Read the final draft of Alhambra's Bike Master Plan

7/29/2019 Read the final draft of Alhambra's Bike Master Plan

1/66


2/66


3/66

Acknowledgements

Prepared for: City of Alhambra

Mary Chavez, Director of Public Works

Chris Paulson, Administrative Analyst

Prepared by: Alta Planning and Design

Brett Hondorp, Principal

Jessie Holzer, Planner

City of Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan

page


4/66


5/66

page ii


Table of Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 Existing Plans and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3.1 Existing Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 Multi-Modal Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.3 Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4 Past Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4 Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

4.1 Types of Bicyclists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2 Public Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.4 Collision Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5 Recommended Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1 Proposed Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.2 Proposed Bicycle Support Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.3 Additional Municipal Code Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.4 Recommended Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

6.1 Project Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.2 Bikeway Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.3 Project Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.4 Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix A: Online Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix B: Bike Lane Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59


6/66

page iv

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Proximity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 1-2: Land Use Policy Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 2-1: West San Gabriel Valley Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3-1: Caltrans Bikeway Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 3-2: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 3-3: Multi-Modal Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 4-1: Types of Bicyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 4-2: Respondent Bicyclist Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 4-3: Respondent Commute Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4-4: Barriers to Bicycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4-5: Interest in Programmatic Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 5-1: Recommended Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 5-2: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Relevant Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 4-2: Existing Bicycling Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 4-3: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 4-4: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 4-7: Collision Details, 2006-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 6-1: Bikeway Unit Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 6-2: Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 6-3: Prioritization Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 6-4: Prioritized Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 6-5: Federal Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 6-6: State Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 6-7: Regional Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 6-8: Other Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50


7/66

page 1


Main Street

Valley Boulevard

Fremont Avenue

Mission-Palm

The top three employers in Alhambra are:

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works

(3,600 employees)

Alhambra City Schools (2,136 employees)

County of Los Angeles Offices at The Alhambra

(1,500 employees)

1.2 Land Uses

Land uses in Alhambra are shown in Figure 1-2. Just over hal

of the Citys land area consists of residential uses, including

single family residential (35 percent) and multifamily

residential (18 percent). Office/professional uses in the city

are located on Garfield Avenue and Fremont Avenue, while

commercial uses are concentrated along Main Street. The

Citys automobile commercial land use, representing Auto

Row, is also situated on Main Street.

1 Introduction

The Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the

development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle

network and set of programs and policies throughout the city

over the next 10 years. The plan provides a vision to improve

conditions for bicycling throughout Alhambra, and create local

and regional connectivity. Implementation of this plan is meant

to promote and increase bicycle ridership for all ages and

levels of ability through safe, accessible, and consistent bicycle

infrastructure, and the policies and programs that support it.

This chapter introduces the City of Alhambra and the Bicycle

Master Plan. It is meant to provide context and background for

future chapters in the Plan.

1.1 Setting

The City of Alhambra has a population of approximately 83,389

residents and, as shown on Figure 1-1, is located in central Los

Angeles County, several miles northeast of Downtown Los

Angeles. The city has a land area of approximately 7.5 square

miles and is built-out. Within the city there are 11 different

colleges and four business districts. The business districts

include:


8/66


9/66

page 3


HUNT

INGTON

DR

VALLEY BLVD

RAMO

NA

ST

GARVEYAVE

MISSION

RD

RAMON

ARD

GARFIELD

AVE

NEW

AVE

MAIN ST

ATLANTIC

BLVD

FREMONT

AVE

ATLANTICBLVD

HELLMAN AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

ALHAMBRA RD

HELLMAN AVE

GRANADAAVE

6TH

ST

YNEZ

AVE

MARENGO

AVE

ALM

ANSOR

ST

ALHA

MBRA

RD

CHAPEL

AVE

POPL

ARBLVD

CONCORD

AVE PA

LM

AVE

MARGUERITA

AVE

PINEST

ORANGE ST

FRON

TST

WOOD

WARD

AVE

ROSS AVE

ALM

ANSO

RST

NORWOOD PL

SAN MARINO AVE

GLENDON WY

710

10

Source: City of Alhambra 20

Low Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential

General Commercial

Automotive Commercial

Regional Commercial

Central Business District

Office Professional

Industrial

Parking

Public Facilities

Open Space

Specific Plan

Downtown Specific Plan Overlay

Figure 1-2: Land Use Policy Map


10/66

page 4

Chapter One | Introduction

This page intentionally left blank.


11/66

page 5


Plan and the goals, objectives, and policies presented in this

chapter, the City aims to become a place where residents and

visitors can bicycle to their destinations, whether it be home

work, or commercial centers.

2.2 Goals and Objectives

The broad, over-arching goal of the City of Alhambras Bicycle

Master Plan is to encourage and promote bicycling as a form

of transportation through engineering, education, enforcement

and encouragement. Specific goals and objectives for achieving

this goal are as follows.

2 Goals and Policies

This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and policies for the

Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan. It also reviews existing plans

and policies related to bicycling that will help guide this Plan,

organized by City of Alhambra, Los Angeles County, and

Other Plans and Policies.

2.1 Vision

The overall vision of the Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan is to

create a community where bicycling is a safe, convenient, and

viable form of transportation. Through the development of the

Goal 1: Bicycle Network

Create a bicycle network in Alhambra for all types of bicycle riders and all trip purposes

Objective 1.1 Develop a bicycle network with a comprehensive system of bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes

Policies

Plan and install new bicycle lanes on major arterials with sufficient width

Plan and install shared lane markings (sharrows) and signage on bicycle routes where bicycle lane implementation is demonstrated

to be infeasible

Ensure that all facilities are designed consistently in accordance with the latest local, State, and Federal standards

Promote consistent signage that directs bicyclists to neighborhood destinations and increases the visibility of the bicycle network

Objective 1.2 Implement a system of bikeways with connectivity between homes, jobs, public transit, recreational resources, and adjacent communities

Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent to schools

Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent to major employment and shopping centers

Plan and install bicycle facilities that will connect to regional facilities

Work cooperatively with adjacent cities to coordinate bicycle planning and implementation activities

Support the development of bicycle facilities that provide access to regional and local public transit services wherever possible


12/66

page 6

Chapter Two | Goals and Policies

Coordinate with transit providers to ensure bicycles can be accommodated on all forms of transit vehicles and that adequate

space is devoted to their storage on board whenever possible

Coordinate with transit agencies to install and maintain convenient and secure short-term and long-term bike parking facilities

racks, on-demand bike lockers, in-station bike storage, and staffed bicycle parking facilities at transit stops and stations,

Objective 1.3 Coordinate with developers to provide bicycle facilities that encourage biking and link to key destinations

Policies

Recommend the implementation of bike lane and bicycle support facilities along key corridors

Recommend bicycle parking at key locations, such as employment centers, parks, transit centers, schools, multi-family

residences, and shopping centers

Objective 1.4Support efforts to develop a Complete Streets policy that accounts for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, disabled persons, and

public transit users

Policies Prioritize opportunities that improve walkability and bikeability by utilizing Complete Streets standards for Capital Improvement

Projects

Objective 1.5 Develop a bicycle parking policy

Policies

Establish bicycle parking design standards and requirements for all bicycle parking on City property and for private

development

Identify where bicycle parking facilities are needed and identify the appropriate type for each site

Install and support short-term, long-term, and high capacity bicycle parking within the public right-of-way and on public

property, especially in high demand locations, such as near commercial centers

Provide bicycle parking that is sheltered from inclement weather

Goal 2: Safety

Improve safety for all road users through bikeway implementation, education, enforcement, and bikeway maintenance

Objective 2.1 Implement projects that improve the safety of bicyclists at key locations

Policies Review bicyclist-related automobile crashes to identify potential problem areas

Implement bicycle facilities on low-speed and low-volume roads

Objective 2.2 Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of the general public

Policies

Support the implementation of bicycle-safety curricula and provision to the general public and targeted populations, including

diverse age, income, and ethnic groups

Partner with neighboring communities to distribute bicycle-safety education materials

Encourage schools to develop and provide bicycle-safety curricula for use in elementary, middle, and high schools

Support marketing and public awareness campaigns aimed at improving safety

Implement a Safe Routes to School program for elementary and middle schools

Objective 2.3 Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of City employees

Policies

Train City staff working on street design, construction, and maintenance projects to consider the safety of bicyclists in their

work

Conduct bicycle-safety classes for City employees

Conduct bicycle-safety workshop for City-operated transit operators and other large fleet-vehicle operators

Provide bicycle safety education to the police and those cited for moving violations that focuses on safe cycling, relevant traffic

laws, and safe sharing of the roadway

Objective 2.4 Increase enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths and roadways

Increase enforcement efforts on City-streets and bikeways

Increase enforcement of unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and

conflicts

Increase bicycle-mounted patrol officers Develop and promote efficient mechanisms for reporting behaviors that endanger cyclists

Encourage targeted enforcement activities in areas with high bicycle volumes

Objective 2.5 Maintain bikeways that are clear of debris and provide safe riding conditions

Policies

Establish routine maintenance schedule/standards for bikeways for sweeping, litter removal, landscaping, repainting of striping,

signage, and signal actuation devices

Plan for cyclist safety during construction and maintenance activities


13/66

page 7


2.3 Existing Plans and Policies

2.3.1 City of Alhambra

General Plan Circulation Element (1986)

The Circulation Element describes the general location and

extent of the existing and future circulation system required to

satisfy travel demand correlated with existing and anticipated

land use. In regards to bicycle facilities, the Circulation

Element states that the City does not have an established

bikeway system as the existing and future major and secondary

arterial highways cannot accommodate any provisions for

bicycles. This is because arterial highways are too narrow

traffic volumes are too high, and the speed of the traffic too

great. Policy 4.5.8 is the only policy that directly references

bicycle transportation, stating the City is to encourage

the installation of on-site bicycle storage facilities in large

residential, commercial and industrial developments.

Goal 3: Community SupportDevelop a City-wide culture that respects and accommodates all users of the road

Objective 3.1 Support Community Involvement

Policies

Use the Transportation Committee to steer the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan

Encourage citizen participation and stakeholder input in the planning and implementation of bikeways and other bicycle related

improvements

Conduct periodic online surveys to gauge interest in bicycling and related issues throughout the City

Objective 3.2 Create an online presence to improve visibility of bicycling issues in the City

Policies Provide updates to the community about planned projects

Provide closure updates to the community about City and regional bikeways

Objective 3.3Foster community support for bicycling by raising public awareness about bicycling and supporting programs that encourage more

people to bicycle

Policies

Support marketing and public awareness campaigns through a variety of media aimed at promoting bicycling as a safe,

healthy, cost-effective, environmentally beneficial transportation choice

Support programs aimed at increasing bicycle trips by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make bicycling a more

convenient transportation mode

Promote bicycling at City-sponsored and public events, such as farmers markets, public health fairs, craft fairs, and other civic

events

Encourage and promote bicycle related businesses within Alhambra

Apply for the designation of Bicycle Friendly Community through the League of American Bicyclists

Goal 4: Implementation and Funding

Ensure adequate funds are pursued in order to implement proposed bikeways and support facilities in this Plan

Objective 4.1 Integrate consideration of bicycle travel into all roadway planning, design, and construction

Incorporate the Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan in whole by reference into the Citys General Plan and amend sections of the

General Plan that are relevant to bicycling according to the goals of this Plan

Ensure that all current and proposed Area Plans objectives and policies are consistent with the goals of the Alhambra Bicycle

Master Plan. Support the incorporation of bicycle facilities into other capital improvement projects, where appropriate, to ensure maximum

leveraging of funds from outside sources

Objective 4.2 Continuously monitor and evaluate Alhambras implementation progress of Bicycle Master Plan policies, programs, and projects.

Track trends in bicycle commuting through the use of Census data, travel surveys, and bicycle counts

Regularly monitor bicycle safety and seek a continuous reduction in bicycle-related collisions on a per capita or per bicyclist

basis over the next twenty years

Objective 4.3 Fund the Bicycle Master Plan

Pursue diverse sources of funding and support efforts to maintain or increase federal, state and local funding for the

implementation of Bicycle Master Plan programs and infrastructures

Support innovative funding mechanisms to implement this Bicycle Master Plan

Support new funding opportunities for bicycle facilities that are proposed at the Federal, State, and Local level that impact the

City

Identify and apply for grant funding that support the development of bicycle facilities

Consider using bikeways as mitigation for project-related vehicle trips


14/66


15/66


16/66

page 10

Chapter Two | Goals and Policies

countys 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 substantiverevisions 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.

(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. 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 bicyclist 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

the 30-year timeframe, multi-modal funding availability for

the Metro Call for Projects program, sub-regional needs, and

project performance measures. The Plan helps implement the

BTSP discussed above by funding an expansion of the bicycle

network and coordinating links with other transportation

modes.

2.3.3 Other Plans and Policies

Southern California Association of Governments Regional

Transportation Plan (2012)

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

adopted its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in April 2012

with the goal of increasing mobility for those who live in and

visit Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,

and Ventura Counties. The Plan has an active transportation

chapter that recommends increasing regional bikeway mileage

from 4,315 to 10,122 miles, as well as retrofitting sidewalks

to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

and implementing safety improvements. SCAG estimates that

active transportation improvements recommended will cost

approximately $6.7 billion.

In addition to bikeways that Los Angeles County had proposed

at the time of development of the RTP, SCAG also recommendskey bikeways to connect the region and facilitate bicycle travel.

Policies included in the RTP that pertain to biking in the

region include addressing bicyclist safety, increasing bicycle

mode share, encouraging local active transportation plans, and

improving air quality.

Bicycle Transportation Act

The California Bicycle Transportation Account (1994) 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.

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


17/66


18/66


19/66


20/66

page 14

Chapter Three | Existing Conditions

R81 (CA) Bike Lane Sign

Travel

Lane

Travel

Lane

5 min. (with curb & gutter)

4' min. (no curb & gutter)

Parking

7 minimum

Provides striped

lane for one-way

bike travel on a

street or highway

Provides for shared-

use with motor vehicles,

typically on lower

volume roadways

Provides completely separated

right-of-way for exclusive use by

bicycles and pedestrians with

cross-flow minimized

5' min.

6'' Stripe

4'' Stripe (optional)

Travel

Lane

Travel

Lane

Parking

14 min. recommended shared use travel lane on higher volume streets

14 min. recommended shared use travel lane on higher volume streets

Parking

8' minimum width

2' graded shoulders required

12 min. total width

D11-1 Bike Route Sign

Travel

Lane

Travel

Lane

Shoulder Shoulder

D11-1 Bike Route Sign

10' min vertical clearance

Class I Bike Path

Class III Bike Route

Class II Bike Lanes

Optional

Shared Lane Marking

11 (min) center to curb

Figure 3-1: Caltrans Bikeway Types


21/66

page 15


providing connections on rights-of-way exclusively for non

motorized travel.

3.2 Multi-Modal Connections

Transit service provided within and adjacent to the City of

Alhambra includes bus and rail transportation, and is shown

on Figure 3-3. The following sections describe public

transportation in the City.

3.2.1 Alhambra Community Transit Lines

Alhambra Community Transit (ACT) provides service on two

lines within the City and each ride costs a 25-cent fare. The

Green Line runs six days per week on 20 minute headways. On

weekdays it is in service from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and on Saturday

it operates from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Green Line route runs

clockwise and counter-clockwise along Main Street (from

Palm to Chapel) and along Valley Boulevard (from Fremont

to Vega). The Blue Line offers a split schedule that runs from

Chapel to the Metrolink Station at Cal State Los Angeles and

3.1.2 Existing Bikeways

There are no existing bikeways within Alhambras city

limits. There are, however, existing and proposed bikeways

in adjacent cities that intersect with or are near to the Citys

boundary. These are listed in Table 3-1 andshown on Figure

3-2. Bicycle facilities that touch Alhambras borders are

located in the cities of South Pasadena, Monterey Park, Los

Angeles, and San Gabriel. The proposed Alhambra Wash Bike

Path travels through Alhambra, though Los Angeles County

maintains this property.

3.1.3 End-of-Trip Facilities

The City of Alhambra does not have an inventory of existing

bicycle parking locations. Short-term bicycle racks are

generally located on private property at various destinations,such as in the Edwards Renaissance Courtyard, which is a

primary destination in Downtown Alhambra. There are also

bike racks in front of City Hall, and at all library and park

facilities.

3.1.4 Pedestrian Overcrossings

There are two bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings of the Interstate

10 freeway. These are located at Warwick Road and Marguerita

Avenue, and are shown on Figure 3-2. Overcrossings are

important to a bicycle network because they reduce barriers by

Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to

Alhambra

Class Location Jurisdiction

Existing

Class II Marengo Avenue South Pasadena

Class II Alhambra Avenue Monterey Park

Class II Hungtington Drive Los Angeles

Class III Santa Anita Street San Gabriel

Proposed

Class I Alhambra Wash Los Angeles County

Class I Edison Easement South Pasadena

Class II Huntington Drive South Pasadena

Class III Fremont Avenue South Pasadena

Class III Alhambra Avenue Los Angeles

Class III

Mabel Avenue Electric

Avenue Newmark Avenue

Marguerita Avenue

Mabel Avenue

Monterey Park

Class IIIAtlanctic Boulevard El

Portal PlaceMonterey Park

Class III Hellman Avenue Monterey Park

Class III Garfield Avenue Monterey Park

Class III Junipero Serra Drive San Gabriel

Class III Fairview Avenue San Gabriel

Class III Wells Street San Gabriel


22/66


23/66

page 17


Huntingto

nDr

FremontAve

FremontA

ve

Garvey Ave

AlmansorSt

ValleyBlvd

Hellman Ave

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

Atlantic

Blvd

Brightwood St

Floral Dr

ALHAMBRA

LOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH PASADENA

10

710

Missio

nRd

ValleyBlvd

Main

St

Commo

nwealth

Ave

Woodwa

rdAv

e

ChapelA

ve

Hunting

tonDr

Garfie

ldA

ve

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Multi-Modal Connections

ACT Green Line

ACT Blue Line

Metro Gold Line

Transit Stops

Metro Bus Lines

Metro Rapid Bus Lines

Montebello Bus Lines

Metrolink San Bernardino Line

Figure 3-3: Multi-Modal Connections


24/66


25/66


26/66

page 20

Chapter Four | Needs Analysis

As illustrated, less than one percent of Americans are Strong

and Fearless and will ride anywhere regardless of roadway

conditions, weather, or the availability of bicycle facilities.

The strong and fearless can ride at assertive speeds, prefer

direct routes, and will typically choose roadway connections

including those shared with vehicles over separate bikeway

facilities such as bicycle paths. This group will be less affected

by this plan than the others.

Approximately six to nine percent of Americans fall under the

category ofEnthused and Confidentbicyclists who respond

very quickly when bikeways, including bike lanes, low traffic

streets, or multi-use pathways are provided. They will deviate

from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type.

This group includes commuters, recreationalists, racers, and

utilitarian bicyclists.

Approximately 60 percent of the population can be categorized

asInterested but Concernedand represents those who do not

currently ride a bicycle regularly, in large part due to perceived

safety risks from riding with traffic. These individuals will

only ride if excellent bikeway facilities are provided, along

with route finding assistance and encouragement/education

programs. This Plan will affect the Interested but Concerned

group the most, as it will recommend the facilities and programs

that should encourage them to ride or ride more often.

Approximately 30 percent of Americans are not interested

in bicycling. They are referred to in the diagram as No Way,

No How. Some people in this group may eventually consider

bicycling and may progress to one of the user types described

above.

4.2 Public Outreach

4.2.1 Survey

The City hosted an online survey to gather feedback from

the community. The survey was open from August 10, 2012

through September 3, 2012 and a total of 42 people responded.

A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A.

I am a confident rider who is comfortable in most traffic situations, regardless of

bicycle facilities

I am a rider who is comfortable in some traffic situations and with appropriate

bicycle facilities.

I am a rider who is not comfortable in traffic situations and will only ride on paths/

greenways and quiet, residential streets.

I am not interested in cycling.

45.2%

45.2%

7.1%

2.4%

Figure 4-2: Respondent Bicyclist Ability

Of those who responded, the majority (38.1 percent) fell within

the ages of 26 through 35. Another 23.8 percent were between

46 and 55 years old. Approximately 60 percent of respondents

live 10 miles or less from their work/school and over half of

these persons live within five miles, distances that could be

reasonably made by bicycle.

As shown in Figure 4-2, almost all of respondents identified

themselves as either Strong and Fearless orEnthused and

Confidentbicyclists, based on the descriptions provided in the

previous section. Only seven percent of participants fell into

theInterested but Concernedcategory.

Figure 4-3 displays the primary commute mode of respondents

versus how often they commute by bicycle. On a typical week,

approximately one-third of survey participants commute by

driving alone and another one-third commute by bicycle.

Approximately one-third of respondents also said they

commute by bike at least three days per week.

Figure 4-4 shows barriers to survey participants commuting

by bike. The most common reasons for not riding are a general


27/66


28/66

page 22


Finally, participants had the opportunity to mark-up a large map

of Alhambra with locations they would like to see bikeways at.

Streets noted as desirable for bicycle facilities include:

6th St

Alhambra Rd

Almansor St Commonwealth Ave

Fremont Ave

Front St

Garfield Ave

Hellman Ave

Main St

Marengo Ave

Marguerita Ave

Norwood Pl Woodward Ave

4.2.3 Website

The City of Alhambra created a website for the Bicycle

Master Plan to advertise upcoming events, seek input on Plan

materials, and provide a venue for the community to submit

their comments. The link to the online survey and the flyer for

the Hot Spot event were posted on the site.

4.2.4 General Plan Outreach

As part of the outreach process for the Envision Alhambra

2035 General Plan Update, the City held an open house in

2011 at Almansor Park to gather input on how to improve

transportation. Residents marked up maps with stickers to

show where they would like to see bicycle improvements,

among other things.

4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates

United States Census American Community Survey

Commuting to Work data provides an indication of

current bicycle system usage. Table 4-1 provides means

of transportation to work data for the City of Alhambra as

compared with Los Angeles County, California, and the

United States as a whole. The majority of Alhambras workers

bicycle-focused, the City was able to obtain input from a wide

range of residents. The City also gave away rear bike lights,

Metro bike maps, patch kits, and snacks to people who agreed

to take the online survey.

The booth provided a series of interactive boards that asked

participants to vote on the types of bikeways, bicycle parking,

signage, and programmatic improvements they would like

to see included in the plan. The most commonly requested

bikeway type was on-street bike lanes, followed by bike

boulevards. Participants favored short-term bicycle parkingover long-term, and specifically sidewalk and curb extension

bicycle racks. As for long-term bicycle parking, attendees voted

for bicycle rooms and a Bike Station, which often includes

additional amenities like tools for maintenance and bicycle

rentals. The most commonly requested signage was Share

the Road, as well as wayfinding signage with directional

and distance information. Encouragement programs, such

as bike valets at community events, were the most popular

programmatic improvements attendees voted for.

An additional interactive board asked attendees which type of

bicyclist they were from the list presented previously in this

chapter. The majority of participants (approximately one-

half) identified themselves as Enthused and Confident. Two

people stated that they wereNo Way, No How. The remaining

attendees were evenly split between Strong and Fearless and

Interested but Concerned.

The City hosted a booth at the 3rd annual Hot Spot Alhambra community fair to

solicit public input for the Bicycle Master Plan.


29/66

page 23


(75.04 percent) drive alone to work. While this is lower than

the United States drive alone mode share, it is higher than

California and Los Angeles County. However, Alhambra has a

higher carpool mode share (12.03) than the other jurisdictions.

The Citys bicycle mode share also reflects that of the United

States and is lower than California and Los Angeles County.

This may be in part due to the lack of bikeways and bicycle

support facilities in Alhambra. With increased investments

in bicycling as a form of transportation, it is likely that this

number will increase with time.

It is also important to note that this figure likely underestimates

the true amount of bicycling that occurs in Alhambra for

several reasons. First, data reflects respondents (workers 16

years and older) dominant commute mode and therefore does

not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips thatwould replace vehicular trips. Also, American Community

Survey data collection methods only enable a respondent to

select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they

constitute part of a longer multimodal trip.

Table 4-2 presents an estimate of current bicycling within

Alhambra using US Census data along with several adjustments

for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed

above. Table 4-3 presents the associated air quality benefits

from bicycling.

Table 4-4 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity

within Alhambra using California Department of Finance

population and school enrollment projections. The projection

contains the assumption that bicycle mode share will double by

Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work

Mode Share (percent)

Mode United States California Los Angeles County Alhambra

Bike 0.51 0.94 0.74 0.52

Walk 2.85 2.77 2.86 1.80

Public Transportation 4.94 5.13 7.09 5.78

Carpool 10.35 11.92 11.32 12.03

Drive Alone 76.00 72.95 72.13 75.04

Other 5.35 6.29 5.87 4.83

2030, due in part to bicycle network implementation. Actua

bicycle mode share in 2030 will depend on many factors

including the extent of network implementation. Table 4-5

presents the associated year 2030 air quality benefit forecasts

The calculations follow in a straightforward manner from the

Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.


30/66

page 24


Table 4-3: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact

Variable Figure Source

Current Estimated VMT Reductions

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 1,363Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for

school children

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 355,809 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 10,287Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile

for school children

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 2,684,974 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Current Air Quality Benefits

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) 31 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) 22 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) 281 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday)8,369

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) 8,050 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) 31 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) 29 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/year) 5,623 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/year) 73,400 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/year) 2,184,242 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and

Light Trucks. 2005.)

Table 4-2: Existing Bicycling Demand


Existing study area population 83,389 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B01003 5-Year Estimates

Existing employed population 39,228 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.52% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing number of bike-to-work commuters 204 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share

Existing work-at-home mode share 4.3% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing number of work-at-home bike commuters 834 Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle t rip

Existing transit-to-work mode share 5.8% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing transit bicycle commuters 567Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access

transit by bicycle

Existing school chi ldren, ages 5-14 (grades K-8) 8,339 2006-2010 American Community Survey, S0101 5-Year Estimates

Existing school children bicycling mode share 2.0% National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003

Existing school children bike commuters 167 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share

Existing number of college students in study area, ages

18-247,088 2006-2010 American Community Survey, S0101 5-Year Estimates

Existing estimated college bicycling mode share 10.0%Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities (source: National

Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995).

Existing college bike commuters 709 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share

Existing total number of bike commuters 2,480 Total bike-to-work, school, and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation .

Total daily bicycling trips 4,960 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)


31/66

page 25


Table 4-4: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand


Future study area population 101,865 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future employed population 47,921 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future bike-to-work mode share 1.0% Assumes bicycle mode share will double

Future number of bike-to-work commuters 498 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share

Future work-at-home mode share 8.4%

Assumes work-at-home mode share will continue to grow at the same rate as between

2000 and 2010 (95%)

Future number of work-at-home bike commuters 2,013 Assumes 50% of populat ion working at home makes at least one dai ly bicycle t rip

Future transit-to-work mode share 7.3%Assumes transit-to-work mode share will continue to grow at the same rate as between

2000 and 2010 (26%)

Future transit bicycle commuters 875Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access

transit by bicycle

Future school children, ages 5-14 (grades K-8) 10,187 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future school children bicycling mode share 4.0% Assumes mode share will double

Future school children bike commuters 407 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share

Future number of college students in study area, ages

18-248,658 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future estimated college bicycling mode share 12.0% Assumes 2% increase

Future college bike commuters 1,039 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share

Future total number of bike commuters 4,832 Total bike-to-work, school, and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 9,664 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Table 4-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact


Future Estimated VMT Reductions

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 2,807Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for

school children

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 732,751 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 20,948Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile

for school children

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 5,467,444 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Future Air Quality Benefits

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) 63 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) 44 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) 573 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday)17,041

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) 16,393 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) 63 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) 59 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/year) 11,451 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/year) 149,465 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/year) 4,447,797 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and

Light Trucks. 2005.)


32/66

page 26


Table 4-7: Collision Details, 2006-2010

Collision Factor Number Percent

Violation Category

Unknown 2 1.4

Under the Influence 1 0.7

Unsafe Speed 1 0.7

Wrong Side of Road 58 40.8

Improper Turning 14 9.9

Automobile Right-of-Way 29 20.4

Pedestrian Right-of-Way 2 1.4

Traffic Signals and Signs 10 7.0

Other Hazardous Violation 15 10.6

Unsafe Sarting or Backing 4 2.8

Other Improper Driving 3 2.1

Not Stated 3 2.1

Injury Severity

Complaint of Pain 77 54.2

Other Visible Injury 57 40.1

Severe Injury 7 4.9

Fatality 1 0.8

4.4 Collision Analysis

Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential

bicyclists. Identifying bicycle collision sites can assist in

developing improvements or determining appropriate bicycle

routes. Bicycle collision data for the City of Alhambra was

obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records

System (SWITRS) from the years 2006 through 2010. In this

time period, there were 142 total reported collisions involving

bicyclists, shown in Table 4-6. The number of bicycle crashes

fluctuated throughout the five-year period, neither steadily

increasing nor decreasing. It should be noted, however, that

many bicycle collisions go unreported and thus the true number

of crashes is likely much higher than shown.

Table 4-7 presents the violation category and injury severity

of bicycle collisions in Alhambra from 2006 to 2010. The most

common primary collision factor violation was Wrong Side of

Road (41 percent). Collision reports are unavailable and thus

this plan does not include a detailed analysis of bicycle crashes.

However, it is important to take notice of the high frequency of

wrong way bicycle riding leading to collisions.

Figure 4-6 displays the locations of reported bicycle crashes in

Alhambra. As shown, collisions were concentrated on arterial

roadways, including Main Street, Fremont Avenue, Valley

Boulevard, and Mission Road.

Table 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010

Year Total Collisions

2006 38

2007 25

2008 28

2009 15

2010 36

Total Collisions 142


33/66

page 27


Huntingto

nDr

FremontAve

FremontA

ve

Garvey Ave

AlmansorSt

ValleyBlvd

Hellman Ave

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

Atlantic

Blvd

Brightwood St

Floral Dr

ALHAMBRALOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH PASADENA

10

710

Missio

nRd

ValleyBlvd

Main

St

Commo

nwealth

Ave

Woodwa

rdAv

e

ChapelA

ve

Hunting

tonDr

GarfieldAve

Bicycle Collisions 2006-2010

Collisions

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Figure 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010


34/66


35/66

page 29


parking. In some locations, however, street widths may be wide

enough to accommodate bike lanes with buffers between the

bikeway and either on-street parking or travel lanes. Appendix

B lists potential impacts and notes about each proposed bike lane

facility for the City to use to assist with implementation of thi

Plan.

5.1.2 Class III Bike Routes

This plan recommends 40.75 miles of Class III bike routes

where curb-to-curb width cannot accommodate bike lanes

Per the policies outlined in Chapter 2, the City should instal

shared lane markings (sharrows) on all proposed bike

routes. As shared lane markings are a relatively new bikeway

marking in American cities, guidance on application wil

continue to evolve over time. Shared lane markings should no

be considered a substitute for bike lanes or other separation

treatments where these types of facilities are otherwisewarranted or space permits. Desirable shared lane marking

applications include:

To indicate a shared lane situation where the speed

differential between bicyclist and motorist travel

speeds is very low (designed speed of < 25 mph)

On downhill segments, preferably paired with an

uphill bike lane

5 Recommended Improvements

This chapter presents the proposed bicycle network, bicycle

support facilities, and programmatic improvements for the City

of Alhambra. In addition to creating a comprehensive network

of bikeways within the city, the recommended system ties into

the existing and proposed bicycle facilities in neighboring

cities, providing bikeways that will not drop at city boundaries.

Bikeway recommendations are based on existing regional

bicycle plans, public input, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.

5.1 Proposed Bikeways

Table 5-1 presents the type, location, extents, and length of

each proposed bicycle facility in Alhambra, also shown in

Figure 5-1. This Plan proposes 44.18total miles of bikeways,

including Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes.

5.1.1 Class II Bike Lanes

This Plan recommends 3.43 miles of Class II bike lanes. Bike

lanes are generally proposed on roadways with higher traffic

volumes and speeds that require increased separation between

bicyclists and motorists. Many of Alhambras streets have

narrow curb-to-curb widths, making it challenging to provide

separated on-street facilities without removing travel lanes or


36/66

page 30

Chapter Five | Recommended Improvements

Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways

Street From To Mileage

Class II Bike Lanes

Garvey Street Ramona Road Fremont Avenue 0.77

Huntington Drive West City Limits Alhambra Road 0.51

Huntington Drive Garfield Avenue Granada Avenue 0.53

Main Street Huntington Drive Raymond Avenue 0.85

Marengo Avenue Lemon Street Front Street 0.36

Marengo Avenue Valley Boulevard Ross Avenue 0.41

Total Mileage 3.43

Class III Bike Routes

1st Street Main Street Commonwealth Avenue 0.24

2nd Street Alhambra Road Commonwealth Avenue 0.68

4th Street Woodward Avenue Glendon Way 1.57

6th Street Main Street Hellman Avenue 1.6

Adams Avenue Almansor Street New Avenue 0.47

Alhambra Road Huntington Drive East City Limits 2.37

Almansor Street Corto Street Hellman Avenue 1.42

Almansor Street Huntington Drive Main Street 0.95

Campbell Avenue Hellman Avenue Pedley Drive 0.05

Carlos Street La Crescenta Avenue Whitney Drive 0.28

Cedar Street Palm Avenue Raymond Avenue 0.09

Chapel Avenue Alhambra Road Glendon Way 2.05

Commonwealth Avenue West City Limits Chapel Avenue 1.86

Concord Avenue West City Limits Meridian Avenue 0.49

Corto Street Chapel Avenue Almansor Street 0.16

Curtis Avenue Hellman Avenue Midwickhill Drive 0.14

Curtis Avenue Glendon Way Ramona Road 0.12

Edgewood Drive Front Street Norwood Place 0.25

El Paseo Street Montezuma Avenue Las Flores Street 0.08

Electric Avenue Huntington Drive Alhambra Road 0.37

Elm Street Norwood Place Ross Avenue 0.25

Front Street Edgewood Drive 6th Street 1.22

Garvey Street Fremont Avenue Monterey Pass Road 0.1

Glendon Way Curtis Avenue New Avenue 1.66

Granada Avenue Alhambra Road Main Street 0.44

Grand Avenue Almansor Street Granada Avenue 0.21

Hathaway Avenue Hagen Drive Sarazen Drive 0.23

Hellman Avenue Palm Avenue Olive Avenue 0.61

Hellman Avenue West City Limits Ross Avenue 0.16

Hellman Avenue Garfield Avenue Almansor Street 0.36

La Crescenta Avenue Las Flores Street Carlos Street 0.07

Las Flores Street El Paseo Street La Crescenta Avenue 0.07

Linda Vista Avenue 6th Street Chapel Avenue 0.55

Main Street Raymond Avenue East City Limits 2

Marengo Avenue Front Street Valley Boulevard 0.26

Marengo Avenue Alhambra Road Lemon Street 0.85

Marguerita Avenue Alhambra Road Hellman Avenue 2


37/66

page 31


5.2 Proposed Bicycle Support Facilities

Support facilities are essential components of a bicycle system

because they enhance safety and convenience for bicyclist

along and at the end of every trip. The following sections

provide a description of facilities that help bicyclists easily

reach their destinations, including bicycle parking, signage

detection, and lighting.

5.2.1 End-of-Trip Facilities

With nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips

bicyclists need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A

comprehensive bicycle parking strategy is one of the most

important things that a jurisdiction can apply to immediately

enhance the bicycling environment. Bicycle parking, like

automobile parking, is a key element of a transportation

network. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with connections

to public transit will further the geographical range that

residents can travel without using an automobile.

On streets where the traffic signals are timed for a

bicycling travel speed of 12 to 15 miles per hour Along front-in angled parking, where a bike lane is

undesirable

To fill a gap in an otherwise continuous bike path or

bike lane, generally for a short distance

To transition bicyclists from across traffic lanes or

from conventional bike lanes or cycle tracks to a

shared lane environment

The City should consider also implementing green-backed

shared lane markings, commonly referred to as super

sharrows, on arterial and collector streets where bike lanes

are not proposed due to roadway constraints. Super sharrows

are more visible to motorists and thus can increase awareness

of bicylists on high-volume and high-speed roadways.

Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways (continued)

Street From To Mileage

Meridian Avenue Main Street Concord Avenue 0.64

Midwickhill Drive Sarazen Drive Hagen Drive 0.77

Montezuma Avenue Garvey Street El Paseo Street 0.24

New Avenue Adams Avenue Shorb Street 0.25

Norwood Place Westmont Drive Edgewood Drive 0.70

Olive Avenue Pine Street Commonwealth Avenue 1.15

Orange Street Fremont Avenue Raymond Avenue 0.40

Palm Avenue Alhambra Road Cedar Street 0.31

Poplar Avenue West City Limits Main Street 0.85

Ramona Road Marguerita Avenue Curtis Avenue 0.06

Raymond Avenue Front Street Ross Avenue 0.54

Raymond Avenue Alhambra Road Orange Street 1.00

Ross Avenue Hellman Avenue Campbell Avenue 1.01

Sarazen Drive Whitney Drive Hathaway Avenue 0.59

Shorb Street Marengo Avenue 6th Street 0.72

Shorb Street 6th Street New Avenue 1.2

Stoneman Avenue Huntington Drive Main Street 0.92

Vega Street Shorb Street Glendon Way 0.46

Warwick Road Westmont Drive Ramona Road 0.23

Westmont Drive Valley Boulevard Hellman Avenue 0.40

Westmont Drive Hellman Avenue Warwick Road 0.15

Whitney Drive Campbell Avenue Sarazen Drive 0.65

Woodward Avenue Marguerita Avenue Almansor Street 1.04

Total Mileage 40.75


38/66

page 32


Hatha

wayAve

PalmAve

Raymon

dA

ve

Marengo

Ave

Marguer ita

Ave

ValleyBlvd

Alhambra

WashBikePath

Hellman AveHellman Ave

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

Mabel Rd

ALHAMBRA

LOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH

PASADENA

10

710

Front

St

MainSt

CommonwealthAve

ChapelA

ve

Hunti

ngton

Dr

ElectricAve

Olive

Ave

Ve

gaS

t

Alman

sor

St

MeridianAv

e

Huntington

Dr

Alm

ansorStStonem

anAve

GranadaAve

2ndSt

1stS

t

4thSt

CedarStreet

4t h

St

6thS

t

Ra

ymon

dAve

ElmS

t

Wes

tmont

Dr

Edge

wood

Dr

Norwood Pl

CarlosSt

El Paseo St

Campbell AveWestmont Dr Warwick Rd

Las Flores St

Cur tis

Av

e

Curtis Ave

6thSt

Linda Vista Ave

Shorb St

Corto St

Glendon Wy

AdamsAve

Shorb St

Orange St

GrandA

ve

NewAve

RossAve

MarengoAve

Oak St

MontereyRd

FremontAve

F

airOaksAve

EdisonE

as

ement

MeridianAve

ViadelR

ey

AlhambraAve

GarfieldAve

Newmark AveAtlantic

Blvd

Ynez

Ave

SeftonAve

Ora

ngeAve

CoralViewSt

PoplarBlv

d

Midw

ickhillDr

Saraze

nDr

Whi

tney

Dr

Monte

zuma

Ave

GarveySt

La Crescenta Ave

Con

cord

Ave

Main

St

Woodwa

rdAve

Alhambra

Rd

Proposed Bikeways in Alhambra Land Uses

Education

Community Facility

Parks and Recreation

Pedestrian Overcrossing

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Bikeways in Adjacent Jurisdictions

Class I Bike PathsE xi st in g P ro po se d

Class II Bike Lanes


Class II Bike Lanes


Crossing Improvement

Figure 5-1: Recommended Bikeways


39/66

page 33


supply changing and storing facilities at mid-size and large

employers, offices, and businesses, by providing showers and

clothes lockers within the buildings or arranging agreements

with nearby recreation centers to allow commuters to use thei

facilities.

Figure 5-2 displays proposed bicycle parking locations inAlhambra. These locations are based on the Citys land use

designations and will need to go through further review during

implementation to determine exact placement. The City should

ensure there is adequate short-term bicycle parking at all major

trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers

and transit hubs. The City should prioritize the installation of

bicycle parking throughout the city, with particular attention

directed at the following locations:

Parks

Schools

Commercial/office areas

Civic/government buildings

Public transit stations

Alhambra has the opportunity to install sidewalk racks

throughout the city, especially in the downtown area. In areas

where sidewalk width is constrained, this Plan recommends the

City study the feasibility of installing bicycle corrals, which

involves removing an on-street parking space to provide bicycle

racks. This Plan also recommends that high-activity locations

such as transit stops, offices, and major commercial districts

provide more secure, long-term bicycle parking options, such

as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs and intermodal

facilities should include secure bicycle parking areas as par

of their design.

Upon implementation of this Plan, it is recommended tha

Alhambra install bicycle parking based on the guidelines

presented in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle

Professional (APBP) Bike Parking Guide 2nd Edition, 2010

which provides guidance on appropriate and accessible

placement and positioning of bike racks.

The Alhambra Municipal Code currently requires bicycle

parking at emergency shelters and non-residential developments

of at least 50,000 square feet (see Table 2-1). This Plan

recommends that the City amend its Municipal Code to include

bicycle parking requirements for all land uses. Examples of

units used in recommended bicycle parking requirements and

associated land uses are listed below. Percent of automobile

parking is not a recommended unit.

Square footage of building (most land uses)

Unit count (residential buildings)

Building occupancy (schools, religious buildings,

etc.)

This Plan recommends that the City also update its Municipal

Code to include requirements on types of short-term and long-

term bicycle parking facility designs. Recommended short-

term facilities include bicycle racks that provide two points of

contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the

front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a higher

degree of security and support for the bicycle. Recommended

rack styles include:

Inverted U racks

Post and ring racks

Coathanger racks

Custom racks providing two points of contact

Recommended long-term facilities consist of more permanent,

lockable enclosures that provide for storage of the bicycle and

associated equipment and clothing. Recommended designs

include:

Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently

anchored racks for bicycles

Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored

racks or

Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers

When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become

dirty from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and

storing facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle

because they have a place to clean up before work or school.

This Plan recommends that the City work with developers to


40/66

page 34


Huntingto

nDr

FremontAve

FremontA

ve

Garvey Ave

AlmansorSt

AtlanticBlvd

ValleyBlvd

HellmanAve

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

Brightwood St

Floral Dr

ALHAMBRALOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH PASADENA

10

710

Missio

nRd

ValleyBlvd

Main

St

Commo

nwealth

Ave

Woodwa

rdAv

e

ChapelA

ve

Hunting

tonDr

GarfieldA

ve

Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations

Land Uses

Long-Term Bicycle Parking

Commercial

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Short-Term Bicycle Parking

Community Facilities

General Office Education Industrial

Parks/Recreation

Mixed Use

Figure 5-2: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations


41/66

page 35


5.2.3 Bicycle Detection

Traffic signals control traffic by either using timers or actuation

(detection). Bicycle detection at actuated traffic signals can

provide a substantial improvement for bicycle access and

mobility. This Plan recommends the City install bicycle

detection at actuated intersections along all proposed bikeway

in this Plan, in accordance with Caltrans Policy Directive 09-

06 (discussed in Chapter 2). Where loop detection is used, a

pavement stencil of the bicycle detection marking should be

used to show bicyclists where to position themselves.

5.2.4 Lighting

Adequate lighting can have a profound impact on perceived

safety on bikeways. This is especially true on overpasses and

underpasses where due to the angle of the bikeway or because

it is an isolated space, people have difficulty seeing and tend

to feel less secure. Alhambra has several overpasses and

underpasses across the 10 freeway, all of which are critical

pieces of the bikeway network. These and future overpasse

should be enhanced with additional lighting to promote a sense

of safety and security for bicyclists.

5.3 Additional Municipal Code Changes

The City should amend sections of the Municipal Code that

reduce the convenience and safety of bicyclists and thus are

inconsistent with this Plan.

Section 10.04.030 states that the rider of a bicycle upon a

roadway shall ride as nearly as practicable within five fee

of the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except when

passing a standing or other vehicle or making a left-hand turn

at an intersection. It is recommended that the City remove the

five feet requirement to allow for bicyclists to take the lane

on streets that are too narrow to share, and to allow bicyclists

to negotiate around hazards that may preclude them from

riding within five feet of the curb, such as potholes, cracks

or roadway construction. This is already addressed in greater

detail by CVC 21201, which requires cyclists to ride as far

right as practicable except when overtaking, making a left turn

or avoiding hazards.

5.2.2 Signage

There is wide variety of signage included in the California

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) that

can be used on bikeways. These range from standard bikeway

identification signs, such as Bike Route (D11-1), to warning

signs, such as Share the Road (W16-1). A new sign added

to the 2012 edition of the California MUTCD is Bicycles

May Use Full Lane (R4-11), which can be placed on Class

III bike routes to educate both drivers and bicyclists on cyclist

lane positioning. Coupled with shared lane markings, this

signage has the potential to be effective in broadening public

understanding of how to properly share the road.

The MUTCD also includes wayfinding signage, some of which

includes direction and distance information. It is recommended

that the City install wayfinding signage at key decision points

along its bikeways to guide users through the network. This is

especially important along bike routes where facilities often

jog or turn.

Though there are many different signs Alhambra can install on

its bikeways, the City should be judicious with its installations

to ensure that signs do not clutter the roadways. Installing too

many signs has the potential to counter sign effectiveness as

drivers and bicyclists alike become accustomed to seeing them

and subsequently are less likely to notice their messages.

Bicycle detection at actuated traffic signals can provide a substantial

improvement for bicycle access and mobility.


42/66

page 36


(d) Operates the bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary

walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching

or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp

and a motor vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway,

curb cut or pedestrian ramp.

(e) Operates an electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.

At a minimum, the code should be revised to allow children

to bicycle on sidewalks, as they do not have same traffic

understanding as adults.

5.4 Recommended Programs

Becoming a truly bicycle-friendly community requires a

multi-faceted approach, including strategies beyond traditional

engineering and infrastructure projects. This section presents

recommended programmatic improvements that address

the four Es: education, encouragement, enforcement, and

evaluation.

5.4.1 Education

Bicycle Skills Courses

Most bicyclists do not receive comprehensive instruction

on safe and effective bicycling techniques, laws, or bicycle

maintenance. Bike skills training courses are an excellent way

to improve both bicyclist confidence and safety. The League

of American Bicyclists (LAB) developed a comprehensive

bicycle skills curriculum which is 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.

This Plan recommends Alhambra partner with non-profit

organizations, such as BikeSGV and the Los Angeles CountyBicycle Coalition, to offer bicycle skills courses for all ages,

and incorporate them into recreation center programs or other

city programs. Bicycle skills courses that target children

should, to the extent feasible, be fully integrated into school

curriculum through PE classes, general assembly, and other

means of instruction (see Bike Rodeos below).

Section 10.04.040 states that it shall be unlawful for any

person to operate or use a bicycle upon any street in the city

without first obtaining from the city a license therefor. This

plan recommends that the City remove this section unless

it plans to enforce this policy. Recently other cities in Los

Angeles County, including Los Angeles and Long Beach,

have repealed their mandatory bicycle registration laws citing

that they were inefficient, costly to administer, and had little

participation.

Section 10.04.20 states that it is unlawful to bicycle on any

sidewalk in Alhambra. While this plan does not encourage

adult sidewalk bicycling, on high traffic volume corridors with

no on-street separated facilities there may be some cyclists

who are simply not comfortable riding in the roadway and

who will choose to ride on the sidewalk, risking citation. Thisplan has attempted to provide alternate parallel local street

bikeways for most high traffic roadways to provide lower

stress cycling options, but these routes may not provide access

to all destinations.

The City should consider revising the code to make it legal for

adults to bicycle on sidewalks, except in the downtown area or

other business districts where higher pedestrian volumes are

anticipated that could result in cyclist-pedestrian conflicts. In

order to discourage riding behavior that could impact the safety

of bicyclists and pedestrians in the sidewalk environment, the

following language should be considered as part of the code

revision:

(1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a

bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following

(a) Operates the bicycle so as to suddenly leave a curb or other

place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so

close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) Operates a bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an

audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian

and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians on the

sidewalk.

(c) Operates a bicycle on a sidewalk in a careless manner

that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or

property.


43/66

page 37


bike events, and other relevant topics. The City could also

work with BikeSGV to post information on its website.

Public Awareness Campaign

Bicyclists often come into conflict with other modes of

transportation because the general public is not expecting

to see them on the road. A public awareness campaign can

increase visibility of bicyclists and highlight their rights and

responsibilities to all road users. New York City, for example

has a Look campaign that uses various media formats to

remind residents to look for bicyclists.1 A similar campaign in

Alhambra that educates the public on the presence of bicyclist

can reduce potential conflicts and create a more bicycle

friendly city. The campaign should be conducted using a wide

range of media to reach a diverse population. The City should

consider partnering with neighboring jurisdictions to launch a

joint campaign that will broaden the population reached.

5.4.2 Encouragement

Safe Routes to School Program

Encouraging children to walk and bicycle to school can

improve health and can reduce congestion, traffic dangers, and

air pollution caused by parents driving children to school. Safe

Routes to School (SR2S) programs use the 5 Es approach

using Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement

and Evaluation strategies to improve safety and encourage

children walking and biking to school. The programs are

1 http://www.nyc.gov/html/look/html/about/what_we_do_text.shtml

Childrens Bicycle Safety Clinics

Childrens bicycle safety clinics are individual events that

help students develop basic bicycling techniques and safety

skills through the use of a bicycle safety course. The clinics

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. Childrens bicycle safety clinics also provide an

opportunity for instructors to ensure childrens helmets and

bicycles are appropriately sized. Events can include free or low

cost helmet distribution and bike safety checks.

The City should work with elementary and middle schools,

trained adult volunteers, local police, and the fire department

to administer childrens bicycle safety clinics. The clinics canbe stand-alone events or can be incorporated into health fairs,

back-to-school events, and Walk and Bike to School days.

Drivers Education Training

Interacting with bicyclists on the road is often not included in

training for new drivers. Teaching motorists how to share the

road from the start can help reduce potential conflicts between

drivers and bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists

(LAB) offers a three-hour motorist education classroomsession that teaches participants topics including roadway

positioning of bicyclists, traffic and hand signals, principles

of right-of-way, and left and right turn problems. Alhambra

should encourage instructors of driver education courses to add

this class to their curriculum.

Bicycle Information Website

A common statement from bicyclists is that they are unfamiliar

with the rules and regulations regarding bicycling, as well as

the locations of effective bikeways and support facilities. The

City of Alhambra should host a webpage through its website

dedicated to bicycling issues. The webpage can include general

bicycle-related California Vehicle Code regulations, Municipal

Code ordinances (such as sidewalk riding not permitted),

excerpts from this Bicycle Master Plan, news about upcoming

Encouraging children to walk and bicycle to school can improve health and can

reduce congestion, traffic dangers, and air pollution.


44/66


45/66


46/66

page 40


This page intentionally left blank.


47/66


48/66

page 42

Chapter Six | Implementation

on the methodology presented as follows. The projects that

received the highest scores should generally be implemented

first; however, opportunities to implement lower rankedprojects may arise throughout the development of the

comprehensive bicycle network.

6.3.1 Prioritization Criteria

A criteria based ranking system was used as the methodology

for developing the prioritized recommended bicycle

improvements. The project list and rankings are meant to

serve as flexible guidelines to implementing the recommended

facilities and may change over time due to changing bicycle

patterns, opportunities and constraints, funding and other

related variables. The following are the criteria used to

evaluate each proposed fac

Read the final draft of Alhambra's Bike Master Plan

Documents

Transcript of Read the final draft of Alhambra's Bike Master Plan