MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL The San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Thursday, May 12, 2011 9 to 11 a.m. SANDAG, 7th Floor Conference Room 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231 CHAIR: Mario Sanchez, City of El Cajon VICE CHAIR: Jim Greenstein, City of Solana Beach Staff Contact: Peter Thompson (619) 699-4813 pth@sandag.org

AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

• TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see www.511sd.com for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available in the building garage off Fourth Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

2

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL Thursday, May 12, 2011

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the SANTEC on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the SANTEC coordinator prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the SANTEC coordinator if they have a handout for distribution to working group members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. SANTEC members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

+3. MEETING SUMMARY OF APRIL 14, 2011 APPROVE

SANTEC is asked to review and approve the meeting notes of the April 14, 2011, meeting.

REPORTS (4 through 7)

4. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW (Alex Estrella)

INFORMATION

SANTEC members will be provided with an overview of the Transportation System Management (TSM) Program included in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. Brief discussion will highlight the seven key TSM components, including but not limited to, Multimodal Management, Freeway Management, and Arterial Management.

+5. DRAFT 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP): UPCOMING OUTREACH AND ADOPTION PROCESS (Heather Adamson)

INFORMATION

The Draft 2050 RTP is the blueprint for keeping pace with the mobility and sustainability challenges in a growing region. The 2050 RTP is built on an integrated set of public policies, strategies, and investments to maintain, manage, and improve the transportation system so it meets the diverse needs of our changing region through 2050. The SANDAG Board of Directors released the Draft 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy for public review and comment on April 22, 2011. The Draft Environmental Impact Report is anticipated to be released in late May 2011. This presentation also will outline the upcoming workshops and public hearings that will take place during the public comment period. The Board is anticipated to adopt the 2050 RTP in fall 2011.

3

6. REGIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTAION SYSTEM (ITS) STRATEGIC PLAN (James Dreisbach-Towle)

INFORMATION

SANTEC members will be provided with an update of the 2050 Regional ITS Strategic Plan. Brief discussion will highlight the progress made since the last reporting period.

+7.

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE (Bridget Enderle)

DISCUSSION

The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan recommends that all bikeways comprising the regional bicycle network be enhanced with bicycle wayfinding signage. Accordingly, SANDAG has received funding through the County of San Diego Healthy Works program to develop and install signage along ten regional bicycle corridors with emphasize on high need communities and where appropriate facilities are in place to promote bicycling. This report provides an overview of wayfinding signage best practices and proposes a preliminary approach to installing signage along the ten regional corridors.

8. CTAC MEETING BRIEFING (SANTEC Members) INFORMATION

SANTEC members will be provided with an overview of CTAC discussion items presented during the CTAC, May 5, 2011, meeting.

9. UPCOMING MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS INFORMATION

10. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS INFORMATION

SANTEC members are encouraged to discuss additional topics of general interest.

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

San Diego Association of Governments

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL

4

May 12, 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3Action Requested: APPROVE

MEETING SUMMARY OF APRIL 14, 2011 File Number 7300500

1. Introductions

The attendees of the meeting introduced themselves at the request of the San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) Chair.

2. Comments from the Public

No public comments.

3. Approval of the March 10, 2011, Meeting Summary (Approve)

SANTEC members reviewed and approved the meeting summary of March 10, 2011.

4. Draft Fair Share Methodology Study (Information)

On March 18, 2011, the Transportation Committee released the draft report of the Fair Share methodology Study for a 30-day public review period. Comments are due on April 17, 2011. Staff will provide an overview and will be available to answer any questions on the Draft Fair Share Methodology Study.

Study Goal: To lessen the regional disputes and to ensure that each city considers transit services for the projects it seeks to implement. Examples of such disputes: San Diego State University, Golden Triangle/La Jolla.

SANTEC Specific Discussion Points:

There are sufficient project review boards in place. The region does a great job in working with one another. The initiative will be voluntary (in the beginning, and perhaps will remain voluntary).

Staff requested to receive feedback to include the Transportation Committee report by April 17, 2011.

5

5. It’s Strategic Plan: Framework Report and Working Model (Approve)

The purpose of the Intelligent Transportation System Strategic Framework report and model is to use to determine metrics to guide funding for transportation projects, in consideration of the region of San Diego as a whole.

The council unanimously agreed that the best method of obtaining SANTEC input was to add the topic to the SANTEC monthly agenda.

Council members stated that monthly agenda items should be used for staff to assist members in identifying how project selection criteria are to be used.

6. Proposition 1B – Santee (Information)

Santee Traffic Engineering staff presented recently completed projects to improve the function and operation of the Trolley Line and traffic light synchronization within the City of Santee. Santee staff assessment of control system platform normalization and standardization to improve ease of use and efficiency was explored.

7. Matters from Members (Information)

The SANTEC chair requested a staff update on the Regional Arterial Management System project and quarterly meeting. Staff will add a quarterly update for the program for members to voice any issues, questions, or comments.

SANTEC members were informed of an upcoming event:

Connected Vehicle Workshop at SANDAG April 27, 2011.

SANTEC member for Poway raised a concern regarding the age of the regional SANTEC/ Institute Of Transportation Engineers guidelines for conducting “Traffic Impact Studies.”

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.

Draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy Public Workshops & Public Hearings

Subregional Public Workshops & Public Hearings – 4 to 7 p.m. 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshops; Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.

Tue, Jun 7 Encinitas Community & Senior Center (North County Coastal) 1140 Oakcrest Park Dr., Encinitas 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m.

Wed, Jun 8 The Joe and Vi Jacobs Center (Central San Diego) 404 Euclid Ave., San Diego 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m. Thu, Jun 9 Sonrise Community Church (East County) 8805 North Magnolia Ave., Santee 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m.

Mon, Jun 13 Martin Luther King Jr. Center (South County) 140 East 12th St., National City 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m.

Thu, Jun 16 San Marcos City Council Chambers (North County Inland) 1 Civic Center Dr., San Marcos 4 to 6 p.m. Public Workshop; Public Hearing begins at 6 p.m. Public Hearings Fri, Jun 10 SANDAG Board of Directors Meeting – 10 a.m. 401 B St., San Diego Tue, Jun 21 Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group (SWG)

Meeting – 5 p.m. Caltrans Office, 4050 Taylor St., San Diego The public workshops will be conducted in an open house format where participants can attend at any time during the workshop, view displays and information about the Draft 2050 RTP, SCS, Environmental Impact Report, and the Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment, ask questions of staff, complete comment cards, or speak to a bilingual English/Spanish transcriber to have their comments recorded. The public hearings will be officiated by one or more SANDAG Board member(s), or their designee(s), and a transcription will be produced and provided to the SANDAG Board of Directors and Policy Advisory Committees, as well as provided to the general public.

www.sandag.org/2050rtp

Agenda Item #5 SANTEC May 12, 2011

6

San Diego Association of Governments

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS COUNCIL

7

May 12, 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7

Action Requested: DISCUSSION

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE File Number 3300506

Introduction

In conjunction with the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Healthy Works program, SANDAG is developing a bicycle wayfinding signage pilot program to promote utilitarian bicycling in the San Diego region. This pilot program is one of six Healthy Works initiatives HHSA has contracted with SANDAG to implement as part of HHSA’s broader effort to combat rising obesity rates in the San Diego region by increasing access to healthy foods and promoting physical activity. The bicycle wayfinding signage component of this program requires SANDAG to coordinate with local jurisdictions and install signage along at least ten regional bicycle corridors by March 2012.

Discussion

Attachment 1, entitled San Diego Regional Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Pilot Program Draft Approach, is the first of two documents related to implementing the pilot program. This initial report proposes preliminary criteria for selecting the piloted corridors, design options, potential destinations served, and an approach to installing and maintaining these signs. Throughout March, April, and May 2011, SANDAG staff is soliciting input on this approach from local agencies and stakeholders. Once an agreed-upon approach is established, staff will inventory and develop sign installation plans for each of the selected corridors. These draft installation plans will be presented in a subsequent report to working groups and committees during July and August 2011.

Attachment: 1. San Diego Regional Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Pilot Program Draft Approach Key Staff Contact: Bridget Enderle, (619) 595-5612, ben@sandag.org

8

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PILOT PROGRAM DRAFT APPROACH

In conjunction with the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Healthy Works program, SANDAG is developing a bicycle wayfinding signage pilot program to support utilitarian bicycling in the San Diego region. This pilot program is one of six Healthy Works initiatives HHSA has contracted with SANDAG to initiate as part of HHSA’s broader effort to combat rising obesity rates in the San Diego region by improving access to healthy foods and promoting physical activity. The bicycle wayfinding signage component of this program requires SANDAG to coordinate with local jurisdictions and install signage along at least ten regional bicycle corridors by March 2012.

This initial report proposes preliminary criteria for selecting the piloted corridors, design options, potential destinations served, and an approach to installing and maintaining these signs.

Pilot Program Goals

A central goal of any wayfinding signage program is to improve navigation for bicyclists by conveying destination, direction, and distance information that is coherent and legible from the view of a moving bicycle. These systems familiarize bicyclists with the bicycle network that is designed to emphasize the safest and most efficient routes to key destinations. The signs also alert other roadway users to the presence of bicyclists. Additionally, wayfinding signage advances the goal of attracting more bike trips by exemplifying how bicycling can serve as a practical mode of transportation.

The charge to establish a regional bicycle wayfinding system in the San Diego region derives from Riding to 2050: the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan (Regional Bicycle Plan). The Regional Bicycle Plan envisions a comprehensive regional bicycle system composed of an interconnected network of 40 regionally significant bicycle corridors complimented with bike parking and amenities, as well as programs and policies designed to make bicycling more practical and desirable. One of the policy objectives of the Regional Bicycle Plan is to “improve the connectivity and quality of the regional bicycle network” and implementing bicycle wayfinding signage is among the policy actions identified to accomplish this objective.1

Consistent with the Regional Bicycle Plan, several of the region’s local jurisdictions have adopted bicycle master plans that include wayfinding signage considerations. This common priority provides an opportunity to develop a regional wayfinding signage system that can be easily integrated with local signage programs.

In addition to advancing these broader goals, the pilot program delineated in this report is intended to serve as an initial step in establishing standards that can be applied to the entire regional bicycle network. The outcomes of this pilot program will be assessed and used to inform future planning, coordination, and investment in wayfinding signage throughout the region.

1SANDAG (May 2010). Riding to 2050: the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan, p. 14.

Attachment 1

Wayfin

This sectiand local

Manual o

The curreand Califconsideraagencies how to eMUTCD aprior versstill in dCaliforniawayfindinthe draft

nding Sign

on of the repagencies’ ap

on Uniform

ent Federal Hornia MUTCD

able discretiohave experim

effectively apand Californiasions of the raft form aa MUTCD 20ng sign guida2011 Califor

nage Guid

port describepplication of

m Traffic Con

Highway AdmD 2011 drafton in develmented with pply wayfinda MUTCD 20manuals allond currently10 adopted ance and Figrnia MUTCD.

California M

dance

es the federawayfinding

ntrol Device

ministration’st version’s guoping local MUTCD stan

ding signage11 draft revi

owed. Howevy undergoingguidelines. F

gure 2 shows

Figure 1MUTCD (201

9

al and state gsignage.

es

s Manual on uidance on w

signing sysndard signs ce. These findsions, which ver, becauseg review, CaFigure 1 diss the expand

1 (Sheet 1 o10) Wayfind

guidance on

Uniform Trawayfinding sistems. Over contributing dings are ref

present signe the Californaltrans advissplays the cuded wayfindi

of 2) ding Sign Gu

sign usage a

affic Control gnage provithe last sevto a greater flected in thnificantly monia MUTCD 2ses agencies

urrent Californg sign stand

uidance

as well as reg

Devices (MUdes agenciesveral years, understandi

he current fere sign types2011 revisions to comply rnia MUTCDdards propos

gional

UTCD) s with

local ing of ederal s than ns are

with 2010

sed in

California M

Figure 1MUTCD (201

10

1 (Sheet 2 o10) Wayfind

of 2) ding Sign Guuidance

Draaft Californ

Figure 2ia MUTCD (

11

2 (Sheet 1 o2011) Wayf

of 2) finding Signn Guidance

Draaft CalifornFigure 2

ia MUTCD (

12

2 (Sheet 2 o2011) Wayf

of 2) finding Signn Guidance

In additiosign frequbetween

Model W

Comprehconfirmatconfirmatlist key deprovide mTable 1 cjurisdictioasterisk(*MUTCD sgenerally

Berkeley’and its edistinctivecorridor boulevardchange dboulevardidentificanotify mo

B

2City of BerDownloade

on to permituency, and pjurisdictions

Wayfinding S

ensive wayfition signs, tion to bicycestinations smileage or ricompares sigons and thre*) indicates tsign type, t

y maintains th

s innovative effectiveness e purple andname acrossd, 1B and 1Cirection. Berd. Along b

ation signs. Totorists that t

erkeley’s Typ

keley, Bicycle Bo

ed on February 1

tting a varietplacement. Co, including th

Signage Sys

inding signaidentify the

clists that theerved by theiding times tgn functionsee out-of-statthat the signhat the locahe appearan

wayfinding at promoti

d white signs the upper C list destinatkeley’s Type

bicycle bouleThe seventh sthey will be c

pe 1B

oulevard Design10, 2011, from h

ty of sign tyonsequently,hose with mo

stems

ge systems g multi-use

ey are contine bicycle facilto those locas, types, andte cities with

n type is eithal or regionce of the MU

approach is ng its bicyc types. Typeportion of t

tions and mi2 signs are u

evards, stansign type is ucrossing a bi

n Tools and Guidhttp://www.ci.be

Sou

rce:

reno

-ram

bler

.blo

gspo

t.com

13

pes, the guid, placement aodel systems

generally conpath or roa

nuing on a dity, direct bic

ations. Directd placementh robust wayher an originnal agency hUTCD standa

noteworthy,le boulevard

es 1A – 1D athe sign. Typleage estimaused on paradard street used on majoke boulevard

Sign Be

delines Public Reerkeley.ca.us/con

delines allowand design e.

nsist of threeadway as a designated bcyclists to thtion signs int guidelinesyfinding signnal design orhas customizrd.

, in part, dued network. re two-sidedpe 1A of thates, and 1D llel streets to

signs are or roads in ad.2

erkeley’s Off

eview Draft Repntentdisplay.asp

w latitude inelements can

e sign types. bicycle fac

icycle route. ose destinatidicate turns

s applied in nage systemsr, when follozed the stan

e to the diveBerkeley used 20” x 30” e series idendirects bicyc

o point bicycalso replac

advance of b

f-Route Type

port. px?id=6652

combining vary substan

Identificatioility and prDestination

ions, and typin bicycle ro

three Califs. In the tabowing a stanndard design

rsity of signses seven oriwith an iconntifies the bclists where rclists to the bced with ubike boulevar

2 Sign

signs, ntially

on, or rovide

signs pically outes. fornia le, an ndard n but

s used ginal, n and

bicycle routes bicycle nique rds to

Sou

rce:

http

://w

ww

.ci.b

erke

ley.

ca.u

s/

14

Table 1 Comparison of Wayfinding Signage Systems in Other Jurisdictions

City or Region Sign Function(s) Sign Type(s) Placement Principles

Berkeley, CA

Identification

Type 1A* Far side of the intersection at major street crossings

Type 3* Replaces standard street signs along route

Type 4* On intersecting major streets

Destination and Distance Type 1B* Every mid-block along route

Type 1C* Mid-block where bike boulevards intersect

Direction Type 1D* Where routes change direction

Type 2* On adjacent roadways

Oakland, CA

Confirmation, Destination, Distance D11-1* with D1-1b* Beginning of each bikeway and every half-mile to mile on the far side of the intersection

Destination D11-1* with D1-1b* Near side of each intersection along bikeway

Direction D11-1* with M7-1 – M7-7 series Near side of the intersection prior to turns in routes

San Francisco, CA

Identification, Destination, Direction (cross-town) SG-45* Route junctions. Turns in the route. Far side of the

intersection at wide or irregular intersections.

Identification, Destination, Direction (local) SG-45* Route junctions. Turns in the route. Far side of the

intersection at wide or irregular intersections.

Chicago, IL

Identification and Destination D11-1c Far side of the intersection within 160 feet of all signalized intersections; after turns in the route; or, every quarter of a mile.

Destination, Direction, Distance D1-1c Along bikeway 30 to 40 feet before intersection with another bike route. Also, on roadways that intersect with bikeways in advance of connecting intersection.

Identification and Direction D11-1c with M6-1 – M6-7 series In advance of turn in the bike route

Portland, OR Destination, Direction, Distance, Travel Time D11-1c* Intersections and decision points

Seattle, WA

Confirmation, Destination, Direction, Distance D1-1c All decision points. Every one-third to one-half mile

contingent on length, sight distance, and site-specific need for confirmation. On-street: At all turns in bike route. Shared-Use Path/Trails: Confirmation signs after all roadway crossings.

Identification and Direction (regional routes)

Regional Sign*

Distinctlywayfindinboth signconcept froutes fedisplay thsigns are

San Franincorporasigns. Theroutes asadopted Oakland,

Oakland outreach numbers to the w

3Gubser, A.,San Francisc

Region

y signing regng protocolsns on one pofor both reg

eature a muhe same grapposted vertic

cisco pioneeate destinatioe route numsigned odd nthe SG45 (Calthough th

reverted to and an ass

lack utility aidth (12” x

, Velasco, M., & co. Downloaded

nal and Local

ional and los. Where regost but doesgional and lolti-color ima

phic in greencally on the s

ered the SG4ons, directiobering systemnumbers andCA) design

he City of Oak

a system thasessment of and the wayf18”) of their

Summerell, V. “

d on February 10

l Bike Route

cal corridorsgional and lo not combinocal routes,

age of the icn and white.same pole, w

45 (CA) signnal arrows, m follows thd east-west rinclude Solakland has sin

at utilizes ththeir modif

finding inforr customized

“Implementing S0, 2011 from htt

Signs in Seat

15

is an instrucocal bicycle rne the sign c

yet distinguconic GoldenWhere bicyc

which occurs

n type by mand sometim

he Federal Hiroutes assignano County, nce changed

e D11-1, D1fiedSG45 (CArmation on td signs. The

San Francisco’s Btp://www.sfmta

ttle

Sou

rce:

ww

w.w

ash

ing

ton

city

pap

er.c

om

/blo

gs/

ho

usi

ng

com

ple

x/20

10/0

8/17

/

ctive aspect routes overlacontent. San uishes them n Gate Bridgle routes intin several loc

modifying prmes cardinal ighway Systened even num

Long Beachits approach

-1b, and M7A) based sigtheir SG45 (Ccity now ins

Bicycle Route an.com/cms/rbikes

San Francis

of San Francap, the City

Francisco usby color. Crge, whereasersect, multications throu

evious standdirections in

em protocol, mbers.3Jurisdh, Santa Cla.

7 series signsnage. They

CA) signs diffstalls three s

nd Sign System.s/documents/rou

sco Cross-Tow

cisco and Seaof Seattle inses the sameoss-town, ar

s the local rple route nu

ughout the c

dards. Their nto route nu

with north-dictions who arita County,

after condufound the

ficult to readsign types (sh

” City and Counute_network.pd

wn Route Sig

attle’s nstalls e sign rterial routes umber ity.

signs umber south have , and

ucting route d due hown

nty of f

gns

Sou

rce:

ww

w.f

lickr

.co

m/p

ho

tos/

tish

on

/

below) bSignage”

Several aincludes tthe Natiodestinatiofederal Mmodified inclusion

Generallylandmarktypically

4City of Porthttp://www

based on a published in

gencies havethe City of Conal Commiton-related in

MUTCD D11-1version of

of riding tim

y, agencies idks, universitieidentified. So

tland. Accessed

w.portlandonline

methodologn July 2009.

e comparablehicago, whosttee on Unifnformation i1c and D1-1cthe federal

me estimates,

dentify bicycles and collegome jurisdict

on February 15

e.com/transporta

City

y described

e systems thase signs wereorm Traffic n place of “

c, D1-2c, and MUTCD D1

, which are ca

e-attracting ges, public pations, includi

, 2011 from ation/index.cfm

y of Oakland

16

in their “D

at utilize thee recommendControl Dev

“BIKE ROUTED1-3c signs 1-1a sign. Aalculated ass

land uses, suarks and otheng the City o

?a=291896&c=3

Bicycle Wayf

Design Guide

D11-1, or soded in 2006 f

vices. ChicagoE.” Chicago’s(see Figure 2

A unique feasuming a 10 m

uch as transiter facilities. Aof Oakland a

35953

yfinding Signs

elines for Bi

ome variationfor inclusiono’s D11-1 ros approach i2). The City oature of Pomile per hou

t stations, comAdjacent jurand Chicago,

s

cycle Wayfin

n of this sign in the MUTCute signs prs reflected iof Portland urtland’s syste

ur riding spee

mmercial disrisdictions are, classify loca

Sou

rce:

Cit

y o

f O

akla

nd

Des

ign

Gu

idel

ines

fo

r B

icyc

le W

ayfi

nd

ing

Sig

nag

e (J

uly

200

9)

nding

n. This CD by rovide n the uses a em is ed. 4

tricts, e also ations

served byand tertiasigning dwayfindin

Agencies regular guidelinequarter mplaced 2junctions intersecti

Prelimi

The subseoptions, pilot progregional The propin the pplanning

Pilot Pro

The San informaticombinatat intervaapproximadhere to

Issues to quality, aintegratincoordinat

Drawing followingof the exsigns. Theeach of th

y their wayfary destinatidistances. Tng systems.

with planneintervals

es. Signs are mile with d5 to 40 fee

and confirmons.

inary Pilot

equent sectia system forgram, and a bicycle corrid

posed approarevious sectthe regiona

ogram Sign

Diego regioion, as well tion of identals of approx

mately 7’ to o the Californ

consider in and distinctivng regionaltion related t

upon other g exhibits dexhibits describese options ahe exhibits.

finding systeons and usehis helps e

ed wayfindinconsistent typically ins

direction andet prior to tmation signs

t Program

ons present r identifyingpreliminary

dors for piloach draws upion as well l bicycle netw

Design Opt

onal pilot pras accentuatification, dirximately four10’ tall and nia MUTCD g

selecting sigveness of thl signs withto on-going

jurisdictionslineate threebes possible are not exha

m into prime these categnsure consis

ng programswith Calif

stalled approd destinationturns in rous placed imm

m Approac

preliminary destinationdraft appro

ot program impon best pra

as methodowork.

tions

rogram sign te the signifection, and dr signs per dsign dimen

guidelines.

gn design anhe system; coh existing regional way

experiencese potential dsign types a

austive and e

17

mary, secondagories to dictstency in th

s place signsfornia MUToximately evn related sites or bikewmediately af

ch

signage dess served by ach to selectmplementatiactices discusologies used

configuratioficance of thdestination airectional misions and in

nd configuraompliance wand future

yfinding sign

s with wayfinesign optionnd placemeneach present

ary, tate heir

s at TCD very gns way fter

sign the

ting ion. ssed d in

ons should phe regional band distance ile. Signs sho

nstallation sp

ations includewith Californie local signnage implem

nding signagns for pilot pnt and includts benefits a

City of PBicycle Wayf

provide relevbicycle corridsign types sh

ould be instapecifications

e: the functia MUTCD st

nage; and entation.

ge and MUTCrogram impldes example nd challenge

Portlandfinding Signs

vant navigatdors. Generahould be installed at heigh

should gen

ionality, aesttandards; eainterjurisdict

CD standardlementation.graphics of

es, as discuss

s

tional ally, a talled hts of erally

thetic ase of tional

s, the . Each these

sed in

Sou

rce:

ww

w.b

ikep

ort

lan

d.c

om

One option (CA) signs odistinctive athe bicycle regionally sHowever, anthat lack cacoordinationfabricating a

SG45 (CA)

Directionth

Destinatioth

is to utilize aoffer severaland iconic tosystem whileignificant conecdotal evidardinal-orienn to ensurea unique set

Type Sign in

n Signs are plhe SG45 (CA)

on Signs are phe SG45 (CA)

Design Opt

a combinatio benefits. Fi the region. e maintainin

orridors fromdence is mix

nted grid stre numbers a

of SG45 (CA

n Minneapoli

laced below Sign

placed below Sign

tion 1: Modif

on of customirst, the signThis aesthetg a level of other bikew

xed regardingreet networare interjuris) signs for ea

Ident

is

Each idSG45 (image circumvfor a lacould aIdentifibeginneach dihalf mdirectiosegmensigns sh

Dir

When on-stredirectiosupplempreferaside ofmerge much a

Destination

w

CustomD1-1c, destinasigns ainformaintersec

Sou

rce:

hw

ww

.vel

otr

affi

c.co

m

Sou

rce:

CA

MU

TCD

2011

Dra

ftEd

itio

nSo

urc

e: C

alif

orn

ia M

UTC

D 2

010

18

fied California

mized SG45 (Cn design protic quality casign uniform

ways, which g the usefulnrks. Route nsdictionally cach corridor.

tification Sign

dentificationCA) sign cusand exclude

vents some oarger bicycle

also indicate tication (and ing of each birection or de

mile along thon and destnt to achievhould be at m

rection Signs

bicycle corridet facilities (

on signs comented withably 30 to 40f the intersacross traffic

as 200’ in adv

n and Distanc

mized SG45 (CD1-2c, and

ations withinare also proation at thect or at othe

a SG45 Config

CA), D1 seriesovides space an draw attemity. Use of assists with ness of route

numbers alsoconsistent. F

ns

and confirstomized toe a route nuof the challee symbol anthat the corrconfirmatio

bikeway, on estination sighe corridor, tination signve a one-fouminimum 18”

dors change (Class II or IImposed of h turn signs0 feet prior tsection. Whc lanes, dire

vance of the t

ce Signs

CA) signs supD1-3c signs

n range) or oposed to e near-side or destination

guration

s, and M7 seto incorpor

ention and imSG45 (CA) a

navigation te numberingo require anFurther, num

mation signo include a umber. Excluenges discussnd customizeridor is a reg

on) signs shothe far side

gn, and apprcontingent

ns needed aurth mile sig” x 24.”

roadways oII)and shared

a customizs (M7 seriesto turns in then transitioction signs sturn.

pplemented s (dependingcurrent Califprovide dirof intersecti

n decision po

ries signs. Usate an imag

mprove percealso distinguo major dest

g particularlyn additional mbered rout

n would conregionally siuding route sed above aned graphic. Tional bicycle

ould be placeof intersecti

roximately ev on the nualong the rgning densit

or transition d-used pathszed SG45 (Cs), should bhe route, on ons require should be ins

with federag on the nufornia MUTCection and ons where

oints.

sing SG45 ge that is eption of

uishes the tinations. y in areas

level of tes entail

nsist of a ignificant numbers

nd allows The signs corridor. ed at the ions after very one-

umber of espective ty. These

between s (Class I), CA) sign,

be placed the near bicyclists

stalled as

al MUTCD umber of CD D1-1b

distance bikeways

Another optMUTCD or developing dimensions Berkeley, haencouragingidentificatioonly one un

Unique I

Direc

Destin

tion is to defederal MUan attractivand compo

ave gained rg additional on sign used ique sign an

Identification

tion Signs arthe Uniqu

ation Signs athe Uniqu

Desi

velop an entTCD supplem

ve and regiositions. As decognition fbicycle activ

in combinatd provides th

n Sign in Balt

re placed beloue Sign

are placed beue Sign

gn Option 2:

tirely uniquemental signaonally signifidescribed in or their uniqvity. Rather ion with MUhe clarity and

Ident

timore

Earpoacso

Dir

ow

WbpistWli

Destination

elow

UDdDdwp

Sou

rce:

urb

anpl

aces

ands

pace

s.bl

ogsp

ot.c

om

Sou

rce:

Cal

ifo

rnia

MU

TCD

201

0 So

urc

e: C

alif

orn

ia M

UTC

D 2

010

19

Unique Sign

e identificatioage. A key cant sign dea previous

que signagethan creatinTCD standar

d uniformity

tification Sign

Each identifican identificatregion. Identplaced at theof intersectioand approximcontingent osigns neededone-quarter o

rection Signs

When bicyclbetween on-paths (Class dentificationseries), shoulturns in the When transianes, directin advance of

n and Distanc

Unique signsD1-2c, and destinations D1-1b signs distance infowhere bikewpoints.

Configuratio

on sign for uadvantage o

esign that issection of twhich has p

ng multiple rd signage reinherent to

ns

cation and cotion sign destification(ane beginning ons after eamately every on the numbd along the of a mile sig

le corridors -street facilit

I), direction sign suppld be placed route, on t

itions requirion signs shof the turn.

ce Signs

s supplemenD1-3c signs within rangcould be

ormation atways intersect

on

use in conjunof this apprs not restrictthis report,

proven effectsign types,

equires desigstandard sig

onfirmation signed uniqud confirmatof each bike

ach directiony one-half miber of direcrespective sning density

change roaies (Class II on signs con

plemented wpreferably 3

he near sidere bicyclists ould be insta

nted with fe(depending

ge) or currenused to pr

t the near-st or at other

nction with Croach is flexted to standjurisdictions,

tive at improdeveloping ning and disn types.

sign would cuely for the Stion) signs sheway, on the

n or destinatle along the

ction and deegment to a.

adways or tor III) and shansisting of awith turn si30 to 40 feete of the intemerge acro

alled as muc

ederal MUTCg on the nunt Californiarovide directside of inter destination

California xibility in dard sign , such as

oving and a unique stributing

consist of San Diego hould be e far side tion sign, corridor,

estination achieve a

transition ared-used a unique igns (M7 t prior to ersection.

oss traffic h as 200’

CD D1-1c, umber of a MUTCD tion and ersections n decision

A third optiused througidentificatiocoordinatingof distinctioIdeally, regibe supplemeof the S17 (region, the original des

Modif

Direction

Destinatio

ion is to utilighout the r

on signs ang sign consis

on between Conal corridoented with a(CA) when tS17 (CA) couign that disti

fied D11-1 Sig

n Signs are plthe D11-1 Si

on Signs are pthe D11-1 Si

Des

ize a combinregion, so bnd replace stency betweClass III bike rrs should be

a S17 (CA) plahe agency huld be custominguishes the

gn in D.C.

laced below ign

placed belowign

sign Option 3:

nation of D1building on existing sig

een jurisdictioroutes and otnoticeable a

acard along ras designate

mized with te regional bic

Ident

Each idD11-1 Identifibeginneach dihalf mdirectiosegmen

Dir

When on-stredirectiomodifieseries), the rourequireshould

Destination

w

D11-1 aMUTCDof destsigns informaintersec

Sou

rce:

urb

anpl

aces

ands

pace

s.bl

ogsp

ot.c

om

Sou

rce:

Cal

ifo

rnia

MU

TCD

201

0 So

urc

e:C

AM

UTC

D20

11D

raft

Edit

ion

20

D11-1 Sign C

1-1, D1 seriethis foundatns, minimizons. Significather facilitat

and attractiveregional corred a unique he regional cycle networ

tification Sign

dentificationsign, and

ication (and ing of each birection or de

mile along thon and destnt. If used, th

rection Signs

bicycle corridet facilities (

on signs coed S17 (CA)should be pl

ute, on the ne bicyclists mbe installed

n and Distanc

and modifieD D1-1c, D1-2inations withcould be ation at thect or at othe

Configuration

es, and M7 setion elimina

zes potentiaant drawbactes, and partie. If this appridors. The Caname to thecorridor nam

rk.

ns

and confird potentiall

confirmatiobikeway, on estination sighe corridor, tination signhese signs sho

dors change (Class II or IIInsisting of ) sign, supplaced prefera

near side of tmerge acroas much as 2

ce Signs

ed S17 (CA) s2c, and D1-3chin range) orused to p

e near-side or destination

n

eries. The D1ates the neeal user confcks to this sysicularly, regioroach is adopalifornia MUe bicycle rou

mes and furt

mation signly, modifie

on) signs shothe far side

gn, and apprcontingent

ns needed aould be at m

roadways oI) and shareda D11-1 sig

plemented wably 30 to 40the intersectiss traffic la

200’ in advan

signs supplec signs (deper current Cal

provide direof intersecti

n decision po

11-1 signs areed to designfusion, and stem includeonal bicycle cpted, the D1TCD recomm

ute. In the Saher modified

n would cond S17 (CA

ould be placeof intersecti

roximately ev on the nualong the r

minimum 24”

or transition d-used pathsgn, and powith turn si0 feet prior toion. When tranes, directince of the tur

mented withnding on theifornia MUTC

ection and ons where

oints.

e already n unique

reduces e the lack corridors. 1-1 could

mends use an Diego d with an

nsist of a A) sign. ed at the ions after very one-

umber of espective x 18.”

between s (Class I), otentially, igns (M7 o turns in ransitions on signs rn.

h federal e number CD D1-1b

distance bikeways

21

Adopting any signage that deviates from the California MUTCD 2010 requires consulting Caltrans to determine if the modifications necessitate requesting permission or experimental testing overseen by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee.

Another issue to consider, as noted previously, is how regional signs will be coordinated with existing and future local signage. If local jurisdictions apply wayfinding signage to local bicycle networks, a system similar to the regional signage could be employed. For example, the SG45 (CA) configuration could be adopted at the regional, as well as local level, and regional and local routes could be differentiated by images, colors, and/or text identifying corridors as either regional bicycle corridors or local bikeways.

Destinations Served by the Pilot Program

Identifying and classifying the types of destinations supported by signage makes it simpler to implement and ensures consistency in the system, making it easier for bicyclists to use. Table 2 proposes a hierarchy of destination types similar to the structures used by other jurisdictions with robust wayfinding signage programs. Relative to their regional significance, locations are categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary destinations. Primary destinations include downtown San Diego and adjacent jurisdictions where corridors cross jurisdictional boundaries. These typologies should be signed beginning five miles away from the destination. Transit hubs, smart growth urban centers and town centers are classified as secondary destinations and should generally be signed at distances of up to two miles from the destination. Tertiary destinations should be signed at a one mile distance and include neighborhoods, landmarks, and other significant public facilities.

Table 2 Proposed Destination Types Served by Pilot Regional Bicycle Wayfinding

Primary Destination (5 mile signing distance)

Downtown San Diego

Municipalities

Secondary Destination (2 mile signing distance)

Transit Hubs: Transit Centers, Coaster Stations, Transit Stations, Transit Plazas, and Transit Depots

Urban Centers (examples: Hillcrest/Uptown, Chula Vista Urban Core)

Town Centers (examples: Downtown La Mesa, Downtown National City, Mission Valley)

Universities and Community Colleges (examples: San Diego State University, Mesa College)

Tertiary Destination (1 mile signing distance)

Community Centers/Neighborhoods (examples: City Heights, Ocean Beach)

Landmarks and Other Tourist Destinations (examples: Balboa Park, Petco Park, U.S. Olympic Training Center, major beaches)

Public Facilities and Institutions (examples: libraries, community centers)

Middle and High Schools

22

Pilot Program Corridor Selection Criteria and Process

The preliminary proposed approach to identifying corridors for inclusion in this pilot program incorporates methodologies used in planning the regional bicycle network, field reviews, and priorities associated with the Healthy Works program.

In general, the wayfinding signage network will expand gradually – as regional bikeways are developed, wayfinding signs will be included in project design and construction budgets. However, applying a systematic approach to this first implementation phase provides greater assurance that this initial investment will improve bicycling in the region.

To be effective, routes selected for this pilot program should have roadway characteristics and facilities in place that make them suitable for bicycling and demonstrate high demand. Therefore, the proposed approach begins with estimating relative bicycle demand along regional corridors, an analysis that was conducted as a component of the regional bicycle network prioritization process. The criteria for prioritizing the regional network synthesized demand-based criteria with facility-based factors and included cost-to-benefit consideration. This prioritization process was adopted by the Transportation Committee as part of the Regional Bicycle Plan approval process. The demand-driven portion of the analysis highlights corridor segments likely to attract bicycle trips based on proximity to regionally significant activity centers, Smart Growth Areas. Using Smart Growth Area place types as a basis for estimating demand reinforces the regional smart growth strategy conceptualized by the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map (Concept Map). The strategy promotes compact, mixed-use development and transportation investments that support transit use, active transportation, and vibrant community design focused in activity centers identified on the Concept Map. Because the regional bicycle network prioritization process was largely based on this demand analysis, the highest demand regional bicycle corridors encompass the top thirty highest priority projects identified for Regional Bicycle Plan implementation.

The next step in the proposed process involves inventorying these high priority corridor segments for signing opportunities along existing facilities and unbuilt, proposed bike routes (Class III) that do not require additional treatments to safely accommodate bicycle travel. Unbuilt, proposed bicycle boulevards will also be surveyed as potential candidates for pilot program implementation. Wayfinding signage along bicycle boulevards would provide interim benefit, although ultimately, when bicycle boulevards projects are designed they should include appropriate enhancements and traffic calming measures. When proposed bicycle boulevards and Class III bike routes are field reviewed, opportunities for shared lane markings (“sharrows”) will also be noted. The Regional Bicycle Plan recommends sharrows along all bike routes where practical. Installing wayfinding signage and sharrows along unbuilt corridors designated as Class III bike routes would provide significant progress toward completing the highest priority regional bicycle corridors.

Table 3 identifies approximately 40 miles of preliminary high priority regional bicycle corridor segments to review for wayfinding signage opportunities based on the safety- and demand-based criteria described above. A few segments that do not meet the facility-based criteria are also listed based on continuity considerations. For example, along the City Heights – Old Town Corridor, Landis Street between Utah Street and Boundary Street will be reviewed for potential signing even though it currently has no facilities and is proposed as Class II bike lane. Figure 3 displays these preliminary draft corridors to review for pilot program wayfinding signage potential.

Figure 3 segmentsadditionathe Nortstrengthe

A third coRail TrailMost of tof the rcompletioBecause uRail Traiopportunrecommeregional identificasegments

Assessinghigh prpriority, a– is consphasing network, developmprojects impact on

In additiostep in tselection priorities Works prThrough identify twill be uidentify a

also highlis with existinal corridors inh Park – Ceen the conne

orridor type , Coastal Ra

these proposegional bikeon of an inteunique identl, and Inlan

nities to supended to enh

network. Aation signs s.

g these three riority, inteand existing istent with of the regand as suc

ment of seveand also

nce complete

on to field rthe pilot prprocess, in associated wogram, is to a parallel He

target areas dused to help additional reg

ghts approxng facilities tnclude existientre City Coectivity of the

to review foil Trail, San ed segmentseway netwoerconnected tification signd Rail Traplement, rat

hance these bAdditional may also b

corridor typersecting hClass I segmeimplementatgional bikewch, will initeral first phbroaden th

e.

reviews, a throgram corriresponse to

with the Heaidentify high

ealthy Workdisproportion

prioritize sigional corrid

Exist

ximately 15hat could alsng portions orridor, amoe pilot wayfin

r wayfindingDiego River

s abut Class I ork. Installin

Class I netwnage is alreail, field revther than subikeways shoBayshore Bi

be recomme

es – high ents tion way iate

hase heir

hird idor the lthy h need areass project, a hnately impacignage insta

dors for inclu

23

ting San Dieg

miles of aso be reviewof the Centr

ong others. nding signag

g signage potTrail, and Bbikeway prog signage a

work, the bacady used to dviews wouldupplant, theould be consikeway, Coanded where

s where the shealthy comcted by transllation alongsion in the p

go Regional B

dditional, inwed for pilot re City La MeSigning thes

ge.

tential includBayshore Bikojects identifalong theseckbone of thdistinguish t

d focus one current sigsistent with tastal Rail Te lacking a

signs could hmunity atlasportation ang the selecte

pilot program

Bikeway Iden

ntersecting program con

esa Corridor se adjoining

des 35 miles keway facilitified for initiae existing sehe regional bhe Bayshoreidentifying

gnage. Destinthat designatTrail, and Ilong these

help promotes is in develond land use ded corridors,

m implementa

ntification Sig

regional cornsideration. Tand a segme

g corridors w

of existing Inies (see Figual implementegments supbikeway netw Bikeway, Codestination

nation signted for the eInland Rail existing cor

e physical actopment that decisions. Thi, and potenation.

gns

rridor These ent of would

nland re 3).

tation pports work. oastal

sign types

entire Trail

rridor

tivity. helps s tool tially,

24

Table 3 Proposed High Priority Regional Bicycle Corridors to Inventory for Pilot Program Implementation

Regional Corridor Corridor Segment Start End Existing Facility

Proposed Facility

Length in Miles

Clairemont- Centre City Corridor

Fashion Valley Bike Path unbuilt multi-use path Camino de la Reina Class I Class I 0.08

Hotel Circle South Camino de la Reina Bachman Place Class II Class II 0.06

Bachman Place Hotel Circle South Arbor Drive -- Class III 0.58

Bachman Place Arbor Drive Lewis Street -- Bike Blvd 0.13

Lewis Street Bachman Place 3rd Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.02

3rd Avenue Lewis Street Walnut Avenue partial Class III Bike Blvd 0.72

Walnut Avenue 3rd Avenue 3rd Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.03

3rd Avenue Walnut Avenue Upas Street -- Bike Blvd 0.05

Upas Street 3rd Avenue 4th Ave (SB)/5th Ave (NB) -- Bike Blvd 0.11

4th Avenue (SB) Upas Street Juniper Street -- Class III 0.80

4th Avenue (SB) Juniper Street B Street -- Class III 0.79

4th Avenue (SB) B Street C Street -- Class III 0.07

5th Avenue (NB) Upas Street C Street partial Class III Class II 1.66

Kensington – Balboa Park Corridor

Meade Avenue Park Boulevard Fairmount Avenue -- Bike Blvd 2.65

Hillcrest – El Cajon Corridor

Howard Ave/Orange Ave Park Boulevard Sharron Place Class III Bike Blvd 2.79

Orange Avenue 51st Street Sharron Place -- Bike Blvd 0.46

Sharron Place Orange Avenue Trojan Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.12

Trojan Avenue Sharron Place 60th Street -- Bike Blvd 0.51

60th Street Trojan Avenue Adelaide Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.04

Adelaide Avenue 60th Street Tarragona Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.17

Tarragona Drive Adelaide Avenue Carling Way -- Bike Blvd 0.07

Carling Way Tarragona Drive Tarragona Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.04

Tarragona Drive Carling Way Cartagena Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.21

Cartagena Drive Tarragona Drive Malcolm Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.08

Malcolm Drive Cartagena Drive Alamo Way -- Bike Blvd 0.57

Alamo Way Malcolm Drive 70th Street -- Bike Blvd 0.52

25

Regional Corridor Corridor Segment Start End Existing Facility

Proposed Facility

Length in Miles

City Heights – El Cajon Corridor

Taylor Street Pacific Highway Congress Street -- Class III 0.07

Congress Street Taylor Street San Diego Avenue -- Class III 0.56

San Diego Avenue Congress Street Washington Avenue -- Class III 0.84

W. University Avenue Washington Avenue Goldfinch Street -- Class III 0.11

W. University Avenue Goldfinch Street 3rd Avenue Class III Class III 0.52

City Heights – Old Town Corridor

Robinson Avenue 3rd Avenue Park Boulevard -- Class III 0.96

Alabama Street Robinson Avenue Landis Street -- Bike Blvd 0.06

Landis Street Alabama Street Utah Street -- Bike Blvd 0.59

Landis Street Utah Street Boundary Street -- Class II 0.65

Landis Street Boundary Street Swift Avenue Class II Class II 0.20

Swift Avenue Landis Street Wightman Street Class II Class II 0.08

Centre City – La Mesa Corridor

Palm Avenue Spring Street La Mesa Boulevard Class III Class III 0.71

La Mesa Boulevard Palm Avenue Porter Hill Road Class III Class III 0.37

La Mesa Boulevard Porter Hill Road Grossmont Boulevard Class III Class II 0.66

Grossmont Boulevard La Mesa Boulevard Bancroft Drive Class III Class II 0.24

Front Street Harbor Drive Island Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.08

Island Avenue Front Street Park Boulevard -- Bike Blvd 0.64

28th Street Commercial Street Ocean View Boulevard Class III Class II 0.29

Ocean View Boulevard 28th Street 47th Street partial Class III Class II 2.35

Imperial Avenue Churchward Street San Jacinto Drive Class III Class II 0.25

Imperial Avenue San Jacinto Drive 62nd Street Class II Class II 1.14

Imperial Avenue 62nd Street 69th Street Class III Class II 0.87

SR-125 Corridor

Katherine Street Medford Street Garfield Avenue -- Bike Blvd 0.16

Garfield Avenue Katherine Street Louise Court -- Bike Blvd 0.56

Severin Drive Louise Court Amaya Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.84

26

Regional Corridor Corridor Segment Start End Existing Facility

Proposed Facility

Length in Miles

Mission Valley to Chula Vista Corridor

E. 18th Street Euclid Avenue Prospect Street Class III Class III 0.10

Prospect Street E. 18th Street Interstate 805 -- Class III 0.56

Grove Street Interstate 805 Sweetwater Road -- Class III 0.50

Sweetwater Road Grove Street 2nd Avenue Class III Class II 0.07

2nd Avenue Sweetwater Road State Route 54 (EB) Class III Class II 0.28

2nd Avenue State Route 54 (EB) J Street -- Bike Blvd 2.14

Central Coast Corridor

W. Mission Bay Drive Mission Boulevard Dana Landing Road Class II Cycle Track 0.92

Mission Boulevard Pacific Beach Drive W. Mission Bay Drive -- Bike Blvd 1.32

Nimitz Boulevard Ocean Beach Bike Path Rosecrans Avenue Class II Cycle Track 2.05

Imperial Beach Connector

Palm Avenue Seacoast Drive 13th Street -- Class III 1.52

13th Street Palm Avenue Donax Avenue -- Class III 0.11

Donax Avenue 13th Street Saturn Boulevard -- Class III 0.76

Kearny Mesa-Beaches Corridor

Hornblend Street Mission Boulevard Haines Street -- Bike Blvd 0.88

Haines Street Hornblend Street Pacific Beach Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.35

Pacific Beach Drive Haines Street Eastern terminus of Pacific Beach Drive -- Bike Blvd 0.93

Total Miles to Field Check 39.62

27

28

Other Considerations and Alternative Criteria

An alternative approach to selecting corridors for pilot program bicycle wayfinding signage is to concentrate implementation in one area, providing a more complete network of wayfinding signage. An obstacle to this approach is identifying safe, continuous routes that also serve high demand regionally significant destinations. Another drawback is that this approach eliminates the opportunity to assess the impact of wayfinding signage in various settings.

Interjurisdictional Coordination

If successfully completed, the regional bicycle network, and complimentary wayfinding signage, will traverse every municipality in the San Diego region. As an interjurisdictional resource, the network development and maintenance requires close coordination among agencies to ensure the facilities remain safe, continuous, and useful.

Similar to some existing regional bikeway projects, SANDAG proposes to fund and manage the overall design, development, and production of the pilot program with substantial input and approval from local agencies. Local agencies would be asked to assume responsibility for sign installation and on-going maintenance of the signs. This approach may be applied to the entire regional network depending on funding availability and the outcomes of this pilot program.

Conclusion and Next Steps

This report presents a preliminary approach to implementing a regional bicycle wayfinding pilot program along at least ten regional bicycle corridors in the San Diego region. Throughout March, April, and May 2011, SANDAG staff is soliciting input on this approach from local agencies and stakeholders. Once an agreed upon approach is established, staff will survey the selected corridors, develop installation plans, and present these preliminary signing plans to SANDAG working groups and committees for review and input. Ultimately, the outcomes of this pilot program will be evaluated and are intended to help establish standards that can be applied to entire regional bicycle network.