Document elcerrito_gov_doc_b364b67fb0

DRAFT June 2015 City of El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgements 1 This plan has been prepared by the City of El Cerrito with funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transportation Development Act funds (MTC-TDA Article The City would like to thank the residents of El Cerrito, local agency and non-profit stakeholders, and all who participated in development and review of the Plan. Prepared by: City of El Cerrito Public Works and Community Development Departments Fehr & Peers Matthew Ridgway, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Carrie Nielson, Project Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 2 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GLOSSARY 10 1. INTRODUCTION 15 Plan Development and Public Participation 16 2. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 19 Goals and Policies 20 Support Programs 24 Programs, Policies, & Practices Assessment 30 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 39 El Cerrito Today 40 Existing Walking Network 43 Existing Bicycling Network 45 Existing Walking and Biking Trips 51 Collision Analysis 51 4. PROPOSED NETWORKS 58 Proposed Sidewalk and Pathway Network 59 Bicycle Network 65 5. PRIORITY PROJECTS 74 Focus Area Projects 75 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 3 Medium and Low Priority Projects 105 6. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 112 Performance Goals 113 7. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION 116 Funding 117 Implementation 119 APPENDIX A: CROSSWALK POLICY 121 Introduction 121 Crosswalk Fundamentals 122 Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancement Toolbox 128 Treatment Selection 131 Controlled Crosswalk Treatment Toolbox 142 APPENDIX B: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS 158 Relationships to Other Plans 158 APPENDIX C: CONFORMANCE WITH ATP GUIDELINES 164 Conformance with Draft ATP Guidelines 164 APPENDIX D: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT 167 Pedestrian Facilities at Transit Nodes 167 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 4 APPENDIX E: GRANT FUNDING SOURCES 174 Federal Programs 174 State Programs 175 APPENDIX F: ADDITIONAL FACT SHEET 180 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. Existing Land Use 41 Figure 3-2. Key Destinations 42 Figure 3-3. Existing Pedestrian Network 44 Figure 3-4. Existing Bikeway Facility Types 46 Figure 3-5. Existing Bicycle Network 47 Figure 3-6 Existing Bicycle Parking 50 Figure 3-7. Pedestrian-Auto Collisions, 2007-12 54 Figure 3-8. Bicycle-Auto Collisions, 2007-12 56 Figure 4-1. Proposed Pedestrian Network 61 Figure 4-2A. Bikeway Classifications 67 Figure 4-2B. Bikeway Classifications 68 Figure 4-3. Proposed Bicycle Network 71 Figure 4-4. Proposed Bicycle Parking 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 6 Figure 5-.1a BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements Fact Sheet 77 Figure 5-1b BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements Fact Sheet 78 Figure 5-1cBART to Bay Trail Access Improvements Fact Sheet 79 Figure 5-1d BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements Fact Sheet 80 Figure 5-2a Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements Fact Sheet 81 Figure 5-2b Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements Concept Plan 82 Figure 5-3a Citywide Wayfinding Fact Sheet 87 Figure 5-3b Citywide Wayfinding Design Details 88 Figure 5-3c Citywide Wayfinding Fact Sheet 89 Figure 5-3d Citywide Wayfinding Design Details 90 Figure 5-4a Arlington Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Fact Sheet 91 Figure 5-4b Arlington Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Concept Plan 92 Figure 5-5a East Side Bicycle Boulevard Fact Sheet 93 Figure 5-5b East Side Bicycle Boulevard Concept Plan 94 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 7 Figure 5-6a East Side Bicycle Boulevard Wayfinding Fact Sheet 95 Figure 5-6b East Side Bicycle Boulevard Wayfinding Concept Plan 96 Figure 5-7a Key Boulevard Improvements Fact Sheet 97 Figure 5-7b Key Boulevard Improvements Concept Plan 98 Figure 5-8a Fairmount Avenue Improvements Fact Sheet 99 Figure 5-8b Fairmount Avenue Improvements Concept Plan 100 Figure 5-9a Potrero Avenue Improvements Fact Sheet 101 Figure A-1: Marked Crosswalk Placement Flowchart 126 Figure A-2: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations 127 Figure D-1A. Pedestrian Facilities at El Cerrito Del Norte BART 170 Figure D-1B. Pedestrian Facilities at El Cerrito Plaza BART 171 Figure D-2 Connections to Transit via Bicycle Facilities 173 Figure F-1 Kearney Street Bicycle Boulevard Fact Sheet 181 Figure F-2 Kearney Street Bicycle Boulevard Concept Plan 182 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 8 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Programs, Policies, and Practices Benchmarking Analysis 31 Table 3-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities 45 Table 3-2 Existing Bicycle Parking Locations 49 Table 3-3: Projected Increase in Walking and Biking 51 Table 3-4: El Cerrito Collision Rankings among Similar Cities, For All Traffic Collisions in 2011 52 Table 3-5: Intersections with Two or More Pedestrian-Involved Collisions – 2007 to 2012 53 Table 3-6: Intersections with Two or More Bicycle-Involved Collisions – 2007 to 2012 55 Table 4-1: Pedestrian Improvement Projects 62 Table 4-2 Proposed Bicycle Improvements 69 Table 4-3: Proposed Length of Bicycling Network 70 Table 5-1 Existing, Planned, and Proposed Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements by Cross-Street 83 Table 5-2 Medium- and Low-Priority Projects 107 Table 6-1 Performance Goals 114 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents 9 Table 7-1: Regional Funding Source Applicability Matrix 118 Table 7-2 Generalized Unit Costs for Improvements 119 Table 7-3: Active Transportation Plan Cost Estimate Summary 120 Table A-1: Application of Enhanced Treatments for Uncontrolled Locations 132 Table A-2: Uncontrolled Crossings: Geometric Treatments 133 Table A-3: Uncontrolled Crossings: Striping and Signage 137 Table A-4: Uncontrolled Crossings: Beacon, Lighting, and Signal Treatments 139 Table A-5: Controlled Intersections: Geometric Treatments 144 Table A-6: Controlled Intersections: Striping and Signage 149 Table A-7: Controlled Intersections: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures 151 Table C-1 2014 Active Transportation Plan Guidelines Addressed in this Plan 165 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glossary 10 The following are some of the terms and acronyms used in the City of El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan to describe existing and proposed biking and walking facilities and programs: “3 E” Strategies – Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement or “3 E” Strategies are support programs to teach, promote, and regulate bicycle and pedestrian activity. These are critical supplements to what is referred to as the “4th which is engineering and infrastructural improvements such as bicycle lanes or sidewalks. “8 to 80” – Another way of saying “all ages and abilities”, used to denote that a bicycle and pedestrian network should be easy to use for the young (8 year olds) and the old (80 year olds). AASHTO – American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, which publishes multiple transportation guidelines including A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition and the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. AC Transit – AC Transit is the primary bus operator for portions of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. Active Transportation Program – Caltrans created its Active Transportation Program in 2013 to replace the Bicycle Transportation Account. This statewide program sets requirements for issues to be addressed in active transportation plans and also is a funding source for safe routes to school, trails, and other bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Actuated Signals – Traffic signals that detect the presence of automobiles, bicyclists, and/or pedestrians and then give them a green light or walk symbol. Advanced Yield Markings – “Sharks teeth” or triangular markings the location where vehicles should yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. ADA – American with Disabilities Act, typically used to refer to accessible pedestrian facilities, such as curb ramps and pedestrian push buttons at signalized intersections. ADT – Average Daily Traffic, which is the average total number of vehicles that use a roadway throughout the day. Arterial Roadways – Roadways that typically serve a high volume of traffic, may be higher speed, and provide citywide and possibly regional access. Arterials are fed by local streets, including collectors and sometimes residential streets. Bicycle Corrals – A group of bicycle racks that provide typically provide 8 or more bicycle parking spaces. Corrals typically are located in the street, replacing one parking space. Bike East Bay – A local bicycle advocacy group in Alameda and Contra Cost County. Bike Escape Ramp – As part of roundabout design, a ramp is provided for less confident cyclists to exit the street and ride on ---PAGE BREAK--- Glossary 11 the sidewalk for a short distance to avoid crossing in the roundabout right-of-way. Breadcrumb – A striping treatment typically at an intersection, such as directional arrows – “chevrons” – or sharrows, used to indicate a path of travel for bicyclists. It signals to drivers to expect bicyclists in that space and also tells bicyclists where to turn to stay on a route. Buffer – Striped area between a travel lane and a bicycle lane and/or a bicycle lane and on-street parking. It typically has arrows or “chevrons” or diagonal hatching to denote the buffer. It is used to provide separation and additional comfort between bicyclists and/or moving vehicles or parked cars. Bulb-Outs – Extensions of the sidewalk environment at intersections, typically shadowing parking. They improve driver- pedestrian visibility at crossings and shorten crossing distances. Caltrans – The California state department of transportation. Chicanes – Large curb extensions located mid-block that require cars to move slow their speed to move around them. They are used as a traffic calming treatment. Clearance Intervals – The amount of time required for an automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian to safely move through or “clear” an intersection. Conflict Zone – Portions of bicycle lanes where drivers frequently merge across, such as the portion of a bicycle lane that right- turning automobiles merge into before the intersection. Count Monitoring Program – A method of evaluating the percentage of trips made by walking and biking. For example, counting the number of bicyclists and pedestrians at specific locations to look at trends over time. Cut-Throughs –Typically bicycle and pedestrian connections that may not be otherwise connected by the roadway network. For example, two cul-de-sacs that do not connect but are directly adjacent to each other could be connected with a bicycle and pedestrian path as a “cut-through”. Cycletrack – An exclusive bike facility that is located within or next to the roadway, but is made distinct from both the sidewalk and the general purpose roadway by markings, barriers or elevation differences. Geocode – Spatially mapping data by assigning real-world coordinates to data in mapping software, such as GIS (Geographic Information System). In-Roadway Lighting – Pedestrian-activated flashing lights located in the ground at crosswalks that are not otherwise controlled by a traffic signal, stops signs, or other flashing beacons. Lane Configuration – The roadway cross-section or “geometry”, including the type of lanes (e.g. left-turn pocket, through lane, bicycle lane) and the number of lanes (e.g. two left-turn pockets). ---PAGE BREAK--- Glossary 12 Last Mile – Multimodal accessibility improvements in proximity or in the “last mile” before a key destination, usually a transit station, school, or other important area. Median Refuge – a protected area denoted by raised curb, landscaping, and/or other materials where pedestrians can safely stop before completing their crossing of a roadway, typically located in the middle of the street. Mews – Mid-block pedestrian connections, typically between buildings. These are often called “paseos.” Mixed Uses – Buildings or developments that contain multiple land uses. For example, a mixed-use building might have commercial ground floor space with residential units above. Mode Shift – Changing the mode split over time, often in reference to increasing the percentage of trips made by walking, biking, and/or transit. Mode Split – The percentage of travelers using a particular type of transportation, typically the percentage of trips made by bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and autos, respectively. Multimodal – The consideration of all modes of transportation in the planning, design, and use of a roadway or transportation facility. Multimodal typically refers to four primary modes of travel: bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and autos. MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. California has its own MUTCD which governs how traffic control devices, specifically signing, striping, and signals are implemented and operated. NACTO – National Association of City Transportation Officials, which publishes two best practice resources guides: the Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the Urban Streets Design Guide. Nexus Study – A study required to justify the connection between development or transportation impact fees and corresponding improvements, typically located in the public right of way. OBAG – One Bay Area Grant program, a Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant program intended to better integrate the Bay Area’s federal transportation program with California’s climate law and the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy, Plan Bay Area. Path Spur – A short path segment that provides a secondary point of access to a trail or path. Peak Hour – The busiest hour(s) of the day for all modes, but typically used to refer to autos. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) – A pedestrian-activated warning device typically on mast arms over mid-block pedestrian crossings. The beacon head has two red balls on top and a single yellow ball below and require traffic to come to a complete stop when pedestrians have a walk sign, and allow for traffic to proceed once the pedestrian has cleared the travel lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glossary 13 • Protected Walkway - A protected walkway is a designated area of the roadway that is protected by an asphalt curb and/or railing. Public Right-Of-Way – Areas controlled by the City, such as roadways inclusive of sidewalks. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons – A pedestrian- activated flashing beacon installed at crosswalks not otherwise controlled by a traffic signal or stop signs. Safety studies have shown they increase the number of drivers yielding to pedestrians where installed. Safe Routes to School Program – A range of infrastructural and non-infrastructural improvements and activities targeting schools, typically with an emphasis on elementary schools. Non- infrastructural programs refer to activities including walking schools buses, walk and roll to school day events, and assemblies to encourage and educate students on walking and rolling safely. Shared-Use Path – A path that allows use by bicyclists and pedestrians. Sharrows – “Shared Lane Markings” are stencils on the pavement showing a bicycle symbol and two directional arrows or “chevrons”. They denote bicycle routes where bicyclists and autos share the travel lane. They also demonstrate where bicyclists should ride in the travel lane, which is typically in the middle of travel lane so that they “take the lane.” Signalized Intersections – Where two roadways meet at a traffic signal. Slip Lane – A right-turn lane at an intersection that allows drivers to make a turn without actually entering the intersection and that is often not controlled by a traffic signal. Typically separated by a triangular “pork chop” island. Transit-Oriented Development – Dense, walkable, often mixed- use development located in close proximity to major bus routes or BART Stations. Trap Lane – A typical travel lane that then becomes a turn-only lane or freeway-only lane near an intersection. Triple-Four Trail Crossings – Similar to a ladder crosswalk with the middle of the crosswalk removed to make space for bicycle symbols with directional arrows. The intent is to highlight trail crossings and to indicate that bicyclists and pedestrians use the crossing. Vibrotactile – Vibration that can be perceived through touch. Often refers to making signalized intersection accessible with push buttons that vibrate when the WALK sign is received. Warrants (Stop Warrants or Signal Warrants) – Based on standards set in the MUTCD, some traffic control devices, such as traffic signals, stop signs, and pedestrian hybrid beacons, require certain thresholds or “warrants” that must be met to justify the installation of the device. For example, one warrant for a pedestrian signal requires meeting a threshold for the number of pedestrians passing through an intersection in the peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glossary 14 Wayfinding –Guidance either on signs or striped on the ground to indicate locations and/or directions to destinations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Introduction 15 1. Introduction ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Introduction 16 Plan Development and Public Participation The El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan is a combined Bikeways Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan. This Plan updates the Circulation Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2007), which established bicycle and pedestrian networks and project lists throughout the City. This Plan is intended to: Continue to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians Update and enhance bicycle and pedestrian networks to encourage more bicycling and walking Build off the ADA Transition Plan and Climate Action Plan Focus on 2007 routes that required additional evaluation Recommend bicycle and pedestrian projects based on recent best practice documents, such as the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide and the updated AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities Provide grant-ready projects for which the City can pursue competitive grant funding Establish a citywide crosswalk policy to install, enhance, and remove crosswalks throughout the City Coordinate directly and provide consistency with the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan (2014), City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan (in development), City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan (2011) and City of Albany Active Transportation Plan (2014) Public Participation The City hosted two public workshops, a bicycle audit, and a walking audit over the course of the Plan process. Both of the public workshops were coordinated with the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan and City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan. Public Workshops In July and October 2013, the City hosted two public workshops to solicit input and feedback from the community. The first workshop focused on existing conditions and potential improvements for walking and biking. The workshop consisted of a presentation of existing and proposed conditions, a summary of proposed priority projects, a survey of goals and policies, and a discussion about key destinations that are important to the community. July 2013 Workshop - Workshop attendees identified the following areas as top priorities for walking: Plaza BART—Provide direct access to Plaza Shopping Center and improve safety along BART path San Pablo Avenue—Slow traffic down at key points, improve shade with trees, and widen sidewalk Ohlone Greenway—Provide public restrooms, improve safety between modes, and enhance pedestrian connections between the Greenway and adjacent private properties ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Introduction 17 The majority of workshop participants who chose to participate in a voluntary survey identified themselves as Enthused and Confident cyclists. Many others identified as Interested but Concerned. Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator for the Portland Office of Transportation, developed the “Four Types of Cyclists” (2009) descriptions to help understand existing and potential bicyclists. Creating comfortable bicycle facilities that people of all ages and abilities feel comfortable using can help to increase bicycle mode share, particularly form the segment of the population that identifies as “interested but concerned.” The major needs identified for bicycling were: Connections to the Bay Trail Bike facilities to allow safe and easy travel on one-way and two- way streets Enhanced connections to El Cerrito Plaza and Del Norte BART Stop signs for cars at Ohlone Greenway crossings Enhanced connections/facilities on Potrero Avenue, Central Avenue, Ohlone Greenway, and Key Boulevard Workshop participants were asked to vote on the priority projects that were most important to them. The top three priority projects were: Ohlone Greenway/Plaza BART Connection to Bay Trail Ohlone Greenway Path Crossings Lincoln and Blake-Everett-Norvell-Albemarle-Behrens Bicycle Boulevards Participants were also asked to vote on their top goals and priorities related to bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The top three were: Promote bicycling and walking as modes of transportation through design, designation, programs, policies, and education Provide safe and accessible routes to school, transit stops and stations, and city facilities Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access in the design and development of new buildings and facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Introduction 18 October 2013 Workshop - At the second workshop, conceptual designs were presented and discussed for each of the following focus area projects: BART to Bay (Ohlone Greenway/Plaza BART Connection to Bay Trail) Ohlone Greenway Path Crossings East Side Bicycle Boulevard (Blake-Everett-Norvell-Albemarle- Behrens Bicycle Boulevard) Kearney Street between Moeser Lane and Fairmount Avenue Potrero Avenue between I-80 and the Ohlone Greenway Key Boulevard between Humboldt Street and Elm Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Maps Participants had the opportunity to comment directly on the proposed concepts for each priority project. The final projects and networks included in this Plan reflect the feedback received from the public at the three workshops. Bike Audit In addition to the workshops, a bike audit was conducted in August 2013. Approximately 15 participants attended the audit. The group rode many of the proposed bicycle facilities and discussed key issue and opportunities. These ideas were incorporated in the concept development for the focus area projects identified in this Plan. Walking Audit – Fourteen community members attended a walking audit on August 25th, 2013. The tour followed a series of trails, sidewalk connectors, public paths and stairs, the Ohlone Greenway and San Pablo Avenue throughout a northern section of town identified for its limited pedestrian connectivity. The tour identified problem areas and encouraged participants to consider design solutions to be considered during the design phase of the focus area projects. . At the public workshops, participants had the opportunity to provide direct feedback on the bicycle network, pedestrian network, and focus area project concepts ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 19 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 20 This chapter establishes the goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City of El Cerrito in implementing the Active Transportation Plan. It also includes an assessment of the existing programs, policies, and practices pertaining to bicycling and walking in the City, noting successful examples and making recommendations for improvements, as appropriate. Goals and Policies The following goals and policies support the overall vision for the Plan: Goal 1: Support bicycling and walking as being practical, healthy, and convenient in El Cerrito Policy 1-1: Integrate the bicycle and pedestrian improvements project list (Tables 4-1 and 4-2 in Chapter 4) contained in this Plan as part of the larger 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) update that the City is compiling. Policy 1-2: When updating the City’s General Plan, ADA Transition Plan, and Climate Action Plan, reflect the goals, policies, and existing and proposed networks in this Plan. Policy 1-3: Update the Plan every five years to reflect best practices in bicycle and pedestrian policy and design, changing community interests and needs, and remain eligible for Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding. Policy 1-4: Identify current regional, state, and federal funding programs along with specific funding requirements and deadlines, and apply for competitive grant funding for the priority projects identified in this Plan Policy 1-5: To enhance access through and across key barriers, such as freeway interchanges, pursue multi-jurisdictional funding applications with neighboring cities and other potential partners, including BART, East Bay Regional Park District, City of Richmond, City of Albany, Costa County, AC Transit, and Caltrans. Policy 1-6: Continue to engage and update the community on bicycle issues in El Cerrito through annual public workshops. Integrate updates on pedestrian issues into these updates and consider coordination with local advocacy groups, such as Bike East Bay. Policy 1-7: Routinely monitor the performance of the Plan to achieve the performance measures and data collection goals detailed in Chapter 7 Performance Measures of this Plan. Goal 2: Implement a well-connected active transportation system to attract users of all ages and abilities Policy 2-1: Accommodate the needs and access of bicyclists and pedestrians and coordinate with transit operations at key destinations, such as El Cerrito Plaza, transit stations, and schools. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 21 Policy 2-2: Expand the existing bicycle network on the basis of safety improvements, bicyclist comfort, and access to key destinations to provide a richly connected network of low-stress, bicycle facilities Policy 2-3: Require short-term and long-term bicycle parking consistent with the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals (APBP) Bicycle Parking Guidelines. For projects in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan area, refer to the bicycle parking guidelines included in that Plan; the Public Works Director or Community Development Director will make a determination where discrepancies exist. Policy 2-4: Reduce corner radii at intersections to slow turning vehicular traffic, provide protected signal phasing for left-turns, and mark crosswalks at approaches of signalized intersections. Policy 2-5: Plan and implement a citywide wayfinding program for bicyclists and pedestrians to provide route guidance and travel time estimates to key destinations, consistent with the WCCTAC Transit Wayfinding Program and Priority Project #3 Citywide Wayfinding, located in Chapter 6. Policy 2-6: Consult the citywide Crosswalk Policy (Appendix A) when examining the potential installation, enhancement, or removal of crosswalks. Goal 3: Incorporate the needs and concerns of bicyclists and pedestrians in all transportation and development projects Policy 3-1: As a condition of project approval, consider requiring development projects to construct adjacent bicycle facilities included in the proposed bicycle system as well as bicycle parking and amenities. Consider requiring large development projects to provide accessible mid- block cut throughs (or “mews”) identified in this and other adopted plans. Policy 3-2: Consult the recommended bicycle and pedestrian network maps and project lists (Figures 4-1 and 4-3, Tables 4-1 and 4-2) prior to implementation of traffic signals, signal upgrades, and resurfacing/restriping projects. Policy 3-3: Install pedestrian countdown signals; modify pedestrian clearance intervals to assume reduced walk speed of 3.5 feet/second consistent with the MUTCD Guidelines; extend minimum walk times near destinations frequented by seniors and children, to be determined on a project-by-project basis; and install, replace, and upgrade bicycle signal detectors, as necessary, per the California Manual Uniform of Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) with new signal installation, signal modifications, and street maintenance projects. Policy 3-4: Provide appropriately-signed detours for bicyclists and pedestrians during construction projects. When temporarily closing sidewalks, provide immediately-adjacent, protected, temporary paths to accommodate existing pedestrian traffic. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 22 Policy 3-5: Review the transportation network, block size, and development patterns of all proposed projects for consistency with this Plan and the San Pablo Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan. Policy 3-6: Coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Richmond to provide best practices design guidelines for the accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians at highway interchanges, particularly as highway improvements are planned and designed on I-80. Policy 3-7: Maintain city bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of the City’s regular maintenance operations. Policy 3-8: Coordinate planned roadway improvements projects, such as repaving and overlays, with design and development of bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects, so that bicycle and pedestrian improvements plans are ready for construction when routine roadway upgrades are implemented. Policy 3-9: Implement the design guidelines contained in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan on all City capital and land development projects in the Specific Plan area and consider their appropriateness for other projects throughout the city. Allow the update of the design guidelines to incorporate the latest MUTCD and best practice standards. Goal 4: Support infrastructure investments with targeted bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs Policy 4-1: Coordinate with the El Cerrito Police Department, Bike East Bay, and Contra Costa Health Services Safe Routes to School Program to provide funding and support for the expansion of education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs recommended in this Plan. Policy 4-2: Identify funding gaps, volunteer support needs, and community champions within bicycle and pedestrian outreach programs. Policy 4-3: Conduct bicycle and pedestrian counts and surveys whenever vehicle counts are conducted to gauge the effectiveness of various improvements and programs and to develop a monitoring program. Store the count data in City-maintained databases. Goal 5: Maximize multi-modal connections in the transportation network Policy 5-1: Ensure that the bicycle system serves transit stops and stations; ensure that pedestrian crossing desire lines are met at transit stops; and ensure that continuous, accessible pedestrian routes are provided. Policy 5-2: Work with local and regional transit agencies to evaluate long- and short-term bicycle parking needs and to implement needed bicycle parking at BART stations and bus stops. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 23 Policy 5-3: Integrate design for bus stops, such as bus platforms and bulb- outs, bus shelters, and secure bicycle parking when roadways with existing or proposed transit routes are improved. Work with AC Transit on development of Class III Bicycle Routes on arterial roadways with public transportation services. Goal 6: Improve citywide bicycle and pedestrian safety Policy 6-1: Work to reduce the rate of bicycle and pedestrian crashes through the implementation of educational support programs and safety improvement projects outlined in this Plan, injuries and fatalities on all roadways, with priority to crash locations in vicinity of El Cerrito Plaza, BART stations, bus stops, and schools. Policy 6-2: Where bicycle-auto and pedestrian-auto collisions have occurred, prioritize the needs of cyclists and pedestrians in roadway operations and design. Policy 6-3: Monitor bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions annually. Policy 6-4: Work with the Contra Costa Health Services Safe Routes to School Program and local schools to identify and pursue funding for “Safe Routes to Schools” infrastructure improvements for cyclists and pedestrians. Policy 6-5: Work with El Cerrito Police in identifying funding to increase enforcement of vehicle and bicycle laws. Policy 6-6: Work with local advocacy groups and the El Cerrito Police to create an education campaign centered on reducing red light and stop sign running by all roadway users. Policy 6-7: Consult and implement the Crosswalk Policy contained in Appendix A when considering crosswalk enhancement, installation, and removal ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 24 Support Programs Effective policies and comfortable, safe bicycle and pedestrian designs are the foundation of bicycle and pedestrian networks. However, policies and design are enhanced by accompanying programs that inform and educate users, enforce policies, and maintain infrastructure. Below are program recommendations for the City of El Cerrito to initiate, enhance, or continue through direct sponsorship or indirect support. Many programs are comprehensive and incorporate elements of policy, design, enforcement, education, and infrastructure maintenance. Implementation of these programs depends on funding, availability of City staff, and coordination with other groups and organizations. A benchmarking assessment of the City’s programs is further discussed in Table 2-1. Four types of programs are addressed in the following section: Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement Safe Routes to School Safety Maintenance and Spot Improvements Education, Enforcement and Encouragement Promote Walking Although improvements to pedestrian routes will promote walking, it is also important to inform residents of the improvements and the benefits of walking. Specifically, walking and jogging have many health benefits, including weight loss and reducing the risk of chronic diseases including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. For the 20.1% of Contra Costa County adults who are obese, walking and other forms of physical activity are essential to a healthier lifestyle. Education recommendations include: Education Recommendations • Partner with the El Cerrito Trail Trekkers to publicize and distribute a map of trails, hillside paths, and walking routes. Post and make hard copies available at entrances to parks, and civic buildings, and post an electronic version on the City’s website. Coordinate with the El Cerrito Historical Society on interpretive guides they plan to produce. Include information about the health and fitness benefits of walking and jogging in relevant outreach materials. • Implement projects to highlight pedestrian routes and guide pedestrians to key destinations. Continue to work with Trail Trekkers on installation of wayfinding signs that promote use of trails, hillside paths and walking routes. • Encourage and support the use of walking routes for charity walks, school events, or races. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 25 Promote Safe Bicycle Riding With new bicycle facilities, it is important to encourage safe riding practices while promoting biking as an alternative mode of transportation. In the past, the City of El Cerrito has participated in the regional Bike to Work Day by hosting an “energizer station.” The El Cerrito Police Department provides a variety of educational services, including hosting bicycle rodeos, providing bicycle safety education materials at El Cerrito events, and training Richmond bicycle officers and BART police. They also set up DUI checkpoints in coordination with the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County. Education Recommendations • Publish maps that highlight the bicycle network, end trip facilities, and connections to other bicycle routes. Post the map at end trip facilities (such as the BART bicycle parking areas), make hard copies available at civic buildings and bicycle shops, and post an electronic version on the City’s website. Include bicycle safety tips and the benefits of bicycle riding on the maps. Use existing available maps, such as the Berkeley Biking and Walking Guide, and work to create one focused on El Cerrito. • Post signs to highlight bikeways and guide bicyclists to key destinations. • Continue the “Bike to Work Day” program by promoting the event, including among City employees. Coordinate with the regional Bike to Work Day program to publicize and promote the event in El Cerrito. • Coordinate with Bike East Bay to sponsor bicycle street safety education classes for both school-aged and adult riders and a recreational ride to showcase new bicycle facilities or improvements. Safe Routes to School School zones are particularly hazardous areas for pedestrians and bicyclists with many parents dropping off or picking up students. However, there are many benefits of having children walk or bike to school, including improving physical health and reducing traffic congestion. This program can bring together Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS), who operate a Safe Routes to School Program in West County, West Contra Costa County Unified School District (WCCUSD) and private school administrators and staff, parents, students, and City staff and officials. The El Cerrito Police Department provides targeted pedestrian enforcement near schools. Design Recommendations Analyze the transportation and safety issues in each school area by coordinating a walk around the school site and along regularly traveled school routes with City and school staff, parents, and students. Also, identify areas for safe and secure long term bicycle parking. Determine solutions for existing problems and potential funding sources for implementing improvements. Education Recommendations Coordinate with individual schools and CCHS to distribute information to teachers, parents, and students about the following issues: • Recommended routes to walk or bike to school • Benefits of walking or biking to school for parents and students ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 26 • Location and prescribed traffic patterns for pick up and drop off areas • Potential fines for not obeying traffic laws in the school zone and pick up and drop off areas • Alternative locations for “park and walk” or “walking school bus” • Promote and aid in organizing “Walk to School Day” Enforcement Recommendations The El Cerrito Police Department should continue to be a visible presence during school pick up and drop off periods, ticketing violators of traffic regulations in school zones, including speeding, illegal parking, not stopping for pedestrians in the cross walk, and U-turns. Safety Discourage Unsafe Driving Behaviors Speeding, not stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk, and illegal parking are all vehicular issues that impact the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Speeding is particularly a problem on streets with large volumes of through traffic. Not stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk is especially a danger in commercial districts, school zones, park entrances, and near transit stops or stations. The City currently has a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program that includes policies and procedures for requesting, evaluating, and installing a toolkit of traffic calming measures. Design Recommendations Work with developers to consider traffic calming improvements as part of their development project. Traffic calming measures were identified in the San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Plan; projects within the Specific Plan area should incorporate these measures as feasible. Work with residents to use appropriate traffic calming techniques on residential streets per the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Enforcement Recommendations The El Cerrito Police Department should continue to regularly monitor and penalize motorists that do not obey traffic rules and regulations, especially those that impact the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 27 Increase Personal Safety on Ohlone Greenway The Ohlone Greenway currently has both real and perceived issues regarding security for users. The isolation of mid-block areas, lack of visibility from the street, and proximity of the existing trails to the elevated BART railway support columns make the site difficult for police to patrol and monitor. In recent years, El Cerrito Police have increased patrol of the Ohlone Greenway and the City and BART partnered on the 2013-2014 Seismic Improvement Project, which improved sight distances by reducing vegetation, installing lighting and a security camera system. The project improved trail alignment and pavement conditions to increase safety for all users. Design Recommendations Refer to the Ohlone Greenway Master Plan (2009) Design Guidelines to improve security, safety and support the continued improvement of the Greenway. For private projects adjacent to the Greenway, refer to the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Form-Based Code Ohlone Greenway Street Type regulations in order to encourage activities and activated land uses along the length of the trail. Enforcement Recommendations Continue vehicular and bicycle patrols to deter criminals and provide users with a sense of safety. Maintenance and Spot Improvements Intersection and Bikeway Spot Improvement Program The City should ensure that a mechanism exists to evaluate the bicycle network, to alleviate potential hazards and to improve conditions for non- motorized users at specific intersections and locations. Training should be provided if necessary to ensure that the Public Works crew recognizes bicycle hazards, such as improperly designed or placed drainage grates, overhanging tree limbs, signal timing problems (e.g. green phase too short), etc. Bicycle routes continue to be included in the Capital Improvements Program for repaving and other maintenance. Policy Recommendations: • Periodically Analyze Pedestrian and Bicycle Accident Data: The City should evaluate bicycle accident data on a regular basis to determine if any specific intersection locations appear to have higher accident rates that could be due to design problems. Repair of Sidewalks, Crosswalk, and Curb Ramps Tree roots, regular use, seismic activity, and weather contribute to the deterioration of public infrastructure. Uneven sidewalks, broken asphalt in crosswalks, and lack of curb ramps are hazardous and limit pedestrian mobility. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 28 Maintenance Recommendations The Public Works Department should continue to institute a program to regularly improve and repair uneven sidewalks, broken asphalt in crosswalks, and install new curb ramps. This should include consideration and implementation of the ADA Transition Plan. Eliminating Sidewalk Hazards The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan and the City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan identify sidewalks, particularly within commercial districts and long walkable corridors, as important community amenities. Sidewalks may be used by adjacent businesses as additional retail space, outdoor seating or community gathering spaces. New policy direction encourages the activation of sidewalks to create more vibrant, pedestrian-oriented environment. New uses of the sidewalk right-of-way, however, must maintain a safe and clear path of travel and must comply with additional City regulations. Education Recommendations • Provide business owners with information about sidewalk regulations, encouraging sidewalk activation and the provision of community amenities, without obstructing a safe path of travel. • Provide information about bicycle regulations on the City’s website and through other outreach mechanisms. Enforcement Recommendations • The Building Code officer should work with retailers and eliminate the merchandise displays or signs in the pedestrian path of travel. • El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 11.40.030 prohibits vehicle parking on the curb or sidewalk. The Police Department should continue to ticket vehicles parked on the sidewalk. Overgrown Vegetation On Sidewalks And Planting Strips The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and the City of El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan both identified the importance of landscaping along sidewalks and streets to creating a pleasant pedestrian environment. Trees provide shade, help improve air quality and provide a buffer between sidewalks and busy streets. Plants and green infrastructure projects along the right-of-way help filter and capture stormwater, provide visual interest and a sense of place. Overgrown or poorly maintained vegetation, however, may limit or block the path of travel for pedestrians on the sidewalk or bicyclists traveling in the curb lane. Design Recommendations Landscaping should be limited to the Sidewalk Amenity Zone within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area within existing landscaping strips throughout the rest of the City. Where a landscaping strip doesn’t exist, a 6’ clear path of travel will be maintained on commercial streets and a 5’ clear path of travel on residential streets. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 29 Education Recommendations Inform residents about the impact of overgrown shrubbery on pedestrians and bicyclists. Ask residents to trim any vegetation that infringes on a clear travel path. Maintenance Recommendations • Ensure that landscapes at maturity do not interfere with safe sight distances for bicycle, pedestrian, or vehicular traffic; do not conflict with overhead lights, traffic controls, traffic signage, utility lines or poles, or walkway lights; do not block bicycle or pedestrian ways; and, decrease crime using environmental design principles. • Require adjacent property owners: to maintain landscaped areas with live and healthy plant materials, replacing plant materials when necessary to maintain full function and aesthetics; to water, weed, prune, fertilize and keep sidewalks and planting strips litter free. Enhance the Walking and Biking Environment Trees, sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting and public art can help promote walking and biking by creating a more pleasant and safe sidewalk environment. Design Recommendations When improving bikeways and pedestrian routes, include street trees, planting strips, lighting and appropriate street furniture, while maintaining a clear path of travel. For projects within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area, reference the sidewalk width and landscaping requirements outlined in the Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies, & Programs 30 Programs, Policies, & Practices Assessment The City of El Cerrito has made significant investments and policy updates since the 2007 Circulation Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians. The City’s existing approaches to facilitating and enhancing bicycling and walking were reviewed with a benchmarking matrix that compares the City’s programs, policies, and practices with national best practices. This assessment helped guide the Plan’s Goals and Policies outlined in the previous section. The benchmarking analysis categorizes the City’s programs, policies, and practices into three areas as follows: Key – areas where the City of El Cerrito is exceeding national best practices Enhancements—areas where the City is meeting best practices Opportunities—areas where the City appears not to meet best practices The benchmarking analysis, with associated recommendations, is presented in Table 2-1. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 31 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Bicycle Parking Ordinance Safe and convenient bicycle parking is essential for encouraging bicycle travel and increasing bicycle access to key destinations. Key Strength Per Section 19.24.090 of the City’s Municipal Code, different kinds of development require short- and long-term bicycle parking. The Code also identifies siting requirements for bicycle parking. Bicycle parking facilities are located at all parks and schools in the City in addition to each bus stop on San Pablo Avenue. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan requires short- and long- term bicycle parking for all projects within the Specific Plan area. The Plan includes design guidelines and siting requirements to maximize access and ease of use. • Update the bicycle parking requirements of the City’s Municipal Code to reflect national best practice in the form of the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professional’s (APBP’s) Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2 nd Edition. • Consider creating an on-street bicycle parking program to allow businesses, business districts, and residents to petition the City to install on-street bicycle corrals. • Place bicycle parking in bulbouts or bus bulbs. Provision for Density and Mixed-Use Development in General Plan Planning principles contained in a city’s General Plan can provide an important policy context for developing bikeable and walkable areas. Transit-oriented development (TOD), higher densities, and mixed uses are important planning tools for walking- and bicycling- oriented areas. The Circulation Element of the General Plan typically assigns roadway typologies, which can include a layered network approach with prioritized corridors for transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and auto travel. Key Strength Higher density is allowed and encouraged at the City’s three focal points centered on San Pablo Avenue: Del Norte BART, Midtown, and El Cerrito Plaza BART. San Pablo Avenue is designated as a mixed-use corridor in the City’s General Plan and San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan. • With the next General Plan update, ensure the Circulation Element is consistent with this Plan. • Extend transit orientated and mixed use zoning beyond the areas already identified. • Consider maximum (rather than minimum) parking ratios in TOD districts. • Implement the San Pablo Avenue Specific and Complete Streets Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 32 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Adoption of Open Space Requirements Requiring open spaces throughout a City and strategically located along transit corridors promotes and improves walkability by providing pedestrian amenities, places of interest and community gathering spaces. Key Strength The City’s Urban Greening Plan (draft, 2015) plans for parks and open space connections throughout the City. The Plan aims to identify needs, opportunities, and strategies for creating a greener more environmentally sustainable City by increasing connectivity, improving existing green spaces and creating new ones. • Complete a nexus study to consider a funding mechanism, such as impact fees, to pay for acquisition and maintenance of open space. • Create privately-owned public and private open space requirements for new developments. Develop an in-lieu program to assess fees on new projects that cannot meet these requirements, to pay for acquisition elsewhere Street Tree Requirements Street trees enhance the pedestrian environment by providing shade and buffer from vehicles. There are social, environmental, and economic benefits to maintaining an urban forest. Key Strength The El Cerrito Urban Forest Management Plan (2007) created a tree inventory throughout the City and required that new development projects plant street trees. The City Tree Committee recommends programs, policies and ordinances to implement and promote the City’s Master Street Tree Plan and Urban Forest Management Plan and coordinates with Public Works Department staff regarding management and maintenance efforts. • Coordinate with the standing Tree Committee on urban forestry issues throughout the City. • Implement recommendations contained in the Urban Greening Plan and streetscape design guidelines contained in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan as they relate to street tree requirements. Law Enforcement Enforcement of the rules of the road is a key part of bicyclist and pedestrian support programs. Key Strength • The City has two traffic safety officer positions who devote half their time to pedestrian safety training and enforcement. The officers participate in school outreach where they discuss pedestrian and bicycle safety with students. • The Neighborhood Pace Car Pledge Program encourages self-enforcement by allowing El Cerrito resident s to pledge to drive slower and safer. • Implement the adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to address neighborhood traffic concerns. •Establish pedestrian and bicycle-specific education programs. •Proactively work with BART to address safety concerns near BART stations and the Ohlone Greenway. •Collaborate with other cities, such as Richmond, to share law enforcement resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 33 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Crosswalk Installation, Removal, and Enhancement Policy Establishing a clear protocol for when and how to stripe crosswalks and whether to include crossing enhancements creating a consistent application of treatments citywide. Key Strength This Plan includes a citywide Crosswalk Policy that addresses crosswalk installation, removal, and enhancements. • Consult and implement the Crosswalk Policy contained in this Plan (Appendix Updated ADA Transition Plan for Streets and Sidewalks Key Strength The City adopted the ADA Transition Plan in 2009. It addresses the primary pedestrian routes and public facilities in El Cerrito, determines if any modifications are necessary to improve accessibility, and presents a timeline for completing improvements. • Create a tracking system for ADA requests and improvements, with potential for web-based tracking. • Continue to retrofit pedestrian signals with audible features, and add vibrotactile features. • Install two curb ramps per corner when retrofitting intersections. Inventory of Sidewalks, Informal Pathways, and Key Pedestrian Opportunity Areas Conducting an inventory of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the community is a critical first step to addressing deficiencies in the network and prioritizing future projects. Key Strength Many of the City’s informal pathways have been identified through the Trail Trekker’s map and are reflected in the Plan’s Pedestrian Network. • Create and periodically update a GIS-based inventory of sidewalks and pathways. General Plan Designation of Pedestrian Nodes Key Strength The El Cerrito Del Norte and El Cerrito Plaza BART Stations in addition to the Midtown area are the three designated pedestrian nodes within the City. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan designate San Pablo Avenue as priority street for pedestrians and transit. Schools and parks are also considered pedestrian nodes. • Reduce block on San Pablo Avenue, through midblock connections as identified in the Specific Plan • Identify and create more subarea plans within El Cerrito that are well-suited for pedestrian nodes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 34 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Safe Routes to School Program and Grant Funding Safe Routes to School programs encourage and educate students and parents on how to safely walk and bicycle to school. Enhancement Through Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS), two elementary schools currently have Safe Routes programs: Fairmont Elementary School and Harding Elementary School. • Work with Contra Costa Health Services to build on safe routes to school programs in El Cerrito schools and apply for additional safe routes to school funding. • Establish both infrastructure and non-infrastructure programs that encourage students, parents and teachers to walk or bike to school. Adoption of a Transit First Policy Transit First policies designate areas where transit mobility is prioritized over vehicle mobility. Enhancement El Cerrito’s General Plan incorporates a Transit First Policy, which is applied primarily to San Pablo Avenue, a major corridor for transit vehicles operating in a congested environment. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan adopted a multimodal level of service for projects within the Plan area that prioritized pedestrian and transit modes of travel. • Strengthen the City’s existing Transit First policy to incorporate all active modes and serve as a Complete Streets Policy for the City. • Include a Safe Routes to Transit policy that maintains enhanced bicycle parking and other bicycle infrastructure at transit stations, pedestrian amenities and commuter benefits. Collision History and Collision Reporting Practices Collision information helps prioritize bicycle and pedestrian projects. Enhancement The City currently relies on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database for collision analysis, but has received a grant to purchase analysis software called Intersection Magic, which has not yet been obtained. • Obtain Intersection Magic software. • Develop program to collect and analyze pedestrian and bicycle collision data. • Develop a mechanism for tracking collisions on the Ohlone Greenway. Use of Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) and Pedestrian Scrambles LPIs provide pedestrians with “head start” signal timing before vehicles on the parallel street are allowed to proceed through the intersection. Pedestrian scrambles create an exclusive pedestrian signal phase. Enhancement The City has installed an LPI at the Fairmount/Ashbury intersection. • Consider additional locations for LPI placement where pedestrian volumes are high. • Consider installing an exclusive pedestrian phase, such as a pedestrian scramble at key pedestrian demand areas, such as near retail areas and schools. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 35 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Proper Use of Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic Control Devices and Detection (Signs, Markings, and Signals) Enhancement The City monitors its signals on a basis to check for needed repairs. The City has upgraded many of its pedestrian signals to include pedestrian countdown signals. Nearly 100% of all signal s in the City have LED signal heads. • Opportunistically adjust the timing clearance intervals at signalized intersections to account for the time needed for a bicyclist to clear the intersection and for 3.5 foot/second clearance interval for pedestrians • Opportunistically provide bicycle detection at all signalized intersections, with priority given to designated bicycle routes. • Opportunistically install pedestrian countdown signals at signalized intersections. Pedestrian-Oriented Traffic Signal and Stop Sign Warrants All-way stop controlled intersections improves pedestrian safety by reducing conflicts and improving visibility. Enhancement El Cerrito currently uses MUTCD warrants for traffic signal and stop sign placement. • Consider relaxed all-way stop control warrants that allow more flexibility for accommodating pedestrians at intersections. Albany and Contra Costa County both use warrants that could serve as models. Pedestrian-Oriented Speeds Limits and Speed Survey Practices Pedestrian fatality rates increase exponentially with vehicle speed. Reducing vehicle speeds in pedestrian zones is one of the most important strategies for enhancing pedestrian safety. Enhancement The City has created a 15MPH speed limit zone on Lincoln Avenue near El Cerrito High School. • Proactively set speed limits and consider pedestrian volumes as a criterion in setting speed limits. Adoption of Newspaper Rack Ordinance News rack ordinances improve the pedestrian realm by reducing clutter and organizing sidewalk zones by regulating the type and location of newspaper racks. Enhancement The City’s adopted ordinance (2011) applies to San Pablo Avenue and provides guidance on siting racks to not impede sidewalk mobility. The ordinance prohibits privately-owned newspaper racks, providing city-owned racks to private organizations for a fee. • Ensure consistency between the ordinance and San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan design guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 36 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Public Involvement and Feedback Process Responding to public concerns through advisory groups and public feedback mechanisms represents a more proactive and inclusive approach to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Enhancement El Cerrito has several mechanisms for receiving public comment on pedestrian and bicycle issues and needs: personal visits to City Hall, emails and phone calls to the Public Works Department, and submissions via the City’s website. The City tracks requests in a database and provides status updates. The City has an ADA Working Group that provides guidance on implementation of the ADA Transition Plan and requests from the public. • Create a robust web-based tracking system for complaints, allowing complainants to track the progress and status of their complaints. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs encourage multi-modal travel by incentivizing non-drive- alone options. As new development occurs, TDM programs can be expanded, formalized, and strengthened. Enhancement The City has a TDM Program for employees that subsidizes commuter vouchers. The City’s Employee Commuter Benefits Program is in compliance with the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission under Senate Bill 1339. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan requires basic TDM for all new developments. Projects proposing 0-0.5 auto spaces/residential unit or 0-0.5 auto spaces/1,000 sf commercial (TOHIMU) and 0-1 auto spaces/residential unit or 0-0.5 auto spaces/500 sf commercial (TOMIMU) may be required to perform a parking study and/or provide additional TDM measures. There are electronic bike lockers at City Hall,. 511.org, operated by the West Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, provides local TDM resources. • Establish Citywide TDM policies as conditions of approval for development citywide. • Establish a Transportation Management Association (TMA) for the three core areas (El Cerrito Plaza, Del Norte, and Midtown) to coordinate parking, transit, and other TDM strategies and policies. •The Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide them with commuter benefits. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 37 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Public Art Public art encourages walking by improving the pedestrian realm and walking experience. Enhancement El Cerrito has an Art In Public Places ordinance whereby new development projects must include 1% of their overall budget for public art or donate the same amount to the City art fund. • Create walking tours and promotional materials highlighting public art. Attention to Crossing Barriers Crossing barriers, such as, freeways and major arterials, may discourage, or even prohibit, pedestrian access. Identifying and removing barriers and preventing new barriers is essential for improving walkability and pedestrian safety. Enhancement El Cerrito currently addresses issues on a case-by-case basis. Examples of barriers in El Cerrito include I-80 and San Pablo Avenue. • Establish a policy for pedestrian crossings at barrier locations, such as safe crossing every ¼ or ½ mile • Implement the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan to addresses San Pablo Avenue as a barrier • Collaborate with the City of Richmond and Caltrans to address I-80 barriers Bicycling and Walking Counts Routinely and systematically counting the number of people who walk and bicycle in El Cerrito is important for monitoring the effectiveness of infrastructure investments and documenting the need for continued investments in those facilities. Enhancement Pedestrian and bicycle counts are routinely collected as part of all traffic studies. • Keep records of locations where counts are available, and supplement them annually with counts in additional locations • Geocode counts to develop a GIS database Health Agencies and Non Traditional Partners Involving non-traditional partners such as emergency services, such as the Fire Department, in the planning or design of pedestrian facilities may create opportunities to be more pro-active with pedestrian safety. Enhancement Contra Costa Health Services is a regular participant in many City planning processes, including the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. • Continue to involve Contra Costa Health Services and Fire Department in the planning or design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Engage Contra Costa Health Services in implementing Safe Routes to School programs in El Cerrito Education and Encouragement Programs Education and encouragement programs also include special events that promote active transportation, such as Bicycle to Work Day or bicycling skills courses. Opportunity El Cerrito participates in the Streetwise program through Contra Costa Health Services, which emphasizes pedestrian safety education and activity promotion. El Cerrito has participates in Bike to Work Day. The City occasionally partners with Bike East Bay to provide family bicycling workshops. The Police Department also offers a variety of educational programs, as described in Chapter 6 Support Programs. • Establish a pedestrian safety campaign. • Develop a bicycle and pedestrian safety curriculum for schools and community centers. Continue to provide • Consider developing bicycling and pedestrian safety and informational brochures specific to El Cerrito. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Goals, Policies & Programs 38 TABLE 2-1 PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark El Cerrito Plans, Policies, & Programs Recommendations for Further Enhancement Traffic Management Procedures Traffic Management Procedures guide the City towards a consensus threshold on neighborhood traffic calming requests and approvals, as well as standard treatments and criteria. Enhancement In 2010, the City adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. • Ensure funding for traffic calming projects through inclusion in the CIP. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 39 3. Existing Conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 40 El Cerrito Today Land Use The City of El Cerrito is a safe, connected, and environmentally-focused Bay Area destination with vibrant neighborhoods, businesses and public places, and diverse cultural, educational and recreational opportunities for people of all ages. Centrally located along the I-80 and San Pablo Avenue corridors in the East Bay region, El Cerrito is a predominantly residential community with access to major public transportation and regional economic centers. El Cerrito is the southernmost jurisdiction in Contra Costa County. The City of Richmond is north and west and the City of Albany shares the southern border. Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and unincorporated Kensington and Richmond Heights are east and north of the City respectively. El Cerrito is a predominantly residential community. The lower elevations have a grid pattern of development, provision of sidewalks, and on-street parking. In higher elevations, the development pattern follows the natural contours of the land and is characterized by steep slopes, circuitous streets, and sporadic provision of sidewalks. Since El Cerrito is a predominantly residential community, the major economic generators in the City are commercial and retail stores to serve the residents. There are over 8,000 jobs in El Cerrito with the main areas of employment being retail (34%) and services San Pablo Avenue, historically a transit and automobile thoroughfare, is both the City’s primary commercial corridor and a major arterial connector. It lies between BART, the regional commuter rail system, and Interstate 80 (I-80), which provides direct connections to the Bay Bridge and San Francisco. The Ohlone Greenway, a regional multiuse trail, runs beneath the BART tracks and parallel to San Pablo Avenue, connecting the City’s two BART stations to other regional pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Given the close proximity to both I-80 and I-580, regional traffic congestion has a spillover effect on San Pablo Avenue, which serves as California State Route 123 from the southern city boundary to Cutting Boulevard. Several recent public and private investments have enhanced the Avenue, including Ohlone Greenway improvements, San Pablo Avenue streetscape improvements, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects, and private development to help alleviate traffic problems and to encourage walking and biking in El Cerrito. In addition to San Pablo Avenue, there is commercial development along Fairmount Avenue and Stockton Avenue. Figure 3-1 and 3-2 displays the major land uses and key destinations in El Cerrito, such as commercial centers, schools, parks and transit stations. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Existing Land Uses Land Use High Density Medium Density Low Density Very Low Density Commercial/Mixed Use Institutional & Utility Parks & Open Space Figure 3-1 Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b J  J5 Jm JI A J  J ® J W Jç PE J5 J  JI  J  JI  Jd JI  JI  San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Key Destinations n School Park Jd Department of Motor Vehicles J W City Hall J ® El Cerrito Community Center J  Library J5 Grocery Store J  Post Office J  Recycling Center Jç PE Pacific East Mall Jm Cerrito Theater JI A Pastime Ace Hardware JI  Shopping District Figure 3-2 City of El Cerrito Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza Upper Fairmount Shopping District Upper Stockton Shopping District Moeser Shopping District J< El Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Shopping District El Cerrito Community Center ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 43 Existing Walking Network Walking Network El Cerrito seeks to provide a safe, convenient, continuous and interconnected pedestrian circulation system throughout the city. As described above, the flat portions of the City have a grid network while the streets in the hills follow a more curvilinear route. Typical local streets are about 30 to 40 feet wide and allow for on-street parking on both sides. Sidewalks are provided along a majority of the streets in the grid network. Some locations have planting strips that provide a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. San Pablo Avenue is the major commercial arterial through the City and serves as a connection to major destinations, as well as serving as a major destination itself. Sidewalks and crosswalks are provided along the full length of the corridor, with periodic landscape buffering between the street and sidewalk. Near schools, transit stations, trails and other popular pedestrian destinations, sidewalks, crosswalks and additional pedestrian markings are provided. There are several mixed use paths that help connect El Cerrito with neighboring cities. The Ohlone Greenway is a major bicycle and pedestrian facility that is used for both recreational and utilitarian trips. The Baxter Creek Greenway Restoration (2005) is an extension of the Ohlone Greenway north to San Pablo Avenue. The City of Richmond has a related project that will connect the Ohlone Greenway to the Richmond Greenway. The Cerrito Creek Greenway, located at the City’s southern border, provides pedestrian access on a pathway and sidewalks along Cerrito Creek from the Ohlone Greenway to Creekside Park. Other pedestrian paths and fire trails are located in the Hillside Natural Areas, Canyon Trail Park, and Huber Park. In addition to those, the Trail Trekkers, with the assistance of the National Park Service, has mapped a variety of other informal pathways and trails that are often used or in need of development. Figure 3-3 provides a detailed map of the existing pedestrian network. Appendix D presents a detailed discussed of pedestrian facilities around the City’s major transit hubs. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí ▌ + +89:m èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Existing Pedestrian Network for the El Cerrito ATP Existing Public Trail/Path City Sidewalk Trail Link Impassible Public Trail Impassible Private Trail èéëìí Traffic Signal ▌ + +89:m Flashing Crosswalk Figure 3-3 City of El Cerrito Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza Existing Pedestrian Network Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 45 Existing Bicycling Network Bicycle Network Based on the range of needs of cyclists, physical constraints, and financial limitations, it is necessary to design different types of bikeways to provide connections to other bike facilities and key destinations. El Cerrito Bikeways are classified into three major classes as shown in Figure 3-4. These definitions correspond to the definitions given in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Class I Bikeways are bike paths on a separated right of way for exclusive use for bicyclists and, typically, also for pedestrians, with vehicle cross-flow minimized. The Ohlone Greenway is an example of a Class I Bikeway. Class II Bikeways, also known as bike lanes, are a restricted rightofway and are designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are generally five feet wide and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. Finally, Class III Bikeways are bicycle routes designated with signage and/or striping that provide shared use of existing travel lanes with motorists. As described in Table 3-1, there is currently one major Class I facility in El Cerrito, the Ohlone Greenway, a heavily traveled mixed-use path that runs north-south through the City. Various other bicycle facilities are located close to the BART stations and near the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Figure 3-5 depicts the existing bicycle facilities. TABLE 3-1: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES Path From To Length (miles) Class I Shared-Use Paths Ohlone Greenway San Pablo Avenue Southern City Limit 2.60 Class II Bicycle Lanes Carlson Boulevard Northern City Limit San Pablo Avenue 0.40 Eastshore Boulevard San Pablo Avenue Potrero Avenue 0.19 Moeser Lane San Pablo Avenue Pomona Avenue 0.37 Ashbury Avenue Fairmount Avenue Albany City Limit 0.35 Class III Bicycle Routes Ashbury Avenue Moeser Lane Fairmount Avenue 0.90 Belmont Avenue Lassen Street Cerrito Creek Connection 0.04 Central Avenue San Pablo Avenue Ohlone Greenway 0.21 Cutting Boulevard Ohlone Greenway Elm Street 0.25 El Cerrito Plaza Kains Avenue Evelyn Street 0.19 Elm Street Hill Street Blake Street 0.18 Hill Street Ohlone Greenway Elm Street 0.15 Kains Avenue San Pablo Avenue Southern City Limit 0.05 Key Boulevard Northern City Limit Hill Street 0.57 Lassen Street Carlson Boulevard Belmont Avenue 0.13 Potrero Avenue Western City Limit Ohlone Greenway 0.39 Richmond Street Blake Street Moeser Lane 0.82 Stockton Avenue San Pablo Avenue Ohlone Greenway 0.15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CLASS I BIKEWAY (Bike Path) Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flow minimized. AASHTO recommended minimum width is 10’ 2’ graded shoulders recommended PARKING 5’ BIKE LANE 5’-6’ BIKE LANE 4’-6’ BIKE LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE CLASS II BIKEWAY (Bike Lane) Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. 6” Solid White Stripe CLASS III BIKEWAY (Signed Bike Route) With Optional Sharrow Pavement Marking Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic. Bike Route Sign (WITH CURB & GUTTER) (NO CURB & GUTTER) Center of optional sharrow pavement marking should be 4’ minimum from curb where no parking is present Center of optional sharrow pavement marking should be 11’ minimum from curb where parallel parking is present; center of travel lane is preferred 8’-10‘’ TYPICAL TOTAL WIDTH Bike Lane Sign optional Figure 3-4 Existing Bikeway Classifications F ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Existing Bicycle Network Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III with Sharrows Figure 3-5 City of El Cerrito Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza Existing Bicycle Network Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 48 Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking and support facilities are needed at civic, residential, commercial, and office spaces to accommodate both short term and long term parking. Parking is a lowcost effective way to encourage cycling and improve the functionality of a bikeway network; it reduces the threat of theft, makes bicyclists feel welcome and increases the visibility of bicycling. Table 3-2 lists known locations where bicycle parking – racks and/or lockers – can be found. Bicycle parking facilities may be classified either as longterm (also known as Class I) or shortterm (Class II). Class I parking is meant to be used for more than two hours and is typically used by employees at work, students at school, commuters at transit stations and residents at home. Class I facilities are secure and weatherprotected; examples include bike lockers and “bicycle corrals” (fencedin areas usually secured by lock and opened by keys provided to users). Class II, or shortterm parking, is meant for visitors, customers at stores and other users who normally park for less than two hours. The most common example of Class II parking is bicycle racks. Racks should be installed according to manufacturers’ guidelines; be located in secure, welllit and highly visible areas; be located as close as possible to the main entrance and no farther from the entrance than the nearest nonhandicapped car parking space; be anchored to the ground; and, allow for the locking of both the frame and wheels of a bicycle. Bicycle Parking Policies The El Cerrito Municipal Code sets forth guidelines for required bicycle parking in Section 19.24.090 and in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. The number of required spaces varies based on building type: residential buildings have required spaces per unit, school requirements are based on number of classrooms, parking facilities requirements are based on number of auto spaces, and commercial and public building requirements are based on square footage. The detailed list of required bicycle parking spaces is shown on Table 19.24-D of the Municipal Code and FBC Table 29 of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Municipal Code 19.24.100 describes short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards for the City. This includes detailed standards for the parking location relative to the buildings it serves, as well as standards for bike lockers, bike racks, and the security and visibility of each. End of Trip Facilities El Cerrito has numerous existing bicycle parking facilities at major destinations throughout the City. In conjunction with a recent streetscape project on San Pablo Avenue, bicycle racks are now provided at every bus stop along the corridor. Bike parking is also provided at all schools and parks, both BART stations, City Hall, and the Community Center. Known existing bicycle parking locations are presented in Table 3-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 49 TABLE 3-2 EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING LOCATIONS Location Short-Term Spaces1 Lockers2 Plaza BART Station 94 96 del Norte BART Station 126 44 City Hall 5 2 Community Center 14 0 Recycling Center 4 1 Library 3 0 Senior Center 1 0 Corporation Yard 0 1 Public Safety Building 2 2 DMV 2 2 Well Grounded 1 0 Ifshin Violins 1 0 San Pablo Ave City Limits to Potrero 12 0 Potrero to Moeser 16 0 Moeser to City Limits 40 0 Parks Tassajara Park 2 0 Canyon Trail Park 10 0 Hillside Natural Area unknown Castro Park 2 0 Cerrito Vista Park 8 0 Fairmount Park 0 0 Central Park 0 Creekside Park 0 Arlington Park 2 0 Poinsett Park 0 0 Huber Park 0 0 Harding Park 2 0 Schools Number of Spaces/Number of Students Cameron School 0/unknown Castro School 0/290 Tehiya Day School 0/290 Prospect Sierra 0/245 Sierra School 2/245 St. John's School 2/278 Madera School 0/350 Portola Middle School 0/650 Fairmount School 10/300 El Cerrito High School 28/1230 Harding School 0/320 St. Jerome's School 0/224 Windrush School 2/250 1. Short-term bicycle parking spaces typically consist of racks, such as inverted U-racks or staple racks, where bicyclists can secure their bikes while making short trips. 2. Each locker typically provides two secured bicycle parking spaces. Source: City of El Cerrito, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Existing Bicycle Parking ¾l Existing Bicycle Parking Facility Figure 3-6 Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 51 Existing Walking and Biking Trips A common term used in describing demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities is “mode split.” Mode split refers to the form of transportation a person chooses to take, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or driving. Table 3-3 presents the Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS, 2000) data on the number of trips and percentage mode split. Though the data is older, it provides the only currently available baseline for measuring mode shift for all trips in El Cerrito. Based on the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) reduction goals in the City’s Climate Action Plan, this Plan and the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan propose comfortable, accessible walking and biking facilities that will have the greatest ability to attract new walking and biking trips, in addition to travel demand management and parking management strategies. In order to achieve these goals, there must be a seven percent shift from autos to active modes and transit by 2040. The bicycle mode share is expected to double during that time with the build out of this Active Transportation Plan. The mode shift assumed with the build out of both plans is presented in Table 3-3. TABLE 3-3: PROJECTED INCREASE IN WALKING AND BIKING Mode Baseline Mode Split (2000)1 Mode Split with ATP and SPASP Build Out2 (2040) Auto 136,175 (79.8%) 72% Transit 16,236 (10%) 13% Bicycle 1,162 2% Pedestrian 17,033 13% 1. Number of trips and percent mode share from the Bay Area Travel Survey (2000), which is the only currently available data source for walking and biking trips of all trip types. 2. ATP=El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan, SPASP=San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan Source: El Cerrito Climate Action Plan, San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, Fehr & Peers, 2014. Collision Analysis Collision analysis is an important initial step in the citywide bicycle and pedestrian planning effort, as it can help to identify patterns in locations and collision factors that can be addressed in the Active Transportation Plan. Identifying these patterns in the context of existing pedestrian activity and safety issues can help staff and decision-makers to develop safety-related policies, priority areas for improvement, and related education and enforcement programs. While traffic collisions can affect anyone, they have a disproportionate impact on pedestrians and bicyclists, the most vulnerable users on the road. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 52 Collision data from 2007 to 2012 was acquired from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS), a database created by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Collisions in Context Understanding how the number of pedestrian-involved collisions in El Cerrito compares to cities of comparable size can be a useful planning tool. Caltrans’ Office of Traffic Safety maintains a database of collision injuries and fatalities across the state for each year. Cities are grouped by size according to total population and similar daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT). City of El Cerrito rankings for 2010, the most recent year available for Caltrans rankings, are summarized in Table 3-4 below. This data represents collisions from 2010 only. In the data summarized in Table 3-4, a high ranking indicates a higher incidence of fatality and injury records than other similar cities (based on either vehicle miles traveled or average population). Therefore, a higher ranking (with 1 as the highest possible ranking) is undesirable, and a lower ranking (with 108 as the lowest possible ranking) is most desirable. As shown in the above table, nearly 20% of all collisions in 2010 were pedestrian-related collisions; just fewer than 10% of the collisions were bicycle-related. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities rank higher than total traffic injuries and fatalities for ranking grouped by daily VMT and average population. This indicates that when compared to cities with similar daily VMT or population, El Cerrito pedestrians are disproportionately impacted by traffic collisions compared to total traffic injuries and fatalities. In general, El Cerrito runs in the high range for all traffic injuries and fatalities, ranking higher among cities with similar daily VMT and lower among cities with similar population. As with all general pedestrian collision data, this could be an indication of poor pedestrian conditions, higher pedestrian volumes, or both. TABLE 3-4: EL CERRITO COLLISION RANKINGS AMONG SIMILAR CITIES, FOR ALL TRAFFIC COLLISIONS IN 2011 Type of Collision Victims killed and injured Ranking, by Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Ranking, by Average Population1 Total fatal and injury 72 27/108 35/108 Pedestrians 10 12/108 23/108 Pedestrians < 15 2 23/108 21/108 Pedestrians 65+ 1 28/108 33/108 Bicyclists 6 35/108 41/108 Bicyclists < 15 0 86/108 104/108 Notes: 108 is the total number of cities with populations 25,000 and under for which OTS reports collision rankings. The lower the number, the higher frequency of collisions a City has compared to other California sizes with similar average population sizes. Rankings are prepared by both average population and by average vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Source: California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) 2010 Rankings When looking at these statewide rankings, several factors should be considered to contextualize the high number of pedestrian collisions. For example, the frequency of collisions can be indicators of high pedestrian ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 53 volumes and/or poor pedestrian safety conditions. As described in the previous section, El Cerrito has a high percentage of walking mode share compared to cities of similar size, which may contribute to its high pedestrian collision ranking. Walking Intersection Trends Approximately 68 percent (41) of all pedestrian-related collisions between 2007 and 2012 occurred at intersections. The remaining 32 percent (19) occurred at mid-block locations. Table 3-5 presents the 5 intersections with two or more reported pedestrian collisions between 2007 and 2012. TABLE 3-5: INTERSECTIONS WITH TWO OR MORE PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS – 2007 TO 2012 Intersection Collisions Reported San Pablo Avenue & Lincoln Avenue 3 San Pablo Avenue & Wall Avenue 2 Carlson Boulevard & Central Avenue 2 Carlson Boulevard & San Diego Street 2 Potrero Avenue & Eastshore 2 Source: SWITRS 2007-2012 These five intersections account for approximately 27 percent (11) of all pedestrian-involved collisions reported from 2007 to 2012. Of the collisions that occurred at intersections, 83 percent (34) had a primary collision factor indicating that vehicle violated the pedestrian right of way. During this same time period, the City has implemented safety improvements at many of these high-frequency collision locations, most notably the following two: San Pablo Avenue/Lincoln Avenue (2011): installed flashing crosswalk Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard (2012): installed protected left-turn, removed free right turn, and added marked crosswalk Corridor Trends Often times collision patterns are found along a corridor, where the conditions and volumes are consistent along its length. The greatest number of mid-block pedestrian collisions occurred on San Pablo Avenue. Additionally, Fairmount Avenue near Richmond Street had three collisions during this time period, a block with high pedestrian traffic due to the adjacent El Cerrito Plaza BART station. The specific collision locations are mapped on Figure 3-7. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Temporary Portola Middle School Albany Middle School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Figure 3-7 Pedestrian-Auto Collisions, 2008-2012 C i t y of El C er r i to Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza Number of Collisions 1 2 3 Existing Pedestrian Network Facilities Existing Public Trail/Path City Sidewalk Trail Link Impassible Public Trail Existing Private Trail Impassible Private Trail ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 55 Because these are the areas with the highest concentration of pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes, a higher number of collisions are not unexpected. Many of these roadways are multi-lane arterials, and some are two-lane roadways. Therefore, pedestrian collision risk is not limited to the widest, most difficult to cross corridors and solutions should be developed with a variety of roadway characteristics in mind. Biking Approximately 48 percent (28) of all bicycle-related collisions between 2007 and 2012 occurred at intersections. The remaining 52 percent (30) occurred at mid-block locations. Of the intersection collisions reported during this period, 50 percent occurred along San Pablo Avenue (8 collisions) and at Ohlone Greenway crossings (6 collisions). Table 3-6 presents intersections with the highest number of bicycle-auto collisions. TABLE 3-6: INTERSECTIONS WITH TWO OR MORE BICYCLE-INVOLVED COLLISIONS – 2007 TO 2012 Intersection Collisions Reported Cutting Boulevard & Ohlone Greenway (El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station) 2 Fairmount Avenue & Ohlone Greenway (El Cerrito Plaza BART Station) 2 San Pablo Avenue & Carlson Boulevard 2 Source: SWITRS 2007-2012 The greatest number of mid-block collisions occurred on San Pablo Avenue and Central Avenue These two corridors account for 47% of the reported mid-block collisions from 2007-2012. All of the bicycle collisions on Central Avenue occur near the Plaza BART station, likely due to the higher bicycle traffic associated with the station. The specific collision locations are mapped on Figure 3-8. As with the pedestrian collisions, a higher number of bicycle collisions are not unexpected on San Pablo Avenue, Ohlone Greenway, and Central Avenue due to the high volume of traffic for all modes. During the same time period as the collision counts, the City has implemented safety improvements at many of the high-frequency collision locations, including: Cutting Boulevard/Ohlone Greenway: Greenway path improvements (2013) and flashing crosswalk installed (2014) Fairmount Avenue/Ohlone Greenway (2013): Greenway path improvements and One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) – funded improvements to be installed San Pablo Avenue/Carlson Boulevard (2013): Class II bicycle lanes striped and installed protected left-turn signal ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av vA asuloC Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av vA zeniuqraC Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd vA solraC naS Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln tS segnaG Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av vA abuY Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl dvlB erohstsaE Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av vA eF atnaS Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Temporary Portola Middle School Albany Middle School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station n n n n n n n n n n n n n ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av vA asuloC Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av vA zeniuqraC Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd vA solraC naS Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln tS segnaG Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av vA abuY Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl dvlB erohstsaE Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av vA eF atnaS Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Temporary Portola Middle School Albany Middle School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Bicycle-Auto Collisions, 2008-2012 Figure 3-8 C i t y of El C er r i to Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza Number of Collisions 1 2 Existing Bicycle Network Facilities Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class III with Sharrows 4 5 b b ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Existing Conditions 57 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 58 4. Proposed Networks ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 59 This section presents the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks, including specific proposed improvements. The information contained in this chapter uses the networks from the 2007 Circulation Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians as a base and provides updates based on circulation patterns and best practices in bicycle and pedestrian planning and design. The focus of the updates was on the creation of comfortable, accessible, safe, and connected walking and biking networks. Fieldwork was conducted to provide preliminary feasibility assessments for projects. Input from the City and the community alongside engineering judgment was used to determine proposed projects. Additional community outreach will be conducted during the final design of all projects. Proposed Sidewalk and Pathway Network As a result of the changes in topography and character of El Cerrito neighborhoods, the pedestrian network consists of roadways with sidewalks, shared-use pathways, stairs and trails through the hills, and shoulders and roadways where sidewalks may not be feasible or desired. This Plan defines primary pedestrian routes through the City as a framework for understanding which routes have been be prioritized for improvements, particularly ADA accessibility improvements. On these routes, paths of travel that have a safe, accessible, and comfortable walking environment are highest priority. In some areas, safety and accessibility improvements are needed, including the installation of new sidewalks, striped crosswalks, and curb ramps. At other locations, streetscape improvements are needed to slow traffic, provide shade or vegetation, and increase lighting at night. The primary pedestrian network is shown on Figure 4-1. Additionally, intersections pose particular safety concerns for pedestrians. At these nodes, pedestrians must transition between the sidewalk and the street level while being cognizant of vehicular traffic movements. Typical hazards include high traffic volumes and speeds, wide streets with long crossing distances, complex signal timing or no traffic control, poor sight lines, lack of accessible ramps, and uneven or broken pavement in the crosswalk. Depending on the specific location, there are various improvements that will create a safer pedestrian environment at these areas of conflict. These improvements may consist of geometric improvements, such as reconfiguring intersections or reducing crossing distances with curb extensions, as well as striping, signing, lighting, and traffic control improvements. A comprehensive citywide crosswalk policy to guide the enhancement, installation, and removal of crosswalks is located in Appendix A. A list of proposed pedestrian improvements are presented in Table 4-1. Selection of Pedestrian Routes Several factors were taken into account in the designation and development of pedestrian routes within the City of El Cerrito. The selection criteria and priorities included: ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 60 Connections to local destinations, such as shopping centers, schools, civic buildings, and parks and recreational facilities Connections to regional destinations, such as bus lines, transit stations and parks Existing roadway conditions including traffic volumes, road width, lane configurations, Parking, topography, roadway pavement, and intersection control Existing sidewalk conditions including volume of pedestrians, sidewalk width, sidewalk pavement, curb ramps at intersections, street furniture, street trees and shading, adjacent vegetation, and lighting Accommodating both recreational and utilitarian walking trips Accommodating the needs of a diverse population ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí ▌ + +89:m è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí è é ëìí ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m ▌ + +89:m è é ëìí San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Proposed Sidewalk and Pathways Network Proposed Pedestrian Route Proposed Park Trail Connector Proposed Pedestrian Route and Park Trail Connector Proposed Trail Connection Existing Public Trail/Path City Sidewalk Trail Link Proposed Public Trail è é ëìí Existing Traffic Signal è é ëìí Future Traffic Signal ▌ + +89:m Flashing Crosswalk ▌ + +89:m Future Flashing Crosswalk Figure 4-1 Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza City of El Cerrito Proposed Pedestrian Network Facilities Existing Pedestrian Network Facilities Richmond Greenway ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 62 The primary pedestrian network shown on Figure 4-1 includes three minor updates to the 2007 network: the extension of the Navelleir Street route to the hillside paths at Blake Street, addition of a pedestrian route through El Cerrito Plaza connecting to the Ohlone Greenway, and addition of a pedestrian route on Central Avenue between the Bay Trail and Plaza BART Station (though this area is in Richmond and outside of the El Cerrito border). It also includes updates to the path and trails network, based on the mapping of the El Cerrito Trail Trekkers. TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) Arlington Boulevard Provide accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk installation, reconstruction, and repair between Potrero Avenue and Moeser Lane and connecting to Arlington Park, Madera School, and Mira Vista Country Club 1.3 Work with AC Transit to improve accessibility of bus stops Reduce crossing distances, narrow roadway to prevent autos passing each other at intersections, and improve sight distance at intersections with curb extensions/corner radii tightening at: Potrero Avenue, Brewster Drive (east side), Buckingham Drive (all corners), Thors Bay Road, Villa Nueva Drive, Don Carol Drive, and Moeser Lane (NW and NE corners) TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) Work with property owners to maintain hedges and other vegetation that obscures visibility to/from side streets Conduct Stop-warrant analysis at multiple locations on Arlington and consider installing all-way stop control to control traffic along corridor and improve pedestrian safety at crosswalks Install Yield Here to Pedestrian signs and advanced yield markings on all uncontrolled crosswalks Evaluate driver-yielding compliance at all existing uncontrolled crosswalks to determine if additional enhancements, such as and/or traffic calming devices should be considered Navellier Street Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk installation, reconstruction, and repair 0.75 Ashbury Avenue Provide accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair. 1.2 Richmond Street Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk installation, reconstruction, and repair 1.8 Ohlone Greenway Improve crossings per Ohlone Greenway Master Plan Design Guidelines 2.6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 63 TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) Improve connections between Ohlone Greenway and El Cerrito Plaza Implement crossing improvements and path improvements at Del Norte and Plaza BART Stations as part of OBAG-funded project Remove STOP control on Greenway and replace with YIELD control for path at: Knott Avenue, Blake Street, Manila Avenue, Schmidt Lane, Portola Avenue, Waldo Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue Complete connection to Richmond Greenway Key Boulevard Intersection improvements at Conlon Avenue and Elm Street - San Pablo Avenue Implement the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan 2.5 Improve crosswalk frequency and reduce crossing distances Cerrito Creek Trail/ BART to Bay Bicycle and Pedestrian Route Work with the City of Richmond to extend the trail to Pierce Street, install a Class I Path underneath the I-80, and improve Bay Trail crossings and access at Central Avenue/ Rydin Road by installing a traffic light 0.6 Work with El Cerrito Plaza developers to create a clear bicycle and pedestrian route through the Plaza, connecting with Carlson Boulevard TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) Look for opportunities to widen the existing path between Santa Clara Avenue and Adams Street Improve crosswalk frequency with high- visibility crosswalk enhanced with or pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) at San Diego Street, Fairmount Avenue, and Adams Street/Cerrito Creek (phased with City of Albany proposed Cerrito Creek Path/Adams Street bridge improvements) Reduce crossing distances at existing high- visibility crosswalks on Lassen Street with curb extensions Enhance trailhead at Adams Street and coordinate with the City of Albany to connect with the proposed Adams Street Bridge over Cerrito Creek Fairmount Avenue and Colusa Avenue Corridor Provide an accessible path and improve the streetscape between the Ohlone Greenway and the eastern City Boundary 0.8 Install raised crosswalks between Richmond Street and Ashbury Street Install mark high-visibility crosswalk, and install median refuges and curb extensions at Fairmount Avenue/Carlson Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 64 TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) Implement the planned pedestrian intersection improvement projects on Fairmount near Plaza BART through the OBAG-funded grant project Central Avenue Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the Ohlone Greenway and Ashbury Avenue 0.8 Implement planned improvements to the Ohlone Greenway crossing at Plaza BART Station through the OBAG-funded grant improvement Stockton Avenue Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between San Pablo Avenue and Ashbury Avenue 0.4 Schmidt Lane Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the Ohlone Greenway and the Recycling Center 0.6 TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) Potrero Avenue Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the western City boundary and Richmond Street 0.5 Barrett Avenue Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the western City boundary and Arlington Boulevard 0.8 Cutting Boulevard Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction, repair, and installation 0.12 Implement planned pedestrian improvements to the Ohlone Greenway crossing and Greenway alignment near del Norte BART and through OBAG-funded grant project Improve intersection at San Pablo Avenue and stripe all crossings per the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan Hill Street Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrian through sidewalk installation and repair 0.23 Improve intersection at Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 65 TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) Improve intersection at San Pablo Avenue/Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard and stripe all crosswalks per the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan Implement planned pedestrian improvements to the Ohlone Greenway and Safeway Driveway crossings near Del Norte BART as part of the OBAG-funded project Park Trail Corridors Consider purchasing undeveloped properties bordering park areas to enhance trail connections 5.8 Improve and maintain sidewalks, hillside paths/stairs, and fire trails Provide signage, including mileage, along trail corridors Hillside Pathways and Stairs Improve and maintain paths/stairs, including the provision of handrails and posting signs - Maintain GIS map of all paths and stairs within the public right-of-way Impassable Trails Improve all impassable trails within the City of El Cerrito right-of-way to provide accessible trails 1.2 All Intersections Install pedestrian countdown heads and update signal timings to 3.5 feet/second or current MUTCD standards at signalized intersections and update curb ramps to current ADA standards at all intersections - TABLE 4-1: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pedestrian Route Proposed Improvements1 Length (miles) 1. Chapter 5 Focus Area Projects includes additional details and concepts for the Arlington Boulevard, Carlson Boulevard, Cerrito Creek Trail/ BART to Bay Bicycle and Pedestrian Route, and Fairmount Avenue projects. Bicycle Network Users of bicycle facilities have varying skill and comfort levels depending upon age, experience, and abilities. As a result, some bicyclists are willing to ride on streets and maneuver around traffic while others avoid streets and only use facilities dedicated for bicyclists and pedestrians. Additionally, there is a large segment of the population that may be interested but concerned about bicycling, especially in high traffic-stress environments. As a result, the proposed network allows for the needs of diverse cyclists through the creation of bicycle facilities on traffic-calmed roadways while also accommodating bicyclists who may prefer a more direct route on a higher volume roadway. The bicycle network is designed to provide access to transit, schools, parks, key shopping destinations and regional trails, including the Ohlone Greenway and the Bay Trail, for bicyclists of all skill levels. Bikeway Classifications Based on the various needs of cyclists, physical constraints, and financial limitations, it is necessary to designate and design different types of ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 66 bikeways that provide connections to other bikeways and key destinations. El Cerrito Bikeways are classified into six major classes. Several of these definitions correspond to the definitions given in the Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual (HDM), and the remainder of the definitions correspond to best practices as established by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO): Shared-Use Path (HDM Class I Bikeway) Cycle Tracks (One-Way or Two-Way) Buffered Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Lanes (HDM Class II Bike Lane) Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle Routes with Sharrows The proposed bikeway classifications are defined in Figures 4-2A and 4- 2B. Bicycle Network Figure 4-3 presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of El Cerrito. The network will improve connections to key routes and destinations in the City, such as San Pablo Avenue, the BART stations, the Ohlone Greenway, and Bay Trail. Some of the major route improvements include a cycle-track along San Pablo Avenue and the City’s first bike boulevards along Lincoln Avenue, Ablemarle Street, as well as many others. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sidewalk Sidewalk Not to scale SHARED-USE PATH (CLASS I PATH) Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flow minimized. 8’-12’ Typical Total Width AASHTO recommended minimum width is 10’ with 2’ graded shoulders recommended Not to scale BICYCLE LANES Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Parking 4’-6’ Bike Lane Bike Lane Sign Optional 4’-6’ Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Sidewalk Sidewalk Not to scale Modified Note: Chevrons should be used instead of diagonal hatching where striped buffers are over 3 feet in width. Buffers can either be located on either both sides of the bicycle lane or only one side. CYCLETRACK Provides a physically separated bicycle lane for increased comfort and protection of bicyclists. Can be physically separated by a barrier, such as planters or on-street parking, or grade-separation from the roadway. Parking Parking Lane and 3’ Buffer Travel Lane Travel Lane 5’-6’ Bike Lane and 3’ Buffer 5’-6’ Bike Note: Additional traffic devices such as speed tables, chicanes, medians, wayfinding signs, and pavement markings are also included. Proposed Bikeway Classifications 6 Figure 4-2A ---PAGE BREAK--- Travel Lane Sidewalk Travel Lane BICYCLE ROUTE WITH SHARROWS Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic. Center of optional sharrow pavement marking should be 11’ minimum from curb where parallel parking is present; center of travel lane is preferred Center of optional sharrow pavement marking should be 4’ minimum from curb where no parking is present Bike Route Sign Sidewalk Not to scale Note: Additional traffic devices such as speed tables, chicanes, medians, wayfinding signs, and pavement markings are also included. Proposed Bikeway Classifications 6 Figure 4-2B Shared on-street facility with improvements to manage vehicle speed and volume and prioritize bicycle traffic. Sidewalk Sidewalk Not to scale Parking Parking Travel Travel Bicycle Boulevard Signs Note: Additional traffic devices such as speed tables, chicanes, medians, wayfinding signs, and pavement markings are also included. Sidewalk Sidewalk Not to scale BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE Modified on-street bike lane with vehicle and/or parking-side buffer for addional comfort and safety on higher speed or volume roadways Note: Chevrons should be used instead of diagonal hatching where striped buffers are over 3 feet in width. Buffers can either be located on either both sides of the bicycle lane or only one side. Parking 1.5’-2 Striped Buffer 1’-2’ Striped Buffer 1.5-4’ Striped Buffer Travel Lane Travel Lane 4’-6’ Bike Lane Bike Lane 4’-6’ BICYCLE BOULEVARD ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 69 A list of proposed bicycle improvements is presented in Table 4-2. A summary of the proposed facility types and network mileage is presented in Table 4-3. TABLE 4-2 PROPOSED BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Segment Description Miles Shared-Use Paths Richmond Greenway-Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Gap closure and trail crossing 0.13 Cerrito Creek Trail Widen trail 0.40 Hill Street Between San Pablo Avenue and the Ohlone Greenway Cycle Tracks San Pablo Avenue One-way parking-separated cycle tracks between Potrero Avenue and Lincoln Avenue 2.54 Carlson Boulevard Complete a bikeway feasibility study looking at a cycle track on Carlson Boulevard between the Richmond border and San Pablo Avenue - Buffered Bicycle Lanes Eastshore Boulevard Between Hill Street and Potrero Avenue 0.18 Bicycle Lanes Central Avenue Between Carlson Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue 0.05 Cutting Boulevard Between Ohlone Greenway and San Pablo Avenue 0.06 Hill Street Between Ohlone Greenway and Elm Street 0.14 Potrero Avenue Between western city limit and Ohlone Greenway 0.56 San Pablo Avenue Between Wall Avenue and Potrero Avenue 0.52 Bicycle Routes with Sharrows Arlington Boulevard Between northern and southern city limits 2.43 Avis Drive Between Moeser Lane and Stockton Avenue 0.22 Barrett Ave Between western city limit and Arlington Boulevard 0.79 Blake Street Between Norvell Street and Navellier Street 0.17 Carmel Avenue Between southern city limit and Fairmount Avenue 0.10 Colusa Avenue Between Terrace Avenue and southern city limit. Consider an all-way stop and other traffic control devices at the intersection of Colusa Avenue/Terrace Avenue to facilitate bicycle travel on and to/from Colusa. 1.02 Elm Street Between Hill Street and Cutting Boulevard 0.13 Fairmount Avenue Green-backed sharrows between Carlson Boulevard and Colusa Avenue 0.72 Hagen Boulevard Between Cutting Boulevard and Mira Vista Drive 0.06 Key Boulevard Between Knott Avenue and Elm Street increase frequency of sharrow markings and signage. 0.32 Knott Avenue Between San Pablo Avenue and Ohlone Greenway 0.06 Manila Avenue Between Ohlone Greenway and San Pablo Avenue 0.09 Mira Vista Drive Between Hagen Boulevard and Barrett Avenue 0.51 Navellier Drive Between Blake Street and Moeser Lane 0.85 Portola Drive Between Ohlone Greenway and San Pablo Avenue 0.11 Potrero Avenue Between San Pablo Avenue and Navellier Street 0.51 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 70 Rifle Range Drive Between northern city limit and Arlington Boulevard 0.48 San Pablo Avenue Green-backed sharrows between Lincoln Avenue and southern city limit 0.42 Green-backed sharrows between Wall Avenue and northern city limit 0.18 Schmidt Lane Between San Pablo Avenue and Navellier Street 0.62 Stockton Avenue Between Ohlone Greenway and Terrace Avenue 0.28 Terrace Drive Between Stockton Avenue and Arlington Boulevard 1.45 Waldo Avenue Between San Pablo Avenue and Ohlone Greenway 0.13 Bicycle Boulevards Blake Street Between Ohlone Greenway and San Pablo Avenue 0.30 Everett Street Between Blake Street and Schmidt Lane 0.60 Schmidt Lane Between Everett Street and Richmond Street 0.05 Richmond Street Between Schmidt Lane and Portola Drive 0.11 Portola Drive Between Richmond Street and Everett Street 0.07 Everett Street Between Portola Drive and Waldo Avenue 0.12 Waldo Avenue Between Everett Street and Norvell Street 0.05 Norvell Street Between Waldo Avenue and Eureka Avenue 0.32 Eureka Avenue Between Norvell Street and Albemarle Street 0.05 Albemarle Street Between Eureka Avenue and Fairmount Avenue 0.40 Fairmount Avenue Between Albemarle Street and Behrens Street 0.02 Behrens Street Between Fairmount Avenue and City Limit 0.30 Kearney Street Between Moeser Lane and Fairmount Avenue 0.82 Lincoln Avenue Between San Pablo Avenue and Ashbury Avenue. Install additional bicycle-friendly speed humps and consider stop-sign flipping to reduce speeds and give priority to the bicycle boulevard 0.53 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking is proposed at key locations, as shown on Figure 4-4. Additional bicycle parking is required as part of future new developments and will likely increase the number of bicycle parking spaces along commercial corridors and in higher-density neighborhoods. TABLE 4-3: PROPOSED LENGTH OF BICYCLING NETWORK Bikeway Classification Proposed (mi) Shared-Use Path 0.53 Cycletracks 2.54 Buffered Bicycle Lanes 0.18 Bicycle Lanes 1.33 Bicycling Route with Sharrows 11.47 Bicycle Boulevard 3.74 TOTAL 19.79 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Proposed Bicycle Network Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III with Sharrows Bicycle Boulevard One-Way Cycle Tracks Two-Way Cycle Tracks Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III with Sharrows Figure 4-2 City of El Cerrito Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza Proposed Bicycle Network Facilities Existing Bicycle Network Facilities Richmond Greenway ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l ¾l San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect-Sierra Elementary School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Korematsu Middle School Albany Middle School Montessori Family School Stege Elementary School Summit School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station Proposed Bicycle Parking ¾l Existing Bicycle Parking Facility ¾l Proposed Bicycle Parking Facility Figure 4-4 Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Proposed Networks 73 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 74 5. Focus Area Projects ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 75 Given the large number of improvement projects to be completed in the City, creating a clear framework for how active transportation projects are prioritized is critical. The City of El Cerrito selected nine focus areas citywide for active transportation enhancements, as these were determined to require additional evaluation as part of implementation of the previous Circulation Plan.. These projects were identified by the City based on demand for walking and biking, community interest, and safety considerations. For each of the nine focus area projects, a grant-ready fact sheet and concept plan are presented. The intention of these fact sheets and concept plans is for the City to insert them into grant applications as the City is ready to pursue grant funding for the project. Four other focus area projects are currently under planning and/or design and are not addressed in this chapter, these include: • Arlington Boulevard/Brewster Drive bicycle and pedestrian improvements • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan • Del Norte BART bicycle and pedestrian improvements • Plaza BART bicycle and pedestrian improvements In addition, the Kearney Street Bicycle Boulevard, for which more information is presented in Appendix F, has been identified as a potential long-term project. Additional analysis, community engagement and design would be required to carry that project forward. Additional projects were sorted into medium and low priority tiers. The following prioritization criteria and weights were used to sort these remaining projects: • Potential to shift bicycle and pedestrian mode share • Addresses immediate safety need • Closes critical gap • Supports economic development (access to commercial nodes) • Access to transit • Consistency with adopted plans Focus Area Projects Grant-ready fact sheets and concept plans were developed for the following nine focus area projects: 1. BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements 2. Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements 3. Citywide Wayfinding 4. Arlington Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements 5. East Side Bicycle Boulevard 6. East Side Bicycle Boulevard Wayfinding 7. Key Boulevard Improvements 8. Fairmount Avenue Improvements 9. Potrero Avenue Improvements Figures 5-1 through 5-9 and Table 5-1 present these projects. These projects will help create a highly connected active transportation network within El Cerrito and will connect to neighboring cities and amenities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 76 Additionally, these projects are likely to be competitive for grant funding. The intent of these fact sheets is that the City can insert these sheets into grant applications as it seeks competitive funding to design and construct biking and walking projects. For each project an estimated cost range is presented, inclusive of soft costs, design, and contingency. ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 1 BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements Central Avenue, Carlson Boulevard, and Cerrito Creek Connections between Plaza BART and the Bay Trail Description Issues & Opportunities Cost Background I-580, I-80, San Pablo Avenue, high traffic volumes, and poor pedestrian and bicyclist conditions on Central Avenue limit El Cerritans’ ability to access the Bay Trail. Currently, Central Avenue and Sacramento Avenue/San Joaquin Street are the primary ways to access the Bay Trail in the southern portion of El Cerrito. The Bay Trail provides regional biking and walking access through the San Francisco Bay Area. Additionally, the El Cerrito city limit is east of I-80, limiting the City’s ability to provide last mile connections to the Bay Trail. As as a result, improvements proposed for this project will be coordinated closely with the City of Richmond, Caltrans, and City of Albany, who all have jurisdiction in the project area. These recommendations are consistent with the Draft South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan (2015) and the WCCTAC Transit Enhancement Plan (2011). Near-Term and Long-Term alignments and improvements are proposed to connect El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and the existing Bay Trail access point at Rydin Road/Central Avenue. The Near-Term project would designate crossing and wayfinding improvements on Fairmount Avenue, Lassen Street, and Belmont Avenue, connecting to the existing Cerrito Creek Trail, which would be extended to Pierce Street on the south side of the Pacific East Mall. A two-way cycletrack is proposed on Pierce, connecting to a proposed shared-use path on the south side of Central Avenue to Jacuzzi Street, and the existing bicycle lanes on Central Avenue would be improved. In the Long-Term, an additional alignment on San Diego Street would provide more direct access from the El Cerrito Plaza, Ohlone Greenway, and Plaza BART. Range $4,000,000 - $ 6,000,000 • Improvements proposed along Central Avenue, Pierce Street, and the Cerrito Creek Trail extension are located in the City of Richmond and adjacent to Caltrans facilities • Trail widening may not be possible without easements or acquisitions when/if residential properties redevelop on the north side of Cerrito Creek • Traffic congestion on Central Avenue and constrained right-of-way width currently limit the ability to provide dedicated bicycle facilities • The Central Avenue/I-80 Interchange Project may present an opportunity to integrate long-term improvements into those planning efforts • Additional public outreach, study, and environmental analysis will be required to complete the design Existing narrow path width of the Cerrito Creek Trail (top), unimproved area on the south side of the Pacific East Mall parking lot, and an existing bike ramp to Belmont Avenue (bottom). Figure 5-1a BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 Proposed Near-Term Improvements EL CERRITO PLAZA PACIFIC EAST MALL CITY OF RICHMOND CITY OF ALBANY CITY OF EL CERRITO I-580 I-80 Bay Trail Bay Trail San Diego San Mateo San Luis San Joaquin Rydin Jacuzzi Belmont Adams Fairmount Central Carlson San Pablo Pierce      Lassen Construct Class I Shared-Use Path ▪ South side of Pacific East Mall Parking Lot ▪ May require easement/right of way in some areas of parking lot ▪ 10’ asphalt path plus 2’ shoulders ▪ Continuous connection between Pierce Street Path and San Pablo Avenue Construct Class I Shared-Use Path ▪ South side of Central Avenue between Jacuzzi Street and Pierce Street ▪ Requires easement/right of way between I-80 NB Ramps and Pierce ▪ 10’ asphalt path plus 2’ shoulders ▪ Traffic signal modificaitons to incorporate dedicated bicyle phase Rydin Road/Bay Trail Improvements ▪ Stripe triple-four trail crossings on north and west crosswalks to highlight presence of trail and show preferred path of travel for trail users ▪ Study feasibility of path spur to enhance Bay Trail access from westbound bike lane and north sidewalk ▪ Signalize intersection PHASE 1 NEAR TERM ALIGNMENT Stripe Two-Way Physically Separated Bikeway (Two-Way Cycle Track) ▪ West side of Pierce Street ▪ Stripe 4’ buffer with soft-hit posts between travel lane and 6’ bicycle lanes ▪ Prohibit on-street parking on west side Existing Raised Crosswalk at Termination of Class I Shared- Use Path on Pierce Street Widen Existing Bicycle Ramp from Belmont Avenue to Path Existing Narrow Pedestrian Path along Cerrito Creek Existing Bicycle Route with Sharrows Widen Existing Trail Potential Fairmount/Carlson Improvements* Improve Central Avenue Bicycle Lanes ▪ Improve existing bicycle lanes with consistent striping and signage ▪ Consider painting bicycle lanes green Enhance Existing Crosswalk at Lassen ▪ Install curb extensions ▪ Install median refuge LEGEND Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class I Shared-Use Path Pedestrian-Only Path Class II Bicycle Lanes Proposed Bikeways Physically Separated Bikeway Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows Revise & Enhance Alignment through the Plaza & Improve Greenway Connection Carlson/San Diego ▪ Install PHB at existing high-visibility crosswalks at intersection with San Diego ▪ Install median refuges and curb extensions 1 3 5 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 Figure 5-1b BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements *The Urban Greening Plan (in development) has identified a pocket plaza project for Lower Fairmount Avenue between San Pablo Avenue and Carlson. Bicycle and pedestrian im- provements at this intersection should be coordinated with this project’s design. ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 12’ Two-Way Separated Bikeway 4’ Buffer 22’ Auto Travel Lanes Pierce St Central Avenue Undercrossing 10’ Shared Bike/ Pedestrian Path 2’ Shoulder 5’ Buffer Alignment • Bicycle route with green-backed sharrows on Fairmount Avenue between El Cerrito Plaza/Ohlone Greenway and Carlson Boulevard • Bicycle route with sharrows (existing) on Lassen Street between Carlson Boulevard and Belmont Avenue • Bicycle route with sharrows (existing) on Belmont Avenue between Lassen Street and Cerrito Creek Path • Cerrito Creek Path plus proposed Cerrito Creek Path extension to Pierce Street (south side of Pacific East Mall) • Two-way cycletrack on west side of Pierce Street between Central Avenue and Cerrito Creek Path Extension • Shared-Use Path on south side of Central Avenue between Jacuzzi Street and Pierce Street (through I-80 Interchange) • Bicycle lanes (partially existing) between Rydin Road and Jacuzzi Street • Path improvements at Bay Trail entrances on northeast and southwest corners of Rydin Road/Central Avenue intersection • In addition to the Lassen Street/Belmont Avenue/Cerrito Creek/Pierce Street route, access from the north would be available via Sacramento Street, the bicycle/pedestrian bridge across I-80, and bicycle route treatments on San Joaquin Street between Sacramento and Central Avenues Improvements 1. Stripe green-backed sharrows on Fairmount Avenue between Ohlone Greenway/BART and Carlson Boulevard 2. Stripe high-visibility crosswalks at Carlson Boulevard/Fairmount Avenue and install bike ramps between bike lane and sidewalk, curb extensions, and median refuges. Finalize improvements with Urban Greening Plan proposal to create plaza on the south side of Fairmount Avenue. 3. Widen Cerrito Creek Trail near Belmont Street 4. Extend Cerrito Creek Trail on south side of Pacific East Mall to Pierce Street 5. Stripe trail crossing across Pierce Street at Cerrito Creek Trail Extension 6. Stripe two-way cycle track on the west side of Pierce Street through removal of parking on west side of Pierce Street 7. Construct Class I Shared-Use Path on the south side of Central Avenue between Jacuzzi and Pierce Streets. Coordinate with property owners on the south side of the roadway (may require ROW acquisition) and Caltrans. Install actuated bicycle signal phase at I-80 Ramps/Jacuzzi to distribute bicyclists from path to bicycle lanes and provide other associated improvements. 8. Install public art and murals and lighting underneath the I-80 overpass Near-Term Figure 5-1c BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements 9. Improve striping and signing of existing Class II bicycle lanes on Central Avenue between Rydin Street and Jacuzzi Street, consider green paint 10. Stripe triple-four trail crossings at Rydin Street/Central Avenue and curb extensions 11. Study Bay Trail path spur between westbound bicycle lanes on Central/ north sidewalk at existing Bay Trail alignment 12. Designate alignment through the Plaza and improve Greenway connections for bicyclists ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 Figure 5-1d BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements Drawing details: • Striping and signing improvements to the existing bicycle lanes on Central Avenue west of Jacuzzi Street • Shared-use path on south side of Central Avenue between Jacuzzi Street and Pierce Street. Signal modifications, such as an actuated bicycle signal phase, would be needed at Jacuzzi Street to transition bicycles from the Central Avenue bicycle lanes to the path plus other minor improvements • Two-way cycletrack on the west side of Pierce Street between Central Avenue and the Cerrito Creek Path Extension Drawing details: • Striping and signing improvements to the existing bicycle lanes on Central Avenue east of Rydin Road • Striping of “triple-four” trail crossing on the north and west side of the Rydin Road intersection to designate a preferred route for trail users through the intersection • Building a path spur from the westbound bicycle lanes and sidewalk on Central Avenue Proposed Near-Term Central Avenue & Pierce Street Improvements Proposed Near-Term Central Avenue and Rydin Road Improvements Source: Draft South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan Source: Draft South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 Figure 5-1e BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements EL CERRITO PLAZA PACIFIC EAST MALL CITY OF RICHMOND CITY OF ALBANY CITY OF EL CERRITO I-580 I-80 Bay Trail Bay Trail San Diego San Mateo San Luis San Joaquin Rydin Jacuzzi Belmont Adams Fairmount Central Carlson San Pablo Pierce Alternate Bikeway Alignment with Pierce Street Realignment PHASE 2 LONG-TERM Phase 1 Cycle Track Phase 1 Bike Path Phase 1 Bicycle Path San Diego Street, East of San Pablo ▪ Stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows ▪ Connect to proposed Class I Path on north side of Pacific East Mall Cerrito Creek Pedestrian Path ▪ Widen existing narrow pedestrian path as ROW becomes available and properties redevelop ▪ Connect to Phase 1 Class I Path to west and Adams Street Bicycle Boulevard to east Stripe Two-Way Cycle Track on Realigned Pierce Street ▪ If Pierce Street is realigned with San Mateo Street and the old alignment becomes redeveloped, realign the two-way cycle track onto the new Pierce Street and extend Class I Path along Central Avenue ▪ Connect to proposed Class I Shared-Use Path north of Cerrito Creek ▪ If ROW on old Pierce alignment remains, retain Phase 1 Cycle Track and do not realign Pierce Street bikeway Proposed Bicycle Boulevard in Albany, including Bridge to connect Carlson LEGEND Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class I Shared-Use Path Pedestrian-Only Path Class II Bicycle Lanes Proposed Bikeways Cycle Track Class II Bicycle Lanes Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows 2 n 1 1 2 3 4 Revise & Enhance Alignment through the Plaza & Improve Greenway Connection Proposed Long-Term Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 Figure 5-1f BART to Bay Trail Access Improvements Long-Term Alignment • Same as near-term alignment on Central Avenue and Pierce Street • New alignment between San Pablo Avenue and Pierce Street on San Diego Street, with possible path on north side of Pacific East Mall parking lot • Consider preferred location for Pierce Street two-way cycletrack with realignment of I-80/Central Avenue Interchange, which would realign Pierce Street with San Mateo Street. Maintain bicycle and pedestrian access via the existing Pierce Street alignment to provide a cycletrack or Class I shared-use path. Improvements 1. Stripe and sign San Diego Street bicycle route when/ if a path on the north side of Pacific East Mall can be constructed, which should be considered with the future realignment of the I-80/Central Avenue Interchange 2. Opportunistically widen the existing Cerrito Creek Path between Belmont Avenue and Adams Street to Class I shared-use path standards when/if properties redevelop and/or Adams Street Bridge is constructed 3. Stripe crosswalk at Adams Street/Carlson Boulevard with the construction of the Adams Street Bridge 4. Stripe bicycle lanes or sharrows on Adams Street north of the Cerrito Creek Trail with the construction of the Adams Street bridge TOP: Existing end of Adams Street and entrance to Cerrito Creek Trail. MIDDLE: With Adams Street Bridge construction, an enhanced crosswalk at Adams Street/Carlson Boulevard can be installed. BOTTOM: Parking removal on the west side of Pierce Street may be required to accommodate the proposed two-way cycletrack. ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements Trail Crossing Improvements along the Ohlone Greenway Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background The existing Ohlone Greenway is a critical local and regional link for walking and biking. As a north-south path, it intersects numerous El Cerrito city streets. At all locations, path users have a STOP control and cross-street traffic is uncontrolled. Existing crossing treatments include “stair-step striping” (shown at right) and high-visibility crosswalks. In many locations, the City has or plans to install in-roadway lighting or at cross- streets with higher traffic volumes. The Ohlone Greenway is an important regional bicycle and pedestrian path linking Richmond, El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley and connecting to multiple BART Stations. The path will eventually connect with the Richmond Greenway. As it connects to BART, the path serves an important commuter and recreational function. As a north-south link, it also provides an “8 to 80” alternative to San Pablo Avenue through El Cerrito that may accommodate a wider range of users. • Many cross-streets along the Greenway are low-volume roadways that carry less than 4,500 vehicles a day • The crossing of low-volume cross-streets presents an opportunity to replace the STOP control on the Greenway with YIELD control • Could consider requiring cross-street traffic to YIELD or STOP for path users on low- volume side-streets in the future • Many cross-streets are wide enough to provide curb extensions or median refuges to reduce crossing distances for path users and calm traffic Most crossing have high-visibility (“ladder”) striping with STOP control for Greenway traffic. Curb extensions with oversized ramps are present at Schmidt Lane, but many other crossings still allow for curb extension or median refuges. Example of triple-four trail crossing striping at the West Street Path in Berkeley. • Install wayfinding at crossing locations to direct bicyclists and pedestrian to key destinations in the area • Install triple-four trail crossings with high-visibility striping and bicycle legends to highlight the Greenway and indicate shared bicycle/pedestrian space in the crossing, as shown at right • Install path lighting, advanced yield markings, curb extensions, median refuges, and flashing devices per Table 5-1. • Replace Greenway STOP signs with YIELD signs for bikes where cross-streets carry less than 4,500 vehicles per day: Knott Avenue, Blake Street, Manila Avenue, Schmidt Lane, Portola Drive, Waldo Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue Cost Range $1,200,000 - $1,800,000 2 Figure 5-2a Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 84 Proposed Improvements Moeser Waldo Stockton Ohlone Greenway San Pablo Avenue Lincoln Central Fairmount Schmidt Existing Curb Extensions Planned & Funded Planned & Funded Existing Curb Extensions & Median Refuge MOESER LANE SHOPPING CENTER EL CERRITO PLAZA PLAZA BART Portola 2 n Hill Blake Ohlone Greenway Potrero Existing Curb Extensions Planned & Funded Manila Cutting Knott DEL NORTE BART STATION LEGEND Curb Extensions Median Refuge Path-Scale Lighting Proposed Flashing Beacon Existing Flashing Beacon *Install pedestrian and bicycle wayfinding at each cross-street Replace Path STOP with YIELD Triple-Four Trail Crossing Special Pedestrian Pavement Zone ▪ Visually narrows roadway, which can help to reduce speeds ▪ Construct with over-sized curb ramps to accommodate all users ▪ Minimum 6’ feet in width to allow bicyclists and pedestrians with stroller to wait for a gap in traffic ▪ Allows pedestrians and bicyclist to cross in “two- steps” ▪ Use where on-street parking is provided ▪ Provides opportunities for additional green infrastructure/stormwater planters ▪ Reduces overall crossing distance for bicyclists and pedestrians ▪ Visually narrows roadway, which can help to reduce speeds ▪ Construct with over-sized curb ramps to accommodate all users Curb Extensions Median Refuge Figure 5-2b Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 85 Cr St Kn Ave Cut Bou Hill Bl St 1. Lig 2. IRW So EXIST oss- reet Traffic nott enue Remove Green repla YI tting levard Ohlon Street Ohlon ake reet Remove Green repla YI ht green indicates exis WL=In-Roadway Lightin ource: Fehr & Peers, 2 TING, PLANNED c Control Adv Si e STOP on way and ce with IELD ne STOP ne STOP e STOP on way and ce with IELD ting facilities, dark gree ng, RRFB=Rectangular 014; 2007 Circulation D, AND PROPO Existing, vanced igns Flashing Devices   RRFB  RRFB  en indicates planned a Rapid Flashing Beacon Plan for Bicyclists and OSED OHLONE G Planned, and Pr g s2 High- Visibility Striping    nd funded improveme n d Pedestrians TABLE 5-1 GREENWAY CR oposed Improve Advanced Yield Markings Ex o  E  Ext Re  E  ents, orange indicates p ROSSING IMPR ements Curb xtensions r Refuge Lig Curb xtensions Curb tensions & Path ealignment Curb xtensions proposed improvemen ROVEMENTS BY ghting Wayfin         nts, and gray indicates Y CROSS-STREE A Imp nding  Install with s San Pa Green  Stripe betwe Avenu  Stripe bicycle the Gr Street  Install pedes separa no improvement at tha ET Additional provements bicycle route harrows between ablo Avenue and way bicycle lanes een San Pablo ue and Greenway eastbound e lane between reenway and Elm bicycle and trian legends for ate paths at location. Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 86 1. Lig 2. IRW So Cro P A M A Schm P A ht green indicates exis WL=In-Roadway Lightin ource: Fehr & Peers, 2 EXISTI oss-Street Traff otrero Avenue Ohlo Manila Avenue Rem on G and wit midt Lane Rem on G and wit Portola Avenue Rem on G and wit ting facilities, dark gree ng, RRFB=Rectangular 014; 2007 Circulation ING, PLANNED fic Control Adv Si one STOP ove STOP Greenway d replace th YIELD ove STOP Greenway d replace th YIELD ove STOP Greenway d replace th YIELD en indicates planned a Rapid Flashing Beacon Plan for Bicyclists and D, AND PROPO Existin vanced igns Flashing Devices  RRFB    nd funded improveme n d Pedestrians T SED OHLONE G ng, Planned, and P g s2 High- Visibility Striping     (refresh) ents, orange indicates p TABLE 5-1 GREENWAY CR Proposed Improve Advanced Yield Markings Ext  E    E proposed improvemen ROSSING IMPRO ments Curb tensions or Refuge Lig Curb xtensions  (ind ex ligh  (ind ex ligh Curb xtensions (ind ex ligh nts, and gray indicates OVEMENTS BY ghting Wayfin    direct xisting hting)   direct xisting hting)   direct xisting hting)  no improvement at tha Y CROSS-STREE Addi I nding  Curb e recom propo lanes o    at location. ET itional Improvements extensions not mmended due to osed bicycle on Potrero Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 87 Cro Moe Wald St A L A 1. Lig 2. IRW S EXISTI oss-Street Traff eser Lane Ohlo do Street Rem on G and wit ockton Avenue Ohlo incoln Avenue Rem on G and wit ht green indicates exis WL=In-Roadway Lightin Source: Fehr & Peers, ING, PLANNED fic Control Adv Si one STOP ove STOP Greenway d replace th YIELD one STOP ove STOP Greenway d replace th YIELD ting facilities, dark gree ng, RRFB=Rectangular 2014; 2007 Circulatio D, AND PROPO Existin vanced igns Flashing Devices  RRFB   RRFB  en indicates planned a Rapid Flashing Beacon on Plan for Bicyclists a T SED OHLONE G ng, Planned, and P g s2 High- Visibility Striping  (refresh)  (refresh)  (refresh)  nd funded improveme n nd Pedestrians TABLE 5-1 GREENWAY CR Proposed Improve Advanced Yield Markings Ext  (replace existing Stairstep Markings)  (replace stairstep striping) E  E  E ents, orange indicates p ROSSING IMPRO ments Curb tensions or Refuge Lig Median Curb xtensions Curb xtensions Curb xtensions proposed improvemen OVEMENTS BY ghting Wayfin         nts, and gray indicates Y CROSS-STREE Additio Improv nding     no improvement at tha ET onal vements at location. Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 88 Cro C A Fai A 1. Lig 2. IRW Source EX oss-Street Traff Central Avenue Ohlo irmount Avenue Ohlo ht green indicates exis WL=In-Roadway Lightin e: Fehr & Peers, 2014; XISTING, PLANN fic Control Adv Si one STOP one STOP ting facilities, dark gree ng, RRFB=Rectangular 2007 Circulation Plan f NED, AND PRO Existin vanced igns Flashing Devices  RRFB  IRWL o RRFB en indicates planned a Rapid Flashing Beacon for Bicyclists and Pedes OPOSED OHLON ng, Planned, and P g s2 High- Visibility Striping  or  nd funded improveme n strians TABLE 5-1 NE GREENWAY Proposed Improve Advanced Yield Markings Ext  E  (replace stairstep striping) Ext ents, orange indicates p Y CROSSING IM ments Curb tensions or Refuge Lig Curb xtensions Median Refuge Curb tensions & Refuge  proposed improvemen MPROVEMENTS ghting Wayfin     nts, and gray indicates S BY CROSS-ST Addit I nding   Consid improv Richm Street/ Avenu conjun OBAG Pedes treatm throug no improvement at tha REET tional mprovements der intersections vements at mond /Fairmount ue in nction with Improvements trian zone ments planned gh OBAG grant at location. Ohlone Greenway Crossing Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 89 Citywide Wayfinding Key Walking and Biking Routes Citywide Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background Bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding consists of signs and markings placed at key decision points along preferred bicycle and pedestrian routes, directing bicyclists and pedestrians to other preferred routes to access key community destinations. Wayfinding signs may also include the distance and/or time needed to get to those destinations. Citywide wayfinding standards for bicyclists and pedestrians have been developed for West Contra Costa County. The West County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan creates bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding design standards for West County. It also includes wayfinding plans to access the El Cerrito del Norte and Plaza BART Stations, respectively. A citywide wayfinding program would build off of those plans to create a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding to key destinations throughout the City. • The WCCTAC Wayfinding Plan identified wayfinding sign locations to support bicycle and pedestrian access to both BART stations from the Greenway and City streets • The WCCTAC Wayfinding Plan also developed sign design guidelines that the City can use along with their own Signage Program • Coordinate wayfinding improvements with the El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan Some destination signs currently exist along the Ohlone Greenway. In the future, similar signage could include mileage or time to key destinations and could be implemented on all priority bicycle and pedestrian routes according to the WCCTAC guidelines. • Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding and destination signage in all projects in the bicycle and pedestrian networks • Secure funding for and implement the WCCTAC Wayfinding Plan sign plans to provide destination wayfinding to both BART stations Cost Range $340,000-410,000 for WCCTAC sign plans for the two BART stations; approximately $1,900 per customized wayfinding sign, including design and contingencies Figure 5-3a Citywide Wayfinding 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 90 Proposed Wayfinding Details Source: WCCTAC Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan (2011) 1.0 Richmond Transit Center City Hall 0.5 Kaiser 0.4 Medical Center Bay Trail 0.6 C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D 0.7 Richmond Transit Center City Hall 0.5 Kaiser 1.0 Medical Center Bay Trail 0.9 W 37TH ST IN EMERGENCY, CALL RICHMOND POLICE DISPATCH [PHONE REDACTED] RICHMOND GREENWAY C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D 0.7 Richmond Transit Center City Hall 0.5 Kaiser 1.0 Medical Center McNEAL STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D 33RD AVENUE 10 feet: max. height for message at this scale (ADA) 7 feet: min. height for clearance (ADA) 4 ft–5 ft: sign base height (MUTCD) 3 feet: recommended base height P1 Pedestrian Wayfinding Commercial Districts P2 Pedestrian Wayfinding Residential Streets P3 Pedestrian Wayfinding Transit Destination Only B1 Bike/Ped Wayfinding Off-Street Path B2 Bicycle Wayfinding Bicycle Boulevards B3 Bicycle Wayfinding On-Street Routes 1.0 Richmond Transit Center 1.0 Richmond Transit Center City Hall 0.5 Kaiser 0.4 Medical Center Bay Trail 0.6 C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D Hospital 0.5 0.8 Richmond Transit Center M1 Map Kiosk (Transit Information) Transit Centers Library University Ave 1.0 Richmond Transit Center City Hall 0.5 Kaiser 0.4 Medical Center Bay Trail 0.6 C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D 1.0 Richmond Transit Center 1.0 Richmond Transit Center City Hall 0.5 Kaiser 0.4 Medical Center Bay Trail 0.6 C I T Y O F R I C H M O N D P1 Pedestrian Wayfinding Commercial Districts P2 Pedestrian Wayfinding Residential Streets P3 Pedestrian Wayfinding Transit Destination Only Focused on Transit Centers: Hercules Transit Center Richmond Parkway Transit Center Contra Costa College Transit Center Richmond Transit Center BART/Amtrak El Cerrito Del Norte BART El Cerrito Plaza BART Signs “highlight” transit destinations Supports local destinations Pedestrian & bicycle routes Photos illustrate color, design and identity options Option: Transit destination highlighted in “511.org” (transit information) color Concept: Transit destination highlighted in contrasting color (black shown) Figure 5-3b Citywide Wayfinding ---PAGE BREAK--- 91 Proposed Wayfinding Locations: El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 ¾  ¾  580 80 ·I}þ 123 ·I}þ 123 City of El Cerrito City of Richmond City of Albany Ja City of El Cerrito City of Richmond City of San Pablo City of Richmond Carlson Blvd. State Hwy 123 . Potrero Ave. Key Blvd. 33rd St. 35th St. Richmond St. 31st St. 34th St. Elm St. 30th St. Arlington Blvd. 39th St. Cutting Blvd. 32nd St. 55th St. 40th St. Garvin Ave. 41st St. Kern St. Navellier St. Yuba St. 42nd St. San Joaquin St. Schmidt Ln. Blake St. Central Ave. Portola Dr. 37th St. Moeser Ln. 43rd St. 47th St. San Mateo St. Hill St. Manila Ave. Berk Ave. Everett St. Amador St. Carquinez Ave. Wall Ave. Hazel Ave. Clinton Ave. S i erra Ave. Scott St. Gladys Ave. Donal Ave. Bayview Ave. Lassen St. Wilson Ave. Florida Ave. Sutter Ave. Norvell St. San Pablo Ave. 56th St. J o r d an A ve. Monterey St. Fresno Ave. H ag e n B lvd . Macdon al d Ave. Regatta Blvd. Pierce St. Lawrence St. C arls to n St. 52nd St. Rydin Rd. 45th St. Van Fleet Ave. 29th St. Spring St. Overend Ave. Tulare Ave. Columbia Ave. Bissell Ave. Butte St. Shasta St. Waller Ave. Ells Ln. Santa Cruz Ave. Taft Ave. Carl Ave. Juliga Woods St. 49th St. Sonoma St. Kearney St. 48th St. Mclaughlin St. Knott Ave. 59th St. 36th St. Ventura St. Ganges Ave. T a s saj ar a Av e. M ir a Vi sta Dr. Alva Ave. San Jose Ave. 58th St. Fall Ave. Mariposa St. 38th St. Di m m S t . Isabel St. 51st St. Gately Ave. Humboldt St. Zara A ve. Jacuzzi St. 50th St. Harper St. Bell Ave. Po i n s e t t Av e . South St. F e rn St. Snowdon Ave. Ashbury Ave. El Dorado Ave. Yale Ave. Creely Ave. R os al in d A ve. Fleming Ave. Merced St. Avila St. Alameda Ave. San Benito St. Stege Ave. 57th St. Ralston Ave. Yuba Ave. Tapscott A v e. Gatto Ave. Ta m alp a i s A v e. Ha r t n e tt A v e. Mono Ave. Mendocino St. Junction A ve . Cypress Ave. Beck St. Ells St. Meade St. Cla r e m on t A ve. Belmont Ave. Jefferson Ave. Seaver Ave. Pomona Ave. S ilva Ave. 46th St. Liberty St. Fallon Ave. Carlos Ave. Madison Ave. Walnut St. Oscar St. W i ldwoo d Pl . Glen Mawr Ave. View Ave. Rivera St. Bernhard Ave. Oak St. We s l e y Ave. Orchard Ave. State Ave. Pinehu rst C t. Montgomery Ave. Center Ave. B e r k P l . Eastshore Blvd. 44th St. Placer St. Vista Heig h t s R d. R o g er Ct. Cabrillo St. Tuller Ave. Ohio Ave. San Luis St. Plank Ave. Elm Ave. Scenic St. Lud wig Ave. Santa Clara St. Conlon Ave. Cedar St. Fairv iew D r. W ilson W a y. Olive Ave. Lexington Ave. Meeker Ave. Fray Ave. Plymouth Ave. Charles Ave. Alta Punta Ave. Alta Vista Dr. Ray St. Panama Ave. Victor Ave. Edith St. Kains Ave. Arno Ct. Julian Dr. Tehama Ave. Reid Ct. Gloria St. Mound St. J uli a n Ct. Downer Ave. Adams St. Downey Pl. Pullman Ave. Doremus A ve. Grant Ave. School St. State Ct. Pa r k V i s . H i ll s i d e A v e. Brooks Ave. M a d e ra C ir. Castilla Ave. Plumas Ave. Chanslor Ave. Modoc Ave. Colusa Ave. Ernest Ave. Yolo Ave. Gaynor Ave. Laurel Ave. Bell Ct. Sacramento Ave. Palm Ave. Ma n o r Cir. Po plar Ave. M arin Ave. School Ave. P a r king L ot . Gay l e C t. Mar ina La k es Dr . Gordon A ve. Driveway . Reece Ct. Sequ oia Ave. D o ugl a s D r . Syndicate Ave. Napa St. Pla nk Ct. Ma d e ra C t. E scuela Ct. Sc enic Ave. Walk Way. Regency Ct. Pla z a Cir. Cove Ct. Ohio Ave. Fresno Ave. 45th St. 44th St. 36th St. Columbia Ave. 34th St. Mariposa St. Liberty St. 49th St. Lexington Ave. Kearney St. 51st St. Oak St. Kearney St. 37th St. 43rd St. Sonoma St. Liberty St. Panama Ave. Center Ave. 57th St. Elm St. Kearney St. Wilson Ave. 45th St. 46th St. 43rd St. Cypress Ave. 39th St. Ohio Ave. 32nd St. Tulare Ave. Wall Ave. 42nd St. Florida Ave. 50th St. Liberty St. Elm Ave. 35th St. Everett St. 45th St. Norvell St. Ventur a St . 33rd St. 33rd St. Lexington Ave. 50th St. Elm St. 47th St. 36th St. Humboldt St. 31st St. 38th St. 39th St. Stege Ave. 49th St. Wall Ave. Clinton A v e . Merced St. Lexington Ave. 46th St. Fall Ave. Santa Clara St. 47th St. Ju n c ti o n A ve. 41st St. 45th St. O li ve A v e . Wilson Ave. Santa Clara St. Florida Ave. Tulare Ave. Everett St. Taft Ave. Kearney St. Meade St. 49th St. 44th St. 41st St. 42nd S t. Bayview Ave. 4 5th St. Mira Vista Dr. Mclaughlin St. Liberty St. Dim m St. 56th St. Cypress Ave. 41st St. 46th St. N NOT TO SCALE EL CERRITO DEL NORTE BART STATION - WAYFINDING SIGNS AND PREFERRED ROUTES LEGEND Preferred Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes BART Rail Line BART Station I1 Rapid Bus Stop Path: N:\2010Projects\SF_Projects\SF10-0512 WCCTAC Transit Enhancement Strategic Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\August2011\ElCerritoDelNorteBartStation_WaySigns.mxd * Only where cross street is also a bicycle boulevard Limited number of destinations can be accommodated ¾  Symbol Type Transit Center Cross Street Local Destination Pedestrian: Commercial District (P1) u u Pedestrian: Residential (P2) u u Pedestrian: Transit Center Only (P3) u Bicycle: Greenway/Trail (B1) u u u Bicycle: Boulevard (B2) u * u Bicycle: On-street Route (B3) u Map Kiosk (M1) Source: WCCTAC Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan (2011) Figure 5-3c Citywide Wayfinding ---PAGE BREAK--- 92 Proposed Wayfinding Locations: El Cerrito Del Norte Plaza Station I1 I1 I1 ¾  ·I}þ 123 C City of El Cerrito City of Richmond City of Richmond City of Albany City of Kensington City of Berkeley 80 City of Berkeley City of Albany Solano Ave. Carlson Blvd. Pierce St. Pomona Ave. Kains Ave. Arlington Ave. Elm St. Talbot Ave. Evelyn Ave. Cornell Ave. Norvell St. Everett St. Santa Fe Ave. State Hwy 123 . Peralta Ave. Richmond St. Adams St. Central Ave. Masonic Ave. Kearney St. Buchanan St. Portland Ave. Stannage Ave. Neilson St. T h e Alame da . Ash bu ry A ve. Balra Dr. Jackson St. San Joaquin St. Colusa Ave. San Carlos Ave. Madison St. Key Route Blvd. Sto c k ton A ve. Curtis St. San Mateo St. Terr a c e D r. Cleveland Ave. Fairmount Ave. Seaview Dr. Albemarle St. High g ate R d . Liberty St. Beverly Pl. 8th St. Sutter Ave. Cerrito St. Clayton Ave. Monterey St. 47th St. Capistrano Ave. Vincente A ve . Tacoma Ave. Fresno Ave. Brighton Ave. Portola Dr. Ordway St. Franciscan Way. Ensenada Ave. 56th St. 55th St. Bonnie Dr. Lexington Ave. Rydin Rd. Van Fleet Ave. Taft Ave. Columbia Ave. Butte St. Shasta St. Spokane Ave. W a shin gton Av e . Tulare Ave. Yale Ave. Yosemite Rd. Polk St. Behrens St. Santa Cruz Ave. Carl Ave. San Lorenzo Ave. 49th St. Isabel St. 48th St. 50th St. Ramona Ave. Avis Dr. Con tr a Cost a A ve. San Jose Ave. C St. Mariposa St. 51st St. B a y v ie w A v e. B St. Ventura Ave. Jacuzzi St. Amherst Ave. 46th St. C oventry Rd. Ke ny on Ave . Parking Lot . El Dorado Ave. King ston R d . 59th St. 9th St. Hi g hla n d B l v d . Mader a S t . Vi s a lia A ve . Sierra St. Stanfo r d A v e. Avila St. San Benito St. Village Dr. 58th St. Merced St. Mendocino St. W in d s o r A ve . Anson Way. S t r atfo r d Rd. R inc o n R d . L eno x Rd . Belmont Ave. G a lvin D r. We l l esl e y Av e. H i llsid e Av e . N o rwo o d Ave. Oscar St. Posen Ave. 57th St. Tevlin St. Clay St. Taylor St. Menlo P l . Sunset Dr. Oak St. Carmel Ave. San Gabriel Ave. A rd m ore R d . C ata li n a Ave . Orchard Ave. Montgomery Ave. Eastshore Hwy. York Ave. Placer St. E r ro l Dr. Monroe St. Kinke ad Way. G a t e vi e w A v e . A vo n R d . P urdue Av e . San Luis St. S a n J uan Ave. Meade St. Santa Clara St. Rockway Ave. San Ra m o n Ave. Eureka Ave. Riley Dr. Modoc St. Oakview Ave. Avila Pl. Fillmore St. K en s i n g t o n R d. Leviston Ave. Avis Rd. Panama Ave. San Luis Rd. Victoria St. El Cerrito Plz. Waldo Ln. Tehama Ave. A St. Park Way. Jessen Ct. Plumas Ave. Modoc Ave. Coronado St. E d g ecr o f t Rd. Johnson St. Yolo Ave. Hotchkiss Ave. Sacramento Ave. D r i v eway . Eldridge Ct. Ea g l e Hl. Napa St. Nor w ood P l . Cove Ct. Curtis St. S e a vi ew D r. Oak St. Carmel Ave. Everett St. Pom ona Ave . Colusa Ave. Merced St. Eureka Ave. Colusa Ave. St o c k ton A v e . Merced St. Ramona Ave. 51st St. Ordway St. Fresno Ave. Columbia Ave. Parking L o t . Mariposa St. Ventura Ave. Liberty St. Liberty St. B a lr a D r. Neilson St. Balra Dr. Coventry Rd. Eureka Ave. Fresno Ave. Lexington Ave. Ramona Ave. Colusa Ave. Santa Clara St. Panama Ave. N NOT TO SCALE EL CERRITO PLAZA STATION - WAYFINDING SIGNS AND PREFERRED ROUTES LEGEND Preferred Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes BART Rail Line BART Station I1 Rapid Bus Stop Path: N:\2010Projects\SF_Projects\SF10-0512 WCCTAC Transit Enhancement Strategic Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\August2011\ElCerritoPlazaStation_WaySigns.mxd * Only where cross street is also a bicycle boulevard Limited number of destinations can be accommodated ¾  Symbol Type Transit Center Cross Street Local Destination Pedestrian: Commercial District (P1) u u Pedestrian: Residential (P2) u u Pedestrian: Transit Center Only (P3) u Bicycle: Greenway/Trail (B1) u u u Bicycle: Boulevard (B2) u * u Bicycle: On-street Route (B3) u Map Kiosk (M1) Source: WCCTAC Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan (2011) Figure 5-3d Citywide Wayfinding ---PAGE BREAK--- 93 Figure 5-4a Arlington Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Arlington Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background This project would close the existing sidewalk gaps on the east side of Arlington Boulevard between Madera Elementary School and Moeser Lane. Accommodation of a protected walkway/shoulder on the west side of the street should also be considered, as right-of-way and parking allows. This project identifies a preferred cross-section for the proposed sidewalk on the east side and the protected walkway on the west side and identifies where each treatment could be applied. Opportunities to narrow intersections and improve crosswalks are also identified. Arlington Boulevard extends through the El Cerrito hills between the northern City Limit (north of Barrett Avenue) and the southern City Limit (south of Moeser Lane). It provides the primary north-south connections through the hillside neighborhoods. Arlington Boulevard has several popular key destinations, including Madera Elementary School and Arlington Park. In addition, the road is a popular walking and biking route for recreational trips. AC Transit bus service also serves Arlington Boulevard. Sidewalk exists near Madera Elementary School and Arlington Park, but there are sidewalk gaps and poor sidewalk conditions south of the Park. • Recent improvements have been installed at Brewster Drive (north) near Madera Elementary School and Brewster Drive (south) near Arlington Park • Though posted at 25MPH, traffic frequently travels faster through the area • High pedestrian demand from walkers and joggers, students, and park users • Aggressive driving and low rates of drivers yielding to pedestrians in marked crosswalks and mid-block • Crosswalk enhancements, including flashing beacons, reduced crossing distances, and improved driver-pedestrian sight lines may be possible • Between Arlington Park and Villa Nueva Drive there is existing sidewalk in poor condition TOP: Sidewalk gap near Villa Nueva Drive. MIDDLE: Existing sidewalk in need of repair and missing curb near Don Carol Drive. BOTTOM: Sidewalk obstructions and pedestrian crossing yielding and sight line issues at Rifle Range Road. • Close sidewalk gaps on the east side through new construction or reconstruction between Arlington Park and Moeser Lane • Close sidewalk gaps on the west side through new construction or reconstruction between 125’ south of Arbor Drive and Moeser Lane • Consider providing protected walkway (should with asphalt curb barrier) on west side between Brewster Drive (north) and Buckingham Drive and between Brewster Drive (south) and Arbor Drive • Consider providing sidewalk on west side between Buckingham Drive and Brewster Drive (south) • Provide crosswalk enhancements, such as and curb extensions to improve crossings and reduce auto speeds Cost Range $1,050,00-1,500,000 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 94 Figure 5-4b Arlington Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Proposed Improvements Consider protected or semi- protected shoulder to designate pedestrian space while allowing off-pavement parking Narrow Arlington at Crosswalks wherever Feasible to Reduce Auto Speeds & Crossing Distances. Consider RRFB. Improve sightlines. Consider RRFB Consider protected or semi- protected shoulder to designate pedestrian space while allowing off-pavement parking Narrow intersection and move north crosswalk and stop bar forward. Retaining wall required on east side. Madera MADERA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARLINGTON PARK ARLINGTON PARK TO WILDCAT CANYON Thors Bay Brewster (north) Brewster (south) Villa Nueva Don Carol Arbor Moeser Havens Club View Dylans Lambrecht Rifle Range Buckingham 2 n 2 n LEGEND Existing Curb Extensions Proposed Sidewalk (Cross- Section A) Consider Protected Walkway (Cross-Section B) Consider Flashing Beacon Existing Flashing Beacon Proposed Curb Extensions Existing Sidewalk Existing Crosswalk Cross-Section A Existing Sidewalk to be Reconstructed (Cross- Section A) Retaining wall necessary to construct sidewalk Retaining wall necessary to construct sidewalk 5-6’ Sidewalk 0-3’ Shoulder 11’ Travel Lane 11’ Travel Lane 16-20’ Paved Area 3-13’ Protected Walkway* & Parking * Provide asphalt curb with breaks to allow on-street parking. Stripe edgeline. 14-24’ Paved Area (sometimes includes shoulder or off-pavement parking) Cross-Section B Cross-Section A 6’ Sidewalk 11’ Travel Lane 7-8’ Parking 18-20’ Travel Lane with Parking Unpaved Area 200’ 900’ 1,550’ 100’ 100’ 650’ 500’ 1,500’ ---PAGE BREAK--- 95 East Side Bicycle Boulevard Blake Street, Norvell Street, Schmidt Lane, Richmond Street, Moeser Lane, Norvell Street, Lincoln Avenue, Albemarle Street, Behrens Street Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background This project refines the bicycle boulevard alignment identified in the 2007 Plan based on community feedback and recently implemented projects. Several alternative alignments are noted and can be further refined in the next phase of the project based on right-of- way assessment, additional topography assessment, cost comparisons, and public input. The bicycle boulevard would serve residential areas east of Richmond Street and provide access to several schools. The 2007 Plan identified a north-south bicycle boulevard alignment on the east side of El Cerrito. This project proposes identifying the bicycle boulevard with oversized pavement legends, wayfinding and destination signage, and traffic calming features. Topography is a major consideration of the route and informs how the route jogs through neighborhoods. Direct access to key destinations is also a consideration for the bicycle boulevard alignment. • Opportunistically look at an easement through the PG&E power station connecting to Norvell Street between Schmidt Lane and Portola Drive • Opportunistically study the possibility of reconfiguring parking through the El Cerrito Swim Center lot and/or widening the existing path • Address auto speeds on downhill roadways and roadways with limited traffic control • Consider alternative alignment on Ashbury Avenue, which has existing sharrows or bicycle lanes along its length based on route directness and more level terrain but also has higher traffic volumes Many of the roadways are narrow, but some have intersections that are skewed (top, middle). An example of a raised intersection (bottom). • Use bicycle boulevard pavement legends with directional arrows and bicycle boulevards signs with destinations and mileage to reinforce understanding of the bicycle boulevard alignment • Install pedestrian-actived beacons at crossings of high volume roadways, such as Stockton Avenue • Provide bicycle cut-through at the cul-de-sac at Behrens and Spokane Avenue • Provide raised intersections and raised crosswalks to help manage auto speeds • Flip STOP signs where feasible to give priority to through traffic on the bicycle boulevard Cost Range $1,600,000 - $2,400,000 (includes Priority Project #6 Wayfinding) 5 Figure 5-5a East Side Bicycle Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- 96 STOP          Consider Alternate Alignment through Sub-Station, El Cerrito Swim Center, and/or Apartment Complex Consider Alternate Alignment on Ashbury Avenue Install Curb Extensions on Richmond South of Moeser Stripe Green-Backed Sharrows on Richmond between Schmidt & Moeser In Future, Consider Converting Norvell to Right-in/Right-out Only at Moeser & Maintain Bike Access STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP Blake/Everett Intersection ▪ Install raised intersection or raised crosswalk (speed table) to reduce downhill speeds, which would require removal of 1 parking space ▪ Mark all crosswalks Stockton/Norvell Intersection ▪ Install curb extensions to reduce speeds on Stockton ▪ Install RRFB with bike dtection to aid bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Stockton ▪ Stripe breadcrumbs through intersection Albemarle-Behrens Offset Intersection ▪ Install rasied intersection or decorative paving and stripe breadcrumbs through intersection to show how the route jogs from Albemarle to Behrens ▪ Relocate EB bus stop 100’ to east to improve sightlines at offset intersection Behrens-Spokane Bike Cut-Through ▪ Pave existing bike cut-through to Albany, connecting to Spokane ▪ Align with existing rolled curb ramp and driveway cut ▪ Reduce number of existing bollards Everett Intersection ▪ Install curb extensions to intersect Norvell at 90-degrees to Everett ▪ Accommodate existing residential driveway on Norvell Gladys and Donal Intersections ▪ Consider raised intersections or raised crosswalks near future middle school site ▪ Stripe with yellow school crosswalks ▪ Consider flipping stop signs Norvell/Schmidt, Richmond/Schmidt, & Richmond/Portola ▪ Install curb extensions at Everett/Schmidt to reduce downhill speeds ▪ Stripe breadcrumb treatment as wayfinding ▪ Install raised crosswalks at Portola HARDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & PARK STOCKTON AVENUE SHOPS EL CERRITO SWIM CENTER & TEMPORARY MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE FUTURE MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Blake Ohlone Greenway Everett Norvell Richmond Potrero Gladys Manila Schmidt Portola Moeser Waldo Everett Richmond Norvell Schmidt Everett Richmond Donal Ohlone Greenway Waldo Stockton Eureka Lincoln Central Albemarle Albemarle Behrens Behrens Spokane Spokane (Albany) Behrens (El Cerrito) Fairmount Fairmount Stockton Norvell Norvell 2 n STOP Raised Intersection Speed Humps Raised Crosswalk Alternate Alignment KEY MAP LEGEND Flip Existing Stop Signs Breadcrumb Treatment Figure 5-5b East Side Bicycle Boulevard ---PAGE BREAK--- 97 East Side Bicycle Boulevard Wayfinding Blake Street, Norvell Street, Schmidt Lane, Richmond Street, Moeser Lane, Norvell Street, Lincoln Avenue, Albemarle Street, Behrens Street Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background This project provides conceptual guidance for the signage and striping associated with the East Side Bicycle Boulevard. In addition to the traffic calming treatments defined in Priority Project wayfinding is a critical element of the bicycle boulevard, as the route turns multiple times to provide direct connections to key destinations and to take advantage of more level terrain. All wayfinding signage should be in accordance with the design guidelines spelled out in the WCCTAC Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan. The Bicycle Boulevard signs have distinctive titles to reinforce the branding of the route (“East Side Bicycle Boulevard”), and also provide mileage or time estimates to reach key destinations on bike. • The offsets and turning of the bicycle boulevard require that directional signage and pavement legends be installed with the bicycle boulevard improvements • Opportunity to use the East Side Bicycle Boulevard as a pilot project for the Citywide Wayfinding Program Existing examples of bicycle/pedestrian wayfinding along the Ohlone Greenway (top) and on Central Avenue (bottom). • Bicycle Boulevard signs include the branded name of the route, “East Side Bicycle Boulevard” as well as the mileage or time to reach key destinations on and off of the route • Oversized bicycle boulevard pavement legends, similar to what is used in the City of Berkeley, are proposed with directional arrows (left, through, and right) to reinforce necessary turning movements to stay on the bicycle boulevard • On higher volume roadways, such as Richmond Street, consider using green-backed sharrows instead of bicycle boulevard legends • Further study should examine all identified alternatives and select a preferred route • Wayfinding project should be phased and integrated into East Side Bicycle Boulevard (Focus Area Cost Range $1,600,000 - $2,400,000 (includes Priority Project #5 East Side Bicycle Boulevard) Description 6 Figure 5-6a East Side Bicycle Boulevard Wayfinding ---PAGE BREAK--- 98 Proposed Improvements BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD 30' Del Norte Future Portola Middle School Hillside Natural Area NORVELL STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Del Norte Future Portola Middle School Hillside Natural Area B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE SCHMIDT LANE Del Norte Future Portola Middle School Hillside Natural Area RICHMOND STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Del Norte Future Portola Middle School Hillside Natural Area B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE NORVELL STREET Del Norte Future Portola Middle School DONAL AVENUE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Del Norte Ohlone Greenway San Pablo Avenue BLAKE STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Del Norte Ohlone Greenway San Pablo Avenue B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE OHLONE GREENWAY Kearney Biccyle Boulevard San Pablo Avenue KEARNEY STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Kearney Biccyle Boulevard Hillside Natural Area Ohlone Greenway KEARNEY STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Hillside Natural Area Ohlone Greenway OHLONE GREENWAY B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Del Norte Ohlone Greenway San Pablo Avenue RICHMOND STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE DONAL AVENUE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Hillside Natural Area Future Portola Middle School Temporary Portola Middle School EVERETT STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Hillside Natural Area Portola Middle School LEXINGTON STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Hillside Natural Area Portola Middle School SCHMIDT LANE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Hillside Natural Area Temporary Portola Middle School El Cerrito Swim Center B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Temporary Portola Middle School El Cerrito Swim Center El Cerrito High School MOESER LANE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Temporary Portola Middle School El Cerrito Swim Center El Cerrito High School NORVELL STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Temporary Portola Middle School El Cerrito Swim Center Hillside Natural Area MOESER LANE STOCKTON AVENUE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE El Cerrito High School Stockton Street Shops El Cerrito Plaza B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE El Cerrito High School Harding Park and Elementary School El Cerrito Plaza LINCOLN AVENUE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE El Cerrito High School Harding Park and Elementary School El Cerrito Plaza ALBEMARLE STREET FAIRMOUNT AVENUE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE BART to Bay Route Harding Park and Elementary School El Cerrito Plaza B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Portola Middle School Stockton Avenue Shops El Cerrito Swim Center STOCKTON AVENUE NORVELL STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Portola Middle School Stockton Avenue Shops El Cerrito Swim Center B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Portola Middle School Stockton Avenue Shops El Cerrito High School LINCOLN AVENUE SPOKANE STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Albany Middle School FAIRMOUNT AVENUE B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE El Cerrito High School BART to Bay Route El Cerrito Plaza B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Harding Park and Elementary School BART to Bay Route El Cerrito Plaza C STREET RICHMOND STREET B I C Y C L E B O U L E V A R D EAST SIDE Temporary Portola Middle School El Cerrito Swim Center El Cerrito High School                          BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD HARDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & PARK ALBANY MIDDLE SCHOOL UPPER STOCKTON SHOPPING DISTRICT EL CERRITO SWIM CENTER & TEMPORARY PORTOLA MIDDLE SCHOOL FUTURE PORTOLA MIDDLE SCHOOL Blake Ohlone Greenway Everett Richmond Potrero Gladys Manila Schmidt Moeser Waldo Everett Richmond Norvell Donal Waldo Stockton Eureka Lincoln Central Albemarle Behrens Spokane Fairmount Norvell BLVD 2 n LEGEND Left-Arrow Pavement Legend Right-Arrow Pavement Legend Green-Backed Sharrow Through-Arrow Pavement Legend Bread Crumb Treatment (Use Where Bicycle Boulevard Intersects Another Bikeway) Directional Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Legends Left Through Right BLVD BLVD Figure 5-6b East Side Bicycle Boulevard Wayfinding ---PAGE BREAK--- 99 Key Boulevard Improvements Key Boulevard between Humboldt Street and Hill Street Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background Key Boulevard is an important access route to the El Cerrito del Norte BART Station for residents to the northeast of the City as well as those accessing del Norte BART on bicycle from the south. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements would tighten two wide intersections, designate a bicycle route with sharrows, and provide signal improvements at the Key Boulevard/Elm Street intersection. Key Boulevard provides an important “last mile” connection to the del Norte BART Station, access to the Ohlone Greenway at Baxter Creek, and a Safe Routes to School connection to the new Summit Charter School. • North of Conlon Avenue, the roadway widens substantially, creating excess roadway width • The Humboldt Street and Conlon Avenue intersections are spaced closely together and ADA curb ramps are not provided at all corners • The Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street intersection is offset and controlled by one signal with no pedestrian heads and not all crosswalks are marked • The Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street intersection offset makes the intersection wide and difficult for bicyclists to clear as they climb uphill • Lack of lighting along Key Boulevard is an issue Skewed intersections and roadways at Humboldt Street provide opportunities for sidewalk extensions (top photos). This area also has an existing spur to the Ohlone Greenway (bottom). • Stripe sharrows more frequently on Key Boulevard, centered on the travel lane • Narrow intersection at Humboldt Street and Conlon Avenue through curb extensions that make Humboldt intersect Key at 90 degrees and take up the excessive roadway width • Curb and sidewalk extensions provide an opportunity to provide green infrastructure and stormwater management on the corridor • Reconfigure lane widths on Elm Street to provide bicycle lanes through the intersection to create clearer expectations between bicyclists and autos through this large intersection • Improve roadway lighting and consider pedestrian-scale lighting along Key Boulevard • Improvements at Key Street/Elm Avenue/Hill Street may be subject to change with the development of a Safe Routes to School grant application currently under design. Improvements to be confirmed with results of the design process. Cost Range $1,200,000 - $1,800,000 7 Figure 5-7a Key Boulevard Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 100 Proposed Improvements 12’ 11‘ 12’     ONLY KEY ONLY KEY  5’  11’ 12’ 8’ Key at Conlon ▪ Install sidewalk extension adjacent to Baxter Park, including stormwater planters or similar green infrastructure ▪ Stripe sidewalk on west leg of Conlon Avenue ▪ Sign and enhance as a gateway to the Ohlone Greenway ▪ Reconstruct sidewalk and install Case Ramp" ▪ Bring man holes to grade Key at Humboldt ▪ Install sidewalk extension on east side of Key to intersect Key and Humboldt at 90 degrees ▪ Remove 4 parking spaces on east side of Key due to sight distance ▪ Retain parking on west side of Key ▪ Relocate drain inlets 2 n Curb extension at Key Blvd. and Liberty ▪ Extend curb 6’ into Liberty Street starting from existing face of curb Northern City Limit to Elm Street ▪ Stripe sharrows after each intersection and every 150’ thereafter ▪ Install BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE signs (R4-11) after each intersection Key at Elm and Hill ▪ Extend bicycle lane and left turn lane through intersection ▪ Install crosswalks to meet pedestrian desire lines ▪ Replace signal and add pedestrian countdown heads ▪ Remove 4 parking spaces south of Hill Street on west side of Elm to accommodate bicycle turn pocket ▪ This intersection is part of a Safe Routes to School grant application currently under design. Improvements to be confirmed with the results of the design process. DEL NORTE BART WINDRUSH SCHOOL WINDRUSH SCHOOL STOP Upgrade curb ramps at: ▪ Knott Ave. and Key Blvd. - NE, NW corners ▪ Cutting Blvd. and Key Blvd. - NE, SE corners Conlon Key Key Key Hill Street Elm Liberty Key Knott Cutting Humboldt Conlon LEGEND Curb Ramp Upgrade Curb Extensions Sharrow (typ.) Figure 5-7b Key Boulevard Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 Fairmount Avenue Improvements Fairmount Avenue between Carlson Boulevard and Colusa Avenue Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background This project would provide “last mile” bicycle and pedestrian improvements to one of the most destination-rich areas of El Cerrito: San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito Plaza, and Plaza BART Station. Green-backed sharrows are proposed for the roadway in addition to crossing improvements at Carlson Boulevard and traffic calming treatments east of Richmond Street. Streetscape improvements were made to Fairmount Avenue that improve the quality of the pedestrian environment, including bulb outs, raised crosswalks, landscaping and curb ramps. As the roadway dimensions are too constrained to provide dedicated bicycle space, a shared lane treatment is proposed. To further highlight this as an important bicycle route to El Cerrito Plaza and to Plaza BART, green-backed sharrows are proposed. • Limited traffic controls are provided at intersections east of Richmond Street • Fairmount Avenue provides one of the only direct east-west connections between destinations such as El Cerrito Plaza, Plaza BART, Cerrito Creek, Ohlone Greenway, and Fairmount Shopping District • Constrained right-of-way means that dedicated space for bicyclists cannot be provided in the current roadway configuration • The project can coordinate with the OBAG-funded improvements at the Central Avenue and Fairmount Avenue intersections of the Ohlone Greenway and the BART station area The existing streetscape includes pedestrian amenities such as landscaped median, pedestrian- scaled lighting, and curb extensions (top). Long crossing distances on across multiple lanes limit connectivity at the Carlson Boulevard/Fairmount Avenue intersection (bottom). • With head-in angled parking on Fairmount Avenue near El Cerrito Plaza, stripe green-backed sharrows to the left of the center of the travel lane to direct bicyclists away from the parking stalls • Install median refuges, curb extensions, bicycle escape ramps, and pedestrian- activated beacons at the intersection at Carlson Boulevard • Consider raised crosswalks or curb extensions at Everett and Norvell and a raised intersection (or decorative paving) at the Albemarle/Behrens offset to slow downhill speeds and create safer pedestrian crossings near Harding Elementary School Cost Range $800,000 - $1,200,000 8 Figure 5-8a Fairmount Avenue Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 102 Proposed Improvements                                 HARDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & PARK Ohlone Greenway Richmond Everett Norvell Albemarle East Side Bicycle Boulevard East Side Bicycle Boulevard Fairmount Fairmount Ashbury Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Continue Green-Backed Sharrow and Sign Treatment east to Colusa Clayton Fairmount between Carlson and Colusa ▪ After each intersection and approximately 100’ on-center ▪ Green Pavement behind Sharrow (typ.) ▪ Stripe between Carlson and Ashbury Carlson/Fairmount Intersection ▪ Install curb extensions at all corners, avoiding residential driveways ▪ Install median refuges at all apporaches and mark all crosswalks ▪ Install to support bicycle and pedestrian crossings across Carlson ▪ Install advanced yield markings and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs Everett and Norvell Intersections ▪ Install raised crosswalks or curb extensions at Everett and Norvell Fairmount between Carlson and Colusa ▪ Install BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE signs (R4-11) after each intersection in each direction and after major driveways, such as the Plaza and BART PLAZA BART EL CERRITO PLAZA THEATER BLOCK ACE HARDWARE SPECIAL EVENT AREA Carlson Bicycle Lanes to Cerrito Creek Trail and Bay Trail San Pablo Kearney Street Bicycle Boulevard Lexington Liberty Albemarle/Behrens Offset Intersection ▪ Install raised intersection ( or “speed table”) as part of a series of downhill traffic calming treatments ▪ Stripe crosswalk on west side of Albemarle ▪ Stripe breadcrumbs to show East Side Bicycle Boulevard alignment Fairmount/Ohlone Greenway ▪ Crossing improvements will take place as part of the OBAG-funded safety and placemaking improvement project Ohlone Greenway PLAZA BART   2 n Behrens Victoria Coronado Figure 5-8b Fairmount Avenue Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 103 Potrero Avenue Improvements Potrero Avenue between western City Limit and Ohlone Greenway Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background Potrero Avenue provides an important connection between the Cities of Richmond and El Cerrito. The roadway provides a connection on the northern end of El Cerrito between the Ohlone Greenway, El Cerrito del Norte BART Station, and Bay Trail access in the City of Richmond. The project also provides complete streets improvements to businesses on San Pablo Avenue. Pedestrian and auto improvements were recently made to Potrero Avenue near the I-80 on-ramps. This project would build upon these investments to provide dedicated bicycle facilities on Potrero Avenue between Lexington Avenue and the City of Richmond. This project may require further multi-modal operations analysis on the proposed reconfiguration between Eastshore Boulevard and the Ohlone Greenway. • Based on peak hour traffic volumes, roadway right-of-way may be able to be reallocated to provide dedicated space for bicyclists • Improve ADA accessibility west of the I-80 ramps • With I-80 ramps, opportunity to provide dedicated space for bicyclists to improve cyclist comfort • Roadway is auto oriented but also provides one of the only direct east-west connections for bicyclists and pedestrians between El Cerrito and Richmond • Opportunity to improve on-street bicycle connections to the Ohlone Greenway Large intersections are located at San Pablo Avenue and Eastshore Boulevard. San Pablo Avenue (top) include a dog-leg that creates an additional conflict point between bicyclists and drivers. • Stripe bicycle lanes between the City of Richmond border and Lexington Avenue through removal of on-street parking (westbound) and repurposing of one travel lane (eastbound) pending additional traffic analysis. Green-backed sharrows could be considered as an alternate treatment. • Reconfigure westbound approach lanes on Potrero Avenue at San Pabo Avenue to allow for dedicated bicycle lanes • Stripe bicycle lane and conflict zone treatments throug the slip lane at San Pablo Avenue • Sign and stripe a bicycle route with sharrows east of Lexington Avenue • Restripe bicycle lanes on Eastshore Boulevard as buffered bicycle lanes Cost Range $600,000 - $900,000 9 Figure 5-9a Potrero Avenue Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 104 Proposed Improvements 2 n 55th Street and I-80 On-Ramp Intersection ▪ Construct curb extension between 55th and I-80 Off-Ramp with accessible cut-through ▪ Restripe eastern crosswalk ▪ Add curb ramps to SW corner at 55th and SE corner at I-80 Off-Ramp I-80 Off-Ramp/Eastshore Intersection ▪ Restripe Eastshore Boulevard to include buffered bicycle lanes, bicycle turn pockets, and raised median ▪ Stripe bicycle lanes on Potrero Avenue ▪ Existing condition has west crosswalk and the NB right-turn slip lane has been removed Slip Lane Has Been Removed Potrero between I-80 Off-Ramp and San Pablo ▪ Stripe Class II Bicycle Lanes through parking removal in the westbound direction and repurposing of one eastbound travel lane pending additional traffic analysis ▪ Stripe green skip-striping through conflict zones San Pablo Avenue Intersection ▪ Remove WB through lane to accommodate bicycle lane and widen median ▪ Stripe advanced yield markings at NB right-turn slip lane Ohlone Greenway Ohlone Greenway Lexington Lexington Liberty Richmond Everett Elm Kearney Kearney Potrero San Pablo Avenue San Pablo Avenue I-80 I-80 I-80 On-Ramp I-80 Off-Ramp Potrero 55th Eastshore                   Potrero Avenue between western City Limit and Lexington ▪ Stripe Class II Bicycle Lanes through parking removal in the westbound direction and repurposing of one eastbound travel lane pending additional traffic analysis Potrero Avenue between Lexington and Navellier ▪ Stripe sharrow centered on travel lane ▪ Install R4-11 “BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE SIGN”           LEGEND ADA Curb Ramps Sharrow Bicycle Lane Figure 5-8b Potrero Avenue Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 105 Medium and Low Priority Projects The remaining projects were sorted into medium and low priority projects based on criteria described below. Some of these projects can be addressed in the near-term on an opportunistic-basis. For example, as properties redevelop, some of these active transportation improvements could be incorporated into the entitlement process. Additionally, as roadway overlays or other pavement projects are completed in the City, these projects should be integrated. Prioritization Criteria The methodology used to score projects within each criterion is described below. Each criterion was assigned equal weight. Potential to Shift Bicycle and Pedestrian Mode Share (2 Points) This criterion evaluates the ability of a bicycle or pedestrian project to attract new walking and biking trips. For bicyclists, this was determined to occur with proposed facilities that feel more comfortable and accommodate a wider range of users of all ages and abilities. For pedestrians, this addresses projects within 0.5 mile of key destinations. This criterion scores either 2 points or 0 points. Points are assigned as follows: 2 Points - Bicyclists: Protected bikeways (shared-use paths, cycle tracks, and buffered bicycle lanes) and low traffic-stress bikeways (bicycle boulevards) 2 Points - Pedestrians: Projects within a 1/2 mile to transit centers (BART stations and 72/72R on San Pablo Avenue), local schools, path network, and retail destinations Addresses Immediate Safety Need (2 Points) This criterion is based on the number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions, respectively, on the roadway over the past five years and/or roadways that were identified as having perceived safety issues. For off-street projects, such as pathways and sidewalks, the methodology is based on potential for conflicts with motor vehicles. Points are assigned as follows: On-Street Facilities 2 Points: Projects that provide or improve a bicycle or pedestrian facility with two or more bicycle and pedestrian collisions, respectively 1 Point: Projects that provide or improve a bicycle or pedestrian facility with one bicycle and pedestrian collisions, respectively Off-Street Facilities 2 Points: Trail and path projects that cross roads and driveways two times per mile 1 Point: Trail and path projects that cross roads and driveways three or more times per mile ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 106 Gap Closure (2 Points) Gaps in pedestrian and bicycle facilities can create significant barriers for active transportation. Closing these gaps to create continuous facilities is important to maximizing the value of prior investments. Points are assigned as follows: 2 Points: Projects that connect two existing facilities and create a continuous facility 1 Point: Projects that reduce the impact of a gap Economic Development (2 Points) The City of El Cerrito’s adopted policies and plans prioritize economic development throughout the City. Points are assigned as follows: 2 Points: Projects within ¼ mile of commercial nodes 1 Point: Projects within ½ mile of commercial nodes Access to Transit (2 Points) The City of El Cerrito’s adopted policies and plans also prioritize access to transit. Providing “last mile” bicycle and pedestrian connections to a transit center has shown to be particularly important in encouraging walking and biking trips. Points are assigned as follows: 2 Points: Projects within ¼ mile of AC Transit Rapid bus stop or BART Station 1 Point: Projects within ½ mile of AC Transit Rapid bus stop or BART Station OR along an AC Transit local bus route Consistency with Adopted Plans (2 Points) The City of El Cerrito has undergone a variety of planning studies with significant public engagement. As such, consistency with these planning documents is important. Points are assigned as follows: 2 Points: Project identified in two or more Plans 1 Point: Project identified in one previous Plan Prioritization Results The projects identified in Chapter 4 were scored and ranked using the methodology described above to determine medium and low priority projects. Table 5-2 presents the prioritized list of projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 107 TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Medium-Priority Projects Central Avenue Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the Ohlone Greenway and Ashbury Avenue 0.8 Implement planned improvements to the Ohlone Greenway crossing at Plaza BART Station through the OBAG- funded grant improvement OBAG- funded Stripe and sign bicycle lanes between Carlson Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue 0.05 $ Cutting Boulevard Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction, repair, and installation 0.12 Implement planned pedestrian improvements to the Ohlone Greenway crossing and Greenway alignment near Del Norte BART and through OBAG- funded grant project OBAG- funded TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Improve intersection at San Pablo Avenue and stripe all crossings per the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan Stripe and sign bicycle lanes between Ohlone Greenway and San Pablo Avenue 0.06 $ Implement Del Norte Station Modernization Improvements - BART Funded Hill Street Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk installation and repair 0.23 Improve intersection at Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street (City has applied for Safe Routes to School ATP Funding) Improve intersection at San Pablo Avenue/Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard and stripe all crosswalk per the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 108 TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Implement planned pedestrian improvements to the Ohlone Greenway and Safeway Driveway crossings near del Norte BART as part of the OBAG-funded project OBAG- funded Stripe and sign eastbound bicycle lane between Ohlone Greenway and Elm Street 0.14 $ (City has applied for Safe Routes to School ATP Funding) Implement del Norte Station Modernization Improvements - BART Funded Eastshore Boulevard Stripe and sign buffered bicycle lanes between San Pablo Avenue and Potrero Avenue 0.18 Lincoln Avenue Stripe and sign as bicycle boulevard and look for opportunities to install traffic calming features, such as stop- sign flipping and bicycle-friendly speed humps, and adjust traffic control devices to give priority to bicycle traffic on Lincoln 0.53 TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Schmidt Lane Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between San Pablo Avenue and Navellier Street 0.6 $ Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the Ohlone Greenway and the Recycling Center Stockton Avenue Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between San Pablo Avenue and Ashbury Avenue 0.4 Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between Ohlone Greenway and Ashbury Avenue 0.28 $ Portola Drive Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between San Pablo Avenue and Ohlone Greenway 0.11 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 109 TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Potrero Avenue Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the western City boundary and Richmond Street 0.5 Richmond Greenway- Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Gap closure and trail crossing 0.13 (Planned & Funded, Richmond lead) Richmond Street Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk installation, reconstruction, and repair 1.8 Ashbury Avenue Provide accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair. 1.2 Manila Avenue Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between San Pablo Avenue and Ohlone Greenway 0.09 $ Low-­‐Priority Projects TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Colusa Avenue Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between Stockton Avenue and southern City Limit. Consider an all-way stop and other traffic control devices at the intersection of Colusa Avenue/Terrace Avenue to facilitate bicycle travel on and to/from Colusa. 1.02 Knott Avenue Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between San Pablo Avenue and Ohlone Greenway 0.06 $ Park Trail Corridors Consider purchasing undeveloped properties bordering park areas to enhance trail connections 5.8 - Improve and maintain sidewalks, hillside paths/stairs, and fire trails as needed Provide signage, including mileage, along trail corridors ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 110 TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Barrett Ave Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk reconstruction and repair and improve the streetscape between the western City boundary and Arlington Boulevard 0.8 Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between western City Limit and Arlington Boulevard 0.79 $ Hillside Pathways and Stairs Improve and maintain paths/stairs, including the provision of handrails and posting signs - Maintain GIS map of all paths and stairs within the public right- of-way $ Impassible Trails Improve all impassible trails within the City’s right-of-way to provide accessible trails 1.2 Navellier Street Provide an accessible path of travel for pedestrians through sidewalk installation, reconstruction, and repair 0.75 TABLE 5-2 MEDIUM- AND LOW-PRIORITY PROJECTS Name Description Miles Cost1 Carmel Avenue Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between Fairmount and southern City Limit 0.10 $ Mira Vista Drive Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between Hagen Boulevard and Barrett Avenue 0.51 $ Terrace Drive Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between Stockton Avenue and Arlington Boulevard 1.45 $ Rifle Range Drive Sign and stripe Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows between northern City Limit and Arlington Boulevard 0.48 $ All Intersections Install pedestrian countdown heads and update signal timings to 3.5 feet/second or current MUTCD standards at signalized intersections and update curb ramps to current ADA standards at all intersections - $ - 1. Project costs for pedestrian projects were calculated on an order-of magnitude basis to understand planning-level costs. Projects were assigned a ranking of $ (<$50,000), ($50,000-$200,000), ($200,000-500,000), (>$500,000). Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Focus Area Projects 111 This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Performance Measures 112 6. Performance Measures ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Performance Measures 113 The City of El Cerrito intends to monitor progress on the implementation of this Active Transportation Plan over time. This chapter presents four key performance goals for the Plan’s implementation. Performance Goals Table 6-1 summarizes the four Performance Measure and Goals and includes information on the key stakeholders and associated metrics and policies to make progress toward meeting those goals. These goals provide consistency with the citywide policies established in Chapter 2 Goals, Policies, and Programs, and should be followed and monitored per Policy 1-7 of this Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Performance Measures 114 TABLE 6-1 PERFORMANCE GOALS Goal Metric Key Actions 1. Construct all the low-stress bicycle facilities that support users of all ages and abilities by 2025 and build out the remainder of the bicycle and pedestrian network by 2035. Establish a construction pace of 0.5 miles of bicycle facilities and one pedestrian capital improvement project per year • Continue to seek competitive grant funding sources to implement the nine focus area projects • Consider bicycle and pedestrian facilities in all paving projects and intersection improvements • Review environmental documents and proposed development plans for consistency with this Plan and for a proposed facility’s ability to accommodate the needs of users of all ages and abilities 2. Enhance citywide pedestrian and bicycle safety Reduce total number of annual bicycle and pedestrian related collision rate by 50 percent by 2025 • Address collision locations identified in this Plan including but not limited to San Pablo Avenue, Carlson Boulevard, and Ohlone Greenway crossings by installing the projects identified in this Plan and implementing the education and enforcement programs laid out in Chapter 2. 3. Encourage and facilitate a significant increase in active transportation mode share and trips. Double the percentage of all walking trips and biking trips by 2025 • Require bicycle and pedestrian counts to be routinely collected with all intersection turning movement counts, such as for all environmental documents and traffic studies • Evaluate creating a GIS database of bicycle and pedestrian counts by location, including peak hour, weekday and weekend ADT, date, and source of data, as available • Review and monitor bicycle and pedestrian commute mode share from American Community Survey (ACS) data and the California Household Travel Survey, as recommended in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 4. Encourage new walking and biking trips to transit Double the percentage of walking and biking trips to transit by 2025 • Work with BART and AC Transit to monitor the percentage of riders walking and biking to transit • Prioritize and implement improvements near the BART stations and along San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus route Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Performance Measures 115 This page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Funding & Implementation 116 7. Funding & Implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Funding & Implementation 117 Federal, state, regional, county and local organizations provide funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects and programs. The most recent federal surface transportation funding program, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), was signed into law in July 2012. This is the first long-term federal transportation authorization enacted since 2005, and the new authorization brings significant changes to typical funding sources and structures. MAP-21 funding is distributed to federal and state surface transportation funds. Most of these resources are available to El Cerrito through Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. This chapter includes details about current programs that are used to fund existing scheduled projects and an assessment of upcoming programs as of May 2014. These may change as state and local programs adapt to the new MAP-21 funding. Funding Table 7-1 summarizes the applicability of these various funding sources to projects, planning efforts, and programs proposed in this plan. Detailed descriptions of the grant funding sources are presented in Appendix E. El Cerrito has been successful in securing a variety of competitive and non-competitive grant funding sources. Bicycle- and pedestrian-related expenditures since 2007 have totaled $14,223,780. Those funds represent a diverse set of funding sources, including Safe Routes to Transit, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Transportation for Livable Communities, and Measure J funding, among other sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Funding & Implementation 118 TABLE 7-1: REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCE APPLICABILITY MATRIX Funding Source Class I Bicycle Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III Bicycle Route Pedestrian Projects Other Projects Planning and Programs Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grants Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants Local Transportation Fund (LTF) California State Parks Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCP) Active Transportation Program (ATP), including Safe Routes to School Transportation Development Act (TDA) One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air2 Notes: 1. indicate that funds may be used for this category; indicate that funds may not be used for this category, and indicate that funds may be used, though restrictions apply. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Funding & Implementation 119 Implementation This section presents next steps for grant funding and costs associated with building and maintaining the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network. Future Funding Sources The City of El Cerrito should continue to seek grant funding for the focus area projects identified through this Plan. The most applicable funding sources for the improvements recommended by this Plan are the Active Transportation Program, One Bay Area Grants, and Highway Safety Improvement Program. Cost of the Active Transportation Network Table 7-2 presents unit costs per mile for the bikeway types. These costs include unit costs for standard treatments for each facility type with basic assumptions listed. The total cost per mile represents the total construction for a typical bikeway of that type, including engineering, design, construction management, mobilization, traffic control, and contingency. These numbers do not include right of way and environmental costs. TABLE 7-2 GENERALIZED UNIT COSTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS Facility/ Item Type Cost Unit Bicycle Facilities Unpaved Shared-Use Trail $200,000 Per Mile Class I Shared-Use Path (Paved) $1,000,000 Per Mile Parking-Protected Cycle track $570,000 Per Mile Buffered Bicycle Lanes $142,600 Per Mile Bicycle Lanes $84,500 Per Mile Bicycle Boulevard with Traffic Calming and Signage $800,000 Per Mile Bicycle Route with Signage and Sharrows $19,300 Per Mile Green-Backed Sharrows $108,900 Per Mile Bicycle Racks $500 Per Unit Pedestrian Facility Bulbout/Curb Extension $100,000 Each Pedestrian Refuge Island $10,000 Each Speed Humps $10,000 Each Raised Pedestrian Crosswalk $18,000 Each Flashing Beacons (includes $20,000 Per Crosswalk Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) $80,000 Per Crosswalk Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Customized Bicycle/Pedestrian Wayfinding Signs $2,000 Per Sign 1. Costs reflect capital costs plus contingency for engineering, design, construction management, mobilization, traffic control, and contingency. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Funding & Implementation 120 Table 7-3 presents the total cost of the Plan by project type. The total cost of all projects in the active transportation network is $33,569,400. This figure includes $5,339,400 for bikeways projects, $15,050,000 for pedestrian projects, and $13,180,000 for focus area projects. TABLE 7-3: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Project Type Proposed Segments (Miles) Estimated Cost Shared-Use Path 0.53 $530,000 Cycle track 2.54 $1,447,800 Buffered Bicycle Lanes 0.18 $25,700 Bicycle Lanes 1.79 $151,300 Bicycle Boulevard 3.74 $2,992,000 Bicycle Route with Sharrows 9.98 $192,600 Bicycle Route with Green-Backed Sharrows 1.40 - 2 Pedestrian Projects1 - $15,050,000 Focus Area Projects1 - $13,180,000 Total Cost1 $33,569,400 1. Project costs for pedestrian projects and focus area projects were calculated on an order of magnitude basis to understand planning-level costs. Projects were assigned a ranking of $ (<$50,000), ($50,000-200,000), (200,000-500,000), (>$500,000). To determine a total project cost, these ranges were averaged. 2. Costs are assumed with Fairmount Avenue Focus Area Project. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 121 Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy Introduction This citywide Crosswalk Policy is aimed at improving pedestrian safety and enhancing pedestrian mobility. A comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy contains a three-pronged approach of engineering, enforcement, and education programs. This document focuses on engineering elements, such as pedestrian crossing treatments and intersection design. This document describes the function of crosswalks and their legal context in the California Vehicle Code. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of marked crosswalks and summarizes research in the United States focused on pedestrian safety and crosswalks. It provides a summary of best practices related to numerous pedestrian treatments, including geometric, signage and striping, and signal hardware or operational measure treatments. The purpose of this Policy is to enable the City to respond to crosswalk requests in a manner that improves pedestrian accessibility and maintains public safety. It provides information to be used when making decisions about where standard crosswalks (two, parallel white stripes) can be marked; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as high- visibility crosswalks, flashing beacons and other special features, should be employed; and where crosswalks will not be marked due to safety concerns resulting from volume, speed, or sight distance issues. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 122 Crosswalk Fundamentals Pedestrian crossing and right-of-way laws vary state to state, and are often a source of driver or pedestrian uncertainty and confusion for when crossing is legal. This section outlines the types of crosswalks, where crossing the street is legal in California, and the steps the City should take in identifying locations for marked crosswalks. Types of Crosswalks Crosswalks are primarily classified by three characteristics: 1. Whether they are marked (demarcated with striping on the street) or unmarked (no striping) 2. Whether they are controlled (by a traffic signal or stop-sign) or uncontrolled (with no intersection control) 3. Whether they are located at an intersection (where two streets meet) or mid-block (between intersections) The following section outlines where crossing the street is legal in California. Based on pedestrian safety and crosswalk marking research, some types of crosswalks are safer than others generally marked, controlled crosswalks at an intersection have lower risk of pedestrian collisions than a mid-block, uncontrolled crosswalk. Where Is Crossing the Street Legal? In California, a legal crosswalk exists where a sidewalk meets a street, regardless of whether the crosswalk is marked with or without striping to denote the crosswalk). Pedestrians may legally cross any street, except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent signalized crossings, or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked crosswalks reinforce the location and legitimacy of a pedestrian crossing. These legal statues are contained in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) as follows: • Section 275 defines a legal crosswalk as: o That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 123 o Any portion of a roadway indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. • Section 21950 describes right-of-way at a crosswalk: o The driver of a marked vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. • Section 21955 describes where pedestrians may not cross a street: o Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. Why do Cities Mark Crosswalks? Sidewalks and crosswalks are essential links within a pedestrian network. Whether commuting, running an errand, exercising, or wandering, pedestrians will need safe and convenient crossing opportunities to reach their destinations. A marked crosswalk has three primary functions: 1) To create reasonable expectations where pedestrians may cross a roadway 2) To improve predictability of pedestrian actions and movement 3) To channel pedestrians to designated crossing locations (often selected for their optimal sight distance) Advantages of Marked Crosswalks Marked crosswalks offer the following advantages: • They help pedestrians find their way across complex intersections • They can designate the shortest path • They can direct pedestrians to locations of best sight distance • They assure pedestrians of their legal right to cross a roadway at an intersection or mid-block crossing ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 124 This last bullet point is important. The California Vehicle Code gives the right-of-way to pedestrians at any marked or unmarked crosswalk (as noted above), although the law is not always obeyed by road users, including both drivers and pedestrians. Drivers often fail to yield the right- of-way without the visual cue of a marked crosswalk. Pedestrians also do not always know the right-of-way law, and will either wait for a gap in traffic, or assert their right-of-way by stepping in to the roadway. Steps to Identify Candidate Locations for Marked Crosswalks Identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks involves two steps. The first step is to locate the places people would like to cross the street. These locations are called pedestrian desire lines, which represent the most desirable, and typically most direct, places that people want to cross a street. Pedestrian desire lines are influenced by elements of the roadway network, such as transit stops, and nearby land uses (homes, schools, parks, trails, commercial centers, etc.). This information provides a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connected, and continuous walking environment. The second step in identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks is to identify where people can cross safely. The primary consideration in this step is adequate stopping sight distance. Of all road users, pedestrians have the highest risk of injury in a collision because they are the least protected. The crosswalk safety treatment toolboxes in this policy provide numerous options for enhancing pedestrian safety at uncontrolled and controlled crossings, respectively, with treatment selection based on the overall context of the crosswalk – including surrounding land uses, roadway characteristics, and user characteristics. When to Install Marked Crosswalks Once candidate locations are identified, an engineering evaluation should be conducted to determine if a marked crosswalk should be installed at an uncontrolled or mid-block location, and if so, what visibility enhancements should be included in the design. Crossings should be marked where all of the following occur: • Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk • Sufficient sight distance as measured by stopping sight distance calculations exists and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk marking • Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk Figures A-1 and A-2 describe the overall procedures from the moment City staff receives a request for a new marked crosswalk (or considers removing an existing marked crosswalk) to the installation of the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 125 treatment. As described, the first steps to determine the appropriate location and treatment for the crosswalk include a staff field visit. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 126 Figure A-1: Marked Crosswalk Placement Flowchart Severe injury or fatal pedestrian collision occurs Use El Cerrito Pedestrian Toolbox and engineering judgment to determine treatment options Citizen walkability audits identify a location for marked crosswalk installation or improvement Citizen surveys identify a key location for marked crosswalk installation or improvement if yes if no Are demand considerations met (see Figure This is not a good location for a marked crossing. Action will result in Begin Traffic Investigation process, including staff field visit Action will result in Action may result in Action may result in City Staff receives request for a marked crosswalk installation or improvement ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 127 Figure A-2: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations if yes if no if yes if no if yes if no if yes if no if yes if no feasible infeasib le 20 pedestrians per hour (in any two hours, not necessarily consecutive) cross at the location Location connects two pedestrian generators such as a school, park, bus stop, or hospital expected to generate pedestrians on a regular basis Nearest appropriately marked or protected crosswalk is at least 300 feet or more away Insufficient need to justify a marked crosswalk Low speed (posted or prima facie 25 MPH), two-lane roadway Pedestrians can be easily seen from a feasible stopping sight distance Direct pedestrians to the nearest marked or protected crosswalk Can the sight distance obstruction be removed or the speed limit lowered? Use El Cerrito Pedestrian Toolbox and engineering judgment to determine treatment options Direct pedestrians to the nearest marked crosswalk or consider installing stop sign, signal, or grade separation Note: Where it is determined that a marked crosswalk is not necessary based on Figure A-2, other treatment options are available. These include traffic calming measures, such as speeds tables and speed humps; curb extensions and refuges to narrow the roadway, speed feedback signs, and similar treatments to help reducing crossing distances and slow speeds. These engineering treatments are described in the following pages. In addition to engineering treatments, education and enforcement programs should also be considered. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 128 Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancement Toolbox This section presents best practices for the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block locations. Uncontrolled crossings require additional consideration during planning and design since traffic signals and stop signs are not provided to require motorists to stop – they must recognize the pedestrian and yield accordingly. Thus, providing appropriate enhancements to improve the visibility and safety of pedestrians crossing the street at an uncontrolled location is critical. crosswalk Safety Research Several studies of pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings have been completed, from which conflicting research had emerged in the past. Studies conducted in San Diego in the 1970s showed that pedestrian collision risk at marked, uncontrolled crosswalks was greater than at unmarked crossings. This led many cities to remove marked crosswalks, as they were suspected of providing a false sense of security that drivers would yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. However, a more recent study1 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) comprehensively 1 Zeeger, J. Stewart, and H. Huang. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Publication FHWA-RD-01- 142, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001. reviewed crossing safety at 1,000 marked and 1,000 matching unmarked crosswalks in 30 U.S. cities, controlling for site context factors. The study concluded that site factors related to pedestrian-involved collisions included pedestrian average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle ADT, number of lanes, median type, and the region of the U.S. At uncontrolled locations on two-lane roads and multi-lane roads with ADT below 12,000 vehicles, FHWA found that the presence of a marked crosswalk alone, compared with an unmarked crosswalk, made no statistically significant difference in the pedestrian crash rate. However, on multi-lane roads with an ADT of greater than 12,000 vehicles (without a raised median) and 15,000 vehicles (with a raised median) the presence of a marked crosswalk without other improvements was associated with a statistically significant higher rate of pedestrian collisions compared to sites with an unmarked crosswalk. Mid-Block Crossings Crosswalks can be marked at intersections and mid-block points. Mid-block crossings play an important role for pedestrian access; without mid-block crossing locations, pedestrians may face the undesirable choice to detour to a controlled crossing location, detour to an intersection where crossing is legal even if not controlled, or cross illegally (if the midblock crossing is between two signalized intersections). Where signals are spaced far apart (generally more than 600-800 feet), pedestrians may have to detour several minutes to a controlled crossing location. Pedestrians are more likely to wait for a gap in traffic and cross at an unmarked location, rather than travel a distance out of their way to find a marked crosswalk. Mid-block crossings also offer an important safety consideration: fewer potential conflict points between pedestrians and motorists. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 129 FHWA stressed that the results of the study should not encourage city officials to simply remove (or fail to install) marked crosswalks. Rather, he suggested adding crosswalk enhancements to the marked crosswalks to balance mobility needs with safety needs. These improvements include providing raised medians on multi-lane roads, installing traffic and pedestrian signals where warranted, adding curb extensions, providing adequate lighting, and designing intersections with tighter turn radii. In the FHWA study, about 70 percent of the pedestrian crashes occurred at marked crosswalks on multi-lane roads. Of the pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks, 17.6 percent were classified as multiple-threat collisions. Multiple-threat collisions occur as one car slows down to allow pedestrians to cross, but a second car approaching from behind in the adjacent lane may not see the pedestrian, as illustrated in the image to the right. The slowing vehicle blocks the sight line of both the pedestrian and the second motorist, leading to the pedestrian-vehicle collision. Multi- lane roadways are therefore not well-served by unmarked or marked crosswalks alone. At these sites, the study concluded, engineers should consider countermeasures that provide additional safety to pedestrians and alert motorists to upcoming crosswalks. These countermeasures include advanced yield lines with corresponding signs informing motorists where to yield. Other more substantial measures may also be considered, such as signalization, illumination, or raised medians. The summary table below shows when marking a crosswalk only should not be considered. Multiple threat conflicts on multi-lane roadways occur where a vehicle yielding to a pedestrian inhibits sight lines to another oncoming vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 130 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 131 With these studies as a backdrop, the remainder of this chapter outlines a decision making process to identify appropriate treatments and presents a variety of treatment options to mitigate safety, visibility, or operational concerns at specific locations. Treatment Selection At uncontrolled locations, a marked crosswalk with striping only may not provide adequate visibility to the pedestrian crossing, especially at high volume, high speed, or multi-lane crossings. Enhancements should be considered for installation to supplement crosswalk striping. Appropriate treatments should be identified based on: • Site characteristics: presence of pedestrian desire lines, available sight distance and visibility, lighting • Geometric configuration of the roadway: number of vehicle travel lanes and presence of curb extensions or median refuge islands • Travel data: 85th percentile speeds, posted speed limits, and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. Marked crosswalks alone should not be installed on multi-lane streets (two or more lanes per direction; three or more lanes total) under the following conditions2: • Speeds of greater than 40 miles per hour • Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 12,000 without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island • Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 15,000 with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island Locations with speeds and ADT volumes below these thresholds may also warrant enhancements. The Uncontrolled Treatment Toolbox outlines considerations for the use of enhancements in various contexts as summarized in Table A-1. This Toolbox may be used to identify potential treatments at a candidate uncontrolled crosswalk location based on the results of Figures A-1 and A-2. A calculation of Pedestrian Level of Service forms the basis for the treatment identification. Pedestrian Level of Service is the average delay experienced by pedestrians as they are waiting to cross the street. Expected motorist compliance is another other key variable for treatment identification. Compliance is based on field observations and engineering judgment. It is meant to reflect typical motorist responses to pedestrians attempting to cross the street. If drivers are likely to stop for a pedestrian, the compliance is rated “high.” If drivers rarely stop for pedestrians, compliance is “low.” The compliance rate should be assumed to be low for all locations where the speed limit is greater than 30 MPH. Table 5 summarizes the appropriate treatments based on level of enhancement needed (with the most significant enhancement required with the worst LOS and compliance rates). 2 California MUTCD, Section 3B. 18. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 132 Level 1 represents a minor intervention, appropriate for situations with lower speeds and traffic volumes and high driver yielding rates. Higher levels represent more significant interventions, as may be needed on higher speed or volume roadways, wider roadways, and roadways where motorists are less likely to yield to pedestrians. Treatments may be combined with higher level treatments added to lower level treatments flashing beacons with curb extensions). Additional funding sources should be identified as needed for these enhancements. Failing to provide an enhanced crosswalk and/or removing a marked crosswalk should be an option of last resort. Treatment Options The following tables described preferred pedestrian safety treatments for uncontrolled locations with different roadway characteristics: • Table A-2: Geometric Treatments • Table A-3: Striping and Signage • Table A-4: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures Within each table, devices are categorized in three levels based on the level of safety concern they are meant to address: Level 1 (all cases), Level 2 (enhancements), and Level 3 (advanced enhancements). Categories of improvements are cumulative; for example, a Level 2 device should also include appropriate Level 1 devices. TABLE A-1: APPLICATION OF ENHANCED TREATMENTS FOR UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS Pedestrian Level of Service Expected Motorist Compliance Low (or Speed >30 mph) Moderate High LOS A-D (average delay up to 30 seconds) LEVEL 3 2 lane road: In-pavement flashers, overhead flashing beacons Multi-lane road: RRFB Plus LEVELS 1 and 2 LEVEL 2 Curb Extensions, Bus Bulb, Reduced Curb Radii, Staggered Pedestrian Refuge Plus LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 High Visibility Crosswalk Markings, Advanced Yield Lines, Advance Signage LOS E-F (average delay greater than 30 seconds) LEVEL 4 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, RRFB, or Direct Pedestrians to Nearest Safe Crossing Plus LEVELS 1 and 2 LEVEL 3 2 lane road: In-pavement flashers, overhead flashing beacons Multi-lane road: RRFB Plus LEVELS 1 and 2 LEVEL 2 Curb Extensions, Reduced Curb Radii, Staggered Pedestrian Refuge Plus LEVEL 1 Notes: A pedestrian refuge island (median) is recommended for consideration in all scenarios with more than 2 lanes of traffic. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 133 TABLE A-2: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 2-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”) Image Source: Fehr & Peers Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway width and crosswalk length, reduce speeds, reduce left-turn and rear-end collisions, and often eliminate the multiple- threat collision. It takes an average pedestrian almost four seconds to cross each additional travel lane. Therefore, reducing the number of travel lanes minimizes the amount of time that pedestrians are in the crosswalk. More travel lanes than necessary can also increase vehicle travel speeds; research has shown that the severity of pedestrian collisions increases with vehicle travel speed. Where fewer travel lanes are not possible, travel lanes can be narrowed to as little as nine feet, especially left- and right-turn pockets. Level 1 $20/LF (Includes removal of existing pavement markings and repainting. Assumes existing curbs remain as is) 2-2. Removal of Sight-Distance Obstructions Image Source: Fehr & Peers If objects impede sight-distance, this may result in an unsafe condition where motorists and pedestrians are unable to see each other. Items such as parked cards, signage, landscaping, fencing, and street furniture should be placed in a location that will not obstruct sight distance. Level 1 $150/EA (Item removed is anticipated to be no larger than a sign and post) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 134 TABLE A-2: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 2-3. Pedestrian Refuge Island Image Source: Fehr & Peers Raised islands are placed in the center of the roadway separating opposing lanes of traffic with cutouts or ramps for accessibility along the pedestrian path. Median refuge islands are recommended where right- of-way allows and conditions warrant. Studies show medians are one of the most important safety enhancements available for crosswalks. They simplify complicated multi-lane crossings by breaking the crossings/conflicts into two stages. Level 1 $130/LF (New curb and new concrete barrier. Assumes 6 foot median) 2-4. Curb Extensions Image Source: Fehr & Peers Curb extensions extend the curb and sidewalks further into the roadway, shortening the length of the crosswalk. They act as a traffic calming device by narrowing the effective width of the roadway and slowing turning speeds. Because they extend into the roadway, often past parallel-parked vehicles, they improve visibility for pedestrians. The also provide space for street furniture, landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs and signal poles. Curb extensions can be constructed with reduced curb radii and to accommodate ADA improvements, such as directional curb ramps. Level 1 $140/LF (Curb, sidewalk, removal of existing curb, new bollards, does not include curb ramps) ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 135 TABLE A-2: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 2-5. Split Pedestrian Crossover (SPXO) Image Source: Fehr & Peers This measure is similar to traditional median refuge islands; the difference is that the crosswalks in the roadway are staggered such that a pedestrian crosses half of the street and then walks toward traffic to reach the second half of the crosswalk. This measure must be designed for accessibility by including rails and truncated domes to direct sight-impaired pedestrians along the path of travel. Level 1 Note: see Table 11 for a Pedestrian Signal $130/LF (Same materials as 6- 3) 2-6. Raised Crosswalk Image Source: Fehr & Peers Raised crosswalks are speed tables (flat-topped speed humps) outfitted with crosswalk markings and signage, providing pedestrians with a level street crossing. By raising the level of the crossing, vehicles drive more slowly through the crosswalk and pedestrians are more visible to approaching motorists. Level 2 $18,000/EA ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 136 TABLE A-2: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 2-7. Pedestrian Overpass/Underpass Image Source: Fehr & Peers This measure consists of a pedestrian or pedestrian/bicycle overpass or underpass of a roadway. It provides complete separation from motor vehicle traffic, normally where no other pedestrian facility is available, and connects off-road trails and paths across major barriers. Overpasses and underpasses should be used as a measure of last resort because of their cost and barriers to their effective/efficient use, with topographical and desire line considerations influencing their design. Level 3 $150/SF Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 137 TABLE A-3: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 3-1. High Visibility Markings Image Source: Fehr & Peers All uncontrolled marked crosswalks should feature high-visibility markings. Various striping patterns are available. At trail crossings, such as at the Ohlone Greenway, a triple-four crossing with bicycle stencils in the middle to denote a shared crosswalk for bicyclist s and pedestrians should be considered. Level 1 $6/Foot 3-2. Advanced Yield Line Image Source: Fehr & Peers Advanced yield lines, often referred to as “sharks teeth”, should be striped at all marked, uncontrolled crosswalks on multi-lane roadways. They should be placed 20-30 feet in front of the crosswalk. Their intention is to identify where vehicles should stop when yielding to a pedestrian to maintain adequate sight lines. These are typically use on multi-lane roadways but could be considered on two-lane roadways were driver encroachment and yielding are a concern. They should be used with the “Yield Here to Pedestrians” sign. Level 1 $100/EA ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 138 3-3. Advanced Warning Signs Image Source: Fehr & Peers High-visibility yellow or fluorescent-yellow-green (FYG) signs are posted at crossings to increase the visibility of a pedestrian crossing. Level 1 $1,000/EA 3-4. In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign Image Source: FHWA This measure involves posting regulatory pedestrian signage on lane edge lines and/or road centerlines. The in-street pedestrian crossing sign may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. They can be installed on medians and may also be temporary signs, placed by school crossing guards during school hours. Level 1 $400/EA Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 139 TABLE A-4: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 4-1. Pedestrian-Scale Lighting Image source: www.ci.mil.wi.us Pedestrian-scale lighting improves visibility along a pedestrian’s path and across driveways. It also improves visibility at pedestrian/vehicle conflict points in crosswalks. Level 1 $10,000 per light assuming light every 100 feet 4-2. Flashing Beacon Image Source: Fehr & Peers Flashing amber lights are installed on overhead or post-mounted signs, in advance of the crosswalk or at the crosswalk’s entrance. Full-time flashing beacons are not recommended; flashing beacons are most effective when they are activated by the crosswalk user (they should rest on dark). By resting on dark, they can also be solar powered. Level 2 $20,000/EA ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 140 TABLE A-4: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 4-3. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Image Source: Fehr & Peers The RRFB is an enhancement of the flashing beacon that replaced the traditional slow flashing incandescent lamps with rapid flashing LED lamps. The RRFB may be push-button activated or activated with passive detection. This treatment was approved for use in California via Interim Approval IA-11-83 in 2011. Any installations should be reported to Caltrans for documentation, but do not require pre-approval for experimentation. Level 2 $20,000/EA 4-4. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Image Source: FHWA The PHB is a pedestrian-activated beacon that is a combination of a beacon flasher and a traffic control signal. When actuated, the PHB displays a yellow (warning) indication followed by a solid red indication. During the pedestrian clearance interval, the driver sees a flashing red “wig-wag” pattern until the clearance interval has ended and the beacon goes dark. The device is included in the 2012 California MUTCD for use at midblock locations. Level 3 $80,000/EA ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 141 TABLE A-4: UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost 4-5. Pedestrian Signal Image Source: Fehr & Peers A pedestrian signal is a conventional traffic control device with warrants for use based on the MUTCD. The pedestrian warrants were revised with the 2009 Federal and 2012 California MUTCD. Level 4 $250,000/EA Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 142 Controlled Crosswalk Treatment Toolbox Controlled crosswalks are located at stop-controlled or signalized intersections. Generally, these crossings do not need enhancements beyond standard crosswalk markings (two parallel lines), as the traffic signal or stop-sign controls allocation of right-of-way. However, in some cases, such as in the Downtown, at skewed intersections, or near schools, the City may consider providing enhanced crossings to create a sense of place or improved aesthetics, or to improve visibility. This chapter presents preferred and enhanced measures for pedestrian treatments at controlled locations to: • Improve the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and vice-versa • Communicate to motorists and pedestrians who has the right-of- way • Accommodate vulnerable populations such as the disabled, children, and the elderly • Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles • Reduce vehicular speeds at locations with potential pedestrian conflicts All treatments identified in this chapter are required or allowed by the standards and specifications in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Preferred Crossing Treatments Preferred crossing treatments are identified as the basic pedestrian crossing improvements to be provided at all stop-controlled and signalized intersections. New controlled intersections should be designed with these treatments included; existing controlled intersections that require retrofits may be prioritized and upgraded as City funds become available. These treatments are based on recommended best practices in pedestrian safety:3 • Mark crosswalks on all legs of the intersection • Provide advanced stop bars in advance of each crosswalk • Minimize the number of vehicle traffic lanes pedestrians must cross • Provide median refuge islands and thumbnails, as width and path of turn maneuvers allow • Remove sight-distance obstructions • Provide directional curb ramps for each crosswalk two per corner) 3 See America Walks Signalized Intersection Enhancements that Benefit Pedestrians http://americawalks.org/wp-content/upload/America-Walks- Signalized-Intersection-Enhancement-Report-Updated-8.16.2012.pdf (2012). ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 143 • Eliminate free right-turn slip lanes, where feasible, and mitigate for pedestrian safety where they remain • Locate bus stops on the far-side of the intersection (or in front of mid-block crossings) • Minimize cycle • Reduce prevalence or eliminate permitted signal phasing where pedestrian crossings exist • Provide pedestrian signal heads for all crossings at signalized intersections • Provide adequate pedestrian clearance intervals (crossing time) at signalized intersections Enhanced Crossing Treatments At high volume pedestrian crossing locations or other areas designated by the City as pedestrian zones, the City may provide additional crosswalk enhancements at controlled intersections. These treatments provide improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians by slowing traffic through geometric changes, providing signal timing or phasing modifications, or enhancing striping or signing to improve visibility. The following tables describe the preferred and optional enhanced pedestrian safety treatments that may be used at the City’s discretion for controlled locations: • Table A-5: Geometric Treatments • Table A-6: Striping and Signage • Table A-7: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 144 TABLE A-5: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level 5-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”) Image Source: Fehr & Peers Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway width and crosswalk length, reduce speeds, reduce left-turn and rear-end collisions, and often eliminate the multiple-threat collision. An average pedestrian takes almost four seconds to cross each additional travel lane. Therefore, reducing the number of travel lanes minimizes the amount of time that pedestrians are in the crosswalk. More travel lanes than necessary can also increase vehicle travel speeds; research has shown that the severity of pedestrian collisions increases with vehicle travel speed. Where fewer travel lanes are not possible, travel lanes can be narrowed to as little as nine feet, especially left- and right-turn pockets. Preferred 5-2. Pedestrian Refuge Island with “Thumbnail” Image Source: Fehr & Peers Median pedestrian islands provide a refuge for pedestrians to stand if they do not have sufficient time to cross a street. They can be enhanced with median pedestrian push buttons at signalized crossings. Median islands can be installed throughout a corridor or only at specific crosswalks. Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 145 TABLE A-5: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level 5-3. Removal of Sight-Distance Obstructions Image Source: Fehr & Peers If objects impede sight-distance, an unsafe condition may arise where motorists and pedestrians are unable to see each other. Items such as parked cards, signage, landscaping, fencing, and street furniture should be placed in a location that will not obstruct sight-distance. Preferred 5-4. Directional Curb Ramps with Truncated Domes Image Source: Fehr & Peers Curb ramps offer wheelchair access to/from the sidewalk and crosswalk. Truncated domes, or tactile strips, warn blind pedestrians that they are about to enter a crosswalk. The best practice for curb ramps is to install two per corner so that each ramp points directly into the crosswalk and to the curb ramp at the other side of the street. Corner bulbouts can be used to increase the amount of space available for directional curb ramps. Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 146 TABLE A-5: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level 5-5. Right-Turn Lane Design Image Source: Fehr & Peers Free right-turns allow vehicles to turn right at high speeds. Since the vehicles are not typically controlled by the traffic signal in this circumstance, crosswalks across the turn lanes are usually uncontrolled crosswalks. Controlled right-turn movements are preferable for pedestrians because they require a vehicle to stop on red before turning right. Where “pork-chop” islands that channelize right-turns are necessary to provide acceptable turning radii, raised crosswalks are a pedestrian enhancement. Other options include signalizing the crossing (especially if it is multi-lane) and designing the “pork-chop” for slower speeds and better visibility of pedestrians. Preferred 5-6. Far-Side Bus Stops Image Source: Fehr & Peers Far-side bus stops allow pedestrians to cross behind the bus, improving pedestrian visibility. Far side bus stops also enhance transit operations by providing a guaranteed merging opportunity for buses. Exceptions for far-side bus stops include considerations for bus routing, sufficient sidewalk area, and conflicts with parking, land uses, or driveways. Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 147 TABLE A-5: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level 5-7. Curb Extensions Image Source: Fehr & Peers Curb extensions extend the curb and sidewalks farther into the roadway, shortening the length of the crosswalk. They act as a traffic calming device by narrowing the effective width of the roadway and slowing turning speeds. Because they extend into the roadway, often past parallel-parked vehicles, they improve visibility for pedestrians. The also provide space for street furniture, landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs and signal poles. Curb extensions can be constructed to accommodate ADA improvements, such as directional curb ramps. Enhanced ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 148 TABLE A-5: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level 5-8. Reduced Turn Radius Image Source: AARP Vehicles travel faster through turns with a large radius. Reducing the radius of a corner is an effective way of reducing vehicle speeds. In suburban environments, turn radii generally do not need to exceed 30 feet. In urban environments turn radii can be 10 feet or less, especially where the meeting of one-way streets prohibits turning movements. Where on-street parking is permitted and/or bicycle lanes are present on one or both streets, consideration for further reductions of radii should occur acknowledging that the effective radius is increased with on- street parking. Corner curb radii on multi-lane streets should acknowledge that trucks turning right can turn into two lanes. Enhanced ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 149 TABLE A-6: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE Treatment Description Level 6-1. Marked Crosswalks Image Source: Google Maps Marking a crosswalk across all approaches of an intersection improves pedestrian accessibility. At a four- way intersection, a closed crosswalk forces pedestrians to cross via three crosswalks instead of one. Crosswalks on all approaches can often be accommodated without a significant impact to traffic signal operations. At controlled trail crossings, high-visibility triple-four trail crossings with bicycle legends in the middle should be considered to indicate a shared crossing space for bicyclists and pedestrians. Preferred 6-2. Advanced Stop Bar Image Source: Fehr & Peers Advanced stop bars are placed five to seven feet in front of crosswalks. They keep vehicles from encroaching into the crosswalk when stopped at a red signal or stop sign. Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 150 TABLE A-6: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE Treatment Description Level 6-3. High Visibility Markings Image Source: Fehr & Peers High-visibility crosswalks at controlled locations are appropriate in areas with high pedestrian volumes, at crosswalks with skewed geometries, or near sensitive land uses (such as schools). Enhanced 6-4. Textured Pavement or Colored Crosswalks Image Source: Fehr & Peers Textured pavement can be used in crosswalks or in intersections as an aesthetic enhancement. Because of its texture, it may also calm traffic by slowing vehicles before they cross an intersection. It can also make crosswalks more visible. Textured pavement can be made of brick or, alternatively, both concrete and asphalt can be stamped to look like brick or stone. At controlled locations, standard crosswalk striping should be provided in addition to the textured pavement. A smooth, non-slip surface is preferable. Enhanced ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 151 TABLE A-7: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level 7-1. Adequate Crossing Times Image Source: Fehr & Peers The 2012 California MUTCD requires a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second be assumed to determine crossing times as a default minimum (4.0 feet per second was previously the guidance). A speed slower than 3.5 feet per second can be used where slower pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk, such as locations near schools, hospitals, or senior centers. Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 152 TABLE A-7: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level 7-2. Pedestrian Countdown Signal Image Source: Fehr & Peers Pedestrian countdown signals give pedestrians “Walk” and “Don’t Walk” signals with a second-by-second countdown for each phase. Research suggests that pedestrians are more likely to obey the “Don’t Walk” signal when delivered using a countdown signal. The device has been shown to enhance safety for all road users. The 2012 California MUTCD requires that all new pedestrian signals be countdown signals. Preferred 7-3. Pedestrian Signals and Push Buttons Image Source: Fehr & Peers Mounting push buttons for different crosswalks on one pole can be confusing for blind pedestrians. Push buttons should be separated by ten feet and placed within five feet of each curb ramp, one per crosswalk. At long crosswalks (≥60 feet) with a median refuge island, push buttons can be placed in the median for pedestrians who may not be able to cross the entire crosswalk in one cycle length. In areas with high pedestrian volumes, eliminating pedestrian push buttons and providing a pedestrian phase in every cycle, can enhance walkability (and signal compliance). Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 153 TABLE A-7: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level 7-4. Short Cycle Image Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Long cycle at signalized intersections result in long pedestrian wait times to cross a street. By shortening an intersection’s cycle length, pedestrians do not have to wait as long to cross after pushing the button to request a “Walk” signal. Preferred 7-5. Protected Left-Turns Image Source: Fehr & Peers Where permitted left-turns are allowed, denoted by a “Left Turn Yield on Green” sign, left-turning vehicles can conflict with pedestrians in the crosswalk. By making the left-turn protected, so that it is allowed only with a green arrow, the “Walk” signal at a crosswalk occurs at the same time that through- and right- turning vehicles in the same direction receive a green light. This reduces the risk of left-turning vehicle conflicts with the opposing crosswalk; since left-turns typically occur at a higher speed than right-turns, collisions of increased severity can be avoided by protecting left-turns. Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 154 TABLE A-7: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level 7-6. Accessible Pedestrian Signals Image Source: Fehr & Peers Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and detectors provide information, such as “Walk” indications and direction of crossing, in non-visual formats to improve accessibility for blind pedestrians. Audible options for accessible pedestrian signals include audible tones and speech messages. Vibrotactile push- buttons are effective options that alleviate the impacts of noise created by audible pedestrian signals. They are also accessible to deaf pedestrians. APS should always be provided when two push buttons are located on one pole and where persons with disabilities are expected frequently at a crossing. At other locations, APS is currently a best practice, but is expected to become a requirement when the proposed rulemaking of the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) is finalized. Enhanced ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 155 TABLE A-7: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level 7-7. Pedestrian Recall Image Source: Fehr & Peers Pedestrian recall gives pedestrians a “Walk” signal at every cycle. No push-button or detection is necessary since a “Walk” signal will always be given. Pedestrian recalls are useful in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. They demonstrate that an intersection is meant to serve both vehicles and pedestrians. In general, pedestrian recall should be used if pedestrians actuate a “Walk” signal 75 percent of the time during three or more hours per day. Recall can be used 24-hours a day or during peak hours for pedestrians (in which case push buttons should continue to be provided). Enhanced 7-8. No Right Turn on Red Image Source: FHWA When attempting to turn right on red, motorists must look left to see if the road is clear; motorists often do not look right before turning and may not see pedestrians to their right. Restricting right turns on red can reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. “Blank out” turn restriction signs (see 11-9 below) are more effective than conventional “No Right Turn on Red” signs. “No Right Turn on Red” signs that specify time-of-day restrictions or “When Pedestrians are Present” are confusing to motorists and are often disregarded. Enhanced ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 156 TABLE A-7: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level 7-9. Blank-Out Turn Restriction LED Sign Image Source: Fehr & Peers The ubiquity of conventional turn restriction signs, usually for no right turn on red, contributes to their disregard by motorists. Blank out turn restriction signs activate only when the specified movement is prohibited. The LED sign is also very visible. Enhanced 7-10. Animated Eyes Image Source: Fehr & Peers Animated eyes pedestrian signals feature eyes that move from side to side when a “Walk” signal is given. The signals remind pedestrians to look for turning vehicles before proceeding into the crosswalk. Research has indicated that animated eyes pedestrian signals reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Enhanced ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Crosswalk Policy 157 TABLE A-7: CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level 7-11. Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Image Source: Fehr & Peers A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) advances the “Walk” signal for a few seconds while through-vehicles continue to receive a red indication. By allowing pedestrians to get a head start into the crosswalk, it can reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles. The 2012 California MUTCD recommends that LPIs be at least three seconds in duration. Right-turn on red restrictions may be needed with LPIs are installed in locations with lower pedestrian volumes. Enhanced 7-12. Push Button for Extended Crossing Time Image Source: FHWA Some pedestrians may need extra time to safely cross a street. Traffic signals can be retrofitted to provide pedestrians with increased crossing time by extending the duration of a pushbutton press. Enhanced Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014. \ ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Relationship to Other Plans 158 Appendix B: Relationship to Other Plans Relationships to Other Plans The Active Transportation Plan is consistent with plans and policies at local, state, and federal levels. Federal Policies The United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) can issue Policy Statements to help guide actions. US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations In 2010, the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) issued a policy directive in support of walking and bicycling, encouraging transportation agencies to go beyond minimum standards in fully integrating active transportation into projects. As part of the statement, the US DOT encouraged agencies to adopt similar policy statements in support of walking and bicycling considerations such as: Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes Ensuring availability of transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities Going beyond minimum design standards ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Relationship to Other Plans 159 Integrating bicycling and pedestrian accommodations on new, rehabilitated, and limited access bridges Collecting data on walking and bicycling trips Setting mode share for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time Removing snow from sidewalks and shared use paths Improving non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act Title III is legislation enacted in 1990 that provides thorough civil liberties protections to individuals with disabilities with regards to employment, state and local government services, and access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Title III of the Act requires places of public accommodation to be accessible and usable to all people, including those with disabilities. While the letter of the law applies to “public accommodations,” the spirit of the law applies not only to public agencies but to all facilities serving the public, whether publicly or privately funded. State Policies State policies that relate to this Plan include: Complete Streets Act of 2008 California’s Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly bill 1358) requires all cities to modify the circulation element of their general plan to “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users” when a substantive revision of the circulation element occurs. The law went into effect on January 1, 2011. The law also directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to amend its guidelines for the development of circulation elements in order to aid cities and counties in meeting the requirements of the Complete Streets Act. Senate Bill 375/Assembly Bill 32 California Assembly Bill 32 requires greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be reduced by 28 percent by the year 2002 and by 50 percent by the year 2050 in response to climate change. Senate Bill 375 provides the implementation mechanisms for AB 32. It requires metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning agencies to plan for these reductions with the development of Sustainable Community Strategies, which will be a regional guide for housing, land uses, and transportation and will incorporate the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). One key component of this is the reduction of automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled. Planning for increases in walking, bicycling, and transit use as viable alternatives are important components of these plans. Regional, County, and adjacent Cities Policies and Connections This Plan is consistent with regional- and county-level plans as well as neighboring cities’ bicycle and pedestrian plans. Pedestrian and bicycle networks were reviewed from local and regional agencies, including the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Relationship to Other Plans 160 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), and cities of Richmond and Albany to promote a coordinated regional bicycle system. These plans are described briefly below. Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Policy on Routine Accommodation The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional transportation planning agency for the Bay Area. In 2006, MTC adopted a policy on “Routine Accommodation.” The policy states that pedestrian and bicyclist consideration must be integrated into planning, design, and construction of transportation projects that use regional transportation funds. The policy requires sponsors of a project, such as a city or county agency, to complete a project checklist, often referred to as a Complete Street Checklist. The checklist is intended to be completed at the earliest stages of the projects so that considerations for bicyclist and pedestrian accommodation can be made at the inception of the project. Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area MTC updated the Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area in 2009. The purpose of the plan is to direct MTC’s regional transportation funds for high-priority facilities that serve regional bicycle trips and update the regional bicycle network. The MTC Plan details the length and completion cost of the regional bikeways by county. For Contra Costa County, this includes 138 new miles. The plan estimates the cost to build out the bikeway network in Contra Costa County at $30 million. The Plan identifies San Pablo Avenue and the BART rail line as segments of the Regional Bicycle Network. Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the comprehensive regional planning agency and Council of Governments for the nine counties and 101 cities of the San Francisco Bay region. Motivated by the California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, ABAG developed Plan Bay Area in July 2013, as regional transportation plan that guides the Bay Area in a long-range plan to significantly reduce greenhouse gases by 2040. The focus of this plan is to devote most (87%) of funding to operate and maintain the existing transportation network, with the remaining budget aimed at next-generation transit projects and other programs that support reducing GHG emissions. BART Bicycle Plan The goal of the BART Bicycle Plan (2012) was to attract more bicycle users and fewer cars to the system. The Plan outlines the specific strategies needed to encourage passengers to bike and creates a Bicycle Investment Tool that BART staff and other transit agencies can use to select the most ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Relationship to Other Plans 161 effective improvements. With a singular goal to double the share of BART riders that bike by 2022, the recommended strategies include better cyclist circulation, plentiful bike parking, improved bike access beyond BART; optimized bike accommodations on the train, and more bicycle- supportive policies and programs. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) updated the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 2009. The proposed bicycle network includes Class II lanes on San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito. WCCTAC Transit Enhancement and Wayfinding Plan The West Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (WCCTAC) developed the Transit Enhancement & Wayfinding Plan in 2011. The purpose of the plan is to generate increased transit ridership by identifying specific strategies that improve access to transit centers and routes. The plan accomplishes this by establishing transit improvement projects and programs in categories such as transit centers, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, pedestrian and bicycle access improvements to transit centers, and pedestrian and bicycle wayfinding signage to transit centers. Both El Cerrito Del Norte and El Cerrito Plaza BART stations are included as study locations for the plan. The Plan also includes wayfinding design guidelines for various bicycle and pedestrian facility types. East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan The 2007 East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan Map includes multiple trail alignments through El Cerrito. The plan proposes an extension of the existing Ohlone Greenway south to connect with Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and further south to Union City. Richmond Bicycle Master Plan The Richmond Plan (2011) provides a vision for the future of bicycling, shaped by the values of the community and supported by policies included in the General Plan and the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The Plan focuses on the development of a complete on- street bicycling network, building safe and accessible connections to the Bay Trail and Richmond Greenway, and reducing barriers, such as freeway interchanges and railroad crossings. The network includes local routes on neighborhood streets, as well as important corridors such as Barrett Avenue. It also identifies opportunities for new, secure bicycle parking at key destinations, and provides guidance on programs that educate and encourage bicycling for recreation and everyday use. The plan proposes routes within the City that extend into El Cerrito. Class II routes are proposed for Fairmont Avenue, Moeser Lane, and Cutting Boulevard. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Relationship to Other Plans 162 Class III routes are proposed for Potrero Avenue, Tehama/Schmidt Lane, Stockton Avenue, and Central Avenue. Albany Active Transportation Plan The Albany ATP (2012) plan focuses on addressing the key needs of the City to support their mostly local street network, and improve connectivity and safety. As with El Cerrito, Ohlone Greenway was identified as a key barrier to cycling. Suggested improvements included improving intersection crossings, wayfinding, and general safety along the corridor. Local Policies El Cerrito General Plan (1999) The City of El Cerrito General Plan: Circulation Element addresses the movement of people and materials by transit, automobiles, trucks, bicycles, and walking within the City and establishes the goals and policies for future transportation needs. The General Plan has four main goals: 1. A transportation systems that allows safe and efficient travel by a variety of modes and promotes the use of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle 2. A land use pattern that encourages walking, bicycling, and public transit use 3. A transportation system that maintains and improves the livability of the City 4. A minimum amount of land use for parking and minimal parking intrusion in neighborhoods. El Cerrito Climate Action Plan (2013) The El Cerrito City Council adopted the El Cerrito Climate Action Plan in May 2013. The Plan helps to determine the best strategies to reduce locally produced greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) with an adopted target of reducing GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% below 2005 levels by 2035. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan (2014) The idea for this plan was initiated in 2007 and was a shared vision with the City of Richmond for the future of San Pablo Avenue. The goal was to identify improvements for the Plan area and adopt regulations that can be consistently applied in the Plan area to achieve the vision. A draft Specific Plan was submitted in 2011 and a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is now underway. El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan (Draft, 2015) El Cerrito was awarded a Proposition 84 Grant to develop an Urban Greening Plan. The Urban Greening Plan is an effort to enhance the public spaces and open spaces in El Cerrito. The Plan will identify needs, opportunities, and strategies for creating a greener City, such as increasing connectivity and improving existing parks and green spaces. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Relationship to Other Plans 163 El Cerrito ADA Transition Plan The City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan was adopted in 2009. The Plan ensures accessibility for individuals with disabilities by examining buildings, parks, and major pedestrian routes and identifying physical barriers. The Plan estimates the cost of mitigating barriers to accessibility, sets priorities, and provides a schedule for eliminating them. El Cerrito Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2009) In 2009, through the University of California Berkley’s Technology Transfer Program, the City completed a Pedestrian Safety Assessment focused on the El Cerrito Del Norte and El Cerrito Plaza BART Stations. The PSA included a programs, policies, and practices benchmarking assessment, which documented existing City activities related to walking and proposed areas for further enhancement. The PSA also included concepts and suggestions for improvements around the two BART stations based on in- field walking audits at the two locations. El Cerrito Traffic Safety Assessment (2013) In 2013, the City completed a Traffic Safety Evaluation through ITS Berkeley’s Tech Transfer program. The focus of the evaluation was on traffic safety near Madera Elementary School, including four study areas: Arlington Boulevard at Madera Drive, Madera Drive in front of Madera Elementary School, onsite circulation at Madera Elementary School, and circulation at Devonshire Drive/Brewster Drive/Contra Costa Drive. The evaluation included field observation and suggestions regarding engineering solutions and enforcement near the study area. City of El Cerrito Signage & Wayfinding Program (2008) In 2008, the City prepared a Graphics Standard Manual for its Signage and Wayfinding Program. This document provides design standards, such as fonts, color palettes, and design information for a variety of sign types. Ohlone Greenway Master Plan (2009) In 2009, the City adopted the Ohlone Greenway Master Plan to define the City’s vision of how the Ohlone Greenway will evolve and develop over time, to maximize the public’s safety and use. The Plan includes site analysis, a design vision, design guidelines and a list of public improvements to carry forward Greenway improvements. The City has implemented a number of projects identified through the Plan and continues to reference the design guidelines, as needed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Conformance with ATP Guidelines 164 Appendix C: Conformance with ATP Guidelines Conformance with ATP Guidelines The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has adopted the 2014 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines. The ATP supplants the earlier Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) as the primary state funding source for biking and walking improvements, including Safe Routes to School funding. As compared to the 11 key elements required for bicycle master plans under the BTA, the ATP requires additional elements and is also inclusive of pedestrians. Per the 2014 Active Transportation Program (ATP) requirements, conforming plans needed to have 17 key elements shown in Table C-1. The 2014 El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan satisfies these requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Conformance with ATP Guidelines 165 TABLE C-1 2014 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GUIDELINES ADDRESSED IN THIS PLAN Item Requirement Section a The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan. Chapter 3 b The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan. Chapter 3 c A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations. Chapter 3 Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2 d A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities. Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Figures 3-6 and 4-3 e A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Figures 3-7 and 4-4 f A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments. Chapter 3, Chapter 4 g A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Figures 3-8 h A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities at major transit hubs. These must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings. Appendix D, Figure D-4a and Figure D-4b i A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations. Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5 j A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting. Chapter 6 k A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts Chapter 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Conformance with ATP Guidelines 166 by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists and pedestrians. l A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities. Chapter 1 m A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan. Appendix C n A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation. Chapter 5 o A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses. Chapter 7 p A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan. Chapters 6 & 7 q A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Active Transportation & Transit 167 Appendix D: Active Transportation & Transit Pedestrian Facilities at Transit Nodes The two BART stations and the AC Transit Rapid bus services on San Pablo Avenue serve as the major transit nodes in the City. El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station The El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station has continuous sidewalks that provide access to and from the BART station and the parking lot, as well as from nearby neighborhoods and retail centers. However, long block sizes and infrequent and inconvenient crosswalks create Last Mile barriers to the BART Station. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are depicted in Figure D-1A. There are a few conflict areas within the surrounding pedestrian network. At the northern end of the station, where Cutting Boulevard and Ohlone Greenway intersect, the Ohlone Greenway is offset as it shifts underneath the elevated BART tracks. With the combination of multiple pedestrians, turning vehicles, and cyclists crossing Cutting Boulevard, this area is complex for bicyclists and pedestrians. Similarly, heavy volumes of vehicles turning from Hill Street into the BART parking garage cross two major pedestrian desire lines on the south side of the station area. In the figure, these are marked as conflict zones. Crosswalks are not marked at all signalized approaches in the nearby area, such as Cutting Boulevard and Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard, limiting pedestrian access and ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Active Transportation & Transit 168 mobility. San Pablo Avenue currently provides a barrier to pedestrian connectivity from areas to the west of the station. The lack of convenient, frequent crossings is an issue. El Cerrito Plaza BART Station As shown in Figure D-1B, the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station is well- connected both within the station area and in relation to the surrounding street network. Pedestrian facilities are clearly marked and are provided at all station access points, although crosswalks are missing at some of the neighboring intersections, such as Central Avenue and Oak Street. At the intersection of Fairmount Avenue and the southern station entrance and Richmond Street, the intersection of various pedestrian crosswalks, turning vehicles, and the bicycle path can cause conflicts and creates difficult crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus Route There is a complete network of sidewalks along the full stretch of San Pablo Avenue from the southern to northern border of the City. Crosswalks are provided at all signalized intersections; though, at some intersections, not all approaches have marked crosswalks. Crosswalk spacing is greater than the ideal 400 feet in most instances along the corridor. Bus stop amenities vary along the route, with some providing benches and shelters. All bus stops have bicycle parking. Planned and Funded Projects The City of El Cerrito received funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements at the Del Norte and Plaza BART Stations through Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA’s) OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) program. The grant application proposed several major pedestrian improvements to the Del Norte and Plaza BART stations, as described below. Del Norte BART Station At the Del Norte BART Station, there are proposed improvements at the following locations: Cutting Boulevard will have special pedestrian paving between the station entrance and the Ohlone Greenway. The crosswalks will be enhanced to a double-ladder with bike/pedestrian symbols. The Greenway will be realigned to provide a direct and safe connection across Cutting Boulevard. Landscaping improvements will help guide and protect pedestrians at the crosswalks. Hill Street will also have special pedestrian pavement with double-ladder crosswalk enhancements. New planters will help guide pedestrians at the crosswalks. A lane will be converted to right-turn only with an added pedestrian bulb-out at the entrance to Safeway to increase pedestrian safety and reduce congestion associated with Safeway’s entrance. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Active Transportation & Transit 169 oposed concepts for pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the Del Norte (top) and Plaza ottom) BART Stations. Ohlone Greenway will be widened and realigned at both Cutting Boulevard and Hill Street, and both ends will include enhanced gateways and signage, with a new mini-plaza adjacent to Cutting Boulevard. Ohlone Greenway south of the station area was widened through the BART earthquake retrofit project. Placemaking elements such as landscaping, seating, and lighting will be included along the path, and pedestrian paving will be added at the pedestrian access points to the station. Plaza BART Station At the Plaza BART Station, there are proposed improvements to the following streets: Central Avenue will have special pedestrian paving and enhanced crosswalks with a planted bulbout across from the Ohlone Greenway crossing. Fairmount Avenue improvements will also include special pedestrian paving, enhanced crosswalks, and upgraded landscaping. Ohlone Greenway through the station area will be widened and see mainly landscaping improvements, such as new trees, improved seating areas, and stormwater planting. New wayfinding signage and a bike station with bike repair, lockers and shelter is also proposed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9:LMNO 9:LMNO 6D Knott Ave Peerless Ave Kearney St Lexington Ave Key Blvd Hill St San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd Liberty St \\Fpse03\fpse2\Data2\2012Projects\WC_Projects\WC12-2889.03\Graphics\GIS\MXD\May\Fig3-4A_Plaza_del_Norte.mxd Figure D-1A Existing Pedestrian Facilities at El Cerrito Del Norte BART 6D Bus Connection 9:LMNO Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection Crosswalk Ohlone Greenway Primary Pedestrian Circulation Conflict Zone 80 ¨ El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station ---PAGE BREAK--- 9:LMNO 6D Everett St Fairmount Ave Central Ave Richmond St Liberty St Vista Heights Rd el Cerrito Plaza Oak St Kearney St Lexington Ave Coronado St Norvell St Victoria St \\Fpse03\fpse2\Data2\2012Projects\WC_Projects\WC12-2889.03\Graphics\GIS\MXD\May\Fig3-4B_El_Cerrito_Plaza.mxd Figure D-1B Existing Pedestrian Facilities at El Cerrito Plaza BART 6D Bus Connection 9:LMNO Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection Crosswalk Ohlone Greenway Primary Pedestrian Circulation Conflict Zone ¨ El Cerrito Plaza BART Station ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D: Active Transportation & Transit 172 Bicycling and Transit El Cerrito has two BART stations, with the elevated BART track running parallel to San Pablo Avenue. Figure D-2 presents the citywide bicycle network and transit network. The El Cerrito Plaza BART station and del Norte BART station not only provide access to BART, but also serve as transfer hubs for several bus routes. AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, WestCAT, Vallejo Transit and East Bay Paratransit provide service to Oakland, San Francisco, Marin County, Vallejo, Pinole, Hercules, and other areas of Contra Costa County. AC Transit operates 11 bus routes within the City, including the Rapid route along San Pablo Avenue. The Rapid Bus has elements of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), including signal priority, new bus shelters, real time traveler information, and low floor vehicles that improve the efficiency and reliability of bus service. At both BART stations, adequate bicycle racks and lockers are available to those who bike to the station. According to the results of a 2011 study summarized in the BART Bicycle Access Study, 14 percent of the bike racks and lockers were occupied at the del Norte station, and 51 percent were occupied at the Plaza station. The Ohlone Greenway, the City’s only existing Class I facility located beneath the elevated BART tracks, provides direct access for cyclists riding to either BART station. Numerous east-west Class III bicycle routes connect to the San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus corridor, and bicycle racks are provided at every bus stop. ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n n n n n n n n b b San Pablo Av Potrero Av Arlington Blvd Moeser Ln Central Av Barrett Av Fairmount Av Colusa Av Ashbury Av Arlington Av Richmond St Key Blvd Elm St Balra Dr Everett St Norvell St Terrace Dr Navellier St Schmidt Ln King Dr Colusa Av Blake St Manila Av Portola Dr Lincoln Av Donal Av Gladys Av Seaview Dr Waldo Av Carquinez Av Pomona Av Albemarle St Scott St Carmel Av Jordan Av Clayton Av Contra Costa Dr Tamalpais Av Cutting Blvd Hill St Ramona Av Hagen Blvd Rifle Range Rd Mira Vista Dr Knott Av Bonnie Dr Lawrence St Rosalind Av Vis Heights Rd San Carlos Av Avis Dr Lynn Av Galvin Dr Shevlin Dr Alva Av Brewster Dr Betty Ln Ganges St Gatto Av Vista Rd Yosemite Av El Dorado St Tassajara Av Yuba Av Macdonald Av Club View Dr Harper St Ward Av Stockton Av Avila St Village Dr Conlon Av Wildcat Dr Belmont Av Bates Av Buckingham Dr View Dr Havens Pl Snowdon Av Glen Mawr Av Liberty St Pinehurst Ct Eureka Av Santa Clara Av Walnut St Devonshire Dr Wesley Av Julian Dr Wildwood Pl Rivera St Kenilworth Av Regency Ct Humboldt Av Plank Av Seaview Pl Eastshore Blvd Arbor Dr Kensington Rd Kent Dr Roger Ct Lexington Av Wilson Wy Rockway Av Craft Av Ln Leviston Av Santa Fe Av Madera Dr Villa Nueva Dr Waldo Ln Fairview Av Mound Av James Pl Park Vista Clark Pl Contra Costa Rd Elm St Liberty St Errol Dr Lexington Av Lexington Av Pomona Av Liberty St Everett St Norvell St Seaview Dr Stockton Av Eureka Av Kearney St Eureka Av Kearney St Liberty St Sierra School Madera School Harding School Cameron School Tehiyah School Prospect School Fairmount School St John's School St. Jerome's School El Cerrito High School Future Portola Middle School Temporary Portola Middle School Albany Middle School Mira Vista Golf & Country Club Castro Park Hillside Natural Area Canyon Trail Park Cerrito Vista Park Huber Park Arlington Park Tassajara Park Mira Vista Park Central Park Poinsett Park Baxter Gateway Park Fairmount Park Harding Park Creekside Park El Cerrito Plaza Station El Cerrito del Norte Station \\Fpse03\fpse2\Data2\2012Projects\WC_Projects\WC12-2889.03\Graphics\GIS\MXD\figure3_8_TransitBike.mxd Connections to Transit via Bicycle Facilities b BART Station BART Line AC Transit Bus Route Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class III with Sharrows Figure D-2 C i t y of El C er r i to Ohlone Greenway U n i o n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d 80 580 Bay Trail J< El Cerrito Plaza Existing Transit Network Existing Bicycle Network Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E: Grant Funding Sources 174 Appendix E: Grant Funding Sources Federal Programs The majority of public funds for bicycle, pedestrian, and trails projects are derived through a core group of federal and state programs. Federal funding is authorized through the Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway. In the past this funding was authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Funding for STP is now authorized through MAP-21, with the same structure and goals of STP funding. The Transportation Enhancements (TE) under SAFETEA-LU is now the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). TAP, authorized through MAP-21, consolidates TE, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails and provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit access, mobility, and recreation trails program. TAP broadens eligibility and flexibility for state allocation of TAP funds. Safe Routes to School programs, including infrastructure, encouragement, campaigns, education, outreach and a Safe Routes coordinator, are eligible under TAP, though no funds are dedicated for this. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) also authorizes federal funds, including education programs. MAP-21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E: Grant Funding Sources 175 maintains the existing CMAQ program and broadens eligibility for transit operations. Federal funds from STP, TAP and CMAQ programs are allocated to MTC and distributed in Alameda County through Alameda CTC. Distribution is allocated either competitively or proportionally according to jurisdiction population. Other recent policies at the federal level have resulted in a series of programs that promise to provide increased funding in the coming years for bicycle projects. The HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities has generated a series of new grant programs to-date, including Urban Circulator grants, TIGER grants, and Sustainable Communities Planning grants. The Department of Transportation recently announced a new DOT policy initiative, indicating “well-connected walking and bicycling networks [are] an important component for livable communities.” State Programs There are a number of state-wide funding sources and regionally administered funds. Active Transportation Program The Active Transportation Program was created by SB 99/ Assembly Bill 101 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation such as biking and walking. The program consolidates five existing state funded programs: Transportation Alternatives Program, Recreational Trails program, Safe Routes to Schools, Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program and the Bicycle Transportation Account. It provides a comprehensive program that improves program planning and flexibility and is more efficient than multiple programs. Another benefit is that funds can be directed to multi-year projects to make greater long-term improvements to active transportation. The ATP mixes state and federal funds and provides approximately $130 million annually, with a focus on implementing active transportation improvements to support the goals of local SB 375 sustainable community strategies. This program is funded from a combination of federal and state funds from appropriations in the annual state budget act. Forty percent of the funding will go toward metropolitan planning organizations in urban areas. Ten percent of the funds go to small urban and rural regions. The remaining funds will go to the California Transportation Commission for statewide projects. The ATP ensures that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program by requiring that a minimum of 25% of fund be distributed to disadvantaged communities. In order to maximize the effectiveness of program funds and to encourage the aggregation of small projects into a comprehensive bundle of projects, the minimum request for Active Transportation Program funds that will be considered is $250,000. This minimum does not apply to ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E: Grant Funding Sources 176 non-infrastructure projects, Safe Routes to Schools projects, and Recreational Trails projects. Project types allowed under the ATP include: new bikeways serving major transportation corridors, new bikeways to improve bicycle commuting options, bicycle parking at transit and employment centers, traffic control devices to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, improving and maintaining safety on existing bikeways, recreational facilities, Safe Routes to School projects, Safe Routes To Transit projects, education programs, and other improvements to bicycle-transit connections and urban environments. For a project to contribute toward the Safe Routes to School funding requirement, the project must directly increase safety and convenience for public school students to walk and/or bike to school. Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects must be located within two miles of a public school or within the vicinity of a public school bus stop. Other than traffic education and enforcement activities, non-infrastructure projects do not have a location restriction. Highway Safety Improvement Program Caltrans administers two funding programs for roadway safety improvements: the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the Highway Rural Roads Program (HR3). These programs use cost-benefit ratios as a primary factor in the awarding of applications. Because both of these programs focus on roadway safety, projects with documented collision history – through frequency of collision but particularly collision severity – are typically ranked higher. Roadways with documented bicycle and pedestrian collision history, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this Plan, may be well-qualified for HSIP and HR3 applications, particularly since many of the proposed projects would improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety at a lower cost than many of the highway projects also eligible under this funding source. In its most recent grant cycle (November 2013), Caltrans awarded $150 million to 231 projects. While this funding source is often used for major roadway improvement projects, installation of traffic signals, and most other cost-intensive projects, funding has routinely been awarded to bicycle and pedestrian projects. Successful projects have included: • Median refuges and curb extensions • Curb, gutter, and sidewalk • Paved shoulders • Upgraded traffic signals with pedestrian countdown signals and pedestrian-scale lighting • Bicycle lane striping • Crosswalk striping • In-pavement flashers and rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at crossings ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E: Grant Funding Sources 177 Many of these projects were applied for as standalone bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects; some bicycle and pedestrian improvements were included with a broader package of roadway improvement projects. The average programmed federal funding amount was $400,000. The next call for projects is anticipated in Spring 2015. More information is available online: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.htm Other Statewide Funding Programs Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants are available to jurisdictions and can be used for planning or feasibility studies. The Division will award approximately $5.3 million in funding through three Grant Programs for Fiscal Year 2014-15. The maximum funding available per project is $300,000. Limited amounts from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide, can be used for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The California State Parks administers the state’s Recreational Trails Program (RTP). RTP provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails-related projects. Cities are eligible applicants for the approximately $5.3 million available annually. The program requires an applicant match of 12 percent of the total project cost. The National Park Service and California State Parks administer the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCP). The LWCF Program provides matching grants to states and local governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities Cities are eligible applicants. Approximately $1.74 million is available annually; grants require a 50 percent local match. Some of these programs will no longer be funded under proposed and current federal and state funding plans, and may only be short-term funding resources for the current schedule of projects. See below for proposed funding structures related to some of these programs. One Bay Area Grant One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG) is now an umbrella for the previous MTC grant programs. It combines funding for Transportation for Livable Communities, Bicycle, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation, and Safe Routes to School for the FY 2012-13 through 2015-16 funding cycles. This program is administered by MTC and awards funding to counties based on progress toward achieving local land-use and housing policies. Cities and counties can still use OBAG funds for projects described under these programs. MTC OBAG program information: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E: Grant Funding Sources 178 Surface Transportation Program The Surface Transportation Program (STP) block grant provides SAFETEA and MAP-21 funding for transportation projects, including pedestrian and bicycle projects (see above discussion about Federal programs for details). This program is administered by MTC, which can prioritize projects for RSTP funding. MTC STP program information: Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funds statewide funds for planning and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities administered locally through MTC. TDA, Article 3 funds are allocated based on population and may be used for engineering, right of way, construction, retrofitting, route improvements, and an assortment of bicycle facilities. Climate Action Program In partnership with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Bay Conservation Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, MTC sponsors a transportation- oriented Climate Action Program, designed to reduce mobile source emissions through various strategies. The grant program provides funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects through new Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit programs, with total funding expected to be approximately $400 million. As of April 2013 state Safe Routes to School funding is not yet finalized. This funding will be in addition to the state and federal Safe Routes to School programs and MTC’s existing Safe Routes to Transit program. BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TCFA) is a grant program administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The purpose of the program, which is funded through a $4 surcharge on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area, is to fund projects and programs that will reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. Grant awards are generally made on a first-come, first-served basis to qualified projects. A portion of TFCA revenues collected in each Bay Area county is returned to that county's congestion management agency (CMA) for allocation (Alameda County Transportation Commission in Alameda County). Applications are made from local agencies directly to the CMAs, but must also be approved by the BAAQMD. TFCA County Program Manager Fund: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Strategic-Incentives/Funding- Sources/TFCA/County-Program-Manager-Fund.aspx ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E: Grant Funding Sources 179 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix F: Additional Fact Sheet 180 Appendix f: Additional Fact Sheet Kearney Street is designated a proposed bicycle boulevard in the plan. This appendix provides additional information and concepts for the Kearney Street proposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kearney Bicycle Boulevard Kearney Street between Moeser Lane and Fairmount Avenue Description Detail of Proposed Improvements Issues & Opportunities Background The Kearney Street Bicycle Boulevard would create a low-stress alternative to bicycling on San Pablo Avenue. The bicycle boulevard would create a bicycle facility that appeals to users of all ages and abilities. The roadway is currently divided into several segments which are fragmented by large-scale development. However, the segment between Moeser Lane and Fairmount Avenue presents an alternative to San Pablo Avenue in the Midtown and Downtown areas of El Cerrito. As properties along San Pablo Avenue redevelop, Kearney Street should be reconnected and the bicycle boulevard extended north to the City Limit. Kearney Street is a fragmented roadway, divided by large developments. Between Moeser Lane and Fairmount Avenue, Kearney Street is one-way with a 30’ cross-section. Between Moeser Lane and Conlon Avenue, Kearney Street exists in short 1-2 block segments, broken up by large development parcels. This is also true south of Fairmount Avenue, where Kearney Street aligns with Kains Avenue in the City of Albany. -Opportunity to convert Kearney Street to two-way traffic for all vehicles, with the constrained cross-section creating a “slow-street” and helping to control speeds -Provides a north-south connection between Class II bicycle lanes on Moeser Lane and Class III Bicycle Route with green-backed sharrows on Fairmount -Serves as an all ages and abilities alternatives to San Pablo Avenue for portions of Midtown and Town -Opportunity to reconnect Kearney Street in the long-term between Conlon Avenue and Kains Avenue, as properties redevelop Existing STOP signs on Kearney give priority to cross-streets (top). Example of over-sized bicycle boulevard pavement legend (middle). Example of traffic diverters allowing full bicycle access (bottom). -Convert Kearney Street to two-way traffic between Moeser Lane and Fairmount Avenue -Stripe bike boulevard pavement legends -Install bicycle boulevard wayfinding -Install traffic diversion at Fairmount Avenue and Stockton Avenue to limit volumes on a two-way Kearney while allowing two-way bike traffic -Flip STOP signs at Lincoln, Central, Stockton, and Eureka to give priority to traffic on Kearney -Consider green-backed sharrows southbound and a contra-flow bicycle lane as an alternative cross-section Cost Range $520,000-770,000 F-1 Figure F-1a Kearney Bicycle Boulevard 181 ---PAGE BREAK--- 182 Proposed Improvements EL CERRITO PLAZA FAIRMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOESER LANE SHOPPING CENTER Convert Kearney Street to a Two-Way Bicycle Boulevard ▪ Install traffic diverter at Eureka and Fairmount to limit NB car traffic on Kearney ▪Create two-way bicycle boulevard with oversized bicycle boulevard pavement legends Flip Stop Signs at Waldo ▪Give priority to Kearney ▪Remove existing side-street stops on Kearney Flip Stop Signs at Lincoln ▪Give priority to Kearney ▪Remove existing side-street stops on Kearney Stripe Green-Backed Sharrows through Intersection Retain One-Way Drop-Off at Fairmont Elementary ▪Install traffic diverter at Eureka, with bike cut-through ▪Install curb extensions on Stockton to reduce speeds ▪Remove left edge line ▪Strip high-visibility yellow school crosswalk with advanced yield lines and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs Retain One-Way Access from Fairmount ▪Install traffic diverter at Fairmount, with bike cut-through ▪Install advanced yield markings on Fairmount with YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs to support crossings BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD BLVD STOP STOP STOP STOP  STOP STOP STOP STOP  STOP STOP STOP  STOP STOP  STOP STOP     STOP STOP  STOP STOP  STOP STOP BLVD BLVD BLVD  BLVD BLVD Kearney 30’ San Pablo Avenue San Pablo Avenue Moeser Waldo Stockton Eureka Eureka Lincoln Fairmount STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP 2 n 2 n Figure F-1b Kearney Bicycle Boulevard