City of El Centro Bicycle Master Plan October 2010

Transcription

1 City of El Centro Bicycle Master Plan October ) Provide a City Bicycle Facility Maintenance Program for maintaining the existing bicycle facilities to support safety. 9) Pursue grant funds for planning, design, and construction of bicycle facilities. Page 23

2

3 Lotus Ave Lotus Ave La Brucherie Ave Imperial Ave 10th St 6th St 3rd St Cross Rd 2nd St Hope St 4th St 1St St Waterman Ave 12th St 12th St 12th St Cypress Dr Cypress Dr 10th St 3rd St 2nd St 1St St 1St St Hope St Dogwood Ave Dogwood Ave Industr y Way Cruickshank Dr Pico Ave Pico Ave Villa Ave Æc Scott Ave 14th St Scott Ave Villa Ave Villa Ave Euclid Ave Adams Ave Main St Barbara Worth Dr Waterman Ave Commercial Ave Æa State St Æa Commercial Ave Main St Main St Gillett St Orange Ave Orange Ave Hamilton Ave Hamilton Ave Hamilton Ave Ross Ave Aurora Dr Aurora Dr Ocotillo Dr Cypress Dr 4th St 4th St 8 Dogwood Ave 8 Wake Ave Wake Ave Wake Ave Wake Ave Danenberg Dr Danenberg Dr Danenberg Dr Bicycle Routes 8th St Class II- Planned 2016 Class II - Existing Manuel A. Ortiz Ave Class III - Proposed Sharrows Collisions Pedestrian (93 Total) Bicycle (89 Total) Sources: TIMS and El Centro Police Department 0 1,450 2,900 5,800 Feet Cypress Dr Mccabe Rd 4th St Farnsworth Ln Mccabe Rd Attachment I-2A - Collisions Map & Data

4 DATE PEDESTIRAN/BICYCLE COLLISION 2/2/2009 BICYCLE 2/18/2009 PEDISTRIAN 3/13/2009 PEDISTRIAN 3/26/2009 PEDISTRIAN 4/23/2009 PEDISTRIAN 4/23/2009 BICYCLE 4/30/2009 BICYCLE 5/7/2009 BICYCLE 5/10/2009 BICYCLE 5/18/2009 PEDISTRIAN 5/24/2009 BICYCLE 7/12/2009 PEDISTRIAN 8/17/2009 BICYCLE 9/3/2009 PEDISTRIAN 9/18/2009 PEDISTRIAN 9/30/2009 BICYCLE 10/4/2009 BICYCLE 10/8/2009 PEDISTRIAN 10/22/2009 PEDISTRIAN 12/10/2009 BICYCLE 12/16/2009 BICYCLE 1/5/2010 PEDISTRIAN 1/12/2010 PEDISTRIAN 1/12/2010 BICYCLE 1/17/2010 BICYCLE 1/19/2010 PEDISTRIAN 2/4/2010 BICYCLE 2/7/2010 PEDISTRIAN 3/19/2010 PEDISTRIAN 3/20/2010 BICYCLE 3/31/2010 PEDISTRIAN 4/13/2010 BICYCLE 4/15/2010 PEDISTRIAN 4/26/2010 BICYCLE 5/10/2010 PEDISTRIAN 5/13/2010 BICYCLE 5/20/2010 PEDISTRIAN 5/20/2010 PEDISTRIAN 5/21/2010 PEDISTRIAN 6/2/2010 BICYCLE 6/29/2010 BICYCLE 7/31/2010 PEDISTRIAN 8/11/2010 PEDISTRIAN 8/27/2010 PEDISTRIAN 9/2/2010 PEDISTRIAN SOURCE: TIMS AND EL CENTRO POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT I-2A COLLISIONS MAP AND DATA

5 DATE PEDESTIRAN/BICYCLE COLLISION 9/23/2010 BICYCLE 10/12/2010 PEDISTRIAN 10/18/2010 BICYCLE 10/28/2010 BICYCLE 11/16/2010 PEDISTRIAN 11/22/2010 BICYCLE 12/3/2010 BICYCLE 12/6/2010 BICYCLE 1/4/2011 PEDISTRIAN 1/6/2011 BICYCLE 1/25/2011 PEDISTRIAN 1/27/2011 PEDISTRIAN 2/8/2011 PEDISTRIAN 2/8/2011 BICYCLE 2/9/2011 PEDISTRIAN 2/15/2011 PEDISTRIAN 3/19/2011 BICYCLE 3/30/2011 BICYCLE 4/7/2011 BICYCLE 4/27/2011 BICYCLE 5/1/2011 PEDISTRIAN 5/9/2011 PEDISTRIAN 5/20/2011 PEDISTRIAN 5/23/2011 BICYCLE 5/24/2011 PEDISTRIAN 6/6/2011 BICYCLE 6/16/2011 BICYCLE 7/19/2011 PEDISTRIAN 8/3/2011 BICYCLE 9/21/2011 PEDISTRIAN 9/28/2011 BICYCLE 10/2/2011 PEDISTRIAN 10/13/2011 PEDISTRIAN 10/18/2011 BICYCLE 10/24/2011 BICYCLE 10/26/2011 PEDISTRIAN 11/2/2011 BICYCLE 11/15/2011 PEDISTRIAN 11/18/2011 PEDISTRIAN 11/21/2011 PEDISTRIAN 1/17/2012 PEDISTRIAN 1/19/2012 BICYCLE 1/20/2012 BICYCLE 2/19/2012 PEDISTRIAN 2/20/2012 PEDISTRIAN SOURCE: TIMS AND EL CENTRO POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT I-2A COLLISIONS MAP AND DATA

6 DATE PEDESTIRAN/BICYCLE COLLISION 2/23/2012 BICYCLE 3/18/2012 PEDISTRIAN 3/21/2012 BICYCLE 3/29/2012 BICYCLE 4/24/2012 BICYCLE 4/29/2012 BICYCLE 5/25/2012 PEDISTRIAN 6/1/2012 PEDISTRIAN 6/11/2012 BICYCLE 6/20/2012 PEDISTRIAN 6/21/2012 BICYCLE 7/19/2012 BICYCLE 8/20/2012 BICYCLE 8/24/2012 PEDISTRIAN 9/2/2012 BICYCLE 9/26/2012 BICYCLE 9/28/2012 PEDISTRIAN 10/4/2012 BICYCLE 10/26/2012 PEDISTRIAN 11/14/2012 PEDISTRIAN 12/3/2012 PEDISTRIAN 12/3/2012 BICYCLE 12/7/2012 PEDISTRIAN 12/17/2012 PEDISTRIAN 1/5/2013 BICYCLE 1/7/2013 PEDISTRIAN 1/21/2013 PEDISTRIAN 2/8/2013 BICYCLE 2/13/2013 BICYCLE 2/27/2013 BICYCLE 3/8/2013 PEDISTRIAN 3/8/2013 BICYCLE 3/11/2013 PEDISTRIAN 3/21/2013 BICYCLE 4/6/2013 PEDISTRIAN 4/13/2013 BICYCLE 4/30/2013 BICYCLE 5/3/2013 BICYCLE 6/2/2013 BICYCLE 6/7/2013 BICYCLE 6/16/2013 PEDISTRIAN 6/28/2013 BICYCLE 7/1/2013 BICYCLE 9/20/2013 BICYCLE 9/30/2013 PEDISTRIAN SOURCE: TIMS AND EL CENTRO POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT I-2A COLLISIONS MAP AND DATA

7 DATE PEDESTIRAN/BICYCLE COLLISION 10/4/2013 BICYCLE 10/9/2013 BICYCLE 10/13/2013 BICYCLE 10/14/2013 PEDISTRIAN 10/25/2013 PEDISTRIAN 10/25/2013 PEDISTRIAN 11/14/2013 BICYCLE 11/20/2013 PEDISTRIAN 1/3/2014 PEDISTRIAN 1/7/2014 PEDISTRIAN 1/9/2014 BICYCLE 1/9/2014 BICYCLE 1/13/2014 PEDISTRIAN 2/19/2014 PEDISTRIAN 2/28/2014 BICYCLE 3/8/2014 BICYCLE 3/10/2014 PEDISTRIAN 3/10/2014 BICYCLE 3/13/2014 PEDISTRIAN 4/2/2014 PEDISTRIAN 4/11/2014 PEDISTRIAN 4/11/2014 PEDISTRIAN 4/17/2014 BICYCLE 4/21/2014 PEDISTRIAN 5/2/2014 PEDISTRIAN 5/7/2014 BICYCLE 5/12/2014 BICYCLE 6/25/2014 BICYCLE 7/15/2014 PEDISTRIAN 7/15/2014 PEDISTRIAN 7/16/2014 PEDISTRIAN 7/16/2014 PEDISTRIAN 8/3/2014 BICYCLE 9/29/2014 PEDISTRIAN 11/18/2014 BICYCLE 11/22/2014 BICYCLE 11/28/2014 BICYCLE 12/5/2014 BICYCLE 12/30/2014 BICYCLE 1/6/2015 BICYCLE 1/19/2015 PEDISTRIAN 2/21/2015 PEDISTRIAN 3/7/2015 PEDISTRIAN 3/23/2015 PEDISTRIAN 3/24/2015 PEDISTRIAN SOURCE: TIMS AND EL CENTRO POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT I-2A COLLISIONS MAP AND DATA

8 DATE PEDESTIRAN/BICYCLE COLLISION 3/25/2015 PEDISTRIAN 3/27/2015 PEDISTRIAN 4/2/2015 PEDISTRIAN 4/15/2015 PEDISTRIAN 5/2/2015 PEDISTRIAN 5/12/2015 BICYCLE SOURCE: TIMS AND EL CENTRO POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT I-2A COLLISIONS MAP AND DATA

9 Public Participation Photographs ATP Workshop ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

10 Children s Fair Event (Poster Boards Used) ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

11 ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

12 ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

13 ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

14 Active Transportation Grant Meeting Minutes May 12, 2015 Brian McNeece, President of the Velo Cycling Club, provided the following suggestions: Chevron signs that legally tells motorists/cyclists to share the road and stay within 3 feet of each other Repair roads with pot holes / gashes in city streets Bike lane lines or expand bike lanes Review, and integrate bike lanes signs to be guided along city Provide cyclists safe places to ride without the dangers of opening car doors Vicky Sendano, Imperial Valley Cycling Club provided the following suggestions: Establish a coalition Establish a program to instruct and educate children on cycling health benefits and cycling safety Reach out to the cycling community for needs Commissioner Miranda asked if the grant allows for the purchase of bike racks to install throughout the city. Adriana Nava, Associate Planner, responded that the grant does allow for the purchase of bike racks, however the city would need input for installation locations. Commissioner Gaddis asked if sidewalks are included in the improvements because current sidewalks are not safe for pedestrian and cycling use and do not have a vegetative buffer. Adriana Nava presented the targeted improvement areas along 8 th Street with the funds awarded from last year s ATP grant and encouraged cyclist to identify streets for bike lanes. Abraham Campos, Senior Engineer asked cyclists to keep in mind, when prioritizing, that bike lanes limit parking lanes, so streets need to be wide enough to accommodate bike lanes. Dennis Price started Southwest High School s Cycling Club, which has been extremely successful. There are safety concerns when supervising a group of students through city streets where signage is necessary to provide safety for the cyclists. He used Lotus Avenue as a sample street to what should be done. Chairman Walk added that residents were upset over losing parking on Lotus due to the bike lanes. Mr. Walk suggested bike lanes be spread out throughout the city. Mr. Price asked for time to meet with cyclists to work collectively on a priority list. Vicky Zendrano would like time to analyze the routes that would benefit from signage. ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

15 Norma Villicana, Community Development Director suggested they meet with City staff soon to target the streets cyclists would like to post signs in. Doug Gardner commented on the deteriorated state of city and county roads. Pete Rodriguez, would like to see bike lanes to parks for children. Dave Sanchez suggested cleaning up the roads to eliminate rocks and debris. Tomas Oliva from Southern California Association of Governments informed the Commission that his agency and Imperial County Transportation Commission are working on a Safe Routes to School Master Plan and advised not to duplicate efforts. For that reason, he has met with City staff to identify and not duplicate areas of need. Daniel Majudano congratulated staff and Commission for their efforts to promote and improve cycling. He is doing the same in Mexicali and offered any help from his fellow cyclists. Denahi Valdez from Mexicali Bici extended an invitation to promote National Bike To Work Day on Friday May 15. Event is a collaboration to promote public policies that benefit cycling. Chuck Wallace suggested a County / City collaboration to apply for funds to improve the roads between the cities for cycling. He also advised the Planning Commission to make a statement to public and City Council to promote the active lifestyle concept and it s benefits to create a culture for active transportation not only in El Centro, but in the surrounding cities of Imperial Valley. Chairman Walk added that trying to accommodate bike lanes into an already established city is a difficult task. Abraham Campos stated the City has adopted a bicycle Master Plan and invites the public for their input to suggest routes. Projects have been identified, but have not been funded. Once specific streets are identified it would be easier to apply for grants. Ben Brock suggested to make roads work with cyclists, such as triggering stop lights for cyclists and improving road conditions to attract people to active transportation. Chairman Walk suggested cyclists to meet with Board of Supervisors to address their concerns on improving County roads. Commissioner Dunnam suggested including education on pedestrian, cyclists and skateboarders visibility with colorful clothes. ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

16 El Centro Community Development Department ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Community Workshop Tuesday, May 12, PM (During Planning Commission) El Centro Council Chambers 1275 W. Main Street, El Centro, CA Help improve bicycling and walking in El Centro Recommend bicycle network lanes and pedestrian areas that can be improved Use your local knowledge and experience to improve active transportation in our community For additional information contact Community Development at (760) ATTACHMENT I-3A - PROOF OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

17 California Department of Education Analysis, Measurement, & Accountability Reporting Division Data Reporting Office October 2014 Data Collection Data certified as of: March 16, 2015 Source: California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Fall 1 Version: 1.0 Free or Reduced Price Meal Data ATTACHMENT I-5A - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DATA

18 A B C D E F G H I J K Academic Year County Code District Code School Code County Name District Name School Name District Type School Type Imperial Central Union High Phoenix Rising High High School DAlternative S Alternative S % % % % Y Imperial Central Union High Southwest High High School DHigh Schools Traditional 2,057 1, % 1, % 1,964 1, % 1, % Y Imperial Central Union High Central Union High High School DHigh Schools Traditional 1,871 1, % 1, % 1,796 1, % 1, % Y Imperial Central Union High Desert Oasis High (Continuation) High School DContinuationContinuation % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryBallington Academy for the Arts and Scienc Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryImagine Schools at Imperial Valley Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryImperial Valley Home School Academy Elementary SElementary STraditional % 8 9.9% % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryDe Anza Magnet Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryDesert Garden Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryHarding Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryKennedy Middle Elementary SIntermediateTraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryLincoln Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryMargaret Hedrick Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryMcKinley Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryWashington Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryWilson Jr. High Elementary SIntermediateTraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementaryMartin Luther King Jr. Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Imperial El Centro ElementarySunflower Elementary Elementary SElementary STraditional % % % % Y Educational Option Type Enrollment (K 12) Free Meal Count (K 12) Percent (%) Eligible Free (K 12) FRPM Count (K 12) Percent (%) Eligible FRPM (K 12) Enrollment (Ages 5 17) Free Meal Count (Ages 5 17) Percent (%) Eligible Free (Ages 5 17) FRPM Count (Ages 5 17) Percent (%) Eligible FRPM (Ages 5 17) CALPADS Fall 1 Certificatio n Status ATTACHMENT I-5A - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DATA

19 DP03 SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. EMPLOYMENT STATUS Subject El Centro city, California Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error Population 16 years and over 31,406 +/ ,406 (X) In labor force 19,373 +/ % +/-2.0 Civilian labor force 19,351 +/ % +/-2.0 Employed 16,028 +/ % +/-2.1 Unemployed 3,323 +/ % +/-1.6 Armed Forces 22 +/ % +/-0.1 Not in labor force 12,033 +/ % +/-2.0 Civilian labor force 19,351 +/ ,351 (X) Percent Unemployed (X) (X) 17.2% +/-2.5 Females 16 years and over 16,517 +/ ,517 (X) In labor force 9,219 +/ % +/-2.4 Civilian labor force 9,212 +/ % +/-2.4 Employed 7,736 +/ % +/-2.4 Own children under 6 years 4,301 +/-445 4,301 (X) All parents in family in labor force 2,746 +/ % +/-6.6 Own children 6 to 17 years 8,016 +/-517 8,016 (X) All parents in family in labor force 5,466 +/ % +/-4.3 COMMUTING TO WORK Workers 16 years and over 15,582 +/ ,582 (X) Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 12,180 +/ % +/-2.8 Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 1,862 +/ % +/-2.4 Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 157 +/ % +/-0.6 Walked 337 +/ % +/-0.9 Other means 238 +/ % +/-0.7 Worked at home 808 +/ % +/-1.5 Mean travel time to work (minutes) /-1.5 (X) (X) OCCUPATION Civilian employed population 16 years and over 16,028 +/ ,028 (X) ATTACHMENT I-5A - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DATA 1 of 5 05/28/2015

20 Subject El Centro city, California Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error Management, business, science, and arts 4,474 +/ % +/-2.4 occupations Service occupations 3,914 +/ % +/-2.5 Sales and office occupations 3,810 +/ % +/-2.4 Natural resources, construction, and maintenance 1,905 +/ % +/-1.7 occupations Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 1,925 +/ % +/-2.1 INDUSTRY Civilian employed population 16 years and over 16,028 +/ ,028 (X) Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1,052 +/ % +/-1.4 Construction 823 +/ % +/-1.4 Manufacturing 677 +/ % +/-1.3 Wholesale trade 355 +/ % +/-0.8 Retail trade 2,039 +/ % +/-2.0 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,082 +/ % +/-1.5 Information 235 +/ % +/-0.6 Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental 784 +/ % +/-1.3 and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and 930 +/ % +/-1.6 administrative and waste management services Educational services, and health care and social 4,584 +/ % +/-2.5 assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 922 +/ % +/-1.4 accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration 553 +/ % +/-0.7 Public administration 1,992 +/ % +/-2.1 CLASS OF WORKER Civilian employed population 16 years and over 16,028 +/ ,028 (X) Private wage and salary workers 9,968 +/ % +/-2.8 Government workers 5,090 +/ % +/-2.8 Self-employed in own not incorporated business 805 +/ % +/-1.0 workers Unpaid family workers 165 +/ % +/-0.5 INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2013 INFLATION- ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Total households 12,925 +/ ,925 (X) Less than $10,000 1,330 +/ % +/-2.0 $10,000 to $14,999 1,166 +/ % +/-1.6 $15,000 to $24,999 1,960 +/ % +/-2.2 $25,000 to $34,999 1,190 +/ % +/-1.6 $35,000 to $49,999 1,525 +/ % +/-1.8 $50,000 to $74,999 1,875 +/ % +/-2.2 $75,000 to $99,999 1,471 +/ % +/-2.1 $100,000 to $149,999 1,586 +/ % +/-1.9 $150,000 to $199, / % +/-1.1 $200,000 or more 360 +/ % +/-0.8 Median household income (dollars) 42,166 +/-3,566 (X) (X) Mean household income (dollars) 60,391 +/-3,439 (X) (X) With earnings 9,975 +/ % +/-2.2 Mean earnings (dollars) 62,834 +/-3,968 (X) (X) With Social Security 3,461 +/ % +/-2.5 Mean Social Security income (dollars) 14,238 +/-880 (X) (X) With retirement income 1,405 +/ % +/-1.5 Mean retirement income (dollars) 29,869 +/-4,802 (X) (X) With Supplemental Security Income 1,249 +/ % +/-1.8 Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) 8,721 +/-1,053 (X) (X) With cash public assistance income 900 +/ % +/-1.5 ATTACHMENT I-5A - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DATA 2 of 5 05/28/2015

21 Subject El Centro city, California Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error Mean cash public assistance income (dollars) 5,024 +/-625 (X) (X) With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the past 12 months 2,716 +/ % +/-2.1 Families 9,990 +/-309 9,990 (X) Less than $10, / % +/-2.2 $10,000 to $14, / % +/-1.5 $15,000 to $24,999 1,491 +/ % +/-2.5 $25,000 to $34, / % +/-1.8 $35,000 to $49,999 1,288 +/ % +/-1.9 $50,000 to $74,999 1,525 +/ % +/-2.3 $75,000 to $99,999 1,240 +/ % +/-2.3 $100,000 to $149,999 1,427 +/ % +/-2.4 $150,000 to $199, / % +/-1.2 $200,000 or more 220 +/ % +/-0.7 Median family income (dollars) 46,210 +/-4,990 (X) (X) Mean family income (dollars) 62,198 +/-3,142 (X) (X) Per capita income (dollars) 18,877 +/-1,054 (X) (X) Nonfamily households 2,935 +/-347 2,935 (X) Median nonfamily income (dollars) 19,241 +/-2,494 (X) (X) Mean nonfamily income (dollars) 49,259 +/-10,137 (X) (X) Median earnings for workers (dollars) 23,910 +/-2,518 (X) (X) Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers 47,471 +/-5,029 (X) (X) (dollars) Median earnings for female full-time, year-round workers (dollars) 36,794 +/-2,642 (X) (X) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE Civilian noninstitutionalized population 42,388 +/ ,388 (X) With health insurance coverage 34,025 +/ % +/-2.0 With private health insurance 18,827 +/ % +/-2.2 With public coverage 17,903 +/ % +/-2.3 No health insurance coverage 8,363 +/ % +/-2.0 Civilian noninstitutionalized population under 18 12,876 +/ ,876 (X) years No health insurance coverage 1,256 +/ % +/-2.9 Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 to 64 years 25,449 +/ ,449 (X) In labor force: 18,593 +/ ,593 (X) Employed: 15,464 +/ ,464 (X) With health insurance coverage 11,567 +/ % +/-2.6 With private health insurance 9,397 +/ % +/-2.9 With public coverage 2,582 +/ % +/-2.1 No health insurance coverage 3,897 +/ % +/-2.6 Unemployed: 3,129 +/-478 3,129 (X) With health insurance coverage 1,846 +/ % +/-7.1 With private health insurance 481 +/ % +/-4.3 With public coverage 1,414 +/ % +/-7.2 No health insurance coverage 1,283 +/ % +/-7.1 Not in labor force: 6,856 +/-563 6,856 (X) With health insurance coverage 4,943 +/ % +/-4.1 With private health insurance 1,994 +/ % +/-4.1 With public coverage 3,209 +/ % +/-3.9 No health insurance coverage 1,913 +/ % +/-4.1 ATTACHMENT I-5A - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DATA 3 of 5 05/28/2015

22 Subject El Centro city, California Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of Error PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL All families (X) (X) 23.0% +/-2.7 With related children under 18 years (X) (X) 30.2% +/-3.9 With related children under 5 years only (X) (X) 28.2% +/-10.5 Married couple families (X) (X) 12.1% +/-2.7 With related children under 18 years (X) (X) 17.2% +/-4.0 With related children under 5 years only (X) (X) 5.9% +/-5.0 Families with female householder, no husband present (X) (X) 42.7% +/-6.8 With related children under 18 years (X) (X) 47.7% +/-8.1 With related children under 5 years only (X) (X) 46.8% +/-24.5 All people (X) (X) 24.9% +/-2.7 Under 18 years (X) (X) 32.1% +/-4.6 Related children under 18 years (X) (X) 31.8% +/-4.7 Related children under 5 years (X) (X) 34.8% +/-6.8 Related children 5 to 17 years (X) (X) 30.7% +/ years and over (X) (X) 21.7% +/ to 64 years (X) (X) 21.9% +/ years and over (X) (X) 20.7% +/-5.0 People in families (X) (X) 22.9% +/-3.0 Unrelated individuals 15 years and over (X) (X) 39.9% +/-5.9 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. There were changes in the edit between 2009 and 2010 regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security. The changes in the edit loosened restrictions on disability requirements for receipt of SSI resulting in an increase in the total number of SSI recipients in the American Community Survey. The changes also loosened restrictions on possible reported monthly amounts in Social Security income resulting in higher Social Security aggregate amounts. These results more closely match administrative counts compiled by the Social Security Administration. Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week. Census occupation codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). The Census occupation codes for 2010 and later years are based on the 2010 revision of the SOC. To allow for the creation of tables, occupation data in the multiyear files ( ) were recoded to 2013 Census occupation codes. We recommend using caution when comparing data coded using 2013 Census occupation codes with data coded using Census occupation codes prior to For more information on the Census occupation code changes, please visit our website at Industry codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The Census industry codes for 2013 and later years are based on the 2012 revision of the NAICS. To allow for the creation of and tables, industry data in the multiyear files ( and ) were recoded to 2013 Census industry codes. We recommend using caution when comparing data coded using 2013 Census industry codes with data coded using Census industry codes prior to For more information on the Census industry code changes, please visit our website at While the American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Year American Community Survey ATTACHMENT I-5A - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DATA 4 of 5 05/28/2015

23 S1903 MEDIAN INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2013 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note: This is a modified view of the original table. Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Subject California El Centro city, California Median income (dollars) Median income (dollars) Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Households 61,094 +/ ,166 +/-3,566 One race-- White 63,894 +/ ,736 +/-3,148 Black or African American 43,969 +/ ,409 +/-27,148 American Indian and Alaska Native 44,498 +/-1,419 56,306 +/-26,992 Asian 76,806 +/ ,346 +/-15,750 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 60,930 +/-2,956 - ** Some other race 44,889 +/ ,703 +/-5,871 Two or more races 58,020 +/ ,742 +/-7,607 Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 47,082 +/ ,015 +/-4,812 White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 71,226 +/ ,903 +/-5,628 HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 15 to 24 years 30,273 +/ ,640 +/-9, to 44 years 64,092 +/ ,549 +/-5, to 64 years 73,430 +/ ,750 +/-8, years and over 43,181 +/ ,442 +/-6,395 FAMILIES Families 69,661 +/ ,210 +/-4,990 With own children under 18 years 63,246 +/ ,604 +/-5,235 With no own children under 18 years 74,886 +/ ,544 +/-5,207 Married-couple families 85,024 +/ ,867 +/-5,193 Female householder, no husband present 36,763 +/ ,043 +/-5,345 Male householder, no wife present 48,015 +/ ,778 +/-15,470 NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Nonfamily households 40,611 +/ ,241 +/-2,494 Female householder 35,180 +/ ,235 +/-3,450 Living alone 30,322 +/ ,206 +/-4,499 Not living alone 64,596 +/ ,618 +/-68,088 Male householder 47,009 +/ ,117 +/-10,695 Living alone 39,807 +/ ,042 +/-5,336 ATTACHMENT I-5A - DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY DATA 1 of 2 05/15/2015

24 Project Name: Project Location: y of El Centro Establishment of SR2S Program & Bicycle Route Improveme Various Locations throughout the City of El Centro INFRASTRUCTURE Bike Projects (Daily Person Trips for All Users) (Box1A) Project Costs (Box 1D) Non SR2S Infrastructure Project Cost Existing 2,492 SR2S Infrastructure Project Cost Forecast (1 Yr after completion) 2,866 (1 YR aftercompletion) (actual) Without Project With Project $308,226 Commuters Recreational Users ATP Requested Funds (Box 1E) Existing Trips 2,218 Non SR2S Infrastructure New Daily Trips (estimate) SR2S Infrastructure CRASH DATA (Box 1F) Last 5 Yrs Annual Average Project Information Non SR2S Infrastructure Fatal Crashes 0 Bike Class Type Bike Class III Injury Crashes 0 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) 50,000 PDO 0 Pedestrian Projects (Daily Person Trips for All Users) (Box 1B) SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES (improvements) (Box 1G) Y or N Without Project With Project (Capitalized) Existing Pedestrian countdown signal heads N Forecast (1 YR after project Pedestrian crossing N completion) Advance stop bar before crosswalk N Without Project With Project Install overpass/underpass N Existing step counts Raised medians/refuge islands N (600 steps=0.3mi=1 trip) Pedestrian crossing (new signs and markings only) N Existing miles walked Pedestrian crossing (safety features/curb extensions) N Pedestrian signals N Safe Routes to School (SR2S) (Box 1C) Total Bike lanes Y Number of student enrollment 10,105 Sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) N Approximate no. of students living along school Pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) N route proposed for improvement 90 Pedestrian crossing N Percentage of students that currently walk or bike Other reduction factor countermeasures Y to school Projected percentage of students that will walk or 20.00% bike to school after the project 35.00% Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Roadways ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

25 Project Name: Project Location: ity of El Centro Establishment of SR2S Program and Bicycle Route Improvement Various locations throughout the City of El Centro NON INFRASTRUCTURE Outreach ( SR2S) (Box 2A) Outreach (Non SR2S) (Box 2B) Participants (School Enrollment) 10,105 Participants Current Active Trans Walker/Bicyclist Users 2,021 Current Active Trans Walker/Bicyclist Users 0 Percentage of Current Active Trans Walkers/Bicyclists 20% Percentage of Current Active Trans Walkers/Bicyclists Project Cost $215,422 Project Cost ATP Requested Funds $523,648 ATP Requested Funds Duration of Outreach (months) 24 Duration of Outreach (months) Outreach to new users 8,084 Outreach to new users 0 Perception (must be marked with an "x") (Box 2C) Outreach is Hands on (self efficacy) x Overcome Barriers (e.g., dist, time, etc.) x Eliminates Hazards/Threats (speed, crime, etc.) x Connected or Addresses Connectivity Challenges x Creating Value in Using Active Transportation x Promotional Effort (must be marked with an "x") (Box 2D) Effort Targets 5 E's or 5 P's Knowledgable Staff/Educator Partnership/Volunteers Creates Community Ownership/Relationship Part of Bigger Effort (e.g., political support) Younger than Age (must be marked with an "x") (Box 2E) Duration (must be marked with an "x") (Box 2F) x One Day x One Month x One Year x Multiple Years x Continuous Effort Projected New Active Trans Riders Projected New Active Trans Riders Longitudinal New Users 707 Longitudinal New Users 0 CRASH DATA (Box 2G) Last 5 Yrs Annual Assumption: Fatal Crashes Benefits only accrue for five years, unless the project Injury Crashes is ongoing. PDO 0 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

26 Non Infrastructure All Projected New ATP Users Annual Mobility Benefits Annual Health Benefits Annual Recreational Benefits Annual Safety Benefits 707 $0 Did not quantify mobility benefits. $103,273 $0 Did not quantify recreational benefits. ######## Safety benefits are assumed to be a reduction in Other Reduction Factor Countermeasures. Fuel saved $125,427 Emissions Saved $9,196 Fuel and Emissions Saved $134,623 Underlying assumptions for calculations: 1) 1 mile driven is ~ 0.05 gal ~ 1 lb of CO2 based on US average 20mpg. Source: Active Transportation for America: The Case for Increased Federal Investment in Bicycling and Walking. Rails to Trails Conservancy, page ) Assume users divert 1040 miles ( 4 miles (bike 3 mi, walk.6 mi) * 5days *52 weeks) 3) Gasoline price per gallon is $3.41 (incl. tax) 4) Carbon price is $25 per ton (updated $2014 value) 5) 2,000 lbs = 1 ton ESTIMATED SAFETY BENEFITS FROM POTENTIAL CRASH REDUCTION Countermeasures Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) Service Life OTHER REDUCTION FACTOR 10% 5 1st year $2,557,251 Fatal Injury PDO Total Frequency Cost/crash $3,750,837 $80,000 $6,924 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

27 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL Infrastructure Before Project No. of students enrollment 10,105 Approximate no. of students living along school route proposed for improvement 90 Percent that currently walks/bikes to school 20% Number of students that walk/bike to school 18 Assumptions: 1) 180 school days 2) 2 miles distance to school = 1 hour walk 3) Takes 1 hour back and forth to school grounds, used distance of 1 mile ( 4) Approximate no. of students living along school route proposed for imp before and after to get an actual increase number of ATP users or corresp 5) We used the value of time for adults for SR2S since we did not quantify community in general. Value of time for adults $13.03 vs. $5.42 for kids. After Project No. of students enrollment 10,105 6) Safety benefits are assumed to be the same as non SRTS infrastructure p Approximate no. of students living along school route proposed for improvement 90 Projected percentage of students that will walk or bike because of the project 35% Number of students that will walk/bike to school after the project 31.5 ATP Shift Fuels Saved Emissions Saved 4,860 $ $60.75 Annual Mobility Benefits Annual Health Benefits Annual Safety Benefits Fuel and Emissions Saved Recreational Benefits $31,675 $1,976 $0 $889 $0 Did not quantify recreational benefits for SR2S Infrastructure projects. ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

28 20 Year Invest Summary Analysis Total Costs $523, Net Present Cost $503, Total Benefits $147,637, Net Present Benefit $101,075, Benefit Cost Ratio Year Itemized Savings Mobility $139,718, Health $4,510, Recreational $0.00 Gas & Emissions $878, Safety $13,308, Funds Requested $523, Net Present Cost of Funds Requested $503, Benefit Cost Ratio ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

29 ESTIMATED DAILY MOBILITY BENEFITS FROM THE PROJECT Current Walk Counts Project Types Total miles walked 0.00 For M values: Total person Trips walked min/trip OFF STREET Bike Class I Total Steps walked min/trip ON STREET w/o parking benefit Bike Class II min/trip ON STREET w/ parking benefit Bike Class III After the Project is Completed Total miles walked 0.00 $13.03 Value of Time Total person trips walked 0.00 Total Steps walked steps=0.3mi=1 trip Converted miles walked to trips 0 $1 Value of Total Pedestrian Environmental Impacts per trip Difference of person trips walked 0 Converted steps walked to trips 0 Current Bike Counts Existing Commuters 2,218 New Commuters 1109 Benefits, 2014 values Annual Mobility Benefit (Walking) $0 Annual Mobility Benefit (Biking) $5,718, Total Annual Mobility Benefits $5,718,694 Sources: NCHRP 552 Methodology (Biking) Heuman (2006) as reported by UK Dept of Transport and Guidance (walking) ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

30 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

31 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

32 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

33 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

34 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

35 ATTACHMENT I-6A - BENEFIT/COST CALCULATOR

36 Adriana Nava From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hsieh, on behalf of Tuesday, May 26, :33 PM Adriana Nava; Abraham Campos Hsieh, Lucatero, Weaver, Soria, RE: El Centro ATP Application Hi Adriana, Thank you for contacting the CCC. Unfortunately, we are unable to participate in this project. Please include this with your application as proof that you reached out to the CCC. Thank you, Wei Hsieh, Manager Programs & Operations Division California Conservation Corps th Street Sacramento, CA (916) From: Adriana Nava centro.ca.us] Sent: Friday, May 22, :28 PM To: Cc: Norma Villicana; centro.ca.us Subject: El Centro ATP Application Hello Wei, Please find attached a letter from the City of El Centro in regards to our Active Transportation Grant Application. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Adriana C. Nava, AICP Associate Planner City of El Centro Phone (760) anava@cityofelcentro.org Address 1275 W. Main Street El Centro, Website From: Hsieh, Wei@CCC [mailto:wei.hsieh@ccc.ca.gov] On Behalf Of ATP@CCC Sent: Friday, May 15, :27 AM 1

37 ATTACHMENT J - LETTERS OF SUPPORT

38 ATTACHMENT J - LETTERS OF SUPPORT