DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2010 Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Acknowledgements The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was prepared by Gary Helfrich of the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department with assistance provided by Steven Schmitz of Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works Transit Division and Ken Tam of Sonoma County Regional Parks Department. Any questions or comments regarding this document should be directed to: Gary Helfrich Steven Schmitz Sonoma County PRMD Sonoma County Bicycle & 2550 Ventura Avenue Pedestrian Advisory Committee Santa Rosa, CA 95403 355 West Robles Avenue ph. 707.565.8340 Santa Rosa, CA 95417 fax 707.565.8343 ph. 707.585.7516 [email protected] [email protected] Major funding for this plan was provided by a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy and Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds. Mapping and additional policy development support was provided by Sonoma County Transportation Authority. The plan was developed with input from the citizens of Sonoma County over a two year period under direction of the Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. The Board of Supervisors appointed the following members to serve on the Committee during this time: Chip Roberson Ken Cummings Janice Eunice Sherry Adams Richard Burg Bob Hasenick Bernie Album Bill Harrison Andy Bunnell Joe Morgan Tim Gonzalez Lou Salz Vincent Hoagland Nancy Rappolt Erick Ratliff The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 24, 2010 by Resolution 10-0636. Table of Contents Need and Purpose..................................................................................................................................1 Scope of Plan......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................1 Safety..................................................................................................................................................2 Environmental .....................................................................................................................................2 Health..................................................................................................................................................3 Economic ............................................................................................................................................4 Finance ...............................................................................................................................................4 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................5 Exisiting Conditions ................................................................................................................................6 Bicycle Facility Classification ..............................................................................................................6 The Bikeways Network........................................................................................................................7 Table 1.1 Development of Sonoma County Bikeways ....................................................................7 Class I Bikeways .............................................................................................................................7 Class II and III Bikeways .................................................................................................................8 Bicycle Parking and End of Trip Facilities .......................................................................................8 Pedestrian Facilities............................................................................................................................9 Goals, Objectives, and Policies ............................................................................................................10 1. General .........................................................................................................................................11 2. Bikeway Selection, Design, Operation, and Maintenance. ...........................................................12 Selection and Design of Bikeways ................................................................................................12 Standards for Class I Bikeways.....................................................................................................13 Standards for Class II Bikeways....................................................................................................15 Standards for Class III Bikeways...................................................................................................16 Bicycle Boulevards ........................................................................................................................17 Freeway Interchanges...................................................................................................................17 BPAC Review of Projects..............................................................................................................18 Bicycle Parking and End of Trip Facilities .....................................................................................19 3. Integration with Transit..................................................................................................................21 4. Pedestrian Facilities......................................................................................................................21 5. Safe Routes to Schools.................................................................................................................22 6. Education, Safety, and Promotion.................................................................................................24 7. Funding .........................................................................................................................................24 Programs ..............................................................................................................................................26 1. Bikeways Signage.........................................................................................................................26 Warning Advisory Signs and Pavement Markings.........................................................................26 Regulatory Signs ...........................................................................................................................26 Sign Placement .............................................................................................................................26 2. Data Collection and Count Location..............................................................................................27 Count Methodology .......................................................................................................................27 Count Locations.............................................................................................................................27 Sidewalk Inventories......................................................................................................................27 3. Pedi/Bike-bus................................................................................................................................27 4. Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines ...............................................................................................28 5. Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing.............................................................................28 6. Guaranteed Ride...........................................................................................................................28 7. Bicycle Boulevards........................................................................................................................28 8. Bridge Safety.................................................................................................................................28 9. Class I Maintenance and Operation Funding................................................................................28 10. Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service.....................................................................................28 Bikeways Map.......................................................................................................................................30 Appendices...........................................................................................................................................31 Appendix A: Improvement Priorities and Project List ....................................................................31 Priority Categories.........................................................................................................................31 Bikeways Improvement Project List...............................................................................................33 Appendix B State and Federal Safe Routes to School Matrix ......................................................65 Appendix C: Count Locations ........................................................................................................66 Appendix D: Resolution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate
    San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared For: Prepared By: East Bay Regional Park District NCE 2950 Peralta Oaks Court 501 Canal Blvd. Suite I Oakland, CA 94605 Richmond, CA 94804 Date: March 2018 NCE Project Number: 567.04.55 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................... iii 1.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................................ 2 3.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION .............................................................................. 2 4.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 3 4.1 Project Location ............................................................................................. 3 4.2 Project Background ........................................................................................ 3 4.3 Project Description ......................................................................................... 3 4.4 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................. 5 5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................ 9 I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
    San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Final Adopted September 8, 2011 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design in association with Fehr & Peers and Eisen | Letunic San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Acknowledgements C/CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Matt Grocott, Chair Judi Mosqueda, Vice Chair Naomi Patridge Karyl Matsumoto Cory Roay Ken Ibarra Marge Colapietro Ian Bain Paul Grantham Steve Schmidt Frank Markowitz David Alfano Cathleen Baker Cathy Baylock Former Members Joel Slavit Julie Lancelle Lucy Wicks We wish to thank staff from the following agencies who contributed to this plan: Town of Atherton, City of Belmont, City of Brisbane, City of Burlingame, Town of Colma, City of Daly City, City of East Palo Alto, City of Foster City, City of Half Moon Bay, Town of Hillsborough, City of Menlo Park, City of Millbrae, City of Pacifica, Town of Portola Valley, City of Redwood City, City of San Bruno, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, Town of Woodside, County of San Mateo, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrans District 4, SamTrans, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, and City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. This page intentionally left blank. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Sign-On Letter Cardin-Cochran Amendment 1549-AARP
    2/13/2012 «F1» Dear Senator «Last_Name», We are writing to request your support for the Cardin/Cochran amendment #1549 to MAP- 21, to ensure local access to Transportation Enhancement (TE) and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funds. This amendment will ensure the effective implementation of TE and SRTS eligibilities by empowering local governments through suballocation of funds to Tier I metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). In addition, for localities outside of Tier I MPOs, the amendment provides a streamlined administrative structure for a statewide pool set aside for these activities. At the same time, the amendment improves capacity for state departments of transportation (DOTs) to partner with locals. Since 1992, the Transportation Enhancements program has brought tremendous benefits to local communities through improved transportation choice, economic development, historic revitalization, and environmental restoration of the surface transportation system. This program enjoys broad local support in every state. For example, just in one area in Florida, 13 counties, cities and transportation agencies in and around Daytona Beach have passed resolutions supporting federal investment in TE. Local communities also support TE because of the job-creation benefits these projects provide; a recent American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials/Transportation Research Board study found that TE projects create more jobs per dollar than any other type of Federal-aid highway spending. However, a major challenge for state DOTs in implementing this program has been the local-scale orientation of the eligible activities, a non-traditional area for state DOTs. There is limited capacity at the state level for addressing these myriad, sometimes competing, priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)
    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
    [Show full text]
  • California Trail Corridor System Update
    California Trail Corridor System • Existing or planned long distance trail routes • Identified in the California Recreational Trails Act, 1978 • Must meet 3 of 10 established criteria in California Recreational Trails Plan California Trail Corridors • Currently the 26 Trail Corridors in California are in various levels of development, planning, completion and public use. • Trail Corridors are in the backcountry, on the coast, in cities, suburbs, along rivers, through historic routes and on abandoned rail grades. Corridors with Substantial Progress or Completed • American Discovery Trail • Bay Area Ridge Trail • California Coastal Trail • Lake Tahoe Bikeway • Los Angeles River Trail • San Gabriel River Trail • Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail • Pacific Crest Trail • San Francisco Bay Trail • San Joaquin River Trail • Santa Ana River Trail • Tahoe Rim Trail • Trans County Trail Corridors With Minimal Progress Characteristics: major gaps and minimal management These trails include: • Cuesta to Sespe Trail • Condor Trail • Merced River Trail • Whittier to Ortega Trail • Tuolumne Complex Trails Corridors With Little or no Progress • Redwood Coast to Crest Trail • Cross California Ecological Trail Heritage Corridors and Historic Routes: • Pony Express National Historic Trail 140 miles long in CA, along the Highway 50 Corridor, about 25 miles is in the El Dorado National Forest. • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Through 14 counties and 2 states, traces the 1,210 mile route of explorer Juan Bautista de Anza over dirt trails and roads close to the historic route. Next Steps • Maintain up-to-date database, contact information, mapping and planning progress of Trail Corridors from managing entities. • Compile information on new Trail Corridors currently not included in the system.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Stream Maintenance Program
    2018 Stream Maintenance Program Improving water quality in our streams while providing flood protection for our community This summer the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) will be working in streams and channels throughout Sonoma County to improve water quality and provide flood protection. As part of our comprehensive Stream Maintenance Program (SMP), we will be removing sediment and garbage and planting trees to create shady riparian canopies. These canopies help cool the water and shade out less desirable species of plants, which can catch debris and reduce the streams’ water-carrying capacity. If necessary, we will remove some non-canopy forming trees such as arroyo willows as well as certain dense shrubs such as non-native and invasive blackberries. Sediment removal activities include planting native trees, shrubs, and some aquatic plants according to a certain pattern to establish canopy while maintaining channel capacity. The Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps (SCYEC), a workforce training and ecosystem education program aimed at educating youth and young adults in environmental stewardship and restoration, will be working with the SMP this summer. The SCYEC provides youth and young adults paychecks, valuable work experience, environmental education, and the opportunity to contribute to their community through ongoing outdoor experiences. Below is the list of streams the Water Agency will be maintaining this summer. For a more detailed list, map of locations, and information on stream maintenance, visit www.sonomacountywater.org.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget & Finance Agenda
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHELIA YOUNG - CHAIRPERSON TIM SMITH – VICE CHAIRPERSON ROBERTA COOPER JERRY HILL JAKE McGOLDRICK NATE MILEY JULIA MILLER JOHN SILVA PAMELA TORLIATT THURSDAY OCTOBER 14, 2004 FOURTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 9:30 A.M. DISTRICT OFFICES AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Pursuant to Government Code § 54954.3) Members of the public are afforded the opportunity to speak on any agenda item. All agendas for regular meetings are posted at District headquarters, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA, at least 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting. At the beginning of the regular meeting agenda, an opportunity is also provided for the public to speak on any subject within the Committee’s subject matter jurisdiction. Speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes each. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2004 4. CONTRACTOR SELECTION FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE VEHICLE BUY BACK PROGRAM J. Roggenkamp/4646 [email protected] Consider recommending Board of Directors’ approval of vehicle dismantling contractors for the expansion of the FY 2004/2005 Vehicle Buy Back Program. 5. TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR REGIONAL FUND GRANT AWARDS FOR FY 2004/05 J. Roggenkamp/4646 [email protected] Consider recommending Board of Directors’ approval of Transportation Fund for Clean Air Regional Fund grant awards for FY 2004/2005. 6. AUDIT OF THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR COUNTY PROGRAM MANAGER FUND J. Roggenkamp/4646 [email protected] Receive a report on the audit of projects funded by the Transportation Fund for Clean Air County Program Manager Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Past Trail Award Winners
    PAST WINNERS OF CALIFORNIA TRAILS CONFERENCE AWARDS (NOTE 1: Until 1998, there were no standard award categories or criteria) (NOTE 2: This list does not include California Trail Days Awards given by the Trails and Greenways Foundation, nor does it include the Harry Dean Jr. Memorial Awards given by Whole Access.) 1994 Lifetime Achievement George Cardinet Outstanding Trail Program Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 1995 Lifetime Achievement Ross Henry 1996 Lifetime Achievement Hulet Hornbeck Program Merit Award Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation 1997 Lifetime Achievement Vie and George Obern Trail Merit #1 Heritage Trails Fund Trail Merit #2 Coastwalk 1998 Lifetime Achievement Claude A. (Tony) and Mildred Look Trail Project Merit Award Town of Mammoth Lakes Trail Program Merit Award East Bay Regional Park District 1999 Lifetime Achievement Ilse Byrnes Trail Project Merit Awards Carlsbad Watershed Network Trail Program Merit Award #1 Mokelumne Trailbusters Trail Program Merit Award #2 Bay Trail & CCC’S Reg. Development Program Trail Leadership Award Donald Murphy National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails & Conservation Special Recognition Assistance Program 2000 Trail Project Merit Award #1 City of Clovis, Coalition for Community Trails Trail Project Merit Award #2 City of Fresno, Tree Fresno Trail Program Merit Award Santa Cruz Mountains Trail Association Trail Event Merit Award Bay Area Ridge Trail Council Honorable Mentions (Project) #1 Red Bluff United Honorable Mentions (Project) #2 CCC’s Pacific Bay and San Luis Obispo Crews Honorable
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Celebrates 30 Years of Trails Which Passes Through Philadelphia
    EVER GREEN Why trails? The Bay Trail was—and remains—a bold idea and an ambitious undertaking in terms of scale and geographical reach. The trail passes through nine counties and 47 cities, with many different kinds of experiences to be found in different segments—from busy urban areas along the Embarcadero in downtown San Fran- cisco to more remote and natural settings. Even though it is not fully finished, it is extremely popular and heavily used, with a wealth of benefits for residents. It’s a source of recreation, a way to get away and recharge, and a place to see and watch birds and experience nature. Increasingly, it’s also a transportation resource. On balance, the benefits of trails are considerable. The 2019 study Investing in The San Francisco Bay Trail winds through 350-plus miles of urban areas and waterfront. Our Future sought to estimate the health, environmental, and economic benefits of completing the East Coast Greenway, San Francisco Celebrates 30 Years of Trails which passes through Philadelphia. According to the report, the benefits HIS PAST JUNE, THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA celebrated the anniversary of a amount to 10 times the costs of comple- visionary plan. In 1989, the executive board of the Association of Bay Area Govern- tion, providing some $3 billion annually T ments greenlit the San Francisco Bay Trail, a 500-mile, continuous hiking trail that just for the sections local to Philadelphia. stretches along the edge of the Bay. Today, that plan still serves as the blueprint for the And there are a range of other values trail, which is 70 percent complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Trail Richmond New Year 2021 Report
    Bay Trail Richmond New Year 2021 Report This has been an extraordinary year for the San Francisco Bay Trail in Richmond! The City of Richmond (City) completed the long-awaited Bay Trail connection with Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, and over $4 million in grant funds were secured by the City and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to construct new and improved sections of Bay Trail. The Bay Trail’s popularity soared as an excellent place to refresh the mind and exercise the body with adequate width for social distancing. This 22nd New Year report by TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, describes progress during 2020 toward closing gaps and improving existing sections of the Bay Trail. The map on the last page of this report shows trail completed and gaps remaining. Richmond has 36 miles of Bay Trail in place, representing 10% of the existing 352 miles of this planned 500-mile walking and cycling path encircling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. However, 6.0 miles of gaps remain in Richmond, despite having more Bay Trail completed than any other city in the Bay Area. Stay healthy and be well. See you on the Bay Trail! POINT PINOLE CONNECTED WITH THE BAY TRAIL The City completed construction of a two-way, multi-use trail east of Goodick Avenue between the Richmond Parkway Bay Trail and Dotson Family Marsh Staging Area. This project was funded by a $976,000 grant of Measure J gasoline tax revenues from Contra Costa Transportation Authority and $130,000 from the Bay Trail Project at the Association of Bay Area Governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan & Environmental Assessment TABLE of CONTENTS
    National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior The Presidio Trust Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area July 2003 Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan & Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction A Vision of the Future . .1 The Master Plan . .1 Analysis and Alternatives Development . .2 Document Organization . .2 The Presidio's History . .3 Planning Context . .4 Planning Process . .4 Public Involvement . .6 Changes to the Trails Plan . .7 Plan Implementation . .10 Prioritization and Phasing . .10 Environmental Assessment . .10 Chapter 2: Purpose and Need Project Purpose . .13 Project Need . .13 Goals . .13 Chapter 3: Trail Classifications and Design Guidelines User Groups . .17 Trails and Bikeways Classification System . .17 Pedestrian Trails . .19 Multi-Use Trails . .21 Bikeways . .22 Bikeway Design . .22 Accessibility . .24 Accessible Trails . .25 CONTENTS i Presidio Trails & Bikeways master plan Trail Features . .27 Best Management Practices . .29 Chapter 4: Alternatives Alternative Descriptions . .31 Changes to Existing Trail Corridors . .35 New Trail Corridors . .44 Overall Trail Network . .48 Comparisons at Key Locations . .58 Environmentally Preferrable Alternative . .66 Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences Introduction and Methodology . .67 Geologic Resources . .67 Hydrologic Resources . .69 Biological Resources . .71 Cultural Resources . .78 Traffic Safety . .80 Visitor Use . .83 Visual Resources . .86 Air Quality . .88 Noise . .89 Cumulative Impacts . .90 Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis . .96 Chapter 6: Consultation and References Interagency Review . .97 List of Persons and Agencies Consulted . .98 List of Preparers . .99 References . .99 ii CONTENTS Chapter 7: Appendices Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact . .A-1 Appendix B: Response to Comments . .B-1 Appendix C: Best Management Practices .
    [Show full text]