CHAPTER 8 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 8 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION I. OVERVIEW With an increased focus on green infrastructure at the state, local, and federal levels, active transportation facilities have been elevated to greater importance as a necessary component of the overall transportation system. The Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which replaced Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), provides longterm funding certainty for surface transportation projects that include a variety of active transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails and safe routes to school projects. The recently adopted 2017 RTP Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) also reflects the increasing emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian noninfrastructure programs in current planning efforts. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are most often the responsibility of local government and are implemented during the normal land use development process. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) components are required to be incorporated into the construction of these types of projects. Recent legislation highlights the role of bikeable and walkable communities as a means of promoting public health and improving the environment. With these initiatives, bicycle and pedestrian facilities have gained an increased attention in transportation planning process. The development of bicycle and pedestrian programs and facilities provides an alternative to the automobile and results in many public benefits, including the following: alleviates traffic pressure improves air quality contributes to greater energy efficiency as it uses no fuels decelerates roadway deterioration lessens noise pollution by its silent operation reduces space needed for on-street parking and parking lots presents an inexpensive form of transportation accessible to all able-bodied persons renders a convenient, non-destructive, door-to-door transportation mode, and provides multiple health benefits for regular users. II. RECENT PLANNING EFFORTS KCAG is in the process of developing the Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan, also known as Kings County Walk and Bike Plan. With the ultimate goal of improving the walking and biking environment in the Kings region, the plan will analyze existing conditions and identify the prioritized bicycle and pedestrian projects for each of the local jurisdictions within Kings County. The City of Hanford received an Environmental Justice Planning grant from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop a pedestrian and bicycle plan. The plan aims to serve as a definitive policy document and conceptual plan for the development of safe, functional, convenient, and attractive pedestrian and bicycle facilities through the city, and provides comprehensive resource for future biking and walking planning purposes. The City of Hanford Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan was adopted in January, The City of Avenal prepared the Avenal Active Transportation and Safe Routes to School Plan to guide the development of bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, and trail facilities in the city. The Plan details policies, project recommendations and program implementation Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-1

2 strategies to make walking and bicycling safe, pleasant and convenient for people of all ages and abilities. The Plan was adopted in December 2016 and amended in April, The County of Kings received Safe Routes to School grants for the unincorporated disadvantaged communities of Kettleman City and Home Garden. Those two projects were intended to increase the safety of students. Both completed projects involved improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to provide children with safe access to school. In addition, previous planning efforts for bicycles and pedestrians include the Lemoore Bikeways Plan and the 2011 Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan. The Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan provides a coordinated and comprehensive bicycle plan that integrates the facilities in the unincorporated county area with those in each of the four cities within the county. The ongoing development of the Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan will update the 2011 Regional Bicycle Plan and incorporate all previous planning endeavors of the local jurisdictions within the Kings region. The Kettleman City Safety and Community Study completed in 2010 was a joint planning effort between KCAG and the Kings County Community Development Agency to address safety and vehicular speeding concerns of the community that emerged during the development of the Kettleman City Community Plan. A Caltrans Environmental Justice (EJ) Grant was awarded to facilitate community visioning and further engage the residents in the planning process. The key features of the plan include conceptual designs for General Petroleum Ave. and State Route (SR) 41 immediately through the community. The SR 41 design concept includes two travel lanes of traffic with a landscaped median, wide sidewalks, on-street parking, and a bike lane. III. ASSUMPTIONS A. The Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan, the City of Hanford Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the Avenal Active Transportation and Safe Routes to School Plan, the Lemoore Bikeways Plan and the Kettleman City Safety and Community Study will be used as the basis for implementing future bicycle facilities within Kings County. B. The active participation of local interest groups to focus public support for bicycle improvements can assist local agencies in determining the need for bicycling facilities in the effort to implement the Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan, the City of Hanford Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the Avenal Active Transportation and Safe Routes to School Plan, and the Lemoore Bikeways Plan. C. The construction of an integrated system of safely and conveniently connected bike lanes, bike routes, and bicycle parking facilities will lead to greater use of the bicycle for local commuting. D. Bicycling should be promoted as a transportation control measure to reduce singleoccupant vehicle commuting in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions. E. Most bicycle travel has and will continue to occur on roads in a shared-use fashion. Bicyclists are encouraged to use designated bicycle routes. F. Bicycle accidents are most effectively avoided by educating cyclists and drivers to safely share roadways. Bicycle lanes and routes do not prevent bike-auto accidents. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-2

3 IV. SUMMARY OF NON-MOTORIZED ISSUES A. A great deal of bicycle commuting is done by children traveling to and from school. Children often ride in a haphazard manner and may not properly use bike lanes if they are provided. Young people who will properly use bike lanes have a small political voice. They depend on their parents and school officials to speak out for bicycle improvements. B. While a number of individuals now commute on bicycles in this county, most riding by adults is done for recreational and health reasons. Without designated bicycle routes, such riders will continue to use shared roadways and utilize their own preferred circuits. Generally, use of undesignated shared-use routes may present a greater safety risk. C. Local governments have been caught between rising road construction and maintenance costs and limited revenues for several years. Although there is funding for construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, there is no funding to maintain the facilities once constructed. Therefore, local agencies resist devoting scarce capital improvement dollars to construct bicycle facilities. D. Local police departments should continue to conduct bicycle training seminars at elementary schools and community centers to promote bicycle safety and reduce the number of bicycle riders who ride against traffic or violate other traffic laws should be cited. E. Secure bicycle parking is lacking throughout Kings County. Investment in bicycle parking facilities near shopping areas and other high-use destinations is needed. F. Pavement quality conditions need improvement throughout Kings County. Improvements such as the widening of shoulders and the repaving of rough areas will benefit both motorists and bicycle riders. G. Most federal, state, and regional funding sources available for non-motorized facilities are for commuter, rather than recreational, purposes. H. From a liability perspective, Class II and III bikeways are treated similar to roadways and sidewalks, meaning that the City becomes liable only if the facility is improperly designed, constructed, or maintained. Deteriorating conditions that develop over time represent potential liability concerns. A regular maintenance and monitoring program will help reduce this liability and should be adopted by each jurisdiction to ensure that the pedestrian facilities and bikeways are being adequately maintained. However, improper maintenance due to funding shortfalls generally does not put the City at risk. V. ACTION ELEMENT A. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. Carry out the recommendations in the Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan to access the Active Transportation Program funding. For example, the City of Lemoore has revised its zoning ordinance so that large commercial and industrial employer sites are required to integrate bicycle racks and lockers into the overall site and building design. 2. On designated shared-use roads, provide adequate shoulder space, place bike route indicator signs, and maintain a good riding surface. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-3

4 3. Ensure that public and private sectors provide adequate bicycle parking. This can be done by amending each jurisdiction's zoning ordinance. The ordinances could be written to allow installation of secure bicycle parking "in lieu" of a portion of automobile parking normally required. 4. Utilize existing private and public bicycle safety seminars. Seminars can be scheduled at schools, adult education programs, local retailing outlets, and public workshops. Funding opportunities should be explored in the private sector (retailers, social service clubs, recreational clubs, etc.) and in public/private partnerships. Additional funds could be drawn from state traffic safety grants. 5. Local police departments should conduct regular campaigns and enforce traffic laws regarding riding against traffic, disregarding traffic signals and signs, and the appropriate use of working bicycle lights in the evening or early morning as well as efforts to educate motorists concerning the rights of cyclists on the roadway. 6. Each city should have an active bicycle registration program. 7. KCAG should join with other counties to petition the State Department of Motor Vehicles to require knowledge of bicycle traffic laws in licensing tests. DMV should be held responsible for making motorists aware of bicyclists' rights and responsibilities. 8. Seek all available state, federal, and private grant funds to install and maintain bicycle facilities and to conduct educational programs. 9. Local agencies should consider bicycle issues in all phases of planning for transportation. This includes local land use, air quality, zoning and circulation elements of general plans, capital improvement plans, and recreational programs. 10. KCAG should consider bicycle issues in its Regional Transportation Plan, Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. KCAG should also ensure that bicycle issues are represented at annual Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation discussions and public hearings. 11. Better coordination in developing and implementing bicycle plans can be achieved by: a. Designating a single individual within each jurisdiction to ensure that bicycle issues are represented in that agency's various functions. b. Encouraging bicycle advisory and support groups to work closely with local officials in identifying and seeking solutions to bicycle problems. These groups should assume the responsibility of keeping bicycle issues before decision-makers. 12. The rehabilitation of roads will benefit bicycle users. As roads are repaved, wider shoulders should be provided to upgrade the riding surface for bicyclists. 13. Bicycle parking facilities should be installed at transit stops, park-and-ride lots, and intermodal stations to affect the first-last mile connectivity concept, providing a seamless transition with other transportation modes. Transit buses should continue to be equipped with bicycle transporting racks. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-4

5 14. Encourage newly developing areas to incorporate bicycle facilities along appropriate roadways and off-road systems as part of open space and recreational amenities. 15. Continue to develop and maintain a safe sidewalk system that facilitates pedestrian and ADA access to public transit for commuting, recreation, or other purposes. 16. The abandonment of rail lines provides an opportunity to establish trails for nonmotorized, recreational, or open space uses. Converting abandoned rail corridors into trails also preserves the right-of-ways for any future transit use. However, abandoned rail lines through agricultural production property should not be utilized for general public recreational use, as farm security requirements and proximity to agricultural operation make this option infeasible. B. BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATIONS The Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan identifies several categories of street improvements classified as bicycle facilities that are described as: 1. Class I Bikeways (Bike Path) are separated from vehicular traffic and used exclusively by bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane) are designated bike lanes adjacent to vehicular travel lanes. These can be installed on existing streets that are most heavily used by bicyclists. Bike lanes are usually four or six-foot wide rights-of-way assigned to bicycles, and are delineated by a six-inch painted stripe. A good riding surface should be provided. 3. Class III Bikeways (Bike Route) are designated routes on roadways that are shared with motorists. Only signage is provided and there are no pavement stripes or bicycle lane designation markers. This is a shared right-of-way along a commuter corridor that either links Class II bikeways or routes. A good riding surface should be provided. 4. Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeway) are located in or adjacent to a roadway but separated from the motor vehicle traffic by a physical barrier, which allows an exclusive right-of-way for bicycle trips. 5. Touring. This designation has been given to those routes that are often narrow, without adequate shoulders, or carry high speed traffic and/or heavy traffic volumes, but which are known to be used by the more experienced bicyclist. Touring routes are not for the casual, less experienced bicyclist. 6. Sidewalk. This type of bikeway is basically a wide sidewalk that is intended to be shared by both bicyclists and pedestrians. These are usually only found in tourist areas that host large numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians. 7. Shared-Use Roadway (No Bikeway Designation). KCAG recognizes that most bicycle travel occurs on roads that are not bikeways, even in communities where bikeways are provided. The shared-use designation shows recommended bicycle commuter routes. The development of a high-quality road and shoulder surface with a standard four-inch fog stripe in rural areas will enhance bicyclists safety and will benefit motorists as well. Shared-use roadways can be considered for reclassification as a Class II or III bikeway, if warranted by bicycle usage. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-5

6 C. BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES Bicycle parking facilities are often overlooked. The lack of adequate and theft-resistant parking will continue to be an obstacle to bicycling commuting. There are three types of bicycle parking facilities that could be considered to increase bicycle use. 1. Class I - High Security These parking facilities include bicycle lockers and/or locked enclosures in supervised areas that provide weather and vandalism protection. These types of facilities are located in areas where day long or longer storage is needed on a regular basis. Bike lockers are generally rented or reserved and require some type of management program. 2. Class II - Medium Security These parking facilities are stands or racks that allow a user to secure a bicycle frame and one or both wheels with a U-lock or cable. This type of rack supports the entire bike frame rather than a wheel only. Class II parking facilities should be located near commercial areas, places of employment, schools, and any other areas where there is a need to store bicycles for several hours or more with minimum supervision. 3. Class III - Low Security D. PROJECTS These parking facilities are traditional stands that support the bicycle by the front wheel only. These stands do not support or secure the frame, and are difficult to use with high-security U-locks. Although common in use, this type of facility is not recommended, especially with the growing popularity of fat-tire mountain bikes which are incompatible with many Class III racks and quick-release bicycle wheels which make theft easy if the frame is not secured to the parking facility. For these reasons, existing Class III stands should be phased out and replaced with Class II racks. 1. Bicycle Facilities Figures 8-1 through 8-13 provide the lists and maps of the bike routes and pedestrian facility improvements recommended by each jurisdiction in the draft 2018 Kings County Regional Active Transportation Plan. a. Recent Projects City of Corcoran will receive $215,128 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds for Class II Bicycle Lane installation. The project is programmed in FFY City of Hanford (2017) received $729,000 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities in various locations throughout Hanford. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-6

7 2. Pedestrian Facilities City of Lemoore will receive $154,000 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds for pedestrian facilities installation. The project is programmed in FFY City of Corcoran will receive $306,092 in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds for adding pedestrian warning facilities at various locations. These three projects are programmed from FFY 2018 to FFY In recent years, the County of Kings has successfully completed the Safe Routes to School projects for the unincorporated disadvantaged communities of Kettleman City and Home Garden that aims to improve facilities that provide children with safe access and walking-friendly road condition to schools. The project for Kettleman City (awarded $453,600 federal funds) involved construction of new sidewalk and curb/gutters within a 2 block radius of Kettleman City Elementary School, installation of bicycle racks and a lighted in-ground crosswalk facility to improve the safety of the students. The project for Home Garden (awarded $628,670 State funds) included new sidewalk, curb/gutter and some drainage improvements. FIGURE 8-1 Kings County Bicycle Project List Street From To Facility Type Cost 6th Avenue Burris Park Dr. Flint Ave. Class III with stripe $23,500 10th Avenue Houston Ave. Kansas Ave. Class III with stripe $30,000 10th Avenue Nevada Ave. Whitley Ave. Class III with stripe $14, /2 Avenue Kansas Ave. Nevada Ave. Class III with stripe $25, /4 Avenue Fresno County line Excelsior Ave. Class III with stripe $7,500 18th Avenue Lemoore city limit Jackson Ave. Class II $16,000 Fargo Avenue 14th Ave. BN Santa Fe RR / Hanford city limit Class III with stripe $12,500 Flint Avenue 18th Ave. 6th Ave. Class III with stripe $60,000 Jackson Avenue Avenal Cutoff Rd. 18th Ave. Class III with stripe $25,000 Nevada Avenue Avenal Cutoff Rd. Hwy. 41 Class III with stripe $37,000 Whitley Avenue 10th Ave. 7th Ave. / Corcoran city limit Class III with stripe $15,000 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-7

8 FIGURE 8-2 Kings County Pedestrian Project List Communities Armona Sidewalks along 14th Avenue and Front Street. New or restriped crosswalks and crossing signs along 14th Avenue north of Highway 198 and near schools. Pedestrian crossings across the railroad ROW at Ambrose/C Streets or at Railroad Avenue/D Street. Footpaths in new developments east of 14th Avenue and north of Front Street. Cut-throughs from cul-de-sacs in the Armona North subdivision onto Front Street. Multi-use path from Front Street to west Hanford. Home Garden Sidewalks and crosswalks along the major roads. Multi-use paths in new developments in the Northwest Growth Area. Traffic-calming design for the intersection of 10th/Home Avenues. Kettleman City Sidewalks along the major roads in the residential area. Multi-use path south of Ninth Street between the residential and highway commercial areas. Stratford Sidewalks along the major roads. Multi-use path along 20 ½ Avenue south of 6th Street to the Empire Pool. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-8

9 FIGURE 8-3 KINGS COUNTY BICYCLE ROUTES MAP Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-9

10 FIGURE 8-4 Avenal Active Transportation Project List First Avenue Street From To Reef-Sunset Middle School Laneva Blvd. (SR 33) Seventh Avenue Mariposa St. Laneva Blvd. (SR 33) Facility Type Continuous bike lanes (Class II) Continuous bike lanes (Class II) Hanford Avenue Fresno St. Tamarack E.S. New bike route (Class Monterey Street Seventh Ave. Park Ave. New bike route (Class Big Tar Canyon Road Seventh Ave. Sports Complex Paved multi-use path San Joaquin Street Skyline Blvd. Laneva Blvd. (SR 33) Hydril Road Skyline Blvd. Just west of Ave. 36 Separated bikeway (Class IV) Paved multi-use path Cost $165,000 $225,000 $8,000 $5,000 $2,300,000 $450,000 $1,450,000 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-10

11 FIGURE 8-5 AVENAL BICYCLE ROUTES MAP Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-11

12 FIGURE 8-6 Corcoran Active Transportation Project List Street From To Facility Type Orange Avenue Seventh Ave. Otis Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) North Avenue Seventh Ave. Otis Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Patterson Avenue 6 1/2 Ave. Otis Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Whitley Avenue West of Doran Ave. East of Pickerell Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Sherman Avenue Seventh Ave. Otis Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Oregon Avenue 6 1/2 Ave. King Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) 6 1/2 Avenue Orange Ave. Oregon Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Dairy Avenue Niles Ave. Pueblo Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Letts Avenue North Ave. Oregon Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Otis Avenue Orange Ave. Patterson Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Chittenden Avenue Patterson Ave. Sherman Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Flory Avenue Whitley Ave. Bainum Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Cost $21,000 $22,500 $18,000 $28,500 $30,000 $19,500 $22,500 $37,500 $19,500 $9,000 $7,500 $7,500 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-12

13 FIGURE 8-6 Continued Corcoran Active Transportation Project List Street From To King Avenue Bainum Ave. Corcoran State Prison Facility Type Bike lanes (Class II) Dairy Avenue Orange Ave. Oregon Ave. Multiple gaps, mostly north of Whitley and south of Bainum Josephine Avenue North Ave. Preston Way Multiple gaps, mostly south of Patterson Letts Avenue Orange Ave. Oregon Ave. Multiple gaps, on both sides Otis Avenue Cardoza Ave. North of Patterson Ave. Gap on the west side Orange Avenue Dairy Ave. Letts Ave. Gap on the south side North Avenue 6 1/2 Ave. Otis Ave. Multiple gaps, on both sides Patterson Avenue Soto Ave. Otis Ave. Multiple gaps, on both sides Whitley Avenue Burnham Smith Park Cost $27,000 $450,000 $110,000 $410,000 $50,000 $130,000 $450,000 $260,000 Dairy Ave. Two gaps $50,000 Sherman Avenue 6 1/2 Ave. Kings Ave. Multiple gaps, on both sides Bainum Avenue Dairy Ave. Norboe Ave. Multiple gaps, mostly on the north side Oregon Avenue Dairy Ave. Mark Twain E.S. Multiple gaps, mostly on the south side $450,000 $200,000 $200,000 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-13

14 FIGURE 8-7 CORCORAN BICYCLE ROUTES MAP Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-14

15 FIGURE 8-8 Hanford Bicycle Project List Street From To Facility Type 13th Avenue Fargo Ave. Houston Ave. Bike route (Class Centennial Drive Berkshire Ln. 12th Ave. / Mall Dr. Bike lanes (Class II) Cost $40,000 $28,500 12th Avenue Fargo Ave. Grangeville Blvd. Bike lanes (Class II) $20,000 12th Avenue Hume Ave. Idaho Ave. Bike route (Class Fitzgerald Lane Fargo Ave. Grangeville Blvd. Bike route (Class Kings County Drive / Mall Drive 12th Ave. / Liberty St. 12th Ave. / Centennial Dr. Bike route (Class University Avenue Grangeville Blvd. Greenfield Ave. Bike route (Class Campus Drive Greenfield Ave. Glendale Ave. Bike route (Class 11 1/2 Avenue / Echo Lane Davis St. Hume Ave. Bike route (Class Glacier Way Flint Ave. Cortner St. Bike route (Class 11th Avenue Flint Ave. Grangeville Blvd. Bike lanes (Class II) 11th Avenue 7th St. Jackson Ave. Bike route (Class Williams Street / Jones Street Davis St. Hume Ave. Bike route (Class $25,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $11,000 $10,000 $14,000 $15,000 $49,000 $9,000 Redington Street Grangeville Blvd. Lacey Blvd. Bike lanes (Class II) $20, /2 Avenue Hanford-Armona Rd. Houston Ave. Bike route (Class Mission Drive Flint Ave. 10th Ave. Bike route (Class 10th Avenue 3rd St. Jackson Ave. Bike route (Class Neill Way Fargo Ave. Leland Way Bike route (Class $10,000 $6,000 $48,000 $5,000 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-15

16 FIGURE 8-8 Continued Hanford Bicycle Project List Street From To Facility Type 9 1/4 Avenue Leland Way Lacey Blvd. Bike route (Class 9th Avenue Lacey Blvd. Idaho Ave. Bike route (Class Flint Avenue 12th Ave. 10th Ave. Bike route (Class Pepper Drive / Encore Drive Glacier Way Fargo Ave. Bike route (Class Fargo Avenue 13th Ave. Centennial Dr. Bike route (Class Cortner Street Glacier Way Douty St. Bike route (Class Leland Way Douty St. 9 1/4 Ave. Bike route (Class Mustang Drive / Berkshire Lane 13th Ave. Centennial Dr. Bike route (Class Grangeville Boulevard 13th Ave. Centennial Dr. Bike route (Class Grangeville Boulevard 9th Ave. 8 1/2 Ave. Bike route (Class Liberty Street Centennial Dr. 12th Ave. Bike route (Class Ivy Street 11th Ave. 10th Ave. Bike route (Class Lacey Boulevard Centennial Dr. Irwin St. Bike route (Class Lacey Boulevard 10th Ave. SR 43 Bike route (Class Cost $15,000 $40,000 $20,000 $20,000 $5,000 $9,000 $12,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,000 $10,000 $18,000 $20,000 7th Street Mall Dr. 11th Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) $16,000 6th Street 11th Ave. 10th Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) $20,000 3rd Street 10th Ave. 9th Ave. Bike route (Class $10,000 Glendale Avenue 12 1/2 Ave. Campus Dr. Bike lanes (Class II) $22,000 Davis Street 11 1/2 Ave. 11th Ave. Bike route (Class $5,000 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-16

17 FIGURE 8-8 Continued Hanford Bicycle Project List Street From To Hanford-Armona Road 10th Ave. Hanford Municipal Airport Facility Type Bike route (Class Hume Avenue 12th Ave. Jones St. Bike route (Class Houston Avenue 13th Ave. 9th Ave. Bike route (Class Iona Avenue 12th Ave. 9th Ave. Bike route (Class Idaho Avenue 12th Ave. 9th Ave. Bike route (Class Jackson Avenue. 11th Ave. 10th Ave. Bike route (Class Cost $3,000 $11,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 $10,000 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-17

18 FIGURE 8-9 Hanford Pedestrian Project List Street From To Centennial Drive Fargo Ave. Lacey Blvd. 12th Avenue Greenfield Ave. Hanford Armona Rd. Phillips Street Second St. Downtown Irwin Street Grangeville Blvd. Downtown Douty Street Fargo Ave. Hanford Armona Rd. 10th Avenue State Route 43 Hanford Armona Rd. 9 ¼ Avenue Leland Way Lacey Blvd. Fargo Avenue Centennial Dr. 10th Ave. Leland Way 10th Ave. 9th Ave. Grangeville Boulevard 11th Ave. 10th Ave. Greenfield Avenue Centennial Dr. Lacey Blvd. Elm Street Greenfield Ave. Wilson Jr. H.S. West Lacey Boulevard 13th Ave. Downtown East Lacey Boulevard Downtown SR 43 Second Street Phillips St. Douty St. Hanford Armona Road 13th Ave. Hanford Municipal Airport Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-18

19 FIGURE 8-10 HANFORD BICYCLE ROUTES MAP Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-19

20 FIGURE 8-11 Lemoore Bicycle Project List Street From To Facility Type 19th Avenue D St. Silverado Dr. Bike lanes (Class II) Hill Street (east side) E St. Bush St. Bike lanes (Class II) Follett Street Cinnamon Dr. Bush St. Bike lanes (Class II) or bike route (Class Cinnamon Dr. (south side) Hill St. Hanford Armona Rd. Bike lanes (Class II) Bush Street (south side) College Ave. State Route 41 Bike path (Class I) Bush Street Lemoore Ave. Bush Pl. / Barcelona Dr. Bike route (Class Bush Street (east side) Bush Pl. / Barcelona Dr. E. D St. Bike lanes (Class II) Cedar Lane (north side) 19½ Ave. Lum Dr. Bike lanes (Class II) Silverado Drive (south side) 19 1/2 Ave. 19th Ave. Bike lanes (Class II) Cost $16,000 $6,000 $9,000 $30,000 $200,000 $6,000 $2,000 $14,000 $10,000 Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-20

21 FIGURE 8-12 Lemoore Pedestrian Project List Street From To 19th Avenue Hanford-Armona Rd. Silverado Dr. / City Park Liberty Drive Hanford-Armona Rd. Cinnamon Dr. Vine Street Bush St. Cedar Ln. Fox Street Hanford-Armona Rd. Bush St. Eton Avenue / Follett Brentwood Dr. Bush St. Street Lemoore Avenue Glendale Ave. Bush St. / Lemoore H.S. Daphne Lane (incl. extension) Heritage Park San Joaquin Valley R.R. Hanford-Armona Road Apricot Ave. Cinnamon Dr. Cinnamon Drive 19 1/2 Ave. Hanford-Armona Rd. D Street W. Bush St. E. Bush St. Bush Street (incl. extension) 19 ½ Ave. San Joaquin Valley R.R. Cedar Lane (incl. 19 ½ Ave. Lemoore Ave. extensions) Silverado Avenue 19 ½ Ave. 19th Ave. / City Park Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-21

22 FIGURE 8-13 LEMOORE BICYCLE ROUTES MAP Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-22

23 VI. FINANCIAL ELEMENT A. FEDERAL SOURCES 1. Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) RSTP funds can be used for construction, rehabilitation, and operational improvements for highways and bridges. This may include projects that are necessary to accommodate other transportation modes and for bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways principally for transportation, rather than recreation purposes, and for carrying out non-construction projects related to safe bicycle use. Funds are payable up to 80% of the total project cost. Project selection is made by local jurisdictions from their annual apportionments and programmed through the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). RSTP funds that are exchanged can also be used for non-motorized projects. KCAG annually exchanges its RSTP funds apportionment for non-federal dollars and distributes it to the local jurisdictions based on the standard distribution formula used by KCAG with the agreement of our member agencies. 2. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) CMAQ program intends to support transportation projects to help meet the requirement of Clear Air Act. Funds are available to regions designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas with regard to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Act. Eligible activities include bicycle and pedestrian related projects, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities construction (paths and supporting facilities) and non-construction projects related to walking and biking safety education. KCAG administers CMAQ funds on a competitive basis and programs CMAQ projects in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). 3. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) HSIP focuses on roadway safety improvement by funding projects that help reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The examples of eligible activities relevant to bicycle and pedestrian include pedestrian hybrid beacons and crossing treatments for active transportation users in school zones. HSIP funds must be used for safety projects consistent with the State s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). In California, HSIP is administered by Caltrans. 4. Federal Transit Act This act provides funds to non-urbanized areas for various transit operating and capital assistance projects. Eligible projects include those that provide access to mass transit facilities or to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transit. 5. Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBGP) Under the FAST Act, the long-standing Surface Transportation Program is converted into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program that promotes flexibility in State and Local transportation decisions to best address their transportation needs. The funding for Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) is set aside from a State s STBGP apportionment. Eligible projects include projects on any public road, bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail. In California, funds for TAP program are allocates through the Active Transportation Program (ATP). Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-23

24 6. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) The CDBG program provides communities with resources to address a wide arrange of unique community development needs. This flexible program supports varying types of eligible activity that contribute to the development of viable urban communities, which includes building a suitable living environment and facilitating neighborhood revitalization. Pedestrian related projects that are beneficial to enhance accessibility and improve living environment for the community, such as trails and greenway projects, may be qualified to apply for the CDBG funding. The Department of Housing and Community Development administers the State s CDBG program. Currently, the State s CDBG program is undergoing a redesign process to reflect budgetary shortages, address low expenditure rates and high levels of unspent program income. The draft of the revised Program Guidelines is anticipated by June 30, Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation Discretionary Grants The BUILD transportation grants replace the pre-existing Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. BUILD Transportation grants are for investments in surface transportation infrastructure and are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant local or regional impact. BUILD funding can support roads, bridges, transit, rail, ports or intermodal transportation. Projects for BUILD will be evaluated based on merit criteria that include safety, economic competitiveness, quality of life, environmental protection, state of good repair, innovation, partnership, and additional non-federal revenue for future transportation infrastructure investments. The Department of Transportation intends to award a greater share of BUILD Transportation grant funding to projects located in rural areas that align well with the selection criteria than to such projects in urban areas. Bicycle and pedestrian related projects that improve public health and safety and promote regional connectivity may present a suitable fit for the program. 8. EPA- Smart Growth Program The Smart Growth Program, administered by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), aims to help communities improve their development practices and get the type of development they want. Smart Growth convers a range of development and conservation strategies that include the strategy of providing a variety of transportation choices to the communities. Projects that encourage the use of active transportation can help achieve the goal of the Smart Growth Program and may be eligible for this funding opportunity. The Smart Growth Program is housed in the Office of Sustainable Communities. B. STATE SOURCES 1. Gas Tax Funds from the State gas tax are based on the historical apportionments provided to Kings County jurisdictions. The passage of Senate Bill 1, which aims to generate an estimated $52 billion more money by increasing gasoline tax and imposing new transportation improvement fee to help repair and maintain the state s transportation system for the next decade, allows a significant increase in funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvement programs. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-24

25 2. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) STIP funds new construction projects that add capacity to the transportation network. STIP funding is a mix of state, federal and local taxes and fees. STIP is comprised of two components: Caltrans s Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) and regional transportation planning agencies Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). STIP revenues are based on actual regional share dollars available to Kings County in the 2018 STIP Funds Estimate. Under the 2018 adopted STIP Guideline, bicycle and pedestrian projects may be programmed in the STIP as long as they are eligible for the State Highway Account of Federal funds. 3. Active Transportation Program (ATP) The State s Active Transportation Program aims to encourage the use of active mode of transportation, such as biking and walking. The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternative Program, the Bicycle Transportation Account, and the State Safe Routes to School Program. The ATP s authorizing legislation also allows the ATP to receive auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). In addition, with the recent passage of the Road Repair & Accountability Act (SB 1, 2017), an additional $100 million will be allocated to ATP annually, for the next ten years. Fifty percent of ATP funds are distributed on a competitive statewide basis. The most recent Call-for-Projects cycle (Cycle 3, FY and ) has distributed $240 million to active transportation projects. Forty percent is allocated to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in urban areas with population greater than 200,000, and the remaining ten percent goes to small urban and rural areas with populations of less than 200,000. The program guidelines and budgets are approved by California Transportation Commission (CTC) while the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance administers the ATP funds. 4. Office of Traffic Safety Comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety programs that involve enforcement, education, public health, driver education, transportation engineering, and public communication are eligible project types under this program. Communities from throughout the state are invited to submit annual applications for program grants. 5. Land and Water Conservation Fund Program This program provides grants to plan, acquire, and develop recreation parks and facilities including bikeway and pedestrian trails. The California Parks and Recreation provides reimbursement grant funds of 50% of the total projects costs. Grants for local agencies are divided, with 40% of the total funding going to Northern California and 60% to Southern California. 6. Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 This program allows a sponsoring agency to issue a special tax bond for a community facilities district to finance public facilities and services such as parks, recreation areas, parkways, and open spaces. Bicycle and pedestrian projects could be included in any proposed public facility. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-25

26 C. LOCAL SOURCES 1. Local Transportation Fund Up to two percent of each county's Local Transportation Fund (LTF) can be claimed annually by local jurisdictions to be used for installing or maintaining bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Public Utilities Code, Section ). This amount would provide around $90,000 each year for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The RTPA may also reserve an amount so designated, up to 2% of the LTF, each year for later allocation to claimants for pedestrian and bicycle facilities or bicycle safety programs. If the RTPA finds that all or any portion of the amount reserved could be used more appropriately for other purposes, that amount can be added to the total apportionment available the following year. Generally, local jurisdictions prefer to use LTF allocations claimed for street and road purposes for bicycle and pedestrian projects in order to minimize administrative costs. KCAG could apportion an amount of LTF to provide a bicycle facilities maintenance fund. If the funds are not needed for bicycle facility maintenance, the funds can be returned to the following fiscal year s estimated LTF for reapportionment. 2. Bicycle Infrastructure Program, REMOVE II This program is sponsored by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) to fund vehicle emission reduction projects, such as the development of comprehensive bicycle networks through the expansion of bicycle transportation facilities. Funding for this competitive first-come, first-serve program is derived from a $4 vehicle registration fee. Projects serving commuters, rather than recreational users, are given higher priority for funding. The maximum incentive for a Class I bicycle path, a Class II bicycle lane and a Class III Bike Route is $150,000, $100,000 and $100, General Fund As with any public improvement, local general fund revenues can be used to build and maintain bicycle facilities, or to provide a match for State and Federal grants. 4. Private Money Funds from private sources can be used to provide secure bicycle parking at highuse destinations. Such facilities can be required as part of the zoning review processes used by each of the local agencies. 5. Developer Fees Development fees could be levied and administered by local jurisdictions to provide improvements to accommodate new development. 6. Development Agreements Agreements can stipulate that developers provide portions of bikeway facilities where the construction becomes a part of the development. Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-26

27 7. Other Local Programs Local agencies may implement other local programs to provide bikeways and bicycle facilities including "adopt-a-trail", symbolic shares in trail right-of-way, and memorials. These programs require that private individuals or groups donate money, property, or time for the design, acquisition, and construction of bikeway facilities. H:\RTPA\2018 RTP Update\Final RTP\Chap 8 - Active Transportation - Final 2018.docx Chapter 8: Active Transportation Page 8-27