Art3_BigBear_FY19_BikePed_LakesideLoop_App_RESCINDED
TDA Article 3 Grant Application 2019
City of Big Bear Lake
Lakeside Loop
Provide data to support potential use of the bicycle or sidewalk facility:
The San Bernardino National Forest is located within a 4-hour driving distance from urban population
areas of more than 20 million residents, where access to nature and natural resources is limited or non-
existent, especially for lower-income populations. While the permanent population of Big Bear Valley
communities is 18,376 (2013-2017 American Communities Survey), the Big Bear Valley experiences 5
million visitors annually.
This project, known as the Lakeside Loop, is envisioned to create a complete non-motorized
transportation alternative around the Lake. In its complete state, the Lakeside Loop encompasses a 17-
mile path consisting of portions of Class I multi-use path, Class II bike lane, Class III shared travel lane and
sidewalks. It will also connect to other existing bike lanes, sidewalks, and non-motorized trails to link
neighborhoods, amenities, services, parks, from the forest to the lake. The project will serve residents in
the communities of Big Bear Lake, Big Bear City, and Fawnskin, as well as Big Bear Valley visitors.
This project will connect to the Valley’s only lakeside trail, the Alpine Pedal Path, which is a paved bike
and pedestrian path measuring 2.5 miles in length along the north shore. The United States Forest Service
(USFS) Mountaintop Ranger District currently estimates that 40,000 people use the Alpine Pedal Path
annually. A 2018 traffic study was conducted over one summer weekend plus one weekday at the
Discovery Center, which provides a public parking lot and access to the Alpine Pedal Path via an under-
highway tunnel. The study found a total of 351 bikes and pedestrians over the weekend of July 7 and 8,
and 28 total users on Wednesday, July 11, all over 24-hour periods. This count is a snapshot of only one
location along the route which is heavily traversed by bicycles and pedestrians due to its proximity to
adjacent amenities which include the Alpine Pedal Path, the Big Bear Discovery Center and Mountaintop
Ranger District Office, the North Shore Elementary School, and several National Forest hiking trails. A
project map is provided in Attachment 1.
Surveys of elementary school students and their parents conducted for Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
projects have repeatedly indicated that the lack of safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities as reasons for the
low numbers of students who walk or bike to school. Students and parents are forced to walk in close
proximity to fast-moving vehicles because of narrow lane widths and unsuitable shoulders. North Shore
Elementary School currently has the lowest percentage of students biking or walking to school. North
Shore Elementary School is the only school directly adjacent to the Lakeside Loop. Other schools which
are in proximity to the Lakeside Loop include Big Bear Elementary School and Big Bear Middle School,
which have sidewalks and/or bike lane access. Attachment 2 provides the numbers of students at these
schools who walk or bike to school and a school district boundary map.
The Lakeside Loop is located in and adjacent to Disadvantaged (DAC) and Severely Disadvantaged
communities. These include Census Tracts 112.03, 112.05, 112.06, 113, 114.01, and 115. The median
household income levels in these tracts are $48,947, $39,844, $53,466, $46,574, $40,948, and $63,510;
2019 TDA Article 3 Application Big Bear Lakeside Loop Page 2 of 7
respectively. Tracts 112.03, 112.06, 113, and 114.01 are disadvantaged communities because the median
household income (MHI) is less than 80% of the statewide median or less than $53,735 based on the 2013-
2017 American Community Survey (ACS). Tract 112.05 is severely disadvantaged because the income level
of $39,844 is less than 60% of the median household income ($40,301). Tract 115 is above the DAC
threshold but is located in between two DAC tracts, and remains below the state’s MHI. A DAC census
map with ACS median income level for each tract is provided in Attachment 3.
Describe how project is situated in the regional system: (Explain how this project is consistent with a
Regional Transportation Plan or SANBAG NMTP (if applicable))
The Lakeside Loop is identified in the 2014 Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian Master Plan
(Master Plan) as a primary armature project for the Valley. According the Master Plan, the Valley lacks a
cohesive non-motorized transportation network to link the Valley communities. Policy M2-1 of the Master
Plan encourages the provision of multi-modal loops around Big Bear Lake and policy M-2-2 encourages
the provision of linkages between trails, bike lanes, activity centers, and transit centers. Policy P2-1
stipulates that safe routes to schools including sidewalks and bike lanes be prioritized and P3-1
encourages pedestrian friendly loops around the lake. Attachment 4 contains the relevant (highlighted)
Master Plan’s goals, policies, and map and detailed project lists for the Valleywide Network.
The SBCTA Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) shows that the City of Big Bear Lake has a high
percentage of commuter trips by bicycle (1.06%). A completed Lakeside Loop project would increase this
percentage, which is the highest in San Bernardino County (2018), because the communities around the
lake are compact with diverse land uses include residences, offices, schools, shops, restaurants and
recreational uses. Tables 5-17 and 5-18 of the NMTP call out the segments along the state highways which
make up the Lakeside Loop and are highlighted in Attachment 5.
Outline the destinations served by this project: (Destinations can be in a list form with potential number
of bike/ped users described)
The Lakeside Loop will provide a non-motorized transportation connection from the City of Big Bear Lake
to the unincorporated communities of Fawnskin and Big Bear City. According to the Big Bear Valley
Pedestrian Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan, the unincorporated communities contain the highest ratio
of full-time residents of the Valley and the lowest ratio of sidewalks and bike routes. The City of Big Bear
Lake is the only incorporated city in the Valley and contains the primary commercial amenities and highest
number of recreational centers. Destinations which serve residents and visitors include ski resorts, hotels,
marinas, the Village, shopping centers (which provide the two large grocery stores that serve Valley
residents: Vons and Stater Brothers), real estate and vacation home rental offices, schools, library,
hospital, City Hall and other public institutional uses.
Once completed, the project will facilitate non-motorized transportation to the following destination
points:
Big Bear Lake Civic Center
Boulder Bay Park
Castle Rock Trail
Dam Keeper’s House
North Shore Landing
Grout Bay Picnic Area
2019 TDA Article 3 Application Big Bear Lakeside Loop Page 3 of 7
Fawnskin (restaurants, shops, Post Office)
Big Bear Solar Observatory
Serrano Campground
Alpine Pedal Path
Discovery Center
North Shore Elementary School
Three Mountain Transit bus stops along the North Shore
North Shore residential neighborhoods
Also, once completed, the Lakeside Loop will link to the following destinations in Big Bear Lake, which are
currently served by sidewalks and bike lanes:
Over 20 Mountain Transit Bus Stops
Vons and Stater Brothers Shopping Centers
San Bernardino County Library, Big Bear Branch
Bear Valley Hospital
Meadow Park
Big Bear Middle School (serves the entire Big Bear Valley)
Big Bear Elementary School
The Village and Pine Knot Landing
Veteran’s Park and Rotary Park in the Village
Municipal Water District and Big Bear Marina
Numerous businesses and residential neighborhoods located along State Route 18/Big Bear
Boulevard
It is anticipated that the Lakeside Loop will have a similar number of users as the Alpine Pedal Path, or
40,000 users annually. A map of the destinations and gap closure that the Lakeside Loop provides is in
Attachment 6.
Describe how this project improves the safety of cyclists and /or pedestrians using the corridor:
(Potential for decrease in number of collisions)
Two state highways, State Route 18 (SR-18 or Big Bear Boulevard) and State Route 38 (SR-38 or North
Shore Drive) provide the only access around the lake and connect the Big Bear Valley’s communities. The
Lakeside Loop measures approximately 17-miles in length and will use the existing State Route right-of-
ways. Approximately 5 miles of the loop contains a completed Class II bike lane and/or sidewalk in the
City limits of Big Bear Lake, as shown on the project map. However, pedestrians and bicyclists who need
to traverse beyond the existing sidewalks and bike lanes have to compete with motorists on the narrow,
two-lane highways. Photographs of pedestrians and bicyclists using the highways vehicular right-of-ways
are provided in Attachment 7. This project proposes to fill in the existing gap of approximately 12 miles
needed to complete the loop around the Lake. The project will add a complete-streets layer to the state
highways.
The Traffic Injury Management System (TIMS) provides collision data along the 12-mile gap in the Lakeside
Loop as a total of 5 pedestrian and bicycle collisions over a period of 8 years (2010-2018) which along
North Shore Drive and 3 along Big Bear Boulevard. Attachment 8 provides a summary of the TIMS findings
for both locations. The SBCTA Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) provides bicycle collision data
in Table 5.22 (NMTP – Revised June 2018 – City of Big Bear Lake) and indicates a bicycle collision rate of
2019 TDA Article 3 Application Big Bear Lakeside Loop Page 4 of 7
1.6 (average bicycle collisions per year). This project will improve user safety because it will provide bike
lanes and sidewalks so that pedestrians and bicycles will have a safe area of travel along the highways.
Explain the multimodal or transit system connectivity provided by this project:
The Lakeside Loop connects residents and visitors of the north side of the Lake to the south side residents
and visitors of the City of Big Bear Lake. The north side of the Lake contains the Alpine Pedal Path (Class I)
pedestrian/bicycle trail. This trail provides non-motorized access to the Serrano Campground (federal),
Meadow’s Edge Picnic Area, Big Bear Solar Observatory, Juniper Point Day Use Area, Discovery Center,
Cougar Crest Trail, Woodland Trail, the East Public Launch Ramp, North Shore Elementary School, and
numerous residences. The south side of the Lake provides the City of Big Bear Lake’s entire bike lane
network consisting of Class I, II, and III lanes as well as a system of sidewalks. Portions of the City’s bike
lane and sidewalk network is are located along SR-18/Big Bear Boulevard as well as primary, secondary,
and residential streets. The City’s network provides non-motorized access to the Bear Valley’s largest
centers of employment including the Civic Center, Hospital, School District Office, shopping centers, the
Big Bear Village, two ski resorts, County offices and court, Sheriff’s Station, the only public library in the
Valley, four parks, and over 10,000 residences. The existing Class I trails which will connect to the project
include the Rathbun Creek Trail, Stanfield Marsh Boardwalk, Knickerbocker Trail, Happy Hill Trail, and
Alpine Pedal Path. Attachment 6 contains a map which shows multi-modal connections.
The project will also tie in to the Mountain Transit system of bus stops on Big Bear Boulevard and North
Shore Drive. The bus stops are primarily located adjacent to the City’s system of sidewalks on the south
side, however there are multiple stops on the west end of the City along Big Bear Boulevard and North
Shore Drive which are undeveloped and only marked by sign as they are adjacent to the shoulder of these
highways. This project will be adjacent to the majority of the Mountain Transit bus stops, including the
stops providing off-the-mountain commuter service to San Bernardino.
Establish the level of the project's readiness: (Include a discussion on the local participation process
that resulted in the identification and prioritization of the project)
The Lakeside Loop has the full support of the City of Big Bear Lake. The project cost will be $300,000 for
the preliminary environmental phase and consist of an EIR and the City will provide a local match of
$100,000. Other agencies and organizations that have expressed support for the Lakeside Loop include
Caltrans District 8, San Bernardino National Forest Mountaintop Ranger District, SCAG, Sierra Club, Friends
of Big Bear Valley, and the Big Bear Cycling Association. Letters of support for the Lakeside Loop were
received during the 2018 ATP Cycle 4 application process and are attached in Attachment 9.
The City of Big Bear Lake engaged community-based stakeholders, potential users, public agency partners,
and non-profit partners to plan the project as part of a broader effort for the Big Bear Valley Pedestrian
Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan (Master Plan). Public engagement for the Master Plan included a
variety of tools to notify stakeholders and methods to solicit input. Notification included press releases,
postings in public places (i.e. library, post office, and Civic Center), local newspaper advertisements, a
project website, social media, and a public school outreach program, email invitations to user group
contact lists, and agency partners, and presentations to service organizations. The City and the Master
Plan consultant offered a diverse set of opportunities for input including an art contest, classroom
activities in public schools, group activities (walkabouts, a bike ride, and a family hike), focus group
meetings with user groups and agency partners, public workshops, a web-based survey, and ongoing
public comment opportunities.
2019 TDA Article 3 Application Big Bear Lakeside Loop Page 5 of 7
During these outreach activities, stakeholders provided verbal and written comments as well as hand
drawings on maps. During the Master Plan development process, a non-motorized transportation
alternative around the lake was identified as a top priority for State Routes 18 and 38. Following adoption
of the Master Plan, the City began to solicit grants and partners for the preliminary project costs, which
include the environmental review, engineering, and design.
Has the agency delivered past projects on schedule? If yes, what steps will be taken to ensure similar
results. If no, what steps will be taken to prevent a similar occurrence.
The City has comprehensive construction management guidelines and experience. Annually, the City
manages an operating budget of over $13,000,000 and the General Fund has a budget of over 3 million
for street improvements and capital projects.
Since 2010, the City has been awarded and successfully completed 20 grant funded projects well within
their respective performance schedules. These grants include but are not limited to:
Wildlife Conservation Board
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
SANBAG TDA Article 3
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP)
Department of Energy
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CalRecycle
Habitat Conservation Fund (HCF)
SCAG Sustainability Planning Grant
To date, the City has delivered project milestones on schedule while managing more than $10 million in
grant monies. Completed projects range from a non-motorized transportation master plan, sustainability
plan, multi-purpose trails, parks, a fishing dock, sidewalks, ADA improvements, street and drainage
improvements, solar energy projects, sewer system improvements, and others. City staff has decades of
experience successfully designing, bidding, and coordinating consultants, contractors and subcontractors
for timely completion of projects. With grant-funded projects, City staff conducts regular meetings and
inspections to insure timely project completion of all project steps.
Below is a list of projects that have received TDA Article 3 funds along with the award amount and project
status:
2013 Knickerbocker Creek Multi-Use Trail Project – $510,000 – completed on time
2015 Big Bear Boulevard (SR18) Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Project - $158,000 local match
fund – Submitted a successful Cycle 2 ATP Grant Application and a received a subsequent 10
month ATP extension due to unexpected delays during the PA&ED phase. The project is currently
under the PS&E phase.
2016 Stanfield Cutoff Connectivity Project - $325,000 – This project had a 100% project match
from the City, however due to unforeseen environmental requirements from the Army Corps of
Engineers, the project scope was modified and a subsequent TDA Grant application was filed in
2017, detailed below.
2019 TDA Article 3 Application Big Bear Lakeside Loop Page 6 of 7
2017 Stanfield Cutoff Connectivity Project - $322,410 – This project was a continuation of the
2016 project, with a 100% City match and is in process to complete the project on schedule.
2019 TDA Article 3 Application Big Bear Lakeside Loop Page 7 of 7
TDA Article 3 Grant Application 2019
City of Big Bear Lake
Lakeside Loop
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Map and Brochure
2. Students Walking or Biking to School
a. Table 1 – Students Walking or Biking to School
b. School District Boundary Map
3. Disadvantaged Communities
a. Disadvantaged Communities Tract locations
b. ACS Median Income Data (Table S1903)
4. Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian Master Plan, Valleywide Network
Excerpts of relevant maps, policies, and project list
5. SBCTA Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, Big Bear Lake Excerpt
6. Destinations, Gaps, Multi-Modal Connections, and Constraints Map
7. Photographs
8. Traffic Injury Management System (TIMS) ATP Maps & Summary Data
9. Letters of Support
Big Bear Solar
Observatory
Big Bear
Alpine Zoo
Future
Transit
Center
BIG BEAR LAKE
Big Bear
Discovery
Center
Airport
Castle
Rock Trail
The
Village
Bear Mountain
Ski Resort
Snow Summit
Ski Resort
Proposed Route
Existing
Multimodal Paths
City Boundary
Boulder
Bay Park
Grout Bay
Picnic Area
Dam Keeper’s
House
North Shore
Landing
SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard
North Shore
Elementary
School
Lakeside Loop Project Map
Highway 18 at Castle Rock Trail Happy Hill Trail at Civic Center Knickerbocker Trail in the Village Rathbun Creek Trail, Phase 1
Big Bear Solar Observatory Alpine Pedal PathBig Bear Lake seen from Highway 38 Future Transit Center on Division Dr.
Middle School
Elementary School
& affordable
housing
Senior
Housing
ATTACHMENT 1
Planned Future Trail
Major Shopping
Centers
City of Big
Bear Lake
Civic Center
A Collaborative Effort
John Harris, Director of Public Works/Engineering
City of Big Bear Lake
39707 Big Bear Blvd. (building)
PO Box 10,000 (mailing)
Big Bear Lake CA 92315
Email: jharris@citybigbearlake.com
Phone: 909-866-5831
Fax: 909-866-7511
www.CityBigBearLake.com
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT
A 17-mile non-motorized transportation
alternative around Big Bear Lake
connecting commercial, residential, and
recreational sites for the benefit of
residents and regional visitors.
BIG BEAR LAKE
“LAKESIDE LOOP”
What is the Lakeside Loop?
Dedicated non-motorized lane around
Big Bear Lake
Maximizes the use of available right-of-
way
Completes the loop around the lake
and links to existing and planned future
trails, sidewalks, and multi-use paths
for all users
By the Numbers
LENGTH: 10.6 miles existing
17 mile loop proposed
COST: $7,027,500
Lakeside Loop
Students Walking or Biking to School
Table 1: Students Walking & Biking To School
Walking Biking Total
School Total
Students %#%#%#
North Shore Elementary School 489 0.40%2 0.20%1 0.60%3
Big Bear Elementary School 295 10.20%30 2.70%8 12.90%38
Big Bear Middle School 371 3.20%12 1.60%6 4.60%18
Source: Survey of School Principals, Spring 2015
ATTACHMENT 2
North Shore
Elementary
Big Bear
Middle School
Lakeside Loop
Bear Valley Unified School District Boundary Map
Big Bear
Elementary
ATTACHMENT 2
Lakeside Loop
Disadvantaged Communities Census Tracts
Census Tract (CT) = 113
Median Household Income = $43,188
Population (Households) = 558
Census Tract (CT) = 112.06
Median Household Income = $54,405
Population (Households) = 480
Census Tract (CT) = 115
Median Household Income = $53,167
Population (Households) = 820
Census Tract (CT) = 114.01
Median Household Income = $41,058
Population (Households) = 2,105
Census Tract (CT) = 112.03
Median Household Income = $49,211
Population (Households) = 540
Census Tract (CT) = 112.05
Median Household Income = $31,375
Population (Households) = 604
City Boundary
Proposed Lakeside Loop
Existing Multimodal Route
State Highways
ATTACHMENT 3
S1903MEDIAN INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year EstimatesSupporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces anddisseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.SubjectCensus Tract 112.03, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorHouseholds602+/-80602+/-8048,947+/-6,659 One race-- White566+/-8094.0%+/-7.150,321+/-5,909 Black or African American0+/-120.0%+/-5.6-** American Indian and Alaska Native10+/-111.7%+/-1.8-** Asian0+/-120.0%+/-5.6-** Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander26+/-424.3%+/-6.9-** Some other race0+/-120.0%+/-5.6-** Two or more races0+/-120.0%+/-5.6-**Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)72+/-4212.0%+/-6.931,750+/-21,228White alone, not Hispanic or Latino494+/-7982.1%+/-8.051,410+/-11,080HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 15 to 24 years0+/-120.0%+/-5.6-** 25 to 44 years151+/-6425.1%+/-10.049,125+/-16,340 45 to 64 years184+/-6430.6%+/-9.950,938+/-36,442 65 years and over267+/-5944.4%+/-8.447,917+/-7,8081 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 112.03, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorFAMILIES Families393+/-75393+/-7559,554+/-19,358 With own children of householder under 18 years119+/-5330.3%+/-12.042,083+/-12,811 With no own children of householder under 18 years274+/-6869.7%+/-12.077,917+/-14,989 Married-couple families287+/-7573.0%+/-11.561,806+/-29,312 With own children under 18 years75+/-4419.1%+/-9.743,510+/-11,030 Female householder, no husband present79+/-4320.1%+/-10.648,875+/-12,989 With own children under 18 years44+/-3311.2%+/-8.5-** Male householder, no wife present27+/-266.9%+/-6.4133,750+/-91,590 With own children under 18 years0+/-120.0%+/-8.5-**FAMILY INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE 2-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)78,125+/-13,339 3-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)42,548+/-9,200 4-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)46,528+/-18,751 5-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 6-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 7-or-more person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-**FAMILY INCOME BY NUMBER OF EARNERS No earners127+/-4332.3%+/-8.951,875+/-16,959 1 earner124+/-4131.6%+/-10.747,750+/-10,806 2 earners142+/-6236.1%+/-12.298,889+/-37,154 3 or more earners0+/-120.0%+/-8.5-**NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Nonfamily households209+/-65209+/-6530,875+/-9,141 Female householder113+/-4554.1%+/-13.228,958+/-11,816 Living alone74+/-3335.4%+/-13.728,889+/-4,311 Not living alone39+/-3118.7%+/-12.6-** Male householder96+/-4045.9%+/-13.234,167+/-16,107 Living alone74+/-3835.4%+/-15.730,000+/-6,585 Not living alone22+/-2010.5%+/-9.0-**2 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 112.05, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorHouseholds565+/-78565+/-7839,844+/-12,540 One race-- White531+/-7994.0%+/-4.639,844+/-12,119 Black or African American3+/-60.5%+/-1.0-** American Indian and Alaska Native8+/-141.4%+/-2.4-** Asian18+/-193.2%+/-3.4-** Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander0+/-120.0%+/-6.0-** Some other race0+/-120.0%+/-6.0-** Two or more races5+/-90.9%+/-1.6-**Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)154+/-5327.3%+/-8.834,000+/-11,872White alone, not Hispanic or Latino377+/-7966.7%+/-9.443,542+/-17,116HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 15 to 24 years38+/-306.7%+/-5.254,444+/-15,467 25 to 44 years214+/-6137.9%+/-9.943,500+/-10,561 45 to 64 years148+/-5126.2%+/-8.649,306+/-36,628 65 years and over165+/-6029.2%+/-9.125,972+/-9,627FAMILIES Families345+/-62345+/-6248,313+/-10,127 With own children of householder under 18 years215+/-5662.3%+/-12.043,375+/-12,437 With no own children of householder under 18 years130+/-4937.7%+/-12.057,222+/-32,808 Married-couple families205+/-5859.4%+/-13.053,068+/-23,355 With own children under 18 years123+/-4935.7%+/-12.852,841+/-11,905 Female householder, no husband present82+/-3623.8%+/-9.923,676+/-3,164 With own children under 18 years74+/-3221.4%+/-8.923,611+/-6,525 Male householder, no wife present58+/-3816.8%+/-10.255,556+/-30,708 With own children under 18 years18+/-225.2%+/-6.2-**FAMILY INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE 2-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)34,211+/-27,945 3-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)24,659+/-24,521 4-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)49,250+/-9,360 5-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)125,833+/-59,996 6-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 7-or-more person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-**FAMILY INCOME BY NUMBER OF EARNERS No earners75+/-3621.7%+/-9.6-** 1 earner103+/-4529.9%+/-11.242,875+/-35,192 2 earners141+/-4540.9%+/-11.952,361+/-9,313 3 or more earners26+/-257.5%+/-7.1-**3 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 112.05, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorNONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Nonfamily households220+/-65220+/-6524,722+/-9,958 Female householder159+/-5772.3%+/-13.825,417+/-11,136 Living alone159+/-5772.3%+/-13.825,417+/-11,136 Not living alone0+/-120.0%+/-14.7-** Male householder61+/-3627.7%+/-13.8-** Living alone53+/-3324.1%+/-13.120,179+/-13,328 Not living alone8+/-143.6%+/-6.0-**4 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 112.06, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorHouseholds409+/-74409+/-7453,466+/-11,519 One race-- White355+/-7686.8%+/-7.654,028+/-16,526 Black or African American12+/-152.9%+/-3.6-** American Indian and Alaska Native0+/-120.0%+/-8.2-** Asian0+/-120.0%+/-8.2-** Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander0+/-120.0%+/-8.2-** Some other race37+/-259.0%+/-6.4-** Two or more races5+/-81.2%+/-2.0-**Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)120+/-4329.3%+/-11.147,778+/-30,147White alone, not Hispanic or Latino272+/-7666.5%+/-10.860,781+/-16,986HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 15 to 24 years16+/-183.9%+/-4.2-** 25 to 44 years101+/-4424.7%+/-11.152,596+/-50,652 45 to 64 years200+/-6948.9%+/-12.149,444+/-45,481 65 years and over92+/-4222.5%+/-9.255,714+/-12,857FAMILIES Families267+/-61267+/-6173,906+/-23,465 With own children of householder under 18 years131+/-4549.1%+/-13.840,139+/-28,977 With no own children of householder under 18 years136+/-5150.9%+/-13.886,250+/-22,549 Married-couple families173+/-5164.8%+/-12.589,135+/-23,075 With own children under 18 years57+/-3721.3%+/-13.6-** Female householder, no husband present62+/-3823.2%+/-12.025,750+/-10,972 With own children under 18 years50+/-3318.7%+/-11.125,250+/-20,174 Male householder, no wife present32+/-2612.0%+/-9.6-** With own children under 18 years24+/-239.0%+/-8.419,000+/-5,537FAMILY INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE 2-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)62,222+/-49,092 3-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)77,361+/-26,727 4-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 5-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 6-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 7-or-more person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-**FAMILY INCOME BY NUMBER OF EARNERS No earners45+/-2616.9%+/-8.4-** 1 earner113+/-4742.3%+/-14.934,219+/-26,200 2 earners91+/-4234.1%+/-13.388,750+/-50,013 3 or more earners18+/-196.7%+/-7.0-**5 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 112.06, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorNONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Nonfamily households142+/-56142+/-5635,556+/-21,776 Female householder100+/-4470.4%+/-16.732,188+/-25,531 Living alone65+/-3945.8%+/-17.8-** Not living alone35+/-2324.6%+/-16.654,583+/-43,098 Male householder42+/-3129.6%+/-16.738,438+/-29,694 Living alone27+/-2419.0%+/-14.3-** Not living alone15+/-1810.6%+/-12.3-**6 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 113, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorHouseholds566+/-106566+/-10646,574+/-10,860 One race-- White556+/-11298.2%+/-3.146,481+/-10,555 Black or African American0+/-120.0%+/-6.0-** American Indian and Alaska Native0+/-120.0%+/-6.0-** Asian4+/-70.7%+/-1.3-** Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander0+/-120.0%+/-6.0-** Some other race6+/-151.1%+/-2.8-** Two or more races0+/-120.0%+/-6.0-**Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)50+/-388.8%+/-7.063,750+/-41,477White alone, not Hispanic or Latino512+/-11290.5%+/-6.945,741+/-11,403HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 15 to 24 years0+/-120.0%+/-6.0-** 25 to 44 years80+/-3314.1%+/-6.1-** 45 to 64 years218+/-6438.5%+/-9.575,625+/-47,748 65 years and over268+/-8747.3%+/-10.935,735+/-6,916FAMILIES Families318+/-74318+/-7476,719+/-52,145 With own children of householder under 18 years87+/-3127.4%+/-10.5116,563+/-77,562 With no own children of householder under 18 years231+/-7472.6%+/-10.575,547+/-65,375 Married-couple families240+/-6575.5%+/-12.5107,963+/-64,543 With own children under 18 years52+/-1816.4%+/-6.4115,417+/-112,747 Female householder, no husband present29+/-299.1%+/-8.9-** With own children under 18 years12+/-143.8%+/-4.4-** Male householder, no wife present49+/-3615.4%+/-10.9-** With own children under 18 years23+/-227.2%+/-6.8-**FAMILY INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE 2-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)76,250+/-64,379 3-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 4-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)116,875+/-13,620 5-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 6-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 7-or-more person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-**FAMILY INCOME BY NUMBER OF EARNERS No earners130+/-6140.9%+/-13.7-** 1 earner73+/-2123.0%+/-6.8128,304+/-21,047 2 earners109+/-4634.3%+/-13.076,172+/-52,887 3 or more earners6+/-151.9%+/-4.9-**7 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 113, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorNONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Nonfamily households248+/-79248+/-7933,690+/-9,600 Female householder140+/-5356.5%+/-16.945,455+/-39,314 Living alone129+/-5452.0%+/-17.2-** Not living alone11+/-154.4%+/-6.6-** Male householder108+/-6043.5%+/-16.933,452+/-6,688 Living alone108+/-6043.5%+/-16.933,452+/-6,688 Not living alone0+/-120.0%+/-13.1-**8 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 114.01, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorHouseholds1,898+/-2181,898+/-21840,948+/-7,304 One race-- White1,801+/-23494.9%+/-3.441,593+/-9,469 Black or African American0+/-120.0%+/-1.8-** American Indian and Alaska Native31+/-361.6%+/-1.9-** Asian53+/-502.8%+/-2.730,417+/-15,590 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander0+/-120.0%+/-1.8-** Some other race7+/-110.4%+/-0.6-** Two or more races6+/-100.3%+/-0.5-**Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)359+/-13218.9%+/-6.651,133+/-33,062White alone, not Hispanic or Latino1,458+/-22376.8%+/-7.039,389+/-7,602HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 15 to 24 years101+/-695.3%+/-3.631,726+/-18,068 25 to 44 years523+/-13627.6%+/-6.444,940+/-38,802 45 to 64 years886+/-14646.7%+/-6.241,667+/-13,570 65 years and over388+/-13020.4%+/-6.340,476+/-14,661FAMILIES Families1,335+/-2031,335+/-20350,352+/-12,790 With own children of householder under 18 years540+/-13640.4%+/-8.133,235+/-24,834 With no own children of householder under 18 years795+/-16159.6%+/-8.153,859+/-9,927 Married-couple families880+/-18865.9%+/-10.059,545+/-9,877 With own children under 18 years292+/-10321.9%+/-6.770,238+/-23,069 Female householder, no husband present264+/-12219.8%+/-8.1-** With own children under 18 years136+/-8210.2%+/-5.8-** Male householder, no wife present191+/-9514.3%+/-7.328,969+/-13,327 With own children under 18 years112+/-818.4%+/-6.221,591+/-6,136FAMILY INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE 2-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)49,087+/-12,094 3-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 4-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)70,476+/-42,184 5-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 6-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)43,155+/-2,631 7-or-more person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-**FAMILY INCOME BY NUMBER OF EARNERS No earners411+/-13530.8%+/-8.931,659+/-9,103 1 earner515+/-15738.6%+/-9.840,139+/-23,947 2 earners353+/-12226.4%+/-8.778,036+/-24,162 3 or more earners56+/-504.2%+/-3.7-**9 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 114.01, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorNONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Nonfamily households563+/-144563+/-14428,209+/-15,856 Female householder285+/-10550.6%+/-14.522,083+/-14,942 Living alone189+/-8533.6%+/-13.814,267+/-4,737 Not living alone96+/-7417.1%+/-12.075,833+/-54,482 Male householder278+/-10949.4%+/-14.532,813+/-21,033 Living alone181+/-8432.1%+/-12.4-** Not living alone97+/-6617.2%+/-11.168,393+/-64,80510 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 115, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorHouseholds847+/-92847+/-9263,510+/-11,276 One race-- White807+/-9595.3%+/-3.563,894+/-11,909 Black or African American0+/-120.0%+/-4.0-** American Indian and Alaska Native6+/-90.7%+/-1.1-** Asian0+/-120.0%+/-4.0-** Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander7+/-110.8%+/-1.3-** Some other race0+/-120.0%+/-4.0-** Two or more races27+/-263.2%+/-3.1-**Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race)36+/-384.3%+/-4.3-**White alone, not Hispanic or Latino771+/-8891.0%+/-5.263,990+/-12,732HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 15 to 24 years17+/-202.0%+/-2.3-** 25 to 44 years173+/-5120.4%+/-5.945,625+/-16,714 45 to 64 years424+/-8350.1%+/-8.597,885+/-29,173 65 years and over233+/-7127.5%+/-7.438,750+/-8,540FAMILIES Families597+/-78597+/-7875,625+/-18,285 With own children of householder under 18 years197+/-5933.0%+/-8.972,689+/-15,761 With no own children of householder under 18 years400+/-7467.0%+/-8.987,321+/-21,990 Married-couple families484+/-7081.1%+/-8.577,500+/-18,623 With own children under 18 years161+/-4627.0%+/-7.474,053+/-23,925 Female householder, no husband present81+/-5113.6%+/-7.866,125+/-45,790 With own children under 18 years26+/-304.4%+/-4.8-** Male householder, no wife present32+/-285.4%+/-4.9100,167+/-73,789 With own children under 18 years10+/-111.7%+/-1.9-**FAMILY INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE 2-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)88,000+/-19,435 3-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)44,083+/-24,892 4-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 5-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 6-person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-** 7-or-more person families(X)(X)(X)(X)-**FAMILY INCOME BY NUMBER OF EARNERS No earners73+/-3912.2%+/-6.450,893+/-26,146 1 earner236+/-7739.5%+/-10.765,658+/-29,628 2 earners255+/-6842.7%+/-11.087,750+/-26,420 3 or more earners33+/-225.5%+/-3.7-**11 of1203/26/2019
SubjectCensus Tract 115, San Bernardino County, CaliforniaNumberPercent DistributionMedian income (dollars)EstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorNONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Nonfamily households250+/-66250+/-6630,500+/-9,244 Female householder110+/-4244.0%+/-13.530,500+/-24,234 Living alone87+/-4334.8%+/-14.541,042+/-30,862 Not living alone23+/-269.2%+/-10.4-** Male householder140+/-5256.0%+/-13.530,500+/-12,828 Living alone133+/-5153.2%+/-13.527,250+/-13,014 Not living alone7+/-112.8%+/-4.3-**Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. Thevalue shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of errorand the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for adiscussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.When information is missing or inconsistent, the Census Bureau logically assigns an acceptable value using the response to a related question or questions. If a logical assignment is not possible, dataare filled using a statistical process called allocation, which uses a similar individual or household to provide a donor value. The "Allocated" section is the number of respondents who received anallocated value for a particular subject.While the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas;in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from theACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year EstimatesExplanation of Symbols: 1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. Astatistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculatedbecause one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.12 of1203/26/2019
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK 5-1
5. VALLEYWIDE NETWORK
The Valleywide network is conceptualized in a manner to support a wide
variety of uses including school and work commutes, access to transit,
excursions through commercial and residential neighborhoods and along
the lake, scenic road rides, outdoor education and wellness activities, and
improved access to the U.S. National Forest. These uses will be made
possible overtime. However, the network will take many years to build. As a
result, this plan is intended to be phased based on a hierarchy of projects,
which will result in a coherent system at the end of each phase of
construction.
HIERARCHY IN THE VALLEYWIDE NETWORK
Three levels of projects exist in the Big Bear Valley hierarchy.
Primary or Valleywide Network
The Primary or Valleywide Network is thought of as armature projects that
span the Valley. For some users, the primary or Valleywide network will be
used for long runs or bicycle rides. For others, the primary network will
connect neighborhoods to one another and will provide residents and visitors
car-free alternatives for reaching commercial centers and special destinations.
Without the Primary or Valleywide Network, individual non-motorized facilities
would be disconnected from one another and users would remain dependent
on vehicles for commuting and accessing recreation facilities.
Secondary or Neighborhood Network
The Secondary or Neighborhood Network represents routes that run through
neighborhoods. The secondary network will be used to reach the primary trail
system or as an alternative to it. Streets or trails in this network are likely to be
used most frequently novice, younger, or older bike riders who want to avoid
heavy vehicular traffic. A wide variety of pedestrians will use the secondary
network for recreation, exercise, and for commuting purposes. Equestrians will
also use this network to reach surrounding open space.
Tertiary or Destination Network
The Tertiary or Destination Network is the most remote part of the system, and
in some cases, the tertiary network exists outside the boundaries of this Master
Plan. For example, the Pacific Crest Trail and Skyline Trail are two major trails
in the San Bernardino National Forest. Tertiary or Destination Trails offer
unique views, many miles of trail and experiences that are rarely found in other
places. As a result, visitors will travel to the Big Bear Valley for the opportunity
to recreate on these trails.
The facilities that make up the primary, secondary, and tertiary network fall into
several different types defined by their placement in relationship to other
modes of travel as well as the materials used to construct them.
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
5-2 CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK
MULTI-USE FACILITY TYPES
Class I (M.1.)1
Class I facilities are paved, off-street paths dedicated to non-motorized users,
including walkers, skaters, wheelchair users, and joggers. They are typically
designed for two-way traffic and often with amenities such as lighting, signage,
benches and fencing.
Unpaved Trail (M.2)
Unpaved facilities are constructed with crushed gravel, compacted earth or
similar materials. They are suitable for equestrians, hikers, and mountain bikers
of all types depending on slope, sight distances, and other factors.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITY TYPES
Sidewalk (P.1)
Sidewalks provide a comfortable space for pedestrians between the roadway
and adjacent land uses. They are especially important in commercial districts
and along commercial corridors.
Additional Pedestrian Facilities (P.2-P.5)
Bulb-outs or curb extensions, refuge islands, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals
are used to aid and protect pedestrians when they need to cross a street.
BICYCLE FACILITY TYPES
Class II (B.2) and Protected Class II
Class II facilities are on-street bike lanes that are physically separated from
vehicular and pedestrian facilities. Basic Class II facilities are identified by
striping, signage, and pavement markings. Protected Class II facilities may
simply be separated by a painted buffer. Other Protected Class II facilities
have a positive barrier in the form of a curb between motorized and non-
motorized lanes of traffic.
Class 2.5 Bike Boulevard (B.3)
A bike boulevard is a shared bicycle facility on residential or local streets with
traffic calming treatments such as roundabouts, pop-outs, pavement markings,
and signage. They are often parallel and an alternative to high volume, wide
streets with fast moving vehicular traffic.
1 The M.1. reference and others like it in this Chapter correspond to design
types found in Appendix A: Design Guidelines.
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK 5-3
Class III Shared Route (B.4)
Class III facilities are roadways shared by bicyclists and motorists. Signage and
“sharrow” markings guide cyclists and inform motorists that cyclists should be
expected in the travel lane.
EQUESTRIAN FACILITY TYPES
Equestrian Trail (E.4)
Trails for equestrian use are designed to accommodate horses and horseback
riders. Design considerations include height clearance, width, slope,
vegetation, steps, and erosion control. Typically equestrian trails are shared
use. However, in some places, mountain biking and equestrian uses should be
separated.
Equestrian Trail Adjacent to Motorized Roadways (E.15)
When adjacent to motorized roadways, additional design considerations
include distance from road, type of separation, and tread for use by other non-
motorized users.
VALLEYWIDE PROJECT SUMMARY
Table 5.1, below, and Map 5.1, at the end of this chapter, summarize and
illustrate the all of the pathways in the Valleywide Network.
Table 5.1: Proposed Multimodal Network Summary
Project Type Total Miles
Unpaved Trail 19.83
Sidewalks/Boardwalks 15.75
Class 1 – Paved multi-use routes 7.9
Class 2 – Bicycle lanes 34.38
Class 2.5 – Bike Boulevards 3.43
Class 3 – Bicycle routes 11.43
Equestrian pathways 10.74
Total Miles 103.46
MULTIMODAL POLICIES & PROGRAMS
The following goals and programs are necessary to guide the development
and management of the multimodal network.
Goal M1: Create safe and inviting streets and trails throughout Big Bear Valley
1-1.Buffer sidewalks along major arterials and in commercial areas with
one or more of the following: landscaped planting strip, on-street
parking, and/or a paved furnishing zone for benches, trash
receptacles, lighting and other types of seating.
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
5-4 CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK
1-2.Buffer separated bike lanes (Class II) with wide street markings and/or
on-street parking where practicable.
1-3.Explore opportunities for separated grade crossings where major trails
cross state highway facilities.
1-4.Maximize visibility and physical access to trails from streets and other
public lands.
1-5.Improve parking and multimodal circulation at trailheads to limit the
need to walk across high speed and high volume roadways.
1-6.Provide pedestrian scale lighting in all pedestrian zones and along
multi-use pathways (especially those serving a prominent role in the
transportation system).
1-7.Minimize vehicular conflicts with non-motorized trail users through new
crossings along Big Bear Boulevard, no more than a quarter-mile
apart within the City of Big Bear Lake and no more than half-mile
apart in Big Bear City.
Goal M2: Establish and expand recreational opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists and
equestrians
2-1.Provide multimodal loops around Big Bear Lake, Stanfield Marsh and
Baldwin Lake.
2-2.Provide linkages between trails and paved pathways, bike lanes, transit
terminals, activity centers, shuttle and bus stops, and park & ride
lots.
2-3.Enhance trail corridors along creeks, such as Rathbone Creek and
Knickerbocker Creek, to connect commercial areas and
neighborhoods to the Lake and National Forest.
2-4.Assess opportunities to formalize use of neighborhood forest trails and
neighborhood trail access points.
2-5.Explore a sustainable model for providing a pedestrian and bicyclist-
serving ferry service across Big Bear Lake.
Goal M3: Provide improved signage and wayfinding
3-1.Develop and implement a signage and wayfinding system specific to
non-motorized users with appropriate scale, font sizes, destinations
and distances.
3-2.Provide signage that educates residents and visitors about dog leash
laws, speed limits and other regulations.
3-3.Improve existing signage and pavement markings to better notify all
modes of proper use and to minimize user conflicts.
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK 5-5
Along with policies, the following multimodal-oriented programs will promote
non-motorized transportation in the Valley, through safety and education and
enforcement.
Program M1: Safe Routes to School
Work with schools and parents to develop “bike trains” and “walking
school buses” at the beginning of each school term to encourage
biking and walking to school.
Develop incentive and tracking programs to encourage students,
faculty and staff to walk to school.
Program M2: Landscaping
Require setbacks with native landscaping adjacent to sidewalks and
pathways.
Consider landscaping along buffered sidewalks, in median islands and
in curb extensions (i.e. bulb-outs).
Program M3: Education and Enforcement
Develop a multimodal map for the various areas of Big Bear Valley
with clear delineation of difficult grades, crossing characteristics,
logical loops and distances.
Promote street and trail etiquette through educational campaigns,
public safety classes and through communication with user groups.
Create better route and trail maps, guides and route information.
Consider providing free information for users at trail heads, retail
shops and public facilities.
Enforce speed limits throughout the Valley with a particular emphasis
on school zones.
PEDESTRIAN POLICIES & PROGRAMS
The following goals and programs are necessary to guide the development
and management of the pedestrian network.
Goal P1: Create a safe and inviting pedestrian environment throughout Big Bear Valley
1-1.Provide sidewalks with a minimum width of five (5) feet where feasible.
1-2.Buffer sidewalks along major arterials and in commercial areas with
one or more of the following: landscaped planting strip, on-street
parking, and/or a paved furnishing zone for benches, trash
receptacles, lighting and other types of seating.
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
5-6 CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK
1-3.Explore opportunities for separated grade crossings where major trails
cross state highway facilities.
1-4.Improve parking and multi-modal circulation at trailheads to limit the
need to walk across high speed and high volume roadways.
1-5.Provide pedestrian scale lighting in all pedestrian zones and along
multi-use pathways (especially those serving a prominent role in the
transportation system).
1-6.Provide pedestrian crossings of Big Bear Boulevard no more than a
quarter-mile apart within the City of Big Bear Lake and no more than
half-mile apart in Big Bear City.
1-7.Encourage pedestrian-oriented development with parking located on
behind or on the sides of buildings, limited setbacks and major
entrances oriented to sidewalks and trails.
1-8.Identify opportunities to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians
through the use of curb extensions (i.e. bulb-outs), narrower travel
lanes, and pedestrian refuge islands.
Goal P2: Improve pedestrian connections to schools and other community facilities
2-1.Prioritize safe routes to schools by providing sidewalks, multi-use
pathways and improved intersections near schools and between
neighborhoods and schools.
2-2.Provide dedicated pedestrian connections between neighborhoods
and community facilities (e.g., Connection to Discovery Center,
Senior Center, City Hall, post offices).
Goal P3: Establish and expand recreational opportunities for pedestrians, runners and
hikers
3-1.Provide pedestrian-friendly loops around Big Bear Lake, Stanfield
Marsh and Baldwin Lake.
3-2.Enhance trail corridors along creeks, such as Rathbone Creek and
Knickerbocker Creek, to connect commercial areas and
neighborhoods to the Lake and National Forest.
3-3.Assess opportunities to formalize use of neighborhood forest trails and
neighborhood trail access points.
3-4.Explore a sustainable model for providing a pedestrian and bicyclist-
serving ferry service across Big Bear Lake.
Goal P4: Design pedestrian facilities to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and other
facility users
4-1.Enforce and educate residents and visitors about dog leash laws.
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK 5-7
4-2.Improve existing signage and pavement markings to notify all
modes and minimize user conflicts.
Goal P5: Provide improved pedestrian-specific signage and wayfinding
5-1.Develop and implement a signage and wayfinding system specific to
pedestrians with appropriate scale, font sizes, destinations and
distances.
5-2.Improve existing signage and pavement markings to better notify all
modes of proper use and to minimize user conflicts.
Along with policies, the following pedestrian-related programs will
promote walking in the Valley, through inviting places, safety and
encouragement.
Program P1: Café Seating and Parklets
Encourage café seating and outdoor displays that do not impede
pedestrian circulation.
Develop a permit and design assistance program for businesses
interested in creating parklets – seating areas situated in the parking
strip – in one or more parking spaces adjacent to their storefronts.
Program P2: Safe Routes to School
Work with schools and parents to develop “walking school buses” at
the beginning of each school term to encourage walking to school.
Develop incentive and tracking programs to encourage students,
faculty and staff to walk to school.
Program P3: Public Art and Landscaping
Identify locations for public art and facilitate a program to commission
temporary and permanent art pieces.
Promote artistic design of street furnishings, including signage, sign
standards, light standards, benches and trash receptacles.
Require setbacks with native landscaping adjacent to sidewalks and
pathways.
Consider landscaping along buffered sidewalks, in median islands and
in curb extensions (i.e. bulb-outs).
Program P4: “Park Once” Strategy
Encourage drivers to park once when visiting multiple destinations
within the Village or in close proximity to each other on Big Bear
Boulevard.
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
5-8 CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK
Program P5: Education and Enforcement
Develop a walking map for the various areas of Big Bear Valley with
clear delineation of difficult grades, crossing characteristics, logical
loops and distances.
Enforce speed limits throughout the Valley with a particular emphasis
on school zones.
BICYCLE POLICIES & PROGRAMS
The following goals and programs are necessary to guide the development
and management of the bicycle network.
Goal B1: Create interconnected bicycle routes for transportation and recreation
1-1.Connect parks and neighborhoods with a system of on and off-street
bicycle routes.
1-2.Connect the Valley with the surrounding forest lands and Big Bear
Lake by linking existing trail segments with new and continuous
routes.
1-3.Prioritize improvements to school routes to increase safe connections
to schools.
1-4.Create trail “spokes” that connect the Valley floor to the surrounding
trail network by utilizing creek corridors, utility easements and other
opportunities as they arise.
1-5.Improve on-streets facilities and intersections along Big Bear
Boulevard and other state highways to allow for safer connections
and crossings by cyclists and other users.
1-6.Formalize neighborhood access points and connect forest trails to
create a seamless and interconnected network of trails, connecting
to neighborhoods, parks, schools, employment centers and
shopping.
Goal B2: Designate a bicycle classification hierarchy based on the intended function or
use of each route
2-1.Designate routes that provide the most direct and uninterrupted
connections across the Valley as primary routes. These should be
designed with separated bike lanes or wide off-street, bicycle
boulevards multi-use paths made of a durable, hard surface with
high visibility for cyclists and other road users.
2-2.Designate routes that provide additional connections between
neighborhoods and primary routes as secondary routes. These
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan
5-16 CHAPTER 5: VALLEYWIDE NETWORK
Bicycle Network Projects
Project
Number Project Name Segment Name
Existing
Route Type
Proposed
Route Type Proposed Route Design Length (Miles) # of Segments SafeRoutestoSchoolSafeRoutestoTransitNeighborhoodConnectivityLakeandForestConnectivityBusinessAccessVisitorSupportingPublicFacilityAccessEaseofImplementationCost-BenefitCostBenefitTotalCity of Big Bear Lake
B200 West Big Bear Boulevard Bike Lanes Big Bear Blvd Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 2.14 41 209,000$ 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 21 9,952$ 3 24 B.1/B.2
B201 Central Big Bear Boulevard Bike Lanes Big Bear Blvd Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 3.98 49 389,000$ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 23 16,913$ 3 26 B.1/B.2
B203 Knickerbocker Road Bike Lanes Knickerbocker Rd - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.58 8 57,000$ 3 2 0 3 3 3 2 2 18 3,167$ 3 21 B.1/B.2
B204 Fox Farm/Swan Bike Lanes Fox Farm Rd Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.25 1 25,000$ 1 2 0 2 3 2 2 2 14 2,857$ 3 17 B.1/B.2
B204 Swan Dr Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.16 4 15,000$ - - - - - - - - 0 - - - B.1/B.2
B205 Sandalwood Drive Bike Lanes N Sandalwood Dr - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.10 2 10,000$ 2 2 0 2 3 2 2 2 15 3,200$ 3 18 B.1/B.2
B205 Sandalwood - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.26 1 25,000$ - - - - - - - - 0 - - - B.1/B.2
B205 Sandalwood Dr - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.13 2 13,000$ - - - - - - - - 0 - - - B.1/B.2
B206 West Moonridge Loop Club View Dr Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.93 15 91,000$ 1 3 0 3 3 3 2 2 17 10,824$ 3 20 B.1/B.2
B206 Moonridge Rd - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.39 2 38,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B206 Moonridge Rd Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.44 6 43,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B206 Moonridge Way - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.12 1 12,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B207 Stanfield Cutoff Bike Lanes (Southern Approach) Stanfield Cutoff - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.02 1 2,000$ 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 13 154$ 3 16 B.1/B.2
B208 Divison Drive Bike Lanes Division Dr - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.46 10 45,000$ 1 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 14 5,500$ 3 17 B.1/B.2
B208 N Division Dr - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.28 7 28,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B208 N Division Dr Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.05 1 4,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B250 South of Bouelvard Bike Boulevard Brownie Ln - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.61 11 407,000$ 3 3 0 2 2 3 2 2 17 91,412$ 2 19 B.3
B250 Eureka Dr - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.10 2 67,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B250 Jeffries Rd - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.05 1 36,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B250 McWhinney Ln - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.35 3 231,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B250 Oak St - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.21 5 140,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B250 Pennsylvania Ave - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.48 9 322,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B250 Thrush Dr - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.06 1 37,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B250 Village Dr - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.45 9 297,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B250 Wren Dr - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.02 1 17,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B251 Fox Farm/Rathbone Bike Boulevard Fox Farm Rd Class III Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.98 18 649,000$ 1 2 0 2 3 2 3 2 15 46,200$ 2 17 B.3
B251 Rathbone Dr Class III Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.07 1 44,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B301 Castle Rock Oxbow Bridge and Trail Head Proposed Oxbow Bridge - Class III Shared Route 0.08 1 6,000$ 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 3 9 667$ 3 12 B.4
B302 Boulder Bay Shared Route Big Bear Blvd Class III no change Shared Route 0.67 16 - 0 2 0 3 2 2 1 3 13 -$ - - -
B303 Pleasure Point Loop Blue Jay Rd - Class III Shared Route 0.06 1 4,000$ 0 3 0 2 3 2 2 3 15 7,867$ 3 18 B.4
B303 Catbird Ln - Class III Shared Route 0.12 2 8,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B303 Cienega Rd - Class III Shared Route 0.53 11 37,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B303 N Bay Dr - Class III Shared Route 0.18 2 12,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B303 Water View Dr - Class III Shared Route 0.03 1 2,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B303 Water View Shores - Class III Shared Route 0.04 1 3,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B303 Waterview Dr - Class III Shared Route 0.44 7 30,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B303 Willow Landing Rd - Class III Shared Route 0.19 5 13,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B303 Woodland Way - Class III Shared Route 0.12 3 9,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B304 North Lakeview Loop Arroyo Dr Class III no change Shared Route 0.06 2 -$ 1 2 0 2 3 3 2 3 16 -$ 3 19 -
B304 Big Bear Blvd Class III no change Shared Route 0.00 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B304 Edgemoor Rd Class III no change Shared Route 0.69 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B304 Lakeview Dr Class III no change Shared Route 1.17 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B305 Talmadge Road Shared Route Talmadge Rd Class III no change Shared Route 0.41 7 -$ 1 2 0 2 2 2 1 3 13 -$ 3 16 -
B306 South Lakeview Loop Edgemoor Rd Class III no change Shared Route 0.36 3 -$ 1 2 0 3 2 2 1 3 14 -$ 3 17 -
B306 Mill Creek Rd Class III no change Shared Route 0.28 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B307 Spruce Road Shared Route Spruce Rd Class III no change Shared Route 0.19 2 -$ 2 2 0 2 3 3 2 3 17 -$ 3 20 -ReleventDesignGuidelinesProject Description
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Prioritization Criteria
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan Appendix B - 7
Bicycle Network Projects
Project
Number Project Name Segment Name
Existing
Route Type
Proposed
Route Type Proposed Route Design Length (Miles) # of Segments SafeRoutestoSchoolSafeRoutestoTransitNeighborhoodConnectivityLakeandForestConnectivityBusinessAccessVisitorSupportingPublicFacilityAccessEaseofImplementationCost-BenefitCostBenefitTotalReleventDesignGuidelinesProject Description
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Prioritization Criteria
North of North Shore Drive (outside of City)
B209 North Shore Route N Shore Dr - Class II bicycle lane 0.05 1 98,000$ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 22 106,636$ 1 23 B.2
B209 N Shore Dr. - Class II bicycle lane 6.40 61 2,155,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.2
B209 N Shore Ln. - Class II bicycle lane 0.95 10 93,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.2
B210 N Shore Dr. - Class II bicycle lane 1.16 19 114,000$ 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 19 6,000$ 3 22 B.2
B211 E North Shore Dr - Class II bicycle lane 0.66 12 64,000$ 1 3 0 3 2 2 2 1 14 274,857$ 1 15 B.2
B211 N Shore Dr. - Class II bicycle lane 3.21 15 2,580,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.2
B211 W North Shore Dr - Class II bicycle lane 1.28 23 1,204,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.2
B212 Stanfield Cutoff - Class II bicycle lane 0.39 5 39,000$ 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 18 2,167$ 3 21 B.2
North of North Shore Drive (outside of City) Total 14.11 146 6,347,000$
South of North Shore Drive (outside of City)
B202 E. Big Bear Boulevard Bike Lanes E Big Bear Blvd - Class II Bicycle Lane 1.37 16 134,000$ 2 3 0 3 3 3 3 2 19 17,285$ 3 22 B.1/B.2
B202 Shay Rd - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.72 8 71,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B202 Shay Rd Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.02 1 2,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B202 W Big Bear Blvd - Class II Bicycle Lane 1.24 14 121,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B202 S Greenspot Rd Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.00 1 422$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B211 Baldwin Lake/Shay Road Bike Lanes Baldwin Lake Rd. - Class II Bicycle Lane 2.31 43 225,000$ 1 3 0 3 2 2 2 2 15 107,067$ 1 16 B.1/B.2
B211 Shay Rd. - Class II Bicycle Lane 1.44 5 1,381,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B213 Division Bike Lanes Division Dr - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.15 2 15,000$ 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 12 1,250$ 3 15 B.1/B.2
B214 Paradise Way Bike Lanes N Paradise Way - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.01 2 1,000$ 1 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 14 5,429$ 3 17 B.1/B.2
B214 Paradise Way - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.68 16 66,000$------------ B.1/B.2
B214 Paradise Way Class III Class II Bicycle Lane 0.10 2 9,000$------------ B.1/B.2
B215 Hwy 38/Greenspot Bike Lanes Greenspot Blvd - Class II Bicycle Lane 2.12 28 207,000$ 2 3 0 3 3 2 0 2 15 16,000$ 3 18 B.1/B.2
B215 State Hwy 38 - Class II Bicycle Lane 0.34 2 33,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.1/B.2
B252 Fox Farm Bike Boulevard Fox Farm Rd Class III Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.11 1 76,000$ 1 1 0 3 2 3 0 2 12 6,333$ 3 15 B.3
B253 Country Club/Big Tree Bike Boulevard Big Tree Dr Class III Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.01 1 8,000$ 1 1 0 3 2 2 0 2 11 91,545$ 2 13 B.3
B253 E Country Club Blvd - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.32 3 214,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B253 Valley Blvd Class III Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.25 5 167,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B253 W Aeroplane Blvd Class III Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.50 6 330,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B253 W Country Club Blvd Class III Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.43 4 288,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B254 Sugarloaf/Aeroplane Bike Boulevard E Aeroplane Blvd - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.34 3 225,000$ 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 10 115,600$ 1 11 B.3
B254 Paradise Way - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.11 5 75,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B254 Saw Mill Dr - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.13 4 84,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B254 Sugarloaf Blvd - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.98 13 649,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B254 W Aeroplane Blvd - Class 2.5 Bicycle Boulevard 0.19 3 123,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.3
B300 Little Arctic Circle Shared Route Big Bear Blvd Class III no change Shared Route 1.07 14 -$ 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 3 9 -$ 3 12 -
B332 McAlister/Sugarpine Shared Route Mc Alister Rd - Class III Shared Route 0.23 6 16,000$ 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 3 10 1,800$ 3 13 B.4
B332 Sugarpine Rd - Class III Shared Route 0.02 1 2,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - B.4
B333 Cougar/McAlister Shared Route Cougar Rd Class III no change Shared Route 0.07 2 -$ 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 3 12 -$ 3 15 -
B333 Mc Alister Rd Class III no change Shared Route 0.37 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B334 Johnny Way Shared Route Johnny Way - Class III Shared Route 0.14 1 9,000$ 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 11 818$ 3 14 B.4
B335 Bowles/Blue Water Shared Route Bowles Dr - Class III Shared Route 0.05 1 3,000$ 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 3 13 462$ 3 16 B.4
Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Master Plan Appendix B - 9
Lakeside Loop
Destinations, Gaps, Multi-Modal Connections, and Constraints
Big Bear Solar
Observatory
Big Bear
Alpine Zoo
Division
Drive,
Future
Transit
CenterLAKESIDE LOOP
BIG BEAR LAKE
Big Bear
Discovery Center
Airport
Castle Rock
Hiking Trail
(National Forest)
The
Village
Bear Mountain
Ski Resort
Snow Summit
Ski Resort
Boulder
Bay Park
Grout Bay
Picnic Area
Dam Keeper’s
House
North Shore
Landing
SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard
North Shore
Elementary
School
Middle School
Elementary
School
Major Shopping
Centers
Proposed Gap Closure
Existing Class I
City Boundary
Existing Class II*
Existing Class III*
Existing Sidewalks*
City of Big
Bear Lake
Civic Center
Stater BrosVons
Library
Hospital
Sheriff
Station
Meadow
ParkMarina &
Municipal
Water District
Serrano
Campground
Alpine Pedal
Path
Boulder Bay
Area w/historic
District, large
boulders, steep
slopes
(Photos #13-18)
Proximity to
lakeshore
(Photos #1-10)
ATTACHMENT 6
*Multi-modal connections on residential streets are not shown to preserve clarity.
ATP CYCLE 4
Lakeside Loop
Attachment E –Photographs Map Legend
1
2
3
4
5 6 7
8
11
1217
18
9 10
13
14
15
16
1 –SR 38/North Shore Drive east of Big Bear Dam (June 2015)
2 –SR 38/North Shore Drive east of Big Bear Dam (July 2018)
3 –SR 38/North Shore Drive in Fawnskin, west of Grout Bay (July 2018)
4 –SR 38/North Shore Drive west of Fawnskin near Grout Bay Picnic Area (June 2015)
5 –SR 38/North Shore Drive, in Fawnskin at Post Office (April 2018)
6 –SR 38/North Shore Drive east of Fawnskin (June 2015)
7 –SR 38/North Shore Drive east of Fawnskin (June 2015
8 –SR 38/North Shore Drive east of Fawnskin (December 2016)
9 –SR 38/North Shore Drive west of Discovery Center Google Streetview August 2015 Image Capture
10 –SR 38/North Shore Drive east of Discovery Center Google Streetview August 2015 Image Capture
11 –Alpine Pedal Path at Stanfield Cutoff/SR 38 Entrance, across from North Shore Elementary School (November 2017)
12 -SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard and Willow Landing, west of Civic Center, east of Boulder Bay Park. (July 2018)
13 –SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard and Talbot Drive, east of City Limits (June 2015)
14 –SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard west of Talbot Drive, east of Castle Rock Trail/City Limits (June 2015)
15 -SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard, west of Talbot Drive, east of Castle Rock Trail/City Limits (June 2015)
16 -SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard east of Castle Rock Trail and City Limits (June 2015)
17 -SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard on City Limits, at Castle Rock Trail (June 2015)
18 -SR 18/Big Bear Boulevard west of Castle Rock Trail and City Limits (June 2015)
1/6https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/
2019/04/18 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System
ATP Maps & Summary Data
The tool is designed to support the California Active Transportation Program
(ATP), as well as active transportation users and practitioners throughout
California. The tool utilizes interactive collision maps to allow users to track and
document pedestrian and bicycle collisions and generate data summaries within
specified project and/or community limits.
Step 1: Select a County/City, Bike/Ped, Severity, and Years
County: San Bernardino
City: Big Bear Lake
Include State Highway Related Collisions: Yes
Involved With: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collision Severity: Fatal, Severe Injury, Other Visible Injury, and Complaint of Pain
Year: 2010 - 2018
Collision Summary for initial parameters defined above:
Number of Collisions by Collision Severity
Involved With Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Total
Bicycle 1 2 7 5 15
Pedestrian 0 4 7 13 24
2/6https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/
2019/04/18 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System
County/City Heat Map:
Step 2: Identify your project area to develop a more localized Community
Heat Map
Select the size of your proposed project limits: <!-- Project has limits that are -->Over 10 miles across or encompass the majority of the city/county.
3/6https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/
2019/04/18 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System
Community Heat Map:
Step 3: Draw the project boundaries to get detailed collision data
summaries and map
4/6https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/
2019/04/18 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System
Project Area Collision Map: 4 total collisions.
Step 4: Review the project-specific collision map
5/6https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/
2019/04/18 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System
Step 5: Review the collision summary data, graphs and tables provided.
Summary Results
Involved With Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Total
Bicycle 0 0 2 1 3
Pedestrian 0 0 0 1 1
Collision List
Case ID Date Time Primary Secondary Distance Direction Bike Ped
4913818 09/11/2010 11:15 RT 18 ALDEN 0.00 -Yes No
6206204 08/17/2013 15:52 RT 18 KNICKERBOCKER...0.00 -Yes No
6227958 09/12/2013 12:26 BIG BEAR BL FOX FARM RD 0.00 -Yes No
6513730 05/27/2014 20:43 RT 18 PINE KNOT AV 0.00 -No Yes
6/6https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/
2019/04/18 TIMS - Transportation Injury Mapping System
July 26, 2018
Ms. Emily Abrahams
Active Transportation Resource Center
California Department of Transportation
Division of Local Assistance
P.O. Box 942874, MS-1
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
RE: Caltrans – Active Transportation Program Cycle 4 Call-for-Projects
City of Big Bear Lake – Lakeside Loop Project Pre-Construction Planning
Dear Ms. Abrahams:
On behalf of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), I would like
to offer this letter of support for the City of Big Bear Lake’s application to the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program
(ATP) Cycle 4 Call-for-Projects for funding for pre-construction planning for their
Lakeside Loop Project.
The City of Big Bear Lake’s Lakeside Loop Project is currently in the pre-construction
phase, which requires extensive planning, including environmental review,
engineering and design, and perfection of the right-of-way for the eventual
construction of the Lakeside Loop. In 2014, the City of Big Bear Lake adopted the Big
Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian Master Plan, a multi-agency
collaborative effort that focuses on projects that will create lasting benefits and
transformative impacts to the entire Big Bear Valley. The Lakeside Loop is an
important segment to fulfilling the goals of this Master Plan, which includes the
provisions of bicycle and pedestrian alternatives without having to walk or bike on the
state highways and a well-connected active transportation network.
SCAG supports this project as it is consistent with the policies and goals set forth in
the adopted 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS). We look forward to seeing this project advance and the benefits
that it will provide and I respectfully request that you give favorable consideration to
this important project from the City of Big Bear Lake. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sarah Jepson, Manager of Active Transportation &
Special Programs, at (213) 236-1955 or by email at jepson@scag.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Hasan Ikhrata
Executive Director
P.O. Box 422, Fawnskin, California 92333
www.friendsofbigbearvalley.org info@friendsofbigbearvalley.com
909-878-3091
July 26, 2018
CALTRANS
Division of Local Assistance
1120 N Street, MS 1
Attn: Office of State Programs
Sacramento, CA 95814
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of the Friends of Big Bear Valley (FOBBV), I am pleased to submit this letter
of support for the City of Big Bear Lake’s ATP grant application for the environmental
review (EIR/EIS), engineering and design, and perfection of the right-of-way for the
eventual construction of the Lakeside Loop around Big Bear Lake.
Our mission is to: Protect and preserve the natural habitat of Big Bear Valley through
education, monitoring and advocacy about its value and community benefit. The
FOBBV is a coalition of local residents and visitors to the Big Bear Valley in Southern
California, along with individuals and groups throughout Big Bear Valley, the San
Bernardino Mountains and Southern California who have come together to accomplish
a mutual goal for the benefit of all concerned. By educating our members and the public
about the impact of humans and development on our unique and irreplaceable local
environment, we work to preserve the natural environment for future generations. We
believe that fresh mountain air, pure water, natural resources, wildlife habitat, and
quality of life in our valley are the vital qualities that make our community a desirable
place to live and visit.
We support this project because it proposes to comply with environmental review laws
and because the Lakeside Loop offers a non-motorized transportation mode around the
Lake, maximizing the use of existing public right-of-way on State Route 18 and 38. It
links all communities and amenities which are adjacent to the lakeshore, thereby
encouraging a safe and reliable way to walk or bike for commuting to work or school,
and for recreation in a sustainable manner to minimize the impacts to our environment
while providing health benefits to all individual users.
Thank you for receiving my letter and for offering grant opportunities that encourage
active transportation. Please consider the City’s application for the Lakeside Loop
project favorably.
Sincerely,
Sandy Steers
Executive Director
July 17, 2018
CALTRANS
Division of Local Assistance
1120 N Street, MS 1
Attn: Office of State Programs
Sacramento, CA 95814
To Whom It May Concern:
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is pleased to see the City of Big Bear
Lake’s grant application for the pre-construction phase including environmental review,
engineering and design, and perfection of the right-of-way for the eventual construction of the
Lakeside Loop. This project illustrates the City’s commitment to and alignment with the
SBCTA’s goals for pedestrian and bicycle transportation.
In 2014, the City of Big Bear Lake adopted the Big Bear Valley Pedestrian, Bicycle, and
Equestrian Master Plan (PBE Master Plan). Thereafter, SBCTA updated the San Bernardino
County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan to include the proposed bicycle improvements listed
in the City’s PBE Master Plan. The Lakeside Loop is an important segment to fulfilling goals of
the Master Plan, which includes the provision of bicycle and pedestrian alternatives without
having to walk or bike on the state highways.
SBCTA appreciates your consideration of the City of Big Bear Lake’s ATP grant application.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (909) 884-8276.
Thank you for receiving our letter of support.
Sincerely,
Josh Lee
Chief of Planning