transportation Plan, the City of Rancho Cordova developed and published a project webpage on the City’s website to serve as a way to communicate with and provide information to the public about project updates throughout the process. The City also created a project-specific email notification list to stay connected with those interested in the project. All communication channels were updated with Phase 2 collateral.

To promote the October community meeting, the City sent out updated newsletter articles, email notifications, and subsequent reminders to a project email database to community members and stakeholders through the lead-up time to the community meetings. Additionally, the City posted about the upcoming community meetings on its Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The City also posted about the pop-up workshop events on their social media accounts. At the first three pop-up workshops, the project team heavily promoted the community meeting by informing attendees and passing thatinformational takeaway cards with included details about the event and sign-up instructions.

For the events, AIM Consulting assisted the City with distributing email notifications to the project email list on three separate occasions. Additionally, the City and AIM Consulting made personal calls and emails to more than 95 stakeholder contacts representing the following interests: active transportation, business interests, City and Council staff, elected officials, disabled communities, emergency responders, health departments, public transportation advocates, recreation/tourism, schools, and the trucking industry. AIM Consulting delivered flyers about the survey and workshops to businesses around the city and assisted the City by providing lawn signs for locations such as City Hall, the Rancho Cordova Police Department, the MACC, and local trails.

Yes No

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%
Are you interested in participating in a focus group on active transportation in Rancho Cordova?
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan | April 2026 City of Rancho Cordova – Active Transportation Plan
Appendix C
Existing Conditions Report
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Rancho Cordova
Active Transportation Plan
Existing Conditions Report
1 April 2025
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Walking, Biking, and Rolling in Rancho Cordova
Who is Rancho Cordova?
Introduction
2 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

This section introduces the concept of an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and defines the study area. It also identifies previous planning efforts in Rancho Cordova and highlights where rapid growth is occurring in the city.

This section documents where people live and work in Rancho Cordova and describes the demographic characteristics that impact how people travel, including wealth, access to vehicles, disability status, and English proficiency. This section also discusses travel patterns by trip purpose, mode, and length to show how people travel in Rancho Cordova today.

This section documents existing infrastructure in Rancho Cordova relevant to the ATP, including roadway characteristics, the bikeway network, and sidewalks that shape how people walk, bike, and roll in the city. Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is also evaluated to understand the relative comfort of active travel throughout Rancho Cordova. The section concludes with an analysis of pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved crashes to understand areas where people walking, biking, and rolling are killed or injured.

Contents
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Introduction
This section defines the Active Transportation Plan, study area, prior relevant planning efforts, and areas of rapid growth within Rancho Cordova.
3 Source: City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

An Active Transportation Plan for
Rancho Cordova
4 This Existing Conditions Assessment forms the foundation for the ongoing Active Transportation Plan (ATP). An ATP is a comprehensive plan to improve active transportation in Rancho Cordova. The term active transportation refers to people walking, biking, or rolling (using wheelchairs, mobility devices, skateboards), and people using technologically equipped micromobility options (e.g., e-bikes, escooters, or one-wheels).

The Existing Conditions Assessment is the first stage of the ATP’s development. The assessment summarizes the current state of active transportation infrastructure in the city including road and bikeway characteristics, demographics, crashes, and travel patterns. Following the assessment, the City will develop recommendations to expand active transportation infrastructure as well as supportive policies and programs.

Source: City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Study Area
The ATP covers the entire Rancho Cordova city limits, from the American River to the north to State Route 16 (Jackson Rd) to the south. This assessment takes the whole city into account and focuses on establishing a baseline understanding of the diverse environments that people in Rancho Cordova travel through every day.

Major roadways in Rancho Cordova include:
• US Highway 50
• Folsom Blvd
• Sunrise Blvd
• Zinfandel Dr
• Coloma Rd
• Mather Field Rd
Major landmarks in Rancho Cordova include:
• The Sacramento Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Hospital
• SacRT Gold Line Light Rail Stations
• American River Parkway
• Sacramento Children’s Museum
5 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Prior Planning Efforts
This ATP builds on the work of prior plans that laid the groundwork for Rancho Cordova’s existing and planned active transportation network. These prior efforts include:
6 Assessed existing pedestrian
conditions and identified key
areas for improvement,
including crossing barriers,
sidewalk gaps, and multiuse
path connections.

Rancho
Cordova
Pedestrian
Master Plan
(2011)
Laid out a strategy for developing
a “continuous, convenient, and
family friendly bikeway network,”
including crossings of US Highway
50, access to the American River
Parkway, and connections to new
development along Sunrise Blvd.

Rancho
Cordova Bicycle
Master Plan
(2016)
Developed plans for 22 schools to improve pedestrian
and bike safety. Included significant outreach, with 39 walk audits and pop-up events that assessed existing
conditions and collected feedback from communities.

Rancho Cordova Safe
Routes to School Master
Plan (2020)
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Rapid Change in
Specific Plan Areas
7 There are six specific plan areas that will affect future development in Rancho Cordova. Much of this portion of the City consists of undeveloped land today, but these areas are rapidly developing, adding to the population, and building a future roadway network.

Specific plans are documents that define land use policy and regulations for new development within their limits. While new development in specific plan areas will change transportation infrastructure in Rancho Cordova, all new developments will adhere to the City’s Community Design Guidelines. For example, sidewalks must be 5-8 feet wide and include connections between private developments and the public sidewalk network.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Who is Rancho
Cordova?
This section uses demographic data and travel patterns to explore how people travel today in Rancho Cordova and identify barriers that residents may face in walking, biking, and rolling in the city.

Source: City of Rancho Cordova 8
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

9 Rancho Cordova at a Glance
Overview
Rapid Growth
Travel to work
82,608
Total
Population
29,437
Total Housing
Units
up
17%
2013 - 2023
up
19%
2011 - 2021
60,400
Total Jobs
23%
travel
15 min.
or less to work
26%
under 18
years old
44% White
23% Hispanic or Latino
13% Asian
11% Black or African American
9% Other
2013 and 2023 ACS 1-year estimates and 5-year estimates, 2011 and 2021 LEHD estimates 6%
over 75
years old
79%
Drive alone or
carpool
15%
Work from
home
2% Take
public transit
2% Walk,
bike, or roll
4% Other
Despite 23% of workers
commuting for less than 15
minutes, most choose to drive
to work. Enhancements to the
active transportation network
may help more people choose
to walk, bike, or roll to work.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

10 Where Do People Live in
Rancho Cordova?
Approximately 80% of Rancho Cordova’s population lives west of Sunrise Blvd, in the neighborhoods along Folsom Blvd and US Highway 50.

The city’s densest neighborhoods are where apartment complexes mix with single family homes, including between Mather Field Rd and Capital Center Dr, and along Coloma Rd.

Rancho Cordova is rapidly growing east of Sunrise Blvd, especially along Douglas Rd.

Many people who already live in those neighborhoods are not included in the latest data available from the American Community Survey (ACS).

The ATP uses many data sources to understand how people live and travel in Rancho Cordova. Even if a neighborhood does not appear in the ACS data, it is accounted for by data managed by the City of Rancho Cordova and through guidance developed from associated specific plans.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

11 A Regional Employment
Center
Rancho Cordova is home to over 60,000 jobs, growing by 19% from 2011 to 2021. The majority of the city’s jobs are located in office parks and retailers along US Highway 50 in the center of the city. These areas show up in dark green on the map to the right.

Other major employment centers include the Sacramento Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center at Mather Field Rd and International Dr and office parks between Folsom Blvd and US Highway 50, west of Routier Rd, as well as industrial centers in the area immediately east of Sunrise Blvd and north of Douglas Rd.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

12 Disadvantaged
Communities
The map on the right shows disadvantaged census tracts identified by Senate Bill 535 (SB 535). As part of SB 535, CalEPA identified disadvantaged census tracts across the state that have the 25% highest composite scores based on 21 measures of environmental hazards and demographic indicators.

Each disadvantaged tract in Rancho Cordova parallels the Folsom Blvd and US Highway 50 corridors. Residents in these areas may have lower household incomes, higher disability rates, or less access to vehicles than residents living in other areas in Rancho Cordova and across California. As a result, residents in these tracts may have a heightened need for improvements to active transportation infrastructure and access to transit services.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

13 Demographic Conditions Affect Accessibility
Topic Impacts on Mobility and Accessibility
Households with lower income may also be transportation cost burden, leading them to travel more by active modes and by public transit. Household Income Households in poverty may be more likely to take trips using active transportation modes and public transit. The poverty rate adjusts for family size, accounting for how traveling with more people may affect transportation options.

Population in Poverty
Individuals with limited English proficiency may face barriers to traveling, including difficulties earning a driver’s license and navigating transportation networks. English Proficiency Individuals with disabilities can face barriers to accessing public transit and active transportation options. Disabilities may also curtail individuals’ ability to travel alone. Disability Rate Households with no or few vehicles will be more reliant on public transit and active transportation services. Access to Vehicles
Exposure to environmental hazards can cause health impacts that make it harder to travel and can make traveling by public transit or active transportation less comfortable.

Exposure to Environmental
Hazards
The location of disadvantaged census tracts does not
tell the whole story of how wealth, physical mobility,
language barriers, access to vehicles, or exposure to
environmental hazards can affect how communities
are able to travel. The accompanying table breaks
down six additional demographic indicators that this
report uses to analyze individuals’ ability to travel, and which are visualized in the following slides.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

14 Household Income
Lower household incomes tend to coincide with areas designated as disadvantaged under SB 535 (see page 12). Median incomes are generally lower west of Sunrise Blvd and are lower in tracts that border either Folsom Blvd or US Highway 50. The tracts with the lowest earnings are located along Mather Field Rd, south of US Highway 50, which coincides with one of the areas with the highest population density in the city.

For reference, the median household income in Rancho Cordova 2023 was $102,000, compared to $116,349 for Sacramento County as a whole.

As with tracts east of Sunrise Blvd, some census geographies along the city’s northern edge offer a skewed representation of demographic data. In particular, the block group north of Coloma Rd is mostly public land yet represents the median household income for a small section of neighborhood that it includes.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

15 Concentrations of Poverty
The map shows the share of families who earn less than two times the federal poverty level. Poverty level adjusts by family size and by number of children under 18 years old.

In 2022, 36% of the City’s population was below 200% of the federal poverty level.

While there is overlap between poverty and household incomes, the two metrics are not identical. Household income measures total household income, whether a household is composed of one person or six, while poverty adjusts based on family size.

This map indicates that there are families earning less than 200% of the poverty rate in many areas of the city. In addition to the Folsom Blvd and US Highway 50 corridors, more than 50% of families in some neighborhoods along Coloma Rd earn less than two times the federal poverty level.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

16 Language Barriers
The map shows the share of people who do not speak English as their primary language, and who report a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.

There are several areas in the city where 10% or more of residents have limited proficiency in English, including in growing neighborhoods east of Sunrise Blvd.

However, the highest concentration of communities with limited English proficiency are in the area south of US Highway 50 and west of Mather Field Rd, as well as along Coloma Rd.

Residents with limited English proficiency may face barriers to accessing transportation, including earning drivers’ licenses, navigating public transit systems, and accessing services that could increase their accessibility.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

17 Disability Rates
This map shows the share of the population reporting at least one of six kinds of disabilities, including ambulatory, self-care, independent living, visual, hearing, and cognitive disabilities. Approximately 14% of all residents in the city report having at least one disability.

The share of population with a disability is highest in the neighborhoods along Folsom Blvd. As many as 20% of residents in those areas may face barriers to safely accessing active transportation and public transit services due to disabilities.

Ambulatory Difficulty
25%
Cognitive
Difficulty
Independent 23%
Living Difficulty
20%
Self-Care
Difficulty
12%
Vision
Difficulty
11%
Hearing
Difficulty
10% This chart shows the breakdown
of reported disability type of
Rancho Cordova Residents. All
disabilities can affect how
residents travel around the city.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

18 Access to Vehicles
This map shows the total number of households that do not have access to a car, by census tract. While most households across the city have access to cars, households along Folsom Blvd and US Highway 50 are the least likely to, with over 125 households in the neighborhood between Mather Field Rd and US Highway 50 lacking access to a car.

Access to vehicles is an important measure of individuals’ travel options.

Those without access to a car will be more likely to walk, bike, or roll to their trips or to take public transportation.

Note: Data based on 2022 ACS 5-year estimates may not fully reflect vehicle access patterns in newly developed areas.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

19 Exposure to Environmental
Hazards
The map shows CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentiles. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ranks every Census Tract in the state based on 21 indicators of pollution exposure, environmental effects, sensitive populations, and socioeconomic factors. It calculates an overall percentile score for the entire state. A higher percentile indicates more burden. A higher exposure to environmental hazards can cause health impacts and can make walking and biking less appealing than traveling by car or not traveling at all.

The highest percentile areas in Rancho Cordova are along US Highway 50 and Folsom Blvd, the two main east/west travel corridors through the city. These communities are therefore the most impacted by transportation projects, either from the negative impacts of increased exposure to traffic-related pollution or by the positive impacts of shifts to active transportation and public transit use.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Travel Patterns in
Rancho Cordova
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 20
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

21 Major Trip Categories
To simplify travel pattern analysis, this report identifies four main types of trips that people take in Rancho Cordova, including:

Getting to Work:

All trips that end at a person’s
workplace (including commute
trips and trips to and from lunch,
for example).

Getting to School:

All trips to a person’s school or
college.

Getting to Daily Needs:

All social trips and trips to places where people
shop, dine, and run errands.

Getting Outside:

All trips to recreational destinations like
parks and trailheads (this does not
include trips without a destination, like
walking the dog or jogging).

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Reasons for Travel
This graph shows primary trip purposes for trips that originate in Rancho Cordova.

Over 60% of weekday trips and 80% of weekend trips are taken for daily needs. In comparison, only 21% of weekday trips and 11% of weekend trips are for work.

People make trips for getting outside throughout the week, while school trips are predictably higher on weekdays.

This analysis utilizes data from Replica, a platform that integrates anonymized information from sources like the US Census Bureau, mobile location data, land use, and economic activity to simulate travel patterns within an area.
22 Primary Trip Purpose by Day in Rancho Cordova
Source: Replica, Fall 2024
66%
21%
6% 7%
80%
11%
7%
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Getting to Daily
Needs
Getting to Work Getting Outside Getting to School
Weekday Weekend
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Travel Modes
Driving is the most common mode of travel for all trip types, with over 80% of all work, school, daily needs, and getting outside trips made by car.

Walking is the second most popular travel mode in Rancho Cordova, with over 10% of school, daily needs, and getting outside trips made on foot.

However, only 4% of people walk to work. In contrast, fewer trips are made by bike. Just 1% of work, daily needs, and getting outside trips are made by bike. However, 3% of school trips are made by bike.

Trips to work tend to be the longest, with an average trip distance of 14 miles and average duration of 27 minutes. School trips are the shortest on average, with a 5-mile distance and 17-minute duration. 23 Weekday Trip Mode and Length by Purpose in Rancho Cordova Source: Replica, Fall 2024 Thursday
Average Trip
Duration
(mins)
Average Trip
Distance (mi) Purpose TransitWalkingBikingDriving
Getting to Work 92% 1% 4% 1% 14 27
81% 3% 16% 0% 5 17 Getting to
School
81% 1% 17% 1% 9 20 Getting to Daily
Needs
Getting Outside 85% 1% 13% 0% 11 23
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Travel Destinations
The table shows the destination of trips that originate in Rancho Cordova on weekdays, by trip type.

More than half of all trips for school, daily needs, and getting outside start and end in Rancho Cordova. These trips present important opportunities for travel by walking, biking, and rolling.

By comparison, 37% of work trips start and end in Rancho Cordova, while 19% of work trips are taken to Sacramento. Active transportation can also be an integral part of these trips, as commuters can walk, bike, or roll to and from public transit services that provide access to regional job centers.

The nearby cities of Folsom, Arden Arcade, and Carmichael all attract trips from Rancho Cordova, and can be accounted for in an assessment of walking, biking, and rolling access in and out of the city. 24 Total Other
Cities Carmichael Arden Arcade Sacramento Folsom Rancho Cordova Trip
Purpose
37% 19% 7% 3% 3% 32% 100% Getting to
Work
100% 66% 4% 2% 4% 8% 17% Getting to
School
100% 62% 8% 5% 2% 2% 21%
Getting to
Daily
Needs
100% 50% 12% 6% 4% 3% 26% Getting
Outside
Weekday Trip Destination by Purpose in Rancho Cordova
Source: Replica, Fall 2024 Thursday
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Getting
Outside
Getting to
Daily Needs
Getting to
School
Getting to
Work
Distance
(mi)
<0.5 2% 8% 2% 3%

0.5 – 1 4% 13% 7% 6%
1 -2 9% 20% 17% 12%
2 – 4 13% 19% 19% 17%
4 – 8 17% 10% 18% 18%
8 – 16 32% 27% 26% 31%
16 - 32 17% 3% 8% 9%
32 - 64 3% 0% 2% 2%
>64 2% 0% 1% 2%
Opportunity for Active
Travel
Trip distance is a key factor in whether people choose to make trips by walking, biking, or rolling. People biking can generally travel two miles in 15 minutes, while most people are willing to walk up to a mile for their daily commute.

Hence, trips under two miles present the greatest potential for mode shift.

The table on this slide shows the distribution of trip distance for car trips starting and ending in Rancho Cordova. 25% of all trips taken in cars are 2 miles or less, making them possible by a 15-minute bike ride. The trips in the first three rows of the table on the right are the most likely to be converted to active transportation.
25 Motorized Trip Distance by Purpose for Internal Trips in Rancho Cordova
Source: Replica, Fall 2024 Thursday
Trips Less Than 2 miles
15%
of Work trips
41%
of School trips
26%
of Daily Needs trips
21%
of Recreational trips
(Getting Out) Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Walking, Biking, and
Rolling in Rancho
Cordova
This section uses information about the existing infrastructure in Rancho Cordova and crash data to understand where people can more safely and comfortably travel in the city, and where future investments can enhance the experience of walking, biking, and rolling.
26 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

A Robust Network with
Room for
Growth
27 Rancho Cordova already has a large active
t
r
ansportation network, with hundreds of miles of
sidewalks, bikeways, and low stress routes for people
walking, biking, or rolling.

This section examines Rancho Cordova’s existing
infrastructure as well as the walking, biking, or rolling crashes that occur on it. Using these data, this report calculates a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) metric for
walking and biking to identify where travel is more
comfortable and highlight areas for improvement in
active transportation.

This information will inform recommendations for
future active transportation infrastructure to support
the city’s all ages and abilities active transportation network.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

28 Types of Bikeways
There are four different kinds of bikeways in Rancho Cordova, including:

Bike paths, or shared use paths, are separated from the street and have no car traffic, like the Mather Field Heritage Trail.

Separated bikeways are bikeways within the roadway that have physical separation from car traffic. Unlike a shared use path, these are for the exclusive use of people on bikes.

Bike lanes are painted lanes in the shoulder of roadways, like on Rancho Cordova Pkwy, which can include buffer spaces between cars and bikes.

Bike routes are designated roadways for shared use by bicyclists and motor vehicles, often with shared-use markings and/or signs to increase awareness of the shared space, like on Sarda Way.

Mather Field Heritage Trail Bike
Path
Separated Bikeway on Rod
Beaudry Dr
Bike Lane on Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Bike Route on Sarda Way
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Google Streetview ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

29 Existing Bikeways
Rancho Cordova has over 110 miles of bikeways, which spread across the city. The map to the right shows how there are options to reach all neighborhoods via a bike lane but only select areas of the city can be accessed by more comfortable bikeways like bike paths or separated bikeways.

This map will change as the City constructs bikeway projects and new developments build out proposed bikeway networks. However, this map is a snapshot of the bikeway options that exist for residents today (through December 2024).
33 70
2 6
0 204060
80 Bike Path Bike Lane Bike Route Separated
Bikeway
Bikeway Miles
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Sidewalks
The majority of streets in Rancho Cordova have sidewalk on at least one side of the street. Sidewalks are a critical component in providing safer and more comfortable mobility for all people walking, rolling, and biking (when not prohibited). Some major roadways including Routier Rd, Mather Field Rd, and Sunrise Blvd have sections with sidewalk on only one side, which may limit routes for people walking and rolling. Likewise, sections of Folsom Blvd, Grant Line Rd, and White Rock Rd lack sidewalks altogether.
225 mi 52 mi 23 mi
Roadway Miles by Sidewalk Coverage
Sidewalk on both side Sidewalk on only one side Missing sidewalk 30 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

31 Public Transportation
The SacRT Gold Line runs along the Folsom Blvd Corridor, with four stations in Rancho Cordova that provide access to Sacramento and Folsom. Four SacRT bus lines provide service to Rancho Cordova, including:
• Route 21 runs from Mather Field Station, along Coloma Rd and north to Carmichael and Citrus heights.
• Route 72 connects Mather Field / Mills Station to Watt/Manlove Station in Rosemont, running south of US Route 50.
• Route 75 runs a loop entirely within Rancho Cordova, connecting Mather Field / Mills Station to the VA Hospital and Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices.
• Route 78 runs on Folsom Blvd between Mather Field / Mills Station and Butterfield Station in Rosemont.

The City of Rancho Cordova operates three Rancho CordoVan shuttle routes (175, 176, and 177) from Zinfandel Station to neighborhoods in the city’s southeast.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Posted Speed Limits
The majority of streets in the city have speed limits of 25 mph. These lower speed limit streets include most neighborhood streets. Very few roadways in the city have speed limits of 20 mph or below, which are the speeds that are safest for all roads users, and especially for people walking, biking, and rolling.

Streets that connect neighborhoods often have higher speed limits that may make travel across the city uncomfortable for those walking, biking, and rolling. Most of the main access routes to SacRT light rail, bus, and CordoVan services have speed limits above 25 mph, including Folsom Blvd, Mather Field Rd, and Zinfandel Rd. Through roads in neighborhoods also have speed limits above 25 mph, including Coloma Rd and Routier Rd.
32 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

How
Comfortable is
it to Walk, Bike,
and Roll in
Rancho
Cordova?
33 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

34 Accounting for Bicyclists
of All Ages and Abilities
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a metric that gives every street in a city a score from 1-4 to approximate the comfort of walking or biking along it, with 1 being the most comfortable and 4 being the least. LTS scores give a sense for where people can comfortably bike.

LTS breaks comfort for cyclists down into four different categories that provide a sense for who may be comfortable biking on which roadways. On an LTS 1 street, all people, including children should feel comfortable riding a bike. These streets are characterized by low vehicle speeds and robust bikeway infrastructure. LTS 2 roadways may have higher vehicle speeds and more lanes, but adults should be comfortable cycling. LTS 1 and LTS 2 are generally referred to as the low-stress network. LTS 3 and LTS 4 are characterized by increasingly wider, higher speed roadways, that may or may not have bikeways on them. Roadways with LTS 3 or LTS 4 are comfortable for only a small group of cyclists, often referred to as those who are “enthused and confident” or “strong and fearless.”
Bicyclists who are
considered “enthused
and confident but still
prefer having their own
dedicated space feel
comfortable while
bicycling.”
Only “strong and
fearless” bicyclists feel
comfortable while
bicycling. These routes
have high-speed limits,
multiple travel lanes,
limited or non-existent
bicycle lanes and
signage, and large
distances to cross at an
intersection.”
The mainstream
adult population
feels comfortable
bicycling.

Most children feel
comfortable
bicycling.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

35 Estimating Bicycle LTS
The table on the right shows how LTS is calculated based on a combination of the following:
• Roadway speed limit,
• Number of lanes, and
• Available bikeway infrastructure.

For example, if a roadway has a speed limit of 30 mph, two lanes, and no bikeway, it would be considered LTS 3. However, if a bike lane were added, it would be considered LTS 2.

This LTS methodology is based on guidance from NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Guide, NACTO’s Designing for All Ages and Abilities, and Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity research report by the Mineta Transportation Institute.

Bike Path Separated
Bikeway Bike Lane Shared Roadway
Number Of
Lanes
Posted Speed
Limit
25 MPH or 2
lower 4
2 30 MPH 3
4 2
35 MPH 3
4 2
40 MPH or
Greater 4
5+
LTS Characteristics
1 Lowest stress. Comfortable for most ages and abilities 2 Suitable for most adults. Presenting little traffic stress 3 Moderate traffic stress. Comfortable for regular cyclists High Traffic Stress. Fast moving traffic, suitable for experienced and confident cyclists 4
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

36 Bicycle LTS in Rancho
Cordova
The map on this slide shows the bicycle LTS scores for the Rancho Cordova street network.

Most neighborhood streets have an LTS of 2, although neighborhoods are generally separated from one another by higher LTS arterial and collector streets, including by Coloma Rd, Mather Field Rd, and Sunrise Blvd. Consequently, people bicycling beyond their immediate neighborhood to access common destinations must navigate higherstress roadways, which can deter less experienced riders and limit overall mobility.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

37 Low Stress Bicycle Network
The map shows only the segments of roadway and bike paths that have an LTS of 1 or 2. Together, these segments represent the low stress bicycle network in Rancho Cordova.

There is a significant amount of connectivity by low stress bike routes north of Folsom Blvd, including several LTS 1 corridors for travel to school, work, and daily needs along Folsom Blvd and to getting outside in the American River Parkway. However, Coloma Rd, the main through street north of Folsom Blvd, is not in the low stress network.

There are fewer low stress bike options south of Folsom Blvd, especially in the office parks and commercial areas off International Dr and Prospect Park Rd. East of Sunrise Blvd, there are low stress options in neighborhoods, but few of the main connecting roads have low stress options, including Douglas Rd and Kiefer Blvd.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Bike Path Sidewalk with
Bikeway SidewalkNo Sidewalk
Number Of
Lanes
Posted Speed
Limit
2 25 MPH or
lower 3
4+
2 – 3
30 – 35 MPH 4 – 5
6+
2-3
40 MPH or
Greater 4 – 5
6+
38 Estimating Pedestrian LTS
The table on the right shows how Pedestrian LTS is calculated based on a combination of roadway speed limit, number of lanes, and available sidewalk and bikeway infrastructure. For example, if a roadway has a speed limit of 30 mph, two lanes, and no bikeway, it would be considered Pedestrian LTS 3.

However, if a bike lane were added, it would be considered Pedestrian LTS 2 because the bike lane provides further separation between people walking on the sidewalk and moving vehicles.

This LTS methodology is based on guidance from NACTO’s Urban Bikeway guide, NACTO’s Designing for All Ages and Abilities, and Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity research report by the Mineta Transportation Institute.

LTS Characteristics
1 Lowest stress. Comfortable for most ages and abilities 2 Suitable for most adults. Presenting little traffic stress 3 Moderate traffic stress. Comfortable for regular pedestrians High Traffic Stress. Fast moving traffic, suitable for experienced and confident pedestrians 4
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

39 Pedestrian LTS in Rancho
Cordova
The map shows the pedestrian LTS scores for the Rancho Cordova street network.

Most neighborhood streets have an LTS of 1, meaning that they are comfortable for people of all ages and abilities to walk on.

Neighborhood streets with an LTS of 2 usually lack a sidewalk, indicating that they are slightly less comfortable for walking and rolling.

Most roadways that connect neighborhoods have an LTS of 3 or 4 and are not comfortable for people of all ages to walk or roll on, including Sunrise Blvd, Coloma Rd, and Mather Field Rd. However, Folsom Blvd is LTS 2 due to the bike path that runs on its south side across most of the city, allowing for comfortable walking and rolling to key destinations in Rancho Cordova, including SacRT light rail stations.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

40 Low Stress Pedestrian
Network
The map shows only the segments of roadway and bike paths that have a pedestrian LTS of 1 or 2. Together, these segments represent the low stress pedestrian network in Rancho Cordova.

Most neighborhoods have comprehensive networks of low-stress routes for people to walk and roll on. However, many neighborhoods are separated from the rest of the city by high LTS roads. The bike path on Folsom Blvd provides a low LTS link running across the city, while the Folsom South Canal bike path provides low LTS connections from the north to the south of the city.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Analyzing Crash
Dat
a
41 Around 30 people are injured or killed while
w
alking, biking, and rolling in Rancho Cordova
every year. Between 2019 and 2023, 10 people
were killed while walking, biking, and rolling in
the city.

This section uses state-maintained reported
crash data to identify trends in crashes,
including where people have been killed or
injured while walking, biking, and rolling, and
how severe their injuries were.

This analysis informs where walking, biking,
and rolling safety enhancements can be made
to Rancho Cordova’s infrastructure and
programming to improve safety outcomes for
all road users.

Source: City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

42 Crashes in Rancho
Cordova Over Time
This crash analysis uses data from UC Berkeley’s TIMS database, which only tracks injury-causing crashes that were reported by law enforcement, before being added to a statewide database maintained by California Highway Patrol. While these data may capture the most severe crashes, research has shown that crashes involving walking, biking, and rolling are underreported¹.

From 2019 to 2023 there were over 1,500 reported crashes in Rancho Cordova that resulted in injuries or death—between 221 and 263 per year.

Each year, around 30 of those crashes involve people walking, biking, and rolling. These numbers were relatively consistent for the most recent available five years of data, 2019 to 2023.

Overall crashes show a decline from 2019 to 2022, dropping 16% from 263 crashes to 221 crashes, with a slight increase to 228 crashes in 2023.

However, crashes that involved people walking, biking, and rolling have not shown a similar decline and have remained at similar annual frequencies.
32 29 27 35 33
231 223
211 186 195
263
252
238
221 228
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
All Crashes in Rancho Cordova
Bike and Pedestrian Crashes Other Crashes
Source: UC Berkely TIMS, 2019-2023
Note: “Bike and Pedestrian” crashes includes people walking, biking, and rolling ¹Multiple studies confirms underreporting: Doggett et al. (2018) found reporting levels for pedestrian crashes range from 44-75% and bicycle crashes only 7-46% in police data; Lopez et al. (2012) identified significant missed bicycle injuries in trauma data; Soltani et al. (2022) demonstrated improved injury capture through innovative data linkage methods.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

43 Bike and Pedestrian Crashes
Over Time
From 2019 to 2023, 157 people were injured or killed while walking, biking, and rolling in Rancho Cordova, with 24% of those resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. Despite the significant disruption to travel behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic and 16% reduction of overall crashes between 2019 and 2022, crashes involving people walking, biking, and rolling remained steady, with between 13 and 19 pedestrian crashes and 8 to 14 bike crashes each year. 1 1
2 3
2 1
4 6
4 8
8 10 9 7
7 4
16 15
14 18
14 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Bicycle Crash Severity by Year
Fatality Serious Injury Minor Injury Complaint of Pain
1 2
4 1
4 2
5 4
6 7
5 2
6 9
5 7
4 3
16 3
15 13
17 19
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Pedestrian Crash Severity by Year
Fatality Serious Injury Minor Injury Complaint of Pain
Note: A serious injury is defined as an injury that requires hospitalization or results in significant physical impairment. This may include any injury that prevents the individual from performing their normal activities for at least 24 hours.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

44 Crash Severity for People
Walking and Biking
The table on the right shows the breakdown of reported crash severity between people walking and biking, summed over the five years from 2019 to 2023. In total, eight people were killed while walking, while two were killed while biking.

Looking at fatalities and serious injuries together can help summarize the overall risk of people dying or suffering life altering crashes while walking, biking, and rolling. Pedestrians account for a higher share of fatalities and serious injuries, with 36% of all pedestrian crashes and 13% of bike crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries.

Despite walking and bicycling accounting for only 2% of total trips in Rancho Cordova, these active modes represent 24% of all fatal and severe injury crashes on city streets.
80 77

TOTAL CRASHES
People Walking
People Biking
Pedestrian Crashes Bike Crashes Combined Total
Count Share Count Share Count Share
Fatal 8 10% 2 3% 10 6%
Serious Injury 21 26% 8 10% 29 18%
Minor Injury 29 36% 30 39% 59 38%
Complaint of Pain 22 28% 37 48% 59 38%
Total 80 100% 77 100% 157* 100%
*One crash was between a cyclist and a pedestrian, so the number of injuries is one higher than the number of total crashes.

UC Berkeley TIMS, 2019-2023
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

45 Bike and Pedestrian Crash
Locations
The map on the right shows the location and severity of bicyclist- and pedestrianinvolved crashes that occurred between 2019 and 2023 by severity.

Most crashes occurred west of Sunrise Blvd, especially in the areas near US Highway 50 and Folsom Blvd. There are clusters of crashes near key intersections in the city, including at Folsom Blvd and Mather Field Rd, Zinfandel Drive and Folsom Blvd, and at the interchange between Sunrise Blvd and US Highway 50.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

46 Crashes Near Folsom Blvd
The map on the right shows the concentration of crashes in the area along US Highway 50 and Folsom Blvd. 43% of total reported bike and pedestrian crashes in the city occurred within a quarter mile of Folsom Blvd, and 84% of all crashes occur within one mile of Folsom Blvd. This area includes the densest population, a concentration of employment and commercial activity, and consequently, also a significant walking and biking activity center.

Several people were seriously injured while walking near SacRT light rail stations along Folsom Blvd, including near the Mather Field/Mills Station and between the Zinfandel and Cordova Town Center Stations.

Focus areas like these will be used to inform decisions on appropriate walking and biking improvements to support safer and more comfortable walking, biking, and rolling in the City as part of future phases of the ATP.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Crash Type 2021 2022
Total Fatal and Injury 50% 35%
Pedestrians 66% 34%
Pedestrians <15 37% 56%
Pedestrians 65+ 50% 54%
Bicycle 50% 51%
Bicyclist < 15 67% 26%
47 Safety in Rancho Cordova
Compared to Peer Cities
The table on this page shows Rancho Cordova’s percentile ranking in crash outcomes for 2021 and 2022, as calculated by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). The higher the percentile, the worse Rancho Cordova compares to peer cities, emphasized by better scores in green and worse scores in red.

The OTS Rankings were developed so that individual cities could compare their city’s traffic safety statistics to those of other "peer" cities with similar-sized populations. Cities could use these comparisons to see what areas they may have problems in and which they were doing well in. The results help to identify emerging or on-going traffic safety problem areas in order to help plan how to combat the problems and help with the possibility of facilitating grants.

Rancho Cordova’s crash ranking varies year-to-year, but the city sees similar rates of crashes as other cities in its peer group. In 2021, Rancho Cordova performed worse than 66 percent and 67 percent of peer cities in terms of the number of pedestrian-involved crashes and crashes involving bicyclists under the age of 15. In 2022, Rancho Cordova performed better than at least two-thirds of its peer cities in terms of the total number of fatal and injury crashes, pedestrian-involved crashes, and crashes involving bicyclists under the age of

15. Source: California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), 2021 – 2022 Note: OTS percentiles reflect Rancho Cordova’s ranking relative to peer cities. The drop in percentile may suggest other cities recorded even greater increases during the time.

Crashes in Rancho Cordova and Peer
Percentile, 2021 - 2022
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ATP Existing Conditions Review Takeaways
48 1. This ATP builds on previous planning efforts in Rancho Cordova. It recommends new strategies to further improve the city's active transportation network while complementing ongoing work and accommodating the city's continued growth.

2. The areas of the city along US Highway 50 and Folsom Blvd have the highest population density and the most jobs. Serving the people living here and destinations with safer and more comfortable by walking, biking, and rolling facilities will be a focus area for the ATP.

3. Many residents of Rancho Cordova face barriers to travel both in terms of limited travel options, or comfort experienced while on foot or bike. Over 25% of motorized trips in Rancho Cordova are less than 2 miles presenting an opportunity for the community to bike, walk, or roll instead of driving.

4. Over 30 people are killed or injured while walking, biking, or rolling in the city each year. These crashes occur throughout the city, but are most frequent within one mile of Folsom Blvd.

5. Most neighborhoods in Rancho Cordova have access to low stress options of walking, biking, and rolling. However, most neighborhoods are also separated from key destinations by high stress roads. These barriers may encourage people to travel by car or limit their travel altogether.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan | April 2026 City of Rancho Cordova – Active Transportation Plan
Appendix D
Prioritization Framework
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| April 2026
1 Rancho Cordova ATP Prioritization
Framework
Introduction
The City of Rancho Cordova (City) is updating and consolidating the existing pedestrian and bicycle master plans into an Active Transportation Plan (ATP). This ATP will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors.

This memorandum describes the prioritization framework and criteria to help identify the highest priority set of projects in the ATP as a final step of the Plan’s development. The prioritization criteria are intended to align with the ATP vision and goals, which include the following:
◼ Safety First: Traveling on city streets and paths should not result in a loss of life. Safety First means a network of streets and paths that is safe for all ages and abilities to walk, bike, and roll.

It also means encouraging safe travel practices for everyone including drivers. Meeting this goal will protect the City’s most vulnerable road users and encourage people to consider walking, biking, or rolling for transportation or recreation.
◼ Healthy and Sustainable: Residents and visitors value their health and the environment and are free to incorporate sustainable and active travel into their lives. Healthy and Sustainable means everyone has access to opportunities to incorporate active travel into their daily lives, whether that is going for a walk to exercise and relieve stress, or biking to the grocery store. Removing barriers to active travel inspires healthy lifestyles and increases equity and fairness, especially for those with limited travel options. It also improves community resilience, mental and physical health, and sustainability.
◼ Joyful Choices: Walking, biking, and rolling are joyful, practical, satisfying, and natural choices for trips around the city. Joyful Choices mean walking, biking, or rolling in Rancho Cordova is comfortable, minimizes stress, and inspires joy while traveling through the city. It also means a connected network with comfortable routes that are inclusive and convenient to social, recreational, and essential destinations.
◼ Deliver and Maintain: The city views active transportation projects and their maintenance as essential to everyday life. Deliver and Maintain means the city is committed to delivering and enhancing walking, biking, and rolling options that are well-maintained, appropriate for the context of the surrounding area, and integrated into new development. It means that routes for walking, biking, and rolling are direct, comfortable, safe, and follow best practices in design and implementation to future-proof their use. Active transportation is integrated into all aspects of City processes, including design, budgeting, operation, maintenance, and development reviews.

This memo includes the following topics:

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
2 ◼ Initial Prioritization is the initial quantitative prioritization applied to assess the level of alignment with ATP goals. This section presents the proposed factors and evaluation criteria and summarizes the framework for evaluating the criterion.
◼ Supplemental Evaluations describes the additional qualitative assessments applied to further differentiate projects and develop an implementation order using the following three feasibilityoriented factors of project readiness, project cost and funding opportunities, and project support.
◼ Next Steps presents subsequent actions for the City and consultant team.

INITIAL PRIORITIZATION
Proposed Factors and Evaluation Criteria
The proposed evaluation process is informed by the framework from National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 803: ActiveTrans Priority Tool1(APT), the result of a national research effort. The APT methodology was based on an extensive review of existing prioritization processes being used by agencies across the country at the state, regional, and local level. It uses a standard set of terms and definitions to describe the different steps in the process. The following definitions apply within the APT:
◼ Factors are the categories used to express community or agency values considered in the prioritization process and contain groups of variables with similar characteristics. The APT has selected nine primary factors commonly used by agencies across the country that are particularly suited for prioritization of active transportation needs. ◼ Evaluation Criteria (or variables) are characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other features that can be measured, organized under each factor. The terms evaluation criteria and variables may be used interchangeably. ◼ Weights are the numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based on community or agency values. In order to increase transparency and legibility in the weighting step, weights are applied to factors, not to criteria (which are often much more technical in nature).

The proposed prioritization factors and criteria are informed by NCHRP Report 803 and by the ATP’s goals as referenced above.

Table 1: Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria Factor Criteria Notes Ped Bicycle
Safety
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Crashes
This criterion will prioritize locations based on
analysis of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved
X X
1 Lagerwey, Peter A., et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook. NCHRP Report 803. Project No. 07-17. 2015. Available online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
3 Factor Criteria Notes Ped Bicycle
collisions. This criterion aligns with the goal of
Safety First.

Connectivity
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress
or Crossing Barriers
This criterion will prioritize locations based on the
presence of high-stress pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and crossing barriers. The level of traffic
stress analysis for this criterion was already
conducted for this project. This criterion aligns with
the goals of Safety First, Healthy and Sustainable,
and Joyful Choices.

X X
Proximity to schools,
parks, trails, and
transit
This criterion will prioritize locations with proximity to schools, parks, trailheads, and transit stops. This
criterion aligns with the goals of Healthy and
Sustainable, and Joyful Choices.

X X
Equity Equity Index
The equity index uses variables from census data at
the block group level as indicators of relative
disadvantage and locations where investment would
promote socially equitable outcomes. This criterion
aligns with the goal of Healthy and Sustainable.

X X
Framework for Applying the Criteria
For the application of the factors and criteria discussed above, Kittelson will use the process from NCHRP Report 803. This report is accompanied by a pre-programmed APT spreadsheet tool2that can be tailored to project, segment, or geographic area inputs. The spreadsheet tool may be used for the entire process, or it can be supplemented with calculations from GIS or performed manually. Given the spatial nature of pedestrian and bicycle planning, it is common to perform GIS calculations to create input variables—as is proposed for the factors identified in this section. The tool’s 10-step process is outlined and briefly annotated in italics below.

1. Define purpose. An agency first determines the purpose of the prioritization process. This prioritization process will prioritize locations at the segment level. The scored segments will then be linked to projects.

This aligns with the scale at which data is available and allows for aggregation of segment-specific factors.

2. Select factors. An agency next selects the factors to be used in prioritization that align with their goals for the prioritization process. The proposed factors for the ATP are identified in the preceding section.

3. Establish factor weights. Each factor is weighted on a scale of 1 to 10 to indicate its relative importance to other factors. The proposed weights are identified in the following section. 2 Available at: https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/tools_apt.cfm ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
4 4. Select variables (criteria) for each factor. For each selected factor, agencies may select one or more variables to measure the factor. Kittelson has proposed three factors and a total of four criteria or indicators as shown in the preceding table.

5. Assess data availability. For all proposed factors and criteria, the project team has access to the necessary data.

6. Assess technical resources. Agencies assess their existing technical resources and capabilities to determine if existing resources are sufficient. The project team will use a combination of GIS software and the APT spreadsheet tool to perform calculations.

7. Set up prioritization tool. Having established the purpose, factors, variables, and required data, the next step is to set up a tool to implement the prioritization method. The project team will use the APT spreadsheet tool.

8. Input data.

9. Scale variables. Scaling involves selecting a common numeric scale and adjusting raw values to fit the common scale. Scaling should not be confused with weighting. Scaling is a more objective, technical function, while weighting is based on community/agency values. Scaling is necessary so that variables have a comparable impact on the prioritization score in the absence of weighting. Scaling methods should be chosen carefully depending on the distribution and range of the data points. For example, this would be applied when applying a low-medium-high scale to a numeric variable such as household income, in order to categorize census tracts in a city as having low, medium, or high household income.

10. Calculate priority scores. Finally, agencies sum the weighted values for each factor to derive a total score for each location. The segments can then be ranked based on the prioritization score. In some cases, agencies may wish to revisit factors, variables, and/or weighting, and make adjustments to their prioritization based on additional input or evolving prioritization purposes. The spreadsheet used for this project allows for adjustment of factor weights and comparison of results.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
5 Initial Prioritization Analysis Methodology & Evaluation Criteria This section discusses the proposed methodology for each of the proposed initial prioritization criterion.

Table 2: Safety Criterion
Pedestrian/Bicycle Crashes
Description
This measure uses the results of the pedestrian and bicycle collision analysis. The analysis identifies locations where pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions have occurred, associated with risk for people walking or biking.

Data Needs The spatial files representing the crash analysis.

Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the presence within 75 ft of a proposed facility segment or intersection location where a pedestrian- or bicycle-involved crash has occurred. Seventy-five feet is used to represent a reasonable area of influence for crashes. Crashes will be given scores that reflect the presence and severity of crashes that occurred on a facility.

Scoring
Recommended method: Scoring will be one of four values:
3 = Two or more fatal or serious injury crashes present 2 = One fatal or serious injury crash present
1 = At least one crash present
0 = No crashes present
Limitations
Pedestrian and bicycle collision data used for this analysis will only include collisions that were reported to the UC Berkeley Transportation Information Mapping System database between 2019-2023. Collisions that do not result in injury, death, or over a sufficient amount of property or vehicle damage are not required to be reported in California and would not necessarily be recorded in the data. As a result, not all pedestrian and bicycle collisions are represented in this data and the quality of collision data is limited by the amount of detail provided by the person completing the collision report form.

Pedestrian and bicycle count data are not consistently and completely available; therefore, pedestrian or bicycle exposure could not be accounted for in developing this criterion.

Finally, because numbers of pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐involved collisions are typically low relative to all collisions and may represent random and/or behavioral/human factor causes where the specific location is not inherently a factor in the collision, this criterion alone represents only a partial assessment of bicycle and pedestrian safety.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
6 Table 3: Connectivity Criterion
Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Description
This measure incorporates the results of previously-conducted pedestrian and bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) analyses conducted for this project to assess low-stress network connectivity. Level of traffic stress was developed at the Mineta Transportation Institute in 2012 to estimate the level of stress a bicyclist may feel while riding along a particular roadway. In the method adopts a “worst case scenario” approach whereby the roadway characteristic with the highest stress level determines the score for the segment. Scores range from 1 (a comfortable facility for users of all ages and abilities) to 4 (a facility that only strong and fearless cyclists would feel comfortable using).

Data Needs The spatial files representing the output of the pedestrian and bicycle level of traffic stress analyses conducted for this project.

Proposed
Methodology
Kittelson will assign the computed LTS score to each roadway segment. If a prioritization segment is connected to multiple LTS analysis segments, it will be assigned the higher (i.e., more stressful) LTS score.

Scoring
Given that segments rated with high-stress (LTS score of 3 or 4) would not be suitable for people of all ages and, these are identified as a barrier to walking and biking and the scoring will be binary:
1 = High-stress facilities (LTS score of 3 or 4)
0 = Low-stress facilities (LTS score of 1 or 2)
Limitations The LTS analysis was conducted using roadway data provided by the City.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
7 Proximity to Schools, Parks, Trailheads, and Transit
Description
This measure will prioritize projects in locations that are close to facilities that promote physical activity.

Data Needs
The spatial location of the following facilities:
• Trailheads of regional significance
• Rancho Cordova schools
• Rancho Cordova parks and open spaces (including RCPD) • Transit stops
Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the straight-line distance from the nearest point of a roadway segment to the nearest of each of the above-listed groups. The segments will be evaluated by this distance, with a lower number representing a better score.

Scoring
The score will be the distance from the roadway segment’s nearest point to the nearest identified destination as described above. Road segments will be ranked by percentile based on this distance (100th percentile indicating the lowest such distance). The resulting scores will range continuously from zero to one with higher scores reflecting closer proximity to a destination and/or multiple destinations.

Limitations
The proposed method employs publicly available data but is limited with respect to the type of access to healthy destinations. As such, there may be other destinations associated with health outcomes for some residents that are not captured in this methodology (e.g., private gyms).

Table 4: Equity Criterion
Equity Index
Description
There are several different indices and indicators to measure equity and identify areas of disadvantage for purposes of the Federal Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) grant and other funding opportunities offered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. These include Areas of Persistent Poverty and Historically Disadvantaged Communities. Caltrans has also created the Transportation Equity Index, a spatial screening tool designed to identify transportation-based priority populations at the census block level. This proposed equity criterion measure focuses on transportation-specific indicators, distinguishing it from broader environmental justice tools. It can be used alongside other screening tools, including those listed above and CalEnviroScreen and the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST). This index incorporates a number of demographic and socioeconomic factors to identify areas with overlapping determinants of transportation and economic disadvantage.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
8 Data Needs
Most recent available five-year American Community Survey data at the census block group level (where available), or the census tract level for the following attributes:

1. Communities of Color

2. Low Income (<200% of Poverty) Population

3. Limited English Proficiency Population

4. Zero-vehicle Households

5. Seniors Over 75

6. Youth Under 10

7. Population with a Disability

8. Single-Parent Families

9. Overburdened Renters
Proposed
Methodology
Roadway segments will be evaluated with the use of an equity index. The equity index will use the variables listed above and roadways will be assigned the highest equity index among the census block groups that they have the largest overlap with.

The equity index will be calculated as follows:
• Starting with the variables listed under data sources, Kittelson will convert household, family, and housing unit statistics to person-units using the average size of that grouping for each block group.
• The nine population values will be summed and divided by the total population of the block group to generate the preliminary index value. • For variables where census tract data are utilized, block group values will be scaled based on the portion of overlap with census tracts. • The preliminary index value will be scaled to a value of one such that the maximum score for the most transportation-disadvantaged block groups receive a score of one and all other values are scaled relatively to the maximum. • Because an individual can have more than one criterion attributed to them (e.g., a person could be living in poverty and be in a single-parent household), the index intentionally counts individuals multiple times to generate an index that evaluates the relative equity disadvantage of the block group.

The equation used to develop the segment transportation disadvantaged score is shown below:

𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 =
(𝐸𝑙𝑑 + 𝑌𝑡ℎ + 𝑁𝐻 + 𝑃𝑜𝑣 + (𝐻𝐻(𝑉𝑒ℎ + 𝐹𝑎𝑚 +𝑅𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝐿𝐸𝑃) + 𝐷𝑖𝑠) 𝑃𝑜𝑝
where:

Eld = # of residents over 75
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
9 Yth = # of residents under 10
NH = # of residents who identify as non-white or Hispanic (communities of color) LEP = # of households identified as speak English “not well” or “not at all” Pov = # of residents with income under 200% of poverty level HH = Average California household size
Veh = # of households with 0 vehicles
Fam = # of single-parent families
Rent = Overburdened renters
Dis = # of residents with a disability
Pop = Total population
Data at the household level is multiplied by the average household size for each block group.

Scoring
Scoring will be continuous, with scores initially ranging from zero to a maximum possible score of eight based on the sum of indices. (Two categories, seniors over 75 and youth under 10 are mutually exclusive). A score of eight would indicate that every resident within the block group meets eight of the nine indicators. Each score will then be divided by the maximum score to obtain its index value relative to maximum.

Limitations
This metric calculates an index of a given area for a transportation disadvantaged population, but it does not represent total numbers of people. Therefore, a block group with a lower total number but higher proportion of transportation disadvantaged people would be rated higher than a more populous block group.

Additionally, the indicator is based on publicly-available American Community Survey data. There may be other desirable indicators of relative disadvantage for which spatial data are not readily accessible.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
10 Weightings
This section revisits the framework with a few considered weightings in Table 5, including the equal weights method ultimately selected.

Table 5: Possible Factor Weighting for Prioritization1
Factor Criteria
Equal
Weights
Method Safety Focus
Connectivity
Focus Equity Focus
Safety
Pedestrian/
Bicycle Crashes
33% 66% 16.5% 16.5%
Connectivity
Sidewalk Gaps
and Crossing
Barriers OR
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress

16.5%

16.5% 66% 16.5%
Proximity to
Schools, Parks,
Trailheads, and
Transit

16.5%
Equity Equity Index 33% 16.5% 16.5% 66%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 The overall score is the sum of weighted scores, which range from 0 to 1

SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION
The initial prioritization is used to develop scores for each segment and crossing location in Rancho Cordova. The segments are then combined to create logical project extents. Projects are then assigned numerical scores based on their respective locations on the scored segments. Through this quantitative approach, the City can consistently compare the level to which different projects align with the ATP goals and do so in a repeatable way.

After the initial prioritization, the Project team will further assess the top ranked bikeways, sidewalks, and crossings through a supplemental evaluation that is more qualitative in nature and intended to further differentiate projects with similar scores to create an implementation order. Each of the higher scoring projects will be evaluated against the same subset of criteria and scored qualitatively using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance. This supplemental evaluation provides a more nuanced and inITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
11 depth understanding of the factors of Project Readiness, Project Cost and Funding Opportunities, and Project Support to allow for more informed decisions about implementation. The draft supplemental evaluation metrics and scoring rubric are outlined in Table 6.

Table 6: Draft Supplemental Evaluation Metrics and Scoring Rubric Factor Evaluation
Metrics
Scoring Scale
Low Medium High
Project
Readiness
What stage of
development is
the project in?
The project is not on
the repaving plan or
CIP list.

The project requires
reconstruction or
right-of-way
acquisition.

The project may be
on the repaving plan
or the CIP list.

The project may
require
reconstruction or
lane reconfiguration
or right-of-way
acquisition.

The project is on the
repaving plan or the
CIP list. Concept or
construction plans
have been
developed. The
project does not
require right-of-way
acquisition but may
require lane
reconfiguration or
reconstruction.

Project Cost
and Funding
Opportunities
What is the
likelihood of
receiving funds
for the project?
The project is not on
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.

The project is far
from housing
opportunity sites.

The project may not
be competitive for
various funding
sources.

The project may be
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.

The project may be
close to housing
opportunity sites.

The project may be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.

The project is on the
repaving plan or the
CIP list.

The project is close
to housing
opportunity sites.

The project is
expected to be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.

Project
Support
What level of
support does
the project
have?
Support for the
project has not been
expressed.

Some support for
the project has been
expressed.

Strong support for
the project has been
expressed.

NEXT STEPS
Kittelson has applied the initial prioritization methodology to develop a preliminary ranking bikeway, sidewalk, and crossing projects and prepared maps presenting the combined results by quartile for each project type, as well as results for each individual evaluation factor. These maps are included as attachments to this memorandum.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Prioritization Framework| January 2026
12 Kittelson will collaborate with City staff and the Plan Development Team to review the initial evaluation list and identify additional projects that may warrant further review as part of the supplemental evaluation.

After the project list for supplemental evaluation has been finalized, Kittelson will conduct the supplemental evaluation and develop a near-term action plan that identifies the top priority projects for implementation.

ATTACHMENTS
• Bikeway Network Prioritization Scores by Quartile
o Bikeway Network Safety Criterion Scores by Quartile
o Bikeway Network Connectivity Scores by Quartile
o Bikeway Network Equity Scores by Quartile
o Bikeway Network Core Network Map
• Crossing Improvements Prioritization Scores by Quartile o Crossing Improvements Safety Criterion Scores by Quartile o Crossing Improvements Connectivity Scores by Quartile o Crossing Improvements Equity Scores by Quartile
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile
Equal Weights
≥ 75%
50% - 74%
25% - 49%
< 25%
Bike Facility Prioritization:

Combined Score Percentile
Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
Uses the "equal weights method"
to combine safety, equity, and
connectivity indices.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile

1.0 0.7

0.3 0.0
Bike Facility Prioritization:

Safety Index
Indicates presence and
severity of crashes within
250ft of crossing.

Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile
≥ .90
.70 - .89
.50 - .69
< .50
Bike Facility Prioritization:

Connectivity Index
Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
Incorporates distance to
nearest school, park,
trailhead, and transit service
and accounts for existing
level of traffic stress.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile
≥ .70
.60 - .69
.50 - .59
< .50
Bike Facility Prioritization:

Equity Index
Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
Incorporates 9 census variables,
including communities of color,
low income population, limited
English proficiency, zero-vehicle
households, seniors 65+, youth
under 10, people with
disabilities, single-parent
families, and overburdened
renters.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile
Backbone bicycle network
Backbone Bicycle Network
Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
Backbone network includes all existing shared
use paths, along with select existing or proposed
bike facilities that connect to key destinations,
including schools, transit, and trailhead access.

Some existing shared use paths that provide
internal circulation for developments are
removed for clarity.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile
≥ 75%
50% - 74%
25% - 49%
< 25%
Crossing Facility Prioritization:

Combined Score Percentile
Uses the "equal weights method"
to combine safety, equity, and
connectivity indices.

Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
ProspectPark Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Fiel d Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile

1.0 0.7

0.3 0.0
Crossing Facility Prioritization:

Safety Index
Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
CORC_crossings_prioriti
Crash Value_scaled
Indicates presence and
severity of crashes within
250ft of crossing.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile
≥ .80
.61 - .80
.31 - .60
< .30
Crossing Facility Prioritization:

Connectivity Index
Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
Incorporates distance to
nearest school, park,
trailhead, and transit service
and accounts for existing
level of traffic stress.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Zinfandel Dr
International Dr
Coloma Rd
Hazel Ave
Folsom Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Routier Rd
Tower Park Dr
Prospect Park
Dr
Bradshaw Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Sunrise Blvd
Douglas Rd
Mather Field Rd
White Rock Rd
Kilgore Rd
White Rock Rd
Chrysanthy Blvd
Grant Line Rd
Kiefer Blvd
_`50
_`50
∙16
[
0 1 Mile
≥ .80
.60 - .79
.40 - .59
< .40
Crossing Facility Prioritization:

Equity Index
Incorporates 9 census variables,
including communities of color,
low income population, limited
English proficiency, zero-vehicle
households, seniors 65+, youth
under 10, people with
disabilities, single-parent
families, and overburdened
renters.

Specific Plan Areas (Reflects most recent private
development plans)
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan | April 2026 City of Rancho Cordova – Active Transportation Plan
Appendix E
Active Mobility Infrastructure Toolkit
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

INTRODUCTION

TO THE TOOLKIT
This toolkit is a supplement to the Rancho
Cordova Active Transportation Plan. It
reviews current best practices and provides
a survey of infrastructure design guidance
for building a safer and more comfortable
network for people walking and biking. This
toolkit is intended to guide the application
of infrastructure that supports plan goals,
but engineering judgment should always
be used before implementing treatments.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
2 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

CONTENTS
THE BUILDING BLOCKS: REFERENCE MATERIALS 4
SELECTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS 6
Level of Traffic Stress ....................................................................................................6 Choosing a Bikeway.......................................................................................................7 Crossing Treatments ......................................................................................................9 Aligning Treatments to Roadway Context ..........................................................10 How Streets Are Categorized.............................................................................10 Visualizing Scenarios ..............................................................................................12 TREATMENTS FOR A SAFER FUTURE 15
Treatment Quick Reference ..................................................................................... 16 Treatment Impacts and Safety Outcomes ..........................................................17 Bikeways
Shared Use Path.....................................................................................................20 Striped and Buffered Bike Lanes ......................................................................22 Bike Routes............................................................................................................... 24 Separated Bikeways.............................................................................................. 26 Bike Crossings
Bikeway Crossings ................................................................................................. 28 Path Crossings.........................................................................................................30 Curb Extensions.............................................................................................................32 Median Refuge Islands ............................................................................................... 34 Protected Intersections.............................................................................................. 36 Raised Crosswalks ....................................................................................................... 38

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
3 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

SECTION TITLE GOES

IN THIS LOCATION
THE BUILDING BLOCKS:

REFERENCE MATERIALS
Safe System Approach and Roadway
Design Hierarchy

WHAT IS THE SAFE
SYSTEM APPROACH?
The Safe System Approach (SSA) reframes
traditional views on roadway safety: instead
of seeing fatal and serious injury crashes
as mistakes that just happen, it sees them
as systematic events that are preventable.

The approach states that no traffic death or
serious injury is acceptable, and everyone
has a shared responsibility to help.

The SSA is made up of five safety elements:
(1) Safe Road Users, (2) Safe Vehicles, (3) Safe
Speeds, (4) Safe Roads, and (5) Post-crash Care.

Figure 1. Safe System Approach Elements
Safe
Speeds

REDUNDANCY IS CRUCIAL

SAFETY IS PROACTIVE

RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED

HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE

HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES

DEATH/SERIOUS INJURY IS UNACCEPTABLE
Safe
Vehicles
Post-Crash
Care
Safe Road
Users
Safe
Roads
THE

SAFE SYSTEM

APPROACH
It is organized around five guiding principles:

Humans make mistakes. The transportation
system needs to be designed to prevent
or minimize damage from the inevitable
mistakes that humans make on the road.

Humans are vulnerable. Reducing speeds and
impact angles improves the survivability of
crashes. The most vulnerable road users, people
walking and biking, need the most protection.

Responsibility is shared. Everyone has a
responsibility to prevent traffic deaths and
serious injuries. Road users, policymakers,
engineers and planners, vehicle manufacturers,
law enforcement, and education providers
must all work together to achieve change.

Redundancy is crucial. All aspects of the
transportation system must support safety,
so that if one strategy fails, others will
still protect road users. No one strategy
alone is enough for a safe system.

Safety is proactive. Instead of waiting for
crashes to occur and then making changes,
preventative measures should be taken to
mitigate risk factors and stop crashes from
having the chance to happen at all.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
4 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

WHAT IS THE ROADWAY
DESIGN HIERARCHY?
In 2024, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) published the Safe System Roadway
Design Hierarchy to align strategies in practice
with objectives of the SSA. The hierarchy guides
transportation practitioners in identifying and
prioritizing countermeasures according to four
tiers, where the first tier is most effective:

Tier 1: Remove severe conflicts. Eliminate
high-risk conflict points through strategies like
separating users moving at different speeds
and in different directions, creating buffers
between motorized and nonmotorized users,
and protecting intersection movements.

Tier 2: Reduce vehicle speeds. Lower safety
risks by slowing speeds using methods like
setting appropriate speed limits, enforcing
speed limits, and using traffic calming
measures such as lane narrowing.

Tier 3: Manage conflicts in time. When
users share the same physical space,
separate them in time with traffic control
measures like hybrid beacons, bike and bus
signals, and protected left turn phasing.

Tier 4: Increase attentiveness and awareness.

Alert users to potential conflicts and hazards with
methods like crossing visibility enhancements,
retroreflective signing, and rumble strips.

HOW DO THESE

PHILOSOPHIES
SHAPE THE TOOLKIT?
The City of Rancho Cordova is working toward
a safer transportation system. To get there,
this toolkit is oriented around the SSA and
should be considered through the lens of the
Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy. The
strategies that this toolkit recommends focus
primarily on protecting vulnerable road users,
calming and slowing traffic, and promoting
shared streets with safer, multimodal access.

Where possible in practice, this toolkit should
be used to eliminate conflicts, then to manage
speeds and conflict points to account for
human error and vulnerability. With these
approaches as a foundation, the City of Rancho
Cordova can make its vision a reality.

Figure 2. Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy
This toolkit should be used eliminate
conflicts, then to manage speeds
and conflict points to account for
human error and vulnerability.

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
5 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

SECTION TITLE GOES

IN THIS LOCATION

SELECTING BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS
Selecting the appropriate bikeway or crossing treatment depends on many factors. Design choices should meet the needs of users of all ages and abilities, maximize safety, consider roadway and land use context, and utilize interagency coordination. Crash data, community engagement, and engineering judgment are all essential for making well-informed design choices. This section outlines performance criteria for analyzing treatment alternatives that support the goals of the project.

Level of Traffic Stress
The type of bikeway and roadway context influence the comfort level of the person biking and level of traffic stress (LTS) experienced. LTS is a measure based on the posted speed, number of lanes, and available bikeway infrastructure that approximates how comfortable people may be biking on certain roadways. The table below shows how these factors overlap to create LTS scores.

Figure 3. Bikeway Levels of Stress
Posted
Speed Limit
Number
of Lanes
Shared
Roadway Bike Lane Separated Bikeway Bike Path
25 MPH or lower
2 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
4 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
30 MPH
2 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1
3 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1
4 LTS 4 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1
35 MPH
2 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 1
3 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 1
4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 1
40 MPH or Greater
2 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 1
4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 3
5+ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 3
Legend
LTS 1 – Lowest stress. Comfortable for most ages and abilities LTS 2 – Suitable for most adults. Presenting little traffic stress LTS 3 – Moderate traffic stress. Comfortable for regular cyclists LTS 4 – High traffic stress. Fast moving traffic, suitable for experienced and confident cyclists Source: Adapted from Furth and Mekuria

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
6 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

People who feel more confident riding bikes may
be comfortable biking on roadways with higher
LTS scores, while those who are less experienced
may only be comfortable biking on roadways with
lower LTS. This range of users is shown in Figure

4. Bikeways should be chosen to mitigate traffic
stress for the intended design user. Different areas
of the City of Rancho Cordova may see different
levels of skill and confidence, from experienced
riders both for recreational and commute
purposes to families of all ability levels enjoying
the American River Bike Trail on the weekend
or biking to school or community events.

Choosing a
Bikeway
For the City, two sources provide key
recommendations for selecting bike facilities.

First, at the national level the AASHTO Guide
for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 5th
Edition (GDBF) provides recommendations for
contexts found in the City of Rancho Cordova.

Second, Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94
Complete Streets: Contextual Design Guidance
(DIB94) provides a modified version of a similar
guidance chart. Both offer recommendations
that should be subject to local context and
engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the
GDBF recommended bikeway types in relation
to traffic volumes and operating speeds,
with greater separation recommended at
higher speeds and volumes. Blurred borders
between categories indicate that practitioner
judgment and local context should be applied to
distinguish which facility is most appropriate.

Figure 5. Bikeway Relationship to
Traffic Speed and Volume
23 BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION
Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban and Rural Town Contexts
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Separated Bike Lane
or Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
(Buffer Pref.)
Shared Lane
or Bike
Boulevard
10k
9k
8k
7k
6k
5k
4k
3k
2k
1k
0 1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed. 2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT. 3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.

Notes
Source: AASHTO GDBF, Section 4.3.1
Figure 4. Bicyclist User Profiles
Source: Modified from FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (FHWA, 2018), based on data from Dill and McNeil (2013).

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
7 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

The GDBF lists conditions where increasing
separation between motor vehicles and
bikeways is warranted, including:
• Unusually high motor vehicle
volumes at peak hours
• Mix of vehicles, like trucks and buses
• High parking turnover and curbside activity
• Presence of vulnerable populations,
like children and seniors
• Gaps in bicycle network connectivity
• Frequent transit headways
Consider the following to make room
for bicycle facilities on the roadway:
• Narrowing travel lanes
• Removing travel lanes
• Reorganizing street space, like shifting onstreet parking away from the curb to separate bikeways from vehicle traffic with parked cars
• Removing, reducing, or reconfiguring onstreet parking, like converting diagonal parking to parallel parking to increase space
• Reducing bikeway widths
• Reducing motor vehicle traffic volumes
and speeds to allow for a bikeway
type that takes up less space
In California, bikeways are categorized into
four classes (see page 19 for more on
names and terminology). They include:
• Class I: Bike path, greenway, or shared use
path located off street and entirely separated
from motor vehicle traffic. Because Class I
bikeways operate independently of roads, they
can be implemented on any roadway type
• Class II: Bike lane designated as part
of the road with striping and signage.

This class includes bike lanes with
a striped (paint only) buffer
• Class III: Bike route where motor vehicles
and bicycles share lanes at lower speeds
• Class IV: Bike lane separated from motor
vehicle traffic with a physical barrier such
as bollards, planters, and parking
Figure 6 from DIB94 maps recommendations
for which classes should be considered
at which speeds and traffic volumes.

Figure 6. Bikeway Class Relationship
to Traffic Speed and Volume
© 2024 California Department of Transportation – All Rights Reserved 23 provide the recommended ranges for bicycle traveled ways that should be applied to the respective bikeway classifications. Designers should strive to provide a usable traveled way width within these ranges to the maximum extent feasible. The values within the recommended range will be optimal for most locations. The practical maximum value or range should only be considered when bicyclist volumes are high and there are clear benefits. When space is available for a maximum value, there may be other options for the use of that width, such as additional bike lane buffer space or wider sidewalk.

Widths approaching the minimum values should be considered only for short distances and where the benefit of providing a narrow facility outweighs the alternative of no facility at all.

The minimum bikeway width should be as indicated in the underlined text in Tables 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4.

The following sections provide more details about each bicycle facility type.

Figure 5-A - Recommended Bicycle Facilities for Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Streets
Source: Figure 5A of Caltrans DIB94
Making space for bikeways on constrained
roadways can necessitate reallocating space
from motor vehicles. However, roadway
modeling often projects traffic volumes far
into the future, estimating roadways that are
wider than necessary. Additionally, the use
of peak hour traffic to design roads allocates
space for extreme conditions rather than
typical ones. To evaluate impacts of bikeways
on travel time and roadway capacity, tradeoffs should be considered along with benefits and impacts on all road users across modes.

The City can use the national and state
guidance provided in this toolkit as a starting
point for identifying the appropriate bikeway
on a given roadway, relying on roadway
context, community input, and practitioner
judgment to further refine recommendations.

Bikeway class selection should
be based on traffic conditions,
community input, and local
context rather than peakhour projections alone.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
8 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Crossing
Treatments
Many of the same factors for bikeways also
need to be considered for crossing treatments.

The greater the number of lanes, the higher
the posted speed, and the higher the traffic
volume, the more measures need to be
taken to protect pedestrians crossing.

Figure 7 provides a chart from FHWA’s Guide
to Improve Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
which lists nine treatments to make crossings
safer. For each combination of roadway
geometry, annual average daily traffic (AADT),
and posted speed, a combination of treatments
is recommended. A number without a circle
indicates a potential treatment, a number in a
black circle indicates a treatment that should be
considered, and a number in a circle indicates
a treatment that should always occur.

For example, for a two-lane road with posted or
85th percentile speeds at or above 40 mph and
an AADT of over 15,000, the guide recommends
always including high-visibility crosswalk markings,
parking restrictions on the crosswalk approach,
adequate nighttime lighting, and warning signs.

Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) should be
considered, and curb extensions and refuge
islands are potential treatment candidates. This
guidance should be paired with the MUTCD and
engineering judgment to match the treatments
to a location’s context. The City can consider
the use of signals in place of PHBs, since both
treatments provide a red indication to drivers.

Figure 7. Treatment Selection Guidance
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Table 1 provides initial countermeasure
options for various roadway conditions. Each
matrix cell indicates possibilities that may
be appropriate for designated pedestrian
crossings. Not all of the countermeasures
listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be
installed at a crossing.

For multi-lane roadway crossings with
vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked
crosswalk alone is typically insufficient
(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more
substantial crossing improvements (such as
the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also
needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian
crash potential.

Roadway Configuration
Posted Speed Limit and AADT
Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000 ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph 2 lanes
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes with raised median
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes w/o raised median
(1 lane in each direction with a
two-way left-turn lane)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ lanes with raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ lanes w/o raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Given the set of conditions in a cell,
# Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate
treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.

Signifies that the countermeasure should always be
considered, but not mandated or required, based upon
engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled
crossing location.

Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction with other identified
countermeasures.*
The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may be considered following engineering judgment.
1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs
2 Raised crosswalk
3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line
4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
5 Curb extension
6 Pedestrian refuge island
7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)**
8 Road Diet
9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**
Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature. *Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures. **It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.

This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, WashingtonDC; ThomasThirskand Zegeer(2016)NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and HighwaysTransportation Research BoardWashington Source: FHWA Guide to Improve Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
9 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Aligning
Treatments to
Roadway Context
The treatments in this toolkit can be applied
across a transportation system but should
be matched to the most appropriate context
and location. To do so, understanding
how streets are categorized and what
characteristics they have is essential.

HOW STREETS ARE

CATEGORIZED
The City of Rancho Cordova General Plan uses
three types of street classifications: freeways and
expressways, major roads, connector roads, and
local roads. This plan uses similar classifications:
big busy to encompass expressways and major
roads, small busy to refer to connectors, and
local or neighborhood to refer to local roads.

These street types are mapped in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Street Types in the City of Rancho Cordova

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
10 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Table 1 lists the characteristics that define each
street type, with the bottom row showing the
bikeway that typically best fits these conditions.

Street typologies refer to the combination
of a specific street type and a recommended
bikeway type. This table results in eight
typologies that can be seen in the city:
• Big Busy Shared Use Path
• Big Busy Separated Bikeway
• Small Busy Shared Use Path
• Small Busy Separated Bikeway
• Small Busy Striped or Buffered Bike Lane
• Local/Neighborhood Bike Path
• Local/Neighborhood Striped
or Buffered Bikeway
• Local/Neighborhood Bike Route
The treatments recommended in Treatments for
a Safer Future (beginning on page 15) provide
options that can be utilized for all typologies
and applied throughout the city to improve
existing bikeways or implement new ones.

Tabe 1. Street Characteristics and Corresponding Bikeways in the City of Rancho Cordova Big Busy Small Busy Local/Neighborhood
Also Known As
Major Roads
(Thoroughfares, Arterials,
Major Collectors)
Connector roads
(Collectors, Residential
Collectors, NonResidential Collectors)
Local Roads (NonResidential Local Streets,
Primary Residential Streets,
Minor Residential Streets)
Posted speed 30-50 mph 25 – 55 mph* 25
Traffic volume 10,000 – 100,000 ADT 3,500 – 23,000 ADT 100 – 5,000 ADT Number
of lanes 4+ Lanes 2-4 lanes 1-2 lanes
Street parking? No Varies Yes
Curb and
gutter? Yes Yes Yes
Median? Varies No No
Example
adjacent
land uses?
Office parks, retail centers
with limited site access
Retail site access points,
residential frontage,
school entrances
Residential frontage
Types of
Bikeways
Recommended
Shared Use path,
separated bikeway
Shared Use path,
separated bikeway, striped
or buffered bikeway
Shared Use path, striped or
buffered bikeway, bike route
*Douglas and Grant Line are 55mph

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
11 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

VISUALIZING SCENARIOS
The following visualizations illustrate examples of the ways that different bikeways can be implemented on the street types of the City of Rancho Cordova. Design guidance is provided in callouts that specify the minimum dimensions of facility components as well as notes on application and maintenance.

Example Big Busy Shared Use Path
Minimum two-way shared use path
width 10 feet plus 2 foot shoulder
each side; consider up to 15 feet
plus shoulders in busy areas.

Minimum 5 feet plus standard
shoulder width separation
between edge of travel lanes
and shared use path.
14 feet wide standard concrete curbed
median width for big busy roads to allow
for plantings. Width includes 18 inches of
stamped concrete for maintenance use.

Signalized crossings on multilane
big busy roads; refer to page 9 for
pedestrian crossing treatments.

Example Big Busy Separated Bikeway
Minimum 6 foot width between
curb faces; 7-9 feet preferred.

With no parking adjacent to the
separated bikeway, separation
width may be 2 feet (measured
and shown exclusive of the
gutter pan width).
14 foot wide standard concrete curbed
median width for big busy roads to allow
for plantings. Width includes 18 inches of
stamped concrete for maintenance use.

Signalized crossings on multilane
big busy roads; refer to page 9 for
pedestrian crossing treatments.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
12 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Example Small Busy Separated Bikeway
Minimum 6 foot width
between curb faces
excluding gutter pan, if
provided; 7-9 feet preferred.

RRFB crossing appropriate for
small busy road with this lane
configuration; refer to page 9 for
pedestrian crossing treatments.

Where a parking lane is
adjacent to the separated
bikeway, a minimum separation
of 3 feet keeps people riding
out of conflict with car doors.

Separation elements can vary
(for example, constructed curb or
delineators plus drill-down curb stops).

Minimum 5 foot width between
curb and buffer (excluding gutter
pan); 6-8 feet preferred.

Example Small Busy Buffered Bike Lane
2 foot minimum striped buffer
width; 3-4 feet preferred. Where
street parking is provided, buffer
may be provided on either or both
sides of the bike lane. If a buffer
is striped on the parking side,
provide a minimum of 3 feet to
avoid conflict with car doors.

RRFB crossing appropriate for small
busy roads with three-lane cross
sections, depending on volume and
speed; refer to page 9 for pedestrian
crossing treatments.

Minimum 5 foot bike lane width; 6-7 feet
preferred. At posted speeds above 35 mph,
buffered bike lanes are not recommended.

However, if used in constrained environments
they should have a minimum 4 foot buffer.

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
13 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Example Local/Neighborhood Bike Route
Caltrans DIB94 recommends
bike routes as an option below
posted speeds of 25 mph and
average daily traffic volumes
of 2,000 vehicles per day.

State law prohibits use of
these pavement markings on
roadways above 30 mph.

Use speed humps or other traffic
calming measures to achieve low
speeds on bike routes, where people
biking and driving share space.

Use wayfinding signage to
indicate presence of a bike route.

Lateral placement of shared use markings
(“sharrows”) indicates where to ride—place
them away from conflict with car doors.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
14 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

The City of Rancho Cordova has developed
guidance for the following treatments that
can support safer active travel and can be
applied based on data analysis, crash history,
public involvement, and roadway context:
• Bikeways
• Bike crossings
• Curb extensions
• Median refuge islands
• Path crossings
• Protected intersections
• Raised crosswalks
• Roundabouts
• Neighborhood Traffic Circles
These treatments address a range of focuses,
from bikeway access to crossing safety to slow
speeds. They are systemic treatments, meaning
that they can be applied in multiple locations
throughout the city where they are appropriate.

All photos are provided by the City of Rancho
Cordova, unless otherwise sourced.

TREATMENTS FOR A

SAFER FUTURE

BENEFITS
Separated bikeways:
• Reduce the potential for crashes
• Encourage more bike use from
people of all ages and abilities
• Can provide space for landscaping,
and stormwater features on a raised
separator, if designed to be wide enough
Separated bikeways provide a raised physical barrier between people biking and motor vehicles, offering low levels of traffic stress (along with paths) while maintaining a place on the roadway.

SEPARATED

BIKEWAYS

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
One-way separated bikeways have preferred widths
between 5 and 9 feet and minimums between 4
and 9 feet, depending on the separation type (curb/
buffer/parking), with practical maximums between
8 and 10 feet. Two-way separated bikeways
have preferred widths between 9 to 14 feet and
minimums between 8 and 14 feet, with practical
maximums between 14 to 16 feet, again depending
on the separation type. These dimensions exclude
the gutter pan. DIB94 recommends a minimum
width of 6 feet between curbs. More detail can be
found in Tables 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of Caltrans DIB94.(6)
Separation widths should be a minimum of
2 feet wide, with a 3 foot minimum where
street parking is present (to keep riders
out of the way of open car doors).

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Separated bikeways can accommodate oneway or two-way travel on one or both sides of the street and may be at street level, sidewalk
level, or an intermediate level. Additionally,
several materials are available for separation,
each with its own benefits and drawbacks.

The City of Rancho Cordova uses context and
best practices to decide on material choice.(1)

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

2. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

3. FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

4. CA MUTCD

5. Caltrans DIB 89-02

6. Caltrans DIB94
B
D
C
A
Separation materials can include:
• Flexible post delineators A
• Raised medians B
• Concrete curbs C
• Landscaping
• Parked cars
• Sidewalk (1)
Separated bikeways are more likely to
accumulate debris than the rest of the
roadway. Removing it is important since
people biking cannot move in and out
of separated bikeways freely, and debris
build-up can discourage use or present a
safety concern. The following maintenance
practices should be considered:
• Typical street sweepers are greater
than 10 feet wide. Narrower sweepers
are becoming more commonly
available to procure for maintaining
separated bikeways. 6.5- to 7.5-
foot wide. If necessary, less common
narrower sweepers can be purchased
or manual maintenance with brooms
or blowers will be required.(1, 6)
• Trees should be trimmed when
their branches overhang into
the bikeway below 8 feet.(1)
• Planting vegetation that produces large
seeds, nuts, fruit, or other matter that
can become an obstacle near separated
bikeways is typically avoided.(1)
CONSIDERATIONS(1)
• To warn low-vision pedestrians of stepping into
the path of people biking, vertical separation
(e.g., a curb) or a continuous detectable
element (e.g., tactile warning delineator)
is recommended between the separated
bikeway and the pedestrian through zone.(6)
• At intersections and driveways, conflict
striping or additional treatments can
improve visibility and safety. D
• Separated bikeways may require relocation
or reorientation of signs and utilities.
• There may be impacts to drainage that
require additional treatments.
• Large vehicle turns may need to be accommodated
at intersections or other access points.
• Accessibility features, such as accessible parking
and transit stops, may need to be planned for. A
cut-through bikeway between a bus island and
a sidewalk is a common option at transit stops.

Separated bikeway using flexible delineators and curb
stops in Washington, DC. Source: Kittelson
Separated bikeway with curbed median separation in
City of Rancho Cordova, CA.

REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT 26 27
Treatment
name
Treatment
description
Safety
outcomes
(#) notes the applicable
resource referenced in
“Additional Resources”
User type that benefits
from treatment
x Example of the
component or feature

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
15 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Treatment Quick Reference
Treatment Lanes
Posted
Speed
Guidance
(mph)
Volume
Guidance in
Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)
% Crash
Reduction**
Often
Paired WithBenefits PedestriansBenefits Bicyclists
Striped and
Buffered
Bike Lanes
≤3 ≤35 ≤6,500 35%
Bike boxes, bend outs,
protected intersections, and
other intersection treatments
Bike Routes ≤3 ≤20 2,500 Unknown
Bike boxes, bend outs,
protected intersections, and
other intersection treatments
Separated
Bikeways Any Any Any 45%
Bike boxes, bend outs,
protected intersections, and
other intersection treatments
Bikeway/Path
Crossings Any Any Any Varies
Curb extensions, raised
crosswalks, and supplemental
traffic control devices signal
Curb
Extensions Any Any Any 30% Bend outs, raised crosswalks, median refuge islands
Median
Refuge Islands Any Any Any 56% RRFBs, lighting
Protected
intersections Any Any Any Unknown
Protected bike lanes,
median refuge islands,
signal treatments
Raised
Crosswalk ≤3 ≤30* <9,000* 35% Curb extensions, median
refuge islands, RRFBs
*May be applicable on higher speed/volume roadways in some cases **Source is the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2024)

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
16 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Treatment Impacts and Safety Outcomes
Reduce
Speeds
Reduce
Volumes
Improve
Visibility
Enhance
Crossings
Reduce
Conflict Points Treatment
Striped and
Buffered
Bike Lanes
Bike Routes
Separated
Bikeways
Bikeway/Path
Crossings
Curb Extensions
Median
Refuge Islands
Protected
intersections
Raised
Crosswalk

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
17 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
18 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

Bikeways
There are many different names for bike facilities across the country. This plan has established the following names for bike facilities, for consistent use within the City.

Examples:

Facility Name: Shared Use Path
You may also hear: Class I path, bike path, side path, trail* Definition: A dedicated path which is completely separated from the street with no car traffic and limited crossflows.

These paths are most commonly shared use, meaning
people rolling and walking share the space. In some cases, there may be separate dedicated space for each user, and the portion exclusively for bikes would be called a bike path.

Image: Mather Field Heritage Trail Bike Path
Facility Name: Separated Bikeway
You may also hear: separated bike lane,
protected bike lane, cycle track, Class IV
Definition: Dedicated lanes (one-way or two-way), provided most often at street level but sometimes at sidewalk
level, for people on bikes that are that are separated from vehicle travel lanes by a curb or other physical barrier.

Image: Separated Bikeway on Mather Field Road
Facility Name: Striped or buffered bike lane
You may also hear: painted bike lane, Class II
Definition: On-street bikeways with dedicated
space separated from vehicle traffic by paint
pavement markings, not a physical barrier.

Image: Bike Lane on Rancho Cordova Parkway
Facility Name: Bike route
You may also hear: Neighborhood greenway, Class III
Definition: Designated streets, indicated by signage
and pavement markings, where people riding
bikes share a travel lane with motor vehicles.

Image: Bike Route on Sarda Way
*”Trail” is most a more generic term for a designated route which does not necessarily have defined physical characteristics.

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
19 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

A

SHARED USE PATH

BENEFITS
Bike paths have positive impacts on safety,
accessibility, and community-building by:
• Removing conflicts with motor vehicles
• Providing low levels of traffic stress,
giving greater appeal to users of all ages
and abilities, including children, older
adults, and people with disabilities
• Providing connectivity for those
without access to vehicles
• Reducing exposure to vehicle
emissions by distancing pedestrian and
bicycle travel from vehicle traffic
• Creating a sense of community
and placemaking
Shared use paths are dedicated facilities located off street, either adjacent to the road separated by at least 5 feet or as an entirely distinct route. They are shared by people biking and walking—a wide asphalt or concrete surface where people walk and bike in the same space—unless a path is specifically designed to separate those users. Some paths may contain pavement markings to designate sections for biking and walking, respectively. Path users may include but are not limited to pedestrians (walkers, runners, people using non-motorized or motorized wheelchairs); people with strollers, people walking dogs; adult upright bicyclists, tricyclists, recumbent bicyclists, bicyclists with trailers, tandem bicyclists, and child bicyclists; inline or roller skaters; skateboarders; kick scooter users; and users of other micromobility devices.

When paths diverge from roadway lighting,
such as through parks or along waterways, they
should be well-lit. To choose whether to separate
and/or mark paths, consider the following:
• Volume of use and mix of users (walking
versus biking). NACTO advises that where
people walking constitute more than 30
percent of users, separating walking and
biking space may be appropriate.
• Unmarked paths (no centerline) more
naturally allow for peak volumes of
directional traffic. Striping may be preferred
when bicycle and pedestrian volumes are
higher or when the paved width is wider.

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Bike paths are usually located:
• In parks
• Along rivers
• Along greenbelts
• Along utility corridors
• Along streets as side paths
They are best suited for areas where roadway
and driveway crossings can be minimized, or
the path can pass over or under the roadway.

Shared Use Path in the City. Paths are shared use
and may or may not include a centerline stripe to
remind users that two-way traffic is expected. REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
20 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

2. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

3. Caltrans Highway Design Manual

4. AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities, 5th Edition

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Minimum shared use path width is 10 feet
(preferred 12 to 15 feet) plus 2 foot shoulders each
side. Path width can vary based on the volume
of users and if separate walking and biking space
is designated.(1) Caltrans DIB94 advises that
the minimum separation between a shared use
path and the edge of traveled way should be 5
feet plus roadway standard shoulder width.(3)
Slopes of less than 5% grade and
minimum turn radii of 30 to 70 feet are
recommended for bike paths.(1)
Markings may include:
• Bike path markings on both directions
on a path, at the entrance to paths,
and on the far side of crossings
• Centerline striping to help organize traffic A
• Edge lines to draw attention to areas
with hazards close to the path(1)
• Paths may use materials such as asphalt or
colored concrete to visually differentiate
the space from a sidewalk. B
CONSIDERATIONS(1)
• A different scale of lighting than
is used on roadways may be more
comfortable for people biking.
• Where paths run parallel to a major street,
consider treatment options at driveways
and intersections including a raised crossing
and an offset to improve visibility (like
protected intersections—see page 36).
• Consider wayfinding signage to inform users of
destinations, intersections, and connecting bike
networks via wayfinding and guide signage.

B
Shared use path creek crossing. City of Rancho Cordova, CA

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
21 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

A
A
Buffered bike lane. Boise, ID. Source: Kittelson

STRIPED AND

BUFFERED BIKE LANES

BENEFITS
Benefits of striped or buffered
bike lanes include:
• Providing a cost-effective solution to
quickly fill in gaps in the bike network
or expand an existing network
• Giving distinct areas for bicycles and
motor vehicles, while still allowing
people riding bikes to leave the lane
easily to turn or pass people
• Slowing vehicle speeds by
visually narrowing the roadway
with pavement markings
Each type of conventional bike
lane has its benefits:
• More buffer space can reduce traffic
stress and invite less confident
bicyclists to use the bike lane.
• Less or no buffer space requires less
existing roadway space (i.e., may be
feasible in a restriping scenario where
buffered bike lanes would not be).

Striped bike lanes are on-street bikeways where bike traffic is separated from motor vehicle traffic by pavement markings. Buffered bike lanes provide additional space from motor vehicle traffic using a painted buffer between the bike lane and vehicle lane.

On streets with greater speeds, daily
volumes, or peak volumes, consider installing
separated bikeways (page 26).

Bike lanes are usually intended for one-way travel,
with a lane on either side of a two-way street
or one lane on a one-way street. Contraflow
lanes (where people bike in the opposite
direction as traffic) can be provided on oneway streets to improve bike connectivity.(1)

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Caltrans DIB94 recommends that striped
bike lanes are appropriate on streets with:
• Target motor vehicle speeds up to 25 mph
• Volumes up to approximately
4,500 vehicles per day
It recommends that buffered bike lanes
are appropriate on streets with:
• Target motor vehicle speeds up to 35 mph
• Volumes up to 6,000 vehicles per day
REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
22 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

B
A A
Buffered bike lane. City of Rancho Cordova, CA.

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

2. AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities, 6th Edition

3. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

4. CA MUTCD Chapter 9

5. Caltrans Highway Design Manual

6. Caltrans DIB94

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Where vehicle speeds are below 40 mph,
painted bike lanes have a preferred width of 5
to 7 feet (minimum of 5 feet) and a practical
maximum of 8 feet. The preferred and minimum
widths can be lowered by 1 foot where
adjacent to a buffer. Where speeds are 40
mph or greater, the minimum bike lane width
is 6 feet. Buffers should be 2 to 4 feet wide. All
dimensions are exclusive of the gutter pan.(6)
A buffer may be provided between the bike lane
and on-street parking, between the travel lane
and bike lane, or between both the travel lane,
the bike lane, and on-street parking. The buffer
between the bike lane and parking lanes provides
extra space for situations where there is high
parking turnover or a relatively high percentage of
heavy and wide vehicles parking along a street.

The following marking guidance is recommended:
• Buffered lanes: two solid white lines on
both edges of the buffer space to indicate
where crossing is discouraged A
• Buffers may include diagonal striping if the
width is 3 feet or wider to increase visibility B
• Striped and buffered lanes: dashed white
lines or green conflict paint may be used
to indicate conflict areas near driveways,
turn lanes, and intersections(1)

CONSIDERATIONS
• Driving or parking in a bike lane is always
prohibited. To enforce this, use red painted
curbs and no parking signs or consider
installing separated bikeways (page 26).
• A number of design solutions are
available for intersection approaches, for
which a few design principles apply:
• Provide a clear and legible path
through the intersection
• Manage/reduce turning vehicle speeds
• Improve visibility between people driving
and biking. Protected intersection
corners (page 36) can be provided
at intersections with striped bike
lanes approaching the intersection.

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
23 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
Bike routes are a low-cost way to quickly
build out a bicycle network where there
is not space for a dedicated bikeway. The
speed and volume of vehicle traffic must
be low enough for people biking to share
comfortably, or it must be lowered through
calming measures to recommended levels.

Benefits of bike routes include:
• Limited impacts to drainage, onstreet parking, and curbs • Maintaining existing traffic flow
• Discouraging drivers from using
residential streets as shortcuts by
pairing with traffic calming design
Bike routes are designated streets where people riding bikes share a travel lane with motor vehicles.

They are indicated by pavement markings and signs. When enhanced with traffic calming and vehicle traffic diversion, bike routes are often called bike boulevards or neighborhood greenways.

BIKE ROUTES
Additional measures to organize roadway space
may be necessary, like narrowing vehicle lanes
and installing bike lanes or separated bikeways, if:
• Two-way roads have widths of 24
feet or more for vehicle traffic, or
• One-way roads with widths of 15
feet or more for vehicle traffic(1)
Bike routes are primarily implemented to bridge
gaps between other classes of bikeways, rather
than comprise an entire bike network.(6)

LOCATION GUIDANCE
The Bikeway class selection chart from
DIB94 (see page 8) recommends bike
routes as appropriate on streets with:
• Traffic volumes of less than
2,500 vehicles a day
• Posted speeds below 25 mph
C
A
Shared-use markings typical of bike routes. City of
Rancho Cordova, CA.

REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
24 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

2. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

3. AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities, 6th Edition

4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual

5. CA MUTCD

6. Caltrans DIB94
B
C

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
It is recommended that bike routes be
accompanied by traffic calming and speed
management measures to allow people
biking to share the lane comfortably with
vehicles. Bike routes may be paired with:
• Median islands (see page 34)
• Speed humps A
• Curb extensions (see page 32)
• Horizontal deflection (mid-block
curb extensions, chicanes) B
• Neighborhood traffic circles
and mini roundabouts
The following marking guidance is typically used:
• Shared lane markings (also known
as sharrows) placed in the center
of each directional lane C
• Sharrows spaced every 100-125 feet or
every 10-30 feet when people biking need
to navigate a change in the roadway
• Sharrows placed 12 to 14 feet from the
curb when there is on-street parking
to encourage people to bike farther
away from opening car doors(1)

CONSIDERATIONS
• Where streets are so narrow that vehicles
cannot pass people biking without giving
at least 3 feet of space, target speeds
are recommended to be 10-20 mph(1)
• Wayfinding signage—like Bike Route
signs—that connect to other types of
bikeways is important for a comprehensive
and safe bike network.(1)
• Proper intersection design and control
are essential for safe and usable bike
routes. See Bikeway Crossings (page
28) for more information.(1)
Chicane and other traffic calming commonly applied on bike routes and neighborhood greenways. Source: Kittelson

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
25 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
Separated bikeways:
• Reduce the potential for crashes
• Encourage more bike use from
people of all ages and abilities
• Can provide space for landscaping,
and stormwater features on a raised
separator, if designed to be wide enough
Separated bikeways provide a raised physical barrier between people biking and motor vehicles, offering low levels of traffic stress (along with paths) while maintaining a place on the roadway.

SEPARATED

BIKEWAYS

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
One-way separated bikeways have preferred widths
between 5 and 9 feet and minimums between 4
and 9 feet, depending on the separation type (curb/
buffer/parking), with practical maximums between
8 and 10 feet. Two-way separated bikeways
have preferred widths between 9 to 14 feet and
minimums between 8 and 14 feet, with practical
maximums between 14 to 16 feet, again depending
on the separation type. These dimensions exclude
the gutter pan. DIB94 recommends a minimum
width of 6 feet between curbs. More detail can be
found in Tables 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of Caltrans DIB94.(6)
Separation widths should be a minimum of
2 feet wide, with a 3 foot minimum where
street parking is present (to keep riders
out of the way of open car doors).

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Separated bikeways can accommodate oneway or two-way travel on one or both sides of the street and may be at street level, sidewalk
level, or an intermediate level. Additionally,
several materials are available for separation,
each with its own benefits and drawbacks.

The City of Rancho Cordova uses context and
best practices to decide on material choice.(1)
B
D
Separated bikeway with curbed median separation in
City of Rancho Cordova, CA.

REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
26 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

2. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

3. FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

4. CA MUTCD

5. Caltrans DIB 89-02

6. Caltrans DIB94
C
A
Separation materials can include:
• Flexible post delineators A
• Raised medians B
• Concrete curbs C
• Landscaping
• Parked cars
• Sidewalk (1)
Separated bikeways are more likely to
accumulate debris than the rest of the
roadway. Removing it is important since
people biking cannot move in and out
of separated bikeways freely, and debris
build-up can discourage use or present a
safety concern. The following maintenance
practices should be considered:
• Typical street sweepers are greater
than 10 feet wide. Narrower sweepers
are becoming more commonly
available to procure for maintaining
separated bikeways. 6.5- to 7.5-
foot wide. If necessary, less common
narrower sweepers can be purchased
or manual maintenance with brooms
or blowers will be required.(1, 6)
• Trees should be trimmed when
their branches overhang into
the bikeway below 8 feet.(1)
• Planting vegetation that produces large
seeds, nuts, fruit, or other matter that
can become an obstacle near separated
bikeways is typically avoided.(1)
CONSIDERATIONS(1)
• To warn low-vision pedestrians of stepping into
the path of people biking, vertical separation
(e.g., a curb) or a continuous detectable
element (e.g., tactile warning delineator)
is recommended between the separated
bikeway and the pedestrian through zone.(6)
• At intersections and driveways, conflict
striping or additional treatments can
improve visibility and safety. D
• Separated bikeways may require relocation
or reorientation of signs and utilities.
• There may be impacts to drainage that
require additional treatments.
• Large vehicle turns may need to be accommodated
at intersections or other access points.
• Accessibility features, such as accessible parking
and transit stops, may need to be planned for. A
cut-through bikeway between a bus island and
a sidewalk is a common option at transit stops.

Separated bikeway using flexible delineators and curb
stops in Washington, DC. Source: Kittelson

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
27 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
These crossing enhancements improve
safety and comfort for people biking by:
• Giving them a designated area
to wait to cross, either next to
a curb or at sidewalk level
• Avoiding conflicts between bicyclists
traveling straight and vehicles turning right
by giving them separate periods to cross
• Creating a smoother transition
between bikeway types, if they
change at an intersection
• Easier intersection navigation
for people driving
Where minor streets with a bikeway intersect with major streets, additional measures are often needed to allow people biking to safely and comfortably traverse the major street. A variety of treatments can help with this, including bike ramps, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and signals. RRFBs alert drivers to the presence of people crossing with a flashing yellow warning light, while signals trigger a red indication for drivers when people cross.

See Protected Intersections (page 36) for more options on improving intersection safety for people biking.

BIKEWAY

CROSSINGS

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Clear markings and signs are recommended to
direct riders into the separated bike portion of
the intersection, whether that is on the street or
crosswalk level. Typical bike-only areas like this are
built to prevent drivers from entering the area.

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Bike ramps or buttons for RRFBs are most
appropriate at uncontrolled intersections
that may not warrant signalization, as well
as on lower-speed roads with two lanes
of travel in each direction and a median
refuge island. Ramps or bike buttons for
hybrid beacons are most appropriate on
small busy roads and complex intersections
where stopping traffic is needed to
provide safe crossing opportunities.(6)
A
C
RRFB at bikeway crossing with
supplemental push button for people on
bikes. Berkeley, CA. Source: Kittelson REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
28 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

2. AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities, 6th Edition

3. Portland State University Fundamentals
of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design

4. NACTO Don’t Give Up at the Intersection

5. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

6. Salt Lake City Neighborhood
Byway Facility Guidelines
This can be done by:
• Using bulb outs or curb extensions A
• Designing ramps/access points to be
between 5 and 6.5 feet in width, making
them too narrow to drive into(1)
For minor crossings, STOP signs can be
placed facing the cross street approaches,
giving the bike route the right-of-way.

Neighborhood traffic circles can also be
used to enhance safety and visibility.(1)
Push buttons that trigger RRFBs can be
utilized for people biking in two ways:
• By providing a bike ramp, which allows
people biking to leave the roadway and
wait on the sidewalk. There, they can
press a pedestrian push button and cross
with people walking when the warning
lights or red light are triggered.(6) B
• By adding an additional push button
specifically for people biking. These are often
located at the edge of a curb facing outward,
so that people biking may push it without
leaving the roadway (see first image).(6) C
• A low-profile separator can be added
to the edge where people biking wait
on the roadway to give separation
while vehicle traffic is moving.

CONSIDERATIONS
• The turning movements of large motor
vehicles, such as buses or emergency
vehicles, may need to be accommodated.
• If used, ramps and curb extensions are
recommended to provide adequate drainage.
• At signalized intersections, it is
recommended that any signal detection
or actuation devices can easily detect
bicyclists waiting to cross the street.

Bike route crossing of a major street RRFBs and a ramp
to position people on bikes to push the button and cross alongside pedestrians. Salt Lake City, UT.

B

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
29 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
Designated path crossings improve safety by:
• Increasing the visibility of people
using the path to people driving, who
may not be expecting a crossing
• Slowing drivers and increasing
the likelihood they yield to
people in the crossing(1)
When shared use paths cross streets midblock or at intersections, additional crossing treatments are often used to stop cross traffic for the benefit of people walking, biking, and rolling. These typically include raised crossings with signalization, yield signs, or push buttons to activate a crossing cycle.

PATH

CROSSINGS

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Path crossings may include the following features:
• Raised crossings A
• RRFBs
• Green striping to signify bike crossings
• Warning signs B

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Path crossings may be utilized midblock or
at intersections. They are most effective for
a safe and connected network when utilized
consistently across a route. Dedicated path
crossings are typically considered most
essential along multi-lane or higher volume
roads but are recommended wherever shareduse paths or bike paths intersect a road.

B
B
C
D
Path crossing with supplemental lighting present.

City of Rancho Cordova, CA.

REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
30 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

2. NACTO Don’t Give Up at the Intersection

3. CA MUTCD
A
B
B
B
C

CONSIDERATIONS
At intersections and crossings, note that:
• Detectable warning surfaces and
curb ramps are necessary C
• Conflict striping may be considered to
improve visibility for all users
MUTCD Section 9B provides example
sign placement at path crossings.

Raised (tabletop) separated path crossing.

Emeryville, CA. Source: Kittelson

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
31 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
Curb extensions improve safety by:
• Slowing turning speeds by reducing curb radii
• Slowing driver speeds by extending
the curb into the parking lane and
reducing the width of the roadway
• Shortening crossing distances
• Reducing pedestrian exposure to traffic
Other benefits include:
• Increasing pedestrian comfort with
greater distance from traffic
• Providing more space for benches, bicycle
parking, street art, landscaping, and
stormwater management solutions
• A variety of implementation options,
making them versatile and economical
Curb extensions refer to treatments that extend curbs into the street, narrowing the traveled way. Primary uses include:
• Bulb outs: curb extensions on intersection corners
• Bus bulbs: curb extensions at transit shops
Treatments not discussed in detail in this toolkit that utilize curb extensions include:
• Pinchpoints or chokers: midblock curb extensions that narrow the road • Chicanes: offset curb extensions that shift drivers’ paths laterally • Neckdowns: curb extensions used as gateways to minor streets CURB

EXTENSIONS

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Curb extensions may be designed as:
• Widened sidewalks, if there is
no impact to drainage
• Concrete edge islands with a oneto two-foot gap for drainage • Designated extensions using planters,
bollards, or flex posts (1)

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Treatments utilizing curb extensions are
typically installed on big busy and small busy
roads with posted speeds of 35 mph or less.(3)
C
Bulb outs narrow the roadway and sharpen
intersection turns. City of Rancho Cordova, CA.

REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
32 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Street Design
Guide: Curb Extensions

2. Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide

3. CA HDM Index 303.4 and 404.4

4. FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
The widened sidewalk approach allows for level travel
in the extended area and therefore may be preferred.

The last option is a “quick build” that may be used as a pilot demonstration of the concept or as a temporary
solution that achieves safety benefit while funds are
obtained for a permanently constructed solution. A
Where applicable, “bend-outs” allow bicycle lane access through curb extensions. Increasing the bikeway setback in bend-outs can also provide room for turning cars
to yield to people biking before making a turn. B
Bulb outs are recommended to:
• Be implemented at all corners of an intersection
• Induce a turning speed of 15 mph or less
• Be set back at least 2 feet from vehicle or bikeway (1) Curb extensions may benefit from trees or landscaping
planted in the extended area. This helps to visually
narrow the roadway, complementing the curb
extensions’ physical narrowing of the traveled space.

Bus bulbs are typically:
• Aligned with a parking lane(1)
• The length of two buses for routes
with frequent service(1)
• The length of one bus for routes
with less frequent service(1)
• A minimum width of 6 feet but
preferred width of 8–10 feet(1)
• Designed with a return angle of 45 degrees(1)
For proper maintenance, curb extension design
needs to provide curvature and transitions that
accommodate street sweeping equipment.

CONSIDERATIONS
• Curb extensions should never
encroach upon bikeways.
• Bend-outs should be considered
to provide separation between
motorists and bicyclists.
• Bicycle cut-through lanes may
be necessary in bus bulbs.

Curb extensions, accompanied by asphalt art, defined with islands that “float” away from the gutter pan and preserve existing drainage. City of Rancho Cordova, CA.

A
B B

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
33 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
Median refuge islands improve safety by:
• Reducing the time and distance
that pedestrians are in travel
lanes exposed to traffic
• Improving visibility of people
biking and walking
• Reducing vehicle speeds
• Possibly creating a shift in travel that
slows traffic, depending on placement
Other benefits include:
• More continuous traffic flow
by letting people cross one
direction of traffic at a time
• Reduced pedestrian waiting times
• The opportunity for landscaping
and placemaking(5)
Median refuge islands, also called pedestrian safety islands, are medians that include crosswalks so that people walking, biking, and rolling users may cross one traffic lane or direction of travel at a time.

MEDIAN

REFUGE ISLANDS

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Median refuge islands are recommended where
pedestrians need to cross multiple lanes of
traffic in one direction.(1) They can be applied
midblock or at signalized or unsignalized
intersections. Consider applying on streets
with higher speeds and volumes and/or
high bicycle and pedestrian volumes. The
Crossing Treatments discussion beginning on
page 28 provides recommendations for
median refuge island implementation based
on roadway geometry, speed, and volume.

A
Median refuge island at signalized intersection in
City of Rancho Cordova, CA. This island allows room
for detectable warning strips and provides a pushbutton in the median, creating an accessible refuge between crossing directions of travel.

REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
34 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

2. Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide

3. Caltrans HDM Index 405.4

4. Caltrans HDM Topic 904

5. FHWA Traffic Calming e-Primer

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Typical median islands are, at a minimum,
6 feet wide, but are preferably 8 to 10
feet wide. Six feet is a minimum width to
include two detectable warning strips plus
a two-food-wide level surface between.

It is recommended that refuge islands include:
• A “nose” that extends beyond
the crosswalk A
• Curbs, bollards, or other
features to protect pedestrians
waiting on the island B
• Curb extensions in locations
with on-street parking(1)

CONSIDERATIONS
Consider including RRFBs or signals on
higher volume or multi-lane streets to
provide crossing opportunities. Consider
additional lighting on the median island.

Median island in Oakland, CA. Median islands need at least 6 feet of width to provide an accessible refuge (2 feet for each detectable warning strip and 2 feet between them).

As shown here, they may ramp up to above street level for the path through the median. Source: Google Earth
B

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
35 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
Protected intersections improve safety by:
• Slowing vehicle turning speeds
• Separating users of different modes
• Reducing conflict points
• Placing people biking and walking
ahead of drivers, giving space for
drivers to spot and yield to them
• Creating shorter crossing distances for
people walking, biking, and rolling
Protected intersections provide physical separation between people walking, biking, and driving using concrete, landscaping, vertical delineators, and/or distinct signal phases. Protected intersections typically provide distinct paths for different users to avoid vulnerable users merging with vehicle traffic. They also control vehicle turning speeds with reduced radii and channelization.

PROTECTED

INTERSECTIONS

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Features of protected intersections may include:
• Driver yield zone A
• Corner islands B
• Forward bike queue C
• Conflict striping D
• Signal treatments

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Protected intersections may be implemented
with any posted speed and traffic volume, but
they are most appropriate with higher vehicle
speeds and/or volumes. They are applicable
at signalized and stop-controlled intersections
with a 36-foot curb-to-curb width.(2)
B
C
D
Protected corner at an intersection in Oakland, CA,
slows turning vehicles and provides sight distance
benefit for crossing pedestrians. Source: Kittelson.

REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
36 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design
Guide: Major Street Crossings

2. NACTO Don’t Give Up at the Intersection

3. AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design,
and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities

4. AASHTO A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets

5. Caltrans DIB 89-02

6. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

7. FHWA Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide

8. CA MUTCD
D
E
E
A
C B
• Detectable edge
• Hardened centerlines
• Bikeway yield markings
and crosswalks E
• No right turn on red
• Bike signals
• At protected intersections, the stop
bar and crossing location provides
6 to 16 feet of space for vehicles to
yield. If protected intersections are
raised and built at sidewalk height, a
buffer may be included to separate
the bikeway from the sidewalk.(2)
Protected intersection in Fremont, CA, provides
channelization and separation benefits for separated
bikeways on all four approaches. Source: City of Fremont

CONSIDERATIONS
Protected intersections may require
additional signal heads and timing to give
a bike crossing phase if a dedicated rightturn lane is provided, or people biking can be directed to use pedestrian crossing signals.

In areas with limited space, a dedicated
intersection may be considered instead of
a protected intersection. While adhering to
the same principles of separating users in
time and space, they offer less separation
between modes yet are more space efficient.

Dedicated intersections often use smaller
channelizing islands made of modular speed
humps and markings, instead of concrete corner
islands. Dedicated intersections are typically
combined with hardened centerlines.(1)
Raised intersections may also be considered
as a type of protected intersection
that elevates the entire intersection,
slowing traffic as it enters and exits.

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
37 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

BENEFITS
Raised crosswalks use vertical deflection to
slow vehicles down and increase visibility
of people crossing, improving safety and
preventing crashes. They provide a level
crossing typically flush with the curb
(rather than ramping down to and up
from street level) and are easier to cross
for people walking, biking, or rolling.

Raised crosswalks are elevated above the road at the level of the sidewalk. They increase the prominence of pedestrians and bicyclists and act both as a crossing and a speed table.

RAISED

CROSSWALKS
They may be appropriate on arterials on a caseby-case basis. If considered along bus routes, primary emergency vehicle routes, or streets that
provide access to emergency medical services,
coordination should be started with those
parties early to coordinate on design issues.(3)

COMPONENTS AND

MAINTENANCE
Raised crosswalks typically have:
• A table (flat surface) at least 10 feet wide
and 3 to 6 inches high with a ramp up and
ramp down of approximately 6 feet each
• A grade at or below 5% relative
to the roadway profile(1)
• Yield markings (or stop bars if stopcontrolled) that are set back 20–50 feet to provide visibility of a person crossing(2)

LOCATION GUIDANCE
Raised crosswalks are typically applied:
• In commercial districts
• Near parks and recreation facilities
• In school zones
• At mid-block crossings
• At the entrance of a minor street
when applied at intersections
Raised crosswalks can also be used as
a gateway treatment to signify entry
into a lower speed environment.

According to the Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide,
raised crosswalks are appropriate on roads:
• With an average daily traffic
volume of ≤ 9,000
• With a posted speed limit of ≤ 30 MPH
C
Raised crossing with trench drain provides level
crossing and speed reduction/visibility benefits.

Harrisburg, PA. Photo credit: Kittelson
REDUCE
SPEEDS
REDUCE

VOLUMES

IMPROVE

VISIBILITY

ENHANCE

CROSSINGS
REDUCE

CONFLICTS

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
38 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

1. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

2. FHWA Traffic Calming e-Primer

3. Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide

4. Caltrans DIB 82
Raised crosswalks can be constructed flush with
the curb (most common) or with “open ends,”
where they taper back down to pavement level
before the sidewalk. Open ends retain the existing
curb flow lines but require an ADA curb ramp.(2)
Raised crosswalks can be built entirely out of
asphalt or have a concrete base with a layer of
asphalt on top. For marking crosswalks, consider:
• Paint (waterborne or oil-based)
• Epoxy
• Polyurea
• Thermoplastic and preformed
tape (most durable)(2)
Raised crosswalks may need more maintenance
than the surrounding roadway, and quick
repairs to surface defects or degraded
markings are recommended. Since raised
crosswalks have a gentle slope and flat table,
standard maintenance equipment like street
sweepers can often accommodate them.

CONSIDERATIONS
Raised crosswalks may be implemented in
conjunction with other elements that enhance
crosswalk visibility and safety, including:
• High-visibility striping A
• RRFBs B
• Advance warning signs
• Curb extensions that reduce
crossing distance C
• Bollards at the edges of the crossing
to keep motorists from crossing
into the pedestrian space D
Design and Placement Design Notes:
• Grade and sight distance need
to be accounted for
• Drainage can be accommodated through inlet
relocation or open channels along the sides
• Street murals may be located near the
crosswalk to create visual placemaking
Raised crossing with supplemental RRFBs in Orlando, Florida.

Photo credit: Kittelson
A
B
D E

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLKIT
39 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

ATP

TOOLKIT
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova – Active Transportation Plan
Appendix F
Program and Policy Recommendations
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | April 2026
1 Rancho Cordova ATP Program and Policy
Recommendations
As part of the Rancho Cordova Active Transportation Plan (ATP), the City is seeking to identify policies, programs, and practices to improve conditions for residents and visitors who walk and bike in Rancho Cordova. Kittelson reviewed existing policies and programs within the city, county initiatives, and regional efforts, as well as best practices from other cities and guidance from the League of American Bicyclists’ (LAB) Bike-Friendly America program. Kittelson also sought input from City staff to assess how the City is implementing existing policies, programs, and practices and to identify priorities for inclusion in this ATP.

A walk- and bike-friendly Rancho Cordova requires investing in infrastructure as well as ongoing programs that encourage and support more people to choose sustainable transportation options. To advance the vision and mission of this plan, the City must envision new policy and program initiatives and expand existing ones. This memo presents recommended programs, policies, and practices. It provides recommendations for new programs, continuations of existing programs, or expansions of existing programs to encourage active transportation in the city and support the city’s efforts in becoming a Silver-level cycling community. Recommendations are organized across the following seven categories, each of which are supported by specific strategies and actions1.
• Coordination and Collaboration
• Evaluation and Planning
• Funding and Implementation
• Operations and Maintenance
• Education and Encouragement
1 A strategy is a high-level approach to reach an outcome that works toward larger goals. An action is a specific step that advances the strategy.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
2 • Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities
• Emerging Technologies and Innovation
The following program and policy recommendations are based on feedback from City staff as well as guidance from the plan development team, and input from the public received online and through in-person engagement. These strategies and their actions will guide the work of the City’s active transportation programs and activities and complement the infrastructure recommendations.

Coordination and Collaboration
Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal External agency
partners
• Establish protocols and procedures for coordination of active transportation projects with external agency partners to define how various organizations will work together on specific projects or initiatives. Utilize existing regional channels to coordinate bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects that abut or intersect jurisdictional boundaries.
• Where projects cross or intersect with jurisdictional boundaries, partner with neighboring jurisdictions to share in project development and financing. Ensure the reciprocal funding agreement in place with County of Sacramento includes active transportation projects.
• Seek opportunities to work with US Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT), and other property owners that currently have, or could have, trails within their right-of-way to increase access and maintenance. • Conduct ongoing regional coordination of bicycle facilities to ensure network connectivity and cohesion across municipal boundaries. Leverage forums created by SACOG for bicycle and pedestrian planning activities throughout the region. • Deliver and Maintain
School districts • Work with school districts to follow the lead of Elk Grove Unified School District and designate a district staff person who is responsible for coordinating issues related to school active transportation connectivity and Safe Routes to School. • Safety First
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
3 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Transit • Coordinate with Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) to implement improvements identified in the SacRT Bus Stop Improvement Plan to develop high quality and accessible transit stops as well as connections to them. • Coordinate with SacRT to implement supporting policies, such as investing in wellmaintained and connected sidewalks and bike lanes, establishing micro-mobility hubs near transit stops, and providing secure bike parking at transit stations. • Coordinate with SacRT on upcoming Safe Routes to Transit Plan and Mobility Hubs Study.
• Work with SacRT to review and update established standards for transit stop amenities and design, including presence and placement of bike racks and benches to ensure they reflect current best practices. Work with SacRT to upgrade transit stop amenities to those standards.
• Safety First
• Deliver and Maintain
Emergency
responders
• Continue coordinating with police and fire during project development to ensure the need for quality active transportation facilities is balanced with provision of adequate access for emergency responders.
• Deliver and Maintain
Cordova
Recreation and
Park District
• Coordinate with Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD) to provide new and enhanced park access opportunities, including investing in well-maintained and connected sidewalks and bike lanes and providing secure bike parking at trailheads and parks.
• Initiate a process for early review of sites for transportation opportunities. • Coordinate and align on design standards for active transportation projects. • Coordinate on an approach to providing and maintaining amenities along trails such as trash cans, restrooms, water fountains, and bike racks. • Deliver and Maintain
Advocacy groups
and communitybased
organizations
• Support efforts to establish a representative group of advocates with bylaws that ensure the group reflects the diversity of local walkers and bikers. Partner with existing advocacy groups and community-based organizations with similar goals to increase awareness of, and build support for, active transportation projects. • Healthy and
Sustainable
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
4 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Developers • Coordinate with developers to advance completion of pedestrian and bicycle connections. The City should consider how easements can be developed for the use of paths on private property as part of the development review process. Develop language for implementing easements and private property paths and highlight opportunities that new development provides to create active transportation connections. Future developments should identify how and when trails can be implemented to complete connections with existing neighborhoods and across barriers. Future development sites should be evaluated to include or contribute to crossings that provide better linkages along and across the street. • Ensure cross-departmental coordination when implementing Conditions of Approval for projects adjacent and abutting future bicycle and pedestrian connections. • Deliver and Maintain
Micromobility
partners
• Formulate partnerships to advance implementation of innovative, ambitious, and scalable pilots, such as micromobility services and mobility hubs. • Deliver and Maintain
Evaluation and Planning
Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Complete Streets • Develop and adopt a Complete Streets policy, resolution, or ordinance to ensure people who are walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit are safely accommodated within the transportation network.
• Develop a Complete Streets Design Guide as a resource and tool to pull standards, guidelines, and best practices into one place. Develop illustrations or renderings showing how complete street elements can be incorporated into city streets. • Identify roadway corridor segments that would benefit from Complete Streets design treatments, such as protected bike lanes, traffic calming, ADA • Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
5 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal improvements, and/or landscaping, and increase comfortability for people walking and biking.

Development
standards, site
plan review, and
traffic impact
studies
• Incorporate projects identified in this plan into the development review processes.

Develop clear direction for implementing active transportation projects. • Prepare a development review checklist for all new or redevelopment projects that ensures consistency with the goals, policies, and actions of the ATP. • Develop template language for implementing easements and private property paths.
• Reduce or eliminate requirements to provide a minimum number of off-street parking spaces in new development projects and establish maximum parking allowances for new development. With fewer easily accessible parking options, people are more likely to consider walking or cycling for short and even some longer trips.
• Ensure that local traffic analyses address safety and comfort of people walking and biking and include the collection of multimodal traffic counts. • Safety First
• Deliver and Maintain
Spatial database • Continue to develop and maintain a spatial database and inventory of active transportation infrastructure and amenities, such as bike lane presence and width, sidewalk presence and width, curb ramps, crossing and traffic calming treatments, signals with bike detection, traffic signals with ADA supportive technology, and bike parking. This database could be used to support analysis, including pedestrian and bicycle level of traffic stress, as well as calculate network statistics, such as the miles of separated bikeways in the city.
• Deliver and Maintain
Data collection • Develop a data collection plan and standard operating procedures for collection of (1) vehicle speed survey data, especially along priority locations, such as streets near schools, and (2) pedestrian and bicycle counts, especially at activity centers and other priority locations.
• Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
6 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal • Collect annual pedestrian and bicycle counts at consistent locations to track travel behavior changes.
• Install permanent counters at suitable locations, such as high-traffic multi-use paths, busy on-street bike lanes, intersections with high pedestrian and bicycle activity, school routes, and recreational areas.
• Conduct before-and-after project counts to assess the impact of active transportation projects.
• Collect and track pedestrian and bicyclist crash data and near misses and conduct a periodic review of active transportation collisions and trends. Crash data could be obtained from police records and the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) or Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) databases. The SafeTREC Street Story mapping portal (https://streetstory.berkeley.edu/city/rancho-cordova) to enable and encourage residents to provide information on near-misses and other safety information that would otherwise not be included in regularlyreported safety reports and statistics.

Community
engagement
• Broaden public involvement efforts related to active transportation plans and projects and seek to engage the community and solicit feedback on an ongoing basis, for example with regular (bi-annual) active transportation workshops and a written pamphlet that reports planning and implementing progress for active transportation projects in the city. Post the newsletter online, through social media channels, and provide a subscription option to facilitate distribution of information to interested community members.
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
Bicycle Friendly
Community and
Businesses
• Consider steps to achieve League of American Bicyclists Silver Standard, such as dedicating at least one full-time, active transportation staff member per 70,000 residents; incorporating bicycle safety education as a routine part of education for students of all ages; increase the amount of high quality bicycle parking; work with local employers to support the region’s May is Bike Month events; and create an official advisory committee. Formally tracking the Bicycle Friendly Community • Healthy and Sustainable
• Deliver and Maintain
• Joyful Choices
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
7 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal metrics and re-applying to the program helps communities evaluate their progress improving bicycle facilities, programs, and policies over time. • Encourage local businesses to be recognized as Bicycle Friendly Businesses through the League of American Bicyclists by providing clear information that outlines the steps for achieving certification, emphasizing the benefits of increased visibility and recognition to potentially attract new customers, and publicly recognizing certified businesses, for example identifying them on a citywide bike network map.

Monitoring and
evaluation
• Prepare an annual progress report on planning and implementation of active transportation projects in the city. An annual “active transportation report card” assesses the City’s progress towards Plan goals and objectives and project and program implementation. Commonly used metrics include mode share, project implementation, network statistics, and program-related statistics. • Healthy and Sustainable
• Deliver and Maintain
Climate resiliency • Consider including tree canopy/shade coverage and stormwater infrastructure improvements along sidewalk, bikeway, and/or transit stop projects to increase climate resiliency from rainstorms and the Urban Heat Island effect. • Healthy and Sustainable
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
8 Funding and Implementation
Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Capital
Improvement
Program &
Transportation
Development
Impact Fee
• Add priority projects identified in this plan to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
• As part of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) update, add appropriate projects to the TDIF list.
• Require easements at all grade-separated crossings to reserve space at these locations for the projects to be completed by either the developer or the City in the future.
• Deliver and Maintain
Strategies for
funding
• Continue to seek grant opportunities to fund bike and pedestrian projects • Work with partner agencies like CRPD and SacRT in the grant applications and project delivery.
• Leverage funding streams like local sales tax measures, levies, and general fund dollars to fund projects and programs.
• Deliver and Maintain
Staffing • Hire a dedicated active transportation coordinator. • Hire a dedicated safe routes to school coordinator.
• Deliver and Maintain
Quick-build and
rapid
implementation
• Develop strategies for rapid network implementation and interim, or quick-build, design treatments.
• Utilize a quick-build approach, focusing on paint and lower cost infrastructure modifications to implement near-term treatments that improve safety outcomes for people walking and biking.
• Conduct demonstration projects to evaluate and build support for permanent infrastructure.
• Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
Construction work
zones
• Create guidance for and require accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists through construction zones.
• Safety First
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
9 Operations and Maintenance
Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Speed limits • Utilize flexibility created through the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 43 to set safe speed limits in key areas within the city. The City should implement changes authorized in AB 43 and utilize guidance outlined in City Limits from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to reduce default speed limits (1) on streets designated as safety corridors or high injury corridors (streets that have the highest number of fatalities and serious injuries); (2) in designated slow zones; and (3) on other designated corridors using a safe speed study.
• Safety First
Intersections • Proactively educate and enforce daylighting law and paint red curbs at marked and unmarked crosswalks. California's "daylighting law," also known as Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413), prohibits parking within 20 feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk on the approach side of the street. The law aims to improve safety by increasing visibility for drivers and pedestrians at intersections. For crosswalks with curb extensions, the distance is reduced to 15 feet. Beyond daylighting, the City will work with the Rancho Cordova Police Department to support targeted enforcement of traffic laws in high-conflict areas, particularly near schools, parks, and marked crossings, to address speeding and failure to yield to pedestrians.
• Safety First
• Deliver and Maintain
Traffic signals • Develop policy and guidance for modifications to traffic signal operations, including implementing leading pedestrian intervals, providing automatic recall, installing accessible pedestrian signals, implementing no right turn on red, implementing protected-only left-turn phases, and implementing “green wave” treatments on select bicycle network corridors.
• Projects must evaluate potential locations for no right turn on red restrictions, which are often implemented at locations with significant pedestrian or bicycle volumes, and where conflicts are known to occur.
• Safety First
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
10 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Maintenance
standards
• Establish, update, and implement maintenance policies and standards for active transportation facilities on City right-of-way, including allocating budget and setting a schedule and priorities for routine maintenance, including restriping, sweeping, and vegetation clearance.
• Monitor and respond to issues on the network reported by the public through Rancho Cordova Connect, social media account, regular meetings, or other methods.
• Coordinate an effort with CRPD and Sacramento County to streamline maintenance and seek efficiencies including evaluation of properties and maintenance responsibilities.
• Coordinate with CRPD to establish clear and adequate maintenance responsibilities for public sidewalks.
• Consider the establishment of a trails maintenance group meeting to coordinate maintenance needs including sweeping, lighting, trail closures, and debris and graffiti abatement.
• Coordinate with waste management providers to maintain an unobstructed travel lane for bicyclists and pedestrians by regulating the placement of garbage, recycling, and compost bins. Garbage bins must not be placed in designated bike lanes, sidewalks, or crosswalks at any time. Bins must be placed no earlier than 24 hours before collection and removed within 12 hours after collection.
• Coordinate with the City’s street sweeping program to maintain clear, usable bike lanes and and separated bikeways. This includes aligning street sweeping schedules to prioritize bicycle corridors, providing more frequent sweeping in high-debris areas, and posting clear signage with sweeping days/times. • Evaluate the need for expanding street sweeping services onto commercial and industrial streets. Currently the City only collects street sweeping fees from • Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
11 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal residential properties; therefore, only streets with adjacent residential land uses receive street sweeping. This leaves key bikeways unswept. • Seek to add a mini street sweeper to the fleet of street sweeping vehicles to properly maintain the growing number of miles of separated bikeways.

ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
12 Education and Encouragement
Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Capacity building • Build a culture of continuous improvement in knowledge, education, and communications that advance transportation options through strong leadership commitment and funding of opportunities for staff training and capacity building, including professional memberships and participation in conferences, webinars, and trainings.
• Healthy and Sustainable
Skills and safety
classes
• Expand bicycle education efforts in partnership with 50 Corridor TMA, Bike Lab, Sacramento Area Bike Advocates (SABA), and Folsom Cordova Community Partnership to reach adults, especially women, older adults, and underrepresented groups and non-English speakers. • Offer bicycle-friendly training to drivers, particularly commercial drivers and fleet operators (such as delivery drivers).
• Continue and expand bicycle rodeo program and partner with advocacy groups and bike-related businesses to offer learn to ride classes, bike clinics, maintenance classes, and summer camps focused on bike skills. • Ensure materials and instruction are offered in multiple languages and formats accessible to people with limited internet access or digital literacy. • Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
Safe routes to
school
• Pursue a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program in partnership with school districts, 50 Corridor TMA, Bike Lab and SABA that provides pedestrian education, bicycle education, parent/guardian-focused educational activities, student travel tallies, walk audits and street design recommendations, and digital media campaigns. The program should also include driver behavior education and targeted enforcement coordination near school zones, including safe drop-off and pick-up protocols, in coordination with the Rancho Cordova Police Department.
• Identify and pursue funding to establish and promote the Safe Routes to School Program.
• Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
Joyful Choices
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
13 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal • Coordinate with school districts and the 50 Corridor TMA and encourage all Rancho Cordova schools to participate in the Safe Routes to School Program. • Prioritize traffic calming around schools
• Update the Rancho Cordova Safe Routes to School Plan (2020). Include school safety walking audits and site evaluations for all schools. • Prioritize outreach to schools serving low-income communities and ensure engagement materials are translated and accessible to families with diverse communication needs.

Promotional
campaigns
• Pursue funding to implement a Street Smart or Share the Road outreach campaign focused on reducing injuries and deaths and promoting safe behaviors among drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The campaigns would include ongoing public education, seasonal messaging and outreach. • Host launch parties or ribbon cuttings for priority projects. • Support events or efforts that celebrate active transportation such as open streets events (Cicladova), asphalt art, walking and biking school buses. • Actively promote the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Business or Bicycle Friendly University program.
• Regularly celebrate bicycle events such as May is Bike Month, , bike to work days, walk and roll to school days, bike races and triathlons, and car-free days. • Continue to promote walking and biking in the City’s newsletter. • Work with school districts to educate parents and students about safe practices for student drop-off and pick-up at school times.
• Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
Encouragement
programs
• Implement community-wide bicycle encouragement programs such as bicycle or e-bike incentive subsidy or rebate program, or a “try-a-bike” lending program.
• Joyful Choices
Enforcement • Support and encourage additional training for law enforcement on bicyclerelated traffic laws.• Safety First • Healthy and Sustainable
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
14 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal • Implement the bike ticket diversion program, a program that requires a class taught by a trained cycling instructor instead of a fine or other punishment • Eliminate policies and ordinances or enforcement practices that place restrictions on bicyclists and criminalize aspects of walking and biking, such as the ban on sidewalk riding.
• Coordinate with police and code enforcement to enforce local or statewide traffic ordinances or laws designed to improve bicyclists’ safety, such as penalties for parking in bike lanes, safe passing distance law, and speed enforcement along corridors with bike lanes.
• Joyful Choices
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
15 Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities
Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Bike parking and
amenities
• Establish a funded bike parking program incorporating the items below:
• Conduct an inventory of bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities. • Increase high-quality bicycle parking, especially near major activity centers and transit.
• Consider adding or improving bicycle parking and other bicycle amenities, such as maintenance stations, in parks, at trailheads, at community centers, and in high travel areas.
• Update the City’s bike parking ordinance for existing and new developments requiring short-term and long-term bicycle parking that accommodates various types of bicycles (cargo bicycles, adaptive bicycles, recumbents, tricycles, tandems, non-standard cycles) and address the need for facilities to recharge electric assist bicycles. • Create a system to allow residents to request the installation of a new public bike rack.
• Establish or adopt bicycle parking design standards outlining minimum requirements for the quality, security, location, and design of bike parking. Standards should include guidance for inspectors on evaluating bike parking installations for compliance with design and safety requirements, informed by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Essentials of Bike Parking.
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Deliver and Maintain
Signals &
Intersections
• Favor protected intersections over conventional design, particularly along the core bikeway route.
• Prefer the use of pedestrian signals over HAWK beacons. • When installing RRFBs, evaluate the nearby street lights and consider the use of overhead pedestrian lights that illuminate the crosswalk with the RRFB beacons.
• Safety First
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
16 Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Wayfinding • Develop an active transportation wayfinding plan and install wayfinding throughout the city.
• Ensure wayfinding signage is accessible for all users, including those with visual, cognitive, or mobility impairments (e.g., appropriate font size, contrast, and mounting height).
• Include wayfinding signs as part of the conditions of approval when developers build trails as part of new or redevelopment. • Work with CRPD and Sacramento County to include wayfinding signs in, and to, parks and trailheads.
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
• Deliver and Maintain
Recreational
facilities
• Support construction of recreational or educational bicycling facilities such as a pump track, BMX track, bicycle-accessible skate park, signed loop routes, or permanent Safety Town or Traffic Garden. • Joyful Choices
Transportation
demand
management
• Expand on the partnership with the 50 Corridor TMA in implementing a citywide transportation demand management (TDM) program to support additional transportation options, incentives to choose sustainable modes, and supplemental infrastructure improvements identified in this plan.
• Encourage development projects, major employers, and schools to become members of the 50 Corridor TMA and participate in their trip reduction programs.
• Healthy and Sustainable
Accessible
pedestrian
infrastructure
• Ensure all pedestrian infrastructure improvements, including sidewalks, curb ramps, benches, and crosswalks, follow ADA standards and universal design principles to accommodate all users, including older adults and people with disabilities.
• Include pedestrian scale lighting in appropriate active transportation projects.
• Adopt the use of directional ADA curb ramps at all corners • Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan
Program and Policy Recommendations | March 2026
17 Emerging Technologies and Innovation
Topic Area Recommended Strategies and Actions Plan Goal Electric bicycles • Develop policy for the use of e-bikes and e-scooters on all bikeways and sidewalks, and conduct public safety, education, and outreach campaigns to raise awareness of proper etiquette. As a near-term action, the City will survey existing e-bike and e-scooter usage patterns on key corridors and routes, and develop draft policy language for Council consideration within two years.
• Encourage and support regional policies and education campaigns to have a united message for the region.
• Develop an education program curriculum for educating students of various age groups on the laws and safety skills necessary pertaining to ebikes and e-scooters. • When designing shared use paths, consider additional width where possible and a minimum paved width of 14-feet for regional trails and 12- feet for local trails to accommodate for the speed differentials of different path users.
• When designing separated bikeways, consider additional width to accommodate for the speed differentials of different bikeway users and modes, including electric bicycles or mobility devices. • Safety First
• Joyful Choices
• Deliver and Maintain
Micromobility and
mobility hubs
• Develop flexible policies to support development of emerging technologies and alternative modes of transportation, such as micromobility-share services.
• Partner with universities, research organizations, or mobility startups to pilot new technologies, evaluate outcomes, and inform data-driven decision making for shared micromobility, mobility hubs, or first/last mile solutions.
• Safety First
• Healthy and Sustainable
• Joyful Choices
• Deliver and Maintain
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan | April 2026 City of Rancho Cordova – Active Transportation Plan
Appendix G
Project List
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

1 Appendix G – Project List

PROJECT LIST CONTENTS
Table 1 Priority Bike Projects 2
Table 2 Priority Bikeway Studies 4
Table 3 Priority Crossing Projects 4
Table 4 Priority Sidewalk Projects 6
Table 5 Complete Bike Project List 8
Table 6 Complete Crossing Project List 23
Table 7 Complete Sidewalk Project List 26
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

2 Appendix G – Project List

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Table 1 Priority Bike Projects
Location From To Type Recommendation Existing Facility
Project
Length
(Miles) Low Cost High Cost
Anatolia Dr Marsyas Way Herodian Dr New Facility Bike Lane NA 1.25 $380,000 $630,000 Anza Way / Mapola
Way
Benita Dr Bridlewood Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.33 $70,000 $100,000 Benita Dr Pinturo Way Zinfandel Dr New Facility Bike Lane NA 0.32 $100,000 $160,000 Borderlands Dr Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Douglas Rd New Facility Bike Lane NA 1.19 $360,000 $600,000 Bradshaw Rd Folsom Blvd Lincoln Village Dr Upgrade existing facility
Shared Use Path Bike Lane 1.08 $3,800,000 $4,880,000
Business Park Dr Horn Rd Bradshaw Rd Upgrade existing
facility
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane 0.70 $2,110,000 $2,820,000
Campana Way Pinturo Way Glenfaire Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.65 $130,000 $200,000 Canyonlands Dr Hetch Hetchy Dr Borderlands Dr New Facility Bike Lane NA 0.91 $270,000 $460,000 Capital Center Dr White Rock Rd International Dr Upgrade existing facility
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane 0.57 $1,710,000 $2,280,000
Coloma Rd Sunrise Blvd Sunrise Corridor
Bikeway
New Facility Shared Use Path NA 0.11 $370,000 $470,000
Dawes St Rinda Dr Folsom Blvd New Facility Bike Route NA 0.76 $150,000 $230,000 Dolecetto Dr / Las
Casas Way
La Loma Dr Ellenbrook Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.66 $130,000 $200,000 Douglas Rd Zinfandel Dr Sunrise Blvd New Facility Shared Use Path NA 0.61 $2,150,000 $2,760,000 El Chorlito Dr / El
Cejo Cr
American River
Parkway Access
La Loma Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.63 $130,000 $190,000 El Manto Dr Coloma Rd Anza Way New Facility Bike Route NA 0.35 $70,000 $100,000 Ellenwood Ave Routier Rd Nut Plains Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.46 $90,000 $140,000 Evadna Dr White Rock Rd Mills Tower Dr New Facility Bike Lane NA 0.23 $70,000 $120,000 Folsom Blvd Mercantile Dr Hazel Ave Upgrade existing
facility
Shared Use Path Bike Lane 2.40 $8,390,000 $10,790,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

3 Appendix G – Project List
Location From To Type Recommendation Existing Facility
Project
Length
(Miles) Low Cost High Cost
Folsom Blvd Sunrise Blvd Mercantile Dr Upgrade existing facility
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane 0.93 $2,800,000 $3,730,000
Folsom South Canal
Trail Spur
Mercantile Dr Folsom South Canal
Trail
New Facility Shared Use Path NA 0.17 $580,000 $750,000
Glenmoor Dr Rockingham Dr Ellenwood Ave New Facility Bike Route NA 0.36 $70,000 $110,000 Gould Way / Crawford
Way
Ellenwood Ave Glenmoor Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.27 $50,000 $80,000 Horn Rd Routier Rd Folsom Blvd Upgrade existing
facility
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane 1.34 $4,020,000 $5,360,000
International Dr Mather Field Rd Sunrise Blvd Upgrade existing facility
Shared Use Path Bike Lane 2.20 $7,710,000 $9,910,000
Kilgore Rd Trade Center Dr Baroque Dr Upgrade existing
facility
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane 1.35 $4,060,000 $5,410,000
Kilgore Rd Folsom Blvd Trade Center Dr New Facility Separated Bikeway NA 0.23 $700,000 $940,000 Lambrusca Dr Chardonay Dr Aramon Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.33 $70,000 $100,000 Mather Field Rd Folsom Blvd Peter A Mccuen Blvd Upgrade existing facility
Shared Use Path Bike Lane 1.31 $4,580,000 $5,890,000
McGregor Dr Coloma Rd Folsom Blvd New Facility Bike Lane NA 0.99 $300,000 $490,000 McGregor Dr Ambassador Dr Georgetown Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.22 $40,000 $70,000 Mercantile Dr / Sun
Center Dr
Folsom Blvd Rail Spur Upgrade existing
facility
Shared Use Path Bike Lane 0.23 $810,000 $1,040,000
Olson Dr Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd New Facility Separated Bikeway NA 0.67 $2,000,000 $2,670,000 Paseo Dr Las Casas Way Folsom Blvd New Facility Bike Route NA 0.35 $70,000 $100,000 Peter A Mccuen Blvd Femoyer St Mather Blvd New Facility Bike Lane NA 0.94 $280,000 $470,000 Rockingham Dr Routier Rd Nut Plains Dr New Facility Bike Route NA 0.46 $90,000 $140,000 Rockingham Dr Mather Field Rd Nut Plains Dr Upgrade existing facility
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane 0.18 $530,000 $700,000
Trinity River Dr Klamath River Dr Sunrise Blvd & Gold
Express Dr
New Facility Separated Bikeway NA 0.08 $250,000 $330,000 Tusket River Dr /
Moose River Ct
Trinity River Dr American River
Parkway Access
New Facility Bike Route NA 0.30 $60,000 $90,000
Vehicle Dr Coloma Rd Zinfandel Dr Upgrade existing
facility
Bike Lane Bike Lane 0.34 $100,000 $170,000
White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr Sunrise Blvd New Facility Shared Use Path NA 1.17 $4,080,000 $5,250,000 White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr White Rock Park Trail Upgrade existing facility
Separated Bikeway Bike Lane 0.67 $2,020,000 $2,700,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

4 Appendix G – Project List
Location From To Type Recommendation Existing Facility
Project
Length
(Miles) Low Cost High Cost
Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd City Line Upgrade existing
facility
Shared Use Path Bike Lane 2.43 $8,500,000 $10,920,000
Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd Pedro Way Upgrade existing
facility
Bike Lane Bike Route 0.25 $80,000 $130,000
Table 2 Priority Bikeway Studies
Location From To Low Cost High Cost
Coloma Rd Folsom Blvd Sunrise Blvd $200,000 $500,000
Sunrise Blvd Douglas Rd Sunrise Blvd Trl $200,000 $500,000 Table 3 Priority Crossing Projects
Location Crossing Type Low Cost High Cost
11020 Coloma Rd At grade, Midblock $300,000 $400,000
Coloma Rd at Benita Dr At grade $300,000 $400,000
Coloma Rd at Cordova Baptist Church At grade, Midblock $300,000 $400,000 Coloma Rd at Dolcetto Dr At grade $300,000 $400,000
Coloma Rd at McGregor Dr (Midblock) At grade, Midblock $300,000 $400,000 Coloma Rd at Rossmoor Dr At grade $300,000 $400,000
Coloma Rd at Woodlawn Dr At grade $300,000 $400,000
Folsom Blvd at McGregor Dr Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 Folsom Blvd at Olson Dr Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

5 Appendix G – Project List
Location Crossing Type Low Cost High Cost
Folsom Blvd at Rod Beaudry Dr Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 Folsom Blvd at Routier Rd Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 Folsom South Canal Trail at Chrysanthy Blvd Overcrossing $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Folsom South Canal Trail at Justinian Drive Overcrossing $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Folsom South Canal Trail at White Rock Road Undercrossing, Midblock $2,000,000 $4,000,000 International Dr at Capital Center Dr At grade $300,000 $400,000 International Dr at Lea Sterling Way / Correll Way At grade $300,000 $400,000 Mather Field Rd at Croydon Way At grade $300,000 $400,000 Mather Field Rd at McCuen Blvd (Midblock) At grade, Midblock $300,000 $400,000 Mather Heritage Trail at Folsom Boulevard Overcrossing $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Mather Heritage Trail at Old Placerville Road Undercrossing, Midblock $2,000,000 $4,000,000 Morrison Creek Trail at Dougals Road Overcrossing $5,000,000 $10,000,000 N Mather Blvd at Stone Creek Community Bike Trail At grade, Midblock $300,000 $400,000 Routier Rd at Horn Rd / Mills Station Rd At grade $300,000 $400,000 Rod Beaudry Dr at Stirling Park Dr / Cordova Glen Ct At grade $300,000 $400,000 Stone Creek Central Trial at Zinfandel Drive Undercrossing $2,000,000 $4,000,000 Sunrise Blvd at Douglas Rd Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 Sunrise Blvd at Sunrise Park Dr (Midblock) At grade, Midblock $300,000 $400,000 Sunrise Blvd at Trade Center Dr Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 Sunrise Blvd at Zinfandel Dr Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 Trade Center Dr at Citrus Rd Intersection Upgrade $300,000 $400,000 White Rock Rd at Kilgore Rd (Midblock) At grade, Midblock $300,000 $400,000 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

6 Appendix G – Project List
Table 4 Priority Sidewalk Projects
Sidewalk Gap Location Gap Length (Miles) Low Cost High Cost Aramon Dr 0.84 $15,600 $31,300
Barbera Way 0.31 $3,500 $6,900
Bradshaw Rd 0.07 $3,400 $6,700
Citrus Rd 0.07 $200 $400
Coloma Rd 0.03 $14,600 $29,100
Croydon Way 0.29 $2,600 $5,200
Dawes St 0.05 $47,500 $94,900
Douglas Rd 0.95 $2,100 $4,200
Ellenbrook Dr 0.04 $2,600 $5,200
Ellenwood Ave 0.05 $6,800 $13,700
Fitzgerald Rd 0.14 $214,900 $429,900
Folsom Blvd 4.30 $24,000 $48,000
Garrett Way 0.48 $22,200 $44,500
Gilbert Way 0.45 $4,800 $9,600
Hydraulic Dr 0.10 $200 $400
Malaga Way 0.00 $26,600 $53,300
Mather Field Rd 0.53 $3,000 $6,000
N Mather Blvd 0.06 $2,100 $4,200
Rod Beaudry Dr 0.04 $16,200 $32,400
Routier Rd 0.32 $44,300 $88,400
Sunrise Blvd 0.88 $6,100 $12,300
Sunrise Park Dr 0.12 $10,200 $20,400
Trade Center Dr 0.20 $15,600 $31,300
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

7 Appendix G – Project List

ALL PROJECTS
All projects are identified with a unique three-part project ID that varies by facility recommendation.

Key for Crossing Projects
• P = Proposed
• U = Undercrossing
• O = Overcrossing
• AG = At-grade crossing
• IU = Intersection upgrade
Key for Bicycle Projects
• N = New facility
• U = Upgrade of existing facility
• NR = New facility on a planned or under construction and/or County roadway • SUP = Shared use path
• BL = Bike lane
• BR = Bike route
• SB = Separated bikeway
Key for Sidewalk Projects
• SG = Sidewalk gap
Bike project facility types are identified using the four-tier Caltrans bicycle facility classification.

Key for Bike Facility Type:
• I = Shared use path
• II = Bike Lane
• III = Bike route
• IV = Separated bikeway
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

8 Appendix G – Project List
Table 5 Complete Bike Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
N_BWS_1 Sunrise Blvd Kiefer Blvd Jackson Rd New Facility Bikeway Study NA

1.36 1.06 Y $200,000 $500,000
N_BWS_2 Sunrise Blvd Douglas Rd Folsom South Canal New Facility Bikeway Study NA

2.93 2.50 Y $200,000 $500,000
N_BWS_3 Sunrise Blvd Citrus Rd Sunrise Corridor
Bikeway
New Facility Bikeway Study NA

1.48 2.68 Y $200,000 $500,000
N_SUP_1 White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr Sunrise Blvd New Facility I NA

1.17 2.50 Y $4,080,000 $5,250,000
N_SUP_2 Stone Creek / Recycle
Rd Connector Trail
Stone Creek Trail East Folsom South Canal
Trail
New Facility I NA

0.15 1.31 $530,000 $680,000
N_SUP_3 Jackson Rd Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Rd New Facility I NA

1.07 0.67 $3,760,000 $4,830,000
N_SUP_4 White Rock Rd Macal Dr City Line New Facility I NA

1.85 0.61 $6,480,000 $8,340,000
N_SUP_5 Fitzgerald Rd Gold Dredge Way Sunrise Blvd New Facility I NA

0.43 1.16 $1,510,000 $1,940,000
N_SUP_6 Mechanical Dr Luyung Dr Rio Del Oro Trail New Facility I NA

0.17 0.90 $580,000 $750,000
N_SUP_7 Douglas Rd Zinfandel Dr Sunrise Blvd New Facility I NA

0.61 1.49 Y $2,150,000 $2,760,000
N_SUP_8 Kiefer Blvd Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Grant Line Rd New Facility I NA

1.33 1.01 $4,650,000 $5,970,000
N_SUP_9 Queen Arbor Dr
Connector Trail
Queen Arbor Dr Trail Spoto Dr New Facility I NA

0.24 1.51 $830,000 $1,070,000
N_SUP_10 Grant Line Rd Trail Rio Del Oro Trail Douglas Rd New Facility I NA

3.26 1.22 $11,410,000 $14,660,000
N_SUP_11 Coloma Rd Sunrise Blvd Sunrise Corridor
Bikeway
New Facility I NA

0.11 2.29 Y $370,000 $470,000
N_SUP_12 Folsom South Canal
Trail Spur
Mercantile Dr Folsom South Canal
Trail
New Facility I NA

0.17 0.00 Y $580,000 $750,000
N_SUP_13 Dawes Creek Trail American River Bike
Trl
Dawes Creek Trail @
Pkwy Limits
New Facility I NA

0.74 0.00 $2,580,000 $3,310,000
N_SUP_14 N Mather Blvd N Mather Blvd Stone Creek
Community Tail
New Facility I NA

0.11 0.00 N $390,000 $510,000
N_BL_1 McGregor Dr Coloma Rd Folsom Blvd New Facility II NA

0.99 1.68 Y $300,000 $490,000
N_BL_2 Peter A McCuen Blvd Femoyer St Mather Blvd New Facility II NA

0.94 2.14 Y $280,000 $470,000
N_BL_3 Chardonay Dr Coloma Rd Dolecetto Dr New Facility II NA

0.07 1.41 $20,000 $40,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

9 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
N_BL_4 White Rock Rd / Mills
Park Dr
White Rock
Neighborhood Park
Mills Tower Dr New Facility II NA

0.47 1.82 $140,000 $230,000
N_BL_5 La Placita Dr W La Loma Dr La Loma Dr New Facility II NA

0.30 1.49 $90,000 $150,000
N_BL_6 Nimbus Rd Folsom Blvd City Line New Facility II NA

0.67 1.16 $200,000 $340,000
N_BL_7 Fitzgerald Rd /
Recycle Rd
Sunrise Blvd Proposed Canal
Crossing
New Facility II NA

0.25 1.25 $70,000 $120,000
N_BL_8 Anatolia Dr Marsyas Way Herodian Dr New Facility II NA

1.25 1.86 Y $380,000 $630,000
N_BL_9 Truckee River Dr Coloma Rd Kern River Ct New Facility II NA

0.08 1.41 $20,000 $40,000
N_BL_10 Benita Dr Pinturo Way Zinfandel Dr New Facility II NA

0.32 1.88 Y $100,000 $160,000
N_BL_11 Evadna Dr White Rock Rd Mills Tower Dr New Facility II NA

0.23 1.84 Y $70,000 $120,000
N_BL_12 Herodian Dr Sunrise Blvd Cobble Brook Dr New Facility II NA

0.37 1.47 $110,000 $180,000
N_BL_13 Marsayas Way /
Justinian Dr
Sunrise Blvd Trail Access New Facility II NA

0.40 1.37 $120,000 $200,000
N_BL_14 Queens Arbor Dr Rainsong Cir Bear Hollow Dr New Facility II NA

0.17 1.45 $50,000 $90,000
N_BL_15 Borderlands Dr Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Douglas Rd New Facility II NA

1.19 0.00 Y $360,000 $600,000
N_BL_16 Canyonlands Dr Hetch Hetchy Dr Borderlands Dr New Facility II NA

0.91 0.00 Y $270,000 $460,000
N_BL_17 Cobble Brook Dr Anatolia Dr Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
New Facility II NA

0.91 0.00 $270,000 $460,000
N_BR_1 McGregor Dr Ambassador Dr Georgetown Dr New Facility III NA

0.22 1.56 Y $40,000 $70,000
N_BR_2 El Chorlito Dr / El Cejo
Cr
American River
Parkway Access
La Loma Dr New Facility III NA

0.63 1.61 Y $130,000 $190,000
N_BR_3 Klamath River Dr Trinity River Dr Trinity River Dr New Facility III NA

1.91 1.81 $380,000 $570,000
N_BR_4 Georgetown Dr Coloma Rd McGregor Dr New Facility III NA

0.98 1.56 $200,000 $300,000
N_BR_5 Paseo Dr Las Casas Way Folsom Blvd New Facility III NA

0.35 2.43 Y $70,000 $100,000
N_BR_6 Woodberry Way Croetto Way Mills Park Dr New Facility III NA

0.15 1.62 $30,000 $50,000
N_BR_7 Malaga Way La Loma Dr Benny Way New Facility III NA

0.53 2.06 $110,000 $160,000
N_BR_8 La Loma Dr Malaga Way La Placita Dr New Facility III NA

0.99 1.64 $200,000 $300,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

10 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
N_BR_9 Rockingham Dr Routier Rd Nut Plains Dr New Facility III NA

0.46 1.99 Y $90,000 $140,000
N_BR_10 Glenmoor Dr Rockingham Dr Ellenwood Ave New Facility III NA

0.36 1.93 Y $70,000 $110,000
N_BR_11 Ellenwood Ave Routier Rd Nut Plains Dr New Facility III NA

0.46 1.93 Y $90,000 $140,000
N_BR_12 Nut Plains Dr Ellenwood Ave Rockingham Dr New Facility III NA

0.35 1.50 $70,000 $100,000
N_BR_13 Corvina Dr Bianco Way Marquam Way New Facility III NA

0.69 1.48 $140,000 $210,000
N_BR_14 Yukon River Way Klamath River Dr Ambassador Dr New Facility III NA

0.12 1.46 $20,000 $30,000
N_BR_15 Azienda Dr Baroque Dr &
Graciano Dr
Oselot Way New Facility III NA

0.08 1.37 $20,000 $30,000
N_BR_16 Queenwood Dr Zinfandel Dr Scotsman Way New Facility III NA

0.42 1.59 $80,000 $130,000
N_BR_17 Dawes St Rinda Dr Folsom Blvd New Facility III NA

0.76 2.12 Y $150,000 $230,000
N_BR_18 Glass Beach Dr Douglas Rd Mackerricher Way New Facility III NA

0.56 1.21 $110,000 $170,000
N_BR_19 Knightsbrook Ave Cypress Grove Rd Salt Point Way New Facility III NA

0.37 1.19 $70,000 $110,000
N_BR_20 Anza Way / Mapola
Way
Benita Dr Bridlewood Dr New Facility III NA

0.33 1.91 Y $70,000 $100,000
N_BR_21 El Manto Dr Coloma Rd Anza Way New Facility III NA

0.35 2.24 Y $70,000 $100,000
N_BR_22 Campana Way Pinturo Way Glenfaire Dr New Facility III NA

0.65 1.85 Y $130,000 $200,000
N_BR_23 Gadsten Way Zinfandel Dr Queenwood Dr New Facility III NA

0.30 1.77 $60,000 $90,000
N_BR_24 Glenhaven Way Cordova Ln Queenwood Dr New Facility III NA

0.32 1.60 $60,000 $100,000
N_BR_25 Atwood Dr / Beclan Dr Aramon Dr Cordova Ln New Facility III NA

0.51 1.57 $100,000 $150,000
N_BR_26 Dolecetto Dr / Las
Casas Way
La Loma Dr Ellenbrook Dr New Facility III NA

0.66 1.42 Y $130,000 $200,000
N_BR_27 Gilbert Way Malaga Way Dolecetto Dr New Facility III NA

0.24 1.38 $50,000 $70,000
N_BR_28 Los Amigos Dr Paseo Dr Malaga Way New Facility III NA

0.17 1.36 $30,000 $50,000
N_BR_29 Rinda Dr Chase Dr Moraine Cir New Facility III NA

0.34 1.52 $70,000 $100,000
N_BR_30 Gould Way / Crawford
Way
Ellenwood Ave Glenmoor Dr New Facility III NA

0.27 1.88 Y $50,000 $80,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

11 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
N_BR_31 Stirling Park Dr Rod Beaudry Dr Stirling Park Dr New Facility III NA

0.14 1.53 $30,000 $40,000
N_BR_32 Cristom Dr Kilgore Rd / Ocelot
Way
Marquam Way New Facility III NA

0.39 1.44 $80,000 $120,000
N_BR_33 Fendant Dr Baroque Dr Corvina Dr New Facility III NA

0.23 1.45 $50,000 $70,000
N_BR_34 Sarapiqui Way Lagarto Way Irazu Way New Facility III NA

0.44 1.23 $90,000 $130,000
N_BR_35 Lambrusca Dr Chardonay Dr Aramon Dr New Facility III NA

0.33 1.25 Y $70,000 $100,000
N_BR_36 Ohio River Dr Klamath River Dr Klamath River Dr New Facility III NA

0.28 1.39 $60,000 $80,000
N_BR_37 Oakton Way Woodlawn Dr Ambassador Dr New Facility III NA

0.49 1.61 $100,000 $150,000
N_BR_38 Tusket River Dr /
Moose River Ct
Trinity River Dr American River
Parkway Access
New Facility III NA

0.30 1.38 Y $60,000 $90,000
N_BR_39 Bexley Dr Explorer Dr Routier Rd New Facility III NA

0.65 1.84 $130,000 $200,000
N_BR_40 Forestlake Dr McGregor Dr Ambassador Dr New Facility III NA

0.39 1.57 $80,000 $120,000
N_BR_41 Tinta Fina Dr Zinfandel Dr Baroque Dr New Facility III NA

0.58 1.49 $120,000 $170,000
N_BR_42 Montelena Dr Cobble Brook Dr Douglas Rd New Facility III NA

0.21 0.75 $40,000 $60,000
N_BR_43 Iron Gate Way Aragon Way Douglas Rd New Facility III NA

0.27 1.46 $50,000 $80,000
N_BR_44 Sophistry Dr Appolon Dr Chrysanthy Blvd New Facility III NA

0.72 1.47 $140,000 $220,000
N_BR_45 Robola Way Stone Creek
Community Bike Trail
Bear Hollow Dr New Facility III NA

0.14 1.49 $30,000 $40,000
N_BR_46 Furmint Way Malaga Way Dolecetto Dr New Facility III NA

0.18 1.63 $40,000 $60,000
N_BR_47 Cobble Brook Dr Aura Way Hetch Hechy Dr New Facility III NA

0.15 $30,000 $40,000
N_SB_1 Trinity River Dr Klamath River Dr Sunrise Blvd & Gold Express Dr
New Facility IV NA

0.08 1.35 Y $250,000 $330,000
N_SB_2 Trinity River Dr Coloma Rd Klamath River Dr New Facility IV NA

0.04 1.55 $130,000 $170,000
N_SB_3 Kilgore Rd Folsom Blvd Trade Center Dr New Facility IV NA

0.23 1.64 Y $700,000 $940,000
N_SB_4 Olson Dr Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd New Facility IV NA

0.67 2.62 Y $2,000,000 $2,670,000
NR_SUP_01 Park West Trail Americanos Trail International Dr New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.56 0.00 $1,950,000 $2,510,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

12 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_SUP_02 Montelena Preserve
Trail
Chrysanthy Blvd Chrysanthy Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

1.05 0.00 $3,670,000 $4,720,000
NR_SUP_03 Westbourough Trail City Limits City Limits New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.24 0.00 $830,000 $1,070,000
NR_SUP_04 Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Sunrise Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

2.39 0.00 $8,370,000 $10,760,000
NR_SUP_05 Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Sunrise Blvd Jackson Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.11 0.00 $370,000 $470,000
NR_SUP_06 Westbourough Trail Aerojet Spur Trail City Limits New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.56 0.00 $5,460,000 $7,020,000
NR_SUP_07 Rio Del Oro West Trail White Rock Rd Trail Aerojet Spur Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.15 0.00 $4,010,000 $5,160,000
NR_SUP_08 Mather Field Trail Old Placerville Rd Jackson Rd New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

2.74 0.00 $9,600,000 $12,350,000
NR_SUP_09 Suncreek West
Connector Trail
Sunrise Blvd Kiefer Blvd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.31 0.00 $1,080,000 $1,390,000
NR_SUP_10 Americanos Spur Trail Americanos Trail End New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.08 0.00 $270,000 $350,000
NR_SUP_11 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
Douglas Rd Morrison Creek Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.59 0.00 $2,050,000 $2,630,000
NR_SUP_12 Jaeger Ranch Trail Americanos Trail Americanos Ulcc Connector Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.87 0.00 $3,050,000 $3,930,000
NR_SUP_13 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Interchange
West Trail
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
Westborough Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.26 0.00 $900,000 $1,160,000
NR_SUP_14 Suncreek West Trail The Arboretum West
Trail
The Arboretum Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.21 0.00 $740,000 $960,000
NR_SUP_15 The Arboretum West
Trail
Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

1.18 0.00 $4,110,000 $5,290,000
NR_SUP_16 The Arboretum Trail Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

1.20 0.00 $4,220,000 $5,420,000
NR_SUP_17 Mine Shaft Crossing
Trail
Westborough Trail Folsom South Canal
Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.09 0.00 $300,000 $380,000
NR_SUP_18 Jaeger Ranch Kiefer
Connector Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail Jaeger Ranch Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.50 0.00 $1,740,000 $2,240,000
NR_SUP_19 Upper Laguna Creek
Fsc Connection Trail
Sunrise Blvd Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.14 0.00 $490,000 $630,000
NR_SUP_20 Elder Creek Trail Kiefer Blvd Jackson Rd New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

2.22 0.00 $7,760,000 $9,980,000
NR_SUP_21 Americanos North
Trail
Westborough Trail Westborough East
Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.72 0.00 $2,510,000 $3,220,000
NR_SUP_22 Kiefer Blvd Trail Sunrise Blvd Folsom South Canal Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.10 0.00 $360,000 $460,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

13 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_SUP_23 Kiefer Blvd Trail Elder Creek Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.04 0.00 $140,000 $170,000
NR_SUP_24 Kiefer Blvd Trail Folsom South Canal
Trail
Elder Creek Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.01 0.00 $20,000 $20,000
NR_SUP_25 Upper Laguna Creek
Fsc Connection Trail
Folsom South Canal Sunrise Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.06 0.00 $210,000 $260,000
NR_SUP_26 Upper Laguna Creek
Fsc Connection Trail
Folsom South Canal New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.02 0.00 $80,000 $100,000
NR_SUP_27 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
Morrison Creek Trail Rio Del Oro Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.37 0.00 $1,280,000 $1,640,000
NR_SUP_28 Rio Del Oro Trail City Limits New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.08 0.00 $260,000 $340,000
NR_SUP_29 Rio Del Oro Trail City Limits Grant Line Rd New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.69 0.00 $2,420,000 $3,110,000
NR_SUP_30 Morrison Creek Trail Americanos Blvd Rio Del Oro Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.59 0.00 $5,560,000 $7,140,000
NR_SUP_31 Rio Del Oro Trail City Limits City Limits New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.18 0.00 $630,000 $810,000
NR_SUP_32 Rio Del Oro Trail Americanos Trail City Limits New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.10 0.00 $3,850,000 $4,960,000
NR_SUP_33 Rio Del Oro Trail Rio Del Oro West Trail Americanos Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.40 0.00 $4,910,000 $6,310,000
NR_SUP_34 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
White Rock Rd Trail Westborough Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

1.83 0.00 $6,410,000 $8,240,000
NR_SUP_35 White Rock Rd Trail Rio Del Oro West Trail Park Loop Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.32 0.00 $4,630,000 $5,960,000
NR_SUP_36 Americanos Trail Rio Del Oro West Trail Douglas Rd Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

3.80 0.00 $13,310,000 $17,110,000
NR_SUP_37 Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Jackson Rd Kiefer Blvd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

3.20 0.00 $11,200,000 $14,400,000
NR_SUP_38 Anatolia Trail Sunrise Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.09 0.00 $310,000 $400,000
NR_SUP_39 Preserve Connector
Trail
Preserve Trail (East) Jaeger Ranch Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.66 0.00 $2,310,000 $2,970,000
NR_SUP_40 Preserve Connector
Spur Trail
Preserve Connector
Trail
End New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.34 0.00 $1,180,000 $1,510,000
NR_SUP_41 Americanos Trail Sunridge East Trail Douglas Rd Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.14 0.00 $3,980,000 $5,110,000
NR_SUP_42 Blodgett Reservoir
Trail
Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.84 0.00 $2,950,000 $3,800,000
NR_SUP_43 Park Loop Spur Trail Park Loop Trail End New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.08 0.00 $270,000 $340,000
NR_SUP_44 Park Loop Trail Americanos Trail
(West)
Americanos Trail
(East)
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

2.79 0.00 $9,780,000 $12,570,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

14 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_SUP_45 Suncreek West Trail Suncreek West
Connector Trail
The Arboretum West
Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.34 0.00 $1,190,000 $1,520,000
NR_SUP_46 Westborough East
Trail
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
Westborough Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

2.13 0.00 $7,470,000 $9,610,000
NR_SUP_47 Grant Line Rd Trail Jackson Rd Sunrise Blvd & Sheldon Lake Dr
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

1.51 0.00 $5,290,000 $6,800,000
NR_SUP_48 Grant Line Rd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

1.05 0.00 $3,680,000 $4,740,000
NR_SUP_49 Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Grant Line Rd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.39 0.00 $1,350,000 $1,740,000
NR_SUP_50 Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail Grant Line Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

2.04 0.00 $7,120,000 $9,160,000
NR_SUP_51 Sunridge Ne Trail Grant Line Road Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.22 0.00 $770,000 $990,000
NR_SUP_52 Arden Way Connector
Trail
Arden Way American River Bike
Trl
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.15 0.00 $540,000 $690,000
NR_SUP_53 Alder Creek Trail Empire Ranch Rd Hazel Ave New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.43 0.00 $5,020,000 $6,460,000
NR_SUP_54 Stirling Park / Mira Del
Rio Connector
Stirling Park Dr City Limits New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.25 0.00 $890,000 $1,140,000
NR_SUP_55 Stirling Park / Mira Del
Rio Connector
City Limits Mira Del Rio Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.03 0.00 $100,000 $120,000
NR_SUP_56 Power Line Trail Preserve Trail (West) Preserve Trail (West) New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.39 0.00 $1,360,000 $1,740,000
NR_SUP_57 Preserve Trail (West) Power Line Trail Americanos Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.19 0.00 $660,000 $850,000
NR_SUP_58 Americanos Trail Jaeger Ranch Trail Sunridge East Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.14 0.00 $3,990,000 $5,130,000
NR_SUP_59 Americanos ULCC
Connector Trail
Americanos Trail Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.62 0.00 $2,180,000 $2,800,000
NR_SUP_60 Citrus Rd Trail Aerojet Connector
Trail
Sunrise Blvd Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.11 0.00 $390,000 $510,000
NR_SUP_61 Grant Line Rd Trail Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Jackson Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

3.03 0.00 $10,610,000 $13,640,000
NR_SUP_62 Morrison Creek Trail Rio Del Oro West Trail Rancho Cordova Pkwy Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

1.36 0.00 $4,760,000 $6,130,000
NR_SUP_63 Morrison Creek Trail Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
Americanos Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.77 0.00 $2,700,000 $3,470,000
NR_SUP_64 Sunridge East Trail City Limits Unknown New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.21 0.00 $750,000 $960,000
NR_SUP_65 Aerojet Spur Trail Westborough Trail Aeroject Connector Trail
New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.38 0.00 $1,320,000 $1,700,000
NR_SUP_66 Rio Del Oro Morrison
Creek Connector Trail
Rio Del Oro Trail Morrison Creek Trail New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.05 0.00 $170,000 $220,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

15 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_SUP_67 Ancil Hoffman Trail American River Bike
Trl
Unamed Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.21 0.00 $740,000 $950,000
NR_SUP_68 Rio Del Oro West Trail Rio Del Oro Trail White Rock Rd Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.03 0.00 $100,000 $130,000
NR_SUP_69 Rio Del Oro West Trail Rio Del Oro Trail White Rock Rd Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

1.08 0.00 $3,790,000 $4,870,000
NR_SUP_70 Jaeger Ranch Trail Kiefer Blvd Trail Americanos Trail New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.87 0.00 $3,040,000 $3,910,000
NR_SUP_71 North Campus Dr Preserve Connector
Trl
Americanos Trl New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.92 0.00 $3,210,000 $4,120,000
NR_SUP_72 Preserve Trail East 0 0 New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.34 0.00 $1,170,000 $1,510,000
NR_SUP_73 Preserve Trail East 0 0 New Facility
(new roadway)
I NA

0.53 0.00 $1,860,000 $2,390,000
NR_SUP_74 Rio Del Oro West Trail Rio Del Oro West Trail White Rock Rd New Facility (new roadway)
I NA

0.94 0.00 $3,280,000 $4,210,000
NR_BL_01 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.68 0.00 $200,000 $340,000
NR_BL_02 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.26 0.00 $80,000 $130,000
NR_BL_03 International Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.31 0.00 $90,000 $160,000
NR_BL_04 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.20 0.00 $60,000 $100,000
NR_BL_05 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.56 0.00 $170,000 $280,000
NR_BL_06 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.39 0.00 $120,000 $200,000
NR_BL_07 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.53 0.00 $160,000 $270,000
NR_BL_08 International Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.17 0.00 $50,000 $80,000
NR_BL_09 Villagio Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.87 0.00 $560,000 $930,000
NR_BL_10 Rio Del Oro Pkwy New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.32 0.00 $400,000 $660,000
NR_BL_11 Americanos Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.96 0.00 $290,000 $480,000
NR_BL_12 Centennial Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.47 0.00 $140,000 $230,000
NR_BL_13 Centennial Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.33 0.00 $100,000 $160,000
NR_BL_14 Pennsylvania New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.82 0.00 $250,000 $410,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

16 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_BL_15 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.20 0.00 $360,000 $600,000
NR_BL_16 Villagio Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.63 0.00 $190,000 $320,000
NR_BL_17 Americanos Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.43 0.00 $130,000 $220,000
NR_BL_18 Americanos Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.63 0.00 $490,000 $820,000
NR_BL_19 Rio Del Oro Pkwy New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.10 0.00 $330,000 $550,000
NR_BL_20 Villagio Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.38 0.00 $110,000 $190,000
NR_BL_21 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.29 0.00 $90,000 $140,000
NR_BL_22 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.94 0.00 $280,000 $470,000
NR_BL_23 Rio Del Oro New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.13 0.00 $40,000 $70,000
NR_BL_24 Kiefer Blvd Unnamed Rd Sunrise Blvd New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.41 0.00 $120,000 $210,000
NR_BL_25 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.17 0.00 $50,000 $90,000
NR_BL_26 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.39 0.00 $120,000 $190,000
NR_BL_27 Americanos Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.86 0.00 $260,000 $430,000
NR_BL_28 Pennsylvania New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.05 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BL_29 Jackson Rd Eagles Nest Rd Sunrise Blvd New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

1.04 0.00 $310,000 $520,000
NR_BL_30 Easton Valley New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.40 0.00 $120,000 $200,000
NR_BL_31 Aerojet Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.01 0.00 $0 $10,000
NR_BL_32 Aerojet Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.10 0.00 $30,000 $50,000
NR_BL_33 Aerojet Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.09 0.00 $30,000 $50,000
NR_BL_34 Aerojet Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.09 0.00 $30,000 $50,000
NR_BL_35 Aerojet Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.02 0.00 $10,000 $10,000
NR_BL_36 Aerojet Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.16 0.00 $50,000 $80,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

17 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_BL_37 Happy Ln Old Placerville Rd Bradview Dr New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.32 0.00 $90,000 $160,000
NR_BL_38 Happy Ln New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.88 0.00 $260,000 $440,000
NR_BL_39 Kiefer Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.77 0.00 $230,000 $380,000
NR_BL_40 Kiefer Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.91 0.00 $270,000 $460,000
NR_BL_41 Kiefer Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.77 0.00 $230,000 $380,000
NR_BL_42 Appalachian Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.05 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BL_43 Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.05 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BL_44 Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.13 0.00 $40,000 $70,000
NR_BL_45 Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.05 0.00 $20,000 $30,000
NR_BL_46 Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.03 0.00 $10,000 $10,000
NR_BL_47 Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.04 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BL_48 Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.03 0.00 $10,000 $10,000
NR_BL_49 Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.05 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BL_50 Bradshaw Rd Rudway Ct Folsom Blvd New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.05 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BL_51 Escobar Way New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.27 0.00 $80,000 $140,000
NR_BL_52 Hyannis Way New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.04 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BL_53 Mira Del Rio Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.09 0.00 $30,000 $50,000
NR_BL_54 Mira Del Rio Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.09 0.00 $30,000 $50,000
NR_BL_55 Mira Del Rio Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.18 0.00 $50,000 $90,000
NR_BL_56 Paseo Rio Way Mira Del Rio Dr Folsom Blvd & Horn Rd
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.14 0.00 $40,000 $70,000
NR_BL_57 Jackson Rd Grant Line Rd Mitchlen Ct New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.32 0.00 $90,000 $160,000
NR_BL_58 Jackson Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.42 0.00 $130,000 $210,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

18 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_BL_59 Jackson Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.17 0.00 $50,000 $90,000
NR_BL_60 Sunrise Blvd Jackson Rd Florin Rd New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.63 0.00 $190,000 $320,000
NR_BL_61 Sunrise Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.79 0.00 $240,000 $400,000
NR_BL_62 Hazel Ave New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

2.30 0.00 $690,000 $1,150,000
NR_BL_63 White Rock Rd Grant Line Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.48 0.00 $440,000 $740,000
NR_BL_64 Folsom Blvd Butterfield Way Bradshaw Rd New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.53 0.00 $160,000 $260,000
NR_BL_65 Oates Dr Gore Rd & Bradshaw
Rd
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.20 0.00 $60,000 $100,000
NR_BL_66 Grant Line Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.18 0.00 $350,000 $590,000
NR_BL_67 Grant Line Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.69 0.00 $510,000 $840,000
NR_BL_68 Grant Line Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.07 0.00 $20,000 $30,000
NR_BL_69 International Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.52 0.00 $150,000 $260,000
NR_BL_70 International Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.06 0.00 $20,000 $30,000
NR_BL_71 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.57 0.00 $170,000 $280,000
NR_BL_72 International Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.44 0.00 $130,000 $220,000
NR_BL_73 International Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.60 0.00 $180,000 $300,000
NR_BL_74 Eagles Nest Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.90 0.00 $270,000 $450,000
NR_BL_75 Eagles Nest Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.30 0.00 $390,000 $650,000
NR_BL_76 Kiefer Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.61 0.00 $180,000 $300,000
NR_BL_77 Eagles Nest Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.26 0.00 $380,000 $630,000
NR_BL_78 Douglas Rd Eagles Nest Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.36 0.00 $110,000 $180,000
NR_BL_79 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.54 0.00 $160,000 $270,000
NR_BL_80 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.30 0.00 $90,000 $150,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

19 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_BL_81 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.30 0.00 $90,000 $150,000
NR_BL_82 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.37 0.00 $110,000 $190,000
NR_BL_83 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.39 0.00 $120,000 $190,000
NR_BL_84 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.59 0.00 $180,000 $300,000
NR_BL_85 Americanos Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.56 0.00 $470,000 $780,000
NR_BL_86 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.34 0.00 $100,000 $170,000
NR_BL_87 North Campus New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.20 0.00 $360,000 $600,000
NR_BL_88 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.82 0.00 $250,000 $410,000
NR_BL_89 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.50 0.00 $150,000 $250,000
NR_BL_90 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.40 0.00 $120,000 $200,000
NR_BL_91 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.36 0.00 $110,000 $180,000
NR_BL_92 Easton Valley Pkwy New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.01 0.00 $300,000 $500,000
NR_BL_93 Easton Valley Pkwy New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.34 0.00 $400,000 $670,000
NR_BL_94 Rio Del Oro Pkwy New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.45 0.00 $140,000 $230,000
NR_BL_95 Pennsylvania New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.66 0.00 $200,000 $330,000
NR_BL_96 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.81 0.00 $540,000 $910,000
NR_BL_97 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.45 0.00 $130,000 $220,000
NR_BL_98 Centennial Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.97 0.00 $590,000 $980,000
NR_BL_99 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.36 0.00 $110,000 $180,000
NR_BL_100 Mira Del Rio Dr East End Paseo Rio Way New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.11 0.00 $30,000 $50,000
NR_BL_101 Kiefer Blvd Grant Line Rd Jackson Rd New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

3.18 0.00 $950,000 $1,590,000
NR_BL_102 Atlanta Cir New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.05 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

20 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
NR_BL_103 Hazel Ave Atlanta Street New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.11 0.00 $30,000 $50,000
NR_BL_104 Hazel Ave Atlanta Street Alabama Ave New Facility (new roadway)
II NA

0.26 0.00 $80,000 $130,000
NR_BL_105 Centennial Dr New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

1.18 0.00 $350,000 $590,000
NR_BL_106 Americanos Blvd New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.45 0.00 $140,000 $230,000
NR_BL_107 Unknown Future
Street
New Facility
(new roadway)
II NA

0.13 0.00 $40,000 $70,000
NR_BR_01 Micron Ave Mayhew Rd &
Huntsman Dr
Bradshaw Rd New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.74 0.00 $150,000 $220,000
NR_BR_02 Superfortress Ave New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.03 0.00 $10,000 $10,000
NR_BR_03 Superfortress Ave New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.06 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BR_04 Superfortress Ave New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.06 0.00 $10,000 $20,000
NR_BR_05 Superfortress Ave New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.08 0.00 $20,000 $30,000
NR_BR_06 Atlanta Cir New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.05 0.00 $10,000 $10,000
NR_BR_07 Atlanta Cir New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.02 0.00 $0 $10,000
NR_BR_08 Logistics Center Way New Facility
(new roadway)
III NA

0.02 0.00 $0 $10,000
U_BWS_1 Coloma Rd Folsom Blvd Sunrise Blvd Upgrade existing facility
Bikeway Study II

3.16 2.90 Y $200,000 $500,000
U_BWS_2 Sunrise Blvd Douglas Rd Kiefer Blvd Upgrade existing facility
Bikeway Study II

2.34 1.75 Y $200,000 $500,000
U_SUP_16 Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd City Line Upgrade existing facility
I II

2.43 2.68 Y $8,500,000 $10,920,000
U_SUP_15 White Rock Rd Sunrise Blvd Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Upgrade existing
facility
I II

1.49 1.44 $5,230,000 $6,720,000
U_SUP_11 Mather Field Rd Folsom Blvd Peter A McCuen Blvd Upgrade existing facility
I II

1.31 2.84 Y $4,580,000 $5,890,000
U_SUP_8 International Dr Mather Field Rd Sunrise Blvd Upgrade existing facility
I II

2.20 2.50 Y $7,710,000 $9,910,000
U_SUP_17 Gold Dredge Way Luyung Dr Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Upgrade existing
facility
I II

0.57 1.03 $2,000,000 $2,570,000
U_SUP_1 Bradshaw Rd Folsom Blvd Lincoln Village Dr Upgrade existing facility
I II

1.08 2.27 Y $3,800,000 $4,880,000
U_SUP_13 Old Placerville Rd Bradshaw Rd Rockingham Dr Upgrade existing facility
I II

2.25 1.85 $7,880,000 $10,130,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

21 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
U_SUP_4 Douglas Rd Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Grant Line Rd Upgrade existing
facility
I II

3.03 1.53 $10,620,000 $13,650,000
U_SUP_9 Kiefer Blvd Sunrise Blvd Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Upgrade existing
facility
I II

1.01 1.20 $3,550,000 $4,560,000
U_SUP_6 Folsom Blvd Mercantile Dr Hazel Ave Upgrade existing facility
I II

2.40 2.68 Y $8,390,000 $10,790,000
U_SUP_5 Femoyer St International Dr Mather Blvd Upgrade existing facility
I II

0.60 1.77 $2,100,000 $2,710,000
U_SUP_10 Mather Blvd Femoyer St City Line Upgrade existing facility
I II

0.19 $650,000 $840,000
U_SUP_14 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Chrysanthy Blvd Kiefer Blvd Upgrade existing
facility
I II

1.70 1.34 $5,960,000 $7,660,000
U_SUP_7 Hazel Ave Folsom Blvd Us Hwy 50 Upgrade existing facility
I II

0.13 1.31 $440,000 $570,000
U_SUP_12 Mercantile Dr / Sun
Center Dr
Folsom Blvd Rail Spur Upgrade existing
facility
I II

0.23 1.72 Y $810,000 $1,040,000
U_SUP_2 Chrysanthy Blvd Sunrise Blvd Jade River Dr Upgrade existing facility
I II

0.53 $1,870,000 $2,410,000
U_SUP_3 Chrysanthy Blvd Sunrise Blvd Americanos Blvd Upgrade existing facility
I II

1.39 $4,860,000 $6,250,000
U_BL_2 Vehicle Dr Coloma Rd Zinfandel Dr Upgrade existing facility
II II

0.34 1.87 Y $100,000 $170,000
U_BL_3 Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd Pedro Way Upgrade existing facility
II III

0.25 2.66 Y $80,000 $130,000
U_BL_1 Rod Beaudry Dr Tiffany Ln River Bend Park
Access
Upgrade existing
facility
II III

0.93 1.59 $280,000 $470,000
U_SB_14 Mercantile Dr / Sun
Center Dr
Prospect Park Dr Folsom South Canal
Rail Spur
Upgrade existing
facility
IV II

2.08 1.72 $6,250,000 $8,330,000
U_SB_11 Kilgore Rd Trade Center Dr Baroque Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

1.35 1.50 Y $4,060,000 $5,410,000
U_SB_16 Prospect Park Dr White Rock Rd Baroque Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

1.69 1.80 $5,060,000 $6,750,000
U_SB_9 Gold Center Dr Prospect Park Dr Prospect Park Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.43 1.27 $1,280,000 $1,710,000
U_SB_21 White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr White Rock Park Trail Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.67 1.85 Y $2,020,000 $2,700,000
U_SB_6 Data Dr White Rock Rd International Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

1.47 2.41 $4,420,000 $5,900,000
U_SB_7 Disk Dr Data Dr Prospect Park Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.44 1.37 $1,310,000 $1,750,000
U_SB_5 Capital Center Dr White Rock Rd International Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.57 1.92 Y $1,710,000 $2,280,000
U_SB_17 Reserve Dr Data Dr International Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.30 1.63 $910,000 $1,220,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

22 Appendix G – Project List
Facility ID Location From To Type
Recommended
Facility
Existing
Facility
Project
Length
(Miles)
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
U_SB_10 Horn Rd Routier Rd Folsom Blvd Upgrade existing facility
IV II

1.34 2.27 Y $4,020,000 $5,360,000
U_SB_18 Rockingham Dr Mather Field Rd Nut Plains Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.18 2.03 Y $530,000 $700,000
U_SB_4 Business Park Dr Horn Rd Bradshaw Rd Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.70 1.88 Y $2,110,000 $2,820,000
U_SB_19 Systems Pkwy Routier Rd Old Placerville Rd Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.49 1.50 $1,480,000 $1,970,000
U_SB_12 Lincoln Village Dr Viking Dr Bradshaw Rd Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.29 1.67 $860,000 $1,140,000
U_SB_13 Mather Blvd Femoyer St Debellevue St Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.52 1.77 $1,560,000 $2,080,000
U_SB_2 Baroque Dr Zinfandel Dr Zinfandel Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

1.31 1.47 $3,940,000 $5,260,000
U_SB_3 Bear Hollow Dr Zinfandel Dr Mather Blvd Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.88 1.52 $2,630,000 $3,510,000
U_SB_1 Airpark Dr Femoyer St Bear Hollow Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.32 1.82 $950,000 $1,270,000
U_SB_8 Folsom Blvd Sunrise Blvd Mercantile Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

0.93 2.68 Y $2,800,000 $3,730,000
U_SB_20 Trade Center Dr Mercantile Dr Sun Center Dr Upgrade existing facility
IV II

1.31 N $3,930,000 $5,240,000
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

23 Appendix G – Project List
Table 6 Complete Crossing Project List
Project ID Description Type
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
P_U_1 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Jackson Highway Undercrossing, Midblock 1.12 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_2 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Sunrise Boulevard Undercrossing, Midblock 0.14 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_3 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Rancho Cordova
Parkway
Undercrossing 0.62 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000
P_U_4 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Kiefer Boulevard Undercrossing 1.11 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_5 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Grant Line Road Undercrossing, Midblock 1.26 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_6 Folsom South Canal Trail at Sunrise Boulevard Undercrossing, Midblock 1.47 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_7 Folsom South Canal Trail at Sunrise Gold Circle Undercrossing, Midblock 0.89 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_8 Westborough East Trail at Easton Valley Parkway Undercrossing 0.8 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_9 Jaeger Ranch Trail at Kiefer Boulevard Undercrossing 0.82 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_10 Jaeger Ranch Trail at Central Park Drive Undercrossing 0.74 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_11 Americanos Trail at Americanos Boulevard Undercrossing 0.72 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_12 Americanos Trail at Americanos Blvd (near North
Campus Drive)
Undercrossing 0.71 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000
P_U_13 Americanos Trail at Douglas Road Undercrossing 1.41 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_14 Folsom South Canal Trail at Jackson Highway Undercrossing, Midblock 0.17 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_15 Sunridge NE Trail at Americanos Boulevard Undercrossing 0.33 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_16 Rio del Oro Trail at East Residential Road Undercrossing 0.66 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_17 Rio del Oro Trail at Rancho Cordova Parkway Undercrossing 0.78 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_18 Rio del Oro Trail at Centennial Drive Undercrossing 0.75 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_19 Rio del Oro Trail at Americanos Drive Undercrossing 0.73 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_20 Mather Heritage Trail at Old Placerville Road Undercrossing, Midblock 1.88 Y $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_21 Rio del Oro West Trail at White Rock Road Undercrossing 1.42 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_O_1 Rio del Oro Trail at Sunrise Boulevard Overcrossing 1.43 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_U_22 Americanos Trail at Rio del Oro Parkway Undercrossing 0.66 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_O_2 Americanos Blvd at Rancho Cordova Parkway Overcrossing 0.77 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_O_3 Aerojet Spur Trail at Folsom South Canal Overcrossing 0.89 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_O_4 Aerojet Connector Trail at Folsom Boulevard Overcrossing 1.45 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_U_23 Rio del Oro West Trail at International Drive Undercrossing 0.91 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_24 Rio del Oro Trail at Grant Line Road Undercrossing 1.08 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_25 Westborough Trail at Rancho Cordova Parkway Undercrossing 0.84 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_O_5 Promenade at US Highway 50 Overcrossing, Midblock 1.44 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

24 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Description Type
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
P_U_26 Stone Creek Central Trial at Zinfandel Drive Undercrossing 1.55 Y $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_27 Americanos Trail at Rancho Cordova
Parkway/Community Park
Undercrossing 0.75 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000
P_O_6 Folsom South Canal Trail at Justinian Drive Overcrossing 0.43 Y $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_U_28 Folsom South Canal Trail at White Rock Road Undercrossing, Midblock 1.55 Y $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_29 Americanos Trail at Villagio Drive Undercrossing 0.72 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_O_7 Stonecreek / Recycle Road Connector Over Folsom
South Canal
Overcrossing 0.96 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000
P_O_8 Mather Heritage Trail at Folsom Boulevard Overcrossing 2.67 Y $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_O_9 Rancho Cordova Parkway Trail at White Rock Road Overcrossing 1.31 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_U_30 Westborough Trail at Mine Shaft Crossing Undercrossing 0.83 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_31 Jaeger Ranch Trail at Crossing Road Undercrossing 0.8 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_32 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Arboretum Parkway Undercrossing 0.67 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_33 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Crossing Road Undercrossing 0.61 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_U_34 Upper Laguna Creek Trail at Waegell Parkway Undercrossing 0.65 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_O_10 Morrison Creek Trail at Dougals Road Overcrossing 1.54 Y $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_O_11 Rancho Cordova Parkway Trail at Douglas Rd Overcrossing 1.43 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_O_12 Upper Laguna Creek FSC Connection Trail at Folsom South Canal
Overcrossing 0.21 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000
P_O_13 Ancil Hoffman Trail at American River Overcrossing 0.4 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_O_14 Upper Laguna Creek FSC Connection Trail at Sunrise Blvd
Overcrossing 1.18 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000
P_AG_1 Power Line Trail at Chrysanthy Blvd At grade 0.83 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_2 Anatolia Trail at Rancho Cordova Parkway At grade 0.9 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_U_35 Jaeger Ranch Trail at Rancho Cordova Parkway Undercrossing 0.8 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 P_O_15 Americanos Trail at Chrysanthy Boulevard Overcrossing 0.77 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_AG_3 Preserve Trail (West) at Chrysanthy Blvd At grade 0.82 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_4 Folsom Blvd at Mercantile Dr (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.43 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_5 Sunrise Blvd at Elks Cir At grade 1.35 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_6 Sunrise Blvd at Monier Cir At grade 1.48 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_7 International Dr at Quality Dr At grade 1.51 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_8 International Dr at Capital Center Dr At grade 1.53 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_9 International Dr at Reserve Dr At grade 1.73 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_10 Mercantile Dr at Sunco Rd At grade 1.39 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_11 Sunrise Blvd at Fiorenza Ln At grade, Midblock 1.39 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

25 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Description Type
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
P_AG_12 N Mather Blvd at Stone Creek Community Bike Trail At grade, Midblock 1.52 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_13 Old Placerville Rd at Schriever Ave At grade 1.9 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_14 Sunrise Blvd at Bridge St At grade 1.41 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_15 Sunrise Blvd at Trinity River Rd (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.42 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_16 Sunrise Blvd at Fitzgerald Rd (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.36 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_17 Sunrise Blvd at Citrus Rd At grade 1.46 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_18 White Rock Rd at Prospect Park Dr (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.49 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_19 Kilgore Rd and Soccer Club Driveway At grade, Midblock 1.53 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_20 Sunrise Blvd at Sanders Dr At grade 1.52 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_21 Zinfandel Dr at Tinta Fina / Solera Dr At grade 1.53 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_22 Coloma Rd at Cordova Baptist Church At grade, Midblock 1.46 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_23 Coloma Rd at Dolcetto Dr At grade 1.8 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_24 Coloma Rd at Benita Dr At grade 1.96 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_25 Sunrise Blvd at US Hwy 50 Off-Ramp At grade 2.37 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_26 Zinfandel Dr at Baroque Dr At grade 1.53 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_27 International Dr at White Rock Rd At grade 2.21 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_28 11150 International Drive At grade, Midblock 1.5 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_29 International Dr at Lea Sterling Way / Correll Way At grade 1.51 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_30 White Rock Rd at Kilgore Rd (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.51 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_31 Mather Field Rd at US Hwy 50 Off-Ramp At grade 1.96 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_32 Mather Field Rd at Croydon Way At grade 1.99 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_33 Sunrise Blvd at Sunrise Park Dr (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.5 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_34 Mather Field Rd at McCuen Blvd (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.89 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_35 11020 Coloma Rd At grade, Midblock 1.7 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_36 Coloma Rd at Woodlawn Dr At grade 1.96 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_37 Coloma Rd at McGregor Dr (Midblock) At grade, Midblock 2.34 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_38 Coloma Rd at Rossmoor Dr At grade 1.63 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_39 Bradshaw Rd at Business Park Dr At grade 1.96 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_40 Bradshaw Rd at Micron Ave At grade 1.54 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_41 10951 Gold Center Dr At grade, Midblock 1.46 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_42 Routier Rd at Horn Rd / Mills Station Rd At grade 1.48 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_43 Rod Beaudry Dr at Stirling Park Dr / Cordova Glen Ct At grade 1.17 Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_44 Zinfandel Dr at US Hwy 50 Off-Ramp At grade 1.3 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

26 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Description Type
Priority
Score
Priority
Project Low Cost High Cost
P_AG_45 Zinfandel Dr at Gold Center Dr At grade 1.8 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_46 White Rock Rd at White Rock Park Trail At grade, Midblock 1.15 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_47 White Rock Rd at Capital Center Dr At grade 1.14 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_48 White Rock Rd at Quality Dr At grade 0.96 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_49 Kilgore Rd at Sylvaner Dr / Stone Creek Community Bike Trail
At grade 1.51 $ 300,000 $ 400,000
P_AG_50 Chrysanthy Blvd at Steccato Dr At grade 1.09 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_51 Chrysanthy Blvd at Jade River Dr At grade 1.08 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_52 Rochingham Dr at Old Placerville Rd (midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.3 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_AG_53 Zinfandel Dr at Olson Dr (midblock) At grade, Midblock 1.33 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_1 Folsom Blvd at Rod Beaudry Dr Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_2 Folsom Blvd at Routier Rd Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_3 Sunrise Blvd at Douglas Rd Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_4 Folsom Blvd at Olson Dr Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_5 Folsom Blvd at McGregor Dr Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_6 Sunrise Blvd at Trade Center Dr Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_7 Trade Center Dr at Citrus Rd Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_IU_8 Sunrise Blvd at Zinfandel Dr Intersection Upgrade - Y $ 300,000 $ 400,000 P_O_16 Folsom South Canal Trail at Chrysanthy Blvd Overcrossing - Y $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 P_U_36 Stone Creek Community Bike Trail at Zinfandel Dr Undercrossing, Midblock - $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 Table 7 Complete Sidewalk Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_1 Douglas Rd Known Gap 0.64 0.81 $32,100 $64,100
SG_2 Americanos Blvd Known Gap 0.29 1.53 $14,700 $29,400 SG_3 Routier Rd Known Gap 0.11 1.82 Yes $5,600 $11,200
SG_4 Mather Field Rd Proposed 0.10 1.71 Yes $4,800 $9,700 SG_5 White Rock Rd Known Gap 2.37 1.35 $118,500 $236,900 SG_6 White Rock Rd Known Gap 2.25 0.54 $112,300 $224,600 SG_7 Coloma Rd Frontage Known Gap 0.03 1.68 Yes $1,300 $2,500 SG_8 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 0.10 1.92 Yes $4,800 $9,500 SG_9 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.41 0.91 $20,300 $40,700 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

27 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_10 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.17 1.04 $8,500 $17,000 SG_11 Oates Dr Known Gap 0.03 0.86 $1,300 $2,700
SG_12 Rod Beaudry Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.37 Yes $2,100 $4,200 SG_13 Rod Beaudry Dr Known Gap 0.10 1.34 $4,800 $9,700
SG_14 Rod Beaudry Dr Known Gap 0.06 1.36 $3,200 $6,400
SG_15 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.02 1.19 Yes $1,200 $2,300
SG_16 Rod Beaudry Dr Known Gap 0.24 1.38 $12,200 $24,500 SG_17 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.03 0.85 $1,500 $3,100
SG_18 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.14 0.86 $7,000 $14,000
SG_19 Mather Blvd Known Gap 0.08 0.89 $3,900 $7,800
SG_20 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.12 0.86 $6,100 $12,200
SG_21 Mather Blvd Known Gap 0.14 0.89 $7,100 $14,200
SG_22 Norden Ave Known Gap 0.05 0.87 $2,600 $5,100
SG_23 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.05 0.86 $2,700 $5,500
SG_24 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.06 1.00 $2,800 $5,700
SG_25 Mather Blvd Known Gap 0.11 0.90 $5,600 $11,200
SG_26 Chaplain Ave Known Gap 0.01 1.04 $600 $1,200
SG_27 Bleckely St Known Gap 0.02 1.05 $1,000 $2,100
SG_28 Bradshaw Rd Known Gap 0.01 0.91 $400 $700
SG_29 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.02 1.04 $800 $1,600 SG_30 Bleckely St Known Gap 0.03 1.05 $1,300 $2,600
SG_31 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.01 1.04 $600 $1,200 SG_32 Raymer Way Known Gap 0.53 1.28 $26,300 $52,600
SG_33 Raymer Way Known Gap 0.53 1.28 $26,300 $52,600
SG_34 Bleckely St Known Gap 0.05 1.37 $2,400 $4,700
SG_35 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.05 1.03 $2,300 $4,600 SG_36 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.05 1.04 $2,600 $5,200 SG_37 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.04 1.03 $2,000 $4,000 SG_38 Mather Field Rd Known Gap 0.43 1.58 Yes $21,400 $42,700 SG_39 Mather Field Rd Proposed 0.01 1.70 Yes $400 $900
SG_40 Mather Field Rd Proposed 0.01 1.37 $400 $900
SG_41 Rod Beaudry Dr Known Gap 0.26 1.38 $12,800 $25,500 SG_42 Tannat Way Known Gap 0.17 1.19 $8,600 $17,200
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

28 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_43 Tannat Way Known Gap 0.17 1.19 $8,600 $17,200
SG_44 Dolecetto Dr Known Gap 0.21 1.22 $10,300 $20,500
SG_45 Augibi Way Known Gap 0.15 1.19 $7,700 $15,400
SG_46 Cabernet Way Known Gap 0.12 1.31 $6,100 $12,200
SG_47 Ambassador Dr Known Gap 0.15 1.54 $7,700 $15,500
SG_48 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 0.08 1.25 Yes $4,200 $8,400 SG_49 Fite Cir Known Gap 0.08 1.32 $3,900 $7,800
SG_50 Bradshaw Rd Known Gap 0.06 1.39 $3,100 $6,200
SG_51 Trade Center Dr Known Gap 0.14 1.60 Yes $7,000 $13,900 SG_52 Schirra Ave Known Gap 0.05 1.05 $2,300 $4,600
SG_53 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.14 1.00 $6,900 $13,800
SG_54 Bullard St Known Gap 0.03 1.00 $1,500 $2,900
SG_55 Norden Ave Known Gap 0.05 0.87 $2,600 $5,200
SG_56 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.07 1.39 $3,600 $7,200 SG_57 Terra Loma Dr Known Gap 0.04 0.89 $1,800 $3,600
SG_58 Dawes St Known Gap 0.05 1.66 Yes $2,600 $5,200
SG_59 Hirschfeld Way Known Gap 0.05 1.22 $2,700 $5,500
SG_60 Hirschfeld Way Known Gap 0.03 1.22 $1,300 $2,600
SG_61 Trade Center Dr Known Gap 0.06 1.60 Yes $3,200 $6,500 SG_62 Prospect Park Dr Known Gap 0.22 1.56 $10,800 $21,600 SG_63 Riesling Way Known Gap 0.07 1.30 $3,300 $6,700
SG_64 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.02 1.30 $1,200 $2,400
SG_65 Alicante Way Known Gap 0.02 1.31 $1,100 $2,300
SG_66 Coloma Rd Known Gap 0.00 1.44 Yes $200 $400
SG_67 Mills Station Rd Known Gap 0.01 1.37 $600 $1,100
SG_68 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.03 1.15 $1,500 $3,000
SG_69 Fitzgerald Rd Known Gap 0.07 1.60 Yes $3,400 $6,800 SG_70 Hydraulic Dr Known Gap 0.10 1.59 Yes $4,800 $9,600 SG_71 Fitzgerald Rd Known Gap 0.07 1.58 Yes $3,400 $6,900 SG_72 Manufacturers Dr Known Gap 0.02 1.56 $800 $1,600
SG_73 Fite Cir Known Gap 0.04 1.33 $2,100 $4,100
SG_74 Croydon Way Known Gap 0.20 2.01 Yes $9,900 $19,700 SG_75 Mather Field Rd Known Gap 0.14 1.05 $7,200 $14,400 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

29 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_76 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.03 1.40 $1,700 $3,300 SG_77 Routier Rd Known Gap 0.04 1.41 $2,200 $4,400
SG_78 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.06 0.82 $2,800 $5,700 SG_79 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.02 0.83 $1,200 $2,300 SG_80 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.08 0.72 $3,900 $7,700 SG_81 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.06 0.71 $3,000 $6,000 SG_82 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.06 1.34 $3,000 $5,900 SG_83 Old Placerville Rd Known Gap 0.04 0.85 $2,000 $4,000 SG_84 Ellenwood Ave Known Gap 0.05 1.59 Yes $2,600 $5,200 SG_85 Chaplain Ave Known Gap 0.01 1.04 $300 $500
SG_86 Chaplain Ave Known Gap 0.00 1.04 $200 $400
SG_87 Debellevue St Known Gap 0.03 0.86 $1,300 $2,600
SG_88 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.05 0.86 $2,600 $5,100
SG_89 Macready Ave Known Gap 0.00 0.85 $100 $200
SG_90 Schirra Ave Known Gap 0.01 1.03 $300 $600
SG_91 N Mather Blvd Known Gap 0.02 1.63 Yes $1,000 $1,900 SG_92 Elks Cir Known Gap 0.01 1.44 $300 $600
SG_93 Elks Cir Known Gap 0.11 1.44 $5,700 $11,400
SG_94 Elks Cir Known Gap 0.06 1.46 $2,800 $5,500
SG_95 Douglas Rd Known Gap 0.64 0.81 $31,900 $63,800
SG_96 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.02 1.15 $1,200 $2,500
SG_97 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.00 1.15 $200 $400
SG_98 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.06 1.15 $3,000 $6,000
SG_99 Ganzan Way Known Gap 0.16 1.19 $7,900 $15,800
SG_100 Dolecetto Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.19 $1,800 $3,500
SG_101 Dolecetto Dr Known Gap 0.01 1.19 $700 $1,500
SG_102 Ganzan Way Known Gap 0.00 1.15 $100 $300
SG_103 Ganzan Way Known Gap 0.15 1.19 $7,400 $14,800
SG_104 Dolecetto Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.20 $2,200 $4,300
SG_105 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.03 1.15 $1,400 $2,900
SG_106 Augibi Way Known Gap 0.16 1.19 $7,800 $15,600
SG_107 Dolecetto Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.20 $2,200 $4,400
SG_108 Dolecetto Dr Known Gap 0.03 1.20 $1,700 $3,400
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

30 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_109 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 0.04 0.90 Yes $2,100 $4,200 SG_110 N Mather Blvd Known Gap 0.04 1.63 Yes $2,000 $4,100 SG_111 Jackson Rd Known Gap 0.01 0.40 $700 $1,400
SG_112 Douglas Rd Known Gap 0.09 0.97 $4,300 $8,600
SG_113 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 0.06 0.86 $3,000 $5,900
SG_114 White Rock Rd Known Gap 0.63 1.56 $31,500 $63,000 SG_115 White Rock Rd Known Gap 0.01 1.56 $400 $800
SG_116 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 0.13 1.25 Yes $6,600 $13,200 SG_117 Douglas Rd Known Gap 0.35 1.74 Yes $17,500 $34,900 SG_118 Douglas Rd Known Gap 0.55 1.78 Yes $27,500 $55,000 SG_119 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 1.88 0.89 $93,800 $187,500 SG_120 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 1.34 0.78 $66,900 $133,700 SG_121 Sunrise Park Dr Known Gap 0.12 1.58 Yes $6,100 $12,300 SG_122 Mercantile Dr Known Gap 0.05 1.50 $2,600 $5,200
SG_123 Citrus Rd Known Gap 0.07 2.26 Yes $3,400 $6,700
SG_124 Folsom Blvd Known Gap 0.73 2.66 Yes $36,300 $72,500 SG_125 Point East Dr Known Gap 0.03 1.23 $1,700 $3,500
SG_126 Citrus Rd Known Gap 0.12 1.88 $5,900 $11,700
SG_127 Point East Dr Known Gap 0.08 1.24 $3,800 $7,600
SG_128 Citrus Rd Known Gap 0.08 1.24 $3,800 $7,600
SG_129 Grennan Ct Known Gap 0.28 1.87 $13,900 $27,700
SG_130 Folsom Blvd Known Gap 1.21 2.08 Yes $60,600 $121,300 SG_131 Hazel Ave Known Gap 0.10 1.36 $4,800 $9,600
SG_132 Marketplace Ln Known Gap 0.14 1.49 $7,200 $14,400 SG_133 Folsom Blvd Known Gap 0.84 1.61 Yes $42,100 $84,200 SG_134 Folsom Blvd Known Gap 0.49 2.20 Yes $24,700 $49,500 SG_135 Folsom Blvd Known Gap 1.02 1.54 Yes $51,200 $102,400 SG_136 Bleckely St Known Gap 0.04 1.05 $2,200 $4,300
SG_137 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.07 1.42 $3,500 $6,900
SG_138 Charbono Way Known Gap 0.14 1.43 $7,100 $14,200
SG_139 Charbono Way Known Gap 0.24 1.43 $12,100 $24,100 SG_140 Alicante Way Known Gap 0.11 1.32 $5,500 $10,900
SG_141 Zinfandel Dr Known Gap 0.01 1.42 $300 $600
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3

31 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_142 Zinfandel Dr Known Gap 0.02 1.43 $800 $1,500
SG_143 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.04 1.30 $1,800 $3,600
SG_144 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.04 1.30 $1,800 $3,600
SG_145 Malbec Ct Known Gap 0.05 1.77 $2,400 $4,800
SG_146 Cabernet Way Known Gap 0.13 1.31 $6,600 $13,200
SG_147 Beclan Dr Known Gap 0.10 1.30 $5,200 $10,400
SG_148 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.00 1.40 $200 $400
SG_149 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.01 1.40 $700 $1,400
SG_150 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.03 1.41 $1,600 $3,300
SG_151 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.08 1.42 $4,000 $7,900
SG_152 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.01 1.41 $400 $800
SG_153 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.06 1.42 $3,200 $6,400
SG_154 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.12 1.42 $5,800 $11,600
SG_155 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.04 1.41 $2,100 $4,100
SG_156 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.13 1.43 $6,500 $13,100
SG_157 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.04 1.42 $1,800 $3,700
SG_158 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.02 1.41 $900 $1,700
SG_159 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.07 1.43 $3,700 $7,400
SG_160 Ghianti Ct Known Gap 0.15 1.43 $7,300 $14,600
SG_161 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.01 1.42 $300 $500
SG_162 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.06 1.42 $3,200 $6,300
SG_163 Chassella Way Known Gap 0.11 1.44 $5,400 $10,800 SG_164 Charbono Way Known Gap 0.09 1.43 $4,500 $9,000
SG_165 Chassella Way Known Gap 0.00 1.42 $200 $300
SG_166 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.04 1.41 $2,100 $4,200
SG_167 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.00 1.39 Yes $200 $400
SG_168 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.25 1.43 Yes $12,500 $25,100 SG_169 Ribier Way Known Gap 0.00 1.39 $200 $500
SG_170 Ribier Way Known Gap 0.11 1.40 $5,300 $10,600
SG_171 Moretto Ct Known Gap 0.03 1.16 $1,400 $2,900
SG_172 Moretto Ct Known Gap 0.06 1.15 $2,800 $5,600
SG_173 Moretto Ct Known Gap 0.03 1.16 $1,400 $2,900
SG_174 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.15 1.17 $7,600 $15,200
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3