LANCASTER SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL MASTER PLAN

NOVEMBER 2016 City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Architectural and Design Commission Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Chairman April Bartlett Uyen Ngo Commissioner Angela Hearns Jean Armbruster Commissioner Andrew Mercy Commissioner Timothy M. Wiley Antelope Valley Partners for Health Jean Varden Planning Commission Mandy McConaha Chairman James Vose Michelle Fluke Vice Chairman Thomas (Randy) Hall Commissioner Diana Cook Commissioner Dr. Miguel Coronado Transpo Group Commissioner Cassandra Harvey Ryan Snyder Commissioner Sandy Smith Melody Wu Bob Cisco City Council Mayor R. Rex Parris Additional Consultants Vice Mayor Marvin Crist Michele Weisbart Councilmember Raj Malhi Jewel DeGuzman Councilmember Ken Mann Scott Eckersall Councilmember Angela Underwood-Jacobs

City of Lancaster Elma Watson Brian Ludicke Pastor Casanova Special thanks to Lancaster School District, Eastside Union School District, Westside Union School Michelle Cantrell District, Antelope Valley Union High School District, Jullie Eutsler, Jenny Sampson, and Rhonda Hanson. Melissa Varela Randie Davis Made possible with the funding from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Los Brenda Gamlowski Angeles County Department of Public Health. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SRTS Plans by School 17 Introduction 1 A. Amargosa Creek Middle School 18 B. Desert View Elementary School 26 Evaluation 3 C. Discovery Elementary School 36 Future Evaluation 4 D. El Dorado Elementary School 46 E. Endeavour Middle School 56 Design Guidance 5 F. Joshua Elementary School 64 G. Lincoln Elementary School 72 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Signs and Markings 5 H. Linda Verde Elementary School 82 Other Devices 8 I. Mariposa Elementary School 90 J. Miller Elementary School 97 Funding 10 K. Monte Vista Elementary School 105 Federal Funding 10 L. Nancy Cory Elementary School 114 State & Regional Funding 13 M. New Vista Middle School & Jack Northrop Elementary School 121 Local Funding 15 N. Piute Middle School 133 O. Sierra Elementary School 142 P. Sunnydale Elementary School 152 Q. West Wind Elementary School 160 R. Columbia Elementary School 170 S. Enterprise Elementary School 178 T. Gifford C. Cole Middle School 185 U. Tierra Bonita Elementary School 193 V. Del Sur Elementary School 200 W. Sundown Elementary School 206 X. Valley View Elementary School 214 Y. Antelope Valley High School 223 Z. Eastside High School 232 AA. Lancaster High School 239 BB. Quartz Hill High School 250 CC. SOAR High School 258 City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 1

• Evaluation—to track the Plan to assess its success and to INTRODUCTION modify it accordingly Experience shows that this approach yields successful results in The City of Lancaster has embarked on an effort to improve safety both making our communities safer to walk and bicycle in, and at all of its public schools. The City was awarded a grant from the increasing the number of students doing so. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health (DPH) to create a City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan (the Plan). The DPH grant funds a range of efforts at the schools to develop The Plan will include SRTS plans for each school, and citywide and initiate the Plan. The grant is used to do the following: efforts to support and complement the individual plans. This document details work completed thus far and future steps. • Conduct a variety of workshops at schools There are two primary purposes for SRTS plans: • Assess the safety issues • Plan physical modifications to the routes 1. To make it safer for students to walk and bicycle to school • Set up SRTS committees that will carry out the Plan • Train people in how to run the programs within the 2. To increase the number of students walking and bicycling to school Plan • Prepare future grant applications to fund engineering In addition to safety benefits, there are health benefits for students improvements and programmatic efforts who walk and bike to school. Environmental benefits result as fewer parents drive their children to school every day. Additionally, The Antelope Valley Partners for Health serves as a key partner in as children and families adopt more active lifestyles, their quality the process to develop and implement the Plan. The organization of life increases, they have more free time from driving less, and takes the lead in forming SRTS committees at schools and community relationships are strengthened. All of these benefits implementing programs at the schools. Two citywide committees combine to create more livable neighborhoods surrounding schools help to steer the project. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) where children walk or bike to school. provides broad oversight, data, and technical support. The TAC includes principals from each school as well as representatives from This document contains a program for a “5E” approach to making the following organizations: walking and bicycling safer and more attractive to Lancaster’s students and parents. The 5Es include the following: • Each of the five school districts: Lancaster School District, Eastside Union School District, Westside Union • Engineering—to make physical improvements to the routes School District, and Antelope Valley Union High School that students use to walk or bicycle to school District • Antelope Valley School Transportation Agency • Education—to teach students safe walking and bicycling • Antelope Valley Partners for Health habits, to teach parents the importance of safe driving habits, and to emphasize health and environmental benefits • Los Angeles County Department of Public Health • Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department • Encouragement—to promote walking and bicycling to • City of Lancaster City Manager’s office, Planning school so more students choose to do so Department, Traffic Engineering, Public Works Department, • Enforcement—to ensure that rules and laws of the road are and Parks Department followed, as well as safe pick-up and drop-off practices are adhered to at the schools City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 2

A second committee, the Community Advisory Committee (CAC), • Enterprise Elementary School provides hands-on support to promote and implement the program. • Gifford C. Cole Elementary School Its membership includes the Antelope Valley Partners for Health, • Tierra Bonita Elementary School Lancaster School District, Eastside Union School District, Westside Union School District and Antelope Valley Union High School Three schools from the Westside Union School District: District. • Del Sur Elementary School This project began in August of 2013 with representatives from • Sundown Elementary School the City and the consulting group holding introductory meetings • Valley View Elementary School with both the TAC and CAC. In September of 2013, the City and the consulting group began conducting walk audit workshops and And five schools from theAntelope Valley Union High School training people to carry out programs. The consultant facilitated the District: workshops, developed SRTS plans, and conducted training. • Antelope Valley High School The project was done over a period of three years. The City, schools • Eastside High School and consultant conducted walk audit workshops and prepared • Lancaster High School engineering plans for schools within the Lancaster School Distrct, • Quartz Hill High School Eastside Union School District, Westside Union School District and • SOAR High School the Antelope Valley Union High School District. A nationally-certified SRTS instructor from the consultant team The following schools from the Lancaster School District facilitated the SRTS workshops. The workshops began with a included: presentation that described why SRTS is important, along with a sampling of engineering devices that can be applied to make Safe Routes to School workshop • Amargosa Creek Middle School walking and bicycling safer. After the presentation, stakeholder • Desert View Elementary School attendees walked around the school and identified safety concerns • Discovery School at particular locations along common routes to each school. Upon • El Dorado Elementary School returning to the presentation room, attendees drew on large-scale • Endeavour Middle School maps of their schools and the surrounding areas. Each group • Jack Northrop Elementary School marked common walking and cycling routes to their school and • Joshua Elementary School identified key issues and locations needing improvement. The • Lincoln Elementary School groups identified general safety issues, as well as location-specific • Linda Verde Elementary School safety issues. These led to the creation of SRTS plans for each • Mariposa Elementary School school. • Miller Elementary School • Monte Vista Elementary School The workshops were also used to initiate formation of SRTS • Nancy Cory Elementary School committees at each school. Ideally, these committees are led • New Vista Middle School by parents, and have participation from school administration, • Piute Middle School students, crossing guards, various city departments, and the • Sierra Elementary School sheriff’s department, as well as neighborhood/community • Sunnydale Elementary School organizations. Walk audit conducted around the school • West Wind Elementary School

Three schools from the Eastside Union School District:

• Columbia Elementary School City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 3 EVALUATION In the beginning of the process, baseline surveys were taken to learn about existing commute to school patterns. As the Plan’s programs unfold, they should show increases in the number of students walking and bicycling. Since engineering improvements (physical modifications made to streets and intersections) will likely be made after this planning effort ends, initial improvements will result from the programs alone. Further increases can be expected once the physical improvements are made. The table below shows the results of the first baseline tally conducted in classrooms during the period between 2013 to 2015. The numbers shown are three-day averages. Carpool with Other Family Children of Other Elementary & Middle Schools Walk Bicycle Self-Driven School Bus Vehicle Family Amargosa Creek Middle School 12% 2% 1% 1% 70% 9% Desert View Elementary School 22% 1% 0% 4% 57% 4% Discovery Elementary School 11% 0% 1% 0% 78% 9% El Dorado Elementary School 28% 2% 1% 0% 57% 5% Endeavour Middle School 8% 1% 1% 22% 49% 5% Jack Northrop Elementary School 15% 2% 1% 2% 65% 8% Joshua Elementary School 17% 2% 1% 11% 53% 5% Lincoln Elementary School 27% 2% 4% 2% 58% 8% Linda Verde Elementary School 32% 0% 2% 6% 49% 5% Mariposa Elementary School 24% 2% 1% 9% 51% 5% Miller Elementary School 17% 0% 1% 0% 67% 9% Monte Vista Elementary School 14% 1% 1% 17% 52% 4% Nancy Cory Elementary School 14% 1% 0% 0% 71% 8% New Vista Middle School 16% 1% 3% 0% 65% 5% Piute Middle School 22% 2% 1% 2% 56% 9% Sierra Elementary School 14% 1% 0% 3% 71% 5% Sunnydale Elementary School 15% 1% 0% 3% 59% 10% West Wind Elementary School 11% 2% 0% 1% 75% 5% Columbia Elementary School 13% 1% 0% 2% 71% 5% Enterprise Elementary School 2% 1% 1% 32% 62% 5% Gifford C. Cole Middle School 15% 1% 1% 9% 56% 11% Tierra Bonita Elementary School 16% 0% 0% 2% 56% 3% Del Sur Elementary 0% 0% 0% 51% 40% 4% Sundown Elementary School 8% 1% 1% 6% 72% 7% Valley View Elementary School 2% 1% 0% 4% 83% 5%

Parents Driven Parents Driven Student Student High Schools Walk Bicycle Skateboard School Bus w/ Family Carpool Driven Driven Carpool Antelope Valley High School 21% 2% 2% 7% 38% 7% 3% 1% Eastside High School 11% 1% 0% 8% 37% 5% 1% 2% Lancaster High School 5% 2% 1% 3% 56% 6% 8% 1% Quartz Hill High School 6% 1% 1% 5% 65% 4% 5% 1% SOAR High School 2% 0% 0% 1% 76% 11% 5% 1% City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 4

each school can be tracked every year using the Transportation FUTURE EVALUATION Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data. This section presents methods to gauge the progress of the Traffic Data Lancaster SRTS programs. Our methods include student tallies, traffic data, crash records, health assessments and other means to Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes provide the standard evaluate the outcome of SRTS. This section will also suggest the measurement for vehicle traffic on the road and are the basis for frequency and timing to conduct them. most decisions regarding street improvements and traffic calming projects. The City should track ADT volumes over time on key This evaluation should include an annual comparison of schools streets and common routes near schools. In this case, changes with SRTS projects over time. They aim to examine the following in ADT volumes before project implementation and after project efforts: (1) schools that aim to increase walking and bicycling while completion may indicate changes in travel mode choice and overall reducing the number of students driven to school, and (2) schools safety. that address safety problems along the identified common routes to school in this Plan. Understanding what happened and when it Speed Surveys happened, while looking at results of the changes in travel mode and/or safety measures is important in determining SRTS program Another measure can include evaluating speed reductions in a outcomes. SRTS project that include traffic-calming measures. Understanding how the infrastructure improvement has lead to changes in speeds, Student Tallies can determine the effectiveness of the SRTS program. The City can conduct speed surveys on a regular basis (every year or two) For programs with goals to increase walking and bicycling, it is on key streets near schools where traffic calming measures have important to understand students’ travel modes (i.e. walking, been placed. These surveys will yield prevailing speeds that can be bicycling, transit, carpool, family vehicle, etc.). A comparison compared over time. between the initial results and the results after the implementation Fitness Exams of the SRTS program should be overseen. A baseline student tally has already been measured using the Travel Tally developed Most schools conduct fitness exams of students in certain grades. by the National Center for Safe Routes to School. For multi-year These can be compared year in and year out to see if students’ funds, student travel data should be collected at least once every health are improving or declining. year; ideally, data would be collected every fall and spring for the project duration. Travel tallies should be done after completion of infrastructure projects that were paid for with Active Transportation Program funds. The City and/or schools may decide to use a simple tally where the homeroom teacher just asks for a show of hands of how students arrived at school that day.

Crash Records

For programs aiming to increase safety, crash data of bicycle and pedestrian-involved crash locations are the most direct method of assessing bicyclist and pedestrian safety. One way to measure the safety impact of SRTS is to examine the relationship between the SRTS project and the collisions between motor vehicles and school-age bicyclists and pedestrians. In this Plan, crash data has been collected for the five-year period 2009-2013. Crashes around City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 5 DESIGN GUIDANCE Many traffic control devices, signs, markings, and other street design features can be used to make walking and bicycling to school safer. This section highlights some of the most important and most commonly recommended.

California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Signs and Markings

The California MUTCD has developed standards and guidance to be used for signs and markings. Some are mandatory, others are advisory, and some are optional. The following subsection shows the basic signs and markings used around schools. The recommendations provided in this document are based on the California MUTCD, 2012 Edition.

Signs

SR1-1 Many school signs begin with the basic School Advanced Warning sign labeled “S1-1”. It is used to notify street users that they are entering a School Area that includes school buildings or grounds, a school crossing, or a related activity adjacent to the street. It can identify the location of the beginning of a School Zone. It also combines with other signs to designate the location of school crossings.

Assembly A The School Warning Assembly A includes the School (SP-4) plaque. This should be posted at the school boundary, and may be posted up to 500 feet in advance of the school boundary. It may also be accompanied with arrows pointing to the school if on another street.

Assembly B The School Crosswalk Warning Assembly B includes S1-1 with an arrow. It shall be posted at a crosswalk that is not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal.

City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 6

Assembly D The School Advanced Warning Assembly D includes the S1-1 sign along with either Ahead (W16-9P) or a distance sign e.g. “200 FT” (W16-2aP). It should be used on the approach of a crosswalk that is not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal. It is optional where an S1-1 sign is posted. It may also be accompanied with arrows pointing to the school if on another street.

Assembly C The School Speed Limit Sign (Assembly C) includes a Speed Limit (R2-1) sign, with a School (S4-3P) sign, and When Children Are Present (S4-2P). The Assembly C sign should be used where a reduced school speed limit zone has been established based on an engineering study or where a reduced school speed limit is specified by statute. The sign should be placed where the reduced school speed limit exists. It may be placed up to 500 feet in advance of the school boundary. The sign should be used on streets where speed limits contiguous to a school or school grounds are greater than 25 mph. The prima facie speed limit of 25 mph is in effect for Assembly C. With an engineering study (designated by the CA MUTCD) a city may reduce the school speed limit to 15 mph on a residential street where some other conditions are met.

R1-6 In-Street signs (R1-6) may include a School (S4-3P) and be placed in a crosswalk that is not controlled by a traffic signal. These are useful where speeding is a problem.

R1-5 Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5) signs should be placed at the location of Advanced Yield Lines.

W82-1 Railroad warning signs (W82-1) can be used to alert pedestrians of railroad crossings.

R15-8 Alternatively R15-8 signs may be used. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 7

Markings

High-visibility crosswalks generally have longitudinal lines that run in the same direction as the street. They are sometimes called “zebra- stripe” crosswalks, or “continental” crosswalks. If they have lateral (transverse) lines along with longitudinal lines they are called “ladder” crosswalks. Motorists can see these much better than typical transverse-line or “transverse” crosswalks

Zebra-stripe Crosswalk Ladder Crosswalk Transverse-line Crosswalk

Crosswalks must be yellow where the street is contiguous to a school building or school grounds. It may be yellow if it is within 600 feet of the school grounds. If there are no other crosswalks between the intersection and school, the crosswalk may be yellow up to 2,800 feet from the school grounds. However, white crosswalks may be more visible than yellow crosswalks especially when the markings fade, so it may be advisable to color them white where away from school grounds.

SLOW SCHOOL XING Markings

SLOW SCHOOL XING markings may be used in advance of yellow school crosswalks where there are not stop signs, traffic signals or yield signs. They shall be yellow with the word XING at least 100 feet in advance of the crosswalk.

SCHOOL markings may be used with School Assemblies A or C and shall be yellow. It should be adjacent to the signs. It should not be used where SLOW SCHOOL XING markings exist. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 8

Advanced Yield Lines

Advanced Yield Lines indicate where users of the streets are required to yield to pedestrians in an upcoming crosswalk. They may be used in advance of marked crosswalks at locations not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal. They are white and are designed as “shark’s teeth”. They shall be placed between 20 and 50 feet in advance of the crosswalk and parking shall be prohibited between the markings and the crosswalk. They are marked along with posting of R1-5 signs.

Advanced Stop Lines

Advanced Stop Lines indicate where users of streets are required to stop where there are marked crosswalks with stop signs or traffic signals. They should be placed at least four to six feet in advance of the marked crosswalk. They shall be white.

Other Devices

Curb Extensions

Curb extensions are used to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, to improve visibility, and to slow turning motorists. They provide space and geometry for perpendicular curb ramps. They are also called “curb extensions” at intersections. Curb extensions may be irregular in shape to fit into the context. They may be solid and flush with the curb (shown in next photograph), or broken up into islands to compensate for drainage issues as shown in the diagram.

Left: Curb extension with islands Right: Flush curb extension City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 9

Crossing Islands

Crossing islands break up the distance pedestrians have to cross streets into two phases. This allows them to cross streets at locations not controlled by stop signs or traffic signals.

Raised Crosswalks

Raised crosswalks slow traffic, improve visibility and make pedestrians more prominent. They are especially useful at crosswalks that are not controlled by traffic signals.

Bicycle Racks

Bicycle racks should support bicycles well and provide a convenient location to lock up. Generally, “inverted-U” racks are widely used because they incorporate these two attributes. Inverted-U racks, or something similar, are recommended. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 10 FUNDING Federal Funding

FIXING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION (FAST) ACT

Passed in December 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is five-year legislation starting in the current Federal fiscal year of 2016 to 2020 to improve the Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure, including our roads, bridges, transit systems, and rail transportation network. Over the five-year period, $305 billion in spending has been set aside.

The FAST Act eliminates the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and replaces it with a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program funding for projects related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, and other smaller-scale transportation projects.

Since MAP-21 projects were carried over under the FAST Act, bicycling and walking projects are also eligible for the following core programs:

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), • National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), • Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program (formerly Surface Transportation Grant under MAP-21), • Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA)

Details of the core programs are mentioned below. Bicycling, walking, and trails projects are also eligible for a handful of other programs such as Scenic Byways funds, Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP), and Tribal High Priority Projects.

Under the FAST Act, funding is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Each state has its own method for distributing federal funds. California folds its STBG funds and TA Set-Asides into the Active Transportation Program (ATP), mentioned below under "State & Regional Funding".

More information can be found at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm

• CONGESTION MIGITATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CMAQ)

Administered by the Federal Highway Administration, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program has been reauthorized under the FAST Act in 2015. The CMAQ program was implemented to support surface transportation projects and other related efforts that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief. The FAST Act provides approximately $2.3 to $2.5 billion in CMAQ funding for each year of the authorization-2016 through 2020. While the legislation places emphasis on air quality projects or other elements of flexible federal aid highway spending such as diesel engine retrofits and alternative fuel infrastructure, funds may also be used for bicycle and pedestrian-related projects such as bikeways, bicycle parking, crosswalks, sidewalks, signs and signals. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 11

More information can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/ http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/cmaqfs.cfm

• HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was reauthorized under FAST Act as a core federal-aid program. It aims to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious accidents through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements. These improvements may be on any public road or publicly owned bicycle and pedestrian pathway or trail, and can include the use of devices such as traffic signals, curb extensions, and crosswalks.

For a project to be eligible for HSIP funding, a specific safety problem must be identified and the proposed countermeasure(s) must substantially address the condition. The project must be consistent with the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Each state is eligible to also use HSIP funds for education and enforcement activities, as long as those activities are also consistent with the state’s SHSP. California completed its SHSP in September 2006, and created an Implementation Plan in April 2008.

Applications must demonstrate that the proposed engineering improvements will increase the safety of the proposed project area. These are calculated in the application program using Crash Reduction Factors with accompanying financial values. Project areas that have a prior history of injuries or fatalities are more likely to be funded.

More information can be found at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.htm

• NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (NHPP)

The National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) was amended under the FAST Act to provide the condition, performance and construction of new facilities on the National Highway System. Bicycle and pedestrian projects associated with a National Highway System facility is eligible for NHPP funding. Projects must be identified in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and be consistent with the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Plans.

More information can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/nhpp/160309.cfm

• SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (STBG)

The FAST Act converts the long-standing Surface Transportation Program into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). This program has the most flexible eligibilities among all Federal-aid highway programs and promotes flexibility in State and local transportation decisions to best address State and local transportation needs.

The STBG may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 12

California administers these funds through the Active Transportation Program (ATP).

More information can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm

• TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE (TA)

The FAST Act replaced the former Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) with a set-aside of funds under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). These set-aside funds, known as the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside, include on- and off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity; recreational trail projects; and safe routes to school projects.

California administers these funds through the Active Transportation Program (ATP).

More information can be found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_alternatives/

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG)

The Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) entitlement program allocates annual grants to larger cities and urban counties to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and opportunities to expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Every year the local governments receive federal money for a wide variety of community improvements in the form of CDBG funds. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are eligible uses of these funds.

CDBG funds only pay for projects in areas of economic need. No match is required.

More information can be found at: www.hud.gov/cdbg

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

The Land and Water Conversation Fund was authorized under MAP-21. States receive individual allocations of LWCF grant funds based upon a national formula, with state population being the most influential factor. States initiate a statewide competition for the amount available annually. The State then receives, scores, and ranks applications according to certain project selection criteria so that only the top-ranked projects (up to the total amount available that year) are chosen for funding. Chosen applications are then forwarded to the National Park Service for formal approval and obligation of federal grant monies. Bike paths and recreational trails are eligible uses of this money. Cities, counties, recreation and park districts, and any other entity that has the authority to develop or maintain a public park is eligible to apply. This program is a reimbursement program, and the applicant is expected to initially finance the entire project. A one for one match is required, and federal funds cannot be used as a match, except Community Development Block Grants. The California State Parks Department administers these state funds.

More information can be found at: http://www.parks.ca.gov City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 13

RIVERS, TRAILS, AND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RTCA)

The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program is the community assistance arm of the National Park Service. RTCA provides technical assistance to communities in order to preserve open space and develop trails. The assistance that RTCA provides is not for infrastructure, but rather building plans, engaging public participation, and identifying other sources of funding for conservation and outdoor recreation projects.

More information can be found at: http://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm http://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/apply.htm

State & Regional Funding

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP)

The purpose of the Active Transportation Program (ATP) is to increase the use of active modes of transportation, such as bicycling and walking, by funding projects that improve these options, enhance public health, and ensure that disadvantaged communities share the benefits of this program.

ATP funds are available for design and construction of any bicycle or pedestrian project, including infrastructure projects, plans, and non-infrastructure projects. Plans include community-wide bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or active transportation plan in a disadvantaged community. Capital improvements such as environmental design, right-of-way, and construction are also eligible. ATP will also fund non-infrastructure projects, including education, encouragement, and enforcement projects.

The ATP funds are administered through Caltrans and the funds are distributed through competitive grants with the following formula:

• 40% to Metropolitan Transportation Organizations in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000 • 10% will funnel to small urban and rural areas with 200,000 or fewer people • 50% will be available statewide in competitive grants

More information can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/

OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS)

The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) seeks to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and injuries through a national highway safety program. Priority areas include police traffic services, alcohol and other drugs, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency medical services, traffic records, roadway safety, and community-based organizations.

The California Vehicle Code (Sections 2908 and 2909) authorizes the apportionment of federal highway safety funds to the OTS program. Bicycle safety programs are eligible programs for OTS start-up funds. City and county agencies are eligible to apply, as are councils of governments. There is no set maximum for grants, and no match is required; however, contributions of other funds may make projects more competitive. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 14

More information can be found at: http://www.ots.ca.gov/Grants/ http://www.ots.ca.gov/Grants/Pedestrian_and_Bicycle_Safety.asp

AB 2766 SUBVENTION PROGRAM

AB 2766 Clean Air Funds are generated by a surcharge on vehicle registration to provide funds for air districts to meet new responsibilities mandated under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) allocates approximately $25,000 to $50,000 annually to cities. The projects are up to the discretion of the city and may be used for bicycle or pedestrian projects that could encourage people to bicycle or walk in lieu of driving.

More information can be found at: http://www.avaqmd.ca.gov/index.aspx?page=197

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM

The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program has the "Sustainable Communities for Cities, Counties, Transit Agencies and Tribal Governments" program that can aide the planning and development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Office of Community Planning, part of Caltrans’s Division of Transportation Planning, is responsible for managing the program. Grants are available ranging from $50,000 to $500,000 for cities and other public entities.

More information can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html

METRO CALL FOR PROJECTS (REGIONAL)

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) combines federal and state funds allocated to MPOs, as well as Propositions C funds. Caltrans distributes 40% of ATP funds to MPOs like Metro. Metro combines these funds with some regional Proposition C funds and allocates these funds through the Call for Projects (CFP) program. The CFP is a competitive process by which these discretionary funds are distributed to regionally significant projects every other year. There are seven categories in which projects are competitively ranked, including categories for bikeways improvements and pedestrian improvements. The CFP process is part of the larger Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program.

More information can be found at: http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects/ City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 15

Local Funding

MEASURE M LOCAL RETURN

Measure M, known as the “Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan,” is a comprehensive plan that will allocate over $860 million per year to​ improve transportation and mobility options for all in Los Angeles County. Measure M adds a 1/2-cent increase to the sales tax, which will increase to 1-cent when the existing Measure R tax expires in 2039.

During the next 50 years, over $4 billion will be dedicated towards projects that will benefit people of all ages and abilities to walk and bike (especially our youth who often walk to and from school) and complete streets projects. This includes over $900 million for first-and-last mile improvements that improve access to transit. Metro has also reserved $857.5 million — about $20 million per year — for countywide walking and biking programs. This would provide a stable funding source for ongoing program costs currently subject to the uncertainty of grant funding, such as bicycle safety and education classes and public education campaigns.

A local return of 17% of the funding is distributed to cities to use at their discretion. They may choose to use a portion or all of that funding for bicycle and pedestrian-related projects.

PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN

Countywide, 20 percent of Proposition C Los Angeles County 1⁄2-cent sales tax revenue returns to the cities according to population. The money may be spent on a variety of transportation projects, including bicycle projects.

MEASURE R LOCAL RETURN

A portion of this Los Angeles County 1⁄2-cent sales tax revenue returns to the cities according to population. The money may be spent on a variety of transportation projects, including bicycle projects.

RESURFACING AND REPAVING

The City is able to add bicycle lanes and sharrows upon resurfacing and repaving of streets. While other lanes are restriped, the bike facilities can be painted as well.

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bike lanes. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that an effective review process is in place to ensure that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this master plan. Developers may also be required to dedicate land toward the widening of roadways in order to provide for enhanced bicycle mobility.

BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS

Bike paths, lanes, parking, and related facilities can be funded as part of a local benefit assessment district. However, defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult since the bikeways will have citywide benefit. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 16

ADOPT-A-PATH PROGRAM

Maintenance of bicycle paths and recreational trails could be paid for from private funds in exchange for recognition, such as signs along the path saying “Maintained by (name)”. In order for this funding source to be sustainable, a special account can be set up for donors to pay into.

GENERAL FUNDS

Cities and counties may spend general funds as they see fit. Any bicycle, pedestrian, or trails project can be funded completely through general funds, or general funds can be used as a local match for grant funds. City of Lancaster Safe Routes to School Plan 17 SRTS PLANS BY SCHOOL A Amargosa Creek Middle School Comments from walk audit workshops were brought along when fieldwork was conducted so that the resulting plans address the issues B Desert View Elementary School raised. The fieldwork also identified new issues, which the plans address. C Discovery School The planned physical improvements along school routes are described in the following pages. The design section at the beginning of this D El Dorado Elementary School document provides definitions and guidance on these improvements. All bulb‐outs and curb extensions will include perpendicular curb E Endeavour Middle School ramps and truncated dome tactile devices for the sight-impaired. All pedestrian signals will include audible signals for the sight-impaired. F Joshua Elementary School This is a planned list of improvements. The list gives the City projects that it can seek funds for. The City may want to change the list over G Lincoln Elementary School time, as the list is conceptual. Engineering will need to be conducted prior to construction. H Linda Verde Elementary School I Mariposa Elementary School Maps on the following pages illustrate common routes that students take to get to school. The proposed improvements were planned along these routes. The crossing improvements are numbered and shown on the map with their corresponding numbers. J Miller Elementary School K Monte Vista Elementary School Some of the improvement locations coincide with planning work conducted for the Master Plan for Trails and Bikeways. In these locations, L Nancy Cory Elementary School the same recommendations are generally used, but may be modified where certain improvements have taken place. In addition, there are a number of of improvement locations that border Los Angeles County, and any improvements would require coordination and funding from M New Vista Middle School/Jack Northrop Elementary School the County. N Piute Middle School O Sierra Elementary School All of the engineering recommendations are subject to modification based on further study, changing conditions, funding availability, and other factors. The City retains flexibility to construct modified improvements. The City may also implement improvements incrementally as P Sunnydale Elementary School funding and opportunities arise. All improvements are subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and other appropriate City Q West Wind Elementary School departments. R Columbia Elementary School Any recommended traffic calming will have to follow standard City policies and procedures. Speed humps, for example, require signatures S Enterprise Elementary School of support from 2/3 of the affected residents. T Gifford C. Cole Elementary School U Tierra Bonita Elementary School Each school and school district will determine the location of bicycle parking on school. Ideally, bicycle parking should be located conveniently for the users, in places where it will not conflict with pedestrians, near entrances and in visible locations for security. V Del Sur Elementary School W Sundown Elementary School X Valley View Elementary School Y Antelope Valley High School Z Eastside High School AA Lancaster High School BB Quartz Hill High School CC SOAR High School