Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Mobility Implementation Plan - HB in Motion Survey Results C (2)
NGro' 2000 Main Street, ?�', Huntington Beach,CA 92648 • City of Huntington Beach CD • O <,:•OUNTY tr 4 File #: 23-763 MEETING DATE: 9/19/2023 Mobility Implementation Plan - HB in Motion Survey Results City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/14/2023 powered by LegistarT"^ HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MIP) - HB IN MOTION COUNCIL BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 FBk �c� tr. IN MOTION AGENDA 1. Discuss Public Feedback 2. Discuss Improvements w Bicycle Recommendations • Pedestrian Recommendations • Beach Path Recommendations ■ E-Bike Education and Enforcement Policy Recommendations FB 74) C L IN MOTION PROJECT GOALS GUIDING PRINCIPLES Improve citywide bicycle and Balance: Balancing the best mobility interest of residents, visitors, pedestrian network options and emergency services is critical for every vibrant city. and safety for all users Implementation lens: Identify strategies and implementable system Improve the comfort and improvements that help facilitate a balanced and equitable design of the Beach Path for transportation system our residents, businesses and visitors with all users spectrum of practical mobility options. Build upon the City's long Future proofing Where bike lanes were once occupied exclusively by term mobility pedestrian, people on bikes, they are now home to people riding electric scooters, bicycle, and transit planning motorized skateboards, and micromobility devices (with new devices efforts being introduced regularly). FE3 T.4, IN MOTION PROJECT TIMELINE • Project Website: www.hbmobility.com IMay 2022 - Present • Public Survey I IFebruary 2022 - August 2022 • Council Briefing/ Study Session IAugust 2022 • Public Meeting IOctober 2022 • Public Survey II IMay 2023 - Present • Council Briefing/ Study Session to discuss draft recommendations ISeptember 2023 • Public Meeting to discuss draft recommendations IFall 2023 REVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK Phase I Survey Results February 2022 - August 2022 General Results • 860+ survey responses Why it Matters • 93% of respondents live in HB • Strong understanding of broad community consensus for multiple categories • Other than driving, respondents prefer to access destinations via 2.Besides driving,how do you prefer to access destinations in Huntington Beach?[Select all that active transportation apply] • 81% prefer to bike Value Percent Responses Transit i 7.6% 29 • 74% prefer to walk Bike ; 81.4% 311 • Close split between pedestrian and Scooter I 3.7% 14 biking on the Beach Path walk -1. 73.6% 281 TaxitUber ? , 14.7% 56 None 2.6% 10 Technical Analysis �;r _` :All Bol veld ii1 i 1 — — Challenges at the arterials for bikes and W au -wI...ta _mill , , pedestrians once they reach major Edm er Ave m-_ a I: Ilia v 44 -J =J - nintersections / - '- -_`_ .12 h g'= ''� Mae i . If L fat r m 3gaare ' ,� 1 I M 51 ,Bup3—g`'�1 71-Si- RegionaI Need for a holistic network to bridge the gaps E ��. ri Wa' 'AV n �'T . i �. :fl Park that are inhibiting % t�^,_aa wt., "" _ �� `W C �r� 9 E- d�. �% N — c'� Talbert Ave `•' MP 89% of intersections operate at LOS C or � �"" o 1� „ Ells Ave J' Iv higher '4 i )=, i it t Garfield Ave Opportunity to provide balance to allow for %q�P A -I fildayir y�1., �; more mobility choice for residents and 44, r ' �� IN1101-41 P'aams^� Fvisitors f�9$ n 1A �radi ' k Ar.Eas1 - r '? 4ri �V III J s=/ E.M. _ 1 0 9 r r '`' III amil[ ,Ave ,/ y— Pacific __ d4 ' Ocean . Bann re Level of Traffic --- 1 Stress(LTS) —_ LTS 1 — ITC') WHAT WE HEARD I PHASE II SURVEY • Demographics of respondents it Value Percent Responses -, ...e. moir.4."MC4 r Under 18 8 2% 34 - i 18-25 4.1% 17 — • ...:;,.. ..:111: r4_111:1,111;;;! • 4' Ilt . .- . . - . 3,-.4,-----.-I,- • - - ., "--.. it -..-..;-• -- I' 25-34 10 6% 44 J6C- '-" -- ''''iiiii. _. _.... I, .. MI TC11111 'DMI-.7 I "' - .: ---n . , 1 • .....—• 't - • -----. --_.. ' 35-44 19.2% 83 __ --.., - - _ •pg el' ,,,,. 11° ----- - I [ ) ' I , 1111111111S 1...e,... PI it . 7 „FROM. 45-54 15 1% 63 -+_..--- ...... . . - ...., - . .. . --.3,2111Saft 55-64 23.3% 9/ 65+ 19/% 82 il--'",:: '..-"r'" -- - - Totals:417 WHAT WE HEARD I PHASE II SURVEY • Other than driving, respondents prefer to access destinations via walking and bike/ e-bike V. Flex Post Planted Buffer ili • Beach Path Feedback • Very strong positive sentiment toward: separated beach Planter Bollard path (81%), beach path ped crosswalk (78%), slow A 1-= zones (70%) III itt • Strong/moderate support for speed feedback signs (56%), 10 mph speed limit (54%) t. � ?1 Segmental Divider • On-Street Bike Facilities `—`- ® Parking • Top three preferred on-street bike facility types: separated bike lane (Delaware), Parking Protected Bike Raised Median Lane (Springdale), and Buffer Bike Lane (Algonquin) i .Pi. ■ Top 3 separated bike lane separatory type: Planted L J G ' I Buffer, Planter, Raised Median On-Street Bike Facility Separatory Types 1::" WHAT WE HEARD Perception of E-Bike on Roadways Value Percent Responses Key takeaways: I do not find them to be an issue =_ immmis 105 46% find e-bikes to be an issue tam neutral 21.5% iim 69 33% do not find e-bikes to be I find them to be an issue 45.8% all111111111111111M 147 an issue Totals:321 • Perception of E-bikes on Beach Path Value Percent Responses I do not find them to be an issue 26.5% giMMIND 85 Key takeaways: 53% find e-bikes to be an issue Iamneutral 20.6% MEM 66 27% do not find e-bikes to be I find them to bean issue 53.0% IIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi 170 an issue Totals:321 WHAT WE HEARD Bikeway Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Red indicates areas of . . •0,4 Huntington Beach where J ... _„, L il "A —. -i. ----e— , 1 6-1,V. r,-1., i • improvements are - , - '•-= .-4-4.1mNr w . -1.---T- , needed the most based 1 , .. ,a k '* i ,' '• * 'nv... 5 , ,-, ,, on respondent feedback J - ,.**,. ''''''' ,igt.,,Pk, .' . -L•, t: • , i r ,,. do alfr , Mar' - , ctivaimilikt 1 a Pedboolan COIllioNli 6 , - Pacific /IP MO A 1 Ocean am S'anYor A...A,'Winn0151 Sher,f 4,artlir .40,0 . Exesting Bite ,es . 4%.' ...,C Rah-1 86.4 iron* NM El Dsmtaltwe+4.1 , * as E arniYmtst 2:.eet ..=.C ass I Ell et..Ene :••• an F efaintrAmo.a.Moseg....,'Woet.U1teak.NAt Lao& '- *...,^- ,. .C ast I-th..ffe9.d Bice Lare =C ass I Shared La,. in c. Eicals.anzi Wart'-tklutumi: -C ass.IV Sips-.1.E.E.1..ay 606,, H Pisitact:44:41H 4,1,..w I"it,St.L.vi ,-- • A, i 0 0 5 , 1 i 2•fli ; a 1 2 F! 1 1! ... "1 -].==1 1,01).910&dal Nitilt,P/34' 11 IM11-.01rI 116.141§bi Ellalire allNier 0.1h1 __, - ..ii..... •••............viv................• WHAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING Reality of Conditions I oiiiiiiii.H. . Beach Path BikeFa_cilities - 10111- Family biking on Warner toward USPS i A ..„, „ 0 ). . i '-, ‘,, k'ii: 1 . 71 , ,,,...... , 1 Older couple on e-bikes .- i 4-..,..--- - i',e . ., 1 ' A .-A=.:1,:t 7-,--=:- " 't— ''- - I ; ,travel to/from errands i "-t A-,,... '.-'7,4r4-j.9„, 0%1 - "718' ,„„ _....:..--,-- i ,, 1/4L.2, - -.' - ,:kgr'• :r,'-- 7747:,,j. .1'.. - Cr,*t , _ j -'.- -' .....j16Z,_/ A' 11*,.., _ Youth on e-bikes, youth _. -"v. 7... -a":.:,I walking to/from school Alt, -t ' 4 - '4:. ..1',3 14, . '-'1:4 -- (7,-, ';•,",,,v,.-. 4, "•••• ,:%, ...-•.'k, Pedestrian + Bicyclist + , ,, ,,,- '4VA4.!,0-,, Scooter conflicts on the 1 _ . Orel" beach path .-,;.,-„,-.1„:,;04 -,,,,t4„.=;;;.,•-kz.5.b.i ANL * I\ A - 1"--174\N ill 10 •. 1,, ...4,4 ... , '‘ . - .• ,. --.-.,„,-, -= -,...,,i,-,f:,-.7,-,4. f,-,,,,,-,_ '-'-' .,''';,= ••—•;',-- .-,4.-: --,.-...-... - kr-,er, .:•.„. ,,,s.. — .. . , BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND BEACH PATH RECOMMENDATIONS BICYCLE RECOMMENDATIONS TOOLKIT Toolkit Mobility Implementation Plan Bicycle Pedestrian Beach Treatments Treatments Path Treatments TOOLKIT Near Term Phasing Needed "Low Hanging Fruit" "Transformative" Buffered Bike Lane Y a { r Mid-Block Flashers Shared Use Path (Separated) M s rt.irk Ar s S .r -' 3`RVaI i w ...am: `qk `t a .. 5 ix - T.c' -'moo �. ! ;: jrj 7v Leading Ped Interval Separated Bike Lane '` Median Refuge Island , , , i ,, ., __ ,,,. 7—___:-: , ,.;- /I*:--„-,‘ _.i,„ - .4' ' ,-- , I) , . , . .. . , . , . , . ..._ al isi i ,. f iv Heil (soon), and Edinger (soon) Springdale 0 BICYCLE NETWORK Existing Network 2023 Phase 1 Focus Areas; 1 to 5 years Phase 2 Focus Areas; 5 to 10 years ,.,,, ii , 41:6, ! / . ------ >I —11---pi ____,• --—,--,...3 ! Ib ; ] • 11 i f 3 ) .. 4-- • 1-77--— -31 Existing Bike Facilities `,, L. .+-•- .,` L- i Conventional Bike Lane I e , J I - L f Separated Bikeway/ f— -•- {p,�'{• Buffered Bike Lane �" I / Data Source: Toole Design 2023;City GIS 2023 PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS PEDESTRIAN FOCUS AREA IDENTIFICATION FACTORS 1. City Input: City-informed priority intersections and corridors k. `, f ,�"'° r° 3r '' : 2. Crashes: Corridors with high bicycle and pedestrian collisions . y,' ,,,.,,� ,, ` i • ,P-' 3. Crossing Distance: Wide gaps between crossing opportunities 4. LTS: High pedestrian stress intersections HI ,, ' ' ' , '`;£ .. 5. High Pedestrian Stress Corridor: High pedestrian stress corridors `',IF i„ �, . {::: .'''' 1,;:.,1": 41'' f at� � 6. Transit: High ridership transit stopI 1 s� ., _ population densitybycensus •=1 ; . ' 7. Population Density: Top percentile \ ' tract 8. Vulnerable Populations: Land use accessed by vulnerable z� populations (schools, senior centers, and parks) , Y , - ""' 9. Destinations: Popular destinations and generators ` 4'g , -, (supermarkets and commercial land uses) �. ,.;, a -.` r: /J� PEDESTRIAN FOCUS CORRIDORS ... y Bolsa Av. _I_ 11; q a ri --- —1 : --- "r 1 I -or_ _ \.. , v :1e: �.` Corridor Grouping Overlapping Factors c_ Edin. Ave� _,I g, p t �`�� I __: Atlanta / Magnolia / Destinations, Vulnerable Populations. LTS ' o WarerAveL___ y; _ Hamilton* l a sia Are - �� \. I _.I Algonquin / Warner/ "'_ : ; Talbert, _ _ f_., LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance A� I Saybrook* n 1 n„,, ,1 y �, © • � Garfield s j_ /, Ave ,_ PCH / 17th LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit �s , _ -II ,a,;,.a., aye y-,4 I I fr .1' _ _,Adams Av High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Crashes, °a.9 ' �1 i Edinger Transit, LTS, Destination ` i 1 �o elk o ill Transit, Pedestrian High Stress Corridor, Pedestrian Corridors J m,,oaAyL a _-.— Beach Edinger Avenue Crashes, Population Density, LTS AimAtlanta Avenue/Magnolia Street/Hamilton Avenue e, mvn,z/f Beach Boulevard Goldenwest High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Vulnerable Goldenwest Sheet Populations, Destinations, Crossing Distance Gin WarnerAvenue/Algonquin Street/Saybrook Lane ,. _ Brookhurst Sheet/Indianapolis Avenue * High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Transit, Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street Brookhurst/ Indianapolis Pedestrian Corridor Phasing Destinations, Population Density O 0 0.5 1 1.5 2mi Huntington Beach Mobility Plan *Overlaps with bicycle corridor recommendations BEACH PATH RECOMMENDATIONS BEACH PATH NETWORK DEVELOPMENTS Beach Path Peak Hour t rrY h I , r irk Observations Developments ,,,, User Typologies • Speed . AI �- - • Field Visits Control • Data , • User Space New Path Separation Collection Separations 4 . r _, BEACH PATH EXAMPLE TREATMENTS _ ..:, , ! i.,,..- , , ...,. t .... Conflict Markings Speed Limit 10 MPH Separation Typologies ,IV,,,,,,____ o "� I ------------,Lt:..-' 7, 11 ., .. e: Option t Rumble Strips \.„„.•■...0► Existing Bluff SPEED LIMIT Path Separation 10 Speed Feedback Sign —11 + •- i .. : to q rz4 :: I _i, „,,,,.....,,,„ ,4_, 4, , YOUR ; �I ' 1 SLOW :. SPEE� ; L ! ' .� t" I It, •" Outran 2 Ti �� ,I :6w I� I y ,: k�. � � �.. lei `,. ,.., - -- .' ' - - -, ,',-,„,,....4.,,- .----4,--_ .as ° µ `: .' y' i ILL_„ ,, 4., - —.. ice / _. ` - I., Option 3 /.: „- E-BIKE EDUCATION + ENFORCEMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS E-BIKE EDUCATION + ENFORCEMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS How can Huntington Beach promote e-bike use as a sustainable, safe mode of transportation while mitigating safety risks associated with bad behavior? Proposed Recommendations: IP Clear Policy • Safe and Future-Focused Bike Infrastructure and Signage • Education • Data Collection • Regulation/Targeted Enforcement 25 NEXT STEPS • Council Briefing/ Study Session to discuss draft recommendations • Public Meeting to discuss draft recommendations Adoption of Mobility Plan .. L-..^a.,ta'i.._. , v`C .� ?."1it; -' ` A V..Y„ 73L•M )7'4 ,i.a- Y ..-rA ~2._..- HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MIP) - HB IN MOTION COUNCIL BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 - [ ?co---11 ='7, A / „:„.:),, , ,,,,ii ., u is IN MOTION -- w AGENDA 1. Discuss Public Feedback 2. Discuss Improvements ® Bicycle Recommendations El Pedestrian Recommendations O Beach Path Recommendations ® E-Bike Education and Enforcement Policy Recommendations [43 trA ' k IN MOTIOI\ ,. ... . .. .. _ T PROJECT GOALS GUIDING PRINCIPLES 0 Improve citywide bicycle and Balance: Balancing the best mobility interest of residents, visitors, pedestrian network options and emergency services is critical for every vibrant city. and safety for all users Implementation lens: Identify strategies and implementable system o Improve the comfort and improvements that help facilitate a balanced and equitable design of the Beach Path for transportation system our residents, businesses and visitors with all users spectrum of practical mobility options. Build upon the City's long -- -.- Future proofing: Where bike lanes were once occupied exclusively by term mobility pedestrian, people on bikes, they are now home to people riding electric scooters, bicycle, and transit planning motorized skateboards, and micromobility devices (with new devices efforts being introduced regularly). HE) tr-ll FJ G IN MOT1OA PROJECT TIMELINE 11 Project Website: wwwahbmobilityacom May 2022 - Present Public Survey I February 2022 - August 2022 6) Council Briefing/ Study Session August 2022 • Public Meeting October 2022 • Public Survey II May 2023 - Present • Council Briefing/ Study Session to discuss draft recommendations September 2023 • Public Meeting to discuss draft recommendations Fall 2023 r,ri 1' r+.w:a,a .'i'<,..�w.a,., . ',�...x.i ::.:1,1y:si� f,�w:i 4� _ .i.,.,. J REVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK Phase I Survey Results February 2022 - August 2022 General Results • 860+ survey responses Why it Matters • 93% of respondents live in HB • Strong understanding of broad community • Other than driving, respondents consensus for multiple categories prefer to access destinations via 2.Besides driving.how do you prefer to access destinations al Huntington Beach?[Select all that active transportation apply] • 81% prefer to bike Value Percent Responses 7 6 29 , % • 74% prefer to walk Tian 4 I Bike 11111=111114T 81A% 311 • Close split between pedestrian and Scooter 3 7% biking on the Beach Path I 14 Walk alita 73.6% 281 Taxigiber IIIIMIERMivn, 14.7% 56 None IiUIUII1UUI1IUI. 26% 10 i. , , r Technical Analysis . ts I Boise Averfira c4,'''' ' meread7sre immil 1 1 2 - I' ri Challenges at the arterials for bikes and ti: Ilingvii Jig- - lager Ave l:'-'" --3' la__ pedestrians once they reach major t ,/e--..-ii,, Ed-0,4,R3 ,i,..-wi%11 14.9 ESE' e-;. intersections '`.-r ''' i Iiiir T.,' parmer ,-1. i i 140 tgifirim 7. - - , Scie.,Nru RI-tpkH,o1 \ ht;l:.. ,,INT 9Miitif A Liit...).., t- . lei'aline...ye 37. ,...i7::-..4—... .....,.....-.. 9 Need for a holistic network to bridge the gaps ' \*, E-Nailtrflifii----'--\\ -7,1, ._ , ,20si.,.,. g-,..,-,- , that are inhibiting . ' -- , ,,,...fa'Weir-4 i mint., ., ' 3, Talbert Ave RI ,_ , ,„._„,._,,....• _,__ \•\-oc,t. fa 89% of intersections operate at LOS C or \<:,.`S,, , ,..4.0, , - '''''. - Eli,-AV nrjEifis-Ave ,On iteeprittle , ' I, higher , ,-for 1.90,4 i nil Garfield Ave - - '''' ' ' sl, -4- ,essf4"..":1 sr, • ' i NMI 0 Opportunity to provide balance to allow for s more mobility choice for residents and -- 40- - - 1 g tw dla -'We 99 '11311 ' .,,,,,.4,, ,...,111,'". n f 1 n nat:ke,JIM I f t visitors _ , 4fgftlitrrio. al:,g,"0' N..404:1141:wg,•c4tiantaillaAB6 1 ri; trii Haniiiik.-Av Pacific ,,, ,) en11, --1,' ," ' Ocean k, ,-BAL_nAg Ave 1 ' `,.. Level of Traffic Stress(LTS) LTS 1 —LTS 2 • . _ . WHAT WE HEARD I PHASE II SURVEY ' 1 D Demographics of respondents , . . Value Percent 7., : 4 . 4 , . • ' Responses . ; • , ':44`, 34 Under 18 8.2% 18 17 .25 4.1% 1r .7„.„ --,.. ,, , --,,,,,_ .-: ....!:„aar::-. ,•!-::,-,40.. p-..„, _,- :.--i.. ;:.--- , ,,,,,.... .-::-..;,2 -.41.:41";.V., ,.• —y —..-=.1„ ' ',-,' . ,. .......-- '5' 7.-rr•-•-. 1- ,,,,.....z..-:: 44 25-34 10.6% I:••• ,,,,.' .., --- itin.c.a. ..... .......--,....A..,... . .0,14• . ..x ....,.. ,; L.. •-• •-iv•_. . e • -...-=. , •-•-. - . ` . .....x.444 N., •,-- - ._- ' 1.-:. 't-4,4'.. 1 r'r, . .". - 80 35-44 19.21'0 - -r ' _ , -- 'nra7.41Zie; ' " ' 45-54 15.1% 63 ..'"7 ` ':47 ." ..„ . . ' . -• •..: . :„..::i....:'' .:.,.•,'" c _ , r'-'7Az ' '?''.4 '''• '::.'• #^...0' ei$ft t0o111144$44."..:ft' 0 "`';:"4. •.i. _.e.. - . • • 97 . E...d'IW, '...A•„7„,:.,:: ... ....."'"..........,,'' 44.,..le**.4:',I?' 55-64 23.3% 4.-23te 4,:- e-, ..01..,•,..:-„4,„,- ,4,,,',-°'- - ,- -• ' _ _ , :: ie7 .= • '•- e:: : '' *". 82 .,„ _,-- .,',-.-•t-- . , --,- T.,_ 65+ 19.7% . . '..; ' itt'llr4 Tot a ls 4_1 7_ 1,4, . "*'.'`*.I..P<.,, ';,.4,„4,,,',, ;'':'la'1 4,':"'''s1•;,-,$.—..,'1'4.'"";'','„':,.1-,;s.', —,?' e '," ;,--- -,' ' '.,"":,,.]:,,,,2-4,,-,,,:,,,v,?...,,,cl,..,, - ; -,...- ,-., •::........,-„,- ..,., - ,,,,,e' s..®+y.,T ..e .. ., .. . .. .. ....... .. .. . _ .. Eai.`�.....1. ._.....w..�-..1........i.a E€"x ....'.,^-a .:..m....° :w.:...:...w ' . -.� �._�.. , 1 _� _ ..... e'R`.. J _._x..s,..... .._ y... .—........w.-..w.....s.....v.._..:..o.....�a�3 WHAT WE HEARD I PHASE II SURVEY D Other than driving, respondents prefer to access destinations via walking and bike/ e-bike Flex Post i Planted Buffer El Beach Path Feedback I El Very strong positive sentiment toward: separated beach Planter 0 ;3 it Bollard path (81%), beach path ped crosswalk (78%), slow zones (70%) IIII El Strong/moderate support for speed feedback signs (56%), 10 mph speed limit (54%) Segmental Divider 0 On-Street Bike Facilities —� amminors ® Top three preferred on-street bike facility types: Parking separated bike lane (Delaware), Parking Protected Bike t Raised Median6, l -.____. Lane (Springdale), and Buffer Bike Lane (Algonquin) it f Eu Top 3 separated bike lane separatory type: Planted Buffer, Planter, Raised Median On-Street Bike Facility Separatory Types WHAT WE HEARD la Perception of [-Bike on Roadways Value Percent Responses I do not find them to be an issue 32.7% aNNIMIM 105 Key takeaways: 46% find e-bikes to be an issue Iamneutral 21.5% MIMI 69 33% do not find e-bikes to be I find them to be an issue 45.8% amr 147 an issue � Totals:321 ■ Perception of E-bikes on Beach Path Value Percent Responses I do not find them to be an issue 26.5% 4111111MM B5 Key takeaways: 53% find e-bikes to be an issue I am neutral 20.6% MEM 66 27% do not find e-bikes to be I find them to be an issue 53.0% 0111111111111MIIIIIIIIIIII 170 an issue Totals:321 r...., •2�..f 1:7-,....___.a;,_?1.,.'`.,':u:._`:..�d....,...:: di:.. .,>§'.s ...e' A ".xb'^^w.........4dr.' ._. ......._.. :.:.,N.,;..:.s:.m,::.?;71'.:-':`..>:i` WHAT WE HEARD Bikeway Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Red indicates areas of - . , . - Huntington Beach where - r° =°", � � improvements are > ' ,Ediimi.dm i_ _ ^'' - - -. - r m ..: 1 S 1 _ -- needed the most based - , :'N, . ' - emu, ,a a I,. {: F:s � i c•s;.'m. _ on respondent feedback " _` . _ . b x- _ 4 : .i :_=, _ ; a.. . _ gi i a.{� ` -- c� Ate. '3 M . _) i5E14e+PRsn ; :sf Sr I r,L ..." i-:t • v,,,, :^' �i .'. I ri' ' air ;r p', .. yya CC "4- ' T S. 11/4 Iii F' q q F "',,-N ,}. _- - Pcdaccda,"Caralaisat ,, . w "e ;Nt. t. 8 �4 Caceq n _ iiii . : _ r.,e.i-t..“-:, ;ar aaa,i'1:,...(0,,r.i. 4;.o-.•.,: i' e t,w x `. Ezisti¢g Dike ratilitaap - ._ ^> . ':?` 4,...a C.�3a I•eti.ete,le s t,w. • E ,a--...zit_..;:t - r ::my,' CanI,- uRd'=t- Ciel.3na . � [i M t t"arc,,.iai..a• i'>n:•.`n.,n,zvr.,:,.v7.ir:• e--,rani I Valicdlara ' Vaiii Li :n:r.4.a^i_•nv:.n_,m{,sac:=:sL's.,.. -1.`as:fd•Svpa>ate:i 31'.a,La;' II 3:t:Q r,0 t{'::i rrr I c€•..v, _ FIj 11k) o V 5 S 1.5 2115 - , ' - P.! 1 1S 2C'A 1,,,... �Q---®9---1 HunGnthatl um!)tb?tIAY t i;,• Ki""maie�`I HwtkyUd wan ekte it VH. WHAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING ci +�'�. ti 1 k "a i 4��..; " :ft.: Yr w ~" . <' -r -,��z s °4rit. ?g `'� ^j f5y ;° i . t( 8d : L , z '' s t ,z `� ' aTJYL` v!4. _4'4'=VU. r'Lf : tl u. .. w _ -% } Ei1 : t v 1 - _it- ._._ _ — _ _- — r j '*_- .- �yy ix,-.' ,. i �a ~ y+ •--*5y'_ ;tmm�,'� j A iy ,v, ..1_,,..c.: ..;:'4:x � t`"1€ ' iS'W T� �a<"'l.r�'l-'�J1:-- '4��' F +` -17,-; .F^ VT 'd 1 +a +i i,� - 3h.°' y v WI` . -. .. _ _ » - - "--fa '. Ni. ♦ 1 .u' .s '' G ^ r - - u. I �!�n�1{ F i t a�+�. ,, ,-, „ti .. =§, �M,� s spa jyp�t, :�,' s4" - n„ ,, s.`r,, ii *i. ' « e � m. ., .'� ,�Y e .?It, _ i✓�.p^t �'.�. 1�a4. .«a.*" Y '.`fir•'.'.;,ay.Ft�t:��:''� - $ ny�� s� e,. �y�{( @ 9.. L'��'y ;;. .w ...j ,^�,.,,_,e,�- ?» +.ti. q'�* •s.,.�,.,a:x;5 t„ '.A ...Ni.. ham'-r�:.�.,:1 UC'?.U J '.1 �i ^-�. �s`7Y s j ',. a"d"� _ ..k'- ._ ,-, '' �2k E`y�'�y"".A..-, �'�$k, re:,u``1'T,''a •_:,"'�, " z yy Y t� � i� �� �' ..� y P x da.;b'" .� t rT � rAy,y �€.b���t+y'i _ � � �ng .pI ��.��cx} vi'"�- � � - - ._ -t �} "x:� Y �.e -"t't-z .{;��"'.�"c'y�e,�:#a:p�, "'_"c; .a t'. J � r uf`�+,H,_ . -..a gg :-x^ i• .. g"i�:;,,,,s 0- ''� €kr }w f'-,1.,,,.:,!,,,4,}^'c,,`c f �.- ...r a 1 _ i Ak Z,y rx '.y-' 3� - ,� '[ '..�s. . � .., .t n ''''�p��,, G � ib=t � l � S � -m R"�����:r��r�' � ti"�7;:�`s-a �':t t; ,`il .. 1�i1• # F'., ......a5.f�y$ z+r .t ,-%.-, 'lf,a'' ...'z{ u,.,, Ky � t i! "x 4-- . :Sr '-',�< .y_ { -,4•40,1,1. -'_ :,...- t • ' rP _?: #_ a '"fie, '� '.C: =rwcc�',%f 1 kt } '' 44 ,.�' ate ,z y� w _. x �, +�' � �"`���tom,y. '�-#< , BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND BEACH PATH RECOMMENDATIONS . .. o ..... -. ... .. .... .. .. _ ....�._...._..,.'...a:s,...:_>,i......_..a...:....«........ ='.- BICYCLE RECOMMENDATIONS „..._ _;_-• - .._ _ • -- L--•:'.-—--- ,.. , ‘Amr_Alft2.4* 1.. •,;,” '",,r;':.:.:' 4,.4,,,Ztir,' '," **V..".. .• TOOLKIT „,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,„.... .,,,,. ...,,,14,14±. „1,5*..?..w: -4'• pi a i. ' . -., . ...-, ,,,,----:,,-. -iskief...,. ,;,,,,,7..,..„,-.... ,j'Al• taitit,W$.#44*-t0P. .. ycs,3,4-,4";', 1- -r 51::;,'.44.1.,v• „4:t,-,-,„44--i,--:i-'zt(iiii --$ artk.r.-...,-.1,4,31/441.Arii-,45.:;:!;4,:s.:1 4%7.441 :- -017:4710.6t; ', T.-1'i;-,- kiN .lett.-0.1k...,..:1r4i, o ; ,,w.. .„„A„,...-."-..iji,..v04.7....:.:t?,",,yielsi*„:4;.:.....olr,'- -_-7• '- 4;.'fil: 41* tatS43,te4A4131111tVratittn k,'':ti,';:t4*4:Vtnt0.,470f4r;:?tfi;,4C.?1,t4-t4 -4*" „ -'. : " - Fry 0 ... .1,„-t,,,,:,-,it.„:*i,4,41/4,,,.....,„...i. -,:r4,-..,,...:8,t.-*"11 - ,... " " - ',' ,, ,, - , ,' , ,,, , .•,,, , •. .- . t 4‘1% oolri. ,,,,,, 11`,c,t,`.,1*iit,,t1-4.,..:1 I-- ' ', '' , , 1,f t - ,, cr. )... ,Ate.,;:•47%..t,: ::. ,,:.,,o'•,, ,,„....li.,_:"" -• ,- .. .,- : ' lir ED - . 1 a , . 4: . .z.,..-..:., r': - -.Nic .'-'' /..4 ', I , . _;.• , . %; , '(`. '1C a "7..... Li , ' ,. , ., , .. - ''-: ,-, '• - ,-....4-...-e-vt,,,,it-ma-- ...„... .;....,....--, . TOOLKIT ✓ i' t f1 �s f�( ?r z= Buffered Bike Lane ,` 4:17 Mid-Block Flashers _ - Shared Use Path (Separated) ox x 'NA.'" • ellY.' a'+'V et,.1,s4, P,'•4 41, : i : '' s t it ''' ,�"E°. ."'' ' v „<.y- ^a.-'t z: i Slid: a .� .I: ,�• „��� i:: 1:..1*--' �i •"..•:' »' °"' �"w:"1-. '.'-+ ",.-L. S 4'Y ` *^. a&3� t t ii S`3 .+IdYr7' ^7R , . .N,,mr'rp'{-t's_- d a f•,. '+F" rb d:M3z. L, i #* F.'k' .s _. �tr ' �` iii ..-: Atlanta Edwards. B ' . u.., ,.,._ , each Path .{ .r. Leading Ped Interval j.;' Separated Bike Lane-:M"i4t:'4•Te7,':*,:u:1 44.",.e-:.f4 A.,-'..,.1,".".,4.„"'l,,,4a!i'..a.,•."f,....,.p"A"‘lZz; Median Refuge Island k:it` TY S` " '< :ar: x, 4i3ca -''�, ^w mil"'' tia } y y^k'.;.7'?,4.r;'r.",:.i.,:i.i•,'.:fS-..y-' ) g 1 ;7-.:.`..,.'.,..,"4.•5-.r..ZL:.4y'*.t..*Z 1r,0.5,,,,,44,,.1,,4,.,,t,,e.'c4:,,4 r s aa, iz 1I')',A i} , • 3" .`mom "gyp .; l 7 •' 3,. '• ' i Hell (soon), and Edinger(soon) Springdale `"' �,'� BICYCLE NETWORK -_ . - .-- - -- -__-- - - -_ _ , r ' r-. :4 F�i ,VP. e` *k:a+ ems--•*A , J 4•t,A rr?`% + 'o- ,1 "•.+'� . ; , . ,E ExistingNetwork 2023 e r` ' r , i. -:t ._�r: a , Phase 2 Focus Areas, 5 to 10_years it ,L, , I' l, 11 : ;; — a ✓ . e. :_ - . c^ rv1 y t') ,_ '_ _— . .r r � - :W Y f } - tq\ jyy _ rt, tt h: . ' P'- _! .: ..V.' -y. _ - - - = . .n- - a /" f} t _ — r) rA� Etf: L _ —_ ai_ ' . y « ;- i p -, , t, ' - •! ,I t,. x.aI!.w:^f. ,1;� i1— - el TS>>� __Lt^.!:'d q4� 4 , e nn Ai'i '.r ",P.`=^ l "° _^ vac•nc 4 .'- Pacific ...-I, Jj , , W'. ' a o r `11^. occcn `�i;, 'i� yt za. z Dc en ~ ,"'fe' .' _. Ar..:�":r.-{-pk,e �nY.L w}_. .. '•5! 3 -a �( Existing Bike Facilities e •i{ ' w,... /- �' � - Conventional Bike Lane . r •.,�, +, — , �� ;i t' f - - - _s Separated Bikeway/ �' '"b"r i.7 t a ,�'.'�. ,�;Y ^r Buffered Bike Lane a' X, - - 't-•' +`4 t/' • , / cra•w 'E'#� ':, ' _ _ .'!1.A... Data Source Toole Design • , , 2023,ity 023 '" PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS PEDESTRIAN FOCUS AREA IDENTIFICATION FACTORS 1. CityInput City-informed priorityintersections and corridors t , 4 ,, q ��at. . 2. Crashes: Corridors with high bicycle and pedestrian collisions . „k ,x , :�� x. . ; �� r . =y 3. Crossing Distance. Wide gaps between crossing opportunities , x; rll ' ` :,, x' , ['� g0 b,.x�t iy,�}Wks ,� 'Y��+ i* *°� ��e h"i 4. LTS: High pedestrian stress intersections a§ .3t `; * ` 1 5. High Pedestrian Stress Corridor: High pedestrian stress corridors . ,F,„ a , ' �.,� , ', 6. Transit High ridershiptransit stopsiii . ' �l� :� I '7 7. Population Density: Top percentile population density by census f=. f r1 ' : - , tract -..s.. S. Vulnerable Populations: Land use accessed by vulnerable =' populations (schools, senior centers, and parks) fi r _4 .„ _ k, ` N3 r. u,.. 9. Destinations: Popular destinations and generators = `t•Vt 1, = 1.- t` - (supermarkets and commercial land uses) t: ,,i.=-.A_ ::: _ . . . PEDESTRIAN FOCUS CORRIDORS h _._. v;1 `-Balsa Av Li:I .{ .. -z - 1 ' \\.� Corridor Grouping Overlapping Factors m --��! _-_,.1. 'r - , ..Edinger-Ave _ 3', 'a�t�'i. "31=�:.r='' �; L! . I _ t ( r Atlanta Ma ynolia _N,?I 11 'SEE ;I: °$iC �-a u, , / g / t, Destinatio:ns, Vulnerable Populations, LTS °wad-,__„ ;y-{ —_ _Jr_ , ''-' Hamilton _ _y _- • _ ' E { a a ti AlgOr10 ;fin l Warrler/ d c -1 : alber LTS; Popu:latron Densaty, .Crossing Distance d - 1, A ;: \nit• i:T = • + Saybrook* ; , _`" plisA� a rl�are _ _ ' y � .. • , t by jryls;r r/ . ,e_ , rt- i':(�':iyl 't=,a.,Garfi Id..Ave: i _ \yt . . x. a'1,Sj _._T'j: r,PCH / 17th I LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit ° ,7,, . `1r" '?, { „ - : 'i . 1 : 7 , r %'�. Yo k own A .i,_ ......-•__. -:. -.- •-_,,_ - .e. m.—.-..�_ �.-«..-...-..--®-e•--•--.,..., �:..:. 1 Nei,-High Pedestrian Stress Corridor r ;;J! ,,,.,1:. = .'i' t o , C- ashes, .;;:Io., . .-I. i,; Edinger ` :,, ,;s z .� Transit, LTS, Destination Vim- - °.arv?:4 : i• .,, ,:'�74Y.* 7s `k , _ -`+S • .. 44—.,t"" ^4,3.:'.::' ;1:- -7 � � -" .3. i r`., - i 'is .�,i1,.'I _ .,ra -'+ - " :`,a.„..,. _.b '.:._ fix.^ :._ }...;.. _a.� ;- -m j r:, �•k ` f �' a „• Pedestrian Corridors ; It' .•— Y ;; � w�� �$� x,��'Transit;=Pedestr-ia�nHigfl;Stress4Cor-rl�or,�. - .-x��•'"`' '� _ ��" ,, H.millanAve'�, ,,_4�- •Beach# `-3°�-. s :r 4'- •. 'rt>-;-t K" f,;.r :• .t=,,?a.• , .. 3 Edinger Avenue 'r _ •-' i.[F. 7 '' „, . '*:; 1a ,' A i' &` ,„ �r. y Atlanta Averrue(Mac Magnolia Street/Harnillnn Avenue '"•' , `r-I F r` --..,,,- MD i i ,n ns�ty " .� � Crashes= Po.pu:lat;o 'De•� LTS �__e� _. - i Beach Boulevard ,x �-et� Goldenwest J i High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Vulnerable GoldenwestSt.eet € Populations, Destinations, Crossing Distance ® WarnerAvenuel Algonquin StreeUSaybrook Lane 5', L .-..__ .. Brookhurut Street/Indianapolis Avenue I High Pedestrian-Stress Corridor, Transit, Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street . Brookhurst./ Indianapolis* Pedestrian Corridor Phasing ` ` S Destinations, Population Density ... .........:.. .......,_„_�.._...:.w...4,...,,..__......_.....:.:..�..�_�..-- r�._„_.:. �,. -._..a..........,._'6....,_,....�„�.,A....,z.�....m _..._�...........,.__.__..-.._.. _____..,._....._._.._..._.__. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi *Overlaps with bicycle corridor recommendations "'�' tea 1 Huntington Beath Mobility Plan BEACH PATH RECOMMENDATIONS • • - . ... . ..„..„,..........—......„— . —4-1 „4,4 .. _.,.... . .„ ,.......... , .. - BEACH PATH NETWORK DEVELOPMENTS B•• ::--:-.'.'."..—:,: Path"4...'."....,:.;: Pef:f:. Hour,..:-_.l.6.s, - It7: A= m '. , „ 1-:;4-. n t- ,,, .. ,. -:- `", . '''''': ' , • 'I'', -'1.1,:'°;:::,E, T- -' ,, ....., .„. ,....... . ,. i - ..,,, 0) --,-- _ -----72-1:' „User Typolog r-\ — -''-. - -- 0 ies..., ,.:. --.. .., . ., .... a ..,,...-,..,_,......., ....,,,,,„„-,,_,„„,„,, 4 J'."'t •.; i.,„‘,.. . .,•—s. '''',--..;.k.S,", .t.J. 4iL., - -," 4 '4" ;444:4', . . L' -'^-74:,''..'"":Aqh, .4„.%;04-*+;:r.'; ,-t :3,:•4 "‘ , " c • ' • Speed i • Field .Visits Control ., . . , , . • User Space t . . , . .. . ,. • • Data . i i .. . , ... ... ..443.2..„ . . .. . fa..,,,' la 1, „-Tioit,t,y7p---- "* ' N ' - . . I ! Separations, i . , ,-,- - ,,,....„ ----:‘,-- . . New Path Separation collection ., - , . .,, . ...1,1,. .^,,-,..•Aiigt sw."'- •-' ' . . .:f... ; _, „.,, '4 41y,'...!.-, oriGt.: :;*,.aap,i,'•,. _ t ,..•'''',...:41:::,:t....„tor--l'allir,,,,:i,..' fit ;. 4,:,':'•'1::4,-,' ''''' , kV.Or.44t.'-:..7, '. 14 -V4 4*:*77.1.7..,.:"-,:s.ti. .. .......... * .....,_...._,....... _ . . BEACH PATH EXAMPLE TREATMENTS ..„.... : , .,. .„...„. .,,,A.A.,,, ,-..a--,,•:. _ • . . r -'--' . . '''''' •f:, ---- Conflict Markings 1..J.--- „Aar, ir l'''''''" , , _ Speed Limit 10 MPH i . . Separation Typologies mt..:4. ,..-47,. i I r••' „A., ,,,- 1 ... ., ., 1 ,e.,........._.„...., ,,...„.... , : -0.*. ... ...›• , _,.....,.....,--, sur ... -.., .,1,,, il./.. . - • --- , '',',C-= ,10:----__'k___. ‘, ,.. ,... _.z..,_.4,r1,4 _ _ il 1.! •-.. fq % .- ''-.4.1 ' ,,. . f.,.. „ _ ---- ,,.. .. , .- - , • „,,,,.. . - • (00) *, ,• 0 .. •- i.ff;::: • . i.f . • r•-_, ' -?Pfit: _,:,, ,,t), EF1 .. • ,, i ",* - -r..; ., _,. ,--,, \''''''-'4,- .)r• Zt..„,,,,H-., . ,Situ, .s. Existing Bluff -- (• •,, , .. . speED Option 1 UWE I 11 Rumble Strips Path Separation - . . ',. Speed Feedback . - - i—-4,-.,..ri.,.• . , - ., ii:41') '- - _-7411,.' .._..„, . 0 , , , ,....j:40„ • . -- „.„1:-.A,-)0( •,.4:4, - " i - .. :...„ ...'" I Iva . , t '' 4.-*.' .•-••"Ei•CO•f-*'..:„.,':..., t,k,',', " I ' ^ -;' ...., .. , J`-'40,..,i';',..•0 -: . 0 .41 4 ' ., R 4. , 0 • : i" ... *PPOrk**10***4.1„* ' -4- ' _ V **''-; --- -rinirPr • '4**17,t*.:Pe' _ .14. . 4, 1,* -SPEED iiki,,!?.gl k,,LV ,c, ,,, V;;;; --,-*.x. -1 ',.*'',,,, .-;":1;:. 1,':',.'/ „,4**..,,•1,4 ***. ;-. 1*: -.7:*;:' - l'ft.* *I 13 N 1,‘' . 1 i ollik, , 1 ..., „ , .. ,...,..,. .....„ - . .. A., - 4- ' 4 . 4 •4' 4P -,* ***-., 4 -• ,,c: "-..i..3 ' ,,, , :,.......,.. ,, kaxii. , ,„,,,,,...,, r. — ,Vi ,r ;; '1 . :..; ; .':..;* '..... 4.4 • ,., ,g24'1';''!' ",'',...-%,,, '''',;-'4":.., ec,„:, -:„ .- „---: r, „ * ,*-*,* ;',..,,:**,*.:•.4.„ .• 44 ., 1 ,e it ,'-'?...0.'",-."-,.,..:' , ,Ar"-,--' -,,:" -.=, ' et-„,%.'"4.=.P7,'- ''**t A-": :::4' ' '':'-.;1'.V-,•,' • i 0..7:4'.., ,..! , it.,,,cy.,-.•;-; .,:t4.:,:..::'1:*-1%-• , 'r.•Iti! = ,0,-.., ..:,,t". ;V't 4„•-, '\'‘ -.,,,,i :,* , *-.1,0,. . ..,, lir,,%:.,.',. -'•„'l 1 7, 4' ,t:' '= 5:, .24,.1''':-,„...- Ir** Itt;..y.44,$•;•:•sl•7.,kz,..- '"*;:ier.,:-:: 0 4-•-"• ...e.„,,,w.,,, 1,...ii,..,..- ----f , - - .. ..,,,,i... •.. -..,....-1 il:. •::...s.,,..:-.. , ,--.. .....:,:._',; -4 ,,, • .... • ---- P'..4' -Ir'z'•-.`.::: 'CO; rgqipi, '''..:,,,„ ':!'?, *4',"•• ''''''''''',A' ‘41,;tegr:I.' I'v'trif::'-'"'1,:•,t,j .. . :'''''''': :'A':*"' it' :.-..' .',1=0*., -' .% •••'.-...,•.:.:?-.1"„= ""/ , - `tt'llillitimi ?:/itab ::,4i..toiet„: ,4_,:,..: . : ::.,4.0.?;..-„; -,,.-..... "•,k.,„,:.•.0-.-- „„),,i;ti. soff„0„,,,,,,,,-.4114,4 ,-7,,,,,v".„‘1,-4 • • 4', -"'1' ' * '' •"' '.1 -`.: :'''- "*"" 01*'4 -kl;•-ic,-'5''":' ', ' ,4 '.- :Id''';a , ,..;,,,T..:-• . 4 ` .,.:i. •'.....ieLC. _......; 4. 4 ?.. i?r.,,:,./. • *4,1 . 14:''',4".4,'''.,%. '. " '11,, .,::°.X:.,• .*•-.'....". P . '" / `,4,10,- : ,, -.... . 1,;-..:::. 4',7 ' t". -4'. *.4:4*.* • ' . .'' '' '. ,,',..'4 ''1'1: 4.11.4.•&,,. .„ , " 4 ''.4"'**. It' **4 3%, •Cil`r*'",* •^' 416' ' * * • *•41 *4•PC*.*.". '-' ** ' '••• ' *- * • * *'** * 4,44-";.g:', Option 3 - - :' •'.* ...' - ' ; '-.:'. 't'''.44-et:,k:f'':.'. • :::.",:* .::•k: ' :'1* ''* ''':;:t1.W11.*;:: ...:t 7, '-i.` 2,', ''',..,.,'L.'„ 1-_-'- • ' ' ' * . '' " - '1"` - " " ---'-''" E-BIKE EDUCATION + ENFORCEMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS E-BIKE EDUCATION + ENFORCEMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS How can Huntington Beach promote e-bike use as a sustainable, safe mode of transportation while mitigating safety risks associated with bad behavior? Proposed Recommendations: ® Clear Policy Safe and Future-Focused Bike Infrastructure and Signage 0 Education El Data Collection ® Regulation/Targeted Enforcement 25 NEXT STEPS • Council Briefing/ Study Session to discuss draft recommendations Public Meeting to discuss draft recommendations Adoption of Mobility Plan Moore, Tania From: Cathey Ryder <the4ryders@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:21 PM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item 1 Thank you for providing the PowerPoint presentation for citizens to read and review. It is way past time for our city to have a workable and safe way for us to use our bicycles and our feet to move about in Huntington Beach. Please follow through on the recommendations that have been presented. CJ Ryder Voter, Homeowner and person who would like our city to have better mobility for all. Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 9/9,A2a3 Agenda Item No.• ._1.42;:-.2.01 Moore, Tania From: Diane <dianesgotopnions@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday; September 19, 2023 8:23 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: Agenda Item#1 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I am writing because I am excited to see you taking the time to learn about the Huntington Beach Mobility Plan. This is exactly the kind of thing a city council SHOULD be working on. HB is a city that is full of active people (whether residents or tourists)who enjoy the beautiful climate that allows for traveling by means other than a car. However, it is very important that the city plans well to make that movement as safe as possible for all. It's also an important piece to an overall climate plan. More people moving around without using cars prevents carbon emissions, prevents rubber particulates from tires, and reduces the required maintenance on the roads. I am particularly concerned about ensuring non-automobile travel on routes to schools be enhanced. I fondly remember walking or riding my bike to school as a child. It's an important step for a child to begin having some independence. But with traffic as it is today, most of us would never consider letting our children have that independence. Thank you, Diane James i Moore, Tania From: Steven C Shepherd Architect <steve@shepherdarchitects.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:40 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: HB IN MOTION - STUDY SESSION Attachments: 230919 - HB IN MOTION - SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR PLAN.pdf HB in Motion isn't about lycra-clad superathietes and fearless bike commuters. HB in Motion is about ordinary, everyday residents, and those residents have a message: Improve our streets NOW! • Let our kids safely walk or bike to school. • Let my elderly neighbors safely cross the street to get to our local park and • End the need for parents pushing strollers to sprint across wide arterial streets simply to get to the local playground. I see these ordinary HB residents-school children, senior citizens & parents- put in danger every day, and it is entirely unnecessary. We know how to make our streets safer, but in order to make this change, it must first be made a priority. I've heard a lot of talk about "protecting our children" and making our city safer. Well, if that's really what you want to do, we've gotta roll-up our sleeves and do the work to get it done! • Our school districts are doing the work by implementing the new e-bike safety and education programs. • Our Public Works department is doing the work by reconfiguring the beach path, Delaware St., and a short section of Springdale St. • What is our city council doing? Rather than just mindlessly complaining, I am here to help. I have attached a simple plan for a School Safety Corridor that would serve 18 different Huntington Beach K-12 schools with a pedestrian/bicycle route aimed at connecting our community and empowering our residents. If you're really serious about protecting our kids and improving public safety in Huntington Beach, this plan presents a straightforward and inexpensive way to do it. Steve Shepherd Huntington Beach 92646 1 n n = Schools and Districts . ) - �` F-_ , City of Huntington Beach HT] �ry{ I I. — �7. _ I -- _ , ■ ., —r— er,_ � -, M !:‘,.. E , ,. J i 4 __ ..,, _ 1_, 1„,_ -L t �N� s t_ „ , ,, , ) E /V.:7- i.: _t_ . vm s m�_"J4��: f:1r�� O .: �II!il .tl� .li al tl ll!illl;il! 1 TO 1 ) ) i ,II i) I is . , ) ' H allilil�;. C 1:,____ r Pe" a � r gip c _ , 7 ..... it \ .,':,.\,4.94 t ..,r- vsii CM T3 I ! :4'. - J r---MAP LEGEND School District Fountain Valley School Districtn City Boundary r,' L —Huntington Beach City School Dtstnct - Isobath TO II Lou Alamitos School District Major Street Centerline "" CM IOcean Vtew School District Street Centerline f--- I Westmtnscer School Dtstnct `\ 0^ ` / 1tri,_ 111111111 SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR SCHOOL SAFETY EXTENSIONS ', (DIRECT CONNECT TO SCHOOLS) SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR min BEACH PATH BYPASS ROUTE The SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR route is comprised of approximately 3-1/2 EXISTING K-12 SCHOOL OR COLLEGE miles of Bushard St,3 miles of Garfield Ave,&4 miles of Edwards St.As you can see,this route runs directly adjacent to 18 difference HB K-12 school campuses&within less than 1/2 mile of every Huntington Beach high F./A. AREA SCHOOL WITHIN SAFE 1/2TY CORRIDORMILEOFTHE school&community college. This route also runs within 1/2 mile of the beach,City Hall,the Seniors Center,the HB Sports Complex&Central Park c....:1 ir.2:i1 t : P.: F. 1-1-1 Ei. 'e .-.:-:---:- 1{ Il i 3 i`I i61 HEIL H9L I � 1 10 I. T1 .v:,., ..E,v g 4 i' LnL a- .D.1. gtw n. &,,, 1 29*= .31' 33'' 4_0'• 40• .- •. 39. --3B. .;57.:v— 34av 4gwv l7 48 u I -.----_ r.,... -Ai .1 ; ,...1 1.,,-_-. '- .. .. .1.----i, WI N 1 ' '� SLATER I i ll `r € 11O °° cv � � . , � • . � , . i � � � .-II � ; " _..�._I t . I _ _ 11.0 �.V�20,;,�z_��v �8 y 17�-� _ B . ili -`° IeV a i Cep: II u7i rAl! Thf„1 TALBB TI _ f1 M iI13 P_ = W ;-. _17 23' � 22'r-7-28..T1 ' .31-v. :73 S �' -.2g;Vt.. 35,,�� _. °. CD 11,1 993il7 � I JI �J --224vs +.1 4.is ,+�':S? 0�1 a 4 1 $3 1 en * jy, .,, „.., { itn ^T7 s� � GSLEI F6 ° ill• -. cr, ''''''''s,.....s.......„. Ill '„ l ). YORKTQ4 11 ) I ----11 . s g 1'18' 184' 26 _;29'. 31• -34`' 38.�— I-36, 4c`Ei' rp� .�: s �C. 'M r- Q: t bk. .4, 4,0„ . 0,>: A 'I H LTo I— • .. 1 ! 29' 31= 27- 9' 12'-_ - 17' -1 Z y, 1A' T i0 �1F1M b1'_ '`b' #4 . . 3_ ,1. =7 �15' .1 11:.�_'.1. :�,ay,�� `8,, 'a-si 11 t7rH fr' .... '''‘,, —3 ..6 10'=16•' �p. ,� s y�f - ^, a, �^,, n R COPY OF 2021 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP-OCTA MAP LEGEND SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR iiiiiiIIII'I SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR The SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR routing deliberately avoids high traffic volume arterials,commercial zones&streets with extensive existing on- SCHOOL SAFETY EXTENSIONS street parking. Instead, it seeks to utilizes lesser used arterials with low (DIRECT CONNECT TO SCHOOL) existing traffic volumes. This zig-zag route connects the farthest southeastern extent of Huntington 111111 BEACH PATH BYPASS ROUTE Beach to the farthest northwestern corner. The BEACH PATH BYPASS ROUTE parallels our Beach Path and provides an alternate route for reaching DTHB. Having an alternate route could lessen congestion along the existing Beach Path and thereby improving safety. SECONDARY ARTERIAL - TYP AIM a 4 — _. • • 177 I ._. ICI G' 2' S' NY 10' 10' 10' 10' 5' 2' A' Sidewalk Drive lens Drive lane Center turn lane Drive lane Drive lane Sa»waw Made with Streetmix EXISTING SECONDARY ARTERIAL In Huntington Beach,our existing arterial streets and roadways are primarily long, straight and level.The rights-of-way are wide and average vehicle speeds are high-easily exceeding the posted speed limits. Currently there is not a prioritized route for getting from one end of Huntington Beach to the other on foot or on a bicycle.The best case scenario for a cyclist attempting to navigate from southeast HB to northwest HB would be riding in a Class II Bike Lane on an arterials with significant traffic volume&vehicles traveling at 45mph and above.This is simply the way it is and has been for at least the last 20 to 25 years. A great deal of work has been done by HB Public Works to carve out more and more space for cyclists on our roadways. Unfortunately, these efforts are a patchwork of projects and do not provide a comprehensive route. SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR - TYP AIM a itI 1717 • 07117-1—: IIIMI NM OM- 001111=11.110.11111 11011111.M 6' ]• 12' 4• 10' 10' 10' 4' 12' 2' G•Sidewalk Bike lane Drive lane Center turn lane Drive lane Bike lane Sidewalk Made with Streetmix RECONFIGURED SECONDARY ARTERIAL So what can we do? In order to obtain better results(more riders), I suggest that all funding&design efforts be concentrated on developing a central ped/bike spine running across HB. Within the existing rights-of-way of this route we should prioritize pedestrians and cyclists and use all available methods including traffic calming, &"hard" protected bike and walking paths.Vehicle traffic will still use these streets, but it will be limited to narrow single lanes that make it clear this is a space for pedestrian&cyclist first rather than an typical auto-centric domain.This SCHOOL SAFETY CORRIDOR would be design to serve casual cyclists like school children, novices,senior citizens& persons with disabilities. Switzer, Donna From: Matthew Teneyck <matthewrteneyck@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:13 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Cc: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) Subject: PED/BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE NOW! Hello, I am messaging you to voice my thoughts on today's meeting topic as I will not be able to attend. Protected bike lanes offer several key benefits: Enhanced Safety:The primary advantage of protected bike lanes is the increased safety they provide for cyclists. Separating cyclists from motor vehicle traffic significantly reduces the risk of accidents and collisions. Encouraging Active Transportation:These lanes promote cycling as a sustainable and healthy mode of transportation. As we strive to reduce our carbon footprint and improve public health, encouraging more people to cycle is essential. Improved Accessibility: Protected bike lanes make it easier for people of all ages and abilities to cycle,enhancing mobility and access to various parts of the city. Economic Benefits:They can boost local businesses by making it easier for customers to reach shops and restaurants via bike.Additionally,the creation of bike lanes often enhances property values. However, recent events have highlighted the urgency of implementing and maintaining protected bike lanes.Just last week,a premeditated series of hit-and-runs occurred, resulting in the DEATH of one cyclist and the injury of two others.This devastating incident reminds us of the critical need to prioritize the safety of cyclists on our streets.We owe it to our community to provide safer alternatives for cyclists and pedestrians alike.Additionally I believe this is due to the mayor's harmful rhetoric of"The War on Cars" which I am asking we please put an end to. Thank you for your time and consideration. Let's work together to create a safer and more sustainable future for our community. 1 Switzer, Donna From: West Coast <coastw753@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:16 PM To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Bike Lanes &Charter Meetings Dear City Council, I am writing to you in support of upgrading our bike lanes, crosswalks, and other non-motorway trails throughout the city. What was done on Warner between Algonquin and PCH should be the norm for all bike lanes in HB. People should be able to walk and bike safely throughout our city, and at present,that is not the case. Bike lines are narrow and unprotected. It's dangerous for children to bike to school. If you want to protect the children,this is one way to actually do it. I'm also writing to express my disappointment with Tony Strickland, and how he handled the first charter review meeting. We all saw the vote on the last council meeting- it was moved and seconded by the council-the discussion leading up to the vote was specifically setting up the charter meeting's structure&you ALL agreed to have 3 minutes per person public comments, then council would discuss what they heard, and finally the public would have another one minute per person to comment afterwards. This structure was even confirmed by staff in their comments/presentation on the date of the meeting itself. (Check the video) At the charter review meeting, the majority of public comments were staunchly against the proposed amendments. But Tony didn't want to talk about any of it.Why? In fact the public frequently speaks out against matters proposed by members of this council (Gracey's library policy for example), yet the majority members seem to only vote for the interests and whims of those who donate to their campaigns- regardless of input from the public at large. Why is that? Although I was not able to be at the last charter meeting, I am a 20 year HB resident and absolutely agree that these charter amendments are not needed. Please abandon this endeavor and focus on bike lanes and potholes. You're creating a problem to fix, and giving way too much control to the City Attorney's office. 1 Moore, Tania From: Estanislau, Robin Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:32 PM To: Moore, Tania Subject: FW: Study Session on the Mobility Implementation Plan - HB in Motion Survey Results From: Russell Toler<russell.toler@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,September 19, 2023 3:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity- hb.org> Subject:Study Session on the Mobility Implementation Plan - HB in Motion Survey Results Re: Study Session on the Mobility Implementation Plan - HB in Motion Survey Results Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, I'm sorry that I'm not able to make it to the study session at 4pm today to speak in person, so I hope you'll take the time to read my letter. These comments are about mobility improvements throughout the city - not on the beach path. The latter is important to resolve, but it really is a different topic. My only immediate opinion is that "slow zones" is a great idea- since beach paths are like any other thoroughfare where it's the "turbulence" (differing speeds in proximity)that makes it stressful and dangerous. Huntington is generally flat, has near-perfect weather, has a strong and cool walking/biking culture, and most importantly - has a lot of people trying to get around on foot and bike, despite the often hostile, car-centric street environment they're in. It is also a place where drivers are regularly crashing into people who are walking or biking, inanimate objects, and other cars. Every time I'm in Huntington I marvel at the sheer amount of right of way that is wholly dedicated to the fast- movement of cars. Given the high speeds of cars compared to human-scaled modes (walking and bicycling), this space must remain vacant at all times - leaving the spaces always off limits for anything or anyone else, and leaving the edges bleak and uncomfortable. Although it's been like this for our whole lives, this is really a 100- year-old experiment in city planning and governance. I understand that some of the leadership in Huntington is concerned about a potential erosion of driving i convenience. However,the freedom to zip around the city in a car is really an instance of freedom to only a portion of the population. It comes with a significant amount of costs (expensive infrastructure, crashes), and comes at the expense of the convenience of everyone else who would like to be free to move about the city - those who don't, can't, or shouldn't drive. Further, whether people appreciate the single-mode transportation system currently in place or not, it forces people to be dependent on driving (whether they should drive or not) and all its costs(whether they can afford it or not). It should also be noted that making streets comfortable for everyone does not have to affect driving convenience at all. When you design a city for cars it fails for all, including drivers. When you design a multimodal city it works for all, including drivers. - Brent Toderian, Former Vancouver Chief Planner I would strongly encourage the leadership to adopt the appropriate policies and invest in making other modes more safe, comfortable, and convenient for more people. With the amount of space in Huntington's ROWs,this would often not require any reallocation of traffic lanes: lanes can be 10'-11'wide and have the added benefit of curbing speeding (thus making crashes less likely and less severe when they happen). The results from the survey are clear that people feel safest on bike lanes where there is physical protection. Intersections are obviously tricky, but luckily Huntington doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. While cities have been retrofitting intersections all over the world to make them more safe,the National Association of Transportation Officials has even released a free guide on the topic. Here in Costa Mesa, we recently installed leading pedestrian intervals at key intersections throughout the city. This has really improved the comfort of people crossing the street on foot! To say a quick word on e-bikes, here are my thoughts: • Don't let this topic hijack the discussion on safe streets. Cars make streets dangerous and have for decades. The introduction of e-bikes should not overshadow the task of resolving this. • Through a myriad of ways,but especially our infrastructure and site planning,we've spent decades sending our kids poor messaging: that driving is what serious, responsible people do, and biking is what irresponsible and obnoxious people do. If we were to invest a fraction of the amount of time and money and energy that we spend on trying to make "safe" driving environments and "safe" drivers into making safe bicycling infrastructure and safe riders,maybe we wouldn't have such a problem. But our education efforts are likely to end in frustrating embarrassment when we have to explain to riders the absurdities that are actually expected of them(like taking a lane in fast traffic) or that there is no reasonable thing to do with themselves other than get into a car when their infrastructure disappears. In other words -what else do we expect than wild behavior?I was lucky enough to visit Germany and the Netherlands over the summer, and although bikes are ubiquitous and e-bikes are available, I did not see the reckless e-bike problem that we see here -at all! Please don't dismiss my or any other safe streets advocate, thinking that we're part of some larger agenda. This conversation is purely about wise stewardship of our public spaces. This is not, and should not be made a partisan issue. I believe that Huntington can do much better, and I hope that you can be a part of the improvement. As a final note, I want to emphasize the importance of doing whatever you can to decrease car-dependency before any significant increases in population, as it will be much more difficult to fix things later. 2 Thanks for reading and have a great day! Russell Toler Board Member, Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets Vice Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission 3