Administrative Draft Plan 11-14-2012

7/30/2019 Administrative Draft Plan 11-14-2012

1/66

Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan

Prepared by:

Alta Planning + Design

Draft PlanNovember 2012

Prepared for:

City of Alhambra


2/66


3/66

Acknowledgements

Prepared for: City of Alhambra

Mary Chavez, Director of Public Works

Chris Paulson, Administrative Analyst

Prepared by: Alta Planning and Design

Brett Hondorp, Principal

Jessie Holzer, Planner

City of Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan

page


4/66

page ii

Acknowledgements


5/66

page ii


Table of Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 Existing Plans and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3.1 Existing Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 Multi-Modal Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.3 Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4 Past Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4 Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

4.1 Types of Bicyclists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2 Public Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.4 Collision Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5 Recommended Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1 Proposed Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.2 Proposed Bicycle Support Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.3 Additional Municipal Code Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.4 Recommended Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

6.1 Project Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.2 Bikeway Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.3 Project Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.4 Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix A: Online Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix B: Bike Lane Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59


6/66

page iv

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Proximity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 1-2: Land Use Policy Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 2-1: West San Gabriel Valley Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3-1: Caltrans Bikeway Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 3-2: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 3-3: Multi-Modal Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 4-1: Types of Bicyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 4-2: Respondent Bicyclist Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 4-3: Respondent Commute Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4-4: Barriers to Bicycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4-5: Interest in Programmatic Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 5-1: Recommended Bikeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 5-2: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Relevant Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 4-2: Existing Bicycling Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 4-3: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 4-4: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 4-7: Collision Details, 2006-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 6-1: Bikeway Unit Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 6-2: Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 6-3: Prioritization Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 6-4: Prioritized Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 6-5: Federal Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 6-6: State Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 6-7: Regional Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 6-8: Other Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50


7/66

page 1


Main Street

Valley Boulevard

Fremont Avenue

Mission-Palm

The top three employers in Alhambra are:

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works

(3,600 employees)

Alhambra City Schools (2,136 employees)

County of Los Angeles Offices at The Alhambra

(1,500 employees)

1.2 Land Uses

Land uses in Alhambra are shown in Figure 1-2. Just over hal

of the Citys land area consists of residential uses, including

single family residential (35 percent) and multifamily

residential (18 percent). Office/professional uses in the city

are located on Garfield Avenue and Fremont Avenue, while

commercial uses are concentrated along Main Street. The

Citys automobile commercial land use, representing Auto

Row, is also situated on Main Street.

1 Introduction

The Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the

development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle

network and set of programs and policies throughout the city

over the next 10 years. The plan provides a vision to improve

conditions for bicycling throughout Alhambra, and create local

and regional connectivity. Implementation of this plan is meant

to promote and increase bicycle ridership for all ages and

levels of ability through safe, accessible, and consistent bicycle

infrastructure, and the policies and programs that support it.

This chapter introduces the City of Alhambra and the Bicycle

Master Plan. It is meant to provide context and background for

future chapters in the Plan.

1.1 Setting

The City of Alhambra has a population of approximately 83,389

residents and, as shown on Figure 1-1, is located in central Los

Angeles County, several miles northeast of Downtown Los

Angeles. The city has a land area of approximately 7.5 square

miles and is built-out. Within the city there are 11 different

colleges and four business districts. The business districts

include:


8/66

page 2

Chapter One | Introduction

Downtown

LosAngeles

LOS

A

NGELES

SOUTH

PASADENA

SA

N

MARINO

SAN

GABR

IEL

ROS

EMEAD

MONTEREY

PARK

ALHAMBRA

M

ONTEBELLO

LOSANGELESCOUNT

Y

(unincorporated)

LOSANGEL

ESCOUNTY

(unincor

porated)

LOSANG

ELES

COUN

TY

(unincorp

orated)

710

60

10

5

110

101

1

0.5

0

Miles

N

Figure 1-1: Proximity Map


9/66

page 3


HUNT

INGTON

DR

VALLEY BLVD

RAMO

NA

ST

GARVEYAVE

MISSION

RD

RAMON

ARD

GARFIELD

AVE

NEW

AVE

MAIN ST

ATLANTIC

BLVD

FREMONT

AVE

ATLANTICBLVD

HELLMAN AVE

COMMONWEALTH AVE

ALHAMBRA RD

HELLMAN AVE

GRANADAAVE

6TH

ST

YNEZ

AVE

MARENGO

AVE

ALM

ANSOR

ST

ALHA

MBRA

RD

CHAPEL

AVE

POPL

ARBLVD

CONCORD

AVE PA

LM

AVE

MARGUERITA

AVE

PINEST

ORANGE ST

FRON

TST

WOOD

WARD

AVE

ROSS AVE

ALM

ANSO

RST

NORWOOD PL

SAN MARINO AVE

GLENDON WY

710

10

Source: City of Alhambra 20

Low Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

High Density Residential

General Commercial

Automotive Commercial

Regional Commercial

Central Business District

Office Professional

Industrial

Parking

Public Facilities

Open Space

Specific Plan

Downtown Specific Plan Overlay

Figure 1-2: Land Use Policy Map


10/66

page 4

Chapter One | Introduction

This page intentionally left blank.


11/66

page 5


Plan and the goals, objectives, and policies presented in this

chapter, the City aims to become a place where residents and

visitors can bicycle to their destinations, whether it be home

work, or commercial centers.

2.2 Goals and Objectives

The broad, over-arching goal of the City of Alhambras Bicycle

Master Plan is to encourage and promote bicycling as a form

of transportation through engineering, education, enforcement

and encouragement. Specific goals and objectives for achieving

this goal are as follows.

2 Goals and Policies

This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and policies for the

Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan. It also reviews existing plans

and policies related to bicycling that will help guide this Plan,

organized by City of Alhambra, Los Angeles County, and

Other Plans and Policies.

2.1 Vision

The overall vision of the Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan is to

create a community where bicycling is a safe, convenient, and

viable form of transportation. Through the development of the

Goal 1: Bicycle Network

Create a bicycle network in Alhambra for all types of bicycle riders and all trip purposes

Objective 1.1 Develop a bicycle network with a comprehensive system of bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes

Policies

Plan and install new bicycle lanes on major arterials with sufficient width

Plan and install shared lane markings (sharrows) and signage on bicycle routes where bicycle lane implementation is demonstrated

to be infeasible

Ensure that all facilities are designed consistently in accordance with the latest local, State, and Federal standards

Promote consistent signage that directs bicyclists to neighborhood destinations and increases the visibility of the bicycle network

Objective 1.2 Implement a system of bikeways with connectivity between homes, jobs, public transit, recreational resources, and adjacent communities

Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent to schools

Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent to major employment and shopping centers

Plan and install bicycle facilities that will connect to regional facilities

Work cooperatively with adjacent cities to coordinate bicycle planning and implementation activities

Support the development of bicycle facilities that provide access to regional and local public transit services wherever possible


12/66

page 6

Chapter Two | Goals and Policies

Coordinate with transit providers to ensure bicycles can be accommodated on all forms of transit vehicles and that adequate

space is devoted to their storage on board whenever possible

Coordinate with transit agencies to install and maintain convenient and secure short-term and long-term bike parking facilities

racks, on-demand bike lockers, in-station bike storage, and staffed bicycle parking facilities at transit stops and stations,

Objective 1.3 Coordinate with developers to provide bicycle facilities that encourage biking and link to key destinations

Policies

Recommend the implementation of bike lane and bicycle support facilities along key corridors

Recommend bicycle parking at key locations, such as employment centers, parks, transit centers, schools, multi-family

residences, and shopping centers

Objective 1.4Support efforts to develop a Complete Streets policy that accounts for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, disabled persons, and

public transit users

Policies Prioritize opportunities that improve walkability and bikeability by utilizing Complete Streets standards for Capital Improvement

Projects

Objective 1.5 Develop a bicycle parking policy

Policies

Establish bicycle parking design standards and requirements for all bicycle parking on City property and for private

development

Identify where bicycle parking facilities are needed and identify the appropriate type for each site

Install and support short-term, long-term, and high capacity bicycle parking within the public right-of-way and on public

property, especially in high demand locations, such as near commercial centers

Provide bicycle parking that is sheltered from inclement weather

Goal 2: Safety

Improve safety for all road users through bikeway implementation, education, enforcement, and bikeway maintenance

Objective 2.1 Implement projects that improve the safety of bicyclists at key locations

Policies Review bicyclist-related automobile crashes to identify potential problem areas

Implement bicycle facilities on low-speed and low-volume roads

Objective 2.2 Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of the general public

Policies

Support the implementation of bicycle-safety curricula and provision to the general public and targeted populations, including

diverse age, income, and ethnic groups

Partner with neighboring communities to distribute bicycle-safety education materials

Encourage schools to develop and provide bicycle-safety curricula for use in elementary, middle, and high schools

Support marketing and public awareness campaigns aimed at improving safety

Implement a Safe Routes to School program for elementary and middle schools

Objective 2.3 Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of City employees

Policies

Train City staff working on street design, construction, and maintenance projects to consider the safety of bicyclists in their

work

Conduct bicycle-safety classes for City employees

Conduct bicycle-safety workshop for City-operated transit operators and other large fleet-vehicle operators

Provide bicycle safety education to the police and those cited for moving violations that focuses on safe cycling, relevant traffic

laws, and safe sharing of the roadway

Objective 2.4 Increase enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths and roadways

Increase enforcement efforts on City-streets and bikeways

Increase enforcement of unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and

conflicts

Increase bicycle-mounted patrol officers Develop and promote efficient mechanisms for reporting behaviors that endanger cyclists

Encourage targeted enforcement activities in areas with high bicycle volumes

Objective 2.5 Maintain bikeways that are clear of debris and provide safe riding conditions

Policies

Establish routine maintenance schedule/standards for bikeways for sweeping, litter removal, landscaping, repainting of striping,

signage, and signal actuation devices

Plan for cyclist safety during construction and maintenance activities


13/66

page 7


2.3 Existing Plans and Policies

2.3.1 City of Alhambra

General Plan Circulation Element (1986)

The Circulation Element describes the general location and

extent of the existing and future circulation system required to

satisfy travel demand correlated with existing and anticipated

land use. In regards to bicycle facilities, the Circulation

Element states that the City does not have an established

bikeway system as the existing and future major and secondary

arterial highways cannot accommodate any provisions for

bicycles. This is because arterial highways are too narrow

traffic volumes are too high, and the speed of the traffic too

great. Policy 4.5.8 is the only policy that directly references

bicycle transportation, stating the City is to encourage

the installation of on-site bicycle storage facilities in large

residential, commercial and industrial developments.

Goal 3: Community SupportDevelop a City-wide culture that respects and accommodates all users of the road

Objective 3.1 Support Community Involvement

Policies

Use the Transportation Committee to steer the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan

Encourage citizen participation and stakeholder input in the planning and implementation of bikeways and other bicycle related

improvements

Conduct periodic online surveys to gauge interest in bicycling and related issues throughout the City

Objective 3.2 Create an online presence to improve visibility of bicycling issues in the City

Policies Provide updates to the community about planned projects

Provide closure updates to the community about City and regional bikeways

Objective 3.3Foster community support for bicycling by raising public awareness about bicycling and supporting programs that encourage more

people to bicycle

Policies

Support marketing and public awareness campaigns through a variety of media aimed at promoting bicycling as a safe,

healthy, cost-effective, environmentally beneficial transportation choice

Support programs aimed at increasing bicycle trips by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make bicycling a more

convenient transportation mode

Promote bicycling at City-sponsored and public events, such as farmers markets, public health fairs, craft fairs, and other civic

events

Encourage and promote bicycle related businesses within Alhambra

Apply for the designation of Bicycle Friendly Community through the League of American Bicyclists

Goal 4: Implementation and Funding

Ensure adequate funds are pursued in order to implement proposed bikeways and support facilities in this Plan

Objective 4.1 Integrate consideration of bicycle travel into all roadway planning, design, and construction

Incorporate the Alhambra Bicycle Master Plan in whole by reference into the Citys General Plan and amend sections of the

General Plan that are relevant to bicycling according to the goals of this Plan

Ensure that all current and proposed Area Plans objectives and policies are consistent with the goals of the Alhambra Bicycle

Master Plan. Support the incorporation of bicycle facilities into other capital improvement projects, where appropriate, to ensure maximum

leveraging of funds from outside sources

Objective 4.2 Continuously monitor and evaluate Alhambras implementation progress of Bicycle Master Plan policies, programs, and projects.

Track trends in bicycle commuting through the use of Census data, travel surveys, and bicycle counts

Regularly monitor bicycle safety and seek a continuous reduction in bicycle-related collisions on a per capita or per bicyclist

basis over the next twenty years

Objective 4.3 Fund the Bicycle Master Plan

Pursue diverse sources of funding and support efforts to maintain or increase federal, state and local funding for the

implementation of Bicycle Master Plan programs and infrastructures

Support innovative funding mechanisms to implement this Bicycle Master Plan

Support new funding opportunities for bicycle facilities that are proposed at the Federal, State, and Local level that impact the

City

Identify and apply for grant funding that support the development of bicycle facilities

Consider using bikeways as mitigation for project-related vehicle trips


14/66

page 8


Community Profile (2012)

In collaboration with the Southern California Association of

Governments (SCAG), the City of Alhambra produced the

Envision Alhambra 2035 Community Profile, which provides

a basic framework for identifying and understanding the broad

range of issues the City of Alhambra is facing as an agency. It

describes Alhambras opportunities, advantages and challenges

as compared to its neighbors in the region. One of the top

reccurring themes from public outreach for the Community

Profile was bicycle circulation and safety. Narrow arterial

highways and high traffic volumes have posed a challenge for

adding bicycle provisions in Alhambra.

Alhambra Municipal Code

The Alhambra Municipal Code includes policies that guide

planning and development within the City. Several sections of

the Code include ordinances that govern the use of bicycles.

Bicycle-related policies that are relevant to the Bicycle Master

Plan are summarized in Table 2-1.

2.3.2 Los Angeles County

Cycle South Pasadena: Bicycle Master Plan Update (2011)

The City of South Pasadena, which borders Alhambra to the

northwest, recently updated its Bicycle Master Plan. Several

existing and proposed bikeways end at Alhambras city limit.

Table 2-1: Relevant Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances

Ordinance Summarized Text

10.04.020: Riding on sidewalks

unlawfulIt shall be unlawful to ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk

10.04.030: Operation on streetsThe rider of a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as nearly as practicable within five feet of the right-hand curb or edge of the

roadway except when passing a standing or other vehicle or making a left-hand turn at an intersection

10.04.040: Operators License

Required

It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use a bicycle upon any street in the city without first obtaining from the city a

license therefor

14.04.030: Unlawful acts in parks

or public grounds

Within the limits of any parks or public grounds, it shall be unlawful for any person to drive any automobile or ride any bicycle,

tricycle, roller skates, scooters or any vehicle of any character within a park area or upon public grounds, except upon roads or

streets set aside by the City Council for automobile traffic; to stand or leave standing any automobile, bicycle, tricycle, carriage or

any other vehicle at any place or upon any area other than at such place or area as is provided for that purpose.

23.44.030: General design

standards

While encouraging the broadest possible range of individual and creative design, the Planning Commission, or the Director of

Development Services, where authorized, may grant design review approval only if the proposal conforms to: The project design

shall provide for access and circulation of vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and emergency vehicle traffic in a safe, logical and

efficient manner, both to the site (off-site) and within the site (on-site)

23.82.040: Transportation

Demand Management

Non-residential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide a bulletin board, display case, or kiosk displaying

transportation information located where the greatest number of employees are likely to see it, including but not limited to,

bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle route maps and safety information, and a listing of facilities

available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians at the site.

Non-residential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall additionally provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle

parking/storage to accommodate four bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of non-residential development, and one bicycle

space per each additional 50,000 square feet of non-residential development. Calculations which result in a fraction of .5 or

greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking facility may be a fully enclosed space or locker

accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bicycle from inclement weather. Specific facilities and

location (such as provision of racks, lockers or locked rooms) shall be to the satisfaction of the city.

Non-residential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall additionally provide safe and convenient access from the

external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities on-site.

23.86.040: General Regulations

Emergency shelters, shall meet the following development standards: Bicycle racks that allow for the secure storage of bicycles

shall be provided. Bicycle racks shall accommodate at least one bicycle storage space for every five beds. All bicycle racks are

required to be on-site and located in an area that is not visible from the public right-of-way.


15/66

page 9


Bikeways that intersect with Alhambra include Class I bike

paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes, which

are described in the following chapter. These routes will be

considered in the development of Alhambras bicycle network

to improve connectivity to the surrounding region.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Master Plan (2012)

The County of Los Angeles adopted its Bicycle Master Plan

in March of 2012. The Plan proposes approximately 831

miles of new bikeways throughout unincorporated areas of the

County and recommends various bicycle-friendly policies and

programs to promote bicycle ridership amongst users of all

ages and skill sets. Alhambra lies within the West San Gabriel

Planning Area and is adjacent to the Metro Planning Area. No

portions of Los Angeles County border Alhambra and thus

there are no on-street County-proposed bikeways that intersect

the Citys boundaries. However, the proposed Alhambra Wash

Bike Path alignment would travel through the northeast portion

of the City.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan (2006)

As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for

Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority (Metro) is the primary local funding

source for transportation projects, including bicycle and

pedestrian projects. The Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan

(BTSP) developed by Metro provides an inventory of existing

and planned facilities within Los Angeles County. This

inventory assisted in identifying routes that may eventually

provide trans-jurisdictional continuity for bicyclists. The

BTSP also outlines a strategy for prioritizing regional bikeway

projects, as well as funding projects that improve bicycle acces

to transit or that close gaps in the regional bikeway network.

Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (2009)

Metros Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) identifies

transportation options that will best serve Los Angeles County

over the next 30 years. It also includes funding forecasts for

HUNT

INGTO

NDR

WILLARDAV

LONGDENAV

MARENGO

AV

DAINES

RIO

HOND

O BIKE

PATH

EATONWASH

ALHAMBRAAV

SANT

AANITA

AV

ARDENDR

FAIRVIEWAV

WELLS ST

10

SANTAANIT

AST

GARFIELD

AV

HELLMANAV

ROSEMEAD

BL

SANTAANITAAV

GRAVESAV

T Y L E R A V

BALDW

INAV

MONTEREY RD

VALLEY BLVD

TEM

PLECITYBL

GARVEYAV

S A N

G A B R I E L B L

FREMONTAV

AV

HUNT

INGT

ONDR

LDAV

VALLEY BL

DELMARAV

MISSIONRD

MAIN

ST

MISSION ST

LAS TUNAS DR

ALHA

MBRA

AV

GARVEYAV

ATLANTIC

BL

LIVE OAKA

SROBLESAV

DELMARAV

MISSIO

N RD

SAN

GABRIELBL

YORKBL

MARIANNAAV

LEMONAV

MONTER

EYRD

WOODRUFF AV

SAN

PASCUA

LAV

E L M O

A L H A M B R A

R O S E M E A D

S A N G A B R I E L

T E M P L E C I T Y

S O U T H P A S A D E N A

S O U T H E L M O N T E

SOUTH

EL MONTE

ISLAND

"4

"48"46

METRO

PLANNING AREA

RO

SAV

Figure 2-1: West San Gabriel Valley Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra


16/66

page 10


countys Circulation Element include provisions for the

accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and

pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks,

crosswalks, and curb extensions. The Government Code

65302 reads:

(2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantiverevisions of the circulation element, the legislative body

shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced,

multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all

users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient

travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or

urban context of the general plan.

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, users of streets, roads, and

highways means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities,

motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of

public transportation, and seniors.

Deputy Directive 64 & Traffic Operations Policy Directive

09-06

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

adopted two policies in recent years that are relevant to bicycle

planning initiatives. Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64

(DD-64-R1) sets forth that Caltrans address the safety and

mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all

projects, regardless of funding.

In a more specific application of complete streets goals, Traffic

Operations Policy Directive 09-06 presents bicycle detection

requirements. For example, 09-06 requires that new and

modified signal detectors provide bicyclist detection if they are

to remain in operation. Further, the standard states that new and

modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections

provide bicyclist detection or a bicyclist pushbutton if detection

is required.

California SB 375 Sustainable Communities (2008)

Senate Bill (SB) 375 is intended to compliment Assembly

Bill (AB) 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

and encourage local governments to reduce emissions through

improved planning. Under SB 375, the California Air Resources

the 30-year timeframe, multi-modal funding availability for

the Metro Call for Projects program, sub-regional needs, and

project performance measures. The Plan helps implement the

BTSP discussed above by funding an expansion of the bicycle

network and coordinating links with other transportation

modes.

2.3.3 Other Plans and Policies

Southern California Association of Governments Regional

Transportation Plan (2012)

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

adopted its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in April 2012

with the goal of increasing mobility for those who live in and

visit Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,

and Ventura Counties. The Plan has an active transportation

chapter that recommends increasing regional bikeway mileage

from 4,315 to 10,122 miles, as well as retrofitting sidewalks

to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

and implementing safety improvements. SCAG estimates that

active transportation improvements recommended will cost

approximately $6.7 billion.

In addition to bikeways that Los Angeles County had proposed

at the time of development of the RTP, SCAG also recommendskey bikeways to connect the region and facilitate bicycle travel.

Policies included in the RTP that pertain to biking in the

region include addressing bicyclist safety, increasing bicycle

mode share, encouraging local active transportation plans, and

improving air quality.

Bicycle Transportation Act

The California Bicycle Transportation Account (1994) requires

all cities and counties to have an adopted bicycle master plan

in order to be eligible to apply for Bicycle Transportation

Account (BTA) funding.

California Government Code 65302 (Complete Streets)

California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the

Complete Streets Bill, amended the California Government

Code 65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or


17/66

page 11


Board (CARB) is required to establish targets for 2020 and 2035

for each region covered by one of the States 18 metropolitan

planning organizations (MPOs). Each of Californias MPOs

will then prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)

that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse

gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land use,

housing, and transportation planning. One way to help meet

the emissions targets is to increase the bicycle mode share

by substituting bicycle or walking trips for automobile trips.

Alhambras efforts to encourage non-motorized transportation

will contribute to the regional attainment of these targets.


18/66

page 12




19/66

page 13


Class III Bike Routes

Bike routes share the right-of-way between vehicles and

bicyclists with signage. These facilities are typically

recommended for streets with relatively low traffic speeds (25

mph or less) and lower volumes (


20/66

page 14

Chapter Three | Existing Conditions

R81 (CA) Bike Lane Sign

Travel

Lane

Travel

Lane

5 min. (with curb & gutter)

4' min. (no curb & gutter)

Parking

7 minimum

Provides striped

lane for one-way

bike travel on a

street or highway

Provides for shared-

use with motor vehicles,

typically on lower

volume roadways

Provides completely separated

right-of-way for exclusive use by

bicycles and pedestrians with

cross-flow minimized

5' min.

6'' Stripe

4'' Stripe (optional)

Travel

Lane

Travel

Lane

Parking

14 min. recommended shared use travel lane on higher volume streets

14 min. recommended shared use travel lane on higher volume streets

Parking

8' minimum width

2' graded shoulders required

12 min. total width

D11-1 Bike Route Sign

Travel

Lane

Travel

Lane

Shoulder Shoulder

D11-1 Bike Route Sign

10' min vertical clearance

Class I Bike Path

Class III Bike Route

Class II Bike Lanes

Optional

Shared Lane Marking

11 (min) center to curb

Figure 3-1: Caltrans Bikeway Types


21/66

page 15


providing connections on rights-of-way exclusively for non

motorized travel.

3.2 Multi-Modal Connections

Transit service provided within and adjacent to the City of

Alhambra includes bus and rail transportation, and is shown

on Figure 3-3. The following sections describe public

transportation in the City.

3.2.1 Alhambra Community Transit Lines

Alhambra Community Transit (ACT) provides service on two

lines within the City and each ride costs a 25-cent fare. The

Green Line runs six days per week on 20 minute headways. On

weekdays it is in service from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and on Saturday

it operates from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Green Line route runs

clockwise and counter-clockwise along Main Street (from

Palm to Chapel) and along Valley Boulevard (from Fremont

to Vega). The Blue Line offers a split schedule that runs from

Chapel to the Metrolink Station at Cal State Los Angeles and

3.1.2 Existing Bikeways

There are no existing bikeways within Alhambras city

limits. There are, however, existing and proposed bikeways

in adjacent cities that intersect with or are near to the Citys

boundary. These are listed in Table 3-1 andshown on Figure

3-2. Bicycle facilities that touch Alhambras borders are

located in the cities of South Pasadena, Monterey Park, Los

Angeles, and San Gabriel. The proposed Alhambra Wash Bike

Path travels through Alhambra, though Los Angeles County

maintains this property.

3.1.3 End-of-Trip Facilities

The City of Alhambra does not have an inventory of existing

bicycle parking locations. Short-term bicycle racks are

generally located on private property at various destinations,such as in the Edwards Renaissance Courtyard, which is a

primary destination in Downtown Alhambra. There are also

bike racks in front of City Hall, and at all library and park

facilities.

3.1.4 Pedestrian Overcrossings

There are two bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings of the Interstate

10 freeway. These are located at Warwick Road and Marguerita

Avenue, and are shown on Figure 3-2. Overcrossings are

important to a bicycle network because they reduce barriers by

Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to

Alhambra

Class Location Jurisdiction

Existing

Class II Marengo Avenue South Pasadena

Class II Alhambra Avenue Monterey Park

Class II Hungtington Drive Los Angeles

Class III Santa Anita Street San Gabriel

Proposed

Class I Alhambra Wash Los Angeles County

Class I Edison Easement South Pasadena

Class II Huntington Drive South Pasadena

Class III Fremont Avenue South Pasadena

Class III Alhambra Avenue Los Angeles

Class III

Mabel Avenue Electric

Avenue Newmark Avenue

Marguerita Avenue

Mabel Avenue

Monterey Park

Class IIIAtlanctic Boulevard El

Portal PlaceMonterey Park

Class III Hellman Avenue Monterey Park

Class III Garfield Avenue Monterey Park

Class III Junipero Serra Drive San Gabriel

Class III Fairview Avenue San Gabriel

Class III Wells Street San Gabriel


22/66

page 16


Huntingto

nDr

MarengoAve

Oak St

MarengoAve

AtlanticBlvd

MontereyRd

MargueritaAve

FremontAve

FremontAve

FairOaksAve

Poplar Blvd

ValleyBlvd

Alhambra

Wash

Bike

Path

AlhambraAve

Hellman Ave

Santa

Anit

aSt

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

MontereyPassRd

Mabel Ave

Fairview Ave

Wells St

GarfieldAve

Newmark AveAtlantic

Blvd

Ynez

Ave

SeftonAve

Ora

ngeAve

Brightwood St

CoralViewStFloral Dr

ALHAMBRA

LOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH

PASADENA

10

710

Missio

nRd

Front

St

ValleyBlvd

MainSt

FremontA

ve

AlmansorSt

RamonaSt

PalmA

ve

Hellman Ave

WarwickR

d

Comm

onwe

althA

ve

ChapelA

ve

Huntin

gtonD

r

Garfie

ldA

ve

GarfieldAve

GarveyAve

Edison

Eas

ement

MeridianAve

Viadel

Rey

Existing and Proposed Bikeways

Class I Bike Paths

Existin

g

Prop

osed

Class II Bike Lanes


Existing Pedestrian Overcrossing

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Figure 3-2: Existing and Proposed Bikeways Adjacent to Alhambra


23/66

page 17


Huntingto

nDr

FremontAve

FremontA

ve

Garvey Ave

AlmansorSt

ValleyBlvd

Hellman Ave

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

Atlantic

Blvd

Brightwood St

Floral Dr

ALHAMBRA

LOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH PASADENA

10

710

Missio

nRd

ValleyBlvd

Main

St

Commo

nwealth

Ave

Woodwa

rdAv

e

ChapelA

ve

Hunting

tonDr

Garfie

ldA

ve

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Multi-Modal Connections

ACT Green Line

ACT Blue Line

Metro Gold Line

Transit Stops

Metro Bus Lines

Metro Rapid Bus Lines

Montebello Bus Lines

Metrolink San Bernardino Line

Figure 3-3: Multi-Modal Connections


24/66

page 18


3.3 Education, Encouragement, and

Enforcement Strategies

The City of Alhambra does not have any existing education

or encouragement programs in place. The City does, however,

enforce bicycle-related violations. As previously mentioned,

riding bicycles on the sidewalk is not permitted in Alhambra.

Fines range from $45 to $350. It is also illegal to ride bicycles

on any street without a license, which costs $1 to obtain. The

penalty for riding without a license is only $5.

3.4 Past Expenditures

The City of Alhambra has not dedicated funding to any bicycle

projects within the past five years.

back. This line is in service Monday through Friday from

6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. ACT buses are

equipped with bicycle racks and can be used on a first come

first served basis.

3.2.2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation

Authority (Metro) operates several bus lines that travel through

Alhambra. These are listed below.

70

76

78/378

79

176

Though not within City limits, Metro operates the Gold Line

light rail to the north of Alhambra. This line connects Pasadena

to Downtown Los Angeles. The South Pasadena station is the

nearest to Alhambra, located just over a mile northwest of City

limits, and can be accessed by Metro Bus Line 176, which runs

along Garfield Avenue.

3.2.3 Montebello Bus Line

Montebello Bus Line 30 runs through Alhambra by traversing

Garfield Avenue from Huntington Drive in the City of San

Marino to Firestone Boulevard in the City of South Gate.

Montebello Bus Lines are operated by the City of Montebello

and provide connections to many other bus lines operated by

different agencies.

3.2.4 Metrolink

In addition to ACT, the Metrolink San Bernardino line stops at

Cal State Los Angeles, west of Alhambra city limits. Service

is provided between Los Angeles Union Station and San

Bernardino seven days per week.

258

260

485

487

762


25/66

page 19


4.1 Types of Bicyclists

It is crucial in the public outreach process to solicit inpu

from all types of bicyclists (or potential bicyclists) in order to

plan a network that maximizes potential. Figure 4-1 shows a

classification system that is based on numerous surveys, focus

groups, and real-life experience in many of the nations mos

bicycle friendly cities. The graphic addresses Americans

varying attitudes towards bicycling.

4 Needs Analysis

This chapter describes the needs of bicyclists in the City of

Alhambra. A summary of public input as well as mode share

data is presented for the City to provide an assessment of

existing commuting patterns. This chapter also summarizes

online survey data to determine needs of commuters and

to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility

improvements.

Strong and Fearless: < 1%

No Way, No How: 30%

Enthused and Confident: 9%

Interested but Concerned: 60%

30%


26/66

page 20

Chapter Four | Needs Analysis

As illustrated, less than one percent of Americans are Strong

and Fearless and will ride anywhere regardless of roadway

conditions, weather, or the availability of bicycle facilities.

The strong and fearless can ride at assertive speeds, prefer

direct routes, and will typically choose roadway connections

including those shared with vehicles over separate bikeway

facilities such as bicycle paths. This group will be less affected

by this plan than the others.

Approximately six to nine percent of Americans fall under the

category ofEnthused and Confidentbicyclists who respond

very quickly when bikeways, including bike lanes, low traffic

streets, or multi-use pathways are provided. They will deviate

from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type.

This group includes commuters, recreationalists, racers, and

utilitarian bicyclists.

Approximately 60 percent of the population can be categorized

asInterested but Concernedand represents those who do not

currently ride a bicycle regularly, in large part due to perceived

safety risks from riding with traffic. These individuals will

only ride if excellent bikeway facilities are provided, along

with route finding assistance and encouragement/education

programs. This Plan will affect the Interested but Concerned

group the most, as it will recommend the facilities and programs

that should encourage them to ride or ride more often.

Approximately 30 percent of Americans are not interested

in bicycling. They are referred to in the diagram as No Way,

No How. Some people in this group may eventually consider

bicycling and may progress to one of the user types described

above.

4.2 Public Outreach

4.2.1 Survey

The City hosted an online survey to gather feedback from

the community. The survey was open from August 10, 2012

through September 3, 2012 and a total of 42 people responded.

A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A.

I am a confident rider who is comfortable in most traffic situations, regardless of

bicycle facilities

I am a rider who is comfortable in some traffic situations and with appropriate

bicycle facilities.

I am a rider who is not comfortable in traffic situations and will only ride on paths/

greenways and quiet, residential streets.

I am not interested in cycling.

45.2%

45.2%

7.1%

2.4%

Figure 4-2: Respondent Bicyclist Ability

Of those who responded, the majority (38.1 percent) fell within

the ages of 26 through 35. Another 23.8 percent were between

46 and 55 years old. Approximately 60 percent of respondents

live 10 miles or less from their work/school and over half of

these persons live within five miles, distances that could be

reasonably made by bicycle.

As shown in Figure 4-2, almost all of respondents identified

themselves as either Strong and Fearless orEnthused and

Confidentbicyclists, based on the descriptions provided in the

previous section. Only seven percent of participants fell into

theInterested but Concernedcategory.

Figure 4-3 displays the primary commute mode of respondents

versus how often they commute by bicycle. On a typical week,

approximately one-third of survey participants commute by

driving alone and another one-third commute by bicycle.

Approximately one-third of respondents also said they

commute by bike at least three days per week.

Figure 4-4 shows barriers to survey participants commuting

by bike. The most common reasons for not riding are a general


27/66

page 21


Ridingskillsand

safetycoursesforadults

Ridingskillsand

safetycoursesforchildren

SafeRoutestoSchool

programsforchildren

Publicawareness

campaigns

Specialevents

Mapsandguides

Bicycleinformation

websites

Boothsatpublicevents

Commuterincentive

programs

Informationandmaps

deliveredtomyhome

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not interested Somewhat interested Very interested

Figure 4-5: Interest in Programmatic Improvements

lack of bikeways, including off-street paths, bike lanes, and

bike routes.

As displayed in Figure 4-5, respondents are very interested

in a wide variety of bicycle education and encouragemen

programs. The most desired programs include special events

and bicycle information websites. The least desired programs

are commuter incentive programs and skills classes for adults

which could be in part due to the high proportion of experienced

bicycle commuters that participated in the survey.

4.2.2 Community Event

On August 18, 2012, the City of Alhambra hosted a booth at the

3rd annual Hot Spot Alhambra community fair to solicit public

input for the Bicycle Master Plan. The Hot Spot occurred from

4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Edwards Renaissance Courtyard in the

Downtown and included a local business expo. The booth wasadvertised at City Hall, the Parks and Recreation Department

on the project website (discussed below), in the local blog the

Alhambra Source, the city newspaper Around Alhambra, and

on the Bike San Gabriel Valley Facebook page and website

The event was heavily attended and because it was not entirely

Primary Commute Mode

Bike

Motorcycle

Public transit

Carpool/vanpool

Drive alone

5+ days per week

3-4 days per week

1-2 days per week

1-2 days per month

Less than 1-2 days per month

I never commute by bicycle

Frequency of Bicycle Commuting

35.7%

26.2%

23.8%

21.4%

14.3%

35.7%

9.5%

2.4%

11.9%

11.9%

7.1%

Figure 4-3: Respondent Commute Modes

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Lackofon-street

bikelanes

Lackofoff-street

bikepaths

Lackofbikeroutes

Lackofbikeparking

orstorage

Myschool/workdoes

nothaveshowers

Idonothave

enoughtime

Ilivetoofaraway

Ihavetoomuch

stufftocarry

Ihavetotransport

children

Figure 4-4: Barriers to Bicycling


28/66

page 22


Finally, participants had the opportunity to mark-up a large map

of Alhambra with locations they would like to see bikeways at.

Streets noted as desirable for bicycle facilities include:

6th St

Alhambra Rd

Almansor St Commonwealth Ave

Fremont Ave

Front St

Garfield Ave

Hellman Ave

Main St

Marengo Ave

Marguerita Ave

Norwood Pl Woodward Ave

4.2.3 Website

The City of Alhambra created a website for the Bicycle

Master Plan to advertise upcoming events, seek input on Plan

materials, and provide a venue for the community to submit

their comments. The link to the online survey and the flyer for

the Hot Spot event were posted on the site.

4.2.4 General Plan Outreach

As part of the outreach process for the Envision Alhambra

2035 General Plan Update, the City held an open house in

2011 at Almansor Park to gather input on how to improve

transportation. Residents marked up maps with stickers to

show where they would like to see bicycle improvements,

among other things.

4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates

United States Census American Community Survey

Commuting to Work data provides an indication of

current bicycle system usage. Table 4-1 provides means

of transportation to work data for the City of Alhambra as

compared with Los Angeles County, California, and the

United States as a whole. The majority of Alhambras workers

bicycle-focused, the City was able to obtain input from a wide

range of residents. The City also gave away rear bike lights,

Metro bike maps, patch kits, and snacks to people who agreed

to take the online survey.

The booth provided a series of interactive boards that asked

participants to vote on the types of bikeways, bicycle parking,

signage, and programmatic improvements they would like

to see included in the plan. The most commonly requested

bikeway type was on-street bike lanes, followed by bike

boulevards. Participants favored short-term bicycle parkingover long-term, and specifically sidewalk and curb extension

bicycle racks. As for long-term bicycle parking, attendees voted

for bicycle rooms and a Bike Station, which often includes

additional amenities like tools for maintenance and bicycle

rentals. The most commonly requested signage was Share

the Road, as well as wayfinding signage with directional

and distance information. Encouragement programs, such

as bike valets at community events, were the most popular

programmatic improvements attendees voted for.

An additional interactive board asked attendees which type of

bicyclist they were from the list presented previously in this

chapter. The majority of participants (approximately one-

half) identified themselves as Enthused and Confident. Two

people stated that they wereNo Way, No How. The remaining

attendees were evenly split between Strong and Fearless and

Interested but Concerned.

The City hosted a booth at the 3rd annual Hot Spot Alhambra community fair to

solicit public input for the Bicycle Master Plan.


29/66

page 23


(75.04 percent) drive alone to work. While this is lower than

the United States drive alone mode share, it is higher than

California and Los Angeles County. However, Alhambra has a

higher carpool mode share (12.03) than the other jurisdictions.

The Citys bicycle mode share also reflects that of the United

States and is lower than California and Los Angeles County.

This may be in part due to the lack of bikeways and bicycle

support facilities in Alhambra. With increased investments

in bicycling as a form of transportation, it is likely that this

number will increase with time.

It is also important to note that this figure likely underestimates

the true amount of bicycling that occurs in Alhambra for

several reasons. First, data reflects respondents (workers 16

years and older) dominant commute mode and therefore does

not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips thatwould replace vehicular trips. Also, American Community

Survey data collection methods only enable a respondent to

select one mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they

constitute part of a longer multimodal trip.

Table 4-2 presents an estimate of current bicycling within

Alhambra using US Census data along with several adjustments

for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed

above. Table 4-3 presents the associated air quality benefits

from bicycling.

Table 4-4 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity

within Alhambra using California Department of Finance

population and school enrollment projections. The projection

contains the assumption that bicycle mode share will double by

Table 4-1: Means of Transportation to Work

Mode Share (percent)

Mode United States California Los Angeles County Alhambra

Bike 0.51 0.94 0.74 0.52

Walk 2.85 2.77 2.86 1.80

Public Transportation 4.94 5.13 7.09 5.78

Carpool 10.35 11.92 11.32 12.03

Drive Alone 76.00 72.95 72.13 75.04

Other 5.35 6.29 5.87 4.83

2030, due in part to bicycle network implementation. Actua

bicycle mode share in 2030 will depend on many factors

including the extent of network implementation. Table 4-5

presents the associated year 2030 air quality benefit forecasts

The calculations follow in a straightforward manner from the

Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.


30/66

page 24


Table 4-3: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact

Variable Figure Source

Current Estimated VMT Reductions

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 1,363Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for

school children

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 355,809 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 10,287Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile

for school children

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 2,684,974 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Current Air Quality Benefits

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) 31 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) 22 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) 281 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday)8,369

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) 8,050 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) 31 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) 29 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/year) 5,623 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/year) 73,400 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/year) 2,184,242 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and

Light Trucks. 2005.)

Table 4-2: Existing Bicycling Demand


Existing study area population 83,389 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B01003 5-Year Estimates

Existing employed population 39,228 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.52% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing number of bike-to-work commuters 204 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share

Existing work-at-home mode share 4.3% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing number of work-at-home bike commuters 834 Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one daily bicycle t rip

Existing transit-to-work mode share 5.8% 2006-2010 American Community Survey, B08301 5-Year Estimates

Existing transit bicycle commuters 567Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access

transit by bicycle

Existing school chi ldren, ages 5-14 (grades K-8) 8,339 2006-2010 American Community Survey, S0101 5-Year Estimates

Existing school children bicycling mode share 2.0% National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003

Existing school children bike commuters 167 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share

Existing number of college students in study area, ages

18-247,088 2006-2010 American Community Survey, S0101 5-Year Estimates

Existing estimated college bicycling mode share 10.0%Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities (source: National

Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995).

Existing college bike commuters 709 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share

Existing total number of bike commuters 2,480 Total bike-to-work, school, and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation .

Total daily bicycling trips 4,960 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)


31/66

page 25


Table 4-4: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand


Future study area population 101,865 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future employed population 47,921 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future bike-to-work mode share 1.0% Assumes bicycle mode share will double

Future number of bike-to-work commuters 498 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share

Future work-at-home mode share 8.4%

Assumes work-at-home mode share will continue to grow at the same rate as between

2000 and 2010 (95%)

Future number of work-at-home bike commuters 2,013 Assumes 50% of populat ion working at home makes at least one dai ly bicycle t rip

Future transit-to-work mode share 7.3%Assumes transit-to-work mode share will continue to grow at the same rate as between

2000 and 2010 (26%)

Future transit bicycle commuters 875Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25% of transit riders access

transit by bicycle

Future school children, ages 5-14 (grades K-8) 10,187 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future school children bicycling mode share 4.0% Assumes mode share will double

Future school children bike commuters 407 School children population multiplied by school children bike mode share

Future number of college students in study area, ages

18-248,658 Estimated based on CA Department of Finance Projections

Future estimated college bicycling mode share 12.0% Assumes 2% increase

Future college bike commuters 1,039 College student population multiplied by college student bicycling mode share

Future total number of bike commuters 4,832 Total bike-to-work, school, and utilitarian bike trips. Does not include recreation.

Total daily bicycling trips 9,664 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)

Table 4-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact


Future Estimated VMT Reductions

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday 2,807Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults/college students and 53% for

school children

Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 732,751 Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday 20,948Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles for adults/college students and 1 mile

for school children

Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year 5,467,444 Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 (weekdays in a year)

Future Air Quality Benefits

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/weekday) 63 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/weekday) 0 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/weekday) 44 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/weekday) 573 Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/weekday)17,041

Daily mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year) 16,393 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 1.36 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM10 (pounds/year) 63 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0052 grams per reduced mile

Reduced PM2.5 (pounds/year) 59 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.0049 grams per reduced mile

Reduced NOX (pounds/year) 11,451 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 0.95 grams per reduced mile

Reduced CO (pounds/year) 149,465 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 12.4 grams per reduced mile

Reduced C02 (pounds/year) 4,447,797 Yearly mileage reduction multiplied by 369 grams per reduced mile

Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and

Light Trucks. 2005.)


32/66

page 26


Table 4-7: Collision Details, 2006-2010

Collision Factor Number Percent

Violation Category

Unknown 2 1.4

Under the Influence 1 0.7

Unsafe Speed 1 0.7

Wrong Side of Road 58 40.8

Improper Turning 14 9.9

Automobile Right-of-Way 29 20.4

Pedestrian Right-of-Way 2 1.4

Traffic Signals and Signs 10 7.0

Other Hazardous Violation 15 10.6

Unsafe Sarting or Backing 4 2.8

Other Improper Driving 3 2.1

Not Stated 3 2.1

Injury Severity

Complaint of Pain 77 54.2

Other Visible Injury 57 40.1

Severe Injury 7 4.9

Fatality 1 0.8

4.4 Collision Analysis

Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential

bicyclists. Identifying bicycle collision sites can assist in

developing improvements or determining appropriate bicycle

routes. Bicycle collision data for the City of Alhambra was

obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records

System (SWITRS) from the years 2006 through 2010. In this

time period, there were 142 total reported collisions involving

bicyclists, shown in Table 4-6. The number of bicycle crashes

fluctuated throughout the five-year period, neither steadily

increasing nor decreasing. It should be noted, however, that

many bicycle collisions go unreported and thus the true number

of crashes is likely much higher than shown.

Table 4-7 presents the violation category and injury severity

of bicycle collisions in Alhambra from 2006 to 2010. The most

common primary collision factor violation was Wrong Side of

Road (41 percent). Collision reports are unavailable and thus

this plan does not include a detailed analysis of bicycle crashes.

However, it is important to take notice of the high frequency of

wrong way bicycle riding leading to collisions.

Figure 4-6 displays the locations of reported bicycle crashes in

Alhambra. As shown, collisions were concentrated on arterial

roadways, including Main Street, Fremont Avenue, Valley

Boulevard, and Mission Road.

Table 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010

Year Total Collisions

2006 38

2007 25

2008 28

2009 15

2010 36

Total Collisions 142


33/66

page 27


Huntingto

nDr

FremontAve

FremontA

ve

Garvey Ave

AlmansorSt

ValleyBlvd

Hellman Ave

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

Atlantic

Blvd

Brightwood St

Floral Dr

ALHAMBRALOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH PASADENA

10

710

Missio

nRd

ValleyBlvd

Main

St

Commo

nwealth

Ave

Woodwa

rdAv

e

ChapelA

ve

Hunting

tonDr

GarfieldAve

Bicycle Collisions 2006-2010

Collisions

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Figure 4-6: Bicycle Collisions, 2006-2010


34/66

page 28




35/66

page 29


parking. In some locations, however, street widths may be wide

enough to accommodate bike lanes with buffers between the

bikeway and either on-street parking or travel lanes. Appendix

B lists potential impacts and notes about each proposed bike lane

facility for the City to use to assist with implementation of thi

Plan.

5.1.2 Class III Bike Routes

This plan recommends 37.86 miles of Class III bike routes

where curb-to-curb width cannot accommodate bike lanes

Per the policies outlined in Chapter 2, the City should instal

shared lane markings (sharrows) on all proposed bike

routes. As shared lane markings are a relatively new bikeway

marking in American cities, guidance on application wil

continue to evolve over time. Shared lane markings should no

be considered a substitute for bike lanes or other separation

treatments where these types of facilities are otherwisewarranted or space permits. Desirable shared lane marking

applications include:

To indicate a shared lane situation where the speed

differential between bicyclist and motorist travel

speeds is very low (designed speed of < 25 mph)

On downhill segments, preferably paired with an

uphill bike lane

5 Recommended Improvements

This chapter presents the proposed bicycle network, bicycle

support facilities, and programmatic improvements for the City

of Alhambra. In addition to creating a comprehensive network

of bikeways within the city, the recommended system ties into

the existing and proposed bicycle facilities in neighboring

cities, providing bikeways that will not drop at city boundaries.

Bikeway recommendations are based on existing regional

bicycle plans, public input, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.

5.1 Proposed Bikeways

Table 5-1 presents the type, location, extents, and length of

each proposed bicycle facility in Alhambra, also shown in

Figure 5-1. This Plan proposes 41.29 total miles of bikeways,

including Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes.

5.1.1 Class II Bike Lanes

This Plan recommends 3.43 miles of Class II bike lanes. Bike

lanes are generally proposed on roadways with higher traffic

volumes and speeds that require increased separation between

bicyclists and motorists. Many of Alhambras streets have

narrow curb-to-curb widths, making it challenging to provide

separated on-street facilities without removing travel lanes or


36/66

page 30

Chapter Five | Recommended Improvements

Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways

Street From To Mileage

Class II Bike Lanes

Garvey Street Ramona Road Fremont Avenue 0.77

Huntington Drive West City Limits Alhambra Road 0.51

Huntington Drive Garfield Avenue Granada Avenue 0.53

Main Street Huntington Drive Raymond Avenue 0.85

Marengo Avenue Lemon Street Front Street 0.36

Marengo Avenue Valley Boulevard Ross Avenue 0.41

Total Mileage 3.43


1st Street Main Street Commonwealth Avenue 0.24

2nd Street Alhambra Road Commonwealth Avenue 0.68

4th Street Woodward Avenue Glendon Way 1.57

6th Street Main Street Hellman Avenue 1.6

Adams Avenue Almansor Street New Avenue 0.47

Alhambra Road Huntington Drive East City Limits 2.37

Almansor Street Corto Street Hellman Avenue 1.42

Almansor Street Huntington Drive Main Street 0.95

Campbell Avenue Hellman Avenue Pedley Drive 0.05

Carlos Street La Crescenta Avenue Whitney Drive 0.28

Cedar Street Palm Avenue Raymond Avenue 0.09

Chapel Avenue Alhambra Road Glendon Way 2.05

Commonwealth Avenue West City Limits Chapel Avenue 1.86

Corto Street Chapel Avenue Almansor Street 0.16

Curtis Avenue Hellman Avenue Midwickhill Drive 0.14

Curtis Avenue Glendon Way Ramona Road 0.12

Edgewood Drive Front Street Norwood Place 0.25

El Paseo Street Montezuma Avenue Las Flores Street 0.08

Electric Avenue Huntington Drive Alhambra Road 0.37

Elm Street Norwood Place Ross Avenue 0.25

Front Street Edgewood Drive 6th Street 1.22

Garvey Street Fremont Avenue Monterey Pass Road 0.1

Glendon Way Curtis Avenue New Avenue 1.66

Granada Avenue Alhambra Road Main Street 0.44

Grand Avenue Almansor Street Granada Avenue 0.21

Hathaway Avenue Hagen Drive Sarazen Drive 0.23

Hellman Avenue Palm Avenue Olive Avenue 0.61

Hellman Avenue West City Limits Ross Avenue 0.16

Hellman Avenue Garfield Avenue Almansor Street 0.36

La Crescenta Avenue Las Flores Street Carlos Street 0.07

Las Flores Street El Paseo Street La Crescenta Avenue 0.07

Linda Vista Avenue 6th Street Chapel Avenue 0.55

Main Street Raymond Avenue East City Limits 2

Marengo Avenue Front Street Valley Boulevard 0.26

Marengo Avenue Alhambra Road Lemon Street 0.85

Marguerita Avenue Alhambra Road Hellman Avenue 2

Meridian Avenue Main Street Commonwealth Avenue 0.5


37/66

page 31


along and at the end of every trip. The following sections

provide a description of facilities that help bicyclists easily

reach their destinations, including bicycle parking, signage

detection, and lighting.

5.2.1 End-of-Trip Facilities

With nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips

bicyclists need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A

comprehensive bicycle parking strategy is one of the most

important things that a jurisdiction can apply to immediately

enhance the bicycling environment. Bicycle parking, like

automobile parking, is a key element of a transportation

network. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with connections

to public transit will further the geographical range that

residents can travel without using an automobile.

The Alhambra Municipal Code currently requires bicycle

parking at emergency shelters and non-residential development

of at least 50,000 square feet (see Table 2-1). This Plan

recommends that the City amend its Municipal Code to include

bicycle parking requirements for all land uses. Examples o

On streets where the traffic signals are timed for a

bicycling travel speed of 12 to 15 miles per hour

Along front-in angled parking, where a bike lane is

undesirable

To fill a gap in an otherwise continuous bike path or

bike lane, generally for a short distance

To transition bicyclists from across traffic lanes or

from conventional bike lanes or cycle tracks to a

shared lane environment

The City should consider also implementing green-backed

shared lane markings, commonly referred to as super

sharrows, on arterial and collector streets where bike lanes

are not proposed due to roadway constraints. Super sharrows

are more visible to motorists and thus can increase awareness

of bicylists on high-volume and high-speed roadways.

5.2 Proposed Bicycle Support Facilities

Support facilities are essential components of a bicycle system

because they enhance safety and convenience for bicyclists

Table 5-1: Recommended Bikeways (continued)

Street From To Mileage

Midwickhill Drive Sarazen Drive Hagen Drive 0.77

Montezuma Avenue Garvey Street El Paseo Street 0.24

New Avenue Adams Avenue Shorb Street 0.25

Norwood Place Westmont Drive Edgewood Drive 0.70

Orange Street Fremont Avenue Raymond Avenue 0.40

Palm Avenue Alhambra Road Cedar Street 0.31

Poplar Avenue West City Limits Main Street 0.85

Ramona Road Marguerita Avenue Curtis Avenue 0.06

Raymond Avenue Front Street Ross Avenue 0.54

Raymond Avenue Alhambra Road Orange Street 1.00

Ross Avenue Hellman Avenue Campbell Avenue 1.01

Sarazen Drive Whitney Drive Hathaway Avenue 0.59

Shorb Street Marengo Avenue 6th Street 0.72

Shorb Street 6th Street New Avenue 1.2

Vega Street Shorb Street Glendon Way 0.46

Warwick Road Westmont Drive Ramona Road 0.23

Westmont Drive Valley Boulevard Hellman Avenue 0.40

Westmont Drive Hellman Avenue Warwick Road 0.15

Whitney Drive Campbell Avenue Sarazen Drive 0.65

Woodward Avenue Marguerita Avenue Almansor Street 1.04

Total Mileage 37.86


38/66

page 32

Chapter Five | Recommended Improvements

Hath

awayAve

PalmAve

Raymon

dAve

Maren

goAve

Ma

rguer ita

Ave

ValleyBlvd

AlhambraWashBikePath

Hellman AveHellman Ave

Junipe

ro

Serra

Dr

Mabel Rd

ALHAMBRA

LOS

ANGELES

SAN MARINO

SAN GABRIEL

MONTEREY

PARK

ROSEMEAD

SOUTH

PASADENA

10

710

Front

St

Main

St

MainSt

CommonwealthAve

Woodwa

rdAv

e

ChapelA

ve

Hunti

ngton

Dr

Alhambra

RdElectricAve

Veg

aSt

Alm

ans

orS

t

MeridianAve

Hunting

tonDr

AlmansorSt

GranadaAve

2ndSt

1stS

t

4thSt

CedarStreet

4thSt

6thSt

Ra

ymon

dAve

ElmS

t

Westmo

ntDr

Ed

gewo

odDr

Norwood Pl

CarlosSt

El Paseo St

Campbell AveWestmont Dr Warwick Rd

Las Flores St

Curtis

Ave

Curtis Ave

6thSt

Linda Vista Ave

Shorb St

Corto St

Glendon Wy

AdamsAve

Shorb St

Orange St

GrandA

ve

NewAve

RossAve

MarengoAve

Oak St

MontereyRd

FremontAve

FairOaksAve

EdisonE

as

ement

MeridianAve

Viadel

Rey

AlhambraAve

GarfieldAve

Newmark AveAtlantic

Blvd

Ynez

Ave

SeftonAve

Ora

ngeAve

CoralViewSt

PoplarBlv

d

Midw

ickhillDr

Saraze

nDr

Whi

tney

Dr

Monte

zuma

Ave

GarveySt

La Crescenta Ave

Proposed Bikeways in Alhambra Land Uses

Education

Community Facility

Parks and Recreation

Pedestrian Overcrossing

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles N

Bikeways in Adjacent Jurisdictions

Class I Bike PathsE xi st in g P ro pos ed

Class II Bike Lanes


Class II Bike Lanes


Crossing Improvement

Figure 5-1: Recommended Bikeways


39/66

page 33


Figure 5-2 displays proposed bicycle parking locations in

Alhambra. These locations are based on the Citys land use

designations and will need to go through further review during

implementation to determine exact placement. The City should

ensure there is adequate short-term bicycle parking at all major

trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers

and transit hubs. The City should prioritize the installation of

bicycle parking throughout the city, with particular attention

directed at the following locations:

Parks

Schools

Commercial/office areas

Civic/government buildings

Public transit stations

Alhambra has the opportunity to install sidewalk racks

throughout the city, especially in the downtown area. In areas

where sidewalk width is constrained, this Plan recommends the

City study the feasibility of installing bicycle corrals, which

involves removing an on-street parking space to provide bicycle

racks. This Plan also recommends that high-activ

Documents

Administrative Draft Plan 11-14-2012