32 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_175 Furmint Way Known Gap 0.17 1.20 $8,500 $16,900
SG_176 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.03 1.16 $1,700 $3,300
SG_177 Furmint Way Known Gap 0.17 1.20 $8,600 $17,100
SG_178 Ribier Way Known Gap 0.15 1.40 $7,500 $15,000
SG_179 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.14 1.42 Yes $6,800 $13,600 SG_180 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.01 1.39 $300 $500
SG_181 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.07 1.40 $3,700 $7,300
SG_182 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.06 1.40 $3,000 $6,100
SG_183 Vernaccia Cir Known Gap 0.07 1.40 $3,500 $7,000
SG_184 Vernaccia Cir Known Gap 0.11 1.40 $5,300 $10,500 SG_185 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.01 1.16 $300 $600
SG_186 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.01 1.37 $300 $600
SG_187 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.04 1.38 $2,000 $4,100
SG_188 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.25 1.43 Yes $12,500 $25,000 SG_189 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.16 1.44 $7,800 $15,700
SG_190 Chassella Way Known Gap 0.19 1.45 $9,400 $18,700 SG_191 Chassella Way Known Gap 0.01 1.79 $300 $500
SG_192 Routier Rd Known Gap 0.21 1.73 Yes $10,600 $21,200 SG_193 Bradshaw Rd Known Gap 0.07 1.68 Yes $3,500 $6,900 SG_194 Garrett Way Known Gap 0.24 1.64 Yes $11,800 $23,600 SG_195 Gilbert Way Known Gap 0.04 1.65 Yes $2,200 $4,500 SG_196 Garrett Way Known Gap 0.24 1.64 Yes $12,200 $24,400 SG_197 Gilbert Way Known Gap 0.17 1.65 Yes $8,700 $17,400 SG_198 Ellenbrook Dr Known Gap 0.02 1.64 Yes $1,000 $2,000 SG_199 Ellenbrook Dr Known Gap 0.02 1.64 Yes $1,100 $2,200 SG_200 Sunrise Blvd Known Gap 0.39 2.25 Yes $19,400 $38,700 SG_201 Sunrise Blvd Proposed 0.13 1.80 Yes $6,700 $13,300 SG_202 Sunrise Blvd Proposed 0.01 1.80 Yes $500 $1,100
SG_203 Vernaccia Cir Known Gap 0.21 1.41 $10,400 $20,800 SG_204 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.02 1.05 $1,100 $2,200 SG_205 Femoyer St Known Gap 0.06 1.06 $2,900 $5,800
SG_206 Schirra Ave Known Gap 0.02 1.03 $900 $1,800
SG_207 Poopenaut Ct Known Gap 0.21 1.86 $10,400 $20,800 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
33 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_208 Canyonlands Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.84 $1,800 $3,600 SG_209 Croydon Way Known Gap 0.09 2.02 Yes $4,700 $9,400 SG_210 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.16 1.78 Yes $8,100 $16,300 SG_211 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.15 1.78 Yes $7,500 $15,000 SG_212 Mercantile Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.49 $2,200 $4,400
SG_213 Mercantile Dr Known Gap 0.07 1.52 $3,400 $6,700
SG_214 Mercantile Dr Known Gap 0.01 1.51 $300 $700
SG_215 Bleckely St Known Gap 0.01 1.05 $400 $900
SG_216 Gilbert Way Known Gap 0.23 1.66 Yes $11,300 $22,600 SG_217 Douglas Rd Known Gap 0.05 1.60 Yes $2,500 $5,000 SG_218 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.04 1.03 $2,200 $4,400 SG_219 Kiefer Blvd Known Gap 0.04 0.71 $1,800 $3,700
SG_220 Recycle Rd Known Gap 0.01 1.45 $300 $500
SG_221 Manufacturers Dr Known Gap 0.02 1.56 $800 $1,600 SG_222 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.00 1.15 $100 $300
SG_223 Malaga Way Known Gap 0.00 1.15 $100 $200
SG_224 Ganzan Way Known Gap 0.00 1.19 $100 $300
SG_225 Tannat Way Known Gap 0.00 1.19 $100 $300
SG_226 Tannat Way Known Gap 0.00 1.19 $200 $400
SG_227 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.00 1.39 Yes $200 $300
SG_228 W La Loma Dr Known Gap 0.00 1.35 $100 $200
SG_229 Beclan Dr Known Gap 0.01 1.30 $300 $700
SG_230 Riesling Way Known Gap 0.07 1.30 $3,700 $7,400
SG_231 Beclan Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.29 $1,900 $3,800
SG_232 Beclan Dr Known Gap 0.04 1.28 $2,000 $4,000
SG_233 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.00 1.42 $200 $500
SG_234 Charbono Way Known Gap 0.00 1.41 $200 $400
SG_235 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.00 1.41 $100 $300
SG_236 Barbera Way Known Gap 0.00 1.40 $100 $200
SG_237 Chassella Way Known Gap 0.08 1.44 $4,100 $8,200
SG_238 Charbono Way Known Gap 0.00 1.42 $100 $300
SG_239 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.02 1.30 $900 $1,800
SG_240 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.04 1.30 $1,800 $3,700
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
34 Appendix G – Project List
Project ID Location Status Length (Miles) Priority Score Priority Project Low Cost High Cost SG_241 Pedro Way Known Gap 0.04 1.30 $1,800 $3,600
SG_242 Cabernet Way Known Gap 0.00 1.30 $200 $300
SG_243 Cabernet Way Known Gap 0.00 1.29 $100 $300
SG_244 Alicante Way Known Gap 0.05 1.33 $2,500 $4,900
SG_245 Alicante Way Known Gap 0.05 1.31 $2,500 $5,100
SG_246 Alicante Way Known Gap 0.00 1.30 $100 $200
SG_247 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.02 1.37 $1,200 $2,500 SG_248 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.05 0.87 $2,400 $4,800 SG_249 Peter A McCuen Blvd Known Gap 0.04 0.87 $2,100 $4,200 SG_250 Borman St Known Gap 0.04 0.86 $1,800 $3,500
SG_251 Borman St Known Gap 0.03 0.86 $1,700 $3,500
SG_252 Bleckley St Known Gap 0.01 0.99 $300 $600
SG_253 Bleckley St Known Gap 0.03 0.99 $1,400 $2,800
SG_254 Bleckely St Known Gap 0.03 0.84 $1,300 $2,700
SG_255 Bleckely St Known Gap 0.02 0.84 $1,200 $2,400
SG_256 Femoyer St Known Gap 0.03 0.98 $1,300 $2,600
SG_257 Femoyer St Known Gap 0.03 0.83 $1,700 $3,500
SG_258 Femoyer St Known Gap 0.14 0.85 $6,800 $13,500
SG_259 Bullard St Known Gap 0.03 0.86 $1,500 $3,100
SG_260 Pointe East Dr Known Gap 0.05 1.25 $2,600 $5,200 SG_261 Grantline Rd Known Gap 0.00 1.07 $200 $300
SG_262 Kiefer Blvd Known Gap 0.04 0.71 $2,000 $3,900
SG_263 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.16 1.43 Yes $7,800 $15,600 SG_264 Aramon Dr Known Gap 0.02 1.40 Yes $900 $1,800
SG_265 Ribier Way Known Gap 0.01 1.38 $700 $1,300
SG_266 Ribier Way Known Gap 0.01 1.38 $700 $1,400
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
City of Rancho Cordova | Active Transportation Plan | April 2026 City of Rancho Cordova – Active Transportation Plan
Appendix H
Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail
Feasibility Study
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 1 Sunrise Corridor Bikeway
to Folsom South Canal Trail
Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | FINAL March 2026
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 2 The Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study seeks to close a key missing link in the regional active transportation network. Although the American River Parkway, Sunrise Corridor Bikeway, Folsom Boulevard Class I Bikeway, and Folsom South Canal Trail are all established facilities, they do not currently connect seamlessly in this area, limiting continuous bicycle travel across the network. The study evaluates options to extend the Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to the Folsom South Canal Trail, utilizing a decommissioned rail spur and a new canal crossing, to create a cohesive regional connection.
Completing this link would significantly enhance accessibility and mobility, particularly in light of the proposed Westborough at Easton Specific Plan and the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan, which would introduce up to 30,000 new homes combined, along with commercial uses, schools, parks, and a transit-oriented town center. By closing this gap, the project would provide future residents with direct access to the broader bikeway system and strengthen regional connectivity as the area’s population grows.
Project Overview
Study Area
Bikeways
Canal
Railroad
Green Space
Terminus of Sunrise Corridor Bikeway at Citrus Rd
Westborough Planned Development
Terminus of Sunrise Corridor Bikeway at Citrus Rd
N
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
3 Early in the project, a series of meetings and
workshops were conducted with City staff,
Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT), and other
stakeholders to identify potential constraints,
opportunities, and considerations that could
influence alternative development and feasibility.
These discussions focused on understanding
existing processes, desire lines, planned
improvements, and local insights that would help
shape the project’s overall direction.
Stakeholder interviews were a key component of
this effort, helping to establish the foundational
values, priorities, and concerns that informed
alignment development. In parallel, a City staff
working group was organized to collaboratively
explore and evaluate potential project alternatives
throughout the study area.
Stakeholder
Engagement
& Staff
Coordination
Summary
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM MEETING
Focused on gathering early input to inform alignment
development, stakeholder outreach, and coordination strategies for the future bicycle connection.
STAFF WORKSHOP #1
Focused on existing and future conditions to guide project development. The workshop identified key values, barriers, and opportunities through a mapping exercise where staff highlighted preferred connections and areas of concern.
STAFF WORKSHOP #2
Reviewed initial alignment alternatives, including discussion of the rail spur, which led to a reassessment of alignment concepts and refinement of project assumptions.
STAFF WORKSHOP #3
Revisited alignment options following confirmation that the rail spur was available for use. The workshop evaluated tradeoffs among alternatives and included a facilitated team exercise to identify preferred facility types for each project segment.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS MEETING
Reviewed upcoming CIP projects relevant to the study area and the Westborough Development, including planned pedestrian and bicycle crossings and roadway rehabilitation projects.
STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION MEETING
Met with the City’s Economic Development Department to
identify key business owners and parcel owners in the study area, many of whom have long-standing ties to the area and were identified as important stakeholders for outreach.
SACRT COORDINATION MEETING
Discussed ownership of the rail spur and the feasibility of accommodating shared-use paths alongside the rail corridor.
Topics included bicycle access through stations, required setbacks from the rail line, and permitted landscaping within the corridor.
JUNE 26
JULY 22
OCT 1
NOV 12
JULY 3
Key Meetings & Workshops in 2025
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 4 F D
C
E
D
D
B
A
Existing Conditions: Opportunities
Bike Facilities
Existing Bike Path Proposed Bike Path
Canal
Existing Bike Lane Proposed Bike Lane
Existing Bike Route
Railroad
A
C
E
B
D
F
There is an existing informal bike route
through the transit center parking lot
including a pedestrian rail crossing at the
transit center driveway; upgrades may
be needed
Existing signalized mid-block crossing
provides comfortable pedestrian
access to the transit station, though it
is primarily designed for walking rather
than biking
Light rail station driveway may provide an
on street connection for a bikeway with
grade-separated light rail, reducing track
crossings for active transportation users
to only freight trains but may require
traffic calming in the station parking lot
Rail spur crosses industrial parcels
and Folsom Canal; train trestle bridge
appears in tact
Existing shared use path along Folsom
Blvd could be extended east of Sunrise
Blvd to provide more connections
throughout the city
Existing bike lanes run along most
streets; modifications may be needed at
segments or intersections to create low
stress connections
Green Space
N
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 5 A
F F
G
C
2 D
E
B
Bike Level of Traffic Stress
Crashes
1 3 No Data
Canal
2 4
Railroad
Green Space
Existing Conditions: Barriers & Crash History
1 4
3 A
C
E
G
B
D
F
Crossing the canal, high berms impact
potential new access points
Sunrise Blvd and Folsom Blvd is a large,
stressful intersection with narrow existing bike
lanes and gaps near intersections
1 Fatal pedestrian crash
2 Severe injury sideswipe and broadside crash
3 Severe injury sideswipe and broadside crash
4 Severe injury head-on crash
The light rail and freight rail lines run along
the south side of Folsom Blvd and no new
crossings will be permitted
Existing streets are not comfortable due to
vehicle speed/volume/size and intersections have
visibility challenges given existing traffic control
Citrus Rd lacks ped/bike infrastructure off the
Sunrise Corridor bikeway
Folsom Blvd is a wide 5-lane road with no
sidewalk on most of the south side and high
stress, narrow painted bike lanes
Industrial parcels divide Folsom canal,
Mercantile Dr, and Folsom Blvd
N
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 6 Nine alignment alternatives were developed for
evaluation based on opportunities and constraints
identified during the existing conditions assessment.
Route development prioritized safe crossings of
wide industrial roadways with higher operating
speeds, potential new traffic signal installations,
and a new bridge crossing over the Folsom South
Canal to provide direct access to the Westborough
development. Key opportunities and constraints
were identified and assessed for each alignment.
From the nine initial alignments, three corridorlevel alternatives were advanced for more detailed evaluation. This screening considered tradeoffs
along Folsom Boulevard, including lane repurposing
versus utility relocation impacts, as well as along
Mercantile Drive and Trade Center Drive, where
facility type options were influenced by valley gutter
reconstruction needs and buffer treatments.
Each corridor alternative was evaluated using
planning-level criteria to identify key tradeoffs,
benefits, and constraints. Workshops with City staff
were conducted to review the evaluation results
and guide selection of a preferred alternative.
Within each evaluation category, specific subcriteria and performance measures were applied, and alternatives were scored on a scale of 1 (least
desirable) to 3 (most desirable) to support a
comparative assessment.
Bikeways Canal Railroad Green Space
Evaluation of Alternatives
Connectivity &
User Experience
Safety &
Comfort
Feasibility
N N & Cost
EVALUATION CRITERIA
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 7
FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL
MERCANTILE DR
TRADE CENTER DR
SUNRISE BLVD
FOLSOM BLVD
FOLSOM BLVD
SUNRISE CORRIDOR BIKEWAY
Based on the evaluation criteria, Alternative I, which follows Folsom Boulevard and Mercantile Drive, was identified as the preferred connection between the Sunrise Corridor Bikeway and the Folsom South Canal Trail. This alternative received the highest overall desirability scores for connectivity and user experience, safety and comfort, and feasibility and cost. It provides separated bicycle facilities that support All Ages and Abilities design goals. Implementation of the preferred alternative would require removal of one eastbound travel lane on Folsom Boulevard. Current average daily traffic and projected future traffic volumes remain within thresholds that support a lane reduction.
While Folsom Boulevard and Mercantile Drive form the primary preferred alignment, the alternatives analysis also identified the need for complementary improvements to Citrus Road, which serves as the key connecting street to the Sunrise Corridor Bikeway. Citrus Road currently has cracked pavement and lacks bicycle facilities and sidewalks.
To address this, improvements are recommended to ensure continuous, safe, and intuitive connections for people who walk, roll, bike, and drive in the area.
Preferred Alternative
Improvements
New or Modified Signalized Crossing
Improvement to Unsignalized Intersection
Proposed Class IV Two-Way Bikeway
Proposed Class I Shared Use Path
Existing Shared Use Path
N
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
8 Based on the evaluation of trade-offs
related to safety, operations, right-ofway constraints, and overall feasibility, typical cross sections are proposed for
each roadway segment to illustrate how
the preferred bikeway facilities can be
accommodated while meeting All Ages
and Abilities design objectives.
A planning-level cost estimate was
prepared using unit costs provided by City
staff and historical bid data. The estimate
includes anticipated construction costs,
engineering support, and a 25 percent
contingency. Right-of-way support costs,
including survey, legal services, appraisals,
and temporary construction easements,
are also included and total just over
$500,000. The rail right-of-way was also
evaluated, and the proposed project
limits reflect the maximum anticipated
encroachment needed to accommodate
the proposed Folsom Boulevard cross
section. Continued coordination with the
rail agencies will be necessary during
final design. Based on these assumptions,
the total project cost is estimated at
approximately $8.3 million.
Preferred
Alternative
12’ 4’ 11’ 11’
6’ 4’ 11’ 11’ 4’ 10’
CITRUS ROAD KEY CHANGES
4’ 4’ Remove one eastbound travel lane 10’ 4’
FOLSOM BOULEVARD
KEY CHANGES
MERCANTILE DRIVE KEY CHANGES
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 9 Full Design Considerations
BUFFER AND SEPARATION TREATMENTS
• Landscaped buffers to separate bikeways from travel
lanes and sidewalks, enhancing safety and comfort
• Street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and landscaping (including within utility corridors) to improve shade,
visibility, and aesthetics
• Fencing adjacent to the rail line to restrict unauthorized access and improve safety
UTILITY AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
• Coordinate with existing utilities to minimize conflicts and relocations; accommodate infrastructure where
feasible
• Evaluate and modify drainage as needed; integrate
bikeway drainage and green stormwater infrastructure
• Consider future undergrounding of utilities along Folsom Boulevard as part of long-term improvements
WAYFINDING
• Provide a coordinated signage system identifying
bikeway connections, transit, and key destinations,
consistent with City standards
Landscaping on Folsom Blvd west of Sunrise Blvd, facing westExisting Wayfinding on Sunrise Corridor Bikeway
Mercantile Drive Valley Gutters Fencing on Folsom Blvd approaching Kilgore Rd, facing west
MEDIAN ISLANDS AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT
• Install median islands along Folsom Boulevard to reduce conflict points and manage access, with final treatments confirmed during design
SACRT CONSIDERATIONS
• Incorporate traffic calming and signage in Sunrise Station Lot to discourage unsafe maneuvers while maintaining transit access • Corridor east of Sunrise Station identified for possible 3rd/4th track expansion
• Mercantile Drive spur use is feasible pending JPA ownership confirmation and any rights by Union Pacific Railroad
• Citrus Road spur discussions included designing for potential shared bus/BRT use
• Maintenance access constraints along Folsom Boulevard were noted due to new facilities and fencing; SacRT suggested coordinated corridor-wide access planning, including ongoing no-cost encroachment permits and/or designated ROW pull-off locations
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
Evaluation of Alternatives
The following roadmap outlines the progression of the project from early design and permitting through construction and long-term activation. Implementation of each phase is contingent upon securing funding, and the schedule between phases may vary accordingly.
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
FINAL DESIGN &
PERMITTING CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVATION,
MONITORING &
MAINTENANCE
1 YEAR COMPLETE
D
3 YEARS*
2 YEARS*
ONGOING
• Conduct detailed site
assessment, including right-ofway verification, utility conflicts, and environmental constraints
• Develop conceptual design
alternatives and confirm
preferred alignment
• Coordinate with SacRT, Union
Pacific, UPRR, and adjacent
property owners for access and
easement agreements
• Prepare preliminary cost
estimates and identify
short- and long-term design
considerations
• Prepare full design plans,
specifications, and cost
estimates
• Complete necessary
environmental clearances
• Obtain required permits from
SacRT, UPRR, USBR, and the
City of Rancho Cordova as
applicable
• Coordinate utility adjustments
and confirm easement
requirements
• Prepare construction
documents and establish
bid-ready plans for the first
construction package
• Construct a continuous Class
IV bikeway along Folsom
Boulevard and Class I shared
use paths along Citrus Road and
Mercantile Drive
• Implement temporary access
controls and safety detours to
maintain user safety and access
during construction
• Install permanent amenities such
as wayfinding signage, lighting,
and landscaping
• Conduct ribbon-cutting and
community activation events
(bike rides, walkathons, etc.)
• Monitor use, maintenance
needs, and safety performance
during the first year of operation
• Evaluate opportunities for future
extensions or connections
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA | Sunrise Corridor Bikeway to Folsom South Canal Trail Feasibility Study 10 *Estimated durations are planning-level assumptions and may vary based on funding availability, permitting, and implementation considerations.
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 3
Rancho Cordova
Active Transportation Plan
1 City Council | April 6, 2026
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
2 Overview
1. Intro & Approach
2. Plan Recommendations
3. Motion to Approve ATP
2 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
3 What is an Active
Transportation Plan (ATP)?
• Aims to create a vision for a more
comfortable and accessible
transportation network for walking,
biking, and rolling
• Provides project, policy, and program
recommendations and prioritization that
support active transportation
• Promotes economic development,
connects to education, recreation, and
other amenities
3 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
Project Approach
Caltrans Grant $301,295
Project Partners
4 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
5 5
Community Driven
2,700+ community touches
• Safety is the #1 concern
• Comfort and shade matter
• Separation from traffic
• Families and older adults need
better access
• Coloma Rd, Douglas Rd, and
Sunrise Blvd
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
Recommended
Policies & Programs
Advocacy Groups Support efforts to establish a representative group of advocates
Data Collection Collect, track, and report key metrics like before and after count data, citywide data to measure trends, and assess overall performance
Bike Parking Establish a funded Bike Parking Program
- Update City Code re: bike parking standards
- Invest in bike racks and lockers at destinations
Wayfinding Develop and install wayfinding signs for active transportation users
Emerging Technologies In-class education covering e-bike & e-scooter safety 6 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
Priority Pedestrian
Projects
7 Recommended Crossing Improvements Number of Projects
Overcrossings 4
Undercrossings 3
Marked Crossings 9
Marked Midblock Crossings 7
Signalized Crossing Improvements 8
Total 30
Estimated Cost $58.6M
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
Priority Bikeway
Projects
8 Estimated Cost $84.7M
Shared
Use Paths
12 Miles
Separated
Bikeways
7 Miles
Bike Lanes
6 Miles
Bike
Routes
6 Miles
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
Priority
Recommended
Projects
9 Pedestrian – Estimated Cost $58.6M
Bikeways – Estimated Cost $84.7M
Total Estimated Cost $143.3M
Grants Capital Developments
Improvement
Program
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
10 Comparison to Peer Cities
10 Citrus Heights City of Sacramento Elk Grove Folsom Rancho Cordova Sac County Miles of Bikeways
Shared
Use Paths
Separated
Bikeways
Bike
Lanes
Bike
Routes
#4
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
11 Comparison to Peer Cities
11 Shared
Use Paths
Separated
Bikeways
Bike
Lanes
Bike
Routes
Citrus Heights City of Sacramento Elk Grove Folsom Rancho Cordova Sac County Miles of Bikeways per Road Centerline Mile #1
ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
Storymap
CityofRanchoCordova.org/walkbikeroll
12 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4
/ Building on a strong foundation
Strong active transportation network with great assets
/ A clear vision for the future
Serving all-ages and abilities and grant funding
/ Investing in our community
Economic driver, access to education and all the amazing amenities of Rancho Cordova, and high quality of life
Recommendation
Pass a Resolution to approve the Active Transportation Plan to improve walking, biking, and rolling in Rancho Cordova
13 ITEM 19.2. ATTACHMENT 4