Imperial County BMP Final Draft

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Types, Government & Politics | Downloads: 27 | Comments: 0 | Views: 250
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Bicycle plan from Imperial County, CA.

Comments

Content

Imperial County Bicycle Master Plan Update: Final Draft
December 2011 PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: Imperial County

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan
Prepared for:
County of Imperial Department of Public Works

Prepared by:
Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp, AICP, Principal Sam Corbett, Senior Associate Andrea Garland, EIT, Planner

Final Plan
November 2011

Alta Planning + Design

Acknowledgements

This page intentionally left blank

Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Table of Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................i 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 1.2 1.3 Purpose of the Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Benefits of Bicycling ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Setting and Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

2

Recommended Vision, Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 2.2 2.3 Vision of the Plan .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Plan Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Relationship to Existing Plans and Policies ......................................................................................................................................... 2-3

3

Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 3.2 3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-3 Transportation Network ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-8

4

Needs Analysis............................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Bicycle Commuter Estimates .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Bicycle Collision and Safety Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Bicycle Demand and Air Quality Benefits Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 4-6 Bicycle Trip Generators ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4-9 Bicycle Trip Attractors ...............................................................................................................................................................................4-18 Bikeway Gaps ...............................................................................................................................................................................................4-20 Community-Identified Needs .................................................................................................................................................................4-22

5

Proposed Network Improvements ............................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 5.2 5.3 Design Considerations ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 Network Improvements ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5-6 Other Recommended Bicycle Improvements ..................................................................................................................................5-19

6

Program Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Education ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

Alta Planning + Design

Table of Contents

6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Encouragement ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6-5 Enforcement ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-8 Evaluation and Planning ..........................................................................................................................................................................6-11 Additional Resources .................................................................................................................................................................................6-15

7

Implementation and Funding .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Route Selection and Prioritization .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Previous Bicycle-Related Expenditures ................................................................................................................................................. 7-7 Cost Estimate for the Proposed Network ............................................................................................................................................. 7-7 Cost Estimates for Maintenance and Operations.............................................................................................................................. 7-8 Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7-9

Appendix A. BTA Compliance Checklist ......................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents .................................................................................. B-1
B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 City of Brawley Bicycle Master Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ B-1 Calexico Bicycle Master Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... B-4 El Centro Bicycle Master Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... B-6 Holtville Bicycle Master Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... B-8 Westmorland Bicycle Master Plan........................................................................................................................................................... B-9 City of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan .....................................................................................................................................................B-10 Calipatria Bicycle Master Plan.................................................................................................................................................................B-12

Appendix C. Imperial Valley Transit Routes ................................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D. Bikeway Signage .........................................................................................................................D-1
D.1 D.2 On-Street Bikeway Regulatory & Warning Signage ........................................................................................................................ D-2 Wayfinding Signage .................................................................................................................................................................................... D-3

Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

List of Figures
Figure 1-1: County of Imperial Overview and Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-2: County of Imperial Existing Land Uses (2008) ................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Figure 3-1: County of Imperial Existing Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: County of Imperial Opportunities and Constraints ......................................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3: Existing Conditions – Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3-4: Existing Conditions – Roadway Speed Limits ..................................................................................................................................3-11 Figure 4-1: Bicycle Collisions in the County of Imperial (2006-2010) .............................................................................................................. 4-4 Figure 4-2: Distribution of Primary Factors Involved in Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions ....................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-3: Average age of Cyclist Involved in Collisions .................................................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-4: County of Imperial Population Density (2000) ................................................................................................................................4-12 Figure 4-5: County of Imperial Employment Density (2008) ............................................................................................................................4-13 Figure 4-6: County of Imperial Zero-Vehicle Household (2000) ......................................................................................................................4-14 Figure 4-7: County of Imperial Bicycle Commuters as Percent of Total Commuters (2000) .................................................................4-15 Figure 4-8: County of Imperial Walking Commuters as Percent of Total Commuters (2000) ..............................................................4-16 Figure 4-9: County of Imperial Transit Commuters as Percent of Total Commuters (2000) .................................................................4-17 Figure 4-10: County of Imperial Key Attractive Land Uses for Bicycle Trips................................................................................................4-19 Figure 5-1: County of Imperial Existing and Proposed Bikeways....................................................................................................................5-12 Figure 5-2: Salton Sea Communities Proposed Bikeways .................................................................................................................................5-13 Figure 5-3: East County Proposed Bikeways...........................................................................................................................................................5-14 Figure 5-4: Potential End of Trip Facilities ...............................................................................................................................................................5-22 Figure B-1: City of Brawley Proposed Bicycle Facilites .......................................................................................................................................... B-3 Figure B-2: City of Calexico Proposed Bicycle Facilites ......................................................................................................................................... B-5 Figure B-3: City of El Centro Proposed Bicycle Facilites........................................................................................................................................ B-7 Figure B-4: City of Holtville Proposed Bicycle Facilites ......................................................................................................................................... B-8 Figure B-5: City of Westmorland Proposed Bicycle Facilites ............................................................................................................................... B-9 Figure B-6: City of Imperial Proposed Bicycle Facilites .......................................................................................................................................B-11 Figure B-7: City of Calipatria Proposed Bicycle Facilites .....................................................................................................................................B-13

List of Tables
Table ES-1: Bicycle Needs Analysis Summary............................................................................................................................................................... ii Table 1-1: County of Imperial Existing Land Uses................................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2: County of Imperial Reported Collisions 2006 – 2010........................................................................................................................ 4-2 Table 4-3: Location of Collisions in the County of Imperial ................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Table 4-4: Current Demand and Air Quality Benefits Estimates ......................................................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-5: Potential Future Demand and Air Quality Benefits Estimates ........................................................................................................ 4-8 Table 4-6: Conditions Affecting Willingness to Cycle..........................................................................................................................................4-23 Table 4-7: Level of Cycling Interest by Facility Type ............................................................................................................................................4-24 Table 4-8: Preferred Location of Facility Types by General Location.............................................................................................................4-24

Alta Planning + Design

Table of Contents

Table 4-9: Program Types and Willingness to Cycle ............................................................................................................................................4-25 Table 5-1: California Bikeway Classifications – Class I Bicycle Path ................................................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2: California Bikeway Classifications- Class II Bicycle Lanes.................................................................................................................. 5-4 Table 5-3: California Bikeway Classifications-Class III Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................ 5-5 Table 5-4: Recommended Class I Bike Paths ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-7 Table 5-5: Recommended Class II Bike Lanes ............................................................................................................................................................ 5-8 Table 5-6: Recommended Class III Bicycle Routes .................................................................................................................................................5-10 Table 5-7: Recommended Shoulder Class III Bicycle Routes on State Routes .............................................................................................5-11 Table 7-1: Proposed Facilities Ranking Criteria......................................................................................................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-2: Proposed Facilities by Rank......................................................................................................................................................................... 7-4 Table 7-3: County of Imperial Bicycle Lane Expenditures, 2005-2010 ............................................................................................................ 7-7 Table 7-4: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 7-8 Table 7-5: Planning Level Cost Summary by Bikeway Type ................................................................................................................................ 7-8 Table 7-6: Recommended Bikeway Network, Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates ................................................... 7-9 Table A-1: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan BTA Compliance Checklist............................................................................................A-1

Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan

Executive Summary
The County of Imperial’s Bicycle Master Plan is intended to serve as the guiding document for the development of an integrated network of bicycle facilities and supporting programs designed to link the unincorporated areas and attractive land uses throughout the County. The network will not only make cycling a more viable mode of transportation, but will contribute to an enhanced quality of life for residents and visitors. The major components of the Plan are described below.

Purpose of the Plan

One of the goals of the Bicycle Master Plan is to expand the existing bicycle network and end of trip support facilities in the County of Imperial.

The purpose of this Plan is to expand the existing network, complete network gaps with new facilities, provide greater connectivity among facilities, educate and encourage cyclists, and maximize access to funding sources. This Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision, strategies, and actions for improvements to the bicycling environment in the County of Imperial. It envisions a bicycling environment that takes a comprehensive approach to the “Six E’s” of a Bicycle Friendly Community – Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Encouragement, Evaluation, and Equity – by establishing the following vision elements: 1. Engineering: An inviting network of bicycling facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities and destinations that support bicycling.

2. Education: Community understanding and respect for the roles and responsibilities of cyclists. 3. Encouragement: Increased bicycle ridership and support for a strong bicycle advocacy community and bicycle culture. 4. Enforcement: A safer environment for cyclists and other transportation modes. 5. Evaluation & Planning: Institutional support and collaboration for bicycling. 6. Equity: A community that serves a diverse population and provides for the needs of those who ride out of necessity, as well as those who choose to cycle.

Goals and Policies
The goals of the Plan are supported by the 2008 County of Imperial General Plan’s programs and policies that will help bicycling become a more viable transportation mode. The goals of the Plan are:    To promote bicycling as a viable travel choice for users of all abilities in the County, To provide a safe and comprehensive regional connected bikeway network, Environmental quality, public health, recreation and mobility benefits for the County through increased bicycling

Alta Planning + Design |i

Executive Summary

Existing Bicycling Conditions
Understanding existing bicycling conditions is critical to identifying appropriate and impactful recommendations, and is achieved by reviewing existing land uses, the bicycle network and support facilities, multimodal connections, bicycle programs, constraints and opportunities. The County of Imperial’s existing bicycle network consists of 2.0 miles of off-street paved bike paths (Class I), and 8.4 miles of bike lanes (Class II). The existing Cole Road East of Calexico bicycle network is fragmented and lacks supportive end of trip facilities, however, there are ample opportunities for strengthening these crucial elements of the bicycle system. The County of Imperial is predominantly an agricultural community consisting of flat terrain. Dry and temperate weather conditions prevail throughout the year, with the exception of the extremely hot summer months of May through September. The County’s transportation network offers miles of paved roadways with relatively level terrain, limited cross traffic, low traffic volumes and wide expanses of open land that are ideal for recreational bicycling.

Bicycle Needs Analysis
The Bicycle Master Plan includes an assessment of current bicycling demand and barriers in the County of Imperial and estimates potential future demand and benefits that could be realized through implementation of this Plan. Assessing needs and potential benefits is instrumental to planning a system that serves the needs of all user groups, and is useful when pursuing competitive funding and attempting to quantify future usage and benefits to justify implementation costs. The needs analysis relies on spatial modeling techniques, public input, bicycle collision data and bicycle commuting statistics to gauge current demand and to establish a baseline against which progress can be measured. Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the bicycle needs analysis. Table ES-1: Bicycle Needs Analysis Summary Analysis Type
Percent of population that commutes by bicycle (Unincorporated County) Percent of bike-car collisions resulting in injury (Entire County) 2030 projected total daily biking trips (Unincorporated County) 2030 projected Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled per Year estimates (Unincorporated County) Most common reasons affecting willingness to cycle (Entire County) Preferred Bicycle Facility Preferred Bicycle Program

Results
0.4% 4.7% 3,716 2,122,649 Roadway conditions and motorists’ behavior Bike Lanes Safe Routes to School

Data Source
US Census (2005-2009) SWITRS (2006-2010) Alta Planning+ Design Air Quality Benefits model Imperial County Bicycle Master Plan Survey (2011)

ii | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan

Bicycle Facility Recommendations
The Plan’s infrastructure recommendations consist of bikeway network facilities and bicycle support facilities. The recommended bicycle network consists primarily of on-street facilities, including nearly 270 miles of on-street bikeways (including bike lanes and bike routes), approximately 64 miles of proposed off-street bikeways (bike paths), and 103 miles of routes along shoulders of various State Highways within Caltrans’ jurisdiction. The Plan also recommends organizing the proposed 435 miles of bikeways into fifteen designated bikeway routes that provide shorter, more utilitarian trips and good connections to schools, employment and recreational facilities. Recommended bicycle support facilities and programs include bike parking, routine maintenance of the bikeway network, and signage.

Bicycle Program Recommendations
The Plan recommends several education, enforcement, encouragement, monitoring, and evaluation efforts that the County should pursue. Recommended education programs include developing a “Share the Road” campaign and a Safe Routes to School program. Encouragement programs include a bicycle signage plan, developing a regional bicycle map, and bike commute events and incentives. Evaluation and monitoring programs include convening a Bicycle Advisory Committee, developing a Complete Streets Policy, collecting bicycle and pedestrian counts, and preparing annual progress reports.

Implementation and Funding
The Plan supports the implementation of the bicycle network recommendations by providing planning level cost estimates of the proposed bicycle network. The cost of implementing the complete proposed bicycle network is estimated at approximately $68 million dollars. The Plan also applies prioritization criteria to the entire network to evaluate each proposed bicycle facility in its ability to improve the existing bicycle network and its ease of implementation. The results of the project ranking process should serve as guidelines for the County in the implementation of the recommended bicycle network.

Alta Planning + Design |iii

Executive Summary

This page intentionally left blank

iv | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

1 Introduction
The Bicycle Master Plan (“The Plan”) lays out a framework for creating and expanding programs and improvements designed to increase bicycling activity in the County of Imperial. The Vision, Goals, and Objectives of the County Bicycle Master Plan are principles that guide the development and implementation of the County bicycle network and related programming for years to come. Goals and objectives are intended to inform and guide decisions about where public improvements are to be made, where resources are allocated, how programs are operated, and how County priorities are determined.

One purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan is to expand the existing bicycle network in the County of Imperial.

1.1 Purpose of the Plan
This Plan is an update to the 2003 Countywide Bicycle Master Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2007. The purpose of this Plan is to expand the existing network, complete network gaps and provide greater connectivity to the proposed and existing bicycle facilities in each of the incorporated cities in the County. This Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision, strategies, and actions for the improvement of the bicycling environment across the County of Imperial. In addition to providing recommendations and design guidelines for bikeways and support facilities, the Plan offers recommendations for education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs, as well as providing updated information to help maximize funding sources for bicycle related improvements. A key reason for updating the Plan is to satisfy requirements of bicycle-related state and federal grant funding programs. In order to qualify for available funding, the State of California requires that applicants have a master plan adopted or updated within the past five years that includes a number of specific elements related to bicycle commuting, land uses, multi-modal connections, funding, and public input. The complete list of required Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) elements and their locations in this document is provided in Appendix A: BTA Compliance Checklist.

1.2 Benefits of Bicycling
Planning to create more bicycle-friendly communities contributes to efforts to resolve several complex and interrelated issues, including economic development, traffic congestion, air quality, public health, social equity, and quality of life/livability issues. By guiding policies and infrastructure investment toward bicycle-friendly development, this plan can affect all of these issue areas, which collectively can have a profound influence on the existing and future quality of life throughout the County of Imperial.

Alta Planning + Design |1-1

Chapter 1 | Introduction

1.2.1 Environmental Benefits
Replacing vehicular trips with bicycle trips has a measurable impact on reducing human-generated greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that contribute to climate change. Fewer vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) translates into fewer mobile source pollutants such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons being released into the air. Providing transportation options that reduce VMT is an important component of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. Chapter 4 outlines the estimated air quality impacts of improved bicycling in the County of Imperial.

1.2.2 Public Health Benefits
Investing in bicycle friendly communities can have a profound influence on the quality of life of County residents.

Public health professionals have become increasingly aware that the impacts of automobiles on public health extend far beyond asthma and other respiratory conditions caused by air pollution. There is a much deeper understanding of the connection between the lack of physical activity resulting from auto-oriented community designs and various health-related problems, such as obesity and other chronic diseases. Although diet and genetic predisposition contribute to these conditions, physical inactivity is now widely understood to play a significant role in the most common chronic diseases in the US, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Creating bicycle-friendly communities is one of several effective ways to encourage active lifestyles.

1.2.3 Safety Benefits
Conflicts between bicyclists and motorists result from poor riding and/or driving behavior as well as insufficient or ineffective facility design. Encouraging development and redevelopment in which bicycle travel is emphasized improves the overall safety of the roadway environment for all users. Well-designed bicycle facilities improve security for current cyclists and encourage more people to bike, which in turn can further improve bicycling safety. Studies have shown that the frequency of bicycle collisions has an inverse relationship to bicycling rates – more people on bicycles equates to fewer crashes.1 Providing information and educational opportunities about safe and lawful interactions between bicyclists and other roadway users also improves safety.

Replacing vehicular trips with bicycle trips reduces humangenerated greenhouse gases that are associated with climate change.

1

Jacobsen, P. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, 9: 205-209. 2003.

1-2 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

1.2.4 Economic Benefits
Bicycling is economically advantageous to individuals and communities. Cost savings associated with bicycle travel expenses are accompanied by potential savings in health care costs. For example, 30 minutes of daily bicycling is estimated to result in $544 per person in annual health care savings.2 On a community scale, bicycle infrastructure projects are generally far less expensive than automobile-related infrastructure. Further, shifting a greater share of daily trips to bicycle trips reduces the impact on the region’s transportation system, thus reducing the need for improvement and expansion projects. Studies have also shown that the overall contribution of bicycling to the economy is significant. A study conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin estimates that the bicycle-related sector contributes $556 million to the state’s economy annually. This estimate does not include the economic benefits derived from bicycle tourism, which is reported to constitute a significant portion of the state’s $11.7 billion in the tourism sector. The County of Imperial’s predominantly flat topography, combined with the exceptional beauty of its desert surroundings, presents excellent opportunities for bicycle touring and its associated economic benefits.

1.2.5 Community/Quality of Life Benefits
Fostering conditions where bicycling is accepted and encouraged increases a region’s livability from a number of different perspectives. The design, land uses, and transportation systems that comprise the built environment have a profound impact on quality of life issues. Studies have found that people living in communities with built environments that promote bicycling and walking tend to be more socially active, civically engaged, and are more likely to know their neighbors.3 4 Settings where walking and riding bicycles are viable transportation options also offer greater independence to the elderly, the disabled, and people of limited economic means who are unable to drive automobiles for physical or economic reasons. The aesthetic quality of a community also improves when the visual impact and noise pollution caused by automobiles is reduced and when open space is reserved for bicycle facilities that enable people to recreate and commute in a safe and pleasant environment.

1.3 Setting and Study Area
The County of Imperial is located in the southeast corner of California. It is bordered by Riverside County to the north, by San Diego County to the west, by Mexico to the south and by the Colorado River and the State of Arizona to the east. The entire County, including incorporated and unincorporated land encompasses approximately 4,175 square miles of land, with an estimated population of 174,528 people as of 20105. Notable geographic features found in the County of Imperial include the Salton Sea, at 235 feet below sea level, the Algodones Dunes, one of the largest dune fields in America, the Chocolate Mountains located east of the Salton Sea, and The Anza-Borrego Desert, which extends along the western part of the

2 3 4

Gotschi, T. 2011. Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Improvements in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Physical Activity and Health,8, S49-S58. Frumkin, H. 2002. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports 117: 201–17. Leyden, K. 2003. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 93: 1546– U.S Census Bureau: 2010 United State Census Data

51.
5

Alta Planning + Design |1-3

Chapter 1 | Introduction

County. Much of the incorporated land is located in the Imperial Valley, which extends southward for 50 miles from the southern end of the Salton Sea into Mexico. The County of Imperial is a desert community with a warm, dry climate. Summers are extremely hot and dry while winters are temperate. This Plan focuses on the unincorporated areas of the County of Imperial. Figure 1-1 displays the regional setting and study area. Figure 1-2 shows the County of Imperial’s existing land uses. The majority of the County is comprised of agricultural land uses. Approximately one-fifth of the nearly 3 million acres of the County is irrigated for agricultural purposes. Additionally, approximately 50 percent of County land is undeveloped and under federal military ownership. The developed areas, which include incorporated cities and unincorporated communities, comprise less than one-percent of County land.6 Table 1-1 summarizes the percent of each land use type in the County. The incorporated cities of Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, El Centro, Holtville, Imperial and Westmorland constitute the developed areas, containing most of the residential, commercial, and facility land uses in the County. This area also accounts for 78.3 percent of the total population in the County. State facilities include Anza-Borrego State Park, Ocotillo Wells State Recreation Area, the Salton Sea State Recreational Area and Picacho State Recreational Area in the Colorado River. Military activities are centered at the Naval Air Facility El Centro, located north of Seeley, at the Salton Sea Test Base, and at other smaller sites throughout the County. Other federal sites include National Wildlife Refuges at the south end of the Salton Sea, and two sites at the Colorado River. The County has three U.S. Border ports of entry, two of which are located in unincorporated land- the Gateway of America is located east of the City of Calexico, and the Algodones Port of Entry near the California/Arizona border. The third port of entry is located in the City of Calexico. Table 1-1: County of Imperial Existing Land Uses Land Use Type
Agriculture Developed Areas Salton Sea Open Space/Desert/ Mountains Military

Percentage
18.2% 0.6% 7.2% 24% 50%

Source: County of Imperial General Plan (2008)

6

Land Use Element of the Imperial County General Plan. Planning & Development Services Department. Imperial County, 2008.

1-4 | Alta Planning + Design

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

111

115

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 1-1: Imperial County Overview & Study Area

B

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Existing Land Uses Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Other Residential General Office Facilities

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

Commercial and Services
111 115

Education Industrial

Military Installations Transportation Mixed Urban Agriculture
WILLS RD

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

Mixed Commercial and Industrial Open Space and Recreation

CITY of BRAWLEY

SHANK RD

Vacant

Under Construction Undevelopable Unknown
78

County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

S30

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

Figure 1-2: Existing Land Uses (2008)
Source: SCAG (2008) Date: 3/31/2011

Imperial County Bicycle Master Plan

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

2 Recommended Vision, Goals and Objectives
The infrastructure improvements and programs recommended in the County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan will be shaped by the vision, goals and objectives developed by County staff, public input, and existing plans’ regional policies and visions.

2.1 Vision of the Plan
The following statement summarizes the County’s goal for future bicycle facilities and serves as the overall vision for developing bicycling facilities in the County:

To encourage and promote cycling in the County through the development of a regional bicycle facility network that integrates bicycling in the valley as a safe and convenient form of transportation achieved through engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement.

2.2 Plan Goals
The goals of the Bicycle Master Plan Update were developed in coordination with the County of Imperial General Plan (2008). The Goals provide context to the Plan and help strengthen additional policies that provide specific guidance for achieving an ideal bicycle environment. The Goals of the Plan are: Overarching Goal:

“The County of Imperial desires to encourage and promote bicycling as a safe and convenient form of transportation and recreation achieved through engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement.”
Goal 1.0: Create a complete and comprehensive bicycle network A comprehensive, rational and equitable bikeway system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, civic buildings, and existing and future employment locations based on the General Plan land use designations. Objectives 1.1. Provide bicycle access to major employment and retail centers, schools, parks and other destinations. 1.2. Plan, design and construct roadways that include facilities for bicyclists and where feasible, Class I multi-use paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, and disabled persons. 1.3. When developing new schools, parks, residential communities, and retail/employment centers, include bicycle facilities that expand the bicycle network or connect to proposed or existing routes. 1.4. Reduce vehicle fuel consumption and the number of vehicular miles traveled by increasing non-motorized transportation trips.

Alta Planning + Design | 2-1

Chapter 2 | Recommended Vision, Goals and Objectives

Goal 1.0: Create a complete and comprehensive bicycle network 1.5. Increase the number of transit facilities with bicycle facilities, which should include bicycle parking, bikeways connecting to bus stops and stations, and installation of bicycle racks on busses. 1.6. Integrate bicycle facilities as part of the design and construction of new roadways and upgrades or resurfacing of existing roadways. 1.7. Establish a bicycle network that offers opportunities for cycling for all ages and abilities. 1.8. Maintain the bikeway network by establishing a regular maintenance program. 1.9. Pursue grant-funding programs for implementing the bikeway network. 1.10.Assign a staff person or appoint a committee to coordinate and implement and maintain the bikeway system. 1.11. Cooperatively pursue joint multi-agency funding applications for implementation that will expand the regional bikeway network.

Goal 2.0: Create a Safe Bicycle Environment Increased safety of roadways for bicyclists. Objectives 2.1. Implement projects that improve the safety of bicyclists at key destinations. 2.2. Support traffic enforcement activities that increase bicyclist’s safety. 2.3. Evaluate impacts on bicyclists when designing new or reconfiguring streets.

Goal 3.0: Improve Bicycle Wayfinding School and commuter bikeways that are easily recognized by signs and accessible from residential areas through appropriate design. Objectives 3.1. Develop educational programs that promote the safe and efficient travel of cyclists. 3.2. Establish a regular education program that targets schools and adults to inform and educate about safety techniques, both for cyclists and for vehicles. 3.3. Develop maps and wayfinding signage and striping to assist navigating the regional bikeways.

2-2 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Goal 4.0: Ensure an Enduring Bicycling Culture County residents that are encouraged to walk or ride a bike for transportation and recreation. Objective 4.1. Support organized rides or cycling events, including those that may include periodic street closures in the unincorporated areas of the County. Goal 5.0: Improve End of Trip Facilities Bicycle storage facilities and/or bicycle racks located at parks, schools, civic buildings and at new retail and employment centers or during renovations of existing retail and employment centers. Objectives 5.1. Provide bicycle access and bicycle parking at new employment, commercial, and transit destinations and at existing parks. 5.2. Develop guidelines and/or standards to require bicycle parking with new commercial, industrial development and all new schools and civic buildings.

2.3 Relationship to Existing Plans and Policies
Planning and policy context is important to the successful implementation of this Plan because much of the support for bicycle-related projects will come from local sales tax, as well as federal and state monies administered by regional and state agencies. This Plan is written to be consistent with other state and regional plans and policies including: The County of Imperial General Plan, state policies and legislation, and other local city plans summarized below.

2.3.1 County of Imperial General Plan – 2008
The County of Imperial General Plan establishes a broad vision and set of goals supporting and encouraging the development of bicycle facilities. Once completed, the Bicycle Master Plan will be adopted by the County Board of Supervisors as a planning document supporting the General Plan. The following goals and objectives from the General Plan are especially relevant to the Bicycle Master Plan:

A Circulation Element Goal C-2: Consider all modes of transportation including motor vehicle, rail, transit, air transportation, and non-motorized transportation. Objective C-2.2 Encourage a mix of transportation modes to meet community needs, including access to medical, educational, economic and social service facilities. The local circulation system should include pedestrian, bicycle and transit methods to enable residents to choose alternate modes in lieu of reliance on the automobile.

Alta Planning + Design | 2-3

Chapter 2 | Recommended Vision, Goals and Objectives

A Circulation Element Goal C-3: Develop alternative transportation strategies designed to reduce traffic volumes and improve traffic flow. This includes providing alternatives to residents such as pedestrian, bicycle and public transit options. Objectives C-3.6 Develop and improve bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Consider the needs of bicyclists in the design, construction, and maintenance of all County roads, with specific attention to those roads established and defined in a network of key bicycling routes in the most current approved County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan. The Bicycle Master Plan is made a part of the County Circulation Element by reference. Ensure the safety of the traveling public, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Attempt to reduce motor vehicle air pollution. Encourage the incorporation of bicycle facilities, such as bike lockers and showers at workplaces, and bicycle racks on buses, to better facilitate bicycle travel. Maintain the pedestrian and bicycle system, including improving the road surface and sidewalk, to reduce the safety hazard associated with drainage grates, manholes, potholes and uneven surfaces.

C-3.7 C-3.8 C-3.10

C-3.11

Goal C-4: The County shall make every effort to develop a circulation system that highlights and preserves the environmental and scenic amenities of the area. Objective C-4.1 Establish various systems of scenic recreational travel utilizing multiple transportation modes.

Goal C-5: Participate in and assist with coordinating regional efforts which integrate the County Transportation System with the Regional Transportation System. Objective C-5.2 The County shall provide and/or requires as appropriate the necessary facilities to obtain balanced use of all travel modes to address the transportation needs of all ages and to provide mobility for a variety of trip purposes. The County shall generally recognize the following priorities for new transportation facilities: vehicular, freight movement, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle.

In addition, the Circulation Element of the General Plan provides specific policies in regards with bicycle transportation through the Non-Motorized Transportation Program. The Policies associated with this program are presented as follows:

2-4 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

B Circulation Element- Non-Motorized Transportation Program Goal: Provide an integrated bicycle circulation system which facilities shall provide mobility and safety to all persons and areas within the County of Imperial Policies C-1 Class II bikeways (on-street bike lanes) shall be planned into appropriate Expressways, Prime Arterials, Minor Arterials, and Collectors in accordance with the most current County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan. C-2 C-3 C-4 The County shall cooperate with other governmental agencies to provide connection and continuation of bicycle corridors. The utilization of land shall integrate the bicycle circulation system with auto, pedestrian, and transit systems. The County shall seek funds at the private, local, state, and federal levels for the bicycle circulation system.

C Conservation and Open Space Element Goal O-10: Open space shall be maintained to protect the aesthetic character of the region, protect natural resources, provide recreational opportunities, and minimize hazards to human activity. Objectives O-10.6 Encourage the development and improvement of recreational facilities in County of Imperial. O-10.7 Coordinate federal, state, and local agencies for trail-oriented recreational uses.

2.3.2 State Policies and Legislation
Bicycle Transportation Act The California Bicycle Transportation Act (1994) is perhaps one of the most important pieces of bicyclerelated legislation and requires all cities and counties to have an adopted bicycle master plan in order to be eligible to apply for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding. Appendix A identifies the requirements for BTA funding and corresponding sections of this Plan that satisfy each requirement. California Government Code §65302 (Complete Streets) California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Bill, amended the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions. The Government Code §65302 reads: “(2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.

Alta Planning + Design | 2-5

Chapter 2 | Recommended Vision, Goals and Objectives

(B)For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads, and highways" means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.” Deputy Directive 64 & Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted two policies in recent years that are relevant to bicycle planning initiatives such as this Bicycle Master Plan. Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64-R1) sets forth that Caltrans address the “safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding.” In a more specific application of complete streets goals, Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06 presents bicycle detection requirements. For example, 09-06 requires that new and modified signal detectors provide bicyclist detection if they are to remain in operation. Further, the standard states that new and modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections provide bicycle detection or a bicyclist pushbutton if detection is required. California SB 375 – Sustainable Communities (2008) Senate Bill (SB) 375 is intended to compliment Assembly Bill (AB) 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and encourage local governments to reduce emissions through improved planning. Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Each of California’s MPOs will then prepare a “sustainable communities strategy (SCS)” that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning. One way to help meet the emissions targets is to increase the bicycle mode share by substituting bicycle trips for automobile trips. The County of Imperial’s efforts to encourage bicycling and other alternative modes of transportation will contribute to the regional attainment of these targets. In addition to these policies, the California Highway Design Manual contains bikeway design standards, while the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes specifications for traffic control devices, signs and pavement markings that must be adhered to in California. The design recommendations for the bicycle facilities proposed in this Plan adhere to these manuals.

2.3.3 Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents
In order to create a seamless, well connected bikeway network throughout the County, it is vital that the existing bicycle master plans of incorporated cities within the County of Imperial be considered in the development of the County of Imperial’s proposed bikeway network. Currently the cities of Brawley, Calexico, El Centro, Holtville, Imperial, Calipatria, and Westmorland have adopted Bicycle Master Plans which establish goals, projects, recommendations, and implementation strategies to enhance their respective local bicycle transportation networks. The recommendations of this Plan refer to and support relevant goals, projects and programs from each of these documents. Appendix B provides a brief summary of each of the incorporated city’s Bicycle Master Plans, including a map of the recommended bicycle facilities for each city.

2-6 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

3 Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle network in the County of Imperial consists of 2.0 miles of a Class I bicycle path located along Aten Road at the southern border of Imperial Valley College and 8.4 miles of Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for a total of 10.4 miles. Figure 3-1 displays the County of Imperial’s 10.4 miles of existing bikeways. As shown, bike lanes exist along Drew Road from State Route 8 to Evan Hewes Highway, along Ross Road from Drew Road to El Centro’s city limits, along La Brucherie Road from Neckel Road to Worthington Road, and along Dogwood Road from Black Hills Road to State Existing bike path along Aten Road. Highway 86 on the Westside and from State Highway 86 to Correll Road on the Eastside. The Drew Road, La Brucherie Road and Ross Road facilities are oneway couplets. There is a railroad crossing traversing Drew Road about 300 feet south of the intersection with Evan Hewes Highway. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes along these routes are low, varying between 700 and 8,700 vehicles per day. The existing bicycle path located along Aten Road between Dogwood Road and State Highway 111 is a non-conforming bike path. Generally the pavement is in poor condition and pavement markings are barely visible throughout the path extents. The 2003 Bicycle Master Plan Update proposes improvements to this path, including widening the existing pathway to a standard Class I bike path and extending its limits to State Route 86, for a total length of 3.8 miles. Among the incorporated cities within the County of Imperial, the cities of El Centro, Imperial and Brawley have existing bicycle networks. The City of El Centro bicycle network includes about 1.4 miles of Class I (bike path), 0.75 miles of Class II (bike lanes), and 39.5 miles of Class III (bicycle routes). The City of Imperial’s existing bicycle network consists of 0.75 miles of Class I, known as The Imperial College Bike Path, 1 mile of Class II and 0.5 miles of Class III facilities along Aten Road. The City of Brawley’s existing bicycle facilities include 1.7 miles of Class I, 2.55 miles of Class II, and 0.25 miles of Class III bicycle facilities.

Alta Planning +Design | 3-1

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Existing Bicycle Network (2011)
Existing Class I - Bike Path Existing Class II - Bike Lane

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

111

115

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA
LA BRUCHERIE RD

WESTMORLAND

BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL

111

115

S28

B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

ATEN RD

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

EVAN HEWES HWY

ROSS RD
DREW RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

8

McCABE RD

DOGWOOD RD

WY

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S29

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 3-1: Existing Bicycle Network (2011)

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

3.2 Opportunities and Constraints
This section outlines opportunities and constraints for bicycle connectivity within the County of Imperial’s existing transportation network as documented during field reviews and identified through review of existing conditions data. Figure 3-2 depicts specific opportunities and constraints, which are also discussed in the subsequent sections.

3.1.1 Opportunities
The County of Imperial is predominantly an agricultural community consisting of flat terrain. Dry conditions exist throughout the year, and temperatures range from 30 degrees in January to over 110 degrees in July. From October to May, daytime temperatures are generally mild. The flat topography in addition to the moderate weather for much of the year makes for an ideal cycling environment. Economically, the region is situated adjacent to the manufacturing-oriented Mexican border and serves as a port of entry and a major area for commercial transport. As Cole Road, East of Calexico. a result, many employees commute by bicycle over the border because bicycling offers the most feasible, affordable, and efficient mode of transportation for crossing. Therefore, there is a growing demand for bicycle racks, lockers, and bicycle lanes in the border cities. The arterial roadways that connect the region provide an ideal opportunity for a long distance network. Residents have expressed a growing interest in developing long distance facilities for recreational riding. 7 An example of this can be seen along Ross Road and Drew Road directly east of El Centro and south of the Naval Air Station at Seeley. These roadways currently offer 6.9 miles of bicycle facilities.
Recreational Opportunities

The Colorado River, offering a wide variety of recreational activities, is easily accessible via Interstates 8 or 10. Similarly, at the northwest corner of the County of Imperial lies California's largest inland body of water, the Salton Sea. With fifteen miles of shoreline, this popular destination is known for its camping, fishing, duck hunting, and wildlife preserves. The County of Imperial’s numerous parks offer various recreational opportunities for sports, swimming, equestrian training, picnicking, camping, fishing, and wildlife

Sunbeam Lake Park.
Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update, 2003

7

April 17th, 2002 public workshop conducted for the City of Calexico Bicycle Master Plan development.

Alta Planning +Design | 3-3

Chapter 3 | Existing Conditions

appreciation. Sunbeam Lake, in particular, offers boating and a BMX facility for mountain biking and stunt riding. Moreover, there are several state facilities in the surrounding areas that offer rural natural preserve areas for local wildlife.
Regional Connectivity

The current 2003 Bicycle Master Plan recommends implementation of a 252-mile system of bicycle lanes, routes, and pathways that link schools, shopping, employment centers, and existing and planned residential developments. Providing designated routes for cycling not only strengthens the network but also serves as recognition of a growing cycling community by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists and the legal requirement to share the roadway with bicyclists. The City of El Centro plays a significant role in the development of the regional network, as it is the largest city in the valley. The 2002 El Centro Master Bicycle Plan recommends the implementation of 24 miles of bicycle facilities that will connect with the County regional network and the City of Imperial proposed network. The development of an extensive bikeway network within El Centro sets the stage for improved bikeway connectivity throughout the region.
Multi-Modal Connections
Highland Canal.

Census data indicates that approximately 0.7 percent of the County of Imperial residents use public transit for commute purposes.8 Imperial Valley Transit (IVT) is the public transit agency that operates within the County. Appendix C shows the existing IVT routes that serve the County of Imperial. Bike racks on buses have become an important tool for improving multi-modal connections. Imperial Valley Transit has All Imperial Valley Transit buses are had bike racks on all buses since 2000, and IVT records show equipped with bicycle racks. that annual bicycle ridership almost doubled (between 2005 and Source:SoCal METRO 2008) from 4,371 to 8,496 bicyclists9. A new transit center recently opened at the Imperial Valley College, which presents a great opportunity for increased multimodal trip linking via bicycle and public transit. The City of El Centro is planning for a new Transit Center at the corner of State Street and 7th Street that will have bicycle support facilities such as bicycle racks, lockers, snack machines, and restrooms. Additionally, new transit centers are being planned for the cities of Brawley, Calexico and Imperial. These transit center improvements and bicycle support facilities will offer bicyclists an opportunity to

8 9

American Community Survey, United States Census, 2005-2009. City of El Centro Bicycle Master Plan, October 2009.

3-4 | Alta Planning + Desing

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

live in one area of the County or City and make multi-modal trips via bicycle and public transit to get to work or school in other parts of the County.
Bicycle Activity

The County of Imperial provides many opportunities for avid cyclists who enjoy longer rides, with limited cross traffic, low traffic volumes, and wide expanses of open land. The Imperial Valley Velo Club (IVVC) is a group of local cycling enthusiasts that promote recreational cycling in the region by organizing weekly group rides for all levels. IVVC organizes and stages the Annual Imperial Classic, a criterium race that is part of the Southern California Cup racing series. Through these organized rides and races, the IVVC helps to create local awareness of bicycling activities. Continued and expanded encouragement for bicycling along with the development of a well-connected bicycle network will represent an increase in bicycling rates and bicyclists will be better accommodated.

Imperial County offers many miles of flat roadways with low traffic ideal for long recreational rides.

3.2.1 Constraints
The County of Imperial currently has limited bicycling facilities, which provides plenty of opportunities to expand and improve the existing bicycle network, particularly with regards to the border region. However, with this potential there are also impediments to bicycling that require consideration.
Climate

The County of Imperial experiences summer temperatures well over 100 degrees, which can make it challenging to bicycle during much of the day at this time of the year. However, from October to May, the climate throughout the County is relatively mild and is well-suited to bicycling. During the winter months, the County of Imperial averages eight hours of sunshine per day, which is more than any other location in the United States.

While the hot summer months pose a formidable challenge to bicycling for most residents, there is considerable potential for bicycling during the rest of the year, when the climate is ideally suited for outdoor activity.

Alta Planning +Design | 3-5

Chapter 3 | Existing Conditions

System Gaps The County of Imperial currently lacks an extensive bicycle network. Therefore, the Bicycle Master Plan Update serves as a blueprint to develop and implement the necessary system and infrastructure to support bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. Due to the rural nature of the region and the high number of individuals crossing the border and bicycling to their destinations, it is important to develop safe bicycling connections between communities, particularly from Calexico to surrounding cities. Similarly, strengthening bicycle connections to educational facilities utilizing Safe Routes to School program funding is also a priority to encourage ridership amongst younger populations. Roadway Barriers Although truck routes, collectors and agricultural roads are utilized by experienced riders, they can present barriers to more novice riders. Truck routes, serving trucks traveling at high speeds, are undesirable to the majority of bicyclists. Collector roads with lower traffic volumes are a feasible alternative to arterial truck routes, but because they bridge long distances between cities, bicycling for transportation is not in high demand on these roadways. Finally, riders may choose agricultural roads due to low traffic volumes; however, they must be aware of the hazards of large agricultural equipment. With no bicycle infrastructure improvements, these roadway types will remain unattractive to all but the hardiest riders. Bicycling Culture The County of Imperial lacks comprehensive bicycle-related programs and policies to support a strong bicycle culture. Despite this obstacle, there is growing community support for more bicycle-oriented communities as gas prices and public transit fees rise. In addition, creating bicycle-friendly communities is one of the most effective ways to encourage active lifestyles, which ideally could result in a reduction of health-related problems in the County of Imperial, such as obesity and other chronic diseases. Building off this framework requires institutionalizing and supporting bicycling at an administrative level through improvements to bicycle policies, programs, and facilities, which are critical components to becoming a bicycle-friendly region. Low-Density Development Patterns Fairly low density developments prevail throughout the County of Imperial, especially in the unincorporated parts of the County. From a transportation perspective, low-density development translates to longer trip distances, which makes it more challenging to complete utilitarian trips by bicycle. The incorporated cities within the County of Imperial have higher population densities and more mixed use developments than the unincorporated county, both of which are contributing factors towards creating a more bicycle-oriented community. As such, the County of Imperial may opt to prioritize bikeway facilities in close proximity to incorporated cities as they will likely provide greater utility to County residents. Over time, the County could also overcome this constraint by pursuing higher density, mixed-use developments in unincorporated parts of the County, as this development strategy would contribute towards making bicycling a more viable transportation option.

3-6 | Alta Planning + Desing

Salton Sea Communities
Southern Pacific Railroad

SALTON SEA

GENTRY RD

DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SINCLAIR RD

Opportunities & Constraints
So u the r n P ac ific R

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

| þ } ·
NILE DR

86

SALTON CITY

""

M A RI N

A

DR
SALTON DR

""

"

KALIN RD

7 6 5 4
County Overview
A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

S22

| þ· } | þ } ·

78

86

CITY of WESTMORLAND

""""

" """

""

""

IMPERIAL COUNTY
"
"

ARIZONA

IMLER RD

CA R T E

RR

D

| þ } ·

86

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

"

CALIPATRIA
"
"

" "

" " "

" "

" " "

"

" "

"

" " " " " "" " "

MEXICO

BENNETT RD

"""

HUFF RD

DUNAWAY RD

IMPERIAL HWY

McCABE RD

ü Æ

BOWKER RD

OCOTILLO

§ ¦ ¨ 7 6 5 4
S29

8

ü Æ

! ? HEBER

Existing Class II - Bike Lane
BONDS CORNER RD
HEBER AV
""""""

HUNT RD

VANDERLINDEN RD

EVA

N

W HE

""

E

W SH

Y

"""

""""

"""

San Diego-Arizona Eastern RR

! ? j k

EVAN HEWES HWY

"""

j k ! ?

7 6 5 4
DOGWOOD RD LA BRUCHERIE RD
"""""""
"
""

S30

BARBARA WORTH RD

"" "

ANZA RD

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update (2003), County of Imperial (2011) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 3-2: Opportunities and Constraints

" "" " " " " " " "

0

[

""

3

6 Miles

| þ } ·

98

" "

SEELEY

! ?

"""""""" ""

! ? £ n ü Æ
"

"""""

U.S Naval Air Station

" "" " " " " " " " " "" " "

ATEN RD

"""

MEXICALI

B

""

CALEXICO ""
"" "

" " "

"

"

EL CENTRO
"
"

" "" " "" " "

"

"

"

" " "

"

" "

"

IMEPERIAL
" " " "
"

" "

"

" " " " "

"

"

" "

"

"

"

" " " " "

" "

" " " " "

"

" BRAWLEY

""

" "

WESTMORLAND

" " " " " " " " " " "

"

AUSTIN RD

"

"

"

" " HOLTVILLE

YUMA

CITY of IMPERIAL
"""

! ? ! ?
CITY of EL CENTRO
"
" """" "" ""

"

7 6 5 4

S30

£ ! n ?
""""

"""""""

WILLS RD

SHANK RD

" ""

DIETRICH RD

CITY of BRAWLEY

j k

" " " ""

7 6 5 4

S30

"

ü Æ

CITY of CALIPATRIA

Existing Railroads Abandoned Railroad HighlandCanal

a ilro

ad

| þ } ·
! ?

111

| þ } ·

115

£ n
H IG

Transit Connection Freeway Barrier Railroad track crossing barrier Parking Constraints Border Ports of Entry
ND H LA CA N

j k

AL

7 6 5 4

S26

! ? ü Æ

"

""

#

"

| þ } ·

78

" "

""
"
"

7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
| þ } ·
111 S27
HIGHLAND CANAL

S33

ve Le

eM

"

gR in in

"

"

"

" "
"

a ilr

"

d oa

"

| þ } ·

115

"

"

" " "

"

"

" "

" " " "

"

7 6 5 4
ün Æ £
HOLTEN RD

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE

NORRISH RD

"" "

EVAN HEWES HWY

| þ } ·
j k

7

Existing Conditions
OGIER RD

Existing Class I - Bike Path

B

""""

"""

§ ¦ ¨

8

City Proposed Routes
CONNELLY RD

CITY of CALEXICO

Education Facilities County Facilities

7 6 5 4

S33

Open Space 98 and Recreation

""""""""""""

| þ } ·

"""""" """""""

! ? £ ü n Æ
""""

City of Calexico U.S. Port of Entry

#

Gateway of America U.S. Port of Entry

#

Military Complex MEXICALI

Chapter 3 | Existing Conditions

3.3 Transportation Network
The County of Imperial’s topography and climate provide many opportunities for bicycling activities. The majority of County roads offer miles of relatively level terrain, limited cross traffic, low traffic volumes, and wide expanses of open land that are ideal for recreational bicycling. The existing roadway network follows a relatively straight grid pattern, which enhances the connectivity and accessibility across the County. The network is comprised of three major types of roadways:  State Routes (SR-86, SR-111, SR-78, and SR-115): These direct routes serve as major connections and are utilized by experienced cyclists who are comfortable with riding alongside high-speed motor vehicle traffic.  County Roads: With lower traffic volumes and wide shoulders, county roads are ideal and frequently used for long distance bicycling.  Roadways designed for agricultural equipment: Typically paved at approximately 22-24 feet wide, these roads are primarily used for one-way equipment traffic. Cyclists may choose these routes due to low traffic volumes; however, they must be aware of the hazards of large agricultural equipment. Major arterials which can accommodate future bicycle traffic include:
Extending north - south

State Route 111.

State Route 98 in Calexico.

 SR-111, starting at the Mexican border and connecting the cities of Calexico through Calipatria with the northeast Salton Sea.  Old Route 111, running parallel to SR-111, it connects the cities of El Centro and Brawley.  SR-86, connecting to SR-111 near Calexico and again in Brawley, it continues along the west side of Salton Sea connecting to the City of Westmorland.
County Highway S28.

 SR-115, connecting Holtville with Imperial Valley and SR-78.
Extending east - west

 SR-78 connecting the off-road recreational vehicle area, through Borrego Springs into San Diego County.  SR-98, connecting I-8 and crossing through the Calexico border is a major east-west corridor

3-8 | Alta Planning + Desing

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

Roadway Characteristics

Figures 3-3 and 3-4 display the characteristics of the County of Imperial’s roadway system, including roadway classifications, speed limits and traffic volumes. In general, most cyclists are comfortable riding in the road on lowvolume, low-speed neighborhood streets without any special bicycle facilities. On major roadways with heavier traffic and higher motor vehicle speeds, cyclists and motorists are generally more comfortable with separate bicycle facilities. National bicycle design guidelines recommend facilities to separate bicycle and motor vehicle traffic as motor vehicle volumes exceed 3,000 vehicles per day and traffic speeds exceed 25 mph.10 Multi-lane roads are typically more dangerous for all users because of the increased traffic volume, the potential for higher speeds, and the greater amount of conflict locations due to turning vehicles.

Aten Road.

Anza Road at Ferrell Road.

Norris Road at Highline Canal.

10

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999

Alta Planning +Design | 3-9

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CALIPATRIA
S30

Average Daily Traffic Volumes
< 1,000 1,001 - 3,000 3,001 - 10,000
111 115

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

10,001 - 20,000 >20,000

A

DR
SALTON DR

S22

78

86

WESTMORLAND

S26

M A RI N

BRAWLEY

WILLS RD

SHANK RD

S30 S33 S27

78

86

IMPERIAL

111

115

S28

BENNETT RD

HOLTVILLE EL CENTRO
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

HUFF RD

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
OGIER RD HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

8

McCABE RD

HEBER
BONDS CORNER RD BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

City of Calexico U.S. Port of Entry

Gateway of America U.S. Port of Entry

MEXICALI

Figure 3-3: Existing Conditions - Average Daily Traffic County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 5/23/11

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CALIPATRIA

Posted Speed Limits
Up to 25 MPH (Local, Industrial) Up to 30 MPH (Local, Minor Collector) 55 MPH (Minor Arterial, Major Collector) 65 MPH (Highway, Major Arterial)

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

111

115

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

86

WESTMORLAND

S26

BRAWLEY

WILLS RD

SHANK RD

S30 S33 S27

78

86

111

115

IMPERIAL
S28

HOLTVILLE
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

SEELEY

EL CENTRO
EVAN HEWES HWY

EVAN HEWES HWY

DUNAWAY RD

7
OGIER RD HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

8

McCABE RD

HEBER
BONDS CORNER RD BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

City of Calexico U.S. Port of Entry

Gateway of America U.S. Port of Entry

MEXICALI

Figure 3-4: Existing Conditions - Roadway Speed Limits County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial General Plan (2008) Date: 5/23/11

Chapter 3 | Existing Conditions

This page intentionally left blank

3-12 | Alta Planning + Desing

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

4 Needs Analysis
The County of Imperial’s bicycling needs are diverse, and depend on one’s level of experience, confidence, age, trip type and many other factors. This section presents an estimate of current and potential bicycling demand in the County based on bicycle commute and other statistics. Population characteristics and land uses associated with higher rates of bicycling activity are described. Estimates of current bicycle ridership provide an indication of current network usage and establish a baseline against which to measure progress. The section discusses trip attractors and generators to identify where residents are likely to bicycle to and from. The needs analysis concludes with a summary of community input gathered from an online survey and public workshops.

4.1 Bicycle Commuter Estimates
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provide an indication of existing bicycle system usage. A major objective of any bicycle facility enhancement or encouragement program is to increase the “bicycle mode split” or percentage of people who choose to bike rather than drive alone. Table 4-1 presents commute to work data estimates reported by the US Census American Community Survey from 2005-2009 in unincorporated areas of the County of Imperial and, for comparative purposes, the incorporated cities of the County of Imperial, the state of California, and the United States. Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work Mode
Workers 16 years and over Bicycle Drove Alone – car, truck or van Carpool - car, truck or van Transit Walked Taxicab, Motorcycle or Other Worked at Home Total

Unincorporated County of Imperial
9,635 0.4% 80.3% 11.6% 0.7% 2.4% 0.2% 4.4% 100%

Incorporated Cities of Imperial11
43,122 0.4% 77.8% 12.0% 1.5% 3.2% 1.1% 4.0% 100%

State of California
16,172,152 0.9% 72.9% 12.0% 5.2% 2.8% 1.4% 4.8% 100%

United States
138,541,405 0.5% 75.8% 10.6% 4.9% 2.8% 1.4% 4.0% 100%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

According to the estimates shown in Table 4-1, approximately 0.4 percent of unincorporated County residents reported that they travel to work by bicycle. This estimated bicycle mode share is consistent with the national average of one half percent, although it is less than half of the estimated statewide average of 0.9 percent. Interestingly, residents in the unincorporated parts of the County report similar

11

Combined total of incorporated cities of the County of Imperial: Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, El Centro, Holtville, Imperial and Westmorland

Alta Planning + Design | 4-1

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

bicycle commuting rates to the more urbanized and densely populated incorporated cities within the County. It is important to note that the census figures likely underestimate the true amount of bicycling that occurs for several reasons. First, the data reflects only the journey to work, and therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that often supplement vehicular trips. Also U.S. Census data collection methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips as a response from those who may occasionally bicycle to work, or who may use their bicycle as a part of a longer multimodal trip. According to the 2010 Bicycling and Walking Benchmarking Report, bicyclists and pedestrians make up nearly ten percent of all trips for transportation nation-wide, but those modes of travel are allotted only 1.2 percent of federal transportation dollars.12 Similarly, in average 11.7 percent of utilitarian trips are done by bicycle (1.1%) or foot (10.6%) in California, but receive only 1.5 percent of the State’s transportation funding. Documentation of pedestrian and bicycle activity is an increasingly important factor for successful and sustained allocation of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

4.2 Bicycle Collision and Safety Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists. For those who bicycle, safety is typically an ongoing concern. For those who do not bike, it is one of the most compelling reasons not to ride. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to safety concerns, particularly if multiple collisions occur at the same location. For this analysis, collision data was obtained from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, which provides information based on the motor vehicle traffic collision reports received from local police and sheriff jurisdictions and from California Highway Patrol field offices. SWITRS processes all reported fatal, injury and non-injury collisions. Table 4-2 presents the total number of reported collisions and bicycle-involved collisions in the County of Imperial, including incidents in the incorporated cities and unincorporated County for the five – year period between 2006 and 2010. Table 4-2: County of Imperial Reported Collisions 2006 – 2010 Year
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

All Collisions Fatal
36 35 34 41 33 179

Bicycle Collisions Fatal
0 0 1 1 0 2

Injury
687 585 475 425 148 2,320

Injury
34 26 25 15 8 108

Bicycle Collisions % of Total Fatalities
0% 0% 2.9% 2.4% 0% 1.1%

Bicycle Collisions % of Total Injury
4.9% 4.4% 5.3% 3.5% 5.4% 4.7%

Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)

12

Alliance for Biking & Walking, 2010 Benchmarking Report

4-2 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

There were 108 reported collisions over the five-year period that involved a bicyclist and a motor vehicle. The number of bicycle crashes reported in the County of Imperial has fluctuated annually from 2006 to 2010. During the five-year period, the annual average number of bicycle related collisions was 21.6, with a range from 8 to 34 collisions. The data shows a progressive reduction in the number of bicycle related collisions per year. The number of bicycle related collisions in 2010 is roughly one-fourth of those reported in 2006. Of the 110 collisions, there were 108 bicycle injuries and two fatalities, both of which were reported within incorporated cities. Overall, less than five percent of reported injury collisions involved bicyclists. SWITRS reports from the five-year period indicate that 14 of the total bicycle-related injury collisions were reported to have happened within the unincorporated areas of the County. Crashes by Location Figure 4-1 displays bicycle collision locations in the study area from January 2006 to December 2010. As shown, bicycle-involved collisions are distributed throughout the County. The higher concentration of collisions occurred within two miles of the cities of El Centro and Imperial. Table 4-3 shows street corridors where bicycle-involved crashes occurred from 2006 to 2010. Note that there is only one crash reported in each of these locations. Table 4-3: Location of Collisions in the County of Imperial Primary Road
Dogwood Road Heber Avenue Monterey Avenue Highway 8 Hovley Road 7 Street Borrego Salton Way D Street Kloke Road McCabe Road Quechan Drive State Route 86 Austin Road Ironwood Drive
th

Secondary Road
Worthington Road 11th Street Mountain View Road Drew Road Andre Road Heber Avenue Jefferson Road 2nd Avenue Cole Road Nichols Road Agnes Drive Carey Road Ross Road Ironwood Terrace

Road Type
Collector Local Collector Highway Collector Local Arterial Local Collector Collector Residential Arterial Arterial Residential

Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)

Alta Planning + Design | 4-3

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Location of Bicycle Crashes (2006-2010)

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

111

115

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

86

BAUGHMAN RD ANDRE RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

HOVLEY RD

CITY of WESTMORLAND

S26

SHANK RD

78

S33
CAREY RD
DOGWOOD RD

S27

86

CITY of IMPERIAL

111

115

S28
ATEN RD
AUSTIN RD

BENNETT RD

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY

HUFF RD

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

EVAN HEWES HWY ROSS RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

NICHOLS RD

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: California Highway Patrol - SWITRS Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 4-1: Bicycle Collisions in Imperial County (2006-2010)

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Collisions by Contributing Factor The available data also includes some information about the circumstances of the reported crashes. Figure 4-2 shows the number of crashes for each category of primary factor contributing to the collision. The bicyclist was reported to be a contributor to at least two of the 14 collisions, while riding under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Collisions by Contributing Factor
Obstruction of R‐O‐W Contributing Factor Unsafe Speed DUI Improper Passing Improper Turning Other 0 1 2 3 4

Number of Collisions

Figure 4-2: Distribution of Primary Factors Involved in Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions Identification of the most common violations in bicycle-related collisions can inform the County of possible engineering or education needs. A specific re-occurring violation can be the result of unclear traffic controls, or roadways not designed for bicycle use. It can also be the result of bicyclists not being aware of or complying with the “rules of the road,” or not feeling comfortable riding with traffic. The most common traffic violation, with four total occurrences, is one of the parties failing to yield the right-of-way, and the second most common is one or both of the parties involved driving/riding under the influence. This analysis of violations informs the Plan’s recommendations. These traffic violations suggest the need for bicycle and motorist education. Demographics of Bicyclists in Collisions The average age of bicyclists involved in crashes in the County of Imperial was 28 years of age. The youngest bicyclist involved in a collision with a motor vehicle was four years old and the oldest was 66. Bicycle crash data also reveals that 21 percent of reported bicycle-motor vehicle crashes involved bicyclists under the age of 18, and 28 percent of all crashes involved bicyclists aged 10 or younger, as is shown in Figure 4-3. It should be noted that the small data set does not make it possible to discern whether bicyclists in their forties and fifties are at greater risk of experiencing a bicycle collision or comprise a significantly higher segment of the bicycling population.

Alta Planning + Design | 4-5

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

Average Age of Cyclists Involved in Collisions
Male 5 Number of Collisions 4 3 2 1 0 10 or Under 11 to 18 19 to 29 Age Group 40 to 59 60 and Over Female

Figure 4-3: Average age of Cyclist Involved in Collisions

4.3 Bicycle Demand and Air Quality Benefits Analysis
Based on the estimated current and future bicycling demand, air quality benefits can be calculated. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) can be equated to the per-mileage volume of several pollutants. With an increase in utilitarian bicycle trips, there is a shift away from VMT and toward bicycle miles traveled, which leads to a subsequent reduction in pollutants. Table 4-4 presents estimates of current demand and corresponding air quality benefits. Table 4-5 presents forecasted demand and corresponding air quality benefits for the year 2030. Table 4-4: Current Demand and Air Quality Benefits Estimates Variable Current Commuting Statistics
Existing study area population Existing employed population Existing bike-to-work mode share Calculated existing number of bike-to-work commuters Existing work-at-home mode share Calculated existing number of work-at-home bike commuters Existing transit-to-work mode share Calculated existing transit bicycle commuters Existing school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8)

Value
33,862 9,635 0.44% 42 4.4% 21 0.7% 3 5,418

Source
2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Assumes 5% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 5% of transit riders access transit by bicycle. 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates

4-6 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Variable
Existing school children bicycling mode share Calculated commuters existing school children bike

Value
2.0% 108 2,286 0.5%

Source
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003. School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation. Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips) Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year) Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile for schoolchildren Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year) Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Existing number of college students in study area Existing estimated college bicycling mode share

Calculated existing college bike commuters Existing total number of bike commuters Total estimated daily bicycling trips

11 187 374

Current Estimates VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 112 29,283 496 129,339

Current Air Quality Benefits Estimates
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday) Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) Reduced NOX (pounds/year) Reduced CO (pounds/year) Reduced C02 (pounds/year) 1 0 0 1 14 403 388 1 1 271 3,536 105,218

(Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for GasolineFueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks." 2005.)

Alta Planning + Design | 4-7

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

Table 4-5: Potential Future Demand and Air Quality Benefits Estimates Variable Current Commuting Statistics
Future study area population Future employed population Future bike-to-work mode share Future number of bike-to-work commuters Future work-at-home mode share Future number of work-at-home bike commuters

Value
90,016 47,102 1.0% 471 3.0% 707

Source
SCAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast SCAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Estimate of the potential mode share increase associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share Estimate based on historic work-at-home population growth (or decline) trends Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip Estimate of the potential mode share increase (or decrease) associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements and transit service improvements/reductions Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle California 2010 K-12 Enrollments Report Estimate of the potential mode share increase associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements School children population multiplied by school children bicycling mode share Estimate based on historic college student population growth (or decline) trends Estimate of the potential mode share increase associated with planned/proposed bikeway system improvements College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian daily biking trips. Does not include recreation. Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Future transit-to-work mode share

1.5%

Future transit bicycle commuters Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8) Future school children bicycling mode share Future school children bike commuters Future number of college students in study area Future estimated college bicycling mode share Future college bike commuters Future total number of bicycle commuters Future total daily biking trips

177 7,940 4.0% 318 3,725 5.0% 186 1,858 3,716

Future Estimates VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 1,164 303,780 8,133 2,122,694 Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for school children Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year) Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile for schoolchildren Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

4-8 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Variable Future Air Quality Benefits Estimates
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday) Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) Reduced NOX (pounds/year) Reduced CO (pounds/year) Reduced C02 (pounds/year)

Value
24 0 0 17 222 6,616 6,364 24 23 4,446 58,029 1,726,824

Source
Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

(Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for GasolineFueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks." 2005.)

This model is based on current projections for population growth and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. As shown, the population growth estimates for the unincorporated area of the County of Imperial are substantial, and thus the benefits model predicts that by 2030 the total number of commuters could increase from the current estimate of 187 to 1,858 which result in a significant reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes an emissions reduction by 2030 of 4,446 pounds of smog forming NOX and 1,726,824 pounds of CO2, the main gas associated with global climate change, annually.

4.4 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators are areas with population characteristics that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high population or employment densities, or high concentrations of certain subpopulations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle households. Population density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity. Generally, higher population densities are associated with more urbanized environments, which tend to support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected street networks, and shorter trip lengths.

Alta Planning + Design | 4-9

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

Figure 4-4 displays residential population densities across the County of Imperial. Most concentrations of higher densities are found within the incorporated cities, the largest concentrations of which are in the two largest cities of El Centro and Calexico. The communities of Heber (population approximately 3,000) and Seeley (1,600) are the two largest residential centers within the unincorporated County. Densities comparable to levels in the incorporated cities are found within the central cores of these communities. The population density in Heber is partially explained by its proximity and location between El Centro and Calexico. Seeley is located near Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro, a major employment and activity center. With the exception of Heber and Seeley, the unincorporated area within the Imperial Valley is primarily sparsely-populated agricultural territory with densities of less than one person an acre. There are very few people living outside of the central-southern Imperial Valley area, except for small settlements along the Salton Sea and along Interstate 8 at the western and eastern County borders. Figure 4-5 displays employment density across the County of Imperial. Most employment is found within the incorporated cities; however there are a handful of scattered employment concentrations in unincorporated areas of the County of Imperial, most of which are found adjacent to incorporated cities. The National Beef Packing Company just outside of the City of Brawley employs over 1,000 persons. The Imperial Valley Mall outside of southeastern El Centro, and El Centro Town Center Shopping Mall anchored by Wal-Mart and Costco outside of northern El Centro and southern Imperial, respectively, each employ 600 or more people. Other large employers include Centinela State Prison (1,000 employees) west of Seeley, and NAF El Centro (500 employees) north of Seeley. There are also factories and extractive industries, which provide employment concentrations in other locations around the unincorporated County. However, the dominant labor source across the County of Imperial is agricultural, which is very low density. Figure 4-6 displays the percent of zero-vehicle households in the County of Imperial. The unincorporated area has a relatively low rate of zero-vehicle households at 7.7 percent. The highest concentrations within the unincorporated County are found within the census tracts along the international border, surrounding Calexico, and surrounding the communities of Winterhaven and Heber in the eastern County. Winterhaven has a very high rate of zero-vehicle households at 22 percent, the highest rate for any Census Designated Place in the County of Imperial. The communities along the western shore of the Salton Sea also have a higher rate of no-vehicle households than the County overall. The rate of households who do not own a vehicle is collectively higher within the incorporated cities (12.1%), with the highest rates found in Westmorland and Calexico (15%). Figure 4-7 displays rates of bicycle commuting in the County of Imperial. There are an estimated 215 persons countywide who identified themselves as bicycle commuters—about 35 to 45 of which reside in the unincorporated parts of the County. As percentages, both the unincorporated and incorporated city rates hover between 0.4 and 0.5 percent. These rates are consistent with the national average of 0.5 percent. Figure 4-8 displays the percentage of walking commuters in the County of Imperial. About 3 percent of the County of Imperial’s workers commute to work on foot. The combined rates of incorporated cities are higher than the unincorporated County rates (3.2% to 2.4%). Interestingly, 11.4 percent of workers in

4-10 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

the small unincorporated community of Ocotillo walk to work. The community of Seeley also has walking commute rates higher than the County average (3.8 %). Figure 4-9 displays the percentage of transit commuters in the County of Imperial. Transit commuting rates within the County of Imperial are lower than state and national averages (0.7% for the unincorporated area and 1.5% for the incorporated cities). The County’s transit operator, Imperial Valley Transit, provides service primarily between the incorporated cities and offers service to key destinations such as Imperial Valley College. Service is typically limited to one hour frequencies for the Imperial Valley Transit bus routes. Unincorporated areas along the routes between the cities are served, and direct destination service is offered to unincorporated communities such as Seeley, Niland and Bombay Beach. Heber has the highest transit commuter mode share in the County, with 2.2 percent of all work commutes made by transit. Appendix C shows the existing Imperial Valley Transit routes that serve the County of Imperial.

Alta Planning + Design | 4-11

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Population per Acre Greater than 10 5.1 - 10 2.1 - 5
111 115

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

1.1 - 2 0.1 - 1

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: US Census (2000) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 4-4: Population Density by Census Block (2000)

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Employment per Acre Greater than 3 2.1 - 3 1.1 - 2
111 115

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

0.6 - 1

0.1 - 0.5

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL B B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: US Census (2008) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 4-5: Employment Density by Census Block (2008)

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Zero-Vehicles Households Greater than 15% 10.1% - 15% 5.1% - 10%
115

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

111

2.1% - 5% 0.1% - 2%

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL B B
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: US Census (2008) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 4-6: Percentage of Households with No Access to Vehicle by Census Tract (2000)

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Percent Bicycle Commuters Greater than 2% 1.1% - 2% 0.5% - 1%
111 115

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

0.1% - 0.5% 0%

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: US Census (2000) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 4-7: Percent of Commuters Who Bicycle to Work by Census Tract (2000)

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Walking Commuters Greater than 6% 4.1% - 6% 2.1% - 4%
111 115

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

0.1% - 2% 0%

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: US Census (2000) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 4-8: Commuters Who Walk to Work by Census Tract (2000)

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

A

SALTON SEA CITY of CALIPATRIA

Transit Commuters Greater than 4% 2.1% - 4% 1.1% - 2%
111 115

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

86
NILE DR

SALTON CITY

0.1% - 1% 0%

A

DR
SALTON DR

M A RI N

S22

78

CITY of WESTMORLAND
86

S26

County Overview
A A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

WILLS RD

CITY of BRAWLEY
S30

SHANK RD

78

86 S27

S33

IMPERIAL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ARIZONA

CALIPATRIA WESTMORLAND BRAWLEY HOLTVILLE YUMA MEXICALI MEXICO

IMEPERIAL EL CENTRO CALEXICO

CITY of IMPERIAL BB
BENNETT RD HUFF RD

111

115

S28

CITY of HOLTVILLE
EVAN HEWES HWY EVAN HEWES HWY

SEELEY

DUNAWAY RD

7
HUNT RD
VANDERLINDEN RD

IMPERIAL HWY

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

8 S29

McCABE RD

CITY of EL CENTRO

OGIER RD

8

CITY of CALEXICO
98
0 3 6 Miles

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

S30

HEBER

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

S33 98

MEXICALI

B

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: US Census (2000) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 4-9: Commuters Who Take Public Transportation to Work by Census Tract (2000)

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

4.5 Bicycle Trip Attractors
This section describes a few of the key attractors for bicycle trips for the County of Imperial. Figure 4-10 displays a map of the bicycle trip attractors summarized below. Higher Education Facilities The unincorporated County is home to Imperial Valley College; a community college just east of the City of Imperial. With an enrollment of over 7,000, the school draws students from all over the Imperial Valley, and is one of the County of Imperial’s major trip destinations. The County’s only existing (although non-conforming to California Standards) bike path is located along Aten Road which connects Imperial Valley College to the City of Imperial. The school is also served by several different Imperial Valley Transit routes. San Diego State University also operates a campus annex in Imperial Valley. The university’s Imperial Valley Campus is located in Calexico, with additional school facilities located in Brawley. The County of Imperial campus enrolls about 800 students. San Diego State University’s Imperial Valley campus is the only institution in the County providing a four year degree college education. Naval Air Facility (NAF) El Centro NAF El Centro is located to the immediate north of Seeley. The two-runway air field is a major employer and regularly hosts air shows open to the public. Major Retail The County’s only enclosed major shopping mall, the Imperial Valley Mall, is located in the unincorporated County, just beyond the border of El Centro at Dogwood Road and Danenberg Road. It contains over 100 unique shops, including a multi-screen movie theater. Another major shopping center in the unincorporated County is found between El Centro and the City of Imperial. El Centro Town Center Shopping Mall is anchored by several “big box” stores, including Wal-Mart, Target and Costco. This shopping complex is partially within El Centro and partially within the unincorporated County. International Ports of Entry The County of Imperial has three international ports of entry with Mexico: Calexico West/Mexicali, Calexico East/Mexicali and Andrade/Algodones. The Calexico West port is within the City of Calexico, while the other two ports of entry are within the unincorporated County. Two of the ports provide entry to Mexicali, Mexico, the largest city in the Imperial Valley. Collectively, these three entries average about 25 million passenger crossing trips (non-freight trips) per year.13 The vast majority were made at Calexico West, although an estimated 6 million trips were made at Calexico East and 3 million trips at Andrade per year. Though most of these trips were made in automobiles, many trips are also made through non-motorized transportation modes. A significant number of the trips are regularly made as a part of commuting to jobs on both sides of the border.

13

Imperial Valley – Mexicali Economic Delay Study (Imperial Valley Association of Governments and Caltrans, 2007)

4-18 | Alta Planning + Design

Salton Sea Communities
DESERT SHORES SALTON SEA BEACH

" "
SALTON SEA

Bicycle Trip Attractors
CALIPATRIA

A

_ Employment Center ^
Education Facilities County Facilities Open Space and Recreation

7 6 5 4
"

S30

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

| þ } ·
NILE DR

86

SALTON CITY

| þ } ·
Wiest Lake

111

| þ } ·
#
Ramer Lake

115

Commercial and Services Military Facilities U.S. Port of Entry

A

DR
SALTON DR

| þ· } | þ } ·

78

M A RI N

86

WESTMORLAND

7 6 5 4
BRAWLEY
SHANK RD

S26

"

Mulberry Elementary

7 6 5 4

S22

WILLS RD

7 6 5 4
| þ } ·
86

S30

_ ^

"

"

Magnolia Elementary School

| þ } ·

78

7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
IMPERIAL
S27

S33

| þ } ·
"

111

"

| þ } ·

115

" "

Pine Elementary School Pine Union School

"
Centinela State Prison Naval Air Facility El Centro

_ ^
"" " "

BENNETT RD

ATEN RD

Imperial Valley College

7 6 5 4
HOLTVILLE

S28

HUFF RD

SEELEY

EL CENTRO

DUNAWAY RD

"
Westside Elementary School

EVAN HEWES HWY Sunbeam Lake Park

"

_ ^

Meadows Elementary School

Earl Walker County Park

" "

EVAN HEWES HWY

| þ } ·

7

OGIER RD HUNT RD

IM PE

R IAL

Ocotillo Community Park
HW Y

"

OCOTILLO

EVA

NH

EW

ES

H

WY

§ ¦ ¨

8

" "

"
McCABE RD

VANDERLINDEN RD

BONDS CORNER RD

BOWKER RD

7 6 5 4

S29

7 6 5 4
"
Mount Signal School

S30

McCabe Elementary & Junior High Shcool

" "

§ ¦ ¨

8

HEBER
Jasper-Alamitos Union School HEBER AV Herber Dunes Park

CONNELLY RD

"

7 6 5 4
| þ } ·
MEXICALI
98

S33

CALEXICO

"

[
0

| þ } ·
3 6 Miles

98

City Of Calexico U.S Port of Entry

" _ ^ " #

Gateway of America U.S Port of Entry

#

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 6/15/2011

Figure 4-10: Bicycle Trip Attracting Land Uses

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

County Facilities In the unincorporated County to the southwest of El Centro, at the corner of Clark Road and McCabe Road is a complex of several large County institutions. They include: the County of Imperial Sheriff’s Office, the County Superintendent of Schools offices, the County of Imperial Animal Control, and the Imperial Valley Food Bank. Open Space and Recreation The County has a variety of open space and recreational destinations, which offer a variety of outdoor recreation, including five County parks within its jurisdiction: Sunbeam Lake Park (Seeley), Wiest Lake Park (Brawley), Red Hill Park (Niland), Ocotillo Community Park and Palo Verde Park. There are two California State Parks within the County of Imperial: Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, which is partially located in the northwestern part of the County, and a portion of Salton Sea State Park, to the north of Niland. Both parks offer camping and outdoor recreation to visitors. The County of Imperial is also home to two National Wildlife Refuges, which offer recreational opportunities such as hiking, birding, and hunting. The two National Wildlife Refuges include the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge along the Colorado River watershed in the eastern part of the County, and the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge at the southern end of the Salton Sea.

4.6 Bikeway Gaps
This section describes existing bicycle system gaps in the County of Imperial that merit consideration for bicycle facilities.

4.6.1 Bikeway Gap Types
Bikeway gaps exist in various forms, ranging from short “missing links” on a specific street or path corridor, to larger geographic areas with little or no bicycle facilities. Bikeway gaps can be classified into five main categories, described below. Spot gaps: Spot gaps refer to point-specific locations lacking dedicated bicycle facilities or other treatments to accommodate safe and comfortable bicycle travel. Spot gaps primarily include intersections and other vehicle/bicycle conflict areas posing challenges for riders. Examples include bike lanes on a major street “dropping” to make way for right turn lanes at the intersection, or a lack of intersection crossing treatments for a route or path as it approaches a major street. Connection gaps: Connection gaps are missing segments (1/4 mile long or less) on a clearly defined and otherwise well-connected bikeway. Major barriers standing between bicycle destinations and clearly defined routes also represent connection gaps. Examples include bike lanes on a major street “dropping” for several blocks to make way for on-street parking; a discontinuous off-street path; or a freeway standing between a major bicycle route and a school. Lineal gaps: Similar to connection gaps, lineal gaps are ½- to one-mile long missing link segments on a clearly defined and otherwise well-connected bikeway.

4-20 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Corridor gaps: On clearly defined and otherwise well-connected bikeways, corridor gaps are missing links longer than one mile. These gaps will sometimes encompass an entire street corridor where bicycle facilities are desired but do not currently exist. System gaps: Larger geographic areas where few or no bikeways exist would be identified as system gaps. System gaps exist in areas where a minimum of two intersecting bikeways would be required to achieve the target network density.

4.6.2 County of Imperial Bikeway Gaps
With very few and disconnected on-street bikeways, the County of Imperial’s existing bicycle network contains several system gaps. The County lacks north-south and east-west connections throughout the entire study area. The single Class I facility along Aten road is in poor condition and lacks onstreet connections. The main priority in addressing the County’s bikeway gaps is to identify potential corridors that provide safe continuity across the County to key bicycle attracting land uses, such as schools, retail, employment, and recreational or open space.

Barbara Worth Road.

The County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan of 2003 proposes 252 miles of bikeway network comprised of 42 miles of Class I (bike paths) and 210 miles of Class II (bike lanes). In addition to the 2003 Plan’s proposed network, County staff identified the following corridor gaps to be included in the Bicycle Master Plan Update:        McCabe Road from La Brucherie Road to Barbara Worth Road Clark Road from Willoughby Road to El Centro city limits Willoughby Road from Clark Road to Dogwood Road Aten Road from Austin Road to SR-86 Austin Road from Ross Road to McCabe Road Evan Hewes Highway from Huff Road to S-2 (Ocotillo) Evan Hewes Highway from Holtville to Yuma

Alta Planning + Design | 4-21

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

4.7 Community-Identified Needs
The Bicycle Master Plan development process included a public outreach campaign. Public input provides valuable local knowledge and reveals the needs of bicyclists, motorists, and those aspiring to become bicyclists, among others. The public outreach included an online-survey which was available at the Plan’s website between March and June, 2011. In total, the County received nearly 80 survey responses. The results of the survey are presented below in Section 4.7.1. Two Bicycle Master Plan workshops were held in April 2011 to collect feedback from county residents of on the County’s Bicycle Master Plan update. The workshops included an overview presentation on the Bicycle Master Plan, followed by a Question and Answer session and included workshop boards presenting potential bicycle facilities, programs and related amenities that could be implemented in the County. Additionally, participants were able to provide input on gaps in the existing system, and to help identify other opportunities and constraints that should be considered in the Plan. Workshop participants mentioned the need for maintenance of the existing on-street facilities, emphasized the need of connectivity and gap closures between existing facilities in the incorporated cities and the County, and inquired about funding sources for implementation of the Plan. Participants also mentioned the importance of providing bicycle parking facilities at key trip destinations such as college campuses and regional shopping malls. A second round of workshops were held in September 2011 to present and collect public feedback on the draft Bicycle Master Plan. The primary request from workshop attendees was to improve the bikeway facilities and roadway surface quality throughout the county. In addition, the draft Plan was made available for public review via the Imperial County Bicycle Master Plan website. In summary, the public comments recommend bicycle education programs for county residents and staff, and to improve bikeway connectivity to schools throughout the County.

4.7.1 Bicycle Survey Results
In addition to the public workshops, an online survey was available to residents of County of Imperial from March to June 2011. The results from this survey help to provide a thorough understanding of the needs of current and future bicyclists in County of Imperial. This section focuses on the bicycling needs identified by the community through the survey. The survey was designed to better understand current trends, issues and areas important for improving the County of Imperial’s bicycle network from the resident’s perspective. Gathering information on current bicycling activity within the region provides a local user perspective of opportunities and constraints. By asking where and what routes facilities are desired, a well rounded framework for developing the proposed network is established. The survey was divided into three sections:    Existing Conditions Facility Improvements Programmatic Needs

4-22 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Existing Conditions Public comments indicate that currently half of all respondents ride one to four times on average every week. Nearly every respondent (98 percent) indicated that he or she cycles for recreational reasons, followed by job or school access (33 percent), and errands and personal visits with acquaintances (25 percent). Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated that their average ride was in excess of six miles one-way, with the most popular response being a one-way trip distance of 11-20 miles (27 percent). The respondent’s ages and locations also varied. Roughly one in three respondents was under 36 years of age (32 percent). The most common age category of respondents was 36-45 (26 percent), followed by 46-55 years of age. Facility Improvements Despite the increasing interest in bicycling, there are limited facilities within the County of Imperial. This portion of the survey requested input to determine areas of opportunity and challenges for cyclists. Respondents were given a series of facility types and improvements, and were asked to rate the respective facility’s importance in affecting one’s decision to use a bicycle on a 1-to-5 scale, with “1” being “very important” and 5 being “not important.” Based on the online survey responses, respondents were most sensitive to the condition of bikeway/roadway and motorists’ behavior. Table 4-6 presents this information in detail. Table 4-6: Conditions Affecting Willingness to Cycle Conditions
Condition of bikeway/roadway Motorists' behaviors Traffic volumes/speeds Presence of bike paths, lanes, or routes Available information/knowledge of bike routes Amount of street lighting Weather Travel time Access to bike parking and storage Ability to combine bicycle trips with transit trips

Rating Average*
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.5 3.0

*On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 represents the highest priority

Respondents were asked which type of facility was most appealing for their use. The responses followed a similar pattern to other questions, reflecting a cycling population that is familiar with on-road riding from their experience as recreational, mid-to-long-distance cyclists. Class II Bike Lanes were the most

Alta Planning + Design | 4-23

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

most interesting facility type for respondents, followed closely by Class III Bike Routes and Bicycle Boulevards. Table 4-7 shows the full results. Table 4-7: Level of Cycling Interest by Facility Type Bicycle Facility Type
Bike Lanes Bike Routes Bicycle Boulevards (a shared roadway with signage and safety enhancements designed to give priority to cycling traffic) Unpaved Trails or Dirt Paths Roadways with no bicycle facilities

Rating Average*
1.1 1.3 1.4 2.4 4.2

*On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 represents the highest priority

Respondents were also asked to identify specific locations they felt new facilities should be implemented. Table 4-8 shows that on-street facilities were the highest-scoring facility type, followed by schools (Totals do not equal 100%, as respondents were allowed to select more than one option.) Table 4-8: Preferred Location of Facility Types by General Location Location
On-Street Schools Park Other Public Facilities

Percent of Responses
93.9% 57.1% 30.6% 36.7%

Response Count
46 28 15 18

Programmatic Needs In addition to recommended facilities input, respondents were asked which bicycle implementation programs would best complement the bikeway infrastructure. These programs can take many forms, but often focus on improving the skills and awareness of riders to ensure increased cycling rates, safe riding habits, improved route finding, and other related measures. Table 4-9 highlights the respondents’ preferences for the potential programs.

4-24 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Table 4-9: Program Types and Willingness to Cycle Programs
Safe Routes to School programs for children Public awareness campaigns Riding skills and safety courses for children Commuter incentive programs Bicycle information websites Special events Maps and guides Booths at public events Riding skills and safety courses for adults Information and maps delivered to my home

Rating Average*
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.5

*On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 represents the highest priority

Alta Planning + Design | 4-25

Chapter 4 | Needs Analysis

This page intentionally left blank

4-26 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

5 Proposed Network Improvements
This chapter presents proposed bikeways and bicycle support facilities identified through input from the community, County Staff, and the preceding Needs Analysis. The proposed improvements are intended to make bicycling more comfortable and accessible for bicyclists of all skill levels and trip purposes. This chapter presents the following improvement types:   Network Improvements include recommendations to expand the bikeway system so the community has a seamless and comprehensive bicycle network. Bikeway Wayfinding Signage Recommendations identify standard bikeway signage standards for countywide implementation.

5.1 Design Considerations
The bicycle facility types proposed in this Plan follow the bicycle facility design standards and policy recommendations from national and state guidelines, including:     AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. www.transportation.org AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, 2001. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. www.transportation.org Highway Design Manual (HDM), Chapter 1000. California Department of Transportation. (2006). Bikeway Planning and Design. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/english/chp1000.pdf California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Part 9: Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities. California Department of Transportation. (2010). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd2010/Part9.pdf

In addition, the following key principles should be observed:  The bicycle and trail environment should be safe. Bicycle routes, pathways, and crossings, should be designed and built to be free of hazards and to minimize conflicts with external factors such as noise, vehicular traffic and protruding architectural elements. The bicycle and trail network should be accessible. Bicycle routes, pathways and crossingsshould ensure the mobility of all users by accommodating the needs of people regardless of age or ability. Bicyclists have a range of skill levels, and facilities should be designed for use by experienced cyclists at a minimum, with a goal of providing for inexperienced / recreational bicyclists (especially children and seniors) to the greatest extent possible. In areas where specific needs have been identified (e.g., near schools), the needs of appropriate types of bicyclists should be accommodated. The bicycle and trail network should connect to places people want to go. The bicycle and trail network should provide a continuous direct routes and convenient connections between





Alta Planning + Design |5-1

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

destinations, including homes, schools, shopping areas, public services, recreational opportunities and transit.  The bicycling and trail environment should be clear and easy to use. Bicycle routes, pathways and crossings should be designed so people can easily find a direct route to a destination and delays are minimized. The bicycling and trail environment should provide good places. Good design should enhance the feel of the bicycle and trail environment. A complete network of on-street bicycling facilities should connect seamlessly to the existing and proposed off-street pathways to complete recreational and commuting routes around the County. Bicycle and trail improvements should be economical. Improvements should be designed to achieve the maximum benefit for their cost, including initial cost and maintenance cost as well as reduced reliance on more expensive modes of transportation. Where possible, improvements in the right-of-way should stimulate, reinforce and connect with adjacent private improvements.





The skill level of the bicyclist affects his/her expected reaction time and behavior. As such, there are several systems of classification currently in use within the bicycle planning and engineering professions. These classifications can be helpful in understanding the characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists. However, it should be noted that these classifications may change in type or proportion over time as infrastructure and culture evolve. An instructional course can rapidly change a less-confident bicyclist into one that can comfortably and safely share the roadway with vehicular traffic. Bicycle infrastructure should be planned and designed to accommodate as many user types as possible. Separate or parallel facilities should be considered to provide a comfortable experience for the greatest number of bicyclists. A Classification system that is currently in use in the Pacific Northwest and also under consideration in the 1999 AASTHO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities provides the following bicycle user types:

5-2 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Tables 5-1 through 5-3 summarize the descriptions and design standards for the three bikeway classifications as defined by “Chapter 1000- Bikeway Planning and Design” of the California Highway Design Manual.
Table 5-1: California Bikeway Classifications – Class I Bicycle Path Class I – Bicycle Path
Design Summary  Width standards: o 8’ is the minimum allowed for a two-way multi-use path and is only recommended for lower facility use. o 10’ is recommended in most situations and will be adequate for moderate to heavy use. o 12’ is recommended for heavy use situations with high concentrations of multiple users such as joggers, bicyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians.  Lateral Clearance: 2’ or greater shoulder on both sides (required by Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000).  Overhead Clearance: 10’ minimum recommended.  Maximum design speed: 20 mph. Speed bumps or other surface irregularities should never be used to slow bicycles.  Recommended maximum grade: 5%. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short distances (see guidelines following). Discussion
A hard surface should be used for multi-use trails. Concrete, while more expensive than asphalt, is the hardest of all trail surfaces and lasts the longest. However, joggers and runners prefer surfaces such as asphalt or decomposed granite due to its relative “softness”. While most asphalt is black, dyes (such as reddish pigments) can be added to increase the aesthetic value of the trail itself. When concrete is used the trail should be designed and installed using the narrowest possible expansion joints to minimize the amount of ‘bumping’ bicyclists experience on the trail. Shared-use paths should be designed according to ADA standards. Constructing trails may have limitations that make meeting ADA standards difficult and sometimes prohibitive. Prohibitive impacts include harm to significant cultural or natural resources, a significant change in the intended purpose of the trail, requirements of construction methods that are against federal, state or local regulations, or presence of terrain characteristics that prevent compliance.

Recommended shared-use path design.

Landscaping and fencing adjacent to the trails can be attractive, and are common along railroad rightof-way.

Guidance  U.S. Access Board, Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).  FHWA (2001). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access.  AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.  Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000).

Alta Planning + Design |5-3

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

Table 5-2: California Bikeway Classifications- Class II Bicycle Lanes Class II – Bicycle Lane
Design Summary Bike lane width:   4’ minimum when no curb & gutter is present (rural road sections). 5’ minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter (3’ more than the gutter pan width if the gutter pan is wider than 2’).

 6’ recommended where right-of-way allows. Maximum Width:  8’ adjacent to arterials with high travel speeds (45 mph+).

Discussion Wider bike lanes are desirable in certain circumstances such as on higher-speed arterials (45 mph+) where a wider bike lane can increase separation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Wide bike lanes are also appropriate in areas with high levels of bicycle use. A bike lane width of six to eight feet makes it possible for bicyclists to ride side-by-side or pass each other without leaving the bike lane, increasing the capacity of the lane. Appropriate signing and stenciling is important with wide bike lanes to ensure motorists do not mistake the lane for a vehicle lane or parking lane. Guidance    AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000). California MUTCD (2009). Approved R-81 Sign. Recommend bike lane design.

Approved California bike lane stencils (either is optional, as is arrow).

5-4 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Table 5-3: California Bikeway Classifications-Class III Bicycle Facilities Class III - Bicycle Route
Design Summary Use D11-1 Bike Route Sign at:    Beginning or end of Bike Route (with applicable M4 series sign below). Entrance to bike path (Class I) – optional. At major changes in direction or at intersections with other bike routes (with applicable M7 series sign below). At intervals along bike routes not to exceed ½ mile (0.8 km).



Discussion Class III bicycle facilities (Caltrans) are defined as facilities shared with motor vehicles, identified exclusively by signage and / or shared lane markings. They are typically used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes; however, they can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or shoulders. Shared roadways often have a centerline stripe only, and no designated shoulders. Shared lane markings in addition to signage may be more appropriate for roadways with narrow travel lanes and parking. Shared roadways provide key connections to destinations and trails where providing additional separation is not possible. Guidance    From Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 1000 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. California MUTCD, Part 9 This bike route in the City of Los Angeles provides a wide outside lane adjacent to on-street parking. Shared roadway recommended configuration.

D11-1 “Bike Route” sign should be used along designated shared roadways.

Alta Planning + Design |5-5

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

5.2 Network Improvements
This section includes improvements to the bikeway network, pavement markings and signage improvement measures, and bicycle support facilities. The bikeway recommendations include nearly 270 miles of new on-street bikeways (bike lanes and bike routes) to improve the County of Imperial’s bicycle network connectivity and to create a comprehensive, safe, and logical network. This mileage is in addition to 64 miles of proposed off-street facilities (bike paths) and 103 miles of Class III routes along State Route shoulders. The proposed network includes existing recommendations from the County’s 2003 Bicycle Master Plan Update and additional mileage proposed through this Bicycle Master Plan update process. At full build out of the proposed bikeways, the County of Imperial will have over 435 miles of bikeways, improving connections between the incorporated cities and the more rural unincorporated areas of the County, as well as connections to trip attractors such as retail, transit and jobs. Pavement markings and signage will support the bikeway network by providing network identification and wayfinding for cyclists. Figures 5-1 through 5-3 shows the existing and proposed bikeway network and Tables 5-4 through 5-7 lists the bikeways by type and mileage. This Plan proposes three bikeway types, listed below and described in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.4.

  


Class I - Bike Paths Class II - Bicycle Lanes Class III - Bicycle Routes

The proposed bikeways were developed based on the following guidelines: Varying user group needs – The proposed facilities offer a range of facility types, from bike lanes running along regionally-significant arterial roads to low-traffic bike routes. The varying facility types address the varying needs of different cyclist types (Section 5.1). Existing bicycling patterns – This Plan proposes facilities along routes used by existing cyclists, as identified by County staff and the community at large, via public workshops and online surveys. Connectivity – The proposed facilities connect to both existing and proposed bikeway systems in adjacent incorporated cities. Creating a well-connected regional bikeway system improves cyclists’ access to major destinations inside and outside the region. Traffic volumes and travel speeds – This Plan gives preference to low-speed and low-volume roadways for on-street facilities to maximize cyclist safety and alleviate safety concerns for beginner cyclists. Existing roadway width and right-of-way – This Plan recommends facility types based on whether the existing right-of-way can accommodate the proposed facility with minimal changes to the existing facility. Reducing the need for significant changes to the roadway maximizes project feasibility and minimizes project expense.









5-6 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update



Public input – This Plan accounts for information collected from community members’ via public workshops and online surveys, including typical trip origins and destinations, desired facilities, and existing bicycling behavior.

5.2.1 Class I – Bicycle Paths
A bicycle path provides for bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from streets or highways. Table 5-4 summarizes the extents of the 63.8 miles Class I Bicycle Paths proposed for the County of Imperial. These five recommended facilities will provide opportunities for recreational and commuter bicycling. The recommended network includes a multi-use pathway along an abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad. The right-of-way for this facility, as well as for the Highline Canal, is privately owned and development of these facilities would need to be coordinated with their respective owners. Recommendations also include a Class I Bike Path on the abandoned Evan Hewes Highway east of Holtville, running parallel to Interstate 8 for approximately 20 miles toward the Arizona border. The current surface condition of this road is unsafe for cyclists; however, with proper investment in maintenance and signage, this road can serve important recreational and touring needs for County residents and visitors. Table 5-4: Recommended Class I Bike Paths Location
Aten Road Highline Canal Path Railway Multi-use Path Railway Multi-use Path Evan Hewes Highway Total

From
Imperial city limits Noffsinger Road Seeley city limits El Centro city limits Interstate 8 (East of Holtville)

To
Dogwood Road Norrish Road El Centro city limits Holtville city limits End of road

Mileage
1.0 29.2 6.7 7.7 19.2 63.8

5.2.2 Class II- Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle lanes provide a signed, striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on both sides of a roadway. Bicycle lanes are often used by commuters, bicycle enthusiasts and casual riders (if on lower volume and lower speed roadways). Bicycle lanes are often recommended on roadways with moderate traffic volumes and speeds and where separation of users facilitates safer conditions. Table 5-5 outlines the recommended Class II Bicycle Lane projects for County of Imperial. This Plan proposes a total of nearly 220 miles of bicycle lanes that serve as important connections between the incorporated cities of the County. It is recommended that where there is inadequate pavement width to accommodate bicycle lanes at this time, interim measures may include Class III bicycle route signage. The recommended Class II facilities include Old Route 111 between the Cities of Brawley and El Centro. This facility provides a more confortable option for bicyclists than traveling along State Highway 111. Recommendations also include 17 miles of Class II Bike Lanes between the towns of Seeley and Ocotillo on Evan Hewes Highway where sufficient right-of-way is available to design a comfortable facility for bicyclists.

Alta Planning + Design |5-7

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

Table 5-5: Recommended Class II Bike Lanes Location
Anza Road Anza Road Aten Road Aten Road
*

From
Pulliam Road Ferrell Road Austin Road Imperial city limits Keystone Road Ross Road Evan Hewes Hwy Dietrich Road Dean Road McCabe Road Ben Hulse Hwy Webster Road Howenstein Road El Centro city limits Calexico city limits Shank Road Rutherford Road McCabe Road Willoughby Road Danenberg Road Interstate-8 English Road Sinclair Road Huff Road Huff Road Holtville city limits La Brucherie Road Imler Road Carter Road Baughman Road Walker Road Sinclair Road Butters Road Gonder Road Norrish Road

To
Ferrell Road Calexico city limits Imperial city limits State Hwy 86 Ross Road McCabe Road State Hwy 98 Butters Road Kalin Road Anza Road Gonder Road Forrester Road 8 Street Willoughby Road Barbara Worth Road State Hwy 78 Shank Road Willoughby Road State Hwy 98 McCabe Road State Hwy 99 Lyerly Road Eddins Road Drew Road Imperial Hwy U.S Hwy 80 Anza Road Keystone Road Imler Road Carter Road Howenstein Road Walker Road Highline Road Norrish Road Holtville city limits
th

Mileage
4.1 3.4 0.5 0.9 9.1 2.0 7.6 6.1 2.0 6.2 1.6 3.9 0.1 3.9 2.9 1.6 3.2 3.0 2.1 0.9 6.8 1.0 3.5 2.1 16.7 6.9 3.3 0.9 0.6 6.6 2.0 7.0 3.4 8.3 1.0

Austin Road Austin Road Barbara Worth Road Ben Hulse Hwy Boars Road Brockman Road Butters Road Carter Road Center Street Clark Road Cole Road Dietrich Road Dietrich Road Dogwood Road Dogwood Road Dogwood Road Drew Road Eddins Road English Road Evan Hewes Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy Ferrell Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Gentry Road Gonder Road Highline Road Holt Road

5-8 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Location
Holt Road Huff Road Imler Road Imperial Hwy Imperial Hwy Kalin Road Kalin Road Keystone Road Keystone Road La Brucherie Road La Brucherie Road* La Brucherie Road La Brucherie Road Larsen Road McCabe Road McCabe Road Norrish Road Old Route 111 Old Route 111 Pulliam Road Ross Road Rutherford Road Rutherford Road Shank Road Sinclair Road Walker Road Willoughby Road Worthington Road Worthington Road Worthington Road Total

From
Worthington Road Imler Road Forrester Road Imperial Place Ocotillo Community Park Rutherford Road Boarts Road Forrester Road Austin Road Larsen Road Aten Road Imperial city limits Wake Avenue La Brucherie Road Brockman Road La Brucherie Road Holt Road Worthington Road Brawley city limits (Best Road) State Highway 98 Austin Road Kalin Road State Hwy 111 Dietrich Road Gentry Road Gentry Road Clark Road P Street State Hwy 111 Austin Road

To
Norrish Road Evan Hewes Hwy Huff Road State Hwy 99 Imperial Place Boarts Road Webster Road Austin Road State Hwy 86 Neckel Road Imperial city limits Evan Hewes Hwy Ferrell Road State Hwy 86 La Brucherie Road Barbara Worth Road Highline Road Evan Hewes Hwy Worthington Road Anza Road El Centro city limits State Hwy 111 Dietrich Road Dietrich Road English Road Forrester Road Dogwood Road State Hwy 111 Holt Road La Brucherie Road

Mileage
1.0 10.0 4.3 1.6 1.0 0.5 4.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.5 1.2 4.2 0.5 3.5 8.6 4.0 3.4 8.5 1.0 0.5 3.0 2.2 0.3 4.0 0.5 1.5 3.0 7.5 1.0 220.8

*Facility is part of an incorporated jurisdiction (not considered in cost analysis)

Alta Planning + Design |5-9

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

5.2.3 Class III - Bicycle Routes
Bicycle Routes provide for shared roadway use and are generally identified with signage. Bicycle Routes may have a wide travel lane or shoulder that allow for parallel travel with automobiles, or they may be a street with very low traffic volumes and speeds. Class III Bicycle Routes are recommended as a preliminary action until bicycle lanes can be installed where such facilities are proposed. Class III proposed facilities are listed in Table 5-6. Class III facilities should be designed according to the roadway type which considers automobile volume and speed. Bike routes proposed for routes on local streets which generally have the least traffic and speeds, should be designed with a minimum four-foot striped shoulder. Bicycle routes on collector streets should be designed with a minimum five-foot shoulder. These recommended bicycle routes close gaps between other proposed facilities and provide connections to the County’s cities and towns on the most direct, feasible routes. Table 5-6: Recommended Class III Bicycle Routes Location
Atlantic Boulevard Beach Club Drive Brawley Avenue Brawley Avenue Coolidge Springs Road Desert Shores Drive Desert Shores Drive Dogwood Road Dogwood Road Marina Drive Marina Drive Marina Drive Meads Road Nile Drive Norrish Road Rutherford Road Salton Bay Drive Salton Borrego Seaway Sea View Drive Treadwell Boulevard Westside Road Total

From
Beach Club Beach Club Holt Avenue State Hwy 86 Desert Shores Drive Palm Drive State Hwy 86 Brawley city limits Aten Road Sea View Drive Sea View Drive Atlantic Boulevard Dogwood Road Atlantic Blvd Highline Road Dietrich Road Cristal Avenue State Hwy 86 Salton Bay Drive Beach Club Drive Evan Hewes Hwy

To
Marina Drive Treadwell Boulevard State Hwy 86 End of Road State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 Coolidge Springs Road Aten Road El Centro city limits Atlantic Boulevard State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 111 Treadwell Boulevard Highline Canal Highland Canal Sea View Drive San Diego County Border Marina Drive Azure Avenue Vaughn Road

Mileage
1.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.3 9.0 1.5 1.5 3.1 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.5 9.0 1.0 7.6 0.9 1.4 2.3 50.6

5-10 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

5.2.4 Bikeways for Coordination with Caltrans
The County of Imperial has a number of state-maintained roadways that provide vital transportation connections to its cities and neighboring counties. These connections are as critical for bicyclists as they are for automobile drivers because these state routes often provide the most direct and logical connections between destinations. These state routes are under the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction. This Plan includes bikeway recommendations for a total of nearly 103 miles of shoulder Class III facilities on State Highways. The County will have to coordinate with Caltrans on the development of these facilities. Table 5-7 lists the recommended bikeways on State Routes. Class III bikeways on highways that generally have high traffic volumeV and speeds should be designed with a minimum of six-foot shoulder to give bicyclists sufficient room to comfortably travel. Table 5-7: Recommended Shoulder Class III Bicycle Routes on State Routes Location
State Hwy 111 State Hwy 111 State Hwy 111 State Hwy 111 State Hwy 78 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 98 State Hwy 98 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 Interstate 8 Total

From
Evan Hewes Hwy Rutherford Road Calipatria city limits Calipatria city limits Best Road Keystone Road Brawley city limits Dogwood Road Drew Road Westmorland city limits State Hwy 78 Salton Borrego Seaway Treadwell Boulevard Brawley Avenue Evan Hewes Hwy

To
Calexico city limits Brawley city limits Rutherford Road Bombay Beach Community Dietrich Road Larsen Road Keystone Road Calexico city limits Pulliam Road State Hwy 78 Salton Borrego Seaway Treadwell Boulevard Brawley Avenue Desert Shores Drive Algodones Road

Mileage
6.8 3.0 5.3 24.7 2.0 2.5 3.6 0.8 1.0 15.4 12.6 3.7 3.8 2.5 15.1 102.9

The County of Imperial does not have jurisdiction on these State Routes and therefore these recommended bikeways are not included in the cost estimate and project prioritization outlined in Chapter 7.

Alta Planning + Design |5-11

"" "" "" "" " " "" " " "" "" "" "" "" " " "" " "

"""" """""""""""

" " " " " " " " " "" "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

""""""""""

County Existing Bikeways
Class I - Bike Path Class II - Bike Lane
""""""""""

"
"
"
"

"" "" "" " " "

"

""""""""""

" "" "

""" " " "

"

DIETRICH RD

WILLS RD

"" "" """

" """

SHANK RD

""

""

" " "" " """ " " " "

""""""""""""""""""""""

""

"

R ailr

IMLER RD
"
"
" "

"

""

""""""""""""" """""""""

oad

""

CA R T

E

D RR

| þ } ·

86

7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
| þ } ·
" " "" " " " " " " "

S33

"
" " " " " " " " " " " "" " ""

AUSTIN RD

"

Sout hern Pacif ic

""""

""

" " " " " " " " " " " "" " "

""""" ""

BENNETT RD

"" """"

" "" " " " " "

HUFF RD

" " " " " " " " "" " " "

"""" "" "" ""

"""

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

""""

"

""

""""""""""""

VANDERLINDEN RD

""""""""""""""""""

" " " " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "

"""""""" """""

" """""

BONDS CORNER RD

"""""""" "

DOGWOOD RD

LA BRUCHERIE RD

"""""""

CALEXICO
" " " " "

""""

"

0

3

6 Miles

ANZA RD

""

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 5-1: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network

" "" " " " " " " "

""""" """""""""" """""""""""""""""""""

| þ } ·
98

""""

""

""

"""""

[

"""" """""" """""""

""

""""""""

CLARK RD

"" " "

7 6 5 4
"

BARBARA WORTH RD

"

"

Diego-Arizona Easter

" n RR

"

"

"

"

IMPERIAL HWY
"""""

"" """ " ""

"

"

"

McCABE RD

HEBER

BOWKER RD

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "

7 6 5 4

S29

S30

""

City of Calexico U.S. Port of Entry

""""""""""""""""""""""""""

" """" ""

n" a "" OCOTILLO "S "

§ ¦ ¨

8

"""""""""""""

-" "" go ie "" D"

"""""""""""

t"e"r " " HWY s " Ea ES " a EW n "" o " N z" A H Ar"i " EV

DUNAWAY RD

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" R "" "" nR "

" "

"" """

EL CENTRO

" "

SEELEY

" """" " """"" """"""""""""""""""""" """ """""""" HOLTEN RD " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" "" "" """ "" "" EVAN HEWES HWY " " " " " " " " " " " ""

"

" " " " "" " " " "

""""""""

""

"""""""

" " " "" " " "

S27

" " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

""

IMPERIAL

| þ } ·

111

115

""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

7 6 5 4

S28

ATEN RD

HOLTVILLE
"" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" "" "

""" """""""""""""""""" """"""" "

""

| þ } ·

7

" """""

HEBER AV

"

""""""""

""""""""""""

#

Gateway of America U.S. Port of Entry

#

""""""""""""""""""

""

" " " " " " ""

"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" """ "

NORRISH RD

" " " " " " " " " " ""

EVAN HEWES HWY

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " "
"

OGIER RD HUNT RD

"" "" """""""""""""""""" """" " """"""""" """" """

"

7 6 5 4
" " "
"

S30

" "" " " " "

CONNELLY RD

7 6 5 4
| þ } ·
98

S33

MEXICO

"

""

"

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

"

" " """ " " " " " " " " "

BRAWLEY """""""
" ""
""""

"

""

"

City Proposed Routes

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

" ""

" " "

"" ""

""

" "

"

"

"

"

""

""

"""""""""""""

" " """"""""""

"" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " """ "

KALIN RD

| þ· } | þ } ·

78

86

"""""""""""""""

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

"" "" ""

""

" " " " " " " " " " ""

WESTMORLAND

7 6 5 4

S26

""

"" "" ""

""

Class III - Bike Route

"

"

"

"

""

" " ""

""

"

"

"

"" ""

State Route Bikeway

"" " " "

""

""

""

| þ } ·

111

| þ } ·

115

""

"" """ """" " " "" "

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

""""""""""

"

"

"

" " " """ " " " "

| þ } · Class III - Bike Route

78

7 6 5 4

S30

"

"

""

"

"

"

""""""""""

Class II - Bike Lane

CALIPATRIA

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""""""""""

Class I - Bike Path

"
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

GENTRY RD

"

"

"

"""""""""""""""""""""

SINCLAIR RD

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

SALTON SEA

"

"

"

"

"

County Proposed Bikeways
"

"

"

| þ } ·
"" ""

86

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

""

" ""
" ""

Sou t

her n

Pac if

ic R

ailr oad

"" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

"" " ""

""
""
" "" ""
"

"

"

HIG

" " "
" "

HLA

" " " " " " " " "" "

ND

"
" "

CA N

"

AL

"

"

| þ } ·

78

"" "" " ""

" "

" " "" " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "

"" "
"

ee Lev g nin Mi ad ilro Ra
""""

HIGHLAND CAN AL

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "

" " " " " ""
"" ""

"

""" " " " " " " " " " ""

" "" "" " " "" "" ""

"

"

"" "" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

""""

"""
" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

""" """ "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""

§ ¦ ¨

8

""""

""""

"""""""""

" " "" "" " " "" ""

""""

So ut he rn c Pa

DESERT SHORES
COOLIDGE SPRINGS RD

c ifi Ra o ilr ad
S out h e rn P acific Railro

BRAWLEY AV

SALTON SEA BEACH

ad

So ut he rn c Pa

H

CL

BOMBAY BEACH
ATLANTIC BLVD

DR

c ifi

UB

Ra

BE

AC

o ilr

SALTON CITY
SE AV EI W

ad

SALTON BOR REG

O SEAWAY

MA RIN AD R

DR

111

SALTON SEA

S ou

t he

rn P acif

ic R a

ilro a

d

86
0 3 6 Miles

Class I - Bike Path Class II - Bike Lane
78
RIVERSIDE COUNTY

GENTRY RD

County Proposed Bikeways

SINCLAIR RD

State Route Bikeway

Class III - Bike Route Class III - Bicycle Route
SAN DIEGO COUNTY

S30

CALIPATRIA
111

County Existing Bikeways
Class I - Bike Path Class II - Bike Lane City Proposed Routes

IMPERIAL COUNTY

WESTMORLAND COUNTY OF IMPERIAL OVERVIEW
MEXICALI
KALIN RD

78

86

S26

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 3/31/2011

BRAWLEY
S30

WILLS RD

Figure 5-2: Salton Sea Communities Proposed Bikeways

SHANK RD

S26

WILLS RD

SHANK RD

DIETRICH RD

LEY

So ut
78

he r

nP ac

ific

Ra ilr o

ad

S33 S27
HIGHLAND CANA L

111

115

S28

ATEN RD

HOLTVILLE
HOLTEN RD

NORRISH RD

EVAN HEWES HWY

So ut

he r

7
OGIER RD HUNT RD
BOWKER RD VANDERLINDEN RD

nP ac

ific

Ra ilr o

ad

HEBER

BARBARA WORTH RD

BONDS CORNER RD

HEBER AV

CONNELLY RD

EVAN

H EW

ES H

8
WY

TO YUMA

S33

CALEXICO

98

EVAN HEWES HWY

Algodones Port of Entry

County Proposed Bikeways
Class I - Bike Path Class II - Bike Lane

Gateway of America U.S Port of Entry

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ES TA DO S UN I DO S DE M E XI C O

State Route Bikeway

Class III - Bike Route Class III - Bicycle Route

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

IMPERIAL COUNTY

County Existing Bikeways
Class I - Bike Path Class II - Bike Lane

COUNTY OF IMPERIAL OVERVIEW

0

3

6 Miles

City Proposed Routes

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 3/31/2011

Figure 5-3: East County Proposed Bikeways

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

5.2.5 Bikeway Route System
The 2003 Bicycle Master Plan proposed an Imperial Valley Bikeway system comprised of 12 bicycle routes designed to serve various user groups, provide equitable access to all areas of the County, and offer loop systems for recreational riders that wish to cycle long distances and return to the point of origin. An understanding of the nature of the County of Imperial’s bikeway system, in which most of the facilities are proposed along large blocks of roadways traversing the Valley, makes it clear that developing a route system can help to break down the network into shorter and more utilitarian routes that provide good connections to schools, employment centers, and recreational facilities. It would also help users to understand the purpose and encourage more frequent use of such facilities. This Plan proposes an update to the 2003 proposed route system by complementing that network with the new recommended facilities. The County will implement the bicycle system over a period of time as funds become available. The order in which the routes are presented is not related to the level of importance, but rather, it is recommended that bikeway projects should be implemented based on the following criteria:      Considering the project prioritization score (See Chapter 7). In tandem with other roadway improvements, such as road widening or repaving, making implementation favorable and economical. Availability of funding sources with specific criteria. The segment closes a gap in the existing network and presents a critical connection for other portions of the system. The recommended bikeway routes are described below.

Route 1

Ross Road –Drew Road La Brucherie Anza Road The following portions of this route have been completed:

o o 

Ross Road from Drew Road to Austin Road Drew Road Interstate 8 from Ross Road to

Connects to employment centers in El Centro, Southwest High School, and Sunbeam Lake Park. Total Length: 32 miles



Alta Planning + Design |5-15

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

Route 2

McCabe Road – Brockman – Anza Road - Dogwood Road  Connects to employment centers in Mexicali, McCabe Elementary and Junior High School, and Mount Signal School.



Total Length: 25.4 miles

Route 3

Austin- Imler Road – Huff Road – Ross Road  Provides connections to Seeley, the City of El Centro, U.S Naval Air Station, Sunbeam Lake Community Park, and McCabe Elementary and High Schools



Total Length: 30 miles

Route 4

Worthington Road – Highline Road – Ben Hulse



Provides connections to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and Holtville, Magnolia Elementary School, Imperial High School, Brawley High School, and the proposed Highline Canal Bike Path Total Length: 46 miles



5-16 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Route 5

El Centro – Barbara Worth Road – Calexico – Dogwood Road  Connects to 12 schools, local city parks, Imperial Valley Mall, and two major employment centers in Mexicali and El Centro.



Total Length: 24.8 miles

Route 6

Weist Lake Park Loop

  

Provides bicycle lanes to Weist Park, a county park offering areas for picnicking and a lake for fishing. The Route connects to six schools and employment centers in Brawley. Total Length: 12.3 miles

Route 7

Sinclair – Gentry – Rutherford Road – State Route 111  The route would provide connections to Westmorland Union Elementary School, Fremont Elementary School and Calipatria High School, and employment centers in Westmorland and Calipatria



Total Length: 29 miles

Alta Planning + Design |5-17

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

Route 8

Kalin Road – Carter Road – Forrester Road  This route provides a connection to the City of Westmorland and Routes 3, 4 and 7.



Total Length: 17.6 miles

Route 9

Imperial Valley College



A nonconforming bicycle path is currently located along Aten Road at the southern border of Imperial Valley College. The proposed improvements would include widening the existing pathway to a standard Class I bicycle path and connect from State Hwy 111 to State Hwy 86. In addition, bicycle lanes are proposed along Aten Road from Austin Road to State Hwy 86. Total Length: 5.5 miles



Route 10

Highline Canal



A scenic bicycle path is proposed along the highline Canal from the community of Niland at the north end of Imperial Valley to Norrish Road, just north of Holtville. The total distance would be approximately 30 miles.

5-18 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Route 11

State Route 111 from Calexico to Calipatria

 This route will provide a direct link from Calexico to Calipatria. Class III shoulders are proposed on State Hwy 111 and a connection to Class II bike lanes on Old Route 111 is proposed between Evan Hewes Highway and the City of Brawley. The total distance of this route is 8.5 miles  The Plan also suggests that the Class III facilities continue along State Hwy 111 from Calipatria to the community of Bombay beach in the eastern side of Salton Sea, for a distance of 25 miles.
Route 12 Railway Multi-Use Pathway

An abandoned railway extends from Holtville, bordering Evan Hewes Highway through the City of El Centro and the community of Seeley. This facility would connect to downtown El Centro, the US Naval Air Station and Sunbeam Lake. The total length is approximately 14 miles.
Route 13 Community of Ocotillo

Class II bike lanes would extend from the community of Seeley to downtown Ocotillo along Evan Hewes Highway for a total distance of 19 miles. The purpose of this route is to connect the community of Ocotillo to the central valley of the County of Imperial.
Route 14 Salton Sea Communities

This Plan proposes 38 miles of Class III highway shoulder along State Hwy 86 connecting the City of Westmorland to the western communities of the Salton Sea (see Figure 5.2).
Route 15 East County Route

This route extends for 41 miles beginning at the eastern city limits of Holtville along Evan Hewes Highway and Interstate 8, connecting to the Arizona border in the City of Yuma (See Figure 5.3).

5.3 Other Recommended Bicycle Improvements
5.3.1 Multimodal Connections
Improving non-motorized users’ access to transit is an important part of making bicycling a part of daily life in the County of Imperial. Linking bicycles with public transit overcomes common barriers such as trip distance, personal safety and security concerns, and riding at night, in poor weather, or up hills. This link also enables bicyclists to reach more distant locations for both recreation and utilitarian purposes. Existing transit stops are generally in the incorporated cities. While there are few transit stops in the County, multimodal connections can be encouraged with the following projects.

Alta Planning + Design |5-19

Chapter 5| Proposed Network Improvements

Imperial Valley Transit (IVT) should continue to allow bicycle access on all buses with bus mounted racks, and encourage multimodal trips by the construction of Transit Centers in the incorporated cities. Bicycle travel to bus stops should be enhanced to make the transfer between bicycle and transit as convenient as possible. Specific project types that will improve bicycle access to transit include:    Bikeways connecting residential, employment, schools and shopping centers to bus stops. Bike racks at bus stops and transit centers. The installation of electronic bicycle lockers at transit centers. This type of lockers allow rental by the hour so they can be used by multiple bicyclists with a pre-purchased card. This type of project may be considered when bicycling demand is high.

5.3.2 Maintenance
Routine maintenance of bikeway facilities is a critical and often an overlooked element of bikeway planning. Maintenance includes street sweeping of bicycle lanes and shoulders, repainting and replacing bicycle lane striping, and replacing missing or damaged signage. This Plan recommends the following maintenance related actions to improve bicycle conditions:    Regular street sweeping including bicycle lanes, shoulders and intersections. Repair and improve the surface of roadways. Potholes and cracks along the shoulder of roadways primarily affect bicyclists and repairs should be a priority for the County. The County should establish a proactive maintenance program through a customer service line and/or website where residents can report maintenance needs for on-street bikeways and paths.

5.3.3 Signage
Bikeway signage includes signs identifying a bike route, lane or path, as well as signs providing regulation or warnings and signs providing wayfinding. Signage is important for numerous reasons. It can identify bikeway routes and can also increase bicyclist visibility and promote bicyclist presence. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and the California Highway Design Manual outline the requirements for bikeway signage, which are included in Appendix D.

Bikeway signage helps identify designated routes and increases awareness of bicycling facilities.

The Bike Lane Sign (R-81) is required at the beginning of each designated bike lane and at each major decision point. The Bike Route Sign (D11-1) is required on Class III Facilities. Multi-Use paths require additional standardized signs to help manage different user groups.

5.3.4 Bicycle Parking
For a bikeway network to be used to its fullest potential, secure bicycle parking should be provided at

5-20 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

likely trip end points. Lack of secure bicycle parking facilities is often cited as a reason people hesitate to ride a bicycle to certain destinations. The same consideration should be given to cyclists as is given to motorists, who expect convenient and secure parking at their destinations. Bicycle parking facilities are generally classified in two ways: Short Term - Provides a means of locking bicycle frame and both wheels, but does not provide accessory and component security or weather protection unless covered. It is for decentralized parking where the bicycle is left for a short period of time and is visible and convenient to the building entrance. Long Term - Provides complete security and protection from weather. Long-term parking is intended for situations where the bicycle is left unattended for long periods of time, such as housing complexes, schools, places of employment, and transit stops. These usually take the form of lockers, cages or dedicated storage rooms in buildings. In areas of high commercial activity where bicycle traffic is more prevalent, higher levels of bicycle parking are recommended. Increased bicycle parking provides a viable option for individuals who need to make a short trip to the local store to ride their bike, rather than drive their car. Bicycle parking should be incorporated into any new redevelopment projects with the County. A successful bicycle rack design enables the user to properly lock her bicycle. Enabling proper locking means the user must be able to secure a typical size U-lock around the frame and one wheel to the locking area of the rack (providing 2 points of contact). Racks with a single point-of-contact that support the bicycle, but either provide no way to lock the frame or require awkward lifting to enable 2point locking are not acceptable unless security is provided by other means, such as a locked enclosure or attendant monitoring. Further, bicycle racks must be designed so that they:       Do not damage the bicycle Do not impede pedestrians Are easily accessed from the street and protected from motor vehicles Accommodate the high security U-shaped bike locks Accommodate locks designed to secure the frame and both wheels Provide cover if they are located in an area where users will leave their bikes for long periods of time
Standard inverted U bicycle rack.

When bikes are secured improperly, the effectiveness of a bicycle parking facility is reduced. Inverted Uracks or other racks that are able to secure the entire bike are preferred and recommended for installation in commercial areas, schools, parks and local businesses. The County of Imperial generally lacks bike parking facilities. The county does not have a bike parking installation program and does not maintain an inventory of bike parking located within public right-of-way or at public facilities such as civic buildings or public parks. Specific locations that would benefit from bicycle parking are identified on Figure 5-4.
Alta Planning + Design |5-21

"" "" "" "" " " "" " " "" "" "" "" "" " " "" " "

"""" """""""""""

" " " " " " " " " "" "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

"
"
"
"

"" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " """ "

"" "" "" " " "

"

""""""""""

" "" "

""" " " "

"

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

DIETRICH RD

WILLS RD

"" "" """

" """

SHANK RD

""

""

" " "" " """ " " " "

""""""""""""""""""""""

""

"

R ailr

IMLER RD
"
"
" "

"

""

""""""""""""" """""""""

oad

""

CA R T

E

D RR

| þ } ·

86

7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4
( ! "
Rose Mesquite School

S33

"
" " " " " " " " " " " "" " ""

AUSTIN RD

"

Sout hern Pacif ic

""""

""

" " " " " " " " " " " "" " "

""""" ""

BENNETT RD

HUFF RD

" " " " " " " " "" " " "

"""" "" "" ""

"""

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

""

( ! "
""""""""""""

Sunbeam Lake Park

""""

"

VANDERLINDEN RD

"""""""" """""

" " " " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "

" """""

"

BONDS CORNER RD

CLARK RD

"" " "

7 6 5 4
"

BARBARA WORTH RD

( ! "

"

"

"

"

"""""""" "

DOGWOOD RD

( ! "
""""

LA BRUCHERIE RD

"""""""

Mount Signal School

CALEXICO
" " " "

""""

0

3

6 Miles

ANZA RD

""

County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update
Source: County of Imperial (2011) Date: 8/10/2011

Figure 5-4: Potential End of Trip Facilities

" "" " " " " " " "

""""" """""""""" """""""""""""""""""""

| þ } ·
98

""

""

"""""

[

""

""""""""

"

( ! "

"""""

"" "" "" "" "

"

"

"

7 6 5 4

S29

S30

McCabe Elementary & Junior High Shcool

HEBER
( ! (" ! ( ! " " ( ! "

BOWKER RD

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "

McCABE RD

( ! "

""

"""" """""" """""""

City of Calexico U.S. Port of Entry

""""""""""""""""""""""""""

" """" ""

n" a "" OCOTILLO "S "

§ ¦ ¨

8

( ! " ( ! "

"""""""""""""

Ocotillo Community Park

( ! " ( ! "

Westside Elementary School

""""""""""""""""""

-" "" go ie "" D"

"""""""""""

t"e"r " " HWY s " Ea ES " a EW n "" o " N z" A H Ar"i " EV

DUNAWAY RD

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" R "" "" nR "

" "

( ! "

"" """

Southwest High School

" " " ( !
"""

EL CENTRO

" "

SEELEY

" Center """" " """"" """"""""""""""""""""" Earl Walker """ """""""" " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" HOLTEN RD " "" "" "" """ County Park "" "" EVAN HEWES HWY " " Meadows " " " " " " " " " ""

Shoping

( ! (" ! "
"

"" """"

" "" " " " " "

£ n

"

" " " " "" " " " "

U.S Naval Air Station

Imperial Valley College

ATEN RD

( ! ( ! £ n " "

" " "" " " " " " " "

""""""""

""

"""""""

" " " "" " " "

S27

" " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

""

IMPERIAL

| þ } ·
"

111

| þ } ·

115

( ! " ( ! "

Pine Union School

Pine Elementary School

"

""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

7 6 5 4

S28

HOLTVILLE
( ! "
"" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" " " "" "" "" "" "" "

""" """""""""""""""""" """"""" "

( ! " ( ! "
""

Elementary School

| þ } ·

7

( ! "

" """""

Imperial Valley Mall

HEBER AV Herber Dunes Park

Jasper-Alamitos Union School

( ! "

( ! "

""""""""""""

"

"

""""""""

#

" n £ "
""""

Gateway of America U.S. Port of Entry

#

""""""""""""""""""

""

" " " " " " ""

"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" """ "

NORRISH RD

" " " " " " " " " " ""

EVAN HEWES HWY

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" " " " "
"

OGIER RD HUNT RD

"" "" """""""""""""""""" """" " """"""""" """" """

"

7 6 5 4
" " "
"

S30

" "" " " " "

CONNELLY RD

7 6 5 4
| þ } ·
98

S33

MEXICO

"

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

"

" " """ " " " " " " " " "

""""

£ n
"
"

""

( ! "

"

BRAWLEY "" " " " " " "
" ""
" "

Magnolia Elementary School

"

""

" ""

" " "

"" ""

""
"

" "

"

"

"

""

""

"""""""""""""

Class II - Bike Lane

" " """"""""""

KALIN RD

| þ· } | þ } ·

78

86

"""""""""""""""

( !

( ! "

Elementary

"" "" ""

7 6 5 4

""

" " " " " " " " " " ""

S26

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Mulberry """"""""""""""""""""""""

""

County Existing Bikeways
Class I - Bike Path

WESTMORLAND

Ramer Lake

"" "" ""

""

Military Complex

"

""

""

City Proposed Routes

Railroads

"

"

"

" " ""

""

"

"

"

! Wiest Lake (

"" ""

"" " " "

( ! "
" "

""

""

Class III - Bike Route

" Shopping

""

""

Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge

| þ } ·

111

| þ } ·

115

""

""

State Route Bikeway

" School
"

"" """ """" " " "" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

""

" " " """ " " " "

Class III - Bike Route

| þ } ·

78

" Park and Open Space
" "" ""

7 6 5 4

S30

CALIPATRIA

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

Class II - Bike Lane

£ Transit Connection n

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"
"

( !
" ""

"

"

"

"

"

"

GENTRY RD

Class I - Bike Path

"

"

"

Proposed Bike Parking

"""""""""""""""""""""

SINCLAIR RD

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

SALTON SEA

"

"

"

"

"

County Proposed Bikeways End of Trip Facilities
"

Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge

"

"

| þ } ·
"" ""

86

( ! " ( ! "
"" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ""

Red Hill Marina County Park

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

""

" ""
" ""

Sou t

her n

Pac if

ic R

ailr oad

""

""

""

"

"

HIG

HLA

" " " " " " " " "" "

"
" "

ND

"
" "

CA N

"

AL

"

| þ } ·

78

"" "" " ""

" " "" " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "

"" "
"

ee Lev g nin Mi ad ilro Ra
""""

HIGHLAND CAN AL

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " "

" " " " " ""
"" ""

""" " " " " " " " " " ""

" "" "" " " "" "" ""

"

"" "" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

"""" """"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""" """ "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""

§ ¦ ¨

8

""""

" " "

"""""""""

" " "" "" " " "" ""

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

6 Program Recommendations
Of the “Six E’s” of bicycle planning, four are related to programs: encouragement, education, enforcement and evaluation. Bicycle-related policies can affect each of the Six E’s, but are primarily used as an evaluation and planning tool. The following four vision statements of the Bicycle Master Plan are particularly relevant to the development and implementation of programs and policies:     Education: community understanding and respect for the roles and responsibilities of cyclists. Encouragement: increase bicycle ridership and foster the creation of a strong bicycle advocacy community and bicycle culture. Enforcement: a safer environment for cyclists and other transportation modes. Evaluation & Planning: institutional support and collaboration for bicycling.

All of the Six E’s work together to enhance the bicycling experience in the County of Imperial. The following section presents recommended programs and policies to support the vision and goals of this plan. These programs have proven to be popular and effective in other bicycle-friendly communities.

6.1 Education
Education programs enable bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists to understand how to travel safely in the roadway environment according to the law. Education programs are available in an array of mediumsfrom long-term courses with detailed instruction, to single sessions focusing on a specific topic. Curriculums should be appropriate to the target audience and to the format of instruction. Community Bicycle Education Courses
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources General Public, County employees Department of Public Works (DPW), Department of Public Health (DPH) Local bicycle groups Educate users of all age groups and skill levels on safe bicycling skills www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php

Most bicyclists do not receive comprehensive instruction on safe and effective bicycling techniques, laws, or bicycle maintenance. Bike skill training courses are an excellent way to improve both cyclist confidence and safety. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) developed a comprehensive bicycle skills curriculum considered the national standard for adults seeking to improve their on-bike skills. The classes available include bicycle safety checks and basic maintenance, basic and advanced on-road skills, commuting, and driver education. The County of Imperial can partner with the local bicycle groups and other non-profit organizations to offer LAB bicycle skills courses, incorporating them into recreation center programs or other County programs.

Alta Planning + Design | 6-1

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

Youth Bicycle Safety Education
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners School-age Children DPW, DPH & Imperial County Office of Education (ICOE) School Districts and parent groups, local volunteers, League of American Bicyclists instructors, bicycle groups In-school and/or after-school on-bike skills and safety training National Center for Safe Routes to School guide: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/education/key_messages_for_children.cfm LAB’s Kids I and II curriculum: http://www. Bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#kids1 BTA’s Bike Safety Education Program: http://www.bta4bikes.org/resources/educational.php

Purpose Resources

Youth bicycle safety programs educate students about the rules of the road, proper use of bicycle equipment, biking skills, street crossing skills, and the benefits of bicycling. Such education programs are frequently part of Safe Routes to School programs. Bicycle safety education can integrate into classroom time, physical education periods, or after school. Classroom lessons administered by a volunteer, trained professional, law enforcement officer, or teacher can teach children about bicycling and traffic safety. Individual lessons should focus on one or two key issues and include activities that are fun and engaging. Bicycle safety lessons are most appropriate for fourth through eighth grade students16. The National Center for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) online guide summarizes key messages to include in pedestrian and bicycle safety curriculums. In addition to classroom-based activities, periodic “safety assemblies” can also provide bicycle safety education. Safety assemblies convey a safety message through the use of engaging and visually stimulating presentations, videos, skits, guest speakers, or artistic displays. Assemblies should be relatively brief and focus on one or two topics. Classes receiving on-going instruction on related topics can participate by presenting their lessons to the rest of the school. Schools can reinforce safety assembly lessons by reiterating the message in school announcements, school newsletters, posters, or other means. In addition to providing safety instruction, safety assemblies generate enthusiasm about biking.

Safe crossing lesson.

16

Safe Routes to School National Partnership, http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/state/bestpractices/personalsafety

6-2 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Bicycle Rodeos
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners School-age Children DPW & DPH School Districts and parent groups, CHP, Sheriff’s Department and local law enforcement, bicycle groups Teach children basic bicycle skills through a fun activity Safe Routes to School online guide: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/pdfs/lessonplans/RodeoManualJune2006.pdf

Purpose Resources

Bicycle Rodeos are individual events that help students develop basic bicycling techniques and safety skills through the use of a bicycle safety course. Rodeos use playgrounds or parking lots set-up with stop signs, traffic cones, and other props to simulate the roadway environment. Students receive instruction on how to maneuver, observe stop signs, and look for on-coming traffic before proceeding through intersections. Bicycle Rodeos also provide an opportunity for instructors to ensure children’s helmets and bicycles are appropriately sized. Events can include free or low-cost helmet distribution and bike safety checks. Trained adult volunteers, local police, and the fire department can administer Bicycle Rodeos. The Rodeos can be stand-alone events or can be incorporated into health fairs, back-to-school events, and Walk and Bike to School days. Share the Path Campaign
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Users of multi-use paths and Class I bike paths DPW & Department of Planning and Development Service (PDS) CHP, Sheriff’s Department and local law enforcement, bicycle groups, local bicycle retail and rental shops Educate path users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, and dog walkers on being safe and respectful to others on multi-use paths City of Portland, OR: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=163129

Purpose

Resources

Conflicts between path users can occur on popular, well-used path systems. “Share the Path” campaigns promote safe and courteous behavior among all users. These campaigns typically involve distribution of bicycle bells and other bicycle paraphernalia, and brochures with safety tips, and maps at bicycle rides and other public events. Effective Share the Path campaigns generally involve the following:   Developing a simple, clear Share the Path brochure for distribution through local bike shops and wherever bike maps are distributed. Hosting a bicycle bell giveaway event on a popular shared-use path. Volunteers and agency staff can distribute bells to cyclists and “Share the Path” brochures to other path users, and answer
Alta Planning + Design | 6-3

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

users’ questions. Other volunteers may walk along the path and thank bicyclists who use their bells when passing.  Conducting media outreach before a bell giveaways event. The event organizers should publicize positive stories about bicycling and use the event as an opportunity for marketing the path system. Media outreach can include public service announcements promoting courtesy and respect among all path users, and encouraging users to share the path safely.

Safe Routes to School Program
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Students and their parents; school administrators, faculty, and staff DPW & ICCOE Schools, school districts and parent groups, CHP, Sheriff’s Department and local law enforcement agencies, bicycle groups Provide parents and children with recommendations for safer and direct routes to walk/bike to school
County of Los Angeles Suggested Routes to School Program http://ladpw.org/tnl/schoolroute/ Resource Guide: National Center for Safe Routes to School: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/

Purpose

Resources

Helping children walk and bicycle to school is good for children’s health and can reduce congestion, traffic dangers and air pollution caused by parents driving children to school. Robust Safe Routes to School programs address five of the Six E’s- Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation. The County of Imperial should work with local school districts to implement a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program. The initial phase of a SR2S program is known as a bicycle and pedestrian audit, which helps assess walking and biking conditions of streets adjacent to Safe Routes to School programs increase the number elementary schools. Parents, students, neighbors, and of children walking and biking to school and improve County planners and/or traffic engineers should be traffic safety near schools. invited to join in the audit. Safety concerns, issues, and ideas should be recorded.

6-4 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

After the bicycle and pedestrian audit is conducted, maps for each elementary school showing recommended routes to reach school, along with high-traffic intersections and routes to avoid, should be produced and distributed. As a final step, an initial infrastructure improvement plan should be produced for each elementary school, including cost estimates and a prioritized project list. This infrastructure improvement plan will serve as a blueprint for future investments, and can be used to apply for further grant funding.

6.2 Encouragement
Encouragement programs focus on encouraging people to bicycle more frequently by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make bicycling a more convenient transportation mode.
Bicycling Maps
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose General Public DPW LACMTA, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Assist bicyclists in wayfinding by offering a map with clear symbols and graphics, destinations and services attractive for bicyclists, and good selection of routes City of Long Beach, CA: http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?Blobid=27418 City of Los Angeles, CA: http://www.bicyclela.org/pdf/BikeMapWestsideCC.pdf San Diego Region Bicycle Map: http://www.icommutesd.com/Bike/BikeMap.aspx

Resources

One of the most effective ways of encouraging people to bicycle is to distribute maps and guides to show that bicycle infrastructure exists. A map can also demonstrate the ease in accessing different parts of the community by bike, and highlight unique areas, shopping districts, or recreational areas. Maps can be countywide, community-specific, or neighborhood maps, and can be available on paper and/or online. Schools may create specialized biking and walking maps to direct students to walk and bicycle along the safest routes to school. These specialized maps may include arrows to indicate the routes and show stop signs, signals, crosswalks, sidewalks, trails, overcrossings, and crossing guard locations surrounding the school. The maps should focus on the attendance boundary of a particular school. Routes should take advantage of low volume residential streets and off-street facilities such as bike paths, sidewalks, and pedestrian bridges.

San Diego Regional Bike Map.

Alta Planning + Design | 6-5

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

Bicycle Signage Program
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Bicyclists DPW Caltrans, SCAG Direct cyclists to preferred and convenient bicycle facilities when navigating through the County’s roadways. Berkeley Signage System: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=6684

Resources

A signage program can support individuals choosing to make nonmotorized trips by advertising routes and popular destinations. The County may develop a uniform signage concept and plan for bikeways, including uniform sign designs, placement guidelines (e.g. sign location and frequency), a map of proposed bikeways and corridors to receive signage, and guides on the avoidance of placing excessive signage. Signage posted along bikeways should be consistent with other County signage standards.
Sample Bicycle Signage, Berkeley, CA.

Share the Road Education Campaign
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources Motorists, Bicyclists and Pedestrians DPW Bicycle groups, health organizations, local transit agencies (for advertising) Increase awareness of bicycling; promote safety I Share the Road Campaign: http://www.isharedtheroad.com/

A Share the Road campaign educates motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians about their legal rights and responsibilities on the road, and the need for increased courtesy and cooperation among all users. Share the Road campaigns often hold periodic traffic checkpoints along roadways with concentrated bicycle and pedestrian activity. Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians stop at these checkpoints to receive a Share the Road flyer and can give feedback to officers regarding the campaign. Checkpoints can also occur along local bikeways and paths. Public service announcements on radio and television can help promote the Share the Road campaign.

6-6 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Bicycling Campaigns
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources Motorists, Bicyclists and Pedestrians DPW Bicycle groups, health organizations, local transit agencies (for advertising) Increase awareness of bicycling; promote safety Sonoma County (CA) Transit: http://www.sctransit.com/bikesafe/bikes.htm

Bike to Work and School events are high profile encouragement programs that introduce people to bicycle commuting. These events also serve to change the general public’s perceptions and attitudes toward bicycle commuting. Common elements of Bike to Work events include commuting workshops, guided commutes, and group rides to increase comfort and familiarity with bicycling routes. Organizers can supplement these events with stations or bicycle pit stops to reward bicycle commuters with treats and other incentives, team bicycling challenges, and celebrity events (e.g., Mayor bikes to work).
Event Bicycle Parking
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources General Public, event attendees DPW Bicycle groups, local volunteers

Bike to School event.

Encourage bicycle travel; offer appealing alternative to driving for event attendees LACBC: http://la-bike.org/projects/bike-valet San Francisco Bicycle Coalition: http://www.sfbike.org/?valet

Providing safe and secure bicycle parking helps encourage individuals to bicycle. San Francisco passed a city ordinance that requires all major city events to provide bike parking and pioneered an innovative tool for stacking hundreds of bicycles without racks. The County of Imperial may consider temporary bicycle parking for events with expected large attendance and at regularly occurring events like a Farmer’s Market.

Alta Planning + Design | 6-7

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

Community Bikeway/Walkway Adoption
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose General Public DPW Individuals, local businesses Share operation and maintenance costs of bikeways with private sponsors

Community Bikeway/Walkway Adoption programs resemble the widely instituted Adopt-a-Highway programs throughout the country. These programs identify local individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in “adopting” a bikeway, walkway, or shared-use path. “Adopting” a facility means that a person or group is responsible for the facility’s maintenance, either through direct action or funding the County’s maintenance of that facility. For example, members of a local recreation group may volunteer every other weekend to sweep a bikeway and identify larger maintenance needs. Alternatively, a local bike shop may adopt a bikeway by providing funding for the maintenance costs. Some adopted bikeways post sponsors’ names on bikeway signs to display their commitment to bicycling. Community Walks/Bike Tours
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose General Public DPW Bicycle groups, community and other stakeholders Promote healthy, active living by encouraging residents to bike/walk to recreational facilities

Community walks and tours are healthy ways to promote historical and cultural aspects of the region. Groups that can organize community tours include County staff, neighborhood organizations, schools, and other groups that want the public to interact with the physical environment. Community walks and bike tours are effective tools for examining potential improvements to the physical environment and educating participants on resources/amenities available within the County.

6.3 Enforcement
Motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike are sometimes unaware of each other’s rights as they travel city streets. Enforcement programs target unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and enforce laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and conflicts. Enforcement fosters mutual respect between roadway users and improves safety. These programs generally require coordination between law enforcement, transportation agencies, and bicycling organizations. Educating the public through enforcement policies will supplement the physical improvements made in the County of Imperial.

6-8 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Bicycle Light Enforcement
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources Cyclists CHP, Sheriff’s Department and local law enforcement agencies Bicycle groups Increase safety by providing bicycle lights to bicyclists Community Cycling Center (Portland, OR): http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/index.php/programs-for-adults/get-lit/ San Francisco Bicycle Coalition: http://www.sfbike.org/?lights

California Vehicle Code (CVC) §21201 requires bicycles to mount a front white light and red rear reflectors when ridden at night. Bicycling without lights reduces bicyclists’ visibility and visibility to motor vehicles, and therefore increases bicyclists’ risks of being involved in bicycle-car crashes. For these reasons, increasing bicycle light use should be a top priority for improving bicycle safety in the County of Imperial. Bicycle light enforcement can effectively impact behavior particularly if bicyclists can avoid penalty by obtaining a bike light. One option is for officers to give offenders warnings, explain the law, and install a free bike light at the time of citation. Alternatively, officers can write “fix-it tickets” and waive the fine if bicyclists can prove that they have purchased a bike light within a specified timeframe. When citing bicyclists, officers can also provide coupons for free or discounted lights at a local bike shops, if available. Bike light outreach campaigns can include the following components:    Placing advertisements on transit benches, transit vehicles, and local newspapers reminding bicyclists about the importance of bike lights. Distributing media releases with statistics about the importance of using bike lights and relevant legal statutes. Partnering with local cycling groups to publicize bicycle light use, especially at schools. Groups should receive campaign materials to distribute to constituents along with coupons for free or discounted bike lights. Stationing volunteers at key intersections and paths to thank bicyclists for bike lights, rewarding cyclists with a small gift. Organizing a community bike light parade with prizes. Providing discounts on bike lights and reflective gear at local bike shops.

  

Alta Planning + Design | 6-9

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

Targeted enforcement
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources Cyclists and motorists CHP, Sheriff’s Department and local law enforcement agencies DPW Increase safety by promoting awareness of bicycle/motorist issues and conflicts http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/01/30/alice-award-nominee-chief-jon-zeliff/

Traffic enforcement agencies, such as local Police and Sheriff’s Departments, enforce laws pertaining to bicycles as part of the responsible normal operations. Targeted enforcement is one way to publicize bicycle laws in a highly visible and public manner. Targeted enforcement may take the form of intersection stings, handing out informational sheets to motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and enforcing speed limits and right-of-way.
Speed Radar Trailer / Permanent Speed Signs

Target Audience: Motorists Speed radar trailers can help reduce traffic speeds and enforce speed limits in areas with speeding problems. Police set up an unmanned trailer that displays the speed of approaching motorists along with a speed limit sign. Speed trailers may be effective on busier arterial roads without bikeway facilities or near schools with reported speeding. The speed trailer’s roadway placement should not obstruct bicycle traffic. Speed trailers work as both an educational and enforcement tool. By itself, the unmanned trailer educates motorists about their current speed in relation to the speed limit. They can also be transported easily to streets where local residents complain about speeding problems. The Sheriff’s Department may station an officer near the trailer to issue speeding citations when speeding continues to occur.

Speed radar trailer.

County staff may provide the management role for this program, working with the public and determine which locations are in most need. This program can be administered randomly, cyclically, or as demand necessitates because of the speed trailers’ portability.

6-10 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Bicycle Patrol Units

Target Audience: Cyclists and motorists On-bike officers are an excellent tool for community and neighborhood policing because they are more accessible to the public and able to mobilize in areas where patrol cars cannot (e.g., overcrossings and paths). Bike officers undergo special training in bicycle safety and bicyclerelated traffic laws and are therefore especially equipped to enforce laws pertaining to bicycling. Bicycle officers help educate cyclists and motorists through enforcement and also serve as excellent outreach personnel to the public at parades, street fairs, and other gatherings.

Portland, OR Bicycle Patrol Officer.

6.4 Evaluation and Planning
Evaluation programs help the County measure how well it is meeting the goals of this Plan and related plans that address the need to increase bicycle ridership. Evaluation is a key component of any engineering or programmatic investment.
Convene a Permanent Bicycle Advisory Committee
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Resources Citizen advocates DPW Imperial Valley Transit, SCAG, Caltrans, bicycle groups, local advocates Advise the County on bicycle issues City of LA Bicycle Advisory Committee: http://www.bicyclela.org/

Many states, regional agencies, and cities have an official Bicycle Advisory Committee made of citizen volunteers, appointed by Board of Supervisors or the appropriate body, to advise on bicycling issues. An advisory committee establishes the region’s commitment to making bicycling safer and more desirable and has the potential to assist the County in getting funding for bicycle-related projects. The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) should be composed of representatives from all bicycle stakeholder groups. The role of the BAC should include some or all of the following:  Review and provide citizen input on capital project planning and design as it affects bicycling (e.g., corridor plans, street improvement projects, signing or signal projects, and parking facilities)

Alta Planning + Design | 6-11

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

    

Review and comment on changes to zoning, development code, comprehensive plans, and other long-term planning and policy documents Participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of Bicycle Master Plans and bikeway facility standards Provide a formal liaison between local government, staff, and the public Develop and monitor goals and indices related to bicycling in the County Promote bicycling, including bicycle safety and education

Because BAC members are volunteers, it is essential to have strong participation in order for the committee to be successful. A County staff person should be formally assigned to the BAC and should take charge of managing the application process, managing agendas and minutes, scheduling meetings, bringing agency issues to the BAC, and reporting back to the agency and governing body about the BAC’s recommendations and findings. County Bicycle Coordinator
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose Bicycle transportation professionals DPW Imperial County Administration Supervise the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan. Prioritize and increase funding for bicycle related projects and programs. LAB: http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/why_bike_ped_staff_april_2010.pdf

Resources

To assist with implementation of the many projects and programs recommended in this Plan, the County should establish a part/full-time Bicycle Coordinator position, so that staff time is available to administer and advance the County’s bicycle planning and programmatic efforts. The job duties for this staff person would include overseeing the implementation of this plan, prepare for future Bicycle Master Plan updates, coordinating a community stakeholders group and administering the program recommendations listed in this plan, as well as expanding on these programs in the future.

6-12 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Develop and Adopt a Complete Streets Policy
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose The County of Imperial, Planning and Engineering departments DPW & PDS Imperial County Administration Establish policies to ensure that streets are designed for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users and persons with disabilities. LAB: http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/why_bike_ped_staff_april_2010.pdf

Resources

Local governments adopt Complete Streets policies in order to direct transportation planners and engineers to consistently design roadways with all users in mind (e.g., motorists, transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, older people, children, and people with disabilities). Once a policy is in place, training is recommended for professionals whose work will be affected by the policy (e.g., planners and engineers). The Complete Streets Coalition provides the following guidance on Complete Streets principles and policy: The Principle:  Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street. Creating Complete Streets means changing the policies and practices of transportation agencies. A Complete Streets policy ensures that the entire right-of-way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Transportation agencies must ensure that all road projects result in a Complete Street appropriate to local context and needs.

  

Elements of a Good Complete Streets Policy:      Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists, of all ages and abilities. Aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network. Recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced. Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right-of-way. Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.

Alta Planning + Design | 6-13

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

  

Directs the use of the latest and best design standards. Directs that complete streets solutions fit within the context of the community. Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.

Perform Annual Bicycle Counts
Target audience Primary agency Potential partners Purpose County staff, elected officials, general public DPW SCAG, bicycle groups, local advocates Gather important benchmarking information about bicycling and provide progress reports on the Plan http://bikepeddocumentation.org/

Resources

Many jurisdictions do not perform regular bicycle counts. As a result, they do not have a mechanism for tracking bicycling trends over time, or for evaluating the impact of projects, policies, and programs. It is recommended that the County of Imperial perform and/or coordinate annual counts of bicyclists (and ideally pedestrians, as well) on both on- and off-street facilities according to national practices. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project has developed a recommended methodology, survey and count forms, and reporting forms. This approach may be modified to serve the needs and interests of individual jurisdictions. The County should manage tracking, analysis, and reporting activities. Counts can be done manually by staff/volunteers or using video or a variety of other technologies.

Bicycle Counts are a benchmark to determine the effectiveness of bicycle improvements based on the growth of bicycle users.

6-14 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

6.5 Additional Resources
Program development can greatly benefit from examining similar efforts of other regions. The following table provides links to sample programs that are similar to programs recommended in the Plan. Program Description
Create-a-Commuter program Earn a Bike programs (for low-income kids) Police Education Course Walking School Buses (stand-alone program or part of SR2S program) Bike Buddy program Family day/family biking classes Women on Bikes program Seniors on Bikes program (Safe Routes to Senior Centers, Older Adult ThreeWheeled Bicycle Program) Bicycling Ambassadors Bike Commute Challenge Bike Light Campaign

Link to sample program(s)
http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/index.php/programs/create-acommuter/ http://www.experimentalstation.org/blackstone http://www.recycleabicycle.org/ http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/enforcement/training.cfm http://www.massbike.org/police/ http://www.walkingschoolbus.org/ http://bicycling.511.org/buddy.htm http://www.sfbike.org/?family_day http://www.sfbike.org/?freedom http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=iibhg&c=djdaa http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=eafeg http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=bffbgh&c=dheab http://www.bicyclingambassadors.org/ http://www.bikecommutechallenge.com/ http://la-bike.org/projects/city-lights

Alta Planning + Design | 6-15

Chapter 6 | Program Recommendations

This page intentionally left blank

6-16 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

7 Implementation and Funding
This chapter is intended to support the implementation of this Plan’s recommendations by providing the following information:      Description and results of the prioritization process for the proposed bicycle network. An overview of bicycle-related expenditures between 2005 and 2010. Planning level cost estimates for the entire proposed network. Cost estimates for maintenance and operations. An overview of funding sources that the County should pursue.

7.1 Route Selection and Prioritization
This section outlines the prioritization methodology and route selection criteria for the bikeway network recommendations for the County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan. The purpose of the ranking process is to create a prioritized list of projects for implementation. The project list and ranking are flexible concepts that serve as guidelines to the implementation process. The list may change over time due to changing bicycle patterns, implementation opportunities and constraints, and the development of other transportation system facilities. The following criteria are used to evaluate each proposed bicycle facility, its ability to address demand and deficiencies in the existing bicycle network and its ease of implementation. The criteria are organized into “utility” and “implementation” prioritization factors.

7.1.1 Utility Prioritization Factors
Utility criteria include conditions of bicycle facilities that enhance the bicycle network. Each criterion is discussed below. Gap Closure Gaps in the bicycle network come in a variety of forms, ranging from a “missing link” on a roadway to larger geographic areas without bicycle facilities. Gaps in the bikeway network discourage bicycle use because they limit access to key destinations and land uses. Facilities that fill a gap in the existing and proposed bicycle network are of high priority. Connectivity to Existing Facilities Proposed bikeways that connect to existing bicycle facilities in the County of Imperial increase the convenience of bicycle commuting. Proposed facilities that fit this criterion are of high importance to the County. Connectivity to Proposed Facilities in the Incorporated Cities Connecting the regional bicycle network to the existing and proposed facilities within the incorporated cities of the County of Imperial is very important to enhance bicycle travel in the County. The

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-1

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

incorporated cities’ proposed bikeways will eventually become existing bicycle facilities and thus facilities that link to them will enhance future connectivity. Connectivity to Activity Centers Activity centers include major commuter destinations, like commercial and employment centers, as well as outdoor recreational facilities. These locations generate many trips which could be made by bicycle if the proper facilities were available. Bicycle facilities on roadways that connect to activity centers are of priority to the County of Imperial. Safety Bicycle facilities have the potential to increase safety by reducing the potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, which often result in collisions. Proposed facilities that are located on roadways with past bicycle-automobile collisions are important to the County. Public Input The County of Imperial solicited public input through community workshops and an online survey. Facilities that community members identified as desirable for future bicycle facilities are of priority to the network because they address the needs of the public. County Staff Input Bicycle facilities that currently have ongoing funding applications or are part of forecasted capital improvements are identified as priority by County staff.

7.1.2 Implementation Prioritization Factors
Implementation criteria address the ease of implementing each proposed project. The specific criterion is discussed below. Project Cost Projects that are less expensive do not require as much funding as other projects and are therefore easier to implement. Projects that cost less are of higher priority to the County of Imperial.

7.1.3 Project Ranking
Table 7-1 shows how the criteria described in the previous section translate into weights for project prioritization and ranking. Weights are based on direct, secondary, or no service at all. Direct service means that a facility intersects with a facility/destination, whereas secondary access occurs when the primary facility runs in close proximity to an existing facility/destination. Table 7-2 presents the lists of projects prioritized, the project cost estimate, and individual criteria score, and total project score.

7-2 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Table 7-1: Proposed Facilities Ranking Criteria
Multiplier

Score

Utility Prioritization Factors
2 Gap Closure 1 0 2 Connectivity: Existing 1 0 2 Local Connectivity 1 0 Connectivity: Activity Centers 2 1 0 2 Connectivity to Schools 1 0 2 Safety 1 0 2 Public Input 1 0 Staff Input 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 6 3 0 6 3 0 6 3 0 6 3 0 4 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 8 0 Fills a network gap between two existing facilities Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a proposed facility Does not directly or indirectly fill a network gap Provides direct access to an existing bicycle facility Provides secondary connectivity to an existing bicycle facility Does not directly or indirectly access an existing bicycle facility Provides direct access to a proposed or exiting bicycle facility in the incorporated cities Provides secondary access to a proposed or exiting bicycle facility in the incorporated cities Does not provide access to a proposed or existing bicycle facility in the incorporated cities Provides direct access to a major trip-generating destination Provides secondary connectivity to a major trip-generating destination Does not directly or indirectly access an Activity Center Provides direct access to an educational facility (within ¼ mile). Provides secondary access to an educational facility (within ½ mile) No direct access to an educational facility Bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 2 or more bicycle collisions between 2006-2010 Bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 1 bicycle collisions between 2006-2010 Bicycle facility on a roadway that did not experience any bicycle collisions between 2006-2010 Roadway was identified by the public as a desirable for a future facility multiple times Roadway was identified by the public as desirable for a future facility once Roadway was not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility Facility was identified by County Staff as high priority Facility was not identified by County Staff as high priority

Implementation Prioritization Factors
3 Project Cost 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 0 Will cost less than $100,000 to implement Will cost between $100,001 and $500,000 to implement Will cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to implement Will cost more than $1,000,000 to implement

43

Total

Criteria

Description

Maximum Potential Score

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-3

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

Table 7-2: Proposed Facilities by Rank
Project ID Project Cost Estimate
$80,000 $687,000 $313,000 $15,000 $240,000 $720,000 $102,000 $160,000 $802,000 $15,000 $36,000 $74,000 $272,000 $ 7,000 $81,000 $280,000 $6,133,000 $169,000 $541,000 $720,000 $86,000 $243,000 $120,000 $333,000 $18,000 $5,321,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Worthington Road McCabe Road Clark Road Ross Road Dogwood Road Dogwood Road Old Route 111 Austin Road Aten Road Aten Road La Brucherie Road Dogwood Road Austin Road Marina Drive La Brucherie Road McCabe Road Railway Multi-use Pathway Evan Hewes Hwy Drew Road Rutherford Road Cole Road Worthington Road Dogwood Road La Brucherie Road Salton Borrego Seaway Railway Multi-use Path Desert Shores Desert Shores Drive Brawley Avenue Salton Bay Drive

Austin Road La Brucherie Road El Centro city limits Austin Road McCabe Road Brawley city limits Worthington Road Ross Road Imperial city limits Austin Road Imperial city limits Danenberg Road Keystone Road Sea View Drive Larsen Road Brockman Road El Centro city limits Huff Road I-8 Dietrich Road Calexico city limits P Street Aten Road Wake Avenue State Hwy 86 Seeley city limits Palm Drive State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 Cristal Avenue

La Brucherie Road Barbara Worth Road Willoughby Road El Centro city limits Willoughby Road Aten Road Evan Hewes Hwy McCabe Road Dogwood Road Imperial city limits Evan Hewes Hwy McCabe Road Ross Road State Hwy 86 Neckel Road La Brucherie Road Holtville city limits Drew Road State Hwy 99 Highland Canal Barbara Worth Road State Hwy 111 El Centro city limits Ferrell Road Imperial County boarder El Centro city limits State Hwy 86 Coolidge Springs Road End of Road Sea View Drive

II II II II II III II II I II II II II III II II I II II III II II III II III I III III III III

1 8.6 3.9 0.5 3.0 9.0 3.4 2.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.9 9.1 3.1 1.0 3.5 7.7 2.1 6.8 9.0 2.9 3.0 1.5 4.2 7.6 6.7 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.1

7-4 | Alta Planning + Design

Final Score
33 29 26 22 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 9 9

Miles

Class

Name

From

To

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Project ID

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Sea View Drive Coolidge Springs Road Brawley Avenue Beach Club Drive Meads Road Center Street Eddins Road Holt Road Imperial Hwy Westside Road Old Route 111 Dietrich Road Anza Road Brockman Road Forrester Road Treadwell Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Nile Drive Marina Drive Marina Drive Boars Road Forrester Road Rutherford Road Ben Hulse Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy English Road Sinclair Road Gentry Road Barbara Worth Road Norrish Road

Salton Bay Drive Desert Shores Drive Holt Ave Beach Club Dogwood Road Howenstein Road English Road Norrish Road Ocotillo Community Park Evan Hewes Hwy Brawley city limits (Best Road) Rutherford Road Ferrell Road McCabe Road Baughman Road Beach Club Drive Beach Front Atlantic Boulevard Sea View Drive Atlantic Boulevard Dean Road Walker Road State Hwy 111 Dietrich Road Holtville city limits Sinclair Road Gentry Road Sinclair Road Evan Hewes Hwy Highline Road

Marina Drive State Hwy 86 State Hwy 86 Treadwell Boulevard State Hwy 111 8th Street Lyerly Road Holtville city limits Imperial Place Vaughn Road Worthington Road Shank Road Calexico city limits Anza Road Carter Road Azure Avenue Marina Drive Treadwell Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard State Hwy 86 Kalin Road Howenstein Road Dietrich Road Butters Road U.S Hwy 80 Eddins Road English Road Walker Road State Hwy 98 Highline Canal

III III III III III II II II II III II II II II II III III III III III II II II II II II II II II III

0.9 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 8.5 3.3 3.4 6.2 6.6 1.4 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.2 6.1 6.9 3.5 4.0 7.0 7.6 1.5

$2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $10,000 $80,000 $80,000 $81,000 $184,000 $256,000 $261,000 $268,000 $496,000 $527,000 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $4,000 $5,000 $160,000 $162,000 $178,000 $182,000 $206,000 $281,000 $322,000 $557,000 $607,000 $4,000

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-5

Final Score
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3

Miles

Class

Name

From

To

Project Cost Estimate

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

Project ID

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Shank Road Walker Road Larsen Road Kalin Road Willoughby Road Forrester Road Forrester Road Holt Road Pulliam Road Keystone Road Keystone Road Butters Road Dietrich Road Imperial Hwy Dogwood Road Rutherford Road Ferrell Road Gonder Road Carter Road Norrish Road Anza Road Imler Road Kalin Road Worthington Road Highline Road Huff Road Evan Hewes Hwy Evan Hewes Hwy Highline Canal Path

Dietrich Road Gentry Road La Brucherie Road Rutherford Road Clark Road Carter Road Imler Road Worthington Road State Highway 98 Austin Road Forrester Road Ben Hulse Hwy Shank Road Imperial Place Willoughby Road Kalin Road La Brucherie Road Butters Road Webster Road Holt Road Pulliam Road Forrester Road Boarts Road State Hwy 111 Gonder Road Imler Road Huff Road U.S. Hwy 8 Noffsinger Road

Dietrich Road Forrester Road State Hwy 86 Boarts Road Dogwood Road Imler Road Keystone Road Norrish Road Anza Road State Hwy 86 Austin Road Gonder Road State Hwy 78 State Hwy 99 State Hwy 98 State Hwy 111 Anza Road Highline Road Forrester Road Highline Road Ferrell Road Huff Road Webster Road Holt Road Norrish Road Evan Hewes Hwy S-2- Imperial Hwy End of Road Norrish Road

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I I

0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.1 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.5 7.5 8.3 10.0 16.7 19.2 29.2

$22,000 $38,000 $39,000 $40,000 $45,000 $49,000 $71,000 $79,000 $82,000 $114,000 $123,000 $125,000 $125,000 $127,000 $164,000 $238,000 $265,000 $275,000 $313,000 $323,000 $329,000 $341,000 $359,000 $600,000 $663,000 $799,000 $1,333,000 $15,366,000 $23,334,000

7-6 | Alta Planning + Design

Final Score
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0

Miles

Class

Name

From

To

Project Cost Estimate

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

7.2 Previous Bicycle-Related Expenditures
The County of Imperial has had several projects funded over the past five years. Table 7-3 presents a summary of expenditures on bikeways in the County of Imperial since 2005. Table 7-3: County of Imperial Bicycle Lane Expenditures, 2005-2010 Year
2005-2006 2006-2007

Project
Drew Road Bicycle Lane Project: from Interstate 8 to Even Hewes Highway Ross Road Phase III Bicycle Lane Project: From Forrester Road to El Centro city limits Resurfacing of Drew Road: From Ross Road to Evan Hewes Highway (Bicycle lane portion of project, approximately one third of total project).

Amount
$373,270 $468,265

2009-2010 Total

$80,924 $922,459

Source: County of Imperial Department of Public Works (2011)

7.3 Cost Estimate for the Proposed Network
This section describes the cost estimate methodology and presents the cost estimates for the recommended bikeway projects. The proposed County of Imperial bikeway network is comprised of approximately 400 miles of recommended facilities requiring an efficient cost estimating methodology. After developing the proposed bicycle network, costs estimates were developed for the projects based on a number of assumptions outlined below.   This Plan assumes Class I multi-use paths will be 10 feet of paved surface bound on either side with two-foot shoulders. Signage will comply with the CA MUTCD (California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) and AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Guide for the development of Bicycle Facilities and the California Highway Design Manual’s Chapter 1000. Class II bike lanes cost estimates reflect the minimum Caltrans Class II standards outlined in Chapter 5 of this Plan. Class II bike lanes costs are based on County roadway classifications and roadway characteristics. Cost estimates assume roadway or shoulder widening and minor surface repairs on most rural roadways. Cost estimates for Class III bicycle routes are based on the following minimum shoulder widths: o Minimum four-foot clear shoulder width for urban and rural local roads o Minimum five-foot shoulder width for urban and rural mayor collector roads o Minimum six-foot shoulder width for principal arterials and highways The proposed Class III facilities along State Routes are within Caltrans jurisdiction; therefore they are not included in the cost estimates. The implementation of these facilities should be coordinated with Caltrans.

 





Alta Planning + Design- | 7-7

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

Table 7-4 provides a detailed summary of the fully burdened costs of the different bikeway facility types. Unit costs presented are planning level cost estimates based on typical or average costs. Planning costs do not reflect project specific factors such as intensive grading, landscaping, intersection modifications, and right-of-way acquisitions that may increase the actual costs of construction. Table 7-4: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Facilities Facility
Standard Class I (per mile) Class II Bike Lanes: Both Roadway Sides (per mile) Class II Bike Lanes: with minor improvements (per mile) Class III Bike Route (per mile) Class III Bike Route widening (per mile) Inverted U Bicycle Rack (ea) Share the Road Signs (ea) Wayfinding/Destination Sign (ea)

Cost Materials
$800,000 $30,000 $80,000 $2,400 $80,000 $200 $250 $500 Construction, signing Striping and signing Striping and signing, minor resurfacing and widening Signing and minor surface repair Signing, markings, roadway widening Rack Signs, posts Signs, posts

Source: Alta Planning & Design, 2011

Before constructing recommended facilities, additional fieldwork will be required to verify existing conditions. These include but are not limited to: roadway widths, right-of-way, travel lanes, bicycle and motor vehicle travel patterns and conflicts, signal timing, and pavement conditions. Final bikeway treatments should be selected based on verified conditions. The total implementation cost of the County of Imperial proposed bicycle network is estimated at approximately $68 million, as is shown in Table 7-5. Table 7-5: Planning Level Cost Summary by Bikeway Type Bikeway Class
Class I Bike Paths Class II Bike Lanes Class III Bike Routes Total

Length (miles)
63.7 219.4 50.6 333.7

Planning-Level Cost
$50,956,000 $15,522,000 $1,813,000 $68,291,000

7.4 Cost Estimates for Maintenance and Operations
Regular and appropriate maintenance of bicycle facilities should be part of the normal roadway maintenance program. Well-maintained bicycle facilities increase safety and encourage use of the facility. A comprehensive bicycle maintenance program should include periodic review of sign conditions, pavement markings, barriers, and surface conditions. Extra emphasis should be put on keeping the bike lanes and roadway shoulders clear of debris and glass. The maintenance responsibility for the proposed Class I bicycle paths located along the Highline Canal and the Southern Pacific Railway will need to be

7-8 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

closely coordinated with the respective property owners prior to developing detailed construction documents. Bicycle network maintenance unit costs are shown in Table 7-6. Bicycle facility maintenance costs are based on per-mile estimates, which cover labor, supplies, and amortized equipment costs for weekly trash removal, monthly sweeping, and bi-annual resurfacing and repair patrols. Other maintenance costs include restriping bike lane lines, sweeping debris, and calibrating signals for bicycle sensitivity. Table 7-6: Recommended Bikeway Network, Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates Facility Type
Class I Maintenance

Unit Cost
$8,500 per mi/year $2,000 per mi/year $1,000 per mi/year

Notes
Lighting and removal of debris and vegetation overgrowth. Repainting lane stripes and stencils, sign replacement as needed Sign and stencil replacement as needed

Class II Maintenance

Class III Maintenance

Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2010

7.5 Funding Sources
There are a variety of potential funding sources that can be used to build the proposed improvements, including local, state, regional and federal funding programs, as well as private sector funding. Most of the federal, state, and regional programs are competitive processes and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project needs, costs and benefits. In regard to funding opportunities, the following should be noted:  Funding sources are highly competitive, with many agencies competing for the same “pots” of money.  Funding is limited; capital funding needs far outweigh available funding every year.  Applying for funding is a time-consuming and staff-intensive process.  Collaboration and partnerships with local agencies and community groups is key. The following information serves as a general guide to funding sources. Staff should refer to current guidelines provided by the granting agency when pursuing any funding opportunity.

7.5.1 Federal Funding
The primary federal source of surface transportation funding, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, is SAFETEA-LU, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. SAFETEA-LU is the third iteration of the transportation vision established by Congress in 1991 with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and renewed in 1998 and 2003 through the

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-9

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA). Also known as the Federal Transportation Bill, the $286.5 billion SAFETEA-LU bill authorizes federal surface transportation programs for the five-year period between 2005 and 2009. As of September 30, 2009, SAFETEA-LU has expired, though the bill’s programs have been kept alive at a 30% reduction in funding by Congress through a series of continuing resolutions. Administration of SAFETEA-LU funding occurs through the State (Caltrans and the State Resources Agency) and through regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding programs are oriented toward utilitarian transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections. SAFETEA-LU programs require a local match of 11.47%. Specific funding programs under SAFETEA-LU include, but are not limited to:     Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Recreational Trails Program Safe Routes to School Program Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program

The following sections describe these and other federal funding sources Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds are programmed by the Federal Transportation Bill for projects that are likely to contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard, and provide congestion mitigation. These funds can be used for a variety of bicycle and pedestrian projects, particularly those that are developed primarily for transportation purposes. The funds can be used either for construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways, or for non-construction projects related to safe bicycle and pedestrian use (maps, brochures, etc.). The projects must be tied to a plan adopted by the State of California and the Regional Government Agency. Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program of SAFETEA-LU provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include bicycling, hiking, in-line skating, and equestrian use. In California, the funds are administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:       Maintenance and restoration of existing trails. Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment. Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails. Acquisition of easements or property for trails. State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a state's funds). Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a state's funds).

7-10 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

In 2009, $4.6 million was available to California jurisdictions through the Recreational Trails Program. More information is available at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/index.htm. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Authorized under Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU, the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program came into effect in August 2005. Consistent with other federal programs, each State Department of Transportation (DOT) is held responsible for the development and implementation of grant funds made available to the states through this new program throughout the life of SAFETEA-LU. Some expected outcomes of the program include:       Increased bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety around schools. More children walking and bicycling to and from schools. Decreased traffic congestion around schools. Reduced childhood obesity. Improved air quality, community safety and security, and community involvement. Improved partnerships among schools, local agencies, parents, community groups, and nonprofit organizations.

A minimum of 70 percent of each year’s apportionment will be made available for infrastructure projects with up to 30 percent for non-infrastructure projects. SRTS Infrastructure Projects Infrastructure projects are engineering projects or capital improvements that will substantially improve safety and the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. They typically involve the planning, design, and construction of facilities within a two-mile radius from a grade school or middle school. The maximum funding cap for an infrastructure project is $1 million. Caltrans does not set minimum caps. The project cost estimate may include eligible direct and indirect costs. Eligible projects may include but are not limited to:  New bicycle trails and paths, bicycle racks, bicycle lane striping and widening, new sidewalks, widening of sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, curbs, gutters, and curb ramps. In addition new pedestrian trails, paths, and pedestrian over and under crossings, roundabouts, bulb-outs, speed bumps, raised intersections, median refuges, narrowed traffic lanes, lane reductions, full or halfstreet closures, and other speed reduction techniques are eligible. Included in the category of traffic control devices are new or upgraded traffic signals, crosswalks, pavement markings, traffic signs, traffic stripes, in-roadway crosswalk lights, flashing beacons, bicycle-sensitive signal actuation devices, pedestrian countdown signals, vehicle speed feedback signs, pedestrian activated upgrades, and all other pedestrian and bicycle-related traffic control devices.



Infrastructure projects should directly support increased safety and convenience for children in K-8 (including children with disabilities) to walk and bicycle to school.

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-11

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

SRTS Non-Infrastructure Projects Non-infrastructure projects are education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that are intended to change community behavior, attitudes, and social norms to make it safer for children in grades K-8 to walk and bicycle to school. Non-infrastructure projects should increase the likelihood of programs becoming institutionalized once in place. Deliverables from a non-infrastructure project must be clearly stated in the application and tangible samples must be attached to the final invoice or progress report (i.e., sample training materials or promotional brochures). The funding cap for a non-infrastructure project is $500,000. Multi-year funding allows the applicant to add adequate staff and deliver their project over the course of four years, therefore reducing overhead and increasing project sustainability. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP) Implementation grants under the TCSP Program are intended to provide financial resources to states, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments to enable them to carry out activities that address transportation efficiency while meeting community preservation and environmental goals. Examples of such policies or programs include spending policies that direct funds to high-growth regions of the country, urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan expansion, and “green corridors” programs that provide access to major highway corridors for areas targeted for efficient and compact development. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) The Land and Water Conservation Fund allocates money to state and local governments to acquire new land for recreational purposes, including Bicycle Paths, and support facilities such as bike racks. The Fund is administered by the National Parks Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation and has been reauthorized until 2015. Cities, counties and districts authorized to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain park and recreation facilities are eligible to apply. Applicants must fund the entire project, and will be reimbursed for 50 percent of costs. Property acquired or developed under the program must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use. The grant process for local agencies is competitive, and 60 percent of grants are reserved for Southern California. In 2009, approximately $1.25 million was allocated to fund recommended projects in California. Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) The Rivers Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) is a National Parks Service program which provides technical assistance via direct staff involvement, to establish and restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds, and open space. The RTCA program provides only for planning assistance, as there are no implementation monies available. Projects are prioritized for assistance based upon criteria which include conserving significant community resources, fostering cooperation between agencies, serving a large number of users, encouraging public involvement in planning and implementation and focusing on lasting accomplishments.

7-12 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Transportation Enhancement (TE) Activities Transportation Enhancement (TE) Activities are a subset of federal Surface Transportation Program funds whose aim is to help expand travel choice and enhance the transportation experience. Included in the list of activities eligible for funding are the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the provision of pedestrian and bicycle safety and educational activities. California’s annual allocation of TE funds through the end of the SAFETEA-LU bill was $74.5 million.

7.5.2 State Funding Programs
This section summarizes the primary state bicycle project and planning funding sources. AB 2766 Subvention Funds Funds from the registration of every motor vehicle registered or renewed each year in California are distributed directly to the cities in an Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) jurisdiction for mobile source emission reduction programs. Subvention Funds can be used for bicycle-related projects that reduce mobile source emissions. Bicycle Transportation Account The State of California Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit for funding bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. As of 2009, the BTA makes $7.2 million available each year. The local match is a minimum of 10% of the total project cost. BTA projects are intended to improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters, and can include, but are not limited to, any of the following:         New bikeways serving major transportation corridors. New bikeways removing travel barriers to potential bicycle commuters. Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park-and-ride lots, rail and transit terminals. Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit vehicles. Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety and efficiency of bicycle travel. Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways. Planning. Improvement and maintenance of bikeways.

Eligible project activities include project planning, preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction and/or rehabilitation. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) funds are allocated to projects that offset environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities including streets, mass transit guideways, park-n-ride facilities, transit stations, tree planting to equalize the effects of vehicular

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-13

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

emissions, and the acquisition or development of roadside recreational facilities, such as trails. State gasoline tax monies fund the EEMP, which annually allocates $10 million for mitigation projects. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a state safety program that funds safety improvements on all public roads and highways. These funds attempt to reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at improved locations. Local agencies compete for HSIP funds each year by submitting candidate safety projects to Caltrans for review and analysis. Caltrans prioritizes these projects statewide and releases an annual HSIP Program Plan that identifies the approved projects. The State disperses funding annually following the federal fiscal year. Approximately $27 million dollars were available in the 2007 funding cycle. The HSIP considers funding two project types: Safety Index and Work Type. Safety Index Projects qualify for funding based on a State-calculated safety index. These projects receive a statewide priority with this index. A project that fails to receive funding under the Safety Index category automatically moves into the Work Type category and competes for funding with other projects in this category. Work Type projects receive approximately 25 percent of the available HSIP funds, while Benefit/Cost projects receive about 75 percent. Projects in the Safety Index category include installing raised median islands, protected left-turn phasing, and widened roadways. Work Type Projects include curb ramps, crosswalks, installation of right turn lanes, and construction of new bus stop aprons. Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant The Office of Traffic Safety Grants (OTS) fund safety programs and equipment. Bicycle and pedestrian safety is a specifically-identified priority. This category of grants includes enforcement and education programs, which can encompass a wide range of activities, including bicycle helmet distribution, design and printing of billboards and bus posters, other public information materials, the development of safety components as part of physical education curriculum, or police safety demonstrations through school visitations. The grant cycle typically begins with a request for proposals in October, which are due the following January. In 2006, OTS awarded $103 million to 290 agencies. Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other non-motorized as well as motorized uses. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:    Maintenance and restoration of existing trails. Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages. Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment.

7-14 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

   

Construction of new trails (with restrictions for new trails on federal lands). Acquisition of easements or property for trails. State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a state's funds). Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a state's funds).

Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program The state-legislated Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program began in 1999. Since then, seven funding cycles have been completed. The state typically announces the list of awarded projects in the fall. Although both the federal and state programs have similar goals and objectives, they have different funding sources, local funding match requirements, and other program requirements (see previous section). The SR2S program aims to reduce injuries and fatalities to schoolchildren and to encourage increased walking and bicycling among students. The program achieves these goals by constructing facilities that enhance safety for students in grades K-12 who walk or bicycle to school. Enhancing the safety of the pathways, trails, sidewalks, and crossings also attracts and encourages other students to walk and bicycle. The SR2S program is primarily a construction program. Construction improvements must occur on public property. Improvements can occur on public school grounds providing the cost is incidental to the overall project cost. Statewide, the program typically provides approximately $25 million annually. The maximum reimbursement percentage for any SR2S project is ninety percent. The maximum amount that SR2S funds to any single project is $900,000. Eligible project elements include bicycle facilities, traffic control devices and traffic calming measures. Up to ten percent of project funding can go toward outreach, education, encouragement, and/or enforcement activities. The 2009 cycle provided $48.5 million in funding. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III (SB 821) TDA Article III funds are distributed by the State of California and administered at the County level, which can be used by cities for planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) administers this program and establishes its policies. Fund allocation to counties occurs on an annual cycle based on population. Local agencies may either draw down these funds or place them on reserve. Agencies must submit a claim form to SCAG by the end of the allocated fiscal year. Failure to do so may result in losing the allocated funds. TDA Article III funds may be used for the following activities related to the planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities:    Engineering expenses leading to construction. Right-of-way acquisition. Construction and reconstruction.

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-15

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

  

Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including installation of signage, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Route improvements such as signal controls for bicyclists, bicycle loop detectors, rubberized rail crossings, and bicycle-friendly drainage grates. Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, changing rooms, restrooms, and showers which are adjacent to bicycle trails, employment centers, park-and-ride lots, and/or transit terminals and are accessible to the general public.

7.5.3 Other Funding
New Construction Future road widening and construction projects are means of concurrently providing Bike Lanes and sidewalks. So that roadway construction projects providing these concurrent facilities are appropriate and feasible, it is important that an effective review process is in place so that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this Plan. Impact Fees Another potential local source of funding is Development Impact Fees (DIFs), typically tied to trip generation and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on-and off-site bikeway improvements, which will encourage residents to bicycle rather than drive. “In-lieu” or parking fees may be used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project’s impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsuit. Mello-Roos Bike paths, lanes, and pedestrian facilities can be funded as part of a local assessment or benefit district. Defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult unless the facility is part of a larger parks and recreation or public infrastructure program with broad community benefits and support. Other Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Parking meter revenues may be used according to local ordinance. Volunteer programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed bikeways. Using groups such as the California Conservation Corps (who offer low-cost assistance) can be effective at reducing project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway or pedestrian project as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may be formed to help clear the right of way where needed. A local construction company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations “adopt” a bikeway and help construct and maintain the facility. Public/private partnerships may also be utilized as a funding mechanism to implement bicycle related projects and facilities. Bicycle sharing systems, bicycle facilities

7-16 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

in new developments, and bicycle facilities in tourist districts are good candidate projects for exploring public/private partnerships for funding. Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time, which may be used to implement the network as defined in this Plan.

Alta Planning + Design- | 7-17

Chapter 7 | Implementation and Funding

This page intentionally left blank

7-18 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Appendix A. BTA Compliance Checklist
In order to meet the California Bicycle Transportation Act requirements, the 2011 County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan includes the following elements:

Table A-1: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan BTA Compliance Checklist
BTA 891.2 (a) (b) Required Plan Elements The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. Location Within the Plan Table 4-4; p. 4-6 Table 4-5; p. 4-8 Text p. 1-4 Table 1-1; p. 1-4 Figure 1-2; p. 1-6 Text p. 3-1 Figure 3-1; p. 3-2 Text p. 5-6 to 5-19 Figures: 5-1, 5-2 & 5-3; p. 5-12 to 514 Text p. 3-3 to 3-4 & 5-19 to 5-20 Figure 5-4; p. 5-22 Text p. 3-3 to 3-4 & 5-19 to 5-20 Figure 5-4; p. 5-22 Appendix C Text p. 5-19 to 5-20 Figure 5-4; p. 5-22 Text p. 3-5 Text p. 6-1 to 6-11

(c)

(d)

A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals. A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code. A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan. A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans. A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation. A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h) (i)

Text p. 4-22 to 4-23 Text p. 2-3 to 2-6 Appendix B Text p. 7-2 to 7-3 Table 7-2; p. 7-4 Text p. 7-8 Table 7-3; p. 7-7 Table 7-5; p. 7-8 Table 7-6; p. 7-9

(j) (k)

Source: Alta Planning + Design, November 2011

Alta Planning + Design | A-1

Appendix A | BTA Compliance Checklist

This page intentionally left blank

A-2 | Alta Planning + Design

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

Appendix B. Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents
In order to create a seamless, well connected bikeway network throughout the County, it is vital that the existing bicycle master plans of incorporated cities within Imperial County be considered in the development of Imperial County’s proposed bikeway network. Following is a brief summary of each of the incorporated city’s bicycle master plans.

B.1 City of Brawley Bicycle Master Plan
Purpose

The 2002 City of Brawley Bicycle Master Plan identifies a bicycle network to serve as a tool for planning future bicycle facilities and roadway improvements. This plan examines existing facilities, bicycle needs assessment, planning opportunities, recommended bicycle network, funding costs and a priority list for implementation. Similarly, the City of Brawley General Plan identifies the opportunity to enhance connection linkages by providing more pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The specific goals with regards to the future of bicycling in Brawley include: 

Eastern Avenue- Class II.

Developing and implementing a non-vehicular circulation system through pedestrian facilities and bicycle trails along major street corridors that are consistent with adjacent jurisdictions as an alternative transportation mode and recreational use. Promote the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians by adhering to uniform standards and practices to encourage the safe utilization of easements and/or right-of-ways along flood control channels, public utility right-of-ways, and street right-of-ways and by providing safety clinics/courses. Support and coordinate the development and maintenance of bikeways and trails in conjunction with the master plans of the appropriate agencies throughout the County of Imperial. Require dedication and improvement of these facilities where deemed necessary to meet public needs. Encourage and emphasize the construction and use of HOV lanes, as well as light rail and bus routes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve mobility and air quality. Design an integrated open space system that includes bicycle and pedestrian trail network expansion to establish links to the City’s parks and recreational facilities.





 

Alta Planning + Design | B-1

Appendix B | Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents

Implementation The General Plan discusses the implementation of the proposed bikeway system over time, with the availability of appropriate funding opportunities through grant programs or through implementation of roadway improvements or regular roadway maintenance. Once fully implemented, the City of Brawley’s bikeway network will include 24.21-miles of bikeways that connect to the schools, parks, and the City Center. Existing and Proposed Facilities Figure B-1 presents The City of Brawley existing and proposed bicycle facilities, which include 4.5 miles of bikeways throughout the city. Currently, there are 2 Class I looping paths in both of the city’s parks (totaling 1.7 miles of Class I). The Class II facilities run throughout the city and serve as connecting corridors to the center of the city, where most civic activity occurs. The Plan proposes approximately 20 additional miles of bikeways, including 18 miles of proposed Class II lanes. These facilities provide strong connections to the surrounding areas and nearby cities.

B-2 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

Figure B-1: City of Brawley Proposed Bicycle Facilites
Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update 2003

Alta Planning + Design | B-3

Appendix B | Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents

B.2 Calexico Bicycle Master Plan
Purpose

Adopted November 8th, 2002, the City of Calexico Bicycle Master Plan identifies key destination areas and determines where appropriate facilities should be located in order to provide cyclists with a comprehensive, wellconnected bicycle network as well as to facilitate obtaining state and federal funding for implementation of the Plan.
Existing Conditions State Route 98 in Calexico. Currently, the City offers relatively few bicycling facilities, including designated bicycle routes and bike racks located at the local schools, San Diego State University, and City Hall. Two primary traffic routes extend through the City: Imperial Avenue (SR 111) extends north and south connecting to Interstate 8, while Birch Street and SR 98 cross Imperial Avenue providing an eastwest roadway through the city. In the City of Calexico, residential neighborhoods are all within two miles (a reasonable cycling distance) of retail centers, employment, schools & public transportation routes. Recommendations

This Master Plan recommends implementation of a 45.11-mile bicycle system that will provide a network of bicycle lanes and routes that connect to the schools, parks, employment centers, and the city center. Figure B-2 shows the recommended bikeway network which consists of:     11.33 miles of Class I bicycle paths (a multi-use two-way pathway eight feet wide), 24.09 miles of Class II bicycle lanes (a five-foot lane within the roadway), 7.69 miles of Class III bicycle routes (a designated route along an existing roadway), and 2.0 mile rural trail along the New River.

The estimated cost to implement the bikeway system is $2 million. The Class I bicycle facilities are estimated at a cost of $1.8 million. The 31.78 miles of on-street facilities are estimated at $122,023. Approximately $80,000 has been estimated to complete a five-foot wide rural pathway along the New River. It is anticipated that rehabilitation of the New River will involve comprehensive planning effort and funding strategies.

B-4 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

Figure B-2: City of Calexico Proposed Bicycle Facilites
Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update 2003

Alta Planning + Design | B-5

Appendix B | Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents

B.3 El Centro Bicycle Master Plan
Purpose

Adopted October 2009, the purpose of this Master Plan is to update the 2000 Bicycle Master Plan. This updated Bicycle Master Plan qualifies the City of El Centro for applying for funds through the California Department of Transportation’s Bicycle Transportation Account. El Centro’s Bicycle Master Plan update is consistent with the existing County of Imperial and City of Imperial Bicycle Master Plans.
Existing Conditions

Prior to the 2000 Bicycle Master Plan, El Centro had approximately 0.7 mile of Class I, 0.75 mile of Class II, and 14.5 miles of Class III. As a result of the Plan implementation, by 2005 the City’s bicycle network included an additional 25 miles of Class III bicycle routes and 0.7 miles of Class I bike paths. These projects were financed through BTA, SR2S, and TEA funds.
Collisions

North Imperial Avenue. El Centro, Bike Route Sign.

The City of El Centro’s Police Department records indicate that between 2000 and 2008, 125 bicycleinvolved collisions occurred in El Centro, including 2 fatalities and 123 injuries. On average, the City of El Centro has experienced nearly 16 bicycle-related collisions per year during this eight year period. This data only includes bicycle and motor vehicle collisions and does not include collisions between bicycles and obstructions, bicycles and bicycles, or bicycles and pedestrians.
Recommendations

The Master Plan recommends the implementation of 24 miles of bicycle facilities for an estimated cost of $3 million. The plan includes 7 miles of Class-I, 10.90 miles of .Class II and 6.2 miles of Class III bicycle facilities. The proposed network will connect the existing bicycle facilities to County regional bikeway network and the City of Imperial proposed bicycle network. Figure B-3 presents the recommended bike network for the City of El Centro.

B-6 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

Figure B-3: City of El Centro Proposed Bicycle Facilites
Source: City of El Centro Bicycle Master Plan 2009

Alta Planning + Design | B-7

Appendix B | Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents

B.4 Holtville Bicycle Master Plan
According to the 2008 Bicycle Master Plan, there are no existing bicycle facilities within the City of Holtville. Due to Holtville’s proximity to agriculture and agriculture packing facilities, some roadways experience constant truck traffic that may deter cyclists. The plan recommends the implementation of approximately 10.35 miles illustrated in Figure B-4 (including facilities adjacent to the City’s boundaries) to connect schools, parks and civic activity within the City of Holtville.
Implementation

The plan is set to be implemented through prioritization at an estimated cost of $932,460 for all proposed bicycle facilities. To minimize costs, all proposed facilities are to fit within the existing infrastructure and are to follow lane striping guidelines. The plan primarily addresses estimated costs, maintenance costs and funding sources.

Figure B-4: City of Holtville Proposed Bicycle Facilites
B-8 | Alta Planning +Design

Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update 2003

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

B.5 Westmorland Bicycle Master Plan
The Westmorland Bicycle Master Plan was published in December 2002. The plan focuses primarily on funding sources and implementation strategies. The plan recommends “piggybacking” which it defines as a more cost effective method of including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations into larger scale projects as opposed to retrofitting existing facilities. Similarly, it suggests acquiring funding by incorporating and passing ordinances that require the building of bicycle and pedestrian facilities with the construction of new developments. Lastly, the Plan recommends developing partnerships to sustain continued financial support throughout the implementation process. Figure B-5 illustrates the proposed bicycle network.

Figure B-5: City of Westmorland Proposed Bicycle Facilites
Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update 2003
Alta Planning + Design | B-9

Appendix B | Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents

B.6 City of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan
A complete document for the City of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan was not available for review as of the publication of this report. However, the 2003 County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan includes summary of the existing and proposed bicycle facilities for the City of Imperial, both of which are shown in Figure B-6 and described below. Existing Facilities The City of Imperial’s existing bicycle network consists of 0.75 miles of Class I, known as The Imperial College Bike Path, 1 mile of Class II and 0.5 miles of Class III facilities along Aten Road. Proposed Facilities The City of Imperial’s proposed bicycle network includes 5.3 miles of Class I-bicycle paths, approximately 14 miles of Class II-bicycle lanes and 2.4 miles of Class III-bicycle routes. This network will connect with the City of El Centro existing and proposed bicycle facilities and will close important gaps within the County regional bikeway network. For example, the proposed facilities along Aten Road will connect to the existing bike path leading to Imperial Valley College, and the proposed Class II-bike lanes across Worthington Road will create an east-west connection to Holtville and to the proposed Highline Canal-Bike Path in the eastern limits of the study area.

B-10 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

Figure B-6: City of Imperial Proposed Bicycle Facilites
Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update 2003

Alta Planning + Design | B-11

Appendix B | Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents

B.7 Calipatria Bicycle Master Plan
Background The City of Calipatria is centrally located in Imperial Valley. In addition to the large agricultural industry, other major employers for the area are the Calipatria State Prison and the geothermal power plants. The prison is a reasonable bike commute for residents at 2.5 miles from the city and the geothermal plants are 10-15 miles away. Currently, there are no bicycle facilities, however, industrial growth is anticipated as a result of programmed improvements to change SR 111 to a four-lane expressway. Therefore, there is a desire to improve the situation for cyclists to accommodate this growth. Currently, the regional network recommends facilities on SR 111, as well as the major connections to the prison and city border. Although there are no existing bicycle facilities, as the region continues to improve bicycling throughout Imperial Valley, cycling will increase within the cities as well. Calipatria’s flat terrain, wide roads and generally low traffic volumes offer safe, ideal conditions for cycling without significant changes, effort or costs. Future bicyclists in Calipatria may consist of long distance cyclists and local residents who cycle to work, school, and for pleasure. Recommendations The Bicycle Master Plan for the City of Calipatria recommends implementation of a 12.52 mile system of bicycle routes that will provide a network of bicycle lanes and paths that connect to the schools, parks and the city center. The majority of the proposed network is recommended as Class II bicycle lanes (8.02 miles), with the balance of 4.5 miles of Class I bicycle paths. Specific objectives include: 1. A comprehensive, rational and equitable bikeway system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, City Hall, and existing and future employment.

2. School and commuter bikeways that are easily recognized and accessible from residential areas. 3. Bicycle storage facilities and/or bicycle racks for new parks, retail, and employment centers. 4. Integrate bikeways on roadway improvements and/or new construction projects based on the recommended bikeways network. Figure B-7 shows the City of Calipatria recommended bicycle network.

B-12 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial |Bicycle Master Plan Update

Figure B-7: City of Calipatria Proposed Bicycle Facilites
Source: County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan Update 2003

Alta Planning + Design | B-13

Appendix B | Existing Bicycle Master Plan Documents

This page intentionally left blank

B-14 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Appendix C. Imperial Valley Transit Routes
This appendix presents the maps of the existing Imperial Valley Transit routes that serve the County of Imperial.

Alta Planning + Design | C-1

Appendix C | Imperial Valley Transit Routes

C-2 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Alta Planning + Design | C-3

Appendix C | Imperial Valley Transit Routes

C-4 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Alta Planning + Design | C-5

Appendix C | Imperial Valley Transit Routes

C-6 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Alta Planning + Design | C-7

Appendix C | Imperial Valley Transit Routes

C-8 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Alta Planning + Design | C-9

Appendix C | Imperial Valley Transit Routes

C-10 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Alta Planning + Design | C-11

Appendix C | Imperial Valley Transit Routes

C-12 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

Appendix D. Bikeway Signage
The signage guidelines presented in this appendix are a combination of minimum standards outlined by the California Highway Design Manual’s Chapter 1000, the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities, and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

Alta Planning + Design | D-1

Appendix D | Bikeway Signage

D.1 On-Street Bikeway Regulatory & Warning Signage
Description

Signage for on-street bikeways includes standard BIKE LANE and BIKE ROUTE signage, as well as supplemental signage such as SHARE THE ROAD and warning signage for constrained bike lane conditions. The CA MUTCD provides further guidance on bikeway signage.

Graphic

Figures are from Chapter 9 of the 2010 MUTCD, California Supplement.

Potential Applications

  

Various situations, specific to each site. The County should install SHARE THE ROAD signs along all Class III Bike Routes in addition to standard BIKE ROUTE signage. SHARE THE ROAD signs may be installed at one-half mile intervals along the designated route.

Guidelines

  

Signage should be installed on existing signposts if possible, reducing visual clutter along the path or roadway. Bike route and bike lane signs should be placed at decision points. Where there is significant distance between decision points, bike route and bike lane signs should be repeated at regular intervals to confirm the route.

D-2 | Alta Planning +Design

County of Imperial | Bicycle Master Plan Update

D.2 Wayfinding Signage
Description

Wayfinding signage acts as a “map on the street” for bicyclists and is an important component of a bikeway network. Caltrans D11-1 and D-1 signage should be used on all designated bikeways at decision points, where users can turn onto or off the bikeway such as at an intersection.

Graphic

Potential Applications



On all bikeways at decision points to inform bicyclists of route direction.

Guidelines

    

Wayfinding signage should be place at all intersections on the bikeway network, at minimum. Signage should be installed on existing signposts if possible, reducing visual clutter along the path or roadway. Where there is significant distance between decision points, wayfinding signage should be located at intervals of one-mile Each sign should have a maximum of three destinations. Signage should be focused on major destinations such as cities and counties; transit stations; and community centers such as parks, schools and recreation centers.

Alta Planning + Design | D-3

Appendix D | Bikeway Signage

This page intentionally left blank

D-4 | Alta Planning +Design

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close