HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 14, 2024 | Special Meeting (Study Session)
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL
POST-MEETING SPECIAL—STUDY SESSION AGENDA
Call and Notice of Special Meeting:
LIVING STREETS STUDY SESSION
Monday, October 14, 2024
Closed Session at 5:00 PM—Study Session at 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
CITY COUNCIL
Dean Francois, Mayor
Rob Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem
Mike Detoy, Councilmember
Ray Jackson, Councilmember
Justin Massey, Councilmember
Karen Nowicki, City Treasurer
APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
EXECUTIVE TEAM
Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director
Myra Maravilla, City Clerk
Carrie Tai, Community Development Director
Lisa Nichols, Community Resources Director
Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Paul LeBaron, Police Chief
Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are
available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting,
you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at
cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting.
PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS
Hermosa Beach City Council meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is
only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by
submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and
participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following:
Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89968207828?
pwd=bXZmWS83dmxHWDZLbWRTK2RVaUxaUT092
•
Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 899 6820 7828, then #; Passcode: 472825 •
eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time.•
Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be
sent to cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item
and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours
before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends
will be posted to the agenda the next business day.
•
Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are
available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time.
Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown
Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an
eComment to ensure your public participation.
Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed
mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible.
Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall
attend in Council Chambers.
Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach •
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 •
Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda •
If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please
try another viewing option. View City Council staff reports and attachments at
www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda.
Page 2 of 535
Pages
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach has called a Special
Meeting of the City Council to take place at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 14, 2024, to
consider and take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda below.
1.CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM
2.ROLL CALL
3.CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
This public comment period is limited to Closed Session agenda items only.
Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
4.a Closed Session Minutes
Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on October 8, 2024.
4.b Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Manager
Page 3 of 535
5.STUDY SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM
6.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7.ROLL CALL
8.ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS
9.STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
The public is invited to attend and provide public comment on the Study Session
topic only. No general public comment will be taken during the Study Session.
Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. The time allotted per
speaker may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor
or City Council. Another period is reserved for public comment on the Study
Session topic only during item 9.
No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the
Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a
future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or
departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to
the City Manager.
10.OPENING REMARKS
11.STUDY SESSION TOPIC
11.a LIVING STREETS STUDY SESSION - 24-PW-037 5
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
12.COUNCIL QUESTIONS
13.STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
The public is invited to attend and provide public comment on the Study Session
topic only. No general public comment will be taken during the Study Session.
Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. The time allotted per
speaker may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor
or City Council. Another period is reserved for public comment on the Study
Session topic only.
No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the
Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a
future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or
departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to
the City Manager.
14.COUNCIL DISCUSSION
15.ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 535
Page 1 of 14
Meeting Date: October 14, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-PW-037
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
LIVING STREETS STUDY SESSION
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council:
1. Receive and provide comment on the Living Streets Study Session; and
2. Provide direction to staff regarding Living Streets as future funding and staff
resources allow.
Executive Summary:
The Living Streets Study Session details the City’s continued commitment towards
creating a living street network, as envisioned in the City’s General Plan, PLAN Hermosa,
and the City’s future efforts to encourage safe travel for all users within the public right-
of-way.
The study session format provides an opportunity for staff to update Council and
community on the City’s efforts to advance living streets elements in City projects and on
the coordination with the South Bay Bicycle Coalition Plus (SBBC+) with its Bicycle
Master Plan Update. It is also an opportunity for City Council and the community to
discuss and provide feedback on those efforts and make suggestions for improvements
in the future. While the focus of the study session is largely on bicyclists, a holistic
approach must be considered to balance bicyclist needs with the needs of pedestrians,
motorists, and all other users.
Background:
In 2012, Hermosa Beach was the first city in the United States to adopt a living streets
policy that promotes health and mobility for all users by creating streets that are safe,
accessible, sustainable, and inviting. The key goals of living streets are:
Provide for the needs of all roadway users—motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users—regardless of age or physical abilities;
Enhance safety and security for all users;
Incorporate inviting streetscapes with engaging architecture, street furniture,
landscaping, and public art – and foster healthy economic development;
Page 5 of 535
Page 2 of 14
Integrate sustainability and conservation principles addressing water, energy,
materials, waste, plant life and other resources; and
Design for the community with beautification elements and amenities and
encourage active and healthy lifestyles.
The City furthered its commitment to living streets principles in the City’s 2017 General
Plan, PLAN Hermosa. The General Plan details the City’s long-term vision for the creation
of a comprehensive and safe multi-modal transportation system, critical to fulfill Hermosa
Beach’s growing desire for additional transportation choices and acknowledges its
inability to widen streets for more vehicles and parking due to its narrow street rights-of-
way. The creation of a high-quality multi-modal transportation network provides a range
of economic, health, sustainability, and safety benefits, which all contribute toward an
improved quality of life in Hermosa Beach.
In 2018, staff worked in collaboration with the Beach Cities Health District, Redondo
Beach, and Manhattan Beach, and the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to create the draft Beach Cities Living Streets Design Manual and the Aviation
Boulevard Multimodal Corridor Plan. The draft Design Manual was based on the Los
Angeles County Model Design Manual for Living Streets, but tailored and updated for the
local beach cities. The effort included three public workshops and the development of
conceptual design alternatives for the incorporation of living streets elements, such as
protected bike lanes, enhanced landscaping, and pedestrian amenities. The manual was
presented to the Hermosa Beach City Council on October 29, 2018 as part of a Special
Multi-Agency Meeting held in conjunction with the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo
Beach, and the Board of Directors of the Beach Cities Health District.
The City continues to work towards implementing living streets design elements in
projects throughout the City; however the rapid rise of electric bikes (e-bikes) in recent
years has resulted in increased community concerns regarding bike safety and sidewalk
riding as the demand for e-bikes has outpaced the ability to create appropriate
infrastructure to accommodate them. In 2022, the City launched the Bike Smart Hermosa
safety campaign, in an effort to help address these concerns and prevent bicycle and e-
bike collisions and injuries through a balanced approach, combining engineering, traffic
enforcement, and educational outreach on cycling safety. However, without providing a
complete, connected, and safe bicycle network, enforcement efforts will continue to have
limited effectiveness as the demand for both bicycles and e-bikes remains strong.
According to the 2021 Route Refinement Study for a South Bay Local Travel Network,
completed by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, most vehicle trips, or about
70 percent, made in the South Bay are less than three miles in length; many of these trips
could potentially be accommodated by bicycle if appropriate infrastructure were in place.
Past Board, Commission, and Council Actions
Page 6 of 535
Page 3 of 14
Meeting Date Description
September 14, 2011 Public Works Commission recommended the adoption of
the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan to City Council.
October 25, 2011 Adoption of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
December 11, 2012 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, Adopting a Living Streets Policy for the
City of Hermosa Beach
October 29, 2018 Study Session: Presentation regarding the Beach Cities
Living Streets Design Manual as part of the Caltrans
Transportation Planning Grant: Beach Cities Living Street
Design Manual & Aviation Boulevard Multimodal Corridor
Plan
March 31, 2022 Consideration of taking action and giving direction not staff
on items from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Study Session
June 4, 2024 Adoption of an urgency ordinance of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California adding Section 10.12.175 to the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code regarding safety and operational
regulations related to electric/motorized bicycles in the City
Discussion:
Past Bike Planning Efforts
In 2011, the City adopted the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan (SBBMP) created by the
South Bay Bicycle Coalition (SBBC) in partnership with the Los Angeles County Bicycle
Coalition and seven cities of the South Bay including Hermosa Beach, El Segundo,
Gardena, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. The SBBMP
outlined over 200 miles of a regional bicycle network and proposed a series of
interconnected bikeways, bike parking facilities, and associated programs and policies
throughout the seven cities. The SBBMP is included in Attachment 1 and shows the
proposed bike network in Hermosa Beach.
Many elements of the SBBMP were later incorporated into PLAN Hermosa with some
additions including a greater emphasis on east-west connections and identification of
multi-use path connections to parks, schools, and other key destinations. Attachment 2
illustrates the Intended Bicycle and Multi-use Facilities from PLAN Hermosa covering
approximately 25.7 linear lane miles that included five different facility categories as
summarized in the table below.
Page 7 of 535
Page 4 of 14
Bicycle and Multi-use Facility Categories Considered in PLAN Hermosa
Type Caltrans
Classification1 Description
Multi-use
Path
Class I A two-way facility separated from motor vehicles
(adjacent to or independent of roadways) for use by
pedestrians, joggers, skaters, and bicyclists.
Shared
Roadway
No designation A street segment that functions as a space for multiple
users and intermittently as a gathering space, without
delineations for each mode.
Bike Lane Class II Bike lanes, or buffered bike lanes, provide preferential
or exclusive use of a portion of the roadway for
bicyclists through striping or markings.
Sharrows Class III Sharrows combine bicycle stencils with chevrons
placed in the center of a travel lane. They bring
awareness to drivers that bicycles share the lane and
“may use full lane.”
Bike
Boulevard
Class III Bike boulevards allow bicyclists and motorists to
share the same travel lanes to facilitate safe and
convenient bicycle travel. They are low-volume
streets optimized for bicyclists and pedestrians and
typically treated with traffic calming features.
1. Highway Design Manual (HDM), 7th Edition, Caltrans.
2. Per the HDM, sidewalks are not Class I bikeways, because they are primarily intended to serve
pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bikeways, and do not
minimize vehicle cross flows.
Class IV facilities, also referred to as separated bikeways, protected bike lanes, or cycle
tracks, were not considered in the City’s bicycle plan as it predated their formal
introduction to California. The Protected Bikeways Act of 2014 established Class IV
Bikeways for California and required the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to establish design criteria for separated bikeways. This Design Information
Bulletin (DIB) was released in 2018, and amended in 2022, providing design criteria and
other general design guidance on best practices related to separated facilities.
The facility classifications are generally not considered to be a hierarchy of one preferred
over the other as each has its application. However, as detailed in the 2011 South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan and the Beach Cities Living Streets Design Manual, based on a
classification system developed by the City of Portland, Oregon, bicyclists can generally
be categorized into four different user types that may be more, or less, willing to ride in
certain bicycle facility types and will depend on the actual level of stress of any particular
segment on that travel path:
Page 8 of 535
Page 5 of 14
Strong and Fearless—Bicyclists who will ride anywhere regardless of roadway
conditions. These bicyclists can ride faster than other user types, prefer direct
routes, and will typically choose roadways, even if shared with vehicles, over
separate bicycle facilities such as paths. Very low percentage of the population (<1
percent).
Enthused and Confident—This group encompasses intermediate cyclists who
are mostly comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities but will usually prefer
low traffic streets, bike lanes, or separate paths when available. They may deviate
from a more direct route in favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes
commuters, utilitarian cyclists, and recreational riders, and probably represents
about 7 percent of the population.
Interested but Concerned—This user type makes up the bulk (likely between half
and two-thirds) of the cycling or potential cycling population. They are cyclists who
typically ride only on low traffic streets or paths under favorable conditions and
weather. They perceive traffic and safety as significant barriers towards increased
use of cycling. These cyclists may become “Enthused and Confident” with
encouragement, education, and experience (about 60 percent of the population).
No Way, No How—People in this category are not cyclists; they perceive severe
safety issues with riding in traffic and will never ride a bicycle under any
circumstances. But some may eventually give cycling a second look and may
progress to the user types above. This group likely composes something between
a quarter and a third of the population.
Existing Bicycle Network
Currently only approximately 25 percent of the intended network is fully in place or has
been enhanced beyond what was originally proposed in PLAN Hermosa. This group of
segments is largely comprised of pre-existing facilities such as The Strand and other bike
infrastructure on Hermosa Avenue north of 24th Street. This group of segments also
includes the bicycle lanes that were added in the downtown area in 2021 along Pier
Avenue between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue and along Hermosa Avenue between
10th Street and 14th Street and represent enhanced facilities versus those originally
proposed in PLAN Hermosa which called only for sharrows at those locations.
There are also several other segments that are partially complete, bringing the amount of
the intended network that is partially complete up to approximately 56 percent. Partially
complete segments include segments such as Prospect Avenue that received sharrow
markings and signage in 2024 as a first step towards establishing the roadway as a north-
south bicycle corridor; however, the plan calls for future installation of buffered bike lanes.
Other segments, such as the proposed bike boulevard on Monterey Boulevard, require
additional infrastructure in order to be considered fully in place. Attachment 3 illustrates
the current status of the intended bicycle network.
Page 9 of 535
Page 6 of 14
Planned Bicycle Improvements
Annual Street Improvements Project (CIP 105) will include the resurfacing of Pier
Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Valley Drive
between Pier Avenue and Herondo Street, which will allow staff the opportunity to further
upgrade the existing bicycle markings along those corridors. Staff is currently developing
the design for the project to include the installation of limited green bicycle markings on
Pier Avenue to enhance visibility, similar to those recently installed by the City of Redondo
Beach on Beryl Street. Staff is also exploring the installation of a bicycle lane along Pier
Avenue eastbound from Ardmore Avenue to PCH. The Pier Avenue eastbound lane would
serve as a “climbing” lane and at this time staff believes it may fit without removal of travel
lanes or parking and accommodated by minor narrowing of the existing lanes. The plans
would also incorporate the addition of sharrow pavement markings along Valley Drive
between Pier Avenue and Herondo Street.
PCH and Aviation Mobility Improvement Project (CIP 143) will consider the potential
for the addition of bicycle infrastructure along Aviation Boulevard and PCH, as well as
enhanced crossings of PCH. In addition to bicycle improvements, the project also
includes evaluation of a wide range of complete street elements to improve mobility,
accessibility, aesthetics, and safety for all users along the PCH and Aviation Boulevard
corridors as identified in the 2015 Project Study Report prepared by the City and Caltrans.
The project is in the early stage of the alternative development and environmental review
process and is being led by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
staff on behalf of the City in close coordination with Caltrans. Improvements to PCH will
require Caltrans approval as it is state right-of-way. On September 30, 2024, Senate Bill
(SB) 960 was approved by the Governor, requiring Caltrans to prioritize road
improvements for pedestrians, bike riders, and public transit users whenever it performs
maintenance or does road work. SB 960 is significant since it forces Caltrans to consider
the needs of non-motorized vehicle users and may help further advance goals of this
project.
Deferred and Unfunded Future Bicycle Projects
The FY 2024–25 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies a number of Deferred and
Unfunded Future Projects awaiting funding and staffing resources in a future budget
cycle. There are currently two projects on the Deferred and Unfunded Future Project list
that include potential improvements to the bicycle infrastructure:
The Hermosa Avenue Greenwich Village Street Realignment—this potential
improvement project was identified through the 2022 Climate Change Adaptation
and Resiliency Planning Project. That effort produced conceptual designs of
potential enhancements at the intersections of Hermosa Avenue and Greenwich
Page 10 of 535
Page 7 of 14
Village and Manhattan Avenue and Greenwich Village/27th Street, including
improved bicycle accommodations and visibility and safety improvements for
pedestrians and vehicles.
Strand Bikeway and Walkway Improvements at 35th Street—this project would
provide improved accessibility and connectivity for bicyclists travelling between the
Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach via The Strand at 35th Street by
creating a pathway connection where there is currently only access via stairs.
Both projects would require funding and future consideration of appropriateness by City
Council for incorporation into the CIP.
South Bay Bicycle Coalition Plus 2024 Bicycle Master Plan Update
In August 2024, the SBBC+ announced an update to the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
and launch of an interactive Story Map. The primary update to the Master Plan is the call
for Class IV protected bike lanes, where feasible, in lieu of Class II painted bike lanes.
The update aligns with regional plans and promotes the safety and ridership benefits of
these enhanced facilities.
The SBBC+’s story map overlays the proposed bicycle network with regional network
plans, school locations, the transit network, and collision data. The updated website also
has an interactive tool to collect input from the community on desired bicycle infrastructure
improvements with the goal of creating a Living Master Plan which can be used to help
guide implementation, enhancement, and expansion of the bicycle network both in the
City and in the South Bay region. The map details proposed bicycle facilities by
classification and estimated completion date. Ongoing outreach and community
engagement will be a critical element in this effort. Staff is working in collaboration with
the SBBC+ to provide updates to the interactive map.
Existing Sidewalk Network
The City is relatively compact, spanning only about two miles along the shoreline by about
one-half to one mile wide. This compact nature combined with a gridded street network,
small blocks, and dense land uses make it a highly walkable city. Walking also represents
a no-cost transportation mode that can benefit public health, reduce congestion, and
improve air quality. While the City has a robust sidewalk network, it does lack continuity
in many neighborhoods with missing sidewalk segments or no sidewalks provided either
on one or both sides of the street. Many of the existing sidewalk segments are also
challenged by missing curb ramps, steep driveways, and sidewalk obstructions, as a
result of private encroachments and utilities, that present challenges to users of all
abilities and reduce overall walkability.
Page 11 of 535
Page 8 of 14
Staff continues to prioritize improvements to the existing sidewalk network through
continued investment in the Capital Improvement Program, maintenance and repair, and
through the design approval process for private developments that are generally required
to reconstruct sidewalks to current City standards adjacent to their property.
PLAN Hermosa envisions a comprehensive, connected pedestrian network, including a
combination of walk streets, local sidewalks, wide sidewalks, and priority sidewalks
(Attachment 4). The wide sidewalk segments generally correlate with commercial
corridors, while priority sidewalks provide essential connections throughout the City and
also overlap with the City’s Safe Routes to School network. Implementation of PLAN
Hermosa’s Intended Pedestrian Facilities network will require continued capital
investment, planning, and evaluation and each segment will need to consider utility,
parking, and private encroachment impacts.
Other Completed Projects and Initiatives
The City has completed several projects and initiatives over the years to advance living
street elements. Some of these efforts include:
2010: Pier Avenue Improvements which widened sidewalks, enhanced crossings,
and implemented an all-pedestrian phase at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue
and Pier Avenue.
2018: Hermosa Avenue paving project which created curb bulb outs and
decorative crossing along Hermosa Ave in the downtown area.
2019–2023: PCH Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Sidewalk
Improvements which repaired sidewalks, installed ADA curb ramps, and added a
new east-west crosswalk at Pier Avenue and PCH with an all-pedestrian phase.
2019: 8th Street Sidewalk Improvements which restored City right-of-way and
created a complete and accessible sidewalk route along 8th Street from Valley
Drive to Hermosa Avenue on the City’s Safe Routes to School network.
2022: the City adopted an ADA Transition Plan which documents how the City will
reconstruct sidewalks and curb ramps in the City right-of-way to meet ADA
standards and create accessible paths for all pedestrians in the City.
2023: Business Activity District and School Zone Speed Limit Update which
lowered the speed limits by 5 miles per hour on Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue
in the downtown area by establishing a business activity district and set a 15-mile
per hour speed limit in school zones. This task was done as implementation of a
portion of State Assembly Bill (AB) 43.
2022–2024: Installed approximately 40 bicycle racks, accommodating storage for
80 bikes, at several locations throughout the City including Pier Plaza, Pier
Avenue, Valley Park, Hermosa Beach Community Center, and 11th Street and
Beach Drive.
Page 12 of 535
Page 9 of 14
2023: The Strand Pedestrian Safety Pilot Project which installed barricades along
The Strand between 11th Street and 14th Street to increase compliance of bicyclist
walking their bikes within the “walk only” zone of The Strand and reduce conflict
with pedestrians.
2024: Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements Phase 1 which installed
rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFB) at 10 uncontrolled marked crosswalks
throughout the City to enhance safe crossings for pedestrians.
Other Ongoing Efforts
The Public Works Department receives approximately 110 requests from the community
each year regarding transportation-related safety or operational issues. Many requests
require engineering investigation and consideration for future incorporation into the CIP
as part of a larger design and construction effort, pending available funding and staff
capacity, to effectively address the issue. For example, staff received several community
requests for enhanced pedestrian access the Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail across Valley
Drive and Ardmore Avenue, particularly north of 24th Street, and receives ongoing
requests for enhanced safety on Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue at their intersections
with Pier Avenue and Gould Avenue. The community’s reporting assists staff in
understanding where there are needs in the community and helps inform the creation of
future capital improvement projects.
The Public Works and Police Departments also work in close coordination to review
severe and fatal crashes as they occur to better understand contributing factors and
determine if safety improvements could be made through engineering solutions.
Staff is also in the process of evaluating those provisions in Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) that
became effective after June 30, 2024 including the potential designation of certain
roadway segments as safety corridors. For streets which are designated as a safety
corridor, the speed limit can be set 5 miles per hour lower than the traditional 85th
percentile; however, a maximum of only 20 percent of any city’s streets can be so
designated. Staff is working in collaboration with the City’s Traffic Engineer to evaluate
the potential of implementing said corridors in the City, including the necessary data
collection and supporting engineering analysis.
The FY 2024–25 CIP budget includes several programmed projects with Living Street
elements, that staff is working to advance, including:
Utility Box Wrapping (CIP 109)—Adds public art to utility boxes found along
sidewalks to enhance the pedestrian experience. This project is underway in
partnership with Indivisible Arts and is partially complete.
Page 13 of 535
Page 10 of 14
Gateway and Wayfinding Assessment (CIP 111)—Conceptual design of
alternatives to provide downtown wayfinding in a uniform and consistent manner
that informs pedestrians of the various downtown establishments.
Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail (CIP 502, et al.)—Removes the existing woodchip
surface along the Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail from Pier Avenue to 8th Street and
replaces it with an accessible decomposed granite surface.
Hermosa Avenue Green Street (CIP 164)—Removes 5,115 linear feet of existing
concrete gutter and replaces with a permeable concrete gutter to allow the
infiltration of stormwater and decrease the amount of untreated stormwater
discharged into the City’s storm drain system
CDBG Improvements (CIP 624)—Constructs ADA-accessible ramps throughout
the City to provide accessible paths for people of all abilities.
Bus Stop Improvements Phase 2 (CIP 102)—Improvements to bus stops along
Hermosa Avenue to enhance functionality and access to public transportation.
Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements Phase 2 (CIP 193) – Improvements
to the median island, parking configuration, sidewalks, curb ramps, and crosswalks
along Hermosa Avenue to enhance motorist and pedestrian safety and accessible
travel.
Comprehensive Downtown Lighting Design (CIP 621)—Conceptual design of
lighting in the downtown area to enhance motorist and pedestrian safety and
creating a welcoming and inviting atmosphere.
Looking Ahead
Staff continues to identify opportunities to integrate living streets elements into the
planning and design of capital improvement and private development projects. Staff also
remains actively engaged with the SBBC+ on the SBBMP Update and continues to
evaluate opportunities for collaboration with the bordering cities of Redondo Beach and
Manhattan Beach. The community is encouraged to actively participate in the SBBC+
interactive website to help inform the evolution of the living SBBMP, providing input on
desired changes or additions, and consider how future segments would move forward.
Enforcement solutions alone will only have a limited effectiveness at addressing
community concerns for bicycle safety, while also pulling limited staffing resources away
from other high-priority public safety needs. Larger planning and engineering solutions
will continue to be needed to address the issue. However, continued advancement of
PLAN Hermosa’s Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities network will become
increasingly more difficult given the City’s limited right-of-way and high demand for
parking with each and every segment presenting its own unique challenges and requiring
careful planning, community buy-in, alternatives assessment, and consideration of
impacts during design development. For example, PLAN Hermosa shows Prospect
Avenue as having a multi-use path or buffered bike lane; and while there is sufficient right-
of-way to accommodate this facility, it does not currently fit within the existing curb-to-curb
Page 14 of 535
Page 11 of 14
cross-section and would require a significant reconstruction of the roadway and use of
right-of-way that is currently utilized by private encroachments. Similarly, the planned bike
network currently does not provide good north-south travel, particularly along Valley Drive
and Ardmore Avenue which is heavily utilized by younger and less experienced riders
accessing Hermosa Valley School. The shared space on The Strand will also remain a
location where there is high potential for conflicts given the limited width and heavy
demand and has been an ongoing discussion in the City for many decades.
The community is also encouraged to continue to reach out to City staff regarding
location-specific safety concerns throughout the City to help identify issues and inform
future CIP budget development.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency
with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below:
Land Use and Design Element
Goal 6. A pedestrian-focused urban form that creates visual interest and a
comfortable outdoor environment.
Policies:
6.1 Outdoor amenities. Require all new multi-family and commercial
development to be designed and constructed with pedestrian friendly features
such as sidewalks, tree-shaded streets, buildings that define the public realm,
and, in the case of non-residential uses, have transparent ground floor building
facades that activate the street.
6.2 Streetscaping. Proactively beautify existing streetscapes with street trees,
landscaping and pedestrian-scaled lighting.
6.3 Green open space network. Establish an interconnected green
infrastructure network throughout Hermosa Beach that serves as a network for
active transportation, recreation and scenic beauty and connects all areas of the
city. In particular, connections should be made between the beach, parks, the
Downtown, neighborhoods, and other destinations within the city. Consider the
following components when designing and implementing the green/open space
network:
o Preserved open space areas such as the beach and the Greenbelt
Pedestrian Trail
o Living streets with significant landscaping and pedestrian and bicycle
amenities
o Community and neighborhood parks, and schools
6.4 Street lighting for safety. Improve street lighting for public safety and
prioritize areas near parks and schools for lighting improvements.
Page 15 of 535
Page 12 of 14
6.5 Provision of sidewalks. Encourage pedestrian friendly sidewalks on both
sides of streets in neighborhoods.
6.6 Human-scale buildings. Encourage buildings and design to include human-
scale details such as windows on the street, awnings and architectural features
that create a visually interesting pedestrian environment.
6.7 Pedestrian oriented design. Eliminate urban form conditions that reduce
walkability by discouraging surface parking and parking structures along
walkways, long blank walls along walkways, and garage-dominated building
facades.
Mobility Element
Goal 2. A public realm that is safe, comfortable, and convenient for travel via foot,
bicycle, public transit, and automobile and creates vibrant, people-oriented public
spaces that encourage active living.
Policies:
2.1 Prioritize public rights-of-way. Prioritize improvements of public rights-of-
way that provide heightened levels of safe, comfortable and attractive public
spaces for all non-motorized travelers while balancing the needs of efficient
vehicular circulation.
2.2 Encourage traffic calming. Encourage traffic calming policies and
techniques to improve the safety and efficient movement of people and vehicles
along residential areas and highly trafficked corridors.
Goal 3. Public rights-of-way supporting a multimodal and people-oriented
transportation system that provides diversity and flexibility on how users choose
to be mobile.
Policies:
3.3 Active transportation. Require commercial development or
redevelopment projects and residential projects with four or more units to
accommodate active transportation by providing on-site amenities, necessary
connections to adjacent existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle networks,
and incorporate people-oriented design practices.
3.9 Access for emergency vehicles. Ensure that emergency vehicles have
secure and convenient access to the City’s street network.
3.10 Require ADA standards. Require that all public rights-of-way be
designed per Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards by incorporating
crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, and other components to provide
ease of access for disabled persons.
3.11 Site-specific conditions. Evaluate and incorporate any site-specific
conditions or restrictions on public property or rights-of-way during the design
and engineering phases for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Page 16 of 535
Page 13 of 14
Goal 7. A transportation system that results in zero transportation-related fatalities
and which minimizes injuries.
Policies:
7.1 Safe public rights-of-way. Encourage that all public rights-of-way are safe
for all users at all times of day where users of all ages and ability feel
comfortable participating in both motorized and non-motorized travel.
7.2 Manage speeds. Monitor vehicle speeds through traffic controls, speed
limits, and design features with the intended purpose of minimizing vehicle
accidents, creating a pedestrian and bicycle environment, and discouraging
cut-through traffic.
7.4 Traffic safety programs. Prioritize traffic safety programs oriented towards
safe access to schools and community facilities that focus on walking, biking,
and driving in school zones.
Parks and Open Space
Goal 4. Direct and accessible routes and connections to parks, recreational facilities, and
open space are provided.
Policies:
4.1 Close proximity to parks. Provide a variety and distribution of parks, open
space, and recreational facilities to enhance proximity and easy access to all
residents.
4.2 Enhanced access points. Increase and enhance access to parks and open
space, particularly across major thoroughfares, as well as access points that
promote physical activity such as pedestrian- and bike-oriented access points.
4.3 Safe and efficient trail network. Develop a network of safe and efficient
trails, streets, and paths that connect residents, visitors, and neighboring
communities to the beach, parks, and activity centers.
4.4 ADA accessible park access. Install ADA and universally accessible
amenities and equipment so that all parks, beach, and trail networks are
accessible to all persons.
Parks and Open Space
Goal 10. Abundant landscaping, trees, and green space provided throughout the
community.
Policies:
10.1 Urban forest. Expand the urban forest and green spaces citywide on public
and private property.
10.3 Green space co-benefits. Recognize the many positive qualities provided
by landscaping, trees, and green space including reduced heat gain, controlled
Page 17 of 535
Page 14 of 14
stormwater runoff, absorbed noise, reduced soil erosion, improved aesthetic
character, and absorption of air pollution.
10.6 City landscaping. Encourage landscaping, trees, and green spaces across
the city consist of non-invasive and drought-tolerant plants.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact related to the recommended action.
Attachments:
1. 2011 South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
2. PLAN Hermosa Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities Map
3. Current State of PLAN Hermosa’s Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities
4. PLAN Hermosa Intended Pedestrian Facilities Map
Respectfully Submitted by: Andrew Nguyen, Associate Engineer
Concur: Brandon Araujo, Senior Engineer
Concur: Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director
Concur: Doug Krauss, Environmental Programs Manager
Concur: Paul LeBaron, Chief of Police
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
Page 18 of 535
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
August 2011
Page 19 of 535
Page 20 of 535
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Acknowledgements
Prepared for:
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Coalition
Prepared by:
Alta Planning + Design
Brett Hondorp, Principal
Sam Corbett, Senior Associate
Jessie Holzer, Planner
Page 21 of 535
Page 22 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | i
Table of Contents
Foreword .................................................................................... xi
Executive Summary ................................................................. xiii
1 Introduction ................................................................ 3
1.1 Setting ............................................................................................ 3
1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan ....................................... 5
1.3 Bicycle Facility Types ................................................................ 7
1.4 Benefits of Bicycling .................................................................. 11
1.5 Public Participation ................................................................. 14
1.6 Plan Organization ......................................................................16
2 Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions ..................... 21
2.1 South Bay Goals, Objectives, and Policies ......................... 21
2.2 Relevant Regional Existing Plans and Policies ................ 32
3 El Segundo ................................................................ 41
3.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ..... 41
3.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................. 41
3.3 Needs Analysis .......................................................................... 49
3.4 Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................... 58
3.5 Project Costs .............................................................................. 65
3.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................... 66
3.7 Project Sheets ............................................................................. 69
4 Gardena .................................................................... 77
4.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ..... 77
4.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................. 77
4.3 Needs Analysis .......................................................................... 83
4.4 Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................... 92
4.5 Project Costs .............................................................................. 99
4.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................. 100
4.7 Project Sheets ........................................................................... 105
5 Hermosa Beach ...................................................... 113
5.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance .... 113
Page 23 of 535
Table of Contents
ii | Alta Planning + Design
5.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 113
5.3 Needs Analysis ......................................................................... 121
5.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 130
5.5 Project Costs ............................................................................. 137
5.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................. 138
5.7 Project Sheets ........................................................................... 141
6 Lawndale ................................................................ 149
6.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ... 149
6.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................... 149
6.3 Needs Analysis ........................................................................ 155
6.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 164
6.5 Project Costs ............................................................................ 170
6.6 Project Prioritization .............................................................. 171
6.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 174
7 Manhattan Beach ................................................... 181
7.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance .... 181
7.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................ 181
7.3 Needs Analysis ........................................................................ 188
7.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 198
7.5 Project Costs ........................................................................... 205
7.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................ 206
7.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 210
8 Redondo Beach ...................................................... 219
8.1 Bicycle Transportion Account (BTA) Compliance ....... 219
8.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................... 219
8.3 Needs Analysis ....................................................................... 229
8.4 Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................. 238
8.5 Project Costs ........................................................................... 245
8.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................ 248
8.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 252
9 Torrance .................................................................. 261
Page 24 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | iii
9.1 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Compliance ... 261
9.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................... 261
9.3 Needs Analysis ........................................................................ 270
9.4 Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................... 279
9.5 Project Costs ........................................................................... 289
9.6 Project Prioritization ............................................................ 290
9.7 Project Sheets .......................................................................... 294
10 Recommended Programs ..................................... 303
10.1 Education Programs ............................................................... 303
10.2 Public Awareness Campaigns and Marketing ............... 306
10.3 Enforcement Programs .......................................................... 308
10.4 Encouragement Programs ....................................................309
10.5 Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................. 312
11 Wayfinding and Signage Plan .............................. 317
11.1 1BSignage Design .......................................................................... 317
11.2 2BSignage Locations ................................................................... 333
11.3 Kiosks ......................................................................................... 336
11.4 Collaborative Efforts ............................................................. 340
12 Funding .................................................................. 343
Appendices ............................................................................ 357
Appendix A: Large Scale Maps .......................................................... 359
Appendix B: New York City Bicycle Collision vs Ridership Data
..................................................................................................................... 383
Appendix C: Bicycle Facility Standards ......................................... 384
Appendix D: Online Survey Analysis ............................................... 385
Appendix E: BTA Compliance Tables .............................................. 391
Appendix F: Participating City Existing Bicycle Plan Maps .... 405
Appendix G: City Municipal Code Bicycle Parking Related
Sections ..................................................................................................... 413
Appendix H: Bicycle Count Data ...................................................... 417
Appendix I: Opportunities and Constraints .................................. 421
Page 25 of 535
Table of Contents
iv | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix J: Recommended Bicycle Parking Standards ............ 424
Appendix K: Prioritization Methodology ....................................... 427
Appendix L: Proposed Kiosk and Signage Routes ....................... 431
Appendix M: Glossary of Terms ........................................................ 441
Appendix N: Complete Streets Policy Language ......................... 443
Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments Received .............. 449
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles
region .................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 1-2: Typical Distribution of Bicyclists in the United States .. 5
Figure 1-3: Bicycle Path and Bicycle Lane Recommended Standards8
Figure 1-4: Bicycle Route and Bicycle Friendly Streets
Recommended Standards ............................................................................. 9
Figure 2-1: City of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities .............. 33
Figure 2-2: County of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities ....... 35
Figure 3-1: El Segundo General Plan Land Uses ................................... 42
Figure 3-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo .......................... 46
Figure 3-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo ......................... 61
Figure 3-4: Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities in El Segundo .............. 64
Figure 4-1: Gardena General Plan Land Uses ........................................ 78
Figure 4-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Gardena ................................ 81
Figure 4-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena ............................. 93
Figure 4-4: Gardena Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ........................ 98
Figure 5-1: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map ................................. 114
Figure 5-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach ................. 118
Figure 5-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach ............... 133
Figure 5-4: Hermosa Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ......... 136
Figure 6-1: City of Lawndale General Plan Land Use Map ............. 150
Figure 6-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale .......................... 154
Figure 6-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale ..........................167
Figure 6-4: Lawndale Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities .................... 169
Figure 7-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach ............ 186
Figure 7-2: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach .......... 201
Figure 7-3: Manhattan Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities .... 204
Figure 8-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach .. 224
Figure 8-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach ... 225
Figure 8-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach 242
Figure 8-4: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach .243
Page 26 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | v
Figure 8-5: North Redondo Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
......................................................................................................................... 246
Figure 8-6: South Redondo Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
..........................................................................................................................247
Figure 9-1: City of Torrance General Plan Land Use Policy ............ 263
Figure 9-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Torrance ............................ 267
Figure 9-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Torrance .......................... 283
Figure 9-4: Torrance Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities ..................... 287
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Population of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Cities
......................................................................................................................... 3
Table 3-2: El Segundo Bicycle Network ............................................ 47
Table 3-3: Means of Transportation to Work .................................. 50
Table 3-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ................................................ 51
Table 3-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ........................... 52
Table 3-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ......................... 53
Table 3-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ..... 54
Table 3-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in El Segundo ............. 59
Table 3-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in El Segundo .......... 59
Table 3-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in El Segundo ....... 59
Table 3-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in El Segundo ..... 60
Table 3-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility
Types ........................................................................................................... 66
Table 3-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ........... 66
Table 3-15:El Segundo Prioritized Bicycle Projects ........................ 67
Table 4-1: Gardena Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies ................. 80
Table 4-2: Gardena Bicycle Network ................................................. 82
Table 4-3: Means of Transportation to Work ................................. 84
Table 4-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................... 85
Table 4-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ........................... 86
Table 4-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ......................... 87
Table 4-7 Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ..... 88
Page 27 of 535
Table of Contents
vi | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 .................................... 91
Table 4-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Gardena .................. 94
Table 4-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Gardena .............. 94
Table 4-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Gardena ........... 94
Table 4-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Gardena .......... 94
Table 4-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility
Types ........................................................................................................... 99
Table 4-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ........ 100
Table 4-15: Gardena Prioritized Bicycle Projects ........................... 101
Table 5-1: Hermosa Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies .. 117
Table 5-2: Hermosa Beach Bicycle Network ................................... 119
Table 5-3: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 122
Table 5-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................. 123
Table 5-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 124
Table 5-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 125
Table 5-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 126
Table 5-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 129
Table 5-9: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Hermosa Beach . 131
Table 5-10: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Hermosa Beach
...................................................................................................................... 131
Table 5-11: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Hermosa Beach
...................................................................................................................... 131
Table 5-12: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility
Types .......................................................................................................... 137
Table 5-13: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ......... 138
Table 5-14: Hermosa Beach Prioritized Projects ........................... 139
Table 6-1: Lawndale Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies ............ 152
Table 6-2: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 156
Table 6-3: Existing Bicycling Demand .............................................. 157
Table 6-4: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 158
Table 6-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 159
Table 6-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 160
Page 28 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | vii
Table 6-7: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 163
Table 6-8: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Lawndale .............. 165
Table 6-9: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Lawndale ............ 165
Table 6-10: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Lawndale ...... 165
Table 6-11: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Lawndale....... 165
Table 6-12: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility
Types .......................................................................................................... 171
Table 6-13: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network .......... 171
Table 6-14: Lawndale Prioritized Bicycle Projects ....................... 172
Table 7-1: Manhattan Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
..................................................................................................................... 184
Table 7-2: Manhattan Beach Bicycle Network .............................. 185
Table 7-3: Means of Transportation to Work ................................ 190
Table 7-4: Existing Bicycling Demand .............................................. 191
Table 7-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 192
Table 7-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 193
Table 7-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 194
Table 7-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 .................................. 197
Table 7-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Manhattan Beach 199
Table 7-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Manhattan Beach
..................................................................................................................... 199
Table 7-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Manhattan
Beach .......................................................................................................... 199
Table 7-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Manhattan
Beach ......................................................................................................... 200
Figure 7-3: Manhattan Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities 204
Table 7-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility
Types ........................................................................................................ 205
Table 7-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ........ 206
Table 7-15: Manhattan Beach Prioritized Bicycle Projects ......... 207
Table 8-1: Redondo Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies 222
Figure 8-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach
.................................................................................................................... 224
Page 29 of 535
Table of Contents
viii | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 8-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach
..................................................................................................................... 225
Table 8-2: Redondo Beach Bicycle Network ................................. 226
Table 8-3: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 230
Table 8-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................. 231
Table 8-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 232
Table 8-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 233
Table 8-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ...234
Table 8-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 237
Table 8-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Redondo Beach ... 239
Table 8-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Redondo Beach239
Table 8-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Redondo Beach
..................................................................................................................... 239
Table 8-12: Proposed Bicycle Friendly Streets in Redondo Beach
.................................................................................................................... 240
Table 8-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility
Types ........................................................................................................ 248
Table 8-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ....... 248
Table 8-15: Redondo Beach Prioritized Bicycle Projects ............ 249
Table 9-1: Torrance Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies ............. 264
Table 9-2: Torrance Bicycle Network .............................................. 265
Figure 9-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Torrance ....................... 267
Table 9-3: Means of Transportation to Work ............................... 271
Table 9-4: Existing Bicycling Demand ............................................ 272
Table 9-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact ......................... 273
Table 9-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand ....................... 274
Table 9-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact ... 275
Table 9-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009 ................................. 278
Table 9-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Torrance .............. 280
Table 9-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Torrance ........... 280
Table 9-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Torrance ....... 280
Table 9-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Torrance ....... 281
Page 30 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | ix
Table 9-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility
Types ........................................................................................................ 289
Table 9-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network ....... 290
Table 9-15: Torrance Prioritized Bicycle Projects ......................... 291
Table 11-1: Design Standards for Recommended Sign Types ..... 319
Table 11-2: Modifications to MUTCD Design Sign Layout
Specifications .......................................................................................... 325
Table 11-3: Specifications for Implementation of signage ........... 333
Table 11-4: Key Destinations by Participating City ...................... 334
Table 12-1: Funding Sources ................................................................ 343
Table D-1: Barriers to Commuting by Bicycle ............................... 388
Table D-2: Barriers to Riding in the South Bay ............................. 388
Table D-3: Factors that Influence Decisions to Ride a Bicycle .. 389
Table D-4: Bicycle Program Interest .................................................390
Table E-1: El Segundo BTA Requirement Check List .................. 391
Table E-2: Gardena BTA Requirement Check List ...................... 393
Table E-3: Hermosa Beach BTA Requirement Check List ......... 395
Table E-4: Lawndale BTA Requirement Check List .................... 397
Table E-5: Manhattan Beach BTA Requirement Check List ..... 399
Table E-6: Redondo Beach BTA Requirement Check List ......... 401
Table E-7: Torrance BTA Requirement Check List ..................... 403
Table H-1: South Bay Bicycle Counts Thursday, November 4,
2010 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. .................................................................. 417
Table H-2: South Bay Bicycle Counts Saturday, November 6,
2010 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. .................................................................. 419
Table K-1: Proposed Facility Weight and Scoring ....................... 429
Page 31 of 535
x | Alta Planning + Design
Page 32 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xi
Foreword
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is the result of an innovative
partnership between long-standing bike advocacy non-profit Los
Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and local grass-roots
bike advocates the South Bay Bicycle Coalition (SBBC). The two
groups came together with the common goal of improving the
safety and convenience of bicycling in Los Angeles County, and
specifically in the South Bay Region.
In December of 2009, the South Bay Bicycle Coalition approached a
number of South Bay cities (defined as those cities encompassed by
the South Bay Cities Council of Governments) to ask for their
support and involvement in a multi-city bicycle master planning
process. Seven of the cities responded favorably and within the
specified time frame for grant eligibility. Those seven responsive
cities are the cities that are represented in this master plan. The
participating cities include: El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach,
Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. This
plan seeks to provide improved and increased connectivity across
these seven cities. All seven City Councils have adopted supportive
resolutions and have dedicated in-kind staff time to assist with plan
review and data gathering.
Funding for this master planning process is made possible through
the Department of Health and Human Services through the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health’s Renew
Environments for Nutrition, Exercise and Wellness in Los Angeles
County (RENEW-LAC) initiative. RENEW-LAC is made possible
by funds from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention –
Communities Putting Prevention to Work Initiative. RENEW
seeks to implement policy, systems and environmental change to
improve nutrition, increase physical activity and reduce obesity,
especially in disadvantaged communities. Engaging communities in
active transportation through pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
policies is one objective of the RENEW initiative.
The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the
South Bay Bicycle Coalition are partnering to improve
bicycling in the South Bay.
Photo Source: Kelly Morphy/WALC Institute for Vitality
City
Page 33 of 535
xii | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 34 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xiii
Executive Summary
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the
development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network
and set of programs and policies throughout the cities of El
Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach,
Redondo Beach, and Torrance for the next 20 years. As the first-
ever multi-jurisdictional bike plan, it has a unique focus on cross-
city consistency and connectivity that is often lacking in singular
city bike plans. Upon plan adoption, each participating city will be
eligible for grant funding sources which they are not currently
receiving.
Implementation of this plan is meant to promote and increase
bicycle ridership for all levels of ability across the South Bay. The
South Bay has an existing base of recreational and enthusiast
bicyclists; this plan’s primary objective is to increase the number of
those bicyclists, as well as create a larger base of utilitarian
bicyclists, including bicycle commuters, through safe, accessible
and consistent bicycle infrastructure, and the policies and programs
that support it.
As discussed in Chapter One, there are numerous benefits that a
bicycle master plan provides to both community members and the
cities that implement it, including improved community health and
quality of life, increased property values, decreased bicycle
collisions and improved air quality mitigation, among others.
For a condensed review of the plan, please see the following
sections:
Chapter Two: Goals, Objectives, and Policies are meant
to compliment the proposed network and are focused upon
the six Es of a successful bike plan: evaluation and
planning, engineering, education, enforcement,
encouragement, and equity
Chapters Three through Nine: Individual City Chapters
include a discussion of a given city’s existing bikeways, a
high-level needs analysis, and the proposed bicycle facility
improvements; the verbiage presented in each of these
chapters is very similar to one another; as such it is
recommended that the reader focuses on the city chapter of
their preference
Implementation of this plan is meant to promote and
increase bicycle ridership for all levels of ability across the
South Bay.
Page 35 of 535
Executive Summary
xiv | Alta Planning + Design
Chapter Ten: Recommended Programs expands upon a
few of the ideas presented through policy and provides the
cities with further toolbox strategies to address the “six
E’s” of a successful bike plan
Chapter Eleven: Wayfinding and Signage presents the
regional wayfinding plan for the participating cities to
inform bicyclists how to navigate through the network
Chapter Twelve: Funding identifies potential funding
sources that the cities could apply for to implement the
proposed network presented in this Plan
As previously stated, this plan has a 20-year implementation time
line. Adoption of this plan is the first of many steps that will need
to be taken prior to implementation of any given proposed facility.
Prior to facility implementation, each city will need to have their
traffic engineering staff review the proposed facility and design the
appropriate treatments. The majority of these facilities will be
exempt from environmental review, although some may be subject
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as
further public hearings and Council approval.
This Executive Summary contains a glossary of terms; the existing
regional bike network; proposed regional and city-specific bikeway
network maps; and a city-by-city breakdown of proposed bikeway
mileage.
The following table discusses terms that are presented in this plan.
Word Definition
Assembly Bill 1358
California Assembly Bill 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008, amended
the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or
county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway
users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks,
crosswalks, and curb extensions.. See section 2.2.2.1 of this plan for more information.
Mobility Coordinator
A part- or full-time employee dedicated to the implementation of alternative
transportation, which can include bicycle program administration. As related to bicycles, a
mobility coordinator tracks, coordinates and oversees implementation of bike facilities,
programs, grant applications and data collection.
Bicycle Facility A street or off-road path designed for bicycle travel
Bike Path A completely separated, paved right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles
and pedestrians
Bike Lane A restricted right-of-way striped on a street and designated for the exclusive use of
bicycles, with crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted
Page 36 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xv
Word Definition
Bike Route An on-street right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings to be shared
between bicyclists and motorists
Bicycle
Transportation
Account (BTA)
An annual program of the State of California providing state funds for city and county
projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. To establish eligibility
for these funds, local agencies must have a Bicycle Transportation Plan that complies with
Caltrans requirements in CA Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. This plan complies
with BTA requirements.
Class I, II, and III
Bikeways
State of California definitions for Bicycle Paths, Bicycle Lanes, and Bicycle Routes,
respectively, in the California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. For additional
detail see Section 1.3 of this plan.
Complete Streets
Complete streets refers to the principle that all transportation improvements should
address the safety, access, and mobility of all travelers, including motorists, bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit riders, and the disabled. Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 formally states
that Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve
conditions for all users, and adopts such a policy for all planning, programming, design,
construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State Highway
System.
Bike Friendly Street Local roads that have been enhanced with treatments that prioritize bicycle travel. These
treatments include wayfinding signage, pavement markings and traffic calming
Bike Station
Modeled after the secure indoor bicycle parking facilities provided by the private firm
BikeStation, these are locations that provide bicycle storage and other amenities such as
showers and bicycle repair stations. They are often located near transit stations.
Bike Valet The provision of monitored bicycle parking, typically at a large event
Sharrows
Pavement markings denoting the safe and legal riding position for bicyclists. The name
“sharrows” derives from “shared-use arrows.” Among other things, sharrows clarify
bicyclists’ right to occupy the center of a travel lane, and encourage bicyclists to ride away
from parked cars, so that they are not in danger of being struck by opening doors.
The following graphics describe the proposed bicycle facility types
presented in this Plan: Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class
III Bike Routes, and Bicycle Friendly Streets.
Page 37 of 535
Executive Summary
xvi | Alta Planning + Design
Page 38 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xvii
Page 39 of 535
Executive Summary
xviii | Alta Planning + Design
The table below displays the mileage of existing and proposed
bicycle facilities in each city by facility type. There are 73.2 existing
miles of bikeways in the South Bay region. This Plan proposed an
additional 213.8 miles of bicycle facilities. Following the table are
maps presenting the existing and proposed bikeways in the seven
participating cities.
City Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage
El Segundo
Class I Bike Path 1.0 1.2
Class II Bike Lane 2.8 8.7
Class III Bike Route 2.0 5.0
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 6.4
TOTAL 5.8 21.3
Gardena
Class I Bike Path 1.1 0.2
Class II Bike Lane 1.9 10.4
Class III Bike Route 12.7 3.9
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 16.8
TOTAL 15.7 31.3
Hermosa Beach
Class I Bike Path 1.8 0.0
Class II Bike Lane 0.5 0.9
Class III Bike Route 2.8 4.7
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 3.8
TOTAL 5.1 9.4
Lawndale
Class I Bike Path 0.0 0.4
Class II Bike Lane 0.0 9.7
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.4
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 9.2
TOTAL 0.0 19.7
Page 40 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xix
City Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage
Manhattan Beach
Class I Bike Path 2.1 0.2
Class II Bike Lane 0.0 7.0
Class III Bike Route 1.1 7.1
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 16.7
TOTAL 3.2 31.0
Redondo Beach
Class I Bike Path 3.5 0.8
Class II Bike Lane 5.9 18.9
Class III Bike Route 4.7 7.5
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 10.9
TOTAL 14.1 38.1
Torrance
Class I Bike Path 0.0 0.5
Class II Bike Lane 14.3 28.0
Class III Bike Route 15.0 16.2
Bicycle Friendly Street 0.0 18.3
TOTAL 29.3 63.0
TOTAL 73.2 213.8
.
Page 41 of 535
Executive Summary
xx | Alta Planning + Design
7.0
Existing Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region
Page 42 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxi
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region
Page 43 of 535
Executive Summary xxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Page 44 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | xxiii Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo Page 45 of 535
Executive Summary
xxiv | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena
Page 46 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxv
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Page 47 of 535
Executive Summary
xxvi | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale
Page 48 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxvii
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach
Page 49 of 535
Executive Summary
xxviii | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach
Page 50 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxix
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach
Page 51 of 535
Executive Summary
xxx | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 52 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | xxxi
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Torrance
Page 53 of 535
Executive Summary xxxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank Page 54 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Page 55 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
2 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 56 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 3
1 Introduction
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is intended to guide the
development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network
and set of programs throughout the cities of El Segundo, Gardena,
Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and
Torrance for the next 20 years. This chapter introduces the seven
participating South Bay cities and the South Bay region as a whole.
It also presents the reasons for creating the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan, how the community has been involved in the planning
process, and the framework for the ensuing chapters.
1.1 Setting
The South Bay region is located in southwest Los Angeles County
and includes the cities along and inland of southern Santa Monica
Bay. This bicycle master plan focuses specifically on seven cities
within the South Bay region that have agreed to participate in this
planning effort. Together, these cities comprise approximately 45
square miles of land area and have a combined population of over
350,000. The seven participating cities vary in size, population,
socioeconomic factors, and climate, as well as in existing levels of
bicycle infrastructure and bicycle usage. Figure 1-1 displays the
South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region, and
Table 1-1 shows the population statistics for each city as compared
to the project area as a whole.
Table 1-1: Population of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Cities
Location Population Percent Project Area
Population
El Segundo 15,970 4.4%
Gardena 57,818 16.0%
Hermosa Beach 18,442 5.1%
Lawndale 31,729 8.8%
Manhattan Beach 34,039 9.5%
Redondo Beach 63,261 17.6%
Torrance 137,933 38.4%
TOTAL 359,192 100%
Source: U.S. Census 2000
Bicyclists in the South Bay.
Photo Source: Kelly Morphy/WALC Institute for
Vitality City
Page 57 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
4 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-1: South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region
Page 58 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 5
The South Bay currently faces several barriers to bicycling. This
region is an area dominated by the automobile. Many streets carry
high volumes of vehicles traveling at fast speeds (see Appendix A-
1) creating challenging road conditions for bicyclists. Roads with
fewer motorized vehicles are often residential streets that do not
connect or end in cul-de-sacs, forcing bicyclists to travel far out of
their way to reach their destinations. There is also a lack of regional
bicycle connectivity between South Bay cities illustrated by bicycle
facilities dropping at city boundaries, such as the bicycle lanes on
Sepulveda Boulevard in Torrance stopping once the street enters
Redondo Beach (see Appendix A-2).
1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad vision, as well
as strategies and actions, to improve conditions for bicycling
throughout the seven participating South Bay cities and address the
barriers to bicycling discussed above. As a means of bettering the
bicycling environment, this Plan provides direction for expanding
the existing bikeway network, connecting gaps in and between the
participating cities, and ensuring greater local and regional
connectivity. The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan recommends a
network in which bicyclists will be able to pass through the
participating cities to reach their destinations without losing
bicycle facilities at city boundaries, which will also allow residents
of adjacent cities to benefit from the bicycle system. In addition to
providing recommendations for bikeways and support facilities, the
Plan offers recommendations for education, encouragement,
enforcement, and evaluation programs.
In its recommendations, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan includes
facilities and programs that will encourage people of all ages and
levels of ability to bike more frequently. Supported by data
collected nationally since 2006, planners developed categories to
address Americans’ ‘varying attitudes’ towards bicycling, which are
shown in Figure 1-2. As illustrated, less than one percent of
Americans comprise a group of bicyclists who are ‘Strong and
Fearless’. These bicyclists typically ride anywhere on any roadway
regardless of roadway conditions, weather, or the availability of
bicycle facilities. The strong and fearless bicyclists can ride faster
than other user types, prefer direct routes, and will typically choose
roadway connections – even if shared with vehicles – over separate
bicycle facilities such as bicycle paths. This category of bicyclists
will be less affected by this Plan than the following groups.
Figure 1-2: Typical Distribution of Bicyclists
in the United States
Page 59 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
6 | Alta Planning + Design
Approximately seven percent of Americans fall under the category
of ‘Enthused & Confident’ bicyclists who are confident and
mostly comfortable riding on all types of bicycle facilities, but will
usually prefer low traffic streets or multi-use pathways when
available. These bicyclists may deviate from a more direct route in
favor of a preferred facility type. This group includes all kinds of
bicyclists including commuters, recreationalists, racers, and
utilitarian bicyclists. The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan will
provide this group of bicyclists more bicycle facility options, which
should create a more comfortable bicycling environment for them.
The remainder of the American population does not currently ride a
bicycle regularly, in large part due to perceived safety risks from
riding with traffic. This Plan will affect the following two groups
the most as it will provide for the facilities and programs that
should encourage them to ride or ride more often. Approximately
60 percent of the population can be categorized as ‘Interested but
Concerned’ and represents bicyclists who typically only ride a
bicycle on low traffic streets or bicycle paths under favorable
conditions and weather. These bicyclists may ride more regularly
with encouragement, education, experience, and the availability of
bicycle infrastructure.
Approximately 33 percent of Americans are not bicyclists. They are
referred to in the diagram as ‘No Way, No How.’ Some people in
this group may eventually consider bicycling and may progress to
one of the user types above. A significant portion of these people
will never ride a bicycle under any circumstances.
According to results from the South Bay bicycling survey
administered in December of 2010 (see Section 1.5) 53 percent of
respondents indicated that they are confident bicyclists and ride
regardless of the availability of bicycle facilities. However, it is
important to note that survey respondents were a self-selected
group and are not necessarily representative of the entire South Bay
region.
This Plan aims to shift people into higher categories, especially
those in the “Interested but concerned” category into the “Enthused
and confident” category, by improving the bicycling conditions in
the South Bay participating cities. In addition, the Plan targets
improvements for recreational and sport bicyclists as there is a
large and growing group of them in the South Bay.
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan should increase the numbers of
new bicyclists and bicycle trips in the region by providing a safer
Replacing vehicular trips with bicycle trips reduces
human-generated greenhouse gases that are
associated with climate change.
Page 60 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 7
bicycling environment. The availability of bicycle infrastructure has
been found to reduce bicycle collision rates and the frequency of
injury collisions. In a 2009 study published in Environmental Health,
Reynolds et al investigated transportation infrastructure that
reduced injuries and crashes of bicyclists. The study found that on-
street bicycle facilities that separated vehicles and bicyclists,
mainly bicycle lanes, reduced the number of collisions between
bicyclists and motorists. Pavement markings, such as intersection
crossing markings, and marked bicycle routes also minimized
crashes as they alerted motorists to the presence of bicyclists.
Certain roadway characteristics, including wide streets and lack of
lighting, increased the severity of injury collisions.1
The City of New York recently added a significant amount of new
bicycle infrastructure and has seen a steady increase in ridership, as
well. Along with more bicycle facilities and bicyclists, annual
casualties from bicycle collisions have also decreased. Appendix B
presents the City’s detailed data.
1.3 Bicycle Facility Types
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan recommends four broad
categories of bicycle facilities. The first three, Class I, II, and III, are
defined by the State of California in the California Streets and
Highways Code Section 890.4. The fourth category, bicycle-friendly
streets, has emerged recently as a distinct facility type. Although
bicycle-friendly streets are not yet codified by the State of
California, they have been implemented with success in cities such
as Berkeley, CA and Long Beach, CA. Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4
illustrate recommended cross-sections for the four types of bicycle
facilities, which are discussed in the following sections. Minimum
standards are presented in Appendix C.
1 Reynolds, C., Harris, M.A., Teschke, K., Cripton, P.A., Winters, M. (2009).
The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a
review of the literature. Environmental Health 8, 47.
The City of New York recently added a significant amount
of bicycle infrastructure and has seen a steady increase in
ridership, as well.
Page 61 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
8 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-3: Bicycle Path and Bicycle Lane Recommended Standards
Page 62 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 9
Figure 1-4: Bicycle Route and Bicycle Friendly Streets Recommended
Standards
Page 63 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
10 | Alta Planning + Design
1.3.1 Class I Bike Paths
Class I Bike Paths are paved right-of-way for exclusive use by
bicyclists, pedestrians, and those using non-motorized modes of
transportation. Class I facilities can be constructed in roadway
right-of-way or can have exclusive right-of-way off-street, such as
in utility corridors. Bike Paths are beneficial to a bicycle network
because they provide an alternative for bicyclists that do not feel
comfortable riding with automobile traffic. When shared with
pedestrians or other non-motorized modes, Class I bike paths are
generally slower moving than other facility types. While they can
be used by commuters to safely get to and from work, they are
generally most popular with recreational cyclists, as illustrated by
The Strand in the beach cities.
1.3.2 Class II Bike Lanes
Class II Bike Lanes are striped and signed on-street travel lanes
exclusively for bicycles. Bike lanes provide physical separation from
automobile traffic and appeal to bicyclists with moderate to high
levels of experience. Because they often provide the most direct
connections, these facilities tend to be most popular with
experienced bicycle commuters.
1.3.3 Class III Bike Routes
Class III Bike Routes share the right-of-way between vehicles and
bicyclists with signage and optional shared lane markings to
indicate that the road is a shared use facility. Class III facilities are
typically recommended for:
Streets with relatively low traffic speeds (25 mph or less)
and lower volumes (<3,000 ADT) such that less
experienced bicyclists will feel comfortable bicycling with
mixed traffic
Streets with traffic speeds in excess of 25 mph and volumes
greater than 3,000 ADT that normally warrant bike lanes
but because of curb-to-curb or other ROW constraints,
bicyclists must share traffic lanes with motorists; careful
consideration must be given to designating these streets as
shared roadways to ensure that roadway conditions are
safe for bicyclists
Class I Bike Paths are paved rights-of-way for exclusive use
by bicyclists, pedestrians, and those using non-motorized
modes of transportation.
Page 64 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 11
1.3.4 Bike Friendly Streets
Bike friendly streets are local roads that have been enhanced with
treatments that prioritize children, pedestrians, neighborhood
traffic, and bicycles, and discourage cut-through traffic. Bike
friendly streets include a wide range of treatment options, and thus
the cost of implementation varies dramatically, as well. The list
below includes example treatments of bike friendly streets:
Wayfinding signage
Pavement markings
Traffic calming (bulb-outs, traffic diverters, chicanes,
speed humps)
High visibility pedestrian crosswalks
Bicycle detectors at intersections
Bicycle crossing signals
1.4 Benefits of Bicycling
Planning to create a more bicycle friendly region contributes to
resolving several complex and interrelated issues, including traffic
congestion, air quality, climate change, public health, and livability.
By guiding the seven participating cities toward bicycle friendly
development, this plan can affect all of these issue areas, which
collectively can have a profound influence on the existing and
future quality of life in the South Bay.
1.4.1 Environmental/Climate Change Benefits
Replacing vehicular trips with bicycle trips has a measurable
impact on reducing human-generated greenhouse gases (GHGs) in
the atmosphere that contribute to climate change.2 Fewer vehicle
trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) translates into reduced fuel
consumption and subsequently fewer mobile source pollutants,
such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons, being
released into the air. Providing transportation options that reduce
VMT is an important component of decreasing greenhouse gas
emissions and improving air quality.
1.4.2 Public Health Benefits
Public health professionals have become increasingly aware that
the impacts of automobiles on public health extend far beyond
2 Gotschi, Thomas (2011). Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in
Portland, Oregon. Journal of Physical Activity and Health (8), S49-S58.
Bike friendky streets are local roads that have been
enhanced with treatments that prioritize children,
pedestrians, neighborhood traffic, and bicycles, and
discourage cut-through traffic.
Page 65 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
12 | Alta Planning + Design
asthma and other respiratory conditions caused by air pollution.
There is a much deeper understanding of the connection between
the lack of physical activity resulting from auto-oriented
community designs and various health-related problems. Although
diet and genetic predisposition contribute to these conditions,
physical inactivity is now widely understood to play a significant
role in the most common chronic diseases in the United States,
including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, and approximately
280,000 adults in the US die prematurely due to obesity-related
illnesses every year.3 A study published in the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine in 2004 by Frank et al reported that for each extra
60 minutes spent in a car there was a six percent increase in the
chance of being obese4. A survey conducted by Vitality City
administered from September 30, 2010 to November 27, 2010
reported that 60 percent of respondents from Hermosa Beach,
Redondo Beach, and Manhattan Beach considered themselves
overweight or obese; 25 percent have had high cholesterol; and 23
percent have had high blood pressure.5 In Los Angeles County as a
whole, more than 20 percent of children in 5th, 7th and 9th grades
are obese; 58 percent of adults are overweight or obese; and obesity
rates continue to rise among adults, school-age children and kids as
young as three to four years of age.6 46 percent of the Beach Cities
respondents of the Vitality City survey also reported feeling
stressed for a significant portion of the day.
Creating bicycle-friendly communities is one of several effective
ways to encourage active lifestyles, ideally resulting in a higher
proportion of residents of the South Bay achieving increased
activity levels and lower stress levels. Increased physical activity
also has the potential to lower medical expenditures associated
with obesity-related illnesses for South Bay residents. In a 2011
study published in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Thomas
Gotschi assessed the reduction in medical costs that Portland will
3 Allison D.B., Fontaine K.R., Manson J.E., Stevens J., VanIttallie T.B. Annual deaths
attributable to obesity in the United States. JAMA 1999(282), 1530-1538.
4 Frank L.D., Andresen M.A., Schmid T.L. (2004). Obesity relationships with
community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 4(11), 11-13.
5http://hermosabeach.patch.com/articles/vitality-city-survey-residents-
healthy-but-stressed
6 RENEW-LAC http://www.choosehealthla.com/eat-healthy/
In Los Angeles County as a whole, more than 20 percent
of children in 5th, 7th, and 9th grades are obese. Creating
bicycle-friendly environments is one of several effective
ways to encourage active lifestyles.
Page 66 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 13
experience from its investments in bicycling. He estimated that a
half hour of bicycling everyday will reduce medical costs by $544
per person per year.7
1.4.3 Economic Benefits
Bicycling is economically advantageous to individuals and
communities. Replacing driving with bicycling reduces a person’s
expenses on vehicle maintenance, fuel costs, and insurance fees.
These savings are accompanied by potential reductions in health
care costs by participating in regular exercise and minimizing
health complications associated with an inactive lifestyle. On a
community scale, bicycle infrastructure projects are generally far
less expensive than automobile-related infrastructure. Further,
shifting a greater share of daily trips to bike trips reduces the
impact on the region’s transportation system, thus reducing the
need for improvements and expansion projects. Bicycle-friendly
neighborhoods have also been found to increase property values.
Transit Oriented Developments (TODs), for example, are designed
to encourage walking, bicycling, and use of public transit so that
residents of these developments can be less dependent on motor
vehicles. In a 2011 study published in Urban Studies, Michael Duncan
reported that people were willing to pay more for condominiums in
San Diego, CA located closer to transit stations,8 while homes
within a half mile of bikeway trail improvements experienced a
$13,000 increase in property values.9 Increased bicycling also has
the potential to increase sales at local businesses. Bicyclists might
have more disposable income from fewer vehicle-related
expenditures and as seen in Toronto’s Bloor Street, cyclists visit
their local shops and spend more than their motorist
counterparts.10
7 Gotschi, Thomas (2011). Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in
Portland, Oregon. Journal of Physical Activity and Health (8), S49-S58.
8 Duncan, M. (2011). The impact of transit-oriented development on housing
prices in San Diego, CA. Urban Studies 48, 101.
9 Lindsey G, Man J, Payton S, et al. “Property Values, Recreation Values,
and Urban Greenways.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
22(3): 69–90, 2004.
10 Sztabinski, F. (2009). Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business. Clean Air
Partnership 18-20.
A 2004 study found that homes within a half mile of
bikeway trail improvements experienced a $13,000 increase
in property values.
Page 67 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
14 | Alta Planning + Design
1.4.4 Community/Quality of Life Benefits
Fostering conditions where bicycling is accepted and encouraged
increases a city’s livability from a number of different perspectives
that are often difficult to measure, but nevertheless important. The
design, land use patterns, and transportation systems that comprise
the built environment have a profound impact on quality of life
issues. Studies have found that people living in communities with
built environments that promote bicycling and walking tend to be
more socially active, civically engaged, and are more likely to know
their neighbors11; whereas urban sprawl has been correlated with
social and mental health problems, including stress.12 The aesthetic
quality of a community improves when visual and noise pollution
caused by automobiles is reduced and when green space is reserved
for facilities that enable people of all ages to recreate and commute
in pleasant settings.
1.4.5 Safety Benefits
Conflicts between bicyclists and motorists result from poor riding
and/or driving behavior, as well as insufficient or ineffective facility
design. Encouraging development and redevelopment in which
bicycle travel is fostered improves the overall safety of the roadway
environment for all users. Well-designed bicycle facilities improve
security for current bicyclists and also encourage more people to
bike. This in turn can further improve bicycling safety. Studies have
shown that the frequency of bicycle collisions has an inverse
relationship to bicycling rates – more people on bicycles equates to
fewer crashes.13 Providing information and educational
opportunities about safe and lawful interactions between bicyclists
and other roadway users also improves safety.
1.5 Public Participation
Community outreach is a critical part of the planning process as it
helps to identify the needs of bicyclists in the study area. The public
participated in the creation of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
through an online survey and two community workshops.
11 Leyden, K. 2003. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance
of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 93: 1546-51.
12 Frumkin, H. 2002. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports 117: 201-17.
13 Jacobsen, P. Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking
and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, 9: 205-209. 2003.
The seven participating cities each held two public
workshops to collect public input on the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan.
Page 68 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 15
To reach a broad cross-section of the public, the South Bay Bicycle
Coalition, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, and the
participating cities employed a variety of media and tactics,
including:
Radio advertisements
Advertisements in newspapers, both print and online
Advertisements in fitness magazines
Flyers posted throughout the participating cities, at
schools, bike shops, and community centers
Advertisements on the city cable stations
An advertisement on the I-405 digital marquee
Facebook
Emails
In-person presentations to a variety of community groups
and volunteer organizations
Press releases
Door-to-door flyering
Presentations at various commission meetings
Website postings on each City’s homepage and events
calendar
Communications with Vitality City, an initiative of the
Beach Cities Health District
1.5.1 Bicycling Survey
With input from seven participating cities, Alta Planning + Design,
the South Bay Bicycle Coalition and Los Angeles County Bicycle
Coalition staff developed an online survey to determine the
participating South Bay cities’ general needs and concerns
surrounding bicycling. The survey was available online from
December 15, 2010 to February 8, 2011. It was distributed to the
staff liaisons in each of the participating cities and emailed to all
members of the South Bay Bicycle Coalition. As an incentive to
complete the survey, respondents were entered to win a $100 gift
certificate to Hermosa Cyclery in Hermosa Beach. A total of 277
people completed the survey. The data collected from respondents
describe the bicycling needs, preferences, and behaviors of the
South Bay community. Feedback pertaining to desired bicycle and
bicycle support facilities is discussed in each City’s chapter and a
detailed summary of the survey results is presented in Appendix D.
LACBC, SBBC, and the participating cities used a variety
of media and tactics to reach a broad cross-section of
the public.
Page 69 of 535
Chapter One | Introduction
16 | Alta Planning + Design
1.5.2 Public Workshops
The seven participating cities each held two public workshops
throughout the planning process for the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan. The first round of workshops were conducted as “open house”
style at which attendees had the opportunity to view maps
displaying the existing bicycling conditions in the region and
provide feedback on what they would like to see implemented in
the future. The first round of workshops were very well attended
and had a considerable impact on the selection of corridors for
improvements and on the content of the proposed programs.
The second round of public workshops took place in June through
July of 2011. These workshops were also very well attended and
workshop attendees provided input on a draft of the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan as well as draft maps of proposed
improvements.
1.6 Plan Organization
For the most part, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is organized
by participating city. This makes it easier for local stakeholders –
such as city staff, decision makers, and residents – to find the
material that is relevant to them. There are a few region-wide topics
that are not organized by city, such as the goals, objectives, and
policy actions framework established in Chapter 2.
The plan is broken into the following chapters:
Chapter 2: Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
summarizes existing regional plans and policies that relate
to the bicycle planning efforts in the South Bay, as well as
region-wide goals, objectives, and policy actions for the
seven participating cities
Chapter 3: El Segundo presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan,
as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the
City of El Segundo
Chapter 4: Gardena presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan,
as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the
City of Gardena
Chapter 5: Hermosa Beach presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan,
as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the
City of Hermosa Beach
The first and second round of public workshops for the
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan were well attended.
Page 70 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 17
Chapter 6: Lawndale presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan,
as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the
City of Lawndale
Chapter 7: Manhattan Beach presents the existing
bicycling conditions that influenced recommendations in
this Plan, as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities
in the City of Manhattan Beach
Chapter 8: Redondo Beach presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan,
as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the
City of Redondo Beach
Chapter 9: Torrance presents the existing bicycling
conditions that influenced recommendations in this Plan,
as well as proposed policies and bicycle facilities in the
City of Torrance
Chapter 10: Recommended Programs discusses proposed
education, encouragement, and enforcement programs, as
well as public awareness campaigns to increase bicycling
in the participating cities; it also presents methods for
monitoring and evaluating the success of the Plan
Chapter 11: Wayfinding and Signage Plan presents the
region-wide signage plan to make South Bay bikeways and
key destinations easier to navigate to by bicycle
Chapter 12: Funding discusses potential funding sources
to help the participating cities to implement their
proposed bicycle networks
Chapter 11: Wayfinding and Signage Plan presentsthe
region-wide signage plan to make South Bay bikeways and
key destinations easier to navigate to by bicycle.
Page 71 of 535
18 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 72 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 19
Chapter 2
Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
Page 73 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
20 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 74 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 21
2 Goals, Objectives, and Policy
Actions
The vision of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is to create a
bicycle-oriented South Bay region in which bicycling is a safe,
convenient, attractive, and viable transportation option for all levels
of bicycling abilities. This chapter outlines the goals, objectives, and
policies that support this vision and will serve as guidelines in the
development of a bicycle-friendly South Bay. These policies provide
the framework and accountability for plan implementation. This
chapter also includes the goals, objectives, and policy actions’
relationship with regional existing plans and policies as mandated
by State law. The relationship to existing City-specific plans and
policies is located in each City’s chapter.
2.1 South Bay Goals, Objectives, and
Policies
In order to ensure a thorough and successful planning process, it is
important to establish a set of goals, objectives, and policies that
will serve as the basis for the recommendations in this Plan. The
goals, objectives, and policies in this Plan are derived from
information gathered over the course of the planning process,
including community input from public workshops, as well as a
review of bicycle master plans from other cities.
Goals are broad statements that express general public
priorities. Goals are formulated based on the identification
of key issues, opportunities, and problems that affect the
bikeway system and were formed by public input.
Objectives are more specific than goals and are usually
attainable through strategic planning and implementation
activities. Implementation of an objective contributes to
the fulfillment of a goal.
Policies are rules and courses of action used to ensure plan
implementation. Policies often accomplish a number of
objectives. Policies are generally carried out by the City. In
the case that a particular group or individual is identified,
the City will ensure those groups or individuals are in
place to carry forward their responsibility or will find other
means to implement the relevant policies.
The vision of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is to create
a bicycle-oriented South Bay region in which bicycling is a
safe, convenient, attractive, and viable transportation
option for all levels of bicycling abilities.
Page 75 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
22 | Alta Planning + Design
The following tables outline the goals, objectives, and policies of
the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. Each policy has an
implementation time frame assigned to it ranging from immediate
(2012), to the first 0-5 years (2012-2017), 5-10 years (2017-2022), or
ongoing throughout the length of the 20-year plan starting in 2012
(2012-2032).
Page 76 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 23
Goal 1.0: Create a Bicycle-Friendly South Bay
Create a bicycle-friendly environment throughout the South Bay region for all types of bicycle riders and all trip
purposes in accordance with the 6 Es (Equity, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, Evaluation) as a
means of improving regional health, increased road safety, reduced carbon emissions and an overall increase in bike
ridership.
Objective 1.1
Connectivity through an Expanded Bikeway Network
Expand the existing bicycle network to provide a comprehensive, regional network of Class I, Class
II, and Class III facilities that increases connectivity between homes, jobs, public transit, schools and
recreational resources for a variety of road users in the South Bay.
Policy
Actions
1.1.1 Develop a 20-year implementation strategy for the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan that will
begin to implement the policies and facilities herein.
Schedule: 2012
1.1.2 Develop an extensive bikeway network through the use of standard and appropriate
innovative treatments as provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or the
National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide and other
such guidelines and standards, with available funding.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.1.3 Establish Bicycle Friendly Streets to encourage bicycling on streets with low traffic volumes
(existing ADT under 7,000 and 3,000 ADT after implementation) and slow speeds (25 mph or
under). Appropriate streets will be determined by staff review.
Schedule: 2012 - 2032
1.1.4 Review and encourage implementation of policies and facilities proposed in the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan whenever planning new bicycle facilities or Capital Improvement
Projects that may be related to bicycle improvements.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.1.5 Incorporate the proposed policies, facilities and programs from the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan in whole or by reference into the City’s Circulation Element upon future General Plan
updates.
Schedule: 0 – 5 years
1.1.6 Coordinate with adjoining jurisdictions on bicycle planning and implementation activities on
east-west corridors to link inland cities to coastal resources and on north-south corridors to
link the region to neighboring communities.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 1.2 Consistent Design and Engineering for Bicycles
Promote safe and equitable bicycle access on all roadways by integrating bicycle travel
considerations into all roadway planning, design, construction and maintenance, as well as
incorporation of Complete Street standards into all Capital improvements, in accordance with AB
1358.
Page 77 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
24 | Alta Planning + Design
Policy
Actions
1.2.1 Evaluate and encourage reallocation of roadway rights-of-way where appropriate to
accommodate bicycling and bicycle facilities.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.2 Consider adopting Complete Streets policies that are incorporated into all Capital
Improvements and generally align with the policy elements defined by the National
Complete Streets Coalition (see Appendix N for policy language from the Complete Streets
Act of 2008 and complete streets policies from the National Complete Streets Coalition ).
Schedule:
1.2.3 Prioritize opportunities that improve walkability and bikeability by utilizing Complete Streets
standards for all Capital Improvement Projects.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.4 Consider removal of on-street parking to accommodate striped bike lanes, to the extent
feasible.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.5 Ensure that existing on-street bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, and off-street bicycle paths are
appropriately signed, marked, and/or traffic-calmed.
Schedule: 0-5 years
1.2.6 Promote consistent signage that directs bicyclists to neighborhood destinations and
increases the visibility of the regional bicycle network and is consistent with the signage plan
herein.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.7 Provide amenities and enhancements, such as traffic calming treatments, streetscape
improvements, bicycle parking and wayfinding signage along City bikeways that increase
their utility and convenience for all bicyclists.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.8 Explore the use of the “sharrow” markings on all existing and proposed Class III facilities, as
feasible and in accordance with the most current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.
Schedule: 0-5 years
1.2.9 Coordinate bicycle facility improvements or upgrades with the City’s resurfacing schedule.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.10 Explore opportunities to include bicycle detection as part of all traffic signal improvements
in conformance with the current edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, to the extent feasible.
Page 78 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 25
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.11 Considering adopting an updated streets and highways manual that includes
comprehensive Complete Streets standards.
Schedule: 0-5 years
1.2.12 Begin to utilize new signage, markings and facility designs as new and innovative
treatments become adopted standards at the State and Federal levels.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.2.13 Consider instituting a pilot program that will test new facility types aimed at improving
bicycle safety and convenience before they are adopted standards.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 1.3 Increased Mobility through Bicycle-Transit Integration
Further improve access to major employment and activity centers and encourage multi-modal
travel for longer trip distance by supporting bicycle-transit integration.
Policy
Actions
1.3.1 Support the development of bicycle facilities that provide access to regional and local public
transit services.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.3.2 Coordinate with transit providers to ensure bicycles can be accommodated on all forms of
transit vehicles in the immediate future and that adequate space is devoted to their storage
on board whenever possible.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.3.3 Coordinate with transit agencies to install and maintain convenient and secure short-term
and long-term bike parking facilities – racks, on-demand bike lockers, in-station bike storage,
and staffed or automated bicycle parking facilities – at transit stops, stations, and terminals.
Schedule: 5-10 years
1.3.4 Provide current and relevant information to bicyclists regarding bike parking opportunities
and bicycle access located at transit stations through a variety of formats, such as on City
websites and regional bike maps.
Schedule: 0-5 years
Objective 1.4 Provide Convenient and Consistent Bicycle Parking Facilities
Encourage the use of bicycles for everyday transportation by ensuring the provision of convenient
and secure bicycle parking and support facilities region-wide and promote facilities to the public.
Policy
Actions
1.4.1 Establish bicycle parking standards for City-owned bicycle parking facilities that address the
location, design and capacity that should be provided by all City bicycle parking facilities.
Schedule: 0-5 years
1.4.2 Install and support high-quality, bicycle parking within the public right-of-way and on public
property, especially in high demand locations, such as near commercial centers,
Page 79 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
26 | Alta Planning + Design
employment centers, schools, colleges and parks.
Schedule: 5-10 years
1.4.3 Consider providing bicycle parking (sheltered where feasible and appropriate) at all new and
existing City-owned facilities, public parking lots and recreational facilities that will support
an appropriate ratio of the estimated employees and daily visitors of that location.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.4.4 Consider adopting bicycle parking ordinances or modifying existing sections of the municipal
code to require bicycle-parking in new large commercial or multi-family developments.
Cities with existing bike parking ordinances or Municipal Code sections exempted.
Schedule: 0-5 years
1.4.5 To the extent feasible, consider conditions of approval or appropriate incentives for new
commercial developments and employment to provide showers and clothing lockers along
with secure bike parking in areas where employment density warrants.
Schedule: 2012-2032
1.4.6 Consider amending the Municipal Code to decrease the number of required automobile
parking spaces in commercial buildings where bicycle parking is provided, as feasible and
appropriate.
Schedule: 0-5 years
1.4.7 Require secure bike parking at large or heavily attended events or destinations, by providing
permanent bicycle parking facilities at event locations or requiring use of temporary portable
facilities, such as bike valets.
Schedule: 0-5 years
1.4.8 Work with Metro, local transit agencies and adjacent property owners to provide bicycle
parking in proximity to bus stops and other transit facilities.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Page 80 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 27
Goal 2.0: Create a Safer Bicycling Environment in the South Bay
Create a safe bicycling environment in the South Bay through comprehensive education of all road users,
enforcement efforts focused on cycling safety and reduced cycling conflicts, and consistent maintenance of a variety
of bikeways.
Objective 2.1 Increase Bicycle Education and Awareness for All Road Users
Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of the general public and City
employees.
Policy
Actions
2.1.1 Partner with local bike advocacy groups, bicycle related businesses, or other such
organizations to provide bicycle-safety curricula to the general public and targeted
populations, including diverse age, income, and ethnic groups.
Schedule: 0-5 years
2.1.2 Provide multi-lingual bicycle safety information in languages that are widely used throughout
the South Bay region.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.1.3 Work with local bike advocacy groups and schools to develop and provide bicycle-safety
curricula for use in elementary, middle, and high schools.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.1.4 Support continuous bicycle education to City staff that are involved in the design or other
such decisions that affect roadways; such as traffic engineers, planners, public works
engineers, and parks and recreation staff.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.1.5 Support programs and public service announcements that educate motorists, bicyclists, and
the general public about bicycle operation, bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities, and safe
road-sharing behavior via city’s website, local newspapers, and other such publications.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.1.6 Provide increased bicycle safety education to law enforcement that focuses on safe cycling,
relevant traffic laws, and safe sharing of the roadway.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 2.2 Enforcement for Improved Cycling Safety
Increase enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths and roadways.
Policy
Actions
2.2.1 As appropriate and feasible, increase enforcement of unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors
and laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and conflicts, and bike lane obstruction.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Page 81 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
28 | Alta Planning + Design
2.2.2 Explore opportunities to increase motorist awareness of possibility of the presence of
bicyclists, specifically at locations with a high incidence of bicycle collisions.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.2.3 To the extent feasible, consider utilizing bicycle-mounted patrol officers to promote bicycling
awareness, prominence and law enforcement accessibility.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.2.4 Develop or promote existing mechanisms for reporting behaviors that endanger cyclists.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 2.3 Maintenance for Safe and Consistent Bikeability
Maintain bikeways that are clear of debris and provide safe riding conditions.
Policy
Actions
2.3.1 Coordinate with Public Works Department regarding existing routine maintenance schedules
for bikeway sweeping, litter removal, landscaping, re-striping, signage, and signal actuation
devices to provide increased priority to bike facilities.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.3.2 Prioritize roadways with existing or proposed bike facilities in the City’s street resurfacing
plan, as necessary or appropriate.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.3.3 Plan for bicyclist safety during construction and maintenance activities, including prominent
signage and public announcements regarding construction and improvements that may
affect bicycle travel.
Schedule: 2012-2032
2.3.4 Establish a maintenance reporting program to receive and respond to issues that impact
bicyclist safety, such as potholes and street sweeping.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Page 82 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 29
Goal 3.0: Ensure an Enduring Bicycling Culture
Develop infrastructure and a City-wide culture that respects and accommodates all users of the road, leading to a
more balanced transportation system and measurable increases in bike ridership.
Objective 3.1 Partner with Local Bike Advocacy Groups
Foster community support for bicycling by raising public awareness about bicycling and
supporting programs that encourage more people to bicycle.
Policy
Actions
3.1.1 Partner with local bike advocacy groups to publicize updated bike maps, safety tips, bike
events, classes and commuting advice.
Schedule: 0-5 years
3.1.2 Provide information to local bike groups, such as the South Bay Bicycle Coalition, to assist in
promoting bicycling at public events, such as Bike to Work Day/Month and various City
events.
Schedule: 0-5 years
3.1.3 Upon meeting eligibility requirements, apply for designation of “Bicycle Friendly Community”
through the League of American Bicyclists.
Schedule: 0-5 years
3.1.4 Pending funding availability, expand bicycle promotion and incentive programs for City
employees to serve as a model program for other South Bay employers.
Schedule: 0-5 years
Objective 3.2 Continuous Evaluation of Implementation and Performance
Establish accountability mechanisms that will ensure the plan’s success through continuous
monitoring of the implementation progress of Bicycle Master Plan policies, programs, and projects.
Policy
Actions
3.2.1 Designate a Mobility Coordinator within the City or assist the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments (SBCCOG) in establishing a regional position to coordinate and oversee
implementation of bike facilities, programs, grant applications and data collection, and
provide regular updates to SBCCOG’s Livable Communities Working Group and City Councils
regarding plan implementation and progress.
Schedule: 2012
3.2.2 Mobility Coordinator or designated city staff will track city and/or region-wide benefits of plan
implementation and trends in bicycle commuting through the use of Census data, travel
surveys, and volunteer-led bicycle counts.
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.2.3 Mobility Coordinator or designated city staff will also regularly monitor bicycle safety and
seek a continuous reduction in bicycle-related collisions on a per capita basis over the next
twenty years.
Page 83 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
30 | Alta Planning + Design
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.2.4 Mobility Coordinator or designated City staff will ensure that Bicycle Master Plan programs
and projects are implemented in an equitable manner, both geographically and
socioeconomically.
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.2.5 Designate a council liaison to serve on a regional Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
comprised of community members and council members from each City that will meet
regularly and will monitor the progress of bikeway implementation for each City.
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.2.6 To ensure continued eligibility for additional funding, update the City’s section of the South
Bay Bicycle Master Plan every five (5) years.
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.2.7 Amend the Municipal Code to require a public hearing with the appropriate Traffic, Public
Works, Planning, or other such Commission for the removal of any existing bikeway. Cities
with such existing policy are exempted.
Schedule: 0-5 years
3.2.8 Coordinate with SBCCOG to integrate the electric local use vehicle program with proposed
bike facilities and programs, as appropriate and as government code and guidelines allow.
Schedule: 2012-2032
Objective 3.3 Consistently Apply for Available Funding Sources
Ensure implementation of bikeways in the South Bay is prompt and continuous by consistently
applying to the numerous local, state and federal funding sources available for which the City is
eligible.
Policy
Actions
3.3.1 To the extent feasible, consistently pursue diverse sources of funding and support efforts to
maintain or increase federal, state and local funding for the implementation of the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan programs and infrastructures. Funding sources that may be applied for
annually or bi-annually as well as apportioned funds that may be partially dedicated to
bicycle projects, include the following:
A. Metro Call for Projects (bi-annual)
B. State Safe Routes to School Funding (annual)
C. Office of Traffic Safety Grants (annual)
D. Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (annual)
E. Federal Safe Routes to School Funding (annual)
F. Prop A Funds (annual)
G. Coastal Conservancy Funds (annual)
H. Federal Lanes Highway Funds (annual)
Page 84 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 31
I. Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account (annual)
J. Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning Grant (annual)
K. Prop C Transportation Demand Management Funds (annual)
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.3.2 Reference the prioritized project list provided in this plan when determining how to prioritize
funding applications and City budget allocations for bikeways and support facilities.
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.3.3 Mobility Coordinator or designated City staff should coordinate bicycle improvement funding
applications among all involved cities to increase probability of receiving grant funding.
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.3.4 Mobility Coordinator or designated City staff will develop a regular report to City Council that
will include a summary of funds applied for, funding applications due in the short term, and
an overview of implementation progress.
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.3.5 Consider a bicycle improvements line item in the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Schedule: 2012-2032
3.3.6 Consider allocating a proportional percentage of the City’s local return Measure R funds
specifically to active transportation infrastructure, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Schedule: 0-5 years
Page 85 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
32 | Alta Planning + Design
2.2 Relevant Regional Existing Plans
and Policies
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is an opportunity to coordinate
with neighboring communities’ efforts to plan and build bicycle
infrastructure. A number of different jurisdictions border the
project area, including the City of Los Angeles, unincorporated
areas of the County of Los Angeles, and other incorporated cities.
This section discusses the relationship between the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan and existing plans in neighboring communities.
2.2.1 Local and Regional Plans
There are six incorporated cities that lie adjacent to at least one
participating city in the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. These cities
include:
City of Hawthorne
City of Inglewood
City of Lomita
City of Los Angeles
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Rolling Hills Estates
The City of Los Angeles is the only adjacent community with a
Bicycle Master Plan, which is discussed in the following section.
2.2.1.1 City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan (2010)
The City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan proposes 1,680 miles of bicycle
facilities to promote bicycling as a viable transportation alternative.
Of the proposed facilities, there are several that link to the
participating cities of El Segundo, Gardena, and Torrance. The City
of Los Angeles’ proposed bikeways adjacent to the participating
South Bay cities are shown in Figure 2-1.
2.2.1.2 Metro Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan
As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Los Angeles
County, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) is the primary local funding source for
transportation projects, including bicycle and pedestrian projects.
The Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan (BTSP) developed by
Metro provides an inventory of existing and planned facilities
within Los Angeles County. This inventory assisted in identifying
routes that may eventually provide trans-jurisdictional continuity
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan is an opportunity
to coordinate with neighboring communities’ efforts
to plan and build bicycle infrastructure.
Page 86 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 33
Figure 2-1: City of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Page 87 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
34 | Alta Planning + Design
for bicyclists. Secondly, the BTSP outlines a strategy for prioritizing
regional bikeway projects. The BTSP outlines a regional strategy to
fund projects that improve bicycle access to transit or close gaps in
the regional bikeway network. Upon adoption of the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan, the participating cities will have the
opportunity to apply for funding through Metro to implement their
proposed bikeways.
2.2.1.3 County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan (BMP)
The County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan guides the
development and maintenance of a comprehensive bicycle network
and programs within the unincorporated communities of the
County of Los Angeles. The implementation of the Los Angeles
County BMP will start in 2012 after California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review has been completed. Several proposed
bikeways in the County provide potential connection opportunities
to the participating South Bay cities of El Segundo, Lawndale,
Gardena, and Torrance. These bikeways are shown in the yellow
sections in Figure 2-2. The participating cities in the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan are outlined in black.
Appendix A-2 shows the existing bikeways in the County of Los
Angeles that provide potential connection opportunities to the
participating cities. The Marvin Braude Bikeway is a prominent
facility that is maintained by the County of Los Angeles and runs
through five of the participating cities: El Segundo, Manhattan
Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. It extends
for 21 miles parallel to the Pacific coastline, passing through the
City of Santa Monica into the City of Los Angeles at its
northernmost portion. Many bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages
use the path, both for utilitarian and recreational purposes. As a
consequence of its popularity, the path is often congested. Some
areas have adopted measures to prevent conflicts between users; for
example, when the path is crowded with pedestrians in Hermosa
Beach, flashing lights and signs direct bicyclists to dismount and
walk their bikes.
The Marvin Braude Bikeway is a prominent facility that is
maintained by the County of Los Angeles and runs
through five of the participating cities: El Segundo,
Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and
Torrance.
Page 88 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 35
Figure 2-2: County of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan Area
Page 89 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
36 | Alta Planning + Design
2.2.1.4 Southern California Association of Governments
Regional Transportation Plan (2008)
This plan presents the transportation objectives through the year
2035 for the areas under the jurisdiction of the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), which includes the South
Bay. The RTP aims to integrate bicycling and other non-motorized
transportation with transit to extend the commuting range of
bicyclists in Southern California, where the average commute
length is approximately 19.2 miles.
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are addressed as they relate
to larger street maintenance and construction projects, and are
recommended in general plan updates. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint
Program serves as a resource for local municipalities looking to
enhance non-motorized transportation infrastructure under the
principles of mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability.
The RTP allocates over $1.8 billion for non-motorized
transportation. Specific objectives regarding the future of bicycle
transportation in the region and that apply to the South Bay Bicycle
Plan include:
Decrease bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries in
the state to 25% below 2000 levels
Increase accommodation and planning for bicyclists and
pedestrians: The needs of non-motorized travel (including
pedestrian, bicyclists and persons with disabilities) need
to be fully considered for all transportation planning
projects
Increase bicycle and pedestrian use in the SCAG Region as
an alternative to utilitarian vehicle trips: Create and
maintain an atmosphere conducive to non-motorized
transportation, including well-maintained bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, easy access to transit facilities, and
increasing safety and security. While pedestrian sidewalks
are fairly well established in most areas, it is estimated that
there are only 3,218 miles of dedicated bicycle facilities in
the region, with an additional 3,170 miles planned
Increase non-motorized transportation data: To make non-
motorized modes an integral part of the region’s
intermodal transportation planning process and system,
reliable data for planning are needed. Non-motorized
transportation data needs include, but are not limited to,
comprehensive user statistics; user demographics; bicycle
The SCAG RTP aims to integrate bicycling and other non-
motorized transportation with transit to extend the
commuting range of bicyclists in Southern California.
Page 90 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 37
travel patterns/corridors; accident mapping; bikeway
system characteristics; and sub-regional improvement
projects and funding needs
Bicyclists and pedestrians should always be included in
general plan updates. SCAG also encourages the
development of local Non-Motorized Plans. Also, Non-
Motorized Plans that have been created or updated within
the previous five years are eligible for bicycle
transportation account (BTA) funds. SCAG can assist in
the development of these plans through the Compass
Blueprint Program
Develop a Regional Non-Motorized Plan: SCAG will work
with all counties and their cities to coordinate and
integrate all Non-Motorized Plans from counties and
jurisdictions in the SCAG Region in a collaborative
process, including interested stakeholders
2.2.2 State of California
The State of California has recently passed several policies that
affect bicycle planning in the South Bay, which are discussed in the
following section.
2.2.2.1 AB 1358 - Complete Streets Act of 2008
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the Complete
Streets Act of 2008, amended the California Government Code
§65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s
Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of
all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians.
Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and
curb extensions. The Government Code §65302 reads:
(2)(A)Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive
revision of the circulation element, the legislative body
shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs
of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and
convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural,
suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads,
and highways" means bicyclists, children, persons with
disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods,
pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.
The Complete Streets Act of 2008 amended the California
Government Code to require that all major revisions to a
city or county’s Circulation Element include provisions for
the accommodation of all roadway users including
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Page 91 of 535
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
38 | Alta Planning + Design
2.2.2.2 Deputy Directive 64
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted
two policies in recent years relevant to bicycle planning initiatives
such as this Bicycle Master Plan, namely, Deputy Directive 64 (DD-
64-R1) and Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06.
Similar to AB 1358, Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64-R1) sets forth that
Caltrans addresses the “safety and mobility needs of bicyclists,
pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding.”
2.2.2.3 Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06
In a more specific application of complete streets goals, Traffic
Operations Policy Directive 09-06 presents bicycle detection
requirements. For example, 09-06 requires that new and modified
signal detectors provide bicyclist detection if they are to remain in
operation. Further, the Policy Directive states that new and
modified bicycle path approaches to signalized intersections must
provide bicycle detection or a bicyclist pushbutton if detection is
required.
2.2.2.4 SB 375 – Sustainable Communities
Senate Bill (SB) 375 serves to complement Assembly Bill (AB) 32:
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and encourages local
governments to reduce emissions through improved planning.
Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must
establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one
of the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Each
of California’s MPOs must prepare a “Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS)” that demonstrates how the region will meet its
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target through integrated land
use, housing and transportation planning. The Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) is preparing the SCS for the
County of Los Angeles.
One way to help meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets is to
increase the bicycle mode share by substituting bicycle trips for
automobile trips. When trips made by bicycle replace vehicle trips
they reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from motorized
transportation. The South Bay’s efforts to encourage bicycling will
contribute to the regional attainment of these targets.
One way to help meet the greenhouse gas emissions
targets is to increase the bicycle mode share by
substituting bicycle trips for automobile trips.
Page 92 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 39
Chapter 3
El Segundo
Page 93 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
40 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 94 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 41
3 El Segundo
This chapter presents El Segundo’s portion of the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how El Segundo
complies with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. The
chapter is organized into the following sections:
Existing conditions
Needs analysis
Proposed bicycle network
Project prioritization
Project costs
3.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide
discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the
Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local
jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for El Segundo to
qualify for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must
contain specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA
components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The
table includes “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the
convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing
compliance.
3.2 Existing Conditions
The City of El Segundo is located in the northwest portion of the
South Bay region. It is bordered by the City of Los Angeles to the
north, the County of Los Angeles to the east, the City of Manhattan
Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. According to
the 2000 census, El Segundo has a population of 15,970. The City
was incorporated in 1917.
3.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South
Bay Region. Land uses in El Segundo are shown at right. Industrial
land uses comprise over half of the land area of the City,
demonstrating that El Segundo is a key employment center in the
region. Less than 20 percent of the City’s land area consists of
residential uses. Due to the disparity between acres of employment-
producing land uses and acres of housing, it is likely that many
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Existing Land Uses in El Segundo
Page 95 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo 42 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 3-1: El Segundo General Plan Land Uses Page 96 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 43
persons working in El Segundo are commuting to work from
outside of the City.
Figure 3-1 displays proposed land uses for El Segundo. As
compared to the existing uses, the City plans to increase office
space north of Mariposa Avenue, industrial uses in the southeastern
quadrant of the city, and mixed use developments throughout El
Segundo.
3.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are
correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high
population or employment densities or high concentrations of
certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle
households.
Appendix A-4 shows population density in El Segundo. Of the
land area that is residential, most of it is single family, low density
housing, with the exception of the Main Street area in Downtown
El Segundo and R-3 multi-family zoned parcels. Low density units
generally produce fewer trips as there are fewer persons per acre.
Population density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is
a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more people
living in an area implies more trips to and from that area. The high
population densities of urbanized environments also tend to
support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected
street networks, and shorter trip lengths. Low density areas present
challenges to bicycling because there are not as many community
services, such as restaurants or grocery stores nearby, so bicyclists
must make longer trips to conduct their day-to-day activities.
Appendix A-5 displays employment density in El Segundo. El
Segundo has over 50 percent of its land area dedicated to industrial
uses, a land use which typically employs large amounts of people,
and therefore produces many commute trips. As a major
employment center in the region, El Segundo generates a high
number of trips, and therefore has the potential to increase bicycle
activity by providing facilities that could encourage commuters to
switch to bicycling.
Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7, and Appendix A-8 display the
percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual household
income, and percent transit commuters by census tract. Overall,
households in El Segundo have median annual incomes between
$55,001 and $75,000 (in 1999 dollars). Those in central and western
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics
that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels,
such as high employment densities.
Page 97 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
44 | Alta Planning + Design
El Segundo have lower rates of vehicle ownership and higher rates
of transit commuting. This part of the city has greater potential for
increased bicycling activity because residents who do not have
vehicles must use alternative modes and are likely to combine
bicycle and transit trips.
In addition to the reasons discussed above, El Segundo has the
potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing
through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle
network that is connected within El Segundo, as well as linked to
bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates bicycle
traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to driving a
motorized vehicle.
3.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 3-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of
El Segundo’s Circulation Element, Bicycle Master Plan, Open Space
and Recreation Element, Local Coastal Program, and Municipal
Code.
Table 3-1: El Segundo Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Circulation
Element (2004)
The Circulation Element was adopted in 1992 and most recently updated in 2004. It includes a goal to increase
alternative transportation modes, with a corresponding objective to provide a city-wide bikeway system. Policies
for implementation include:
Implement recommendations in the Bicycle Master Plan (below)
Encourage new development to provide bicycle parking, shower, and changing facilities
Develop off-street bicycle paths in appropriate corridors
Encourage bicycle trips to and from schools and public facilities
Coordinate bicycle planning/implementation with adjacent and regional agencies
Encourage design of new streets with Class I or Class II bikeways
Maintain Hillcrest Street link between Imperial Avenue and Imperial Highway
Evaluate bikeway system links with the Metro Green Line rail stations and improve access
Page 98 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 45
Document Description
Bicycle Master
Plan (1992)
This plan was adopted in 1992 as part of the Circulation Element and left unchanged in the 2004 update. The 2004
update simply consists of a map (Appendix F-1) that outlines existing and proposed routes in the City of El
Segundo, the City of Manhattan Beach, and the County of Los Angeles. Proposed routes are designated by
possible facility. Some proposed routes are shown to be appropriate for either Class I, II, or III facilities, while others
are designated as appropriate for just one Class.
General Plan
Open Space
and Recreation
Element (1992)
The Open Space and Recreation Element discusses bikeways in the context of recreational facilities. This
document identifies the County of Los Angeles-maintained beach bicycle path located west of the Chevron
Refinery as the primary recreational bikeway in El Segundo. The beach bike path runs along the narrow shoreline
and connects with the county paths in the City of Los Angeles to the north and to the community of El Porto to
the south. The element also includes an objective to develop utility transmission corridors for active or passive
open space and recreational use.
El Segundo
Local Coastal
Program (1978)
The El Segundo Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of an Issue Identification and a Coastal Zone Specific Plan.
The Issue Identification section summarizes coastal issues and the specific plan provides detailed land use
proposals and implementing ordinances in the coastal zone. The program states that developments providing
recreational opportunities are preferred in the Coastal Zone. Developments that provide recreational bikeways
would satisfy this requirement. All other bikeways shall be in compliance with the policies in the LCP.
Municipal Code Minimum parking requirements in El Segundo’s Municipal Code are based on percent of required vehicle parking
spaces. In 2010, the City of El Segundo adopted Ordinance 1444, which amended parking and loading
requirements to include minimum bicycle parking space requirements for developments of varying sizes and land
uses. Spaces shall be a minimum width of two feet and a minimum length of five feet. The City reviews these
requirements in plan check by having the plans routed through the applicable departments. Developments of
certain sizes are also required to provide information, such as bicycle maps, either on a bulletin board or in a
display case or kiosk. Detailed bicycle parking information is presented in Appendix G. El Segundo’s Municipal
Code does not prohibit riding bicycles on the sidewalk in the city.
Page 99 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo 46 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 3-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo Page 100 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 47
3.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 3-2 shows the existing bicycle facilities in El Segundo.
Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle facilities in
the South Bay Region as a whole. Bicycle facility types are discussed
in Section 1.3. The City of El Segundo has approximately 6 total
miles of bikeways. These include Class I, Class II, and Class III
facilities, some of which continue outside the City limits. A portion
of the Los Angeles County-maintained bike path that runs along
the beach is part of the City’s network. Table 3-2 summarizes the
classification and mileage of the existing network.
Table 3-2: El Segundo Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 1.0
Class II (Bike Lanes) 2.8
Class III (Bike Route) 2.0
Total Mileage 5.8
3.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible
short- and long-term end-of-trip facilities for the members of the
bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as change and store
clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities consist of bicycle
racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not limited to, locker,
restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
The locations of existing bicycle parking in the South Bay are
shown in Appendix A-9. Existing bicycle parking in El Segundo is
shown at right. The City has existing bicycle racks located
throughout the city, including at schools, civic facilities, and
shopping centers. El Segundo does not provide any existing long-
term, publicly-accessible end-of-trip bicycle facilities. Existing
long-term bicycle storage at transit stops is discussed below.
3.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for
shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high
level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.
Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of El
Segundo. Metro operates several bus lines with routes through the
(See Appendix A-9 for larger map)
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in El Segundo
Page 101 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
48 | Alta Planning + Design
City. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on
a first-come, first-served basis. Metro also operates the Green Line
Light Rail, which has three stations in El Segundo. A fourth station
at Aviation/LAX sits very near the eastern boundary of El Segundo.
Bicycles are permitted on Metro Rail. The three stations in El
Segundo are:
Mariposa Avenue
El Segundo Boulevard
Douglas Street
LADOT operates the Commuter Express bus service. Line 438
connects the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.
Line 574 connects El Segundo to the City of Encino. Most
Commuter Express buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which
are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Commuter Express
route maps for lines 438 and 574 are shown in Appendix A-11 and
Appendix A-12.
Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 109, operated by the City of
Redondo Beach, and Torrance Transit Line 8, operated by the City
of Torrance, also serve the City of El Segundo. Appendix A-13
shows the BCT System Map and Appendix A-14 shows the
Torrance Transit System Map. Buses are equipped with bike racks,
which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit
services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle
parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and
ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit
vehicles. The Mariposa Avenue Metro Green Line Station provides
bicycle racks and the other two stations provide both bicycle racks
and lockers. Metro Green Line stations are shown in Appendix A-
10. Existing bicycle parking facilities in the South Bay are shown in
Appendix A-9 and existing bicycle parking facilities in El Segundo
are shown on page 29. Bicycle locker rentals are $24 for six months
plus a $50 refundable security key deposit.
3.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related
policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. To promote safe
bicycling, the City of El Segundo has in the past held “bicycle
rodeos,” in which they teach bicycle lessons and awareness during
Two of the three Metro Geen Line stations in El Segundo
provide both bicycle racks and lockers.
Page 102 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 49
open houses at schools. Bicycle rodeos are not, however, a regular
program. The El Segundo Police Department also provides
pamphlets and bicycle safety information at all safety fairs, Ride
Share Fairs, and booths it attends, which occur several times per
year.
El Segundo police officers enforce all bicycle-related rules in the
California Vehicle Code and issue citations when they observe
violations.
3.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
The City of El Segundo incurred the following bicycle expenditure
between 2000 and 2010:
About $5,000 for bicycle racks at City Hall and signage on
North Douglas and Nash Streets
3.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in El Segundo. First, it
summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and public
workshops. Second, the section provides estimates and forecasts of
bicycle commuting to determine the estimated bicycling demand in
the city. Finally, it analyzes bicycle collision data between 2007 and
2009 to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility
improvements.
3.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to
provide input in the planning process through an online survey and
two rounds of public workshops. This section summarizes
locations in El Segundo that the community identified as desirable
for bikeways.
The most frequently identified locations for bicycle facilities
include El Segundo Boulevard, Rosecrans Boulevard, and Douglas
Street. El Segundo Boulevard and Rosecrans Boulevard are both
major arterials. Other streets mentioned by the public as in need of
bicycle facilities include Main Street, Grand Avenue, and Mariposa
Avenue.
3.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an
indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows
the percent bicycle commuters in El Segundo by census tract. There
is a higher percentage of bicycle commuters in the western portion
The public in El Segundo had the opportunity to provide
input in the planning process through an online survey and
two rounds of public workshops.
Page 103 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
50 | Alta Planning + Design
of El Segundo than in the eastern part, which corresponds with low
vehicle ownership rates and a higher percentage of transit users.
Table 3-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by
the 2000 US Census for El Segundo. For comparative purposes, the
table includes commute to work data for the United States,
California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,
0.59 percent of residents in El Segundo commute predominantly by
bicycle. The percent of bicycle commuters in El Segundo is
consistent with that of the County of Los Angeles. It is below that
of California and above the United States as a whole. It is important
to note that this figure likely underestimates the true amount of
bicycling that occurs in El Segundo for several reasons. First, data
reflects respondents’ dominant commute mode and therefore does
not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that
would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection
methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus
excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer
multimodal trip. The percentage of commuters in El Segundo that
commute by transit is much lower than that of those that drive
alone.
In addition to bicycle commuters in El Segundo, bicyclists from
neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach
their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan
addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate
bicyclists passing through El Segundo’s bicycle network in Section
3.4.
Table 3-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within El
Segundo using US Census data along with several adjustments for
likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above.
Table 3-5 presents the associated air quality benefits from
bicycling.
Table 3-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United States California Los Angeles County El Segundo
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.59%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 85.37%
Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 6.27%
Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 1.18%
Page 104 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 51
Mode United States California Los Angeles County El Segundo
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 2.87%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.35%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 3.01%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 3-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 15,970 2000 US Census, P1
Existing employed population 9,092 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.59% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of bike-to-work
commuters
54 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 3.01% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters
27 Assumes 10% of population working at home makes at
least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 1.18% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing transit bicycle commuters 27 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Existing school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
1,899 2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode
share
2.0% National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Existing school children bike commuters 38 School children population multiplied by school children
bike mode share
Existing number of college students in
study area
1,395 2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling mode
share
5.0% Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of bicycle
commute share at the University of California, Los
Angeles
Existing college bike commuters 70 College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters 216 Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike
trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 431 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 105 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
52 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
130
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
33,978
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied
by 261 (weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
901
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
235,048
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles
multiplied by 261 (weekdays / year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 3 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 2 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 25 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 733 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 705 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 492 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 6,426 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 191,213 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Table 3-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within El
Segundo using California Department of Finance population and
school enrollment projections. The projection contains the
assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in
part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share
in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of
network implementation.
Page 106 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 53
Table 3-7 presents the associated year 2030 air quality benefit
forecasts. The calculations follow in a straightforward manner
from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.
Table 3-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population 19,873 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.
Future employed population 11,314 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 1.18% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of bike-to-work
commuters
134 Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share 5.54% Calculated based on change in mode share from
1990 US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters
63 Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 2.36% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future transit bicycle commuters 67 Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by
bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
1,509 Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California
Public K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School
Graduate Projections by County, 2010 Series.
Future school children bicycling mode
share
4.0% Double the rate of national school commute trends.
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Future school children bike commuters 60 School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
1,736 Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.
Future estimated college bicycling mode
share
7.0% A slight increase over the existing college bicycle
mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other
populations
Future college bike commuters 122 College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters 445 Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 890 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 107 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
54 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
264
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
68,886
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
1,888
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
492,644
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 6 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 4 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 52 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 1,536 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 1,477 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 6 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 5 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,032 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 13,468 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 400,768 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
This model uses the latest state projections for population growth
and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The
benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute
trips could increase from the current daily estimate of 430 to almost
900, resulting in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes a yearly
emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately 1,000 pounds of
Page 108 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 55
smog forming N0X and roughly 400 thousand pounds of C02, the
principal gas associated with global climate change. Providing
bicycle facilities will encourage new bicyclists to begin to ride, thus
positively impacting air quality by reducing harmful pollutants
from driving motorized vehicles. Because this plan recommends
local connections throughout and regional links between the
participating cities, it has the potential to have even greater air
quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as heavily on
vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a viable
transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.
3.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout El Segundo,
volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they manually
recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.
3.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture
both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also
provides guidance on how to select count locations.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven
participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4,
2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010
from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture
volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is
an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because
school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In El
Segundo, volunteers were stationed at nine stations on Thursday
and nine stations on Saturday. There were 36 total locations in the
South Bay region on each day.
The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta
Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and
South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of
locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using
the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the
seven participating cities in the South Bay.
Page 109 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
56 | Alta Planning + Design
3.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A-
16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for El Segundo are shown at
left. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is
presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the El Segundo station
that experienced the highest volume was Douglas Street and the
Green Line Station with 57 bicyclists during the three hour count
period. The station with the most bicyclists on Saturday was Main
Street and Grand Avenue with 65 bicyclists during the three hour
count period.
On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists
in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on
the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the
Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and
Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the
weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count
stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more
bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for
recreation on the weekend.
In the region as a whole, approximately 83 percent of bicyclists
were male. Approximately 70 percent of those observed did not
wear helmets and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday,
there were 18 locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists
rode on the sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on
the sidewalk can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as
bicyclists that are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to
ride on the sidewalk instead.
3.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.
Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not
riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to local and
national surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw
attention to areas that warrant improvement, particularly if
multiple collisions occur at the same location. This analysis
employs the most reliable data source available, the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. The
data set only includes reported collisions, and so represents a
subset of all the bicycle collisions in El Segundo. This data does not
include any assessment of conditions present at the time of the
collision. There are numerous factors that may contribute to a given
incident including but not limited to time of day, visibility,
(See Appendix A-17 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in El Segundo
(See Appendix A-16 for a larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in El Segundo
Page 110 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 57
distractions, obstacles or traffic law obedience. This data simply
reflects reported incidents, resulting injuries and the party at fault.
This data does not infer faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a
baseline of collisions that often decreases in correlation with bike
plan implementation and the improvements to facilities and road
user behavior and awareness that accompanies it. Fault as
determined by law enforcement is discussed below.
Table 3-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving
bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle
collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South
Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in El Segundo
are shown at right. There were 15 total reported collisions involving
bicyclists from 2007-2009 in the City of El Segundo. Two crashes
occurred at the intersection of Mariposa Avenue and Indiana Street,
one block west of Sepulveda Boulevard. The remaining 13 collisions
in El Segundo occurred at disparate locations, although all occurred
on major boulevards: there were five crashes on Mariposa Avenue,
three on El Segundo Boulevard, and two on Rosecrans Avenue.
Table 3-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes
Involving
Bicyclists
Number of
Bicyclists
Involved
Persons
Injured
Persons
Severely
Injured
Persons
Killed
15 15 13 1 0
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at
fault in 40 percent of collisions involving bicycles (6 crashes) in this
time period.
Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When
motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions
between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York,
for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and
2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions
decreased (see Appendix B).
Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in El
Segundo. El Segundo Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue, two
corridors that experienced collisions involving bicyclists, carry
large volumes of vehicular traffic traveling at high speeds. Neither
(See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Bicycle Collisions in El Segundo 2007-2009
Page 111 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
58 | Alta Planning + Design
street has existing bicycling facilities. Sepulveda Boulevard,
Aviation Boulevard, and Imperial Highway also have high volumes
of vehicles. Aviation Boulevard does not have bicycle facilities and
Sepulveda Boulevard is a Class III bicycle route, requiring bicyclists
to share the lanes with automobiles on these streets.
3.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of
El Segundo, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon
implementation of the proposed network, the City should
coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay
cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
discussed in this Plan are presented in Section 1.3 and are shown in
Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended
standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum
standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of
bikeways in El Segundo, the recommended system ties into the
proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating
cities to create a connected regional network. This will give
bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass
through El Segundo to reach their destinations without losing
bicycle facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway recommendations are
also based on the existing City bicycle plans, public input,
topography, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.
3.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network for El Segundo consists of Class I
Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike
Friendly Streets, and is presented in Figure 3-3. El Segundo’s
network connects with the recommended network in Manhattan
Beach and the County of Los Angeles bicycle system. Four tables
identify the streets on which facilities are proposed, the extents of
each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each proposed
facility. Table 3-9Table 3-9 lists the proposed bicycle paths, Table
3-10 lists the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 3-11 lists the proposed
bicycle routes, and Table 3-12 lists the proposed bicycle friendly
streets. The proposed bicycle network for the South Bay region as a
whole is presented in Appendix A-19.
There are several constraints to recommending new bicycle
facilities in El Segundo. These are shown at left and are referenced
by the numbers in Appendix I. Appendix I also presents
opportunities and constraints in the South Bay region as a whole.
(See Appendix I for larger map)
Opportunities and Constraints in El Segundo
Page 112 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 59
First, a proposed Class I bikeway east of the waste processing plant
would require the City to gain approval from Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as this land is LADWP
right-of-way. The facility would run underneath the right-of-way of
high-tension power lines. An example of such a facility can be seen
in Redondo Beach along the North Redondo Beach Bikeway.
Also, a proposed Class I in El Segundo between Walnut and Holly
would require the City to gain similar approval as this land is
LADWP right-of-way. The facility would also run underneath the
right of way of high-tension power lines.
Table 3-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in El Segundo
Street From To Miles
El Segundo Sepulveda Blvd Nash St 0.5
Washington Street Walnut Avenue Holly Avenue 0.7
Total Bicycle Path Mileage 1.2
Table 3-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in El Segundo
Street From To Miles
Aviation Boulevard Imperial Highway Rosecrans Avenue 2.0
Douglas Street Imperial Highway Park Place 2.1
El Segundo Main St Illinois St 1.0
El Segundo Nast St East City Limits 0.7
Mariposa Avenue Sepulveda Boulevard Douglas Street 0.7
Rosecrans Avenue West City Limits Aviation Boulevard 2.1
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 8.7
Table 3-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in El Segundo
Street From To Miles
Grand Avenue West end of Street Duley Road 2.1
El Segundo Illinois Sepulveda Boulevard 0.1
Nash Street Imperial Highway El Segundo Boulevard 1.0
Loma Vista Street - Binder Place -
Whiting Street - El Segundo
Boulevard Grand Avenue Main Street 0.5
Utah Avenue Douglas Street Aviation Boulevard 0.3
Main Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 1.0
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 5.0
Page 113 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
60 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in El Segundo
Street From To Miles
Imperial Avenue Hillcrest Street East end of street 1.6
Mariposa Avenue West end of Street Sepulveda Boulevard 1.7
Loma Vista Street Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue 0.9
Sheldon Street - Pine Avenue -
Eucalyptus Drive Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue 0.9
Center Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 1.0
Walnut Avenue Center Street Washington Street 0.4
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 6.4
Page 114 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 61 Figure 3-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo Page 115 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo 62 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Page 116 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 63
3.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation
are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance
safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With
nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists
need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive
bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a
jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling
environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of
residents traveling without using an automobile.
The El Segundo Municipal Code currently provides minimum
bicycle parking standards. It also requires that all bicycle parking
spaces be 2 feet wide by 5 feet long. The City should amend its
Municipal Code to include requirements on types of short-term and
long-term bicycle parking facility designs. Recommended designs
are shown in Appendix J. Bicycle rack designs should include racks
that provide two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be
locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This
will provide a higher degree of security and support for the bicycle.
This will more accurately address the bicycle demand at a given
development. Long-term bicycle parking should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored
racks for bicycles
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks
or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty
from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing
facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they
have a place to clean up before work or school. El Segundo’s
Municipal Code should require all new mid-size and large
employers, offices, and businesses to supply changing and storing
facilities, such as by providing showers and clothes lockers within
the buildings or arranging agreements with nearby recreation
centers to allow commuters to use their facilities.
Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities in El Segundo are shown in
Figure 3-4.
The City should amend its Municipal Code to include
requirements on types of short-term and long-term
bicycle parking facility designs.
Page 117 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo 64 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 3-4: Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities in El Segundo Page 118 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 65
The City should ensure there is adequate short-term bicycle
parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major trip attractors,
including commercial and civic activity centers and transit hubs.
The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking
throughout the city, with particular attention directed at the
following locations:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major
commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle
parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs
and intermodal facilities should include secure bicycle parking
areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that
provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, should be
considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.
3.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle
network in El Segundo.
3.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 3-13 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for
each facility type proposed in this plan and Table 3-14 displays the
cost to implement the proposed network in the City of El Segundo
from the cost assumptions.14 Cost assumptions are based on LA
County averages and may vary depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude
specific treatments that may vary by location and must be
determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures,
restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost
assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as
changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation
of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project
sheets presented in Section 3.7.
14 Table 3-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with
Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking
throughout the city, with particular attention directed at
locations such as parks.
Page 119 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
66 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 3-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types
Facility Type Description Estimated Cost15
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile
Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane
restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile
Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
Table 3-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per mile Length of Proposed
Network (miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 1.2 $ 928,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 8.5 $ 339,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 5.2 $ 130,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 6.4 $ 192,000
Total 21.3 $ 1,589,000
3.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of El
Segundo in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities presented
in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section 3.4.1 is
grouped into projects based on feasibility of implementation. Table
3-15 presents the prioritized projects based on the prioritization
methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each criterion contains
information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or
future need in El Segundo. The projects ranked the highest should
be implemented first.
15 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and
striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary engineering, and
construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County
Bicycle Master Plan, which are based upon a peer review of Southern
California bikeway construction unit costs.
Page 120 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 67 Table 3-15:El Segundo Prioritized Bicycle Projects Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BL Douglas Street Imperial Highway Rosecrans Avenue 3 6 0 4 4 1 2 1 1 2 24 BL Aviation Boulevard Imperial Highway Rosecrans Avenue 3 6 2 4 4 0 2 1 0 1 23 BR Grand Avenue West end of Street Duley Road 3 6 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 23 BL-BR-BP-BL El Segundo Blvd Main St East City Limits 0 0 2 4 4 2 2 1 2 2 19 BR Nash Street Imperial Highway El Segundo Boulevard 3 6 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 2 18 BL Mariposa Avenue Sepulveda Boulevard Douglas Street 0 3 0 4 4 0 2 0 1 2 16 BFS Imperial Avenue Hillcrest Street East end of street 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 15 BFS Mariposa Avenue West end of Street Sepulveda Boulevard 0 3 0 4 0 2 2 1 1 2 15 BR Loma Vista Street - Binder Place - Whiting Street - El Segundo Boulevard Grand Avenue Main Street 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 14 BFS Loma Vista Street Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 13 BR Utah Avenue Douglas Street Aviation Boulevard 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 2 10 BR Main Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 9 BFS Sheldon Street - Pine Avenue - Eucalyptus Drive Imperial Avenue Grand Avenue 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 2 9 BFS Center Street Imperial Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 2 9 BP Washington Street Walnut Avenue Holly Avenue 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 2 9 BFS Walnut Avenue Center Street Washington Street 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 BL Rosecrans Avenue West City Limits Aviation Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 4 *BP=Bike Path, BL=Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street Page 121 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo 68 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Page 122 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 69
3.7 Project Sheets
The City of El Segundo selected two of its top priority projects from
the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project sheets
are shown on the following pages and include:
A review of the existing site conditions
Site challenges
Recommended improvements
Estimated cost
Photos
Aerial images
Concept graphics
,
Page 123 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
70 | Alta Planning + Design
El Segundo Project #1: Douglas Street (Imperial Highway to Rosecrans Ave)
Project Site Photos
Douglas Street is a north-south arterial located on the eastern
portion of the City of El Segundo. It connects to the Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) and bike lanes on Imperial Highway to
the north and to the City of Manhattan Beach to the south. Douglas
Street provides access to major employers, such as Northrop
Grumman, as well as a Metro Green Line light rail station and a
variety of commercial services. There is no on-street parking on
Douglas Street.
From Imperial Highway to just south of El Segundo Boulevard,
Douglas Street has three travel lanes in both directions of travel and
a center turn lane. The roadway width ranges from 85 feet to 100
feet with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. From south of El Segundo
Boulevard to Transit Center, Douglas Street drops to two travel
lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. This segment has a
roadway width of approximately 65 feet and a railroad crossing
north of Utah Avenue. South of Transit Center, Douglas Street
narrows to two lanes with a center median as it travels under the
Metro Green Line bridge until Park Place. The roadway width
drops to approximately 23 feet on either side of the center median.
Pedestrian access is located above the road, under the bridge. South
of Park Place, the road widens to 65 feet with two travel lanes in
each direction and a center turn lane until the intersection with
Rosecrans Avenue where it widens again to accommodate left and
right turn pockets.
Looking south on Douglas Street. The northern portion of
Douglas Street has wide lanes that could be narrowed to
accommodate bicycle lanes.
Project Challenges
Douglas Street has no existing bicycle facilities, thus bicyclists
must share the road with relatively high volumes of vehicles
traveling at high speeds. Bicyclists must cross at-grade, angled
railroad tracks, which creates the potential for collisions as bicycle
tires often get trapped in railroad tracks. When Douglas Street
narrows as it travels beneath the Metro Green Line bridge, the road
has a significant incline and the lanes become narrow, which can
create conflicts due to the speed differential between bicyclists and
vehicles. If bicyclists choose to ride on the above grade pedestrian
path, they create potential conflicts with pedestrians as the path is
not wide enough to accommodate both modes.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 1 mile of Class II Bike Lanes
Add bicycle detectors and pavement markings at all signalized
intersections
Widen the pedestrian path under the Metro Green Line bridge
to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians
Realign the bicycle lanes to allow bicyclists to cross
perpendicular to the at-grade train tracks
Estimated Cost
$350,000
Travel lanes narrow beneath the Metro Green Line bridge.
The angle of the existing at-grade railroad tracks is challenging
for bicyclists to cross.
Page 124 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 71
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Douglas Street
Douglas Street (Imperial Highway to Rosecrans Ave)
Example Bicycle Lane Crossing Railroad Tracks Design
Page 125 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
72 | Alta Planning + Design
El Segundo Project #2: El Segundo Boulevard (Main Street to Douglas Street)
Project Site Photos
El Segundo Boulevard is an east-west road located in the center of
the City of El Segundo. It connects to the County of Los Angeles to
the east and provides secondary connectivity to the Marvin Braude
Bikeway to the west. East of Aviation Boulevard, El Segundo
Boulevard shares jurisdiction with the County of Los Angeles. El
Segundo Boulevard provides access to major employers, such as the
Chevron Refinery, as well as a variety of commercial services,
residential uses, and Downtown El Segundo. There is no on-street
parking on El Segundo Boulevard.
From Main Street to Illinois Street, El Segundo Boulevard has two
travel lanes in each direction. The roadway width ranges from
approximately 50 to 54 feet and has striped edgelines on the north
side of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. This segment of
El Segundo Boulevard has rolling hills with fairly steep inclines.
From Illinois Street to Sepulveda Boulevard the roadway widens to
approximately 86 feet to accommodate turn pockets. Between
Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street, El Segundo Boulevard has
center medians with three travel lanes and turn pockets in each
direction. The roadway width (not including turn pockets) is
approximately 35 feet on each side of the center median.
Looking east on El Segundo Boulevard. The curb and landscaping
on the eastbound side could be removed to accommodate
bicycle lanes.
Project Challenges
El Segundo Boulevard has no existing bicycle facilities, thus
bicyclists must share the road with vehicles traveling at high
speeds on the eastern portion, as well as trucks accessing the
Chevron Refinery on the western segment. Steep inclines and
declines create potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists
due to the speed differential between the two modes. Between
Illinois Street and Sepulveda Boulevard, the roadway width is
constrained due to turn pockets. East of Nash Street, the roadway
width is also constrained and the City has no current potential for a
property easement.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 1.2 miles of Class II Bike Lanes
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Install 0.2 miles Class III Bike Route
Remove 1.2 miles of eastbound curb and landscaping to
accommodate bike lanes in City right-of-way (no existing
sidewalk)
Widen westbound sidewalk to comply with ADA standards
Install 0.5 miles of bi-directional cycle track
Add bicycle signal phases at entrances/exits to cycle track to be
actuated by the presence of bicyclists
Stripe intersection crossing markings to guide bicyclists through
the intersections and increase their visibility
Install wayfinding signage to direct bicyclists onto proposed
bike lanes on Douglas Street
Estimated Cost
$175,000
East of Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo Boulevard has six travel
lanes and high volumes of vehicular traffic. A cycle track will
provide protection for bicyclists.
Steep inclines on El Segundo Boulevard can create potential
conflicts between bicyclists and motorists due to the speed
differential between the two modes.
Page 126 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 73
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: El Segundo Boulevard
El Segundo Boulevard (Main Street to Sepulveda Boulevard)
El Segundo Boulevard (Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street)
Page 127 of 535
Chapter Three | El Segundo
74 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: El Segundo Boulevard
Bi-directional Cycle Track and Cycle Track Intersection Crossing Markings
Bicycle-Only Signals
Page 128 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 75
Chapter 4
Gardena
Page 129 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
76 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 130 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 77
4 Gardena
This chapter presents Gardena’s portion of the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how Gardena complies
with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. The chapter is
then organized into the following sections:
Existing conditions
City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions
Needs analysis
Proposed bicycle network
Project prioritization
Project costs
4.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide
discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the
Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local
jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Gardena to qualify
for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must contain
specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA
components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The
tables include “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the
convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing
compliance.
4.2 Existing Conditions
The City of Gardena is located in the northeast portion of the South
Bay. It is bordered by the City of Hawthorne and the County of Los
Angeles to the north and west, the City of Torrance to the south,
and the City of Los Angeles to the east. According to the 2000
census, Gardena has a population of 57,818. The city was
incorporated in 1930.
4.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South
Bay Region. Land uses in Gardena are shown at right. Over half of
the City’s land area is comprised of residential land uses, most of
which is single family. Industrial, commercial, and general office
uses make up approximately 30 percent of the land area, which
suggests that there are more people living in Gardena than there are
jobs available.
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Existing Land Uses in Gardena
Page 131 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
78 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 4-1: Gardena General Plan Land Uses
Page 132 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 79
Figure 4-1 illustrates proposed land uses. As compared to existing
land uses, the City plans to increase the residential densities in the
southern portion of Gardena east of Normandie Avenue. It also
intends on creating mixed use developments along 161st Street and
182nd Street.
4.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are
correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high
population or employment densities or high concentrations of
certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle
households.
Appendix A-4 shows population density in Gardena. 70 percent of
the residential land area in the City is single family, low density
housing. Low density units generally produce fewer trips as there
are fewer persons per acre. They also present challenges to
bicycling because there are not as many community services, such
as restaurants or grocery stores nearby, so bicyclists must make
longer trips to conduct their day-to-day activities. Population
density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is a strong
indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more people living in
an area implies more trips to and from that area. The high
population densities of urbanized environments also tend to
support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected
street networks, and shorter trip lengths. The highest population
densities in Gardena are in the central and eastern portions of the
city.
Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Gardena. The City
has high employment densities along major corridors, such as
Redondo Beach Boulevard, Western Avenue, and 166th Street. The
land uses along Redondo Beach Boulevard are mainly commercial
and services, while the land use along Western Avenue is industrial.
166th Street has a mix of industrial, and commercial and services.
These sites have the potential to generate bicycle activity, as they
are located in environments with a variety of land uses where trips
between uses can be shorter.
Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7, and Appendix A-8 display the
number and percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual
income, and percent transit commuters by census tract.
Throughout most of Gardena, households have median annual
incomes below $35,000 (in 1999 dollars) and at least five percent of
households do not own a vehicle. The City also has high
percentages of transit commuters. This increases the potential for
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics
that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels,
such as high population or employment densities.
Page 133 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
80 | Alta Planning + Design
bicycling activity because residents who do not have vehicles must
use alternative modes and are likely to combine bicycle and transit
trips.
In addition to the reasons discussed above, Gardena has the
potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing
through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle
network that is connected within Gardena, as well as linked to
bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates bicycle
traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to driving a
motorized vehicle.
4.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 4-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of
Gardena’s Circulation Element.
Table 4-1: Gardena Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Circulation Plan
(2006)
The City of Gardena most recently updated its General Plan in 2006. The Circulation Plan,
which is part of the Community Development Element, is included in this update. The
Circulation Plan contains the Bikeways Map (Appendix F-2), which displays where the
existing Class I and Class III bicycle facilities are located in the city. There are no proposed
facilities shown on the map. The Circulation Plan also addresses bicycling in its goal to
promote safe, efficient, and accessible alternative transportation modes. To do so, the City
will maintain a citywide bicycle route and maintenance plan that is integrated with MTA’s
regional bicycle system.
Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code requires all bicycles to be registered with the police department
and the owner to obtain a bicycle license. Riding bicycles on the sidewalk is prohibited in
business districts and prohibited outside of business districts unless roadway conditions are
hazardous or unsafe.
4.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 4-2 shows a map of the existing bicycle facilities in
Gardena. Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle
facilities in the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are
discussed in Section 1.3. The City of Gardena has approximately 16
total miles of bikeways, 80 percent of which make up an extensive
network of Class III bike routes. Table 4-2 summarizes the
classification and mileage of the existing network.
Page 134 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 81
Figure 4-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Gardena
Page 135 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
82 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-2: Gardena Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 1.1
Class II (Bike Lanes) 1.9
Class III (Bike Route) 12.7
Total Mileage 15.7
4.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible
short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the
members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as
change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities
consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not
limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities. Gardena does not currently provide any publicly-
accessible end-of-trip bicycle facilities within its jurisdiction.
4.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for
shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high
level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.
Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of
Gardena. Metro operates several bus lines with routes through the
City. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on
a first-come, first-served basis. The northern and southern portions
of the City are served by bus routes, while the center of the City is
left underserved. This requires those commuting to and from the
interior of Gardena to travel longer distances to access transit, trips
that would be made easier by bicycle given adequate bicycle
facilities.
Torrance Transit Lines 1, 2, and 5, operated by the City of Torrance,
also serve Gardena. Appendix A-14 shows the Torrance Transit
System Map. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are
available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit
services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle
parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and
ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit
vehicles. Gardena does not currently provide any intermodal end-
of-trip bicycle facilities within its jurisdiction.
Page 136 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 83
4.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related
policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. Gardena does
not currently provide any education or enforcement programs that
promote bicycle safety.
4.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
Between 2000 and 2010 the City of Gardena has not incurred any
bicycle-related expenditure.
4.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Gardena. It first
summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and public
workshops. The section also provides estimates and forecasts of
bicycle commuting to determine the estimated bicycling demand in
the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision data between 2007 and
2009 to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility
improvements.
4.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to
provide input in the planning process through an online survey and
the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes
locations in Gardena that the community identified as desirable for
bikeways and bicycle support facilities.
The most commonly identified locations for bicycle facilities in
Gardena were residential streets, such as 139th Street, 146th Street,
and 147th Street. The public also frequently mentioned arterial and
collector streets, including Budlong Avenue, Normandie Avenue,
Western Avenue, and Van Ness Avenue.
The community noted that additional bicycle parking facilities are
desirable along transit routes.
4.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an
indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows
the percent bicycle commuters in Gardena by census tract. The
highest percentages of bicycle commuters are located in central
Gardena, followed by the northern portion of the City.
Table 4-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by
the 2000 US Census for Gardena. For comparative purposes, the
table includes commute to work data for the United States,
The highest percentage of bicycle commuters in Gardena
are located in the central portion of the city.
Page 137 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
84 | Alta Planning + Design
California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,
0.9 percent of residents in Gardena commute predominantly by
bicycle. The percent of bicycle commuters in Gardena is higher
than that of the County of Los Angeles. It is comparable to that of
California and above the United States as a whole. It is important
to note that this figure likely underestimates the true amount of
bicycling that occurs in Gardena for several reasons. First, data
reflects respondents’ dominant commute mode and therefore does
not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that
would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection
methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus
excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer
multimodal trip.
The percentage of commuters in Gardena that commute by transit
is lower than that of those that drive alone. Gardena also has a high
percentage of carpooling, but a low percentage of walking.
In addition to bicycle commuters in Gardena, bicyclists from
neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach
their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan
addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate
bicyclists passing through Gardena’s bicycle network in Section
4.4.
Table 4-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United
States California Los Angeles
County Gardena
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.90%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 75.21%
Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 15.31%
Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 4.07%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 1.90%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.55%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 1.90%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 4-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within Gardena
using US Census data along with several adjustments for likely
bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above. Table 4-5
presents the associated air quality benefits from bicycling.
Page 138 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 85
Table 4-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 57,818 2000 US Census, P1
Existing employed population 23,363 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.90% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of bike-to-work commuters
210
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 1.90% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters 44
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 4.07% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing transit bicycle commuters
238
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Existing school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-
8) 7,714
2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode share 2.0% National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Existing school children bike commuters
154
School children population multiplied by school
children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in study
area 4,431
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling mode
share
5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of
bicycle commute share at the University of California,
Los Angeles
Existing college bike commuters
222
College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters
868
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike
trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 1,736 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 139 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
86 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
429
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 112,073 Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
2,863
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
747,195
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 9 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 6 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 78 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 2,329 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 2,240 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 9 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 8 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,565 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 20,426 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 607,847 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Table 4-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within
Gardena using California Department of Finance population and
school enrollment projections. The projection contains the
assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in
part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share
in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of
network implementation. Table 4-7 presents the associated year
Page 140 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 87
2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a
straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling
Demand.
Table 4-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
71,950
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.
Future employed population
29,073
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 1.80% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of bike-to-work commuters
523
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share
2.58%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters 75
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 8.14% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future transit bicycle commuters
592
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades K-8)
6,130
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.
Future school children bicycling mode share
4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Future school children bike commuters
245
School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in study
area
5,514
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.
Future estimated college bicycling mode share
7.0%
Equal to existing condition assumption from “Review
of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities” (Source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995).
Future college bike commuters
386
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
1,821
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 3,642 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 141 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
88 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-7 Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
848
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
221,450
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
5,878
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
1,534,186
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 18 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 12 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 161 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 4,782 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 4,600 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 18 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 17 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 3,213 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 41,941 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 1,248,069 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
This model uses the latest state projections for population growth and
reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The benefits model
predicts that the total number of bicycle commute trips could increase from
the current daily estimate of approximately 1,700 to roughly 3,600, resulting
in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and
associated emissions. This includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of
approximately 3,200 pounds of smog forming N0X and approximately 1.2
Page 142 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 89
million pounds of C02, the principal gas associated with global
climate change. Providing bicycle facilities will encourage new
bicyclists to begin to ride, thus positively impacting air quality by
reducing harmful pollutants from driving motorized vehicles.
Because this plan recommends local connections throughout and
regional links between the participating cities, it has the potential
to have even greater air quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to
rely as heavily on vehicles for transportation because bicycling will
be a viable transportation alternative upon implementation of this
Plan.
4.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Gardena,
volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they manually
recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.
4.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture
both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also
provides guidance on how to select count locations.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven
participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4,
2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010
from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture
volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is
an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because
school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In
Gardena, volunteers were stationed at four stations on Thursday
and three stations on Saturday. There were 36 total locations in the
South Bay region on each day.
The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta
Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and
South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of
locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using
the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.
4.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A-
16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Gardena are shown at
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in Gardena
(See Appendix A-16 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in Gardena
(See Appendix A-17 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Page 143 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
90 | Alta Planning + Design
right. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is
presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the Gardena station that
experienced the highest volume was Crenshaw Boulevard and
Manhattan Beach Boulevard with 106 bicyclists during the three
hour counting period. The station with the highest number of
bicyclists on Saturday was Crenshaw Boulevard and Redondo
Beach Boulevard, which had 56 bicyclists during the three hour
counting period.
On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists
in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on
the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the
Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and
Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the
weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count
stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more
bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for
recreation on the weekend.
In the region as a whole, approximately 83 percent of bicyclists
were male. About 70 percent of those observed did not wear
helmets and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there
were 18 locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode
on the sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the
sidewalk can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as
bicyclists that are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to
ride on the sidewalk instead.
4.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.
Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not
riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to national
surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to
areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions
occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable
data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes
reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle
collisions in Gardena. This data does not include any assessment of
conditions present at the time of the collision. There are numerous
factors that may contribute to a given incident including but not
limited to time of day, visibility, distractions, obstacles or traffic
law obedience. This data simply reflects reported incidents,
resulting injuries and the party at fault. This data does not infer
(See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Bicycle Collisions in Gardena 2007-2009
Page 144 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 91
faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a baseline of collisions
that often decreases in correlation with bike plan implementation
and the improvements to facilities and road user behavior and
awareness that accompanies it. Fault as determined by law
enforcement is discussed below.
Table 4-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving
bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle
collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South
Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in Gardena are
shown on the preceding page. There were 40 total reported
collisions involving bicyclists in the City of Gardena from 2007-
2009. Most of the crashes in Gardena were dispersed throughout
the city, though the intersection of 162nd Street and Normandie
Avenue and the intersection of Marine Avenue and Gramercy Place
both experienced two collisions. Four collisions involving bicyclists
occurred along Redondo Beach Boulevard in the eastern portion of
the city. Likewise, six collisions involving bicyclists occurred on
Western Avenue in the southern half of the city.
Table 4-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes Involving
Bicyclists
Number of Bicyclists
Involved Persons Injured Persons Severely
Injured Persons Killed
40 40 40 0 0
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at
fault in 58 percent of collisions involving bicycles (23 crashes) in
this time period.
Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When
motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions
between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York,
for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and
2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions
decreased (see Appendix B).
Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in the
participating cities. There is no data available for Gardena.
Page 145 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
92 | Alta Planning + Design
4.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of
Gardena, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon
implementation of the proposed network, the City should
coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay
cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
discussed in this Plan are described in Section 1.3 and shown in
Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended
standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum
standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of
bikeways in Gardena, the recommended system ties into the
proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating
cities to create a connected regional network. This will give
bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass
through Gardena to reach their destinations without losing bicycle
facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway recommendations are also
based on the existing City bicycle plans, public input, topography,
traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.
4.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network for the City of Gardena consists of
Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and
Bike Friendly Streets, and is shown in Figure 4-3. Four tables
identify the streets on which facilities are proposed, the extents of
each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each proposed
facility. Table 4-9 lists the proposed bicycle paths, Table 4-10 lists
the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 4-11 lists the proposed bicycle
routes, and Table 4-12 lists the proposed bicycle-friendly streets.
The proposed bicycle network for the South Bay region as a whole
is presented in Appendix A-19. The proposed bicycle network in
Gardena connects with the recommended networks in Torrance
and Lawndale, as well as the Los Angeles County bicycle system.
The proposed bicycle network for the City of Gardena
consists of Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III
Bike Routes, and Bike Friendly Streets.
Page 146 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 93
Figure 4-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena
Page 147 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
94 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Gardena
Street From To Miles
132nd Street Cimarron Wilton 0.06
139th St Extension Budlong Avenue Agate Ct 0.07
Carnelian Place Extension W side of Vermont Ave E side of Vermont Ave 0.03
132nd Street Extension W side of Vermont Ave E side of Vermont Ave 0.03
Total Bicycle Path Mileage 0.2
Table 4-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Gardena
Street From To Miles
Western Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 146th Street 1.2
Crenshaw Boulevard El Segundo Boulevard Redondo Beach Boulevard 2.3
El Segundo Boulevard Crenshaw Boulevard Vermont Avenue 2.0
Vermont Avenue El Segundo Boulevard Electric Street 3.5
182nd Street Normandie Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.4
135th Street Crenshaw Boulevard Western Avenue 1.0
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 10.4
Table 4-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Gardena
Street From To Miles
Denker Avenue 154th 158th 0.3
Gardena Boulevard - 164th Street Brighton Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.6
Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 0.2
182nd Street Western Avenue Normandie Avenue 0.7
132nd St Western Avenue Budlong Ave 0.7
135th Street Western Avenue Vermont Avenue 1.0
Marine Avenue Halldale Avenue Normandie Avenue 0.1
162nd Street Denker Ave Normandie Avenue 0.3
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 3.9
Table 4-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Gardena
Street From To Miles
Budlong Avenue - 155th Street -
Van Buren Avenue - Magnolia
Avenue - Budlong Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 162nd Street 2.3
132nd Street Spinning Avenue
Western Avenue
(excluding BP from
Cimarron to Wilton) 0.5
154th Street Van Ness Avenue Denker Avenue 0.8
Page 148 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 95
Street From To Miles
Berendo Avenue 162nd Street 170th Street 0.5
Harvard Boulevard 147th Street 154th Street 0.4
154th Street - 154th Place -
Cimarron Way Crenshaw Boulevard 154th Street 0.7
Denker Avenue 146th St 154th Street 0.5
Denker Avenue - 166th Street -
Denker Avenue 158th St 170th Street 0.8
Purch Avenue - 129th Street -
Spinning Avenue - 134th Place El Segundo Boulevard Van Ness Avenue 0.6
158th St Denker Ave Normandie Ave 0.3
Magnolia Ave Normandie Ave Vermont Ave 0.4
139th St Normandie Ave Budlong Ave 0.3
Agate Court - Opal Way - Garnet
Lane - Amber Place - Emerald Lane -
Carnelian Place 139th St Extension Vermont Avenue 0.2
139th Street - Purche Avenue -
141st Place - Ardath Avenue Van Ness Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 0.6
Gramercy Place - Redondo Beach
Boulevard - 161st Street - St
Andrews Place 147th St Gardena Boulevard 1.3
St Andrews Place - 166th St -
Gramercy Place Gardena Boulevard Artesia Blvd 0.7
162nd Street Normandie Avenue Berendo Avenue 0.4
170th St Denker Ave Vermont Avenue 0.8
Spinning Avenue 147th Street Marine Avenue 0.3
Marine Avenue Normandie Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.5
147th Street - 146th Place -
Gramercy Place - 146th Street Crenshaw Boulevard Halldale Avenue 1.4
148th Street - Western Avenue -
147th Street Marine Avenue Halldale Avenue 0.7
Wadkins Avenue - Marine Avenue -
Atkinson Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 154th Street 0.8
132nd Street Budlong Avenue Vermont Avenue 0.3
Halldale Avenue 139th St Marine Avenue 0.8
Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 0.3
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 16.8
Page 149 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
96 | Alta Planning + Design
4.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation
are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance
safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With
nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists
need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive
bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a
jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling
environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of
residents traveling without using an automobile.
The Gardena Municipal Code currently does not provide bicycle
parking standards. The City should amend its Municipal Code to
include requirements on the quantity and type of bicycle parking to
be provided at new and retrofitted multi-family residential,
commercial, office, and mixed-use land uses of all sizes. Quantity of
bicycle parking should be based on square footage of developments
or by number of employees/residents to adequately address the
bicycle demand at each development.
The City should also amend its Municipal Code to include
requirements on types of both short- and long-term bicycle parking
facility designs, which are shown in Appendix J. Bicycle rack
designs should include racks that provide two points of contact
with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front
wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a high degree of
security and support for the bicycle. Long-term bicycle parking
should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored
racks for bicycles;
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks;
or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty
from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing
facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they
have a place to clean up before work or school. Gardena’s
Municipal Code should require all new mid-to-large employers,
offices, and businesses to supply changing and storing facilities,
such as by providing showers and clothes lockers within the
buildings or arranging agreements with nearby recreation centers
to allow commuters to use their facilities.
The City should also amend its Municipal Code to
include requirements on types of both short- and long-
term bicycle parking facility designs.
Page 150 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 97
Figure 4-4 displays proposed short- and long-term bicycle parking
locations in Gardena. The City should ensure there is adequate
short-term bicycle parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major
trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers and
transit hubs. The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle
parking throughout the city, with particular attention directed at
the following locations:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major
commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle
parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs
and intermodal facilities should include secure bicycle parking
areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that
provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, should be
considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and
major commercial districts, should provide more secure,
long-term bicycle parking options, such as bicycle lockers.
Page 151 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
98 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 4-4: Gardena Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Page 152 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 99
4.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle
network in Gardena.
4.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 4-13 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for
each facility type proposed in this plan and Table 4-14 displays the
cost to implement the proposed network in the City of Gardena
from the cost assumptions.16 Cost assumptions are based on LA
County averages and may vary depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude
specific treatments that may vary by location and must be
determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures,
restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost
assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as
changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation
of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project
sheets presented in Section 4.7.
Table 4-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types
Facility Type Description Estimated Cost17
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile
Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane
restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile
Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
16 Table 4-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with
Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
17 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and
striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary engineering, and
construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County
Bicycle Master Plan, which are based upon a peer review of Southern
California bikeway construction unit costs.
Page 153 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
100 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 4-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per
mile
Length of
Proposed Network
(miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 0.2 $ 152,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 10.4 $ 416,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 3.9 $ 97,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 16.8 $ 505,000
Total 31.3 $ 1,170,000
4.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of
Gardena in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities presented
in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section 4.4.1 is
grouped into projects based on feasibility of implementation. Table
4-15 presents the prioritized projects based on the prioritization
methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each criterion contains
information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or
future need in Gardena. The projects ranked the highest should be
implemented first.
Page 154 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 101 Table 4-15: Gardena Prioritized Bicycle Projects Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BFS Budlong Avenue - 155th Street - Van Buren Avenue - Magnolia Avenue - Budlong Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 162nd Street 3 6 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 21BFS 154th Street Van Ness Avenue Denker Avenue 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 18BFS Berendo Avenue 162nd Street 170th Street 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 18BFS Harvard Boulevard 147th Street 154th Street 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 18BFS 158th St Denker Ave Normandie Ave 6 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 18BFS Magnolia Ave Normandie Ave Vermont Ave 6 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 18BFS 154th Street - 154th Place - Cimarron Way Crenshaw Boulevard 154th Street 3 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 17BFS Denker Avenue 146th St 154th Street 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 17BR Denker Avenue 154th 158th 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 17BFS Denker Avenue - 166th Street - Denker Avenue 158th St 170th Street 3 6 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 17BL Western Avenue El Segundo Boulevard 146th Street 0 6 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 16BFS Purch Avenue - 129th Street - Spinning Avenue - 134th Place El Segundo Boulevard Van Ness Avenue 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 16BL Crenshaw Boulevard El Segundo Boulevard Redondo Beach Boulevard 0 6 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 2 16BR Gardena Boulevard - 164th Street Brighton Avenue Vermont Avenue 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 16Page 155 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena 102 | Alta Planning + Design Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BFS - BP - BFS - BP 139th Street - Agate Court - Opal Way - Garnet Lane - Amber Place - Emerald Lane - Carnelian Place Normandie Ave Vermont Ave 3 6 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 16BFS - BP - BFS 132nd Street Spinning Avenue Western Avenue 3 3 0 4 0 0 0 2 1 2 15BL El Segundo Boulevard Crenshaw Boulevard Vermont Avenue 0 6 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 15BFS 139th Street - Purche Avenue - 141st Place - Ardath Avenue Van Ness Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 15BL Vermont Avenue El Segundo Boulevard Electric Street 0 6 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 15BFS 146th St - Gramercy Place - Redondo Beach Boulevard - 161st Street - St Andrews Place - 166th St - Gramercy Place 147th St Artesia Blvd 0 6 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 15BFS 162nd Street Normandie Avenue Berendo Avenue 6 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 15BFS 170th St Denker Ave Vermont Avenue 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 14BFS Marine Avenue Normandie Avenue Vermont Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 14BR Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 12BFS 147th Street Crenshaw Boulevard Western Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 12Page 156 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 103 Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BFS 148th Street - Western Avenue - 147th Street Gramercy Pl Halldale Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 12BFS Spinning Avenue 147th Street Marine Avenue 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 11BFS Wadkins Avenue - Marine Avenue - Atkinson Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 154th Street 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 11BR - BL 182nd Street Western Avenue Vermont Avenue 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 10BR Marine Avenue Halldale Avenue Normandie Avenue 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 10BFS Gardena Boulevard West City Limits Western Avenue 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 10BFS - BP 132nd Street Budlong Avenue Vermont Avenue 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 9BR 132nd St Western Avenue Budlong Ave 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 9BFS Halldale Avenue 139th St Marine Avenue 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 9BL 135th Street Crenshaw Boulevard Western Avenue 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 8BR 135th Street Western Avenue Vermont Avenue 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 8BR 162nd Street Denker Ave Normandie Avenue 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 6*BP=Bike Path, BL=-Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street Page 157 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena 104 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Page 158 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 105
4.7 Project Sheets
The City of Gardena selected two of its top priority projects from
the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project sheets
are shown on the following pages and include:
A review of the existing site conditions
Site challenges
Recommended improvements
Estimated cost
Photos
Aerial images
Concept graphics
Page 159 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
106 | Alta Planning + Design
Gardena Project #1: Western Avenue (El Segundo Boulevard to 146th Street)
Project Site Photos
Western Avenue is a north-south arterial located in the center of
the City of Gardena. It connects to the County of Los Angeles to
the north and the City of Torrance to the South. Western Avenue
provides access to a wide variety of commercial and industrial
services. There is existing on-street parallel parking along the
entire street.
Western Avenue has two travel lanes in each direction, a center
turn lane, and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. From El Segundo
Boulevard to 139th Street, Western Avenue has a roadway width of
approximately 78 to 80 feet. There are center medians north and
south of the intersection of 135th Street with 32 feet of roadway
width on each side. South of 139th Street, the roadway width of
Western Avenue drops to 75 feet. There is a center median north of
Rosecrans with a roadway width of approximately 30 to 31 feet on
each side. On the northbound side of the median there are three
travel lanes. The third travel lane terminates after the median ends.
Looking north on Western Avenue. Bicyclists must share the road
with high volumes of motorized vehicles.
Project Challenges
Western Avenue has no existing bicycle facilities, thus bicyclists
must share the road with high volumes of vehicles traveling at high
speeds on an arterial street. Center medians and on-street parking
reduce the available space for bicycle facilities.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 1.2 miles of Class II Bike Lanes
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Remove approximately 25 on-street parking spaces and the third
northbound travel lane at the center median north of Rosecrans
Avenue
Install wayfinding signage after the implementation of the bike
friendly street on 146th Street to guide bicyclists from Western
Avenue to bike friendly street
Estimated Cost
$100,000
Bicycle detectors at signalized intersections will position bicyclists
to trigger the signal when no vehicles are present.
A third northbound travel lane along the center median at
Rosecrans Avenue does not provide adequate roadway width for
a bicycle lane.
Page 160 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 107
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Western Avenue
Western Avenue (El Segundo Boulevard to 146th Street)
Bike Lanes Next to On-street Parking and Bike Lane with Buffer
Page 161 of 535
Chapter Four | Gardena
108 | Alta Planning + Design
Gardena Project #2: 146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161
st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166
th
Street – Gramercy Place (Western Avenue to Artesia Boulevard)
Project Site Photos
146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place –
166th Street – Gramercy Place is a series of primarily residential
streets in the center of the City of Gardena. It connects to proposed
bike lanes on Western Avenue to the north and connects to Artesia
Boulevard to the south. This segment provides access to Chapman
Elementary School and several industrial uses. There is on-street
parallel parking along most of this segment.
146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place –
166th Street – Gramercy Place has two travel lanes in each direction.
Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place from Redondo
Beach Boulevard to 162nd Street has a striped center lane. There is a
signalized intersection at Gramercy Place and Redondo Beach
Boulevard, and many stop controlled intersections throughout the
segment.
A HAWK across Artesia Boulevard will allow bicyclists and
pedestrians to safely cross busy arterials.
Project Challenges
While 146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews
Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place consists of primarily quiet
residential streets, the streets jog from one to the other and lack
connectivity making it difficult to navigate by bicycle. Intersections
with Western Avenue and Artesia Boulevard are stop controlled on
the minor street which makes it challenging for bicyclists to cross
the arterials and initiate left turns. South of 166th Street, Gramercy
Place has several industrial services which potentially attract
vehicular traffic.
Proposed Improvements
Install signage and stripe pavement markings, such as sharrows
or bike friendly street stencils
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Install wayfinding signage at locations where the bike route
curves
Stripe bike left turn lanes on 166th Street at St. Andrews Place
and 166th Street at Gramercy Place
Install High Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWKs) across
Artesia Boulevard and Western Avenue
Construct speed humps on Gramercy Place south of 166th Street
Estimated Cost
$200,000
A bike left turn pocket on 166th Street at Gramercy Place will
provide bicyclists a protected place to queue.
A HAWK across Western Avenue will allow bicyclists and
pedestrians to safely cross busy arterials.
Page 162 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 109
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: 146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161
st Street – St. Andrews
Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place (Western Avenue to Artesia Boulevard)
146th Street – Gramercy Place – 161st Street – St. Andrews Place – 166th Street – Gramercy Place (Western
Avenue to Artesia Boulevard)
Example Bike Left Turn Pocket and HAWK
Page 163 of 535
110 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 164 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 111
Chapter 5
Hermosa Beach
Page 165 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
112 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 166 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 113
5 Hermosa Beach
This chapter presents the Hermosa Beach sections of the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan. It begins with a table that identifies how
Hermosa Beach complies with Bicycle Transportation Account
requirements. The chapter is then organized into the following
sections:
Existing conditions
City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions
Needs analysis
Proposed bicycle network
Project prioritization
Project costs
5.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide
discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the
Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local
jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Hermosa Beach to
qualify for BTA funds, the South B ay Bicycle Master Plan must
contain specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA
components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The
table includes “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the
convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing
compliance.
5.2 Existing Conditions
Hermosa Beach is located in the western portion of the South Bay
region. It is bordered by the City of Manhattan Beach to the north,
the City of Redondo Beach to the east and south, and the Pacific
Ocean to the west. According to the 2000 Census, Hermosa Beach
has a population of 18,442. The city was incorporated in 1907.
5.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South
Bay Region. Land uses in Hermosa Beach are shown at right. The
largest land use is residential: approximately 40 percent of
Hermosa Beach’s land area is single family and 21 percent is other
residential. The City also is comprised of about 15 percent open
space.
Existing Land Uses in Hermosa Beach
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Page 167 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
114 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-1: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map
Page 168 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 115
Figure 5-1 displays the proposed land uses for Hermosa Beach.
Existing land uses are generally consistent with use types and
densities on the zoning map. There is limited potential for
increased densities such that future development will be largely
comprised of infill on the City’s small lots with negligible increases
in density.
5.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are
correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high
population or employment densities or high concentrations of
certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle
households.
Appendix A-4 shows population density in Hermosa Beach. Areas
of high population density are distributed uniformly throughout
the city. Population density, measured as the number of persons per
acre, is a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more
people living in an area implies more trips to and from that area.
The high population densities of urbanized environments also tend
to support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected
street networks, and shorter trip lengths.
Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Hermosa Beach.
The City has the highest employment densities along Pier Avenue.
Though not as high as Pier Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway also has
high employment densities. While the City’s zoning code provides
very limited opportunity to develop new mixed residential-
commercial land uses, the close proximity of the employment
corridors to housing facilitates short trips between a variety of land
uses and the potential to generate bicycle activity.
Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7, and Appendix A-8 display the
number and percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual
income, and percent transit commuters by census tract.
Throughout Hermosa Beach, households have median annual
incomes between $75,001 and $95,000 (in 1999 dollars). There are
high percentages of households that own a vehicle in most of the
City, though percentages of household vehicle ownership are lower
in the northeastern portion on the border of Manhattan Beach and
North Redondo Beach. The northeastern and southwestern parts of
Hermosa Beach have higher percentages of transit commuters.
These parts of the city have greater potential for increased bicycling
activity because residents who do not have vehicles must use
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics
that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such
as certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters.
Page 169 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
116 | Alta Planning + Design
alternative modes and are likely to combine bicycle and transit
trips.
In addition to the reasons discussed above, Hermosa Beach has the
potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing
through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle
network that is connected within Hermosa Beach, as well as linked
to bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates
bicycle traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to
driving a motorized vehicle.
5.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 5-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of
Hermosa Beach’s Circulation, Transportation, and Parking
Element; Proposed Bicycle Master Plan; and Municipal Code.
Page 170 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 117
Table 5-1: Hermosa Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Circulation,
Transportation,
and Parking
Element (1990)
The General Plan Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element contains a map outlining the existing bicycle
facilities, as well as key bicycle traffic generating locations, such as the Pier. This map was superseded by the
Proposed Bicycle Master Plan (below). The element states that there are no streets in Hermosa Beach that could
accommodate properly designed bicycle facilities. This is due to right-of-way constraints, heavy traffic volumes, and
conflicts with curb parking. In order to install properly designed facilities, the City would need to widen streets and
purchase right-of-ways. For this reason it does not propose any additional bicycle facilities. The Proposed Bicycle
Master Plan, however, identifies proposed Class II bike lanes and shared roadways.
To implement the overall goal of providing a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system, the element outlines
the following objectives and policies:
Maximize the use of alternative transportation modes
Encourage bicycle travel city-wide
Provide for the transport of bicycles on public transit vehicles wherever possible
Maintain the surfaces of bike paths to maximize safety and ease of travel
Require new developments to accommodate parking consistent with TDM programs
Proposed Bicycle
Master Plan
(2009)
The Hermosa Beach Bicycle Master Plan consists of a map (Appendix F-3) that displays existing and proposed bicycle
facilities. Existing facilities include two bicycle routes in the City of Hermosa Beach. Those routes are along the Strand
from the southerly City boundary to 24th Street connecting to the route on Hermosa Avenue from 24th Street to the
north City boundary. The Strand is largely recreational as it is shared with pedestrians and roller-skaters. At various
times due to high traffic volumes and the wide variety of users this is not a truly viable connector. The bike route
connects to a bike path to the north in Manhattan Beach. The path is a designated bike route in Manhattan Beach
which runs north along the beach into the cities of El Segundo, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica. To the south the
Strand connects to a designated bike route in Redondo Beach along Harbor Drive.
Proposed Class II bike lanes are on Artesia Boulevard from Ardmore Avenue to Prospect Avenue and Herondo Street
from Hermosa Avenue to the southern City limits. Proposed shared roadways are on Hermosa Avenue, 22nd Street,
Monterey Boulevard, Valley Drive, Ardmore Avenue, Pier Avenue, and Prospect Avenue. To date, sharrows on
Hermosa Avenue have been implemented.
Municipal Code The Municipal Code includes bicycle parking requirements that vary by the size of the development and type of land
use as part of its transportation demand and trip reduction measures; however, virtually all projects developed are
too small to be subject to these regulations. Minimum parking requirements are based on square footage of the
development. Specific Plan Area No. 11 (along a portion of Pier Avenue) has a separate bicycle parking requirement in
which minimum requirements can be based on either square footage or number of employees and shall be in the
form of bike rack, fully enclosed spaces or lockers or other secure parking. The SPA-11 Zone also provides for an in-
lieu fee when it is not practical to place bike racks on the property. The Municipal Code provides that vehicle parking
for any development may be reduced with a Parking Plan approved by the planning commission based on various
factors including bicycle and foot traffic. Bicycle parking is reviewed during the planning process by the planner. The
code does not provide any other form of guidance. Detailed bicycle parking information is presented in Appendix G.
The Municipal Code does not prohibit riding bicycles on the sidewalk, though there is not exact language stating this.
Page 171 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
118 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Page 172 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 119
5.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 5-2 shows the existing bicycle network in Hermosa Beach.
Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle facilities in
the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are discussed in Section
1.3. The City of Hermosa Beach has a bicycle network that consists
of approximately 5 miles of bicycle facilities. This includes Class I,
Class II, and Class III facilities. Its Class I bike path is a portion of
the Los Angeles County-maintained bicycle path that runs along
the Strand. Table 5-2 summarizes the classification and mileage of
the existing network.
Table 5-2: Hermosa Beach Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 1.8
Class II (Bike Lanes) 0.5
Class III (Bike Route) 2.8
Total Mileage 5.1
5.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible
short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the
members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as
change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities
consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not
limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities. Appendix A-9 presents the locations of existing
end-of-trip bicycle facilities in the South Bay. Existing bicycle
parking in Hermosa Beach is shown at right. Bicycle racks are
located in commercial shopping centers, in the Downtown, and
along the Strand. Hermosa Beach does have any existing changing
or showering facilities.
5.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for
shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high
level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.
Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of
Hermosa Beach. Metro operates several bus lines with routes
through the City that connect Hermosa Beach to its neighboring
(See Appendix A-9 for larger map)
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in
Hermosa Beach
Page 173 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
120 | Alta Planning + Design
communities and key activity centers. Buses are equipped with
bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
LADOT operates the Commuter Express bus service. Line 438
connects the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.
Most Commuter Express buses are equipped with bicycle racks,
which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. The
Commuter Express Line 438 route map is shown in Appendix A-
11.
Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 109, operated by the City of
Redondo Beach, and Torrance Transit Line 8, operated by the City
of Torrance, also serve the City of Hermosa Beach. Appendix A-13
shows the BCT System Map and Appendix A-14 shows the
Torrance Transit System Map. Buses are equipped with bike racks,
which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit
services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle
parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and
ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit
vehicles. Hermosa Beach does not currently provide any intermodal
end-of-trip bicycle facilities within its jurisdiction.
5.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related
policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. To promote safe
bicycling, the Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission and
Police Department put together a “Share the Road” Pamphlet that
has been distributed to all the bicycle shops and at bicycle events.
This pamphlet could be made available to all participating South
Bay cities. Hermosa Beach has also held three bicycle safety events
at Valley Park in May 2009, 2010, and 2011.
The Hermosa Beach Police Department began conducting increased
bicycle enforcement in May 2010. To date, this has resulted in thirty
citations issued to bicyclists for stop sign and signal violations.
5.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
Between 2000 and 2010 the City of Hermosa Beach incurred the
following bicycle-related expenditure:
$803,000 for shared lane markings and improvements on
the Strand
Increased enforcment in Hermosa Beach has led to
more citations to bicyclists for stop sign and signal
violations.
Page 174 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 121
5.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Hermosa Beach. It
first summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and
public workshops. This section also provides estimates and
forecasts of bicycle commuting to determine the estimated
bicycling demand in the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision
data between 2007 and 2009 to identify areas that would benefit
from bicycle facility improvements.
5.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to
provide input in the planning process through an online survey and
the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes
locations in Hermosa Beach that the community identified as
desirable for bikeways.
The locations that the community mentioned the most frequently
as in need of bikeways are Valley Drive /Ardmore Avenue and Pier
Avenue. The community also noted that it would like to see bicycle
facilities on major north-south and east-west routes, including
Aviation Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue.
5.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an
indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows
the percent bicycle commuters in Hermosa Beach by census tract.
There are no bicycle commuters throughout most of Hermosa
Beach. The highest percentages of bicycle commuters are located in
the southwest portion, which corresponds with higher percentages
of transit commuters.
Table 5-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by
the 2000 US Census for Hermosa Beach. For comparative purposes,
the table includes commute to work data for the United States,
California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,
0.22 percent of residents in Hermosa Beach commute primarily by
bicycle. This is lower than the percentage of bicycle commuters in
Los Angeles County, California, and the U.S. as a whole. Hermosa
Beach also has low rates of carpooling and transit riding, which
suggests that the city’s high median incomes and high car
ownership rates are a primary influence on mode split. It is
important to note that this figure likely underestimates the true
amount of bicycling that occurs in Hermosa Beach for several
reasons. First, data reflects respondents’ dominant commute mode
The community noted that it would like to see bicycle
facilities on major north-south and east-west routes,
including Aviation Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue.
Page 175 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
122 | Alta Planning + Design
and therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other
bike trips that would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census
data collection methods only enable a respondent to select one
mode of travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part
of a longer multimodal trip. The percentage of commuters in
Hermosa Beach that commute by transit is much lower than that of
those that drive alone. Hermosa Beach also has a low percentage of
carpooling.
In addition to bicycle commuters in Hermosa Beach, bicyclists from
neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach
their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan
addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate
bicyclists passing through Hermosa Beach’s bicycle network in
Section 5.4.
Table 5-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United
States California Los Angeles
County
Hermosa
Beach
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.22%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 82.61%
Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 6.61%
Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 0.95%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 2.42%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.71%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 5.98%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 5-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within
Hermosa Beach using US Census data along with several
adjustments for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as
discussed above. Table 5-5 presents the associated air quality
benefits from bicycling.
Page 176 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 123
Table 5-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 18,442 2000 US Census, P1
Existing employed population 12,784 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.22% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of bike-to-work
commuters 28
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 5.98% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters 76
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 0.950% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing transit bicycle commuters
30
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Existing school children, ages 6-14
(grades K-8) 992
2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode
share 2.0%
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Existing school children bike commuters
20
School children population multiplied by school
children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in
study area 1,495
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling
mode share
5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of
bicycle commute share at the University of California,
Los Angeles
Existing college bike commuters
75
College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters
230
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike
trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 459 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 177 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
124 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 5-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
141
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 36,911 Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
1,058
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
276,076
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 3 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 2 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 29 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 860 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 828 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 3 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 578 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 7,547 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 224,589 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Table 5-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within
Hermosa Beach using California Department of Finance population
and school enrollment projections. The projection contains the
assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in
part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share
in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of
network implementation. Table 5-7 presents the associated year
Page 178 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 125
2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a
straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling
Demand.
Table 5-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
22,950
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.
Future employed population
15,909
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 0.4% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of bike-to-work
commuters 70
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share
10.8%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters 172
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 1.9% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future transit bicycle commuters
76
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
788
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.
Future school children bicycling mode
share 4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Future school children bike commuters
32
School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
1,860
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.
Future estimated college bicycling mode
share
7.0%
A slight increase over the existing college bicycle
mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other populations
Future college bike commuters
130
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
480
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 959 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 179 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
126 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 5-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
289
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
75,357
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
2,193
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
572,327
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 7 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 5 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 60 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 1,784 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 1,716 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 7 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 6 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,199 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 15,646 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 465,591 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
This model uses the latest state projections for population growth and
reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The benefits model
predicts that the total number of bicycle commute trips could increase from
the current daily estimate of 460 to 960, resulting in a substantial reduction
of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This
includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately 1,200
pounds of smog forming N0X and roughly 500 thousand pounds of C02, the
Page 180 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 127
principal gas associated with global climate change. Providing
bicycle facilities will encourage new bicyclists to begin to ride, thus
positively impacting air quality by reducing harmful pollutants
from driving motorized vehicles. Because this plan recommends
local connections throughout and regional links between the
participating cities, it has the potential to have even greater air
quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as heavily on
vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a viable
transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.
5.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Hermosa
Beach, volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they
manually recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.
5.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture
both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also
provides guidance on how to select count locations.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven
participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4,
2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010
from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture
volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is
an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because
school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In
Hermosa Beach, volunteers were stationed at six stations on
Thursday and seven stations on Saturday. There were 36 total
locations in the South Bay region on each day.
The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta
Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and
South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of
locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using
the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.
5.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A-
16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Hermosa Beach are shown
at right. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in Hermosa Beach
(See Appendix A-16 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in Hermosa Beach
(See Appendix A-17 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Page 181 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
128 | Alta Planning + Design
presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the Hermosa Beach
station that experienced the highest volume was Hermosa Avenue
and 8th Street with 152 bicyclists during the three hour count
period. The station with the most bicyclists on Saturday was
Hermosa Avenue and 24th Street with 922 bicyclists during the
three hour count period.
On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists
in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on
the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the
Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and
Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the
weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count
stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more
bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for
recreation on the weekend.
In the region as a whole, approximately 83 percent of bicyclists
were male. About 70 percent of those observed did not wear
helmets and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there
were 18 locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode
on the sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the
sidewalk can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as
bicyclists that are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to
ride on the sidewalk instead.
5.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.
Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not
riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to national
surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to
areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions
occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable
data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes
reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle
collisions in Hermosa Beach. This data does not include any
assessment of conditions present at the time of the collision. There
are numerous factors that may contribute to a given incident
including but not limited to time of day, visibility, distractions,
obstacles or traffic law obedience. This data simply reflects
reported incidents, resulting injuries and the party at fault. This
data does not infer faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a
baseline of collisions that often decreases in correlation with bike
(See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Bicycle Collisions in Hermosa Beach 2007-2009
Page 182 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 129
plan implementation and the improvements to facilities and road
user behavior and awareness that accompanies it. Fault as
determined by law enforcement is discussed below.
Table 5-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving
bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle
collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South
Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in Hermosa
Beach are shown at right. There were 21 total reported collisions
involving bicyclists from 2007-2009 in the City of Hermosa Beach.
Most of the crashes occurred on Hermosa Avenue: three occurred in
the northern portion of the city, and six occurred on Hermosa
Avenue between 16th Street and 10th Street in the area surrounding
the pier. These locations have high employment densities and
recreational attractions, which correlate with bicycling activity.
There were also two crashes at the intersection of Pacific Coast
Highway and Artesia Blvd in the northeast portion of the city along
the border with Manhattan Beach. These streets carry large
volumes of vehicular traffic traveling at high speeds and intersect at
a non-right angle, which creates situations that can produce
conflicts between bicycles and automobiles.
Table 5-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes Involving
Bicyclists
Number of Bicyclists
Involved Persons Injured
Persons
Severely
Injured
Persons Killed
19 21 18 3 0
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at
fault in 74 percent of collisions involving bicyclists (14 crashes).
Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When
motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions
between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York,
for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and
2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions
decreased (see Appendix B).
Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in the
participating cities. There is no data available for Hermosa Beach.
Page 183 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
130 | Alta Planning + Design
5.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of
Hermosa Beach, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon
implementation of the proposed network, the City should
coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay
cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
discussed in this Plan are described in Section 1.3 and presented in
Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended
standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum
standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of
bikeways in Hermosa Beach, the recommended system ties into the
proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating
cities to create a connected regional network. This will give
bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass
through Hermosa Beach to reach their destinations without losing
bicycle facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway recommendations are
also based on the existing City bicycle plans, public input,
topography, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.
5.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network in the City of Hermosa Beach
consists of Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike
Friendly Streets, and is shown in Figure 5-3. The proposed bicycle
network in Hermosa Beach connects with the recommended
networks in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Figure 5-3
includes a blue asterisk at the steps between Hermosa Beach and
Manhattan Beach indicating that this is outside the jurisdiction of
this Plan, but the connection between the two cities is a supported
improvement. The proposed bicycle network for the South Bay
region as a whole is presented in Appendix A-19.
Three tables identify the streets on which facilities are proposed,
the extents of each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each
proposed facility in Hermosa Beach. Table 5-9 lists the proposed
bicycle lanes, Table 5-10 lists the proposed bicycle routes, and
Table 5-11 lists the proposed bicycle-friendly streets.
The proposed bicycle network in the City of Hermosa
Beach consists of Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes,
and Bike Friendly Streets.
Page 184 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 131
Table 5-9: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Hermosa Beach
Facility Type Street From To Miles
BL Herondo Street Hermosa Avenue Valley Drive 0.3
BL Aviation Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway Harper Avenue 0.4
BL Artesia Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway Harper Avenue 0.2
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 0.9
Table 5-10: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Hermosa Beach
Street From To Miles
Pier Avenue Hermosa Avenue Ardmore Avenue 0.4
27th Street - Gould Avenue Hermosa Avenue Pacific Coast Highway 0.6
Longfellow Avenue Hermosa Avenue Valley Drive 0.3
Valley Drive Longfellow Avenue Herondo Street 1.8
Ardmore Avenue North City Limits Pier Avenue 1.0
Highland Avenue 35th Street Longfellow Avenue 0.2
10th Street Ardmore Avenue Pacific Coast Highway 0.1
Hermosa Avenue 35th Street 24th St 0.5
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 4.7
Table 5-11: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Hermosa Beach
Street From To Miles
8th Street Hermosa Avenue Prospect Avenue 0.7
1st Street Manhattan Avenue The Strand 0.1
22nd Street - Monterey Boulevard The Strand Herondo Street 1.4
35th Street - Palm Drive Hermosa Avenue 1st Street 0.1
21st Street Ardmore Avenue Prospect Avenue 0.3
Prospect Avenue Artesia Boulevard South City Limits 1.3
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 3.8
Page 185 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
132 | Alta Planning + Design
There are several opportunities and constraints to recommending
new bicycle facilities in Hermosa Beach. These are shown at left
and are referenced by the numbers in Appendix I. Appendix I also
presents opportunities and constraints in the South Bay region as a
whole.
One opportunity is for a proposed Bike Friendly Street on Prospect
Avenue in Hermosa Beach as this is also being proposed by Vitality
City. See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
Another opportunity is for a proposed Class II on Aviation
Boulevard. Hermosa Beach’s section of Aviation Boulevard is
particularly rich with retail and commercial uses. Bike facilities
could greatly improve the area’s visibility and access. See Vitality
City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
Finally, there is the opportunity for a proposed Class III bikeway on
Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue. While this plan recommends a Class
III route, the Vitality City Livability Plan recommends additional
options. See the Vitality City Livability Plan for further detail and
opportunities.
Constraints to implementing the proposed bicycle facilities first
include “The Wall” on the Strand at the border of Hermosa Beach
and Redondo Beach. This wall severs the Marvin Braude Bikeway at
the Hermosa Beach-Redondo Beach border. South-bound bicyclists
are forced to make a sharp 90-degree turn and are led out to the
bike lanes on Harbor Drive. This plan recommends the removal of
the wall and that parking lot 13 in Redondo Beach be partially
utilized to accommodate a short extension of the Class I facility
that will lead to Harbor Drive in a safer and more navigable way.
Another constraint is the stairs on the Strand between Hermosa
Beach and Manhattan Beach. This constraint is also noted as being
(See Appendix I for larger map)
Opportunities and Constraints in
Hermosa Beach
Page 186 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 133
Figure 5-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Page 187 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
134 | Alta Planning + Design
outside this plan’s jurisdiction because those stairs (along with the
rest of the Strand with the exception of Hermosa Beach) are
operated by the State and maintained by the County of Los Angeles.
However, this plan urges the cities to remedy the disruption caused
by the stairs. This remedy could come in several forms ranging from
a bike-friendly ramp that connects the two sections of the Strand to
signage that warns cyclists of the disruption and safely guides them
to facilities along Hermosa Avenue.
5.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation
are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance
safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With
nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists
need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive
bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a
jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling
environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of
residents traveling without using an automobile.
The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code currently provides bicycle
parking requirements in its Specific Plan Area No. 11 Zone and at
large non-residential developments (although the threshold far
exceeds the scale of various developments in the City and therefore
these transportation management and demand regulations have no
effect). The City should amend its Municipal Code to include
requirements on the quantity of bicycle parking to be provided at
new and retrofitted multi-family residential, commercial, office, and
mixed-use developments of all sizes, as well as bicycle parking
design types. Quantity of bicycle parking should be based on square
footage of developments or by number of residents to adequately
address the bicycle demand at each development.
The City should also amend its Municipal Code to include
requirements on types of both short- and long-term bicycle parking
facility designs, which are shown in Appendix J. Bicycle rack
designs should include racks that provide two points of contact
with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front
wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a high degree of
security and support for the bicycle. Long-term bicycle parking
should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored
racks for bicycles
The City should amend its Municipal Code to
includebicycle parking design types.
Page 188 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 135
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks
or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty
from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing
facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they
have a place to clean up before work or school. Hermosa Beach’s
Municipal Code should require all new mid-to-large employers,
offices, and businesses to supply changing and storing facilities,
such as by providing showers and clothes lockers within the
buildings or arranging agreements with nearby recreation centers
to allow commuters to use their facilities.
Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities in Hermosa Beach are shown
in Figure 5-4. The City should continue to provide short-term
bicycle parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major trip
attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers and
transit hubs, and ensure that an adequate supply is available. The
City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking
throughout the city, with particular attention directed at the
following locations:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major
commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle
parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs
and intermodal facilities should include secure bicycle parking
areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that
provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, should be
considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.
The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle
parking throughout the city, with particular attention
directed at locations, such as parks and commercial
areas.
Page 189 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
136 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-4: Hermosa Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Page 190 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 137
5.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle
network in Hermosa Beach.
5.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 5-12 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for
each facility type proposed in this plan, and Table 5-13 displays the
cost to implement the proposed network in the City of Hermosa
Beach from the cost assumptions.18 Cost assumptions are based on
LA County averages and may vary depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude
specific treatments that may vary by location and must be
determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures,
restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost
assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as
changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation
of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project
sheets presented in Section 5.7.
Table 5-12: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types
Facility Type Description Estimated Cost19
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile
Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane
restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile
Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
18 Table 5-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with
Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
19 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and
striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary engineering, and
construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County
Bicycle Master Plan, which are based upon a peer review of Southern
California bikeway construction unit costs.
Page 191 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
138 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 5-13: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per
mile
Length of
Proposed Network
(miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 0.0 $ -
Bicycle Lane $40,000 0.9 $ 36,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 4.8 $119,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 3.8 $114,000
Total 9.5 $ 269,000
5.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of
Hermosa Beach in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities
presented in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section
5.4.1 is grouped into projects based on feasibility of
implementation. Table 5-14 presents the prioritized projects based
on the prioritization methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each
criterion contains information about a facility and its ability to
address an existing or future need in Hermosa Beach. The projects
ranked the highest should be implemented first.
Page 192 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 139 Table 5-14: Hermosa Beach Prioritized Projects Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BR Pier Avenue Hermosa Avenue Ardmore Avenue 3 6 0 4 0 1 2 0 2 2 20BFS 8th Street Hermosa Avenue Prospect Avenue 3 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 2 19BR 27th Street - Gould Avenue Hermosa Avenue Pacific Coast Highway 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 2 18BFS 1st Street Manhattan Avenue The Strand 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 2 18BFS 22nd Street - Monterey Boulevard The Strand Herondo Street 3 6 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 2 18BR Longfellow Avenue Hermosa Avenue Valley Drive 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 17BL Herondo Street Hermosa Avenue Valley Drive 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 16BFS 35th Street - Palm Drive Hermosa Avenue 1st Street 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 15BR Valley Drive Longfellow Avenue Herondo Street 0 3 0 4 0 1 2 1 1 2 14BR Ardmore Avenue North City Limits Pier Avenue 0 3 0 4 0 0 2 1 2 2 14BR Highland Avenue 35th Street Longfellow Avenue 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 10BFS 21st Street Ardmore Avenue Prospect Avenue 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 2 2 10BL Artesia Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway Harper Avenue 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 9Page 193 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach 140 | Alta Planning + Design Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BR - BL 10th Street - Aviation Boulevard Ardmore Avenue Harper Avenue 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 7BFS Prospect Avenue Artesia Boulevard South City Limits 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 6*BP=Bike Path, BL=Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street Page 194 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 141
5.7 Project Sheets
The City of Hermosa Beach selected two of its top priority projects
from the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project
sheets are shown on the following pages and include:
A review of the existing site conditions
Site challenges
Recommended improvements
Estimated cost
Photos
Aerial images
Concept graphics
Page 195 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
142 | Alta Planning + Design
Hermosa Beach Project #1: Prospect Avenue (Artesia Boulevard to Anita Street)
Project Site Photos
Prospect Avenue is a north-south primarily residential road located
in the eastern portion of the City of Hermosa Beach. It connects to
the City of Manhattan Beach to the north and the City of Redondo
Beach to the south. Prospect Avenue provides access to Hermosa
View Elementary School, Rodaway Park, and scattered commercial
services. There is on-street parking along most of Prospect Avenue
and a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
From Artesia Boulevard to 21st Street, Prospect Avenue has two
travel lanes in each direction. South of 21st Street, the road drops to
one travel lane in each direction. There are many striped
crosswalks throughout the segment at intersections and midblock.
There is no existing on-street parking south of Aviation Boulevard
on the west side of the street.
Bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks at intersection will visually
narrow the road and reduce vehicle speeds.
Sharrows on Prospect Avenue will alert motorists to the presence
of bicyclists and help bicyclists with proper lane positioning.
Intersection crossing markings will help guide bicyclists through
the intersections and increase their visibility.
Project Challenges
Prospect Avenue has no existing bicycle facilities, thus bicyclists
must share the road with vehicular traffic. Bicyclists must cross
arterials that carry high volumes of vehicles traveling at high
speeds. There are few existing treatments to create a safe bicycling
environment for children riding to school.
Proposed Improvements
Install signage and stripe pavement markings, such as sharrows
or bike friendly street stencils
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Stripe intersection crossing markings to guide bicyclists through
the intersections and increase their visibility
Construct bulbouts with high visibility crosswalks
Install roundabout at Artesia Boulevard to reduce vehicle speeds
Estimated Cost
$3,000,000
Page 196 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 143
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Prospect Avenue
Prospect Avenue (Artesia Boulevard to Anita Street)
Example Intersection Crossing Markings Designs (Source: NACTO.org)
Page 197 of 535
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
144 | Alta Planning + Design
Hermosa Beach Project #2: Longfellow Avenue (Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive)
Project Site Photos
Longfellow Avenue is an east-west residential street located in the
northern portion of the City of Hermosa Beach. It connects to the
Hermosa Valley Greenbelt to the east and an existing cycle track
that leads to the beach on Hermosa Avenue to the west. Longfellow
Avenue provides secondary access to restaurants and commercial
services on Hermosa Avenue and Manhattan Avenue. There is
metered parallel parking along most of Longfellow Avenue and a
posted speed limit of 25 mph.
Longfellow Avenue has one travel lane in each direction with a
striped center line. There are stop controlled intersections at most
intersections.
Sharrows on Longfellow Avenue will help bicyclists with lane
positioning so they ride outside of the door zone of parked cars.
Project Challenges
Longfellow Avenue is a popular route to the beach for both
bicyclists and vehicles. Because it is highly utilized by both
bicyclists and motorists, there is the potential for conflicts between
the two modes.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe sharrows and install “Share the Road” signage
Install wayfinding signage at intersections with existing bicycle
facilities (and future facilities once implemented)
Estimated Cost
$10,000
Hermosa Avenue is highly utilized by both bicyclists and vehicles;
therefore, there is the potential for conflicts between the two
modes.
Wayfinding signage at intersections with other bicycle facilities,
such as the Hermosa Ave cycle track shown above, will help
bicyclists to navigate through the network.
Page 198 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 145
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Longfellow Avenue
Longfellow Avenue (Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive)
Example Signage and Sharrows
Page 199 of 535
146 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 200 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 147
Chapter 6
Lawndale
Page 201 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
148 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 202 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition And South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 149
6 Lawndale
This chapter presents Lawndale’s portion of the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how Lawndale complies
with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. The chapter is
then organized into the following sections:
Existing conditions
City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions
Needs analysis
Proposed bicycle network
Project prioritization
Project costs
6.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide
discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the
Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local
jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Lawndale to qualify
for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must contain
specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA
components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The
table includes “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the
convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing
compliance.
6.2 Existing Conditions
Lawndale is located in the northern portion of the South Bay
region. It is bordered by the City of Hawthorne to the north, the
County of Los Angeles to the east, the City of Redondo Beach to the
west, and the City of Torrance to the south. According to the 2000
Census, Lawndale has a population of 31,729. The city was
incorporated in 1959.
6.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South
Bay Region. Land uses in Lawndale are shown at right. Almost 60
percent of the City’s land area consists of single family residential
and another 12 percent is multi-family residential. Lawndale also
consists of approximately 12 percent educational uses, a land use
that is associated with producing jobs. Having adequate bicycle
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Existing Land Uses in Lawndale
Page 203 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
150 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 6-1: City of Lawndale General Plan Land Use Map
Page 204 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition And South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 151
facilities could influence commuters to bicycle rather than drive
and encourage parents to let their children ride to school.
Figure 6-1 displays allowed land uses in Lawndale. Most of the
city’s residential areas are zoned "Multi-family low" a land use
designation that allows the development of low density multifamily
housing; though, the residential area along 152nd street are zoned
"Multi-Family Medium Density" a land use designation that allow
medium density residential developments.
6.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are
correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high
population or employment densities or high concentrations of
certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle
households.
Appendix A-4 shows population density in Lawndale. The City
has high population density due in part to its large proportion of
multi-family housing. This type of housing has the potential to
produce more bicycle trips as it has more persons per acre and is
generally located nearer to community services, such as restaurants
or grocery stores. Population density, measured as the number of
persons per acre, is a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity,
because more people living in an area implies more trips to and
from that area. The high population densities of urbanized
environments also tend to support bicycle travel through mixed
land uses, interconnected street networks, and shorter trip lengths.
Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Lawndale. The
highest employment density in Lawndale is along Hawthorne
Boulevard. The land uses on this corridor are primarily commercial
and services, though there are also some general office and
industrial uses. These sites have the potential to generate bicycle
activity, as they are located in environments with a variety of land
uses where trips between uses can be shorter.
Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7 and Appendix A-8 display the
percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual income, and
percent transit commuters by census tract in the City of Lawndale.
Household median annual incomes throughout the city are below
$35,000 (in 1999 dollars). Lawndale has high percentages of
households without vehicles and high percentages of transit
commuters, especially in the northwestern portion. This part of the
city has greater potential for increased bicycling activity because
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics
that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels,
such as certain sub-populations, like transit commuters or
zero-vehicle households.
Page 205 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
152 | Alta Planning + Design
residents who do not have vehicles must use alternative modes and
are likely to combine bicycle and transit trips.
In addition to the reasons discussed above, Lawndale has the
potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing
through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle
network that is connected within Lawndale, as well as linked to
bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates bicycle
traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to driving a
motorized vehicle.
6.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 6-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of
Lawndale’s Circulation Element and Municipal Code.
Table 6-1: Lawndale Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Circulation
Element (1992)
The City of Lawndale’s Circulation Element has an overall goal to consider all modes of
transportation. Other goals and policies include:
Implement a safe, efficient, and accessible transportation system
Provide bikeways throughout the City to encourage bicycle usage
Consider the use of bicycle lanes where feasible during the design and improvement of the
street system
Update and maintain a bikeway plan with recommended routes that connect residential
areas to public facilities and employment centers
Provide an integrated system of bicycle and pedestrian networks with associated facilities
Plan Class II bikeways into all major highways and collector streets
Development shall provide short-term bicycle parking and long term bicycle storage facilities
Development shall provide bicycle access to high activity land uses
Continue seeking funds at the private, local, and federal levels for bicycle circulation system
expansion
Develop and distribute a bicycle map to employers and existing/future residents
Conduct a citywide bikeway study and develop a bikeway master plan (not completed as of
December 2010)
Municipal Code Bicycle parking requirements in the City’s Municipal Code vary by the size and land use of the
development as part of the City’s transportation demand and trip reduction measures. Parking
shall be in the form of bicycle racks, fully enclosed spaces or lockers, or other secure parking. The
City also has requirements for the bicycle parking at video arcades and requires developments of
certain sizes to provide information, such as bicycle maps. For developments that are required to
have bicycle parking, the bicycle storage areas and total number of bikes that can be stored must
be indicated on architectural plans. Once the project is near completion, staff inspects the site and
makes sure that requirements are met. Detailed bicycle parking information is presented in
Appendix G. Lawndale’s Municipal Code does not prohibit riding bicycles on the sidewalk,
though there is not exact language stating this.
Page 206 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition And South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 153
6.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 6-2 shows the existing bicycle facilities in Lawndale. The
City of Lawndale has no existing Class I, Class II, or Class III
facilities. Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle
facilities in the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are
discussed in Section 1.3.
6.2.5 Existing End-of-trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible
short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the
members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as
change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities
consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not
limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities. Existing end-of-trip bicycle facilities in the South
Bay are displayed in Appendix A-9. The locations of existing
bicycle racks in Lawndale are shown at right. These locations
include parks, schools, and shopping centers. The City does not
provide any long-term bicycle parking within its jurisdiction.
6.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for
shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high
level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.
Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of
Lawndale. Metro operates several bus lines with routes through the
City, which makes it relatively well-served by transit. Buses are
equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come,
first-served basis.
Lawndale also operates the Lawndale Beat transit service, which
operates two routes through Lawndale. Appendix A-20 displays
the Lawndale Beat bus routes. Both routes connect to the Metro
Green Line station to the west on Marine Avenue in Redondo
Beach.
The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit
services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle
parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and
ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit
vehicles. Lawndale does not currently provide any end-of-trip
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in
Lawndale
See Appendix A-9 for larger map
Page 207 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
154 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 6-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale
Page 208 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition And South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 155
facilities at the Lawndale Beat bus stops within the City or any
other intermodal end-of-trip facilities within its jurisdiction.
6.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related
policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. Lawndale does
not currently provide any education or enforcement strategies to
promote bicycle safety in the City.
6.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
Between 2000 and 2010, the City of Lawndale incurred the
following bicycle expenditures:
2007: $423.11 for bicycle racks
2010: $11,000 for artistic bicycle racks in Jane Adams Park
6.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Lawndale. It first
summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and public
workshops. The section also provides estimates and forecasts of
bicycle commuting to determine the estimated bicycling demand in
the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision data between 2007 and
2009 to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility
improvements.
6.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to
provide input in the planning process through an online survey and
the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes
locations in Lawndale that the community identified as desirable
for bikeways.
The public overall identified major arterials, including Manhattan
Beach Boulevard, Hawthorne Boulevard, and Marine Avenue, as
desirable for bicycle facilities. The community also mentioned that
it would like to see bikeways on streets that lead to schools, such as
Firmona Avenue and Mansel Avenue.
6.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an
indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows
the percent bicycle commuters in Lawndale by census tract.
Lawndale has high percentages of bicycle commuters throughout
the city, especially in the northwest portion. This correlates with
The community also mentioned that it would like to see
bikeways on streets that lead to schools, such as Firmona
Avenue and Mansel Avenue.
Page 209 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
156 | Alta Planning + Design
the high percentages of households without vehicles and high
percentages of transit commuters in that area.
Table 6-2 presents commute to work data estimates reported by
the 2000 US Census for Lawndale. For comparative purposes, the
table includes commute to work data for the United States,
California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,
1.6 percent of residents in Lawndale commute predominantly by
bicycle. The percent of bicycle commuters in Lawndale is nearly
double that of California. Lawndale also has comparatively high
rates of carpooling and low rates of driving alone, which could in
part be due to low rates of vehicle ownership. Moreover, it is
important to note that this figure likely underestimates the true
amount of bicycling that occurs in Lawndale for several reasons.
First, data reflects respondents’ dominant commute mode and
therefore does not capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike
trips that would supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data
collection methods only enable a respondent to select one mode of
travel, thus excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a
longer multimodal trip. This is especially important to note as
Lawndale has a low percentage of drive alone commuters and high
percentage of transit commuters. It also has a high percentage of
carpoolers.
In addition to bicycle commuters in Lawndale, bicyclists from
neighboring communities use the city’s network to reach their
destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan addresses
the need for regional connectivity to accommodate bicyclists
passing through Lawndale’s bicycle network in Section 6.4.
Table 6-2: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United
States California Los Angeles
County Lawndale
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 1.58%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 66.95%
Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 20.39%
Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 6.89%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 2.30%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.42%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 1.16%
Source: US Census 2000
Page 210 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition And South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 157
Table 6-3 presents an estimate of current bicycling within
Lawndale using US Census data along with several adjustments for
likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above.
Table 6-4 presents the associated air quality benefits from
bicycling.
Table 6-3: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 31,729 2000 US Census, P1
Existing employed population 12,839 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 1.6% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of bike-to-work commuters
203
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 1.2% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters 15
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 6.9% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing transit bicycle commuters
221
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by
bicycle
Existing school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8) 5,226
2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode
share 2.0%
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Existing school children bike commuters
105
School children population multiplied by school
children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in study
area 2,201
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling mode
share
5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of
bicycle commute share at the University of
California, Los Angeles.
Existing college bike commuters
110
College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters
654
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
bike trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 1,308 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 211 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
158 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 6-4: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
295
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
77,012
Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
1,973
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
514,886
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 6 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 4 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 54 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 1,605 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 1,544 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 6 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 6 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,078 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 14,076 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 418,863 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel
Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Table 6-5 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within
Lawndale using California Department of Finance population and
school enrollment projections. The projection contains the
assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in
part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share
in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of
network implementation. Table 6-6 presents the associated year
Page 212 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition And South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 159
2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a
straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling
Demand.
Table 6-5: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
39,484
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.
Future employed population
15,977
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 3.2% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of bike-to-work
commuters 505
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share
0.76%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters 61
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 13.8% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future transit bicycle commuters
550
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
4,153
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.
Future school children bicycling mode
share 4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Future school children bike commuters
166
School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
2,739
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.
Future estimated college bicycling mode
share
7.0%
A slight increase over the existing college bicycle
mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other populations
Future college bike commuters
192
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
1,474
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 2,947 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 213 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
160 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 6-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
641
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
167,238
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
4,510
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
1,177,058
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 14 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 9 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 123 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 3,669 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 3,529 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 13 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 13 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 2,465 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 32,178 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 957,544 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
This model uses the latest state projections for population growth
and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The
benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute
trips could increase from the current daily estimate of
approximately 1,300 to just under 3,000, resulting in a substantial
reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated
Page 214 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition And South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 161
emissions. This includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of
approximately 2,500 pounds of smog forming N0X and roughly one
million pounds of C02, the principal gas associated with global
climate change. Providing bicycle facilities will encourage new
bicyclists to begin to ride, thus positively impacting air quality by
reducing harmful pollutants from driving motorized vehicles.
Because this plan recommends local connections throughout and
regional links between the participating cities, it has the potential
to have even greater air quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to
rely as heavily on vehicles for transportation because bicycling will
be a viable transportation alternative upon implementation of this
Plan.
6.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Lawndale,
volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they manually
recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.
6.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture
both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also
provides guidance on how to select count locations.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven
participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4,
2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010
from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture
volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is
an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because
school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In
Lawndale, volunteers were stationed at five stations on Thursday
and two stations on Saturday. There were 36 total locations in the
South Bay region on each day.
The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta
Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and
South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of
locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using
the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.
(See Appendix A-17 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in
Lawndale
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in
Lawndale
(See Appendix A-16 for larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Page 215 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
162 | Alta Planning + Design
6.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A-
16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Lawndale are shown at
right. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is
presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the Lawndale station that
experienced the highest volume was Marine Avenue and
Hawthorne Boulevard with 134 bicyclists during the three hour
count period. The station with the most bicyclists on Saturday was
also Marine Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard with 86 bicyclists
during the three hour count period.
On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists
in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on
the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the
Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and
Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the
weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count
stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more
bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for
recreation on the weekend.
In the region as a whole, approximately 83 percent of bicyclists
were male. About 70 percent of those observed did not wear
helmets and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there
were 18 locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode
on the sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the
sidewalk can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as
bicyclists that are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to
ride on the sidewalk instead.
6.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.
Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not
riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to national
surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to
areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions
occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable
data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes
reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle
collisions in Lawndale. This data does not include any assessment
of conditions present at the time of the collision. There are
numerous factors that may contribute to a given incident including
but not limited to time of day, visibility, distractions, obstacles or
Bicycle Collisions in Lawndale 2007-2009
(See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Page 216 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 163
traffic law obedience. This data simply reflects reported incidents,
resulting injuries and the party at fault. This data does not infer
faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a baseline of collisions
that often decreases in correlation with bike plan implementation
and the improvements to facilities and road user behavior and
awareness that accompanies it. Fault as determined by law
enforcement is discussed below.
Table 6-7 presents the number of reported collisions involving
bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle
collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South
Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in Lawndale
are shown on the preceding page. There were 55 total reported
collisions involving bicyclists from 2007-2009 in the City of
Lawndale. Three locations in Lawndale each experienced four
collisions involving bicyclists. These were the intersections of
Inglewood Avenue and Interstate 405, Hawthorne Boulevard and
Interstate 405, and Hawthorne Boulevard and Marine Avenue.
A total of 21 crashes involving bicyclists occurred on Hawthorne
Boulevard alone. Both high employment and population densities
lie along Hawthorne north of the 405, which likely generate many
bicycle trips. Hawthorne Boulevard also carries large volumes of
automobiles traveling at high speeds, producing potential conflicts
between vehicles and bicycles. The on- and off-ramps from the 405
are challenging for bicyclists due to channelized turning lanes with
large turning radii, as well as poor lighting and visibility in the
underpasses.
Table 6-7: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes Involving
Bicyclists
Number of
Bicyclists Involved
Persons
Injured
Persons Severely
Injured Persons Killed
55 55 47 4 1
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at
fault in 86 percent of collisions involving bicycles (47 crashes) in
this time period.
Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When
motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions
between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York,
for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and
Page 217 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
164 | Alta Planning + Design
2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions
decreased (see Appendix B).
Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in
Lawndale. Hawthorne Boulevard has the highest volumes of traffic,
followed by Rosecrans Avenue, Artesia Boulevard, Prairie Avenue,
and Inglewood Avenue. Each of these streets experienced collisions
involving bicyclists in 2007-2009. Because Lawndale has such high
percentages of bicycle commuters, installing bicycle facilities,
especially on major arterials, could reduce the number and severity
of collisions involving bicyclists.
6.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of
Lawndale, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon
implementation of the proposed network, the City should
coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay
cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
discussed in this Plan are described in Section 1.3 and shown in
Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended
standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum
standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of
bikeways in Lawndale, the recommended system ties into the
proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating
cities to create a connected regional network. This will give
bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass
through Lawndale to reach their destinations without losing
bicycle facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway recommendations are
also based on the existing City bicycle plans, public input,
topography, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.
6.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network in the City of Lawndale includes
Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and
Bike Friendly Streets, and is shown in Figure 6-3. The proposed
bicycle network in Lawndale connects with the recommended
networks in Redondo Beach and Torrance, as well as the Los
Angeles County bicycle system. Figure 6-3 shows a blue asterisk at
the proposed bike lanes on Marine Avenue and on the proposed
path along the Metro right-of-way as they are outside the
jurisdiction of this plan, but are supported improvements.
Four tables identify the streets on which facilities are proposed, the
extents of each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each
Page 218 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 165
proposed facility. Table 6-8 lists the proposed bicycle paths, Table
6-9 lists the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 6-10 lists the proposed
bicycle routes, and Table 6-11 lists the proposed bicycle-friendly
streets. The proposed bicycle network in the South Bay region as a
whole is presented in Appendix A-19.
Table 6-8: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Lawndale
Street From To Miles
Metro Right-of-Way Bike Path 163rd St 170th St 0.4
Total Bicycle Path Mileage 0.4
Table 6-9: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Lawndale
Street From To Miles
Artesia Boulevard Inglewood Avenue Grivellea Avenue 0.4
Marine Avenue Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 1.0
Manhattan Beach Boulevard Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 1.0
Hawthorne Boulevard Rosecrans Avenue Redondo Beach Boulevard 1.9
Redondo Beach Boulevard Grivellea Avenue Prairie Avenue 0.7
Inglewood Avenue Rosecrans Avenue Artesia Boulevard 2.0
Prairie Avenue Rosecrans Avenue Redondo Beach Boulevard 1.7
Rosecrans Avenue Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 1.0
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 9.7
Table 6-10: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Lawndale
Street From To Miles
Condon Avenue (South Bound
only) 163rd St 170th St 0.4
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 0.4
Table 6-11: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Lawndale
Street From To Miles
160th Street Inglewood Avenue Firmona Avenue 0.2
154th Street Condon Avenue Prairie Avenue 0.9
Freeman Avenue - 164th Street 147th Street Prairie Avenue 1.4
Mansel Avenue Rosecrans Avenue
Manhattan Beach
Boulevard 1.0
Firmona Avenue Manhattan Beach Boulevard Artesia Boulevard 1.0
149th Street - Burin Avenue - 147th
Street Mansel Avenue Prairie Avenue 0.8
Page 219 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
166 | Alta Planning + Design
Street From To Miles
Condon Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 154th Street 0.8
163rd Street Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 1.0
Street From To Miles
147th Street Inglewood Avenue Mansel Avenue 0.3
164th Street Green Line Extension Bike Path Hawthorne Boulevard 0.3
170th Street Inglewood Avenue Hawthorne Boulevard 0.5
166th Street Inglewood Avenue
Green Line Extension Bike
Path 0.1
166th Street - Osage Avenue Firmona Avenue 164th Street 0.8
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 9.2
There are several constraints to recommending new bicycle
facilities in Lawndale. These are shown on the next page and are
referenced by the numbers in Appendix I. Appendix I also
presents opportunities and constraints in the South Bay region as a
whole.
One constraint is a proposed Class II bikeway along Hawthorne
Boulevard. This facility poses some unique constraints in terms of
space availability. This is a busy thoroughfare that is dense with
commercial and retail uses. This Plan recommends the
consideration of a Class II facility along Hawthorne Boulevard to
the extent feasible. One option to consider would be to utilize the
necessary space along the center parking landscaped median rather
than removing on street parking or travel lanes.
A second constraint is a proposed Class II bikeway along Redondo
Beach Boulevard from Hawthorne Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard
in Lawndale/Redondo Beach. This segment experiences high traffic
volumes due to the South Bay Galleria, which creates a challenging
environment for bicyclists. Upon plan implementation, Lawndale
and Redondo Beach should work together to design a facility that
provides safety for bicyclists.
(See Appendix I for larger map)
Opportunities and Constraints in Lawndale
Page 220 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 167
Figure 6-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale
Page 221 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
168 | Alta Planning + Design
6.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation
are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance
safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With
nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists
need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive
bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a
jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling
environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of
residents traveling without using an automobile.
The Lawndale Municipal Code currently provides bicycle parking
requirements at video arcades and non-residential developments.
The Municipal Code should be amended to remove the section on
video arcades and expand the requirements to include quantity of
bicycle parking at new and retrofitted multi-family residential,
commercial, office, and mixed-use developments of all sizes.
Quantity of bicycle parking should be based on square footage of
developments or by number of employees/residents to adequately
address the bicycle demand at each development.
The City should also amend its Municipal Code to include
requirements on types of both short- and long-term bicycle parking
facility designs, which are shown in Appendix J. Bicycle rack
designs should include racks that provide two points of contact
with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front
wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a high degree of
security and support for the bicycle. Long-term bicycle parking
should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored
racks for bicycles;
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks;
or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty
from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing
facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they
have a place to clean up before work or school. Lawndale should
require all new mid-to-large employers, offices, and businesses to
supply changing and storing facilities, such as by providing
showers and clothes lockers within the buildings or arranging
Bicycle lockers are appropriate end-of-trip facilities for
civic activity centers and transit hubs.
Page 222 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 169
Figure 6-4: Lawndale Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Page 223 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
170 | Alta Planning + Design
agreements with nearby recreation centers to allow commuters to
use their facilities.
Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities in Lawndale are shown in
Figure 6-4. The City should continue to provide short-term bicycle
parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major trip attractors,
including commercial and civic activity centers and transit hubs,
and ensure that an adequate supply is available. The City should
prioritize the installation of bicycle parking throughout the city,
with particular attention directed at the following locations:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major
commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle
parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs
and intermodal facilities should include secure bicycle parking
areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that
provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, should be
considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.
6.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle
network in Lawndale.
6.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 6-12 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for
each facility type proposed in this plan and Table 6-13 displays the
cost to implement the proposed network in the City of Lawndale
from the cost assumptions.20 Cost assumptions are based on LA
County averages and may vary depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude
specific treatments that may vary by location and must be
determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures,
restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost
assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as
20 Table 6-13 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with
Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
The City should prioritize the installation of bicycle
parking throughout the city, with particular attention
directed at locations, such as schools.
Page 224 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 171
changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation
of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project
sheets presented in Section 6.7.
Table 6-12: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types
Facility Type Description Estimated Cost21
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile
Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane
restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile
Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
Table 6-13: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per
mile
Length of
Proposed Network
(miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 0.4 $ 336,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 9.7 $ 386,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 0.4 $ 11,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 9.2 $ 275,000
Total 19.7 $ 1,008,000
6.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of
Lawndale in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities presented
in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section 6.4.1 is
grouped into projects based on feasibility of implementation. Table
6-14 presents the prioritized projects based on the prioritization
methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each criterion contains
information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or
future need in Lawndale. The projects ranked the highest should be
implemented first.
21 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary
engineering, and construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County Bicycle Master Plan, which are based
upon a peer review of Southern California bikeway construction unit costs.
Page 225 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale 172 | Alta Planning + Design Table 6-14: Lawndale Prioritized Bicycle Projects Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement TotalBFS 160th Street Inglewood Avenue Firmona Avenue 3 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 15BL Artesia Boulevard Inglewood Avenue Grivellea Avenue 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 1 2 0 15BL Marine Avenue Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 0 0 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 0 14BL Manhattan Beach Boulevard Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 2 1 2 13BL Hawthorne Boulevard Rosecrans Avenue Redondo Beach Boulevard 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 0 1 13BL Redondo Beach Boulevard Grivellea Avenue Prairie Avenue 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 2 1 1 13BL Inglewood Avenue Rosecrans Avenue Artesia Boulevard 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 13BFS 154th Street Condon Avenue Prairie Avenue 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 2 1 2 12BL Prairie Avenue Rosecrans Avenue Redondo Beach Boulevard 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 12BFS Freeman Avenue - 164th Street 147th Street Prairie Avenue 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 1 2 10BFS Mansel Avenue Rosecrans Avenue Manhattan Beach Boulevard 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 1 2 10BFS Firmona Avenue Manhattan Beach Boulevard Artesia Boulevard 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 10BFS 149th Street - Burin Avenue - 147th Street Mansel Avenue Prairie Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 8BFS Condon Avenue Rosecrans Avenue 154th Street 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 8BFS 162nd Street Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 8BL Rosecrans Avenue Inglewood Avenue Prairie Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 7Page 226 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 173 Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement TotalBFS Condon Avenue Green Line Extension Bike Path 164th Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 7BFS 170th Street Inglewood Avenue Hawthorne Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 6BFS 166th Street Inglewood Avenue Green Line Extension Bike Path 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 6BFS 166th Street - Osage Avenue Firmona Avenue 164th Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 6BFS 164th Street Green Line Extension Bike Path Hawthorne Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5BR Condon Avenue (Southbound Only) 162nd Street 170th St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4BP Metro Right-of-Way Bike Path 162nd Street 170th St 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3*BP=Bike Path, BL=Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street Page 227 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
174 | Alta Planning + Design
6.7 Project Sheets
The City of Lawndale selected two of its top priority projects from
the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project sheets
are shown on the following pages and include:
A review of the existing site conditions
Site challenges
Recommended improvements
Estimated cost
Photos
Aerial images
Concept graphics
Page 228 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 175
Lawndale Project #1: Mansel Avenue (Rosecrans Avenue to Manhattan Beach Boulevard)
Project Site Photos
Mansel Avenue is north-south residential street located in the
western portion of the City of Lawndale. It connects to the City of
Hawthorne to the north and Manhattan Beach Boulevard in
Lawndale to the south. Mansel Avenue provides access to Lucille J.
Smith Elementary School and Jane Addams Park. There is parallel
on-street parking along most of Mansel Avenue and a posted speed
limit of 25 mph.
Mansel Avenue has one travel lane in each direction. There are stop
controlled intersections at all intersections, except Marine Avenue
where there is a traffic signal. Traffic does not stop on Rosecrans
Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard.
A median refuge island on Manhattan Beach Boulevard will help
bicyclists turning left onto and off of Mansel Avenue.
Project Challenges
Mansel Avenue has no existing bicycle facilities thus bicyclists and
motor vehicles must share the road. There are few existing
treatments to create a safe bicycling environment for children
riding to school. Left turns from Mansel Avenue onto Manhattan
Beach Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue are difficult by bicycle
because both roads are busy arterials on which through traffic does
not stop.
Proposed Improvements
Install signage and stripe pavement markings, such as sharrows
or bike friendly street stencils,
Install wayfinding signage at intersections with other bicycle
facilities once implemented, especially other bike friendly streets
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Stripe a High-intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) at the
intersection of Mansel Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue
Construct a median refuge island at the intersection of Mansel
Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard
Estimated Cost
$130,000
Signage and pavement markings will alert motorists to the
presence of bicyclists.
A HAWK across Rosecrans Avenue will help both bicyclists and
pedestrians cross the arterial.
Page 229 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
176 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Mansel Avenue
Mansel Avenue (Rosecrans Avenue to Manhattan Beach Boulevard)
Example Median Refuge Island (Source: NACTO.org)
Page 230 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 177
Lawndale Project #2: Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Inglewood Avenue to Prairie Avenue)
Project Site Photos
Manhattan Beach Boulevard is an east-west arterial road located in
the center of the City of Lawndale. It connects to the City of
Redondo Beach to the west and the County of Los Angeles to the
east. Manhattan Beach Boulevard provides access to many
commercial services and residences, and secondary access to
Rogers Anderson Park. There is parallel on-street parking along
most of Manhattan Beach Boulevard and a posted speed limit of 40
mph.
Manhattan Beach Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction
with turn pockets and center medians. From Inglewood Avenue to
Hawthorne Avenue, the roadway width is approximately 33 to 34
feet on each side of the center median. Between Grivellea Avenue
and Hawthorne Boulevard the number of travel lanes increases to
three in the eastbound direction. East of Hawthorne Boulevard the
number of travel lanes drops to two again. From Hawthorne
Boulevard to Prairie Avenue the roadway width is approximately
32 to 33 feet on each side of the center median.
Bicycle Lanes on Manhattan Beach Boulevard will separate
bicyclists and motorists to reduce potential conflicts.
Project Challenges
Manhattan Beach Boulevard has no existing bicycle facilities, thus
bicyclists must share the road with high volumes of vehicles
traveling at high speeds. A third eastbound travel lane between
Grivellea Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard reduces the space
available to provide bicycle facilities.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 1 mile of Class II bike lanes
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Remove the third northbound travel lane between Grivellea
Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard to provide adequate space to
continue bicycle lanes on this segment
Estimated Cost
$75,000
Providing bicycle lanes on Manhattan Beach Boulevard will create
a more comfortable bicycling environment.
Removing the third eastbound travel lane between Grivellea
Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard will provide adequate space to
continue the bike lane through this segment.
Page 231 of 535
Chapter Six | Lawndale
178 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Manhattan Beach Boulevard
Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Inglewood Avenue to Prairie Avenue)
Bicycle Loop Detectors
Page 232 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 179
Chapter 7
Manhattan Beach
Page 233 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
180 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 234 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 181
7 Manhattan Beach
This chapter presents Manhattan Beach’s portion of the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how Manhattan
Beach complies with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements.
The chapter is then organized into the following sections:
Existing conditions;
City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions;
Needs analysis;
Proposed bicycle network;
Project prioritization; and
Project costs.
7.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide
discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the
Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local
jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Manhattan Beach to
qualify for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must
contain specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA
components and their location within this plan. The table includes
“Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the convenience of
the Metro official responsible for reviewing compliance.
7.2 Existing Conditions
Manhattan Beach is located in the western portion of the South Bay
region. It is bordered by the City of El Segundo to the north, the
City of Redondo Beach to the east, the City of Hermosa Beach to
the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. According to the 2000
Census, Manhattan Beach has a population of 34,039. The city was
incorporated in 1912.
7.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South
Bay Region. Land uses in Manhattan Beach are shown at right.
Almost 70 percent of the land area in Manhattan Beach is devoted
to residential uses: approximately 60 percent is single family and
about 8 percent is multi-family. Manhattan Beach is also
approximately 10 percent open space.
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Existing Land Uses in Manhattan Beach
Page 235 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach 182 | Alta Planning + Design Page 236 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 183
displays the proposed land uses in Manhattan Beach. As compared
to the existing uses, the City plans to increase residential densities
from single-family to multi-family South of Marine Avenue and
west of Valley Drive, as well as south of the pier between Valley
Drive and the Strand.
7.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are
correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high
population or employment densities or high concentrations of
certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle
households.
Appendix A-4 shows population density in Manhattan Beach. The
areas with the highest population densities are located along the
beach, which is where much of the multi-family housing is located.
This has the potential to generate bicycle trips as housing is nearby
the downtown and many key community services. Population
density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is a strong
indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more people living in
an area implies more trips to and from that area. The high
population densities of urbanized environments also tend to
support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected
street networks, and shorter trip lengths.
Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Manhattan Beach.
Employment is most dense along Sepulveda Boulevard, on the
northeast portion of Rosecrans Avenue, and around the intersection
of Highland Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Both
Sepulveda Boulevard and the intersection of Highland Avenue and
Manhattan Beach Boulevard primarily support commercial and
service land uses. Rosecrans Avenue has commercial and service
uses, as well as industrial and general office space. These sites have
the potential to generate bicycle activity, as they are located in
environments with a variety of land uses where trips between uses
can be shorter.
Appendix A-6, Appendix A-6, and Appendix A-8 display the
percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual income, and
percent transit commuters by census tract in the City of Manhattan
Beach. Manhattan Beach overall has low percentages of transit
commuters and high median annual incomes. Most households
make above $95,000 per year (in 1999 dollars). Manhattan Beach
also has high rates of vehicle ownership. Households without
vehicles are concentrated in the southwest and central (Tree
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics
that are correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such
as high population or employment densities.
Page 237 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
184 | Alta Planning + Design
Section) portions of the city. These parts of the city have greater
potential for increased bicycling activity because residents who do
not have vehicles must use alternative modes and are likely to
combine bicycle and transit trips.
In addition to the reasons discussed above, Manhattan Beach has
the potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing
through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle
network that is connected within Manhattan Beach, as well as
linked to bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further
generates bicycle traffic as it provides a viable transportation
option to driving a motorized vehicle.
7.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 7-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of
Manhattan Beach’s Infrastructure Element, Municipal Code, and
Suggested Safe Routes to School Maps.
Table 7-1: Manhattan Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Infrastructure
Element (2003)
This element contains a map of existing bikeways in the City (Appendix F-4), which include the
Strand Bikeway and Veterans Parkway, which is a multi-use trail. The element also includes goals
and policies relevant to bicycling, which are:
Work with the school district and private schools to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety
around schools
Incorporate bikeways and pedestrian ways as part of the City’s circulation system
Encourage features that accommodate the use of bicycles in the design of new
development
Encourage the development of recreational bicycle routes to link residential, schools, and
recreational areas east of Sepulveda Boulevard with the Strand bike path
Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code prohibits riding bicycles on the sidewalk, except for children under 14
years old in front of schools, stores, or buildings used for business purposes. The Municipal Code
provides bicycle requirements based on land use type. Parking must be in the form of a stationary
object (either a freestanding bicycle rack or a wall-mounted bracket) to which a user can secure
both wheels and the frame of a bicycle with a user-provided six-foot cable and lock. Before
installation, the City reviews the design and location of bicycle parking through a Use Permit to
ensure design compatibility with the architecture, appropriate materials, safety, and that it does
not block pedestrian or vehicle paths-access. The City conducted a comprehensive bikeway study
in 2009 to evaluate the needs, wants and opportunities related to bicycles. The study found that
most people in the community utilize bikeways for recreation purposes rather than for commuting
to and from work. Bicycle parking policies do not reflect that as they focus on providing facilities at
commercial rather than recreational sites.
Page 238 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 185
Document Description
Suggested
Routes to
School Maps
In August of 2009, the City was awarded Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funding by the State of
California. These maps are part of Manhattan Beach’s larger SR2S effort. They display suggested
routes for walking/biking to Meadows, Grand View, Pennekamp, Pacific, and Robinson Elementary
Schools. They also highlight where traffic signals, walkstreets (streets closed to vehicular traffic),
crosswalks, and crossing guards are located. Detailed bicycle parking information is presented in
Appendix G.
7.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 7-1 shows the existing bicycle facilities in Manhattan Beach.
Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle facilities in
the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are discussed in Section
1.3. The bicycle network in the City of Manhattan Beach consists of
approximately 3 miles of bikeways. This includes a section of the
Los Angeles County-maintained Class I bicycle path on the Strand
and Class III bicycle routes. Table 7-2 summarizes the
classification and mileage of the existing network.
Table 7-2: Manhattan Beach Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 2.1
Class II (Bike Lanes) 0.0
Class III (Bike Route) 1.1
Total Mileage 3.2
7.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible
short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the
members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as
change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities
consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not
limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities. Appendix A-9 displays the existing end-of-trip
bicycle facilities in the South Bay. The locations of existing bicycle
racks in Manhattan Beach are shown at right. These locations
include parks, on sidewalks, and at the beach. Bicycle racks in
Manhattan Beach include comb racks, wave racks, and several
styles of artistic racks. The City does not provide any long-term
bicycle parking within its jurisdiction.
(See Appendix A-9 for larger map)
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in Manhattan
Beach
Page 239 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
186 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 7-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach
Page 240 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 187
7.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for
shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high
level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.
Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of
Manhattan Beach. Metro operates bus lines with routes on the
City’s major arterials, though the western half of Manhattan Beach
is underserved. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are
available on a first-come, first-served basis.
LADOT operates the Commuter Express bus service. Line 438
connects the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.
Most Commuter Express buses are equipped with bicycle racks,
which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Appendix A-
11 shows the Commuter Express Line bus routes.
Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 109, operated by the City of
Redondo Beach, and Torrance Transit Line 8, operated by the City
of Torrance, also serve the City of Manhattan Beach. Appendix A-
13 shows the BCT System Map and Appendix A-14 shows the
Torrance Transit System Map. Buses are equipped with bike racks,
which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit
services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle
parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit
vehicles. Manhattan Beach does not currently provide any
intermodal end-of-trip bicycle facilities within its jurisdiction.
7.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related
policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. To promote safe
bicycling at the Middle School level, the City of Manhattan Beach
provides bicycle education to the school, parents, and students
through the School Resource Officer (SRO) and Crime Prevention
Officer. Once per year, there is a Bicycle Rodeo at Manhattan Beach
Middle School and the Police Department provides a presentation
and information on bicycle safety, requirements, wearing helmets,
and the use of lights and reflectors. Bicycle Rodeos are meant to
ensure that children bicycling to school have the appropriate and
Metro operates bus lines with routes on the City’s major
arterials.
Page 241 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
188 | Alta Planning + Design
required equipment, know where to ride, and follow the proper
traffic signals, signs and markings. Throughout the school year, the
SRO addresses students on campus regarding bicycle safety as
needed.
There is not a SRO for the elementary schools in Manhattan Beach,
so they utilize saturated enforcement with patrol and traffic officers
adjacent to the schools. Officers check to make sure that children
have the proper equipment when bicycling to school, and if they
don’t, they stop children to educate them and issue warnings. If a
child receives several warnings, the officer will issue a citation,
which requires the parent(s) to go to court.
In the rest of the City, enforcement is performed by patrol and
traffic officers. Enforcement is focused in the Downtown and on the
Bike Path during the summer months. Officers issue warnings and
citations for observed violations. Whenever an officer stops
someone, they also educate the person on bicycle safety and the
rules of the road regardless of whether a warning or citation is
issued.
7.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
Between 2005 and 2011, the City of Manhattan Beach incurred the
following bicycle expenditures:
$2,500 for bicycle racks and bicycle route signs
$12,000 for labor, installation, core drilling, and concrete
for new bicycle racks
7.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Manhattan Beach.
It first summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and
public workshops. The section also provides estimates and
forecasts of bicycle commuting to determine the estimated
bicycling demand in the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision
data between 2007 and 2009 to identify areas that would benefit
from bicycle facility improvements.
7.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to
provide input in the planning process through an online survey and
the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes
locations in Manhattan Beach that the community identified as
desirable for bikeways and bicycle support facilities.
The public identified major arterials as streets
in need of bicycle facilities.
Page 242 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 189
The location that the community mentioned the most frequently as
in need of bikeways is Valley Drive / Ardmore Avenue. Other
locations that the public identified as desirable for bicycle facilities
include streets that lead to the beach, such as Marine Avenue, and
provide access to schools, including Longfellow Avenue. The
community also identified major arterials, such as Artesia
Boulevard, Manhattan Beach Boulevard, and Rosecrans Boulevard.
Other locations mentioned were residential streets, like Pacific
Avenue and Redondo Avenue.
The public identified Polliwog Park as a desirable location for
bicycle parking.
7.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an
indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows
the percent bicycle commuters in Manhattan Beach by census tract.
Manhattan Beach has the highest percentages of bicycle commuters
in the central northern portion of the city, which correlates with
the percentage of households without vehicles.
In addition to bicycle commuters in Manhattan Beach, bicyclists
from neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to
reach their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan
addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate
bicyclists passing through Manhattan Beach’s bicycle network in
Section 7.4.
Table 7-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by
the 2000 US Census for Manhattan Beach. For comparative
purposes, the table includes commute to work data for the United
States, California, and County of Los Angeles. According to these
estimates, 0.3 percent of residents in Manhattan Beach commute
predominantly by bicycle. Manhattan Beach also has low rates of
carpooling and transit riding, which suggests that the city’s high
average median income and high car ownership rates influence
mode split. It is important to note that this figure likely
underestimates the true amount of bicycling that occurs in
Manhattan Beach for several reasons. First, data reflects
respondents’ dominant commute mode and therefore does not
capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that would
supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection methods
only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus
The public identified Manhattan Beach Boulevard as
desirable for bicycle facilities.
Page 243 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
190 | Alta Planning + Design
excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer
multimodal trip. The percentage of commuters in Manhattan Beach
that commute by transit is much lower than that of those that drive
alone. Manhattan Beach also has a low percentage of commuters
carpooling and walking.
In addition to bicycle commuters in Manhattan Beach, bicyclists
from neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to
reach their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan
addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate
bicyclists passing through Manhattan Beach’s bicycle network in
Section 7.4.
Table 7-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United States California Los Angeles County Manhattan Beach
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.32%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 84.47%
Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 6.89%
Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 0.38%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 1.26%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.61%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 5.99%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 7-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within
Manhattan Beach using US Census data along with several
adjustments for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as
discussed above. Table 7-5 presents the associated air quality
benefits from bicycling.
.
Page 244 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 191
Table 7-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 34,039 2000 US Census, P1
Existing employed population 19,030 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.32% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of bike-to-work
commuters 61
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode share
Existing work-at-home mode share 6.0% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of work-at-home
bike commuters 114
Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one
daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 0.4% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing transit bicycle commuters
18
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes 25%
of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Existing school children, ages 6-14
(grades K-8) 4,047
2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling
mode share 2.0%
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Existing school children bike
commuters 81
School children population multiplied by school children bike mode
share
Existing number of college students
in study area 1,713
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling
mode share
5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university communities
(source: National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No.
1, 1995).
Existing college bike commuters
86
College student population multiplied by college student bicycling
mode share
Existing total number of bike
commuters 360
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike trips. Does not
include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 719 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 245 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
192 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 7-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
233
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
60,836
Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
1,564
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
408,315
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 5 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 3 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 43 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 1,273 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 1,224 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 5 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 4 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 855 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 11,162 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 332,167 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption
for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Table 7-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within
Manhattan Beach using California Department of Finance
population and school enrollment projections. The projection
contains the assumption that bicycle mode share will double by
2030, due in part to bicycle network implementation. Actual
bicycle mode share in 2030 will depend on many factors, including
Page 246 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 193
the extent of network implementation. Table 7-7 presents the associated
year 2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a
straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand.
Table 7-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
42,359
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.
Future employed population
23,681
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 0.64% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of bike-to-work
commuters 152
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share
7.81%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters 185
Assumes 50% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 0.8% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future transit bicycle commuters
45
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
3,216
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.
Future school children bicycling mode
share 4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Future school children bike commuters
129
School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
2,132
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.
Future estimated college bicycling mode
share
7.0%
A slight increase over the existing college bicycle
mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other populations
Future college bike commuters
149
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
659
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 1,319 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 247 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
194 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 7-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
423
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
110,354
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
2,905
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
758,275
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 9 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 6 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 79 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 2,363 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 2,274 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 9 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 8 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 1,588 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 20,729 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 616,861 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Source: Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel
Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Page 248 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 195
This model uses the latest state projections for population growth
and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The
benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute
trips could increase from the current daily estimate of 700 to 1,300,
resulting in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) and associated emissions. This includes a yearly emissions
reduction by 2030 of approximately 1,600 pounds of smog forming
N0X and roughly 600 thousand pounds of C02, the principal gas
associated with global climate change. Providing bicycle facilities
will encourage new bicyclists to begin to ride, thus positively
impacting air quality by reducing harmful pollutants from driving
motorized vehicles. Because this plan recommends local
connections throughout and regional links between the
participating cities, it has the potential to have even greater air
quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as heavily on
vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a viable
transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.
7.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Manhattan
Beach, volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they
manually recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.
7.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture
both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also
provides guidance on how to select count locations.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven
participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4,
2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010
from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture
volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is
an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because
school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In
Manhattan Beach, volunteers were stationed at six locations on
Thursday and seven locations on Saturday. There were 36 total
locations in the South Bay region on each day.
The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta
Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and
(See Appendix A-16 for a larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in
Manhattan Beach
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in
Manhattan Beach
(See Appendix A-17 for a larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Page 249 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
196 | Alta Planning + Design
South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of
locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using
the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.
7.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A-
16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Manhattan Beach are
shown on the previous page. Detailed count data, including a list of
count locations, is presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the
Manhattan Beach station that experienced the highest volume was
Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Manhattan Avenue with 75
bicyclists during the three hour count period. The station with the
most bicyclists on Saturday was Manhattan Beach Boulevard and
the Strand with 589 bicyclists during the three hour count period.
On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists
in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on
the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the
Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and
Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the
weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count
stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more
bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for
recreation on the weekend.
In the region as a whole, approximately 83 percent of bicyclists
were male. About 70 percent of those observed did not wear
helmets and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there
were 18 locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode
on the sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the
sidewalk can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as
bicyclists that are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to
ride on the sidewalk instead.
7.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.
Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not
riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to national
surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to
areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions
occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable
data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes
reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle
(See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Bicycle Collisions in Manhattan Beach 2007-2009
Page 250 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 197
collisions in Manhattan Beach. This data does not include any
assessment of conditions present at the time of the collision. There
are numerous factors that may contribute to a given incident
including but not limited to time of day, visibility, distractions,
obstacles or traffic law obedience. This data simply reflects
reported incidents, resulting injuries and the party at fault. This
data does not infer faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a
baseline of collisions that often decreases in correlation with bike
plan implementation and the improvements to facilities and road
user behavior and awareness that accompanies it. Fault as
determined by law enforcement is discussed below.
Table 7-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving
bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle
collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South
Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in Manhattan
Beach are shown at right. There were 38 total reported collisions
involving bicyclists from 2007-2009 in the City of Manhattan
Beach. The intersection of Artesia Boulevard and Aviation
Boulevard, which is on the border of the cities of Manhattan Beach
and Redondo Beach, had four collisions involving bicyclists in the
three year period. Other collisions in Manhattan Beach were
concentrated on major boulevards: there were nine crashes on
Manhattan Beach Boulevard, eight on Highland Avenue, and eight
on Sepulveda Boulevard.
Table 7-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes Involving
Bicyclists
Number of Bicyclists
Involved Persons Injured Persons Severely
Injured Persons Killed
38 38 36 5 1
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at
fault in 63 percent of collisions involving bicycles (24 crashes) in
this time period.
Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When
motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions
between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York,
for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and
2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions
decreased (see Appendix B).
Page 251 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
198 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in
Manhattan Beach. The streets with the highest traffic volumes are
Sepulveda Boulevard, Aviation Boulevard, Rosecrans Avenue, and
Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The only one of these streets with
bicycle facilities is Sepulveda Boulevard, which has a Class III bike
route. On Sepulveda, bicyclists must still share the traffic lanes
with vehicular traffic, creating the potential for conflicts between
the two modes. Installing bicycle facilities, especially on major
arterials, could reduce the number and severity of collisions
involving bicyclists.
7.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of
Manhattan Beach, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon
implementation of the proposed network, the City should
coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay
cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
discussed in this Plan are described in Section 1.3 and are shown in
Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended
standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum
standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of
bikeways in Manhattan Beach, the recommended system ties into
the proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating
cities to create a connected regional network. This will give
bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass
through Manhattan Beach to reach their destinations without
losing bicycle facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway
recommendations are also based on the existing City bicycle plans,
public input, topography, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.
7.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network for the City of Manhattan Beach
consists of Class I Bike Paths, Multi Use Paths, Class II Bike Lanes,
Class III Bike Routes, and Bike Friendly Streets, and is shown in
Figure 7-2. Four tables identify the streets on which facilities are
proposed, the extents of each proposed facility, and the length in
miles of each proposed facility. Table 7-9 lists the proposed bicycle
paths, Table 7-10 lists the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 7-11 lists
the proposed bicycle routes, and Table 7-12 lists the proposed
bicycle-friendly streets. The proposed Bicycle network for the
South Bay region as a whole is presented in Appendix A-19. The
proposed bicycle network in Manhattan Beach connects with the
recommended networks in El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, and
The proposed bicycle network for the City of Manhattan
Beach consists of Class I Bike Paths, Multi Use Paths,
Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike
Friendly Streets.
Page 252 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 199
Redondo Beach. Figure 7-2 shows a blue asterisk at the steps
between Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, which is outside
the jurisdiction of this plan, but is a supported improvement.
Table 7-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Manhattan Beach
Street From To Miles
Bell Ave Extension 33rd St
beginning of Bell Ave
south of 30th St 0.1
Marine Ave Park Redondo Ave Extension Redondo Ave 0.1
Total Bicycle Path Mileage 0.2
Table 7-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Manhattan Beach
Street From To Miles
Manhattan Beach Blvd Ardmore Avenue Aviation Blvd 1.7
Rosecrans Ave Highland Ave Aviation Blvd 2.3
Marine Ave Sepulveda Blvd Aviation Blvd 1.0
Aviation Blvd Rosecrans Ave South City Limits 2.1
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 7.0
Table 7-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Manhattan Beach
Street From To Miles
Valley Dr 15th St South City Limits 0.9
45th St The Strand Crest Dr 0.2
15th St Ocean Dr Valley Dr 0.2
Highland Av 45th St 33rd St 2.2
Ardmore Ave Rosecrans Ave South City Limits 2.1
Redondo Ave - Redondo Ave
Extension Rosecrans Ave Marine Ave 0.6
Manhattan Ave 15th St 1st St 0.7
Manhattan Beach Blvd Ocean Dr Valley Dr 0.2
Rosecrans Ave The Strand Highland Ave 0.1
38th Pl Highland Ave Crest Dr 0.0
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 7.1
Page 253 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
200 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 7-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Manhattan Beach
Street From To Miles
Marine Ave The Strand Blanch Rd 0.4
Marine Ave Ardmore Avenue Sepulveda Blvd 0.4
1st St Manhattan Avenue John St 0.4
Bell Ave Rosecrans Ave North of 29th St 0.2
Bell Ave - Blanch Rd North of 29th St Valley Dr 0.6
Pacific Ave - 5th St Rosecrans Ave Ardmore Ave 1.4
Ocean Dr 45th St 1st St 2.1
Oak Ave Ardmore Ave Manhattan Beach Blvd 0.8
8th St Ardmore Ave Aviation Blvd 1.5
Redondo Ave Marine Ave Artesia Blvd 1.5
2nd St John St East City Limits 1.3
Meadows Ave - Tennyson St -
Prospect Ave Marine Ave Artesia Blvd 1.6
11th St Ardmore Ave Aviation Blvd 1.6
Peck Ave Manhattan Beach Blvd Artesia Blvd 1.0
Voorhees Ave Peck Ave Aviation Blvd 0.4
Mathews Ave Peck Ave Aviation Way 0.4
Harkness St Marine Ave 2nd St 1.0
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 16.7
There are several opportunities and constraints to recommending
new bicycle facilities in Manhattan Beach. These are shown at right
and are referenced by the numbers in Appendix I. Appendix I also
presents opportunities and constraints in the South Bay region as a
whole.
One opportunity includes a proposed Class II on Aviation
Boulevard in Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. This major
thoroughfare provides significant connectivity between residences
and major employment centers and thus a bicycle facility on
Aviation Boulevard will encourage increased bike commuting to
these destinations. See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further
detail. Another opportunity is a proposed Class III bikeway on
Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue in Manhattan Beach: While this plan
recommends a Class III route, the Vitality City Livability Plan
recommends additional options. See the Vitality City Livability
Plan for further detail and opportunities.
A constraint is the stairs on the Strand between Hermosa Beach
and Manhattan Beach. This constraint is also noted as being
outside this plan’s jurisdiction because those stairs (along with the
(See Appendix I for larger map)
Opportunities and Constraints in
Manhattan Beach
Page 254 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 201
Figure 7-2: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach
Page 255 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
202 | Alta Planning + Design
rest of the Strand with the exception of Hermosa Beach) are
operated by the State and maintained by the County of Los Angeles.
However, this plan urges the cities to remedy the disruption caused
by the stairs. This remedy could come in several forms ranging from
a bike-friendly ramp that connects the two sections of the Strand to
signage that warns cyclists of the disruption and safely guides them
to facilities along Hermosa Avenue.
7.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation
are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance
safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With
nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists
need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive
bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a
jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling
environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of
residents traveling without using an automobile.
The Manhattan Beach Municipal Code currently provides bicycle
parking requirements based on percent of vehicle parking at
specific land uses, as well as bicycle parking design requirements.
The City should consider amending its Municipal Code to include
bicycle parking requirements at new and retrofitted multi-family
residential, office, and mixed-use developments of all sizes. The
Municipal Code should also consider requiring bicycle parking
quantities based on square footage of developments or by number
of employees/residents to adequately address the bicycle demand at
each development.
Manhattan Beach should also consider amending its Municipal
Code to include more specific requirements on types of both short-
and long-term bicycle parking facility designs, which are shown in
Appendix J. Bicycle rack designs should be considered that provide
two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from
both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a
high degree of security and support for the bicycle. Long-term
bicycle parking should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored
racks for bicycles
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks
or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
The flat top bicycle rack shown above is an example of a
recommended rack type. See Appendix JJ for additional
recommended bicycle rack types.
Page 256 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 203
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty
from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing
facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they
have a place to clean up before work or school. Manhattan Beach’s
Municipal Code should require all new mid-to-large employers,
offices, and businesses to supply changing and storing facilities,
such as by providing showers and clothes lockers within the
buildings or arranging agreements with nearby recreation centers
to allow commuters to use their facilities.
Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities in Manhattan Beach are
shown in Figure 7-3. The City should continue to provide short-
term bicycle parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major trip
attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers and
transit hubs, and ensure that an adequate supply is available. The
City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking
throughout the city, with particular attention directed at the
following locations:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
Downtown Manhattan Beach
The Beach at the Pacific Ocean
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major
commercial districts could consider providing more secure, long-
term bicycle parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future
transit hubs and intermodal facilities could include secure bicycle
parking areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas
that provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, could be
considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and
major commercial districts could consider providing more
secure, long-term bicycle parking options.
Page 257 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
204 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 7-3: Manhattan Beach Proposed End-of-Trip
Facilities
Page 258 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 205
7.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle
network in Manhattan Beach.
7.5.1 Cost Estimates
displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for each
facility type proposed in this plan, and Table 7-14 displays the cost
to implement the proposed network in the City of Manhattan
Beach from the cost assumptions.22 Cost assumptions are based on
LA County averages and may vary depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude
specific treatments that may vary by location and must be
determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures,
restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost
assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as
changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation
of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project
sheets presented in Section 7.7.
Table 7-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types
Facility Type Description Estimated Cost23
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile
Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane
restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile
Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
22 Table 7-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with
Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
23 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and
striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary engineering, and
construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County
Bicycle Master Plan, which are based upon a peer review of Southern
California bikeway construction unit costs.
Page 259 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
206 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 7-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per
mile
Length of
Proposed Network
(miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 0.2 $ 192,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 7.0 $ 280,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 7.1 $ 179,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 16.7 $ 502,000
Total 31.0 $ 1,153,000
7.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of
Manhattan Beach in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities
presented in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section
7.4.1 is grouped into projects based on feasibility of
implementation. Table 7-15 presents the prioritized projects based
on the prioritization methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each
criterion contains information about a facility and its ability to
address an existing or future need in Manhattan Beach. The
projects ranked the highest should be implemented first.
Page 260 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 207 Table 7-15: Manhattan Beach Prioritized Bicycle Projects Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BR Valley Dr 15th St South City Limits 3 6 0 4 0 1 2 1 2 2 21BFS Marine Ave The Strand Blanch Rd 3 6 0 4 0 1 2 0 2 2 20BFS Marine Ave Ardmore Avenue Sepulveda Blvd 3 6 0 4 0 0 2 0 2 2 19BL Manhattan Beach Blvd Ardmore Avenue Aviation Blvd 3 6 0 4 0 2 2 1 0 1 19BL Rosecrans Ave Highland Ave Aviation Blvd 3 6 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 1 18BFS 1st St Manhattan Avenue John St 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 2 18BR 45th St The Strand Crest Dr 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 17BR 15th St Ocean Dr Valley Dr 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 17BFS Pacific Ave - 5th St Rosecrans Ave Ardmore Ave 0 6 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 2 16BR Highland Av 45th St 33rd St 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 13BFS Ocean Dr 45th St 1st St 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 11BFS Oak Ave Ardmore Ave Manhattan Beach Blvd 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 2 2 10Page 261 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach 208 | Alta Planning + Design Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BR Ardmore Ave Rosecrans Ave South City Limits 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 2 10BR Manhattan Ave 15th St 1st St 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 10BR Manhattan Beach Blvd Ocean Dr Valley Dr 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 10BFS 8th St Ardmore Ave Aviation Blvd 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 2 9BFS Ardmore Ave John St Redondo Ave 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 9BFS Meadows Ave - Tennyson St - Prospect Ave Marine Ave Artesia Blvd 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 9BFS Voorhees Ave Peck Ave Aviation Blvd 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 9BR Rosecrans Ave The Strand Highland Ave 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 9BFS 2nd St John St East City Limits 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 2 8BR - BP - BR Redondo Ave Rosecrans Ave Marine Ave 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 8BL Marine Ave Sepulveda Blvd Aviation Blvd 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 8Page 262 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 209 Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BFS Mathews Ave Peck Ave Aviation Way 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 8BFS Harkness St Marine Ave 2nd St 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 8BFS 11th St Ardmore Ave Aviation Blvd 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 7BFS Peck Ave Manhattan Beach Blvd Artesia Blvd 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 7BR 38th Pl Highland Ave Crest Dr 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 6BFS - BP - BFS Bell Ave - Blanch Rd Rosecrans Ave Valley Dr 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5BL Aviation Blvd Rosecrans Ave South City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 5*BP=Bike Path, BL=Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street Page 263 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
210 | Alta Planning + Design
7.7 Project Sheets
The City of Manhattan Beach selected two of its top priority
projects from the previous table for more detailed concept designs.
Project sheets are shown on the following pages and include:
A review of the existing site conditions
Site challenges
Recommended improvements
Estimated cost
Photos
Aerial images
Concept graphics
Page 264 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 211
Manhattan Beach Project #1: Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Aviation Boulevard to the Strand)
Project Site Photos
Manhattan Beach Boulevard is an east-west corridor located in the
center of the City of Manhattan Beach. It connects to Redondo Beach
to the east and to the Marvin Braude Bikeway (The Strand) and beach
to the west. Manhattan Beach Boulevard provides access to Polliwog
Park, Manhattan Heights Park, Manhattan Beach Middle School,
Meadows Elementary School, Pacific Elementary School, American
Martyrs School, residential/commercial uses, and Downtown
Manhattan Beach. There is existing on-street parking along most of the
street that is highly utilized in certain segments, including Downtown
Manhattan Beach and Polliwog Park.
Between Aviation Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard, Manhattan
Beach Boulevard two travel lanes in each direction and center medians.
The roadway width is approximately 32 feet on each side of the median
with on-street parallel parking, with exception to a short segment east
of Sepulveda Boulevard where the width drops to 25 feet on the north
side of the road and no on-street parking is present. From Sepulveda
Boulevard to Dianthus Street, Manhattan Beach Boulevard has two
travel lanes in each direction and is approximately 27 feet wide on each
side of center medians with parallel on-street parking. From Dianthus
Street to Pacific Avenue, Manhattan Beach Boulevard has two travel
lanes in each direction and the roadway width is approximately 59 feet
with parallel on-street parking. The posted speed limit between
Aviation Boulevard and Pacific Avenue is 35 mph. Between Pacific
Avenue and Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue, the street has one
westbound travel lane and two eastbound travel lanes. This segment of
Manhattan Beach Boulevard is approximately 48 to 50 feet wide with
parallel on-street parking. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. West of
Valley Drive, the roadway widens to approximately 58 to 60 feet wide,
has one travel lane in each direction, left turn pockets, and a mix of
angled and parallel on-street parking. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Looking west on Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Bike lanes will
provide children riding to school a safer commute.
Removing the additional westbound travel lane west of Pacific
Avenue will allow for bicycle lanes without parking removal.
Removing on-street parking spaces to install bicycle lanes will
provide a safe and convenient bicycling environment.
Project Challenges
Manhattan Beach Boulevard has no existing bicycle facilities, thus
bicyclists must share the road with relatively high volumes of vehicles,
especially east of Pacific Avenue. Rolling hills can create potential
conflicts between bicyclists and motorists due to the speed differential
on inclines. On-street parking along Manhattan Beach Boulevard
reduces the available space for bicycle facilities.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 1.8 miles of Class II Bike Lanes and signs
Install 0.3 miles of Class III Bike Route signs
Add bicycle detection and pavement markings at all signalized
intersections
Remove approximately 69 spaces of on-street parking between
Sepulveda Boulevard and Pacific Avenue
Remove one eastbound travel lane between Pacific Avenue and
Ardmore Avenue
Convert angled parking to head out angled parking west of Valley
Drive
Install intersection crossing treatment at Valley Dr/Ardmore Ave
Estimated Cost
$110,000
Page 265 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
212 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Manhattan Beach Boulevard
Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Aviation Boulevard to Sepulveda Boulevard)
Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Sepulveda Boulevard to the Strand)
Page 266 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 213
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Manhattan Beach Boulevard
Head Out Angled Parking and Intersection Crossing Markings
Bicycle Loop Detector
Page 267 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
214 | Alta Planning + Design
Manhattan Beach Project #2: Redondo Avenue (Artesia Boulevard to Marine Avenue)
Project Site Photos and Concepts
Redondo Avenue is a north-south residential street located in the
eastern portion of the City of Manhattan Beach with rolling hills.
Redondo Avenue provides access to Marine Avenue Park, Marine
Sports Complex, Manhattan Heights Park, Manhattan Beach
Middle School, and Polliwog Park. North of 11th Street there is
existing on-street parallel parking along both sides of Redondo
Avenue. South of 11th Street there is on-street parallel parking on
the northbound side only. Though private property, a connection
between Marine Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue could be pursued
in the future to provide a continuous route on Redondo Avenue
from Redondo Beach to El Segundo (Douglas Street).
Redondo Avenue has one travel lane in each direction and a striped
center line. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. There are existing
striped crosswalks at signalized intersections and around
Manhattan Beach Middle School.
Looking south on Redondo Avenue. Pavement markings and
signage will alert drivers of the presence of bicyclists
Median refuge islands provide bicyclists a protected space to wait
for gaps in traffic. (Source: NACTO.org)
Bicycle detectors at intersections will allow bicycles to trigger the
signal when no vehicles are present.
Project Challenges
Redondo Avenue has no existing bicycle facilities, which creates
potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. Children
commuting to school and others accessing the parks by bicycle
must share the road with vehicles without any treatments alerting
motorists of their presence. Rolling hills create a speed differential
between bicyclists and vehicular traffic and can also create
conflicts.
Proposed Improvements
Install signage and stripe pavement markings, such as sharrows
or bike friendly street stencils
Add bicycle detection and pavement markings at all signalized
intersections
Construct a median refuge island at the intersection of Redondo
Avenue and Artesia Boulevard
Construct bulbouts with high visibility crosswalks
Install speed feedback signs located on the steep grade between
Mathews Avenue and Artesia Boulevard
Estimated Cost
$1,750,000
Page 268 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 215
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Redondo Avenue
Redondo Avenue (Marine Ave to 8th Street)
8th Street to Artesia Blvd
Page 269 of 535
Chapter Seven | Manhattan Beach
216 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Redondo Avenue
Bulbouts and High Visibility Crosswalk
Speed Feedback Sign and Median Refuge Island
Page 270 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 217
Chapter 8
Redondo Beach
Page 271 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
218 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 272 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 219
8 Redondo Beach
This chapter presents Redondo Beach’s portion of the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how Redondo
Beach complies with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements.
The chapter is then organized into the following sections:
Existing conditions
City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions
Needs analysis
Proposed bicycle network
Project prioritization
Project costs
8.1 Bicycle Transportion Account (BTA)
Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide
discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the
Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local
jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Redondo Beach to
qualify for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must
contain specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA
components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The
table includes “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the
convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing
compliance.
8.2 Existing Conditions
Redondo Beach is located in the western portion of the South Bay
region. It is bordered by the City of Hawthorne to the north, the
City of Manhattan Beach and the City of Hermosa Beach to the
west, the City of Lawndale and the City of Torrance to the east, and
the City of Torrance again to the south. According to the 2000
Census, Redondo Beach has a population of 63,261. The city was
incorporated in 1892.
8.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land uses in the South
Bay Region. Land use in Redondo Beach is shown at right. Over 60
percent of the City’s land area is devoted to residential uses, though
the type of housing is varied. The City consists of 33 percent single
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Existing Land Uses in Redondo Beach
Page 273 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
220 | Alta Planning + Design
family, approximately 10 percent multi-family, and about 18 percent
other residential.
The City of Redondo Beach does not have any proposed changes to
its land uses.
8.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are
correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high
population or employment densities or high concentrations of
certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle
households.
Appendix A-4 shows population density in Redondo Beach. Many
of the areas of highest population density are located along the
beach, which is where much of the multi-family housing is located.
This has the potential to generate bicycle trips as housing is nearby
many key community services. There are also areas of high
population density in North Redondo Beach. Population density,
measured as the number of persons per acre, is a strong indicator of
potential bicycle activity, because more people living in an area
implies more trips to and from that area. The high population
densities of urbanized environments also tend to support bicycle
travel through mixed land uses, interconnected street networks,
and shorter trip lengths.
Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Redondo Beach.
The highest employment densities are in South Redondo Beach
near the beach, in North Redondo Beach along Marine Avenue, and
in the eastern portion of the City along Hawthorne Boulevard. The
high employment density near the beach is from general office land
uses. Marine Avenue is concentrated with industrial uses and
Hawthorne Boulevard has primarily commercial and service uses.
These sites have the potential to generate bicycle activity, as they
are located in environments with a variety of land uses where trips
between uses can be shorter.
Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7, and Appendix A-8 display the
percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual income, and
percent transit commuters by census tract. Redondo Beach has
relatively high percentages of households without vehicles. The
highest concentrations of these households are along the beach and
in North Redondo Beach. Median annual household income is
consistently between $55,001 and $75,000 (in 1999 dollars)
throughout South Redondo Beach, while North Redondo Beach has
High density housing has the potential to generate
bicycle activity, as it is generally located in
environments with a variety of land uses where trips
between uses can be shorter.
Photo Source: Kelly Morphy/WALC Institute for
Vitality City
Page 274 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 221
pockets where median annual household income is between
$75,001 and $95,000. These are in the west on the border of
Hermosa Beach and in the north nearer to the border.
The highest percentages of transit commuters are located in South
Redondo Beach and the central portion of North Redondo Beach.
These parts of the city have greater potential for increased bicycling
activity because residents who do not have vehicles must use
alternative modes and are likely to combine bicycle and transit
trips.
In addition to the reasons discussed above, Redondo Beach has the
potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing
through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle
network that is connected within Redondo Beach, as well as linked
to bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates
bicycle traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to
driving a motorized vehicle.
8.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 8-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of
Redondo Beach’s Circulation Element, Bicycle Transportation Plan
Implementation, and Municipal Code.
Page 275 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
222 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 8-1: Redondo Beach Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Circulation
Element (2009)
The Circulation Element contains the extensive network of existing and proposed bikeways shown in Appendix
F-5 and Appendix F-6 There are four proposed Class I bikeways, two proposed Class II bikeways, and 17
proposed Class III bikeways. These are meant to fill gaps in the system and improve connections.
The element mentions a Redondo Beach Sustainability Plan, which has a goal to create bicycle lanes, paths, and
storage. Other Circulation Element goals and policies include:
Promote alternative modes for residents and visitors
Provide bicycle parking and support facilities as a TDM strategy
Connect North and South Redondo Beach with bicycle facilities
Focus on bicycle access at transit stations, the waterfront, South Bay Galleria, Artesia Boulevard, Riviera
Village, Pacific Coast Highway retail zones, and school zones
Reduce vehicle lanes to 10 feet on residential streets to accommodate bicycle lanes
Bike lanes: minimum five feet; Truck routes/bus routes: minimum 12 feet for vehicle travel lanes; Two-way
left-turn lane: minimum 14 feet edge to edge; Combination parking lane/bike lane: minimum 13 feet
Increase the provision of bike lockers, bike racks, and lighting for bike facilities
Ensure that residents will be able to bike to key destinations, such as the beach
Conduct bike ability audits and periodic bicycle counts
Apply for Safe Routes to School grants
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan (2005)
This project implements Metro’s 2006 Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan Objective I, which is to improve
access and mobility by encouraging bicycle accommodation in roadway improvements, and was submitted to
Metro’s 2009 Call for Projects for funding. It outlines the implementation of bicycle improvements in the City’s
Circulation Element. The project includes the design and construction of the following elements city-wide:
2.1 miles of Class II bike lanes
15.8 miles of Class III bike routes
105 video-detection cameras
101 pedestrian-push buttons
295 bicycle-facility signs
328 bike-lane symbols or sharrows
The widening of Lilienthal Lane for bicycle improvements
The narrowing of medians on Catalina Ave. from PCH to Beryl St. to provide bike lanes
The installation of a bicycle signal at westbound N. Juanita Avenue to N. Catalina at PCH where the
intersection will be reconstructed to provide a bicycle-friendly cut-through at a cul-de-sac
Harbor and Pier
Area Guiding
Principles (2006)
These principles guide the development and activities in the area surrounding King Harbor and the Pier. Relevant
principles include:
Ensure gateways to the Harbor and Pier area are attractive and active
Provide and enhance boating, water, recreation, entertainment, and sports related activity
Require development to be designed to encourage pedestrian activity and accommodate safe bike and
pedestrian paths
Municipal Code Bicycle parking requirements in the Municipal Code vary by the size of the development and type of land use as
part of the City’s transportation demand and trip reduction measures. Minimum parking requirements are based
Page 276 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 223
Document Description
on square footage of the development. Developments of certain sizes are also required to provide information,
such as bicycle maps. Detailed bicycle parking information is presented in Appendix G. The City prohibits riding
bicycles on the sidewalk wherever it is determined by the Council that it creates a hazard to the public. It also
prohibits riding bicycles on the Pier, on the west side of Esplanade between Knob Hill Ave and Pearl St., and in
areas of high pedestrian traffic.
Page 277 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
224 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 8-1: Existing Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo
Beach
Page 278 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 225
Figure 8-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo
Beach
Page 279 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
226 | Alta Planning + Design
8.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2 show the existing bicycle facilities in
Redondo Beach. Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing
bicycle facilities in the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are
discussed in Section 1.3. Redondo Beach has a 14 mile bicycle
network that includes Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways. Its
Class I bike paths are a 0.9 mile segment of the North Redondo
Beach Bikeway and the Los Angeles County-maintained Marvin
Braude Bikeway. Table 8-2 summarizes the classification and
mileage of the existing network.
Table 8-2: Redondo Beach Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 3.5
Class II (Bike Lanes) 5.9
Class III (Bike Route) 4.7
Total Mileage 14.1
8.2.5 Existing End-of-Trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible
short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the
members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as
change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities
consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not
limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities. Existing end-of-trip bicycle facilities in the South
Bay are shown in Appendix A-9. Existing bicycle parking in
Redondo Beach is shown at left. These locations include the Pier
and the Riviera Village. Bicycle parking at transit stations is
discussed in Section 8.2.7. Redondo Beach does not currently have
any existing publicly-accessible long-term end-of-trip bicycle
facilities.
8.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for
shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high
level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.
Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of
Redondo Beach. Metro operates bus lines with east-west routes in
North Redondo Beach and north-south routes in South Redondo
(See Appendix A-9 for larger map)
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in
Redondo Beach
Page 280 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 227
Beach. Buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which are available
on a first-come, first-served basis. Metro also operates the Green
Line Light Rail, which has one station in North Redondo Beach on
Marine Avenue. Passengers are allowed to bring bicycles on the
Metro Rail.
LADOT operates the Commuter Express bus service. Line 438
connects the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.
Most Commuter Express buses are equipped with bicycle racks,
which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. The
Commuter Express Line 438 route map is shown in Appendix A-11.
The City of Redondo Beach operates Beach Cities Transit (BCT). It
has three lines that connect Redondo Beach to El Segundo,
Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance. Appendix A-13
shows the BCT System Map. BCT buses are equipped with bike
racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Torrance Transit Lines 3 and 8, operated by the City of Torrance,
also serve the City of Redondo Beach. Appendix A-14 shows the
Torrance Transit System Map. Buses are equipped with bike racks,
which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit
services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle
parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and
ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit
vehicles. The Marine Avenue Metro Green Line station provides
both bicycle racks and lockers, which are shown on the previous
page and in Appendix A-9. Bicycle locker rentals are $24 for a six
month rental plus a $50 refundable security key deposit.
8.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related
policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. To promote safe
bicycling, Redondo Beach regularly conducts child bicycle helmet
safety awareness campaigns as part of the police department’s
annual work plan by:
Conducting media outreach via cable television and the
internet
Working with the school district and crossing guards to
distribute helmet safety info to kids
Partnering with local businesses
Metro operates the Green Line Light Rail, which has one
station in North Redondo Beach on Marine Avenue.
Page 281 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
228 | Alta Planning + Design
Distributing free coupons to kids who obey the law
Redondo Beach police officers use their discretion to conduct
enforcement of bicycle rules. Typically, complaints about bicyclists
who violate the law increase during summer months and the City
focuses enforcement based upon these complaints. In response, the
police department has conducted outreach prior to conducting
enforcement operations. The outreach has included the following:
Placement of message signboards at strategic locations to
warn bicyclists of enforcement
Providing targeted enforcement literature to local bike
shops
Posting information on bicycle blogs to inform bicyclists of
pending enforcement details
Redondo Beach also conducted a bicycle rodeo in 2011 to promote
safe bicycling to children.
8.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
The City of Redondo Beach has incurred the following bicycle
expenditures between 2000 and 2010. The expenditures total to
$1,457,365.
$12,000 for a Class II facility on Catalina Ave (Esplanade to
Beryl St) and a Class III facility on Esplanade (Knob Hill
Ave to Catalina Ave) in 2008
$1,422,465 for Class I, II, and III facilities for the North
Redondo Beach Bikeway in 2008
$7,000 for type D loops on Inglewood Ave (Artesia Blvd to
Manhattan Beach Blvd) in 2009
$7,500 for type D loops on Prospect Ave (Palos Verdes Blvd
to Pearl St) in 2010
$3,000 for type D loops as part of a residential
rehabilitation project in 2010
$3,000 for type D loops on Palos Verdes Blvd (Avenue F to
East City Limits) in 2010
$2,400 for bicycle racks at the Pier and Riviera Village
between 2008 and 2010 Redondo Beach spent over $1.4 million
between 2000 and 2010 to install bicycle
facilities and bicycle support facilities.
Photo Source: Dan Burden/WALC Institute
for Vitality City
Page 282 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 229
8.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Redondo Beach. It
first summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and
public workshops. The section also provides estimates and
forecasts of bicycle commuting to determine the estimated
bicycling demand in the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision
data between 2007 and 2009 to identify areas that would benefit
from bicycle facility improvements.
8.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to
provide input in the planning process through an online survey and
the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes
locations in Redondo Beach that the community identified as
desirable for bikeways.
The locations that the public identified the most frequently as
needed bicycle facilities in Redondo Beach include the following:
Aviation Boulevard
Pacific Coast Highway
King Harbor
Prospect Avenue
Torrance Boulevard
8.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an
indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows
the percent bicycle commuters in Redondo Beach by census tract.
The highest percentage of bicycle commuters is located in the
southeastern portion of the City on the border with Torrance.
Table 8-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by
the 2000 US Census for Redondo Beach. For comparative purposes,
the table includes commute to work data for the United States,
California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,
0.8 percent of residents in Redondo Beach commute predominantly
by bicycle. This is comparable with the percentage of bicycle
commuters in California, and it is higher than Los Angeles County
and the United States as a whole. It is important to note that this
figure likely underestimates the true amount of bicycling that
occurs in Redondo Beach for several reasons. Data reflects
respondents’ dominant commute mode and therefore does not
capture trips to school, for errands, or other bike trips that would
The locations that the public identified the most
frequently as needed bicycle facilities in Redondo Beach
included Prospect Avenue.
Page 283 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
230 | Alta Planning + Design
supplant vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection methods
only enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus
excluding bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer
multimodal trip. The percentage of commuters in Redondo Beach
that commute by transit is much lower than that of those that drive
alone. Redondo Beach also has a low percentage of carpooling and
walking.
In addition to bicycle commuters in Redondo Beach, bicyclists from
neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach
their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan
addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate
bicyclists passing through Redondo Beach’s bicycle network in
Section 8.4.
Table 8-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United States California Los Angeles
County
Redondo
Beach
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.81%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 83.35%
Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 7.43%
Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 1.47%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 1.41%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.66%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 4.27%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 8-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within
Redondo Beach using US Census data along with several
adjustments for likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as
discussed above. Table 8-5 presents the associated air quality
benefits from bicycling.
Page 284 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 231
Table 8-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 63,261 2000 US Census, P1
Existing employed population 37,661 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.8% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of bike-to-work
commuters 305
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 4.3% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters 161
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 1.5% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing transit bicycle commuters
138
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Existing school children, ages 6-14
(grades K-8) 5,650
2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode
share 2.0%
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Existing school children bike commuters
113
School children population multiplied by school
children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in
study area 5,136
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling
mode share
5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of
bicycle commute mode share at the University of
California, Los Angeles
Existing college bike commuters
257
College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters
974
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike
trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 1,948 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 285 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
232 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 8-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
587
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 153,321 Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
4,280
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
1,117,149
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 13 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 9 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 117 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 3,482 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 3,350 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 13 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 12 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 2,340 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 30,540 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 908,807 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Table 8-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within
Redondo Beach using California Department of Finance population
and school enrollment projections. The projection contains the
assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in
part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share
in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of
network implementation. Table 8-7 presents the associated year
Page 286 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 233
2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a
straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling
Demand.
Table 8-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
78,724
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.
Future employed population
46,866
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 1.6% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of bike-to-work
commuters 759
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share
8.0%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters 376
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 2.9% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future transit bicycle commuters
344
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
4,490
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.
Future school children bicycling mode
share 4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Future school children bike commuters
180
School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
6,391
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.
Future estimated college bicycling mode
share
7.0%
A slight increase over the existing college bicycle
mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other populations
Future college bike commuters
447
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
2,107
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 4,214 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 287 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
234 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 8-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
1,251
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
326,430
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
9,339
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
2,437,547
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 28 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 20 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 255 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 7,598 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 7,308 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 28 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 26 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 5,105 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 66,636 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 1,982,959 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
This model uses the latest state projections for population growth
and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The
benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute
trips could increase from the current daily estimate of about 2,000
to approximately 4,200, resulting in a substantial reduction of both
Page 288 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 235
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This
includes a yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately
5,100 pounds of smog forming N0X and roughly 2 million pounds of
C02, the principal gas associated with global climate change.
Providing bicycle facilities will encourage new bicyclists to begin to
ride, thus positively impacting air quality by reducing harmful
pollutants from driving motorized vehicles. Because this plan
recommends local connections throughout and regional links
between the participating cities, it has the potential to have even
greater air quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as
heavily on vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a
viable transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.
8.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Redondo
Beach, volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they
manually recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.
8.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture
both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also
provides guidance on how to select count locations.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven
participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4,
2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010
from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture
volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is
an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because
school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In
Redondo Beach, volunteers were stationed at three stations on
Thursday and five stations on Saturday. There were 36 total
locations in the South Bay region on each day.
The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta
Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and
South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of
locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using
the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.
(See Appendix A-16 for a larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in Redondo Beach
(See Appendix A-17 for a larger map and
Appendix H for a list of count locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in Redondo Beach
Page 289 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
236 | Alta Planning + Design
8.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A-
16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Redondo Beach are
shown at right. Detailed count data, including a list of count
locations, is presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the Redondo
Beach station that experienced the highest volume was Harbor
Drive and Beryl Street with 499 bicyclists during the three hour
count period. The other two stations had fewer than 100 bicyclists
each. The station with the most bicyclists on Saturday was
Herondo Street and the Strand with 732 bicyclists during the three
hour count period.
On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists
in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on
the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the
Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and
Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the
weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count
stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more
bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for
recreation on the weekend.
In the region as a whole, about 83 percent of bicyclists were male.
Approximately 70 percent of those observed did not wear helmets
and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there were 18
locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode on the
sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the sidewalk
can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as bicyclists that
are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to ride on the
sidewalk instead.
8.3.4 Bicycle Collision Analysis
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.
Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not
riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to national
surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to
areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions
occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable
data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes
reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle
collisions in Redondo Beach. This data does not include any
assessment of conditions present at the time of the collision. There
are numerous factors that may contribute to a given incident
Bicycle Collisions in Redondo Beach 2007-
2009
(See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Page 290 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 237
including but not limited to time of day, visibility, distractions,
obstacles or traffic law obedience. This data simply reflects
reported incidents, resulting injuries and the party at fault. This
data does not infer faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a
baseline of collisions that often decreases in correlation with bike
plan implementation and the improvements to facilities and road
user behavior and awareness that accompanies it. Fault as
determined by law enforcement is discussed below.
Table 8-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving
bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle
collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South
Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in Redondo
Beach are shown on the preceding page. There were 80 total
reported collisions involving bicyclists from 2007-2009 in the City
of Redondo Beach. There were four collisions at the intersection of
Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard, on the border of
Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. There were also 12 collisions
on Artesia Boulevard and 14 collisions on Pacific Coast Highway.
Table 8-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes
Involving Bicyclists
Number of
Bicyclists Involved Persons Injured Persons Severely
Injured Persons Killed
80 84 80 3 0
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at
fault in 48 percent of collisions involving bicycles (38 crashes) in
this time period.
Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When
motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions
between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York,
for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and
2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions
decreased (see Appendix B).
Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in
Redondo Beach. The streets with the highest volumes of vehicles
are Aviation Boulevard, Inglewood Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway,
Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, and 190th Street.
Artesia Boulevard, Aviation Boulevard, and Pacific Coast Highway
all had a high number of collisions involving bicycles. Pacific Coast
Page 291 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
238 | Alta Planning + Design
Highway is the only high volume street with a bicycle facility; it has
a Class III bike route. Bicyclists must share lanes with vehicular
traffic, creating the potential for conflicts between the two modes.
Installing bicycle facilities, especially on major arterials, could
reduce the number and severity of collisions involving bicyclists.
8.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of
Redondo Beach, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon
implementation of the proposed network, the City should
coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay
cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
discussed in this Plan are described in Section 1.3 and shown in
Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended
standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum
standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of
bikeways in Redondo Beach, the recommended system ties into the
proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating
cities to create a connected regional network. This will give
bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass
through Redondo Beach to reach their destinations without losing
bicycle facilities at city boundaries. Bikeway recommendations are
also based on the existing City bicycle plans, public input,
topography, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds.
8.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bikeway network in the City of Redondo Beach
consists of Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike
Routes, and Bike Friendly Streets, and is shown in Figure 8-3 and
Figure 8-4. The proposed bicycle network in Redondo Beach
connects with the recommended networks in Manhattan Beach,
Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, and Torrance. Figure 8-3 shows blue
asterisks on the proposed path along the Metro Green Line
Extension as it is outside the jurisdiction of this Plan, but is a
supported improvement. The proposed bicycle network for the
South Bay region as a whole is presented in Appendix A-19.
Four tables identify the streets on which facilities are proposed, the
extents of each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each
proposed facility. Table 8-9 lists the proposed bicycle paths, Table
8-10 lists the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 8-11 lists the proposed
bicycle routes, and Table 8-12 lists the proposed bicycle-friendly
streets.
The proposed bikeway network in the City of
Redondo Beach consists of Class I Bike Paths, Class II
Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike Friendly
Streets.
Page 292 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 239
Table 8-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Redondo Beach
Street From To Miles
Harbor Dr Herondo St Existing Bike Path 0.8
Flagler Ln Towers St Diamond St 0.1
Total Bicycle Path Mileage 0.8
Table 8-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Redondo Beach
Street From To Miles
Prospect Ave North City Limits Pacific Coast Highway 3.0
Knob Hill Ave Esplanade Pacific Coast Highway 0.4
Torrance Blvd West End East City Limits 0.9
Inglewood Ave Marine Ave Ripley Ave 1.8
Artesia Blvd West City Limits Hawthorne Blvd 2.3
Catalina Ave Torrance Blvd Palos Verdes Blvd 1.6
Juanita Ave - Del Amo Blvd Diamond St East City Limits 0.3
Marine Ave Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 1.0
Ripley Ave Lilienthal Ln Inglewood Ave 0.3
Beryl St Harbor Dr 190th St 1.5
Catalina Ave Pacific Coast Highway Beryl St 0.5
Sepulveda Blvd Prospect Ave West City Limits 0.3
Avenue I Esplanade Catalina Ave 0.1
Manhattan Beach Blvd Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 1.0
Herondo St Harbor Dr Pacific Coast Highway 0.4
Lilienthal Ln Ripley Ave Fisk Ln 0.4
Aviation Blvd Marine Ave Harper Ave (City Limit) 1.7
190th St Blossom Ln East City Limits 1.3
Redondo Beach Blvd Artesia Blvd Hawthorne Blvd 0.2
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 18.9
Table 8-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Redondo Beach
Street From To Miles
Ripley Ave Flagler Ln Lilienthal Ln 0.9
Emerald St Catalina Ave Prospect Ave 0.7
Yacht Club Way West end Harbor Dr 0.1
Portofina Way West end Harbor Dr 0.2
Ford Ave - Herrin St - Ormond Ln Artesia Blvd Aviation Blvd 0.5
Sepulveda Blvd Torrance Blvd Prospect Ave 0.7
182nd St Felton Ave Hawthorne Blvd 0.6
Page 293 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
240 | Alta Planning + Design
Street From To Miles
Kingsdale Ave Artesia Blvd 182nd St 0.5
Anita St Pacific Coast Highway Blossom Ln 0.9
Francisca Ave Herondo St Catalina Ave 0.3
Palos Verdes Blvd South City Limits East City Limits 0.9
Knob Hill Ave Pacific Coast Highway Camino Real 0.5
Juanita Ave Pacific Coast Highway Diamon 0.5
Flagler Ln Anita St Beryl St 0.2
Beland Bl - Phelan Ln Barkley Ln White Circle 0.1
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 7.5
Table 8-12: Proposed Bicycle Friendly Streets in Redondo Beach
Street From To Miles
Flagler Ln - Diamond St Beryl St Prospect Ave 0.1
Flagler Ln Artesia Blvd Anita St 1.0
Ave C - Juanita Ave - Ave D -
Helberta Ave Esplanade Prospect Ave 0.9
Warfield Ave Aviation Blvd Redondo Beach Ave 0.5
Vanderbilt Ln Flagler Ln Inglewood Ave 1.0
Rindge Ln Warfield Ave 190th St 1.9
Ralston Ln - Firmona Ave Meyer Ln 190th St 0.9
Mathews Av Aviation Way Inglewood Ave 1.1
Voorhees Ave Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 1.1
Robinson St Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 1.1
Meyer Ln Ripley Ave 190th St 0.3
Helberta Ave - El Redondo Vincent St Torrance Blvd 0.5
Farrell Ave Aviation Blvd Rindge Ln 0.3
Total Bicycle-Friendly Street Mileage 10.9
There are several opportunities and constraints to recommending
new bicycle facilities in Redondo Beach. These are shown on the
following page and are referenced by the numbers in Appendix I.
Appendix I also presents opportunities and constraints in the
South Bay region as a whole.
Opportunities include a proposed Class I bikeway on Harbor Drive
and a proposed Class II bikeway on Catalina Avenue. See Vitality
City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
Page 294 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 241
One constraint is “The Wall” on the Strand at the border of
Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach. This wall severs the Marvin
Braude Bikeway at the Hermosa Beach-Redondo Beach border.
South-bound bicyclists are forced to make a sharp 90-degree turn
and are led out to the bike lanes on Harbor Drive. This plan
recommends the removal of the wall and that parking lot 13 in
Redondo Beach be partially utilized to accommodate a short
extension of the Class I facility that will lead to Harbor Drive in a
safer and more navigable way.
A second constraint is a proposed Class II bikeway on Artesia
Boulevard. Artesia Boulevard between Aviation Boulevard and the
city’s eastern boundary has undergone an extensive streetscape
improvement in recent history. These improvements included an
extensively landscaped center median and bulb-outs. As such, this
facility is one that can be considered in any future streetscape
improvements that might be implemented along Artesia Boulevard
in the years to come.
A third constraint is a proposed Class II bikeway along Redondo
Beach Boulevard from Hawthorne Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard
in Lawndale/Redondo Beach. This segment experiences high
vehicular traffic volumes due to the South Bay Galleria, which
creates a challenging environment for bicyclists. Upon plan
implementation, Lawndale and Redondo Beach should work
together to design a facility that provides safety for bicyclists.
(See Appendix I for larger map)
Opportunities and Constraints in
Redondo Beach
Page 295 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
242 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 8-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo
Beach
Page 296 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 243
Figure 8-4: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo
Beach
Page 297 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
244 | Alta Planning + Design
8.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation
are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance
safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With
nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists
need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive
bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a
jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling
environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of
residents traveling without using an automobile.
The Redondo Beach Municipal Code currently provides bicycle
parking requirements for non-residential developments. The City
should amend its Municipal Code to include bicycle parking
requirements at new and retrofitted multi-family residential,
commercial, office, and mixed-use developments of all sizes. The
Municipal Code should also require bicycle parking quantities
based on square footage of developments or by number of
employees/residents to adequately address the bicycle demand at
each development.
Redondo Beach should also amend its Municipal Code to include
requirements on types of both short- and long-term bicycle parking
facility designs, which are shown in Appendix J. Bicycle rack
designs should include racks that provide two points of contact
with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front
wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a high degree of
security and support for the bicycle. Long-term bicycle parking
should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored
racks for bicycles
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks
or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty
from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing
facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they
have a place to clean up before work or school. Redondo Beach’s
Municipal Code should require all new mid-to-large employers,
offices, and businesses to supply changing and storing facilities,
such as by providing showers and clothes lockers within the
Redondo Beach should amend its Municipal Code to
include requirements on types of both short- and long-
term bicycle parking facility designs.
Page 298 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 245
buildings or arranging agreements with nearby recreation centers
to allow commuters to use their facilities.
Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities in Redondo Beach are shown
in Figure 8-5 and Figure 8-6. The City should continue to provide
short-term bicycle parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major
trip attractors, including commercial and civic activity centers and
transit hubs, and ensure that an adequate supply is available. The
City should prioritize the installation of bicycle parking
throughout the city, with particular attention directed at the
following locations:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices, and major
commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle
parking options, such as bicycle lockers. Any future transit hubs
and intermodal facilities should include secure bicycle parking
areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that
provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair, should be
considered at major transit stations and commuter destinations.
8.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle
network in Redondo Beach.
8.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 8-13 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for
each facility type proposed in this plan and Table 8-14 displays the
cost to implement the proposed network in the City of Redondo
Beach from the cost assumptions.24 Cost assumptions are based on
LA County averages and may vary depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude
specific treatments that may vary by location and must be
determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures,
restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal.
24 Table 8-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with
Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
High-activity locations such as transit stations, offices,
and major commercial districts should provide more
secure, long-term bicycle parking options, such as
bicycle lockers.
Page 299 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
246 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 8-5: North Redondo Beach Proposed End-of-Trip
Facilities
Page 300 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 247
Figure 8-6: South Redondo Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Page 301 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
248 | Alta Planning + Design
Cost assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such
as changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or
installation of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to
the project sheets presented in Section 8.7.
Table 8-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types
Facility Type Description Estimated Cost
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile
Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane
restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile
Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
Table 8-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per mile Length of Proposed
Network (miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 0.8 $ 672,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 15.9 $ 636,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 10.4 $ 259,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 10.9 $ 328,000
Total 38.0 $ 1,895,000
8.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of
Redondo Beach in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities
presented in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section
8.4.1 is grouped into projects based on feasibility of
implementation. Table 8-15 presents the prioritized projects based
on the prioritization methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each
criterion contains information about a facility and its ability to
address an existing or future need in Redondo Beach. The projects
ranked the highest should be implemented first.
Page 302 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 249 Table 8-15: Redondo Beach Prioritized Bicycle Projects Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BL Torrance Blvd West End East City Limits 6 6 0 4 0 2 2 2 1 2 25BP Harbor Dr Herondo St Existing Bike Path 6 6 0 4 0 1 2 2 0 2 23BL Inglewood Ave Marine Ave Ripley Ave 0 6 0 4 2 2 2 2 0 2 20BL Artesia Blvd West City Limits Hawthorne Blvd 0 6 0 4 4 2 2 1 0 0 19BL Catalina Ave Torrance Blvd Palos Verdes Blvd 3 6 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 19BL Juanita Ave - Del Amo Blvd Pacific Coast Highway East City Limits 3 6 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 19BR Ripley Ave Flagler Ln Lilienthal Ln 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 2 18BL - BR Knob Hill Ave Esplanade Camino Real 3 6 0 4 0 2 1 1 1 0 18BL Marine Ave Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 0 6 0 0 4 1 2 2 1 2 18BL Ripley Ave Lilienthal Ln Inglewood Ave 3 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 2 18BL Beryl St Harbor Dr 190th St 3 6 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 18BL Prospect Ave North City Limits Pacific Coast Highway 3 6 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 17BL Catalina Ave Pacific Coast Highway Beryl St 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 17BL Sepulveda Blvd Prospect Ave West City Limits 3 6 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 17BL Avenue I Esplanade Catalina Ave 3 6 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 17BL Lilienthal Ln Ripley Ave Fisk Ln 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 17BFS Warfield Ave Aviation Blvd Vail Ave 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 17BR Beland Bl - Phelan Ln Barkley Ln White Cir 6 6 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 17BL Manhattan Beach Blvd Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 0 6 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 2 16Page 303 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach 250 | Alta Planning + Design Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BR - BFS - BP - BFS Flagler Ln - Diamond St Anita St Prospect Ave 3 6 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 16BR Emerald St Catalina Ave Prospect Ave 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 13BR 182nd St Felton Ave Hawthorne Blvd 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 2 2 2 13BR Juanita Ave Pacific Coast Highway Diamond Street 3 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 13BL Aviation Blvd Marine Ave Harper Ave (City Limit) 0 6 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 13BFS Ave C - Juanita Ave - Ave D - Helberta Ave Esplanade Prospect Ave 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 13BFS Vanderbilt Ln Flagler Ln Inglewood Ave 0 6 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 13BFS Rindge Ln Warfield Ave 190th St 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 13BR Kingsdale Ave Artesia Blvd 182nd St 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 12BL 190th St Blossom Ln East City Limits 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 12BL Redondo Beach Blvd Artesia Blvd Hawthorne Blvd 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 1 2 1 12BR Camino Real Torrance Blvd Prospect Ave 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 11BFS Ralston Ln - Firmona Ave Meyer Ln 190th St 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 11BFS Mathews Av Aviation Way Inglewood Ave 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 11BR Anita St Pacific Coast Highway Blossom Ln 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 10BFS Voorhees Ave Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10BFS Robinson St Aviation Blvd Inglewood Ave 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10BR Yacht Club West end Harbor Dr 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 9Page 304 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 251 Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total Way BR Portofino Way West end Harbor Dr 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 9BR Ford Ave - Herrin St - Ormond Ln Artesia Blvd Aviation Blvd 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 9BL Herondo St Harbor Dr Pacific Coast Highway 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 9BFS Meyer Ln Ripley Ave 190th St 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 8BFS Helberta Ave - El Redondo Vincent St Torrance Blvd 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 8BR Francisca Ave Herondo St Catalina Ave 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7BR Palos Verdes Blvd South City Limits East City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 7BFS Farrell Ave Aviation Blvd Rindge Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5*BP=Bike Path, BL=Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street Page 305 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
252 | Alta Planning + Design
8.7 Project Sheets
The City of Redondo Beach selected two of its top priority projects
from the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project
sheets are shown on the following pages and include:
A review of the existing site conditions
Site challenges
Recommended improvements
Estimated cost
Photos
Aerial images
Concept graphics
Page 306 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 253
Redondo Beach Project #1: Catalina Avenue (Torrance Boulevard to Palos Verdes Boulevard
Project Site Photos
Catalina Avenue is a north-south corridor located in the western
portion of the City of Redondo Beach. It connects to existing bike
lanes on Catalina Avenue to the north and proposed facilities in the
City of Torrance to the south. Catalina Avenue provides access to
Veterans Park, a variety of residential and commercial uses, and
Downtown Redondo Beach. There is existing on-street parking
along most of Catalina Avenue that is highly utilized.
Catalina Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. From Torrance
Boulevard to Avenue I, Catalina Avenue has two travel lanes in
each direction and on-street parallel parking. Between Torrance
Boulevard and Pearl Street, Catalina Avenue decreases from a
roadway width of approximately 86 feet to 60 feet, including a
center median, to accommodate turn pockets at Torrance
Boulevard. From Pearl Street to Knob Hill Avenue, the roadway
width drops to approximately 55 feet. Between Avenue H and
Avenue I, the roadway width increases to approximately 78 feet.
Catalina Avenue has one travel lane in each direction south of
Avenue I and there is a mix of on-street parallel and angled parking.
The roadway width is approximately 78 feet.
Angled parking creates potential conflicts between bicyclists and
motorists because it is difficult for drivers to see bicyclists when
backing out of parking spaces.
Project Challenges
This segment of Catalina Avenue has no existing bicycle facilities,
thus bicyclists must share the road with vehicular traffic. On-street
parking where the roadway narrows reduces the available space for
bicycle facilities. Angled parking creates potential conflicts
between bicyclists and motorists because it is difficult for drivers
to see bicyclists when backing out of parking spaces.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 1.6 miles of Class II Bike Lanes and signs
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Conduct a road diet to convert cross-section to one travel lane in
each direction and a center turn lane between Torrance
Boulevard and Knob Hill Avenue (0.7 miles)
Convert angled parking to head out angled parking south of
Avenue I
Estimated Cost
$200,000
Removing a travel lane north of Knob Hill Avenue will allow for
bicycle lanes without removing highly utilized parking.
Proposed bike lanes on Catalina Avenue will connect with
existing bike lanes on Catalina Avenue north of Torrance Blvd.
Page 307 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
254 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Catalina Avenue
Catalina Avenue (Torrance Boulevard to Avenue B)
Catalina Avenue (Avenue B to Palos Verdes Boulevard)
Page 308 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 255
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Catalina Avenue
Road Diet (4 to 3 Lanes)
Head Out Angled Parking
Page 309 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
256 | Alta Planning + Design
Redondo Beach Project #2: Prospect Avenue (Anita Street to Pacific Coast Highway)
Project Site Photos
Prospect Avenue is a north-south road located in the south-eastern
portion of the City of Redondo Beach. It connects to a proposed
bike friendly street on Prospect Avenue in Hermosa Beach to the
north and to an existing Class III Bike Route in Torrance to the
south. Prospect Avenue provides access to Redondo Shores High
School, Parras Middle School, and Tulita School. There is existing
on-street parking along much of Prospect Avenue on one or both
sides of the street that is moderately utilized. The posted speed
limit is 35 mph.
Between Anita Street and Torrance Boulevard, Prospect Avenue
has two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. The roadway
width ranges from approximately 61 to 65 feet. North of Del Amo
Street, there is only on-street parking on the west side of Prospect
Avenue. Between Beryl Street and Diamond Street, there is a center
median. From Torrance Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway, there
are two travel lanes in each direction, and between Camino Real
and Knob Hill Avenue, there is also a center turn lane. From
Torrance Boulevard to Palos Verdes Boulevard, the roadway width
of Prospect Avenue is approximately 62 to 64 feet. South of Palos
Verdes Boulevard to Avenue E, the roadway width drops to
approximately 46 feet and has no on-street parking. From Avenue
E to Pacific Coast Highway, the roadway widens to approximately
55 feet and has parking on both sides of the street.
Looking south on Prospect Avenue. Removing a travel lane in
each direction will provide adequate space for bike lanes.
Bike lanes on Prospect Avenue will create a safer bicycling
environment for children riding to school.
Bicycle loop detectors at signalized intersections will allow
bicyclists to trigger the signal when no vehicles are present.
Project Challenges
Prospect Avenue has no existing bicycle facilities, which creates
potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. There are few
existing treatments to create a safe bicycling environment for
children riding to school. The existing cross-section configuration
limits the space available to install bicycle facilities.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 3 miles of Class II Bike Lanes and signs
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Conduct a road diet to convert cross-section to one travel lane in
each direction and a center turn lane (3 miles)
Add an additional parking lane where space permits
Estimated Cost
$625,000
Page 310 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 257
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Prospect Avenue
Prospect Avenue (Anita Street to Torrance Boulevard)
Prospect Avenue (Torrance Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway)
Page 311 of 535
Chapter Eight | Redondo Beach
258 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Prospect Avenue
Bike Lane Adjacent to On-street Parking and Buffered Bike Lane
Bicycle Loop Detectors
Page 312 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 259
Chapter 9
Torrance
Page 313 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
260 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 314 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 261
9 Torrance
This chapter presents Torrance’s portion of the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan. It begins with a discussion of how Torrance complies
with Bicycle Transportation Account requirements. The chapter is
then organized into the following sections:
Existing conditions
City-specific goals, policies, and implementation actions
Needs analysis
Proposed bicycle network
Project prioritization
Project costs
9.1 Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) Compliance
The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide
discretionary program that funds bicycle projects through the
Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit. Available as grants to local
jurisdictions, the program emphasizes projects that benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes. In order for Torrance to qualify
for BTA funds, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan must contain
specific elements. Appendix E displays the requisite BTA
components and their location within this plan in tabular form. The
table includes “Approved” and “Notes/Comments” columns for the
convenience of the Metro official responsible for reviewing
compliance.
9.2 Existing Conditions
Torrance is located in the southern, central portion of the South
Bay region. It is bordered to the north by the City of Lawndale, the
County of Los Angeles, and the City of Gardena; to the east by the
City of Los Angeles; to the south by the Cities of Lomita, Rolling
Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates; and to the west by the City
of Redondo Beach. According to the 2000 Census, Torrance has a
population of 137,933. The City was incorporated in 1921.
9.2.1 Land Use
Appendix A-3 displays a map of the existing land use in the South
Bay Region. Land use in Torrance is shown at right. The City is
comprised of approximately 45 percent residential land uses, most
of which is single family residential. Torrance also consists of
Existing Land Uses in Torrance
(See Appendix A-3 for larger map)
Page 315 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
262 | Alta Planning + Design
almost 20 percent industrial land, making it a key employment
center in the South Bay.
Figure 9-1 displays the proposed land uses for the City of Torrance.
There are no significant proposed changes in the City’s land uses.
9.2.2 Bicycle Trip Generators
Bicycle trip generators refer to population characteristics that are
correlated with higher bicycling activity levels, such as high
population or employment densities or high concentrations of
certain sub-populations, such as transit commuters or zero-vehicle
households.
Appendix A-4 shows population density in Torrance. There are
areas of high population density along the northern boundary of the
city. There is also a pocket of high density in the interior of the city.
Population density, measured as the number of persons per acre, is
a strong indicator of potential bicycle activity, because more people
living in an area implies more trips to and from that area. The high
population densities of urbanized environments also tend to
support bicycle travel through mixed land uses, interconnected
street networks, and shorter trip lengths.
Appendix A-5 displays employment density in Torrance.
Employment density in Torrance is highest along Hawthorne
Boulevard, Lomita Boulevard, Western Avenue, and Pacific Coast
Highway. Hawthorne Boulevard consists primarily of commercial
and service, and general office land uses. Between Lomita Boulevard
and Pacific Coast Highway there are mostly industrial uses.
Western Avenue is concentrated with commercial and service,
industrial, and general office uses. These sites have the potential to
generate bicycle activity, as they are located in environments with a
variety of land uses where trips between uses can be shorter.
Appendix A-6, Appendix A-7 and Appendix A-8 display the
percent of zero-vehicle households, median annual income, and
percent transit commuters by census tract. The highest median
annual household incomes are $75,001-$95,000 (in 1999 dollars)
and are located in the western portion of Torrance along the border
with Redondo Beach. Vehicle ownership is mixed throughout the
city, as is percentage of transit commuters. These parts of the city
have greater potential for increased bicycling activity because
residents who do not have vehicles must use alternative modes and
are likely to combine bicycle and transit trips.
Bicycle trip generators refer to population
characteristics that are correlated with higher
bicycling activity levels, such as high population or
employment densities.
Page 316 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 263
Figure 9-1: City of Torrance General Plan Land Use Policy
Page 317 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
264 | Alta Planning + Design
In addition to the reasons discussed above, Torrance has the
potential for increased bicycle activity from bicyclists passing
through on their way to destinations outside of the city. A bicycle
network that is connected within Torrance, as well as linked to
bicycle facilities in adjacent communities, further generates bicycle
traffic as it provides a viable transportation option to driving a
motorized vehicle.
9.2.3 Relevant Plans and Policies
Table 9-1 outlines information regarding bicycles from the City of
Torrance’s Circulation and Infrastructure Element, Bicycle Master
Plan, and Municipal Code.
Table 9-1: Torrance Bicycle-Related Plans and Policies
Document Description
General Plan
Circulation and
Infrastructure
Element (2009)
The following goals and policies related to bicycling are included in the Circulation and
Infrastructure Element:
Maintain a comprehensive system of bicycle routes that provide viable options to travel by
automobile
Provide and maintain a comprehensive system of bicycle lanes to meet the needs of cyclists
traveling to all destinations within the City consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan
Promote the provision of secure bicycle storage and shower and locker facilities at major
commercial developments and employment centers
Encourage cyclists to use routes that allow for safe cycling
Promote bicycle safety through educational programs designed for bicyclists and drivers
Seek county, state, federal, and private sector assistance to help finance development of
bicycle facilities
Bicycle Master
Plan (2009)
This document consists of a map (Appendix F-7) that displays existing Class II and Class III bicycle
facilities, proposed facilities, and existing bike parking locations. There are proposed facilities at
17 locations.
Municipal Code Bicycle parking requirements in Torrance’s Municipal Code are based on square footage as part of
Transportation Demand Management ordinance. Developments of a certain size are required to
provide bicycle facility information on a bulletin board or in a display case or kiosk. Detailed
bicycle parking information is presented in Appendix G. The City of Torrance requires bicyclists to
obtain a bicycle license and to place a license plate on the bicycle. The City has a Bicycle
Transportation Fund that is used for bicycle routes and other projects to the benefit of the
bicyclist. The City also prohibits riding bicycles on sidewalks in business districts and adjacent to
public school buildings, churches, recreation centers, and playgrounds.
9.2.4 Existing Bicycle Network
Figure 9-2 shows the existing bicycle facilities in Torrance.
Appendix A-2 displays a map of the existing bicycle facilities in
Page 318 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 265
the South Bay Region. Bicycle facility types are discussed in Section
1.3. The City of Torrance has a bicycle network of approximately 30
miles of bicycle facilities. Approximately 50 percent of the network
consists of Class II bike lanes and the remaining miles are Class III
bike paths. Table 9-2 summarizes the classification and mileage of
the existing network.
Table 9-2: Torrance Bicycle Network
Facility Type Mileage
Class I (Bike Path) 0.0
Class II (Bike Lanes) 14.3
Class III (Bike Route) 15.0
Total Mileage 29.7
9.2.5 Existing End-of-trip Parking Facilities
The BTA requires that this plan inventory publicly-accessible
short-term and long-term end-of-trip bicycle facilities for the
members of the bicycling public to park their bicycles, as well as
change and store clothes and equipment. Short-term facilities
consist of bicycle racks. Long-term facilities include, but are not
limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle
parking facilities. Appendix A-9 displays existing end-of-trip
bicycle facilities in the South Bay. Existing bicycle racks in
Torrance are shown at right. These locations include public parks
and libraries. Torrance does not currently have any existing long-
term end-of-trip bicycle facilities.
9.2.6 Multi-Modal Connections
Transit is often best for longer trips, while bicycling is better for
shorter trips. Combining transit use and bicycling can offer a high
level of mobility that is comparable to travel by automobile.
Appendix A-10 shows the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro) transit routes that serve the City of
Torrance. Metro operates bus lines with routes several east-west
routes through the north and south portions of the City and one
north-south route through the center. The middle of Torrance is
relatively underserved by Metro. Buses are equipped with bicycle
racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
LADOT operates the Commuter Express bus service. Line 438
connects the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.
(See Appendix A-9 for larger map)
Existing End-of-trip Facilities in Torrance
Page 319 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
266 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 320 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 267
Figure 9-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Torrance
Page 321 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance 268 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Page 322 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 269
Line 448 connects Torrance east to Wilmington and north to
Downtown Los Angeles. Most Commuter Express buses are
equipped with bicycle racks, which are available on a first-come,
first-served basis. The Commuter Express line 438 and 448 bus
routes are shown in Appendix A-11 and Appendix A-21.
Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 104, operated by the City of
Redondo Beach, also serves the City of Torrance. Appendix A-13
shows the BCT System Map. BCT buses are equipped with bike
racks, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The City of Torrance operates Torrance Transit, which consists of
eight bus lines that also serve the cities of El Segundo, Gardena,
Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. Appendix
A-14 shows the Torrance Transit system map. All Torrance Transit
buses are equipped with bike racks, which are available on a first-
come, first-served basis.
The BTA requires that this plan inventory existing bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connecting to public transit
services. These facilities include, but are not limited to, bicycle
parking at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, and park and
ride lots; and provisions for transporting bicycles on public transit
vehicles. Torrance does not currently provide any intermodal
facilities within its jurisdiction, however a new transit station is
proposed on Crenshaw Blvd at approximately 208th Street.
Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities at this location are presented
in section 9.4.2.
9.2.7 Education and Enforcement Strategies
Bicycle education programs and enforcement of bicycle-related
policies help to make riding safer for all bicyclists. To promote safe
bicycling, the City of Torrance celebrates national “Bike to Work
Day” and “Bike to Work Week” to encourage its employees and
residents to ride their bicycles. The Torrance Police Department
has conducted bicycle rodeos in the past and offers bicycle patrol
for special events. Also, the Torrance Police Department enforces all
bicycle-related regulations from the California Vehicle Code and
the City’s Municipal Code.
Torrance does not currently provide any intermodal
facilities within its jurisdiction, however a new transit
station is proposed on Crenshaw Blvd at approximately
208th Street (see Appendix A10 for larger map).
Page 323 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
270 | Alta Planning + Design
9.2.8 Past Bicycle-Related Expenditures
Between 2000 and 2010, the City of Torrance incurred the
following bicycle-related expenditures:
Approximately $50,000 for miscellaneous bicycle-related
items
9.3 Needs Analysis
This section describes the needs of bicyclists in Torrance. It first
summarizes feedback collected from the online survey and public
workshops. The section also provides estimates and forecasts of
bicycle commuting to determine the estimated bicycling demand in
the city. It finally analyzes bicycle collision data between 2007 and
2009 to identify areas that would benefit from bicycle facility
improvements.
9.3.1 Public Outreach
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the public had the opportunity to
provide input in the planning process through an online survey and
the first round of public workshops. This section summarizes
locations in Torrance that the community identified as desirable for
bikeways and bicycle parking facilities.
Generally, the public noted that it would like to see bicycle
facilities on major arterials, such as Hawthorne Boulevard and
Prairie Avenue. The community also said that it would like to
connect existing bicycle facilities, such as by closing the gap on
Torrance Boulevard and installing bicycle facilities on Van Ness
Avenue to connect with Cabrillo Avenue.
The public identified locations that would benefit from additional
bicycle parking. These include around El Camino College, on Del
Amo Circle near the Fashion Center, and at the Farmer’s Market.
9.3.2 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts
United States Census “Commuting to Work” data provides an
indication of current bicycle system usage. Appendix A-15 shows
the percent bicycle commuters in Torrance by census tract. The
highest percentage of bicycle commuters is located in the
southeastern portion of the city.
Table 9-3 presents commute to work data estimates reported by
the 2000 US Census for Torrance. For comparative purposes, the
table includes commute to work data for the United States,
California, and County of Los Angeles. According to the estimates,
The highest percentage of bicycle commuters is
located in the southeastern portion of Torrance.
Page 324 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 271
0.44 percent of residents in Torrance commute predominantly by
bicycle. This is lower than the percentage of bicycle commuters in
California and in Los Angeles County, and it is higher than the U.S.
as a whole. It is important to note that this figure likely
underestimates the true amount of bicycling that occurs in
Torrance for several reasons. First, data reflects respondents’
dominant commute mode and therefore does not capture trips to
school, for errands, or other bike trips that would supplant
vehicular trips. Also, US Census data collection methods only
enable a respondent to select one mode of travel, thus excluding
bicycle trips if they constitute part of a longer multimodal trip. The
percentage of commuters in Torrance that commute by transit is
much lower than that of those that drive alone. Torrance also has a
low percentage of carpooling and walking.
In addition to bicycle commuters in Torrance, bicyclists from
neighboring communities use the city’s bicycle network to reach
their destinations and are not reflected in this data. This Plan
addresses the need for regional connectivity to accommodate
bicyclists passing through Torrance’s bicycle network in Section
9.4.
Table 9-3: Means of Transportation to Work
Mode United
States California Los Angeles
County Torrance
Bicycle 0.38% 0.83% 0.62% 0.44%
Drove Alone – car, truck, or van 75.70% 71.82% 70.36% 82.92%
Carpool – car, truck, or van 12.19% 14.55% 15.08% 9.80%
Transit 4.73% 5.07% 6.58% 1.25%
Walked 2.93% 2.85% 2.93% 1.33%
Other Means 0.70% 0.79% 0.76% 0.44%
Worked at Home 3.26% 3.83% 3.49% 3.48%
Source: US Census 2000
Table 9-4 presents an estimate of current bicycling within
Torrance using US Census data along with several adjustments for
likely bicycle commuter underestimations, as discussed above.
Table 9-5 presents the associated air quality benefits from
bicycling.
Page 325 of 535
e
272 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 9-4: Existing Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Existing study area population 137,933 2000 US Census, P1
Existing employed population 66,569 2000 US Census, P30
Existing bike-to-work mode share 0.4% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of bike-to-work
commuters 293
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Existing work-at-home mode share 3.5% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing number of work-at-home bike
commuters 232
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Existing transit-to-work mode share 1.3% 2000 US Census, P30
Existing transit bicycle commuters
208
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Existing school children, ages 6-14
(grades K-8) 12,480
2000 US Census, P8
Existing school children bicycling mode
share 2.0%
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Existing school children bike commuters
250
School children population multiplied by school
children bike mode share
Existing number of college students in
study area 11,314
2000 US Census, PCT24
Existing estimated college bicycling
mode share
5.0%
Review of bicycle commute share in seven university
communities (source: National Bicycling & Walking
Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995), review of
bicycle commute mode share at the University of
California, Los Angeles
Existing college bike commuters
566
College student population multiplied by college
student bicycling mode share
Existing total number of bike commuters
1,548
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian bike
trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 3,096 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 326 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 273
Table 9-5: Existing Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Current Estimated VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
928
Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year 242,255 Reduced weekday vehicle trips x 261 (weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
6,499
Assumes average round trip travel length of 5 miles
for adults/college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
1,696,351
Reduced weekday vehicle miles x 261 (weekdays /
year)
Current Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 19 Daily mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 14 Daily mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 178 Daily mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 5,287 Daily mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 5,086 Yearly mileage reduction x 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 19 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 18 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 3,553 Yearly mileage reduction x 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 46,374 Yearly mileage reduction x 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/yr) 1,379,991 Yearly mileage reduction x 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for
Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
Table 9-6 presents projected year 2030 bicycling activity within
Torrance using California Department of Finance population and
school enrollment projections. The projection contains the
assumption that bicycle mode share will double by 2030, due in
part to bicycle network implementation. Actual bicycle mode share
in 2030 will depend on many factors, including the extent of
network implementation. Table 9-7 presents the associated year
Page 327 of 535
e
274 | Alta Planning + Design
2030 air quality benefit forecasts. The calculations follow in a
straightforward manner from the Projected Year 2030 Bicycling
Demand.
Table 9-6: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Demand
Variable Figure Source
Future study area population
171,647
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050.
Future employed population
82,840
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050,
Future bike-to-work mode share 0.9% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of bike-to-work
commuters 729
Employed persons multiplied by bike-to-work mode
share
Future work-at-home mode share
5.41%
Calculated based on change in mode share from 1990
US Census, P49, to 2000 US Census, P30
Future number of work-at-home bike
commuters 448
Assumes 10% of population working at home makes
at least one daily bicycle trip
Future transit-to-work mode share 2.5% Double the rate from 2000 US Census, P30
Future transit bicycle commuters
518
Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share.
Assumes 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle
Future school children, ages 6-14 (grades
K-8)
9,917
Calculated from CA Dept. of Finance, California Public
K–12 Graded Enrollment and High School Graduate
Projections by County, 2010 Series.
Future school children bicycling mode
share 4.0%
Double the rate of national school commute trends.
National Safe Routes to School surveys, 2003.
Future school children bike commuters
397
School children population multiplied by school
children bicycling mode share
Future number of college students in
study area
14,079
Calculated based on CA Dept. of Finance, Population
Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-
2050, Sacramento, California, July 2007.
Future estimated college bicycling mode
share
7.0%
A slight increase over the existing college bicycle
mode share assumption, commensurate with
projected increases in bicycling for other populations
Future college bike commuters
986
College student population x college student
bicycling mode share
Future total number of bike commuters
3,077
Total bike-to-work, school, college and utilitarian
biking trips. Does not include recreation.
Total daily bicycling trips 6,154 Total bike commuters x 2 (for round trips)
Page 328 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 275
Table 9-7: Projected Year 2030 Bicycling Air Quality Impact
Variable Figure Source
Forecasted VMT Reductions
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Weekday
1,789
Assumes 73% of biking trips replace vehicle trips for
adults/college students and 53% for school children
Reduced Vehicle Trips per Year
466,911
Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips x 261
(weekdays / year)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Weekday
12,840
Assumes average round trip travel length of 8 miles
for adults / college students and 1 mile for
schoolchildren
Reduced Vehicle Miles per Year
3,351,184
Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles x 261
(weekdays / year)
Forecasted Air Quality Benefits
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/wkday) 38 Daily mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/wkday) 0 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/wkday) 27 Daily mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/wkday) 351 Daily mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced C02 (lbs/wkday) 10,445 Daily mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Reduced Hydrocarbons (lbs/yr) 10,048 Yearly mileage reduction x by 1.36 grams / mi
Reduced PM10 (lbs/yr) 38 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0052 grams / mi
Reduced PM2.5 (lbs/yr) 36 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.0049 grams / mi
Reduced NOX (lbs/yr) 7,019 Yearly mileage reduction x by 0.95 grams / mi
Reduced CO (lbs/yr) 91,612 Yearly mileage reduction x by 12.4 grams / mi
Reduced CO2 (lbs/yr) 2,726,208 Yearly mileage reduction x by 369 grams / mi
Source:
Emissions rates from EPA report 420-F-05-022 Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-
Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 2005.
This model uses the latest state projections for population growth
and reasonable assumptions about future bicycle ridership. The
benefits model predicts that the total number of bicycle commute
trips could increase from the current daily estimate of about 3,000
to over 6,000, resulting in a substantial reduction of both Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) and associated emissions. This includes a
yearly emissions reduction by 2030 of approximately 7,000 pounds
Page 329 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
276 | Alta Planning + Design
of smog forming N0X and roughly 2.7 million pounds of C02, the
principal gas associated with global climate change. Providing
bicycle facilities will encourage new bicyclists to begin to ride, thus
positively impacting air quality by reducing harmful pollutants
from driving motorized vehicles. Because this plan recommends
local connections throughout and regional links between the
participating cities, it has the potential to have even greater air
quality benefits. Bicyclists may not need to rely as heavily on
vehicles for transportation because bicycling will be a viable
transportation alternative upon implementation of this Plan.
9.3.3 Bicycle Counts
To assess bicycling levels at different sites throughout Torrance,
volunteers conducted bicycle counts, in which they manually
recorded the number of bicyclists that rode by.
9.3.3.1 Methodology
The methodology for the bicycle counts derives from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), a
collaborative effort of Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The NBPD methodology aims to capture
both utilitarian bicycling and recreational bicycling. The NBPD also
provides guidance on how to select count locations.
Volunteers conducted bicycle counts in each of the seven
participating cities in the South Bay on Thursday, November 4,
2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday, November 6, 2010
from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. These dates are meant to capture
volumes of bicyclists on a typical weekday and weekend day. Fall is
an appropriate time to conduct bicycle counts in California because
school is back in session and vacations are typically over. In
Torrance, volunteers were stationed at three stations on Thursday
and three stations on Saturday. There were 36 total locations in the
South Bay region on each day.
The count locations were selected in partnership by city staff, Alta
Planning + Design, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition staff, and
South Bay Bicycle Coalition board members. This snapshot of
locations is meant to capture a diverse bicycling population using
the roads and streets that span the spectrum of bike-friendliness.
9.3.3.2 Results
The count results for the South Bay are displayed in Appendix A-
16 and Appendix A-17. Count results for Torrance are shown at
Weekday Bicycle Count Results in Torrance
(See Appendix A-16 for a larger map
and Appendix H for a list of count
locations.)
Weekend Bicycle Count Results in Torrance
(See Appendix A-17 for a larger map
and Appendix H for a list of count
locations.)
Page 330 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 277
left. Detailed count data, including a list of count locations, is
presented in Appendix H. On Thursday, the Torrance station that
experienced the highest volume was 190th Street and Anza Avenue
with 60 bicyclists during the three hour count period. The station
with the most bicyclists on Saturday was Palos Verdes Boulevard
and Catalina Avenue with 82 bicyclists during the three hour count
period.
On both days, the locations with the highest numbers of bicyclists
in the South Bay region as a whole were those along the Strand on
the County-maintained Marvin Braude Bikeway. Apart from the
Strand stations, the inland count locations in Lawndale and
Gardena experienced the most riders during the week. On the
weekend, there were overall fewer riders in the inland count
stations and more riders along the coast. This suggests that more
bicyclists ride a bicycle for commuting during the week and for
recreation on the weekend.
In the region as a whole, about 83 percent of bicyclists were male.
Approximately 70 percent of those observed did not wear helmets
and 41 percent rode on the sidewalks. On Thursday, there were 18
locations at which over half of the observed bicyclists rode on the
sidewalk and on Saturday there were nine. Riding on the sidewalk
can be an indicator of a lack of bicycle facilities, as bicyclists that
are uncomfortable riding with traffic may choose to ride on the
sidewalk instead.
9.3.4 Bicycle Collision Data
Safety is a major concern for both existing and potential bicyclists.
Concern about safety is the most common reason given for not
riding a bicycle (or riding more often), according to national
surveys. Identifying bicycle collision sites can draw attention to
areas that warrant improvement, particularly if multiple collisions
occur at the same location. This analysis employs the most reliable
data source available, the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System. The data set only includes
reported collisions, and so represents a subset of all the bicycle
collisions in Torrance. This data does not include any assessment of
conditions present at the time of the collision. There are numerous
factors that may contribute to a given incident including but not
limited to time of day, visibility, distractions, obstacles or traffic
law obedience. This data simply reflects reported incidents,
resulting injuries and the party at fault. This data does not infer
faulty infrastructure, but rather provides a baseline of collisions
Bicycle Collisions in Torrance 2007-2009
(See Appendix A-18 for larger map)
Page 331 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
278 | Alta Planning + Design
that often decreases in correlation with bike plan implementation
and the improvements to facilities and road user behavior and
awareness that accompanies it. Fault as determined by law
enforcement is discussed below.
Table 9-8 presents the number of reported collisions involving
bicyclists, number of bicyclists involved, and severity of the bicycle
collisions for three consecutive years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Appendix A-18 shows locations of bicycle collisions in the South
Bay region in the same time period. Bicycle collisions in Torrance
are shown on the preceding page. There were 131 total reported
collisions involving bicyclists from 2007-2009 in the City of
Torrance. Collisions in Torrance occurred throughout the city,
many of which were concentrated on major arterials: 16 collisions
occurred on Torrance Boulevard, 11 occurred on Sepulveda
Boulevard, eight occurred on Pacific Coast Highway, and 11
occurred on Hawthorne Boulevard.
Table 9-8: Bicycle Collision Data 2007-2009
Total Crashes
Involving Bicyclists
Number of Bicyclists
Involved
Persons
Injured
Persons Severely
Injured Persons Killed
131 133 132 4 1
Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
As reported by police officers in traffic reports, bicyclists were at
fault in 66 percent of collisions involving bicycles (64 crashes) in
this time period.
Providing bicycle facilities encourages more people to ride. When
motorists begin to look for and expect to see bicyclists, collisions
between vehicles and bicyclists are reduced. The City of New York,
for example, reported that as ridership increased between 1998 and
2008, the number of annual casualties from bicycle collisions
decreased (see Appendix B).
Appendix A-1 displays estimated weekday traffic volumes in
Torrance. There are major arterials that carry high volumes of
automobiles throughout the entire city. Torrance Boulevard,
Sepulveda Boulevard, and Pacific Coast Highway, the locations
with the highest numbers of collisions, all have heavy vehicular
traffic, which can create potential conflicts between bicycles and
vehicles. Pacific Coast Highway has high employment densities,
and Hawthorne Boulevard has both high employment and
population densities, both of which generate high numbers of trips.
Page 332 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 279
This contributes to the vehicle-bicycle conflicts, as well. Installing
bicycle facilities, especially on major arterials, could reduce the
number and severity of collisions involving bicyclists.
9.4 Proposed Bicycle Network
This section presents the proposed bicycle network for the City of
Torrance, which includes bicycle parking facilities. Upon
implementation of the proposed network, the City should
coordinate and collaborate with adjacent participating South Bay
cities to emphasize a regional bicycle network. Bicycle facilities
discussed in this Plan are described in Section 1.3 and are shown in
Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Appendix C outlines the recommended
standards for each facility classification as compared to minimum
standards. In addition to creating a comprehensive network of
bikeways in Torrance, the recommended system ties into the
proposed bicycle facilities for the other South Bay participating
cities to create a connected regional network. This will give
bicyclists from adjacent communities the opportunity to pass
through Torrance to reach their destinations without losing bicycle
facilities at city boundaries.
9.4.1 Proposed Bikeway Facilities
The proposed bicycle network in the City of Torrance consists of
Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III Bike Routes, and
Bike Friendly Streets, and is shown in Figure 9-3. The proposed
bicycle network in Torrance connects with the recommended
networks in Redondo Beach, Lawndale, and Gardena. Figure 9-3
shows a blue asterisk on the proposed bicycle path along the Metro
Green Line extension as it is outside the jurisdiction of the Plan,
but is a supported improvement. The proposed South Bay bicycle
network as a whole is presented in Appendix A-19.
Four tables identify the streets on which facilities are proposed, the
extents of each proposed facility, and the length in miles of each
proposed facility. Table 9-9 lists the proposed bicycle paths, Table
9-10 lists the proposed bicycle lanes, Table 9-11 lists the proposed
bicycle routes, and Table 9-12 lists the proposed bicycle-friendly
streets.
The proposed bicycle network in the City of Torrance
consists of Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class III
Bike Routes, and Bike Friendly Streets.
Page 333 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
280 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 9-9: Proposed Class I Bicycle Paths in Torrance
Street From To Miles
Madrona Ave Extension Sepulveda Blvd 229th Pl 0.5
Total Bicycle Path Mileage 0.5
Table 9-10: Proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes in Torrance
Street From To Miles
220th St Cabrillo Ave Western Ave 0.2
Prairie Ave - Madrona Ave Redondo Beach Blvd Sepulveda Blvd 3.6
Torrance Blvd Anza Ave Earl St 0.3
Sepulveda Blvd
Existing Bike Lanes (east of
Anza Ave) Western Ave 3.0
Lomita Blvd Anza Ave Hawthorne Blvd 0.6
Van Ness Ave - Cabrillo Ave 190th St Ferrocarril Ave 2.5
Ferrocarril Ave Arlington Ave Western Ave 0.5
190th St Blossom Ln Western Ave 3.8
Del Amo Blvd West City Limits Henrietta St 0.2
Del Amo Blvd Anza Ave Maple Ave 1.3
Skypark Dr Madison St Crenshaw Blvd 1.3
Western Ave Artesia Blvd South City Limits 4.4
Redondo Beach Blvd Hawthorne Blvd East City Limits 2.4
Artesia Blvd Hawthorne Blvd Western Ave 2.5
Calle Mayor Riviera Way Anza Ave 1.0
Beryl St Flagler Ln 190th St 0.4
Total Bicycle Lane Mileage 28.0
Table 9-11: Proposed Class III Bicycle Routes in Torrance
Street From To Miles
Columbia St - Alaska Ave - Maricopa
St Maple Ave Elm Ave 0.7
Sartori Ave Torrance Blvd Cabrillo Ave 0.2
Henrietta St Del Amo Blvd Torrance Blvd 0.8
Maple Ave Del Amo Blvd Sepulveda Blvd 1.6
Plaza del Amo (west) Madrona Ave Crenshaw Blvd 1.0
Del Amo Blvd Crenshaw Blvd Western Ave 1.1
Plaza del Amo (east) Madrid Ave Arlington Ave 0.6
Anza Ave Sepulveda Blvd Newton St 1.5
Cravens Ave Arlington Ave Cabrillo Ave 0.5
Page 334 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 281
Street From To Miles
Palos Verdes Blvd Sepulveda Blvd West City Limits 0.5
235th St Crenshaw Blvd Western Ave 1.1
238th St Arlington Ave East City Limits 0.7
Palos Verdes Blvd South City Limits Pacific Coast Highway 1.1
W 164th St Redondo Beach Blvd East City Limits 1.0
182nd St West City Limits Western Ave 2.9
Calle Mayor Palos Verdes Blvd Riviera Way 0.9
Torrance Blvd Sartori Ave Van Ness Ave 0.1
Total Bicycle Route Mileage 16.2
Table 9-12: Proposed Bicycle-Friendly Streets in Torrance
Street From To Miles
Elm Ave Maricopa St Torrance Blvd 0.2
Dominguez St Madrid Ave Torrance Blvd 0.8
Falda Ave - 182nd Pl 182nd St 190th St 0.6
220th St Martina Ave Cabrillo Ave 0.3
Earl St - Torrance Blvd Del Amo Blvd Ocean Ave 0.8
239th St Crenshaw Blvd Arlington Ave 0.5
Ocean Ave Torrance Blvd Newton St 2.5
Arlington Ave Dominguez St Plaza Del Amo East 1.0
Newton St Calle Mayor Pacific Coast Highway 2.3
162nd St Van Ness Ave East City Limits 0.3
Entradero Ave 190th St Del Amo Blvd 0.7
Madrid Ave Dominguez St Plaza Del Amo East 0.7
Yukon Ave Redondo Beach Blvd 190th St 1.5
Firmona Ave - Tallisman 190th St Del Amo Blvd 0.7
Camino del Campo Palos Verdes Blvd Vista del Parque 0.4
Pennsylvania Ave Sepulveda Blvd South City Limits 0.9
Via Pasqual - Cll de Arboles - Pso de
las Tortugas - Vista Montana Via Monte D Oro Newton St 1.6
Via Monte D Oro Camino del Campo South City Limits 0.9
171st St Prairie Ave Gramercy Pl 1.8
Total Bicycle-Friendly Streets 18.3
There are opportunities and constraints to recommending new
bicycle facilities in Torrance. These are shown on the following
page and are referenced by the numbers in Appendix I. Appendix I
Page 335 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
282 | Alta Planning + Design
also presents opportunities and constraints in the South Bay region
as a whole. While it is not feasible to propose bicycle lanes on
Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard at the time of this
Plan, there may be opportunity in the future if the streets undergo
reconstruction or other changes that would provide adequate
space. There may also be opportunity to propose parallel facilities
as Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard are important
regional connections.
(See Appendix I for larger map)
Opportunities and Constraints in
Torrance
Page 336 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 283
Figure 9-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Torrance
Page 337 of 535
e esign This page intentionally left blank. Page 338 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 285
9.4.2 Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of transportation
are essential components of a bicycle system because they enhance
safety and convenience for bicyclists at the end of every trip. With
nearly all utilitarian and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists
need secure and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive
bicycle parking strategy is one of the most important things that a
jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance the bicycling
environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking strategy with
connections to public transit will further the geographical range of
residents traveling without using an automobile.
The Torrance Municipal Code currently provides bicycle parking
requirements for non-residential developments. The City should
consider amending its Municipal Code to include bicycle parking
requirements at new and retrofitted multi-family residential,
commercial, office, and mixed-use developments of all sizes. The
Municipal Code should also require bicycle parking quantities
based on square footage of developments or by number of
employees/residents to adequately address the bicycle demand at
each development.
Though the City complies with its existing Transportation Demand
Management ordinance, Torrance may consider amending its
Municipal Code to include requirements on types of both short-
and long-term bicycle parking facility designs, which are shown in
Appendix J. Bicycle rack designs should include racks that provide
two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from
both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a
high degree of security and support for the bicycle. Long-term
bicycle parking should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored
racks for bicycles
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks
or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
When people commute by bicycle they often sweat or become dirty
from weather or road conditions. Providing changing and storing
facilities encourages commuters to travel by bicycle because they
have a place to clean up before work or school. Torrance should
require all new mid-to-large employers, offices, and businesses to
supply changing and storing facilities, such as by providing
showers and clothes lockers within the buildings or arranging
Bicycle rack designs should include racks that provide two
two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be
locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear
wheel.
Page 339 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
286 | Alta Planning + Design
agreements with nearby recreation centers to allow commuters to
use their facilities.
Proposed end-of-trip bicycle facilities in Torrance are shown in
Figure 9-4. The City should continue to provide short-term bicycle
parking in the form of bicycle racks at all major trip attractors,
including commercial and civic activity centers and transit hubs,
and ensure that an adequate supply is available. The following
locations are examples of sites at which the City could install
additional bicycle parking as appropriate:
Parks
Schools
Commercial/office areas
Civic/government buildings
Public transit stations
High-activity locations such as transit stations and major
commercial districts should provide more secure, long-term bicycle
parking options, such as bicycle lockers. The proposed transit
station on Crenshaw Blvd at approximately 208th Street, as well as
any future transit hubs and intermodal facilities, should include
secure bicycle parking areas as part of their design. Secure bicycle
parking areas that provide services, such as bicycle rentals and
repair, should be considered at major transit stations and commuter
destinations.
The proposed transit station on Crenshaw Blvd at
approximately 208th Street, as well as any future transit
hubs and intermodal facilities, should include secure
bicycle parking areas as part of their design, like a
BikeStation.
Page 340 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 287
Figure 9-4: Torrance Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Page 341 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance 288 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Page 342 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 289
9.5 Project Costs
This section presents the cost to implement the proposed bicycle
network in Torrance.
9.5.1 Cost Estimates
Table 9-13 displays the planning-level capital cost assumptions for
each facility type proposed in this plan, and Table 9-14 displays the
cost to implement the proposed network in the City of Torrance
from the cost assumptions.25 Cost assumptions are based on LA
County averages and may vary depending on environmental
conditions of a given facility, unforeseen construction cost
variations, and similar considerations. Cost assumptions exclude
specific treatments that may vary by location and must be
determined by field review, such as traffic calming measures,
restriping of existing travel lanes, and sign removal. Cost
assumptions do not include traffic signal improvements, such as
changes to phasing, recalibration of loop detectors, or installation
of push buttons. For detailed cost estimations, refer to the project
sheets presented in Section 9.7.
Table 9-13: Unit Cost Estimates for Proposed Bicycle Facility Types
Facility Type Description Estimated Cost26
Class I Bicycle Path Paving, striping and signage $800,000 / mile
Class II Bicycle Lanes (two sides) Striping, signage, and travel lane
restriping $40,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides) Signage $15,000 / mile
Class III Bicycle Routes (two sides)
with sharrows Pavement markings and signage $25,000 / mile
Bicycle Friendly Street Pavement markings, signage,
and limited traffic calming $30,000 / mile
25 Table 9-14 assumes the cost of implementing Class III Bicycle Routes with
Sharrows based on the policies presented in Chapter 2
26 Cost estimates include physical removals and installations (e.g. of signs and
striping), contract contingency costs, preliminary engineering, and
construction engineering. The source for the unit costs is the LA County
Bicycle Master Plan, which are based upon a peer review of Southern
California bikeway construction unit costs.
Page 343 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
290 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 9-14: Estimated Cost of Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Unit Cost per
mile
Length of
Proposed Network
(miles)
Cost
Bicycle Path $800,000 0.5 $ 376,000
Bicycle Lane $40,000 28.0 $ 1,118,000
Bicycle Route with sharrows $25,000 16.2 $ 406,000
Bicycle-Friendly Street $30,000 18.3 $ 549,000
Total 63.0 $ 2,449,000
9.6 Project Prioritization
A prioritized list of bicycle projects will help guide the City of
Torrance in implementing the proposed bicycle facilities presented
in this Plan. Each proposed facility discussed in Section 9.4.1 is
grouped into projects based on feasibility of implementation. Table
9-15 presents the prioritized projects based on the prioritization
methodology displayed in Appendix K. Each criterion contains
information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or
future need in Torrance. The projects ranked the highest should be
implemented first.
Page 344 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 291 Table 9-15: Torrance Prioritized Bicycle Projects Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Proposed Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BL Prairie Ave - Madrona Ave Redondo Beach Blvd Sepulveda Blvd 3 6 1 4 0 2 2 2 0 2 22BL Van Ness Ave - Cabrillo Ave 190th St Ferrocarril Ave 3 6 2 4 0 2 2 2 0 1 22BR Torrance Blvd Sartori Ave Van Ness Ave 3 6 4 0 2 2 2 2 0 21BL Torrance Blvd Anza Ave Earl St 6 6 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 19BL Sepulveda Blvd Existing Bike Lanes (east of Anza Ave) Western Ave 3 6 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 19BL Lomita Blvd Anza Ave Hawthorne Blvd 3 6 0 4 0 1 0 2 2 1 19BR Henrietta St Del Amo Blvd Torrance Blvd 6 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 18BR Maple Ave Del Amo Blvd Sepulveda Blvd 3 6 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 18BR Plaza del Amo (west) Madrona Ave Crenshaw Blvd 3 6 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 18BL 190th St Blossom Ln Western Ave 3 6 0 4 0 2 1 2 0 0 18BR Del Amo Blvd Crenshaw Blvd Western Ave 3 6 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 17BR Plaza del Amo (east) Madrid Ave Arlington Ave 3 6 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 17BR Anza Ave Sepulveda Blvd Newton St 3 6 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 17BL Ferrocarril Ave Arlington Ave Western Ave 3 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 17BL Beryl St Flagler Ln 190th St 3 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 16BFS Earl St - Torrance Blvd Del Amo Blvd Ocean Ave 3 6 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 2 16BFS Arlington Ave Dominguez St Plaza Del Amo East 3 6 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 16BL Del Amo Blvd West City Limits Henrietta St 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 15BL Del Amo Blvd Anza Ave Maple Ave 3 6 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 15BL Artesia Blvd Hawthorne Blvd Western Ave 0 3 0 4 0 2 2 2 0 2 15BR Palos Verdes Blvd Sepulveda Blvd West City Limits 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 14Page 345 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance 292 | Alta Planning + Design Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Proposed Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BR 235th St Crenshaw Blvd Western Ave 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 14BR 238th St Arlington Ave East City Limits 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 14BL Skypark Dr Madison St Crenshaw Blvd 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 14BFS 239th St Crenshaw Blvd Arlington Ave 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 14BFS 162nd St Van Ness Ave East City Limits 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 14BFS Entradero Ave 190th St Del Amo Blvd 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 14BL Western Ave Artesia Blvd South City Limits 0 3 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 13BR - BFS Columbia St - Alaska Ave - Maricopa St - Elm Ave Maple Ave Torrance Blvd 3 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 12BR Palos Verdes Blvd South City Limits Pacific Coast Highway 0 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 12BL Redondo Beach Blvd Hawthorne Blvd East City Limits 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 12BL Calle Mayor Riviera Way Anza Ave 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 12BFS Ocean Ave Torrance Blvd Newton St 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 12BFS Yukon Ave Redondo Beach Blvd 190th St 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 11BR Cravens Ave Arlington Ave Cabrillo Ave 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 9BR Plaza del Amo (east) West City Limits Western Ave 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 9BFS Firmona Ave - Tallisman 190th St Del Amo Blvd 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 9BFS - BR Dominguez St - Sartori Ave Madrid Ave Cabrillo Ave 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 8BFS Falda Ave - 182nd Pl 182nd St 190th St 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 8BR 182nd St West City Limits Western Ave 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 8BR Calle Mayor Palos Verdes Blvd Riviera Way 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 8BFS Camino del Campo Palos Verdes Blvd Vista del Parque 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 8Page 346 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 293 Facility Type* Facility Name From To Gap Closure Connectivity: Existing Connectivity: Proposed Regional Connectivity: Activity Centers Connectivity: Multi-Modal Safety Public Input Underserved Communities Project Cost Parking Displacement Total BP Madrona Ave Extension Sepulveda Blvd 229th Pl 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 8BFS Newton St Calle Mayor Pacific Coast Highway 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 7BFS Madrid Ave Dominguez St Plaza Del Amo East 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 7BFS Pennsylvania Ave Sepulveda Blvd South City Limits 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 7BFS Via Pasqual - Cll de Arboles - Pso de las Tortugas - Vista Montana Via Monte D Oro Newton St 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6BFS - BL 220th St Martina Ave Western Ave 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 5BFS Via Monte D Oro Camino del Campo South City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4BFS 171st St Prairie Ave Gramercy Pl 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3*BP=Bike Path, BL=Bike Lane, BR=Bike Route, BFS=Bike Friendly Street Page 347 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
294 | Alta Planning + Design
9.7 Project Sheets
The City of Torrance selected two of its top priority projects from
the previous table for more detailed concept designs. Project sheets
are shown on the following pages and include:
A review of the existing site conditions
Site challenges
Recommended improvements
Estimated cost
Photos
Aerial images
Concept graphics
Page 348 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 295
Torrance Project #1: Van Ness Avenue – Cabrillo Avenue (Redondo Beach Boulevard to Plaza
del Amo)
Project Site Photos
Van Ness Avenue – Cabrillo Avenue is a north-south corridor
located in the eastern portion of the City of Torrance. It connects to
Gardena to the north and to existing bike lanes on Cabrillo Avenue
to the south. Van Ness Avenue – Cabrillo Avenue provides access
to Lincoln Elementary School, the YMCA, Downtown Torrance,
and major employers, including ProLogis and Toyota. There is
existing on-street parking along the northern and southern
segments of Van Ness Avenue – Cabrillo Avenue that is highly
utilized in certain segments, including Downtown Torrance.
From Redondo Beach Boulevard to 186th Street, Van Ness Avenue –
Cabrillo Avenue has four travel lanes, on-street parallel parking on
both sides of the street, and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The
roadway width from Redondo Beach Boulevard to 190th Street is
approximately 55 to 57 feet. Between 190th Street and Torrance
Boulevard, Van Ness Avenue has four travel lanes and a center turn
lane, and the posted speed limit increases to 45 mph. The roadway
width is approximately 61 to 63 feet, except for a half-mile stretch
between Toyota Way and Del Amo Boulevard where the width
drops to approximately 55 feet. There is only on-street parking
between Arlington Avenue and Torrance Boulevard on the west
side of the street. South of Torrance Boulevard, the posted speed
limit drops to 30 mph. Between Torrance Boulevard and 213th
Street, the roadway width ranges from 67 feet to 82 feet. From 213th
Street to Plaza Del Amo, there are center medians with parallel
parking, as well as curbside parallel parking. The roadway width is
approximately 36 to 37 feet on each side of the median.
Sharrows and traffic calming north of 190th Street will create a
safer bicycling environment on Van Ness Avenue.
Project Challenges
Van Ness Avenue is an existing Class III Bike Route, but is a
challenging bicycling environment due to high vehicle speeds.
There are few treatments making a safe bicycling environment for
children riding to school and the YMCA. Existing on-street parking
reduces the space available for bicycle facilities.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 2.5 miles of Class II Bike Lanes and install signs
Install 1.9 miles of Class III Bike Route signs and stripe sharrows
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Conduct a road diet to convert cross-section to one travel lane in
each direction from Torrance Boulevard to Plaza Del Amo (0.9
miles)
Construct bulbouts with high visibility crosswalks
Estimated Cost
$2,000,000
Bike lanes on Van Ness, which has a posted speed limit of 45 mph,
will provide a designated space for bicyclists to ride.
Removing a travel lane will calm traffic and retain on-street
parking in Downtown Torrance.
Page 349 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
296 | Alta Planning + Design
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Van Ness Avenue –Cabrillo Avenue
Van Ness Avenue – Cabrillo Avenue (Redondo Beach Boulevard to 185th Street)
Van Ness Avenue – Cabrillo Avenue (185th Street to Plaza Del Amo)
Page 350 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 297
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Van Ness Avenue –Cabrillo Avenue
Sharrows
Bulbouts and High Visibility Crosswalks
Page 351 of 535
Chapter Nine | Torrance
298 | Alta Planning + Design
Torrance Project #2: 190th Street (Blossom Lane to Prairie Avenue)
Project Site Photos
190th Street is an east-west corridor located in the northern portion
of the City of Torrance. The eastern segment of 190th Street shares a
border with Redondo Beach. 190th Street continues west into
Redondo Beach and east into the City of Los Angeles. It provides
access to Dominguez Park, Columbia Park, and residential and
commercial uses. There is existing on-street parking along much of
190th Street west of Prairie that is moderately utilized. East of
Crenshaw there is only on-street parking in front of residences.
From Blossom Lane to Inglewood Avenue the posted speed limit is
35 mph. East of Inglewood Avenue the speed limit increases to 40
mph until Prairie Avenue where it again increases to 45 mph.
Between Blossom Lane and Rindge Lane, 190th Street has a roadway
width of approximately 77 to 78 feet. There are four travel lanes, a
center turn lane, occasional additional turn pockets at
intersections, and on-street parallel parking. The roadway width
drops to approximately 73 to 74 feet between Rindge Lane and
Inglewood Avenue and there is scattered on-street parallel parking.
From Inglewood Avenue to 191st Street, the roadway width of 190th
Street increases to approximately 75 to 77 feet. The width increases
to between 83 and 100 feet from 191st Street to Hawthorne
Boulevard to accommodate turn lanes at the intersection. From
Hawthorne Boulevard to Prairie Avenue, the roadway width drops
back to approximately 77 to 83 feet and there is no existing on-
street parking on either side of the street.
Wide parking lanes provide adequate space for bicycle lanes on
some segments of 190th Street.
Project Challenges
There are no existing bicycle facilities on this segment of 190th
Street. Bicyclists must share the road with high volumes of vehicles
traveling at high speeds, creating a challenging bicycling
environment.
Proposed Improvements
Stripe 1.8 miles of Class II Bike Lanes and signs
Add bicycle loop detectors and pavement markings at all
signalized intersections
Estimated Cost
$150,000
Bicycle detectors at intersections will allow bicyclists to trigger
the signal when no vehicles are present.
Striping bicycle lanes will provide separation between bicyclists
and motorists.
Page 352 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 299
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: 190th Street
190th Street (Blossom Lane to Prairie Avenue)
Bike Lane and Bicycle Loop Detector
Page 353 of 535
300 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 354 of 535
Chapter 10
Recommended Programs
Page 355 of 535
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
302 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 356 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 303
10 Recommended Programs
Creating a region that supports and encourages its residents to
bicycle involves more than just infrastructure improvements. Each
of the seven participating cities in the South Bay should consider
more than bicycle facility improvements and develop or participate
in programs that educate bicyclists and motorists, raise awareness
about opportunities to bike, and enforce the laws that keep
bicyclists safe. The participating cities can encourage increased
bike ridership by supporting programs that incentivize bicyclists
through encouragement and improved convenience, safety, and
education
This chapter recommends programs for the seven South Bay
participating cities that will educate people about bicyclists’ rights
and responsibilities, and safe bicycle operation, as well as
encourage residents to bicycle more frequently. This chapter should
be used as a toolbox: each city should draw upon its unique
resources to choose the programs that best suit it. For example,
partnership with active community groups can make group bike
rides successful, while strong relationships with local businesses
enable bike-friendly business programs to work. The cities could
also work together to make regional efforts at promoting bicycling
in the South Bay, such as through combined efforts in managing
bicycle awareness campaigns.
10.1 Education Programs
Education programs enable bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists to
understand how to travel safely in the roadway environment
according to the law. Education programs are available in an array
of mediums, from long-term courses with detailed instruction to
single sessions focusing on a specific topic. Curriculums should be
appropriate to the target audience and to the format of instruction.
10.1.1 Bicycle Skills Courses
Target Audience: General public
Most bicyclists do not receive comprehensive instruction on safe
and effective bicycling techniques, laws, or bicycle maintenance.
Bike skills training courses are an excellent way to improve both
bicyclist confidence and safety. The League of American Bicyclists
(LAB) developed a comprehensive bicycle skills curriculum which
is considered the national standard for adults seeking to improve
Bicycle skills courses can improve cyclist
confidence and safety by teaching effective
bicycling techniques.
Photo Source: Dan Burden/WALC Institute for
Vitality City
Page 357 of 535
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
304 | Alta Planning + Design
their on-bike skills. The classes available include bicycle safety
checks and basic maintenance, basic and advanced on-road skills,
commuting, and driver education.27
LACBC currently offers adult LAB courses taught by League
Certified Instructors. The South Bay participating cities could
partner with the LACBC or other non-profit organizations to
expand course offerings to target all ages, and incorporate them
into recreation center programs or other city programs. Bicycle
skills courses that target children should to the extent feasible be
fully integrated into school curriculum through PE classes, general
assembly, and other means of instruction. The cities could also look
for other possible groups to partner with for educational purposes.
10.1.2 Drivers Education Training
Target Audience: General public
Interacting with bicyclists on the road is often not included in
training for new drivers. Teaching motorists how to share the road
from the start can help reduce potential conflicts between drivers
and bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) offers a
three-hour motorist education classroom session that teaches
participants topics including roadway positioning of bicyclists,
traffic and hand signals, principles of right-of-way, and left and
right turn problems.28 The South Bay participating cities could
encourage instructors of driver education courses to add this class
to their curriculum. The cities could also work with the
Department of Motor Vehicles and Superior Court to explore
opportunities to offer this class as a diversion course for motorists
who receive citations for reckless driving or as a training session for
local professional drivers.
10.1.3 Bicycle Rodeos
Target Audience: Children
Bicycle Rodeos are individual events that help students develop
basic bicycling techniques and safety skills through the use of a
bicycle safety course. Rodeos use playgrounds or parking lots set-
up with stop signs, traffic cones, and other props to simulate the
roadway environment. Students receive instruction on how to
27 Additional program information is available online at
www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php.
28 http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#motorist
Bicycle Rodeos set up stop signs, traffic cones, and other
props to simulate the roadway environment and teach
students basic bicycling techniques.
Page 358 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 305
maneuver, observe stop signs, and look for on-coming traffic before
proceeding through intersections. Bicycle Rodeos also provide an
opportunity for instructors to ensure children’s helmets and
bicycles are appropriately sized. Events can include free or low-cost
helmet distribution and bike safety checks.
Trained adult volunteers, local police, and the fire department can
administer Rodeos. Bicycle Rodeos can be stand-alone events or can
be incorporated into health fairs, back-to-school events, and Walk
and Bike to School days.
The Cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach
currently conduct Bicycle Rodeos, though these could be expanded
to occur at all elementary and middle schools at least twice per
year. Bicycle Rodeos also occurred in the City of Torrance in 2011.
Each City could begin organizing Bicycle Rodeos biannually at all
elementary and middle schools. Bicycle Rodeos should also be held
at community events, such as Earth Day celebrations.
10.1.4 Share the Path Campaign
Target Audience: Bike path users
Conflicts between path users can occur on popular, well-used path
systems. “Share the Path” campaigns promote safe and courteous
behavior among all users. These campaigns typically involve
distribution of bicycle bells and other bicycle paraphernalia, and
brochures with safety tips, and maps at bicycle rides and other
public events.
Effective “Share the Path” campaigns generally involve the
following:
Developing a simple, clear Share the Path brochure for
distribution through local bike shops and wherever bike
maps are distributed.
Hosting a bicycle bell giveaway event on a popular
shared-use path. Volunteers and agency staff can distribute
bells to bicyclists and “Share the Path” brochures to other
path users, and answer users’ questions. Other volunteers
may walk along the path and thank bicyclists who use
their bells when passing.
Conducting media outreach before a bell giveaways event.
The event organizers should publicize positive stories
about bicycling and use the event as an opportunity for
marketing the path system. Media outreach can include
“Share the Path” campaigns promote safe and
courteous behavior among all users.
Page 359 of 535
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
306 | Alta Planning + Design
public service announcements promoting courtesy and
respect among all path users, and encouraging users to
share the path safely.
Though not all seven of the participating cities currently have a
bicycle path within their jurisdictions, hosting a ”Share the Path”
campaign can educate residents to ride safely so that they will be
prepared when a path is constructed in the future.
10.1.5 Bicycles on Transit Campaign
Target Audience: Commuters
A common statement from bicyclists is that they do not know how
to combine their bicycle trips with transit, whether it is because
they are not familiar with how to use bicycle racks on buses or they
do not know which transit vehicles accommodate bicycles. The Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA
Metro) posts information on its website that includes how to load
and unload bicycles onto buses, when bicycles are allowed on
trains, and which stations have bicycle parking.29 South Bay
participating cities that operate transit services could begin similar
educational campaigns so that bicyclists will feel comfortable
combining their trips with transit.
As part of the campaign, cities could distribute informational
pamphlets, such as bicycle rack instructions and transit maps, at
community events. They could also have sample bike racks and
bicycles that members of the community can practice with.
10.2 Public Awareness Campaigns and
Marketing
Campaigns that make the public aware of bicycling and market it
as a viable form of transportation help to increase the numbers of
riders. In turn, bicycling becomes a safer form of transportation
because people expect to see bicyclists on the road.
10.2.1 Bikeway Maps
One of the most effective ways of making people aware of bicycling
as a transportation alternative is to distribute maps and guides to
show that bicycle infrastructure exists. A map can also demonstrate
the ease in accessing different parts of the community by bike, and
highlight unique areas, shopping districts, or recreational areas. The
29 http://www.metro.net/around/bikes/bikes-metro/
South Bay participating cities that operate transit services
could begin a campaign so that bicyclists will feel
comfortable combining their trips with transit.
Page 360 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 307
South Bay participating cities could partner to develop a region-
wide map to show connectivity between the South Bay cities,
which could be available on paper and/or online.
Schools may create specialized biking and walking maps to direct
students to walk and bicycle along the safest routes to school, such
as those used in Manhattan Beach. These specialized maps may
include arrows to indicate the routes and show stop signs, signals,
crosswalks, sidewalks, trails, overcrossings, and crossing guard
locations surrounding the school. The maps could focus on the
attendance boundary of a particular school. Routes should take
advantage of low volume residential streets and off-street facilities
such as bike paths, sidewalks, and pedestrian bridges.
10.2.2 Community Bikeway Adoption
Community Bikeway Adoption programs resemble the widely
instituted Adopt-a-Highway programs throughout the country.
These programs identify local individuals, organizations, or
businesses interested in “adopting” a bikeway, walkway, or shared-
use path. “Adopting” a facility means that a person or group is
responsible for the facility’s maintenance, either through direct
action or funding the City’s maintenance of that facility. For
example, members of a local recreation group may volunteer every
other weekend to sweep a bikeway and identify larger maintenance
needs. Alternatively, a local bike shop may adopt a bikeway by
providing funding for the maintenance costs. Some adopted
bikeways post sponsors’ names on bikeway signs to display their
commitment to bicycling.
10.2.3 Share the Road Education Campaign
A Share the Road campaign educates motorists, bicyclists and
pedestrians about their legal rights and responsibilities on the road,
and the need for increased courtesy and cooperation among all
users. Share the Road campaigns often hold periodic traffic
checkpoints along roadways with concentrated bicycle and
pedestrian activity. Motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians stop at
these checkpoints to receive a Share the Road flyer from police
officers and can give feedback to officers regarding the campaign.
Checkpoints can also occur along local bikeways and paths. Public
service announcements on radio and television can help promote
Share the Road campaigns educate motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians about their legal rights and
responsibilities on the road.
Page 361 of 535
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
308 | Alta Planning + Design
the Share the Road campaign. The Marin County Bicycle Coalition
offers an example of a successful Share the Road campaign.30
10.3 Enforcement Programs
Motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike are sometimes unaware
of each other’s rights as they travel city streets. Enforcement
programs target unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and enforce
laws that reduce bicycle/motor vehicle collisions and conflicts.
Enforcement fosters mutual respect between roadway users and
improves safety. These programs generally require coordination
between law enforcement, transportation agencies, and bicycling
organizations. Educating the public through enforcement policies
will supplement the physical improvements made in the South Bay
region.
10.3.1 Directed Enforcement
Target Audience: Bicyclists and motorists
Traffic enforcement agencies enforce laws pertaining to bicycles as
part of the responsible normal operations. Directed enforcement is
one way to publicize bicycle laws in a highly visible and public
manner. Examples of directed enforcement actions include:
intersection patrols, handing out informational sheets to motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians; and enforcing speed limits and right-of-
way. This can help with issues prevalent in the South Bay, such as
motorists parking in the bicycle lanes, and bicyclists running red
lights and stop signs.
10.3.2 Speed Radar Trailer/Speed Feedback Signs
Target Audience: Motorists
Speed radar trailers can help reduce traffic speeds and enforce
speed limits in areas with speeding problems. Police set up an
unmanned trailer that displays the speed of approaching motorists
along with a speed limit sign. Speed trailers may be effective on
busier arterial roads without bikeway facilities or near schools with
reported speeding. The speed trailer’s roadway placement should
not obstruct bicycle traffic.
Speed trailers work as both an educational and enforcement tool.
By itself, the unmanned trailer educates motorists about their
current speed in relation to the speed limit.
30 www.marinbike.org/Campaigns/ShareTheRoad/Index.shtml.
Speed radar trailers can help reduce
speeds.
Page 362 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 309
Speed trailers can transport easily to streets where local residents
complain about speeding problems. The cities’ police departments
could station officers near the trailer to issue speeding citations
when speeding continues to occur.
City staff could provide the management role for this program,
working with the public to determine which locations are in most
need. This program can be administered randomly, cyclically, or as
demand necessitates because of the speed trailers’ portability.
10.3.3 Bicycle Patrol Units
Target Audience: Bicyclists and motorists
On-bike officers are an excellent tool for community and
neighborhood policing because they are more accessible to the
public and able to mobilize in areas where patrol cars cannot (e.g.,
overcrossings and paths). Bike officers undergo special training in
bicycle safety and bicycle-related traffic laws and are therefore
especially equipped to enforce laws pertaining to bicycling. Bicycle
officers help educate bicyclists and motorists through enforcement
and also serve as excellent outreach personnel to the public at
parades, street fairs, and other gatherings.
10.4 Encouragement Programs
Encouragement programs focus on encouraging people to bicycle
more frequently by providing incentives, recognition, or services
that make bicycling a more convenient and viable transportation
mode.
10.4.1 Bike to Work Day/Week
Bike to Work Day/Week is celebrated nationwide as part of “Bike
Month” every May. Jurisdictions throughout the United States hold
events to encourage new people to ride bicycles and existing riders
to continue to commute by bicycle. Throughout the day or week,
agencies hold events to encourage people to participate in the
program, such as free breakfast to bicyclists at several stations
throughout their jurisdictions. Some of the South Bay cities
participate in Bike to Work Day/Week, though all of the cities
could join their efforts and support a region-wide program with
stations throughout the cities. Torrance, for example, hosts a Bike
to Work Day pit-stop in front of City Hall that is open to the
public. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the South
Bay Bicycle Coalition could also partner with the cities to enhance
these events.
On-bike officers can offer increased enforcement of
laws pertaining to bicycling.
Page 363 of 535
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
310 | Alta Planning + Design
10.4.2 Bicycle Commuter Campaigns
A Bicycle Commuter Campaign encourages people to commute by
bicycle and to make the general public aware that bicycling is a
practical mode of transportation. San Luis Obispo (SLO) Regional
Rideshare, for example, organizes the “Commute for Cash
Challenge” every October as part of “Rideshare Month” in which
commuters log the miles that they commute using alternative
transportation for a chance to win prizes.31 The City of Torrance
currently has an organized employee rideshare program, that
provides incentives to employees who use vanpools, carpools,
transit, walk, and ride a bicycle as their transportation to work.
This program could serve as a starting point for the other
participating cities. The South Bay participating cities could also
implement a campaign to highlight bicycling as a commute mode
and encourage new riders to try it.
10.4.3 Organized Bike Rides
Organized group bicycle rides can encourage new riders to try
riding a bicycle as they are designed to make all participants feel
safe and confident. Formalized rides are led by an experienced rider
who ensures that participants follow all bicycle regulations and
safety measures, and usually one of the ride organizers will remain
in the back of the group to guarantee that no riders are left behind.
The participating cities could work with local bicycle advocacy
groups to organize regional group rides so that residents can feel
more comfortable riding in the South Bay. These rides could be
promoted by way of an online events calendar or other means. Local
cycling and advocacy groups, such as the South Bay Bicycle
Coalition, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and Beach Cities
Cycling Club organize several group bicycle rides on a regular basis.
The “Sunday Funday” ride, for example, is a monthly group ride for
LACBC members of all ages and abilities. Each month LACBC leads
bicyclists on an exploration of a different portion of the County. A
similar ride would be an opportunity for the South Bay to highlight
its new bikeways once constructed. Cities are encouraged to work
with local groups to promote and connect the community to
cycling activities.
31 http://www.rideshare.org/CommuteforCashChallenge2010.aspx
The participating cities should work with the Los Angeles
County and South Bay Bicycle Coalitions to provide secure
bicycle parking at regularly occurring events.
Page 364 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 311
10.4.4 Event Bicycle Parking
Providing safe and secure bicycle parking helps encourage
individuals to bicycle. San Francisco passed a city ordinance that
requires all major city events to provide bike parking and pioneered
an innovative tool for stacking hundreds of bicycles without
racks.32 The South Bay participating cities may consider temporary
bicycle parking for events with expected large attendance and at
regularly occurring events like a farmers market. LACBC, SBBC,
and the Beach Cities Cycling Club all offer secure, professional, and
attended bike valet services. The participating cities could work
with these groups to provide this service at their events.
10.4.5 Bicycle Maintenance Stations
An effective way to encourage riding is by providing free
maintenance stations at popular destinations. The City of
Cambridge, for example, has free bicycle maintenance stations in
several trip-generating locations. These stations include items such
as tire gauges, pumps, and tools for small bicycle repairs. Bicycle
maintenance stations are an inexpensive alternative to providing
stand-alone bicycle repair shops. The South Bay participating cities
could install them at activity centers, including schools and the
Strand.
10.4.6 Bicycle Friendly Business Program
Local businesses have the potential to encourage bicycling by
providing their patrons that commute by bicycle with discounts
and other amenities. The participating South Bay cities may
consider starting a regional “Bicycle Friendly Business” program
that honors South Bay businesses that support bicycling. The
program could assign a gold, silver, or bronze designation to
businesses that apply for the program based on the level of benefits
they provide bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists has a
Bicycle Friendly Business program as part of its Bicycle Friendly
Communities designation, which would act as a good model for the
South Bay participating cities to follow.33
10.4.7 Ciclovias/ “Sunday Streets”
First implemented in Bogota, Colombia, the Ciclovia is a
community event based around a street closure. Ciclovias provide
32 www.sfbike.org/?valet
33 http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/bicyclefriendlybusiness/about.php
Ciclovias can highlight the South Bay’s new bikeways
once constructed.
Page 365 of 535
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
312 | Alta Planning + Design
local recreational and business opportunities for the community
and are increasingly popular citywide events. Ciclovias can
combine with other popular community events to promote walking
and bicycling as a form of viable transportation. Ideally, Ciclovias
should provide access to civic, cultural, or commercial destinations.
The City of Los Angeles has hosted two ciclovias, called “CicLAvia,”
since October 2010. At both CicLAvia events, routes went through
downtown Los Angeles. The participating cities could work with
the event organizers to create a route through the South Bay. This
would be an opportunity to highlight some of the South Bay’s new
bikeways once constructed.34
10.4.8 Bike Wrangler
A bike wrangler program gathers used and abandoned bicycles and
distributes them to people who cannot afford bicycles. The bike
wrangler can collect from many sources of used bicycles, including
local police department auctions, universities, and individuals. The
bike wrangler partners with bicycle shops or bicycle repair
cooperatives to store and repair the bicycles.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health recently
funded a Bike Wrangler program. The Los Angeles County Cycling
Collaborative (CCC), which is a partnership of the Los Angeles
County Bicycle Coalition and the County’s five bicycle repair
cooperatives, will be administering the program from a space near
downtown Los Angeles. The participating cities could work with
this existing program by connecting their local institutions to the
CCC Bike Wrangler. They can work with the Bike Wrangler to
bring bicycle workshops and refurbished bicycles to the South Bay.
10.5 Monitoring and Evaluation
In order to track the progress of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan,
it is critical that the participating cities monitor and evaluate
changes in bicycling.
10.5.1 Annual Bicycle Counts and Surveys
As a mechanism for tracking bicycling trends over time and for
evaluating the impact of bicycle projects, policies, and programs
from the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, the participating cities
34 More information is available at
www.healthystreets.org/pages/sunday_parkways.htm and
http://www.ciclavia.org
The bike wrangler partners with bicycle shops or bicycle
repair cooperatives to store and repair the bicycles.
Page 366 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 313
may consider partnering with local advocacy groups and volunteers
to conduct annual bicycle counts. Count locations should at
minimum include the locations that were part of the 2010 count
effort. Ongoing count data will enable the cities to analyze changes
in bicycling levels and to track the impact of new bicycle
infrastructure. As a means of engaging the South Bay community in
bicycle counts, the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach, and Redondo Beach could partner to install an automated
bicycle counter on the Strand that publicly displays the cumulative
number of bicyclists counted.
Annual surveys should also be conducted to measure “attitudes”
about bicycling. These surveys could be either online surveys or
intercept surveys. Surveys should determine if bicyclists are
reacting positively or negatively to bicycle facilities and programs
implemented. Results of the counts and surveys can inform future
bicycling planning efforts and be presented to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee at regular meetings.
10.5.2 Mobility Coordinator Position
A number of cities around the country staff a part- or full-time
Mobility Coordinator position. Cities with such a position usually
experience relative success in bike plan implementation. To take
full advantage of current bicycle planning and safety efforts and to
assist with implementation of bicycling programs, the South Bay
Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) should consider
creating and staffing an ongoing mobility coordinator position to
assist the participating cities in multi-jurisdictional
implementation and grant funding efforts. This position would be
contingent on available funding. Should SBCCOG not obtain
funding, each city should arrange for existing or new staff to
dedicate time towards implementation of the bike plan and
applying for relevant grants funds.
In addition to supporting existing programs, such as bicycling
parking provision and educational activities, potential job duties
for this staff position are listed below. See policy section 3.2 in
Chapter 2 for details on tasks of the Mobility Coordinator.
Monitoring facility planning, design, and construction that
may impact bicycling
Staffing bicycle advisory committee meetings
Coordinating the implementation of the recommended
projects and programs listed in this Plan
The participating cities should conduct annual bicycle
counts and surveys to track bicycling trends over time.
Page 367 of 535
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
314 | Alta Planning + Design
Identifying new projects and programs that would improve
the city’s bicycling environment and improve safety for
bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists
Coordinating evaluation of projects and programs, such as
bicycle counts
Pursuing funding sources for project and program
implementation
Page 368 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 315
Chapter 11
Wayfinding and Signage Plan
Page 369 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
316| Alta Planning + Design
Page 370 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 317
11 Wayfinding and Signage Plan
This chapter presents a regional bicycle wayfinding and signage
plan for the South Bay participating cities that will support the
proposed bikeway network, while simultaneously creating an
identity for the South Bay participating cities’ bikeways. Such
prominent and unique identification will be important to
wayfinding for bicyclists using the first multi-jurisdictional inter-
connected bikeway system. The signage plan presented here is
meant to assure bicyclists that they are using a network that is
continuous and easily navigated. The regional bicycle wayfinding
system will direct bicyclists to major destinations in the South Bay,
such as downtown areas, commercial centers, and transit hubs.
Recommended signage presented in this plan should be placed on
all existing and proposed routes. This chapter is organized by
proposed signage design, signage location, kiosks, and collaborative
efforts.
11.1 1BSignage Design
Bicycle wayfinding signage provides destination, direction, and
distance information to bicyclists navigating through the South Bay
bicycle network. The proposed design guidelines use standard signs
from the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), as well as the California MUTCD. MUTCD signs used
in this signage plan include:
D11-1: Bicycle Route Guide Sign
D1-1b: Destination Supplemental Sign
M7-1 through M7-7: Directional Arrow Supplemental Sign
Using signage standards outlined in the MUTCD allows for signage
that is consistent throughout jurisdictions. However, the proposed
signs include revised modifications to brand the South Bay bicycle
network, as well as bicycle facilities in each participating city.
Table 11-2 further explains these modifications.
11.1.1 5B Design Guidelines
The South Bay bicycle wayfinding signage system recommends the
following three sign types:
Standard signs: Confirm a bicyclist is riding on a
designated bikeway
Turn signs: Specify where a bikeway turns to prepare
bicyclists in advance
D11-1: Bicycle Route Guide Sign
Page 371 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
318| Alta Planning + Design
Hybrid Confirmation and Decision signs: Confirm a bicyclist
is riding on a designated bikeway; include mileage to key
destinations that can be accessed by the bikeways; and provide
directional arrows to key destinations. In some instances, they
also identify the junction of two or more bikeways
Table 11-1 displays design and placement standards for the three
recommended sign types presented in this chapter. Figures 11-1, 11-
2, 11-3, 11-4 and 11-5 illustrate the signage design guidelines.
Example Hybrid Confirmation and Decision Sign.
Page 372 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 319 Table 11-1: Design Standards for Recommended Sign Types Type Sign Type Design Standards Placement Standard Signs Bicycle Route Guide Sign D11-1 size: 24” wide x18” tall N/A One sign per ¼ directional mile (mid-block) and at the far side of key intersections Turn Signs Bicycle Route Guide Sign D11-1 size: 24” wide x 18” tall Directional Arrow Supplemental Signs M7-1 through M7-7 size: 12” wide x 9” tall N/A Signs should be placed the at the following distances before an intersection depending on the number of lanes a bicyclist must travel across in order to initiate a legal left turn: 25 feet before a zero lane merge 100 feet before a one lane merge 200 feet before a two lane merge Hybrid Confirmation and Decision Signs Bicycle Route Guide Sign D11-1 size: 24” wide x18” tall Destination Supplemental Signs D1-1b size: 24” wide Maximum of one destination per plaque A maximum of three destinations shall be listed Destinations shall use upper case and lower case letters For destination names that do not fit on one line abbreviations or two-line entry may be used Destinations shall be listed by closest proximity to the sign placement Signs shall include the bikeway’s endpoint along the length of the route Where a bikeway ends at a location with no obvious destination, use the closest major destination on an intersecting bikeway or the intersecting street if there is no obvious destination Common symbols are to be used to convey destination information in a space-efficient manner (see Figure 11-5 and Figure 11- 6) Directional arrows shall be placed to the left of a destination Straight arrows shall be centered over the left and right arrow Two signs per directional mile Signs should be placed at the following distances before an intersection depending on the number of lanes a bicyclist must travel across in order to initiate a legal left turn: 25 feet before a zero lane merge 100 feet before a one lane merge 200 feet before a two lane merge Page 373 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 320| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-1: Sign Types Page 374 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 321 Figure 11-2: South Bay D11-1 Layout Details Page 375 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 322| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-3: D1-1b Layout Details Page 376 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 323 Figure 11-4: South Bay and Participating City Logos used on signs Page 377 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 324| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-5: Los Angeles Metro and Bicycle Parking symbols used on signs Page 378 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 325
As noted earlier in this chapter, recommended signs deviate slightly
from MUTCD standard signs. Table 11-2 presents differences
between the MUTCD and South Bay recommended sign standards.
Table 11-2: Modifications to MUTCD Design Sign Layout Specifications
Modification Explanation
Developing a Hybrid sign from the standard
MUTCD confirmation and decision sign (D1-1b) ,
which incorporates direction, destination name
and distance
Provides bicyclists with maximum wayfinding information for
improved usage and support of the overall network
Reduces horizontal perimeter from 1.5” to 0.75” Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names
Incorporating symbols with destination names Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names in
addition to improving communication for users
Maintains 24” wide supplemental sign (D1-1b)
Consistency across the network increases user familiarly as well
as allows for the addition of destinations as the bikeway
network is implemented
Uses FHWA 2000 (Highway Gothic) C series
condensed font series (rather than D series)
Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names;
maintains 2” cap height; consistent with the cities of Chicago
and Seattle
Inclusion of South Bay and City Logos on D11-1
sign, by reducing cap height of “BIKE ROUTE” to
2” (from 3”)
Providing the Logos allows for improved identification and
branding of the South Bay bicycle network, as well as the
participating cities
11.1.2 6BS Sample Signage
Figure 11-6 through Figure 11-12 present sample signage for each of
the participating South Bay cities. Signs will include the logo of the
city it is located in, as well as the South Bay bikeway logo. Since
color signs may result in high costs, the logos could also be printed
in black and white.
Page 379 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
326| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-6: Sample Wayfinding sign for El Segundo
Page 380 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 327
Figure 11-7: Sample Wayfinding sign for Gardena
Page 381 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
328| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-8: Sample Wayfinding sign for Hermosa Beach
Page 382 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 329
Figure 11-9: Sample Wayfinding sign for Lawndale
Page 383 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
330| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-10: Sample Wayfinding sign for Manhattan Beach
Page 384 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 331
Figure 11-11: Sample Wayfinding sign for Redondo Beach
Page 385 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
332| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-12: Sample Wayfinding sign for Torrance
Page 386 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 333
11.1.3 Specifications
In order to have consistency in the wayfinding system, it is
important to follow a set of specifications for sign placement and
installation. Table 11-3 displays specifications for the recommended
South Bay wayfinding signage. Some cities may already have sign
placement and installation standards, in which case they could
choose to continue using those for guidance.
Table 11-3: Specifications for Implementation of signage
Specifications
The standard pole for bikeway guide signs is a 2” square perforated unistrut pole
The pole should be placed 18” to 24” in the ground, depending upon the overall weight of the signs and the
soil/pavement conditions.
Heavy sign installations may require poles up to 36” into the ground.
Poles of 12’ in length are generally adequate to accommodate a D11-1 with a supplementary D1-1b sign. Longer
poles are needed if additional signs will share the same pole.
The D11-1 should be installed at 10’ in height as measured from the top edge of the sign. This height will allow
for the installation of supplementary signs while maintaining a minimum 7’ clearance to the bottom edge of the
bottom sign.
When a D11-1 is mounted on a pole with an existing parking restriction sign, the D11-1 and any supplementary
sign should be located above the parking restriction sign.
Signs shall not be mounted to utility poles or traffic signal mast arms
Existing poles should be used wherever practical.
11.2 2BSignage Locations
Table 11-4 presents a list of suggested key destinations for each
participating South Bay city. The cities may modify this list in the
future as needed. Appendix L provides maps illustrating the
approximate location of key destinations in each city, as well as
proposed signage routes based upon estimated frequency of use and
proximity to areas of interest.
Page 387 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
334| Alta Planning + Design
Table 11-4: Key Destinations by Participating City
Destination
El Segundo
Beach (end of Grand Ave)
Chevron refinery
El Segundo City Hall/Downtown
Josyln Community Center
El Segundo Public Library
The Urho Saari Swim Stadium
Imperial and Main Street
El Segundo and Nash Greenline Metro Station
Mattel Corporation
Mariposa and Nash Greenline Metro Station
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields
Boeing Corporation
Los Angeles Air Force Base
Aviation/LAX Greenline Metro Station
Plaza El Segundo
Gardena
Crenshaw Greenline Metro Station
Dominguez Channel Bikeway at El Segundo Blvd and Crenshaw Blvd
Dominguez Channel Bikeway at Rosecrans Ave and Crenshaw Blvd
El Camino College
Gardena Civic Center/Nakaoka Community Center
Gardena Mayme Dear Library
Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Beach Pier Plaza
Hermosa Beach City Hall/Upper Pier
Hermosa Beach Library/Upper Pier
Valley Park
Lawndale
Lawndale Civic Center/Library
Jane Adams Park
Rogers-Anderson Park
Proposed Lawndale Metro Station at Rosecrans Ave and Manhattan Beach Blvd
Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach Pier/Roundhouse Marine Studies Lab and Aquarium
Live Oak Park and Josyln Community Center
Manhattan Beach City Hall and Library
Page 388 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 335
Manhattan Beach Library
North Manhattan Beach/El Porto
Manhattan Village Mall
Polliwog Park and the Creative Arts Center
AdventurePlex (Marine Ave Park and Marine Ave Sports Complex)
Downtown Manhattan Beach
Metlox
Redondo Beach
Redondo Beach
Riviera Village
Esplanade
Dominguez Park / Dog Park
North Redondo Beach Bikeway at Marine Ave and Redondo Beach Ave
North Redondo Beach Bikeway at Artesia Blvd and Inglewood Ave
North Redondo Beach Bikeway at Lilienthal Ln and 190th street (Lilienthal Park)
Torrance
Torrance Beach
Torrance Airport / Zamperini Field
Madrona Marsh Nature Center
Wilson Park
Downtown Torrance
El Prado Park and Torrance History Museum
Torrance City Hall and Library
Page 389 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
336| Alta Planning + Design
11.3 Kiosks
In addition to an effective signage system, the South Bay Signage
plan also proposes the installation of informational kiosks to
support the proposed bikeway network and signage. Proposed
kiosk locations should be located at key destinations and include
bicycle facility information for the participating cities and the
South Bay region as a whole.
11.3.1 7B Design Guidelines
Potential locations for kiosks include key destinations in each City
are provided in Appendix L. Figure 11-13 and Figure 11-14 present
sample kiosk prototypes as potential designs for the cities’ use.
These are simply conceptual in design and can be modified to
conform with each cities’ existing signage plans. Figure 11-15
displays a potential placement of the sample kiosk.
The design guidelines for kiosks will vary per each city’s design
preferences and existing standards. However, it is recommended
that the participating cities use similar guidelines to create
consistency across jurisdictions and brand the South Bay bicycle
network. Kiosks should provide the following information:
A map of key destinations in each city
A map of the bicycle network in the city
A map of the entire South Bay Bicycle Network
The South Bay Bicycle Network Logo
Recommended supplemental resources for the kiosks include:
Bicycle parking information
Fold-up bicycle maps of the South Bay Bicycle Network
Information regarding bicycle related activities in the area
Bike safety information and other bicycle resources
Page 390 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 337
Figure 11-13: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Page 391 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
338| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-14: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Page 392 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 339 Figure 11-15: Potential Placement of Sample Kiosk Photo Source: Dan Burden/WALC Institute for Vitality CityPage 393 of 535
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
340| Alta Planning + Design
11.4 Collaborative Efforts
The South Bay participating cities should consider working
with other nearby agencies to provide consistent bicycle
wayfinding signage throughout the South Bay and the
County of Los Angeles. This will allow bicyclists to easily
navigate to and from bikeways in adjacent communities and
create an overall seamless network. The South Bay
participating cities should coordinate efforts with the
following adjacent jurisdictions:
City of Hawthorne
City of Inglewood
City of Lomita
City of Los Angeles
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Rolling Hills Estates
County of Los Angeles
The participating cities should also consider partnering
with the following agencies to install wayfinding signage
that will help bicyclists navigate to the South Bay bikeways:
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro)
Amtrak
Metrolink
The participating cities should consider partnering with
non-profit organizations, schools, and bicycle advocacy
groups like the South Bay and Los Angeles County Bicycle
Coalitions in a pursuit for funding opportunities and grants
for wayfinding signage. Potential funds would help with
capital and maintenance expenses associated with
wayfinding signage. Partnerships often strengthen grant
applications making them more likely to be selected.
Page 394 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 341
Chapter 12
Funding
Page 395 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding
342| Alta Planning + Design
Page 396 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 343 12 Funding All levels of government contain programs that can potentially fund bicycle projects, programs, and plans. This section covers federal, state, and regional sources of bicycle funding. Many funding sources are highly competitive. Therefore, it is not possible to determine exactly which projects will receive funding from specific funding sources. Table 12-1 serves as a general guide to funding sources. Staff should refer to current guidelines provided by the granting agency when pursuing any funding opportunity. Table 12-1: Funding Sources Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Federally-Administered Funding Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program** Varies, generally January or February. Federal Transit Administration $204 million nationally in 2009 20% States, MPOs, local governments and tribal agencies X X X Implementation grants provide financial resources to enact activities that address transportation efficiency, while meeting community preservation and environmental goals. Policy and program examples include spending policies that direct funds to high-growth regions; urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan expansion; and “green corridor” programs that provide access to highway corridors in areas targeted for efficient and compact development. Program officials are not currently accepting applications past 2011. In most years, Congress has identified projects to be selected for funding through the TCSP program. The South Bay cities should track the program over the long term and apply if the program is extended. Page 397 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding 344| Alta Planning + Design Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Federal Lands Highway Programs** Not available Federal Highway Administration $1,019 million nationally in 2009 States X X Grant funds are allocated for highways, roads, and parkways (which can include bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and transit facilities that provide access to or within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations. Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program Aug 1 for the following fiscal year National Parks Service Program staff time is awarded. Not applicable Public agencies X RTCA staff provides technical assistance to communities to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. The program provides only for planning assistance – there are no implementation monies available. Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks and Public Lands Program Varies, Generally October. Federal Transit Administration $27 million nationally in 2009 Not available Federal, State, local and tribal agencies that manage federal lands X X Grant funds transportation modes that reduce congestion in parks and public lands. Page 398 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 345 Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Partnership for Sustainable Communities Not applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Varies Not applicable Varies by grant X X X Though not a formal agency, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities is a joint project of the EPA, the HUD, and the USDOT. One goal of the project is to expand transportation options that improve air quality and public health, which has already resulted in several new grant opportunities (including TIGER I and TIGER II grants). The participating cities should track Partnership communications and be prepared to respond proactively to announcements of new grant programs. New Freedom Initiative** Not available U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Not available Not applicable Public agencies X X Grant funds provide capital and operating costs to provide transportation services and facility improvements that exceed those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pedestrian improvements include installing Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), enhancing transit stops to improve accessibility, and establishing a mobility coordinator position. Page 399 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding 346| Alta Planning + Design Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Surface Transportation Program** Not available Federal Highway Administration $6,577 million nationally in 2009 Not applicable States and local governments X X X Grants fund projects on any federal-aid highway. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements include on-street facilities, off-street paths, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals, parking, and other ancillary facilities. Non-construction projects, such as maps, bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions, and encouragement programs are eligible. The modification of sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is also an eligible activity. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)** Not available Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration $1,777 million nationally in 2009 Not applicable States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas X X X Funds are allocated for transportation projects that aim to reduce transportation related emissions. Funds can be used for construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways or for non-construction projects related to safe bicycling and walking (i.e. maps and brochures). Page 400 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 347 Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Transportation Enhancements** Not available Federal Highway Administration 10 percent of State Transportation Program funds Not applicable States X X X Funds are a set-aside of Surface Transportation Program (STP) monies designated for Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities, which include the pedestrians and bicycles facilities, safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails). Highway Safety Improvement Program** October Federal Highway Administration $1,296 million nationally in 2009 Varies between 0% and 10% City, county or federal land manager X X X Funds projects on publicly-owned roadways or bicycle/pedestrian pathways or trails that address a safety issue and may include education and enforcement programs. This program includes the Railroad-Highway Crossings and High Risk Rural Roads programs. Community Development Block Grants Varies between grants U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) $42.8 m Varies between grants City, county X X X Funds local community development activities such as affordable housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development. Can be used to build sidewalks and recreational facilities. Recreational Trails Program** October CA Dept. of Parks and Recreation $1.3 m in 2010 12% Agencies and organizations that manage public lands X X X Provides funds to states for acquisition of easements for trails from willing sellers, maintenance and restoration of existing trails, construction of new paved or unpaved trails, and operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails. Page 401 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding 348| Alta Planning + Design Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Federal Safe Routes to School** Mid-July Federal Highway Administration Max. funding cap for infrastructure project: $1 million. Max funding cap for non-infrastructure project: 500,000 none State, city, county, MPOs, RTPAs and other organizations that partner with one of the above. X X X Grant funds for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects are engineering projects or capital improvements that will substantially improve safety and the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. Non-infrastructure projects are education/encouragement/enforcement activities that are intended to change community behavior, attitudes, and social norms to make it safer for children in grades K-8 to walk and bicycle to school. Petroleum Violation Escrow Account Not applicable Department of Energy Varies annually None Local and regional agencies X X PVEA funds come from fines paid by oil companies in the 70s for violating oil price caps set by the federal government. Funds are used for projects that save energy, such as public transportation, computerized bus routing and ride sharing, home weatherization, energy assistance and building energy audits, highway and bridge maintenance, and reducing airport user fees. Page 402 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 349 Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Community Transformation Grant July Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $50,000-10,000,000 per applicant Not applicable State and local governmental agencies, tribes and territories, and national and community-based organizations X X Funding is available to support evidence and practice-based community and clinical prevention and wellness strategies that will lead to specific, measurable health outcomes to reduce chronic disease rates. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are applicable as they encourage physical activity, which has been proven to reduce the risks of diseases associated with inactivity. State-Administered Funding Bicycle Transportation Account March Caltrans $7.2 million Minimum 10% local match on construction Public agencies X X X Funds bicycle projects that improve safety and convenience of bicycle commuters. In addition to construction and planning, funds may be used for right of way acquisition. California Safe Routes to School Varies Caltrans $24.5 million 10% Cities and counties X X SR2S is primarily a construction program to enhance safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities near schools. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) December Caltrans Varies None Cities X X X The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment Fund and other funding sources. Page 403 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding 350| Alta Planning + Design Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes State Coastal Conservancy Rolling State Coastal Conservancy Varies None Public agencies, non-profit organizations X X X Projects must be in accordance with Division 21 and meet the goals and objectives of the Conservancy’s strategic plan. More information can be found at http://scc.ca.gov/applying-for-grants-and-assistance/forms. California Conservation Corps On-going California Conservation Corps CCC donates labor hours None Federal and state agencies, city, county, school district, NPO, private industry X X Funds projects that improve public access to and along the coast, natural resource protection and restoration in the coastal zone or affecting coastal areas, restoration of coastal urban waterfronts, protection of coastal agricultural land, and resolution of land use conflicts. CCC provides labor assistance on construction projects and annual maintenance. Community Based Transportation Planning March Caltrans $3 million 20% MPO, RPTA, city, county X Eligible projects that exemplify livable community concepts including enhancing bicycle and pedestrian access. Page 404 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 351 Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Land and Water Conservation Fund March NPS, CA Dept. of Parks and Recreation $2.3 million in CA in 2009 50% + 2-6% administration surcharge Cities, counties and districts authorized to operate, acquire, develop and maintain park and recreation facilities X X Fund provides matching grants to state and local governments for the acquisition and development of land for outdoor recreation areas. Lands acquired through program must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use. Individual project awards are not available. The Department of Parks and Recreation levies a surcharge for administering the funds. The LCWF could fund the development of river-adjacent bicycle facilities. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program October California Natural Resources Agency $10 million None Federal, State, local agencies and NPO X X Support projects that offset environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities. These projects can include highway landscaping and urban forestry projects, roadside recreation projects, and projects to acquire or enhance resource lands. EEMP funds projects in California, at an annual project average of $250,000. Funds may be used for land acquisition. State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Not Available Caltrans $1.69 million statewide annually through FY 2013/14 Not Available Local and regional agencies X X Capital improvements and maintenance projects that relate to maintenance, safety and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges. Page 405 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding 352| Alta Planning + Design Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants January Caltrans Varies annually - $82 million statewide in FY 2009/2010 None Government agencies, state colleges, state universities, city, county, school district, fire department, public emergency service provider X Funds are used to establish new traffic safety programs, expand ongoing programs, or address deficiencies in current programs. Bicycle safety is included in the list of traffic safety priority areas. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. Evaluation criteria to assess needs include potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on previous OTS grants. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 (SB 821) Not applicable State of California and Ventura County Transportation Commission Varies Not applicable Cities and counties X X Funds are a percentage of the state sales tax given annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Funds may be used for engineering expenses leading to construction, right-of-way acquisition, construction and reconstruction, retrofitting existing facilities, route improvements, and bicycle support facilities. Habitat Conservation Fund October CA Department of Parks and Recreation $2 million Requires a dollar-for-dollar match of grant funds Cities, counties, and districts X X Funds provide grants to protect fish, wildlife, and native plant resources, to acquire or develop wildlife corridors and trails, and to provide for nature interpretation programs and other programs which bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas. Page 406 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 353 Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Tire-Derived Product Grant Program Varies CA Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Varies Not applicable Public agencies and qualifying tribes X Promotes markets for recycled-content products derived from waste tires generated in California and decrease the adverse environmental impacts created by unlawful disposal and stockpiling of waste tires. Funds can be used to purchase materials for bicycle and pedestrian projects, including sidewalks/pathways, accessibility ramps, and traffic safety products. Regional- and Local-Administered Funding Metro Call for Projects (CFP) January LA Metro Varies annually None Public agencies that provide transportation facilities or services within Los Angeles County X X X Co-funds new regionally significant capital projects that improve all modes of surface transportation. Relevant categories include Bikeway Improvements; Regional Surface Transportation Improvements; Transportation Enhancement Activities; Transportation Demand Management; and Pedestrian Improvements. Proposition A N/A LA County Varies None Cities and unincorporated communities in LA County A half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation funding. One-fourth of the funds go to Local Return Programs. The monies help these entities develop and improve local public transit, paratransit, and related transportation infrastructure Page 407 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding 354| Alta Planning + Design Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Proposition C N/A LA County Varies None Cities and unincorporated communities in LA County Revenues are allocated into categories including Rail & Bus Security; Commuter Rail, Transit Centers and Park and Ride Lots; Local Return; and, Transit Related Improvements to Streets and Highways. Supports projects and programs developed with Prop A funds. Measure R N/A LA County Varies none Cities and unincorporated communities in LA County X X X A half-cent sales tax to finance new transportation projects and programs, and accelerate many of those already in process. Adopt-A-Trail Programs Not applicable Local trail commission or non-profit Varies Not applicable Local governments X X These programs used to fund new construction, renovation, trail brochures, informational kiosks and other amenities. These programs can also be extended to include sponsorship of trail segments for maintenance needs. Design Arts Program Varies by grant National Endowment for the Arts Varies A nonfederal match of at least 1 to 1 Counties, local governments, public entities, or nonprofits X X Provides grants to states and local agencies, individuals and nonprofit organizations for projects that incorporate urban design, historic preservation, planning, architecture, landscape architecture and other community improvement activities, including greenway development. Grants to organizations and agencies must be matched by a 50% local contribution. Agencies can receive up to $50,000. Page 408 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 355 Funding Source Due Date* Administering Agency Annual Total Matching Requirement Eligible Applicants Planning Con-struction Other Notes Other Funding Sources Community Action for a Renewed Environment March US EPA Varies Not Available Applicant must fall within the statutory terms of EPA’s research and demonstration grant authorities X X Grant program to help community organize and take action to reduce toxic pollution in its local environment Bikes Belong Grant Multiple dates throughout year. Bikes Belong Not Available 50% minimum Organizations and agencies X X Bikes Belong provides grants for up to $10,000 with a 50% match that recipients may use towards paths, bridges and parks. Volunteer and Public-Private Partnerships Not Applicable City, county, joint powers authority Varies Not Applicable Public agency, private industry, schools, community groups X X Requires community-based initiative to implement improvements. * Due dates are subject to change due to pending authorization of a new federal transportation bill. ** Program is one of many programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU and current funding has only been extended through September 30, 2011. Page 409 of 535
Chapter Twelve | Funding
356| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 410 of 535
Alta Planning + Design | 357
Appendices
Page 411 of 535
Appendices
358| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 412 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 359
Appendix A: Large Scale Maps
Page 413 of 535
Appendices
360| Alta Planning + Design
Page 414 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 361
Page 415 of 535
Appendices
362| Alta Planning + Design
Page 416 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 363
Page 417 of 535
Appendices
364| Alta Planning + Design
Page 418 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 365
Page 419 of 535
Appendices
366| Alta Planning + Design
Page 420 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 367
Page 421 of 535
Appendices
368| Alta Planning + Design
Page 422 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 369
Page 423 of 535
Appendices
370| Alta Planning + Design
Page 424 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 371
Page 425 of 535
Appendices
372| Alta Planning + Design
Page 426 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 373
Page 427 of 535
Appendices
374| Alta Planning + Design
Page 428 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 375
Page 429 of 535
Appendices
376| Alta Planning + Design
Page 430 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 377
Page 431 of 535
Appendices
378| Alta Planning + Design
Page 432 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 379
Page 433 of 535
Appendices 380| Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Page 434 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 381
Page 435 of 535
Appendices
382| Alta Planning + Design
Page 436 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 383
Appendix B: New York City Bicycle Collision vs Ridership Data
Source: City of New York Department of Transportation
Page 437 of 535
Appendices
384| Alta Planning + Design
Appendix C: Bicycle Facility Standards
The following table presents the minimum bicycle facility standard widths recommended by the California
Highway Design Manual (CA HDM), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of City Transportation Officials, as compared to the standards
recommended as part of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan.
Bicycle Facility Type
Organization Standards
CA HDM35 AASHTO36 NACTO37 South Bay
Class I Bike Path 2.4 meters (8 feet) 10 feet N/A 8-10 feet
Class II Bike Lane 1.5 meters (5 feet) 5 feet 6 feet 6 feet (5 feet plus 1
foot buffer)
Class III Bicycle Routes are not included in this table as the minimum width is dependent on a variety of
roadway conditions. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices provides guidance on the placement of
shared lane markings on Class III Bike Routes in section 9C.07. The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
recommends that the South Bay participating cities follow MUTCD standards., which is at least 11 feet from
the face of the curb.
The table below presents minimum standards for vehicular travel lanes and parallel parking lanes as compared
to South Bay recommended minimum widths. The participating cities may use wider travel lanes where
appropriate and feasible. In most cases, recommendations for facilities in this Plan will comply with AASHTO
standards. In few constrained cases, facilities may require travel and parking lanes to drop slightly below
AASHTO standards.
Lane Width Type AASHTO38 South Bay
Vehicular Travel Lane 10 feet 9.5 feet
Parking Lane 8 feet 7.5 feet
35 Source: CA HDM Section 1003
36 Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 4.6.4
37 Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
38 Source: AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
Page 438 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 385
3%4%
11%
19%
34%
29%
Under 18
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
Over 55
Survey Respondent Age Distribution
70%
5%
1%
1%
16%
7%
Dr
Ca
Pu
Mo
Bik
Wa
Drive alone
Carpool/vanpool
Public transit
Motorcycle
Bike
Walk
Survey Respondent Primary Commute Mode
Appendix D: Online Survey Analysis
Respondent Demographics
Most of the survey respondents live in one of the seven
participating South Bay cities. Respondents who do not live
in one of the participating cities live in other cities and
communities nearby. Almost two-thirds of survey
respondents also work in one of the participating South Bay
cities.
Over half of the respondents are over 46 years old, about one-
fourth of which are over 55 years old. Relatively few young
adults and youth responded to the survey (only three
percent and four percent respectively) and many
respondents stated in later questions that they are retired.
This suggests that the survey was either distributed
predominantly to older populations or the bicycling
populations in the South Bay participating cities are generally older.
Respondent Bicycle Mode Characteristics
Almost three-quarters of survey respondents commute predominantly by driving alone, which is below the
national average and above the averages for the State of California and the County of Los Angeles39. 16 percent
of respondents commute primarily by bicycle and seven percent commute predominantly by walking, which
means that a total of 23 percent of respondents get to work using active, non-motorized modes. This is a
disproportionately high percentage as compared to the national averages of walking and bicycling to work,
which is probably because people who ride a bicycle regularly are naturally more interested in participating in
a survey about bicycling.
As further evidence that survey respondents are
disproportionately bicyclists, nearly half of
respondents said they commute by bicycle some of
the time, just over one-third commute by bicycle at
least once a month, and just under one-third
commute by bicycle at least once a week. Also, 88
percent of respondents said they were comfortable
riding in some traffic situations.
39 See individual City chapters for detailed commute to work data.
Page 439 of 535
Appendices
386| Alta Planning + Design
5%
12%
12%
9%
11%
51%
5+ days per week
3-4 days per week
1-2 days per week
1-2 days per month
Less than 1-2 days per month
I never commute by bicycle
Survey Respondent Days per Week Commuting by Bicycle
25%
13%
13%
21%
12%
16%
Under 2 miles
3-5 miles
6-10 miles
11-20 miles
Over 20 miles
I do not work or go to school
Survey Respondent Commute Distance
13%
31%
30%
12%
11%3%
5+ days per week
3-4 days per week
1-2 days per week
1-2 days per month
Less than 1-2 days per month
I never ride a bicycle
Survey Respondent Days per Week Riding a Bicycle
(other than for commuting)
38 percent of respondents live less than
five miles from work. It is likely that
the short commute distance
contributes to the disproportionate
number of bike and walk commuters
seen in the survey. Similarly, a
relatively large proportion of
respondents do not work or go to
school (16 percent), which matches the
relatively large proportion of
respondents who are over 55, some of
whom explicitly stated that they were
retired.
The survey asked respondents to
estimate bicycle trips that were not
commute trips, such as bicycle rides for
exercise or to run errands. The
frequency of bicycle trips was
significantly higher for trips made by
bicycle that were not to work or
school. While over half of respondents
said that they never ride to work, only
three percent replied that they never
ride for any purpose. Similarly, while
almost thirty percent of respondents
commute by bike at least once a week,
almost three-quarters ride their
bicycles at least once a week for trips
other than for commuting.
Of the optional responses, the top
reason survey respondents selected as
why they bicycle was for exercise.
Almost all of the survey respondents
selected this as a reason. After exercise,
the next most common response was bicycling to shop, run errands, or eat out, which 38 percent of
respondents listed as a reason that they bicycle. The percentage of respondents bicycling for these utilitarian
trips exceeds the percentage who reported that they bike to get to work or school (31%). This suggests that
interventions that aim to increase bicycling, whether they are programs, infrastructure, or education, should
target many destinations, not just job centers and schools, as well at many travel times, not just the peak
commuting hours.
Page 440 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 387
7%
20%
17%
22%
34%Under 2 miles
2-5 miles
6-10 miles
11-20 miles
Over 20 miles
Survey Respondent Average Bicycle Trip Length
About one-third of survey respondents said that the average length of their bicycle trips is over 20 miles, while
only seven percent responded that their bicycle trips average less than two miles. It is possible that since so
many respondents ride for exercise, many of their bicycle rides are long.
Barriers to Bicycling
The survey asked respondents to note what
prevents them from bicycling to work and from
bicycling in general. It also asked respondents to
rate the degree to which a number of conditions
influence their decisions to bicycle.
A number of common themes emerged from the
responses. Survey respondents highly value
bicycle lanes. They cited lack of bicycle lanes as
the biggest barrier that prevents them from
biking to work. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1
being the most important, respondents gave the
presence of bicycle lanes a weighted average
score of 1.7. Similarly, respondents commonly
cited lack of bicycle paths and routes as barriers to riding and rated these as very important factors in their
decision to ride, as well.
A second common theme is the behavior of motorists, which scored highly on respondents’ ranking of
conditions that influenced their decision to bicycle. Motorist behavior was specifically one of the most
common reasons that participants chose not to bike. Similarly, respondents also considered vehicle volumes
and speeds important factors in determining their decisions to ride.
Some of the conditions that respondents considered less important influences in their decisions to bicycle
relative to the other options were integration with transit (only 36% think it is important) and behavior of
other bicyclists (only 36% think it is important).
Table D-1, Table D 2, and Table D-3 display the full responses regarding barriers to riding.
Page 441 of 535
Appendices
388| Alta Planning + Design
Table D-1: Barriers to Commuting by Bicycle
If you ride for exercise/recreation, what prevents you from commuting by bike?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Lack of off-street bike paths 31.7% 57
Lack of on-street bike lanes 46.1% 83
Lack of bike routes 35.6% 64
Lack of bike parking or storage 22.2% 40
My work/school does not have showers 22.2% 40
I do not have enough time 25.6% 46
I live too far away 22.8% 41
I have too much stuff to carry 33.3% 60
I have to transport children 10.0% 18
Other (please specify) 78
answered question 180
skipped question 97
Table D-2: Barriers to Riding in the South Bay
What keeps you from riding more often in the South Bay? Check all that apply.
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Lack of bike paths 41.2% 107
Lack of bike lanes 52.7% 137
Lack of bike routes 40.8% 106
Insufficient bike parking or storage 25.4% 66
Insufficient lighting 11.2% 29
Vehicle volumes/speeds 41.2% 107
Behavior of motorists 46.5% 121
Behavior of other cyclists 7.3% 19
I do not feel safe 18.8% 49
I travel with small children 11.2% 29
I don't have enough time 24.6% 64
My destinations are too far away 15.0% 39
Health issues/concerns 1.9% 5
Weather 16.2% 42
answered question 260
skipped question 17
Page 442 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 389
Table D-3: Factors that Influence Decisions to Ride a Bicycle
Please rank to what degree the following conditions affect your decision to ride a bicycle:
Answer Options (1) Very
Important
(2)
Somewhat
important
(3)
Neutral
(4)
Somewhat
unimportant
(5) Not
Important
Weighted
Score
Presence of off-street bike
paths 95 84 41 19 19 2.2
Presence of on-street bike
lanes 143 80 16 7 12 1.7
Presence of bike routes 96 89 48 9 16 2.1
Condition of
bikeway/roadway (i.e.
pavement quality)
119 88 36 3 12 1.8
Traffic volumes/speeds 128 95 23 5 7 1.7
Behavior of motorists 140 77 30 3 8 1.7
Behavior of other cyclists 36 58 94 28 42 2.9
Amount of street lighting 33 76 80 40 29 2.8
Access to bike parking and
storage 43 91 66 34 24 2.6
Ability to combine bicycle
trips with transit trips 30 64 79 35 50 3.0
Travel time 55 92 68 17 26 2.5
Available
information/knowledge of
bike routes
41 91 77 22 27 2.6
Weather 73 86 55 25 19 2.3
answered question 258
skipped question 19
Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs
The survey invited participants to indicate where they would like to see new bicycle facilities and asked them
to rank their interest in a number of bicycle programs. 186 of the 279 respondents gave specific feedback on
where they would like to see bicycle facilities. The most popular programs were public awareness campaigns,
maps and guides, and bicycle information websites. Table D-4 displays the full responses on bicycle
programs.
Page 443 of 535
Appendices
390| Alta Planning + Design
Table D-4: Bicycle Program Interest
Please rate your interest in the following bicycle programs:
Answer Options (1) Not
interested
(2)
Somewhat
interested
(3) Very
interested
Weighted
Score
Riding skills and safety
courses for adults 123 89 46 1.7
Riding skills and safety
courses for children 102 69 87 1.9
Safe Routes to School
programs for children 75 68 115 2.2
Public awareness
campaigns 34 81 143 2.4
Special events 61 130 67 2.0
Maps and guides 42 102 114 2.3
Bicycle information
websites 29 114 115 2.3
Commuter incentive
programs 61 82 115 2.2
Information and maps
delivered to my home 97 107 54 1.8
Booths at public events 81 138 39 1.8
answered question 258
skipped question 19
Page 444 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 391
Appendix E: BTA Compliance Tables
Table E-1: El Segundo BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in
the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of
bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
49-54
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use
and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be
limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
41-42
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 46-47,
58-61
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
47-48,
63-65
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and
use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles
on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
47-48,
63-65
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
47-48,
63-65
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by
the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving
bicyclists.
48-49,
56-58,
303-314
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
49, 14-16,
449-450
Page 445 of 535
Appendices
392| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has
been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide
incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
44-45
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a
listing of their priorities for implementation. 66-67
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and
future financial needs for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
49, 66
Page 446 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 393
Table E-2: Gardena BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in
the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of
bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
83-89
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use
and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be
limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
77-79
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 80-82,
92-95
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
82, 96-98
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and
use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles
on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
82, 96-98
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
82, 96-98
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by
the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving
bicyclists.
83, 90-91,
303-314
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16, 83,
449-450
Page 447 of 535
Appendices
394| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has
been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide
incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38, 80
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a
listing of their priorities for implementation. 100-103
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and
future financial needs for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
83,
99-100
Page 448 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 395
Table E-3: Hermosa Beach BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in
the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of
bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
121-127
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use
and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be
limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
113-115
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 118-119,
10-134
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
119-120,
134-136
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and
use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles
on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
119-120,
134-136
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
119-120,
134-136
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by
the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving
bicyclists.
120,
128-129,
303-314
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
121,
449-450
Page 449 of 535
Appendices
396| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has
been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide
incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
116-117
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a
listing of their priorities for implementation. 138-140
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and
future financial needs for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
120,
137-138
Page 450 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 397
Table E-4: Lawndale BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in
the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of
bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
155-161
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use
and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be
limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
149-151
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 153-154,
164-167
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
153-155,
168-170
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and
use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles
on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
153-155,
168-170
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
153-155,
168-170
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by
the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving
bicyclists.
155,
162-164,
303-314
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
155,
449-450
Page 451 of 535
Appendices
398| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has
been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide
incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
152
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a
listing of their priorities for implementation. 171-173
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and
future financial needs for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
155,
170-171
Page 452 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 399
Table E-5: Manhattan Beach BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in
the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of
bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
189-195
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use
and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be
limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
181-183
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 185-186,
198-201
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
185-187,
202-204
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and
use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles
on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
185-187,
202-204
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
185-187,
202-204
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by
the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving
bicyclists.
187-188,
196-198,
303-314
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
188-189,
449-450
Page 453 of 535
Appendices
400| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has
been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide
incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
184-185
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a
listing of their priorities for implementation. 206-209
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and
future financial needs for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
188,
205-206
Page 454 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 401
Table E-6: Redondo Beach BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in
the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of
bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
229-235
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use
and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be
limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
219-220
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 224-226,
238-243
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
226-227,
244-247
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and
use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles
on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
226-227,
244-247
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
266-227,
244-247
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by
the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving
bicyclists.
227-228,
236-238,
303-314
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
229,
449-450
Page 455 of 535
Appendices
402| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has
been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide
incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
221-223
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a
listing of their priorities for implementation. 248-251
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and
future financial needs for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
228, 245-
248
Page 456 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 403
Table E-7: Torrance BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in
the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of
bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
270-275
b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use
and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be
limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
261-263
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 264-268,
279-283
d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-
trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not
be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, and major employment centers.
265-269,
285-287
e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle
transport and parking facilities for connections with and
use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but
not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles
on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
265-269,
285-287
f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities
for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and
shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
265-269,
285-287
g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs
conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by
the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving
bicyclists.
269,
277-279,
303-314
h) A description of the extent of citizen and community
involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
270,
449-450
Page 457 of 535
Appendices
404| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments
i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has
been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation
plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide
incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
264
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a
listing of their priorities for implementation. 290-293
k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and
future financial needs for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
270,
289-290
Page 458 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 405
Appendix F: Participating City Existing Bicycle Plan Maps
Page 459 of 535
Appendices
406| Alta Planning + Design
Page 460 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 407
Page 461 of 535
Appendices
408| Alta Planning + Design
Page 462 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 409
Page 463 of 535
Appendices
410| Alta Planning + Design
Page 464 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 411
Page 465 of 535
Appendices
412| Alta Planning + Design
Page 466 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 413
Appendix G: City Municipal Code Bicycle Parking Related Sections
City Municipal Code Section
El Segundo 15.15.5 (I) No bicycle spaces are required at single-family and two-family dwellings. Multi-family
residential establishments shall provide bicycle spaces that total to 10 percent of the required
vehicle parking spaces for projects with six or more units.
15.15.6 (B) Nonresidential uses are required to provide a minimum of four spaces for buildings up to
15,000 square feet plus a minimum of five percent of the required vehicle spaces for the portion
above 15,000 square feet and a maximum of 25 spaces.
15.16.3 (A) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more and all projects within the
Urban Mixed-Use Zone must provide bicycle route and facility information including regional/local
bicycle maps and bicycle safety information.
15.16.3 (B) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more must comply with subsection
A (provide bicycle route and facility information) and must provide bicycle racks or other secure
bicycle parking spaces. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker
accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement
weather. Specific facilities and location must be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building Safety. If nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more provide
shower and locker facilities for bicycle riders, the number of preferential parking spaces required
may be reduced by up to three percent and the total number of required spaces may be reduced
up to one percent.
Page 467 of 535
Appendices
414| Alta Planning + Design
City Municipal Code Section
Hermosa Beach 17.44. 210 Parking Plans – parking for development may be reduced based on a Parking Plan
approved by the planning commission based on various factors including bicycle and foot traffic.
17.38.550(I)(5) Specific Plan Area No. 11 zone - (encompasses parcels fronting Pier Avenue between
Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue excluding parcels fronting Hermosa Avenue). Secure bicycle
parking facilities shall be supplied at the rate of one space per seven employees or 3,000 square feet
of floor area. Bicycle facilities installed onsite shall not be placed within required pedestrian ways.
Where facilities cannot be accommodated onsite as determined by the community development
director or planning commission, the developer shall pay a commensurate fee adopted by the city
for the provision and installation of bicycle parking facilities along Pier Avenue in a manner
determined by the public works director. 'Secure' facilities means firmly attached devices in well-lit
locations, protected from rain if feasible.
17.48.030 Transportation demand and trip reduction measures
B(1) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide bicycle route and
facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps, bicycle safety information, and a listing
of facilities available for bicyclists at the site.
B(2) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsection B(1)
of this section and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to accommodate
four bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development and one bicycle per
each additional 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development. Calculations which result in a
fraction of 0.5 or higher shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking
facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of
the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g.,
provision of racks, lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the city.
B(3) Nonresidential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsections B(1)
and (2) of this section, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the external circulation
system to bicycle parking facilities onsite.
Page 468 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 415
City Municipal Code Section
Lawndale 17.56.120 C-3 unlimited commercial zone – Video arcades
B(4) Bicycle racks shall be provided within 25 feet of any game arcade and must provide a total of at
least two bicycle stalls for every four games located within the arcade. Bicycle racks shall not be
located in any required landscape areas, entrances, exits, walkways to buildings, driveways,
within any legally required parking space, public way, or in such a fashion as to obstruct any
entrance or exit to any premises.
17.92.030 Transportation demand and trip reduction measures
B(1) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide bicycle route and
facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information, and a
list of existing of facilities available bicyclists at the site.
C(3) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsection (B) of
this section and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to accommodate four
bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development and one bicycle per each
additional 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development. A bicycle parking facility may also
be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which
protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g., provision of racks,
lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the City.
D Nonresidential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsections (B)
and (C) of this section, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the external circulation
system to bicycle parking facilities onsite.
Manhattan
Beach
10.64.080 Bicycle Parking
A. Where Required - Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided as required by this section; the
provisions of Section 10.64.020 shall apply.
B. Number Required.
1. Public and Semipublic Use Classifications: as specified by use permit.
2. Commercial Use Classifications: Five percent of the requirement for automobile parking spaces,
except for the following classifications, which are exempt:
a. Ambulance Services;
b. Animal Boarding;
c .Animal Grooming;
d. Catering Services;
e. Commercial Filming;
f. Horticulture, Limited;
g. Funeral and Interment Services;
h. Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Services (all classifications).
3. Industrial Use Classification. None.
C. Design Requirements. For each bicycle parking space required, a stationary object shall be
provided to which a user can secure both wheels and the frame of a bicycle with a user-provided
six-foot (6′) cable and lock. The stationary object may be either a freestanding bicycle rack or a
wall-mounted bracket.
Page 469 of 535
Appendices
416| Alta Planning + Design
City Municipal Code Section
Redondo Beach 10-2.2406 Development standards
(a) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide bicycle route and
facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information, and a
list of existing of facilities available bicyclists at the site.
(b) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsection (a) of
this section and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to accommodate four
bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development and one bicycle per each
additional 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development. A bicycle parking facility may also
be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which
protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g., provision of racks,
lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the City.
(c) Nonresidential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsections (a)
and (b) of this section, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the external circulation
system to bicycle parking facilities onsite.
Torrance 910.3.2 Development Standards
a) Nonresidential development twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet or more shall provide the
following:
1)D) A bulletin board, display case or kiosk displaying transportation information located where
the greatest number of employees are likely to see it. Information on the board, case or kiosk
shall include, but is not limited to bicycle route and facility information, including
regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information.
1)E) A listing of facilities available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders and
pedestrians at the site.
b) 3) Nonresidential development of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet or more shall comply with
subsection a) above and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to
accommodate four (4) bicycles for the first fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of nonresidential
development and one (1) bicycle rack for each additional fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of
nonresidential development. Calculations which result in a fraction of 0.5 or higher shall be
rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed
space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike
from inclement weather.
c)4) Nonresidential development of one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet or more shall
comply with subsections a) and b) above, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the
external circulation system to onsite bicycle parking facilities.
Page 470 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 417
Appendix H: Bicycle Count Data
Table H-1: South Bay Bicycle Counts Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Count Location
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
El Segundo
Center St / Mariposa Ave 17 0 2 9 10 3 19
Douglas St / Green Line Station
(near Park Place)
49 7 1 32 20 2 57
El Segundo Blvd/ Nash St (Green
Line Station)
34 2 2 23 9 4 38
El Segundo Blvd /
Sepulveda Blvd
32 1 1 25 26 0 34
Main St / Grand Ave 37 7 2 34 17 0 46
Main St / Imperial Highway 25 1 1 13 3 2 27
Mariposa Ave / Nash St (Green
Line Station)
54 1 0 38 24 2 55
Rosecrans Ave / Aviation 48 2 0 37 42 0 50
Rosecrans Ave / Sepulveda Blvd 20 1 0 21 14 0 21
Gardena
Crenshaw Blvd / Manhattan
Beach Blvd
90 14 2 97 85 1 106
Normandie Ave / Gardena Blvd 49 2 0 49 46 0 51
Redondo Beach Blvd / Crenshaw
Blvd
53 12 1 62 51 25 66
Normandie Ave / 182nd St 26 1 0 22 20 0 27
Hermosa Beach
Valley Dr / 8th St 31 7 2 24 8 2 40
Hermosa Ave / 8th St 122 30 0 93 8 0 152
Hermosa Ave / 24th St 103 14 2 43 7 4 119
Monterey Ave / Pier Ave 97 21 6 109 33 22 124
Pacific Coast Highway / Pier Ave 28 4 0 29 28 4 32*
Valley Dr / 21st St 8 2 15 6 16 16 25
Lawndale
Grevillea Ave / 163rd St 13 1 1 5 0 0 15
Manhattan Beach
Blvd/Inglewood Ave
72 8 0 74 70 1 80
Marine Ave/Hawthorne Blvd 119 4 11 127 110 0 134
Marine Ave / Inglewood Ave 89 8 7 96 95 0 104
Rosecrans Ave / Prairie Ave 93 7 0 96 83 0 100
Page 471 of 535
Appendices
418| Alta Planning + Design
Count Location
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
Manhattan Beach
Artesia Blvd / Peck Ave 10 3 0 8 1 0 13
Highland Ave / Rosecrans Ave 18 2 0 12 5 0 20
Manhattan Beach Blvd / Redondo
Ave
34 3 18 18 30 0 55
Manhattan Beach Blvd /
Manhattan Ave
58 15 2 50 3 4 75
Marine Ave / Redondo Ave 28 2 0 18 11 1 30
Valley Dr / Pacific Ave 22 4 3 15 1 1 29
Redondo Beach
Harbor Dr / Beryl St 380 114 5 343 28 4 499
Prospect Ave / Torrance Blvd 67 8 11 44 41 1 86
Redondo Beach Ave / Manhattan
Beach Blvd
47 4 4 27 12 2 55
Torrance
190th St / Anza 54 6 0 37 33 0 60
Torrance Blvd / Madrona Ave 43 3 6 27 30 0 52
Pacific Coast Highway / Calle
Mayor
43 1 0 16 25 1 44
*The counts at this location were from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Page 472 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 419
Table H-2: South Bay Bicycle Counts Saturday, November 6, 2010 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Count Locations
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
El Segundo
Center St / Mariposa Ave 3 0 1 3 3 0 4
El Segundo Blvd/ Nash St
(Green Line Station)
12 2 0 10 9 10 14
El Segundo Blvd /
Sepulveda Blvd
7 0 2 8 7 0 9
Main St / Grand Ave 51 10 4 40 21 2 65
Main St / Imperial Highway 30 1 0 7 0 1 31
Mariposa Ave / Nash St (Green
Line Station)
17 0 0 10 8 3 17
Rosecrans Ave / Aviation 30 2 0 24 20 8 32
Rosecrans Ave / Sepulveda Blvd 19 9 0 7 1 1 28
Douglas St / Green Line Station
(near Park Place)
20 1 0 12 2 0 21
Gardena
Normandie Ave / Gardena Blvd 33 6 5 40 36 1 44
Redondo Beach Blvd / Arcturus
Ave
38 3 2 39 11 5 43
Redondo Beach Blvd /
Crenshaw Blvd
53 3 0 49 38 2 56
Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Ave / 8th St 294 87 4 130 13 1 385
Hermosa Ave / 24th St 584 280 58 619 0 0 922
Monterey Ave / Pier Ave 40 15 4 40 12 1 59
Pacific Coast Highway / Pier Ave 57 12 8 50 57 0 77
Valley Dr / 8th St 59 20 4 41 10 1 83
Valley Dr / 21st St 5 1 1 2 0 0 7
Prospect Ave / 18th St 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lawndale
Manhattan Beach
Blvd/Inglewood Ave
39 8 0 37 30 0 47
Marine Ave/Hawthorne Blvd 70 4 12 84 65 31 86
Manhattan Beach
Artesia Blvd / Peck Ave 11 6 0 10 4 0 17
Highland Ave / Rosecrans Ave 111 26 0 21 6 0 137
Manhattan Beach Blvd /
Redondo Ave
31 5 0 19 11 0 36
Page 473 of 535
Appendices
420| Alta Planning + Design
Count Locations
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
Manhattan Beach Blvd /
Manhattan Ave
149 45 29 107 54 8 223
Manhattan Beach Blvd / The
Strand
433 124 32 335 10 38 589
Valley Dr / Pacific Ave 19 5 3 15 2 0 27
Marine Ave / Redondo Ave 18 3 2 13 6 0 23
Redondo Beach
Esplanade / Avenue C 249 76 0 67 12 8 325
Herondo Street / The Strand 461 236 35 528 0 0 732
Marvin Braude Bikeway (The
Strand) / Ave. F
310 126 24 277 0 0 460
Prospect / Torrance 92 16 6 47 32 14 114
Redondo Beach Ave /
Manhattan Beach Blvd
30 7 1 27 18 1 38
Torrance
190th St / Anza 32 7 14 33 26 14 53
Palos Verdes Blvd / Catalina Ave 58 14 10 31 14 6 82
Sepulveda Blvd / Crenshaw
Blvd
35 6 4 29 40 0 45
Page 474 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 421
Appendix I: Opportunities and Constraints
There are several opportunities and constraints in implementing bicycle facilities in the South Bay Region.
Opportunities and constraints for new bicycle facilities are discussed below. They are also shown on the map
following the table below.
ID Number Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities
1 Proposed Class I on Harbor Drive: See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
2 Proposed Class II on Catalina: See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
3 Proposed Bike Friendly Street on Prospect Avenue in Hermosa Beach: See Vitality City’s Livability
Plan for further detail.
4 Proposed Class II on Aviation Blvd in Hermosa Beach: Hermosa Beach’s section of Aviation Blvd is
particularly rich with retail and commercial uses. Bike facilities could greatly improve the area’s
visibility and access. See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
5 Proposed Class II on Aviation Blvd in Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach: This major
thoroughfare provides significant connectivity between residences and major employment centers
and thus will encourage increased bike commuting to these destinations. See Vitality City’s
Livability Plan for further detail.
6 Proposed Class III on Valley/Ardmore in Hermosa Beach: While this plan recommends a Class III
route, the Vitality City Livability Plan recommends additional options. See the Vitality City Livability
Plan for further detail and opportunities.
7 Proposed Class III on Valley/Ardmore in Manhattan Beach: While this plan recommends a Class III
route, the Vitality City Livability Plan recommends additional options. See the Vitality City Livability
Plan for further detail and opportunities.
8 Crenshaw Boulevard in Torrance: While it is not feasible to propose bicycle lanes on Crenshaw
Boulevard at the time of this Plan, there may be opportunity in the future if the street undergoes
reconstruction or other changes that would provide adequate space. There may also be opportunity
to proposed parallel facilities as Crenshaw Boulevard is an important regional connection.
9 Hawthorne Boulevard in Torrance: While it is not feasible to propose bicycle lanes on Hawthorne
Boulevard at the time of this Plan, there may be opportunity in the future if the street undergoes
reconstruction or other changes that would provide adequate space. There may also be opportunity
to propose parallel facilities as Hawthorne Boulevard is an important regional connection.
Constraints
1 “The Wall” on the Strand at Hermosa Beach / Redondo Beach: This wall severs the Marvin Braude
Bikeway at the Hermosa Beach-Redondo Beach border. South-bound bicyclists are forced to make a
sharp 90-degree and are led out to the bike lanes on Harbor Drive. This plan recommends the
removal of the wall and that parking lot 13 in Redondo Beach be partially utilized to accommodate
a short extension of the Class I facility that will lead to Harbor Drive in a safer and more navigable
way.
2 The stairs on the Strand between Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach: This constraint is also
Page 475 of 535
Appendices
422| Alta Planning + Design
noted as being outside this plan’s jurisdiction because those stairs (along with the rest of the Strand
with the exception of Hermosa Beach) are operated by the State and maintained by the County of
Los Angeles. However, this plan urges the cities to remedy the disruption caused by the stairs. This
remedy could come in several forms ranging from a bike-friendly ramp that connects the two
sections of the Strand to signage that warns cyclists of the disruption and safely guides them to
facilities along Hermosa Ave.
3 Proposed Class I in El Segundo east of the waste processing plant: This facility would require the City
to gain approval from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as this land is LADWP
right-of-way. The facility would run underneath the right of way of high-tension power lines. An
example of such a facility can be seen in Redondo Beach along the North Redondo Beach Bikeway.
4 Proposed Class I in El Segundo between Walnut and Holly: This facility would require the City to
gain approval from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as this land is LADWP
right-of-way. The facility would run underneath the right of way of high-tension power lines. An
example of such a facility can be seen in Redondo Beach along the North Redondo Beach Bikeway.
5 Proposed Class II along Hawthorne Blvd in Lawndale: This facility poses some unique constraints in
terms of space availability. This is a busy thoroughfare that is dense with commercial and retail
uses. This Plan recommends the consideration of a Class II facility along Hawthorne Blvd to the
extent feasible. One option to consider would be to utilize the necessary space along the center
parking landscaped median rather than removing on street parking or travel lanes.
6 Proposed Class II on Artesia Blvd in Redondo Beach: Artesia Blvd between Aviation Blvd and the
city’s eastern boundary has undergone an extensive streetscape improvement in recent history.
These improvements included an extensively landscaped center median and bulb-outs. As such,
this facility is one that can be considered in any future streetscape improvements that might be
implemented along Artesia in the years to come.
7 Proposed Class II along Redondo Beach Boulevard from Hawthorne Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard
in Lawndale/Redondo Beach: This segment experiences high vehicular traffic volumes due to the
South Bay Galleria, which creates a challenging environment for bicyclists. Upon plan
implementation, Lawndale and Redondo Beach should work together to design a facility that
provides safety for bicyclists.
Page 476 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 423
Page 477 of 535
Appendices
424| Alta Planning + Design
Appendix J: Recommended Bicycle Parking Standards
Short-term Bicycle Parking
Short –term bicycle parking comes in the form of bicycle racks that are meant for storing bicycles up to two
hours. Bicycle rack designs should include racks that provide two points of contact with the bicycle so that it
can be locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a high degree of security
and support for the bicycle. Recommended bicycle rack types include the inverted U rack (commonly known
as the U rack), flat top rack, post and ring rack, and custom racks that provide the security mentioned above.
Inverted U Flat Top Circular (Horseshoe) Custom
Long-term Bicycle Parking
Commuters and other bicyclists that plan to stay at their destinations more than two hours require more
secure bicycle parking. Long-term bicycle parking should be in the form of:
Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles;
Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or
Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.
Bicycle lockers can hold up to two bicycles and come in a variety of materials, such as metal and polyethylene.
Metal Metal Triangular Polyethylene
High Volume Bicycle Parking
Where bicycle parking demand is high, more formal structures and larger facilities should be provided.
Several options for high-volume bicycle parking are outlined below.
Page 478 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 425
Bike station in Long Beach, California
On-Street Bike Parking Corral
A relatively inexpensive solution to providing high-volume
bicycle parking is to convert one or two on-street motor
vehicle parking spaces into on-street bicycle parking. Bike
racks are installed in the street and protected from motor
vehicles with removable curbs and bollards. These facilities
move bicycles off the sidewalks, and leave space for sidewalk
café tables or pedestrians. Bicycle parking does not block
sightlines like motor vehicles do, so it may be possible to
locate bicycle parking in no-parking zones near intersections
and crosswalks.
Bike Oasis
Bike Oases are installed on curb extensions and consist of attractive
covered bike parking and an information panel. Portland’s Bike Oases,
for example, provide parking space for ten bikes. Bike and walking maps
are installed on the information panel.
Bike Station
Bike Stations serve as one-stop bicycle service centers for bicycle
commuters. They include 24-hour secure bicycle parking and may
provide additional amenities such as a store to purchase items (helmets,
raingear, tubes, patch kits, bike lights, and locks), bicycle repair facilities,
showers and changing facilities, bicycle rentals, and information about
biking. Some Bike Stations provide free bike parking, while others
charge a fee or require membership.
Bike Stations have been installed in several cities in California, including
Long Beach, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Berkeley, as well as in
Chicago, and Seattle.
The following amenities should be considered for the Bike
Station:
Attended bicycle parking
Bicycle rental establishment
Accessory shop
Bicycle repair shop
Changing rooms
Shower and locker facilities
Bicycle Parking Styles Not Recommended
Bicycle rack styles are not recommended if they do not provide two points of contact with the bicycle so that
it can be locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. Examples of rack styles not
Bike parkingcCorral in Portland, Oregon
Bike oasis parking area in Portland,
Oregon
Page 479 of 535
Appendices
426| Alta Planning + Design
recommended include wheel bender and wave racks. Because both types of racks do not provided two points
of contact, parked bicycles are not supported and can fall, which can potentially cause damage to the bicycle.
Without two points of contact there are fewer places to lock the bicycle, which reduces the amount of
security the racks provide. Wave racks in particular are also not recommended because the lack of two points
of contact cause bicycles to tip over and reduce the capacity of the racks.
Wheel Bender Racks Wave Racks
Page 480 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 427
Appendix K: Prioritization Methodology
Each criterion contains information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or future need in the
participating South Bay city. The resulting project ranking determines each project’s relative importance in
funding and scheduled construction.
Prioritization Criteria
The following criteria are used to evaluate each proposed bicycle facility, its ability to address demand and
deficiencies in the existing bicycle network., and its ease of implementation The criteria is organized into
“utility” and “implementation” prioritization factors.
Utility Prioritization Factors
Utility criteria include conditions of bicycle facilities that enhance the bicycle network. Each criterion is
discussed below.
Gap Closure
Gaps in the bicycle network come in a variety of forms, ranging from a “missing link” on a roadway to larger
geographic areas without bicycle facilities. Gaps in the bikeway network discourage bicycle use because they
limit access to key destinations and land uses. Facilities that fill a gap in the existing and proposed bicycle
network are of high priority.
Connectivity to Existing Facilities
Proposed bikeways that connect to existing bicycle facilities in the participating South Bay city and to the
greater South Bay network increase the convenience of bicycle commuting. Proposed facilities that fit this
criterion are of high importance to the participating South Bay city.
Connectivity to Regional Proposed Facilities
Proposed bikeways in Los Angeles County will eventually become existing bicycle facilities and thus facilities
that link to them will enhance future connectivity. This will continue to enhance bicycle travel in the
participating South Bay city.
Connectivity to Activity Centers
Activity centers include major commuter destinations, such as commercial and employment centers and
downtowns. These locations generate many trips which could be made by bicycle if the proper facilities were
available. Bicycle facilities on roadways that connect to activity centers are of priority to the participating
South Bay city.
Connectivity to Multi-Modal Transportation Centers
Bicycle facilities that link to modes of public transportation increase the geographical distance that bicyclists
are able to travel. Proposed bicycle facilities that connect to transit stops and centers, and park-and-ride lots
improve bicyclist mobility and are therefore key pieces of the bicycle network.
Page 481 of 535
Appendices
428| Alta Planning + Design
Safety
Bicycle facilities have the potential to increase safety by reducing the potential conflicts between bicyclists
and motorists, which often result in collisions. Proposed facilities that are located on roadways with past
bicycle-automobile collisions are important to the City.
Public Input
The participating South Bay city solicited public input through community workshops and an online survey.
Facilities that community members identified as desirable for future bicycle facilities are of priority to the
network because they address the needs of the public.
Underserved Communities
Low-income households often cannot afford to own a vehicle. Providing bicycle facilities to areas that may be
dependent on the bicycle as a form of transportation is important to the participating South Bay city.
Implementation Prioritization Factors
Implementation criteria address the ease of implementing each proposed project. Each criterion is discussed
below.
Project Cost
Projects that are less expensive do not require as much funding as other projects and are therefore easier to
implement. Projects that cost less are of higher priority to the participating South Bay city.
Parking Displacement
In order to fit bicycle facilities in the existing right-of-way, on-street parking must be removed on some
streets. Because this is not desirable, those projects that do not require parking displacement are of
importance to the City.
Project Ranking
Table K-1 shows how the criteria described in the previous section translate into weights for project
prioritization and ranking. Weights are based on direct, secondary, or no service at all. Direct service means
that a facility intersects with a facility/destination, whereas secondary access occurs when the primary facility
runs in close proximity to an existing facility/destination.
Page 482 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 429
Table K-1: Proposed Facility Weight and Scoring
Criteria Score Multiplier Total Description
Utility Prioritization Factors
Gap Closure
2 3 6 Fills a network gap between two existing facilities
1 3 3 Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a proposed facility
0 3 0 Does not directly or indirectly fill a network gap
Connectivity:
Existing
2 3 6 Provides direct access to an existing bicycle facility
1 3 3 Provides secondary connectivity to an existing bicycle facility
0 3 0 Does not directly or indirectly access an existing bicycle facility
Connectivity:
Regional
Proposed
2 1 2 Provides direct access to a regional proposed bicycle facility
1 1 1 Provides secondary connectivity to a regional proposed bicycle facility
0 1 0 Does not directly or indirectly access a regional proposed bicycle facility
Connectivity:
Activity
Centers
2 2 4 Provides direct access to a major trip-generating destination
1 2 2 Provides secondary connectivity to a major trip-generating destination
0 2 0 Does not directly or indirectly access an Activity Center
Connectivity:
Multi-Modal
2 2 4 Provides direct access to a multi-modal transportation center
1 2 2 Provides secondary connectivity to a multi-modal transportation center
0 2 0 Does not directly or indirectly access a multi-modal transportation center
Safety
2 1 2 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 3 or more bicycle collisions
between 2007-2009
1 1 1 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 1-2 bicycle collisions
between 2007-2009
0 1 0 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that did not experience any bicycle collisions
between 2007-2009
Public Input
2 1 2 Roadway was identified by the public as a desirable for a future facility multiple times
1 1 1 Roadway was identified by the public as desirable for a future facility once
0 1 0 Roadway was not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility
Underserved
Communities
2 1 2 Serves census tract areas in which over 10.1 percent of households do not own a
vehicle
1 1 1 Serves census tract areas in which 3.1 to 10 percent of households do not own a
vehicle
0 1 0 Serves census tract areas in which 3 percent or less of households do not own a
vehicle
Implementation Prioritization Factors
Project Cost 2 1 2 Will cost less than $25,000 to implement
Page 483 of 535
Appendices
430| Alta Planning + Design
Criteria Score Multiplier Total Description
1 1 1 Will cost between $25,001 and $75,000 to implement
0 1 0 Will cost over $75,000 to implement
Parking
Displacement
2 1 2 Does not require any parking removal
1 1 1 Requires removal of some on-street parking stalls
0 1 0 Requires removal of all on-street parking stalls
Page 484 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Alta Planning + Design | 431 Appendix L: Proposed Kiosk and Signage Routes Page 485 of 535
Appendices
432 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 486 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 433
Page 487 of 535
Appendices
434 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 488 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 435
Page 489 of 535
Appendices
436 | Alta Planning + Design
Page 490 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 437
Page 491 of 535
Appendices
438 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 492 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 439
Page 493 of 535
Appendices 440 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank Page 494 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 441
Appendix M: Glossary of Terms
Word Definition
Assembly Bill 1358
California Assembly Bill 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008, amended
the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or
county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway
users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks,
crosswalks, and curb extensions.. See section 2.2.2.1 of this plan for more information.
Mobility Coordinator
A part- or full-time employee dedicated to the implementation of alternative
transportation, which can include bicycle program administration. As related to bicycles, a
mobility coordinator tracks, coordinates and oversees implementation of bike facilities,
programs, grant applications and data collection.
Bicycle Facility A street or off-road path designed for bicycle travel
Bike Path A completely separated, paved right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles
and pedestrians
Bike Lane A restricted right-of-way striped on a street and designated for the exclusive use of
bicycles, with crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted
Bike Route An on-street right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings to be shared
between bicyclists and motorists
Bicycle
Transportation
Account (BTA)
An annual program of the State of California providing state funds for city and county
projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. To establish eligibility
for these funds, local agencies must have a Bicycle Transportation Plan that complies with
CalTrans requirements in CA Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. This plan complies
with BTA requirements.
Class I, II, and III
Bikeways
State of California definitions for Bicycle Paths, Bicycle Lanes, and Bicycle Routes,
respectively, in the California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. For additional
detail see Section 1.3 of this plan.
Complete Streets
Complete streets refers to the principle that all transportation improvements should
address the safety, access, and mobility of all travelers, including motorists, bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit riders, and the disabled. CalTrans Deputy Directive 64 formally states
that Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve
conditions for all users, and adopts such a policy for all planning, programming, design,
construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State Highway
System.
Bike Friendly Street Local roads that have been enhanced with treatments that prioritize bicycle travel. These
treatments include wayfinding signage, pavement markings and traffic calming
Bike Station
Modeled after the secure indoor bicycle parking facilities provided by the private firm
BikeStation, these are locations that provide bicycle storage and other amenities such as
showers and bicycle repair stations. They are often located near transit stations.
Bike Valet The provision of monitored bicycle parking, typically at a large event
Page 495 of 535
Appendices
442 | Alta Planning + Design
Word Definition
Sharrows
Pavement markings denoting the safe and legal riding position for bicyclists. The name
“sharrows” derives from “shared-use arrows.” Among other things, sharrows clarify
bicyclists’ right to occupy the center of a travel lane, and encourage bicyclists to ride away
from parked cars, so that they are not in danger of being struck by opening doors.
Page 496 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 443
Appendix N: Complete Streets Policy Language
Assembly Bill 1358
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008, amended the California
Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include
provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations
include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions.. See section 2.2.2.1 of this plan for more
information. Below is the language from the bill as a reference for the participating South Bay cities when
implementing related policies presented in this Plan.
AB 1358, Leno. Planning: circulation element: transportation.
(1) Existing law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term
general plan for the physical development of the county or city with specified elements, including a circulation
element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities,
all correlated with the land use element of the plan. This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2011, that
the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general
plan, modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the
needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in
a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. By requiring new duties
of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law establishes in the Office of the Governor the Office of Planning and Research with duties that
include developing and adopting guidelines for the preparation of and content of mandatory elements
required in city and county general plans. This bill would require the office, commencing January 1, 2009, and
no later than January 1, 2014, upon the next revision of these guidelines, to prepare or amend guidelines for a
legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a
manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, and in doing so to consider
how appropriate accommodation varies depending on its transportation and land use context. It would
authorize the office, in developing these guidelines, to consult with leading transportation experts, including,
but not limited to, bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local
air quality management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain
costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This
bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) The California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, enacted as Chapter 488 of the Statutes of 2006, sets targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in California to slow the onset of human-induced climate change. (b) The State Energy Resources
Page 497 of 535
Appendices
444 | Alta Planning + Design
Conservation and Development Commission has determined that transportation represents 41 percent of total
greenhouse gas emissions in California. (c) According to the United States Department of Transportation's
2001 National Household Travel Survey, 41 percent of trips in urban areas nationwide are two miles or less in
length, and 66 percent of urban trips that are one mile or less are made by automobile. (d) Shifting the
transportation mode share from single passenger cars to public transit, bicycling, and walking must be a
significant part of short- and long-term planning goals if the state is to achieve the reduction in the number of
vehicle miles traveled and in greenhouse gas emissions required by current law. (e) Walking and bicycling
provide the additional benefits of improving public health and reducing treatment costs for conditions
associated with reduced physical activity including obesity, heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes. Medical
costs associated with physical inactivity were estimated by the State Department of Health Care Services to
be $28 billion in 2005. (f) The California Blueprint for Bicycling and Walking, prepared pursuant to the
Supplemental Report of the Budget Act of 2001, sets the goal of a 50 percent increase in bicycling and walking
trips in California by 2010, and states that to achieve this goal, bicycling and walking must be considered in
land use and community planning, and in all phases of transportation planning and project design. (g) In order
to fulfill the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make the most efficient use of urban land and
transportation infrastructure, and improve public health by encouraging physical activity, transportation
planners must find innovative ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to shift from short trips in the
automobile to biking, walking, and use of public transit. (h) It is the intent of the Legislature to require in the
development of the circulation element of a local government's general plan that the circulation of users of
streets, roads, and highways be accommodated in a manner suitable for the respective setting in rural,
suburban, and urban contexts, and that users of streets, roads, and highways include bicyclists, children,
persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and
seniors.
SEC. 3. Section 65040.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65040.2. (a) In connection with its
responsibilities under subdivision (l) of Section 65040, the office shall develop and adopt guidelines for the
preparation of and the content of the mandatory elements required in city and county general plans by Article
5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3. For purposes of this section, the guidelines prepared
pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code shall be the guidelines for the housing element
required by Section 65302. In the event that additional elements are hereafter required in city and county
general plans by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3, the office shall adopt guidelines for
those elements within six months of the effective date of the legislation requiring those additional elements.
(b) The office may request from each state department and agency, as it deems appropriate, and the
department or agency shall provide, technical assistance in readopting, amending, or repealing the guidelines.
(c) The guidelines shall be advisory to each city and county in order to provide assistance in preparing and
maintaining their respective general plans. (d) The guidelines shall contain the guidelines for addressing
environmental justice matters developed pursuant to Section 65040.12. (e) The guidelines shall contain advice
including recommendations for best practices to allow for collaborative land use planning of adjacent civilian
and military lands and facilities. The guidelines shall encourage enhanced land use compatibility between
civilian lands and any adjacent or nearby military facilities through the examination of potential impacts upon
one another. (f) The guidelines shall contain advice for addressing the effects of civilian development on
military readiness activities carried out on all of the following: (1) Military installations. (2) Military operating
areas. (3) Military training areas. (4) Military training routes. (5) Military airspace. (6) Other territory
Page 498 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 445
adjacent to those installations and areas. (g) By March 1, 2005, the guidelines shall contain advice, developed
in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, for consulting with California Native
American tribes for all of the following: (1) The preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, places,
features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code. (2) Procedures
for identifying through the Native American Heritage Commission the appropriate California Native
American tribes. (3) Procedures for continuing to protect the confidentiality of information concerning the
specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects. (4) Procedures to facilitate
voluntary landowner participation to preserve and protect the specific identity, location, character, and use of
those places, features, and objects. (h) Commencing January 1, 2009, but no later than January 1, 2014, upon
the next revision of the guidelines pursuant to subdivision (i), the office shall prepare or amend guidelines for
a legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a
manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, pursuant to subdivision
(b) of Section 65302. (1) In developing guidelines, the office shall consider how appropriate accommodation
varies depending on its transportation and land use context, including urban, suburban, or rural
environments. (2) The office may consult with leading transportation experts including, but not limited to,
bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local air quality
management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners. (i) The office shall provide for regular
review and revision of the guidelines established pursuant to this section.
SEC. 4. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65302. The general plan shall consist of a
statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives,
principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements: (a) A land use
element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the
land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and
enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities,
and other categories of public and private uses of land. The location and designation of the extent of the uses
of the land for public and private uses shall consider the identification of land and natural resources pursuant
to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of
population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered
by the plan. The land use element shall identify and annually review those areas covered by the plan that are
subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. The land use element shall also do both of the following: (1)
Designate in a land use category that provides for timber production those parcels of real property zoned for
timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (Chapter 6.7
(commencing with Section 51100) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5). (2) Consider the impact of new growth on
military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when
proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory
adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. (A) In
determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military
facilities shall be considered. Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the
military and other sources. (B) The following definitions govern this paragraph: (i) "Military readiness
activities" mean all of the following: (I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of
the military for combat. (II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of
Page 499 of 535
Appendices
446 | Alta Planning + Design
military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability for combat use. (ii)
"Military installation" means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other
activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in paragraph (1) of
subsection (e) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code. (b) (1) A circulation element consisting of
the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes,
terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the
land use element of the plan. (2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the
circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe
and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads, and highways" means bicyclists, children, persons
with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and
seniors. (c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580). (d) (1) A
conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water
and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other
natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction,
as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military
installations. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination
with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies, including flood management, water
conservation, or groundwater agencies that have developed, served, controlled, managed, or conserved water
of any type for any purpose in the county or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include the
discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5, if that
information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or county. (2) The conservation element may
also cover all of the following: (A) The reclamation of land and waters. (B) Prevention and control of the
pollution of streams and other waters. (C) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas
required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. (D) Prevention, control, and correction of the
erosion of soils, beaches, and shores. (E) Protection of watersheds. (F) The location, quantity and quality of
the rock, sand and gravel resources. (3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1,
2009, the conservation element shall identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and
land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management.
(e) An open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560). (f) (1) A noise
element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize
the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent
practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following
sources: (A) Highways and freeways. (B) Primary arterials and major local streets. (C) Passenger and freight
on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems. (D) Commercial, general aviation, heliport,
helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground
facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. (E) Local industrial plants, including, but
not limited to, railroad classification yards. (F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not
limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise
environment. (2) Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community
noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the
basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources
Page 500 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 447
identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. (3) The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a
pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive
noise. (4) The noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address
existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for
compliance with the state's noise insulation standards. (g) (1) A safety element for the protection of the
community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture,
ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and
landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8
(commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards
known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include
mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military
installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around
structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. (2) The safety element, upon the next
revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, shall also do the following: (A) Identify
information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Flood hazard zones. As
used in this subdivision, "flood hazard zone" means an area subject to flooding that is delineated as either a
special hazard area or an area of moderate or minimal hazard on an official flood insurance rate map issued by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The identification of a flood hazard zone does not imply that
areas outside the flood hazard zones or uses permitted within flood hazard zones will be free from flooding or
flood damage. (ii) National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA. (iii) Information about flood
hazards that is available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (iv) Designated floodway maps that
are available from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. (v) Dam failure inundation maps prepared
pursuant to Section 8589.5 that are available from the Office of Emergency Services. (vi) Awareness
Floodplain Mapping Program maps and 200-year flood plain maps that are or may be available from, or
accepted by, the Department of Water Resources. (vii) Maps of levee protection zones. (viii) Areas subject to
inundation in the event of the failure of project or nonproject levees or floodwalls. (ix) Historical data on
flooding, including locally prepared maps of areas that are subject to flooding, areas that are vulnerable to
flooding after wildfires, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding. (x) Existing and planned
development in flood hazard zones, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. (xi)
Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for flood protection, including special districts and local
offices of emergency services. (B) Establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives based on the
information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A), for the protection of the community from the
unreasonable risks of flooding, including, but not limited to: (i) Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding
to new development. (ii) Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and
identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new development is located in
flood hazard zones. (iii) Maintaining the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities
during flooding. (iv) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones,
including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers,
and emergency communications facilities or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize
damage if these facilities are located in flood hazard zones. (v) Establishing cooperative working relationships
among public agencies with responsibility for flood protection. (C) Establish a set of feasible implementation
measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives established pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(3) After the initial revision of the safety element pursuant to paragraph (2), upon each revision of the housing
Page 501 of 535
Appendices
448 | Alta Planning + Design
element, the planning agency shall review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new
information that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. (4) Cities and counties
that have flood plain management ordinances that have been approved by FEMA that substantially comply
with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may
use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and
incorporate by reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions or the flood plain ordinance,
specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met. (5) Prior to the periodic review
of its general plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the
California Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, if
the city or county is located within the boundaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, as set
forth in Section 8501 of the Water Code, and the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including
information known by and available to the department, the office, and the board required by this subdivision.
(6) To the extent that a county's safety element is sufficiently detailed and contains appropriate policies and
programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county's safety element that pertains to
the city's planning area in satisfaction of the requirement imposed by this subdivision.
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or
assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of
Section 17556 of the Government Code.
Complete Streets Policy Elements
According to the National Coalition for Complete Streets (http://www.completestreets.org/changing-
policy/policy-elements/), an ideal complete streets policy:
Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets
Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities,
as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations,
for the entire right of way.
Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of
exceptions.
Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network
for all modes.
Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.
Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for
flexibility in balancing user needs.
Directs that complete streets solutions will complement the context of the community.
Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.
Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy
Page 502 of 535
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 449
Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments Received
During the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan’s public review period from June 13-July 13, 2011, the South Bay
Bicycle Coalition received 105 comments from the public. 25 of the commenters were in full support of the
Plan. Four were generally against the Plan for various reasons, including bicyclists’ disobedience of traffic
laws, the high cost of Plan implementation in a recession, and the Plan not being representative of the general
public.
The majority of the remaining comments were critiques of specific proposals within the Plan rather than
statements of general support or opposition. Alta Planning + Design, the Los Angeles County Bicycle
Coalition, and the South Bay Bicycle Coalition addressed critiques to the Plan through revisions to the
proposed bicycle network and policies as appropriate and feasible. Below is a summary of the comments
received from the public. A complete list of comments can be found at www.SouthBayBicycleCoalition.org.
General Comments
Many of the public comments received were general in nature and included requests for additional bicycle
resources, improved bicycle safety, increased or decreased signage, changes to City municipal codes, and
additional information regarding laws pertaining to sidewalk riding. There was also desire for stronger policy
language and increased policies in order drive accountability of plan implementation for participating South
Bay cities. Other comments about implementation included the suggestion that the cities focus first on high
priority projects, that bikeway installation be coordinated with City resurfacing schedules, and that
participating cities should work together after Plan adoption, as well as with the cities of Hawthorne and Los
Angeles.
Specific Comments
Many of the comments received from the public were either in support of or opposition to specific facilities;
such as support for the proposed bike friendly street on Ocean Drive and bike lanes on Douglas Street, and
opposition to the proposed bike routes on Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue and Highland Avenue. Other specific
comments were requests for additional facilities and treatments, including the desire for bicycle facilities on
Pacific Coast Highway and Sepulveda Boulevard; traffic calming on Prospect Avenue, Harkness Avenue, and
Aviation Boulevard; improved safety as Redondo Beach Boulevard transitions to Grant Avenue at the
Torrance/Lawndale/Redondo border; and bikeways to provide connectivity to Walking School Bus maps.
Comments on specific facilities also came from the Metro Green Line extension team, who requested the
extents of the recommended bike path along the proposed Green Line alignment be changed to accurately
reflect the facilities they are planning. Additionally, many supporters of special interest group Friends of the
South Bay Bicycle Paths expressed criticisms via email and a signed petition of the proposed cycle track (bike
path) on Harbor Drive in Redondo Beach, citing safety concerns. Conversely, several supportive comments of
that same Harbor Drive facility were also received from various lease holders in the Harbor Area.
Some specific comments received focused on changes to existing bicycle facilities, including removal of the
wall at the south end of the Hermosa Beach strand, finding a more convenient way to access Harbor Drive
from Hermosa Beach, and concerns about the bi-directional bicycle lanes along Hermosa Avenue. This level of
Page 503 of 535
Appendices
450 | Alta Planning + Design
specificity is looked at more closely during the design and engineering of each facility and is generally beyond
the purview of the master planning effort.
In addition to facility-specific comments, there were a number of comments that posed questions regarding
terminology and methodology used in various parts of the plan, as well as the structure of the public
workshops.
Participating City Comments
Along with public comment, City staff from each of the seven participating cities also provided comments, the
majority of which pertained to the verbiage used in the policies found in Chapter Two. The most common
request from City staff was for the language to be softened to include such verbiage as “consider” or “to the
extent feasible.” City staff also requested the removal of a number of proposed facilities including the bike
lanes on Hawthorne Blvd. and Crenshaw Blvd. in Torrance, the class I bike path behind the Scattergood
treatment facility in El Segundo, and the removal of proposed bike lanes along Van Ness Ave., Normandie
Ave., Rosecrans Ave., Manhattan Beach Blvd. and sections of Western Ave., Artesia Ave. and Redondo Beach
Blvd. in Gardena. The majority of these comments were addressed through revisions to policy language and
the proposed network, or proposals of alternative policies or facilities.
Page 504 of 535
132 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Figure 3.9 Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities
Page 505 of 535
Current State of PLAN Hermosa’s Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities
Implemented
bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from 26th St to
25th St. Partially
in place because
bike lane
temporarily drops
Implemented sharrows as plan proposed along
Longfellow Ave from Hermosa Ave to Valley Dr.
Partially in Place - not a true bike blvd as there are no
traffic calming elementsExisting Class IV
bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from 35th St to
27th St
Implemented
bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from 25th St to
24th St
Segment not
included in original
plan; enhanced with
sharrows along
Ardmore Dr from Pier
Ave to Boundary Pl
Implemented sharrows on Hermosa Ave
from 24th St to 14th St
Implemented
sharrows; plan
calls for buffered
bike lane or multi-
use path along
Prospect Ave from
Herondo Ave to
Artesia Blvd
Implemented
sharrows as plan
proposed along
Monterey Blvd
from Herondo Ave
to Manhattan Ave.
Partially in place -
not a true bike
blvd as there are
no traffic calming
elements
Shared Roadway,
No designation
Upgraded from
sharrows to bike
lanes along
Hermosa Ave
from 14th St to
8th St and Pier
Ave from
Hermosa Ave to
Valley Dr
Implemented
sharrows instead
of bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from Herondo
Ave to 8th St
Existing Class I bike
lane along The Strand
from Herondo Ave to
35th St
Implemented sharrows on 22nd St from Manhattan
Ave to The Strand. Partially in Place - not a true bike
blvd as there are no traffic calming elements
Page 506 of 535
PLAN HERMOSA | 131
Figure 3.8 Intended Pedestrian Facilities
Page 507 of 535
LIVING STREETS STUDY SESSION
October 14, 2024
Page 508 of 535
What is a Living Street?
•Promote health and mobility for the needs of all roadway users and abilities;
•Enhance safety and security for all users;
•Incorporate inviting streetscapes to foster economic development;
•Integrate sustainability and conservation principles;and
•Design for people
Page 509 of 535
Ongoing Challenges
e-bikes and sidewalk riding
Pedestrian access
Intersection safety
2
1
3
Page 510 of 535
Opportunity
South Bay
•70% of car trips in the
South Bay average 3 miles
or less
Source: SBCCOG BEV Project, 2015
BEV: Battery electric vehicles ICE: Internal combustion engine
Page 511 of 535
Ongoing Efforts
•Integration of Living Streets Elements in CIP
•Bike Smart Hermosa, 2022
o 3 E's:
Education
Enforcement
Engineering
Page 512 of 535
Background
PLAN
Hermosa
LA County
Bicycle Master
Plan
City Living
Streets Policy
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
2011
2012
2017
2018
2020
Model Design Manual for Living Streets
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Update
Outdoor Dining
& bicycle lanes
downtown
2024
2022
ADA Self-
Evaluation and
Transition Plan
Page 513 of 535
2011 South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Background
•Partnership between Los Angeles County
Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and South Bay
Bicycle Coalition (SBBC)
•Seven cities represented in master plan:
Hermosa Beach,El Segundo,
Gardena,Lawndale, Manhattan Beach,
Redondo Beach, and Torrance
Page 514 of 535
•Plan outlines over 200 miles of
regional bicycle network
•Proposes a series of
interconnected bikeways, bike
parking facilities, and associated
programs and policies throughout
South Bay
•Council adopted 2011
2011 SOUTH BAY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
Page 515 of 535
PLAN Hermosa – 2017 Intended Bike Network
Page 516 of 535
PLAN Hermosa – Implementation
Page 517 of 535
Planned Bicycle Improvements
•Annual Street Improvements (CIP 105)
Proposed Work
•Roadway resurfacing
•New ADA curb ramps
•Limited green bicycle markings on Pier Ave
•New bike lane segment Pier Ave eastbound from Ardmore to PCH
•Sharrows on Valley Drive
Pier Ave
Page 518 of 535
Planned Bicycle Improvements
•PCH and Aviation Blvd Mobility Improvement Project (CIP 143)
Aviation Blvd
Scope of Work
•Project Approval / Environmental
Document (PAED) document
underway (early stages)
•Led by Metro in coordination with
Caltrans
•Evaluation of complete street
elements to improve mobility,
accessibility, aesthetics, and safety for
all users identified in the 2015 Project
Study Report
Page 519 of 535
Deferred & Unfunded Future Bicycle Projects
•Hermosa Avenue Greenwich Village Street Realignment
•The Strand Bikeway and Walkway Improvements at 35th Street
Page 520 of 535
PLAN Hermosa, Bicycle Facility Categories
Type Classification Description
Multi-use Path Class I Two-way facility separated from motor vehicles, typically
mixed use.
Shared
Roadway
No designation Street segment that functions as a space for multiple users,
without delineations for each mode.
Bike Lane Class II Bike lanes, or buffered bike lanes, provides preferential or
exclusive use of a portion of the roadway
Sharrows Class III Sharrow markings and signs, alert motorists that bicycles
“may use full lane.”
Bike Boulevard Class III Shared travel lane,low volume and low speed
roadway,typically treated with traffic calming features.Page 521 of 535
Bicycle Facility Types: Class I
•Dedicated bicycle right-
of-way
•Separated from car
traffic
•Dedicated off-street
travel
Page 522 of 535
Bicycle Facility Types: Class II
•Designed to
accommodate cyclists
•A dedicated, striped lane
•Special treatments to
increase visibility
Page 523 of 535
Bicycle Facility Types: Class III
•Shared use with vehicles
•Designate preferred routes
•Identified with signage or
pavement markings
•Reminds users to share the
road
Page 524 of 535
Bicycle Facility Types: Class IV
•On-street facility
•Buffered by some kind of physical barrier
Page 525 of 535
Four Categories of Bicyclists
Typical Distribution of Bicyclists in the United States
Source: 2011 Bicycle Master Plan
Page 526 of 535
SOUTH BAY BICYCLE COALITION PLUS MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND STORY MAP
•Primary update: call for protected
Class IV bike lanes in lieu of Class II,
where feasible.
•New Story Map with GIS overlays
•Interactive Map for Living Master Plan
•Contact SBCC+ to get involved
Page 527 of 535
SOUTH BAY BICYCLE COALITION PLUS - WEBSITE
•Interactive
Map
Page 528 of 535
SOUTH BAY BICYCLE COALITION PLUS
Submit Feedback Get Involved
Page 529 of 535
PLAN Hermosa – 2017 Intended Pedestrian Facilities
Page 530 of 535
Other Completed Projects
Pier Avenue Improvements:
widened sidewalks, bulb
outs, all-pedestrian phase at
Hermosa Avenue
2010
2018
Hermosa Avenue paving project:
Installed bulb outs and decorative
crossings
Page 531 of 535
Other Completed Projects
PCH ADA and Sidewalk
Improvements: repaired
sidewalks, installed ADA
curb ramps, new east-
west crosswalk at Pier
Avenue and PCH
2019
2019
8th Street Sidewalk Improvement:
Restored City right-of-way and
created a complete and
accessible sidewalk route along
8th Street from Valley Drive to
Hermosa Avenue
2022
Adopted an Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Transition Plan
Page 532 of 535
Other Completed Projects
Installed ~40 bike racks,
accommodating
storage for 80 bikes
throughout the City
2022-2024
2023
Business Activity District
and School Zone
Speed Limit Update:
lowered speed limits
by 5 mph
The Strand Pedestrian
Safety Pilot Project:
Installed barricades
along The Strand
2023
2024
Pedestrian Crossing Safety
Improvements Phase 1:
Installed rectangular rapid-
flashing beacons (RRFB) at
several crosswalks
Page 533 of 535
Other Ongoing Efforts
•Review of Traffic Safety Requests(~110 per year)
o Vehicle travel speeds
o Greenbelt access
o Valley and Ardmore at Pier and Gould
•Coordination with Police on severe crashes
•Assembly Bill (AB) 43, Safety Corridors
Page 534 of 535
Looking Ahead
•Continue to identify opportunities to integrate living streets elements in projects
•Ongoing collaboration with SBBC+, and neighboring cities, on South Bay Bicycle Master Plan Update – encourage community participation
•Community encouraged to continue reaching out to public works with roadway safety concerns to help identify issues and inform future CIP programming.
Page 535 of 535