Santa Fe Metropolitan BICYCLE MASTER PLAN a Component of the Santa Fe Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2010-2035

Santa Fe Metropolitan BICYCLE MASTER PLAN A Component of the Santa Fe Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2010-2035

Approved: APRIL 12, 2012

Preparation of this Plan was funded by grants from the New Mexico Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Highways Administration and Federal Transit Administration) and local funds from Santa Fe MPO member jurisdictions.

The policies, findings, and recommendations contained in this Plan do not necessarily represent the views of the state and federal agencies identified above and do not obligate those agencies to provide funding to implement the contents of the Plan as adopted.

The Santa Fe MPO assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259), be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Materials can be provided in alternative formats by contacting the Santa Fe MPO at (505) 955-6625.

Direct assistance with the development of the Bicycle Master Plan was provided by: Tim Rogers - Transportation Consultant

Unless otherwise credited, photographs in this document are courtesy of Tim Rogers and Keith Wilson.

Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization

Transportation Policy Board City of Santa Fe Santa Fe County Councilor Patti Bushee, Vice-Chair Commissioner, Daniel Mayfield, Chair Mayor David Coss Commissioner Liz Stefanics Councilor Ronald Trujillo Commissioner Robert Anaya

Tesuque Pueblo NM Department of Transportation Ryan Swazo-Hinds Deputy Secretary Kathryn Bender

Technical Coordinating Committee John Romero, Traffic Engineer Supervisor, City of Santa Fe, Chair Eric Martinez, P.E., Roadways & Trails Engineering Division Director, City of Santa Fe Reed Liming, Long Range Planning Division Director, City of Santa Fe Tamara Baer, for Current Planning/Land use Division Director, City of Santa Fe Jon Bulthuis, Transit Division Director, City of Santa Fe Jack Kolkmeyer, Planning & Development Division Director, Santa Fe County Adam Leigland, P.E., Public Works Department Director, Santa Fe County Andrew Jandacek, Growth Management Dept, Senior Transportation Planner, Santa Fe County Vacant, Executive Director, Santa Fe Regional Planning Authority Anthony Mortillaro, Director, North Central Regional Transportation District Sam Romero, Transportation Planner, Tesuque Pueblo Miguel Gabaldon, P.E. District Engineer, District 5, NMDOT

MPO Advisory Members Rodolfo Monge-Oviedo, Federal Highway Administration Claude Morelli, SFMPO Liaison, NMDOT Greg White, Rail/Transit, NMDOT Eric Ghahate, Northern Pueblos RPO

MPO Staff Mark Tibbetts, MPO Officer/Program Manager Keith Wilson, MPO Senior Planner

Table of Contents

List of Maps...... ii. List of Tables...... iii. Acronyms ...... iv. Definitions ...... v.

Executive Summary...... 1

I. Introduction...... 3 A. Benefits of Bicycles in Santa Fe ...... 4 B. A Bicycle Master Plan for the Santa Fe Metropolitan Area 10 C. Vision, Goals, and Objectives for a more bicycle-friendly Santa Fe 11 D. Bicyclists: The User Group...... 12 E. Approach: The E’s ...... 12

II. Bicycle Planning and Policy in the Santa Fe Metropolitan Area...... 14 A. Federal and Metropolitan / MPO...... 14 B. State of New Mexico...... 15 C. City of Santa Fe...... 16 D. Santa Fe County ...... 17 E. Data to Support Bicycle Programs and Planning...... 18

III. Engineering: Assessment of Existing Conditions ...... 21 A. On-Road Facilities...... 21 B. Off-Road Facilities ...... 25 C. Guidance for Bicyclists ...... 29 D. Gaps and Barriers ...... 31 E. Crossings and Connections...... 32 F. Other Multi-Use Trail Design Issues ...... 36 G. Bicycle Parking...... 38 H. On-Board Transit Facilities for Bicycles...... 39 I. Maintenance of Bicycle Facilities ...... 41

IV. Recommendations to Improve Bicycle Infrastructure ...... 45 A. General Recommendations (1.1 – 1.12)...... 45 1.1. Implement “Complete Streets” policies...... 45 1.2. Create and implement programs to retrofit roadways...... 47 1.3. Adopt and adhere to established engineering guidelines...... 48 1.4. Target investments in new bikeways...... 50 1.5. Support pro-active maintenance while minimizing impact...... 51 1.6. Coordinate planning of bikeway facilities in the MPO area...... 52 1.7. Provide bicyclists with useful guidance ...... 53 1.8. Research, consider, promote, and implement best practices...... 55 1.9. Improve and expand bicycle parking...... 56

i | Page Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan

1.10. Support Higher-Density, Mixed-Use Development...... 58 1.11. Provide Critical Connectivity for Bicyclists and Pedestrians ...... 59 1.12. Gather Data to Support and Guide Bicycle Planning ...... 60

B. Specific Facility Improvements, with Prioritization ...... 61 1. Completing Streets: Retrofitting Roads ...... 61 2. Prioritized Trail Improvements...... 66 3. Recommended Improvements to Trail Crossings and Connections to Roadways ...... 69 4. Specific Recommendations on Wayfinding Assistance...... 72

V. Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement ...... 76 A. Assessment of Education and Encouragement...... 76 1. Promotional Events ...... 76 2. Educating and Equipping Bicyclists...... 77 3. Educating Motorists...... 78 4. Safe Routes to School ...... 79 B. Bicycle Law, Enforcement, and Legislative Activities ...... 80 1. State Law ...... 80 2. Local Law...... 81 C. Recommended Policies, Programs, and Activities (2.1 – 2.8)...... 82 2.1: Support Bicycle Education for Children and Adults ...... 82 2.2: Educate Motorists about Safe Operating Behavior ...... 83 2.3: Enforce Traffic Laws Relating to Bicycling ...... 83 2.4: Establish a District-Wide Safe Routes to School Program ...... 84 2.5: Continue to Promote and Celebrate Bicycles...... 85 2.6: Establish a Bike-Sharing Program as Public Transit ...... 86 2.7: Encourage use of bicycles by public and private agency staff ...... 88 2.8: Create Incentives / Remove Barriers to Travel by Bike...... 88

VI. Implementation Plan ...... 89 A. Publicizing the Santa Fe MPO Bicycle Master Plan...... 89 B. Agency Responsibilities...... 90 C. Recommended Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term projects...... 90 D. Funding Sources/Mechanisms...... 102 E. Performance Indicators with Baselines and Benchmarks ...... 107

List of Maps Map 1: Santa Fe MPO Planning Area...... 3 Map 2: Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map, 2012...... 20 Map 3: Santa Fe’s Major Urban Trails & Selected On-Road Connections...... 26 Map 4: State Bike Route 9 ...... 30 Map 5: Expanded Bikeway System...... 50 Map 6: Bike Share System, Initial 10-20 Kiosks and Expansion (Conceptual) 87 Map 7: Phase A, 2012-2017, Trails and Roads ...... 97

ii | Page Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan

Map 8: Phase B, 2017-2022, Trails and Roads...... 97 Map 9: Phase C, 2022-2032, Trails and Roads...... 98 Map 10: Phase A: 2012-2017, Road Improvements (Retrofits) ...... 98 Map 11: Phase A: 2012-2017, Rail Trail Improvements...... 99 Map 12: Phase A: 2012-2017, River Trail Improvements ...... 99 Map 13: Phase A: 2012-2017, Acequia Trail and Bikeway Improvements.....100 Map 14: Phase A: 2012-2017, Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail Improvements.100 Map 15: Phase A: 2012-2017, Other Trail Improvements...... 101

List of Tables Table 1. Mileage of Trails along Major Alignments in the Santa Fe MPO Area, by surface type...... 27 Table 2. Top-ranking proposed paved multi-use trail segments, ranked according to impact and feasibility ...... 67 Table 3. Top-ranking proposed soft-surface alignments ranked according to impact and feasibility...... 68 Table 4. Multi-use trail alignments as candidates for re-paving, based on age and observed conditions...... 69 Table 5. Recommended Improvements to Existing Trail Crossings...... 71 Table 6. Recommended Improvements to Existing Connections to Streets .. 71 Table 7. Prioritization for Top 11 Trail Segments with Significance for Safe Routes to School ...... 84 Table 8. Phase A Recommended Improvements, with Anticipated Lead Agency and Cost Estimate...... 92 Table 9. Phase B Recommended Improvements, with Anticipated Lead Agency and Cost Estimate...... 94 Table 10. Phase C Recommended Improvements, with Anticipated Lead Agency and Cost Estimate...... 95 Table 11. Phase D Recommended Improvements ...... 96 Table 12. Bikeway Projects Anticipated through Private Development...... 96 Table 13. Scenic Byways, with eligible projects proposed in this Plan ...... 104

Appendices Appendix 1: List of Public Presentations, Meetings, and Field Visits Appendix 2: Bicycle Planning in the Santa Fe MPO Area Appendix 3: Selected Elements of City of Santa Fe Code, Chapter 14, Supporting Bicycle Transportation Appendix 4: Santa Fe MPO Complete Streets Resolution Appendix 5: Bicycle Crash Data for the Santa Fe MPO Area, 2004-2008 Appendix 6: Assessment of On-Road Bicycle Facilities in the Santa Fe MPO Area Appendix 7: Assessment of Multi-Use Trails in the Santa Fe MPO Area Appendix 8: Assessment of Bike Route Guidance in the Santa Fe MPO Area Appendix 9: Santa Fe MPO Bicycle Master Plan Goals and Recommendations

iii | Page Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan

Appendix 10: A Proposed Policy Approach with Regard to ADA and Multi-use Trails Appendix 11: Best Practices and Emerging Practices Appendix 12: Prioritization of Trail Segments and Selected Crossing Improvements Appendix 13: Agency Responsibilities Appendix 14: Unit Costs used in Tables 8-10 Appendix 15: References

Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACS American Communities Survey (U.S. Census Bureau) ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADAAG ADA Accessibility Guidelines BCNM Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico BFC Bicycle-Friendly Community (per League of American Bicyclists) BMP Bicycle Master Plan BSF Bike Santa Fe BNSF Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad BTAC Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (City of Santa Fe) CAG Citizens’ Advisory Group CCD Community College District COLTPAC County Open Land, Trails, and Parks Advisory Committee FHWA Federal Highways Administration IMBA International Mountain Biking Association MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization LAB League of American Bicyclists LCI League Cycling Instructor (certified by LAB) MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA’s national standards and guidelines for signage, pavement markings, signals, etc.) MVD State Motor Vehicle Division NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials NMDOT New Mexico Department of Transportation NMSP New Mexico State Parks POSAC Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission (City of Santa Fe) RTP Recreational Trails Program SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (federal transportation authorization act) SBR State Bike Route SOBs Seniors on Bikes SFFTS Santa Fe Fat Tire Society SFPS Santa Fe Public Schools SRTS Safe Routes to School TE Transportation Enhancements (federal funding category) USDOT United States Department of Transportation iv | Page Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan

Definitions

Bicycle (or Bike): A pedal-powered vehicle upon which the human operator sits (from AASHTO 2010).

Bicycle Boulevard: A street segment, or series of contiguous street segments, that has been modified to accommodate through bicycle traffic but discourage through motor traffic (AASHTO 2010).

Bicycle Facility: A provision to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking and storage facilities, multi-use trails, bike lanes, and shared roadways not specifically designated for bicycle use (adopted from AASHTO 1999).

Bicycle Lane: A portion of a roadway which has been designated by pavement markings and, if used, signs, for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists (AASHTO 2010).

Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS): A model used to estimate bicyclists’ average perception of the quality of service of a section of roadway between two intersections (AASHTO 2010).

Bicycle Locker: A secure, lockable container used for long-term individual bicycle storage (AASHTO 2010).

Bicycle Rack: A stationary fixture to which a bicycle can be securely attached (AASHTO 2010).

Bicycle Route: A roadway or bikeway designated by the jurisdiction having authority, either with a unique route designation or with BIKE ROUTE signs, along which bicycle guide signs may provide directional and distance information (from AASHTO 2010).

Bikeway: A generic term for any road, street, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes (AASHTO 2010).

Complete Streets: Streets designed and operated to enable safe access along and across the roadway for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities (Paraphrased from National Complete Streets Coalition).

Multi-Use Trail (a/k/a Multi-Use Path or Shared Use Path): A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. Multi-use trails may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users (from AASHTO 1999).

Rumble strip: Textured or grooved pavement sometimes used on or along shoulders of highways to alert motorists who stray onto the shoulder (AASHTO 1999).

v | Page Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan

Shared-lane marking: A pavement marking intended to (1) assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist's impacting the open door of a parked vehicle, (2) assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane, (3) alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, (4) encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and (5) reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling (MUTCD 2009).

Sharrow (“Shared lane arrow”): A name for the specific shared-lane marking adopted by MUTCD 2009, consisting of a bicycle symbol preceding a directional chevron.

Shoulder: The portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for accommodation of stopped vehicles, for emergency use and for lateral support of sub- base, base and surface courses.

Sidepath: A shared use path located immediately adjacent and parallel to a roadway (AASHTO 2010).

vi | Page Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

vii | Page Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) created this Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan following the recommendation made in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2010-2035. The Plan’s purpose is to coordinate transportation planning and other bicycle-related planning among MPO partners - the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) and Tesuque Pueblo - in order to maximize the benefits of the use of bicycles for transportation. These benefits include economic development, reduced traffic congestion, reduced demand for motor vehicle parking, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, healthier residents and neighborhoods, improved urban and suburban environments and quality of life, improved accessibility, and an affordable transportation option for Santa Feans and visitors to our area.

The vision of this plan is that Santa Feans and their guests enjoy safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access along a comprehensive network of multi-use trails and complete streets, connecting residential neighborhoods with employment centers, parks, open space, schools, retail centers, and other public and private services throughout the metropolitan area. This Plan reviews bicycle-related planning in the Santa Fe area, existing bicycle infrastructure, and local activities in bicycle education, encouragement and enforcement, and relies on professional guidance, public input, communication and collaboration with a wide variety of public and private entities (see Appendix 1), and the guidance of a Citizens’ Advisory Group (CAG) toward a stated objective to “create an environment where all residents and visitors could ride a bicycle for transportation if they wanted to.”

Under the goal of “More Bicycle Facilities and Better Bicycle Facilities, within an Integrated and Effective Bikeway System,” the Plan presents twelve general recommendations for improving bicycle infrastructure followed by more specific reference to the facilities that the recommendations apply to. Under a second goal, that “Santa Feans and their guests are able to confidently, safely, and effectively ride bicycles within a shared transportation network where cyclists’ rights and responsibilities are understood, respected and enforced,” the Plan presents eight additional recommendations in the area of bicycle education, encouragement, and enforcement. The Plan concludes with a road map for implementation by the MPO and its public and private partners, detailing strategies to disseminate recommendations, agency responsibilities, prospective funding sources, and specific proposed projects listed in three phases of development.

The recommendations for new infrastructure in this Plan, include the extension of seamless multi-use trail and bikeway alignments from the downtown Plaza and Railyard areas to the southern, western, and northern extremes of the metropolitan area, and improved local bikeway connections and road crossings along these alignments. The challenge for this Plan will be identifying funding to implement the recommended improvements and maintain the growing system. The citizens of the metropolitan area have given implementation of the Plan a boost with support of $4 million in City bond funding for implementation of the Phase A recommendations.

1 | Page Executive Summary

Following the Implementation Plan, through coordinated efforts of public and private partners to improve bicycling in Santa Fe, within five years the metropolitan area will merit recognition by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) as a Bicycle-Friendly Community at the Silver level. Within ten years the metropolitan area will have doubled the share of local residents who are using bicycles for transportation. Within twenty years Santa Fe will have become a leading “bicycle-friendly community” in the southwestern United States and will merit LAB recognition at the Gold or Platinum level.

To Tesuque Village Rd. Tano Rd. Santa Fe’s Major Multi-Use Trails & Selected On-Road Connections: Expanded Bikeway Vision 2032

S La Tierra Trails Zocalo O This expanded view adds additional connecting trails and on-road La Tierra A

A TR G Atalaya, Ash- A LTA O I VISTA D. Stewart, Municipal S OW baugh A OT Hnos. G S. Capitol Museum & Dale Ball Recreation E Park Rdgz. Casa RR Station Hill Trails Center 2 d Siler Rd. Park S Alegre T St. John’s 2d St. JO San Ysidro LE College

X-ing F

O SF St.M’s Dr. R Lafarge T

Agua Fria UAD U N

Library Hospital I O Siringo / N A SIRINGO St. Michael’s T SFHS N. A

J O H.S. IA YUCCA Z SFHS & NM CENTRAL RR Genov. Capshaw M. S. El Camino Chavez MS Roybal IA Ctr. Zia . Z Real Park W Park RR Chap.

S Station E. Sawmill . ES

M Santa Fe E A Ragle O SOFT SURFACE TRAIL La Cieneguilla D Place L Sweeney O D

W Park L A S ARROYO HONDO TRAIL E.S. S

Pinon ES V Rodeo Park E G A S

Nava Ade H S. W GOV MILES Y Galisteo South Side Ortiz JAGUAR Library M.S. Pueblos To US285 & Tierra Contenta del Sol Eldorado Entrada D. IT R BB Capital Contenta RA HS Las Soleras SWAN Park Arroyo Hondo Pavilion Capital HS La Cienega Connector Trail Oshara Village

Santa Fe Community College

S. Fe Downs Rancho Viejo

NM599 RR Station

Nine Mile Rd. / Seton Village

Eldorado W. Eldorado

2 | Page Executive Summary

I. INTRODUCTION

Bicycling is a clean, healthy, and efficient form of transportation and recreation in the Santa Fe metropolitan area. In order to promote the safe and efficient use of bicycles within the transportation system, the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) supports the construction and maintenance of “complete streets;” the development of a complementary network of off-road facilities for bicyclists; and policies and programs to educate motorists and bicyclists, to enforce laws to protect the safe use of the transportation system by cyclists, and to encourage the use of bicycling and other transportation modes other than the private motor vehicle.1

In recognition of Santa Fe’s Map 1: Santa Fe MPO Planning Area

U S

8 4 - 2 8 commitment to supporting 5

O N R A M P bicycling as a transportation ut84 ut285

O N R A M P

U S Legend 8 choice, the League of 4 - 2 8 5

Rail Lines Tesuque American Bicyclists (LAB) Pueblo Major Roadways

Minor Roadways designated the City as a Santa Fe River

T E S U Q U City Boundary E

V IL L A G E

R D

O L Tesuque Pueblo D

K “Bicycle-Friendly M A

R MPO Planning Area Ü D 01230.5 Santa Fe County Boundary

U S B I 8 S H 4 Community” at the “bronze” Miles - O 2 8 P

5 S

L O D U G S E

8 R 4 D - 2 8 5 5 7 4

Santa Fe County S E TIE A T R Y RA A DE TANO

T O

T T TANO W ES T S N A

O N

O 84 M

ut level in 2011. The MPO’s R

S D

E 285 D

A C

C R AMIN O LA TI ER A

CA M O RD IN

R P O O

E T E N Transportation Policy Board AR D E C G N A D E I N

S R P T

M A L 599 A D E «¬ CA R O Las Campanas D S F I O F

N C R I N D

F CA M A IN S O FR I C

AN R F

R T N D I S A S A N D A R P R M K A D C S R (TPB), including AS I A L C P D N N R A IT MA E P CK R D X U C F B E A A Y 9 S M T H 9 I N 5 E N I O O A M D S N N E N O S L A P A S N T A C G S A

L U I R RT V U AD G IS C A R T E I I RD TA LU F D S F O P I E N E D S S S E A H T S P T TER W A T SF S E P 599 E W ALA D ¬ E ATER C R D « E ST representatives of the City of P AV S R E U E O Y L E ALA L ME A R D W A A D Z O GO H T D T A N ERR S L S O C L C A A DA T G IA A U P E R E G PAS EO DE R L T D L M X S R O A KO N E L HIC S O M Y N A E N E MADR C A O E G EQUIA M W AC V P A C S A B A R A N L A M C R C A C I A V A R A I N P A J E I A O A S T W S S V C T T T E OR A C D V E D O S G A E T VA R B

L E D O N R

R R A E L O A TA A T I VIS D O N TA S E RD I N O ST CO VA RD O L R C O Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, S D A S A J S A A G D I T E L G L S O E RO E R S O G RA DA ST A E NT W ALAME V C R R C D E RD E O E AG D T N H RD N D RD ATEO O C AN M R S O E S A E F T T P A A SA N M D W H S E E IL M N E

A R R SAINT MIC L HAELS Y R DR A D

L Y L L N A C N D H O R B R E S O D Tesuque Pueblo, and the New G T T A D

R R T U E ZIA

N D

L RO SIRINGO RD F P

S OLD SANTA FE TRAIL FE SANTA OLD

9 I 9 H

5 O C T M R L S C

N N A D D A D IN A F R P

U M R Y L R A E I W O F I N

C H Z Z

P T O AL A O W E I F N S

R C I O Z A T A A R M L R E S

A R T

A M J N L

N S I E S

S L O N M O A A S R E E S D D C T Z R R R C E M A R E I V T Z U S E D W Y Y IA A E R D RD F RODEO EX E X A O IT X I U 28 IT T Mexico Department of G W 2 B 2 A N OFF 8 2 S 4 8 O O 4 RD

T R F Y 2 POR 8 N F O

AIR D E 2 O F T F

R I 2

X 8 2 S E F F T O EXIT 282 O I

L X

E R

AL A O RE SE C

PA OV G E R NO O R O

MILES RD N RABBIT RD I L

D M

A S

R E C

R V A D D AR U A N G N JA T S A O I 599 D T F «¬ R E IA A T V D R

Transportation (NMDOT), H R A L

S C I

O R L D Santa Fe L I R R O R D E C 25 N Municipal Airport ¨¦§ O H

R MUT R T NELSON RD A

D R N S O IL 8 F D A initiated the development of 7 F R R 2 O Santa Fe E T G T 8 A I 7 L O X Community IL 2 V W E XIT T E 4 N 1 College T O O D E L S D R

E L T UR A A VIEJO BLVD S ST CHO L S N A E V R D A E G W ID F N A R E S O D V AGE R A H NT W Y

N O this Bicycle Master Plan for 6 7 2 A V IT A X N E N U P O the Santa Fe MPO area (see ¨¦§25

D R S O PIN S LO La Cienega

Map 1) in order to continue to E X

I EN T C 14 A 2 9 N N F «¬ F 0 O O N T D 1 A A IDA E 0 O 7 N A 9 2 D E M F O V IS 2 TA F T R A D I T X D I E X

E E ALTO A T TH V N U O O E M S N AV 5 E EL I 2 I N ID D A V D A ISTA A A GRANDE ID Z N U E L V 25 guide policies, programs, and A ¨¦§

§25 A ¨¦ V E N I D A A V T E O N Eldorado R ID R H A T E R C O A O N S N 25 A I D E L O R investments so that the bicycle O AVE NID A E LDO RA D O ON EXIT 267 ON EXIT 267

T is properly and fully integrated S BONANZA CREEK RD ut285

L TR AH S DO O AN U N T HE H S F O R into our transportation system. K

A stated goal of this Plan is to Lamy earn LAB recognition for the metropolitan area at the ut285

U S

2 8 5 CAM INO LO S ABUE Cerrillos LO “silver” or “gold” level within S «¬41

1 4 D R E 14 T ¬ A « T five years. S

CAMINO L O S

A B Approved by the Santa Fe MPO U E L OS Transportation Policy Board Galisteo This Plan was produced by the February 12, 2009 Santa Fe MPO with the

1 Santa Fe MPO, Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 2010-2030 (Oct. 2010), pp. 120-24.

3 | Page Introduction

assistance of a Citizens Advisory Group (CAG), consisting of cyclists living and working in the city and the county, as well as through close consultation with agency staff.2 The MPO thanks citizens and staff alike for their dedication to making Santa Fe a more bike- friendly community.

A. Benefits of Bicycles in Santa Fe

There are many reasons to support the use of bicycles in Santa Fe. From a pure transportation perspective, providing for bicycles broadens individuals’ travel alternatives and increases our system’s overall capacity and longevity. Strong supporting arguments run the gamut from individuals’ cost savings to clean air and public health. Santa Fe’s size, topography, climate, and economic base all conspire to make our community an ideal venue for the bicycle to play a more significant role in transportation.

Improving local transportation options

Bicycling is a cheap and efficient form of local transportation for residents and guests, especially in a small and mostly flat urban area like ours. A significant percentage of the population cannot or does not wish to rely on the automobile for personal transportation. In addition those who are too young, elderly, or physically or visually impaired to drive a motor vehicle, many more individuals cannot afford a motor vehicle, cannot get a driver’s license or have had it taken away, or simply do not want to drive. And many motorists need or would like an alternative to driving for some of their trips.

Like walking, bicycling is an important adjunct to public transit as a transportation option. For many transit users the bicycle is a critical component of their access to the bus system or commuter rail. Facilities such as bike lanes, urban trails, bike parking, space for bikes on busses and trains, and even “bike share” systems (or inexpensive Every bicycle on this bike rack in the Railyard means bicycle rentals) all contribute to solving reduced demand for motor vehicle parking as well as transit’s difficulty in helping prospective reduced motor vehicle congestion on our local streets.

2 For a full list of meetings, presentations, and CAG participants, see Appendix 1.

4 | Page Introduction

users take care of the first or last mile(s) of their trips – the part that is not covered by existing bus or train service.

Along with transit and walking, developing infrastructure for bicyclists can also result in saving time and space for motorists. In that they work as motor vehicle “congestion mitigation,” these modes can serve to reduce road maintenance and construction costs, fuel consumption, and the amount of public and private space dedicated to roadways and parking.

Environment

Transportation accounts for a major part of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in our nation. The New Mexico Environmental Department estimates that motor vehicles account for about 17% of greenhouse gases produced in New Mexico.3 The City of Santa Fe’s “Sustainable Santa Fe Plan” focuses on developing a bicycle-friendly environment as a central strategy for reducing emissions in the area of transportation, and one that is strongly supported in the City’s General Plan (see Appendix 1). The County likewise emphasizes the environmental benefits of supporting bicycling as transportation in its Sustainable Growth Management Plan, putting efforts to support multimodal transportation in the context Bicycling for transportation is a lifestyle choice for many Santa Feans concerned about the of “environmental responsibility” and environment and quality of life in an area highlighting development of bicycle dominated by motor vehicles. transportation as a “key to sustainability.4”

Bicycle use not only directly eliminates emissions as an alternative to motorized transportation but indirectly reduces overall emissions by reducing motor vehicle congestion. In short, more bikes means cleaner air for Santa Feans to breathe and clear skies for all to enjoy.

Health / Fitness

Investment in bicycling and walking directly benefits the health of our communities, and especially our children. Obesity affects roughly one quarter of adults and nearly one fifth

3 City of Santa Fe, Sustainable Santa Fe Plan (2008). 4 Santa Fe County Sustainable Growth Management Plan, Santa Fe County General Plan, Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, November 2010, pp. 19 and 152.

5 | Page Introduction

of youths ages 10-17 in New Mexico, proportions that are growing.5 Integrating walking and bicycling into New Mexicans’ daily routine is a promising way to combat the upward trend in obesity. Given Santa Fe’s educational budget restrictions, and declining offerings in physical education in particular, promoting walking and bicycling to school is a logical strategy for children’s health that can benefit the entire community.

The strategy of promoting bicycling and walking through “complete streets” is specifically embraced by New Mexico’s statewide coalition for obesity prevention and control6 and by New Mexico professionals working to control chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.7 Both statewide groups also favor the institution of “health impact assessments” as a method to put increased value on health considerations when public policies and investments are made, particularly in the areas of transportation, urban and regional planning, and site selection for public services.

Economy

Transportation is a major expense for American families, and the burden of private automobile ownership is particularly heavy on lower-income families. Individuals and families that bicycle, walk, Bicycling and walking as active transportation, or or use transit for part or all of their just as recreation, benefits children and adults. transportation needs can realize significant savings over relying on one, two, or more private motor vehicles. At the community and nationwide level, walking, bicycling, and transit also reduce our dependence on costly foreign or domestic oil as the fuel of choice for our transportation.

Given the impact of high housing costs on family budgets in the Santa Fe region, reducing transportation costs may be a key approach to reduce the overall cost of living in our city and increase the opportunities for lower- and middle-income New Mexicans to Bicycling for transportation is a good economic live and prosper here. choice for many Santa Feans.

5 U.S. Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC), Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Prevalence and Trends Data, New Mexico – 2009; Overweight and Obesity (BMI); Trust for America’s Health, “F as in Fat,” 2009. 6 The New Mexico Healthier Weight Council has convened a “Complete Streets Leadership Team” in 2010-11 to pursue activities in this major policy area (see www.nmhealthierweight.org). 7 New Mexico Chronic Disease Council, “New Mexico Shared Strategic Planning: Missions, Goals and Strategic Priorities,” Draft, May 2011.

6 | Page Introduction

Business – The Bike Business in Santa Fe

The Santa Fe area is already home to a variety of businesses directly relating to the bicycle, including small numbers of Bicycle Technologies International (BTI) is a framebuilders, messengers, and pedicab Santa Fe-based parts distributor that received drivers, and larger numbers of individuals gold-level recognition as a “Bicycle-Friendly employed at eight full-service bike retail Business” from the League of American Bicyclists in September 2010. shops and a large parts wholesaler that has received national recognition from the League of American Bicyclists as a “Bicycle- Friendly Business.” All together it could be estimated that these businesses, which are almost all locally-owned, employ the equivalent of nearly 100 full-time workers in Santa Fe.

These businesses are based on the established popularity of bicycles for transportation and recreation in and around Santa Fe, and they rely on a bike-friendly Santa Fe to thrive. Success stories elsewhere in the country, such as Portland, Oregon, have shown that investment in improving local bicycling can This bike and trailer combination can haul up to lead to dramatic growth in local bike-related 250lbs. of deliveries at a time for Creative Couriers. businesses.8

Business – Tourism

Other direct economic beneficiaries of a more bicycle-friendly Santa Fe include hotels, restaurants, shops, and other service providers - even gas stations - that cater to visitors to our city. Numerous studies around the country have found that investment in bicycling facilities can pay off handsomely in direct benefits to tourist- oriented businesses.9

Whether attracted by our world-class mountain biking or by our scenic and challenging road venues, dedicated cyclists already have plenty of reason to come to Santa Fe. More bike-friendly Out-of-state visitors enjoy a pedicab ride at the Plaza.

8 Mia Birk, Joyride: Pedaling Toward a Healthier Planet (Portland ORL Cadence Press, 2010). 9 See, for example, Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University, “Economic Impact of Investing in Bicycle Facilities: A Case Study.” http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_research_EIAfulltechreport.pdf

7 | Page Introduction

urban and suburban environments will increase the attraction and broaden the appeal to a wider variety of visitors, as well as individuals, families, and businesses who may choose to locate here permanently. A city that provides a bicycle-friendly environment is one that many visitors will remember, return to, and tell their friends and neighbors about.

Many tourists come and return to our area based on the quality of our diverse on-road and off-road bicycling opportunities. These cyclists took guided trips from downtown Santa Fe to Bandelier National Monument and along the High Road to Taos. Trails for hiking and mountain biking form a Local events that rely on high-quality bicycling in our big part of Santa Fe’s offerings as an outdoor area serve well to make the case. The Santa Fe Century, recreation destination. In October 2012, Santa Fe welcome’s the International one of the oldest organized century rides in the country, Mountain Biking Association’s “World attracts thousands of visitors to spend the weekend in our Summit.” city each May. These individuals and their families can be counted on to return to Santa Fe not only for the annual ride but also to enjoy more of our diverse cycling environment on their own. Likewise, high-quality off- road cycling available within the city limits (Dale Ball Trails, La Tierra Trails) and throughout the metropolitan area (National Forest Trails, Rail Trail, Galisteo Trails, Caja del Rio) mean nearly unlimited opportunities for visitors from flatter, snowier, or otherwise less accommodating areas, along with the likelihood that, if pleased with their experience, they will return with their families for more. The Santa Fe Century currently ranges A visitor on a bicycle has the unique ability to experience between 2,700-2,900 participants each local environments, like a pedestrian, but also to easily year, about half of whom travel to New 10 Mexico from Colorado. For more span an entire city as well as surrounding countryside. information see www.santafecentury.com

10 On the practicality of bicycling for the urban tourist, see David Byrne, Bicycle Diaries (New York NY: Viking Penguin, 2009).

8 | Page Introduction

While most visitors to Santa Fe, including bicyclists, arrive in motor vehicles, bicycle tourism, including arrival to our city by bicycle, can be expected to increase somewhat in the near future. The development of inter-city transit, and particularly the New Mexico Rail Runner, and the continued improvement of our on-road and off-road bicycle facilities have already set the stage.

A more direct impetus to bike touring will come within a few years with the anticipated promotion of a new national bike touring route through Santa Fe along old Route 66.11 Guided and unguided bike tourists have been shown to not only spend more at local restaurants, shops, and hotels, but they can also be counted on to take care of various other travel or leisure needs before leaving town.12 They can also be expected to be interested in lodging, camping, dining, and other services available in rural communities around Santa Fe such as Tesuque, Lamy, Galisteo, Cerrillos, Madrid, and La Cienega. Anyone who can confidently ride a bicycle for transportation Culture – the Arts has unique advantages getting around downtown Santa Fe.

Bicycling and the arts are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. Like the iconic “old pick-up truck” or the “low- rider,” bicycles are both a form of art and the subject of art in Santa Fe. They are also a vehicle for artistic or lifestyle statements by a wide variety of individuals who may or may not consider themselves artists or bicyclists. To show up at the Farmer’s Market on a bicycle might be to say, “I value my community, my planet, my freedom of expression, etc.” Or maybe it’s just a fun and sensible transportation choice. In any case, there is evidence around the country to suggest that when art-loving communities like Santa Fe are able to provide an environment that is conducive to bicycling, they are creating the right environment to attract and retain the very people who are needed to contribute to the creative life of the city.

Art for bikes and bikes for art: Creating Community and an attractive Urban KALEIDOSPOKE is an art Environment collaboration around spoke card designs and film submissions that Bicycling contributes to a broader sense of community in the were shown at the Center for Santa Fe area as well. Public spaces that are dominated by Contemporary Arts from July - September 2011, benefitting local bicycle cooperative efforts. 11 See p. 67 on Adventure Cycling Association’s “Bike Route 66.” 12 See Cycling Mobility (Jan. 2011), “Have bicycle, will travel,” pp. 48-51; also NCSU study, op cit.

9 | Page Introduction

motor vehicles tend to confine meaningful human interactions to limited, controlled, indoor environments. Like pedestrians, bicyclists can make eye contact with other users of public space, can greet passers-by, and even stop to chat, contributing significantly to community cohesion and the creation of an attractive, positive, and less intimidating urban environment that responds to human needs at a human scale. In fact, in commercial districts the creation of attractive social venues favoring pedestrians and bicyclists has also been found to improve business rather than detract from it – even if it comes at the expense of motorist access in the form of parking spaces.13

A Wise Transportation Investment

With these many benefits, and especially as we face continued difficult economic times and possible reduced federal support for non-motorized transportation, investment of local resources and effort to improve the environment for bicycling would seem to be a good idea. This is particularly true when proposed spending on bicycle transportation is compared with the far greater sums of resources that are dedicated to ever-expanding infrastructure for motor vehicles. Increasing public investment in bikeways is reinforced by policy from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood directing federal agencies and encouraging state and local governments to consider “walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.14”

B. A Bicycle Master Plan for the Santa Fe Metropolitan Area

This Santa Fe MPO Bicycle Master Plan is intended to provide a blueprint for the metropolitan community to improve the environment for bicycling. It is intended to guide state, local, and tribal policy and investment so that the bicycle is integrated into transportation on a metropolitan-wide basis. This includes coordinating across political jurisdictions to create a cohesive and seamless bikeway network and across public program areas so that trails, roads, parks, and other facilities are located, designed, built and operated in a way that meets non-motorized transportation objectives.

Creating a Bicycle Master Plan is a way to get citizens, elected officials, and professional staff together to develop effective strategies to facilitate bicycling. This includes examining national guidelines and proven best practices based on local, national, and international models, and how they may be best applied in our setting. A successful Bicycle Master Plan will make the Santa Fe metropolitan area a place with more bikeways, better bikeways, fewer barriers to bicycling, friendlier interactions between motorists and bicyclists, more diverse representation of our society on bicycles, and above all more bicyclists. With these gains, the Plan will help lead the Santa Fe metropolitan area to national recognition as a “Bicycle-Friendly Community” at the silver, gold, or platinum level.

13 See Copenhagen and New York City examples in Cycling Mobility (Jan. 2011), “Conquering the borderlands,” pp. 10-15. 14 USDOT/FHWA. “United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation: Regulations and Recommendations (Signed by Sec. Lahood, March 2011).

10 | Page Introduction

C. Vision, Goals, and Objectives for a more bicycle-friendly Santa Fe

This plan’s Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) expressed a vision for Santa Fe as a place where the bicycle could provide “safe, convenient, attractive, every-day transportation for citizens and visitors.” One goal was expressed of being “the most bicycle-friendly city in

the world.”

Benchmarks that might measure progress toward this goal include recognition of the Santa Fe metropolitan area as a Bicycle-Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) at the Silver level by 2015 and the Gold or Platinum level by 2020.

Supporting the vision and goal, the CAG outlined objectives to: • create more and better bikeways as part of a comprehensive city and county network • improve safety, design and maintenance of bicycle facilities • improve crossings, ways to overcome obstacles • provide more, better bicycle parking • remove the “fear factor” relating to bicycling • improve the public image of The Citizens Advisory Group discusses the development bicycling as a safe mode of of the Bicycle Master Plan in Santa Fe County transportation through marketing Commission Chambers, March, 2011. and public relations • provide equal rights and opportunities to bicyclists as users of the transportation system, including equality in the planning and construction of transportation facilities. • Create an environment where all citizens and visitors could ride a bicycle for transportation if they wanted to; increase bicycle mode share to 10% of all traffic.

Strategies to achieve these goals discussed by the CAG included • Incorporate bike accommodations in roadway design and make improvements for bicyclists “enforceable” • Focus on connectivity through targeted improvements • Create a “Green Building Code” for sustainable transportation • Provide signage and online tools for wayfinding • Develop “Safe routes to school” • Pursue best practices for encouragement, creating incentives to ride • Provide education for bicyclists and motorists • Develop new funding sources such as use of impact fees • Get business buy-in

11 | Page Introduction

• Bring in partners such as the Santa Fe Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, Green Chamber of Commerce • Give the Bicycle Master Plan “teeth” so it is legally enforceable.

The development of indicators and measures of progress toward objectives under this Bicycle Master Plan are discussed in detail in Section VI, Implementation Plan.

D. Bicyclists: the User Group

Bikeway users range from children and families that may restrict their riding to multi-use trails to commuters and other cyclists who are comfortable using a wide variety of facilities, but may typically use more direct and open on-road routes to arrive at a given destination. Bikeway users include local residents as well as visitors to Santa Fe.

This Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan seeks to address the transportation needs of the full spectrum of individuals that use, or may use, bicycles in our metropolitan area. This includes commuter cyclists as well as recreational cyclists, including on-road cyclists, mountain bikers, and users of BMX or skate parks, since such individuals may use their bicycles on our roadways and trails to arrive at their recreational destinations.

The user group also includes the growing number of businesses and public agencies that use bicycles, not only bicycle-mounted police but also parking enforcement, emergency responders, private security personnel, pedicab drivers, and delivery services.

E. Approach: The E’s

Approaches in planning for bicycles and pedestrians are often broken down into “Four E’s,” which over time have expanded into five or six “E’s”. The approach of this Bicycle Master Plan likewise follows these “E’s”:

i. Engineering: Much of this plan focuses on bicycle infrastructure, particularly our network of roads, multi-use trails, intersections and other crossings, as well as bicycle parking and transit facilities for bicycles. This focus on engineering starts with a look at bicycle-specific planning in the City and County of Santa Fe as well as a variety of state, county, and city plans that address bicycling as a mode of transportation or recreation. Next is an assessment of our on-road and off-road bikeway system; connectivity, gaps, and barriers between facilities; and the extent to which the elements of our bikeway system meet national standards and guidelines for bicycle facilities. The plan presents

12 | Page Introduction

policy and program recommendations relating to engineering followed by a detailed list of recommended road and trail improvements, prioritized according to impact and feasibility. In the final chapter of this plan, these improvements are presented as proposed projects with rough cost estimates within three phases of implementation.

ii. Education and Encouragement: An examination of our area’s growing activities to educate bicyclists and motorists and to encourage the use of the bicycle in Chapter V of this plan leads to recommendations to continue to foster promising approaches in this area. New directions proposed in Chapter V include improved coordination of bike education activities and implementation of “bike sharing” to make inexpensive but reliable bicycles more accessible to residents and visitors for short-range trips.

iii. Enforcement and Equity: This approach, also discussed in Chapter V., comprises an examination of the legal framework as it relates to bicycles, how this framework is enforced among bicyclists and motorists, recent efforts to make significant changes in state and local laws, and recommendations for further improvements.

iv. Evaluation: The Implementation Plan that forms the final chapter of this plan assigns agency responsibilities, timelines, and budgets for the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan, including planning, design, construction and maintenance of bicycle facilities and other programs. Indicators are proposed to help monitor our metropolitan area’s progress toward the goals and objectives we have established in order for Santa Fe to become a more bicycle-friendly community.

13 | Page Introduction

II. BICYCLE PLANNING AND POLICY IN THE SANTA FE METROPOLITAN AREA

Bicycling in Santa Fe is supported by policies, laws, plans and programs at the federal, state, metropolitan, and local levels, which are summarized below. For more details on planning background and the legal framework behind providing for bicycles, see Appendices 3 and 4. This chapter also discusses the availability of data to guide bicycle planning.

A. Federal and Metropolitan / MPO

The Santa Fe MPO plans for bicycles as an integral part of the Eight Planning Factors transportation system as required Mandated under federal law (SAFETEA-LU) under the SAFETEA-LU federal Support Economic Vitality legislation. The MPO adheres to Increase the Safety of the transportation system USDOT Sec. LaHood’s “Livability Increase the Security of the transportation Principles” which further emphasize system to federal funding agencies, Increase the Accessibility & Mobility options Protect and enhance the Environment, promote particularly the Federal Highways Energy Conservation, & improve Quality of Life Administration (FHWA), and state Enhance the Integration & Connectivity of the and local governments the important transportation system role of non-motorized transportation Promote efficient System Management & in our communities (see text boxes at Operation Emphasis the Preservation of the existing right). transportation system

Every five years the MPO updates its USDOT Secretary LaHood’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan, “Livability Principals” applying these policies and principles Expanding access to affordable housing, to transportation needs in Santa Fe, particularly located close to transit; and bicycle travel plays an Providing more transportation choices; Enhancing economic competitiveness-giving increasingly important role. The people access to jobs, education, and services MPO’s Transportation Policy Board as well as giving businesses access to markets; passed a resolution in 2007 Targeting federal funds towards existing (Resolution 2007-1) encouraging communities to spur revitalization and protect local governments to take a “complete rural landscapes; Increasing collaboration among federal, state streets” approach to the design, construction and maintenance of streets in the MPO area (See Appendix 4). The MPO has worked closely with local counterparts, and particularly the City’s Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee, to improve the environment for bicyclists in the MPO area. The MPO also convened a Bicycle-Pedestrian Study Group and funded the MPO Bikeways Mapping Project as part of its “Unified Planning Work Program.” These activities served as precursors to the Citizens Advisory Group and this Bicycle Master Plan.

14 | Page Bicycle Planning and Policy

Federal funding for bicycle facilities in the Santa Fe area has primarily consisted of general road construction costs associated with state highway shoulders. In most cases, such as new bike lanes on Cerrillos Rd. (NM14), these improvements have simply been incorporated into the cost of new construction or reconstruction. In other cases, such as sidewalks and bike lanes along Old Pecos Trail (NM466), specific federal support for bicycle and pedestrian facilities has been obtained through the use of transportation enhancement (TE) funds. Federal TE funds have also been used to support statewide bicycle education activities by the Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico (BCNM).

B. State of New Mexico

State law and policy require accommodations for bicycles on state highways.15 General bicycle planning by the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) is conducted by the Bicycle-Pedestrian-Equestrian (BPE) program with guidance from the BPE Advisory Committee. The primary focus of planning through NMDOT’s BPE program in Santa Fe has been the designation, through signage, of State Bike Route 9 on a combination of state highways, city streets, and a multi-use trail. The MPO works directly with NMDOT’s District 5 to conduct more specific transportation planning for state highways in the Santa Fe area. District 5 programs federal funding as well as state matching funds for state highway projects in the MPO area. State funding is also the basis for all highway maintenance activities by District 5.

Capital outlays from the state have historically been a significant source of funding for multi-use trails in Santa Fe, including a $3.5 million outlay from Gov. Richardson for trails in general and nearly $2 million from the legislature for trails within the Railyard Park. Also of significance was state support through the NM Rail Runner project to build several miles of the Santa Fe Rail Trail.

Another potentially important player at the state level is the New Mexico State Parks (NMSP) Division of the state’s Energy Minerals and Natural Resources Dept. (ENMRD). NMSP is considered to be the “state trail agency” and administers the federally-funded Recreational Trail Program (RTP). While neither activity has had significant impact on bicycling in the Santa Fe MPO area, the major “state trail” concept that NMSP has pursued, a Rio Grande Trail spanning the state from north to south, might some day reach our area; efforts to date have focused on central and southern New Mexico.

15 Per NMSA 67-3-62: “Provision for pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian traffic required: No expenditure or contract for the expenditure of state public funds for purposes of constructing highways along new alignments or for purposes of substantially widening highways along existing alignments shall be made or entered into by the state unless the design and construction of such highway makes provision for bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian traffic along and across such highway…”

15 | Page Bicycle Planning and Policy

C. City of Santa Fe

The city’s earliest efforts to take a comprehensive approach at bicycle planning resulted in the 1993 Bikeways Master Plan, which remains the city’s standing bicycle plan. Planning for bicycles in the city is also supported by a variety of policies under the City’s General Plan, the Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001, subsequent activities under the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC), and the Sustainable Santa Fe Plan.

In support of these planning efforts, Chapter 14 of the City’s General Code requires the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic along city streets as well as through off-road trails.16 Developers are expected to provide for “vehicle and pedestrian traffic circulation;” bicycles are implicit to this requirement for some uses, explicit for others. The Code The City’s development code under Chapter 14 is an states that all new public streets effective method to get “complete streets,” like this stretch of Gov. Miles Rd. where a private developer provided shall be required to provide accommodations for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as necessary transit facilities. Where developments provide open space, the Code specifies that “To the greatest extent possible, connections shall be provided to public open space and/or the urban trail system and bicycle paths, or in such a way that a future connection shall be facilitated.”

City funding for trails has represented the majority of public financial support for bicycling in the Santa Fe MPO area. Primary sources include Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds, $1.5 million of which were the original basis for the establishment of BTAC in 2003, and the $30 million Parks Bond of 2009, of which roughly $9 million was reserved for city trails. Since 2006, planning by the City Parks Bikes and bike rack outside of City Hall. Division has been guided by the Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission (POSAC).

16 See Appendix 3, Articles 14-4 “Zoning Districts,”14-8 “Development and Design Standards,” and 14-9 “Subdivision Design, Improvement, and Dedication Standards.”

16 | Page Bicycle Planning and Policy

D. Santa Fe County

Santa Fe County is currently undertaking a first attempt to integrate bicycle planning into its road and trail planning. The County’s recently completed Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SGMP) suggests policies to build complete streets, including bike lanes or shoulders on county roads where warranted, and to build trails for transportation purposes rather than purely for recreation. The County is currently developing its Sustainable Development Code to support the Plan.

Santa Fe County’s current Land Use Development Code does not include specific references to accommodation of bicycles but requires subdivisions to provide “non- vehicular trails” along major roads or to provide an “internal, off-road trail system.17” Neither strategy has resulted in a functional transportation system for bicyclists who wish to travel along County roads or between County subdivisions and the rest of the metropolitan area. As discussed in Chapter III below, the provision of trails along roads, also known as “side paths,” is a particularly unsatisfactory approach to bicycle transportation or recreation which runs counter to clear guidance from AASHTO and LAB. The County does not currently have any requirements for on–road bicycle facilities along major roadways.

The Community College District (CCD) Plan applies specifically to the CCD area south of I-25 in particular but is often seen as a model plan for developing areas outside of the district. The CCD Plan suggests building shoulders or bike lanes along major roads but expresses a preference for “narrow” roads, primarily for aesthetic purposes. The CCD Code includes on-road bicycle facilities in illustrations of some cross sections for Rancho Viejo Blvd., a narrow County Road with a higher-speed roads, but in practice the speed limit of 45 mph, connects Santa Fe Community College and Rancho Viejo with NM14 and the NM599 County has allowed private developers to Rail Runner Station. It was built in the 1990s without forgo such facilities, in line with the shoulders or bike lanes under the Community College County’s more general development code, District Plan. substituting sidepaths or separate trail systems, or mere plans for such facilities, rather than providing bike lanes or paved shoulders. This approach is directly counter to prevailing engineering guidance18 and has resulted in a somewhat dysfunctional bikeway system in the CCD.

Santa Fe County’s trail planning is undertaken by the Open Space and Trails Program with guidance from the County Open Land, Trails, and Parks Advisory Commission (COLTPAC). The Program and Commission have focused on the development of

17 Santa Fe County Land Development Code, Article V, “Subdivision Regulations,” Section 8.4.2. 18 AASHTO (1999), p. 33: “Shared use paths should not be considered a substitute for street improvements…”

17 | Page Bicycle Planning and Policy

recreational trail alignments but have become aware of the possible transportation function of some of these alignments, such as the River Trail, the Rail Trail, and the Arroyo Hondo Trail. To date, multi-use trails and sidepaths developed within subdivisions, such as Rancho Viejo, La Pradera, and Las Campanas, have been generally planned and designed as internal networks or pedestrian facilities that do not facilitate or incorporate more functional, longer-range bicycle transportation alignments.

The County has funded its trail program from a variety of sources, with the bulk provided by a one-quarter percent share of the County’s Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) dedicated to development of open space and trails. While that specific share is no longer legally required, GRT remains the most important source of local funding for county trails. Current efforts to improve the Santa Fe Rail Trail between Rabbit Rd. and Lamy and the planned N.M. Central Rail Trail between Rabbit Rd. and Eldorado are also supported by federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds obtained through NMDOT.

E. Data to Support Bicycle Programs and Planning

This plan has not benefited from detailed analysis of bicycle crash data nor bicycle traffic volume data. While the bicycling community is aware of certain hazards that have been the cause of multiple crashes − for example, skewed-rail crossings in Santa Fe − in general, formal bicycle crash reporting is known to be weak if not supplemented by detailed analysis and study of supplemental data sources. This has not been undertaken nor have any systematic attempts to quantify bicycle traffic on Santa Fe’s bikeways, information which could inform planning as well as justify investments.

Data on Use of Bicycles

Information on the use of bicycles in the Santa Fe area is limited. While bicycle traffic may be included in specific intersection studies, bicyclists have never been systematically counted in order to shed light on broader traffic patterns and trends.

Various sources of survey data are available to quantify the use of bicycles in New Mexico at the individual or household level but there is little that can be meaningfully disaggregated at the MPO-area level. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Communities Survey estimates with some degree of confidence that 0.5% of Americans bicycled to work in 2010 as their primary mode of transportation. The ACS produced an identical estimate of 0.5% for Santa Fe, but the

18 | Page Bicycle Planning and Policy

reported margin of error for this figure ranges from “0%” to 1.0%. The figure of 0.5% for Santa Fe, does however appear in line with what one might expect when compared to findings in three other New Mexico cities (see figure), among which Albuquerque has the highest estimate of all (1.4%) and Rio Rancho the lowest (0.1%).

For the state as a whole, the ACS estimates that 0.6% of New Mexicans commute by bicycle as their primary means of transportation. It is important to note the shortcomings of these figures, which do not capture the use of a bicycle for part of a commute that might also include transit, for example, the use of a bicycle for some, but not a majority, of a given individual’s commuting trips, nor the use of bicycles for other transportation purposes besides commuting, including use of bicycles by individuals that work at home.

Many cities in our region and elsewhere in the nation have proven that investment in bicycling infrastructure and dedication of other resources for bicycling can make a difference in increasing the bicyclists’ share among commuters. Some of the national leaders include Boulder CO (9.9%), Berkeley CA (8.0%), Portland OR (6.0%), Missoula MT (5.4%), and Flagstaff AZ (5.1%). Throughout the nation, the ACS had found that the mode share of bicycling has risen by 39% since 2000, with a 63% average rise in the nation’s 70 largest cities.19

Another source of data on bicycle use is records kept by transit agencies. NM Rail Runner has documented significant use of the commuter train by bicyclists traveling to and from stations in the Santa Fe area. The City’s Santa Fe Trails service also tallies use of city busses by bicyclists. Data on bicycle boardings reported by transit agencies are presented and discussed in more detail below in Chapter III, Section H.

Bicycle Crash Data

Bicycle crash data are available from the University of New Mexico’s Division of Government Research (UNM/DGR) based on police reports. This information focuses on crashes involving motor vehicles and is known to under represent non-fatal bicycle crashes.20 For the period 2004-2008, the most recent data available for this analysis, UNM/DGR’s database includes 136 reports of crashes involving bicyclists or other “pedalcyclists” in the Santa Fe MPO area, including one fatality. As one might expect, the most common locations listed for crashes in this period included the City’s busiest roadway corridors. Some known hazards are underrepresented in this data because crashes at these locations did not involve motor vehicles (e.g. “one-vehicle” crashes at skewed rail crossings, cattle grates, or trail hazards such as bollards) or they involve facilities that did not exist or were substantially altered since the reporting period (e.g. post-2008 Rail Trail and Acequia Trail crossings). More information and analysis of bicycle crash data for the Santa Fe MPO area is provided in Appendix 5.

19 From 0.38% in 2000 to 0.53% in 2010 nationwide, and from 0.63% to 1.02% in 70 cities. American Community Survey, Top 70 Cities Data Compiled by League of American Bicyclists www.bikeleague.org. 20 LaValley, J., et al. UNM Dept. of Emergency Medicine. “Using Emergency Department Records to Enhance Bicycle Injury Surveillance in New Mexico.” Presentation to American College of Emergency Physicians, New Orleans, LA, October 2006

19 | Page Bicycle Planning and Policy

Map 2: Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map, 2012

A larger scale and better quality map can be downloaded from: http://santafempo.org/documents/bikeways-map/

Hard Copies of this map are available from the MPO Offices, Libraries and local Bike Shops.

20 | Page Bicycle Planning and Policy

III. ENGINEERING: ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

Santa Fe’s bikeway system is a combination of on-road facilities, including designated bike lanes, striped shoulders, and lanes shared with motor vehicle traffic; and off-road facilities, including paved multi-use trails and formal or informal soft-surface paths. In some cases, facilities are designated and linked through “Bike Route” or other guidance signage. The 2012 Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map (Map 2) details existing on-road and off-road facilities throughout the Santa Fe MPO area. Road facilities and trail segments are also listed according to their general characteristics in Appendix 6.

A. ON-ROAD FACILITIES: Bike Lanes, Paved Shoulders, Shared Lanes

The road network is as critical to bicycle transportation as it is to motor vehicle transportation. Bicyclists are permitted to use all public roadways in the Santa Fe metropolitan area. While shared lanes are sufficient on many roads, separate on-road provisions, such as bike lanes or paved shoulders, are needed to accommodate cyclists on higher-speed and higher-volume volume roadways. Sidewalks and sidepaths may serve to accommodate pedestrians and some cyclists but should never be used as a rationale to forgo on-road facilities.

“To varying extent, bicycles will be used on all [roadways] where they are permitted. Bicycle-safe design practices, as described in this guide, should be followed during initial roadway design to avoid costly subsequent improvements.” (AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), p. 16.)

Bike lanes and paved shoulders. Roads in the Santa Fe area that have bike lanes or paved shoulders with at least four feet of usable width for cyclists are generally indicated in blue on the Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map.

Designated bicycle lanes can be found on some of Santa Fe’s arterial streets and some other roadways where it was deemed appropriate to provide signage and/or pavement markings dedicating lanes for exclusive use by bicycles. Typically these lanes are routed through intersections to the left of dedicated right-turn lanes. Examples can be found on city streets, county roads, and state highways in the Santa Fe area (see Appendix 6). Some location-specific bike lanes have also been striped in order to route cyclists using paved shoulders through intersections.

Pavement marking options for designated bicycle lanes are covered by national guidance in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as well as in publications by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

21 | Page Engineering

Most state highway and city streets with new bike lanes use one of the recommended designs. If used on a two-way roadway, in most cases bike lanes should be marked in each direction.

Paved Shoulders. In some cases, streets have paved shoulders that meet bike lane criteria for clear width but are not designated as bicycle lanes. Most of these shoulders are not routed through intersections or alongside parking or bus bays but rather bicyclists are expected to merge into or through lanes shared with motor vehicle traffic at these locations. Most of these facilities are shown in blue on the Santa Fe bikeways map, though a few, such as shoulders on I-25, St. Francis Dr., and parts of the Relief Route (NM599), are not emphasized as primary bicycle routes, are left as gray.

Many striped shoulders are available for use by bicyclists but do not meet bike lane criteria for width, clear width, or pavement surface quality. Examples of narrow shoulders that do not meet bike lane criteria but do help accommodate cyclists can be found on parts of Agua Fria St. and W. Alameda St. that are identified in orange on the bikeways map.

In some cases, shoulders include pavement edges resulting from partial overlays, a phenomenon that is limited to state highways. Both the City and County have passed resolutions21 requesting that NMDOT discontinue paving practices that leave pavement edges in or near the shoulder area that is needed by bicyclists. Some recent work by NMDOT that would appear to comply with these requests include overlays completed in 2011 on US84/285 and NM599 (Relief Route) as well as specific commitments to follow suit on NM41 just south of the MPO area.

Rumble strips in paved shoulders - a proven effective countermeasure against run-off- the-road motorist crashes - are found on three state highways in the MPO area: I-25, US84/285 north of Opera Hill, and US285 south of Eldorado. Of the three, only US285 is a significant bicycling route in the MPO area as I-25 and US84/285 have more desirable frontage or other alternate routes. Rumble strips can pose a hazard and inconvenience to cyclists and for this reason AASHTO and FHWA recommended that they not be installed without leaving four feet of clear space on the shoulder for use by

21 See City Resolution 2009-10 and County Resolution No. 2009-135.

22 | Page Engineering

bicyclists. All rumble strips in the MPO area meet this criterion. US84/285’s rumble strips also feature 12-ft. gaps every 60 feet per NMDOT’s current standard design specification to accommodate bicyclist movements.

Bike Lanes and Paved Shoulders at Intersections. One of the primary differences between bike lanes and paved shoulders is the treatment of intersections. Designated bike lanes typically provide cyclists with a path through intersections whereas bicyclists using paved shoulders are expected to choose their own course through intersections, either by taking the travel lane or by staying to the right to let through vehicles pass.

In Santa Fe, many shoulders cannot be easily converted into bike lanes because intersection configurations, and particularly dedicated turn lanes, do not allow for space to route the bike lane through. In some cases, designated bike lanes end abruptly before an intersection due to this problem. Unfortunately these intersections lacking through- lanes for bicycles are typically where cyclists need the separate bicycle facility most.

Shared lanes. The majority of streets in the Santa Fe area do not provide a separate on-road facility for cyclists, but rather travel lanes are shared by bicyclists and motor vehicles. On many low-speed residential streets, there are few significant conflicts resulting from this arrangement; where these roadways are significant as bikeways they are shown in yellow on the Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map. Where motor vehicle speed or volume contribute to a less comfortable, narrow shared lane, but the roadway still holds significance for through travel by bicycle, orange is used on the map.

Wide Shared Lanes. On some streets, a wide shared lane allows enough space for motorists to pass cyclists without crossing the center line. AASHTO specifies 14 feet as the minimum width needed for this arrangement. On the Santa Fe bikeways map, some roads with significant motor vehicle traffic that have wide curb lanes where there is no parking, or where parking is minimal, are shown in blue.

Pavement Markings: Sharrows. On some low-speed streets22 where cyclists are encouraged to “take the lane” in order to avoid possible conflicts with moving or parked motor vehicles, the City’s Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC)’s

22 According to the MUTCD (2009), Section 9C.07: “The shared lane marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph.”

23 | Page Engineering

Subcommittee on Street Improvements23 recommended the use of “shared lane arrows,” or “sharrows,” based on a model from San Francisco, CA, that has since been adopted into nationwide standards.24 Sharrows were installed by the City on many downtown streets in 2005 and 2007. Sharrows have also been used on a few streets in the county in Oshara Village.

Maintenance of the sharrow symbols has proved to be burdensome enough that well over half of the roughly 380 symbols that were installed at BTAC’s request have disappeared or are now barely visible. Appendix 6 includes a list of locations where sharrows have been installed and a descriptive analysis of the experience with sharrows so far. W. Alameda near Defouri St.: One of 380 locations where BTAC asked the Pavement Markings: Signal Actuator City to place “sharrows.” Locations for Cyclists. Also at the request of the BTAC Subcommittee on Street Improvements in 2004, the City’s Public Works Department adjusted loop detectors and optical detectors at selected signalized intersections so that they would be able to detect the presence of a bicycle. The “sweet spot” where cyclists could rely on being detected was then marked with an appropriate bicycle symbol as specified in the MUTCD.25

Bicycle signal actuator: A bike stencil marking on Manhattan St. marks the “sweet spot” where bicyclists can trip the signal to get a green light. 23 “Report of the Subcommittee on Street Improvements of the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee,” July 7, 2004. 24 AASHTO, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities (2010 Draft), “Marked Shared Lanes” (pp. 59-63); MUTCD (2009), Section 9C.07, “Shared Lane Marking.” 25 MUTCD (2009), Section 9C.05, “Bicycle Detector Symbol.”

24 | Page Engineering

B. OFF-ROAD FACILITIES

Multi-Use Trail

Rancho Viejo’s “District Trail”

Multi-Use Trails

For a wide variety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users, a system of multi-use trails on alignments distinct from the road network can create enhanced opportunities both for transportation as well as recreational purposes. Multi-use trails that are generally intended to address transportation needs should follow accepted engineering guidelines with respect to width (generally 10 ft. minimum), surface (ADA compliant), acceptable horizontal and vertical curvature, sight distance needs, clear zone, and a variety of other safety and convenience factors discussed in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Multi-Use Trails: According to AASHTO… “Shared use paths should be thought of as a complementary system of off-road transportation routes for bicyclists and others that serves as a necessary extension to the roadway network. Shared use paths should not be used to preclude on-road bicycle facilities, but rather to supplement a system of on-road bike lanes, wide outside lanes, paved shoulders and bike routes.” (AASHTO 1999, p. 33)

Rail Trail in the Railyard Park

“Shared use paths are facilities on exclusive right-of-way and with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. … Users are non-motorized and may include but are not limited to: bicyclists, in-line skaters, roller skaters, wheelchair users (both non- motorized and motorized) and pedestrians, including walkers, runners, people with baby strollers, people walking dogs, etc.” (AASHTO 1999, p. 33)

25 | Page Engineering

Gonzales MAPMap 3: 2.3 Santa Fe’s Community School Downtown Ri ver W alk T R A I L Major Urban Trails & Alto/Bicentennial Park R E I V R O Rai lyard

Selected On-Road N

A Station Barrio La Cañada T E Connections West Rai lyard T R A I L Rai lyard

C CO A . Park LO I D V N U Q R Frenchy’s Field E CE L A N A E R 2 1 P D 20 E Ash- O I baugh S W TO A O G Park S. Capitol E RR Station Casa 2 d Alegre S T 2d St. Maclovia Park St. Michael’s SOFT-SURFACE TRAIL Drive ON-ROAD ROUTE Siringo / SFHS N. 2012 SEGMENT TO BE BUILT BY 2012

SFHS NOT PICTURED: I L 12 S. A 20 TIERRA CONTENTA TRAIL R Monica T O Roybal I S Zia A M Park C H RR Capshaw O Y O L Middle A R R I Station A R School Genoveva T Santa Fe Chavez Place Community Center

I Nava Ade A

GOV MILES

D. IT R BB RA RICHARDS AVE. RICHARDS

Eldorado Oshara Village

Santa Fe’s four major multi-use trails are the River Trail, the Acequia Trail, the Rail Trail, and the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail. Other lesser-known multi-use trails meeting AASHTO specifications include the Cañada Rincón Trail (a/k/a North Spine Trail), the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail (north fork) in Tierra Contenta, the District Trail (N.M. Central RR) in Rancho Viejo, and some trails in city parks including Frenchy’s Field and Ashbaugh Park.

These multi-use trails, which are shown as thick green lines on the Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map (Map 2), can be thought of as core pieces of the region’s “arterial bikeways.” They typically follow alignments that are independent of roadways, such as waterways, arroyos, and active or abandoned rail lines. This serves to minimize conflicts with motor vehicles, increase recreational value, and maximize the extent to which the

26 | Page Engineering

transportation alignment complements the existing road system. Together with complementary road connections, Santa Fe’s major multi-use trails can function as an integrated network of comfortable and reasonably convenient alignments that a wide variety of bicyclists can use to get to most parts of the MPO area.

As shown in Table 1 below, the Santa Fe metropolitan area includes nearly 19 miles of paved “arterial” trails and 17 miles of unpaved “arterial” trails. These figures include major trail alignments only. Paved trails listed here meet or approximate AASHTO guidelines. Many more miles of minor paved trails within subdivisions and parks, including internal connections and side paths along roadways, are not included, nor are other soft-surface recreational trails.

Table 1: Mileage of Trails along Major Alignments in the Santa Fe MPO Area, by surface type

Trail Alignment Paved Unpaved Total Acequia Trail 1.1 0.5 1.6 Arroyo de los Chamisos1 4.4 0.2 4.6 Arroyo Hondo Trail 0.0 0.8 0.8 Ashbaugh Park Trail 0.2 0.0 0.2 Chili Line 0.0 0.2 0.2 Frenchy's Field Trails 0.8 0.0 0.8 NM Mexico Central RR2 1.6 0.0 1.6 Rail Trail 4.4 11.6 16.0 River Trail 3.3 0.6 3.9 Spur Trail 0.0 3.0 3.0 St. Francis Dr. Trail 0.9 0.0 0.9 Tierra Contenta Trail3 2.1 0.0 2.1 TOTAL 18.8 16.9 35.7

1 - Includes Gail Ryba Trail (with Gail Ryba Trail underpass, currently under construction) and Zia Trail. 2 - Includes Rancho Viejo "District Trail" and part of SFCC Loop. 3 - Counted separately from the rest of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail.

27 | Page Engineering

Subdivision Trails

Narrow multi-use trails, and paths that otherwise do not meet AASHTO standards for multi-use trails, are often found in parks or within subdivisions such as Pueblos del Sol, Nava Ade, and Rancho Viejo. These paths are shown as narrow green lines on the Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map. In many cases these trails are difficult to integrate into longer bikeway alignments. While serving a recreational role for a variety of local users, for transportation purposes, at best they may serve as local “collectors” into the greater bikeway system.

Sidepaths

“Sidepaths” are trails built along roads. AASHTO highlights operational difficulties presented to bicyclists by sidepaths, including increased hazards at driveway crossings and intersections, and strongly discourages their use by public agencies as a primary strategy to accommodate bicycles or as a rationale to forgo on- road bicycle facilities.26 There are only a handful of examples of paths built for bicycles along roads in the city but far more in county subdivisions. Where displayed on the Paths along roadways, which typically create more conflicts for bicyclists than they resolve, are not Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map, recommended by AASHTO nor by the League of paved side paths are shown as narrow American Bicyclists as a desirable strategy to green lines. accommodate bicyclists.

In most cases, a side path may serve as a good pedestrian facility but a marginal bicycle facility, often suitable for lower-speed use only. In many cases, for example near schools in residential areas, enhanced sidewalks may be considered to accommodate children, but it must be recognized that these alignments tend to present users on bicycles with complex motor vehicle conflicts that may be challenging and hazardous.

26 See AASHTO 1999, pp. 33-35; revised and expanded guidance on side paths will be available in Section 5.2.2 of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities, scheduled for release during 2011.

28 | Page Engineering

C. GUIDANCE FOR BICYCLISTS

Providing cyclists with wayfinding guidance through signage, pavement markings, maps, and other means is an important and cost-effective strategy toward a creating an effective and usable bikeway network. The following sections summarize city and state efforts in this area; for more details, see Appendix 8.

City Bike Routes: The 1993 Bikeways Master Plan created a network of bike routes designated through standard “Bike Route” signage on city streets, a Destination information was added to this program was implemented within a few years of the City Bike Route sign when State Bike Route 9 plan (see Appendix 8). The signage scheme served was designated along Galisteo St. to the plaza. to identify priority routes for bicycles but did not include additional guidance such as information on destinations or distance. Bike route signage is also used in Santa Fe as guidance to multi-use trails where they can be accessed from roadways, or as more generic declarations of the beginning and end of multi-use trails, without wayfinding information.

Bike route signage was also included on the Acequia Trail as part of a safety measure to guide cyclists from the Railyard Park Rail Trail and Alarid St. onto the new trail to the St. Francis Dr. crosswalks, and away from the on-sidewalk and on-road skewed rail Signage installed on the Acequia Trail crossings along Cerrillos Rd. provides trail users with useful guidance. In order to conform to MUTCD standards, the State Bike Route 9: State Bike Route 9 is a series of orange placard shown here was recently primarily on-road facilities connecting Lamy, replaced with a green placard. Eldorado, Santa Fe and Tesuque Village. It was designated by NMDOT in conjunction with the City of Santa Fe in 2006-2007 (see Map 4 and Appendix 8). Each side of State Bike Route 9 brings cyclists to within a block of the plaza but, due to the difficulty of establishing a single best route, as well as the sensitivity of signage in the plaza area, the two sides are connected only through reference on the plaques.

State Bike Route 9 added directional information (arrows and destination plaques) at many decision points and added or incorporated a few small spur or connector bike routes. Long-range plans for NMDOT’s “State Bike Route 9” extend south to Galisteo and Moriarty via State Bike Route 9 provides guidance NM41 and north to Ojo Caliente via Española on US285. to the Plaza from Galisteo St., from the south (pictured), and from Old Taos Highway from the north. 29 | Page Engineering

Map 4: State Bike Route 9

From NMDOT/BPE web site http://dot.state.nm.ushttp://nmshtd.state.nm.us/Planning.html#BPE

Other Guidance: Pavement Markings

In addition to signage, pavement stencils also provide trail users with helpful guidance on some multi-use trails in the Santa Fe area (see photo).

Wayfinding assistance at the Rail Trail crossing at Siringo Rd. includes signage for road users and a stencil for trail users.

30 | Page Engineering

D. GAPS and BARRIERS

Typical physical barriers faced by bicyclists and other non-motorized travelers in cities throughout the world include major multi-lane roadways, railways, rivers and other waterways, and other topographical features that are difficult to cross.

In the Santa Fe metropolitan area, the primary significant barriers in the bikeway system are the highest-trafficked, major roadways, particularly St. Francis Dr. Existing bridges over the Acequia Madre include this (US84/285), Cerrillos Rd. (NM14), the two-by-four construction providing some degree of Santa Fe Relief Route (NM599), St. access between Otowi Rd. and Camino Canyon de Michael’s Dr. (NM466), W. Zia Rd., Chelly (above). A similar construction (but without the Rodeo Rd., Airport Rd., and I-25. Also of center posts) could connect the Acequia Trail to the end some significance as barriers are active of Kathryn St. (below) rail lines used by the NM Rail Runner and by the Santa Fe Southern rail service. .

The Santa Fe River, the Acequia Madre, and various arroyos also pose formidable topographical barriers to bicyclists. These barriers and existing or planned crossings for multi-use trails in particular are described in more detail in Appendix 7.

Lack of continuity in off-road and on-road bicycle facilities is a focus of recommended improvements listed in Chapter IV. Prominent examples of incomplete trail alignments that require negotiation with public or private landowners include:

• The remaining gap between the Acequia Bikeway and Rufina St., which is primarily limited to private Southridge Park, also known as Calle Lorca Park, provides a properties on the west convenient off-road route between a densely populated neighborhood and shopping. As part of recent playground renovations, the City side of Maez Rd. Parks Division erected a fence across this route.

31 | Page Engineering

• The desired non-motorized connection from the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail north to Richards Ave., along an emergency vehicle easement granted to the City by the public landowner, the New Mexico Fish and Game Dept. • The gap between the two separate pieces of W. Zia Rd., along a utility easement east of Botulph Rd., in order to connect the Gail Ryba Trail along the Arroyo de los Chamisos to various on-road routes to the east.

Many other significant gaps in our trail system are the result of a failure to value, and plan for, non-motorized connectivity between adjacent land uses, and the difficulty of changing these situations once they are put in place.

E. CROSSINGS AND CONNECTIONS: TRAIL-ROAD INTERSECTIONS

The MPO Bikeways Mapping Project, which assessed existing and desirable trail and road alignments throughout the MPO area, included a close examination of the interface between multi-use trails and roadways, which AASHTO describes as often the most critical area of focus for multi-use trail design.27 The project found many examples of trail crossings that combine good pedestrian safety design for crosswalks with good bicycle design for multi-use trails (see W. Alameda example at right). There are many opportunities, however, to improve trail crossing and connections that do not meet AASHTO bikeway guidelines, such as desired clear width available to cyclists, or that could benefit from latest best practices for pedestrian design. This connection to the River Trail from Gonzales Community School features high-visibility striping At-Grade Crossings: At-grade trail crossings and (Continental), a refuge for other connections to streets are found throughout the pedestrians in the median, and a MPO area. The Bikeway Mapping Project assessed well-oriented ramp with sufficient crossings and other trail connections to roads at through space for bicyclists. signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and mid-block locations, noting presence of crosswalk markings and signage, width and orientation of access ramps, and presence of posts and other in-trail obstacles, among other attributes.

Pavement Markings at Crossings: All trail crossings at signalized intersections in the Santa Fe area are marked with parallel-line or, less commonly, “Continental”-style crosswalk

27 AASHTO (1999), p. 46.

32 | Page Engineering

markings. These markings provide guidance to both pedestrians and motorists regarding the desirable and legal walking path across the road. Prominent examples of marked crosswalks at signalized locations include the Rail Trail at W. Zia (see photo on previous page), the Rail Trail and Acequia Trail at St. Francis and Cerrillos, the River Trail at St. Francis Dr., and the St. Francis Dr. Trail at Siringo Rd.

High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings at mid-block crossings, such as this “ladder”- style crosswalk at Alarid St. near the Railyard Park, provide useful guidance to trail users and a clearly-visible notification to motorists. These markings also serve to legally establish a mid-block crosswalk where road users are required to yield to pedestrians.

Most of the Rail Trail’s other mid-block crossings, including the crossing at 2nd St. (left), are not marked and thus do not provide a legal crosswalk – under state law, pedestrians using these crossings cannot assert a legal right to cross the road.

Many trail crossings at uncontrolled locations, including “mid-block locations,” are also marked with highly-visible continental- or ladder-style crosswalks, including all three original Arroyo de los Chamisos crossings, the River Trail crossing at Camino Alire along with various other River Trail connectors across W. Alameda, and three Arroyo de los Chamisos/Tierra Contenta Trail crossings. A crosswalk marked across Paseo de Peralta Most Rail Trail crossings at uncontrolled to guide Rail Trail users around a built median creates a legal crosswalk but does not always achieve its intended purpose. 33 | Page Engineering

locations, on the other hand, have not been marked, with the exceptions of Paseo de Peralta (parallel lines marked in order to steer pedestrians around a median, see photo on previous page) and Camino Alarid (Ladder, marked in May 2011, see photo on previous page).

None of the Rail Trail crossings south of the city are marked, but some trail crossings are marked at uncontrolled locations in county subdivisions such as Rancho Viejo (e.g. District trail at A Va Nu Po) and Las Campanas (Camino la Tierra side path crossing north of interchange with Ave de las Campanas). Crossing treatments in city subdivisions also vary but examples of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations This marked crosswalk in Nava Ade incorporates a can be found in Nava Ade, Tierra Contenta, speed table to calm traffic where a trail meets a and Las Acequias. residential street.

Other At-Grade Crossing Strategies: Other pedestrian safety strategies that can be used to improve trail crossings include building median islands as pedestrian refuges, curb extensions to reduce crossing distance, flashing lights or signals, eliminating “free right turns,” and other forms of traffic calming to reduce motor vehicle speeds.

Median refuges are found on the Rail Trail at Siringo Rd. and at St. Michael’s Dr., within several crossings of Alameda associated with the River Trail, and in one location with a speed table on the Arroyo de los Chamisos This median refuge is of critical value for Rail Trail Trail. Flashing lights activated by users trying to cross the six lanes of St. Michael’s pedestrians have been installed at high- Dr.

Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail crossing at Ave. de las Campanas, with median refuge. Slanting the gap in the median toward the right is a desirable strategy to help users passing through in either direction face any oncoming motor vehicle traffic that they would need to be able to see in order to safely complete the crossing. Unfortunately, neither this median treatment nor the bollards (posts) placed at either end of the crosswalk provide sufficient maneuvering space for bicycles.

34 | Page Engineering

traffic, uncontrolled downtown crosswalks, both in pavement (Grant St. / no longer functional) and mounted with pedestrian warning signage (Guadalupe), but have not been installed at trail crossings in the MPO area.

Grade-separated crossings: Grade-separated trail crossings, including underpasses or overpasses, can provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a conflict-free route to cross a roadway or railway. These crossings are not always practical or feasible but under the right conditions can provide an ideal means for trail users to overcome major obstacles. They can be extremely expensive to build except where they are integrated into an existing structure (e.g. bridge or culvert).

The Santa Fe area does not have any trail Grade-separated crossings of major roadways overpasses but has two significant trail can be invaluable for trail users but are often underpasses, including the Rail Trail under I-25 prohibitively expensive unless integrated into an existing structure, such as the Santa Fe Southern (shared with railroad underpass) and Arroyo de Railroad’s underpass of I-25. los Chamisos Trail under Rodeo Rd. (converted concrete box culvert). A third – a stand-alone tunnel to route the eastern segment of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail (to be called the Gail Ryba Trail) under St. Francis Dr. – is scheduled for coompletion in 2012. The Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail also features two underpasses of low-traffic school driveways south of Santa Fe High School.

Space for future underpasses has been left in all recent construction or reconstruction of bridges over the Santa Fe River, including under Camino Alire, where the River Trail was This grade-separated crossing of the Arroyo de recently extended, as well as future trail los Chamisos Trail under Rodeo Rd. utilized an existing concrete box culvert, an achievement that locations under Siler Rd. and S. Meadows Rd. is promoted as a “best practice” in Chapter VI. Similarly, NMDOT included a stand-alone trail underpass in the reconstruction of Cerrillos Rd. (NM14) roughly two decades ago to accommodate the future Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail, an investment which may now be nearing fruition as development in the area reaches south.

Three “equestrian” underpasses, also intended for use by pedestrians and bicyclists, were included in the construction of the Relief Route (NM599) in the late 1990s. They do not yet incorporate any significant multi-use trails, though the La Tierra Trails Master Plan prioritizes routing an access trail through the easternmost of the three, just west of

35 | Page Engineering

Camino de Los Montoyas. Another operational “equestrian” underpass can be found under US285 south of Eldorado.

At-Grade Rail Crossings: Active rail lines generally do not pose a major barrier to bicyclists in Santa Fe but the rails themselves do present a specific hazard at skewed crossings, particularly at the intersection of St. Francis Dr. and Cerrillos Rd. Although information on crashes not involving motor vehicles is very limited, eyewitness and anecdotal evidence strongly suggest that the on-road and sidewalk rail crossings at this intersection would have the highest incidence of bicycle crashes of any location in the metropolitan area. AASHTO provides excellent guidance on possible treatments to improve bicycle safety at skewed rail crossings.28

Official crash data available for this plan do not include “single-vehicle” crashes nor do they reflect conditions created after 2008, but this skewed rail crossing at St. Francis Dr. and Cerrillos Rd. is known to be the single most common hazard to have afflicted area bicyclists in recent years.

F. OTHER MULTI-USE TRAIL DESIGN ISSUES

Many of our area’s multi-use trails present a variety of constraints, distractions, and hazards to bicyclists that can be avoided in future designs through strict adherence to AASHTO bikeway guidelines. For example, most subdivision trails and even some major arterial trail segments do not meet the recommended minimum width of 10 ft. for paved, multi-use trails. In many instances, fences, handrails, or other vertical obstacles are placed within the suggested 1-2 ft. “clear zone” at the edge of our trails. Bollards or posts have occasionally been placed at random locations on trails, often providing insufficient clear space for bicycles This critical bikeway connection between the River Trail and Ave. Cristobal Colon (e.g., see Arroyo de los Chamisos photo on p. 31). meets minimum requirements for ADA but Sometimes these posts fail to establish a “centerline” provides a poor facility for bicyclists.

28 Conceptual fixes are illustrated in Appendix 11, with AASHTO and FHWA references, and included in Chapter VI., Implementation Plan.

36 | Page Engineering

location, as is recommended, and sometimes they fail to serve the intended purpose of restricting access by motor vehicles. In such cases, these obstacles only serve as a hindrance and a hazard to legitimate trail users.

Competing concerns that influence multi-use trail designs include prevention of entry by unauthorized motor vehicle traffic, provision of access to authorized maintenance and emergency vehicles, and meeting accessibility requirements interpreted to exist under American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Designs focusing on these concerns have frequently produced multi-use trails, street crossings, and connections that do not accommodate the safe and convenient use by bicycle, which should be the intended design vehicle for multi-use trails.29

For most of the issues described above, the approach recommended by AASHTO is that a multi-use trail should be designed as a “road for bicycles.” This approach need not conflict with the needs of other users of multi-use trails, such as in-line skaters, runners, dog-walkers, hikers, and other pedestrians. However, following strict guidelines and best practices for pedestrian accessibility, as perceived to be required under ADA − and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) created to define appropriate access to and within buildings − can lead to designs that are both inconvenient and hazardous to users of the intended design vehicle, the bicycle. Examples documented by the MPO’s Bikeways Mapping Project include narrow ramps at trail crossings (following state standards for pedestrian ramps at crosswalks), inordinate use of handrails in the area that would be the “clear zone” on a “road for bicycles,” and the use of Unlike the steeper ramp that it replaced, this maze built to difficult or inconvenient switchbacks provide access to a footbridge across the Santa Fe River and flat spots to meet slope from Closson St. is unusable by bicyclists. requirements under ADAAG.30

Another constraint in the design and construction of multi-use trails is an operating assumption and requirement that bridges must be built to specifications worthy of use by heavy motor vehicles for emergency and maintenance purposes. Where such bridges are built, this may place a significant financial burden on public trail funds. In other cases, minor but significant desired connections may become infeasible, impractical, or otherwise too expensive if a heavy bridge is required.

29 See, e.g. AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004), p. 71: “Trails built to meet…guidelines [of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities] will also serve the needs of pedestrians.” 30 See Appendix 10 for further discussion of these issues and the prospects for “universal design,” meeting the needs of all intended users for access, safety, and convenience.

37 | Page Engineering

G. BICYCLE PARKING

Most commercial centers and public facilities in Santa Fe provide some form of formal parking facilities for bicycles, typically one of many varieties of bicycle racks.

AASHTO and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) have produced guidelines for bicycle parking that favor the use of inverted U-shaped racks that: • Support the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity • Accommodate high security U- shaped bike locks • Accommodate locks securing the Photos by Gail Ryba of BCNM illustrate various kinds of frame and one or both wheels parking used by local bicyclists in the recent past. (preferably without removing the Parking at public facilities, such as Salvador Perez pool front wheel) (lower left) has improved dramatically over the years. • Provide adequate distance [minimum 36 inches (0.9 m)] between spaces so that bicycles do not interfere with each other • Do not contain protruding elements or sharp edges • Do not bend wheels or damage other bicycle parts • Do not require the user to lift the bicycle off the ground.31 Unfortunately many of the racks that are installed in the MPO area do not meet these characteristics.

Public agencies including the state, county, city, federal government, and school district have all made significant efforts to provide bicycle racks at all public facilities, including those offering services to the public as well as those that do not. In a unique effort to provide additional bicycle parking in high-demand public spaces, the City installed inverted “U” racks at ten selected locations downtown around 2007 (see photo). Key downtown locations that received loop racks under a special City Private developers and builders are required to provide initiative several years ago included bicycle parking by the City’s Chapter 14, which specifies the Plaza, City Hall, DeVargas Park, bicycle parking standards for all uses except single-family and the corner of Alameda and Don Gaspar (above). This inverted “U” residential (see Appendix 3). For most uses, the number of design conforms with new guidance bicycle spaces required is tied to the number of motor from APBP and AASHTO.

31 AASHTO (2010 Draft), p. 201, citing Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), “Bicycle Parking Guidelines.” Washington, DC: 2002.

38 | Page Engineering

vehicle parking spaces required. For hotels it is tied to the number of employees and for schools the number of students.

The city code provides an illustration of an acceptable bike rack and specifies that racks be “located on an outside ground surface which shall be paved or planted in a way which avoids mud or dirt and is easily maintained;” “anchored so they cannot be easily removed,” “designed so that both wheels or the frame of a bicycle can be locked securely to it with a chain, cable or padlock,” and “located so as to be visible, easily accessible near the building entrances, well lit and not conflicting with pedestrian or vehicular traffic.” The code allows for the substitution of bike lockers or a “room” or communal locker instead of a bike rack.

Some agencies provide additional indoor storage space or outdoor bike lockers for more secure storage for use by staff. A public bike locker installed by the city for public use at its parking facility on Water St. receives minimal use, in large part due to lack of awareness among potential users.

The NM Rail Runner Express, in addition to providing ample bike racks at each station in the Santa Fe area, installed 14 bike lockers at NM599 station in April 2011 and has expressed interest in A promotional photo from The City Parking Division’s www.nmrailrunner.com displays the two-chamber bike locker at the installing bike lockers at type of bike lockers being installed at Water St. lot is available free of South Capitol Station as well NM Rail Runner stations. charge though users need to as the Railyard Depot. provide their own padlock.

H. ON-BOARD TRANSIT PROVISIONS FOR CYCLISTS

All major public transit providers in the MPO area offer provisions for carrying bicycles free of any extra charges. For transit services using buses with front racks to hold bicycles, bicycle ridership is typically limited to the number of spaces available on the rack.

Santa Fe Trails bus service extends the range of bicycling for many individuals in the MPO area, in this case providing a ride into town from the Santa Fe Community College.

39 | Page Engineering

All of the City’s “Santa Fe Trails” regular-service buses now have racks with a capacity of at least two bicycles; the City is gradually replacing busses with two-bike racks with new vehicles with three-bike racks. North-Central Regional Transit District buses also have front racks with a capacity of two bicycles. The State’s Park and Ride services provide space for bicycles in the luggage compartments located underneath on large busses and on front racks on smaller busses. Operators of the North-Central Regional Transit District Taos Express shuttles, which emphasize that space on the two-slot racks on the front of connect to Rail Runner stations each bus is available on a first-come, first-served basis. and the Santa Fe Airport, offer two rack slots per vehicle, with a reservation required to guarantee a slot.

The NM Rail Runner provides for bicycle storage in designated areas on trains, each of which can fit 2-4 bikes, but overflow space is also usually available in areas to be shared with users with wheelchairs or other assistive devices. Trains arriving or departing from NM Rail Runner stations in the Santa Fe area typically have at least one bike on board per car, if not several more. NM Rail Runner, which states that each train will be able to accommodate up to 12 bicyclists, has never had to turn any commuting cyclists away.

A Rail Runner passenger boards the train at a designated entrance (left). Space is reserved for a minimum of two bicycles per car (right); in practice several more bicycles may fit.

40 | Page Engineering

Annual bicycle boardings counted by NM Rail Runner throughout the system increased dramatically after service to Santa Fe began in mid-December 2008, rising from under 29,000 for Calendar Year 2008 to roughly 42,000 each year in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, NM Rail Runner counted 10,026 bicycle boardings at stations in Santa Fe County, nearly half of which were at the Santa Fe Depot. Boardings by bicyclists comprised 2.6% of all passenger boardings in Santa Fe County in 2010, including 2.9% of those at S. Capitol Station, 2.4% at the Santa Fe Depot, and 2.4% at NM599 Station. This share was more pronounced on weekdays (2.9%) than on Saturdays (1.3%) or Sundays (1.9%). By comparison, the share of bicyclists among all weekday Rail Runner boardings in 2010 was 4.4% in Bernalillo County, 2.9% in Sandoval County, and 2.4% in Valencia County.

AMTRAK, with rail service in Lamy, charges an extra fee to carry a bicycle and will only carry bicycles in a box. Because there are no formal provisions for bicyclists to store or obtain a bike box in Lamy, AMTRAK’s bike box policy almost entirely prohibits the combination of long-distance rail and bicycle travel to get to and from Santa Fe without motor vehicle assistance. Private shuttle services, such as those serving the Albuquerque Sunport, also charge an extra fee for carrying bicycles and may require the use of a bike box.

I. MAINTENANCE OF BICYCLE FACILITIES

Maintenance is an often overlooked area in bicycle facility planning and operation. Maintenance needs on streets specific to bicycle use include sweeping and plowing of shoulders and bike lanes, upkeep of signage and pavement markings, and resurfacing and restriping bike facilities within roadway resurfacing projects. Road maintenance can also include other measures to limit foreseeable hazards posed to bicyclists, such as cutting back vegetation infringing upon bike lanes or ensuring that drainage grates or cattle guards do not trap bicycle wheels. Maintenance on trails relating to bicycle use similarly includes cutting back vegetation, upkeep of signage, removing debris including snow and ice, surface repair, and repaving.

Sweeping and Plowing

Area road agencies, including NMDOT, the City, and the County, conduct street sweeping, including shoulders and bike lanes, as needed. For roadways without curb and gutter, most of this work is done with “broom” attachments which clear debris onto the unpaved shoulder area. In residential areas and roads with curb and gutter, the city uses street sweepers that sweep debris into a bin to be disposed of elsewhere. NMDOT also operates a street sweeper as needed.

Local road agencies also plow snow and remove A street sweeper clears debris off of Richards Ave.

41 | Page Engineering

ice on roadways as necessary. Bike lanes and shoulders are usually generally cleared of snow and ice in this process. The city has also begun to regularly plow major multi-use trails after significant snowfall through the use of all-terrain vehicles fitted with plow blades.

Local agencies frequently receive requests from bicyclists to sweep area bike lanes and shoulders in the spring, when many cyclists are returning to the roadways. Agencies seek to address cyclists’ needs after there is some certainty that there will no longer be a need to apply additional cinders or other means to melt snow and ice. NMDOT regularly responds to requests to clear highway shoulders well before major bicycling events, such as the Santa Fe Century which is held late in May each year.

Pavement Markings

Bike lane markings, including stripes and bike symbols, are generally integrated into regular restriping within state and city roadway maintenance, or when road repair work is performed by others (e.g. utilities). Due to lack of dedicated resources, other pavement markings specifically relevant to bicycling, however, including sharrows and signal actuator location markings, have not been restriped since their installation four-to-six years ago, and most are significantly faded or have disappeared. BTAC’s On-Road Subcommittee assessed and rated the condition of nearly half of the 380 sharrows A “sharrow” shows signs of wear on Baca St. installed by the City, reporting to BTAC in June 2011 that just over half of the sharrows assessed are no longer visible.32

Drainage Grates and Cattle Guards

Longitudinal gaps in drainage grates or cattle guards can pose an extreme hazard to on-road bicyclists. Offending units can be repaired, replaced, or removed entirely. Drainage grates are found in various styles throughout the MPO area. Cattle guards on MPO-area roadways that are regularly used by bicyclists include four locations on or adjacent to Cattle guards, such as this one on Old Las Vegas NMDOT-maintained facilities: Highway(Frontage Road 2108) near Cañoncito, can pose significant hazards to bicyclists if longitudinal gaps are present.

32 Memorandum to BTAC from BTAC On-Road Subcommittee, June 21, 2011, “Launching an Annual Bicycle Sharrow Maintenance Program.”

42 | Page Engineering

• Old Las Vegas Highway (FR2108) east of Ojo de la Vaca Rd. (Cañoncito) • Buckman Rd. east of Calle Nopal, and Camino La Tierra • Caja del Rio Rd, north of the NM599 Relief Route frontage road.

Several more cattleguards are found on or along Caja del Rio Rd., including one at the entrance to the Municipal Recreation Center.

Multi-Use Trail Maintenance

Trail maintenance within the city falls under the City Parks and Recreation Dept. A significant portion of maintenance work along trails is dedicated to landscaping care, cutting back vegetation, removal of debris and trash on or along the trail, and removal of trash from bins along or near the trail. Of particular concern for local bicyclists is the clean removal of “goathead” thorn plants (also known as “puncture vines”), which are notorious for causing flat tires in urban areas throughout New Mexico.

In the winter, the City’s Parks and Recreation A “goathead” vine creeps onto the path in Franklin Dept. conducts ice removal in spot areas as Miles Park. Flat tires due to goathead thorns are a needed, in addition to plowing after bane to cyclists in the Santa Fe area. snowstorms. City and contractor staff typically use motor vehicles on multi-use trails on order to conduct maintenance and other operational activities. This practice can damage trails, particularly at the outside edges, as well as create an inconvenience and hazard to trail users.

Asphalt trails will also suffer some level of natural deterioration over time as well. Paved multi-use trails eventually require surface maintenance, including asphalt patching and resurfacing, and re-decking of bridges.

Deteriorating asphalt on the multi-use trail at the Santa Fe Community College. This trail was slated to be rebuilt by SFCC after this photo was taken in 2011.

43 | Page Engineering

Compared to full-size pick-up trucks, the City’s use of small electric vehicles for maintenance of the Railyard Park produces less wear and tear to trails, less pollution, and less inconvenience to Rail Trail users.

Soft-Surface Trail Maintenance

Unpaved trails require erosion control in addition to occasional removal of debris. The Santa Fe Conservation Trust and the Santa Fe Trails Alliance have taken a leadership role in organizing trained volunteers to maintain city and county foothill trails as well as La Tierra Trails. The Santa Fe National Forest’s Española Ranger District provides trainings and organizes volunteers to assist with trail maintenance on the Atalaya Trail and other national forest trails in our area.

The City and the County have also supported and benefited from volunteer training and maintenance activities on local trails. The Santa Fe Fat Tire Society (SFFTS), a local mountain biking advocacy group affiliated with the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA), provides a significant piece of the volunteer base. IMBA has visited Santa Fe twice in the past two years to provide trail maintenance and construction training. The second visit culminated in the construction of a new trail segment Volunteers under the direction of the City and IMBA planned under the La Tierra Trails trainers work on an arroyo crossing for a new piece Master Plan by roughly 40 volunteers of La Tierra Trails in 2011 (Photo: SFFTS). and two IMBA trainers in a half- day’s work.

44 | Page Engineering

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE

Goal: More Bicycle Facilities and Better Bicycle Facilities, within an Integrated and Effective Bikeway System.

Primary recommendations of this Bicycle Master Plan include the following keys to make bicycling an accessible, comfortable, and safe mode of transportation: • adoption and implementation of “Complete Streets” policies by each MPO member government • construction of new multi-use trails and implementation of road retrofits based on targeted investment in prioritized improvements • adoption of AASHTO guidelines for the development and maintenance of bicycle facilities • pursuit of best practices for the design, construction, and maintenance of bicycle facilities based on models around the country.

A. General Recommendations to Improve Bicycle Infrastructure 33

Recommendation 1.1: Implement “Complete Streets” Policies for all construction and maintenance of roadways in the MPO area.

Effective complete streets policies ensure that adequate bicycle facilities area included in all new construction and preserved or improved in all maintenance activities. The MPO Transportation Policy Board unanimously passed a resolution in 2007 urging both the City and the County of Santa Fe to require the design and construction of “complete streets” catering to the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit throughout the metropolitan area (see Appendix 4, MPO Complete Streets Resolution). Bike lanes or paved shoulders, like this one on Richards Ave., should be included on major roadways throughout the MPO area. In addition to accommodating bicyclists In order to accommodate bicyclists, and pedestrians, paved shoulders improve motor vehicle designated bicycle lanes, paved safety, provide space for emergency and maintenance shoulders or wide curb lanes meeting vehicles, and help to preserve the roadway. specifications in the AASHTO Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities should be included in the design,

33 See Appendix 9: Bicycle Master Plan Goals and Recommendations, for a list of Recommendations. 1.1- 1.12 .

45 | Page Recommendations

construction, and maintenance of roadways with higher motor vehicle speeds and volumes, typically including those classified as arterials or collectors. This plan recommends that each MPO member legally adopt bike lanes or paved shoulders as standard on-road provisions for bicyclists on major roadways (arterials and major collectors), comparable to standards already specified in the City’s Chapter 14, for construction and maintenance by public agencies as well as private developers.

Bike lane or shoulder provisions should be required not only within typical road cross-sections but also through intersections, as recommended by AASHTO and the MUTCD. Additional guidance on innovative bike lane treatments through intersections can be drawn from the National Maintenance overlays should always include paved shoulders per Association of City AASHTO guidelines as well as specific City and County Transportation Officials resolutions. This incomplete overlay of Ave. Vista Grande in (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Eldorado was subsequently corrected by the County. Design Guide.

Consideration of modifications to traffic lanes and intersections should not be limited to assessment of motor vehicle needs and warrants but should include an analysis of corresponding quality of service for bicycles. Consideration of current or future need for bike lanes through an intersection, for example, should be taken before road width is re- allocated to right-turn or center turn lanes.

Building and maintaining complete streets includes providing a smooth surface for use by bicyclists and keeping that surface reasonably free of sand and other debris. MPO members should follow City and the County resolutions prohibiting the practice of leaving pavement seams within the shoulder or along the edge of the travel lane. MPO members should continue to develop sustainable strategies to sweep and plow shoulders, bike lanes and multi-use trails of sand, snow, and other debris in order to keep the bikeway system safely and conveniently operational throughout the year.

46 | Page Recommendations

Recommendation 1.2: Create and implement programs to retrofit roadways in need of bicycle facilities.

MPO members are also encouraged to pursue complete streets through “retrofits” whereby roadway width can be allocated to cyclists where needed. Bicycle facility retrofitting should focus on opportunities to restripe roadways in conjunction with resurfacing. Agency staff responsible for planning bicycle facilities should partner with maintenance staff for this specific purpose.

Analysis to retrofit bicycle facilities into street segments and intersections should utilize a multi-modal level of service 34 The City’s “Road Diet” on Cordova Rd. in 2008 analysis, including analysis of relative reduced a four-lane section to two travel lanes with a levels of service on a given roadway two-way left turn lane and bike lanes, improving among different modes, and also conditions for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. considering relative level of service on There are several more promising candidates for alternative alignments available to “road diets” in the MPO area, including part of the motorists and bicyclists. County’s Tesuque Village Rd. (below).

Specific opportunities and priorities to retrofit local roadways to meet AASHTO guidelines for bicycle facilities through restriping or widening should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Top priorities for retrofits of city streets, county roads, and state highways are identified in Section B of this chapter and in Chapter VI., Implementation Plan. Retrofits can also be required of private developers, where impact of development warrants.

34 See, for example, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets, NCHRP Report 616, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board (2008) (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf)

47 | Page Recommendations

Recommendation 1.3: Adopt and Adhere to Established Engineering Guidelines for Planning, Designing, Building, and Maintaining Roads, Trail, and other Bicycle Facilities

This plan recommends that each MPO member agency, and other entities in the MPO area, adopt the latest AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities (current draft slated for adoption in 2012) as their own guidelines for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of on- road and off-road bicycle facilities as well as additional provisions for cyclists, such as bike racks. This recommendation applies to the City, County, Pueblo of Tesuque, and NMDOT as well as Santa Fe Public Schools, Santa Fe Community College, and other colleges and schools. Within agencies the recommendation should apply to streets departments as well as divisions responsible for trails, parks, and development review. Private developers, contractors, and design consultants should be held contractually AASHTO’s Guide for the responsible for understanding and following these Development of Bicycle Facilities guidelines. has been the official source of professional engineering guidance In particular, roads should be designed and built as since 1999. Its revision is expected complete streets per recommendation 1.1 above, for release in 2012. following specific AASHTO guidelines. In order to fulfill a transportation function, multi-use trails should likewise be designed and built as “roads for bicycles.” MPO members should make coordinated and focused efforts to design safe and convenient points of contact between multi-use trails and roadways (see text boxes on following page).

Just as the design vehicle for major roadways is a large truck, the design vehicle for our multi-use trails should be a bicycle with a two-wheel trailer. Corresponding attention must be paid to providing sufficient maneuvering and clear space within and around multi-use trails and particularly at points to access to trails.

MPO members are urged to take caution in strict application of ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and best practices for ADA to multi-use trails (See Appendix AASHTO’s representation of “typical bicycle dimensions” 10: A Proposed Policy with Regard to in the 2010 draft Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities.

48 | Page Recommendations

ADA and Multi-Use Trails in the Santa Fe MPO Area). Designers should be aware that minimum widths and standard designs that are intended to satisfy ADA requirements for pedestrian facilities are typically inadequate for facilities serving multi-use trails. Designing for all users, including bicyclists, may thus mean limiting use of handrails, switchbacks, flat spots, and other constraints that may present significant inconveniences and hazards to bicyclists on multi-use trails. The MPO will work with member agencies to monitor development of more relevant guidance from US Access Board, particularly Shared Use Path Accessibility Guidelines currently under development.35

Multi-use Trails (Paths) and Roads: Strategies to Improve Crossings

“Ramp Width should be at least the same width as the shared use path.” “Curb cuts and ramps should provide a smooth transition between the shared use path and the roadway.” “Transition zones: Where shared use paths terminate at existing roads it is important to integrate the path into the existing road system… The designer should consider each path-road intersection along the length of the path as a potential entry/exit point.”

Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999). p. 50-51

Multi-use Trails (Paths) and Roads: More Guidance for Good Connections

“GEOMETRIC DESIGN ISSUES AT CROSSINGS The design approach for the intersection of a shared use path with a roadway is similar to the design approach used for the intersection of two roadways in the following ways: The intersection should be conspicuous to both road users and path users. Sight lines should be maintained to meet the requirements of the traffic control provided. Intersections and approaches should be on relatively flat grades. Intersections should be as close to a right angle as possible, given the existing conditions.”

Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (Draft 2010). p. 167

35 See Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), “Shared Use Path Accessibility Guidelines, Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.” Federal Register: March 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 59). Available on line at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-7156.htm .

49 | Page Recommendations

Recommendation 1.4: Target investments in new infrastructure that maximizes cost effectiveness toward a better bikeway system

This Bicycle Master Plan emphasizes that bikeway planning and development focus on continuing to develop “arterial” trail alignments and on-road and off-road connections to those alignments as detailed in Appendix 7. Map 5 below, “Expanded Bikeway System,” is a vision of an expanded bikeway network developed following this recommendation. Specific, prioritized recommendations for facility improvements to achieve this vision are provided in Section B below and in Chapter VI., Implementation Plan.

To Tesuque Village Rd. Tano Rd. Map 5. Expanded Bikeway System

La Tierra Trails O

La Tierra Zocalo A

T This expanded view adds additional connecting trails and on-road

L routes identified as part of the MPO Bikeway Mapping Project and in O the development of the Bicycle Master Plan, including a variety of extensions into Santa Fe County to create a more comprehensive Aldea bikeway system. This grid of safe and convenient bicycle facilities allows cyclists to travel between various parts of the city and Gonzales Downtown throughout the greater metropolitan area without the need to use CS River Walk Alto/Bicentennial Park Plaza less accommodating or less comfortable higher-speed roadways. Railyard Station Roundhouse Barrio La Canada West Railyard Railyard O LD O S C C A OLO Park E N N T T S A Frenchy’s Field I F L E A TR Ash- G Atalaya, ALTA O I VIST D. Stewart, S W A Municipal TO baugh Hnos. A O G S. Capitol Museum & Dale Ball Recreation E Park Rdgz. RR Station Hill Trails Center Casa 2 d Siler Rd. Park S Alegre T St. John’s 2d St. JO San Ysidro LE College X-ing F SF St.M’s Dr./ O R Lafarge T Greyhound Agua Fria UAD U

Library Hospital I O Siringo / N

A St. Michael’s T SFHS N. A J H.S. O IA Genov. YUCCA Z SFHS & NM CENTRAL RR Chavez M. S. Capshaw El Camino Ctr. Roybal MS A Zia ZI Real Park Park W. RR Chap. Station S E. Sawmill . ES

M Santa Fe E A Ragle O SOFT SURFACE TRAIL La Cieneguilla D Place L Sweeney O D W Park L A S ARROYO HONDO TRAIL E.S. S

Pinon ES V Rodeo Park E G A S

Nava Ade H S. W GOV MILES Y Galisteo South Side Ortiz JAGUAR Library M.S. Pueblos To US285 & Tierra Contenta del Sol Eldorado Entrada D. IT R BB Capital Contenta RA HS Las Soleras

SWAN Park Arroyo Hondo Pavilion Capital HS La Cienega Connector Trail Oshara Village

Santa Fe Community College

S. Fe Downs Rancho Viejo

NM599 RR Station

Nine Mile Rd. / Seton Village

Eldorado W. Eldorado

This Plan prioritizes multi-use trail segments that can effectively function as direct, convenient, and reasonably safe transportation facilities. Specific recommendations in Section B focus on trail alignments that are independent of roadways and serve to complement the existing and planned on- and off-road bikeway system. This includes

50 | Page Recommendations

longer “arterial” trail segments as well as specific small connections and crossing improvements with potential significant impact on the bikeway system.

Roadway improvements should also be strongly considered in the prioritization of investments in new bicycle infrastructure (see Section B below). While Recommendations 1.1 and 1.2 promote “complete streets” policies focusing on new construction and on opportunities to retrofit roadways through restriping, particularly in conjunction with maintenance projects, public investment in bicycle infrastructure should also address needs to pro-actively adjust intersections and trail crossings to benefit on- and off-road bicycle traffic and to widen selected roadways to create bike lanes or shoulders, as prioritized in Section B starting on p. 56.

The City and other agencies are encouraged to examine particular bicycle-pedestrian bridge crossings on a case-be-case basis, rather than follow a policy across the board, in order to determine whether increased costs are justified in order to accommodate heavy motor vehicle use across bridges.

Recommendation 1.5: Support pro-active maintenance of on-road and off-road facilities while minimizing impact to users

Area agencies are urged to reserve resources for regular maintenance of on-road and off- road bicycle facilities. On-road facilities should ideally be cleared and shoulder or bike lane surface, markings, and signage replaced or repaired on a routine basis along with the rest of the roadway. Roadway resurfacing by MPO area agencies should be applied to the entire roadway width, including bike lanes or paved shoulders to the edge of pavement. Drainage grates and cattle guards should be routinely inspected to assess needs for repairs or replacement if there are hazardous longitudinal slots that may catch bicycle wheels. Some cattle guards in urbanizing areas may be removed entirely if they are found to be no longer needed. Some maintenance of on-road facilities, such as the replacement of sharrows, may require the development of dedicated funding sources.

Maintenance of the growing multi-use trail system also needs to be integrated into agencies’ operational budgets. Some trail maintenance activities will require the development of dedicated funding mechanisms, particularly in order to program asphalt resurfacing and re-decking of bridges. Other activities require ongoing workforce development in areas such as erosion control and plant identification. Past successes in recruiting volunteers to maintain soft-surface trails may be replicated for the multi-use trail system, particularly with regards to identifying maintenance issues and providing coordinated volunteer labor where applicable. The community can be encouraged to “adopt” trail segments for trash removal and other light maintenance activities. Trail users can be encouraged to report conditions requiring staff attention, including through electronic media developed for that purpose. Community members could also be mobilized to assist in the removal of “goathead” plants from identified problem areas on a seasonal basis, i.e. when the plants are easily identified through their flowers (late summer) and before staff or contractors may inadvertently disburse thorns onto and around trails through mechanized mowing or “weed whacking.”

51 | Page Recommendations

All agencies should keep motorized use of multi- use trails, even by authorized public agency staff, to a minimum for a variety of reasons, including surface preservation as well as the safety and convenience of non-motorized users. The City’s Parks and Recreation Division in particular is encouraged to serve as a role model by limiting the use of heavy motorized vehicles on multi-use trails and exploring the use of non-motorized vehicles for some functions. A first step is to identify maintenance activities that can be conducted through the use of bicycles or adult “The Pedal People,” a private hauling firm in tricycles, along with trailers, within our parks and Northhampton MA, demonstrate that recycling and along our trails. These services, which might trash removal by bicycle is not only feasible but include removal of trash and recyclable materials, profitable. This kind of service could help limit the use of large motor vehicles in Santa Fe’s parks and could be contracted out or performed by city staff. on multi-use trails while reducing the City’s Appropriate cycles designed for heavy-duty use greenhouse gas emissions and operational costs. would qualify for city purchase both for purposes Photo by Adam Macchia courtesy of: of cost-savings and reduction of greenhouse gas http://pedalpeople.com. emissions.

Recommendation 1.6: Coordinate planning of bikeway facilities in the MPO area

Effective planning to support a metropolitan-wide transportation system for bicycles requires a comprehensive approach, and particularly a need to coordinate between planning for roads and for trails, between County, City, state, and tribal planning, and between other divisions within local entities, for example, within the City between Trails Division projects overseen by “BTAC” and Parks Division projects overseen by POSAC. Trail and roadway improvements should be pursued within a coordinated program of prioritized projects, and also as opportunities arise through public or private development along desirable alignments.

This plan recommends that the MPO and its member governments work together toward the establishment of a Bicycle-Pedestrian program, staffed by at least one, qualified Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator at the metropolitan and/or local levels. This staff member should have authority to coordinate agency planning, participate in review of project plans to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle needs are being met, and collaborate with agency staff in various program areas, particularly relating to streets, trails, parks, and open space, as needed.

Functions of a bicycle pedestrian program would include: • develop coordinated and overarching strategy • provide various levels of staff orientation and training • guide planning and implementation following agreed-upon standards and guidelines

52 | Page Recommendations

• develop advance planning and implementation activities such as strategic right-of- way acquisition and coordination with partners • work closely with roadway maintenance programs to anticipate opportunities to include new bicycle facilities through restriping • review trail, road, and other facility designs to ensure that non-motorized transportation needs are being met.

League of American Bicyclists:

“Bike staff levels correlate with overall bicycle-friendliness.”

“Eighty-eight communities in the U.S. have achieved bronze Bicycle Friendly status. Only 36 have received silver, gold, or platinum recognition. The elevated status of the top three categories is reflected in staff sizes. Non-BFCs average one and a half staff, bronze BFCs average three staff, and the top three categories combined average 11 staff. Larger staffs get communities to the next level.”

“In addition to large cities, many smaller communities have bicycle and pedestrian program managers. Davis, CA, a city of 62,000, has a city bicycle and pedestrian coordinator -- who works with their Bicycle Advisory Commission (BAC) -- and the University of California at Davis, has a campus bicycle coordinator.”

- “Why Communities & States Need Bicycle and Pedestrian Staff.” (www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/why_bike_ped_staff_april_2010.pdf)

Recommendation 1.7: Provide bicyclists with useful guidance through Bike Route Signage and other wayfinding assistance on trails and roads

Bike Route signage should be used to provide bicyclists with useful guidance on how to navigate around the Santa Fe area.36 Significant opportunities to improve and expand guidance for cyclists can be found at trail junctions, at intersections of trails with roads, along preferred on-road routes, and particularly along bikeways that alternate between on-road and off-road segments. Per the MUTCD, bike route signage should include complementary information including arrows, destinations, and possibly distance. Bike

36 See AASHTO 1999, pp. 20-21; AASHTO 2010 (Draft) Section 2.3.5, “Wayfinding for Bicycles;” MUTCD, Chapter 9, Section 9B.20 “Bicycle Guide Signs.”

53 | Page Recommendations

route signage should not be used as a generic declaration that a road or trail is a bicycle facility.

This Plan recommends that member agencies work together within the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program to develop a bicycle Recommended bike route signage in the MUTCD (2009) emphasizes route signage plan for the MPO area. Section B provision of destination and distance of this Chapter provides specific information for wayfinding purposes. recommendations on improving guidance through bike route signage. In addition to creating guidance along existing and planned alignments discussed in Chapter III, a new opportunity to provide longer-range guidance will come with the designation and promotion of “Bike Route 66” by Adventure Cycling Association (see text box on p. 68).

Pavement markings should also continue to be used to assist in wayfinding, particularly through stencils on multi-use trails where A prospective application of the they meet roadways. Shared- latest MUTCD signage at an lane arrows (“sharrows”) can important “decision point” for also be used to provide Acequia Trail users. continuity on bikeways that alternate between bike lane and shared lane. Agencies may also consider marking the edges of multi-use trails that are not lit with high-visibility tape or edge line striping, and similarly marking any other significant, identifiable trail-side hazards.

Resources to assist with bicycle wayfinding in the metropolitan area should also support the continued revision and distribution of the Bikeway and Trails Map as well as posting copies of the map at strategic points within the bikeway system (see Section B).

Local entities are also encouraged to collaborate to develop arterial bikeway “branding” through symbols and other guidance so that users can easily understand and identify desirable routes, and to develop wayfinding interfaces with electronic media.37

37 See WPI 2011 (http://santafempo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Report_D11_Trails.pdf).

54 | Page Recommendations

Recommendation 1.8: Research, consider, promote, and implement best design practices

The MPO will work with member agencies to stay abreast of the latest Multi-use Trails (Paths) and Roads: Some Criteria for a Good Connection research in the development of best practices for bicycle facilities and to Mark Crosswalks where appropriate (see FHWA, identify opportunities to put such Safety Effects….) preferably with high-visibility practices into use in the Santa Fe MPO striping. area. This includes consideration of Reduce crossing distance. new striping options for bike lanes and Warn/Slow motor vehicle traffic. shared lanes, use of shared-lane arrows, Otherwise reduce exposure to motor vehicle creation of bike boulevards, means of hazards cyclist actuation of traffic signals, and general street design for pedestrian and Multi-use Trails (Paths) and Roads: Some Tools to Improve Crossings bicycle safety, including traffic calming and intersection design (corners, Median Refuges medians, ramps, and signals). Curb Radius Reduction

Bulb-out/Bump-out For a review of emerging bikeway design areas, see Appendix 11 focusing Raised Crosswalks on “Best Practices.” Particular Signage and Striping attention should be paid to the latest Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian and best practices with respect to trail Facilities (2004) crossings. MPO members are urged to use state-of-the-art pedestrian safety techniques for at-grade crossings and connections, as promoted by FHWA and AASHTO, combined with AASHTO’s more specific recommendations for multi-use trails. Guidance on particularly innovative bikeway treatments can also be drawn from NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

Retrofitting an existing culvert to create a trail The City’s decision to eliminate a free-right turn underpass is a homegrown “best practice” that at the southeast corner of St. Michael’s Dr. and MPO members should seek to replicate Cerrillos Rd. served to benefit all roadway users, elsewhere. particularly pedestrians. This plan encourages similar actions at key trail crossings such as at St. Francis Dr. and Siringo Rd.

55 | Page Recommendations

MPO members are specifically encouraged to identify opportunities to establish and improve mid-block trail crossings and other crossings at uncontrolled locations. Members are also encouraged to creatively use existing conditions to their advantage in the pursuit of grade-separated trail crossings, especially where it may be possible to utilize excess capacity of concrete box culverts or bridge underpasses.

Suggested Best Practices for Creating an Attractive Urban Environment

The following checklist was suggested by a member of this Plan’s Citizens Advisory Group as a way to ensure aesthetic considerations are applied to all activities during the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan:

• Inclusion of “aesthetic impact” as one of the criteria for early development of bicycle project planning at the City and County levels. • Use of online and outside private resources in exploring creative and attractive new (or replacement) bicycle facilities developed in other regional, national as well as international locales; • Review of Requests for Proposals to ensure that attractive design is included as part of the evaluation process; • Coordination among agencies to ensure that aesthetic elements are implemented and properly maintained; • Coordination with other public and nonprofit agencies, such as Warehouse 21, Santa Fe University of Art and Design (SFUAD), granting organizations, or the City Arts Commission, to maximize available resources that can be used for beautification. Resources could include not only grants and subsidies but creative talent and manpower. • Collaboration with public and nonprofit agencies to sponsor such events as design competition for facilities or other means to elicit realistic creative responses to defined needs. • A recognition that while the cost of beauty (versus pure functionality) may be small, the benefits in civic attractiveness and pride may be great.

Recommendation 1.9: Improve and expand bicycle parking

This Plan recommends that MPO, local agencies, and community members, including the local art community, take the following steps to increase the quantity and quality of bicycle parking available to local cyclists, visitors, transit users, and public and private employees:

• Ensure that development codes require parking that meets AASHTO and APBP guidelines, and particularly APBP’s Bicycle Parking Guidelines The Coffee Cup. Fabrication: (see p. 35). New Project, Brooklyn, NYC 2008 (Photo courtesy of www.davidbyrne.com).

56 | Page Recommendations

• Inventory and map bicycle parking in high- demand areas.

• Continue to program installation of new bike racks in public spaces and to explore demand for bike lockers and other forms of bike parking at transit hubs, places of employment, and other locations.

• Encourage the creation of bike racks as art in public spaces. Consider reserving funding in order to hold a design competition to select 10-12 bike rack designs to have locally manufactured.38

• Provide adequate quality and quantity of bicycle parking at all city, county, and state agency facilities. A bike corral in Portland, Oregon (photo courtesy of • Recognize the role that bicycles play in reducing BikePortland.org). motor vehicle parking demand: o Consider creation of a bike rack program within City Parking Division o Consider use of abandoned parking meter posts when meter parking is converted to ticket system (see photo). o Consider conversion of on-street motor vehicle parking spaces into on- street bicycle parking (known as “bike corrals”), where sufficient demand exists.

• Provide incentives for private businesses to improve bicycle parking retroactive to development, or to provide enhanced bicycle parking as part of development.

• Require provision of attended bicycle parking at outdoor events such as Zozobra, the Folk Art Fiesta, events at the plaza, baseball games, and other 39 When pay stations replaced parking meters in Nob Hill, the athletic events. City of Albuquerque converted the posts into attractive and functional pieces of the sidewalk streetscape.

38 For example, see a collaboration with NYDOT described at www.davidbyrne.com/art/bike_racks/index.php. 39 For an example of a requirement along these lines, see San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), http://www.sfmta.com/cms/vclos/13487.html .

57 | Page Recommendations

Recommendation 1.10: Support Higher-Density, Mixed-Use Development

MPO members are encouraged to support initiatives to promote higher-density, mixed- use development in and around Santa Fe, in order to significantly reduce number and distance of trips and facilitate walking and bicycling as healthy, environmentally- friendly, and community-building transportation. This includes supporting the Sustainable Santa Fe Commission’s campaign for a “Green Development Code” to create incentives for higher-density and mixed-use developments within the City of Santa Fe, and guiding development of relevant material in the County’s Sustainable Development Code, currently under way.

MPO members should continue to support transit, transit-oriented development, and specific planning initiatives, such as the City’s long-range planning activities around St. Michael’s Dr. and Airport Rd., that seek to re-orient commercial and residential areas to better serve Santa Feans and their guests at a pedestrian scale.

Long-range visions for St. Michael’s Dr. under a City-led planning process vary in the specific provisions that are proposed for bicyclists and pedestrians, but all focus on reducing the number of motor vehicle through-lanes and bringing mixed-use development to the street – not behind parking lots – to create a more “livable” environment (Above: Dekker/Perich/Sabatini; Left: R. MacPherson, City of Santa Fe.)

58 | Page Recommendations

Recommendation 1.11: Provide Critical Connectivity for Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Design and construction of private and public developments should be required to include bicycle and pedestrian access to adjoining land uses. Retail centers, neighborhoods, parks, schools, and other public facilities should be specifically designed to facilitate access to and from adjoining spaces. Due effort should be put into dedicating publicly owned land and easements to bicycle and pedestrian use, and to negotiate with private landowners in order to do so, where critical connectivity can be created.

Many critical connections are identified as specific priorities in this plan, others are identified in the MPO’s Bikeways Mapping Project materials (e.g. “Revised Inset Maps,” January 2012) while many more will depend on site- Renovations to Ragle Park in 2011 included this tie-in to an specific analysis for private adjacent neighborhood, providing residents with pedestrian and and public projects under bicycle access not only to the park but to nearby Chaparral consideration. The MPO Elementary School as well. Typically there are some who will will work with member object to these kinds of connections due to perceived security threats posed by foot traffic. This Plan proposes that local agencies to pursue the agencies recognize the benefits of formal connections between following strategies to adjacent land uses and pursue them as a standard policy rather create connectivity: than an exceptional treatment. • Continue to strengthen the City’s Chapter 14 provisions, and develop comparable County regulation, discouraging the creation of cul-de-sacs and encouraging bicycle-pedestrian access via trails and calm roads. • Use parks and open space to facilitate, not discourage, through access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Routes dedicated for emergency access and/or maintenance access to neighborhoods and public facilities should routinely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use as well. • Connect multi-use trails directly to adjacent land uses, as well as trails and roads, just as roads area connected to driveways and side streets. These connections can be included in trail design and construction and/or negotiated with private developers and landowners. • Close remaining critical gaps in the trail system through strategic, advanced planning based on priorities established in the Bicycle Master Plan. In many cases, the City and County will need to patiently work with private landowners or public agencies to identify and secure desirable alignments well before resources are necessarily reserved for design and construction of related trail segments.

59 | Page Recommendations

Recommendation 1.12: Gather Data to Support and Guide Bicycle Planning

Documentation of the use of bicycles and of the challenges and hazards that bicyclists face is important to justify and guide investments in bicycling in Santa Fe. This Plan’s recommendation is that local agencies, under coordination of the MPO, begin to collect and analyze crash data and traffic volume data for pedestrians and bicyclists in order to inform local planning, including the next update of the MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), scheduled for 2015, and the anticipated update of this Bicycle Master Plan within five years.

Analysis of bicycle and pedestrian traffic patterns may draw from review of existing resources (e.g. crossing movements recorded at intersections) as well as establishment of dedicated bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts on key facilities. Also of interest is survey data that may inform analysis of bicyclists’ travel routes, needs, and desires for a better bikeway system. Tools and methodologies for bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts and surveys are available through the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NPPDP).40

Data gathering can be made easy and cost-effective through judicious use of staff, consultant, and volunteer time. The MPO will begin counting of bicyclists and pedestrians at selected locations in 2012. MPO members should also ensure that motor vehicle traffic counting efforts include observation of bicyclist and pedestrian movements to the greatest extent possible.

The MPO will also work with local governments and with UNM/Division of Government Research to improve the collection and analysis of bicycle crash data. This analysis may draw from official crash reports as well as hospital and emergency service A bicyclist is counted in Cuba NM following NBPDP methodology. records.

40 See http://bikepeddocumentation.org.

60 | Page Recommendations

B. Specific Recommended Bicycle Facility Improvements, with prioritization

The MPO Bikeways Mapping Project identified prioritized alignments based on local planning as well as a metro-area wide analysis emphasizing transportation considerations. The analysis continued under the development of this Bicycle Master Plan and the results are presented here under headings for road retrofits, trail projects, improvements to trail crossings and connections, and guidance signage and other wayfinding tools. Further recommendations for phased implementation of these specific projects are presented in the implementation plan (Chapter VI).

1. Completing Streets: Retrofitting Roads

The MPO Bikeways Mapping Project identified priorities to provide bike lanes or shoulder space to specific roads through restriping, resurfacing, or widening. This Plan recommends that each MPO member agency develop a program to study, and where found to be feasible, implement road retrofits to create bike lanes or shoulder space. Specific road retrofit recommendations include the following: a. “Road Diets”

Road diets are a means of creating bike lanes by reducing the number of motor vehicle lanes. The following candidates are recommended for study and possible implementation in the short term:

• Siler Rd. (four lanes to three), south of Agua Fria St.: This opportunity has been studied and is currently being pursued by the City.

• Paseo de Peralta (4>3): Canyon Rd. to Old Santa Fe Trail

• Tesuque Village Rd. (3>2): County Rd. 73 from US84/285 (south interchange) to Tesuque River bridge, eliminate climbing lane (and sign as State Bike Route 9)

• Old Las Vegas Highway (Frontage Road 2108); consider feasibility of eliminating third lane west of JCT Ojo de la Vaca Rd. to Paseo de la Luz (0.6 miles) (3>2); restore shoulders west of Paseo de la Luz to JCT US285 (1.6 miles); Sign as Old Las Vegas Highway, w. of Ojo de la Vaca Rd.: This state Bike Route 66 highway along I-25, which will soon be the entry of “Bike Route 66” into the Santa Fe area, is a great place for a “Road Diet.”

61 | Page Recommendations

Consider the following additional “road diet” opportunities for possible medium- to long- term implementation:

• St. Michael’s Dr. between Cerrillos Rd. and St. Francis Dr. (6>4, with left-turn bays, as proposed in City long-range planning studies), once City of Santa Fe has assumed responsibility for this facility; meanwhile, consider bike lane retrofit through lane width reduction when resurfacing occurs

• Paseo de Peralta (4/5>3): Old Santa Fe Trail to Guadalupe

• Paseo de Peralta / NM475 (5>3, or through reduction of lane widths): St. Francis Dr. to Washington Ave.

• Long-term consideration of other multi-lane roadways including other segments of Cerrillos Rd. (e. of St. Francis Dr.), St. Francis Dr., Guadalupe St., and Paseo de Peralta (St. Francis Dr. to Old Santa Fe Trail). b. Other Road Retrofits through Restriping

The following retrofits could be accomplished by reducing the width or number of motor vehicle lanes (particularly at intersections), and/or reducing on-street parking: • Galisteo St. from Hospital to Harkle (restripe), eventually consider from San Mateo to dead-end at St. Francis Dr. Trail • Siringo Rd: Ave. de las Campanas to St. Michael’s High School, reduce center turn lane width, route through St. Francis Dr. intersection • San Mateo: Galisteo St. to 2nd St. (see photo). • Pacheco St.: south of St. Michael’s Dr. to north of San Mateo • Wagon Rd.: Retrofit bike lanes through reducing lane widths, eliminating turn lanes, or consider widening This stretch of San Mateo Rd. just west of the Rail Trail is an • Osage: consider striping bike excellent candidate for restriping with bike lanes. lanes south of San Ildefonso.

c. Specific intersections where through-bike-lanes should be considered

• Cerrillos Rd. and Airport/Rodeo Rd. Bike lanes or paved shoulders with Bike Route signs approach from all four directions but are dropped shortly before the

62 | Page Recommendations

intersection. Space exists today on eastbound Cerrillos, with drop-lane configuration per AASHTO 1999. • St. Francis Dr. and Cerrillos Rd.: westbound Cerrillos Rd., east of St. Francis Dr., could be a candidate for a special bike lane application to encourage on-road cyclists to cross the rail tracks at a perpendicular angle, with the bike lane connecting to the existing striped shoulder along the New Mexico School for the Deaf property. Eastbound Cerrillos Rd. could merit a similar treatment. • Pacheco St. and San Mateo: recently rebuilt with right-turn lanes on each approach. Review whether these are warranted vs. space needed for bike lanes; this review should include consideration of even lower level of service for bicycles at the nearby interchange of St. Michael’s Dr. and St. Francis Dr. • Yucca St. at W. Zia: right-turn lane recently installed at the expense of striped shoulder, part of a “Bike Route” designated in 1993. • W. Alameda at Camino Alire: Dedicated right-turn lane on eastbound W. Alameda only serves motorists if there is no queue in the through lane. Review whether the turn lane can be removed in favor of a bike lane, which could facilitate a bike lane from Ave. Nopal to St. Francis Dr. as well as improve conditions for the sidewalk and pedestrian crossings at this intersection. • Cerrillos Rd. and St. Michael’s Dr./Osage: Bike lanes on Cerrillos exist to the northeast and are planned to the southwest but do not continue through this intersection. Bike lanes also should be considered along St. Michael’s and Osage. • St. Francis Dr. and St. Michael’s Dr. (interchange): Evaluate opportunities to stripe bike lanes on St. Michael’s Dr. between Galisteo Rd. and Pacheco St. d. Road Retrofits: Contra-flow bike lanes

Santa Fe has a handful of opportunities where contra-flow bike lanes may be considered to provide bi-directional travel for cyclists on otherwise one-way streets. One contra- flow candidate (see photo) is prioritized based on feasibility and impact. Other candidates described in Appendix 11 may be worth reconsidering once there is more experience with this technique.

Permitting west-bound bicycle traffic on W. San Francisco St. from the plaza to Don Gaspar (“State Bike Route 9” south) and beyond to Galisteo St., where W. San Francisco becomes a two-way street, would provide critical connectivity for east-west and north-south travel. It could be accomplished with no significant conflicts and minimal changes to existing signage and striping; one possible conflict with motorists entering from Galisteo St. could “Contra flow:” This very common and useful be remedied with spot striping and signage. bicycle maneuver onto W. San Francisco St. from the Plaza need not be illegal.

63 | Page Recommendations

e. Road Retrofits through Resurfacing

Roadways whose shoulders have been abandoned or compromised by incomplete pavement overlays should be remedied through the next maintenance overlay, or any time when part or the entire roadway is reconstructed. Prominent examples of candidates for “recapturing” usable shoulder space through complete overlays include: • NM599 frontage roads and stub-outs (e.g. parts of Camino La Tierra, Buckman Rd., “Partial paving” of an I-25 frontage road Via Abajo, CR 70) near the Santa Fe Downs left an edge in the shoulder. Future overlays can serve to • I-25 frontage roads west of NM14, where eliminate these edges and “re-capture” shoulders exist paved shoulders for bicycle use. • NM14, Lone Butte to Madrid • NM14, I-25 to NM599, where shoulders exist • Hyde Park Rd., where shoulders exist (e.g. city/county line) • Old Las Vegas Highway (NM300 / State Bike Route 9) • Old Las Vegas Highway (FR 2108) (restore shoulders w. of Paseo de la Luz) • Rabbit Rd., older section between St. Francis Dr. and new, curbed section.

f. Road Retrofits through Widening

Widening roadways to accommodate bicycles requires significant resources. Under a “complete streets” policy, bike lanes or shoulders should be strongly considered whenever major roadways that lack them are reconstructed, whether they are state highways, county roads, or city streets. As a general rule, those roads that are shown as orange on the Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map are those that have been identified as lacking sufficient space for bicyclists: those that Old Santa Fe Trail: A prime candidate for paved cannot be remedied through restriping or shoulders through road widening. resurfacing proposals shown above should be considered for widening, particularly if they are under consideration for reconstruction.

Some high-priority narrow roadways warrant specific projects to create bicycle facilities through road widening. The MPO Bikeways Mapping Project identified a variety of

64 | Page Recommendations

higher-priority roadways in the MPO area that could be improved for bicyclists through widening; continued analysis based on demand, connectivity, and feasibility provides the following list of top-ranked candidates: • Galisteo Rd., San Mateo Rd. to Hospital Dr. • Old Santa Fe Trail, E. Zia Rd. to El Gancho Way • Camino de las Crucitas, Michelle Dr. to Buckman Rd.* • Ave. del Sur, east and west of Amy Biehl School • Hyde Park Rd. (NM475)* • Gov. Miles Rd., Richards Ave. to Pueblos del Sol • Wagon Rd. (after considering restripe) • San Felipe Rd., Airport Rd. to Agua Fria St. • W. Alameda St., Calle Nopal to Siler Rd. • W. Alameda St., near Chicoma Vista to NM599 frontage road • Rancho Viejo Blvd. • NM14 north of NM599 (restore shoulders at traffic islands) • Bishop’s Lodge Rd.: Washington Ave. to Bishop’s Lodge* • Rodeo Rd., Old Pecos Trail to W. Sawmill Rd. • Tesuque Village Rd. (CR72) north of Tesuque Village • Old Santa Fe Trail, south of El Gancho Way* • Henry Lynch Rd. • W. Zia St., e. of St. Francis Dr.(after considering restripe) • W. Zia St. and Rodeo Rd., w. of Camino Carlos Rey (after considering restripe) • Buckman Rd., Camino de las Crucitas to transfer station* • NM592, Tesuque Village Rd. to Rio en Medio.* * - Where grades are steep and space is limited, a single shoulder may be considered on the climbing side. g. Shared Lane Arrows (Sharrows)

This plan concurs with the findings of the BTAC On-Road Subcommittee’s Memo to BTAC of June 21, 2011, proposing that the City consider certain new locations for sharrows, as well as “Share the Road” signs. This plan proposes consideration of a small number of additional locations. • Paseo de Peralta between E. Alameda and Washington St. • Osage north of San Ildefonso St., and any other identified transitions from bike lane or wide shared lane to narrow shared lane. • Guadalupe St. between Manhattan and Agua Fria

65 | Page Recommendations

• Jaguar, Paseo del Sol W., S. Meadows: Consider sharrows where there is no bike lane or wide shared lane

The following locations may also be considered for sharrows pending further analysis of roadways, crash data, and any evidence of motorist harassment of bicyclists; also pending availability of specific funding for sharrows, and in the absence of other remedial actions such as bike lane retrofits proposed above: • Mid-block locations with on-street parking with evidence of “dooring” crashes • Intersection approaches with evidence of “right hook” crashes or other need for A “sharrow” shared-lane marking helps guidance for on-road cyclists (e.g. across keep cyclists out of the “door zone” on skewed rail on Cerrillos Rd.) Washington Ave. near the Plaza. • Other low- to medium-speed 4-lane roads with no bike lane or shoulder, e.g.: o Guadalupe St. from Agua Fria north to Paseo de Peralta o Paseo de Peralta where lacking shoulder between St. Francis Dr. and Washington Ave. o Paseo de Peralta where lacking sharrows between Rail Trail and E. Alameda St. o Cordova Rd. between Cerrillos Rd. and Don Diego St.

Replacing existing sharrows in poor condition as identified and proposed by BTAC’s On- Road Subcommittee, will likely require a dedicated funding source. The City Council has included this expense within current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) bond funding.

2. Prioritized Trail Improvements

Under the Bikeways Mapping Project, planned and proposed trail improvements in the MPO area were assessed with respect to: • prospective local demand, based on land use and presence of specific traffic generators such as schools, parks, and transit centers • connectivity, both as a multi-use trail and as a bikeway (including consideration of road connections) • feasibility, including land ownership and status, topography, need for and feasibility of structures and/or crossing treatments • specific safety considerations.

66 | Page Recommendations

A scoring system was developed whereby the desirability and level of priority of a given segment might be weighed against another. The methodology and findings of this process, continued under the development of this Bicycle Master Plan, are provided in more detail in Appendix 12. a. Construction of Paved Multi-Use Trails

Among over 100 proposed segments or groups of segments examined, top-ranking candidates for construction of paved multi-use trails are listed in Table 2 below. This ranking based on impact and feasibility is the foundation for specific phasing of trail development presented in the implementation plan in Chapter VI (Tables 8-10) The River Trail under construction to and on Maps 5-13 at the end of this document. Frenchy’s Field.

Table 2. Top-ranking proposed paved multi-use trail segments, ranked according to impact and feasibility Rank Trail Segment Score 1 RAIL TRAIL: Tie in across rail to Sidewalk along Cerrillos Rd., e. of St. Francis Dr. 36 2 RIVER TRAIL: Don Gaspar to Camino del Campo, w/underpasses 33 3 RAIL TRAIL: St. Francis Dr. to Cordova (along Pen Rd.) 32 3 RIVER TRAIL: Ramps & Crosswalks to Camino de Campo and to Candelario St. 32 5 ACEQUIA TRAIL: Grade Separated St. Francis Crossing 31 5 RAIL TRAIL: Cordova to Alta Vista (S. Capitol Station) 31 5 RIVER TRAIL: Connection to La Madera St. 31 5 RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Cam. de la Conquistadora w. of Camino Alire 31 5 RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Cam. De Chelly at Frenchy's Field 31 10 ACEQUIA TRAIL: Hmnos Rodriguez Park to Harrison 30 10 ACEQUIA TRAIL: Bridges to Oñate and Kathryn 30 14 RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Closson St. 29 14 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Improve connection to Santa Fe Place 29 14 ACEQUIA TRAIL: Otowi to Maclovia Park 29 14 ACEQUIA TRAIL: Connection to Larragoite Park (w/ X-Walk) & Agua Fria St. 29 14 RIVER TRAIL: Camino del Campo to St Francis Dr. (widen existing trail) 29 19 TIERRA CONTENTA (N. Arroyo Chamiso): Buffalo Grass Rd. to S. Meadows 28 19 ARROYO HONDO: NM599 Station to Fire Place Rd. via abandoned I-25 on-ramp 28 19 ACEQUIA TRAIL: Rufina to San Felipe, with connector and crosswalk at Agua Fria 28 19 ARROYO CHAPPARAL TRAIL: from Ragle Park to Zia Station via Candelero Park 28 19 LA TIERRA TRAILS: Connect from Camino de los Montoyas via NM599 Underpass 28 19 SFUAD ROADBED along E. Boundary, w/tie-ins to DeVargas M.S. & La Farge Lib. 28 19 NM CENTRAL / KENNEDY LINE: Piñon ES to Pueblos del Sol Trails 28 19 MRC TRAIL: River Trail to Caja del Rio Rd./NM599 frontage (via NM599 underpass) 28 19 RAIL TRAIL CONNECTION: Monterrey 28 19 RIVER TRAIL: Frenchy's Field to Siler Rd. 28 19 RIVER TRAIL: San Ysidro Crossing to Caja del Oro Grant Rd. (pave existing trail) 28 19 RIVER TRAIL: Widen connection @ Ave. Cristobal Colon 28 For the full list of ranked trail segments, see Appendix 12.

67 | Page Recommendations

b. Construction of/Formalization of Easements for Soft-Surface Trails

Also among the proposed trail segments examined were a smaller group of soft surface trail improvements, several of which provide critical connections to recreational, soft- surface trail networks (see Table 3). In many cases, these segments may serve an important transportation function by providing alternatives to road segments that hikers and mountain bikers might otherwise use to arrive at recreational trails. These trails, which need not be paved to serve this function, are an opportunity to create significant bikeway and trail connectivity at a relatively minor cost. These segments also appear in Tables 8-10 in Chapter VI., Implementation, and on Maps 5-13.

Table 3. Top-ranking proposed soft-surface alignments, ranked according to impact and feasibility. Rank Trail Segment Score 1 COUNTY RAIL TRAIL: Improvements, Rabbit Rd. to Spur Trail 28 1 SPUR TRAIL: Connect into SFCC from east 28 3 COUNTY RAIL TRAIL: Improvements, Spur Trail to Ave Vista Grande 27 4 COUNTY RAIL TRAIL: Improvements, Ave Vista Grande to New Moon Overlook 25 4 DALE BALL TRAILS: La Piedra Connection to Little Tesuque River (SFNF Trails) 25 4 SARAH WILLIAMS TRAIL: Gonzales Rd. to Dale Ball Trails along Hyde Park Rd. 25

c. Long-range trail alignments

Longer-range proposed trail alignments connecting to areas outside of the MPO area do not rank high for local demand and connectivity for transportation purposes, but MPO members and partners are encouraged to stay abreast of long-term opportunities to develop these alignments both for transportation and recreation. These include: • The abandoned NM Central RR Line from Eldorado to Galisteo • Down the Santa Fe River to the Rio Grande at Cochiti Lake • Along the Chili Line, among other possible routes northwest to the Rio Grande • Along Galisteo Creek toward Glorieta. For further descriptions of these alignments, and prospects for their development, see Appendix 7. d. Maintenance: Repaving Multi-Use Trails

In addition to trail construction, MPO members will need to continue to maintain existing trail inventory, including major resurfacing of older segments. Based on current condition and age, significant asphalt trails that will need to be considered for resurfacing in the near- to medium-term are summarized in Table 4.

68 | Page Recommendations

Table 4. Multi-use trail alignments as candidates for re-paving, based on age and observed condition Rank Trail Segment Distance 1 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: between Yucca St. and Rodeo Rd. 2 mi. 2 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: along Nava Ade ¼ mi. 3 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: between Siringo Rd. and Yucca St. ¾ mi. 4 RAIL TRAIL: between Siringo Rd. and Arroyo de los Chamisos ¼ mi. 5 GAIL RYBA TRAIL/“ZIA RD. TRAIL”: from St. Fr. Dr. Trail to W. Zia ¼ mi. 6 RAIL TRAIL: between St. Michael’s Dr. and Siringo ½ mi.

3. Recommended Improvements to Trail Crossings and Connections to Roadways a. Grade-Separated Street Crossings

Grade separated crossings should include multi- use trail ramps to the roads that are crossed whenever possible, except in cases of limited access highways such as the NM599 main line and I-25.

(i). Utilize existing grade-separated crossings that are not yet served by formal trails: • NM599 equestrian crossings (MRC Trail, Aldea area, La Tierra Trails) This trail underpass near Camino de los • Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail at NM14 (to Montoyas is one of three “equestrian” connect Las Soleras & Entrada Contenta) underpasses that were included in the construction of NM599 by NMDOT. Under • River Trail, built benches underneath Siler the City’s new La Tierra Trails Master Plan, Rd. and S. Meadows Rd. this will be the first to be integrated into a formal multi-use trail. (ii). Plan for desired grade separations in future road, bridge, and culvert construction (e.g. as proposed in Las Soleras for the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail).

(iii). Utilize space beneath bridges and within culverts, as trail or road improvements occur • River Trail at three downtown bridges (Guadalupe, Sandoval, Galisteo), as envisioned in River Parkway design • River Trail at NM599 bridge Arroyo de los Chamisos, downstream from Tierra • Richards Ave. side path(s) at I-25, Contenta: One of these openings may house a pending development of adjacent trail underpass planned through the “Pavilion” land. project.

69 | Page Recommendations

(iv). Continue to pursue creation of trail underpasses using excess water carrying capacity of existing concrete box culverts, based on model of Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail underpass at Rodeo Rd., pending priority of trail segments served and/or opportunities to integrate into future developments: • Arroyo Hondo Trail at NM14 (to NM599 station) • Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail at NM599 (via Pavilion project) • Arroyo Chaparral Trail at W. Zia Rd. (to connect north to Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail) • Arroyo Hondo at I-25 and at NM599 (pending development) • Arroyo de los Chamisos at Gov. Miles Rd. (if trail is to pass along arroyo through current auto park to north).

(v). Continue to research and consider major investment in other major grade-separated crossings • Acequia Trail at St. Francis Dr. (medium term / under consideration by City) • River Trail at St. Francis Dr. (consider for medium- to long-term) • Rail Trail at St. Michael’s Dr. (consider underpass, medium-to-long term) • NM Central Line at I-25 (consider for long-term, if trail alignment is developed) b. At-Grade Street Crossings and Connections

Dedicate resources to improve significant trail crossings and connections following AASHTO engineering guidance and best practices. Higher-priority improvements to facilitate safe and convenient movements between trail and street are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6:

70 | Page Recommendations

Table 5. Recommended Improvements to Existing Trail Crossings Trail Crossing Location(s) Crossing Type Recommendation(s) (Also see Appendix 10) Arroyo de los Chamisos Yucca, Cam. Carlos Rey, Ave. de las Uncontrolled, mid- Remove gates, consider median refuge on Yucca, Campanas block rebuild median and speed table on Ave. de las Campanas. Re-examine signage for motorists. St. Francis Dr. Trail Siringo (signalized) Signalized Mitigation of side path condition: eliminate free right turn off of westbound Siringo, reduce corner radii, expand median refuge; examine signal timing Acequia Trail St. Francis Dr., Cerrillos Rd., and Signalized Improve crosswalk orientation, reposition and widen S.F.Southern Railroad tracks ramp Acequia and Rail Trails St. Francis Dr., Cerrillos Rd., and Signalized Examine Signal timing; opportunity to show walk S.F.Southern Railroad tracks signal along Cerrillos during train crossign phase Rail Trail Lower-speed two-lane roads (Alta Uncontrolled, mid- Mark with high-visibility crosswalk markings, consider Vista St., San Mateo/Second St., block providing median refuge on Alta Vista St. Siringo Rd.) Rail Trail Rodeo Rd. (currently three lanes) Uncontrolled Mitigation of side path condition: Relocate to east side of tracks; improve median as refuge; mark with high visibility crosswalk markings. Various (Railyard Park): (a) Cerrillos Rd. Uncontrolled Provide ramps and median refuges; reduce corner Chili Line and Acequia Trails, radius (Alarid); consider striping and other measures. west of Gilmore St.; (b) between Early St. & Alarid St.

Table 6. Recommended Improvements to Existing Connections to Streets. Trail Connection Location Recommendation River Trail Ave. Cristobal Colon W iden or rebuild ramp Arroyo de los Chamisos Santa Fe Place Widen connection, build ramp, consider other improvements or other location to connect to bus stop River Trail Caja del Rio Rd. Build ramp to sidewalk Arroyo Hondo Trail Vista del Arroyo Rebuild as AASHTO-compliant connection when trail is paved.

Examples of model at-grade crossings, both in Santa Fe and elsewhere, are illustrated in Appendix 11 on “Best Practices.”

c. Crossing Topographical Barriers

Because the River Trail is an arterial bikeway connecting various land uses in various parts of the metropolitan area, there will continue to be a need to provide for non- motorized crossings of the river, typically via bicycle-pedestrian bridges, at various locations, including: west of DeFouri St. (for planned River Parkway Trail); west of Camino Alire (aligned with Torreon Park) and/or between Griego Park and Ave. Rincon de Torreon; and west of Lopez View across the Santa Fe River from the River Lane/Caja del Oro Grant Rd. (aligned with Trail (while under construction) to Torreon Park. Camino Atajo).

Other challenging features to cross when relevant bikeway alignments are being pursued include the Acequia Madre at Kathryn St. and Oñate Pl. dead-ends, the Arroyo Chaparral near Sawmill Rd. and near Candelario Park, the Arroyo Hondo at the NM Central RR alignment, and the Arroyo de los Chamisos at various appropriate locations pending alignments to be developed between Gov. Miles Rd. and Tierra Contenta. Bridges for these crossings are included within the trail improvements prioritized above and proposed as specific projects in the implementation plan (Chapter VI).

71 | Page Recommendations

4. Specific Recommendations on Wayfinding Assistance

a. Bike Route Signage

Specific locations and routes that would currently benefit from guidance signage in Santa Fe include many bikeways that combine roads and trails:

• Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail <-> Gov. Miles Rd. (possibly with additional guidance from Cerrillos Rd. and Jaguar Rd.) • Otowi Rd.<->Acequia Trail <-> Potencia St.<->Acequia Trail<->Railyard Park • Rail Trail <-> S Capital train station <-> Pen Rd.<-> Railyard Park (see photo) • East-Side Bike Routes: Galisteo & Don Gaspar <->Alta Vista St.<->Rail Trail • Galisteo St. <-> St. Francis Dr. Trail <-> Rail Trail & Gail Ryba Trail; consider removing Does the “bike route” really end at Alta generic Bike Route signs from Hospital Dr. Vista St.? With a simple arrow toward the and Botulph St. bike lanes along S. Capitol Station, this generic “Bike Route” sign on the Rail Trail • Richards Ave.<->Rabbit Rd.<->Rail Trail might be of some value to bicyclists in need of • River Trail<->Ave C. Colon<->Acequia guidance. Bikeway

Further adjustments to signed routes and the signing of future routes will depend on the bicycle- friendly trail and road alignments that become available. As facilities are developed, and to the extent that guidance may be helpful to link these facilities, additional signed routes to aim for in the future include: • Yucca St.<-> SFUAD Trail Although the route is still in need of improvements, MUTCD- <-> Osage / Otowi / C. de compliant signage on Flagman Way could help cyclists identify the most appropriate way to get to Baca St. and the Rail Trail from the Chelly <-> Frenchy’s Acequia Trail in the West Railyard area. Field/River Trail • Acequia Trail @ Felipe St. & @ Fayette St.<->Connector Trails<->Flagman Way<->Baca St.<->Monterey<->Rail Trail (see photo) • Acequia Trail @ Felipe St.<->Alicia<->La Madera<->River Trail @ Alto Park • Acequia Trail @ Oñate <-> Oñate -> Urioste -> Alto -> El Rio Rd./River Trail • Acequia Trail<-> Rufina St. <-> S. Meadows <-> (N) Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail (Tierra Contenta) • Acequia Trail<->Ashbaugh Park<->2nd St.<->Rail Trail

72 | Page Recommendations

• Pueblos del Sol <-> Desert Sage (connection planned) <-> Las Soleras and /or Richards Ave./SFCC

Signage should specify direction and possibly provide distance to ultimate destination (“Railyard Park 2.5”) or interim destination (“Rail Trail 1.5”). Each of these routes might also be considered as an opportunity to establish specific designated local bike routes, such as “Bike Route 1,” “Bike Route A,” or a named local bike route as discussed in the MUTCD. Some may be integrated into N.M. or U.S. Bike Routes as discussed below.

Opportunities should be considered to provide This guidance for pedestrians on Cordova additional guidance and to minimize downtown Rd. at St. Francis Dr. could also let signage through consolidation of bicycle pedestrians and bicyclists know that S. wayfinding with the City’s recent pedestrian Capitol Station and the Rail Trail are just signage initiative (see photo). around the corner.

b. State Bike Route 9

State Bike Route 9 (SBR 9) currently has termini at the south end of Tesuque Village Rd. (CR73) and at the junction of US285 and CR33 near Lamy. • Extend SBR 9 north to Tesuque Village center, working with Santa Fe County and NMDOT, via road diet on Tesuque Village Rd. (CR73). Consider continuing northward along CR73 and US84/285 frontage road in collaboration with Tesuque Pueblo, with long-range potential to connect SBR 9 through Pojoaque and Española to Ojo Caliente per NMDOT BPE Program plans. • Extend SBR 9 south to and beyond the border of the MPO area via US285 and NM41 (pending programmed improvements to NM41), to Galisteo, Moriarty, and Estancia per NMDOT BPE Program plans. • Given recent extension of bike lanes on Old Pecos Trail north to Cordova Rd., the City may consider working with NMDOT to redirect northbound SBR 9 into Santa Fe to stay on Old Pecos Trail to Old Santa Fe Trail to the plaza, if it is deemed that guidance to San Mateo, Don Gaspar, and Galisteo is no longer of value to plaza-bound cyclists.

c. Bike Route 66, State Bike Route 66, and US Bike Route 66

Bicycle tourism is an important component of promoting bicycling in general in Santa Fe. This Plan proposes that the MPO collaborate with Adventure Cycling Association, NMDOT, and the City and County of Santa Fe to consider prospective alignments of Bike Route 66 through the Santa Fe area. In particular, as a possible precursor to US Bike Route 66, and in conjunction with a “road diet” on NM300 proposed above, pursue

73 | Page Recommendations

signing Old Las Vegas Highway (NM300) east of US285 as “State Bike Route 66” to the Cañoncito interchange at I-25. This route could then be integrated into existing State Bike Route 9 into downtown Santa Fe.

Another opportunity to designate State Bike Route 66 in Santa Fe may be found along Cerrillos Rd. (NM14), the pre-1937 alignment of historic Route 66 which within a few years will have paved shoulders or bike lanes the entire distance from St. Francis Dr. to I- 25.

Bike Route 66. On November 22, 2010, the premiere provider of mapping and travel information services for long-range bicycle tourists in North America, the Adventure Cycling Association (ACA), announced that it will add “Bike Route 66” between Chicago and Los Angeles to the 40,000 mile network of routes that ACA has researched and mapped (see www.adventurecycling.org/news/20101122.cfm.

ACA will be working with state and local agencies and through AASHTO to designate a U.S. Bike Route Bicycle Route 66 in conjunction with ACA’s Bike Route 66. Routes through the Santa Fe metropolitan area will undoubtedly be researched and mapped by ACA within the next year or so, and it can be anticipated that the pre-1937 alignment of Route 66 through Santa Fe will a major alternative, if not the major alternative, promoted by ACA (see Appendix 8, including map of Route 66 alignments between Santa Rosa and Albuquerque). Because it may take many years before states approve signing the U.S. route, it is conceivable that parts of the future route be signed as New Mexico State Bike Route 66 in the interim.

State Bike Route 66 (shield on left), has been signed in elsewhere in NM Photo from ACA blog, and could be a precursor to US Bike “Bicycling the Mother Route 66 (shield on right) in the Road,” Nov. 24, 2010 Santa Fe area.

74 | Page Recommendations

d. Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map

Continue to update, promote, and distribute the Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map. Post hard copies at strategic locations in the bikeway system, particularly transit stations, parks, and trailside locations. Recommended locations for consideration of map displays include: • Railyard Station • Railyard Park • S. Capital Station • Sheridan Transit Center/Plaza area • Santa Fe Place: Transit Center and/or Playground • Rail Trail at Rabbit Rd. • Ashbaugh Park at Acequia Trail connector trailhead • Acequia Trail at Felipe St. • River Trail in Alto Park • Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail near Genoveva Chavez Community Center/Monica Lucero Park • Intersection of Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail and Rail Trail at Siringo • Santa Fe Community College • Intersection of Richards Ave. and Ave. del Sur/Spur Trail

A mock-up of the 2012 Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map as it might look placed in a currently-empty placard at Monica Lucero Park.

75 | Page Recommendations

V. Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement

A. Assessment of Education and Encouragement Activities

Education of bicyclists, motorists, elected officials, public servants, and the general public about bicycle transportation is a critical component of this Bicycle Master Plan, as are efforts to encourage individuals, businesses, and public agencies to recognize the value of bicycle transportation and to use bicycles for transportation needs. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) responses to the City of Santa Fe’s applications for recognition as a Bicycle-Friendly Community have repeatedly called for more attention to the area of education in particular.

1. Promotional Events

Bike-to-Work Week and Bike-to-Work Day celebrations have been a major venue for education and encouragement of bicycling each May since the 1990s. The City has taken an increasingly active role in coordinating and promoting these events, working with local bike shops, the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), NMDOT, and community organizations including Bike Santa Fe, the Pedal Queens, Seniors on Bikes (SOBs), the Chainbreakers Collective, and the Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico (BCNM). Bicycle transportation has also been showcased as part of National Transportation Day at NMDOT’s General Offices. Other opportunities to celebrate the bicycle in Santa Fe have included National Trails Day (June 1), Walk and Roll to School Day (held each October), and especially whenever new trail segments or bike lanes have been opened.

Another form of promoting bicycling is to organize group rides. Various cycling organizations hold recreational rides or races in the Santa Fe area, including the Pedal Queens, SOBs, the New Mexico Touring Society, the Santa Fe Century Committee, and various bicycle racing groups. The City’s Recreation Dept. also organizes various recreational events involving bicycles, such as the Santa Fe Triathlon, and co- Promotional events include trail openings (top), sponsors many more, including the La Tierra bike-to-work events coordinated by the city Trails “Trail Jam” and the Santa Fe Century. (middle, with goathead piñata), and “community cruises” organized by the MPO (bottom).

76 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Transportation-oriented rides - specifically intended to increase knowledge of local bikeways, to introduce new riders to comfortable routes, and to inform and foster dialog on bikeway planning - include Bike-to-Work Day convoys organized by the City and other partners and “Community Cruises” supported by the MPO. Various other formal and informal group rides, currently embodied in a weekly “loops” event, combine fun and education for cyclists and would-be cyclists.

2. Educating and Equipping Bicyclists

The Santa Fe area now has a half-dozen active League Cycling Instructors (LCIs) trained and certified by LAB to educate the public on “smart cycling” and several more individuals who have been trained in providing more basic “Bicycling 1- 2-3” instruction.41 Many of these instructors received this training in the past year through BCNM’s Bicycle Education Coordinator, who is certified by LAB as a “Master Cycling Instructor,” as part of a statewide activity that was until recently supported by federal transportation enhancement funds provided through NMDOT. Local LCIs are now organizing training sessions Some of Santa Fe’s League Cycling and linking with various organizations in order to Instructors, certified by the League of bring bicycle education to adults as well as American Bicyclists (Photo by Tammy Schurr children. / BCNM)

The health community has also been engaged in bicycle education with a focus on safety. Staff of La Familia Medical Center has worked with area schools to educate children and a Christus St. Vincent Hospital nurse has long provided helmet distribution and helmet fittings at public events. The City’s Recreation Dept. has been active in assisting private partners, such as Christus St. Vincent Hospital, and public partners, such as the Santa Fe Police Dept., at helmet giveaways, with professional fittings, Transportation-oriented cyclists need to be able to use roads safely and effectively. “Smart and “bike rodeos” where children can learn cycling” curricula developed by LAB and used bicycling skills from a trained instructor on a by local LCIs teach the importance of being closed course. The City and the MPO have also confident and assertive as a “vehicular cyclist,” distributed bicycle safety information, including positioning oneself on the roadway in particularly through the Bikeways and Trails a visible and predictable manner. Map, whose reverse side includes a variety of written and illustrated tips for safe and effective use of the bicycle.

41 For links to LAB educational curricula, local LCI contact information, and a schedule of upcoming trainings by LCIs in New Mexico and elsewhere, see http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/ .

77 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Non-profit groups, such as Bike Santa Fe and the Chainbreaker Collective, have also worked to educate community members on safe and effective cycling as well as on how to build and maintain bicycles as affordable transportation. Along with a variety of other groups, including bike shops, the Santa Fe Century Committee, and students of the Santa Fe Preparatory School, these organizations are specifically working to make bicycle transportation an affordable transportation option for lower-income New Mexicans by way of repairing and donating rehabilitated bicycles. Working to this end, Bike Santa Fe in collaboration with the Chainbreaker Collective runs Santa Fe’s annual “Bike Swap.”

Another means of outfitting cyclists is providing low-cost bike rentals, as the City has envisioned within a “Railyard Transportation Center.” Current bike rentals in Santa Fe target, and are priced for, visiting recreational cyclists rather than individuals seeking short-term transportation. Insurance requirements are cited as a major obstacle to lower- cost rentals by bike shops. UNM and the City of Albuquerque are currently discussing the establishment of a public “bike share” system on and around the UNM campus. The potential for bike sharing in Santa Fe is discussed further under Recommendation 2.6 on p. 82.

3. Educating Motorists

BCNM and Bike Santa Fe have worked to raise awareness of bicycles among motorists through campaigns such as “Give Bicyclists Five Feet” slogan This “lawn sign” initiative, originally produced for the boards placed throughout the city. Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico by New Mexico Artists for Another form of raising all highway Hire (see www.nmartistsforhire.com), relates closely to Bike users’ awareness of bicycles, and the Santa Fe’s efforts to pass bike-friendly laws at the state and local levels. A five-foot passing law was adopted by City need to safely share the road, has been Council in 2011 as part of Santa Fe’s new bicycle code. the installation of “ghost bikes” where bicyclist fatalities have occurred in New Mexico. This activity, spearheaded by the Duke City Wheelmen Foundation, based in Albuquerque, is protected under state law relating to roadside descansos (memorial shrines).42 Two bicyclists who were killed on Santa Fe area roadways in years past were memorialized through ghost bikes in 2010-11.

Local LCIs and BCNM’s Bicycle Education Coordinator may also be available to discuss Ghost Bikes, such as this one placed on the safe operation of motor vehicles around median of NM599 for David Sciera, are bicyclists with special audiences such as transit memorials to bicyclists who have died on our roadways. Ghost bikes are intended to operators, police, public agency staff, raise awareness of the need for motorists teenagers, or driving students. The City has and bicyclists to safely share the road.

42 See Bicycle Times, Issue 9 (Feb. 2011), “Ghosts Bikes: Fallen Riders Remembered,” pp. 66-72.

78 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

expressed interest in receiving this kind of training for transit operators in Santa Fe.

Another strategy to educate motorists about safe driving around bicyclists is to include bicycle education in drivers’ education curricula and to include questions about bicycles in the tests that new drivers must take in order to receive their license. Local advocates and BTAC members worked with the State Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) in the past year to get more questions about bicycles in the MVD’s standard tests and to add more information into training materials. As a result, the June 2011 revision of MVD’s Members of the Duke City Wheelmen, Bicycle Coalition of NM, local law enforcement, and friends and family of “New Mexico Driver Manual,” now Amy Marie Jobe gather in Cuyamungue in March 2011 includes a page and a half dedicated to to dedicate a ghost bike for the teenager who was struck information on sharing the road with trying to cross US84/285 just south of here in 1999. bicyclists.

4. Safe Routes to School

Efforts in the area of educating and encouraging children to bike or walk to school are supported in New Mexico by federal and state-level “Safe Routes to School” (SRTS) programs, which also provide limited funding for related engineering improvements. While Santa Fe-area schools have yet to take advantage of SRTS resources, several have expressed interest and several more are already undertaking significant education and encouragement activities on their own, “Walk and Roll to School Day” is an annual event that is including participation in the annual celebrated by various Santa Fe area schools. Walking or Walk and Roll to School Day promoted bicycling to school on a regular basis is a healthy activity each October by the New Mexico Safe that also serves to reduce motor vehicle traffic congestion around schools. Routes to School (NMSRTS) program.

SRTS advocates at Chaparral Elementary School have made efforts to create an “SRTS Action Plan.” These plans typically include data on the number of children walking and bicycling to school, information on educational and promotional efforts, analysis of walking and cycling conditions on campus and in the surrounding neighborhood, and proposed improvements. A completed SRTS Action Plan is required by the NMSRTS program in order to apply for “Phase 2” funding for infrastructure improvements.

79 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

B. Bicycle Law, Enforcement, and Legislative Activities

1. State Law.

As throughout the United States, bicyclists have for the most part the same rights and responsibilities as motorists on streets and highways in the Santa Fe MPO area. Most traffic law relating to bicycling in our area comes from the Uniform Vehicle Code as adopted by the State of New Mexico, with some specific state revisions that can be reviewed in the NMDOT’s latest “BPE Advisory Plan.43” Bike Santa Fe and other groups have recently endeavored to Signage on the US84/285 frontage road in Tesuque revise or establish new state laws Pueblo cites specific state law affirming bicyclists’ relating to bicycling, including five- legal responsibilities on roadways. feet-to-pass, the “Idaho stop” law (permitting cyclists to roll through STOP signs), and increased penalties for distracted driving. Of these three initiatives, just the five-feet-to-pass bill passed the NM House and Senate but was vetoed by Gov. Martinez in early 2011.

Under the state Child Helmet Safety Law, children and youth under 18 years of age are required to wear a helmet when using bicycles, tricycles, skateboards, scooters, or skates on Under state law, bicyclists are required to ride “as far to the right as practicable.” Tesuque Pueblo tribal public property. law includes a provision requiring cyclists to ride single file.

43 Specific state law relating to bicycling can be reviewed in the NMDOT’s BPE Advisory Plan (April 2009), pp. 66-68. Additional state laws and administrative code relating to bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians can be found in the BPE Program’s “Applicable State Laws (2008).”

80 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

2. Local Law.

Advocates working through the City’s Bicycle City of Santa Fe’s New “Five- and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC) foot-to-pass” law (12-6.2.7F): recently examined city code with respect to “When approaching or passing a traffic and other laws relating to bicyclists, bicyclist, every person operating a reviewed models elsewhere in the country, and motor vehicle shall proceed with proposed revisions to the City’s Uniform caution and shall pass such bicyclist at Traffic Ordinance. These revisions were a reasonable speed and keep a safe passed into law by the City Council in June distance from him. In no event shall a 2011 under Ordinance 2011-23. Among the distance of less than five feet be new provisions were a “five-feet-to-pass” law considered a safe distance within the (see text box), prohibition of driving a motor meaning of this Section. To comply vehicle on a bike lane or path except under with the requirements of this certain conditions, prohibition of harassment of paragraph, a person operating a motor vehicle may be required to drive at a bicyclists by motorists, inclusion of helmet- slower rate of speed...” mounted lights to satisfy lighting requirements, a provision permitting the use of the right hand to signal a right turn, and prohibition of altering serial numbers on bike frames. Also included were clarifications of bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities with regard to positioning within a bike lane or on a roadway with no bike lane. The new code eliminated an antiquated requirement to register bicycles with the city, though City of Santa Fe police still encourage registration of bicycles in order to aid in recovery of stolen property.

In addition to these revisions proposed by advocates, the amendment also requires bicyclists to obey any prohibitions of bicycle traffic on roadways, including roadways along which cyclists may be required to ride on sidewalks or sidepaths.44 There are currently no cases of specific prohibition of bicycles on any public roadway in the Santa Fe area, nor is there any case of a “side path” where cyclists are required to ride rather than on the roadway. There is no support for such prohibitions under New Mexico state law nor in model laws elsewhere in the country. Historic mandatory “side path” laws have been repealed in states throughout the country, including New Mexico in 1997, in recognition of the inappropriateness of requiring bicyclists to behave like pedestrians rather than operators of vehicles on public roadways.

44 12-8-11 RIDING ON PROHIBITED STREETS OR CONTROLLED ACCESS, 12-8-15 RIDING ON SIDEWALKS, Section B.

81 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

C. Recommended Policies, Programs, and Activities for Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement

Goal: Santa Feans and their guests are able to confidently, safely, and effectively ride bicycles within a shared transportation network where cyclists’ rights and responsibilities are understood, respected, and enforced.

Recommendation 2.1: Support Bicycle Education for Children and Adults

This Plan recommends that the MPO, the City and County of Santa Fe, the State of New Mexico, educational institutions, public health and safety advocates, and the local cycling community work together to: • Establish formal programs for pedestrian and bicycle education for children and adults. • Use the services of local certified League Cycling Instructors (LCIs), other local groups active in bicycle education, City In November 2011, the New Mexico Bike Education Recreation Dept. resources, and Summit organized by BCNM in Albuquerque drew seven participants from Santa Fe, including several statewide resources available newly certified League Cycling Instructors. through NMDOT and the Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico (BCNM). • Offer bicycle education to youth, college students, recent arrivals to Santa Fe, new employees, lower-income groups, and other individuals that may be embarking on bicycle transportation for the first time in our area. • Provide bicycle education through the LCIs and others to target audiences such as local government staff, elected officials and committee members, law enforcement, and others who plan for bikes, design for bikes, enforce bicycle laws, and/or use bicycles in their work. • Participate in BCNM’s annual Bike Education Summit. • Link bicycle education with recreational activities, events, and other opportunities. • Provide guidance on trail etiquette, particularly how to be safe and courteous in sharing trails with other users. • Promote helmet use among children, per the New Mexico Child Helmet Law, as well as adults; work with the NM Helmets for Kids Coalition (www.nmchildhelmetlaw.com) and local partners to ensure that helmets are available for children and youths whose families cannot afford a helmet.

82 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Recommendation 2.2: Educate Motorists about Safe Operating Behavior around Bicyclists

This Plan recommends that the MPO work with local and state government and the local cycling community in order to:

• Integrate bicycle awareness into driver education curricula, including those produced by the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), private driving schools, and defensive driving classes offered by public agencies and private entities. • Pursue partnerships with LCIs, bicycle-mounted police, and others to create a speakers resource to speak with high school students, college students, and other young audiences. • Provide training and training materials for special motorist groups such as Santa Fe Trails, RTD, and NM Park and Ride bus drivers. • Partner with the MVD and the legal system to offer bicycle education to motorists who have had their driver’s licenses revoked. • Prepare and distribute printed materials educating motorists about safe driving around bikes. • Consider use of mass media, public transit advertising space (on-board busses and trains, on the exterior of busses, and at bus stops) and other means to encourage bicycle-friendly driving in the Santa Fe area. Use City Channel and other public resources for bicycle-related messages. Create and distribute Public Service Announcements, e.g. on “Five Feet to Pass” now that it is city law, or the meaning of “sharrows” and relation to safe passing behavior.

Recommendation 2.3: Enforce Traffic Laws Relating to Bicycling

This Plan proposes that the MPO work with local governments, the cycling community, and law enforcement in order to:

• Support training of City, County and State law enforcement in the City’s new Bicycle Code, other traffic laws and enforcement as they relate to bicycles, and crash reporting procedures for bicyclists and pedestrians.

• Support training of Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, NM State Police, and Tesuque Tribal Police in bicycle laws in effect outside of the City of Santa Fe.

• Develop programs, possibly in partnership with the bicycle industry, the public health community, and local LCIs, that encourage law enforcement officers to distribute helmets, lights, other safety equipment, and educational materials to bicyclists who appear to need them.

83 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Recommendation 2.4: Establish a District-Wide Safe Routes to School Program

This plan recommends that the MPO work with local governments, the cycling community, and Santa Fe Public Schools to: • Secure active involvement of Santa Fe Public School (SFPS) District. • Work toward district-wide involvement in annual Walk-and-Roll-to-School Day (held each October), National Bike-to- School Day (to be held each May), and other promotional opportunities. A dozen bicycles crowd the rack at Gonzales • Advance SFPS policies that favor walking Community School. and bicycling to school. • Enlist support of NMSRTS program, LAB’s Feedback on Santa Fe’s Bicycle-Friendly public health community (e.g., through Community Application, Fall 2011 NMDOH’s Healthier Weight Coalition - Ensure that bicycle-safety education is a routine and the NM Helmets for Kids Coalition), part of public education and that schools and the surrounding neighborhoods are particularly and private foundations for development safe and convenient for biking. of local SRTS activities. - Work with your Bicycle Advisory Committee, • Develop and promote promising trail local bicycle advocates and the Santa Fe MPO alignments and other non-motorized routes to integrate the Safe Routes to School program as part of broader SRTS programs that into local elementary schools, middle schools and high schools. would also have significant impact on the - Strongly encourage all schools to participate. bikeway system. Examples of bikeway Funding is currently still available through the improvements prioritized for this Plan that federal transportation bill SAFETEA-LU, among connect K-8 schools with residential areas several other sources at both the federal and that they serve are presented in Table 7: state levels. See www.saferoutesinfo.org as well as www.nmsaferoutes.com for more

information. Table 7. Prioritization for Top 11 Trail Segments with Significance for Safe Routes to School K-8 School(s) served (1) = Immediate Vicinity Rank* Location and Type of Improvement Score (2) = More Distant (1) Aspen, (2) Gonzales 6 RIVER TRAIL: Connection to La Madera St via Alto Park 31 (also Desert Academy & Dragonfly) 20 TIERRA CONTENTA (N. Arroyo Chamisos) Buffalo Grass to S. Meadows 28 (1) Sweeny & Ortiz 20 SF University of Art & Design ROADBED: along E. Boundary Ditch 28 (1) De Vargas 20 ARROYO CHAPARRAL TRAIL: Ragal Park to Zia Station via Candelero Park 28 (1) Chaparral 20 NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: Pinon ES to Pueblos del Sol Trails 28 (1) Pinon 32 PUEBLOS DEL SOL: N-S Connector across Governor Miles 27 (2) Pinon 32 RAIL TRAIL: Connectionat Calle Sombra 27 (2) De Vargas 43 ARROYO EN MEDIO TRAIL: completing route from Sawmill to Rodeo 26 (2) Capshaw 43 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Zia to Zia Connection 26 (1) Capshaw ARROYO CHAPARRAL TRAIL: Arroyo Chamisos Trail to Ragal Park or 43 26 (2) Chaparral Chaparral ES. 43 ARROYO DE LOS PINOS TRAIL: Fifth St @ Camino Lado to Llano St. 26 (1) De Vargas

* - All Scores and rankings reflect overall trail considerations – not specific to SRTS

84 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Recommendation 2.5: Continue to Promote and Celebrate Bicycles and Bicycle Transportation in the Santa Fe Area

This plan recommends that the MPO, partner agencies, and the local cycling community:

• Continue to support promotional activities such as Bike-to-Work Week and Walk and Roll to School Day. • Continue to support community bicycle rides; explore opportunities to create new rides tied in with other areas of interest, e.g. art (particularly outdoor art) or history. • Promote the use of bicycles by tour groups in downtown Santa Fe and environs.45 • Promote bicycling as active transportation in collaboration with public health partners and through recreational bicycling events and other public events. Use bike valet service or bike corrals at large outdoor events both to facilitate and to visibly promote bicycling. • Distribute and post the Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map as discussed under Chapter IV on “wayfinding.” • Develop useful Bike Route guidance signage, as discussed under Chapter IV; establish an ongoing program to provide guidance for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Develop electronic wayfinding resources, e.g. “apps” with local bikeway information. • Promote Bike Tourism in and through Santa Fe: o Work with the Visitor’s Center and Convention Bureau, the private sector, and regional and national organizations such as Adventure Cycling Association to market Santa Fe as an “active vacation destination.” o Develop special maps and other marketing materials to showcase Santa Fe’s bicycling resources to visitors. o Promote long-term development of longer-range on-road and off-road facilities such as State Bike Route 9, State or US Bike Route 66, and the Rio Grande Trail.

LAB’s Feedback on Santa Fe’s Bicycle-Friendly Community Application, Fall 2011 - Promote, host, sponsor and/or encourage a variety of bicycle-themed, fun and family-friendly community events year-round, such as a bike movie festival, a 4th of July bike parade, an “increase-your-appetite” Thanksgiving community ride, a dress-like-Santa community ride before Christmas, a kids triathlon, a bicycle fashion show, a Halloween bike decoration competition, a bike to the arts event, etc. - Work closely with local bicycle advocacy groups, bike clubs, bike shops, bike teams and schools. - Provide appropriate safety measures such as road closures or police escorts.

45 See, for example, http://bikeandroll.com/washingtondc/dcbiketours.html .

85 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Recommendation 2.6: Establish a Bike-Sharing Program as an Extension of Public Transit Services

This Plan recommends that the MPO, the City, and partners continue to explore opportunities to establish organized bike sharing in the Santa Fe area through a viable number of standard kiosks, closely linked to and offered as an extension of other transit services.

Given support through a professional market analysis, or even a demonstration at an event (such as the IMBA World Summit), bike sharing based on established models might be attempted in Santa Fe as a pilot project, focusing on a specific area (downtown) or a specific market group (e.g., city, county and “Capital Bikeshare” is operated by the Washington state workers). Opportunities should be Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in Washington D.C. and Northern Virginia. explored to broaden the market of potential users, including establishment of a regional bikeshare program to include the Albuquerque metropolitan area, through a regional transit agency such as Rio Metro, operator of the NM Rail Runner.46

Santa Fe’s dense downtown with disbursed transit centers, all within a one-mile radius around the Railyard, offers a promising nucleus for a bike share system. Analysis for this plan, based on proximity to transit, access to public buildings and services, mixed uses, residential and employment density, spatial distribution, and availability of publicly- owned land produces the following proposal for initial or phased-in kiosk locations, which could be changed and expanded based on demand for kiosks in the private sector (also see Map 6 on the following page).

• Santa Fe Depot/Guadalupe St. • Museum Hill • Railyard Plaza/Park • St. John’s College • South Capitol Station/Complex • Christus St. Vincent Hospital/Med. Ctr. • Baca St./West Railyard/NMDOT • Future Zia Rail Station/Plaza Entrada • Sheridan Transit Center/City Hall/Plaza • Salvador Perez Pool/Cordova St. • Roundhouse (State Capitol) • Santa Fe UAD/St. Michaels Dr. • Canyon Rd./PERA Building • Alto Park/Solana Shopping Center • Fort Marcy Park Recreation Center • Devargas Mall • Genoveva Chavez Community Center Phase in: • Municipal Recreation Center • Santa Fe Place Transit Center/Mall • Southside Library/Tierra Contenta • NM599 Rail Station • Santa Fe Community College (1-3) • Rancho Viejo Plaza/Oshara Village

46 E.g., see a recent Request for Proposals to develop a bikeshare system along a commuter railway for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (full reference in App. 13 under “BAAQMD”).

86 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Map 6 below builds on the list on p. 86, proposing up to 20 initial locations for bike share kiosks and roughly 20 more additional locations that could be considered in an expansion of the system, which could be facilitated by private partnerships to re-locate existing kiosks or establish new kiosk locations.

Map 6: Bike Share System, Initial 10-20 Kiosks and Expansion (Conceptual)

87 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

Recommendation 2.7: Encourage and facilitate the use of bicycles by public agency staff and in the private sector

This Plan recommends that the MPO work with public agencies and other partners to: • Recognize the bicycle as a legitimate, safe, efficient and desirable form of transportation for official duties. • Promote increased official use of bicycles by law enforcement, emergency responders, parking enforcement, parks maintenance staff, building inspectors, security personnel, and others. • Promote use of bike share systems by staff of public agencies and large private LAB’s Feedback on Santa Fe’s Bicycle- employers. Friendly Community Application, Fall 2011 • Provide incentives, or remove - Actively facilitate stronger connections disincentives, to private businesses that between bicycle advocates, the wider use bicycles, including but not limited bicycling community and law enforcement. to delivery, pedicab, and security Increase the number of police officers services. patrolling multi-use paths and streets on bike, as it gives officers a better understanding of • Restrict use of public agency or the conditions for cyclists and keeps secluded contractor motor vehicles on multi-use multi-use paths safe. trails.

Recommendation 2.8: Create Incentives / Remove Barriers to Travel by Bike

This Plan recommends that the MPO and partner agencies coordinate efforts to: • Work with public and private employers to create services and incentives for staff who commute by bicycle, including providing employees with lockers, showers, and protected parking, and offering to reimburse costs of commuting by bicycle at least on par with support for commuting by other means.47 • Allow developments to substitute bicycle provisions, including lanes, trails, parking, or bike share kiosks, in place of provisions otherwise required for motor vehicle parking. • Encourage local businesses, government agencies, and higher-education institutions to pursue recognition from LAB as “Bicycle-Friendly Businesses” (BFBs) or “Bicycle-Friendly Universities.” For those that are interested, the MPO can organize consultations with and field visits to recognized BFB’s in our area, including BTI in Santa Fe and General Mills in Albuquerque.

47 Employers may provide such reimbursements tax-free under the Bicycle Commuter Act of 2008. For more information, see www.bikewalk.org/bca.php.

88 | Page Education, Encouragement and Enforcement

VI. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Implementing the recommendations of this plan will require coordination of a wide variety of players within the Santa Fe metropolitan area. The implementation plan focuses on developing methods to publicize and disseminate the recommendations above to key public and private partners responsible for various facets of implementation. Ultimately it is the Santa Fe MPO which will take responsibility for publicizing and disseminating the BMP recommendations in close coordination with partner agencies, as suggested in section A below. This Chapter details various agency responsibilities in Section B, phased implementation of proposed projects in Section C, and funding mechanisms to be pursued in Section D.

A. Adopting, Publicizing and Disseminating the Bicycle Master Plan

The Citizens’ Advisory Group emphasized that one of the most important steps will be disseminating this plan’s recommendations to elected officials, agency staff, and the public in a sustained fashion. A successful Bicycle Master Plan will need to be adopted not only by the MPO’s Transportation Policy Board but also by each member of the MPO, as soon as possible, by resolution or by ordinance. The next step will be to develop accountability by having MPO staff report on implementation progress on a regular basis. MPO staff should develop a work plan with appropriate agency staff including specific tasks and ways to measure progress toward accomplishing goals under the BMP. Every activity that represents progress toward the BMP goals should be closely documented for periodic reporting as well as measurement of overall progress.

“Public involvement does not end with the adoption of the plan. Every project will involve some outreach. Don’t take for granted that projects will move forward just because they are in an adopted plan. Public outreach should be taken very seriously; otherwise you’ll risk a public backlash that slows or stops implementation of the plan. If possible, replicate or adapt other public outreach models that have worked in your community or region.”

“Successfully implementing a BMP means taking advantage of every opportunity that presents itself. Every public and private project and program can provide an opportunity to make improvements for bicyclists. The ingredients of success are time, money, and most importantly, political will. If the time is ripe, go for it.”

- Peter Lagerwey, Creating a RoadMap for Producing & Implementing a Bicycle Master Plan.

This Bicycle Master Plan is the bicycle component of the Santa Fe MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Through its Unified Planning Work Program, the MPO will work to implement those recommendations that are identified as its responsibility. The MPO will work with local agencies, the public, committees and advisory groups, advocacy groups, and other partners to develop strategies to pursue policy changes called for in this BMP, including the development of a local bicycle-pedestrian program staffed by a bicycle- pedestrian coordinator. Central to this effort will be educating elected officials and agency staff, “marketing” the BMP and providing regular workforce training. Training for local, tribal, and state government staff may range from a brief, general overview of the BMP to more intensive “in-service” training for members of key agency divisions.

89 | Page Implementation Plan

B. Agency Responsibilities

This plan emphasizes the need to coordinate bikeway planning, construction, and maintenance within the MPO area, including working with city and county public works, streets, parks, trails, and development review departments, as well as public and private utilities, commissions, transit services, NMDOT, other state entities and facilities, and Tesuque Pueblo. The MPO will pursue a relationship whereby agencies may collaboratively plan and implement projects, including shared development and review of plans and designs with significance to the development of the bikeway system. Appendix 13 presents a table seeking to clarify roles and responsibilities related to improving bicycle transportation in the MPO area for specific public agencies, pertinent divisions within those agencies, and selected private entities.

C. Recommended Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Projects

Tables 7 through 10 presents the road, trail, and crossing improvements proposed above, under Chapter IV., “Recommendations,” as projects within three implementation phases: • Phase A, representing a five-year horizon (2012-2017), • Phase B, representing 5-10 years out (2017-2022), and • Phase C representing 10-20 years out (2022-2032). Each recommendation is conceptual and subject to more detailed feasibility analysis by each implementing agency.

Within each phase, proposed projects are broken down by prospective lead agency and type of project. Tables 8 through 10 also provides a “planning-level” cost estimate for each recommended improvement, based on standardized unit costs and other cost considerations outlined in Appendix 14: Unit Costs used in Tables 8-10. These improvements are also shown by type of improvement, phase, and general trail alignment on Maps 7-15.

The three implementation phases reflect not only project priority but the need to logically sequence improvements to achieve maximum impact. Some Tierra Contenta subdivisions have provided current and future Santa Feans with many miles of bike lanes and multi-use trails. Tierra projects that ranked high in Contenta’s section of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail spans over the impact and feasibility two miles, providing a direct connection to the future site of a planned analysis may be phased major regional park (the “Southwest Activity Node” or SWAN Park). back in order to allow time Significant bikeways anticipated through private development are for parallel processes or to listed in Table 12.

90 | Page Implementation Plan

conserve scarce funding for other projects. For example, this plan supports the proposed grade-separated crossing of St. Francis Dr. for the Acequia Trail, but places the project in Phase B as a suggestion to conserve short-term resources in order to pursue a wider variety of smaller trail connections with significant impact. After five years, the extent to which various programmed improvements to the Acequia Bikeway listed in Phase A have contributed to increased demand for the grade-separated crossing may make the decision to commit to the crossing far more compelling.

The continued development of multi-use trails, including missing connections to neighborhoods and services, sorely-needed street crossing improvements, and repaving of aging trails, accounts for nearly 90% of spending proposed for the first five years under this Bicycle Master Plan.

This list of public projects in Tables 8 through 11 is as comprehensive as possible but is not exhaustive. New priorities for trail alignments, connections, crossings, and road improvements will continue to arise as our metropolitan area develops and as bicycle use expands. The MPO and its member agencies will need to continue to strive to anticipate future needs and to take advantage of opportunities that arise relating to private developments (e.g., see Table 12) as well as public projects. Thus implementation of this BMP requires some flexibility. The contents of these Phases will be revisited and revised by the MPO and its member agencies as implementation proceeds.

91 | Page Implementation Plan

Table 8. Phase A Recommended Improvements, with Anticipated Lead Agency and Cost Estimate Phase A: 2012-2017, listed in order of Agency, and then type of project Type of Cost Improvement Improvement miles Estimate (1) City-Lead Trail Construction (in rough order of priority) 1 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Don Gaspar to Camino del Campo, w/underpasses 0.40$ 682,000 2 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connection/Crosswalk to Campo 0.01$ 21,560 3 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connections/Crosswalks to Candelario 0.01$ 21,560 4 Multi-Use Trail RAIL TRAIL: St. Francis Dr. to Cordova (along Pen Rd.) 0.20$ 176,000 5 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Cam. De Chelly 0.02$ 15,840 6 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connection to La Madera St. 0.02$ 59,400 7 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Cam. de la Conq. 0.01$ 6,600 8 Multi-Use Trail RAIL TRAIL: Cordova to Alta Vista (S. Capitol Station) 0.20$ 176,000 9 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Hmnos Rodriguez Park to Harrison 0.10$ 66,000 10 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Bridge to Oñate 0.05$ 88,000 11 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Bridge to Kathryn 0.05$ 88,000 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Widen connector, install ADA ramp to mall road at Villa 12 Multi-Use Trail 0.05$ 27,500 Linda playground 13 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Connection to Larragoite Park (w/ X-Walk) & Agua Fria St. 0.10$ 73,370 14 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Camino del Campo to St Francis Dr. (widen existing trail) 0.40$ 234,667 15 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Otowi Dr. to Maclovia Park (w/ Otowi improvements @ C. de Chelly & San Felip 0.10$ 83,820 16 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL @ C Colon: Widen connection NA$ 5,500 17 Multi-Use Trail TIERRA CONTENTA (N. Arroyo Chamiso): Buffalo Grass Rd. to S. Meadows 0.38$ 247,500 18 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Rufina to San Felipe, with connector and crosswalk at Agua Fria 1.00$ 660,770 19 Multi-Use Trail LA TIERRA TRAILS: Connection from Camino de los Montoyas via NM599 Underpass 0.40$ 264,000 19.1 Multi-Use Trail MRC TRAIL: River Trail to JCT Caja del Rio Rd./NM599 frontage rd (via exstg underpass) 0.50$ 385,000 20 Multi-Use Trail SFUAD ROADBED along E. Boundary Ditch, w/tie-ins to Llano @ DV MS & La Farge Library 0.70$ 737,000 21 Multi-Use Trail RAIL TRAIL CONNECTION: Monterrey 0.05$ 33,000 ARROYO CHAPPARAL TRAIL: from Ragle Park to Zia Station via Candelero Park, with tie-in to 22 Multi-Use Trail 0.50$ 660,000 ped bridge to Zia 23 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL / KENNEDY LINE: Pinon ES to Pueblos del Sol trails 0.20$ 132,000 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL:: Extend connector trail from Villa Linda Park soccer field 24 Multi-Use Trail 0.13$ 82,500 to transit stop 25 Multi-Use Trail Railyard Park & Plaza, West Railyard Connections (see Bikeways Mapping Project) NA$ 63,580 NM CENTRAL / KENNEDY LINE: AC Trail / GCCC to Rodeo Rd. (w/X-walk to sidewalk to front 26 Multi-Use Trail 0.30$ 198,385 entrance) 27 Multi-Use Trail PUEBLOS DEL SOL: N-S Connector across Gov. Miles (w/related improvements) 0.10$ 128,370 28 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Connection south to Richards Ave. 0.10$ 66,000 ARROYO MASCARAS TRAIL: From San Francisco St. to Las Mascaras St., including speed 29 Multi-Use Trail 0.10$ 94,600 table at San Francisco (Villa Alegre) 30 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Maclovia Park to Hnos. Rodriguez Park 0.20$ 139,370 31 Multi-Use Trail CAÑADA RINCON TRAIL: Calle Mejia to Zocalo 0.20$ 132,000 32 Multi-Use Trail RAIL TRAIL CONNECTION: Calle Sombra 0.10$ 66,000 33 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: NM14 to Entrada Contenta (to meet Las Soleras) 0.20$ 132,000 34 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO EN MEDIO TRAIL: completing route from Zia to Sawmill 0.25$ 192,500 35 Multi-Use Trail GAIL RYBA TRAIL: East to Botulph Side Path, w/ St. M's connection 0.40$ 264,000 36 Multi-Use Trail GAIL RYBA TRAIL: Zia to Zia Connection 0.20$ 132,000 37 Multi-Use Trail RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIONS: Rodeo Park E. (x2-3) 0.10$ 66,000 38 Multi-Use Trail SARAH WILLIAMS TRAIL: Gonzales Rd. to Dale Ball Trails along Hyde Park Rd. 0.90$ 44,550 Soft-Surface Trail 39 LA TIERRA TRAILS: Connection from Cañada Rincon Trail (s. of Tano Rd.) 0.30$ - Easement Soft-Surface Trail 40 ARROYO POLAI: Formalize connection from Upper Canyon Rd. to Dale Ball and D Stewart Trails 0.20$ - Easement TOTAL 9.21$ 6,746,942 (2) City-Lead Trail Maintenance Projects (in rough order of priority) 1 Repave M-Use TrailARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Repave from Yucca St. to Rodeo Rd. 2.00$ 880,000 2 Repave M-Use TrailARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Repave from Siringo Rd. to Yucca St. 0.75$ 330,000 3 Repave M-Use TrailARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Repave from Siringo to bridge over Arroyo Chamisos 0.50$ 220,000 4 Repave M-Use TrailARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Repave along Nava Ade 0.60$ 264,000 5 Maintenance RAIL TRAIL: Build retaining wall south of I-25 NA$ 55,000 TOTAL 3.85$ 1,749,000 (3) City-Lead Trail Crossing Improvements (in rough order of priority) ACEQUIA/RAIL TRAIL: St. Francis-Cerrillos Intersection Improvements, Phase I (inc. w-bound 1 Crossing NA$ 201,080 bike lane) 2 Crossing ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Crossing at Yucca St: Remove gates, build median refuge NA$ 27,500 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Crossing at Cam. Carlos Rey: remove gates, related 3 Crossing NA$ 27,500 improvements ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Crossing at Ave de las Campanas: remove bollards, 4 Crossing NA$ 27,500 rebuild median refuge RAIL TRAIL: Mark Crossings at Alta Vista, 2nd St., Siringo; Improve Paseo de Peralta markings; 5 Crossing NA$ 3,080 consider Manhattan, Alcaldesa 6 Crossing ST FRANCIS DRIVE TRAIL: St. Francis-Siringo Intersection Improvements NA$ 220,000 7 Crossing RAIL TRAIL: Crossing at St Michael's Dr., Consider Pedestrian Hybrid Signal NA$ 220,000 8 Crossing RAIL TRAIL: Crossing at Cordova Rd., Consider Pedestrian Hybrid Signal NA$ 220,000 9 Crossing ACEQUIA / CHILE LINE (Railyard Pk.): X-walk across Cerrillos to Gilmore St. NA$ 12,540 TOTAL NA$ 959,200 Continued on next page 92 | Page Implementation Plan

Phase A: 2012-2017, listed in order of Agency, and then type of project Type of Cost Improvement Improvement miles Estimate (4) City-Lead On-Road Bikeway Improvements (in rough order of priority) 1 Bike Lanes W. San Francisco: Contra-flow bike lane from plaza to Galisteo 0.10$ 1,870 2 Bike Lanes Siringo: Study and Implement Bike Lanes where feasible (Ave de las C to Botulph) 2.50$ 115,500 W. Alameda: Stripe bike lanes between Alire and Defouri St. (restrict some parking; consider 3 Bike Lanes 1.20$ 37,510 sharrows @ major intersections) 4 Bike Lanes Galisteo: Stripe bike lanes from St. Michael's/Harkle to Hospital 0.40$ 14,438 5 Bike Lanes Galisteo: Widen by 5 ft. from San Mateo to Hospital 0.05$ 6,875 6 Bike Lanes Widen Camino de las Crucitas: 5 ft., Michelle to Buckman 0.20$ 55,000 7 Bike Lanes San Mateo: Study and Implement Bike Lanes where feasible (Galisteo to 2nd St.) 1.00$ 46,200 8 Bike Lanes Widen Old Santa Fe Trail: Sun Mtn Rd. to E. Zia Rd. and beyond within city limits 0.75$ 206,250 9 Bike Lanes Paseo de Peralta Road Diet: Palace to Old Santa Fe Trail 0.60$ 27,720 10 Bike Lanes Siler Road Diet (under way) 0.40$ 18,480 11 Bike Lanes Pacheco St.: Study and Implement Bike Lanes where feasible (n. of San M to Siringo) 1.00$ 30,800 12 Bike Lanes Wagon Rd.: Restripe with Bike Lanes (if not sharrows) 0.10$ 4,620 13 Bike Lanes Cerrillos Rd.: Reconstruct with Bike Lanes, Maez Rd. to Llano St. 0.60 - 14 Sharrows Osage: Sharrows bet. Agua Fria and San I 0.10$ 550 15 Sharrows Paseo de Peralta: Sharrows bet. Washington and Palace 0.30$ 1,650 16 Sharrows Tierra Contenta: Sharrows as needed where road narrows on Jaguar, Paseo del Sol, etc. 1.00$ 5,500 17 Sharrows Wagon Rd.: Sharrows 0.10$ 550 TOTAL 10.40$ 573,513 (5) County-Lead Trail Construction (in rough order of priority) 1 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO: NM599 Station to Fire Place Rd. via abandoned I-25 on-ramp 0.25$ 165,000 3 Soft-Surface Trail COUNTY RAIL TRAIL: Improvements from Rabbit Rd. to Spur Trail 1.50$ 330,000 4 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Frenchy's Field to Siler Rd. 1.00$ 660,000 5 Soft-Surface Trail SPUR TRAIL: Connect into SFCC (SFCC lead) 0.40$ 19,800 6 Soft-Surface Trail COUNTY RAIL TRAIL: Improvements from Spur Trail to Ave Vista Grande 5.00$ 1,100,000 7 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Siler Rd. to San Ysidro Crossing, with connection to Henry Lynch Rd. 1.13$ 1,017,500 8 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: San Ysidro Crossing to Caja del Oro Grant Rd. (pave existing trail) 0.50$ 220,000 9 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: San Felipe to E. of S. Meadows (at AFTC line) 1.25$ 825,000 10 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Caja del Oro Grant Rd. west to AFTC line (w/connection n. to S .Meadows) 0.75$ 495,000 11 Multi-Use Trail Connect County River Trail to Agua Fria Park trails 0.03$ 16,500 ARROYO HONDO (south branch): Fire station Trailhead at Rancho Viejo Blvd. to private 12 Multi-Use Trail 1.25$ 825,000 development west of Richards Ave. - minus section along Via Orilla Dorada 13 Soft-Surface Trail DALE BALL TRAILS: La Piedra Connection to Little Tesuque River (SFNF Trails) from DB Trails 0.60$ 29,700 14 Soft-Surface Trail COUNTY RAIL TRAIL: Improvements from Ave Vista Grande to New Moon Overlook 4.50$ 990,000 15 Soft-Surface Trail NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: Rancho Viejo "District Trail" to Eldorado (Soft-surface) 4.00$ 198,000 TOTAL 22.15$ 6,891,500 (6) County-Lead On-Road Bikeway Improvements (in rough order of priority) 1 Bike Lanes Road Diet: Tesuque Village Rd., Tesuque R. s. to JCT US84/285 1.20$ 55,440 2 Bike Lanes Widen Old Santa Fe Trail: E. Zia Rd. to El Gancho Way 2.00$ 1,100,000 3 Bike Lanes Widen Ave del Sur bet. Rancho Viejo Blvd. and Amy Biehl School (where not already widened for p 0.15$ 41,250 TOTAL 3.35$ 1,196,690 (7) State-Lead Bikeway Improvements (in rough order of priority) Road Diet: OLVH from Paseo de la Luz to Ojo de la Vaca Rd.; w/ SBR 66 wayfinding signage, 1 Bike Lanes 0.60$ 33,220 remove / rebuild cattle guard to east Intersection of Airport Rd./Rodeo Rd. and Cerrillos Rd. (NM14): Study all four legs and implement 2 Bike Lanes NA$ 11,000 Bike Lanes where feasible ARROYO HONDO to ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: via I-25 / NM14 Interchange 3 Multi-Use Trail 1.10$ 726,000 (Dinosaur Trail to Beckner Rd.); Consider signing as State Bike Route 66 4 Bike Lanes Full-width paving, selected state highways (e.g. NM14; frontage roads along NM599, I-25, US84-28 NA$ - Widen other state highways to create shoulders, e.g. as work occurs on narrow frontage roads, 5 Bike Lanes NA$ - NM592 NM14: Modify traffic islands south of NM599, assess future resurfacing or restriping needs in 6 Bike Lanes order to provide consistent shoulder or bike lane bet. Rancho Viejo Blvd. and NM599; Consider 1.00$ 11,000 signing as State Bike Route 66 St. Michael's Dr. (NM466): Consider Bike Lane Retrofit through lane width reduction, west of St. 7 Bike Lanes 1.50$ 46,200 Francis Dr., when next resurfaced & restriped St. Michael's Dr. (NM466), Galisteo St. to Arroyo Chamiso Rd.: Consider bike through lanes in 8 Bike Lanes 0.50$ 2,750 right-turn lanes, e.g. per NACTO TOTAL 4.70$ 830,170 (8) Other Phase A and Ongoing (in rough order of priority) 1 Bike Share System Bike Share System NA$ 550,000 2 Wayfinding City Wayfinding: Various Bike Routes along Trails and Roads NA$ 22,000 3 Wayfinding County Wayfinding: Various Bike Routes along Trails and Roads NA$ 11,000 4 Wayfinding State Highway Wayfinding: State Bike Routes 9 and 66 NA$ 1,100 TOTAL NA$ 584,100

City Trail Construction 9.21$ 6,746,942 City Trail Crossing Improvements NA$ 959,200 City Trail Maintenance (Repaving, etc.) 3.85$ 1,749,000 City On-Road Bikeways & Wayfinding 10.40$ 595,513 City Bike Share NA$ 550,000 County Trails 22.15$ 6,891,500 County On-Road Bikeways & Wayfinding 3.35$ 1,207,690 State Bikeways & Wayfinding 4.70$ 831,270 TOTAL 53.66$ 19,531,114 93 | Page Implementation Plan

Table 9. Phase B Recommended Improvements, with Anticipated Lead Agency and Cost Estimate Phase B: 2017-2022, listed in order of Agency, and then type of project

Type of Cost Improvement miles Improvement Estimate (1) City-Lead Trail Construction (in rough order of priority) 1 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Closson St. NA$ 22,000 2 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: from Gov. Miles to Las Soleras 0.10$ 66,000 3 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS PINOS TRAIL: Fifth St. @ Cam. Lado to Llano St. 0.25$ 180,510 4 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS PINOS TRAIL: Llano St. to CSF Trail @ Yucca & Siringo 0.15$ 114,510 ARROYO CHAPPARAL TRAIL: from Arroyo Chamiso Trail to Chapparal E.S. (to ped bridge to 5 Multi-Use Trail 0.50$ 440,000 north) 6 Multi-Use Trail CAÑADA RINCON TRAIL: Alameda to Camino de las Crucitas 0.20$ 132,000 7 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Maclovia Park to Carmelita St. via Cielo Vista Park 0.10$ 121,000 8 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Torreon Park (w/ bridge & crosswalk), and/or Ave de Torreon 0.10$ 341,770 9 Multi-Use Trail TIERRA CONTENTA (N. Arroyo Chamiso): To Camino Entrada, via S. Meadows, School 0.40$ 264,000 ARROYO DE LOS PINOS TRAIL: Through Herb Martinez Park and west to Richards Ave. 10 Multi-Use Trail 1.00$ 660,000 Extension Trail 11 Multi-Use Trail MRC TRAIL: From NM599 frontage road to MRC entrance & paved path around soccer fields 1.30$ 913,000 12 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Atajo to Cielo Azul development (n. side of Las Acequias Park) 0.13$ 82,500 13 Multi-Use Trail PUEBLOS DEL SOL TRAILS: Utility Line to Camino Carlos Rey 0.20$ 132,000 14 Multi-Use Trail ST. FRANCIS DR. TRAIL: Continue south to Albertson's 0.10$ 66,000 15 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Connection north to Richards Ave. 0.25$ 170,500 16 Multi-Use Trail MRC TRAIL: From Soccer Fields to Caja del Rio Rd. 0.20$ 132,000 17 Multi-Use Trail MRC TRAIL: From Soccer Fields to Caja del Oro Rd. 0.20$ 132,000 18 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL / Route, Patrick Smith Park to Hydroelectric Plant Park: 0.05 $ 178,310 19 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO to ARROYO CHAMISO: Connector along north side of I-25 to Las Soleras 0.25$ 165,000 20 Multi-Use Trail RAIL TRAIL: West Spur from Rodeo Rd. south along Galisteo Rd. 0.50$ 330,000 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Through SWAN Park to Tierra Contenta Trail & Plaza 21 Multi-Use Trail 0.50$ 330,000 Central 22 Multi-Use Trail Las Acequias Park Phase 4: E-W trail along acequia from Atajo to Cielo Azul Development 0.20$ 132,000 23 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL / KENNEDY LINE: Rodeo Rd. to Pinon ES 0.80$ 528,000 24 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS PINOS (Mus. Hill): Along SE branch of arroyo, Corrales Rd. to Camino Lejo 0.10$ 66,000 ARROYO MASCARAS TRAIL: Consider improvements from San Francisco St. to Paseo de 25 Multi-Use Trail 0.30$ 264,000 Peralta Soft-Surface Trail 26 ARROYO VERDE TRAIL: Connecting Gonzales Rd. to La Vereda/Palace Ave. NA$ - Easement 27 Repave M-Use TrailRAIL TRAIL Repave from St. Michael's Dr. and Siringo 0.50$ 220,000 TOTAL 8.38$ 6,183,100 (2) City-Lead Trail Crossing Improvements (in rough order of priority) 1 Crossing ACEQUIA TRAIL: Grade Separated St. Francis Crossing 0.10$ 3,300,000 2 Crossing RIVER TRAIL: Underpass of St. Francis Dr. (per 2012 Bond) NA $ 3,300,000 3 Crossing RAIL TRAIL: Consider Underpass of St. Michael's Dr. NA$ 3,300,000 4 Crossing Cerrillos Rd. at Alarid/Early, with median refuge (St. Francis-Cerrillos Intersection Improvements, P 0.10$ 21,780 5 Crossing RAIL TRAIL: Consider Re-routing trail to cross east of Rodeo with median refuge, striping 0.05$ 44,770 TOTAL NA$ 9,966,550 (3) City-Lead On-Road Bikeway Improvements (in rough order of priority) 1 Bike Lanes Widen Gov. Miles Rd. from Richards to Pueblos del Sol 0.50$ 275,000 2 Bike Lanes Widen San Felipe Rd., Airport Rd. to Agua Fria St. 0.30$ 165,000 St. Michael's Road Diet, west of St. Francis Dr.: reconstruction with bike lanes, following road 3 Bike Lanes 1.50 - exchange to City 4 Bike Lanes Cerrillos Rd., RR tracks to Early St.(St. Francis-Cerrillos Intersection Improvements, Phase II) 0.10$ 58,080 5 Bike Lanes Widen W. Alameda: Calle Nopal to Siler Rd. 1.25$ 687,500 6 Bike Lanes Widen Henry Lynch Rd. 0.50$ 275,000 7 Bike Lanes Stripe bike lanes elsewhere as recommendable (e.g. consider Camino Alire; Osage s. of San I) NA$ - TOTAL 4.15$ 1,460,580 (4) County-Lead Trail Construction (in rough order of priority) 1 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: Rabbit Rd. to Burnt Water Rd. side path 0.50$ 605,000 2 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO: NM14 to Rancho Viejo Blvd. / Fire Station Trailhead 1.00$ 660,000 ARROYO HONDO (south branch): Within RV Blvd. to w. of Richards Ave. / Section along Via 3 Multi-Use Trail 0.75$ 495,000 Orilla Dorada 4 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: E. of Richards Ave., Ave del Sur to trail head 0.10$ 66,000 5 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Constellation to Water Treatment Plant 1.00$ 660,000 6 Multi-Use Trail Rabbit Rd.ext. northside Sidepath / Sidewalk: from Richards Ave. to NM Central RR 0.40$ 211,200 7 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: Rancho Viejo "District Trail" to Eldorado 4.00$ 2,640,000 9 Multi-Use Trail RIVER TRAIL: Connection to Calle Atajo (w/ bridge) 0.20$ 407,000 9 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO: Connection NE to Dinosaur Trail, including bridge over arroyo 1.00$ 935,000 10 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO @ Planned Ped. Bridge North to Dinosaur Trail @ I-25 / NM14 Interchange 0.25$ 165,000 Richards Ave. West Side Sidepath through Petchesky Ranch (Old Dinosaur Trail to roundabout at 11 Multi-Use Trail 0.75$ 495,000 Santo Nino church) 12 Soft-Surface Trail SARAH WILLIAMS TRAIL: Dale Ball Trails to 10,000 Waves along Hyde Park Rd. 0.25$ 12,375 13 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO: From Old I-25 on-ramp to NM14 (including NM14 underpass) 0.25$ 275,000 14 Soft-Surface Trail ARROYO HONDO: Through Petchesky Ranch and south to AH Trail 1.20$ 59,400 TOTAL 11.65$ 7,685,975 Continued on next page 94 | Page Implementation Plan

Phase B: 2017-2022, listed in order of Agency, and then type of project (cont.)

Type of Cost Improvement miles Improvement Estimate (5) County-Lead On-Road Bikeway Improvements (in rough order of priority) 1 Bike Lanes Widen W. Alameda: e. of Chicoma Vista to NM599 frontage road 0.38$ 206,250 2 Bike Lanes Widen to add shoulders: Tesuque Village Rd., Tesuque village n to JCT US84/285 1.50$ 825,000 TOTAL 1.88$ 1,031,250 (6) State-Lead Bikeway Projects (in rough order of priority) 1 Bike Lanes Widen Hyde Park Rd. (NM475) where possible, Artist Rd. to Little Tesuque Cr. 3.50$ 1,925,000 2 Bike Lanes Reconstruct/Repave Old Las Vegas Highway shoulders: fom US285 FR to Paseo de la Luz 1.60$ 445,500 3 Bike Lanes Paseo de Peralta (NM475) Road Diet, or Retrofit through Lane Width Reduction, where feasible$ - TOTAL 5.10$ 2,370,500

City Trails 8.38$ 6,183,100 City Trail Crossing Improvements NA$ 9,966,550 City On-Road Bikeways 4.15$ 1,460,580 County Trails 11.65$ 7,685,975 County On-Road Bikeways 1.88$ 1,031,250 State On-Road Bikeways 5.10$ 2,370,500 TOTAL 26.05$ 26,327,455

Table 10. Phase C Recommended Improvements, with Anticipated Lead Agency and Cost Estimate

Phase C: 2022-2032, listed in order of agency, then type of project

Type of Cost Improvement miles Improvement Estimate (1) City-Lead Trail Construction (in rough order of priority) 1 Multi-Use Trail CAÑADA RINCON TRAIL: Alamo to Calle del Viento (@ Calle Mejia) 0.50$ 330,000 2 Multi-Use Trail CAÑADA RINCON TRAIL: Camino de las Crucitas to Alamo 0.40$ 271,370 3 Multi-Use Trail I-25 NORTH FRONTAGE: Rail Trail / West Spur to Camino Carlos Rey & Pueblos del Sol Trails 0.80$ 528,000 4 Soft-Surface Trail LA TIERRA TRAILS: Connection from NM599 frontage road to SW corner / Chili Line 0.10$ 66,000 5 Soft-Surface Trail SARAH WILLIAMS TRAIL: Cross of the Martyrs Pk. to Gonzales Rd. along Hyde Park Rd. 1.00$ 49,500 6 Multi-Use Trail LA TIERRA TRAILS: Connection from NM599 Underpass west to NM599 frontage road 0.13$ 82,500 7 Multi-Use Trail MRC TRAIL: From Airport Rd. to Acequia Trail (if needed) 0.25$ 165,000 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Along Wagon Rd. Office Complex, cross Arroyo @ 8 Multi-Use Trail 0.30$ 473,000 Emblem Rd. 9 Multi-Use Trail Richards Ave. Westside Sidepath, under I-25 to Dinosaur Trail 0.20$ 139,370 10 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS PINOS: Richards Ave. Connector to Camino de los Arroyos 0.50$ 330,000 11 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Harrison to Calle de Comercio 0.05$ 33,000 12 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Siler Rd. to Henry Lynch Rd. 0.60$ 396,000 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Zia Rd./Fort Union Dr. to St. John's College, w/X-ing 13 Multi-Use Trail 2.00$ 1,821,380 improvements & sidewalk along Zia Rd. TOTAL 6.83$ 4,685,120 (2) City-Lead On-road bikeways (in rough order of priority) Other Road Widening Opportunities in City: e.g. Bishop's Lodge Rd., Rodeo e. of St. Fr., 1 Bike Lanes TBD Buckman Rd. (3) County-Lead Trail Construction (in rough order of priority) Soft-Surface Trail CHILI LINE: Connection SW corner of La T. Trails to Pipeline Rd. Trail & Thistle Lane (possibly 1 0.80$ 264,000 Easement including multi-use path to abandoned Camino la Tierra & mailboxes) ARROYO DE LAS GALLINAS: from NM599 underpass near Aldea to frontage road, e.g. at Via 2 Multi-Use Trail 0.10$ 66,000 Tessera (pending development s. of NM599) 3 Soft-Surface Trail NM CENTRAL / KENNEDY LINE: Eldorado to Galisteo 10.00$ 495,000 4 Soft-Surface Trail COUNTY RAIL TRAIL improvements, New Moon Overlook to Lamy, with US285 underpass 7.00$ 456,500 5 Soft-Surface Trail SARAH WILLIAMS TRAIL: 10,000 Waves to Nunn's Curve (SFNF Trails) along Hyde Park Rd. 0.75$ 37,125 TOTAL 18.65$ 1,318,625 (4) County-Lead On-road bikeways (in rough order of priority) 1 Bike Lanes Widen Rancho Viejo Blvd. 1.75$ 962,500 2 Bike Lanes Widen Old Santa Fe Trail from El Gancho Rd. to Two Trails Rd. 1.75$ 962,500 Other Road Widening Opportunities in County: e.g. Bishop's Lodge Rd., Camino La Tierra, CR42 3 Bike Lanes $ - east of NMCRR TOTAL 3.50$ 1,925,000

City Trails 6.8$ 4,685,120 City On-Road Bikeways TBD County Trails 18.7$ 1,318,625 County On-Road Bikeways 3.5$ 1,925,000 TOTAL 29.0$ 7,928,745

95 | Page Implementation Plan

Table 11. Phase D Recommended Improvements

D Phase D: Long-term, Long-range alignments

Type of Cost Improvement miles Improvement Estimate 1 Multi-Use Trail WEST: To La Bajada & Cochiti via Santa Fe River / Old 66 (as alternative to I-25) NA$ - 2 Crossing NM CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL: Under I-25 and Rail Runner NA$ - 3 Multi-Use Trail EAST: Canoncito to Glorieta via BNSF RR, Galisteo Creek, and/or Old 66 (as alternative to I-25) NA$ - 4 Multi-Use Trail NORTH: To Buckman / Otowi via Chili RR Line, Buckman Diversion, and/or Old Buckman Rd. NA$ - 5 Multi-Use Trail SOUTHWEST: To Waldo Canyon / Cerrillos / Madrid via Railrunner line and old rail bed to Madrid NA$ -

Private development is a cornerstone of bikeway improvements in the city and the county. Improvements that are expected through private development are not included in Tables 8 through 11, but are critical to the determination of priorities and phases for relevant publicly-funded projects. Table 12 below provides a list of “developer-driven” bikeway segments that directly influence the implementation plan. The anticipated timing of these developments and of public initiatives such as river restoration, development of parks and open space, other major public projects, as well as planned annexation, has significant impact on phasing decisions for individual projects in Tables 8-11.

In addition to playing a role within the greater bikeway system, privately-funded facilities respond to needs generated by private developments themselves. Planning for and programming these improvements must therefore remain flexible. This list is not an attempt to reflect all bikeway needs that may be met through private developments but rather an illustration of expectations of the role that private development may play in creating, extending, or connecting into major bikeways in the MPO area.

Table 12: Bikeway Projects Anticipated through Private Development

DD Developer Driven Improvements (selected)

Type of Location miles Improvement 1 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO (south branch): E. of Amy Biehl School through private development to 0.25 2 Bike Lanes Widen Ave del Sur east of Amy Biehl School 0.15 3 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Rufina to Atajo/Las Acequias Park (pending Cielo Azul development) 0.20 4 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: from s. of Gov. Miles to Cerrillos Rd. (Las Soleras) 0.67 5 Multi-Use Trail I-25 NORTH FRONTAGE: Richards Ave. to Las Soleras 1.00 6 Multi-Use Trail I-25 NORTH FRONTAGE: Pueblos del Sol to Richards Ave. 0.50 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Extend connector trail from Santa Fe Place transit stop to 7 Multi-Use Trail 0.25 Wagon Rd. 8 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: West of Plaza Central to NM599 0.50 9 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: Lopez Lane to Atajo 0.13 10 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: West from Villa Linda Soccer Field to Office Complex 0.20 11 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Emblem Rd. through Grant Property to Gov. Miles Rd. 0.20 12 Multi-Use Trail Richards Ave. East Side Sidepath / Sidewalk: from I-25 underpass to Rabbit Rd. Ext.: By 0.25 ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Under NM599 and west to La Cienega area (Pavilion 13 Multi-Use Trail 2.00 Development) 14 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LAS GALLINAS: from NM599 underpass to a street with access to W. Alameda 1.00 15 Multi-Use Trail Richards Ave. Westside Sidepath, south of Beckner to I-25 0.20 16 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO DE LOS CHAMISOS TRAIL: Entrada Contenta to SWAN Park 1.50 17 Multi-Use Trail ACEQUIA TRAIL: from Henry Lynch Rd. to Ave. de Montoya 0.20 18 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO @ NM599 to ARROYO CHAMISO near SWAN Park 1.25 19 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: Rabbit Rd. north to I-25 0.50 20 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: I-25 south frontage / arroyo, from rail bed west to Richards Ave. 0.50 21 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO: NM599 Station to NM599 frontage road via I-25 0.25 22 Multi-Use Trail ARROYO HONDO: under NM599 and west 0.25 23 Multi-Use Trail NM CENTRAL/KENNEDY LINE: I-25 south frontage / arroyo, from rail bed east to Rabbit Rd. 0.50 TOTAL 12.45

96 | Page Implementation Plan

97 | Page Implementation Plan

98 | Page Implementation Plan

99 | Page Implementation Plan

100 | Page Implementation Plan

101 | Page Implementation Plan

D. Funding Sources / Mechanisms

Implementation of this Bicycle Master Plan will depend on continued inclusion of provisions for bicyclists within greater public projects (e.g., “routine accommodation” within transportation projects), within private developments as required by City and County land use and development review departments, and through specific programs and projects by public agencies using dedicated public resources. Public funding and other public support is available at the federal, state, and local levels.

Federal Transportation Funding Sources

Types and amounts of federal transportation funding available for the implementation of this Bicycle Master Plan are subject to the outcome of the current process to re-authorize federal transportation funding under SAFETEA-LU. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements currently qualify for nearly all categories of federal transportation funding, including the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and even Interstate Maintenance (IM) funding. In practice, however, dedicated facilities such as sidewalks, multi-use trails, and bike lanes, are typically only federally funded in New Mexico through the use of dedicated federal resources such as those outlined below.

Transportation Enhancements (TE). Federal TE funds are distributed through NMDOT’s six District offices. State or local matching funds amounting to at least 25% of total TE-eligible expenses are required. Three of the twelve qualifying activities relate specifically to bicycling: • Provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Provision of pedestrian and bicycle safety and education activities • Conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails For more information on the federal TE program, see: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/index.htm

TE funding was used by NMDOT’s District 5 to build sidewalks and landscaping along Old Pecos Trail (NM466) in the 1990s. Past TE support through NMDOT for statewide bicycle education activities under Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico, including training of LCIs and other bicycle instructors in the Santa Fe area, has been discontinued.

Santa Fe County is currently using TE funding to improve the Santa Fe Rail Trail and to initiate work toward a New Mexico Central Rail Trail connecting Eldorado to Santa Fe. NMDOT’s District 5 has forecasted very limited availability of additional TE to the Santa Fe MPO area in the foreseeable future.

Recreational Trail Program (RTP). Federal RTP funds are distributed through the New Mexico State Parks (NMSP) Division of New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD). Much of the RTP funding available to New Mexico is used for trail projects within state parks. A significant percentage of available funding is designated for trails for motorized use.

102 | Page Implementation Plan

RTP funding helped build a multi-use trail on Pojoaque Pueblo, just north of the MPO area, in the 1990s. South of the MPO area, efforts to access RTP funding for a rail trail on the abandoned New Mexico Central Rail line between Moriarty and Estancia have not been successful.

NMSP reports that the current RTP grant cycle is suspended pending availability of funds. For more information, see www.emnrd.state.nm.us/PRD/rectrails.htm .

Safe Routes to School (SRTS). Federal SRTS funds are administered by the NMSRTS program within the NMDOT. New Mexico is eligible for roughly $1,000,000 per year statewide for engineering, education, encouragement, and enforcement activities intended to increase the number of children who walk or ride a bicycle to school. No state or local matching funds are required. The federal formula applied in New Mexico is that 75% of the available funding is to be used for engineering infrastructure and 10% for eligible education, encouragement, or enforcement activities; the remaining 15% is a “flex” category that can be used for either engineering or non-engineering activities.

The NMSRTS program provides successful applicants, including local governments, tribal governments, and/or school districts, with $20,000 in “Phase 1” funding for planning and educational activities. Once a community has created a satisfactory SRTS Action Plan, it is eligible for up to $250,000 for “Phase 2” engineering activities and up to $25,000 in additional non-engineering activities. Although most local SRTS programs focus on a single school or a small group of schools, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization has succeeded in securing NMSRTS support for MPO-area-wide planning activities.

The NMSRTS program is not currently accepting new applications for funding. Further information is available at http://dot.state.nm.us/Planning.html#SRTS.

National Scenic Byways Program (America’s Byways). The National Scenic Byways Program identifies roads with outstanding scenic, historic, and cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities as National Scenic Byways. In the Santa Fe metropolitan area, these include the Camino Real, the Santa Fe National Forest Scenic Byway (primarily along Hyde Park Rd. / NM475), the Santa Fe Trail Scenic Byway, Route 66 (pre-1937 alignment) Scenic Byway, and the Turquoise Trail Scenic Byway (NM14).

In New Mexico, federal funding for the development of scenic byway programs and projects is now administered by the New Mexico Department of Transportation, which issued its first “Call for Projects” in many years on Dec. 1, 2011. A 20 percent state or local match is required. Eligible activities include on-street and off-street bicycle facilities, intersection improvements, and guidance for bicyclists including maps. Available funding for the nationwide competitive process is limited; apportioning of funds by FHWA is not defined at the state level. For more information on NMDOT’s Scenic Byways Program, see http://dot.state.nm.us/Planning.html#Scenic.

103 | Page Implementation Plan

The following table lists proposed improvements under this plan that might be eligible for Scenic Byways funding:

Table 13. Scenic Byways in the Santa Fe MPO area, with eligible projects proposed in the Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan. Scenic Implementing Facility Proposed Improvements Termini Byway Agency Santa Fe Hyde Park Various Soft-surface trail Cross of the City and/or National Rd. (NM475) segments along Canada Martyrs Park and County Forest Ancha and to SFNF Trails Nun’s Curve Scenic Paved shoulders Throughout, but NMDOT Byway esp. Artist Rd. to 10,000 Waves Route 66 Old Las Restripe (Road Diet) west of US285 and I-25 NMDOT Scenic Vegas Ojo de la Vaca Rd.: eliminate Interchange at Byway Highway climbing lane, stripe with 5-6 Canoncito (FR2108) ft. shoulders Repair or remove cattle guard east of Ojo de la Vaca Rd. Restore shoulders w. of Paseo de la Luz Sign as State Bike Route 66 Santa Fe Old Santa Fe Widen/add paved shoulders Zia and El City and County Trail Scenic Trail Gancho Rd. Byway Camino Tesuque Restripe (Road Diet): Bridge over County Real Village Rd. eliminate climbing lane, stripe Tesuque Creek Scenic (CR72) with 5-6 ft. shoulders south to Byway Sign as State Bike Route 9 to US84/285 Tesuque Village Turquoise NM14 Repave / Restripe / eliminate Rancho Viejo NMDOT Trail Scenic pavement seam in shoulders Blvd. to Village of Byway Consider signing as State Madrid Bike Route 14 or 66

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Federal HSIP funds are administered by NMDOT under a competitive statewide process. The state program relies heavily on crash data in order to prioritize awardees. Bicycle and pedestrian activities qualify if applicants can show that an activity will bring about a significant, measurable safety improvement. For more information on NMDOT’s HSIP activities see http://dot.state.nm.us/Engineering_Support.html#f.

Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP) funds may support transit-oriented development, traffic calming and other projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce impact on the environment, and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and trade centers. The TCSP program provides communities with resources to explore the integration of their transportation system with community preservation and environmental activities. TCSP funds require a 20 percent match. For more information see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/

104 | Page Implementation Plan

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds. More than 12,000 transportaiton projects have been funded by the federal government through ARRA since 2009. ARRA funds were used by the County to complete the paved Rail Trail between I- 25 and Rabbit Rd. ARRA support continues to be available through discretionary TIGER grants, described below.

TIGER Grants. “Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery” or TIGER Grants are administered by the US Dept. of Transportation under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. These grants, which are intended to support “surface transportation projects that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region,” continue to be available, now through the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for 2012 (for more information, see http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/tiger/).

Other sources of federal support. Availability of other federal transportation funds for agencies within the Santa Fe MPO area is very limited. For example, because of our clean air, the Santa Fe area does not directly qualify for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding, though some transit-related activities in Santa Fe that involve links with Albuquerque may be pursued through agencies in the Albuquerque area. Other sources of federal funding do not apply due to our small population base.

Federal Funds / Non-transportation Sources

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). A wide variety of planning and development activities qualify for these federal funds, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In Santa Fe, CDBG funds have contributed to current planning by the City around the possible transformation of St. Michael’s Dr. into a more pedestrian-oriented and bicycle-friendly corridor. More information is available at www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/index.cfm .

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA). This program under the National Parks Service (NPS) provides technical assistance by NPS staff to establish and restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds and open space. The program does not provide funding to grantees. See http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/contactus/cu_apply.html

State Resources

The State of New Mexico provides various other avenues of support for pedestrian and bicycle improvements:

NMDOT District 5 administers federal transportation funding sources in the Santa Fe area as described above, in conjunction with FHWA’s New Mexico Division. NMDOT plans and implements highway construction and reconstruction projects through a mix of federal and state support. NMDOT’s District 5 undertakes maintenance activities

105 | Page Implementation Plan

through the use of the state funding. Activities that may benefit cyclists in particular include pavement overlays, re-striping, sweeping, and plowing.

New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH). Current strategic planning by NMDOH for a variety of programs, including healthier weight and chronic diseases, has emphasized advocacy for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and particularly the promotion of “complete streets” approaches, as a major area of future activity. While NMDOH staff and partners are initiating public awareness activities, more significant resources have not yet been dedicated to this area.

New Mexico Mainstreet. This program within the State of New Mexico, Economic Development Department, provides support for development of more attractive “main streets” within New Mexico communities. Pedestrian improvements are a typical activity supported by the program; bicycle facilities also qualify. For more information see nmmainstreet.org .

New Mexico Rail Runner Express. Rio Metro, the operator of NMRX, offers some assistance with planning of transit-oriented development around Rail Runner stations.

University of New Mexico, Prevention Research Center. UNM/PRC is supporting planning activities to improve the environment for physical activity, and particularly within the transportation system, in a handful of rural communities around the state. For more information, see:

Local Funding Sources

Bonds. Much of recent trail construction by the City of Santa Fe has been the result of a $30 million Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Bond for parks and trails that passed in 2008. The City is programming a new CIP bond, which will include specific support for on-road bicycle improvements, and has received voter approval to issue an “Opportunity Bond” in 2012 to include $6 million for trails, specifically in support of Phase A of this Bicycle Master Plan. The County may also pursue bond funding to support road and trail improvements in 2012.

Impact Fees are currently collected by the City of Santa Fe for new residential, commercial, office and industrial developments with specific fee rates for contributions toward arterial streets, signals, neighborhood parks, regional parks, fire service, police service, water, and wastewater. The City’s current Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan covers the years 2007-2012.

Gross Receipts Tax (GRT). A portion of local GRT is dedicated to bikeway improvements as determined by the Regional Planning Authority. In the past, one- quarter of one percent of the GRT was dedicated to County open space and trails projects with presumptive benefits for city residents. This formula is no longer in place but these projects still qualify for the use of GRT.

106 | Page Implementation Plan

E. Performance Indicators, with Baselines and Benchmarks

The MPO, working in conjunction with member agencies, will develop baselines, benchmarks, and reporting mechanisms for indicators of progress toward meeting the objectives of this Bicycle Master Plan. Baselines and targets for facility-based indicators in particular will directly reflect the assessment and recommendations for development of bikeways as detailed in the implementation plan.

1. Indicators based on Facilities & Programs

Indicator for “bicycle-friendliness” • Recognition by LAB as a “Bicycle-Friendly Community” (BFC) Baseline for 2011: City of Santa Fe recognized as BFC at the Bronze Level Target for 2017: Metropolitan Area recognized as BFC at Silver level Target for 2022: Metropolitan Area recognized as BFC at Gold Level

Indicators for on-road bicycle facilities:

• Number of miles of AASHTO-compliant bicycle facilities on major roadways Target for 2017: 15 miles of new bike lanes or shoulders through road retrofits

• X% of major roadways have AASHTO-compliant bicycle facilities. Target for 2017: 100% of new major roads have bike lanes or shoulders meeting AASHTO

Indicators for off-road bicycle facilities:

• Number of miles of AASHTO-compliant multi-use trails. Baseline for 2012: 18.5 miles of paved arterial multi-use trails in MPO area Target for 2017: 30 miles of paved arterial multi-use trails in the MPO area

• X% of major multi-use trails are built compliant with AASHTO Target for 2017: 100% of new major multi-use trails are built compliant with AASHTO

Indicators to be developed through use of Geographic Information Systems: • X% of urban population lives within one mile of a bikeway that is directly connected to the core bikeway system • X% of urban population lives within one mile of a multi-use trail that is directly connected to the core trail system • X% of the urban population can access shopping, school, park, playground, playing fields, recreational facilities, outdoor recreation areas, including recreational trails, by bicycle • X% of public facilities are easily accessible by bicycle from the core bikeways network

Other Facility-Based Indicators, to be developed: • Bike Parking indicator

107 | Page Implementation Plan

• Growth of Bike Share program

2. Indicators on education / awareness and behavior

The Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization will work with public and private partners to develop reporting around the following indicators:

• Modal Split: Use of bicycles within all forms of transportation (household surveys) Baseline for 2010: 0.5% of commuters use a bicycle as the primary means of commuting (ACS) Target for 2020: 1.0% of commuters use a bicycle as the primary means of commuting (ACS)

• Use of specific facilities: Bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts to be performed on major facilities under coordination of Santa Fe MPO

• Use of bicycles on transit: Data to be gathered through reporting by transit providers o NM Rail Runner o Santa Fe Trails o North-Central Regional Transit District

• Use of bike share program: Data to be gathered through bike share program reporting

• Use of bicycles in the public sector (data and reporting mechanisms to be developed by MPO) Baseline: Current level of usage by police, fire department, and parking enforcement Target: Increased numbers of public employees and public agencies using bicycles.

• Other Survey Data: o Commuter behavior, including transit (to be developed). o Use of Helmet (through Off to the future: A motorized tricycle provides this Behavioral Risk Factor gentleman with an ideal transportation alternative. This Plan will need to remain flexible as technology, best Surveillance System) practices, and social norms around transportation evolve.

108 | Page Implementation Plan

Santa Fe Metropolitan BICYCLE MASTER PLAN

APPENDICES

Approved: APRIL 12, 2012

Appendix 1: List of Public Presentations, Meetings, and Field Visits

General Public Information Meetings Tues., Feb. 8, 2011, 5:30 – 7:30 pm: Public Meeting, Downtown Library. Thurs., Feb. 10, 2011, 4:00 pm: Public Hearing, MPO Transportation Policy Board. Sat., Feb. 12, 2011, 10 am - noon: Public Meeting, Genoveva Chavez Center. Sat., Mar. 24, 2012: 10 am - noon: Public Meeting, Santa Fe Trails Conference Room Thurs., Mar. 29, 5:00 – 7:00 pm: Public Meeting, Downtown Library

Meetings of the Citizens’ Advisory Group (CAG) & Partners March 16, 2011, County Commission Chambers. Welcome, Overview of Bike Master Plans, Discussion of CAG Role and Process, Proposed Outline.

April 12, 2011, Downtown Library. Presentation by WPI Students, Review of BMP Draft Chapters, Discussion of May Events.

May 10, 2011, Downtown Library. Review Draft Material for Chapters I-III, Presentation of Proposed Engineering Recommendations.

June 14, 2011, Downtown Library. Review of June 8 Draft Materials, Discussion of CAG Ride

July 19, 2011, Downtown Library. Review of Current BMP Draft, Presentation of Draft Implementation Plan.

Sept. 20, 2011, Santa Fe County Legal Conference Room. Review of Latest BMP Draft, Discussion of CAG Rides.

Oct. 18, 2011, Santa Fe County Legal Conference Room. Further Review and Discussion of September Draft.

Feb. 9, 2012, Downtown Library Review and Discussion of Chapter V. Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement, with members of CAG, BTAC Education Subcommittee, Santa Fe LCIs, and other partners.

Mar. 20, 2012, Downtown Library Final Review of Draft for 30-Day Public Comment Period

1-1 | Page Appendix 1

Educational Rides Nov. 6, 2010 Community Cruise: Rail Trail and Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail

May 21, 2011 Community Cruise: Assorted Streets, Frenchy’s Field, River Trail, and Rail Trail

June 25, 2011 CAG Ride #1: River Trail, Acequia Trail, and Railyard.

July 31, 2011 CAG Ride #2: Rail Trail and Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail.

Sept. 12, 2011 Western Planner-APA Four Corners Conference, Bike Planning Tour: Downtown bike routes, Rail Trail to County trailhead. Co-led by Colleen Baker, Santa Fe County Open Space and Trails Program.

Oct 16, 2011 CAG Ride #3: Community College District

Presentations to Local Government Staff, Committees, Community Groups, etc. Nov. 22, 2010 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) Dec. 15, 2011 City Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC) Jan. 13, 2011 MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB) May 12, 2011 NMDOT Bicycle-Pedestrian-Equestrian Advisory Committee May 20, 2011 Bike-to-Work Day (information provided to public at event) July 2, 2011 Sustainable Eldorado Residents Alliance / Green Café Oct. 11, 2011 Santa Fe Community College / Green Task Force Oct. 20, 2011 Mayor’s Commission on Disability Oct. 24, 2011 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) Nov. 10, 2011 MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB) Nov. 15, 2011 City Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission Nov. 17, 2011 City Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC) Nov. 17, 2011 County Open Land, Trails, and Parks Advisory Committee (COLTPAC) Nov. 21, 2011 County Open Space and Trails Staff Dec. 1, 2011 City Planning Commission Jan. 12, 2011 City Streets Staff Jan. 19, 2011 NMDOT Planning Staff Jan. 19, 2011 County Open Land, Trails, and Parks Advisory Committee (COLTPAC) Jan. 20, 2011 City Parks, Trails, and Watershed Staff Jan. 24, 2011 City Public Works Jan. 27, 2011 County Public Works, Planning, and Open Space and Trails Staff Feb. 8, 2011 City Outdoor Recreation Staff Feb. 27, 2012 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) Feb. 28, 2012 Board of County Commissioners (BCC)

1-2 | Page Appendix 1

Metropolitan Bicycle Master Plan, Citizens’ Advisory Group (CAG) Core Members Joe Abbatacola Fletcher Catron Paul Cooley Brian Combs, Santa Fe Community College Phillip Crump Brannigan Draic, Chainbreaker Coalition Abe Franklin Gretchen Grogan, BTAC member Anna Hansen, POSAC member Frank Herdman, BTAC member Andrew Jandacek, Santa Fe County Lisa Miles, president of Bike Santa Fe, BTAC member Stephen Newhall, LCI, Bike Santa Fe & BCNM Emily Oaksford Andy Otterstrom, Creative Couriers Gary Schiffmiller, LCI

Keith Wilson, MPO staff Tim Rogers, Bicycle Master Plan consultant to MPO

Additional Participants in CAG Meetings Angela Bordegaray Bette Booth, POSAC Chair Betsy Conover Cat Downing, LCI, BTAC Education Subcommittee Ray Galley Daniel Guevara Jessica Griffin, NM Safe Routes to School Coordinator Clemente MacFarlane, Chainbreaker Coalition Elizabeth Mesh, NM Artists for Hire Charlie O’Leary, Santa Fe Conservation Trust Shelly Robinson, BTAC member E Andrea Poole, Santa Fe Arts Commission Rusty Rodke Xubi Wilson

1-3 | Page Appendix 1 Appendix 2: Bicycle Planning in the Santa Fe MPO Area

Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization

The MPO has long emphasized the development of bicycle transportation as a key element of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). To this end, the MPO adopted the “Complete Streets” approach through Resolution 2007-1, “A Resolution Advancing Complete Streets for the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Area,” which specifically resolves that • bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian and transit needs should be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities in the Santa Fe metropolitan planning area • Bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, and transit facilities should be established by ordinance in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any transportation facility in accordance with Complete Streets principles • The Santa Fe MPO staff will work with City and County land use and public works departments, Regional Planning Authority staff, and related advisory committees to collaboratively designate common Complete Streets specifications that are consistent across jurisdictions for regionally significant roadways.

City General Plan Policies

The City's General Plan sets out the following "guiding policies" for bicycle circulation:

6-3-G-1 Provide a comprehensive network of bikeways for safe and efficient transportation.

6-3-G-2 Recognize bicycling and walking as viable alternatives to motorized transportation.

6-3-G-3 Provide off-road trails as an alternative to on-road travel where natural corridors exist.

6-3-G-4 Provide necessary amenities, such as secure bike racks and traffic signals which can be triggered by bicyclists.

The City's General Plan also recommends the following "implementing policies" for bicycle circulation:

6-3-I-1 Use the Bikeways Master Plan as the primary tool for detailed policy making and bicycle system planning.

2-1 | Page Appendix 2 6-3-I-2 Consider the feasibility of providing a network of bikeways along acequias and riparian corridors as part of the planned trail network if development and impacts do not negatively affect the environment or wildlife.

6-3-I-3 Conduct a signage and striping program for the bikeway network shown on the Bikeways Master Plan.

City of Santa Fe, 1993 Bikeways Masters Plan

This plan established short-range and long-range priorities for the development of multi- use trails in Santa Fe, particularly the extension of the Rail Trail and the Arroyo Chamiso Trail and the creation of the River Trail as a multi-use trail. The Plan also outlined the development of the Acequia Trail, but only along alignments farther west than the alignments that have been pursued to date. The 1993 Bikeways Master Plan also created the City’s system of signed bike routes as described below, and proposed other initiatives…

City of Santa Fe, Parks and Recreation Plan, 2001

This plan emphasized development of multi-use trails for use by bicyclists and pedestrians in parks and open space alignments throughout the City. The plan identified needs in well-known and –prioritized areas such as the River Trail as well as lesser- known alignments such as the Arroyo Chaparral Trail. Many of these proposed bicycle facilities were removed from consideration under the Parks Division’s 2009 “Bond Implementation Plan.”

Most of the trails built by the Parks Division through the $30 million bond have focused on internal, recreational use, rather than a transportation function for bicyclists and pedestrians. Significant construction of multi-use trails through the bond was implemented by the Public Works Department’s Trails Division, primarily following plans under BTAC (see below), and in some cases including alignments within city parks (e.g. Ashbaugh Park).

City of Santa Fe, Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC)

BTAC was created by the City Council in 2003(?) to determine the use of a new $1.5 million Capital Improvement Program fund and to guide bicycle planning in Santa Fe…

BTAC created a “Big Picture” map of proposed trail alignments in and around the City of Santa Fe based on the 1993 Bikeways Master Plan as well as additional input and information from Committee members and staff. Since the creation of BTAC, the City’s trail planning and construction has been based on input from the Committee, sometimes in alignment with the 1993 Bikeways Master Plan, along with additional priorities and plans by the City’s Public Works Department. BTAC’s “On-Road Subcommittee” provided the City with recommendations on the use of shared lane arrows (“Sharrows”) as well as bicycle-sensitive signal actuators that the City has subsequently implemented

2-2 | Page Appendix 2 and marked. BTAC continues to meet on a monthly basis to discuss developments and provide guidance.

City of Santa Fe, Sustainable Santa Fe Commission

The Sustainable Santa Fe Plan (http://www.santafenm.gov/index.aspx?NID=685) developed by the City’s Sustainable Santa Fe Commission was adopted by City Council in 2008. The plan examines how the City of Santa Fe can reduce its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and prepare to be more resilient to impacts of global warming. (The Plan responds to a City Council Strategic Plan initiative to “Support Sustainable Development and a Green City,” which includes priorities to “Adopt and enforce land use codes and policies that promote sustainable, energy-efficient, carbon-neutral development,” “Provide for alternatives to…automobiles,” and “keep neighborhoods livable and protect rural areas from sprawl.”) The Plan supports the development of bicycle transportation in Santa Fe, along with support for pedestrians, transit, low- emission vehicles, and alternative fuels as well as appropriate land use, to reduce motorized trips.

The Plan summarizes activities underway and proposes actions to • establish safe transportation routes for “zero-emission” transportation, including bicycles • support free or inexpensive bicycle rentals • establish bicycle racks throughout the city • continue the development of bicycle and pedestrian trails • increase the bicycle-carrying capacity of transit • implement “complete streets,” including retrofitting where width allows, and • continue to pursue a wide variety of strategies for on-road facilities including road diets, sharrows, bike lanes, and use of existing streets, especially near transit.

Santa Fe County

Santa Fe County’s trail planning is overseen by the County Open Land, Trails, and Parks Advisory Commission (COLTPAC).

The County’s recent Sustainable Growth Management Plan includes proposed policy to build complete streets, including bike lanes or shoulders on county roads where appropriate, and to build trails for transportation purposes rather than purely for recreation.

State of New Mexico

New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), Bicycle Pedestrian Equestrian (BPE) Advisory Committee. The BPE Advisory Committee has produced various iterations of a statewide BPE Advisory Plan, a non-binding document provided to the Transportation Secretary which has generally urged the Agency to follow AASHTO guidelines for bicycles in all construction and maintenance projects. The Committee has

2-3 | Page Appendix 2 also been charged with recommending the designation through signage of State Bicycle Routes, and among the first routes designated was State Bike Route 9, a series of signed bikeways bisecting the MPO area from Lamy to Tesuque via Santa Fe’s plaza area (described in more detail below).

New Mexico State Parks (NMSP), Recreational Trail Program (RTP). As the recognized “state trail agency,” NMSP has pursued the development of long-range trails of statewide and regional significance, including the Continental Divide Trail and the Rio Grande Trail, both envisioned to extend from the northern to southern border of the state. Although Santa Fe might be on or near proposed alignments for a statewide Rio Grande Trail, NMSP’s planning efforts to date have focused on downstream alignments, including a Belen-to-Bernalillo segment to encompass Albuquerque’s 17-mile Bosque Trail and formative efforts in Sierra County and Doña Ana County to the south. NMSP is also relevant to local bikeway planning efforts in Santa Fe in that Hyde State Park and many urban properties in Santa Fe are under NMSP administration. The state RTP under NMSP is also responsible for distributing federal Recreational Trail Program funds, which are a possible source for trail funding in and around Santa Fe.

2-4 | Page Appendix 2 Appendix 3: Selected Elements of City of Santa Fe Code, Chapter 14, Supporting Bicycle Transportation

City of Santa Fe Code, Chapter 14

14-8.6 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING … (D) Off-Street Bicycle Parking (1) Applicability. Off-street bicycle space parking standards shall apply to all uses except single-family residential uses. (2) Requirements. Off-street bicycle spaces shall be provided as follows: (a) For all uses except those specified below:

TABLE 14-8.6-3: General Off-Street Bicycle Parking Parking Spaces Required Bicycle Spaces Required

10 or less 5 11-50 10 51-100 15 101-150 20 151 or more 25 (Ord. No. 2002-37 § 90) (b) For hotels or motels: TABLE 14-8.6-4: Hotel or Motel Off-Street Bicycle Parking Number of Employees per Shift Bicycle Spaces Required

20 or less 5 21-40 10 More than 40 15 (Ord. No. 2002-37 § 90)

(i) For elementary and middle schools, one bicycle space for every 20 students. (ii) For high schools, commercial, trade, or vocational schools, one bicycle space for every 50 students. (iii) For colleges, one bicycle space for every 20 students. (iv) The number of employees or students shall be based upon an affidavit submitted by the applicant.

(3) Standards. Off-street bicycle spaces shall: (a) Not be located on public right-of-way; (b) Be designed as illustrated in Chapter XIV. Other rack designs may be approved by the Land Use Department; (Ord. No. 2007-45 § 30) (c) Be located on an outside ground surface which shall be paved or planted in a way which avoids mud or dirt and is easily maintained; (d) Be anchored so they cannot be easily removed. Racks shall be designed so that both wheels or the frame of a bicycle can be locked securely to it with a chain, cable or padlock; (e) Be located so as to be visible, easily accessible near the building entrances, well lit and not conflicting with pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and, (f) Lockers may be substituted for racks and shall be so designed that an unauthorized person cannot remove a bicycle from them. If a room or common locker 3-1 | Page Appendix 3 not divided into individual lockers or rack spaces is used, one bicycle per 12 square feet of floor area is assumed.

14-8.15 DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE, TRAILS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

(A) Purpose (Ord. No. 2007-12 § 2)

(1) The Governing Body deems it in the best interest of the City and its citizens that adequate provision is made for parks, open space, trails, and recreational facilities, and for City maintenance thereof. (2) These regulations shall provide standards for the dedication of land or easements to the City to assist in implementing of the City's Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Master Plan. (3) These regulations shall provide standards based upon the average number of persons per housing unit according to Census 2000 which is 2.0 persons per unit for the City of Santa Fe. (4) Land dedicated for neighborhood parks shall be based upon a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 persons, or per 500 housing units. (5) Land dedicated for regional parks, community parks, open space and trails shall be based upon a rate of 12 acres per 1,000 persons, or per 500 housing units. (6) For usable park land, park dedication should result in a park area of no less than 1 acre. (7) Land or easements dedicated for public, nonmotorized trails may be used to satisfy the requirement for dedication of regional parks under paragraph (5) above, and to establish an interconnected regional transportation system.

(B) Applicability (Ord. No. 2007-12 §3)

(1) Except as limited in paragraph (B)(3) below, this section shall apply to applications for subdivision or development approvals that create new residential lots or dwelling units submitted after the effective date of this section. (2) Developments which are part of an annexation plat, master plan or similar document which dedicated park land in compliance with § 14-8.15 are not required to comply at time of individual subdivision or plan approval. (3) Public, nonmotorized trail dedication requirements set forth in § 14-8.15(D) shall only apply to all subdivision for residential lots and development plan approvals for nonresidential uses requiring approvals by the Planning Commission or the Summary Committee.

(1) Any master plan, development plan or subdivision proposing 167 or more single family residential lots shall dedicate park land to the City according to the requirements set out in § 14- 8.15(C)(3). (2) For any other development proposing dwelling units, the City shall require land to be dedicated for either neighborhood parks or regional parks or both, unless the amount of land or type of land is not suitable for public parks, open space or recreational facilities. Where the City determines that no land is to be dedicated for neighborhood parks, then neighborhood park impact fees shall be collected according to § 14-8.14. Where the City determines that no land is to be dedicated for regional parks, then regional park impact fees shall be collected according to § 14- 8.14.

3-2 | Page Appendix 3

(3) Where land is to be dedicated to the City for parks, open space and recreational facilities, the amount of land dedicated shall be calculated as follows, in accordance with § 14-8.15(A)(4) and (5): (a) Neighborhood Parks - 0.006 acres per new housing unit; (b) Regional & Community Parks, Open Space and Trails - 0.024 acres per new housing unit.

(4) The City shall determine the suitability and location of land to be dedicated as set forth in the Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Master Plan, as well as the type, size and dimensions of land dedicated.

(5) Land dedicated shall be suitable for public use including but not limited to community, neighborhood, special use and pocket parks; open space; recreational facilities for passive and active recreation and sports, playgrounds, and trails.

(6) Land to be dedicated shall be specified at the time of final subdivision plat or final development plan approval and it shall be clearly written on the plat or plan the specific category of park impact fees to be waived at time of building permit.

(7) The developer shall be responsible for the development of all neighborhood and regional park land dedicated to the City. The park land shall be developed in accordance with the City's minimum landscaping and equipment standards (playground, ball courts, sports fields, paved trails, benches, picnic tables, etc.) for each type of park created. (Ord. No. 2003-35 § 4)

(D) Public, Nonmotorized Trail Dedication Requirements (Ord. No. 2007-12 § 4)

(1) Dedications to the City for the purpose of public, nonmotorized trails shall be made either by the dedication of fee simple land or by dedication of a public easement as determined by City staff. Such dedications are required wherever the approved Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Master Plan indicates a trail within or along the property line of a parcel to which § 14-8.15 applies. The City may, at its discretion, also require trail dedication where it can be demonstrated that public trail use has occurred continuously for a period of 10 years or more, as demonstrated by City staff through aerial photography supplemented by written testimony from affected parties.

(2) Staff shall determine the width of the required dedication based on the type of trail, existing topography and current City standards. The alignment of the trail may be modified by staff from that shown in the Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Master Plan in order to accommodate preservation of natural resources, address drainage and topography, improve public access, or to accommodate design goals of the property owner as long as the connections between public rights-of-ways, open space or parks shown on the Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Master Plan is accomplished.

(3) The dedication for the trail shall be shown on the subdivision plat or final development plan.

(4) If the area dedicated for a trail is in partial fulfillment toward the regional park land dedication requirements, then the City at its discretion may pro-rate the fee that would ordinarily be required.

3-3 | Page Appendix 3

(5) The developer shall be responsible for the development of the trail in accordance with City's standards. The City is responsible for maintenance of the trail upon inspection and acceptance of the improvements.

Article 14-9: SUBDIVISION DESIGN, IMPROVEMENT, AND DEDICATION STANDARDS … 14-9.2 IMPROVEMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS … (E) Streets. The following standards for streets shall apply to all subdivisions except for inheritance and family transfer subdivisions, the design standards for which are as set forth in §14-9.4: … (2) Street Types-Design Criteria (Ord. No. 2002-37 § 102)

(a) The arrangement, character, extent, grade and location of all streets shall conform to the officially adopted master plan and shall be considered in their relationship to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety. Public streets approved for construction, after the effective date of this ordinance, shall be classified according to projected average daily traffic as shown in the street types-design criteria chart and Illustration 14-9.2-1, "Street Types Design Criteria," except that the Planning Commission, or in the case of City projects, the Public Works Committee may consider and approve innovative street designs that are not included among the street types and street sections shown or described herein. However, all new public streets shall be required to provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as necessary transit facilities.

(b) Traffic calming measures are encouraged in new developments and specific measures may be required by the City to ensure traffic safety in new neighborhoods (See City of Santa Fe Calming Program).

(c) The collector mixed use street type is to be constructed in conjunction with the development of neighborhood centers and is designed to function like many of the streets near the plaza.

3-4 | Page Appendix 3

TABLE 14-9.2-1: Design Criteria for Street Types

Criteria Major Major Secondary Collector Collector Subcollector Lane Private Arterial Arterial Arterial Mixed- Driveway No With Use (6-Lane) (4-Lane) Parking Parking Average Daily Up to Up to 5,000- 1,000- 1,000- 300- 300- 0-300 Minimum Traffic 60,000 40,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 1,000

Dwelling Unit 30-100 30- 0-30 (0-8) Access 1000

Minimum Right- 120 98 70 50 50 42 46 or 38 20 of-way Width 52

Slope/Grading 0-30 0-30 0-30 0-30 0-30 0-30 0-30 0-30 NR Easement (conditional upon staff review) Number of Auto 6-7* 4-5* 2-3* 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lanes Width of Driving 11 11 11 10 10 9 10 9 9 Lanes

Median/Turn 18 18 14 NR NR NR NR NR NR Lane Width Minimum 5 5 5 4 NR NR NR NR NR Bikeway Width On-Street NA NA NA NA 6** NA 6** NA NA Parking Width

Curb & Gutter 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NR Minimum 5 5 5 4 NR 5 3 3-4 NR Sidewalk Setback Minimum 6 6 5 5 7 5 5 4-5 NR Sidewalk Width

Notes: NA - Not Applicable NR - Not Required * Includes Median/Turn Lane ** Parking required on both sides of street, except no parking on that side of a street adjoining the plaza.

*** Parking may be on one side or both sides of the street; parking lane should not be continuous. Private Driveway - Range denotes single family lots served by driveway; Private Driveway proposed to serve multi-family development

or commercial development must be approved by the City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer and City Fire Chief.

All measurements in feet, unless otherwise noted. (Ord. No. 2005-24 § 2)

3-5 | Page Appendix 3

3-6 | Page Appendix 3 Illustration 14-9.2-1: Street Types Design Criteria

(N) Bikeways

Bikeways shall be provided on each side of the street on collectors (not collector mixed-use), secondary arterials, and major arterials, unless a street is approved as a one way in which case a bikeway will be placed to the right of the driving lane. Bikeways shall be located between the driving lane and the curb and gutter, or between the driving lane and right turn lane. Bikeways shall be separated from the driving lane by a solid white stripe or other appropriate pavement marking or traffic separation device approved by the City. Bikeway pavement width shall conform to the criteria set out in the street types-design criteria chart.

(Ord. No. 2002-38 § 2)

3-7 | Page Appendix 3

Appendix 4: Santa Fe MPO Complete Streets Resolution

4-1 | Page Appendix 4 1 SANTA FE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

2 TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD

3 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-1

10 A RESOLUTION ADVANCING COMPLETE STREETS FOR THE SANTA FE

11 METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA.

13 WHEREAS, the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization promotes a multi-modal,

14 regional transportation system that is safe, energy and fiscally efficient, maximizes community

15 connectivity, serves the mobility needs ofall citizens, and exists in harmony with the

16 environment. In accordance with the Santa Fe Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the Santa Fe

17 MPO promotes transportation improvements that encourage walking, bicycling and transit use

18 while promoting safe operations for all users; and

19 WHEREAS, "Complete Streets" are roadways designed to accommodate safe access for

20 all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities are able to

21 safely move along and across Complete Streets; and

22 WHEREAS, Complete Streets principles have been and continue to be adopted nation

23 wide at state, county, MPO, and city levels in the interest ofproactive planning and adherence to

24 federal regulations that guide transportation planning organizations to promote multi-modal

25 transportation options and accessibility for all users; and

1 1 WHEREAS, one ofthe most commonly voiced transportation concerns from the public

2 regards the perceived danger of bicycling and walking in Santa Fe. Public input has repeatedly

3 requested improved conditions and facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians; and

4 WHEREAS, according to national highway statistics more than one quarter of all trips

5 are one mile or less - and almost half are less than five miles. Most of those trips are now made

6 by car. Streets that provide travel choices give people the option to avoid traffic congestion and

7 increase the overall capacity of the transportation network; and

8 WHEREAS, the National Institute of Medicine recommends fighting childhood obesity

9 by changing ordinances to encourage construction of sidewalks, bikeways, and other places for

10 physical activity. A report of the National Conference of State Legislators found that the most

11 effective policy avenue for encouraging bicycling and walking is Complete Streets; and

12 WHEREAS, facilities that follow Complete Streets principles complement and enhance

13 ongoing Share the Road awareness and planning efforts by the City of Santa Fe Bicycle and

14 Trails Advisory Committee as well as safety education and enforcement initiatives such as

15 pedestrian safety awareness campaigns directed by Santa Fe Trails, the Santa Fe Walks study,

16 New Mexico Bicycle Coalition training courses, Safe Kids NM, and programs such as Santa Fe

17 Crossing Guards, and Safe Routes to School.

18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED that bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian and

19 transit needs should be given full consideration in the planning and development of

20 transportation facilities in the Santa Fe metropolitan planning area. Bicycle, pedestrian,

21 equestrian, and transit facilities should be established by ordinance in conjunction with the

22 construction, reconstruction, or other change of any transportation facility in accordance with

23 Complete Streets principles. The Santa Fe MPO staff will work with City and County land use

24 and public works departments, Regional Planning Authority staff, and related advisory

2 committees to collaboratively designate common Complete Streets specifications that are

2 consistent across jurisdictions for regionally significant roadways.

3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2007.

6 POLICY BOARD

FILED: AI-f-es.1- '. 12 13 L~~.J~D 14 Valerie Espinoza, County Clerk olanda Y. Vig~City c~rk 15

16 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

17 18 ~/ 19 Stephen C. Ross, County Attorney D. Katz, City Attorney

25 JplN drive/200? res/MPO complete streets

3 Appendix 5: Bicycle Crash Data for the Santa Fe MPO Area, 2004-2008

According to records provided by the University of New Mexico’s Division of Government Research, there were 136 bicycle crashes reported in the Santa Fe MPO area during the five-year period of 2004-2008.

Year Crashes Fatalities 2004 36 0 2005 24 1 2006 16 0 2007 33 0 2008 27 0 Total 136 1

These crashes included one fatality, which occurred on Old Santa Fe Trail (CR 67) in 2005 as a result of a head-on crash with an intoxicated motorist driving in the wrong lane. Fifteen bicyclists (11% of crashes) were reported to have received incapacitating injuries while 91 (67%) had visible injuries or complaint of injures. Just over one-fifth of the crashes were reported as “property-damage only.”

Type of Injury Killed 1 0.7% Incapacitating 15 11.0% Visible 56 41.2% Complaint 35 25.7% None Apparent 29 21.3% Total 136 100.0%

Per-capita crash reporting for Santa Fe County is nearly identical to the rate for the state as a whole. Bernalillo County’s rate is over 50% higher; extremely low rates in some of Santa Fe’s neighboring counties would seem to be indicative of underreporting. Santa Fe’s single bicycle fatality represented less than one percent of all crashes reported in Santa Fe County in 2004-2008 (0.7% of 142 crashes county-wide), well below the proportion in other NM counties that reported fatalities during the period.

Annual reported Selected County crashes, per Annual fatalities, and State Data, million per million 2004-2008 Crashes Fatalities % residents residents Santa Fe County 142 1 0.7% 195.4 1.4 Bernalillo County 964 13 1.3% 303.4 4.1 Dona Ana County 161 3 1.9% 159.9 3.0 Rio Arriba County 2 0 0.0% 9.9 0.0 San Miguel County 7 0 0.0% 49.3 0.0 Sandoval County 68 3 4.4% 111.1 4.9 Taos County 31 0 0.0% 196.8 0.0 New Mexico 1936 26 1.3% 194.9 2.6

5-1 | Page Appendix 5

The statewide rate of 2.6 annual bicycle fatalities per million population for 2004-2008 is just above the national rate of 2.35 for 2008.1 The seven deaths in 2008 in New Mexico amounted to 1.9% of all traffic fatalities in the state, the same proportion that bicyclists represented among nationwide traffic fatalities in 2008.

National data on age of cyclists reported in crashes demonstrates an aging population, progressing from an average of 24 yrs. of age in 1998 to 31 yrs. of age in 2008. Average age of cyclists reported in crashes in the Santa Fe MPO area in 2004-2008 was 33.8 years, well above the national average of 30 for the same period. Distribution of age groups in the MPO area in 2004-2008 was as follows:

Age <5 0 0% 6-10 10 8% 11-15 13 10% 16-20 13 10% 21-24 13 10% 25-34 18 15% 35-44 20 16% 45-54 21 17% 55-64 11 9% 65-74 5 4% 75-84 0 0% Total 136 100.0%

Data entry on types of crashes indicates that about three quarters of the reported crashes involved a motor vehicle hitting a bicyclist while for one-quarter of reports the bicyclist was reported to have hit a motor vehicle or an unknown object. Cyclists reported to have been hit at an angle were the highest single category at 60 (44%). Cyclists reported being hit from behind accounted for 26 reports (19%) and head-on for 14 reports (10%).

Reported Type of Crash: Leading Types Veh-Cyc. Angle 60 44.1% Cyclist-Veh 30 22.1% Veh-Cyc. Behind 26 19.1% Veh-Cyc. Head On 14 10.3%

Crash reports entered in UNM/DGR’s database provide primary and secondary street names, though precise location of a given crash is not always clear. Eighteen primary streets listed had more than one crash and ten had more than two crashes listed, as presented in the table below. Where closest intersection was specified, locations with the most reports in 2004-2008 were the intersection of Cerrillos Rd. and Camino Carlos Rey (4) and the intersection of St. Francis Dr. and Siringo Rd. (3).

1 NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, “Bicyclists and Other Cyclists, 2008.”

5-2 | Page Appendix 5

Street* Cerrillos Rd 23 16.9% Agua Fria St 13 9.6% St Francis Dr 12 8.8% Alameda 6 4.4% St Michaels Dr 5 3.7% Airport Rd 4 2.9% Cordova Rd 4 2.9% Old Santa Fe Tr (City) 4 2.9% Paseo De Peralta 4 2.9% NM 599 3 2.2% * - Primary street, or secondary street in crashes classified as “Intersection” or “intersection-related.”

It is well known that non-fatal bicycle crashes are under-reported throughout the country. UNM’s Department of Emergency Medicine2 found that 35% of non-fatal bicyclist injuries appearing in emergency rooms in Bernalillo County in 1996-2003 had not been reported to law enforcement, and thus were never entered in the state’s crash database.

Bicycle crashes in the Santa Fe MPO area, 2004-2008: Other Data

Time of Day / Light DAYLIGHT 116 85.3% DUSK 1 0.7% DAWN 1 0.7% DARK-LIGHTED 13 9.6% DARK-NOT LIGHTED 5 3.7%

Cause of Crash: Driver Inattention, etc.- could refer to cyclists as well as motorist DRIVER INATTENTION 59 43.4% FAILURE TO YIELD 40 29.4% ALCOHOL/DRUG INVOLVED 9 6.6% RED LIGHT RUNNING 7 5.1% PASSED STOP SIGN 5 3.7% EXCESSIVE SPEED 3 2.2% LEFT OF CENTER 3 2.2% IMP. OVERTAKING 2 1.5% IMPROPER TURN 2 1.5% FOLLOW TOO CLOSE 2 1.5%

Urban / Rural "SANTA FE" 124 91.2% RURAL 12 8.8%

Gender Not available in this data set.

2 LaValley, J., et al. UNM Dept. of Emergency Medicine. “Using Emergency Department Records to Enhance Bicycle Injury Surveillance in New Mexico.” Presentation to American College of Emergency Physicians, New Orleans, LA, October 2006.

5-3 | Page Appendix 5

Appendix 6: Assessment of On-Road Bicycle Facilities in the Santa Fe MPO Area

Designated bicycle lanes

State Highways with dedicated bicycle lanes • NM466: Old Pecos Trail and St. Michael’s Dr., from Old Las Vegas Highway to Galisteo St. (but with shared lanes at some intersections on St. Michael’s Dr.) • NM14: Cerrillos Rd., from Ave. Cielo Vista to Airport Rd.; south of Airport Rd. to Cristo (city maintained), before transition to striped shoulder

City streets with designated bicycle lanes: • Don Gaspar, from Paseo de Peralta to Coronado • Gov. Miles Rd. from Nava Ade to Richards Ave. • Old Pecos Trail, from NM466 to Coronado St. • Richards Ave., near Rodeo Rd. and between Cerrillos Rd. and Rufina St. • Rodeo Rd., west of Richards Ave. • South Capital Rail Station Rd. • W. Alameda, from Calle Nopal to Camino Alire

County roads with designated bicycle lanes: • Ave. del Sur in front of Amy Biehl School

Bike Lane markings not based on MUTCD • Rabbit Rd. from Oshara to “FHWA connector” (use of sharrows in bike lane)

Bike lane in one direction only: • Dinosaur Trail between La Pradera and Richards Ave. (paved shoulder originally intended as a two-way multi-use trail).

City streets with “quasi-bike lanes” (striped shoulder transitions to lane left of parking or right-turn lane, but w/o bike lane symbols or signage) • Paseo del Sol; Paseo del Sol W.; Country Club; Jaguar; Plaza Central* • Rufina St. between Richards Ave. and Siler Rd. • Galisteo St. between W. Zia Rd. and Rodeo Rd. • Agua Fria St. at La Cieneguita St. * Tierra Contenta bike lanes have inconsistent width: often <4ft.

Location-specific (“stand-alone”) bike lanes through intersections: • Old Las Vegas Highway (NM300) at Arroyo Hondo • Old Las Vegas Highway (NM300) at El Gancho Rd. • San Mateo at St. Francis Dr. (no symbol)

6-1 | Page Appendix 6

Wide paved shoulders: Striped shoulders, meeting AASHTO 1999 width specifications for bike lanes [(= or > 4ft.) or (at least 3.5 ft. & 5 ft. with gutter pan)]

City streets • Agua Fria St. (Osage to Siler) • Alta Vista St., w. of St. Francis • Ave. Cristobal Colon (Baca to Agua Fria), includes full striping left of parking • Cordova, east of Don Diego • Camino Carlos Rey, north of Siringo • Camino de Cruz Blanca • Llano St. • Galisteo Rd., Zia to Rodeo • Gov. Miles Rd. west of Nava Ade • Old Santa Fe Trail, Old Pecos Trail to E. Zia • Pacheco St., St. Michael’s to Siringo • Rodeo Rd., Richards Ave. to Sawmill • Rufina St. (Siler to S. Meadows), includes full striping left of parking • San Mateo, Galisteo to Don Gaspar (check width) • Sawmill Rd., e. of St. Francis (includes full striping left of parking?) • South Meadows Rd. • Yucca St. • Zafarano n. of Cerrillos • W. Zia St., Botulph to Capshaw M.S. & west of St. Francis Dr.

County roads: • Caja del Rio • Airport Rd. • Rabbit Rd. east of Oshara section • Ave. Vista Grande

State Highways: • Cerrillos Rd. (NM14), between Jaguar Rd. and Beckner and between St. Francis Dr. and Osage • NM14 between NM599 and Lone Butte (Bonanza Creek Rd.) • Old Las Vegas Highway (NM300) • US285 south of NM300 • Santa Fe Relief Route (NM599), main line • I-25 • St. Francis Dr. (US84/285) south of Siringo and north of Alamo • US84/285 frontage road from Tano Rd. to Tesuque Village Rd.

6-2 | Page Appendix 6

Narrow paved shoulders (only examples that are greater than two feet in width) • Agua Fria St. between St. Francis Dr. and Osage • E. Zia • Gonzales Rd. between Cerro Gordo and Hyde Park Rd. • Ave. Eldorado

Paved shoulders with significant pavement edges resulting in less than four feet of clear width: • NM14 south of Lone Butte • NM14 between I-25 and NM599, where shoulders exist • NM599 frontage roads, where shoulders exist • Camino La Tierra and Buckman Rd. (segments adjacent to NM599 interchange) • W. Alameda extension (Caja del Rio to S. Meadows Dr.) • Hyde Park rd. (where shoulders exist) • Old Las Vegas Highway (FR2108) (where shoulders remain)

Prominent intersections where bike lanes or shoulders approach but do not get through the intersection: • Airport/Rodeo and Cerrillos (bike lanes on Cerrillos, striped shoulders on Rodeo and Airport) • Cerrillos Rd. and Jaguar Dr. / Gov. Miles Rd. • Gov. Miles Rd. and Richards Ave. • St. Michael’s Dr.: bike lanes discontinued at intersections from Galisteo to Arroyo Chamiso • St. Francis Dr., Cross streets with discontinued bike lanes or shoulders: W. Zia Rd. (east side), Alta Vista St., Cerrillos Rd., W. Alameda St. • Cerrillos Rd., other intersections where cross streets have bike lanes or shoulders: Zafarano (n. side), Camino Carlos Rey (s. side) • Agua Fria St., where shoulders exist: Intersections with right-turn lanes (Siler, Osage) • Rufina St., where shoulders exist: Intersections with right-turn lanes (Siler, Richards) • W. Alameda St., bike lane: Camino Alire • Rodeo Rd.: intersections where cross streets have shoulders: Camino Carlos Rey • W. Zia Rd., other intersections where cross streets have shoulders:

Shared lanes

Wide shared lanes allow enough space for motorists to pass cyclists without crossing the center line. AASHTO specifies 14 feet as the minimum width needed for this arrangement.

On the Santa Fe bikeways map, roads with significant motor vehicle traffic that have wide curb lanes where there is no parking, or where parking is minimal, are often shown in blue, including the following examples:

6-3 | Page Appendix 6

• Ave. de las Campanas • Camino Carlos Rey, south of Siringo • Gov. Miles Rd., Pueblos del Sol and east • Osage (Rosina to San Ildefonso)

Other wide curb lanes where parking is permitted and significant, where traffic volume is higher, and/or where intersection treatments do not facilitate easy through movements by cyclists are shown on the bikeways map in orange, including: • Pacheco St. north of St. Michael’s Dr. to north of San Mateo • San Mateo between Galisteo and 2nd St. (with localized westbound bike lane at St. Francis Dr.) • Siringo from St. Francis Dr. west to La Resolana, except at RR tracks

These examples are significant candidates for retrofitting with bike lanes by reallocating space on the existing roadway – e.g. by restricting parking or narrowing or eliminating travel lanes or turn lanes.

“Shared lane arrows,” or “sharrows”

Sharrows are found in shared lanes on the following streets in the Santa Fe area: • Artist Rd. (downhill / westbound only) • Baca St. • Camino Cabra, Upper Canyon Rd. to Atalaya E.S. • Camino del Monte Sol • E. Alameda and W. Alameda to Defouri St. • Galisteo Rd. north of Coronado • Gonzales Rd., at Cerro Gordo • Henry Lynch Rd. • Old Santa Fe Trail and Old Pecos Trail n. of Cordova • Pacheco St. from north of San Mateo to Alta Vista St. • Palace Ave. • Paseo de Peralta from Cerrillos Rd. to Old Santa Fe Trail • Potencia St., single sharrow, westbound west of Acequia Trail @ Larragoite Park • Washington Blvd. • Various Oshara Village streets (county)

Based on fieldwork in May-June 2011, the BTAC On-Road Subcommittee in its Memorandum to BTAC of June 21, 2011, “Launching an Annual Bicycle Sharrow Maintenance Program,”reported that, among the 380 sharrows installed by the city in 2005 and 2007, just over half (194)(51%) are no longer visible. The Committee found that sharrows originally installed on Grant Ave., 2nd St., Marcy St. west of Lincoln, and Don Gaspar Ave. are no longer present after repaving. (Sharrows are no longer needed on Don Gaspar Ave., which now has a bike lane.)

What is the experience with “sharrows”?

6-4 | Page Appendix 6

"Santa Fe's decision to install shared-lane markings ("sharrows") on certain streets was based on a study of the contribution of these pavement markings to bicycle safety that was done several years ago in San Francisco. By means of extended video surveillance of streets before and after the installation of sharrows, that study determined that the presence of these symbols had the effect of (1) reducing the incidence of wrong-way riding by about 80%, (2) reducing the incidence of sidewalk riding by about 30%, (3) increasing the average distance between cyclists and parked cars by about 20%, and (4) increasing the average distance between cyclists and passing cars by about 80%. Since all of these effects had been shown by other studies to be important factors in improving the safety of cyclists, the conclusion drawn was that the installation of sharrows had made a substantial contribution to this goal. (see http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Fu ll%20Report-052404.pdf.

"Based on the findings of this study, a program of sharrow installation on selected Santa Fe streets was commenced in 2005 and was expanded to additional streets in 2007. Although no study has yet been done of their precise effectiveness in Santa Fe, there is no reason to believe that their impact would be any different here than it was in San Francisco. The city has therefore concluded that this is a valuable program that should be maintained and continued. A line-item for repair and replacement of the existing sharrows, as well as a modest expansion to additional streets, was accordingly included in the CIP bond that was recently approved by the city council.

"Besides the beneficial effects shown by the San Francisco study, observations in Santa Fe also suggest that the sharrows appear to contribute to a better understanding of the appropriateness and acceptability of cyclists 'taking the lane.'” - Jim Harrington, BTAC On-Road Subcommittee Member, March 2011

Sharrows have been installed alongside densely parked cars in a few downtown locations, including parts of E. Alameda St., Washington Blvd., and Galisteo St., where they may help bicyclists avoid getting “doored” by people exiting parked cars. Other applications include narrow, low-speed streets with stop signs, such as parts of E. Alameda; approaches to intersections with right-turn lanes, such as on W. Alameda at Guadalupe and Paseo de Peralta at Guadalupe; four-lane streets such as Paseo de Peralta; and downhill grades such as Artist Rd. On some streets where motor vehicle speeds are higher and controls (stop signs) fewer, motorists may continue to regularly overtake cyclists regardless of where the latter are positioned on the roadway (e.g., Baca St., Pacheco St., Camino Cabra uphill). This may represent appropriate, mutual accommodation (“sharing the road”) as bicyclists may “allow” motorists to pass on the left at times where there is space to do so.

Grade Separated Crossings for On-road Cyclists

On-road bicyclists benefit from various grade-separated road crossings with major roadways, particularly in cases where such crossings are not associated with interchange ramps. Examples of the latter include: • Richards Avenue under I-25 • Via Abajo under NM599 • Ave. Rincón (near Zocalo) under NM599 • Rodeo Rd. over St. Francis Dr. • Paz Bridge over US84/285 (State Bike Route 9)

6-5 | Page Appendix 6 Appendix 7: Assessment of Multi-Use Trails in the Santa Fe MPO Area

I. Major Multi-Use Trails as “Arterial Bikeways” II. Descriptions of Major Trail and Related Bikeway Alignments III. Other Independent Alignments for Multi-Use Trails IV. Subdivision Trails V. Sidepaths VI. Topographical Barriers for Multi-Use Trails in the Santa Fe Metro. Area VII. Long-Range Trail Alignments

I. Major Multi-Use Trails as “Arterial Bikeways”

Santa Fe’s major multi-use trails can be thought of as core pieces of the city’s “arterial bikeways.” Together with complementary road and trail connections, they can function as an integrated network of comfortable and reasonably convenient alignments that a wide variety of bicyclists can use to get to most parts of the city.

As shown in the Table below, the Santa Fe metropolitan area includes nearly 19 miles of paved “arterial” trails and 17 miles of unpaved “arterial” trails. These figures include major trail alignments only. Paved trails listed here meet or approximate AASHTO guidelines. Many more miles of minor paved trails within subdivisions and parks, including internal connections and side paths along roadways, are not included, nor are other soft-surface recreational trails.

Table: Mileage of Trails along Major Alignments in the Santa Fe MPO Area, by surface type

Trail Alignment Paved Unpaved Total Acequia Trail 1.1 0.5 1.6 Arroyo de los Chamisos (1) 4.4 0.2 4.6 Arroyo Hondo Trail 0.0 0.8 0.8 Ashbaugh Park Trail 0.2 0.0 0.2 Chili Line 0.0 0.2 0.2 Frenchy's Field Trails 0.8 0.0 0.8 NM Mexico Central RR (2) 1.6 0.0 1.6 Rail Trail 4.4 11.6 16.0 River Trail 3.3 0.6 3.9 Spur Trail 0.0 3.0 3.0 St. Francis Dr. Trail 0.9 0.0 0.9 Tierra Contenta Trail (3) 2.1 0.0 2.1 TOTAL 18.8 16.9 35.7

(1) Includes Gail Ryba Trail (with Gail Ryba Trail underpass, currently under construction) and Zia Trail. (2) Includes Rancho Viejo "District Trail" and part of SFCC Loop. (3) Counted separately from the rest of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail.

7-1 | Page Appendix 7 II. Descriptions of Major Trail and Related Bikeway Alignments

Acequia Trail The Acequia Trail currently includes 1.1 miles of paved trail segments, between the Railyard Park and Larragoite Park, and unpaved trails along 0.4 miles of the Acequia Madre within the Railyard Park, for a total length of 1.5 miles. Separate pieces of the Acequia Trail include a half-mile of paved trail adjoining Ashbaugh Park, planned for construction in 2012, and an unpaved segment from Otowo Dr. to Maclovia Park (0.1 mi.).

The longer Acequia Bikeway alignment available to local bicyclists incorporates a variety of calm paved roads through residential areas, includes Potencia St., Montaño St., Otowi Dr., and Gallegos Dr. (via Maclovia Park), for a total Acequia Bikeway length of over 2.5 miles, spanning the Acequia Madre and the Acequia de los Pinos from Guadalupe St. to Gallegos Ln. The combine bikeway has just four street crossings, including St. Francis Dr. (marked and signalized) and Baca St. (marked speed table) on the Acequia Trail and Felipe St. and Osage Dr. (controlled via four-way stop) on Otowi Dr. Significant direct connections to this bikeway include the Chili Line in the Railyard Park, the Rail Trail, two W. Railyard trail connections, Larragoite Park, Ashbaugh Park and Trail, and Maclovia Park. Future tie-ins on the west end may include Cielo Vista (Carmelita St.) Park and Dos Hermanos Rodriguez Park.

Separate pieces of the Acequia Trail are planned in the relatively near term for a half- mile section around Las Acequias Park (Lopez Ln. to Rufina St.) and a one-mile section from the west end of Rufina St. to the County’s new River Trail trailhead at Agua Fria St. near San Felipe Rd. Incorporating the length of Rufina St. from Harrison St. to S. Meadows Rd., which provides calm shared lanes east of Siler Rd. and striped bike lanes west of Siler Rd., the greater “Acequia Bikeway” concept would provide bicyclists with a 7.25-mile facility from the Railyard Park to the Santa Fe Country Club area, on the outskirts of Tierra Contenta, without requiring the use of Agua Fria St. or Cerrillos Rd.

Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail, including the Gail Ryba Trail Santa Fe’s oldest multi-use trail is a 4.0-mile asphalt path from the Rail Trail at Siringo Rd. to the Nava Ade subdivision and the Santa Fe Place mall and transit center. The trail has three marked, at-grade street crossings (Yucca, C. Carlos Rey, and Ave. de las Campanas), and one grade-separated crossing at Rodeo Rd.

A separate paved section of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail to the east, which is being renamed the Gail Ryba Trail, will be connected to the Rail Trail through an underpass under St. Francis Dr. in 2012. The alignment on the east side totals 0.7 miles, including “Zia Trail” extension south of W. Zia Rd. Counting the half-mile of the Rail Trail that connects the two segments along the Arroyo de los Chamisos, the continuous length of paved trail will Santa Fe’s longest at five miles.

Significant direct connections to the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail include Capshaw Middle School, the Zia Trail to the Arroyo en Medio, the St. Francis Dr. Trail, the Rail

7-2 | Page Appendix 7 Trail, Santa Fe High School, Monica Lucero Park, the Genoveva Chavez Community Center, Villa Linda Park, and the Santa Fe Place mall and transit center.

To the west, a separate section of the Arroyo de los Chamisos trail located in Tierra Contenta runs along 2.1 miles of a tributary to the Arroyo de los Chamisos to a point where the arroyos join near NM599, the future site of the Southwest Activity Node or “SWAN” Park. This segment of the trail also has several, well-marked crosswalks. The ultimate plan over time is to connect this trail to the greater Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail south and southeast of Capital High School. Currently-proposed development development of Las Soleras east of Cerrillos Rd. may fill in some of the missing gap, while the SWAN Park and private development proposed to the west may eventually bring the trail under NM599 and along the Arroyo de los Chamisos into the La Cienega area.

The various paved segments of the Arroyo de los Chamisos trail have been built to AASHTO specifications for width (10 ft.) and feature marked crosswalks at all at-grade street crossings, which are primarily at uncontrolled mid-block locations.

River Trail The River Trail is a multi-use trail along the Santa Fe River that will eventually link downtown Santa Fe with the western edge of the urban area north of Tierra Contenta, a span of nearly ten miles. Developing the River Trail has been a top priority of local bikeway planning since before the City’s 1993 Bikeways Master Plan.

The City’s section of the River Trail is a concrete multi-use trail from St. Francis Dr. to Frenchy’s Field, a span of 2.1 miles. Thanks to a bridge underpass at Camino Alire, it requires no at-grade street crossings. Most of this section meets AASHTO specifications but between Camino Alire and Ave. Cristobal Colón, the trail is only eight feet wide, typically with one or two handrails located less than one foot from the edge of concrete. Adding on the adjoining trail in Frenchy’s Field and the uninterrupted sidewalk along W. Alameda St. east of St. Francis Dr. to Defouri St., the continuous River Trail alignment currently available to trail users reaches a total of nearly three miles.

Significant direct connections to this part of the River Trail include Gonzales Community School, the “El Rio Road” Trail to Alto St., Alto / Bicentennial Park, Griego Park, and Frenchy’s Field.

The “River Parkway” vision is to extend the River Trail nearly a half-mile further east, through De Vargas Park, including an at-grade crossing of Defouri St. and underpasses of Guadalupe St., Sandoval St., and Galisteo St., three downtown streets that are due for bridge repairs. The trail would bring users to Don Gaspar Ave., which in turn provides easy access to the plaza and to points north and south via calm roads integrated into “State Bike Route 9.”

The longer Santa Fe River alignment that is currently available to bicyclists and pedestrians includes a variety of shared lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, and unpaved trails

7-3 | Page Appendix 7 along E. and W. Alameda St. West of Frenchy’s Field, the County has built separate pieces of the River Trail between San Ysidro Crossing and Caja del Oro Rd. (primarily unpaved) and between Agua Fria St. and Constellation Rd. (paved), totaling 1.8 miles. These segments will likely be integrated into a greater City-County River Trail within the next 5-10 years.

Rail Trail The Rail Trail includes two distinct paved sections along the Santa Fe Southern Rail Line. The first is 0.75 miles from the Santa Fe Depot through the Railyard Plaza and Railyard Park, and across the intersection of St. Francis and Cerrillos Rd. to Pen Rd. The second is 3.6 miles from nearby Alta Vista St. to Rabbit Rd. In between the two sections are the relatively calm roads of Pen Sd. and South Capitol Station, the latter with bike lanes. Together the paved trails and on-road segments make a 4.0-mile bikeway alignment.

South of Rabbit Rd. is roughly 11.6 miles of soft-surface Rail Trail to Eldorado and US285. The County is currently starting improvements to this trail in order to satisfy easement requirements of the New Mexico Department of Transportation, the owner of the rail right-of-way and in order to provide a more accessible facility that may make for a more efficient commuter bikeway as well. Some of the new alignment will be farther away from the rail line than the current Rail Trail. The new cross-section will be soft- surface on a wide tread.

Significant direct connections to the paved Rail Trail and on-road bikeway include the Santa Fe Depot, the Railyard Park and Plaza, the Acequia Trail, South Capitol Station, the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail, the Gail Ryba Trail, and Zia Station. The unpaved Rail Trail provides further connections to the Spur Trail (to Santa Fe Community College and Rancho Viejo), roads and wide side paths in Eldorado, and a recreational trail network in the Galisteo Basin Preserve. Access to the origin of the rail line and the Amtrak Station in Lamy is currently only available via the paved shoulders of US285 (“State Bike Route 9”) and shared lanes on County Road 33, a total of 2.7 miles on road.

The Rail Trail has roughly a dozen at-grade crossings with minor or major roadways. One crossing, at W. Zia Rd and St. Francis Dr., is signalized. The rest are uncontrolled and for the most part unmarked, with the exceptions of marked crosswalks at Paseo de Peralta and Camino Alire.

III. Other Independent Alignments for Multi-Use Trails

Multi-use trails are also found, or planned for, on the following alignments (see Map 1, Santa Fe Bikeways and Trails Map, 2012, and map of abandoned railroad alignments on p. 9 of this Appendix): • Cañada Rincon • Cañada Ancha • Arroyo de las Mascaras • Arroyo de los Pinos

7-4 | Page Appendix 7 • Arroyo Chaparral • Arroyo en Medio • Arroyo Hondo • Chili Line (Denver and Western Rio Grande Railroad, Santa Fe Branch) • N.M. Central Railroad • Santa Fe Southern RR, abandoned railbed (n. of I-25 along Galisteo Rd.) • Power lines through Pueblos del Sol and through Las Soleras (planned) • I-25 frontage

IV. Subdivision Trails

Many narrow paved trails and paths make local connections and serve recreational functions but do not meet AASHTO standards for multi-use trails. They are typically found within recent subdivisions such as Pueblos del Sol, Nava Ade, Rancho Viejo, and Las Campanas. In a few cases, subdivision trails are also potential major “arterial” bikeway alignments. The section of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail in Nava Ade, for example, preceded the arrival of the main trail south of Rodeo Rd., but, unlike other subdivision trails, it was built the AASHTO-recommended ten feet wide. Similarly, Rancho Viejo’s “District Trail,” which could become part of a much longer New Mexico Central Rail Trail alignment, was also built to AASHTO specifications as the subdivision’s major, central trail. Trails in Pueblos del Sol could also become part of a longer north-south alignment approximating the NM Central Railroad alignment within the city limits. Unfortunately these trails are extremely narrow (6 ft. wide) and meandering and lack basic internal connectivity.

V. Sidepaths

Within the city of Santa Fe, a side path built along Botulph Rd. is one of the only examples of a side path constructed by the City with the specific intent of accommodating bicycle traffic. Several more, relatively minor examples can be found in subdivisions in the city: • along south side of Gov. Miles Rd., east of Pueblos del Sol • along Richards and Gov. Miles Rd. in La Sonata

Numerous examples of side paths can be found in county subdivisions and other developed locations, including: • Eldorado • Las Campanas • Rancho Viejo • La Pradera (along Dinosaur Trail) • Campus of Santa Fe Community College.

In most cases, side paths serve as an acceptable pedestrian facility but a marginal bicycle facility, suitable for low-speed recreational use only. Because they are along roads, they make for less-than-ideal recreational bicycling alignments, compared to a multi-use trail on an alignment independent of a roadway. Also because they are along roads, they are

7-5 | Page Appendix 7 not very functional for bicycle through traffic, and commuter or other on-road cyclists travelling adjacent roadways tend to avoid them. Side path alignments introduce numerous street and/or driveway crossings that constitute hazards not found on the roadway, they often have dysfunctional interfaces with side streets or the streets that they travel along, they may require frequent stopping or yielding to motor vehicle traffic, and they often include additional grades and meanders that limit safe or comfortable travel speed and increase cycling distance.

Sidepaths that have been Proposed along Major Roads: Past bicycle planning in Santa Fe has included numerous side path alignments with little reference to the concerns expressed by AASHTO and LAB. BTAC’s Big Picture map, for example, depicts countless roadways as proposed trail alignments, including much of Rufina St. (also identified as a trail alignment by the 1993 Bikeways Master Plan), St. Francis Dr. (US84/285), Richards Ave., Old Pecos Trail, Gonzales Rd., Artist Rd./Hyde Park Rd. (NM475), and even St. Michael’s Dr. (NM466). In most cases, however, side paths have NOT been pursued as a solution for accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians along these alignments. Rather, City has pursued the combination of on-road bicycle facilities and sidewalks that is recommended by AASHTO, endorsed by LAB, and well-suited to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians along most of these roadways, and many more.

The proposed Gonzales Rd. “side path,” which has been designed but not yet constructed for the City, might seem to be an exception, but BTAC and the City have determined that this is not to be considered a bicycle facility, in which case it can be considered a sidewalk.

Several major roadways with high-speed traffic in Santa Fe have also been proposed as side path alignments, particularly Richards Ave. and St. Francis Dr. In neither case is a side path recommendable for long distances along these roadways as envisioned in early bicycle planning, as well as in NMDOT’s recent St. Francis Dr. Corridor Study. Both alignments, however, do have specific segments with merits specifically relating to their prospective role in connecting trails and bikeways on other alignments that are independent of roadways. • Richards Ave. has ample paved shoulders or bike lanes throughout its alignment north of Rancho Viejo. A side path along Richards Ave. to the Santa Fe Community College was proposed both by the 1993 Santa Fe Bikeways Master Plan and by BTAC’s “Big Picture” map. Initial planning and design activities were funded by BTAC but the Committee eventually rejected the use of city trail funds for a Richards Ave. side path.

Given the convenience of Richard Ave.’s underpass of I-25 (with no conflicts at interchange ramps), prospective connections with various independent trail alignments planned to the north and south of I-25, local land uses including SFCC and possible developments such as a Railrunner Station at Las Soleras, Richards Ave.’s current lack of pedestrian facilities in the form of a sidewalk, and availability of trail easements along uninterrupted right of way (e.g., through the Petcheskey Ranch on the west side of Richards Ave., and through undeveloped

7-6 | Page Appendix 7 land north of Rabbit Rd. on the east side, toward the NMCRR alignment), one or more side paths along Richards. Ave. and an adjoining part of Rabbit Rd. may be appropriate accommodations for trail users in this area in the near future.

• St. Francis Dr. has very limited on-road facilities for cyclists, primarily south of Siringo Rd. St. Francis Dr. is another corridor that has been proposed for various side paths, as reiterated and expanded by the NMDOT’s St. Francis Dr. Corridor Study. The newly-built St. Francis Dr. Trail provides a bicycle and pedestrian facility along part of St. Francis Dr., bringing bicyclists to signalized crosswalks at busy, high-speed highway intersections that have not been designed for trail traffic and, in most cases, have handled minimal pedestrian traffic to date.

The St. Francis Dr. Trail creates a high level of connectivity between significant bikeway alignments independent of St. Francis Dr., namely the Rail Trail and Gail Ryba Trail to the south and west and Santa Fe’s network of designated on- road facilities to the north and east, including signed bike routes on Galisteo, Don Gaspar, and San Mateo as well as bike lanes on St. Michael’s Dr. and Old Pecos Trail. Extensions of the St. Francis Dr. Trail to busy intersections at W. Zia to the south and St. Michael’s Dr. (NM466) to the north created new points of conflict that were not necessary to create this connectivity. The connection to W. Zia Rd. may provide added value if a sidewalk or trial is provided directly into the Plaza Entrada shopping center, otherwise this Bicycle Master Plan does not include further extensions of trails along St. Francis Dr.

• More recently, the Las Soleras subdivision has planned a side path along Beckner Dr., which will also have standard bike lanes per city code.

Expanded definition of Sidepath in AASHTO 2011

The latest AASHTO guidance (2011) expands the definition of a “side path” to include multi-use trails that use intersection crosswalks in general. These “side path-like” conditions exist at the following major, signalized intersections in Santa Fe: • Acequia Trail at St Francis and Cerrillos • Rail Trail at St. Francis and W. Zia • River Trail at St. Francis and W. Alameda.

“Side path-like” conditions also occur on Santa Fe’s major multi-use trails at the following non-signalized location: • Rail Trail at Rodeo Rd. and Galisteo Rd. (cross-traffic not controlled)

Mitigation of Conflicts created by Sidepaths

While there are methods promoted by AASHTO and FHWA to design intersections for pedestrian safety and to accommodate trails in crosswalks, construction of side paths in the Santa Fe area has typically not included improvements to existing ramps and crosswalks at road crossings.

7-7 | Page Appendix 7

VI. Topographical Barriers for Multi-Use Trails in the Santa Fe Metropolitan Area

The Santa Fe River is a formidable topographical feature that is bridged by many lower- speed, narrow streets downtown and a handful of mostly higher-speed roadways west of downtown. Among the busier roads west of downtown, with the notable exception of St. Francis Dr., nearly all of the roadway bridges over the Santa Fe River provide appropriate accommodations to cyclists in the form of a paved shoulder. Most of these bridges west of downtown (again with the exception of St. Francis Dr.), also provide space for River Trail users to cross underneath the roadway.

Arguably, non-motorized traffic is better accommodated across the Santa Fe River than motorized traffic, for there are at least as many dedicated non-motorized crossings of the Santa Fe River as there are road crossings. These include four “pedestrian” bridges east (upstream) of St. Francis Dr., eight River Trail bridge crossings or connections west (downstream) of St. Francis Dr., and one at-grade low-water crossing that is closed to motor vehicles (Camino Carlos Rael). As the River Trail is developed, needs for more crossings will become more apparent; recommendations for future locations are presented in Chapter IV.

Arroyos and irrigation ditches also pose barriers to the road and trail systems in Santa Fe, though these are typically more easily overcome through smaller bridges, culverts, or at- grade crossings. Roughly a dozen bridges for non-motorized traffic over the Acequia Madre range from informal but sturdy two-by-four construction to four hefty new structures built by the City in 2009-11 to accommodate maintenance and emergency use by heavy motor vehicles. Bicycle-pedestrian bridges over major arroyos in the Santa Fe area include five over the Arroyo de los Chamisos (Gail Ryba Trail (2), Rail Trail (1), Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail (2)) and three along the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail that span tributaries to the Arroyo de los Chamisos. Countless other trail crossings and footbridges, many associated with city parks, include crossings over the Arroyo de las Mascaras and its tributaries (most within Fort Marcy Park), Arroyo Chaparral (Rail Trail; footpath near Chaparral E.S.), and Arroyo de los Pinos (Rail Trail; footpath in Herb Martinez Park).

Locations where unbridged arroyos or acequias continue to pose a major barrier to non- motorized traffic include the Acequia Madre at various locations including Kathryn St. and Oñate Pl. dead-ends, Arroyo Chaparral near Candelario Park, and various locations where the County of Santa Fe is considering trail alignments along the Arroyo Hondo.

7-8 | Page Appendix 7 VII. Long-Range Trail Alignments Map: Abandoned railroads in the Santa Fe MPO Area.

• NM Central Railroad Line to Galisteo: Santa Fe County is Chili Line currently seeking to develop the abandoned railbed of the NM Central Line south of Eldorado to Santa Fe County Road 42 west of Galisteo Village, as a soft-surface trail in conjunction with the Galisteo Basin Preserve development. This alignment could have some transportation value, since a paved trail is planned to extend northward from Eldorado to Rancho Viejo. More significant are the recreational NM Central opportunities, including possible links to other, existing Galisteo Basin Preserve trails and to the Santa Fe Southern Rail Trail to Eldorado and Santa Fe.

• Rio Grande Trail, Santa Fe River Trail, and the Chili Line: Two conceptual alignments for long-range trails in the Santa Fe area, one to continue the Santa Fe River Trail to La Bajada Village and Cochiti, and the other to pursue a Chili Line Trail around Buckman Wells and north, could both conceivably be integrated into New Mexico State Parks’ statewide Rio Grande Trail initiative. Both alignments are primarily on federal land belonging to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Santa Fe National Forest (SFNF) but also include some tribal land. The extended Santa Fe River Trail alignment could conceivably include an abandoned section of old Route 66 featuring 23 switchbacks descending to La Bajada village. SFNF and BLM have recently proposed to improve a 1.5-mile recreational trail The Denver, Rio Grande and Western railroad, also known as the Chili along the Chili Line on Line, near Diablo Canyon (Photo courtesy of http://ngchililine.org) federal land north of the

7-9 | Page Appendix 7 Buckman diversion.1 Possible alignments to link to this trail in the future from Santa Fe include the Chili Line, Buckman Rd., and the Buckman diversion pipeline, which in turn might be linked to the City’s MRC Trail and the Santa Fe River Trail. The critical link from a long-range transportation perspective, to extend the Chili Line trail north to NM502 at Otowi Bridge, is a 1.5-mile stretch along the Rio Grande through San Ildefonso Pueblo.

Other long-range alignments of possible future interest include (1) Galisteo Creek / Old Santa Fe Trail / BNSF rail alignment west to Glorieta, which would offer bicyclists and pedestrians an alternative to I-25, and (2) a combination of the NM Rail Runner alignment to Waldo Canyon and the BNSF rail alignment to Cerrillos; an abandoned rail spur could in turn provide a connection from Cerrillos to Madrid.

1 SWCA Environmental Consultants, for SFNF and BLM, “Rio Grande Corridor at Buckman Restoration and Recreation Enhancement Project: Proposed Action, Alternatives, and Preliminary Effects Analysis” (Nov. 2011), p. 21.

7-10 | Page Appendix 7 Appendix 8: Assessment of Bike Route Guidance in the Santa Fe MPO Area

A. Guidance provided through Bike Route Signs on Streets in Santa Fe

The 1993 Bikeways Master Plan created a network of bike routes designated through standard “Bike Route” signage on city streets including: • De Fouri St. • Montezuma St. • Galisteo St. • Don Gaspar • Coronado • San Mateo • Old Pecos Trail (n. of St. Michael’s Dr.) • Hospital • Botulph • Siringo • Yucca St. • Avenida de las Campanas • Rodeo Rd. (existing per 1993) • Airport Rd. (county) (existing per 1993)

This signage program was implemented within a few years of the plan. The signage scheme only included directional signage at a few decision points (Galisteo and Hospital; Don Gaspar and Montezuma) and no information on destinations or distance. A few facilities proposed for designation never received it, including Richards Ave., part of Old Pecos Trail, and a proposed route to Capital High School including S. Meadows and part of Jaguar Rd. Each of these facilities now includes designated bike lanes or paved shoulders and need not be generically designated as a “bike route,” though each may be considered for specific directional guidance for cyclists, should the need arise.

B. Longer-Range Signed Bike Routes

“State Bike Route 9.” The primary rationale of the State Bicycle Route program is to provide guidance through New Mexico for longer-range bicycle tourists. State Bike Route 9 in Santa Fe serves to provide guidance in and out of downtown Santa Fe for local cyclists as well as visitors. It is a series of primarily on-road facilities connecting Lamy, Eldorado, Santa Fe and Tesuque Village. It was designated by NMDOT in conjunction with the City of Santa Fe in 2006-2007 (See Map 3, State Bike Route 9, p. 26).

The link from Lamy to Santa Fe follows paved shoulders and bike lanes along US285, NM300 (Old Las Vegas Highway), and Old Pecos Highway (NM466 and City section) into the network of city streets designated as “Bike Routes” under the City’s 1993

8-1 | Page Appendix 8 Bikeways Master Plan, including parts of San Mateo, Don Gaspar and Galisteo, adding a one-block link from Don Gaspar to Galisteo via Malaga St., and extending the existing bike routes on Galisteo and Don Gaspar several blocks north to San Francisco St.

The route heads north from the plaza area via Grant St., a short piece of Paseo de Peralta, and Old Taos Highway onto a multi-use trail connection to Camino Encantado near the top of “Opera Hill.” The route then crosses “Paz Bridge” over US84/285, and follows the US84/285 west-side frontage road down to the beginning of Tesuque Village Rd. (CR73).

Each side of State Bike Route 9 brings cyclists to within a block of the plaza but, due to the difficulty of establishing a single best route as well as the sensitivity of signage in the plaza area, the two sides are only connected through reference on the plaques.

State Bike Route 9 added directional information (arrows and destination plaques) at many decision points and added or incorporated small spur or connector bike routes. Cyclists are given specific destination guidance to “SANTA FE” and “PLAZA” on inbound routes and to “LAMY,” “ELDORADO,” “OLD LAMY TRAIL,” or “TO TESUQUE VILLAGE RD.” on outbound routes. Part of St. Michael’s Dr. (NM466) was simultaneously designated a Bike Route by NMDOT as well, with specific guidance to State Bike Route 9 from Galisteo St. to Old Pecos Trail. For cyclists on northbound State Bike Route 9 in this area, alternative guidance plaques are provided: “State Bike Route 9 – Downtown” (right) and “Bike Route – St. Michael’s Dr.” (left) (Part of the rationale was to avoid confusion between the designated bike route on Old Pecos Trail and the bike lane following NM466 onto St. Michael’s.)

Another decision point with alternative destinations created through the state bike route occurs at Galisteo and Montezuma, where a “RAIL YARD” destination plaque was added to the original city bike route sign with left arrow, and the new State Bike Route guidance signage continuing along Galisteo specifies “PLAZA” as destination (See Figure: Photo of Railyard vs. Plaza Destination plaques).

Other Bicycle Tourist Routes: Tourists traveling by bicycle visit the Santa Fe area as part of organized and supported tours or self-supported in smaller groups or as individuals. Designated Scenic Byways are typically relatively popular routes for bicycle tourists, including the Turquoise Trail on NM14 south of Santa Fe, the High Road to Taos on NM76 north of Santa Fe, and the Jemez Mountain Byway (NM4) to the northwest toward Los Alamos. Long-Range plans for NMDOT’s “State Bike Route 9” take into account the attractiveness of routes to Galisteo and Moriarty (via NM41) and to Ojo Caliente via Española (via US285).

Many of these popular long-range bike tourism routes are publicized and informally mapped by local cycling groups such as the New Mexico Touring Society (NMTS). Also included on NMTS’s web site are popular day trips starting and ending in Santa Fe, including the Santa Fe Century Route (100-mile loop to Madrid and Stanley with 50-mile loop using County Road 42 to Galisteo, see www.santafecentury.com/routemap.html),

8-2 | Page Appendix 8 and many shorter rides such as “the Prison Loop” (using Bonanza Creek Rd. and NM14, see www.nmts.org).

Bicycle tourism to Santa Fe and within Santa Fe may be anticipated to increase for several reasons. Improvement in the environment for bicycling alone can be expected to increase the number of visitors coming to Santa Fe with bicycles, regardless of their mode of transportation to the city. The ease of arriving with a bicycle by train on the NM Railrunner has already been observed to contribute to cycling in the downtown area. Cyclists can also come on public transit from Las Vegas, Moriarty, Los Alamos, Española, and Taos, by private buses running between Albuquerque and Denver, and by AMTRAK to Lamy and “State Bike Route 9.”

Bike Route 66. On November 22, 2010, the premiere provider of mapping and travel information services for long-range bicycle tourists in North America, the Adventure Cycling Association (ACA), announced that it will add “Bike Route 66” between Chicago to Los Angeles to the 40,000 mile network of routes that ACA has researched and mapped (see www.adventurecycling.org/news/20101122.cfm. Unlike most other ACA routes, this route will intentionally bring cyclists into and through urban areas like Phoenix and Albuquerque.

ACA will also be working with state and local agencies and through AASHTO to designate a U.S. Photo from ACA blog, “Bicycling Bike Route Bicycle Route 66 in conjunction with the Mother Road,” Nov. 24, 2010 ACA’s Bike Route 66. Prospective routes through the Santa Fe metropolitan area will undoubtedly be researched and mapped by ACA, working with local and state agencies, within the next year or so. It can be anticipated that the pre-1937 alignment of Route 66 through Santa Fe will a major alternative, if not the major alternative, promoted by ACA (see MAP: Route 66 Alignments between Santa Rosa and Albuquerque). Although following the pre-1935 alignment to Santa Fe adds at least an extra day to a cyclist’s trip, a route that includes Santa Fe will be more attractive to many bike tourists for a variety of reasons, and there is no doubt that local bike shops, outfitters, tour guides, and well-situated hotels and campgrounds will directly and significantly benefit from future bike tourists following ACA’s route - many of whose last significant city visited will have been Amarillo, Texas, roughly a week earlier.

In order to follow the pre-1935 alignment, ACA will likely have cyclists follow the established Scenic Byway route into Santa Fe along Old Las Vegas Highway (NM300) from Cañoncito. From the junction with US285, this route would coincide with State Bike Route 9 along Old Las Vegas Highway onto Old Pecos Trail up to San Mateo, where SBR9 diverges left. The ACA route would most likely continue on the original alignment and current Scenic Byway route along Old Pecos Trail and Old Santa Fe Trail

8-3 | Page Appendix 8 to Water St. in the plaza area, a route that now offers bicycle lanes to Coronado St. transitioning to sharrows on the narrow descent downtown. (For the reverse direction, ACA may want to consider the SBR9 southbound alignment using Don Gaspar, which offers a bicycle lane and less motor vehicle traffic on the corresponding uphill section.)

It can be anticipated that much of the historic pre-1935 alignment of Route 66 west of downtown Santa Fe that might be followed by motorized tourists will not be a major recommended route for bicycle tourists. Most if not all of Cerrillos Rd. from St. Francis Dr. to Airport Rd. may not be the kind of facility that ACA will desire to guide cyclists to use. A relatively direct alternative to get to the slightly more “bicycle-friendly” part of Cerrillos Rd. beyond Airport Rd. could include Rufina St., along with South Meadows and Jaguar Rd. This possibility highlights the priority of connecting Rufina St. to the Acequia Trail to create an “Acequia and Rufina Bikeway” from the Railyard Park west.

ACA may give cyclists some alternatives to get back to the main Route 66 alignment in Albuquerque. Although it is not a historic Route 66 alignment, cyclists could continue south on Cerrillos Rd. to the Turquoise Trail Scenic Byway (NM14) south of NM599. NM14 is already a popular bicycle touring route to Tijeras, from which “State Bicycle Route 66” on NM333 provides the classic entrance into Albuquerque on the post-1937 alignment. Cyclists who would like to avoid the topography of NM14, however, may backtrack to NM41 and Moriarty via Galisteo or may continue tracing the pre-1937 alignment to Albuquerque via Bernalillo. The modern driving route for this alignment, which is more commonly associated with the Camino Real, starts with a 15-mile stretch of I-25 starting at Waldo Canyon Rd. with no frontage roads or other convenient alternate routes.

518

: a iet lor G nly – o ito 25 c I- on s: Glorieta ñ le Ca mi 4

d . (propos ed) R on (propos ed) R omeroville ny Ca Lo ne o ly ld on a 5 Bu t t e W I- 2 e – : CR ip es C errillos el il 42 F m n 15 Sa Madrid 14 il a r y T 41 e a w is y o B u q c r i u n T e c (proposed) S 28 5 14 Sandia Park

41 JCT US84 – Santa Rosa 16 mile s: I-40 only No alt er na te ro ut es Mori arty – Santa Rosa 80 mi les: I-40 only No alternate routes No to wns ; lt d. ser vice s a t U S28 5 Possible Route 66 Bicycle Routes on Today’s Road Network 1. Route 66 Alignment from 1937 on: Albuq.-Tijeras-Moriarty-Santa Rosa: c. 115 miles (80 miles on Interstate only) 2 Approx. Pre-1937 alignment: Albuq-Bernalillo-Santa Fe-Pecos-Santa Rosa: c. 190 miles (35 on Interstate only) 3 . Pre -19 37 a lig nm ent wi th NM1 4 co nne ctio n: Albu q.-Tij era s-San ta Fe-Pe cos-S anta Rosa : c. 20 0 mil es (2 0 on Inte rsta te on ly)

Segments of Interstate with no alternate route (excluding alternate routes with signi ficant out-of-direction travel)

State Bicycle Ro utes (designated) State Bicycle Routes (propo sed )

8-4 | Page Appendix 8 Appendix 9: Santa Fe MPO Bicycle Master Plan Goals and Recommendations

Goal: More Bicycle Facilities and Better Bicycle Facilities, within an Integrated and Effective Bikeway System

Recommendation 1.1. Implement “Complete Streets” policies for all construction and maintenance of roadways in the MPO area.

Recommendation 1.2: Create and implement programs to retrofit roadways in need of bicycle facilities

Recommendation 1.3: Adopt and adhere to established engineering guidelines for planning, designing, building, and maintaining roads, trails, and other bicycle facilities.

Recommendation 1.4: Target investments in new infrastructure that maximizes cost effectiveness toward a better bikeway system

Recommendation 1.5: Support pro-active maintenance of on-road and off-road facilities while minimizing impact to users

Recommendation 1.6: Coordinate planning of bikeway facilities in the MPO area

Recommendation 1.7. Provide bicyclists with useful guidance through Bike Route signage and other wayfinding assistance on trails and roads

Recommendation 1.8. Research, consider, promote, and implement best design practices

Recommendation 1.9. Improve and expand bicycle parking

Recommendation 1.10. Support Higher-Density, Mixed-Use Development

Recommendation 1.11. Provide Critical Connectivity for Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Recommendation 1.12. Gather Data to Support and Guide Bicycle Planning

Recommendation 2.1: Support Bicycle Education for Children and Adults

9-1 | Page Appendix 9 Recommendation 2.2: Educate Motorists about Safe Operating Behavior around Bicyclists

Recommendation 2.3: Enforce Traffic Laws Relating to Bicycling

Recommendation 2.4: Establish a District-Wide Safe Routes to School Program

Recommendation 2.5: Continue to Promote and Celebrate Bicycles and Bicycle Transportation in the Santa Fe Area

Recommendation 2.6: Establish a Bike-Sharing Program as an Extension of Public Transit Services

Recommendation 2.7: Encourage and facilitate the use of bicycles by public agency staff and in the private sector

Recommendation 2.8: Create Incentives / Remove Barriers to Travel by Bike

9-2 | Page Appendix 9 Appendix 10: A Proposed Policy Approach with Regard to ADA and Multi-Use Trails

Planning for bicyclists and planning for pedestrians, and particularly those with disabilities, are broadly overlapping fields. Both approaches emphasize accessibility along and between off-road facilities and across roadways. Each field can help the other if the broad needs of bicyclists and pedestrians are fully taken into account.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specialists focus on ensuring that general legal requirements under ADA are not violated, and that minimum facility Accessibility across roads and onto off-road facilities is a major goal of ADA specialists as specifications are met, according to a given well as more general bicycle and pedestrian set of accessibility guidelines, to provide planners (W. Alameda at Temblon). public access to a service. Often in reviewing site design, the focus is on provision of an accessible route from a dedicated parking space and exterior sidewalk to the interior of a building.

More general transportation planning for bicyclists and pedestrians focuses on creating longer accessible routes, including connections from sites into the broader transportation system. Planning and designing for bicyclists and pedestrians also requires an understanding of the need to go beyond minimum accessibility standards in A sidewalk within the City’s recent Villa Alegre order to ensure the safety and convenience of housing project ties directly into an existing marked, accessible crossing of W. Alameda, east non-motorized traffic using accessible routes. of St. Francis Dr.

Connections between the River Trail and sidewalk along Caja del Oro Grant Rd. could provide opportunity for community access to the Trail to Agua Fria village (in background)

10-1 | Page Appendix 10 Accessible Routes and the Santa Fe Bicycle Master Plan Many of the priorities specified in this Bicycle Master Plan for short connections and crossing improvements align closely with the kinds of improvements being pursued under the City’s ADA compliance program, as illustrated in various photos of proposed trail connections in the body of this Plan and in this Appendix. Many other prioritized improvements are essentially longer accessible routes that may or may not be as clearly “enforceable” under ADA, but which nonetheless provide a critical degree of accessibility within the transportation system where it is currently lacking for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Among the highest-ranking trail improvements recommended under this Bicycle Master Plan are a pair of accessible ramps from W. Alameda to the sidewalk that serves as the River Trail east of St. Francis Dr.: at Candelario (left) and Camino del Campo (right). Ramps and short sidewalk connections should be designed to safely and conveniently serve wheelchair, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. These locations may also be candidates (based on engineering study) for additional crossing improvements, including crosswalk striping, signage, and built median refuges.

A chain across a sidewalk connection at the back of the City’s Villa Alegre housing project at W. San Francisco St. represents accessibility challenges to potential users. This Bicycle Master Plan recommends: (1) create an accessible and safe pedestrian and bicycle route between residential and retail land uses, (2) create a viable crossing of W. San Francisco St. for the nearby Arroyo de las Mascaras Trail (in center of photo at upper right), and (3) to remediate a posted “restriction in accessibility” for pedestrians moving along the south side of Paseo de Peralta [State Highway NM 475] (in foreground of photo at upper right). The restricted access signage placed by NMDOT on Paseo de Peralta in photo at right is placed where a signalized crosswalk provides access between the mall and the sidewalk, a footbridge, and the Arroyo de las Mascaras trail to W. San Francisco St.

10-2 | Page Appendix 10 Design Issues for Bicycles when Applying ADA to Multi-Use Trails

Multi-use trails and connections to multi-use trails need to safely and conveniently accommodate bicycle traffic, specifically meeting engineering guidelines for bikeways under AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.1

In most cases, designs that work for wheelchair users work well for pedestrians and bicyclists in general (e.g., see photo at upper right, north side of Closson St. bridge). Bicyclists, pedestrians pushing strollers, joggers, or carts, skateboarders, rollerbladers, and other “wheeled” trail and sidewalk users have clearly benefitted through the placement of curb cuts at street corners and other crossings throughout the Santa Fe area in order to meet ADA guidelines.

In some cases, minimum accessibility requirements can lead The two ends of the Closson St. footbridge across the to facilities that are Santa Fe River demonstrate how designs to provide access unconventional for other users. for wheelchair users can lead to contrasting outcomes for other users. The north side of the bridge (above) is well Examples of some of the possible integrated into the narrow “River Trail” while the south side (below) is inaccessible for bicyclists and inconvenient drawbacks to bicycle users for other users. include:

• Switchbacks and other realignments intended to meet ADA-related grade requirements which may produce indirect routes that are less convenient and less efficient.

• Horizontal sections within longer sloping grades, intended to provide slope relief for wheelchair users, making for a less comfortable, and less efficient condition for other wheeled users as well as runners.

1 See AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2003), p. 55, referring to AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) as the authoritative source of guidance to accommodate the various users of multi-use trails. 10-3 | Page Appendix 10 • Handrails placed on or close to multi-use trails along slopes for ADA purposes (rather than for safety purposes), which may constrain available trail width, which could result in congestion, user conflicts, and a less enjoyable trail environment.

• Inadequate ramp connections for bicyclists. Sometimes the focus on pedestrian accessibility to trails leads to creation of connections that are insufficient for bicycle use.

• Accessibility requirements could affect multi-use trail project budgets and limit improvements for other intended trail users such as bicyclists

When the “El Rio Rd. Trail” was rebuilt several years ago, the grade of the old asphalt trail where it met the River Trail was found to be too steep. The new concrete trail, built at 8 ft. width, features bollards, handrails, and horizontal sections that present significant challenges to bicyclists (photo to left). Meanwhile, previously existing access to a footpath along the south side of the river was all but eliminated by a new retaining wall and handrail (photo to right).

Three examples where bicyclists are denied convenient access between road and trail: Below left, in Villa Sonata, bicyclists are routed from a trail to a narrow sidewalk and a ramp, rather than provided direct access to what should be a four-way intersection. Center, at the northeast end of the same trail, no curb cut is provided to the shoulder of Richards Ave. Below right, a curb stands between trails in Franklin Miles Park and a public parking lot, where ADA requirements apparently are not applied due to lack of dedicated pedestrian facilities in the form of sidewalks or crosswalks.

10-4 | Page Appendix 10 At Pueblos del Sol, a trail resurfacing project triggered accessibility concerns, leading to the costly realignment of some sections in order to meet acceptable grades under ADAAG, a set of guidelines developed to define accessibility into buildings (black dash = old, white dot = new). These costs were offset by building the trail narrower (6 ft.) than before (8 ft.). Both developments significantly compromised the trails’ utility as a bicycle facility.

Design Issues for Bicyclists and Pedestrians resulting from limitations of Standard Drawings for Accessible Ramps

Standard “pre-approved” designs for ADA-compliant ramps at crosswalks and elsewhere2 satisfy minimum specifications for pedestrian accessibility but may not address multi-use trail junctions appropriately. The standard drawings in use tend to favor, and systematically lead to, the creation of back-of-curb sidewalks or side paths (vs. separated from roadway through a buffer zone). Each of these characteristics represents a distinct drawback for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists alike. AASHTO guidelines and best practices for multi-use trails (see Recommendation 1.3, pp. 48-49) may help designers create ramps that function well for pedestrians as well as bicycle design vehicle.

Standard drawings currently in use fail to demonstrate how a trail should be designed nor how two sidewalks with buffers should come into one corner. Sidewalks with buffers are the optimal facility for pedestrians, they meet the City’s Chapter 14 requirements for arterials or collectors, they represent best practices under AASTHO (see images below), and they facilitate a variety of pedestrian safety treatments at street corners such Acequia Trail at Potencia St.: NMDOT Standard Drawing as dedicated directional ramps meets ADA requirements but confines trail and sidewalk and reduced crossing distance. users to a narrow area along the edge of the roadway.

2 See NMDOT Standard Drawings, created for use in conjunction with state highway projects or other use of state or federal funds obtained through NMDOT. These drawings are endorsed and recognized by most local and tribal governments in New Mexico, including the City and County of Santa Fe. 10-5 | Page Appendix 10 Three figures from AASHTO’s Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrians Facilities (2004) depict street corners accommodating sidewalks that have buffers from the roadway. The buffer space allows for more favorable placement of separate, directional ADA ramps at corners, reducing crossing distance and exposure to motor vehicle conflicts. Although sidewalk buffers are optimal for pedestrian safety and convenience, and are required on arterials and collectors under the City’s Chapter 14, NMDOT’s Standard Drawings used by all Santa Fe MPO partners do not specifically address this option.

A narrow buffer between Potencia St. and the recently-extended sidewalk along the Acequia Madre increases the quality of the pedestrian facility considerably.

Available Guidance on Applying ADA to Multi-use Trails

Federal and local guidance on accessibility in the areas of transportation and recreation is still under development. The U.S. Access Board’s current draft version of the federal Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Areas (AGODA) is intended to cover recreational trails and related outdoor facilities. Current proposed rulemaking on “Shared Use Path Accessibility Guidelines” covers transportation-oriented trails such as the paved multi- use trails being designed and built in the Santa Fe area. (see http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-7156.htm)

Requirements under ADA for multi-use trails, and any other facilities intended to serve bicycles, should not be equated with strict requirements and best practices for the federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), as is currently the case. ADAAG needs to be 10-6 | Page Appendix 10 recognized as a set of guidelines specifically developed to define adequate access to buildings and specific public services. ADAAG should not be automatically and strictly applied to multi-use trails, for which the bicycle is the intended design vehicle.

Do ADA guidelines always need to be applied to multi-use trails?

When considering applying ADAAG or other ADA guidelines for multi-use trails in the MPO area, the first question one might ask is, “What is the specific ‘Public Service’ to which access must be provided?” In many cases, such as roadways and soft-surface recreational trails, the facility itself is not interpreted as a public service for which it is necessary to mandate optimal access for pedestrians with mobility or other impairments, when doing so would inherently compromise the design for the majority of intended users (i.e., motorists for roads, hikers and others for recreational trails). Likewise sidewalks and side paths along steep roadways are exempted from ADAAG grade requirements in recognition that these facilities are simply following what is essentially an optimal roadway alignment and the considerable adjustments that would be needed to meet grade requirements are neither practical nor technically feasible.

Roads with steep grades may be used by pedestrians but are not subject to grade requirements under ADAAG. Likewise shoulders, sidewalks, and “side paths” along such roads with steep grades are also exempt from ADAAG grade requirements even though they are intended for use by pedestrians. Left: Camino de las Crucitas. Center: Sidewalk along The High Road. Right: Side path along Botulph Rd., with warning signage depicting steep grade.

Should multi-use trails, with the bicycle as the intended design vehicle, merit this same consideration? If a bikeway is taking advantage of an optimal alignment for bicycles (such as the steep segment of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail near SFHS), it may include slopes that are simply not an optimal alignment for wheelchairs. In such cases, mandating switchbacks or flat spots on optimal bikeway alignments in order to meet ADAAG grade requirements can be a self-defeating proposition. The result, if even feasible, can be a multi-use trail that is dysfunctional for bicycles and by definition a poor use of public investment.

A second question to ask when considering ADA requirements for multi-use trails in the Santa Fe MPO area is, “Is there a reasonable alternate route available?” For the hypothetical case of SFHS, and the real cases of Pueblos del Sol Trails, the River Trail at Camino Alire, or the proposed Acequia Trail grade separation at St. Francis Dr., examination of possible routes would reveal that accessible sidewalks are indeed available to reach the same destinations served by bikeway alignments in question. The

10-7 | Page Appendix 10 latter may thus merit a relaxation of strict requirements under ADAAG or other ADA guidelines. Thus it is possible for a facility to meet ADA without meeting ADAAG.

Trail users approaching the steep section of the Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail from either direction are given a The Arroyo de los Chamisos Trail climbs a warning about the “steep grades” ahead. An alternative, steep grade to meet the Rail Trail at Siringo ADA- accessible route to Siringo Rd. is available for Rd. This is a perfect alignment for a “road pedestrians along Yucca St. for bikes” – switchbacks are neither feasible nor desirable.

Other Strategies to Satisfy Both AASHTO and ADA

In cases where it is determined that a multi-use trail alignment is providing pedestrian access to a significant public service, and that no other reasonable accessible route is available to provide pedestrian access to that service, and that an accessible route is to be provided via switchbacks or flat spots, bicyclists may still be provided an alternative, optimal bikeway alignment rather than be required to negotiate compromised alignments designed for wheelchair use.

At another location in Pueblos del Sol where the existing trail was too steep to meet ADAAG grade requirements, a circuitous ADA-accessible route was created as an alternative, in foreground, while the more direct alignment was retained as the more convenient route for most users (background).

10-8 | Page Appendix 10 Conclusion

For these reasons, this MPO Bicycle Master Plan urges MPO partners to

(1) Seek to design and build multi-use trails that satisfy both AASHTO and U.S. Access Board criteria for safety, convenience, and accessibility for all users, in the spirit of “universal design.”

(2) Use restraint in the strict application of ADAAG, and best practices under ADAAG, to multi-use trails, where there may be significant adverse impact on bicyclists and other users

(3) Consider exemptions to applying ADA guidelines to multi-use trails where there may be significant adverse impact to intended users and alternative, accessible routes are available to pedestrians, and

(4) Keep abreast of alternative guidance being developed by U. S. Access Board on the application of ADA to the transportation environment in general, multi-use trails in particular, and other outdoor developed areas.

10-9 | Page Appendix 10 Appendix 11: Best Practices and Emerging Practices

Guidance for many best practices for bikeways is provided by AASHTO, the MUTCD, and other established sources and are discussed and recommended in this plan in Chapter IV through Recommendation 1.3: “Adopt and Adhere to Established Engineering Guidelines for Planning, Designing, Building, and Maintaining Roads and Trails.”

Many other best practices, particularly with regard to trail crossings, come from the field of pedestrian safety, and particularly from FHWA and AASHTO, and are discussed in Chapter IV under Recommendation 1.7: Research / consider / promote / implement best (latest) design practices.

Best Practices: At-Grade Trail Crossings and Intersections

Path-Roadway Intersections. Intersections between paths and roadways are often the most critical issue in shared use path design. Due to the potential conflicts at these junctions, careful design is of paramount importance to the safety of path users and motorists alike. - AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), p. 46.

Best practices for trail crossings and junctions with roadways take advantage of a combination of proven effective pedestrian safety techniques for crosswalks and good multi-use path design for bicycles as described by AASHTO.

11-1 | Page Appendix 11 Best Practices for Crossings, Using Pedestrian Safety Techniques1 • high-visibility markings • median refuge • bulb-out • speed table • reduction of curb radius • adjusting signal timing • eliminating or adjusting angle of separated right-turn ramps • pedestrian hybrid signal

Best Practices for Crossings and Junctions, Designing for Multi-Use Paths • ramp width at least same as trail • angle of entry near 90 degrees for crossings • limit use of bollards (posts) in pathway, consider alternatives where needed • where bollards are installed: adequate spacing from roadway, adequate spacing between bollards, establishment of centerline of trail

Best Practices for At-grade Crossings

• Highly-visible Crosswalk Markings • Median Refuge • Good Transition: - perpendicular to roadway - sufficient space for two-way travel

Marked Crosswalk with Median Refuge: W. Alameda at Gonzales Community School, Connection to River Trail

References: AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (July 2004), p. 75; FHWA, “Designing Streets for Pedestrian Safety” Training Materials; AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), p. 47-52.

1 AASHTO 2003, FHWA 2000, and FHWA 2009 (see figure).

11-2 | Page Appendix 11 There are many examples of these best practices for crossings put into place in Santa Fe (see figure above). There are also many opportunities remaining to apply these practices to other crossings where cyclists’ safety and convenience may be challenged.

Improvements of Arroyo de los Chamisos trail crossings are a high priority listed in Phase 1 of the BMP implementation plan (Chapter VI); the following illustration depicts possible improvements at Yucca St. using some of the best practices outlined above.

The City of Santa Fe recently eliminated a free right-turn lane from St. Michael’s Dr. onto Cerrillos Rd. (see photo at right). Pedestrian safety, specifically relating to the use of the intersection by schoolchildren, was a major reason for the change. Trail crossings at signalized intersections are another major opportunity to employ this best practice for pedestrian accommodation.

The following illustrations propose measures to improve existing and planned signalized trail crossings along St. Francis Dr., including elimination or adjustment of free right-turn lanes, reducing corner radii, building or expanding median refuges, adjusting signal

11-3 | Page Appendix 11 timing, and in the case of the intersection with Cerrillos Rd., employing strategies to reduce hazards associated with rail crossings (see next section). Each case also represents an opportunity to consider the improvement of on-road facilities for bicyclists crossing St. Francis Dr.

O ULDER

Application of Crossing Safety Strategies: St. Francis Dr. @ Siringo Rd. Note: Aerial predates six-laning of St. Francis and construction of ADA ramps

Possible new sidewalk along Siringo

>5’ PROPOSED 5’ BIKE LANE Minimized 11’ Crossing 11’ Distance = WIDEN BUILT MEDIAN c. 45-50 ft. 11’ >5’ PROPOSED 5’ BIKE LANE Existing back-of-curb sidewalk along Siringo

Elements of Proposed Design: 1. Reduce westbound Siringo to 2 lanes 2. Reduce travel lane widths

EXISTING 6’ STRIPED SHOULDER STRIPED 6’ EXISTING 3. Widen built median ST. FRANCIS DR. FRANCIS ST. TRAIL 4. Reduce curb radius on NE and SE corners of intersection 5. New bike Lanes on Siringo provide addl. effective turning radius 6. Provide dedicated directional ADA ramps, trail width for trail 7. Eliminate elements of ADA ramps and corners designed for back-of-curb sidewalk that does not exist 8. Crossing distance for trail alignment reduced by nearly 50% 9. Reduced exposure to turning motor vehicles 10. Consider signal adjustment to restrict turns from St. Francis to eastbound Siringo during crossing phase; consider no right on red

NE Quadrant: Acquire NMSD property to facilitate Rail Trail alignment - along rail A. More direct trail route B. Stays away from St. Francis Dr., including undesirable crossing location C. Does not interfere with future grade separation D. Facilitates 90° rail crossing via sidewalk E. May facilitate 60-90° rail crossing via Cerrillos Rd. into a new bike lane

Fill in gaps in sidewalk near utility poles

NMSD Property (approx.) NW Quadrant: A. Reorient crosswalk to 90° angle: reduce crossing distance by 30% and improve angle of Eliminate parts of sidewalk serving skewed crossing ingress/egress from Acequia Tr. B. Build new ADA ramp at trail width (10 ft.) C. Rebuild sidewalk to replace old ADA ramp and to align with Facilitate 60-90° on-road rail crossing by bicycle into Acequia Trail behind pedestrian bike lane / refuge area (see AASHTO 2010, p. 99); signal head Provide on-road guidance to and across rails through sharrows, D. Consider separate phasing for Stripe bike lane through to southbound Cerrillos Rd. ped. signal for this crosswalk; reduce green time for right turn off St. Fr. to allow sufficient time for E-W ped. crossing and to facilitate movements to/from ped. island Pedestrian crossings along Cerrillos Rd.: associated with crossing Cerrillos Provide WALK signal while trains pass through intersection

St. Francis/Cerrillos Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements: Phase I 11-4 | Page Appendix 11

St. Francis/Cerrillos Restore corners to pre-Railrunner radii; Bicycle & Pedestrian mark Alarid X-ing Improvements: Phase II (including protected pedestrian crossing at

Early/Alarid) I)

NMSD e s a Property h P e (approx.) e s ( High-visibility ped. Crossing IL A With median refuge, R Advance yield lines T IL A R

e n ; a n l r e tu ik t b h , ig lk r a e w re e f id SE Quadrant: Reorient free right turn using g s in d t e is v compound corner radius per FHWA x o e r p e pedestrian safety guidance t m a i r in o A. Minimize pedestrian crossing distance m f li e E c B. Improve ped. visibility at conflict point a p s e C. Better angle of entry onto Cerrillos for SW Quadrant: s A. Facilitate 60-90° rail crossing via u motorists; traffic calming effect Cerrillos Rd. into a refuge area and improves conditions at Alarid/Early bike lane (see AASHTO 2010, p. 99) D. Creates space for east-bound bike lane, B. Provide on-road bicyclists with seek to continue bike lane to Early St. E. Consider improving crossing as Alarid /

guidance through sharrows and bike New right- turn lane lane symbols Early via median refuge reduced corner radius, crosswalk striping, advance yield lines

Best Practices: Dealing with Skewed Rail Crossings (On- and off-road)

Guidance on reducing hazards presented to bicyclists by rail crossings is provided by AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities as well as in USDOT’s “Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned” (see next page). Crossings of rails at a skewed angle are particularly difficult for bicyclists on trails or roadways.

Recommended strategies to deal with skewed rail crossings include: • Seek to reroute trail or sidewalk in order to achieve 90˚ angle of rail crossing2 (see illustration from USDOT, p. 73, below right.) • Seek to provide space for on-road cyclists to facilitate 60-90˚ angle on road: “It is often best to widen the roadway, shoulder, or bike lane to allow bicyclists to choose the path that suits their needs the best. On extremely skewed crossings (30° or less), it may be impracticable to widen the shoulders enough to allow for 90° crossing; widening to allow 60° crossing or better is often sufficient. It may also be helpful to post a warning sign at these locations.3”

2 AASHTO Guideline for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999); Also see USDOT, “Rails with Trails: Lessons Learned” (2002), pp. 72-73. 3 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities (2010 Draft), p. 99, “4.12.1 Railroad Crossings.”

11-5 | Page Appendix 11

Conceptual images of improvements at the intersection of St. Francis Dr. and Cerrillos Rd. on p. 11-4 above seek to employ these on-road and off-road strategies in order to address these major hazards to Santa Fe bicyclists. In the image at right, these conceptual improvements are superimposed onto a photo showing perpendicular on- road and off-road approaches to the rail crossing at the northeast corner of the intersection.

11-6 | Page Appendix 11

Coloring bike lanes – typically blue, as shown here in Cambridge MA – has emerged as a useful technique for guiding cyclists through complicated intersections.

Best Practices: Bike Boulevards

Bike Boulevards are roads where an agency has taken measures to prioritize bicycle through-traffic over motor-vehicle through-traffic. Bicycle boulevards function best within a grid system where alternative parallel roads can serve the needs of motor vehicle through- traffic. Creation of bicycle boulevards benefits pedestrians as well as bicyclists.

Bicycle Boulevards are defined and characterized in new AASHTO guidance as well as in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.4 A Bicycle Boulevard in Berkeley CA: Motor vehicle through Typical bicycle boulevard treatments traffic is diverted to parallel streets. include: • High-visibility pavement markings • Distinctive signage (typically purple) • Motor vehicle traffic diverters • Traffic calming, both on the bicycle boulevard and on cross streets

4 See AASHTO 2010 (draft), Section 4.10, “Bicycle Boulevards,” pp. 93-94; also see NACTO at nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/neighborhood-greenways/signs-and-pavement-markings/.

11-7 | Page Appendix 11 • Higher consideration of assignment of priority to the bicycle boulevard at intersections.

Some bicycle boulevard treatments can even involve turning small stretches of streets into neighborhood parks.

While there are few clear opportunities to implement true bicycle boulevards in the Santa Fe area, there are opportunities to utilize bike boulevard techniques on some streets. One exists on Otowi Rd., which acts part of the “Acequia Bikeway,” a valuable through alignment for bicycles that cannot be used by motorists, who must use parallel (and less bicycle- friendly) routes on Agua Fria St. or Cerrillos Rd. The Acequia Trail continues the Otowi Rd. functions as a “bike boulevard” in Santa Fe. As the bikeway alignment on either City completes adjacent Acequia Trail segments, it will gain end, and the only significant significance as the through route, compared to San Felipe St., street crossing, at Osage Ave., the cross street in this photo. Among typical bike boulevard is controlled by a four-way treatments described by AASHTO (2010): “At two-way stop- controlled intersections, priority assignment that favors the stop. The only other street bicycle boulevard, so bicyclists can ride with few crossing on Otowi Rd. is at interruptions.” Thus assignment of right of way could be San Felipe, and at this reversed at this intersection to favor the “bike boulevard.” intersection that the STOP sign orientation could be reversed to favor Otowi Rd. as the more significant through route (see photo above). In light of the changing role of Otowi Rd., stop conditions may also be re-evaluated at two other intersections with uncontrolled side streets, Apache Ave. and Lujan St.

Elsewhere in Santa Fe, Oñate Pl. and AASHTO 2010 Draft (p.94-95) parallel roads to the west may be

thought of as bicycle-friendly 4.10. BICYCLE BOULEVARDS … alternatives to a limited section of St.

Francis Dr. between the Acequia Trail A bicycle boulevard incorporates several to the south and Agua Fria St. and the design elements to accommodate River Trail to the north. (This bicyclists. relationship gives high priority to . . . creating bridge connections to the At two‐way stop‐controlled Acequia Trail from the dead-ends of intersections, priority assignment that Oñate Pl. and Kathryn St.) Because favors the bicycle boulevard, so bicyclists can ride with few interruptions.

11-8 | Page Appendix 11 Oñate does not cleanly connect with the continuation to the north (Urioste St.), and because bicyclists can use any number or combination of parallel neighborhood streets for N-S movements (Franklin, Kathryn, Cortez, etc.) it is unnecessary to focus on a single street for “bicycle boulevard” designation. It may however be possible to improve safety and convenience of bicycle and pedestrian movements across Curb extensions act as traffic calming and improve sight Hickox St. in particular, which distance on Girard Blvd. in Albuquerque, which has on- has on-street parking, through street parking, in order to benefit users of the Silver Ave. “Bicycle Boulevard” ( the cross street in this photo) near the use of bulb-outs at corners UNM. The bike boulevard, which runs parallel to Central (see photo of bike boulevard Ave., has a STOP condition at this location. This kind of treatment in Albuquerque at treatment on Hickox St. might benefit bicyclists using Oñate right). Pl. as an alternative to St. Francis Dr.

Further west, the parallel alignment of Felipe St., Alicia St., and La Madera St., is part of a much longer north-south bikeway alignment that includes the Rail Trail to the south and Casa Solana streets to the north. This segment provides a more direct connection between the Acequia Trail and the River Trail that would be further improved with a proposed ramp to the River Trail from Alto St. at the end of La Madera St. The route already benefits from marked school crossings at Alto St. and Agua Fria St. and a four- way stop at Hickox St. Given its growing significance as a bicycle through route, this alignment might warrant placement of STOP signs to create a four-way stop at Camino Sierra Vista as well, an action which may also serve to address general traffic calming concerns on Camino Sierra Vista.

Other streets in Santa Fe which already function, and are used by bicyclists, like bicycle boulevards include W. Manhattan from St. Francis Dr. to the Railyard, and W. De Vargas St., as a continuation of Agua Fria St., from Guadalupe St. to Don Gaspar Ave. and E. De Vargas St. Both routes already feature intersections where bicyclists and pedestrians can pass through but motorists must turn.

Best Practices: Contra-flow bike lanes / Contra-flow condition

Contra-flow bike lanes are facilities that facilitate two-way use by bicyclists of roads that are one-way facilities for motor vehicles. When applied judiciously – where they do not create unwarranted conflicts with motorists entering or departing the roadway who would not expect a bicyclist travelling in the opposite direction of motorists – contra-flow bike lanes can create useful connections for bicyclists who would otherwise need to dismount or travel several blocks out of direction to legally get to a desired facility or destination.

11-9 | Page Appendix 11 They can be used as an effective tool to prioritize and encourage bicycle travel over motorized travel.

The best applications of contra- flow bike lanes make a critical connection between other bike facilities, have few or no conflicts with cross streets, driveways, or alleys, and feature signage and striping making it clear to all users that bicyclists are exempt from one-way restrictions on motorists and should be expected to be “Contra-flow” travel on this street in Madison WI is traveling against the flow of motor permitted for bikes, busses, and emergency vehicles. vehicles. A center line (typically a double yellow line) is provided to delineate the contra-flow bike lane from the travel lane that is used by all other road users EXC EPT BICY CL ES (with or without a corresponding bike lane for travel in that direction).

One opportunity in Santa Fe to create a contra-flow condition without necessarily using bike lane markings, on W. San Francisco St., is highlighted in Chapter IV Section B and illustrated in A very useful, easy, and virtually conflict-free application to permit the photo above. Other contra-flow bike travel on W. San Francisco St. from the Plaza. opportunities to consider contra-flow bike lanes include: • Don Gaspar: Northbound from Water St. to plaza. Provides continuity for northbound bicycle traffic; no driveway conflicts. • Old Santa Fe Trail: Southbound from plaza to Water St., provides continuity to Shelby St., continuing one-way southbound; no significant driveway conflicts. • Galisteo St.: southbound from Camino de los Marquez c. 100 ft. to Barcelona. One residential driveway crossing, significant connection as E-W bicycle route (sidewalk is existing, viable alternative at this location). .

11-10 | Page Appendix 11 Best Practices for Trails: Conversion of concrete box culvert into trail underpass

This “home-grown” solution to achieve a convenient grade separation between trails and roads is highlighted as a “best practice” in Chapter IV, p. 55. Candidate locations to replicate this strategy in the Santa Fe MPO area are listed on p. 69.

Emerging Practices

Other emerging bikeway design practices have originated in Europe or Canada, or otherwise have not been addressed in AASHTO or MUTCD guidance in the United States. A new source of guidance on emerging bikeway practices in the United States is the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (see http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/).

Emerging Practices: Cycle Tracks

Cycle tracks are one- way or two-way bike lanes that are separated from motor vehicle lanes by a curbed median or other physical barrier. One-way cycle tracks have successfully been implemented along major roads in European cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where they are part of city- wide networks, one on each side of the A two-way cycle track in Washington DC, in effect converting part of 15th street, often with St. into a multi-use path.. their own phase at signalized intersections, and with high levels of usage. Cycle tracks have also been built as site-specific applications in some American cities such as Cambridge, Mass., New York City, and Washington DC. They can require considerable right of way but are also

11-11 | Page Appendix 11 possible to implement as road retrofits through adjustments to lanes, parking, or medians. They may introduce the some of the same conflicts as bicycling on sidewalks or sidepaths, particularly in areas with multiple driveways and street intersections, but also with respect to conflicts with pedestrians. They also may limit cyclists’ ability to make turns or otherwise access the opposite side of a street.

Guidance on the developing use of cycle tracks in the United States is available in the. This Bicycle Master Plan’s recommendation is to refrain from considering cycle tracks until applications in other American cities have demonstrated their efficacy and safety and researchers have determined how best to design cycle tracks in American cities. At such a time, specific applications in Santa Fe may be considered in locations that appear conducive to cycle tracks, given local land use, presence of cross traffic, ability to mitigate hazards presented by cross-traffic, and potential bicycle demand.

Emerging Practices: Bike Boxes See NACTO section describing bike boxes (http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design- guide/intersection-treatments/bike-box/). This technique has been implemented in Albuquerque.

Emerging Practices: Combined Bike Lane Turn Lane See http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/combined- bike-laneturn-lane/

This practice might facilitate opportunities to retrofit bike lanes within constrained environments. St. Michael’s Dr. (NM466) between Old Pecos Trail and Galisteo Rd., in a fairly high-speed environment, effectively already has this condition but without special markings or other treatments that are now recommended by NACTO at intersections. This location should be re-examined for possible improvements, including bike symbols,

A page on the NACTO web site demonstrates how various jurisdictions have combined bike lanes with right-turn lanes, in certain situations, a treatment that can also be found on Diamond Dr. in Los Alamos (see photo below). This strategy may have applications in Santa Fe on St. Michael’s Dr. (NM466) east of St.Francis Dr. and on Cerrillos Rd. (NM14) north of Rodeo Rd..

11-12 | Page Appendix 11 gore lines, and possibly curb extensions at selected locations on the far side of intersections. A more clear-cut candidate for the kind of treatment described by NACTO is northbound Cerrillos Rd. north of Rodeo Rd.

11-13 | Page Appendix 11 Appendix 12: Prioritization of Trail Segments and Selected Crossing Improvements

12-1 | Page Appendix 12 12-2 | Page Appendix 12 12-3 | Page Appendix 12

12-4 | Page Appendix 12 Appendix 13: Agency Responsibilities

Bicycle-related responsibilities of public agencies and selected private entities in the Santa Fe metropolitan area:

Agency Bicycle-related responsibilities

Santa Fe Plan for Multi-modal Transportation in the MPO area; integrate Bicycle Master Metropolitan Plan recommendations into Metropolitan Transportation Plan Planning Provide training, guidance, and planning assistance with regard to non- Organization motorized transportation in the MPO area Promote the Bicycle Master Plan, including Education of Elected Officials and Public Agency Staff Coordinate BMP Implementation and Monitor and Report on Progress Collaborative review of project planning and design by MPO partners Provide technical support and training on bicycle and pedestrian issues Continue analysis of Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data Collect and Analyze Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Counts Undertake Five-Year Revision of Bicycle Master Plan

City of Santa Fe Mayor's Office Leadership role in promotion of bicycle transportation City Council Leadership role in promotion of bicycle transportation Adopt Bicycle Master Plan Land Use Ensure that private developers build multi-use trail system as planned and per engineering guidelines Ensure that reasonable multi-use trail connections are included to provide access to new developments Ensure that private developers build roads that meet the City's guidelines for bicycles under Chapter 14 (in conjunction with Traffic Engineering Division) Ensure that bicycle parking is of sufficient quantity and quality in new developments Encourage developers to provide further incentives for bicycle transportation, such as showers, lockers, water fountains Promote/Facilitate dense, mixed-use and transit-oriented development Police Enforce laws relating to bicycling Educate motorists and bicyclists on safe and legal operations Use bicycles for official business and play public role model as cyclists Public Transportation - Provide for bicycle storage on-board and via bike racks at transit facilities Santa Fe Trails Support development of bike share system Public Utilities Accommodate shared use of utility easements where desired and feasible Fire Department Accommodate shared use of emergency easements; integrate ADA-compliant pedestrian access into standard emergency access requirements Provide access through fire station properties where desired and feasible Continue / Increase use of bicycles for emergency responders, e.g. at public events

13-1 | Page Appendix 13

Public Works Facilities Ensure safe and convenient access by bicycle Ensure that bicycle parking meets city guidelines Provide further incentives for use of bicycles by staff for commuting and for official business Parks Provide for bicyclists and pedestrians travelling to, within, and through parks; Maximize connectivity to adjacent land uses for bicyclists and pedestrians Design, build and operate multi-use trails within parks in order to create safe and convenient access routes, recreational facilities, and through-routes for non-motorized users; collaborate with MPO to assess needs for through-routes Design, build, and operate roads within parks to ensure safe and convenient shared use by bicyclists Maintain all city multi-use trails Limit use of motor vehicles on multi-use trails and consider use of bicycles for some maintenance functions in parks and on multi-use trails Recreation Promote recreational use of local bicycle facilities Collaborate with MPO and City Parks and Trails divisions on development of wayfinding resources for bicyclists, including signage and posted maps Collaborate with LCIs and others to educate bicyclists on safe and legal operations Coordinate development of Bike Share System Roadway and Trails Design and build multi-use trails that meet AASHTO guidelines for bicycles Engineering Design and build “Complete Streets,” including bicycle facilities meeting AASHTO guidelines Streets Maintain roadways, including bicycle facilities (repaving, patching, sweeping) Traffic Engineering / Operate and maintain traffic control devices (signage, striping, signals) relating Operations to bicycles Develop bike lane retrofit program, including road diets and other means to reallocate road space to bike lanes on prioritized streets and elsewhere, where appropriate Ensure that private developers build “Complete Streets” and Multi-Use Trails that meet AASHTO guidelines and the City's guidelines for bicycles under Chapter 14 (in conjunction with Land Use) Preserve or improve bicycle facilities in all city road work Ensure that bicycle travel needs are addressed during road construction projects (e.g. keeping temporary signage out of bike lanes, installing temporary bike lanes, trail segments, and/or detour signage as needed) Sustainable Santa Fe Promote city accommodation of bicyclists at all levels Program Promote use of bicycles by city staff for official and unofficial purposes Promote "Green Development" including dense, mixed use, and transit- oriented development Promote future revision of Chapter 14 with improved provisions to promote use of bicycles and discourage use of single-occupant motor vehicles Parking Division Oversee and Develop Publicly-Provided Bicycle Parking Provide Bicycle Parking Facilities at City Parking Lots Partner with Traffic Engineering on “Road Diet” Analysis Support development of Bike Share system Continue / Increase use of bicycles for parking enforcement activities

13-2 | Page Appendix 13

Mayor’s Commission Ensure development of accessible facilities and routes on Disability Research and adopt improved accessibility standards and guidelines as applied to outdoor areas and multi-use trails Apply accessibility guidelines as appropriate for multi-use trails (without compromising transportation value and safety for the bicycle as design vehicle) Bicycle and Trails Provide City with guidance and oversight of efforts to accommodate bicyclists Advisory Commission and trail users in Santa Fe and to provide education to bicyclists and motorists

Santa Fe County County Commission Leadership role in promotion of bicycle transportation Adopt Bicycle Master Plan Growth Management Ensure that county road standards meet engineering guidelines for “Complete (Building & Streets” for bicycles Development, Encourage more dense, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development where Planning) development occurs Ensure that developers build roads that meet engineering guidelines for “Complete Streets” for bicycles Ensure that private developers build multi-use trail system as planned and per AASHTO guidelines for multi-use trails Ensure that reasonable multi-use trail connections are included to provide access to new developments Ensure that bicycle parking is of sufficient quantity and quality in developments Encourage developers to provide further incentives for bicycle transportation, such as showers, lockers, water fountains Public Works Streets Build and maintain county roads as “Complete Streets,” in a manner that meets engineering guidelines for bicycles Open Space & Trails Planning, design, and construction of multi-use trails Maintenance of multi-use trails Buildings Ensure safe and convenient access by bicycle Ensure that bicycle parking meets guidelines Provide further incentives for use of bicycles by staff for commuting and for official business Utilities Accommodate shared use of easements where desirable and feasible COLTPAC Provide County with guidance and oversight of efforts to accommodate bicyclists and trail users in Santa Fe County County Sheriff Enforce laws relating to bicycling Educate motorists and bicyclists on safe and legal operations

13-3 | Page Appendix 13

State of New Mexico General Services Ensure safe and convenient access to state facilities by bicycle Ensure that bicycle parking meets guidelines Provide further incentives for state employees to use bicycle transportation to commute and/or on official business Collaborate on development of bicycle share system, including possible pilot project or special incentives for use by state employees NMDOT District 5 Build and maintain state highways that meet AASHTO guidelines for bicycles where technically feasible Collaborate with local and tribal governments to ensure that bicycle access is provided along and across state highways Ensure that local agencies have access to federal and state resources in support of bicycle infrastructure, to the extent that such resources are available NM Rail Runner, NM Provide for bicycle storage on-board and via bike racks at transit facilities Park and Ride Ensure safe and convenient on- and off-road access to transit stations by bicycle Collaborate in development of bicycle share system NMDOT BPE Program Implement State Bike Route signage program (SBR 9 and SBR 66) Ensure that NMDOT and other state projects in the MPO area address the needs of bicyclists and comply with AASHTO guidelines for bicycles NMSRTS Program Facilitate and fund local efforts to encourage walking and bicycling to school NMDOT Traffic Safety Educate motorists and bicyclists on safe and legal operations Bureau NM State Police Enforce laws relating to bicycling Educate motorists and bicyclists on safe and legal operations Continue to operate bicycle-mounted unit, including at events in the santa Fe MPO area, and serve as role model for bicyclists NM State Parks Ensure safe and convenient access by bicycle to state park facilities Promote recreational and transportation opportunities for bicyclists, e.g. trails within state parks and state trails, such as the Rio Grande Trail, with regional significance for Santa Fe Support local trail efforts through the Recreational Trail Program NMDOH Promote active transportation for public health purposes at individual and community level NM Dept. of Tourism Promote Santa Fe and New Mexico as outdoor-oriented tourism destinations Promote bicycle touring in and around Santa Fe Provide assistance for bicycle-related improvements on and along Scenic Byways (Old Santa Fe Trail, Camino Real, Route 66, Hyde Park Rd.)

Tesuque Pueblo Transportation Planner Plan for multi-modal transportation on Tesuque Pueblo, including use of bicycles Public Works Ensure that on- and off-road facilities meet guidelines and standards for bicycle transportation Pueblo Police Enforce laws relating to bicycling Educate motorists and bicyclists on safe and legal operations

13-4 | Page Appendix 13

Educational Leadership role in promotion of bicycle transportation Institutions(SFCC, Ensure safe and convenient access to facilities by bicycle SFUAD, SFPS, private Ensure that bicycle parking meets guidelines schools) Provide further incentives to staff and students for bicycle transportation Collaborate with local governments to build MPO area bikeway system as planned Promote safe walking and bicycling routes in school areas, pursue support and funding for elementary and middle schools through NMSRTS program Participate in development of bike share program as affordable and desirable transportation for college students

Private / Business Chamber of Promote Santa Fe as a "Bike Town" Commerce, S. Fe Promote recreational bicycling opportunities in and around Santa Fe Alliance, Realtors, Provide information on bicycle transportation in promotional publications Hotels, Restaurants, Promote use of bicycles by visitors, including developing downtown tours by etc. bicycle, offering bicycles as low-cost rentals or included as a guest service, promoting and participating in the development of a bike share system Encourage local businesses to seek LAB recognition as Bicycle-Friendly Businesses St. Vincent / Christus Promote active transportation for public health purposes at individual and Hospital and other community level large employers Ensure safe and convenient access to facilities by bicycle Ensure that bicycle parking meets guidelines Provide further incentives to staff and patients for bicycle transportation Pursue LAB recognition as a Bicycle-Friendly Business Educate motorists and bicyclists on safe and legal operations Collaborate with bike education activities by LCIs and others, including helmet distribution and fitting Collaborate in the development of a bike share system Bike Shops, Outdoors- Promote bicycle transportation and recreation in the Santa Fe area oriented businesses, Disseminate information on bicycling in Santa Fe, including the Santa Fe and other bike-related Bikeways and Trails Map businesses Support the development of bicycle advocacy groups Participate, and encourage local bicyclists to participate, in promotional events, bike education, and bikeway planning activities Help local businesses become “Bicycle-Friendly Businesses”

13-5 | Page Appendix 13

Appendix 14: Unit Costs used in Tables 8-10

The following table lists unit costs used to make planning-level project cost estimates for Tables 8-10 in the Implementation Plan. In limited cases other specific cost estimates were added such as anticipated cost of Right of Way acquisition. Cost estimates also include 10% added for design and contingency.

Item $ cost unit Source Asphalt trail 600,000 per mile Santa Fe: trail only Concrete Trail 800,000 per mile San Mateo Soft surface trail 45,000 per mile La Tierra Trails MP Soft surface wide tread 200,000 per mile based on County Major grade separation 3,000,000 per unit City of Santa Fe Convert CBC or bridge underpass 100,000 per unit based on City Restripe with Bike Lanes 42,000 per mile San Mateo Stripe Bike Lanes 28,000 per mile San Mateo Add two shoulders 500,000 per mile High-end estimate Mark with Sharrows 5,000 per mile San Mateo Wayfinding signage 3,000 per mile San Mateo Stripe crossing, cont. 350 per lane NMDOT SRTS Speed Table 6,000 per unit NMDOT SRTS Median refuge 10,000 per unit NMDOT SRTS minor bridge 50,000 per unit based on City major bridge 250,000 per unit San Mateo: 120 ft. bridge short ramp (10 ft. wide priced for concrete) 540 per linear foot NMDOT SRTS ADA ramps 1,700 per unit NMDOT SRTS ped hybrid signal 200,000 per unit NMDOT SRTS signage 250 per unit NMDOT SRTS

Sources:

New Mexico Department of Transportation, Safe Routes to School Program. Safe Routes to School Engineering Assessment Report for Albuquerque Public Schools, Safe Routes to School Engineering Assessment Report for Hobbs Public Schools (May 2011). Wilson and Company in conjunction with Tim Rogers.

La Tierra Trails MP City of Santa Fe, La Tierra Trails Master Plan (2011).

San Mateo City of San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan (DRAFT), January 28, 2011. Prepared by Alta Planning + Design for the City of San Mateo CA.

14-1 | Page Appendix 14 Appendix 15: References

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999)

AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2003)

AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities (2010 Draft)

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District. RFP 2012-005 Regional Bike Share Pilot Project.

BPE Advisory Committee. BPE Advisory Plan (2009)

FHWA How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (2009).

FHWA Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (2000).

MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009).

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (see http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/)

U.S. Access Board Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (Draft, 2009).

USDOT Rails with Trails: Lessons Learned (2002)

WPI Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Multi-Use Trails in Santa Fe: Accessibility and Social Networking (2011) (see http://santafempo.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/10/Report_D11_Trails.pdf).

15-1 | Page Appendix 15