Read The Final Draft of Alhambra's Bike Master Plan

Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan
Prepared by:
Alta Planning + Design
Draft Plan
February 2013
Prepared for:
City of Alhambra
Acknowledgements
Prepared for: City of Alhambra
Mary Chavez, Director of Public Works
Chris Paulson, Administrative Analyst
Prepared by: Alta Planning and Design
Brett Hondorp, Principal
Jessie Holzer, Planner
City of Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan
page i
page ii
Acknowledgements
page iii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Existing Plans and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
3.1 Existing Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Multi-Modal Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 Past Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
4.1 Types of Bicyclists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 Public Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 Collision Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5 Recommended Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1 Proposed Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2 Proposed Bicycle Support Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Additional Municipal Code Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4 Recommended Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
6.1 Project Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.2 Bikeway Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.3 Project Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.4 Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix A: Online Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix B: Bike Lane Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
page iv
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Proximity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 1-2: Land Use Policy Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2-1: West San Gabriel Valley Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 3-1: Caltrans Bikeway Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3-2: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 3-3: Multi-Modal Connections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 4-1: Types of Bicyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 4-2: Respondent Bicyclist Ability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 4-3: Respondent Commute Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 4-4: Barriers to Bicycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 4-5: Interest in Programmatic Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 5-1: Recommended Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 5-2: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Relevant Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 4-2: Existing Bicycling Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 4-3: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 4-4: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 4-7: Collision Details, 2006-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 6-1: Bikeway Unit Cost Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 6-2: Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 6-3: Prioritization Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 6-4: Prioritized Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 6-5: Federal Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 6-6: State Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 6-7: Regional Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 6-8: Other Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
page 1
Main Street
Valley Boulevard
Fremont Avenue
Mission-Palm
The top three employers in Alhambra are:
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(3,600 employees)
Alhambra City Schools (2,136 employees)
County of Los Angeles Offices at The Alhambra
(1,500 employees)
1.2 Land Uses
Land uses in Alhambra are shown in Figure 1-2. Just over half
of the Citys land area consists of residential uses, including
single family residential (35 percent) and multifamily
residential (18 percent). Office/professional uses in the city
are located on Garfield Avenue and Fremont Avenue, while
commercial uses are concentrated along Main Street. The
Citys automobile commercial land use, representing Auto
Row, is also situated on Main Street.
1 Introduction
The Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the
development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle
network and set of programs and policies throughout the city
over the next 10 years. The plan provides a vision to improve
conditions for bicycling throughout Alhambra, and create local
and regional connectivity. Implementation of this plan is meant
to promote and increase bicycle ridership for all ages and
levels of ability through safe, accessible, and consistent bicycle
infrastructure, and the policies and programs that support it.
This chapter introduces the City of Alhambra and the Bicycle
Master Plan. It is meant to provide context and background for
future chapters in the Plan.
1.1 Setting
The City of Alhambra has a population of approximately 83,389
residents and, as shown on Figure 1-1, is located in central Los
Angeles County, several miles northeast of Downtown Los
Angeles. The city has a land area of approximately 7.5 square
miles and is built-out. Within the city there are 11 different
colleges and four business districts. The business districts
include:
page 2
Chapter One | Introduction
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
L
o
s

A
n
g
e
l
e
s
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
S
O
U
T
H
P
A
S
A
D
E
N
A
S
A
N

M
A
R
I
N
O
S
A
N

G
A
B
R
I
E
L
R
O
S
E
M
E
A
D
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
P
A
R
K
A
L
H
A
M
B
R
A
M
O
N
T
E
B
E
L
L
O
L
O
S

A
N
G
E
L
E
S

C
O
U
N
T
Y
(
u
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
)
L
O
S

A
N
G
E
L
E
S

C
O
U
N
T
Y
(
u
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
)
L
O
S

A
N
G
E
L
E
S

C
O
U
N
T
Y
(
u
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
)
7
1
0
6
0
1
0
5
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
.
5
0
M
i
l
e
s
N
Figure 1-1: Proximity Map
page 3
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
VALLEY BLVD
R
A
M
O
N
A
S
T
GARVEY
A
V
E
MISSIO
N
R
D
R
A
M
O
N
A
R
D
G
A
R
F
I
E
L
D
A
V
E
N
E
W
A
V
E
MAIN ST
A
T
L
A
N
T
I
C
B
L
V
D
F
R
E
M
O
N
T
A
V
E
A
T
L
A
N
T
I
C
B
L
V
D
HELLMAN AVE
COMMONWEALTH AVE
ALHAMBRA RD
HELLMAN AVE
G
R
A
N
A
D
A
A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
Y
N
E
Z
A
V
E
M
A
R
E
N
G
O
A
V
E
A
L
M
A
N
S
O
R
S
T
A
L
H
A
M
B
R
A
R
D
C
H
A
P
E
L
A
V
E
P
O
P
L
A
R
BLVD
C
O
N
C
O
R
D
A
V
E
P
A
L
M
A
V
E
M
A
R
G
U
E
R
I
T
A
A
V
E
P
IN
E
S
T
ORANGE ST
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
W
O
O
D
W
A
R
D
A
V
E
ROSS AVE
A
L
M
A
N
S
O
R
S
T
NORWOOD PL
SAN MARINO AVE
GLENDON WY
710
10
Source: City of Alhambra 2012
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
General Commercial
Automotive Commercial
Regional Commercial
Central Business District
Office Professional
Industrial
Parking
Public Facilities
Open Space
Specific Plan
Downtown Specific Plan Overlay
Figure 1-2: Land Use Policy Map
page 4
Chapter One | Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
page 5
Plan and the goals, objectives, and policies presented in this
chapter, the City aims to become a place where residents and
visitors can bicycle to their destinations, whether it be home,
work, or commercial centers.
2.2 Goals and Objectives
The broad, over-arching goal of the City of Alhambras Bicycle
Master Plan is to encourage and promote bicycling as a form
of transportation through engineering, education, enforcement,
and encouragement. Specific goals and objectives for achieving
this goal are as follows.
2 Goals and Policies
This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and policies for the
Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan. It also reviews existing plans
and policies related to bicycling that will help guide this Plan,
organized by City of Alhambra, Los Angeles County, and
Other Plans and Policies.
2.1 Vision
The overall vision of the Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan is to
create a community where bicycling is a safe, convenient, and
viable form of transportation. Through the development of the
Goal 1: Bicycle Network
Create a bicycle network in Alhambra for all types of bicycle riders and all trip purposes
Objective 1.1 Develop a bicycle network with a comprehensive system of bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes
Policies
Plan and install new bicycle lanes on major arterials with sufficient width
Plan and install shared lane markings (sharrows) and signage on bicycle routes where bicycle lane implementation is demonstrated
to be infeasible
Ensure that all facilities are designed consistently in accordance with the latest local, State, and Federal standards
Promote consistent signage that directs bicyclists to neighborhood destinations and increases the visibility of the bicycle network
Objective 1.2 Implement a system of bikeways with connectivity between homes, jobs, public transit, recreational resources, and adjacent communities
Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent to schools
Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent to major employment and shopping centers
Plan and install bicycle facilities that will connect to regional facilities
Work cooperatively with adjacent cities to coordinate bicycle planning and implementation activities
Support the development of bicycle facilities that provide access to regional and local public transit services wherever possible
page 6
Chapter Two | Goals and Policies
Coordinate with transit providers to ensure bicycles can be accommodated on all forms of transit vehicles and that adequate
space is devoted to their storage on board whenever possible
Coordinate with transit agencies to install and maintain convenient and secure short-term and long-term bike parking facilities
racks, on-demand bike lockers, in-station bike storage, and staffed bicycle parking facilities at transit stops and stations,
Objective 1.3 Coordinate with developers to provide bicycle facilities that encourage biking and link to key destinations
Policies
Recommend the implementation of bike lane and bicycle support facilities along key corridors
Recommend bicycle parking at key locations, such as employment centers, parks, transit centers, schools, multi-family
residences, and shopping centers
Objective 1.4
Support efforts to develop a Complete Streets policy that accounts for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, disabled persons, and
public transit users
Policies
Prioritize opportunities that improve walkability and bikeability by utilizing Complete Streets standards for Capital Improvement
Projects
Objective 1.5 Develop a bicycle parking policy
Policies
Establish bicycle parking design standards and requirements for all bicycle parking on City property and for private
development
Identify where bicycle parking facilities are needed and identify the appropriate type for each site
Install and support short-term, long-term, and high capacity bicycle parking within the public right-of-way and on public
property, especially in high demand locations, such as near commercial centers
Provide bicycle parking that is sheltered from inclement weather
Goal 2: Safety
Improve safety for all road users through bikeway implementation, education, enforcement, and bikeway maintenance
Objective 2.1 Implement projects that improve the safety of bicyclists at key locations
Policies
Review bicyclist-related automobile crashes to identify potential problem areas
Implement bicycle facilities on low-speed and low-volume roads
Objective 2.2 Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of the general public
Policies
Support the implementation of bicycle-safety curricula and provision to the general public and targeted populations, including
diverse age, income, and ethnic groups
Partner with neighboring communities to distribute bicycle-safety education materials
Encourage schools to develop and provide bicycle-safety curricula for use in elementary, middle, and high schools
Support marketing and public awareness campaigns aimed at improving safety
Implement a Safe Routes to School program for elementary and middle schools
Objective 2.3 Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of City employees
Policies
Train City staff working on street design, construction, and maintenance projects to consider the safety of bicyclists in their
work
Conduct bicycle-safety classes for City employees
Conduct bicycle-safety workshop for City-operated transit operators and other large fleet-vehicle operators
Provide bicycle safety education to the police and those cited for moving violations that focuses on safe cycling, relevant traffic
laws, and safe sharing of the roadway
Objective 2.4 Increase enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths and roadways
Increase enforcement efforts on City-streets and bikeways
Increase enforcement of unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and
conflicts
Increase bicycle-mounted patrol officers
Develop and promote efficient mechanisms for reporting behaviors that endanger cyclists
Encourage targeted enforcement activities in areas with high bicycle volumes
Objective 2.5 Maintain bikeways that are clear of debris and provide safe riding conditions
Policies
Establish routine maintenance schedule/standards for bikeways for sweeping, litter removal, landscaping, repainting of striping,
signage, and signal actuation devices
Plan for cyclist safety during construction and maintenance activities
page 7
2.3 Existing Plans and Policies
2.3.1 City of Alhambra
General Plan Circulation Element (1986)
The Circulation Element describes the general location and
extent of the existing and future circulation system required to
satisfy travel demand correlated with existing and anticipated
land use. In regards to bicycle facilities, the Circulation
Element states that the City does not have an established
bikeway system as the existing and future major and secondary
arterial highways cannot accommodate any provisions for
bicycles. This is because arterial highways are too narrow,
traffic volumes are too high, and the speed of the traffic too
great. Policy 4.5.8 is the only policy that directly references
bicycle transportation, stating the City is to encourage
the installation of on-site bicycle storage facilities in large
residential, commercial and industrial developments.
Goal 3: Community Support
Develop a City-wide culture that respects and accommodates all users of the road
Objective 3.1 Support Community Involvement
Policies
Use the Transportation Committee to steer the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan
Encourage citizen participation and stakeholder input in the planning and implementation of bikeways and other bicycle related
improvements
Conduct periodic online surveys to gauge interest in bicycling and related issues throughout the City
Objective 3.2 Create an online presence to improve visibility of bicycling issues in the City
Policies
Provide updates to the community about planned projects
Provide closure updates to the community about City and regional bikeways
Objective 3.3
Foster community support for bicycling by raising public awareness about bicycling and supporting programs that encourage more
people to bicycle
Policies
Support marketing and public awareness campaigns through a variety of media aimed at promoting bicycling as a safe,
healthy, cost-effective, environmentally beneficial transportation choice
Support programs aimed at increasing bicycle trips by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make bicycling a more
convenient transportation mode
Promote bicycling at City-sponsored and public events, such as farmers markets, public health fairs, craft fairs, and other civic
events
Encourage and promote bicycle related businesses within Alhambra
Apply for the designation of Bicycle Friendly Community through the League of American Bicyclists
Goal 4: Implementation and Funding
Ensure adequate funds are pursued in order to implement proposed bikeways and support facilities in this Plan
Objective 4.1 Integrate consideration of bicycle travel into all roadway planning, design, and construction
Incorporate the Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan in whole by reference into the Citys General Plan and amend sections of the
General Plan that are relevant to bicycling according to the goals of this Plan
Ensure that all current and proposed Area Plans objectives and policies are consistent with the goals of the Alhambra Bicycle
Master Plan.
Support the incorporation of bicycle facilities into other capital improvement projects, where appropriate, to ensure maximum
leveraging of funds from outside sources
Objective 4.2 Continuously monitor and evaluate Alhambras implementation progress of Bicycle Master Plan policies, programs, and projects.
Track trends in bicycle commuting through the use of Census data, travel surveys, and bicycle counts
Regularly monitor bicycle safety and seek a continuous reduction in bicycle-related collisions on a per capita or per bicyclist
basis over the next twenty years
Objective 4.3 Fund the Bicycle Master Plan
Pursue diverse sources of funding and support efforts to maintain or increase federal, state and local funding for the
implementation of Bicycle Master Plan programs and infrastructures
Support innovative funding mechanisms to implement this Bicycle Master Plan
Support new funding opportunities for bicycle facilities that are proposed at the Federal, State, and Local level that impact the
City
Identify and apply for grant funding that support the development of bicycle facilities
Consider using bikeways as mitigation for project-related vehicle trips
page 8
Community Profile (2012)
In collaboration with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), the City of Alhambra produced the
Envision Alhambra 2035 Community Profile, which provides
a basic framework for identifying and understanding the broad
range of issues the City of Alhambra is facing as an agency. It
describes Alhambras opportunities, advantages and challenges
as compared to its neighbors in the region. One of the top
reccurring themes from public outreach for the Community
Profile was bicycle circulation and safety. Narrow arterial
highways and high traffic volumes have posed a challenge for
adding bicycle provisions in Alhambra.
Alhambra Municipal Code
The Alhambra Municipal Code includes policies that guide
planning and development within the City. Several sections of
the Code include ordinances that govern the use of bicycles.
Bicycle-related policies that are relevant to the Bicycle Master
Plan are summarized in Table 2-1.
2.3.2 Los Angeles County
Cycle South Pasadena: Bicycle Master Plan Update (2011)
The City of South Pasadena, which borders Alhambra to the
northwest, recently updated its Bicycle Master Plan. Several
existing and proposed bikeways end at Alhambras city limit.
Table 2-1: Relevant Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances
Ordinance Summarized Text
10.04.020: Riding on sidewalks
unlawful
It shall be unlawful to ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk
10.04.030: Operation on streets
The rider of a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as nearly as practicable within five feet of the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway except when passing a standing or other vehicle or making a left-hand turn at an intersection
10.04.040: Operators License
Required
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use a bicycle upon any street in the city without first obtaining from the city a
license therefor
14.04.030: Unlawful acts in parks
or public grounds
Within the limits of any parks or public grounds, it shall be unlawful for any person to drive any automobile or ride any bicycle,
tricycle, roller skates, scooters or any vehicle of any character within a park area or upon public grounds, except upon roads or
streets set aside by the City Council for automobile traffic; to stand or leave standing any automobile, bicycle, tricycle, carriage or
any other vehicle at any place or upon any area other than at such place or area as is provided for that purpose.
23.44.030: General design
standards
While encouraging the broadest possible range of individual and creative design, the Planning Commission, or the Director of
Development Services, where authorized, may grant design review approval only if the proposal conforms to: The project design
shall provide for access and circulation of vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and emergency vehicle traffic in a safe, logical and
efficient manner, both to the site (off-site) and within the site (on-site)
23.82.040: Transportation
Demand Management
Non-residential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide a bulletin board, display case, or kiosk displaying
transportation information located where the greatest number of employees are likely to see it, including but not limited to,
bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle route maps and safety information, and a listing of facilities
available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians at the site.
Non-residential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall additionally provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle
parking/storage to accommodate four bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of non-residential development, and one bicycle
space per each additional 50,000 square feet of non-residential development. Calculations which result in a fraction of .5 or
greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking facility may be a fully enclosed space or locker
accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bicycle from inclement weather. Specific facilities and
location (such as provision of racks, lockers or locked rooms) shall be to the satisfaction of the city.
Non-residential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall additionally provide safe and convenient access from the
external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities on-site.
23.86.040: General Regulations
Emergency shelters, shall meet the following development standards: Bicycle racks that allow for the secure storage of bicycles
shall be provided. Bicycle racks shall accommodate at least one bicycle storage space for every five beds. All bicycle racks are
required to be on-site and located in an area that is not visible from the public right-of-way.
page 9
Bikeways that intersect with Alhambra include Class I bike
paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes, which
are described in the following chapter. These routes will be
considered in the development of Alhambras bicycle network
to improve connectivity to the surrounding region.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Master Plan (2012)
The County of Los Angeles adopted its Bicycle Master Plan
in March of 2012. The Plan proposes approximately 831
miles of new bikeways throughout unincorporated areas of the
County and recommends various bicycle-friendly policies and
programs to promote bicycle ridership amongst users of all
ages and skill sets. Alhambra lies within the West San Gabriel
Planning Area and is adjacent to the Metro Planning Area. No
portions of Los Angeles County border Alhambra and thus
there are no on-street County-proposed bikeways that intersect
the Citys boundaries. However, the proposed Alhambra Wash
Bike Path alignment would travel through the northeast portion
of the City.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan (2006)
As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for
Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro) is the primary local funding
source for transportation projects, including bicycle and
pedestrian projects. The Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan
(BTSP) developed by Metro provides an inventory of existing
and planned facilities within Los Angeles County. This
inventory assisted in identifying routes that may eventually
provide trans-jurisdictional continuity for bicyclists. The
BTSP also outlines a strategy for prioritizing regional bikeway
projects, as well as funding projects that improve bicycle access
to transit or that close gaps in the regional bikeway network.
Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (2009)
Metros Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) identifies
transportation options that will best serve Los Angeles County
over the next 30 years. It also includes funding forecasts for
H
U
N
TIN
G
TO
N
D
R
ARD
W
I L
L
A
R
D
A
V
LONGDENAV
M
A
R
E
N
G
O
A
V
DAINESD
R
IO
H
O
N
D
O
BIKE
PATH
E
A
T
O
N
W
A
S
H
A
L
H
A
M
B
R
A
A
V
S
A
N
T
A
A
N
IT
A
A
V
A
R
D
E
N
D
R
FAIRVIEWAV
WELLSST
10
710
S
A
N
T
A
A
N
IT
A
S
T
G
A
R
F
IE
L
D
A
V
HELLMANAV
R
O
S
E
M
E
A
D
B
L
S
A
N
T
A
A
N
IT
A
A
V
GRAVESAV
T
Y
L
E
R
A
V
B
A
L
D
W
IN
A
V
MONTEREYRD
VALLEYBLVD
T
E
M
P
L
E
C
IT
Y
B
L
GARVEYAV
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
IE
L
B
L
F
R
E
M
O
N
T
A
V
A
V
H
U
N
T
IN
G
T
O
N
D
R
E
L
D
A
V
VALLEYBL
D
E
L
M
A
R
A
V
M
ISSIO
N
RD
M
A
IN
S
T
MISSIONST
LASTUNASDR
A
L
H
A
M
B
R
A
A
V
GARVEYAV
A
T
L
A
N
T
I C
B
L
LIVEOAKAV
O
S
R
O
B
L
E
S
A
V
D
E
L
M
A
R
A
V
M
ISS
IO
N
R
D
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I E
L
B
L
YORK
BL
M
A
R
IA
N
N
A
A
V
LEMONAV
MONTEREYRD
WOODRUFFAV
S
A
N
P
A
S
C
U
A
L
A
V
E L MO N
A L H A MB R A
R O S E ME A D
S A N GA B R I E L
T E MP L E C I T Y
S OU T H PA S A D E N A
S OU T H E L MON T E
SOUTH
EL MONTE
ISLAND
"
4
"
"
48
"
32
"
46
METRO
PLANNING AREA
D
O
SS
R
O
B
L
E
S
A
V
AA
Figure 2-1: West San Gabriel Valley Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra
page 10
countys Circulation Element include provisions for the
accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and
pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks,
crosswalks, and curb extensions. The Government Code
65302 reads:
(2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive
revisions of the circulation element, the legislative body
shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all
users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient
travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or
urban context of the general plan.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, users of streets, roads, and
highways means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities,
motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of
public transportation, and seniors.
Deputy Directive 64 & Traffic Operations Policy Directive
09-06
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
adopted two policies in recent years that are relevant to bicycle
planning initiatives. Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64
(DD-64-R1) sets forth that Caltrans address the safety and
mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all
projects, regardless of funding.
In a more specific application of complete streets goals, Traffic
Operations Policy Directive 09-06 presents bicycle detection
requirements. For example, 09-06 requires that new and
modified signal detectors provide bicyclist detection if they are
to remain in operation. Further, the standard states that new and
modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections
provide bicyclist detection or a bicyclist pushbutton if detection
is required.
California SB 375 Sustainable Communities (2008)
Senate Bill (SB) 375 is intended to compliment Assembly
Bill (AB) 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
and encourage local governments to reduce emissions through
improved planning. Under SB 375, the California Air Resources
the 30-year timeframe, multi-modal funding availability for
the Metro Call for Projects program, sub-regional needs, and
project performance measures. The Plan helps implement the
BTSP discussed above by funding an expansion of the bicycle
network and coordinating links with other transportation
modes.
2.3.3 Other Plans and Policies
Southern California Association of Governments Regional
Transportation Plan (2012)
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
adopted its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in April 2012
with the goal of increasing mobility for those who live in and
visit Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Ventura Counties. The Plan has an active transportation
chapter that recommends increasing regional bikeway mileage
from 4,315 to 10,122 miles, as well as retrofitting sidewalks
to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and implementing safety improvements. SCAG estimates that
active transportation improvements recommended will cost
approximately $6.7 billion.
In addition to bikeways that Los Angeles County had proposed
at the time of development of the RTP, SCAG also recommends
key bikeways to connect the region and facilitate bicycle travel.
Policies included in the RTP that pertain to biking in the
region include addressing bicyclist safety, increasing bicycle
mode share, encouraging local active transportation plans, and
improving air quality.
Bicycle Transportation Act
The California Bicycle Transportation Account (1994) requires
all cities and counties to have an adopted bicycle master plan
in order to be eligible to apply for Bicycle Transportation
Account (BTA) funding.
California Government Code 65302 (Complete Streets)
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the
Complete Streets Bill, amended the California Government
Code 65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or
page 11
Board (CARB) is required to establish targets for 2020 and 2035
for each region covered by one of the States 18 metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs). Each of Californias MPOs
will then prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse
gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land use,
housing, and transportation planning. One way to help meet
the emissions targets is to increase the bicycle mode share
by substituting bicycle or walking trips for automobile trips.
Alhambras efforts to encourage non-motorized transportation
will contribute to the regional attainment of these targets.
page 12
page 13
Class III Bike Routes
Bike routes share the right-of-way between vehicles and
bicyclists with signage. These facilities are typically
recommended for streets with relatively low traffic speeds (25
mph or less) and lower volumes (<3,000 ADT) such that less
experienced bicyclists will feel comfortable riding with traffic.
Bike routes can be supplemented with shared lane markings
to increase bicyclist visibility and assist with lane positioning.
Bicycle Boulevards
A Bicycle Boulevard (also called a Bike Friendly Street in
the City of Los Angeles) is a roadway that has been prioritized
for bicyclists, pedestrians and neighborhood traffic, and
discourages vehicle cut-through traffic. Bicycle boulevards are
not Caltrans designated facilities. They include a wide range of
treatment options including but not limited to the following:
Wayfinding signage
Pavement markings
Traffic calming (bulb-outs, traffic diverters,
chicanes, speed humps)
High visibility pedestrian crosswalks
Bicycle detectors at intersections
Bicycle crossing signals
3 Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Bicycle Network
This section presents existing bicycle facilities within and
adjacent to the City of Alhambra. Bikeway types discussed in
this section are designated by Caltrans and shown in Figure 3-1.
3.1.1 Bikeway Types
Class I Bike Paths
Class I bike paths are paved rights-of-way for exclusive use by
bicyclists, pedestrians, and those using non-motorized modes of
transportation. Class I facilities can be constructed in roadway
rights-of-way or can have exclusive off-street right-of-way, such
as in utility corridors. Bike paths are a key element of a bicycle
network because they provide an alternative for bicyclists that
may not feel comfortable riding with automobile traffic.
Class II Bike Lanes
Class II Bike Lanes are striped and signed on-street travel lanes
exclusively for bicycles. Bike lanes provide physical separation
from automobile traffic and appeal to bicyclists with moderate
to high levels of experience. Because they often provide the
most direct connections, these facilities tend to be most popular
with experienced bicycle commuters.
page 14
Chapter Three | Existing Conditions
R81 (CA) Bike Lane Sign
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
5 min. (with curb & gutter)
4' min. (no curb & gutter)
Parking
7 minimum
Provides striped
lane for one-way
bike travel on a
street or highway
Provides for shared-
use with motor vehicles,
typically on lower
volume roadways
Provides completely separated
right-of-way for exclusive use by
bicycles and pedestrians with
cross-flow minimized
5' min.
6'' Stripe
4'' Stripe (optional)
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Parking
14 min. recommended shared use travel lane on higher volume streets
14 min. recommended shared use travel lane on higher volume streets
Parking
8' minimum width
2' graded shoulders required
12 min. total width
D11-1 Bike Route Sign
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Shoulder Shoulder
D11-1 Bike Route Sign
10' min vertical clearance
Class I Bike Path
Class III Bike Route
Class II Bike Lanes
Optional
Shared Lane Marking
11 (min) center to curb
Figure 3-1: Caltrans Bikeway Types
page 15
providing connections on rights-of-way exclusively for non-
motorized travel.
3.2 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit service provided within and adjacent to the City of
Alhambra includes bus and rail transportation, and is shown
on Figure 3-3. The following sections describe public
transportation in the City.
3.2.1 Alhambra Community Transit Lines
Alhambra Community Transit (ACT) provides service on two
lines within the City and each ride costs a 25-cent fare. The
Green Line runs six days per week on 20 minute headways. On
weekdays it is in service from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and on Saturday
it operates from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Green Line route runs
clockwise and counter-clockwise along Main Street (from
Palm to Chapel) and along Valley Boulevard (from Fremont
to Vega). The Blue Line offers a split schedule that runs from
Chapel to the Metrolink Station at Cal State Los Angeles and
3.1.2 Existing Bikeways
There are no existing bikeways within Alhambras city
limits. There are, however, existing and proposed bikeways
in adjacent cities that intersect with or are near to the Citys
boundary. These are listed in Table 3-1 and shown on Figure
3-2. Bicycle facilities that touch Alhambras borders are
located in the cities of South Pasadena, Monterey Park, Los
Angeles, and San Gabriel. The proposed Alhambra Wash Bike
Path travels through Alhambra, though Los Angeles County
maintains this property.
3.1.3 End-of-Trip Facilities
The City of Alhambra does not have an inventory of existing
bicycle parking locations. Short-term bicycle racks are
generally located on private property at various destinations,
such as in the Edwards Renaissance Courtyard, which is a
primary destination in Downtown Alhambra. There are also
bike racks in front of City Hall, and at all library and park
facilities.
3.1.4 Pedestrian Overcrossings
There are two bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings of the Interstate
10 freeway. These are located at Warwick Road and Marguerita
Avenue, and are shown on Figure 3-2. Overcrossings are
important to a bicycle network because they reduce barriers by
Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to
Alhambra
Class Location Jurisdiction
Existing
Class II Marengo Avenue South Pasadena
Class II Alhambra Avenue Monterey Park
Class II Hungtington Drive Los Angeles
Class III Santa Anita Street San Gabriel
Proposed
Class I Alhambra Wash Los Angeles County
Class I Edison Easement South Pasadena
Class II Huntington Drive South Pasadena
Class III Fremont Avenue South Pasadena
Class III Alhambra Avenue Los Angeles
Class III
Mabel Avenue Electric
Avenue Newmark Avenue
Marguerita Avenue
Mabel Avenue
Monterey Park
Class III
Atlanctic Boulevard El
Portal Place
Monterey Park
Class III Hellman Avenue Monterey Park
Class III Garfield Avenue Monterey Park
Class III Junipero Serra Drive San Gabriel
Class III Fairview Avenue San Gabriel
Class III Wells Street San Gabriel
page 16
Hunting
to
n
D
r
M
a
r
e
n
g
o

A
v
e
Oak St
M
a
r
e
n
g
o

A
v
e
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c

B
l
v
d
Monterey Rd
M
a
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
a

A
v
e
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
F
a
i
r

O
a
k
s

A
v
e
Poplar Blvd
V
alley B
lv
d
A
l
h
a
m
b
r
a

W
a
s
h

B
i
k
e

P
a
t
h
A
l
h
a
m
b
r
a

A
v
e
Hellman Ave
S
a
n
t
a

A
n
i
t
a

S
t
Ju
n
ip
e
r
o

S
e
r
r
a

D
r
Monter e
y
P
a
s
s

R
d
Mabel Ave
Fairview Ave
Wells St
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
Newmark Ave
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c

B
l
v
d
Y
n
e
z

A
v
e
S
e
f
t
o
n

A
v
e

O
r
a
n
g
e

A
v
e
Brightwood St
Coral V
iew
S
t
Floral Dr
ALHAMBRA
LOS
ANGELES
SAN MARINO
SAN GABRIEL
MONTEREY
PARK
ROSEMEAD
SOUTH
PASADENA
10
710
M
is
s
io
n
R
d
F
ro
n
t S
t
Valley Blvd
M
a
in

S
t
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
A
l
m
a
n
s
o
r

S
t
R
a
m
o
n
a

S
t
P
a
l
m

A
v
e
Hellman Ave
W
a
r
w
i
c
k

R
d
C
o
m
m
o
n
w
e
a
lth
A
v
e
C
h
a
p
e
l

A
v
e
H
u
n
tin
g
to
n
D
r
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
G
a
rv
ey Ave

E
d
i
s
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n

A
v
e
V
ia
d
e
l

R
e
y
Existing and Proposed Bikeways
Class I Bike Paths
E
x
is
tin
g
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Class II Bike Lanes
Existing Pedestrian Overcrossing
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
N
Figure 3-2: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra
page 17
Hunting
to
n

D
r
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
Garvey Ave
A
l
m
a
n
s
o
r

S
t
V
alley B
lv
d
Hellman Ave
Ju
n
ip
e
r
o

S
e
r
r
a

D
r
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c

B
l
v
d
Brightwood St
Floral Dr
ALHAMBRA
LOS
ANGELES
SAN MARINO
SAN GABRIEL
MONTEREY
PARK
ROSEMEAD
SOUTH PASADENA
10
710
M
is
s
io
n
R
d
Valley Blvd
M
a
in
S
t
C
o
m
m
o
n
w
e
a
lth
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
w
a
r
d
A
v
e
C
h
a
p
e
l

A
v
e
H
u
n
t
in
g
t
o
n

D
r
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
N
Multi-Modal Connections
ACT Green Line
ACT Blue Line
Metro Gold Line
Transit Stops
Metro Bus Lines
Metro Rapid Bus Lines
Montebello Bus Lines
Metrolink San Bernardino Line
Figure 3-3: Multi-Modal Connections
page 18
3.3 Education, Encouragement, and
Enforcement Strategies
The City of Alhambra does not have any existing education
or encouragement programs in place. The City does, however,
enforce bicycle-related violations. As previously mentioned,
riding bicycles on the sidewalk is not permitted in Alhambra.
Fines range from $45 to $350. It is also illegal to ride bicycles
on any street without a license, which costs $1 to obtain. The
penalty for riding without a license is only $5.
3.4 Past Expenditures
The City of Alhambra has not dedicated funding to any bicycle
projects within the past five years.
back. This line is in service Monday through Friday from
6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. ACT buses are
equipped with bicycle racks and can be used on a first come
first served basis.
3.2.2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) operates several bus lines that travel through
Alhambra. These are listed below.
70
76
78/378
79
176
Though not within City limits, Metro operates the Gold Line
light rail to the north of Alhambra. This line connects Pasadena
to Downtown Los Angeles. The South Pasadena station is the
nearest to Alhambra, located just over a mile northwest of City
limits, and can be accessed by Metro Bus Line 176, which runs
along Garfield Avenue.
3.2.3 Montebello Bus Line
Montebello Bus Line 30 runs through Alhambra by traversing
Garfield Avenue from Huntington Drive in the City of San
Marino to Firestone Boulevard in the City of South Gate.
Montebello Bus Lines are operated by the City of Montebello
and provide connections to many other bus lines operated by
different agencies.
3.2.4 Metrolink
In addition to ACT, the Metrolink San Bernardino line stops at
Cal State Los Angeles, west of Alhambra city limits. Service
is provided between Los Angeles Union Station and San
Bernardino seven days per week.
258
260
485
487
762
page 19
4.1 Types of Bicyclists
It is crucial in the public outreach process to solicit input
from all types of bicyclists (or potential bicyclists) in order to
plan a network that maximizes potential. Figure 4-1 shows a
classification system that is based on numerous surveys, focus
groups, and real-life experience in many of the nations most
bicycle friendly cities. The graphic addresses Americans
varying attitudes towards bicycling.
4 Needs Analysis
This chapter describes the needs of bicyclists in the City of
Alhambra. A summary of public input as well as mode share
data is presented for the City to provide an assessment of
existing commuting patterns. This chapter also summarizes
online survey data to determine needs of commuters and
to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility
improvements.
Strong and Fearless: < 1%
No Way, No How: 30%
Enthused and Confident: 9%
Interested but Concerned: 60%
30%
<1%
60%
9%
Figure 4-1: Types of Bicyclists
page 20
Chapter Four | Needs Analysis
As illustrated, less than one percent of Americans are Strong
and Fearless and will ride anywhere regardless of roadway
conditions, weather, or the availability of bicycle facilities.
The strong and fearless can ride at assertive speeds, prefer
direct routes, and will typically choose roadway connections
including those shared with vehicles over separate bikeway
facilities such as bicycle paths. This group will be less affected
by this plan than the others.
Approximately six to nine percent of Americans fall under the
category of Enthused and Confident bicyclists who respond
very quickly when bikeways, including bike lanes, low traffic
streets, or multi-use pathways are provided. They will deviate
from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type.
This group includes commuters, recreationalists, racers, and
utilitarian bicyclists.
Approximately 60 percent of the population can be categorized
as Interested but Concerned and represents those who do not
currently ride a bicycle regularly, in large part due to perceived
safety risks from riding with traffic. These individuals will
only ride if excellent bikeway facilities are provided, along
with route finding assistance and encouragement/education
programs. This Plan will affect the Interested but Concerned
group the most, as it will recommend the facilities and programs
that should encourage them to ride or ride more often.
Approximately 30 percent of Americans are not interested
in bicycling. They are referred to in the diagram as No Way,
No How. Some people in this group may eventually consider
bicycling and may progress to one of the user types described
above.
4.2 Public Outreach
4.2.1 Survey
The City hosted an online survey to gather feedback from
the community. The survey was open from August 10, 2012
through September 3, 2012 and a total of 42 people responded.
A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A.
I am a confident rider who is comfortable in most traffic situations, regardless of
bicycle facilities
I am a rider who is comfortable in some traffic situations and with appropriate
bicycle facilities.
I am a rider who is not comfortable in traffic situations and will only ride on paths/
greenways and quiet, residential streets.
I am not interested in cycling.
45.2%
45.2%
7.1%
2.4%
Figure 4-2: Respondent Bicyclist Ability
Of those who responded, the majority (38.1 percent) fell within
the ages of 26 through 35. Another 23.8 percent were between
46 and 55 years old. Approximately 60 percent of respondents
live 10 miles or less from their work/school and over half of
these persons live within five miles, distances that could be
reasonably made by bicycle.
As shown in Figure 4-2, almost all of respondents identified
themselves as either Strong and Fearless or Enthused and
Confident bicyclists, based on the descriptions provided in the
previous section. Only seven percent of participants fell into
the Interested but Concerned category.
Figure 4-3 displays the primary commute mode of respondents
versus how often they commute by bicycle. On a typical week,
approximately one-third of survey participants commute by
driving alone and another one-third commute by bicycle.
Approximately one-third of respondents also said they
commute by bike at least three days per week.
Figure 4-4 shows barriers to survey participants commuting
by bike. The most common reasons for not riding are a general
page 21
R
i
d
i
n
g

s
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

c
o
u
r
s
e
s

f
o
r

a
d
u
l
t
s
R
i
d
i
n
g

s
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

c
o
u
r
s
e
s

f
o
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
S
a
f
e

R
o
u
t
e
s

t
o

S
c
h
o
o
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

f
o
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
P
u
b
l
i
c

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l

e
v
e
n
t
s
M
a
p
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
s
B
i
c
y
c
l
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
s
B
o
o
t
h
s

a
t

p
u
b
l
i
c

e
v
e
n
t
s
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
a
p
s
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d

t
o

m
y

h
o
m
e
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not interested Somewhat interested Very interested
Figure 4-5: Interest in Programmatic Improvements
lack of bikeways, including off-street paths, bike lanes, and
bike routes.
As displayed in Figure 4-5, respondents are very interested
in a wide variety of bicycle education and encouragement
programs. The most desired programs include special events
and bicycle information websites. The least desired programs
are commuter incentive programs and skills classes for adults,
which could be in part due to the high proportion of experienced
bicycle commuters that participated in the survey.
4.2.2 Community Event
On August 18, 2012, the City of Alhambra hosted a booth at the
3rd annual Hot Spot Alhambra community fair to solicit public
input for the Bicycle Master Plan. The Hot Spot occurred from
4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Edwards Renaissance Courtyard in the
Downtown and included a local business expo. The booth was
advertised at City Hall, the Parks and Recreation Department,
on the project website (discussed below), in the local blog the
Alhambra Source, the city newspaper Around Alhambra, and
on the Bike San Gabriel Valley Facebook page and website.
The event was heavily attended and because it was not entirely
Primary Commute Mode
Bike
Motorcycle
Public transit
Carpool/vanpool
Drive alone
5+ days per week
3-4 days per week
1-2 days per week
1-2 days per month
Less than 1-2 days per month
I never commute by bicycle
Frequency of Bicycle Commuting
35.7%
26.2%
23.8%
21.4%
14.3%
35.7%
9.5%
2.4%
11.9%
11.9%
7.1%
Figure 4-3: Respondent Commute Modes
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
L
a
c
k

o
f

o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
i
k
e

l
a
n
e
s
L
a
c
k

o
f

o
f
f
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
b
i
k
e

p
a
t
h
s
L
a
c
k

o
f

b
i
k
e

r
o
u
t
e
s
L
a
c
k

o
f

b
i
k
e

p
a
r
k
i
n
g
o
r

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
M
y

s
c
h
o
o
l
/
w
o
r
k

d
o
e
s
n
o
t

h
a
v
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
s
I

d
o

n
o
t

h
a
v
e
e
n
o
u
g
h

t
i
m
e
I

l
i
v
e

t
o
o

f
a
r

a
w
a
y

I

h
a
v
e

t
o
o

m
u
c
h
s
t
u
f
f

t
o

c
a
r
r
y
I

h
a
v
e

t
o

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
Figure 4-4: Barriers to Bicycling
page 22
Finally, participants had the opportunity to mark-up a large map
of Alhambra with locations they would like to see bikeways at.
Streets noted as desirable for bicycle facilities include:
6th St
Alhambra Rd
Almansor St
Commonwealth Ave
Fremont Ave
Front St
Garfield Ave
Hellman Ave
Main St
Marengo Ave
Marguerita Ave
Norwood Pl
Woodward Ave
4.2.3 Website
The City of Alhambra created a website for the Bicycle
Master Plan to advertise upcoming events, seek input on Plan
materials, and provide a venue for the community to submit
their comments. The link to the online survey and the flyer for
the Hot Spot event were posted on the site.
4.2.4 General Plan Outreach
As part of the outreach process for the Envision Alhambra
2035 General Plan Update, the City held an open house in
2011 at Almansor Park to gather input on how to improve
transportation. Residents marked up maps with stickers to
show where they would like to see bicycle improvements,
among other things.
4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates
United States Census American Community Survey
Commuting to Work data provides an indication of
current bicycle system usage. Table 4-1 provides means
of transportation to work data for the City of Alhambra as
compared with Los Angeles County, California, and the
United States as a whole. The majority of Alhambras workers
bicycle-focused, the City was able to obtain input from a wide
range of residents. The City also gave away rear bike lights,
Metro bike maps, patch kits, and snacks to people who agreed
to take the online survey.
The booth provided a series of interactive boards that asked
participants to vote on the types of bikeways, bicycle parking,
signage, and programmatic improvements they would like
to see included in the plan. The most commonly requested
bikeway type was on-street bike lanes, followed by bike
boulevards. Participants favored short-term bicycle parking
over long-term, and specifically sidewalk and curb extension
bicycle racks. As for long-term bicycle parking, attendees voted
for bicycle rooms and a Bike Station, which often includes
additional amenities like tools for maintenance and bicycle
rentals. The most commonly requested signage was Share
the Road, as well as wayfinding signage with directional
and distance information. Encouragement programs, such
as bike valets at community events, were the most popular
programmatic improvements attendees voted for.
An additional interactive board asked attendees which type of
bicyclist they were from the list presented previously in this
chapter. The majority of participants (approximately one-
half) identified themselves as Enthused and Confident. Two
people stated that they were No Way, No How. The remaining
attendees were evenly split between Strong and Fearless and
Interested but Concerned.
The City hosted a booth at the 3rd annual Hot Spot Alhambra community fair to
solicit public input for the Bicycle Master Plan.
page 23
(75.04 percent) drive alone to work. While this is lower than
the United States drive alone mode share, it is higher than
California and Los Angeles County. However, Alhambra has a
higher carpool mode share (12.03) than the other jurisdictions.
The Citys bicycle mode share also reflects that of the United
States and is lower than California and Los Angeles County.
This may be in part due to the lack of bikeways and bicycle
support facilities in Alhambra. With increased investments
in bicycling as a form of transportation, it is likely that this
number will increase with time.
It is also important to note that this figure likely underestimates
the true amount of bicycling that occurs in Alhambra for
several reasons. First, data reflects respondents (workers 16
years and older) dominant commute mode and therefore does
not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that
would replace vehicular trips. Also, American Community
Survey data collection methods only enable a respondent to
select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they
constitute part of a longer multimodal trip.
Table 4-2 presents an estimate of current bicycling within
Alhambra using US Census data along with several adjustments
for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed
above. Table 4-3 presents the associated air quality benefits
from bicycling.
Table 4-4 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity
within Alhambra using California Department of Finance
population and school enrollment projections. The projection
contains the assumption that bicycle mode share will double by
Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode Share (percent)
Mode United States California Los Angeles County Alhambra
Bike 0.51 0.94 0.74 0.52
Walk 2.85 2.77 2.86 1.80
Public Transportation 4.94 5.13 7.09 5.78
Carpool 10.35 11.92 11.32 12.03
Drive Alone 76.00 72.95 72.13 75.04
Other 5.35 6.29 5.87 4.83
2030, due in part to bicycle network implementation. Actual
bicycle mode share in 2030 will depend on many factors,
including the extent of network implementation. Table 4-5
presents the associated year 2030 air quality benefit forecasts.
The calculations follow in a straightforward manner from the
Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.
page 24
Table 4-3: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 1,363
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for
school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 355,809 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 10,287
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile
for school children
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 2,684,974 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) 31 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile
Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) 22 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile
Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) 281 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile
Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday)
8,369
Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) 8,050 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) 31 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) 29 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile
Reduced NOX (pounds/year) 5,623 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile
Reduced CO (pounds/year) 73,400 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile
Reduced C02 (pounds/year) 2,184,242 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile
Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks. 2005.)
Table 4-2: Existing Bicycling Demand
Existing study area population 83,389 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B01003 5-Year Estimates
Existing employed population 39,228 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.52% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates
Existing number of bike-to-work commuters 204 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share
Existing work-at-home mode share 4.3% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates
Existing number of work-at-home bike commuters 834 Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 5.8% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates
Existing transit bicycle commuters 567
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access
transit by bicycle
Existing school children, ages 5-14 (grades K-8) 8,339 2006-2010 American Community Survey, S0101 5-Year Estimates
Existing school children bicycling mode share 2.0% National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003
Existing school children bike commuters 167 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in study area, ages
18-24
7,088 2006-2010 American Community Survey, S0101 5-Year Estimates
Existing estimated college bicycling mode share
10.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities (source: National
Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995).
Existing college bike commuters 709 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters 2,480 Total bike-to-work, school, and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 4,960 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
page 25
Table 4-4: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Future study area population 101,865 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections
Future employed population 47,921 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections
Future bike-to-work mode share 1.0% Assumes bicycle mode share will double
Future number of bike-to-work commuters 498 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share
Future work-at-home mode share 8.4%
Assumes work-at-home mode share will continue to grow at the same rate as between
2000 and 2010 (95%)
Future number of work-at-home bike commuters 2,013 Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 7.3%
Assumes transit-to-work mode share will continue to grow at the same rate as between
2000 and 2010 (26%)
Future transit bicycle commuters 875
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access
transit by bicycle
Future school children, ages 5-14 (grades K-8) 10,187 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections
Future school children bicycling mode share 4.0% Assumes mode share will double
Future school children bike commuters 407 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share
Future number of college students in study area, ages
18-24
8,658 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections
Future estimated college bicycling mode share 12.0% Assumes 2% increase
Future college bike commuters 1,039 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters 4,832 Total bike-to-work, school, and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 9,664 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Table 4-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Future Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 2,807
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for
school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 732,751 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 20,948
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile
for school children
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 5,467,444 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)
Future Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) 63 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile
Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) 44 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile
Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) 573 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile
Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday)
17,041
Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) 16,393 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) 63 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile
Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) 59 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile
Reduced NOX (pounds/year) 11,451 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile
Reduced CO (pounds/year) 149,465 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile
Reduced C02 (pounds/year) 4,447,797 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile
Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks. 2005.)
page 26
Table 4-7: Collision Details, 2006-2010
Collision Factor Number Percent
Violation Category
Unknown 2 1.4
Under the Influence 1 0.7
Unsafe Speed 1 0.7
Wrong Side of Road 58 40.8
Improper Turning 14 9.9
Automobile Right-of-Way 29 20.4
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 2 1.4
Traffic Signals and Signs 10 7.0
Other Hazardous Violation 15 10.6
Unsafe Sarting or Backing 4 2.8
Other Improper Driving 3 2.1
Not Stated 3 2.1
Injury Severity
Complaint of Pain 77 54.2
Other Visible Injury 57 40.1
Severe Injury 7 4.9
Fatality 1 0.8
4.4 Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential
bicyclists. Identifying bicycle collision sites can assist in
developing improvements or determining appropriate bicycle
routes. Bicycle collision data for the City of Alhambra was
obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System (SWITRS) from the years 2006 through 2010. In this
time period, there were 142 total reported collisions involving
bicyclists, shown in Table 4-6. The number of bicycle crashes
fluctuated throughout the five-year period, neither steadily
increasing nor decreasing. It should be noted, however, that
many bicycle collisions go unreported and thus the true number
of crashes is likely much higher than shown.
Table 4-7 presents the violation category and injury severity
of bicycle collisions in Alhambra from 2006 to 2010. The most
common primary collision factor violation was Wrong Side of
Road (41 percent). Collision reports are unavailable and thus
this plan does not include a detailed analysis of bicycle crashes.
However, it is important to take notice of the high frequency of
wrong way bicycle riding leading to collisions.
Figure 4-6 displays the locations of reported bicycle crashes in
Alhambra. As shown, collisions were concentrated on arterial
roadways, including Main Street, Fremont Avenue, Valley
Boulevard, and Mission Road.
Table 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010
Year Total Collisions
2006 38
2007 25
2008 28
2009 15
2010 36
Total Collisions 142
page 27
Hunting
to
n

D
r
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
Garvey Ave
A
l
m
a
n
s
o
r

S
t
V
alley B
lv
d
Hellman Ave
Ju
n
ip
e
r
o

S
e
r
r
a

D
r
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c

B
l
v
d
Brightwood St
Floral Dr
ALHAMBRA
LOS
ANGELES
SAN MARINO
SAN GABRIEL
MONTEREY
PARK
ROSEMEAD
SOUTH PASADENA
10
710
M
is
s
io
n
R
d
Valley Blvd
M
a
in
S
t
C
o
m
m
o
n
w
e
a
lth
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
w
a
r
d
A
v
e
C
h
a
p
e
l

A
v
e
H
u
n
t
in
g
t
o
n

D
r
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
Bicycle Collisions 2006-2010
Collisions
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
N
Figure 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010
page 28
page 29
parking. In some locations, however, street widths may be wide
enough to accommodate bike lanes with buffers between the
bikeway and either on-street parking or travel lanes. Appendix
B lists potential impacts and notes about each proposed bike lane
facility for the City to use to assist with implementation of this
Plan.
5.1.2 Class III Bike Routes
This plan recommends 40.75 miles of Class III bike routes
where curb-to-curb width cannot accommodate bike lanes.
Per the policies outlined in Chapter 2, the City should install
shared lane markings (sharrows) on all proposed bike
routes. As shared lane markings are a relatively new bikeway
marking in American cities, guidance on application will
continue to evolve over time. Shared lane markings should not
be considered a substitute for bike lanes or other separation
treatments where these types of facilities are otherwise
warranted or space permits. Desirable shared lane marking
applications include:
To indicate a shared lane situation where the speed
differential between bicyclist and motorist travel
speeds is very low (designed speed of < 25 mph)
On downhill segments, preferably paired with an
uphill bike lane
5 Recommended Improvements
This chapter presents the proposed bicycle network, bicycle
support facilities, and programmatic improvements for the City
of Alhambra. In addition to creating a comprehensive network
of bikeways within the city, the recommended system ties into
the existing and proposed bicycle facilities in neighboring
cities, providing bikeways that will not drop at city boundaries.
Bikeway recommendations are based on existing regional
bicycle plans, public input, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.
5.1 Proposed Bikeways
Table 5-1 presents the type, location, extents, and length of
each proposed bicycle facility in Alhambra, also shown in
Figure 5-1. This Plan proposes 44.18 total miles of bikeways,
including Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes.
5.1.1 Class II Bike Lanes
This Plan recommends 3.43 miles of Class II bike lanes. Bike
lanes are generally proposed on roadways with higher traffic
volumes and speeds that require increased separation between
bicyclists and motorists. Many of Alhambras streets have
narrow curb-to-curb widths, making it challenging to provide
separated on-street facilities without removing travel lanes or
page 30
Chapter Five | Recommended Improvements
Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways
Street From To Mileage
Class II Bike Lanes
Garvey Street Ramona Road Fremont Avenue 0.77
Huntington Drive West City Limits Alhambra Road 0.51
Huntington Drive Garfield Avenue Granada Avenue 0.53
Main Street Huntington Drive Raymond Avenue 0.85
Marengo Avenue Lemon Street Front Street 0.36
Marengo Avenue Valley Boulevard Ross Avenue 0.41
Total Mileage 3.43
1st Street Main Street Commonwealth Avenue 0.24
2nd Street Alhambra Road Commonwealth Avenue 0.68
4th Street Woodward Avenue Glendon Way 1.57
6th Street Main Street Hellman Avenue 1.6
Adams Avenue Almansor Street New Avenue 0.47
Alhambra Road Huntington Drive East City Limits 2.37
Almansor Street Corto Street Hellman Avenue 1.42
Almansor Street Huntington Drive Main Street 0.95
Campbell Avenue Hellman Avenue Pedley Drive 0.05
Carlos Street La Crescenta Avenue Whitney Drive 0.28
Cedar Street Palm Avenue Raymond Avenue 0.09
Chapel Avenue Alhambra Road Glendon Way 2.05
Commonwealth Avenue West City Limits Chapel Avenue 1.86
Concord Avenue West City Limits Meridian Avenue 0.49
Corto Street Chapel Avenue Almansor Street 0.16
Curtis Avenue Hellman Avenue Midwickhill Drive 0.14
Curtis Avenue Glendon Way Ramona Road 0.12
Edgewood Drive Front Street Norwood Place 0.25
El Paseo Street Montezuma Avenue Las Flores Street 0.08
Electric Avenue Huntington Drive Alhambra Road 0.37
Elm Street Norwood Place Ross Avenue 0.25
Front Street Edgewood Drive 6th Street 1.22
Garvey Street Fremont Avenue Monterey Pass Road 0.1
Glendon Way Curtis Avenue New Avenue 1.66
Granada Avenue Alhambra Road Main Street 0.44
Grand Avenue Almansor Street Granada Avenue 0.21
Hathaway Avenue Hagen Drive Sarazen Drive 0.23
Hellman Avenue Palm Avenue Olive Avenue 0.61
Hellman Avenue West City Limits Ross Avenue 0.16
Hellman Avenue Garfield Avenue Almansor Street 0.36
La Crescenta Avenue Las Flores Street Carlos Street 0.07
Las Flores Street El Paseo Street La Crescenta Avenue 0.07
Linda Vista Avenue 6th Street Chapel Avenue 0.55
Main Street Raymond Avenue East City Limits 2
Marengo Avenue Front Street Valley Boulevard 0.26
Marengo Avenue Alhambra Road Lemon Street 0.85
Marguerita Avenue Alhambra Road Hellman Avenue 2
page 31
5.2 Proposed Bicycle Support Facilities
Support facilities are essential components of a bicycle system
because they enhance safety and convenience for bicyclists
along and at the end of every trip. The following sections
provide a description of facilities that help bicyclists easily
reach their destinations, including bicycle parking, signage,
detection, and lighting.
5.2.1 End-of-Trip Facilities
With nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips,
bicyclists need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A
comprehensive bicycle parking strategy is one of the most
important things that a jurisdiction can apply to immediately
enhance the bicycling environment. Bicycle parking, like
automobile parking, is a key element of a transportation
network. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with connections
to public transit will further the geographical range that
residents can travel without using an automobile.
On streets where the traffic signals are timed for a
bicycling travel speed of 12 to 15 miles per hour
Along front-in angled parking, where a bike lane is
undesirable
To fill a gap in an otherwise continuous bike path or
bike lane, generally for a short distance
To transition bicyclists from across traffic lanes or
from conventional bike lanes or cycle tracks to a
shared lane environment
The City should consider also implementing green-backed
shared lane markings, commonly referred to as super
sharrows, on arterial and collector streets where bike lanes
are not proposed due to roadway constraints. Super sharrows
are more visible to motorists and thus can increase awareness
of bicylists on high-volume and high-speed roadways.
Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways (continued)
Street From To Mileage
Meridian Avenue Main Street Concord Avenue 0.64
Midwickhill Drive Sarazen Drive Hagen Drive 0.77
Montezuma Avenue Garvey Street El Paseo Street 0.24
New Avenue Adams Avenue Shorb Street 0.25
Norwood Place Westmont Drive Edgewood Drive 0.70
Olive Avenue Pine Street Commonwealth Avenue 1.15
Orange Street Fremont Avenue Raymond Avenue 0.40
Palm Avenue Alhambra Road Cedar Street 0.31
Poplar Avenue West City Limits Main Street 0.85
Ramona Road Marguerita Avenue Curtis Avenue 0.06
Raymond Avenue Front Street Ross Avenue 0.54
Raymond Avenue Alhambra Road Orange Street 1.00
Ross Avenue Hellman Avenue Campbell Avenue 1.01
Sarazen Drive Whitney Drive Hathaway Avenue 0.59
Shorb Street Marengo Avenue 6th Street 0.72
Shorb Street 6th Street New Avenue 1.2
Stoneman Avenue Huntington Drive Main Street 0.92
Vega Street Shorb Street Glendon Way 0.46
Warwick Road Westmont Drive Ramona Road 0.23
Westmont Drive Valley Boulevard Hellman Avenue 0.40
Westmont Drive Hellman Avenue Warwick Road 0.15
Whitney Drive Campbell Avenue Sarazen Drive 0.65
Woodward Avenue Marguerita Avenue Almansor Street 1.04
Total Mileage 40.75
page 32
H
a
t
h
a
w
a
y

A
v
e
P
a
l
m

A
v
e
R
a
y
m
o
n
d

A
v
e
M
a
r
e
n
g
o

A
v
e
M
a
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
a

A
v
e
V
alley B
lv
d
A
l
h
a
m
b
r
a

W
a
s
h

B
i
k
e

P
a
t
h
Hellman Ave Hellman Ave
Ju
n
ip
e
r
o

S
e
r
r
a

D
r
Mabel Rd
ALHAMBRA
LOS
ANGELES
SAN MARINO
SAN GABRIEL
MONTEREY
PARK
ROSEMEAD
SOUTH
PASADENA
10
710
F
ro
n
t S
t
M
a
in

S
t
Commonwealth Ave
C
h
a
p
e
l

A
v
e
H
u
n
t
in
g
t
o
n

D
r
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

A
v
e
O
l
i
v
e

A
v
e
V
e
g
a

S
t
A
l
m
a
n
s
o
r

S
t
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n

A
v
e
H
u
n
t
in
g
t
o
n

D
r
A
l
m
a
n
s
o
r

S
t
S
t
o
n
e
m
a
n

A
v
e
G
r
a
n
a
d
a

A
v
e
2
n
d

S
t
1
s
t

S
t
4
t
h

S
t
Cedar Street
4
t
h

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
R
a
y
m
o
n
d

A
v
e
E
l
m

S
t
W
e
s
t
m
o
n
t

D
r
E
d
g
e
w
o
o
d

D
r
Norwood Pl
Carlos St
El Paseo St
Campbell Ave
Westmont Dr
Warwick Rd
Las Flores St
C
u
r
t
i
s

A
v
e
Curtis Ave
6
t
h

S
t
Linda Vista Ave
Shorb St
Corto St
Glendon Wy
Adams Ave
Shorb St
Orange St
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
N
e
w

A
v
e
Ros
s

A
v
e
M
a
r
e
n
g
o

A
v
e
Oak St
Monterey Rd
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
F
a
i
r

O
a
k
s

A
v
e

E
d
i
s
o
n

E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n

A
v
e
V
ia
d
e
l

R
e
y
A
l
h
a
m
b
r
a

A
v
e
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
Newmark Ave
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c

B
l
v
d
Y
n
e
z

A
v
e
S
e
f
t
o
n

A
v
e

O
r
a
n
g
e

A
v
e
Coral V
iew
S
t
Popl a
r B
l
v
d
M
id
w
ic
k
h
ill Dr
S
a
razen Dr
W
h
i
t
n
e
y

D
r
M
o
n
te
z
u
m
a
A
v
e
Garv
e
y
S
t
La Crescenta Ave
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

A
v
e
M
a
in
S
t
W
o
o
d
w
a
r
d
A
v
e
A
lh
a
m
b
r
a
R
d
Proposed Bikeways in Alhambra Land Uses
Education
Community Facility
Parks and Recreation
Pedestrian Overcrossing
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
N
Bikeways in Adjacent Jurisdictions
Class I Bike Paths
Existing Proposed
Class II Bike Lanes
Class II Bike Lanes
Crossing Improvement
Figure 5-1: Recommended Bikeways
page 33
supply changing and storing facilities at mid-size and large
employers, offices, and businesses, by providing showers and
clothes lockers within the buildings or arranging agreements
with nearby recreation centers to allow commuters to use their
facilities.
Figure 5-2 displays proposed bicycle parking locations in
Alhambra. These locations are based on the Citys land use
designations and will need to go through further review during
implementation to determine exact placement. The City should
ensure there is adequate short-term bicycle parking at all major
trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers
and transit hubs. The City should prioritize the installation of
bicycle parking throughout the city, with particular attention
directed at the following locations:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
Alhambra has the opportunity to install sidewalk racks
throughout the city, especially in the downtown area. In areas
where sidewalk width is constrained, this Plan recommends the
City study the feasibility of installing bicycle corrals, which
involves removing an on-street parking space to provide bicycle
racks. This Plan also recommends that high-activity locations
such as transit stops, offices, and major commercial districts
provide more secure, long-term bicycle parking options, such
as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs and intermodal
facilities should include secure bicycle parking areas as part
of their design.
Upon implementation of this Plan, it is recommended that
Alhambra install bicycle parking based on the guidelines
presented in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professional (APBP) Bike Parking Guide 2nd Edition, 2010,
which provides guidance on appropriate and accessible
placement and positioning of bike racks.
The Alhambra Municipal Code currently requires bicycle
parking at emergency shelters and non-residential developments
of at least 50,000 square feet (see Table 2-1). This Plan
recommends that the City amend its Municipal Code to include
bicycle parking requirements for all land uses. Examples of
units used in recommended bicycle parking requirements and
associated land uses are listed below. Percent of automobile
parking is not a recommended unit.
Square footage of building (most land uses)
Unit count (residential buildings)
Building occupancy (schools, religious buildings,
etc.)
This Plan recommends that the City also update its Municipal
Code to include requirements on types of short-term and long-
term bicycle parking facility designs. Recommended short-
term facilities include bicycle racks that provide two points of
contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the
front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a higher
degree of security and support for the bicycle. Recommended
rack styles include:
Inverted U racks
Post and ring racks
Coathanger racks
Custom racks providing two points of contact
Recommended long-term facilities consist of more permanent,
lockable enclosures that provide for storage of the bicycle and
associated equipment and clothing. Recommended designs
include:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently
anchored racks for bicycles
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored
racks or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become
dirty from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and
storing facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle
because they have a place to clean up before work or school.
This Plan recommends that the City work with developers to
page 34
Hunting
to
n

D
r
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
F
r
e
m
o
n
t

A
v
e
Garvey Ave
A
l
m
a
n
s
o
r

S
t
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c

B
l
v
d
V
alley B
lv
d
Hellman Ave
Ju
n
ip
e
r
o

S
e
r
r
a

D
r
Brightwood St
Floral Dr
ALHAMBRA
LOS
ANGELES
SAN MARINO
SAN GABRIEL
MONTEREY
PARK
ROSEMEAD
SOUTH PASADENA
10
710
M
is
s
io
n
R
d
Valley Blvd
M
a
in
S
t
C
o
m
m
o
n
w
e
a
lth
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
w
a
r
d
A
v
e
C
h
a
p
e
l

A
v
e
H
u
n
t
in
g
t
o
n

D
r
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d

A
v
e
Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations
Land Uses
Long-Term Bicycle Parking
Commercial
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
N
Short-Term Bicycle Parking
Community Facilities
General Office Education Industrial
Parks/Recreation
Mixed Use
Figure 5-2: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations
page 35
5.2.3 Bicycle Detection
Traffic signals control traffic by either using timers or actuation
(detection). Bicycle detection at actuated traffic signals can
provide a substantial improvement for bicycle access and
mobility. This Plan recommends the City install bicycle
detection at actuated intersections along all proposed bikeways
in this Plan, in accordance with Caltrans Policy Directive 09-
06 (discussed in Chapter 2). Where loop detection is used, a
pavement stencil of the bicycle detection marking should be
used to show bicyclists where to position themselves.
5.2.4 Lighting
Adequate lighting can have a profound impact on perceived
safety on bikeways. This is especially true on overpasses and
underpasses where due to the angle of the bikeway or because
it is an isolated space, people have difficulty seeing and tend
to feel less secure. Alhambra has several overpasses and
underpasses across the 10 freeway, all of which are critical
pieces of the bikeway network. These and future overpasses
should be enhanced with additional lighting to promote a sense
of safety and security for bicyclists.
5.3 Additional Municipal Code Changes
The City should amend sections of the Municipal Code that
reduce the convenience and safety of bicyclists and thus are
inconsistent with this Plan.
Section 10.04.030 states that the rider of a bicycle upon a
roadway shall ride as nearly as practicable within five feet
of the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except when
passing a standing or other vehicle or making a left-hand turn
at an intersection. It is recommended that the City remove the
five feet requirement to allow for bicyclists to take the lane
on streets that are too narrow to share, and to allow bicyclists
to negotiate around hazards that may preclude them from
riding within five feet of the curb, such as potholes, cracks,
or roadway construction. This is already addressed in greater
detail by CVC 21201, which requires cyclists to ride as far
right as practicable except when overtaking, making a left turn,
or avoiding hazards.
5.2.2 Signage
There is wide variety of signage included in the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) that
can be used on bikeways. These range from standard bikeway
identification signs, such as Bike Route (D11-1), to warning
signs, such as Share the Road (W16-1). A new sign added
to the 2012 edition of the California MUTCD is Bicycles
May Use Full Lane (R4-11), which can be placed on Class
III bike routes to educate both drivers and bicyclists on cyclist
lane positioning. Coupled with shared lane markings, this
signage has the potential to be effective in broadening public
understanding of how to properly share the road.
The MUTCD also includes wayfinding signage, some of which
includes direction and distance information. It is recommended
that the City install wayfinding signage at key decision points
along its bikeways to guide users through the network. This is
especially important along bike routes where facilities often
jog or turn.
Though there are many different signs Alhambra can install on
its bikeways, the City should be judicious with its installations
to ensure that signs do not clutter the roadways. Installing too
many signs has the potential to counter sign effectiveness as
drivers and bicyclists alike become accustomed to seeing them
and subsequently are less likely to notice their messages.
Bicycle detection at actuated traffic signals can provide a substantial
improvement for bicycle access and mobility.
page 36
(d) Operates the bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary
walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching
or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp
and a motor vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway,
curb cut or pedestrian ramp.
(e) Operates an electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.
At a minimum, the code should be revised to allow children
to bicycle on sidewalks, as they do not have same traffic
understanding as adults.
5.4 Recommended Programs
Becoming a truly bicycle-friendly community requires a
multi-faceted approach, including strategies beyond traditional
engineering and infrastructure projects. This section presents
recommended programmatic improvements that address
the four Es: education, encouragement, enforcement, and
evaluation.
5.4.1 Education
Bicycle Skills Courses
Most bicyclists do not receive comprehensive instruction
on safe and effective bicycling techniques, laws, or bicycle
maintenance. Bike skills training courses are an excellent way
to improve both bicyclist confidence and safety. The League
of American Bicyclists (LAB) developed a comprehensive
bicycle skills curriculum which is considered the national
standard for adults seeking to improve their on-bike skills.
The classes available include bicycle safety checks and basic
maintenance, basic and advanced on-road skills, commuting,
and driver education.
This Plan recommends Alhambra partner with non-profit
organizations, such as BikeSGV and the Los Angeles County
Bicycle Coalition, to offer bicycle skills courses for all ages,
and incorporate them into recreation center programs or other
city programs. Bicycle skills courses that target children
should, to the extent feasible, be fully integrated into school
curriculum through PE classes, general assembly, and other
means of instruction (see Bike Rodeos below).
Section 10.04.040 states that it shall be unlawful for any
person to operate or use a bicycle upon any street in the city
without first obtaining from the city a license therefor. This
plan recommends that the City remove this section unless
it plans to enforce this policy. Recently other cities in Los
Angeles County, including Los Angeles and Long Beach,
have repealed their mandatory bicycle registration laws citing
that they were inefficient, costly to administer, and had little
participation.
Section 10.04.20 states that it is unlawful to bicycle on any
sidewalk in Alhambra. While this plan does not encourage
adult sidewalk bicycling, on high traffic volume corridors with
no on-street separated facilities there may be some cyclists
who are simply not comfortable riding in the roadway and
who will choose to ride on the sidewalk, risking citation. This
plan has attempted to provide alternate parallel local street
bikeways for most high traffic roadways to provide lower
stress cycling options, but these routes may not provide access
to all destinations.
The City should consider revising the code to make it legal for
adults to bicycle on sidewalks, except in the downtown area or
other business districts where higher pedestrian volumes are
anticipated that could result in cyclist-pedestrian conflicts. In
order to discourage riding behavior that could impact the safety
of bicyclists and pedestrians in the sidewalk environment, the
following language should be considered as part of the code
revision:
(1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a
bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following
(a) Operates the bicycle so as to suddenly leave a curb or other
place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so
close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) Operates a bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an
audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian
and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians on the
sidewalk.
(c) Operates a bicycle on a sidewalk in a careless manner
that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or
property.
page 37
bike events, and other relevant topics. The City could also
work with BikeSGV to post information on its website.
Public Awareness Campaign
Bicyclists often come into conflict with other modes of
transportation because the general public is not expecting
to see them on the road. A public awareness campaign can
increase visibility of bicyclists and highlight their rights and
responsibilities to all road users. New York City, for example,
has a Look campaign that uses various media formats to
remind residents to look for bicyclists.
1
A similar campaign in
Alhambra that educates the public on the presence of bicyclists
can reduce potential conflicts and create a more bicycle-
friendly city. The campaign should be conducted using a wide
range of media to reach a diverse population. The City should
consider partnering with neighboring jurisdictions to launch a
joint campaign that will broaden the population reached.
5.4.2 Encouragement
Safe Routes to School Program
Encouraging children to walk and bicycle to school can
improve health and can reduce congestion, traffic dangers, and
air pollution caused by parents driving children to school. Safe
Routes to School (SR2S) programs use the 5 Es approach
using Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement,
and Evaluation strategies to improve safety and encourage
children walking and biking to school. The programs are
1 http://www.nyc.gov/html/look/html/about/what_we_do_text.shtml
Childrens Bicycle Safety Clinics
Childrens bicycle safety clinics are individual events that
help students develop basic bicycling techniques and safety
skills through the use of a bicycle safety course. The clinics
use playgrounds or parking lots set-up with stop signs, traffic
cones, and other props to simulate the roadway environment.
Students receive instruction on how to maneuver, observe stop
signs, and look for on-coming traffic before proceeding through
intersections. Childrens bicycle safety clinics also provide an
opportunity for instructors to ensure childrens helmets and
bicycles are appropriately sized. Events can include free or low
cost helmet distribution and bike safety checks.
The City should work with elementary and middle schools,
trained adult volunteers, local police, and the fire department
to administer childrens bicycle safety clinics. The clinics can
be stand-alone events or can be incorporated into health fairs,
back-to-school events, and Walk and Bike to School days.
Drivers Education Training
Interacting with bicyclists on the road is often not included in
training for new drivers. Teaching motorists how to share the
road from the start can help reduce potential conflicts between
drivers and bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists
(LAB) offers a three-hour motorist education classroom
session that teaches participants topics including roadway
positioning of bicyclists, traffic and hand signals, principles
of right-of-way, and left and right turn problems. Alhambra
should encourage instructors of driver education courses to add
this class to their curriculum.
Bicycle Information Website
A common statement from bicyclists is that they are unfamiliar
with the rules and regulations regarding bicycling, as well as
the locations of effective bikeways and support facilities. The
City of Alhambra should host a webpage through its website
dedicated to bicycling issues. The webpage can include general
bicycle-related California Vehicle Code regulations, Municipal
Code ordinances (such as sidewalk riding not permitted),
excerpts from this Bicycle Master Plan, news about upcoming
Encouraging children to walk and bicycle to school can improve health and can
reduce congestion, traffic dangers, and air pollution.
page 38
Targeted Bicycling Enforcement
Traffic enforcement agencies enforce laws pertaining to
bicycles as part of their responsible normal operations. Directed
enforcement is one way to publicize bicycle laws in a highly
visible and public manner. Examples of directed enforcement
actions that the Alhambra Police Department could undertake
include intersection patrols, handing out informational sheets
to motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and enforcing speed
limits and right-of-way.
Sidewalk Riding Enforcement Campaign
In conjunction with sidewalk riding revisions to the Municipal
Code outlined in section 5.3, the City of Alhambras Police
Department should develop a campaign to increase education
and enforcement of cyclists riding unsafely on sidewalks. This
campaign should include a strong component to educate cyclists
about available on-street routes and potential safety risks of
unsafe sidewalk riding. This campaign could include signage
placed on arterial roadways without separated bikeways, such
as Valley Boulevard and Fremont Avenue, directing bicyclists
to designated bikeways on parallel streets.
Targeted Driving Enforcement
Much like directed enforcement for bicyclists, police
departments can target enforcement of motorists for bicycle-
related violations. Common actions of drivers that create
potential conflicts with bicyclists include parking in bike lanes
usually run by a coalition of city government, school and school
district officials, teachers, parents, students, and neighborhood
volunteers.
The City of Alhambra should initiate a SR2S program as
part of the implementation of this plan. Since many proposed
bikeways are located adjacent to schools, the City may have
increased funding opportunities for bikeway installation.
Group Rides
For inexperienced riders, bicycling with traffic can be a barrier
to riding more often. Group rides can provide the security that
new bicyclists need to feel comfortable riding on the road,
while providing a fun and social alternative for experienced
bicyclists. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and
BikeSGV both organize monthly group rides
2
. The City
should work with the organizations to conduct rides through
Alhambra.
Bicycle Friendly Business Districts
Local businesses have the potential to encourage bicycling by
providing their patrons that commute by bicycle with discounts
and other amenities. The City of Long Beach, for example,
has a multi-faceted bicycle friendly business program, which
includes a city-wide discount program for bicyclists, the
provision of bicycles to local shops, community events, and
marketing
3
. Alhambra should work with local businesses to
implement a similar program, which could, for example, assign
a gold, silver, or bronze designation to businesses that apply
for the program based on the level of benefits they provide
bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists has a Bicycle
Friendly Business program as part of its Bicycle Friendly
Communities designation, which would act as a good model
for Alhambra to follow
4
.
5.4.3 Enforcement
2 http://www.bikesgv.org/sgv-bike-train.html
http://la-bike.org/sundayfunday
3 http://www.bikelongbeach.org/welcome/bike-share-program/bicycle-
friendly-business-district-program
4 http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/
bicyclefriendlybusiness/about.php
page 39
5.7.4 Evaluation
Dedicated Staff Time
A number of jurisdictions around the country staff a part- or
full-time position to coordinate non-motorized transportation
activities. Agencies with such a position usually experience
greater success in bike plan implementation. The City of
Alhambra should incorporate the responsibility of bicycling
planning into an existing staff position to assist with the
current bicycle planning and safety efforts, implementation
of the bicycle plan, and pursuing grant funding opportunities.
In addition to supporting existing programs such as bicycling
parking provision and educational activities, potential job
duties for this staff position are listed below:
Monitoring facility planning, design, and
construction that may impact bicycling
Coordinating the implementation of the
recommended projects and programs listed in this Plan
Identifying new projects and programs that would
improve the citys bicycling environment and improve
safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists
Coordinating evaluation of projects and programs,
such as bicycle counts
Coordination of projects with neighboring cities
Pursuing funding sources for project and program
implementation
Annual Bicycle Counts and Surveys
Partnering with local advocacy groups and volunteers to
conduct annual bicycle counts is a mechanism for tracking
bicycling trends over time and for evaluating the impact
of bicycle projects, policies, and programs from this Plan.
Ongoing count data will enable the City to analyze changes
in bicycling activity and to evaluate the impact of new bicycle
infrastructure.
Annual surveys measure attitudes about bicycling. These
surveys could be conducted either as online surveys or
intercept surveys. Surveys determine if bicyclists and other
community members are reacting positively or negatively to
bicycle facilities and programs implemented.
and not sharing the road. Since Alhambra does not currently
have any bikeways, motorists may not even realize they are
violating laws. Directing enforcement at these actions can
create a safer bicycling environment in Alhambra.
Speed Radar Trailer/Speed Feedback Signs
Speed radar trailers can help reduce traffic speeds and enforce
speed limits in areas with speeding problems. Police set up
an unmanned trailer that displays the speed of approaching
motorists along with speed limit sign. Speed trailers may be
effective on busier arterial roads without bikeway facilities or
near schools with reported speeding.
Speed trailers work as both an educational and enforcement
tool. By itself, the unmanned trailer educates motorists about
their current speed in relation to the speed limit. Speed trailers
can transport easily to streets where local residents complain
about speeding problems.
The Alhambra Police Department should station officers
near the trailer to issue speeding citations when speeding
continues to occur. It is recommended that City staff provide
the management role for this program, working with the public
to determine which locations are in most need. This program
can be administered randomly, cyclically, or as demand
necessitates because of the speed trailers portability.
Bicycle Patrol Units
On-bike officers are an excellent tool for community and
neighborhood policing because they are more accessible to the
public and able to mobilize in areas where patrol cars cannot
(e.g., overcrossings and paths). Bike officers undergo special
training in bicycle safety and bicycle-related traffic laws and
are therefore especially equipped to enforce laws pertaining
to bicycling. Bicycle officers help educate bicyclists and
motorists through enforcement and also serve as excellent
outreach personnel to the public at parades, street fairs, and
other gatherings.
page 40
page 41
Establish a regular street sweeping and trash
collection schedule for on-street bikeways,
shoulders, intersections, and off-street paths
Repaint and replace bicycle lane/path striping and
markings
Periodically review and replace missing or damaged
signage
Repair and improve the surface of roadways, as
potholes and cracks along the shoulders primarily
affect bicyclists
Integrate bicycle facilities (if they do not already
exist) into paving, sealing, or repaving roadway
projects
Bicycle network maintenance unit costs are shown in Table
6-2. Bicycle facility maintenance costs are based on per-
mile estimates, which cover labor, supplies, and amortized
equipment costs for weekly trash removal, monthly sweeping,
and bi-annual resurfacing and repair patrol. Other maintenance
costs include restriping bike lane lines, sweeping debris, and
calibrating signals for bicycle sensitivity.
6.3 Project Prioritization
This section presents prioritized bikeway projects to be
implemented over the next 10 years. Prioritization is based
6 Implementation
This chapter presents the cost to construct and maintain the
recommended network, and provides guidance on potential
funding sources to assist the City with implementation.
Recommended projects are prioritized by Alhambras bikeway
needs to help the City decide which projects to implement first.
6.1 Project Cost Estimates
Table 6-1 displays the planning-level capital unit cost
estimates for each facility type and the cost to implement the
proposed network in Alhambra. Estimated unit costs may vary
from what is provided in this Plan depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions also
exclude specific treatments that vary by site and must be
determined by field review, such as restriping of existing travel
lanes and sign removal.
6.2 Bikeway Maintenance
Routine maintenance of bikeway facilities is a critical and often
overlooked element of bikeway planning that can drastically
improve bicyclist safety and save the City unnecessary
costs in the long-term. This Plan recommends the following
maintenance actions to improve bicycling conditions:
page 42
Chapter Six | Implementation
on the methodology presented as follows. The projects that
received the highest scores should generally be implemented
first; however, opportunities to implement lower ranked
projects may arise throughout the development of the
comprehensive bicycle network.
6.3.1 Prioritization Criteria
A criteria based ranking system was used as the methodology
for developing the prioritized recommended bicycle
improvements. The project list and rankings are meant to
serve as flexible guidelines to implementing the recommended
facilities and may change over time due to changing bicycle
patterns, opportunities and constraints, funding and other
related variables. The following are the criteria used to
evaluate each proposed facility.
Connectivity to Existing Facilities
Proposed bikeways that connect to existing bicycle facilities
in cities adjacent to Alhambra and overcrossings in Alhambra
increase the convenience of bicycle commuting, as they
provide seamless connections throughout the region.
Connectivity to Planned Facilities
Connecting the regional bicycle network to planned facilities
within and outside of Alhambra is important in increasing
ridership, as planned facilities will someday become existing
facilities.
Connectivity to Activity Centers
Points of interest include key destinations, such as commercial
and employment centers, transit hubs, and parks. These
locations generate trips which could be made by bicycle if the
proper facilities were available.
Connectivity to Schools
Since most school aged children are not old enough to obtain
a drivers license, many students commute by bicycling.
Providing proper bicycle facilities and access to schools can
give children a safer commute.
Safety
Providing proper bicycle treatments and facilities has the
potential to improve safety by reducing the risk of motorist-
bicyclist conflicts. Implementing bikeways on roadways with
histories of bicycle collisions can address safety concerns.
Public Input
The City of Alhambra solicited public input through a variety
of formats. Facilities that community members identified
as desirable for future bicycle facilities are of priority to the
network because they address the needs of the public.
Project Cost
Total costs and available funding often determine which
projects get implemented. Less expensive projects do not
Table 6-2: Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates
Facility Type Unit Cost Notes
Class I Maintenance $8,500 per mile per year Lighting and removal of debris and vegetation overgrowth
Class II Maintenance $2,000 per mile per year Repainting lane stripes and stencils, sign replacement as needed
Class III Maintenance $1,000 per mile per year Sign and stencil replacement as needed
Table 6-1: Bikeway Unit Cost Estimates
Facility Type Description Length (mi) Unit Cost per Mile Estimated Cost
Class II Striping, signage, and travel lane restriping 3.43 $40,000 $137,200
Class III Pavement markings (sharrows) and signage 40.75 $25,000 $1,018,750
page 43
require as much funding, making them simpler to get on the
ground and of higher priority.
6.3.2 Project Ranking
The proposed projects in this Plan were scored according to
their ability to meet the aforementioned criteria. Each criteria
was given a multiplier to weigh scores based on their importance
to the City. Table 6-3 shows how the criteria described in the
previous section translates into scores for project prioritization
and ranking.
Table 6-4 presents the list of prioritized bikeway projects for
the City of Alhambra. The projects that received the highest
scores should generally be implemented first; however,
opportunities to implement lower ranked projects may arise
throughout the development of the comprehensive bicycle
network. Additionally, lower ranked projects may be combined
to increase connectivity.
6.4 Funding Sources
There are a variety of potential funding sources including
local, state, regional, and federal funding programs as well
as private sector funding that can be used to construct the
proposed bicycle improvements. Most of the federal, state, and
regional programs are competitive and involve the completion
of extensive applications with clear documentation of the
project need, costs, and benefits.
On June 29, 2012 a new transportation bill, MAP-21, was
passed that has many changes to the funding of bicycle and
pedestrian projects. SAFETEA-LU, the previous legislation,
contained dedicated programs including Transportation
Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails,
which were all commonly tapped sources of funding to make
non-motorized improvements nationwide. MAP-21 combines
these programs into a single source called Transportation
Alternatives programs (TAP). More information on TAP,
including eligible activities, can be found at: http://www.fhwa.
dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm Table 6-5 presents
Criteria
S
c
o
r
e
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
Description
Connectivity:
Existing
2 3 6 Provides direct access to an existing bicycle facility or overcrossing
1 3 3 Provides secondary access to an existing bicycle facility (1/4 mile)
0 3 0 Does not directly or indirectly access an existing bicycle facility
Connectivity:
Regional Planned
2 2 4 Provides direct access to a regional planned bicycle facility
1 2 2 Provides secondary access to a regional planned bicycle facility (1/4 mile)
0 2 0 Does not directly or indirectly access a regional proposed bicycle facility
Connectivity:
Activity Centers
2 2 4 Provides direct access to a major trip-generating destination
1 2 2 Provides secondary access to a major trip-generating destination (1/4 mile)
0 2 0 Does not directly or indirectly access an activity center
Connectivity:
Schools
2 3 6 Provides direct access to an educational facility
1 3 3 Provides secondary access to an educational facility (1/4 mile)
0 3 0 Does not directly or indirectly access an educational facility
Public Input
2 1 2 Roadway was identified by the public as a desirable for a future facility multiple times
1 1 1 Roadway was identified by the public as desirable for a future facility once
0 1 0 Roadway was not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility
Safety
2 2 4 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 4 or more bicycle collisions from 2006-2010
1 2 2 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 1 to 3 bicycle collisions from 2006-2010
0 2 0 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that did not experience any bicycle collisions from 2006-2010
Project Cost
2 1 2 Will cost less than $15,000 to implement
1 1 1 Will cost between $15,001 and $35,000 to implement
0 1 0 Will cost over $35,000 to implement
Table 6-3: Prioritization Criteria
page 44
Project No. Class Street From
1 III Alhambra Road Huntington Drive
2 III Palm Avenue - Cedar Street - Raymond Avenue - Orange Street Alhambra Road
3 III Electric Avenue - Marguerita Avenue Alhambra Road
4 III Hellman Avenue Palm Avenue
5 II/III Hellman Avenue - Ross Avenue - Marengo Avenue West City Limits
6 III Corto Street - Almansor Street Chapel Avenue
7 III Westmont Drive - Warwick Road Valley Boulevard
8 II Huntington Drive West City Limits
9 II Main Street Huntington Drive
10 III 6th Street Main Street
11 III Commonwealth Avenue West City Limits
12 II / III Garvey Street Ramona Road
13 III Adams Avenue - New Avenue Almansor Street
14 III 4th Street Woodward Avenue
15 III Shorb Street Marengo Avenue
16 III 1st Street - 2nd Street Alhambra Road
17 III Chapel Avenue Alhambra Road
18 III Concord Avenue West City Limits
19 II Huntington Drive Garfield Avenue
20 III Poplar Avenue West City Limits
21 III Norwood Place - Edgewood Drive - Front Street Westmont Drive
22 III Meridian Avenue Main Street
23 III Almansor Street Huntington Drive
24 III Glendon Way - Curtis Avenue - Ramona Road Marguerita Avenue
25 III Stoneman Avenue Huntington Drive
26 III Olive Avenue Pine Street
27 III Raymond Avenue Front Street
28 III Elm Street Norwood Place
29 III Granada Avenue Alhambra Road
30 III Linda Vista Avenue 6th Street
31 III Woodward Avenue - Grand Avenue Marguerita Avenue
32 III Montezuma Avenue - El Paseo Street - Las Flores Street - La Crescenta Avenue - Carlos Street Garvey Street
33 III Vega Street Shorb Street
34 III Campbell Avenue - Whitney Drive - Sarazen Drive - Hathaway Avenue - Curtis Avenue - Midwick Drive Hellman Avenue
Table 6-4: Prioritized Bikeways
page 45
To Total
East City Limits 6 4 4 6 2 4 0 26
Fremont Avenue 6 2 4 6 2 2 2 24
Hellman Avenue 6 4 2 6 2 2 0 22
Almansor Street 6 4 4 3 2 2 1 22
Alhambra Road 3 2 4 6 2 4 0 21
Ramona Road 6 4 2 3 2 2 1 20
Alhambra Road 6 4 4 0 2 2 1 19
East City Limits 3 2 4 3 2 4 1 19
Chapel Avenue 0 0 4 6 2 4 0 16
Monterey Pass Road 3 4 4 3 0 0 1 15
Shorb Street 0 2 4 6 0 2 1 15
Glendon Way 0 0 4 6 0 4 0 14
New Avenue 0 2 2 6 2 2 0 14
Commonwealth Avenue 0 0 4 6 0 2 1 13
Glendon Way 0 0 4 3 2 4 0 13
Meridian Avenue 0 2 2 3 1 2 2 12
Granada Avenue 0 4 2 0 2 2 1 11
Main Street 3 0 2 3 0 2 1 11
6th Street 0 2 2 3 2 2 0 11
Concord Avenue 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 10
Main Street 0 0 4 0 2 2 1 9
New Avenue 3 0 0 3 1 2 0 9
Main Street 0 2 2 3 1 0 1 9
Commonwealth Avenue 0 0 2 3 1 2 1 9
Ross Avenue 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 8
Ross Avenue 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 7
Main Street 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 7
Chapel Avenue 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 7
Granada Avenue 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 7
Whitney Drive 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 6
Glendon Way 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 6
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
:

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
:

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

P
l
a
n
n
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
:

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

C
e
n
t
e
r
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
:

S
c
h
o
o
l
s
P
u
b
l
i
c

I
n
p
u
t
S
a
f
e
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t
page 46
Table 6-5: Federal Funding Sources
Funding Source Due Date
Administering
Agency
Annual Total
Matching
Requirement
Eligible Applicants
Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks
and Public Lands Program
Varies, generally
October
Federal Transit
Administration
$27 mil in 2010 None
Federal, State, local and tribal
agencies that manage federal
lands
Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program
Aug 1 for the following
fiscal year
National Parks
Service
Staff time
is awarded
for technical
assistance
Not applicable Public agencies
Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery
Program (TIGER)
Varies
United States
Department of
Transportation
Varies 20% States, counties, cities
Bus and Bus Facilities Program:
State of Good Repair
March
Federal Transit
Administration
$650 million in
2012
10%
Direct Recipients under the
Section 5307 Urbanized Area
Formula program, States, and
Indian Tribes
Bus Livability Initiative March
Federal Transit
Administration
$125 million in
2012
10%
Direct Recipients under the
Section 5307 Urbanized Area
Formula program, States, and
Indian Tribes
Table 6-6: State Funding Sources
Administering
Agency
Annual Total
Matching
Requirement
Eligible Applicants
Bicycle Transportation Account March Caltrans
$7.2 mil ($1.8 per
applicant)
Minimum 10%
local match on
construction
Public agencies
California Conservation Corps On-going
California
Conservation Corps
CCC donates
labor hours
None
Federal and state agencies,
city, county, school district,
NPO, private industry
Community Based Transportation
Planning Grants
March/April Caltrans
$3 mil, each
project not to
exceed $300,000
10% MPO, RPTA, city, county
Community Development Block
Grants
Varies between grants
CA Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Up to $500,000
per applicant
Varies between
grants
Non-entitlement cities (under
50,000) and counties (under
200,000)
Environmental Enhancement and
Mitigation Program
September/October
(sign up on website for
notification)
California Natural
Resources Agency
$10 mil None
Federal, State, local agencies
and MPO
Environmental Justice: Context-
Sensitive Planning
March/April Caltrans
$3 mil, each grant
not to exceed
$250,000
10% MPO, RPTA, city, county
Habitat Conservation Fund October
CA Department
of Parks and
Recreation
$2 mil (grants
for trails usually
under $200,000)
100% City, county, district
Highway Safety Improvement
Program
October Caltrans
$75 mil in CA in
2011
Varies between 0%
and 10%
City, county or federal land
manager
page 47
Planning Construction Other Notes
X X Funds transportation modes that reduce congestion in parks and public lands.
X
RTCA staff provides technical assistance to communities so they can conserve
rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways.
X X
Can be used for innovative, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional transportation
projects that promise significant economic and environmental benefits to an
entire metropolitan area, a region, or the nation. These include bicycle and
pedestrian projects.
X X
Can be used for projects to provide access for bicycles to public transportation
facilities, to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in or around
public transportation facilities, or to install equipment for transporting bicycles
on public transportation vehicles.
X X
Can be used for bicycle and pedestrian support facilities, such as bicycle
parking, bike racks on buses, pedestrian amenities, and educational materials.
X X X
Eligible projects must improve safety and convenience of bicycle commuters.
In addition to construction and planning, funds may be used for right of way
acquisition.
X X
CCC provides labor assistance on construction projects and annual
maintenance.
X
Eligible projects that exemplify livable community concepts including enhancing
bicycle and pedestrian access.
X X X
Funds local community development activities such as affordable housing,
anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development. Can be used to build
sidewalks, recreational facilities.
X X
EEMP funds projects in California, at an annual project average of $250,000.
Funds may be used for land acquisition.
X X
Funds projects that foster sustainable economies, encourage transit oriented
and mixed use development, and expand transportation choices, including
walking and biking. Projects can be design and education, as well as planning.
X X X
Provides funds to local entities to protect threatened species, to address
wildlife corridors, to create trails, and to provide for nature interpretation
programs which bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas.
X X X
Projects must address a safety issue and may include education and
enforcement programs. This program includes the Railroad-Highway
Crossings and High Risk Rural Roads programs.
page 48
Table 6-6: State Funding Sources (continued)
Administering
Agency
Annual Total
Matching
Requirement
Eligible Applicants
Land and Water Conservation
Fund
March
NPS, CA Dept.
of Parks and
Recreation
$1.7 mil
50% + 2-6%
administration
surcharge
Cities, counties and districts
authorized to operate, acquire,
develop and maintain park and
recreation facilities
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Grants
January Caltrans Varies annually None
Government agencies, state
colleges, state universities,
city, county, school district, fire
department, public emergency
service provider
Petroleum Violation Escrow
Account
Not Applicable Caltrans Varies annually None Local and regional agencies
Public Access Program On-going
Wildlife
Conservation Board
(WCB)
$1 mil, $200,000
per project
50% preferred
Federal, state, counties, cities,
non-profit organizations or
public districts and corporations
Safe Routes to School (California) Varies Caltrans $24.25 mil 10% City, county
State Coastal Conservancy Rolling
State Coastal
Conservancy
Varies None
Public agencies, non-profit
organizations
State Highway Operations and
Protection Program (SHOPP)
Not Available Caltrans
$1.69 mil
statewide
annually through
FY 2013/14
Not Available Local and regional agencies
Table 6-7: Regional Funding Sources
Administering
Agency
Annual Total
Matching
Requirement
Eligible Applicants
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ)* Not available SCAG
$1.8 mil nationally
in 2009
None Cities
Resurfacing and Repaving
(through existing funds)
Not applicable City Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
TDA Article 3 funds Not applicable SCAG Not available None Cities
page 49
X X
Fund provides matching grants to state and local governments for the
acquisition and development of land for outdoor recreation areas. Lands
acquired through program must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational
use. Individual project awards are not available. The Department of Parks and
Recreation levies a surcharge for administering the funds.
X
Funds safety improvements to existing facilities, safety promotions including
bicycle helmet giveaways and studies to improve traffic safety.
X X
Funds programs based on public transportation, computerized bus routing
and ride sharing, home weatherization, energy assistance and building energy
audits, highway and bridge maintenance, and reducing airport user fees.
X
Funds the protection and development of public access areas in support of
wildlife oriented uses, including helping to fund construction of ADA trails.
X X
SR2S is primarily a construction program to enhance safety of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities near schools. A small percentage of funds can be used for
programmatic improvements.
X X X
Projects must be in accordance with Division 21 and meet the goals and
objectives of the Conservancys strategic plan. More information can be found
at http://scc.ca.gov/applying-for-grants-and-assistance/forms.
X X
Capital improvements and maintenance projects that relate to maintenance,
safety and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges.
X X
Funds are allocated for transportation projects that aim to reduce transportation-related emissions. Funds can be
used for construction of bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkways or for non-construction projects related to safe
bicycling and walking (i.e. maps and brochures).
X
The City should take advantage of street resurfacing and repaving projects to stripe bicycle lanes or markings.
These types of upgrades are low cost, but require coordination between Planning and Public Works departments,
X X
Provides grants to states and local agencies, individuals and nonprofit organizations for projects that incorporate
urban design, historic preservation, planning, architecture, landscape architecture and other community
improvement activities, including greenway development. Grants to organizations and agencies must be matched
by a 50% local contribution. Agencies can receive up to $50,000.
page 50
Table 6-7: Regional Funding Sources (continued)
Administering
Agency
Annual Total
Matching
Requirement
Eligible Applicants
Transportation Enhancements Not available SCAG Not available Not available Cities
Metro Call for Projects (CFP) January LA Metro Varies annually None
Public agencies that provide
transportation facilities or
services within Los Angeles
County
Proposition A N/A LA County Varies None
Cities and unincorporated
communities in LA County
Proposition C N/A LA County Varies None
Measure R N/A LA County Varies None
Adopt-A-Trail Programs Not applicable
Local trail
commission or
non-profit
Varies Not applicable Local governments
Table 6-8: Other Funding Sources
Administering
Agency
Annual Total
Matching
Requirement
Eligible Applicants
Bikes Belong Grant
Multiple dates
throughout year
Bikes Belong Not Available 50% minimum Organizations and agencies
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment
March US EPA Varies Not Available
Applicant must fall within
the statutory terms of EPAs
research and demonstration
grant authorities
Volunteer and Public-Private
Partnerships
Not Applicable
City, county, joint
powers authority
Varies Not Applicable
Public agency, private industry,
schools, community groups
page 51
X X X
Funds are a set-aside of Surface Transportation Program (STP) monies designated for Transportation
Enhancement (TE) activities, which include the pedestrians and bicycles facilities, safety and educational
activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the
conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails).
X X X
Co-funds new regionally significant capital projects that improve all modes of surface transportation. Relevant
categories include Bikeway Improvements; Regional Surface Transportation Improvements; Transportation
Enhancement Activities; Transportation Demand Management; and Pedestrian Improvements.
X
A half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation funding. One-fourth of the funds go to Local Return Programs.
The monies help these entities develop and improve local public transit, paratransit, and related transportation
infrastructure
X
Revenues are allocated into categories including Rail & Bus Security; Commuter Rail, Transit Centers and Park
and Ride Lots; Local Return; and, Transit Related Improvements to Streets and Highways. Supports projects
and programs developed with Prop A funds.
X X X
A half-cent sales tax to finance new transportation projects and programs, and accelerate many of those already
in process
X X
Provides grants to states and local agencies, individuals and nonprofit organizations for projects that incorporate
urban design, historic preservation, planning, architecture, landscape architecture and other community
improvement activities, including greenway development. Grants to organizations and agencies must be
matched by a 50% local contribution. Agencies can receive up to $50,000.
X X
Bikes Belong provides grants for up to $10,000 with a 50% match that
recipients may use towards paths, bridges and parks.
X X
Grant program to help community organize and take action to reduce toxic
pollution in its local environment
X X Requires community-based initiative to implement improvements.
page 52
page 53
1. Where do you live? Please enter your nearest intersection and ZIP code.
2. If you are employed, where do you work? Please enter the zip code of your employer.
3. How far is your job or school from where you live?
4. What is your age group?
5. What is your primary mode of commuting (3 days per week)?

1.Community Characteristics
Street 1
Street 2
ZIP Code
Zip Code
Under 2 miles

*'
3-5 miles

*'
6-10 miles

*'
11-20 miles

*'
Over 20 miles

*'
I do not work or go to school

*'
Under 18

*'
18-25

*'
26-35

*'
36-45

*'
46-55

*'
Over 55

*'
Drive alone

*'
Carpool/vanpool

*'
Public transit

*'
Motorcycle

*'
Bike

*'
Walk

*'
Other (please specify)
Appendix A: Online Survey
page 54
Appendices
6. How often do you commute by bicycle?
7. How often do you ride a bicycle?
8. If you ride a bicycle, what are your reasons? Check all that apply.
5+days per week

*'
3-4 days per week

*'
1-2 days per week

*'
1-2 days per month

*'

*'
I never commute by bicycle

*'
5+days per week

*'
3-4 days per week

*'
1-2 days per week

*'
1-2 days per month

*'

*'
I never ride a bicycle

*'
To get to work or school

M|.
For exercise/recreation

M|.
To shop, run errands, or eat out

M|.
To visit friends/family

M|.
To get to/from transit

M|.
It is cheaper than other modes

M|.
page 55
9. If you ride for exercise/recreation, what prevents you from commuting by bike?
10. If you ride a bicycle, what is the average length of your bicycle trip?
11. How would you characterize your bicycling ability/level of interest?
Lack of off-street bike paths

M|.
Lack of on-street bike lanes

M|.
Lack of bike routes

M|.
Lack of bike parking or storage

M|.
My work/school does not have showers

M|.
I do not have enough time

M|.
I live too far away

M|.
I have too much stuff to carry

M|.
I have to transport children

M|.
Under 2 miles

*'
2-5 miles

*'
6-10 miles

*'
11-20 miles

*'
Over 20 miles

*'
I am a confident rider who is comfortable in most traffic situations, regardless of bicycle facilities.

*'
I am a rider who is comfortable in some traffic situations and with appropriate bicycle facilities.

*'
I am a rider who is not comfortable in traffic situations and will only ride on paths/greenways and quiet, residential streets.

*'
I am not currently a rider, but am interested in taking up cycling.

*'
I am not interested in cycling.

*'
page 56
Appendices
12. What keeps you from riding more often? Check all that apply.
Lack of bike paths

M|.
Lack of bike lanes

M|.
Lack of bike routes

M|.
Insufficient bike parking or storage

M|.
Insufficient lighting

M|.
Vehicle volumes/speeds

M|.
Behavior of motorists

M|.
Behavior of other cyclists

M|.
I do not feel safe

M|.
I travel with small children

M|.
I don't have enough time

M|.
My destinations are too far away

M|.
Health issues/concerns

M|.
Weather

M|.
page 57
1. Please rank to what degree the following conditions effect your decision to ride a
bicycle:
2. Please rate your interest in the following bicycle programs:

2.Bicycle Facilities
(1) Very Important
(2) Somewhat
important
(3) Neutral
(4) Somewhat
unimportant
(5) Not Important
Presence of off-street bike
paths
*' *' *' *' *'
Presence of on-street bike
lanes
*' *' *' *' *'
Presence of bike routes *' *' *' *' *'
Condition of
bikeweay/roadway (i.e.
pavement quality)
*' *' *' *' *'
Traffic volumes/speeds *' *' *' *' *'
Behavior of motorists *' *' *' *' *'
Behavior of other cyclists *' *' *' *' *'
Amount of street lighting *' *' *' *' *'
Access to bike parking and
storage
*' *' *' *' *'
Ability to combine bicycle
trips with transit trips
*' *' *' *' *'
Travel time *' *' *' *' *'
Available
information/knowledge of
bike routes
*' *' *' *' *'
Weather *' *' *' *' *'
(1) Not interested (2) Somewhat interested (3) Very interested
Riding skills and safety
courses for adults
*' *' *'
Riding skills and safety
courses for children
*' *' *'
Safe Routes to School
programs for children
*' *' *'
Public awareness
campaigns
*' *' *'
Special events *' *' *'
Maps and guides *' *' *'
Bicycle information
websites
*' *' *'
Commuter incentive
programs
*' *' *'
Information and maps
delivered to my home
*' *' *'
Booths at public events *' *' *'
page 58
Appendices
3. Where would you like to see new bicycle facilities (i.e. bike lanes, signs, parking, etc.)?
4. Other comments:

5. If you would like to be notified about public workshops or other important project
milestones, please provide your email address in the box below.

Street (from, to)
Intersection
School
Park
Other public facility
^ ^
" "
^ ^
" "
page 59
Appendix B: Bike Lane Implementation Notes
Street From To Notes
Huntington Drive
Maycrest Avenue
(existing bike lanes
in LA
Alpha Street
44 feet curb-to-curb on east side of the road: Three 10-11 foot travel lanes, one 7-8 foot
parking lane, one 5 foot bike lane. Westbound segment drops to 33 feet approaching
Maycrest Avenue, so bike lane may have to drop at this location until it connects with
existing lanes
Huntington Drive Alpha Street Main Street
Eastbound: 36 foot curb-to-curb - Three 10-11 travel lanes and one 5 bike lane.
Westbound: 45 foot curb-to-curb - Three 10-11 foot travel lanes, one 8 parking lane,
one 5 bike lane
Huntington Drive Main Street Alhambra Road
45-47 foot curb-to-curb (each side of median): Three 10-11 travel lanes, one 8 parking
lane, one 5 bike lane
Huntington Drive Garfield Avenue Granada Avenue
Eastbound curb-to-curb: 47-53 feet, three 11 travel lanes, one 8 parking lane, one 5
bike lane (can buffer with the extra space). Westbound curb-to-curb: 33 foot ROW with
parallel road, may need to reconstruct medians.
Garvey Avenue Ramona Road Fremont Avenue
West of Casuna Canyon Drive: 73 foot curb-to-curb - Two 7 parking lanes, four 10
travel lanes, one 9 center lane, two 5 bike lanes. East of Casuna Canyon Drive: 33 foot
curb-to-curb on each side of median, two 10 travel lanes, one 8 parking lane, one 5
bike lane
Main Street
(eastbound)
Huntington Drive Hampden Terrace
May have to restripe intersection to fit bike lanes without removing parking. Sufficient
curb-to-curb width exists. East of Huntington Drive intersection is 41 feet curb-to-curb:
Two 8 parking lanes, two 10 travel lanes, one 5 bike lane
Main Street Hampden Terrace Fremont Avenue
60 foot curb-to-curb in each direction: Two 8 parking lanes, three 12 travel lanes, one
5 bike lane with 3 buffer (between parking lane, travel lane, or both if reduce travel
lanes to 11.5 feet)
Main Street Fremont Avenue Palm Avenue
47 foot curb-to-curb in each direction: One 8 parking lane, three 11 travel lanes, one 6
bike lane
Main Street Palm Avenue Raymond Avenue
Curb-to-curb width varies due to lane dropping, but width for bike lanes exists with
restriping. May have to remove westbound driveway lane.
page 60
Appendices

Read The Final Draft of Alhambra's Bike Master Plan

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Read The Final Draft of Alhambra's Bike Master Plan

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan

Potrebbero piacerti anche