Project Funding Application

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority MTA Use Only 2013 Call for Projects Project #: Mode: Area: Project Funding Application

NOTE TO APPLICANT: Each individual project must be submitted as one application. A complete application package, comprised of Parts I, II, and III (general, financial, and modal applications), along with the appropriate documents, as well as a CD-R or DVD of each application, must be submitted by the application deadline of January 18, 2013. An e-version of the PSR/PDS should be included on the CD-R or DVD; paper copies are no longer allowed. Do not submit spiral or machine-bound applications. Project Study Reports/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS) or a Project Study Report Equivalent (PSRE) (whichever is applicable), plans, brochures, or other literature will not be accepted in lieu of a completed MTA application. All questions must be answered.

Prior to filling out this application, be sure to review the Call for Projects “New and Improved Program Requirements” found on page 5 of this Application Package.

PART I – GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION 1. PROJECT TITLE (Do not exceed 60 characters, including spaces – for use on all MTA summary listings): La Verne Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project

2. PROJECT APPLICANT: Lead Agency Name: City of La Verne Address 3660 D Street, La Verne, CA 91750 Contact Person Name*: Dan Keesey Title: Public Works Director Phone: (909) 596-8741 Fax: (909) 596-8737 e-mail: [email protected]

* Please note that the designated “Contact Person” is the only contact point for all Call for Projects communications from MTA. All MTA correspondence, questions, inquiries soliciting clarification of information contained in the application, etc., will be directed to the identified contact person. Therefore, if the above designated contact person no longer functions in this capacity (i.e., vacation, illness, etc.), then it is the sole responsibility of the project applicant to contact both the modal lead and overall leads (see page 24) with the newly designated person who will function as the liaison between the MTA and the Project Applicant. MTA is not responsible for being unable to reach the designated “contact person”.

3. MODAL CATEGORY (Select ONE and include Part III of application beginning on the indicated page): Applicant’s Priority within Category Modal Category Page Priority # of _Projects □ Regional Surface Transportation Improvements 49 □ Goods Movement Improvements 65 □ Signal Synchronization & Bus Speed Improvements 81 □ Transportation Demand Management 103  Bicycle Improvements 121 1 1 □ Pedestrian Improvements 137 □ Transit Capital 153 □ Transportation Enhancement Activities 171

If this application is part of a multimodal application, and separate applications are being submitted in other modal categories, please indicate by checking which mode(s).

□ Regional Surface Transportation Improvements □ Goods Movement Improvements □ Signal Synchronization & Bus Speed Improvements □ Transportation Demand Management □ Bicycle Improvements □ Pedestrian Improvements □ Transit Capital □ Transportation Enhancement Activities

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY (Do not exceed 180 characters, including spaces – for MTA use on all MTA agenda items and reports): Provide bicycle lanes and paths to improve regional connectivity and create an integrated and well-connected bicycle network for the northeastern San Gabriel Valley. 5. PROJECT LOCATION OR and LIMITS or SERVICE AREA The project will provide improvements to the Existing Class I Bike Path:

• The project will provide enhancements to the Class I bike path along the western edge of Wheeler Ave. Enhancements will include: - striping and signage to the paved portion of the path (representing 1/3 of the length) - new bike path paving (with striping and signage) from the paved terminus, south, along the abandoned railroad right-of-way owned by the city, to its transition/connection to the new proposed Class II bike lane along Arrow Highway and the existing Marshall Canyon Trail underpass at Arrow Highway.

The project will provide Class II bike lanes along the following key east-west corridors: • Baseline Road – This will close the gap between the existing Class II bike lane within the adjacent City of Claremont and the existing Class II bike lane within the adjacent City of San Dimas. • Bonita Avenue – This will close the gap between the existing Class II bike lane (Citrus Bikeway)within the adjacent City of Pomona and the existing Class II bike lane within the adjacent City of San Dimas.* [A small stretch of the corridor will undergo a road diet to complement the road configuration that exists within the majority of the right-of-way] • Arrow Highway – This corridor with low traffic volumes can support a road diet from 6 travel lanes to 4 travel lanes with the addition of a Class II bike lane that will connect to the proposed paved Class I bike path on Wheeler Avenue.

The project will provide Class II bike lanes along the following north-south corridors:

• Wheeler Avenue – This corridor connects the upper most northern part of the city (from Oak Ridge Dr./Via de Mansion) to the southern boundary at Arrow Highway where it terminates. This 4 lane right-of-way with a center left turn median is wide enough to accommodate a Class II bike lane in both directions. This Class II will transition/connect to the existing Class I bike path south of Foothill Blvd. • D Street – This local street begins at Foothill Blvd. and terminates at Arrow Hwy. D Street provides direct access to the historic downtown and the University of La Verne where there is high number of cyclists. The city recently installed new bike racks throughout the downtown and the University. The width of the right-of-way and the traffic counts can accommodate a class II or a road diet. • White Avenue – This Class II will be an extension of the existing Class II bike lane that begins at Foothill Blvd. and currently ends at College lane. The remainder of the right-of- way is wide enough to accommodate the bike lane extension.

6. TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES : $1,405,392 (From Part II, Line 18. In 2012-13 whole dollars) 7. TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED: $979,314 (From Part II, Line 35. In 2012-13 whole dollars). Include all sources of grant funding received for this project. 8. PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS: Yes No Has this project or any component of it received funding from previous  MTA Call for Projects (CFP)? If yes, what is the CFP ID#? Has this project or any component of it previously received funding  from any federal funds? If yes, what type of federal funds was received? Is this project in the Federal Transportation Improvement Project  (FTIP)? If yes, what is the FTIP ID #?

9. PROJECT READINESS

As indicated under the Program Requirements, “Project Readiness” will be a factor in determining whether a project application continues through the MTA Call for Projects evaluation process. It is important that applicants provide accurate and complete information in this section. Should a project applicant be awarded funds in the 2013 Call for Projects, applicants should carefully evaluate project readiness prior to applying in the Call as it could jeopardize funding.

Provide any evidence that project funding will result in a timely completion including the following information: Describe how the schedule provided is realistic to enable project completion based on the years funding is requested in Part II Financial Plan of this application, and is consistent with the above schedule and MTA’s or the State/Federal Lapsing Policies (Appendix C).

The project will be ready by the year 2015, at which time funding will be available. Other than internal coordination and scheduling, no physical preparation of the streets are needed to begin striping of the Class II bike lanes and any other associated improvements. List all owners of the right-of-way where the project is to be constructed. What are the existing uses of the right-of-way? Are there any future plans that might affect the project? Have the owners been contacted? If so, are they willing to sell the property?

The city owns all rights-of-way in which all Class II bike lanes are being proposed. The rights-of-way are currently being utilized as local city streets. The existing Class I Bike Path on Wheeler is owned by the city and is an extension of the Marshall Canyon Multi- Use Trail. There are no future plans that will affect the project as the General Plan identifies these rights-of-ways as future improvements.

The proposed bicycle parking at the Rosemead Civic Center would be installed on City- owned property

Does the project require the use of MTA-owned right-of-way? The project applicant is responsible for coordinating with MTA’s Real Estate Department and ensuring consistency with MTA’s Right-of-Way policy if the project is either adjacent to, or encroaches upon, MTA property or requires a license for its use from MTA. The cost of any alterations to the MTA right-of-way to make is usable for a project, including relocations or removal of existing structures, will be the responsibility of the project sponsor.

The project does not involve any MTA-owned right-of-way.

Identify all other agencies or organizations that are active participants in this project. Indicate how their involvement is required in order to implement this project. List the names and phone numbers (if possible) of requirements from these agencies. “Letters of support” should be included in the application package and not mailed separately to MTA’s CEO.

The project is being led by the City of La Verne and no other agencies are active participants.

Are there any adjacent jurisdictions, agencies, property owners, etc., who would be impacted by the proposed project? If yes, please list and describe outreach efforts, dates, participants, and any results/issues that could impact the project’s schedule.

The project will not directly impact adjacent property owners. Minor impacts will occur during striping/construction of the Class II bike lanes. To mitigate any potential impacts the city will mail notices to all adjacent property owners indicating the proposed project with detailed timelines/dates of construction. Additionally, the city will partner with the local school district, local bicycle advocacy groups, businesses and other stakeholders to conduct a community outreach meeting to discuss the proposed project schedule and the benefits the new bike lanes/path will provide to the community.

Indicate the proposed project schedule below by filling in estimated (or already completed) dates for the project activities. Please indicate any milestones that are completed or in progress.

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Activity Date Feasibility Study Not applicable -Project Study Report Not applicable Operational Plan Start of Evaluation Document Community Meetings or other forums (please list below Community Outreach Meeting July 2016 Outreach flyers/notices September 2016

Draft Environmental Document N/A Final Environmental Document N/A Governing Body Approval (please provide name of governing board below)

Begin Design Engineering January 2016 Completion of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates July 2016 Start of Right-of-Way Acquisition Not applicable Right-of-Way Certification* Not applicable Utility Relocation Not applicable Ready to Advertise* November 2014 Start of Construction (Contract award) October 2016 Project Completion March 2017 Other Operation – April 2017

10. IMPACT CHECKLIST Recent federal and state policies call for the integration of pedestrian and bicycle plans and policies into transportation plans and project development. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable communities, promote physical activity and health, and reduce vehicle emissions. These policies are included in the U.S. Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations Regulations and Recommendations, Senate Bill 375, the Complete Streets Act of 2008, and continued in the new MAP-21 transportation authorization. The purpose of this checklist is to document how the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists were considered in the process of planning and/or designing the proposed project. For projects that do not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, the project application must document why not. All project applicants, except those applying for funds under the TDM category, must complete Parts I and II. Applicants applying under the TDM category can skip Parts I and II, but must complete Part III.

Part I. Existing Conditions A. Provide a map of the existing pedestrian and bicycle system in proximity to the proposed improvements. What accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles are included within the improvements? What accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles are included within a 1,000- foot radius of all the proposed improvements and site?

SEE ATTACHMENT #1 B. Please indicate any particular pedestrian uses or needs along the project corridor. Check all that apply:

□ Schools/school children □ Nighttime pedestrian activity (e.g. sidewalk use or roadway crossings) X Mid-block crossings □ Path used by elderly pedestrians □ Other, Please explain C. What existing conditions could the proposed project improve for pedestrians and bicycle travel in the vicinity of the proposed project? Check all that apply:

□ Long signal cycles (that require pedestrians X Existing pedestrian and bicycle routes that to wait long periods of time) require significant out-of-direction travel □ Infrequent opportunities for pedestrians to □ Traffic signals that are unresponsive to cross roadways bicycles □ Wide roadway crossings □ Narrow curb lanes □ Missing sidewalks □ Choke points □ Sidewalk obstructions □ Free right turns from vehicles (that can □ Lack of adequate sidewalk path of travel for □ discourage drivers from observing current and projected pedestrian volumes pedestrian right-of-way) □ Not compliant with ADA accessibility X Gaps in bicycle facilities □ guidelines for buildings and facilities □ Lack of bike racks on buses (for bus □ Lack of pedestrian-level lighting replacement projects) □ Railroad crossings X Lack of secure bicycle parking □ Freeway on and off-ramps □ Other. Please explain

Part II. The Project A. Does this project correct any of the following conditions to create an incentive of pedestrian and bicycle travel? Check all that apply. Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle Facilities □ Add sidewalks on both sides of the street X Class I bicycle path □ Add missing curb ramps X Class II bicycle path □ Reduce pedestrian crossing distance □ Class III bicycle path □ Pedestrian signal heads □ Bicycle boulevard □ Pedestrian-actuated traffic signals or X Wide outside lanes or improved automatic pedestrian cycles shoulders X Short-term bicycle parking □ High visibility crosswalks X Bicycle actuation at signals (i.e. loop □ Illumination at crosswalks detectors and stencil or other means) □ Other crosswalk enhancements X Signs, signals, and pavement markings □ Pedestrian level lighting specifically related to bicycle operation □ Median safety islands on roadways or shared-use facilities □ Shade trees □ Long-term bicycle parking (e.g., for □ Landscaping commuters and residents) □ Benches or other type of seating □ Planer or buffer strips □ Wayfinding signage □ Other pedestrian facilities (please explain)

Other bicycle facilities (please explain

B. Will the proposed project sever or remove all or part of an existing pedestrian or bicycle facility or block or hinder pedestrian or bicycle movement? IF yes, please describe the situation in detail and provide evidence of public notification about the impacts to the bicycle and/or pedestrian facility. If yes, please provide the modal category that funded the initial project, year of application, and year constructed.

No, the project will not sever/remove or block/hinder bicycle facilities or movement. C. If the proposed project does not improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or if the proposed project would hinder bicycle travel or walking: a. List reasons why the project is being proposed as designed without considering these modes.

N/A b. Describe any alternatives that would improve, avoid, or mitigate the adverse impact to walking or bicycle travel and why they are not being proposed. Identify the mitigations that are proposed to ensure a net improvement in the system. No adverse impacts to pedestrian or bicycle travel would occur.

N/A

Part III. Transportation Demand Management

This part should be completed only by applicants who are applying for funding under the TDM modal category.

Not Applicable.

PART III – BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS (Inadequate responses will result in an overall lower score)

PROJECT TITLE THAT DESCRIBES THE LOCATION OND TYPE OF FACILITY (From Part I, Question I) City of La Verne Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project

A. PROJECT STUDY REPORT EQUIVELANT

Please answer all questions or respond N/A. Check the box for elements that apply and respond to each question. Be clear and concise.

1. □ Project Description: Describe the details for your project in 250 words or less (single spaced). Include project boundaries, limits, and distances. This project consists of providing a variety of bicycle facilities throughout the City to improve regional connectivity to neighboring cities, job centers, rail and other regionally significant transit centers. The project would provide funding for: 1) Class II bike lanes along Baseline Road and Bonita Avenue to close the gap between neighboring cities from the eastern city boundaries to the western city boundaries; 2) striping and signage for the existing Class I bike path along Wheeler Ave. (that connects/transitions from the existing Marshall Canyon Multi-Use Trail) and the paved extension of the bike path from its paved terminus to Arrow Highway; 3) Other Class II bike lanes on Wheeler Ave. (from Oak Ridge Drive/Via de Mansion south to existing Class I bike path), Arrow Highway, D Street and White Ave.; 4) a series of road diets on Bonita Ave. (small portion for consistency) and Arrow Highway; 5) a mid-block ped/bike crossing connecting the terminus of the Class 1 Marshall Canyon Trail to the existing Class I bike path along Wheeler Ave. and 6) bike racks and bike lockers at the city’s civic center and library. These improvements will provide and create an integrated and connected bicycle network for not only the city but for the northeastern San Gabriel Valley. 2. □ Is this project part of a multimodal project? In what other mode did you submit an application? Explain. This project is not part of a multi-modal Call for Projects application. 3. □ Bicycle parking and location For secure, high-capacity bicycle parking projects supporting multimodal transportation centers of major destinations: Provide a description of facility size, storage capacity (number of bikes), location, dimensions, amenities for bicyclists, including costs, source of operating funds, and any retail operations planned. Provide the site location and concept for design. Describe the facility’s security features. This project will provide 2 bicycle racks and 2 bicycle lockers at the Civic Center and Library. (SEE ATTACHMENT #2) 4. □ On-street improvements to transit hubs. Name and location of transit hub. This project does not include on-street improvements to transit hubs.

5. □ Wayfinding and directional signage as part of a larger project (refer to boxes 3, 6, and 8 – 12). Number of each type of signs to be installed. (See Project Budget for number of signs)

• New bike lane/path signage for all proposed Class II bike lanes and the Class I bike path improvement/expansion. • New Sharrow signage at key locations (small gaps) within Class II bike lanes where the road lacks appropriate width for continuous striping. • New transitional bike route signage at locations where a Class I path begins from a Class II lane and where a Class II begins from the terminus of a Class I bike path. (2 signs) • Bicycle parking signage at the Civic Center and Library

6. □ Bike-share program? Provide feasibility or demand analysis. Include capital and operating costs. Please note: MTA grant may fund up to only one year of operations. This project does not include a bike share program. 7. □ Mid-block crossing improvements on bike paths. This project includes a mid-block ped/bike crossing connecting the terminus of the Class 1 Marshall Canyon Trail to the existing Class I bike path along Wheeler Ave.

The treatment for the ped/bike mid-block crossing at the intersection of Paseo Ave. and Wheeler Ave. (where the Marshall Canyon Trail transitions/connects to the existing Class I Path) will include the following: • Ramp modifications • Raised crosswalk (to improve visibility and safety) • Pavement markings • “Path Xing” Signs Warning “Path Xing” Signs with flashing beacons

8. □ Enhanced Class 3 bike route or priority street (bicycle boulevard). This project does not include enhanced Class III bike routes. However, Sharrow lane markings and “Share the Road” signage will be provided at key locations (small gaps) within Class II bike lanes where the road lacks appropriate width for continuous striping. 9. □ Road diet. Location and distance in miles. This project will include the following road diets: • Bonita Ave. (from Wheeler to San Dimas Canyon) – 1 mile • Arrow Highway (from San Dimas Canyon Rd. to Fullton Rd.) – 2.5 miles

10. □ Bike Paths:

Distance in miles: 1 mile – Wheeler Ave. Street Boundaries: Paseo Avenue to Arrow Hwy. Number of intersections: (1) 5th Street (2) Bonita Ave. (3) 3rd Street Describe intersections or mid-block crossing treatments in detail (redirecting cyclists to an intersection will result in a lower score. New bike path paving (with striping and signage) from the paved terminus, south, along the abandoned railroad right-of-way owned by the city, to its transition/connection to the new proposed Class II bike lane along Arrow Highway and the existing Marshall Canyon Trail underpass entrance at Arrow Highway. The path will cross 3 side residential streets. Treatment for the residential street crossing will include bold crosswalk striping and signage indicating a path/trail crossing.

BASELINE ROAD Facility Type: Class II Distance in miles: 2.3 miles Street Boundaries: Eastern city boundary to its terminus at Foothill Blvd. Posted Speed Limit: 40 MPH Surrounding Land Uses: Low Density (Single-Family) Residential Street Width: 80’ – 82’ No. of Travel Lanes Westbound Eastbound 2 2 Signalized Fruit Street Intersections: Esperanza Dr./ Miller St. Emerald Ave. Rancho La Verne Wheeler Ave. Foothill Blvd.

BONITA AVENUE Facility Type: Class II Distance in miles: 2.3 miles Street Boundaries: San Dimas Canyon Road to Fulton Road Posted Speed Limit: 35MPH Surrounding Land Uses: Low Density Residential/Commercial/Community Facility (institutional) Street Width: 50’ – 70’ No. of Travel Lanes Westbound Eastbound 1 1 Signalized San Dimas Canyon Rd. Intersections: Damien Ave. Wheeler Ave. D Street E Street White Ave.

ARROW HIGHWAY Facility Type: Class II Distance in miles: 2.5 miles Street Boundaries: San Dimas Canyon Road to Fulton Road Posted Speed Limit: 50MPH Surrounding Land Uses: Commercial-Business Park/Industrial/Community Facility Street Width: 80’ – 84’ No. of Travel Lanes Westbound Eastbound 3 3 Signalized San Dimas Canyon Rd. Intersections: Wheeler Ave. D Street E St. / Fairplex Dr. White Ave.

D STREET Facility Type: Class II Distance in miles: 1 mile Street Boundaries: Foothill Blvd. to Bonita Ave. Posted Speed Limit: 35MPH Surrounding Land Uses: Commercial/High Density Residential/Low-Density Residential/Community Facility Street Width: 51’ No. of Travel Lanes Northbound Southbound 1 1 Signalized Foothill Blvd. Intersections: 10th Street Bonita Ave. 3rd Street Arrow Hwy.

WHITE AVENUE Facility Type: Class II Distance in miles: 1.5 miles Street Boundaries: Foothill Blvd. to Arrow Hwy. Posted Speed Limit: 40MPH Surrounding Land Uses: Commercial/High Density Residential/Medium Density/Low-Density Residential/Community Facility/Industrial Street Width: 67’ - 82’ No. of Travel Lanes Northbound Southbound 2 2 Signalized Foothill Blvd. Intersections: Towne Center Dr. 8th Street Bonita Ave. Arrow Hwy.

WHEELER AVENUE Facility Type: Class II Distance in miles: 1 mile Street Boundaries: Oak Ridge Dr./Via de Mansion to Paseo Ave.. Posted Speed Limit: 35MPH Surrounding Land Uses: Low Density Residential/Commercial/Community Facility/Medium Density Residential/Industrial Street Width: 82’ – 64’ – 52’

No. of Travel Lanes Northbound Southbound 2 2 Signalized Oak Ridge Dr. Intersections: Baseline Rd. Foothill Blvd.

12. □ Sharrows and/or bike routes Sharrow lane markings and “Share the Road” signage will be provided at key locations (small gaps) within Class II bike lanes where the road lacks appropriate width for continuous striping. Distance in miles: Approximately 2 blocks Street Boundaries: 13. X If the project is on-street, describe the existing physical street conditions. No. of travel lanes: SEE TABLES ABOVE Posted speed: Intersections: Street width: Surrounding land uses: 14. □ Improvements to existing pavement conditions (e.g., repairing cracks, root damage, uneven surface, etc.)? N/A No. of travel lanes: Posted speeds: Intersections: Street width: Surrounding land uses:

Alternatives Analysis 15. □ Describe the project in full and alternatives considered. Explain reasons for the alternatives chosen and why other alternatives were rejected. During the development of the proposed project scope, several alt6ernatives were considered. But these alternatives were rejected due to the various reasons. The alternatives that were considered are as follows:

Transit Improvements Alternatives Providing a local transit option for the proposed project corridors was considered. However, La Verne being a suburban city does not have enough user population to support a transit system of its own. The cost of operation and maintenance of a transit system would have an ongoing financial implication. Additionally, this option still would not provide the first and last mile connections to a regional transit system. Thus, this local transit option was deemed to be infeasible and ineffective, and was consequently rejected.

Partial Bike Facility Improvements Alternative The city also considered a smaller scaled bike facility that would serve the communities within the city in order to reduce cost. This option would not provide an improved access to the regional transportation system, limiting the full potential of the transit system. Also, this option would not have any impacts on the city’s efforts to reduce automobile trips. Thus, this option was rejected due to its lack of regional significance and ineffectiveness.

No Build Alternative The city considered the option of “No Build”. However, this would be in conflict with the city’s goal to reduce automobile trips and improve facilities for non-motorized transportation modes. Therefore, the “No Build” option was rejected.

16. Applicable phases of project x Environmental/PAED (Not as stand-alone project) x PS&E (Not as stand-alone project) □ Right-of-way (Not as stand-alone project) x Construction

17. Right-of-way ownership □ MTA □ Public All streets/corridors in this application are owned and operated by the City of La Verne. Do you have written authorization to use rights-of-way that you do not own? Attach supporting documents. Submit funding plan for operations and maintenance for projects on MTA-owned rights-of-way.

N/A

Attach the following color maps in an 8.5” X 11” format: 18. X Location map with the project clearly delineated. (SEE ATTACHMENT #3) 19. X Project map marking route, street limits, and existing bicycle facilities within the project area. (SEE ATTACHMENT #3) 20. X Cross sections and/or site layouts. (SEE ATTACHMENT #4) 21. X Proposed schedule including number of months for each project phase. (SEE ATTACHMENT #7) 22. X Current color photos of proposed project site. (SEE ATTACHMENT #8) 23. X Submit form to CCC (See Senate Bill 286 requirements) (SEE ATTACHMENT #9)

If full MTA requested funding is not available, would your jurisdiction be amenable to reduce funding? X Yes □ No

B. PROJECT EVALUATION

1. REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND INTERMODAL INTEGRATION (Inadequate responses will result in an overall lower score – Up to 30 points) a. Explain in detail how the project supports or implements the regional goals in MTA’s policies

and provisions. (Up to 10 points) Metro 2009 Long Range Plan The new series of bike lanes will enable transit riders to access local and regional transit facilities including the Claremont Bus/Metrolink Station, Montclair Bus Station, Pomona North Metrolink Station, and bus stops along Foothill Boulevard, Bonita Avenue and Arrow Highway without having to drive a vehicle.

2006 Metro Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan This project meets the BTSP’s goal of reducing congestion and VMT, increasing transit viability, and improving air quality through the increased use of bicycling. Specifically, it implements the BTSP’s policy objective of improving bicycle access to transit systems (III) and Bike to Work (IV).

Metro Board of Directors Policy Directive #10 (Adopted September 23, 2010) Improve bicycle access to and from the Claremont Transit Center/Metrolink Station, the Montclair Transit Center/Metrolink Station and the North Pomona Metrolink Station implements the requirements of this policy by strengthening the use of bicycling as a viable transportation mode for daily commute trips. The project also improves bicycle access to local employment centers and schools.

b. Does your project improve access to a transit hub? List transit stops and stations that the project connects to and describe how this project improves bicycle access to transit and how it links to the regional transit system. (Up to 10 points)

The proposed facilities will improve access to regional transit facilities such as the Pomona Valley Transit Authority, Foothill Transit and MTA bus stops along Foothill Blvd., Bonita Ave. And White Ave. by providing safe, direct and convenient bike lane/path travel to these facilities. These transit stops provide access to and links to regional transit systems such as the North Pomona Metrolink Station, Covina Metrolink Station, Montclair Transit Center and the Claremont Transit Center/Metrolink Station/Claremont Colleges. These improvements will also provide improved access for cyclists to Downtown La Verne, University of La Verne and local destinations within the city.

The following bus lines run within the projects sphere of influence:

FOOTHILL TRANSIT Foothill Boulevard Line 187 – Montclair-Claremont-Glendora-Pasadena Line 690 – Montclair – Pasadena via 210 Freeway Corridor Line 291 – La Verne-Pomona-South Pomona via Garvey Ave. Bonita Avenue Line 492 – Montclair-Arcadia-El Monte via Arrow Hwy. Arrow Highway Line 197 – Pomona-Claremont The project significantly improves access to the regional transit network. As listed above, bus transit lines cross through the city and project areas. Bicycle travel to and from bus stops is a viable way to increase efficiency of transit by providing the first and last miles of travel. Most transit buses provide bicycle racks that compliment bicycling as a viable transportation mode and an option of bicycle commuting in case of inclement weather or late night travels.

c. How does this project improve bicycle facility connections to your jurisdiction and neighboring jurisdictions? Does this project fill a gap? Has coordination with neighboring jurisdictions been established for connection and possible expansion? (Up to 5 points)

The new bike lanes/paths will prioritize bicycle travel and connect cyclists to established bike lanes within the city in addition to closing the gap between the neighboring cities of Claremont, San Dimas and Pomona, where Class II bike lanes are currently provided. In specified areas, enhanced bike routes in the form of a Sharrow will be provided on the right-of-ways where the roadway width cannot accommodate the continued and consistent Class II bike lane.

Moreover, the proposed Class II bike lane on Bonita Ave. that will close the gap between the adjacent cities will complement and enhance the regional bikeway system known as the Citrus Regional Bikeway, which was intended to pave the way for cycling through the cities of Claremont, Pomona, La Verne and San Dimas. This gap closure will complete the bikeway as it was originally intended and provide safe and consistent uninterrupted bike travel to not only the adjacent cities and associated destinations/hubs but also link it to the heavily used and successful 25-mile bike path in San Bernardino County.

The City of La Verne has reached out to the neighboring cities of Claremont, San Dimas and Pomona for coordination and partnership on the proposed bike facilities. Letters of Support are attached to this application. d. Please describe connectivity to activity centers/destinations in your community, and adjacent jurisdictions. List employment centers, schools, colleges, retail/commercial, government facilities, entertainment, or major attractions within one to five miles of the proposed project. Show locations on an attached map. (SEE ATTACHMENT #5)

This project will provide enhanced connectivity to local and regional activity centers and destinations within the community and adjacent jurisdictions. Destinations within La Verne include: • Pomona North Metrolink Station (located across at the southeastern city boundary) • Downtown La Verne • University of La Verne • Foothill Blvd. Retail/Commercial Core • Damien High School

• Bonita High School • Brackett Field (Airport) • Sierra La Verne Country Club Regional / Adjacent destinations include: • Downtown Claremont • Claremont Colleges • The Webb Schools (Claremont) • Downtown San Dimas • LA County Fairgrounds (Fairplex)

• San Dimas Canyon Recreation Area/Golf Course

2. PROJECT NEED AND BENEFIT TO TRANSIT SYSTEM (Up to 35 points) a. Provide demographic information that includes population, employment , levels of transit dependency, and transit ridership within two miles of the project area (Up to 10 points)

Existing Conditions Existing Future Difference Population Total 31,139 31,139 0 Employed 14,018 14,018 0 School Children (K-8th grade) 3,298 3,298 0 High School (9th - 12th grade) 1,917 1,917 0 College Students 3,481 3,481 0 Total Commute Population 22,714 22,714 0 Commute % of Total Population 73% 73% 0 Work Commute Bicycle Commuters Mode Split 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% Bicycle Commuters 69 140 71 Transit 0 Mode Split 1.3% 2.0% 0.7% Transit Commuters 189 280 91 Factor 20% 25% 5.0% Bicycle/Transit Commuters 38 70 32 School Commute 0 K- 8 0 Bicycle Mode Split 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% Bicycle Commuters 49 49 0 High School Bicycle Mode Split 1.5% 2.0% 0.5% Bicycle Commuters 29 38 10 College 0 Bicycle Mode Split 10.0% 13.0% 3.0% Bicycle Commuters 348 453 104 Adjusted Existing Bicycle Commuters 0 Amount 533 751 217 Mode Split 2.3% 3.3% 1.0% Total Daily Bicycle Commute Trips 1,066 1,501 435

b. Explain how this project will increase bicycling and bicycle trips. Justify your answer. (Up to 10 points)

These series of safe interconnected bike lanes/routes will increase bicycle ridership and bicycle trips. If transit can be made more accessible to bicyclist, automobile trips would be reduced/replaced with bike trips. Bicycling as a mode of transportation is low in the city (0.5%). Projected increases in bicycle mode trips will result in an additional 435 bicycle commute trips combined with the regional network of bicycle facilities and transit. The installation of new bike racks throughout the downtown/university area and the increase in the number of users combined with efforts of outreach and advocacy activities within the city and the adjacent cities will reinforce the benefits of commuting by bicycle. The installation of new bike lanes/routes, bike lane gap closures and signage is expected to increase usage by riders of all ages and skill letters.

c. Is this project included in a recent bicycle master plan (no more than five years old)? Attach a copy of the plan cover and the page showing the project. (Up to 5 points)

The proposed improvements are identified in the City’s General Plan’s Transportation Element as the Transportation Facilities Plan adopted in 1998. In addition, the County of Los Angeles’ Bicycle Master Plan adopted in 2012 identifies bicycle facilities improvements within the city of La Verne.

d. What new bicycle projects or initiatives have been implemented in the last four years (Up to 10 points)

Within the last 4 years the city initiated/implemented the following: • Installed a partial Class II bike lane on White Ave. beginning at Foothill Blvd. and ending short at College Street. • Installed new bike racks with city logo within the downtown/university area.

3. LOCAL MATCH (Up to 5 points)

Local Match Amount Percentage a. Minimum Hard Match (0 points): $ 281,078 20.0% b. Hard Overmatch: $ 85,000 6.0% c. In-kind Overmatch: $ 60,000 4.3% d. Total local match commitment a+b+c=d: $ 426,078 30.3%

Required Minimum Hard or soft Overmatch Award Points Contribution 20% Hard and More than 30% 5 20% to 29.9% 4 15% to 19.99% 3 10% to 14.99% 2 5% to 9.99% 1 0 to 4.99% 0 Less than 20% contribution will be disqualified.

4. COST EFFECTIVENESS (Up to 10 points)

SEE ATTACHMENT #6

Please provide information on the cost and/or complexity of major elements of this project, such as including a description of bridge(s), underpass(es), mid-block intersection(s), and rail(s) right-of-way. (Up to 10 points)

The project involves the striping of new Class II bike lanes on existing right-of-ways and does not represent any major complexities. One mid-block crossing at Wheeler Ave. will require additional signage, striping, sidewalk ramp and street crossing modifications and context sensitive design (due to the proximity of the T-intersection) to connect/transition to the existing Class I bike trail. The cost of this mid-block crossing is $80,000.

5. LAND USE AND SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES/PRINCIPLES (Up to 20 points)

As required by state law, the Southern California Association of Governments has adopted a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles through land-use and transportation policies and investments. This section awards points to projects that advance key elements of the adopted SCS. In order to receive full points, project sponsors must explain how the project is complimented by jurisdictional policies, programs, and/or activities that will increase the effectiveness of the project and maximize its sustainability benefits. This RTP/SCS was developed through a collaborative bottoms-up process that incorporated feedback from local jurisdictions. All local Planning Departments were engaged in this effort and should be consulted in the development of the responses to this section.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in 2012, adopted its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) that calls for the accommodation of increased growth in population and economic activity expected in the region while also working to achieve the State’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Bicycling as a viable form of transportation is seen as a valuable means to travel the region without contributing to the greenhouse gases, vehicle congestions, and degradation of air quality. It is also an economically viable way to travel, requiring very minimal investment and helps to reduce the Nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, and foreign oil.

a. State climate change law and the adopted RTP/SCS recognize that High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) are key locations for reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions because they provide opportunities for accessing daily needs without a car. Maps of the corridors are available at http:/www.metro.net/projects/call_projects/. Please provide a response to 1 and 2. (Up to 4 points)

1. If your project is located in an HQTA, how will the project increase the use of transit as an alternative to driving? The project is located within a High Quality Transit Area located along the I-210 freeway, foothill Blvd. and Arrow Hwy. corridors where transit options are fully available to a wide geographic area. With this project implementation, bicycle travel will increase and provide a viable cycling option to access public transit as well as other activity centers in the city and other jurisdictions.

The recently adopted RTP/SCS provides a regional master vision for means to accommodate the future economic and population growth expected in the county SCAG jurisdiction. This plan includes a Sustainability Community Strategy consistent with State goals and legislation for reducing greenhouse gases and meeting future reduction goals.

The proposed project contained in this application’s scope of work are consistent with Metro’s policy directive of improving bicycle connections to transit hubs in order to support the increased use of transit as a viable alternative to automobile commuting. The improved bicycle facilities throughout the city will also help extend the travel distance for bicycle commuters. 2. If your project is not located in an HQTA, how will it improve bicycle and pedestrian access to local destinations and/or regional transportation centers (e.g. schools, retail centers, transit centers, etc.)? N/A b. The adopted RTP/SCS incudes a land-use strategy and growth forecast (provided by local governments that: • Emphasize growth in HQTAs • Emphasize growth along main streets, downtowns, and other appropriate infill locations • Shift development from single-family towards multi-family residential developed to reflect recent trends • Promote the implementation of Compass Blue Print Demonstration Projects, which are planning efforts led by local jurisdictions and funded by SCAG Please describe how this project promote the land-use planning efforts your agency/jurisdiction has or is currently undertaking to implement the growth vision established by the RTP/SCS. Please list relevant land use planning efforts (e.g. land use and zoning changes, housing preservation programs, economic development initiatives, updated TOD ordinances, Compass Blueprint projects) and describe how this project promotes their implementation. Provide supporting documentation. (Up to 4 points)

The City of La Verne General Plan’s Transportation Element identifies an overall goal of designing and maintaining a well-balanced and interconnected transportation system that supports a good community life and a robust local economy. The vision is to optimize the city’s transportation system so that: • Traffic flows smoothly and safely. • Residential neighborhoods are protected from adverse traffic impacts. • People who walk, bicycle, and use public transportation can get where they want to go quickly, conveniently and safely in an attractive environment. The goals and policies include:

Goal 2 – Improve Traffic Flow. Increase the city’s transportation system’s capacity by establishing the bike routes/paths shown in the city’s transportation facilities plan (Policy 2.1c). Relieve congestion and improve air quality throughout the valley by implementing regional plans in a way that supports a balanced local transportation system; encourage strong public and private sector cooperation in the development of mass and alternative transit opportunities including multi-modal transit facilities; decrease the number of cars on the road by encouraging the practice of TDM strategies such as the use of buses, commuter rail, bicycles and feet, bicycle parking racks and bicycle paths and lanes (Policy 2.5a,d,e).

Goal 6 – Contribute toward a Comprehensive Transportation System. Expand and improve linkage to the regional network by increasing access to regional employment centers by connecting to the network and support increased funding from federal, state, regional and county agencies to improve public transportation (Policy 6.1f,h).

Goal 7 – Create a Comprehensive Network of Pedestrian, Equestrian & Bicycle Paths Improve and connect our paths and trails by: • Developing a complete bicycle trail system throughout the city including a regional Class I bicycle trail along the railroad tracks owned by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, connecting Claremont, Pomona, La Verne and San Dimas. • Tie our trails and paths into the regional network.

The project is meeting these goals and objectives by providing class II bike lanes that are closing the gap between adjacent jurisdictions that have existing facilities and new Class II bike lanes/routes that will develop a complete and comprehensive and integrated bicycle trail system that will help relieve congestion, provide alternative and viable bicycle transportation options, improve the air quality and provide access to regional employment centers and nearby transit centers. c. Please describe how this project implements any programs or projects that your agency or jurisdiction is implementing that promote the use of green modes and reduce VMT. How does your project support: Complete Streets policy or an updated circulation element that includes Complete Streets, Plug-In Electric Vehicle Policies or Plans, Car Share/Bike Share, and/or Climate Action Plans. Describe how this project supports their implementation. Based on Questions B.2.c. (Project Need and Benefit to Transportation System), no additional points will be given for including a Bicycle Plan (Up to 4 points).

Providing the new bicycle facilities will meet and compliment the following policies and goals identified in the city’s General Plan:

The Resources Management Element of the City’s General Plan identifies a goal of improving air quality through implementation of actions to reduce emissions (Policy 5.1). The policies are to: • Promote actions which encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to the single-occupied vehicle, including promotion of non-motorized modes of transportation, transit ridership and ridesharing for work and non-work trips. • Encourage actions that eliminate work and non-work trips entirely and/or afford reduction in vehicle miles traveled. • Support programs to educate the public on the options and alternatives available to the community for transportation and the varying impacts those options have on air quality. • Facilitate improvements to transportation corridors and transit facilities to alleviate congestion and improve transportation circulation. Goal 5 – Improve Air Quality Reduce vehicular air pollution by: • Continue the public employee bicycle incentive program. • Include pedestrian and bicycle paths whenever possible in the Capital Improvement Program, establishing special emphasis on east-west routes. Goal 8 – Sustainability Strive for economic stability, environmental responsibility and a high quality of life (Policy 8.1) • Encourage development of alternative transportation modes and redesign circulation paths to better connect segments to the city.

The Transportation (Circulation) Element contains the following functional designations for the roadways on which the Class II and III facilities are proposed: Roadway Type Bicycle Wheeler Avenue Secondary Arterial Bike Lane Bonita Avenue Secondary Arterial Bike Lane Arrow Highway Major Arterial Bike Lane White Avenue Major Arterial Bike Lane Foothill Blvd. Major Arterial Bike Lane/Route Baseline Road Major Arterial Bike Lane D Street Collector Street Bike Lane d. Please describe any actions your agency/jurisdiction has taken to reduce or better manage travel demand. How does this project advance actions that include: Hiring a bike/ped coordinator, Adopted Bicycle Anti-Harassment Ordinance, Adopted parking policies to encourage more efficient use of parking resources and promote bicycle parking, adopted the use of a Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) for traffic studies, bike/ped counts and/or data collection, employer-based programs, and an updated TDM ordinance? (Up to 4 points)

The new bicycle facilities will advance the city’s implementation of its employee bicycle incentive program by the availability of more accessible bike lanes. Additionally, the project will allow the city to prepare baseline data such as bike/ped counts and level of service data in anticipation of a future adoption of a Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan. e. Please describe how this project compliments programmatic initiatives (i.e. education and outreach) that your agency/jurisdiction has put into place to encourage alternatives to driving alone (including walk, bike, transit, and rideshare). Please list relevant programmatic initiatives (i.e. bicycle/pedestrian education and safety programs, bike/ped promotional events, Safe Routes to School programs, speed limit enforcement, and other outreach programs) and describe how they will be complemented by this program. (Up to 4 points)

The new bike facilities will help compliment the city’s employee bicycle incentive program by making bike lanes more accessible, convenient and safe for city employees to ride their bike to work. This new connectivity will also compliment the city’s efforts in advocating and providing for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel under the city’s Safe Routes to School Program. Students will be more likely to ride their bikes to school if these physical improvements are provided and also allow the city in partnership with the school district to continue its bike/pedestrian education and safety programs.

The City also has plans for community-wide bicycle events. These activities will help to introduce bicycle travel as a viable transportation mode for various types of trips, for all skill levels, and for all age and gender groups. A public brochure will be prepared in easy-to-understand language. Because construction and implementation of bicycle facilities will take years to fully implement, the brochure will provide a “how-to” for riding in the City currently, where no or very few facilities are available. The City Council is in support of the activities being spearheaded by staff.

ATTACHMENT #1

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle System with 1000’ Radius EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATH WITHIN 1000 FT RADIUS

1000 Ft Radius

Gap Closure

Wheeler Ave Wheeler Baseline Rd

Foothill Fwy 210

Foothill Blv MARSHALL CANYON TRAIL d 66

Mid-Block Ped/Bike Xing Citrus Regional e Bikeway v

heeler A t e W Gap Closure v D S Bonita A e A ve hit W Citrus Regional A rrow H Bikeway wy

1000 FEET  PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT #3 FOR LOCATION /PROJECT MAP

Legend 1000 FT Radius

ATTACHMENT #2

Location of Bicycle Racks and Bike Lockers Location of Civic Center and Library Bicycle Racks and Lockers

City Hall

Proposed Bicycle Racks And Lockers

Library

↑ N Not to Scale

ATTACHMENT #3

Location / Project Map LOCATION/PROJECT MAP

Gap Closure

Wheeler Ave Wheeler Baseline Rd

Foothill Fwy 210

Foothill Blv MARSHALL CANYON TRAIL d 66

Mid-Block Ped/Bike Xing Citrus Regional e Bikeway v

heeler A t e W Gap Closure v D S Bonita A e A ve hit W Citrus Regional A rrow H Bikeway wy

1000 FEET 

Legend Existing Class I Proposed Class II Existing Class II in Adjacent Jurisdictioin(s) Marshall Canyon Multi-Use Trail Proposed Road Diet

ATTACHMENT #4

Typical Cross Section and Site Layout Metro 2013 Call for Projects Application City of La Verne Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project

Roadway Cross Section

Baseline Road - Existing

Baseline Road - Future with Class II Bike Lane

ATTACHMENT #5

Activity Centers / Destinations La Verne Major Activity Center Metro 2013 Call for Projects

Downtown Foothill Commercial Corridor Downtown San Dimas  La Verne  Claremont   Colleges  Bonita High School Damian High School Downtown  Monclair University of La Verne Claremont   Transit Center Pomona North  Metrolink Station Claremont  Transit Center Monclair Plaza Metrolink Station San Bernardino Fwy

Cal Poly Pomona   Not to Scale Legend  Activity Center  Civic Center (La Verne)

ATTACHMENT #6

Cost Effectiveness Estimated Project Budget

Agency: Ci ty of L a V erne Pr oj ect Name: L a V er ne Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closur e Pr oj ect Pr oj ect L ocation: Ci tywi de L a V erne Date of Estimate: January 18, 2013 Prepared by: Evan Brooks Associates

I tem No. Descr iption Quantity Units Unit Cost T otal

1 Class I Bike Path 2 Wheeler Ave. Bike Path (Paseo Ave. to Arrow) 3 A/C Paving 42240 square foot $1.25 $52,800.00 4 Striping 5280 linear foot $4.00 $21,120.00 5 Signage 16 each $300.00 $4,800.00 6 7 Class II Bike Lanes 8 Baseline Road 9 Striping 12144 linear foot $4.00 $48,576.00 10 Signage 74 each $300.00 $22,200.00 12 Bonita Avenue 13 Striping 12144 linear foot $4.00 $48,576.00 14 Signage 74 each $300.00 $22,200.00 15 D Street 16 Striping 5,280 linear foot $4.00 $21,120.00 17 Signage 32 each $300.00 $9,600.00 18 White Avenue 19 Striping 7,920 linear foot $4.00 $31,680.00 20 Signage 48 each $300.00 $14,400.00 21 Wheeler Avenue (Oak Ridge Dr to Paseo Ave.) 22 Striping 5,280 linear foot $4.00 $21,120.00 23 Signage 32 each $300.00 $9,600.00 24 25 26 Bicycle Parking 27 Bike Lockers 2 each $3,000.00 $6,000.00 28 Bike Racks 2 each $600.00 $1,200.00 29 30 Road Diets 31 Bonita Avenue 32 Removal Striping 5,280 linear foot $6.00 $31,680.00 33 New Striping 5,280 linear foot $8.00 $42,240.00 34 signage 16 each $300.00 $4,800.00 35 Signal Modification/Loop Restoration 1 lump sum $20,000.00 $20,000.00 36 Arrow Highway 37 Removal Striping 13,200 linear foot $6.00 $79,200.00 38 New Striping 13,200 linear foot $8.00 $105,600.00 39 Signage 32 each $300.00 $9,600.00 40 Signal Modification/Loop Restoration 2 lump sum $20,000.00 $40,000.00 41 42 Mid-Block Ped/Bike Crossing 43 At Paseo Ave and Wheeler Ave. $80,000.00 44 45 Roadway Resurfacing $93,280.00 47 48 Administration / Project Management $60,000.00 49 Subtotal: $901,392 50 51 Peliminary Engineering $168,000 52 Construction Engineering $168,000 53 Contingency $168,000 54 Subtotal: $504,000

TOTAL: $1,405,392

ATTACHMENT #7

Project Schedule PROJECT SCHEDULE

Action Item Start Completion Duration Date Date 2015 2016 1 Year Obligation of Funds from MTA 2015 2016 1 Year Consultations with MWD January March 3 Months Preliminary Design 2016 2016 February April 3 Months Environmental Studies 2016 2016 May July 3 Months Final Design 2016 2016 July September 3 months Environmental Review (CEQA/NEPA) 2016 2016 October March 6 Months Construction 2016 2017

ATTACHMENT #8

Proposed Project Sites LA VERNE REGIONAL COMMUTER BICYCLE GAP CLOSURE

Civic Center possible locations for bicycle parking at City Hall (above) and Library (below)

Proposed site showing existing parking area, looking south

2013 Call for Projects Application Page 1

LA VERNE REGIONAL COMMUTER BICYCLE GAP CLOSURE

Proposed site showing lawn area, looking southwest

2013 Call for Projects Application Page 2

LA VERNE REGIONAL COMMUTER BICYCLE GAP CLOSURE

2013 Call for Projects Application Page 3

LA VERNE REGIONAL COMMUTER BICYCLE GAP CLOSURE

2013 Call for Projects Application Page 4

LA VERNE REGIONAL COMMUTER BICYCLE GAP CLOSURE

2013 Call for Projects Application Page 5

ATTACHMENT #9

Submittal Form to CCC Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application (PSR Equivalent) TE funds are federal funds and must follow federal funding guidelines and environmental (NEPA) processes. All projects must have an approved eligible application prior to programming in the RTIP. PART ONE: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

X RTIP TE ITIP TE Is the project within Caltrans Right of Way? Yes No X.

Are you using Recovery Act TE funds? Yes No X

Does this project partner with or commit to employ the services of a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps? Yes No X. If you answered yes to the above question please list the contact information for the corps. Corps Name: Contact Name: Phone number:

PROJECT TITLE: City of La Verne Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Administrator/person with day- (Round dollars to nearest thousands) to-day responsibility for implementing project (Name, title, agency, address, phone, fax, email) TE FUNDS REQUESTED $ $1,405,392

Dan Keesey State Match (11.47%) $ Public Works Director Local Match (if Required) $ City of La Verne 3660 D Street, La Verne, CA 91750 TOTAL TE PROJECT COST $ X TE is a stand-alone project. Office: (909) 596-8741 Fax: (909) 596-8737 TE is part of a larger project. [email protected]

Person who can answer questions about this PARTNER(S) (Name, title, agency, address, phone, fax) application (Name, title, phone, fax, email)

Dan Keesey Public Works Director City of La Verne 3660 D Street, La Verne, CA 91750 Office: (909) 596-8741 Fax: (909) 596-8737 [email protected]

IF TE IS AN ENHANCEMENT TO A LARGER PROJECT, DESCRIBE LARGER PROJECT (if larger project is programmed, provide PPNo, EA, Project Title; if not currently programmed, describe the project)

This project is not an enhancement to a larger project.

Total Project Cost $ $1,405,392

Page 1

PROJECT SCOPE OF PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (Describe the project’s location, limits of work, size, etc. Not the justification or benefits).

Provide bicycle lanes and paths to improve regional connectivity and create an integrated and well- connected bicycle network for the northeastern San Gabriel Valley.

The project will provide improvements to the Existing Class I Bike Path:  Enhancements to the Class I bike path along the western edge of Wheeler Ave. will include: - striping and signage to the paved portion of the path (representing 1/3 of the length) - new bike path paving (with striping and signage) from the paved terminus, south, along the abandoned railroad right-of-way owned by the city, to its transition/connection to the new proposed Class II bike lane along Arrow Highway and the existing Marshall Canyon Trail underpass at Arrow Highway.

The project will provide Class II bike lanes along the following key east-west corridors:  Baseline Road – This will close the gap between the existing Class II bike lane within the adjacent City of Claremont and the existing Class II bike lane within the adjacent City of San Dimas.  Bonita Avenue – This will close the gap between the existing Class II bike lane (Citrus Bikeway)within the adjacent City of Pomona and the existing Class II bike lane within the adjacent City of San Dimas.* [A small stretch of the corridor will undergo a road diet to complement the road configuration that exists within the majority of the right-of-way]  Arrow Highway – This corridor with low traffic volumes can support a road diet from 6 travel lanes to 4 travel lanes with the addition of a Class II bike lane that will connect to the proposed paved Class I bike path on Wheeler Avenue.

The project will provide Class II bike lanes along the following north-south corridors:

 Wheeler Avenue – This corridor connects the upper most northern part of the city (from Oak Ridge Dr./Via de Mansion) to the southern boundary at Arrow Highway where it terminates. This 4 lane right-of-way with a center left turn median is wide enough to accommodate a Class II bike lane in both directions. This Class II will transition/connect to the existing Class I bike path south of Foothill Blvd.  D Street – This local street begins at Foothill Blvd. and terminates at Arrow Hwy. D Street provides direct access to the historic downtown and the University of La Verne where there is high number of cyclists. The city recently installed new bike racks throughout the downtown and the University. The width of the right- of-way and the traffic counts can accommodate a class II or a road diet.  White Avenue – This Class II will be an extension of the existing Class II bike lane that begins at Foothill Blvd. and currently ends at College lane. The remainder of the right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate the bike lane extension.

NEED AND PURPOSE (Describe how is project above and beyond a standard transportation project)

This project is above and beyond a standard transportation project in that it provides improvements to an alternative form of transportation (non-motorized) and provides bicycle infrastructure for the needs of local and regional cyclists for commuting and recreational uses.

RELATIONSHIP (TE projects must have a relationship to surface transportation; describe relation to surface transportation)

Providing new bicycle infrastructure has a relationship to surface transportation in that it provides safe and convenient travel for the cyclist as it shares the road with all users such as the passenger vehicles, public transit, pedestrians and the disabled.

Page 2

CONFORMANCE (Describe conformance with Route Concept Report or Transportation Corridor Report and District System Management Plan - ITIP projects only)

The project conforms to the Route Concept Report, Transportation Corridor Report and the District System Management Plan in that it provides bicycle lanes and paths to improve regional connectivity and create an integrated and well-connected bicycle network for the northeastern San Gabriel Valley.

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS (Describe how project reflects Director's policy - ITIP projects only)

N/A

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

During the development of the proposed project scope, several alt6ernatives were considered. But these alternatives were rejected due to the various reasons. The alternatives that were considered are as follows:

Page 3

WHICH OF THE 12 TE CATEGORIES DOES THE PROJECT ENCOMPASS? (May be more than one.) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/TransEnhAct/TransEnact.htm

1. X Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles 2. X Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites (including historic battlefields). 4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities). 5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 6. Historic preservation. 7. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals). 8. X Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use of the corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 9. Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising. 10. Archaeological planning and research. 11. Environmental mitigation (i) To address water pollution due to highway runoff; or (ii) Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. 12. Establishment of transportation museums.

PROJECT LOCATION MAPS (Provide Location Map of project in State/Region and Area Specific Map)

PART TWO: FUNDING

Prepared by Hal Suetsugu Title Strategic Consultant

Agency Evan Brooks Associates Phone (626) 458-3203 FAX_(888) 421-8798

PROJECT COMPONENT COSTS (round to nearest $1,000s) RTIP ITIP OTHER • E&P (PA&ED) $ $ $ • PS&E $ $ $ • Right of Way Capital $ $ $ • Right of Way Support* $ $ $ • Construction Support* $ $ $ Construction Capital $ $ $

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 1,405,392

*Right of way and construction support are for Caltrans implemented projects only

PRELIMINARY ITEM ESTIMATE - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ITEMS

Item No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total

1 Class I Bike Path Wheeler Ave. Bike Path (Paseo Ave. to 2 Arrow) square 3 A/C Paving 42240 foot $1.25 $52,800.00 Page 4

linear 4 Striping 5280 foot $4.00 $21,120.00 5 Signage 16 each $300.00 $4,800.00 6 7 Class II Bike Lanes 8 Baseline Road

linear 9 Striping 12144 foot $4.00 $48,576.00 10 Signage 74 each $300.00 $22,200.00 12 Bonita Avenue

linear 13 Striping 12144 foot $4.00 $48,576.00 14 Signage 74 each $300.00 $22,200.00 15 D Street

linear 16 Striping 5,280 foot $4.00 $21,120.00 17 Signage 32 each $300.00 $9,600.00 18 White Avenue

linear 19 Striping 7,920 foot $4.00 $31,680.00 20 Signage 48 each $300.00 $14,400.00 Wheeler Avenue (Oak Ridge Dr to Paseo 21 Ave.) linear 22 Striping 5,280 foot $4.00 $21,120.00 23 Signage 32 each $300.00 $9,600.00 24 25 26 Bicycle Parking 27 Bike Lockers 2 each $3,000.00 $6,000.00 28 Bike Racks 2 each $600.00 $1,200.00 29 30 Road Diets 31 Bonita Avenue linear 32 Removal Striping 5,280 foot $6.00 $31,680.00 linear 33 New Striping 5,280 foot $8.00 $42,240.00 34 signage 16 each $300.00 $4,800.00 35 Signal Modification/Loop Restoration 1 lump sum $20,000.00 $20,000.00 36 Arrow Highway linear 37 Removal Striping 13,200 foot $6.00 $79,200.00 linear 38 New Striping 13,200 foot $8.00 $105,600.00 39 Signage 32 each $300.00 $9,600.00 Page 5

40 Signal Modification/Loop Restoration 2 lump sum $20,000.00 $40,000.00

42 Mid-Block Ped/Bike Crossing 43 At Paseo Ave and Wheeler Ave. $80,000.00

45 Roadway Resurfacing $93,280.00 47

48 Administration / Project Management $60,000 49 Subtotal: $901,392

51 Peliminary Engineering (20%) $168,000 52 Construction (20%) $168,000

53 Contingency (20%) $168,000

54 Subtotal: $504,000

TOTAL: $1,405,392

MAINTENANCE (The enhancement must be maintained in a functional and operational manner as its intended purpose for the expected life cycle for the type of project. If it is not maintained in such a manner, reimbursement of all or a portion of the enhancemen t funds may be required). Who will maintain?

The City of La Verne will maintain all bicycle facilities within the public the rights-of-way. What is the source of maintenance funds? The source of maintenance funds will come from the General Fund. If project is within Caltrans right of way, must be signed by Deputy District Director, Maintenance The project is not within Caltrans right-of-way.

DDD Maintenance: N/A Date:

PART THREE: INFORMATION AND ASSURANCES

Please note the application must be signed by the TE project sponsor below for the project to be considered for funding. The information below is provided to notify all project sponsors of the criteria that shall be used in the selection of eligible TE projects.

For TE projects proposed for funding from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Assembly Bill X3-20 added Sections 2420-2423 to the Streets and Highways Code which requires that transportation projects proposed for transportation enhancement activities using federal funds provided specifically by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 be programmed and allocated based on the following priorities:

(1) In programming and allocating these funds, the department and the metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, and regional transportation agencies shall give priority to the sponsors of eligible projects that partner with, or commit to employ the services of, a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps to construct or undertake the project, provided those projects meet the requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

(2) After all eligible projects have been selected pursuant to paragraph (1), the department and the metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, and regional transportation agencies shall next give priority to projects that provide facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, provided those projects meet the requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Page 6

(3) After all eligible projects have been selected pursuant to paragraph (2), the department and the metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions, and regional transportation agencies may fund any project eligible in accordance with paragraph (35) of subdivision (a) of Section 101 of Title 23 of the United States Code.

For projects proposed for funding with all federal TE funds

Senate Bill 286 (Chapter 373, Statutes of 2008) added Sections 2370-2374 to the Streets and Highways Code which requires the selection of all TE projects to be based on projects which partner with, or commit to employ the services of a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps. The department, in consultation with Community Conservation Corps, the California Conservation Corps, the commission, regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies, developed the following criteria that give priority in the selection of TE projects. The information below is provided to project sponsors to assist them in understanding how projects will be selected. Regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions or authorities, and congestion management agencies, when selecting candidates for transportation enhancement projects, shall utilize the selection criteria below.

The RTPAs are required to use the following criteria in prioritizing and selecting TE projects for programming in the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIP):

(1) TE eligible projects whose sponsor is partnering with, or has agreed to employ the services of a Community Conservation Corps or the California Conservation Corps (collectively referred to as corps), shall be selected first for funding (the scope of the work performed by the corps will be identified in page 6 of the TE application);

(2) After all TE eligible projects described in paragraph (1) have been selected for funding; the remaining eligible TE projects may be selected.

TE Project candidates that meet the following specific categories are exempt from the above selection criteria and may compete on an equal basis with all project candidates in category (1) above:

(a) Projects that have been selected and programmed in a RTIP prior to June 25, 2009.

(b) Projects for which no corps will partner with the sponsor or agree to provide services. A project sponsor can request this exemption only by certifying on the TE Application, with the concurrence of the California Conservation Corps and the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, which the sponsor notified both organizations about the available project, but that no corps in the state was prepared to serve as a partner or provide services.

Page 7

If TE funds or projects are used for other than the intended enhancement purposes as defined by federal or state regulations or guidelines, the implementing agency may be required to remit all state and federal enhancement funds back to the state. contained in this transportation enhancement activity application, including required attachments, is accurate and that and understand fte imDortant information and asree to the assurances on this form.

Signed Date (TEA i

Printed (Name and Title) Wot+>

Administering Agency

For State Projects: Upon receiving an eligibility determination, a Project Nomination Sheet must be submitted to the District for programming.

Page 7 october 2oog

ATTACHMENT #10

Letters of Support January 11, 2013

Mr. Arthur T. Leahy Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012

Subject: Metro Call for Projects 2013 Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project City of La Verne

Dear Art,

I strongly support the City of La Verne’s 2013 Call for Projects application to secure funding for its Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project.

Bicycling improves air quality by reducing gas emissions, reduces automobile traffic congestion on our streets and highways, and encourages an active lifestyle. Yet many of our region’s communities have few, if any, bike-friendly amenities. La Verne’s bicycling infrastructure does not connect to neighboring cities, job centers, and other alternative modes of transportation. The application proposes using these funds to close these gaps, making bicycle commuting easier and safer.

I am pleased to endorse the City of La Verne’s Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project proposal. I am confident that this project will benefit the residents of La Verne and inspire neighboring cities to consider bicycle-friendly plans.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

CAROL LIU Senator 25th Senate District

Bike San Gabriel Valley

2410 West Valley Blvd. Alhambra CA, 91803

www.BikeSGV.org

January 14, 2013

Robert Gomez County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Watershed Management Division 900 S. Fremont Ave. Alhambra, CA 91803

Re: Bicycle Enhancements to the Marshall Canyon Multi-Use Trail

Dear Mr. Gomez,

On behalf of Bike SGV, I wish to express my support for the City of La Verne’s proposal to provide bicycle enhancements to the existing Marshall Canyon Multi-Use Trail. We are pleased to hear that the City of La Verne is pursuing innovative bicycle planning opportunities. Our region has a diverse cycling community and there is a great need for projects that enhance regional connectivity. We are also interested in ensuring the city is connected to neighboring cities, job centers, rail and other transit stations, and outdoor recreation areas, and other regionally important sites.

The San Gabriel Valley is home to a growing number of residents who depend on bicycles for their transportation needs. Yet the city of La Verne and many of our region’s communities have few, if any, bike-friendly amenities. By providing funding for the improvements to the Marshall Canyon Trail, this project will be a first step towards addressing the city’s and our region’s lack of bicycle-related infrastructure.

If realized, these trail enhancements and the city’s other bike lane proposals will help: 1) improve air quality by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the region’s carbon footprint, 2) support the development of more sustainable communities, and 3) make cycling a viable, safe transportation option for residents of all ages and abilities in participating communities.

BikeSGV’s mission is make the San Gabriel Valley a safer, healthier, and more enjoyable place for cycling by educating communities about bicycle safety and the myriad benefits of bicycling while supporting policies and legislation to increase funding for bicycle-friendly improvements. Therefore, Bike SGV wholeheartedly supports the bicycle infrastructure proposed in this application, and looks forward to partnering with the City of La Verne on this process.

Sincerely,

Vincent Chang, President Bike San Gabriel Valley

City Council Assistant City Manager of CURTIS W. MORRIS, Mayor Community Development EMMETT BADAR , Mayor Pro Tem LAWRENCE STEVENS DENIS BERTONE JOHN EBINER Director of Public Works JEFF TEMPLEMAN KRISHNA PATEL

City Manager Director of Parks BLAINE M. MICHAELIS and Recreation THERESA BRUNS Assistant City Manager Treasurer/City Clerk City Attorney

KENNETH J. DURAN J. KENNETH BROWN

January 16, 2013

Arthur Leahy Chief Executive Director Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 Attention: Ms. Shahrzad Amiri, Deputy Executive Officer

Dear Mr. Leahy:

On behalf of the City of San Dimas, I wish to express our strong support for the City of La Verne’s Call for Projects proposal to pursue funding for a Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project. This project would provide funding for a variety of Class I, II and III bicycle routes to connect cyclists to established bicycle lanes in our City. Our community has a diverse cycling community and there is a great need for connectivity to neighboring cities, job centers, rail and other regionally significant transit centers and regional outdoor recreation areas.

The San Gabriel Valley and San Dimas are home to a growing number of residents who depend on bicycles for their transportation needs. Yet many of our region’s communities have few, if any, bike-friendly amenities. By providing funding for the development of new bicycle facilities and the regional bicycle gap closure, this project will be a first step towards addressing our region’s lack of bicycle-related infrastructure.

This project will help: 1) improve air quality by reducing gas emissions and support the development of more sustainable and livable communities,2) increase mobility by replacing automobile trips and increasing transit trips, 3) promote active lifestyles, and 4) make cycling a viable, safe transportation option for residents of all ages and abilities .

The City of San Dimas wholeheartedly supports the funding to provide bicycle infrastructure to not only close the gap between neighboring cities but create an integrated and connected bike network in the northeastern San Gabriel Valley.

Sincerely,

Larry Stevens, AICP Assistant City Manager for Community Development

CITY OF CLAREMONT Community Development Department

City Hall Building • (909) 399-5471 207 Harvard Avenue Planning • (909) 399-5470 P.O. Box 880 Engineering • (909) 399-5465 Claremont, CA 91711-0880 Community Improvement • (909) 399-5467 FAX (909) 399-5327 Administration • (909) 399-5321 www.ci.claremont.ca.us

January 16, 2013

Arthur Leahy, Chief Executive Director Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

Attention: Ms. Shahrzad Amiri, Deputy Executive Officer

Dear Mr. Leahy:

On behalf of the City of Claremont, I wish to express my strong support for the City of La Verne's Metro's Call for Projects proposal to pursue funding for a Regional Commuter Bicycle Gap Closure Project. This project would provide funding for a variety of Class I, II and Ill bicycle routes to connect cyclists to established bicycle lanes in our City. Our community has a diverse cycling community, and there is a great need for connectivity to neighboring cities, job centers, rail and other regionally significant transit centers and regional outdoor recreation areas.

The San Gabriel Valley is home to a growing number of residents who depend on bicycles for their transportation needs. The Claremont!La Verne area in particular, has seen an increasing number of cyclists commuting between our communities, supported by job and academic opportunities. Recently, Claremont completed our portion of the Citrus Regional Bike Trail, by constructing 1.6 miles of Class II bicycle facilities. La Verne's proposal will provide a continuation to this system by closing a gap in the regional network. Furthermore, by providing funding for the proposed bicycle facilities and the regional bicycle gap closure, this project will be a step towards addressing our region's deficiencies associated with the lack of bicycle-related infrastructure much needed to support the increasing demand.

The construction of this project will help: 1) improve air quality by reducing gas emissions and support the development of more sustainable and livable communities; 2) increase mobility by replacing automobile trips and increasing transit trips; 3) promote active lifestyles; and, 4) make cycling a viable, safe transportation option for residents of all ages and abilities.

The City of Claremont wholeheartedly supports this application to provide bicycle infrastructure to not only close the gap between our neighboring cities but to create an integrated and connected bike network in the northeastern San Gabriel Valley.

Sincerely,

Brian~8~ Desatnik Director of Community Development

userpublc\kwolfinbF\admin\Call for Projects- La Verne Letter of Support