Loading...
Art3_ChinoHills_FY17_BikePed_WestLosSerranosSRTS_App_CLOSED•Construct a 950 LF decomposed granite {DG) path between Club Drive and Gird Avenue. The City of Chino Hills has made improving the Los Serra nos neighborhood a priority, as it represents the oldest part of the City with development occurring prior to building code enforcement laws. For this reason, the southern portion of the Los Serra nos neighborhood was developed without adequate pedestrian facilities and has many areas in need of infrastructure improvements. The City proposes this project to provide sidewalks, where there are none, and help continue towards the goal of constructing sidewalks throughout this community. Should you have any questions regarding our application, please do not hesitate to contact Joe Dyer, Assistant City Engineer, at {909) 364-2771 or email at: jdyer@chinohills.org. Thank you in advance for consideration of our application. Sincerely, �17'Nadeem Majaj, P.E. Public Works Director City of Chino Hills             City  of  Chino  Hills     LOS  SERRANOS   SAFE  ROUTES  TO  SCHOOLS  WEST   PROJECT                  PREPARED  FOR:         San  Bernardino  Transportation  Authority         Attention :  Josh  Lee        1170  W  3rd  Street,  2nd  Floor         San  Bernardino,  CA  92410-­‐1715         (909)  884-­‐8276         PREPARED  BY:   City  of  Chino  Hills   14000  City  Center  Drive   Chino  Hills,  CA    91709   Telephone:    (909)  364-­‐2766       July  7,  2017 Benefitting  Schools   Chaparral  Elementary   Glenmeade  Elementary   Robert  J.  Townsend    Junior  High  School   APPLICATION  NARRATIVE      ..............................................................  ONLINE  SUBMISSION   ATTACHMENTS   Appendix  A:  PROJECT  LOCATION  MAP  ................................................................  1   Appendix  B:  COST  ESTIMATE    ............................................................................  2   Appendix  C:  COMMUNITY  FACT  FINDER    ..............................................................  3   Appendix  D:  PHOTOS  ......................................................................................  4   Appendix  E:  TRANSPORTATION  INJURY  MAPPING  SYSTEM  REPORT  (TIMS)  .................  7   Appendix  F:  SCHOOL  SURVEY  –  PARENT  SURVEY  AGGREGATE  SUMMARY  ..................  11   Appendix  G:  CHAPARRAL  ELEMENTARY  TALLY  COMPARISON  SURVEY  .......................  25   Appendix  H:  SCAG  RTP  SELECT  PAGES  .............................................................  40   Table  of  Contents   Olive   Attachment  A  -­‐Project  Location  Map City  of  Chino  Hills  –SBCTA  Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Facilities Los  Serranos Safe  Routes  to  Schools  West  Project Pedestrian  Improvements Los  Serranos Country  Club Commercial  Center Rite-­‐Aide,  Starbucks,  Subway,   optometry   Glenmeade Elementary Robert  Townsend   Junior  High Bus  Stop Church 1 mile Chaparral   Elementary Project  Locations   1. El  Molina  Blvd.  (694  LF) 2. Lugo  Ave.  (811  LF) 3. Gird  Ave.  (591  LF) 4. DG  Pedestrian  Path  (950  LF) 1 23 4 Shopping  Center Day  spa,  restaurants,  bike   shop,  Starbucks,  gym Park 1 Agency: Project  Description: Project  Location:   Date  of  Estimate: Prepared  by: Item  No.Description Quantity Units Unit  Cost Total Grant  Request Local  Match 1 Mobilization  and  Demobilization 1 L.S.$9,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000 2 Clearing  and  Grubbing 1 L.S.$5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 3 Traffic  Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 4 SWPPP 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500 5 Construct  8"    P.C.C.  Curb  &  Gutter 2096 LF $25.00 $52,400.00 $52,400.00 6 Construct  4"  Thick  P.C.C.  Sidewalk 10480 SF $10.00 $104,800.00 $104,800.00 7 Construct  PCC  ADA  compliant  Driveway 5016 SF $8.00 $40,128.00 $39,848.00 $280 8 Install  ADA  Curb  Ramps 6 EA $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 9 Signing  &  Striping 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 10 Remove/Replace  Existing  Mailboxes 38 EA $120.00 $4,560.00 $4,560 Subtotal:$257,388.00 $227,048.00 $30,340.00 Contingency  (10%):$25,738.80 $22,704.80 $3,035.00 CONSTRUCTION  TOTAL:$283,126.80 $249,752.80 $33,375.00 ALL  PHASES Amount Grant  Request Local  Match 1 Environmental  Studies 4,000$                  4,000$   Plans,  Specifications  and  Estimate  (PS&E)16,000$              16,000$                             TOTAL  PE 20,000$              20,000$                             2 Construction  Engineering 56,625$              56,625$                             Construction  Items  (above)283,127$          249,752$          33,375$                             TOTAL  CONSTRUCTION 339,752$          249,752$          90,000$                             359,752$          249,752$          110,000$                         Percentage 100%69%31% Attachment  B Detailed  Engineer's  Estimate  and  Project  Cost City  of  Chino  Hills Construction  of  ADA-­compliant  sidewalks,  curb  and  gutter,  and  driveways   PRELIMINARY  ENGINEERING  (PE) CONSTRUCTION TOTAL  FOR  ALL  PHASES Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Grant  Application  1  (Priority)  -­  Los  Serranos  Safe  Routes  to  Schools  West  Project  (Molina  Blvd,  Lugo  Ave,  Gird  Ave,  DG  Path) July  3,  2017 Joe  Dyer 2 SCORP Community FactFinder is a service of the California Department of Parks and Recreation www.parks.ca.gov SCORP Community FactFinder Created by GreenInfo Network in consultation with CA Dept. of Parks and Recreation www.greeninfo.org Project ID: 1541 Coordinates: 33.9732, -117.7129 Date: 07/04/2017 California State Parks Community FactFinder Report This is your SCORP project report for the site you have defined. Please refer to your Project ID above in any future communications about the project. PROJECT AREA STATISTICS PROJECT AREA MAP County:San Bernardino City:Chino Hills Total Population:6902 Youth Population:1911 Senior Population:508 Households Without Access to a Car:102.6 Number of People in Poverty:853 Median Household Income:$67,963 Per Capita Income:$23,788 Park Acres:21.57 Park Acres per 1,000 Residents:3.12 REPORT BACKGROUND The project statistics have been calculated based on half mile radius around the point location selected. Only park acres within the project area's half mile radius are reported. Population and people in poverty are calculated by determining the percent of any census block groups that intersect with the project area. The project area is then assigned the sum of all the census block group portions. An equal distribution in census block groups is assumed. Rural areas are calculated at a census block level to improve results. Median household and per capita income are calculated as a weighted average of the census block group values that fall within the project area. More information on the calculations is available on the methods page » Demographics—American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates 2008-2012; Decennial 2010 Census; the margin of error (MOE) was not analyzed. Parks—California Protected Areas Database 2014b CFF adjusted (11/2014) - more information at http://www.CALands.org. Parks and park acres area based on best available source information but may not always contain exact boundaries or all parks in specific locations. Parks are defined further in the 2015 SCORP (pg. 4). Users can send updated information on parks to SCORP@parks.ca.gov ATTACHMENT C 3 El  Molina  Boulevard  Map  and  Photos ATTACHMENT  D  – PROJECT  SITE  PHOTOS Chino  Hills  –Los  Serranos Safe  Routes  to  Schools  West  Project Photo  A.  El  Molina  Boulevard  demonstrating  a   paved  driveway  with  no  sidewalks.    The  project   will  provide  a  continuous  paved  pathway  for   school  children  and  residents  to  walk  along  this   street. Photo  B.Example  of  school  children  walking  and   biking  in  the  roadway  in  Los  Serranos because  of   the  lack  of  sidewalks. El  Molina  Blvd.    New  sidewalks  will  be  constructed  along  the  south  side  of  El  Molina  Boulevard  from   Pipeline  Avenue  to  Montecito  Drive. 4 Gird  Avenue  &  Lugo  Avenue  Map  and  Photos Photo  A.  Lugo  Avenue  at  Pipeline  Avenue.       The  project  will  provide  a  continuous  paved   pathway  connecting  to  Pipeline  Avenue  for   seamless  pathways  for  school  children  to  walk   or  bike  to  school. Photo  B.Gird  Avenue  at  Del  Norte.    New   sidewalks  will  be  construction  on  the  south   side  of  the  roadway. Gird  &  Lugo  Avenue.    New  sidewalks  will  be  constructed  along  the  south  side  Gird  and  Lugo  Avenue   from  Pipeline  Avenue  to  Montecito  Drive. Proposed   sidewalks ATTACHMENT  D  – PROJECT  SITE  PHOTOS Chino  Hills  –Los  Serranos Safe  Routes  to  Schools  West  Project 5 Photo  A:    Proposed  Decomposed   Granit  (DG)  Path.The  the  DG  Path   will  run  950  linear  feet  from   Country  Club  Drive  to  Gird  Avenue.     Residents  will  be  able  to  use  the   trail  to  connect  to  Los  Serranos Boulevard,  Lugo  Avenue,  and  Gird   Avenue  from  Country  Club  Drive. Photo  B:    Alleyway  at  Gird  Avenue.   The  project  site  is  currently  a  gravel   path  filled  with  debris  and  trash.    The   proposed  project  will  make  this  area  an   aesthetically  pleasing  landscape  with  a   convenient  pathway  for  pedestrians  to   link  to  other  streets.    As  can  be  seen  in   the  photo,  most  residential  streets  in   this  area  are  without  any  sidewalks.     The  DG  path  will  provide  a  safe   pathway  for  pedestrians  to  travel   safely  removed  the  roadway,  where   they  must  share  roadway  space  with   motorists. Blended roadway Lack of curb/gutter for drainage Photo  C:  Existing  Alleyway  at  Country  Club   Drive.  In  addition  to  improving  walking   routes  by  converting  this  alleyway  to  a   decomposed  granite  path,  the  City  will  also   address  flooding  issues  that  occur  during   rainfall  at  this  site.    During  rainfall  and  due   to  a  lack  of  proper  drainage  along  surface   streets,  this  alleyway  and  residential  streets   flood,  causing  water  to  overflow  into   residential  yards.    Driving  is  more  difficult   and  pedestrian  travel  is  nearly  impossible   on  rainy  days.    Rock  and  gravel  sloping  will   be  leveled  for  an  even  and  clear  pathway   for  pedestrians  to  utilize. ATTACHMENT  D  –PROJECT  SITE  PHOTOS Chino  Hills  –Los  Serranos Safe  Routes  to  Schools  West  Project 6 Olive   Attachment  E  –TIMS  SWITRS  GIS  Mapping  Tool City  of  Chino  Hills  -­‐Los  Serranos Safe  Routes  to  Schools  West  Project 6  collisions  (1 fatality)  occurred  within  a  .50-­‐mile  radius  of  the  project  sites, 2  of  the  collisions  occurred  at  the  project  sites Proposed  Project  Segments Fatality 7 7/6/17, 3:27 PMTIMS - Collision Diagram Page 1 of 1https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/colDiagram/ Map data ©2017 GoogleReport a map error COLLISION DIAGRAM Straight Overturned Left Turn Ran Off Road Right Turn Stopped U-Turn Parked Pedestrian Bicycle Object Injury Crash Fatal Crash Primary Street: Los Serranos Neighborhood Secondary Street: El Monino, Lugo, Gird Time Period: 01/1/2010-12/31/2016 Agency Name: City of Chino Hills Fatal Collision 1 Injury Collision 3 Mapped 4 Not Drawn 2 Total 6 Mapping Summary: 8 7/4/17, 10:31 PM Page 1 of 1https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/query/collision_details.php?no=5639841 County SAN BERNARDINO City CHINO HILLS Date (Y-M- D)2012-06-04 Time 22:10 Nearby Intersection LOS SERRANOS BL & COUNTRY CLUB DR Coordinate Location 33.9699889175, -117.707160302 State Highway N Route -Postmile - Injured Victims 0 Fatalities 1 Alcohol YES Weather Cloudy Primary Collision Factor Unsafe Starting or Backing Involved with Pedestrian Collision Details: Case ID 5639841 Street View Map data ©2017 GoogleReport a map error © 2017 Google 4464 Los Serranos Blvd Chino Hills, California View on Google Maps Report a problem Attachment E - TIMS Collision Details of the fatality 9 7/6/17, 3:29 PM Page 1 of 1https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/query/collision_details.php?no=5391752 County SAN BERNARDINO City CHINO HILLS Date (Y-M- D)2011-10-24 Time 13:23 Nearby Intersection PIPELINE AV & EL MOLINO BL Coordinate Location 33.97337, -117.71506 State Highway N Route -Postmile - Injured Victims 1 Fatalities 0 Alcohol NO Weather Clear Primary Collision Factor Automobile Right of Way Involved with Bicycle Collision Details: Case ID 5391752 Street View Map data ©2017 GoogleReport a map error © 2017 Google 15400 Pipeline Ave Chino Hills, California View on Google Maps Report a problem Attachment E - Collision Details of bicycle collision on project site 10 Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Chaparral Elementary School Set ID: 13195 School Group: Los Serranos Infrastructure - SRTS Phase 1 Month and Year Collected: June 2015 School Enrollment: 639 Date Report Generated: 06/06/2016 % Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don't Know Tags: June 2015 Before Surveys Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 639 Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 145 This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Sex of children for parents that provided information Page 1 of 14 ATTACHMENT F 11 Grade levels of children represented in survey Grade levels of children represented in survey Grade in School Responses per grade Number Percent PreK 11 8% Kindergarten 13 9% 1 13 9% 2 25 18% 3 20 14% 4 26 18% 5 13 9% 6 20 14% 7 1 1% Page 2 of 14 12 No response: 0 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Page 3 of 14 13 Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Distance between home and school Number of children Percent Less than 1/4 mile 37 26% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 12 9% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 17 12% 1 mile up to 2 miles 24 17% More than 2 miles 51 36% Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Page 4 of 14 14 Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Time of Trip Number of Trips Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other Morning 135 18% 0% 10% 67% 4% 0% 0.7% Afternoon 138 21% 0% 10% 62% 6% 0.7% 0% No Response Morning: 10 No Response Afternoon: 7 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Page 5 of 14 15 Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school Page 6 of 14 16 Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school School Arrival Distance Number within Distance Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other Less than 1/4 mile 34 59%0%0%35%6%0%0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 10 20%0%10%60%10%0%0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 17 6%0%0%88%6%0%0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 20 0%0%15%75%5%0%5% More than 2 miles 50 0%0%18%80%2%0%0% Don't know or No response: 14 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. School Departure Distance Number within Distance Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other Less than 1/4 mile 34 62%0%0%32%6%0%0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 12 33%0%17%42%8%0%0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 17 12%0%0%71%18%0%0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 22 0%0%14%82%0%5%0% More than 2 miles 49 0%0%18%78%4%0%0% Don't know or No response: 11 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Page 7 of 14 17 Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school Asked Permission?Number of Children Less than 1/4 mile 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 1 mile up to 2 miles More than 2 miles Yes 41 65%40%41%13%6% No 98 35%60%59%88%94% Don't know or No response: 6 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Page 8 of 14 18 Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Page 9 of 14 19 Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Issue Child does not walk/bike to school Child walks/bikes to school Distance 58%86% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 58%57% Violence or Crime 47%57% Amount of Traffic Along Route 46%29% Speed of Traffic Along Route 46%29% Time 34%71% Sidewalks or Pathways 31%71% Weather or climate 28%57% Convenience of Driving 21%29% Child's Participation in After School Programs 19%29% Adults to Bike/Walk With 16%43% Crossing Guards 15%71% Number of Respondents per Category 85 7 No response: 53 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically. Page 10 of 14 20 Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child Page 11 of 14 21 Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child Page 12 of 14 22 Comments Section SurveyID Comment 1333470 LA SEGURIDAD DE QUE LOS NINOS CAMINEN A LA ESCUELA SERIA SI UVIERA BANQUETAS 1333505 IF ALL THE STREETS HAD SIDEWALKS MY CHILD & I WOULD FEEL SAFE TO WALK TO OR FROM SCHOOL. THE TRAFFIC AT SCHOOL TIME IS VERY HEAVY. IT TAKES FOUR TIMES LONGER TO DRIVE THAN WALK TO OR FROM SCHOOL 1333525 CURRENTLY WE LIVE TO FAR FOR OUR CHILD TO WALK OR RIDE A BIKE AND THE DISTACNE/AREA TRAVELED ACROSS THE FREEWAY. HOWEVER WITH THE VIOLENCE AND CRIME IF WE WERE CLOSER - SAFETY WOULD STILL BE A BIG CONCERN. QUESTION #9 - NOT ELEMENTARY/PROBABLY NO JR HIGH 1333453 WE WERE TOLD BY THE PRINCIPAL THAT KIDS SHOULD NOT BIKE TO SCHOOL UNTIL 3RD GRADE 1333497 BOTH PARENTS COMPLETED MASTERS PROGRAM. 1333549 TK WRITTEN FOR GRADE 1333553 EVEN THO I LET MY CHILD WALK TO AND FROM SCHOOL I AM STILL VERY CONCERED ABOUT SIDEWALKS SAFETY OF INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS. 1333570 REALLY APPRECIATE THE SCHOOL'S STAFF HELP IN DIRECTING THE TRAFFIC. 1333440 MINIMUM DAYS ARE HARD FOR US BECAUSE WE WORK AND NEED TO RELY ON OTHER FOR PICKUPS 1333500 IN THIS DAY & AGE THERE ARE MORE RISKS THAN HEATH BENEFITS IF WE LET OUR CHILDREN WALK/BIKE TO SCHOOL. WITH ALOT OF CHILD PREDATORS IN EVERY CITY LOTS OF DIRVERS TEXTING EVEN IN SCHOOL ZONES I DON'T FEEL SAFE LETTING MY CHILDREN WALK OR BIKE TO SCHOOL. 1333528 MINIMUM DAYS ARE HARD FOR US BECAUSE WE WORK AND NEED TO RELY ON OTHERS FOR PICK-UPS. 1333441 MY CHILD IS TOO YOUNG TO WALK ANYWHERE BY HIMSELF. SAFETY IS PERMENT TO ME & MY HUSBAND WHEN IT COMES TO LETTING OUR CHILDREN WALK ANYWHERE 1333482 DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT ENCOURAGEMENT/FUN/HEALTHY! IT'S ALL ABOUT SAFETY! 1333541 TK WRITTEN FOR GRADE AS A CHILD (UP TO 12TH GRADE) I WALKED TO AND FROM SCHOOL BECAUSE BOTH PARENTS HAD TO WORK. THE FEW INSTANCES I WAS APPROACHED BY STRANGERS IS ENOUGH TO DISCOURAGE THIS IDEA FOR MY OWN CHILDREN. 1333560 SAFETY IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN 1333569 UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS A LOT OF CRIME GOING ON AND PERSONALLY I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE LETTING MY CHILD WALKING OR BIKING TO/FROM SCHOOL. I RATHER DRIVE AND MAKE SURE THAT HE WALKED THROUGH THE GATE EVERYDAY. 1333531 I'D LIKE TO ASK MY CHILD WALK BY HERSELF ONLY IF THERE IS A TRAFFIC TEACHER AT THE CROSSING. SOME CARS JUST DON'T STOP WHEN THEY SEE PEOPLE. IT'S NOT SAFE FOR THE KIDS TO WALK ALONE NOW. 1333438 SOME STREETS DOES NOT HAVE YET SIDEWALKS AND THERE ARE NO CROSSING GUARDS THIS SIDE. PLUS MY CHILD IS NOT YET MATURE TO WALK BY HIMSELF. Page 13 of 14 23 1333512 I WOULD NOT LET MY CHILD WALK/BIKE TO SCHOOL AT ANY AGE. I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. 1333513 SCHOOL IS MORE THAN 4 MILES FROM OUR HOUSE. 1333518 MY CHILDREN RIDES A VAN TO SCHOOL BY DAY CARE 1333558 MY CHILD DOESN'T HAVE TO WALK OR RIDE A BIKE BECAUSE PARANT IS HOME. 1333507 MY CHILD WOULD HAVE TO TRAVEL PAST A FREEWAY ENTRANCE (VERY UNSAFE). THE DISTANCE IS TOO FAR AND UNSAFE WITH SO MUCH TRAFFIC. 1333520 I DO NOT MIND COMPLETING SURVEYS - HOWEVER - THIS SURVEY ASKS FOR TOO MANY PERSONAL ANSWERS THAT I FEEL HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE SAFEST ROUTE TO SCHOOL. 1333464 NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING MY CHILD WALK OR BIKE TO SCHOOL ALONE DUE TO THE LIVES W ARE LIVING IN 1333556 DO NOT FEEL COMFTROVAL TO HAVE HER WALK BY HER SELF. Page 14 of 14 24 Parent Survey Aggregate Summary Program Name: Date range: Spring 2013 (January -June 2013) Date Report Generated: 04/30/2014 School Month & Year School Name(s): Collected & Enrollment: (Set ID) Chaparral May 2013 605 Elementary (9938) School Glenmeade May 2013 602 Elementary (9937) School Enrollment in Number of Number of Grades Targeted by Questionnaires Questionnaires SRTS Program: Distributed: Included in Report: Don't know 605 169 Don't know 602 199 Total: 1207 368 This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Sex of children for parents that provided information •Male Female 51% 49% Page 1 of 15 ATTACHMENT G 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ADOPTED APRIL 2012 Southern California Association of Governments ATTACHMENT H 40 36 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments available is spent wisely is at the heart of this philosophy. At the bottom of this pyramid is System Monitoring and Evaluation. In order to be effective system managers, we must have an in-depth understanding of how our system performs and why it performs the way it does. Only by understanding these causes can we identify the optimal mix of strategies and projects that yield the highest returns on our investments. Next, we must take care of what we have and make sure that what we have is performing at the most efficient level possible. So, the basic idea as you move up the “mobility pyramid” is to implement less capital intensive strategies or less invasive strategies before we consider implement- ing more drastic measures to deal with our challenges. At the same time, we must be realistic about our ability to address our challenges with “soft solutions” alone in the face of the tremendous growth that we anticipate over the next 25 years. Therefore, at the top of the pyramid are the capital improvement projects that will allow us to expand our system strategically to accommodate such future growth and maintain and improve our economic prosperity. Following the system management philosophy, this chapter sets forth the investments and strategies that constitute the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. First, transportation invest- ments should seek to optimize the performance of the existing system, and this includes system maintenance and preservation, integrated land use, operational improvements, transportation demand management, and transportation systems management strategies. Second, investments should seek to complete the system by addressing gaps. Finally, our investments should expand the system strategically. As a result, Southern Californians will enjoy more and better travel choices via an efficient multimodal transportation sys- tem with improved access to the vast opportunities this region has to offer. getting the most Out of Our system Over the past half century, the SCAG region has invested billions of dollars into building and expanding the multimodal transportation system that we have and rely on today. This investment must be protected. Under the system management approach, priority should be given to maintaining and preserving this system, as well as ensuring that it is being operated as safely, efficiently, and effectively as possible. Protecting our previous invest- ments in developing the region’s transportation system and getting the most out of every one of its components is the highest priority for this RTP/SCS. safety and security first SCAG recognizes how important the safety and security of our transportation system is to our residents. The good news is we have made significant progress in improving safety, particularly highway safety, which accounts for the majority of transportation-related accidents, around the state and in our region. But, we can do more. SCAG continues to support the implementation of the State Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and works in part- nership with Caltrans and the CTCs around the region to improve the safety and security of our transportation system. Safety improvements are intricately woven into the RTP/SCS at all levels. Many of the strategy and investment categories in this RTP/SCS aim to improve the safety of our multimodal transportation system. For instance, enhancing maintenance and preservation of the region’s buses, rail track, bridges, and roadway pavements will contribute toward reduced accidents and improved safety. Similarly, expanding the network of bike lanes and sidewalks and bringing them into ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliance will reduce accidents directly related to these modes. Furthermore, deploying technol- ogy such as advanced ramp metering to manage traffic flow also reduces collisions at on-ramps and critical freeway-to-freeway interchanges. In short, almost every category of investments discussed in this chapter leads to safety benefits. SCAG has two main safety and security goals: ƒEnsure transportation safety, security, and reliability for all people and goods in the region. ƒPrevent, protect, respond to, and recover from major human-caused or natural events in order to minimize the threat and impact to lives, property, the transporta- tion network, and the regional economy. sAfET y The rate of fatal and injury collisions on California’s highways has declined dramatically since the California Highway Patrol began keeping such data in the 1930s. California has led the nation in roadway safety for much of the past 20 years. Only recently have road- ways nationally become as safe as those in California. FiGURe 2.2 shows the improvement in roadway accidents in the SCAG region over the last 10 years. 41 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 53 ƒIncreasing the frequency and quality of fixed-route bus service and the introduction of local community circulators to provide residents of smart growth developments with the option of taking transit over using a car to make short, local trips, and ƒThe implementation of transit priority facilities, such as bus lanes and traffic signal priority. Active Transportation Active transportation refers to transportation such as walking or using a bicycle, tri- cycle, velomobile, wheelchair, scooter, skates, skateboard, push scooter, trailer, hand cart, shopping car, or similar electrical devices. For the purposes of the RTP/SCS, active transportation generally refers to bicycling and walking, the two most common methods. Walking and bicycling are essential parts of the SCAG transportation system, are low cost, do not emit greenhouse gases, can help reduce roadway congestion, and increase health and the quality of life of residents. As the region works toward reducing conges- tion and air pollution, walking and bicycling will become more essential to meet the future needs of Californians. The majority of commuters within the SCAG region commute via car, truck, or van. According to the American Community Survey, in 2009, more than 85 percent of all com- muters traveled to work by car, truck, or van, and less than 4 percent traveled to work via an active transportation mode (0.7 percent bicycled and 2.5 percent walked to work). In addition, the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data indicate that approximately 20.9 percent of all trips were conducted by walking (19.2 percent) or bicycling (1.7 per- cent). This represents an approximately 75 percent increase from the 11.9 percent active transportation mode share in 2000. In addition, NHTS data indicate that 75.0 percent of all trips in 2009 were conducted by driving, and this is an approximately 10.6 percent decrease from the 83.9 percent mode share in 2000. Additional analysis regarding active transportation needs to be conducted in order to develop a better understanding of the users and their needs. The current level of data is extremely limited and does not provide a comprehensive overview of the current active transportation community. Active transportation users have differing levels of experience and confidence, which influences their decision to utilize active transportation. SCAG recognizes that there are a number of factors that motivate people to use active transpor- tation. Increased data collection may provide a clearer understanding of the needs and deficiencies associated with active transportation. Active transportation is not only a form of transportation in itself; it is also a means by which to access rail and bus service. Accessibility is one of the primary performance measures used to evaluate active transportation, by measuring how well the current infrastructure provides individuals with the opportunity to access destinations or facilities. Using a two-mile buffer for bicyclists and a half-mile buffer for pedestrians, we found that our current transit infrastructures provides 97 percent of our residents access to transit via bicycle and 86 percent access to transit by walking. While many individuals have access to transit stations by biking or walking, numerous other factors may influence an individual’s decision to use active transportation. Safety is an important factor that individuals consider when determining whether or not they should walk or bike to their destination. Based on data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), in 2008, 4.0 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in the SCAG region involved bicyclists, and 4.3 percent of all traffic-related injuries involved bicyclists. In addition, 20.9 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in the SCAG region involved a pedestrian, and 5.7 percent of traffic-related injuries involved pedestrians. While each of the counties in the SCAG region currently has its own active transporta- tion plan, the RTP/SCS aims at developing a regional active transportation system that closes the gaps and provides connectivity between counties and local jurisdictions. While bicyclists are legally allowed to use any public roadway in California unless specifically prohibited, many bicyclists may be more inclined to utilize bikeways. Currently, 42.6 percent of the region’s residents have easy access to 4,315 miles of bikeways. Local jurisdictions in the region have proposed an additional 4,980 miles of bikeways in this RTP/SCS that would increase this access to 62.4 percent of all residents. In order to close the remaining gaps in the bikeway network, this RTP/SCS goes a step further to include an additional 827 miles of bikeways to complete the SCAG Regional Bikeway Network. In order to make active transportation a more attractive and feasible mode of travel for the different users in our region, additional infrastructure improvements need to be made. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS calls for improvements that would bring significant amount of deficient sidewalks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given that all trips, including vehicular trips, start with walking, it is important to ensure that the sidewalks and streets are accommodating to all users. In all, the RTP/SCS’s active transportation improvements exceed $6.7 billion. 42 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 141 Local Efforts ventura downtown Parking management district In order to solve the apparent parking shortage in its downtown area, the City of Ventura completed a downtown parking study. The study revealed that plenty of spaces were available in nearby city-owned lots, while other prime spaces in close proximity to local businesses were in high demand and always occupied. Local business employees were parking in the spaces most coveted by customers and patrons. The City’s solution to the problem: a flexible, demand-responsive paid parking district. Parking in downtown Ventura has since improved, contributing to a better downtown experience. Travel Demand management (TDm) In addition to the transportation network, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also relies on strate- gic and extensive Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures that support the expected land use pattern. These cost-effective strategies improve the effectiveness and capacity of the transportation system by supporting a shift from single-occupancy vehicle use to other alternatives. Many local jurisdictions in our region have become national lead- ers in the implementation of TDM strategies. For example, SCAG is working with local jurisdictions to close the gaps in the regional bikeway network and bring 12,000 miles of deficient sidewalks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). TDM measures will receive a total of $4.5 billion in available revenues compared to $1.3 billion in 2008, a more than 200 percent increase. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS employs the following TDM measures to improve mobility and access: ƒBringing the majority of sidewalks and intersections in our region into American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance to increase the usability and effectiveness of our active transportation system; ƒPromoting telecommuting and flexible work schedules; ƒDevelopment of mobility hubs for first mile/last mile connectivity; ƒExpanding parking cash out programs in urban areas; and ƒPromoting Guaranteed Ride Home programs. Transportation system management (Tsm) Transportation System Management (TSM) measures also support the goals of the RTP/ SCS by making improvements to increase capacity and improve operational efficiency. These techniques contribute to improved traffic flow, better air quality, and improved system accessibility and safety. The following TSM measures support the forecasted land use development pattern of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS: ƒEnhanced incident management; ƒAdvanced ramp metering; ƒCorridor System Management plans; ƒTraf fic signal synchronization; and ƒImproved data collection. Image courtesy of Rachel So 43 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 151 2012–2035 RTP/sCs next steps The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is first and foremost a transportation plan. However, the transportation network in the RTP/SCS and the growth patterns envisioned in the Plan Alternative must complement each other. Integration of transportation and land use is essential for improved mobility and access to transportation options. SB 375 calls for the integration of land use policies with transportation investments and asks that Metropolitan Planning Organizations identify, quantify, and highlight co-benefits throughout the process. SB 375 provides CEQA incentives for development projects that are consistent with the regional SCS and help meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Lead agencies (including local jurisdictions) maintain the discretion and will be solely responsible for determining consistency of any future project with the SCS. Cities and counties maintain their existing authority over local planning and land use decisions, including discretion in certifying the environmental review for a project, regardless of eligibility for streamlining. To achieve the goals of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, public agencies at all levels of govern- ment may implement a wide range of strategies that focus on four key areas: ƒA Land Use growth pattern that accommodates the region’s future employment and housing needs and protects sensitive habitat and natural resource areas; ƒA Transportation Network that consists of public transit, highways, local streets, bikeways, and walkways; ƒTransportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that reduce peak-period demand on the transportation network; and ƒTransportation System Management (TSM) measures that maximize the efficiency of the transportation network. The following tables list specific implementation strategies that local governments, SCAG, and other stakeholders may consider in order to successfully implement the SCS. Local Efforts ontario new model Colony General Plan since 1998, the City of Ontario has been developing a bold vision for its future growth, including the adoption of its general Plan and add- ing 3,303 acres of former agricultural land into its sphere of influence. The City’s recent plans call for 13,000 new housing units across a broad range of housing types and a mix of business spaces oriented toward three mixed-use centers that are served by pedestrian-friendly road- ways and a large central park. Emphasizing connections to corridors and transit, the City is creating a major regional center for southern California. Image courtesy of City of Ontario 44 Regional offices Imperial County 1405 North Imperial Avenue Suite 1 El Centro, CA 92243 Phone: (760) 353-7800 Fax: (760) 353-1877 Orange County OCTA Building 600 South Main Street Suite 906 Orange, CA 92863 Phone: (714) 542-3687 Fax: (714) 560-5089 Riverside County 3403 10th Street Suite 805 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 784-1513 Fax: (951) 784-3925 San Bernardino County Santa Fe Depot 1170 West 3rd Street Suite 140 San Bernardino, CA 92410 Phone: (909) 806-3556 Fax: (909) 806-3572 Ventura County 950 County Square Drive Suite 101 Ventura, CA 93003 Phone: (805) 642-2800 Fax: (805) 642-2260 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 236-1800 Fax: (213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov please recycle 2347 2012.05.01 45