HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRC_2010-04-15_AgendaPacketCITY OF A TA SCA DERO
PARKS AND RECREA TION
COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, April 15, 2010
7:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
Atascadero City Hall Council Chambers
6907 EI Camino Real
Atascadero, California
:1 *till W_1 N&I ***.I Is]► all LTA I
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson:
Vice -Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Student Representative
Daniel Chacon
Tom Zirk
Barbie Butz
Christian Cooper
Susan Greenaway
Sorrel Marks
Bill Wachtel
Matthew O'Connell
COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to
address the Commission on any matter not on this agenda and over which the
Commission has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your
name and address for the record before making your presentation. The Commission
may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. A
maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the
Commission.)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative,
Commission Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own
activities. Commission Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to
staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The
Commission may take action on items listed on the
Agenda.)
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to
be routine and non -controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion
if no member of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions.
If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the
consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an
opportunity for any member of the public to address the Commission concerning
the item before action is taken.)
1. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes — March 18, 2010
■ Staff Recommendation: Commission approve the Parks and
Recreation Commission Meeting minutes of the March 18, 2010
meeting. [Community Services]
B. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Atascadero Bicvcle Transoortation Plan Develoament Process
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Commission review and discuss the bike plan
development process for updating and enhancing the 2000 Draft
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan. [Community Services]
C. COMMITTEE & LIAISON REPORTS: (The following represent standing
committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary.):
1. Atascadero Youth Task Force — April 6th at 7:00 a.m., Atascadero High
School.
D. STAFF COMMENTS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. Mark Your Calendar:
■ April 15th: Zoo accreditation celebration and reception at the
Pavilion on the Lake, from 4:00 — 6:OOpm.
■ April 24th: Zoo's "Party for the Planet" event, Charles Paddock Zoo.
■ May 15th. Children's Day in the Park, Atascadero Lake Park.
2. Colony Park Community Center Update
3. Park Project Update
E. ADJOURNMENT:
THE NEXT REGULAR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING IS
TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 20, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M.
I, Shannon Sims, Administrative Assistant of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of
perjury that the foregoing agenda for the April 15, 2010 Regular Session of the Atascadero Parks and
Recreation Commission was posted on Thursday, April 8, 2010 at Atascadero City Hall, 6907 EI
Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service
Center at that location.
Signed this 8th day of April, 2010 at Atascadero, California.
Shannon Sims, Administrative Assistant
Citv of Atascadero
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADER0 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
The Parks and Recreation Commission meet in regular session on the third Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m., in the
Atascadero City Hall, located at 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero. The Parks and Recreation Commission consider
matters in the order of the printed Agenda.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the Community Services Department and are available for public inspection during City Hall Annex, 6907 El
Camino Real, during business hours at the Central Receptionist counter and on our website; www.atascadero.org. An
agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. All documents
submitted by the public during Parks and Recreation Commission meetings that are either read into the record or
referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the Community Services
Department.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City
meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the Community Services Department at (805) 461-
5000. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed, will assist the City staff
in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Parks and Recreation Chairperson will identify
the subject, staff will give their report, and the Commission will ask questions of staff. The Chairperson will announce
when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Commission regarding the
matter being considered to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
• You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Chairperson
• Give your name and address (not required)
• Make your statement
• All comments should be made to the Chairperson and Commission
• All comments limited to 3 minutes (unless changed by the Commission)
• No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, and
no one may speak more than twice on any item.
The Chairperson will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments
will be heard by the Commission.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM", the Chairperson will call for anyone from the audience having
business with the Parks and Recreation Commission to:
Please approach the lectern and be recognized
Give your name and address (not required)
State the nature of your business
This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Commission's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes
will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Commission).
TO HAVE ITEMS PLACED ON AGENDA
All business matters to appear on the Agenda must be in the Office of the Community Services Department
14 days preceding the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Should you have a matter you wish to
bring before the Commission, please mail or bring a written communication to the Community Services
Department at City Hall prior to the deadline.
ITEM NUMBER: A - 1
DATE: 04/15/10
CITY OF A TA SCA DERO
PARKS AND RECREA TION
COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
Thursday, March 18, 2010
REGULAR SESSION: 7:00 P.M.
Chairperson Chacon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and Commissioner
Greenaway led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Butz, Cooper, Greenaway, Wachtel, Vice
Chairperson Zirk and Chairperson Chacon. Youth
Representative O'Connell.
Absent: Commissioner Marks. (excused)
Others Present: Recording Secretary Shannon Sims.
Staff Present: Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Deputy Director
of Public Works — Operations Geoff English and Recreation
Supervisor Jennifer Fanning.
COMMUNITY FORUM — None.
/_\Ja AZI17_T
MOTION: By Commissioner Wachtel and seconded by Commissioner
Greenaway to approve the Agenda.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote.
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS:
Commissioner Wachtel thanked staff for helping to coordinate the recent SLOCAPRA
Commissioner's Workshop. He said he found the Workshop enlightening and enjoyed
the tour of Hearst Castle.
Commissioner Butz talked about the success of the recent Dancing with the Stars event
that raised approximately $30,000 for the library. She spoke of the upcoming Women's
Shelter fundraiser on March 27th, at the Taft Barn. Ms. Butz said tickets to the "Casino
Night" are $65 and for more information call, 461-1338. She mentioned
www.communitygivingback. com, a local non-profit, that attends community events,
takes photos and posts them on their website.
Vice Chairperson Zirk said that he heard about the success of the "Dancing with the
Stars" fundraiser and commented that some of the dancers even ended up on U -Tube.
Chairperson Chacon relayed that the recent Commissioner's training was a great
opportunity to try to understand the complexity of an organization and what it costs to
run it. He also mentioned that he will be meeting with Community Services Director
Brady Cherry a week or two before every Commission meeting. Mr. Chacon said that
Mr. Cherry will try to notify the Commission of upcoming items, in advance, via e-mail.
He also said that he has requested that some time be set aside on each Agenda to train
Commissioners with regards to the Manual.
1. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - January 21, 2010
■ Staff Recommendation: Commission approve the Parks and
Recreation Commission Meeting minutes of the January 21, 2010
meeting. [Community Services]
2. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - February 18, 2010
■ Staff Recommendation: Commission approve the Parks and
Recreation Commission Meeting minutes of the February 18, 2010
meeting. [Community Services]
PUBLIC COMMENT — None.
MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Zirk and seconded by Commissioner
Butz to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (Cooper Abstained)
B. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Eagle Scout Project — Paloma Creek Park Flag Pole (Peter Gerhardt)
■ Fiscal Impact: All costs related to this project will be covered through
donations solicited by the Eagle Scout candidate.
Page 2 of 6
■ Recommendation: Commission recommend approval of a proposed
project, by Boy Scout Peter Gerhardt, to install a flag pole at Paloma
Creek Park. [Public Works]
Deputy Director of Public Works — Operations Geoff English introduced Boy Scout Peter
Gerhardt.
Boy Scout Peter Gerhardt gave the report and answered questions of the Commission.
Deputy Director of Public Works — Operations Geoff English answered further questions
of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT — None.
MOTION: By Commissioner Wachtel and seconded by Vice Chairperson
Zirk to approve the proposed project, by Boy Scout Peter
Gerhardt, to install a new flag pole at the Paloma Creek Park.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote.
2. Proposed Memorial Statue for the Charles Paddock Zoo
■ Fiscal Impact: The project will be funded through community
donations. Maintenance costs are to be determined by input from the
artist.
■ Recommendation: Commission review the Memorial statue proposal
to honor the late Charles Paddock and make a recommendation for
approval to the City Council. [Community Services]
Community Services Director Brady Cherry gave the staff report and answered
questions of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Barbara Combs, lives on Lake View Drive, said she loves the progress that is going on
at the Lake Park. She suggested having the proposed statue be interactive for children
in the future. Ms. Combs inquired about maintenance and if/when the tiger fountain will
be flowing again in the future. Community Services Director Brady Cherry responded
that the fountain has ceased running because of water consumption issues and that the
water feature is planned to be running again after the Zoo construction is finished.
Chuck Ward, lives in Atascadero, stated that Mark Greenaway is a true asset to this
community and commented on his ability to capture the essence of a subject. Mr. Ward
expressed that he thinks the proposed statue would be a tremendous asset to the City
and would be an added attraction for the Zoo. He complimented Council Member Bob
Kelley for proposing this project and encouraged the Commission to approve it.
Commissioner Chacon read an e-mail, from a member of the Public, that was forwarded
to the Commission into the record as follows:
Page 3 of 6
"Good Morning. 1 had a message from Jackie Fadley letting me know that she
would not be able to be in attendance at the upcoming Commission Meeting but
wanted to have her opinion be known. With regards to the proposed Charles
Paddock Memorial Statue, she said that she knew Charles Paddock personally
and is "all in favor" of the statue. "
Chairperson Chacon closed the Public Comment period.
MOTION: By Vice Chairperson Zirk and seconded by Commissioner
Wachtel to recommend approval to the City Council of the
Memorial statue proposal to honor the late Charles Paddock.
Motion passed 6:0 by a roll -call vote.
3. Reauest to Place 1/4 Scale Replica of S-44 Submarine. Lakeside, at
Atascadero Lake Park (Reeves)
■ Fiscal Impact: None. All expenses related to this proposal would be
the responsibility of Lloyd Reeves. The City would benefit from an
undetermined increase in shared rental proceeds from the submarine.
■ Recommendation: Commission review a request by Lloyd Reeves,
the Atascadero Lake Boat Rental Concessionaire, to place a 1/4 scale
replica of a 1928 S-44 US Submarine, lakeside, for tours at Atascadero
Lake. [Community Services]
Community Services Director Brady Cherry gave the staff report and answered
questions of the Commission.
Lloyd Reeves, applicant, circulated pictures and information about the proposed replica
submarine to the Commissioners and answered questions of the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Barbara Combs, 9005 Lake View Drive, said a couple of neighbors have called her and
expressed concern. She said that visually, it reminds her a little of the solar water
contraption in the middle of the lake that just draws birds and ducks to sit and defecate
on it. Ms. Combs expressed that she likes the idea of having Mr. Reeves bring the
replica submarine to the next meeting so that Commissioners and the Public can have a
chance to see it up close. She stated that she is concerned with the challenge of not
having good water quality at the Lake.
Chuck Ward, lives in Atascadero, said he thinks it is a fantastic idea and that it would be
an asset for Lake. He stated that he thinks the replica sub would tie-in nicely with the
Veterans Memorial. Mr. Ward encouraged the Commission to not let the fear of an
accident hold them back and reminded them that all passengers would be wearing life
jackets, just like they do in the kayaks at the Lake. He commented that with regards to
water quality, he's a chemical engineer, and the only way the Lake's water quality would
improve is to remove 75% of the water fowl.
Page 4 of 6
Barbara Combs, resident, talked about issues in the past with motorized boats and
noise around the Lake Park. She said she thinks this would be opening up a can of
worms. Ms. Combs said she would like to hear what the motor sounds like and thinks
that more neighbors would be interested in attending future meetings if this proposal
proceeds as a viable option. She thinks looking out the windows of the replica
submarine would just show how murky the water is and thinks that a bigger focus
should be placed on circulating the Lake water.
Chuck Ward, resident, stated that an electric motor is driven by a battery and is not a
speed boat. He said it would rotate slowly, only 3-4 knots, and the replica submarine
would be a friendly craft as far as keeping the serenity of the water.
Chairperson Chacon closed the Public Comment period.
Discussion ensued amongst Commissioners.
MOTION: By Commissioner Zirk and seconded by Commissioner
Wachtel to recommend approval to the City Council of the
request by Lloyd Reeves, the Atascadero Lake Boat Rental
Concessionaire, to place a 1/4 scale replica of a 1928 S-44 US
Submarine, lakeside, for tours at Atascadero Lake, with the
following conditions:
1. Fire Department has the ability to conduct water
rescues; and
2. City Attorney has reviewed for ADA compliance; and
3. City Council would be able to modify the Municipal Code
to allow motor boats in the Lake.
4. The applicant consent to requested operating
hours/days or any other requests or concerns the Fire
Department might have.
Motion passed 4:2 by a roll -call vote. (Chacon and Greenaway
opposed)
1. Atascadero Youth Task Force — April 6th at 7:00 a.m., Atascadero High
School.
Commissioner Cooper said the AYTF, in conjunction with The Link, contributed to the
library fundraiser, "Dancing with the Stars," by gathering donations for the high school
principal, E.J. Rossi, to compete. He mentioned that the high school Mock Rock is
March 20th, at the Atascadero Junior High School. Mr. Cooper also relayed that on
March 30th, the "World Cafe" event, which focuses on youth issues, will be held at the
high school, from 11:00am — 2:OOpm. He said the topics are alcohol, safety, and mental
health. Finally, Mr. Cooper said that the April AYTF meeting has been moved to April
13th due to spring break.
Page 5 of 6
D. STAFF COMMENTS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. Mark Your Calendar:
■ Teen Center Movie Night — March 19th at Colony Park Community
Center.
■ California Parks and Recreation Society District 8 Awards Banquet
— Friday, March 26th, 5:30pm, Camarillo Community Center
■ March 27th —April 11th: The very popular seasonal exhibit, "Bunny
Town and Chick City", will be on display at the Charles Paddock
Zoo.
■ March 27th: The opening of the "Monster Skate Contest" series will
be held at the A -Town Skate Park.
■ April 15th: Zoo accreditation celebration and reception at the
Pavilion on the Lake, from 4:00 — 6:OOpm.
2. Colony Park Community Center Update
3. Park Project Update
Recreation Supervisor Jennifer Fanning reviewed the Staff Comments/Announcements.
Community Services Director Brady Cherry mentioned the April 15th Zoo Accreditation
Reception and encouraged all Commissioners to attend.
Deputy Director of Public Works — Operations Geoff English gave a park project update
and answered questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Butz recognized Youth Representative O'Connell for being crowned King
at the high school. Youth Representative O'Connell thanked the Commission and said
it was an honor.
Commissioner Butz relayed that tickets for the Atascadero Wine Festival are on sale.
She said it will be held on June 26th, and the theme is the Flamingo, since funds raised
will be going towards the new flamingo exhibit.
E. ADJOURNMENT:
Chairperson Chacon adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
Shannon Sims, Recording Secretary
Page 6 of 6
Parks and Recreation Commission
Staff Report — Community Services Department
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan
Development Process
RECOMMENDATION:
Commission review and discuss the bike plan development process for updating and
enhancing the 2000 Draft Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Background: In 2000, the City's Community Development Department, along with
RRM and Alta Transportation Consulting, began to develop a bike plan for
Atascadero. Although a draft plan was created, it was not adopted at that time and
the project fell dormant. During the City Council's strategic planning this year,
Council directed staff to proceed with the development of a bike plan by the end of
the year.
A bike plan is a formal document that works in concert with City's General Plan
elements for circulation, land use and safety. It provides the guidance necessary to
continue development and make improvements that contribute to the community's
economic, physical and environmental health.
The draft bike plan developed in 2000, lays out a comprehensive system within
Atascadero that connects to other bicycle and pedestrian systems. Another benefit
of a further developing the bike plan is that it will greatly improve the City's ability to
access significant state and federal infrastructure and transportation programming
grants. Encouraging bicycle transportation and recreation fosters economic vitality.
Having a bike plan will offer residents, tourists and visitors friendly routes and trails
that will make Atascadero healthier, safer and an attractive visitor destination.
The draft plan referred to, will be used as a starting point to begin updating and
enhancing. Also, the Commission will have the benefit of a referring to a number of
other local plans to use as resources. The project timeline is estimated to be from
May 20t", 2010, when the Parks and Recreation Commission "kicks—off" the project,
until September 16th, 2010, when the updated draft plan is presented at the
Commission meeting for a Public Hearing.
Without the common practice of having a project budget or a consultant to facilitate
the process, staff encourages a Commission Ad Hoc Committee be formed. It is
suggested that the committee be comprised of Community Service, Public Works
and Community Development staff, as well as a couple of Commissioners and
community representatives (such as the SLO County Bicycle Coalition, etc.). This
process enables the committee to do the majority of the work and make regular
progress reports to the Commission. Public workshops can be executed early on to
gather public input. The committee will be tasked with updating the existing inventory
of bikeways in Atascadero, as well as Park and Ride locations, facilities with bike
racks, etc. Connectivity will be a major goal of the bike plan. The committee will also
look at bus stops and other transportation connection sites in the City. The adoption
of transportation policies and design standards will be recommended.
The Commission is asked to review the planning process timeline, consider
establishing an ad-hoc committee and begin to indentify participants and
stakeholders to include in the process. The project is planned to "kick off" in May.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
Revision process will be conducted by the Commission and City staff. Funding for
plan implementation is not budgeted, but can be used to plan and budget in future
fiscal cycles. Cost estimates will be dependent upon the plan recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan, July 2000
2. Letter from SLO County Bicycle Coalition
ii Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan 9 July 2000
Final Draft
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan
SHARE
THE ROAD
W 79A
City of Atascadero
RRM
Alta Transportation Consulting
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Im
Acknowledgments
Atascadero City Council:
Mayor
Mayor Pro -Tem
Council Members
Consultant Team
Alta Transportation Consulting
Additional thanks to:
July 2000
Ray Johnson
Mike Arrambide
George Luna
Jerry Clay
Wendy Scalise
Diane Fredricks, Principal Planner
Nicol Rister Davis, Assistant Planner
Robin Solari, Assistant Planner
Josh Abrams, Senior Planner
John Neil, North Coast Engineering Inc.
Steve Kahn, City of Atascadero
Warren Frace, City of Atascadero
iv Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction..........................................................................................
1
1.1
Bicycle Improvements.................................................................
1
1.2
Setting..........................................................................................
3
1.3
Why does Atascadero need a Bicycle Transportation Plan .........
3
1.4
Becoming a Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly Community ..........
4
1.5
Major Recommendations of the Bicycle Transportation Plan.....
5
1.6
Role of the Bicycle Transportation Plan ......................................
9
1.7
Relevant Legislation and Policies ................................................
10
1.8
Bicycle and Transportation Plan Process .....................................
11
1.9
Overview of the Plan...................................................................
11
2.0
Goals,
Objectives, and Policy Actions ..................................................
13
2.1
Study Area...................................................................................
13
2.2
Relationship to Other Planning Efforts in Atascadero ................
13
2.3
Goals, Objectives and Policy Actions ..........................................
14
3.0
Needs
Analysis........................................................................................
17
3.1
Commuter and Recreational Bicycle Needs ................................
17
3.2
Accident Analysis........................................................................
22
3.3
Multi -Modal Connections............................................................
22
4.0
Existing Facilities & Proposed System .................................................
27
4.1
Proposed Bicycle System.............................................................
27
4.2
Creating a Bikeway System.........................................................
28
4.3
Description of Proposed Bikeway Improvements ......................
31
4.4
Bicycle Parking and Other Support Facilities ..............................
33
4.5
Bicycle Safety and Education Programs ......................................
34
4.6
Community and Employer Outreach ...........................................
38
4.7
Mid -Long Term Improvements...................................................
40
5.0
Design and Maintenance Standards.....................................................
41
5.1
Existing Bicycle Design Standards and Classifications ...............
41
5.2
General Design Recommendations ..............................................
41
5.3
Class I, 11, & III Bikeway Design Guidelines ..............................
42
5.4
Other Facilities.............................................................................
46
5.5
Maintenance.................................................................................
60
5.6
Security........................................................................................
60
6.0
Implementation
Strategy.......................................................................
61
6.1
Cost Breakdown...........................................................................
61
6.2
Funding........................................................................................
61
6.3
Financing......................................................................................
73
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 ii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Class I, II, and III Bikeways........................................................
7
Figure 3.1
Citywide Destinations..................................................................
23
Figure 3.2
Downtown Destinations (Detail) .................................................
24
Figure 3.3
Bicycle Accident Locations.........................................................
25
Figure 4.1
Proposed Bikeway System...........................................................
30
Figure 5.1
Class I Bicycle Path Cross Section ..............................................
44
Figure 5.2
Class I Bicycle Path Crossing Prototype .....................................
45
Figure 5.3
Class II Bike Lane Cross Section .................................................
47
Figure 5.4
Bike Lane Intersection Design .....................................................
49
Figure 5.5
Recommended Right Turn Lane Channelization .........................
50
Figure 5.6
Signs and Markings within School Zones ...................................
54
Figure 5.7
Bike Route Sign...........................................................................
55
Figure 5.8
Numbered Bike Route Sign .........................................................
56
Figure 5.9
Signing at Unsignalized Intersections ..........................................
57
Figure 5.10
Signing at Signalized Intersections ..............................................
58
Figure 5.11
Warning Signs..............................................................................
59
List of Tables
Table 3.1
Demographics & Transportation & Air Quality ..........................
21
Table 4.1
Proposed Projects by Segments .......................................
31
Table 5.1
Class I Bike Path Specifications..................................................
43
Table 5.2
Class II Bike Lane Specifications ................................................448
Table 5.3
Recommended Signing and Marking ...........................................
52
Table 6.1
Bicycle Project Cost Estimates ....................................................
62
Table 6.2
Bicycle Program Cost Estimates ..................................................
65
Table 6.3
Summary of Funding Programs ...................................................
69
iii Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
The Bicycle Transportation Plan has been created through the diligent efforts of the
Atascadero Community Development Department and citizens interested in improving
the bicycling environment in Atascadero. Without the sustained efforts of the involved
organizations and citizens, this Plan would not have been developed. This Plan is
intended to provide a blueprint towards making bicycling an integral part of daily life in
Atascadero. The Plan also conforms with all requirements of the California Bicycle
Transportation Act (Sections 890 through 894.2 of the California Streets and Highways
Code), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway design Manual
and the Caltrans Local Assistance Program Guidelines.
1.1 Bicycle Improvements
1.1.1 Bicycles
Like many communities around the U.S., Atascadero is experiencing a resurgence in
interest in bicycling as a means of transportation). The bicycle is a low-cost and effective
means of transportation that is quiet, non-polluting, extremely energy-efficient, versatile,
healthy, and fun. Bicycles also offer low-cost mobility to the non -driving public,
especially the young.
The world's 800 million bicycles outnumber automobiles two to one,
and worldwide annual bicycle production is more than three times
annual automobile production. There are an estimated 100 million
bicycles in the country, and an estimated 12,000 in Atascadero.3
Bicycling as a means of transportation has been growing in popularity
as many communities work to create more balanced transportation
systems and reclaim streets from auto dominance. In addition, recent
national and local surveys find that more people are willing to cycle I
more frequently if better bicycle facilities are provided.4
Atascadero stands poised to make major gains in increasing bicycle use, thanks to several
factors. First, Atascadero has many of the attributes needed to become a bicycle -friendly
community. This includes being a smaller sized community with a diverse climate and
topography, as well as having a population interested in health, environment, and livable
neighborhoods. The popularity of recreational bicycling in and around Atascadero has
significantly increased local bicycle ridership. This Plan addresses bicycles as a
transportation mode of travel, defined as any trip that replaces a vehicle trip whether it be
for commuting, shopping, or to reach a recreational destination.
' Bicycle Federation of America statistics; ❑Sports Participation in 1992, City-by-City,O National Sporting Goods Association, 1992.
2 Lowe, Marcia, "The Bicycle: Vehicle for a Small Planet," World Watch Institute, 1989.
3 Bicycle Federation of America statistics; ❑Sports Participation in 1992, City-by-City,Ll National Sporting Goods Association, 1992.
4 lA Trend on the Move: Commuting by Bicycle,) I Bicycling Magazine, 1991.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
Second, there is a good history of cycling and bikeway planning in the community and in
San Luis Obispo County. With ever-increasing support from the community as evidenced
by the preparation of this report and others like it in neighboring jurisdictions. As more
residents have been cycling for recreation, more have been commuting as well.
Consequently, more have been advocating for improved bicycling conditions. In
Atascadero, and other communities in the County, residents are expressing a desire for
more miles of bicycle lanes, bicycle boulevards, and off-street paths; more bicycle
parking; and better maintenance of existing facilities, all of which have encouraged more
bicycle riding.
Third, policy support and additional funding have recently been made available for
bicycle transportation improvements. This has been true on the local and state level
thanks to the 1994 California Bicycle Transportation Act. This has also been the case on
the federal level through:
• 1990 Clean Air Act,
• 1991 Inter -Modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and
• 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA21).
These laws have called for increased spending on bicycle travel and allow communities
more flexibility in spending highway funding on alternative modes, such as bicycling,
walking, and transit. Already, these laws have led to over a billion dollars in bicycle, trail
and pedestrian projects nationwide, and thousands of miles in new bicycle lanes,
sidewalks, multi -use trails and other non -motorized enhancements.
The increased ridership, resulting advocacy, and increased policy and financial support
from all government levels have resulted in a desire for significant bicycle transportation
improvements locally. The following Bicycle Transportation Plan is a direct result of
these changes and is intended to set a proactive course toward making bicycling an
integral part of daily life in Atascadero.
1. 1.2 Pedestrians
Although this plan does not specifically address pedestrian issues, pedestrians will
invariably use some of the facilities proposed in this plan. Walking is generally noted as
the oldest and most basic form of human transportation. It is clean, requires little
infrastructure, and is integral to the health of individuals and communities. People who
walk know their neighbors and their neighborhood. A community that is designed to
support walking is livable and attractive.
Although pedestrians have been valued for their contribution to urban vitality, walking,
like bicycling, has not, until recently, been considered a serious means of transportation.
Thanks in part to the passage of 1991's ISTEA legislation and its companion funding
opportunities, this is beginning to change. Communities are beginning to recognize the
need for and value of developing pedestrian facilities, whether it be to enhance safety,
health, or for commuting.
2 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
1.2 Setting
Atascadero enjoys a unique blend of natural beauty and rural lifestyle, located
approximately 17 miles inland from the Pacific coast, midway between Los
Angeles and San Francisco on Highway 101. The City was founded as
California's first planned community in 1913 by E.G. Lewis and was
incorporated in 1979. The City is located approximately 20 miles north of the
city of San Luis Obispo, benefiting from the nearby urban support while taking
in the serenity of the local environment.
The City and its surrounding areas are rapidly becoming a popular place to live
the good life, for retirees as well as those just starting out. Atascadero boasts
a sunny and moderate climate for most of the year. The City receives most of
its' rainfall from October to March. Summer days are wonderfully warm with
cool summer evenings as the city experiences coastal influences.
Furthermore, cultural opportunities in the area are abundant, economic
opportunities are rapidly developing, and the many natural and historical
features in the area and provide a rich lifestyle. Atascadero has its' own zoo
and museum. The City is home to over ninety-five acres of parks and open
space land. Atascadero is strategically located just a few miles away are the
Pacific Ocean, Los Padres National Forest, Hearst Castle, popular Morro
Bay, the Cuesta Grade Botanical Gardens, Atascadero Lake, Lake
Nacimiento, Santa Margarita Lake, Mission San Miguel, and countless art
galleries and local wineries.
1.3 Why does Atascadero need a Bicycle
Transportation Plan?
One reason is the growing demand for cycling facilities throughout the City. Another is
the importance of establishing Atascadero as a transportation junction to all modes of
travel and improving its existing facilities. Additionally, is the fact that traffic congestion
threatens the very reasons so many residents choose to live in Atascadero. While
Atascadero is perfect for walking and bicycling in many respects, many residents choose
to drive even for short trips of a block or two—adding to the very traffic problems they
dislike. This Plan is one step in addressing traffic congestion in Atascadero.
Another reason is the enjoyment and quality of life for the residents of Atascadero. Since
walking and bicycling are some of the most popular forms of recreational activity in the
United States (with 84% walking and 46% of Americans bicycling for pleasure), we can
assume that over 21,000 residents in Atascadero walk and close to 11,500 bicycle purely
for pleasure at least occasionally.
Safety is a primary reason to improve bicycling conditions in Atascadero. Concerns about
safety are the single greatest reason people do not commute by bicycle, according to a
1991 Lou Harris Poll. Addressing those concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians through
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 3
Introduction
physical and program improvements is another major objective of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
1.4 Becoming a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Friendly Community
Safety, access, quality of life, and effective implementation are imperative elements for
Atascadero's success as a bicycle and pedestrian -friendly community.
Safety is the number one concern of citizens, whether they are avid or casual recreational
cyclists, or bicycle commuters. In most cases, bicyclists (and pedestrians) must share
narrow, high traffic roadways and cross busy intersections. A consistent bicycle network
with either bike lanes or wider curb lanes and signing is generally lacking in Atascadero.
In many instances historic design decisions have been made to increase vehicular traffic
and/or parking capacity and speeds at the expense of bicyclists. The lack of a continuous
sidewalk system in many neighborhoods, especially along busy streets and in older areas,
forces pedestrians and less experienced cyclists to walk or ride in the street. Mailboxes
and other obstacles in the existing shoulder areas also present a safety concern for
bicyclists.
Access for bicyclists to shopping, work, recreation, school, and other destinations is
hampered by U.S. 101, forcing people to negotiate busy interchanges. The lack of
continuous and connected bikeways and walkways into the City's center, schools, parks,
and employment and shopping areas has harmed the potential for bicycling progress as
well.
This Plan urges Atascadero to take measurable steps toward the goal of improving every
Atascadero citizen's Quality of Life, creating a more sustainable environment, reducing
traffic congestion, vehicle exhaust emissions, noise, and energy consumption. The
importance of developing a bicycle system that is attractive and inviting is a key element
in preserving Atascadero as a place where people want to live, work, and visit. The
attractiveness of the environment not only invites bicyclists to explore Atascadero, but
more importantly, a beautiful environment helps to improve everyone's positive feelings
about the quality of life in Atascadero.
Education, enforcement, engineering, and funding are the basic components of an
Effective Implementation Program for this Transportation Plan. Education must be
targeted to the bicyclist as well as to the motorist regarding the rights and responsibilities
of the bicyclist, pedestrian, and automobile driver. Comprehensive enforcement of
existing traffic and parking laws, coupled with the implementation of sound design and
engineering principles for bike corridors is also critical. This plan also proposes
systematic review of all new development projects, including public works efforts, to
assure compliance with planning and building codes and the principles of this
Transportation Plan. Finally, this plan proposes an aggressive strategy for obtaining
grants and competing for other funding sources in order to realize the physical
improvements identified as the highest priorities.
4 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
1.5 Major Recommendations of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan
The Plan contains recommendations that, if implemented over the next 20 years, will
make Atascadero a model community for bicycling and walking in the United States. The
public has cited concerns about traffic congestion, safety, and general livability of our
towns and cities as the primary impetus to implement a Plan. In addition to adult
commuters and recreational riders, two specific groups have been identified as important
users of projects in the Plan:
School Children: Parents have indicated a desire for improvements that will allow
their children to walk or bicycle to school. Surprisingly few
students currently walk or bicycle—even if they live just a few
blocks away. It is estimated that as much as 20 to 30 percent of
traffic in the weekday mornings is attributable to school trips.
Senior Citizens: Atascadero will have a growing proportion of senior citizens in the
next century. Senior citizens enjoy and need places to bicycle or
walk away from busy streets, and for improvements to our
sidewalks to allow them access to their destinations and for
exercise.
In addition, expected benefits of the Plan include:
1. Improved safety
2. Increased opportunities for bicycle commuting
3. Increased opportunities for recreation and exercise
4. A significant reduction in traffic
5. Reclaiming public streets for bicycling
6. Substantially increase transit trips (work, shopping, errands) made by bicycle
7. Create safe, desirable links to various parts of the community
It is highly desirable that an integrated, consistent network of bicycle paths, lanes, routes,
and facility improvements be developed in Atascadero.
The specific proposed projects are presented in detail in Section 4
"Recommended System".
Finally, it is the goal of this Plan to dramatically increase the number of people bicycling
for utilitarian trips, be it for work, school, shopping, or recreation. Each trip made by
bicycle takes one more car off the road, helping to alleviate the traffic congestion that
plagues so many communities. The Plan calls for a goal of having 10% of all utilitarian
trips made by walking or bicycling by the year 2020.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
1.5.1 Types of Recommendations
There are three distinct types of recommendations in the Plan. Specific physical projects
such as new bikeways or walkways are broken down between short/mid-term (years one
to 10) and long term (years 10 to 20). These projects are designed and packaged to be
feasible and competitive for external funding sources.
The Plan also provides specific bicycle facility design standards and guidelines for use by
city staff. On a case-by-case basis, staff may seek design exceptions to established State
and Federal standards based on environmental and economic issues if appropriate.
Finally, the Plan provides recommendations for education, marketing, and other
programs that will ultimately be implemented by public or private groups.
1. 5.2 Long Term System
The 20 -year Plan calls for the completion of a citywide network of primary and
secondary bikeways. It also calls for the completion of pedestrian improvements, some of
which (such as multi -use pathways) are linear in nature and others of which are more
local by nature. The long-term system will connect all of the major destinations in the
County as well as to each adjacent community.
Some of the long-term projects, such as Class I paths are dependent on factors such as
rail service, right-of-way access, overcoming environmental impact, or the acquisition of
private land. This Plan will be updated and revised many times over the short to mid-
term, allowing future planners the opportunity to revise long-term recommendations as
needed.
1. 5.3 On -Street versus Off -Street
In Atascadero, as everywhere, there is a tremendous diversity of opinion on what is the
best type of bikeway to focus on constructing. The three types of Bikeways described by
Caltrans in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual are as follows (see Figure 1.1).
Class I Bikeway Variously called a bike path or multi -use trail. Provides for
bicycle travel on a paved right of way completely separated
from any street or highway.
Class II Bikeway Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a striped and stenciled
lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bikeway Referred to as a bike route. Provides for shared use with
pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by
signing and stenciling.
6 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Class I Bike Path
BIKE PATH
NO
MOTOR
VEHICLES
OR
MOTORIZED
BICYCLES
Class II Bike Lane
Introduction
e' MINIMUM `
1
Recommended 10-17
SOUD
WHITE
HITE
WST
(N I �� 1STRIPE
1
18311KE LANE
�l �, 'r
WIDTH DEPENOS4
.G..ON PARKING .
Class III Bike Route
Figure 1.1: Class I, II, and III Bikeways
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan 0 July 2000 7
Introduction
In addition, in many areas (such as in rural areas), separate bicycle lanes are often not
feasible. Cyclists will use the striped shoulders where they are suitable.
One of the greatest divergence of opinion lies between those who feel paved bike paths,
separated from roadways, should be constructed wherever physically possible, versus
those who feel more comfortable riding on streets on lanes or routes. This preference is
usually based on personal feeling regarding comfort and safety. This plan took the
following approach in selecting the most appropriate treatment for each proposed
bikeway.
First, Class I bike paths (also called multi -use trails) are typically more popular than on -
street routes because they attract a broader variety of people (including many non -
bicyclists). Many people simply do not feel comfortable riding with auto traffic.
Conversely, more experienced cyclists often avoid bike paths because they are crowded
and full of unpredictable users. There is some evidence that suggests that there are more
conflicts on bike paths than riding on -street. There is also evidence that suggests that
bike paths may increase conflicts where they have numerous driveways or unprotected
street crossings combined with limited visibility. Where bike paths terminate, half the
bicyclists must cross the road to be able to ride with traffic. Finally, bike paths cost about
ten times more to build per mile than on -street bikeways. Based on this, the Plan
recommends Class I bike paths where they will serve a reasonable transportation function
and do not duplicate adjacent on -street bike routes that offer a reasonable degree of
comfort for the average user.
There are also people who argue whether Class II bike lanes are effective, or conversely,
that bike lanes should be installed wherever possible. While there is no empirical data to
suggest that bike lanes improve safety, according to recent studies they do help delineate
the travelway for motorists and may help channelize motor vehicles.5 When properly
designed, bike lanes help improve the visibility of bicyclists. On streets with low traffic
volumes and speeds (under 5,000 vehicles per day, 30 mph), bike lanes may not be
needed at all. This is based on the potential for serious conflicts being so low that the
cost of installing bike lanes is not warranted.
In Atascadero, as everywhere, there is a tremendous diversity of opinion on what is the
best type of bikeway to focus on constructing. One of the greatest divergence of opinion
lies between those who feel paved bike paths should be constructed wherever physically
possible, versus those who feel more comfortable riding on streets on lanes or routes.
While this preference may be a personal opinion, this plan took the following approach in
selecting the most appropriate treatment.
1.5.4 School Commute
5 University of North Carolina,
8 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
The Plan has school commute safety as a major priority, with many of the short to mid-
term projects providing enhanced connections to schools, plus a separate School
Commute Safety program and new education programs.
1.5.5 Environmental Issues
The Plan offers Atascadero a viable strategy to mitigate the environmental impacts
caused by motor vehicles, including air quality, energy consumption, noise, and use of
land for roadways and parking lots. At the same time, the Plan attempts to address
potential environmental impacts of the bikeway projects themselves. For example, the
establishment of a Class I bikeway is often contingent on addressing potential impacts to
adjacent habitats.
1.5.6 New Era of Respect
A key factor in bicycle and pedestrian -friendly communities throughout the country and
world is the mutual respect between motorists and people on bicycle or foot. While
Atascadero prides itself on being a livable community, a common public comment
locally and statewide is the lack of respect between motorists and pedestrians and
bicyclists. It was noted in one workshop how few people stop their cars at crosswalks to
allow people—even children—to cross, and many bicyclists tell stories of aggression
towards them from motorists. Conversely, it is not uncommon to see bicyclists running
stop signs or riding two or three abreast on narrow roads.
This Plan calls for a new era of mutual respect between all people using public right-of-
ways. It calls on bicyclists and pedestrians to police themselves and spread the word on
the importance of obeying rules -of -the -road. For example, in communities such as Davis
bicyclists are widely accepted as having a right to use roadways, while at the same time
bicyclists adhere to established rules of the road as well. The Plan identifies several
strategies to educate the general public on the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians, and on
the importance of sharing the road and deferring to bicyclists and pedestrians when
needed. The Plan emphasizes the link between this level of respect and the overall quality
of life in Atascadero for everyone.
1.6 Role of the Bicycle Transportation Plan
As a City document, the Bicycle Plan has planning authority over the
development of bicycle facilities throughout Atascadero, with a focus on
developing a Primary network of bikeways, programs, and enhancements. In
addition, the Plan provides numerous planning and design tools for use by
city departments so that they can initiate improvements themselves. The Plan
also helps to ensure good connectivity between activity centers and
community facilities, develop joint projects for intracity connections where
needed, and develop consistent design standards.
1.7 Relevant Legislation and Policies
Aside from the City's own General Plan which identifies specific goals and policies that
are relevant to the Bicycle Transportation Plan, there are several other state, regional, and
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
Federal requirements for bicycle master plans which are primarily related to, and qualify
jurisdictions for State and Federal funding sources.
The Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan should be consistent with regional plans
such as the Regional Transportation Plan (1994), and local plans such as County
Bikeways Plan prepared by the San Luis County Engineering Department (1996).
Caltrans has traditionally played an oversight and review role for Federal funding
programs for bicycle projects. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA -
21) provides many of the same programs oriented to bicycles as did ISTEA--with even
with more money available for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Many of these bicycle
funding programs require approval of a Bicycle Master Plan with specified elements in
order to qualify for the program.
On a state level, according to the California Bicycle Transportation Act (1994), all cities
and counties should have an adopted bicycle and pedestrian master plan that contains:
■ Estimated number of existing and future bicycle commuters
■ Land use and population density
■ Existing and proposed bikeways
■ Existing and proposed bicycle parking facilities
■ Existing and proposed multi -modal connections
■ Existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment
■ Bicycle safety and education programs
■ Citizen and community participation
■ Consistency with transportation, air quality, and energy plans
■ Project descriptions and priority listings
■ Past expenditures and future financial needs
In addition to these required elements, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual contains
specific design guidelines which must be adhered to in California. `Chapter 1000:
Bikeway Planning and Design' of the Manual sets the basic design parameters of on -
street and off-street bicycle facilities, including mandatory design requirements.
1.8 Bicycle Transportation Plan Process
10 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Introduction
This Plan has been developed during winter and spring of 2000 under the purview of the
City's Public Works Department, with input from local citizens interested in improving
bicycling conditions in Atascadero.
1.9 Overview of the Plan
The following Plan will outline the actions needed, priorities, costs, and time lines for
making Atascadero truly bicycle friendly. Section 2 summarizes the goals, policies, and
objectives guiding the implementation of the Transportation Plan. Section 3 details the
existing bikeway system in Atascadero. Section 4 looks at what is needed to make
bikeway improvements. Section 5 outlines the recommended bikeway improvements,
including bicycle parking, education programs, maintenance needs. This includes a
framework for educating youth and adult cyclists and motorists, encouraging more
cycling, and increasing the number of children bicycling to schools. Section 6 outlines an
implementation strategy, including feasibility analyses for some of the highest priority
projects, estimated costs, and funding opportunities.
This Plan is meant as a 20 -year guide for making Atascadero bicycle and pedestrian
friendly. Its success will only be assured by the continued support of Atascadero's
cycling community and other residents recognizing the benefits bicycling and walking
bring to all residents.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 11
Introduction
12 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Goals, Policies, and Obiectives
2.1 Study Area
The study area of this Plan includes the entire City and connections between adjacent
communities. The focus of the Plan is on a primary network of bikeway corridors for city
and regional travel.
This section establishes a policy framework to guide future transportation decisions and
capital improvement programming for Atascadero, which conforms to Caltrans
requirements. This undertaking is intended to promote bicycle facility planning and offer
opportunities to coordinate infrastructure improvements.
2.2 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts in
Atascadero
As an Element of the General Plan, the Bicycle Transportation Plan has the
comprehensive scope and jurisdictional authority required to coordinate and guide the
provision of all bicycle related plans, programs, and projects. While many current
planning efforts provide recommendations regarding one element or aspect of the bicycle
networks; the task of the Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan is to ensure
compatibility of all of these blueprints, while attending to planning for areas of the City
not already targeted by other studies. The studies or planning efforts listed below have
been reviewed and consulted, studied for consistency, and where appropriate, folded into
Atascadero's Bicycle Transportation Plan:
of Atascadero General Plan Circulation Element (199
The 1995 Circulation Element addresses the planning and design of bicycle facilities in
Atascadero. It makes specific recommendations meant to improve cycling conditions
throughout Atascadero. Recommendations include: (a) a comprehensive network of on
and off road bike routes to encourage the use of bikes for commute, recreational and
other trips, (b) Ensure safe, convenient bike access to schools and parks, it also includes
other more site specific recommendations some that have been built.
San Luis Obispo County Bikeways Plan (1996)
The San Luis Obispo County Bikeways Plan provides the blueprint for developing a
bikeway system that includes both on and off street facilities as well as support facilities
and programs throughout the unincorporated County. The Plan compliments bikeway
plans prepared by other jurisdictions by identifying key connections to existing or
planned bikeway facilities in these jurisdictions.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 13
Goals, Policies, and Obiectives
2.3 Goals, Objectives and Policy Actions
2.3.1 Goals
Goals provide the context for the specific objectives and policy actions discussed in the
Bicycle Transportation Plan. The goals provide the long-term vision and serve as the
foundation of the plan. Goals are broad statements of purpose that do not provide details,
but show the plan's direction and give overall guidance. Objectives provide more specific
descriptions of the goal, while policy actions provide a bridge between general policies
and actual implementation guidelines, which are provided in the Sections Four and Five.
As with the Plan recommendations, none of the Goals or Objectives are funded at this
time. This Plan and the goals, objectives and policy actions herein do not mandate any
specific action by the City. It is important to note that this Plan does not call for the
removal of any existing on -street parking. Future projects that may require such action
should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to better determine the project benefits.
Goal 1: Bicycle Transportation
Make the bicycle an integral part of daily life in Atascadero, particularly for
trips of less than five miles, by implementing and maintaining a bikeway
network, providing end -of -trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit
integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer.
Goal 2: Increase Cycling as a Viable Transportation Alternative in
Atascadero
Make Atascadero a model community for alternative transportation in San
Luis Obispo County. Aim for a 10 percent mode share of all utilitarian trips
to be made by bicycling and walking by the year 2020.
The following objectives address these goals in detail. More detailed plans for
implementation of these goals and objectives are contained in Section 4.
2.3.2 Objectives
Objective A
Implement the Bicycle Transportation Plan, which identifies existing and future needs,
and provides specific recommendations for facilities and programs over the next 20
years.
Objective A Policy Actions
1. Update the Plan periodically as needed to reflect new policies and/or requirements for
bicycle and pedestrian funding.
2. Maximize coordination between all municipalities and community organizations to
review and comment on issues of mutual concern.
3. Regularly monitor bicycle related accident levels, and seeks a significant reduction on
a per capita basis over the next twenty years.
14 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Goals, Policies, and Obiectives
Objective B
Complete a network of bikeways that serves bicyclists' needs, especially for travel to
employment centers, schools, commercial districts, transit stations, and institutions.
Objective B Policy Actions
1. Consider the implementation of bikeway and pedestrian facilities as part of all
transportation improvements.
2. Seek funding for bikeway projects through current regional, state, and federal funding
programs, encourage multi jurisdictional funding applications.
3. Implement high priority projects such as school route safety enhancements.
4. Develop and implement a destination -based signing system for the bikeway network.
5. Coordinate and offer assistance to local developers in Atascadero to ensure
appropriate bicycle connections are planned, constructed, and maintained.
Objective C
Maintain and improve the quality, operation, and integrity of bikeway network
facilities.
Objective C Policy Actions:
1. Undertake routine maintenance of bikeway and walkway network facilities, such as
sweeping bicycle lanes and paths, as funding and priorities allow.
2. Ensure that repair and construction of transportation facilities minimize disruption to
the cycling environment to the extent practical.
Objective D
Provide short- and long-term bicycle parking in employment and commercial areas, in
multifamily housing, at schools and colleges, and at transitfacilities.
Objective D Policy Actions:
1. Consider adopting zoning code ordinances requiring bicycle parking spaces are built
as part of development projects.
2. Encourage the installation of short- and long-term bicycle parking in the public
right-of-way
3. Work with local schools to promote bicycle commuting and to assist in purchasing
and siting long- and short-term bicycle parking
4. Consider adopting zoning requirement for lockers and showers to be added to new
buildings, in compliance with the California Bicycle Act.
Objective E
Increase the number of bicycle -transit trips.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 15
Goals, Policies, and Obiectives
Objective E Policy Actions:
1. Assist transit providers in providing and promoting secure bicycle racks and lockers
in the transit system to encourage bicycle use.
2. Permit bike rental opportunities downtown and at key recreation destinations and
other locations where visitors are entering Atascadero.
3. Request that any future rail or transit service in Atascadero provides adequate bicycle
and pedestrian access, and storage capacity.
Objective F
Develop and implement education and encouragement plans aimed at youth,
adult cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Increase public awareness of the
benefits of bicycling and walking and of available resources and facilities.
Objective F Policy Actions
1. Develop adult and youth bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement and safety
programs (see Section Five).
16 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
3.1 Commuter and Recreational Bicycle Needs
The purpose of reviewing the needs of recreational and commuter bicyclists is twofold:
(a) it is instrumental when planning a system which must serve both user groups and (b)
it is useful when pursuing competitive funding and attempting to quantify future usage
and benefits to justify expenditures of resources. According to a May 1991 Lou Harris
Poll, it was reported that "...nearly 3 million adults --about one in 60 --already commute
by bike. This number could rise to 35 million if more bicycle friendly transportation
systems existed. " In short, there is a large reservoir of potential bicyclists in Atascadero
who don' t ride (or ride more often) simply because they do not feel comfortable using
the existing street system and/or don't have appropriate bicycle facilities at their
destination.
Key general observations about bicycling needs by group in Atascadero include:
■ Bicyclists are typically separated between experienced and casual riders. The
U.S. Department of Transportation identifies thresholds of traffic volumes, speeds,
and curb lanes where less experienced bicyclists begin to feel uncomfortable. For
example, on an arterial with traffic moving between 30 and 40 miles per hour, less
experienced bicyclists require bike lanes while more experienced bicyclists require a
14 or 15 foot wide curb lane.
■ Casual riders include those who feel less comfortable negotiating traffic. Others
such as children and the elderly may have difficulty gauging traffic, responding to
changing conditions, or moving rapidly enough to clear intersections. Other
bicyclists, experienced or not, may be willing to sacrifice time by avoiding heavily
traveled arterials and using quieter side streets. In some cases, casual riders may
perceive side streets (or sidewalks) as being safer alternatives than major through
routes, when in fact they may be less safe. Other attributes of the casual bicyclist
include shorter distances than the experienced rider and unfamiliarity with many of
the rules of the road. The casual bicyclist will benefit from route markers, bike lanes,
wider curb lanes, and educational programs. Casual bicyclists may also benefit from
marked routes that lead to parks, museums, historic districts, and other visitor
destinations.
■ Experienced bicyclists include those who prefer the most direct, through route
between origin and destination, and a preference for riding within or near the
travel lanes. Experienced bicyclists negotiate streets in much the same manner as
motor vehicles, merging across traffic to make left turns, and avoiding bike lanes and
shoulders that contain gravel and glass. The experienced bicyclist will benefit from
wider curb lanes and loop detectors at signals. The experienced bicyclist who is
primarily interested in exercise will benefit from loop routes which lead back to the
point of origin.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 17
Proposed System and Improvements
■ Bicycles themselves range in cost from about $350 to over $2,000 for adult
models (1998 Figures). The most popular bicycle type today is the hybrid mountain
bike or BMX. These relatively light weight bicycles feature wider knobby tires that
can handle both on -road and off-road conditions, from 10 to 27 gears, and up -right
handlebars. Advanced versions have features such as front and rear shocks to help
steady the rider on rough terrain. The 10 -speeds of years past has evolved into a
sophisticated ultra -light `road bicycle' that is used primarily by the serious long
distance adult bicyclists. These expensive machines feature very narrow tires that are
more susceptible to flats and blow -outs from debris on the roadway.
■ Who rides bicycles? While the majority of Americans (and Atascadero residents)
own bicycles, most of these people are recreational riders who ride relatively
infrequently. School children between the ages of about 7 and 12 make up a large
percentage of the bicycle riders today, often riding to school, parks, or other local
destinations on a daily basis weather permitting. The serious adult road bicyclist who
may compete in races, `centuries' (100 mile tours) and/or ride for exercise makes up a
small but important segment of bikeway users, along with serious off-road mountain
bicyclists who enjoy riding on trails and dirt roads. The single biggest adult group of
bicyclists in Atascadero is the intermittent recreational rider who generally prefers to
ride on pathways or quiet side streets.
3.1.1 Bicycle Commuter Needs and Benefits
Bicycle Commuter Needs
Commuter bicyclists in Atascadero range from employees who ride to work to a child
who rides to school to people riding to shops. Millions of dollars nationwide have been
spent attempting to increase the number of people who ride to work or school or shops,
with moderate success. Bicycling requires shorter commutes, which runs counter to most
land use and transportation policies which encourage people to live farther and farther
from where they work. Access to transit helps extend the commute range of cyclists, but
transit systems also face an increasingly dispersed live -work pattern which is difficult to
serve. Despite these facts, Atascadero has a great potential to increase the number of
people who ride to work or school because of (a) the small size of the city, (b) moderate
density residential neighborhoods near employment centers, (c) a favorable climate, and
(d) a high percentage of work trips that are less than 15 minutes.
Key bicycle commuter needs in Atascadero are summarized below.
■ Commuter bicycling typically falls into one of two categories: (1) adult employees,
and (2) younger students (typically ages 7-15).
■ Commuter trips range from several blocks inside the city limits to several or more
miles for those commuters traveling beyond the city limits.
18 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
■ Commuters typically seek the most direct and fastest route available, with regular
adult commuters often preferring to ride on arterials rather than side streets or off-
street facilities.
■ Commute periods typically coincide with peak traffic volumes and congestion,
increasing the exposure to potential conflicts with vehicles.
■ Places to safely store bicycles are of paramount importance to all bicycle commuters.
■ Major commuter concerns include changes in weather (rain), riding in darkness,
personal safety and security.
■ Rather than be directed to side streets, most commuting adult cyclists would prefer to
be given bike lanes or wider curb lanes on direct routes.
■ Unprotected crosswalks and intersections (no stop sign or signal control) in
general are the primary concerns of all bicycle commuters.
■ Commuters generally prefer routes where they are required to stop as few times
as possible, thereby minimizing delay.
■ Many younger students (ages 7-11) use sidewalks for riding to schools or parks,
which is acceptable in areas where pedestrian volumes are low and driveway
visibility is high. Where on -street parking and/or landscaping obscures
visibility, sidewalk riders may be exposed to a higher incidence of accidents.
Older students (12 years or older) who consistently ride at speeds over 10 mph
should be directed to riding on -street wherever possible.
Students riding the wrong -way on -street are common and account for the greatest
number of recorded accidents in California, pointing to the need for safety education.
Traffic and Air Quality Benefits
A key goal of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is to maximize the number of local bicycle
commuters in order to help achieve large transportation goals such as minimizing traffic
congestion and air pollution. In order to set the framework for these benefits, national
statistics and policies are used as a basis for determining the benefits to Atascadero.
■ Currently, nearly 3 million adults (about 1 in 60) commute by bicycle. This
number could rise to 35 million if adequate facilities were provided (according to
a 1991 Lou Harris Poll).
■ The latent "need" for bicycle and pedestrian facilities --versus actual bicyclists
and pedestrians --is difficult to quantify; we must rely on evaluation of
comparable communities to determine potential usage.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 19
Proposed System and Improvements
■ Mode split refers to the choice of transportation people make whether for work
or non -work trips. Currently, the average household in the U.S. generates about
10 vehicle trips per day. Work trips account for less than 30% of these trips on
average.
■ Using the 1990 U.S. census, lust under 0.9% of all employed Atascadero
residents commute primarily by bicycle. This does not include those who ride
less than 50% of the time, nor does it always include those who may ride to
transit and list "transit" as their primary mode.
■ The U.S. Department of Transportation in their publication entitled "National
Walking and Bicycling Study" (1995) sets as a national goal the doubling of
current walk and bicycling mode shares by the year 2010, assuming that a
comprehensive bicycle system was in place. This would translate into a
commute mode share of 1.8% or 200 commuters. Add to this number
commuters who bicycle occasionally, bike -to -transit, and students at local
schools, and the average number of daily in Atascadero increases to an estimated
901 bicycle commuters by 2010. These bicyclists will be saving an estimated
220,333 vehicle trips and 351,167 vehicle miles per year.
■ The combined benefit of these future bicycle commuters over the next 20 years is
an annual reduction of about 6,461 lbs. of PM10, 17,516 lbs. of Nox, and 25,495
lbs. of ROG.
■ Bicycling is one of the most popular forms of recreational activity in the United
States, with 46% of Americans bicycling for pleasure. These figures indicate
that about 11,500 residents in Atascadero do or would like to bicycle for
pleasure. If nothing else, this indicates a latent demand for facilities and a
potent constituency to push for better facilities. Another way of saving this is, "if
you build it, they will come."
Table 3.1 provides a detailed summary of bicycle demand and benefits.
20 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
Table 3.1
Demographics and Transportation and Air Quality in Atascadero
Population (1999 estimate)
25,000
Land Area (estimated)
25 sq. miles
Population Density (estimated)
1,000 persons/sq. mile
Estimated Atascadero Residents who would like to Bicycle for
Pleasure
11,500 (bike)
Current Bicycle Commute Mode Share (1990)
100 commuters (.4%)
Future Bicycle Commute Mode Share
200 commuters (0.8%)
Estimated school -related bicycle commuters
700 commuters
Total future bicycle commuters
901 commuters
Reduced Vehicle Trips/Year
220,333
Reduced Vehicle Miles/Year
351,167
Reduced PM10/lbs./Year
6,461
Reduced NoX/lbs./Year
17,516
Reduced ROG/lbs./Year
25,495
3.1.2 Recreational Needs
The needs of recreational bicyclists in Atascadero must be understood prior to developing
a system or set of improvements. While it is not possible to serve every neighborhood
street and every need, a good plan will integrate recreational needs to the extent possible.
The following points summarize recreational needs:
■ Recreational bicycling in Atascadero typically falls into one of three categories:
(1) exercise, (2) non -work destination such as a park or shopping, or (3) touring.
Recreational users range from healthy adults to children to senior citizens.
Each group has their own abilities, interests, and needs.
■ Directness of route is typically less important than routes with less traffic
conflicts. Visual interest, shade, protection from wind, moderate gradients, or
other features are more important.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 21
Proposed System and Improvements
■ People exercising or touring often (though not always) prefer a loop route rather
than having to back -track.
3.2 Accident Analysis
Bicycle -related accidents were collected for roughly the past three years (1996-1999) in
Atascadero. A total of twelve (12) bicycle -related accidents occurred in 1996, sixteen
(16) in 1997, eighteen (18) in 1998, and nine (9) from January through June 1999. While
the number of incidents and a variety of other potential factors make it difficult to draw a
conclusion from this data, it is apparent that bicycle -related incidents are at the very least
rising slightly. Compared to other communities in California on the number of incidents
per 1,000 persons, Atascadero's rate (.68 incidents per 1,000 persons) is consistent with
the statewide average of .67 incidents per 1,000 persons.
The top three bicycle -related accident locations in Atascadero are:
1. El Camino Real & Highway 41 (5 accidents)
2. El Camino Real & Traffic Way (3 accidents)
3. El Camino Real & Pueblo Avenue (3 accidents)
This list indicates a high incidence of accidents on the major transverse corridor. The
accident data revealed that close to 70% of the incidents occurred on weekdays. Figure
3.3 illustrates the bicycle accident locations in Atascadero over the last 3 years.
The recommended bikeway system will address these problem areas by identifying
specific improvements (including safety and education improvements) and/or providing
alternative routes, which help bicyclists, avoid these areas.
3.3 Multi -Modal Connections
An integral part of every bikeway system is the support facilities that aid cyclists at
multi -modal connections. These facilities include bike racks on busses, other transit
vehicle, and bike parking at transit stations and stops.
3.3.1 Existing Connections
Multi -modal connections are currently provided at all of the City's park and ride
facilities. Park and ride lots are provided on San Antonio Road near the City's southern
limit adjacent to US 101, on Santa Lucia Avenue near downtown west of US 101, and on
Santa Ysabel Avenue downtown.
Program:
Explore the feasibility of establishing a bike station at in Atascadero. Bike Stations
enhance multi -modal connections. Stations are typically leased by a private vendor and
provide bicycle parking, showers, rest rooms, and bicycle services such as sales,
maintenance, rentals, and concessions.
22 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
Figure 3.1: Citywide Destinations
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 23
Proposed System and Improvements
Figure 3.2: Downtown Destinations
24 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
Figure 3.3: Bicycle Accident Locations
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 25
Proposed System and Improvements
The existing and proposed Atascadero Bikeways System is shown on Figure 4.1. An
inventory of the existing bikeways is listed below:
Existing Class I Bikeway/Multi-Use Trails
The De Anza Trail a popular regional trail runs for approximately 3.5 miles between
the Union Pacific Railroad and the Salinas River in north eastern Atascadero. The
trail loops at both ends extending its length, and making it a popular place for families
to recreate. A short ancillary loop (approximately 1/2 mi.) of the De Anza trail lies
south of the main trail, just opposite the Chalk Mountain Golf Course, between the
Railroad and the River.
2. The Jim Green Trail loops around the Chalk Mountain Golf Course for approx. 1.3
miles.
Class II Bike Lanes
1. Three disconnected segments of Class II bikeways currently exist on El Camino Real.
They run from the southern city limit to Santa Barbara Road (approximately 2 miles),
from the intersection at San Diego Road until State Highway 41 ( approximately 2.3
miles), and then a short span from the intersection at San Jacinto Avenue to San
Anselmo Avenue (approximately 0.3 miles).
2. A Class II bikeway is located on Traffic Way, it runs from Olmeda Avenue in
downtown Atascadero north easterly for approximately 1.1 miles where it terminates
adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad just south of San Jacinto Avenue.
3. From the Union Pacific Railroad, a Class II bikeway runs south along Capistrano
Avenue for approximately 1/2 mile towards downtown.
4.1 Proposed Bicycle System
The recommended system and improvements consists of two distinct components:
Bicycle Facilities: including bikeway system, parking, and support facilities.
Bicycle Programs: as related to safety, education, and community and employer
outreach.
The proposed bicycle circulation strategy consists of a spine bikeway system on El
Camino Real plus other routes, lanes, and paths connecting residential neighborhoods in
Atascadero with the schools, parks, library, downtown, and other destinations. The
proposed bikeway system is shown in Figure 4.1. A Class II bikeway on El Camino Real
will likely require the posting of "No Parking" from E. Mall to Rosario, and possibly
other areas.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 27
Proposed System and Improvements
The proposed Atascadero Bikeway system is characterized by improvements to (1) on -
street facilities on El Camino Real, (2) improvements to the De Anza Trail, and (3) a
variety of other programs and facilities. At a minimum, all bicycle routes identified on
the Plan will be Class III bike routes and include intersection protection where needed,
wider curb lanes where possible, traffic calming where needed to slow traffic, shoulder
striping where feasible, and signing. Finally, new bicycle support facilities and programs
are proposed for the City, which are detailed later in this report.
The highest priority short term bikeway projects were selected by City staff, the public,
and bikeway specialists based on their local knowledge and cycling experience, the
orientation of funding programs, and the planning criteria outlined in the Transportation
Plan (coverage, connectivity, user groups, implementation, local input, funding sources.
4.2 Creating a Bikeway System
A bikeway `system' is a network of bicycle routes that, for a variety of reasons including
safety and convenience provide a superior level of service for bicyclists and/or are
targeted for improvements by the City due to existing deficiencies. It is important to
recognize that, by law, bicyclists are allowed on all streets and roads (except where
specifically prohibited) regardless of whether they are a part of the bikeway system. The
bikeway system is a tool that allows the City to focus and prioritize implementation
efforts where they will provide the greatest community benefit.
There is an established methodology for selecting a bikeway system for any community.
The primary method is to receive input from the local bicycling community and local
staff familiar with the best routes and existing constraints and opportunities. Input can be
received through a variety of means, but typically is through the public workshop format.
The following criteria are typically used to develop a bicycle system:
1. Existing Bicycling Patterns
a. Connectivity
2. Traffic volumes and travel speeds
3. Amount of side friction (driveways, side streets)
4. Curb -to -curb width
5. Pavement condition
6. Access from residential areas
7. Number of destinations served
a. Schools
b. Parks
C. Employment Centers
8. Topography
9. Integration into the regional system
10. Adjacent land use
11. On -street parking
12. Accident data and safety concerns
13. Existing bottlenecks or constraints
28 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
14. Existing opportunities such as planned roadway improvements
The Atascadero bikeway system was developed focusing on connecting existing
segments of bike lane, addressing routes used by bicyclists, and focusing on specific
opportunities and constraints. The street grid pattern and topography of Atascadero is
such that there is one primary north -south corridor (on or along El Camino Real).
Once a bikeway system has been identified, the greatest challenge is to identify the top
segments that will offer the greatest benefit to bicyclists in the next five years. Aside
from the criteria used in developing the system as a whole, selection of these top projects
is based on:
(1) The number of schools served;
(2) The number of recreational centers served. If the segment is a Class I bike path,
the pathway itself may qualify as a recreational destination.
(3) The number of employment centers served;
(4) The number of areas where bicycle safety is addressed, i.e., corridors with high
traffic volumes and narrow travel lanes; and
(5) Segments which help overcome existing gaps in the bicycling system.
Finally, it is important to remember that the bikeway system and the top projects are
flexible concepts that serve as guidelines to those responsible for implementation. The
system and segments themselves will change over time as a result of changing bicycling
patterns and implementation constraints and opportunities.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 29
Proposed System and Improvements
Figure 4.1: Proposed Bikeway System
30 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
4.3 Description of Proposed Bikeway Improvements
Table 4.1
Pacific Union Railroad (RWT)
Pacific Union Railroad (RWT)
Atascadero Creek
Stadium Park Connector
Atascadero Lake Trail
SR 41
Atascadero Road
EI Camino Real
EI Camino Real
EI Camino Real
Del Rio Road
Portola Road
San Gabriel Road
Santa Ysabel Avenue
EI Bordo Avenue
San Jacinto Avenue
De Anza Trail Loop
UP RR/Sycamore Rd
Atascadero Creek
Atascadero Lake
Western City Limits
Morro Road (HW 41)
San Diego Road
San Jacinto Avenue
Santa Cruz Road
Monterey Road
Ardilla Road
State HW 41
downtown
EI Camino Real
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
City Limits
Curbaril Avenue
San Gabriel Road
StadiumPark
Atascadero Lake (loop)
Eastern City Limits
EI Camino Real
Class I/Multi-Use
2.5
Class I/Multi-Use
1.1
Class I/Multi-Use
2.7
Class I/Multi-Use
0.3
Class I/Multi-Use
1.0
Class II
6.0
Class II 3.5
Santa Barbara Road
Class II
0.7
SR 41
Class II
1.1
San Anselmo Av.
Class II
1.7
EI Camino Real
Class II
0.5
EI Camino Real
Class II
3.0
Atascadero Road
Class II
1.4
Curbaril Avenue
Class II
0.8
Heilman Regional Park
Class II
0.4
31
Del Rio Road
EI Camino Real
San Anselmo Avenue
Del Rio Road
San Anselmo Avenue
Monterey Road
San Gabriel Road
NW end San Gabriel Rd
San Marcos Road
San Gabriel Road
San Andres Avenue
Santa Lucia Avenue
Atascadero Avenue
Atascadero Mall
Santa Ynez Avenue
Atascadero Avenue
Class III
De Anza Trail /UP
Sycamore Avenue
Intersection
Curbaril Avenue
Sycamore Avenue
Curbaril Avenue
EI Camino Real
EI Viejo Camino
EI Camino Real
Halcon Road
EI Viejo Camino
32 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
San Anselmo Av.
Class III
1.1
EI Camino Real
Class III
0.8
Portola Road
Class III
0.3
State HW 41
Class III
1.0
San AndresAve.
Class III
1.1
St. HW 41
Class III
0.5
St. HW 41
Class III
0.6
St. HW 41
Class III
0.8
Curbaril Avenue
Class III
0.6
Santa Ysabel Avenue
Class III
0.8
San Marcos Road
Class III
1.0
EI Camino Real
Class III
1.0
Union Pacific RR
Class III
0.8
Proposed System and Improvements
Based on the criteria described previously, the top priority short to mid term bikeway
projects in Atascadero are:
Short -Mid Term Bikeway Projects
1. El Camino Real Gap Closure Projects
2. De Anza Trail Extension
3. Enforcement, Education, and Maintenance Program
4. Bicycle Parking
5. State Route 41 Improvements
The five short to mid-term projects meet immediate needs in Atascadero, help overcome
existing barriers, serve virtually all of the City's activity centers, and link most activity
centers in the community. Mid to long term projects are expected to take longer to
implement due to financial and other constraints.
4.4 Bicycle Parking and Other Support Facilities
A systematic program to improve the quality and increase the quantity of bicycle parking
facilities would be beneficial to Atascadero. The proposed performance standards are
presented in the following recommendations:
Program #1:
Bike parking should be provided at all public destinations, including parks, schools, the
downtown area, and City Hall. All bicycle parking should be in a safe, secure, covered
area (if possible). Bicycle parking in public areas will be provided by the City. Bicycle
parking on sidewalks in commercial areas will be provided according to specific design
criteria, reviewed by merchants and the public, and installed as demand warrants. As a
general rule, `U' type racks bolted into the sidewalk are preferred on downtown
sidewalks, to be located at least every 250 feet or at specific bicycle destinations (such
as bike shops), at least 2 feet from the curb and between marked parking spaces, and
leave a minimum of 4 feet clear for pedestrians.
Program #2:
All new commercial development or redevelopment in excess of 5, 000 gross leasable
square feet should be required to provide one space in an approved bicycle rack per 10
employees. All bicycle racks should be located in safe, secure, covered areas, be
anchored to the ground, and allow bicycles to lock both frame and wheels. Figures 3
and 4 illustrate the recommended Class /(bike locker) and Class 11 (bike rack)
configurations. Class 1 facilities will generally not be located in unsupervised public
areas.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 33
Proposed System and Improvements
Program #3:
Bicycle parking for existing non-residential uses should be implemented through one or
a combination of the following two methods. (1) Require existing non-residential uses to
provide bicycle parking per the requirements described above as part of the building
permit process. (2) Subsidize the cost of bicycle parking through small advertisements
on the racks themselves and/or through grants from public or private sources (see
Funding section).
Program #4:
A special program to construct bicycle corrals where needed at elementary and middle
schools should be continued and enhanced where needed. These simple enclosed
facilities are locked from the beginning to the end of school, and address the theft and
vandalism concerns of students.
Program #5:
A new program to provide closed -in secure bicycle corrals at all major special events in
Atascadero, to encourage residents and visitors to bicycle rather than attempt to drive
should be instituted. The City should sponsor this corral and seek volunteers to staff the
corral during the events.
4.5 Bicycle Safety Education Programs
The Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan provides both physical recommendations
(such as bike lanes) and program recommendations. Some of the program
recommendations, such as changes in zoning requirements for bicycle parking, have
already been covered. This section covers future efforts to educate bicyclists and
motorists, and efforts to increase the use of bicycles as a transportation alternative.
4.5.1 Education
The School District, Police Department, and the Department of Public Works have a long
history of trying to improve safety conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Unfortunately, the lack of education for bicyclists, especially younger students, continues
to be a leading cause of accidents. For example, the most common type of reported
bicycle accident in California involves a younger person (between 8 and 16 years of age)
riding on the wrong side of the road in the evening hours. Studies of accident locations
around California consistently show the greatest concentration of accidents is directly
adjacent to elementary, middle, and high schools. Many less -experienced adult
bicyclists are unsure how to negotiate intersections and make turns on city streets.
Motorist education on the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians is virtually non-existent.
Many motorists mistakenly believe, for example, that bicyclists do not have a right to ride
in travel lanes and that they should be riding on sidewalks. Many motorists do not
understand the concept of `sharing the road' with bicyclists, or why a bicyclist may need
to ride in a travel lane if there is no shoulder or it is full of gravel or potholes.
Bicycle education programs in schools are typically taught once a year to 3rd, 4th, and
5th graders. Curriculum is generally derived from established programs developed by
34 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
groups such as the California State Automobile Association, and taught by members of
the Police Department. Budget cuts, demands on students' time, and liability concerns
limit the extent of bicycle education to school children. Formal adult bicycle education is
virtually non-existent.
Program: Expand Current Education Programs
Existing educational programs at elementary and middle schools should be expanded in
a cooperative effort between the City and the Unified School District, and supported by a
secure, regular funding source. A Joint City/School District Safety Committee should be
formed consisting of appointed parents, teachers, administrators, police, an active
bicyclist, and public works staff whose task it is to identify problems and solutions,
ensure implementation, and submit recommendations to the School Board or City
Council.
Program: Develop New Educational Program Materials and Curriculum.
Education materials should be expanded to promote the benefits of bicycling, the need
for education and safety improvements, the most recent educational tools available in
the country (including the use of low-cost safety videos), and directives to parents on the
proper school drop-off procedure for their children. Educational pamphlets for children
should be made more readable. Incentive programs to reward good behavior should be
developed. Educational programs, and especially on -bike training, should be expanded
to more grades and for more hours per year. Education curriculum should, at a
minimum, cover the following lessons:
• on -bike training or bicycle `rodeos'
• the use and importance of bicycle helmets
• how to adjust and maintain a bicycle
• night riding (clothes, lights)
• rules of the road
• riding on sidewalks
• how to negotiate intersections
• riding defensively
• use of hand signals
A standard safety handbook format should be developed incorporating the best
elements of those currently in use, and made available to each school on disk so they
may be customized as needed. Schools should develop a circulation map of the
campus and immediate environs to include in the handbooks, clearly showing the
preferred circulation and parking patterns and explaining in text the reason behind the
recommendations. This circulation map should also be a permanent feature in all school
newsletters. Bicycle helmet subsidy -programs are available in California, and should be
used to provide low-cost approved helmets for all school children bicyclists.
Program: Develop an Adult Education Program
Establish an adult bicycle education program through local bicycling organizations in
cooperation with the Community Services Department and/or other City departments
that (a) teaches adults how to ride defensively, (b) how to ride on a variety of city streets,
and (c) encourages adults to feel more confident to ride to work or for recreation. Work
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 35
Proposed System and Improvements
with local bicycling groups who could provide the training expertise, and possibly lead
organized bicycle training sessions, tours and rides.
Program: Educate Motorists
Educate motorists about the rights and characteristics of bicyclists through a variety of
means including: (a) making bicycle safety a part of traffic school curriculum in
Atascadero, (b) producing a brochure on bicycle safety and laws for public distribution,
(c) enforcing existing traffic laws for both motorists and bicycles, (d) sending an official
letter to the Department of Motor Vehicles recommending the inclusion of bicycle laws in
the drivers license exam, and (e) install signs that read `Share the Road' with a bicycle
symbol at appropriate locations along all routes of the proposed primary system where
bike lanes are not feasible, travel lanes are under 14 feet wide, and ADTs exceed
10,000.
Program: Develop School Commute Route Improvement Plan
This plan has identified many routes that will benefit school children who choose to walk
or bicycle to school. However, each school needs to conduct its own evaluation of
school commute patterns and work with the City in identifying crossing and corridor
improvements. Identifying and improving routes for children to walk or bicycle to school
is one of the most cost effective means of reducing AM traffic congestion and addressing
existing safety problems. Most effective school commute programs are joint efforts of
the school district and city, with parent organizations adding an important element.
Maintain a toolbox of measures that can be implemented by the school district and City
to address safety problems. This may include maps of preferred school commute routes,
warning signs, enhanced education, additional crossing guards, signal treatments (longer
cycles, pedestrian activated buttons, etc.), enhanced visibility at key locations (lighting,
landscaping abatement), crosswalks, bike lanes, and other measures.
The following process is recommended for developing a Safe Routes to School Program
for Atascadero's bicycle commuters:
STEPS TO DEVELOP A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL SYSTEM
1. Form a School Commute Task Force composed of representatives from the school
district, the Public Works Department and police department, the local
neighborhood, parent -teachers or other similar groups, and the school itself.
2. Set objectives and a reasonable schedule for this Task Force to accomplish its
goals.
3. Determine the preferred basic school commute routes to the school based on (a)
parent and student input, (b) a survey of parent and student community patterns,
(c) Public Works and police input, and (d) observations of actual commuting
patterns.
5. Are there any efforts to guide students who wish to walk or bicycle to school?
Does the school provide a map of recommended routes?
36 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
6. Does the school wish to encourage more students to walk or bicycle to school?
While there is a perception of safety being a concern, statistics show that walking
and bicycling are just as safe as driving. Yet many parents insist on driving their
children even a few blocks to school --thus contributing to the traffic congestion.
7. Study the parking lot and drop off areas of the school. Is there a pattern where
students are walking between cars or through parking lots or drop off areas to
reach the school? Are there are management efforts to get parents to follow any
specific drop-off protocol?
8. Are there adequate sidewalks and bike lanes on the streets directly serving the
school? Are there school access points which encourage students to cross mid -
block or at other less desirable locations?
9. Where are the first major street crossings on the main school commute routes?
Many accidents occur at these intersections. Are they signalized? Is the signal
timing adequate even for younger students? Are right turns on red allowed? Are
there crossing guards?
10. Are there any locations where students are crossing major or minor streets at mid -
block or unprotected locations, i.e., no stop signs or signals? Because children are
sometimes hard to see and have difficulty in gauging vehicle speed, these
locations can be the focus of improvements.
11. Do students have to cross intersections that have very wide turning radii,
unrestricted right turn movements, where vehicles can accelerate and merge while
turning? These are problematic because drivers are focused to their left at merging
traffic rather than in front at crosswalks.
12. Do all intersections have properly designed crosswalks? The crosswalks should be
located so that students can wait safely on the sidewalk prior to seeing if they can
cross. Is there adequate visibility and lighting given the speed of traffic? Are there
adequate warning signs in advance of the crosswalk?
13. What are the 85th percentile speeds of traffic on the major school commute
corridors? Are they significantly above or below the posted speed limits? When
was the last speed survey conducted? What is the level of police enforcement, and
does it occur only at the beginning of the school year? It is possible to lower
speed limits near schools. In other locations, it may be necessary to make physical
changes, such as narrowing travel lanes, to slow traffic. It may also be preferable
to accept slightly more congestion on a two-lane street, and have slower speeds,
than have free flowing high-speed traffic on a four -lane street.
14. School Commute Projects involve numerous, often small incremental changes to
sidewalks and roadways, such as adjustments to signal timing or new signing or
lighting. In other cases, innovative lighted crosswalk treatments or even grade
separation may be warranted. Working with the Task Force will help a school
determine the best mix of improvements suitable for each corridor, and
compatible with local traffic conditions.
15. A more detailed evaluation methodology, which rates improvements and corridors
according to objective criteria, has been developed and is available for use by
local schools. However, it may require the services of specialists who understand
traffic safety and engineering.
16. Once the improvements have been identified, a preliminary design or plan must
be completed which describes the project and its cost. For example, a crosswalk
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 37
Proposed System and Improvements
improvement would need to be designed so that it can be reviewed and approved
by the local agency. Again, a professional may be engaged for this effort.
17. With a plan and cost estimate, the project still needs a sponsor. Typically this
would be the City Public Works Department, who are best connected to available
funding sources. The project sponsor will need an official authorization, and
confirmation that (a) the right-of-way is publicly owned, (b) local staff have
reviewed and approved the project, and (c) no negative impacts have been
identified. With this in hand, the project sponsor can seek funding, which usually
requires a 10% or greater matching amount. This matching amount can sometimes
include in-kind services such as administration or design, rather than be cash.
Programs that may be implemented include a "Walking School Bus Program", which
involves parents taking turns walking (or bicycling) with groups of children to school.
4.6 Community and Employer Outreach
Without community support, a bicycle plan lacks the key resources that are needed to
ensure implementation over time. While the City Public Works Department may be
responsible for designing and constructing physical improvements, strategies for
community involvement will be important to ensure broad-based support --which
translates into political support --which can help secure financial resources. Involvement
by the private sector in raising awareness of the benefits of bicycling and walking range
from small incremental activities by non-profit groups, to efforts by the largest employers
in the City. Specific programs are described below.
4.6.1 Bicycle Donation Program
A fleet of lender bicycles available to employees to use as a commute alternative has
proved successful in Portland and other U.S. cities. The bicycle may be purchased new
or obtained from police auctions, repaired, painted and engraved with ID numbers, and
made available free of charge to employees. Depending on demand, bicycles may be
made available through reservations or on a rotating basis. The bicycles themselves
should be lower -end heavy-duty bicycles that have minimal re -sale value. Employer's
responsibilities would be limited to an annual maintenance inspection and repairs as
necessary. The objective of the program is to encourage employees to try bicycling to
work as an alternative, without making a major investment. Employers may wish to
allow bicycle commuters to leave 15 minutes early from work, or some other type of
incentive to encourage use of the bicycles. The City of Atascadero may consider such a
program and may wish to encourage private employers to follow suit by offering TDM
credits or subsidized purchases of bicycles.
4.6.2 Bicycle Clunker and Parts Program, Bicycle Repair Program
This program, which already exists in San Rafael as the `Trips for Kids' program, ties
directly into the previous program by obtaining broken, stolen, or other bicycles and
restoring them to working condition. The program's dual mission is also to train young
people (ages 12-18) how to repair bicycles as part of a summer jobs training effort.
Bicycles are an excellent medium to teach young people the fundamentals of
mechanics, safety, and operation. Young people can use these skills to maintain their
own bicycles, or to build on related interests. The program is often staffed by volunteers
38 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Proposed System and Improvements
from local cycling organizations and bicycle shops, who can help build an interest in
bicycling as an alternative to driving. The seed money to begin this program often
comes from a local private funding source. The proposal submitted to this source should
clearly outline the project objectives, operating details, costs, effectiveness evaluation,
and other details. The bicycles themselves could be derived from unclaimed stolen
bicycles from the police department, or from donated bicycles. The program will need to
qualify as a Section 501 C(3) non-profit organization to offer tax deductions.
4.6.3 Bicycle Facilities Map
Work with the Community Services Department, the School District, Chamber of
Commerce, and local businesses to produce a bicycle/walking map that shows existing
and recommended touring and commuting bicycle routes, access to regional mountain
bike trails, historic walking tours, and school commute routes.
4.6.4 Community Adoption
Programs to have local businesses and organizations 'adopt' a pathway similar to the
adoption of segments of the Interstate Highway system. Supporters would be identified
by small signs located along the pathway, acknowledging their contribution. Support
would be in the form of an annual commitment to pay for the routine maintenance of the
pathway, which in general costs about $8,500 per mile. This program may be
administered by Parks & Recreation or other groups.
4.6.5 Bike Fairs and Races
The City is well positioned to capitalize on the growing interest in on -road and off-road
bicycle races and criteriums. Events would need to be sponsored by local businesses,
and involve some promotion, insurance, and development of adequate circuits for all
levels of riders. It is not unusual for these events to draw up to 1,000 riders, which could
bring some additional expenditures into the town.
The City can assist in developing these events by acting as a co-sponsor, and
expediting and possibly underwriting some of the expense of --for example --police time.
The City should also encourage these events to have races and tours that appeal to the
less experienced cyclist. For example, in exchange for underwriting part of the costs of
a race the City could require the event promoters to hold a bicycle repair and
maintenance workshop for kids, short fun races for kids, and/or a tour of the route lead
by experienced cyclists who could show less experienced riders how to safely negotiate
city streets.
4.6.6 Employer Incentives
Beyond programs described earlier such as the Bicycle Donation Program, employer
incentives to encourage employees to try bicycling or walking to work include sponsoring
bike fairs and races, providing bicycle lockers and shower facilities, and offering
incentives to employees who commute by bicycle or walk by allowing for more flexible
arrival and departure times, and possibly paying for transit or taxis during inclement
weather. The City may offer incentives to employers to institute these improvements
through air quality credits, lowered parking requirements, reduced traffic mitigation fees,
or other means.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 39
Proposed System and Improvements
4.6.7 Bike -to -Work and Bike -to -School Days
In addition to the existing Tour of Atascadero Bike Race (May 16, 1999), and the Critical
Mass Bike Ride (June 25, 1999), bike -to -work days could be sponsored by the City,
possibly in conjunction with other agencies such as SOLCOG, to help promote bicycling
as a commute alternative. Bike -to -school days could be jointly sponsored with the
School District, possibly in conjunction with bicycle education programs.
4.7 Mid to Long Term Improvements
The mid to long term improvements involves the build out of the rest of the on and off
street facilities proposed in this plan. Please see table
40 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
and Maintenance Standards
This chapter provides details on the recommended design and operating standards for the
Atascadero Bikeway System.
5.1 Existing Bicycle Design Standards and Classifications
National design standards for bikeways have been developed by the American
Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans Highway Design Manual,
Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, serves as the official design standard for all
bicycle facilities in California. Design standards in Chapter 1000 fall into two categories,
mandatory and advisory. Caltrans advises that all standards in Chapter 1000 be followed,
which also provides a measure of design immunity to the City. Not all possible design
options are shown in Chapter 1000. For example, intersections, ramp entrances, rural
roads, and a variety of pathway locations are not specified in the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual.
The following section summarizes key operating and design definitions:
■ Bicycle A device upon which any person may ride, propelled
exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears,
and having either two or three wheels in tandem or tricycle
arrangement.
■ Class I Bikeway Variously called a bike path or multi -use trail. Provides for
bicycle travel on a paved right of way completely separated
from any street or highway.
■ Class II Bikeway Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a striped lane for one-
way travel on a street or highway.
■ Class III Bikeway Referred to as a bike route. Provides for shared use with
pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
Graphic descriptions of Class I, II, and III bikeways are shown in Figure 1 on page 14.
5.2 General Design Recommendations
5.2.1 Conform to Caltrans Design Guidelines for All Bikeways
All designated Class I, Il, or III bicycle facilities should conform to the Caltrans
HighwayDesign Manual Chapter. Where facilities do not meet this criteria, they
should not be referred to as a Class I, II, or III.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 41
and Maintenance Standards
5.3 Class I, II and III Bikeway Design Guidelines
The following guidelines present the recommended minimum design standards and
ancillary support items for Class I bike paths (also referred to as multi -use trails), Class
II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes.
5.3.1 All Class I bike paths should generally conform to the design recommendations
in Table 4 and Fizure 13.
Multi -use trails and unpaved facilities that serve primarily a recreation
rather than a transportation function and will not be funded with federal
transportation dollars may not need to be designed to Caltrans standards.
2. Class I bike path crossings of roadways require preliminary design review. A
prototype design in presented in Figure 14. Generally speaking, bike paths that
cross roadways with ADTs over 20,000 vehicles will require signalization or
grade separation. No multi -use trails are proposed to cross a major arterial at an
unprotected location with ADTs over 20,000 vehicles in Atascadero.
3. Landscaping should generally be low water native vegetation.
4. Lighting should be provided where the bike path will be used by commuters.
5. Barriers at pathway entrances should be clearly marked with reflectors
and ADA accessible (min. 5 feet clearance).
6. Bike path construction should take into account impacts of maintenance
and emergency vehicles on shoulders and vertical requirements.
7. Provide 2 feet wide unpaved shoulders for pedestrians/runners, or a
separate tread way where feasible. Direct pedestrians to right side of
pathway with signing and stenciling.
8. Provide adequate trailhead parking and other facilities such as restrooms,
drinking fountains) and appropriate locations.
42 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
and Maintenance Standards
Table 5.1: Class I Bicycle Path Specifications
Pavement Type:
Recycled Asphalt
3"
(75 mm)
4"
Asphalt6
3"
(75 mm)
Minimum Cross Slope:
Concrete?
3"
(75 mm)
Sub -Base:
Granite
4-6"
(100-150 mm)
(40-50 kph)
Gravel
4-6"
(100-150 mm)
Shoulders:
Decomposed Granite
2-4"
(50-100 mm)
Width:
Minimum 1 -way Path
5'
(1.5 m)
5-22 LUX
Minimum 2 -way Path
10'
(3.1 m)
Preferred 2 -way Path
12-15'
(3.6-4.6 m)
Shoulders:
2-3'
(0.6-1.0 m)
Lateral Clearance:
2-3'
(0.6-1.0 m)
Vertical Clearance:
8-10'
(2.5-3.0 m)
w/Equestrians
12'
(3.6 m)
Striping:
Centerline (none, dashed yellow, solid yellow)
4"
(100 nun)
Edgeline (none or solid white)
4"
(100 nun)
Signing: (See Caltrans
Traffic Manual and MUTCD)
Minimum Cross Slope:
2%
2%
Minimum Separation from Roadway: g
5'
(1.5 m)
Design Speed:
20-30 mph
(40-50 kph)
Maximum Super Elevation:
5%
5%
Maximum Grades (over 100'):
5%
5%
Removable Bollards (minimum spacing):
5'
(1.5 m)
Lighting (if night use is expected):
5-22 LUX
5-22 LUX
Source: (Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000)
' Ashpalt may be unsuitable for bike paths in stream channels due to asphalt oils.
Concrete paving is
recommended in areas where the trail is subject to regular water flow.
' A 6" concrete thickness may be use directly on compacted native material.
' Unless a physical barrier is provided.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 43
and Maintenance Standards
Vertical clearance for mantainence equipment
----------------------------
3" A.C. ' i 3'
or Recycled A.C.
6" Compacted '
Sub -Grade 2% cross slope 8' '
A132 or Gravel ��►
4" white centerline stripe
'
Fencing / landscaping
required for privacy
see details above
Drainage
Rip rap
2:1 slope
+ � drain, q�pe
Sources: Fehr & Peers Associates, Caltrans Design Manual, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Figure 5.1: Class I Bicycle Path Cross Section
44 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Signal Loop or Motion
Detectors (Optional)
and Maintenance Standards
RTO
TO
I I/
Removable Ballards: 5' Spacing
(Handicap Accessible)
Barrier
Flashing Yellow Signal
or Actuated Signal (Optional)
Sidewalk
Striped Crossing 12' Wide
(3 w
Varied Surface (Optional) Z Y
-------------- Xm -----_
Im x Rippled Pavement (Optional)
m11 1 Curb Cut (per ADA requirements)
1. f- 250' Urban / 750' Rural 01
lot
Figure 5.2: Class I Bicycle Path Crossing Prototype
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 45
I
I
i
I
I
I
/
Z
T
I
gl
JOlS�
and Maintenance Standards
RTO
TO
I I/
Removable Ballards: 5' Spacing
(Handicap Accessible)
Barrier
Flashing Yellow Signal
or Actuated Signal (Optional)
Sidewalk
Striped Crossing 12' Wide
(3 w
Varied Surface (Optional) Z Y
-------------- Xm -----_
Im x Rippled Pavement (Optional)
m11 1 Curb Cut (per ADA requirements)
1. f- 250' Urban / 750' Rural 01
lot
Figure 5.2: Class I Bicycle Path Crossing Prototype
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 45
Design and Maintenance Standards
5.3.2: All Class II bike lanes should generally conform to the design recommendations
in Table 5 and Figure 15.
Intersection and interchange treatment. Caltrans provides recommended
intersection treatments in Chapter 1000 including bike lane `pockets' and signal
loop detectors. The Department of Public Works should develop a protocol for
the application of these recommendations, so that improvements can be funded
and made as part of regular improvement projects. Figure 16 (Class II Bike Lanes
at Intersections) and Figure 17 (Recommended Right Turn Channelization)
provides details for recommended intersection treatments.
2. Signal loop detectors should be considered for all arterial/arterial,
arterial/collector, and collector/collector intersections. The location of the
detectors should be identified by a stencil of a bicycle and the words `Bicycle
Detector'.
2. Bike lane pockets (min. 4' wide) between right turn lanes and through lanes
should be provided wherever available width allows, and right turn volumes
exceed 150 motor vehicles/hour.
5.4 Other Facilities
In addition to those identified by Caltrans, there are a variety of improvements which will
enhance the safety and attraction of streets for bicyclists.
Bicycle Boulevards. Palo Alto pioneered the concept of a bicycle boulevard, which in
that city is a street directly parallel to a major commercial corridor that was designed to
promote bicycle movement and discourage through vehicle movement. This was
achieved by partial street closures and lack of coordinated signals. In addition, wider
curb lanes and frequent signing as a `Bicycle Boulevard' helps increase the motorists'
awareness.
5.4.1: The bicycle boulevard concept should be considered in Atascadero.
Sidewalks. The use of sidewalks as bicycle facilities is not encouraged by Caltrans, even
as a Class III bike route. There are exceptions to this rule. The California Vehicle Code
states: `Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution
regarding the (... ) operation of bicycles (... ) on the public sidewalks.' (CA VC 21100,
Subdiv. H). Caltrans adds in Chapter 1000: `In residential areas, sidewalk riding by
young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle
speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist.
But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be
encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate
bicycle travel.'
46 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Parking Stalls or
Optional 4" Solid Stripe
Curb Lane:
10' Under 2000 ADT
11' over 2000 ADT
(under 35 mph)
1Z over 20,000 ADT
(over 35 mph)
Gutter transition must
be smooth to be
included in width
F
II 1
and Maintenance Standards
6" Solid White Stripe
No Parking
Vertical Bike
Curb Lane
I—
Parking Permitted
Without Stripe or Stall
Rolled Bike 13' if parking is substantial or
Curb Lane turnover of parked cars is
high (e.g. commercial areas)
Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Figure 5.3: Class II Bike Lane Cross Section
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 47
and Maintenance Standards
Table 5.2: Class II Bike Lane Specifications
Minimum Widths Adjacent Parking 5'
(1.5m)
No Parking9 4'
(1.2m)
Combination Parking Lane 10 11-13'
(1.2m)
Striping Left side line: solid white stripe 6"
(150mm)
Right side line: solid white stripe 4"
(100mm)
Approach to intersections: 100-200'
(30m -60m)
Dashed white stripe
Signing R81 Bike Lane Sign
■ beginning of all bike lanes
■ far side of all bike path crossings
■ at approaches and far side of all arterial crossings
■ at major changes in direction
■ maximum V2 mile (0.8km) intervals
Custom Bike Route Sign with G33 Directional Arrow and
destination signs (where
needed)
■ see items under R81 Bike Lane Sign
■ at approach to arterial crossings
Pavement Markings "Bike" legend
"Lane" legend
Directional arrow
■ see items under R81 Bike Lane Sign
■ at beginning and end of bike lane pockets at approach
to intersection
Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, MUTCD, Caltrans Traffic Manual
9 Minimum 3' (.9m) between stripe and gutter joint.
to Rolled curb 11' (3.3m), vertical curb, 12' (3.6m), 13' (3.9m) recommended with significant parking or
turnover.
48 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
and Maintenance Standards
Bike Lane Intersection Design
8
Parking Lane
Parking Lane
a
Na
1
Bike Lane Sign (D11-1 )(custom)
25'
Bike Lane Pavement Markings
(9C -2,9C-3)
(Caltrans Figs. 1003.2C, 1004.3) s
4' Bike Lane
Signal DetectorEnhanced
Signal Detector
(with stenciled marker)
.
Minimum 80'-88'
i
Minimum 52-56'
I�
Signal Detector (with stenciled marker)
Enhanced Signal `
12'
Right -Turn Only (R3-7)
Detector
Lane 200.
min.
�-
12' Lane
4' Bike lane
Yleld to Bicycle (R4 4)
( for heavy Left Turn Bicycle
Jolumes, i.e., over 50 / hour)
R 4"wu ,
�.
12' Lane (Collector)
14' Lane (Arterial)
5' Bike Lane F,
81
8'
Parking Lane
Parking Lane
Michael G. Jones, MCP
No Scale
Figure 5.4: Bike Lane Intersection Design
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 49
and Maintenance Standards
Signal Pole
42'
Typical High -Speed, Low Visibility a varies: so' - iso.
Channelized Right Turn
Modified Low -Speed, F
Channelized Right Tun
Figure 5.5: Recommended Right Turn Channelization
50 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
and Maintenance Standards
5.4.2: Adopt Caltrans recommendations.
Traffic Calming. This includes any effort to moderate or reduce vehicle speeds and/or
volumes on streets where that traffic has a negative impact on bicycle or pedestrian
movement. Because these efforts may impact traffic outside the immediate corridor,
study of traffic impacts is typically required. For example, the City of Berkeley instituted
traffic calming techniques by blocking access into residential streets. The impact was
less traffic on local streets, and more traffic on arterials and collectors. Other techniques
include installing traffic circles, intersection islands, partial street closings, `bulb -out'
curbs, pavement treatments, lower speed signal timing, and narrowing travel lanes. The
City of Atascadero already has a relatively continuous street grid system with little
filtering of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Traffic circles, roundabouts,
and other measures may be considered for residential collector streets where there is a
desire to control travel speeds and traffic volumes but not to install numerous stop signs
or traffic signals.
Signing and Striping. All bikeway signing in Atascadero should conform to the signing
identified in the Caltrans Traffic Manual and/or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). These documents give specific information on the type and location
of signing for the primary bike system. A list of bikeway signs from Caltrans and the
MUTCD are shown in Table 6 (List of Bikeway Signs). Typical signing for a school
commute corridor is shown in Figure 18. A typical bike route sign is shown in Figure 19.
5.4.3: Develop a Atascadero Bikeway System logo for use on the primary network. This
sign may include a bikeway numbering system that is keyed into a publicly -
produced bikeway map. An example of such a sign is shown in Figure 20.
5.4.4: Installing bikeway signs should be a high priority, and may begin immediately on
Class III bike route portions of the bikeway network. Examples of bikeway
signing at signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Figures 21 and
22. Examples of bikeway warning signs are shown in Figure 23.
5.4.5: The City should identify locations in downtown and other employment areas
where centralized public covered bicycle parking can be installed, such as
parking lots. These facilities may charge a small user fee and/or be subsidized by
nearby employers.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 51
and Maintenance Standards
Table 5.3: Recommended Signing and Marring
Table 5.3
Recommended Signing and Marking
Item
Location
Color
Caltrans
MUTCD
Designation
Designation
No Motor Vehicles
Entrances to trail
B on W
R44A
R5-3
Use Ped Signal/Yield to Peds
At crosswalks; where
B on W
N/A
R9-5
sidewalks are being used
R9-6
Bike Lane Ahead: Right Lane Bikes
At beginning of bike lanes
B on W
N/A
R3-16
Only
R3-17
STOP, YIELD
At trail intersections with
W on R
RI -2
R1-1
roads and Coastal Bikeways
R1-2
Bicycle Crossing
For motorists at trail
B on Y
W79
W11-1
crossings
Bike Lane
At the far side of all arterial
B on W
R81
D11-1
intersections
Hazardous Condition
Slippery or rough pavement
B on Y
W42
W8-10
Turns and Curves
At turns and curves which
B on Y
W1,2,3
W1-1,2
exceed 20 mph design
W4,5,6,14
W1-4,5
specifications
W56,57
W1-6
Trail Intersections
At trail intersections where
B on Y
W7,8,9
W2-1, W2-2
no STOP or YIELD required,
W2-3, W2-3
or sight lines limited
W2-4, W2-5
STOP Ahead
Where STOP sign is
B,R
W17
W3-1
obscured
on Y
Signal Ahead
Where signal is obscured
B,R,G
YW41
W3-3
Bikeway Narrows
Where bikeway width
B on Y
W15
W5-4
narrows or is below 8'
Downgrade
Where sustained bikeway
B on Y
W29
W7-5
gradient is above 5%
Pedestrian Crossing
Where pedestrian walkway
B on Y
W54
WHA -2
crosses trail
Restricted Vertical Clearance
Where vertical clearance is
B on Y
W47
WHA -2
less than 8'6"
Railroad Crossing
Where trail crosses railway
B on Y
W47
W10-1
tracks at grade
Directional Signs (i.e. U.C. Davis,
At intersections where access
W on G
G7
D1-lb(r/1)
Downtown, Train Station, etc.
to major destinations is
G8
D1 -lc
available
Right Lane Must Turn Right;
Where bike lanes end before
B on W
R18
R3-7
Begin Right Turn Here, Yield to
intersection
R44
Bikes
Dixon -Davis Bikeway
Trail logo: at all trail
Varies
n/a
n/a
entrances, major
intersections, major access
points
Trail Regulations
All trail entrances
B on W
n/a
n/a
Multi-purpose Trail: Bikes Yield to
All trail entrances
n/a
n/a
II
Pedestrians
52 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
and Maintenance Standards
Bikes Reduce Speed & Call Out
Every 2,000 feet
B on W
n/a
n/a
Before Passing
Please Stay On Trail
In environmentally -sensitive
n/a
n/a
n/a
areas
Caution: Storm Damaged Trail
Storm damaged locations
B on Y
n/a
n/a
Trail Closed: No Entry Until Made
Where trail or access points
n/a
n/a
n/a
Accessible & Safe for Public Use
closed due to hazardous
conditions
Speed Limit Signs
Near trail entrances: where
B on W
n/a
n/a
speed limits should be
reduced from 20 mph
Trail Curfew IOPM - 5AM
Based on local ordinance
R on W
n/a
n/a
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 53
and Maintenance Standards
(0 Uo9EllElsul) SPEED
zc d� a l i LIMIT R 2
SZ 35
a e Lwn T t ) Indicates that vehicle is out of school
033dS
s9M ,oa los o ''4 zone by posting higher speed limit.
Installation A- CL a May be used in lieu of W65-1.
In advance of remote school crosswalks ands 5 )
on streets with prima facie 25 MPH ti ' ' m i
Installation B- I rn ) L
Optional at school crosswalks. Not used with 71PHOS 3
stop signs, yield signs, or signals. m ( v
Installation C- i 1 ° r
On streets with higher speeds, to warn drivers 4 Nix i
of School Zone with 25 mph speed limit at — O
certain times. a � m
(a uollEllelsul) d 3 a o
00 a m $ m
♦ U
I ¢ v1 C O
TN A l� J O
r �q}gike • OO O
U%p
V i0
N iiitii T fA ; N
JJ JJ S811E/� JJ J �- c
8 Ir D
1
Typical UnsignalUed t'
1.Intersection
F Fomes F F Optional
_ Varies .�.W�..,.,..
c i w ss
_
Uqu
tFt
+ W 66A
dui00
tp O
D H NF i gg(Installation B)
u u 5 pN
C
Notes:
p 1. The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is optional
XlNe where the approach Is controlled by a signal,
a ( stop sign, or yield sign.
d 2. For urban situations, post 250' prior to
:?
SCH4i intersection, 750' in rural areas.
t 1 5 3. The bike lane may either be dropped entirely
a S s 4, approximately 200' in advance of the
o ? 3 intersection, or a dashed line carried to the
M intersection or through the intersection is
U61S (90) Zki toq.* ) 6 optional.
na!I w pasn eq AeV4 SClgpl W65
io
3NOZ S/P�EECD
59 M 100HDS T 25 R 2
R72
(Installation C)
Figure 5.6: Signs and Marking within School Zones
54 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
and Maintenance Standards
BIKE ROUTE
=010001,
Figure 5.7: Bike Route Sign
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan 9 July 2000 55
and Maintenance Standards
STAT! OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMANT OF TRANSPORTATIOH
muT,:oNomw -None Opps SG45
rC
E
J
K
L
K
M
i
N
SIGN SIZE
DIMENSIONS (INCHES)
A
B
C
0
E
I F
13
H
I J
K
L
I M N
12 x 18
12
18
114
1/4
1-12
10
16
1/4
d
V4
1•:14
18 x 24
1 18
24
318
112
1.112
15
21
12
S
1
6
50 2 1!?
COLORS
BORDER & LEGEND - GREEN (Reflective)
BACKGROUND - WHITE (Refieotive)
THE POLICY FOR IMM WAGE OF TN5 SIGN M SHOWN ON RV036 S DE -
qll{/. tlffiC 91pN5 O4iv84N
Figure 5.8: Numbered Bike Route Sign
56 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan 0 July 2000
and Maintenance Standards
1 °97
Yr6a 6M9
1 °978
CIO 1
I
'r -
I
I m
Where Vehicle parking 093
y 1 3
is Permitted I
'3
Ear
J o8CD
co
�O®—o
1
.()C 01vWv15®
tti T U' 0 3
Varies _es 2
In
0
0
Typical Unsignalized
Intersection
0 F Varies 2
o_
� w
g N �
� �.
��
a a°as —yf via
X5.3 �v @
T
Notes:
Dew
I. The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is
optional where the approach is
controlled by a signal, stop sign, or
yield sign.
2. 250 - 1500 feet (75 -450 m); Based on
vehical approach speed. coo
3. The bike lane may either be dropped
entirely approximately 100' - 200'(30 -
60 m) in advance of the intersection, 0C60
or a dashed line carried to the
intersection or through the �'•° T
intersection is optional. too
131
21
W
L o
0.
0
W
R7
j su-aua W
Where Vehicle parking
is Prohibited
R31
1
°99
A minimum 3' oetween
the longitudinal joint at
4'
the concrete and 6' bike
G93A
lane line is required
i CM
Figure 5.9: Signing at Unsignalized Intersections
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 57
am I -
ruo r (. I
OiY I CD I
Coo �= t
d I
I
' I �
Where Vehicle parking b05
is Prohibited
:N
I 0
I
£IL'uoliclo ip
9Lt1 I
uoprig ysnd 04!13 Y
U=18 4md pad •
and Maintenance Standards
1 p E v
u`r
3y� v�o
R39 c N n
®� ® m L.
d
Varies 2 , 0 ° "
Loop With Stencil
Typical Signalized
Intersection
resence Loop With Stencil -7
g ; F Varies 2
o '9.�+ w
"
< 3 01 When parking area
"-
s 3 .14 becomes Right-
i Turn -Only lane
a
Typical path of through bicyclist
o
Notes:
$a
1. The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is
optional where the approach isp, Y T �.�
(n
controlled by a sinal, stop sign, or coo
-S
yield sign.
2. 250 - 1500 feet (75 450 m); Based on B t
vehical approach speed. !i
3. The bike lane may either be dropped M
entirely approximately 100'- 200'(30
T
60 m) in advance of the intersection, Y
or a dashed line carried to the coo
intersection or through the
intersection is optional.
Y Ped Push Button
m •Bike Push Button
4'
' r -
f
An optional 4' solid white stripe
may be used in place at the
cross stripes where parking
stalls are unnecessary because
parking is light and there is
concem that a motorist may
misconstrue the bike lane to
be a traffic lane
Where Vehicle parking
3 is Permitted
0 13
F-
ip
697
i
c97�
Figure 5.10: Signing at Signalized Intersections
58 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan a July 2000
WARNING SIGNS
Signs for locations on path
near auto access points
Signs for bike lanes
where there is no auto
parking on right of lane
Signs for occasional use
on Class 2 & 3 routes and
Bicycle Boulevards. Can
be interspersed with
"Share the Road" signs.
Possible sticker?
and Maintenance Standards
CAUTION
WATCH FOR
BIKES
0,k.SIGNS-16,47C
Figure 5.11: Warning Signs
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan 0 July 2000 59
Signs used at intervals
along bike routes with
adjacent parallel parking.
Frequency of signs
Signs for use at transition
should be related to parking
from Class 2 to Class 3;
turnover rates.
OAD at the beginning of routes;
and on non -bicycle -route
Should used throughout
roads where bicycle traffic
City at parallel parking
might be expected or at
locations, also.
SHARE THE intervals on all city streets.
' ' ' Possible sticker?
0,k.SIGNS-16,47C
Figure 5.11: Warning Signs
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan 0 July 2000 59
and Maintenance Standards
5.5 Maintenance
The total annual maintenance cost of the primary bikeway system is estimated to be
$13,100 when it is fully implemented. All of the maintenance costs are associated with
the proposed off-road bike paths, as bike lanes and routes are assumed to be maintained
as part of routine roadway maintenance. Class I bike path maintenance costs are based
on $8,500 per mile, which covers labor, supplies, and amortized equipment costs for
weekly trash removal, monthly sweeping, and bi-annual resurfacing and repair patrols.
Maintenance access on the Class I bike path will be achieved using standard City pick-up
trucks on the pathway itself. Sections with narrow widths or other clearance restrictions
should be clearly marked. Class I bike path maintenance includes cleaning, resurfacing
and restriping the asphalt path, repairs to crossings, cleaning drainage systems, trash
removal, and landscaping. Underbrush and weed abatement should be performed once in
the late spring and again in mid -summer.
Action: Identify a reliable source of funding to cover all new Class I bike path
construction. All proposed designs should be closely examined to
minimize future maintenance costs.
5.6 Security
Security may be an issue along portions of the Class I bike paths. The following actions
are recommended to address these concerns.
Action: Enforcement of applicable laws on the bike path will be performed by the
City of Atascadero Police Department, using both bicycles and vehicles.
Enforcement of vehicle statutes relating to bicycle operation will be
enforced on Class II and Class III bikeways as part of the department's
normal operations. No additional manpower or equipment is anticipated
for Class II or III segments.
Action: Normal bike path hours of operation should be 6am to 9pm, unless
otherwise specified.
60 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Implementation Strategy
This section identifies costs for the proposed bicycle improvements, plus strategies
on funding and financing.
6.1 Cost Breakdown
Costs are separated between bicycle facilities and programs. A complete breakdown of
costs for bicycle projects is presented in Table 6. 1, and program costs are shown in Table
6.2. The total cost over 20 years is estimated at $1,748,059, with the Class I facilities
representing 50% of the total costs. Table 6.3 presents a more detailed breakdown of the
funding sources by project over the next 20 years. Of the total project cost over 20 years,
it is projected that the City will be responsible for about 13% of the costs. The average
cost per year to the City would be about $10,000. It is important to note that while many
of the projects can be funded with federal, state, and regional transportation, safety,
and/or air quality grants, others are recreational in nature and must be funded by local or
private sources.
Short-term improvements are recommended to be implemented over the next five years,
or as funding is available. It also presents a `best case' scenario for Atascadero,
providing a network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs within the short
term. Some of the more expensive projects may take longer to implement. It is
important to note that many of the funding sources are highly competitive, and therefore
impossible to determine exactly which projects will be funded by which funding sources.
Timing of projects is also difficult to pinpoint exactly, due to dependence on competitive
funding sources, timing of roadway and development projects, and the overall economy.
As such some of those projects identified for the long term may be more readily
developable due to funding availability, or cost to implement.
6.2 Funding
There are a variety of potential funding sources including local, state, regional, and
federal funding programs that can be used to construct the proposed bicycle and
pedestrian improvements. Many of the federal, state, and regional programs are
competitive, and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear
documentation of the project need, costs, and benefits. Local funding for bicycle projects
typically comes from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding, which is prorated
to each community based on gasoline taxes. Funding for many of the programs would
need to be funded either with TDA, general fund (staff time), or possibly private grants.
Table 6.2 presents a summary of available funding along with timing, criteria, and
funding agency. Note that as of this writing (March 1999) ISTEA has been re -authorized
as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA -21) and the exact impact on
funding programs for bicycle projects is being analyzed.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 61
Implementation Strategy
Table 6.1
Bicycle Project Cost Estimates
Pacific Union Railroad (RWT)
San Jacinto Avenue
City Limits
Class I/Multi-Use
2.5
1-5
$
1,250,000
Pacific Union Railroad (RWT)
De Anza Trail Loop
Curbaril Avenue
Class I/Multi-Use
1.1
1-5
$
550,000
Atascadero Creek
UP RR/Sycamore Rd.
San Gabriel Road
Class I/Multi-Use
2.7
1-10
$
1,350,000
Stadium Park Connector
Atascadero Creek
StadiumPark
Class I/Multi-Use
0.3
1-10
$
150,000
Atascadero Lake Trail
Atascadero Lake
Atascadero Lake (loop)
Class I/Multi-Use
1.0
1-10
$
500,000
SR 41
Western City Limits
Eastern City Limits
Class II
6.0
1-5
$
450,000
Atascadero Road
Morro Road (HW 41)
EI Camino Real
Class II
3.5
1-10
$
262,500
EI Camino Real
San Diego Road
Santa Barbara Road
Class II
0.7
1-5
$
52,500
EI Camino Real
San Jacinto Avenue
SR 41
Class II
1.1
1-5
$
82,500
EI Camino Real
Santa Cruz Road
San Anselmo Av.
Class II
1.7
1-5
$
127,500
Del Rio Road
Monterey Road
EI Camino Real
Class II
0.5
1-20
$
37,500
Portola Road
Ardilla Road
EI Camino Real
Class II
3.0
1-20
$
225,000
San Gabriel Road
State HW 41
Atascadero Road
Class II
1.4
1-20
$
105,000
62 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Santa Ysabel Avenue
EI Bordo Avenue
Del Rio Road
San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo Avenue
San Gabriel Road
San Marcos Road
San Andres Avenue
Atascadero Avenue
Santa Ynez Avenue
Sycamore Avenue
Curbaril Avenue
Curbaril Avenue
EI Viejo Camino
Halcon Road
downtown
EI Camino Real
EI Camino Real
Del Rio Road
Monterey Road
NW end San Gabriel
Rd.
San Gabriel Road
Santa Lucia Avenue
Atascadero Mall
Atascadero Avenue
De Anza Trail /UP
Intersection
Sycamore Avenue
EI Camino Real
EI Camino Real
EI Viejo Camino
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Grand Total $ 5,382,500
63
Implementation Strategy
Curbaril Avenue
Class II
0.8
1-20
$
56,250
Heilman Regional Park
Class II
0.4
1-20
$
30,000
San Anselmo Av.
Class III
1.1
1-20
$
16,500
EI Camino Real
Class III
0.8
1-20
$
12,000
Portola Road
Class III
0.3
1-20
$
4,500
State HW 41
Class III
1.0
1-20
$
15,000
San AndresAve.
Class III
1.1
1-20
$
16,500
St. HW 41
Class III
0.5
1-20
$
7,500
St. HW 41
Class III
0.6
1-20
$
9,000
St. HW 41
Class III
0.8
1-20
$
11,250
Curbaril Avenue
Class III
0.6
1-20
$
9,000
Santa Ysabel Avenue
Class III
0.8
1-20
$
11,250
San Marcos Road
Class III
1.0
1-20
$
15,000
EI Camino Real
Class III
1.0
1-20
$
15,000
Union Pacific RR
Class III
0.8
1-20
$
11,250
Grand Total $ 5,382,500
63
Implementation Strategy
Cost estimates are provided in the following chart. Although the cost estimates are based on actual costs experienced in various
California communities, more detailed cost estimates should be developed after preliminary engineering.
CLASS I
Rehabilitate or upgrade existing path
$ 90,000/mile
Construct asphalt path on existing level embankment or right of way, includes signing and striping
$ 175,000/mile
Construct asphalt path on graded right of way, requires drainage and new subbase
$ 275,000/mile
Construct asphalt path within ungraded corridor, some retaining walls required
$ 500,000/mile
CLASS II
Signing and striping
$ 15,000/mile
Signing and striping, minor surface repair
$ 25,000/mile
Signing and striping, surface repair
$ 75,000/mile
Signing and striping, road widening
$ 150,000/mile
CLASS III
Signing
$ 5000/mile
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Loop Detectors
$ 2,900/ intersection
At grade -crossing
Signing / Striping
$ 5,000/each
Signal
$ 60,000/each
64 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Implementation Strategy
Table 6.2
Bicycle Program & Maintenance Cost Estimates
Class I Maintenance
Class 11 Maintenance
Bicycle Education
Safety Grants
Safety Materials
School Commute Program
Bicycle Lender/Repair Program
Community Adoption Program
Bike Fairs/Races
Employer Incentives
Bike -to -Work Days
Atascadero Bikeway System
O&M Costs
Unit Cost Description Units Cost Notes
$ 8,500.00 Mi/Year 5$ 42,500 See List
$ 2,000.00 Mi/Year 35$ 70,000 Sweeping
$10,000.00
Year
10
$100,000
$ 500.00
Every 5 years
4
$
2,000
$ 1,000.00
Year
10
$
10,000
$ 750.00
Year
10
$
7,500
$ 500.00
Year
10
$
5,000
$ 1,000.00
Year
10
$
10,000
$ 500.00
Year
10
$
5,000
$ 1,000.00
Year
10
$
10,000
Expanded Bike/Ped Coordinator $ - Year 10 $ -
10 -Year Cost $262,000
Avrg. Cost/Year $ 13,100
Safety programs taught in 3rd/4th
Updated safety materials
Safety Coordination
Coordination
Coordination
Coordination
Coordination
Coordination
Assumes duties will be assigned
to existing staff
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 65
Implementation Strategy
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century
TEA -21 was adopted by both houses of Congress on May 22, 1998. Much
of the delay in adopting the new transportation legislation was the result of
conflicts between donor and recipient states (states that received more or
less money than they paid in gas taxes) under the old transfer
arrangements. The new formulas will rectify the past imbalances, allowing
large donor states with higher amounts that can be transferred between
various funding programs. The follow-up to ISTEA, TEA -21 offers some
important changes in funding opportunities.
3. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) was amended as follows:
Approximately $33 billion available nationwide.
Bicycle and pedestrian projects remain eligible.
Sidewalk improvements to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) are now eligible for Surface Transportation Program funds.
4. The National Highway System (NHS) program was amended as follows:
Pedestrian projects may now be funded with NHS funds.
NHS funds may now used on bicycle and pedestrian projects within
Interstate corridors.
5. The Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) program was amended as
follows:
$3.3 billion available nationwide
Bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs
Tourist and welcome centers
Environmental mitigation to provide wildlife corridors
Requirement that each project be directly related to a surface
transportation project
Eighty (80) percent Federal matching requirement applies only to total
non -Federal share rather than total project cost.
Twenty-five (25) percent of the TE funds received over the amount
received in FY 1997 may be transferred to other STP activities.
Eight (8) specific projects are funded off the top of the TEA program,
none in the Western United States.
6. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ) program was
amended as follows:
66 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Implementation Strategy
$8.12 billion available nationwide
Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same
A small percentage can be transferred to other programs
7. The Recreational Trails Program was amended as follows:
$270 million available nationwide over the next six years
Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same
8. The Hazard Elimination Program was amended as follows:
Now can be used for bicycling and walking hazards
Definition of a `public road' now expanded to include bikeways,
pathways, and traffic calming measures.
9. A new category, Transit Enhancements Program, was created that calls for transit
agencies in urbanized areas over 200,000 population to use 1 percent of their
Urban Formula Funds for Transit Enhancements Activities. Up to $50 million per
year may be available for pedestrian access, walkways, bicycle access, bike
storage facilities, and bike -on -bus racks. The program calls for 95% Federal/5%
local match.
10. Scenic Byway, bridge repair, transit, safety (non -construction), and Federal Lands
programs all remain essentially the same under TEA -21, with the amounts either
the same or increasing from ISTEA.
11. Planning provisions for states and MPO's have been streamlined, with bicycle and
pedestrian needs to be given due consideration in the development of
comprehensive transportation plans. Specific policies include directives to not
approve any project or regulatory action that will have an adverse impact on non -
motorized safety, unless a reasonable alternative route is provided or already
exists.
12. When state or local regulations permit, allow use of bicycle facilities by electric
bicycles and motorized wheelchairs.
13. Railway -highway crossings should consider bicycle safety.
14. A new Surface Transportation -Environment Cooperative Research Program is
established for funding non -motorized research.
15. In cooperation with AASHTO, ITE, and other groups, establish new bicycle
design guidelines within 18 months.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 67
Implementation Strategy
A detailed program -by -program list of available funding sources along with programs
along with the latest relevant information is provided on the following pages. Specific
amounts and deadlines are not available yet for many of the TEA -21 programs. Once
Atascadero's bicycle projects and costs are identified, each project will be targeted for
specific funding sources where it can be expected to compete effectively.
Federal funding through the TEA -21 (Transportation Enhancements Act) program will
provide the bulk of outside funding. TEA -21 currently contains three major programs,
STP (Surface Transportation Program), TEA (Transportation Enhancement Activities),
and CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) along with other
programs such as the National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 402(Safety) funds,
Scenic Byways funds, and Federal Lands Highway funds.
68 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Implementation Strategy
Summary of Funding Sources
Table 6.3
Grant Source
Due Date
Agency
Annual
Matching
Eligible Applicants
Eligible Bikeway Projects
Comments
Total
Requirement
Commute
Recreation
Safety/
Education
Federal Funding
Fl. TEA -21
pending
Regional
20% non-federal
federally certified
STP funds may be exchanged
Surface Transportation
Transportation
match
jurisdictions
X
X
for local funds for non -
Program (STP)
Agency,
federally certified local
Caltrans, FHWA
agencies; no match required if
project improves safety
F2. TEA -21
pending
Regional
20% non-federal
federally certified
Counties redesignated to
Congestion Mitigation
Transportation
match
jurisdictions
X
attainment status for ozone
and Air Quality
Agency, CTC
may lose this source
Program
F3. TEA -21
pending
FHWA,
20% non-federal
federally certified
Contact the Regional
Transportation
Regional
match
jurisdictions
X
X
Transportation Agency
Enhancement Activities
Transportation
(TEA)
Agency
F4. TEA -21
pending
State Dept. of
no match required
jurisdictions, special
For recreational trails to
National Recreational
Parks &
districts, non profits
benefit bicyclists, pedestrians,
Trails
Recreation
with management
X
and other users; contact State
responsibilities over
Dept. of Parks & Rec. ,
the land
Statewide Trails Coordinator,
(916)653-8803
State Funding
Sl. Flexible
Dec. of
Regional
cities, counties,
Must be included in an
Congestion Relief
odd #
Transportation
transit operators,
X
X
adopted RTP, STIP, CMP,
(FCR) Program Major
years
Agency
Caltrans
RTIP
Projects, $300,000 and
UP
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 69
Implementation Strategy
Summary of Funding Programs (Continued)
S2. State and Local
Caltrans
none
Cities, counties,
Any road projects being
Transportation
assessment districts
X
X
resurfaced or using local funds
Partnership Program
authorized to
should include bike lane for
(SLPP)
impose taxes/fees or
reimbursement through this
construct
program; contact Caltrans
transportation
facilities
S3. Environmental
Nov.
State Resources
not required but
local, state and
Projects that enhance or
Enhancement and
Agency
favored
federal government
mitigate future transportation
Mitigation (EEM)
non-profit agencies
X
X
X
projects; contact EEM Project
Program
Manager (916) 653-5800
Local Funding
U. Transportation
Jan.
Regional
no match required
cities, counties;
Contact the Regional
Development Act
Transportation
currently allocated
X
X
X
Transportation Agency
(TDA) Section 99234
Agency
by population
2% of total TDA
L2. State Gas Tax
Allocated by
no match required
local jurisdictions
(local share)
State Auditor
X
X
Controller
U. Developer Fees or
Cities, or
no match required
Mitigation required during
Exactions (developer
County
X
X
X
land use approval process
fee for street
improvements - DFSI)
L4. Vehicle
Air Quality
no match required
local agencies,
X
X
X
competitive program for
Registration Surcharge
Control District
transit operators,
projects that benefit air quality
Fee (AB 434)
others
L5. Vehicle
Air Quality
no match required
local jurisdictions
Funds are distributed to
Registration Surcharge
Control District,
communities based on
Fee (AB 434)
or Congestion
X
X
X
population
Management
Agency
Summary of Funding Sources
Table 6.3
Grant Source I Due Date I Agency I Annual I Matching I Eligible Applicants I Eligible Bikeway Projects I Comments
70 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
Implementation Strategy
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 68
Total
Requirement
Commute
RecreationSafety/
Education
Federal Funding
Fl. TEA -21
pending
Regional
20% non-federal
federally certified
STP funds may be exchanged
Surface Transportation
Transportation
match
jurisdictions
X
X
for local funds for non -
Program (STP)
Agency,
federally certified local
Caltrans, FHWA
agencies; no match required if
project improves safety
F2. TEA -21
pending
Regional
20% non-federal
federally certified
Counties redesignated to
Congestion Mitigation
Transportation
match
jurisdictions
X
attainment status for ozone
and Air Quality
Agency, CTC
may lose this source
Program
F3. TEA -21
pending
FHWA,
20% non-federal
federally certified
Contact the Regional
Transportation
Regional
match
jurisdictions
X
X
Transportation Agency
Enhancement Activities
Transportation
TEA
Agency
F4. TEA -21
pending
State Dept. of
no match required
jurisdictions, special
For recreational trails to
National Recreational
Parks &
districts, non profits
benefit bicyclists, pedestrians,
Trails
Recreation
with management
X
and other users; contact State
responsibilities over
Dept. of Parks & Rec. ,
the land
Statewide Trails Coordinator,
916)653-8803
State Funding
Sl. Flexible
Dec. of
Regional
cities, counties,
Must be included in an
Congestion Relief
odd #
Transportation
transit operators,
X
X
adopted RTP, STIP, CMP,
(FCR) Program Major
years
Agency
Caltrans
RTIP
Projects, $300,000 and
UP
Summary of Funding Programs (Continued)
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000 68
Implementation Strategy
S2. State and Local
Caltrans
none
Cities, counties,
Any road projects being
Transportation
assessment districts
X
X
resurfaced or using local funds
Partnership Program
authorized to
should include bike lane for
(SLPP)
impose taxes/fees or
reimbursement through this
construct
program; contact Caltrans
transportation
facilities
S3. Environmental
Nov.
State Resources
not required but
local, state and
Projects that enhance or
Enhancement and
Agency
favored
federal government
mitigate future transportation
Mitigation (EEM)
non-profit agencies
X
X
X
projects; contact EEM Project
Program
Manager( 16) 653-5800
Local Funding
U. Transportation
Jan.
Regional
no match required
cities, counties;
Contact the Regional
Development Act
Transportation
currently allocated
X
X
X
Transportation Agency
(TDA) Section 99234
Agency
by population
(2% of total TDA)
L2. State Gas Tax
Allocated by
no match required
local jurisdictions
(local share)
State Auditor
X
X
Controller
U. Developer Fees or
Cities, or
no match required
Mitigation required during
Exactions (developer
County
X
X
X
land use approval process
fee for street
improvements - DFSI)
U. Vehicle
Air Quality
no match required
local agencies,
X
X
X
competitive program for
Registration Surcharge
Control District
transit operators,
projects that benefit air quality
Fee (AB 434)
others
L5. Vehicle
Air Quality
no match required
local jurisdictions
Funds are distributed to
Registration Surcharge
Control District,
communities based on
Fee (AB 434)
or Congestion
X
X
X
population
Management
Agency
69 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
ITEM NUMBER: B - 1
DATE: 04/15/10
TEA -21 funding is administered through the state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and regional
governments (San Luis Obispo Council of Governments). Most, but not all, of the funding
programs are transportation versus recreational oriented, with an emphasis on (a) reducing auto
trips and (b) providing an inter -modal connection. Funding criteria often includes completion
and adoption of a bicycle master plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (such
as saved vehicle trips and reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support,
CEQA compliance, and commitment of some local resources. In most cases, TEA -21 provides
matching grants of 80 to 90 percent --but prefers to leverage other moneys at a lower rate.
With an active and effective regional agency such as the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments, Atascadero should be in a good position to secure its fair share of TEA -21
funding. It can be helpful to get the local state assemblyman and senator briefed on these
projects and lobbying Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission.
State
TDA Article III (SB 821)
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds are state block grants awarded annually
to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. These funds originate
from the state gasoline tax and are distributed to local jurisdictions based on population.
AB 434 funds are available for clean air transportation projects, including bicycle projects, in
California.
Bicycle Transportation Account
The State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program
that is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit for funding bicycle projects.
Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects that benefit bicycling for
commuting purposes. While the fund is currently small (1 million dollars available annually), it
will be increased to five (5) million dollars per year starting in FY 2001 with a possible increase
to twelve (12) million dollars per year by the state assembly and senate. Atascadero may apply
for these funds through the Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities.
Safe Routes to School (AB 1475)
The Safe Routes to School program is a newly created state program using funds from the
Hazard Elimination Safety program from TEA -21. This new program for 2000 is meant to
improve school commute routes by eliminating barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel through
rehabilitation, new projects, and traffic calming. A local match of 11.5% is required for this
lementation Strategy
competitive program, which will allocate $18 million annually. Planning grants are not available
through this program.
Regional
San Luis Obispo Area Council of Governments is a major potential source of funding for bicycle
and pedestrian programs. The grants are generally in the $50,000 to $200,000 range and are
highly competitive. Funding priorities also change annually with the District, between bicycle
and other projects such as transit and electric bicycle/vehicle uses.
Local
New Construction
Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bike lanes. To
ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that
an effective review process is in place to ensure that new roads meet the standards and guidelines
presented in this Transportation plan.
Impact Fees
Another potential local source of funding are developer impact fees, typically ties to trip
generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the
number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site bikeway
improvements which will encourage residents to bicycle rather than drive. In -lieu parking fees
may be used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a clear nexus or
connection between the impact fee and the project's impacts is critical in avoiding a potential
lawsuit.
Mello Roos
Bike paths, lanes, and pedestrian facilities can be funded as part of a local assessment or benefit
district. Defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult unless the facility is part
of a larger parks and recreation or public infrastructure program with broad community benefits
and support.
Other
Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Volunteer
programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways.
Use of groups such as the California Conservation Corp (who offer low cost assistance) will be
effective at reducing project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway or
pedestrian project as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer.
Work parties may be formed to help clear the right of way where needed. A local construction
company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may
71 Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
lementation Strategy
be a good source of local funding, where corporations `adopt' a bikeway and help construct and
maintain the facility.
Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time which may be used to implement
the system.
6.3 Financing
Proposed improvements and programs to be developed over the next 20 years in Atascadero have
been analyzed to determine the annual financing requirements, and to allow the City to budget its
resources and target funding applications. It is important to note that the majority of funding for
bicycle projects is expected to be derived from federal sources, TEA -21. These funding sources
are extremely competitive, and require a combination of sound applications, local support, and
lobbying on the regional and state level.
The City of Atascadero has historically invested approximately $4,000 annually in bicycle
facilities, in the form of bike lane and bike path construction and maintenance. Often these items
are included in larger construction and maintenance projects, and specific line item accounts are
not kept. Therefore, the annual expenditure figure is an estimate based on the City's Public
Works Department review.
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan • July 2000
72