HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-33 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18~
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 99-33
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADOPTING THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, on May 4, 1994, the City Council conditionally approved KMART Use
Permit application 93-32, and imposed condition No. 23, requiring KMART to contribute
$36,250 to an "Air Quality Offset Fund" that would be used to "pursue measures
maintaining appropriate air quality levels"; and
WHEREAS, in late 1994, the Council unanimously decided to use the KMART air
quality off-set funds on both a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the City, as well
as grant matching money towards implementing the Plan; a. nd
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that this use of the funds would satisfy
the purpose and intent of condition No. 23 imposed on the KMART Use Permit, and
would be in the best interest of the citizens of Ukiah; and
WHEREAS, the City hired the professional transportation planning firm of Whitlock
& Weinberger (W-Trans) to prepare the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, a number of community workshops were conducted to receive input
from the public regarding existing and future bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the
City; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1999, the City Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing, and after considerable positive input from the general public, voted
unanimously to recommend City Council approval of a Negative Declaration and
adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 1999, the City Council conducted a public hearing
to consider the Negative Declaration, the merits of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, and the comments and recommendation of the City Planning Commission; and
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Negative Declaration is adequate and
complete, and fulfills the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah
hereby approves the Negative Declaration, and adopts the Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan as recommended by the City Planning Commission, and included as Exhibit
PASSED AND ADOPTED on February 17, 1999, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Libby, Baldwin, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Mastin
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
~tin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBffA'
City of Ukiah
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah Master Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan
Adopted by
Resolution 99-33
February 17, 1999
Table of Contents
Introduction
1 0 Goals and Objectives
2.0 Existing Conditions .............................................. 17
3.0 Circulation Strategy .............................................. 30
4.0 Range of Design and Performance Standards ........................... 45
5.0 Implementation and Financing ...................................... 50
Study Participants ..................................................... 63
Figures
Bicycle Activity Corridors .......................................... 18
Pedestrian Activity Areas .......................................... 20
Pedestrian Facilities .............................................. 28
Proposed Bikeway System ......................................... 31
Pedestrian Projects .............................................. 39
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Pedestrian Improvements by Area Type ............................... 14
Demographics and Transportation ................................... 23
Accident Analysis ................................................ 25
Ranking of Bicycle Improvements .................................... 33
Project Implementation Strategy - Short Term Projects .................... 51
Project Implementation Strategy - Mid-Long Term Projects ................. 52
Short Term Projects by Funding Source ............................... 55
Summary of Funding Programs ..................................... 58
Financing Plan .................................................. 61
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Street Cross Sections
Crosswalk Marking Standards
Bicycle Parking and Support Facilities
Design and Performance Standards
Ukiah Bikeway and Pedestrian Systems Cost Estimates
Grant Funding Information
City Council minutes, Planning Commission minutes, and adopting Resolution
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page i
Introduction
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan has been created through the diligent efforts of the City and citizens
interested in improving the Ukiah pedestrian and bicycling environment. Representatives of the bicycling
and walking community have spent many hours of volunteer time and effort to discuss and debate the best
ways and means to achieve a more livable Ukiah. Through long discussion, numerous bicycle and walking
tours, and constant advocacy at both the local and regional level, the Master Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Steering Committee (MB/PPSC) addressed five key areas of concern: safety, accessibility, sustainability,
beauty, and the absolute necessity for an effective implementation program. Without the MB/PPSC's
sustained efforts, this Plan would not have been conceived and written.
Why does Ukiah need a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ?
Surrounded by the spectacular Coastal Range on all sides and nestled in the beautiful Russian River valley,
Ukiah enjoys one the finest settings of any smaller city in California. Residents of the city have access to
open space, the Mendocino National Forest, Lake Mendocino, the coast (about 50 miles by road to the west),
as well as local cultural amenities including the Grace Hudson Museum and downtown Ukiah.
The City is also a transportation hub on the U.S. 101 corridor (a major tourist route to the Redwoods in
Humboldt County and the Mendocino Coast via S.R. 20) and S.R. 20 to the east and S.R. 253 to the west.
The City is connected to other regional centers by scheduled transit service provided by Mendocino Transit
Authority. A general aviation airport is located within the City limits. Greyhound bus service links Ukiah
to other cities and towns on the U.S. 101 corridor. Significantly, most goods movement (such as lumber)
generated in Northwestern California moves through Ukiah on trucks or railroad cars.
Historically life in Ukiah has centered around the agricultural industry. In the 1960's and 70's, newcomers
from the Bay Area and other cities seeking a rural lifestyle and including both young and retired people
changed the flavor of the city and surrounding areas. With the closure of several major mills in the early
1990% and the emergence of smaller service and technology employers, life in Ukiah continues to change.
Why does Ukiah need a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan? One reason is the continuing change from a
manufacturing town to a service employment base oriented to visitors. Simply put, visitors desire to get out
of their cars and walk, shop, eat, and possibly stay overnight. In order to attract and extend the stay of
quality visitors, the walking and bicycling environment in Ukiah must be enhanced.
Another reason is the enjoyment and quality of life for the residents of Ukiah. Since walking and bicycling
are two of the most popular forms of recreational activity in the United States (with 84 percent of Americans
walking for pleasure and 46 percent bicycling for pleasure), we can assume that about 12,300 residents in
Ukiah would like to walk and 6,700 would like to bicycle purely for pleasure. In addition, the increased
ability to walk or bicycle reduces the amount of vehicular traffic, which reduces noise and air quality
impacts.
Safety is a primary reason to improve bicycling'and walking conditions in Ukiah. Concems about safety are
the single greatest reason people do not commute by bicycle, according to a 1991 Lou Harris Poll.
Addressing those concerns for both bicyclists and pedestrians through physical and program improvements
is another major objective of the Master Plan.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999 City of Ukiah
Page I
What are the Major Issues that Ukiah must address to become a Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly
City?
Safety, access, quality of life, and effective implementation are imperative elements for Ukiah's success as
a bicycle and pedestrian-friendly city.
Safety is the number one concern of citizens, whether they are avid or casual recreational cyclists,
bicycle commuters, joggers, roller skaters, pedestrian commuters, or strollers to the corner store.
For the most part bicyclists can use back streets to avoid State Street, which is heavily traveled
through the heart of Ukiah. However, a consistent bicycle network with either bike lanes or wider
curb lanes and signing is generally lacking in the City. For pedestrians, the network of sidewalks,
crosswalks, alleyways, and informal trails provides reasonable access throughout much of the city,
but in many instances design decisions have been made to provide vehicular traffic or parking
capacity and speeds at the expense of bicyclists and pedestrians. The following statistics bear this
out.
· The average number ofpedestrian accidents in Ukiah is higher than the statewide average
· The majority ofpedestrian related accidents are caused by drivers
· The average number of bicycle accidents in Ukiah is higher than the statewide average
Access for pedestrians and bicyclists to shopping, work, recreation, school, and other destinations
is somewhat hampered by the State Street and U.S. 101 corridors. For example, people moving from
west to east Ukiah must cross or use State Street with its heavier traffic volumes, numerous parked
cars, and wide unprotected crossing distances, and must cross U.S. 101 at busy interchanges.
Movement across State Street is hampered by the sheer volume of traffic even at signalized
intersections. Crossings of State Street continue to be a problem for pedestrians and bicyclists.
This Plan urges Ukiah to take measurable steps toward the goal of improving every Ukiah citizen's
Quality of Life, creating a more sustainable environment, reducing traffic congestion, vehicle
exhaust emissions, noise, and energy consumption. The importance of developing a pedestrian and
bicycle system that is attractive and inviting is a key element in making Ukiah a city where people
want to live, work, and visit. The attractiveness of the environment not only invites pedestrians and
bicyclists to explore Ukiah, but more importantly, a beautiful environment helps to improve
everyone's positive feelings about the quality of life in Ukiah.
Education, enforcement, engineering, and funding are the basic components of an Effective
Implementation Program for this Master Plan. Education must be targeted to the bicyclist and
pedestrian as well as to the motorist regarding the rights and responsibilities of the bicyclist,
pedestrian, auto and truck driver. Comprehensive enforcement of existing traffic and parking laws,
coupled with the implementation of sound design and engineering principles for bike and pedestrian
focused areas and corridors are also critical. This plan also proposes systematic review of all new
development projects, including public works efforts, to assure compliance with planning and
building codes and the principles of this Master Plan. Finally, this plan proposes an aggressive
strategy for obtaining grants and competing for other funding sources in order to realize the physical
improvements identified as the highest priorities.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 2
Expected Benefits of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
[3 Save lives. Implementation of the Master Plan is expected to dramatically reduce the accident rate
for pedestrians and bicyclists through design standards and guidelines, education, and enforcement.
Provide needed facilities and services. New facilities are needed to meet the demand and increase
use of bicycles and walking as a means of travel around the city. With a goal of doubling bicycling
and walking by 2010, the bicycle commute share would be 2 percent (including school children) and
walking commuters 8 percent.
Improve the quail _ty of life in Ukiah. Designing and building people-friendly streets, paths, trails,
and activity centers available to everyone, supports sustainable community development. By
reducing traffic congestion, vehicle exhaust emissions, noise and energy consumption, the quality
of life in Ukiah will be improved. Finally, visitors can be encouraged to stop and enjoy Ukiah on
foot or bicycle.
[21
Maximize funding sources for implementation. This plan is meant to equip Ukiah to successfully
compete for state and federal funding, by meeting the requirements of the California Bicycle
Transportation Act and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
Major Recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
[21 A pedestrian/bike path along with Northwestern Pacific rail right of way from Ford Road to
Norgaard Lane.
[3
The creation of a pedestrian/bicycle corridor along Clay Street - Peach Street -Gibson Creek
Corridor through the NWP station redevelopment site.
The extension of bike lanes on Gobbi Street from Riverside Park to Dora Street.
The creation of a north-south signed bike route along the west side of Ukiah.
Once Orchard Avenue is extended to Brush Street, the completion of bike lanes on Orchard Avenue
from Gobbi Street to Ukiah High School.
Formalization and improvements to the downtown pedestrian district.
Enhancements of uncontrolled crosswalk locations on arterials throughout the City and especially
on State Street.
[3 A Citywide program to provide sidewalks on "missing links."
[3 Pedestrian street enhancements on key corridors to connect the most vital pedestrian activity areas.
Relationship between this Plan and other Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Efforts in Ukiah
As an element of the General Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan has the comprehensive scope and
jurisdictional authority required to coordinate and guide the provision of all bicycle- and pedestrian-related
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 3
plans, programs, and projects. Many current planning efforts provide recommendations regarding one
element or aspect of the pedestrian and bicycle networks; the task of the Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan is to ensure compatibility of all of these blueprints, while attending to planning for areas of the
City not already targeted by other studies. The studies or planning efforts listed below have been reviewed
and consulted, studied for consistency, and where appropriate, folded into Ukiah's Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan.
· Ula'ah General Plan (including Circulation, Parks andRecreation, and Bicycle/Pedestrian elements)
· Mendocino County Bikeway Plan
· Mendocino County GeneralPlan
In addition, and most importantly, the Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan includes an implementation
program that aggressively targets grants and other funding sources to allow improvements, maintenance, and
new facilities to be realized throughout the City of Ukiah.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February1999
Page 4
1.0 Goals and Objectives
1.1 Goals of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Goals provide the context for the specific policies and recommendations discussed in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan. The goals provide the long-term vision and serve as the foundation of the plan. The
goals are broad statements of purpose that do not provide details, but show the plan's direction and give
overall guidance. Objectives provide more specific descriptions of the goal, while policies provide a bridge
between general goals and actual implementation guidelines.
The following Objectives and Policies are intended to guide .both Bicycle and Pedestrian planning in Ukiah.
GOAL 1: IMPROVE SAFETYAND EDUCATION.
To make the City's circulation system safer for all pedestrians and bicyclists, and enhance education for
bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.
Safe _ty and Education Objective 1:
Maximize coordination and responsiveness of the City agencies responsible for the identification, analysis,
and resolution of bicycle and pedestrian issues.
Ukiah lacks a "one stop" entity that attends to, coordinates, a~d addresses bicycle and pedestrian safety
issues. Currently, every City agency has some measure of responsibility for bicycle and pedestrian safety
issues, but there is no lead agency charged with bringing multi-faceted safety or connectivity issues to
resolution.
Safety and Education Policy 1-1:
Designate a responsible department and staff member for the identification, analysis and resolution of
safety issues related to bicycle and pedestrian travel within the City of Ukiah. Oversight and guidance
should be provided by a "Safety" Committee, such as the existing Traffic Engineering Committee, which
includes representatives from the Public Works Department, Police Department, Planning Department,
and other relevant departments and agencies. Alternatively, the City could create a part-time
transportation planner position to assume these responsibilities.
Safety and Education Policy 1-2:
Expand and support school commute safety education, marketing, and physical improvements, including
educational curriculum, on-bike training, safety handbooks, helmet subsidy programs, marketing
materials on the benefits of walking/bicycling, and a 'toolbox' of physical measures to improve safety
on school commute routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Safety and Education Policy 1-3:
Where possible, incorporate traffic calming techniques as described in published documents produced
by organizations such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers, including measures to manage vehicle
speeds and flows so as to maximize the safety of pedestrian and bicycle movement in residential and
commercial neighborhoods.
Safety and Education Policy 1-4:
Educate adults on the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians through signage ('Share
the Road'), public information, and education of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Support adult bicycle
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 5
training courses, and inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian laws as part of traffic school curriculum and
driving test questions. Produce a safety brochure that illustrates basic rules of the road and other good
practices for distribution in schools and libraries.
Safety and Education Policy 1-5:
Coordinate with the Ukiah Police Department to enhance enforcement of existing bicycle and pedestrian
laws.
Safe _t3, and Education Objective 2:
In conformance with Federal policy, double current levels of walking and bicycling in Ukiah by the year
2010 as a commute mode and reduce bicycle and pedestrian-related accidents by 10 percent from current
levels.
Safety and Education Policy 2-1'
Monitor bicycle and pedestrian commute modes and accident statistics over the life of this plan to
measure the effectiveness of improvements and achievement of stated objectives. Prepare annual
summary reports on mode split (the percentage of various travel modes used by citizens for work trips,
shopping trips, etc.) and accident data.
GOAL 2: GREATER CITYWIDE ACCESS.
To provide a system of paths, lanes, routes, and support facilities which enable and encourage convenient
pedestrian and bicycle circulation for all transportation needs, including travel to work, school, shopping,
or recreation activities.
Greater Ci _tywide Access Objective 1'
Plan, design, implement, and maintain a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian system in Ukiah.
Greater Citywide Access Policy 1-1'
Develop and maintain a city-wide system of paths, lanes, and routes which meets the needs of commuter
and recreational users, helps reduce motor vehicle trips, and links residential neighborhoods with
employment centers and with local and regional destinations.
Greater Citywide Access Policy 1-2:
Integrate the Ukiah bicycle and pedestrian network of lanes, paths, and routes into the regional system,
including direct and transit connections to Willits, Cloverdale, and Healdsburg.
Greater Citywide Access Policy 1-3'
Explore the use of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) and other natural and manmade corridors
for the development of Class I bicycle and pedestrian pathways that connect major employment centers,
shopping and recreation areas, and transit modes.
Greater Citywide Access Policy 1-4:
Review the allocation of public right-of-way to vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian movement, and re-
allocate sufficient space for bicycles and pedestrians on all streets, especially those identified as the
primary corridors and areas in the Plan.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999 City of Ukiah
Page 6
Greater Access Objective 2:
Coordinate bicycle and pedestrian improvements and funding efforts with other jurisdictions and regional
agencies.
Greater Citywide Access Policy 2-1:
Work with Mendocino County and other public, private, and non-profit agencies to create a well-
connected and easily accessible pedestrian and bicycle network for the region.
Greater Citywide Access Policy 2-2:
Work with Mendocino County to increase mutual gain when applying and competing for funding for
projects that have inter-city or inter-agency benefits.
Greater Access Objective 3'
Use public open space to its greatest public advantage by capitalizing on existing or planned City amenities
(such as the NWP Station Redevelopment Area) when completing or upgrading the bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
Greater Access Policy 3-1'
Designate State Street and/or other local downtown streets as a transit/bike corridor and pedestrian
promenade, and facilities to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use should be incorporated in any
public/private development or redevelopment.
Greater Access Policy 3-2:
Evaluate opportunities for mountain biking around Ukiah, especially for the potential to attract new
visitors to the area.
Greater Access Objective 4:
Include facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians when contemplating any changes to the City street network
in the City of Ukiah.
Greater Citywide Access Policy 4-1:
The City, Caltrans, Mendocino Transit Authority, and other affected agencies and cities should include
the recommendations of this Plan and pedestrian/bicycle needs in general in addition to transit and auto
commuters when designing any new freeway by-pass project or street project.
Greater Access Policy 4-2:
Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in public/private development and redevelopment plans in
Ukiah.
GOAL 3: A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE
Quali _ty of Life Objective 1'
Foster a sustainable environment by increasing transportation options such as bicycling, and walking,
recognizing that increased use of these methods of travel, and the associated reduced use of automobiles, are
an essential component of a sustainable local and regional environment.
Quality of Life Policy 1-1:
Develop the showcases of Ukiah's bicycle and pedestrian network by identifying outstanding scenic
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 7
rides, walks, trails, and destination points, thereby enhancing the character, livability, and attractiveness
of Ukiah.
Quality of Life Policy 1-2:
Integrate the bicycle and pedestrian system and facilities with other travel modes as a vital and essential
part of the City's transportation system.
Quality of Life Policy 1-3:
Create a streetscape and path system in Ukiah that is not only physically adequate, but aesthetically
pleasing and inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists alike.
Designers of pedestrian and bikeway systems and facilities should strive to improve the physical
quality of the system while maintaining elements that tell the story of Ukiah 's history, character, and
the aesthetic and cultural diversity of our city.
Quality of Life Policy 1-4:
Incorporate aesthetically pleasing bicycle and pedestrian friendly design elements, both on and off the
road system in new residential and commercial/industrial development in Ukiah.
GOAL 4: ESTABLISH AN EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
To incorporate the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians into the City's existing programs, policies, plans, and
operations, and to involve all aspects of the community and local agencies in planning and implementing
improved opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Ukiah 's residents want the planning efforts they invest in to become real. Implementation of this plan
would result in the eventual completion of an interconnected network of paths and routes, an on-going
and aggressive competition for grants and other funding mechanisms, and day-to-day oversight of the
planning, building, and maintenance activities of the City with regard to pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
Effective Implementation Objective 1:
Make bicycle and pedestrian improvements a high priority when allocating funding, reviewing development
plans, and coordinating interagency and inter-jurisdictional transportation improvement efforts.
Effective Implementation Policy 1-1:
Assign Public Works and Planning Staff the responsibility of developing and managing a bi-annual
maintenance and operations budget, preparing applications for grants and other funding, assisting with
promotional and educational events, and otherwise driving implementation of the Master Plan.
Alternatively, the City could create a part-time transportation planner position to assume these
responsibilities.
Effective Implementation Policy 1-2:
Update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan every two years (per California State Law), and provide
for an amendment process which includes review and recommendations by the MB/PPSC.
Effective Implementation Policy 1-3:
Implement a maintenance program insuring adequate upkeep of bicycle and pedestrian improvements
and existing amenities.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999 Page 8
Effective Implementation Policy 1-4:
Institute a private sponsorship and adoption program of the bicycle and pedestrian system to assist in
maintenance and possibly construction, to be acknowledged with small signs where appropriate.
1.2 Bikeway Plan
The bikeway plan is composed of the goals, objectives, and policies that relate specifically to bicycling, the
physical bicycle network, and the implementation programs that support bicycle travel. Bikeway
improvements include striping new bike lanes, re-striping streets to provide wider curb lanes, eliminating
or reducing on-street parking or medians, making surface improvements, signing, and adding bike racks and
lockers. The implementation of the bikeways portion of the plan is explained in greater detail in the
Implementation chapter of this Plan.
Bicycle Objectives and Policies
These Objectives and Policies are specific to the proposed Bikeway improvements in the City of Ukiah.
GOAL 1: IMPROVE SAFETYAND EDUCATION
Bicycle Safety and Education Objective 1:
Improve street, path, signs, and signalization systems to increase the safety of bicyclists in Ukiah.
Bicycle Safety and Education Policy 1-1:
Adhere to Caltrans design standards or other supplementary standards for all bicycle improvements.
Final design should be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works.
Bicycle Safety and Education Policy 1-2:
Many recreational and less experienced cyclists prefer to ride on Class I bike paths rather than arterial
streets. Make efforts to obtain, redevelop, or encourage private redevelopment of railroad, utility, and
other rights-of-way as linked, multi-use Class I bike paths or trails. Pay special attention to safety at
roadway and railroad crossings. Provide adequate width to accommodate a variety of trail users.
Identify security and monitoring mechanisms such as lighting, call boxes, emergency access, and bicycle
patrols, especially along isolated portions of the pathway.
Bicycle Safety and Education Policy 1-3:
Identify the cost, funding source, and agency responsibility of future maintenance and operation when
contemplating the design of bike paths, bike lanes, or bike routes.
Bicycle Safety and Education Policy 1-4:
Maximize the separation between bicyclists and vehicles on all streets. Provide Class II bike lanes along
the primary bikeway system where feasible. Provide a minimum of 14 foot wide curb lanes on the
primary bikeway system where feasible and where bike lanes cannot be provided (Class III bike route).
Feasibility of lanes and routes are to be determined through a specific set of planning and design steps
listed in the Implementation Chapter.
Bicycle Safety and Education Policy 1-5:
Review intersections on the primary bikeway system for needed improvements, including signal loop
detectors, bike lane pockets, curve geometry, striping, and signing.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 9
Bicycle Safety and Education Policy 1-6:
Discourage the use of sidewalks or pathways parallel to roadways as bicycle facilities where there are
numerous curb cuts or cross streets, limited visibility, a significant number of pedestrians and/or other
available options such as bike lanes.
GOAL 2: GREATER ACCESS
Greater Bicycle Access Objective 1:
Plan, design, implement, and maintain a comprehensive bicycle system in Ukiah.
,4 comprehensive, well-maintained system will meet the needs of both commuter and recreational
bicyclists by providing a rational and consistent network of routes which provide a reasonable balance
between connectivity, access, and traffic conditions.
Greater Bicycle Access Policy 1-1:
Develop and maintain a city-wide bicycle system of paths, lanes, and routes that is integrated into the
regional system of bikeways and which meets the needs of commuter and recreational users, helps
reduce motor vehicle trips, and links residential neighborhoods with local and regional destinations.
Greater Bicycle Access Policy 1-2:
Provide alternate routes for less experienced bicyclists off the State Street/U.S. 101 corridors.
Greater Bicycle Access Objective 2:
Improve the quality and quantity of bicycle parking and support facilities in Ukiah.
Greater Bicycle Access Policy 2-1:
Secure, safe, and covered bike racks should be provided at all public destinations, including the library,
parks, museum, schools, hospital, railroad station, and City Hall. Provide specific guidelines on the type
of racks, the location, and the required storage capacity based on employees, visitors, etc.
Greater Bicycle Access Policy 2-2:
Work with the School District to facilitate the construction of bicycle corrals at the elementary, middle,
and high school in Ukiah.
Greater Bicycle Access Policy 2-3:
Require all new commercial development or redevelopment projects to comply with zoning standards
for bicycle parking.
Greater Bicycle Access Policy 2-4:
Work with Mendocino Transit Authority to provide bike racks on all bus routes that link with major
recreational or commuting destinations.
Planning Criteria for the Bikeway
The selected routes were evaluated according to the following criteria.
1. Coverage
Provide a balanced transportation system that is accessible from all
neighborhoods.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 10
2. Connectivity and Directness Provide direct connections to all major destinations and activity centers,
and to existing and proposed regional routes. Avoid circuitous routes
through local street networks that are unlikely to be used by cyclists
because the routes are too slow or confusing.
3. User Groups
Provide facilities to accommodate both experienced and inexperienced
cyclists, people of various physical abilities and skills, and people with
various trip purposes. Develop loop routes for recreational bicyclists.
4. Implementation
Develop a system that can be reasonably implemented within the 20-year
time frame of the plan and consider physical, economic, and environmental
constraints when selecting routes.
5. Local Input
Draw on the experience of local bicyclists to identify routes they
recommend based on their experience, knowledge and needs.
6. Funding Sources
Consider the specific requirements of various funding sources when
selecting a bicycle route. For example, most funding sources are oriented
towards commuting (versus recreational) uses, and all require estimates of
benefits and future usage. Typical sources include Transportation
Development Act (TDA), and federal funding from the soon-to-be re-
authorized ISTEA program.
Bikeway Classifications
The physical components of the bikeway system include paths, lanes, and routes, as classified by the
California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Specific design standards are described in the
Implementation chapter.
Class I Bike Paths
A bike path is a grade-separated, bi-directional and paved pathway at least 8 feet wide, to be used primarily
by bicyclists but also by pedestrians and others. Bike paths are often located along waterfronts, railroad right-
of-way (active or abandoned), or stream or river channels. In most cases sidewalks cannot be considered
Class I bike paths, unless there is at least a 5-foot horizontal separation or a physical barrier.
Class II Bike Lanes
Bike lanes are striped 4 or 5 foot wide one-directional lanes located on the right hand side of a travel lane,
on both sides of a two-way street or both parts of a one-way couplet. Bike lanes have specific signing and
striping requirements, and can be designed in a variety of ways for intersections. On-street bike lanes should
be placed on all routes of the primary bicycle system with average daily traffic volumes (ADTs) over 5,000,
where feasible.
Class III Bike Routes
According to Caltrans, bike routes are characterized by signing only and should provide a superior through
route for bicyclists than other parallel routes. If bike lanes are not feasible on a proposed route, the City
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 11
should follow a sequential order of implementation steps detailed in the implementation program to make
other improvements such as widening curb lanes, eliminating on-street parking, and removing multiple turn
lanes.
Bikeway System Components
In addition to the Caltrans classifications, there are a variety of physical improvements which could enhance
the safety and attraction of streets for bicyclists. Hybrid types of improvements include enhanced sidewalks,
shoulders, curb lanes, intersection treatments, and bicycle sensitive signal loop detectors or actuators. The
bikeway system also includes support facilities for bicyclists, such as racks, showers and air pumps. The
major components of a bicycle system for Ukiah are briefly described here, while all bikeway components
and specific design standards are described at length in the Implementation Chapter. Recommendations for
use of these components at specific locations in the City are made in this Plan, but will typically require site
specific study for implementation.
Following are examples of physical improvements which could enhance the safety and attraction of streets
for bicyclists.
Bicycle Boulevard: A Bicycle Boulevard is a street or alleyway directly parallel to a major
commercial corridor that was designed to promote bicycle movement and discourage through
vehicle movement.
Sidewalks: The use of sidewalks as bicycle facilities is not encouraged by Caltrans or allowed by
the City of Ukiah Municipal Code.
Traffic Calming Techniques: Such techniques are implemented to moderate or reduce vehicle speeds
and/or volumes on streets where traffic has a negative impact on bicycle or pedestrian movement,
including actions such as installing traffic circles, intersection islands, partial street closings, 'bulb-
out' curbs, pavement treatments, lower speed, signal timing, and narrowing travel lanes.
Signing and Striping: Uniform signing and striping is an important part of the bikeway safety and
network system, distinguishing commute routes from recreational routes as well as providing
continuity with facilities in adjacent communities.
Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking facilities include bike racks and corrals and all should be anchored
to the ground and allow bicyclists to lock both frame and wheels.
Bike Racks on Buses: Providing bike racks on buses expands greatly a cyclists' ability to ride more
challenging topography in the hill areas or more easily complete a two-stage commute trip.
Bikeway System Map
The primary bikeway system consists of commute routes for the more experienced cyclist who is looking
for the most direct route between residential neighborhoods and local and regional employment centers,
multi-modal terminals, schools, and recreational routes. The recreational or scenic routes are often more
circuitous routes favored by the less experienced cyclist. These routes are typically located on lower volume
residential streets and off-street bike paths. The recreational routes serve regional historic, cultural, and
natural destinations. Both the commute routes and recreational routes are shown on the map.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 12
The map shows the proposed citywide primary bikeway system. The proposed system is designed to serve
as the primary system for development in the short to mid-term for the City, serving the broadest variety of
user groups, levels of experience, age groups, destinations, and trip purposes possible. This primary bikeway
system is not meant to accommodate every bicyclist and bicycle trip in the City, and bicyclists continue to
have a legal right to use all public streets in the City. The City will also continue to make improvements and
maintain facilities for bicyclists as needed throughout the City. The primary system merely allows the City
to concentrate its limited resources on those corridors that benefit the greatest number of existing and
potential bicyclists possible. The proposed bikeway system will be developed according to specific design
and implementation standards outlined in the Implementation chapter.
1.3 Pedestrian Plan
The intent of the Pedestrian Plan is to create a tool that can be used by the City to address pedestrian activity
throughout Ukiah. While streetscape plans and other detailed pedestrian improvement plans for the entire
City of Ukiah is not within the scope of this effort, this Plan creates a framework for evaluating pedestrian
conditions and gives guidance for how to address a variety of problems and deficiencies. The first part of
this section describes the pedestrian planning criteria and pedestrian system components, followed by a
matrix showing the relationship of these elements, and then pedestrian-specific Objectives and Policies. The
Implementation section of this Plan provides direct guidance for prioritization of pedestrian projects, and
more detailed information about system components, standards, and design guidelines is presented in the
Implementation chapter.
Pedestrian Planning Criteria and System Components
The Plan provides a straightforward framework for evaluating and addressing pedestrian deficiencies based
on criteria of safety, accessibility, quality of life, implementation, and the specific needs of different user
groups. Pedestrian commuters, like bicyclists, are primarily concerned with connectivity and safety. The
casual pedestrian is more interested in the immediate landscape, protection from the elements, visual interest,
places to rest, and protection from traffic. Pedestrians in general benefit from a network that offers good
connections and good conditions. One common attribute of popular pedestrian areas is that motor vehicle
movement is either completely restricted or severely slowed down.
After safety, access is the most important issue for encouraging pedestrian activity. Access to all areas of
the city, for abled and disabled alike, is essential in creating a pedestrian friendly Ukiah and an improved
quality of life. Access for the pedestrian does not just include physical access and an absence of barriers,
but also choices in routes, activities and views, and chances to interact with other people and engage in the
urban environment. A pedestrian accessible environment should allow for a high level of access to basic and
accessory daily needs, including commercial areas and services, restrooms, the downtown, educational
facilities, community facilities, recreation areas, restaurants, cultural activities, and social gathering places.
Access can be divided into four broad categories: safety, directness, sensory stimulation, and interface with
other transportation modes.
Safety: minimizing and managing conflicts with vehicular traffic, while providing access where
needed.
Directness: providing direct connections between activity areas, overcoming obstacles such as
roadways, freeways, waterways, railroads, etc..
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 13
Sensory Stimulation: promoting, in a commercial setting, a variety of street-scale storefronts,
sidewalk dining areas, landscaping, artwork, historic markers, public spaces, alleyways, etc.
Interface with Other Modes of Travel: increasing the ease with which a pedestrian can interface with
other modes promotes pedestrian activity.
Components of the Pedestrian System can be designed and manipulated to create a safer, more accessible
Ukiah. The following components summarized here are discussed in greater detail in the Implementation
chapter.
Pedestrian Area Classifications
Pedestrians must compete for scarce public right-of-way with moving and parked automobiles, trucks,
transit, and bicycles. At one end of the scale, every street in Ukiah should provide a bare minimum in
pedestrian facilities to maintain accessibility and safety. At the other end of the spectrum, streets can be
closed off to automobiles entirely and pedestrians given the full area for movement. Pedestrian areas in
Ukiah are classified from minimal features that should be applied throughout the city to specific
improvements for residential neighborhoods, commercial strip areas (South Main St.), public use facilities
(parks, schools, library, senior centers, community center), to Downtown Ukiah. The following matrix
provides guidance to the type of improvement by area, with details provided in the Implementation chapter.
These are goals which may be possible in some areas, but may also not be possible in others due to physical
and other operational restrictions.
Table 1
Pedestrian Improvements by Area Type
Pedestrian Area Type of Improvement
Citywide 5-foot sidewalk on at least one side of the street (may not be practical in some
(minimum older residential areas)
standard) Street lighting at intersections and crosswalks.
Crosswalks at every signalized intersection.
ADA curb ramps at all intersections.
Modify high speed right turns.
Provide adequate pedestrian crossing time given street width.
Provide push buttons/pedestrian signals at all crossings where warrants are met.
Residential Use traffic calming techniques in an attempt to limit average daily traffic to 5,000
neighborhoods on residential streets and 10,000 on collector streets.
Limit travel speeds to 25 mph on residential streets through design (necking down
intersections, installing roundabouts) and consistent enforcement.
5-foot minimum sidewalks on both sides of the street where feasible.
Enforce no parking on sidewalk ordinance.
Plant and maintain street trees.
Provide new linkages where neighborhoods are bisected by manmade or natural
barriers.
Provide sidewalks and crosswalks to parks, transit, schools, shopping areas, and
other destinations.
Adequately maintain all crosswalks and sidewalks.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 14
Table 1
Pedestrian Improvements by Area Type
Downtown 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of street.
Ukiah Re-organize traffic, turning, and parking lanes for sidewalk expansion areas to be
used for outdoor dining, landscaping, artwork, and other features.
Provide crosswalks at least every 1,000 feet.
Widen sidewalk areas at all transit stops for additional benches and waiting room.
Identify off-street parking opportunities for longer-term parkers to lessen demand
for on-street parking.
Provide bulb-outs at crosswalks.
Encourage a mix of land uses and storefronts.
Develop alleyway connections to parking and residential neighborhoods.
Commercial Require new development to provide connections to parking areas to sidewalks
Strips and bus stops.
Encourage storefronts to be located on the street with parking in the rear.
Minimize the number of curb cuts.
Require landscaping, parking, and other obstructions to be at least 25 feet from all
curb cuts.
Plant and maintain street trees.
Develop corridor 'entrance features' to define area and add identity.
Eliminate unnecessary travel, turning, and parking lanes, and widen sidewalks
and/or provide bulb-outs.
Public Use Areas Implement school educational, marketing, and physical improvements detailed in
this Plan.
Fund crossing guards where needed on school commute corridors.
Manage school drop-off and pick-up areas and traffic at schools.
Install properly designed crosswalks and protection (as warranted) on all major
access routes to school, library, community center, park, or library.
Separate pedestrians, roller skaters, and bicyclists in recreational areas where
volumes are high.
Adjust signal timing near senior centers to allow additional crossing time.
Pedestrian Objectives and Policies
These Objectives and Policies address pedestrian issues and should also be viewed in conjunction with the
combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the first section.
GOAL 1. IMPR 0 VE SA FE TY AND ED UCA TION
Pedestrian Safety Objective 1:
Transform City streets and enforcement systems to increase safety for pedestrians in Ukiah. Improving
pedestrian safety is paramount for Ukiah. Ukiah must work diligently to ensure safe travel for its children,
parents, friends and neighbors.
Pedestrian Safety Policy 1-1
Crosswalks should be provided where needed on all access routes to schools, parks, shopping areas,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 15
libraries, community centers, and transit stops. Provide new signals and other improvements where
warranted.
Pedestrian Safety Policy 1-2:
Alter traffic signal phasing to accommodate the pedestrian needs over the vehicle in key pedestrian-
oriented locations such as downtown, near schools, senior centers, recreation centers, entertainment and
cultural destinations, and neighborhood commercial areas.
Pedestrian Safety Policy 1-3:
Improve school area pedestrian safety through joint efforts with the School District and other interested
parties by using methods such as: identifying hazardous routes or conditions, analyzing accident data,
observing traffic circulation near the schools, and surveying students who walk or ride to school, and
then acting promptly to correct the problem.
Pedestrian Safety Policy 1-4:
Reduce traffic speeds below 25 miles per hour, install flashing lights, increase enforcement, and use
other feasible means of slowing traffic near areas where children and seniors are active.
GOAL 2. GREATER ACCESS
Greater Pedestrian Access Objective 1:
Identify locations and facilitate the creation of easily identifiable activity centers along the State Street
corridor that can serve as safe, inviting, and memorable public gathering places.
Greater Pedestrian Access Policy 1-1:
The City should focus attention on creating and improving the State Street corridor where needed by
residents and visitors. The corridor should be pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-oriented, using
guidelines developed in the Implementation chapter for this Plan.
Greater Pedestrian Access Policy 1-2:
When contemplating development or street improvements, consider the range of options outlined in the
Implementation chapter for improving pedestrian access and pedestrian traffic flow.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 16
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1 Existing Bicycle Facilities and Activity Areas
There are very limited formal bikeways in the City of Ukiah, with major parts of the city having no facilities
at all. There are currently Class II bike lanes on Dora Street, Bush Street, Low Gap Road, and Walnut
Avenue and a short bike path segment leading to the U.S. 101 pedestrian bridge. Nearby regional bicycle
facilities include bike lanes (shoulders) on North and South State Street and Talmage Road.
The lack of an 'official' bikeway network does not mean that people are not riding. The bicycling
community, ranging from experienced club riders to school children, has developed their own system of
streets and routes which provide connectivity and safety for their purposes. For example, bicyclists ride on
east-west streets such as Washington Avenue, Mill Street, and Empire Drive despite the absence of bike
lanes.
Some key observations on existing bicycling conditions are as follows.
Ukiah is an ideal bicycling environment. The small size, climate, and topography mean that virtually
all residents are within a few minutes' bicycle ride of all destinations, whether for work or pleasure.
[21 Local bicyclists include experienced adult riders and school children.
The elementary schools, middle school, and the high school are located such that many students who
walk or ride a bicycle must cross State Street, Perkins Street, and/or Talmage Road. Observations of
students also revealed a substantial number of bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the street and
crossing major streets at unprotected locations.
Secondary streets in Ukiah such as Dora Street, Low Gap Road, Clay Street, Bush Street, and Orchard
Avenue generally provide good bicycling alternatives to more heavily traveled roadways such as Perkins
and State Streets.
Oak Street, School Street, and other streets offof State Street in downtown Ukiah are already relatively
pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, with slower moving traffic and lower volumes. This could be
supplemented by other improvements such as providing traffic calming measures, enhanced sidewalks,
and bike racks and lockers near destinations such as shops, medical offices, and public uses which do
not already have bike racks.
A map showing Bicycle Activity Corridors in Ukiah is shown in Figure 1.
2.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Activity Areas
The City of Ukiah has an excellent network of sidewalks for pedestrians. The downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods provide amenities which tend to encourage pedestrian trips including narrow streets, tree
coverage, close building proximity to the street, short crossing distances on public streets, and a mix of office
and commercial uses. Although more auto oriented, there is a significant amount of pedestrian activity along
North and South State Streets. This activity consists of transit riders as well as other pedestrians walking
to their destinations. There are several barriers to walking trips in Ukiah including wide crossing distances,
vehicular traffic conditions and a lack of adequate pedestrian facilities on East Perkins Street, between State
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 17
~hi.~on A~.~ ¥ ~tin~ R~ ~ ~ N~ /
LEGEND ' '
~i~i~ Bi. de A~ Area~ ~ ~ ~
......... Op~dun~ Areas ¢ 5
' Figure 1 Bicycle Activity Condors
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Whit~ck & Wein~rger Trans~d~ion Inc. , City of Ukiah
~,~,
,,
Street and Orchard Street, and on intermittent sections of State Street and various gaps in sidewalks
throughout the City.
Key observations on existing pedestrians activities are as follows.
Ukiah is an ideal walking environment. The small size, climate, and topography mean that the majority
of residents are within a ten minute walking time of commercial opportunities along State and Perkins
Street.
121 The most significant pedestrian activity is in the downtown where the mix of land use and narrow streets
encourages pedestrian trips.
[21 The neighborhoods surrounding the downtown that are within a half-mile or less generate the most
walking trips.
121 The elementary schools, middle school, and the high school also generate a significant amount of
pedestrian trips.
A map showing Pedestrian Activity Areas in Ukiah is shown in Figure 2.
2.3 Opportunities and Constraints
Information on opportunities and constraints for bicyclists pedestrians has come from a variety of sources,
including field observations and measurements of street cross-sections which are included in Appendix A.
Many general and site specific comments have been collected, which helped to form an idea of the type of
system and specific improvements that will be required. Comments can generally be summarized into the
following statements.
Opportunities
· Quieter local streets offer an alternative to using State Street for most bicyclists.
· As a smaller city on a major transportation corridor, the City has the opportunity to attract visitors to stop
and visit while en route to other destinations.
The agricultural/forest surroundings are close to most neighborhoods, and offer the excitement of off-
road bicycling and hiking and views of Ukiah and its surroundings.
The parks and community center serve as major attractors to residents, especially children who have the
opportunity to ride their bicycles or walk to events from most neighborhoods.
The continued revitalization of downtown will act as an attractor for walking trips from the surrounding
neighborhoods.
The North Coast rail corridor and future transit center presents an opportunity for a new pedestrian and
bicycle trail link.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 19
Lovers Lane
Empire Drive ~,~
KUKI Lane
Fairgrounds
Brush Street
T
VVashington Avenue
Not to Scale
LEGEND
Existing Pedestrian Activity Area.~
Hastings
Opportunity Areas
!Figure 2
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
.., r · ~ ,, s Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc.
Pedestrian Activity Areas
City of Ukiah
Constraints
· There is a lack of adequate short or long term secure bicycle parking.
· The Perkins Street, Gobbi Street, and Talmage Road overcrossings of U.S. 101 are major constraints for
any bicyclist or pedestrian entering or leaving Ukiah, especially less experienced cyclists and walkers.
· There is a general lack of shade trees along some pedestrian routes.
State Street is the biggest constraint to bicyclists because, while it provides for the best north-south
connectivity, the amount of traffic, number of parked vehicles and driveways pose a high amount of
conflict for bicyclists.
· State Street is also the biggest constraint to pedestrians due to its long unprotected crossing distances
at uncontrolled intersections.
· Like streets in all cities and towns, there is some debris and gravel thrown by vehicles onto the right side
of streets occasionally forcing bicyclists to ride in travel lanes.
Other common phenomena in Ukiah are bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the road, crossing at
unmarked crossings, or riding at higher speeds on sidewalks. This typically points to the need to
enhance education and enforcement.
· The presence of utility poles and other sidewalk features such as mailboxes and overgrown landscaping
cause obstructions in sidewalk areas.
These lists represent a summary and sample of opportunities and constraints in Ukiah, and can be updated
as part of future plan revisions.
2.4 Needs Analysis
The purpose of reviewing the needs of bicyclists is twofold: (a) it is instrumental when planning a system
which must serve both user groups and (b) it is useful when attempting to quantify future usage and benefits
to justify expenditures of resources. According to a May 1991 Lou Harris Poll, it was reported that "...nearly
3 million adults--about one in 60--already commute by bike. This number could rise to 35 million if more
bicycle friendly transportation systems existed." In short, there is a large reservoir of potential bicyclists
who don't ride (or ride more often) simply because they do not feel comfortable using the existing street
system.
A common term used in analyzing the demand or need for bicycle or pedestrian facilities is 'mode split.'
Mode split refers to the choice of transportation a person selects to move from home to work to shopping
to other destinations. One major objective of any bicycle improvement is to increase the 'split' or percentage
of people who choose to ride rather than drive or be driven. Every saved vehicle trip or vehicle mile
represents quantifiable reductions in air pollution. A summary of the needs analysis is presented below.
Key Points
El A needs analysis helps identify the types of improvements needed, justifies expenditures on
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 21
improvements, and quantifies information needed for several funding sources.
As noted above, the number of bicycle commuters could be expected to increase substantially if adequate
facilities were provided.
The latent 'need" for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, versus actual bicyclists and pedestrians, is difficult
to quantify; we must rely on an evaluation of comparable communities to determine potential usage.
Mode split refers to the choice of transportation people make whether for work or non-work trips.
Currently, the average household in the U.S. generates about ten vehicle trips per day. Work trips
account for less than 30 percent of these trips on average.
According to the 1990 U.S. census, 2 percent of all employed Ukiah residents commute primarily by
bicycle. This does not include those who ride less than 50 percent of the time. Thus, the bicycle
commute rate in Ukiah is about twice the rate of California and the United States as a whole.
The walk commute mode share for Ukiah is 6.4 percent, which is about the same as for the U.S. as a
whole and about twice the rate as other smaller cities.
About 36 percent of Ukiah employees work within 10 minutes of home by bike, which is an easy bicycle
ride for most people. The distances between residences and workplaces combined with the types of
employment, climate, and available bicycle facilities all influence these commute shares. As Ukiah
grows and additional local employment opportunities become available and better bicycle connections
are provided, this mode share can be expected to increase.
The U.S. Department of Transportation, in their publication entitled "National Walking and Bicycling
Study" (1995), sets as a national goal the doubling of current bicycling mode shares by the year 2010,
assuming that a comprehensive bicycle system is in place. Since the current bicycle commute mode
share in Ukiah is 2 percent, this will translate into a future bicycle commute mode share of 4 percent in
Ukiah, or about 270 commuters. Add to this number of commuters who bicycle occasionally and
students at local schools, and the average number of daily bicyclists in Ukiah increases to an estimated
900 bicycle commuters by 2010. These bicyclists will be saving an estimated 1,800 vehicle trips per
day, 450,000 trips per year, and 810,000 vehicle miles per year. The combined benefit of these future
bicycle commuters over the next 20 years is a reduction of about 19,480 pounds of PM10, 52,785 pounds
of Nox, and 76,846 pounds of ROG.
Bicyclists are typically separated between experienced and casual riders. The U.S. Department of
Transportation identifies thresholds of traffic volumes, speeds, and curb lane widths where less
experienced bicyclists begin to feel uncomfortable. For example, on an arterial with traffic moving
between 30 and 40 miles per hour, less experienced (Class B) bicyclists require bike lanes while more
experienced bicyclists (Class A) require a 14 or 15 foot wide curb lane.
Casual riders include those who feel uncomfortable negotiating traffic. Others, such as children and the
elderly, may have difficulty gauging traffic, responding to changing conditions, or moving rapidly
enough to clear intersections. Other bicyclists, experienced or not, may be willing to sacrifice time by
avoiding heavily traveled arterials and using quieter side streets. In some cases, casual riders may
perceive side streets (or sidewalks) as being safer alternatives than major through routes, when in fact
they may be less safe. Other attributes of the casual bicyclist include shorter distances than the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 22
experienced rider and unfamiliarity with many of the rules of the road.
The casual bicyclist will benefit from route markers, bike lanes, wider curb lanes, and educational
programs. Casual bicyclists may also benefit from marked routes which lead to parks, museums, historic
districts, and other visitor destinations.
Experienced bicyclists include those who prefer the most direct, through route between origin and
destination, and have a preference for riding within travel lanes. Experienced bicyclists negotiate streets
in much the same manner as motor vehicles, merging across traffic to make left turns, and avoiding bike
lanes and shoulders at times due to debris such as glass. The experienced bicyclist will benefit from
wider curb lanes and loop detectors at signals. The experienced bicyclist who is primarily interested in
exercise will benefit from loop routes which lead back to the point of origin.
Walking and bicycling are two of the most popular forms of recreational activity in the United States,
with 84 percent of Americans walking for pleasure and 46 percent bicycling for pleasure. As shown in
Table 2, the 1990 Census information indicates that about 11,930 residents over the age often in Ukiah
would like to walk for pleasure and 6,530 would like to bicycle for pleasure. If nothing else, this
indicates a latent demand for facilities and a potent constituency to push for better facilities.
Table 2 - Demographics and Transportation
Population (1995-General Plan)
Estimated Ukiah Residents who Walk for
Pleasure
Estimated Ukiah Residents who Bicycle for
Pleasure
Current Bicycle Commute Mode Share (1990)
Desired Future Bicycle Commute Mode Share
School-related bicycle commuters
Total future bicycle commuters
Reduced Vehicle Trips/Year
Reduced Vehicle Miles/Year
Reduced PM 10/lbs./Year
Reduced NoX/lbs./Year
Reduced ROG/lbs./Year
15,783
11,930
6,530
2%
4%
530
900
450,000
8t_O, O00
19,480
$2,785
76,846
Recreational Needs
The needs of recreational bicyclists must be understood prior to developing a system or set of improvements.
While it is not possible to serve every neighborhood and every need, a good plan will integrate recreational
needs to the extent possible. In the Ukiah region, areas such as Lake Mendocino, Low Gap Park, and Cow
Mountain attract recreational bicyclists. The following points summarize recreational needs:
· Recreational bicycling typically falls in to one of three categories: exercise, non-work destination such
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 23
as a park or shopping, or touring.
· Recreational users range from healthy adults to children to senior citizens. Each group has their own
abilities, interests, and needs.
· Directness of route is typically less important than routes with fewer traffic conflicts, visual interest,
shade, protection from wind, moderate gradients, or other features.
· People exercising or touring often (though not always) prefer a loop route rather than having to back-
track.
Commuter Needs
Commuter bicyclists range from employees who ride occasionally to work to a child who rides to school.
Millions of dollars have been spent attempting to increase the number of people who ride to work or school,
with moderate success. Bicycling requires shorter commutes, which runs counter to our land use and
transportation policies which encourage people to live further and further from where they work. Access
to transit helps extend the commute range of cyclists, but transit systems also face an increasingly dispersed
live-work pattern which is difficult to serve. Despite these facts, Ukiah has a gmat potential to increase the
number of people who ride to work or school because of the small size of the city, moderate density
residential neighborhoods near employment centers, a favorable topography and climate, and a high
percentage of work trips that are less than 15 minutes.
Key commuter needs are summarized below.
· Commuter walking or bicycling typically fall in to one of two categories: adult employees, or younger
students.
· Commuter trips range from several blocks to one or more miles.
Commuters typically seek the most direct and fastest route available, with regular adult commuters often
preferring to ride on arterials rather than side streets.
Commute periods typically coincide with peak traffic volumes and congestion, increasing the exposure
to potential conflicts with vehicles.
Places to safely store bicycles are of paramount importance to all bicycle commuters.
Major commuter concerns include changes in weather (rain), riding in darkness, personal safety and
security.
Rather than be directed to side streets, most commuting cyclists would prefer to be given bike lanes or
wider curb lanes on direct routes.
Students riding the wrong way on-street are common and account for many recorded accidents, pointing
to the need for education.
2.5 Accident Analysis
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 24
Based on statistics provided by the City of Ukiah, there have been an average of 11 pedestrian related and
20 bicycle related accidents citywide each year for the last four years. Based on information provided by
the California Highway Patrol, the expected number of accidents in Ukiah, considering the current
population and average number of accidents per capita in the State, should be approximately 8 pedestrian
related and 6 bicycle related accidents. These statistics are summarized below.
Table 3 - Accident Analysis
Year Pedestrian Accidents Bicycle Accidents
1994
1995
1996
1997 (prorated)
10
18
8
9
22
18
21
19
Average 11 20
Expected 8 6
Therefore, the City of Ukiah has a higher than average accident history for both pedestrians and especially
bicyclists. The data also revealed that:
· In the majority of the pedestrian related accidents, the driver who struck the pedestrian was at fault.
· In the majority of the bicycle accidents, the bicyclist was at fault.
· The majority of the pedestrian and bicyclists who were involved in accidents were 16 years old or
less.
2.6 Relevant Legislation and Policies
Aside from the City's own General Plan which identifies specific goals and policies that are relevant to the
bicycle master plan, and the Circulation Element which was adopted by the City Council, there are several
state, regional, and federal requirements for master plans which are primarily related to funding. Mendocino
County has its own bicycle master plan.
Caltrans has historically played an oversight and review role for Federal ISTEA (Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act) funding programs for bicycle projects. ISTEA II was recently re-authorized
and provides many of the same programs oriented to bicycle facilities as did ISTEA--possibly with even
more money being available. All of these bicycle funding programs require approval of a Bicycle Master
Plan with specified elements in order to qualify for the program.
On a state level, according to the California Bicycle Transportation Act (1994), all cities and counties should
have an adopted bicycle and pedestrian master plan that contains the following.
Estimated number of existing and future bicycle commuters
Land use and population density
Existing and proposed bikeways
Existing and proposed bicycle parking facilities
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 25
Existing and proposed multi-modal connections
Existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment
Bicycle safety and education programs
Citizen and community participation programs
Consistency with transportation, air quality, and energy plans
Project descriptions and priority listings
Past expenditures and future financial needs
In addition to these required elements, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual contains specific design
guidelines. Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design of the Manual sets the basic design parameters for
on-street and off-street bicycle facilities, including mandatory design requirements.
2.7 Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking includes bike racks, lockers, and corrals. Racks are low cost devices that typically hold
about eight bicycles, allow bicyclists to securely lock their frames and wheels, are secured to the ground, and
are located in highly visible areas. Bike lockers are covered storage units that typically accommodate one
bicycle per locker, and provide additional security and protection from the elements. Bike racks are most
often found in commercial areas where regular commuters can take advantage of the multi-modal
connections and feel safe in leaving their bicycle. Bike corrals can be found at schools, special events, and
other locations, and typically involve a movable fencing system that can safely store numerous bicycles.
Security is provided by either locking the enclosure or locating it near other activities so that it can be
supervised. A field review of Ukiah revealed bike racks for bicyclists at parks and schools. Most of the
racks are in fenced corral areas at schools, and appear to be used by students. Otherwise, bicyclists visiting
stores, restaurants, places of employment, medical facilities and community facilities are largely left to their
own devices to temporarily store their bicycles.
2.8 Transit Center
There has been considerable interest in planning the future development of historic railroad depot property
which is bounded by Perkins Street on the north, the railroad right-of-way on the west and Leslie Street on
the east. The Mendocino Transit Authority is interested in developing an intermodal transportation center
on a portion of the property. In order for the site to act as a focal point for transportation in the City of Ukiah
and to limit the vehicular traffic impacts in and around the site, connections to pedestrian and bicycles routes
are of the utmost importance. A key component to these connections is Clay Street which currently
terminates on the west side of the property. There have been discussions of extending Clay Street to Leslie
Street which would provide a more acceptable pedestrian and bicycle route than Perkins Street which is
undesirable for these alternatives modes due to its narrow alignment and traffic flow characteristics.
2.9 Public Crossings
Safe pedestrian crossing of the public right of way is the most critical component of a circulation system
which encourages pedestrian traffic. Along State Street and Perkins Street, there are many signalized
intersections which have protected pedestrian crosswalks. However, there are a significant number of
crosswalks which are unprotected either by a traffic signal or stop sign. These types of locations are the most
susceptible to pedestrian crossing accidents. A field inventory of uncontrolled pedestrian crossings was
conducted on all City arterial and collector streets. Locations of these crosswalk locations are shown in
Figure 3. The City may wish to develop a policy to remove uncontrolled crosswalks or enhance their
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 26
visibility.
3.0 Sidewalk Continuity
There are many small missing sections of sidewalk within the City of Ukiah due to undeveloped lots. These
gaps in sidewalk disturb the continuity of pedestrian travel and discourage some walking trips. A field
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 27
LEGEND
Exi~ing Pede~an A~iv~ Areas
Gaps in Si~walks
Figure 3 Pedest~an Facilities
Bicycle and Pedestdan Master Plan
Wh.~k & Wein~er Transpod~ion Inc. City of Ukiah
UKI0(}8.DRW 4/98
inventory was conducted on all City arterial and collector streets. Locations along these streets which had
missing sections of sidewalk are shown in Figure 3. The most notable gaps were on State Street near the
Fairgrounds, on Main Street near the Grace Hudson Museum, and on Perkins Street over the U.S. 101
interchange.
3.1 Shade Trees
Although many of the historical neighborhoods, west of State Street, have significant numbers of shade trees,
there are other neighborhoods and areas of downtown in which shade trees are not provided. Given the hot
temperatures in Ukiah during the summer months, shade trees provide cooler area to pedestrians to walk.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 29
3.0 Circulation Strategy
3.1 Bicycle Circulation Strategy
The recommended bicycle circulation strategy consists of a system of routes, lanes, and paths connecting
residential neighborhoods in Ukiah with the schools, parks, library, downtown, and other destinations. The
proposed bikeway system is shown in the attached Figure 4.
The proposed Ukiah Bikeway system is characterized by a primary north-south Class I Bikeway on the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way within the City limits, a primary north-south system of Class
II bike lanes on Dora and Bush Streets, and a series of improved east-west bikeway connectors on Perkins,
Gobbi, and Talmage Streets. Class III bike route improvements will include intersection protection where
needed, wider curb lanes where possible, shoulder striping where feasible, and signing. Finally, new bicycle
support facilities (such as racks and lockers) and programs which are proposed for the City are detailed later
in this report.
The top bikeway projects were selected by staff, the public, and bikeway specialists based on their local
knowledge and cycling experience, the orientation of funding programs, and the planning criteria outlined
in the Master Plan (coverage, connectivity, user groups, implementation, local input, funding sources). The
scoring mechanism for selecting the top priority corridors is shown below.
3.2 Creating a Bikeway System
A bikeway 'system' is a network of bicycle routes that, for a variety of reasons including safety and
convenience, provide a superior level of service for bicyclists and/or are targeted for improvements by the
City due to existing deficiencies. It is important to recognize that, by law, bicyclists are allowed on all
streets and roads regardless of whether they are a part of the bikewaY system. The bikeway system is a tool
that allows the City to focus and prioritize implementation efforts where they will provide the greatest
benefit to the bicycling community.
There is an established methodology which is typically used for selecting a bikeway system for any
community. The primary method is to receive input from the local bicycling community and local staff
familiar with the best routes and existing constraints and opportunities. Input can be received through a
variety of means, but typically is through the public workshop format. Public workshops were held in Ukiah
on May 20, 1998 and August 27, 1998, where citizens were asked to identify the routes they regularly ride
plus corridors they saw as either opportunities or constraints.
The following criteria are typically used to develop a bicycle system:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 30
KUKI Lane
~\ ~ F~o~nds
LEGEND
Cla~ I Bike Path
Cla~ II Bike Lane
Cia~ III Bike Ro~e
Figure 4 Proposed Bikeway System
Bicycle an~ Pe~est~an M~ster Plan
,, Whalock & W~n~rger Transition Inc. City 0f Ukiah
UKI008.DRW' 7/98
· Existing Bicycling Patterns
· Connectivity
· Traffic volumes and travel speeds
· Amount of side friction (driveways, side
streets)
· Curb-to-curb width
· Pavement condition
· Access from residential areas
· Number of destinations served (schools,
parks, employment centers)
· Topography
· Integration into the regional system
· Adjacent land use
· On-street parking
· Accident data and safety concerns
· Existing bottlenecks or constraints
· Existing opportunities such as planned
roadway improvements
· Shading of routes where feasible
The Ukiah bikeway system was developed with a focus on connecting existing segments of bike lane,
addressing routes used by bicyclists, and specific opportunities (such as the Northwestern Pacific Railroad
ROW) and constraints (such as State Street and Perkins Stree0. The grid street pattern offers several distinct
through corridors which connect residential areas with activity centers such as downtown, schools, and parks.
Once a bikeway system has been identified, the greatest challenge is to identify the segments that will offer
the greatest benefit to bicyclists in the next five years. Aside from the criteria used in developing the system
as a whole, selection of these top projects was based on the following.
(1) The number of schools served;
(2) The number of recreational centers served. If the segment is a Class I bike path, the pathway itself
may qualify as a recreational destination.
(3) The number of employment centers served;
(4) The number of areas where bicycle safety is addressed, i.e., corridors with high traffic volumes and
narrow travel lanes; and
(5) Segments which help overcome existing gaps in the bicycling system.
Table 4 provides a summary of this scoring system for each of the proposed corridors.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 32
Table 4
Ranking of Bicycle Improvements
Corridor Schools Recreatio Employment Safety Connectivity Total
n
Clay-Peach-Gibson Creek 1 1 2 2 2 8
Crosstown (Grove-Pine...) 1 2 0 0 I 4
Dora-Bush (new only) 1 1 0 0 1 3
Empire 1 0 0 0 0 1
Gobbi 2 1 1 2 1 7
Main Street 0 0 2 2 I 5
North State 0 0 2 1 2 5
NWP 0 3 2 2 2 9
Oak Manor-River 1 1 0 1 0 3
Orchard-Brush 1 0 2 1 2 6
Orr Creek 2 3 0 0 0 5
South State 0 0 0 2 2 4
Washington-Talmage 1 0 1 1 2 5
West (Helen-Gardens...) 3 I 2 0 0 6
Criteria
schools = number of schools within 2 blocks
recreation = number of parks within 2 blocks, plus 2 points per mile of recreational trail
employment = 2 points per employment center served
safety = 1-2 points for safety concerns resolved
connectivity = 1-2 points for gap closure projects
Finally, it is important to remember that the bikeway system and the top projects are flexible concepts that
serve as guidelines to those responsible for implementation. The system and segments themselves will
change over time as a result of changing bicycling patterns and implementation constraints and opportunities.
3.3 Description of Proposed Bikeway Improvements
Using the scoring mechanism detailed in Table 4, the top priority short term projects in Ukiah are as follows.
Rankin~
1
2
3
4
Bikeway Project
Northwestern Pacific Rail Trail
Clay-Peach-Gibson Creek Corridor
Gobbi Corridor
Western Bikeway (Helen-Gardens-
McPeak-Barnes-Todd-Hazel-Grove-Spring)
Orchard-Brush Corridor
Limits
City limits
Oak Manor to McPeak
Riverside Park to Dora
Washington to High School
Gobbi to High School
These five projects meet immediate needs in Ukiah, help overcome existing barriers, serve virtually all of
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 33
the City's activity centers, and link all four quadrants of the community. Each project is presented on its own
Project Sheet, which provides key information on the proposal including cost, location, and sample cross
sections. The Project Sheets are designed to be used as a direct resource and addendum to funding
applications.
A short description of each project is presented below and shown in Figure 4. A detailed description of how
bike lane or route treatments were selected is presented in the Implementation chapter.
Clay Street - Peach Street - Gibson Creek Corridor (Oak Manor Drive to McPeak Street)
This corridor was identified as an alternative to the Perkins Street corridor, and would require an access
across the old NWP station redevelopment site plus a new railroad crossing. Bike lanes can be striped on
Clay Street by narrowing the travel lanes to 10 feet in width, assuming parking is allowed on one side only
from approximately Dora Street eastward. Bike lanes could not be provided on Peach Street without
eliminating parking on one side of the street, and are not warranted based on the low traffic volumes. A
paved pathway from Peach Street along Gibson Creek already exists, leading to a pedestrian bridge over U.S.
101. Currently, there is an informal path through the back of the school property. The pathway should be
improved and extended on the east side of U.S. 101 to Oak Manor Park.
Dora Street - Bush Street Corridor (Meadow Brook to Feed Lot Lane)
Bike lanes already exist along this corridor within City limits. New bike lanes are proposed to be extended
south to Meadow Brook, where bicyclists can transition over from South State Street. These new lanes will
provide an alternative to using South State Street in the southern part of Ukiah. Parking will need to be
eliminated on one side of Dora Street south of the City limits, which should have a minimal impact on
residential neighbors due to the extremely low utilization.
Empire Drive Corridor (Despina Drive to North State Street)
Low traffic volumes mean that this could be a Class III bike route. If bike lines were desired, parking would
need to be eliminated on one side of the street between Bush Street and North State Street.
Gobbi Street Corridor (Riverside Park to Dora Street)
Bike lanes are already provided between South State Street and U.S. 101. Bike lanes could be extended to
Dora Street by eliminating parking on one side of the street between South State Street and Oak Street with
relatively minimal impact. Bike lanes could be extended westward from U.S. 101 to Gobbi Street Riverside
Park with some pavement work.
Grove Avenue - Pine Street - Scott Street - Norton Street - Clara Avenue Corridor
This cross city route is on streets with lower traffic volumes and is recommended as a Class III bike route.
Class II bike lanes were considered for Clara Avenue, however, the addition of bike lanes would require the
removal of parking on one side of the street. Also, traffic calming measures were previously installed on
Clara Avenue which help to control speeds and reduce traffic volumes and make bicycling in a Class III
corridor more appropriate. Therefore, Class II bike lanes are not recommended for Clara Avenue.
Main Street Corridor (Gobbi Street to Norton Street)
This alternative to State Street will serve as a Class III bike route. The route is only one block west of the
NWP rail trail, however, and might be redundant.
North State Street (Norton Street to City Limits)
The current configuration will not allow bike lanes or shoulders without eliminating parking or travel lanes,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 34
which is probably unlikely given the commercial uses in this area. Cyclists arriving from the north should
be directed to the NWP Rail Trail (via Ford Road) or the Dora Street - Bush Street Corridor via Empire
Drive.
Northwestern (N-WP) Pacific Rail Trail (Ford Road to Norgard Lane)
The bike path should be located on the west side of the tracks within the railroad right-of-way, and set back
approximately 25 feet from the centerline of the tracks within the 80 foot right-of-way. While referred to
by its historical name, the NWP right-of-way is actually owned by a public agency. Access across the tracks
onto the rail trail from the east will be at established crossings. Any new crossings will require California
Public Utilities Commission approval.
Oak Manor Drive - Babcock Lane Corridor (Talmage Road to Perkins Street)
Traffic volumes on Oak Manor Drive and Babcock Lane do not warrant bike lanes, but the presence of
school children may make them a desirable element. On-street parking would need to be eliminated on one
side of the street, possibly between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only.
Orchard Avenue - Brush Street (Gobbi Street to Ukiah High School)
This route will allow bicyclists to bypass the busy downtown area and connect directly to existing bike lanes
on Low Gap Road once the Brush Street extension to Orchard Avenue is completed. It is recommended that
Orchard Avenue be restriped to provide two 5-foot bike lanes with two 8 foot parking lanes, and two 10.5
foot travel lanes south to Gobbi Street and north to Ford Street (or similar lane widths as determined
appropriate by the City Engineer). It is assumed that the Brush Street Extension will be constructed to a 46
foot or 48 foot curb-to-curb cross section with 5 foot bike lanes. Brush Street between the extended section
and North State Street will need to be widened from its current 22 foot to 30 foot width to at least 48 feet
(with parking and bike lanes) or 32 feet (bike lanes, no parking). The priority for this route would depend
on the completion of the extension and bride over Orr Creek. An alternative to this plan would be to convert
the existing narrow bridge on Orr Street to a pedestrian/bicycle only bridge when then Brush Street extension
is complete.
Orr Creek Pathway (Bush Street and Pomolita School to Ukiah High School)
This unpaved pathway already exists along the south side of Orr Creek from Bush Street to an existing bridge
near the ball fields. A new path from the bridge, south to Spring Street would also provide a connection to
the Western Bikeway. From Orr Creek to the north, a new pathway could be provided along the western
edge of the ball fields and then north near the Little League field to Low Gap Road. The Juvenile Hall
recently installed a fence which may obstruct this route. Details regarding mitigation required to circumvent
this fence could be worked out during the design phase.
Perkins Street Corridor (Orchard Avenue to Dora Street)
Bike lanes could be provided by providing two travel lanes and a center turn lane instead of four travel lanes,
although the impact on traffic is not known. A 3 foot shoulder could be provided while maintaining the four
travel lanes and two 5 foot sidewalks on each side, but one of the curbs would need to be moved 2 feet.
However, it is recommended that in order to provide bike lanes, the City should acquire 4 feet of additional
right-of-way, provide four 11 foot travel lanes, two 4 foot bike lanes, and two 6 foot sidewalks with a
planting strip. Bike lanes can be striped on Perkins Street from Orchard Avenue east over the U.S. 101
overpass to Oak Manor Drive. There may be some potential conflicts at the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp
due to restricted sight distance.
Implementation of the Clay Street - Peach Street Corridor about three blocks south of Perkins Street would
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999 Page 35
lessen the short term need for bike lanes on Perkins Street.
South State Street Corridor (Washington Avenue to Norgard Lane)
Northbound cyclists should be diverted to either Dora Street or the NWP Rail Trail as they approach Ukiah.
South State Street cannot provide bike lanes or wider curb lanes without reducing lane widths to less than
12 feet or eliminating a parking lane, both of which are unlikely given traffic volumes and commercial uses
on the corridor.
Washington Avenue - Talmage Road Corridor (U.S. 101 to Helen Avenue)
The Washington Avenue - Talmage Road corridor is the southern most east-west corridor for bicyclists in
Ukiah, and provides access to a popular rural route leading east out of town. Bike lanes on Talmage Road
would require eliminating a parking lane between U.S. 101 and Waugh Lane, and expanding the pavement
from 30 feet to 32 feet (with no parking) between Waugh Lane and South State Street. Talmage Road is
identified as a Class III bike route at least until the mid- to long-term in this plan. Washington Avenue can
serve as a Class III connector bike route due to the lower traffic volumes and requirement to eliminate
parking on one side to. rovide a bike lane. A potential alternative would be an independent Class I route
on the City-owned property adjacent and to the south of Talmage Road.
Western Bikeway (Helen Avenue/Gardens Avenue/McPeak Street/Barnes Street/Todd Road/Hazel
Avenue/Grove Avenue/Spring Street)
This network of streets would be a Class III bike route due to the low traffic volumes and would lead to the
Orr Creek Pathway. Traffic calming devices could be used to make the streets more bicycle-friendly.
3.4 Bicycle Parking and Other Support Facilities
Bike racks are typically provided at local schools in Ukiah, but overall the lack of safe and secure bicycle
parking is a concern of bicyclists who may wish to ride to work or shops in town. Theft and vandalism of
bicycles,, especially now that bicycles are often worth in excess of $500, is a major impediment to bicycle
riding. Bicycle parking includes standard bike racks, covered lockers, and corrals. A systematic program
to improve the quality and increase the quantity of bicycle parking facilities is required in Ukiah. The
proposed performance standards to supplement grant programs is presented in the following
recommendations.
Recommendation itl:
Bike racks and lockers should be provided at aH public destinations, including the community center, parks,
schools, and public buildings which do not already have racks. AH bicycle parking should be in a safe,
secure, covered area (if possible). Commuter locations shouM provide secure indoor parking, covered
bicycle corrals, or bicycle lockers. A program to fund and install these facilities should be started as ajoint-
agency project in Ukiah .
Recommendation it2:
AH new commercial development or redevelopment projects shah comply with the zoning standards for
bicycle parking. AH bicycle racks shouM be located in safe, secure, covered areas, be anchored to the
ground, and allow bicycles to lock both frame and wheels. Figures illustrating the recommended Class I
(bike locker) and Class II (bike rack) configurations are included in Appendix C.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 36
Recommendation #3:
Bicycle parking locations in downtown and other employment areas (such as parking lots) where centralized
public covered bicycle parking identified & this plan should be &stalled These facilities may charge a small
user fee and/or be subsidized by nearby employers.
Recommendation #4:
A specialprogram to construct bicycle corrals at all elementary schools, the middle school, and the high
school in Ukiah should be initiated These simple enclosed facilities are locked throughout the school day
and address the theft and vandalism concerns of students.
3.5 Description of Proposed Pedestrian Improvements
A short description of each project is presented below. Locations for these projects are shown in Figure 5.
Downtown Pedestrian District - Downtown Ukiah already provides a streetscape and building scale which
encourages and serves pedestrian travel. The streets are generally narrow with building placement close to
the street. Activities generated by the County Courthouse and downtown businesses result in a high level
of pedestrian vitality. However, there are improvements which could be made to strengthen this vitality.
Following is a list of pedestrian improvements which could be made in the downtown pedestrian district.
· Replace the existing interior red painted crosswalks with a colored stamped concrete material.
· Ensure clear paths on sidewalks for pedestrians by removing or relocating street furniture,
mailboxes, and other related objects which may present obstacles.
· Install street trees at intersections which are different in color than other street trees to act as a visual
cue to the driver of an intersection approaching.
· Bulb-out corners at intersections to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians.
· Ensure the proper maintenance of sidewalks.
· Provide shade trees where there are significant gaps in existing trees.
· Provide lighted walkways in key areas of downtown.
· Install additional bicycle parking racks throughout the downtown activity areas.
Arterial Street Crossing Program - Outside of the downtown area where street widths present more of a
"friendly" atmosphere for the pedestrian, street widths tend to be a challenge for pedestrians, especially on
State Street. The Existing Conditions section noted a large number of uncontrolled pedestrian crossings
throughout the City. Many of these crosswalks are on State Street, Dora Street, and Bush Street, where these
streets are very wide. There has been a recent trend nationwide of removing crosswalks at uncontrolled
intersections based on the notion that the striping gives pedestrians a false sense of security and leads to a
higher accident rate. This theory, which is based on a study in the City of San Diego in the 1970's, is
currently being re-studied at the federal level. Given this consideration, it is recommended that a series of
enhanced crosswalk designs replace the existing crosswalk striping on State Street, Dora Street and Bush
Street. The design would consist of the following.
· removal of parking near the intersection to provide bulbouts at either end of the crosswalk
· street trees or standard monument to demarcate crosswalk location
· median refuge island where feasible
· added street lighting at key crossing locations
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 37
installation of pavement flashing lights activated automatically when pedestrian breaks entry beam
12-foot wide crosswalks with zebra striping pattern (A copy of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) and Caltrans standards are included in Appendix B. It should be noted
that 6-foot
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 38
X
KUKI Lane
"'- Brush Street
T
Washington Avenue
LEGEND
Pedestrian Enhancements in Downtown
Improved Street Crossing Design
Missing Links
Pedestrian Street Enhancements
Figure 5
Bicycle and Pedest#an Master Plan
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc.
Not to Scale
Pedestrian Projects
City of Ukiah
UKEi06. DRW 7/96
wide crosswalks are considered adequate according the MUTCD, however, most jurisdictions use
a standard of 12-feet from outside edge to outside edge.)
It should be noted that State Street is a high priority area for these improvements.
Missing Links - As shown in the existing conditions section, there are many sidewalks with gaps or "missing
links." These missing sidewalk sections generally have a significant impact in discouraging pedestrian trips
no matter how short the length. The City should conduct a sidewalk installation program which targets these
missing links.
Pedestrian Street Enhancements - In order to connect the most vital pedestrian activity area, the
downtown, with other activity centers in the City of Ukiah, a number of corridors should be enhanced with
pedestrian facilities to create pedestrian friendly corridors. The corridors consist of State Street, Low Gap
Road, Bush Street, Dora Street, Perkins Street, Talmage Road and the proposed Clay Street - Peach Street -
Gibson Creek Corridor proposed as a bike route. Design enhancements would consist of the following.
· ADA Ramps
· 6 to 8 foot wide sidewalks
· some buffering between vehicles and pedestrians such as bike lanes, parking or landscaping
· continuous sidewalks
· standard street trees for shade with feature trees at intersections
· wider crosswalks (12 feet edge to edge) with zebra striping pattern
· demand responsive pedestrian calls where traffic signals exist
° adequate street lighting
· removal of utility poles and other impediments
It should be noted that some of these streets already have some of the amenities, therefore, the extent of the
modification would depend on the state of the existing street. The inclusion of street trees may be one of
the more critical elements since they would create shade which would make walking trips more acceptable
during hot weather. State Street is a high priority area for these improvements.
As part of the pedestrian street enhancements, create a Todd Grove Park Pedestrian Loop. Provide a
pedestrian path around Todd Grove Park either through the use of pavement striping and/or barrier separating
the path from the parking and travel lanes.
3.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Programs
The Ukiah Bicycle Master Plan provides both physical recommendations (such as bike lanes) and program
recommendations. Some of the program recommendations, such as changes in zoning requirements for
bicycle parking, have already been covered. This section covers future efforts to educate bicyclists and
motorists, and efforts to increase the use of bicycles as a transportation alternative.
3.6.1 Education
The Ukiah Unified School District, Ukiah Police Department, and the City of Ukiah Department of Public
Works have a long history of trying to improve safety conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Despite
these efforts, the lack of education for bicyclists, especially younger students, is a leading cause of accidents.
For example, the most common type of reported bicycle accident in California involves a younger person
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 40
(between 8 and 16 years of age) riding on the wrong side of the road in the evening hours. Studies of
accident locations around California consistently show the greatest concentration of accidents are directly
adjacent to elementary, middle, and high schools. Many less-experienced adult bicyclists are unsure how
to negotiate intersections and make tums on city streets.
Motorist education on the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians is virtually non-existent. Many motorists
mistakenly believe, for example, that bicyclists do not have a right to ride in travel lanes and that they should
be riding on sidewalks. Many motorists do not understand the concept of 'sharing the road' with bicyclists,
or why a bicyclist may need to ride in a travel lane if there is no shoulder or it is full of gravel or potholes.
Existing education programs in schools are generally taught once a year to 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders. The
curriculum is generally derived from established programs developed by groups such as the California State
Automobile Association, and taught by members of the Ukiah Police Department. Budget cuts, demands
on students' time, and liability concerns limit the extent of bicycle education to school children. Formal
adult bicycle education is non-existent.
Recommended Program: Expand Current Education Programs
Existing educational programs in Ukiah schools should be expanded and supported by a secure, regular
funding source. A Joint City/School District Safety Committee should be formed consisting of appointed
parents, teachers, administrators, and police and public works staff who are responsible for identifying
problems and solutions, ensuring implementation, and submitting recommendations to the School Board or
City Council.
Recommended Program: Develop New Educational Program Materials and Curriculum.
Education materials should be expanded to promote the benefits of bicycling, the need for education and
safety improvements, the most recent educational tools available in the country (including the use of low-
cost safety videos), and directives to parents on specific school drop-off procedure directed by their
particular school. Educational pamphlets for children should be made more readable. Incentive programs
to reward good behavior should be developed. Educational programs, and especially on-bike training, should
be expanded to more grades and for more hours per year. The education curriculum should, at a minimum,
cover the following lessons:
· on-bike training or bicycle 'rodeos'
· how to adjust and maintain a bicycle
· night riding (clothes, lights)
· rules of the road
· restriction of riding on sidewalks
· how to negotiate intersections
· riding defensively
· use of hand signals
A standard safety handbook format should be developed incorporating the best elements of those currently
in use, and made available to each school on disk so they may be customized as needed. Each school should
develop a circulation map of the campus and immediate environs to include in the handbooks, clearly
showing the preferred circulation and parking patterns and explaining in text the reason behind the
recommendations. This circulation map should also be a permanent feature in all school newsletters.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 41
Bicycle helmet subsidy-programs are available in California, and should be used to provide low-cost
approved helmets for all school children who ride bicycles.
Recommended Program: Develop an Adult Education Program.
Establish an adult bicycle education program through the Parks and Recreation Department, or other City
departments that teaches adults how to ride defensively, how to ride on a variety of city streets, and
encourages adults to feel more confident to ride to work or for recreation. Work with local bicycling groups
who could provide the training expertise, and possibly lead organized bicycle training sessions, tours and
rides.
Recommended Program: Educate Motorists
Educate motorists about the rights and characteristics of bicyclists through a variety of means including:
making bicycle safety a part of traffic school curriculum in Ukiah, producing a brochure on bicycle safety
and laws for public distribution, enforcing existing traffic laws for both motorists and bicycles, sending an
official letter to the Department of Motor Vehicles recommending the inclusion of bicycle laws in the drivers
license exam, and installing signs that read 'Share the Road' with a bicycle symbol at least every 1,000 feet
along all routes of the proposed primary system where bike lanes are not feasible, travel lanes are under 14
feet wide, and ADTs exceed 20,000.
Recommendation: Identify School Commute Routes
This plan has identified many routes which will benefit school children who choose to walk or bicycle to
school. However, each school needs to conduct its own evaluation of school commute patterns and work
with the City in identifying crossing and corridor improvements. Identifying and improving routes for
children to walk or bicycle to school is one of the most cost effective means of reducing morning traffic
congestion and addressing existing safety problems. Most effective school commute programs are joint
efforts of the school district and city, with parent organizations adding an important element.
Develop a tool that can be used to evaluate safety conditions on school commute corridors to determine if
conditions are within acceptable bounds. This can be done using state or City accident data, surveys of
parents on their school commute habits, surveys of students who walk or ride to school, and other sources.
Develop specific thresholds by which meaningful comparisons can be made.
Develop a toolbox of measures that can be implemented by the school district and City to address safety
problems. This may include maps of preferred school commute routes, warning signs, enhanced education,
additional crossing guards, signal treatments (longer cycles, pedestrian activated buttons, etc.), enhanced
visibility at key locations (lighting, landscaping abatement), crosswalks, bike lanes, and other measures.
Recommended Program: Develop School Commute Route Improvement Plan
3.7 Community and Employer Outreach
Without community support, a bicycle and pedestrian plan lacks the key resources that is needed to
ensure implementation over time. While the City Public Works Department may be responsible for
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 42
designing and constructing physical improvements, strategies for community involvement will be important
to ensure broad-based support, which translates into political support, and can help secure financial
resources. Involvement by the private sector in raising awareness of the benefits of bicycling and walking
range from small incremental activities by non-profit groups to efforts by the largest employers in the City.
Specific programs are described below.
3. 7.1 Bicycle Donation Program
A fleet of lender bicycles available to employees to use as a commute alternative has proved successful in
Portland and other U.S. cities. The bicycle may be purchased new or obtained from police auctions, repaired,
painted and engraved with ID numbers, and made available free of charge to employees. Depending on
demand, bicycles may be made available through reservations or on a rotating basis. The bicycles
themselves should be lower-end heavy-duty bicycles that have minimal re-sale value. Employers'
responsibilities would be limited to an annual maintenance inspection and repairs as necessary. The
objective of the program is to encourage employees to try bicycling to work as an alternative, without
making a major investment. Employers may wish to allow bicycle commuters to leave 15 minutes early
from work, or some other type of incentive to encourage use of the bicycles. It is recommended that the City
of Ukiah (all Departments) be the first to try this program, and to encourage private employers to follow suit
by offering TDM (Transportation Demand Management) credits or subsidized purchases of bicycles.
3. 7.2 Bicycle Clunker and Parts Program, Bicycle Repair Program
This program ties directly into the previous program by obtaining broken, stolen, or other bicycles and
restoring them to working condition. The program's dual mission is also to train young people (ages 12-18)
how to repair bicycles as part of a summer jobs training effort. Bicycles are an excellent medium to teach
young people the fundamentals of mechanics, safety, and operation. Young people can use these skills to
maintain their own bicycles, or to build on related interests. The program is often staffed by volunteers from
local cycling organizations and bicycle shops, who can help build an interest in bicycling as an alternative
to driving. The seed money to begin this program often comes from a local private funding source. The
proposal submitted to this source should clearly outline the project objectives, operating details, costs,
effectiveness evaluation, and other details. The bicycles themselves could be derived from unclaimed stolen
bicycles from the police department, or from donated bicycles. The program will need to qualifiy as a
Section 501 C(3) non-profit organization to offer tax deductions.
3.7.3 Bicycle Facilities Map
Work with the Parks & Recreation Department, the School District, Chamber of Commerce, and local
businesses to produce a bicycle/walking map that shows existing and recommended touring and commuting
bicycle routes, access to regional mountain bike trails, historic walking tours, and school commute routes.
The map could be distributed at local bike shops, bus stops, the Chamber of Commerce, shopping centers,
public buildings and local tourist oriented businesses.
3. 7.4 Community Adoption
Programs to have local businesses and organizations 'adopt' a pathway such as the Northwestern Pacific
Bikeway have proven effective around the country, similar to the adoption of segments of the Interstate
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February1999
Page 43
Highway system. Supporters would be identified by small signs located along the pathway, acknowledging
their contribution. Support would be in the form of an annual commitment to pay for the routine
maintenance of the pathway, which in general costs about $8,500 per mile for weed abatement, trash pickup,
path sweeping and some landscape care. This program may be administered by the Parks and Recreation
Department or other groups.
3.7.5 Bike Fairs and Races
The City is well positioned to capitalize on the growing interest in on-road and off-road bicycle races.
Events would need to be sponsored by local businesses, and involve some promotion, insurance, and
development of adequate circuits for all levels of riders. It is not unusual for these events to draw up to 1,000
riders, which could bring some additional expenditures into the town.
The City can assist in developing these events by acting as a co-sponsor, and expediting and possibly
underwriting some of the expense of, for example, police time. The City should also encourage these events
to have races and tours that appeal to the less experienced cyclist. For example, in exchange for underwriting
part of the costs of a race the City could require the event promoters to hold a bicycle repair and maintenance
workshop for kids, short fun races for kids, and/or a tour of the route lead by experienced cyclists who could
show less experienced riders how to safely negotiate city streets.
3. 7.6 Employer Incentives
Beyond programs described earlier such as the Bicycle Donation Program, employer incentives to encourage
employees to try bicycling or walking to work include sponsoring bike fairs and races, providing bicycle
lockers and shower facilities, and offering incentives to employees who commute by bicycle or walk by
allowing for more flexible arrival and departure times, and possibly paying for transit or taxis during
inclement weather. The City may offer incentives to employers to institute these improvements through air
quality credits, lowered parking requirements, reduced traffic mitigation fees, or other means.
3.8 Other Safety Improvements
In addition to the education actions listed above and the proposed bicycle and pedestrian system
improvements, the following miscellaneous actions address a variety of needs and deficiencies.
· Standard pedestrian crossing symbols, equipment, and timing at traffic signals.
· Standard (12- foot wide edge to edge ) crosswalks
· Bright yellow-green high visibility pedestrian school crossing signs
· Use of medians and bulbouts at uncontrolled crosswalks
· Minimize crossing distance
· Program to relocate mailboxes, signs and poles to provide adequate sidewalk width
· ADA Ramps
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February 1999
Page 44
4.0 Range of Design and Performance Standards
This chapter provides details on the recommended design and operating standards for the Ukiah Bikeway
and Pedestrian System.
4.1 Existing Bicycle Design Standards and Classifications
National design standards for bikeways have been developed by the American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The
Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, serves as the official design
standard for all bicycle facilities in California. Design standards in Chapter 1000 fall into two categories,
mandatory and advisory. Caltrans advises that all standards in Chapter 1000 be followed, which also
provides a measure of design immunity to the City. Not all possible design options are shown in Chapter
1000. For example, intersections, ramp entrances, rural roads, and a variety of pathway locations are not
specified in the Highway Design Manual.
The following section summarizes key operating and design definitions.
· Bicycle
A device upon which a person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power
through a belt, chain, or gears, and having either two or three wheels in tandem
or tricycle arrangement.
· Class I Bikeway
Variously called a bike path or multi-use trail. Provides for bicycle travel on a
paved right of way completely separated from any street or highway.
· Class H Bikeway Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or
highway.
· Class III Bikeway Referred to as a bike route. Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor
vehicle traffic.
Graphic descriptions of Class I, II, and III bikeways are shown in Appendix D.
4.2 General Design Recommendations
4. 2.1 Conform to Caltrans Design Guidelines for All Bikeways
All designated Class I, II, or III bicycle facilities should conform to the Highway Design Manual
Chapter. Where facilities do not meet this criteria, they should not be referred to as a Class I, II, or III
bike facility.
4.3 Class I, II and III Bikeway Design Guidelines
The following guidelines present the recommended minimum design standards and ancillary support items
for Class I bike paths (also referred to as multi-use trails), Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February1999
Page 45
4.3.1 All Class I bike paths shouM generally conform to the design recommendations included in
Appendix D.
.
Multi-use trails and unpaved facilities that serve primarily a recreation rather than a transportation
function and will not be funded with federal transportation dollars may not need to be designed to
Caltrans standards.
Class I bike path crossings of roadways require preliminary design review. A prototype design in
presented in Appendix D. Generally speaking, bike paths that cross roadways with ADTs over 20,000
vehicles will require signalization or grade separation. No multi-use trails are proposed to cross a major
arterial with ADTs over 20,000 vehicles in Ukiah.
3. Landscaping should generally be low water native vegetation.
4. Lighting should be provided where the bike path will be used by commuters.
.
.
.
.
Barriers at pathway entrances should be clearly marked with reflectors and ADA accessible (minimum
5 feet of clearance).
Bike path construction should take into account impacts of maintenance and emergency vehicles on
shoulders and vertical requirements.
Provide 2 foot wide unpaved shoulders for pedestrians/runners, or a separate tread way where feasible.
Direct pedestrians to right side of pathway with signing and stenciling.
Provide adequate trailhead parking and other facilities such as restrooms, drinking fountains and
appropriate locations.
4.3.2: All Class II bike lanes shouM generally conform to the design recommendations in Appendix D.
Caltrans provides recommended intersection treatments in Chapter 1000 including bike lane 'pockets'
and signal loop detectors. The Department of Public Works should develop a protocol for the
application of these recommendations, so that improvements can be funded and made as part of regular
improvement projects. Figures illustrating Class II Bike Lanes at Intersections and Recommended Right
Turn Channelization included in Appendix C provide details for recommended intersection treatments.
.
Signal loop detectors should be considered for all arterial/arterial, arterial/collector, and
collector/collector intersections. The location of the detectors should be identified by a stencil of a
standard bicycle symbol.
3. Bike lane pockets (minimum 4 feet wide) between right tum lanes and through lanes should be provided
wherever available width allows, and right turn volumes exceed 150 motor vehicles/hour.
4.4 Other Facilities
In addition to the criteria established by Caltrans, there are a variety of improvements which will enhance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 46
the safety and attraction of streets for bicyclists.
Bicycle Boulevards. Palo Alto pioneered the concept of a bicycle boulevard, which in that city is a street
directly parallel to a major commercial corridor that was designed to promote bicycle movement and
discourage through vehicle movement. This was achieved by partial street closures and lack of coordinated
signals. In addition, wider curb lanes and frequent signing as a 'Bicycle Boulevard' helps increase the
motorists' awareness. A bicycle boulevard could be justified for routes such as the Western Corridor in the
future.
4. 4.1: The bicycle boulevard concept should be kept as a tool to be used by the City in the future as needed.
Sidewalks. The use of sidewalks as bicycle facilities is not encouraged by Caltrans, even as a Class III bike
route. There are exceptions to this rule. The California Vehicle Code states: "Local authorities may adopt
rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the operation of bicycles on the public sidewalks.'
(California Vehicle Code 21100, Subdivision H). Caltrans adds in Chapter 1000, "In residential areas,
sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle
speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. But it is
inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to
ride on facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel."
4. 4.2: Adopt Caltrans recommendations.
Traffic Calming. This includes any effort to moderate or reduce vehicle speeds and/or volumes on streets
where that traffic has a negative impact on bicycle or pedestrian movement. Because these efforts may
impact traffic outside the immediate corridor, study of traffic impacts is typically required. For example,
the City of Berkeley instituted traffic calming techniques by blocking access into residential streets. The
impact was less traffic on local streets, and more traffic on arterials and collectors. Other techniques include
installing traffic circles, intersection islands, partial street closings, 'bulb-out' curbs, pavement treatments,
lower speed signal timing, and narrowing travel lanes. The City of Ukiah already has a relatively continuous
street grid system with some filtering of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Traffic circles,
roundabouts, and other measures may be considered for residential collector streets where there is a desire
to control travel speeds and traffic volumes but not to install numerous stop signs or traffic signals.
Signing and Striping. All bikeway signing in Ukiah should conform to the signing identified in the Caltrans
Traffic Manual and/or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These documents give
specific information on the type and location of signing for the primary bike system. A list of bikeway signs
from Caltrans and the MUTCD are included in Appendix D (Recommended Bikeway Signing and
Markings). Typical signing for a school commute corridor and a typical bike route sign are also shown in
Appendix D.
4.4.3:
Develop a Ukiah Bikeway System logo for use on the primary network. This sign may include a
bikeway numbering system that is keyed into a publicly-produced bikeway map. An example of such
a sign are shown in Appendix D.
4. 4. 4: Installing bikeway signs shouM be a high priority, and may begin immediately on Class III bike
route portions of the bikeway network. Examples of bikeway signing at signalized and unsignalized
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 47
4.4.5:
intersections and examples of bikeway warning signs are shown in Appendix D.
The City should identify locations in downtown and other employment areas where centralized
public covered bicycle parking can be installed, such as parking lots. These facilities may charge
a small user fee and/or be subsidized by nearby employers.
4.5 Monitoring, Maintenance, and Security
4.5.1 Monitoring
Once the plan has been adopted, a monitoring effort is required to ensure that the recommendations are
enforced over time. The following actions are recommended to achieve this.
Action:
Planning Department and Public Works Department staff shall be responsible for many of the
monitoring responsibilities. They will also be responsible for coordinating with parks and
recreation, police, and other departments. Alternatively, the City could create a part time
transportation planner position to assume these responsibilities.
Action:
Plan Review. All development and infrastructure improvement plans shouM be routed through the
bicycle coordinator to ensure that bikeway segments are implemented, developer requirements are
being met, and design standards adhered to.
Action: Accident monitoring. Bicycle-related accident data should be collected annually from the police
department and evaluated to determine areas of concern.
Action: Marketing/Public Awareness. Public Works and Planning Staff should assist with promotional and
educational events.
Action:
Maintenance. Public Works and Planning Staff shouM be responsible for an annual maintenance
and operations budget, coordinating with the Public Works Department. Public Works and
Planning Staff should track long term bike path maintenance, schedule repairs, and respond to calls
from the public or staff regarding maintenance needs.
Action: Funding. Public Works and Planning Staff should work closely with agencies such as Caltrans to
keep abreast of funding opportunities and prepare application packages.
Action:
Enforcement/Security. Public Works and Planning Staff should be responsible for coordinating with
the police department to provide needed enforcement along bike paths. Also, problems regarding
security, privacy, vandalism, and crime along bike paths shouM be addressed through the
coordinator.
4.5.2 Maintenance
The total annual maintenance cost of the primary bikeway system is estimated to be $30,600 when it is fully
implemented. All of the maintenance costs are associated with the proposed bike paths, as bike lanes and
routes are assumed to be maintained as part of routine roadway maintenance. Class I bike path maintenance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 48
costs are based on $8,500 per mile, which covers labor, supplies, and amortized equipment costs for weekly
trash removal, monthly sweeping, and bi-annual resurfacing and repair patrols.
Maintenance access on the Class I bike path will be achieved using standard City pick-up trucks on the
pathway itself. Sections with narrow widths or other clearance restrictions should be clearly marked. Class
I bike path maintenance includes cleaning, resurfacing and restriping the asphalt path, repairs to crossings,
cleaning drainage systems, trash removal, and landscaping. Underbrush and weed abatement should be
performed once in the late spring and again in mid-summer.
Action: Identify a reliable source of funding to cover all new Class I bike path construction. All proposed
designs shouM be closely examined to minimize future maintenance costs.
4.5.3 Security
Security may be an issue along portions of the proposed Northwestern Pacific Rail Trail Class I bike path.
The following actions are recommended to address these concerns.
Action: Enforcement of applicable laws on the bike path will be performed by the City of Ukiah Police
Department, using both bicycles and vehicles. Enforcement of vehicle statutes relating to bicycle
operation will be enforced on Class II and Class III bikeways as part of the department's normal
operations. No additional manpower or equipment is anticipated for Class II or III segments.
Action: Normal bike path hours of operation will be sunrise to sunset, unless otherwise specified
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 49
5.0 Implementation and Financing
This section identifies costs for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements, plus strategies on funding
and financing.
5.1 Project Implementation
The translation of a bikeway system map to actual improvements in the field is generally under the purview
of the City Department of Public Works. Aside from meeting specific design standards for bicycle,
pedestrian, and motor vehicle traffic, the Department of Public Works must consider on-street parking,
drainage, pedestrian movement, signals, traffic volumes and speeds, roadway capacity and level of service,
mixture of trucks, maintenance, among a variety of items. Details for the recommended design and
operational standards for the Ukiah Bikeway and Pedestrian System, along with implementation guidelines
for on and off-street facilities are provided in the previous section.
5.2 Project Cost and Funding Breakdown
Costs are separated between bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and programs. A breakdown of costs for
short, mid, and long term bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in Appendix E. A more detailed
breakdown of proposed projects and programs costs and funding sources for the short term and mid to long
term projects are presented in Tables 5 and 6. The total cost over 20 years for all short, mid and long term
projects is estimated at $3 million. It is important to note that while many of the projects can be funded with
federal, state, and regional transportation, safety, and/or air quality grants, others are recreational in nature
and must be funded by local or private sources.
These proposed improvements are scheduled to be implemented over the next 5 - 20 years, or as funding is
available. It also presents a 'best case' scenario for Ukiah, providing a network of bicycle facilities within
the short term. Some of the more expensive projects may take longer to implement.
Tables 5 and 6 present a breakdown of projects by funding source, with the likely sequence of projects listed
based on priority and sequencing in the capital improvement program. It is important to note that many of
the funding sources are highly competitive, and therefore impossible to determine exactly which projects
will be funded by which funding sources. Timing of projects is also difficult to pinpoint exactly, due to
dependence on competitive funding sources, timing of roadway and development projects, and the overall
economy.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 50
Table 5
Project Implementation Strategy
Short Term (Years 1-5)
Project/Year Project Description Cost Potential Funding
Sources
1. Northwestern (NWP) Pacific New rail trail between Ford Road and $1,070,005 Fl, F2, S1, L1,
Rail Trail. Norgard Lane including landscaping, L2, L3, R1
(Year: 1999-2001) access, and crossings.
2. Clay-Peach-Gibson Creek New pathway across NWP Station. Narrow $99,526 F2, S 1, S2, S3,
Corridor. Clay St. travel lanes to 10' and stripe. S4, LI, L2, L3,
(Year: 1999-2001) Improve existing pathway. R 1, R 1
3. Gobbi Corridor. Eliminate on street parking on one side of $47,727 Fl, S2, L1, R1
(Year: 1999-2001) Gobbi between South State and Oak Street.
Perform re-stripe and minor pavement
work.
4. Western Bikeway (Helen- Designate this network of streets a Class III $15,342 Fl, S2, L1, R1
Gardens-McPeak-Barnes- bike route, install traffic calming devices.
Todd-Hazel).
(Year: 1999-2001)
5. Orchard-Brush Corridor. Includes bike lanes on Brush St. extension $65,625 L1, RI
(Year: 1999-2001) to Orchard. Widen Brush St. between constructed as
extension and North State St. to part of new or
accommodate bike lanes, modified
roadway project
Notes:
Ail projects and programs assumed to be funded by new local, regional, state, and federal sources rather than existing City of Ukiah
general funds.
F 1 = TEA-21 (Transportation Enhancement Activities)
F2= TEA-21 (National Recreational Trails)
S 1 = Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program
S2= State Bike Lane Account
S3= Included in Larger Caltrans Project (possibly a mitigation requirement)
S4= Office of Traffic Safety Grant
L 1= Transportation Development Act (Article 13)
L2= Developer Fees, Exactions, or Assessments
L3= Community Foundation Grants
RI= Air District Grants
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 51
Table 6
Project Implementation Strategy
Mid-Long Term (Years 6-20)
Facilities
Projects Project Description Cost Potentia!
Funding Sources
A Dora-Bush Corridor. Extend new lanes south to Meadow Brook. $120,170 S2, L1, R1
Eliminate parking on one side of Dora
South of the City Limits.
B South State Street Design and construct a Class III Route $5,966 S2, L1, RI
Corridor. between Washington and Airport.
C Empire Drive Corridor. Design and construct a Class III route from $5,682 LI, RI
Despina Dr. to North State Street.
D Main Street Corridor. Establish Class III route as alt to State $14,700 L1, R1
Street.
E Oak Manor Drive - River Establish a bike lane for school children, $51,286 S4, L 1
Corridor. eliminate parking on one side of street,
stripe.
F Perkins Corridor Reconfigure existing travel lanes, design $38,352 Fl, S2, LI, RI
and construct bike lanes.
G Grove-Pine-Scott-Norton- Design and construct Class III bike routes. $51,137 S2, LI, R1
Mason-Clara Corridor.
H Washington Avenue - Eliminate parking between U.S. 101 and $15,980 S2, L1, R1
Talmage Road Corridor. Waugh Lane, expand pavement to 32' to
accommodate bike lanes on Talmage.
Establish Class III Route on Washington.
I Orr Creek Pathway. Design, improvements to existing pathway, $60,000 F2, S1, S4, L3,
construct connections. R1
J Despina Lane Re-strip for bike lanes on both sides of $18,750 S2, L1, RI
street
K Spring Street Establish a Class II Route $3,409 S2, LI, R1
L Pedestrian Street Design/construct, sidewalks, buffers, install $500,000 S4, LI, L3, RI
Enhancements. street trees, widen crosswalks, demand
responsive signals, adequate lighting.
M Downtown Pedestrian Refurbish crosswalks, install street trees, $200,000 S4, LI, L2, L3
Improvements. modify intersections, ADA ramps.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 52
Table 5
Project Implementation Strategy
Short Term (Years 1-5)
Project/Year Project Description Cost Potential Funding:
Sources
1. Northwestern (NWP) Pacific New rail trail between Ford Road and $1,070,005 Fl, F2, S1, L1,
Rail Trail. Norgard Lane including landscaping, L2, L3, RI
(Year: 1999-2001) access, and crossings.
2. Clay-Peach-Gibson Creek New pathway across NWP Station. Narrow $99,526 F2, S 1, S2, S3,
Corridor. Clay St. travel lanes to 10' and stripe. S4, L1, L2, L3,
(Year: 1999-2001) Improve existing pathway. R 1, R 1
3. Gobbi Corridor. Eliminate on street parking on one side of $47,727 Fl, S2, L1, R1
(Year: 1999-2001) Gobbi between South State and Oak Street.
Perform re-stripe and minor pavement
work.
4. Western Bikeway (Helen- Designate this network of streets a Class III $15,342 Fl, S2, L1, R1
Gardens-McPeak-Barnes- bike route, install traffic calming devices.
Todd-Hazel).
(Year: 1999-2001)
5. Orchard-Brush Corridor. Includes bike lanes on Brush St. extension $65,625 LI, R1
(Year: 1999-2001) to Orchard. Widen Brush St. between constructed as
extension and North State St. to part of new or
accommodate bike lanes, modified
roadway project
Notes:
All projects and programs assumed to be funded by new local, regional, state, and federal sources rather than existing City of Ukiah
general funds.
Fl=
F2=
SI=
S2=
S3=
S4=
LI=
L2=
L3=
RI=
TEA-21 (Transportation Enhancement Activities)
TEA-21 (National Recreational Trails)
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program
State Bike Lane Account
Included in Larger Caltrans Project (possibly a mitigation requirement)
Office of Traffic Safety Grant
Transportation Development Act (Article 13)
Developer Fees, Exactions, or Assessments
Community Foundation Grants
Air District Grants
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 51
N Arterial Street Crossing Install bulbouts, widen and re-stripe $225,000 S4, LI, L2
Program crosswalks, install street tress, install
median islands, install flashing lights.
O Sidewalk Improvements Construct sidewalks to fill missing links. $15,000 S4, L1, L3
(missing links).
Table 6
Project Implementation Strategy
Mid-Long Term (Years 6-20)
Programs
P 1. Adopt a Bikeway Signing Obtain funding; complete sign planning & $25,000 L3, R1, R2,
Program, with a unique logo design; implement on priority network first, donated
developed for Ukiah. Sign planning & design could be materials
accomplished by staff or with community and services
participation in a design contest, from local
schools and
merchants.
P 2. School Commute Safety Develop and adopt a 'toolbox' of school $5,000 S4, L1, L3, R1,
Study and Programs. commute safety measures that can be R2
implemented as needed by neighborhood
groups and schools. Enhance the school
safety program for bicyclists in Ukiah,
including expanding the School Safety
Committee to include DPW, new
educational materials, minimum curriculum
and hours per class per year thresholds,
subsidized helmet programs, new funding
sources, and opportunities for volunteers to
help.
P 3. Implement bicycle parking Includes setting and marketing location and $5,000 for bike shop
recommendations, design parameters, signing bicycle parking planning/design sponsorship/
locations on-street and on maps, setting , advertising, L 1,
minimum bicycle parking requirements, $15,000 for L2, L3, RI, R2
and establishing a demonstration bicycle racks/lockers,
corral at a Ukiah school(s). Amend bicycle $5,000 for
parking ordinance, demonstration
corral or bike
station.
P 4. Adult Bicycle Education Develop an adult bicycle educational $1,000 to L3, donated time
Program. program and motorist education program, establish by local bike
(Year: 2000) program clubs.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 53
P 5. Bicycle Loaner Program. Establish a voluntary bicycle loaner $1,000 to L3, donated time
(Year: 2001) program, to be used by employers in Ukiah. establish by local civic
Employers to receive low-cost bicycles, program groups.
maintenance assistance, and air quality
credits.
P 6. Youth Training Program. Establish an 'Earn a Bike' program that $1,000 grant L3, donated time
(Year: 2001) teaches young people how to maintain and to local by local civic
repair bicycles, in conjunction with the organizations groups.
loaner program. Assist in grant writing and
administrative support.
Table 6
Project Implementation Strategy
Mid-Long Term (Years 6-20)
P 7. Public Maps. Enhance existing bicycle and pedestrian $5,000 grant S4, L1,
(Year: 1999) maps, and extend exposure of these maps to local advertising on
for public awareness, organizations map and
sponsors.
P 8. Community Adoption. Encourage community adoption of $1,000 to L3
(Year: 1999) bikeways for maintenance similar to establish
freeway program, program
P 9. Bicycle Events. Support existing bicycle events through $1,000 grant L3, local
(Year: 1999) financial and administrative measures; to local bicycling clubs.
encourage expansion of events to include organizations,
casual riders, plus 10 staff
hours per year
Total Cost (Years 1-5) $1,298,225
Total Cost (Years 6-20) $1,405,431
Total Cost (Years 1-20) $2,703,656
As shown in Table 7, some sources (such as the Bike Lane Account) apparently will fund many more
projects than other sources such as TEA-21. Actually, this list reflects the fact that the extremely
competitive TEA-21 programs are expected to help fund large portions of the top priority projects--but it is
highly unlikely that many of the smaller projects would receive TEA-21 funding in the short term. In
contrast, TDA funds are apportioned to the City based on gasoline taxes and can be spent at the City's
discretion. Bike lane account grants are typically smaller amounts and could be used to help pay for any
on-street Class II bike lane improvement. Finally, developer exactions, assessments, and/or requirements
are difficult to anticipate but are common partners in transportation projects in developing areas.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 54
Table 7
Short Term Projects by Funding Source
Funding Source
TEA-21 (Transportation Enhancement Activities)
TEA-21 (National Recreational Trails)
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program
State Bike Lane Account
Included in Larger Caltrans Project (possibly a mitigation
requiremenO
Office of Traffic Safety Grant
Transportation Development Act (Article 13)
Developer Fees, Exactions, or Assessments
Community Foundation Grants
Air District Grants
Projects (by priority)
1,2,3,5,F
1,2,I
1,I
2,3,5,A,B,E,F,H
2
2,6,8,E,I,J,P.2,P.7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,j,p.2,P.3,P.7
2,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O
1,2,6,8,I,J,P. 1,P.2,P.3,P.4,P.5,P.6,P.8,P.9
1,2,3,4,5,A,B,C,D,F,G,H,I,J,p. I,P.2,P.3
5.3 Funding
There are a variety of potential funding sources including local, state, regional, and federal funding programs
that can be used to construct the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Many 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. Local funding for bicycle projects typically comes
from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding, which is prorated to each community based on
gasoline taxes. Funding for many of the programs listed in Table 6B would need to be funded either with
TDA, general fund (stafftime), or possibly private grants. Table 7 presents a summary of available funding
along with timing, criteria, and funding agency. Note that as of this writing (August 1998) TEA-21 has
recently been authorized and the exact impact on funding programs for bicycle projects is not known.
TEA-21
With the recent passage of TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century), funding for bicycle
projects in Ukiah over the next six years should increase over the levels under ISTEA since 1992. The State
Bike Lane Account is also set to increase substantially over the next few years.
TEA-21 was adopted by both houses of Congress on May 22, 1998. Much of the delay in adopting the new
transportation legislation was the result of conflicts between donor and recipient states (states that received
more or less money than they paid in gas taxes) under the old transfer arrangements. The new formulas will
rectify the past imbalances, allowing large donor states with higher amounts that can be transferred between
various funding programs. The follow-up to ISTEA, TEA-21 offers some important changes in funding
opportunities.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
City of Ukiah
February1999
Page 55
1. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) was amended as follows:
· Approximately $33 billion available nationwide.
· Bicycle and pedestrian projects remain eligible.
· Sidewalk improvements to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are now eligible
for Surface Transportation Program funds.
2. The National Highway System (NHS) program was amended as follows:
· Pedestrian projects may now be funded with NHS funds.
3. The Transportation Enhancements (TE) program was amended as follows:
· $3.3 billion available nationwide
· Bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs
· Tourist and welcome centers
· Environmental mitigation to provide wildlife corridors
· Requirement that each project be directly related to a surface transportation project
· Eighty (80) percent Federal matching requirement applies only to total non-Federal share rather than
total project cost.
· Twenty-five (25) percent of the TE funds received over the amount received in FY 1997 may be
transferred to other STP activities.
· Eight (8) specific projects are funded off the top of the TE program, none in the Western United
States.
4. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ) program was amended as follows:
· $8.12 billion available nationwide
· Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same as ISTEA
· A small percentage can be transferred to other programs
5. The Recreational Trails Program was amended as follows:
· $270 million available nationwide over the next six years
· Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same as ISTEA
6. The Hazard Elimination Program was amended as follows:
· Now can be used for bicycling and walking hazards
· Definition of a 'public road' now expended to include bikeways, pathways, and traffic calming
measures.
A new category, Transit Enhancements Program, was created that calls for transit agencies in urbanized
areas over 200,000 population to use 1 percent of their Urban Formula Funds for Transit Enhancements
Activities. Up to $50 million per year may be available for pedestrian access, walkways, bicycle access,
bike storage facilities, and bike-on-bus racks. The program calls for 95% Federal/5% local match.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February1999
City of Ukiah
Page 56
8. Scenic Byway, bridge repair, transit, safety (non-construction), and Federal Lands programs all remain
essentially the same under TEA-21, with the amounts either the same or increasing from ISTEA.
.
Planning provisions for states and MPO's have been streamlined, with bicycle and pedestrian needs to
be given due consideration in the development of comprehensive transportation plans. Specific policies
include directives to not approve any project or regulatory action that will have an adverse impact on
non-motorized safety, unless a reasonable alternative route is provided or already exists.
10. When state or local regulations permit, allow use of bicycle facilities by electric bicycles and motorized
wheelchairs.
11. Railway-highway crossings should consider bicycle safety.
12. A new Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research Program is established for funding
non-motorized research.
13. In cooperation with AASHTO, ITE, and other groups, establish new bicycle design guidelines within
18 months.
A detailed program-by-program of available funding programs along with the latest relevant information is
provided on Table 8. Specific amounts and deadlines are not available yet for many of the TEA-21
programs. Once the Ukiah bicycle projects and costs are identified, each project will be targeted for specific
funding sources where it can be expected to compete effectively.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 57
Table 8
Summary of Funding Programs
Funding Programs
Modes (Bicycle,
pedestrian-
walkways, trails)
Trip Types
(Commute/Transportati
on, Recreational)
Project types
(Construction, Non-
construction, both)
Federal Funding
STP
Both
Transportation
Transportation Enhancement
Activities (ISTEA)
CMAQ
National Highway System
(NHS)
Federal Lands Highway
Funds
Scenic Byways Program
Bridge Repair and
Replacement
National Recreation Trails
Fund
Highway Safety Program
Highway Safety and
Development
Recreational and Public
Purposes Act
Schools and Roads Grants to
States
Section 3 Mass Transit
Capital Grants
Section 3 Mass Transit
Capital Grants
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Bicycle
Both
Both
Pedes~ian
Both
Both
Both
Bicycle
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Both
Transportation
Both
Transportation
Transportation
Both (Primarily
Recreational)
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Both
Construction
Both
Both
Construction
Construction (including
planning design and
development)
Construction
Both
Non-construction
Non-construction
Both
Construction
Both
Construction
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 58
Table 8 (cont.'d): Summary of Funding Programs
Funding Programs
State Funding
Modes (Bicycle,
pedestrian-
walkways, trails)
Trip Types
(Commute/Transportati
on, Recreational)
Project types
(Construction, Non-
construction, both)
California Bikeways Act
Environmental Enhancement
and Mitigation program
Flexible Congestion Relief
Habitat conservation Fund
Grant Program
Kapiloff Land Bank Funds
Land and Water conservation
Fund
Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Districts
Local Transportation Fund
(LTF) TDA Article 3
Bicycle
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Both
Transportation
Both
Both
Transportation
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction (Land
acquisition)
Construction (Including
land acquisition)
Both
Both
TEA-21 funding is administered through the state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and regional governments.
Most, but not all, of the funding programs are transportation versus recreational oriented, with an emphasis
on (a) reducing auto trips and (b) providing an inter-modal connection. Funding criteria often includes
completion and adoption of a bicycle master plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (such
as saved vehicle trips and reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, CEQA
compliance, and commitment of some local resources. In most cases, TEA-21 provides matching grants of
80 to 90 percent--but prefers to leverage other moneys at a lower rate.
With an active and effective regional agency such as the MCTA, Ukiah should be in a good position to
secure more than its fair share of TEA-21 funding. It will be critical to get the local state assemblyman and
senator briefed on these projects and lobbying Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission for
these projects.
State
TDA Article III (SB 821)
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds are state block grants awarded annually to local
jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. These funds originate from the state gasoline
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 59
tax and are distributed to local jurisdictions based on population.
AB 434
AB 434 funds are available for clean air transportation projects, including bicycle projects, in California.
Bicycle Lane Account
The state Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) is an annual program that is available for funding bicycle projects.
Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects which benefit bicycling for commuting
purposes. While the fund is currently very small ($700,000 available annually), it has been increased to $1
million/yr, starting in FY 1999 with an increase to $3 million/year by the state assembly and senate.
Regional
The Air Quality Management District is a major potential source of funding for bicycle and pedestrian
programs. The grants are highly competitive based on a cost-benefit formula developed by the District.
Funding priorities also change annually with the District, between bicycle and other projects such as transit.
Local
New Construction
Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bike lanes. To ensure that
roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that an effective review
process is in place to ensure that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this master plan.
Impact Fees
Another potential local source of funding are developer impact fees, typically ties to trip generation rates and
traffic impacts produced by.a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence
impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site bikeway improvements which will encourage residents to
bicycle rather than drive. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee 'and the project's
impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsuit.
Mello Roos
Bike paths, lanes, and pedestrian facilities can be funded as part of a local assessment or benefit district.
Defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult unless the facility is part of a larger parks and
recreation or public infrastructure program with broad community benefits and support.
Other
Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Volunteer programs
may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways. Use of groups such as
the California Conservation Corp (who offer low cost assistance) will be effective at reducing project costs.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 60
Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway or pedestrian project as a project for the year,
possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may be formed to help clear the right of
way where needed. A local construction company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant
program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations 'adopt' a bikeway
and help construct and maintain the facility. Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time
which may be used to implement the system.
5.4 Financing
The City of Ukiah has historically invested approximately $10,000 annually in bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, in the form of sidewalk and bike lane construction and maintenance. Often these items are
included in larger construction and maintenance projects, and specific line item accounts are not kept.
Therefore, the annual expenditure figure is an estimate based on the City's Public Works Department review.
The proposed improvements and programs to be developed have been analyzed to determine the annual
financing requirements, and to allow the City to budget its resources and target funding applications. The
total estimated cost of these planned improvements over the short and long term is $2.7 million. It is
anticipated that most of these projects can be funded using state and federal sources to cover up to 85% of
the total project cost. It is important to note that these funding sources are extremely competitive, and
require a combination of sound applications, local support, and lobbying on the regional and state level. It
is likely that these improvements will take longer to fund, design, and construct than five years. It is also
important to note that funding for specific projects, although shown here being funded over multiple years,
is likely to occur in one or two years in the form of large federal, state, or regional grants.
Table 9
Financing Plan
Short Term (Years 1-5)
Year I TotalCos~ TEA-21 ] State/Regional Loca~Pr~a~
1999 $400,000 $240,000 $100,000 $60,000
2000 $530,000 $318,000 $132,500 $79,500
2001 $260,000 $156,000 $65,000 $39,000
2002 $74,000 $44,400 $18,500 $11,100
2003 $36,000 $21,600 $9000 $5400
Toml $1,300,000 $780,000 $325,000 $195,000
Percentage 100% 60% 25% 15%
Included in Appendix F is a summary of the funding sources.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 61
Plan Adoption
This report was presented to the Planning Commission on January 27, 1999 and to the City Council on
February 17, 1999. The minutes for those meetings and the adopting resolution are included in Appendix
G.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 62
Study Participants
Consultant Team
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W-Trans)
2200 Range Avenue, Suite 102
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 542-9500
Steve Weinberger, Principal-in-Charge
Alta Transportation
330 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite G
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-0468
Michael Jones, Principal-in-Charge
City Staff
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Charley Stump, Senior Planner
Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
Dave Lohse, Associate Planer
Master Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Steering Committee
1. Charley Stump, Senior Planner, Ukiah Planning Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, (707) 463-6219
2. Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works, Ukiah Public Works Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, (707) 463-6296
3. Dave Lohse, Associate Planner, Ukiah Planning Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, (707) 463-6207
4. Steve Turner, Assistant Manager, Mendocino Transit Authority
241 Plant Road, Ukiah, CA 95482, (707) 462-5765
5. Valerie Law, Ukiah Wheelers, (707) 463-4604
6. Chris Fetzer, Fetzer Cycles, 290 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
7. Dennis Denny, Denny Bicycles, 246 North State Street, Ukiah, CA 95482
8. Jennifer Puser, Ukiah Planning Commission, (707) 468-9880
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Page 63
Appendix A
Street Cross Sections
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
\1
Appendix B
Crosswalk Marking Standards
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
3B-18 Crosswalks and Crosswalk Lines
Crosswalk markings at signalized intersections and across intersectional
approaches on which traffic stops, serve primarily to guide pedestrians in
the proper paths. Crosswalk markings across roadways on which traffic is
not contrc~lled by traffic signals or STOP signs, must also serve to warn
the motorist of a pedestrian crossing point. At non-intersectional
locations, these markings legally establish the crosswalk.
Crosswalk lines shall be solid white lines, marking both edges of the
crosswalk. They shall be not less than 6 inches in width and should not be
spaced less than 6 feet apart. Under special circumstances where a stop line
is not provided or where vehicular speeds exceed 35 MPH or where
crossWalks are unexpected, it may be desirable to increase the width of the
crosswalk line up to 24"in width. Crosswalk lines on both sides of the
crosswalk should extend across the full width of pavement to discourage
diagonal walking between crosswalks (fig. 3-14a).
Crosswalks should be marked at all intersections where there is
substantial conflict between vehicle and pedestrian movements. Marked
crosswalks should also be provided at other appropriate points of
pedestrian concentration, such as at loading islands, midblock pedestrian
crossing, or where pedestrians could not otherwise recognize the proper
place to cross.
Crosswalk markings should not be used indiscriminately. An
engineering study should be required before they are installed at locations
away from traffic signals or STOP signs.
Since non-intersectional pedestrian croSsings are generally unexpected
by the motorist, warning signs (sec. 2C-31) should be installed and
adequate visibility provided by parking prohibitions.
For added visibility, the area of the crosswalk may be marked with
white diagonal lines at a 45 ° angle or with white longitudinal lines at a 90 o
angle to the line of the crosswalk (figs. 3-14b, 14c). These lines should be
approximately 12" to 24" wide and spaced 12" to 24" apart. When
diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse
crosswalk lines may be omitted. This type of marking is intended for use at
locations where substantial numbers of pedestrians cross without any
other traffic control device, at locations where physical conditions are
such that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired or at places where a
pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected. Care should be taken to
insure that crosswalks with diagOnal or longitudinal lines used at some
locations do not weaken or detract from other crosswalks (where special
emphasis markings are not used) (fig. 3-14a). When an exclusive
pedestrian phase signal, which permits diagonal crossing, is installed at an
intersection, a unique marking may be used for the crosswalk (fig. 3-15).
3B-19 Parking Space Markings
Parking space markings shall be white.
I11l-9(¢)
Rev. 4
iit-9(¢)
Rev. 4
3B-23
Rev. 3189
Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 Edition, Federal Highway Administration
a -- Standard crosswalk marking.
b - Crosswalk marking with diagonal lines for added visibility.
~I~I~~
..*.~..~::..~..~.....`.~.*..~...~...:~;::...`...:..~`......~..:;.:~!~.~i::~:~i:;;;;:*~;~:*.::~ ii:i:{!::~:~:",~...:..'ii~i:i:~ii(::~:,:~.....~:~(i:;;-{:~:f~i:!:~:{! ~[ii,~-".;..,:~-:~;.....~~'
NO . . .. - '~
c -- Crosswalk marking with longitudinal liras for added visibility.
Rev. 3~89 3B-24
Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 Edition, Federal Highway Administration
Traffic Manual
MARKINGS
6-9
Exit and entrance ramps, including freeway
connectors, shall be marked with a yellow
edgeline supplemented with yellow reflective
pavement markers on the left and a white
edgeline on the fight. .See Figure 6-5; LEFT
EDGELIN S FOR DIVIDED HIGHWAYS.
Typical interchange markings are shown in
Figure 6-27, TYPICAL EXIT / CONNECTOR
RAMP MARKINGS, Figure 6-28, TYPICAL
E~NCE ! CONNECTOR RAMP MARK-
INGS, Figure 6-29, TYPICAL ACCEI~ERA-
TION / DECEI.F. RATION AND PARAIJ.EI~
ACCELERATION LANE MARKINGS, and
Figures 6-30 through 6-35, TYPICAL EN-
TRANCE / EXIT RAMP TERMINAL PAVE-
MENT MARKINGS.
6-02.9 Two-Way Left Turn Lanes
A two-way left-mm lane is a lane reserved in
the center of a highway for exclusive use of left
or U-turning vehicles (CVC 21460.5). It is
normally used where there are many points of
access.
The markings shall be selected from those
shown in Figure 6-8, TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN
LANES. Optional treatments at signalized,
major and minor intersections are shown in
Figure 6-19, TYPICAL TWO-WAY
LEFT-TURN LANES. A gap in the markings
should be made at all intersections.
Two-way opposing pavement arrows may be
used as shown in Figure 6-19, TYPICAL
TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN LANES. The arrows
may be supplemented by TWO-WAY LEFT
TURN LANE SYMBOL (R67) and TWO-WAY
TURN LANE (R67A) signs at new installations
and problem locations.
6-02.10 Approach to an Obstruction
Pavement markings shall be used to guide
traffic on the approach to fixed obstructions
within a paved roadway. An obstruction may be
so located that all traffic must keep to the right,
or the obstruction may be between two lanes of
traffic moving in the same direction. The
markings in either case guide traffic away from
the obstruction. The use of channelizing lines as
shown in Figure 6-12, MISCELLANEOUS
DETAILS, or no-passing markings as shown in
Figure 6-4, NO-PASSING ZONE - TWO
DIRECTION, and as shown in Figure 6-36,
TYPICAL OBSTRUCTION MARKINGS, are
generally effective for marking obstructions such
as bridge supports, refuge islands, median
islands, and channelization islands.
6-02.11 Limit Lines (Stoplines)
Limit lines (CVC 377) are solid white lines,
normally 12 to 24 inches wide, extending across
all approach lanes to indicate the point behind
which vehicles are required to stop.
If a marked crosswalk (Section 6-02.12,
CROSSWALKS AND CROSSWALK LINES)
is in place, it would normally function as a limit
line. For added emphasis, a limit line may be
placed 4 feet or further in advance of and parallel
to the nearest crosswalk line. See Chapter 10,
Section 10-04.3, CROSSWALK LINES, of this
manual.
In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the
limit line should be placed at 'the desired
stopping point; this point is typically no more
than 30 feet nor less than 4 feet from the nearest
edge of traveled way of the intersecting roadway.
If a limit line is used in conjunction with a
STOP sign, it should ordinarily be placed in line
with the STOP sign. However, if the sign cannot
be located exactly where vehicles are expected to
stop, the limit line should be placed at the
stopping point.
The word "STOP", in 8 foot letters, may be
placed on the pavement in advance of the limit
line. A limit line shall be placed on paved
approaches and a STOP pavement marking
should be placed on all but minor approaches to
State highways not controlled by signals.
Typical limit line markings are shown in
Figure 6-37, TYPICAL INTERSECTION
MARKINGS.
6-02.12 Crosswalks and Crosswalk Lines
The principles and practices describe~t in this
section apply to pedestrian crossings, in general,
but may apply to other types of crossings, such
as equestrian, bicycles, etc. This section does
not apply to school crosswalks which are
Source: Traffic Manual, Caltrans '
6-10
11-1991
MARKINGS
Traffic Manual
_
described more completely in Chapter 10,
SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, of
this manual.
Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be placed
at intersections, representing extensions of the
sidewalk lines, or on any portion of the roadway
distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing (CVC
275).
Crosswalk markings serve primarily to guide
pedestrians into the proper path. Pedestrian
crosswalk markings should. 'not be used
indiscriminately, as their presence can be
.detrimental to pedestrian safety. In some cases,
pedestrians can be given a false sense of security
due to the prominent appearance of the crosswalk
to the pedestrian, resulting in a lack of caution.
The crosswalk markings may not be readily
apparent to the driver from a safe stopping
distance.
Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be
installed where they are advisable to channelize
.pedestri.ans into the preferred path at
mtersecuons when the intended course is not
readily apparent or when in the opinion of the
engineer, their presence would minimi?e
pedestrian-auto conflicts.
In general, crosswalks should not be marked at
intersections unless they are intended to
channelize pedestrians. Emphasis is placed on
the use of marked crosswalks as a channelization
device rather than as a safety device. The
following factors' may be considered in
determining whether a marked crosswalk should
be used:
· Vehicular approach speeds from both
.directions.
· Vehicular volume and density.
· Vehicular turning movements.
· Pedestrian volumes.
· Roadway width.
· Day and night visibility by both
pedestrians and motorists.
Channelization is desirable to clarify
pedestrian routes for sighted or sight
impaired pedestrians.
· Discouragement of pedestrian use of
undesirable routes.
Consistency with markings
intersections or within
intersection.
at adjacent
the same
Crosswalk markings may be established
between intersections in accordance with CVC
21106(a). Warning signs should be installed and
adequate visibility provided by appropriate
measures such as parking prohibitions.
Non-intersecfional (mid-block) pedestrian
crossings are generally unexpected by the
motorist and should be discouraged unless, in the
opinion of the engineer, there is strong
justification in faVor of such installation.
Particular attention should be given to roadways
with two or more traffic lanes in one direction as
a pedestrian may be hidden from view by a
vehicle yielding the right-of-way to a pedestrian.
Crosswalk markings shall be solid white lines
not less than 12 inches wide, marking both edges
of the crosswalk. The lines should extend across
the full width of pavement to discourage
diagonal walking. A crosswalk should provide at
least six feet of clear width between the lines.
Diagonal or longitudinal lines may be placed
within the crosswalk markings. These lines
should be approximately 12" to 24" wide and
spaced 12" to 24" apart. When diagonal or
longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk,
the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted;
except when the factor that determined the need
to mark a crosswalk is the clarification of
pedestrian routes for sight-impaired pedestrians,
the transverse crosswalk lines shall be marked.
At controlled approaches, limit lines
(stoplines) help to define pedestrian paths and
are therefore a factor the engineer may consider
in deciding whether or'not to mark the
crosswalk.
Where it is desirable to remove a marked
crosswalk, the removal may be accomplished by
Source: Traffic Manual, Caltrans
Traffic Manual
MARKINGS
6-11
- 6-1992
repaying or surface treatment. A marked
crosswalk should not be eliminated by allowing it
to fade out or be worn away. The worn or faded
crosswalk retains its prominent appearance to the
pedestrian at the curb, but is much less visible to
the approaching driver.
Signs may be installed at or adjacent to an
intersection directing that pedestrians shall not
cross in a crosswalk indicated at the intersection
in accordance with eve 21106(b).
White PED XING pavement markings may be
placed in each approach lane to a marked
crosswalk, except at intersections controlled by
traffic signals or STOP or YIELD signs.
6-02.13 Parking Stall Markings
Parking stall markings shall be white. The
marking of parking stalls on urban streets
encourages more orderly and efficient use of
parking areas. These markings' tend to prevent
encroachment on f'ne hydrant zones, bus stops,
loading zones, approaches to corners,~ clearance
spaces for islands and other zones where parking
is prohibited.
The placement and maintenance of parking
stalls is the responsibility of the local agency. An
exception to the above practice may be made
when State highway resurfacing projects
obliterate existing parking stall lines.
The desirable dimensions of parking stalls are
8 feet by 24 feet, with a minimum length of 20
feet.
At all intersections, one stall length on each
side measured from the crosswalk or end of curb
return should have parking prohibited. A
clearance of 6 feet measured from the curb return
should be provided at alleys and driveways. At
signalized intersections, parking should be
prohibited for a minimum of two stall lengths on
the near side and one stall length on the far side.
See Figure 6-39, TYPICAL PARKING STAIJJ
MARKINGS.
Diagonal parking stalls are not pemfitted on
State highways.
6-02.14 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings
Word and symbol markings on the pavement
may be used for the purpose of guiding, warning,
or regulating traffic. They normally supplement
standard signing. They should be limited to not
more than a total of three lines of information.
Except as noted in Chapter 10, SCHOOL AREA
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, of this manual, they
shall be white in color and should be no more
than one lane in width.
Where a turning movement is mandatory, an
.arrow marking accompanied bY a regulatory sign
shall be used; When an additional clearly
marked lane is provided (CVC 22101), the sign
is not required. Signs or markings should be
repeated in advance of mandatory turn lanes
when necessary to prevent entrapment and to
help motorists select the appropriate lane before
reaching the end of the line of waiting vehicles.
Pavement markings should be 8 feet or more
in height. When the message consists of more
than one word, it should read "up", i.e., the first
word should be nearest to the driver.
The space between words should be at least
four times the height of the characters for low
speed roads, but not more than ten times the
height of the characters. The space may be
reduced appropriately where there is limited
space because of local conditions.
Since excessive use of pavement markings can
result in driver confusion the number of different
word and symbol markings should be minimized.
The word "STOP" shall not be used on the
pavement unless accompanied by a limit line
(stopline) and STOP sign. See Figure 6-40,
TYPICAL PAVEMENT LEGEND MARK-
INGS.
1. EXIT RAMP ARROWS
A minimum of two pavement arrows shall be
placed on each freeway exit ramp lane.
A Type V arrow shall be the tn'st arrow, on the
ramp, in the direction of travel when exiting the
freeway.
Source: Traffic Manual, Caltrans
Appendix C
Bicycle Parking and Support Facilities
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
TOP VIEW
5 Locker=
10 Bicycle~
· .
I!
II
Class I Bike Locker Designs
LOCK
LOCATIONI
Multiple Racks
~:~r~TURE$:
. getv'm'dz~<l
- wek:l~;I Io I:~.~,
MODIFIED U. RACK
-.
Class II Bike Rack Designs
.o .
BIKE PATH
BIKE PATH
NO
MOTOR
VEHICLES
OR
MOTORIZED
BICYCLES
BIKE LANE
MINIMUM
BIKE ROUTE
6" $OUD
WHITE
.3"TRIPE,
4'-0' TO 5'-0'
Z~ ~om o~,~mos
ON PARKIN(~
[.
Class I Bicycle Path Specifications
Pavement Type:
Recycled Asphalt~
Asphalt~
Concrete
Sub-base: Granite
Gravel
Shoulders:
Decomposed Granite
Thickness
3" 7.5 cm
3" ..7.5'cm
·
·
3" 7.5 cm
4-6" 10-15 cm
4-6" 10-15 cm
2-4" 5-10 cm
Width:
Minimum 8'
Preferred 12'
Shoulders: 2'-3'
Lateral Clearance 2'-3'
Vertical Clearance 8'
w/Equestrians 12'
Striping (solid yellow line) 4"
Signing see MUTCD
Cross Slope 2 %
Min. Separation fi-om Roadway: 5'
Design Speed 15-20 mph
Maximum Superelevation 12 %
Maximum Grades 5 %
Barrier Posts 5'-m/a. spacing
2.5 cm
3.5 cm
75 cm - 1 m
75 cm- 1 m
2..5 m
3.5 m
8 cm
1.25 m
~.May be unsuitable for bike paths located in stream channels due to asphalt oils.
a Unless physical barrier provided.
Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000.
Class I Bicycle Path Specifications
O.G:m
(23
1.8 m 1.8. m
(6') (6')
3.6 ra
(12')
'-L~ m
(163
Fencing r~quired for privacy
see derails above
Dm. ina
1.5:1
slope
Class I Bicycle Path Cross Section
W4~A
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
MUL11-PURPOSE
TRAIL
SIGNAL
PROTOTYPE
IdOT~N DETECTOR
R62C
ACTUATED SIGNAL
WITH PUSH BUTTON,
INTERSECTION LIGHTING,
AND STREET NAME
SIGNS
VARII~O SURFACE
(o~noNAL)
RIPPLED PAVF. MENT
12'
STRIP£0
CROSSING
250'-1500' (75-450 m)
- w7g
I' XlNG~ t
& CALL OUT
~t-IEN PASSING
TRAIL CURVES TO
SLOW BICYCUSTS
12
RE'COUUCNOEO
TRAn. CURVES TO
SLOW ~CYCUSTS
REMOVABLE BALLAROS
$' SPACING (~
B/CYCLE TRAILER A~S~
12' UMIT UNE
~0 'WN~ 'HE~' ~ W41,~
~NOS /_. W41A
MOTION DETECTORS
CUR0 CUT (PER ADA REQUIREMENTS)
YEU.OW
WARNING 0KACON
12" LIMIT UNE
STREET NAME/TRAIL SIGN(S) (OPTIONAL)
R1
R1-2 V
Or
SWl
(OP~ONAL)
PAVEMENT LEGEND "STOP" Or "YIELD"
YELLOW SNS
(OPTIONAL)
STOP OR YIELD
CONTROL PROTOTYPE
NOT TO SCALE
Class I Bicycle Path Crossing Prototype
Table C2: Class !1 Bike Lane Specifications
Minimum Widths Adjacent Parking
5' (1.5 m)
No Parking4
4' (1.2 m)
Combination Parking Lanes
11-13' (3.3-3.9 m)
Striping
Left side line: solid white stripe6"
(150 mm)
Right side line: solid white stripe 4"
(100 mm)
Approach to intersections:
Dashed white stripe
100-200'
(30 m-60 m)
Signing
R81 Bike Lane Sign
[]
Ii
·
[]
beginning of all bike lanes
far side of all bike path crossings
at approaches and far side of all arterial' crossings
at major changes in direction
maximum % mile (0,8 km) intervals
Custom Bike Route Sign with G33 Directional Arrow and destination signs
(where need_ed)
see items under R8fl-Bike Lane Sign
at approach to arterial crossings
Pavement Markings
"Bike" legend
"Lane" legend
Directional arrow
Source:
= see items under R81 Bike Lane Sign
· at beginning and end of bike lane. pockets at approach to
intersection
Caitrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, MUTCD, Caltrans-Traffic
Manual
4 Minimum 3' (.9 m) between stripe.and gutter joint.
5 Rolled curb, 11' (3.3 m), vertical curb, 12' (3.6 m), 13' (3.9 m) recommended with significant parking or
turnover.
Class II Bicycle Lane Specifications
c
c
_6" Continuous white stripe ~1
J '~ Curb Lane:
10' Under 2000 AOT
12' over 2000 AOT
(under 35 mph)
14' over 20,000 ADT
(over 35 mph)
f
No Parking
.'.'' . . ·
Gutter transitiort must
be sn'moth to be
included in width
,/
Minimum Street Widths to Accommodate Bike Lanes
2 - Lanes / Parking 4 - Lanes I Parking 6 - Lanes / Parking
0 I 2 0 1 2 0 I 2
> 2.000 AOT 28' 35' 44' 48' 56' 62' N/A N/A N/A
2.000 - 20.000 ADT 32' 41' 50' 56' 65' 74' 80' 89' 98'
20.000 + ADT
Under 35 MPH 32' 41' 50' 56' 65' 74' 80' 89' 98'
20.000 + ADT
Under 35 MPH 36' 45' 54' 60' 69' 78' 84' 93' 102'
Note: Assumes curb to curb with smooth gutter transition. Ass~Jmes no medians.
·
Class II Bicycle Lane Cross Section
Parking Lane
Parking Lane
"Lane", and Arrow
White Pavement Markings
Signal Detector
(with stenciled marker)
Enhanced Signal
Detector
4' Minimum Bike Lane
(for heavy Left turn Bicycle
Volumes, i.e., over 50/hour)
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
%
%
I
.-...L-
I
I
I
I
!
%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
%
·
·
%
%
Transition Length Should Be
Designed Based on 85th Percentile
Speed of Vehicle Travel
"Bike", "Lane", and Arrow White
Pavement Markings; R81 "Bike
Lane" Sign
4' min Bike Lane (3' mln
Clear of Gutter)
Enhanced Signal Detector
inal Detector (with stenciled marker)
"Bike", "Lane", and
White Pavement Markings
-'~'~in Bike lane~
P~king Lane
Bicycle Lane
Intersection Design
· Signal Pole ~!
Channellzed Right Turn ~so'
Modified Low-Speed, Higher Visibility
Channelized Right Turn
Recommended Right Turn Channelization
BIKE PATH SIGNS
For Use: Sign Description
Yes
Bike Path-No Motor Vehicles
or Motorized, Bicycles
No No Motor Vehicles
Yes Trail Logo sign
Yes Trail Regulations
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Trail Curfew 10PM - 5AM .
Multi-purpose Trail: Bikbs
Yield to Pedestrians/Horses
Bikes Reduce Speed & Call
Out Before Passing
Keep Left Peds Right Bikes
Keep Right Peds Left Bikes
Yes Please Stay on Trail
Yes SPeed Limit Signs
Yes-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Caution: Storm Damaged Trail
.Trail Closed: No Entry Until
Made Accessible & safe for ,.
Public Use
Location Color
Entrance to trail B on W
Entrances to trail
Trail logo: at all trail entrances and major
access points
Yes
Yes
Yes
All trail entrances (where people reading
sign will not block trail)
Based on local ordinance
NI trail entrances
B onW
Varies
BonW
R onW
Caltrans
Designation
Designation
R44A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MUTCD
N/A
R5-3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Every 2,000 feet ....
B on W N/A N/A
BonW
Every 1000-2000 feet where ped and
bAe areas are designated
In environmentally-sensitive areas
Where speed limits should be reduced
From the trails design speed '
B onW
BonY
Storm damaged locations
:':' Where trail or access points closed due-B on W
to h~7.ardous conditions
STOP At trail intersections with roads and W on R
YIELD other primary trails W on R
Bicycle Push Button for Green Above push button at signal B on W
Light
Bicycle Use Ped Signal B on W
Bicycle Yield to Peds B on W
N/A
N/A
R9-7
N/A
N/A
R1
R1-2
N/A
N/A
R62C
For ped signal at cross walks ·
Where facility is shared by peds
Bicycle Symbol For motorists before/at uncontrolled B on Y W79
trail crossings and roads with
unexpected bikes
STOP Ahead Before unexpected STOP sign B, R on Y
YIELD Ahead Before unexpected YIELD sign B, R, W on
Signal Ahead Before unexpected signal B, R, G on
R1-1
R1-2
N/A
N/A
N/A
R9-5
R9-6
Wl 1-1
W17
YW28
YW41
W3-1a
W3-2a
W3-3
Recommended Bikeway Signing and Marking
BIKE PATH SIGNS (cont.'d)
For Use: Sign Description
Yes Cross Traffic Does Not
Yes Tums and Curves
.Yes Trail Intersections
Yes Bikeway-Narrows
Yes Narrow Bridge
Yes Downgrade
Yes
Yes
Yes_
Pedestrian Crossing
Restricted Vertical Clearance
Railroad CroSsing .~
BIKE LANE SIGNS
Sign Description
Bike Lane
For Use:
Yes
.
Yes Begin
Yes End
No Bike Lane Ahead/Ends
N° Right/Left/CUrb Lane B~es
Only
Yes Right Lane Must TUrn Right
No Begin Right tum Here, Yield
to Bikes
Yes No Parking Any Time
No Parking Bike Lane
No Bikes Wrong Way
Yes
Yes
Location
Stop Below stop or_yield using
engineering judgment
Before tums and curves less than
design speed specifications
Before uncontrolled traa approach,
or where vis.~ility is rm, dted
Before bikeway less than 8' wide
Before bridge less than 12' wide
Before sustained b~eway hill greater
than 5%
Where pedestrian walkway crosses trail
Before vertical clearance less than 8'- 6"
Before trail crosses railwa_y tracks
Location
Far side of intersections,
etc.
Beginning of bike lane
End-of bike lane
At beginning/end of bike lanes
Along b~e lanes
At required vehicle right tums
Where b~e lanes end before
intersection
Where parking is proh~ited
Where parking is proh~ited
On back of signs vis~le to wrong way
alders
Color
B onW
BonY
BonY
Bony
BonY
Bony
BonY
BonY
Bony
Color
Bonw
BonW
BonW
BonW
BonW
BonW
BonW
RonW
B,R on W
B.R on W
Caltrans
Designation
SW1
W1,2,3
W4,5,6,14
W56,57
Wl 5 (mod)
w2-3
W29 (mod)
W54
W34
W47
Caltrans
Design.
R81
R81A
R81B
N/A
N/A
R18
N/A
P,26, 26A
R28, 28A
N/A
N/A
MUTCD
Designation
N/A
W1-1,2
Wl-4,5
Wl-6,7
:W2-.1,2,3
W2-4,5
'W5-4
W5..2
Wl 1A-2
W12-2
W10-1
MUTCD
Design.
N/A
N/A
N/A
R3-16
·
R3-17
R3-7
R4-
R7-1
R7-9, 9a
N/A
Recommended Bikeway Signing and Marking (cont'd)
BIKE ROUTE SIGNS
For Use: Sign Description
Yes Bike Route
·
Yes Begin
Yes End
Yes Arrows
Yes Route Name -
Yes 'Logo Numbered Route
Yes S~eetname and Directional Signs
(i.e., Beaches, Downtown, etc.)
OTHER BIKE SIGNS
For Use: Sign Description
Yes Bicycle Pa~ing
Yes Hazardous Condition
Yes Angled Railroad Crossing
Yes No Bikes facility (sidewalks,
etc.)
Yes Pedestrians Bicycles Motor-'
Driven Cycles Proh~ited
Yes Bicycles Motor-Driven
Cycles Must Exit
Location
Before intersections, etc.
Beginning of bike route
End of bike route
Before intersections, etc.
on'Pdmary namod ~'outes
On logo numbered routes
At inter~ections where acces.~to major
destinations is available
Location
At bike pa_ddng locations
Before slippery or rough pavement,
such as steel deck, ford, etc.
· _
Bef6re angled backs
At entrance to proh~ited
On Freeway on-ramps
where bikes prohibited
At ramp-where bikes must exit a freeway
Color
Won G
WonG
Won G
WonG
Won G
WonG
W6n G .
Color
GonW
BonY
BonW
B, RonW
BonW
BonW
Caltrans
Designation
G93
G93A
G93B
G33-45
S17
SG45
G7
G8
Caltrans
Designation
G93C
W42 (mod)
SW27-1
R95, 95A
R44
R4~tB, 44C
MUTCD
Designation_
D11-1
M4-11
M4-12
M7-1-7
N/A
M1-8, 9
D1-1
Dl-lb(r/1)
MUTCD
Designation
134-3
W8-10
N/A
R5-6
R5-10A, 10B
N/A
Recommended Bikeway Signing and Marking (cont'd)
On streets _with higher speeds, to warn drivem
of School Zone with 25 mph speed limit at
certain limes.
(0 uo?,~lletSUl)
~ u -l" ~ I ,~, Indicates that vehicle is out of school
Inslallation A- ~ ~-' I1 l I ~ay be used in lieu of WSS-I.
:1I /11
In advance o! remote school crosswalks and
on streets with prima facie 25 MPH
Installation El- "
Optional at school crosswalks. Not used with
stop signs, yield signs, or signals.
Installation C-
(9 uo!tellelSUl)
/pical Unsignali~ ed
Intersection
i
~'~-ptional
(Installation B)
Notes:
1, The Bicycle Crossin0 sign 0/V79) is optional
where the approach ~s controlled by a signal, '
stop sign, or yield sign.
2. For urban situations, post 250' prior to
intersection, 750' in rural areas.
3. The bike lane may either be dropped entirely
approximately 200' in advance of the
Intersection, or a dashed line carried to the
'intersection or through the intersection is
optional.
(Installation C)
Signs and Marking within School Zones
.None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA . DEPARTMENT OF TI:MkNSPORTAT1Offi
coeE_SG45
~H
J
K
L
K
M
N
A
-- __
COLORS
BORDER & LEGEND - GREEN (Reflective)
BACKGROUND. WHITE (Reflective)
THE POCY~ FOR IKTEHOED USAGE OF TH~ S~GH IS Sj.~iIN O# REVERSE S DE .
Numbered Bike Route Sign
I.
cso
Where Vehicle parking
is Permitted
Typical Unslgnalized
Intersection
]" Varies2
[.--=
The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is
optional where thc approach is
controlled by a signal, stop sign, or
yield sign.
250 - 1500 feet (75 -450 m); Based on
vehical approach speed.
GO3
083
The bike lane may either be dropped
entirely approximately 100' - 200' (30 -
60 m) in advance ofthe intersection,. ~
or a dashed line carried to the
inter~ection or through the
inter~ection is optional, ceo
¥
Where Vehicle parking
is Prohibited
A24
Q$3
A minimum 3' oetween
longitudinal joint at
the
the concrete and 6' bike
lane line is required
Signing at Unsignalized Intersections
Where Vehicle parking
is Prohibited
uoi.;n8 qsnd e~l!G
uo,~ qsnd I:~d ·
I
I
o
5'. I
I
I
! cl. UO.~dO
I
I
G~38
·
I ,
P sence Loo~ With Stencil
Typical Signalized
Intersection
Presence Loop With
Typical path of through bicyclist
!. The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is
optional where thc approach is
controlled by a signal, stop sign, or
yield sign.
2. 250 - 1500 feet (75 -450 m); Based on
vehical approach speed.
The bike lane may either be dropped
entirely approximately I00' - 200' (30
60 m) in advance ofthe intersection,
or a dashed line carried to the
intersection or through the
intersection is optional.
Pod Push 8ua:n
· Bike Push Button
An optional 4' solid white stripe
may be used in place at the
cross stripes where parking
staffs are unnecess~ because
parking is light and there is
co. ncem that a motorist may
misconstrue the bike lane to
be a traffic lane
Where Vehicle parking
is Permitted
GO3~
Signing at Signalized Intersections
BIK
ROUT
Bike Route Sign
WARNING SIGNS
Signs for locations on path
near auto access po;nfs
Signs for bike lanes
where there is no auto
parking on right of lane
Signs for occasional use
on Class 2 & 3 routes and
Bicycle Boulevards. Can
be interspersed with
"Share the Road" signs.
Possible sticker?
' WATCH FOR
Signs for use at transition
from Class 2 to Class 3;
at the beginning of routes;
and on non-bicycle-route
roads where bicycle traffic
might be expected or at
· intervals on all city streets.
Possible sticker?
Signs used at intervals
along bike routes with
adjacent parallel parking.
Frequency of signs
should be related to parking
turnover rates.
Should be used throughout
City at parallel parking
locations, also.
Warning Signs
Appendix E
Ukiah Bikeway and Pedestrian Systems Cost Estimates
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Ukiah Bikeway and Pedestrian System
Cost Estimates
Segment Year Leng'~h (miles) Type Cost
SHORT I I:RM (YEARS 1-5)
1. NWP Rail Trail 1999-03
Phase i: Talmage-Perkins ~1999-00 1.00 I $ 416,113
Phase I1: Talmage-Norbard 1999-01 1.27 I $ 523,114
Phase Ii1: Perkins-Brush 2000-03 0.6~ I $ 130,778
2. Clay Peach Corddor 1999-03
Clay 0.70 II $ 31,534
Depot Pathway 0.08 I $ 18,939
Peach 0.17 III $ 1,705.
Gibson Creek 0.47 I $ 47,348
3. Gobbi Street 1999-01 1.06 Ii $ 47,727
4.'Western Bikeway 2000-03
Hazel Avenue 0.08 III $ 758
Todd Road 0.~)9 ill $ 947
,
Barnes Street 0.32 III $ 3,220
McPeak Street 0.27 III $ 2,652
Mendocino Drive 0.15 III $ 1,515
Gardens Avenue 0.19 III $ 1,894
Helen Avenue 0.44 III $ 4,356
5. Orchard-Brush Corridor 2000-03
Orchard Avenue 1.00 II $ 45,170
Brush Street 0.45 II $ 20,455
"Sub-Total 8.35 $ 1,2987_75
MID - LONG TERM (YEARS 6-20)
A. Dora-Bush Corddor
Dora Street 1.74 II $ 78,409
Bush Street 0.92 II $ 41,761
B. South State Street 0.13 II $ 5,966
C. Empire Drive 0.57 III $ 5,682
D. Main Street 1.47 III $ 14,700
E. Oak Manor-River Corridor
Oak Manor Drive 0.42 II $ 18,900
River(Babcock Lane) 0.72 II $ 32,386
F. Perkins Street 0.85' II $ 38,352
G. Crosstown Corridor
Grove Street 0.32 II $ 14,489
Pine Street 0.04 II $ -1,705
Scott Street 0.19 II $ 8,523
Norton Street 0.17~ II $ 7,670
Mason Street 0.08 II $ 3,409
Clara Avenue 0.34 II $ - 15,341
H. Washington-Talmage Corridor
Washington Street 0.49 III $ 4,900
Talmage Strcct 0.25 il $ 11,080
'1.Orr Creek Pathway 0.4 I $ 60,000
J. Despina Lane 0.42' II $ 18,750
K. Spdng Street 0.08 II $ 3,409
L. Downtown Ped Improvements $ 280,000
M. Pedestrian Street Enhancements $ 500,000
N. Crosswalk Improvements $ 225,000
O. Sidewalk Improvements $ 15,000
Sub-Total 6.80 $ 1,405,431
GRAND TOTAL 15.15 $ 2,703,656
Appendix F
Grant Funding Information
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Update
Ukiah
January 1999
With the recent passage of TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 2 l't Century), funding for
bicycle projects in Ukiah over the next six years should increase over the levels under ISTEA since
1992. The State Bike Lane Account is also set to increase substantially over the next few years.
TEA-21 was adopted by both houses of Congress on May 22, 1998. Much ofthe delay in adopting
the new transportation legislation was the result of conflicts between donor and recipient states
(states that received more or less money than they paid in gas taxes) under the old transfer
arrangements. The new formulas will rectify the past imbalances, allowing large donor states with
higher amounts that can be transferred between various funding programs. The follow-up to ISTEA,
TEA-21 offers some important changes in funding opportunities.
1. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) was amended as follows:
Approximately $33 billion available nationwide.
Bicycle and pedestrian projects remain eligible.
Sidewalk improvements to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
are now eligible for Surface Transportation Program funds.
2. The National Highway System (NHS) program was amended as follows:
Pedestrian projects may now be funded with NHS funds.
NHS funds may now used on bicycle and pedestrian projects within Interstate
corridors.
.
The Transportation Enhancements (TE) program was amended as follows:
$3.3 billion available nationwide
Bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs
Tourist and welcome centers
Environmental mitigation to provide wildlife corridors
Requirement that each project be directly related to a surface transportation project
Eighty (80) percent Federal matching requirement applies only to total non-Federal
share rather than total project cost.
Twenty-five (25) percent of the TE funds received over the amount received in FY
1997 may be transferred to other STP activities.
Eight (8) specific projects are funded off the top of the TE program, none in the
Western United States.
.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ) program was amended
as follows:
,
o
o
.
$8.12 billion available nationwide
Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same
A small percentage can be transferred to other programs
The Recreational Trails Program was amended as follows:
$270 million available nationwide over the next six years
Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same
The Hazard Elimination Program was amended as follows:
Now can be used for bicycling and walking hazards
Definition of a 'public road' now expended to include bikeways, pathways, and traffic
calming measures.
A new category, Transit Enhancements Program, was created that calls for transit agencies
in urbanized areas over 200,000 population to use 1 percent of their Urban Formula Funds
for Transit Enhancements Activities. Up to $50 million per year may be available for
pedestrian access, walkways, bicycle access, bike storage facilities, and bike-on-bus racks.
The program calls for 95% Federal/5% local match.
Scenic Byway, bridge repair, transit, safety (non-construction), and Federal Lands programs
all remain essentially the same under TEA-21, with the amounts either the same or increasing
from ISTEA.
.
10.
11.
Planning provisions for states and MPO's have been streamlined, with bicycle and pedestrian
needs to be given due consideration in the development of comprehensive transportation
plans. Specific policies include directives to not approve any project or regulatory action that
will have an adverse impact on non-motorized safety, unless a reasonable alternative route is
provided or already exists.
When state or local regulations permit, allow use of bicycle facilities by electric bicycles and
motorized wheelchairs.
Railway-highway crossings should consider bicycle safety.
12.
A new Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research Program is established for
funding non-motorized research.
13.
In cooperation with AASHTO, ITE, and other groups, establish new bicycle design guidelines
within 18 months.
A detailed program-by-program of available funding programs along with the latest relevant
information is provided on the following pages. Specific amounts and deadlines are not available yet
for many of the TEA-21 programs. The program time lines are still under deliberation between the
State and the Mendocino Council of Governments. Once the Ukiah's bicycle and pedestrian projects
costs are identified, each project will be targeted for specific funding sources where it can be expected
to compete effectively.
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
~)
Federal
TEA-21 provides funding for roads, transit, safety and
environmental enhancements. General state and local
improvements for highways and bridges that accommodate
additional modes of transit. Including, capital costs,
publicly owned intercity facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
Cities, counties, transit operators. Special districts may
apply with sponsorship from an eligible applicant.
Estimated at approximately $215 billion over the next 6
years, an increase of approximately $60 billion over ISTEA
legislation.
A 20% match is required.
Initiated projects must gain support of local government.
Local government submits projects to the County
Transportation Commission (CTC) for review and
prioritization for inclusion in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Plan (RTIP). Allocations are then made on
the basis of priorities developed by the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and local CTC funding policies.
The schedule is pending, dates are currently under
deliberation at the Mendocino Council of Governments.
TEA-21 makes 25% of new money above 1997 state TE
funding levels transferable to other ISTEA programs, at the
state's discretion.
Mendocino Council of Governments 0VICOG)
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Surface Transportation Program Fund (STP)
(Section 1108)
Federal
The Surface Transportation Program is a block gram fund.
Funds are used for roads, bridges, transit capital and
pedestrian and bicycle projects including bicycle
transportation facilities, bike parking facilities, equipment
for transporting bicycles on mass transit facilities, bike
activated traffic control devices, preservation of abandoned
railway corridors for bicycle and pedestrian trails, and
improvements for highways and bridges. TEA-21 allows
the transfer of funds from other TEA-21 programs to the
STP Fund.
Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Non-profit
organizations and special districts may also apply with
sponsorship from an eligible agency.
Approximately $535 million annually.
A local match of 20% is required for bicycle and pedestrian
projects, 11.5% is required for all other types of projects.
Allocations are made based on priorities developed by
MCOG in cooperation with local jurisdictions.
Based on a multi-year project selection process, the
dates are pending.
Sidewalk improvements to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act are specifically made eligible.
MCOG (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 5
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Transportation Enhancements Program (Section 1201,
paragraph 35)
Federal
The TE Program is a 10% set aside of the Surface
Transportation Program. Projects must have a direct
relationship to the intermodal transportation system through
function, proximity, or impact. Two Enhancement
Activities are specifically bicycle related: (1) provision of
facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, (2) preservation of
abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and
use thereof for bicycle or pedestrian trails).
Local, regional and state public agencies, special districts,
non-profit and private organizations. Cities, counties and
transit operators must sponsor and administer the proposed
projects.
Approximately $630 million annually.
A 12% local match is required.
Regional Transportation Agencies recommend
candidate TE projects to the California Transportation
Commission (CTC). Projects selected by the CTC for TE
funding will be amended into the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP).
The dates are pending.
Eligible projects now include safety and educational
activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, funds for tourist and
welcome centers, environmental mitigation to reduce
vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat
connectivity, and the establishment of transportation
museums.
Caltrans
Office of Transportation Enhancement Activities
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999 6
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ) (Section 1110)
Federal
Funds are available for projects that will help attain National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) identified in the
1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Projects must
come from jurisdictions in non-attainment areas. Eligible
projects include bicycle and pedestrian transportation
facilities intended for transportation purposes, bicycle route
maps, bike activated traffic control devices, bicycle safety
and education programs and bicycle promotional programs.
Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans and MPOs.
Non-profit organizations and Special districts may also
apply with sponsorship from an eligible agency.
Approximately $277 million annually.
A 20% local or state match is required.
Initiated projects must gain support of local
government. Local government submits projects to the
County Transportation Commission (CTC) for review and
prioritization for inclusion in the RTIP. Allocations are
made on the basis of priorities developed in the RTP by the
MPO in cooperation with local jurisdictions.
Based on a multi-year project selection process, the
dates are pending.
A small percentage of this increased funding can be
transferred. (Section 1310)
MCOG (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 7
Name of Funding Program: National Highway System Fund (NHS)
Funding Type: Federal
Summary Description:
NHS funds are to provide for an interconnected system of
principal arterial routes. The programs goal is to provide
access to major population centers, international border
crossings, transportation systems, meet national defense
requirements and serve interstate and interregional travel,
which includes access for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Facilities must be located and designed pursuant to an
overall plan developed by each MPO and State, and
incorporated into the RT~.
Eligible Applicants:
State and local governments.
Typical Funding Amounts: Approximately $441 million annually.
Required Matching Funds: A local or state match of 20% is required.
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Initiated projects must gain support of local
government. Local government submits projects to the
County Transportation Commission (CTC) for review and
prioritization for inclusion in the RTIP. Allocations are then
made on the basis of priorities developed by the RTP and
local CTC funding policies.
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Applications are accepted year round, deadlines are
pending deliberation.
Key Changes in TEA-21:
NHS funds can no~v be spent on nonmotorized projects
within Interstate corridors. (Section 1202)
Contact:
MCOG (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 8
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Federal Lands Highway Program Fund
Federal
This Discretionary Program provides funding for any kind
of transportation project (including pedestrian and bicycle
facilities) that are within, provide access to or are adjacent
to public lands. Facilities must be located and designed
pursuant to an overall plan developed by each MPO and
State, and incorporated into the RTIP.
Local jurisdictions, Caltrans, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), and the National Trail System Program.
Approximately $150 million per annum rising to $165
million in FY 2003.
No match required.
This is a discretionary program, Caltrans applies for
the funds on a project-by-project basis. Initiated projects
must gain support from an eligible agency. The eligible
agency submits the project to Caltrans Local Streets and
Roads. The Forest Service, Caltrans, and the Federal
Department of Transportation meet annually to discuss
proposed projects and later approve specific projects by
consensus.
The application deadline is July.
Increased funding.
Caltrans,
Division of State and Local Project Development
Office of Local Programs (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 9
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Scenic Byways Program Fund
Federal
This program provides funding for the planning, design, and
development of a State Scenic Byways Program. Priority is
given to designated scenic byways, proposals with specific
intent, and projects established under partnerships. Funds
may be used for the construction of facilities along the
highway for the use of pedestrians and bicyclist, including
pedestrian/bicycle access, safety improvements, and rest
areas.
Local government agencies.
Approximately $10 million annually state-wide.
A 20% local match is required.
The local jurisdiction, and the MPO must formally
support the byway. The local agencies must contact
Caltrans district office local representatives, delineate a
corridor, hold public hearings and adopt a scenic highway
element in their zoning ordinances. Caltrans reviews the
proposal. If it is approved, the FHWA allocates the funds.
A call for projects is sent out in February, deadlines
dates are pending.
None
California Department of Transportation
Division of Planning (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 10
Name of Funding Program: Bridge Repair and Replacement Program
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Federal
Funds are available for bridge rehabilitation and
replacement. All bridges are eligible, and on-system bridges
are eligible for discretionary funding. When a highway
bridge deck is being replaced or rehabilitated with federal
funds, the bridge-deck must provide bicycle
accommodations, if access is not fully controlled. Bicycles
are permitted to operate at each end of the bridge, if it is
determined that bicycles can be accommodated at a
reasonable cost. Bridge projects must be incorporated into
the RTIP.
City and county agencies, park and recreation districts. Ail
agencies must have a city, county or transit operator as a
sponsor.
Approximately $260 million annually.
No local match requirements specifically for bicycle
accommodations.
Local agencies submit applications to Caltrans to
develop a priority list for bridge rehabilitation or
replacement. The FHWA determines eligibility of bridges
based on a coding system. Bridges must have a deficiency
rating of 80 or less for rehabilitation and 50 or less for
replacement. Once a year the agencies select two of the
worst five local bridges in the State.
Project selection is made in October.
Increased funding.
Caltrans Division of Structures
Local Assistance and Programming Branch
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
11
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
National Recreational Trails Fund (Section 1112)
Federal
Funds are available for recreational trails for use by
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized and
motorized users. Projects must be consistent with a
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP). Projects include development of urban trail
links, maintenance of existing trails, restoration of trails
damaged by use, trail facility development, provision of
access for people with disabilities, administrative costs,
environmental and safety education programs, acquisition of
easements, fee simple title for property and construction of
new trails. Annual funding begins at $30 million for FY
1998, it rises to $40 million for FY 1999 and increases to
$50 million per annum for the remaining years.
Private individuals or organizations, counties, cities, and
other government agencies.
Approximately $3 million annually.
The State is required to use a portion of its tax revenue
from fuel for off-highway recreation purposes.
Projects must gain support of eligible agencies, eligible
agencies then submit applications to the State Recreational
Trails Advisory Board which ranks projects according to
State-wide criteria.
Applications are due October 1.
Significant increases in funding.
State Department of Parks and Recreation
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
12
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
National Highway Safety Act (Section 402)
Federal
The Highway Safety Program is a non-capital safety project
grant program under which states may apply for funds for
certain approved safety programs and activities. There is a
priority list of projects for which an expedited funding
mechanism has been developed; bicycle and pedestrian
safety programs have been included on this list. Eligible
states must adopt a Highway Safety Plan (HSP) reflecting
state highway problems. Eligible projects include pedestrian
and bicycle safety programs, program implementation, and
identification of highway hazards.
State departments, cities, counties, school and special
districts.
Approximately $150 million per annum rising to $165
million in FY 2003.
No match required.
The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) which
administers the program meets with potential applicants on -
site to determine feasibility. Eligible applicants are asked to
submit a proposal to OTS for approval. The program is
approved by the NHTSA/FHWA. Projects related to
bicycle safety education and law enforcement would be
eligible for NHTSA funds.
The proposal deadline is April 15th. Applications
are accepted year round.
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
Increased funding.
Office of Traffic Safety (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 13
Name of Funding Program: Transit Enhancement Activity (Section 3003)
Funding Type: Federal
Summary Description:
This brand new program is created with a one percent set-
aside of Urban Area Formula transit grants (3007). The
funding wich could amount to $50 million per year, can be
used for among other things bicycle and pedestrian access
to mass transportation, including bicycle storage facilities
and installing equipment for transporting bicycles on mass
transportation vehicles.
Eligible Applicants:
Pending.
Typical Funding Amounts: Formula is pending.
Required Matching Funds: A 5% match required.
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Pending
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Pending
Key Changes in TEA-21: This is a brand new program.
Contact:
MCOG (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
14
Name of Funding Program: Highway Safety, Research, and Development Fund
(Section 2003)
Funding Type: Federal
Summary Description:
Provides funding for research on all phases of highway
safety and traffic conditions. Uses, training and education
of highway safety personnel, research fellowships in
highway safety, development of improved accident
investigation procedures, emergency service plan, and
demonstration projects. Projects include improving
pedestrian safety through education, police enforcement,
and traffic engineering. Projects must be incorporated into
the RTIP.
Eligible Applicants:
Cities, counties, and state agencies. Programs are often run
by local community traffic safety programs.
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds: A local match of 25% is required.
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Eligible agencies submit applications to the
FHWA/NHTSA. Those related to bicycle safety education
and law enforcement would be eligible for NHTSA funds.
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Dates are pending.
Key Changes in TEA-21: None
Contact:
FHWA (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
15
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Contact:
Schools and Roads Grants to States
Federal
Funds are used public roads and schools that are located in
the same county as a National Forest. The program's
intention is to maintain county roads which lead to Forest
Service roads.
Cities and counties containing National Forest Land.
Formula grants are 25% of the receipts collected from
timber and land use fees to the respective counties. Fifty
percent of these funds are used for roads.
No match required.
Applicants must contact local governments. Local
governments disburse the funds for projects.
Application deadline is annually in spring.
Public Affairs Office
United States Forest Service Department
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
16
Name of Funding Program: Section 3 Mass Transit Capital Grants
Funding Type: Federal
Summary Description:
This discretionary funding program is used to finance mass
transit systems, especially rail systems in urbanized areas
with populations over 50,000 or more. Projects include
station access, including bicycle and pedestrian access, and
American with Disabilities Act projects, implementation of
shelters, bicycle parking facilities, racks, and other
equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles.
Eligible Applicants:
States, regional and local governments, appropriate boards
and commissions, and transit operators.
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
A local match of 10% is required for bicycle projects, 5%
for ADA projects.
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Projects must be included in the RTIP. Congress
allocates funds in a political process. No applications are
necessary, since no formula exists.
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
On-going
Key Changes in TEA-21:
Contact:
MCOG (refer to Appendix A)
II
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999 17
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Section 9 Mass Transit Formula Grants
Federal
Formula grants to cover mass transportation capital and
operating expenses. Eligible projects include construction,
maintenance, improvement, and acquisition of transit
facilities and access projects for bicycles.
Urban areas with a population of 50,000 or more are
eligible if a comprehensive mass transportation planning
process exists. State, and local governments, and transit
operators are eligible. Public and private non-profit
organizations are eligible for subgrants. Projects must be
consistent with the RTP and must be incorporated into the
RTIP.
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
A local match of 10% is required for bicycle projects.
Applicants submit proposals to the local CTCs or
MTAs, and the FTA office.
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
The application deadline is September.
Contact:
MCOG (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
18
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Local Transportation Fund (LTF), TDA Article 3
State
TDA funds transportation improvements. One quarter cent
of retail sales tax is returned to the county of origin. Each
county is to receive one quarter of a cent of 7 1/4 cents of
retail sales tax collected statewide. Up to two percent of
funds can be set aside for pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
and five percent can be spent for supplementing other funds
to implement bicycle safety education programs.
Local jurisdictions.
$40,000 annually county-wide.
No matching funds are required.
Local agencies submit applications for projects to
the local CTC or MTA. Each CTC or MTA has policies
regarding the provision of LTF funds for non-motorized
transportation projects.
Applications are due in January.
Contact: MCOG
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 19
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Contact:
California Bikeways Act; Bike lane Account (BLA)
State
The purpose of the Bike Lane Account is to improve the
safety and convenience of bicycling for utilitarian reasons.
BLA funds are available for jurisdictions with approved
bicycle transportation plans. No agency may receive more
than 25% of the total funds appropriated. Eligible projects
include new bikeways that serve major transportation
corridors, and that remove travel barriers, bicycle parking at
transit stations, park-n-ride lots and employment centers,
bicycles on transit vehicles, installation of traffic control
devices, planning, safety and education, and elimination of
road hazards on existing bikeways. Priority projects serve
bicycle commuters, have activity centers at each end point,
are consistent with the bicycle plan/program, and close
missing links. Projects must be consistent with local
Bikeway Plans, the RTP and incorporated into the RTIP if
projects are regionally significant.
Cities and counties with approved bicycle plans.
$700,000 FY 98-99, $1 million 00-01, rising $1 million per
annum for the remaining years.
A local match of 10% is required.
Projects must be included in a locally approved
Bike Plan. Projects are reviewed and approved by the local
CTC or MTA before they are submitted to the appropriate
Caltrans Local Streets and Roads program for prioritization.
Caltrans develops statewide priority project listing for
funding.
Proposals are due December 1 st. Caltrans
prioritizes and selects projects in February.
Caltrans District Office,
Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
20
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Contact:
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program
State
Funds are allocated to projects that offset environmental
impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities
including streets, mass transit guideways, park-n-fide
facilities, transit stations, tree planting to equalize the
effects of vehicular emissions, and the acquisition or
development of roadside recreational facilities, such as
trails.
Non-profit, local, state, and federal agencies.
The program is funded at $10 million for 10 years, a
$500,000 cap on individual projects is set.
No match required.
Eligible agencies apply to the State Resources
Agency. The Resource Agency will recommend projects
for funding and give a list of selected projects to the
California Transportation Commission, which makes the
final project selection.
Applications are due November, recommendations
are made to the to the CTC in April, project approvals are
made in July.
State of California Resources Agency
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999 21
Name of Funding Program: Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) Program
Funding Type: State
Summary Description:
This program is designed to reduce congestion on major
transportation corridors by adding capacity to either
roadways or urban rail transit systems. Projects include lane
additions, park-n-fide facilities, guideway stations parking
facilities, multi-modal guideway passenger stations, and
bicycle lanes. Projects must be consistent with the Regional
Transportation Plan and must be included in the RT[P,
particularly, the county's Congestion Management Program
Eligible Applicants:
Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans, and other state
and federal agencies.
Typical Funding Amounts:
Approximately $300 million annually state-wide.
Required Matching Funds:
No match required.
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Eligible agencies submit desired projects to their
respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA). Each
CMA recommends a prioritized list of FCR projects to be
included in the RTIP.
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Proposals are submitted to the California
Transportation Commission on December 1 of odd-
numbered years. The Commission adopts the State
Transportation Improvement Plan on April 1 of even-
numbered years.
Contact:
MCOG
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999
22
·
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Habitat Conservation Fund Grant Program
State
This program originates from the California Wildlife
Protection Act of 1990 (Prop 117). Eligible projects include
the acquisition of various types of wildlife habitats,
enhancement and restoration of various wildlife habitats,
trails, and programs which attract recreationalists to park
and wildlife areas and that educate them about the State's
resources. Projects must be incorporated into the RTIP if
they are regionally significant.
Cities, counties, and special districts.
A local match of 50% is required. The local match can not
be a state source.
Eligible agencies submit applications to the Sate
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). DPR selects
and presents eligible applications to the California State
Legislature for funding approval in the State budget.
The application deadline is October.
Contact:
State Department of Parks and Recreation
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999 23
I
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Kapiloff Land Bank Funds
State
The State Lands Commission purchases land for restoration,
enhancement and protection through Land Bank funds or
land exchange. If approved by the legislature, State lease
revenue is available to fund projects. The funds originate
from land boundary settlements with the State. Generally,
the project must be in the same area that the funds originate.
For acquisition of public access land and other resources,
including trails.
Private landowners.
No match required.
Eligible landowners submit proposals. The State
Lands commission reviews and approves proposals.
Open filing period.
Contact:
State Lands Commission (refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999 24
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Contact:
Land and Water Conservation Fund
State
This program provides grants to plan, acquire, and develop
recreational parks and facilities, especially in urban areas.
Funds are based on a State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan, and limited to outdoor recreational
projects. The most comprehensive projects are the
acquisition of wetland habitat, the development of
pedestrian and bicycle trails, and picnic, camping, and
swimming facilities. Projects must be incorporated into the
RTIP if they are regionally significant.
Cities, counties, park and recreation departments, special
districts with park and recreation areas, State Department of
Parks and Recreation, Wildlife Conservation Board,
Department of Water Resources, and Department of
Boating and Waterways.
50% is reimbursed to eligible agencies.
The State Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) administers the funds. Eligible applicants submit
applications to State DPR. After an initial screening,
projects are ranked according to a set of criteria, including
the statewide outdoor recreation needs (bicycling is
considered one of the highest needs).
The application deadline is December.
State Department of Parks and Recreation
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999
25
Name of Funding Program:
Funding Type:
Summary Description:
Eligible Applicants:
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Contact:
Melio-Roos Community Facilities District Act
State
Sponsoring agencies may issue a special tax bond for a -
community facilities' district to finance public facilities and
services. Facilities include local parks, recreation, parkway
and open space facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. Services include recreational programs, and the
operation and maintenance of parkways, parks and open
space. Projects funded with Mello-Roos funds must be
incorporated into RTIP, if projects are regionally significant.
Cities, counties, special districts, other municipal
corporations or districts.
No match required.
After public notice and hearing, the voters within
the proposed district must vote by a two thirds majority for
the Community Facilities District and for a maximum tax
rate.
Depends on the Mello-Roos District agreements.
Local jurisdiction.
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 26
Name of Funding Program: Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
Funding Type: Regional
Summary Description:
Clean Air Funds are generated by a surcharge on
automobile registration. The Mendocino County Air
Quality Management District is in the process of hiring a full
time planner to help create and administer the Program.
Currently collected funds are placed in a reserve account.
The District is anxious to establish a program that will
contribute to air quality improvements in the region, and has
expressed its receptiveness to proposals for programs and
projects during the formulation of a Clean Air Fund
Program.
Eligible Applicants:
Cities, County, Transportation Authority, and
Transportation Agencies.
Typical Funding Amounts:
Required Matching Funds:
Procedure for Project
Review and Selection:
Schedule for Application
Availability, Due Date,
and Selection Date:
Contact:
Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
(refer to Appendix A)
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999
27
Commuter Fundin[~ Summar~ Appendix A
List of Contacts
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Metro Center
101 8m Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7700
Contact: Doug Kimsey
Caltrans
Office of Transportation Enhancement
Activities
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 654-5275
Contact: Marsha Mason
Caltrans
Division of State and Local Project
Development
Office of Local Programs
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(916) 653-8220
Contact: Mel Aros
California Department of Transportation
Division of Planning
1120 N Street
P.O. Box 942873
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 324-6514
Contact: Donna Long
State Department of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
(916) 653-8803
Contact: Charlie Willard
Office of Traffic Safety
7000 franklin Boulevard, Suite 440
Sacramento, CA 95823
(916) 445-0527
Contact: Arthur L. Anderson, Director
Public Affairs Office
United States Forest Service Department
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 705-2703
Contact: Denise Mills-Ford
Mendocino Council of Governments
215 West Standley Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 463-4470
Contact: Janet Orth
Caltrans Division of Structures
Local Assistance and Programming Branch
1801 30m Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 227-8023
Contact: Gene Cowley
Caltrans District Office,
Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(916) 653-0036
Contact: Richard L. Blunden, Chief
Alta Transportation Consulting
February 9, 1999 28
Commuter Fundin~ Summal~ Appendix A
State Lands Commission
1807 13~ Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-5645
Contact: Mary Howe
State of California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-9709
Contact: Hal Waraas
Mendocino County Ak Quality
Management District
306 E. Gobbi Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 463-4354
Contact: Phil Towle
Federal Highway Administration
Intermodal Division, Hep-50
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 3222
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-5007
Contact: John C. Fegan
Alta Transportation Consulting February 9, 1999 29
Appendix G
City Council minutes, Planning Commission minutes and Adopting Resolution
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
February 1999
City of Ukiah
MINUTES
CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
January 27, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT
Edc Larson
Mike Correll
Joe Chiles
Jennifer Puser
Judy Pruden, Chairman
.OTHERS PRESENT
Rick Seanor, Deputy Director
of Public Works
STAFF PRESENT:
Chades Stump, Senior Planner
Dave Lohse, Associate Planner
Catherine L. Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Pruden at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above.
3. _SITE VISIT VERIFICATIOIu
Chairman Pruden drew attention to the Planning Commissioners that no site verification was
required for the regular meeting of January 27, 1999.
.APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 9, 1998
On A MOTION by Commissioner Correll, seconded by Commissioner Puser, it was carried by an
all AYE vote of the Commissioners present to approve the minutes of December 9, 1998 meeting,
as submitted.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No one from audience came forward.
6. .APPEAL PROCESS
Chairman Pruden read the appeal process to the audience. For matters heard at this meeting,
the final date for appeal is February 8, 1999.
7. PROJECT REVIEW
7A.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, initiated by Planning Depai~ent staff am
prepared with consultant assistance. The plan details a City,vide strategy fo,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page I
Janua~ 27,1999
facilities and im rovements to enhance bic cie and pedestrian opportunitie~
t~hrou~lhout the City
Senior Planner Stump reported that the purpose for the January 27, 1999, Planning Commission
meeting was to not only recommend approval of the Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Negative
Declaration, but to also recommend approval for the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
to the City Council.
Mr. Stump gave a brief introduction of the proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan's
origination and financial sources. He stated that funding for the proposed project came from the K-
Mart project, when it was approved. There was an air quality mitigation measure imposed requiring
a contribution of certain funds to go towards a project which would help the City address air quality
problems. He reported it was a lengthy process to determine where and how the funds would be
appropriated as well as to define a specific project. At the direction of the City Council, the proposed
project became known as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Associate Planner Lohse gave a brief overview on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan's
committee work and public process in connection with the Plan's early objectives and
implementation strategies.
.
He stated the eady Plan's origination began prior to the City Council's recommendation when a
group of concemed citizens, mainly composed of bicycle advocates, requested the Council consider
a bicycle and pedestrian project. No such plan objectives regarding bicycle and pedestrian issues
and concerns had ever been fully addressed within the City's General Plan's goals and policies.
He stated in the early stages of the Plan's initiation, the project consisted mainly of an advisory
committee, composed of all interested pdvate citizens, staff from certain public agencies, and staff
from both the City and the County, who attended and participated in bicycle and pedestrian plan
meetings. Eventually, after both short and long term evaluation and informational studies involving
a variety of pertinent bicycle and pedestrian problems and deficiencies, the advisory committee
recommended to the City Council that a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan be implemented.
Steve Weinberger, Project Manager/Consultant for the initial bicycle and pedestrian study, Whitlock
& Weinberger Transportation, Inc., presented the Planning Commission with a general outline of
the Plan's objectives, guidelines, and implementation strategies to include:
1. Goals and Objectives
a. Public Safety & Education
b. Greater Citywide Access
1. Class I Bike Paths, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
2. Class II Bike Lanes, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
3. Class III Bike Routes, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
c. A Higher Quality of Life
d. Establish An Effective Implementation Strategy
1. Program Education
2. Program Enforcement
3. Engineering/Funding
Existing Conditions
__
a. Existing Bicycle Facilities and Activity Areas
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 2
Janua~ 27,1999
b.
Co
Se
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
I.
m.
( Figure 1, Bicycle Activity Corridors, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Existing Pedestrian Facilities and Activity Areas
( Figure 2, Pedestrian Activity Areas, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
( Figure 3, Pedestrian Facilities, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
Opportunities and Constraints
Need Analysis
Recreational Needs
Computer Needs
Accident Analysis
Relevant Legislation and Policies
Bicycle Parking
Transit Center
Public Crossings
Sidewalk Continuity
Shade Trees
.
.
irculation Strate Desi n and Performance Standards
· Circulation Strategy
a. Bicycle Circulation Strategy
b. Creating a Bikeway System
( Figure 4, Proposed Bikeway System, Pedestrian Master Plan)
c. Description of Proposed Bikeway Improvements, ranking:
1. Northwestern Pacific Rail Trail, City Limits
2. Clay-Peach-Gibson Creek Corridor, Oak Manor to McPeak
3. Gobbi Corridor, Oak Manor to Dora
4. Western Bikeway (Helen-Gardens-McPeak-Barnes_Todd_Hazel_
Grove-Spring, Washington to High School & Orchard-Brush Corridor,
Gobbi to High School
d. Bicycle Parking and Other Support Facilities
e. Description of Proposed Pedestrian Improvements
1. Downtown Pedestrian District
2. Arterial Street Crossing Program
3. Missing Links
4. Pedestrian Street Enhancements
(Figure 5, Pedestrian Projects, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
f. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Programs
g. Community and Employer Outreach
h. Other Safety Improvements
Design and Performance Standards
a. Existing Bicycle Design Standards and Classifications
b. General Design Recommendations
c. Class I, II and III Bikeway Design Guidelines/Standards
d. Other Facilities
·
Implementation Strategy
a. Project Implementation
.
Potential Funding Sources
a. Project Cost and Funding Breakdown, shod & long term
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 3
Janua~ 27,1999
Tables 5 & 6, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, outline project
description, cost, and potential funding sources.
Fund availability can be obtained by the City of Ukiah from local, regional, state and federal sources.
Historically, the City of Ukiah has invested approximately $10,000.00 a year in bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The list of recommended bicycle and pedestrian projects for this area would
cost approximately 2.7 million dollars.
Mr. Weinberger also included in his general outline presentation, the major recommendations
contained in the Plan, based upon analytical Initial studies, to include -
.
A pedestrian/bike path along the NWP railroad right-of-way from Ford Street to Norgaard
Lane;
.
.
The creation of a pedestrian/bicycle corridor along Clay Street - Peach Street - Gibson
Creek corridor through the NWP station redevelopment site;
The extension of bike lanes on Gobbi Street from Oak Manor Drive to Dora Street from
Oak Manor Drive to Dora Street;
.
.
.
.
.
The creation of north-south signed bike route along the west side of Ukiah;
Once Orchard Avenue is extended to Brush Street, the completion of bike lanes on
Orchard Avenue from Gobbi Street to Ukiah High School;
Formalization and improvements to the downtown pedestrian district;
A Citywide program to provide sidewalks on "missing links;"
Pedestrian street enhancements on key corridors to connect the most vital pedestrian
activity areas;
.
The proposed Master Plan also includes policies for the establishment of programs to
teach children and other persons how to walk and bike safely within the City of Ukiah.
Mr. Weinberger also commented on the accident analysis, based on statistics provided by the City
of Ukiah. There has been an average of 11 pedestrian related and 20 bicycle related accidents
Citywide each year for the last four years. Based on information provided by the Califomia Highway
Patrol, the expected number of accidents in Ukiah, considering the current population and average
number of accidents per capita in the State, should be approximately 8 pedestrian related and 6
bicycle related accidents. The City of Ukiah has a higher than average accident history for both
pedestrians and especially bicyclists.
He reported to the Planning Commission how the project progressed, once the project's analytical
studies were completed on the various existing conditions, as well as how the study group
established the criteria for each project. Essentially, a list was developed for each subsequent
project condition in the initial study and scored according to the criteria based on proximity of
schools, proximity of parks and recreation, and proximity to employment centers. Other project
criteria included projects that resolved safety issues and projects that connected activity areas.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 4
Janua~ 27,1999
After each project was scored, five top projects were formulated, which are referred to above as the
Northwesten Pacific Rail Trail, Clay-Peach-Gibson Creek Corridor, Gobbi Corridor, Western
Bikeway, and Orchard-Brush Corridor.
Additionally, the pedestrian projects focused on the down town area with the intent that people can
utilize and benefit from the existing downtown facilities, amenities, and street systems. A list was
comprised of additional improvements and enhancements to the existing downtown pedestrian
facilities and amenities as well as to other pedestrian designated areas. Other improvements
associated with the pedestrian project include shade tree plantings, crosswalk amenities, and the
implementation of the Artedal Street Crossing Program, which primarily focused on State Street
crosswalks as well as other uncontrolled crosswalk locations throughout the City. An inventory was
taken of uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalks in locations where vehicles do not have a stop sign or
traffic signal. A recommendation was made by the project managers of the top ten locations where
crosswalk enhancements could be made. The project managers also identified sidewalk missing
links, which will be beneficial to the project when it is time to make the pedestrian improvements.
Mr. Stump reported a concern of City Engineer Kennedy regarding the Plan's suggestion that the
Planning and Public Works become responsible to monitor and implement the programs. Mr.
Kennedy feels that his staff will not have the spare time to assist in this effort. Accordingly, he
supports the alternative in the Plan to hire a part-time transportation planner to oversee the
proposed programs and Plan implementation.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:27 p.m.
Valerie Law, 2501 Twining Road, Talmage, stated she is a bicycle advocate who uses the bicycle
as her pdmary mode of transportation to and from work. She has been involved with the bicycle and
pedestrian program since its inception, and she complimented everyone who was involved with the
Plan's development.
Susan Knopf, 460 Todd Road, Ukiah, inquired as to why the Plan did not include a walking lane
around the outer parameters of Todd Grove Park. She further stated that the absence of a
designated walking lane presented a potential hazard not only to the recreational walkers, but to the
vehicle ddvers.
Mr. Weinberger reiterated that the project advisors and committee members tried to include as
many Plan projects that would allow maximum use for the majority of participants.
General discussion followed regarding park enhancement, should a walking lane be implemented
around Todd Grove Park.
Steve Turner, 161 Barbara Street., Ukiah, stressed the importance for compliance of all safety
issues and conditions associated with implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
He suggested that the Plan provide for downtown bicycle parking as opposed to designated bicycle
parking located a distance from the downtown area. He praised the portion of the Plan that calls
for a bicycle/pedestrian north-south corridor along the Northwest Pacific Railroad (NPR) right-of-
way, which would include the west-east corridor at Clay Street-Peach Street-Gibson Creek through
the NWP railroad station redevelopment site. This project would provide an alternative route from
bicycling on State Street. He stated that the existence of a north-west corridor and the east-west
corridor would greatly enhance the City's bicycle/pedestrian use. He further suggested that the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 5
Januaw 27,1999
above-referenced east corridor project be expanded to connect at the newly proposed River
Development Park, as an additional bicycle/pedestrian alternative enhancement opportunity. He
also requested that proportional ADA curb cuts at intersections be included in the pedestrian portion
of the Plan, based on specific continuous routes, rather than having curb cuts on one side of the
intersection and not on the other.
Mr. Turner noted the Mendocino Council of Govemments (MCOG) distributed unexpected federal
SB 45 funds, in which the Cities and County are eligible for $380,000 of bicycle and pedestrian
funds to make improvements. Other possible funding includes the State's newly expanded bike
lane account and the new T 21 funding, which makes the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan a
great opportunity.
He expressed his concem, as part of the Plan's pedestrian enhancement options, to include pocket
parks and benches, where people can stop and rest.
Mr. Turner commented on his bicycle commute on State Street, and proposed that the County
extend its bike lane into the City's bike lane at the Washington and Hastings intersection where it
would T up to Dora Street, west of the railroad project or even further west to Airport Boulevard.
Jim Rickel, Studio Three, 111 West Perkins Street, Ukiah, questioned Mr. Weinberger's
bicycle/pedestrian statistical accident report, and expressed his concems regarding pedestrian and
driver safety issues included in the Plan's safety options, improvements, and enhancements.
Mr. Weinberger replied that some of the potential street enhancements include ADA ramps, 6 to
8 foot wide sidewalks, some buffering between pedestrian and vehicles such as use of bike lanes,
parking and landscape buffers, pedestrian and vehicle traffic studies, continuously connected
sidewalks, street shade trees, wider crosswalks with a zebra-striped pattern, demand response to
pedestrian calls where traffic signals exist, street lighting, and removal of unwanted utility poles and
other street impediments.
He also commented on the downtown pedestrian distdct enhancements to include, replacement of
the existing red painted crosswalks with stamped colored concrete, ensuring clear paths on
sidewalks, different colored street trees at intersections as opposed to different colored street trees
along the corridor, bulb outs at the curbs, proper maintenance to sidewalks, and the planting of
additional shade trees.
Mr. Rickel reported that there are only two newspaper racks in the downtown area, which
adequately comply with City's Ordinance regarding newspaper racks.
He also reported on his observations of pedestrians in the roadway in the downtown area, and the
Plan's need to accommodate potential hazards of pedestrians in unmarked roadways.
Steve Ford, Traffic Engineer, County of Mendocino, Ukiah, stated that it was his understanding
that the City incorporates no bikeways on State Street within the City limits. It is also his
understanding that the proposed Plan intends to remove any existing bikeways from State Street
to Dora Street, or to other corridors as an alternative for bicycles to avoid the congested and
dangerous traffic on State Street.
He inquired whether the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and/or NWP railroad would authorize a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 6
January 27, 1999
right-of-way down the entire length of the railroad for a Rail Trail as an altemate route for bicycles.
He further inquired if there were alternative bicycle/pedestrian routes in the Plan, should some of
the recommended routes not be approved.
Mr. Weinberger stated that the proposed Rail Trail right-of-way will meet the PUC requirements.
Chairman Pruden inquired about the bicycle racks on Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) vehicles.
Mr. Turner stated that there are existing bicycle racks on buses, but no bicycles are allowed on the
buses within the City because of the dangerous conditions created when the buses turn corners.
Ms. Pruden further inquired if the bicycles on MTA buses would be allowed once the transit center
becomes operational for buses at the railroad center.
Mack Ford, Redemeyer Road, Ukiah, thanked the City for the improvements to Perkins Street, as
he is a part-time bicycle commuter. He expressed concern regarding the rough conditions of the
railroad track crossings on Perkins Street, and proposed that the Plan provide provisions for
improvement at this location.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:08 p.m.
Chairman Pruden commended Commissioner Puser for her work on the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan.
Commissioner Puser inquired about the Plan's draft which incorporated a closing down of Perkins
Street between School Street and State Street in front of the Mendocino County Courthouse for
pedestrian use only.
Mr. Stump replied that both the City Planning and Engineer Departments examined this proposal
and found that the potential impacts on traffic could be significant. There would be a need for an
extensive traffic study prior to adoption of the Plan.
It was noted that copies of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan are available to the public for
review and/or purchase at vadous locations within the City.
Commissioner Larson commented on the proposed Plan, and his proposed Plan modifications,
comments, and questions are referenced below:
Comment 1'
a. On page 3, there is a reference in the last paragraph to the _Element to the
General Plan.
b. it is an element comprised of two other elements and the word element should not
capitalized.
Comment 2:
a. On pages 1 and 19, there is reference to open farm and range land, and the City
residents having access to such property and should be referenced in the Plan
as open space.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 7
January 27, 1999
b. Private land owners and businesses would not appreciate their farm and range land
being used by City residents for recreational purposes.
Comment 3:
a. On page 1, in reference to the second to the last paragraph, wording should be
included to state that the Plan has the potential to save money by not having to
widen or build new streets.
Comment 4:
a. On page 6, enforcement of the bicycle and pedestrian laws is a critical factor
to emphasize.
b. The notion that the Plan's implementation, will automatically increase
bicycle and pedestrian activity and decrease the amount of accidents by ten percent
(10%) is an optimistic observation.
Comment 5:
a. On page 11, there is reference to Class I bicycle paths being combined with the
sidewalk system.
b. What does a 5 foot horizontal separation involve?
Mr. Weinberger replied that when situations involve a sidewalk that is located in the street right-of-
way, where there is at least 5 feet or more of landscaping separating that sidewalk from the street,
this situation is classified as a path.
Comment 6:
a. Page 17 and the map on page 18, classifies Class II bicycle lanes on Walnut Avenue.
b. Class II bicycle lanes should be classified on Grove Street and not on Walnut Avenue.
c. Class II bicycle lanes are omitted from the Plan on Gobbi Street and Hastings Road.
Comment 7:
a. On page 21, there is reference to the younger bicyclists who ride on the wrong side of
street.
b. The reference to younger should be changed to many.
Comment 8:
a. On page 25, there is reference to the Califomia Department of Transportation
(C^LTRANS) as the agency who controls most of the federal and state funding.
b. This reference is no longer true, given the SB 45 funding and should be deleted from
the Plan.
c. SB 45 directs seventy-five percent (75%) of the funding to MCOG who then allocates
various percentages to bicycle and pedestrian projects.
d. Does SB 45 funding give more local control over bicycle, pedestrian, and safety
funding?
b. Are there additional funds which may be obtained through CALTRANS?
Mr. Weinberger replied that federal SB 45 funding has given the decision making process to the
local transportation planning agency, which in this case is MCOG. MCOG decides where the money
is to be spent and CALTRANS assists in the implementation of the proposed projects for the State
highways. There is no money to be gotten through CALTRANS because there are other programs
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 8
Janua~ 27,1999
including the T 21 funding, which is related to bicycle projects. The local transportation planning
agency does not have to go through CALTRANS for funding, but can directly apply for funding from
the funding sources available.
Comment 9:
a. On pages 30 and 31, there is no reference in the Plan to the Riverside Park Project.
Comment 10:
a. On page 33, the Plan calls for narrowing of the travel lanes along Orchard down to
10 ~ feet to accommodate 5 foot bicycle lanes, which may not be approved by the City
Engineer.
Comment 11'
a. There is reference in the Plan to developing the railway corridor in several large
segments. .
b. Is there any Plan flexibility to include an extension of the railway corridors from
Ford Street to Clara Avenue as well as to other heavily used bicycle and pedestrian
corridors by connection of the missing sidewalk links?
Mr. Stump replied that when it comes time to pursue the railway corridors for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, there will be another opportunity to refine the railway concepts. He stated, that at this time,
there is no intent to prioritize a particular project.
Comment
a.
12:
It seems logical to extend as an alternative route the Orchard Class II Lane, or at least
on a Class III Lane basis, down to Marlene Street, Lorraine Street, and to Talmage.
These particular streets are already traffic calmed.
Comment
a.
13:
Is there any documentation regarding striping of bicycle lanes having an affect on
vehicular speed?
Mr. Weinberger replied that depending upon the situation, striping of bicycle lanes may have some
affect on vehicular speed, but there are no studies he is aware of which document this
phenomenon.
Comment
a.
14:
Not all the collector streets mentioned in the report were evaluated for missing links,
and were not included in the Plan.
Comment
a.
bo
15:
On page 34, there is reference, as an altemative route, to the Talmage route using the
Airport property to Hastings Road to circumvent the Talmage/State Street intersection.
Does the plan include coming across the open space at the end of the airport and
connecting to Hastings Road, which is a Class I17
Comment
a.
16:
$15,000 is greatly under estimating the cost of fixing the missing links in the City's
sidewalk system.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 9
Janua~ 27,1999
Commissioner Chiles inquired about the Rail Trail safety issues and safety processes.
He also inquired on the safety issues confronting the City's streets, as well as other public safety
matters.
Mr. Weinberger replied that he could not comment in detail on the Rail Trail safety issues because
he did not have the information with him.
Mr. Stump replied that Staff has not received any concerns from the City of Ukiah's Public Safety
Department regarding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Ms. Pruden commented on page 1 of the Plan, and advised that the reference to life in Ukiah has
been historically centered around lumber and the timber industry. The reference to lumber should
be changed to agricultural business.
She further commented on the grammatical error on last paragraph of page 3, wherein the word in
the phrase, Element of the General Plan, should not be capitalized. She further clarified that the
word element as used in this text should be classified as a component and not as an element, since
there is more than one element to the Plan.
Ms. Pruden commented that the first sentence of page 39 of the Plan's concluding paragraph
should be bold print and that key resources be changed to key resource.
She also recommended to the Staff that a simplified flow chart be added to the Plan, which
demonstrates how a lead agency receives and disburses funds.
It was noted the Plan should also include deadline dates for the different grants that will fund the
many projects.
It was also noted that all modifications to the Plan may be included in the Plan as an Appendix.
Ms. Puser suggested that all pedestrian improvements in the Plan be given the same priority as
the other top five bicycle projects, with the first focus of improvements to begin on State Street.
Mr. Stump reiterated that specific details regarding the Plan's individual bicycle and pedestrian
projects can be worked out at the committee level.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the suggestions and/or proposed modifications
made above were approved unanimously.
ON A MOTION by Commissioner Puser, seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carried by the
following roll call vote to recommend approval of the City of Ukiah Negative Declaration for the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, as submitted by the City of Ukiah Planning Department.
AYES- Commissioners Larson, Puser, Chiles, Correll, and Chairman Pruden
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 10
Janua~ 27,1999
ON A MOTION by Commissioner Puser, seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carded by the
following roll call vote to recommend approval for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, as
recommended in the staff's written report, and with modifications to the Plan, as outlined above.
AYES: Commissioners Larson, Puser, Chiles, Correll, and Chairman Pruden
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
8. .PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORTS'
8A.
8B.
8C.
City Council and Redevelopment Agency Action
Future Planning Commission Agenda Items
Status Reports
Mr. Stump drew attention to the wdtten reports included in the Commission's packet.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
Mr. Stump commented on the progress of the Ukiah General Plan as it goes through the County
for adoption as an Area Plan.
He stated that Staff does intend to have representatives from the Public Works and Community
Services Department attend a February or March Planning Commission meeting to continue
discussion on the General Plan Implementation.
Mr. Stump commented on the discussion of the Gobbi and Riverside Park, and stated that a
consulting team has been chosen for the project. Funding for this project came from the State
Coastal Conservancy.
He also commented that Staff is currently in the process of interviewing consultants for the Historical
Resources Survey.
He stated that Staff has received an Application for a Use Permit from the Mendocino Transit
Authority for the transit center project located at the old railroad depot site.
He added that the Air Quality District has prepared an Air Quality Plan which is currently at the
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors for review.
Discussion followed regarding future Planning Commission seminars.
Discussion also followed regarding the budget for Planning Commissioners to attend conferences
as continuous educational training for them in lieu of receiving financial compensation.
It was concluded that a copy of the City's Resolution regarding the Planning Commission's policies
and procedures be reviewed by both the Planning Commissioners and Staff, prior to the next regular
meeting.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 11
Janua~ 27,1999
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Judy Pruden, Chairman
~a-tl~e~ine L. E~_~/a~Y,'Re~ordin~ec~eta~
6:pc012799.min
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 12
Janua~ 27,1999
10. NEW BUSINESS
a. Adoption of Resolution Approvin(] the Negative Declaration and Adopting the
City of Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Senior Planner Stump advised that funding for the project was received from funds
received from the KMART project. Council imposed a condition on the KMART project that
they pay into an Air Quality Offset Fund and the funds would be used to maintain
appropriate air quality levels in the Ukiah Valley. After some deliberation, Council made
a decision that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the use of some of those
funds for grant matching funds, would be an appropriate way to satisfy the purpose and
intent of the condition on the KMART project. A consultant was hired to assist staff in the
preparation of the Plan. An ad hoc Advisory Committee was formed and a series of
successful community workshops took place. The Planning Commission reviewed the
Plan and made minor changes, which are included in the Staff Report. He gave an
overview of the plan and reported that a positive response to the Plan was voiced by
community members at the Planning Commission's hearing last month. The Planning
Commission recommends the City Council adopt the Plan and the Negative Declaration.
Even though this matter is not a Public Hearing, he recommended Council open the
meeting for discussion from the audience regarding their comments on the Plan.
Mike Jones, a consultant with Alta Transportation Group, presented a summary of the
plan through a slide presentation. He thanked staff and the Advisory Committee for ali
their assistance and input. He advised that bicycling and walking are the two most
preferred forms of exercise in the United States. A needs analysis was conducted with
public workshops as well as spending time in the field assessing existing conditions for
walkways and bike lanes in the community. He discussed the goals and objectives,
existing conditions, circulation strategy, the range of design and performance standards,
and the implementation and financing of the Plan. An accident analysis was reviewed and
attention was given to where safety improvements could be made. The bicycle activity
corridors were also identified as well as pedestrian activity areas and this w. ill assist in
making functional improvements. Some of the major issues that Ukiah must address to
become a bicycle and pedestrian friendly city are safety, access, quality of life, an effective
implementation program, education services, enforcement, engineering, and to obtain
Ukiah's fair share of funding. The expected benefits of the Master Plan would be to save
lives, provide needed facilities and services, improve quality of life in Ukiah, and to have
additional sources for implementation. He discussed funding sources and the process of
identifying the top projects for the Master Plan, with criteria such as servicing schools,
providing recreation benefits, and serving employment centers. The top five proposed
projects were identified as: 1) Northwestern Pacific Railroad Trail, 2) Clay Street-Peach
Street-Gibson Creek corridor, 3) The Gobbi Street corridor, 4) the Western bikeway
corridor, and 5) Orchard Avenue-Brush Street corridor.
He discussed bicycle parking and other facilities which can be implemented with new
developments over a period of time. The pedestrian improvements focus on the downtown
pedestrian district such as design guidelines, an arterial street crossing program, and
pedestrian street enhancements. A funding and financial strategy plan for the City was
conducted noting that cities traditionally do not rely on General Fund money, and felt that
the majority of the funding would be derived from Federal and State sources. He
discussed the 5-year strategy for the main projects and costs involved and identified the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Trail as the most costly to fund.
Discussion followed concerning funding sources, such as TEA-21 funds where counties
have more discretion as to how the money will be used. Mr. Jones advised that they
operate under the assumption that cities are strained financially and stressed the
importance of planning ahead for projects, noting that outside funding sources require a
local match in funding projects.
Senior Planner Stump advised that the Plan is not a direct policy document mandating
the City Council to implement everything in the Plan on a specific time schedule but rather
a plan for the community to implement when funds become available. Some State and
Federal grant funds can cover up to 85% of the total cost for improvements envisioned in
the Plan. He noted that Coundrs commitment to the Plan would be the allocation of 10%
matching funds as staff applies for grants.
Counciimember Baldwin queried staff regarding any discussions with Mendocino
County's Planning Department on the northern extension of paths, such as the route to
Mendocino College.
Senior Planner Stump noted that the County's Planning Department was invited to sit on
the Advisory Committee, however, they were understaffed and did not send a
representative. City staff will continue communication with them to coordinate their
planning with the City's.
Associate Planner Lohse discussed the 'A" route to Mendocino College as being a
primary objective. Another route would run parallel with the railroad tracks. An alternate
(back) route through the vineyards to Mendocino College would require an easement
across valuable vineyard property. As the lands became more valuable, the route dropped
Februan/17, 1999
Page 8 of 14
on the priorii[y list. He reported speaking with Mr. Ford in he County's Depadment of
Transpodation and they are currently working on the circulation for the County. His staff
is making a recommendation that the County include bicycle and pedestrian facilities thai[
connect ilo those that the City has generai[ed.
There was discussion of why the Oak Street to Bush Street route, along the creek, is not
a priority and it was noted the path would be very narrow and cause safety concerns. The
formula that MCOG adopted for allocation of funds to cities in the County was discussed.
It was noted that MCOG funds would not require matching funds from the City.
Planning Commissioner Jennifer Puser discussed federal and state grant funds
requiring 5% matching funds.
MIS Kelly/Ashiku approving the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Libby,
Baldwin, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Mastin. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT:
None.
M/S Ashiku/Kelly adopting Resolution No. 99-33 approving the Negative Declaration and
adopting the City of Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, carried by the following roll
call vote:AYES: Libby, Baldwin, Ashiku, Kelly, and Mayor Mastin. NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.
Planning Commissioner Puser advised that Federal and State government funding
sources have found that it is cheaper to allocate some of their transportation funding for
bike paths, rail, and other modes of transportation other than highways. Prior to applying
for any grant funds, a Plan must be in place, especially with the California Bike Lane
Account. At the State and Federal levels, more money has been appropriated each year.
At the local level, MCOG has more jurisdiction than ever before, and noted that 5% of this
money will be allocated toward bike r,nd pedestrian paths. It was her opinion that the Plan
should be implemented within 20 years.