Meeting Notice and Agenda · REGIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTAION SYSTEM (ITS) STRATEGIC PLAN (James...
Transcript of Meeting Notice and Agenda · REGIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTAION SYSTEM (ITS) STRATEGIC PLAN (James...
MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL The San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Thursday, May 12, 2011 9 to 11 a.m. SANDAG, 7th Floor Conference Room 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231 CHAIR: Mario Sanchez, City of El Cajon VICE CHAIR: Jim Greenstein, City of Solana Beach Staff Contact: Peter Thompson (619) 699-4813 [email protected]
AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS
• TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW
• SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see www.511sd.com for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available in the building garage off Fourth Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
2
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL Thursday, May 12, 2011
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the SANTEC on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the SANTEC coordinator prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the SANTEC coordinator if they have a handout for distribution to working group members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. SANTEC members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
+3. MEETING SUMMARY OF APRIL 14, 2011 APPROVE
SANTEC is asked to review and approve the meeting notes of the April 14, 2011, meeting.
REPORTS (4 through 7)
4. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW (Alex Estrella)
INFORMATION
SANTEC members will be provided with an overview of the Transportation System Management (TSM) Program included in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. Brief discussion will highlight the seven key TSM components, including but not limited to, Multimodal Management, Freeway Management, and Arterial Management.
+5. DRAFT 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP): UPCOMING OUTREACH AND ADOPTION PROCESS (Heather Adamson)
INFORMATION
The Draft 2050 RTP is the blueprint for keeping pace with the mobility and sustainability challenges in a growing region. The 2050 RTP is built on an integrated set of public policies, strategies, and investments to maintain, manage, and improve the transportation system so it meets the diverse needs of our changing region through 2050. The SANDAG Board of Directors released the Draft 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy for public review and comment on April 22, 2011. The Draft Environmental Impact Report is anticipated to be released in late May 2011. This presentation also will outline the upcoming workshops and public hearings that will take place during the public comment period. The Board is anticipated to adopt the 2050 RTP in fall 2011.
3
6. REGIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTAION SYSTEM (ITS) STRATEGIC PLAN (James Dreisbach-Towle)
INFORMATION
SANTEC members will be provided with an update of the 2050 Regional ITS Strategic Plan. Brief discussion will highlight the progress made since the last reporting period.
+7.
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE (Bridget Enderle)
DISCUSSION
The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan recommends that all bikeways comprising the regional bicycle network be enhanced with bicycle wayfinding signage. Accordingly, SANDAG has received funding through the County of San Diego Healthy Works program to develop and install signage along ten regional bicycle corridors with emphasize on high need communities and where appropriate facilities are in place to promote bicycling. This report provides an overview of wayfinding signage best practices and proposes a preliminary approach to installing signage along the ten regional corridors.
8. CTAC MEETING BRIEFING (SANTEC Members) INFORMATION
SANTEC members will be provided with an overview of CTAC discussion items presented during the CTAC, May 5, 2011, meeting.
9. UPCOMING MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS INFORMATION
10. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS INFORMATION
SANTEC members are encouraged to discuss additional topics of general interest.
+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
San Diego Association of Governments
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL
4
May 12, 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3Action Requested: APPROVE
MEETING SUMMARY OF APRIL 14, 2011 File Number 7300500
1. Introductions
The attendees of the meeting introduced themselves at the request of the San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) Chair.
2. Comments from the Public
No public comments.
3. Approval of the March 10, 2011, Meeting Summary (Approve)
SANTEC members reviewed and approved the meeting summary of March 10, 2011.
4. Draft Fair Share Methodology Study (Information)
On March 18, 2011, the Transportation Committee released the draft report of the Fair Share methodology Study for a 30-day public review period. Comments are due on April 17, 2011. Staff will provide an overview and will be available to answer any questions on the Draft Fair Share Methodology Study.
Study Goal: To lessen the regional disputes and to ensure that each city considers transit services for the projects it seeks to implement. Examples of such disputes: San Diego State University, Golden Triangle/La Jolla.
SANTEC Specific Discussion Points:
There are sufficient project review boards in place. The region does a great job in working with one another. The initiative will be voluntary (in the beginning, and perhaps will remain voluntary).
Staff requested to receive feedback to include the Transportation Committee report by April 17, 2011.
5
5. It’s Strategic Plan: Framework Report and Working Model (Approve)
The purpose of the Intelligent Transportation System Strategic Framework report and model is to use to determine metrics to guide funding for transportation projects, in consideration of the region of San Diego as a whole.
The council unanimously agreed that the best method of obtaining SANTEC input was to add the topic to the SANTEC monthly agenda.
Council members stated that monthly agenda items should be used for staff to assist members in identifying how project selection criteria are to be used.
6. Proposition 1B – Santee (Information)
Santee Traffic Engineering staff presented recently completed projects to improve the function and operation of the Trolley Line and traffic light synchronization within the City of Santee. Santee staff assessment of control system platform normalization and standardization to improve ease of use and efficiency was explored.
7. Matters from Members (Information)
The SANTEC chair requested a staff update on the Regional Arterial Management System project and quarterly meeting. Staff will add a quarterly update for the program for members to voice any issues, questions, or comments.
SANTEC members were informed of an upcoming event:
Connected Vehicle Workshop at SANDAG April 27, 2011.
SANTEC member for Poway raised a concern regarding the age of the regional SANTEC/ Institute Of Transportation Engineers guidelines for conducting “Traffic Impact Studies.”
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy Public Workshops & Public Hearings
Subregional Public Workshops & Public Hearings – 4 to 7 p.m. 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshops; Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.
Tue, Jun 7 Encinitas Community & Senior Center (North County Coastal) 1140 Oakcrest Park Dr., Encinitas 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m.
Wed, Jun 8 The Joe and Vi Jacobs Center (Central San Diego) 404 Euclid Ave., San Diego 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m. Thu, Jun 9 Sonrise Community Church (East County) 8805 North Magnolia Ave., Santee 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m.
Mon, Jun 13 Martin Luther King Jr. Center (South County) 140 East 12th St., National City 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m.
Thu, Jun 16 San Marcos City Council Chambers (North County Inland) 1 Civic Center Dr., San Marcos 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m. Public Hearings Fri, Jun 10 SANDAG Board of Directors Meeting – 10 a.m. 401 B St., San Diego Tue, Jun 21 Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group (SWG)
Meeting – 5 p.m. Caltrans Office, 4050 Taylor St., San Diego The public workshops will be conducted in an open house format where participants can attend at any time during the workshop, view displays and information about the Draft 2050 RTP, SCS, Environmental Impact Report, and the Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment, ask questions of staff, complete comment cards, or speak to a bilingual English/Spanish transcriber to have their comments recorded. The public hearings will be officiated by one or more SANDAG Board member(s), or their designee(s), and a transcription will be produced and provided to the SANDAG Board of Directors and Policy Advisory Committees, as well as provided to the general public.
www.sandag.org/2050rtp
Agenda Item #5 SANTEC May 12, 2011
6
San Diego Association of Governments
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL
7
May 12, 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7
Action Requested: DISCUSSION
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE File Number 3300506
Introduction
In conjunction with the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Healthy Works program, SANDAG is developing a bicycle wayfinding signage pilot program to promote utilitarian bicycling in the San Diego region. This pilot program is one of six Healthy Works initiatives HHSA has contracted with SANDAG to implement as part of HHSA’s broader effort to combat rising obesity rates in the San Diego region by increasing access to healthy foods and promoting physical activity. The bicycle wayfinding signage component of this program requires SANDAG to coordinate with local jurisdictions and install signage along at least ten regional bicycle corridors by March 2012.
Discussion
Attachment 1, entitled San Diego Regional Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Pilot Program Draft Approach, is the first of two documents related to implementing the pilot program. This initial report proposes preliminary criteria for selecting the piloted corridors, design options, potential destinations served, and an approach to installing and maintaining these signs. Throughout March, April, and May 2011, SANDAG staff is soliciting input on this approach from local agencies and stakeholders. Once an agreed-upon approach is established, staff will inventory and develop sign installation plans for each of the selected corridors. These draft installation plans will be presented in a subsequent report to working groups and committees during July and August 2011.
Attachment: 1. San Diego Regional Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Pilot Program Draft Approach Key Staff Contact: Bridget Enderle, (619) 595-5612, [email protected]
8
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PILOT PROGRAM DRAFT APPROACH
In conjunction with the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Healthy Works program, SANDAG is developing a bicycle wayfinding signage pilot program to support utilitarian bicycling in the San Diego region. This pilot program is one of six Healthy Works initiatives HHSA has contracted with SANDAG to initiate as part of HHSA’s broader effort to combat rising obesity rates in the San Diego region by improving access to healthy foods and promoting physical activity. The bicycle wayfinding signage component of this program requires SANDAG to coordinate with local jurisdictions and install signage along at least ten regional bicycle corridors by March 2012.
This initial report proposes preliminary criteria for selecting the piloted corridors, design options, potential destinations served, and an approach to installing and maintaining these signs.
Pilot Program Goals
A central goal of any wayfinding signage program is to improve navigation for bicyclists by conveying destination, direction, and distance information that is coherent and legible from the view of a moving bicycle. These systems familiarize bicyclists with the bicycle network that is designed to emphasize the safest and most efficient routes to key destinations. The signs also alert other roadway users to the presence of bicyclists. Additionally, wayfinding signage advances the goal of attracting more bike trips by exemplifying how bicycling can serve as a practical mode of transportation.
The charge to establish a regional bicycle wayfinding system in the San Diego region derives from Riding to 2050: the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan (Regional Bicycle Plan). The Regional Bicycle Plan envisions a comprehensive regional bicycle system composed of an interconnected network of 40 regionally significant bicycle corridors complimented with bike parking and amenities, as well as programs and policies designed to make bicycling more practical and desirable. One of the policy objectives of the Regional Bicycle Plan is to “improve the connectivity and quality of the regional bicycle network” and implementing bicycle wayfinding signage is among the policy actions identified to accomplish this objective.1
Consistent with the Regional Bicycle Plan, several of the region’s local jurisdictions have adopted bicycle master plans that include wayfinding signage considerations. This common priority provides an opportunity to develop a regional wayfinding signage system that can be easily integrated with local signage programs.
In addition to advancing these broader goals, the pilot program delineated in this report is intended to serve as an initial step in establishing standards that can be applied to the entire regional bicycle network. The outcomes of this pilot program will be assessed and used to inform future planning, coordination, and investment in wayfinding signage throughout the region.
1SANDAG (May 2010). Riding to 2050: the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan, p. 14.
Attachment 1
Wayfin
This sectiand local
Manual o
The curreand Califconsideraagencies how to eMUTCD aprior versstill in dCaliforniawayfindinthe draft
nding Sign
on of the repagencies’ ap
on Uniform
ent Federal Hornia MUTCD
able discretiohave experim
effectively apand Californiasions of the raft form aa MUTCD 20ng sign guida2011 Califor
nage Guid
port describepplication of
m Traffic Con
Highway AdmD 2011 drafton in develmented with pply wayfinda MUTCD 20manuals allond currently10 adopted ance and Figrnia MUTCD.
California M
dance
es the federawayfinding
ntrol Device
ministration’st version’s guoping local MUTCD stan
ding signage11 draft revi
owed. Howevy undergoingguidelines. F
gure 2 shows
Figure 1MUTCD (201
9
al and state gsignage.
es
s Manual on uidance on w
signing sysndard signs ce. These findsions, which ver, becauseg review, CaFigure 1 diss the expand
1 (Sheet 1 o10) Wayfind
guidance on
Uniform Trawayfinding sistems. Over contributing dings are ref
present signe the Californaltrans advissplays the cuded wayfindi
of 2) ding Sign Gu
sign usage a
affic Control gnage provithe last sevto a greater flected in thnificantly monia MUTCD 2ses agencies
urrent Californg sign stand
uidance
as well as reg
Devices (MUdes agenciesveral years, understandi
he current fere sign types2011 revisions to comply rnia MUTCDdards propos
gional
UTCD) s with
local ing of ederal s than ns are
with 2010
sed in
California M
Figure 1MUTCD (201
10
1 (Sheet 2 o10) Wayfind
of 2) ding Sign Guuidance
Draaft Californ
Figure 2ia MUTCD (
11
2 (Sheet 1 o2011) Wayf
of 2) finding Signn Guidance
Draaft CalifornFigure 2
ia MUTCD (
12
2 (Sheet 2 o2011) Wayf
of 2) finding Signn Guidance
In additiosign frequbetween
Model W
Comprehconfirmatconfirmatlist key deprovide mTable 1 cjurisdictioasterisk(*MUTCD sgenerally
Berkeley’and its edistinctivecorridor boulevardchange dboulevardidentificanotify mo
B
2City of BerDownloade
on to permituency, and pjurisdictions
Wayfinding S
ensive wayfition signs, tion to bicycestinations smileage or ricompares sigons and thre*) indicates tsign type, t
y maintains th
s innovative effectiveness e purple andname acrossd, 1B and 1Cirection. Berd. Along b
ation signs. Totorists that t
erkeley’s Typ
keley, Bicycle Bo
ed on February 1
tting a varietplacement. Co, including th
Signage Sys
inding signaidentify the
clists that theerved by theiding times tgn functionsee out-of-statthat the signhat the locahe appearan
wayfinding at promoti
d white signs the upper C list destinatkeley’s Type
bicycle bouleThe seventh sthey will be c
pe 1B
oulevard Design10, 2011, from h
ty of sign tyonsequently,hose with mo
stems
ge systems g multi-use
ey are contine bicycle facilto those locas, types, andte cities with
n type is eithal or regionce of the MU
approach is ng its bicyc types. Typeportion of t
tions and mi2 signs are u
evards, stansign type is ucrossing a bi
n Tools and Guidhttp://www.ci.be
Sou
rce:
reno
-ram
bler
.blo
gspo
t.com
13
pes, the guid, placement aodel systems
generally conpath or roa
nuing on a dity, direct bic
ations. Directd placementh robust wayher an originnal agency hUTCD standa
noteworthy,le boulevard
es 1A – 1D athe sign. Typleage estimaused on paradard street used on majoke boulevard
Sign Be
delines Public Reerkeley.ca.us/con
delines allowand design e.
nsist of threeadway as a designated bcyclists to thtion signs int guidelinesyfinding signnal design orhas customizrd.
, in part, dued network. re two-sidedpe 1A of thates, and 1D llel streets to
signs are or roads in ad.2
erkeley’s Off
eview Draft Repntentdisplay.asp
w latitude inelements can
e sign types. bicycle fac
icycle route. ose destinatidicate turns
s applied in nage systemsr, when follozed the stan
e to the diveBerkeley used 20” x 30” e series idendirects bicyc
o point bicycalso replac
advance of b
f-Route Type
port. px?id=6652
combining vary substan
Identificatioility and prDestination
ions, and typin bicycle ro
three Califs. In the tabowing a stanndard design
rsity of signses seven oriwith an iconntifies the bclists where rclists to the bced with ubike boulevar
2 Sign
signs, ntially
on, or rovide
signs pically outes. fornia le, an ndard n but
s used ginal, n and
bicycle routes bicycle nique rds to
Sou
rce:
http
://w
ww
.ci.b
erke
ley.
ca.u
s/
14
Table 1 Comparison of Wayfinding Signage Systems in Other Jurisdictions
City or Region Sign Function(s) Sign Type(s) Placement Principles
Berkeley, CA
Identification
Type 1A* Far side of the intersection at major street crossings
Type 3* Replaces standard street signs along route
Type 4* On intersecting major streets
Destination and Distance Type 1B* Every mid-block along route
Type 1C* Mid-block where bike boulevards intersect
Direction Type 1D* Where routes change direction
Type 2* On adjacent roadways
Oakland, CA
Confirmation, Destination, Distance D11-1* with D1-1b* Beginning of each bikeway and every half-mile to mile on the far side of the intersection
Destination D11-1* with D1-1b* Near side of each intersection along bikeway
Direction D11-1* with M7-1 – M7-7 series Near side of the intersection prior to turns in routes
San Francisco, CA
Identification, Destination, Direction (cross-town) SG-45* Route junctions. Turns in the route. Far side of the
intersection at wide or irregular intersections.
Identification, Destination, Direction (local) SG-45* Route junctions. Turns in the route. Far side of the
intersection at wide or irregular intersections.
Chicago, IL
Identification and Destination D11-1c Far side of the intersection within 160 feet of all signalized intersections; after turns in the route; or, every quarter of a mile.
Destination, Direction, Distance D1-1c Along bikeway 30 to 40 feet before intersection with another bike route. Also, on roadways that intersect with bikeways in advance of connecting intersection.
Identification and Direction D11-1c with M6-1 – M6-7 series In advance of turn in the bike route
Portland, OR Destination, Direction, Distance, Travel Time D11-1c* Intersections and decision points
Seattle, WA
Confirmation, Destination, Direction, Distance D1-1c All decision points. Every one-third to one-half mile
contingent on length, sight distance, and site-specific need for confirmation. On-street: At all turns in bike route. Shared-Use Path/Trails: Confirmation signs after all roadway crossings.
Identification and Direction (regional routes)
Regional Sign*
Distinctlywayfindinboth signconcept froutes fedisplay thsigns are
San Franincorporasigns. Theroutes asadopted Oakland,
Oakland outreach numbers to the w
3Gubser, A.,San Francisc
Region
y signing regng protocolsns on one pofor both reg
eature a muhe same grapposted vertic
cisco pioneeate destinatioe route numsigned odd nthe SG45 (Calthough th
reverted to and an ass
lack utility aidth (12” x
, Velasco, M., & co. Downloaded
nal and Local
ional and los. Where regost but doesgional and lolti-color ima
phic in greencally on the s
ered the SG4ons, directiobering systemnumbers andCA) design
he City of Oak
a system thasessment of and the wayf18”) of their
Summerell, V. “
d on February 10
l Bike Route
cal corridorsgional and lo not combinocal routes,
age of the icn and white.same pole, w
45 (CA) signnal arrows, m follows thd east-west rinclude Solakland has sin
at utilizes ththeir modif
finding inforr customized
“Implementing S0, 2011 from htt
Signs in Seat
15
is an instrucocal bicycle rne the sign c
yet distinguconic GoldenWhere bicyc
which occurs
n type by mand sometim
he Federal Hiroutes assignano County, nce changed
e D11-1, D1fiedSG45 (CArmation on td signs. The
San Francisco’s Btp://www.sfmta
ttle
Sou
rce:
ww
w.w
ash
ing
ton
city
pap
er.c
om
/blo
gs/
ho
usi
ng
com
ple
x/20
10/0
8/17
/
ctive aspect routes overlacontent. San uishes them n Gate Bridgle routes intin several loc
modifying prmes cardinal ighway Systened even num
Long Beachits approach
-1b, and M7A) based sigtheir SG45 (Ccity now ins
Bicycle Route an.com/cms/rbikes
San Francis
of San Francap, the City
Francisco usby color. Crge, whereasersect, multications throu
evious standdirections in
em protocol, mbers.3Jurisdh, Santa Cla.
7 series signsnage. They
CA) signs diffstalls three s
nd Sign System.s/documents/rou
sco Cross-Tow
cisco and Seaof Seattle inses the sameoss-town, ar
s the local rple route nu
ughout the c
dards. Their nto route nu
with north-dictions who arita County,
after condufound the
ficult to readsign types (sh
” City and Counute_network.pd
wn Route Sig
attle’s nstalls e sign rterial routes umber ity.
signs umber south have , and
ucting route d due hown
nty of f
gns
Sou
rce:
ww
w.f
lickr
.co
m/p
ho
tos/
tish
on
/
below) bSignage”
Several aincludes tthe Natiodestinatiofederal Mmodified inclusion
Generallylandmarktypically
4City of Porthttp://www
based on a published in
gencies havethe City of Conal Commiton-related in
MUTCD D11-1version of
of riding tim
y, agencies idks, universitieidentified. So
tland. Accessed
w.portlandonline
methodologn July 2009.
e comparablehicago, whosttee on Unifnformation i1c and D1-1cthe federal
me estimates,
dentify bicycles and collegome jurisdict
on February 15
e.com/transporta
City
y described
e systems thase signs wereorm Traffic n place of “
c, D1-2c, and MUTCD D1
, which are ca
e-attracting ges, public pations, includi
, 2011 from ation/index.cfm
y of Oakland
16
in their “D
at utilize thee recommendControl Dev
“BIKE ROUTED1-3c signs 1-1a sign. Aalculated ass
land uses, suarks and otheng the City o
?a=291896&c=3
Bicycle Wayf
Design Guide
D11-1, or soded in 2006 f
vices. ChicagoE.” Chicago’s(see Figure 2
A unique feasuming a 10 m
uch as transiter facilities. Aof Oakland a
35953
yfinding Signs
elines for Bi
ome variationfor inclusiono’s D11-1 ros approach i2). The City oature of Pomile per hou
t stations, comAdjacent jurand Chicago,
s
cycle Wayfin
n of this sign in the MUTCute signs prs reflected iof Portland urtland’s syste
ur riding spee
mmercial disrisdictions are, classify loca
Sou
rce:
Cit
y o
f O
akla
nd
Des
ign
Gu
idel
ines
fo
r B
icyc
le W
ayfi
nd
ing
Sig
nag
e (J
uly
200
9)
nding
n. This CD by rovide n the uses a em is ed. 4
tricts, e also ations
served byand tertiasigning dwayfindin
Agencies regular guidelinequarter mplaced 2junctions intersecti
Prelimi
The subseoptions, pilot progregional The propin the pplanning
Pilot Pro
The San informaticombinatat intervaapproximadhere to
Issues to quality, aintegratincoordinat
Drawing followingof the exsigns. Theeach of th
y their wayfary destinatidistances. Tng systems.
with planneintervals
es. Signs are mile with d5 to 40 fee
and confirmons.
inary Pilot
equent sectia system forgram, and a bicycle corrid
posed approarevious sectthe regiona
ogram Sign
Diego regioion, as well tion of identals of approx
mately 7’ to o the Californ
consider in and distinctivng regionaltion related t
upon other g exhibits dexhibits describese options ahe exhibits.
finding systeons and usehis helps e
ed wayfindinconsistent typically ins
direction andet prior to tmation signs
t Program
ons present r identifyingpreliminary
dors for piloach draws upion as well l bicycle netw
Design Opt
onal pilot pras accentuatification, dirximately four10’ tall and nia MUTCD g
selecting sigveness of thl signs withto on-going
jurisdictionslineate threebes possible are not exha
m into prime these categnsure consis
ng programswith Calif
stalled approd destinationturns in rous placed imm
m Approac
preliminary destinationdraft appro
ot program impon best pra
as methodowork.
tions
rogram sign te the signifection, and dr signs per dsign dimen
guidelines.
gn design anhe system; coh existing regional way
experiencese potential dsign types a
austive and e
17
mary, secondagories to dictstency in th
s place signsfornia MUToximately evn related sites or bikewmediately af
ch
signage dess served by ach to selectmplementatiactices discusologies used
configuratioficance of thdestination airectional misions and in
nd configuraompliance wand future
yfinding sign
s with wayfinesign optionnd placemeneach present
ary, tate heir
s at TCD very gns way fter
sign the
ting ion. ssed d in
ons should phe regional band distance ile. Signs sho
nstallation sp
ations includewith Californie local signnage implem
nding signagns for pilot pnt and includts benefits a
City of PBicycle Wayf
provide relevbicycle corridsign types sh
ould be instapecifications
e: the functia MUTCD st
nage; and entation.
ge and MUTCrogram impldes example nd challenge
Portlandfinding Signs
vant navigatdors. Generahould be installed at heigh
should gen
ionality, aesttandards; eainterjurisdict
CD standardlementation.graphics of
es, as discuss
s
tional ally, a talled hts of erally
thetic ase of tional
s, the . Each these
sed in
Sou
rce:
ww
w.b
ikep
ort
lan
d.c
om
One option (CA) signs odistinctive athe bicycle regionally sHowever, anthat lack cacoordinationfabricating a
SG45 (CA)
Directionth
Destinatioth
is to utilize aoffer severaland iconic tosystem whileignificant conecdotal evidardinal-orienn to ensurea unique set
Type Sign in
n Signs are plhe SG45 (CA)
on Signs are phe SG45 (CA)
Design Opt
a combinatio benefits. Fi the region. e maintainin
orridors fromdence is mix
nted grid stre numbers a
of SG45 (CA
n Minneapoli
laced below Sign
placed below Sign
tion 1: Modif
on of customirst, the signThis aesthetg a level of other bikew
xed regardingreet networare interjuris) signs for ea
Ident
is
Each idSG45 (image circumvfor a lacould aIdentifibeginneach dihalf mdirectiosegmensigns sh
Dir
When on-stredirectiosupplempreferaside ofmerge much a
Destination
w
CustomD1-1c, destinasigns ainformaintersec
Sou
rce:
hw
ww
.vel
otr
affi
c.co
m
Sou
rce:
CA
MU
TCD
2011
Dra
ftEd
itio
nSo
urc
e: C
alif
orn
ia M
UTC
D 2
010
18
fied California
mized SG45 (Cn design protic quality casign uniform
ways, which g the usefulnrks. Route nsdictionally cach corridor.
tification Sign
dentificationCA) sign cusand exclude
vents some oarger bicycle
also indicate tication (and ing of each birection or de
mile along thon and destnt to achievhould be at m
rection Signs
bicycle corridet facilities (
on signs comented withably 30 to 40f the intersacross traffic
as 200’ in adv
n and Distanc
mized SG45 (CD1-2c, and
ations withinare also proation at thect or at othe
a SG45 Config
CA), D1 seriesovides space an draw attemity. Use of assists with ness of route
numbers alsoconsistent. F
ns
and confirstomized toe a route nuof the challee symbol anthat the corrconfirmatio
bikeway, on estination sighe corridor, tination signve a one-fouminimum 18”
dors change (Class II or IImposed of h turn signs0 feet prior tsection. Whc lanes, dire
vance of the t
ce Signs
CA) signs supD1-3c signs
n range) or oposed to e near-side or destination
guration
s, and M7 seto incorpor
ention and imSG45 (CA) a
navigation te numberingo require anFurther, num
mation signo include a umber. Excluenges discussnd customizeridor is a reg
on) signs shothe far side
gn, and apprcontingent
ns needed aurth mile sig” x 24.”
roadways oII)and shared
a customizs (M7 seriesto turns in then transitioction signs sturn.
pplemented s (dependingcurrent Califprovide dirof intersecti
n decision po
ries signs. Usate an imag
mprove percealso distinguo major dest
g particularlyn additional mbered rout
n would conregionally siuding route sed above aned graphic. Tional bicycle
ould be placeof intersecti
roximately ev on the nualong the rgning densit
or transition d-used pathszed SG45 (Cs), should bhe route, on ons require should be ins
with federag on the nufornia MUTCection and ons where
oints.
sing SG45 ge that is eption of
uishes the tinations. y in areas
level of tes entail
nsist of a ignificant numbers
nd allows The signs corridor. ed at the ions after very one-
umber of espective ty. These
between s (Class I), CA) sign,
be placed the near bicyclists
stalled as
al MUTCD umber of CD D1-1b
distance bikeways
Another optMUTCD or developing dimensions Berkeley, haencouragingidentificatioonly one un
Unique I
Direc
Destin
tion is to defederal MUan attractivand compo
ave gained rg additional on sign used ique sign an
Identification
tion Signs arthe Uniqu
ation Signs athe Uniqu
Desi
velop an entTCD supplem
ve and regiositions. As decognition fbicycle activ
in combinatd provides th
n Sign in Balt
re placed beloue Sign
are placed beue Sign
gn Option 2:
tirely uniquemental signaonally signifidescribed in or their uniqvity. Rather ion with MUhe clarity and
Ident
timore
Earpoacso
Dir
ow
WbpistWli
Destination
elow
UDdDdwp
Sou
rce:
urb
anpl
aces
ands
pace
s.bl
ogsp
ot.c
om
Sou
rce:
Cal
ifo
rnia
MU
TCD
201
0 So
urc
e: C
alif
orn
ia M
UTC
D 2
010
19
Unique Sign
e identificatioage. A key cant sign dea previous
que signagethan creatinTCD standar
d uniformity
tification Sign
Each identifican identificatregion. Identplaced at theof intersectioand approximcontingent osigns neededone-quarter o
rection Signs
When bicyclbetween on-paths (Class dentificationseries), shoulturns in the When transianes, directin advance of
n and Distanc
Unique signsD1-2c, and destinations D1-1b signs distance infowhere bikewpoints.
Configuratio
on sign for uadvantage o
esign that issection of twhich has p
ng multiple rd signage reinherent to
ns
cation and cotion sign destification(ane beginning ons after eamately every on the numbd along the of a mile sig
le corridors -street facilit
I), direction sign suppld be placed route, on t
itions requirion signs shof the turn.
ce Signs
s supplemenD1-3c signs within rangcould be
ormation atways intersect
on
use in conjunof this apprs not restrictthis report,
proven effectsign types,
equires desigstandard sig
onfirmation signed uniqud confirmatof each bike
ach directiony one-half miber of direcrespective sning density
change roaies (Class II on signs con
plemented wpreferably 3
he near sidere bicyclists ould be insta
nted with fe(depending
ge) or currenused to pr
t the near-st or at other
nction with Croach is flexted to standjurisdictions,
tive at improdeveloping ning and disn types.
sign would cuely for the Stion) signs sheway, on the
n or destinatle along the
ction and deegment to a.
adways or tor III) and shansisting of awith turn si30 to 40 feete of the intemerge acro
alled as muc
ederal MUTCg on the nunt Californiarovide directside of inter destination
California xibility in dard sign , such as
oving and a unique stributing
consist of San Diego hould be e far side tion sign, corridor,
estination achieve a
transition ared-used a unique igns (M7 t prior to ersection.
oss traffic h as 200’
CD D1-1c, umber of a MUTCD tion and ersections n decision
A third optiused througidentificatiocoordinatingof distinctioIdeally, regibe supplemeof the S17 (region, the original des
Modif
Direction
Destinatio
ion is to utilighout the r
on signs ang sign consis
on between Conal corridoented with a(CA) when tS17 (CA) couign that disti
fied D11-1 Sig
n Signs are plthe D11-1 Si
on Signs are pthe D11-1 Si
Des
ize a combinregion, so bnd replace stency betweClass III bike rrs should be
a S17 (CA) plahe agency huld be custominguishes the
gn in D.C.
laced below ign
placed belowign
sign Option 3:
nation of D1building on existing sig
een jurisdictioroutes and otnoticeable a
acard along ras designate
mized with te regional bic
Ident
Each idD11-1 Identifibeginneach dihalf mdirectiosegmen
Dir
When on-stredirectiomodifieseries), the rourequireshould
Destination
w
D11-1 aMUTCDof destsigns informaintersec
Sou
rce:
urb
anpl
aces
ands
pace
s.bl
ogsp
ot.c
om
Sou
rce:
Cal
ifo
rnia
MU
TCD
201
0 So
urc
e:C
AM
UTC
D20
11D
raft
Edit
ion
20
D11-1 Sign C
1-1, D1 seriethis foundatns, minimizons. Significather facilitat
and attractiveregional corred a unique he regional cycle networ
tification Sign
dentificationsign, and
ication (and ing of each birection or de
mile along thon and destnt. If used, th
rection Signs
bicycle corridet facilities (
on signs coed S17 (CA)should be pl
ute, on the ne bicyclists mbe installed
n and Distanc
and modifieD D1-1c, D1-2inations withcould be ation at thect or at othe
Configuration
es, and M7 setion elimina
zes potentiaant drawbactes, and partie. If this appridors. The Caname to thecorridor nam
rk.
ns
and confird potentiall
confirmatiobikeway, on estination sighe corridor, tination signhese signs sho
dors change (Class II or IIInsisting of ) sign, supplaced prefera
near side of tmerge acroas much as 2
ce Signs
ed S17 (CA) s2c, and D1-3chin range) orused to p
e near-side or destination
n
eries. The D1ates the neeal user confcks to this sysicularly, regioroach is adopalifornia MUe bicycle rou
mes and furt
mation signly, modifie
on) signs shothe far side
gn, and apprcontingent
ns needed aould be at m
roadways oI) and shareda D11-1 sig
plemented wably 30 to 40the intersectiss traffic la
200’ in advan
signs supplec signs (deper current Cal
provide direof intersecti
n decision po
11-1 signs areed to designfusion, and stem includeonal bicycle cpted, the D1TCD recomm
ute. In the Saher modified
n would cond S17 (CA
ould be placeof intersecti
roximately ev on the nualong the r
minimum 24”
or transition d-used pathsgn, and powith turn si0 feet prior toion. When tranes, directince of the tur
mented withnding on theifornia MUTC
ection and ons where
oints.
e already n unique
reduces e the lack corridors. 1-1 could
mends use an Diego d with an
nsist of a A) sign. ed at the ions after very one-
umber of espective x 18.”
between s (Class I), otentially, igns (M7 o turns in ransitions on signs rn.
h federal e number CD D1-1b
distance bikeways
21
Adopting any signage that deviates from the California MUTCD 2010 requires consulting Caltrans to determine if the modifications necessitate requesting permission or experimental testing overseen by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.
Another issue to consider, as noted previously, is how regional signs will be coordinated with existing and future local signage. If local jurisdictions apply wayfinding signage to local bicycle networks, a system similar to the regional signage could be employed. For example, the SG45 (CA) configuration could be adopted at the regional, as well as local level, and regional and local routes could be differentiated by images, colors, and/or text identifying corridors as either regional bicycle corridors or local bikeways.
Destinations Served by the Pilot Program
Identifying and classifying the types of destinations supported by signage makes it simpler to implement and ensures consistency in the system, making it easier for bicyclists to use. Table 2 proposes a hierarchy of destination types similar to the structures used by other jurisdictions with robust wayfinding signage programs. Relative to their regional significance, locations are categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary destinations. Primary destinations include downtown San Diego and adjacent jurisdictions where corridors cross jurisdictional boundaries. These typologies should be signed beginning five miles away from the destination. Transit hubs, smart growth urban centers and town centers are classified as secondary destinations and should generally be signed at distances of up to two miles from the destination. Tertiary destinations should be signed at a one mile distance and include neighborhoods, landmarks, and other significant public facilities.
Table 2 Proposed Destination Types Served by Pilot Regional Bicycle Wayfinding
Primary Destination (5 mile signing distance)
Downtown San Diego
Municipalities
Secondary Destination (2 mile signing distance)
Transit Hubs: Transit Centers, Coaster Stations, Transit Stations, Transit Plazas, and Transit Depots
Urban Centers (examples: Hillcrest/Uptown, Chula Vista Urban Core)
Town Centers (examples: Downtown La Mesa, Downtown National City, Mission Valley)
Universities and Community Colleges (examples: San Diego State University, Mesa College)
Tertiary Destination (1 mile signing distance)
Community Centers/Neighborhoods (examples: City Heights, Ocean Beach)
Landmarks and Other Tourist Destinations (examples: Balboa Park, Petco Park, U.S. Olympic Training Center, major beaches)
Public Facilities and Institutions (examples: libraries, community centers)
Middle and High Schools
22
Pilot Program Corridor Selection Criteria and Process
The preliminary proposed approach to identifying corridors for inclusion in this pilot program incorporates methodologies used in planning the regional bicycle network, field reviews, and priorities associated with the Healthy Works program.
In general, the wayfinding signage network will expand gradually – as regional bikeways are developed, wayfinding signs will be included in project design and construction budgets. However, applying a systematic approach to this first implementation phase provides greater assurance that this initial investment will improve bicycling in the region.
To be effective, routes selected for this pilot program should have roadway characteristics and facilities in place that make them suitable for bicycling and demonstrate high demand. Therefore, the proposed approach begins with estimating relative bicycle demand along regional corridors, an analysis that was conducted as a component of the regional bicycle network prioritization process. The criteria for prioritizing the regional network synthesized demand-based criteria with facility-based factors and included cost-to-benefit consideration. This prioritization process was adopted by the Transportation Committee as part of the Regional Bicycle Plan approval process. The demand-driven portion of the analysis highlights corridor segments likely to attract bicycle trips based on proximity to regionally significant activity centers, Smart Growth Areas. Using Smart Growth Area place types as a basis for estimating demand reinforces the regional smart growth strategy conceptualized by the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map (Concept Map). The strategy promotes compact, mixed-use development and transportation investments that support transit use, active transportation, and vibrant community design focused in activity centers identified on the Concept Map. Because the regional bicycle network prioritization process was largely based on this demand analysis, the highest demand regional bicycle corridors encompass the top thirty highest priority projects identified for Regional Bicycle Plan implementation.
The next step in the proposed process involves inventorying these high priority corridor segments for signing opportunities along existing facilities and unbuilt, proposed bike routes (Class III) that do not require additional treatments to safely accommodate bicycle travel. Unbuilt, proposed bicycle boulevards will also be surveyed as potential candidates for pilot program implementation. Wayfinding signage along bicycle boulevards would provide interim benefit, although ultimately, when bicycle boulevards projects are designed they should include appropriate enhancements and traffic calming measures. When proposed bicycle boulevards and Class III bike routes are field reviewed, opportunities for shared lane markings (“sharrows”) will also be noted. The Regional Bicycle Plan recommends sharrows along all bike routes where practical. Installing wayfinding signage and sharrows along unbuilt corridors designated as Class III bike routes would provide significant progress toward completing the highest priority regional bicycle corridors.
Table 3 identifies approximately 40 miles of preliminary high priority regional bicycle corridor segments to review for wayfinding signage opportunities based on the safety- and demand-based criteria described above. A few segments that do not meet the facility-based criteria are also listed based on continuity considerations. For example, along the City Heights – Old Town Corridor, Landis Street between Utah Street and Boundary Street will be reviewed for potential signing even though it currently has no facilities and is proposed as Class II bike lane. Figure 3 displays these preliminary draft corridors to review for pilot program wayfinding signage potential.
Figure 3 segmentsadditionathe Nortstrengthe
A third coRail TrailMost of tof the rcompletioBecause uRail Traiopportunrecommeregional identificasegments
Assessinghigh prpriority, a– is consphasing network, developmprojects impact on
In additiostep in tselection priorities Works prThrough identify twill be uidentify a
also highlis with existinal corridors inh Park – Ceen the conne
orridor type , Coastal Ra
these proposegional bikeon of an inteunique identl, and Inlan
nities to supended to enh
network. Aation signs s.
g these three riority, inteand existing istent with of the regand as suc
ment of seveand also
nce complete
on to field rthe pilot prprocess, in associated wogram, is to a parallel He
target areas dused to help additional reg
ghts approxng facilities tnclude existientre City Coectivity of the
to review foil Trail, San ed segmentseway netwoerconnected tification signd Rail Traplement, rat
hance these bAdditional may also b
corridor typersecting hClass I segmeimplementatgional bikewch, will initeral first phbroaden th
e.
reviews, a throgram corriresponse to
with the Heaidentify high
ealthy Workdisproportion
prioritize sigional corrid
Exist
ximately 15hat could alsng portions orridor, amoe pilot wayfin
r wayfindingDiego River
s abut Class I ork. Installin
Class I netwnage is alreail, field revther than subikeways shoBayshore Bi
be recomme
es – high ents tion way iate
hase heir
hird idor the lthy h need areass project, a hnately impacignage insta
dors for inclu
23
ting San Dieg
miles of aso be reviewof the Centr
ong others. nding signag
g signage potTrail, and Bbikeway prog signage a
work, the bacady used to dviews wouldupplant, theould be consikeway, Coanded where
s where the shealthy comcted by transllation alongsion in the p
go Regional B
dditional, inwed for pilot re City La MeSigning thes
ge.
tential includBayshore Bikojects identifalong theseckbone of thdistinguish t
d focus one current sigsistent with tastal Rail Te lacking a
signs could hmunity atlasportation ang the selecte
pilot program
Bikeway Iden
ntersecting program con
esa Corridor se adjoining
des 35 miles keway facilitified for initiae existing sehe regional bhe Bayshoreidentifying
gnage. Destinthat designatTrail, and Ilong these
help promotes is in develond land use ded corridors,
m implementa
ntification Sig
regional cornsideration. Tand a segme
g corridors w
of existing Inies (see Figual implementegments supbikeway netw Bikeway, Codestination
nation signted for the eInland Rail existing cor
e physical actopment that decisions. Thi, and potenation.
gns
rridor These ent of would
nland re 3).
tation pports work. oastal
sign types
entire Trail
rridor
tivity. helps s tool tially,
24
Table 3 Proposed High Priority Regional Bicycle Corridors to Inventory for Pilot Program Implementation
Regional Corridor Corridor Segment Start End Existing Facility
Proposed Facility
Length in Miles
Clairemont- Centre City Corridor
Fashion Valley Bike Path unbuilt multi-use path Camino de la Reina Class I Class I 0.08
Hotel Circle South Camino de la Reina Bachman Place Class II Class II 0.06
Bachman Place Hotel Circle South Arbor Drive -- Class III 0.58
Bachman Place Arbor Drive Lewis Street -- Bike Blvd 0.13
Lewis Street Bachman Place 3rd Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.02
3rd Avenue Lewis Street Walnut Avenue partial Class III Bike Blvd 0.72
Walnut Avenue 3rd Avenue 3rd Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.03
3rd Avenue Walnut Avenue Upas Street -- Bike Blvd 0.05
Upas Street 3rd Avenue 4th Ave (SB)/5th Ave (NB) -- Bike Blvd 0.11
4th Avenue (SB) Upas Street Juniper Street -- Class III 0.80
4th Avenue (SB) Juniper Street B Street -- Class III 0.79
4th Avenue (SB) B Street C Street -- Class III 0.07
5th Avenue (NB) Upas Street C Street partial Class III Class II 1.66
Kensington – Balboa Park Corridor
Meade Avenue Park Boulevard Fairmount Avenue -- Bike Blvd 2.65
Hillcrest – El Cajon Corridor
Howard Ave/Orange Ave Park Boulevard Sharron Place Class III Bike Blvd 2.79
Orange Avenue 51st Street Sharron Place -- Bike Blvd 0.46
Sharron Place Orange Avenue Trojan Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.12
Trojan Avenue Sharron Place 60th Street -- Bike Blvd 0.51
60th Street Trojan Avenue Adelaide Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.04
Adelaide Avenue 60th Street Tarragona Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.17
Tarragona Drive Adelaide Avenue Carling Way -- Bike Blvd 0.07
Carling Way Tarragona Drive Tarragona Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.04
Tarragona Drive Carling Way Cartagena Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.21
Cartagena Drive Tarragona Drive Malcolm Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.08
Malcolm Drive Cartagena Drive Alamo Way -- Bike Blvd 0.57
Alamo Way Malcolm Drive 70th Street -- Bike Blvd 0.52
25
Regional Corridor Corridor Segment Start End Existing Facility
Proposed Facility
Length in Miles
City Heights – El Cajon Corridor
Taylor Street Pacific Highway Congress Street -- Class III 0.07
Congress Street Taylor Street San Diego Avenue -- Class III 0.56
San Diego Avenue Congress Street Washington Avenue -- Class III 0.84
W. University Avenue Washington Avenue Goldfinch Street -- Class III 0.11
W. University Avenue Goldfinch Street 3rd Avenue Class III Class III 0.52
City Heights – Old Town Corridor
Robinson Avenue 3rd Avenue Park Boulevard -- Class III 0.96
Alabama Street Robinson Avenue Landis Street -- Bike Blvd 0.06
Landis Street Alabama Street Utah Street -- Bike Blvd 0.59
Landis Street Utah Street Boundary Street -- Class II 0.65
Landis Street Boundary Street Swift Avenue Class II Class II 0.20
Swift Avenue Landis Street Wightman Street Class II Class II 0.08
Centre City – La Mesa Corridor
Palm Avenue Spring Street La Mesa Boulevard Class III Class III 0.71
La Mesa Boulevard Palm Avenue Porter Hill Road Class III Class III 0.37
La Mesa Boulevard Porter Hill Road Grossmont Boulevard Class III Class II 0.66
Grossmont Boulevard La Mesa Boulevard Bancroft Drive Class III Class II 0.24
Front Street Harbor Drive Island Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.08
Island Avenue Front Street Park Boulevard -- Bike Blvd 0.64
28th Street Commercial Street Ocean View Boulevard Class III Class II 0.29
Ocean View Boulevard 28th Street 47th Street partial Class III Class II 2.35
Imperial Avenue Churchward Street San Jacinto Drive Class III Class II 0.25
Imperial Avenue San Jacinto Drive 62nd Street Class II Class II 1.14
Imperial Avenue 62nd Street 69th Street Class III Class II 0.87
SR-125 Corridor
Katherine Street Medford Street Garfield Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.16
Garfield Avenue Katherine Street Louise Court -- Bike Blvd 0.56
Severin Drive Louise Court Amaya Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.84
26
Regional Corridor Corridor Segment Start End Existing Facility
Proposed Facility
Length in Miles
Mission Valley to Chula Vista Corridor
E. 18th Street Euclid Avenue Prospect Street Class III Class III 0.10
Prospect Street E. 18th Street Interstate 805 -- Class III 0.56
Grove Street Interstate 805 Sweetwater Road -- Class III 0.50
Sweetwater Road Grove Street 2nd Avenue Class III Class II 0.07
2nd Avenue Sweetwater Road State Route 54 (EB) Class III Class II 0.28
2nd Avenue State Route 54 (EB) J Street -- Bike Blvd 2.14
Central Coast Corridor
W. Mission Bay Drive Mission Boulevard Dana Landing Road Class II Cycle Track 0.92
Mission Boulevard Pacific Beach Drive W. Mission Bay Drive -- Bike Blvd 1.32
Nimitz Boulevard Ocean Beach Bike Path Rosecrans Avenue Class II Cycle Track 2.05
Imperial Beach Connector
Palm Avenue Seacoast Drive 13th Street -- Class III 1.52
13th Street Palm Avenue Donax Avenue -- Class III 0.11
Donax Avenue 13th Street Saturn Boulevard -- Class III 0.76
Kearny Mesa-Beaches Corridor
Hornblend Street Mission Boulevard Haines Street -- Bike Blvd 0.88
Haines Street Hornblend Street Pacific Beach Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.35
Pacific Beach Drive Haines Street Eastern terminus of Pacific Beach Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.93
Total Miles to Field Check 39.62
27
28
Other Considerations and Alternative Criteria
An alternative approach to selecting corridors for pilot program bicycle wayfinding signage is to concentrate implementation in one area, providing a more complete network of wayfinding signage. An obstacle to this approach is identifying safe, continuous routes that also serve high demand regionally significant destinations. Another drawback is that this approach eliminates the opportunity to assess the impact of wayfinding signage in various settings.
Interjurisdictional Coordination
If successfully completed, the regional bicycle network, and complimentary wayfinding signage, will traverse every municipality in the San Diego region. As an interjurisdictional resource, the network development and maintenance requires close coordination among agencies to ensure the facilities remain safe, continuous, and useful.
Similar to some existing regional bikeway projects, SANDAG proposes to fund and manage the overall design, development, and production of the pilot program with substantial input and approval from local agencies. Local agencies would be asked to assume responsibility for sign installation and on-going maintenance of the signs. This approach may be applied to the entire regional network depending on funding availability and the outcomes of this pilot program.
Conclusion and Next Steps
This report presents a preliminary approach to implementing a regional bicycle wayfinding pilot program along at least ten regional bicycle corridors in the San Diego region. Throughout March, April, and May 2011, SANDAG staff is soliciting input on this approach from local agencies and stakeholders. Once an agreed upon approach is established, staff will survey the selected corridors, develop installation plans, and present these preliminary signing plans to SANDAG working groups and committees for review and input. Ultimately, the outcomes of this pilot program will be evaluated and are intended to help establish standards that can be applied to entire regional bicycle network.