Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Approve the June 2024 HB in Motion - Huntington Beach Mobili
\sNTINGTo 2000 Main Street, of .�a0"4 k.,,tie Huntington Beach,CA 92648 • City of Huntington Beach rAPPROVED 7-0 File #: 24-633 MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Eric G. Parra, Interim City Manager VIA: Chau Vu, Director of Public Works PREPARED BY: Bob Stachelski, Traffic and Transportation Manager Subject: Approve the June 2024 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Statement of Issue: Completion of the Mobility Plan was a Strategic Plan element adopted by the City Council. Staff along with our consulting team led by Sam Schwartz Consulting has recently completed a 2.5-year effort to prepare "HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan" (Mobility Plan). The Mobility Plan aims to enhance access and mobility in Huntington Beach by accommodating changes in mobility needs and travel patterns, ultimately making Huntington Beach a safer, cleaner, easier-to- navigate city. Financial Impact: Approval of the plan will not result in any direct expenditures outside of traditional operating and capital improvement program efforts. However, an approved Mobility Plan will help to support future applications for grants and other outside funding in programs that specifically target comprehensive transportation improvements that address the needs of all users of the street right-of-way. Recommended Action: Approve the 2024 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the recommended action and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: Completion of the Mobility Plan was a Strategic Plan element adopted by the City Council. Over the past 2.5 years, staff and the consultant team led by Sam Schwartz have completed an extensive effort to evaluate the current conditions of the transportation systems within the City of Huntington Beach and identify strategies that will help to better serve the mobility needs of residents and visitors throughout the City. A key principle in the development of this plan is to improve the overall balance City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/11/2024 powere9174 LegistarM File #: 24-633 MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 of facilities that are available to provide a more equitable system supporting motor vehicles, transit, bicyclists, pedestrians, disabled access, micromobility options, and other emerging forms for mobility. As part of the development of "HB In Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan" thorough research, studies, analyses, in-person field observations, and community engagement was conducted by a planning team to assess the city's existing conditions and identify the community's mobility needs. The planning team conducted two analyses to evaluate the City's existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure conditions and level of connectivity. The project team conducted a Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis to better understand the current pedestrian experience in Huntington Beach and identify neighborhoods or areas that would benefit from design that promotes or enhances walking trips. The analysis considers several inputs including traffic volume, posted speed limit, number of vehicle lanes (as a proxy for crossing distance), roadway functional classification, traffic control device, mid-block crossing locations, and pedestrian crossing islands to estimate the level of stress a pedestrian may experience while crossing the street at every crosswalk (marked and unmarked) throughout the city. The group identified buffered bike lanes and leading pedestrian intervals as near term or "low hanging fruit" options to address the needs of the community. They also identified longer term projects like separated bike lanes and mid-block flashers as potential options, in addition to phased projects, or capital improvement projects like a shared use path (separated), and median refuge island. Additional analysis identified options for lowering stress for the bicycle network, including new traffic control options for two-way stops, and high intensity activated crosswalk beacons, or if warranted, full signalization. This plan envisions achieving incremental improvements to the mobility system with time allocated for future community engagement and evaluation in order to gain support for improvements and secure grant funding. On July 17, 2024 the Public Works Commission adopted a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Mobility Plan. Approval of the plan by the City Council will ultimately bolster efforts by staff to compete for outside funding that targets a balanced approach to street design such as Complete Streets and Active Transportation Funding. Many grant programs either require or provide additional scoring points to applicants that have an adopted plan that supports multimodal transportation system strategies. The Mobility Plan will also help guide the design efforts on some of our traditional street rehabilitation improvement efforts by providing a resource for staff on various treatments/methods that can be incorporated into planned rehabilitation projects. Adopting this Mobility Plan shows the city's commitment in advancing local transportation and fostering a healthier, more connected, and resilient community. Environmental Status: This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Strategic Plan Goal: Goal 6 - Infrastructure Investment, Strategy D - Undertake major planning efforts including Fleet City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/11/2024 powere414,LegistarTM File #: 24-633 MEETING DATE: 9/17/2024 Capital Replacement Plan, Mobility Master Plan and Infrastructure Report Card to adequately anticipate and prepare for future infrastructure needs. Attachment(s): 1. June 2024 HB In Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 2. HB In Motion - Appendix 3. Huntington Beach In Motion Presentation City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/11/2024 powere417c7y LegistarTm r , 7 1 .. _.....`r.. .,.,., r„. ,• „"•,.:'- - -'-i _,-i�.= F'_.,J_3k'� {'s 5 r1 A-�., -'s'^,�,,,'�'3'>`_'=`- �.='a'„ "E;`w F �a:4:,,"';r-p ..� .,,.t: ,_, _.�... ..:. Fk.i. = ._,ar_ '•>,_`.",,' = �`. 'b;s-°.� �>,-+-_,tYs,r10:N.1,141 . _ �__.: - =✓,;`°s'�'P-t d' - , #^r=ire. .- ., 5�. �.� ... ,, „- »z��a,u;rui':.F,. -_ a�r�=,�'�= -.__ g`' _�.��.;e'� r. , , . r.:: '::.;. � s :x'^.;;�:.��:...,....... , ,..�. , »+"...,��_��'-_`F,.-,:''-�-=.:s>•_ - .-;i::x;�, - Win=—= - '°-a - - __�'=�€T.:�. - k,';1,.,, r,"' - .m.�, a c"rrc..:.:::,...,: .; ,..:... 'F... .,a�:.. .::. :. �,3=s�° '�" �,tr.ay -- - - .a v-"�"r.5� - ,,F _ _— _-;'a�x,dl'i" .* ... k .. ..:..... €:..:..::.. . -'' s.-2---+ =5"r-;, '-:;.1,I�u:,�_,' :,'"i`:�->, .-5$'" .�a'P :a,a�nlr'�I palYs:��kt�. ?'', :°>',zv ,z��'�-." r i8,d,."};it,�:, .. .. Nw in M „':fir ' = g'r „r;'"fir, E-.—` VAV - .,�w,, _ Irk., :a-, .,,>x.: ...i. rr"5.:,.,o,k --�.>-tsf�.r-, = _ - - ,.i, -rw r'"t;:.; __- __ �_,a��+yff a „a,''1 ,.�'s:"- -Pr" _- >�=x�__nY�,.�€,�.,;r' I u,C;':i'R,u,__�';ulr': ..,.a .. .,Q � ' �' :..r �.-� ... :�.....,, ° '�- 4- =s=-�'-s-, �"lal 14��nN.� '-c�-,," ' �'=��k-''.?=Tr-_- - -_- - - ".�-„t t'�„r- .r � slot i'I x _ :..:... � �,.rat ,;.'• .yyam„ :.e.. i,„,I„� .u,..,.., :� -_;=--_ t h,i� - - "';'�,',`t�=- =,- �"� .�£ 'sy- '2_ __ - - - r. . -- .,�. ray ¢.�¢ dS' ..�y.' :..-. �-,_:':..-:s;,, • .' '^3�'. <:.�:,x =L>xa �h«-"_ - -' -=,s:, '' 7 .`:#!".:9'.? 's�ynEA3.' �e":q "k* _ � y i', 41" _ _ - .'s°,�u "'n�°" _ - ::-6 .,,h'-A� ,r:f F .:,, - _ .ff�' 4:f'. .'3..'F x.' -rxz.&!L ':Po `--; :11, 0-' - - s„k'.° x'.:. '-'u+�'!"5. `1C .:h �„�� 3- r. $' :,ai =_�_ -3i�'iio'.i tt�, :_ -• _ - _�:- ' l _ _ _ '*.g a •, . , j • ° Kip .rks - - � � .9r:,: to ,. .... ,�:.• - "fir ,_� :. <., , � �-.�.5:.:::: ...:. .......x� -. Tar"'gt,u7a'��i� -.;Pit .y. , s ,qqe. 4 -z=r=._.'..=:.a .,..!fie.,,.. �,_ _ _ �=-s - " . ..sr r.. .i 5. y". a. z . '''A'' " - L �`' �' '�i '�P.yyY ..�:..�,Pf• !b° . f �=_. __ __ -<'tl-y=_ • "_ l,�`'-`3- ',�.�5, , • " ,+,1+.•w+ ' x. • .. .•, r:4M S --___ li i'9:iiiB - `e ':' �s a ',C., 'ac'•, • Sg sj4 iI =+.�.et eS`.+. r Fx -�Y,Ii;a4:G� x „np':`---_- ▪ - - •ii• tt„ .>�,�iq;,[�.::�°° �: '?Y.�, -�r�..::s,��,bd'. .f ,,y. _ 1- ,P • i ee((,,������ Ti,i�� —- 5 -- <�4' 6.�v�e 'tka'4r4:Aa r b,la �°''t� .} � ".S`: - __ - .t-'€s• - :.°,.sb+ne•un ,k'.�x`W .,y` �";<i ,,>i«.:`��i .y 1. .:at: __-=ti�r'',�Lris'" =- - _-▪ - -_- ••> "�a.Y � ,ter': �,P ,q,,, ,�," _ __ - .q,''''' _ _-;r 81;,A x-`h°t" .g i,.. 1' , a s.+x+:v a.c er.t".d�d8'e 'G::r.'s �'r`. ,w• •.,�• :f c. �"'i' -�.��5 t' -.�=_`=�`F.�W;r:�Y .7r,,�. =��k9t; �,•�;_„ ti",; ^o�v" • .+,a', �F`-_. p � --_ -_ �7q S-„��` _ _ _r"�r It' 'ill.' .e L y - ,�i yy5y ^ xR•.M -.s _---"-- 1' - __ :,?,'' • .i r.-'.li e s Yti b"Yn^ ik•'L$'` ,ter !'t.. __ y''µl..: Li�ii"iillt = • e-..., e.'i . s=,_'=-_�_____ xaa'Lrilda JN' y 4a•"k RI � t G1:., . +at. aR flt 4 � ,'r.:.2 .,.-:- yy 0 '', x:t•:^• ___ iePm,Ny,- ii�,,: 3 a - ' ,'„ 4' .. } r y 'i ,»1 ,r»�' P "t r- i ="a ,r a a'> 4 y y •• • • • °''g'' :• t i� iv, }fib. 'w..t, •• • v .iP r , _ , R� t ,.. ,•.„. v my • art :..: ..: .,} �, s... i :: i::. .. 4� ,..,„...... .. 4.,:opv......,. .40:•„••;::,, ,........ „1,:••..::.•• .....,„. :,.....„, :„. :.. ..,..:•:•‘:::„•••. •• ••, ,. ,.... ..:: , •:„.„.,•:::•.::•,,, .... . ,, ••„:„.:••:.::... 4 g$. . . yard,.,. . .. . qy- , i ...?;, ,,,,.,,,,,, ,. • 4Y a • .'"H= :Y L gs. • 4 ♦ '�Y , t :. .. , fi y - ;� .pub{,A s, f+' se.. -,# I i :a 'T f . WOW 1°00LE -B k 1 1 itY 4 a ' A TYLin Company DESIGN IN MOTION :';. °"• ; 478 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 2 • Tab ! e of Contents 03 Introduction 07 Huntington Beach Today 16 Stakeholder Engagement 21 Mobility Plan 46 Appendix A Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Calculation Approach 55 Appendix B Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan (MIP) Toolbox Memorandum 85 Appendix C Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification and Network Recommendations Memorandum 92 Appendix D Bicycle Network Recommendations and Implementation Memorandum 106 Appendix E Beach Path Observations and Recommendations Memorandum 479 � 1 A ' t t ! 444 4.4 k. £ � _ 111 II _h .7iiiiit. -,,,„„,.... u. ►�1 � " 1 i,. e i,� l a ,fio �r { � ' id lir k ' A n ONO INTRODUCTION . . _......,, 4 , ' 1. ,. ii,........... . ....... . . .,, .., . , .. ,, . , . .. , _ . .. _ . . . .... . . ,....,,-..,-...,',4„.141, '� s: �,. w , ,,,'..,-,..--,‘..:,..-A e . r. 3»* ' .-,cam I I HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan - 4 � I Purpose and Need The Cityof Huntin ton Beach initiated- g the development of HB in Motion to explore improving and expanding g mobility options. The Mobility Plan aims to enhance access and mobility in Huntington Beach byaccommodating changes in mobility needs and travel • patterns, ultimately making Huntington Beach a safer, cleaner, easier-to-navigate city. , d I - • I � 481 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 5 nat is alobHityWPlan? Historically, cities have focused on creating traditional transportation plans. These plans typically focus on car travel and seek to reduce commute times for cars. Today, cities like Huntington Beach are developing mobility plans, which by contrast focus on the broader concept of mobility, encompassing walking, biking, transit, and vehicles. Further, mobility plans take a more holistic approach to urban planning by considering the interactions between these different modes and addressing underlying factors that influence travel behavior. Finally, mobility plans aim beyond just reducing travel times and often aim to enhance safety and equity, reduce emissions, improve public health, and foster economic development. Huntington Beach Community Vision The Mobility Plan was developed to support Huntington Beach's Community vision. In 2040, the Cityof Huntington Beach°`is... <� a desirable destination for all people to live,work, play, and visit. Huntington Beach is a a healthyand,safe,:famil oriented communit with,flourishin` schools and accessible i l � y- Y g i 'community servicesrfor all ages. Natural resources are protected, while parks, open` 3 spaces, and the beach provide a variety of opportunities. Community members E travel easily.by automobile, by"bicycle, on foot, and using transit Well-maintained, high-quality infrastructure and cutting-edge technology help all' l businesses throughout the city prosper in a culture of innovation, offering a variety `. of job opportunities for residentsand the regon.,Development is guided to ensure •_ responsible growth while preserving and enhancing'our community character,the beach, Surf City culture, and the environment ' T-he community andyrits ;priorities are:resilient,withstanding the challenges posed 1 i by a changing coastline and economic base,'and'°shifting demographics.The City;in ipartnership with:the community, is sustainable - consideringothe`needs of future. l generations while protecting what is valued today Tejo N, & 482 • HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 6 P ' an Goa 's and Guiding Princip ' es Informed by the stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) engagement, and in-person field observations,the project team developed goals and principles to guide the development of HB in Motion.The community expressed interest in focusing the project on the following key goals.. Plan Goals Guiding Principles • Improve citywide bicycle and pedestrian Balance. Balancing the mobility needs of network options and safety for all users residents,visitors, and emergency services is • Improve the comfort and design of the critical to creating a vibrant city. Beach Path for all users • Build upon the City's long term mobility, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit planning O ple en atlon LE . Identifying efforts strategies and implementansble system • Ensure that mobility systems accommodate improvements that help facilitate a balanced both traditional and innovative and equitable mobility system for our residents, transportation modes (e.g. micromobility businesses, and visitors,with a variety of and shared mobility) practical mobility options. Future Proofing. Rethinking street design to allocate space bikes, electric scooters, skateboards, and future micromobility devices. i ,� °*6'e� s ,,b;.,`�,y ^�' 9 d•�g'"i "�A's 2�';vd^a` - „ e'� "S' x,.;, -• ..<r - , . °. a �'a° .. t° ye r i '�, �• ,..�Sax ,*°," V s * a s. 6C 4 ,, a �f m yp ,x t: ; ^ �.«R .Y ,$,' g t 'f.n, R :, at k.:Vv.'*i t-N- ' a $ •.e% x '�F s q ,' rqk t, ec ` i.,.. :x" " ^q.- s z::.- sa •u• fig ed '.,j%tV" '* '-fin ram , -`.ram` `'�, - ^t=f'�',p ti,' •A d n rte44:1:1',a',;;44.„14,44•44A,44,".?0,AC4.1,J,,..;,•',:,%:,*•••Z VA r1,,,,,%5X., VPVLat.„Vittl4Vs,..0=Id 4,,,, ',,,„:4 fAtX4...ft '.g. , 4.01", V.,A 4 � 1 l r, fi fir"' G $ "` ,; .. k �'V -'s' `� - : � LOOD "+ra i` ' c fat» A a � .� ��N'L� 6 � � � � �+ � �-. �? ��, x-+x,,,,31.11.4�' ipa ��.a,,#�.�,�-" �7 ^�� Y k�rr it °-.fir-a �,� : e "�f r E :::',.,i',.- -in.1..,,„4. - i '",: ;4;1' .64:,,n,, ''.4 „:4-_-'1::_,,,,';',:,*,:k' ,,T.:.,11 -7,-:,,,*,1,. 't,e,"4.7.:i';'; ".','=“1:4:4,-.„1„=. F,-'* °""-- „Nr,‘',--4,1=>; -, '',",,, .t, '' ' ------. fi ',.� Via t - 41111 ji ., zit, — � e'Y, -Y . e Saybrook Lane Class II Bike Lane ° " �. Source:Toole Design Group ,!A 483 . . .•: ...:,,A , ‘? 41 :.,...„, ip . ;1e ...., . :.,..; 1. '1:--‘'''' ''. V"" -a'r ,,,.•","•".7.,1;% , *,.k. • 1„,'•,:;,. WI,241..:4z..-4'4'.'4.-'t ...' _.......---1 ...44.:,Wi. .. 0)-., lik:rio#4,--:!t-.i,.•.•..:`,..,-6,0cvetigt,,,, .-1.- t,x,.,,, ' 'Zi',.;., ,.i.•,.,,;..' st, ,,t-.3 41111Pg. .let.4 ' •1t.' ..qc, ''.,;•• '4'''''' .- t i ' a ' A,''''''''s'''''l''''T ''sri'' ':'...,'',- ‘ •, ., 4. t, ,P". Illi " ,7.4....4,"461$444... # - '. . illiaz„ 1 4•,,4...--,,.1 V ## •IL i ,.. • :#4f 4‘s&..A.,'..L...''-e. , I HUNTINGTON BEACH TODAY ...,..,_ 7_ .4 • ''s,. 4, . .... , ,.„., .. . - \ . A: . , , -. : ., 4\ „ . a 1, a C .. .,,,,,,,,- , , :„. ,..., ,x , ..,,,....., . • - .., . -4e.....i. , . ei;:•.' V' • ' ' ' ' 04114 ' $ ...'P'.. ;i., 4;' t. ....;:ir,.g ' r, .1,}.,*.“' ''''r•' •••4\v•SS` ..l'As-;:,..4 • . , etc7, - . / ,i., - ,', .4 4;• . , ...... ,4-, 4---,,,,, 4....:..., I , , '''' 4. ,, "..,.-- ''?" 'if, 11, , "':: .'' itig. - .'',..,. `.,:t`s. J.7.• - ..* si., .' • •'„.•er,„ s'''' ../.. ' ' • ' '''' l''PIZ. ''41A ' s,.' 1 .. , . . ''...,- , . , ... .., - .". V.,::" .. . , • 'SIP.'flr'f'.': IttaN ':4 : •4 1" '' - .... $ ' $ ,..„,*,, .7,..-:'v,,. ..;• -•'.t-tt.:,:+:., - . , , •- • ,s ., * ,„,,,,,, "',„,V.,.,„,„ •.:'": 0 t: #.t# . . .- . , - .., .. _ . , . V NAVVVVISk 7.!"-- .'":-,... . .., ,t. 4,1: ": . ,, — , ..N., 4 „„...... . 484 .., _ - HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 8 Today, Huntington Beach is known for its world-class beaches, diverse family- friendly community, and popular downtown. The City attracts visitors from around the world each year to enjoy the weather, beaches, shopping and signature events. The City is experiencing steady population and economic growth, which is expected to continue. Despite the growth in population and tourism that will put greater demand on the city's mobility system, Huntington Beach remains dedicated to preserving its beach city culture, protecting its natural resources, enhancing quality of life, and ensuring all residents and visitors have the flexibility to travel around Huntington Beach safely and efficiently. Demogranics The City of Huntington Beach provides a distinctive mix of coastal resources, a large residential harbor and marina,1,300 acres of protected wetlands, residential neighborhoods, and retail.The majority of the city is comprised of residential neighborhoods with mixed land uses. Population: Employment 208,000 106,000 jobs are available in the city.The employment Median Age: distribution, shown in the graphic below, is similar to Orange County as a whole. 40 years old with 42% of the population between ages 18 Huntington Beach employment distribution: and 49 and 17% over the age of 65. Disadvantaged ' communities Retail ` While only one census tract in Huntington �� Beach is considered a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) and two tracts scored under statewide median household b ` income ($56,982), there are significant health outcome disparities within the city, Agriculture, particularly diabetes and obesity prevalence, transportation related to mobility and physical activity. and construction Service occupations (government,sales and office occupations, and information) 485 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 9 VehicuIa Ira ftic Roadways in Huntington Beach are generally laid out on a north-south, east west grid system, with the exception of the Downtown area where roadways trend northeast-southwest paralleling the Pacific Ocean.The roadway system is organized in.a hierarchical fashion based on characteristics such as mobility and access, minimum roadway width made up of public right-of- way width and pavement width, typical number of lanes, and two-way daily traffic volume. Intersections The City classifies its intersections into "Principal" and "Secondary" intersections. Principal intersections have strategic importance and remaining signalized intersections are considered secondary. Based on a 2017 intersection level of service analysis, most intersections in Huntington Beach have a level of service at C or above, meaning they have less than 35 seconds of average delay per vehicle. For the 11 intersections where future traffic operations were forecast to be below established level of service standards, a set of recommended improvements were identified and the intersections are forecasted,to meet the performance standards with mitigation. '' a, �,Y_- .fir , , .'�,-dr fi f x ' _ sr 11 ° �W t is ` Level of = F�� 7 , 3f"` l � , 4� k Level of (LOS) measures s ` , iC1 ' � . a driver's ex service on the` road t �w a,. ,c g `sue and at intersections, based on 44 l k.� , 0 " -, ", ;' _ ��• the speed and number.of cars . i r " rf I,_ using the road.The LOS of a road , ,� '`�` . - ? . is designated by a letter grade of r � i" i �: i A-(free flow) to F (near grid lock). � � ,`g. " - , i > , k4 �� �� r.. . .te e `_ � -- Q p - mat 7 _ ° a { '- 5 T� �. - - �� e,,.- k ti �s - 'af 6 , i.. s. . m mod � ' 4 � • u �- _ 4 .fir - i :rn t ..> _ = s. 4$ py Ba ng. °="w a t, + °,-§ - -i c "7 # 7� k;j g4- tee., E. _ s �W' 4 .mad. ,..j �°. e 4' " r t Pt . ; 5.' Sias ,. M1,, J ,,- $'gaa�° f 'LOS°m FORCED FLOW `$° o ° d €�£ s �e Very hw.peels,Y-9,•?mgs, xeeed° � �`° : capac y.,bong delays.with.stopnd 90 ,.. °,; ' traffic, ap HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 10 Commute m Trips Commute trips comprised 9.2% of all trips Huntigton Beach commute modes distribution: in 2021, likely a lower percentage than today due to lingering impacts of the 6%Work Covid-19 pandemic. from home 2% Other Because automobiles have fa-1-;";Biking historically been prioritized in 1%Walking er funding and street design, the r , 1%Transit majority of commute trips are completed by personal vehicle. As a result, the average commute 89o/O time by car is 28 minutes whereas the average commute Automobile time by transit is more than double that at 66 minutes. Huntington Beach Average Commute Avg Commute Time (mins) Avg Commute Distance (miles) Automobile 28.5 12.9 Transit 66 13.3 Walking 10 0.34 Biking 21 2.2 Orange County Average Commute Avg Commute Time (mins) Avg Commute Distance (miles) Automobile 26.7 12.9 Transit 53.9 12.7 Walking 13 0.37 Biking 21.2 3.2 487 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 11 ! aW "t . # , ++ter.-�rr '"a. � �.' +e 01 A ' a A� 8'y' .1i- • }" •q t, µ � � ` � i1 -.4-471 '-', \- ',,f: 'i :;,„° }" 4j §; y vim`, "" ' ,a !.r . ,-aw,.:+"b - .'$ ,,�" g+ a � ; yd � .r g b "� ,a d @ 4" Y.&', .X` -. 3 i. RA#V. � l ica-Avenue Bike Boulevard , 4.11 Source Toole Design Group _ . .. .... . `""' ems .. - as _ fig , Parking Local Roadway Safety Plan Downtown Huntington Beach is a popular i � destination for beachgoers and shoppers.As , In September`2022, Huntington Beach such, high demand for the limited parking in prepared a Local Roadway Safety Plan ., Downtown is dynamic and seasonal. Based on �LRSP�.TheLRSP analyzedcollision the City's 2009 parking study, parking demand data, assessed infrastructure needs in the downtown area is below 70% of capacity through ar inventory of roadway system when schools are in session. On summer elements, and identified roadway safety ; weekdays, parking facilities are approximately l solutions on a citywide basis.They 80% occupied and 90%to 100% occupied 1 fulfilled the following purposes: during summer weekends with demand exceeding capacity during summer holidays identified the highest occurring and special events. On-street parking in the collision types and the roadway neighborhoods just inland of the beach in characteristics contributing to the downtown also experience very heavy parking demand along with the metered spaces collisions `. " along the Pacific Coast Highway. Since 2009, ! Identified dominant collision the City has modified some of the on-street , patterns. parking with new bike racks replacing a few $ Proposed safety countermeasures to parking spaces, designating a few accessible address collision patterns. on street parking spaces, and constructing a ' Prioritized safety improvement new parking lot at the corner of 1st Street and projects based on benefit/cost ratio Orange Avenue. and other considerations. '; je ctam a Safety I Although not involvedthe inpro the development of I the deveiop LRSP,thent of LRSPthe informed thed While some parts of the city are highly m e bike and pees accessible and provide a comfortable active recommendations contained in thitrian s transportation environment, high vehicle i Plan• ` traffic volumes and speeds are present along many of the major arterials, including the State ° Highways of Beach Boulevard and Pacific ___ ___ �� Coast Highway, along with local arterials like Brookhurst,Adams, Goldenwest, Warner, and Edinger. 488 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 12 Sustainabe Modes Huntington Beach offers a multi- Figure 1. Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress ,,,,:,1:,:::::.Ty, modal transportation network H::::ii7..,74.;: including roadways, bikeways, equestrian trails, sidewalks and r Z walking paths, and waterways. ,� � ' �� ° � ,;:::"; �f The current state of sustainable ��'=, t mode services and infrastructure y -BO`'s AY , -,_ ( - �- inform what improvements would i{ 3i ,=-11 make the most positive impact _" I , throughout the city. �x �� `AE '� � 2� ''° "r�,';',' '- "' .' '� ilr i tp g r:,fII— V .E -- Per: ' �' � � 4rWar A r *"" li i`b-:.l'i � -, c t Pack "--- `,,,(�'���x C , .4## /VII' `LSD ,iiiii "*" ,rr `,,, _�t"4'stat 4 �. fat E 7 I -: t -_ 6r IA Huntington Beach's current r. lbe Awe , 1 ' 1. roadway network consists of - a} -6�U 3 7 s J Ave -t collector and arterial roadways that ". _ *ry have relatively high vehicle volumes - „,, e 0 �L.sarffeld deg . and high posted speed limits that \ 7 �`� :=; .Lv 11 P contribute to stressful pedestrian . ��'?QQ' ��,� "� ` . - PF '`q m .. r ?4 r , n-�o -".Aid ms A`Y4 ". crossing experiences.There are ;, � ,,�.����� �,� ��, �a�, also long distances between high- 3 a , � , , , _, A ,,:vir � /, stress crosswalks and the nearest r -� ,; _ Y B�Atla�ta a€� Rig.�a �� low-stress crosswalks. In general � :!:,,,,,,;;,::,:::--,:: g Pedestrian Level .,- t rl� � m Huntington Beach's current network of Traffic Stress ��', �a�vEe a Pacific v � provides very basic pedestrian PETS N J. � OGeaR� �ann�oggm facilities and is not designed for * �PLTS2. "� ;,� u " ;4; PETS3 , vx - pedestrian comfort, nor does it i .. .PETS 4 ` encourage walking or rolling. 1 . IP Hi9n=stresscrossIng = �� i over 1/&mile from —bus Route nearest low-stress crossing -:spark ooi The project team conducted or traffic signal, a Pedestrian Crossing Stress Nearestioirr-stressor, Somm signalized crossing>1/4 mile away ` _ Commercial/Retail Analysis to better understand the current pedestrian experience in o os 1 s zrn Huntington Beach and identify t��_ tea I HantingtonBeach Mobility Plan neighborhoods or areas that would ___ . benefit from design that promotes or enhances walking trips.A highly connected and permeable transportation network that promotes walkability is one with ai high number of intersections, and/ or short distances between street crossings.The analysis considers several inputs including traffic volume, posted speed limit, number of vehicle lanes (as a proxy for crossing distance), roadway functional classification, traffic control device, mid-block crossing locations, and pedestrian crossing islands to estimate the level of stress a pedestrian may experience while crossing the street atl every crosswalk (marked and unmarked) throughout Huntington Beach.The results of the analysis are depicted in Figure 1. 489 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 13 Bicycle Network Bicycle Network Analysis This analysis identifies how connected areas The project team conducted two analyses to are to other areas and destinations within evaluate Huntington Beach's existing bicycle biking distance (defined as a 10-minute bike conditions and level of connectivity. ride or 1.67 miles).The analysis quantified the level of low-stress connectivity between people Bicycle Level of Traf ac Stress (L�'�) and destinations.The results of this analysis indicate that,while neighborhoods including Analysis Yorktown,Adams, and Sunset Beach, as well This analysis identified the stress of street as Downtown are well connected within networks for people biking based on the the neighborhood or district,there are also built environment, traffic speed, and traffic numerous high stress arterials that prevent volume.The results of this analysis indicate connectivity between these neighborhoods that Huntington Beach's high-speed and and districts. high-volume arterial streets create barriers and prevent the numerous pockets of low-stress The results of this analysis indicate that streets found in neighborhoods from forming a Huntington Beach should aim to reduce the connected network. While most of the arterials stress of these arterials so that the otherwise in Huntington Beach have Class II Bike Lanes well-connected pockets of the city have better present, these are insufficient to create a low- access to each other. stress environment due to the high vehicle speeds and multi-lane road configurations. Detailed descriptions of the approach to calculate the Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of The analysis identified options for lowering Traffic Stress can be found in Appendix A. stress for the bicycle network, including: • Lane reduction treatments where travel lanes can be narrowed or reduced to allow roadway space to be reallocated and upgraded to Class IV Bike Lanes. • New traffic control options for two-way stops, including high intensity activated crosswalk beacons, or if warranted, full signalization. lArit :, , Infe "'VS-, ' A X r 32611 , iaHG a p 4 w ,:),'„,,, Ji,);' 4..*.:„-! 0.,',-?,,,,,H',4,-. 'T,---r,er-,'-:',.:-:.:1*.',,,,--":.d ik,',1C--,,42-',:- ,,, ,r* -• '' -4N'VYkki-e-p. ,-,,i,„ , ,i _, ,..„.,,-„t ,, %,, , 117, Q:# t tom ,.. ... ' r5 t,» * g t : ;, L. _.f`f r-'",. �,iIf •1i „R:It- '°' - '"'. + n At ' `'''''V� I'll'ro ° t a ' . , € �d , i e x d .+"'s..�E...+w�.'— - -$ ask' -° �1 d¢9 V. ,y �� �1 tP '. a 7,-- -:7" • - Atlanta Avenue Class 11 Buffered Bike Alf • source:Toole Design Group �'° a8' 490 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan , 14 Figure 2. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress t • �� j r I Iii-Ct`t � � IEL :++ � i 1H i _.� n Balsa mite x !'�` 1 3 C' � m #y. i� �� E McFad,enAve !Zip I� .ate i t f t_ 11" ' , �- I Edinger Ave a niL:tl +� r _ i I, . ,„ „,„,,,,,,,, / ;:, "ji Heil1 vo �ri.. II,- i � ®I _ °:11 ,......rear:...111 _�`, square `� pari 3 . 'tea � I � � t�"I ' c C v a � d_ SfJYe7 Ave� 3 . _r A a i , � Tal L J �°'�, "a r , Ellis Aver x Ellis• ve ' � fi �. • r:j mats r i, I i Garfield Ave i � F - a.`"'wm. .« �,a ..4 ®s N*1—_"^,_` r d! �1. n. r 4GiF r l j y 3 n o f y , .``oq, _ rL.i=_t.7a„tt.-„...e..... Indianapolis Av E i - � A'tlanta'. ve . .� 1 0 —z. >* i- "I 1 ei.� t � t „�, 11� Hainiltgn eve 1 Pacificx° r Ocean N. � Bann ng Ave, Y Level of Traffic ` Stress(LTS} LTS 1 . �� LTS 2 '' LTS 3tx ; . LTS4 0 0,5, ,1 1.5 2rn1 ►` 1�1 I Huntington Beach Mobility Plan 491 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 15 M icrormobi I ity � Main Street Although Huntington Beach has a long history of micromobility activity, as a popular InfiNovember2022. Huntington Beach - destination for skateboarding and bicycling :" `releaseDowntown.Dreamtn"' a�� particularly along the Beach Path d'`,the City proposed Main Streetstreetsc ape ` currently has no specific guidance or policies schematic design.The goals and " for micromobility use aside from posted pr' titles of the project included speed limits. However, new micromobilityplacernaking, rnobility,�inclusivity, and devices including electric scooters and bikes, and recent public response to these mobility ';economic v tality.To dwelop the design, -; Huntington`Beach engaged the"publ•ic devices, has renewed the City's interest in • ,, through h "Share Your Downtown Stor ". managing micromobility to better serve the �gd y needs of the community. sessions..The, proposed design segments , Main Streetimto three blocks and makes recommendati ns to•activate each Transit blockbeyond vehicular traffic,'including outdoor dining, enhancedpedestrian , Although most trips in the city are made circulation,new'trees and paving,and . by automobile,the City has fixed-route and public art: `� demand-response services. Fixed route services are transit lines that operate on Although the project team for HB regular schedules along a set route and ; :in motion was not involved in the demand-responsive services have defined : development of`DowntownDrearnin', .` service areas but do not operate on fixed the proposed designs align with and _. routes or schedules. Orange County i complement the"recomme"ndations > Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates 16 `in this Mobility Plan. However;the fixed-routes through the city and the number irnplernentationof HB in Motion ands " of lines and routes are adjusted as needed in " response to ridership patterns. Downtown Drearnin''are independent:of one another. Circuit Program Circuit currently operates in the City of Huntington Beach, providing low cost on- demand rides to visitors and residents within Downtown Huntington Beach powered by a fleet of all-electric, low-speed, six-seat golf carts. (i)e;0 ?,5% 4 (3,.....b.y.... 492 . 1# • r , STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT _ ._______ _,,,„,.._,__, -7-7'. ,- 'r-.-- -- 7,--:'• .-.•• • 7:•..g.,77,..-A;171- 't,-;••,-,::•.;,4: —.., I : • ) C} • _ .�...,.— -,24 _ f ., A. L,r ,xw,I i -.,(..',ads... '..M Lx 11;''', : '.' , 1 1 ..s,,, .... may. r}e ._ }ii+,3"^ .� A — • it... ...,...„,._ , . _ IM — I - 4. 1f{Y •fits t /�' _ --. f. J 1 . dYy a .� a r ati y n E as f q d! w " .: Raw ice,--.'.e.11� ; r x @t `..`r'= '�' t �'� .,';,,,L.Jii-. ''..--:"';‘,-17'.4',..,i.'•-,',k:- ,•.'.-:. •••*-.7.,'..."'..';----7-p--0*-,--:-., -..,7::...7.7-- .t;,..... ._.....,,.• .•.. .,-;...-''- -,:,. 1 yt ua s S i. 1,sfr y.. a +�4 4 4 4' ask rxr< P I. -- " ` " a+s3 eta, 493 -_.. - l. 1,'�°` HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 17 ` •4 { P h fii�IkiC� g "g � Jry at y '°�.g44'1 ��i 5� �� � .4' .sSma•.,�y t'�y TM''" 'I.P°, ky � � •yry t '4 �. 4 7 t .� �: --„,:, t�''.:i 'sue'. • .,,... ,.:'''^'} F .,§ p is Jr-,, i e) .Y s � ...� 4 ,:111 f 4 e -`"' t 4;:Ls:T '" '`5 1 - "'n gq tea : . ,.. t ,g, M ,1 r... 7 '•',--4-1.-.'i.4.4, I • 4,•.1(f,97.*,;.,.,1 -tr,'",7-.Ai":144$4,4 , J.P0;--- 4-...`11° _24'; 4 ' '.,-. 4, 1-:.-:',:471 :rovaUr44,44I,A=.',4F4,4"0,41 ''''''41 ., , ' '. 3s" ,.ate �`` a g .! n a >,,. i � i r , 4 ;rx t" d1 1 '.., a ,yam s p�. •'X, c,i ''' ••7-'' Huntington Beach Multi-UseBeach Path 1 ' s t „ ,. r, - gi Source:Toole Design Group . A. �`: i, ':$.`! ¢ � 'N . ,, ;,• '7^. ' "r„'4 ' . . t-_ `_. Stakeho ] àer Engagern'ent Throughout the development of HB in Motion, Meeting #1 April 2022 the City sought feedback from a variety of The initial TAC meeting was held to introduce stakeholders including internal City staff, the Mobility Plan, the public survey, and the community organizations, and the public.This findings from the Existing Conditions Report. feedback was used to inform the development The meeting was informative in nature but of HB in Motion and, importantly, establish the key goals and principles that guided the Plan's allowed the TAC to ask questions about actions and recommendations. Highlights of next steps in plan development and make the stakeholder engagement include: recommendations to the project team on areas to hone. Technical Advisory Meeting #2 April 2023 The second TAC meeting was held with Corn mittee (TAC) the goal of informing and achieving consensus among TAC members for Members the recommendations contained within the toolkit of improvements and The TAC was comprised of representatives recommendations for each mode. Much of across Huntington Beach including the the discussion related to feasibility of mobility following departments: infrastructure improvements contained in the . .� p . recommendations, which may be necessary ' `y ,-g `tie° t = 3 �4'=.4 " as a future addition to the recommendations "' • and toolkit.Additionally,there was a discussion , r $d,,, o-p.Y° r,,Y"s, -. .bid . �, 'Po; 'a ':r: City's ! d )k }. �, , ,a ,r r around trade offs and what the and ' °Nr. rep ./ , �; '11 F ,4.; public's appetite might be for reallocating s� P .� � g �{ �..-. ,, , �,,,,,,,,,r7,... space for bikes and pedestrians.As an t a bray ery ces 4 „f"°. % .� � " �• example, there was hesitation around the idea ` ' of removing parking lanes to accommodate 4. . t • e ms �;re. �° ` bike lanes. By the conclusion of the meeting, Comimup tj,YDe e ®prneRT 4 ° : , .; ,.Gi.%. '�A,,,:r°•,. . .. t A,I . ¢ there was general support for the toolkit and �. � � ,� P ,, mud•e „� ;° , _ recommendations from the TAC, with the rtPub5I b Wpr s� To:. � f A p . 4 lingering questions noted above. . 494 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 18 e Project Website The project website (hbmobility.com) was launched in May 2022 to provide the public with information about the Mobility Plan.The project website included highlights of the project goals, details on the public meetings, links to the public surveys, and an open form to contact the team with any questions regarding HB in Motion. IN MOTION .$A t i s . r ', i1 °'s ,,; a r ,w a a pa il}'4 $,'4 �° ; ib a °° C t ~ '*� . : ' + _ :"Share,,jra% iiio g 'ts as ue. ►a n foii*elu, ure .P p ,.LL. +� ? �14 .; of; obility ..Hunti to gBea ° °L ¢ ' 'v �'. a ';. t „`� 4 p. •a +','„ x .ot F, °6 ', y: $ y .,i rr• c D� �'° s it 1 i G 2 pie; * (,m�,F 2 Y. __,,rr /161k So- • S a'• t n,-" ° ,' '•`f? °� $ q �` a% Take CommuNty 5unvey#2 1 d"=a� _�°+�°�`} •" '� ° a. r ``$°' �. '..sw w- .tr' le)ill. ix VA . ',d�„,"noe a�, "g.t�.T` .[. .e.# "° ''° v .4 _»� '+- , as �'� d e a. "A '� *Z.,y syx }a'�,''°,�''_ fig.. r 4a�'v �.�,� � +Ly 9 1 a.. . d $e L ;r) The City of Huntington Beach is planning for the future to enhance access and mobility with"HB In Motion'-the Huntington Beach Mobility Plan. This focus includes the portion of the Beach Path the City is responsible for,as well as the citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks. Project Goals • InDroyecitywl+idebicycle and pedestrian network options and safety for all users Public Meetings October 2022 October 2023 This virtual meeting was held to give an This virtual meeting was held to provide the overview of the project and project schedule, public with updates relating to the survey#2 present findings from the Existing Conditions results and the recommendations for bike, Report, and discuss the project website, draft pedestrian, and beach path improvements. survey#1 results, and recommendations There were 13 members of the public in for bike,.pedestrian, and beach path attendance. Questions and discussion improvements. Questions and discussion from from the public primarily centered around the public primarily centered around safety bicyclist safety, ranging from infrastructure and education (especially around bicycle improvements to an increase in enforcement etiquette) and multi-modal planning. for vehicle drivers not following laws requiring three feet of space when passing a cyclist. 495 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 19 Surveys Phase 6 Survey The first public survey was launched in February 2022 to solicit feedback about stakeholders' preferred mode of travel in Huntington Beach. Respondents could select multiple choices for several of the survey questions.The survey revealed the following findings: Mobility Other than driving, respondents prefer to access destinations in Huntington Beach via active transportation: prefer to bike prefer to walk Beach Path 71% = % % of participants stated they rode a human-powered used an e-bicycle on the walked along the Beach Path bicycle Beach Path 81% 72% an overwhelming percentage of respondents, expressed support for creating separate paths indicated interest in reduced speeds on the or facilities for bicycles and pedestrians Beach Path Bicycle Network 53% % 48% of participants supported supported expanding supported expanding the improvement of existing on-street bicycle networks off-street bicycle network bikeways Pedestrian Network 88% 55% 41% 39% of respondents said of participants would like to see supported more trees they walk on the would like to see wider sidewalks or shading along the Huntington Beach improvements to sidewalk pedestrian network existing sidewalks 72% said that the changes mentioned above would increase their use of the pedestrian network In total,there were over 860 survey responses for the Phase I survey, 93% of whom reside in Huntington Beach, and 77%that were 45 or older. 496 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 20 Phase OI Survey The second public survey was launched in May 2023 to solicit feedback about ongoing beach path improvements and improvements to walking, biking, and recreating throughout Huntington Beach.The survey revealed the following findings: Beach Path Strong support: Moderate to strong support: 81% Separated beach path 56% Speed feedback signs 7/®®® Beach path pedestrian e® crosswalks 53 ®® 10 mph speed limits 7O% Slow zones On Street Bike Facilities The top three preferred on-street bike The top three preferred bike lane facility types were: separators were: Es Separated bike lane (Delaware) m Planted buffers .. - :a None'y..whic ;; ® Parking protected bike lane (Springdale) Ea Planters ,'Ai i'; untfngtonii • 2. ad ® Buffer bike lane (Algonquin) M Raised medians ' Perception of electric bikes (e-bikes) General: Beach Path specific: { ,° . � r Found e-bikesto :q t'Q. ����® g wad � � _� bean issue L.r. ` _ �:.�:a 17% ��� Do not find e-bikes . to be an issue %}e {r p'& �.. 5 g § . � a g�5 °4 Neutral `•`V : paw s..y,. y ° A e°v„ , .. In total,there were over 500 survey responses for the Phase II survey. Roughly 44% of respondents were over the age of 55 and roughly 50%were between the ages of 18 &54. 497 I I MOBILITY PLAN t r. . . . .ir ,.., •. . ,.. , , INLI ''',..?,11;'; ;,:. : rig: „tip', .:,,L':-.;,,a1.. 7... 4,100:ifoier Loti,1,-. ' . ..--....,.: c-i, : - -: -::‘,..i. •... -..,....,,,,:-'-.-,..': -: -:, ... , , -- ,.: . . . .. .. . , ji .p . .ram' + , q I7J � +R- rLt 1 '., ., 9i .. bs ., } o jPr � ¢ WA • oil . .♦ _. r�.�+C .ems+- �a. .^+ti- ®.. I.. a r y r ter`",� `. '�p' �- 'w � �% � �� f ,. 9 -w.Y. K�', }ter .. ' + 6. r a 4 ..,,. 1, .: $ � r= " w .. - + i".fit jYs �.:V4 +•R� 498 I � ' HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 22 I ' This Mobility Plan aims to create a more balanced , equitable, and sustainable mobility system stem for Huntington Beach. 1 � 1 This plan envisions achievingthis through incremental improvements to the mobility system, with time allocated for future community engagement and evaluation in order to gain buy-in for improvements. 4 f The Mobility Plan brings together mobility ideas, needs, and specific project recommendations to create an actionable plan for the Department of Public Works and other City ts. departmen I a t g 499 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 23 0 Too /cit of I p rove.nn e nts To provide options and inspiration for yet been implemented, but may be considered how Huntington Beach might achieve its in the future.This list is not intended to be mobility goals,the project team developed prescriptive, but a tailored list of common tools with a comprehensive list of best practice a demonstrated history of improving bicycle and roadway treatments that address a variety of pedestrian experiences. transportation challenges.The team explored both rapid implementation projects, as well Two safety factors were considered during as permanent projects, and recommended the analysis of improvements - Crash that any rapid implementation projects Modification Factor (CMF) and Proven Safety include data collection on effectiveness of Countermeasures.The CMF estimates a treatments to inform a permanent solution. safety countermeasure's ability to reduce The group identified buffered bike lanes and crashes and crash severity.The Proven leading pedestrian intervals as near term or Safety Countermeasures refer to specific "low hanging fruit" options to address the countermeasures highlighted by the Federal needs of the community.They also identified Highway Administration (FHWA) for their longer term projects like separated bike lanes safety effectiveness and benefits. and mid-block flashers as potential options, in addition to phased projects, or "capital The full toolkbox with detailed descriptions of improvement" projects like a shared use path each recommended treatment can be found in (separated), and median refuge island. Appendix B. The toolkit is categorized into bicycle, pedestrian, beach path treatments, and signage. However, many of these treatments benefit a variety of road users.Some of these treatments are already used in some areas of Huntington Beach and can be expanded to more locations,while others have not --�� �'�s"rF%t'Py � r1. y J w 1 m �- ,,�7 .� 41 tik -„-�'t { r._ j • '' ? '1 c it r" r-ram 3t a4'* 441- , ' p .`--3 " k d ." 4C( I- - , �' A� a , of ,;',,,; x ,.+ 1 = ,. ., - „.„ 'tea� " :li '',,, t� .f, .. `' t l .' "� C'-.-' ag\, : =- - ,� ,� t'S'A j a,3' y , d++6 �„�..�,,w..�-.w. a - m�'i PWw+ `.c _• 1 -�--- -_- i• "- ' _ - e% --- - ftiti74io!,417g4eo!r5,!::-47:,iP.:_ A%;i ,A17,4464 -05 , .,,,,i t..„,.., .... „---,,, ,:-....,,,.„-- -t..i.;,,,,--,,,;,....-•.•.,,;::,,t.A.„-4., -.• .......e duti,,iik*,„ yriN, .,..,_, , — , ,....... 4.,:f•:.‘„re.„.4:"......, _ ,c ,-34.. ..,:.., ,,.- ..o-v4,..;•,,A;....-o„.:r„:zz..,4,v .„,, ..,,:a,„•i_t44.4.-xt-.4p..„, 11.1.4.4216„ - , ... _ ,,„ .,,,,,,,- --,-" Ar4,14.1.kele... ,il .‘,, ';,:; :., '''''jlt ''''''' ' 'Z''''14''Ak 14., :-01.- - 'Delaware-St. treet Gelass Sep tea Bikeway •^ : ; - sou rce.;Toole ro es+ "'G�u : ' ` , . , , 500 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 24 /,-, r, . , ,A.. _.r II_� _» Beach Path I F' 4 a - 1 V Sigsna:ge 1 i ', , ' 1 i t ,,, 9 Pedestrian ,! , Countdown` . B u ffe.red Bike 1 Lane 47 i ems Protected } =� r B i kewaye 1 Lane Rnig i . ► - . , »' ecof uratn; ! :! 501 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 25 Pedestrian Networ < Recom mendations The project team undertook a data-driven . The project team loaded the datasets into analysis to identify potential locations to GIS software to analyze and visualize where implement Pedestrian Focus Corridors in the need for Pedestrian Focus Corridors are Huntington Beach.This analysis took into highest.The datasets included analyses of consideration existing conditions, spatial stressful crossing locations, high Level of Traffic analyses, City recommendations, and previous Stress (LTS) segments (LTS 3 or LTS 4), land use planning efforts. Diverse datasets were data, pedestrian crash data and high injury leveraged to target streets where improving networks from the City's LRSP among others. pedestrian comfort, safety, and access would Corridors were grouped where factors showed be most impactful, implementation would be overlapping and concentrated data along a feasible, and need was high due to elevated corridor. pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic. Detailed descriptions of the factors included in this analysis can be found in the Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification and Network Recommendations Memo in Appendix C. Examples of Types of Pedestrian Treatments that may be implemented: 1 } r 1 � s " F _ %� � 'tom g. t " # 1 - _"N1�1�Y�.'" "4m -.c..>». c- ,,"* �1" a +�k�'a-:"�E' i t y r5�. ' .1 i t. ' \ f . 1 6 F 'a; I iit * }. ' 8 4 .....i �&.... ! ua, e .1 ., mica. 9p Pedestrian Scramble/Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Countdown Source:Toole Design Group Source:Toole Design Group Te--36 25% ' )A,-1-v-. C47('''''') 502 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 26 Figure 3. Map of Recommended Pedestrian Corridors in Huntington Beach. 7,,,,...,,,-,,,,--„--,,,,,, liu,-...;ift"--P, q f---,,, -1,•,-,;;-.: -.,,,,:-,,,L-,,, ;,---,0,147,7, „-,„:-- • ,F.S.-- /7 ,-- .-':' 7.474' Ii .- ,-,,,,„\\9„,/,,,-,- „., r_;L`x.,-;!.;„, -;•,, ,-,',71 ,1,,,-,,,,,„„„.,_-L,J,_:::15` „,,,,L-2'7'„-:;4'l'i 1-:''F"-,":-":1':.',,,-,--.;',-- ,;:: ,,•ii;-',ilLq!:e-e.' 2"'''''1,.:7; -, r .-. 4 ;,-,, , f,.:.,:::-, -.. l-::-.:..'.. •:,, : ,"1\,X,f4.2i,,: If- L'''-''--- ------- 1 vr- ., -171. ca•-•-1 Bo sa Ave-14 ums t-_•?,--- ---,0,,,,,, ,1,--ii,•,.t ,-„•,.,,,,,,,,„,„,,,c,;:,„:„.„ , ! ,.., ,,,...1.i.,;,• ......v.,,,,,&\.„,,,,,,,,,_,...„ ,';:r',...... :,E 1 - 1 k LI 1 m'11' n;=.7 ,7--: 7,,,St :r-L. !i :;',,::%FiR,---.„-:,:5,!„,1, •:,-t,,-.:::,,:-.,,L!;:r:1, 1 h-,,.;: :-,;`,',--.:-.7-,---,.- --- --..F- - -; -. hut 7f--7-;- ;"':;''4 ...1---- ,,,„.,.:71 ,,,:...„,,,-1,H. 1,,,,,,,,,11..„„kc,,,, . ..,...„,...-:..-,:. LL2 " •:: .L...,„:5"",;7,-;7141,2_:,,,!„,-:- - 17-t-• ,, s---„,"' ' , '-‘,-„; :„„_„:',,I,I'J'-..;,-,71'•--',-- „:„1"e„:2'12.,:.::;-..`;„_r...,-•",f,;:nt: '-', ,--- _\'''"-•-- Eding•rLAve- -"Vvrmk. 177.72... ,*„.A;Ar.,,, ; :.:,,,, c r,.,4k„,,,,,,,,,•",'7'1,„,,r,'•,-7,..7,-:::::75,71',,,,,, „c-3--- ,,.,,,,,,, i.,., I::>4-v-If-,ii.1:, ,,!-. : ri...-- 74,a,' - ,-_, 1..t.::' , l:!;-;„:-.--,,',,-,, -i71, ..., .,-- ir 1';4\ k''' ,1:,..,1 ' ' ----- ii:k7111111;ILlial =14 1:' i.---L-' 1,:(1 : :=-----.,: :.;:1,'t'''';:i','-;11::;:"::ir 11'ft'1-: !"::''';;;" 11 ''5:C-418C'e- ; 4 \ pilie ILA,e , , -, 1 i,..., ._.,.., _11 r ,.. .. -t44 0 Ai 4 --'! i '''.i-v., -,--&'- -1.' lifirliei Aio c..„.1--11 --1 '),L j,- 1-...t:?;.! ' at, ,.,-1- i - ) - ::,,,i,-'---- ,,-:\,7--77-;:;--,.--11 ___77..... , 'lli,i,. i 111'1,14'. r.,;-: -,_,:;,_LVir:\',:,LA; iti _.'",-;-,:"---- '--24-"c• .,''' '' ' ,' -;77 "LIIIV,7, li-141"------„livi4_,..„1,,'' ,T,D;".„6;.,, ,,, inl34,.:.-.. Clf..,,g,„"... ;7' , i ''' ' ,"''',-1,11 ,ilitTn ge14V:1— —41-:411 , -,‘1'-'-",'11"--....„-f--7.::::.-,-,-)!•-..] , . t ,,- 44,,t331il EF . - - i'. i ' tri4'-r-':".:: ',"7.;"L''-' .'•L-;:",>`11,::„L"-:-'-'_': :,;:::::,---,;:: ..-2:-,.,, :Ind c'-- ;12.1,.': ,.'-..,_: -I _1, :0' _,„.4,, ,,J.,„:: , , '''''' -°' Talbert Ave,:,,,J3 -,112J L: ,i; ,_,„:7,. .. '; ''''.' ,,',---,•,;-,,,,, '''''',Z, - . , -'-, i,,ii,,,Sk't, •,,•',,,f:-.t - cir'',* :4 i'.,,,.,41 3 4 i.„.„:-",.-.;-,:r:,I:;,,,,-, :„.!,,,..,,,„,,,,,,7,1,,„ ..;;;-,,,,.,:,t..5.-„, . , ,, '::::: cl-, ,1:-.i 1,- I ; - -:---- <1*P. • ' !ell..,....''''Eitir:Ave i1.![::',i,r,-2 7i -- ''- „1- % Elits,Av 4,i- --1.„, -•.c,, „. .. ' ':*4. '' 1 V1 A s,--,:).' .,ei:",-":-.-:-`-;:-.1''''''.:,-s-., '-'•'ti-;"=.,"'-':,'';...t-'7,-:--, _.,-..; .,,...,,, .;"'i.,FA /.1„ ,IP. .y.GarfieIdt,AY,P-T„ _,-------L--,,, ----,ys 0 .F--47 =',-•• ....;.-:.-751 a 6 I---i ,,le::.....;:47,--7,i , „,,.„ ,..... _324-0,to ,,,.24 -,---i-f9, ;•1•,, E.. ',z-t,-' --III*- i"— , - • . ., \ ' c40:"Po',-,-.4- - .''N ,--iL.'" --1--i=,'-'-''':-..--'" —I IP.-. _ (".?., .1''''V't ---P--, --1 - ----1_ V)'r.„.....4 i 1 tr41.--.-H •,',::d"M RR , , ,„,,,, '9/,'%:''''>‘.5 4;*.'",'s ''' '''414:•'‘Tsf rt4„,IF0-11t1 -7-'-; :.:4-P-" `.1 '''` ' ,.: ''' 1-1," ,.- e• ,, -2 id,--2.,, ,,, A. • r.,,,,,..L...Th r ,.....L..,..3. ._v rf. ,74,0,:' ,..., .-4.'','•,-,',•-•,. ••,. . 552..t.p7:1A, -.(15, ....,,,,.1,44 := --1L,,,,41 cs'i---,1 *1 .'-4,4" , ' . ! _ , :- ,t4=.,.. .., ' ",-4-•„ j ,„„•••••-,::- • ' : , :, ,:\, :,..., 1 ,;L5:-1,-,.% -----3 /:i:E!...,:,,,,..7. ----,* ,- , -.. ..gierz.:\ .-.,..: - ':-.,. Hs: 1-i ' ---1 ft.- --, -". „,,."-: ,L, Th.,,i.----r1 pr • , 71 .. '-7'; '' 1 V'` •:.,Indianapolis,Ave,,,,„A.1,-,,,.6,..,i,,y -,- .• 1 .>:,;Arra,44. -10;kir4v..7:tteF,I,v4V”h,T='A,'•-- '1,4-' '''' ' Tp 4 1:11. ' _ <0....,_ ...iiik_ 6 - Lui-j•---- , - :'.‘-'1'nt A 4-- '7;717: 111,6° T% ,::::‘• :,'' ::,-.iffr:,, . .'"_ :' , ,At a a, v - ,, '7.---7 W--"---- , 0,-'!-,, ' 7,..,!'s-irr ' ' -575'N,'''' :-r-4 IF-co: .,.;Ft, %, ,i=-,-,-4',,---" :: -,., :.= :',..: 4,.._,• It--''Hamiltan7Avel : „ „ , 1 . , .,..',, ,, ..,---;;.;-;, -.±. ... ILI ,i-i-ii i A,, --1-k,f2,-,, . _ :',4-;', -..,..f.; :;.:74': .•11- 4 It'' ''','-,L7, f',13.',, Pedestrian Corridors „ ,,L,,,,,,„,,,, ,, .: .i.",",.k , ) A-Edinger Avenue . , „„ B-Atlanta Avenue!Magnolia Street/Hamilton Avenue, , .,....,,, ,' f1. , . c",,,k, ,_C-Beach Boulevard , ,-7,-.../- ',,,4,-,.,'"414 D-Goldenvvest Street . . . , . , ".",',..',-,..,,,::-.';! am E-WarnerAvenue!Algonquin Street/Saybrook Lane ' ' - ,. .' " '": " • , . .. . , F-BrockhLirt Street!Indianapolis Avenue „ - . , , . , _ G-Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street , . .., ,, - , 0 -0.5 1 1.5' 2:'mi. , ' -' T ' ' . „ , Huntington Beach Mobility Plan „ . . 503„ - HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 27 Table 1. Pedestrian Focus Corridors and the Factors that Determined their Inclusion Corridor Corridor Name From To Overlapping Factors A Edinger Avenue Bolsa Chica Beach High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Street Boulevard Crashes, Destinations A Goldenwest Street Bolsa Edinger High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Avenue Avenue LTS, Destinations A Gothard Street Center Edinger Destinations,Transit Avenue Avenue Pacific Atlanta Avenue/ Vulnerable Populations, B Magnolia Street 1st Street Coast Destinations, LTS Highway Newland Street/ Pacific Magnolia B Hamilton Avenue Coast Street Destinations, LTS Highway Edinger Garfield Transit, Pedestrian High Stress C Beach Boulevard Avenue Avenue Corridor, Crashes, Population Density, LTS Warner Pacific High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, D Goldenwest Street Avenue Coast Vulnerable Populations, Highway Destinations, Crossing Distance Warner Avenue/ Pacific E Algonquin Street/ Heil Coast Edinger LTS, Population Density, Crossing Avenue/Saybrook Highway Avenue Distance Lane Brookhurst Street/ Garfield, Lake High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, F Indianapolis Avenue Avenue Street Transit, Destinations, Population Density Pacific Coast Highway/ Huntington Yorktown LTS, Population Density, G 17TH Street/ Main Street Avenue Destinations,Transit Street (i)....1 N) 6. c47;,,, , 504/ HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 28 Figure 4. Map of Pedestrian Focus Corridors and Phasing 1 @ --,' ,."? ...1:.-. r 1' •{ a ' "".._ t t [1 r <1( "''. :, ! 1 :" (- _v -may— 7 J j�1/fj� � .: era�,',F 3 js ., 1 �' 'J rr'u "tip t + �+ 11 ' '1\..-1.:__.: ,,'. c1"-.1?.:7Bolsa Ave a , = - _._ '_.. tI c ` Edingerz Ave :? I , l ^ ,tea 2 `. ..- - r 4 11 trig ,, i r� � mile ir O J TEE-1.,,,,} �{�^if N W -� 1 ter'" .,-1' - g i rr .� • �� Warner Ave r, , � .7-,,-_f l kip[Blatt reA've t tra =r- i \ I€ _ y " 1 E'--r j '— s",0 _, LL 'c3a. ,,T�'aiben Ave i - L ml N. 00�. _�� J e , i� st S _., Elitls Av , =EI(tls*Ave , .„ .., ..„.. , ,,,..,.., .,,..„ `fir' I' - j �. _. . y ',Al `t 'h°�' �j El 1 " � Gaffi ... . . _ . eldwAve ' r SUmmN•�� 1 y�4 s !-1"�i1r - .- , r d gi- � t ! ctT1k ,�, /��.�� � `°: �,^`�`{1"��—,� y� Yorktown Ave ill ;r • �q�e - ` m ✓`Itl i t i 1. 4 j � �"---ii`� J• !a� Adams Ave E! 1 I ' J{ ��9 �y +' PLC^�-' t�l. t--fn ali—liriii-mt.. ' ..)j j,} SY 1 � dr.: ,..,: tit t{j�j�•' aLn 6 •Vt! ,..Y� f! a l� Pedestrian Corridors Handal,A e `� A-Edinger Avenue � isil r B-Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia Street/Hamilton Avenue ~' 9a"—"e`A e ' ii a C-Beach Boulevard , "- 1f D-Goldenwest Street,=r E-WarnerAvenue/Algonquin Street/Saybrook Lane ` �` " F-Brookhurst Street/Indianapolis Avenue ° G-Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street `:J Pedestrian Corridor Phasing 0 0.5 1 1.5 2rni f Immo I Huntington Beach Mobility Plan 505 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 29 Table 2 below groups Pedestrian Focus Corridors by phasing grouping and displays the rough order of magnitude cost. Detailed descriptions of each recommended pedestrian treatment can be found in Appendix C. Corridor Name Corridor Phasing Rough Order of Magnitude Grouping Cost Estimates Edinger Avenue A Phase 1 $4,360,000 Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia Street/ phase 1 $3,990,000 Hamilton Avenue Warner Avenue/Algonquin Street/ Phase 1 $4,260,000 Heil Avenue/Saybrook Lane Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street/ Phase 1 $1,340,000 Main Street Beach Boulevard C Phase 2 $600,000 Goldenwest Street D Phase 3 $380,000 Brookhurst Street/ Indianapolis Phase 3 $1,300,000 Avenue • 506 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 30 Bike Network Recommendations To develop recommended improvements for The project team generated future focused and Huntington Beach's bike network,the project all ages and abilities recommendations based team analyzed Huntington Beach's existing upon existing conditions and roadway analysis. bicycle infrastructure, and considered best However, further analysis is recommended to practices from other cities as well as policies assess physical and political feasibility, potential and recommendations from previously impacts to movement of freight and vehicular adopted Huntington Beach plans. traffic, and funding constraints. In instances where recommended facilities are not feasible, Detailed descriptions of the factors the next best facility should be sought, included in this analysis can be found in the following this hierarchy: Class IV- Protected Bicycle Network Recommendations and Bikeways; Class II - Buffered Bike Lanes; Class II Implementation Memo in Appendix D. - Bike Lanes; Class III - Bike Boulevards. r_____ Huntington Beach has an opportunity -R .c ,v :: , to continue to build on recent progress. ti �, a w, . °•° toward its Bike Master Plan. *s-. • t° wq�w ,:i� Tait', Fes. `'�:t .9In recent years, the City. has implemented the ' : , following projects and pilots: = �: . • l IW • Utica Avenue Bike Boulevard —�..c^y "' • Atlanta Avenue Buffered Bike Lane M 4 • Delaware 2Street Class IV,Bike Lane t •'P S -_•.- • Saybrook Lane Buffered Bike Lane' . Utica Avenue Bike Boulevard • Sidewalk°'BeautificationS Source:Toole Design Group I on roadways where space is a constraint, Recommendations but vehicle traffic and speeds are not high enough to invest in separation. Separated and Phasing Strategy Bike Lanes are predominantly found on high stress roads, and currently Huntington Beach has few buffered or separated facilities.The Currently, Huntington Beach's bike network is recommended Class I Shared Use Paths are made up of 72% Class II Bike Lanes (73 miles found along existing City assets or OC Public out of total 101.5 miles), shown in Table 3,with Works jurisdiction that could be transformed, a map of existing facilities in Figure 6. Bike such as abandoned/disused railways and flood Lanes and Boulevards are currently located control channels. CT e=d1 25% 4, .2,,.'',.',, 507 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 31 Table 3. Total Existing Bicycle Network Miles Facility Type Existing (Miles) Existing (Percentage) Class I Shared Use Path 20 19% Class II Bike Lane 73 72% Class II Buffered Bike Lane 6 5% Class III Shared Lane 2.5 2% Class III Bicycle Boulevard - - Class IV Separated Bike Lane 3 2% TOTAL 101.5 Miles 1 Bikeway Facility Types Examples .4:, .' _,fi' y - #„. i `� t-------pp 4 .>{ rr ' _ 1 p *R9 - , I /o ' ': ,v° r A Class I: Off-Street Shared Class II: Buffered Bike Class Ill: Bicycle Class IV: Two-Way Use Path Lane Boulevard Separated Bikeway Recommended treatments are segmented into two implementation phases to progress existing facilities toward more comfortable and inclusive facilities or installing new facilities if none currently exist. These recommendations are not prescriptive, but are intended to serve as ideal targets. In some cases,the installation and/or upgrade along the proposed corridors may not be feasible, but as priority and political will changes, these can be reconsidered for implementation. In all cases, the highest possible protective facility should be sought as projects are assessed. Phases are explained below, and Table 4 lists the miles of proposed bike corridors for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 Bike Network. Easily 1: Phase 2:Bike Network. Expansions Off Street Shared Use implementable projects within and/or upgrades to the existing bike Paths.Additional 20.7 existing roadway sections that can be network that may require more miles of independent considered for implementation in the planning or further analysis,°can be off-street multi use next one to five years. Recommends a considered for implementation in the paths recommended total of 26.8 miles of new or upgraded ,next five to ten years. Recommends a outside of on-street facilities. total of 36.2 miles of new bike facilities. phasing mileage. (i).-.' m 'e),),, : r\r 508 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 32 Table 4. Total Miles and Rough Order of Magnitude Costs by Phase Totals for Phase 1 Proposed Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $ 210,625 Class III - Bike Boulevard 2.5 $ 705,462 Class IV- Separated Bikeway 23.6 $11,337,000 TOTAL 26.8 $12,253,087 Existing Class IV- Separated Bikeway 2.3 N/A Totals for Phase 2 Proposed Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.0 $ 0 Class III - Bike Boulevard 0.5 $172,625 Class IV- Separated Bikeway 35.7 $17,124,000 TOTAL 36.2 $17,296,625 Existing Class IV- Separated Bikeway 0.7 N/A Totals for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Proposed Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $ 210,625 Class III - Bike Boulevard 3.0 $ 878,087 Class IV - Separated Bikeway 59.3 $ 28,461,000 TOTAL 63.0 $29,549,712 Existing Class IV- Separated Bikeway 3.0 N/A Proposed Off-Street (Phasing Independent) Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class I -Off-Street Multi-Use Path 20.7 $ 40,423,500 509 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 33 Figure 5. Phase 1 and 2 Bike Network Recommendations �� �� • • _...__ J t' ;I f .ti &5 Balsa Ave - 1 L '_tv I a � 1t a� II `� us IE I I=1 -ter I I c s; ,, p. —Edinger Ave F , Q 1 r (� JI asi. _ yl _.._� , ,,• "• '` z; ; -- te a - �,,, - , =r- „ , . `�I i mile \4 >C:-,-i'���i:i� Hed�'Ave } T IJ `. l -2 7T �'ka- asses, ii l Square ..,hC , r°- ' -. .ig . i -:-- Regional �\ i�)\�t F k) 11)f.- ry 'S 'lJ-r+i. L' L - , . el I` ' .. ..-. ,,- Q--f il"'Si�? 1'2 Li t.,H -, i i I¢ • ., Log ,Slater;Ave;i-)3I lid t ; t t Jt {a .. ' -T•.aibert Ave-` § L i mod_ �- ,� �i� 1 , � � sr ' Ellis Ave ' �1 i, Ellis Ave l ky t, T 6J'�j .?` � iy11t - I i- �� , I divIOLGarfieldl:Aye ,fie -•�s�mm�p '+'r T . ; 3 y= f ay� �_�__ d/ 3 1 nIt fE �r 1• ( �_ - I Yorktown Ave t l N. \7r " k, gg Tan 7;;t5 � �indiana oLs Ave 2+,, • *- ig "'• :ate* w�artpepinta#�t=° A9629 -T s a-1 � I+ • )) • ;b .o „ ` 1s diilanta,Ave : cc. , ' - o - 'Ezi am-',„ Y'• \ �1[U !Mamikon,Ave e - Banrrin'Ave I Pacific -,, .. - — I Phasing P-,, c. Phase 1 (Year 1 -5) 000 Phase 2(Year 5-10) • A. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2mi I lsl i Huntington Beach Mobility Plan _.._ 510 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 34 Figure 6. Existing and Phase 1 (one to five years) Bike Network Recommendations . '" .,s"" ,1 t die <- 17,, i- fir r„ , ... fi `�'.f - 4 y,1 4 , ;t • IfJir !,,f't s : r :.. �..e r.y, f { G P-.i11 1t E I d ;1 t 'S , s r r a `IFF G cI 1 t ~H! '1 �,. t S6 f c /A '�V sa Ave 'fir auF 4.- .�..,.W P&-' L `�� ,S 1-1 (S Sp Yd y # s 4 art '"- $ ' a- • , .. -' :_ i _' � t.". ` ;tlit mot}; - ,l t 7,4, r „ie.g,;,-,roEdingeLAve - r.�., E- - du,. diva b -k' e is .� x� ara; 11" a �..._e , ��I°F.� �� `; � I t , elle +kYie--,,,„ ,„ . . : ,n,--,'— -..°:• :I! r rn W..,',„: ••-• b s y - :� -r e Ave,A _ �.■. �.� t ' r"J square rV .c. , t o t p z ) �,-A,- 1 a Park ;, f darner lv� « � _,d� __ ... � � 9wy; "'""' '_,¢,"">;,7 . . ,,,` .` 11 , ateri Aver�;°' ..-..,: , `. A# f l"� ?..;1 L` ..._... 1. , n �" ac+ ;mod " ,r, r T $i ;N s C9 ' faibert.Ave t t .i i Ew"° ,'. ' ' = d tt, II:Ellis Ave `c Elks,-Ave ,, L i.� 1 .„.�4 4 oarfieldk:Ave '} m r ��, g - ill! r s d , , , ..,,,,,„, ,,,,..., ,. .,,,,,,,:„.,,, .. ,„., _,:::,..;,,,.. ,:: ,11,,, ato t . � �� �" '�L� E� cqt ��oc torn Ave 1 +' n��,r�. N¼j f . Ili ..a..M. Indiana po1is Fx r 1,1 . .. bo. .> it e'er . ` 1 ii �_, "Atlanta A el~ z1 a t i ! m f 6 � ` m' — I Hamrit.n Ave - anriing Ave . , b 0aCJfib 4.)i 'Final'Existing and Recommended Bike,Facilities in Phase.l d r � Y ,, • b Recommended Class III- Bike Boulevard - . Existin Class'IV-Se• arated Bikewa , , 1 g; y Recommended Class IV--Separated Bikeway, ^. u {Facilities Outside of-Pha_sing ,, Recommended Off-Street'—" Bike Facilities. :, , .^^, 1. " lel i I Huntington Beach Mobility,Plan HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 35 Figure 7. Existing Phase 1 (one to five years) and Phase 2 (five to ten years) Bike Network Recommendations ---;',---7—'—- — -.-=-''''-'------- ±Tt1/ li;,,) .:,--4,;.- --1 \, ,..../ -_ 27111_ ' / ., — Bo sa Ave-LI •,,,,i . co - _17,7....- 4—_,I, _. in ,,,,,,,‘,„..c.: •.,, _ _ __ 7- - 1.-.1 - r i -. ,'11 - 1 g -rTzr .nr,,,i--! ,i1-11Z21:1 t\\.41 ' - ' , -_-- ., p. [±...,:,1 , .... . _ Ek ' i 11.:-1 :: 1 ,---- , . ` ',.\\,. ' 4,,,, --1' - 1 / Ji., ___..--JJ, 11_,----.74-'n 774 t.-,, ,., ,•••,..2.2 I-_,„,, D-0 i, — . r ---, - ,°- , —"- \*,,, - -?:--7...z- •••../L___1-, 11 ,=--,--T-n-i pr„,_,A-v_ 74" int_! 1,,,,, - :...-,1 Thz; , ,.-7----,' „„„i..„E,.. / -‘,..,- ' ..,.. : ' , .., Square \,,, "k5",,,-_\73, , •- •1, ,^4.-1 'L• i i'. ,.1. - -- J, i.u.17,Him ,'1 1 --,7*, . ,• n.... , , Regional ••••,,,-,, \k„),,,..,,,,, A ,- 1 ,--,-r---. 1..--4) Ti--. :-.- NS:\\\t,„)' i ,Tir 7 513 - . -1 -ItTh..4 --War'nerwAve ' n '-'ftil Ili - 1 11' ' 't ' ' . 7 — 11\s''' ' ' . 11 Park I . • \ — :f -14-6- ..ni`v}-; ` . 1-41-11--: — '''': ii ' \N,,,.'-'-- --il ------ ' '-'- - ›, 4„. 7-'4-.-i„-- .-7-,--g7:Lt ..,,,.)7.,-;---ji.i,-; 0,--,.- = i“D 0 fri ..--' ;1 'l - ''-'•',,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,, ...7 ...,<21, t::,1,-,, , I i,I:.{Slate!!Ave I i.-7, —, 4 ... ''V'-- '- ' ,•;..,,,,"r „ --4,-.'14-1,eng ..4 1 ::-: =-\ -1 I i)]...:Li - ' j .aC 1, ,, , ii.<" ...;,.- _. , \to ---. ',....N, 4-.Ii.,:c- 1 i,cp: Talbert Ave-i , I ._,)i___\\,.. --_,,L-- c'''• --i.-. '74,,,t''' ''''''''* :1D„ — Lin-44 1-- ."----.1P if---"-Th '1'' ' . ,. 1,-,-'' -'''',--•,- Elks t,---Av". —+I Ell iSdr'..,,SA-)-,ie,l: ? s'4 -'-'\'''.-•,==''S-1,'444, ,C,r1Tdr.44:''-7''. .,..C.1 39 —; r'---)1,,,a---_iiii4r.,AveN 1 r-1,, -, 4, , -,,,,, 4k,." 4.'-'/,..-1,11.-7-4,11H ' ..f. -'''''.',4.,,,,,.','.0•:,' "\• \','.Sw.'-'_'.,'''';,,,,.,,g`..,,',.- 4,..-'31'tt.-..--ts-'-1-,4r, I, OE A.?--,'7{n"Et:-.--1 f4 - 1 - I7.anapoAv V--1.d- 77 7,1g ;;,- '1' ,...* ' \ * ':I"-1" :4AtlantaAireli; j LIT.11'•E/-;-.7'if ••••••„ • ,-, 1,,,t,t ___,--- , , in, ---,- C,2.,1,I),,,;_.i 1I I..-I-FI—,,-•fi,-r"..'.,J.—.ul ,1 1 Iz':i,- -, , ‹ , aliltOr7Ave- 1 ii , :fg /1 „,,---=•-n/. -.;• .-------_- .. Pacific Ocean ▪-s-• '1/4';,.. • 1., ' ' Final Existing and Recommended Bike Facilities in Phases 1 and 2 N.„ Recommended-Class ill -'Bike Boulevard .-... Existing-Class IV-Separated Bikeway NJ ..,, ....•ma, Recommended-Class IV-Separated Bikeway -- ,,, Facilities Outside of Phasing , ' Recommended Off-Street Bike Facilities 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi . , , Huntington Beach Mobility Plan 512 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 36 Beach Path Recommendations The project team developed recommendations to improve the comfort and user experience of rolling and walking on the Beach Path by analyzing existing conditions. Particular focus was given to improving the experience of users of the beach path due to the high traffic of both pedestrians and cyclists as well as the amount of public feedback that was received regarding safety and operations on the path. Detailed descriptions of the methodology for developing the beach path recommendations can be found in Appendix E: Beach Path Observations and Recommendation Memo. For ease of organizing challenges and opportunities, the Project Team separated the Beach Path into the below segments based on path characteristics: Segment 1: From Sea point Street to Goldenwest Street Segment 2 From Goldenwest Street (Upper Path) to 11th Street (Upper Path) Segment ° ® 8 . From Goldenwest Street ,(Lower Path)'to 11th'Sweet (Lower Path)' From 11t Street to 1st 5 � 7 ° e r f � _,, 'a fi�"`"" a"� '�'- �.ua "'gym` 'i,s"�' .. �+ '"# ,• S� #.�}°d 1 e+ E `! ! .�'tt-?�•@• '� `"" �' crv� `�e "'Af' 174 Seel S s • tw ;Be ,t�j 0 a t a r' • � " ,.. � , TetiO 2R) 513 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 37 Issues and Opportunities The project team conducted a field visit of the Beach Path on August 19,2022 and recorded observed issues and constraints. Key issues and opportunities identified from this observational period are listed here: Example Sight Line Issues f < at •„ Blind spots created by garbage cans, building Segment 4 4.4� N, protrusion,vendors/amenities spill onto path. ' S ' . Traffic Mixing at 0 •° ; Potential crash conflicts may arise from areas in the Segment 4 oreri '` ° path where there is no demarcation to keep pedestrian ;,' and bicycle traffic separate;width is not sufficient. g Inconsistent Signage a Posted signs on the path communicate inconsistent Segment 1 .` 12*.°` information, causing confusion among Beach Path users. 0 0 Constrained Space ro , . ,°of Path reaches capacity during peak season, limiting Segment 3 III 1 aI available space for users and increasing conflict risks. --`�= ConfusingPavement Markings r_— _ a .. Particularly in mixing zones, pavement markings Segment 3 1'---1 f."------ poorly communicate whether pedestrians or bicyclists ,.—'�' are allowed in that segment of the path. «x - Pedestrian and Vendor Activity Spillover ® _ In popular areas where people congregate, pedestrians Segment 4 , . T °,a and vendors tend to encroach onto the path, creating a i . potential crash risk. 8 f. Lack of Centerline and Separation Se ,/ Lack of centerline or delineation makes it unclear to Segment 3 04' 'r bicyclists where to remain to prevent head on crashes with other bicyclists. Ted ? 514 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 38 • Recommendations The project team made recommendations built upon previous and proposed Beach Path improvements, ensuring a future-focused Beach Path that is suitable and welcoming to users of all ages and abilities.A seamless user experience, with minimal conflicts arising between bicyclists and pedestrians,will lay the foundation for a positive social experience and a culture that embraces active transportation and suitable Beach Path travel speeds. Below is a list of the common treatment recommendations: Example . 4 � Centerline o ,.„ 41 Striping a centerline or striping that separates modes, will Segment 3s 4.04,41;?;:i'::.;.Q.311; help users understand where to travel along the path. si, °' ;,„ ,-.6 5 �" -' ;: B Pedestrian Crossings # �q $= Clear and visible pedestrian crossings, such as artistic Segment 1 �4 ` `` crosswalks,will alert bicyclists to reduce their speed as they • ?z ,h e: approach a crossing: r • (1 �� ' ç :: Intersection Improvements in Mixing Zones c .. - L ' Improvements at mixing zones, such as signalization or Segment 3 �n, b. �• , �� ,� o ��,, traffic calming treatments,will reduce conflict risk in areas $ ,, `. . where pedestrians and bicyclists share the Beach path. . Establish Uniform Speed Limit '' T 4 i • i _ 1 �M -5 � r A singular display of speed limit expectations will help all Segment 4 !te a`-. . ti, ° :• users travel at the desired speed. ..et P 4e i iv kY 2L fi • d� 515 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 39 Specific Treatment Recommendations The project team outlined specific issues and opportunities as well as proposed recommendations to address these challenges for each segment. More detail can be found in Appendix E: Beach Path Observations and Recommendation Memo. Sea point Street to Goldenwest Street i. Issues identified: Opportunities identified: C • Inconsistent use of signage • Pedestrian and bicycle path • Confusing pavement markings separation segment wide CD • Radar speed feedback E Recommendations: • Remove old speed limit signs; establish 10 mph speed limit with singular Cn sign display W • Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas/access points,along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through V ) the use of artistic, continental or diagonal crosswalks • Install signage to clarify preferential ped/bicycle travel along upper and lower paths Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Upper Path) Npp Issues identified: Opportunities identified: +111 • Confusing pavement markings • Pedestrian and bicycle path C • Inconsistent use of signage separation segment wide CD • Radar speed feedback E Recommendations: • Install rumble strips near highly trafficked areas/access points along path; CI) Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Cli • Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display V) • Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds • Clarify preferential bicycle access signage/markings Vic• f3 516 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 40 p:a Goldenwest Street to llth Street (Lower Path) Issues identified: • Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations confusing for travel to/from �• • upper and lower paths • High volumes of traffic and constrained path width leading to/from dog beach • Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path • Path does not have separation between users; no centerline • No sand walls to keep path clear • Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path ° • High e-bike/bike speeds along path/segment Opportunities identified: • Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) Recommendations - Point Improvements: • Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display ° • Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to • encourage slower speeds • Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas/access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of • artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks • Install speed feedback sign (numerical or icon) Recommendations - Corridor Improvements: •.°I p..;x • Install centerline striping • Widen path and include user separation; install centerline striping • Install sand walls • .•, • Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display • t.=36 M (2';'A 517 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 41 } 11 t h Street to 1st Street - 3etwee n 10th Street and 6th Street Issues identified: 1 • Narrow path width between Main Street and 1st Street • Ramp is a blind spot for users going northbound • Lack of secure bike storage along path and under pier 2.4 • Constrained path width along segment �r4 • No sand walls (10th Street to 7th Street) • Outdated flashing beacons near 6th Street and 1st Street • Pedestrian/bicycle mixing zone does not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts °i° ; • Inconsistent speed limit signage • Pedestrian and vendor activity encroaches onto path , • Path does not have separation between users; no centerline Opportunities identified: kt a • Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and � °" environmental review) .14 " Recommendations - Point Improvements: 5' • Establish Slow Zones.between 6th Street and the pier and between 1st Street and the pier; replace old flashing beacons ° $ • Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas/access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of y .ffi artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks • Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Recommendations - Corridor Improvements: • Install centerline striping;widen path horizontally and include user separation • Install sand walls • Upgrade bike racks to be more secure • Consider placemaking elements entering slow zone and within the slow zone al .4z6 518 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 42 1st Street to Beach Bou levy rc eT, A-1 Issues identified: • Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to sand;trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling across path from those traveling along the path • Constrained path width adjacent to the grade separated parking lot wall • Inconsistent speed limit signage • Pedestrian and vendor activity encroach onto path • Path does not have separation between users; no centerline n • At grade parking lots have no clear access points - steady stream of pedestrians along path (1)-' • Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts • Lack of secure bike storage along path r � is > yv P: Opportunities identified: 1 1r" • Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) 1) • Radar speed feedback • Sand walls prevent sand build up on path . Recommendations - Point Improvements: • Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas/access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks ne-he, !��� 4 • Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight � g y P g • Move showers farther from path to prevent queuing on path �f e Recommendations - Corridor Improvements: • Install centerline striping;widen path and include user separation • Upgrade bike racks to be more secure , , • Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display s 519 c HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 43 Y $ 4� ' ' ' " ,, ' "" ,,,,. fr.11.-,h tit ,,,,..F.;-, ---„it ii .4.i_ ,-._, - .... iti---- )iii,ii- ---="..-- !' , - .,-- '' ,,,t '''.;l';,--;it r - '1' I ,..! i'_'...-4?.. -2--IV- i::: �plir. .1. a' 7vs �,�Itl , - f $_ •a v w �,: ti.,fix . d �{ *. ,,,, 4 4 t x `,.. a c4 ' �'`-;.r`sa ,i:4 , .+ x , ' '�N r "� ' may. -� kictiF '' rR ?, ' w- g. ", t"Y"e .:'it." �. - sue„ di `" .' `� a�.- y .fit. �.tr.�ry k � � � S^ c � � o a_g.�'� �Dr�� d Huntington,Beach Multi Use Beach Path , - Source:Toole Design Group Table 5. Cost Estimates for the Project Team's Recommended Improvements. Segment Total Corridor Miles Estimated Total Cost Segment 2-Goldenwest Street to 11th Street 0.78 $101,000 (Upper Path) Segment 3-Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Lower Path) 0.78 $2,660,000 Segment 4—11th Street to 1st Street 0.64 $1,129,000 Segment 5—1st Street to Beach Boulevard 0.85 $939,000 Total Cost $4,983,000 520 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 44 E- bi <e Policy and Education Huntington Beach, like many cities across the country, has seen a large increase in e-bike riders in recent years. Fueled by new features and technologies that range from remote locking, app-enabled settings, and electric-assisted pedaling that flatten hills and shorten trip lengths, the e-bike is being touted as the future of urban mobility. E-bikes represent an emerging sustainable mode of transportation in coastal cities across California. While e-bikes can bring real benefits to Huntington Beach, such as reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reduced car ownership, and increased accessibility for older adults, among other benefits, e-bike riders have been involved in crashes with other road and beach path users that have resulted in injuries. Some key issues that have been raised with e-bikes in Huntington Beach are: Riders lack education of the rules of the road and how to ''. safelyoperate an e-bike in a city P i p ...fal Shortage of infrastructure to accommodate the growing rr-Tarineed of residents as theyshift from usin cars as their ' �, g it primary mode of transportation to shared mobility options � (e-scooters, e-bikes, bikes, etc.) 1 ., Unclear signage of where certain modes of transportation 71' are prohibited and what speed limits are in areas Inconsistent data to monitor the effects of e-bikes and for � I policymakers to make judgments on the safety impacts of 1 0 al.:° these technologies T....A. ?5t .,eito„ ,2,:,:,,,'c,: 521 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 45 The Huntington Beach Police Department has taken steps to address or mitigate some of these concerns, including: • Providing e-bike education classes at local schools within Ocean View School District, Huntington Beach Union School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School District.This safety initiative aims to enhance road safety and awareness and ensure safe commutes for middle and highschool students who use bicycles or e-bicycles to travel to school. • Hosting a "Bike Rodeo" each month to promote safe riding habits and reduce potential hazards on the road.The rodeo also offers free helmets and safety gear. • Hosting a regional E-bike Summit to foster collaborative exchange of knowledge and resources among leaders from government, educational institutions, and the private sector, with a shared objective of enhancing safety of cyclists and other road users. • Publishing "#TrafficTipTuesday" posts on social media to inform the public of bicycle laws and regulations. • Offering a bicycle safety class to the general public and to bike law violators in lieu of a fine or other consequence.The class is offered the 2nd Saturday of every month.The class covers: • Basic bike maintenance and safety checks • Rules of the road for bicyclists - • Proper hand signals and bike r ....,. POLICE PA'. ENT signaling techniques �ti� � - • Navigating traffic and 4. ` , __. . # -, intersections with confidence ,. • Avoid common hazards and - - ® . accidents ', ;ter- :_ • Staying alert and safe around `~• #p _ .. la pedestrians i - ®- . . = , ii • Hosting e-bike safety clinics with -- -- , . , , private sector partners, like Rad E - ° = -_ , J .,. Power Bikes, to elevate awareness , , ._J ingqabout e-bike safety. 1N/71 : :_ .,,,,f-il::::,;1',-:.4:,,, L1/4.„:"Iiii, •:\ •• x .1.. ' . b a_ i ;»x i(s`�'..`,,,as ,'r4, _{�....X Hunt igtoI'heac/ Bike=Rodeo(September2022) 5oYrc cis Aingetes Tit-41aes _ - -— �+��n�: 522 -11:,-Z*'?. fi, �3 .,1 -,:, t, e , `i S p } ' �* PedestrianA . ,„. .., t ,.,. , : It ... „... Epicycle Level of Traffic w4 Caculation Stress l A roach ,, weg F;. a SF y 4 -- - .. HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 47 Pedestrian Connectivity is a key measure to support route directness for walking, whether it's for commuting, everyday needs, recreation, or intermodal transportation connections.A highly connected and permeable transportation network that promotes walkability and pedestrian activity is one with a high number of intersections and/or short distances between street crossing opportunities and few dead-end street or culdesacs.The following section details the methodology, assumptions, and results of a pedestrian crossing stress analysis performed for all the streets within Huntington Beach. Leveraging this existing understanding of the pedestrian experience in the city will help identify neighborhoods or areas that would benefit from mobility that promotes or enhances walk-based trips. Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis Approach The presence and quality of crosswalks' are important components of connectivity.The potential stress a typical pedestrian may experience while crossing streets in Huntington Beach was modeled based on roadway and crossing characteristics using data provided by Huntington Beach. In the process of this work, some data gaps were manually closed using aerial imagery or by assumptions (see Analysis Assumptions, below,for more information).The pedestrian crossing stress methodology used for this analysis follows a modified version of the Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) analysis described in the Oregon DOT Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2, considered an industry best practice.The analysis considers conditions for each input to estimate the level of stress a pedestrian may experience while crossing the street at every crosswalk (marked and unmarked) throughout Huntington Beach.The analysis uses the following inputs: • Traffic volume • Number of vehicle lanes, as a proxy for crossing distance • Functional classification • Posted speed limit • Traffic control device • Traffic signal information provided by Huntington Beach • All-way-stops manually collected • Partial-stop signs (i.e., 2-way stops) were modeled at unsignalized locations using functional classification for intersecting streets • Mid-block crossing locations (manually collected) • Pedestrian Crossing Island (manually screened network for presence) 1 Crosswalks are either a portion of the road painted with the distinctive white lines that people are familiar seeing,or where two roads meet at approximately right angles,the extensions of the sidewalks through the intersection except when crossing is prevented by a median barrier or otherwise prohibited by signage. Source:CVC 275 tao 524 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 48 Scoring criteria are shown in Table 1 through Table 5 and are used to score each crossing, based on the street type of the street being crossed. Table 1. Criteria for Local/Collector Unsignalized Crossings Observed 85th Percentile Speed Total Lanes Crossed (MPH) 1 Lane* 2 Lanes 3 lanes 4+lanes s 25 mph r PLTS # ; PLTS f w LTS I I PLTS 3 30 PLTS I I PLTS 2 PLTS 211" PLTS 3 35 I PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3/2" PLTS 3 >_40 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 Notes: PLTS= Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress For example,a one-lane,one-way street "if pedestrian crossing island is present,the lower PLTS score is assigned Reproduced and modified from ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual,Exhibit 14-20. Speeds along local roads without speed data are assumed 25 mph. Table 2. Criteria for Arterial_Unsignalized_Crossings (with No Median Refuge) Total Lanes Crossed _ Observed 85th 2 Lanes 1 3+ Lanes Percentile Speed <5 000 5 000- <8,000 8,000- p ' >9,000 vpd > 12,000 vpd (MPH) vpd 9,000 vpd vpd 12,000 vpd 525 mph PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 I PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 30 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PUTS 3 I PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 35 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 40 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 VPD =Vehicle per day Table 3. Criteria for Arterial Unsignalized Crossings (with Median Refuge) Maximum ThroughlTurn Lanes Crossed per Direction Observed 851h 1 Lane I 2 Lanes I 3+ Lanes 4+Lanes Percentile Speed An <5,000 5,000- >9,000 <8,000 8,000- >12,000 Any (MPH) y vpd 9,000 vpd _ vpd vpd 12,000 vpd vpd <_25 mph PLTS 1 II PLTS 1 ' PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 1, PLTS 2 PLTS 3 ! PUTS 30 PLTS 2 I PUTS 2 PUTS 2 PUTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 35 PLTS 2 I PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 40 PLTS 3 I PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 PLTS 4 _ L- _ 525 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 49 Table 4. Criteria for Crossings with All-way Stops, and RRFBs Total Lanes Crossed Observed 85th 2 Lanes I 3 + Lanes PercentileSpeed < 5,000 vpd g 0'00 vpd >9,000 vpd <8,080 8,000— > 12,000 vpd MPH vpd 12,000 vpd 1525 mph PLTS 1 ; PLTS 1 # PLTS 2 I PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 30 PLTS 1 PLTS 2 PLTS 2 I PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 35 PLTS 2 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 I PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 40 PLTS 2 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 PLTS 3 Notes:Signalized crossings with a score greater than or equal to 2 are awarded a 1-point bonus(reducingfirnproving the score by 1) Table 5. Criteria for Signalized Crossings Total Lanes Crossed 5 PLTS 2.__ 5 PLTS3 Analysis Assumptions Due to gaps in the available datasets some assumptions were made.Assumptions used in this analysis are outlined in Table 6. Complete citywide datasets for pedestrian crossing islands, partial stop- controlled intersections (e.g.,two-way stop), number of vehicle travel lanes, observed vehicle speed, and traffic volumes were not available to our team at the time of the analysis. Most major roadways have observed vehicle speed and traffic volumes, but local streets and some collectors are missing data. Table 6. Analysis Assumptions Variable Assumption Local roads with missing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), assumed Traffic volume is 500. Non-local roads with missing AADT received the average Volumes AADT from segments with the same street name and/or same functional classification ordered by proximity where volume data is available. Where speed data along local roads are missing, assumed speed is 25 mph. Posted Speed Non-local roads with missing observed speed receive averaged speed from Limit segments with the same street name or same functional classification ordered by proximity where speed data is available. 526 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 50 Legs that are controlled by a traffic signal, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), Controlled Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), or stop sign are considered a Crossing or "controlled crossing" for the purpose of this analysis. Crossing with Crossings at partial-stop (i.e.,2-way,1-way) controlled intersections are only RRFB or PHB considered controlled on the non-main crossing (i.e., crossing along the lowest functional classification). Mid-block crossings with RRFB or PHB are considered controlled crossings. Number of Non-local roads were part of a high-level data collection effort. Where the lanes number of lanes is missing or not collected, assumed number of lanes is 2. A manual screen of the roadway network found there are no pedestrian crossing islands.There are only a few median islands in the city's roadway Pedestrian network such as found at the Main/Utica/17th Street and Main/Adams Crossing intersections. In addition,there are some "pork chop" islands that channelize Islands right turn movements and provide a pedestrian refuge between the right turn lane and through lanes. Examples of the "pork chop" islands include those located at the intersections of Main/Garfield, Main/Delaware, Main/ Florida, PCH/Warner and Springfield/McFadden. Data Development Intersections An intersection dataset was developed by creating a point where three or more street centerline segments intersect. Mid-block crosswalks were manually identified and added to this intersection dataset.The number of legs (approaching streets) at the intersection point was calculated by summing the number of street centerlines at the intersection. Intersection points with fewer than 3 legs were removed from the intersection dataset with the exception of mid-block crosswalk2 locations. For the purpose of this analysis, only collector and arterials roadways were included. Those roadway types generally have the roadway and operational characteristics that contribute to high-stress whereas local/residential roadways generally have slower moving traffic, lower traffic volumes, and shorter crossing distances resulting in low-stress crossing assignments. Crosswalks To create the crosswalks (both marked and unmarked) dataset, a point was placed along the street centerlines 50 feet from the intersection point.The buffer around each intersection was adjusted for cartographic and data precision needs. Using an intersection geoprocessing method, a crosswalk data point was created at every instance where the boundary of a buffer intersected a street centerline, shown in the image on page 48. Mid-block crossing locations were added to create a complete crosswalk dataset. 2 Mid-block crosswalk is a term commonly used to refer to crosswalks not located at an intersection but indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the roadway surface often accompanied by signage. 527 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 51 This method allows for intersection, street centerlines, and crosswalk attributes to be joined efficiently between the three datasets using a common unique identification number. f G11 t4l , 'i i ParialsAve 2: 1 &gr te,Ave i 4 t3=� Fr � =—r3 i 1 ' Purvis Ave` _. ; ,: r .. .... Purvis Ave 9 --�-qry P !Si ' \ei, �� Example image of ,. I b Mrrehenave `�'`, dataset -Mikhail Ave o crossing generation `o Source:Toole Design h .. Group Scoring Crosswalk Gaps • Using the crosswalks developed in above steps, each location was fed through the scoring schema outlined in Table 6 through Table 10 for crosswalks only at intersections along collector and arterial roadways.3 This included the crosswalk locations on collector/arterial legs and crosswalks on the residential/local legs.The output of this analysis assigned every crosswalk a PLTS score throughout the city for both marked and unmarked crosswalks.The distance between crosswalks along the same street were measured to flag locations that have long distances between high-stress crossings and the nearest low-stress crossing. Study limitations Citywide datasets for the following variables were not available at the time of the analysis: • Pedestrian crossing islands-the project team scanned the transportation network and did not find any pedestrian crossing islands • Observed speed-absent for local roadways • Traffic volumes-absent for local roadways 3 Crosswalks at residential/local intersections were excluded from this analysis as the vast majority of those crosswalks generally score as PLTS 1. Data availability and completeness related to observed vehi- cle speeds and traffic volumes can provide a nuanced look at PLTS at residential crosswalks if that data is available. If available,the data can be used to determine if there are specific residential/local crosswalks that have higher vehicle volumes or observed vehicle speeds that would result in an PLTS 3-4. 528 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 52 Bicycle A connected bicycle network that supports various levels of riders is made up of low-stress op- tions, Short travel distances, and direct routes.These features improve convenience and encour- age mode shift. Huntington Beach may be able to see an increase in bicycle mode share by prior- itizing improvements to their bicycle network that focus on these features.The following section details two analyses performed to evaluate Huntington Beach's existing bicycle conditions and level of connectivity.This includes the approach, methodology, results, and implications of: • Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis • Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA) Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Approach LTS analysis identifies the stress of street networks for people bicycling based on the built environ- ment, traffic speed, and traffic volume characteristics. LTS is one of the key inputs to the Bicycle Network Analysis.The methodology used by the planning team is adapted from criteria published by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI).4The LTS analysis scores streets on a scale from 1 to 4, with LTS 1 and 2 indicating low-stress and LTS 3 and 4 indicating high-stress. The stress that individuals feel when bicycling is inherently subjective. Some people are more comfortable riding with more and/or faster-moving motor vehicle traffic and with less separation. However, as shown in the image on page 50, people generally identify with four main groups based on differing levels of bicycling comfort: • Not Interested or Able • Interested but Concerned • Somewhat Confident • Highly Confident While a small portion of Huntington Beach's population may be comfortable bicycling in heavy and fast- moving traffic, members of the Interested but Concerned group make up the vast majority of those who can or want to bicycle.This group requires separated facilities, low traffic speeds and volumes, or a combination of both to consider bicycling.Therefore, measuring the LTS of the existing transportation network can help determine the quality of the bike network from the perspective of most residents. 4 Furth (2017). Level of Traffic Stress.Available at:www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-lev- el-of-traffic-stress G:4 c, 529 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 53 u � .-f High 1h: _. Stress , V � Tolerance • r ' 1�'"is� wad - ' i ,, P Tfr�? � t J�i4 v r � r 1 �I F �; Comfort Typology of Bicyclists Design User * Somewhat ighly Profile No liiterested or"Able. I terestwed=butegr cerned • ,Confident Confident Percent of General 31-37% 51-56% 5-9% 4-7% Public Types of Bicyclists and Traffic Stress Tolerance Source:Toole Design Group Methodology The analysis yielded LTS scores for Huntington Beach's entire street network and off-street path system.The LTS analysis determines comfort level based on facility type. Class III Bike Routes, which do consist of dedicated bicycle infrastructure, were not considered in the LTS analysis because the presence of signs does not influence traffic stress. While Class III Bike Routes help direct bicyclists to key destinations and raise awareness of their presence on the road to drivers, these routes are scored using the "mixed traffic" criteria as there is no physical separation between moving traffic and bicyclists. Class I Paths are included and considered "low-stress". For streets,the following inputs determine LTS outputs: • Bicycle facility presence and type • Speed limit • Number of travel lanes per direction • Average daily traffic (ADT) volume • Presence and width of on-street parking lanes • Presence of a centerline Generally, streets with speeds above 25 miles per hour and with traffic volumes above 1,500 to 3,000 vehicles per day are considered "high-stress" if they do not have some form of a dedicated bikeway (e.g., Class II Bike Lanes or Class IV Protected Bike Lanes). Furthermore, on streets with two or more lanes per direction (or on streets with only one lane per direction when speeds exceed 30 miles per hour), streets are usually only considered "low-stress" if they have Class IV Protected Bike Lanes (currently many of them are Class II Bike Lanes). See Table 7 through Table 9 for how the LTS methodology is applied. 530 HB in Motion: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan 54 Table 7. Mixed traffic criteria Posted Speed Limit Number of lanes ADT <20 mph 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph 45 mph 50+mph 0-750 LTS'I LTS'I LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 Unlaned 2-way street 751-1,500 LTS 1 LTS 1 j LTS 2 LTS 3 _ LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 (no centerline) 1,501-3,000 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS.4 LTS 4 LTS 4 >3,000 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 - LTS 3 `; LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 1 thru lane per direction 0-750 LTS 1 LIS�1w.i LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 (1 way, 1-lane street or 2- 751-1,500 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4. LTS 4 way street with centerline) >1,501 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 2 thru lanes per direction 0-8,000 _ LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 -LTS 4 LTS 4 >8,001 LTS 3 LTS 3 ! LTS 4° LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 3+thru lanes per direction any ADT LTS 3 LTS 3 ; LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Table 8. Bike lanes and shoulders not adjacent to a parking lane Posted Speed Limit 35 40 45 50+ Number of lanes Bike lane width <25 mph 30 mph mph mph mph mph 1 thru lane per direction,or 6+ft LTS 1 �LTS 1 _ LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 unlaned (no centerline) 4 or 5 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 2 thru lanes per direction 6+ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 4 or 5 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 3+lanes per direction any width LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4- LTS 4 Table 9. Bike lanes alongside a parking lane Bike lane reach= Bike lane width+ Posted Speed Limit Number of Lanes Parking lane width <25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 1 lane per direction 15+ft LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 1214 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 2 lanes per direction(2-way) 15+ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 2-3 lanes per direction (1-way) LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 other multilane L Is 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 tie& 47,L.) 531 Kra, • APPENDIX 4 Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan (MIP) Toolbox Memorandum • r. 1OOE527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (=MIP) TOOLBOX: BICYCLE, .PEDESTRIAN, A,ND..BEACH PATH This section provides information on a series of treatments that improve bicycle, pedestrian, and beach path conditions. The treatments featured here are not an extensive list of every available option to improve bicycle pedestrian experiences, but rather a tailored list of common tools that have a demonstrated history of improving safety and access. The City of Huntington Beach can consider both rapid implementation and permanent projects in their Toolkit. Rapid implementation projects can include lower cost solutions and may be installed temporarily before a permanent or more costly solution is provided. Rapid implementation projects should include data collection on the effectiveness of the treatment to inform improvements as part of a permanent solution. Crash Modification Factor(CMF): "A CMF estimates a safety countermeasure's ability to reduce crashes and crash severity. Transportation professionals frequently use CMF values to identify countermeasures with the greatest safety benefit for a particular crash type or location." For more information, see: http://www.cmfclearinqhouse.orq/ Proven Safety Countermeasures: Specific countermeasures are highlighted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)for their safety effectiveness and benefits. For more information, see: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ • ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN BUILDIe33 IT TABLE OF CONTENTS Bicycle Treatments Bicycle and Pedestrian Treatments Class I—Shared-Use Path Tree Canopy and Shade Class II—Bike Lane/Buffered Bike Lane Street Furniture Class Ill—Shared Lane Street Lighting Class Ill—Bike Boulevard Pedestrian-Activated Flashing Beacons/Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Class IV—Protected Bikeway Beacon (RRFB) Bicycle Signal Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)/High- Bicycle Detection and Actuation Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) Bike Box Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)/Leading Bicycle Interval Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Box Protected Left Turn Green Pavement Pedestrian Refuge Island Bicycle intersection crossing markings Curb Extension Curb Radius Reduction Pedestrian Treatments New Traffic Signal Sidewalk Lane Reconfiguration High Visibility Crosswalk(Continental Crosswalk, Ladder Crosswalk, Artistic Protected Intersection Crosswalk) Right Turn on Red Restriction Unidirectional Curb Ramp—Detectable Safety Zone (School and Senior) Warning Surface Slip Lane Closure Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) Pedestrian Countdown Beach Path Traffic Calming Treatments Pedestrian Recall Rumble Strips Pedestrian Scramble/Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Speed Humps Signs Separation of Users 534 2 273.257.8680 1'O0LE 527 W. 7TH STREET SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 BICYCLE TREATMENTS - CLASS I — SHARED-USE PATH '+is f ,. r w" � - ,".' y ..k ,n i. ,,FF 3 g I t r s. ' .,, . .fit l;z4;i,11,„,t x � 'i ® . "o - ' , �� � ; d'. r s r # 71 k x a. ' ' ': 'w a ':k ': nit° ., ,� i 44iL ,..." +. Class I bikeways(also known as bike paths or shared-use paths) are facilities with exclusive right of.way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway and with minimized cross flows by vehicle traffic.These facilities support both recreational and commuting opportunities, especially along rivers, shorelines, canals, utility rights-of-way, railroad rights-of-way,within school campuses, or within and between parks. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN BUILDIggry IT CLASS II — BIKE LANE / BUFFERED BIKE LANE n a r, . � r ,ram 3F C 9 1 f +J s jj S -; ? i1 . sF a ?h .g�'y. �r r I Also known as bike lanes, Class II Bicycle Facilities are established along streets, defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way'facilities, typically striped adjacent to vehicle traffic traveling in the same direction. Buffered bike lanes provide greater separation from an adjacent traffic lane or on-street parking by using painted chevrons or diagonal markings. Buffered bike lanes may be desirable on streets with higher vehicle speeds or volumes. CMF/CRF.•Bike Lanes are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 30% to 49%crash reduction [1]. CLASS III — BIKE BOULEVARD t ' ''' -`:41 7:#-1':- �' ' i 'k .4 `' ` fir i r-c L:11.41 IT ,i— t`" }ti �'1 .4 '{ter' '�*s �:`' 4. .. i ,,,,,,:...-: , .:,.. ,. ., _,.: 1: , _ ::: 9�f 4 z b �.� ttrw. ,y..L ♦ • of _ . Y ; 536 4 Class III Bicycle Facilities, also known as bike boulevards, bike routes or shared lanes, are designated streets for bicycle travel shared with vehicles but not served by dedicated bikeways. Bike routes are established by placing signage and/or shared lane markings (i.e., "sharrows") along roadways and are therefore generally not appropriate for roadways with high vehicle speeds or volumes. In some cases, additional treatments such as traffic circles, curb extensions, chicanes, diverters, speed humps or cushions can be added to further support speed and volume reductions.A Bicycle Boulevard or a Neighborhood Greenway is a type of bike route where bicycle travel is prioritized. These facilities are typically placed on residential streets where biking or walking is the primary mode of transportation. Traffic speed and non-local vehicle access is reduced for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. CMF/CRF:Installing a Class III bicycle facility can result in a 63% crash reduction [2]. CLASS IV — PROTECTED BIKEWAY � + „ 777«<___ ,e,,, 1 �.. 1 =I 1- ,t� a, ',, t, .� i ,a• v n,c f fie ®rs4:- y1} /{`^�' ' . .�. vy �L � tM1;w ..���.'^ a. r• ". J. ... f Y Class IV Bicycle Facilities (also known as separated bikeways, protected bikeways, or cycle tracks) are for the exclusive use of bicycles and are physically separated from vehicle traffic, parking lanes, and sidewalks with a vertical and/or horizontal feature. These features include flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, planters, parked vehicles, and curbs. Separated bikeways may be one-way or two-way and may be at street level or sidewalk level. The separation width can vary for these facilities according to roadway geometry. Near transit stops, separated facilities can be incorporated with the use of transit boarding islands. CMF/CRF::Bike Lanes are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 30% to 49% crash reduction [1]. 5 537 BICYCLE SIGNAL 3 A aa 3 S C _� * �.A.N.. ' .£` y} fie 'ill 4 • • SIGNAL JI A bicycle signal is a traffic signal with a green, yellow, and red display intended to control bicycle movements. The display may include arrows or a bicycle symbol shape. Bicycle signals are necessary to indicate a leading or protected phase for bicycle movements. This may sometimes require an additional phase be added to the traffic signal cycle. Initial studies of bicycle signals indicate that their presence may increase signal compliance and improve safety. In 2013, the treatment has been given interim approval to use by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if used for protected bicycle phases but is not included in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This was adopted by California in 2015. FHWA requires an agency to request permission to experiment if using a bicycle signal to apply a leading phase. Bicycle signals can be activated actively or passively. Active detection requires bicyclists to use a push button. Push buttons should be placed in such a way that bicyclists do not have to leave the roadway to activate the signal. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. BICYCLE DETECTION AND ACTUATION 441 1.473 .... f... ?X'c}' S ti 4 '4` �e..`�`si u.'..'Fa,"' V{ "" 'b 1•.fi „.; ZC �.. 6 538 Properly designed detection can deter unsafe behaviors, such as disregarding red signal indications, by reducing delay at signalized intersections. Bicycle signal detection also increases the convenience of bicycling. Passive detection (i.e., when the signal system automatically detects the presence of the user), is considered best practice where feasible. Loop detectors, commonly used for motor vehicle detection, can also be used to detect bicyclists. Other passive detection devices include video and microwave detection. Bicycle detection devices can be used to call a phase or to prolong the phase to allow a bicyclist to clear an intersection. This is particularly important at locations where the minimum green has been established to serve motorists and may not be long enough to serve bicyclists, especially older bicyclists, children, or those towing bicycle trailers. Pavement markings and/or signs should be used to notify bicyclists of the proper bicycle detection location. Combining passive bicycle detection with detection confirmation lights or active detection (push buttons) may improve compliance by assuring bicyclists that they have been detected. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. BIKE BOX r------ ..,..... ...,. f ,:,.. . ;.-:4: “:„,. „ , . ... i ,..,ft, s„. . :.„ ,..{-....,...e..!, ,;, .-.. ,,,, — . -- . . ..,..,_„. . . ,,,.........W. dr.,..4 „..„..1kg, . tom. < s_,Y ... ��f es .., it s • Y; am« "• t r A �7` {- �m � N , -. : . �'� " Ve. 1'��*R S 'r'1 4 Y. 6 i.,,.,2F, S i$@ " ^y ��Po-*"7°",�}at,e, '. . off 1 .. 'S ".' Bike boxes provide space for bicyclists to position themselves in front of vehicles while stopped at a signalized intersection. This treatment provides a predictable place for bicyclists to stop and wait at a signal, allowing them to get out ahead of traffic at the onset of a green signal. Bike boxes are intended to reduce the likelihood of a right-or left-hook collision at the on-set of a green signal. In addition to increasing the visibility and predictability of bicyclists, bike boxes provide priority for bicyclists by allowing them to come to the front of the queue.A"No Right Turn on Red"sign can be installed to prevent vehicles from entering the bike box. Bike boxes can also be helpful for bicyclists making left turns who are uncomfortable or unable to merge to a left turn lane. This treatment has been given interim approval to use by FHWA but is not included in the 2009 MUTCD. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 539 7 TWO-STAGE. BICYCLE TURN QUEUE BOX A^ ' 4 kI 61 «> 6 .«.Y� 1 +g 6+ s'r�SPP °�' eaY�""'{h'"�.� ,+ ' m: # ti , al)ti. id �tt r"; -�[ ' �4 ..�ur „Al,>.:: -1� --- y�amy.,.. ..-a.. _' Q^ 8 A two-stage turn queue box(also known as a Copenhagen-Left or jug-handle turn)designates an area outside of vehicle conflicts for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before proceeding in a different direction of travel. It may be used for left or right turns. They may be useful at locations where bicyclists would have to merge across multiple lanes of traffic,would have to wait in a shared travel lane with motorists to turn, or at locations with separated bike lanes or side paths where it is not possible for bicyclists to merge into motor vehicle lanes in advance of the intersection. This can be advantageous on roadways with higher volumes of vehicular traffic or high operating speeds to reduce conflicts between motorists and turning bicyclists. Bicycle symbol and turn arrow pavement markings indicating the appropriate direction for bicyclists to turn and wait within the box are recommended, as well as the prohibition of right turns on red if turning vehicles would travel through the area of the two-stage bicycle turn box. An agency needs to request permission from FHWA to experiment to use this treatment. The California Department of Transportation has received interim approval (IA). Caltrans and the California Traffic Control Device Committee (CT CDC) have agreed to review each IA issued by FHWA at their earliest convenience for its application in California. If the IA is recommended for use in California, then Caltrans will request FHWA's approval for its use on a blanket basis statewide, eliminating the need for individual agencies to seek FHWA approval. If the IA is not recommended for use in California, then Caltrans will publicize the status of the particular IA on this web site. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 540 8 GREEN PAVEMENT , 10•0 r t , _wry,,,a }, _,,, ''..-101 to 00 ,,,,„ '4:5-01; ,), ..A.)1 ,,o_ \ ----0111)..4 Y_ , I� '" fats r� }q � ~~ 4 S ?it' ''''',/-Nii:7%,..,:illittk,i\-,:- -',., "7------.,,, '" " ' ' ' , A 4,AA" ,,,;.;it,:44,'0-40— % ,,., ,,„, 4,,/ , ,1/4 #F y S. A. fig,, Green pavement within a bicycle facility increases its visibility to all roadway users and reinforces the priority to bicyclists in conflict areas and in areas where motorists may park in the bike facility. The green pavement can be used either as a corridor treatment along the length of the facility, or as a spot treatment, such as a bike box, conflict area, or intersection conflict marking. Consistent application of green paint across a bike network is important to promote clear understanding for all users. The green color may be applied with paint, Durable Liquid Pavement Markings (DLPM), thermoplastic, or colored asphalt CMF/CRF: Unavailable. BICYCLE INTERSECTION CROSSING MARKINGS al ,� ,� � 1�'. '�� t ` .Q d f .}y .t 0 eb` � " .+�i Tit 5"p 4,' F . i Bicycle lane intersection crossing markings are •intended to provide bicyclists with a clear, highly visible pathway through an intersection. They also help to alert motorists to the presence of bicycle through-traffic and encourage turning motorists to yield to through moving bicyclists. The pavement within the bicycle lane extension can include green color. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 9 541 PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS ' SIDEWALK Ill I it � �. II�.. 1_Ithi II Q 1 [. i•1 �h6� I 1 con La f �/1` , j c� ( Tl Y(q`., ,yam .( _6, Ii, , ,L..,z,-,ci ...7. 1 H,._r4 i Sidewalks provide space along a street for pedestrian travel and are the backbone of a city's pedestrian network. For sidewalks to function, they must be kept clear of any obstacles and be wide enough to comfortably accommodate expected pedestrian volumes and different types of pedestrians, including those using mobility assistance devices like wheelchairs, pushing strollers, or pulling carts. CMF/CRF: Sidewalks are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 65% to 89% crash reduction [1]. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK, LADDER CROSSWALK, ARTISTIC CROSSWALK) 03 "r r &,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, - SSS ". � 1 ,, ttl „....,,,,,-----.. .„ - . __. ,--__,...,_ , e � . u ...,,,,, ., ,, ,.,.,„.., • 1 . ._, • , _ 4 r � Y J. _...-.__.._._.�..a..-�...._..... -... •ram �e. t ✓ 542 10 High-visibility crosswalk markings, such as continental or ladder-style, are preferred over parallel line markings to improve visibility to approaching motorists. High-visibility crosswalk markings reinforce legal crosswalks at intersections and create legal crossings at non-intersection locations. These crosswalk markings warn motorists to expect pedestrian crossings and clarify that motorists are expected to yield right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. At uncontrolled locations, high-visibility crosswalk markings identify a preferred crossing location for pedestrians. CMF/CRF:High Visibility Crosswalks are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 40% crash reduction [1]. UNIDIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP - DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE • The transition for pedestrians from the sidewalk to the street is provided by a curb ramp. The design of curb ramps is critical for all pedestrians, particularly for persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)standards require all pedestrian crossings be accessible by providing curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces at all locations where pedestrians can be expected to cross the street. In addition to people with disabilities, curb ramps also benefit people pushing strollers, grocery carts, suitcases, or bicycles.At intersections, directional curb ramps should be installed to orient pedestrians toward the desired line of travel. Detectable warning surfaces are a hazard warning for pedestrians with low or no vision. Comprised of truncated domes and produced in colors that contrast the sidewalk or curb ramp in which they are placed, detectable warning surfaces function like a pedestrian stop line, alerting persons with vision disabilities to the presence of the street or other vehicular travel way. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 543 11 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL ' y r" , 12,,, .,, „..,...;,,,---- ad Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)and accessible detectors are devices that communicate information in non- visual formats about the pedestrian crossing to people with visual and/or hearing disabilities. They may include features such as audible tones, speech messages, detectable arrow indications, and/or vibrating surfaces. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN n k.,;J 4' r'y+ ,+ °2 o `�' Yam+ ��,/ f, w," -_ - - A `t'i t:1 r ,` p , a . ?' 4 i''...if. gip ii �__ Pedestrian signals and countdown signals provide guidance to pedestrians regarding the permitted signal interval to cross a street and prohibit pedestrian crossings when conflicting traffic may impact pedestrian safety. Ideally, every signalized intersection should have a pedestrian signal head. Countdown signals are indications designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the clearance interval (flashing "DON'T WALK")and can be set to fixed-time, push button operation, or passive pedestrian detection. They indicate to the pedestrian how much time is left in the crossing phase. The California MUTCD requires countdown pedestrian indications for all newly installed traffic signals where pedestrian signals are installed. 544 12 CMF/CRF. Installing a pedestrian countdown signal can result in an 8.8% crash reduction [3]. PEDESTRIAN RECALL 1.;;;:411'' fie.) ... I 1111 . . , . . A. w. 4. �i GIs !'1 ¢ �_ ill ; ,.s Pedestrian recall is when a signal is set to automatically allow pedestrians to cross the street without the need to push a button during a green interval. It causes the WALK signal to activate on every cycle of the intersection traffic signal. In areas and locations where pedestrian demand is high, pedestrian recall should be considered to minimize crossing delays and provide convenience and comfort for pedestrians. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE / EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE I t r 1 1 -iii , r yr ,_ i_ j LJ An exclusive pedestrian phase stops all motor vehicles at the intersection to allow people to cross the street at every crosswalk. It minimizes exposure of people walking and rolling, minimizes delay for people waiting to cross the street, and provides accessibility benefits to people with disabilities. Like the exclusive pedestrian phase, a pedestrian scramble, or"Barnes Dance", stops all vehicle movements at the intersection to give priority to pedestrians looking to cross the street. Scrambles also provide diagonal crosswalks in the middle of the intersection to allow for more direct crossing movements, eliminating the need to cross two crosswalks to get to an opposite corner. CMF/CRF: Installing an exclusive pedestrian phase can result in a 35% crash reduction [4]. 545 13 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS TREE CANOPY AND SHADING 1 '� � l II :, , Ih 11 I --- - [ [ 1 0 -i.1i[, �,[ - -_ __ ,_ . � �� ,, ,'ui l,l_ IGcI 1 __fiI[i ,fi�, I fJ r � ��4a� � r ' 1 I � �y 1 " --''-' - -".--'---"' -1—"' ft/ . 1.'- °A7' .A-t-2-U,:7- • ''. , --`1*,,,44, ir Ati A It C' t !- -I ,.-„ot--,,,,, ',....1 --- .- -- # v-- ' 6.K'+'" .�� [ /� % -jam fAi`,T # ratfr. .. •ko I i,- c . {j 5 �, ``.1, ,,.:4,,,. .,,,, "ti.' ,. - -- f err NN 5 . F 5 W , b 'v P'''' yq 'f r* .,,> aq ,� •.. .a..< ,;nXr Mt,,,. r"sa._3 ;AP r �`?��� �i'� "�� \. Street trees provide shade and visual softness to make walking and the use of sidewalks feel more pleasant. Trees can help reduce peak temperatures during summer months and mitigate air pollution. Tree placement will vary based on type of tree species and amount of space in the right-of-way but should be typically used along sidewalks and trails and in public plazas and parks. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. STREET FURNITURE - -.�l U� f ,� Is . j..., ,,,L .. `"n'c.�A M.."may., . . , *4,t,,,..., "... ( -- I. R u a r y2 546 14 Street furniture includes an array of elements, including benches, trash and recycling receptacles, bollards, transit stops and shelters, decorative planters and more. Seating is an essential component to each street and includes temporary and permanent fixtures such as chairs, benches, seat walls, steps, public art, and raised planters. The location and type of seating element should respond to adjacent land uses, available shade from either structures or street trees, the presence of parallel parking buffering the seating area from traffic and the width of the amenity zone. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. STREET LIGHTING , 7 * • f3 / " •". Ord I f�/ A f •r Illumination at crosswalks and along the roadway can help increase visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly at approaches to crossings. Studies show that increasing or adding lighting to crosswalks, road segments, and intersections improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety by reducing crashes, increasing yielding and compliance with traffic control devices, and improving visibility. Pedestrian-scale lighting is lighting directed toward the sidewalk and positioned lower than roadway lighting. It is a crucial element in providing a safe multimodal environment and ensures that a pedestrian environment is used 'frequently and safely, resulting in a safer and healthier community. Pedestrian-scale lighting should be installed along streets with existing or anticipated high volumes of pedestrian activity and at intersections and crossings. CMF/CRF:Lighting is a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 28% to 42% crash reduction[1]. 547 15 PEDESTRIAN-ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS / RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACON .n ;'�, 4 -- — - & 'C NO 7 , \ ., , 4 ,w,;; ''' -::`,, , t%hi/ '."----, 4 ' • -.\;,'11`..‘,, ,:,,,y-.., NI# \-\1\\ i,'''r.),-2.\-..,,,-...7,,,-,\'',\:,-,:\:, ,,,,,..: -:\ ) ,\.,T,c, - , - — r N Iftlh NI‘ _ ,v. :, .,,, N ,.." (c..... - \ Of ,,,,,116 , , _ 7,..,„At- ,,\„ ,; , ,,, 11.:. la ‘ , ,,,„ , t t , N'y ti i _\. 4 lid, . �, ti Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)are pedestrian actuated beacons that use a rapid, irregular flash frequency. They increase driver yielding, increase pedestrian visibility, and slow down vehicle speeds. RRFBs should be installed on roadways with low to medium vehicle volumes and/or roadways with posted speeds under 40mph. CMF/CRF:Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 47% crash reduction[1]. PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON / HIGH-INTENSITY ACTIVATED CROSSWALK .. ; ;f` �• k"` s t' M°s k; x a. "' t p �i' F}£_4 h"a✓ c � •. �.s°fir'4:: d', a= " � c�,�. ,a 5 ;, e 5--�,•-� v. fir, ... , Ic CROSSWALK ',j �. ,• R o-x tl y r •y .. �,i i 4 -{ 548 16 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also called high intensity activated crosswalk(HAWKs), help pedestrians safely cross busy or higher-speed streets at midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections. The beacon head consists of two red lights above a single yellow light. Once a pedestrian pushes the button to cross, the signal then initiates a yellow to red lighting sequence directing motorists to slow and come to a stop. The pedestrian signal then flashes a WALK display for the pedestrian to cross. CMF/CRF:Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 15% to 55% crash reduction [1l• LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL / LEADING BICYCLE INTERVAL jj ^ %per i �4 ''` 'a?9ti �9( 0 9 I /' -� "' �iN' v ��,," .IF `-}fir ''^` �, ✓`,,-is /i.% ".` . Cam. •<,,•�'' r>� � 44 v-Nilfer ..:."--',.--_-_-`---- ---,7N;;;;>:-N,,, ,, --.:::41.•5,..."°-‘,,,,,,,,, ,- s, , a c -- [ I tp. AO. \., „,,,,----' ,-1,, - , -,,,.. , . 2 Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs)and Leading Bicycle Intervals (LBIs)give pedestrians and bicyclists a three to seven second head start to establish themselves in the intersection before motorists are given the green light. This allows pedestrians and bicyclists to enter the intersection prior to turning motorists, increasing visibility between all modes. LPIs especially benefit slower pedestrians, including people with disabilities, seniors, and children. If an LBI is to be used with a bicycle signal, the agency should request permission to experiment from FHWA. CMF/CRF:Leading Pedestrian Intervals are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 13% crash reduction [1]. 549 17 PROTECTED LEFT TURN ' ---- } , ','-•-°., N -'s `,,. 0 ,,,. .,,,,,,.; ,, ,_st,141-.1")-1 .....1 QC1 ..., ,, '----3 .\= t. d I '` S ifir^'.[,,,,---„<<„,k� kTitt.` :. 1,��'' *` 1 ° N.\ .tioi-,i liihr- ItO • A-protected left turn provides a red arrow for left turning motorists while allows both on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians to cross to eliminate conflicts. It allows pedestrians to cross the intersection at the beginning of a signal cycle, reducing conflicts between pedestrians and motorists, CMF/CRF:Protected Left Turn is a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 28% to 48%crash reduction[1]. PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND ��" _; i F, '.e t w -6—ti ff iz :-.. .. \Vti ','::_\s7:- _ ‘...J: ' , ‘\"z'Ai in . . ,-,--,-- ....... : ‘ 1,`,.-.1. -i'''''..:',2-4°. 1-.,-.,:, .,...:,,,-..,,..4-i-. .. Y 550 18 Pedestrian refuge islands are raised medians placed in the middle of a street that provide a protected space for people trying to walk across the street. Pedestrian refuge islands improve safety by reducing conflicts with motorists. They are particularly valuable when used at unsignalized crossings along multi-lane streets because they make it easier for pedestrians to find gaps in traffic and allow pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a 'time. CMF/CRF:Pedestrian Refuge Islands are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 46% crash reduction [1]. CURB EXTENSION .4)t64 ✓ Curb extensions, also known as bulb-outs, reduce the width of the street by extending the sidewalk at corners or mid-block. They help improve visibility, calm traffic, and provide extra space on sidewalks for walking and gathering. In addition to shortening crossing distances, curb extensions create more compact intersections, resulting in smaller corner radii and slower turns by people driving. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. CURB RADIUS REDUCTION � � r `" r Ut_ t t _ , 4 � `�� • � a a, 7 li p: p 19 551 Curb radius reductions are a strategy to reduce turning speeds for vehicles by forcing sharper turns; they also create larger waiting areas for crossing pedestrians.All curb radius geometries should be designed to prevent turning vehicles from tracking over the curb which could injure people waiting on the corner. The effective radius is influenced by the presence of on-street parking and bike lanes. A curb radius of 5 to 10 feet on streets with parking can generally result in an effective curb radius of 15 to 20 feet, which can accommodate passenger cars and small trucks. A truck apron can be used to provide a curb radius reduction targeted to slow smaller vehicles while accommodating the needs of larger vehicles. CMF/CRF:Reducing curb radius can result in an 18% to 59%reduction in pedestrian crashes[5]. NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL rG HICt.E5 - a ? u` ".. , 'Sri fr ? ,) •,`'I il. r _ i ..mot ‘.,./I. ta:1.s',, -, , =Z...`..I d 'j,aVt:,,, ,4:^°-',",4'-.-,„T'1r1-0,. Y `ar_t: o'x 4 t .i t ?'t'wx M. ,..d 1. AYE � ' �t Traffic signals create gaps in the traffic flow to allow pedestrians and other users to cross the street at locations where users would otherwise experience long delays or have difficulties crossing the street safely. Warrants in the MUTCD govern the installation of traffic signals, which are based on the number of pedestrians and vehicles crossing the intersection, among other factors. However,judgment must also be used on a case-by-case basis. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 552 20 LANE RECONFIGURATION pP7/7w .,. i , .,-; ,.. :, _ �.: ( ,,,,,., - ''4 ' _ '' 4 ...iliell ys �) 1 --. , '1"-,-- - ' C7j11, i 61 ljj���r w 6 p h The number of lanes on a roadway determines how far pedestrians or bicyclists must cross at an intersection and how many conflict points might exist between turning traffic and bicyclists or pedestrians. Efforts have been made to reduce the number and width of lanes through 'road diets'that not only reduce the number of lanes but provide space to implement additional pedestrian and bicyclist safety treatments such as adding bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and reducing travel speed. Road reductions are often completed to improve access management, increase bicycle and pedestrian access, and to enhance roadway safety. The most common road reduction configuration involves converting a four-lane roadway into three lanes, with one travel lane in each direction, a center two-way left-turn lane, and bike lanes in each direction, often supplemented with painted or raised center islands. CMF/CRF:Road Reductions (Road Reconfigurations) are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 19-47% crash reduction[1]. 553 21 PROTECTED INTERSECTION f S { j a 'm 3 F\\--`,ta—:-g- 1WUr S ,y s d' j .?- 1 Y 11 -t ;.v v' ..1 11914ft41C.4716-' —1 .17"'' " °*'. s' c!} y, I. 'f°°°:',.. ''' '''''' 44' ---,_ ''''' ,------' ''..A ..„,t '' -\'‘." .4.<,,,, •Ti;',1"" '' Iti Protected intersections are a type of intersection design that improves safety by reducing the speed of turning traffic, improving sight lines, and designating space for all road users. Protected intersections reduce conflict points between drivers, sidewalk users, and bicyclists by separating all modes. The separation is achieved through corner islands that reduce vehicle turning speeds and provide an area for vehicles to wait while yielding to bicyclists and pedestrians in the crosswalk. Protected intersections eliminate the merging and weaving movements from vehicles typically found in conventional bike lanes and shared streets. By clearly defining pedestrian and bicyclist spaces and mitigating conflicts between vehicles and vulnerable users, protected intersections provide a safer environment for all modes. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. RIGHT-TURN-ON-RED RESTRICTION L � Q -4i. ...,� �"w fk F d ilo. . 'LN. - d mil. _i).-i 2: ~ ' 554 22 Right-turn-on-red restrictions prevent motorists from turning right(or left on intersecting one-way streets)while the traffic signal is red. Restricting this movement eliminates conflicts with pedestrians crossing in front of turning motorists. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. SAFETY ZONE (SCHOOL AND SENIOR) 4. .F°, M T ma . 2d I p•. SLOW . . ZONE lb.: ,' i- 417 `'Rio ai ' 1)(i�'A4 4;:::7; " � wo y vi t i ��l���ll l- r a i � .max_� L,. 0 �� � ;? ` r Jr11t71- eat 4�w1}��4is mil h 1 c I $ ,"+i I/ in 'w Sn a a 11 r t r, 3g' -- e- r_ a ,�... w 1• Safety zones, or slow zones, are streets within a jurisdiction that are designated a slower speed limit, typically 15mph to 20mph. These slower speed limits are often used together with traffic calming elements and specific pavement markings. School, park, and senior area slow zones encourage slow speeds in areas with a high concentration of people who are at special risk on the street. Time-of-day school speed limits can be used when the school is an uncharacteristically sensitive place compared with the rest of the street. Safety zones can be implemented on a larger scale as neighborhood slow zones or district speed zones. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 555 23 SLIP LANE CLOSURE alEL | ^ ~�x `=~ | Exclusive right-turn lanes might be desirable at busy intersections, but the design and control of these can have a significant impact on safety for pedestrians. Intersections with right-turns slip lanes (see illustration)are potential candidates for redesign. When slip lanes are eliminated, they reduce the overall crossing distance for pedestrians and/slow the speeds of turning traffic,which in turn improve pedestrian safety. CMF/CRF. Unamyilob/e. BEACH PATH TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS 1 RUMBLE STRIPS ` i 9 „I ) j-II q " T 5. f '‘ • Rumble strips are tactile patterns constructed within the bike path to give bicyclists an audible and tactile cue that they are approaching a conflict zone or pedestrian crossing and need to be alert to the presence of pedestrians. The effect of some rumble strip designs on bicyclists can be significant if not properly mitigated, causing the bicycle to shudder violently and/or the bicyclist to lose control.Sinusoidal rumble strips are an emerging design, which may cause less disruption. Unlike milled rumble strips, the continuous surface makes it easier for bicyclists to traverse while maintaining an effective level of vibration and noise. Raised rumble strips, on the other hand, have not been found to be as effective and are not recommended because they can increase crash risks for bicyclists. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. • 557 25 SIGNS ICON SPEED FEEDBACK t '�� am. # A 1& �'6. ,4'i !3 +F ro� *n ei- 4, YOURS . s . �; ' ` t ' : �f '�. ? 1' .t 0 _...01 ' kt a IN ' ' — —0 ti xsrYt r L1Mti i ir.^ . _ I 1,1. g.2 i.' S. pia r x�" � ._ 'w +#y' 8* ; 1 s4°,7... . ,.- 1 Vlwt SPEED, ✓ µ+ f A I t-4 ti . ,,A, Ai, l4'}P g y 4 it 6 ]k ?s 'A.. f ' +4 .k " f ! S' � . r , ,' . V ':,- ;.--g A : i ''''' " ;..,,,t.' ,., 1. ,.....-.).,- . Icon speed feedback signs inform approaching bicyclists that the speed at which they are traveling is appropriate. When installed in conjunction with a speed limit sign, speed feedback signs are proven to be effective in getting the attention of users. It reminds bicyclists of the speed limit and allows them to compare it with their speed to gain compliance. Icon speed feedback signs help to emphasizes the appropriate etiquette on bike paths by using icons instead of displaying the speed at which they are riding. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. SLOW SPEED ZONE, REGULATORY, ETIQUETTE, WAYFINDING 26 558 I--\\-\-•.;, \ •,‘ ,,,,i ,-„.„.„,r.,,,...„..,,,..„.. ,....„.„.....,_. , , \ , „ ..f....,,,,......„, ,r , ,.......„ , 44, , , , ,..„„. „ . . . _.„„it, . , . ._,,,„ , , - , i.:,,,,-,,,. . 0...4, .,.......,, ,4 ...... ..„1 ' A J~ TrolleyTTrrail *�h ,/.4 CYc IJrZS .'- — •, , ` �' 1"'',',',:,7-'-,,I f* -t.r.ir "YIELD '.:9C..4 C.v\gr1..:.C1i,).'-1 4' .14•- TO.., w 21 L PEDESTRIANS0-,,', f¢' n -,. - :\ }tom, ?i •- • 7^• . ;iti �� ,#'tee it .,` �4 - �rf..,l /.. V A#N, 1 CC lii .» `'ii 1i ,.. ,,, -74/1„. ,.. .... � ° SLOW CYCLING IONE 9ii- � ..: ,u , Smile to a.passerby! y� ;�r4.S „ fc * "���^a ter4'*..+ , ,:*. .,,,y,.,,,,:;:i.,..: c!. Regulatory, guide and wayfinding signs on beach paths helps to emphasize appropriate user etiquette and inform users of intersecting routes, direct them to important destinations, and generally give information that will help them proceed along their way in a simple, direct and safe manner. Regulatory signs inform bicyclists of the areas to slow down and yield to pedestrians,while wayfinding and guide signs help path users track their locations and can enhance personal security. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 559 27 SEPARATION OF USERS • N -s - ! 3 3Yt 3- i--.` �.j•• .' 'a t1k li s, T1` . _ x jj4 �..-,Xr "T, `'ss» `4',t'p" t'+`4,g�?b'¢G.$�r9.',r. = - s 3a r'. Y 4, .i' 7ix�ff ark [ �y�_'t` !4'�r`...1 .ua,,�4FFt�'�°1 3°�..M'P �',.+•« y •(� .rmR `� . .u:::y 14 ,�,14 A w.x .0 .t .'V �ee x a� a �� Pedestrians may be separated from bicyclists and other wheeled users on any path where there is sufficient 4,0%, , , ''''.,,_,::.,..71):Wa, itai ;„ ',,, ''' Adip width, and it is desired to improve comfort and safety for all users by separating faster moving users from slower users. Separation of pedestrians from bicyclists may be appropriate for shared use paths with a high volume of users. Users may be separated using pavement markings, traversable surface delineation and/or physical separators like curbs and delineator posts. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 28 560 REFERENCES [1] "Proven Safety Countermeasures," U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures. [2] E. Minikel, "Cyclist Safety on Bicycle Boulevards and Parallel Arterial Routes in Berkeley, California,"January 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=221. [Accessed 2023]. [3] Kitali el al., "Developing Crash Modification Factors to Quantify Impacts of Pedestrian Countdown Signals to Drivers,"January 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=488. [4] Chen et al., "Safety countermeasures and crash reduction in New York City- Experience and lessons learned,"January 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=330. [5] "Crash Modification Factor for Corner Radius, Right-Turn Speed, and Prediction of Pedestrian Crashesat Signalized Intersections," U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, January 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/21 1 05/21 1 05.pdf. [Accessed March 2023]. 561 29 .,...... ... ,,.. ,..,. .,„ ''9 ...„. - ,,,,......... . ',!•Cir,.. (";'' , . 1P• , tit ...„ .,.-0. A p N i ix . 0 ..,.Fil C Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification _.., i and Network Recommendations _ , . ,. ....,..7.... =3, Memorandum .„,... ..„7, .„... ,,,. .... 7. .. - „,,,,-,..37;•. r, '''' ,... - , . -•- _,. •• ' ' , . . " .,. " . , • , '.' .• ' , , ' • - ..•, ,.--. ,..'- - • '''. , ' .. - - ' ,., . .•. - . . , , , , „ _ „ , . . ,, „,„ , r ,,,,,„, -• "- TOOL.E 527'W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 MEMORANDUM June 4, 2024 To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works Organization: City of Huntington Beach From: Trevor Lien and Peter Garcia Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Re: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification and Network Recommendations This memorandum outlines the methodology and factors considered to recommend potential Pedestrian Focus Corridors in Huntington Beach (HB). Table 1 summarizes potential corridors and Figure 1 displays a map visualizing the network. Table 2 and Figure 2 displays recommended phasing of Pedestrian Focus Corridors,with the phasing process lead by City insight and guidance. Table 2 also displays rough order of magnitude costs. Methodology The Project Team used a layered data-driven approach to identify potential corridors for the Pedestrian Focus Corridors network in Huntington Beach. This network relied upon a combination of existing conditions spatial analyses, City recommendations, and previous planning efforts. This approach ensures that the identified streets are those where improving pedestrian comfort, safety, and access in the City would be most impactful. City input and guidance on Pedestrian Priority Corridors' phasing ensures implementation feasibility. The diverse datasets and factors that were used in developing the Pedestrian Focus Corridors network ensure that it includes streets where safety improvements are needed due to high levels of traffic stress as well as existing high pedestrian activity. Datasets were loaded into geographic information systems (GIS)software to analyze and visualize where Pedestrian Focus Corridors are highest. Datasets included analyses of stressful crossing locations, high level of traffic stress (LTS) segments (LTS 3 or LTS 4), land use data, among others, which are described in further detail below. The project team also reviewed pedestrian crashes and high-injury networks identified in the City's recently completed Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Corridors were then grouped where factors, such as high-stress crossings and/or historical crashes, showed overlapping and concentrated data along a corridor. For example, Corridor D—Beach Boulevard has several high-ridership transit stops, higher LTS segments, and historically high crash locations,while Corridor H—Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street/Main Street has a pattern of high-stress crossings, high population density, and a cluster of popular destinations. The following factors were used to identify the Pedestrian Focus Corridors. The terms in parentheses are used to summarize descriptions in the spatial dataset export and in Table 1. ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN BUILDI565 IT • City-recommended priority intersections and corridors (City Input) » Source: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department • Corridors with high bicycle and pedestrian collisions (Crashes) » Source: HB LRSP 2022 Figure 5.2 » High collisions indicated by higher density of collision clusters • Wide gaps between crossing opportunities (Crossing Distance) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis (Map 1) » Wide gap is determined by nearest low stress of signalized crossing is greater than 0.25 miles away • High pedestrian stress intersections (LTS) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis (Table 1 to Table 5) » High stress intersection (LTS 3 or LTS 4) based on traffic volumes, number of lanes, speed limit, and traffic control type • High pedestrian stress corridors (High Pedestrian Stress Corridor) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis and GIS repository » High stress pedestrian corridor if all crossings are high stress (LTS 3 or TS 4) • High ridership transit stops (Transit) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Transit Analysis (Figure 14) » High ridership transit stop if transit stop if one of the top ten transit stops by ridership • Population density by census tract (Population Density) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository(American Communities Survey 2020 data) » Proximal or intersecting an 80th percentile population density census tract(high density) • Land uses accessed by vulnerable populations such as schools, senior centers, and parks with facilities (Vulnerable Populations) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository » Vulnerable population land use if land use data is school, senior center, and/or park with facilities • Popular destinations and trip generators, such as supermarkets and commercial land uses (Destinations) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository » Popular destination if land use data is supermarket, commercial, and/or retail Table 1 below lists Pedestrian Focus Corridors and factors that determined their inclusion. Corridors that experienced multiple issues that affect pedestrian safety and/or generate pedestrian activity have secondary and tertiary factors assigned. Table 2 below groups Pedestrian Focus Corridors by phasing grouping, and also displays the rough order of magnitude cost. Figure 1 shows a map of recommended Pedestrian Focus Corridors in Huntington Beach. Figure 2 shows a map of Pedestrian Focus Corridors and phasing. 564 2 Table 1: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Corridor Name CORRIDOR From TO OVERLAPPING FACTORS GROUPING EDINGER A Bolsa Chica Street Beach High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Crashes, AVENUE Boulevard Destinations GOLDENWEST A Bolsa Avenue Edinger Avenue High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, LTS, Destinations STREET GOTHARD A Center Avenue Edinger Avenue Destinations, Transit STREET ATLANTA B Lake Street Magnolia Street Vulnerable Populations, Destinations, LTS AVENUE MAGNOLIA B Atalanta Avenue Pacific Coast Vulnerable Populations, Destinations, LTS STREET Highway NEWLAND B Pacific Coast Hamilton Destinations, LTS STREET Highway Avenue HAMILTON B Newland Street Magnolia Street Destinations, LTS AVENUE BEACH C Edinger Avenue Garfield Avenue Transit, Pedestrian High Stress Corridor, Crashes, BOULEVARD Population Density, LTS GOLDENWEST D Warner Avenue Pacific Coast High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Vulnerable STREET Highway Populations, Destinations, Crossing Distance WARNER E Pacific Coast Algonquin LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance AVENUE Highway Street ALGONQUIN E Warner Avenue Heil Avenue LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance STREET HEIL AVENUE E Algonquin Street Saybrook Lane LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance SAYBROOK E Heil Avenue Edinger Avenue LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance LANE BROOKHURST F Garfield Avenue Indianaplos High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Transit, STREET Avenue Destinations, Population Density INDIANAPOLIS F Brookhurst Street Lake Street High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,Transit, AVENUE Destinations, Population Density PACIFIC COAST G Huntington Street 17th Street LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit HIGHWAY 17TH STREET G Pacific Coast Main Street LTS, Population Density, Destinations,Transit Highway MAIN STREET G 17th Street Yorktown LTS, Population Density, Destinations,Transit Avenue 565 3 Table 2: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Phasing and Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates Corridor Name Corridor Phasing Rough Order of Magnitude Grouping Cost Estimates Edinger Avenue A Phase 1 $4,360,000 Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia B Phase 1 $3,990,000 Street/Hamilton Avenue Warner Avenue/Algonquin Street/ E Phase 1 $4,260,000 Heil Avenue/Saybrook Lane Pacific Coast Highway/ 17th G Phase 1 $1,340,000 Street/Main Street Beach Boulevard C Phase 2 $600,000 Goldenwest Street D Phase 3 $380,000 Brookhurst Street/ Indianapolis F Phase 3 $1,300,000 Avenue 566 4 Figure 1: Map of Recommended Pedestrian Focus Corridors a C s . ei4 f y £ I 4Y %' S '_' t Y . kt ,'II E +T - , i , Lf; t. �_ BosAve''''' ve ' E { # 1s ¢ s .� q —1,'-, ,^�� - m Hail Ave¢?i` `. 1. `n "9°c� - r a ' ll'ri ' "re. . - 'e�,-,.�}, t � � �� '-'-'#�' " 'm°t,y f 3c t ' �;, f n F fP3 ��, ' i�Il1'arner�Avea ; IOW �' _--.�o. .a i �"�- "�rl-r � .��_:� t��� �� *T "zr— x_1y Wilt r ) - Y i, - j - Sli ter-AAie • 3 ; r f �.. " I' l z r Talbe`t Ave: , �, _'_ 7 4 �� w a -I- het d '# Ellis Ave 0_' ' Ellis Aver z ;', i - f - .,h. GarfteldiiQve ` Spmmlrb v 3 _ . ,, , . ,. "ml., ,:'''z'...'-' -,. .„,,,.,,.., ,. tic:..,fi ,i 0 1.,.. , — -— - - t',-,t,-;,---0---, '1 i c---.?-11 ' ', ,- . 0,4- - 6 .7,;,:..267, .;.,..7:.t.t I 0,,,!" _ 11. = _t_. „.0 ,f,.,. _.;,,,_ ,,,:, ,' - ,N �� 744'. f ,,« {-'g ifs ;a v� a'f" i - - �'`� F s, 1�-O�� s, ,c tip ,��r '� r,E! ,. - x� , 0 - t °a'indian i o isiAve , , f .Q , AveAtlanta-.A ,z 2- 7 d •. , r I EHamilton Ave_- ,,--,' Pedestrian Corridors : � � �r fi Banning("Av 17(4� A Edinger Avenue B-Atlanta Avenuel Magnolia>Street/Hamilton Avenue C-Beach Boulevard - . ' �- D-Goldenwest Street �, E.-WarrierAvenue!Algonquin Street/Saybrook Lane 'P - r pia 4'4' F.-Brookhurst Street%Indianapolis Avenue- S Pacif c-Coast Highway!17thi Street, 0 0.5 1 ' 1:5 2r»i : � . t�i I _ Huntington Beach Mobility Plan-i 567 5 Figure 2: Map of Recommended Phasing of Pedestrian Focus Corridors r S r I ( 5 fi I i a -- ...._.._... _ v ,„t f� ' ' 14 r t -ter f "i I77 . fi !j F 1 • r # a ri i t 3 I a .. co Boi• Avei _ 1 1, i 1,H, I' b , 44 dY- ;gE 'fitMyt, 77 PI En• wrr i'' « t s. t4 - t Edinger .Auer( �n o- .w� 4 � � r a I % it` �J Holt Ave H .lt s = ,�,qu re W N~ '> tt ,'Warher Ave thi , ' k d `,, .-�I psi '' ' Talbert Ave, meµ_ Wit III ?d�y 4 I J EJLtgElgs Ae• { , E si Ellis,Ave a II : o- �� arfield�Ave _ mmitrp y�r ,�;, ' ';, '', ;„ : ' , :"--:,;,:l.,./;,,,,,,,:;-;;,;;; _ a ' :" ( `t ci Yorktown Ave ;;;;G:, r-4,,:t ,,o.,:ir.:7, Pedestrian Corridors , :: ; R ' Harn�I�i,A'e t A-Edinger Avenue r o ,c �.. .:Banningl'Ave I. B. Atlanta Avenue!Magnolia Street!Hamilton Avenue, i CM C-Beach Boulevard � �:�' t �, D-°Goldenwest Street ! `E-VNarnerAvenue!Algonquin Street!Saybrook Lane' � F BrookhurstStreet!Indianapolis A ':7-,..r•-.;:-1:7: venue . , '''''''t4''''' ' '''":"'4:":' ` G Pacific Coast Highway!17th Street ,. Pedestrian Corridor Phasing f 0 0.5 1 1.5: 2",mi I - I Huntington_Beach Mobility Plan 568 6 s _ '., es" { 1 . .thc,:r. . ,,,....tii:: 4. i pp N p IX II . , • .. and Bicycle Network Recommendationsp.' , Implementation Memorandum r i s . .._ �,. ,i . .' r,.t .a'J^ _ rx 1001.IE 527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 MEMORANDUM June 4, 2024 To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works Organization: City of Huntington Beach From: Trevor Lien, Peter Garcia Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Re: Bicycle Network Recommendations and Implementation Phasing This memorandum summarizes the methodology used to identify future-focused bicycle network improvements in Huntington Beach (HB), as well as a recommended bicycle facility locations,types, and phasing. These recommendations will close existing bicycle network gaps, support a reduction in the level of traffic stress that people bicycling experience on high speed and volume roadways, and support comfort improvements of all users • regardless of age or ability. The methodology is based on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide, as well as manual recommendations based on local needs (i.e., community needs and existing conditions evaluation)and past plans (i.e., 2017 General Plan—Circulation Element, 2013 Bicycle Master Plan). Included in this memorandum is a map of the existing bicycle network, a map of the proposed bicycle network, phasing strategies, and the total mileage of existing and recommended bicycle facilities. Methodology The bicycle network methodology included a data driven approach reinforced by the Project Team's local knowledge of the City. The Project Team used a combination of geographic information systems (GIS)software and Structured Query Language (SQL)to develop logic around the generated network.The generated network used the city's existing roadway conditions (i.e., posted speed limits, street classification, and average daily traffic volumes)to determine the minimum suggested bicycle facility based on the nationally recognized best practice the FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide. The FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide recommends the suitable bikeway facility based on a roadway design, traffic volumes, and speed. Figure 1 shows the recommended bikeway type based on a roadway's traffic volume and speed within an urban context. As the traffic volume and speed on a roadway increases, so does the level of protection needed for people bicycling to feel comfortable in these settings. For instance, shared lanes or bicycle boulevards are most effective'when built on slow, low traffic residential streets, but would provide little benefit to lowering the exposure of people bicycling on arterial roadways where separation would be more impactful. ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN BUILDI5 IT Road Typology Volume..(AST) Posted Speed(mph) Base Suggested Facility Status. 5,MFJJt ►{; isou(eva[d'. ► 3 PHI ►Class',lt ikelane{Stdfer) >35 MPH: ...'[)ass IV-Protected= Bikeway FHWA Road rbanY Class A-Bike,Lane(Bufl'er) Typology Suburban 0.3k— k' snth, Manual Check Based on >35 mph Class IV-Protected P. Local Knowledge.and Bikeway ° Engineering Judgement <25 mph "25-35 mph=, Class)/—Protected`' Legend Bikeway' >35;mph Tool Input. pool Output f;Phase Output Figure 1: Minimum Suggested Bicycle Facility Using FHWA Best Practice Guidance The Project Team also made manual additions/edits to the network based on variables not captured in the generated bike network, such as policies and recommendations from previously adopted plans. The first round of adjustments added facilities to roadways that provided low stress intra-neighborhood connections, mid-block improvements, and access to popular destinations (i.e., schools, commerce, recreation areas). Further, the Project Team used Strava heatmaps (Figure 2), a fitness based social media website that provides heatmaps of popular bicycling routes, to incorporate network connections to areas with latent demand for bicycling. Strava data utilizes millions of location-based services (LBS)data points to aggregate daily trips; data visualized in the heatmap is from the last two years, and is updated monthly. The off-street network recommendations, made of paths on trails or along channels, were informed by previously adopted off-street recommendations in the 2017 General Plan (Figure CIRC-5), City insights, and Project Team local insight and engineering judgment. This methodology takes into consideration existing conditions and roadway analysis to recommend the minimum suggested bikeway facility for a given roadway context.The proposed recommendations are future-focused, and rooted in best practices to provide the most inclusive treatments for people of all ages and abilities. However,the recommendations need to be assessed further for physical and political feasibility, potential impacts to movement of freight and vehicular traffic, and funding constraints. In instances where the proposed facility is not feasible,the next best facility should be sought, following this hierarchy: Class IV—Protected Bikeways, then Class II — Buffered Bike Lanes, then Class ll —Bike Lanes, then Class III—Bike Boulevards. Alternative facilities should still prioritize the comfort and safety of people bicycling and should still align as closely as possible to the Bikeway Selection Guide chart shown in Figure 1. 571 2 • sTglikvA Dashboard so Training v Explore v Challenges a } �' Global Heatmap. ., I Los Ata..iiot r '; ''''411 - , "'II i='''', ' ',, ,.jj '' .',--1',., ". ,;`,.., .,''' '.- " . R •t Yes a _ _ ! 4 -, tiazrJAs I mma4',- tn -t,i f . f� L + is,.par-SYa1`c;1 ! - E i l ��', ,lt_ a ,>+ ;11 3 t s :744 - ? ;.din-.-„1,.,tA. {{ x u, ww--gq. „ , . .,... .._,:. _-....,,,, ,, ,,,-,,,„ ... ..,.,._:, _,_,,,,,,,,...:.,_ ,..:„. ;_..., ,, -. :,,,,,,,,,,....,:c._, _,,,,. . _ 2 k ,''. i e ir ' ! <• _ R 5? - � nir tax E� - - ` ` a _ ,... 404., r i o - hl, i I ! L '-.-:- '''''-'" 2,',";'-:' , '''.„ :v2- ---,-..'-rf,-`----''''.,',.- '------,..-' ' : ''''''`: ,::: --'-"--'-'''-` ''''''-:#40,Atteallar.11 .' - ,,.... .....- 4111111- 9' '.-'' -_-:.. '', >>y y.49 1 ` t if,. i` I > tam u:^nent t „A / _ "Y Figure 2: Huntington Beach Strava Heatmap; shows latent cyclist demand for the last two years(2/1/21 —2/1/23.) • 572 3 Recommendations and Phasing Strategy The City's existing bike network is made up of 72% Class II Bike Lanes or 73 miles of a total 101.5 miles (Table 1), a map of existing bike facilities is shown in Figure 3. The recommended bike network reflects the on the ground road conditions in HB. Facilities like Class II Bike Lanes or Class III Bike Boulevards are found on roadways where space is a constraint, but vehicle traffic or speeds are not high enough to invest in separation. Recommended Class IV Separated Bike Lanes are predominantly found on high stress roads, such as Edinger Avenue or Atlanta Avenue. Currently there are few buffered or separated facilities existing aside from those found on Delaware Street and Atlanta Avenue. Recommended Class I Shared Use Paths are found along existing City assets, or OC Public Works jurisdiction that could be transformed, such as abandoned/disused railways and flood control channels. Table 1:Total Existing Bicycle Network Miles Facility Type Existing (Miles) Existing% Class I Shared Use Path 20 19% Class II Bike Lane 73 72% Class II Buffered Bike Lane 6 5% Class III Shared Lane 2.5 2% Class III Bicycle Boulevard - - Class IV Separated Bike Lane 3 2% TOTAL 101.5 Miles The bike network recommendations are segmented into two implementation phases. Phasing is intended to progress existing bike facilities toward more comfortable facilities that are suitable for all ages and abilities or installing new bike facilities if none exist. This can mean upgrading a Class II Bike Lane to a Buffered Class II Bike Lane as space permits in Phase 1, and potentially in Phase 2 a further upgrade to a Class IV Separated Bike Lane. • Phase 1 Bike Network—projects that can be considered for implementation in the next one to five years o Easily implemented (sign/stripe)projects within existing roadway section • Phase 2 Bike Network—projects that can be considered for implementation in the next five to ten years o Expansions and/or upgrades to the existing bike network, but may require more planning or further analysis; can be part of the City's ten-year repaving capital program for an efficient use of resources The Phase 1 bike network recommends a total of 26.8 miles of new or upgraded facilities.Along the Phase 1 corridors, 2.3 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways exist. Planned mileage is shown in Table 2.The Phase 2 bike network recommends an additional 36.2 miles of bike facilities. Less than one mile'of the Phase 2 corridors is a Class IV Separated Bikeway(0.7 miles). In total, both phases represent 63 miles of proposed bike network improvements. There are 20.7 miles of Class I Off-Street Shared Use Paths independent of the on-street phasing mileage;full details listed in Table 2. 573 4 Table 2: Phase Recommendation Summary Mileage and Costs Totals for Phase 1 Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $210,625 Class III -Bike Boulevard 2.5 $ 705,462 Class IV-Separated Bikeway 23.6 $ 11,337,000 TOTAL 26.8 $ 12,253,087 Existing Class IV-Separated Bikeway 2.3 N/A Total for Phase 2 Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II -Buffered Bike Lane 0.0 $0 Class III - Bike Boulevard 0.5 $ 172,625 Class IV-Separated Bikeway 35.7 $ 17,124,000 TOTAL 36.2 $ 17,296,625 Existing Class IV-Separated Bikeway 0.7 N/A Total for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $210,625 Class III - Bike Boulevard 3.0 $ 878,087 Class IV-Separated Bikeway 59.3 $28,461,000 TOTAL 63.0 $29,549,712 Existing Class IV-Separated Bikeway 3.0 N/A Proposed Off-Street (Phasing Independent) Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class I —Off-Street Multi-Use Path 20.7 $40,423,500 Figure 4 shows the Phase 1 bike network corridors, and Figure 6 shows the Phase 1 corridors relative to what is existing and proposed based on the methodology describe above. Similarly, Figure 5 and Figure 7 show the Phase 2 bike network corridors and recommendations. Table 2 lists the miles of proposed bike corridors for Phase 1 and Phase 2. The bike network future-focused recommendations recommend 35.7 miles and 59.3 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways in Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively. These represent a majority of network upgrades for each of the two phases. These recommendations are not prescriptive, but intended to be targets to strive for. In some cases,the installation and/or upgrade of bike facilities along the proposed corridors may not be feasible. However, as need, priority, and political will changes these can be re-considered for implementation. The highest possible protective facility should be sought as projects are assessed. Rough order of magnitude cost estimates presented in Table 2 are based on the per mile costs assumptions listed in Table 3. These assumptions are based on 2023 adjusted numbers for each of the facility types and provide a high-level overview. More detailed cost estimates will need to be developed for specific facility designs. 574 5 • 11 1 'i .1 • i i 3 S - E r i i 1 3 CO) Bolea Ave .,z,� • �' I , ..� m L 3, _l� 3 ,i i 11 Y '7. EdingerrAde L-�, : g €is ,&�tr� H _ 'ry' 9 — ' ' 6�5 - -, `t. .i , mite 2 IN L ��" 'I rear Sri: Netlldve � h�,- r---/"' ice,. '�`":_+y,� "il� ; ~1,'-,:-;; Square , p� Warner Ave. f _ ,,> �� 1Regional rf � � , il 1 t�'" .r Fels, �-"` v� ,nk R�r Ili i 31-3 U,` i i 4 r s _ _ -, Lot a` . 1. Slater'Ave! — t 1 ' a q —1-1 , „ v� g m ,c�a• ' Talbert Aver 1 � is d' ,, €l 1-9-,3- i' . "-CA: °'sr ,..., N. rEllis Ave ;Ti. ice.+ � ' _t 3-i . .,e s :.i,,,,,_„,„,,...:-..,..„......,, ,,i;,,,!: ,,, -. - ... - '.- Ave .._, ., ----7--'14.- :1:1:- -* 'N '� 4'r S I °, ri'} J Garfield Aver" r , . . r., s J i , s. , j dmeif -I 'm _} k� N��i�cnp� (4Ft�ill 4 ve '., ter,' 'r o,._ ,f _a q � t e '�� 11t•Tt « N ; - , ;:' : ,;',." ' _ '' ' ' -7'-,V,;''\ -*,. P, , ' >ral/ -,,,; ft] .; .j'.,W I-- . , •`, i 4,i;II:°if ;;'e. __ 7lnd,anapoli Ave -, 15 , . Liao . ( • t eta 'i N �°�. � 1-lamtlton„Ave € Pac_ ific �Iwi , k O n ning-Ai v e t} . Existing Bike Facilities_ , " -Class I - -� ,,Class-11-Bike,Lane Class'I I=B_uffered�Bike Lane. - E= Class-III Shared Lane Class IV'-Separated Bikeway ` 2rni �. litsgviN Eigtomi I_ - Huntington Beach Mobility Plan , Figure 3: Map of Existing Bike Facilities(Source: City of HB;2023) 575 6 • • 3h „u ; i 1 .i „.,x + 1f E t,p .1} .f "I -,„,._ t S# ..1 }__.. � 1[ 6�. r Ty d � }}y i T � �} d ./ .� 41,4„ 1 Boise Ave �_ -i _- a > 13 r,C '' � - -I � {' i�� 1 f � e 3 wr 4 � .. .y 6. hg ' t dI -'r Et'"" t 3. 0 0i d -,Edinger Ave. ai , rm [-I'^ �' �;. ' �,,�.,,, /M,,,,,y y j HeilLAve. 1,..., "_ ,, n L__ �_'._`.; V } _ v_ oars � "i # v ,„ , , f_1 Regional` ,„ k Er W ?'WarnerAve ,� p#p '� Park { 2 '` , , :. ° Alai k y Y'"3 y 1£ + I t �' � "K°1 it, It #�.� 'A td':' ! # o Slater- ve} 3fi` ilk` j a`,,> , �Y� „c� T ibert.tive a# F _ -.7-, ,}'a`; +"ki .i a''' to ._, P 9� ."-'7$ V S Tj `•-.l."*„ 1 ' M On '' ‘°'m� ‘' ,:,114 is Ave ' s 71 §i.. i ' 1 r LI . ` EII3 v ( •� €, _ r "J� --. .7"' •- f j 6 9 A .. 1 ' s �I( Garf eld Ave , 11 __ , aN�� t9 E n N Yef Wb AVe 7-1':, t'Aili: ,*'' '',:; ''' 1 41'J.:: 1,',i,',, �, ��� "� f� fi-7` ��([ � Adams iCve � �lin " ,�p�Af o AI �9 :,e ,�Indianalwhs Ave 't= j +LAttiantay.,ve '-, ' ., q 7„. "" s m m I ._ 1 ''' 'Hamiton�Ave = '`1 1 _ . Pacific 7 ,4 } : r - } fi i C" 'c �} , `eannint Ave° _ u d . T k c, tl a . .�i a . Fh Phasing ._ ? Phase 1 (Y,ear 1 5) i , 0 : " i:5 2m i ' i 0 5a 1 1I J 1. Huntington Beach Mobility SF3,lan Figure 4: Phase 1 (one to five years) Bike Network Corridors 576 7 • r f i� ,.0 `K P `l P k 1 t x .1- Et ' ' y Balsa Ave . *,, '',..0.„.1,1 J i� x, i W ±,4, l� L��{ .,.� a!--"1�C r � t } ,-a, .; 11 , x *.,} S C f l 4,. -rz m, ) {t'`: 11 i.t t 1I J) g i i t s . b E�1§-'? d t ems`' =,IdingerUAve ,�ca ei . HY—xn� iw..� '�� - ' .1 a, w� • �'Y' He�G..#AveC>''r`r(:'�i [�j i- `1l 4 "...a. ' 1 iIt,"° ,�' lJr2i•e:> l m:a • , C _ ,1 111 p r.'r„' Pt; �'*� t i - ' Reg1'onal . ;„ n_~ . : ill'Warner Ave 1 a ,1 �� 1 #park 2 ,/" Ie Slater),�Aveft 3 , , gild! ,, l l r -:\.,� 6 ._ N v, No. _ . , ,r, i Talbert Ave ' 1n !n a" i�5- tip mod} .,::1'EV s Ave ' . Elli •Trr Ave €`y 1;1 ! a + ,L, - g ,.Garfield 3Ave ,, h . "` MM"o4 ' alit 4 1'171 lW ',' } lf.q $, - f i: o/� 1 ea --- u�'—i Yorktown Ave ta Ye , g- .� L� 0 IIn t �r 4/ % ` � y7# t s Y \ j, „ 1 #r� Adams Ave �I! d* z !„,,,,,,:f a �� 0,9 1 i ?Indianapolis AveE `#i • l 11 �Y: m 11tl a e2 i _ � �Atlanta�Ave t t 4 �% Ub a+ m �' al �� -- i'lta Ave-- a � � "" t ,. �,� ��Hamllton,AV � .._ ',!lit.,.; '\ s ' g Pacffrc '� 4 - ( '0 C G'a!7 '` -- , 'eannmg Ave1 . s Phasing z _. :11 1 Phase 1 (Year 1, 5) ••.'Phase 2.(Year 5-1:O) _ 0 05 1 a.5. 2rn1 - l 1� { - Huntington Beach Mobility Plan I Figure 5: Phase 1 (one to five years)and Phase 2(five to ten years)Bike Network Corridors • 577 8 r .Y I 11 ,_33 'V1 1 k 1 l ii t4 f£4 i ti 1 p_... t 1, ...,- `r-T ` 7 _r Bolsa Meal = :, rx ‘ ''— EkH cc ." C � e ®r_.,!_8, -'1 rd'F f ) ‘t' I I j r 7 1� 7 r,J 4� s. m "fir C[ j - 3 , Il i€'., ,z EdingerryAv.e,,... toi `2. a..- -in�`� ors.;„.s 1` }r-a t 4/ r �t J „ 7 .vw t. 'I R' ax {405 "s s�"�, --f r -- r Mite _ r 1 [�' , i e' 7-A .„ "`" , HeilrAve° t r _ = ' 11 ',' 1g it-r Sq. .. _ a '' y ;. r ' �x . thi8 e[zuAve ! e ':.`Wigy� is 3 l"\,1€ ,Park,7", . J. )41.1.:13—M:::rid t F,-;—' ri- '-jt P-4—m•1 V. r Slater Ave ,1 W i i ;4 rn tS ,Talbert Ave- ` ' 1 ' € aye i i s ;Ellis Ave its EIOsAve , T,I r 1. , 'yam 5 V-!i ,a d E/ i i p. � e ( Ga f�eldAve ,s r a ,,'`�Lm-;'0� �.911 yI3., I i—.'M..a--` , ...�.Iw 1_i.I.! E—..,.:,,,�,F;, JP F...,, .. , . . . ,. _ ,,,, ,„;..,',104k,'„). . ,,,,, ,..,. a 13 ,,,,, .,,,,-.7, ,_, .„„s.r)L=,::..: yro ,_,,,,,,,,. i,,,, , . Ls �9P + tIIP;TIS Ave" . ., - ` - ' - y i a3 i . . '4i fig ' ' .... ' „= Atlanta. ve G` - '^ \`a'',-i- tic i -' II" '-v,.i..a i i i m ai _=-'� 4 1iI t =HamiltonAve — fi Pacific ,' , .r 11' i (1 ok, �� '. ° '. Q G e a t ; _-Bann ning Ave, � i Final Existing and Recommended Bike',Facilities in'Ph �r 7 t � g � ase1�,� � '� r ,� -m 1 Recommended-Class II--Buffeted Bike Lane ' :. ,, Recommended-„Class-lll-Bike Boulevard _' '� .• Existing—Class IV' Separated Bikeway= . _.ti . mow ,„ � ,_ I " ®Recommended ;Class IV-Separated Bikeway_ , - - ' .'Facilities Outside of Phasing , 1 ,-.-r ,Recommended'Off-Street Bike Facilities =, Or 05 :" 1 1.5 2mi . �, ` l i I- ` - Huntington Beach Mobility Plan e 4 ; Figure 6: Map of Existing and Phase 1 (one to five years)Bike Network Recommendations 578 9 i',;'-'7," I;.- 'L--;\ ;;,-'- ;ILL',';'7-1 --,-,--', „v.v.' --•- ..LL„._,L____ '----; _____4.,,,,,,,,-, .---,—= —'''`'— `'`'``—`- — -- "r,,‘,-----''````,;775.-=,:`11i`-‘,\„.--Tir, "-i 1 0.,-,17'.2 ' i„-,,,,,',---' c-11,.,„„!„---,,-„,,,,,'", 1,,,I,,,•:11.•, -,-,,--,7-.2' ' ///''''''' rl''')I.I?I'I';''''II, ,,,_,,,.'i:jI IT411'I':IIt-•II7'',,,i'I',-7,-I,-;'%I-'-„I''',.;,,,, 'I,II":;',---";I, ,z;III"'ili4F,T,T"IfI,I,--;I:17.";.?"„.i ',/,--1;"i''ji-:„":"-;;I'.;:_i ;,,, • Boise Ave r,I •=.. ,* ,,I v- '---r— pii•jull ,, p',:,..,N: - :',, , -,•,,,;!---..-1 1 -1-•,,,':-.7 *. -- 1 213- --•-‘,• ..,- r 'MI -76. llf. r i 1 ,,, ,44,?, ,,,,.: ----..,‘,,'_,,,,EdingerLAy,.e,,, i ,.,„....._ „ , .. , , 405 i,,,,,,..:,,,c,,,,,,,,=,,,, i f"...i , ' ig ,1 , t ' -lirlqr!1.° J -,Iilligitat ucD 4 77'"" '. }11-21e4--- -': '1----:l'-'ii-: l''''''*'-' -:" .,'''.-f..N•17,---'4-)17 :,,:'-'1',..1 Reglpn" '' '\\ 111; '1E- Warner Ave '''. : '16.71:11:73' ---1) I9P-1-4 ,.L.'":-2-----,'j \ .....,.. ...... , il,‘, i ..---7--..„.-7,----7,-.. .,. -,-.1,..? :-0-"7„,..„„H" w..112V:izz,1,11 n.'', '71 !,--;,.,..; :it,F_ --- ---„, SisteroAve "u. 4' -------' ' ,0- -1-Wiv€ i,,1•,- , „:,_„,,.--,,,--- k.z,, ,„---_ .•,„ -\ , -,,,-,,,,,-•-,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,4.1,-41.g..4-:,s• ,4,1 q•,- ,-tu -',-„• ,-pit__ c, I --1::;',---,-'-'''',- '.-- ', ,• -_-- 7' . filbt, \:•).-,\„,‘„,, ,,--•,-,„,..7-7 I 7:\ I''.4 III'''''"- ''''',4.4 StF-----I'-‘6':•:IP ' f:tc.4 ' ; '- ,e Irt AveAye 7,,,'. 1;i---1:7,1L,',....:_',1.---'::,.4-'4=','„•2'.•-•,. -... ..!:,,,,,,"- ', .., ,1 1'":,,fra -1*"4.':, --`-'1'11,EIL Ave r'El Aiii't'fffii--Eilii7A'4 ;;,0; oe;.; ;-' ,7":";,-;;-'- i- ; „.„'- ;-;'- - • - '; -&; 4.5-4..„ .1,,,,r0,. At j'-'1,-1-/- -1- raidieldnAveLa_.-........,,,„._„...:_,........-n - ",,*, -'4„, // , , , , ,-,,, __„,-,,,,to,„..... - ...-"-• ,.....:,,,.-co.,,,,„ 1,,,:,„fo. ,-.2.,,z ,-4,----- ,...,,,r .. _ vr. v/ ,3 'II..t,— . -77:41.7M,--., cii: '13%\'-',> '' , ca' , ' , , , ''N,..,Ir' 2- E .A',..- 1 , I , —'..:-.,, ,..s,..c3-0 , -,::::412 —2L-------,. Cliaiiittilli'Ave trill;'4,. 'I e`: ` , . ' ' ..ii,,\* In. ' '''S-,,,,-,4,';,".'.'-',g.''-"N,?.,•,'„',,','\,-,it,,,',',,A'V. -,.N.-4o-i'k,-A'',',',.,„.'',,,.i!.,7.-,-:-t+R I.. 7---.3;..4 '''.. , VV- „ , „ Xtlpt!;Ar ,7.—.-3„,:, g .,,,•,,..,__,7:4, , ,vi-7,-:•'-'!'- -,,-,,,74, -',--:,,,', ',,,••• '1, -,..- F 1-lamaltoni7Ave i . , .. ,. l . ' Pacific , ''''.,--,'-'',!,-, •, '' :,--'-",.. Fitt yi ;•,' - - ' ',,-,1,,7 _ Final ' Ocean , , l Existing and Recommended Bike Facilities in phases 1 and 2-:%'''',,-‘,,,;\„,„,,,,„,,,,, . ‘,ecom „.„ .,,t -- -4-- •, R mended-,Class II-Buffered Bike Lane, Recommended-Class Ill-Bike Boulevard , - ; } .... x E isting-Class IV-Separated Bikeway„ ; . . „ i rmian;RecoMmended_Class IV-Separated Bikeway •; , ; .,•,,,,,, I , 1 Facilities Outside of Phasing' .. ,Recommended Off-Street Bike Facilities .. . , , 0 0.5 '' 1 , 1.5 2rni , I I ratolg ' - , -Huntington Beach Mobility Plan Figure 7: Map of Existing,and Phase 1 (one to five years)and Phase 2(five to ten years) Bike Network Recommendations • 579 10 Table 3: Cost Assumptions per Bike Facility Type per Mile Bike Facility Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Assumptions per Mile Class I Off-Street Shared Use Path $ 1,950,000 Class II Bike Lane $ 290,000 Class II Buffered Bike Lane $ 330,000 Class IV Separated Bikeway $480,000 Class III Bike Boulevard (traffic circles, and paint $280,000 and post for curb extensions) The following images (Figure 8 to Figure 13)provide examples of each bikeway facility type. Refer to the Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan's (MIP) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Beach Path Toolkit for further information on each bikeway facility. 580 11 • r; rp . . �° 7,;*\1 - f x fu. � . 5 . #% mow '1: T e a a C' * � 1 t: -, . '�*. - ' c }k.ems A 'k, ;, - it ¥ k o " 5 �-' - het -`1::,' �.t:::::' :%:'::„.'.' }. ix 5 - P`'-' .-:".;-,7'I 0.1.36111.2;:•:7-:11 .47.--; •-t:--..t.'''..••.:•'*..!..,,,fiVi:• :-''''''"'''' ''''- tl.' .,„ erg. $ C--` o- £ kIT\1T ri T Figure 8: Class I—Off-Street Shared Use Path (Huntington•Beach Shared Use Path) � � � ��� ' Figure 9: Class II—Bike Lane (Huntington Beach, Edwards Street) ,??..u. Ail .•---,MitillEr.--461 � " s„EEa:^ sa S 0 ' t r _ ._.... ' 1 �'i."_ 'a'- LAT' J.rf.. f r ' A `qv' R 5 c- 4 � o - . 'd� {. ^. a 'F " t t. ° `fi 't, + ; i 4 i ie r �-;:7y' - . -":1 a er i .'. ea ;f ::, xx r A :- ' r ,av;74 , ) ,,S e „ s ; 4r ., tt '� .,�'" N' .�: +;fit* ." 4k'�'. e'r •< i ex+�'�".. f.:411w'-41. - '' . �tf.' 1"4,;O x; y . ri * .'aY .,�: .ti.' 'sue^-•naro` , y ,W> _.. .'r 4'7. * 4,.., °d.r, __ ......,...',... .. _ «s ram$"�"'rxF?�". .r.,r! 5 1 Figure 10: Class II—Buffered Bike Lane Figure 11: Class Ill—Bicycle Boulevard (Huntington Beach,Algonquin Street) (Huntington Beach,South Pacific Avenue) 581 12 b 1 �� ::„ ems{ wL. x ;c�. Y{f ..:/..-='0V:L'ro'.4"e'kt1"4-T-- 4 - 'it-4.'' ':3-7 ' - ,, �' ''' 4 , w ,.a.-..' 010 w ��xA sue'°a Nr P d \sx411/4, c„...,13„,,,,,,I,:pcit,,..., r., s.-(1.,"..:• , -- ' F t'.r � t>'" Fir _ `�•_, €l - a �c .din'" = �` - - ,. .1rnr , aF.. 4rx ;,... e w -:. �: `•,'�' om ' + - Figure 12: Class IV—One-Way Separated Bikeway Figure 13: Class IV—Two-Way Separated Bikeway (Huntington Beach, Delaware Street) (Outside of Huntington Beach) 582 13 ...:. ,e , , ... . . .. V . . , . #..... '',...,! • - ,tx .. ., .. • ell! .,.. ..r.„ . ., ti o.., Iy ..:,.. 4 ...,. . .. . ...._ It , .. , . .. ".. .., ...,., . • ,-, APPENDIX E 1 ,‘ I . . 1 Beach Path .„. ink Alt men emorandum Observations. and dations Ni _ . _ ... . ._. , gm Recommendations “ , , ...... . ,...„ ...,, . :,.....:.. . 4'4 ._. ._. . ..--- .. ..,, „„,..,:. ::. I - • -;:...-':':*,-'-7"--..- . .... - _ . , ..,, . - . . ;4'.."..'''';'''.'.,...,....1...... .74'2.;':-1,... ;,,.• . .. .,.. _ ._......._ • ... , . ... - . • , . . . . • --, . . -. " Ir- :. . . . .. ,. ..,..... . ... - , . .."•• . - . "In,' ,. . ‘> , . . a/r •'• . . . . . • • , , . ' . . , ...• . I." " . - - • . . ft r, • ' .4‘' • ••• •r . • .. r .. • , ,. ••--,. . . .... r ..,••''. / _..... . ..,..., _. ..or ......... / .... • • , d.• • ....., - • .-- :, '" '. ' ' .• . ../. . . " 4. ., r• , , " - ... 527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.CDM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014° MEMORANDUM June 4, 2024 To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works Organization: City of Huntington Beach • From: Trevor Lien, Peter Garcia, Toole Design Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Plan Re: Beach Path Observations& Recommendation This memorandum includes a review of existing issues and opportunities on the Huntington Beach Bike Path identified during field visits. It also includes recommendations to improve the comfort and user experience of rolling and walking on the Beach Path. Some issues identified include inconsistent signage that may b.e confusing to the user and problematic mixing of various modes at high-traffic crossings. The recommendations in this memorandum focus on improving the user experience, while ensuring the path is comfortable for users of all ages and abilities. Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are included in Appendix 3. The Project Team separated the Beach Path into the following segments based on path characteristics and for ease of organizing challenges and opportunities, as shown in Table 1. Exhibit 1 includes a map of the segments. Table 1:Study Segment Breakdown Segment Number - From To , Segment 1 Seapoint Street Goldenwest Street Segment 2 Goldenwest Street(Upper Path) 11th Street(Upper Path) Segment 3 Goldenwest Street(Lower Path) 11th Street(Lower Path)' Segment 4 11th Street 1st Street Segment 5 1st Street Beach Boulevard kt Exhibit 1: Map of Study Segments ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN BUILDI584i IT Issues and Opportunities Field Observations The Project Team conducted a field visit of the Beach Path on August 19, 2022 and recorded observed existing issues and constraints. Key issues and opportunities were categorized for consistency and normalization across the different segments of the paths. The major categories, as found in Appendix 1, are: • Speed • Suitability • Volume • Line of Sight • Width • Usage Typology ■ Comfort • Path Alignment • Special Zone • Signage • Separation • Condition • Intersection ■ Traffic Control Devices On-site observations are documented in the Field Observation Table (Appendix 1). Observations were also documented via photographs. Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4 show a spectrum of typical scenes along the path. tillr;t2,4',,__„ --4,i,..e.4'...194 lotk*:7,-:-.0„4.---!,,,“,-„1,, ,-',,--,-. , „ -,-,c4:-,,,,..,,,-:, it,,o,„,c7,1,t.:,- =,, „,„; ,,,,,,,,,„%•-* , : ,, ,,,,- ,, ',', .,,, , ,, e c Axa � a "I`t yi",,ini:',,W t #€_ i, %. Key S..-'4 _ s -i. .F4. }H 3 . , _ , , ., '4 fir' es 1-g c� ,� E s`-' f g t . � - it 4. w`G+�I ',zs'�."fii� 'se r nitc., - •,� ,Alt ..,jd': ,-, .1..8'+1. '� ''',„.. "4,-,- ^ -r'�>c.;, Ys..._.. s% s'S" "y +a v " -4 '..1i = a. •...s. --.s-,—,„r..., u.. .� :ter Lam..-dr.+.; = i4P k a���" a:s ¢ .3 , , .4 aw'. a.',iy A awe.&`.Z.0 '.'3 a, In i w.,, ° ` :. � rvYb • 1 agd �` ,au,- C-y ,. -vxv4-,',ed, • r ,.• - ' a ;.. ::M 4'"°-'at -y `c' 'mom.'"",. '`�— 's 'R'-w • . ' . r• :,a xi+ mot.. .,. 4...0 4 ., r `.1 r:. '.$9'�" ', . ' .,.`.. '.°l . ,�.. ,. ff . -,a f a:: 0i1s*°!a?-a ''.,''i� s:vt*..+�►.; i e d' i, .: a+ q p..w . • hw {e .: "4mx 4 '! :: X';°! .,,,-,,,,,If„,,, v�' 8 w _ k�,�',ti I 3. �.`�4 - itfr .,. • i �a a"" ¢ r # �h - . a; . f*'Ee" y . . ryasp x � . f p'w e -. ems.. : p ,--- . �,' c, ,S v 9 ~ S ,-.'' r.�^...k. v r b *`-- bn,� d y p - i w R-{ 4 p 1,� ;' 3- rw'•# -"`r4' ro tt .lir... • a e 9 °•x. • 4 a , . s, .- a �` E '�, +" pb. �'4,,o / �`a. � ,i ? . e s• x x ywx Exhibit 2: Segment 2-Upper Bluff Path Bicycle and Pedestrian Separation (August 2022); credit Toole Design Group 585 2 {y v F,R ¢ f a h _ , a h p P t yg ,: '��'��' C y • ^^* $ it"' yt- '-•-•.• `� --,?... ,--,4.--,," t o ----4.,,,*am „,. ■■ .3. ,,# ..�. (.4 ,,�. , Y gip"-�. - .;; t :�"`.N` ".,. 'R v!'r tr; t y j y,,1 a'-. "`,a..y' k! 4°3:1:s;c� . { S4� Y 4jX'F' + ,M 'ZI - ( • °� a_ 'Lu'- a-..!,�-.� J[ i '� £ x�t r7. `Sw`'ni't,c-eiviam . r. i tip' a , , f! 1- *�'- 3' x .r t...i- ` t1 i\ s. 3. Exhibit 3: Segment 3-Peak Hour Traffic Proximal to Pier Plaza(August 2022); credit Toole Design Group W.$r end, P0 £ i4. - . ' * # 4 - y k., 1 jam^) 6 Ajtlb _ .�# ^per.-k..• o-.. • s .w d ` R w` } bra.. �q� ram, ,yam. . - w ,aa. ..' w_ .��x s_ + -'1 ,�i-�. *5;Zvi d{.. "� ,i a i �, d re A ar'`' �a,,a� '- s ,F ._ , .- ,r Cil �# VI' ',,,,1 fir.,;�� ,t a R °+s n . u yM a4."+. 9 'i r'� �k,N''u _ ',fit'-4,,4 ,x 4, t,; -24 awe,' `. ,,,,,,. -a as ` �-* y ,� �k w, '�yY" , _r •#a U'' R2 c �, �9 'fi rev y ' `* w ,' w t l 0a ,,,z,K_ .... ':. h,t 7::4.,:'�1.F �.*".*:1.' '.c'.TM={ °€t..., •ds,, �' `-4:.". ' 'cr y'.51.k' - 4, - Exhibit 4: Segment 5-Diversity of Users(August 2022); credit Toole Design Group • 586 3 Key Issues and Opportunities Table 2 summarizes common issues observed along the Beach Path. Issues ranged from modal mixing at pinch points to signage and visual communication inconsistencies that may result in user confusion. Example segments are provided as reference. Table 2: Common issues found in the Beach Path Issue Description Example Segment Sight line issues Blind spots created by garbage Segment 4—11th Street to 1st Street cans, building protrusion, vendors/ amenities spill onto path Traffic mixing Potential crash conflicts may arise Segment 4— 1 1 th Street to 1st Street from areas in the path where there is no demarcation to keep pedestrian and bicyclist traffic separate; width is not sufficient Inconsistent signage Posted signs on the path Segment 1 —Seapoint Street to communicate inconsistent Goldenwest Street information, causing confusion among Beach Path users. For example, different posted speeds within a short distance of'-each other may confuse users I I I Constrained space Path reaches capacity during peak I Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to season, limiting available space for 11th Street(Lower Path) users and increasing conflict risks Confusing pavement markings Particularly in mixing zones, i Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to pavement markings poorly 11th Street(Lower Path) communicate whether pedestrians or bicyclists are allowed in that I segment of the path Pedestrian and vendor activity In popular areas where people Segment 4—11th Street to 1st Street spills onto path congregate, pedestrians and vendors tend to encroach onto the path, creating a potential crash risk Lack of Centerline and Separation Lack of centerline or delineation Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to makes it unclear to bicyclists where 11th Street(Lower Path) to remain to prevent head on crashes with other bicyclists 587 4 Recommendations • The following recommendations aim to improve the overall user experience by enhancing comfort. These treatments will build upon previous and planned Beach Path improvements, ensuring a future-focused Beach Path that is suitable and welcoming to users of all ages and abilities. A seamless user experience, with minimal conflicts arising between bicyclists and pedestrians, will lay the foundation for a positive social experience and a culture that embraces active transportation and suitable Beach Path travel speeds. Table 3 summarizes some treatments represented in the recommendations found in Appendix 2 that seek to improve the user experience on the Beach Path. Maps with more detailed recommendations are provided in Appendix 2. The Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Toolkit(Bicycle, Pedestrian, Beach Path) is a resource that provides more details on additional treatments. Table 3: Common treatment recommendations Treatment Description Example Segment Centerline Striping a centerline or striping that Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to separates modes, will help users 11th Street(Lower Path) understand where to travel along the path Pedestrian crossings I Clear and visible pedestrian Segment 1 —Seapoint Street to crossings, such as artistic Goldenwest Street crosswalks, will alert bicyclists to reduce their speed as they approach a crossing Intersection improvements in Improvements at mixing zones, such Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to mixing zones as signalization or traffic calming 11th Street(Lower Path) treatments,will reduce conflict risk in areas where pedestrians and bicyclists share the Beach Path Establish uniform speed limit A singular display of speed limit Segment 4— 11th Street to 1st Street expectations will help all users travel at the desired speed 588 5 '® L 527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 APPENDIX Appendix 1 — Beach Path Audit (collected on August 19, 2022 from 10:30am to 2:30pm) Segment 2 Segment 3. Segment 1(Seapoint (Golilenwest Street (Goldenwest Street Segment 4(11th Segment 5(1st Street Category Specification • Street to to 11th'Street- to 11th Street- Street to 1st Street) to Beach Boulevard)' • Goldenwest Street) • • • ` Upper Path) ....-. Lower Path) •_ . i Speed - • .�..No posted speed limit 5 mph, 10 mph; - j . Posted speed limit 5 mph,:10 mph. 5 mph, 10 mph • when peds are 10 mph - 10 mph ' present Observed average speed 7-11 mph 8-12 mph 5-10mph 7-11mph 8-12 mph Observed maximum speed 20-25mph 20-25mph 10-15mph 20-25mph 15-20mph Volume At capacity(very slow movement) High volumes(movement consistent) Medium volumes(movement consistent) X X X X I Low volumes(movement consistent) X X 589 Segment`2 Segment 3 Segment 1(Seapoint GoSegment 4g ldenwest Street (Goldenwest Street` (11th Segment 5(1st Street Category Specification Street to ( to Goldenwest Street) 11th Street— to 11th Street— Street to 1st Street) to Beach Boulevard) Upper Path) Lower Path) ' , Width 12 feet(some 25 feet(some short 25 feet(some short Maximum width 20 feet 18 feet short segments 24 feet) areas 40 feet+) areas 30 feet) Narrowest point(minimum) . 10 feet 12 feet 11 feet 12 feet 20 feet Comfort Lane width allows for side-by-side X X Narrow travel Lane width does not always allow for X side-by-side travel Lane width does not allow for side- by-side travel X X Separation ! Shared two way with no separation. between bicycles and pedestrians X X X X ...... ,. _: _ . . ._. ...... ..... _-..m _... . _ .,.-__....... .µ._.me.__ ...._ . .--:._..._ _... .,. , _... Separated on same path (Bicycle two r way+pedestrian single lane two X X way) Separated by buffer/barrier(Bicycle X two way+pedestrian lane two way) Special zone, "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 Sign Display mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph maximum" maximum" maximum" maximum" maximum" Walk Zone(time of day or X permanent) No regulations 590 Segment 2 Segment 3 • Segment 1(Seapoint (Goldenwest Street (Goldenwest Street Segment 4(11th Segment 5(1st Street Category Specification Street to Goldenwest Street) to'11th Street— to 11th Street Street to 1st Street) to Beach Boulevard) Upper Path) Lower Path) Intersections(conflicts) Bicycle and pedestrian conflicts controlled(stop,yield);and/or no X X intersections Some controlled intersections (bicycle and pedestrian),some X uncontrolled No controlled intersections between Some Some X X X bicycle and pedestrian Suitability(Appropriate for all ages and abilities) Environment is suitable for people of X all ages and abilities Environment is somewhat suitable for people of all ages and abilities Environment is less suitable for X X X people of all ages and abilities Environment is not suitable for people of all ages and abilities X . . Condition New surface and in good condition X Old pathway but in Old pathway but in Old pathway but in good condition good condition good condition New surface with some cracks or X . X X. debris - p New old pedest��e___�._�,��,� ath, New surface mixed with faded or deteriorating(rough)surface pathways Faded or deteriorating(rough) surface 598 Missing significant sections of pavement;significant deteriorating along segment • ° Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 1(Seapoint - (Goldenwest Street •(Goldenwest Street Segment 4(11th Segment 5(1st Street Category Specification Street to _, to 11th Street— °to 11th Street= Street to 1st Street) to Beach Boulevard) Goldenwest Street) • Upper Path) . °,Lower Path) • Line of sight Clear line of sight with no interruptions X X° Some obstructions in line of sight People are line of (landscape or hardscape) X sight obstructions X Frequent line of sight obstructions (landscape or hardscape) Path alignment No abrupt linear alignments(straight X X path) Some changes in alignment X X X Constant changes in alignment Signage Regulatory;speed; Directional;speed; Special flashers; List out Regulatory;speed. speed;directional; ` Speed;advisory I advisory. .advisory advisory Traffic control devices Pavement arrow Pavement arrow List out markings;conflict markings;conflict None Flashing Beacons None zone; bollard zone chicane 59g Typical users(aside from pedestrian and bicycle use) Pedestrian access Food and amenities; from Pacific Coast Dogs on leashe; Dogs on leashes;e- Tourists;food and pedestrian access List out Highway(PCH); pedestrian access bikes amenities;e-bikes from parking lots; e- vehicular parking;e- from PCH;tourists bikes bikes 551 Appendix 2 — Treatment Recommendations Tr" G w . M I t s.,� „ irgote ;SEGMENT 1 _ a `�� AlF gn t � a� socusreain. tgf. .SEAPOINT STREET TO aee : ' • ° - a,,,,--.4aa.mr• trt c.sxv d etor-- , i =` �„ G ; ' ����`�' �" ' 4. GOLDENWEST STREET • • a . r � ' ' • °° ew ,,, 's, '."""ssr"T =gisn i} `"i;_k ,,b ..."y'` .'p. ° -` 14 CO ail — ::r-•_. y .-k..k r ' -P " , Y � `..._- --,--,1,- ,.-,-y , wow - �1 1 _, .' .. 'd' :: ",..;a' }. ,.a: 9 >a.- ... dJ�.... z. �,..e. w„zd. i".^.#u": fez ='^"mot T.l rR'1+ 'M4 7' ",. b'.gi., ,,, "-e ..-re.-1tea :ta°. ..a„1 d -.m� y� '� ,...: ._ `i.. i',"„a .. '4d;"4:k .', "4°...e .,, ..'1.at �*I, -_ - , ' 1" 5-;.-a �. e °":t ' . '-' p; } .„'#- :, ;. _ � i`g;#" 'in rsE . "k' "r.^ro`mot:'"'`° �a. ir"-;,_°m,.', « �1 `t ;I .M. - ar .rer.«x, v ...,::... ..-. xx w...:�. "'a :.,x -"f a ---- 3- - r`-.. ' '1,,aa ° aw -ter :, - ,�. ,.w.m .E* e �.. .s„ t ++�» •• � �.$ a • PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY • � a, -.,� �,a} e .:a. _ ,, ew.,..,. „+w t ae.:4 +.• :><.1.A' kv s.r•4 : �`` } .,� .e.:' s ?,:.;". ....,.,c..,.,;. a:.S:F, a--:� r.+ �+.�:".�. °'.s ""I«' i._ $� � i...:.. . 4 ,„, 'C IN.,,,-1.— 0 k 1 . Bluff Parking Lot . , .n °_ a p « " •.,� ;� .!� =&- t.J-,,i„ . 4 � kk. - ♦ "'a %" Ya .d.=r. �'«'n,6 �3 ., " Y Y "r�';% � '" .,,, i,-, b: _ t °tea "ir c s•,e �".,.. ._—.��- "�C,_� "g'� _..._.. '.r«,"r`°�,:� p�`�'C 47 �s`v`�$ '`ar� ,..° �r^��,,�,,�^.�"yy' „a'�i ,,,�, '� t°® -dB�-�' �'l' ��`„�°�� a'�a:. _. _ , .-.^+mho-.'. _ ;1. - =}'c«.'".FFe�"` ct .. .T-_ 'r.`-- •-• •,�,,, -'i , �g"e. °'1, "l ,t. i7.7kB t « ow r-..� �I x -�,,,7,i,,,- ,;,a -s"� .l'13" .1,` k�'''°° *er't .. ;ar',=s's' ' 5,L01:r.0 e'S r .:-{. = f'° "9 , �.. r:n`,..,„, r." w :a "aia^s' "a... ". ",� .,r - ':. :.t ��-. � "`"..«.. ::,r.+s,w.z.. «, �' '"§`. � '`ter:: �_.-�,_ER: .:i✓. k#.„.,.,w_'''. :"i- „, ,... , : ra i.' ' =;w «„i F i-'t',-i,' 1 - ¢,?a,, ,.�`4ssg�,:: "+'+I�"`;`• ?L'" r s<�y_+^`-.=.:�r,�. .r`�"•, `J'�.�,e:` .stt^«.*'aE:-�,r, :-_ ^-. Ec "' , ' -.: x .„ «:.r "�<" � - � ,� �r�s fir.,.�;�„t��r fi�.. ,.". s." R.... .", ,':�- ;, , g='' ,$�,`:¢" .<: "q.-R«"e— . 4 -fV .'."`.- .aiue "fir ,az i x : ,�_ .r. ,.,«,_ _. __ ..,- - < ^s^ ,.k ;",,. ",«,q, _ Y, .. ,rYRsfi:: "*",' bg " ,? *S;te-,..�i''s ,�.«S*�}a,. P Y^e+.1,�`y++ '.t' i f93, ".:.: " .�, , g £y.;,r '-. ,v,4, . a'` .''3 ' " ", ;P'�,1 -'. _ e�L.''' ,,T"fir ",c p„ ,• ' , -- : _� � . �n,_ x � Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities 0 (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple signs with (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback different speeds and/or directions may cause confusion "G.� (Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths : (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 5$4 SEGMENT 1 � r�I�snF• row 1 �� Focus Area n ewI �� • - SEAPOINT STREET TO �� ;i �� P . r � ; I� GOLDEN STREET - 4 '��. " -e'>_ ms_._... �ryr-t u.c, p. ,..;...,�- ..... j_ ' -° ;, n..� .;g �7'. t`._a aa�w--,.,.^-.+.:x+R°; x"�,.� a.,.,,ta,"z,,,.,�y ., - -- i .r- °r .»,-' ., - r,... ,�kr j. .. -,k ..,;, a., :=,1}l. - 4 #3}_" y v »°-., r., ;r a. *. .~ li ..._.$ Y; :,4+.,E ..:''. { -0'. �_. __r t!F? � a "__. .°s> '* �tr...: 4 • $ ? .-kta t'»'t�!2®� a 4� -:.47`�'•■ rt� .;' :■ 6 ..,.a - ., r ,a. 2,. ar� ( .1 s....... ... _ ,. :. ' - _ 8°_i ffi+ ,a:,.^ - -� '7 # ..,x.» Z' ' i m -a,m>r,.`E' '?:.x tit `.•y zar>•,,..,, e. -+ ^ ?t+� P, -: `"+. ;:. - _ e ,. W _&w c4 a�„ ---'4' _,:.14 # '' .lute .., .- - - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ~ ` , ,,,,__-'1---,—;.; ., s � •a .� ' <°° -- - r a a .`saw .r z _ate, re`.g' B :. r g. 24- aso-; „' _ a ;c�a» v. �.:.mv 4.,,r r v r ;,'y..� ': ' .W � : -' : ,, mauu: • 'p� _''�+ / ,�1• 2,14e..... �r r �.;�,.�.S e e a'�tia �. #'' Atta' r• ••,�ri�a-�� cle r7*:� Oil ...,d-.._. .°. _. `� n : t-d t d pie I- - 7, .m.. BI ff'P _ t„ ,{rs-, , •:;k'. - ;•.., ry P�c % r ` �.' `,� `° :• ,.3 .. 4 _. vw` ._ � x� 9 4 k:"' ��p, e ,, .., f' » '�r� `n ..1q+ s,�i�a. e;� 3 ,s��-c«*m., -` �,. `:s�'`'aa y'�r ,t674 y. a » ''- :.`;�. .,-::::..'._,••,?a:a w,=*v -..+;:`T.I;aae :e:°, `;'t ,„".1.... �. rai a, .r#+ ;•wk,e ,,k ,«+�' �' "�_ -9' r jw ti;'?a, aa1Ea`':. .mac w,,. -.. � ':n - _ w. _ �� :. a ' � �I ,_ ,y ';J,''��.,:'�,; '.�+�°""�»`•--`�•zk ',:; � +k.* . ,.;' �e� 1m-• �3 "^�;a.,',,y,.�c'°t,:r,�r""�'^. - .�.f Vflr i = ' "' -,.,:,�e"* '".'."�, �,- - 'S ..r, r*",` - „fa..� a -,' ` .:"., 4-' wi *d° _ a' -,.' y ''J• .x.... _ ' w`!""Pm. mti ,aa�„s:' - °� - - P, -g$ . - :w_:.. '',' , :=t ,. +;t`-, . amq'r, "'..""` ,�.. jw- :r m. . d ": * .4 _ - „pf^ t lr _ "ix• �..-..,.F +i .....� � ��:'"�''", . � ,.am< „ v. _ .�°� . �� � �i..�,". .°�." ..,s.°r..":. --..^ . . .,_.�;_. r � '::�-_,. Vi ° •~ ^^ --=°�%"._ = §. " err ,•,.�:srtaa".+ Z�` t�r > .y,: »�. :.,�,71 _, ",' a a . ...... i-e. o:. x-%', ..�,.a.. . �-a w_-- :. ,,..»,"47: --I _ ^°"'"?'s ^r,-,„, , v •-` rr d-t r r s,G ,u. _,.-.. zr y,. -e., , ....^S`,,°n` .. . ., .. r,a:m. » .7.- ,ea ,_ , ::_ - .:, .m -..r ''.'' - ._ ,-, .°k � : .. _. ,, ,..- ..,x .„r"r" �.;. .rn.. ,;..„ e . �,..,,r ..�� m ,.c„i., „*°,-.,� .1.',... :.?' ,...hb ...� >r -a S.. :+,-, "}'�' ,r., '�7 - •r.z.. .: q',m ..-".','-' : : :jam,',... ,c::7C.,7 ig. ti ..,' ,: fit• r +74-?-1__.�. ?,°:,,.-k:,, I._:., yid.},yam. u''' 9 G,. '''' o r,a....._s,.s._.- «-.+y _: s, ..�.� �a .,.u.-,s,.».».�.,z: _ .,.,_..' "'�t+e, A!� E: ,e.�+3 .�•$a, r[.:F .krti`8-'`' /'!:.td�:x 't a4., P`�ryt.' �,..,.. y,.uPM1yb�,j,.f' .y`i .. f '+?F .' ,I". rr-&'. C„��. ,:, „y;:.;r m : ".• a -!,' -4i. - t `h °+ +''*i._-,» iM a. .?ri. e� -car w.s ?^° ',,�°,'at r . " i'r',,l r�-,� x � �..m� _, a d`v � ,� ��; �* " `� ` m �:�kr .�, -4�w�¢� v �»` t ~xrt c "x .W:a.5& �"�a �.`r' `, � n �a,�-,».cs � t i. ,N �„ 'F .:�r:<.§ �* r:,�m: *r <.� 5x P? ..4; . �. .'-� a � ;" : �, _ Segment Boundaries Recommendations Radar Feedback Signs Remove old speed limit signs; establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Q Install signage to clarify preferential pedestrian / bicycle travel along upper and lower paths 595 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH � . �FocusAre. ►n ,T �t ,, �es t" t ' g' �`- STREET (UPPER PATH) s . ff a� p F �•ua a 's4.w-1^..?•'w"wv'�..wr+^+m`� 1 .. 9= v" e +a � ,� .� a', '.. ,r-,.a w'"JA a' 1 t` - . t' �r! ,.. r*'� �t ,:6 .,8 i`g,.c s C' I 1tM : w, 9 y' '1 i. r i . .tk tt 'x `' 9 +J s �} 8 fJ »f1.-- '#a a IA . 3 r �: y.. ° E "ei s x is =p, . , 3 °� �1 pA 4 a.,= '1,�.,,'. i� �. E�'s.-F �r 9.�� ,E - tt r t: 'fi. =a :i *rr#.• • .#'' ++i !IS"' �:.a, 1 � - y., 4 'F=+ .�::-o, y,,-4--�c,. E ; ° ...W°. ;.' t A''"" A" i , .. ` .y i Yan f _ * f» ,. �-7' rii , 3% t „w d, a €"i 4, . a.. M. . °,° c t ,- _ :. ' !. a tit ..k-""" F`c � sa- : ~ .'" .Yak yg .t: co r.� -n x" .':Y`e+•,:7 —*.- .,,� } F'` ' yr -�f Y_ thS �«w.m. �! + ^^-<sM ,�°� ....,ti .�. �k . ... , _w � PACIFIC COAST HIGHWA � �r � ��:��, �::� .�.� } ti`kkk4YY _ •• ttg rx k5�•: a�qr•' Rt7 .*fi o- . �� (O,7 t. � - -, wa q.,. �' ... »„ «..,,°;., -..,'-*.,..� -e5-°, ... ..» 7 s.- "•>�YK v s r.» .. N 01 f'7 `,JI "'" " - tit . E ' tA ,° tR v, .. `' 5 - k UM +` IC A• » + k� @}p G}ay x., 1 +wli };' S'- »1 I x'I tp' "F°a�F _ ...... "'Y ^t`,"� i ten...+.•...z-.- ,a f ¢ ° 'Zr.� - Y� -° y• ,.s,i,a; tt.+� M1= . '�" " oax'"-. �:• .r-:is+-nk��a.nY�.-.,+�, r �""�,.,-. e�-•r 0. ..m t y °� - ,a 1 3. e.,... ', 7. � '� „,, :w �.,.=-Ce .'i� :.-..r. F P . r>ctri.�t, 5 ��tm�e� °4ka`� .�rEg�v+°.-°s++�+�r*z'.t° � 1ia`�;�`.. - y T',i.F ,"g=.' **� _ ! 9" '.. ���y q�.;. . ,4w as ->3,.,.,-..«,us G^'+ :. T.i -' a A t" c- -. ,-: �-tm. * 'tic: y ++:z,- °; 4#=^•`4 ° . d c:ii, 417:1 '; . c .,'.,,,•d -P z'" -•.x �r- -. m N. S F <.,. , 4„ F. T"¢ .� n 94 d.;.:a--�. ^•`S +a,g*,r.;�, - tyt' y� - �++r ..," .'CA4� 4a•+ ,e � °,t -�� x i se - �� r.,Y�:, 9` "Y` -'=p,�# � il`�<,x:>+a,. „<m°* ems' s. "" :~ ° "� ,���`.•����%'.:�: a p'' € "� „#,;,,". ', �R `ray°x :. ° :g-,a » . --, ` - ..- ..fi `v- ' ,. '.:`:•. - a":. ::rod@*' .a '',.',:-h` ., __e+� -`"" -- :,: '� �. ' i _ a-b 'x wy,,. ._-:' K •".". - - = ,.� •':r: ,:,' *" !°rK^- ,W-Po .G hk .--'""" ." `;`.:i-. ,.,.- .ua ww. tai. Issues & Opportunities 0 Segment Boundaries pp 0 (Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths 0 (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple signs with different - speeds and/or directions may cause confusion (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 596 SEGMENT 2 �g�}j GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 THE°�s Area in °w �`{���7gj��� /ligg�,UF € ' r »+-...+-..- wo.A g-ta F 4 S ki t- r` x+ ,For t STREET (UPPER PATH -I A ffi r ZCfs. ;'. , 4•_ sy °i ;�` t' S� Pe' < f.1�3 �� °f � _ p 1' {}•:<i„ t'P �F, ' t 1 .�^y �, _ ¢ .... �'°=._ t'S-`° / `t,' i� }: tisl , a~ .s. r :r ,e oli 141'1; e. hA °.t �' )'� :t ?lei ,,... i it e 4 IG 1. a. x ^. ,,.. s.�,g� a 'a'k1 4a I y,. ,au lt„'„+!.`� -! �'}l.�a a [ - ` ' + `1 - � .Y$°s`+�� 1,,,;:;.. ,A.. ;a '' 4 .". W r, :r^�' a' f ' a,yr s r. .� .?, t`... - {,r, ,§' l x. i r;.¢... w t N "wr,,t Y_ . �: » ""s..'" - K"*."a..' r�.-h', . :E.`� 4•.„'�aa: �^. 4.. -" W 9= ' ° �.. +,..d"� . '�P,:�° .P-'a- aua':?"°�"„rx +» ° ��":;,.•� 'k`�� . �-..;�.� � ' , �.•` � o » ' �' �' �.: ,,:. r �� .��PACIF COAST H WA...,�s,�e�� w�,. ,�, �'-4—, :` �."�' a ,. H'° k[�1W" " - s tit - 'c IS:N a 'r -i•!Mn�� .m 3 .4 n,r^rc - EE -Fr+ � �tf11'A.�»°,. � ° ~tCsHC_a `�.15�'ap. Y »' �°�' `." qt.' tpi 7 t .tti'• i - ; .. �, g "'t ` .. >.Q °. „% ,4�w rsa a sa ar+. » a S wig'.... 4 «• .,y: �' „a. �,� {` � p .� `s',.6" '^ :tie �' - .+ 4 ,�' - �." 'G^."°;..� . '„ .��` ,mo - +• - - _"* -F r..tip a 13 -It' a +° 't ti.e s ,'"T { , � . e r, s �. *dr `,-.-d ss�.n a'+1.t^s"• �+* � a .` 1`. `,i",`' =y ,7. a. '' ';,. ^`a;.^,e ',,,,,k ,.'s m, _ �: r '» g..: ..,*.", a... .s_ �` i sk--� �s-�,,' '. y "z.. .. ,e..=, �;;�. +,. , 4 ,, ,z#t' y e:::;r "�L,; " «-+�".r '"' r z- r� ° .. t+* e'f Y` �a'a ",''�eq» -" - ,. `*I. .".*,zce ,'k f.„ t wa�°`y 1 ' c .. -v� t I ..,:-x. :. •_ .w" .1f- . ^"' ,i. ' .°:. ,t -;:tom. sTi. . ,' �s,.,^' -' t *"#..x _ 'n ' ., :i+". ., . vrt s r a -emirs. .,,.»«.-..s.+.,e '._.-���e��l� '......�:���.�. -:�..� ,.._.. � s -��.-�-�� �,,,=,�„ '"-- �i..,.�.-._..,,,,.�»....�1......... ._"r- e _ .,«,.. ...w�.., e�...w.�..-.. .,.. - Segment Boundaries Recommendations - 0 Install rumble strips near highly trafficked areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Q Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display O Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds 597 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH STREET (UPPER PATH) � Peak ea�•n ye ow�kORES� + °. ; : ; between 19th Street and 17th Street � .� awe . �. ° ate' IM f � C. _('h.{^r.y�11. x jqjG,.. �' fj " •'X5 r.417 at . ,5i .at Q 9, , s°3 ° a.. "� 'ri t t b. y :.—' +�,1)4..,h. ..•�, �, F� a 'wS � `e.?'.�i ' `ckw'"`� k' _ _:4} x -.. -¢ °.> .. tS"� .°.r°t. to '4 Fp 1 r' P a t e`J.. O. kiw x= r.� :t s- HIGHWAY q r :" ""� "a :cam cry µ u - ,-, �, .. .. ,.�.� e- : '` ... � cw" �� � � oaa =a �, a; .� GHW :." . # - - - ,'$"'"' +IF a _ . .._ a. _ m«.a ar. - s ». a ; :""`' .'c;".w -.PACIFIC COAST HI AY.. . ... , t..�,.°..�< spa ,+.� �. wnxi.,w«•t `'H8'=.�.. .v+^ ar Ja"� rp �n 74.11 .- L - r - a . ae *4, .. ";17, � ' x. "i h, :as:.`"c.hr"� ,.r 'i;.? e f ."-.-,.. ? -d'.s.•e.+. .s -eY3»-,' ,z .am= '"',,,, it%;-�`- '' .11r'-'' .:: �. . y7 < »6„ ,` e-, ;t _-. a ;m. � - w, ., -, aka.t' : " . ...• .� --an '; ,, r v ; „ l „s^t w� -s - , * " n k ° C " 45 ...u:+tb t. TFA vat w ,p "- 5 _ s.-. _ -: .a `;. ter-„ x .'t Sc;re W'f --_ .3"+;:,,. .�,- �',_., _ ... ,,z,•.., ": ......-,.,, _., ,. <... r_z_ -., .,.., ..�„u.`_,_ =&h - ems. ,�-: - a - ar i,o.... _ _.._ ^` Issues & Opportunities 0 Segment Boundaries 0 (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple signs with different speeds may cause confusion Q (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 598 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH STREET (UPPER PATH) i " ` ` * � = �. FocusArea►n yel�ow tz . •- z between 19th Street and 17th Street ' - _`� • - ~"t t' P IPA,(°�'� r° f • '-fin L 1 , .. r -'• 16 , tl R* :. $ 1 • I s.1- V g•' 4.i .4*3q°� i ¢ `" s ritli+g �.. a ,r t ° F.. 'F- ' rell.- i - e co r Pi " 1, .r - -' '�' �, Q p ,.eF 'G,s..., y .&�•�e•qy�»`' ° ^. :3` .ram.�-.:._mmu;w:�.:s"'c '; .sue.. .- .. .. +R.� �4{ �e � - o r y,. �x - 5,^ Z -'- tea_ : Erb_ r_ �" ;` - N. �. �� e Kti,' 'O� �g.,Y ,..a ..�",e. �. =� 'rT�• st .:tY y N. `l;�, ._"^a �,. ':^t�c ':. s^"�'� ` ? e`tTa ,{' n "; „,:'.. 3 � *•sue•., ° PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY w i y w'+.eJr, w°. Aa i.+" si dies. r ,$Le'AF% P ra4 • .w v... si _ R.a �—. a4 ^. m••,y :+i.-Ws.S ...K Y�� Y e d�-' w'fl •4a9'. v- Aw rvmi"P --?.. .. "wwm -- '—�4 k 6 Y• l 12 re!€ .„.I.'a "S•.�a.4. •,.. ;} r.�� ;, :9w??t,�', ,ea'�..titS..d2Li� ! 3 y� ` tM • eeleely .a1 lfOl eif. - �; " �'�°' l+ ".• - �:t' -i i. ,. °¢F'. -. g ° -"�+a•• ':^ �„ or� 1 i`. ��qg�t},,�y��. �° yra _ e ..-. - �,.Y e ^,'r.;�•-l6a+w .. / $:. -# f -1, y R". " ��^_. °' v M Rq ice. ?j.„. ro � �'�` �4 v�y-, wf �' d .+e ,Fr' 'L �. R a ,• a ., .... .. 1 ...7 4» +«�wr '-^ s^4 t °. ".•'el , . '. t1 t. as ,c.r x_. n. _ a - 91.,may -, p r^....-w..,._.. "`.m...• `««f > ,-„ .-,__ -..:.... r,�. "� ,...4. .....;� .-• ... "..',3�e e :r ;. y ' iY.',"T'"' h�.... e:,f�a. e r:,� -`"' -^„,71--t.`*xt,--.- `..ft ) ,�,v. ' 7,4,.., x ,,,x„ ' .,. ..,f„„m,y g.:„..,,,.',. + ,,- ,r.. .„a, .vw- .:..`„. _, ' .... 'fd.',,.' ' ,r*' .^ - -;; -,„..,a. _ r+.#3�, ,,,,,, .q,." r 71 .r� a °tee,: .:`� w � �;�°"5� � s eeLL arsG— s � _ .,„,�., tt.' ...-a.'-""i' Y4 td t 4 r r,. , t , «, , 1, 4 i Recommendations Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Q Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display 599 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH STREET (UPPER PATH) ~� ` `' Zi' 'i � rieEpp�� e �� ' � y�,., _..uPsp' ,, , el owr{ y(�,,,,_#E � p . , a :-'"e,.,F »,.,�;,, x'k LEER36 , � I'I-16 ,Gtd FCy' Le' +4 tfs.`t" ,.3 _." 3 t d�,•;q. between 15th Street and 11 th Street X � � „,..„ ,,A: ring/1107,...i.. 1 k.i.;.‘77., ,,,...s A: le,. , ,„ „.,...',N..: , --- ' . ),-,, -.,..; ,, % - 4 • 3 ,4st,...„ ,:t i s. 11 — lyti it =t 1 r F' ,.-., xgp•v.. ..]. >0 •e x ,:' - '•.' • N 4 ".' '4. :,.a. •* lit: 4. '%.TAt ^' ' =s z #.•• F ` '° . PACIFIC COAST HIGHWA 'w; . . • >.r -t ° .. _....4GL "e-`_ •. -;1.. ° ;'f:... -":.,, c. ; g za. - i - tY .*�' .ar _.•"4` t p, .tea ,/, ro - ,.^y � ° :,.. s 4� �mea* . fin,aFs. F a"44. kw° ... .. w ,.....Y °da i: .tl. • ,, „.L ,?i '4. .wi..-,•i.wk `•'',, ,, t a+$+ ` �'n "+i ai. wwta e.-u 'y,' ,,."' , 1 . � i, Lf . �- .w S^.`+'a..w:..,a .... m- - 1 ..�, .r�, .u��.. i . # � A ' s „r {wrre .arvu'i�`"5 1111 a F" .i .. � : � � ,.. '''-"i +„" ,�,' �� 'tl t "',3 r°. . ial °' ...oaf ,.».%a kc±. x,-? '^ „.°„-w,.,.., `d' an.sca.im,. +r- m q. .0 .,� -a+` . 'ay�°LtA a l4 4„ +:r 'i�€: �� fir. xz o ... • Im .=.. ,' .:c-. �q trt�s, < , ry < j. ,� q A ,r _- �.. 9• ff4� .xr:° ,.J'..tr ' r. .- y�"�, 4�: a- s•ria. •1'P.,` ,• ,,.ir' ...••' •." ' °° als,,:"�.r«. _.:_- .,..e� f. ,'.�- ,; tom, !q� � . ^r�. . .,. *'_ .,.. ,,,-r,,,c ,...n--xL `". ,. -�: '•.: 44«, ,-�.,-k. vF x-:`t ; +S,4,t+$ „ -,' 'm'"'?r4.+...Y�. - -I..:.r-y- ,`;:,, bra.y ,g.-.a_ s,, ..''.m k!a: y m.. �,, yw...,�.�'. "''.,'+��[ii..��a`- : .a' .:...+':SiY•��t''" ':. ��q ,.".:.F..:� c. ... _. <',.. ,�':�„, zs d a� �_-��,_ w,.^�:Y-:,. =-.'-� i......',t *v=fit',,. w ` ,, , .,s. „-'1. .i.; ,-^,:`°..:A. '>..: &'.-, 1^"fJ ..` :, f z •--' i k.N„I '::., - :i"'�f A.'k. - ` A....`"`dS .. ..._.-....: .. ,xS_F., .. ,...;.�.,. - nP . .. .} -.... .., ,. ,� sx..... , _ _.. "...:= . : 'r .. 3 fi'°�:� <d ki-„t` s'-� b'p+,.� +� ,. ,tr,:, ,, .. ,�_ � w �. h 4,,.�,e r.P:a s :n� >r" E+E;,.:,y :� ��` = �' 'a,„r y��S, 'rz i�R, ' -.. ',-, . ;: .wt '',.% "'z:::-..w S.,d a...a c i --, - - i'"w:_ wxa s� s`" l ,'* *' ;s" •1",,p:a'' ta ""*+. 'il - .. w.�x �� u .," . . ( r- _ Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities 0 (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple signs with (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback different speeds may cause confusion (Issue) Minimal signage near path split to/from to indicate where bicyclists are allowed and/or preferred (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 600 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH (g � �' `°"' :{{a�I W*?47�5lG"�E. � - 1f 'fs [. r sa ;'$$.; "' , `""F V STREET SUPPER PATH) _ � .� 4 � gel . � � } . , e, ,.. l tiff?c. Area►n ye ow 6, t 4 . ;. <. , between 15th Street and 11 th Street �µ - � �:'��� �`� � �� �� ��E�� �� � ���1 ��� 19,44111 ° �.z asp gs. � w•.. # , a w w '` .j; 1— , t -A,..- % ,t,Ii... --4 %. .. ° Z' tl armor@ x 3 s> e ' '° , ...aae1' ,af -.,: ,,y gx °-4 lei , .-� Mtn ,•, ! 74 ' - •.._ _, .._.,_'_.. ., , .. .w.. ,. " - -.`i .1� €� f. i man es.=`s _ 4.... • a � :. ,.,,� .mob : �' e ;.�, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWA . � e �� ; �b' y1. ' - ,� r '} a , - - °r -vt." . - ^"o,�.�.. yam. _ rr,. r ' . ..z. 49 ',� i -« `Yl' :... ° �°^ '"tIRt)-* 17p e c• �w r _. Y- Pe t �j- �m>... i—t-." },..,, 'r.: �.� •;.+. ''�" ., °���,R ., .at,� a e :w r '4 � �,P .tip* '. ? t s�," " ., a,�" . •6 .,.t ,..°• 9r �'' ", W W1.. j :e:�1. �' k"��S "� "fit, a" K'i�`F, „`�v."^ W`r a ��;;o-" +8.e�'R: � a:+� ,:. ... ., y":.,, . }, � f � '�r-��a+,"�ei+wa .tar. ; tk- - ""=:wB-+ y �t -.-..z.� ., ;m,.".. ,-rw» .,,. "__ v '>, -�€: m.-.,. VA; ff'. i'_;*j"4f -'''.k. —;,.--w :-1-:u: "--1�,.*�*, '°';t` a - ._ , ... i ,- k_xr.x .�� � .tc.��L.�. ,,._ �; �.P" � ,*x - s°"w'''.3 ",�,., ,�.. � 3 a <.+�� , i�':: M '{: : ..:.:'-. p:;i,MN : ,, � « d•• <..c:w .,,,......:.?-' i a %"` . ..a•_ , ., .,:, w ,. +" �4-. '' ,....�'' v `; '" d +t, °e. . .re •° ^_ " . „o .,'.° '' `^'x '-r =- ,ter h yam,, r-'< ,�-'' " �;, fi .-. §a' ! 'i�-. ..:. � . s...:..�, r.,... . �,_.+3'. ��» �``".� _ � ,:a w�Sr,�.w�,"�;` a� _. vk"«a3y% . itss w:1 f a'$,, = �, a ` C. .4. �. .e - �., �,,,"++.»`�J` - ,mot,, Segment Boundaries Recommendations Radar Feedback Signs Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points Install access gate for traffic calming along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict and/or square off access approach to zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or encourage slower speeds diagonal crosswalks : Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Clarify preferential bicycle access signage / markings 601 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO �� � � „imp 1 ,s _ 11TH STREET (LOWER PATH) 4 , F . i e 0 AP E . t. - . ilt- 2�om t.t k i=- ��r � .. 5 .,,,, . between Goldenwest Street and 20th Street ,,: e �. Qnr,a2suslsax .,,. .Oe. . .m 4�- ._. :P "..- .. ., .,�t ,:'�: - �. e , ` ,. .t- : - 3; 14t ,, .w , ,7�`s. a ti 0-. t;4 -.7 i = _r` '.r. . y ,,.__i .H • M 1 ;_-'} tr_ ,,'V/. 5 '°. -, qp:' . $ ;el^''� _ � t :k Y - aYl'vF.., �. . • .g.,-, k. �. ? �!� � E W �"'q� �A''_ ;�� +� � �. ? w .�y� net �?, �.. �.j �+����� ,�}` ,�,�- ;+ cs r*- # 413 g. s, .y i €.* .p'�°. ',,,,:,, -, 5" r s, m .i,.� °r: i'�' o ram,{ <:. '- _ .j d., ,:_a 9. � , . ,0 a.f' ?" �::: - ! —�11 "' ,,. ,t. I'-- J°: ,.,. #g,ti.p 11['_ � - k..a. `, !:,s as -•• ,'• '. ''•',�!' V 1 :. b y° E' =z at ., ..-e e —Ale' gd�' �� :„...,,, � } ,a� u° a k aII,l t,, ;= ,E n, .ti tro.•._ , , E 'ti* 1, :.• _ h .. .► � ff 33 tr ' a^t 'r.,:f' - , .,:.;d .;.a.. — -y. .. ,,wt. 411 t,' ,,. v 4• ..... i . y7 ..,,, `� ,t+. �,. 4 . �:<. a.�,,,,r, vc� , ! �� ��� '+�t ^: �. ..... � '" _ .+ ,t+.,"r�'... �' i,xxz: '.a a �.;.:� i° ��x�°� ! .a-ca,;: ;�£� �.w�t°. ..n. .t - I si� ?.�,�\�, • ! J" '';;%` ° �°--.,..` .°,� x. ,=ter `-.. P F ,_.r.#..:.:. ,`*,. :�' -.. ,.", '"a h y, . .. ;f .,. s,, # �;:. nt 777- re`,•:P - • - ' - -','-:- M9 'g' ,,, -:. ,.. .v"'a C' ,,,,,„,,,,,,.......„,,,,,,Ls,„...„. 'k y,ry ,a »'� .' , k#, .».i „ :,' • k S.�M7' ° ,,. r °s; bSw='° = °.'g; wn d,......"�.t.* a. .„'° p.x„� :,,, a a» � mow.,,,, L.� ._.: �. a , 4 , CI C COASTIG WAY K4 ...° ` A '' Stl rr �e €.r^...'.'a dr. 9 W : "^' ° • ro -� .`., -• X', J ":x"`` ^rf% s t, �-.° .x# *mow: .&,m .qx..' 1�f ni€as .h.i s+'R Al' tilt • I �� s't ^ -.."", ",.'a1.. si"`., ;.k. °,w: ;',. ,,. a :.+. d-:,- �' —�;r; 4,'{ �r 0 4"}. . ,w*; s -_ �. -: .a . . -,.. m _ "AI"' t: ,-, ':1 '.. •1 ,,#•*." ' tea,,." - „3„,� _ �-^,t- tk a P,+N. ., e^'.tiP %" +, .�.A' ,y°. wFV..,: : =xz,. �P b .:'4 ' e,$."%Y..,°'g F : r'' •' � _,�- - � -.,', .g.. . .:.^. . vs.! « r^' " ',% W '.. 'a t`.w » y: � ," ^"sue €'.. °..' _ ^ °- +, • .�,- �y'�,.�,„�.s- -. -d^:; - tom,+,:`,-:, ka ..wn�:°, ° _ ..:.,+ =r� a, •.,.a.aa. a R.. '#;,. - b., r�P�;S't�^i.��ne :. `rt s g i . 'K'k __ :�e,, .,p _ v..t m "aw ,r r�.. �-.•r ..,,.�.. +-, - .:._ °. Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities (Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations ® (Issue) Path does not have separation confusing for travel to/from upper'and lower paths between users; no centerline (Issue) High volumes of traffic and constrained path width (Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear • leading to/from dog beach (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) 602 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO � � ua 11 TH STREET (LOWER PATH — c . �Foc non w� � g � 4 between Goldenwest Street and 20th Street .` ' - ° - � }{ -'rr �"' ,�.:` t! , "�,. ;'!,. .7 y_:f ii TLIrya;' ! `,- {st ,. ,a. 4 :rtt, �°a a"a a'v `^`t ,'..":x ,it 'A'$. `� _ r- . {� t L�' Q Q. 7 "Fl< II y '' C}. y'."' ' e; : °a k`- :, _ i #" .,1��rt r "!. i s:-. .' - ' me R°.., s fir+ t ., �+ -., '• .i , A. 5,Lk > ' [ { v R y : r °. �., rt 11, is . ' . 1 °', i r.•• .a S• a i I� �.„p,; ?A. I '- - 3-;0 , N .4 s '$; " 4 ',=, ": F s _ ti 3t t „."° a°-„...' .i mn �. • ,.,, - N k-,. ,4,W., x'- "dry'�, k" ,.a ' �:;•° W`a .!'sb s S W �B"..�.°xr � .�• r. -.E q. a - .. _ �1 :r: a-� "-'F- r -r Ili fig,+. a ¢� �y,� Yi' "`Y,.... �'' -t'.E C=r � ...•, 6, i: � §.., a" �s_ ��'e i . Y :•.,� Yt!'�° -.� ";1:. ra Y�:.� P�• ."",.^�d. k Y:•_�3 .�,. Z E }a - 4-4 "'Ni'q R. t • I► x� r Z n 4 `, 114,' F. ir' a ,> ,-, •-•� .� • y to O i ( „ ,a. EA e1t.-: W :. ,g i ata,`;, �..at A' -,.� l.' i. i R. . ate, '.— 4,t 4_ y..a� -:� 'w. IF r .;' ar °atew� ,w.* , '-b° .'"'.T'.a - ' ^• ' 4-i .�' 3, ._;; •.'-.::�.'. -,•«."a -.a : 7' � ...•'�° e.,." •a" CV �.'., .., -,a rt. � ..;,,.�wy e�sp �• . :dc. ::x •. ... �, � ...k•9m. Y Y � tit � � A �' • �•°�}} �i' 'w�q •,_ ..., ,.- J .,.�.... � n�as I � tip�" -..�,. °+� ,� :„.e' t _ � ,�.� ., . - w . -• '4'p�.g4. a.` ... aq s+i.� s "tea w-'b t'#c,b gx.. sf^+ �8rs _ s F oielk' � ° {!�, �n"�,-r_rf�s-:.. . ♦ t _ X -. 9»'rR � 5t �i,4rk. ",t�`b r .,,.r — t .._ r.. vk ffi'� L--•Pf efl^� &: �"0� �* �� '�. 34},fi: ca ` �a'a � .'�. 7E,• ,,.. ). �•,�ar�y�y_.�' �a,.�- _ .r ��, 3 " .�+..�., a. '�+r-n`t w ..a� . {:'•.°;9„z :.. �•.„ R PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY , Awe s� < """ .. � " 4-• ;._ z .. � �• ... $� dZi: r !li- _ a ;. ttl, .. try yc-t at - ' •ak - - _ *n , a.:... °: g, ' t`+a,F'.°• f j r,�.RR�h a£"..� _ �r,''' x as. r C;. _ r. t y. sn�., w r �' ** ya, .. �qp :.. ♦ a" ,3 ° K ..- 'sIk' '",� ' e rP'•1 . " p„ §`8",,"""'• .F 'S — rt''q' . ' • yP n:: r - x `^ ace „- .,u - !;. (x _ S``� - yia� °"' °r.-y a.�, - 4 4a>.nr€ 2 <- ?"' cd s c r a. i. �. ... �,'-�. ::. ,,� %°� �.; fm�., 'Ai-A; ,>f ri?,+�:�' �.� is .g � °;" s $°r-,�»- -• . .a, ri-" ��+M,.'.' __.- dx, tr � ,,'..`° • wi°r-�' �w�.: . �° .,�.�:,: il�, s.�4 ._.,;:.., �.•,.;. ';� .x ,r� �--r,.,_t ..,,s.,. . .�.,., ,.v.. '°.`A..r. -~$b � .:.� �:s..�,.m..:,= -•?: a °-_ �.... .�•_ ^.5'� °�G ,. , ;Y..,.tom .a. , - 4Rems+'..:.✓; . .e .:-•a ,-,+�. ma.,-"`- d%'a ,..it, to 'r a� ,Yr,�, .r�, 9( �.�:$ �� `.""m , .:.... �'.�. •>� a,.�.--,.:a.e •., � et --.- ,fit: ; �i } .:�°:." ,ie �i =a �';�'zm s� .�`; t" y,M..,,��r".su;w�,,: --:: �e t ,=,8 S a - a-'a .t,, a a ,.,.,r r"';,; 'ab`... ..„ '"..,. yw-a•.s+- 'spf _ a `4 ..., ,T t� .w As; t"A.A."� _ € - '' ka,„ _ .., :.: =-.:.. 't4 - ,,,t- „,,..�1,,,,`—A'y•"aa,u: - .„.:ice" -.f :-. ... -a x. !z.. '`'+x .:.., .: -0 _ . ''` �yyir.`r'....tip""', •p„e, - d- .�. .m,,..�.,. - .a,ap '7.-- 7tg -.�1,7.;'V7'' _.,,,x.... .r - l,_a.,-.4� :.i:cN"..Y ,t.tr°s:_,.: �:;:w. Ssas4:sa.,H_... 4... �a-°.e.....,,�...r. w,,' .:W.,_..._.:,.$w .s''..x.........._..Via: �., ... R.7ax '°' :. -.,.era Recommendations 0 Segment Boundaries Point Improvements Corridor Improvements Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds Widen path and include user separation; install centerline striping 0 Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access Install sand walls points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, 0 Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular i continental, or di agonal crosswalks sign display 0 Install speed feedback sign (numerical or icon) 603 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH • � x� � E � c ` STREET (LOWER PATH) A a� , =� `l ���.�Focus Area►n ye�ow�� � � � �'� between 19th Street and 17th Street � w. :::--61:'' �,, as+a ��3 ° t wl t ..h i=, : _ ar _ 1— ;,,,,: f x ` Y :41tAr s 7:F1 t r i .. ld ::: "i' E" IVI ' r - A .. �_C •,� � " o.:aa¢.Y..° ":'a' iS. g r 4 j '; y r ;. /14:"'...?°: .. b'�� "' ,3 ;� :i r ^ a x:,;��°� ." .-A--,;`� �m=,�n;n 0 � ., - t �,_,� �"-m: •'�-;`:�. ::r ,- . "; - .�°',,�z s•`m,.�`.��,, "� � HIGHWAY 4 �i' a�. �ti:� ,. �.. [ "1 0 " - .- �- f w �.�` ... � � PACIFIC COAST cn.,, #. .. ..�".".. , 4. • "" `S . .:_ -.r "-"o.-- ..a"i- "S3"":-- ,....._»..... ... m... ...a_ +, -- "'!•'a ,tea!,.:z 5 '"°^a.. . ,,.."'s„ „Nj -..�r.ww .;c+ +m rY s+ .a. +�,_w°4 ,� �.. u+,+ +a: � �aa: �.S. a^ e °..�� w (""�_+e� .-�.�,a.�ane`� 4 ° A yew . . .� tmti�. .t sue''."Xa$".:-atK. ,4 - „be` `" � e:.�n' a a� It e �� + � ^iff� �z x , a q« w °x:..:,. ;: .47. i'r* .s -„".. s _ Vim`*' rt a '.yam, ±!` `i"".d"' �`e °', ,`�"' m --" 'eat• -x` �6:* � _ r, .ewt 8._.....,. x . " d. g... e:a."s-.4°-'4^ . cvr' 4, °~ - - '^" j�Y Rom. "x _ "-s".""vp�:y i" �' '+,.wS,- 'a�'�s'" -`'f'�'a e r,- ten 64, .. ;l^.,:. :„ ...wak�`.-',.�,a•�'�*- r..�, .,�d�`, r«W"".. .,e � *.. �.« =,�.,r '"w_ L .:...*lam F.��Lr.aFa.a�Y"- .,r '.,, ,w° . ,�` ' m x r^,i K as� t �„,..sum-,�..�,-.....Jw'-'-'r,. '. .. •_ a s .,. ° �. w.. --'--'-------"— Issues . - . .. ,. -. -d. ,i .._ .:. .._.., °= t F .& Opportunities ® (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path (Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear (Issue) High e-bike/bike speeds along path/segm 0ent (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require 0 (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path feasibility and environmental review) (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline 604 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH „ . STREET (LOWER PATH1 '" EDEE` �`_``." ����,.. � ,�� r F Focus Area in ye��w�lFp���� � ��� ` �� •� , . �5 '"'; ..... ;,e iE� i .-0 r a*ie t-sClk$+7„', r r� L E, ve between 19th Street and 17th Street $A k � -.. 4---- 1 ° ..-7,,t--,., ," r,..., . ,t,, 't ,' ilaT a { gg {Q7 it i .yi i r E s. T i �° r - A w j t a, ..y- 43+ 11 n s l'1:--i:: i, H S.2'4 .igy ::14 2 .p ti. Sa °5,, +`.:3a ,J,:e T. } E,- T. � t_yr a � -r o H 1 Y1"' , ' , ,, ti: , = m ' I. PACIFIC COAST-HIGHWAY ` :: [�Ss„$ ; . ..... - a_..a ,A,„,a ..--''"°, ::�. r t a r 6�` <q.: _ x.<',' `�"" T' "+F 1`..^` 'k '� -'tw't,a-..-< :.,rY .�. M _ "- ..,`..r, w. ,..a ,�«, .� P� ,�+ ,s .�. �, ..b .,,. � � * 9 t w '¢rt��+".� ,�,"'�^ L y; Via. � + ems.. '. '�t`ri . : 'mar ;"S `r�,.4 M.,':' -----. :..:a :.A.. -•'P.`e-� a.Ni'.-----:t-;.; "*e o L .:.:c` �i :` �0'a���;`9 ,._ ��t .. "I"; w1yPiL�1.OIR s - �4q� ., hUe ., S ba 'a ..... ..4—, .l a�-.+'."""'e'S .s.. •Ya 'l, 3�, w 1 ,$r. • ' L g�y t' yµ »_,, �+-. .�„ .,�;;, , -a r.._:,, ,� 4 ....„ _ _ - c��':rs ,,, a , .m., � . . # .a :f^., 4k a �; _ n, .,t ..--- r y a4 tF r ^�- .,......:" �-�. ... i�+.^ia+r'tn'wawn,•i�.s r+�5a 3:' . :�Raz< ,'>' � i;'-,�.' _ *±r--¢ ;�•x •.ear r� "�'. -t" ,a ,�` �;�� - 'ta+�'* .• ,,. .sc,^.k t.± ,.. 'ri....Ts..,,r>x' j..'.. .k"' '; ' was ,i t .y,,. *a. rc: P _n a. t,m -�._..::...:. �, .+�..s$�"i.w �. ,..•,<'� �^a .,,u. "?�'':s+^"c�°`i ,w -. .i � -«-* n$�t,^ ,,, >,., .„z .,a^ - �.-r =--4- are. '.r, - k - .; w= , >:.,' „,. .-.., r,. .m S".•a._.,`. °f' , ,m.a ..,w a9:� "-..r kYl �:: . yt .3'a. +.. '+'. . .,.A 1...;:,..,:,ne :,� �;�-.'. ..,. a;� ,�.. m`w�.�S .a ;.::::� .., g ..-�..ra...a*:m. ''k.-"'��-�':�L*`.., .' �`A_".'.��.'m"�^. �1°�,..., �-""�,,;arsr.� N' ,_ .�..- .d Recommendations Point Improvements Corridor Improvements C) Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display © Install centerline striping Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access 0 Widen path and include user separation points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, C) Install sand walls continental, or diagonal crosswalks 605 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH q STREET (LOWER PATH) ,i . 'CI, z Focus in yel ow tr � 4t1 , .., .,, •,-ra. Eta cat ::gia between 15th Street and 11th Street 7. Ica,�""�^ .w .-.. ; . x ,,,,„ ,, , ,,,, >. -_ . �°g ,# x, �y � ` ,, a;: ', ' '41,4114.b.ar` is .. .- ..i` - C.'. : ^e' 6' Y - , rh P• t $ & a••' °F -`s E 4.} • "- ^- •,��tI ..;ay, t s` Ye: a s_ r^s y _.1 Cf a., - 4. .W t §a�a s,.... i�.+f._„ ru yif �' . r. t t0. -fit - CI) ",{' y e ,. • "i'3S ✓a'i: .t•�� .. _• a` '",",°,,.axa a 'Ia _ s {. _ ,..s, ah «'ti,.' 4� 10,:. _ ! 2a.''r w r , . .1.45'''''r.. '''7";--- Y � -" - ; �" ' ar ' . PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAY ,c. • RY '"� g,` r. °.fig -. ,•-,-' '^�4ca4"i'ti.° 0 IF',..1?-stp4 > *tT� . ; 2.. '' ; .. -- % . ..b...:_ - +.a, ..y a.me:i s!N .'', - ':'» b .. t '' `, �J*„ n ,; - • %- - ' r '""*,..-..• .."G yak "':Area"' e ;� r.a re3S. 1 s .row v.x '• + :.a ..0 .'".� .5 Yz.A�+rv' Win!!� l'Than �n��.�� � ‘14 w•� a a=T..+S.r.�n's:_. '"•�.a;.ytJS,.�"R " *' _+m• I. . , ..1 p•N 3" 1 -i::z::.,Alec*.. -x a1, 6g . .i *`"". as':.. 4 me sas„* , 'K, ,.�_M ; � •_` •- -W4,......v=.w ' .. w G ",?sy+F � -,�'t r"�^< �T .'�z.a^5•, ��i `� ?'� 4u jr._= 5%' } ♦ ?:.. .--" Y '+ v.id '% pew •f" « �....,.Q M 'fbY ,4401 % rsss „-".gym-=a:z ;•.E'` :... �. .. - ..�.>-. [ : °, - '- r,_ a .AT?T_�. `;{t ,,—' , ..r. r sL. F $ -gy __ . � . .: .,-. � ......_ „.._--. � a "� -��{; ' .. � >.. ,.{' ~e-„ N�C. "�'.wa. �;. ,�,y„°r'' ..y:.: � �� :.: aat.az� l�..... fi, .,. h r^",'_ . 3.m:,t _.: S+:,:,�. -, :,-9.- '.,¢�• =,. , ° ., ��TM ny� = 6 «. , - .., ... .....,, _ .. ..,. _�.-=• r?.s .. --_:.. ....,�, -"-u�� : ". �' .'�rG'., +-.�-fi • � ..>a�'_ �.... t'�d 4�y , � a:ar '�ma.r C3 �_� ,sa�t+ne-.... ,r~:. g,:��ai%"... ?�` {..,. �� -*'ta"nTy�. � �Fa i _ ,�.y x � ems �"°� ,.�„, ,> ��' °. ...-..- , r. 1,„S, .,,t..,Ia�'=a m,:.�`.... isa�� __ .,...., xa, '' .,,. .,a,,, 9^.u�, { 7' �S _t� ,xx.> s„ o- ..x � — '-„ , .:_, _ m _.;�{_ _v s.. .. `� �.> ......m t,:s,�..Y+ _ Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path 0 (Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear (Issue) High e-bike speeds along path/segment 0 (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require 0 (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path feasibility and environmental review) Q (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline 606 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH ,„ r„,,,r FEc+{Cc��ryytFpry�". y ,,,,t',-a.,E1, 11,,+�, v.: 'r fq,,;sV %,, ��v—i"1 �°'S3a:�. �RY � ct4lRF4{R,�t�Yli �s��tf�'Yi�il �aick 'L ��'1�'�TM' Ws 1 ye } �'� pili, STREET SLOWER PATH) .. giaeFocus Area m ye oW � " k between 15th Street and 11th Streetrn .� `k.. „� • .• .•[ ,< 3 ?tF .±mar -s� : a '. , , .. h ,i `iz }; �" ;V4 sPo� 4` :V° i s r ef Ir41. _ ;v. *. 5tk +,ar.11 R ; ,. �'� , u� Y' ,�" b PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ,y, 1 .r - i . aw err . T.. a'; ,.' ^, w o r A.::i > . .. g�wY.s'- i w" " . .,;,..� Wpm«': a%„a ,,era ,/... - ,, ''. °t,..�, t • .• . p;7 ..a,.+•�: "„+.. .f?s �, ,gy• t FT , _ r. s ..* .r- .... ._ _,.. � -. � '+. �� .. �.... — •. .. � . a .,,--.tw=.s a 7�W�it: »-, � kps 1 ..n - -w ...:...-,..a`` 5,. .'.b- 9yro, . .. - ... .. .. yam-. A ��...... r<. w+!:.� _ r _ . .; _ 9.„ Itai. L,.c^',.:i�' ,a:: 'dPr . Poi r 1?; r•.r.-" °i +'w tt^"re..t. P is •�., a�, ,.. .: �.x'^"r �. ` .1,1'^•"- .,. �"i '.% . b :'.; ,s r�E -� '�°. 1.� �*. �+sw'S +s.w i A�+.� ,."p' °�. "��:*.,, �'±., '= t°j��j;= � ^t- '.�'" r. � ...... 'i'r :'. ,d'!i.�.�h�;..tw,.are '�i :,, )-,,.� ...-„. """"`�'x....,F; ," .,,,_—.,,,Zr An' .e.,. «. ..gym I"y„.. = , 'r... r e 'P!i.T "a"'' ..a b ,v,,t..vk7: '.:r..;.: cw. ,. r <.,t'" +hYk'"x p . ::rv.: •e3... 'S`< ,:.". 1,N 5 wl ." s. .:'�vc; �..a.,a�� .... -w+..,..4f P. .a ;:.,�...,:,�, .,a,:dr:..; .>,,. ....,. � •.;. >:,,�tra ..�u �,- ,�xr ,a,,. ;�w°:`.z�. �«,r #- -`u-^ .r "� -• s ..,a a xe .i d;t A„a,.:75_.r S,.., 1 i t. ,,.. '� ,.:,, NP a*"`' ;_ .,". �• + ,.S M,3' 'tlwy�` z:' k t:,,,,:_,„ ,,,,,,zi,mom.«. F =sue .. . , k "....:.. , .:'. +: .. :..,..:.,«�... a k`,w-wr@C�, - _ .@�'{. .. , �:: nm+e+, y ® .... i,-P. (, � ...il.... .�. s. � " 4��.� #^m�s b' :.r+, d �'k.ro ..arvw. 'kkr�.... a'„ •-. ,;:, �, i .»"' "zA : „ tw n' µ ;wa-� s �'1•^, 'RFt '-`-w ara � '°. i =:"m`V" ^'z _,, - r ,;i R r MAW:- r' ,'t. .a„ .. - a� a ` _� a"; ,_ ,, ,,,.,, ..,. ., v.A."-''. ..,' - ,.,.'' . '-.1.”". ', : -',- '' —--'-' ' a------ a Segment Boundaries Recommendations Point Improvements Corridor Improvements Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Install centerline striping 0 Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access Widen path and include user separation points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, O Install sand walls continental, or diagonal crosswalks Ca) Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off 607 access approach to encourage slower speeds SEGMENT 4 - *- 3s�c-'�' m�,ramsxa,, - r .1' saEsis s r 11 TH STREET TO 1ST STREET l 'E �' P � to ti { * . F°cus Area in'yelwt between 10th Street and 6th Street • ° . e °a � .. e eS t t'.: -: --°'� - -4.ti ' `r, ''' - 1 c. ,,r r«,--;t„t3 : a. • xi .% r ',d:. it. ', a `'"_« ",+c - "_,q. 4, "-"§ ,d ,s, ^. S ':`, x �,,, i t is' ^, ,4.4:, . day "Y '4'...' S -. ,rAt' '''' ,� , a" .yt ,, ' a; "5. A3 i C, ,'7,�.'e:.. o_,.. s •" . :*, ?---. are` xm' rt "'°•+ rv.S .!��"`.. - a x .i, -:.."- a:a' f. p ,.,.i"-a°,>�-,. � :. w .' 4' - .:.ZA ,:. . , '' ," '.w-. *-E,.,y`pr p�� 2, ^xx:d..�. + xy #'-.. '4 t U a k;y .+E"t,�':5, 5 `per.• r- • �+-', 'o-ik , -'-,a.. ..r- :rE.3+ .,,,„„- '° `"• ° _, .- u.4-, - , . , ,a a - x r�: c:': ',, .y5` «,,`� r a. fTu. s L 4 � � ""..,,�, ., ,. ii - `:7.,. , 1 pe R, .a :' '. - a _; 'a.a - ..�. .^ g t g a -• i ,��� t , ! �O y ¢& e``� . '-''"'"xn�`","?".�. '4 * � :v "eP„# tbi "$''Z' ''e:: "..SY`a .' :ti, t:,I. ,i '+t 3�4' t,N,y;" -.t4 I er` �'" E .�a,,,p �i o- axuy x.,,..rv,-"'?m-±g, <. ^.^^`� 4;t,fr� _ `° ;R„-.,=_,�i �sP �e s"�+.,,�„ ,�. ;"d"... �w " .;d�`« • '.$. - 2 . Y Mn . ,. .ti. .- ...... - ' .- -x '',,..,.-. :_ .'�,.,'�== '� "":y�:�+e-, ,�.,,� ...°P- 'i;-1,, - "=£:� ..:,,,� 3, ..� r .,��`,?P'a�.,.��6M w"° *� >p� .> :y. , .�,iw� A. 4 r�i.e �„ ,. ' tea r ¢✓''�' �'^. '�* x� .;� a�~F _aiv � :..":tin° �.`�'Ys'I4 :"z,: ,,te„ .r M..,w-;'{ ".t" 1. +R•'�`<--"roe ""!r:�R r,:a:��.�I.,,,,,,,,,,,,,„:','' '� r::,,' `.�r=. u«.8 a»a"" .,�..: a � x�.- ',1 r'..p G .,a .., ,,.�,+a p'p �;;.,�,.,. :�^,_ .. ;<a �' .:�ar-;� ..: r y, : . . v .: �' - .a', ,F `.?. .; .q .'1 s`""`O °-� �.�,, r � s ., ,x'sR"v°a' p,.m� �"�i _« - ;� , .';, " �* .� � v 4 1, 41:4 ". . x r _. ;¢..,:� ,,. �t r 1,A ."., a ,,,..` �'k a"'"",, X F:. • "kY P tiY rr �. .'F ar 's 'S. r,y_.. ?a : f .4, ' Sf �•"` *rrr 4 ' br' �� .a t „�+:'atr `, °Y� .t. , k-,,._^^"�..a.: ,. , kwfr;;-�c ,emu<"a .,".' M1 � IX "'i a ,� E �,' ,;�. w: w'fa+ `,:�< .�a 4s w � rc� ..�[.ti.ces�afdl5.: ,.u. ^. �..,•. F...x4,,.,+,f. a �' . *^.� + d:�:: to .-Sr�r�,w,.r a,,, , °��' '°�'- 4 ,.r"o- n,.o- s,. _�^'ti d. w "-', f'. v - ..�.._. w.',-»,- :I,":*7 ,t"'';.,:: h u.', w,: «a+ .;,, ..,'r, _,r'°" .<":+s,.,„:... .:, a,. @ :.,i ,u., .;4-,7. rt H ex .� .. �,_�� ����,� ,�� �k HB Pla round � , ` �• � �! �.. Begg �. .. ,.w-'-`.a� " :, m.,.==c�'1. 7 �. J.:�'6' "'', Pw":. .e' , , -: , ,a . Jd i it a . h'a �' x.-€'„-- ..d.,,,,.e .,._, [[ on o .,- ,y,n^^,.'� .,: ..2,:.�,,x. ,.��,� ,�I. .,.� .:.,. ,., t .7, ,+ ' 4, ., . � ",qi%a `x-rc,, k�Y,„?' ,3, '"� ,s a,,P-i,�'t ,k :,,,,, e. ,'.141,'_ -1 ,= ^:,:..x. 1=!,:' r -; .:,r .,� !,<%is „4', 'L.. „>`- -•- :,e *:.' �C2:1.4..! c =:r•" "Ff.."' .," '4k�,.. , 'x,-", -...,i -,.a W ..,' -, _:5 k f N:... Man=,:' xx,. ,. r-r s. .- `�f$t + 4, ,,. r.%t y" C. .P 'a"' M,.h wy {k �'"_� $...'.` y :�xx GP .'+"o'V „ : ......-..,-. � •.,:, -%.w`x'x,!:;..0 � `[-E...:,, -. t S'�a ,:i` e"�4v � t�'.o-F;�€-= r a L -r: '., ,,,,,I.,;'',, , aw:, h ,.:' x� #3., .L. ..s,s.?, ��' .-i;i.. ^.. .c'. - ,V.;') -, ., '. e, .r,# 1,, .x. „^.._ .".`'.e^'•..x „{ P Y9,.v :.,a F'r e ..y j tom- p- . `..;_ y,/,q _:.�3 -t-S.,R •.t - - "_,-v , r x.:a,t . ,m,P"?y- :.!..,.x aPT t'� ;....� a✓'.:::.',3i' Y:.r:"y,..:'*. "' art 'ii '._:.xt ., t,YL ..I+a F Yk. d `�.e L 4:x'.: s.,P".:fL�{,` .'.:.,;;, :,.'•'' .'-'44, " 't m%a r.. a£'1 41;.r ..:�'u, ''''A k J".r -.. ..d_--.°... ?s. ,Y. .. „;,,,,, . � - .'�„',.„ k-tp -rr�^Pr'' _ *# _:, .�-..�` .::-„'_� ,C*,,� ?, c-..,?*a k� :w ' s F~-:;.: A' , �;. ,�a i„.":. .. - '''� ^ya✓ l �r M, d ; x'"'r,+;,i.4it �'7'=-i"Y':a.'.� �rrt''�-''" .,'w' h 5g A d. ,:I}7" f w _ "i` ,M4 9, 4,'... sY -Y,".: 4-'.. -' i x :x_ `may. .. - _ ,*u , Y .L9C-€.w.,,baa.."c' :9wJuu..3+i. '&wlkb .''Laa.. w• .tam:° °� "'P -°' �x S{ <,..E§� ,,���� ' - _ 0 Segment Boundaries `� #� j ;m' # �. r 'r' `-''r ' r t =* wr z`.'�' a r m"' Ste, ""` ..+,.. ,Lc':. ,,,,, .,.'r},,z,' w..x a' „=w ,', w z .x„,a e „c;;. "'":zN.,.:,.,,.1, ,,I:.d `c* ,,, ai.@ ..,:+,,-, t�.. 'a tb,i ":ic.. vTa, a," rry t>a•,_.. ^s -n<,..., ia, .w..akaa-.�, '�" , ...r�kr� ".t`x........,..,`„^'''•,.c3.a,."u„� ;.-�, 5�.,� ........'*.�.� ...�. > ",a_. s:. .;l& a rY....e."c, Issues & Opportunities 0 (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches (Issue) Constrained path width along segment onto path , (Issue) No sand walls (10th Street to 7th Street) - (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline (Issue) Outdated flashing beacons near 6th Street O (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed O (Issue) Pedestrian / bicycle mixing zone does not include space along path (will require feasibility and sufficient warning of potential conflicts environmental review) 608 • (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage SEGMENT 4 77,4474g,,,,,..'i,,...7.-:, 11TH STREET TO 1ST STREET • �� .� ° = � ;" �Focus�rea►n ye�l owl` w + between 10th Street and 6th Street +` �, �� � � gyp' ,. w bk, , _s x, a. :. ,.. ,y ae' ,r ;a t<a l',,,., ^,..y. 4„E_4 ,..., M h I of& ` , dd s`��. `y _ b h' W ; s tilt `' •, ° ` ,- w `4 : " is° ., �, r `:,.n.. 4 . r,L _ `°k *' 4 $'ae" -:::�'." `._.*' � a m ?-' t a b:. p.:. - s ,° "i k - -tr }- .-, it k 4, ;*u:i`�: _ ;r .. a ,s-'i .�•f -4` 9 "" P , ",- "Y'"r & p � r a d ,;..-111: : ° .1:'.._ "°x= _'. K" :�. s:, t .L` ,.cy �' .cagy -: - s.+:-.--. „- t',it-I:1'-' j..m _ , g,�`$ [ y�rja.ra�i. �'';i- . & .' i Awl - ,4 :rv'e. y, _: '.' .- ,c"`� ,,, «; ,., ,'is; a4 _"_ a'"' ,,":" y..=--. a- ..$� e=" $# .'a is r°„e. ...---Al. �° ••. ,, .� .��.z" ; a.w .y '. _ 0, l. b t(n ¢ ==._ c `rod '° -3& z. °t?»*„ 'q°'"aS, '�,`.Y' d� °:3 - u .., s �"' „�:.i &- ' �; ` `E 'R-` ....`w."s tr'S r,o tx.. _ .. 7,- X...,"��,v`x . a- "� _ r e"' ,"'shr e v _ .e"'.�: 5 l.,�.. m ..A t : .3 sue. < ,; .. _�i w"t- `• �' '- �..,.r, ."`w"": .,.. ,:,.b. � :;i.:,�:„ y.��' r ` ?_ y. ''�+, .k t$ bk ..�s��' ��y.' l#. ��� .-L F �xv. i �",;,;,"�'°ela-.r., ��„s�P,�,a,.rr,^ :.sa, "* A'�a" .s '. '',,-,:!4',. '�,tx ;'" �. -�-` e 3.. � �� ,� � <;: & � P``�'' .� b� :,"# *.isr s t,,,+a `..„x ,_..w:,, .. ,'. x,.. °' , , ., ,xtw. .,*.i, ut 't. :`4- s¢, t"' .r^` ,!.., ?r; (7 . .:;-. ,.:*° =f'e 1`� s.<„>...� :�wG �.v,,..,_ .,<.......A., F�".�'.,e ".wa.S..:�y•'� „; *�. � ,,,;,,,A*,:::, 5 £d k�. ' . r v'v��� !' /r 'w ,t :,. ,a .�.,;� d F�.,x 4 d, 7- tat:; cw.:.._�. a ,x.:. ,.<, °_ ..,_., € '~t-`fi • ,s � , .n's.4, .n.{r'�� S . e.. :. -. ` _r* .,.: r '- ,aim .nr *<,.. ..a r';'.. e. „ ;�`a,: �3- ..?€ a» :e..:w�9x� - ,,,.€ ,sas �' ,t S+- �°.'- .. ry,,, .:.x, r .. '"7 x'r,. .� ;�.>•,F,..,,�. .. \-a >.:.d w -~;:4, .,;:`" F,..<r.o? ,.*F,�:., ' ;.1, '. ,7!,^: ,-"e" .`z '"-r _ k,' ' ,,, e cf,.:, ,r' wd,. , S a �' a,. «�,t �, ka ar,a�a� ::' � s. � �r,r ;a {, _:.x �w � ,.. � ,„.� w�;- � "y, � r". �;,.d 1�"�� O , r aj Fy '. .V s,--;,-,, , , t <,s,_' ,,-7" °.,' ,»..:.':T r Ym.."«e" 'xw^"� a:;, "n b w rr°® : _ s tir 4� . `. f a. L,, r. , - ;; HB Condo Compl •' .t i' ..-,.,,...,.,u-, . ..#o-� w , �j, � rr. �,''t-.....,,-�*� L.r` °",°`' t ,.ry�'r � �:: � e�- w� `� "� r ,v:. �4.. ..�. �,,y- �'„ �..a,.�,,:, _ , ..:-....ari „ ,:: :.., .W ,r<rv.'4rt s .:J::,;'-d .a.� n x g,5"F",.,:�.<.r .cx,- .:q ,.'.._. -h t...> .s� r �"*§` Ni. d� - -- .�..,» '��:: '.-><T�m.:�.,„. .r..,-�:...>,. ?., ,,„..aw,s: i <:s..;a.. GG .a '.� C:v,, ,4-., .�.. .' ,<. t. . �: «,. s. �' �`riat�e :`,k ''"t<:; _s..a,q,, ; "i ..,ir."w ,.1:::{ 6. 4,. + tk..r . ,q rt .Cy,. 4 �. ra �=-*�, pa,F„ ems,�,„;�,. d;�' , '�<^�u?,� t,:E, � 9 ':'? �_.• r«, �y �..z. ¢ =r � � �,,�,.,� m. ^�":ca;'S.�-s.d�, sy d .�� a�:,.r'« `w, : �`� .. "., �§:_:. � - s�, `* x''di "' ' '�'-":.:rr�-zv� �T=+;- ,•� �' ,�! :!.: ,� �. , _ i ds= * R- _: -•,:.. _ ,:,k ;' , ,°:° a k '41t' ., :"' -,Y+°' - .6' r^`; - € 'R`, ° *''',:; z' *r,'.'P` ..'.p` a {:'ca's9'-�iR' -c�rrIDl ..�.. :k a. �'� ' a 'r _'�..a.?,..J` c E ._ _: ,=, � w:..::5 .�.. .—._ -..... � .. _ ._ 'ti i,;,.:,: e "�mf,,, ,.<: 'S r r.°�.."x:• s. °'�_ N' -'� � ._ ..�..�� s _... t - :._• . ,art 1 $ -.�.t+ ,a. a . fr y -ar ,, i - ,:,„„...a'.. ' �. .�w4 .�-ter y„_.�..s 'ate ;9", - #, r - r : H:" ....° ^ "° , ,t :' ' ,'. t �'_ q.s � "!�i -.,3 _ ° ` � t �:.;: r � �r.,*� v* r a 3 � .-x= �s'q a. k, a� }",Sq}ill: { _ s#3 `.� t -" tt . `ti it"�„� ''1y � 7 t`, -s' - Segment Boundaries , V P a ,; .4= i , . ,� ; ;. ., aa,, 'fix'n"6"'�� n; _ t s `w '� s" c.`y' Y? '1^<, r 8 ;i z,„:5'*�'`"^ '' ° '� d `a row" ... 464* „ ,-,;, F„ „ ,+ °, ."!«+,.,;r'"v -£� . s p,Pr ° � ffi '*"'"y'* „w -,,' I .,C: 'r -e:': :,.;x ,, .:, , ,<_;, L :.:" ,�,r'-"' P !, tH^, .a" , A -;$ '.,„. ,.;4.,.va, Ai":a,':n' ;�,:,� a _ ✓."+.ram.+;: eG -r ,ta a r r a . ,:a r E:V..,7>g.-a,a kt'�:,..,,.�- a�. ..��i" .;was� ..e=�;A.e - �,e k ,.,�.a a, .�.. Recommendations Point Improvements Corridor Improvements ' Establish Slow Zone beginning at 6th Street towards the pier; Install centerline striping; widen path replace old flashing beacons horizontally and include user separation Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points O Install sand walls along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks 609 C) Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Segment Boundaries SEGMENT 4 -trwitrweglj a i '''''''t' :—* ' ' ' =TR '4514 Focus AreTr.a m yetiow 11 TH STREET TO 1 ST STREET _ �x �'' .,t"*9mmna�^r-ca`.Fu4�k ...p :: � py^*wir � ,t,arv..�-an2�t-uh..r...i{S'':�j-, ��y,..^r'ci - between Main Street and 1st Street v°` m. i�.:, •;�, - =°Y:•s ..:.`.'' -.,.m .c ,.� a a .. �. `. .`'m' 7§+i r �rlr '�s31.. ,�" ^2 f a•5 - ,fig,, a ,,,e.a - - ?w '.'z `ak� � "-"'` ss+.mb•eeoIDa.k�r ;ab G *8 `: � •nd . .'_ '+_ ;.'��..- ��" " T1Mtl Mi#i „°,,.'» .- -•mms��, }. su. �.- 1,'\\ �; 'M�MR� lRi11M1Y1®l - ' {tqp� •. 'fie k�A 1 �t11h,a ' _ ,- *• ,. . 5'.elm .i«C'�x.` '1...� .Y ,. i 0k -'�P •.°A - s?: A�i� , F,'' 4;�!lr o< •fie.'. *,wq• �,. j ,.S t _ # 1. - t t r,. ,€a. 9'kiv-,:. :.`% a ,r-1 w. �k -.. 9 _ ap S- ._� �, ...x •,d .3' - .:, ..z n :... .<_„ � '�T.x �.` wr. -[ �.{�,.. �. �:�! ��. •�..;a4a�. y , � - .k .t anb�...?a_: ��:e4 r t `--"i ,9". �,� .^ 6 .,a'. 3 �. � t,3',,. � - d y:. ",;yam °�. .�:a ..,. :i ?w. .x r sit=,,, e<„3: � 3xwN ....,.�.-sa 7 :�"' ' `'-� .,: � r � � '?� a<. p,`f,`, .:y w?�as,.aF s' m�.,,;m -� ,a g= »a.: r :. �'' �, r;� '€:,-� - fir'"a:bd.' .�3! �:t. �@s� f��.r. :� t. ,¢� . .e ;q?,s:.r;t'� �'°° :;���,. h � w��"- 't'E x: y::,a. :kr,r � �,r�.. �„�j r: COg . a' �:;"r {� ,1'..`:'.M .� .. fki ,.�. k '�"'`,, :y Y '. 'k { r`"t s $n. 41, 7;' + 7 "'�°°a y,,. a. S§.r' . :,,,Vier Plaza �' p 3 r , 4,.. a ..,. b "�'�� :.. ` ' .�.:�-... ' .� ,ya.k. . '�} �--P„�`t. ,�,. . a .�..i*.�`w `4�'- v ;-. I� °,x ''�' � :�.w '�»� a� � _�. M c: 4:^�g.� .- : J , .....-..d .. _E,�,.;•+.� ,..� 1 ,a. \ �• w.,r,*.y;: "i -: W n<:,,,i`t,�. y �r �, *" :� '-rva.�- 4. `s'�:F"`� �.'a .�x np 4+4 • r. .;°.„ � ;. '"c � x� ,* ... ; .... ,.,. .. . is -'I:T � y :'ai;g"�a ��°3� a��w` '� ., �, ��?.,•t '�r lea:100,1 �t,.. ...,lti'= , ,,: ke -wy ' ,°.;-• � .sr -;:i. .`;�i 'l, `Y " , "°°r..",'te`f ' 'e J �4 tg j e, ,:. ;;..,`5 "" •x -i 1.{�'l�. d".^a�'" ,:,r _,,..4 l ., .sk, i ,�T ' y ��ec �n u9 '�'" r...».... "y dii �E ��' } - „P `; F ' . ry� j„ o,_ ,- Lifeguard HQ * 9 ` ' a, ;,—, ;_ ; � i -`'��. ,,.,..^, „ ., :.. �� 8 �+-+.'E � . z._ ..,... .,3�`/ e��., ���. '^,rt "' ',gk, ��."� - 74 .�,�¢� .. ..v� - .4 �,E,' - ta- r " *ss �.:''''"1.— E �fi * r;_. Yb1F. s .,.� r�,''4° ia.�`. �ro. x • �h 1 i +�:?F r i, :�i�; - r S "'��� il `' ram„ y r:; �iF.'-" - . y , a- , :# a u; ,. �.; .r..,...-,->:�,»w�.,.,w..��'' �. � :.s,„., .x. r s,..,._.LL ;- .�._ ».-. � .,:.--, ..._,. ..� .,v,... . _..,W.,. ,..-.�, .�-.`r,� � - ` - ..�.«^ ;�. r - 5sw�a :c= :: ,�.:^.# »n k. mc_-_�..�s. 'T`,.��, �,,,,, _....,,.,.... _ ..w,rxr"�°i`�' .f«, d'i� � �, -- rt.1� 'a" i e:x y k�'�,a .. :. ; , � FE', ,.: p>m >dq -a_- ,,, _..y.. m .;.: :,,,:= C ?'+ c;. ;t�, k" �,. cam' "` c r �� , _ »+fie* �, .. .. -�., ��,p"[«- "'" �^*r`,. 14�,.�"y� =` -��--�:«.«.-^aF^^� �i�"�i t„ �m'r.. _-_ ,_;m 1, aT�rt�+r.L'p t°q; '7;i, y ;:. ,..� :�- M1�':} _ - - ii " ..<^ >;e r �'„+;` l r _.-i' .. v,,».:;d^ . -' i-TN. , - ,.: : ,w.+Pa x t.:., - Y�,w' � .._.,,.. ..._�_....�. ._...,....�.- e..�,@.-_�: .. .�..._ "' ":''s=::. t �. � ,r , . _ �.: _k ,.TMd ti f x� ve:, , _.., .. _.,. , -,_ _ f.t,- - p+i-* ,{L. «�_ 3m,� m✓ s �, " W ! 7a; ,. � � � 9' r� �u�« .ice ,�. ...� _ ..r , ,.. .a:.a " ..,». ::.:... �,, i .'f4 R.'.. _ .P....,-,_..,,. "..++ ,.t..,x.,-� .:t` v ,. .,.. .,w. 4°e � ,., .r4*' _+^"' ��"'-,e,:.�., _..�:>3_.--....,. �csa� .��A kk��,�'a�"�";f. �'��,-�,cu;...v'"�kas � .,�.�� i,�:�:'.�: __�,..":��a;r,:xsa! �,.r', ...��.�� ..;�s ...,,.�.s_.,n6«� '_. c•= a ,��/���;,y�+:,r5�� _ ..,w. r`�-"-"+.�`w.'*�•b ,� (Issue) Pedestrian and vendor activity encroach Issues & 0 ortunities 0 onto path pp CI (Issue) Narrow path width along segment 0 (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline (Issue) Outdated flashing beacons near 1st Street (Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path and Q (Issue) Pedestrian / bicycle mixing zone does not include under pier sufficient warning of potential conflicts (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) 610 (Issue) Ramp is a blind spot for users going northbound Segment-Boundaries SEGMENT 4 � � � [IF -- , `` e 'i" r„ `F li [ 11111141.7NRIAtiCUe Area in' a low11TH STREET TO 1ST STREET �te& N E � y a `�"} rt�a '�,.'. " � O �-�-< �,m�-a s...�'�as � y"�..i between Main Street and 1st Street • . h= � r .mow= •` • g ' kM . 's�! ax"w,,a"- .:i 9 ;. S �s t 4 ..'`* .. . ' . ,a. t•. y_ l a , °!a!!!� » t• ti> \a 4< r t ►�im>s rar cwp ► raa N m m a nwa► ,Ow' t ,10, n 3 " . ^l, :.`rM, ..wpy k ' �^�;' " a'ya$. 9 f. '•':' w .-4:.$ t ..:y` »=k4 kR.< �t` k! € „aJ b. y<-_c tp -�-4,k 1:�:,r4. ^„_� 31= ,ik ....L „ .;a t wv t .s:.7 a ; . 4� -,' - q�, �#>' .' �, . *. ..,.: .z,. - -@'....� 4.a..Y. -,.. iP;..• ,..; w 15m'.'&10 srµA irs �.,a 3'E".3s _ r`,; ZZ ' a-�`.:._ `:�'`vk�:'.'r (t'''I' i'm:< .a_ , :��. §'.�- �54.; ".��.".'.\\'44, ca+,:4". 5�� >`� ``�.; c a"'. 4 3 k'._5 is�'+ { ..`l'.� . p,.y ::: , _<. t.. .. ' �,', \ ». -:,r :,ilti a,.-.i: 1= ' # 5 e p` ..;>r a I,!, ,.G t ^'",5ro,- 9__ % y ,p,�y'. 5, .., ': Z •}r t ? 7 d ._i.'r� r:.v p. ^c° ., eri. 4: ,,"i al' v. _ t°s: Imo,.. w,�. F.4 .,,,r ck.�'� K °§'.r.a. ssi p v_ ,..s �:.. Sara. ii,� ''� - �a. �+ � tvs i t C J^ ;• G $' y 4' ', x 't Yt 'aTMry �.f Y_.s j �i' iL :.' mee'tle%'' �E,#r Q Pler Plaza L. kiit Ilt *BP � a f e,µ , *'' wi. a•r , , .<:<-- ,ak, . . ,,..w, r,i _,. `. ,., xc#^�"" ',,", ' # €,.,*m -p.. may,-, :'r+ a dam „t ..�#'`' 1� 4;� ia. 4 '3 - . °4., H -`.-{ 5'. a: •,+,. .R:�,C zm .. -aa, "c,1. :r:.., J 2 ':~.=.a/ 1e,"`\ S - •tea 5 '' "< .,r?^;' ......:.� " �.. ,P,.,_:' 7 �. ; .mf,': �a r 4r.,.°' w9 9„r` �: �=r'��".` 8>=^'.; _, +, 5�. �< 2 `- ^^^.+��- ;}i .4°. ,.o�. .qw � .x. E.-;x:;u , .,.,..�' ..} •t'' y�1� , �„ ',. #etj�� ,�- "t,�r - .:,P ..�.r,.}:r.. : e ''_ i4 z ,:r, r >." 'ia":'--VI of g } 0 ,'' z:- ,,,t� M�4.I)-n - .e .. .( 5.: �y T- , .4:8, zw:x� �+ n g��.. F" ,M„ L a�'. @�a_� ,may. „s z`- �.�. •_ a w.,_�E!�s g444' �w 1. P Mgr ' arl ' �. FHB Life uard HQ \\ Po �--.y� -.Ilk .:.,.;.«._::,.-7,1 _._- - 3: "..;, .,,., =r :n Y `"'': ll '- a 4" , .. .y ,- Y ki..` - a ^, Yd -S, r �. -,o 'mrr.,�" r jJ '� lF'. C� �' ,� 'w��� �� .4 �..'.�y,,� �k �'��'r 5 4 • �* a� 8 i n :„ ,� •,_ r:'�'l• +' is}#�5;�. _G" $,rx's4: ,r .f;.i-�.. "V^i.�` • - ems._ • '...x Q� p v' �„ .,..!^`; ��s • i .,-#'�� a�'t .. �_„_ ,.,:,..` '-r;•.1� f�-.:§'H., '-"-,,,,:,„,,4,,,�k.�� � �'7>$' s' } =P '1 ��a L."s �,' iP ,,;� a- a»a-fir,. .^9rr,.. ..':.:. 1 �.,�s+. x dra. _,.. � ,,:, s .. .:•.<�` '- .. k5 Pi�\- �.... .,::�- � �`_+.. ,k:.-,P, za8,�. _ ,�, ,-`` -.:. 14,-e_.eT :t_3'4.„ 3 -n;. n:.fi--tD ,!..:-_r._ , �. .�,, _ aea '.e't ''ia'T` — ^"y.,r A L^t '� sP� x- arks->.=x�, : ,r.l z'.�:.._.-». ..>-. .�. .: �. ,:»,:`".• •_ -.., ..::�_ ....... ,�..a„^ � ,¢+.we.�x 's.,^ I,rwv ,.",�x+a^°" .,<-s,o- �`#P'4iri�w�! ,,. � ,, :, r, -^. i:_.,.1R..: �,:•,,. >:.,,.^ `,:; . ,�a3e......,ma+`'4,74I'.--+�.. <,,,:;•4 ;..re • ,.,: ..-fiv#.'ten ':'' "w- ,�,o" a P., ''`v„ww: .::,. v..^.-_f-�ri ^�..,-=w»v.a=A ...... pii �: �,.,.,,,..a.,.. ... _._... .. ..., :w,,, „,. � a� 'c.> 4P� ., ,;, k . �Wv �,.,- qq ,i .° .y l.�, �,. r a.57. , +Yk++���}2^.kw�}...€_ .t >. �.:., "�'_` 4." „ .-" ."'t,»r. -'-'t�^,'a.:�. ;. '�'s#:,*�x .� �, �5��h,,� �n 4�w,a`�?�,'-sn ;i: ,*�°r „t � _ ai- r 'h� � 4:'! 1. .. a .. x ' ab -, .. s: -� # ,<'.: »:��r�r�.lrrt !• -3 '' 'a=.:, z ;a rt`yYx� a .,: .:. .. 'r%. a . #£,.: ... w,. . ,.. -.,.-.:: >>,.�,..: , ! , e. s' d :h ,<-- ^ -'c- c':�a `ryWl 'dv- ..s,._ .,�a v. ._._. , :...._`m. .... �*.• ..v�#2 .r_. -a P.^ .n. a."3—__4.. ..._r . .+s-.-.. ...:-. ,. ..�:.. 4 x .�»~" ":c„=a ,>�,.,, _a<,.. :G:ml-s .,.;.*-4,.,,3n s S, .. 4.. 1`. <- ,,,3?;-. .__v, "s.. '.s... nF ,:wr..t r p fi,.},..rv'� }',...m.z -,rs, r .=.,: .:k «. F„ -L .:.Px., '. �.o-m : }k:'t_., i'.., .x .:..� k.�s: xu>se.....: : E ,_...,, a ... } . i.,` -- .-1 3, -'R...,... ... ., .w ..:,ar M1k4`} �: ,i., c.ai v„w ».. $ :....,t .w ...A ...,., >* ._ vx .: ,s;.,-.'s. '.. < °EG ."�`"<*M�M�` .:`7� » a..J .. ,,,, „,„:s �. ,,.0 l>e> ,s: ;Po-`L-6 '�G�'."'a�'...•x '•_,.. e-v,,>5 . - `..C!, ' M .:.s., — ,,..„ i...,a:. ' :er ,....�.._ .a, .nv... .-v. " ,.. "Y Recommendations Corridor Improvements Point Improvements Establish Slow Zone beginning at 1st Street and extending Install centerline striping; widen path and towards the pier; replace flashing beacons include user separation • Install rumble •strips near high-trafFic areas / access points Upgrade bike racks to be more secure AN. alongpath; Enhance edestrian crossin visibilit and conflict p g y Consider placemaking elements entering slow zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or zone and •within the slow zone diagonal crosswalks 611 0 Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display SEGMENT 5 �k j gRP,�'PZPI �is t � z'•� n :;_,,:„_;,,.,_`„ ,- 1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD w ...., � :� ixg ' Focus Area ....ye lower between 1st Street and Huntington Street � ,{ .,, , Tr-1T y . , , . "4 I.: + k ,,..* `'_ hlrtt s° °R ° . _,,,,,,,,,.„ ,.,, ,,,, --, ., ctia/.4.1,0„ f . t H >. .� ,. AiteRaised Parking ; ., �, . a,„1 .a z e. ti ` � , !°i¢• ($ _ �, Jack's Concessions' _ a - "' f� , �.� r � �f- �z �.��v' � � ... Lot;with taus. t * Vi'- t,,, + .. Kokomo's Surfside Grill ' � °° r :;' ' ` ' � ,a � 4 � , e �n � µme, ,�..' .� , ', ° ,;. ,t ,.: a ,P ._: �r.'i.. - � �}� '� -.AI �1'� :.,,�;. F�� a Y J. :`It ,� '°:. ,.y,, ••." ,} �°,-�:. °' �i;<.w.'''.:" yew''^�d k. „ u, " ,k+,�a ";k*s a ., ..,4 f,, '.:s. a k. t r ' b....,,-a+- d•;» , 4 f 5 4 5r+;efe�y�'j ,* 'r"xw S ,._ a sc- ."'�:7.--, TM x _ A. 'i. � "' �r Segment Boundaries C * i.ram.. ,�,F:�e��,. s ',ry Y'. ,'Y, 'a ,fir a -..»^ .4" ,. it 4",i "'.-.'s a`S,7? "� 7"`: .:`s ;h `?�,.,. ...- .-'^' i 4 e • `_- : t r lv:,_ "-0�^4 % - t-,!of r: ,. xf#a -.mow y! b..,:.�.r , .;.. ...,.r , ....,,,44 -. .:,:n a .;as »� v: .,;�.•=f ,s...,a:,. r=t.� .. ,.. ;,n 7 fi,:r'w J`. : P y ?;'; .,.,.�-re'x"�§."k .�.. i.� ,.,^ "a.�.9i'i,.,-++ �a ---° {�",*:P..".t.'I ..0 $,�;.are.,*..-_.b. `^� �a.,,�;.:" q .,�t..,.k - ,„a.s.... Issues & Opportunities 0 (Issue) Pedestrian and vendor activity encroach _0 (Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to onto path sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling Q (Issue) Path does not have separation between across path from those traveling along the path users; no centerline O (Issue) Constrained path width adjacent to the grade 0 (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed separated parking lot wall space along path (will require feasibility and 0 (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage environmental review) ® (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback 612 00 Segment Boundaries Radar Feedback Signs SEGMENT 5 a ' ,r 414 c? 3 2R .,:-. Clots^ F93Ski^t1+ P, ^ „r yr + , '' "" - ' , ' ` �+ p P k f. GAFoc s a`►n ye to 1 ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD ` between 1st Street and Huntington Street . '� " �� � ,'b `' a:a w•,. •X' t ZEzmiart a* _ 3^ y ' ai�:N• Xwwmv � #s'41P' . witii~e -, , ,.., 0., . -,, `i i'.': IS., C _� do, y nAti�' 3 £ I .' ...4* , ,. . Feu r^" I— i •: ,m140047.11Fiti,il 1;' ',.,„...1,---,--%,t r, '0__,,... . A; tili:'it. 4 1... '''Itt ` :' '' A r. r a4 l.''' �. ,:Raised Parking i„. . ‘ ,.. ,... �r 0. ° "A Z ,. .- ;� ,'� �; t :`•• �� ;Lot wlthStalrs 5e' � � " It* y� 'Jacks Concessions CC+? .,.>,�... �4�';; � sg.: aclto .. .a .-• r�_�^�`�,Ili „aeG•+, s �5 �`� f�s ,� �' qr :.,t. T .,^^c f d 4, pp [g � U*V'''''''''.4/1°4- '0. ,.Kokomos Surfside Grill{ ., a 'y !�� .�7 " 7 "` %at „ u >., .1 I- • a 5` i! ` -- t „r r �.��" r `� � �^ '; w� _ • �< ., i +•- �, 33 •.` ,�. .xL'"` �1'. ra,»,� I S'�° ' � � »�� h� _",,� 'tr.a: sk ,m tt a��T�F ^ ;,E�,illtar .' ' ^ d t >� t is, i, \ -� °S. ° -- s;+'.�t t'�E ::!'°� •. x 3, ,�,..`h"°` '". ':`t-!,.,""'" .-.,` a.y� �,� "a � _ ,.+. a i�8 t ^" �'�.� °�, ^M. t --: y�,z t ,,;: �nci„� .: .. ��J.r�...., :, ,.;),10,...;,-„...---,' -x. � k �e e• »,a '�. ,a:�.4 tea,, "fs � +� .�-�'`'g""s"u.";-ar ,,,,}}��»- ,. � aA ���e� T .�.. ... ^S�„a -.,;,•-.c_ .-z; ..J,.,:f W63a3 .:,w,�•,_ " e.. w w�, _ aLa - ta.::,r�r rx cam: `�"4s ,.M'�?`a=,.,: LL _ .+?q,. llPat :,� „n ,a, ,rr:�.-:*;F.�, 'a „, m 1:.2 <, .:+_. 2,< w a` ,.-.- '' ` �.:``.-. w. -.,-.''''r';'-,' �',.,.., i; '.,,,, ,," ..;.y: - - J > <-.� •,: 0 .,, ,,.g�::� x 7-'', s554 x.. � ,, ,r-ez -* e ..P;,, :.s� .� - �""� �, °�`�"'3����:.,_ � �,.>h_ � � ""C„ ,:� , ,�'. - y ani=8i"., h� r,,.' {{ ._:; ., .' a •-msr t, - ,�. t,.b, <-„^-x �n ,arn. rye^ S' 3t ''' r± -- .» ` ®� e,..... ": tiiM�i.��F,i,,,, ,,,tr -, ra„ ,wp -a s-�c--izz. "a= , ? ;.. •"aa ;y ,;3"' _ E "!',„<"`" s;» °, „° 4 -, , w�_ ,... ..� „,.ti.:�„., .-,. .- -- .- < t-ti�: ��,+..,r-.,.*y,-7 x, °t> z'�.,.w-w�.. :.." .,_,, - �+.:d"'-<, 5 a .": .:v;� M�.",.§"�.�-^..„5.: - -r,�'- w:.;:..r et^ «. +.w• P'f� . .» _ __.,._..:A ....��.",r?' <.AULL : . "tw �..,;.: f:<_•, .:-,� . ;�'- ;";� ; . i oar*; _ '""� ;�?.G `... ,"r.,r`� ..<. , t y`ti: , 1" -°.' .. a.= � ..,..;.>,,.- , .s...,.;; "w< a.,, < ,•s ,. kr,/,',3:"t. 3 S E`.:�e .M„w. u.t,-- .:..:n-� -.'e '"°,�' i:-,'","44.a„ .+r�e R '� w,.=.. c w 7<„}„ a , u `^," "'`. �.. .< °:\:. b,.. " , <..,�:«<,� ' ., fi --5 m -�4 `,,,":"'4 ::.''''''s`' .-v°�' , °+:a•a ' :�% ..�::. as a - :a. , , j ...�-. ate. -_<:..ma, .„..:,;.,:... .".,. ,s:, . ,. b,.:" .,< .- A.. ;_,',� .� :ar r� � � :.ic,r+^;^:""`-� ^-*' p�� <' �r e a, .. a.tx..p --- . ,, .� se ,.< „ i, ..- _ .-„,r ,, r m ,. .,«, „ .,1. ti^ .:a�,. ...�I+n :ua�:�', a.-a ..,,< <..,. .. ;;-u �, .. _., ,... " .,",_..�.-,..��.. ,. . -R. . - ,a+'. �� .. �wad ;u. ti 4 a 7^" ._..<n.. y,_+-,_ '^h �=:�, a.�.,�„ Ma ..: :Le, ,.-„. xd �s:: ...„, .,.... .' ,*":a�;. ..: ," .� :, ,.:,. , .ro,;, ,...,.,h. .�., :... h: .s�ra^ ,,.�„w-=�^.,,„��, .aYat,� ,>V:.- {:.. <5._+t S` �nr. u.,m-�.x^ :,.. , ,r%.:c '' s., ,� „„ ,:.r?"a, ."..'.,„ ."' --, ,nw a~e,<.rc„--, Y:^`"mow,.- ._,.«�......:. ag,.,,,„,stir::. ,fir ."7 w a. .?i - +a dam:.:., *[`'a" :.ar. - . , . •,,".. . . ,,,, ,,,,,,,, > ..✓< ,.:�,",-w. 3,.<., :=S Wig,;... _�_: e,;a., �, .:."a? .A' �,t �r^�..a..`�i-...., „�1, .._..n+-:r.e:=..�..:..•...:.ar-�e,.c ...c�...>�.r *w,,a..,:.-",.-"-�,_: ^^"�'�«-��u+a�; �'�'*�,. .as x. i-� � _.. .s...;�.�sS:M.,.ra...... -�s,' n.�..�.-„ve>,®,�._ ";:,,r a='-rr _ °-,- ,. wwr!:�.,M: , ..,„b w-zw..��?;�.,a.:zv' . r,�- �„-z+ d,:�.: =i..v.,.�.'� W � r" ,.. r: Recommendations Corridor Improvements Point Improvements 0 Install centerline striping; widen path and include user separation Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility 0 Upgrade bike racks to be more secure and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display O Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight Q Move showers farther from path to prevent queuing on path 613 SEGMENT 5 1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD a : , �. Utz ,,. ,... s llir LI ` .-t, -r between Huntington Street and Hyatt IRE Alt 64 PIF� r ti � s� . � us Area�n yelhow� e., 777 a Bridge . . qn ,S �'-. 9 Y :RtPi,� ,,i i Y3, i c `r .. 1 ". .; d. ,;. t, is a.a « $ ddt5 - %g4 � ._4S : 9 yp 's �r :..'i : Rio- } -" n`4. `' . '"k ,Ab R , .. .,,,. '^k .,,,,, Bp^e # _ � i�S!"' $ km`I.'s i _ s�,: _. .,, :si-• i .u+.e .,,'o- 3,:( :. - ",y c., ` re :.. . -g. - s, ?.,, xstv- ,y ;h�, '.�. .:.�4#: i 3 p-., w .: ` lIttr . ,...T' .: ^I3 '. . I$',I :9 *'''' i &"..a. ,. ;. r 16ee "u..:1.1 P� .,I.r#�, i?}��i.: ', .s �.r4R : `W` w� � ''• ,t�- f � ��$LX I SS, {�{I`IY ;.d ( gpa� « �5�$-,.. V ° `r:�Y''', l • 6F': r.,, E,1 ,�3,, / _ . t' s,: 1 �. "„ t$_ � �jai :"�'1'"',. y�, 0"{e"-:. . 3 } t,,t.;i.. , 1:. -...,, . .--.gym -: .y,.t *' .." a'''' J e6 A ::?;fig` 2 g-S'' . ptl � ,,�: p�+4 ...5 -- a.10kI - .i.:.<;.,- a• .: t �.4'. .. k sa-�. � - -*.y., .., ' «:i'�. 4^ � .,� ,�$ ,o box, ..s ;�� ;nos1. �m�. --,$ � f- , e ,:.' *Ti54.,,„,f,\I„,,,:,!,.t..,, ,,,i,„,„,,,,.�: r , � �'k� =6�if-� �. Si is ��'# Ti #-J i i � i, '�� , .� i�. � ."' c-. , ..,"` �''s, ', '.•. �_t.y �s§x � t' V£ � 'Y' tl �, ° -- kit iii....se,,,e , � st, .�ts 4 `,:At grade parking iot , z z • {, !. i Iw c'.�,, „;;;•1 , is .«.,#:-.S�.,-----7,. 4 f',;, as z--:. i.i:l pt ; �� r� a '414 "^�".. cif .. ..s® , y _ , :,.�:�'� v • .s _ :: ij6-•-` 3•�_ ,., .,..: .'s qy - - titki- _ u, Y'k,, ,".a`;!. •`� _,, 6,, r °,�r , - �.,.,a Wit" ,w ry .'1 � s#. T « , K -'., . i "=e:',*5 a 9iL w^ 4:,9 ,.�' .-f ..tee`,.,, w? ' ' it• .i - .-r< r _ ° „, -mac a.a t :�1+ r "` ,ar r. - s \ ,wii '!'` ",�' 'bs- p mm r, f 4 ;' ,. e a*,"` '°.ks s: a`.R°'3as1 ° L - _______________ tie� 'fr.' - r, "'' ,..«k. �i w- m„ ash »'a� +,.:M z . �' - .. °.'i ..€ a4 : - ..;-„ ..,.�a:Y nt s. :,m^w .' - '"•a' '� °., m G.= ad ^"" ,. . ;:- # - ._s �rvd� ,�•- s"'..».`.'"! �#-;e,- ,—+;;w. ram. u. 4 -x-,:-,� _� :�.,'°' - - 1 0»,'- �a .a;.;..w �Y 4.r�' . ^ ,:..„ µme: ':: ..-"`^" L:s° ?.. `t xz ;t' t9^ 5e' ,-1 #^3' ..2'� = _...:»-C` '1r re ,. 4,` - -.:,," ,, ,.-, �;? ��e.. ,, ,<.: /�s'�»,.. . : ^°', c s _x e ., T" �1i�x a,�--A, . �: "u�3^ ,-�. Y =Q� rcf ,».. '_ ^� ..:- n t' 3'=. 'f-�r•"S.m._:: 3 s4Fr U` `9 ��:.; -3.4 x��.:. ,y:: '�.�., 3 -,-.:.'.-",. m_ m G E F ,�: .=,.rs,=� - �.�„`' " 'Ay r'G _ -.,..`s%.. .."''''::1;st°4' �.w.. 1 r m',:r ,. ^z.:`...,' =-7 s0's = .. ,°,_- ...;: _ 1 +76 --x.�: '=-.*4`-'' - .F .Z �.g*' .r f. -.-J p a«.., „.. ..:�` �,: ..�.:x .,. .�mr,,:,,.w�;� ..�,:� a i =,',#> n„ :r`'�•.,7,. r. ,:: - °_ �5m ri-c az . , .�" ..,..�'�'*=�� ,..^. '� . ,�`x.. t.,."'s . �'' ,., •,_ .�„"u :w �,� em�*'+s ,...� 3-�- — Issues & Opportunities - (Issue) Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does 0 (Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts sand; trash bays block view of. pedestrians traveling O (Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path across path from those traveling along the path path (Issue) At grade parking lots have no clear access 0 (Opportunity) Sand walls prevent sand build up on points - steady stream of pedestrians across path (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage © (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will requi•re feasibility and environmental review) 0 (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; 614 no centerline SEGMENT 5 1 ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD � � ` F 4.4 ..�� between Huntington Street and H att y Y -- ` EH° F � �44 ra g #I r Focus Area in yellow •w' '' 43fla'A+z ax4' r y it Bridge e mr F ,; � eK3 .,,u,., „ , ., ,•... i<' .'>:.mro° . i. . a., '" a r. ..,.... -.. ... .�: , gg�, it.:: 9:.�,' ?fj.. ; ,a ri. t "a. ?3 �.: :k'-' <V��° �.'.'� �;`. :;$q *?SI.... `2R .{ .a ., m.#^: .n,_. ,:.., fi i.t s.; s,.. _... .... :a{- td t € � � 3 �, ::". m s :.r .'.'>°f `" . :�.> �: ; s l .� .,_.. a� . �. .., <.;. ih n so.. -�,•. :.., �...: s. �k;:�"..S...P.;, .>' �� _ s'3 >�., �'a � •: A �" ems... +�. 3.,.: ;.:� m � . ' * f 4' s, z i s-.I "•; ,.»- „� ' ;� , 'r f ,. .'.It r "' '. ;.�';'!:s y>�.,- , '. . a< .'•_ li .. ." tl�. '._`4 .-+, , ,'�- ,s, >€.i. ' W -b� i '��y "v" :4'I$s't x # ' :IAb g 7E. x',,33 k sy .'''.1*{ 'e... ,.is:. � .i a�A�£,a, ia.. .�. _ 9.. °l.B .#: W, S �'.. � � '�«» 4 Fkm -K�+ »$ ��;;. BL`t , . At grade parking lot ., �' i. > its i-, ;. .44r.; £4g., l •z� ,..w^t{ : . s Y' : r. i i�4„ ,? '" ..' 4'f- •• 3 1',1.4,-;, s s?n .a,akk �,r; 5 .: S S,,`:`$, 8.^ �,y I.N�. a .� '` ,�,r .. .... �....{c � .F,`� it. a .nt� ism `�. .it ti„3 �, "' 00 Ay .;2 'Jq� s I:, )•�' .'Z. - _ 1 e-.^-^-e'-. 9 'yh ..' - 1.. �A� ,` Fk z �9 . • '�r ,�`_ k,.`' wo .c14' :�'`.+^4� 9 ..-.. a ,Y^� _ ,''. `1 �' .,"i,� li `�,: 1,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,...-. . "+ ^-�� yij t .:.�, 4.. ..,; 4 . \" ,:,w, ,v: 1w 4 , ,* ad\ _._. \.*.4.7\ :/iR': ' � � ..; .�- ,�.� `a: � ��, t�, fix.„.. ate. 111 r., .'�'' .K� _m. 4 .-;, ' "�.,.,.� ,::., � -`_.:..�, .�,, € a, ,�" `r^' �. {� �� a �s '`''^ r :tea+- r."€�s_-'a, �j,��. .; �� ,t: :a; ; .:>: -•:sue:r-;:, »-" ", .,.; „^ `�4J �..��°5. ',6: �,". .a�: r�r '"` .>e,` ,n k "*..�" tJ'"".:" �t;Wry ;s-�-� '>:3 1 ,�..:.:;m.� ��"`'?°=;'t=%,' r rs ' > �:-, !,=. ;, �w � .•.« � c ., , ..:i:# ," '�^r,�: •`:: �� ^„�".7 ::-.,�-; - ��;''''''5.:�� �`�-a r» „ - M C .t,-r �x`-7 ' �,"... „. ,...:.... �.,, :e. ,„:r'c :_:, .-rJ w`°:�.r .,+Ns. ,. 4 ,>m -,, w+:-$;,':;+' K _� 0. a ,� _ ¢ x -Wf i5"'e"' '.a 5r 9 ,..", ,".,, - .....w= w R,. a�, kP �!:�p��__�..„ �,,1 -.-£ me e ::...." iU .""" &ro � .s3 - 4 ,..*rh :'''SY:., {�.p, ..,,;.�,: .„.... .; x'ti"-��:;.:, ,k «,:u'� „.., , ..,.r;m„`=-„--<,�.:.m,.�"'k.§`-F`�.s' ,.5..,.._-. _..�:.-_ .�#i'c`�r> - S �_ »i <t!r e:> _ _:..: . »�._ ... �...-...._ :.:�-.,a , �,-_ . .z, :a�:.., ., ". ..;._*xm"""'+r,.--� .M.s.,..;r��".,�:. ,.: a.. - ,.:;: ,.,,u "�" . �n.x ,x> -4`S» _ '�+ �n,.. - w -.. :„ .,s-. - " . :.. -",...a".'�x . u:.r ,.:...,:-. '`ua>._..�+��.�4»,.,,.�, a, ,,,�.:^.� �..,�...�.-�. - -."€t�-�.: .:1'=".�Ct�' ,r t *L.,. ''.",«" , � .._, - y,r�>.�x.�_, ,.-.-:K:.._, .as ..,.. ... x-.." =»c .�.::..,� , " a �-,mot....,,, » ., � ..,a, W*'1^u :�„ �p� s' » >.: - J x,.w-• -Tqi ...-fix ._ 3 F£ ;� ::�., �,.d. .:«„..o-.x "., > l .`-,c,+_ 'T,�,.x.�: -..> :�st-'>"uu,G„_"":s'�e�5 - `iw a;�i": 6 ..,�.-. "..'n�'.*:<.-,< ""»".�� P�� '� ,8` .:.,, .. �i,,ti..- ,°#. a!- x ..x P5,1- .:' 'k�a , ,w 1 ,° �,5^.�». ,�,,,.r" '----t' ..;�,5, �. - .c...`z.re.. •v i . 3 ,n«`"J G W`x' ;. . 5. .,..w :.--::: i-,:sn.0 ,. r .�,x ": ,1 -`...+.0i, ;,.'>-1-:,, , c, ;.,a.. ,:, :.:b . Try x: ,.r_, .i z- - '4=-''-s ,,,,,. „ <, , , ,. ,r°' a . ..�' .x .:;,,r,., ,..4a � n iz.' w .�; w:,c' r., -,- ,ro � _-_,�, maµvs„' , y='`t a ,�, ., ... .a..,-. '. ...-r' 3 a"...'' r„r,<, m a°y1 2.ky .,c+' �, €, w:va,y>, `.' .ax;, �-",.-.a n. ., .:, ..a. "_rs' a ..,:a..- m..-a, ,,�.,.,`�,�,. .._.�: ..y`�* -.;.�. .�r;.».�,c..� As+� .. :_ � �" ,.�, `y: -: i , .». .,..sx. ,. .,....,, _-r,». .. rr` a,_r a .,:r+ :,.:., ,'� - _�:..;,. "A,A:. ,.,,,y .>a.u.-^= 'r! "-, .s ,.r.. ;: t, ..,., ..» , ,<.+... s; . ,.,�r\. .c':.,, + :.x ..:;,-.:- uu�' ,-5w*� e". F,..,,;�.... ,a : <,` t `r. - "'°,r"t. .tt.*;' +'V - Recommendations Corridor Improvements Point Improvements Install centerline striping; widen path and include user separation Q Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict ® Upgrade bike racks to be more secure zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Q Establish 10 mph speed limit with •singular sign display CI Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight 0 Move showers farther away from path to prevent queuing on path 615 IiiSegment Boundaries SEGMENT 5 �{ y ���u - $ +Srr t r€r z �n IFPr I F w b$e 3( S h " ,, ,r �S z„9 `q 1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD g � , { � d, Focus Area m ye lower between Hyatt Bridge and Beach Boulevard .: ; ¢ ;`a5 , A r.- _ .. vmata'xc:Lav;y . xe .-- .€�,>, a - .7., a "�." '#t,,..'.. n„a, ,rr ,, , t ;� ^m'^ .:^u �3 _ "- •,. .�' $r-.[; .�q �"!4: ` 71f'�+Nt 'e S y».yisua . . .,....:rv,. .,,. - ...a , .__, , . ` e y - . tNs s , '3i °�F, , - _ , s.� _ 1-105, - .. a, >M a t..<,;:».,a. >_<,_..,: .m-:_�..&a,g„-#--,,-',. ,� «-_. _.�„ ...-.a .i §„s '!;_ .,.a,x- .,.€_ _ _ , c: g =a{2:r.d.SM ..,..a'f-€°: €- t� .. .»•`€ L —gym • ,:-,:. - i1=-...e <.� ,:.,. >;E..... .3 a._r. _.,. .,,s- ..__ r.,.sTs .. § t.-- a :::. - ..R � �1ii <-gx' ._^c- i p, t s .. .�"I,_ #rga i€,<.."x .a ..: _- ,._ ,..d`...tl' «. ..a .... _ =;tl ,-_.` :5= - r: ,mo t y".,...t :':.a .,w '4L, . .4x, N,,mNt ..,'?s6 ,«=,.,i w=.._ .m: <._ „ aE• x_ , =,{u: , _ .;,_ .....n,{z_ ,.. .aa° - k x` - - _ - J .«�- `�- '�:.>,_> _.:_ ::_, r;:.,-.- taas„ .> � «N -,,..: ...,w ,... . ,,a"`x-- ... , .=rifi sc.. r. ... �-„ a m r»,' � "g - - _ a,,. k„„:a yam ...__ ............. ...:' ,„> -. ... .fi mom. ..,x .;. „ fi °. .:t,:. , r... s'§.a ,;.. ,:r, < , . ..: } -" _-.;a L. ';,.q,.:,, <-<.- id"s'e... .em 1 ..rz, w.-: .. ,,...{7.. a ,^. .,... { , ..: ..{. ...x. r t.,i' wa...L ,a- 4,' Y)"c I �.F--a. 4 s t....-.. , _^P'te b ..a......:..,$au .i!. Cr '�,'a':,_d ,n. y H.. tt{:- -I.., ,yF,- :a:..' # ..,...:.L. ':: ..... ^ ,. ,:a,... ., 5, , ... :. �¢3/gM .; rF � . :..v. t", Ax�-�.y+->- ,t >...:,:: .x'.. ., ,;, �'„�.. �f'T ..r' i.:, ,p:..,.. I"'�a. ..r,.k. �p, :,`;.,,'�.w..., .� .eti :,n ..��., ."+� _ mot"" - - t � ,>:. - .,«- .';�.x.,-.s ..,,.,. , y� .'�. ,, i�rt L.;.,�.a � .. .,(.. �.'. �_ n."...� a] .a i: rt. ,, :. .� ..,..+rfi,: ,t',.6,6 n.. ., -'- �• ,. . 1µ � x ya a.. e,#' -z_h'k' ..r a' ,, ..:. , .._.-. x`- Y>�!_... i`t k;:a: ,: „.,,. .,:>a, _.a., _'awe , �'"', ,.,...,,ca r. .. w .��' 6.. :- a,xi''".S.a `5,. ..: - s. ,.t at,a�� , 4 ,�. ,.�, �:,�_,g��.�++%% �<-»< . .,:�s� ._. �� �., „ }� . ^� }�r.� a 't.' � .a., ^,, ,".. § t'#�.,. N=`s,:a ... _�':�ro° 3S ..ar�,�n..., �'-y:..-x. -:._� 1 $�r�•,'-w=re: ,� Ix-3'fn x.6k...IE, � ":�r A,' .a_, �{� �.- �&3���� ,,.. - �3 z �, _;F� 3 ,., � .ra,. s r.. ,az ,� ,>€�„ �§,;t � � , ,,,s � :; P'a'�: `gyp � �.N`�a y` a.. _ _�,. ,�,-��,a' , c^. ,_,... y v �-„., ., ra.� �,.. �' $t,� , !. :a!; �F;ur..,,, .:. `� �' •E-�:t. �- �', .,.� �;�v� "° !7 y � �C+ �` - _.,,... ,x,- `. -.`�d'>r:' , ;:>f, a.a: '(. ;. . , .& ,� v i,Et{ , .,. w, :. , , «^ .x3-,`*' .. :..,,,. , kl : ' :.yr~< *. _-,S a ", ; ,Na„,,.y.,, , -.�t ,i7' .}!:;(j..Y`�x^ '�' 7:h'tT€,:s,: i t , .. ..,afr., l�, - �,.i.`�:t :-, :,.` ,4 J' �G `_,. - ;�y„ ,E S. y w - ; ;. ..� F .� t 1a.,. , �w ' t.grade parking lot 'I- w y_ - ' ;. �_ _:_ q.-< f .r `., '$�,., .:: ,,:.b, a `„Y-.'4, ;. .rx_' -`a, r.} tt, . :.. Q � ;,fti f ": ,•{'�-„t:,�KR a5`{ai,�„r-. �.� +.�.�.',;,°°�-,� "'. :� ',88r�x,�^. . r�°.. * .:' 's.�^. : `4v," �::,.--a,�5.� • .. .,,4$? kr .Ir axrXXV,ki,- $5. 4°' ar�, .yt:."^ .x'+,' .. x+'B,f /�'«„Lti`�a. ,y -r' + -� ' , -, ^ :* ,=a:i , ,,' �., §�t s .,., 7fi ,. v., :..ta«-i ,�+#4. _ a ;^"„�`,? y, .,�,.. a .., , ;..I,.: �`, h :i 5 7� ,,., :L`".,;: >� ,....-pY"; ., s !- ,w.xi<, � s,,,s. {�` _ ::,x„ .., '� '�*.x, �'�;::;Y,, ..:ay�,,.""x.� �i i- ,,s�' .:�,„ e a -,: :�,.,.. , is ,. �s � �, � �'� N��' . -� _ �. { � �v ciE.+`- ,,. • ..ik,Y .� i' Y ?k €x a.,, : rt"''% _ ;,.:;ii;,?u "4 ,a- ,j a'� M a ., .!. . r t, :a, :,�:g :.. �,.:�,a,,,w ...._ ,aC� .... , r=:� ...., t., , .^s- ..> :(' nr:s,o-.:, .r. � _ to ;, ::"�v,*?s... ..6... ...G'.t. }�h.' .�a'". .S-.i <: -,. :+.z F�...,`t.: , '-. t. „::<, �, ,.y.,:,��p+.tif: �:. , ate `*-�,�e. =at a., 9.,�$� 'gg� a d i .�. ,x. �,-. ...6+. .j ,. �,,.. ,.-.:...e..n,Np$y ;:-.y ..�A :; =.':. .a.' E: ..:rla ;,Pfl^..�# is°. �"x,. '.�-s1 Yd K9 - 'f:d:�. � .n..,H1 ;v+.a.,.�', r�`}, ,.,.. .... „ .:";, , a. e :a `':� " ., .> .,- �::.1:`, rye t °.z .L" �.$�?v< # i L i,.: :'- a. ,,. '1.,. _.. CC -7_ •aL , =5 ". . .`.- ,,, , 4 - I� t' fir. ',.=.Ij _.::: '1tilki `a a:'�. 1.`r' ' ,^ ",,'F', :8 .f -78 �. ,,i • < 2, =+x'�,. i.� ,». 3 ,..,�. .......,,_ ,�; .,. -< 7 _ x ". .. ,R q'�r Y':.+A4 s 1 .= ,.3xr`r:x y�. 'T « w2�<,.;ti% '"�;- �-. e r �,s -`4`-�f :i�:+,^�•,�F,t�; .,.. .,x:.. - , =«.:_ _. w�.:•.;� -n *a' 't �:F_ _ <;�.. a�k,,� - .s;,..` . f m a�:F•`,� :xtrew .::: ._� moo:= xw>s-_'. _-.«. �,-_ e.,�..r�-= w..,.,s.. x ,. .,.�...xn.:.:c,+_,:,_ ,;,::.:: «,a..se-�"- , A4 4, �,w r `�'o �-. �,",,..: �- ,.,.` ...,‘;._a°��... ' -K,.. ... sx,a¢ ..:;= dVe L..,,, < -.At as..!' .._._,..:.Y=. ..:,�„ ;ar;*4,, y •,.a„ +§�'-. e, y.., s ..A :tr- `t '� ;,xJ..., T4--: $ '_ ':6s-, -_ `,Y:a, -"; -c..,,,=k5=, ,. .c._ z.rv'.. y, E'S.:v.$Y", r....,:.., ..-�Y..`-` ,..a.:. . .<.,'#;+',w?1 .a_.AfM — L.,xF A*. 'i __ „#s.,. - • .#....� a,-..;. ..,: w ,::�-r:s ,,a�::. �� ,.t: ,t.._._ _:, >r_ _, „ .�" ....., �,,�,_, _ _ a,: _ ;� �c:sj 9`*�,. ,�,a., 3 •n�.�' .... _ .,;°P. a:�',: -�x.<# ,2'.,:,; - ....,. --F,, �,,. -_..,. ,:, .. .._,,< _ --- .:.: .. ^^ .. .,-;•,,.,.a�aw :fi:.,..,-;�--t, �";.- _ a.' ',..,...w,,.,.--.-a.�>� ....�?^=«e':, ,«.�.._. ;�'er�" �2 �.'- �'"� &^:°sN -,«.�i-� -.,_ . :1 -r a ,. r -# -- ^. >'. _� � �-au,��� .•>Y; -era � _ . ., �- "':a.x,3'�r��''.....r,._.:.,. . . �.,� --" ': :` ,m-,.« ,+`` �'':_..,.. » �:°, .�. ,:,"4 `«� �-.,T '�;�-�, :'om^ ,"' f�� ��", ""� �.� �" �� " 't= ^y`^%. ,_.. ....�:.. `,' ,.. ___W,,.w.a.� ,, '"-,:a... ..w w; „.=,+,'„=u,-*+ �.;-.,,,. .„raw>, , . a.an°x `-T".d� .,.�,:r :,d. `--' s to �- '*a.<4 s„-a._ - „ ,. ;7 f ',,.. .-4w „+•- :aa, =a ,{x _. >:,70 . ,a..7,_, «+�:, ,,,,,- - +sgx ,,..w , ,~3.. e mx -.,.ems. k as ., F`.« ;;p; .ts "�# t :; ,. .., ...- r.,,__.,,. ., ,.,, .:ten ^ '� ^c _�'. .:�,.£`_„-�,k�`:"x. -R{. �s.. �a�-* ,_ ..,: ,,,,:;.«, .�, .>„ww�.. � ` :..^ m� ,a... >,§*. ..a., �'",�.,_..:,,�,. ,.a._- e>..� .. ,.a a . :...aa ,,: ^ :: ,. �..+:* �;<� .an � , .:s�'i°°. .s:�.,..,. , .'�..,k'� ... t 5 ,��.�:'�x'a`r":. §,= _ .-. .,. ..,.. ... ..._ a�w.. + ._.a- .,,,� .� ._=.:, �ce�'.w7a,«w.. x',. ,ifr ,,.,- ,. .,.,« .�.,, r._. :a„ ,�' k -,E` wa" ti:g= �-..x -•--�, da. 4w _:_m ._: ,. , ,«,w»,.a- r+.. .»,». „,. ..,.,,-^ ,,- :,,�.�r.- ,,.,>-_. ;,.n. .z�,:,,�N",. v.Y.x;.,..... :,., .x'a »r...,:�N a; , fir,,..a,,,� ..w - ^.aaa T.*Iar' a .., s=s- �,f am v .,':i; a _,. ,� _:,.. ..�,.,. .- rxL ..:. ��.; a ,x.,. ..0,,., .....t .�..w.m.,.�a R..-.�.n.�, ..�....J:. :., ...._,.+. :. ,. ,.: .. a#.»,,.. ..,,r ra ,„t .x,k t �b a'^wa.< .'�-F .f ..... .tL {+:T".+��-m -,.c:,;.:. ., _ , ..,.,. �{a. ..,�s�a+�''� Y„_.,. d.: ... g4..>R1 u:,+,..:,... .'.ra.: h ::,enr 9 - ' :.,ua.."::.x. ,Y as~:w «.�, ..� .->:as`*^+� at�^r.R....". .p ....<,. m.r.-<,„..,.,.�,-._, :a „.._: d �td ,:.. n ,..�.., , ...:ay_,.- ,.,,:".., n..,a;.,: .: ,. :,'€�-�.. � ,r � �R%�. � - ,a, , ,, ,,,> a, -. .,,a ., e = _> ,T r -, , 9 ,�5,.,-. a a R Y fix.,,. .x,,. ,m... ..._.r 's„ ..., . ..,,,a ,... .,:,,•„ww _,_.,� :r „ « . a a s,,,,, .„ ,xr r,. xa:.. `k{ ' .a .,ate pa '.,N. . _ . ,.aa.„....::,«,. .,:a-,:e. _,.oa:--' ..:,e:,,:,. _,.a..,.. "' ..-.. ., >., � erg, t ,; .l _... ,1 "' ,«� .mut ; .. r... .€s" . :,„yo-�., w ::a,.,r , .,.. ,,..a; - .,as A'�3. b.. 1 ^', .�,rr .,::.. ... .T.i:-,.r , .,=,;,,-_«t - a-s, v.N, ,- :y d ,.,_„x�F,.,..<,....,,-n.., ,w®,,x:v't4 ..roz.«w-. ,...-,,.aJ. .:,,N. .r...T".. _.��?,o...... e-c 4 .,_ 4.,X., ...1„ .� x.._ ""a'-a� .> .5., 4 *9„5 ,„..,�.., .�. _. :,:,r ... . a.z.�:<r, "fit*,:,..,,. ...,,,�`Ny... ,r*v,,,...,;:,,-,,.:. �.s..r.., .? .a ..S ,.:...., . _:...a ,4 ._.,.. �,,.a. Wiz, .,r r., ._ ._a ax,s ^>,�4, ', � :.._.�,�,.a.`-�..,� .. _>., ...,..,.,.< _... ..«_ «a.,, :,.>..,� ,>,,,�.2.,-m w- .x.:.,, .:a! s,a.. ..i.,.. .+. ._z.. ......:fit r r�a,,.:�x a l.`': .`�'pi ,,,.->, '_„� ,z,..x. ,.6- .. .a A .� ,,,... «-_sa.x+ �er; ,-� t„ �"._.�.4 'V .Issues Opportumties h (Issue) Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does (Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling (Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path across path from those traveling along the path O (Issue) At grade parking lots have no clear access (Opportunity) Sand walls prevent sand build up on points - steady stream of pedestrians across path path (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) O (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; 616 no centerline Segment Boundaries ' SEGMENT 5 p��., , .csL'.YIJMRJ 7s ° S:.x ' 47#7kTlr34 � 4s, ' h.8 IsG''t ,. x ,t ' ,741 1 ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD � ip� qu 5, � „- t R E, I. Focus Area►n ye low ., between Hyatt Bridge and Beach Boulevard l �z _ x e .„-- a r jii ' '' - ate, 4?nt4. mx a a a ..• a .�Ma . .,.° sot -;.+ : x�:Ua.:. mr ..,. _�",- r...x •-a?, -##S.`sio"xx e+r-•�.:,+„� ,,,;,, .,_ .:�R E:`:: a ":,rcre+v° +�:.. k a.e $., -rg� ,g.. _-.-.. -„t"7t. 'ti: #-�"*,r-'- v } _ .i" 'tX! . - w T?y( <. .:. ,;,.e;- +, < ,I':x":: . a ....' ,6 sr:9 rga"sr,i t a.x' ... .: < Gt' KK &„ ��«: '-- - 1.$:Wq., _Yk. r`,, •.""t .,3-. -_` TRWCG4 x.' ,- a. ,+,# ..,. ..�a., a:,% r.;{,, f < , ..._ ,. �+�, .7i "`i :.�r tt tt ( ',. - [ '. .. ,r., : #. .>t ,.:'- ..'<::�,,..s <,<:, ..i. ..,,:. u. -;; dax,'{,. *. "~ �' J-s� x i�3r # ,zw S, E�# 3.1'.. i -- ;,{r-En.i.r. q ri< .w° ......s<# I 1 . ... ..... ..:. i, �� , r,kr.,:;.:: „{: '.:r..... -�i_,. +, ..�.:..� : _.a.:_�-°-�s: r Y ,...,,, _,,9. ,:, ,. �6,::,�., R,�a.,:,.... :_r _b -�."_- 'a"f �AG. � -„�.::� ,:.>, ry .r:....Eac s, :.: R ".< \,,,. ' ..:,:.sP ,,..:.:..,.tI kk.,g „^,g w�..__-. _.,� , „:; .z .,,:�a k - .m*" _ - 'C' .,. .::_, s,gig r ..,n;:nra.. k al .,, k, :�.3-s,"2: � ,_-orb a,-,�<,::,- f <.: -: .._,-,� t ..aY... .t'�k `�#�,.. ',:;:. Via. - - y.�- ,.,;�5�""a =� _.a.� �. € -t c^•`�'�`�' ,.:. 1v ._a to c.;�� _:a..=.i.»x „� ..... ,.:,�... sar a» �._-sc_ ,,.. <.;' ::. ,. .",c,. '.. :.,. v:� :iv ,.'�,'•- ,;� .�,^t"° r._:.: r :_ -., S, .r ,,.< _.« ::,::3 .a-:t t ",... ,r _ S;_ _' fi„ & tt'::3eP ,' ,.l ,I rr. 3 r.,T#$ .1 <'a. R,.9- .:,.r ,°_: ..:'w. .,"Ti'.. x,;:: ,..x`t., ..M _ a ..._ .:_;ate.. fr.5 Y"A =i::: -: ....,`. -_Rd ,:`� s,, ,:vije:' {`.. a:b'{.. �?" ., . . �-._+,;...�,. ...�.. , -.:-.,a.� < �,a: t.:-,. �r.�.xw: ,« <"'f:�: .�.>,x:N.,.., .,.:.:.eL : � ,..�..+ ,.:.. .{ *'�' - E" 'k.�: Ii• < ..= < tea., r x a s ,.�, .<t t __, , 4 t u ..a :.__ _r.-_,t >� < F„e.A .. ,'.:a . :,a': ,� a=_i,;: t7:, ,_€c_:._",":,- .,, �;`^"- .: *! <<Z v :' `e... 3.-•7 �Ir ,^ ,LL �.-,,r.._ `"" ,,,.w«:.. ,. :I,r3,t,.ar, Ilk , --3-4 .3 .,:<.3 :., :,t,_s l',', :--" w.' }=,<:r, a -s 4 .,�, ., .,...,,< .. .�r,.;. �...:.,..., ,,-:." � '., ^« ,. .tt�r ,r=.::,:a �: ., ::. �_.�,. a 4:.:a7 a:°!_=: e"a ,y rc :�.x'`R `. ��3K�`a3...:,.. :,.+ -,::,::-,:,zx. _,,, ::;.#.. :< t+:.,_ � _. „ sd. ...r:,:=. a,.: r x .,.,,+, ,z- `e.:�"a:'a+_.. _.. 4 ''gg ,A.'. w. �,a s: .Y ,, ,i.., ${ $_; '"+t:.- - „gµ.._ v ....,< 3:,� ! , <: ... ,ri- {,,:,g5,:, �,m %. t 8.,��b'{ ) :':.,,:,. _ °F ,-,. -I3.§`:','" r .tE:i ._•'"�"+' k`_ -'-✓s* { F°" °"_ fF'. - ]■�-- •it:'. l,�n-�, , :, ,c�`-. .� n.p5,���§< �s�"= t 2` . :. �: , w.x a�e :.�'. ;>? aC`34 h) , r�4"" - 4:rw _ �Tt*� ea,:.�'4 .: tA::#� 1t 9E 4 tr F`. „- : ..:e����� ¢..,:�� �:,:..[ ' = ..#'"'Aril I ..:. :: !<t..cI.#r. :.}a (7. a".i' a:a "K" -"q-€ - '*�;, .. dh;.v:.. :,r ..s �n� : •.. :.�y,. ..:h,. ',�,3.... § �. .� - '='__ , is°'�a: ,k:� �,..;'`�, ,.'ad�.:�"). ,i .y� ., :aa: �-., � aR, .: a �*-; ,W"' s { 1 e ..id.. ,.. t ,, ".4'. ,(._'�.S"„ fi$= �Ct f.,„:'} 4 :. _Sx. _ .:,$ ,,,� Y r —�# � x, � . '. ,®P � _ � :�� ,<4*§�p grade parking lot .� �� � e � ,r � '�< � . :. g�� „g1p 55� ff Y 5 � ':+�J+F}„� .a>$n'_rva +%�,:� .% n- .,Q ... y me_.,a�°�`..� 1 :G -,<, v� : �f. �:g,�.F �1 .,"k 4'^_� , h ,�.$: �b„�"Y n,F.+ ^- ,'N£yet`x: "�ItlitiPt;'',±:i;r ' + It , "4 ; .:a i+# '-' - rt, T'1 i i ,_ .�' .<, , :�5 , •.,.: " ` , ;a.:} , . . a „a. ,. ";p:: " ,.; r:.,' �, ., '4 -_�, ,#:;�. ...„r�ro w... _, t .m..' -,.:..: .;� :'rra r•�-Y.-� #+ts-r`:: .., r. (�yjy :,'R"^< C '�a.':.,:'C < ,»;�^ x->< e r .� 1, §.:r'',.. R .- ..I.9.' 'I''_ ..' E _ :3 .,i;t:: ... I ". , ;j :q..ur3. :,>.,:, ,y , f .-' ky'f,, f;," . , a Y, „ a `ri�s,: � . � .# � m„:s;� ,�i��, ecY 'E � ,.�� :. �a.I. c �, �s�, i. , �:„,..,. d ',.: xo. 4 ( {{a',�a��J..� - ,w, . `fi'.. i 4„ tin Y.� ; ',•-:" ,..,, ?� ;"',. . ., ... .:.. ,. ._ <-:. ,^- -�.. �,b 7�#� # r:. a "E:� �t� :_.4..; �'a.". `u'+ wN+ .f" � �i' -t:rk�ie^,dl.,l•h ,ar'y. :ow— ,�_. 44 ,,,r, :=z «>u' 01.1 .,e..,':. ,: e: ;,�; 9 ,k •....'-.. $e ,.Amera.":' r.: , .� u I i'.. xs2 AAA" � i:..: 't «.ai {r,,z7+, a`' r .; r 's- � Pm� �. :: •,�,.• �'�...'Y �-�` -. xa x� ,�. �'�.. �'t�� ...fir . ,i "a:�°>v " 'fi' �-a» A. ' .. r°#•., o.S-. .w.,, :aw"- ";2.. S;;, -:y,� io ';r., s #i' :aye ,a i+ :.t '- w. ,- � :# _ •`;b1'.. ' is * gg } :r ...00'.!'; .;r.._-c. _€y"::::L'. +.N ,rrS(yyL :., ' `:';.tt; ..:_ °.' .F !1. ".t , *y�{ <'aa .b ^,, ,,,,< x,. . "4. a. ,s .;';' d+,,,',-. ..r vi `I 4��. ��� q�;. :: .r#f. .a ,...<., wnZ... "R&..._,#�a 3c, y$ �yt. �� � 3= Ad 1�4 ,,�'„ -� " € , , � P0�/'a. "' .� r.--. t I .:T .P r.�.: ' ".t "`I`. ^5,.,4 w .��; <.r. 'h:- ..� te+. �. :� '�, vPo tt ., e ">Ff.; '�. �..� , :.'":, ^p:,-;` E:,- , e ,� ti. �,.."*!�., . 'A- _. e.:' :_ .::..., .k,,:'- 4"° Su^''yh" y � �� p, _ : '. , J.a be;x ,'a -,�: ." ..:,, ,:.., ' :..:Y, , ",.„ Nkn.:9!": :g.,. 7 :, t..„.. . u„ . ama"� �$t^,:', 1,7i «. :. °'s,: a.,.a. .«,; z.'., ,.+3;a a .. '1_k .'.,:w..«,..,-�:.- ,,. �- .... --,.., d:-: a - „—a.! ^�r+-"' .. 'aP,. , L ,b!-' , t.�..:-d' .1 _.,•._•;,::`.:.,, .,a." zr ,. +r.: .aa:.. `,�.,».:. ..�..� I a e.,::: 'v�:'.. .ti .;..a:� "-�`r. .-har, �:,a+ a " air ,,;� : ^a..: r' ,.,.. _,- ,. .. .-. ., �.n t. _ �"uar- ,- :.e-_ i..4'°e na ,"�. �- .::. a ,..yss. #.„ a<, «. - #.:� rv�, �, _:°.*:«+,.6 ..._} ;t^,<-e.4rm ", :,.:.,- , "t -°- - �.k; .,,:.,„�L. 4 :,,�,: �'1.:.: �,: . .�'*,a«.,^t{ .:a-,.,<._ . d ,e.•_ ;.,m o-�"�',..,ate -_^'�.� ,:.,+"s a� � . �,.ro.._ �';.,: y<-` ..aF�": _ ,.«.:✓ ;-: vatr. ..tea'' ,.: ........."t .-., ,..:.,,. .,.� < ..;Aet. -a _ ,�AATA?"°: "1„,;*w� -_iaa $-"=`5`s�"t-. 17 „_< :., ,. ' <m,.�'z', ..,:-,s ,.=ar .-:.:, _ ,_ .,. .... _3_ma,...... :.._< .",: ;^ :..4r - a �3,�,_ .s_F:. .,« ,-..:.. .-<. <.. .,-e= � ...; .. .,.�.-<. ... ._,.._x'= ..- .... -...; «. „o..,._ .,a*s�' 'r r -ti�,s - z `:' ,n�, ::a `x6 :�'.'a i � e�"'..,;<.wrw�wr -_ „�,: ,..�'. w'= „3;:, - is ..:. 'r �' `„E`-- :�. , N_4VA«!:_._-*'� . ._: a`;� ..,M.m" ":. __ .:.:�,« .,°x.°: ,.,..' k"�' t - < *'a= a,.,. ....: x,,, _ a _ ` #:.r . . ...,_.�.. - <.,«-:, "- �"'c�,,..,, y v:,+w:.:-<-.x:?',z."`'e ;r,,,,a.e �k� ply -«"�,`-.-' �- _ ,. ,`r ..,,.. .. ,a .... ,.�..-�.. ,=a. _ - „k,z .".4-te� }[Tip. ::-+f" .`"'re,w,-4` .,Me.. �1 A.�'�i'�!k'� n.g:,a..:«,.. 'S. #".''.`°E't 4 e"' #` \ ,:k. -_° - :: .<:, :o:',:: :- .',--:.a'.. y " ,-q�,'---" ":7.,, ^. �s a ti5,;: { _ -:! - ,� _... 's a ,-, ,N .. o." .-1... -,.�_ ..,m-� ".... ,xr,._� �"°.-a-� � .0-. _ *���.a.'"@.` _ ..r'=� «-,;.ate' i'_ w, wa a ,,'# _. ,-.., ,:' i' ,< __.... ,..�a�., x= '-*- rn � ''' N' - „�;„.,* '.' -;.N*s;v�*"r... _# _ t 3;. '''ic a; -,,..w _"`+.,:,. «-,_ ,:..,:.,, ,.r.::. ;+„ '- . ! e� rich ,a-,,Fy- z" '..:r- . ' ^^m,',�.a,,.,.'!r...o :r 4-,E3-,-„+„g..- �i�. "'°� r" F . "g ,_ ,.,w.<,.. _ -. -•... ..'.:A- ::__+.. -. i�B a,R,3,a 5�. „},..n< "°'� d.o-c.tb:. : ., -`�;',`:_- '. Via.'i .4L -• u..^.BY^:. ,,iz`ti i� Jd:= - 1 .,.._,... _: wxx .':sllu�Ml" ....::.......-,...;..«::.,. t,r-<5�°.,v.. ,........:.:,.-,�RF�,��.:'�. 'S:.=._.,,,Fes"-.,s ,�,,„�, ...� 4 ::&`t :"�, L 3�G :, r r u.��c•-,�aS�,. s ::.'{ .=F. ..,:, :;: �_ .•rm•,--y _,?-:.:...,.,, ,_• �,:5, .,-. .,. k, .�. ..�,...s .. ec. .r.<„_-, ._..:-.,. _,.v:b ar.-�.�.�` � °4 ,i,�+�`_ «t'&.; ry�,._:- -,s t"�a'r: :.-',y M , ^,' .,.>w.= �:—",,,'-ar-,.-:,`..., „ ..:xm,.-<+,y'!' --."":a a:.. ' t i _�-` ;,^r. �..,_ ,a<•,xv. - t,: aF .:.,,>_. ,:..: .. .... ,m'.:.:. '.x. .a,. ,..,_.._;'�-..,, a-:._ Mw�;•,,. -• .,,:: ,� x.'r a.y.«. �... - .�•s:< ''a.as,:,_e. ,.,<, .,..,,,,.+.:..:�,..,«, : a..::,w. ........:.. . ..:4,: «__''e� r-. _-,r'!` '* ..a..:' `. _ " ,_. ,.....Y..:. .; a ::e�.:+z -r- .w. _. F`:sN , s.a,'- :.. ,,, s .: ... -'v 'Sr.w-.. .. .,Y F<,..,...... k«, .». .^.;«: ...e- ,.x.m.r ad_ ....F�,+,- .._ .. ...Po..: -,,:."' ,:...,..'rv.: ...: "...:.,r"!a'*^ ._ rt< 1... -E d � .4..,. 4 Xt. -».._. _.�_,.:�r-+: ,.�..._.-<.�....... :,.. .a:.s .,z.. .,,...�:�.-.E...< .. ... .�,. . :z.e,�._ .� a:-... .^u.r.�i ..r � .,-- s:.,,�. ,.. ..:tr.�;.»: »._.: ..._;�;r. a.. ;. ..�;.°:*. '..v;r;^,a ^-`.. ^''4t4'.. ..:..t,. e, ..,e:....rsat>.:v ....,.- -':4 a :4 , a.,,T--,« .s..m ;; T. .,.d.,o Ww» tl <�,., ..,.«:; .. ,, , .r,. t ...sa. v,� .F: a e` '%-s t: ' ,,, �...:.<,u «, . a.r".--m,.S..:-, ....<., - ,,...,. ._, „o-, `' _,,..�' -.*;:t�,wz � .:..::-. x.. .x.,._ 'b.:.:...,'"- +�.,:,:,,, r..`_s.,. ,r «.":,n:� ,b.. z:,.. .�s_:c%�:.. ti. "� "�.: - b,. .Yy.. ,�G-.,.: .U` ..:,.. x.,.. ,P ...q ...:. ,n.v w.... h-p ,�'h - -s� ,,. ,...�...:.. ..T:. .•:+.. .smo-3e„-».�':w.-,F=,d, :.,:,+. ...,..--„ „A r-. „"A..ull..rn._ +q .:,,., m.S "'I.:. F,. m.- .- �.,,.. a<.�.. t 1. ..:"<_�.::.-...K,:� :.�-.+ .....- ,.. ,t;.+. «., F '.':.,.:.: ..;..--_„* -.--'.,..taK ti ,. v''4., a ''�.... a , � „�,�, .:< „w',`^: _:3▪^r :. .,z.::x„ .. :*. r., ;;, -,:# -.z ;,ems:.. ,,P"'a 0:w.. <-=. ' .t..:. .... .,...'::-.- _ . .m.«. .. a ..'a'. 4.,.F« .50:..°- ., r:,: ,.}.,, kd ;.«.. _,r :u .-.u,t-+ -.r: d.:. - 1.., .,,:.. ..,..,. . - ...,....... . ...:.s'=:?a` .+-�..�: .,� � �,+'..°1--.-. ..r..:.x.. .., z..r.:...-<a.,..sr�t:...._ r,.x,'.,.,, ` rk.:: _e•: .,t:.?Fz:„ r �.s.� �i _ z.`t. - <.:......._ >,-: °' x^4 �' ,a',,: :...:_.x-.« .y,,,.s�«°' ,_i,,i.w>,Po+d'* ,.�"Y,":s,.:,:� :.,.�r--' r'.. �.-,i••.'e.qa s r.:,'�.« xr .,,-ZG.. #,. <:ea (R �' k :+y,,.:,. .:,a, n µam.< `� ki u„. . .. i"a,k-..., .., r, ..:.-�m..-.� •>.:s^u a,u. aa .. 'le'3.�.B�3aFr�' ::Lra..}.b..a5t3za .�k1.b aa...... ' a' -- -s..� � :c.,...b.,•o t...�> .. ""-«-ate T Recommendations Corridor Improvements Point Improvements Install centerline striping; widen path and Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points include user separation along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict Q Upgrade bike racks to be more secure zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks 0 Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular � '� Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight sign display Move showers farther away from path to prevent queuing on path 617 Appendix 3 — Cost Estimates Segment Total Corridor Miles Estimated Total Cost Segment 1 —Seapoint Street to Goldenwest Street 1.18 $154,000 Segment 2—Goldenwest Street to 11th Street(Upper Path) 0.78 $101,000 Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Lower Path) 0.78 $2,660,000 Segment 4— 11th Street to 1st Street 0.64 $1,129,000 Segment 5—1st Street to Beach Boulevard 0.85 $939,000 Total Cost $4,983,000 J 612 12 0L, 527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 ° HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION.PLAN,(MIP) • TOOLBOX:° BICYCLE, :PEDEST I:AN,.-A.ND BEACH PATH. •• ° This section provides information on a series of treatments that improve bicycle, pedestrian, and beach path conditions. The treatments featured here are not an extensive list of every available option to improve bicycle pedestrian experiences, but rather a tailored list of common tools that have a demonstrated history of improving safety and access. The City of Huntington Beach can consider both rapid implementation and permanent projects in their Toolkit. Rapid implementation projects can include lower cost solutions and may be installed temporarily before a permanent or more costly solution is provided. Rapid implementation projects should include data collection on the effectiveness of the treatment to inform improvements as part of a permanent solution. Crash Modification Factor(CMF): "A CMF estimates a safety countermeasure's ability to reduce crashes and crash severity. Transportation professionals frequently use CMF values to identify countermeasures with the greatest safety benefit for a particular crash type or location." For more information, see: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/ Proven Safety Countermeasures: Specific countermeasures are highlighted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)for their safety effectiveness and benefits. For more information, see: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN BUILDIg IT TABLE OF CO�N®TE,NTS e , : Bicycle Treatments Bicycle and Pedestrian Treatments Class I —Shared-Use Path Tree Canopy and Shade Class II—Bike Lane/Buffered Bike Lane Street Furniture Class III—Shared Lane Street Lighting Class III—Bike Boulevard Pedestrian-Activated Flashing Beacons/Rectangular Rapid-Flashing • Class IV—Protected Bikeway Beacon (RRFB) Bicycle Signal Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)/High- Bicycle Detection and Actuation Intensity Activated Crosswalk(HAWK) Bike Box Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)/Leading Bicycle Interval Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Box Protected Left Turn Green Pavement Pedestrian Refuge Island Bicycle intersection crossing markings Curb Extension Curb Radius Reduction Pedestrian Treatments New Traffic Signal Sidewalk Lane Reconfiguration High Visibility Crosswalk(Continental • Crosswalk, Ladder Crosswalk,Artistic Protected Intersection Crosswalk) Right Turn on Red Restriction Unidirectional Curb Ramp—Detectable Safety Zone (School and Senior) Warning Surface Slip Lane Closure Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) Pedestrian Countdown Beach Path Traffic Calming Treatments Pedestrian Recall Rumble Strips Pedestrian Scramble/Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Speed Humps Signs Separation of Users 620 2 527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8b80 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 40014 1100 L E BICYCLETREATMENTS = i CLASS I — SHARED-USE PATH C E a @,"�" rS s � a a&. 1 6l t R s Ml +f� +4 C'"i ? =£r aP k6 5t: ..tea t. Y. e' . ,w'S 9�S " Y F dam _' i T §.. q w ,...f„,,,,..fi:..il.t°,,,l'''''Z',,,,,,i-lair.: ft 140,6 444;01, N.',41114t,V.. ft,....... , .. -- '-r. ..,, .- I . 4 M ; "4tN , ';-" , y;rg - +`�' ,'"-. .°`,m#''".:;t,ane .-q . -__ ,ar,f." t u'" .r_.-.s-, . ae... P..* n ai \ Class I bikeways (also known as bike paths or shared-use paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway and with minimized cross flows by vehicle traffic. These facilities support both recreational and commuting opportunities, especially along rivers, shorelines, canals, utility rights-of-way, railroad rights-of-way, within school campuses, or within and between parks. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. ENVISIOIdIN6 WHAT COULD DE, THEN BUILDI�23 IT CLASS II - BIKE LANE / BUFFERED BIKE LANE y °{f '* _"'e* 'fie a-�...-'r #111. 4 f a,a z t6.�W_p ^ 'JR01:3 ,M q 4 4 i 4.�, +`ta 2 s.,F fr '�. 1 `fie . ° k , -,. °'`YIxr-.F."...: ` ,, t ^J*. 0 at^.-g � _ 3 $' '1+ T4j �'g'g Fa Also known as bike lanes, Class II Bicycle Facilities are established along streets, defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities,typically striped adjacent to vehicle traffic traveling in the same direction. Buffered bike lanes provide greater separation from an adjacent traffic lane or on-street parking by using painted chevrons or diagonal markings. Buffered bike lanes may be desirable on streets with higher vehicle speeds or volumes. CMF/CRF:Bike Lanes are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 30% to 49% crash reduction[1]. CLASS III - BIKE BOULEVARD , 6 y Q n r6 a - ,11 622 4 Class Ill Bicycle Facilities, also known as bike boulevards, bike routes or shared lanes, are designated streets for bicycle travel shared with vehicles but not served by dedicated bikeways. Bike routes are established by placing signage and/or shared lane markings(i.e., "sharrows")along roadways and are therefore generally not appropriate for roadways with high vehicle speeds or volumes. In some cases, additional treatments such as traffic circles, curb extensions, chicanes, diverters, speed humps or cushions can be added to further support speed and volume reductions. A Bicycle Boulevard or a Neighborhood Greenway is a type of bike route where bicycle travel is prioritized. These facilities are typically placed on residential streets where biking or walking is the primary mode of transportation. Traffic speed and non-local vehicle access is reduced for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. CMF/CRF:Installing a Class III bicycle facility can result in a 63%crash reduction[2]. CLASS IV — PROTECTED BIKEWAY r, :'..''=,.' ,,. r•,--''', ','"' , ti :.-:'"!, ' . , " kN, rib ' ' ,' * - ' ' - :- , ". .(,I- I .,' J`, ux v • a . tY • Y" , x p= " s. F � . , ;- •NIP-., c�, -4 *t, ,. s. uy s ^tom 8. 4 Class IV Bicycle Facilities (also known as separated bikeways, protected bikeways, or cycle tracks)are for the exclusive use of bicycles and are physically separated from vehicle traffic, parking lanes, and sidewalks with a vertical and/or horizontal feature. These features include flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, planters, parked vehicles, and curbs. Separated bikeways may be one-way or two-way and may be at street level or sidewalk level. The separation width can vary for these facilities according to roadway geometry. Near transit stops, separated facilities can be incorporated with the use of transit boarding islands. CMF/CRF."Bike Lanes are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 30% to 49% crash reduction [1]. 623 5 BICYCLE SIGNAL ti s 3 � , oar , y 4404 " r SIGNAL_ . ems. , rt* is -,iii. A bicycle signal is a traffic signal with a green, yellow, and red display intended to control bicycle movements. The display may include arrows or a bicycle symbol shape. Bicycle signals are necessary to indicate a leading or protected phase for bicycle movements. This may sometimes require an additional phase be added to the traffic signal cycle. Initial studies of bicycle signals indicate that their presence may increase signal compliance and improve safety. In 2013, the treatment has been given interim approval to use by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if used for protected bicycle phases but is not included in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD). This was adopted by California in 2015. FHWA requires an agency to request permission to experiment if using a bicycle signal to apply a leading phase. Bicycle signals can be activated actively or passively. Active detection requires bicyclists to use a push button. Push buttons should be placed in such a way that bicyclists do not have to leave the roadway to activate the signal. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. BICYCLE DETECTION AND ACTUATION s' at • L j 4 ����� k ,yx � ..0 5 i-. •'r `r Ifi 3 *"> 4w x' . Asa• -' - °r „w`4, „,t R. 4:1,5' `�,I. A.4 rs s x t s" " 1$ca " . 5 .m- °3 ws tF ^ . w +` y -.- k r4. fxk! e "c., a" ^5' [[ 7 ' ,,, t «, ,1-',1e .7 ::E L 7-K� <a :' ,.a i. 624 6 Properly designed detection can deter unsafe behaviors, such as disregarding red signal indications, by reducing delay at signalized intersections. Bicycle signal detection also increases the convenience of bicycling. Passive detection (i.e., when the signal system automatically detects the presence of the user), is considered best practice where feasible. Loop detectors, commonly used for motor vehicle detection, can also be used to detect bicyclists. Other passive detection devices include video and microwave detection. Bicycle detection devices can be used to call a phase or to prolong the phase to allow a bicyclist to clear an intersection. This is particularly important at locations where the minimum green has been established to serve motorists and may not be long enough to serve bicyclists, especially older bicyclists, children, or those towing bicycle trailers. Pavement markings and/or signs should be used to notify bicyclists of the proper bicycle detection location. Combining passive bicycle detection with detection confirmation lights or active detection (push buttons) may improve compliance by assuring bicyclists that they have been detected. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. BIKE BOX i - _ v gvvmT4A,47:c4Iiiiiir:::'...,;,,.'":11.A,f,,,:r. Y a 4 t { : v-, < Aw 8 `°'" iEr m „ ,3e373r '", ` '$°R !v •4,r,�'a`#" ti^3 Ya: •i w:t '°n" x ° ram`a' -', • " �. ffi - - c '„ x � - r _ y. " x 'tl . /.. """_"' •F a t,..0 Y c. w ?F .. vas,.. b n 'p L °' ,,, d'."+ .. J6 Bike boxes provide space for bicyclists to position themselves in front of vehicles while stopped at al signalized intersection. This treatment provides a predictable place for bicyclists to stop and wait at a signal, allowing them to get out ahead of traffic at the onset of a green signal. Bike boxes are intended tot reduce the likelihood of a right-or left-hook collision at the on-set of a green signal. In addition to increasing the visibility and predictability of bicyclists, bike boxes provide priority for bicyclists by allowing them to come to the front of the queue. A"No Right Turn on Red"sign can be installed to prevent vehicles from entering the bike box. Bike boxes can also be helpful for bicyclists making left turns who are uncomfortable or unable to merge to a left turn lane. This treatment has been given interim approval to use by FHWA but is not included in the 2009 MUTCD. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 625 7 TWO-STAGE BICYCLE TURN QUEUE BOX 7� � �V [ x "$ ft3 ! ?Y i. � k * InAti III _ trf 't. .9. wrsi.' A two-stage turn queue box (also known as a Copenhagen-Left or jug-handle turn) designates an area outside of vehicle conflicts for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before proceeding in a different direction of travel. It may be used for left or right turns. They may be useful at locations where bicyclists would have to merge across multiple lanes of traffic,would have to wait in a shared travel lane with motorists to turn, or at locations with separated bike lanes or side paths where it is not possible for bicyclists to merge into motor vehicle lanes in advance of the intersection. This can be advantageous on roadways with higher volumes of vehicular traffic or high operating speeds to reduce conflicts between motorists and turning bicyclists. Bicycle symbol and turn arrow pavement markings indicating the appropriate direction for bicyclists to turn and wait within the box are recommended, as well as the prohibition of right turns on red if turning vehicles would travel through the area of the two-stage bicycle turn box. An agency needs to request permission from FHWA to experiment to use this treatment. The California Department of Transportation has received interim approval (IA). Caltrans and the California Traffic Control Device Committee (CTCDC) have agreed to review each IA issued by FHWA at their earliest convenience for its application in California. If the IA is recommended for use in California, then Caltrans will request FHWA's approval for its use on a blanket basis statewide, eliminating the need for individual agencies to seek FHWA approval. If the IA is not recommended for use in California, then Caltrans will publicize the status of the particular IA on this web site. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 626 8 GREEN PAVEMENT s ...01 .00.-- tit .. } A �' ` C-J Y ,i .'"- .+%` .. L _ ,i „`r t4 j IR. 4 ,.,r" J — .� YY . " mow'' v. v Al-reen pavement within a bicycle facility increases its visibility to all all roadway users and reinforces the priority to bicyclists in conflict areas and in areas where motorists may park in the bike facility. The green pavement can be used either as a corridor treatment along the length of the facility, or as a spot treatment, such as a bike box, conflict area, or intersection conflict marking. Consistent application of green paint across a bike network is important to promote clear understanding for all users. The green color may be applied with paint, Durable Liquid Pavement Markings (DLPM), thermoplastic, or colored asphalt CMF/CRF: Unavailable. BICYCLE INTERSECTION CROSSING MARKINGS i I ' �' 1 , r :i,..; 1. .�' a W, . ''4,_ .. % BM,F . .: _„J§ ..j : - G•;y ° %3 f .Cap[ i , ;M �'�`,,• r ,; a. sari t ,�. • Bicycle lane intersection crossing markings are intended to provide bicyclists with a clear, highly visible pathway through an intersection. They also help to alert motorists to the presence of bicycle through-traffic and encourage turning motorists to yield to through moving bicyclists. The pavement within the bicycle lane extension can include green color. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 627 9 PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS SIDEWALK 7 " I 3111-- ,' II .q) ' T------ .. ...,i, .. ..,, de . ar , ((/ , r, lam% , ,„,f �0 _ � • i Sidewalks provide space along a street for pedestrian travel and are the backbone of a city's pedestrian network. For sidewalks to function, they must be kept clear of any obstacles and be wide enough to comfortably accommodate expected pedestrian volumes and different types of pedestrians, including those using mobility assistance devices like wheelchairs, pushing strollers, or pulling carts. CMF/CRP Sidewalks are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 65% to 89% crash reduction[1]. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK, LADDER CROSSWALK, ARTISTIC CROSSWALK) _ - �� '".� - w _-_,.. 3 mow. ,. x u 1, ,:4, ,.,.,,-7,,.,,,,, P i 628 10 High-visibility crosswalk markings, such as continental or ladder-style, are preferred over parallel line markings to improve visibility to approaching motorists. High-visibility crosswalk markings reinforce legal crosswalks at intersections and create legal crossings at non-intersection locations. These crosswalk markings warn motorists to expect pedestrian crossings and clarify that motorists are expected to yield right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. At uncontrolled locations, high-visibility crosswalk markings identify a preferred crossing location for pedestrians. CMF/CRF:High Visibility Crosswalks are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 40%crash reduction [1]. UNIDIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP - DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE _ - _ y u • < C g I is 6 • ! 1 11 {a The transition for pedestrians from the sidewalk to the street is provided by a curb ramp. The design of curb ramps is critical for all pedestrians, particularly for persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)standards require all pedestrian crossings be accessible by providing curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces at all locations where pedestrians can be expected to cross the street. In addition to people with disabilities, curb ramps also benefit people pushing strollers, grocery carts, suitcases, or bicycles. At intersections, directional curb ramps should be installed to orient pedestrians toward the desired line of travel. Detectable warning surfaces are a hazard warning for pedestrians with low or no vision. Comprised of truncated domes and produced in colors that contrast the sidewalk or curb ramp in which they are placed, detectable warning surfaces function like a pedestrian stop line, alerting persons with vision disabilities to the presence of the street or other vehicular travel way. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 629 11 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL ri rl L "" p c ,.,,, # al -fit'._ �j €E 7 z-" "`^ —" --...,r V=e i� ,. �. h� __, t(b a ,E} .. °' II till P ...„;.- 1. -..'"'r ' ,-;41 1 4., �-.. E, I " ; ) • _ L --,..„.„...„ ___ , . --'‘-'-----7-------;;.-..,„, ,z,..":::---------___ -. ,... , - 1 rS� `'--- ` '''' '�— Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)and accessible detectors are devices that communicate information in non- visual formats about the pedestrian crossing to people with visual and/or hearing disabilities. They may include features such as audible tones, speech messages, detectable arrow indications, and/or vibrating surfaces. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN -,� 'ale, 4 }t. "V y 1 a- IA J Oe 4'.'24. i f Pedestrian signals and countdown signals provide guidance to pedestrians regarding the permitted signal interval to cross a street and prohibit pedestrian crossings when conflicting traffic may impact pedestrian safety. Ideally, every signalized intersection should have a pedestrian signal head. Countdown signals are indications designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the clearance interval (flashing "DON'T WALK")and can be set to fixed-time, push button operation, or passive pedestrian detection. They indicate to the pedestrian how much time is left in the crossing phase. The California MUTCD requires countdown pedestrian indications for all newly installed traffic signals where pedestrian signals are installed. 12 630 CMF/CRF:Installing a pedestrian countdown signal can result in an 8.8%crash reduction[3]. PEDESTRIAN RECALL '� - �'� -; ,,,,, ,„,-,,, .. . , . '"°- f - - a tx� � . w -�—_ +t. 0. = ;1". r---' 3 . ..10.,f; 17.'mitionin+. Pedestrian recall is when a signal is set to automatically allow pedestrians to cross the street without the need to push a button during a green interval. It causes the WALK signal to activate on every cycle of the intersection traffic signal. In areas and locations where pedestrian demand is high, pedestrian recall should be considered to minimize crossing delays and provide convenience and comfort for pedestrians. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE / EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE f t + i , I , r 1,,,,,, I , 3 \�,~ice 7 M - f► `t r 19.t4 i .1 An exclusive pedestrian phase stops all motor vehicles at the intersection to allow people to cross the street at every crosswalk. It minimizes exposure of people walking and rolling, minimizes delay for people waiting to cross the street, and provides accessibility benefits to people with disabilities. Like the exclusive pedestrian phase, a pedestrian scramble, or"Barnes Dance", stops all vehicle movements at the intersection to give priority to pedestrians looking to cross the street. Scrambles also provide diagonal crosswalks in the middle of the intersection to allow for more direct crossing movements, eliminating the need to cross two crosswalks to get to an opposite corner. CMF/CRF:Installing an exclusive pedestrian phase can result in a 35% crash reduction [4]. 631 13 1 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS TREE CANOPY AND SHADING i � I�� . IL1L �L-1, '. 1- -_-. ,_-_------ :11-;(401_,-,k' % 1.11 Ihil [lir It I if i _ a. �� �ll0� I , . a �� , lit 1 . ------ -- - -.7i i , . .,.....,..„„ u.t..w, r#,,,jr‘ I' 1 Fidol.I-N77,Er. 'IllENrH.,11:17.1-1,L34,1,'''f.1: 1`'-I.... ►'Aj itt / d Ir-_---_,-„.--.'- - ,r'-4.,'' ,"°,,',,,4'.-,:I,..T—,,,...,'',,.'.'*,.1-1';,7'.,.".4;.,..,'4.',-:',,.„*",.,,,'-.-'11"i./'x,,1,l..._.,5!k—re.,..,,t..;.i,:lI:.i_-,-';i ro/a�_S"„i.t''1,-1,..,..-:1T'.,.-,.',:*,,Q*.—..,'-(,,1,/".,;,'.-t,',,:,,.'.-,,4,_.Y:f„f',t,k',,<1-.,..,1,<',;-n,:k,1 4--o...t-,3a..,".,.,.4...z,-t,<„1.."j..'.*.„+.,.„,,.4.g.',.m'-7 e.?,e t).',',4' >= 1= . i P 7 - d $ /,s ; a.� f, . a a ll , »- ,.-,`-,t;,,,-L.!....;$":i.1.-<'.„4.v,.i.... 11 �:. e! ��� i� - .at.AS' r �, � - �a }', ,fit! i � 'fit _., ,' d � drug Y I. '� t a 4r;--. A i ',\ :•> .. _ ,.. " a4s. ^ YW ` n i �,f x`,°, : r 4 *` $ ./ x J. i ,L+a`g a "fi ." - >: Street trees provide shade and visual softness to make walking and the use of sidewalks feel more pleasant. Trees can help reduce peak temperatures during summer months and mitigate air pollution. Tree placement will vary based on type of tree species and amount of space in the right-of-way but should be typically used along sidewalks and trails and in public plazas and parks. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. STREET FURNITURE /` ~ems y, I owl,et k .- 1 ��, k* _ `+-�*'�..�p 7 i.. yr^ s1A { N. ...£ t-" ue' ,,-. .,,,e400000 re 14 632 Street furniture includes an array of elements, including benches, trash and recycling receptacles, bollards, transit stops and shelters, decorative planters and more. Seating is an essential component to each street and includes temporary and permanent fixtures such as chairs, benches, seat walls, steps, public art, and raised planters. The location and type of seating element should respond to adjacent land uses, available shade from either structures or street trees, the presence of parallel parking buffering the seating area from traffic and the width of the amenity zone. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. STREET LIGHTING s ,44 t°k L7 4..r I / I 4, I i if ø: - .414, ; p Illumination at crosswalks and along the roadway can help increase visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly at approaches to crossings. Studies show that increasing or adding lighting to crosswalks, road segments, and intersections improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety by reducing crashes, increasing yielding and compliance with traffic control devices, and improving visibility. Pedestrian-scale lighting is lighting directed toward the sidewalk and positioned lower than roadway lighting. It is a crucial element in providing a safe multimodal environment and ensures that a pedestrian environment is used frequently and safely, resulting in a safer and healthier community. Pedestrian-scale lighting should be installed along streets with existing or anticipated high volumes of pedestrian activity and at intersections and crossings. CMF/CRF:Lighting is a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 28% to 42% crash reduction[1]. 633 15 PEDESTRIAN-ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACONS / RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACON � : Y 9?�� fl t �� j , r 1 iw \i,\\,\ I \',,,,, ,,, ct‘NS ,,,;;::\''‘ ../4 'N.gip -, 44,• , ‘7,4::\ -, •\,,, -.;:',„4- \ r, ,,,,,,toir elki '.;-, , ., , 0 )N,‘2, \ . (j ":, ,go, a `\� ...0,, , „ ,,, ,, , is t3+1 i�. +. 4�w7: A Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)are pedestrian actuated beacons that use a. rapid, irregular flash frequency. They increase driver yielding, increase pedestrian visibility, and slow down vehicle speeds. RRFBs should be installed on roadways with low to medium vehicle volumes and/or roadways with posted speeds under 40mph. CMF/CRF:Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 47% crash reduction [1]. PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON / HIGH-INTENSITY ACTIVATED CROSSWALK fsr ii. ; '' fi '' k, :` irk"P' ^€ S' ' ..- ,1 `R,�4 Fx.a ,l b.R,�,r`�n� ': iS r 'te'4. , r,r qT ' ,'a.c { ` '"��' '3 ::".:''.-,*4-11" .� ss as �. J.44 ' 2.tFGSSIFAEE ,,tip" a y t�, rt. 'a _ "'": STOP r' � 1. } `~ _ t fir''---< r `..` tl. _ /I.. -1. ,..- 4, 4€ e L1 ro y = c 1�^ gam^+ 7. .�. , ,,. _,.,.__:, ......‘ _z::_--4:\,,,...-; ..-,... . .,.....:77,-H---:. ,,t %,7-„,._:: _.____._ .. _ L.-. -....- _ --_,?.. _ ` .wear " ter. �4. -- 16 634 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also called high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWKs), help pedestrians safely cross busy or higher-speed streets at midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections. The beacon head consists of two red lights above a single yellow light. Once a pedestrian pushes the button to cross, the signal then initiates a yellow to red lighting sequence directing motorists to slow and come to a stop. The pedestrian signal then flashes a WALK display for the pedestrian to cross. CMF/CRF:Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 15% to 55% crash reduction [1]. LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL / LEADING BICYCLE INTERVAL r --ram, . ,-" , ''ir I , \-, ,,..1,,N - --NN VI 4., �1 : 1 ,., �..,- /r✓ a�‘. ► .,ti,� � 1f ' �..--;sue,, N"�.��•,•• � "'i s `^ a, (w ��,i r,r \r am :� ' - "' ---c ,, '- -.-- y J amyl:, � , � + 9 2 Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs)and Leading Bicycle Intervals (LBIs)give pedestrians and bicyclists a three to seven second head start to establish themselves in the intersection before motorists are given the green light. This allows pedestrians and bicyclists to enter the intersection prior to turning motorists, increasing visibility between all modes. LPIs especially benefit slower pedestrians, including people with disabilities, seniors, and children. If an LBI is to be used with a bicycle signal, the agency should request permission to experiment from FHWA. CMF/CRF:Leading Pedestrian Intervals are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 13% crash reduction [1]. 635 17 PROTECTED LEFT TURN r I., '- -c ks, '',.."'",..-- 0 Q ,,,,,,,,,„...:::...y„,"% C��E^`� S � � ti cr I-,..-=- ''''c. J.,,,-'11.,,-*.t -,-,,,:s" -- 34",-S.c>.;4).22`;---- W'O. ,,,,,''''') -f' 0 .---" ..-....s Avo- -,:,,,,w-;--/.."•_., ie. ems" o =c,e,`v C ;-r^`` I%,_' �' �`+` �. _, y d .. .,�. A protected left turn provides a red arrow for left turning motorists while allows both on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians to cross to eliminate conflicts. It allows pedestrians to cross the intersection at the beginning of a signal cycle, reducing conflicts between pedestrians and motorists, CMF/CRF:Protected Left Turn is a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 28% to 48% crash reduction[1]. PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND 1 • ° " \'"jam I 4.t c Jt` 1... Z'14, 1,,, „.‘,„., ,. '...,"''''Z_ -s't'',,,,, 1 Atio,-4... .. ,....1. r- i• ;',..1`4''' -• v ''-. ,'",'' ')40 M. ' -...--- :7.0 op ie,,, :- -..,',- ' --.., ram. a •+ UY'.e' ,Irr ."., � w 4 t`v+ , d` `% .5 @ • s -•?-,•"'+. FC-‘111&- C" i° 7 . e u' n L . 4ppk �` �� t \. Eb ±; it } 18 636 Pedestrian refuge islands are raised medians placed in the middle of a street that provide a protected space for people trying to walk across the street. Pedestrian refuge islands improve safety by reducing conflicts with motorists. They are particularly valuable when used at unsignalized crossings along multi-lane streets because they make it easier for pedestrians to find gaps in traffic and allow pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. CMF/CRF:Pedestrian Refuge Islands are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 46% crash reduction[1]. CURB EXTENSION - - �' t #- 4.L .. t t. t � '.. "' I _ 3 ,'__._.._.. "ifs:, Curb extensions, also known as bulb-outs, reduce the width of the street by extending the sidewalk at corners or mid-block. They help improve visibility, calm traffic, and provide extra space on sidewalks for walking and gathering. In addition to shortening crossing distances, curb extensions create more compact intersections, resulting in smaller corner radii and slower turns by people driving. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. CURB RADIUS REDUCTION ea ,,.ems x x j H-,r 'e2 , y b fix €.:' a r ' --; ( , . K � $o at "`tea t ro� �"� =N v o ,( , I Yii h�,, ,-•. --,y,wA, al ;., 1'I lir, 1r . i' - , ' ,- 637 19 Curb radius reductions are a strategy to reduce turning speeds for vehicles by forcing sharper turns; they also create larger waiting areas for crossing pedestrians.All curb radius geometries should be designed to prevent turning vehicles from tracking over the curb which could injure people waiting on the corner. The effective radius is influenced by the presence of on-street parking and bike lanes. A curb radius of 5 to 10 feet on streets with parking can generally result in an effective curb radius of 15 to 20 feet,which can accommodate passenger cars and small trucks. A truck apron can be used to provide a curb radius reduction targeted to slow smaller vehicles while accommodating the needs of larger vehicles. CMF/CRF:Reducing curb radius can result in an 18% to 59%reduction in pedestrian crashes[5]. • NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL VICNRNIhLE& S ., hall , ^ i,- ,, y 4O 9r` i. ' . '''''' ..-4,- ramar"N>,4 :-'7'. ... ° • ' 4' ' Ilk; , Traffic signals create gaps in the traffic flow to allow pedestrians and other users to cross the street at locations where users would otherwise experience long delays or have difficulties crossing the street safely. Warrants in the MUTCD govern the installation of traffic signals,which are based on the number of pedestrians and vehicles crossing the intersection, among other factors. However,judgment must also be used on a case-by-case basis. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 638 20 LANE RECONFIGURATION , 24., _1.:rn , AIlif .,,, ,. „. ,r,- ,,. , a de f ,. . ,.,, ,,,, iii,010117 „ - , ,., ,,z,,,,,., Ti , 4{ ,,,, S(lift s 5 d fl _ }7 Y .:-ti ,, , ,,,,,,,.-„„ , 4,.., i , ,_.... _ .,,,�„„ ,„ „ - u, u ,� ,..,, , ,„`,.6, * t\'''%,, The number of lanes on a roadway determines how far pedestrians or bicyclists must cross at an intersection and how many conflict points might exist between turning traffic and bicyclists or pedestrians. Efforts have been made to reduce the number and width of lanes through 'road diets'that not only reduce the number of lanes but provide space to implement additional pedestrian and bicyclist safety treatments such as adding bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and reducing travel speed. Road reductions are often completed to improve access management, increase bicycle and pedestrian access, and to enhance roadway safety. The most common road reduction configuration involves converting a four-lane roadway into three lanes, with one travel lane in each direction, a center two-way left-turn lane, and bike lanes in each direction, often supplemented with painted or raised center islands. CMF/CRF:Road Reductions (Road Reconfigurations) are a Proven Safety Countermeasure with a 19-47% crash reduction [1]. 639 21 PROTECTED INTERSECTION ,,,, 'tr ^ ,''','S 1, ''''.:•.4;r=-::k1'.--' ,.-- .1..� _r .' r �'r►�" - v"wems" � ' tio 3' ll `n '., ° a*° '':'l� �+ k - i . _✓..l 5. -h� y „- k \\ . �. "w�"'gym, y�_ ^."�ti- b'' 4` .-,..4f. >- _ : x . Protected intersections are a type of intersection design that improves safety by reducing the speed of turning traffic, improving sight lines, and designating space for all road users. Protected intersections reduce conflict points between drivers, sidewalk users, and bicyclists by separating all modes. The separation" is achieved through corner islands that reduce vehicle turning speeds and provide an area for vehicles to wait whe yielding to bicyclists and pedestrians in the crosswalk. Protected intersections eliminate the merging and weaving movements from vehicles typically found in conventional bike lanes and shared streets. By clearly defining pedestrian and bicyclist spaces and mitigating conflicts between vehicles and vulnerable users, protected intersections provide a safer environment for all modes. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. RIGHT-TURN-ON-RED RESTRICTION w n N Oii I Q !� it s‘- ':,:. -NN '''' . t 41' )' d :' to - '1 ,, �� "� 41 2 - , , ;,,,, c" .SNi,,, ir ' , 4 2,, I -5 . i , ,, j� �'' am. �I�r`/ d$'� `'.,. v�\n ......._ " .+elf lvl� w s \, VV. 22 640 Right-turn-on-red restrictions prevent motorists from turning right(or left on intersecting one-way streets)while the traffic signal is red. Restricting this movement eliminates conflicts with pedestrians crossing in front of turning motorists. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. SAFETY ZONE (SCHOOL AND SENIOR) L IM�f'L?2L k•, a hI' 40,ki0040 SLOW 0 ZONE i - 0 If, , . / kL ' fA �E ,r x �-�s3 �s mot. i r ' TIL T , l '" F , S h �jNIy d 0� " 1 , -� ;x;: s �y *a a _ l;',n+„; ^ski•a a. i'�.v a a o a o e ` 'r'a - • - il,f Safety zones, or slow zones, are streets within a jurisdiction that are designated a slower speed limit, typically 15mph to 20mph. These slower speed limits are often used together with traffic calming elements and specific pavement markings. School, park, and senior area slow zones encourage slow speeds in areas with a high concentration of people who are at special risk on the street. Time-of-day school speed limits can be used when the school is an uncharacteristically sensitive place compared with the rest of the street. Safety zones can be implemented on a larger scale as neighborhood slow zones or district speed zones. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 641 23 SLIP LANE CLOSURE IV _, Sy y� `.. .4 3 � / +11 S - `� --- —t -. ° \ 1 ( � 't,i,'-'A \ ,,,,,,---- V,),,,..i.terl., ', , '',,,,„ - „... ‘,. , '\':-, _ ...",-.4.41,---t , - ,„,. ,-'.., \----\ ' ,lip:\ , li„.— ., ts %...t :.,... t. ___ ' q ( --- ,' Exclusive right-turn lanes might be desirable at busy intersections, but the design and control of these can have a significant impact on safety for pedestrians. Intersections with right-turns slip lanes (see illustration)are potential candidates for redesign. When slip lanes are eliminated, they reduce the overall crossing distance for pedestrians and slow the speeds of turning traffic,which in turn improve pedestrian safety. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 642 24 BEACH PATH TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS RUMBLE STRIPS T,,,,,,,,,,iz_________ .. . i....,::, : ' -- - — -7-1-' 'r''*1- - '�, °.• v .*lam: • 1 t • Rumble strips are tactile patterns constructed within the bike path to give bicyclists an audible and tactile cue that they are approaching a conflict zone or pedestrian crossing and need to be alert to the presence of pedestrians. The effect of some rumble strip designs on bicyclists can be significant if not properly mitigated, causing the bicycle to shudder violently and/or the bicyclist to lose control. Sinusoidal rumble strips are an emerging design, which may cause less disruption. Unlike milled rumble strips, the continuous surface makes it easier for bicyclists to traverse while maintaining an effective level of vibration and noise. Raised rumble strips, on the other hand, have not been found to be as effective and are not recommended because they can increase crash risks for bicyclists. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 643 25 SIGNS ICON SPEED FEEDBACK 144"#' t j "€� t <-. �: 's` .., ,ds#r"' 7� 'r]�"y ia ;, _wi l'' ,.fie*}ft, 4 K�"�i ti,. 5! .a * '; { d.a t Y.;r4 '? }.' ""„f.irm� *rt p ^*.y,y, "1„�, - ..--;!. I.:- TN r -1 t,;,.:A.--' 'y�.' t pry,. ; 1p t a w F .'#i tom' t--z ik a sr+e:EO _._- o-..�. >+�, t iron * a5 .vr � fug ., i �, q ;P` __ q_q _ r�, � t its . a s� 1! rye �A 'Z d .,+€.. .,. , . , ,,.. rr p etl Akti, Icon speed feedback signs inform approaching bicyclists that the speed at which they are traveling is appropriate. When installed in conjunction with a speed limit sign, speed feedback signs are proven to be effective in getting the attention of users. It reminds bicyclists of the speed limit and allows them to compare it with their speed to gain compliance. Icon speed feedback signs help to emphasizes the appropriate etiquette on bike paths by using icons instead of displaying the speed at which they are riding. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. SLOW SPEED ZONE, REGULATORY, ETIQUETTE, WAYFINDING 26 644 , nA •, a 1 yt { \ ? At µ Trolley Trill, y- h ,t f "CYCLISTS " • ''N -,, F m ` YIELD TO " �-;, —. +1 ; if � PEDESTRIANS / Gam``. .^'.p, d4 t -'•' ,eq y{, 7 a '• . x t 3 ` �� {gam 1, . .'a- $�`• ..1.........1 � t.. E _.. r rw. am"` *. k to « .. CYCLING ZONE ,y,.. SLOW 911Y `1 - 'y Smile to`a passerby! ,,... e."` ram" �., w--. a C'. Regulatory, guide and wayfinding signs on beach paths helps to emphasize appropriate user etiquette and inform users of intersecting routes, direct them to important destinations, and generally give information that will help them proceed along their way in a simple, direct and safe manner. Regulatory signs inform bicyclists of the areas to slow down and yield to pedestrians,while wayfinding and guide signs help path users track their locations and can enhance personal security. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 645 27 SEPARATION OF USERS . .. 9 Yy.Yr+ ._..yY G 4,p,s 4' i„ r a._r s- }lam_ t" _ \; _ i _s.-.xra gy " 4 vr, ' �` :� Y `.h • 1 t � Sky -.. x «e s, 1 "tc.`' :-'-.:e.A'y _''"' .a/+ A - ii-7t,b ru S, t s +i4d7 ei - ,e.. - - . Y {Z ^4Y� VM �' ��^L�. rh. �� ` . - - '------ - •Or - -,,-Iii,..:',0-27„„- •"1."" , ` , '741111100' 4V,;:::,•.„7?..'• ,.,,, '''''''_41*._.., s d 7...Alti, r `� a 1 Pedestrians may be separated from bicyclists and other wheeled users on any path where there is sufficient width, and it is desired to improve comfort and safety for all users by separating faster moving users from slower users. Separation of pedestrians from bicyclists may be appropriate for shared use paths with a high volume of users. Users may be separated using pavement markings, traversable surface delineation and/or physical separators like curbs and delineator posts. CMF/CRF: Unavailable. 28 646 REFERENCES [1] "Proven Safety Countermeasures," U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2021. [Online].Available: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures. [2] E. Minikel, "Cyclist Safety on Bicycle Boulevards and Parallel Arterial Routes in Berkeley, California,"January 2011. [Online].Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=221. [Accessed 2023]. [3] Kitali el al., "Developing Crash Modification Factors to Quantify Impacts of Pedestrian Countdown Signals to Drivers,"January 2017. [Online].Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=488. [4] Chen et al., "Safety countermeasures and crash reduction in New York City- Experience and lessons learned,"January 2013. [Online].Available: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=330. [5] "Crash Modification Factor for Corner Radius, Right-Turn Speed, and Prediction of Pedestrian Crashesat Signalized Intersections," U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, January 2022. [Online].Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/21105/21105.pdf. [Accessed March 2023]. 647 29 , , .1'`,,,...•...",,,',,.,'..,,,,,i, ,. ,.,., 0 xT 1 I ' ' i'_.'.,:...:* C , ,,,.., APP N Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification and NetworkRecommendations +M memorandum 1 e � r t� rv, I OLsE 527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 MEMORANDUM June 4, 2024 To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works Organization: City of Huntington Beach From: Trevor Lien and Peter Garcia Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Re: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Identification and Network Recommendations This memorandum outlines the methodology and factors considered to recommend potential Pedestrian Focus Corridors in Huntington Beach (HB). Table 1 summarizes potential corridors and Figure 1 displays a map visualizing the network. Table 2 and Figure 2 displays recommended phasing of Pedestrian Focus Corridors, with the phasing process lead by City insight and guidance. Table 2 also displays rough order of magnitude costs. Methodology The Project Team used a layered data-driven approach to identify potential corridors for the Pedestrian Focus Corridors network in Huntington Beach. This network relied upon a combination of existing conditions spatial analyses, City recommendations, and previous planning efforts. This approach ensures that the identified streets are those where improving pedestrian comfort, safety, and access in the City would be most impactful. City input and guidance on Pedestrian Priority Corridors' phasing ensures implementation feasibility. The diverse datasets and factors ghat were used in developing the Pedestrian Focus Corridors network ensure that it includes streets where safety improvements are needed due to high levels of traffic stress as well as existing high'pedestrian activity. Datasets were loaded into geographic information systems (GIS)software to analyze and visualize where Pedestrian Focus Corridors are highest. Datasets included analyses of stressful crossing locations, high level of traffic stress (LTS) segments (LTS 3 or LTS 4), land use data, among others, which are described in further detail below. The project team also reviewed pedestrian crashes and high-injury networks identified in the City's recently completed Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Corridors were then grouped where factors, such as high-stress crossings and/or historical crashes, showed overlapping and concentrated data along a corridor. For example, Corridor D—Beach Boulevard has several high-ridership transit stops, higher LTS segments, and historically high crash locations, while Corridor H—Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street/Main Street has a pattern of high-stress crossings, high population density, and a cluster of popular destinations. The following factors were used to identify the Pedestrian Focus Corridors. The terms in parentheses are used to summarize descriptions in the spatial dataset export and in Table 1. ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN BUILDIB4g'r IT • City-recommended priority intersections and corridors (City Input) » Source: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department • Corridors with high bicycle and pedestrian collisions (Crashes) » Source: HB LRSP 2022 Figure 5.2 » High collisions indicated by higher density of collision clusters • Wide gaps between crossing opportunities (Crossing Distance) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis (Map 1) » Wide gap is determined by nearest low stress of signalized crossing is greater than 0.25 miles away • High pedestrian stress intersections (LTS) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis (Table 1 to Table 5) » High stress intersection (LTS 3 or LTS 4) based on traffic volumes, number of lanes, speed limit, and traffic,control type • High pedestrian stress corridors (High Pedestrian Stress Corridor) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Pedestrian Crossing Stress Analysis and GIS repository » High stress pedestrian corridor if all crossings are high stress (LTS 3 or TS 4) • High ridership transit stops (Transit) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report, Transit Analysis (Figure 14) » High ridership transit stop if transit stop if one of the top ten transit stops by ridership • Population density by census tract(Population Density) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository(American Communities Survey 2020 data) » Proximal or intersecting an 80th percentile population density census tract(high density) • Land uses accessed by vulnerable populations such as schools, senior centers, and parks with facilities (Vulnerable Populations) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository » Vulnerable population land use if land use data is school, senior center, and/or park with facilities • Popular destinations and trip generators, such as supermarkets and commercial land uses (Destinations) » Source: HB MIP Existing Conditions Report and GIS repository » Popular destination if land use data is supermarket, commercial, and/or retail Table 1 below lists Pedestrian Focus Corridors and factors that determined their inclusion. Corridors that experienced multiple issues that affect pedestrian safety and/or generate pedestrian activity have secondary and tertiary factors assigned. Table 2 below groups Pedestrian Focus Corridors by phasing grouping, and also displays the rough order of magnitude cost. Figure 1 shows a map of recommended Pedestrian Focus Corridors in Huntington Beach. Figure 2 shows a map of Pedestrian Focus Corridors and phasing. 650 2 Table 1: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Corridor Name CORRIDOR From TO OVERLAPPING FACTORS GROUPING EDINGER A Bolsa Chica Street .Beach. High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Crashes, AVENUE Boulevard Destinations GOLDENWEST A Bolsa Avenue Edinger Avenue High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, LTS, Destinations STREET GOTHARD A Center Avenue Edinger Avenue Destinations, Transit STREET ATLANTA B Lake Street Magnolia Street Vulnerable Populations, Destinations, LTS AVENUE MAGNOLIA B Atalanta Avenue Pacific Coast Vulnerable Populations, Destinations, LTS STREET Highway NEWLAND B Pacific Coast Hamilton Destinations, LTS STREET Highway Avenue HAMILTON B Newland Street Magnolia Street Destinations, LTS AVENUE BEACH C Edinger Avenue Garfield Avenue Transit, Pedestrian High Stress Corridor, Crashes, BOULEVARD Population Density, LTS GOLDENWEST D Warner Avenue Pacific Coast High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,Vulnerable STREET Highway Populations, Destinations, Crossing Distance WARNER E Pacific Coast Algonquin LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance AVENUE Highway Street ALGONQUIN E Warner Avenue Heil Avenue LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance STREET HEIL AVENUE E Algonquin Street Saybrook Lane LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance SAYBROOK E Heil Avenue Edinger Avenue LTS, Population Density, Crossing Distance LANE BROOKHURST F Garfield Avenue Indianaplos High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,Transit, STREET Avenue Destinations, Population Density INDIANAPOLIS F Brookhurst Street Lake Street High Pedestrian Stress Corridor,Transit, AVENUE Destinations, Population Density PACIFIC COAST G Huntington Street 17th Street LTS, Population Density, Destinations,Transit HIGHWAY 17TH STREET G Pacific Coast. Main Street LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit Highway MAIN STREET G 17th Street Yorktown LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit Avenue 651 3 Table 2: Pedestrian Focus Corridors Phasing and Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates Corridor Name Corridor Phasing Rough Order of Magnitude Grouping Cost Estimates Edinger Avenue . A Phase 1 $4,360,000 Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia B Phase 1 $3,990,000 Street/Hamilton Avenue Warner Avenue/Algonquin Street/ E Phase 1 $4,260,000 Heil Avenue/Saybrook Lane Pacific Coast Highway/ 17th G Phase 1 $1,340,000 Street/Main Street Beach Boulevard C Phase 2 $600,000 Goldenwest Street D Phase 3 $380,000 Brookhurst Street/ Indianapolis F Phase 3 $1,300,000 Avenue 652 4 Figure 1•. Map of Recommended Pedestrian Focus Corridors 0. i -..,•,,, p .„,,,,--,,, : , i,..„1 i , , 1 .,. 0 0_ j „,,,,,,it, -j; , w•ol,-- tl ,4 , -,,o- , ,- i . • : (--,.. -, .,....,,,,„„ •:--- - "2....-..''=.-,::.:.''....,„„.. -,--= :"..--,Ilia.-..-::;-- ---F-'-'• 'I , ' Lk Z "--- -;-',..---- ,..--. ' '..:q"'''.--'''-71 1 '' s ',- ., 7/;'''' if L . 1 ...------1- tr,_,— ',.. Li Li 4. .[:.1: -7.,;',--,...,. -•.. - - - -,__, ,-,- „..•_•_.__- - - ' ,-, • --- ,Ts .71-1,..... , 7-t, . .1.1,-'„ m i ,,,,,,•„: - •• ' • ,:. -- '-!;,.. dL - - - ---0-7.--,j.,-_-_-,..--_,,, ..,,, ._...., , • ,- .-.....-_ Edinger--Ave.,...— .,;,.,,..,p xr ff1.',.i.,,::--",,:t.), %,:p!..•,,i!,,Itir,„;PA7',' *-61.4 '''..- 11-:-_,:",li17 1,_-• ,..„....-..‘.,.,',71p,,,,1i,1—i,i,,i n 1-_eT11.E,r' -,1 ,a„c), .„'—....--.'..t-'--F,..'Fe,-.l''rk1FL.0-v.1r e"1:j4.,l4,_t''•LL.i't I o-t•:,lEi.r*,,'—-'-:-•C3--1'_1"-:1,'—',.W'r 7,-<,Fi:-,L.;',1,'--_'r--f--.z---,'.:,..1.'..th-„,--1"-',',7,,*,-'J t1_-.-_,`-----rt.—,'''.1'‘-;,I,EN--,---,.,-'+,.-J'i'i;''l',,,---.,,-•7.,,,',',,,".,',;,.•.,,,._-,-,---','„--.,-'.-.../.-::.--.,.'-:.),iI:., „'g:---.m n - Vivi J Squa-i--7o-a r * ter \ F ''-,: l .".-.- ,..11 ..- -., , Talbert Av ,. . - - - :-- -i t e..,t,_•,_ ;,__;__ , 1 17' LE)t,' ' l',-'• — - II .:',---- - ,,' Eliis---A,vc:t 41;-._ i I .Eiris,AV-e L:r "i,,r,,,17-.3 .., ,!-11'.bi 41 — '',-4.k.r `'/I.AP- -r' - 's- 6-- I o''' ,,,. .r.• to-r c a le — .,, _ ._,,,.,.—.„, -saildt...,., • , i \ \r- -,:::,‘,„..._4-.....surnmite)'":: s.7.yi, -ri,- 4--.4•T=g e-.'-,',..= _L-, — ,-, • •,, \,,......._....ek '-7,.,,, ..c.,?,/-.... y,..•-•-1 ••....,,,1_,-,_ „...,LITL.:Q . ir-Tit„,,,- .//, •47,(,,,,,,5> /Xko- . -2 fl lt 1-77-4-qq-7----17 ilq rh,,,,..,), ,=Lii lU.7,7? , ,,,. . .„_.IS%',.';'-*,-, 55 _Ep.,..;11 ,,,,..., 1,4-,L,S, ;,=.0,1,t7',79'. e 7,..11 , •-.'' ,. . . I . .,;, .„ ....,, 22 ry.2:„. ,0,•fp,-..„;;. 1 7,-, r 7 n 1 ,..---- ,, ----1 ''''''••,,, -• - • '?,,,y ••,-... L_Icu I -;, ,iiii ,,,,,1_, T,,.-.4)-E.:„1 ti ,-.A,,- --, ,, i • 4 • l'''' >4-0„ju-,-: ..z. I. 0- Ica ,,,;;), ' II:Atlanta-Ave:717i 411125 31,,, .2 0 ,, ' •... i ,---I lir' Hamilibn4iti , „,-----,-' ,A H 1;i= 1 •-1`,',....,.; ,: Pedestrian Corridors A- , ?. Benrdng1 Ave./ Edinger Avenue ' N ''''''''',,;:',.. , . -, , , - B-Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia Street/Hamilton Avenue 7 imp C-Beach Boulevard D-Goldenwest Street E-WarnerAvenue/Algonquin Street/Saybrook Lane 4111111 F-Brookhurst Street/Indianapolis Avenue G-Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street A °I. 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi , lentowl 1 Huntington Beach Mobillty Plan 653 5 Figure 2: Map of Recommended Phasing of Pedestrian Focus Corridors 'I �� tom, It `3 , f k'I a t r ' i 1;, ' 11, t _� f ---- _ Bolsa 'Ave Em ° 1il 11�—u-- .,,,.- ».,� H d E t . i I l7 rn , Li -+-tom _1 t t. r` Edinger�Ave H--E1 a'.. S , } r '• >` "-4'.i HetlLAve 0 44'Pf--,c.::;;;...P:ifff-777f—;-'' '.%it iff4;f1-krffc,;117 i•f';'''li 'fii If Mile 1 " lice }A m Square, (6 Park N., CQ Warner Ave �r _I �� N L i "a I � Slater Avert; 1 It =_ a 1 - _ Y h I 9 ~�_a �� rit � -- i ry Y h Talbert Aver i`� s/ Ellis Ave lE Ellis-Ave s t y�i # `©f �- { k tH. C t r I - l I ! ,r ,� 1 ! J bu��,G.adield�Ave' - y jl ciEI4ve if. _ `� ) // L ,,> '4ve �cS 4 r` 0_`'Ad mA a Et t3 --;,..-c 's 0..,,4. .4,_-:°"",'''''i ,i,,°I'"::'.2 ,,,.,'Tro , -,,---ti_.i t---.-, y .,, V ,O trE t -tt � 7 e R ;fit Pedestrian Corridors >` ^fi m I `i � 4 ," ✓ 5 Hamiltonn,,Ave I A Edinger Avenue � , . _"t _. ��7,Li `t B-Atlanta Avenue/Magnolia Street/Hamilton Avenue aairnrn Ave l C—Beach Boulevard 4�` D-Goldenwest Street _ lIMO E-WarnerAvenue/Algonquin Street/Saybrook=Lane �� s impio F-Brookhurst Street/Indianapolis Avenue 1 G-Pacific Coast Highway/17th Street 3 ' Pedestrian Corridor Phasing 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi I^ N Lam! I Huntington Beach Mobility Plan . 654 6 • APPENDIX D Bicycle Network Recommendations and • Implementation Memorandum • • — — d • • • • �.� 527 W. 7TH STREET 213,257.8660 SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 MEMORANDUM June 4, 2024 To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works Organization: City of Huntington Beach From: Trevor Lien, Peter Garcia Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Re: Bicycle Network Recommendations and Implementation Phasing This memorandum summarizes the methodology used to identify future-focused bicycle network improvements in Huntington Beach (HB), as well as a recommended bicycle facility locations,types, and phasing. These recommendations will close existing bicycle network gaps, support a reduction in the level of traffic stress that people bicycling experience on high speed and volume roadways, and support comfort improvements of all users regardless of age or ability. The methodology is based on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide, as well as manual recommendations based on local needs (i.e., community needs and existing conditions evaluation)and past plans (i.e., 2017 General Plan—Circulation Element, 2013 Bicycle Master Plan). Included in this memorandum is a map of the existing bicycle network, a map of the proposed bicycle network, phasing strategies, and the total mileage of existing and'recommended bicycle facilities. Methodology The bicycle network methodology included a data driven approach reinforced by the Project Team's local knowledge of the City. The Project Team used a combination of geographic information systems (GIS)software and Structured Query Language (SQL)to develop logic around the generated network.The generated network used the city's existing roadway conditions(i.e., posted speed limits, street classification, and average daily traffic volumes)to determine the minimum suggested bicycle facility based on the nationally recognized best practice the FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide. The FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide recommends the suitable bikeway facility based on a roadway design, traffic volumes, and speed. Figure 1 shows the recommended bikeway type based on a roadway's traffic volume and speed within an urban context. As the traffic volume and speed on a roadway increases, so does the level of protection needed for people bicycling to feel comfortable in these settings. For instance, shared lanes or bicycle boulevards are most effective when built on slow, low traffic residential streets, but would provide little benefit to lowering the exposure of people bicycling on arterial roadways where separation would be more impactful. ENVISIONING WHAT COULD BE, THEN RUILDIGSS* IT &oad'Yypolggy Volume(AOT}; Posted Speed mph) Base 5uggesterl FaciCity. ° ° Status MPH ►aasslci'a� d ststi ► ryir,$Pd ►vb'sslll„i lne 9 l uLfp a'3 MPH ► oje sd�l prhfee[ed FHWA Road mA1is . Case*.Eike Lane(Suff8r) Typology ' irbl�rban4. ► s4 _9„a> �� 1Vlanual Check Based on ° yC)ads 1stotu tea ;a ► tocai'Knowledge and >35sniplla ►g,e :Aljfe 4. Engineering Ndgement >7k am IV%,ergat,:cted Legend 4' °>35tnph Tool'Iopus 7'nal Outpue--1 „Peae6'p Figure 1: Minimum Suggested Bicycle Facility Using FHWA Best Practice Guidance The Project Team also made manual additions/edits to the network based on variables not captured in the generated bike network, such as policies and recommendations from previously adopted plans. The first round of adjustments added facilities to roadways that provided low stress intra-neighborhood connections, mid-block improvements, and access to popular destinations (i.e., schools, commerce, recreation areas). Further, the Project Team used Strava heatmaps (Figure 2), a fitness based social media website that provides heatmaps of popular bicycling routes, to incorporate network connections to areas with latent demand for bicycling. Strava data utilizes millions of location-based services (LBS)data points to aggregate daily trips; data visualized in the heatmap is from the last two years, and is updated monthly. The off-street network recommendations, made of paths on trails or along channels, were informed by previously adopted off-street recommendations in the 2017 General Plan (Figure CIRC-5), City insights, and Project Team local insight and engineering judgment. This methodology takes into consideration existing conditions and roadway analysis to recommend the minimum suggested bikeway facility for a given roadway context.The proposed recommendations are future-focused, and rooted in best practices to provide the most inclusive treatments for people of all ages and abilities. However,the recommendations need to be assessed further for physical and political feasibility, potential impacts to movement of freight and vehicular traffic, and funding constraints. In instances where the proposed facility is not feasible,the next best facility should be sought, following this hierarchy: Class IV—Protected Bikeways,then Class II — Buffered Bike Lanes, then Class II —Bike Lanes, then Class III —Bike Boulevards.Alternative facilities should still prioritize the comfort and safety of people bicycling and should still align as closely as possible to the Bikeway Selection Guide chart shown in Figure 1. 657 2 a y:- �;�� �} Dsshbaaed v Raining v Explore v Challenges CL tt t III ^ Global Heatmap — ' f rf - t m ter wes}m { • � '"�.. � _ � r j. ° .J iF � Rj j �.3 .o � i ,� (sue.-.max I. o - rOUt7�l:ff Y 3 r pip It T M 1 Y _ +' fi:Cr ., , ak , 7, Figure 2: Huntington Beach Strava Heatmap; shows latent cyclist demand for the last two years(2/1/21 —2/1/23) 658 3 Recommendations and Phasing Strategy The City's existing bike network is made up of 72% Class II Bike Lanes or 73 miles of a total 101.5 miles (Table 1), a map of existing bike facilities is shown in Figure 3. The recommended bike network reflects the on the ground road conditions in HB. Facilities like Class II Bike Lanes or Class III Bike Boulevards are found on roadways where space is a constraint, but vehicle traffic or speeds are not high enough to invest in separation. Recommended Class IV Separated Bike Lanes are predominantly found on high stress roads, such as Edinger Avenue or Atlanta Avenue. Currently there are few buffered or separated facilities existing aside from those found on Delaware Street and Atlanta Avenue. Recommended Class I Shared Use Paths are found along existing City assets, or OC Public Works jurisdiction that could be transformed, such as abandoned/disused railways and flood control channels. Table 1:Total Existing Bicycle Network Miles Facility Type Existing (Miles) Existing % Class I Shared Use Path 20 19% Class II Bike Lane 73 72% Class II Buffered Bike Lane 6 5% Class III Shared Lane 2.5 2% Class III Bicycle Boulevard - Class IV Separated Bike Lane 3 2% TOTAL. 101.5 Miles The bike network recommendations are segmented into two implementation phases. Phasing is intended to progress existing bike facilities toward more comfortable facilities that are suitable for all ages and abilities or installing new bike facilities if none exist. This can mean upgrading a Class II Bike Lane to a Buffered Class II Bike Lane as space permits in Phase 1, and potentially in Phase 2 a further upgrade to a Class IV Separated Bike Lane. • Phase 1 Bike Network—projects that can be considered for implementation in the next one to five years o Easily implemented (sign/stripe)projects within existing roadway section • Phase 2 Bike Network—projects that can be considered for implementation in the next five to ten years o Expansions and/or upgrades to the existing bike network, but may require more planning or further analysis; can be part of the City's ten-year repaving capital program for an efficient use of resources The Phase 1 bike network recommends a total of 26.8 miles of new or upgraded facilities. Along the Phase 1 corridors, 2.3 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways exist. Planned mileage is shown in Table 2. The Phase 2 bike network recommends an additional 36.2 miles of bike facilities. Less than one mile of the Phase 2 corridors is a Class IV Separated Bikeway(0.7 miles). In total, both phases represent 63 miles of proposed bike network improvements. There are 20.7 miles of Class I Off-Street Shared Use Paths independent of the on-street phasing mileage;full details listed in Table 2. 659 4 Table 2: Phase Recommendation Summary Mileage and Costs Totals for Phase 1 Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II -Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $210,625 Class Ill -Bike Boulevard 2.5 $ 705,462 Class IV-Separated Bikeway 23.6 $ 11,337,000 TOTAL 26.8 $ 12,253,087 Existing Class IV-Separated Bikeway 2.3 N/A Total for Phase 2 Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II -Buffered Bike Lane 0.0 $0 Class III - Bike Boulevard 0.5 $ 172,625 Class IV-Separated Bikeway 35.7 $ 17,124,000 TOTAL 36.2 $ 17,296,625 • Existing Class IV-Separated Bikeway 0.7 N/A Total for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Planned Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class II - Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 $210,625 Class III -Bike Boulevard 3.0 $ 878,087 Class IV-Separated Bikeway 59.3 $28,461,000 TOTAL 63.0 $29,549,712 Existing Class IV-Separated Bikeway 3.0 N/A Proposed Off-Street (Phasing Independent) Miles Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Class I—Off-Street Multi-Use Path 20.7 $40,423,500 Figure 4 shows the Phase 1 bike network corridors, and Figure 6 shows the Phase 1 corridors relative to what is existing and proposed based on the methodology describe above. Similarly, Figure 5 and Figure 7 show the Phase 2 bike network corridors and recommendations. Table 2 lists the miles of proposed bike corridors for Phase 1 and Phase 2. The bike network future-focused recommendations recommend 35.7 miles and 59.3 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways in Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively. These represent a majority of network upgrades for each of the two phases. These recommendations are not prescriptive, but intended to be targets to strive for. In some cases,the installation and/or upgrade of bike facilities along the proposed corridors may not be feasible. However, as need, priority, and political will changes these can be re-considered for implementation. The highest possible protective facility should be sought as projects are assessed. Rough order of magnitude cost estimates presented in Table 2 are based on the per mile costs assumptions listed in Table 3. These assumptions are based on 2023 adjusted numbers for each of the facility types and provide a high-level overview. More detailed cost estimates will need to be developed for specific facility designs. 660 5 " `.Ea_ 2; t F ��T � - ?- al ��,{ 'ice,--, -y p ... ' :7-',.'n:',;-,'" — '' 'Kss, 1„1,1„,_._, - Li''.'s-T _,.4,7:,717,70T t i 9 r tl .' {k . ij .(i Balsa � ` P up ve , r .I: E ilf w �� w r � i54 I r � i aataaa .�" _ EdingerAve.. ' � o __ c i ( ' in. r i ( ,-, .0,ra E,� Ir,�,, �,eyq t om', '*,' t #" Imo. s . ,,,'Ad l-Ed -1 ivm„e' ' y, t I -- - ' A r HeEl pve` "� Ire - � ` Af E i� 5tJU8f2 I p ' 's- i = CCa I w. �i � r7. rjc, `„,!I � ': ' Park ' '� ;. 1 ' - 3.f' � 1-. 1 �S�llater Ave} 3sk.C3 r r , _ ); ` ii ,\ �q.� r ,�'ti i[ oq ii e • a,.""?Lk.a+ t_ -aid Vj E F ° !� H` ,Ta1bert t. Aver ),}, ' ,1 1 ,, ,� " EU �s � Ellis Ave � � I��A-Avg I ._ .. .? Y' 7' •� ,� !? � t ,��° 41% b 3.. i-S "i- r,_�I GarihelarAve _ -;_ 1+ � ?rmmit O a . t .454. a "`.I _+ t , ' o >,-• ,� �- .. „„ .: „: ,, , ,,,,,.., , ,:,„,.„,,,,,,,:„,„,..N .V4.4:," - k ... . �'-y "^� r of _ , ., t +,. tn,,. „r-.., s�� dnelianapolIs Ave.L J i 1, =Ci AtlantaaAv�.t. d ,?im p �, 1. Hamilton�Ave l oGea11 r Banning Ave h � aa' '=ExistingB►ke Facilities`" ``., , E -- 'Glass 1. _ § +�'# k- '' i Class II -Bike Lane, ,;, ", - , 1 Class Il Buffered Bike Lane -- Class III Shared-Lane 1 '. .—Class IV Separated Bikeway :.0 i e; `I 0 ,` 115 1 1.5 2n1 1 I: " w Huntington-Beach Mobility Plan Figure 3: Map of Existing Bike Facilities(Source: City of HB;2023) • 661 6 • .r'ti w 41 t 1 IT; - ,...� t �1 e is s 1 �.� I d F tCa . Ra` (1i-.:q f 3� `: t' t 1 iy , '�,., E Jf ;41 #Itv l y_ I,i 'ti ..-Balsa Ave IL., ...,,� .. k 1..1. E.. Y i 11,1 ; t 1 ! i ( 4tr; .�, L"? r. Viii. 4 ]-Jr w g Yl. i. Y O �ra m lY �1twal T i@,I t p,:gt§' _ i f f ;7 s i t4 ; ,' ' Edinger Av_e m - a .. - I u ti ' f= i ,. o,1 t ;—� ,0 1i :raa`-a.. Vi 'i r Hei1LAve� }11;.. E�n1 r'� I S�1u-red` t i - �! $� 1¢ 4a "-'. t , - Ro. iona1 ' WaYner Ave �r I m i � _7 1:'' pp .:;,7 t 3 fi*...^'" a w Slater Ave 3. e'. t # -1 = ,.5 m t -' i ' - N albert Ave' i Y t'rr i NH;7';,,, 0i _i, - ,', - '' , '''. - °,' ' !'J,, - 4,,,,, '''77"'"' ',.":4;.'''.% i7ti,,,,1 ",,,,4,,,,,,,,, ,*„--4 , .1-: r,,,,[.,,,:,4„,,„„,,,,,I,,y,i,,,,X,:2- ^� °vPI' �EIUs Ave ��Ellis Ave #, d i C . ,, tg, F t 3 1 i- .'' ' - ''''' ' ' ' 'N't -''''''''''' ": 1 w Garfiieiil Ave .' . , 3ummrt u`a� a-'3 -i 4' ;3, "t- ,-w in Yorktown Ave likt if,, :7 g 411111.k.,Rw '' r"�°#1 . a A �, '• dam.s ve -o �` 7 !e' I "—::'.7. ��AN Ito: a r�rindianapolis Aver din t ,- �*���E�.Atlanta Ave < o � .",, a + , 1 s Lam___#Hamtlton,eve <, 1 Pacific , �¢ E I - { C Ii ,6a nin Av.eC f _ ` Phasing - _ ewe Phase 1;(Yeer 1 - _ - 0 , G 5 =Y 1 1,5 2,m1 1 - I' is.°�� . Huntington Beach Mobility Plan Figure 4: Phase 1 (one to five years)Bike Network Corridors 662 7 • ° it t PT -1 r I i3 1. . fli � _tU f a tf. � ,tir ' „ `ems 1 ' -1- c . in I �� i g1� Balsa'Ave —y i T. 1 ti ,!q i F ti t 2p 5 - €€ I € tt t1.3.-.it .„ei1 I x 1., •'Edinger Ave 3 c� a+ :z... kill',IT r •r.{;' a �kt":5 w '1.' I z I 1 � l "� �� r,� � ��� y y1 �;fm'�, ■ ; tuffle I ,, y' r c m-a H_111,ve, _ i g yo to , 1 1 s ', :.1 Square r I I t • lam1. 1 OA, -- 1, 1 x �- ...4-! , ,u 1 $ Park �F �� Warner—Ave! � �; �� s � r{°'�� try .V '. - � + Slater'Aver 3Lit „If Pi' r 1 �" �. - "'" ��,t "'" �� ;". s 1 g is i __._ t J. _ i ' - v 1 W 1 Hfm r -1 T ibex Aver a f , ' 17 a 7' E i edd b U AveAe Ellis A t f z;1 y '' .rep • d'' . ;. 1 _ ffi�, '� o rl Gariwe[a Ave �UMM11 I5'_"4' ,1 3 - 4 ? 4Wj is A v� —Yorktown Ave' "�11 _ , 2- 7.- �� . ,- . as u�. c Adams Ave :rs` ' _ .y 1 a ,, Indianapolis Ave �+ F I, ,° :e. ' A(t'lanta Ave� m a$ '' a, 1 - -Hamilton tAve , r Pacific. - �C� '- Qceap '' E Banns Ave . ,t ,~" x , , . s , Phasing ::, a_ Phase 1 (Year 1 5) C -•.. Phase 2(Year 5-10) _ . • 0= ' 0.5. _ i ; 15 a2rn1 ' ' 1• _ _ Huntington Beach Mobility Plan 1 Figure 5: Phase 1 (one to five years)and Phase 2(five to ten years)Bike Network Corridors 663 8 z? . �`a`eq,..[I it x -..i.. (i 'Z 7 ram€ 1,.- ,,_1I i'lr 5 €t.'- -s.1t -,*.a[r:: .-.-i_..... ✓w-^ 7 t` I1 # , 1 € a I ,...,,,Ti Bolsa-Av� s `'r ` - k L ' ',to .� > �,m s s ; 1 Es i �..:..� +.. ..� V _i .. . ar _ ( t -t i .c f�i1 . f fr! (-gyp as i ' � t 1„- i tt i t I - 1 '1. Edinger�Ave _�,�,�1 a'21 'Ii_—L " i f s i l:r i 1 17: rrr,. Pro Heil�Ave L..-. `°, c'a G_ *, s - 'fi -'. i , ,,��a 1 a J � �- � � #� i(t�s t tY7 � ,_ OJT � ��t 4 3 a� Park � Warner Ave --i. .� r 1 _ _ its 3latenAve s 3 3` )) Kg 4 E 1t v I 1111,1 vo cD Talbert Ave." ' ' -1'` EIIis Ave b' El Ave. 0 ./I s f LL: I I 5 €,-.-: .y �, Garfield,.Ave , re I r — i - %r"': e, `l�F'w y ',l j t :a.s T ^ s,. 1111 ? "� y + fr, Y yg1 Nikr s o t r Y 'Nrrt`?� ;7 w..�tEnsaapolisAve r Y,,I ""- i •- gA ;}+' d i v r Attlantta Ave {r, ,, = 2t?,�r- I. ,e r It P r 1 'Pacific . Ili , /St � i; ,: , , C e a/1Banning q e` �JrrP. x j i Final Existing and Recommended Bike,Facilities In Phase 1 t i —Recommended-Class II Buffered Blke Lane ,. 4°Recommended Ciass I[l="Bike Boulevard ' • Bxisting $Class IV-Separated Bikeway fir, 1 .° ®Recommended-Class IV-,Separated Bikeway "ti` ' Facilities Outside ofaPhasing ., ,- - Recommended Off-Street_Bike-Facilities• ,`` '- , .Y r 1 t L. Huntington Beach Mobility Plan Figure 6: Map of Existing and Phase 1 (one to five years) Bike Network Recommendations 664 9 n a t P cn Boisa ;Ave_ `cam t( ' �� v� ..,.� � P ,,,_,,Lei„' { ? i 9 V su 5 � d � at" } t i C '• .a. _Edinger Ave,. � v w!t-' _- i - ( t s� r i d x o,� tier,1 TO um N7G h. 3""""�` ti C t......•'-'-'7-1 . Via,-7, '*:"Fr 1_,,--ffil -'-'''' :1;;,rj-,,,3),LIT,;:i ' Park ,, 7! ' L#/., is Hei(i.Ave ei ie 1r9I � ).. a I�:if-FT.!. '< square ifs _ Warner Ave 71��; tA , I �� ' r # Slaterl:Ave; at. f•. '" i�� ,,,. i ice" « gg ! N!-:"l' �.3 A c ' V ° ��� _ �, *'� � E T�albe�rt Ave` !( � � � �� 2, „, w Ellis Ave i : 1 s L EUis Ave '1 - j _' ti 1 ' > , s 1 `-Irtit i�;lL.Garfield Ave _.,� e' ummit . a� _ .�' -, � t�� _ _ _ iv `'as". m 3--:a3? 3' ' . � �; m '-=t' c .� #r O p- '-14- `d?9 t' — .. `,;Indian,I--sAve r' y*---7t Y C ' 0 ' V !i';_ Atlanta;Ave C3 2 .V . 'fin e+.O! T. T � f if p ',.. } :Hamilton.Ave a fV - ,��GifIC a 11 s4 g,"' t i Q G $1 6aL Ave, j Final Existmg4and Recommended Bike Facilities in,Phases 1 and 2 x —Recommended-Glass II Buffered Bike Lanes '�, �B v Recommended.-Glass III-:Bike Boulevard`• ¢= Existing-Class IV--Separated Bikeway• ., ' , Recommended-Class IV separated Bikeway r L.� Facilities Outside of,Phasing - `` i -' Recommended Off-Street'Bike Facilities • 0 0.5` 1 `15 2mi „ Huntington Beach Mobility Plan ! 1 Figure 7: Map of Existing,and Phase 1 (one to five years)and Phase 2(five to ten years)Bike Network Recommendations 665 10 Table 3: Cost Assumptions per Bike Facility Type per Mile Bike Facility Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Assumptions per Mile Class I Off-Street Shared Use Path $ 1,950,000 Class II Bike Lane $290,000 Class II Buffered Bike Lane $330,000 Class IV Separated Bikeway $480,000 Class III Bike Boulevard (traffic circles,and paint. and post for curb extensions) $280,000 The following images (Figure 8 to Figure 13) provide examples of each bikeway facility type. Refer to the Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan's (MIP) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Beach Path Toolkit for further information on each bikeway facility. 666 11 1 y t Hi "Ya. a ., ,4 3 V.1, n:pi s ae ! ,f x. ;«a't »s '°? _ � i `I -y psi°x 1 • s 0 .0.7r-7;.- t.-1, :,t,?,-It, a��1 "" r1 Y sae ?x G' 6 *y^'°w .0�.:,;,.:1:41"'r k 4C,"�,,a� a ``+`, r 6 F e' NIARdM ��� • k x. t4 ,yA 4� O ,A� �, ....a3A °*.t`a 7y _ to ov t y fir �,s Figure 8: Class I—Off-Street Shared Use Path F Beach Shared Use Path) ` 4' --' (Huntington Figure 9: Class II—Bike Lane (Huntington Beach, Edwards Street) , 4itti.??, % firyi. ...,,iti ' . t<. ,,-, - , „ ,k.„„„„ ,.‘tti•.,0.69.1to/p Ow-,,:00 , ti- ' ‘ 14;:ill - - r,1 t I . ',. ,:r M f'...,,,r a:T '�' —'— su " - � } < °'S�k fires, t ,, s�. f ,p.-c a•` '. _ L.F , �, a .{, ,• f is ., 'b,: r a} .r 4'M �; , r �t '�wi aka.. g 1,..,}' ,.,*+ L -!,. ^"xd .ks. ? . s x - `a &1, e'i .r � f+, t ,, s fi ,w`, p x 1+S i+ r <„�+"S r, ,, 4' y, T ^ S H ..- 4.�ir --r-f dv" y 7 S .. .: v 'fir ' .ry ',, —.rt. � aq. ,"o's ; i ti • ,:. a`T,...._:yJGL^:r4 ..� .. itr'b`»�.`'.` ..� r �, ;w,`hr+'.,% i �,� , >d 3 �. Figure 10: Class II—Buffered Bike Lane Figure 11: Class Ill—Bicycle Boulevard (Huntington Beach,Algonquin Street) (Huntington Beach,South Pacific Avenue) 667 12 ie pp ice '',y 44 to dt 'b .� ' a..�" �+ �� ". _a:Mir, 7,,,, ' ,—':: . +9tg, ,,,,r1.t.!!"....1 , ,,- ,, ,,. u. , „„,,. tin2 ....,_; _- 1?. .� _.per ( � t z { ..,s 'x:; 't. /-� .1 dam" "".,a'RN,y .. k .., 't'`h w a4" 4, *a„ 4. ;1,,, �: v " .< •,s:. '° b`x' , a..,,, d+'h@ _ .l'� .ti. ' 46 c, $ .ire m ti4 t*" i. ��aa����+ �1 yt wW ,,+.... -5:'.� - V°-,ATgPs'11T M.c t,.- ., 3.y*x'".`4Y. m �@� "X� F Figure 12: Class IV—One-Way Separated Bikeway Figure 13: Class IV—Two-Way Separated Bikeway (Huntington Beach, Delaware Street) (Outside of Huntington Beach) , 668 13 • ,,..'..Z t Alb • o N II IX E 4. .. App Beach Path Observations and • 0_ 1 i n Memorandum Recommendat o s r . . ,...„ .. � . - � v y . j .,. sw 1 213.257.8680 '`- 527 W. 7TH STREET SUITE 701 TOOLEDESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 MEMORANDUM June 4, 2024 To: Chau Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works Organization: City of Huntington Beach From:Trevor Lien, Peter Garcia, Toole Design Project: Huntington Beach Mobility Plan Re: Beach Path Observations&Recommendation This memorandum includes a review of existing issues and opportunities on the Huntington Beach Bike Path identified during field visits. It also includes recommendations to improve the comfort and user experience of rolling and walking on the Beach Path. Some issues identified include inconsistent signage that may be confusing to the user and problematic mixing of various modes at high-traffic crossings. The recommendations in this memorandum focus on improving the user experience,while ensuring the path is comfortable for users of all ages and abilities. Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are included in Appendix 3. The Project Team separated the Beach Path into the following segments based on path characteristics and for ease of organizing challenges and opportunities, as shown in Table 1. Exhibit 1 includes a map of the segments. Table 1: Study Segment Breakdown Segment Number From To Segment 1 Seapoint Street Goldenwest Street Segment 2 Goldenwest Street(Upper Path) 11th Street(Upper Path) Segment 3 Goldenwest Street(Lower Path) 11th Street(Lower Path) Segment 4 11th Street 1st Street Segment 5 1st Street Beach Boulevard rAivmplig tift* ,.. �, : ��, , e ,, °x r � + 0 4""1C14,7 _ Vs Exhibit 1: Map of Study Segments ENVISIONING WHAT COULD DE, THEN BUILDI t IT Issues and Opportunities Field Observations The Project Team conducted a field visit of the Beach Path on August 19, 2022 and recorded observed existing issues and constraints. Key issues and opportunities were categorized for consistency and normalization across the different segments of the paths. The major categories, as found in Appendix 1, are: ■ Speed Suitability • Volume • Line of Sight Width • Usage Typology • Comfort • Path Alignment ■ Special Zone • Signage ■ , Separation • Condition • Intersection • Traffic Control Devices On-site observations are documented in the Field Observation Table (Appendix 1). Observations were also documented via photographs. Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4 show a spectrum of typical scenes along the path. �r. is�d. . ,,,Ni ...! ae r �� • • SA• a 2x •�s '� 6 �'se 3 _ s • • a $ i • „. %•-•'It.,. • •4.- •- • '41'4% '''''',„*. 'I.":•1.1;..,Jr lipie,"-- �^'S^t"-.".- 3 � `�� � 14;4♦;{ # � "-3.1.1 # ma's;" "> r t .. b• '' tT �- .i ' ( 225°�{ .1;'° t :.t f 1G J5*7.a,...4� a r .a4=xa„.:�..• ____..r,m'2� .,.:rr.,,,,. ^L� ' ? '. ar y•X {lw� f,. "r #Y J e 'I $ ,x 4 , �" irk 4 Y x . `` - :...j d3 to-` - {. d'�` 01 • e, ,za ..' . 2ax xa-''' �a• q.* i, {Y �•fi a,fi 1V L48 �.b.n. ,3P '5 - ' ,.. •' 4; . .tx" "s^" cx ' .," h fi_"w R$ ux 4a ` '1tl r.�a:;" `8 a y. m ., , '4d .. .:F ;+ l ' -v pa -; ., . ` i '.i a � ' ae.Yee " 'I` , *-7%.''': *' :. -7'; .:::;-: '•,::':c::7* '.:1,,,. :' fl' ,I.:1,,;.,:..,:i.Ai ,., • m 5 ,p Y .. . -i4 ` `Y �' ' `� .. �'k, n�, 'n d:Ta. FT 5@k- k°:•a 'e� Y`": .rC n ," Csn:ai • Exhibit 2: Segment 2-Upper Bluff Path Bicycle and Pedestrian Separation (August 2022); credit Toole Design Group 671 2 £ ZL9 dnoio u6!sea a!ool;!Paso :(ZZOZ;sn6ny)siasn;o iti!saan!a-g;uaw6aS 47;lqu4x3 p-,,,, -,t,,�s- r<yA p#k I `, +r; ,lac,kr.r"x l *s A: ft ,, t,iy Ef ,2 i `,,4 s 7 ; -�', �',x fi .--,4'- ^S" ',v,5"" k,a '4.VW k,f,r.z `4'€`�; 4" ,,,,r'wG , k ',vw�r+i. :,` �� ,.,,t fY �r1 r *- y� �'w ''e4 ,.,,rt.``,-�"0` Y ,° a.r .a:4%.,lee .»dam y -q. t -,44 ki �" u � t +�s' �' .� � <yea � t i�SEI �hf � t " � �-`��`d`m ��-I` I 13i ""k'� ,*i� ��„.:�n > -ice tr F AP' '"`7 YQ�� r4�{ :fit ' r k .' pp/xa s o -1 p' a[7 x�' `/ u # t'.r,1F-t ` .'Y.....'............P,Air � r •'J.-ti -ro.,�,, i 1:-.P ",:;`' iiiht ILL r p, k y fr # . am fi Y cis `,`j -`````YYq'.�� + ,. ..41,: t, F f �� - dnoi9 u6!sea 01001;!pa-10 :(ZZOZ;sn6ny)eze!d Ja!d o;!ew!xoad o!J eJl JnoH mead-g;uaw6aS :£;!q!gx3 ... "'`"rry ,. s .-, ,r dam a ' - jn,,a' .✓ ti.„ -�� x' • _•'4'� �,„ Nryam. a` fK,# ,,' t.,;„ ..11,--0,, ...-,..r.:..., ,,...__:13/47,,,, 'i;:;,-;,;1''''''-'-r-'-'-'..1:;.:, "-•.7.,:.'',..T.;7.:,'.."I's' I :" ..1.1 .vv�� pi t i '* ... t;'=, k'4 ' wj ' �:+.1a , 414. •.4."1 '� d4 ,t 1 X 1d y� a ,-b.^ " ,ate ' 1iiir Nur . .-`4::i 4 ,f, rat , e..d 7; •1, p+..,. s R -— w ajQ, '�3 4 - h tTy f° 1 o Q t' * 4 `-" .31 ,, rt,:; ,, s .°. P - - yt f _ 30;• s r Key Issues and Opportunities Table 2 summarizes common issues observed along the Beach Path. Issues ranged from modal mixing at pinch points to signage and visual communication inconsistencies that may result in user confusion. Example segments are provided as reference. Table 2: Common issues found in the Beach Path Issue Description Example Segment Sight line issues Blind spots created by garbage Segment 4— 11th Street to 1st Street cans, building protrusion, vendors/ amenities spill onto path I Traffic mixing Potential crash conflicts may arise Segment 4—11th Street to 1st Street from areas in the path where there is no demarcation to keep pedestrian and bicyclist traffic separate;width is not sufficient Inconsistent signage Posted signs on the path Segment 1 —Seapoint Street to communicate inconsistent Goldenwest Street information, causing confusion among Beach Path users. For example, different posted speeds within a short distance of each other may confuse users Constrained space Path reaches capacity during peak Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to season, limiting available space for 11th Street(Lower Path) users and increasing conflict risks Confusing pavement markings Particularly in mixing zones, Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to pavement markings poorly 11th Street(Lower Path) communicate whether pedestrians or bicyclists are allowed in that segment of the path Pedestrian and vendor activity In popular areas where people Segment 4— 11th Street to 1st Street spills onto path congregate, pedestrians and vendors tend to encroach onto the path, creating a potential crash risk Lack of Centerline and Separation Lack of centerline or delineation Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to makes it unclear to bicyclists where 11th Street(Lower Path) to remain to prevent head on crashes with other bicyclists 673 4 Recommendations The following recommendations aim to improve the overall user experience by enhancing comfort. These treatments will build upon previous and planned Beach Path improvements, ensuring a future-focused Beach Path that is suitable and welcoming to users of all ages and abilities. A seamless user experience, with minimal conflicts arising between bicyclists and pedestrians, will lay the foundation for a positive social experience and a culture that embraces active transportation and suitable Beach Path travel speeds. Table 3 summarizes some treatments represented in the recommendations found in Appendix 2 that seek to improve the user experience on the Beach Path. Maps with more detailed recommendations are provided in Appendix 2.The Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan Toolkit(Bicycle, Pedestrian, Beach Path) is a resource that provides more details on additional treatments. Table 3: Common treatment recommendations Treatment Description Example Segment Centerline Striping a centerline or striping that Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to separates modes, will help users 11th Street(Lower Path) understand where to travel along the path Pedestrian crossings Clear and visible pedestrian Segment 1 —Seapoint Street to crossings, such as artistic Goldenwest Street crosswalks, will alert bicyclists to reduce their speed as they approach a crossing Intersection improvements in Improvements at mixing zones, such Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to mixing zones as signalization or traffic calming 11th Street(Lower Path) treatments, will reduce conflict risk in areas where pedestrians and bicyclists share the Beach Path Establish uniform speed limit A singular display of speed limit Segment 4— 11th Street to 1st Street expectations will help all users travel at the desired speed 674 5 1®®OLE 527 W. 7TH STREET 213.257.8680 SUITE 701 TOOLEOESIGN.COM DESIGN LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 APPENDIX Appendix 1 — Beach Path Audit (collected on August 19, 2022 from 10:30am to 2:30pm) Segment 1(Seapbir9t Segment'2 Segment 3 Category Specification Street to (Goldenwest Street (Goldenwest Street Segment 4(11th Segment 5(1st Street Goldenwest Street) to 11th Street— to 11th Street= Street to 1st Street) to Beach Boulevard) __ Upper Path) Lower Path.) _ Speed No posted speed limit 5 mph, 10 mph; Posted speed limit 5 mph, 10 mph 5 mph,10 mph when peds are 10 mph 10 mph present Observed average speed 7-11 mph 8_12 mph 5-10mph 7-11mph 8-12 mph Observed maximum speed 20-25mph 20-25mph 10-15mph 20-25mph 15-20mph Volume _W - ___ - i At capacity(very slow movement) _ _ I High volumes(movement consistent) X Medium volumes(movement X X X X consistent) 1 Low volumes(movement consistent) X X 675 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 1(Seapoint (Goldenwest Street (Goldenwest Street Segment 4(11th Segment 5(1st Street Category Specification Street to to 11th Street— to 11th Street— Street to 1st Street) to Beach Boulevard) Goldenwest Street) Upper Path) Lower Path) Width 12 feet(some 25 feet(some short 25 feet(some short Maximum width 20 feet 18 feet short segments 24 areas 40 feet+) areas 30 feet) feet) Narrowest point(minimum) 10 feet 12 feet 11 feet 12 feet 20 feet Comfort Lane width allows for side-by-side X X Narrow travel Lane width does not always allow for X side-by-side travel Lane width does not allow for side- by-side travel X X Separation Shared two way with no separation between bicycles and pedestrians X X X X Separated on same path (Bicycle two way+pedestrian single lane two X X way) Separated by buffer/barrier(Bicycle two way+pedestrian lane two way) X Special zone "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 "Slow Ped Zone 5 Sign Display mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph mph; 10 mph maximum" maximum" maximum" maximum" maximum" Walk Zone(time of day or permanent) X No regulations 670 Segment 1(Seapoint Segment 2 Segment 3 ` Category Specification Street,to (Goldenwest Street (Goldenwest Street Segment 4(11th Segment 5(1st-Street to 11th Street_' to 11th Street— Street to 1st Street) to Beach.Boulevard) o Goldenwest Street) Upper Path) Lower Path) Intersections(conflicts) Bicycle and pedestrian conflicts controlled(stop,yield);and/or no X X intersections Some controlled intersections (bicycle and pedestrian),some X uncontrolled No controlled intersections between Some Some X X X' bicycle and pedestrian 'Suitability(Appropriate for all ages and abilities) Environment is suitable for people of X all ages and abilities ,- for people of all ages and abilities Environment is somewhat suitable X X Environment is less suitable for people of all ages and abilities X X X Environment is not suitable for X people of all ages and abilities Condition Old pathway but in Old pathway but in Old pathway but in , New surface and in good condition X good condition good condition good condition New surface with some cracks or X X X debris New path,some New surface mixed with faded or old pedestrian deteriorating(rough)surface pathways _r _._ Faded or deteriorating(rough) surface 67E , Missing significant sections of pavement;significant deteriorating along segment Segment 2 ° Segment 3 ° • • Segment 1(Seapoint - - (GoldenwestStreet (Goldenwest Street Segment 4(1.1th, Segment 5(1st Street Category Specification Street to to"11th Street— to 11th Street— Street to 1st Street) to Beach Boulevard) Goldenwest Street) , • -.Upper Path) Lower Path)_ • Line of sight.. $. Clear line of sight with no . X X' interruptions Some obstructions in line of sight X People are line of X (landscape or hardscape) sight obstructions Frequent line of sight obstructions I (landscape or hardscape) i Path alignment . No abrupt linear alignments(straight X X path) 1 • Some changes in alignment - X X X Constant changes in alignment Signage Regulatory;speed; . Directional;speed; Special flashers; List out advisor advisor Reg ul.. y y � atory;speed - speed;directional;- Speed;advisory advisory Traffic control devices Pavement arrow Pavement arrow markings;conflict List out zone; bollard markings;conflict None Flashing Beacons None chicane zone , i I ° 670 Typical users(aside from pedestrian and bicycle use) Pedestrian access Food and amenities; from Pacific Coast Dogs on leashes Dogs on leashes;e- Tourists;food and pedestrian access List out Highway(PCH); pedestrian access bikes amenities;e-bikes from parking lots; e- vehicular-parking;e- from PCH;tourists bikes bikes 6TO Appendix 2 — Treatment Recommendations SEGMENT 1 '' Focus Area n yeiIT r— ° r ,. SEAPOINT STREET TO $M � , $"�1} 1 � � 0f-, c" a if h^�+4.. "` { iL#1%'ai'rf[7@� 35 F?hQA �`!� F afiRSl � 9°+IIe*�'" Y. `, p kte ."(k ' GOLDENWEST STREET „ . ,' 70 € , } a a �r r� ram-,..,;,:-. _*1.....;,...;. r. r t N. '. : .R - y, :.es ~s tom 4 -# _`� e ° N .a_ . ,... "" ate, ft �, c . m.. :xfi $.a A yv_'. '' ep'.,. «�� e -'' ', 1!, _ ...$ N .. =Y Y +`a zd S . !fi T 4 x ( c rry,-.. - .-• • ''''4+. »k uz1 vk5':'byq',a.. fi,3.:1�",.,,'�-'#^":r.�' �" - - rip PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY " .. . - . = , 3 o • F - +r'— a».-. yl .... .-, ,0 Ott t 7,L., Y ., '''.47L .,'w.f _ :*.°s.s{.YD 1 'S° C9 r'"' , t �. � . Bluff Parking Lot,, , a �,,` t4. .' •_� ..< _ } « ,�, s:n ^n�i'. 4t..a,:,,r▪i? .r rpt is .. � ', ^m ,°, ., -i : , .,r R �" „. 7 :a *a,' .. ,R°r'7 a �'� f d'.. 9 k �. ^'.t,.m r+, s= - ..... ...2.4.. ---:�-» _ +-�,. �is=: .� q s�R�;� � -s � ',�v a .,� �°,, ,� _ �" 1.., k..°°A _ ..�nwam.. ..:..,• 4 . ....' ,•.,,.,� .y "'''''''''—:,,,,,,a.- .. "<''1,,-.....''' " A"B" . �." ".:..,/f t ...G F vwq # +b ` +; 4 „.:ro. . ".'€e 'y�A ,� h „1. -_: g;- `#?.:, - x.. "r .- ;' '""F','' 4. ^„' ':';w' _,. :..:.-.,s.'.�,;,.. ,:.,<e... *:a<>,.... «..... G,... :rr -q..�.,.,,...,..,:: , .,. ""`.9 ^w3 i t .-ram• t - *„ ^ ,o- :f"a - .fir v. ;-e- -R n:1,7-.:., % ,,'.. ,0" `".w,,, .: : 's., x., �, t ` c - ,x :�t %, .------ g,����`.,S:rc�'*'g i >, _`j u. ,1 -,, , d6, ,': 0-1 v` "fit`'" *+. r :t"a�.q.,. .,s.,,D' ./. .,rr..;,„ A 3 �. 1,, jGyc ,-- r":,4 ,.. " 't�`a'+f . w'"'`'s :y1 ' --- rrw ` 4.��a C �ty zq '''''' 3{` -. j• ",*'-Y" � t T "'° " ' 3"" r k a .a r Ott : `''..,a,-?`.z,, ,,e,''' ....g,0,7141€..,, 3 .€ ,max[ t* - ` '.s. t M e.:x` 'r 3 =t� 'x�y s- 't "�; ° 4 � n F g` Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities ® (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple •signs with Q (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback different speeds and/or directions may cause confusion (Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths 0 (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 6$(1) SEGMENT 1 � SEAPOINT STREET TO -i -,GFocusArea yellow�c� , { g f -tr, is ` ` '_�-� i ti Tr GOLDENWEST STREET � � ` '1a i v •. Y . ! amars m,� l f. k' Jai ti ;` '-'a� iTi �!� _ v t `PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY • ° - s 1,,,, . ,;� ate.. °. � ;° s-r:.a , .;, .r.. .,.. .;�,. ..� ,._. � s-q �gx�, � �'� „� ......_.— , ...,,,,—.. ,-- - ,,, .. „J.,. »�.-.. �._i_ ,w.. ..+� .;„y�� �,�`r1 �� .-... .. g,�y .s 7�. o. ,t bytll' '�`t t�� '""� } "�'' .1i � '�c '` �'�:.�]w:+1+` � pa��"- ac ,tl r ...: _�, � _..� v. � '' t x..-' t :x ..�; .� �e.. „�.. .fir. 'a�' :�"-{ .a'*F' `="`x �,reiw-�';+* '�� �� pq;F 1 r,7,. Parking Loth �;: �`f �' ,; � : qp$ t ., ,"� _. - = „?w :L. . �. �s:;�i, +�,,�:: ,�yx„� � • �.x. ,q �` „ fie n ? �-r ° , ,, ,r.;r,,-fix es,: A At ,�ti. .�, � . ..+-�.;. .tj ,�:. q ,,,.ma'':"-`� a"XG..ew�,,. .a n.,ct..� • � ;- , ._, € *s-to --.. �.., ..5 . , , _ ...,. *x`� *° -. s '.'i.i er✓" .�, e€ a',,, , `sue„„., R h .....,r. ��' �",'��-: ' ,"...�aeF ,°� eC^`r", -�� , if� - s.::-'d��� ae^-�_�`^'4 ,.a''x�. '�.,;y#� �,a6. '�"#. „y� - (".P,' r��.� a'"., a 04, _'- « ::.< t^-""?'�B"=S g1 _�.-z,,:..,w�t..w a.--s-G„,. :.°&=��� , i7 � ''-'�� a w' - •'4 y..�r � " , L.- +` _s .]gg nay"« " Sys^,.�a .�!! -�: + :-g:' *: -,.... - i° "wens-"". t:,,, °'.. �: At .-ei!r.* ' '.„ q '£t- r'.ti, =;T.',#,� ;._-.0 "'��`w" �A a,."? :`vim `�' .£`E_' •"', �• ...",. ,d -t . ,ate r'„ ,:-7.- ."i. _ , ,. ,.� '.. ,... 41",- L.. `".++ rr '-* s .,, J-s r�c s '.,.' w° _,�...--.,f?= ,. "s; 4'. +.J.-. ''''+. 4, .;.,.:>.,. ''.'. and " - a4. :tvs , a yu:. :-<a'' ,.+.^'='- 4 , *b.. ,TMs ,F *. . pig _ ��, �, n. � r;; .::>a.' ? _""r ..`k"P;Rx�' ..: . . k�>:.�e ?� �, i�r.:�+.. ..�ls v r ... `sr„ �..�'�S �'., , "ti� i". raH+ ,K*'}s'��7`'.��''i�'� -.,...._x ram, a.._..�_ .,..�... - , .. i . a+!-L*1,?�.ra ,-�M�`wV' j'-, ,,. c1':l F{-"yam* ixil,z , ','P'Al' ,,°N,f ,,kr., ''' :*r. = a'dF •r F, N ._.g. `.{�'�' , '�. , Tf�+'i" tw t p ',., x'"",*� ;' "'w��',"� -� d;+ 'G�?�"�.r r' r w try xY� „tr :_- `" ... 'j �.a e'+ ,''F�t ,;, ,� v segment Boundaries Recommendations 0 Radar Feedback Signs Remove old speed limit signs; establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Q Install signage to clarify preferential pedestrian / bicycle travel along upper and lower paths 681 SEGMENT 2 i GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH `° fie` . .' Focus Area in ve!ow � , g 't om STREET (UPPER PATH) `,` � � a F!' ,...B' a ef� A4'T�"P9'e A'y'°" tl;��{ _ y - j3 (` ! ems` _ =' Y'd� 7 1 ;.;i d' '4C Y s } , K t e4 9' I'!,e.+ 6x i3.' A i,t2 t q'ry R'.' ee , 7F%. & fit. " t._ r' ), i'- ' s: S 1 i. 3', fe' k'q' 5 �I { j `"�is_ .` . . .Ix 6•t t ,._ t ',s .`. {d t( t S�V 4 q� y„ (} % i. {i ...' r'.-; a:a. ,^„�}`5 01 ( r, Ply a"1 'i;' ,' ,, s 2^ ' _ • s �'rg'i,.�+• + m,r-• i- ° 51Z ,.,^w` Pst ; ,�,+ +b<'z. �'g:4. .ft 4 a - a .v { v 4 7.:u�.. � ?, a'i- .icy. f&: f s-'- fi.'3 :; • t :,�;;C. I ..»' +,. s�' d £ - '- :3..w-� .-' st I CO •,F'' r-ic a g.- r a5 �is� , f Y�& - _ -w _ y _a� - fir.► '',a�'.i^'' ?' 4 .^ ' +d`$ 3' 1 ,< • e j '� �d� 'I �.—, ^x �'�i�7�' ip T "� ``� 4 s:[w .�' R t' T�t, .. W PACIFIC COAST HIGHWA . T: a 1 x , .w..:. - r a.1.... 1 - a,"'� _++C7a...5csr .,.:R-4. .::ir'{" {t , 61 '� "°..•*.. .1-= f' ""3,.4 '°'- .'ifiL r..,,.—'.t ....-...2;.: 7 .--`+�•r- w.x � ... l Sgcc ,may _�1 }� - ¢ +s*l t 'RYfi a—"`•`y,'.,. y �a si £oAritva • ^ '� ii:lk rc4 rry A#I.tl�� }7C , - IIti;c =*.:$ E i E q-,t y ° ; 2w W ^1 v Y;� in�li0ill� k�� - ,.� —7— �l�k.Y YY� • ^'tk`S, y '1" ';"<t* r,461.i, , s'"`^'T , '' r. .. ,'.9 r: a a - �. ,,,, o ..x^,. i a{ °4 .. ,y'•.; i i, :dg +s"tai *�+p ;.r5--.,�r.- --�:' ».«.. -cam 4".�nt^^^bb»'^�*-k^.ti�?.'�'r-� ..w- ;...x a "-..,w; i'K: ^« .,. ;' w• .6'�. ,,,,-,,„.-- _ .=rt`"rr tAS:P. p,,,, ''',^,. -,- ,,;.n..av -,.... . '..-- ,.. `^„o- -F ' ..,"'', :"�, ....: ,,,, ``4 � ` : .L, s ;+ ; « _ ,�a,*+ "h1 ,;A:,-;.,,,,-,--, .,--.-4.0=''.s' :'? ;°, i. i i$ u. +�i. �c' a 4 b -;'.`y.-' - .- , „ •wr. i `kt - ._ --,0--- ri i`s ry " 'm5+ 'd S" a -Rwx""".,.� ,..{ , ,- _Y } ..- '..0 ,:.vA,..,. _+... t`::. a€ �!`.'°r l,-s'3.may. �.- ". '�'Sr > : }m '. ,"`:,,.E!.. - x 0 Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities (Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple signs with different speeds and/or directions may cause confusion Q (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle.path separation segment-wide 682 l SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH �. � f` 1tt t .� - Focus Area in a owl' STREET (UPPER PATH) � ��'�� a �� �� r � .� �, � � � .�.. -� t�4 { ` F_ bice - .S�. n r i" a' yt{' •♦ fi ,M s,�r 1. ,A ,, , _„'" • p ''' '' ' yi-- of..... , 7 tOLV, 44 ''t .1 444 "; 4 ; , , vi4 - .„1. r.. "' *,r, ''i' • }. .4. 0 .a }"yai . ,,r{i„q^' 1 �:.:'�,. _,,er � '4.` E?; s, "S.F ,1. �'k *i. ' ,., '♦: ^^';€� -r i, _ �S3_ y v-^:.- ''k p' '. w N§ci -}i6 x'-i=fi� Y. -2i ' -1'i .:r 4 ^1 !�. - y,d. ���"""���""" L_ qM1 f S®- {'5.;.: ;,(y,�� #� `*�� v-:., "a as :, 4sex see r. '.r 1�i \ K.Y-„ �?&_: ��' M `� ii1 � 7Y `�_ 4 �� � i.gt � T F pll:: fRY # A q°�ii'v y.` �1. ..°.ffik q COe.. ". r� '4 . 4 B °. ,�•'�' i i? k� t om. •4! ,tea{_ �,i} 4 •.-,,,1k Q f- ;_- a.- w�..e% s' *z -�: ;��Ys r° �.. �-- xl ti""' �.�k� g. .r t `F'Y`:C" vs*.:} t iew �� C♦^� N �' ..►� c'" lit' 7 .�," 3i"�ar t-'a »a re 's 1..... Y - kk aa�� 4- � ' .s ,« }. 5 �` +ii ! \� '{u" T '. "--;. 41 4 L..� ° *' l wb _ i .. 3 ,,4 'IL :; ,` .r W: �'6 - � - ems,:, , .- "� ,. !: ' ' ay b . PACIFIC COAS GHWA ,� ; ,,3./��". ., �,..�„ . `i.lU ,.. i 8, 4 aa.e � F ,t }i.� -- 3«. .- ;» � *yt As.s,w♦��s ,..: .' 'B�: s .k �` .t ri t' *.wrAC P. 1uu�.e y itditw .=� �'� .+. 'th.ia::'.+w _ , .e °. -.! u k'` x. -».. ° -�sSli a.... P srr. �w �+�� . Is m: , ` i , 4-7 :�gK' l' ' . .* 5*i' A. 'i Ve.. •a qaa: t v1 r..l " 9, - k a k._ ..: J SS b' a+°. , r. , 1 .,q ,.:•' .a°"M s . 3> Via..- i :3..n .c H. a: ... s "' " .,t«." f - A "4 - w�•w � • IVY Y � a»?�A�F��g.�,." , _.,�.J '( -�. ,. r� t�`�+N ,_. t•�� � I°s�_. � � �s..- � � �"'q';"�� 1 AAA-stea""`, � :' �3� C�,�-�tE4-cf .+�'_. Y e,rx t„ su.".`.'.•., , `^ - /"*,,' t 3 .-vim^ . ,. , Z. tea.` - 4 X - t .._ .t,,. " *a.;,. ,.,'• x -.y " � ', ''ro'. r ..�,y°' s # - -,Three . t^`axe.,. ar s`4 , ... g, r , p # -- "',;e 4 •*�� "°�! .z# ,�,, Fx% :-. "s iw,aS * Sr - } m. .« "a;- r„, _ 4 -sa" sew+-•'-,'`""gi - m•;'_ , 4 - .. _. .. .'}-i 4 ;4` S" .y J - 1{ w.w'TM,w@+ .. -y.-�.. ,a. _r a y ;»-,,,r ,,,s.,si , -.:caa u :.� ;.,. .�.v �,.t"a _ .., :. -h4 '° - s' 4@:.w,,.:.t+vr.t?' f,....-�",9a<. t� �' ri a �;.'"ar°�'' ,. »,.w,_a�;�„-`V. .�r.,,r 0 Segment Boundaries Recommendations 0 Install rumble strips near highly trafficked areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks 0 Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Q Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds 683 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH � . � � � r-STREET (UPPER PATH) . Focus Area In yellowyIts � m - t , �� .. gy...;irEi70"— a MI gIP. t.ltri ft.t A,E' —e. z p { y between 19th Street and 17th Street ` ° `' m 'a k. P._..°m+..' ' .° °srk C.1'i .. . _ ,x.r :-af if �. s' s.,m ° ' 1_1'4, _ l ' +� a Ere °, �° �i a xi;..N tliwj .x k..� 1�°,.•c �� J '°'� "+.F,�, a � ++ _ y' • a , .. .,i = 40 1. 4 i S Y...� dS ei _� �K+ i —..:. r,u+aeR.. �.'�'... .A, °x .a I d''.. LL.,_t„. . §. . 1 rig d'a° t* '.ia: 0 $ � j0j�V i �'k.. t'9.;".'T +s'. +F '�" y .1�' °`„ �'�et ARIUMMUL ~°` %'. .: _ � � a PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY !,. r\ �. -, ,�'°- r :a-� ... .. a-• ° •-`-+ ,�'7ra:.,,...v 1 `ap '.. ,",,•a-, -. •im .x=� .a•. . ,,y... or .. cn�.a�, x 4,1 � � _ a ,. r a iG" .: .:' t. "L' ° *. r' `.,..: ,.... ar. z_t saw : :4 y` ° s :......c• ... .., --'" •,.;..,..x ,_•--.� �'+�_v xym, .::P-+,°.,. ,.., .,,.. ri , . ..... ,.r .. .. � • a m' +�.�9 s-•. t c;° s`az+�N'4a++s*�• 1. ...� � =a,r.�,t �� f z" .s ,, ti� �a__i4 y,41.' +aC� aP �e &"^ + 'ems+ "� F't ;, ,� - • . ate#! ' .a `� „�- . »--.... ... ,S. ,o-..,;.»,.,,y Y._.._. � ,� a-. -..f`^,... ** �a r ';',,C.,!,•.yr :�. A,:'�L s ,♦ •e�. 'sii "°7` � Ra.a,a; '% . `Y`: ar h '. k:-xA.... ,.,:->y, .•,: # ,. •:-w:.,:;.,a. asas���sz. .'3 ..3 -*' "' Sri*^�. _ ,+ .+ -�.w 0 :'4t ° 's a...a::._':A "4 rt.. ^n•••. ,rv..„,,1--... .` . .. "..' .r`.� ,r.. �kw 3• ,' +r.#+' Fitt, .4st ' !L .."s h,. .'-2 ,:.p.,s - �^.. . ,k'�li°�'`.:'. .. ' h ...<:.-.-...�. .:-„ �1�......, ,or3Mr��� u - .�-`, •.;. .a:+t",:s :k c i ?�sb 7,s C. • _.. 't"'".�"'"a.; •-�.. -.1rw,l..: >--, ;. .- ::.a.,,.>„ 'r• x�..^••--•s. .,. --�.:�;*°'�, ..,- ..gin �'' r;�.aY '�3' "`•'"`, v^,�"" �'' ." =`zk ,�' ;.'-.f, �% =,;,;�:'""ey,�a `." ?'s - - `f@ r-'.ate`w- �� %'. +°. - '"^ �i s,., ;,. aY41.., .t, ...," - _ = r ewe ,,.,...„...;.. _ il+.m" _ .. *.. .,�-.,s,L`7... "-° o�, .- ?•^= 3f :: ' Issues & Opportunities ' El Segment Boundaries . (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple signs with different speeds may cause confusion - (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 684 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH - zas � r •. ter" , STREET (UPPER PATH) ' „I � �ea)nM'w r R , . r� . . Focus Area►n ye ow .yq;ie � 6-,, - ,„,„. .` krefl, g (r W 6 trPt G;IMF �1 h^�°�,{�^ ,' S,„r-:.. ,.Y Y Cl'^A&SA%CL. U'kG 15;dS � 43ytl'L ::.A between 19th Street and 17th Street �, 4''` r;F; _ 4 '' 9 € �3 s H '$ +. b< ,, 1- t AS } - k '# et t 4 Pt *y ..,',°„ok �-:-r`�.99_.. _ `- ;a+m.: �,r w.�e'. 't.. ".1� ...e .- e� �"" .. a' � e 1 „�_ #d''�.'{8�'�.s' � i�' ',a of c� �� - ,� f- r a'c ... wn,,.. e... .,.. �,. .- .» n. f��+ ,I; .i" � ,..: -a �t4U ��zx fa ice•' �. w`a�.� ��«w$ ;a. .-., ti.. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY � ��,. w. :+- m< ° • : . wt: s 4L'6611.4iiii.,.--,..iiii.„ivvii.... .wsr•'=a.ta r.,,a.+ x¢, .-.,.rr -._•�-.3 _...-:.•-+roe- - _ •+r- -�. . � ��� y'� ,- - � -. °m," :. .& - ,r,«r -� ,:�•+r- +„� i " ���+m:`l , �F� 0tix: °" a v a�"` d xs� _ 1'til : ., a« ,.� 7e=rk..-� max..w ' <e TkA3a .._+,a .t . .r"'?>$n ..«, i;sni'..' " a _ sr. e a-i a 9"�'* ." �' "i -:�" ,,,.„,, !,„ _ ,.tl. Rrh y �, r9f a s'�:k. `+' r,...: . -, •,,c •; ai- '- ^(J"'""E, ,: ..4*`' ',_ ,-,.a'. r: - --,,i.^ -, ;' • Y• ! `,.�;:- ..'�s,i€' 'a%w.e 'r .` r°,. - ....,..,..:, 2,::::,.,.. .w:.;,,,- .,: x.,_.• :.:.� , .:-,. -, :» ,:.. •.,,,, ,, ..,rot; -:,,... i .3... - „ '"" :i '*+!.,, w'`�`• ,madt", • -`a...,-4, .n ... i l �,�..,.., ., «€. ,. �..:::;:�*.a ; ta ,s' `�. ......na �. .<� ::.t" a�.:ram. ::`^.dh<lw�u _ r?;.�*" ' +. .n i4� s �-;.w;,,...,:�,a ; ,�.,x •5� ..�.��, x= .. ..-11- � - a �-„ :_tom � ," ,-, :� ! �, "•„`,'..,,, ._ ..-`_ ,. .:�,. .._,,., ' a e `^,r- ..:4:4„,-+.2 -::,." «. .; F 3. -�.e " .c-�.-.-. .`s ' ":+.,;a 4 r b fs.r"w A; "y S •-g "S • `*�• ,1. W -, *,+"°..--k�= ,.,,s,,;c= s ;ff --.', - - - - ' .fig,;. e 4 • ,....ors '-�u 4$ N , e �Fi , Recommendations Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display 685 J SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH STREET SUPPER PATH) -,„ - f t r, � �FocusArea►n yeilo�w t. t - .} between 15th Street and 11 th Streetitt4 � 7 ' "i n, T ! � 'g° ,Y 4 S' in i _ R�: t.7�:x ., ,�-r+1/4 a.",;sr, ti �, p 737 -,,.e. `},C,..,' I' t; Ard �f - r i .s' �. r, _ t�'i ^5, e, '-: a x q ft 1 ,,, ".- ! 1',,, ^, . F'. ' \. i .'tip"tl ". ° "4,t} }, '+E - • ' *'"";.,t ",, „., -;ill° - es „,",s , - .�- „... „S5„ ,,"X - { s.,- '-y ' °asriy�l...�•. .. -4/43 Dot4- , 4'1 ,d;; N gam.: p _ t ;. en + _,,. 'Fk.•`""L' +gt"$i ..r,8 ...,-, ,- 'ri a $..: , "' `e, -.J{p'+'� o s .t,�.e i 'g'a!'':: ke r >''F- t y°.a'�,x 8-,a � 9' 2 ^s. �.k -MI In `: ,, : ,e. :+cs- '. x ,a PACIFIC COAST HIG,,- Hs`.WA t wr ;^ 7 ,ffim4 3, , !, ;. �- ,Kiaa • x . - 1/4s-«.r «,::s., wJ » ::w ste "4" , ? m - `, 1 . ' . a h: . l. - e � tea :«#ro • ,a re, - , AK. ... Nn„alrirsizo 11 d .max aa�.' lgl a{,q:y�M...t. :2'Y -, -. ... 6 Y�, *p,_ �` i,. Ai.° '. '� ., f K 41) M T ,a+tZ. '�b�, �r�'� _," �� .. cl.f"=a.y' ht�4;ip.gv ', �'�+. s'.T., _: r-,y ''� a. �-. .g�'�,i`� w; m,m8"�" �"-sk`,,,,+a v •�'�+ �+ *�. .m .,.., ..,„ 4,--,,,t I t4to , CI ; t, -.."1/4 ',...., .''''.,..fr,, fig. « ....:. .:,,.....e,= : w ( it Y? # 4.: .;;,. a ,, ,",y,. .�-.1/4�.,:,..,,. - '� - .v .;,P.ram., .,7a' ., ..._ .,-.- - P.e p- ,.,. , a. ,� .-. . ,se: I kra€. .:� -,r--::....4 :r t �° `r -_ A a» •` � .. a-.^^%'. -._ r ,i ...,- .44 - '•c^s 'zs k' '--- " '' "`s..xs.., '.L.0,.'I{u...a ,__,a;' ,......,._......... @ —I..," �.... x .®ems ., .a ..,^ .,. ._. , y. 0 Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities Q (Issue) Inconsistent use of signage — multiple signs with O (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback different speeds may cause confusion (Issue) Minimal signage near path split to/from to indicate where bicyclists are allowed and/or preferred 0 (Opportunity) Pedestrian and bicycle path separation segment-wide 686 SEGMENT 2 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH n - � � STREET SUPPER PATH) ,£ � 4µ�fa grNCUSA �y ;� tm . 'x`� � t �FocusAream e ow I :: . . � L e- between 15th Street and 11th Street �. - • � 9,4 ,r. � .. �+.Su2,ya�taLa�_�gezxm-� „-� a+ .. ''" �r �g -5..� e3?S f i MAR r, ''' 7 '''''', ,:. • te, M'.:.'.a , '`^.. 'is , :� t ,1 ":.;� _ ...� �`e`tr `k r>� .«.. $�"3 �} .z F ;co f,_ 4. :. y `*'' v:y!" \ ,�x . ,,"(,. �. , r p - " .. .-.so-e- "•`,,, ;11 - `r s r N , .__:. �',r r .r:: � � 7� a Vie.. � �^ F- � 1, �, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWA Y"5> r " . '.. -RE.-C.`..� + .'.e ..tea.: -" ' a' « ,t '°s"4 i : sue :-,+ �., "i"' -,-,,,a- ",�" •'_. o- " . k ,,. .. .�. �. > ,' .»'s, �.� ... <1�a c �. ms•_ � ~, r� . ati e -,Y. :.-- �-,•�» ,a w. .,: :.-. .., +„a ,. ,-. 'a�'».'" � .,("^�'- �:�.,„m,. nb .. „ •ma a. �,:.• `p r-�w.�+�; ,. `ny $vm� + .`. ..<t.1�!Ci: :' w k eta �'� g "c*+ ''ram rY ' w. +a ""»,'.`—.°.- 'r:;,�.». . ..9:Kst i .�+'.: a ": r.n. _ b 'Ya4. �'.-,• y e. ;,••„, :a a '. +,* .»�..F�.�.,. d». ��.. ,a� .a "'�� e -._,1,44.... �' �w'"k`"'+ a`� s et,,,-, ,, S,... � d '� 4�r�`5? 'tee', fir -Y id.°m^i0" '""S.!' +9 '"' ..Ys6+ Y>n e{7'''. a 4,: Z t�.Naree kr ,e .µ + «`i„ cm fit. < " ,r '. - . a ' 1A,,,„., ".t�, a.:67,1;. -, ,, .. n'..7: a ,7,e4.-- - =:x°. , .,r a "-`�.„ . 1 w" �„x' `- .�._�.,.�et.�,,.,.,;: �": :. �1�, . �� � ,a. y �;�^��1' r �?"�°- +*-�r-�-�r +� :� •ram. �w, ti ��; ...::,^ a .,, o �„",..;�.„ �.:,'�' ...- .-`v ..:., ta."; <�+W'°.� ,�,.,,y." • "��� ......, .!,ter a 3 'Yi.�^.� y.�, �� "*' "^ +€,...a '4* 'fM �.33y .",. ,: m ,,.. , '-s w. .:^ :_a„ .e** d:d' �, rml 4 a s'"r '' +6!, _.y�' _ rxa.i-, E " ,, + ",�;, ;r < � - a:' .t}`..`ace..-�.k ..,""' * ,*.^r, .'.ti'� ;,,y�!`^nem , ' '�" 1 "<,�3. !?} 'dY:4�.:.. .�me., -,.,i ea, _ - .,fir:.a� 4E d .. .. x w " .«, . �._;, . ac" - _ -"f- , , '' ,fi., +.��- e"""sus. �ft�''F..�, '�M�,y-wam .^Y 4i.+ ',.d �' �� �ma`s w�.t ",x,"; •°„ - a k^_ :`z�. '� n '_ %r41 �p.�a::'. ».,,..tia '- sS 3 'sty yCst � ..c�� 'R- ¢c. • • a..u1.,, rt • ,,# a._- o'd :�$` . e....._ Segment Boundaries Recommendations Radar Feedback Signs Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access •points Q Install access gate for traffic calming along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing •visibility and conflict and/or square off access approach to zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or encourage slower speeds diagonal crosswalks ' Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Clarify preferential bicycle access signage / markings 687 SEGMENT 3 -,,,.1,1,1,, .,, 49,..,, . , , , ,*40----7—,i.ct.w..--,-.- - ---.7z, GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH STREET (LOWER PATH) "i . FocusArea in ye °W ,n ei between Goldenwest Street and 20th Street �` � �„ �' ,—m-na.-- ..! .,_ _ e max. : ° ., .. I ' ' 9... fw' _ 3 W ` " P 4s T "r�7 u L 4' ":*'d I" t L, Vrl 1 �. y .�. 'i �.._ 3.{ ', .`1 I, TQ:� ige, ,_ .. : (� .y # .r tog ., ,'*� ";. 8.. "' "1+ # S- s Y 3 .. *;-"' f K ' fi" : ° a 7 °1M.'"e,v -� . •4,'h , 4— `E + M�a v a'* r, r� t.< " ��.' ,j,,„, „-,P s" „rx.r.t.-`�S •r-„.: "s-.`-t` ^ E s :o ,,,_} ; ..a.i '. w z. ., '°- b i °.s : . 1- 1 .. .;«_.�,...;� tit, -4.2 h.'. ,g•.: z s.+ *, -, a �. ., �., • .a_ �y,kp i, ,�, s xax ax 'v-M?1- n +,' ;,"; ., W "'_1, * ro9,a• �.x ,-y, - f` 1, _I r �' -_! `. !- °it, S �x j ,^ ., „e, ;_... ,'.� • ! Si "y'.r a Y . ' - t - � 9 y e:,y •, ^� � `-, � f N • �tA�►`�1' !�=fi_ ,::e. : .s _ - s `e k e '+I° .a:. • ' �1 et , p� ° _ .. �... ,,.. +.a - 3s � "` e ...n,wry wx .r+. ' , • . PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ^_ ..> �, ., .'"� . dg�� ., ,. s�1 .*� r...*.y.Aa x n • '.' _5„. �.. 4.4` a�,e« yVia,,,. ':-. •, a'_.... .g. a ,,o,f'�..p.' «a�. :fx .e n'y_-a H. 'a"...s• :i....., ..40":1/4.i.,=4.:ii vt.:-.11.7mg __-:1452:4.-, *04 ,,,,,,..4.4.:riff 41,110 s‘ ;q '� rYg a°,.. {-., ,.,-'�yr a '�Y x r t�..:y.:,t* 1.'.-' i'Y"�*-^f y *�.-- _a.:'x4.�, , �+Ic �x. _z r .r, -�"`-a""�"' w-r�'-. .r- �v: -gg e . {t 1,477Irr II p �,ao_., •, .C_ "r3..�. . ..r a` i&t:._;-s __._.�.."._....._ �.....a ,' _,....:..«,...,..u°.,.__0....._..x..,« - `r,°, ,a,+ ro-.s. e._..�.. ..b`:-,:�-^-- .�� Segment Boundaries Issues & Opportunities (Issue) Bicycle and pedestrian movement expectations Q (Issue) Path does not have separation confusing for travel to/from upper and lower paths between users; no centerline , O (Issue) High volumes of traffic and constrained path width • (Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear leading to/from dog beach • (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed O (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path space along path (will require •feasibility and environmental review) 688 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH STREET (LOWER PATH) Focus Area n y ow L I rf a s pz. between Goldenwest Street and 20th Street . . . .� A— c` . :jt I-- �. ..<µ` • �, t r � < t "' yt, fit' + a t. g -'�?:_." ,rr,. _�•—_". ^�'.�T , ram, - "�.R I � °� _ � _ �,'+.,, �1�� .n' � � i xy�*fi � �r� �•i � i .,-... , ;`'.s a e n.i - s°. fix" ; ::; J— �+ �., *a ..f.4 s , • f=. { _ .-[ . i s..` r ~ # qr. i "-° .,l► r Ilk_ . 1 . x ; '< = ?'q,_ E :h t 1._ M.. ';M2 i� y :.sr1. , f e„t '; '3.'- - ..l ,,.i ""?. ".r.... _ ,nx, y < `-rn', 'ei,: x, 3 ,}'[�� ,may .:: .r } = ....,.� Y ..1.S. i. W { 7, `• ,.si. y `°i. -.< f^ S _ l "'.-.- ..' -t: ..,T,,"4 r :�. , . � °.,�, .,t'.r °"' `.. r §§§ Z � i� �Sr-�� tt�_.,. �� _. e.� Nit+' `�5tg % «��� _ .�.."i .O ',�v ,, :'i.. st. :`= ra,aa. ,+�. ::� ei � W i ,. {yg. .•' `'.�j �. *g I '.•� � F .'e�e.s � ��- �9 N '.#s �,� a� 8--- :')"4. ,'1• ..* 0 �... s .r- •,�; . ,r �% —\.,' aa0 ,...<, „; - '.._ag aPt t: t� r,:a ,-.as .. E ' s `� e ,r^-:..:, ':. , , �'V'+®8r.,a. �.. _' ..a .d r -m° f �.+raadw ^ d a & r n PACIFIC,COAST,HIGHWAYnwsr _ � i -°_�.Li .... � =ba, k., `�'� � "� i`' �a°� � w "�' .. .� .f, �?' r�m'c^_ =,ms:, �,. �^�nreia7t 1r° i'VoT Y..: Rite $d.y_ .„.. '9 F�<. .'§ ��s,2 4. 4 , I*t2 4r'1"'l~ atStlirt :'..h4 dt x`<'�' 7"''vs �u NE.e` K } a7. W si A' g • Y. r *r,,;.':,., a+° _.,.:w.i¢ e• .°' '�_..i'�;", � ,�.,;.«.�.x a,,,: r. *.n �f.�' µr:€ �r� ,Mid. �''�''e" #. €v :7 Al" � �g'_ ,e# a` r. ` °e° ,a :" : Tr o°_ l+ - 4 K . ;'tea t *� _ :,9, a �' t .:.z.. .;Ymv "� •; S ::i. ° .,0", aaL .vim ,:� :,� ,.l - . R sI.¢ . '' ,.;-.". ` .• _ ,,x,-.,i. itt ,- :.: _'^a:,..x+.,' �" A '_ r.� St.aa. ' ,r" gre.R��ar � t f `+' r,� ,s , - , "": ,„c „ #':€.. Q... . :., .... r:�c' .'�, mm%w=as.. .' ._".�;m^M.,�aa� x., Nr-"" :: ,�,„.,x rrs ¢ v:4,,V x _ .';'' I f., 4 x.<..r�; ':-�.n..d° 7�-a. .r k 1 i s�. . �€ `.m.e _ � - Haa Recommendations 0 Segment Boundaries Point Improvements Corridor Improvements Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off access approach to encourage slower speeds Widen path and include user separation; install centerline striping � � Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility Install sand walls and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, . Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular continental, or diagonal crosswalks sign display Install speed feedback sign (numerical or icon) 689 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 THE STREET (LOWER PATHS z Focus Area in eliow tli 4 between 19th Street and 17th Street ° u , `•� �� r 7 4‘..., ' rt7-` r C -,,, • °w v.:4 , I.re»` .. °i ;-t .k. + . .9X>„ i _ q a Y3a! + � s � � Atia '145 , ,� veil , ' �• �4 ' "° t.k �1 'j co 41.. ,^ � i l`+ q ad — L t V) ,_ Y� �A � � �� '� -4143" S "•k x�, a .-,,, ;",. ' ,y .4 £.wi `A.1.- ' ....,h a 'it a —/ ,ez'.' 'i-="4. . . 0 � LLAC / HIGHWAY '- °,,, 31' p* '� : fi [' i , .° uw r �"^ m.,. �, [ }i� . k � r - r • � + . : ,. � .. � . . ;..zr - ` • , ea Nn .as _'a ' «. L ^5=, � ,=�� a � ...T � .�+.�s+..s� .. #' „� . x x . � . e. .� r . �-°*;. a T {� = 8 ,1414 7a , ..-.. -,..,. _�,,..., .,�...�..,,' I -^ ....:._.�.v.r-•...e-m a: p `4' ..�- .„'.e.". n. a)' .'Y�•t'?• '5' r. s,a Y9k»" 74.-; , . -,,,, . ,„,.., sd4'.,_'• _." „c V:.,', _ +- .(','s. ,. .,, -. y ,`,,w.w'.-+•� +� :°.; g�i y ,,=*-' e _ ems',%; a i: w - .'^"�-a`*^ ..:.aP" ".",m, .:." -n'9��: � � . �1 .a _ -'h,'� �- -�' a.-- ,a" '� r---"'.-'"",..- i. ..a *»."=o- ;a "�'='`�1 '{.;'sy 7" w� ._. _..��-..: -° ,w<.;�..� t -r �,� K axR - Ta� �� �.cr„_ :�.it ,K$''';g„ w e'_ , ;,.. -"ate. f ..-< M • �t..t d : = - a - 1..-„:.. �.�,,.. S _ ,�� .,"a-' .� �.;�"1- ,%- x `:. a '+�'.r 4 •f, "w"'_ ,�eq��-E ' a � w-7::3�° �..� k�. ,_...c:r� _ �...-f. � k t�"",„'`.'�: 5 `*' F�'� °1,£sr - a.. a ..y .x-- ..» .`r.,w _. ate•._. ',.. a,..,�..».'. �,an,,;;. ..`" r':',.. =i_._r .,a ,...".14.1: „yes '%&.., ",-_ .....^`„�� =;.a.•rs: ts- � x �6 � # � � ... ,_ _ f ' Sa E Il o`t, ° Issues & Opportunities (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path (Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear 0 (Issue) High e-bike/bike speeds along path/segment 0 (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require Q (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path feasibility and environmental review) (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline 690 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH STREET (LOWER PATH) r_., _ , �4� „fiFocusArea►n yelliowik g �zC�� rzr,e G' .: t ' �� " - 4 �wastu�.x,ccs w_ a'err ,nu-.,.,.:-_ ,. ,..� '_, ) + ,_ y .r ;r.;�--' tr�rv{^ -az,'.-r..3":��.'n;:#ei�<"•-a.�.}�=e�7 between 19th Street and 17th Street i . . _yy.- ^oizei 1`° 4 '1 '. d ju, t., ,Ig i l` ,. 'v� ,yo iPf q pp'( it r,_. R. fe: 1 ` -s• T., ,a a�ersit .-' .... 7-" +mom, I ,. - t+ i'*' ': " '-'- — ,i:tr...1:417� . '-' l ' y i . y` .. . ,, . '' , � tr�. t H PACIFICCOAST'HIGHWAY _� .x�r ' !®6 = ..:. "' ��]elm , �. . .- a lifitigissiiklicila � ��rl�l��i' �Ilri .. ��I�Sa• fit• �\ �1A g _ .� ��._. _ ._ �. .�._ _.o..... �. �— - .,-- , 5 g , \� !s _ ,gyp `+. a -.. � .a x ---,+r+.� , - � FC'; , J j --; ,.;,.,,, ' .'� --*-.`^.. '1.._.,-- ': .«� t =; ....,..-ti. ..;-,_—n..'( E - tits..r.--�1 ` � . ....._.. � es^ ..a+.^r --.p -7«-„r,.. _ ,��+an�.•...-.._.. . ''•-•��:,::.# N '�";..� .F :.�+J - �.r.,>-.. - + -'L,.,_`_.""�°r"�-_- 'tac.` �"`�'at�t 1 t y 'ky' { w M a r t of ,va-r # »*'A s+: r ., -r,.:r\'m s:="�`--�,"„3r ..:�..✓ - -.,5 "':-•c .,r �::•„pl "'.,..� •�_—,:'.is._ ., " �: ltc. n sl yr-- r , - v. �-� . t �. � _ 1, Recommendations Point Improvements Corridor Improvements Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display O Install centerline striping Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access Widen path and include user separation points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, O Install sand walls continental, or diagonal crosswalks 691 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11TH s s w rr 4 � � mirk ,,, vt. ` '" •' fai STREET (LOWER PATH) � � t �j = 4 4 1 "-��"�,�-�-:�.�- � �-�� �� �-°Thar Area 1n yellow �° `'.�``- � *- , rural.14-#094, between 15th Street and 11th Street a` " �' � � �w� r�mm • P. ril61 .., 'AT. Mks.. o-F .".. •. ' ,s, a\• .,€ '1 ",, :•, <.„,„. r -'A , T"' a t k, :v `i d "- •F—` 01 st'-' T g p 3: i{ ;r FSF +M�`.!'L Y..,,s 04 a,u N �,�ne d"s J _ i ,�e _ir, '�`.g t ..S te. i ..re .;'a4ro 2a{ pr°�'^�..,a °..i Y7 x » 9 ,t1 t.* _ . ;iv, ^�T �,#i'�� �,� . g -& . :e ,� =� . _ beP,r PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ," aF , ° •+—.,_-•... ..r...aa.. ....e..aSc+L✓?< ...a........ .... .a "p. Rl,y �c'.i'^� '." ., ..•.'..`^,�.i •a�'.:"�a,��s ,. ' ,.�, w-K e>",w'.,_ �p� *"'FW'�+"�„.�" .�.,.•, k ` � a;::�.:y ses�vv � :`P �.{', t ,.+ w.�:..a.,»-,....w». 3- taVdrisHla4!r •, % tif . a: .*',�.�' �. �� 4„ �'.,.. "5.":�, t^q. �t^ .. ,'�{� s_+�d'e„� '•,. °.r.A si * : �:.asr"�a� — m .,d• T ,:�.t ,--:., � _4 ...:-aay_��.x a,. �* c•,...5 .� • � ..a,.:� -aw,,,a +sete�s-`SS`Ai`n�,,. i.. �{rk. �s �.yt„� �,,,,Y �x:w -s;�=*s••s ,,. Y ;:a.M,§a.,b I .__` ..�:- 'lei"'""' '.aY<4"a� _" *s..r.ry+: '� �&- .� � •�:>�: ..,_ 1X,.,...;>. - ,,--,.,_. , .'... •.:;ate ,','1 - - `,w,t =.a ;...- ~Ua# S , ....' - .; .° ,.. .� v a'.''- °a.a� 9 ,¥ ..„. ':;' _' fir, ._�-»�<., r. �:', z ., � 5,..= _;,.°'� .:. a _ ^E;'�' '� -"."` -:„;:i�'. ,�.xi .;, ::,, ,,-`.,-,, ..y,.. .:z _g °. 4s+.' _ � u'.'R' .w,r... ." 4., 7" .....'„ = .'€�,,'_„.�a.'" '< ..i,s a.� "'»"*,� -.:''_",- p , ,: -rvw.. -.a.:. .,u� -'a -""e.".�' .-3.w�..;w.., �> c'�d't. e v ' € `-'�r' q.._. ,. ... . �{�_ _ .. _. ,� r+«,..� .fig+ pI� �... ft Fe ,."i. ' ,' y:., a -, .. ,� .- i`. {�^� 8e�� fit'�`r,¢w`'.. A; �' *, > _ `a`:,.» .s.. ..�'�4 >..,,sSz'a;1 d M: a —1 t ti % .,. 'Fero- w�v>,v, t' - 'La *y '''' } a'�.., .'.. Segment Boundaries Issues &Opportunities . (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage throughout lower path (Issue) No sand walls to keep path clear (Issue) High e-bike speeds along path/segment O (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require Q (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches onto path feasibility and environmental review) 0 (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline 692 SEGMENT 3 GOLDENWEST STREET TO 11 TH � �`` � ' ,. -� „,w pa �t w,, ,. tag STREET (LOWER PATH �� " , : frFocus Areafiagifinipitilelinkati n ye 6216 ow ,bi between 15th Street and 11 th Street -. - - ,-,....,,,:_ri=-- - _ -a,?,.±..athfir4afzi,"12E5IgkigriT,tril,Vai '7,-, .' -WI —.'''' .1 ' , i � s. lr :, ? if b I. is,: x �u s�. E i 6! `" ,3 t 4 1 1 '1 - ,,, `+!� *-* , a --...�-.xx- .x - s� $ ..%yam r: F .f" Q O. ot :: T.° F:. ey .� .+ rv�,+t ';r �. �f" L�?34 IN �f' ` :^ .. 'laceb. .+:.;azS+;- +YL i s S'3 - - '"• :: ,_' �^'re- .$ e : ' ''4'7'4' PACIFIC COAST HIGtHWAYa,. m r°. .wer 'h'`r�"' .is {. 9 ra._ ':� :,.:Y. yx +f^ ... .... k - - ' .. ..: '.. a .- .... ..�,.. 3 tW , .1. ` g — ... , •%',�`*4°'Y y..a.. —, - $~ ,-a`"+ ..-.»-a;,""S y rs 1"' j'" .K -V a.+�Z +... •" ryv�:,� ��.:....-. � �.-.ram"^. .,P..a .,P .<. � �:s.. Ave-: = ..° :�^ �-�.A. �- .� .'?', , _ `""�.tti � �4;;�.: .x.;,.:: �.,. j ri. 3�.��` .k YQ' .-_ _ +..G. .., ::.' .•. . 'T„ . .. ::a.. ',;',,. k,i. A,^ry t1 Ad- `7, rA"r r itt ,,,2 L .,.,``.1 y` .:.1�u:.��-.�wr, -vhxk' ,,..x,. � ., «+ Y I .y.'"''" ,,. ':..,..m�. .�m�"-�*�' .+���. .tt - `:a. �' t a ...,. x..`� ..4-R ='q „r ,. ":"^:- A i - . ..k, ..,.., r7 .., e... ., .�-+'�'x". _ `i�mrr^?y - - ._:l'C`S �^- " x *rr a,;� " • a. ,_ ,.�,,%-? ,� .. :_x` •_. .._... •` ;�..� .:°. ... x .* �-..,,. �+t,s:g�M �" ,� �r�.. "s"� I x. o sr=.:- '..N 5Q. 3 Rk #,.".. .p wt , ,' x, .*.. ae..4 ' ,,, + l` y1� �.- ••,.' - __. _ ... tee. . y ;�j -- - - � `�"y � ) �� s�--2w...S:�....� Yn..: .,®-,.4d....6l.-_e »,..a.}�.«».�.._.-........ffi;� . ..�,..»u„w 'S a:A4�.*p A'a..., ,1 `*,..- r.. 9 ' ' a E �, `�w 443. ..-..........,......�. ..., ,:.e..,.w. ....... 7 Recommendations ii segment Boundaries Point Improvements Corridor Improvements Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display 0 Install centerline striping 0 Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access O Widen path and include user separation points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, Install sand walls continental, or diagonal crosswalks Q Install access gate for traffic calming and/or square off 693 access approach to encourage slower speeds SEGMENT 4 mgm� � � ,. a ,, 11 TH STREET TO 1ST STREET ,� � n 0� �, � sArCERE 1. �w , , � Focus Area in yellow r �.� . between 1 Oth Street and 6th Street �� , � • r , .....,.„..,...„,,,:\,,,,,,,,..„,„,,,,..„,,,,,,,,,,,,„:„...,....„.,.,,..,N„ or , E .i k:_., Q a ;», #,A* :.3 ,, 4rta' u " n ,xn ° r "e a e rc 'a Yx mo' ;' „ w„ 'ter' `k; +w , vsy k , _ �' .,«^ ?:x, yf .s.,,t:.' � � .4C .._ _ � �� v,'*"•� ,� +,, y �i e fi ii'. ..r r � ..��` �'te♦` "w ",� ',* "-� �;c.` ,�" " tf:���:�is � (n p; r �, f ..:2 °'"" w.t 1s, „„+ ,,: i". "` _ �' :' S'/ sip,- ,:,' f n "' k.# '� "3 _ -, "� , �. i � - �, , �: `* �'��,,���_� x ,.,•.+�..y ±F.» �^' �,' w, w n ter ��., a °�1 `�� ` .,,..;.,_.,.�F+ k ,�,, ..'; i ""i":, .s..::,,, a ...., x:�, P,x.,..< ,.1,.._n.=`" .:.x. +n.'.,+°o l.. ..::,",:, s�;' .,"��'","mil ° :.'A'� ._' ) 40,: ;t. ��S°,�,.+.,+, '['. _ !.-°y'„'^^R 1"' "},''"e:",fl " ',.;. ems,"`a .:- >-' 'tt?7..� k ..a,. .:*,(- s �.,._ ..J_ c: y i,.. ,. .e� � .♦:.,�,'H .! ii;. +'i• ti` �:,°��._.r�.=,..is?.,.,::» .�' :..,�;., r,,.._... c,;,.,,�. r`".;.�..,. :.,i .,,. ,,"&, ,.n::� '«... �,-�� r;=s" :s,�Y.r t 'if'^*,. , «Re. ,.�"-; it ,„,,,.# .,: t :,, r .w�. a:i.. :,. "Q`•: . r,.7-• ,z«" °, ,:ay �, x64,-,,•,.�t m ,.' ` � '`k^•' �d n, � _ .:-�, �' P +5, � , a» ..:a ',_ _..., .> �:,,, m+. - r° �_. .�s ,r�a.�., - �*'�^"�„ °u,' .$� fir: 4°'s. ��. 1x s � i�� A 'w . „a rx ,. 4+p .✓ # f z . I .;, ;A _ . ,i m , ° , HB Condo Complexs l' l'' , , ." . „.; ,� 7,-.t vh°< " :,r 'f r d:::,`v`w� + `,.`7 `y a�� ' `�� ;:^" sx;'"= n , 7 :�, .' ".�."4t, . �¥"� ;r � d�"`°*,�. s +x'. : fR :., a" - a t;, s a ,:%.. r :> a{ 'l,a..,� J' .,. :'r°(tar"'L".. '8..k. F?'„ .. `:s °= .iis. ...''S',-.ty=t :.,..max �. %' , >:� < x gi : x ,," HB PIaV round it ,. x+,� :w rs `� ""Ptm ;rr!.,k_.. t ice.* ,.�,,...,.;-`�„' r ...^�.,.;t.. 79,:; . .,,r,, ...,`-"'"T,-r .: ..:.. ,.,,.bF ,ts:;. ,- ,.i ''' tom,th +',r' '..2aC • ° _ ,iG' ... a Evs*=^'^;r-t �°.:. -"�.,. wa �n ee ,.. .° _,: - ,s... sr, , ... �',.,.. $ ::.. , • .., .,, - _ At,- a;a � ��,''Y cra: ,c ;�:,` _ ...e.,.».,,- ..,,_ -, ..,;:nr ry�;e. ..a..w_,.... ,.. °... ,„ ,. i #..,µfv .. ?-P, ��zy ?t_ �a•` ,t .` ,-r ,: �'"^ �"� ?+r...-"'� ,. ...?� �_,a--i-r :�-:_ ,,..v< „:.._ ..c P.: fit• A!i�: +,. , .: �,...... .A :�x, i.. . .w' � _,... _..._- " -. ,k "»:. t;__..t e€ r: "-,- s, :..._-' -,� y:.:.a n ,- <,:s = =�:?N a't a; �- ..c .,. s J °- " �c 'u�..=,, c.�4 ..'ms '�a t9.,t...�tt"".xan+ .�"" li �* mob%= " `� .$4 ,:� Segment Boundaries + + � � = � yF k: aw -i ,.P, y.l ys`r , - :: a ,°# _ w x y-•1I r r �ee , s 4i +& w .. ery t.*.( +.....: q..... "- ": .:' ...',6 m . f,1. �+ M, d _ f d Y.. .6 �LW,Ja r'•'•. M f';,. W" ,,,r.;a, L";3r.,,.�+E,a..�r* .a,°,4,,-ii,;�ts,-,,,, ,,,,,,;; o, :., v_. r., r'"k`° .to n. ,.,,...."�: '.i,,. .°I.;a1.,8 ed.,. ` : �',=., ,. �4. [ ..o. af•i;`�"43 Issues & Opportunities (Issue) Pedestrian use of amenities encroaches • O onto path CI (Issue) Constrained path width along segment (Issue) No sand walls (10th Street to 7th Street) © (Issue) Path does. not have separation between users; no centerine • (Issue) Outdated flashing beacons near 6th Street (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed •• ® alongpath will re uire feasibilityand Q (Issue) Pedestrian / bicycle •mixing zone does not include space ( q sufficient warning of potential conflicts environmental review) O (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage 694 SEGMENT4 it {{p(��( �y,P.4z�.'„r,I' r ' %' t,-- "I L` F.$�' . r}°' �1 U Lid'isi,pky h' e x rr *.. ,4 .-o- .,,''f' .og 11 TH STREET TO 1ST STREET - R ` `�l° °r ,� .„ c =_ --� - ,4Z•. .Focus Area miyellow � -- t�� � _ between 10th Street and 6th Street 1 '": „d_ +^ 4' ,..q J i a'A`c''Q'r ws•' IA ,s ,,r: (' t} .��t 1.3 't .,, '- •..`1; P ,>, • �' '` N. p�0; .. .'kR+- A -1 `i. P g-.'-'1 >'say r, .7,:Y1 ,. a+V.•,•_:a' l' r ,�' y� '4. ,1A1 Y ltr. �,.-4. -'`` ,mac s"." i.�: �- r�' sa, ..r ;.yp \.. =�c .. F,�,•, „�' .:e°�i r° � .���, ;� i`,xa:�,. r` .1�r A. ....�' rt,.��� t �` �' ra �r� i�"' � ^ \ :.;' �': 4»n 1' e' �� �z ,.:�gi. "�^''mow, 't _"' :�n 5 P, ". �,; # a r' ;7 X Y =.9 ' j P , Cl) .. A " ---A.;;,,--- �, M a f 1 r;.. `' ".daM:°_ ..c 't .. ...„. 11, V'l".+1;q1..41-i5:14fil4[ ' ,,_, y _ ,., .gr.ay a _ F, -r. .,- � 'se'e ..'. n s: ,, g ,1,a'' 9..t3 X. ,� I' .— -.; ri.'�y xs9'yc*''s':5.} �✓', - �a " '''' 1 ,. ,. :.. _ z_. '.;. -. «� , � -"-' . *r re; _a �, R P �„+ate' yt • t--- i- s '3,> ',L� • )i ATM.•,a «f'4:: .*!i' I+, ; L�� @ .1 i ; J 3 /?\: Condo Complex '.. . { HB Playground ± Q? .,- `� ' `�, {, ,w..� ''—'1 -r. 9 yj. t S r'�: _a te*�'' ;zz.�`� �.. P { r "r _ �"`�` ..,s s 3 e- '�,. A. yr y, ,. - y rrx �i 4V.' k .'''ii, y "y "b "- t Y y a. s , s.x ,f i1 ' r 'S• , • t" y vim' `1 lilSegment Boundaries '; , J � � ,, ,t� r'-.d._r, � ., .�'' ,` y «^ rw ,L.., ..i.` ° ,,4a::" t� '' " ' - ..:� .r . : icea, sa.: hw1,,,,,_, : ; Recommendations Point Improvements Corridor Improvements '© Establish Slow Zone beginning at 6th Street towards the pier; 0 Install centerline striping; widen path replace old flashing beacons O horizontallyand include user separation P 0 Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points O Install sand walls along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks 695 Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display IIISegment Boundaries Vls6fEPRESEGMENT 4 11 TH STREET TO 1ST STREET s; s�:> i SA a ►cu re �n ye owl ` m •.--Gse a G z ctAu3rstn t' rm + ` between Main Street and 1st Street ---- = e F 1�. 1 n rn, 4k ,1 � QU ae1b.`'11 }' w ". ' r 1' l tt t Sw a". .v..i'�#. - '".'. 4r;„T:4 -- q� 14.441 M} ,.•£ MMR v..., l \ }d r _v:,a .'.1 \\\�l� M► �19M�1� Ylii‘ .;M4Mk `qi -8111,0 _ , . , eS =k. :;:. v :; . ., ..- t +: t C' toll, t z M•. p=�' Fsr;'. k ,. i °` [., .., i ..., , �- .4.^.. ..' >'}.:.:.. .. :.:.. 4 .,sr.G a''k�r i'a wIfil }"�' It �vd.«1,. y §` co .. .. ;.da x �... ,r V� _ is"'n, . . r,;= '9'0 -� d V:k" '1► &� ��\ -•".�§`+d rf It, i i ,�:: x. • :.,. -, t R _ �. r. # t p:t * F s �„ -. `� F a"s'�`8 �.�'._ ,'}4 r r.� �..: .r .,t, °' :. .1_'k V' x •'._ • ...aF.�ait. " `�!S. �a v;� m .::,�dn .f '4.1 � a t�..-. n9► L i '„<" a . P\; m . .x R..:.6" `..,, b'k rr�� 'ig *'r-.+.:x+ at " ;t 1'''''- W Y � F — /> Pier Plaza ,sa '9c S. m--.' � ,. ;�1� t ( "' c. ;1 � �j? �llr t, r� a } r. ii 11a ` ., + v,f 1:- } j' 1 t .� ,. �"aR7 i ,. 3�7 FF e' p�,�b M A _�ii � � t _ $S(�. �, e, ! HB Life.ward Q (� . � ... ..ul •F f � x + ISA� g ryw_ae_ � ! � � ssz \ � . � »-.;. �-k� �'w� A k,i - �i'b:CR..���01-4,:„ - ,.� 41)1'1-1:;__.,M.c � sr�x"% .�'.�- �� �"I'', r ^'Mr...-�'� tiai 7 m x k`*' N i1iM.e k '` ,t n'- �. -, . ,.. �+v _ 1 . 4 b, �„`: G�, -..A,.a,�.- 7 iit,"' * �„ ,Q :3,-� ��": -...-s:-' �..: �. � .s., ,..."�`�,^' (ilp -ur""bra. �e. .., : ., s��. � k+x+�y-� '` �...a...—,.r� _�+ ��'. ..,,- .-^a=: . t .:h.. . , e._:: a a ,y. , _. t♦/,�..„.._ .bh..<a.. ': c .. ,n, `6 ._ "`17: s { Y�; .x .rmw {.B ., 1.��3.W,•.S,- ,,.,Lira' ,.id.,. .,ai►dk,5 try aS. .�.,-'a ".,... f+'r!`Y ,S e 'f,{.s '.;z.��. 1#�,,......., . xrw .«�a'u.. ...=aS :... _—•v' '_ r'° ,i n. '^.. Issues & Opportunities olnto(Issue) users, and vendor activity encroach p (Issue) Narrow path width along segment © (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; no centerline (Issue) Outdated flashing beacons near 1st Street . (Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path and O (Issue) Pedestrian / bicycle mixing zone does not include under pier sufficient warning of potential conflicts Q (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) 696 ® (Issue) Ramp is a blind spot for users going northbound 0 Segment Boundaries SEGMENT 4 ,- 11 TH STREET TO 1ST STREETwir �e '�� "'....,,�.� ,�-�� `� ����' {�:�fif�tsK��?�������{���Focus Area n ye I�ow n .. _.. `Y g am^ta.uxm ft- -- ; ...ems csa.. between Main Street and 1st Street _`'Z�» .3'35 alt��a' � w � " :1' .1":4:t� ' ` " rilimiltijedaiiit''�b,r iri '" '= o- .,,..:�, ti,, a ' +� ��cz 71- ,,, a A unlit"I'.. 1�1�7�I►17�1�1� '• �,il'� 71M i;: —t t ,..,t0 - qt • f.-:- � ,'f7�.'et"�e � .: `.�..;:: i; ,.. 14. -, . \ .�c ..t!�" E }},��` ak€�"n t,} ei :,.i� �So: ,.� ' 455 �r.,.:1 �`t:��_ r - ° r f \ -- z :.,. r,'x �., ..:. 1 `` y R -»=z ?"r!-,"'.F ', 4. bTr ".1 r , _ ''' ,' *-.gyp.. . ° "( Peer Plaza r 1 4 Er i tt�` t 4h•n,? ii i,4 t a r ''IFPE' .�le6. $TEMP % l. S r-'...,� , . j, N y e •, ...:r„y- •..._.>• _, ' a t s-_:u .k - .".�. !, '# .- rr"ti 4- s,'¢. 'r e,t"r,. 1.r , '1 �� { ,. a - S ' i, t R- • -,,-` � � ,I...,A�� 1�, �.. t �u ,.,- ���' .t . .11 � gyp, • , ,, ..�--- ... . q 1., e �` ! --"I �'r= F� c 's • Y FHB Lifeguard.HQ E », $Li 4 1 ty '-,� "'• N .ram �. , : ` ;} 'liar • �.}, �'% t-C .✓ a 4 q �, - t, ,.._ .,..... r . —:., r .� I r f t4 - "' # ` • " --' t9.g. . . _ a r ' < A fiwFpba , ! . f',4.-, Pa1 ..t+:a,raz-:.'r;:.1. .x .'. : '';•, -TM . ^F •e. .. -sa _ --'...c.rs. ^- _,, ,'w :. .a: �K >.'.:.J. r%"'�`3.....1 ,t,<s .,l+., q••,,,;ika i. . aT. {k �1_. Recommendations Corridor Improvements Point Improvements O Establish Slow Zone beginning at 1st Street and extending O Install centerline striping; widen path and towards the pier; replace flashing beacons include user separation 0 Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points Upgrade bike racks to be more secure along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict ® Consider placemaking elements entering slow zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or zone and within the slow zone diagonal crosswalks 697 0 Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display SEGMENT 5 � `. -. H za7.s r; c t(f}3g 33 7 F? t D I` ' i4-• ` r z -- . I t G mf ht b�l. r 4Focus A' rea.►n y ..,:,, 1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD � AyU � { r between 1st Street and Huntington Street 4a . a ems+. .., cs&». Q +^ q µ p _s .t+,'° �.._..- ',`�`'-"`g' `°,� �;.,cIM.,, .., .^-- , , i a°, ".�,.z ; - i '' ,. we Mfg 13' 1' p,�9®:a �, i 14. d b 'f $e.-` .i r 'a„$, 'd't 5. t ° a t€ � � oe 3 '� � 8 �_�s e � ik�'...- ��3' ^+Y `.'"L^ x. � �{q .�P a 2°'-L°R: X� € �4 � I-- - ;< . ,� -.. .' '� , � 'iRaised Parking 7 . , �l , , _. a p � j . i z s` -u� Jack's Concessions _ ,_ ;+: . 5 1-. Stairs : .».. 43,,p ,;:_,,;:,,s. �� Lot ' 04/ i, Kokomo's Surfside Grill . s ,.:�' ;r ; ,t„,,,,,,,,,„.„,.., . -, a s i� ,� ,�x a 1%.11.. f; 14 4 �* ti a i s as ° i - ttt r rtr, t �1 � .c° -_ 'd.i&�F :,{ °! � .�* .' i V vA`o-'IY° .n� 5 ,P C`.1iiir " ` .Y,5i orrOgt ' ..t F �'$-, s ,�.:._ r ''T'3"'"` %s- �,ua"' * , , - - - - .,...._ ., .,m, +��►I1 m�...,.. »}is 4. s,.�.`...„, *gin iys*iasY } - - r '' € s 4. ` ....-- Y � �g � 71:::,: :,:l Segment Boundaries I ,S �5 i ,a.. gas- .. + .. ▪a r a A,, a s t*. �:C �,,+,. 1 t �. a ..��„ s a.�u a '� � ( s, ..a r w ,i€�- ▪ ._w�` r,°..-�N y"" -t!, :,..4,: .�:��-t,^"a�,s"7a: W.�' ,".�ti'b�. "�,k '"'z1� s.....�,�ts"+M!�!'�77� :;€��..s.,..,r -r Y z-"�,�.�.�-gym L'��,-'.•"t�n1.,...� .+:. `�1:a7€» r..,w'�..:. ^`�::.�+ ::'�°.'-`�. �€.: .au -"?. .`3 ,..-� " Issues & Opportunities O (Issue) Pedestrian and vendor activity encroach 0 (Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to onto path sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling • (Issue) Path does not have separation between across path from those traveling along the path users; no centerline 0 (Issue) Constrained path width adjacent to the grade separated parking lot wall (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed • space along path (will require feasibility and O 0 (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage environmental review) Q (Opportunity) Radar speed feedback 698 ElSegment Boundaries 0 Radar Feedback Signs SEGMENT 5 4-'.ace. ---�:� y . 1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD ! �_ � � . � � � � � ti Foes Area,n ye iow �- , IL a'r r t3 Prt. �. A. between 1st Street and Huntington Street � � � �� �� ���` � � `�� ��'�`� � ���� ��= � i� "�o"'" ' .i'� *. .4 k„. A i f ur„� �..� -:arc - r - �.Y� *� 'a"'"S r�F .. -o > tU1 ., " '� W z - � � ----f�'� e "� '� • y , ,,t� ' .. e.e` ae� a _ "k >' --dt. ry � �/O tee' , t- 4 " '� T co • NO co H ., �.� f M � �` < 'Raised Parking, • ,. i19 � . >w .� 111:'` 'lb um ` . t ,_� 'Lot with,Stairs t .,5w1,v ' `�> j_" , l v'` Jack's Concessions siirk • Ai:. ,A. ` r : -Kokomos Surfside Grill. � `'' - {. 44' �-' r f ' _:_" —� � ► _ --Vi ,.�} e L __ .< 1 -- 'r .:' t 1j, ft Al �" :_ <' :4 iiii ciao \,,,,,v{.1,11- iltii. S ii _1*4" nlyi yy4�,,,.._€ .'-,! . 0 �< a :1' 4tii'. ®r ' 4, ,74; urJ^g�y(. - 'a-°,.a- m°nr-ram. , ` ,`6. s r '�. ear ' 41 4: 4.� 'w'-x Ssa r " r? r I 5:.. �.;..,i •.,�,yr� �,;�,z ..."., . ,,.,,ti-.::. :. � �,',""�. 1,�' �,=.„ :..�' " ;� X +{.^ ,w°�.1 0 ..•rn:;�2" ». m.��,..� .......r.� �"��a �`2'.'e. ,. .F'y r ,4? -se. w... ,.. ...a':.d.:..w r— .<-._.. .." ». ,.... � p ',� 3;..n :. *A,.w�.. 5..:- ,s+',".0 A, .:d! P _ <+ ,:,. ,47,. �.-a `. -,i -z.- . `�.,.- a1 z ..tee .;�:, r �a `yam.} �,, + 3.. •�--s. .i A' :. ,� �..„:e ._ �,*io- k..,.. ..... � " .:,.,.. :rr^' ,. �:.�a ,. ._ � � _ � 7..s� r He ..--- a. u,.s,w� `"{, `.� `s:..,... •:;.,. ,. 3 s.,�t� >...,. _ter --`.-�.. 4 �1 > :,7. ,,,.x, ,,,x, .,<W„ +rr 11"Q a .'::'_ ' ,"" .- „ ¢.•'#...w ,x.msN �,,..,-•-'.�. ....�.,f �h..waaer 1�....,. ., a �'"'¢.:.,,�a.��...-�,7 :; ....ah.am - , d y.Ft� Recommendations Corridor Improvements Point Improvements 0 Install centerline striping; widen path and include user separation Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility O Upgrade bike racks to be more secure and conflict zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display O Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight 0 Move showers farther from path to prevent queuing on path 699 SEGMENT 5 1 ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD7. - � �, , , .,.ate f1 between Huntington Street and Hyatt - ''- i, , ,- t�. 4 Fc1161)b e71.'-tif , Focus Area�nyellow n „,..„rs n r-* x ut ,,y an .,ii b?Yc u �0 I $ y .� +<- s* Bridge -a , k- 7 . '' �w ra�:. j k. 7. k ` k. W'e« xiCtx . ' ` is "�� za, l 4`'M ,,, .- it ,r.. J1.V.,.:, li" *. - 1%'c !&x n 1!Ri ,i�=off;, f. � � u �t x :1� �.l!!aroma '� . a , - a 2. ..-.s, .A .� _ -... "°d" ' ' ;?..�Rp�Rw, g «ri�� n , p x E `-'� 0 �. �. ,�,!'1 q, °' z q j t :;f,= i� .' - ... a g] Ili* s .lt"5,+ � tom.' a i /''' ,y+!s -, s ,e.tti.' 14'k -;: 1' silk . At grade parking lotIV .. '') z z ;: 'a M:,, �l i Fw ., • ` 1` ,fit 4� l ,,, " 3 __ M ,, glr.: !� , �4 `3� d=. r . A. rAzv. � � - .i it, a F z ply 4_ �,�.t.r '+ s - �- ,�.1 ✓- b� d' -' V` _ l�, _ iA lilt FFaa �. ice'^2 IL' 7 Jt ry ""'t Y � , Cr `' 'z. �`O "' e .. r..-_. s wT 'i 4. --4-",,,... ,,--7:. -'..' -1"::';''''''',"---.;,' ri 1' Yi .`..^ '� 4:= V ,,--- . % /� - rw. :,.A 1 ':i.: _±, .-;.. „. a 4 .;a-c .� .. z..,. 1 4 � J�". ..._;. s.e' '� � ..•— c.>•�'1 : ..�. �. ( ,_. ,.. < ' .. -.. 94 rn� �..# .fir 4.--- n -ram;;' '*°: ' i''''' > a`l N' ._,.�e"._::,, , ,-- 7.::M cr — .»,p .n-.-�- -,;.. .:r ','__ e, a.;, . ..... ece'i :Ay .,�:� .r.- ,. . ;3, ,�.. o=' 5,�,a c'.Y"�` �..�...�i „'_�.,.,=.fi-.;,^. ��. . Issues & Opportunities (Issue) Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does (Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling 0 (Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path across path from those traveling along the path (Issue) At grade parking lots have no clear access (Opportunity) Sand walls prevent sand build up on points - steady stream of pedestrians across path path (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage 0 (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) Q (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; 700 no centerline SEGMENT 5 1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD ,,,, f,rk t`'"T ;x cr�5 d&RT tErip g�it -. " :.s1 (...ii r r ti . i between Huntington Street and H att � ���a' � �� x � �� �It tt,�o�usA�ea,nyen Bridge ' .y . i' .. .--_r..":.�: ,.-...+,:,•,�.,°„,„.<.a:,,- q ,.,,.. :; Av a ,-- i: r * -1,77- ^n A I 1.1"44 .,t.. H ; ,.,,t-t',9 " +s s{'` . .�r ?a .d r v- tt' s ..,un m , ,,ue„ sa a < G3 ; seEte w � ri p , ar " ,it', 1. '` # A ggr: ." ; 4. if, n " ' > y j a , "# � sI J� At grade parkinglot .X , x 3< .4 0 cc ,..-.1. ,,,-...,`,7' , -,.,.0 - . ,;.4.1- ; i‘,1 '‘ li,v: ....`".• c'' 1-A,71.,... .i, asaim. Vaa:7,,,,',.- ,.; 3 �, fl t_°I�� i' 'IJ�dilril1.'.T y j . '��f" d L � } �r w ' :✓�„r ., `. _ ' j r � , `��_ �,�a:, _-'� ;��f ,..mod v-r`� v :.m-� `,^ � �r. 1 q' +,... .. (0 _e... ,„... k;... x`e,--- .„ - ,s. _ m'-:... x �` :t=4.` v�'•\ .-^`,-,'f ,.w w. *..,,. "` - q--"l.nzar" , -� ^.. :Yt .. .-.., 6.0 " : „ , " .,. ,.r . -^'-. +6 _ ,*�.+» am* .:sx € s. - a '., . � a, J,t s.:=�"3'�' R..:.: .., .., ,: a _:e�P' " .�c. :. n a� °-,,. nr�' SYr, 0 ,�u.., ._� _ ';';:,. r:" ,,: :.. A:'- -h d',. 4 ": ., 47- s"*' ,'+� qa� r ., ..' ,-'... yam :1a°<7'� 2r 1 ... ,� .«,r; - .no,y1 ,c"' lc a „, _ :. - ,mot'-' s.' ."° ___ r. q� Recommendations CorridorImprovements Point Improvements ® Install centerline striping; widen path and include user separation Q Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict ® Upgrade bike racks to be more secure zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks ® Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular sign display Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight 0 Move showers farther away from path to prevent queuing on path 701 Segment Boundaries SEGMENT 5 r r�`a ti, rkr4 iz . FLIV Y`� 4'IIt'iRtgginili ., �.a. s :,. 1ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD - — --�� L ',.�.$~4 ��atigo t � F.fit,s - ite} ocusArea ri ye low- 3 � Li.,_.�LL�k►r014cee4 St911"N` hs+r � � S�"� between Hyatt Bridge and Beach Boulevard ` = . ;, .; Qs , w ' .: , - �. L>l�4v:•¢y w «y+tt• ,} ma �i a, �T`*-nay-uw.: _ @ „t_ 11 — -11L4A :YsvTi ' r •yf _,.a, _�.a a, ‘0\ „i?4.z�r`r�`�.n t �' .i'� 'C. 1 �l " 1:..- -.:1:1 .1...1.s;' e "� 3: ,:c. s , ("2. [;'• ',r 1 -a` � �k ua. t 't _ wtz ; it nri�y;J',,I7, iii' }T ct T.i1n t « :'kP,','t,.. +7i�� ,,4i z - w�N �_� � ,t� , i'i r� =.�"* g;,;. E : x,"s r� � 6 `� �� 1 �� � a�",s�w tr+ ,��^. d� ar ,ti,.:a:..t', -'x.. ,«�: ,. r. '3. ;q,.,,x .P1 'y „ .. ,4 Mro'`i -:. %`.r'Y xPt'�l f'4,+ _t.. . r>"- .. �..... � � � ,':,,,Y..�. tea+� .;d- t,E .; w -::.�- -s.9.. "'�` <A;'� s" ti, ::3._ ,..1 « et'."� `.,`r„➢. +may.,::.. t; is a`-A1 ,,,,. .'€ - rif; •-w ,,' ? +. - e:..t, r � `d _ .'3{ � + a', f < � _ Il fit, ,�-{�Si � �,r�'f��"';s��. I � ''.I .�"'.1.d(' :. :"yt �' � .fr.¢ �. a*{'9 : ';�� ".7 C �� -,y.,' i€y�wk``S ���q5 }' r' s d • 't grade parking lot � .' � u ,t� �,a4 . v ♦ . ^ F %$' ( 42 `�.�, i <I ��'r�Y •Y' 4Y{( {y"ii:y .', ;, e Tit _ _ P, �-,,;,''''''+`"ma `s '`�i '. >Si,;. ;":" I s�{€' .�°t r 4 , 2.5x*T« i, i ,` yAV1 ':41 ,� j:74, a ji,tC.4 �'. �.far q > - „. `.'"};��11. ,F ie„y:,.)r� ,t`,t�?' `-�,•XAe_ n to ,r x i�.= > " ,.1 �`_-_' ✓- iYnr�i4' �.�!.Ly T - , kl ,.. v' Ii �.r--� i;".�j "\k3�� I 414,k\,)�‘ ' p �� i� 4,'(3 - rr �y�� �! s 2:t 'i t, * . kl,�al .3++ t Cii) V--;7. • • ztR34T µ - R - , Y F- *..., Ems_ �` \®� _,+. y t , i"-^"'T ' N #�.� .�. --�a=*..,Se ....,.«.-,W. ..�._.`s_✓� ::'��`Y a..� -�*"'i - C-�.- ice" —� if a _ - 'v r,:' :--,"a-' ;- ,.ter-," #r,'a ,r n* d; sr ' -^' ,.9.LL ;, k k v = _ ,-ax...__ �a1��-^�'.b� 1..y — �, ; ,� .-a � ;^- i .� t Issues & Opportunities 0 (Issue) Pedestrian and bicycle mixing zone does (Issue) Line of sight obstructed from parking lot to not include sufficient warning of potential conflicts sand; trash bays block view of pedestrians traveling ® (Issue) Lack of secure bike storage along path across path from those traveling along the path , (Issue) At grade parking lots have no clear access CI (Opportunity) Sand walls prevent sand build up on points - steady stream of pedestrians across path path (Issue) Inconsistent speed limit signage O (Opportunity) Provide sufficient unobstructed space along path (will require feasibility and environmental review) Q (Issue) Path does not have separation between users; 702 no centerline ElSegment Boundaries SEGMENT 5 1 ST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARDKr- . CO ��� iflarkatm ii F A �- ,j,1 ,4 G,,,G a, �£ t t fi,n, � mf. Area in.ye„low_ ,t. ., �->. 0.5r,+sy.�„ `w.* L1-_..�sacee�'�e�.die,m�cin3etrk�i��P�CUt�N6���r�i�.elte' ��� `,. 3GA. u between Hyatt Bridge and Beach Boulevard '- ..� � yam,. .--,r:...i-. 7�YSA,vsian._ - s? •��r,d t�.?!waFv: .'"� `'4^u r:: -�^"-•' U. T.' 'r•.r{t an 7- E�3 :, .� t� .f� ,ii:: r S y . T {141'i i,"f r.9 � �• �.i- :-t+ "l:L _ -.:r 7 d (l. t 1� a a x :i..L 6 g (� dr '47' .� � � i� <. ;Y� 31 � ��a !3'F�E g,. ,P' a � �e1� � al s;• .��-"I�.o ;w. ,�, x.« 4q i r..e=",�t .. j �' 'p€ :, -may" � `�.,t�.` � �� , � �,,.�.: � ���r �,�� , ,C=�- �.:�,IFIR tgr d parking o ,;, m .�� , �. _��.�� . _ �`� ��V. \ �q: ��;;,. ,,����, �y; �� grade It ��. '''—' '-''-' ''''''\' \t. 'l'i.i41,4 '•=,'•=w- 71'W .., , 1 '"1,t'. ' .i�•�l it of v, as a . �� r h , ';, .i,, , ,, .i ,yta + -- r t. ....r• �f. l; . ,'f f y � ,.. ®® s ^,P .�q .�i-A Y` ,„ ,�.,tr,q.��� .,yp --...ice.: ro -+.---""__`� -fit s�. i•. � ":� ,r_ ,� r'i�'�� G:� � S7 ��+....- ,+r`� ° ' -`W"�+"",i" a ..i`.9 d, o it (,.:'K �:,. �S8 -Y �' � v .. ''.�.! ',tir a y0..h.p,. -.,' 4� � it�rr*; �.�= •4���. -�. .- .W.. ,w., �a ,� �4 ,,�,...�...:: �,��' .c9' a.¢'x¢f .'a'" F� j ':u t' �.. ..:;'.m,+ :14,+tt "' - w:w:... ?--, sr,, .. =u... ra` ..�: eTs: _ � - p%> :-� i' '��,.;x- 1. 1��� �: 3 21, x ��" �is h'� «� .:+�"� r �.�; E,. 1F,,. �. �,,�, .ate _ � �r,. ,- ?�a—, :"d.- ..ai� � i `�...wekW� za�i*�' '3 _ _ s. ,;,,,. r s; W, —"rk � i r e", --v- .. . •+ r .w. - ,, ^. a s �.r-m.,.......- `34 .i .w+'' %ri �s: .-,- c..,f ,yam t' a ...,7*.�. "J4 .+ _ ::�"" 'fit. � .. ..,°" ., ,�^ �,'"� a .:.,� 'fi.."..ua.."'"c;.,. ^# aM- t��'f" �. ti::.�.. t, .ra . �� "��. s: r,.'.�.., .. . a� s _,,*�� * pry �'t' M,1•. s._- .. .._ * ,fl, r r ,>^a `.• ..'- 1 . ,' cur x'S ..„f.:, w >.� _�....r-+.<.... ,:..-:.�, .«._,k,a*i,;�.g...,. .n.r._. . -- �;,.�..�. .. .� .;.- .p.-i,x �'d a e;, ..>1. ax �: -at.= h .^r-.r,. .r „-�,..:.. w ._..-..; ......... �^"..» „e,ax -.... , .• '- s� i rt, r.. .:'1 `t'i .f r; q'.d • -.1.—— •-•-*,_!WW,' -•--,...:.._.` .,,T. ,I .». ,. 'ems x s `.""`-' _ ,r.a*"'t� ,.;. F '1 '4s?»1; 2 1.,,. 5r' r, =rr.-S _ �a. .e...'m..�:.a�..x '�, ,S. 4 ,.r +s$ I-b 4� zz a �l a 3,,,..�5 :.�, Recommendations Corridor Improvements Point Improvements Q Install centerline striping; widen path and Q Install rumble strips near high-traffic areas / access points include user separation along path; Enhance pedestrian crossing visibility and conflict O Upgrade bike racks to be more secure zone markings through the use of artistic, continental, or diagonal crosswalks ® Establish 10 mph speed limit with singular Q Reduce height of trash bays to improve line of sight sign display 0 Move showers farther away from path to prevent queuing on path 703 Appendix 3 — Cost Estimates Segment Total Corridor Miles Estimated Total Cost Segment 1 —Seapoint Street to Goldenwest Street 1.18 $154,000 Segment 2—Goldenwest Street to 11th Street(Upper Path) 0.78 $101,000 Segment 3—Goldenwest Street to 11th Street (Lower Path) 0.78 $2,660,000 Segment 4— 11th Street to 1st Street 0.64 $1,129,000 Segment 5—1st Street to Beach Boulevard 0.85 $939,000 Total Cost $4,983,000 7$4 • HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MIP) - HB IN MOTION SUMMARY SEPT 2024 H3 (-1),„„15,/ z'7 _ d- / —/-7(c) . IN MOTION 705 PROJECT GOALS WHY DO THIS? o. Improve citywide bicycle and Better planning means we're not wasting funds or any missed pedestrian network options opportunities: This plan helps us look at streets differently, holistically and safety for all users instead of standalone. Not going back and adding elements. We avoid throwaway costs. Improve the comfort and Better position for GRANTS: Almost every grant agency requires a plan design of the Beach Path for as supporting documentation for projects. all users Plan for the Future: Where bike lanes were once occupied exclusively © Build upon the City's long by people on bikes, they are now home to people riding electric term mobility pedestrian, scooters, motorized skateboards, and micromobility devices (with new bicycle, and transit planning devices being introduced regularly). efforts EB _@-1/ k - INMOTIO!\ MEASURED APPROACH FLEXIBLE APPROACH BUILDS ON EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES BASED ON BIKE FACILITIES THAT ALREADY EXIST IN HB INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS WITH PHASING PLAN CREATES TOOLKIT OF OPTIONS CLARITY IN THE NETWORK BASED ON PUBLIC INPUT ALLOWS FOR CONTEXTUAL SOLUTIONS ALLOWS FOR HB TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING FLEXIBLE TO MEET BUDGET PRIORITIES CAN BE INSTALLED AS A SMALL % OF RESURFACING PROJECTS ` ` ' l ' k = � .mToolkitMobility Imp lementtion Plan i 7 °'f �4, 3• r,� f ( icj le !Pedes ;�rian eai h Pe'th ), a s == Tr�eat.ments Treatm:ants Treatments PROJECT TIMELINE Project Website: www.hbmobility.com May 2022 -Present Public Survey I February 2022 - August 2022 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 October 2023 Plan Adoption Fall 2024 708 r_ �41 ,�.. „.w� �< - �g ' _�°. �Ayr, :,; .,_�„ � .° a„ �._..--,�.. ; �� ,,_....� ^ram__ Phase I Survey Results , February 2022 - August 2022 g° / onerallesu'Its • • E. ,- e°} � „curve ores onsos •3 .,, 1 `1 by it .Vf f ers r ', '„ . as. . `, t .. �,° Y a '" t; I ! , ? , Strom h n-aers c°ing°o aoad co it nity 1 93/o of,respondents live ihH-1 R t _ consensus `for,rnul iple categories Other than rdriving. respondents � •: prefer p erne estinat. ons via. °°.. 1' R.., z ° .: w ° � �� �"� , � 2.Besides driving,how do you prefer to access destinations in Huntington Beach?[Select all that ! active l.��rlspU lon apply] sq • 81%,prefer: to bike. , • •° Value Percent Responses r` ' 0 •° Transit 2 . . 7-6% 29 p6 • '7 prefe°t -R aIk :•4 • � 4$ _ &• Bike 81.496 311 • Close split b.etween•pedestrian•and - ` Scooter 3.7% 14 biking on the Bea+ h Path ' r ° (,� ,• m+ a 5.� ,. ., '`a+ i. Walk 73.6 1 � °.. . tee; • ,i --_. � °. i . .. m, :•;:.. ° ° .•x;. � `. a' _.__—. __.._.——' '..._—'_—_.. _...,...__ _.._...—_---_._.__......._-- -----.__ .__-_..._."_.__.___.__----' --'---— .�.._-- . Taxi/Uber ■ 1 14.7% 56 None 2 10 s, 709 WHAT WE HEARD I PHASE II SURVEY la Other than driving, respondents prefer to access destinations via walking and bike/ e-bike Flex Post ft Planted Buffer 1 Beach Path Feedback ® Very strong positive sentiment toward: separated beach ( Planter 0 0 � ‘ Bollard path (81/%), beach path ped crosswalk (78/%), slow ��- :, ly zones (70%) ® Strong/moderate support for speed feedback signs (56%), 10 mph speed limit (54%) N\ Segmental Divider ApAA ei On-Street Bike Facilities .,1 I ® Top three preferred on-street bike facility types: Parking separated bike lane (Delaware), Parking Protected Bike Raised Median i w Lane (Springdale), and Buffer Bike Lane (Algonquin) ; e,, - zi Top 3 separated bike lane separatory type: Planted Buffer, Planter, Raised Median On-Street Bike Facility Separatory Types 710 1111111.11INIMMIIII 1.,•.;;Imm.:,,,v,..„,,,,,•••-"="4r-,;"-,-1,,i,V, V.-,,^',,',,;,,.--,,, .,,,f,cP7-4],17,Tze,,,,z, ,*,--,,,„,,7„,r, ,.,-e , &W*---", ...,„,71:-i',.,,,,I:,'„ ,,..-;, 4-..MliAK-.....„7;;.c.--% *„.1,,,,4.-,.....,....',7 ec ma A na ysis tel Bove . il — • L =, 1 -: '' I e.71—"TvIIIIIM- 2 i g ." ..Mat 0 Challenges at the arterials for bikes (see -6.IL -g raz Edinger.Ave„ 1 _ if-4(' : vir,graphic) and pedestrians once they reach ••\ *7 lie_17;104railL-A-1 major intersections — u nam • RSeMqgu;iolaenr ea t Park • ".. 1 ASA• .7211 —,, ,ri . ,,..7.,:.,,__rintw I '-"- ., El Need for a holistic network to bridge the gaps -,-,‘ -7,7,2V- ,.:_ci3F-. ' :hil:TA;..e \s„ ..0 ----... . lin, pi, -, 1-,. i - • •. -- that are inhibiting access for some travel \,, 0,3,. ),,,, 3,0.4...-Eaulpi s 7alrill Aver • . modes \-0 44- 4 P, 41 (Lep d avki t., , , „ li•':Al.. II 11' in 1 Garfield Ave CI 89% of major intersections operate at LOS C , or higher , r , ,44.., ,.. ., IA Jit,T nN ,1 , a Opportunity to provide balance to allow for .4 ,, .,...1 .4.7.ilndlanarants A e ta ..,.. i ,. more mobility choice for residents and 4.74Ehip.: iii 3-; Pliffir E.R 1 . .tA.g— gWtia ta MUM' II ii II/ .:A ,. . 714119 visitors ,•,..---i, -. i anal'on--ATiel T • : Pacific -. Ocean - N...,N -Banning LI1r'e 4 Level of Traffic .N"-- •\ Stress(LTS) LTS 1 —LTS 2 --—LTS 3 —LTS 4 711 1 6 - TOOLKIT _ . a�r� % " r — IT 42 n , e P i?i t+7 't7't At�'� w if Buffered Bike Lane �• 7�[---- Mid-Block Flashers Shared UsePath (Separated)_ ` { sf rgil 4�� � ( the a �,* 1, T, c. .,.* ✓} jsy a y-$�x'. Ai k .r tas.°'amiawgnH ! c4 zr k r i w aya.. vxe Ts 1 J 3 -� t• n a„ , W...„,, n Atlanta Edwards Beach Path ' ak Leading Ped Interval .. Separated Bike Lane Median Refuge Island ‘' %' 4 , ` 43„ b ^ tl r r`M , Yam- tk / l iN A. 'i t 1 , ( k® `"a"2},F" _ _ Y II Y1;.ct i 1 ,'} 3, r F t { yy Y Heil (soon),and Edinger (soon) Springdale . RE '� _. - .. �_ —..,.1A_' 'l ..... ... .."..*. . ,; ,... . „, ate,TM :: „...„.. BICYCLE NETWORK Existing Network 2023 ' I Phase 1 Focus Areas' 1 to 5 years .1 Phase 2 Focus Areas,.5 to 10 years k £ � } ��e 4 $ it 66 � �:, F C: i.,t i - __ Ir S 3�' _ ° t DEL $ '_-I ' i - -. _ 'o�'t ":a 4 a,S.- ..e.:,_a.. 1� .•+.::._4 ( -,_:a,.;. '-.�' • i '� 1i, < k'1 t p se, d .c r `fi, ,C,y , ,,.:0 '( r:7. r$ ( `tt, 1 4 -x 6 ''.Js§ { !( -`" + t+ 11 °, ':,1, ,,. i `y� r .e cur, 'i€ t. t 9E '.'$ '. ..e :,r 1. t �" a j P _ I 11�' '^. t (# i" a 'eV }af r f _ „ . \\,w.�-' 7aa r_ r =at „x�t 'ti, ( _ sue# . .. (. s !! LL 1 a i - � ;fit 1� <} �f: y ; __ � � • �.- urea 6! it , 1f r�br "sn $ 4d yp x Data Source Toole NDes gnu 2023;City GI i?02 ,V _ PEDESTRIAN FOCUS CORRIDORS `% � ;� "� yT f J Bolsa lArgr"-a d p `c _ V -k1 7 1. 1 111, ; 1 a711E21.0,.'\--.-:!-;:': 1p'` ,t k E' rm-'ll Ij 5 Corridor Grouping Overlapping Factors Ema'yer �`� � `�'/` ' ' � _ ~ ✓,✓' ` '',�' I iCi ioff- 2 i 7` ,- I'.'{ u$ t- q"ar `�f t(��,,` t 1r toA I t ' �_ ;- ,_ , Square �'Y'G\ Exu rr-t-rt 3 t` i r� r- I rerr Atlanta / Magnolia / rj1 r bWaflier Ave� l���lirill lir �4 a+ Destinations Vulnerable Populations, LTS TM Hamilton* p � ` - t , s� ,, . tl ;}; `: I x . N , r _ -`.a i _ Algonquin / Warner/ d��, wa = �, 14 Talbert Ave t LTS, Population Density, Crossing,Distance d "`J Saybrook* °°� ��,=a,� 'En, � 1; 44� d `articr (� " r..___.. - ' K '��at,.> i _♦ s^ tj�l1 6adleld Ave } PCH 17th LTS, Population Density, Destinations, Transit �' i ,i .1 t' `* High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Crashes, -- ' ;' ltY w.�;i ; ;l Edinger pa .� -�� Transit LTS Destination > '717 e .t �: Corridors r y�� ali�� ��'tL ,��1 : �, Transit,:Pedestnan High Stress=Corridor,- _ Pedestrian rr �� t1,�AVe� r ?Beaeh �a'.-'. r ,_"q -.? Edinger ; 11('t3 �) �,, , .,, : Crashes, Population Density,,,LTS-. � acr A� 1 . ' ' aria venue lia Street/Hamilton Avenue Atl t A /Ma no' BeachBoulevard Goldenwest' High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Vulnerable coldenweststteet �- �a _ , ` :� _Populations, Destinations, Crossing Distance ® WarnerAvenue/Algonc,uinStreet!Saybrooklane - _ - _ - ® Brookhurst Street!Indianapolis Avenue High Pedestrian Stress Corridor, Transit, Pacifi°�pastHighway"7thStreet Brookh.urst/ Indianapolis , �- = e ® PedestriancorridorPhasin9 �Destinations, Population Density�'� 0 U.S =1 1.5 7_mi *Overlaps with bicycle corridor recommendations `�"I r"�' i Huntln9�°�� `''Mobility b'""plan • • WHAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING LeatP� €®n© �i�n��. •` - ��. : ..�. 87678c i'�► �7 ' 1 --_--__ iils% - : •� 1 .-' _ tea,, _ w K @pup @ ' � --', , # ; ii ,......:,:•,:i.,*..,:,,,,,,i-!..-,,,„1„..7,_ .: , ,,....„... ...44,:,,,L,-,',------* PI T-„- y'�! S a p,.�,L%,,ttzt:',-,-;.,,*;,.,',.:•:;',,,f:::::::.,, _::::::4: :?.,;,..,,IS.:„ :'''':'', _‘::..:,;„,,....::,...„r,,.. • .. .s - stF ' •- •`" C't1t a e m®m e `a o I. ��iii y� �y `ra " I� � it ' / mlo/f V ehoo ,�, .... t - .,,- , , ,r.7. ' - r , i ; „77, r \\ ram.. �, r ,� _. ' xt ,4, ', y� :;K a+ AG•pao�'vr' fail ' `�' Hp At 7 7 '��/fit }� 'ryf')u {I i.y crab ' " '� i :. a .—^ x s ,., ', h., R +�� '.J G©Q`te V'y. "• • .E • .., � r s .,; �e�'`,e , ;4"r '. „� � .,1 �yw a.` -$4-.7.. ram' 3 KK #, , ;. er. ss��` h *� !Yea* ©_a �� "� S ,a t e_*„ }'J' w. 1 i'1� `•~e,. 'i fix.,t, k r �i"h " (itt$! 1 QUESTIONS 716 12 From: Cathev Ryder To: 5upplementalcommftsurfcity-hb.ora Subject: Agenda Items on 9/17/2024 Date: Tuesday,September 17,2024 7:59:29 AM Agenda Items on 9/17/2024 Mayor, Mayor Pro Team and City Council members, HB Homeowners and voters for 39 years-Multiple topics this on agenda. As a community volunteers for Huntington Beach Art programs that are offered for children, we have questions about the new parent's right to know ordinance. If we see 2 8 year old girls holding hands, do we report it and to whom?If a boy is wearing a shirt with Taylor Swift, is that reportable?Will there be log or form that volunteers will use?Will we be given parent/guardian information?Will there be training or written materials for volunteers?We have many more questions and so far very vague answers or no real understanding of even where to get answers. Has the city filed their lawsuit against Amplify Energy for the 2021 oil spill? Time is of the essence. Has the CEQA for the Pacific Air Show been completed? Will HB residents see the results with the need to do a public records request.Transparency was a campaign promise in 2022. It is definitely time to make the City Council Chambers a safer environment. We urge the council to explore all options with the HBPD so EVERY attendee feels safe. We are also pleased to see a vote for the adoption of the June 2024 HB in Motion Huntington Beach Mobility Implementation Plan. We applaud the multiple times at each city council meeting when the council votes 7-0 on actual city issues like water and sewer lines, street improvements, public safety and community programs. Let's return to the real business of the city and practice good governance. CJ and Bob Ryder SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 9/17/2024 23 (24-633) Agenda Item No.