DOCSLIB.ORG

Multi-Purpose Trails Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multi-Purpose Trails Plan CITY OF COSTA MESA MULTI-PURPOSE TRAILS PLAN JUNE 2016 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Costa Mesa Multi-Purpose Trails Plan was prepared under the guidance of: Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager This plan was prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture: John Holloway, Principal, PLA, ASLA, LCI Joe Punsalan, Senior Associate, GISP, PTP, LCI Alison Moss, Associate Mobility Planner, AICP Beth Chamberlin, Associate Planner Juan Alberto Bonilla, Planner Diana Smith, GISP, GIS Manager Kristin Bleile, GIS Analyst This is a project for the City of Costs Mesa with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainability Program. The Sustainability Program is a key SCAG initiative for implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS), combining Compass Blueprint assistance for integrated land use and transportation planning with new Green Region Initiative assistance aimed at local sustainability and Active Transportation assistance for bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts. Sustainability Projects are intended to provide SCAG-member jurisdictions the resources to implement regional policies at the local level, focusing on voluntary efforts that will meet local needs and contribute to implementing the SCS, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing the range of local and regional benefits outlined in the SCS. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the provisions under the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG, DOT or the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. SCAG shall not be responsible for future use or adaptation of the report. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Study Area .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Existing Plans ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Relevant Legislation ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Benefits of Cycling and Walking ..........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Bicycle Facility State of Practice ...........................................................................................................................................................................................8 Bikeway Facility Types ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................8 Other Important Treatments .................................................................................................................................................................................................12 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 2 Existing Conditions 15 Existing Conditions Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Existing Facilities............................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 Bikeway Alignment Overview ..............................................................................................................................................................................................18 Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................................................................................................................................19 Traffic Conditions ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 3 Community Input 35 Outreach Plan .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................36 Engagement Materials ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................36 Workshops ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................................................................................................................................44 4 Recommended facilities 45 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................46 Project Development and Feasibility Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................46 Recommended Bikeway Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................................50 5 Implementation & Funding 77 Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................78 Potential Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................................................................................................79 a Appendices a-1 Appendix A: Cost Estimates for Recommended Bikeway Projects ..............................................................................................................A-2 Appendix B: Preliminary Designs for Bicycle Facilities on Adams Avenue................................................................................................A-15 Appendix C: Design Guidelines for Bicycle Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................A-19 TABLES Table 2-1: Proposed Bikeway Alignments .....................................................................................................................................................................18 Table 2-2: Intersection Level of Service Summary ...................................................................................................................................................30 Table 4-1: Project 1 Specifications ......................................................................................................................................................................................52 Table 4-2: Project 2 Specifications ......................................................................................................................................................................................54 Table 4-3: Project 3 Specifications .....................................................................................................................................................................................56 Table 4-4: Project 4 Specifications ......................................................................................................................................................................................58 Table 4-5: Project 5 Specifications .....................................................................................................................................................................................60
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Community Meeting for Mary Avenue Grade Separation, Aug. 10, 2017
    Caltrain Grade Separation Feasibility Study Mary Avenue Railroad Crossing Community Meeting August 10, 2017 Agenda • Meeting format review • Goals and context • Mary Avenue options Feedback • Q and A • Next steps • Adjourn 2 Caltrain Grade Separations Project Goals Improve Safety (LUTE Policy 24, 36, 40, 41, 42, 46) Enhance Reduce Ped/Bike Traffic Delay Access (LUTE Policy 32, 42) (LUTE Policy 24, 33, 36, 41) 4 Project Context 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Average Daily Ridership Daily Average 20,000 76 trains 92 trains 114 trains (2003) (2016) +80-106 HSR (2040) Caltrain Grade Separation – VTA Program Description Sunnyvale has 2 of the 8 at grade crossings VTA criteria include cost efficiency and Complete Streets 6 Screening Alternatives Screening • Establish rail and road criteria Alternatives • Identify existing conditions • Develop cursory design of alternatives • Identify impacts and constraints Impacts • Bring results to community Variants of • Identify feasible alternatives Screening • Develop variants to minimize impacts Alternatives • Engage community for input 7 Initial Screening Alternatives 8 At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Overpass At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Underpass Design Criteria Roadway Railroad Grades 4.75% 1.2% max Design speed 30 - 45 mph 79 mph for shoofly (temp rail) Based on posted speed 110 mph for final condition plus 5 mph Bridge depth 5’ 6.75’ Supporting roadway Supporting railroad Vertical clearance Underpass Overpass 15.5’ over roadway 27’ over railroad Roadway
    [Show full text]
  • MN MUTCD Chapter 2H
    Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs ..........................................................................................2B-1 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs ..................................................................................................2B-1 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs ......................................................................................................2B-1 2B.4 Right-of-Way at Intersections ...............................................................................................2B-7 2B.5 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) ...............................................................2B-8 2B.6 STOP Sign Applications .......................................................................................................2B-9 2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications ...............................................................................................2B-9 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) ..............................................................................................................2B-10 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications .....................................................................................................2B-10 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement .................................................................................2B-10 2B.11 Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs (R1-5 Series) ....................................................................2B-11 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian
    [Show full text]
  • PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1
    Traffic Design Manual Volume 1: Permanent Traffic Control and Design CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON January 2020 Updated June 2021 0 of 135 Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1 Permanent Traffic Control Signs ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Regulatory Signs ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Warning Signs .................................................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Guide Signs....................................................................................................................................... 21 2 Pavement Markings ................................................................................................................................. 31 2.1 Centerlines ........................................................................................................................................ 31 2.2 Lane Widths ...................................................................................................................................... 33 2.3 Turn
    [Show full text]
  • TAC 2003 Jughandle Final
    UNCONVENTIONAL ARTERIAL DESIGN Jughandle Intersection Concept for McKnight Boulevard in Calgary G. FurtadoA, G. TenchaA and, H. DevosB A McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Surrey, BC B McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Edmonton, AB ABSTRACT: A functional planning study was initiated along McKnight Boulevard by the City of Calgary in response to the growing traffic and peak hour congestion routinely experienced along the corridor. The objective of the study was to identify and define, the most suitable improvements for medium term (2015 horizon) and long-term (2038 horizon) traffic demands, while conforming to a large number of independent constraints. Numerous alternatives were identified, and in due course rejected, due to their inability to adequately address the project requirements or satisfactorily meet stakeholder needs. Ultimately, a conventional intersection design involving widening along the south side of the corridor and the jughandle intersection concept were short listed for further evaluation and comparison. These design alternatives were subjected to a relatively rigorous appraisal that included performance, signing, laning and signalization requirements, property impacts, access and transit requirements, safety considerations, human factors and environmental impacts to name a few. It was found that operationally, the jughandle intersection design has compelling application potential in high volume corridors where local access is required and full grade separation is impractical or too costly. However, the jughandle property acquisition requirements and resulting costs along highly urbanized corridors, combined with their limited implementation experience in North America, can preclude their use in less than optimum circumstances. 1. INTRODUCTION Arterial roadways are typically designed and built with the intention of providing superior traffic service over collector and local roads (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
    What Why How CFI - SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Intersection Control Evaluation A performance-based approach to objectively screen alternatives by focusing on the safety related benefits of each. Traditional Intersections SR 11 @ SR 124, Jackson County, GA Johnson Rd @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Dogwood Trail @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Roundabout SR 138 @ Hembree Rd, Fulton County, GA Roundabout • 215+ Existing • 50+ On System/or GDOT $$ • 165+ Off System • 20+ Currently Under Construction • 155+ Planned/programmed RBTs 6 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) I-95 @ SR 21, Port Wentworth, Chatham County, GA Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) • 6 Existing • 2 Design/under construction • 10+ Under consideration Total: 18+ Continuous Green T SR 120 @ John Ward Rd SW, Cobb County, GA Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) SR 400 @ Lenox Rd NE, Fulton County, GA Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT) SR 20 @ Nail Rd, Henry County, GA Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Mini Roundabout • RCUT • Single Lane Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Multilane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Intersection Control Evaluation Deliver a transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Transportation
    Sturbridge Master Plan 2010 (DRAFT) February 2011 7 Transportation Introduction Positioned at the junction of two major Interstate highways, I-84 and I-90, Sturbridge has excellent regional access to major urban areas. This regional interstate proximity brings benefits in terms of convenient access but also brings high traffic volumes and speeds, which compromises pedestrian, bicyclist and driver safety. For this reason, the location of Sturbridge at the junction of I-84 and I-90 is considered to be both a strength and weakness in terms of transportation and land use balance. In addition, Sturbridge’s Main Street, Route 20, is a state-owned roadway. The 1988 Sturbridge Master Plan identified traffic as one of Sturbridge’s most pressing issues. During the public outreach efforts for this Master Plan, Sturbridge residents reiterated similar transportation-related themes from the 1988 Master Plan including: Develop an identity and sense of arrival into Sturbridge through the creation of distinct gateways and streetscaping, especially given the number of tourists coming to the area; Balance the need to facilitate traffic flow with desires to make the roadways more walkable and bikeable; calm vehicle traffic speeds where appropriate (especially through the Commercial Tourist District (CTD) along Route 20); Eliminate sign clutter and improve wayfinding to the key destinations; Ensure that paratransit service meets the expanding needs for elderly and disabled residents; and Make public transportation more available. Over the last 30 years, Sturbridge has experienced rapid residential growth. The population is expected to continue to increase due to the availability of land, the relatively low cost of house lots, and the proximity and access to major highways.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual
    Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual FHWA Safety Program http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. ii TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-SA-18-026 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Guide October 2018 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jenior, P., Butsick, A., Haas, P. and Ray, B. 20447 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Improvements for the US 130-Bridgeboro Road Corridor
    Transportation Improvements for the US 130-Bridgeboro Road Corridor JUNE 2017 The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is dedicated to uniting the region’s elected officials, planning professionals, and the public with a common vision of making a great region even greater. Shaping the way we live, work, and play, DVRPC builds consensus on improving transportation, promoting smart growth, protecting the environment, and enhancing the economy. We serve a diverse region of nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future. The symbol in our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, and related nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
    [Show full text]
  • 30 by 42 Zoning
    Brick Plaza Towne Hall Shoppes MANTOLOKING BORO Eagle Ridge P V r a r Q B g t e y i L W Mantoloking R l i y n k s n D d t n S d i s B a r l w o a t o i S i a r h r e s y a y i e w lli u c k Wab h r e e n O r c A o e l y d e s r k a h t e k M e M c g i e r n e R e u r p a h M a o F v H d v S l D n t a i c t e t O k Iv l t ld B r y w u w ridge i n H e e n S R r a S o u y K l m i i S l l i e l o D s Yale R e B n e a G a a r l h l e m R e n n o o m w l e r o t i a a v r m H gory m re n d n S i D a re r B v S g o D t G o e p in s m t o p y le e e i o a l a o v u u d l r id V e c S T M A r r s n r S e pple o y a g d e s ga m e t te m l i y W a i p on r n h m a k t e y l y rm a ra P i s i n r m Fa t C o r d A a o a D n r d d D a o a y I W L v o Mayfair a a a o o n o n i r h M D n k N e o E r l n n S C c n e t r n o U i d u i B y i oo w h S d n se s c t o G v R s h A U w n T y ty e i a e i t si e r t e e e r o w n niv wan x Osbornsville l g U S e y e i O o h te l a t e w Whi ll e v i w u i g e G a n s z r F s r o h m i h mN D s l t r t o a d y b y o a d n l e b e o y r P a m n l B Elementary n i e y B D Do S n w a r R l n ne m e Robyn n r L o r W sa s r Li a r w n a a o l i S k eynold n A R e o a e a r l a K x d d u f S n e l H r E t f h i School s c c o e F M C a i a r l e r a F e a t l i c r JACKSON TWP n a k n i a l i T n rw C Jennifer o a L h k e a C a m m y S d iss r r a F s n n g n L s c o l M o l t a w r a s C t s d t t i e e r s a vi n o o I z l t o u m e e n e es y M a e r m d n r x a C e h O l n M v r e rum Point A A i w V D s n r ld
    [Show full text]
  • TSP Major Projects List 5/24/2018
    Appendix A: TSP Major Projects List 5/24/2018 Lead Facility Financially Estimated TSP ID Project Name Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost Agency Owner Constrained? Timeframe Gaps and deficiencies in Portland's pedestrian network present significant barriers to pedestrians. Many of these can be remedied through modest expenditures to address the most critically needed improvements. These projects should contribute to an increase in Pedestrian safe walking as disincentives to usage are eliminated and the continuity of the pedestrian Network 10005 Portland Portland Citywide network is improved. Example projects include sidewalk gap infill, sidewalk improvements, $60,200,000 Yes Years 1 - 20 Completion safer shoulders, shared streets, pathways, trails, crossing improvements, wayfinding Program improvements, accessibility improvements, and signal modifications. The program will also work to identify and implement needed improvements in designated Pedestrian Districts. Gaps and deficiencies in Portland's bikeway network present significant barriers to bicyclists. Many of these can be remedied through modest expenditures to address the most critically needed improvements. These projects should contribute to an increase in safe bicycling as disincentives to usage are eliminated and the continuity of the bikeway Bikeway Network network is improved. Example projects include new bike lanes and sharrows, improvements 10006 Portland Portland Completion Citywide to existing bikeways, wayfinding improvements, colored bike boxes and lanes, and signal $24,000,000 Yes Years 1 - 20 Program modifications. This program will coordinate with paving projects to ensure that new striping designs are developed ahead of time and implemented in conjunction with paving. The program will also work to identify and implement needed improvements in designated Bicycle Districts.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Traffic Control Manual, 2012 Edition TTCM, 2012 Edition Page Iii PREFACE
    Temporary Traffic Control Manual 2012 Edition Reprint of three Parts from the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2012 Edition: Part 1, General Part 5, Traffic Control Devices for Low-Volume Roads Part 6, Temporary Traffic Control Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Engineering Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Engineering 1980 W. Broad St., P.O. Box 899 Columbus, OH 43216-0899 Web addresses: ODOT: http://www.dot.state.oh.us Office of Traffic Engineering: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Operations/Traffic/Pages/OTEHomePage.aspx ODOT Publications (Design Reference Resource Center): http://www.dot.state.oh.us/drrc/ To purchase a copy of this manual, contact the ODOT Office of Contracts at the above address, or by phone at 1-800-459-3778. An Equal Opportunity Employer Temporary Traffic Control Manual, 2012 Edition TTCM, 2012 Edition Page iii PREFACE Pursuant to Section 4511.09 of the Ohio Revised Code, the “Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (OMUTCD) has been established to provide a safe, uniform and efficient system of traffic control devices for use on any street, highway, bikeway, or private road open to public travel within the State of Ohio. The “Temporary Traffic Control Manual” (TTCM) is comprised of reprints of the Introduction and Parts 1, 5 and 6 from the complete 2012 OMUTCD. The TTCM has been published separately to allow for easier use by those working primarily with temporary traffic control in construction and maintenance work zones and incident management areas. OMUTCD Part 1, General Provisions, has been included in this separate publication because it provides general information for use in all areas of traffic control, including definitions of terms used.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Innovative Alternative Intersection Designs in the Development of Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification Factors
    Final Report Contract BDV24-977-27 Evaluation of Innovative Alternative Intersection Designs in the Development of Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification Factors Mohamed A. Abdel-Aty, Ph.D., P.E. Jaeyoung Lee, Ph.D. Jinghui Yuan, Ph.D. Lishengsa Yue, Ph.D. Ma’en Al-Omari, Ph.D. Student Ahmed Abdelrahman, Ph.D. Student University of Central Florida Department of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering Orlando, FL 32816-2450 May 2020 DISCLAIMER “The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation.” ii UNITS CONVERSION APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL SYMBOL VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg iii T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or Mg (or "t") "metric ton") SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW
    [Show full text]