Attachment 2 Regional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County

Regional Pedestrian and Bicyclist Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County

Prepared by: Transportation Agency for Monterey County ● 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas, CA● www.tamcmonterey.org May 2016

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
1 | P a g e

Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Funding ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee & Community Involvement .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Goals .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Regulatory Requirements .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wayfinding Sign Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Identification of Regional Routes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Development of Wayfinding Sign Design .................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Step 1: Vision ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Step 2: Concept Development ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Step 3: Final Wayfinding Sign Designs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Implementation Strategy ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Coordination with Existing and Future Signage ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Sign Production ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Signs Per Mile ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Potential Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Jurisdiction Agreements for Sign Installation and Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Implementation Phasing .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Cost Estimates.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
2 | P a g e

Appendix A – Regional Bicycle Routes, Underlying Jurisdictions & Destinations ........................................................................................................................ 28 Appendix B – Draft Conceptual Designs ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix C – Final Wayfinding Sign Designs and Placement Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Appendix D – Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes ...................................................................................................................................... 59

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
3 | P a g e

Executive Summary
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County developed t he Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County to provide standard guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding throughout Monterey County.

The goal of the Wayfinding Plan is to improve access to regional destinations, provide consistent wayfinding signs for region al connections, and promote key sign features that jurisdictions will be encouraged to incorporate into their own signs in order to improve wayfinding within city boundaries. Uniform sign age supports residents and visitors who want to bicycle or walk for transportation and recreation, and can enhance each jurisdiction’s brand as a regional destination.

The Wayfinding Plan includes:
 Introduction: The overall goal of the Wayfinding Plan is to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and to promote bicycling and walking as viable transportation alternatives for Monterey County residents and visitors. This section describes the need and purpose for bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding signage, funding, the function of the Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee and community involvement in the development of the Plan.
 Existing Conditions: While the county is currently served by a wide variety o f bicycle facilities, the majority of the area lacks a clear, comprehensive, and consistent sign system that provides bicycle users with directional information and mileage to points of interest.

This section includes a summary of regulatory criteria for w ayfinding signage, and includes design criteria developed by the Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee. This section includes criteria for the development of regional routes and destinations.  Development of Wayfinding Signage: Development of the preferred sign design was a three -step process guided by an extensive community input process. This section describes the visioning process, concept development, and final design of the wayfinding signage.
 Implementation Strategy: This section includes information about the regional routes that will be signed , sign placement guidelines, sign production, and an estimate of the number of signs per mile. Potential funding sources, a discussion about jurisdiction agreements and information about implementation phasing are also included in this section.

Implementation of the Wayfinding Plan will begin once the Plan is adopted. TAMC will apply for grant funding for full implementation of the Plan, work on the procurement of signage, and will coordinate with the underlying jurisdictions to install signage.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
4 | P a g e

Introduction
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are integral components of Monterey County’s multimodal transportation system. This Wayfinding Plan is part of a regional effort to enhance the bicycle and pedestrian network to encourage people to bike or walk for transportation purposes.

Purpose
The need for a Wayfinding Plan was identified in the Transportation Agency’s 2011 Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan as a means for promoting bicycling and walking throughout the county . Wayfinding signs can ease navigation for bicyclists and pedestrians, reduce travel times, and enhance a region’s b rand by reinforcing key regional destinations. When combined with secure bicycle storage and a connected network of bicycle paths and lanes, a wayfinding system can attract the estimated 60% of potential bicyclists who indicate that they would cycle more o ften if it were safer and easier to do so 1. By enhancing the environment for bicycling and walking signs can also improve the visibility and safety for these alternative forms of transportation. Cities around the nation with significant bicycle ridership and pedestrian activity have implemented similar wayfinding plans and programs including: Berkeley and Oakland in California along with Portland, Oregon (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Examples of Signs
Berkeley, CA Oakland, CA Portland, OR

1 “Four Types of Cyclists”; Source: Roger Geller, Portland Office of Transportation.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
5 | P a g e

Funding
TAMC programmed $30,000 of Regional Surface Transportation Funds in the 2014/2015 fiscal year to prepare this Wayfinding Plan. For the next three years, TAMC has programmed a total of $90,000 for the implementation of the Wayfinding Plan.

Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee & Community Involvement The Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee is an ad -hoc committee comprised of project stakeholders including representatives from TAMC’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee, the County of Monterey, local cities, the Monterey County Health Depart ment, Building Healthy Communities, Fort Ord Re -use Authority, the Velo Club, Green Pedal Couriers, Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends, Pebble Beach, and Monterey-Salinas Transit. Table 1 lists the full Committee membership. The purpose of the group was to develop plan goals, assist in the identification of regional r outes to be signed, provide input on the preferred sign design and implementation. The group met monthly from February to November, 2015, and again in February 2016 to provide final input on the Plan.

In addition to Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee inpu t, Agency staff consulted with TAMC’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee (BPC), which is composed of volunteer representatives from each supervisorial district and city in Monterey County as well as representatives from public agencies an d a bicycle/pedestrian interest group, as appointed by the TAMC Board of Directors, and TAMC’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of public works representatives from each of the twelve cities in Monterey County, Monterey County Public Works, Mo nterey County Planning, Caltrans, Monterey-Salinas Transit, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.

Table 1: Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee members.

Stakeholder Representative
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Eliza Yu
TAMC Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee D.L. Johnson Building Healthy Communities Jeanette Pantoja
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Victoria Beach
City of Marina Justin Meek
City of Monterey Andrea Renny
City of Salinas James Serrano
Victor Gomez
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
6 | P a g e

City of Soledad Brent Slama
California State University Monterey Bay Bernard Green Fort Ord Reuse Authority Josh Metz
Green Pedal Couriers Michael Baronial
Monterey County Ryan Chapman
Monterey County Health Department Krista Hanni
Monterey-Salinas Transit Lisa Rheinheimmer
Pebble Beach Company Kevin Cole
Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends/Pedal Alpini, Inc. Eric Peterson Velo Club Bill Boosman

Lastly, TAMC staff developed a project specific Wayfinding Plan page on the TAMC website. Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee meeting agendas, meeting minutes and draft documents were posted on this site. Staff gathe red community input using the TAMC Wayfinding Plan mySidewalk page, an online public engagement tool similar in layout to Facebook . Agency staff used the mySidewalk to obtain input on regional routes and sign designs. The mySidewalk tool was particularly u seful in obtaining feedback on sign desig n, as people were able to vote for their preferred design. Figure 2 illustrates the Wayfinding Plan mySidewalk page, along with page view statistics.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
7 | P a g e

Figure 2: Wayfinding Plan mySidewalk page.

Goals
The overall goal of the Wayfinding Plan is to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities in order to promote bicycling and walking as viable transportation for Monterey County residents and visitors. Directing bicyclists and pedestrians to safer routes will increase traffic safety for all street users and will encourage bicycling and walking in Monterey County. Outlined below are the Wayfinding Plan’s specific goals.

1. Create uniform wayfinding sign design guidelines

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
8 | P a g e

2. Promote connectivity between communities and encourage connectivity to regional destinations, such as parks, trails, educational institutions, employment centers, transit, park and ride lots, and tourist destinations

3. Identify and brand pedestrian and bicycle routes and provide signage that supports new and infrequent users to walk and bicycle more frequently

4. Support the local economy by providing Monterey County residents and tourists with directional and distance information

5. Use wayfinding signage to provide distance information and facilitate pedestrian and bicyclist access to regional destinations within Monterey County Wayfinding signage should incorporate technology, and be accessible via GPS and online map tools

6. Wayfinding signage should be distributed equitably across the County

7. Create safer pedestrian and bicyclists facilities by using wayfinding signage to make bicycle and pedestrian routes more visible

8. Maintain community engagement throughout the planning process Existing Conditions
The region’s mild climate and relatively flat topography make biking and walking a viable mode of travel for county residents . There are currently 213 bikeway miles in Monterey County, consisting of 43.7 miles of Class I separated bike paths, 115.1 miles of Class II striped bike lanes, and 54.5 miles of Class III shared bicycle routes 2. Among the bike and pedestrian facilities in Monterey County , the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail is the largest Class I facility , extending from Lovers Point in Pacific Grove to Del Monte Boulevard north of Marina (14 miles). In addition, there are 8.4 bikeway miles on the California State University, Monterey Bay campus : 0.3 miles of Class I separated bike paths, 2.5 miles of Class II striped bike lanes, 4.7 miles of Class III shared bicycle routes and 0.9 miles of Class IV protected bike lanes.

While the county is currently served by a wide variety of bicycle facilities, the majority of the area lacks a clear, comprehensive, and consistent sign system that provides bicycle users with directional information and mileage to points of interest. The County of Monterey and each of the jurisdictions currently use the standard California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device guide signage indicating the existence of Class I, II and III bikeways. Caution Watch for Bicyclists signs are also used to warn motorists of potential bicyclist activity, such as where the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail intersects Sand Dunes Road in Monterey. Figure 8 shows the typical bikeway signage present throughout the region.

2 Data source: TAMC 2015 bikeways data.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
9 | P a g e

Figure 3: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices design spectrum. (Source: Alta Planning + Design)

Regulatory Requirements
There are many different types of bicycle wayfinding signs used in the United States. The most commonly-used signs are from the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( Federal Manual), as national compliance provides lia bility protection.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
10 | P a g e

The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California Manual) is the most commonly used guide in the State, and it conforms to and contains most of the signs in the Federal Manual, along with state-specific additions and modifications.

The goal of both manuals is to ensure consistency of traffic control devices. In the California Manual, street sign traffic control devices are defined as “signs, signals, markings…used to regulate, warn or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, pedestrian facility, bikeway, or private road open to public travel.” Both the Federal Manual and the California Manual require that wayfinding signage meet certain regulatory requirements, such as font type and text size . On the other hand, s ection 2D.50 of the Federal Manual, which deals with community wayfinding, allows for custom colors and enhanced graphics . Figure 3 illustrates the spectrum of Federal Manual compliance. In the visioning portion of the planning process, the Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee, along with input from community stakeholders, choose to develop a sign design similar to options #1 and #2 of the State Manual design spectrum.

Wayfinding Sign Design Criteria
This Wayfinding Plan sets uniform wayfinding sign design guidelines. In consideration of signage regulatory requirements, the Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee developed criteria for signs based on Plan goals. Signs should be clear , concise, consistent and compatible with existing wayfinding signs across jurisdictional boundaries, including into Santa Cruz County and San Benito County. More specifically, wayfinding signs design should meet the following criteria:

1. There will be three wayfinding sign types, including: gateway signage, directional and distance information signage, and add-on signage that can be placed on existing signage

2. Wayfinding signage should be accessible to people of all literacy levels, be legible to a wide range of users, and use symbols to convey directional information

3. Wayfinding signage should improve access to regional destinations, such as regional parks and open spaces, trails, educational institutions, major employment centers, transit, park and ride lots and tourist destinations

4. Wayfinding signage should provide information such as: location of bike supportive amenities, comfort level and ADA accessibility

5. Wayfinding signage should be eye-catching and have space for a city logo or identifier

6. Wayfinding signage should reflect the character of the region

7. When applicable, wayfinding signage will be placed in accordance with the regulatory requirements spelled out in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
11 | P a g e

Identification of Regional Routes
In order to meet t he goals of the Wayfinding Plan to promote walking and bicycling, connect bicyclists and pedestrians to regional destinations within their communities, and encourage connectivity be tween communities , it a best practice for signs to identify cities, downtown areas, neighborhood districts, regional p arks and recreation areas, academic institutions, and civic destinations . The regional routes and destinations proposed for wayfinding directional and distance signs meet the following criteria.

Criteria for Wayfinding Signs on
Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
Criteria for Identification of Regional
Destinations & Points of Interest in Signs
 Regional bicycle routes identified in
the Transportation Agency’s 2011
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
classified as Class I, II, III and planned
Class I, II, III, and IV facilities
 Routes with low volume automobile
traffic Routes near transit
 Destinations located along a route that
attract intercity or intercounty travel,
such as transit centers, regional parks,
colleges and job centers.
 Points of interest located within
vicinity of a regional route but not
directly along a route, such as transit
centers, regional parks, colleges and
job centers.

Using the Transportation Agency’s 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as a foundation, the Wayfinding Plan Advisory Commi ttee went through a regional bicycle mapping exercise. Based on this exercise, and on the input from a variety of stakeholder group s, including TAMC’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee and Technical Advisory Committee, the team created a map of key regional routes along which wayfinding signs will be placed, shown in Figure 4. Table 2 lists the length of these routes, a high -level description of the route’s streets and roads and destinations. An interactive map with these routes will also be maintained on the TAMC website. Appendix A contains a more detailed set of maps, and a table that includes regional route beginning and end points, and underlying jurisdictions.

Jurisdictions can also develop and place signage along their own local routes that may connect to the larger regional routes. In these cases, local jurisdictions are encouraged to use the signs in this Plan to promote their own local destinations.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
12 | P a g e

Table 2: Regional Routes
North County Routes Description Miles
1 Elkhorn Slough Loop Connects Pajaro, Las Lomas, Moss Landing and Castroville; via Salinas Road, Highway 1, Molera Road and Elkhorn Road

32.42 2 Pajaro – Salinas Connects Pajaro, Las Lomas, Prunedale Shopping Centers, Prunedale Park and Ride lot, Manzanita County Regional Park, North Salinas, Salinas, Spreckles via Hall Road, San Miguel Canyon Road, Prunedale South Road, Harrison Road

24.28 3 Salinas Periphery Loop Connects Southwest Salinas, North Salinas Shopping Center, Northeast Salinas schools and parks, Hartnell College Main Campus and Hartnell College Alisal Campus; via Davis Road and Boronda Road and crosses Salinas through Alisal Street

16.29 4 Marina – Salinas Multimodal Corridor Connects Oldtown Salinas, Salinas Amtrak Station, MST Salinas Transit Center, City of Salinas and Monterey County Government Centers, Hartnell College Main Campus, East Garrison, California State University Monterey Bay Campus, Marina Shopping Center, MST Marina Transit Exchange; via West Alisal Street, Blanco Road, Davis Road, Reservation Road, Imjin Parkway, 2nd Avenue and Divaty Street

14.94 5 North Salinas to San Benito County via San
Juan Grade Rd
Connects North Salinas and San Juan Bautista, San Benito County; via San Juan Grade Road

12.12 6 Castroville – Salinas Connects Castroville and Oldtown Salinas; via Merritt Street, Castroville Boulevard and West Market Street

8.17 Peninsula Routes Miles
7 Monterey Peninsula Loop Connects Castroville, Marina, California State University Monterey Bay, Seaside, Sand City, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach and Carmel-by-the-Sea; via Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail along the Peninsula, and California Avenue, General Jim Moore Boulevard, Canyon Del Rey Boulevard and Aguajito among other internal local city streets

40.89 8 Carmel – Monterey Connects Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey; via San Carlos Street, 5.11 Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
13 | P a g e

Carpenter Street, the Highway 1 bike path, Viejo Road, and Munras Avenue
9 Fort Ord Loop Connects Salinas, Spreckles, California State University Monterey Bay, and Fort Ord; travels via Highway 68 and Reservation Road

23.44 10 Fort Ord Inner Loop Connects California State University Monterey Bay, Seaside, Fort Ord, Ryan Ranch and Del Rey Oaks; via Gigling Road, Hennekens Ranch Road, Barloy Canyon Road and South Boundary Road

11.63 South County Routes Miles
11 Marina – Greenfield via Reservation Rd &
River Rd
Connects Marina, East Garrison, Salinas, Spreckles, Fort Romie and Greenfield; travels via Reservation Road and River Road

49.31 12 Salinas – King City & San Ardo Connects Salinas, Chualar, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, King City, San Lucas and San Ardo ; travels via Natividad Road, Old Stage Road, Old US 101 roads, Metz Road and Cattleman Road

65.31 13 Carmel Valley – Greenfield Connects Carmel Valley to Greenfield; via Carmel Valley Road 55.52 14 Soledad – Pinnacles Connects Soledad to the Pinnacles National Park; via Highway 146 9.31

Figure 4: Overview of Regional Routes

It is important to note that there are routes, such as the Carmel Valley to Greenfield Route, identified along corridors that do not have official existing or planned bicycle facilities, but instead are considered commonly used routes. In these cases, route segments will be analyzed for potential inclusion in the upcoming Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update, and can be signed at a later phase.

Development of Wayfinding Sign Design
Step 1: Vision
The Transportation Agency contracted with Alta Planning + Design to develop designs for gateway signs, directional and distance information signs, and add-ons that can be placed on existing signs. On June 4, 2015, t he Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee participated in a visioning exercise to assist in the development of the wayfinding sign design concept s. As part of the visioning meeting, Committee members shared the opportunities and challenges in navigating Monterey County’s active transportation network and provided input on the preferred sign designs. Figure 5 summarizes the input from the visioning meeting.

Figure 5: Poster boards from the June 4, 2015 visioning meeting prepared by Alta Planning + Design.

When asked about the message that best conveys Monterey County, Committee members most frequently mentioned: beauty, scenic, friendly and fun.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
17 | P a g e

Committee members, staff and the public gave the highest ranking to: the Mountains to Sea color palette and textured aluminum, brushed steel and concrete to corten steel materials .

Step 2: Concept Development
Based on Committee, staff and public input gathered during the visioning session, Alta Planning + Design prepared three draft wayfinding design concepts. Each of the design concepts included a directional sign, a sign topper to be placed on existing signs, an information gateway kiosk treatment and a trail post design. Figure 6 shows examples of the three directional sign design concepts. The full set of draft design concepts are shown in Appendix B.

Figure 6: Directional Sign Design Concepts

Concept #1 Concept #2 Concept #3

Step 3: Final Wayfinding Sign Designs
Following an extensive community outreach effort and Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee discussion, Alta Planning + Design developed a package of final wayfinding sign designs, based on Concept #1, with elements from Concept #2 . Two design options were developed to allow local jurisdictions the flexibility to choose their level of conformity with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In addition, the decorative non -standard sign elements are now in the sign topper. Figure 7 shows an example of the final wayfinding sign design, with the complete design package shown in Appendix C.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
19 | P a g e

Figure 7: Final Wayfinding Sign Designs

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
20 | P a g e

Implementation Strategy
Coordination with Existing and Future Signage
There will be c oordination of signs with other current and future wayfinding signs in order to avoid sign clutter, as sign clutter is unsafe and undesirable. Existing signage for the Pacific Coast bike route along Highway 1, Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, signage for CSU Monterey Bay’s bicycle boulevard network, along with standard bike path, bike lane and bike route signs currently exist throughout the region. Figure 8 provides an overview of the existing signs throughout Monterey County.

Figure 8: Examples of Existing Bicycle Facility Sign Types Pacific Coast Bike Route CSU Monterey Bay,
Bike Boulevard
Class I Bike Path Class II Bike Lane Class III Bike Route

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
21 | P a g e

Wayfinding Plan signs will supplement existing signs, such as those that denote bike lanes and bike routes. Directional signs will be placed as prescribed by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Countrol Devices along a route. Appendix C contains typical placement scenarios. Sign toppers to identify the regional route name will be placed on top of existing bike path, bike lane and bike route signs, where feasible. Figure 9 shows an example of how toppers can be used to supplement existing bicycle facility signage. Gateway kiosks will be placed at trailheads, and can be placed in downtown areas or other areas with more pedestrian activity. It is the goal to place signs along regional bicycle routes identified in this Wayfinding Plan.

Local jurisdictions are encouraged to use the sign designs to sign their own local bicycle and pedestrian routes. The City of Monterey is in the process of initiating a citywide vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding sign plan. TAMC staff will remain involved in the process to ensure regional and local coordination in wayfinding sign locations and designs.

Sign Production
Two sign options were developed to accommodate local city preferences of using the standard directional plate that does not include miles or minute information and for Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee members that have advocated for in -house local sign shop production of the directional sign portion when possible. However, due to the limitations of local sign shops, Committee members discussed the need to contract out for the add -on signs that may be beyond the capability of local city sign shops.

Committee members have also suggested that TAMC should take the lead in the procurement of signage .

TAMC will issue an invitation for bids for production of the sign toppers and directional sign templates.

Signs Per Mile
Overall installation costs will be determined based on the number of signs per mile. In general, the number of signs will be determined by the number of destinations along a route. Appendix C includes sign placement guidance. Signs will be placed in conformance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. For on-street regional bike routes, directional signs will be placed at decision points where two routes intersect and confirmation signs, such as the sign topper pictured in Figure 9, will be placed about every 2 to 3 blocks on existing bikeway signs along a regional route . For the regional routes identified in the plan, Table 3 shows the approximate number of signs needed Figure 9: Sign Topper on
Existing Sign
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
22 | P a g e

per route based on route length and number of destinations. Appendix A provides detailed information about the street network and destinations along routes proposed for signage.

Table 3 – Signs per Regional route mile
Route Miles Destinations
(approx.)
Directional Signs with Sign Toppers
(approx.)
Sign Toppers for Confirmation Signs
(approx.)
Elkhorn Slough Loop

32.42 10 30

38 Pajaro – Salinas 24.28 11 65 85
Salinas Periphery
Loop

16.29 11 32 18
Marina – Salinas
Multimodal Corridor

14.94 8 8 10
North Salinas to San
Benito County

12.12 3 9 14
Castroville – Salinas 8.17 3 6 16
Monterey Peninsula
Loop

40.89 41 80 65
Carmel – Monterey 5.11 4 4 6
Fort Ord Loop 23.44 6 10 36
Fort Ord Inner Loop 11.63 10 10 18
Marina – Greenfield
via Reservation Rd &
River Rd

49.31 8 28 40
Salinas – King City &
San Ardo

65.31 16 50 130
Carmel Valley –
Greenfield

55.52 6 12 60

Soledad – Pinnacles 9.31 2 8 16

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
23 | P a g e

Mile marker posts should be used at intersections with other separated bike paths or when a direction sign is not used and at locations where the route is not explicit. Mile marker posts should be located at ½ to 2 -mile intervals along a corridor. For on-street bike routes, signs will be placed at decision points where two routes inte rsect, and in advance of turns. Pavement markings are recommended to be used in between signs to confirm that a bicyclist is on a preferred route, and to minimize sign clutter.

Potential Funding Sources
TAMC currently has a total of $75,000 of Regional Surface Transportation Funds budgeted over the next three years for the implementation of the Wayfinding Plan. However, this funding may be leveraged to pursue grants for full implementation of the plan. Other potential funding sources include: state Active Transportation Program, Transportation Development Act 2% for bicycle/pedestrian projects , city or county road funds, and local transportation sales tax revenues. Individual jurisdictions or TAMC can apply for Active Transportation Program funds to assist in the implementation of regional route portions.

Jurisdiction Agreements for Sign Installation and Maintenance TAMC staff will work coordinate sign installation and maintenance with local jurisdictions. Agreements, contracts or memorandums of understanding to install signs along a route will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Maintenance is a crucial component of the Wayfinding Plan. Once signs are installed, a GIS database should be maintained to keep track of sign stock. This database will assist in the development of a maintenance schedule . In case of theft, signs will be replaced on an as -needed basis.

Implementation Phasing
Throughout the planning process, W ayfinding Plan Advisory Committee members and members of the community expressed the need to prioritize signage along key areas where connectivity from one bike facility to another is confusing. Such areas, which will be signed in the first phase include:
 Canyon del Rey Boulevard (SR 218)
 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail in Sand City
 Carmel-by-the-Sea to Monterey route
The following routes will be signed in the second phase of the implementation program:

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
24 | P a g e

 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail from Marina to Pacific Grove  Salinas Periphery Loop
The regional routes that do not yet have existing or proposed designated bikeway facilities may or may not be signed until the facilities are in place. However, in some cases placing signs on proposed Class III facilities located along a regional route will make those routes Class III .

Similarly, future regional routes and trails, such as the Fort Ord Recreational Trail and Greenway, will be signed once they are constructed.

Routes that will be signed in the third phase include:
 South County route via River Rd (Marina – Greenfield via Reservation Rd & River Rd)  Salinas – King City/San Ardo
Cost Estimates
TAMC staff obtained estimates for sign fabrication and third party installation . Final cost will depend on loc al jurisdiction sign option preference, hardware preference and whether a third-party contractor or local jurisdiction staff will install signs . A visual of sign options with accompanying cost estimates for fabrication are shown in Figure 10, and cost estimates for hardware and third-party contractor installation are shown in Table 3.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
25 | P a g e

Figure 10: Sign Cost Estimate

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
26 | P a g e

Table 3: Hardware & Installation Estimates
Item Cost Estimate
Galvanized Steel Unistrut Pole $158.00
Galvanized Steel Cylindrical Pole $78.00
Installed into a Concrete Footer $676.00
Installed into soil 3’ deep, no concrete $360.00

In considering the fabrication costs and the costs of new cylindrical sign poles TAMC has developed a draft estimate for the implementation of the Wayfinding Plan. The estimate was prepared assuming a sign cost of $250 per sign, which includes the cost of a sign with topper and a cylindrical pole, and $70 per sign topper to act as a confirmation sign and to be placed on an existing sign. The total cost estimate for signs for all three phases is $125, 710. Table 4 summarizes this budget for the cost of purchasing signs only, and does not include installation costs.

Local jurisdiction ability to install signs or the need to use a third-party contractor will determine the final installation cost.

Table 4: Cost Estimate for Each Phase of Implementation Phase 1
Cost per
Route
Total
Signs
Directional
Signs
Confirmation
Signs
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail in Sand City $1,140 6 4 2 Carmel-by-the-Sea to Monterey route $1,420 10 4 6
Canyon del Rey Boulevard (SR 218) $1,530 9 5 4
Total Signs Phase 1

25 13 12
Total Cost Estimate for Signs - Phase 1 $4,090

$3,250 $840
Phase 2
Cost per
Route
Total
Signs
Directional
Signs
Confirmation
Signs
Monterey Peninsula Loop: Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail from Marina to Pacific Grove $20,950 145 60 85
Salinas Periphery Loop $9,260 50 32 18
Total Signs Phase 1

195 92 103
Total Cost Estimate for Signs - Phase 2 $30,210

$23,000 $7,210
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
27 | P a g e

Phase 3
Cost per
Route
Total
Signs
Directional
Signs
Confirmation
Signs
Elkhorn Slough Loop $10,160 68 30 38
Pajaro – Salinas $22,200 150 65 85
Marina – Salinas Multimodal Corridor $2,700 18 8 10
North Salinas to San Benito County $3,230 23 9 14
Castroville – Salinas $2,620 22 6 16
Fort Ord Loop $5,020 46 10 36
Fort Ord Inner Loop $3,760 28 10 18
Marina - Greenfield via Reservation Rd & River Rd $9,800 68 28 40 Salinas - King City & San Ardo $21,600 180 50 130
Carmel Valley - Greenfield $7,200 72 12 60
Soledad - Pinnacles $3,120 24 8 16
Total Signs Phase 3

749 268 481
Total Cost Estimate for Signs - Phase 3 $91,410

$67,000 $33,670

Total for all 3 Phases $125,710

Implementation of the Wayfinding Plan will begin once the Plan is adopted. TAMC will pursue grant funding for implementation of the Plan as opportunities arise, work on the procurement of signage, and will coordinate with the underlying jurisdictions to install signage.

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
28 | P a g e

Appendix A – Regional Bicycle Routes, Underlying Jurisdictions & Destinations The regional routes identified in the Wayfinding Plan will be signed and are detailed in this section. This section also includes maps of the regional routes. An interactive map of the routes will also be maintained on the TAMC website.

North County Routes
Route Miles Underlying Jurisdiction(s) Street Network Destinations & Points of Interest
Elkhorn Slough Loop

32.42 Monterey County
Caltrans
On the West Side:
- McGowan Road
- Trafton Road
- Bluff Road
- Jensen Road
- Highway 1
- Molera Road

On the East Side:
- Salinas Road
- Elkhorn Road
- Omart Road
- Del Monte Farms Road
- Castroville Boulevard
- Watsonville
- Pajaro
- Pajaro Middle
School
- Las Lomas
- Elkhorn Slough
Preserve
- Kirby Park
- Moss Landing
- Moss Landing State
Wildlife Area
- Royal Oaks County
Park
- Castroville
Pajaro – Salinas 24.28 Monterey County
City of Salinas
From Las Lomas/Prunedale:
- Hall Road
- San Miguel Canyon Road
- Prunedale North Road
- Prunedale South Road
- Reese Circle
- County Meadows Road
- Harrison Road

From Salinas:
- Las Lomas
- Manzanita County
Park
- Prunedale
Shopping Center
- Bolsa Knolls School
- Santa Rita School
- North Salinas
Shopping District
- Salinas Sports
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
29 | P a g e

- Russell Road
- San Juan Grade Road
- North Main Street
- East Alvin Drive
- Maryal Drive
- East Bernal Drive
- Sherwood Drive
- East Front Street
- East Abbott Street
- Harkins Road
- Spreckles Avenue

Complex
- Sherwood Park
- Oldtown Salinas
- Spreckles
- Highway 68
Salinas Periphery Loop 16.29 City of Salinas From the East:
- East Alisal Street
- Bardin Road
- Williams Road
- East Boronda Road

From the North:
- Boronda Road
- North Davis Road

From the West:
- South Davis Road
- Blanco Road
- West Alisal Street
- Hartnell College
Alisal Campus
- Alisal High School
- Natividad Creek
Park
- Everett Alvarez
High School
- North Salinas
Shopping District
- North Davis
Shopping District
- Hartnell Park
- Hartnell College
- Monterey County
Civic Center
- Salinas City Hall
- Oldtown Salinas

Marina – Salinas
Multimodal Corridor

14.94 City of Salinas
Monterey County
From Salinas:
- Salinas Street
- Oldtown Salinas
- Monterey County
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
30 | P a g e

City of Marina - West Alisal
- Blanco Road

To Marina:
- South Davis Road
- Reservation Road
- Imjin Parkway
- 2nd Avenue
- Divarty Street
Civic Center
- Hartnell College
- Hartnell Park
- East Garrison
- Marina Equestrian
Center
- California State
University,
Monterey Bay
- Monterey
Peninsula College
at Marina

North Salinas to San Benito
County via San Juan Grade Rd

12.12 City of Salinas
Monterey County
- San Juan Grade Road
- Salinas Road
- Bolsa Knolls
School?
- San Juan Bautista

Salinas – Castroville 8.91 City of Salinas
Monterey County
From Salinas:
- East Market Street
- West Market Street

To Castroville:
- Castroville Boulevard
- Merritt Street

- Oldtown Salinas
- Salinas Rail Station
- Castroville
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
31 | P a g e

Peninsula Routes
Route Miles Underlying Jurisdictions Street Network Destinations & Points of Interest
Monterey Peninsula Loop 40.89 Monterey County
City of Marina
City of Seaside
Sand City
California State Parks
City of Monterey
Monterey Peninsula
Regional Park District
City of Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Company
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

On the Peninsula Side (North to
South):

Castroville Area:
- Castroville Bike Path
(parallel to Highway 156)
- Nashua Road
- Monte Road
Marina, Seaside, Sand City Area:
- Monterey Bay Sanctuary
Scenic Trail (parallel to
Del Monte Boulevard)
Monterey Area:
- Monterey Bay Sanctuary
Scenic Trail (parallel to
Highway 1)
- Monterey Bay Sanctuary
Scenic Trail (City of
Monterey portion)
Pacific Grove Area:
- Monterey Bay Sanctuary
Scenic Trail (City of Pacific
Grove portion)
- Oceanview Boulevard
- Sunset Drive
Pebble Beach Area:
- 17 Mile Drive
- Spyglass Hill Road
On the Peninsula Side
(North to South):
- Castroville
- Marina
- Locke-Paddon Park
- Marina Courthouse
- Fort Ord Dunes
State Park
- Seaside High School
- Sand City
- Monterey State
Beach
- Del Monte Lake
- Naval Post
Graduate School
- Fisherman’s Wharf
- Fisherman’s
Shoreline Park
- San Carlos Beach
Park
- Presidio of
Monterey
- Cannery Row
- Monterey Bay
Aquarium
- Lover’s Point Park
- Asilomar State
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
33 | P a g e

- 17 Mile Drive
Carmel Area:
- Carmel Way
- North San Antonio
Avenue
- Ocean Avenue
- Scenic Drive
- Carmelo Street
- Dolores Street
- Lasuen Drive
- Rio Road

On the Inland Side (North to
South):

Marina, Seaside, Sand City Area:
- California Avenue
- Imjin Parkway
- 2nd Avenue
- Inter-Garrison Road
- 7th Avenue
- General Jim Moore
Boulevard
- Broadway Avenue
- Noche Buena Street
- Playa Avenue
- Metz Road
- Tioga Avenue
Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, Monterey
Area:
- General Jim Moore
Boulevard
- Canyon del Rey Boulevard
Beach
- Pebble Beach
- 17 Mile Drive
- Carmel Beach
- Carmel Mission
- Mission Trail Park
- Carmel River State
Beach
- Carmel Valley
Shopping Center

On the Inland Side (North
to South):
- Marina Equestrian
Center
- Marina Shopping
- California State
University,
Monterey Bay
- Fort Ord National
Monument
- Seaside Broadway
Shopping
- Frog Pond
- Del Rey Oaks City
Hall
- Laguna Grande
Regional Park
- Monterey County
Fairgrounds
- Monterey Regional
Airport
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
34 | P a g e

- North Fremont Street
- Casa Verde Way
- Fairgrounds Road
- Mark Thomas Drive
- Aguajito Road
- Fremont Street
- Abrego Street
- Pearl Street
- Van Buren Street
- Scott Street
- Pacific Street
- Artillery Street
- Corporal Ewing Road
- Pvt Bolio Road
- Hawthorne Street
- Laine Street
Pacific Grove Area:
- David Avenue
- Spencer Street
- Pine Avenue
Pebble Beach Area:
- 17 Mile Drive
Carmel Area:
- Carmelo Street
- 15th Avenue
- Dolores Street

- Santa Catalina
School
- Monterey
Peninsula College
- Presidio of
Monterey
- New Monterey
- Pacific Grove
- George Washington
Park
- Pebble Beach

Carmel – Monterey 5.11 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Monterey County
Caltrans
City of Monterey
Carmel Area:
- Rio Road
- 13th Avenue
- San Carlos Street
- Camino Del Monte
Carmel Area:
- Carmel Mission
- Ocean Avenue
Shopping

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
35 | P a g e

- Serra Avenue
- Carpenter Street
- Carpenter Street
- Highway 1
- Highway 68
- Highway 1 Bike Path

Monterey Area:
- Viejo Road
- Soledad Drive
- Munras Avenue
- Abrego Street
- Washington Street

Monterey Area:
- Del Monte
Shopping
- Monterey Sports
Center
Fort Ord Loop 23.44 City of Del Rey Oaks
Monterey County
Bureau of Land
Management
Fort Ord Reuse Authority
California State University,
Monterey Bay

From Northwest to Southwest:
- Gigling Road
- Hennekens Ranch Road
- Eucalyptus Road
- Barloy Canyon Road
- South Boundary Road
- California State
University
Monterey Bay
- Fort Ord National
Monument
- Laguna Seca
Raceway
- York School
- Ryan Ranch
- Del Rey Oaks

Fort Ord Inner Loop 11.63 Caltrans
Monterey County
California State University,
Monterey Bay
From Salinas to Del Rey Oaks:
- Highway 68

From California State University,
Monterey Bay to Highway 68:
- Inter-Garrison Road
- Reservation Road
From Salinas to Del Rey
Oaks:
- South Salinas
- Toro County Park
- San Benancio
- Corral de Tierra
- Fort Ord National
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
36 | P a g e

Monument
- Laguna Seca
- Ryan Ranch

From California State
University, Monterey Bay
to Highway 68:
- California State
University,
Monterey Bay
- East Garrison
- Fort Ord National
Monument

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
37 | P a g e

Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
38 | P a g e

South County Routes
Route Miles Underlying Jurisdictions Street Network Destinations & Points of Interest
Marina – Greenfield via
Reservation Road and River
Road

49.31 City of Marina
Monterey County
Caltrans
City of Gonzales
City of Greenfield

From North to South:

Marina/South Salinas Area:
- Reservation Road
- River Road

Chualar Area:
- Chualar River Road
- River Road

Gonzales Area:
- Gonzales River Road
- River Road

Soledad/Greenfield Area:
- Fort Romie Road
- Arroyo Seco Road
- Thorne Road
- El Camino Real
- Elm Avenue
From North to South:
- Marina Library
- Marina Shopping
- UC MBEST
- East Garrison
- Chualar
- Gonzales
- Soledad Mission
- Downtown
Greenfield

Salinas – King City/San Ardo 65.31 City of Salinas
Monterey County
City of Gonzales
City of Soledad
King City

From North to South:

Salinas Area:
- Natividad Road
- Old Stage Road
- Alisal Road
- Old Stage Road

From North to South:

Salinas Area:
- Natividad Hospital
- Rancho Cielo
- Hartnell College
Alisal Campus
- Old Stage Road
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
39 | P a g e

Chualar/Gonzales Area:
- Chualar River Road
- Payson Street
- Grant Street
- Chualar Road
- Foletta Road
- Alta Street (Old US
Highway 101)
- Tavernetti Road
- Gonzales River Road

Soledad Area*:
- Pending Soledad frontage
roads
- Front Street
- Monterey Street
- East Street
- Metz Road
- Metz-Soledad Road

King City Area:
- Metz-King City Road
- 1st Street
- Mesa Verde Road
- Wildhorse Road
- Cattleman Road
South County:
- Chualar
- Gonzales
- Downtown
Gonzales
- Gonzales City Hall
- Soledad
- Downtown Soledad
- Soledad City Hall
- YMCA
- King City
- Downtown King
City
- San Lucas
- San Ardo

Carmel Valley – Greenfield 55.52 Monterey County North to South:
- Bike path parallel to
Highway 1 between Rio
Road & Carmel Valley
Road
- West Carmel Valley Road
Carmel Area:
- Carmel Mission
- Carmel Valley
Shopping
- Garland Ranch
Regional Park
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
40 | P a g e

- Laureles Grade Road
(connection to Highway
68)
- East Carmel Valley Road
- Arroyo Seco Road
- Carmel Valley
- Los Padres National
Forest
- Greenfield
Soledad – Pinnacles 9.31 City of Soledad
Caltrans
West to East:
- Metz Road
- Shirtail Canyon Road
- Soledad
- Pinnacles National
Park

Appendix B – Draft Conceptual Designs

MONTEREY COUNTY BIKE & PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN DESIGN | CONCEPT DESIGN | 07 .31.15 | ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN

WAYFINDING CONCEPT DESIGN
This package presents concept designs for bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding signs and bike map. The concepts build upon the guidance provided by Transit Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee and TAMC staff.

COMMON ELEMENTS FOR SIGN CONCEPTS:

Ū Based on the preferred “Mountains to Sea” color palette Ū Provide guidance for implementing a cohesive County-wide sign system while providing flexibility for local jurisdictions to choose wayfinding elements that fit within the local community context.

Ū Provide opportunities to incorporate City names and logos on sign elements Ū Provide for 2” minimum font height for destination names on signs to be read when bicyclists are in motion.

SIGN CONCEPT OVERVIEW:

MOUNTAINS TO SEA COLOR PALETTES

WAYFINDING CONCEPT DESIGN
Elements within each concept can be combined to form a preferred option. 1- EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY - MODERN CONTEMPORARY
Ū “Explore Monterey County” by walking and biking logo developed as a unifying theme. Directional signs compare to options 2 and 3 on the CAMUTCD spectrum. 2- EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY - GROUNDED CONTEMPORARY
Ū A compass rose icon used as a unifiying theme. Unique colors identify County identified bike routes. Directional signs compare to options 2 and 3 on the CAMUTCD spectrum.
3- MONTEREY COUNTY REGIONAL ICONS
Ū Features four icons representing the coast, the mountains, vineyards and agricultural lands. Directional sign options compare to option 1 on the CAMUTCD spectrum (FHWA approved). Sign toppers highlight County and local branding. 10’
11’
12’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
1’
2’

EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY

MODERN CONTEMPORARY
Destination I
Milage Time in Mins
Milage Time in Mins
Milage Time in Mins
Destination II
Destination III
Fort Ord Loop

SALINAS
1/2
3 2
MILE

COASTAL PATH

10.5 SALINAS

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
Destination I
Milage Time in Mins
Milage Time in Mins
Milage Time in Mins
Destination II
Destination III

FORT ORD LOOP

SALINAS

SALINAS
E��l��
E��l��
E��l��
E��l��
E��l��
Duis aute irure
Duis aute irure
Walk from here
2 mins walk
Lorem ipsum dolor
Lorem ipsum dolor
2 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Duis aute irure
Duis aute irure
Ride your bike from here
2 mins walk
Lorem ipsum dolor
Lorem ipsum dolor
2 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
E��l��

SALINAS

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
MONTEREY COUNTY BIKE & PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN DESIGN | CONCEPT DESIGN | 07 .31.15 | ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 1 EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY - MODERN CONTEMPORARY
The contemporary concepts take a modern approach using brushed stainless steel, concrete and painted metal. An “Explore Monterey County” logo has been drafted as a way to tie together the County Routes.

CAST CONCRETE

BASE WITH

ETCHED CITY
SEAL

DESTINATION NAME,

MILAGE AND TIME IN

MINUTES

PAINTED ACRYLIC

MAP PANEL

LIST OF LOCAL

DESTINATIONS

WITH DISTANCES

AND TRAVEL TIMES
LOCAL

INFORMATION

PAINTED

GALVANIZED

STEEL POST

VINYL DECAL

GATEWAY

MONUMENT

DIRECTIONAL SIGN TRAIL POST SIGN TOPPER

BRUSHED

STAINLESS
STEEL
CAST

MONOLITHIC

CONCTRETE

POWDER-

COATED SHEET
METAL

PRIMARY

MATERIALS

WEATHERVANE

NAVIGATIONAL

ELEMENT
ROUTE
NAME
CUSTOM
PLAQUE

OPTIONS
PLAQUE

OPTIONS
VINYAL
COATED
POLE

GREEN AND WHITE

OPTION WITH CITY

NAME AND SEAL
10’
11’
12’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
1’
2’

EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY

OLD WORLD CONTEMPORARY
Destination I
Milage Time in Mins
Milage Time in Mins
Milage Time in Mins
Destination II
Destination III

FORT ORD LOOP

SALINAS
Destination
Destination
Road Name
Destination I
Mileage Time in Mins
Mileage Time in Mins
Destination II
Destination III

FORT ORD LOOP
MILE

10.5 E��l��

SALINAS
E� �l � ��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

SALINAS

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��
N
S
W
E
Fort Ord Loop

FORT ORD LOOP

FORT ORD LOOP
MONTEREY COUNTY BIKE & PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN DESIGN | CONCEPT DESIGN | 07 .31.15 | ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 2 The Grounded Contemporary concept has a warmer approach featuring a compass rose theme pairing clean lines with the rough, tactile texture of corten steel.

EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY - GROUNDED CONTEMPORARY

CORTEN STEEL

PAINTED

ALUMINUM
CAST

CONCRETE

PRIMARY

MATERIALS

GATEWAY

MONUMENT

DIRECTIONAL SIGN TRAIL POST SIGN TOPPER
CAST

CONCRETE
BASE

LASER CUT

CORTEN STEEL
PANEL

LASER CUT

CORTEN STEEL
PANEL

PRINTED ACRYLIC

MAP PANEL

DESTINATION NAME,

MILAGE AND TIME IN

MINUTES

ROUTE NAME

WITH COLOR
PLAQUE

COLOR TO

MATCH ROUTE
NAME

ALTERNATIVE

SIGN TOPPER

DESIGNS

OPPORTUNITY FOR

UNIQUE COLOR TO BRAND

COUNTY IDENTIFIED

ROUTES, CORESPONDS

WITH BIKE MAP
10’
11’
12’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
1’
2’
Coast
Mountains
Agriculture
Vineyards

VINEYARD BIKE ROUTE

VINEYARD BIKE ROUTE
1/2
3 2
Destination II
Destination I
Destination III
1/2
3 2
Destination II
Destination I
Destination III

CARMEL VALLEY

CARMEL VALLEYCARMEL VALLEY
1/2
3 2
Destination II
Destination I
Destination III
1/2
3 2
Destination II
Destination I
Destination III

COASTAL PATH
MILE

10.5 MONTEREY
COUNTY

REGIONS

CARMEL VALLEY

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK

CARMEL VALLEY
E��l��
Duis aute irure
Duis aute irure
Walk from here
2 mins walk
Lorem ipsum dolor
Lorem ipsum dolor
2 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk

CARMEL VALLEY
MONTEREY COUNTY BIKE & PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN DESIGN | CONCEPT DESIGN | 07 .31.15 | ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 3 The Regional Icon concept features iconic elements representing the main regions of Monterey County; the coast, the mountains, vineyards, and agricultural lands.

MONTEREY COUNTY REGIONAL ICONS

PAINTED

METAL , TBD

WOOD OR

RECYCLED
LUMBER

PRIMARY

MATERIALS

GATEWAY

MONUMENT

DIRECTIONAL SIGN TRAIL POST SIGN TOPPER

FHWA APPROVED MUCTD

MODIFIED BICYCLE

DESTINATION SIGN

CAMUCTD BICYCLE

DESTINATION SIGN

EXAMPLE ICONS

FOR COASTAL,

AGRICULTURE AND

MOUNTAINOUS AREAS

JET CUT ALUMINUM PLATE,

ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND

COLORS POSSIBLE

WOOD OR

RECYCLED

LUMBER POST

ALUMINUM
PLAQUE

OPTION FOR UNIQUE

COLOR PLAQUE TO MATCH

BIKE ROUTE

OPTION FOR UNIQUE

COLOR VINYL DECAL

JET CUT

ALUMINUM PLATE,

PAINTED
LOCAL

INFORMATION

VINYL DISTRICT/

TRAIL MAP
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
47 | P a g e

Appendix C – Final Wayfinding Sign Designs and Placement Scenarios

BIKE & PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN DESIGN
Monterey County
MARCH 2016
MONTEREY COUNTY BIKE & PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN DESIGN | MARCH 2016 | ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN

WAYFINDING CONCEPT DESIGN
This package presents preferred concept designs for regional bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding signs. Through a public engagement process led by the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) and a series of work sessions with the TAMC Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee a final design was developed that is a reflection of the County’s community assets. Standards, unique branding, visibility, and cost were considered when developing and finalizing the sign family. This suite of options is both durable and flexible. It uses materials that resist the natural elements and deter vandalism. In addition, this design considers modular components that may be fabricated and maintained by City facilities staff.

The “Explore Monterey County” theme draws upon the environment that makes Monterey County unique; the mountains, agriculture, vineyards, and the sea. A mountains to sea color palette was selected to highlight these assets. The signage family provides guidance for implementing a cohesive county-wide sign system while providing flexibility for local jurisdictions to choose wayfinding elements that fit within the local community context. The family also provides opportunities to incorporate City names and logos on sign elements.

WAYFINDING CONCEPT DESIGN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
Duis aute irure
Duis aute irure
Walk from here
2 mins walk
Lorem ipsum dolor
Lorem ipsum dolor
2 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Duis aute irure
Duis aute irure
Ride your bike from here
2 mins walk
Lorem ipsum dolor
Lorem ipsum dolor
2 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk

SALINASSALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
FONTS
Direction Sign Typography
Kiosk Typography
Compass DesignKiosk Topper DesignSign Topper Design
Kiosk Destination Distance Typography
Sign faces to be retroflective for low light and nighttime visibility.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
1234567890

HIGHWAY GOTHIC
COLOR
COLOR
KIOSK OPTION 2
KIOSK OPTION 1

GREEN/WHITE

LASER CUT

GREEN/WHITE

HIGHWAY GOTHIC EXPANDED
UNIVERS LT STD 59 ULTRA CONDENSED
Font: Segoe Script

ARTWORK

SALINASSALINAS

GRAPHIC STANDARDS
COLORS
C=11 M=46 Y=99 K=1
C=61 M=24 Y= 72 K=4
C= 72 M=42 Y=100 K=35
C=63 M=27 Y=0 K=0
C=88 M=59 Y=22 K=4
1 10’
11’
12’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
1’
2’

EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY

DESTINATION SIGNS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
16”
4”
22”
22”
24”
4”
24”
8”
33”
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 SALINAS
2 WAYFINDING SIGNS
Direction Signs and Confirmation Signs
The concepts below provide modular components to provide flexibility for the various jurisdictions in the County while maintaining consistency along County routes. Two sign topper designs have options for a full color or a green and white topper . Direction and confirmation sign “1” uses CAMUTCD standard bike guide sign plaques. Direction signs “2A” and “2B” use a modified CAMUTCD guide sign where city name, distance, and travel time to destinations is provided.

Description
Destination signs inform people riding bikes or walking of the designated regional route to access key destinations. The signs mark the junction of two or more regional bikeways or pedestrian routes. Each sign has space for a maximum of three destinations. Travel times for bicycles and pedestrians are optional but recommended.

Confirmation signs indicate to people walking and riding bikes that they are on a designated County Route.

Placement
Direction signs are to be placed on the near-side of intersections in advance of a junction with another bicycle or pedestrian route. They can also be placed along a route to indicate a nearby destination.

Sign toppers can be placed along a route to provide supporting confirmation to users that they are on a County route.

Confirmation sign 1 (D1-3) can be used in conjunction with Direction sign 1 (D1-3A).

Sign Details
Ū All signs are 2’ wide with bottom of sign 7’ from the ground.

Ū Destination text to be 2” minimum height and distance letter height to be 1.25” minimum height.

Ū All lettering and symbols to be retroreflective.

Ū Aluminum sign panel, 1/4” corner radius, typical.

Ū Front of sign to be screened, all exposed surfaces to be painted.

Ū A casual pace travel time of 6 minutes per mile (10 mph) should be used for bicyclist time estimates and 20 minutes per mile (3 mph) for pedestrian time estimates.

DESTINATION

NAME, MILEAGE

AND TIME IN

MINUTES FOR

BIKES AND

PEDESTRIANS

FOR USE ALONG

SHARED-USE PATHS

OR BIKE & PEDESTRIAN

CORRIDORS

FOR USE ALONG

BIKE ROUTES

DESTINATION

NAME, MILEAGE

AND TIME IN

MINUTES FOR
BIKES
SIGN TOPPER 1A:

COLOR
OPTION 1 OPTION 2
SIGN TOPPER 2A:

COLOR
SIGN TOPPER 1B:

GREEN & WHITE
SIGN TOPPER 2B:

GREEN & WHITE
SIGN TOPPER 1A:

COLOR
DIRECTION SIGN 1:

CAMUTCD D1-3
DIRECTION SIGN 2A:

MODIFIED CAMUTCD
DIRECTION SIGN 2B:

MODIFIED CAMUTCD
CONFIRMATION SIGN:

CAM UTCD D11-1
CONFIRMATION SIGN 1:

CAMUTCD D1-3A

COMMUNITY

NAME ON

SIGN TOPPER

ALLOWS GUIDE

SIGN TO BE

CA MUTCD

STANDARD
SIGN

CA MUTCD

STANDARD

BIKE GUIDE

SIGN OPTION
10’
11’
12’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
1’
2’

EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY

PEDSTRIAN KIOSK OPTIONS

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS SALINAS
Duis aute irure
Duis aute irure
Walk from here
2 mins walk
Lorem ipsum dolor
Lorem ipsum dolor
2 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Duis aute irure
Duis aute irure
Ride your bike from here
2 mins walk
Lorem ipsum dolor
Lorem ipsum dolor
2 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk
Ad minim veniamt 5 mins walk
5 mins walk

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK

SALINAS

SALINAS
6”
E��l��E��l��
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��
8’- 0”
3’- 10”
26”
7’-6”
1’-6”
3”
4”
8”
6”
1’- 0”
1’-10 ”
2 ’-1”
6”
6”
6’-9 ”
1’- 0”
1’-3”
26”25”
16”
2 WAYFINDING SIGNS
Description
Pedestrian Kiosks are freestanding two-sided information displays that orient users to Monterey County’s regional bicycle and pedestrian routes. Kiosks provide regional and local maps, destinations, rules of use, and safety information. A detailed map should show the local district or trail, indicating “you are here”, highlight major/minor access points, landmarks, restrooms and other trail and on-street bikeway networks.

The kiosk could provide additional information on local destinations within a 5 minute ride or 10 minute walk from the current location. The kiosk is also an opportunity to illustrate ecological, historical or cultural interpretive information of the local area.

Placement
Kiosks can be located at trailheads, trail access points and selected public gathering spaces. The Kiosk should be setback from the path a minimum of 3 feet to provide space for people to read and consider the information without blocking the trail. A minimum of 3 feet should also be provided for each side of the mapboard per accessibility guidelines.

Sign Details
Design material options available for the Kiosks detailed below:

Pedestrian Kiosk
Two kiosk options showcase the look of corten steel (or faux corten steel finish) and painted aluminum. Jurisdictions can select the preferred material based on the proposed location of the kiosk.

KIOSK 1

SIDE SIDEFRONT FRONT BACKBACK
KIOSK 2

CAST CONCRETE BASE

WITH STAMPED COMPASS

ROSE ORIENTED NORTH
LOGO

LOGOCITY /TRAIL
NAME

REPLACEABLE

LOCAL MAP

PRINTED ACRYLIC

ON ALUMINUM PANEL REGIONAL

BIKE MAP

INTERPRETIVE
INFO
CIT Y/
TRAIL
NAME
TRAIL/
CITY

INFOCITY
LOGO/
SEAL

LASER CUT

CORTEN STEEL
PANEL

DESTINATION

BIKE DISTANCE /
TIME
TRAIL/

CITY INFO

DESTINATION
WALK

DISTANCE/ TIME

LOCAL MAP

DESTINATION WALK

DISTANCE / TIME

DESTINATION BIKE

DISTANCE / TIME
Corten Steel Faux Corten
Steel Finish
Painted Aluminum
PROS • Strong, durable material.
• Capable of conveying a
warm, natural feel as well as
longevity and permanence
• Unique custom shapes
possible
• Low maintenance
• Strong,
durable
material
• Lightweight
• Less expensive
than corten
• Strong, durable
material
• Lightweight
• Less expensive than
corten
• Low maintenance
CONS • Unpredictable weathering
process
• Rust may run and stain
adjacent surfaces
• Visibility of cut-out style
can be compromised
depending on the background
environment
• Highest cost
• Quality of faux
finish may not
compare to
Corten
• Lacks warm, natural
feel
10’
11’
12’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
1’
2’

EXPLORE MONTEREY COUNTY

POST OPTIONS
MILE

10.5 SALINAS
E��l��
1’-6”

CLEARANCE
FROM
BOTTOM
4’-6”
10” 10”
8 Drinking
Water
Information
First Aid
Telephone
Picnic Site
Restaurant/
Food
Restrooms
Campground
Pets on
Leash
Horse Trail
Wildlife
Viewing

DESC RIPTION

The OC Parks system uses a combina-
tion of the National Recreation Symbols
coupled with custom designed activity
icons specially designed for the OC
Parks system. The use of symbols
is a non-verbal language to quickly
communicate information about
services, accommodations, visitor
opportunities and prohibited activities.

All symbols should be displayed in
white against the panel background.

All regulatory symbols are displayed in
MP00192 Southern Clay for the “strike
out” circle and slash.

Do not alter the designs or content
of the pictograms in any way. In most
situations, the National Recreation
Symbols will communicate the message
without any supporting text. In some
cases, where there are safety concerns,
text can be used in conjunction with
the symbol to make the message
more clear to the public.
1 DIGITAL VINYL

DESTINATION

ICON AND
ARROW

CITY OR

TRAIL NAME

DIGITAL VINYL

MILE MARKER
10” X 10” ALUMINUM

POST PAINTED BLUE

DIGITAL VINYL
LOGO
2 WAYFINDING SIGNS
Description
Pedestrian directional posts provide en route reassurance of trail identity and inform users they are on the designated regional route. They display the “Explore Monterey County” brand and trail name. The pedestrian directional posts also provide space for supplemental directional arrows to help users stay on the identified regional route.

Pedestrian directional posts can also serve as mile markers. Mile markers are a small feature with large significance and are an important element of wayfinding along pathways. They allow users to track how far they have traveled and help people put their location in context by matching the marker to a map. Most trail users identify strongly with distance from home, distance from their favorite place, or simply with knowing a certain location based on its relationship to a mile point.

Knowing one’s location on a trail is critical to assisting emergency responders trying to locate a person in distress. Mile markers could also be provided as a pavement marking.

Placement
Place pedestrian directional posts at minor pathway access points, intersections with other trails or when a direction sign is not used and at locations where the route is not explicit. Mile markers should be located at half to two mile intervals along the corridor.

Sign Details
Ū Painted Aluminum with digital vinyl icons and lettering Pedestrian Directional Post

SIDE FRONT OPTIONAL ICONS
3 SIGN PLACEMENT
The Monterey County wayfinding elements should be
located in a consistent manner across all jurisdictions.

The following diagrams represent typical sign placement scenarios seen throughout Monterey County.
• Downtown Pedestrian / Bike Route Intersection
• On-Street Bike Route
• On-Street Shared-Use Path Connection
• Shared-Use Path Intersection
Per both the CA MUTCD and the California Highway
Design Manual, the nearest edge of any sign should be
a minimum of two feet from the edge of the shared-
use path, 3 feet preferred. The lowest sign edge shall
be seven feet. Follow local agency design standards for on-street signs.

Sign Placement

BIKE ROUTE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

DESTINATION
K
K
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Downtown Pedestrian/Bike Route Intersection
K- Kiosk
In downtown pedestrian areas, kiosks
should be placed in selected public
gathering spaces along regional
routes. It is an opportunity to display
the Monterey County map and
interpretive information.

D- Direction Signs
Direction signs should be placed
advance of turns to local destinations
and services.

C- Confirmation Signs
Confirmation signs indicate to
bicyclists that they are on a
designated bikeway. They can be
placed every 2 to 3 blocks along
regional bike routes. They should be
placed soon after turns to confirm
the intended direction was taken.

The “Explore Monterey County” sign
topper can be used as a confirmation
sign. Confirmation sign 1 (D1-3a) can
be used in conjunction with direction
sign 1 (D1-3).

SIGN PLACEMENT
3 D- Direction Signs
Direction signs should be placed in
advance of turns to local destinations
and services.

On-Street Bike Route

BIKE ROUTE

BIKE ROUTE
On-Street Connection
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
*Refer to California MUTCD Chapter 9B for current
setback requirements for signs from intersections.

Type Sign Type Design Standards Placement
Confirmation
Sign
Ū Explore Monterey
County Sign Topper
Ū Monterey County
Confirmation Sign 1:

CA MUTCD D1-3a
(destinations with
mileage)
Ū Opportunities to add
Explore Monterey County
sign topper to existing bike
and pedestrian signs where
appropriate.

Ū One sign per ¼ directional
mile (mid-block) and
at the far side of key
intersections
Decision Signs Ū Direction Sign 1:

CAMUTCD D1-3
(destinations with
arrow)
Ū Monterey County
Direction Sign 2A
and 2B: Modified

CAMUTCD
Ū Maximum of three
destinations per plaque
Ū Destinations shall use upper
case and lower case letters
Ū For destination names
that do not fit on one line
abbreviations or two-line
entry may be used
Ū Destinations shall be listed
by closest proximity to the
sign placement
Ū Left and straight arrows shall
be aligned left on the sign;
right arrows shall be aligned
to the right
Ū Signs should be placed the
at the following distances
before an intersection
depending on the number
of lanes a bicyclist must
travel across in order to
initiate a legal left turn:

Ū 25 feet before a zero lane
merge
Ū 100 feet before a one
lane merge
Ū 200 feet before a two
lane merge
C- Confirmation Signs
Confirmation signs indicate to
bicyclists that they are on a
designated bikeway. They can be
placed every 2 to 3 blocks along
regional bike routes. They should
be placed soon after turns to
The typical pattern for on-street wayfinding signs includes a direction sign prior to the intersection of route options, followed by an optional confirmation sign. The table below provides design and placement standards for the on-street bikeway sign types. confirm the intended direction was
taken. The “Explore Monterey
County” sign topper can be used as a
confirmation sign. Confirmation sign
1 (D1-3a) can be used in conjunction
with direction sign 1 (D1-3).

SIGN PLACEMENT
On-Street Shared-Use Path Connection
STOP
STOP
100' Min.
100' Min.

SB = Street Banner
I= Arrival Identity
K = Trailhead Kiosk
M = Mapboard
D= Direction Sign
C= Con/f_irmation Marker
G-1 = On-Street Guide
Con/f_irmations
G-2= Turn Sign
G-3= Decision Sign
SS= Street Sign
On-Street Connection
PP
D
D
D
D
P
P
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
K
K
D
D
STOP
STOP
DD
DD
DD
DD
DDDD
At-Grade Crossing & Trail Intersection
KK
PP
PP
P P
PP
PP
Shared-Use Path Intersection
K- Kiosk
Place kiosks at access points of shared-use
paths. It is an opportunity to display the
Monterey County map and interpretive
information.

D- Direction Signs
Direction signs should be placed advance of
turns to local destinations and services.

P- Pedestrian Directional Post
Posts reinforce the identity and direction
along a shared-use path.

K- Kiosk
Place kiosks at the intersection of connecting shared-
use paths. It is an opportunity to display the Monterey County map and interpretive information.

D- Direction Signs
Direction signs should be placed advance of turns to
local destinations and services.

P- Pedestrian Directional Post
Posts reinforce the identity and direction along a
shared-use path.
3 YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 Destination Sign
Option 1A
Destination Sign
Option 1B
Destination Sign
Option 2A
Destination Sign
Option 2B

COST ESTIMATES
4 T opper Only
$68.0 0
Sign Face Only
$90.00

Total Sign Only
$.00
T opper Only
$64.00
Sign Face Only
$90.00

Total Sign Only
$4.00
T opper Only
$58.0 0
Sign Face Only
$105.00

Total Sign Only
$.00
T opper Only
$56.00
Sign Face Only
$101.00

Total Sign Only
$.00
Note: This total does not include costs for installation.

Installation cost will vary depending
on pole hardware, need for concrete footer and use of
a third-party contrator or local jurisdiction staff.

April 2016 cost estimate provided by
AD/S COMPANIES www.ad-s.com

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
MARINA
1 MILES 20 MIN
2 MILES
3 MILES
40 MIN
120 MIN18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SOLEDAD
1 MILES
2 MILES
3 MILES 18 MIN
12 MIN
6 MIN

SALINAS
E��l��

SALINAS
ARTS

DISTRICT

YOU ARE HERE

STREET NAME

DESTINATION

STREET NAME
5 MINUTE WALK
E��l��

SALINAS
E��l��SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III

SALINAS
Destination I
Destination II
Destination III
1 2.5
3 Kiosk Option 1 Kiosk Option 2 Pedestrian
Directional Post

COST ESTIMATES
4 T otal Cost
$2,350.00
T otal Cost
$6,350.00
Corten Steel
$6,850.00
Faux Corten Steel
$5,700.00
Note: Singular item pricing.

April 2016 cost estimate provided by
AD/S COMPANIES www.ad-s.com
Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan for Monterey County May 2016
59 | P a g e

Appendix D – Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 2\Minutes_Meeting 1_AG.docx
Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Tuesday, February 10, 2015
1:35 p.m. – 2:35 p.m.

Call in: (760)569-0800 Participant Code:580128#

Transportation Agency for Monterey County—Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas, CA 93901-2902

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee members present:

Eric Peterson Fort Ord Friends Trails, and Pedal Alpini Lisa Rheinheimmer Monterey-Salinas Transit
D.L. Johnson TAMC Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee
Jeanette Pantoja Building Healthy Communities
Eliza Yu Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Bill Boosman Velo Club Monterey
James Serrano City of Salinas
Justin Meek City of Marina
Krista Hanni Monterey County Health Department
Daniel Gho (by phone) City of Pacific Grove
Kevin Cole (by phone) Pebble Beach
Brent Slama (by phone) City of Soledad
Todd Bodem (by phone) City of Sand City
Ryan Chapman (by phone) County of Monterey Public Works Andrea Renny (small group meeting February
10, 2015)
City of Monterey
Bernard Green (small group meeting February
10, 2015)
California State University, Monterey Bay
TAMC staff present:

Debbie Hale, Executive Director Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner
Others present:

Cory Caletti (by phone) Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 2\Minutes_Meeting 1_AG.docx

2. Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee Purpose Pages 1-4 Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, reviewed the purpose of the ad-hoc Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee. Ms. Murillo noted that the purpose of the Committee is to assist staff with the development of the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan that will provide standard guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding signage throughout Monterey County.

She noted that Committee members are expected to provide input on the content of the plan, the content of the wayfinding sign design and will assist staff in soliciting public input. Ms. Murillo also reviewed the Committee meeting schedule, noting that the committee is expected to meet biweekly from February to June.

In our small group meeting on Friday, February 10th, Committee member Andrea Renny suggested that as part of our Wayfinding Plan implementation strategies we look into using business improvement district funding for sign installation, and mentioned that we adhere to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidelines on signage font sizes and signage placement.

3. Overview of Wayfinding Sign Programs Presentation
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, presented an overview of wayfinding sign programs, including examples of gateway and directional signage, and reviewed the goals and timeline of the Wayfinding Plan.

Questions from the committee members:
 Will on-pavement markings be included in the plan? - Yes  Will there be a bike map that reflects the routes? - Yes

There was difficulty setting up the telephone for conference calling, and participants were connected at approximately 1:45pm. The Committee had a second round of introductions, and Ms. Murillo quickly reviewed the committee purpose and wayfinding sign programs.

4. Develop Wayfinding Plan Purpose and Goals Page 5
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, reviewed the draft Wayfinding Plan background, content and goals with the Committee and asked for Committee input.

Committee members offered the following input:
 The advisory committee should develop criteria to identify regional destinations  The Wayfinding Plan should encourage connectivity between communities, and provide connectivity to regional parks and open space, trails, educational institutions, employment centers, transit, park and ride lots and tourist destinations  Signage should: be accessible to people of all literacy levels, be legible for a wide range of users, clear and concise, demonstrate multimodal access, denote difficulty level for trails and ADA access, show where restrooms, bike shops and other bike-supportive amenities are, and have space for a city logo or identifier
 Sign design should be consistent/compatible across jurisdictional boundaries, including into Santa Cruz County and San Benito County
 Signs should be eye-catching as opposed to standard MUTCD signs which blend in

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 2\Minutes_Meeting 1_AG.docx
 Signs should be distributed equitably across the County  Wayfinding signage should also incorporate technology, and be accessible via GPS and online (consider using existing apps/tech such as Strava and Google Multimodal Trip Planner)
 Staff and the Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee should maintain community engagement throughout the process

Committee member Bill Boosman also mentioned that wayfinding should not be restricted to signage, and that maps are also a part of wayfinding. He also mentioned that Map my Ride and Strava are examples of mobile apps that already exist to track routes. Ms. Murillo noted that a part of the Wayfinding Plan will be branding routes. Committee member James Serrano said this was a great idea, and that it is an opportunity for each city to promote its own identity.

In our small group meeting on Friday, February 10th, Committee member Andrea Renny suggested that we clarify that the Wayfinding Plan will “create safer pedestrian and bicyclists facilities by using signage to make routes more visible.”

5. Discussion Items:
a) Stakeholder Outreach
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that staff will begin using MindMixer (http://mindmixer.com/), which is an online public participation tool as an outreach tool to gather Committee and public feedback on the Wayfinding Plan.

Ms. Murillo asked the committee if there are special groups that staff should outreach to.

Committee members recommended that staff reach out to:
 MST’s Mobility Advisory Committee
 Caltrans District 5
 Business groups, such as Chambers of Commerce
 Regional Parks
 State Parks
 Monterey Peninsula College
 Local hospitals
 Monterey Off Road Cycling Association (MORCA)
 South County

In our small group meeting on Friday, February 10th, Committee member Andrea Renny suggested that staff present the draft Wayfinding Plan to city councils to receive feedback. Staff will be adding city council presentations to the Wayfinding Plan project timeline. She also suggested that we use Scribble Maps (http://scribblemaps.com/) as we identify regional routes and sign locations.

b) Site Visits to Identify Sign Locations and Routes
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that staff is interested in doing site visits to gather an inventory of existing signage as part of the planning process. She also noted that there is a free signage inventory iPhone/iPad app called GIS Assets

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 2\Minutes_Meeting 1_AG.docx
(https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gisassets/id723243246?mt=8) that staff will plan on using as part of the inventory process.

In our small group meeting on Friday, February 10th,Committee member Andrea Renny mentioned that the City of Monterey has an inventory of existing signage along the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail.

c) Meeting Schedule and Location
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, asked if this meeting time works best for everyone. Committee member Eric Peterson said Tuesday afternoon might not be the best time, as that is the Board of Supervisor’s meeting time. Ms. Murillo said that she will be sending out another Doodle poll for the next meeting.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 3\Minutes_Meeting

2.docx
Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Thursday, February 26, 2015
10:00a.m. - 11:00a.m.

Call in: (760)569-0800 Participant Code:580128#

Transportation Agency for Monterey County—Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas, CA 93901-2902

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee members present:

Eric Petersen Fort Ord Friends Trails, and Pedal Alpini Lisa Rheinheimmer Monterey-Salinas Transit
Jeanette Pantoja Building Healthy Communities
Eliza Yu Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Josh Metz Fort Ord Re-use Authority
Brent Slama (by phone) City of Soledad
Andrea Renny City of Monterey
Bernard Green California State University, Monterey Bay Victoria Beach (by phone) City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
TAMC staff present:

Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation
Planner
Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner
Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director
Others present:

2. Review Draft February 10, 2015 Meeting Minutes Pages 2-5 The Committee members did not have comments on the draft meeting minutes.

3. Review Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee membership Page 6 Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that in the first meeting a Committee member asked about the membership of the Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee. She noted that the Committee membership list shows which stakeholder groups are represented on the Committee.

4. Finalize Wayfinding Plan Goals and Wayfinding Sign Design Pages 7-10

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 3\Minutes_Meeting

2.docx
Criteria
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, reviewed the revised draft Wayfinding Plan background, content and goals with the Committee and asked for Committee input.

Committee members offered the following input:
 Wayfinding Sign Design Criteria section goal #2 should include safety language, and indicate the use of symbology for legibility of signage  Wayfinding Sign Design Criteria section goal #4 should include comfort level  Wayfinding Sign Design Criteria section goal #7 should include “When applicable, wayfinding signage will be placed in accordance with the regulatory requirements spelled out in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.”

Committee member Victoria Beach noted that she really liked the use of symbology, and distance and directional information in the Rochester wayfinding sign example that was shown at the February 10th meeting. Committee member Andrea Renny noted that we should use the wayfinding signage to capitalize on missed opportunities, such as areas of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail where tourists get lost, and routes such as Monterey to Marina and a route from North Monterey County and Big Sur.

5. Review Bicycle Facilities Classification Handout
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, shared a handout from the City of Emeryville’s Resources for the Design of Bicycle Facilities Manual that outlined and described the three classes of bicycle facilities. She also mentioned that there are now Class IV bicycle facilities, and asked Committee member Bernard Green to share more about the new Class IV facilities. Committee member Bernard Green mentioned that Class IV facilities, also known as cycle tracks are bicycle paths that are protected from traffic. Committee member Eric Petersen expressed his concern about the design.

6. Develop Criteria for:
a) Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
b) Regional Destinations

Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, reviewed the draft regional route and destination criteria and asked for Committee input. Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner, reminded the Committee that this is a regional project and the Committee will be asked to think about this project in a regional context. Ms. Green pointed out that some routes will cross through local cities, but noted that this project would not be focused on local city routes. Ms.

Murillo pointed out that because this is a regional project, the regional destinations would include areas like regional parks and colleges.

Committee member Bernard Green mentioned that it is still important to include local routes that continue on to become regional routes. Committee member Jeanette Pantoja mentioned that this would be a great opportunity to include South County routes. Committee member Brent Slama mentioned that a South County wine corridor could be a regional route in South County. Mr.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 3\Minutes_Meeting

2.docx
Slama mentioned that this route would follow River Road and continue on to Metz Trail. Another route he mentioned is the route to the Pinnacles National Monument, which would be along Metz Road. Committee member Victoria Beach noted that it would be interesting to see if the Committee could identify one continuous regional route for Monterey County.

Committee member Josh Metz mentioned that identifying routes is a task that can be efficiently accomplished by the Committee using large maps that identify existing bicycle facilities. Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that this route mapping is a task that staff would like Committee members to complete before our next meeting, which will be a working meeting to identify regional routes.

7. Review Revised Meeting Schedule
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, reviewed the revised meeting schedule with the Committee noting that the Committee would now be meeting monthly. She noted that she expects the Committee to begin meeting biweekly once a design consultant is chosen.

8. Discuss:
a) Route Mapping Activity
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, asked Committee members to use the maps from the Transportation Agency’s 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to highlight the regional routes. Ms. Murillo mentioned that staff will work on enlarging the regional maps for the next meeting.
b)Meeting Schedule
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that she would be sending out another Doodle Poll to schedule the March meeting.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Minutes\Minutes_Meeting 3_AGedits.docx
Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Thursday, March 19, 2015
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Transportation Agency for Monterey County—Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas, CA 93901-2902

Minutes

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee Members Present
Eliza Yu Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Bernard Green California State University, Monterey Bay Victoria Beach City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Justin Meek City of Marina
Brent Slama City of Soledad
Ryan Chapman County of Monterey Public Works
Eric Petersen Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends, and Pedal Alpini Josh Metz Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Lisa Rheinheimer Monterey-Salinas Transit
TAMC Staff Present
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation
Planner
Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner
Todd Much, Deputy Executive Director

2. Review Draft February 26, 2015 Minutes Pages 2-4
Committee member Victoria Beach noted that she had phoned in for that meeting and was not listed as present. Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, corrected the meeting minutes to reflect this.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Minutes\Minutes_Meeting 3_AGedits.docx

3. MindMixer Training
www.Tamc.MindMixer.com

Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, walked the Committee through the Wayfinding Plan MindMixer page. She mentioned that she would like to gather more input from Committee members and from members of the public using the MindMixer page. Committee member Bernard Green noted that the topic is text heavy, and it would be nice to keep the topic short. He also mentioned that it might be best to rename the bike classes so more people can understand the differences between the classes. Ms. Murillo noted she would work on making these changes.

4. Receive Update on Request for Proposals No Enclosure Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, provided an update to the Committee on the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design of wayfinding signage and the update of the Monterey County bike map. She notified members that the review committee, comprised of Transportation Agency staff and Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee members, chose Alta Planning + Design.

Alta Planning + Design was the most experienced firm and offered additional items, such as cost comparison matrices for signage.

Committee member Josh Metz asked why Committee members were not notified of the RFP’s circulation. Ms. Murillo reported that the RFP had been out for the month of February, and that members of the Committee were invited to review the proposals. Committee member Bernard Green, who was part of the RFP review committee, noted that Alta Planning + Design was the highest ranked firm, and that some of the other proposals did not have as much experience with wayfinding signage for bicyclists and pedestrians. Committee members Lisa Rheinheimer and Victoria Beach mentioned that they have worked with Alta Planning + Design in the past and that they have been content with the firm’s work. Ms. Murillo mentioned that she would email the RFP to Committee member Josh Metz.

5. Review Regional Route Criteria Pages 5-7
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, reminded the Committee about the route criteria noting that routes must be identified in the Transportation Agency’s 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan classified as Class I, II, and III and planned Class I, II, III, and IV facilities.

The routes and destinations must be regional.

6. Identify Activity
i. Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes
ii. Regional Destinations

Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, asked Committee members to identify regional routes using map handouts that include bicycle facilities routes. Committee member Victoria Beach asked if certain areas of maps could be enlarged to make it easier to see. Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner, mentioned that the map is accessible online and may be found P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Minutes\Minutes_Meeting 3_AGedits.docx
on TAMC’s MindMixer pager (http://tamc.mindmixer.com/). The Committee members spent the rest of the meeting identifying regional bike routes using the maps provided by TAMC staff.

Committee member Victoria Beach asked if staff could map the routes that committee members identified to make it easier for all to collaborate. Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that she would try and consolidate the maps into one map that includes the routes identified by the Committee.

Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, thanked the Committee members for identifying regional routes.

6. Site Visit Sign-ups
There was no time to discuss this.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 5\Minutes_Meeting

4.docx

Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Thursday, April 23, 2015
10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

Call in: (760)569-0800 Participant Code:580128#

*DIFFERENT LOCATION: City of Monterey—Orca Room
735 Pacific Street, Monterey

AGENDA

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee Members Present
Victoria Beach City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Ryan Chapman County of Monterey
Kevin Cole Pebble Beach
Andrea Renny City of Monterey
Josh Metz Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Eric Petersen Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends, and Pedal Alpini Lisa Rheinheimmer Monterey-Salinas Transit
Krista Hanni (by phone) Monterey County Health Department Brent Slama City of Soledad
Staff Present
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation
Planner
Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner

2. Review Draft March 19,2015 Minutes Pages 2-4
There were no comments on the March 19th meeting minutes.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 5\Minutes_Meeting

4.docx

3. Update on Consultant Timeline No Enclosure
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, provided an update on Alta Planning + Design’s timeline, noting that the project is expected to wrap up in September. Ms. Murillo noted that the Committee would likely meet during the week of May 18th to discuss the theme for the wayfinding signage, and that Alta Planning + Design would create draft designs based on the preferred theme during the month of June.

4. Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes and Destinations Activity a) Review Routes from March 19th Meeting
b) Discuss Route Limits: Length and Connectivity
c) Discuss Destinations
d) Discuss Route Branding

Ms. Murillo demonstrated the combined regional routes based on the Committee’s route map exercise activity. She asked the Committee for input on the preliminary routes, noting that there are route length and connectivity limitations. Committee members provided the following input:

Peninsula Routes:
 Include connection along Casa Verde Way in Monterey to connect the Peninsula Cities Route to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail
 Scenic Road in Carmel-by-the-Sea is one way, so consider adding a parallel route, such as San Antonio Street or Carmelo Street
 17 Mile Drive in Pebble Beach is narrow and may not be suitable for all riders but is one of the few routes between Pebble Beach and Carmel.
 Tehama Road is a private road, so there is no connection between Carmel Valley and the Peninsula through Tehama Road
 Include route from Sand City to Seaside that connects to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail
 Include a connection to Fort Ord via Ryan Ranch and South Boundary Road

North County – Salinas Routes:
 Include a connection from Castroville to North Salinas via Espinosa Road  Connect the Prunedale-Salinas Route to San Miguel Canyon Road north of Prunedale  Consider a North Main Street Route in Salinas, as an alternative to taking Russell Road and San Juan Grade Road
 Include a connection from East Boronda Road to Old Stage Road via Natividad Road

South County Routes:
 Prioritize River Road as a regional South County route

Ms. Murillo mentioned that she received a comment requesting the consideration of a regional P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 5\Minutes_Meeting

4.docx
route connecting the Soledad Mission to the San Antonio Mission. The Committee asked about connectivity to Pinnacles National Park from King City. Committee Member Ryan Chapman said he would look into which roads are County maintained roads in South County, which can help the Committee identify the most appropriate route for this connection. Committee Member Victoria Beach mentioned that the Big Sur Land Trust is planning an access point between Carmel and Palo Corona Regional Park as part of the Carmel River FREE project.

Committee Member Kevin Cole said he would be willing to do some reconnaissance work along the 17 Mile Drive route, and asked staff to look into apps, such as Map my Ride, that could help with this task. Committee Member Cole said it would be worthwhile for the Committee to take a ride on the suggested regional routes to get a better sense of their feasibility. Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner, and Ms. Murillo noted that staff would brainstorm and research some apps that might be appropriate for this and would send out more information to the Committee.

Ms. Murillo also noted that the regional routes map is accessible online through the MindMixer site.

1 Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Thursday, June 4, 2015
1:30p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Call in: (760)569-0800 Participant Code:580128#

Transportation Agency for Monterey County —Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas

MINUTES

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee Members Present
Kevin Cole Pebble Beach
Andrea Renny City of Monterey
Josh Metz Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Eric Petersen Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends, and Pedal Alpini D.L. Johnson TAMC Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Justin Meek City of Marina
Brent Slama City of Soledad
Staff Present
Debbie Hale, Executive Director Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner Others Present:

Jerry Landesman Mary Stewart, Alta Planning + Design
Linda Petersen (by phone) Emily Duchon, Alta Planning + Design

2 2. Review Draft April 23, 2015 Minutes
There were no comments on the April 23rd meeting minutes.

4. Wayfinding Visioning Exercise Activity
a) Project Overview
b) Introduction to Wayfinding
c) Wayfinding Strategy (Facilitated Discussion)
d) Wayfinding System (Breakout Exercise)
e) Next Steps

Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, introduced Mary Stewart and Emily Duchon, the wayfinding sign design consultants from Alta Planning + Design’s. Ms. Duchon provided a project overview, and discussed wayfinding principles with the Committee. Ms. Duchon and Ms. Stewart facilitated the discussion on choosing a preferred wayfinding sign design, color palette, and bike map design. More detailed visioning exercise notes are on the following page.

Visioning Meeting Goals:

The primary intent of the visioning meeting was to introduce the project stakeholders, learn about the Monterey County audience and what is currently effective and challenging in navigating the active transportation network and gather preferences regarding sign design

ITEM

COMMENTS
Project Overview
 Mary Stewart, Alta Planning + Design’s Project
Manager, presented an overview of Alta’s
scope, schedule and workshop goals

Introduction to Wayfinding
 Emily Duchon, Alta’s Wayfinding Designer
presented a brief introduction to wayfinding
and discussed wayfinding principals, best
practices, and technical guidance

Wayfinding Strategy (Facilitated Discussion)
 Participants shared overall thoughts on the
existing active transportation network

o Monterey County has a unique way of
3  What is the character and experience of the
pathway network?

--------------------------------------------------------

 What existing navigational elements are
effective?

getting to destinations
o Limitation of connectivity
o Scenic. Want to get out and absorb the
experience, like openness, vistas. Enjoy the
view.
o Comfortable and safe
o People use trails for their health
o Lots of families, enjoy the view, beauty
o Diversity of experiences

-------------------------------------------------
o Sharrows and pavement markings on road.

They are easier to read and doesn’t compete
with sign clutter
o Like having minutes on sign. Account for
uphill riding.
o Like Portland, OR style signs with minutes.

Like pavement markings, good use when
routes jog/detour and are hard to track
o Like standard/not too creative signs for easy
use by visitors
o Be consistent with neighbors (adjacent
Counties)
o Strong hardware to keep from getting stolen
o Allow space for place name and logo for
each community.
o City additions for existing route signs.

Include unincorporated communities.

Wayfinding System Input

The group broke out to participate in an interactive exercise to capture input on wayfinding design preferences. Three boards asked the advisory committee members to vote on preferred options for wayfinding themes, style and flexibility of sign design. In addition, participants were asked to provide 4 comments on the existing bicycle map.

Following the meeting the workshop boards were posted on the social media site MySidewalk to solicit additional input from committee members who were not able to attend in person. A summary of the input is outlined below.

Board 2: Wayfinding Style

Color Palette:

The top ranked preferred color
palettes are “Mountains to the Sea”
a more natural and muted palette
and “Vineyards” a more
contemporary palette.

Materials and Style:

Meeting participants leaned toward
the contemporary end of the design
spectrum with the layered and
textured aluminum style receiving
the most votes, and brushed
stainless steel and concrete and
colorful powdered coated steel one
vote behind.

TAMC Input:
o Color preference?
o Style Preference?

5 Board 3: Sign Design

Flexibility of Design:

Total votes including results of the
MySidewalk online poll are as
follows:
#1- 0 votes
#2 – 12 votes
#3 – 4 votes
#4 – 2 votes

The majority of committee members
preferred a slightly modified
CAMUTCD sign which allows for
customization of a regional identity,
local place name, route name, while
still maintaining the standard
CAMUTCD green background, shape
and dimensions.

Sign Types:

Alta is scoped to design three sign
types, a map kiosk, direction sign
and add-on signage.

TAMC Input:
o Develop options that fall
into one or two styles?

6 Monterey County Bicycle Map Comments
Global
o Overall Map- Too busy, Break into Regions- Accuracy?
o Global-Use consistent North Arrow
o Eye is drawn to San Benito County because of darker color, the viewer should see the bike routes/paths 1st
o Consider making land color white or more neutral color o Create multiple Maps at different Scale
o Countywide
o Monterey Peninsula
o North County
o Etc.
o Map too large, use smaller paper size
o Bigger Blowups
o Agreed too much blank space, consider scale and blow up o Too much green color. Topographic/slope color are distraction/confusing o Make path/late/route lines more prominent inside
o Choose fewer colors/paths
o Remove proposed lanes/paths
North End
o Inset 1-Too busy, simplify
o Caltrans Route 101 North of Russell – Bike route?
o In Legend (Caltrans Route) – Make clear that this is non-bike route or remove o Old Stage at Zabala-Simplify as one line due to map scale South End
o Too much blank space (in Los Padres NF near Tassajara Hot Springs) o Larger scale-blow up on more populated areas
o Connect Elm to Metz

3. mySidewalk training No Enclosure
Ms. Murillo provided a training on the new mySidewalk public forum tool. Ms. Murillo noted that the new mySidewalk tool is much easier to use, and that participants can sign up using their email, through their Facebook, LinkedIn or Google+ account. Committee Member Justin Meek suggested reaching out to students using this tool.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Minutes\Minutes_Meeting 6.docx

Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Thursday, June 18th, 2015
9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.

Call in: (760)569-0800 Participant Code:580128#

Transportation Agency for Monterey County —Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas

MINUTES

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee Members Present
Eliza Yu Association for Monterey Bay Area Governments
Jeanette Pantoja (by phone) Building Healthy Communities Bernard Green California State University, Monterey Bay Justin Meek (by phone) City of Marina
Andrea Renny City of Monterey
Brent Slama City of Soledad
Ryan Chapman County of Monterey Public Works
Josh Metz Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Krista Hanni (by phone) Monterey County Health Department Lisa Rheinheimmer (by phone) Monterey-Salinas Transit
Staff Present
Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Minutes\Minutes_Meeting 6.docx

2. Review Draft June 4, 2015 Minutes Pages 2-7
There were no comments on the June 4th meeting minutes.

3. Discuss Visioning Meeting and Next Steps No Enclosure Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, provided an overview of the June 4th visioning meeting, and highlighted the poster board votes included in the June 4th meeting minutes.

Ms. Murillo also mentioned that these materials were placed in the www.tamc.mysidewalk.com page for vote. Ms. Murillo reported that the next step will be for Alta Planning + Design to develop draft wayfinding signs.

Ms. Murillo reported that option #2 in the flexibility of sign Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) design spectrum was the most popular during the visioning meeting and in the mySidewalk poll. Committee Member Ryan Chapman expressed concern about design option #2, and mentioned that MUTCD compliance is a requirement for federal funding. Committee Member Chapman also expressed concern about long term maintenance for this design option. Committee Member Andrea Renny agreed that the design option should be more on the rigid MUTCD compliance spectrum.

Committee Member Victoria Beach asked about the materials, and expressed her preference for corten steel. Committee Member Beach mentioned that architects tend to prefer this material because it is very durable and has a more natural aesthetic. Committee Member Jeanette Pantoja asked about the costs associated with the materials and sign design. Ms. Murillo mentioned that in Alta Planning + Design’s presentation at the visioning meeting, the materials and sign design included an associated range of costs.

Committee Member Beach asked about the branding portion of the Wayfinding Plan. Committee Member Beach asked about Alta’s capacity to develop a brand for the regional routes, and used the Napa Vine Trail as an example of a branded regional bike network. Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner, mentioned that one Alta Planning + Design’s ideas was that the word “explore” can be incorporated into the signage as a way to maintain uniformity while allowing jurisdictions the opportunity to maintain their local identities. For example, a sign can say “Explore: Seaside” when a portion of the route is in Seaside, and “Explore: Marina” when a portion of the route is in Marina. Ms. Murillo mentioned that Alta is not scoped to develop a brand, but that the branding portion of the Wayfinding Plan is something that the Committee can do. Committee Member Beach asked staff to do more research on how other regions have successfully branded their regional bike networks.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Minutes\Minutes_Meeting 6.docx

4. Update on Regional Routes Page 8-10
a) Review Regional Route List
b) Discuss Route Limitations
c) Discuss Route Prioritization

Ms. Murillo reported that the Agency’s legal counsel suggested that only routes that have existing or proposed bicycle facilities be signed, with a priority for existing facilities. Ms. Murillo mentioned that routes identified by the Committee that are not in listed as existing or proposed will be compiled and analyzed in the next Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update.

Ms. Murillo walked the Committee through the consolidated regional routes. Ms. Green mentioned that Alta Planning + Design introduced the idea of creating loops for a variety of users, and mentioned that staff will try and take a look at potential loops already present in the regional routes. Committee Member Beach and Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director, asked whether Molera Road is the most direct route to Castroville, since Dolan Road appears to be a more direct connection. Ms. Green noted Molera Road is a popular route choice for cyclists. Committee members offered the following input:

 The Hartnell College Route via Alisal Street can close the loop for the Salinas Periphery Route. This loop can be known as the Ag Loop.
 San Juan Grade Road can be a connection to San Benito County.  Consider Divarty as a connection through the California State University, Monterey Bay area.
 Consider the AIDS route.

Committee Member Bernard Green showed the Committee the www.nationalbikechallenge.org page, which maps the routes that cyclists using the Strava app currently take.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 8\Minutes_Meeting

7.docx

Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Thursday, August 13th, 2015
2:00p.m. – 3:00p.m.

Call in: (760)569-0800 (641)569-0800 Participant Code:580128#

Transportation Agency for Monterey County —Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas

MINUTES

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee Members Present
Bernard Green California State University, Monterey Bay Victoria Beach (by phone) City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Andrea Renny City of Monterey
Ted Lopez Fort Ord Reuse Authority
Lisa Rheinheimer Monterey-Salinas Transit
Eric Petersen Pedal Alpini/Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends

Staff Present
Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner

2. Review Draft June 18, 2015 Minutes
There were no comments on the June 18th meeting minutes.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 8\Minutes_Meeting

7.docx

3. Discuss Draft Wayfinding Sign Designs & Bike Map
Layouts
Presentation
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, presented the three draft wayfinding sign design concepts and the draft bike map layouts to the Committee for input. Ms. Murillo noted that the elements from the three different sign design concepts can be combined into a preferred design.

Committee Member Eric Petersen asked about the size of the directional signs. Ms. Murillo noted that the size of the signs will comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Committee Member Petersen also asked about the possibility of placing dista nce information in kilometers and miles. Ted Lopez, Fort Ord Reuse Authority alternate asked about translation for the wayfinding sign designs. Committee members offered the following input:

 Preference for Option #1 (pictured below) – Modern, Contemporar y directional sign .

Committee Members Bernard Green and Andrea Renny and Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director, liked the “Explore by bicycling and walking” logo. Committee Member Renny mentioned that the logo can easily be created with vinyl stickers. Committee members liked the “Explore Salinas” text order, over the “Salinas Explore” text order. In general, Committee members liked the destination, mileage and minutes distance information for the directional signs. Ms. Murillo mentioned that the www.TAMC.mySidewalk.com voting results also show a preference for Option #1.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 8\Minutes_Meeting

7.docx
 Preference for the Option #2 (pictured below) – Grounded, Contemporary compass rose add-on sign. Committee Member Victoria Beach noted that this is a cost -effective option for add-on signs. Mr. Muck asked about the possibility of having the compass rose be a bicycle wheel.

 Preference for the layout of Option #3 in the Option #2 structure of the gateway kiosk (pictured below).

Option #3 Option #2
P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 8\Minutes_Meeting

7.docx
Committee Member Renny noted that the continual structure of gateway kiosk option #2 was important for Americans with Disabilities (ADA) compliance, since someone that is visually impaired can detect the continual structure. Committee Member Beach also expressed her preference for the more natural aesthetic of gateway kiosk option #2, and noted that the other options would not have a high durability. Both she and Committee Member Renny liked the materials of the gateway kiosk option #2, noting that these materials have a high durability. Committee Member Renny also mentioned that baked enamel maps are a durable option for the gateway treatments.

Ms. Murillo also presented the planning level cost estimates for the sign designs, and noted that these estimates include the cost of installation and fabrication. Ms. Murillo mentioned that the cos t of fabrication for the directional signs ranges from $100 ( directional sign option #3 ) to $250 -$300 (directional sign option #1 ). Ms. Murillo mentioned that the planning level cost estimates pictured below are based on current bids. Committee Member Renn y noted that it would be more cost - effective to go out to bid for the production of customized signs.

Committee Member Renny suggested that TAMC set up a contract with a sign shop that can produce the customized signs , as local sign shops have limited capacity for fabrication of directional sign option #1 . That way the jurisdictions can have better access to the signage when replacements are needed. Ms. Murillo mentioned that Emily Duchon, from Alta Planning + Design, suggested that TAMC order extra blank signs to keep as replacements.

Committee Members expressed a p reference for Vertical Bicycle Map Layout #3 . Committee Member Eric Petersen mentioned that this layout would work well with handle bar map holders.

Committee Members Green and Beach also liked the vertical map layout, noting that it would be useful for cyclists looking at individual city panels. Committee Member Lisa Rheinheimer noted that the bike map colors should match the sign design color palette.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 10\Minutes_Meeting

9.docx

Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee

Thursday, November 19th, 2015
1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
*Join online: https://zoom.us/j/617724260
Call in: 1(415)762-9988 Meeting ID: 617-724-260

Transportation Agency for Monterey County —Conference Room 55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas

DRAFT MINUTES

1. Welcome & Introductions
Committee Members Present:

Bernard Green California State University, Monterey Bay Victoria Beach (by phone) City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Justin Meek City of Marina
Lisa Rheinheimer Monterey-Salinas Transit
Eric Petersen Pedal Alpini/Fort Ord Recreation Trails Friends Jeanette Pantoja Building Healthy Communities
James Serrano City of Salinas
Kevin Cole (by phone) Pebble Beach Company
Doug Thurston Big Sur Marathon
Krista Hanni (by phone) Monterey County Health Department Staff Present
Todd Muck, Deputy Executive Director Ariana Green, Associate Transportation Planner Maria Montiel, Administrative Assistant Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner Debbie Hale, Executive Director (by phone)

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 10\Minutes_Meeting

9.docx

2. Review Draft September 14th, 2015 Minutes
There were no comments on the September 14th meeting minutes.

3. Discuss Final Wayfinding Sign Design Concept
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that enhancing the environment for bicycling and walking with signage can increase the number of bicyclists and pedestrians using the county’s roadway network, and can improve the visibility and safety for these alternative forms of transportation. Having uniform signs can support residents and visitors who want to bicycle and in the cities and in the county, and can enhance each jurisdiction’s brand as a regional destination. Ms. Murillo walked the committee through the concepts below showcase three options for the “Explore Monterey County”.

The Committee had the following suggestions and comments to the Final Wayfinding Sign Design Concept:
 Consider having two sign options for cities to choose from  Consider including the agriculture fields on design
 Consider including destination information
 Consider removing the word “Explore” to make the bike/pedestrian bigger  Consider looking at a proof before printing production  Consider having each city decide to have miles and minutes

Committee member James Serrano noted that the toppers will provide the theme. He noted that less information will make it easier for those biking to read. The Committee agreed on Option #2 as the final design option, noting the need to maintain all three design options to provide jurisdictions with flexibility. Ms. Murillo noted that Alta Planning + Design would finalize this option to include agricultural fields in the design.

Committee member Lisa Rheinheimer noted that having the information of how far things and places are would be helpful for those who are on a timely schedule and for those who don’t walk or bike far . She also, noted that using kilometers would possibly benefit better for the tourist.

P:\Work Program\Bike Ped\Wayfinding Plan\Wayfinding Plan Advisory Committee\Meetings\Meeting 10\Minutes_Meeting

9.docx

Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that the two kiosk options showcase the looks of corten steel and painted aluminum. She went over the pros and cons of the two kios material options.

The Committee had the following suggestions and comments to the two kiosk options:
 Consider in the urban area the corten steel
 Consider in the modern area the painted aluminum

4. Review Draft Wayfinding Plan & Discuss Implementation Strategies Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, noted that the re will be a three step phasing.

The Committee had the following suggestions on the draft Wayfinding Plan:
 Consider directional signage at Canyon Del Rey, Seaside  Consider signage at Fort Ord Monument
 Consider ATP grant
 Consider having signage at Chular
 Consider signage at River Road (wine corridor)
 Consider signage to monuments and trailheads

5. Bike Map Status Update
Virginia Murillo, Assistant Transportation Planner, updated the Committee on the status of the bike map. Ms. Murillo shared the draft bike map with the Committee.

Salinas City CouncilMay 24, 2022

Salinas City Council
May 24, 2022