HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/11 1
“If you keep on saying things are going to be bad, you have a good chance of being a prophet.” - Isaac Bashevis Singer
AGENDA
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - Council Chambers, City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
7:00 p.m.
MAYOR
Howard Fishman
CITY CLERK
Elaine Doerfling
MAYOR PRO TEM
Jeff Duclos
CITY TREASURER
John M. Workman
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Patrick ‘Kit’ Bobko
Michael DiVirgilio
Peter Tucker
CITY MANAGER
Stephen R. Burrell
CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Jenkins
All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND.
The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every
agenda item.
City Council agendas and staff reports are available for your review on the City's web site
located at www.hermosabch.org.
Complete agenda packets are also available for public inspection in the Police Department, Fire
Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk.
During the meeting, a packet is also available in the
Council Chambers foyer.
Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting
are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California, during normal business hours.
All written communications from the public included in the agenda will be posted with the
agenda on the City’s website
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD)
will be 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) 318-0203 at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting.
Your participation in this meeting is in the public domain. Meetings are both cablecast
and streamed live over the Internet. Minutes of this meeting will reflect your participation in
this meeting and are posted on the city’s website
2
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
ANNOUNCEMENTS
PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown
Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted
agenda as a business item.
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time for members of the public to address the City Council on any items within the
Council's jurisdiction not on this agenda, on items on this agenda as to which public comment
will not be taken, or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar. Comments on
public hearing items are heard only during the public hearing. Members of the audience may
also speak:
1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar;
2) during Public Hearings; and,
3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters.
Comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker.
The City Council acknowledges receipt of the written communications listed below. No action
will be taken on matters raised in written communications.
The Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral and written communications for a
future agenda.
Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to
submit those comments to the City Manager.
(a) Letter from Jim Lissner dated October 19, 2011 regarding the size of televisions in
restaurants.
(b) Letter from Bruce C. Newlin, Superintendent, Hermosa Beach City School District,
requesting the City to ascertain the legality of a sales/use tax measure with all or a
portion of the proceeds dedicated to the Hermosa Beach City School District.
3
2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by
one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the
Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 4, with public
comment permitted at that time.
(a) Recommendation to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council
held on September 27, 2011.
(b) Recommendation to ratify check register.
(c) Recommendation to receive and file
1) Tentative Future Agenda Items; and,
2) City Council Directives
(d) Recommendation to receive and file the September 2011 financial reports:
1) Revenue and expenditure report;
2) City Treasurer's report; and,
3) Investment report.
(e) Recommendation to approve the assignment of the Fiber Optic Cable Easement to
GU Holdings, Inc. and direct the City Manager to execute the assignment document.
Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 11, 2011.
(f) Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and
Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of October 4, 2011.
(g) Recommendation to approve a Professional Services Agreement with AECOM
Technical Services, Inc. to provide grant writing services in an amount not to exceed
$4,000. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated
October 19, 2011.
(h) Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting of October 18, 2011.
(i) Recommendation to receive and file Project Status Report. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Frank Senteno dated October 17, 2011.
(j) Recommendation to authorize the appropriation of Asset Seizure Forfeiture Funds
in the amount of $725.00 to purchase a gun vault for the detective vehicle assigned
to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to properly secure weapons. Memorandum
from Police Chief Greg Savelli.
4
(k) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving and adopting Program Supplement
Agreement No. 005-N to Administering Agency-State Agreement No. 07-5155R for
Project HSIPL-5155(010) – Valley School Traffic Signal Improvement and appoint
and authorize the Director of Public Works as the authorized representative of the
City to act in matters associated with the application. Memorandum from Public
Works Director Frank Senteno dated October 18, 2011.
(l) Recommendation to approve the 2nd Annual Downtown Hermosa Holiday Sidewalk
Festival on Saturday, November 19, 2011 from 12:00pm to 8:00pm. Memorandum
from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 11, 2011.
(m) Recommendation to approve the Holiday Tree Lighting event on Thursday,
December 1, 2011 on Pier Plaza. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell
dated October 11, 2011.
(n) Recommendation to approve the request from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of
Commerce to sponsor a band on New Years Eve on Pier Plaza. Memorandum from
City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 11, 2011.
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
NONE
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION
Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M.
a. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN THE
FOLLOWING OUTDOOR AREAS: RESTAURANT PATIOS/OUTDOOR
DINING, PIER PLAZA, ALL CITY PARKS AND GREENBELT, THE
STRAND AND PUBLIC PARKING LOTS. (Continued from the
September 27, 2011 meeting) Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell
dated October 17, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed ordinance, conduct a public
hearing and consider introducing the ordinance on first reading.
5
b. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS DUE TO
POLYSTYRENE (NO. 6 RECYCLE CODE) FOOD SERVICE TAKE-OUT
CONTAINERS. (Continued from September 27, 2011 meeting) Memorandum
from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated October 18, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff as appropriate from among options or
combinations presented in the staff report.
c. ACCEPTANCE OF THE VITALITY CITIES LIVABILITY PLAN,
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF THE VITALITY CITIES INITIATIVE,
WHICH ADVISES THE BEACH CITIES HOW TO CREATE MORE
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES AND HEALTHIER CITIZENS. Memorandum
from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated October 18, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution accepting the Healthways/Blue
Zones Vitality City: “Beach Cities Livability Plan” and provide direction on
implementation.
d. ADOPTION OF THE SOUTH BAY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN,
PREPARED BY THE SOUTH BAY BICYCLE COALITION, WHICH
REGIONALLY CONNECTS HERMOSA BEACH AND VARIOUS SOUTH
BAY CITIES VIA A BICYCLE NETWORK, WHICH WILL IMPROVE
THE HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE
REGION. Memorandum from Community Development Director
Ken Robertson and Public Works Director Frank Senteno dated October 18, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and adopt the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan.
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
NONE
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
a. HOLIDAY PARKING REGULATIONS. Memorandum from City Manager
Stephen Burrell dated October 11, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council acknowledge the holiday
parking program for all silver meters from Sunday, December 11, 2011 through
Sunday, December 25, 2011.
6
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
NONE
9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
Requests from Council members for possible future agenda items. No discussion or
debate of these requests shall be undertaken; the sole action is whether to schedule the
item for consideration on a future agenda. No public comment will be taken.
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
August 2011
1
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City:
Beach Cities Livability Plan
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONES VITALITY CITY: BEACH CITIES LIVABILITY PLAN
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3
A NOTE FROM DAN BURDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WALC INSTITUTE ......................................... 10
2 TOWARD WELL-BEING IN THE BEACH CITIES .................................................................... 11
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN .................................................................................................................. 12
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................... 15
WHY A BETTER BUILT FORM? ......................................................................................................... 16
KEY TOOLS AND TERMS FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM ............................................................................ 17
KEY PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM ................................................................. 23
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 31
WHAT WE HEARD: FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, CITY STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS ........... 31
WHAT WE SAW: OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE BEACH CITIES’ BUILT ENVIRONMENT ................................... 34
4 POLICY FOR LIVABLE BEACH CITIES .................................................................................. 41
POLICY TO ACHIEVE LIVABILITY GOALS IN THE BEACH CITIES .................................................................. 42
GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEW ................................................................................. 52
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS .................................... 74
5 CHANGES FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM .............................................................................. 76
NEEDED: FLEXIBILITY, CREATIVITY AND COURAGE ............................................................................... 77
TRANSFORM REGIONAL CORRIDORS ................................................................................................. 79
TRANSFORM LOCAL CORRIDORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS ............................................................ 85
GENERAL GUIDANCE ..................................................................................................................... 89
6 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................ 94
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City:
Beach Cities Livability Plan
August 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Sarah Bowman, Director of Education
“By focusing on livability, we can help transform the way transportation serves the American
people—and create safer, healthier communities that provide access to economic opportunities.”
– U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
This report focuses on how to improve livability and well-being in Hermosa Beach, Manhattan
Beach and Redondo Beach – the “beach cities” – through land-use and transportation systems
that better support active living.
Livability refers to the quality of life a place allows and is heavily influenced by the land-use and
transportation planning choices made. The built environment impacts health, well-being and
happiness – either positively or negatively. It is a reflection of the care and thoughtfulness put
into creating the places where we live, go to work, attend school, and play.
Study after study shows that walkable, bikeable, and livable communities are also healthier
communities, not only in terms of individual health, but also environmental and economic
health. Consider that:
A study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association in 2006 found that for
every five-percent increase in walkability, a community could expect more than a 30-
percent increase in “physically active travel” and nearly a quarter-point reduction in
individual body mass index, which is a common indicator for obesity and health. The
increase in walkability also was correlated with more than a five-percent reduction in
air pollutants that are associated with vehicle travel.1
1 Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Chapman, J.E., Saelens, B.E., & Bachman, W. (2006), “. "Many
pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighbourhood walkability and active
transportation, body mass index, and air quality.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1). 75-87; at
http://www.planning.org/library/bibliography/resource.htm?ResourceID=1167
Executive Summary
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City: Beach Cities Livability Plan
August 2011
Livability refers to
quality of life.
Livability is not
about sacrifice.
Livability is
achieved when we
set our course to
complete streets
and embrace well-
being.
Analysis published in Preventive Medicine in 2010 indicates that installing sidewalks on all
of a city’s streets would increase physical activity enough to offset weight gain in about
37 percent of the population, leading to healthcare savings likely to be enough to repay
the cost of installing the sidewalks.2
A study published by CEOs for Cities in 2009 shows that in 13 of 15 housing markets
evaluated, a one-point increase in a neighborhood’s WalkScore (www.walkscore.com)
increased homes values as much as $3,000.3
Other benefits noted through observation and reported by numerous government entities,
independent researchers and non-profit organizations include:
Protection of natural and cultural resources (http://www.epa.gov/dced/)
Increased economic development
(http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Shoup-
Ewing_March2010.pdf)
Reduction in crime and violence
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/cpted.html)
Opportunities for social connectedness and community building
(http://bowlingalone.com/)
Reduce sprawl and infrastructure costs
(http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/axelrad.html)
Transportation equity (http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf)
Further, when cities and towns provide equitable access
to a complete transportation system, they send the
message that people – not just cars - belong. No matter
one’s age, income, ability, or mode of transport, the place
works and the benefits are tremendous:
Livability is not about sacrifice. When we design our
streets for well-being, we get well-being. We can turn
our communities into thoroughfares or we can turn our
communities into destinations. Our streets are attractive
and safe for all users, or they are not. Our streets
encourage a variety of transportation options, including
walking and bicycling, or they limit choices. Our streets
enable social interaction, or they segregate. Our streets
improve individual, economic and environmental health,
2 Jessica Y. Guo and Sasanka Gandavarapu (2010), “An Economic Evaluation Of Health-Promotive Built
Environment Changes,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, Supplement 1, January 2010, pp. S44-S49; at
www.activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/journalspecialissues
3 Cortright, Joe and Impresa, Inc. (2009), “Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in
U.S. Cities.” For CEOs for Cities; at http://www.ceosforcities.org/work/walkingthewalk
or they diminish these things. These are the choices we have before us. Livability is achieved
when we set our course to complete streets and embrace well-being. This report outlines the
ways in which our elected leaders, city staff and residents can support the livability movement.
Presently, too many of our streets prioritize vehicle mobility. Because of this, the primary role of
streets is to move vehicles quickly and this deters other modes of transportation, especially
transit, biking and walking. Over-reliance on one system has led to an imbalance where
walking and bicycling have become challenging and unnatural activities. We have limited our
choices. The results are lower levels of health, happiness and social connectedness. A focus on
building livable communities recognizes the significance of streets and transportation
investments in individual and community life.
Through active transportation, the beach cities can improve the health, happiness and
productivity of residents. To help determine how best to go about this effort, the WALC
Institute team listened to residents and local leaders, observed existing conditions, and
identified context-sensitive solutions and best practices appropriate for the communities.
As a result, the Institute team suggests the following goals for the beach cities:
Goal 1: A complete network of streets and public spaces to support active living
Goal 2: Safe, natural and enjoyable walking and biking conditions
Goal 3: Sustainable transportation choices
Goal 4: Healthier, happier people
In order to achieve these goals, we have set forth the following key recommendations which are
detailed in this report:
1. Adopt Complete Streets policies and incorporate Complete Streets policy language into
all beach cities planning documents
2. Create and adopt street design guidelines that support livability
3. Develop a regional pedestrian master plan
4. Adopt and implement the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
5. Increase enforcement for pedestrian safety
6. Increase education and awareness for all road users
7. Improve and enhance Safe Routes to School programs
8. Update the General Plans and Municipal Codes to include livability principles
9. Transform regional corridors, local corridors and neighborhood streets to encourage
active transportation
10. Apply best practices, lessons learned and available resources to improve livability
throughout the beach cities
The Vitality City team worked closely with the three beach cities to review the livability plan
developed by the WALC Institute and use it as a foundation to develop top priorities for
improving livability in the region. The goal was to identify and prioritize efforts that will not
only improve support for walking and biking in the beach cities, but when fully implemented
will also improve air quality, reduce congestion, and reduce overall travel time by automobiles
along corridors. Find details about Vitality City at: www.vitalitycity.com.
The top priorities, as developed by Vitality City and representatives from the beach cities, are:
Adopt Livability Policies
o All three cities are encouraged to direct staff to place livability principles into each
city’s General Plan and Municipal Codes and to provide draft policy revisions to
appropriate commissions and the city councils for review and approval by February
2012. This addition provides a mission or guiding framework for city policies. (The
WALC Institute analysis and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are detailed in, “General Plan and Municipal Code Review,” starting on page
54.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to revise appropriate policies and plans to include
“Complete Streets” policies and design guidelines for livable streets. Route the
recommended revised policies through appropriate commissions and city councils
for review and approval by April 2012. (The WALC Institute recommendation that
supports this Vitality City priority is detailed in, “Develop and Adopt Complete
Streets Policies,” starting on page 42.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to adopt the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan by
December 2011. (The WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support
this Vitality City priority are referenced on pages 28, 41, 43, 76 and 82.)
o All three cities are encouraged to develop and adopt city and regional pedestrian
plans. Cities are encouraged to direct staff to pursue funding in 2012 to begin the
planning process for 2013. (The WALC Institute recommendation that supports this
Vitality City priority is detailed in, “Develop and Adopt a Regional Pedestrian
Master Plan,” starting on page 44.”)
Build Stuff
o All three cities are encouraged to identify locations and plans to install mini-circles.
They can improve safety and traffic flow while reducing air and noise pollution. (The
WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are referenced on pages 21, 34, 87, 88, 91, and in the Appendix section,
“Photo-Visualizations: Local Corridor.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to work cooperatively and potentially with two cities
north of the beach cities to install bike lanes on Aviation Boulevard, creating
connection to employment centers. This should begin in 2012 with setting up a joint
staff task force and a joint community task force to complete sufficient planning to
be able to apply for funding by late 2012. (The WALC Institute recommendations
that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 79 and 82.)
o All three cities are encouraged to reset intersection signals in areas of high pedestrian
counts so that the WALK phase is automatic for the pedestrian. This helps create a
pedestrian-friendly culture. (The WALC Institute guidance and recommendations
that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 81, 82 and 89.)
o All three cities are encouraged to continue efforts to secure funding to build Safe
Routes to Schools improvements. (The WALC Institute guidance and
recommendations that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 22, 33, 69, 71,
72, 74, and 87, as well as in the section, “Improve and Enhance Safe Routes to School
Programs, starting on page 48.)
o The City of Redondo Beach is encouraged to complete engineering studies and
planning process to install a cycle-track (two-way bikeway separated from cars) on
N. Harbor Drive by 2013. (The WALC Institute recommendations that support this
Vitality City priority are detailed in the section, “Harbor Drive at Yacht Club Way”
on page 86.)
o The City of Redondo Beach is encouraged to replace signs along the North Redondo
Beach Bikeway to have stops only for motorists, not cyclists/pedestrians. (The
WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are on pages 32 and 91 and in the Appendix section, “Photo-Visualizations:
Local Corridor.”)
o The Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach are encouraged to establish a
committee to plan how to restripe Valley Ardmore, converting each street to one-
way with bike lanes on the street. (The WALC Institute recommendations that
support this Vitality City priority are detailed in the section, “Valley Dr. and
Ardmore Dr.” on page 87.)
Educate and Enforce
o All three cities are encouraged to partner with the South Bay Bicycle Coalition and
other stakeholders to develop plans to increase education and enforcement for
pedestrian and bike safety. Education is for all parties, not just motorists. (The
WALC Institute recommendations that support this Vitality City priority are
detailed in the sections, “Increase Education and Awareness for All Road Users” on
page 47 and “Increase Enforcement for Pedestrian Safety” on page 46, as well as on
page 93.)
This report provides a general assessment of existing conditions in the beach cities, followed by
specific recommendations for improving policy and the built form to be more supportive of
livability.
It includes the following:
A personal message on livability from Dan Burden, Executive Director of the Walkable
and Livable Communities Institute
An explanation of the purpose of this livability plan and why we need a better built
form
Summary of existing conditions in the beach cities
Policy recommendations for improved livability
Specific actions the beach communities should take for a better built form more
supportive of livability
Photo-visualizations of a regional corridor and a local corridor to assist with visioning
and capacity-building
Best practices and resources for improving livability
This report outlines how beach cities elected leaders and city staff can support the livability
movement. They should:
1. Apply their personal knowledge, skills, love and care for their communities to build
places of the heart that people will cherish, enjoy and wish to spend time in.
2. Teach others about the value of Complete Streets policies and look for opportunities to
incorporate Complete Streets principles into all projects.
3. Take to the street to assess the built environment with the community and to learn from
residents and visitors.
4. Work with law enforcement and schools to improve pedestrian safety and to increase
education and awareness for all road users.
5. Assess their General Plans and Municipal Codes for livability principles and to
determine where health and well-being might be incorporated more fully.
6. Transform regional corridors, local corridors and neighborhood streets to encourage
active transportation.
7. Know the best practices, lessons learned and available resources to improve livability
throughout the beach cities.
Beach cities residents, business operators and employees of the area can support the livability
movement too. They should:
1. Become active participants in Vitality City efforts by signing up at
www.vitalitycity.com.
2. Familiarize themselves with the contents of this report.
3. Contact their elected leaders and city staff and share their thoughts on the livability
plan.
4. Act locally to improve livability by assessing conditions and communicating
observations to city staff and elected leaders on an on-going basis.
5. Volunteer! Livability requires it.
Livable communities are destinations. These places are built with vision, patience, love, common
sense, teamwork, and openness. They have a shared commitment to improving quality of life for
all. They are graced with a widely held and firmly developed sense of ownership and
custodianship because residents of livable communities care for their community. Livable
Communities are talked about, celebrated, and loved for their uniqueness and ability to
champion the natural environment and human spirit. This report provides key
recommendations for improving the built environment so that we encourage greater livability in
the beach cities.
I have dedicated the bulk of my life to helping the world get back on its feet by improving
communities’ built forms to be more walkable, livable, healthy and welcoming of people of all
ages and abilities.
As executive director of the WALC
Institute, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to assist the beach cities as
they strive to improve their built form to be
more supportive of well-being.
Now is the time for unified action in the
beach cities. As Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe said, “Dream no small dreams for
they stir not the hearts of men.” Livability
becomes a reality when community insights
are combined and many people come
together to collaborate. The beach cities –
with the help of Vitality City – have a rare opportunity to adopt interventions that will
significantly improve well-being.
Having met with and seen the commitment of local government and health officials, residents,
business leaders, community advocates and other stakeholders, I am a believer in your future.
The right people are already coming together to make walkable, livable and healthy
communities a reality. There is no doubt, though: the beach cities have their fair share of
challenges to achieving healthier communities, such as streets that encourage too-fast vehicle
speeds and missing sidewalks and trails.
The good news is that all of these challenges can be overcome, and this report provides guidance
for beginning to do just that. The task is immense, and work on it must begin now.
Wherever the communities begin their work, I and many others will be watching. And as
projects get underway to place the focus back on people and health, we will share your stories
and successes broadly. May the winds of change bring much good to you, and through you.
Sincerely,
As we made it
easier to do
everything by car,
we stopped
accommodating
other modes of
transport, and
thus made it
necessary to do
everything by car.
This plan advances the Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City program in the Los Angeles-area
South Bay communities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach—the “beach
cities”—by analyzing the built environment and recommending strategies to return well-being
to citizens through improved livability and opportunities for active living.
In recent decades, the beach cities have done what many
other communities throughout the country have done:
made walking and active transportation unnatural and
difficult. Structural changes to our built environment
were made to favor the car over other forms of getting to
and from the places we like and need to go. As a result,
the nation has seen declines in public health, social
engagement and access to healthy food.
Dependence on the car keeps many people confined in
their vehicles for long periods each day. It may have been
unintended, but as we made it easier to do everything by
car, we stopped accommodating other modes of
transport, and thus made it necessary to do everything by
car.
As travel by car increased, the distances between the
places people travel also increased. In time, many people found that even if they wanted to walk
to a destination, it was too far and they would have to get in the car. In fact, between 1982 and
1997, these effects became very pronounced. During this period, the urbanized land area in the
U.S. rose 47 percent while the population grew only 17 percent, for a net decrease of more than
20 percent in urban density. During the same period, vehicle miles traveled increased 55 percent.
People now spend more time sitting in cars while getting to destinations that are further apart.
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City is a community-wide well-being improvement initiative
to create healthier, happier and more productive citizens. It uses permanent, evidence-based
environmental and policy changes to help people adopt and maintain healthier lifestyles.
The Vitality City initiative includes ten strategies to improve well-being—a combination of
physical, social and emotional health. This roadmap for livability is one strategy which aims to
increase well-being in the beach cities in part by helping to make streets and neighborhoods
more supportive of walking and bicycling, and by allowing residents and visitors to choose
active modes of transportation.
The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute is a non-profit, educational organization that
works throughout the country and the world to create healthy, connected communities that are
supportive of active living and that advance opportunities for all people through walkable
streets, livable cities and better built environments.
The Institute joins the Vitality City initiative with a goal to build capacity by promoting a shared
language among residents, government staff and elected officials; illustrating through examples
and audits how walkability and livability benefit a community and how they can be achieved;
and inspiring everyone to become involved in the movement toward active living. The focus is on
significant enhancements being implemented and on-the-ground within six months to one year,
and many other enhancements well into implementation within three years.
The WALC Institute team—led by Executive Director Dan Burden, Director of Outreach and
Communications Kelly Morphy and Director of Education Sarah Bowman—is assisting the
Vitality City project in three phases to address the beach cities’ built environment and guiding
documents, how they affect active living and ways to improve upon existing conditions.
During the first phase of the WALC Institute’s involvement, launched in December 2010, the
Institute team conducted a walking audit and a bicycle audit to experience firsthand the
conditions that create barriers to active living in the beach cities.
Also during the first phase, the
Institute team held stakeholder
interviews and delivered training
to city staff from all three
communities on best practices in
traffic calming, creating complete
streets and otherwise providing a
built environment that supports
active living and active
transportation. The team also
took part in the Vitality City
media launch, which garnered
local, regional and national
coverage.
During the second phase, which
began in January 2011, the
Institute team conducted four
public workshops and walking
audits (three of them in
conjunction with the public
process for developing a regional
bicycle master plan), evaluated
existing conditions throughout
the cities, identified opportunities
for improvements, led a visioning
and design session with city staff
from all three communities and
participated in other public
outreach efforts.
The third phase of work, beginning in February 2011, includes development of this report,
delivering the team’s findings and recommendations to the communities, and continuing to
support Vitality City outreach efforts.
The benefits of livability and walkability are numerous, and are particularly important in places
like the beach cities where, according to the Beach Cities Vitality City Blueprint, nearly 60
percent of residents are either overweight or obese and 16 percent experience significant anger.
In fact, study after study shows additional benefits of livable communities, not only in
terms of individual health, but also environmental and economic health. Consider that:
For every five-percent increase in walkability, a community can expect more
than a 30-percent increase in “physically active travel” and nearly a quarter-point
reduction in individual body mass index, which is a common indicator for
obesity and health. The increase in walkability also is correlated with more than
a five-percent reduction in air pollutants that are associated with vehicle travel.4
Installing sidewalks on all of a city’s streets can increase physical activity enough
to offset weight gain in about 37 percent of the population, leading to healthcare
savings likely to be enough to repay the cost of installing the sidewalks.5
In 13 of 15 housing markets evaluated, a one-point increase in a neighborhood’s
WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) increased homes values as much as $3,000.6
In addition to the individual health improvements that can be achieved when people opt for
active modes of transportation, changing the built form to be more supportive of walking, biking,
transit and other active alternatives also benefits communities through:
Protection of natural and cultural resources (http://www.epa.gov/dced/)
Increased economic development
(http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Shoup-
Ewing_March2010.pdf)
Reduction in crime and violence
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/cpted.html)
Opportunities for social connectedness and community building
(http://bowlingalone.com/)
Reduce sprawl and infrastructure costs
(http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/axelrad.html)
Transportation equity, such as options for people who don’t drive, including
children, senior citizens, and those who don’t have or can’t afford cars.
(http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf)
Improved mood and decrease anxiety
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494409000838).
4 Sallis, et al.
5 Guo and Gandavarapu
6 Cortright and Impresa, Inc.
Active Transportation: Also known
as non-motorized transportation,
this includes walking, bicycling,
using a wheelchair or using “small-
wheeled transport” such as skates, a
skateboard or scooter. Active modes
of transportation offer a combination
of recreation, exercise and
transportation. (See Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, www.vtpi.org.)
Aging in Place: The ability to
continue to live in one’s home safely,
independently and comfortably,
regardless of age, income or ability level. It means living in a familiar environment, and being able
to participate in family and other community activities. Also sometimes called, “Living in Place.”
(See National Aging in Place Council, www.ageinplace.org.)
Charrette: [pronounced, “shuh-
RET”] A collaborative session to solve
urban-design problems. It usually
involves a group of designers working
directly with stakeholders or
residents to identify issues and
solutions. It is a much more
successful form of public process
than traditional public hearings, as it
focuses on building informed consent.
A charrette can last only a day, several
days, or weeks. (See Walkable and
Livable Communities Institute, www.walklive.org.)
Complete Streets: Roads that are designed for everyone, including people of all ages and
abilities. Complete Streets are accessible, have vehicle speeds appropriate for the area, are
comfortable for walking and biking, and include sidewalks, street trees and other amenities that
make them feel “complete.” (See National Complete Streets Coalition,
www.completestreets.org.) Further, according to California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Deputy Directive 64-R1, a Complete Street is a transportation facility that is planned,
designed, operated and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit riders and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility.
Complete Street concepts apply to rural, suburban and urban areas.
Head-Out Angled Parking: Also called
“back-in” or “reverse” angled parking,
this is arguably the safest form of on-
street parking. A driver “backs in” to the
angled parking spot, which is easier
than parallel parking because it is
basically only the first maneuver of
parallel parking. Head-out parking
creates a sight line between the driver
and other road users when pulling out.
Additionally, head-out parking allows
the driver to load their trunk from the
curb, instead of adjacent to the travel
lane. And for drivers with young children, when parked in a head-out spot, the open car doors
guide passengers toward the sidewalks, reducing the chance of a child stepping into the vehicle
travel lane. (See appendix, How to Do It: Parking.)
Joint Powers Authority: Also called “JPA,” this is an entity permitted under the law, whereby
two or more public authorities (e.g. local government agencies or utility or transport districts)
can operate collectively.
Level of Service: Also called “LOS,” this is a qualitative measure describing the flow of traffic on
a roadway. It generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, safety and the perceived comfort and convenience of the driver.
The interruptions to other modes are not generally considered.
Livability: In the context of community environments and quality of life, this refers to all of the
factors that add up to a community’s quality of life, including the built and natural environments.
(See Partners for Livable Communities, www.livable.org.)
Moai: A term from the Blue Zone of Okinawa, Japan, referring to small groups of friends who
regularly meet.
Median Crossing Islands: A short island,
about 40 to 80 feet long, in the center of the
roadway, serves as a traffic-calming device or a
pedestrian refuge. Islands are generally eight
to 12 feet wide, but narrower island can
achieve their purpose, as well. Islands should
be landscaped with low, slow-growth ground
cover, and tall trees without branches or leaves
at ground height—such as palm trees—that
help motorists see the islands well in advance
but don’t obstruct sight lines.
Pedestrian Yield Paddles: Flexible, high-visibility vertical signs placed in the center of streets
with lower speeds (30 mph or less) to heighten awareness of marked pedestrian crossings.
Pork Chop Islands: A special intersection island that separates right-turning vehicles from
other traffic movement and creates a refuge for pedestrians crossing wider streets. From above,
pork chop islands look like pork chops.
Road Diet: When a road is overly wide or has more vehicle travel lanes than are needed or safe,
travel lanes can be removed and the extra width used to add bike lanes, sidewalks, a buffer
between the travel lanes and sidewalks, on-street parking, a landscaped median or some
combination thereof. A common road diet transforms a four-lane road without bike lanes into a
three-lane road (one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane or median) with bike
lanes and street trees. (See Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, www.walklive.org. Also see
appendix, How to Do It: Road Diets.)
MINI TRAFFIC CIRCLES, ROTARIES AND ROUNDABOUTS
Mini Traffic Circles: Also called “mini circles,”
these are intersections that navigate vehicles around
a small island about eight to 15 feet in diameter that
is either lightly domed or raised. When raised, a
mini traffic circle should be visible from hundreds of
feet away, creating the feeling of a small park in the
neighborhood. The circles should be designed to
reduce speeds to 15 to 18 mph at each intersection. A
proper number of them will reduce vehicle speeds to
22 to 25 mph along the corridor while helping traffic
flow more smoothly due to the decreased number of complete stops.
Rotaries: Also called traffic circles, rotaries are intersections that navigate cars around very large
circulating islands, as big as a football fields in some cases. Rotaries can be cumbersome and can
induce higher crash rates. Many rotaries are being replaced with roundabouts.
Roundabouts: Also called “modern
roundabouts,” they navigate cars around a
circulating island, usually about 60 feet in
diameter. Roundabouts are ideal for collector
and arterial roads, and around freeway on-off
ramps. They eliminate the need for cars to
make left turns, which are particularly
dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Properly designed, roundabouts hold vehicles
speeds to 15 to 20 mph. They can reduce
injury crashes by 76 percent and reduce fatal
crashes by 90 percent. (See the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety’s website:
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/roundab
outs.html.) Roundabouts also can increase
capacity by 30 percent by keeping vehicles
moving. When installing roundabouts in a
community for the first time, care should be
taken to make roadway users comfortable
with the new traffic pattern and to educate
them about how to navigate roundabouts
properly and to yield as appropriate. For
more information about roundabouts, see the
Federal Highway Administration’s
educational video about roundabouts, at
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/fhwasa10023/wmv_cc_final/10-
2124_Roundabouts.wmv.
Safe Routes to School: A national program
to improve safety and encourage more
children, including children with
disabilities, to walk, bike and roll to school.
The program focuses on improvements
through the five E’s: engineering, education,
enforcement, encouragement and
evaluation. (See National Center for Safe Routes
to School, www.saferoutesinfo.org.)
Sharrows: A “shared roadway marking”—usually paint—placed in the center of a travel lane to
alert motorists and bicyclists alike to the shared use of the lane. They help position bicyclists
away from the opening doors of cars parked on the street, encourage safety when vehicles pass
bicyclists and reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.
Smart Growth: Growing in a way that expands economic opportunity, protects public health
and the environment and creates and enhances places that people love. (See U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/.)
Traffic Calming: Using traffic engineering and other tools designed to control traffic speeds and
encourage driving behavior appropriate to the environment. Examples include street trees, bulb
outs, medians, curb extensions, signage, road diets and roundabouts. Traffic calming should
encourage mobility for all modes.
Walk Streets: Streets intended and designed to provide local access solely for pedestrians and
cyclists.
Walking Audit: Also called a “walking
workshop,” this is a review of walking
conditions along specified streets conducted
with a diverse group of community members.
Participants experience firsthand the
conditions that either support or create
barriers to walking and biking. (See more
about walking audits: Walkable and Livable
Communities Institute, www.walklive.org.)
Walking School Bus: Often organized as part
of a Safe Routes to School program, a walking
school bus involves children walking along a set route, at set times, to and from school, with an
adult chaperone. Many parent organizations and neighborhoods develop informal walking
school buses that are as effective and organized as those created as part of a Safe Routes
program.
Why do people walk, bike, blade, board or scoot in some parts of the beach cities, and not in
other parts? Why are some communities throughout the country considered very walkable, and
others hardly walkable at all?
Near the beaches and along streets that have been designed to support beachgoers, people are
seen arriving in cars, by bike, on foot and via other modes of active transportation. People also
are seen walking, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding and scooting along the fun, vibrant trails
in the region. These are hot spots and they help illustrate that walkable, livable places really do
work. But why do they work? And how can the beach cities change their built forms to be more
supportive of active living in places further from the beaches?
Walkability is the measure of the overall walking, bicycling and living conditions in an area,
defined as the extent to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of people, and
not just cars. Walkable streets may teem with people shopping, commuting by foot, or simply
enjoying recreation and exercise. Factors improving walkability include:
Nearby land uses, such as retail shops located near offices and housing, and schools
located within neighborhoods.
Street connectivity, ideally in a fine-grain grid without unnecessary cul-de-sacs or one-
way streets, which tend to contribute to higher and unsafe vehicle speeds.
Residential areas that are “denser” than the suburban format that has proliferated in
some areas. In most residential areas of the beach cities, neighborhoods already provide
good density and potential for active transportation, but are in need of enhancements to
the streets to become truly walkable places.
Road widths that contribute to slower vehicle speeds. Vehicle speeds affect walkability
and livability: the wider a road or a vehicle travel lane is (or appears to the driver to be),
the faster the driver tends to travel. The faster cars are traveling, the less safe and
comfortable a person feels walking or bicycling next to them.
A sense of security and “eyes on the street.” This feeling of comfort is created by orienting
the homes and buildings toward the street, and providing transparency—occupied
buildings and homes with windows and doors at the street level—so occupants can
watch over the street.
Quality place-making contributes to improved walkability. Streets that are laid out well, public
squares, plazas and small parks create a human scale and a sense of enclosure to the street,
helping to keep vehicle speeds low. Lower vehicle speeds contribute to safety and security for
motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.
Table 1. Probability of pedestrian death resulting from various vehicle impact speeds.
Vehicle
speed (mph)
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
(%)*
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 14 and under
(%)**
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 15 to 59 (%)**
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 60 and older
(%)**
20 5 1 1 3
30 45 5 7 62
40 85 16 22 92
* Source: Ref (3); ** Source: Ref (4)
Walkability is improved as an area takes on its own charm and sense of place and is further
enhanced when walkway environments are rich and complex, with many things to do, see and
experience.
Perhaps most importantly, walkability is greatly affected by the behavior of cars. In areas where
vehicle speeds are too high for the street’s adjacent land uses, traveling by any mode other than a
car can feel very uncomfortable and, in some cases, is downright dangerous.
Specific engineering considerations that affect walkability include sidewalks, crossings and
bikeways.
Sidewalks are often built too narrow, with poles obstructing travel, driveway ramps that are too
steep for crossing and inadequate bus stops. Communities should correct these and other
problems to build sidewalks that support active living:
The pedestrian environment should be safe, inviting and accessible to people of all ages
and physical abilities. It should connect people to places and be easy to understand.
All sidewalks should adhere to Americans with Disability Act standards.
Driveway aprons should be confined to the Furniture and Curb Zones.
Landscaped buffers or fences should separate sidewalks from parking.
Sidewalk surfaces should be stable, firm, smooth and slip-resistant.
Pedestrian and driver sight distances should be maintained near driveways.
Regulations regarding walls, fencing and foliage near the intersection of sidewalks and
driveways should ensure adequate sight distances as vehicles enter or exit.
Bike lanes provide more than
30 benefits to a community
and only a few are specifically
for bicyclists. Benefits to
motorists include extending
sight lines to make it easier to
pull out from driveways;
increasing the turning radius
at intersections, which allows
larger vehicles to make turns
without “riding the curb”;
and creating a buffer
between travel lanes and
parked cars, which makes it
easier to park, un-park, and
get in and out of the car.
People riding bikes should have safe, convenient and comfortable access to all destinations. In
fact, every street is a bicycle street, regardless of whether it includes a designated bikeway or
trail or not. Street designs should accommodate all types, levels and ages of bicyclists. Also,
bicyclists should be separated from pedestrians.
Bikeway facilities should take into account vehicle speeds and volumes. For example, on streets
with low vehicle volumes and low vehicle speeds, the travel lanes can be shared between
bicyclists and motorists. Where higher vehicles volumes and speeds are present, the two types of
street users should be separated.
For specific guidance on bikeway design and locations, consult the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan. In general terms, bikeway treatments should provide clear guidance to enhance the safety
of all roadway users. Bike lanes are needed most on higher speed and higher volume roadways.
When bike lanes are added to principal roadways, they should be at least five feet wide.
In urban areas, the addition of bike lanes is
one of the greatest new safety benefits for
all roadway users, including motorists, bus
users, freight truck operators and
pedestrians. Bike lanes provide more than
30 benefits to a community, and only a few
are specifically for bicyclists.
Bike lane benefits to motorists include
extending sight lines to make it easier to
pull out from driveways; increasing the
turning radius at intersections, which
allows larger vehicles to make turns
without “riding the curb”; and creating a
buffer between travel lanes and parked
cars, which makes it easier to park, un-
park, and get in and out of the car.
Additionally, bike lanes can serve as a
temporary space for broken-down cars,
make mail deliveries easier and aid in
emergency responses.
Crossing a street should not be difficult. The experience comes down to the behavior of the
person walking and the behavior of the person driving, combined with the design of the
intersection or crossing. A variety of factors influence whether a person driving will stop for a
person attempting to cross the street, including vehicle speed. A driver going slowly has time to
see, react to and stop for the pedestrian. The number of pedestrians present also influences
drivers: in general, more people walking raises drivers' awareness of the likelihood of
pedestrians crossing the street.
Effective traffic management can address concerns about traffic speed and volume. Most tools
addressing crossing challenges are engineering treatments, but tools from the enforcement,
education and planning toolboxes are also important in developing effective and successful
crossings.
Providing marked crosswalks is only one of the many possible engineering measures. Thus,
when considering how to provide safer convenient crossings for pedestrians, the question
should not simply be: "Should we provide a marked crosswalk or not?" but instead, "What are
the most effective measures that can be used to help people cross this street safely and
conveniently?" Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in
meeting the objective to create safe pedestrian crossings.
In the beach cities, land uses and the design of the street, site and building are critically
important to ensuring that coherent, safe, functional and valuable places result. See the following
two town-maker’s guides—which are also provided as electronic attachments to this report—for
general guidance. These posters are especially helpful when printed or displayed at full poster
size—24 inches by 36 inches—to illustrate many of the key concepts of livability, walkability
and better built form.
The WALC Institute team evaluated existing conditions in the beach cities during two multiple-
day site visits, one in December 2010 and one in January 2011. During these visits, the team
conducted public workshops and walking audits, traveled beach cities streets and visited
neighborhoods to document existing conditions through field notes and photography. It is
important to point out that this analysis of existing conditions doesn’t draw on any studies
conducted specifically for this project, such as traffic studies or detailed analyses of pedestrian
networks and street connectivity. Rather, the existing conditions described below represent key
findings from the team’s on-site observations.
Over the course of four public workshops and two technical training sessions, the WALC
Institute team heard from a broad cross-section of community members, business operators,
educators, city staff and elected leaders about the changes they deem important for improving
well-being through livability and better built form in the beach cities. The key feedback provided
includes:
Most beach cities residents really believe in walkability and livability and would
support efforts to make their communities more walkable and livable.
The beach community character is important to many people, and residents understand
that it relates well to the principles of livability and the qualities of a built form that
supports active transportation.
Commuting by bicycle is
difficult along many east-
west routes due to hills. It
would be helpful to have
climbing lanes for
bicyclists and reduce the
frequency of stop signs,
allowing cyclists to
maintain momentum.
Despite high vehicle
speeds of more than 40
mph during weekdays and
as high as 65 mph at times,
Pacific Coast Highway—
which becomes Sepulveda
Blvd. in Manhattan
Beach—is reported by
many commuters to
harbor nearly unbearable
stop-and-go traffic, which is a common problem along commute corridors.
The difficulty of crossing key streets such as Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Boulevard,
Manhattan Beach Boulevard and other multi-lane roadways divides the community and
dampens the desire to walk to common destinations. Addressing these unsafe and
inconvenient crossings is important.
In some areas, distances to a designated place to cross streets are too far to make
walking convenient, and sidewalk gaps prevent pedestrians from getting to the
crossings easily.
There are too few places
throughout the beach cities to
safely and conveniently park
bicycles.
People seek more destinations in
their neighborhoods, or within
walking distance of where they
live. Eateries, pocket parks and
commercial or retail destinations
are as important to residents as
the beaches themselves.
The Valley-Ardmore streets and Greenbelt through Hermosa Beach and Manhattan
Beach are key community assets that aren’t currently fulfilling their potential. Many
vehicle commuters use the section to bypass Pacific Coast Highway and Sepulveda Blvd.
and travel at speeds making the sections uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists.
Additionally, where the Greenbelt crosses streets, pedestrians don’t feel safe and
comfortable.
Safe Routes to School programs are in various stages of planning and implementation in
the beach cities. Despite several successful efforts on the part of the beach cities, there
still is concern, for example, that more emphasis is needed on education and
encouragement. In particular, more awareness is needed amongst parents and students
about the benefits of active commuting to and from school and resources available to
support their efforts to use an active form of transportation.
The WALC Institute team traveled the beach cities’ streets and observed how intersections and
roadways function in general. The following assessment of existing conditions is a summary of
findings and includes general statements about the communities that don’t necessarily apply to
every neighborhood or every street. They are important, though, for each community to address,
because they affect residents’ and visitors’ ability to choose active modes of transportation and
enjoy active living. Additionally, it is important to note that several of the solutions proposed in
this plan would require studies or evaluations to be conducted prior to implementing them.
The one-way travel lanes on Valley and Ardmore in Manhattan Beach make the best of a
difficult situation. The right-of-way is very narrow and is bordered by key community
assets – on one side, the Greenbelt and on the other side, residences, schools and other
important public facilities. Thus, it is not possible to widen the roadway to add typical
“complete streets” accommodations such as bike lanes, wider sidewalks, landscaped
buffer zones and two-way vehicle travel lanes. Generally, one-way travel lanes are
discouraged because they often contribute to faster – and less safe – vehicle speeds and
reduced connectivity. In this case, though, the one-way travel lanes allow the city to
better accommodate the other street uses. They would benefit, however, from a few
enhancements such as added bike lanes and mini traffic circles that would help calm
traffic, better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians and provide a stronger sense of
place and community in this thriving residential area. Sharrows and colorized bike lanes
also should be considered as options in this area.
Many parts of the beach cities already have good “density” that keeps land uses compact
and that reduces travel distances. Even these compact areas, though, would benefit from
improvements to the built form, such as better sidewalks and intersection crossings.
The sharrows in Hermosa Beach represent an emerging best practice that indicates to
motorists and bicyclists alike that they are to share the road.
Several mixed-use developments have been created that are illustrating how streets
with a strong sense of place and high walkability can thrive. Examples include the area
of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Ave. in Manhattan Beach, among
others.
The traffic circle at the intersection of Esplanade, Paseo de la Playa and Calle Miramar in
Redondo Beach helps calm traffic in an area where pedestrian and bicycling activities are
high.
Along the Esplanade, pictured below, a recent streetscaping project has greatly enhanced
walkability and livability with improvements that make people feel comfortable using
active forms of transportation and recreation in the area. The project added bulb-outs,
added bike lanes separated from the parking lane by a 3-foot buffer and narrowed the
vehicle travel lanes.
Regional roads throughout the beach cities have become so wide that they discourage active
living. Many streets, such as sections of Sepulveda Blvd., Aviation Blvd., Artesia Blvd., Prospect
Ave. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. are dominated by fast-moving vehicles most hours of the day.
The Pacific Coast Highway, which becomes Sepulveda Blvd. in Manhattan Beach, serves all
three beach cities. It is quite uncomfortable to walk or bicycle along. Much of this discomfort is
a result of high vehicle speeds, often faster than 40 mph—the speed at which a collision is
almost guaranteed to be fatal for a pedestrian. In fact, one taxi carrying a WALC Institute team
member went through an intersection along PCH at 65 mph. Despite the vehicle speeds, many
commuters report unbearable stop-and-go traffic during peak travel periods, which is a common
problem along commute corridors.
Some intersections seem to have become less efficient for all users as they have grown wider. The
combination of higher speeds and high traffic volumes for most hours of the day has created
conditions that impact surrounding properties and are depressing the opportunities for retail,
social life and active living.
Additionally, in many areas traffic signals are spaced far apart, which further supports high
vehicle speeds.
The Valley-Ardmore streets through both Hermosa and Manhattan harbor vehicle speeds
inappropriate for the context. The streets serve residential neighborhoods, schools and the
Greenbelt, yet vehicle speeds in some sections were documented by radar gun in excess of 35
mph and at other times cars appeared to be traveling even faster, near 40 mph.
Failure to provide crosswalk markings on one or more legs of key intersections is noted in parts
of the beach cities. When a crosswalk marking is missing, the number of points of potential
conflict between a pedestrian and a vehicle increases from six points to eighteen, which in effect
triples the risk of a collision. The amount of time it takes to cross also increases, lengthening the
pedestrian’s exposure time.
This is of special concern on
arterials that carry higher
traffic volumes. But it also
presents a real concern on
smaller streets with special
circumstances, such as places
where vehicles tend to speed
through the same areas where
people on foot and bike really
want to cross to access the
beach, schools and other amenities. Examples of this are found along parts of Valley and
Ardmore. Additionally, most places where the Greenbelt crosses streets in Hermosa Beach and
Manhattan Beach don’t adequately accommodate pedestrians.
Further, in many parts of the beach cities, continuous right-turn lanes and other means to
maximize the number of vehicles that can get through a signalized intersection make crossings
too wide for people wanting to cross.
It is important to note that removing or failing to place crossings in order to try to force
pedestrians to take an alternate route can be very risky. “Desire lines,” or places where people
naturally want to cross a street, develop for a reason, whether because it’s the most convenient
place to cross or because particularly significant services or amenities can be accessed there. If a
desire line exists, care should be taken to accommodate all street users – not just cars – and
provide appropriate treatments for accessibility and safety for all.
Transparency refers to the amount of visibility between a pedestrian and the interior of
buildings that line the street. It is affected by how far back the building sits from the sidewalk,
how much of the front of the building is window as opposed to wall, how much glazing or
reflective material is used and where the door is placed. Transparency contributes to safety and
security. In fact, motorists tend to drive slower when buildings are correctly set toward the
street, and when windows are watching over the street. Many well-developed entryways to
homes or other properties contribute to the perception of human activity beyond the street,
while those with blank walls and garages suggest that people are far away. Neighborhoods with
blank "snout" garages are less supportive of walkability, whereas neighborhoods with a variety
of homes that face the street tend to make a person feel watched over and more comfortable
walking.
Most of the neighborhood streets in the beach cities have good transparency. Suburban and
strip areas of important streets like Sepulveda, Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard lack
adequate transparency and would benefit from clusters of buildings brought toward the street
to help “hold” the street and create pockets of settlement.
The ultimate in transparency is when internal activities are “externalized” or brought out to the
sidewalk. Outdoor dining and outdoor merchandising are examples. For this reason, efforts to
create one, then another, and then another outdoor eating experience at places such as Eat at
Joe's in Redondo Beach will become important.
People want and need to feel that personal harm from others, including motorists, is not likely.
In many parts of the beach cities, people seem to feel free of harm most of the time. In some
portions, though, there are too many dark places, and too few people walking, which make those
lone pedestrians feel unsafe. For example, despite being amidst areas of high activity, Harbor
Drive between Beryl St. and Herondo St. feels secluded and unsafe at night. Other examples
include several of the intersections that link the Greenbelt and Valley-Ardmore with east-west
streets, S. Camino Real near the Alta Vista Community Center, and many stretches of the Pacific
Coast Highway.
Complexity refers to the visual richness of a place and depends on the variety of the physical
environment, the variety of buildings, architectural diversity and ornamentation, landscape
elements, street furniture, signage and human activity. Motorists also tend to respond to areas of
great complexity by driving more slowly through them.
Most parts of the beach cities have built-in complexity on neighborhood streets. Some are much
richer than others, especially areas in Manhattan Beach designed to be pedestrian streets. The
great variety in size, scale and richness of homes makes walks up and down many streets not just
pleasant, but a chance to constantly see and experience new things. Some portions of the
greenway trails, Strand path and the bikeway along the beach have such a great kaleidoscope of
human activity that the people alone can make walking or bicycling rich and rewarding. Future
zoning and code language should encourage this diversity of housing type.
Communities that are built to a human scale accommodate the size, proportions and walking
speed of people. Building details, pavement texture, street trees and street furniture are all
physical elements contributing to human scale. Another impact of designing roadways only for
cars—and this doesn’t apply to freeways, but rather to community streets, collector streets, town
centers and neighborhoods—has been that travel speeds of 60 mph are encouraged, when human
scale calls for 30 mph. For example, large signage and lettering meant to be read by a motorist
passing at 60 mph is completely disorienting and confusing to a person approaching on foot or
bicycle. For pedestrians, small signs with small lettering are much more comfortable.
There are many places in the beach cities where moderate-sized buildings, narrow streets and
small spaces can create human-scale environments. As an example, the strip center across from
the Redondo Beach city hall—between N. Elena and Pacific Coast Highway—could one day
become a nicely scaled “village” that is in an urban form and accommodates people, not just cars.
Vast parts of each of the beach cities’ main streets—Aviation, Sepulveda and Manhattan Beach
Boulevard, for example—lack a human scale. It may not be possible to recapture all of these
areas, but over time it will be essential for each of the three communities to create "village-like"
spaces through the careful placement of buildings and trees.
People will walk more when they can easily navigate and have a sense of where they are at all
times. The more “legible” or understandable a place is, the easier it is to navigate. This is
improved by a street or pedestrian network that provides travelers with a sense of orientation
and relative location and by physical elements that serve as reference points.
Complementary to legibility, wayfinding is a system of signage and visual cues that help people
move successfully to reach a destination. Places with strong edges, distinct landmarks, busy
nodes and effective wayfinding systems allow people to form detailed and relatively accurate
mental maps. Conversely, a city that has no definite edges, nodes, or visually interesting features,
will be difficult to make sense of and to remember.
Portions of the beach cities, such as on Pier Ave. and on the Strand, have very high legibility.
Other areas around the Strand and beach environments have adequate wayfinding. The beach
cities in general, however, lack legibility and effective wayfinding. Indeed, outside of a few
welcoming signs and some unique street signing, bicycle rides through the area remain
confusing to someone not familiar with the streets.
A policy-based approach to transportation investments allows livability to come to the
forefront. It sets a critical path for improving conditions that will foster the well-being of
residents and visitors, and allows agencies to set direction and prioritize projects based on their
effect on quality of life. Policy helps designate where new growth, infill development and
redevelopment will occur, and moves communities away from piecemeal projects that fail to
reinforce the community’s planning principles.
The vision of this report is livability for the beach cities. Strong first steps toward improving
livability in the beach cities have included the cities’ commitment to participating in, supporting
and adopting recommendations of Vitality City and the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. The cities
should continue to do so. Further, the WALC Institute team suggests the following goals for the
beach cities:
Goal 1: A complete network of pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces
Goal 2: Safe, natural and enjoyable walking conditions
Goal 3: Sustainable transportation choices
Goal 4: Healthier, happier people
The first section of this chapter presents recommendations for accomplishing these goals:
1. Adopt Complete Streets policies and incorporate Complete Streets policy
language into all beach cities planning documents
2. Create and adopt Livable Street Design Guidelines
3. Develop a Regional Pedestrian Master Plan
4. Increase enforcement for pedestrian safety
5. Increase education and awareness for all road users
6. Improve and enhance Safe Routes to School Programs
Additionally, it is recommended that the beach cities adopt and implement the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan.
The second section of this chapter focuses on bridging the gap between the goals and
recommendations, and the guidance found in the cities’ municipal codes and general plan land-
use and circulation elements. Quite simply: the values of a culture are expressed in the planning
and design of its cities. Cities that accommodate walkers, bicyclists, transit, and automobiles
support the core role of cities: to maximize exchange. By allowing individuals to travel safely via
inviting and diverse transportation modes, we create a place where we are more likely to move in
harmony with others. Streets either enforce good behaviors or bad behaviors. Bad design leads to
bad behaviors; good design leads to good behaviors. Where a city has multiple accidents or
pedestrian fatalities, congestion and demonstrated bad behaviors, the corridor must be assessed
and improved. With a solid street network and improved design, our cities become world-class
destinations—attracting people, businesses and creating opportunities.
The beach cities should require a complete transportation network that meets the needs of all
users. In order for this to happen, the beach cities must prioritize the development of Complete
Streets. The beach cities should adopt Complete Streets policies into all planning documents by
action of their city councils, and then incorporate the policy language as appropriate into
planning documents as they are updated.
Adopting Complete Streets policy language into all planning documents ensures that projects
are designed with all users in mind. This leads to improved well-being for residents and
visitors. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration identified three areas where exceptions to
Complete Streets policies are acceptable: accommodation is not necessary on corridors where 1)
non-motorized use is prohibited; 2) the cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate
to the need or probable use; or 3) a documented absence of current or future need is present.
For the most part, these exemptions do not apply to the beach cities, except in a few minor
locations (i.e. such as a sidewalk on the same side of the street as a railroad track).
A Complete Streets policy ensures that we offer choices to the community by making walking,
bicycling and taking public transportation convenient, easy and safe. A Complete Streets policy
also assures transportation equity. Changing policy so that our transportation system considers
the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users means that people of all ages and abilities
are included in planning and design processes. Complete Streets policies benefit the entire
community by improving individual and community health, improving the efficiency and
capacity of existing roads, and reducing congestion and vehicle miles traveled. Complete Streets
policies also can address how eco-friendly practices such as “bio swales” can be incorporated into
street designs to maximize their benefits.
The National Complete Streets Coalition has identified ten elements of an ideal Complete Streets
policy. See: http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/policy/cs-policyelements.pdf.
Developing and adopting a Complete Streets policy doesn’t need to be a lengthy process, but it
does require the commitment and understanding on the part of elected leaders. In Winter Park,
FL, the city commission adopted a Complete Streets policy in early 2011 and is building upon the
effort to adjust transportation approaches and the capital improvement budget. See:
http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Docs/Government/meeting_agendas/agd_05_9_11rs.pdf.
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, once adopted, will also offer language appropriate to
incorporate into Complete Streets policies.
Faced with the challenges of meeting transportation demand while preserving the character of
the community, municipalities are creating and adopting street design guidelines to support
livability.
Street design guidelines will allow the beach cities to bring land use and transportation planning
together so that level-of-service for cars is no longer the sole criterion for street design. Design
guidelines set forth standards and provide guidance as the cities design and improve streets. The
guidelines provide new metrics for measuring the success of a street, provide an assessment of
local street types and highlight traffic calming features that have a history of success locally.
When crafting street designgGuidelines, communities should look to the following documents
to ensure the guidelines fall within the acceptable standard:
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“The Green Book”)
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traditional Neighborhood Development
Street Design Guidelines
ITE’s Traffic Engineering Handbook
Additional recommended reading includes Randall Arendt’s Rural by Design, Christopher
Alexander’s The Timeless Way of Building and A Pattern Language, and Galina Tachieva’s Sprawl Repair
Manual. Los Angeles County is scheduled to release the Model Design Manual for Living Streets in Fall
2011, which will serve as a good example for the beach communities.
In order to develop a complete network of pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces, the
beach cities should develop a regional pedestrian master plan. At a regional level, this would
allow the beach cities to identify gaps and deficiencies in the pedestrian network and to
evaluate continuity of facilities across borders. Those areas where municipalities bump up
against each other can show a visible seam due to differences in vision, prioritization and
implementation of pedestrian infrastructure improvements. Specifically, a regional pedestrian
master plan will allow the beach cities to:
Review existing plans, policies, guidelines and codes to determine whether inherent
conflicts exist within these documents that might impact the continuity of pedestrian
infrastructure across the cities’ borders.
Build a toolbox and best practices guide that informs pedestrian planning at a regional
level. Tools can include performance methods and monitoring that functions across
borders.
Propose and refine treatments to ensure the integrity of the pedestrian network
regionally, and to provide clear messaging to users that traverses geographical borders.
Perform field research to identify conflicts at a regional level, especially noting
conditions at shared borders, such as network gaps, and the geographic distribution of
existing pedestrian facilities which will aid in the development of regional amenities
such as trails.
Conduct civic engagement that brings local partners together, thereby building capacity
for walkability at both a local and a regional level.
Analyze needs and demand based on information gathered regionally, allowing the
beach cities to understand patterns, behaviors, origins and destinations at a regional
level.
Conduct a destination analysis. When people are too far from parks, plazas, places to
eat healthy food, retail or other useful and fun destinations, they will not walk, or even
eat well. "Destination deserts" can be quickly mapped in a community within the plan.
Perform a security analysis. People will not walk if they feel that they must navigate a
void in watchfulness or activity. These are easily mapped through a civic engagement
process during the regional planning efforts.
Develop criteria for ranking, prioritizing and implementing projects regionally for
maximum impact and to better support one another’s initiatives.
Develop funding strategies that may reduce the burden to any one community and allow
the beach cities to show regional support of one another’s initiatives. This may provide
the opportunity for the beach cities to leverage regional resources for funding
opportunities.
Allow the beach cities’ City Councils, Planning Commissions, school boards, utility
boards, library boards, fire boards and Staffs to work together, to share common
problems, programs, lessons learned and best practices, and to establish partnerships. A
monthly meeting of representatives can increase cohesion and collaboration and
facilitate the establishment of common and shared goals.
Identify planned improvements to determine whether they support or conflict with other
regional initiatives.
Regional master plans are somewhat challenging to find, so this would place the beach cities at
the forefront of smart planning. The following pathways master plan provides a good example
of regional planning: http://www.meridiancity.org/parks_rec.aspx?id=2667.
In order to fund the development of the pedestrian master plan or to fund a regional bicycle and
pedestrian coordinator position, the beach cities might consider forming a Joint Powers
Authority (JPA). The JPA would allow the beach cities to prioritize improvements to close gaps
and fix deficiencies in the pedestrian network. The JPA would foster a collaborative discussion
among the beach cities to coordinate pedestrian planning and implementation activities, with
an emphasis on improving the pedestrian network across jurisdictions.
To learn more about how JPAs can fund transportation improvement projects in California, see:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=gov&group=0600107000&file=6500-6536
To learn more about a specific JPA transportation project in San Francisco, see:
http://transbaycenter.org/tjpa/about-the-tjpa and http://www.sdrp.org/jpa.htm.
Additionally, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program can be
used to fund transportation related projects that are designed to reduce traffic congestion and
improve air quality. CMAQ has seven major project categories, including pedestrian and bicycle
improvement projects. Pedestrian and bicycle projects comprise approximately 13 percent of
CMAQ projects. This funding can be used for constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
are not exclusively recreational and that reduce vehicle trips. The program funds one full-time
position per state and it can also be used to fund bicycle parking, pedestrian and bicycling
promotion, sidewalk or pedestrian improvements and enhancements, bike maps and planning,
and educational efforts. To learn more, visit:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=4274.
If undertaking a regional pedestrian planning effort is not feasible, the three beach cities should
create citywide pedestrians plans that are developed in coordination with each other and that
are complementary in supporting all people in the beach cities.
One of the most critical factors in street safety is enforcement that concentrates on intersections
and corridors with high crash rates. An enforcement program for pedestrian safety should
include an evaluation of motorist, bicyclist, pedestrian and transit users to determine whether
we are anticipating and accommodating one another appropriately. For instance, an
enforcement program will look at whether motorists yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in
crosswalks and should address some of the more critical problems such as speeding, shortcuts
through neighborhoods, red light running and obstructions to the pedestrian right of way such
as parking. An enforcement program will look at pedestrian behaviors, too, and whether
pedestrians are engaging in aggressive or dangerous activities such as walking into a stream of
traffic, or crossing intersections against the signal and thereby disrupting the flow for other
modes. It should also include bicyclist enforcement programs aimed at curtailing problematic
behaviors such as riding the wrong way in a traffic lane, riding at night without lights or
required reflectors, or bicycle parking that impedes other modes.
Compliance and enforcement activities are most often overseen by the police. In order to
improve safety, health and livability for the beach cities, the beach cities should increase
enforcement activities around school zones and other critical areas where vehicle-pedestrian
conflicts have been high or where poor yielding behaviors by motorists have been observed. To
aid in enforcing the rights of all street users, the beach cities should increase the number of
police officers walking and biking in the community. Additionally, the municipalities should
survey the built environment and the community to determine whether streets are in
compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. See:
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards.htm.
To collect information about problematic areas, the beach cities should provide a system for
recording pedestrian safety concerns such as poor lighting, broken sidewalks, obstructions,
perceived sense of danger or gaps in the pedestrian network. This may be a website or a display
at libraries and schools.
Many drivers ignore the pedestrian’s right-of-way. One extremely dangerous situation happens
when there are multiple travel lanes and one vehicle stops for the pedestrian crossing, and
another overtakes and passes the stopped car, striking the pedestrian. The Uniform Vehicle
Code (UVC) is a set of traffic laws prepared by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Laws and Ordinances which serves as a model in most states. See http://www.ncutlo.org.
Pedestrians, too, have duties to ensure the safety and comfort of other road users. There are
places where they are prohibited (interstates, for example) and they must comply with traffic
signals. For more information on pedestrian and bicycle safety enforcement, see:
http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/b15cXFxa20090311142525.pdf.
An educational and awareness campaign can take the guesswork out of navigating our streets. In
order to improve safety and enjoyment of using streets, the beach cities should:
Develop culturally sensitive messaging for all pedestrian safety programs and information.
For an example or an outreach brochure for education and awareness, see:
http://www.metroplanorlando.com/files/view/10_things_motorists_should_know_about_bicy
cling.pdf.
An example of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Public Awareness campaign can be
found here: http://www.bestreetsmart.net/resources/2010/SS10_Summary_v1.pdf.
Train city staff on planning and designing roadways for pedestrians through walking
audits. A walking audit, also known as a “walking workshop,” is conducted with
residents, officials, city staff, community groups and other stakeholders of an area. These
walks can take from sixty minutes to two or more hours.
Diverse groups of people, including city and county officials, planners, engineers,
emergency responders, neighborhood leaders, community groups and residents see, feel
and hear problems up close. Dan Burden leads the walk and asks those taking part to
explain “what is working here or what is not working here” each time the group stops.
When groups are diverse, many insights and options are discovered.
Walking audits are one of the most powerful tools for people to discuss common issues of
interest or concern related to the design, operation of streets, parks and open spaces, as
well as a way to discuss security, safety and other features of their community. In many
cases, complex and challenging issues are addressed and solved right in the field. This
initiative would allow the beach cities to assess and document existing conditions, while
building local partnerships at the local level. The walking audit is a community
engagement tool as much as it is a community assessment tool.
Develop safety tips for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users based on critical
local issues. New York City’s Department of Transportation noted that although older
adults make up only 13 percent of the city’s population, they make up 33 percent of
pedestrian deaths. Educational and enforcement campaigns remind drivers that older
adults or others with special needs may need more time crossing at an intersection.
Additionally, they look at areas around schools and parks where children may dart out
from between parked cars. They recognized that one-third of all pedestrian injuries
happen after dark and so they include this information in their outreach campaigns along
with a dusk-to-dawn headlight reminder. Safety tips remind pedestrians that a vehicle
traveling at 30 mph may need 125 feet to come to a complete stop. The city’s outreach
materials focus on walking under the influence in addition to the dangers of driving under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. Their materials state that in 1998, one of every 10
pedestrians killed was under the influence of alcohol, other drugs (including prescription
medication), or a combination of both. To see their educational campaign, go to:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/safety/safetyedu.shtml.
The beach cities should continue Safe Routes to School programs and projects to improve safety
for students. The WALC Institute notes that the cities have developed programs in the past and
grant funding recently has been secured for additional Safe Routes work. This is good news.
Where the following actions haven’t already been taken by the beach cities, they should:
Apply for Safe Routes to School funds and work with agencies, governments,
organizations, residents, students, the School Board and others to encourage active
transportation for students.
Encourage the development of walking school buses for students and encourage
walking Moai Teams within neighborhoods to provide local support, opportunities for
friendships and on-going review of existing conditions, in addition to placing “eyes on
children” as they walk or bicycle to and from school.
Implement both classroom and active/hands-on learning. Lessons should focus on basic
pedestrian, bicycle and motor-vehicle occupant safety and encourage children to walk
and ride bicycles as a regular means of transportation.
Identify school trip management techniques to encourage parents, students and staff to
reduce automobile trips and to use alternative modes for travel to and from schools. This
can support community livability objectives including transportation choice,
accessibility, walkability, affordability, community interaction and reduced traffic on
local streets.
Ensure that local Safe Routes to School committees have members with experience in
the areas of health, engineering, education, disadvantaged communities, law
enforcement, planning and recreation.
Assist Safe Routes to School grant recipients in preparing before and after surveys to
capture desired outcomes and metrics for project success.
Publicize local resources and website content addressing Safe Routes to School.
Identify low-income communities and schools to improve participation in Safe Routes
to School programs. The beach cities should conduct a special outreach campaign to
ensure that communities are aware of Safe Routes to School opportunities and available
technical assistance in the application process.
Create culturally sensitive materials that highlight Safe Routes to School opportunities
for the beach cities.
Sample Safe Routes to Schools Programs from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership are
found here:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/4233.
Parent surveys about walking and biking to school from the National Center for Safe Routes to
School are here:
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/collateral/Parent_Survey_English_Scan2009.pdf.
Additionally, in June 2011, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership released a publication
entitled Safe Routes to School Local Policy Guide to help local communities and schools create, enact
and implement policies which will support active and healthy community environments that
encourage safe walking and bicycling and physical activity by children through a "Health in All
Policies" approach. See:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/media/file/Local_Policy_Guide_2011.pdf.
Encouraging multi-modal and active transportation helps reduce “vehicle miles traveled”, or
VMT. According to the Brooking Institute, the U. S. is experiencing its longest and steepest
drop in driving, signaling a permanent shift away from reliance on the car to other modes of
transportation. Their report, The Road…Less Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends in the
U.S., shows that national VMT began to plateau as far back as 2004 and dropped in 2007 for the
first time since 1980.
Per capita driving showed slowed growth after 2000 and rates have fallen since 2005. These
recent declines in driving predated the rising gas prices during 2007 and 2008. Recent drops in
VMT (90 billion miles) and VMT per capita (388 miles) are the largest annualized drops since
World War II, according to this report.
Additionally, the report states that from October 2007 to September 2008, Americans drove 90
billion fewer miles than the same time period the year before. Transit use is at its highest level
since the 1950’s, and Amtrak set a ridership record in 2009. While total driving in both rural and
urban areas grew between January 1991 and September 2008, rural and urban VMT have been
declining since 2004. The report also presents a survey which ranks all 50 states and the nation’s
100 largest metro areas for their “driving footprint” and shows who drives the most, who drives
the least, and where driving is declining the fastest.
To review the report, see:
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1216_transportation_tom
er_puentes/vehicle_miles_traveled_report.pdf
When streets emphasize an inviting, people-first approach to design, automobile and freight
movement are well supported. The design of corridors and intersections should focus on
promoting people and businesses first through a complete network that accommodates all
modes of transportation. This approach is the oldest way of building a city or town; it is an
approach that honors the great city making art and science known throughout human history.
It is only in recent years that street making practices have led to an erosion of social space and
living space through an over emphasis on single occupant automobiles. The consequences of
this are social isolation, less daily physical activity and lower volunteerism rates. Returning to
the time honored way of building streets to accommodate all users will help improve the quality
of life, restore social and economic opportunity, and lead to a more sustainable pattern of city
making and city life.
The following resources speak to the benefits of active transportation:
Healthy, Active & Vibrant Community 2009 Toolkit, from Trailnet:
http://www.trailnet.org/HAVC_Toolkit.php
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, from the Local Government Commission:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/Healthy_Kids_Healthy_
Communities.pdf
Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes, from Active
Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf
Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance,
from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf
Growing Demand for Communities that Promote Health, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_WalkableCommunities.pdf
At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy
Transportation Policy, from the American Public Health Association:
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-FB68-4112-8C75-
49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.pdf
All cities are required by California law to prepare and adopt a General Plan, which establishes
the long-range goals for the physical development of the community. Manhattan Beach refers to
the General Plan as the "constitution" for development in the city, reflecting the long-term vision
of the community through its goals, policies and objectives.
A General Plan also reflects the community’s concerns. In each of the beach cities, concern about
mixed-use development and its impact on residential uses exists. Traffic congestion, parking,
parking management and parking requirements are also main concerns, along with overflow
traffic into residential neighborhoods. Maintaining a sense of place is identified as important and
in some cases, development is seen as a threat to maintaining charm and the overall aesthetic.
While Manhattan Beach explicitly states the correlation between livability, quality of life and the
built environment, the beach cities should consider how their guiding principles can be
broadened, so that implementable policies and actionable strategies follow. This ensures the
community vision is documented first and then policies and strategies implement it.
As policy documents, General Plans are just that—general in nature— and rely on the Municipal
Code to provide specificity for enforcement. In all three communities, the Municipal Code could
tie better to the General Plan. Enforcement activities and ordinances don’t provide the
framework or the vision. The purpose of Municipal Code is to promote and protect public peace,
health, safety and welfare, and to guide growth and development in keeping with the vision set
for by the community in their General Plan.
Livability is, in large part, determined by the physical form of the city. The built form either
encourages well-being through healthy choices or it makes unhealthy choices easiest and
common. The following principles may eventually be included in the guiding documents of all
three beach cities for improved well-being:
Provide a mix of land uses
Build compact design and increase density, where possible
Prioritize walkable communities and active transportation
Foster distinctive, attractive neighborhoods with a strong sense of place
Preserve open space, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities
Provide a variety of transportation and housing opportunities and choices
Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions
Against this backdrop of livability principles, the WALC Institute team reviewed the Land Use
and Circulation Elements of the beach cities’ General Plans and their Municipal Codes. The
Institute team has identified areas where livability principles could be better integrated into
their guiding documents. Those areas are described in the sections that follow.
Note that resources are provided at the end of this chapter to help the cities in developing
updated language, policies and practices to support livability.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that its intent is to establish the goals,
objectives, policies and implementation programs to guide the manner in which new
development will occur and to conserve existing uses. The Land Use Element aims at
addressing nine fundamental issues for the City:
What types of land uses should be permitted in the City of Redondo Beach?
How should the land uses be distributed throughout the City?
In each of the City's land use districts, what should be their functional role, what uses
should be permitted, and what should be their physical form and character?
What mechanisms can be used to increase the supply of housing units affordable for
very low, low and moderate income households?
How should existing uses which are inconsistent with an area's objectives be
maintained or replaced?
How can the City's properties, structures and public open spaces be designed to
provide a high quality image and character for the City?
How can compatibility be ensured between land uses characterized by differing
functions and intensities?
What mechanisms can be used to maintain the quality of the City's built environment?
What mechanisms can be used to ensure the maintenance of environmental quality in
the City?
The policy set forth addresses these questions and provides direction to:
Retain existing residential neighborhoods and principal commercial districts, allowing
for infill development and uses that are comparable in function and scale to existing
development.
Allow for the modest intensification of selected key sites which are economically
underutilized or contain marginal uses, have the potential for achieving significant
benefits to the City, and can be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses.
Allow for a change of use on selected sites to improve the economic viability and
compatibility with adjacent uses.
Because the Land Use policy provides the pattern and form of development, it is central that
livability principles are included in this part of the General Plan. For example, the City identifies
a “hodge-podge” of existing development along the City's arterial corridors (Pacific Coast
Highway, Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard) and that viable and healthy commercial
development needs to be in definable and focused clusters, rather than spread continuously along
corridors.
The Plan provides two polices mechanisms to address this:
1. Re-differentiation of the corridors into pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, high activity,
and general automobile oriented segments.
2. Recycling of selected properties for residential development. To stimulate the latter,
residential densities are permitted which are somewhat higher than those allowed in
other areas of the City.
The City recognizes the value of mixed use development to:
Reduce vehicular trips and associated air pollution by providing housing opportunities
in proximity to jobs
Establish active, pedestrian-oriented districts which enhance the quality of life and
vitality of the city
Increase the supply of moderately priced and affordable housing without increasing the
densities of traditional residential neighborhoods.
The General Plan does not mandate the development of mixed-use structures, but it does permit
them in a number of key activity areas of the City: the western segment of Artesia Boulevard; the
Torrance Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway intersection; and the southern segment of Pacific
Coast Highway.
Recommendation:
Within the General Plan, the City of Redondo Beach has the opportunity to recognize
the impact of transportation corridors on community well-being. The beach cities
should set the vision for how transportation corridors function for the beach cities and
indicate the guiding principles, implementable policies and actionable strategies for
moving towards the vision.
An example of this follows:
Guiding Principle: Foster the redevelopment of key corridors as vital spines with nodes
of mixed-use and higher density development to bring services closer to people, with
street designs that encourage active transportation.
Implementable Policy: Adopt Complete Streets policies into all planning documents by
action of the city council.
Actionable Strategies:
Include Complete Street language in all planning documents.
Update the General Plan to include a focus on livability and well-being through
Complete Streets and active transportation.
Review the Minimum Standards for Street Widths provided in the Municipal
Code. Presently, the Municipal Code uses a functional classification that is
formula driven and generic. The existing lane widths favor speed, and do not
encourage walkability or livability. Additionally, the minimum standards for
curbs, sidewalks and pedestrian widths at 4 feet (residential) and 5 - 12 feet
(elsewhere) are too narrow. The requirement that sidewalks “are located within
the street right-of-way not closer than six (6) inches from the dedicated
boundary of the street” does not speak to improving the pedestrian experience or
buffering the pedestrian from moving vehicles.
Prioritize Capital Improvement Projects based on Complete Streets and/or
Livability criteria.
Utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques to alter travel
behavior through programs, incentives, services, and policies. Carpooling and
vanpooling, changes in work schedules, and home-office incentives can move
trips out of the peak period or eliminate them.
The following objectives and policies related to transportation improvements appear in the Land
Use Element section:
It shall be the objective of the City of Redondo Beach to commit lands for the continued
operation of public infrastructure which supports residents, businesses and visitors and
protects them from environmental hazards.
It shall be the policy of the City of Redondo Beach to:
Allocate lands for the continuation and expansion of public streets and highways
in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, as defined in the
Transportation and Circulation section of the General Plan (I1.1, I1.2).
Allow for the continuation of utility corridors, easements, and facilities (sewer,
water, energy, storm drainage, telecommunications, and other) to provide for
existing and future land use development in areas classified as Public (“P”) on
the Land Use Plan map (I1.1).
Provide lands for the expansion of public infrastructure as necessary to maintain
the level of service for the City's residents and accommodate future development
(I1.1).
Develop plans and programs for the reuse of infrastructure and utility properties
and easements should they no longer be required for their intended operations
(I1.1).
Recommendation:
The Objective could speak to supporting and protecting users, while encouraging well-
being. The Policies speak to the expansion of public streets but do not speak to the
significant impact that streets have on place and placemaking. Policies should speak to
preserving and protecting rights of way as a community resource. Additionally,
expansion of the public infrastructure to maintain current levels of service may run
counter to livability measures. The community should consider what level of service
means for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.
The City of Redondo Beach sets for the following Objective in its General Plan:
Establish and implement a comprehensive plan for the upgrade of Pacific Coast
Highway's streetscape to incorporate street trees, landscape (planters), street furniture
(benches, trash receptacles, news racks, etc.), street and crosswalk paving, lighting,
public signage, and other appropriate elements, as permitted by Caltrans (I1.17).
Recommendation:
Complete Streets elements and language that supports biking, walking and transit
should be included in the upgrade of Pacific Coast Highway. In the Land Use Element,
the City points to Pacific Coast Highway as a potential location for housing based on RH
designation. Streetscape improvements, like those noted above, appear in many of the
corridor plans yet they do not speak to intended outcomes: livability, improved well-
being, aging/living in place, increased civic engagement and safety. Guiding Principles
are notably absent from the General Plan’s Land Use Element and so the Plan Objectives
and Policies may point to the desire for a healthy, active community, but this is not an
organizing theme.
The City of Redondo Beach sets forth the following Objective in its General Plan:
Examine the feasibility of re-routing North Catalina Avenue coincident with the railroad
right-of-way from approximately North Broadway Avenue to Herondo Street;
concurrently implementing traffic control mechanisms to reduce the speed of traffic (e.g.,
angled parking, additional signalization or stop signs, widened sidewalks, and limited
access to and from Pacific Coast Highway) (I 1.19).
The General Plan Land Use Element could speak to traffic control mechanisms and
traffic calming features and their desired outcomes for pedestrians and bicycles. The
General Plan should speak to why the community needs to calm traffic and behaviors of
concern versus desired behaviors. This is an opportunity to speak to the community’s
vision when it comes to transportation corridors and user rights and responsibilities.
The Circulation Element does a nice job of assessing existing conditions in Redondo Beach and
outlining opportunities to improve Level of Service for vehicles. The Element provides the
regulatory issues affecting transportation improvements in Redondo Beach, which should be
noted for this project:
Measure DD – Requires voter consent for major changes in the City’s General Plan
or Zoning Ordinances
AB 1358 – Complete Streets Act – It requires circulation elements to address the
transportation system from a multi-modal perspective. Streets must meet the needs
of all users.
AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act – The State of California is committed to
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
SB375 – Adopted to achieve regional GHG targets, it requires Metropolitan Planning
Organizations to create a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” to meet regional
targets. It also requires that housing elements and transportation plans be
synchronized on eight year schedules and it allows for streamlining incentives for
preferred development types.
The Circulation Element outlines bicycle and pedestrian facilities and opportunities to reduce
gaps in network and to create linkages to existing and proposed facilities. The following existing
Goals and Policies for bicyclists and pedestrians have been identified and should be recognized
as part of the Vitality City project.
Goal: Pursue Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities
Policies:
Link Existing and Proposed Facilities.
Connect North Redondo Beach and South Redondo Beach with bike facilities.
Focus on access at transit stations, the waterfront, South Bay Galleria, Artesia
Boulevard, Riviera Village, Pacific Coast Highway retail zones and school zones.
Reduce travel vehicle lanes and create minimum 5’ bike lanes.
Goal: Enhance Bicycle Infrastructure
Policy:
Increase the provision of bike lockers, bike racks and lighting for bike facilities.
Goal: Create Opportunities for Physical Activity
Policies:
Ensure that residents will be able to walk or bicycle to destinations such as the
beach, the Civic Center, Redondo Beach Pier, Riviera Village and other activity
centers.
Conduct walkability and bikability audits.
Work with Redondo Beach Unified School District to create Safe Routes to
School.
Time signals to allow adequate crossing time for pedestrians and install
pedestrian islands or bulb-outs on wide streets to shorten crossing distances.
Close existing gaps in sidewalk infrastructure, maintain sidewalks and require
sidewalks with all new development.
Provide climate appropriate landscaping, adequate lighting and street amenities
to make walking safe, interesting and enjoyable.
Promote the use of alternative transportation for short trips and conduct
periodic bicycle and pedestrian counts to assess whether alternative mode use is
increasing.
Recommendation:
The Circulation Element does not speak to the community’s vision for active
transportation, active living or livability. While the Goal may be to “Create
Opportunities for Physical Activity,” this should be in support of a community vision of
health, well-being, active living or quality of life. Additionally, the Vitality City project
leaders should review the plans and policies established by the community within the
Circulation Element for an update on progress and prioritization since adoption. This
would indicate support of and resistance to policies.
Municipal Code
The Municipal Code provides instruction for what one may or may not do. The following topics
speak to pedestrian transportation:
1. Pedestrian Safety - Ordinance 4-22.08 and 9-1.22: Protection of Pedestrians - Pedestrian
safety refers to construction. Nothing speaks to creating a safe pedestrian environment.
2. Crosswalks - Ordinance 3.7.1001 provides for the establishment of crosswalks and gives
authorization to the City Manager to establish and mark crosswalks in cases where the
Council determines that there is exceptional hazard to pedestrians crossing the roadway
in any of the following places:
At any intersection;
a) Near the mid-block point in any block in the Central Traffic District which
exceeds 400 feet in length;
b) Near the mid-block point in any block outside the Central Traffic District which
exceeds 400 feet in length provided the volume of vehicular traffic and the volume
of pedestrian travel indicate a special need for such crosswalk as defined in the
Traffic Manual; and
c) At any loading platform on a private right-of-way of any common passenger
carrier. (§ 39, Ord. 1539)
This does not speak to utilizing context sensitive design solutions. Other ordinances speak to
limiting pedestrian crossings to crosswalks within the Central Traffic District and requiring
pedestrians to cross a roadway “at right angles to the curb, or by the shortest route to the
opposite curb, except in a marked crosswalk (§ 41, Ord. 1539). The Code states “no person shall
stop or stand on a sidewalk except as near as is physically possible to the building line or the
curb line at any place in the Central Traffic District or any business district (§ 43, Ord. 1539).
This goes against livability principles and it is not clear what this Ordinance is in support of.
3. Wayfinding - In terms of pedestrian scaled wayfinding, Ordinance 3-7.1006 Signs states
that pedestrian scaled signage will alert pedestrians to street closures. It does not speak
to pedestrian scaled signage and wayfinding otherwise.
4. Safety - Bicycle safety focuses on licenses and fees, and outlines the prohibitions for
bicycles on sidewalks, ramps and in parking structures. Interestingly, Code 3-1.03 to 3-
1.07 prohibits skateboards and roller skates from streets, bike paths and alleys, as well as
limits their usage on sidewalks—so it is not clear where they are desired within the City.
5. Transportation Demand Management - Ordinance 10-2.2406 sets forth requirements for new
applicable developments to provide facilities and/or programs that encourage and
accommodate the use of ridesharing, transit, pedestrian and bicycle commuting as
alternatives to single-occupant motor vehicle trips. Under the Purpose, it states “A
reduction in such trips can be expected to assist in reduced traffic congestion, air
pollution and energy consumption impacts related to employment growth generated by
new development. Further, it is the intent of this article to comply with the requirements
of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP).” (§ 1, Ord. 2905 c.s.,
eff. August 5, 2003)
6. Bicycle Parking - Bicycle parking requirement of four spots per 50,000 square feet is low.
New York City places their requirement at one spot per 7, 500 square feet for commercial
uses.
The WALC Institute team acknowledges that the Redondo Beach Sustainable City Plan includes
some recommendations related to those described in this livability report. The Institute team
was introduced to the Sustainable City Plan toward the close of the livability project and thus, it
wasn’t reviewed as part of this effort. It is referenced here as a possible resource document.
City of Hermosa Beach
Land Use Element
The City includes the following Goals in its General Plan:
Goal 1: Protect and maintain the small town beach community atmosphere of
Hermosa Beach.
Goal 2: Accommodate existing and future commercial land uses to provide service to
both local residents and regional shoppers.
Goal 3: Encourage land uses which enhance and promote the City’s coastal
environment.
Goal 4: Provide for the development and maintenance of public infrastructure to
adequately serve the needs of residents and permitted land uses.
Goal 5: Provide community resource facilities which will adequately support the
needs of local residents and businesses.
Goal 6: Maintain existing land use standards and controls for the commercial and
industrial districts.
One of the Goals for the City of Hermosa Beach should be the creation of community conditions
that positively affect quality of life, health and well-being. Nothing in the goals speaks to these
things. There is an opportunity here to speak to the protection of natural resources; access to
healthy foods; safe streets, neighborhoods and parks providing better living, working and playing
environments; or better health outcomes.
Recommendation:
The City of Hermosa should consider including a Health and Wellness Chapter in its
General Plan. This would allow the community to accomplish the following:
Document the status of health and wellness today, including a review of current
conditions relative to healthy living determinants.
Highlight key findings and recommendations based on an existing conditions
analysis to improve quality of life, health and well-being.
Define goals for promoting healthy living.
Identify policies and implementable actions to address challenges and opportunities
to foster health and wellness community-wide.
Including well-being as a critical path for improving conditions within the community is
central to long-term success and sustainability. Although a Community Health and
Wellness Element is not a state-mandated element, its inclusion in the General Plan ensures
that public health and wellness remains a city priority. The Element is consistent with
Section 65303 of the State of California Government Code, which authorizes local
jurisdictions to adopt additional elements to those required by state law when they relate to
the physical development of the jurisdiction.
General Plan Goals, Objectives and Implementation Policies: Hermosa Beach’s present
policies in support of the City’s Goals and Objectives may run counter to livability principles. Of
concern are the following policies:
Restriction on land uses is based on compatibility, with no explanation or
establishment of compatibility/incompatibility guidelines.
Adequate separation from the lot line of residential and nonresidential uses; setback
requirements.
Pedestrian oriented design is limited to specific commercial areas as opposed to a city-
wide initiative.
Mitigation of impacts of commercial development on adjacent residential land uses.
Commercial corridor limitations on residential land uses for Pacific Coast Highway.
Landscape buffering speaks to an interface between residential development and the
Pacific Coast Highway, but nothing speaks to buffering pedestrians from traffic or
providing drought-resistant landscaping treatments for water reduction, pedestrian
comfort or to improve sight lines.
Maximizing the use of public and private parking, and private downtown parking
structures.
Consideration of existing rights of way but no discussion of long term protection of
existing rights of way as green spaces or multi-use trails or for transit. No discussion of
the City’s plan for engaging the public when it comes to preserving the right of way.
There is no explanation of the Downtown Business Enhancement Commission – who
they are, their role and why they will review major development plans.
It is noted here that the City is collecting a General Plan Maintenance Fee to fund the General
Plan update. Additionally, due to compact form, scale and density, we should note that Hermosa
Beach does provide a horizontally mixed use form, where commercial and residential uses are in
close proximity to one another within much of the City. The City’s high parking standards,
however, run counter to livability at 2 plus 1 guest space required.
Recommendation:
Hermosa Beach has the opportunity to update its General Plan to include livability, active
living and green principles for improved community well-being.
Hermosa Beach should consider rewriting its Goals for improved well-being by adding:
Goal 1: Improve Access to Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Goal 2: Expand Healthy Food and Nutrition Choices
Goal 3: Ensure Access to Critical Services, such as Hospitals and Schools
Goal 4: Encourage Safe and Convenient Public Transit and Active Circulation
Options
Goal 5: Provide a Range of Quality and Affordable Housing
Goal 6: Expand Economic Opportunity
Goal 7: Develop Complete Streets and Neighborhoods
Goal 8: Improve Safety in Neighborhoods and Public Spaces
Goal 9: Improve Environmental Quality
Goal 10: Promote Green and Sustainable Development Practices
Goal 11: Become a Leader in Building Healthy Communities
The opportunity to speak to appropriate, compatible Land Uses could fall under a number of
these goals, but would frame the discussion with the community’s well-being at the center so
that the policies are in support. Within the General Plan, the City of Hermosa Beach should
frame the Vision with policies and strategies to assist with prioritizing and implementing
recommendations.
Recommendation:
The following examples provide a guiding principle, followed by policies and strategies that
support.
1. Guiding Principle: Improve Access to Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Implementable Policies:
Provide a comprehensive and interconnected system of parks, plaza, playgrounds
and open space.
Expand and tailor recreational programs and services to meet the community’s
needs.
Enhance and protect the community’s access to the shoreline.
Actionable Strategies:
Parks Master Plan Update
Expand the Parkland Dedication Ordinance
Park Dedication Incentive Program
Joint-Use Agreements for private use of public facilities.
City-Wide Recreation Program Update
2. Guiding Principle: Expand Healthy Food and Nutrition Choices
Implementable Policies:
Promote the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Support community gardens, urban agriculture and local farmers.
Require restaurants to provide nutritional information to customers.
Begin Farm to School Programs.
Actionable Strategies:
Create a Healthy Food Incentives Program.
Undertake a Sustainable Urban Agriculture Assessment.
Provide nutrition information display guidelines.
Create a Healthy Food Task Force with the School Board to bring fresh fruits,
vegetables and local foods into schools.
3. Guiding Principle: Adopt Safe and Convenient Public Transit and Active
Circulation Options
Implementable Policies:
Support an enhanced public transportation system to improve access for all
residents and visitors.
Provide a comprehensive para-transit service within the City.
Promote walking and biking as safe, convenient modes of transportation.
Create a safety campaign for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.
Promote mixed-use development.
Actionable Strategies:
Update the Community’s Access and Mobility Criteria.
Update the City’s Traffic Calming Program.
Update the Streetscape Improvement Plan with Complete Streets policies.
Street Design Guidelines Update.
Green Streets Program Update.
4. Guiding Principle: Develop Complete Streets and Neighborhoods
Implementable Policies:
Encourage dense, mixed-use infill development.
Identify community needs by neighborhood through walking and bike audits.
Build Complete Streets and incorporate Complete Streets language into all
planning documents.
Actionable Strategies:
Update the Corridor Improvement Plan.
Update/Create the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.
Integrate Complete Streets and Complete Neighborhoods policy language in all
guiding documents and internal communications.
5. Guiding Principle: Become a Leader in Building Healthy Communities
Implementable Policies:
Strengthen the City’s internal capacity to support and implement health-
related policies and programs.
Support Health and well-being monitoring and tracking of health outcomes
identified by the Health Department.
Kick off a “Healthy Choices” Information Campaign.
Create a Healthy Development Recognition Program.
Actionable Strategies:
Form a Healthy Development Task Force.
Create a Healthy Development Checklist. See
http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/healthy_development_checklist.pd
f
Review the County’s RENEW program and its goals.
Hermosa Beach may also wish to include principles, policies and strategies related to
sustainability and improving environmental quality. Current initiatives that could be framed for
improved well-being through transportation improvements follow:
Air Pollution Reduction Strategies
Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality Guidelines
Sensitive Use Location Guidelines (Habitat Protection Guidelines)
Truck Routes Study
Site Remediation Strategies
Renewable Energy Program
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
Water Conservation and Recycling Programs
City Vehicle Transition Program (green technologies)
The City of Hermosa Beach has a strong background in Green Initiatives. Tying transportation
improvements to conservation, resource protection and green living might be a good strategy for
the City. Those Green Initiatives taken by the City of Hermosa Beach to date follow. There is
greater opportunity for green initiatives through transportation improvements, and this should
be a focus for the City.
1970-1999
Street sweeping weekly city-wide (10 tons/week removed from streets that won’t reach
ocean).
Adopted 4/10 (M-Th) work week schedule to conserve fuel for employee commutes and
energy use in facilities.
Adopted stormwater ordinance to implement NPDES regulations.
Use reclaimed water for 75% of parks, greenbelt and medians.
Employee Ride Share: City financial incentive to employees to ride share or use transit.
Initiated city annual Household Hazardous Waste collection day.
Instituted annual beach clean-up day.
Banned use of pesticides or herbicides on city parks and open spaces.
2000-2007
Installed catch basin filters in downtown area (before most cities).
All green waste (grass and tree trimmings) from city facilities recycled. Plastics and
paper are recycled.
50% construction debris recycling required (500 sf + construction and demolition
projects).
Participate in Adopt-A-Storm-Drain Program (corporate sponsorship of BMPs).
Initiated program to replace gas vehicles with alternate fuels (CNG, propane, electric)
(6-7 in 2001).
Began installation of infiltration basins to reduce pollutants reaching ocean.
No smoking on public beaches.
All custodial supplies are green (toilet paper, cleaning agents, etc.).
Green building checklist adopted by Planning Commission applicable to new residential
condominiums.
Rain gage control of majority of park areas to minimize water use.
Waterless and ultra-low flow urinals and tankless water heaters installed at city
facilities.
Solar powered flashing red beacons at 8 stop locations.
Waive portion of plan check fees for solar energy systems.
2008
Amended zoning code to facilitate solar energy systems consistent with state law.
Created green webpage on City website (www.hermosabch.org).
City Monthly E-newsletter informs people about Green Task Force and also includes
The Green Corner.
Clean Beach Restaurant Program initiated – 1st in L.A. County.
Replaced +- 900 lighting fixtures in City buildings with energy efficient fixtures.
Converted all traffic signals to LED.
Installed controllers of various types to reduce electric use at city facilities.
2009
City Council created city’s Green Task Force to advise on green initiatives and prepare a
climate action plan.
Received CBI Grant to construct stormwater infiltration trench on beach for Pier
Avenue Drain.
Placed ‘Sharrow’ (share the lane) markings on Hermosa Avenue (Pier Avenue to follow
after reconstruction).
Municipal Greenhouse Gases Inventory completed.
Updated Energy Audit for City facilities (ARRA funding opportunities).
Adopted form-based zoning to make Pier Avenue more desirable for walking and
environmentally sustainable.
Submitted ARRA application to retrofit lighting at CITY parking garage and courts.
Amended zoning code to allow small wind energy systems throughout city.
City is testing LED street lights in select locations.
2010
Selected to participate in Local Use Vehicle (net zero) Demonstration Program
(SBCCOG).
Pier Avenue project reconstruction: stormwater infiltration and other storm water
controls, ocean-friendly landscape, recycled water, efficient lighting. Wins EPA and
American Public Works Association awards.
Adopted water conservation and drought management ordinance (Green Task Force
initiative).
Adopted water efficient landscape ordinance that exceeds state requirements (Green
Task Force initiative).
City offers compost and worm bin at discounted price (Green Task Force initiative).
City distributes recycling guide to every house and business (Green Task Force
initiative).
Instituted power management features on computers and monitors (EPA Low Carbon IT
campaign).
Instituted Special Events sustainability requirements (Green Task Force initiative).
Ocean Friendly Garden demonstration project installed at 22nd St. and The Strand.
(‘Grades of Green’ school program).
Community Greenhouse Gases Inventory completed.
City declares its goal to become a carbon neutral/green idea city.
Adopts Cal Green building code that exceeds state requirements (Green Task Force
initiative).
2011
Recommends ban on polystyrene take-out food containers (est. Completion June 2011)
(Green Task Force initiative)
Sustainability Plan (Green Task Force)
Initiatives that address the built environment and its impacts on well-being and sustainability
could be furthered. Active Transportation initiatives and a focus on improving individual and
community health are hopefully part of the City’s Sustainability Plan.
Pedestrian Safety Assessment - In 2008, the City of Hermosa completed a Pedestrian Safety
Assessment which noted areas for Enhancement and Opportunity for pedestrian travel. It noted
the following areas for enhancement:
ADA Transition Plan for Streets and Sidewalks
Bicycle Parking Requirements
Collision History and Collision Reports
Design Policies and Development Standards
Institutional Obstacles
Open Space Requirements
Pedestrian Safety Education
Pedestrian Safety Program
Need for Walking Audits
Pedestrian traffic control devices (Signs, Markings, and Signals)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Coordinator Needed
Public Involvement and Feedback Process
Safe Routes to School Program and Grant Funding
Speed Limits and Speed Surveys
Street Furniture Requirements
Traffic Calming Programs
Transportation Demand Management Programs
Crosswalk Installation, Removal and Enhancement Policy
Economic Vitality
Historic Sites Protection
Health Agencies Integration
Inventory of sidewalks, informal pathways and key pedestrian opportunity areas
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrian Volumes
Pedestrian Master Plan
Routine Accommodations in New Development
The report provides pedestrian improvement measures, their benefits and appropriate
applications for the community—a great resource—and an update that speaks to the specific
policies and strategies used to address these measures would be useful. An update on the
progress since plan adoption would speak to community support or resistance to active
transportation initiatives.
Circulation Element
The Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element was updated in 1990 and supersedes the
1978 Element. The introduction acknowledges the need for alternative modes of transportation
and decreasing reliance on the single occupant automobile. There are a number of policy
recommendations within this document that should be considered in terms of livability,
including street designation; one-way streets; turning prohibitions; walk streets; a pedestrian
and jogging path within the railroad right of way; bike lanes; mid-block barriers for automobiles
and thru lanes for bikes and walkers; minimum set back requirements; and parking
requirements. This document needs to be updated to comply with State requirements.
Municipal Code
There are opportunities within the Municipal Code to speak to pedestrian rights and
responsibilities. Pedestrians are not included within the Vehicle and Traffic section, aside from
the following:
0.20.010 - Establishment and designation of crosswalks.
10.20.020 - Crossing roadways in certain districts to be only at crosswalks.
10.20.030 - Obeying pedestrian traffic signals.
Overall, the guiding documents for Hermosa Beach speak to concerns about land use
designations. Specifically, concerns about the City’s ability to ensure greater predictability of
existing and future land uses exists. Secondly, concerns about negative external impacts from
incompatible uses also exist. Additionally, parking is a major concern to Hermosa Beach and
should be addressed in terms of land value. Maintaining an appropriate scale is also mentioned
in the Urban Design Element, and the Municipal Code offers opportunities for inclusion of
pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist rights and responsibilities.
City of Manhattan Beach
Land Use Element
The Introduction to the General Plan states, “The Manhattan Beach General Plan describes how
residents will work to retain the small-town atmosphere that makes our City unique, but at the
same time, responds to the dynamics of regional traffic issues and meets changing community
needs. The General Plan serves as a policy guide, balancing these interrelated factors to
Manhattan Beach’s community vision.” The vision for Manhattan Beach is set forth as follows in
the Land Use Element. It states, “As we look to the future, we envision Manhattan Beach
continuing to be a community of high quality, both functionally and visually. We see distinctive
residential neighborhoods that accommodate the varied needs of our diverse residents. Our
vibrant Downtown enhances the small-town character and caters to both residents and visitors.
Commercial districts meet our shopping needs and provide employment. Open space is well
landscaped and maintained, and offers a range of recreational opportunities. We envision a place
where new uses blend with established development. We envision Manhattan Beach where
quality development remains a high priority.”
The vision set forth in the General Plan speaks to a robust public process that led to the creation
of the following overarching principles:
Maintain a small-town-community feel that preserves the unique characteristics of
individual neighborhoods.
Provide a balanced transportation system that minimizes cut-through traffic in
residential neighborhoods and provides adequate parking in all areas of the City.
Maintain vibrant commercial areas throughout the City with businesses that meet the
desired needs of the community.
Provide a high level of public safety, ensuring a strong sense of protection for all those
who live and visit the City.
Safeguard picturesque vistas of the ocean, and protect existing trees and landscape
resources that add value to the City.
Create a sense of community that bonds residents together, making a stronger, better
Manhattan Beach.
Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities that meet the diverse needs and
interests of the community.
Recommendation:
This is a very thoughtful vision that is supported by seven overarching principles but it
does not speak to community health or well-being through livability. The seven
overarching principles form the foundation of the General Plan and are embodied in
every goal and policy of this Plan. Including language that speaks to the community’s
vision for individual and community health is an important step towards livability.
The Plan outlines those regulatory issues affecting transportation improvements in Manhattan
Beach:
California Coastal Act of 1976
Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Congestion Management Plan
Air Quality Management Plan
California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
The WALC Institute team notes the levels of regulation surrounding transportation
improvements in the beach cities. Interestingly, it is the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
and the Congestion Management Plan that focus on regional priority issues such as mobility,
economic development and overall quality of life in the region. The SCAG Regional
Comprehensive Plan focuses on developing regional strategies to minimize traffic congestion,
protect environmental quality, and provide adequate housing. The Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide sets forth broad goals intended to be implemented by participating local and regional
jurisdictions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Congestion
Management Plan aims to link land use, transportation and air quality decisions; to develop a
partnership among transportation decision makers on devising appropriate transportation
solutions that include all modes of travel; and to propose transportation projects that are eligible
to compete for state gas tax funds.
The Land Use Element introduces the following neighborhoods in Manhattan Beach and
provides some vision for development:
Sand Section (Beach Area) – A Local Coastal Plan has been prepared.
Downtown – Downtown Manhattan Beach Guidelines were adopted in 1998 and
establish three themes for Downtown:
o Preserve the small-town village character of downtown Manhattan Beach.
o Preserve and enhance the pedestrian orientation of downtown Manhattan
Beach.
o Protect and encourage streetscape amenities.
North End – Limited Parking and Streetscape beautification listed as key concerns.
Tree Section – The Tree Protection Ordinance of 2003 was adopted to protect front
yard trees in this neighborhood and was eventually expanded City-wide, except to the
Sand Section.
Sepulveda Boulevard – As the only State highway in Manhattan Beach, it serves as a
major transportation corridor and commercial corridor. The City adopted the
Sepulveda Boulevard Design Guide to provide a framework for acceptable development
along this corridor.
Hill Section – Contains mostly single family residences, with some commercial uses
along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. This neighborhood is home to large lots, large
homes and the highest real estate prices in the City.
Manhattan Village – This area used to be home to the Chevron Oil field. This area has a
diverse mix of uses, including high density apartments, commercial uses, schools and
recreational features.
Eastside – Home to 1940’s and 1950’s post World War II tract homes and higher density
and commercial uses on Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard and Aviation
Boulevard. Five schools are located in this area, including the City’s only public high
school and the only middle school.
Recommendation:
Consider including a vision for each of these neighborhoods that speaks to health, well-
being and quality of life for residents and visitors. Given the concentration of schools
within the Eastside neighborhood, consideration of Safe Routes to School, walkability
and active transportation should be emphasized. The Land Use section provides an
existing conditions/historic report of Manhattan Beach. Part II of the Land Use Element
speaks to Neighborhood Character. There is an opportunity between these two sections
to speak to a vision on a neighborhood level and to tie this to the community’s overall
vision for livability. Neither area speaks to health, well-being, living in place, active
living, quality of life or active transportation as organizing principles.
Small Town Character - Within the General Plan, Manhattan Beach notes “Small Town Character”
as a value. The policy they set forth is low-profile development. The strategy is to limit the
height of new development to three stories where the height limit is 30 feet or to two stories
where the height limit is 26 feet.
Recommendation:
The height requirements aim at protecting privacy, reducing shading, protecting vistas of
the ocean and preserving the low profile image of the community to reinforce small-town
character. While building height may be regulated by a number of plans, justifications
are mainly aesthetic and the community should consider how to tie aesthetic regulations
to other regulatory requirements. For instance, low profile development might also
support Green Initiatives through ventilating breezes, solar energy or fall in line with
SEPA requirements. The City could also speak to the desired outcomes of low-profile
development as it relates to livability, walkability, Smart Growth, placemaking, active
living and crime prevention through environmental design.
Open Space Requirements - Open Space requirements set forth in the General Plan for Manhattan
Beach are at 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. While the City met open space requirements at the
time of Plan adoption, it noted that open spaces were concentrated in the Sand Section and
Manhattan Village Area. To address this, the City encourages mature trees on streets and private
landscaped open areas as a means for increasing open space. The City recognizes that residents
in the Tree Section, Hill Section and Eastside use school grounds for recreational activities.
Within the General Plan, Open Space requirements require the provision and retention of private
landscaped areas to give the impression of public open space. The City should determine
whether public-private agreements might formalize these Open Spaces during development so
that they are considered part of an Open Space network. The only other actionable strategy for
Open Spaces focuses on protecting existing mature trees throughout the City and replacing them
with specimen trees whenever lost or removed.
Community Aesthetics - The General Plan points to the pride Manhattan Beach residents show in
the quality of the built environment. An aesthetic, well-kept Manhattan Beach is a principle.
The General Plan speaks to establishing and implementing consistent design standards for
aesthetics and includes the promotion of adopted design guidelines within the Downtown,
Sepulveda Boulevard and in other areas where guidelines apply. The Vitality City project team
should review these design guidelines for compatibility with livability principles.
Recommendation:
The community speaks to minimizing ugliness by using stealth design for telecommunications
antenna and related facilities; creating standards for public signage and City street signage; and
the beautification of streets through landscaping. Other issues such as garbage or debris
removal; crime prevention through environmental design; and storage are as important as
vegetation in terms of aesthetics. Aesthetic regulations can balance the burdens they impose on
property owners by showing the health and safety justifications that complement the regulation.
For instance, regulations on signage might speak to pedestrian scaled signage; maintaining sight
lines; travel lanes versus furniture lanes on sidewalks; in addition to the aesthetic they support.
Neighborhood Character & Economic Viability - The community provides the vision for each of the
neighborhoods identified earlier (Part I of the Land Use Element). Within these sections, the
following are stated as Goals:
Preserve the features of each community neighborhood, and develop solutions tailored to each
neighborhood’s unique characteristics.
Protect residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of inappropriate and incompatible uses.
Maintain the viability of the commercial areas of Manhattan Beach.
Recommendation:
The goals set forth by the City for neighborhood character and economic vitality could
be strengthened by defining context sensitive design and the vision neighborhood
residents have for maintaining place. Images specific to each neighborhood for what is
desired and what is not desired help in localizing street treatments, while maintaining a
sense of connectivity and continuity within the community. The City should include
images of what is prioritized and what is undesirable in their neighborhood section.
The Design Overlay District was established in 1991 by Ordinance 1382. The City should
determine whether these standards are still applicable and supportive of livability. The
document speaks to noise, incompatible uses and design standards that are meant to
limit commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. It would be interesting to learn how
“walk streets” have evolved since 1991.
The goals speak to supporting and encouraging small businesses; a diverse mix of
business to support the local tax base and that benefit residents; a variety of commercial
development types; and the need to balance the needs of commercial and residential uses
in mixed-use areas. Inclusion of livability, quality of life, active living and smart growth
could frame this discussion as opposed to the potential negative impacts of mixed uses
on residents. There is a fear of the impacts commercial uses might have on residential
neighborhoods, which may be exacerbated by commuter traffic currently flooding
residential neighborhoods.
The Circulation Element of Manhattan Beach recognizes that quality of life and livability are
impacted by infrastructure. It states:
Infrastructure forms the backbone of our community. Our streets connect our
neighborhoods, schools, business districts, and parks. The water storage and delivery
system and wastewater collection lines are critical to urban living. Storm drains protect
our properties from flooding. Electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications
facilities help us live in comfort. These systems all support the quality of life in
Manhattan Beach.
How will our infrastructure continue to contribute to and enhance the livability of our
community? As a community, we envision local streets as truly neighborhood streets,
with cut through automobile traffic and its associated noise in our neighborhoods
reduced. We look to increase parking opportunities in Downtown and the beach areas to
minimize parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. We see water used efficiently so
that demands today do not compromise the needs of tomorrow. We expect our storm
drain system to collect rainwater in a manner that reduces pollutant loads entering the
ocean and that addresses localized flooding concerns. We look for telecommunications
infrastructure to continue to be state-of-the-art, connecting us to the world around us.
As a community conscientious about the sustainability of our environment, we envision
Manhattan Beach continuing to function effectively and efficiently, providing all
infrastructure necessary to improve our lives and grow our economy.
In 2002, the City of Manhattan Beach completed a community survey in which the community
was asked to define the most significant issue in Manhattan Beach other than traffic and parking.
In response to this survey, residents overwhelming responded with traffic and parking as the
main concern. Residents were vocal in their unhappiness that significant traffic loads were
overflowing into adjoining neighborhood streets, causing noise, traffic, and safety impacts during
peak periods of the day.
Manhattan Beach recognizes that their local circulation is linked with the regional system.
Therefore, policies in their Circulation Element highlight Manhattan Beach’s continued need to
participate in regional programs to alleviate traffic congestion through capacity enhancements
and trip reduction.
In order to deal with traffic and congestion, the City identified two primary courses of action to
improve congestion:
1. Focused physical improvements for enhanced function of intersections, which function
as the control points in the circulation network.
2. Creative, technological solutions to improve mobility.
Unfortunately, examples of the proposed physical improvements listed in the General Plan focus
on street widenings, and do not speak to Complete Streets or encouraging active transportation.
The list includes:
Widening the bridge on Sepulveda Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine
Avenue
Widening of Rosecrans Avenue between Douglas Street and Aviation Boulevard
Widening of Aviation Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine Avenue
Intersection improvements at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard and
Marine Avenue/Sepulveda Boulevard
Intersection improvements at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Redondo Avenue
Safe Routes to School - Safe Routes to School are mentioned as a challenge. The Circulation Element
states:
One demographic group continually challenged to find public transit is school children.
When the State budget is unable to assist with school bus funding, the Manhattan Beach
Unified School District cannot bear the cost of providing bus service to its schools.
Traffic congestion around schools, particularly in the morning, creates not only delays
but safety risks to Manhattan Beach’s younger residents. Working cooperatively with
the District, the City may be able to find new ways to provide safe routes to school.
It is the WALC Institute’s understanding that the City has developed plans to implement Safe
Routes to School programs. This is good news. An example of a Safe Routes to School Report
can be found here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17132277/CasperWY_SafeRoutesToSchool_1_Report_FinalWithAppen
dix_WALC-Institute_2011-05_SmallFile.pdf.
Because the City recognizes that traffic and congestion impact quality of life and livability,
emphasis should be placed on encouraging active living and active transportation, with greater
integration of transit. The Circulation Element includes a section on Expanding Mobility
Options through:
Enhancing Transit Services
Incorporating Transportation Demand Management
Maintaining Truck Routes
Recommendation:
Greater emphasis on multi-modal transportation, Complete Streets policies and
educational/outreach campaigns to encourage active living are needed. The City does a nice
job of introducing existing conditions. Specific policy recommendations to relieve traffic and
congestion through active transportation and better integration of transit services are not
provided. An explanation of Level of Service as it applies to all modes is needed. Intersection
and roadway treatments other than widenings are not examined. If these widenings are to
provide pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities, this is not mentioned.
Municipal Code
The Municipal Code provides those regulations specific to pedestrians:
14.32.010 - Traffic engineer to establish marked crosswalks.
14.32.020 - When pedestrians must use crosswalks.
14.32.030 - Pedestrians to obey special pedestrian traffic signals.
14.32.040 - Pedestrians prohibited from standing on divisional island.
14.32.010 - Traffic engineer to establish marked crosswalks.
If the City chooses to implement pedestrian refuge islands, it may need to look at the wording of
the following ordinance and its intent:
14.32.040 - Pedestrians prohibited from standing on a divisional island. No
pedestrian shall stand on any divisional island as defined in Section 14.01.060 of this
Code, or delay their movement upon any divisional island longer than is necessary to
avoid conflict with traffic when entering or crossing a divided street or roadway.
Nothing in this section prevents a City employee or City contractor from being on a
divisional island for the purpose of carrying on construction or maintenance
activities.
Livability principles favor integration of modes, and the following Ordinances speak to
segregating the modes. Additionally, there is recognition that the bicycle path may become too
congested for cyclists:
14.28.130 - Beach bicycle path.
14.28.140 - Bicycle path hazard.
14.28.130 - Beach bicycle path.
Beach Bicycle Path: That facility designed, constructed and designated as the beach
bicycle path, including all ingress or egress ramps thereto, as shown on the map on file in
the City Engineer's office, shall be used exclusively for the riding or propelling of bicycles
by human power. The bicycle path shall not be used by pedestrians or animals of any
kind, except that pedestrians may cross the same at right angles in a manner so as not to
interfere with any bicycles on the bicycle path when necessary to do so to gain access to
or from the beach. (§ 1, Ord. 1351, eff. February 7, 1974)
Bicycle Path Hazard: Any Public Safety Officer (Police Officer, Lifeguard or Firefighter)
may declare that the number of pedestrians and bicyclists is sufficient so as to create an
undue hazard upon the bicycle path. When such conditions exist, a "Walk Only" zone
may be created to require the walking of bicycles in the designated area of the bicycle
path. When signs are erected declaring a "Walk Only" zone, it shall be unlawful for
anyone to ride a bicycle in the area designated by signs. (§ 1, Ord. 1801, eff. June 1, 1989)
Recommendation:
Consider integrating the modes by providing slow-moving lanes and fast-moving lanes on
the bicycle path. Knowing how the “Walk Only” zone is enforced on the bike path would
help in understanding mobility and accessibility concerns for all modes.
Walk Streets: “Walk streets” are not codified aside from design standards. so setting or
enforcing acceptable behaviors may be challenging. The definition within the Code is “A
dedicated public street which has been closed to vehicular traffic.” Whether this is
temporary or permanent, seasonal, or based on time of day is not specified.
The WALC Institute team acknowledges that the City of Manhattan Beach’s Community
Development Department created two guidance documents – “Construction and Landscaping on
Public Property” in 2004, and “Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook” in 2005 –
that may address certain recommendations in this report. The Institute team was introduced to these
documents toward the close of the livability project and thus, they weren’t reviewed as part of this
effort. They are referenced here as possible resource documents.
Transportation policy that supports livable communities calls for changing the way we approach
transportation to ensure our communities are desirable places to live, work and play. This vision
contrasts with current transportation trends, which focus narrowly on congestion and our
deteriorating transportation systems. A focus on livability assesses transportation projects based
on how they will improve quality of life and livability in communities.
Obstacles to achieving transportation policy that supports livable communities include:
Traditionally, Departments of Transportation and municipalities have focused on
programming standards that favor the single occupant automobile. Livability is not
included in the criteria. The impacts of transportation planning and land use decisions
on quality of life are absent from most planning documents.
Auto-oriented development patterns have changed the form of communities from
walkable, transit oriented, street grid systems to strip and single-family development
accessed by regional automobile corridors.
Communities have not focused on integrating transportation and land use planning to
protect rural resource lands from the impacts of development.
Livability requires context-sensitive design solutions that address the needs of rural,
urban and suburban areas. Communities must develop and localize those acceptable
street treatments that support livability.
Level of Service focuses mainly on vehicle mobility at the expense of all other modes.
Acceptable Levels of Service for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users are almost
never considered and the impact from vehicular traffic on other modes is often ignored.
A community’s General Plan memorializes the community’s desired development goals and
embodies public policy relative to present and future land use decisions. The General Plan serves
to:
Identify the community’s land use, circulation, environmental, economic and social
goals and policies as they relate to land use and development.
Provide a basis for local government decision-making, including decisions on
development approvals and exactions.
Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities.
Inform citizens, developers, decision-makers and other cities and counties of the ground
rules that guide development within a particular community.
All recommendations must fall in line with the vision set forth by the community in their guiding
document. Each of the beach cities has indicated concerns and reservations about the following:
Mixed-use development and its impacts on residential uses
Traffic and congestion, especially overflow commuter traffic in residential
neighborhoods
Parking and parking management
The community aesthetic and preserving their historic sense of place
Development as a potential threat to place-making
Conservation and protection of resources
Access to natural resources
Safe Routes to School
As we address these concerns over the course of the Vitality City project, there is an opportunity
to include livability, well-being and quality of life as guiding principles for each of the beach
cities. Transportation policies that support livable communities will provide the following
benefits to the beach communities:
Sustainable, cost-effective land use and transportation patterns.
Reduced infrastructure costs.
Localized transportation investments.
Transportation choices for children, teens, adults and senior citizens to encourage
healthier lifestyles and active living for life.
Protection of natural and cultural resources.
Opportunities for residents to interact to create a vibrant community.
Healthy people in healthy environments.
Resources
Many models exist in California that the beach cities can look to for sample language and
inspiration as they undertake efforts to update their General Plans and Municipal Code to be
more supportive of livability, health and well-being.
One wonderful resource is the Healthy Eating Active Living Cities Campaign, online at
www.healcitiescampaign.org. The Campaign’s website includes many links to examples of city
policies, land-use plans, general plans and other guiding documents from cities throughout
California that are becoming more supportive of active living.
For example, the Campaign’s page, “Healthy Zoning Regulations” includes links to city policies.
See:
http://healcitiescampaign.org/healthy_zone.html
The “General Plan Update” page includes links to Health Elements, General Plans and a Model
General Plan Policy that illustrate how communities can incorporate health and well-being into
their guiding documents. See:
http://healcitiescampaign.org/general_plan.html
Don’t delay in making
the changes that can
be made immediately.
For example, an
intersection may
require significant
work that takes more
than a year to install,
but repainting the
crosswalks with high-
emphasis markings can
be done in a matter of
weeks.
To improve well-being and to ensure that future development patterns support active living,
careful planning and execution are required. Immediate action is also needed, however, and
the beach cities are full of opportunities to make immediate improvements with tools as
simple as paint, in addition to infrastructure changes that can take between one and five
years to fully implement.
In addition to adopting the recommendations of
Vitality City and the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan, the beach cities should consider the
following recommendations that build upon the
previous section on policies. They are organized
as transformations that can be made on regional
and local corridors, as well as general guidance
for all beach cities streets.
Although some recommendations will require
studies, robust public processes and possibly
several years to fully implement, the effort can
begin now.
Don’t delay in making the changes that can be
made immediately. For example, certain
intersections may require significant
improvements such as adding a median that
takes more than a year to plan, fund and install,
but it is completely reasonable to expect to be
able to repaint the crossings with high-emphasis
markings within a matter of weeks.
Some residents may
at first express
concern. But
community members
can—and should—
adapt to slight
reductions in vehicle
speeds.
Consider the main
goal: to improve
well-being through
streets that support
walkability and
livability, making the
active way the easy
way.
This report encapsulates the WALC Institute team’s key findings and recommendations based
on the team members’ observations of existing conditions, interaction with the public during
workshops, interviews with stakeholders, design and training sessions with city staff and
knowledge of best practices from throughout the country acquired during more than 40 years of
combined work experience in active living, walkability, livability, civic engagement, education
and community outreach.
The recommendations of this report were developed with a goal of improving well-being in the
beach cities through changes to the built environment that will better support active living and
active transportation. Each of the recommendations represents a broad set of expectations that
traffic speeds should be brought under control in areas where walking, bicycling and active
living are to be encouraged. Through the mix of proposed treatments, vehicles will be slowed to
appropriate speeds in appropriate areas, people driving cars will be more likely to yield to people
on foot and all modes of transport will work better together. The urgency of this balance is
driven by the aging population that will in time be limited in their use of automobiles. When
factoring in aging and youth populations, the appropriate speed is about providing freedom for
all residents to travel throughout a community.
Many of these recommendations represent best
practices from throughout the country, including
many that are not conventional in their approach.
They will require flexibility and creativity on the part
of the government staff developing them and
considerable outreach to the people most affected by
the changes. As they are implemented, some residents
or business operators may at first express concern or
resistance. Bring them into the process and help them
understand the value of the effort. Be assured
throughout that these recommendations are based on
extensive knowledge of tools that are working in
other places in the country and even in Southern
California, and can work in the beach cities.
In some cases, commute times in vehicles will be
slightly longer, although usually by a matter of
seconds or mere minutes. But community members
can—and should—adapt to slight reductions in
vehicle speeds by leaving a minute or two earlier for
their combined trip, so that they are not late for work
and don’t feel compelled to drive fast near schools or
other places where people should be walking and
biking.
By adopting and implementing these recommendations, the beach cities will be joining hundreds
of communities throughout the country that concede a marginal reduction in roadway efficiency
in select places in exchange for livability and supporting children, beachgoers, seniors and others
who want or need to walk and bike for transport.
It won’t be only commuters who need to adjust. In fact, some of the recommendations will
require drivers of delivery trucks, buses, fire trucks and other machinery to adapt to the new road
designs. They will do so successfully and the combined system will work for all.
Consider the main goal of this effort: to improve well-being through streets that support
walkability and livability, making the active way the easy way. Envision the recommended
changes and you will see how they will help.
Most of the recommendations that follow can be implemented and on-the-ground within weeks
or months, not years. It is important to emphasize that the beach cities won’t in most cases be
the first to carry out many of these recommendations, and they can draw on other communities
for support and guidance. Be assured throughout that these recommendations are based on
extensive knowledge of tools that are working in other places in the country and even in
Southern California, and can work in the beach cities.
Currently, unlike Aviation and many of the east-west streets, all available right-of-way for the
Pacific Coast Highway is consumed by vehicle travel lanes and parking at certain times.
However, the WALC Institute team understands that two of the three beach cities are working
out a program to inherit this corridor from Caltrans. Once ownership is taken, it will be possible
to use the corridor to build value and help shape land use. The third city should work closely
with Caltrans and with the other two cities to make appropriate changes to the built form of
PCH in support of active living.
Pacific Coast Highway/Sepulveda is a major arterial with high traffic volumes that serves
multiple cities. Where it passes through the beach cities, it represents a great opportunity to
build their community through this transportation investment as opposed to dividing and
devaluing the land uses adjacent to it.
A realistic and appropriate goal would be to amend the roadway design to better accommodate
walking and biking, and to slow vehicle speeds while also keeping traffic moving. Such
transformations have been achieved on Wilshire Blvd. in Santa Monica in a relatively short
period of time. Traffic numbers and rights-of-way on Wilshire are similar to Pacific Coast
Highway, so Wilshire would be a good model to study.
Based upon the results of traffic studies and a strong vision for the area’s livability, consider
adding additional signalized intersections and setting "progression speeds" between 27 mph and
33 mph. In fact, the ideal speed in many sections likely is 30 mph. Most portions of the Pacific
Coast Highway have attached sidewalks and four to seven lanes for vehicle travel.
Mid-block crossings without medians
or other appropriate treatments create
multiple-threat exposure for
pedestrians. At a minimum, raised
median islands and pedestrian-
activated signals are needed for many
crossings, such as those found on
Sepulveda in Manhattan Beach. Mid-
block crossings are placed toward the
center of a block, away from the
turning conflicts found at
intersections. They are most often placed where "desire lines" between two important points are
found, such as near a beach, a park or civic building.
Due to the regional significance and high traffic volumes of this corridor, it likely will be best to
select a half-mile or one-mile section to create a model project. The city in which this occurs first
will need to be fully committed to the idea that they are building their community through a
transportation investment, instead of allowing a regional transportation corridor to determine
the character of their community. See the section above, “Needed: Flexibility, Creativity and
Courage.”
At the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian St. sits a neighborhood treasure—Eat at
Joe’s. Based on the volume of people observed throughout the day, this is a very popular site with
locals and visitors alike. The location is a great place to start a livability project: it’s located
within a neighborhood, near retail, near the city seat and along a stretch of road with high
visibility to passerby. Additionally, the owner of Eat at Joe’s is very interested in investing in
outdoor seating, and the leadership of Redondo Beach is interested in engineering treatments
that would turn this section of the corridor into a people-friendly place. Thus, the corner of
Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian has strong potential to become a true catalyst for similar
improvements all throughout the three beach cities.
Depending on studies to be done, the following key recommendations and phases should be
considered:
Year One
Repaint the vehicle travel lanes on Pacific Coast Highway to be narrower. This will help
slow vehicle speeds slightly and provide additional right-of-way for other uses, such as
providing more buffer between cars and people on foot. On Carnelian, consider removing
the center line altogether; many communities have found that vehicles slow down and
drivers operate in a more cautious manner when the center lines are removed. (See
appendix. How to Do It: Road Diets)
Install high-emphasis crosswalk markings. (See appendix. How to Do It: Crossings.)
Adjust crosswalk signals to recall to “WALK.” Set signal timing for the walk interval to
be as long as feasible during the green time in the concurrent vehicle phase. Unless push
buttons activate the signal on a recall demand, remove them.
Eliminate the right-turn-on-red from Carnelian onto Pacific Coast Highway. Doing so
better supports pedestrians.
Add head-out angled on-street parking and curb extensions on Carnelian. (See appendix.
How to Do It: Parking and How to Do It: Curb Extensions.)
“Green” the street with landscaping. Create art-on-the-corner projects at intersections
and provide informational kiosks or bulletin boards.
Develop and adopt policies that support outdoor seating for restaurants.
At Carnelian and Ave. N, install a mini-circle to enhance accessibility into and from the
neighborhood and to keep traffic in this residential area calm.
Year Two
Add curb extensions on all appropriate side streets.
Conduct a community redevelopment study with a radius of a quarter-mile or half-mile
from the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian to develop a reinvestment
strategy. Although the Pacific Coast Highway corridor has high traffic volume, it is still a
great candidate for a village reinvestment. (See appendix. How to Do It: Convert
Suburban Strips to Village Centers.)
Years Three to Five
Depending on the results of studies, convert the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway
and Carnelian to a modern roundabout with two lanes entering from each side of PCH
and single lanes entering from each side of Carnelian. Following the anticipated success
of this roundabout, study additional intersections and add others. (See appendix. How
to Do It: Traffic-Calming Roundabouts.)
Aviation Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. are heavily used by both commuters and visitors to
the beach cities, but they don’t adequately support active living. The cities can make the
following changes to create a more livable environment:
Adopt the recommendations of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan as they relate to
Aviation Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. In general, streets like these benefit from
restriping the road to allow five-foot bike lanes. The stripe should be wide and bold at
eight to 10 inches or more.
Place median crossing islands and rapid-flash beacon treatment near transit stops. Start
with one location on each roadway, as model projects, and over time increase the
number of these crossings.
Upgrade transit stops to be welcoming and comfortable.
Mark all intersections with high-emphasis crosswalks. These crosswalks should be at
least 12 feet deep.
Signal cycles should rest on “walk” and hold the walk phase as long as practicable.
Install countdown crossing signals as soon as equipment rotation permits.
Provide strong support of pedestrians
by adding a crosswalk and a crossing
island that reduces the amount of time
and distance over which pedestrians
are exposed to traffic, and allows them
to cross only a couple of lanes of traffic
at once. This image illustrates one
possible solution that seeks to
accommodate people from the
residential areas on the west side of the
street who want to access the transit
center and shopping amenities to the
north, on the east side of the street.
Depending on the results of an engineering study, this intersection might be a prime candidate
for a hybrid roundabout, with an extra leg coming in from the northbound lane of Prospect,
turning right onto Artesia. An approximate "shadow fit" is shown in the illustration. This assists
with a reduction of vehicles speeds on Prospect and Artesia.
Place high-emphasis crossings on all legs. Place stop lines on all legs. Northeast and southeast
intersections should be considered for raised “pork chop islands.” Move crossing islands to
locations where pedestrians do not have their back to traffic.
At the intersection of
Redondo Beach and
Hermosa Beach, where
The Strand trail merges
with Harbor Drive, there
is much confusion and
there are many conflict
points between cars,
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Additionally, The Strand
makes an awkward 90-
degree turn, which is
difficult for bicyclists to
maneuver through,
especially if pedestrians
are present. On Harbor
Drive, it isn’t clear to
bicyclists traveling north
on the east side of the
street how they should
cross to get to The Strand.
To alleviate this confusion,
reduce the number of
conflict points and create
better connectivity for the
trail through this area,
while also improving
livability along Harbor
Drive, the communities
should consider the
following:
Remove a section of the wall that separates The Strand from the adjacent parking lot and run
the trail along the west side of the lot.
Connect the trail to Harbor Drive via a new path through the city parking lot.
Add head-out angled parking and widen the sidewalks along Herondo St.
Consider replacing the signalized intersection at Harbor and Herondo with a roundabout.
Create a Class I bicycle facility on Harbor Dr.
Where possible, limit or eliminate driveway entries on Harbor Dr.
Running along each side of the Greenbelt through Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, these
two streets would be ideal for both walking and bicycling if vehicle speeds were kept reasonable
and if many of the stop controls were removed. Constant starting and stopping along this
corridor makes drivers want to speed between stops. It also makes bicycling inefficient and
uncomfortable. In fact, during the WALC Institute’s site visits, a radar gun found cars traveling
at 35 mph, which is unacceptable on these narrow residential streets.
Mini traffic circles can bring down vehicle speeds and allow a smooth and efficient blending of
bicycling, driving and walking. Residents would find it safer and easier to get into and out of
driveways.
Due to the very narrow right-of-way and the strong desire for this corridor to support people
walking and biking, one-way couplets could be a good solution here. The communities should
consider removing one vehicle travel lane and making each segment one-way, as exists in
Manhattan Beach, for the sections of Valley and Ardmore that bound the Greenbelt. Removing a
vehicle lane would allow the addition of a bike lane. The bike lane would be placed between the
vehicle travel lane and the on-street parking. Care would need to be taken to ensure conflict
points are properly managed at the mini circles.
These changes would help to calm traffic and make it easier and safer to park and un-park, to get
in and out of driveways, and to make entries from side roads. Public safety members also believe
that creating a one way corridor could allow faster response times for fire services, when PCH is
congested. Due to fire truck sizes, at this time there is not an alternate route for a large truck
heading to a fire in Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach.
It is important to note that for some motorists, the one-way couplets would add slightly to their
drive times. In particular, one area of concern raised is along Valley and Ardmore from
Gould/Artesia to Pier. As noted in the section, “Needed: Flexibility, Creativity and Courage,” in
some cases commute times will be slightly longer, but community members should consider the
goal: to improve well-being through streets that support walkability and livability, making the
active way the easy way. Additionally, strong civic engagement should be achieved to build
capacity and support for such a change.
Along this corridor, an area for creative thinking is at Hermosa Valley Elementary School, to help
alleviate confusion during drop-off and pick-up periods. An additional Safe Routes to School
effort could be undertaken to clarify how to approach drop-off and pick-up in this area if the
streets become one-way couplets. This could become a model project for the broader community.
Roundabouts can
reduce injury crashes
by 76 percent and
reduce fatal crashes
by 90 percent.
See the section, “Key
Tools and Terms for
a Better Built Form,”
and the appendix for
more details.
North and South Catalina lack adequate pedestrian
crossings. Travel lanes are wider than necessary in
many locations, and could be narrowed to widen bike
lanes. Catalina parallels the Pacific Coast Highway, and
major portions appear to be good candidates for road
diets. Road diets help calm traffic, keep vehicle speeds
down, simplify crossings, improve sight lines and
improve signal efficiency, all while increasing support
for active modes of travel such as biking and walking.
In order for a road diet strategy to work fully, however,
it would be important to consider roundabouts or
mini-circles at several key intersections, such as Topaz,
Sapphire and Knob Hill, and avenues B, D, E, G and I.
Roundabouts can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent
and reduce fatal crashes by 90 percent. (See the section,
“Key Tools and Terms for a Better Built Form,” on page
21 and the Best Practices section of the appendix for more details.)
A continuous median could also be placed, helping green the area and directing motorists
seeking access to the opposite side of the road to travel to the next mini-circle.
In the image below, which is not to scale, the bike lanes and parking lanes are each nine feet
wide, leaving about ten feet for the median.
In addition to the specific recommendations above, the WALC Institute suggests the beach cities
consider the following guidelines. Some of these already are being applied at many intersections
in the beach cities, but they should be applied to the extent possible in all locations in the beach
cities:
Set walk signals for crossing minor streets to always default to or begin with “WALK.”
In addition, set signal timing so that the walk interval is as long as feasible for the green
time in the concurrent vehicle phase. In areas where pedestrians should be fully
supported, remove push button controls and allow the signal to default to the “WALK”
phase. Generally, strive to recall signals on a frequent basis to minimize wait times for
pedestrians. Full cycle lengths of 60 to 90 seconds are best. In people-rich areas, note
that seniors, who need the most time, may be the last to leave the curb, and that it may
take three to five seconds for them to get into the street.
Use countdown signals on a soft replacement basis when other changes are budgeted
and implemented. Start with high priority walking locations, such as near and around
schools, important transit stops, plazas, parks, medical centers, senior centers and town
centers.
Consider eliminating Right-Turn-On-Red if motorists aren’t showing the appropriate
level of caution for the area.
Consider adopting Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) to step pedestrians out first, when
there are high pedestrian counts or when problems with turning motorists or other
conditions warrant this phase. The interval is typically three to six seconds. Use
enhanced crosswalk markings and bold stop bars to better identify crossings and to
keep motorists out of crossing areas.
Evaluate or audit all crosswalks. Repaint
and increase visibility of crosswalks. Start
this process in each downtown and near
schools.
Place “yield paddles” at non-signalized
crosswalks without adequate signage
where pedestrian crossing volumes are
high or should be. Plan on replacing these
paddles every other month initially.
See the Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies’ report,
“Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Unsignalized Crossings” for more
information:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchr
p/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf
Identify sidewalk gaps, especially near schools, major transit stops and large parks and prioritize
their construction. Sidewalks are needed to support children walking to school, in and around all
senior centers and as approaches to all retail centers, transit stops and parks or plazas. Highest-
priority sidewalks should include filling gaps along principal roadways (arterials and collectors).
Identify locations for bike lanes and restripe these roadways. The regional bike master plan
which is underway will identify those areas most important for bike travel.
Attractive, functional bike racks should be provided at all destinations. An excellent model
location is at the beach cities Health District. Bike storage can also include indoor parking, bike
lockers or sheltered parking. Locate bike parking where there are many “eyes” on the bikes to
reduce theft. The WALC Institute team understands that Manhattan Beach recently installed 39
new bike racks throughout the community; such efforts should be celebrated and continued.
Provide attractive seating, benches, ledges and even garbage cans throughout each town center
and other popular walking locations in neighborhoods. Avoid use of commercial ad seating,
when possible; sponsor memorial benches and seats and other innovations for seating.
An abundance of stop signs makes bicycling
difficult. Especially in hilly areas, some
bicyclists will treat stop signs as yields in order
to maintain their momentum. In fact, to
accommodate bicyclists’ unique needs, the
state of Idaho has adopted a stop-as-yield law
that allows cyclists to proceed through a sign-
controlled intersection without stopping.
Other solutions that may be more viable in the
beach cities and don’t require changing a law:
(1) change stop signs where appropriate, such
as those along trails, to require vehicles—
instead of people walking or biking—to stop,
and (2) install mini circles where feasible
throughout the cities, but especially along
portions of Prospect, Valley-Ardmore and east-
west routes like Manhattan Beach Blvd. and
Marine Ave. This will bring traffic on
neighborhood streets to safer speeds while
letting bicyclists and motorists stay in motion.
Oversized roads are a major problem in each of the beach cities. Efforts are needed to reduce the
size, scale and complexity of intersections. Most principle roads have speeds much higher than
are safe or comfortable for walking and bicycling. Use bike lanes, tree plantings and other visual
and actual narrowing of through lanes to bring speeds back down to desired levels. This
recommendation is listed as a potential “immediate gain” because a road diet can sometimes be
achieved simply by moving the paint striping of the vehicle travel lanes to make them narrower.
The beach cities each should
develop comprehensive
wayfinding programs that help
people who live in, shop in or
visit the area find ease in
navigation. Wayfinding signs
also establish the character and
charm of the town. Once the
plans and designs are developed,
the effort can be aided by local
industrial schools or others that
can manufacture signs. At a
minimum, priorities for
wayfinding should include all
areas near civic centers, popular
or desired approaches to the
Greenbelt, beach areas, prime commercial districts, transit centers and historic or scenic areas.
Start an “active transportation” work day. Encourage all public servants, employees and elected
leaders to park their car for a full day and to use feet and wheels to commute, conduct errands
and get to all their daily needs. This process will help focus attention on how to emphasize
healthy transportation. Events such as active transportation work days create positive publicity
for the movement toward walkability, livability and improved well-being.
Start "bicycle cafes” where the cities, the county, bike shops or other specialists provide free bike
repairs, a bicycling clinic and otherwise support biking as a lifestyle.
When projects are completed and the new facility or amenity is ready for public use, celebrate
the success. Hold a ribbon cutting, post an announcement online, issue a news release or utilize
whatever channel is available to broadly disseminate the importance and value of the
improvement. This helps not only publicize that the amenity is now available, but it also can be
an important way to educate people about how to use it (for example, a roundabout) and it helps
engender support for future projects.
Look for early opportunities to complete missing street connections other than those specifically
identified in this report. With the energy of the Vitality City project, it is likely that some
unusual partnering for “missing link” streets can be agreed upon and built. For example, just
south and west of the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Diamond St. in Redondo Beach—just
south of the beach cities Health District—Diamond St. dead-ends into a fenced-off trail and then
opens up again one-tenth of a mile northeast as Flagler Lane. Completing street connections such
as this one would provide better access between the adjacent neighborhood, the high school, the
nearby sports complexes and parks, and services in the area including the Health District.
The beach cities have an opportunity to capitalize on Vitality City’s efforts to work toward
getting even more employers to support and promote active commuting. For example, the cities
can create incentives for employers of a certain size—say, with 10 or more employees—to get at
least 40 percent of workers to no longer drive to work on a regular basis. The South Coast Air
Quality Management District could be a good additional partner in such an effort.
To encourage active commuting, employers—including the cities themselves—need to provide
showers as part of building renovations. Employers with 25 or more employees can be
encouraged to build this into future building leases as a requirement. Each of the beach cities
should study code language adopted in Palo Alto, California for replacement of parking
requirements through alternatives that include quality bike parking.
Where they don’t already exist, start cops-on-bikes programs and bicycle rescue teams. The
WALC Institute team saw several law enforcement officers on bikes and on foot during the site
visits, but not nearly as many as one should expect for a beach context. Expand existing
programs to give residents and visitors as strong sense of police surveillance and more direct
engagement and involvement. Having officers and EMS “on the ground” also puts them in a good
position to report needed maintenance or improvements to the public works departments.
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Healthy Building Placement
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Livable Schools
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Regional Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Local Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Best Practices
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
a
Most land-use codes were written at a time when U.S.
cities had an abundance of land, water, clean air and
other resources. We assumed continued availability
of these resources, as well as financing, which led
communities to construct poorly connected and
outwardly expanding light-density development, street
networks and other inefficient infrastructure. As a result,
land uses were separated – sometimes by miles – and
urban areas were allowed to decay.
Today, we have a better understanding of the limitations
of our available resources. Roads, bridges, sewers and
water lines that are now failing, need to be replaced
or refurbished. Doing so will be two to eight times
more expensive than if we had stayed current with
maintenance.
As we make “brick and mortar” changes to the physical
infrastructure, we also should update the policy
infrastructure, including land-use codes, to foster more
livable, walkable communities. Existing codes promote
poor connectivity, which leads to higher dependence
on cars – and even greater strain on infrastructure.
Facing high gas and energy costs, residents are ready
for change. But it will require more than Band-Aid
solutions. Metaphorically speaking, we’re talking surgery
and radical changes to get our towns back to good
health.
Toward Change: Mix Uses and Connect Streets
Walkable and livable communities can’t develop without
transit, dense development, mixed land uses and
strong street connectivity. Most existing codes do not
tolerate - let alone encourage - such forward-thinking
development. Instead, codes have generated misplaced
development, forcing residents to get into their cars
and leave their neighborhoods to access basic services.
Progressive developers, planning board members,
architects and others have seen the need to embrace
a better system, one that promotes sustainability, eco-
friendly practices, walkability and transit-friendly design.
Unfortunately, their efforts have been slowed by
outdated code and regulations. A number of cities
throughout the country have even drafted visionary
plans. However, too often these plans are relegated to
How to Do It: Codes to Create Traditional,
Walkable Communities
back shelves as leaders and planners grapple with code-
related challenges. The question is: How can we shape
codes to encourage better development? The first step
is to develop a process that is inclusive, comprehensive
and clear.
1. Fully engage all stakeholders to develop a vision.
Enlist both the general public and the development
community in the process of creating new code that
supports smart, complete and predictable standards
for development. Include stakeholders with differing
opinions to help create a vision that is holistic, practical
and collaborative. Broad support will provide the
necessary political shield for leaders to write, adopt and
enforce new codes that promote sustainability, green
design, active living and livable communities.
2. Understand that many factors affect the built
environment. New proposals should address all of the
factors that can influence design standards, not just
the obvious ones. For example, tenant expectations
shouldn’t be an afterthought.
Engage in Vitality City: The communities of Hermosa
Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have a
unique opportunity to improve livability with the help of
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City. The cities should
utilize resources made available to them to engage stake-
holders and develop community vision plans where they
don’t already exist.
Beach CitiesBlueprint for 2011
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONESvitality City®
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONES
vitality City
presented by Beach Cities Health District
March 22, 2011
b
3. Create a master plan that clearly communicates the
development expectations. Standards that are clear,
concise and predictable are more likely to be accepted
and to succeed. In fact, predictability is the developer’s
friend. Standards must be highly graphical and easy to
understand for both builders and regulators. Programs
should be reviewed and evaluated yearly, and amended as
appropriate.
Seek Examples of Success
A municipality doesn’t need to change its entire book of
codes overnight. In fact, it’s probably smarter to make
changes incrementally.
For example, the central Florida city of Eustis, like
many small towns, has taken the time during this
latest market lull to “right the ship.” While reviewing
the city’s land-development regulations, city leaders
recognized the need for a downtown vision and began a
concurrent vision plan driven by the public. They have
found a common language in creating walkable streets,
balancing automobiles with pedestrians and alternative
modes of transport, and melding land-use decisions
with transportation goals. They have adopted new
form-based codes with district design standards, block
developments, typical streetscapes and a vision plan to
focus future development.
When the market recovers, Eustis will be prepared to
receive development as part of a community vision that
will result in a more sustainable, vibrant and livable city.
It is admirable that so many communities throughout the
country want to promote walkable, livable communities.
The next step is for governments, residents, developers
and planners to work together to make this a reality. It’s
time to throw out archaic codes and create new rules
that foster smarter - and healthier - growth.
Over time, buildings in town centers should front the streets, such as these retail shops in Hermosa Beach, CA. New buildings, or adapted buildings, can provide important added presence of people in the downtown.
c
Roundabouts facilitate through-traffic and turning
movements without requiring signal control. Roundabouts
are made up of a circulating roadway with an island
that is often used for landscaping or other decorative
features. The circulating roadway is typically wider than
the approach roadways and features an additional ‘apron’
against the edges of the island; both of these features
allow for fire trucks, ambulances and other large vehicles.
Roundabouts increase intersection volume by up to 30
percent. As the only requirement for yielding the right-
of-way is to traffic already in the circulating roadway,
vehicles can continue moving through intersections
carrying a light volume,
requiring no queue at the
approach roadways and
potentially allowing all
intersecting streets to use
the intersection at once.
Due to their low speed
and the reduced points
of potential conflict,
roundabouts also can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent
and fatal crashes by 90 percent. See the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety’s website: www.iihs.org/research/
topics/roundabouts.html.
How to Do It: Traffic-Calming Roundabouts
Roundabouts reduce delay, which reduces idling engines,
air pollution, noise and lost time. Roundabouts provide
safer and more comfortable pedestrian crossings.
Splitter islands serve as a pedestrian refuge. Allowing
one car length between the crossing and circulating
lane(s) optimizes roundabout efficiency for vehicles.
Roundabouts reduce conflicts in multiple ways: when
crossing, pedestrians face only one potential conflict
(traffic either entering or exiting the roundabout, divided
by the splitter island), and not the six conflicts per crossing
leg in full-crossing intersections. In properly designed
roundabouts, all conflicts are at low speeds for both
entering and exiting traffic. Roundabouts also create the
least delay to pedestrians wishing to cross a street. Instead
of waiting for up to two minutes to cross (common with
a signal), the pedestrian reaching a roundabout rarely has
more than a two- to eight-second delay for each leg that
they cross. Most bicyclists circulate easily with traffic,
since traffic is now going their speed.
For more information about roundabouts, see the Federal
Highway Administration’s educational video about
roundabouts, at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/
roundabouts/fhwasa10023/wmv_cc_final/10-2124_
Roundabouts.wmv.
Due to their low speed and the reduced points of potential conflict, roundabouts can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent and fatal crashes by 90 percent.
d
By helping re-scale a roadway, roundabouts help set
the stage for more successful retail trade and social life.
The roundabout below transformed an ugly strip street
in Golden, Colorado, into a much better proportioned
street. Four roundabouts were built; all signals were
removed. One surprising result: retail trade in the
corridor outperformed all other streets in Colorado
during the last recession.
Top photo, Holland, Michigan.
Bottom photo, Orlando, Florida. Both mini-circles
manage traffic quietly, maximize on street parking by
bringing speeds down, and offer attractive corners in
the commercial districts they occupy. A mini-circle or
two on key streets on gateway approaches to town, in
downtowns and other locations will add charm, beauty
and movement. Mini-circles are low cost and attractive
traffic management tools that can be easily designed
and installed. Although costs can be as low as $15-25k,
much more attractive circles are recommended for a
number of historic roads where speeds are too high.
A cost range of $75-125k would be appropriate for
central locations, while modest price circles can be used
elsewhere in the community. Mini-circles reduce the
potential for crashes by 90%. Yield controls are used
on all approaches. Seattle, Washington has placed over
1,000 mini-circles.
e
The addition of street network and roundabouts help
to keep traffic flowing, but keep it flowing slowly, which
creates a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
In some areas, roundabouts should have right-turn
bypass lanes, as illustrated below.
Roundabouts with Right-Turn Bypass Lanes
The top images are of a roundabout in Boulder, CO
and the bottom image is of a roundabout leading to the
Charlottesville, VA airport.
f
Communities can draw inspiration from Bradenton
Beach, Florida, where this state road previously exposed
pedestrians to high speeds at this crossing. On average,
one pedestrian was killed each year. Walking for exercise,
pleasure or transportation was suppressed. Following the
construction of the roundabout, all crashes disappeared,
and a new stage was set for mixed use development
After
Before
Success Story: Roundabouts and Crossings
After 14 years of operation, there had been no reported
crashes of any type. New economic life has set a mood
of prosperity to the entire shopping district. Today, there
is an abundance of pedestrian life.
g
Crossings should be located where there is a strong
desire to cross, where sight distances are good and
where vehicle speeds are low or can be lowered through
design and treatments. Shown on these pages, the use
of materials to create attractive streetscape features add
beauty, function and place. Each functional part (i.e.
parking, crossings, curb extensions, lane narrowing)
should be designed to add to effectiveness of the
crossing. Properly designed, crossings will “read”
How to Do It: Crossings
correctly, sending messages to drivers as they approach
that they are to slow down and that pedestrians should
be expected. For more information on the safety
impacts of crossings, see the Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies’ report, “Improving
Pedestrian Safety and Unsignalized Crossings,” available
online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
h
Use high-emphasis markings. A new approach is being used with paving ground down about 1/3rd of an inch. A
hot ceramic mix is poured in, then reflective glass beads are settled on top. This anti-slip design is expected to wear
well and outlast the life of the road surface. If desired, crossings can also be raised. This raised table has a 1:16
gradient change.
This Golden, Colorado crossing makes use of several important principles, the street is narrowed (to sixteen feet of
asphalt, with another 2 feet in each valley gutter).Growth of ground cover (keep trimmed to 20-28 inches) and tall
vertical trees, in time, will complete this crossing. This road was once 40 feet wide. Today parents feel comfortable
having their children make crossings along a popular park and trail.
i
Tools used to slow traffic and help people cross
streets.
If space exists where some crossings will be warranted,
then a median island can be added. This is a former
four-lane road, in Olympia, Washington. With medians,
pedestrians are only exposed to one direction of moving
traffic at a time. Medians should have both ground cover
and trees to make them more noticeable to motorists
from greater distances. Use of these features slows
speed, then draws attention to the crossing.
j
Additional tools can be used to aid
pedestrians in crossing streets safely.
Curb extensions reduce crossing
distances. Landscaping helps
channel pedestrians to ramps. Using
two ramps per corner simplifies
crossings. Color contrast is an aid
for older pedestrians and pedestrians
with visual problems. Count down
timers are now recommended as a
soft replacement for all urban area
signalized crossings.
k
The conversion of a strip to a village
center starts with taking critical corners
and placing urban buildings there.
These new buildings help size and
shape the importance of the corner
and the corridor. In time, well placed
buildings are joined together to create
vertical walls that provide character
and community. This works in small
scale hamlets to larger scale shopping
districts. Illustrations here show how the
new visual qualities help dampen traffic
speeds. Buildings start the critical process
of “enclosing” streets, giving them a feel
of “place” and importance. The two
photos below illustrate the importance
of architecture and town form in
controlling the speed of roadways.
There is little more than engineers can
do in the bottom image to control
speed. Meanwhile, careful, thoughtful,
placement of buildings and placemaking
brings speeds, and therefore development
opportunities alive.
Shown to the right is a correctly as-
sembled urban block, and below it a
conventional suburban block. Note
how the suburban strip image is
unappealing for walking (or even driv-
ing), and hastens motorists through a
space. This increases the potential for
speeding. Thus, poorly designed build-
ings and block patterns impact busi-
ness life and people multiple ways.
Correctly designed and placed ur-
ban form is necessary to help heal
downtowns or other places where
people are to spend time and money.
Unless code calls for an urban form,
do not expect such development. It
costs more, but it produces more.
Urban mixed-use development typi-
cally yields $25-60/square foot, while
single-use commercial zoning built to
suburban models yields only $5-15/
square foot.
How to Do It: Convert Suburban Strips to Village Centers
l
Suburban influences in town
centers can be replaced over time.
A partnership between private and
public land holders can result in
scenes that look much like these,
and even better.
Public streets form and frame so
much of our public realm that by
emphasizing speed of cars, we
destroy character and sense of
community. Once streets are rebuilt
for lower, but steady, speeds, it is
possible to provide new, mixed use
buildings that create a sense of
place, character and arrival.
As these transitions occur land can
increase in value from $5-15/sq
ft to $35-60/ sq ft. Scene to the
right: In time either the entire mall
can be replaced, or a portion in the
middle can be taken down to create
an attractive pathway that invites a
direct route to street shops.
m
The illustration to the right emphasizes those streets
(outlined in red) that are “A” Streets. “B” Streets in the
illustration are not highlighted with red. These can be
alleys, or any type of a utility street.
In the two photos at the bottom of the page, it is clear
that two developers were involved. To the right, the
developer privatized the neighborhood. Even though
the developer was required to install sidewalks, the wall
(“B” treatment) assures that no one will walk here. In
contrast, across the street, another developer “honored
the street” by placing “eyes” to the street. In this case
the street is being treated as an “A” street. Town codes
must stress that if people are to walk to destinations,
a series of “A” streets must be created, and developers
cannot put back yards to these important streets.
Of course, it is more complicated than that. If the
city, or state wants to use the collector as a higher speed
conduit, void of trees and other place, developers will
find it hard to sell homes along the street. The street
is the core tool for creating successful neighborhoods,
security and a desire to walk.
How to Do It: From Placeless to Place, Convert “B” Streets to “A”
n
In the photograph above, the functional use of a street is defined. Places where people want to walk are “A” streets (where buildings are designed to watch over the street. Meanwhile a series of “B” streets are needed to provide for utilities, deliveries and other internal functions. For the most part, people will not walk along “B” corridors.
Meanwhile, the above “B” street performs quite well for people who live here or make deliveries here. In the next row of images, a street not designed for walking (middle left) can be transformed into an “A” street which watches over parks, schools or corridors where continuous walking trips are important.
Right and above photos: This suburban style “B” street is transformed into the image below, changing the function of the street into an “A” category. In recent years, teams of planners, engineers, architects and landscape architects have made transitions allowing areas to become alive and active. It often takes more than one discipline to do this. Indeed, those areas that do not transform well are areas where people do not understood multiple functions needed in corridors.
o
Optimizing Your View and Increasing Social Interaction and Social Equity
When terminating views guide the human eye down
a street, several important things happen. The iconic
building, mountain or lake vista provides an attraction
that draws the person toward the destination, just as an
anchor store does in a mall. The terminal point also
reduces the tendency to speed, since motorists realize
their journey will be interrupted. The terminating vista
also acts as a navigational aid.
To maximize the value of land, the destination property
(park, lake, plaza) should have a well designed, quiet and
attractive street running parallel to it. The more sides
that have access, the more valuable the land becomes.
Other streets need to lead up to this perimeter street
and connect with it. In some cases, a well designed trail
acts as the “street” enabling people to walk or bicycle
comfortably along the water’s edge. In no case should
a stream, river, lake, park or even school yard feel
privatized through absence of access.
In these illustrations, the red lines rep-resent the edges of adjacent proper-ties that have access to the amenity.
On top, connected streets provide the highest access to the amenity, support social exchange, reduce crime rates, and increase land values.
Below, disconnected streets privatize the amenity, decrease walking, and increase potential for property and personal crime.
p
Privatized -- Wrong Way. The above layout of streets
privatizes the lake. Although homes along the shoreline
may hold a 10% higher sale and resale value, the amenity,
which should belong to the entire community, is now inac-
cessible to others. Even if a small beach front is acces-
sible at some point, the overall value of homes going 2 to
10 blocks deep are devalued. The developer makes less
money on total property values, and the community suf-
fers from reduced social interaction.
Public Access -- Right Way. This alternative design maxi-
mizes access to the neighborhood feature (lake, park,
school). As access is increased, the number of walking and
bicycling trips increase, there is less need for expensive and
environmentally damaging parking lots, and the develop-
ment community makes a greater return on investment. In
the scene to the left, the project may not “pencil out” once
all associated utilities, street and other costs are worked
out. With higher values, the project is more likely to be
viable.
Right Way. This design maximizes connectivity and access
to the park, square or plaza. By placing more activity along
the park (walking, bicycling and driving) the park becomes
more interactive and better used. Ideally, all streets sur-
rounding the park will have either parallel or angled park-
ing, thus minimizing the amount of park land that must be
devoted to parking. This also lightens the environmental
damage, since on-street parking takes up only 1/3rd the
amount of space as off-street parking.
Wrong Way. Streets do not connect on the left hand side.
The above layout of streets breaks street connectivity and
privatizes the park. This reduces access to the park. In a
small park, this gives the park user the feeling that they are
in someone’s yard. Since the property often has its back to
the park, it reduces the “eyes” on the park and creates an
increasing risk that the park will not be used fully. Reduced
park use, in turn, invites crime in the park and to adjacent
property owners. Low park use also reduces property val-
ues.
q
Major streets with moderate to high volumes of
traffic should be transformed into “Complete Streets.”
Bike lanes, bike trails, sidewalks, streetscaping, curb
extensions, mid-block crossings and other tools are
applied.
Traffic calming and traffic management techniques
should be used. On-street parking can be striped, and
curb extensions, tree wells and medians can be added.
Such improvements not only bring down speeds, they
improve town centers and connect streets by reducing
noise and perceived danger.
Most principal streets should have lanes narrower than
today, especially when combined with bike lanes. Bike
lanes add a buffer to parking and sidewalks.
Sidewalk construction and maintenance should be a
priority, especially within a quarter-mile or half-mile of
town centers and schools.
Ramps should comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and “universal design” standards.
Above and below: Example of a two-lane road with a me-dian, inset parking, one ten foot wide lane in each direction and bike lanes. A roadway based on these concepts can move up to 20,000 ADT (if used with roundabouts at key intersections). If roundabouts are not used, more lanes are added at intersections for storage and turns at key inter-sections -- not the entire section.
(Photo: Issaquah Highlands, Issaquah, Washington)
How to Do It: Complete Streets
r
Complete Streets vary in design based on the type of street involved, speed and volume, block form, whether
parking is needed or not, climate, demographics and other factors. These sections illustrate a number of desired
features, including support for walking and bicycling along streets, and the ability to cross over. Trees are generally
spaced each 15 to 30 feet. Minimum dimensions for an environmentally friendly street are provided in the bottom
illustration. A center turn storage lane of ten feet, two travel lanes of ten feet each, two five foot bike lanes (using
an extended gutter pan that is saw cut for joints, two planter strips of 5 feet each and two sidewalks of five feet each
can fit inside a 60 foot right-of-way.
s
How to Do It: Road Diets
WHO
Typically implemented by city, county or state
transportation agencies, road diets help achieve the
policies advocated for by Complete Streets (www.
completestreets.org), Smart Growth America (www.
smartgrowthamerica.org), and many other national, state
and local groups seeking a safer, more walkable and
livable community for road users of all ages and abilities.
WHAT
A road diet involves eliminating travel lanes on a
roadway to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
While there can be more than four travel lanes before
treatment, road diets are generally conversions of
four-lane, undivided roads into three lanes—two
through lanes plus a center turn lane or median island.
The fourth lane may be converted into a bicycle lane,
sidewalk, planter strip for street trees, a bus stop, a
separated multi-use trail, a wider outside lane and/or for
on-street parking. Rural areas might add wider shoulders
for bicyclists, roundabouts near a town – especially as
a gateway treatment - or separated multi-use trails. In
other words, based on the surrounding land use and
travel speeds or context of the road, the street cross
section is reallocated.
WHERE
Lane and Road Diets can be successfully implemented
on collector and arterial streets, main streets, commercial
corridors, or town centers; on any street that is over-
designed to give priority to the motor vehicle; and in
areas where there is greater need to provide for multi-
modal travel.
WHEN
Context is the key to a successful lane or road diet,
Complete Streets, and Smart Growth. The objective
of any design change should be to match the roadway
environment with the actual roadway function.
Candidate roads will usually have an ADT (Average
Daily Trips) of less than 20,000 to ensure minimal
effects on vehicle capacity, although successful road diets
have been performed with volumes reaching 30,000
ADT and the roadway did not reach the most congested
condition of LOS F (a level-of-service failing grade.)
Ideal roads are in need of mitigation to reduce traffic
conflict, crashes, and to slow down vehicles, and are in
areas that wish to encourage economic development,
address parking circulation, improve streetscapes, and
create safer roads.
WHY
The benefits of road diets are numerous: they improve
road safety for users of all ages and abilities, whether
they travel by foot, wheelchair, bicycle, stroller, or motor
vehicle; create a welcoming community environment;
and help to solve some of our more pressing public
health issues such as reducing obesity, and rates of
heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure by
encouraging active living. Other benefits can include:
economic development, increased property values,
improved streetscape, better parking circulation, reduced
vehicle speeds, improved mobility and more efficient
land uses - mixed uses that offer affordable housing,
retail, restaurant, and/or office options.
Anecdotal case study results support the conclusion
that pedestrians, bicyclists, and adjacent landowners
typically prefer the corridor environment of a road diet,
especially a two-lane cross section with median islands.
When people are the priority, a true livable community
and sense of place exist.
t
HOW
Conduct a traffic study, and before/after traffic counts of all road users; understand the limitations of traffic
modeling; consider special bus designs such as bus pull-outs. Engage the community, educating residents and
local leaders on why lane/road diets are a good idea. Survey affected merchants and residents along the corridor
to learn what the expectations and objections of a road diet might be. Garner local political support from elected
leaders, leverage financial resources from various sources. Funding for road diets can often come from economic
development programs, state and local transportation departments, regional metropolitan transportation planning
organizations, state and county health departments, main street programs, tree planting or green-up programs.
There are many funding sources that can be explored to create significant change.
Many American towns have the potential to go from having too many lanes for storing cars, to fewer lanes which then build place and the local economy. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, Pacific Ave. in Santa Cruz, CA was rebuilt to the scene be-low. Now with narrower street widths and a sense of place, the street teems with life and vitality and generates revenue.
u
The retail life of a town center is supported best by
having sufficient on-street parking. Many towns fail to
use their streets wisely. They induce speeding by having
too much space for vehicular flow, and not enough for
car storage.
On-street parking only takes one third as much land as
off street parking. On-street parking belongs on center
city streets, serving as a buffer to moving cars and a
natural traffic calming tool. When used in conjunction
with curb extensions (bump outs) and tree wells, parking
is said to be inset, narrowing streets, making pedestrian
crossings easier, more comfortable and safe.
In time, to achieve compact town center form, where
more people can live and help activate the town center,
it will be necessary to move away from most off-street
parking. Once a full and vibrant retail life is achieved,
each parking space becomes worth $200,000 per year.
Thus, attention to using town center streets to maximize
convenient parking, is urgent and paramount.
If head-out angled parking is used, which is highly
How to Do It: Parking
recommended, the entire curb to curb dimension can
be 54-56’. When head-out angled parking is used, lane
widths can be much narrower, since back out “discovery
time” is not needed. Also, the back end of vehicles have
more overhang, so less space is used.
Parking bay depths should be 15 feet. An added two
foot of space is picked up when valley gutters are used
(highly recommended). See valley gutter in photos.
Keep travel lanes to a combined with of 20-22 feet. A
center line is not used. This tight driving space helps
keep speeds low, which reduces the chance of vehicle
crashes.
v
There are multiple benefits to head-out angled parking.
It is the safest way to park a vehicle and it increases the
amount of on-street parking that can be made available.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking can increase
the number of parking spaces that will fit on a street by
30 to 110 percent over parallel parking. Also, head-out
angled parking reduces the amount of off-street parking
- and related infrastructure needed. In fact, it can take up
as little as one-third of the space of off-street parking.
Head-out angled parking is easier to do than parallel
parking because the driver essentially is only making
the first maneuver of parallel parking -- the backing-
in maneuver. Once in the space, the driver has many
benefits over parallel or front-IN parking.
For example, when in a head-out space and the doors
are opened, passengers are directed away from passing
traffic and toward the sidewalk. The trunk is accessible
from the sidewalk. And when pulling out, the driver can
see oncoming vehicles and bicyclists.
To install it well, keep sidewalks wide and comfortable.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking allows cars’
trunks to overhang more than front-in parking, so set
all fixtures (lamps, hydrants, signs, trees) at least 24 to
30 inches from the edge of the curb. Also, be careful
to develop robust and effective educational programs
to help all roadway users become comfortable with the
practice, especially if it is new in the community.
Head-Out Angled Parking
w
With front-in angled parking many communities max out their parking gain by using 60 degrees. With head-
out angled parking (also called “back-in angled parking), the “yield” is reduced when a 45-degree angle is used.
Either angle is possible, but with head-out, 45 degrees is more common, since it is easier to park. It is generally
recommended that parking bays be no more than fifteen feet deep (perpendicular measurement). With a two-foot-
wide valley gutter, bringing the full depth to 17 feet, all conventional and many oversized vehicles fit in this space.
Omit center lane lines when using on street parking to allow motorists to go around a car in the process of parking
when there is no opposing traffic. Removal of center lane lines has been shown to reduce traffic speeds and crashes.
x
Sometimes a building-to-building right-of-way is too
tight to plant trees in sidewalk areas. Use of in-street
tree wells can allow the street to be “greened” and often
without removal of parking. Tree wells can either be
installed to allow water to flow naturally in existing
channels, or, if a complete reconstruction is needed, to
insert drainage in a pattern that supports these green
innovations. Tree wells are used on many local streets,
but can also be used, along with curb extensions on
roads like SR 70 and SR 17, in Florida. A number of
state roads apply tree wells in a variety of states and
provinces (including snow country, such as Boise, Idaho
and Columbus, Ohio) in urban areas. Use of tree wells
and curb extensions, in combination, help bring speeds
to more appropriate urban levels.
How to Do It: Tree Wells
y
Placemaking: The transforming of a street, sidewalk,
plaza, square, paseo, open lot, waterfront or other space
to be attractive, rewarding and a community source
of distinction and pride. Good places make good
experiences possible and have consequences in our lives.
People want to share experiences and ideas on common
ground, in attractive, well designed and cared for public
places.
Principles: Reinvestment in streets, between buildings,
and in other well located public spaces brings added
value to all buildings and homes in a town center. A
front porch storing last decades sofa and washing
machine detracts. Placemaking, like interior decorating,
must create a strong, compelling sense of place that
makes time spent in these spaces rewarding and
memorable. Consider the public and private realm of a
town center as a public/private partnership. Consider
the greater town center as a canvas waiting for rich,
vibrant tones, textures and colors that honor existing or
adapted buildings and streets. Nothing should be ho-
hum. Places can be funky and relaxed, but they must be
thoughtful, sensitive to place, and cared for.
Streetscapes help create character and charm. In many
towns, many decades of deterioration must be attended
to. The town center is a fine home for things waiting to
happen, but many existing furnishings, old facades, litter
cans, upheaved sidewalks, detract.
The waiting plaza space shown in the upper corner is
truly the opportunity that can be the “tipping point” to
all other investments.
Plaza spaces must be carefully crafted to bring about
proper levels of enclosure, transparency, human scale,
complexity, “imageability” and comfort.
Even small public spaces need a minimum of ten
different treats or activities or points of interest for the
public to become fully engaged. Don’t overlook the
needs of seniors, and the drawing power of children to
come to these places.
Not ready for prime time: Above is an example of a physi-cal space that can become an important plaza, outdoor room and connector.
Below: Adapted into public space.
How to Do It: Paseos and Plazas that Create a Sense of Place
z
Placemaking includes outdoor
“rooms.”
Just as with a home environment,
cities have the opportunity to
draw in visitors and residents to
special “rooms” created for social
exchange or instead a chance to
relax, read, or simply hang out.
These are examples of paseos and
other spaces between buildings that
take on a unique life. Common to
all, plenty of design, “eyes on the
realm” and comfort.
aa
Principles: Sidewalks in a town center require high
levels of design and care. It is within the protected
spaces of a sidewalk where people move freely, but
also spend time engaging others and spending time to
enjoy the beauty of their public space. Sidewalks work
best when they are fully buffered from moving traffic.
The following considerations should be provided when
laying out sidewalks.
Use color, texture, street furniture and other materials to
distinguish functional areas of walkways. Sidewalks have
three parts (shy zone, furniture zone and the walk/talk
zone). See illustration to the right.
If driveways must interrupt, keep these to minimal
widths (14 foot for one way, 26-28 for two way). Use
contrasting colors and materials, and keep sidewalks
fully flat across driveways.
Sidewalk widths may need to vary, according to existing
building placement, and other constraints. Try to keep
town center sidewalks to 12-16 feet, when practicable,
but be willing to narrow when constraints exist.
How to Do It: Sidewalks
ab
Curb extensions help transform a place into a more attrac-
tive, natural, functional and prosperous town and center.
Curb extensions capture all space not used by autos. By
adding curb extensions, towns turn these vital spaces into
civic and retail uses. All construction should be done in a
way that it least disrupts local businesses. Winter Park,
and Sanford, Florida replaced sewers, water lines and other
infrastructure as part of its reconstruction. Streets were
worked on at night, then covered during the day to maxi-
mize retail success.
How to Do It: Curb Extensions
ac
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
Nearly every community in the country could benefit from some sort of change or improvement to the built
environment to create or support walkability and livability. As groups of residents, leaders or organizations come
together to create momentum for those changes, consideration should be given to which projects or interventions
have the greatest chance of succeeding and which will have the greatest benefit. The scoring system below, created
by Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Health Promotion as part of the Community Physical Activity Planning resource
manual, provides a good starting point for prioritizing efforts.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
Completely Satifactorily Not at all
54 3 21
Will achieve the goals and objectives of the plan
Will addresses the needs of segments of the community targeted in our plan
Will produce the desired results in the desired timeframe
Will be supported by the parties responsible for implementation
Has an existing agency prepared to assume responsibility for implementation
Will be supported by the community
Will be supported by community and external funding agencies
Will not conflict with or duplicate existing projects in the community
Takes full advantage of existing resources in the community
Can realistically be implemented within the plan’s timeframe
Can be implemented with available financial resources
Can be implemented with available staff resources
Is financially viable and sustainable over the long term
Other Criteria:
HOW TO PLAN & PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY
PAGE 50
TOOLKIT 2B
Identifying the Best Projects for the Physical Activity Plan:
A Checklist
This checklist identifies a number of criteria that can be used to select projects for
your plan. Not all criterion will be applicable to every project. Your committee may
identify other criteria relevant to your plan. Rank proposed projects on a scale of
1-5 depending on how well they fulfill each criterion.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
ad
HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
Please provide written responses to each applicable question. For those questions
which are not applicable, please indicate so on the form. Attach additional sheets if
more space is necessary to respond fully to the questions. Submit completed form
with your project/development application.
PROJECT NAME: ________________________________________________________
ADRESS/LOCATION: _____________________________________________________
CASE #: ______________________
TYPE OF PROJECT: Residential Mixed Commercial Office Civic
YES NO
Does the project/development promote interaction between
neighbors?
If YES please list: _____________________________________
Is the physical design of the project harmonious with the overall
neighborhood?
Is this development adjacent to existing development and
connecting to the development with pedestrian links and roadway
connections?
Is there an adequate mix of land uses that provide a variety of
housing choices?
Do these mixes provide for a great diversity in incomes, and
especially provide for affordability?
Are there locations for non residential land uses that are integrated
with the residential?
Is the land use configured around a walkable block size ( ¼ mile
perimeter)?
Is there a range of density permitted in the neighborhood?
Are fronts of homes properly placed and have windows watching
over schools, parks, streets, trails and other public places?
Is the architecture of buildings attractive and supportive of life on the
street, park, school?
Are there provisions eliminating garages from “mooning” the street
(i.e. required garage setbacks, lot frontage percentage)?
Are public buildings, parks and other common destinations properly
placed to maximize the number of people that can walk to them?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in ten
minutes (2500 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
an elementary school?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in twenty
minutes (5000 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
a high school?
Is there too much emphasis on providing large amounts of off-street
parking (relates to affordability, density)?
LAND USE
Just as with the checklist on the previous page, groups of people or organizations coming together to improve the
built environment to support walkability and livability should assess any potential projects for existing shortcomings
or opportunities for improvement. The checklist below, developed by WALC Institute team members, provides a
list of qualities that should be assessed as a first step in evaluating an effort’s viability.
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
ae
YES NO
Does the project/development achieve a connectivity index of 1.4?
The index is calculated by dividing the number of street links (street
sections between intersections, including cul-de-sacs) by the number
of street nodes (intersections and cul-de-sacs). A grid street network
would yield an index of 2.0.
Does the project/development provide mobility options for those who
cannot drive?
Does the project/development have a well connected sidewalk
system that lead to local destinations?
If YES what is the proposed width of the sidewalks (5.0 foot minimum
recommended)? __________________________________________
Are sidewalks detached from the curb allowing planter strips to take
up driveway elevation changes?
Do all corners have ADA accessible ramps (2 ramps per corner
preferred)?
Do planter strips offer canopy street trees (each 15-30 feet
recommended)?
If median tree plantings are preferred, are plantings adequate for
canopy development (each 15-30 feet recommended)?
Are there adequate provisions made for proper care and
maintenance of canopy trees?
Do building practices eliminate privacy fences (above 4.0 feet)
toward the public side of properties?
Are there specifications that public facing fencing be attractive and
transparent above 4.0 feet?
Do curbs, swales, curb extensions, or other designs keep cars
parked in correct locations (no rollover curbs)?
Does the project/development have, or connect to, a trail system for
walking or biking?
Does the project/development contain elements that enhance the
feeling of neighborhood security and safety?
Are local streetlights provided?
Are houses oriented toward the street to provide “eyes on the street?”
Are the buildings addressing the street? (i.e. front doors)
Is there parking between the building and the street?
Can a child walk safely, comfortably, and feel watched over enroute
to school?
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the route to the school(s)?
What is the walking distance to the area’s schools? ______________
Is the visibility at intersections good? Can drivers see short children,
physically handicapped?
Does the route contain known dangerous intersections?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Are there crossing guards at these intersections?
Will the project/development contain a significant elderly population?
Can the elderly walk to important destinations (i.e. banks, post office
community centers, and library)? What is the walking distance to
these destinations? ________________________________________
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN
Access management strategies aimed
at reducing the number of driveway
crossings and increasing the width of the sidewalk corridor significantly
improve the pedestrian experience for
existing developments.
af
YES NO
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the routes to these
destinations?
Is the overall speed at or below 25 mph for all local streets?
Is the overall speed at or below 30 mph for all collector streets?
Does the project contain design elements to calm traffic such as curb
extensions, mini-circles, parking chicanes, roundabouts, medians,
raised street crossings, or similar features?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Does the project/development present unsafe conditions or deter
access and free mobility for the physically handicapped?
For projects/development on arterial streets, does the plan include
pedestrian crossing signals and/or mid-block crossing islands?
Is public transportation available?
If YES, where and how close is the nearest bus/train stop? ________
_________________________________________________________
Does the nearest bus/train stop have a shelter?
Does the nearest the bus/train stop have a bench and litter can?
Do curb extensions or other treatments prevent motorists from
parking too close to corners?
If narrow streets are used, do streets provide a physical space (20
feet wide) every 200 feet for emergency response operations?
If alleys are used, is there high transparency (surveillance) in the
alley?
If paseos (connectors or links) are used, is there high transparency
(surveillance) to the paseo?
Do schools, parks, and other public destinations have adequate well
located and secure bike parking?
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN CONTINUED
YES NO
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in five
minutes (1500 feet) to a public gathering place, park, plaza, or
community center?
Are there an adequate number of parks provided within walking
distance (1/8 – ¼ mile ) from every residence?
Are there sidewalks/pathways, ADA ramps along the route to the
above services?
What is the walking distance to the area’s amenities? _____________
Is the size of parks and open space adequate for the amount of
potential residents?
Are there a number of buildings/houses that watch over parks, trails,
and open space?
Are these parks well used? If not yet built, are there a number of
things to discover and do in these parks?
Do parks have appropriate on-street parking, or is there too much
off-street parking?
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Healthy Development Checklist, from Walkable Communities:
http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/healthy_development_checklist.pdf
Active School Neighborhood Checklist, from the Arizona Department of Transportation:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/swprojmgmt/Enhancement_Scenic/saferoutes/SafeRoutes_Common
/Apply_Active_School_Neighborhood_Checklist.asp
Healthy, Active & Vibrant Community 2009 Toolkit, from Trailnet:
http://www.trailnet.org/HAVC_Toolkit.phpJuly 6, 2011
Growing Demand for Communities that Promote Health, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_WalkableCommunities.pdf
At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy, from
the American Public Health Association:
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-FB68-4112-8C75-
49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.pdf
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, from the Local Government Commission:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/Healthy_Kids_Healthy_Communitie
s.pdf
Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf
Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance, from Active Living
Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf
Additional Resources
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Sample Safe Routes to Schools Programs, from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/4233
Parent Survey about Walking and Biking to School, from the National Center for Safe Routes:
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/collateral/Parent_Survey_English_Scan2009.pdf
Teaching Children to Walk Safely as They Grow and Develop: A guide for parents/caregivers
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/graduated_walking/index.cfm
Adult School Crossing Guard Guidelines
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/crossing_guard/index.cfm
The Walking School Bus: Combining safety, fun and the walk to school
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/walking_school_bus/index.cfm
Student Drop-off and Pick-up
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Dropoff-Pickup.pdf
Media and Visibility
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/media/index.cfm
Education
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Education.pdf
Enforcement
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Enforcement.pdf
Evaluation Guide for Community Safe Routes to School Programs
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Evaluation.pdf
Many more Safe Routes to School guides and tools are available at www.saferoutesinfo.org.
Additional Resources
Safe Routes to School
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
1215 Lawrence Street, Unit 001
Port Townsend, WA 98368
www.walklive.org
360.385.3421
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Draft Final Plan - August 2011
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan: Draft Final 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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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 ............... 451
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
x | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
xii | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Executive Summary
xvi | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xvii
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
.
Executive Summary
xx | Alta Planning + Design
7.0
Existing Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region
Executive Summary xxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | xxiii Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo
Executive Summary
xxiv | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxv
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Executive Summary
xxvi | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxvii
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach
Executive Summary
xxviii | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxix
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach
Executive Summary
xxx | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary xxxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank
Alta Planning + Design | 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter One | Introduction
2 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
Chapter One | Introduction
4 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-1: South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter One | Introduction
8 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-3: Bicycle Path and Bicycle Lane Recommended Standards
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 9
Figure 1-4: Bicycle Route and Bicycle Friendly Streets Recommended
Standards
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
18 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Alta Planning + Design | 19
Chapter 2
Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
20 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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,
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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)
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 33
Figure 2-1: City of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 35
Figure 2-2: County of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan Area
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Alta Planning + Design | 111
Chapter 5
Hermosa Beach
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
112 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
114 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-1: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
118 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 133
Figure 5-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
136 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-4: Hermosa Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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 9
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 145
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Longfellow Avenue
Longfellow Avenue (Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive)
Example Signage and Sharrows
146 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 10
Recommended Programs
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
302 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Alta Planning + Design | 315
Chapter 11
Wayfinding and Signage Plan
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
316| Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 320| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-1: Sign Types
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 321 Figure 11-2: South Bay D11-1 Layout Details
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 322| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-3: D1-1b Layout Details
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 323 Figure 11-4: South Bay and Participating City Logos used on signs
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 324| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-5: Los Angeles Metro and Bicycle Parking symbols used on signs
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
326| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-6: Sample Wayfinding sign for El Segundo
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 327
Figure 11-7: Sample Wayfinding sign for Gardena
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
328| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-8: Sample Wayfinding sign for Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 329
Figure 11-9: Sample Wayfinding sign for Lawndale
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
330| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-10: Sample Wayfinding sign for Manhattan Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 331
Figure 11-11: Sample Wayfinding sign for Redondo Beach
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
332| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-12: Sample Wayfinding sign for Torrance
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 337
Figure 11-13: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
338| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-14: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 339 Figure 11-15: Potential Placement of Sample Kiosk Photo Source: Dan Burden/WALC Institute for Vitality City
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.
Alta Planning + Design | 341
Chapter 12
Funding
Chapter Twelve | Funding
342| Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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. Oxnard should work with the Ventura County Transportation Commission to submit projects for the STIP.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
Chapter Twelve | Funding
356| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 – 7:30am
Council Chambers, City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
MAYOR
Howard Fishman
CITY CLERK
Elaine Doerfling
MAYOR PRO TEM
Jeff Duclos
CITY TREASURER
John M. Workman
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Patrick ‘Kit’ Bobko
Michael DiVirgilio
Peter Tucker
CITY MANAGER
Stephen R. Burrell
CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Jenkins
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally
prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda.
ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS
FOLLOWS:
1. MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on October 11, 2011.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54957.6
City Negotiators: Stephen Burrell, Richard Kreisler, Jeff Freedman
Employee Organizations: Hermosa Beach Police Officers’ Association
Hermosa Beach Firefighters' Association
Teamsters Union, Local 911
Professional and Administrative Employee Group
Hermosa Beach Management Association
Hermosa Beach Police Management Association
Hermosa Beach Professional Engineers Bargaining Group
Unrepresented employees
3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
a. Property: 552 11th Place
Negotiating Parties: Stephen Burrell
Richard Thielscher
Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Draft Final Plan - August 2011
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan: Draft Final 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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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 ............... 451
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
x | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
xii | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Executive Summary
xvi | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xvii
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
.
Executive Summary
xx | Alta Planning + Design
7.0
Existing Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region
Executive Summary xxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | xxiii Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo
Executive Summary
xxiv | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxv
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Executive Summary
xxvi | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxvii
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach
Executive Summary
xxviii | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxix
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach
Executive Summary
xxx | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary xxxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank
Alta Planning + Design | 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter One | Introduction
2 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
Chapter One | Introduction
4 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-1: South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter One | Introduction
8 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-3: Bicycle Path and Bicycle Lane Recommended Standards
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 9
Figure 1-4: Bicycle Route and Bicycle Friendly Streets Recommended
Standards
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
18 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Alta Planning + Design | 19
Chapter 2
Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
20 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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,
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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)
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 33
Figure 2-1: City of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 35
Figure 2-2: County of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan Area
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Alta Planning + Design | 111
Chapter 5
Hermosa Beach
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
112 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
114 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-1: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
118 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 133
Figure 5-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
136 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-4: Hermosa Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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 9
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 145
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Longfellow Avenue
Longfellow Avenue (Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive)
Example Signage and Sharrows
146 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 10
Recommended Programs
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
302 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Alta Planning + Design | 315
Chapter 11
Wayfinding and Signage Plan
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
316| Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 320| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-1: Sign Types
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 321 Figure 11-2: South Bay D11-1 Layout Details
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 322| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-3: D1-1b Layout Details
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 323 Figure 11-4: South Bay and Participating City Logos used on signs
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 324| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-5: Los Angeles Metro and Bicycle Parking symbols used on signs
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
326| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-6: Sample Wayfinding sign for El Segundo
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 327
Figure 11-7: Sample Wayfinding sign for Gardena
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
328| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-8: Sample Wayfinding sign for Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 329
Figure 11-9: Sample Wayfinding sign for Lawndale
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
330| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-10: Sample Wayfinding sign for Manhattan Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 331
Figure 11-11: Sample Wayfinding sign for Redondo Beach
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
332| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-12: Sample Wayfinding sign for Torrance
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 337
Figure 11-13: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
338| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-14: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 339 Figure 11-15: Potential Placement of Sample Kiosk Photo Source: Dan Burden/WALC Institute for Vitality City
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.
Alta Planning + Design | 341
Chapter 12
Funding
Chapter Twelve | Funding
342| Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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. Oxnard should work with the Ventura County Transportation Commission to submit projects for the STIP.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
Chapter Twelve | Funding
356| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Draft Final Plan - August 2011
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan: Draft Final 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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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 ............... 451
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
x | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
xii | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Executive Summary
xvi | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xvii
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
.
Executive Summary
xx | Alta Planning + Design
7.0
Existing Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxi
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in the South Bay region
Executive Summary xxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | xxiii Proposed Bicycle Facilities in El Segundo
Executive Summary
xxiv | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Gardena
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxv
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Executive Summary
xxvi | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Lawndale
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxvii
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Manhattan Beach
Executive Summary
xxviii | Alta Planning + Design
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in North Redondo Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxix
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in South Redondo Beach
Executive Summary
xxx | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | xxxi
Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Torrance
Executive Summary xxxii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank
Alta Planning + Design | 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter One | Introduction
2 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
Chapter One | Introduction
4 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-1: South Bay master plan cities within the Los Angeles region
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter One | Introduction
8 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 1-3: Bicycle Path and Bicycle Lane Recommended Standards
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 9
Figure 1-4: Bicycle Route and Bicycle Friendly Streets Recommended
Standards
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
18 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Alta Planning + Design | 19
Chapter 2
Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
Chapter Two | Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
20 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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,
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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)
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 33
Figure 2-1: City of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 35
Figure 2-2: County of Los Angeles Proposed Bicycle Facilities
South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan Area
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Alta Planning + Design | 111
Chapter 5
Hermosa Beach
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
112 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
114 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-1: City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Map
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
118 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.)
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 133
Figure 5-3: Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Hermosa Beach
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Five | Hermosa Beach
136 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 5-4: Hermosa Beach Proposed End-of-Trip Facilities
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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 9
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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)
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 145
Aerial Map and Concept Graphics: Longfellow Avenue
Longfellow Avenue (Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive)
Example Signage and Sharrows
146 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 10
Recommended Programs
Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
302 | Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Alta Planning + Design | 315
Chapter 11
Wayfinding and Signage Plan
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
316| Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 320| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-1: Sign Types
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 321 Figure 11-2: South Bay D11-1 Layout Details
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 322| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-3: D1-1b Layout Details
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 323 Figure 11-4: South Bay and Participating City Logos used on signs
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan 324| Alta Planning + Design Figure 11-5: Los Angeles Metro and Bicycle Parking symbols used on signs
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
326| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-6: Sample Wayfinding sign for El Segundo
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 327
Figure 11-7: Sample Wayfinding sign for Gardena
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
328| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-8: Sample Wayfinding sign for Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 329
Figure 11-9: Sample Wayfinding sign for Lawndale
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
330| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-10: Sample Wayfinding sign for Manhattan Beach
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 331
Figure 11-11: Sample Wayfinding sign for Redondo Beach
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
332| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-12: Sample Wayfinding sign for Torrance
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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.
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
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
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
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft
Alta Planning + Design | 337
Figure 11-13: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
338| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-14: Sample Kiosk Prototype
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft Alta Planning + Design | 339 Figure 11-15: Potential Placement of Sample Kiosk Photo Source: Dan Burden/WALC Institute for Vitality City
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.
Alta Planning + Design | 341
Chapter 12
Funding
Chapter Twelve | Funding
342| Alta Planning + Design
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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).
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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. Oxnard should work with the Ventura County Transportation Commission to submit projects for the STIP.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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
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.
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan - Draft 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.
Chapter Twelve | Funding
356| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
August 2011
1
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City:
Beach Cities Livability Plan
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONES VITALITY CITY: BEACH CITIES LIVABILITY PLAN
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3
A NOTE FROM DAN BURDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WALC INSTITUTE ......................................... 10
2 TOWARD WELL-BEING IN THE BEACH CITIES .................................................................... 11
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN .................................................................................................................. 12
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................... 15
WHY A BETTER BUILT FORM? ......................................................................................................... 16
KEY TOOLS AND TERMS FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM ............................................................................ 17
KEY PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM ................................................................. 23
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 31
WHAT WE HEARD: FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, CITY STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS ........... 31
WHAT WE SAW: OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE BEACH CITIES’ BUILT ENVIRONMENT ................................... 34
4 POLICY FOR LIVABLE BEACH CITIES .................................................................................. 41
POLICY TO ACHIEVE LIVABILITY GOALS IN THE BEACH CITIES .................................................................. 42
GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEW ................................................................................. 52
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS .................................... 74
5 CHANGES FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM .............................................................................. 76
NEEDED: FLEXIBILITY, CREATIVITY AND COURAGE ............................................................................... 77
TRANSFORM REGIONAL CORRIDORS ................................................................................................. 79
TRANSFORM LOCAL CORRIDORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS ............................................................ 85
GENERAL GUIDANCE ..................................................................................................................... 89
6 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................ 94
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City:
Beach Cities Livability Plan
August 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Sarah Bowman, Director of Education
“By focusing on livability, we can help transform the way transportation serves the American
people—and create safer, healthier communities that provide access to economic opportunities.”
– U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
This report focuses on how to improve livability and well-being in Hermosa Beach, Manhattan
Beach and Redondo Beach – the “beach cities” – through land-use and transportation systems
that better support active living.
Livability refers to the quality of life a place allows and is heavily influenced by the land-use and
transportation planning choices made. The built environment impacts health, well-being and
happiness – either positively or negatively. It is a reflection of the care and thoughtfulness put
into creating the places where we live, go to work, attend school, and play.
Study after study shows that walkable, bikeable, and livable communities are also healthier
communities, not only in terms of individual health, but also environmental and economic
health. Consider that:
A study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association in 2006 found that for
every five-percent increase in walkability, a community could expect more than a 30-
percent increase in “physically active travel” and nearly a quarter-point reduction in
individual body mass index, which is a common indicator for obesity and health. The
increase in walkability also was correlated with more than a five-percent reduction in
air pollutants that are associated with vehicle travel.1
1 Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Chapman, J.E., Saelens, B.E., & Bachman, W. (2006), “. "Many
pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighbourhood walkability and active
transportation, body mass index, and air quality.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1). 75-87; at
http://www.planning.org/library/bibliography/resource.htm?ResourceID=1167
Executive Summary
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City: Beach Cities Livability Plan
August 2011
Livability refers to
quality of life.
Livability is not
about sacrifice.
Livability is
achieved when we
set our course to
complete streets
and embrace well-
being.
Analysis published in Preventive Medicine in 2010 indicates that installing sidewalks on all
of a city’s streets would increase physical activity enough to offset weight gain in about
37 percent of the population, leading to healthcare savings likely to be enough to repay
the cost of installing the sidewalks.2
A study published by CEOs for Cities in 2009 shows that in 13 of 15 housing markets
evaluated, a one-point increase in a neighborhood’s WalkScore (www.walkscore.com)
increased homes values as much as $3,000.3
Other benefits noted through observation and reported by numerous government entities,
independent researchers and non-profit organizations include:
Protection of natural and cultural resources (http://www.epa.gov/dced/)
Increased economic development
(http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Shoup-
Ewing_March2010.pdf)
Reduction in crime and violence
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/cpted.html)
Opportunities for social connectedness and community building
(http://bowlingalone.com/)
Reduce sprawl and infrastructure costs
(http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/axelrad.html)
Transportation equity (http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf)
Further, when cities and towns provide equitable access
to a complete transportation system, they send the
message that people – not just cars - belong. No matter
one’s age, income, ability, or mode of transport, the place
works and the benefits are tremendous:
Livability is not about sacrifice. When we design our
streets for well-being, we get well-being. We can turn
our communities into thoroughfares or we can turn our
communities into destinations. Our streets are attractive
and safe for all users, or they are not. Our streets
encourage a variety of transportation options, including
walking and bicycling, or they limit choices. Our streets
enable social interaction, or they segregate. Our streets
improve individual, economic and environmental health,
2 Jessica Y. Guo and Sasanka Gandavarapu (2010), “An Economic Evaluation Of Health-Promotive Built
Environment Changes,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, Supplement 1, January 2010, pp. S44-S49; at
www.activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/journalspecialissues
3 Cortright, Joe and Impresa, Inc. (2009), “Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in
U.S. Cities.” For CEOs for Cities; at http://www.ceosforcities.org/work/walkingthewalk
or they diminish these things. These are the choices we have before us. Livability is achieved
when we set our course to complete streets and embrace well-being. This report outlines the
ways in which our elected leaders, city staff and residents can support the livability movement.
Presently, too many of our streets prioritize vehicle mobility. Because of this, the primary role of
streets is to move vehicles quickly and this deters other modes of transportation, especially
transit, biking and walking. Over-reliance on one system has led to an imbalance where
walking and bicycling have become challenging and unnatural activities. We have limited our
choices. The results are lower levels of health, happiness and social connectedness. A focus on
building livable communities recognizes the significance of streets and transportation
investments in individual and community life.
Through active transportation, the beach cities can improve the health, happiness and
productivity of residents. To help determine how best to go about this effort, the WALC
Institute team listened to residents and local leaders, observed existing conditions, and
identified context-sensitive solutions and best practices appropriate for the communities.
As a result, the Institute team suggests the following goals for the beach cities:
Goal 1: A complete network of streets and public spaces to support active living
Goal 2: Safe, natural and enjoyable walking and biking conditions
Goal 3: Sustainable transportation choices
Goal 4: Healthier, happier people
In order to achieve these goals, we have set forth the following key recommendations which are
detailed in this report:
1. Adopt Complete Streets policies and incorporate Complete Streets policy language into
all beach cities planning documents
2. Create and adopt street design guidelines that support livability
3. Develop a regional pedestrian master plan
4. Adopt and implement the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
5. Increase enforcement for pedestrian safety
6. Increase education and awareness for all road users
7. Improve and enhance Safe Routes to School programs
8. Update the General Plans and Municipal Codes to include livability principles
9. Transform regional corridors, local corridors and neighborhood streets to encourage
active transportation
10. Apply best practices, lessons learned and available resources to improve livability
throughout the beach cities
The Vitality City team worked closely with the three beach cities to review the livability plan
developed by the WALC Institute and use it as a foundation to develop top priorities for
improving livability in the region. The goal was to identify and prioritize efforts that will not
only improve support for walking and biking in the beach cities, but when fully implemented
will also improve air quality, reduce congestion, and reduce overall travel time by automobiles
along corridors. Find details about Vitality City at: www.vitalitycity.com.
The top priorities, as developed by Vitality City and representatives from the beach cities, are:
Adopt Livability Policies
o All three cities are encouraged to direct staff to place livability principles into each
city’s General Plan and Municipal Codes and to provide draft policy revisions to
appropriate commissions and the city councils for review and approval by February
2012. This addition provides a mission or guiding framework for city policies. (The
WALC Institute analysis and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are detailed in, “General Plan and Municipal Code Review,” starting on page
54.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to revise appropriate policies and plans to include
“Complete Streets” policies and design guidelines for livable streets. Route the
recommended revised policies through appropriate commissions and city councils
for review and approval by April 2012. (The WALC Institute recommendation that
supports this Vitality City priority is detailed in, “Develop and Adopt Complete
Streets Policies,” starting on page 42.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to adopt the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan by
December 2011. (The WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support
this Vitality City priority are referenced on pages 28, 41, 43, 76 and 82.)
o All three cities are encouraged to develop and adopt city and regional pedestrian
plans. Cities are encouraged to direct staff to pursue funding in 2012 to begin the
planning process for 2013. (The WALC Institute recommendation that supports this
Vitality City priority is detailed in, “Develop and Adopt a Regional Pedestrian
Master Plan,” starting on page 44.”)
Build Stuff
o All three cities are encouraged to identify locations and plans to install mini-circles.
They can improve safety and traffic flow while reducing air and noise pollution. (The
WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are referenced on pages 21, 34, 87, 88, 91, and in the Appendix section,
“Photo-Visualizations: Local Corridor.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to work cooperatively and potentially with two cities
north of the beach cities to install bike lanes on Aviation Boulevard, creating
connection to employment centers. This should begin in 2012 with setting up a joint
staff task force and a joint community task force to complete sufficient planning to
be able to apply for funding by late 2012. (The WALC Institute recommendations
that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 79 and 82.)
o All three cities are encouraged to reset intersection signals in areas of high pedestrian
counts so that the WALK phase is automatic for the pedestrian. This helps create a
pedestrian-friendly culture. (The WALC Institute guidance and recommendations
that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 81, 82 and 89.)
o All three cities are encouraged to continue efforts to secure funding to build Safe
Routes to Schools improvements. (The WALC Institute guidance and
recommendations that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 22, 33, 69, 71,
72, 74, and 87, as well as in the section, “Improve and Enhance Safe Routes to School
Programs, starting on page 48.)
o The City of Redondo Beach is encouraged to complete engineering studies and
planning process to install a cycle-track (two-way bikeway separated from cars) on
N. Harbor Drive by 2013. (The WALC Institute recommendations that support this
Vitality City priority are detailed in the section, “Harbor Drive at Yacht Club Way”
on page 86.)
o The City of Redondo Beach is encouraged to replace signs along the North Redondo
Beach Bikeway to have stops only for motorists, not cyclists/pedestrians. (The
WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are on pages 32 and 91 and in the Appendix section, “Photo-Visualizations:
Local Corridor.”)
o The Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach are encouraged to establish a
committee to plan how to restripe Valley Ardmore, converting each street to one-
way with bike lanes on the street. (The WALC Institute recommendations that
support this Vitality City priority are detailed in the section, “Valley Dr. and
Ardmore Dr.” on page 87.)
Educate and Enforce
o All three cities are encouraged to partner with the South Bay Bicycle Coalition and
other stakeholders to develop plans to increase education and enforcement for
pedestrian and bike safety. Education is for all parties, not just motorists. (The
WALC Institute recommendations that support this Vitality City priority are
detailed in the sections, “Increase Education and Awareness for All Road Users” on
page 47 and “Increase Enforcement for Pedestrian Safety” on page 46, as well as on
page 93.)
This report provides a general assessment of existing conditions in the beach cities, followed by
specific recommendations for improving policy and the built form to be more supportive of
livability.
It includes the following:
A personal message on livability from Dan Burden, Executive Director of the Walkable
and Livable Communities Institute
An explanation of the purpose of this livability plan and why we need a better built
form
Summary of existing conditions in the beach cities
Policy recommendations for improved livability
Specific actions the beach communities should take for a better built form more
supportive of livability
Photo-visualizations of a regional corridor and a local corridor to assist with visioning
and capacity-building
Best practices and resources for improving livability
This report outlines how beach cities elected leaders and city staff can support the livability
movement. They should:
1. Apply their personal knowledge, skills, love and care for their communities to build
places of the heart that people will cherish, enjoy and wish to spend time in.
2. Teach others about the value of Complete Streets policies and look for opportunities to
incorporate Complete Streets principles into all projects.
3. Take to the street to assess the built environment with the community and to learn from
residents and visitors.
4. Work with law enforcement and schools to improve pedestrian safety and to increase
education and awareness for all road users.
5. Assess their General Plans and Municipal Codes for livability principles and to
determine where health and well-being might be incorporated more fully.
6. Transform regional corridors, local corridors and neighborhood streets to encourage
active transportation.
7. Know the best practices, lessons learned and available resources to improve livability
throughout the beach cities.
Beach cities residents, business operators and employees of the area can support the livability
movement too. They should:
1. Become active participants in Vitality City efforts by signing up at
www.vitalitycity.com.
2. Familiarize themselves with the contents of this report.
3. Contact their elected leaders and city staff and share their thoughts on the livability
plan.
4. Act locally to improve livability by assessing conditions and communicating
observations to city staff and elected leaders on an on-going basis.
5. Volunteer! Livability requires it.
Livable communities are destinations. These places are built with vision, patience, love, common
sense, teamwork, and openness. They have a shared commitment to improving quality of life for
all. They are graced with a widely held and firmly developed sense of ownership and
custodianship because residents of livable communities care for their community. Livable
Communities are talked about, celebrated, and loved for their uniqueness and ability to
champion the natural environment and human spirit. This report provides key
recommendations for improving the built environment so that we encourage greater livability in
the beach cities.
I have dedicated the bulk of my life to helping the world get back on its feet by improving
communities’ built forms to be more walkable, livable, healthy and welcoming of people of all
ages and abilities.
As executive director of the WALC
Institute, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to assist the beach cities as
they strive to improve their built form to be
more supportive of well-being.
Now is the time for unified action in the
beach cities. As Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe said, “Dream no small dreams for
they stir not the hearts of men.” Livability
becomes a reality when community insights
are combined and many people come
together to collaborate. The beach cities –
with the help of Vitality City – have a rare opportunity to adopt interventions that will
significantly improve well-being.
Having met with and seen the commitment of local government and health officials, residents,
business leaders, community advocates and other stakeholders, I am a believer in your future.
The right people are already coming together to make walkable, livable and healthy
communities a reality. There is no doubt, though: the beach cities have their fair share of
challenges to achieving healthier communities, such as streets that encourage too-fast vehicle
speeds and missing sidewalks and trails.
The good news is that all of these challenges can be overcome, and this report provides guidance
for beginning to do just that. The task is immense, and work on it must begin now.
Wherever the communities begin their work, I and many others will be watching. And as
projects get underway to place the focus back on people and health, we will share your stories
and successes broadly. May the winds of change bring much good to you, and through you.
Sincerely,
As we made it
easier to do
everything by car,
we stopped
accommodating
other modes of
transport, and
thus made it
necessary to do
everything by car.
This plan advances the Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City program in the Los Angeles-area
South Bay communities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach—the “beach
cities”—by analyzing the built environment and recommending strategies to return well-being
to citizens through improved livability and opportunities for active living.
In recent decades, the beach cities have done what many
other communities throughout the country have done:
made walking and active transportation unnatural and
difficult. Structural changes to our built environment
were made to favor the car over other forms of getting to
and from the places we like and need to go. As a result,
the nation has seen declines in public health, social
engagement and access to healthy food.
Dependence on the car keeps many people confined in
their vehicles for long periods each day. It may have been
unintended, but as we made it easier to do everything by
car, we stopped accommodating other modes of
transport, and thus made it necessary to do everything by
car.
As travel by car increased, the distances between the
places people travel also increased. In time, many people found that even if they wanted to walk
to a destination, it was too far and they would have to get in the car. In fact, between 1982 and
1997, these effects became very pronounced. During this period, the urbanized land area in the
U.S. rose 47 percent while the population grew only 17 percent, for a net decrease of more than
20 percent in urban density. During the same period, vehicle miles traveled increased 55 percent.
People now spend more time sitting in cars while getting to destinations that are further apart.
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City is a community-wide well-being improvement initiative
to create healthier, happier and more productive citizens. It uses permanent, evidence-based
environmental and policy changes to help people adopt and maintain healthier lifestyles.
The Vitality City initiative includes ten strategies to improve well-being—a combination of
physical, social and emotional health. This roadmap for livability is one strategy which aims to
increase well-being in the beach cities in part by helping to make streets and neighborhoods
more supportive of walking and bicycling, and by allowing residents and visitors to choose
active modes of transportation.
The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute is a non-profit, educational organization that
works throughout the country and the world to create healthy, connected communities that are
supportive of active living and that advance opportunities for all people through walkable
streets, livable cities and better built environments.
The Institute joins the Vitality City initiative with a goal to build capacity by promoting a shared
language among residents, government staff and elected officials; illustrating through examples
and audits how walkability and livability benefit a community and how they can be achieved;
and inspiring everyone to become involved in the movement toward active living. The focus is on
significant enhancements being implemented and on-the-ground within six months to one year,
and many other enhancements well into implementation within three years.
The WALC Institute team—led by Executive Director Dan Burden, Director of Outreach and
Communications Kelly Morphy and Director of Education Sarah Bowman—is assisting the
Vitality City project in three phases to address the beach cities’ built environment and guiding
documents, how they affect active living and ways to improve upon existing conditions.
During the first phase of the WALC Institute’s involvement, launched in December 2010, the
Institute team conducted a walking audit and a bicycle audit to experience firsthand the
conditions that create barriers to active living in the beach cities.
Also during the first phase, the
Institute team held stakeholder
interviews and delivered training
to city staff from all three
communities on best practices in
traffic calming, creating complete
streets and otherwise providing a
built environment that supports
active living and active
transportation. The team also
took part in the Vitality City
media launch, which garnered
local, regional and national
coverage.
During the second phase, which
began in January 2011, the
Institute team conducted four
public workshops and walking
audits (three of them in
conjunction with the public
process for developing a regional
bicycle master plan), evaluated
existing conditions throughout
the cities, identified opportunities
for improvements, led a visioning
and design session with city staff
from all three communities and
participated in other public
outreach efforts.
The third phase of work, beginning in February 2011, includes development of this report,
delivering the team’s findings and recommendations to the communities, and continuing to
support Vitality City outreach efforts.
The benefits of livability and walkability are numerous, and are particularly important in places
like the beach cities where, according to the Beach Cities Vitality City Blueprint, nearly 60
percent of residents are either overweight or obese and 16 percent experience significant anger.
In fact, study after study shows additional benefits of livable communities, not only in
terms of individual health, but also environmental and economic health. Consider that:
For every five-percent increase in walkability, a community can expect more
than a 30-percent increase in “physically active travel” and nearly a quarter-point
reduction in individual body mass index, which is a common indicator for
obesity and health. The increase in walkability also is correlated with more than
a five-percent reduction in air pollutants that are associated with vehicle travel.4
Installing sidewalks on all of a city’s streets can increase physical activity enough
to offset weight gain in about 37 percent of the population, leading to healthcare
savings likely to be enough to repay the cost of installing the sidewalks.5
In 13 of 15 housing markets evaluated, a one-point increase in a neighborhood’s
WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) increased homes values as much as $3,000.6
In addition to the individual health improvements that can be achieved when people opt for
active modes of transportation, changing the built form to be more supportive of walking, biking,
transit and other active alternatives also benefits communities through:
Protection of natural and cultural resources (http://www.epa.gov/dced/)
Increased economic development
(http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Shoup-
Ewing_March2010.pdf)
Reduction in crime and violence
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/cpted.html)
Opportunities for social connectedness and community building
(http://bowlingalone.com/)
Reduce sprawl and infrastructure costs
(http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/axelrad.html)
Transportation equity, such as options for people who don’t drive, including
children, senior citizens, and those who don’t have or can’t afford cars.
(http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf)
Improved mood and decrease anxiety
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494409000838).
4 Sallis, et al.
5 Guo and Gandavarapu
6 Cortright and Impresa, Inc.
Active Transportation: Also known
as non-motorized transportation,
this includes walking, bicycling,
using a wheelchair or using “small-
wheeled transport” such as skates, a
skateboard or scooter. Active modes
of transportation offer a combination
of recreation, exercise and
transportation. (See Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, www.vtpi.org.)
Aging in Place: The ability to
continue to live in one’s home safely,
independently and comfortably,
regardless of age, income or ability level. It means living in a familiar environment, and being able
to participate in family and other community activities. Also sometimes called, “Living in Place.”
(See National Aging in Place Council, www.ageinplace.org.)
Charrette: [pronounced, “shuh-
RET”] A collaborative session to solve
urban-design problems. It usually
involves a group of designers working
directly with stakeholders or
residents to identify issues and
solutions. It is a much more
successful form of public process
than traditional public hearings, as it
focuses on building informed consent.
A charrette can last only a day, several
days, or weeks. (See Walkable and
Livable Communities Institute, www.walklive.org.)
Complete Streets: Roads that are designed for everyone, including people of all ages and
abilities. Complete Streets are accessible, have vehicle speeds appropriate for the area, are
comfortable for walking and biking, and include sidewalks, street trees and other amenities that
make them feel “complete.” (See National Complete Streets Coalition,
www.completestreets.org.) Further, according to California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Deputy Directive 64-R1, a Complete Street is a transportation facility that is planned,
designed, operated and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit riders and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility.
Complete Street concepts apply to rural, suburban and urban areas.
Head-Out Angled Parking: Also called
“back-in” or “reverse” angled parking,
this is arguably the safest form of on-
street parking. A driver “backs in” to the
angled parking spot, which is easier
than parallel parking because it is
basically only the first maneuver of
parallel parking. Head-out parking
creates a sight line between the driver
and other road users when pulling out.
Additionally, head-out parking allows
the driver to load their trunk from the
curb, instead of adjacent to the travel
lane. And for drivers with young children, when parked in a head-out spot, the open car doors
guide passengers toward the sidewalks, reducing the chance of a child stepping into the vehicle
travel lane. (See appendix, How to Do It: Parking.)
Joint Powers Authority: Also called “JPA,” this is an entity permitted under the law, whereby
two or more public authorities (e.g. local government agencies or utility or transport districts)
can operate collectively.
Level of Service: Also called “LOS,” this is a qualitative measure describing the flow of traffic on
a roadway. It generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, safety and the perceived comfort and convenience of the driver.
The interruptions to other modes are not generally considered.
Livability: In the context of community environments and quality of life, this refers to all of the
factors that add up to a community’s quality of life, including the built and natural environments.
(See Partners for Livable Communities, www.livable.org.)
Moai: A term from the Blue Zone of Okinawa, Japan, referring to small groups of friends who
regularly meet.
Median Crossing Islands: A short island,
about 40 to 80 feet long, in the center of the
roadway, serves as a traffic-calming device or a
pedestrian refuge. Islands are generally eight
to 12 feet wide, but narrower island can
achieve their purpose, as well. Islands should
be landscaped with low, slow-growth ground
cover, and tall trees without branches or leaves
at ground height—such as palm trees—that
help motorists see the islands well in advance
but don’t obstruct sight lines.
Pedestrian Yield Paddles: Flexible, high-visibility vertical signs placed in the center of streets
with lower speeds (30 mph or less) to heighten awareness of marked pedestrian crossings.
Pork Chop Islands: A special intersection island that separates right-turning vehicles from
other traffic movement and creates a refuge for pedestrians crossing wider streets. From above,
pork chop islands look like pork chops.
Road Diet: When a road is overly wide or has more vehicle travel lanes than are needed or safe,
travel lanes can be removed and the extra width used to add bike lanes, sidewalks, a buffer
between the travel lanes and sidewalks, on-street parking, a landscaped median or some
combination thereof. A common road diet transforms a four-lane road without bike lanes into a
three-lane road (one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane or median) with bike
lanes and street trees. (See Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, www.walklive.org. Also see
appendix, How to Do It: Road Diets.)
MINI TRAFFIC CIRCLES, ROTARIES AND ROUNDABOUTS
Mini Traffic Circles: Also called “mini circles,”
these are intersections that navigate vehicles around
a small island about eight to 15 feet in diameter that
is either lightly domed or raised. When raised, a
mini traffic circle should be visible from hundreds of
feet away, creating the feeling of a small park in the
neighborhood. The circles should be designed to
reduce speeds to 15 to 18 mph at each intersection. A
proper number of them will reduce vehicle speeds to
22 to 25 mph along the corridor while helping traffic
flow more smoothly due to the decreased number of complete stops.
Rotaries: Also called traffic circles, rotaries are intersections that navigate cars around very large
circulating islands, as big as a football fields in some cases. Rotaries can be cumbersome and can
induce higher crash rates. Many rotaries are being replaced with roundabouts.
Roundabouts: Also called “modern
roundabouts,” they navigate cars around a
circulating island, usually about 60 feet in
diameter. Roundabouts are ideal for collector
and arterial roads, and around freeway on-off
ramps. They eliminate the need for cars to
make left turns, which are particularly
dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Properly designed, roundabouts hold vehicles
speeds to 15 to 20 mph. They can reduce
injury crashes by 76 percent and reduce fatal
crashes by 90 percent. (See the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety’s website:
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/roundab
outs.html.) Roundabouts also can increase
capacity by 30 percent by keeping vehicles
moving. When installing roundabouts in a
community for the first time, care should be
taken to make roadway users comfortable
with the new traffic pattern and to educate
them about how to navigate roundabouts
properly and to yield as appropriate. For
more information about roundabouts, see the
Federal Highway Administration’s
educational video about roundabouts, at
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/fhwasa10023/wmv_cc_final/10-
2124_Roundabouts.wmv.
Safe Routes to School: A national program
to improve safety and encourage more
children, including children with
disabilities, to walk, bike and roll to school.
The program focuses on improvements
through the five E’s: engineering, education,
enforcement, encouragement and
evaluation. (See National Center for Safe Routes
to School, www.saferoutesinfo.org.)
Sharrows: A “shared roadway marking”—usually paint—placed in the center of a travel lane to
alert motorists and bicyclists alike to the shared use of the lane. They help position bicyclists
away from the opening doors of cars parked on the street, encourage safety when vehicles pass
bicyclists and reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.
Smart Growth: Growing in a way that expands economic opportunity, protects public health
and the environment and creates and enhances places that people love. (See U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/.)
Traffic Calming: Using traffic engineering and other tools designed to control traffic speeds and
encourage driving behavior appropriate to the environment. Examples include street trees, bulb
outs, medians, curb extensions, signage, road diets and roundabouts. Traffic calming should
encourage mobility for all modes.
Walk Streets: Streets intended and designed to provide local access solely for pedestrians and
cyclists.
Walking Audit: Also called a “walking
workshop,” this is a review of walking
conditions along specified streets conducted
with a diverse group of community members.
Participants experience firsthand the
conditions that either support or create
barriers to walking and biking. (See more
about walking audits: Walkable and Livable
Communities Institute, www.walklive.org.)
Walking School Bus: Often organized as part
of a Safe Routes to School program, a walking
school bus involves children walking along a set route, at set times, to and from school, with an
adult chaperone. Many parent organizations and neighborhoods develop informal walking
school buses that are as effective and organized as those created as part of a Safe Routes
program.
Why do people walk, bike, blade, board or scoot in some parts of the beach cities, and not in
other parts? Why are some communities throughout the country considered very walkable, and
others hardly walkable at all?
Near the beaches and along streets that have been designed to support beachgoers, people are
seen arriving in cars, by bike, on foot and via other modes of active transportation. People also
are seen walking, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding and scooting along the fun, vibrant trails
in the region. These are hot spots and they help illustrate that walkable, livable places really do
work. But why do they work? And how can the beach cities change their built forms to be more
supportive of active living in places further from the beaches?
Walkability is the measure of the overall walking, bicycling and living conditions in an area,
defined as the extent to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of people, and
not just cars. Walkable streets may teem with people shopping, commuting by foot, or simply
enjoying recreation and exercise. Factors improving walkability include:
Nearby land uses, such as retail shops located near offices and housing, and schools
located within neighborhoods.
Street connectivity, ideally in a fine-grain grid without unnecessary cul-de-sacs or one-
way streets, which tend to contribute to higher and unsafe vehicle speeds.
Residential areas that are “denser” than the suburban format that has proliferated in
some areas. In most residential areas of the beach cities, neighborhoods already provide
good density and potential for active transportation, but are in need of enhancements to
the streets to become truly walkable places.
Road widths that contribute to slower vehicle speeds. Vehicle speeds affect walkability
and livability: the wider a road or a vehicle travel lane is (or appears to the driver to be),
the faster the driver tends to travel. The faster cars are traveling, the less safe and
comfortable a person feels walking or bicycling next to them.
A sense of security and “eyes on the street.” This feeling of comfort is created by orienting
the homes and buildings toward the street, and providing transparency—occupied
buildings and homes with windows and doors at the street level—so occupants can
watch over the street.
Quality place-making contributes to improved walkability. Streets that are laid out well, public
squares, plazas and small parks create a human scale and a sense of enclosure to the street,
helping to keep vehicle speeds low. Lower vehicle speeds contribute to safety and security for
motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.
Table 1. Probability of pedestrian death resulting from various vehicle impact speeds.
Vehicle
speed (mph)
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
(%)*
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 14 and under
(%)**
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 15 to 59 (%)**
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 60 and older
(%)**
20 5 1 1 3
30 45 5 7 62
40 85 16 22 92
* Source: Ref (3); ** Source: Ref (4)
Walkability is improved as an area takes on its own charm and sense of place and is further
enhanced when walkway environments are rich and complex, with many things to do, see and
experience.
Perhaps most importantly, walkability is greatly affected by the behavior of cars. In areas where
vehicle speeds are too high for the street’s adjacent land uses, traveling by any mode other than a
car can feel very uncomfortable and, in some cases, is downright dangerous.
Specific engineering considerations that affect walkability include sidewalks, crossings and
bikeways.
Sidewalks are often built too narrow, with poles obstructing travel, driveway ramps that are too
steep for crossing and inadequate bus stops. Communities should correct these and other
problems to build sidewalks that support active living:
The pedestrian environment should be safe, inviting and accessible to people of all ages
and physical abilities. It should connect people to places and be easy to understand.
All sidewalks should adhere to Americans with Disability Act standards.
Driveway aprons should be confined to the Furniture and Curb Zones.
Landscaped buffers or fences should separate sidewalks from parking.
Sidewalk surfaces should be stable, firm, smooth and slip-resistant.
Pedestrian and driver sight distances should be maintained near driveways.
Regulations regarding walls, fencing and foliage near the intersection of sidewalks and
driveways should ensure adequate sight distances as vehicles enter or exit.
Bike lanes provide more than
30 benefits to a community
and only a few are specifically
for bicyclists. Benefits to
motorists include extending
sight lines to make it easier to
pull out from driveways;
increasing the turning radius
at intersections, which allows
larger vehicles to make turns
without “riding the curb”;
and creating a buffer
between travel lanes and
parked cars, which makes it
easier to park, un-park, and
get in and out of the car.
People riding bikes should have safe, convenient and comfortable access to all destinations. In
fact, every street is a bicycle street, regardless of whether it includes a designated bikeway or
trail or not. Street designs should accommodate all types, levels and ages of bicyclists. Also,
bicyclists should be separated from pedestrians.
Bikeway facilities should take into account vehicle speeds and volumes. For example, on streets
with low vehicle volumes and low vehicle speeds, the travel lanes can be shared between
bicyclists and motorists. Where higher vehicles volumes and speeds are present, the two types of
street users should be separated.
For specific guidance on bikeway design and locations, consult the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan. In general terms, bikeway treatments should provide clear guidance to enhance the safety
of all roadway users. Bike lanes are needed most on higher speed and higher volume roadways.
When bike lanes are added to principal roadways, they should be at least five feet wide.
In urban areas, the addition of bike lanes is
one of the greatest new safety benefits for
all roadway users, including motorists, bus
users, freight truck operators and
pedestrians. Bike lanes provide more than
30 benefits to a community, and only a few
are specifically for bicyclists.
Bike lane benefits to motorists include
extending sight lines to make it easier to
pull out from driveways; increasing the
turning radius at intersections, which
allows larger vehicles to make turns
without “riding the curb”; and creating a
buffer between travel lanes and parked
cars, which makes it easier to park, un-
park, and get in and out of the car.
Additionally, bike lanes can serve as a
temporary space for broken-down cars,
make mail deliveries easier and aid in
emergency responses.
Crossing a street should not be difficult. The experience comes down to the behavior of the
person walking and the behavior of the person driving, combined with the design of the
intersection or crossing. A variety of factors influence whether a person driving will stop for a
person attempting to cross the street, including vehicle speed. A driver going slowly has time to
see, react to and stop for the pedestrian. The number of pedestrians present also influences
drivers: in general, more people walking raises drivers' awareness of the likelihood of
pedestrians crossing the street.
Effective traffic management can address concerns about traffic speed and volume. Most tools
addressing crossing challenges are engineering treatments, but tools from the enforcement,
education and planning toolboxes are also important in developing effective and successful
crossings.
Providing marked crosswalks is only one of the many possible engineering measures. Thus,
when considering how to provide safer convenient crossings for pedestrians, the question
should not simply be: "Should we provide a marked crosswalk or not?" but instead, "What are
the most effective measures that can be used to help people cross this street safely and
conveniently?" Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in
meeting the objective to create safe pedestrian crossings.
In the beach cities, land uses and the design of the street, site and building are critically
important to ensuring that coherent, safe, functional and valuable places result. See the following
two town-maker’s guides—which are also provided as electronic attachments to this report—for
general guidance. These posters are especially helpful when printed or displayed at full poster
size—24 inches by 36 inches—to illustrate many of the key concepts of livability, walkability
and better built form.
The WALC Institute team evaluated existing conditions in the beach cities during two multiple-
day site visits, one in December 2010 and one in January 2011. During these visits, the team
conducted public workshops and walking audits, traveled beach cities streets and visited
neighborhoods to document existing conditions through field notes and photography. It is
important to point out that this analysis of existing conditions doesn’t draw on any studies
conducted specifically for this project, such as traffic studies or detailed analyses of pedestrian
networks and street connectivity. Rather, the existing conditions described below represent key
findings from the team’s on-site observations.
Over the course of four public workshops and two technical training sessions, the WALC
Institute team heard from a broad cross-section of community members, business operators,
educators, city staff and elected leaders about the changes they deem important for improving
well-being through livability and better built form in the beach cities. The key feedback provided
includes:
Most beach cities residents really believe in walkability and livability and would
support efforts to make their communities more walkable and livable.
The beach community character is important to many people, and residents understand
that it relates well to the principles of livability and the qualities of a built form that
supports active transportation.
Commuting by bicycle is
difficult along many east-
west routes due to hills. It
would be helpful to have
climbing lanes for
bicyclists and reduce the
frequency of stop signs,
allowing cyclists to
maintain momentum.
Despite high vehicle
speeds of more than 40
mph during weekdays and
as high as 65 mph at times,
Pacific Coast Highway—
which becomes Sepulveda
Blvd. in Manhattan
Beach—is reported by
many commuters to
harbor nearly unbearable
stop-and-go traffic, which is a common problem along commute corridors.
The difficulty of crossing key streets such as Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Boulevard,
Manhattan Beach Boulevard and other multi-lane roadways divides the community and
dampens the desire to walk to common destinations. Addressing these unsafe and
inconvenient crossings is important.
In some areas, distances to a designated place to cross streets are too far to make
walking convenient, and sidewalk gaps prevent pedestrians from getting to the
crossings easily.
There are too few places
throughout the beach cities to
safely and conveniently park
bicycles.
People seek more destinations in
their neighborhoods, or within
walking distance of where they
live. Eateries, pocket parks and
commercial or retail destinations
are as important to residents as
the beaches themselves.
The Valley-Ardmore streets and Greenbelt through Hermosa Beach and Manhattan
Beach are key community assets that aren’t currently fulfilling their potential. Many
vehicle commuters use the section to bypass Pacific Coast Highway and Sepulveda Blvd.
and travel at speeds making the sections uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists.
Additionally, where the Greenbelt crosses streets, pedestrians don’t feel safe and
comfortable.
Safe Routes to School programs are in various stages of planning and implementation in
the beach cities. Despite several successful efforts on the part of the beach cities, there
still is concern, for example, that more emphasis is needed on education and
encouragement. In particular, more awareness is needed amongst parents and students
about the benefits of active commuting to and from school and resources available to
support their efforts to use an active form of transportation.
The WALC Institute team traveled the beach cities’ streets and observed how intersections and
roadways function in general. The following assessment of existing conditions is a summary of
findings and includes general statements about the communities that don’t necessarily apply to
every neighborhood or every street. They are important, though, for each community to address,
because they affect residents’ and visitors’ ability to choose active modes of transportation and
enjoy active living. Additionally, it is important to note that several of the solutions proposed in
this plan would require studies or evaluations to be conducted prior to implementing them.
The one-way travel lanes on Valley and Ardmore in Manhattan Beach make the best of a
difficult situation. The right-of-way is very narrow and is bordered by key community
assets – on one side, the Greenbelt and on the other side, residences, schools and other
important public facilities. Thus, it is not possible to widen the roadway to add typical
“complete streets” accommodations such as bike lanes, wider sidewalks, landscaped
buffer zones and two-way vehicle travel lanes. Generally, one-way travel lanes are
discouraged because they often contribute to faster – and less safe – vehicle speeds and
reduced connectivity. In this case, though, the one-way travel lanes allow the city to
better accommodate the other street uses. They would benefit, however, from a few
enhancements such as added bike lanes and mini traffic circles that would help calm
traffic, better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians and provide a stronger sense of
place and community in this thriving residential area. Sharrows and colorized bike lanes
also should be considered as options in this area.
Many parts of the beach cities already have good “density” that keeps land uses compact
and that reduces travel distances. Even these compact areas, though, would benefit from
improvements to the built form, such as better sidewalks and intersection crossings.
The sharrows in Hermosa Beach represent an emerging best practice that indicates to
motorists and bicyclists alike that they are to share the road.
Several mixed-use developments have been created that are illustrating how streets
with a strong sense of place and high walkability can thrive. Examples include the area
of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Ave. in Manhattan Beach, among
others.
The traffic circle at the intersection of Esplanade, Paseo de la Playa and Calle Miramar in
Redondo Beach helps calm traffic in an area where pedestrian and bicycling activities are
high.
Along the Esplanade, pictured below, a recent streetscaping project has greatly enhanced
walkability and livability with improvements that make people feel comfortable using
active forms of transportation and recreation in the area. The project added bulb-outs,
added bike lanes separated from the parking lane by a 3-foot buffer and narrowed the
vehicle travel lanes.
Regional roads throughout the beach cities have become so wide that they discourage active
living. Many streets, such as sections of Sepulveda Blvd., Aviation Blvd., Artesia Blvd., Prospect
Ave. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. are dominated by fast-moving vehicles most hours of the day.
The Pacific Coast Highway, which becomes Sepulveda Blvd. in Manhattan Beach, serves all
three beach cities. It is quite uncomfortable to walk or bicycle along. Much of this discomfort is
a result of high vehicle speeds, often faster than 40 mph—the speed at which a collision is
almost guaranteed to be fatal for a pedestrian. In fact, one taxi carrying a WALC Institute team
member went through an intersection along PCH at 65 mph. Despite the vehicle speeds, many
commuters report unbearable stop-and-go traffic during peak travel periods, which is a common
problem along commute corridors.
Some intersections seem to have become less efficient for all users as they have grown wider. The
combination of higher speeds and high traffic volumes for most hours of the day has created
conditions that impact surrounding properties and are depressing the opportunities for retail,
social life and active living.
Additionally, in many areas traffic signals are spaced far apart, which further supports high
vehicle speeds.
The Valley-Ardmore streets through both Hermosa and Manhattan harbor vehicle speeds
inappropriate for the context. The streets serve residential neighborhoods, schools and the
Greenbelt, yet vehicle speeds in some sections were documented by radar gun in excess of 35
mph and at other times cars appeared to be traveling even faster, near 40 mph.
Failure to provide crosswalk markings on one or more legs of key intersections is noted in parts
of the beach cities. When a crosswalk marking is missing, the number of points of potential
conflict between a pedestrian and a vehicle increases from six points to eighteen, which in effect
triples the risk of a collision. The amount of time it takes to cross also increases, lengthening the
pedestrian’s exposure time.
This is of special concern on
arterials that carry higher
traffic volumes. But it also
presents a real concern on
smaller streets with special
circumstances, such as places
where vehicles tend to speed
through the same areas where
people on foot and bike really
want to cross to access the
beach, schools and other amenities. Examples of this are found along parts of Valley and
Ardmore. Additionally, most places where the Greenbelt crosses streets in Hermosa Beach and
Manhattan Beach don’t adequately accommodate pedestrians.
Further, in many parts of the beach cities, continuous right-turn lanes and other means to
maximize the number of vehicles that can get through a signalized intersection make crossings
too wide for people wanting to cross.
It is important to note that removing or failing to place crossings in order to try to force
pedestrians to take an alternate route can be very risky. “Desire lines,” or places where people
naturally want to cross a street, develop for a reason, whether because it’s the most convenient
place to cross or because particularly significant services or amenities can be accessed there. If a
desire line exists, care should be taken to accommodate all street users – not just cars – and
provide appropriate treatments for accessibility and safety for all.
Transparency refers to the amount of visibility between a pedestrian and the interior of
buildings that line the street. It is affected by how far back the building sits from the sidewalk,
how much of the front of the building is window as opposed to wall, how much glazing or
reflective material is used and where the door is placed. Transparency contributes to safety and
security. In fact, motorists tend to drive slower when buildings are correctly set toward the
street, and when windows are watching over the street. Many well-developed entryways to
homes or other properties contribute to the perception of human activity beyond the street,
while those with blank walls and garages suggest that people are far away. Neighborhoods with
blank "snout" garages are less supportive of walkability, whereas neighborhoods with a variety
of homes that face the street tend to make a person feel watched over and more comfortable
walking.
Most of the neighborhood streets in the beach cities have good transparency. Suburban and
strip areas of important streets like Sepulveda, Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard lack
adequate transparency and would benefit from clusters of buildings brought toward the street
to help “hold” the street and create pockets of settlement.
The ultimate in transparency is when internal activities are “externalized” or brought out to the
sidewalk. Outdoor dining and outdoor merchandising are examples. For this reason, efforts to
create one, then another, and then another outdoor eating experience at places such as Eat at
Joe's in Redondo Beach will become important.
People want and need to feel that personal harm from others, including motorists, is not likely.
In many parts of the beach cities, people seem to feel free of harm most of the time. In some
portions, though, there are too many dark places, and too few people walking, which make those
lone pedestrians feel unsafe. For example, despite being amidst areas of high activity, Harbor
Drive between Beryl St. and Herondo St. feels secluded and unsafe at night. Other examples
include several of the intersections that link the Greenbelt and Valley-Ardmore with east-west
streets, S. Camino Real near the Alta Vista Community Center, and many stretches of the Pacific
Coast Highway.
Complexity refers to the visual richness of a place and depends on the variety of the physical
environment, the variety of buildings, architectural diversity and ornamentation, landscape
elements, street furniture, signage and human activity. Motorists also tend to respond to areas of
great complexity by driving more slowly through them.
Most parts of the beach cities have built-in complexity on neighborhood streets. Some are much
richer than others, especially areas in Manhattan Beach designed to be pedestrian streets. The
great variety in size, scale and richness of homes makes walks up and down many streets not just
pleasant, but a chance to constantly see and experience new things. Some portions of the
greenway trails, Strand path and the bikeway along the beach have such a great kaleidoscope of
human activity that the people alone can make walking or bicycling rich and rewarding. Future
zoning and code language should encourage this diversity of housing type.
Communities that are built to a human scale accommodate the size, proportions and walking
speed of people. Building details, pavement texture, street trees and street furniture are all
physical elements contributing to human scale. Another impact of designing roadways only for
cars—and this doesn’t apply to freeways, but rather to community streets, collector streets, town
centers and neighborhoods—has been that travel speeds of 60 mph are encouraged, when human
scale calls for 30 mph. For example, large signage and lettering meant to be read by a motorist
passing at 60 mph is completely disorienting and confusing to a person approaching on foot or
bicycle. For pedestrians, small signs with small lettering are much more comfortable.
There are many places in the beach cities where moderate-sized buildings, narrow streets and
small spaces can create human-scale environments. As an example, the strip center across from
the Redondo Beach city hall—between N. Elena and Pacific Coast Highway—could one day
become a nicely scaled “village” that is in an urban form and accommodates people, not just cars.
Vast parts of each of the beach cities’ main streets—Aviation, Sepulveda and Manhattan Beach
Boulevard, for example—lack a human scale. It may not be possible to recapture all of these
areas, but over time it will be essential for each of the three communities to create "village-like"
spaces through the careful placement of buildings and trees.
People will walk more when they can easily navigate and have a sense of where they are at all
times. The more “legible” or understandable a place is, the easier it is to navigate. This is
improved by a street or pedestrian network that provides travelers with a sense of orientation
and relative location and by physical elements that serve as reference points.
Complementary to legibility, wayfinding is a system of signage and visual cues that help people
move successfully to reach a destination. Places with strong edges, distinct landmarks, busy
nodes and effective wayfinding systems allow people to form detailed and relatively accurate
mental maps. Conversely, a city that has no definite edges, nodes, or visually interesting features,
will be difficult to make sense of and to remember.
Portions of the beach cities, such as on Pier Ave. and on the Strand, have very high legibility.
Other areas around the Strand and beach environments have adequate wayfinding. The beach
cities in general, however, lack legibility and effective wayfinding. Indeed, outside of a few
welcoming signs and some unique street signing, bicycle rides through the area remain
confusing to someone not familiar with the streets.
A policy-based approach to transportation investments allows livability to come to the
forefront. It sets a critical path for improving conditions that will foster the well-being of
residents and visitors, and allows agencies to set direction and prioritize projects based on their
effect on quality of life. Policy helps designate where new growth, infill development and
redevelopment will occur, and moves communities away from piecemeal projects that fail to
reinforce the community’s planning principles.
The vision of this report is livability for the beach cities. Strong first steps toward improving
livability in the beach cities have included the cities’ commitment to participating in, supporting
and adopting recommendations of Vitality City and the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. The cities
should continue to do so. Further, the WALC Institute team suggests the following goals for the
beach cities:
Goal 1: A complete network of pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces
Goal 2: Safe, natural and enjoyable walking conditions
Goal 3: Sustainable transportation choices
Goal 4: Healthier, happier people
The first section of this chapter presents recommendations for accomplishing these goals:
1. Adopt Complete Streets policies and incorporate Complete Streets policy
language into all beach cities planning documents
2. Create and adopt Livable Street Design Guidelines
3. Develop a Regional Pedestrian Master Plan
4. Increase enforcement for pedestrian safety
5. Increase education and awareness for all road users
6. Improve and enhance Safe Routes to School Programs
Additionally, it is recommended that the beach cities adopt and implement the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan.
The second section of this chapter focuses on bridging the gap between the goals and
recommendations, and the guidance found in the cities’ municipal codes and general plan land-
use and circulation elements. Quite simply: the values of a culture are expressed in the planning
and design of its cities. Cities that accommodate walkers, bicyclists, transit, and automobiles
support the core role of cities: to maximize exchange. By allowing individuals to travel safely via
inviting and diverse transportation modes, we create a place where we are more likely to move in
harmony with others. Streets either enforce good behaviors or bad behaviors. Bad design leads to
bad behaviors; good design leads to good behaviors. Where a city has multiple accidents or
pedestrian fatalities, congestion and demonstrated bad behaviors, the corridor must be assessed
and improved. With a solid street network and improved design, our cities become world-class
destinations—attracting people, businesses and creating opportunities.
The beach cities should require a complete transportation network that meets the needs of all
users. In order for this to happen, the beach cities must prioritize the development of Complete
Streets. The beach cities should adopt Complete Streets policies into all planning documents by
action of their city councils, and then incorporate the policy language as appropriate into
planning documents as they are updated.
Adopting Complete Streets policy language into all planning documents ensures that projects
are designed with all users in mind. This leads to improved well-being for residents and
visitors. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration identified three areas where exceptions to
Complete Streets policies are acceptable: accommodation is not necessary on corridors where 1)
non-motorized use is prohibited; 2) the cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate
to the need or probable use; or 3) a documented absence of current or future need is present.
For the most part, these exemptions do not apply to the beach cities, except in a few minor
locations (i.e. such as a sidewalk on the same side of the street as a railroad track).
A Complete Streets policy ensures that we offer choices to the community by making walking,
bicycling and taking public transportation convenient, easy and safe. A Complete Streets policy
also assures transportation equity. Changing policy so that our transportation system considers
the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users means that people of all ages and abilities
are included in planning and design processes. Complete Streets policies benefit the entire
community by improving individual and community health, improving the efficiency and
capacity of existing roads, and reducing congestion and vehicle miles traveled. Complete Streets
policies also can address how eco-friendly practices such as “bio swales” can be incorporated into
street designs to maximize their benefits.
The National Complete Streets Coalition has identified ten elements of an ideal Complete Streets
policy. See: http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/policy/cs-policyelements.pdf.
Developing and adopting a Complete Streets policy doesn’t need to be a lengthy process, but it
does require the commitment and understanding on the part of elected leaders. In Winter Park,
FL, the city commission adopted a Complete Streets policy in early 2011 and is building upon the
effort to adjust transportation approaches and the capital improvement budget. See:
http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Docs/Government/meeting_agendas/agd_05_9_11rs.pdf.
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, once adopted, will also offer language appropriate to
incorporate into Complete Streets policies.
Faced with the challenges of meeting transportation demand while preserving the character of
the community, municipalities are creating and adopting street design guidelines to support
livability.
Street design guidelines will allow the beach cities to bring land use and transportation planning
together so that level-of-service for cars is no longer the sole criterion for street design. Design
guidelines set forth standards and provide guidance as the cities design and improve streets. The
guidelines provide new metrics for measuring the success of a street, provide an assessment of
local street types and highlight traffic calming features that have a history of success locally.
When crafting street designgGuidelines, communities should look to the following documents
to ensure the guidelines fall within the acceptable standard:
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“The Green Book”)
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traditional Neighborhood Development
Street Design Guidelines
ITE’s Traffic Engineering Handbook
Additional recommended reading includes Randall Arendt’s Rural by Design, Christopher
Alexander’s The Timeless Way of Building and A Pattern Language, and Galina Tachieva’s Sprawl Repair
Manual. Los Angeles County is scheduled to release the Model Design Manual for Living Streets in Fall
2011, which will serve as a good example for the beach communities.
In order to develop a complete network of pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces, the
beach cities should develop a regional pedestrian master plan. At a regional level, this would
allow the beach cities to identify gaps and deficiencies in the pedestrian network and to
evaluate continuity of facilities across borders. Those areas where municipalities bump up
against each other can show a visible seam due to differences in vision, prioritization and
implementation of pedestrian infrastructure improvements. Specifically, a regional pedestrian
master plan will allow the beach cities to:
Review existing plans, policies, guidelines and codes to determine whether inherent
conflicts exist within these documents that might impact the continuity of pedestrian
infrastructure across the cities’ borders.
Build a toolbox and best practices guide that informs pedestrian planning at a regional
level. Tools can include performance methods and monitoring that functions across
borders.
Propose and refine treatments to ensure the integrity of the pedestrian network
regionally, and to provide clear messaging to users that traverses geographical borders.
Perform field research to identify conflicts at a regional level, especially noting
conditions at shared borders, such as network gaps, and the geographic distribution of
existing pedestrian facilities which will aid in the development of regional amenities
such as trails.
Conduct civic engagement that brings local partners together, thereby building capacity
for walkability at both a local and a regional level.
Analyze needs and demand based on information gathered regionally, allowing the
beach cities to understand patterns, behaviors, origins and destinations at a regional
level.
Conduct a destination analysis. When people are too far from parks, plazas, places to
eat healthy food, retail or other useful and fun destinations, they will not walk, or even
eat well. "Destination deserts" can be quickly mapped in a community within the plan.
Perform a security analysis. People will not walk if they feel that they must navigate a
void in watchfulness or activity. These are easily mapped through a civic engagement
process during the regional planning efforts.
Develop criteria for ranking, prioritizing and implementing projects regionally for
maximum impact and to better support one another’s initiatives.
Develop funding strategies that may reduce the burden to any one community and allow
the beach cities to show regional support of one another’s initiatives. This may provide
the opportunity for the beach cities to leverage regional resources for funding
opportunities.
Allow the beach cities’ City Councils, Planning Commissions, school boards, utility
boards, library boards, fire boards and Staffs to work together, to share common
problems, programs, lessons learned and best practices, and to establish partnerships. A
monthly meeting of representatives can increase cohesion and collaboration and
facilitate the establishment of common and shared goals.
Identify planned improvements to determine whether they support or conflict with other
regional initiatives.
Regional master plans are somewhat challenging to find, so this would place the beach cities at
the forefront of smart planning. The following pathways master plan provides a good example
of regional planning: http://www.meridiancity.org/parks_rec.aspx?id=2667.
In order to fund the development of the pedestrian master plan or to fund a regional bicycle and
pedestrian coordinator position, the beach cities might consider forming a Joint Powers
Authority (JPA). The JPA would allow the beach cities to prioritize improvements to close gaps
and fix deficiencies in the pedestrian network. The JPA would foster a collaborative discussion
among the beach cities to coordinate pedestrian planning and implementation activities, with
an emphasis on improving the pedestrian network across jurisdictions.
To learn more about how JPAs can fund transportation improvement projects in California, see:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=gov&group=0600107000&file=6500-6536
To learn more about a specific JPA transportation project in San Francisco, see:
http://transbaycenter.org/tjpa/about-the-tjpa and http://www.sdrp.org/jpa.htm.
Additionally, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program can be
used to fund transportation related projects that are designed to reduce traffic congestion and
improve air quality. CMAQ has seven major project categories, including pedestrian and bicycle
improvement projects. Pedestrian and bicycle projects comprise approximately 13 percent of
CMAQ projects. This funding can be used for constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
are not exclusively recreational and that reduce vehicle trips. The program funds one full-time
position per state and it can also be used to fund bicycle parking, pedestrian and bicycling
promotion, sidewalk or pedestrian improvements and enhancements, bike maps and planning,
and educational efforts. To learn more, visit:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=4274.
If undertaking a regional pedestrian planning effort is not feasible, the three beach cities should
create citywide pedestrians plans that are developed in coordination with each other and that
are complementary in supporting all people in the beach cities.
One of the most critical factors in street safety is enforcement that concentrates on intersections
and corridors with high crash rates. An enforcement program for pedestrian safety should
include an evaluation of motorist, bicyclist, pedestrian and transit users to determine whether
we are anticipating and accommodating one another appropriately. For instance, an
enforcement program will look at whether motorists yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in
crosswalks and should address some of the more critical problems such as speeding, shortcuts
through neighborhoods, red light running and obstructions to the pedestrian right of way such
as parking. An enforcement program will look at pedestrian behaviors, too, and whether
pedestrians are engaging in aggressive or dangerous activities such as walking into a stream of
traffic, or crossing intersections against the signal and thereby disrupting the flow for other
modes. It should also include bicyclist enforcement programs aimed at curtailing problematic
behaviors such as riding the wrong way in a traffic lane, riding at night without lights or
required reflectors, or bicycle parking that impedes other modes.
Compliance and enforcement activities are most often overseen by the police. In order to
improve safety, health and livability for the beach cities, the beach cities should increase
enforcement activities around school zones and other critical areas where vehicle-pedestrian
conflicts have been high or where poor yielding behaviors by motorists have been observed. To
aid in enforcing the rights of all street users, the beach cities should increase the number of
police officers walking and biking in the community. Additionally, the municipalities should
survey the built environment and the community to determine whether streets are in
compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. See:
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards.htm.
To collect information about problematic areas, the beach cities should provide a system for
recording pedestrian safety concerns such as poor lighting, broken sidewalks, obstructions,
perceived sense of danger or gaps in the pedestrian network. This may be a website or a display
at libraries and schools.
Many drivers ignore the pedestrian’s right-of-way. One extremely dangerous situation happens
when there are multiple travel lanes and one vehicle stops for the pedestrian crossing, and
another overtakes and passes the stopped car, striking the pedestrian. The Uniform Vehicle
Code (UVC) is a set of traffic laws prepared by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Laws and Ordinances which serves as a model in most states. See http://www.ncutlo.org.
Pedestrians, too, have duties to ensure the safety and comfort of other road users. There are
places where they are prohibited (interstates, for example) and they must comply with traffic
signals. For more information on pedestrian and bicycle safety enforcement, see:
http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/b15cXFxa20090311142525.pdf.
An educational and awareness campaign can take the guesswork out of navigating our streets. In
order to improve safety and enjoyment of using streets, the beach cities should:
Develop culturally sensitive messaging for all pedestrian safety programs and information.
For an example or an outreach brochure for education and awareness, see:
http://www.metroplanorlando.com/files/view/10_things_motorists_should_know_about_bicy
cling.pdf.
An example of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Public Awareness campaign can be
found here: http://www.bestreetsmart.net/resources/2010/SS10_Summary_v1.pdf.
Train city staff on planning and designing roadways for pedestrians through walking
audits. A walking audit, also known as a “walking workshop,” is conducted with
residents, officials, city staff, community groups and other stakeholders of an area. These
walks can take from sixty minutes to two or more hours.
Diverse groups of people, including city and county officials, planners, engineers,
emergency responders, neighborhood leaders, community groups and residents see, feel
and hear problems up close. Dan Burden leads the walk and asks those taking part to
explain “what is working here or what is not working here” each time the group stops.
When groups are diverse, many insights and options are discovered.
Walking audits are one of the most powerful tools for people to discuss common issues of
interest or concern related to the design, operation of streets, parks and open spaces, as
well as a way to discuss security, safety and other features of their community. In many
cases, complex and challenging issues are addressed and solved right in the field. This
initiative would allow the beach cities to assess and document existing conditions, while
building local partnerships at the local level. The walking audit is a community
engagement tool as much as it is a community assessment tool.
Develop safety tips for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users based on critical
local issues. New York City’s Department of Transportation noted that although older
adults make up only 13 percent of the city’s population, they make up 33 percent of
pedestrian deaths. Educational and enforcement campaigns remind drivers that older
adults or others with special needs may need more time crossing at an intersection.
Additionally, they look at areas around schools and parks where children may dart out
from between parked cars. They recognized that one-third of all pedestrian injuries
happen after dark and so they include this information in their outreach campaigns along
with a dusk-to-dawn headlight reminder. Safety tips remind pedestrians that a vehicle
traveling at 30 mph may need 125 feet to come to a complete stop. The city’s outreach
materials focus on walking under the influence in addition to the dangers of driving under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. Their materials state that in 1998, one of every 10
pedestrians killed was under the influence of alcohol, other drugs (including prescription
medication), or a combination of both. To see their educational campaign, go to:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/safety/safetyedu.shtml.
The beach cities should continue Safe Routes to School programs and projects to improve safety
for students. The WALC Institute notes that the cities have developed programs in the past and
grant funding recently has been secured for additional Safe Routes work. This is good news.
Where the following actions haven’t already been taken by the beach cities, they should:
Apply for Safe Routes to School funds and work with agencies, governments,
organizations, residents, students, the School Board and others to encourage active
transportation for students.
Encourage the development of walking school buses for students and encourage
walking Moai Teams within neighborhoods to provide local support, opportunities for
friendships and on-going review of existing conditions, in addition to placing “eyes on
children” as they walk or bicycle to and from school.
Implement both classroom and active/hands-on learning. Lessons should focus on basic
pedestrian, bicycle and motor-vehicle occupant safety and encourage children to walk
and ride bicycles as a regular means of transportation.
Identify school trip management techniques to encourage parents, students and staff to
reduce automobile trips and to use alternative modes for travel to and from schools. This
can support community livability objectives including transportation choice,
accessibility, walkability, affordability, community interaction and reduced traffic on
local streets.
Ensure that local Safe Routes to School committees have members with experience in
the areas of health, engineering, education, disadvantaged communities, law
enforcement, planning and recreation.
Assist Safe Routes to School grant recipients in preparing before and after surveys to
capture desired outcomes and metrics for project success.
Publicize local resources and website content addressing Safe Routes to School.
Identify low-income communities and schools to improve participation in Safe Routes
to School programs. The beach cities should conduct a special outreach campaign to
ensure that communities are aware of Safe Routes to School opportunities and available
technical assistance in the application process.
Create culturally sensitive materials that highlight Safe Routes to School opportunities
for the beach cities.
Sample Safe Routes to Schools Programs from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership are
found here:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/4233.
Parent surveys about walking and biking to school from the National Center for Safe Routes to
School are here:
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/collateral/Parent_Survey_English_Scan2009.pdf.
Additionally, in June 2011, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership released a publication
entitled Safe Routes to School Local Policy Guide to help local communities and schools create, enact
and implement policies which will support active and healthy community environments that
encourage safe walking and bicycling and physical activity by children through a "Health in All
Policies" approach. See:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/media/file/Local_Policy_Guide_2011.pdf.
Encouraging multi-modal and active transportation helps reduce “vehicle miles traveled”, or
VMT. According to the Brooking Institute, the U. S. is experiencing its longest and steepest
drop in driving, signaling a permanent shift away from reliance on the car to other modes of
transportation. Their report, The Road…Less Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends in the
U.S., shows that national VMT began to plateau as far back as 2004 and dropped in 2007 for the
first time since 1980.
Per capita driving showed slowed growth after 2000 and rates have fallen since 2005. These
recent declines in driving predated the rising gas prices during 2007 and 2008. Recent drops in
VMT (90 billion miles) and VMT per capita (388 miles) are the largest annualized drops since
World War II, according to this report.
Additionally, the report states that from October 2007 to September 2008, Americans drove 90
billion fewer miles than the same time period the year before. Transit use is at its highest level
since the 1950’s, and Amtrak set a ridership record in 2009. While total driving in both rural and
urban areas grew between January 1991 and September 2008, rural and urban VMT have been
declining since 2004. The report also presents a survey which ranks all 50 states and the nation’s
100 largest metro areas for their “driving footprint” and shows who drives the most, who drives
the least, and where driving is declining the fastest.
To review the report, see:
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1216_transportation_tom
er_puentes/vehicle_miles_traveled_report.pdf
When streets emphasize an inviting, people-first approach to design, automobile and freight
movement are well supported. The design of corridors and intersections should focus on
promoting people and businesses first through a complete network that accommodates all
modes of transportation. This approach is the oldest way of building a city or town; it is an
approach that honors the great city making art and science known throughout human history.
It is only in recent years that street making practices have led to an erosion of social space and
living space through an over emphasis on single occupant automobiles. The consequences of
this are social isolation, less daily physical activity and lower volunteerism rates. Returning to
the time honored way of building streets to accommodate all users will help improve the quality
of life, restore social and economic opportunity, and lead to a more sustainable pattern of city
making and city life.
The following resources speak to the benefits of active transportation:
Healthy, Active & Vibrant Community 2009 Toolkit, from Trailnet:
http://www.trailnet.org/HAVC_Toolkit.php
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, from the Local Government Commission:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/Healthy_Kids_Healthy_
Communities.pdf
Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes, from Active
Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf
Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance,
from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf
Growing Demand for Communities that Promote Health, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_WalkableCommunities.pdf
At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy
Transportation Policy, from the American Public Health Association:
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-FB68-4112-8C75-
49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.pdf
All cities are required by California law to prepare and adopt a General Plan, which establishes
the long-range goals for the physical development of the community. Manhattan Beach refers to
the General Plan as the "constitution" for development in the city, reflecting the long-term vision
of the community through its goals, policies and objectives.
A General Plan also reflects the community’s concerns. In each of the beach cities, concern about
mixed-use development and its impact on residential uses exists. Traffic congestion, parking,
parking management and parking requirements are also main concerns, along with overflow
traffic into residential neighborhoods. Maintaining a sense of place is identified as important and
in some cases, development is seen as a threat to maintaining charm and the overall aesthetic.
While Manhattan Beach explicitly states the correlation between livability, quality of life and the
built environment, the beach cities should consider how their guiding principles can be
broadened, so that implementable policies and actionable strategies follow. This ensures the
community vision is documented first and then policies and strategies implement it.
As policy documents, General Plans are just that—general in nature— and rely on the Municipal
Code to provide specificity for enforcement. In all three communities, the Municipal Code could
tie better to the General Plan. Enforcement activities and ordinances don’t provide the
framework or the vision. The purpose of Municipal Code is to promote and protect public peace,
health, safety and welfare, and to guide growth and development in keeping with the vision set
for by the community in their General Plan.
Livability is, in large part, determined by the physical form of the city. The built form either
encourages well-being through healthy choices or it makes unhealthy choices easiest and
common. The following principles may eventually be included in the guiding documents of all
three beach cities for improved well-being:
Provide a mix of land uses
Build compact design and increase density, where possible
Prioritize walkable communities and active transportation
Foster distinctive, attractive neighborhoods with a strong sense of place
Preserve open space, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities
Provide a variety of transportation and housing opportunities and choices
Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions
Against this backdrop of livability principles, the WALC Institute team reviewed the Land Use
and Circulation Elements of the beach cities’ General Plans and their Municipal Codes. The
Institute team has identified areas where livability principles could be better integrated into
their guiding documents. Those areas are described in the sections that follow.
Note that resources are provided at the end of this chapter to help the cities in developing
updated language, policies and practices to support livability.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that its intent is to establish the goals,
objectives, policies and implementation programs to guide the manner in which new
development will occur and to conserve existing uses. The Land Use Element aims at
addressing nine fundamental issues for the City:
What types of land uses should be permitted in the City of Redondo Beach?
How should the land uses be distributed throughout the City?
In each of the City's land use districts, what should be their functional role, what uses
should be permitted, and what should be their physical form and character?
What mechanisms can be used to increase the supply of housing units affordable for
very low, low and moderate income households?
How should existing uses which are inconsistent with an area's objectives be
maintained or replaced?
How can the City's properties, structures and public open spaces be designed to
provide a high quality image and character for the City?
How can compatibility be ensured between land uses characterized by differing
functions and intensities?
What mechanisms can be used to maintain the quality of the City's built environment?
What mechanisms can be used to ensure the maintenance of environmental quality in
the City?
The policy set forth addresses these questions and provides direction to:
Retain existing residential neighborhoods and principal commercial districts, allowing
for infill development and uses that are comparable in function and scale to existing
development.
Allow for the modest intensification of selected key sites which are economically
underutilized or contain marginal uses, have the potential for achieving significant
benefits to the City, and can be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses.
Allow for a change of use on selected sites to improve the economic viability and
compatibility with adjacent uses.
Because the Land Use policy provides the pattern and form of development, it is central that
livability principles are included in this part of the General Plan. For example, the City identifies
a “hodge-podge” of existing development along the City's arterial corridors (Pacific Coast
Highway, Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard) and that viable and healthy commercial
development needs to be in definable and focused clusters, rather than spread continuously along
corridors.
The Plan provides two polices mechanisms to address this:
1. Re-differentiation of the corridors into pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, high activity,
and general automobile oriented segments.
2. Recycling of selected properties for residential development. To stimulate the latter,
residential densities are permitted which are somewhat higher than those allowed in
other areas of the City.
The City recognizes the value of mixed use development to:
Reduce vehicular trips and associated air pollution by providing housing opportunities
in proximity to jobs
Establish active, pedestrian-oriented districts which enhance the quality of life and
vitality of the city
Increase the supply of moderately priced and affordable housing without increasing the
densities of traditional residential neighborhoods.
The General Plan does not mandate the development of mixed-use structures, but it does permit
them in a number of key activity areas of the City: the western segment of Artesia Boulevard; the
Torrance Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway intersection; and the southern segment of Pacific
Coast Highway.
Recommendation:
Within the General Plan, the City of Redondo Beach has the opportunity to recognize
the impact of transportation corridors on community well-being. The beach cities
should set the vision for how transportation corridors function for the beach cities and
indicate the guiding principles, implementable policies and actionable strategies for
moving towards the vision.
An example of this follows:
Guiding Principle: Foster the redevelopment of key corridors as vital spines with nodes
of mixed-use and higher density development to bring services closer to people, with
street designs that encourage active transportation.
Implementable Policy: Adopt Complete Streets policies into all planning documents by
action of the city council.
Actionable Strategies:
Include Complete Street language in all planning documents.
Update the General Plan to include a focus on livability and well-being through
Complete Streets and active transportation.
Review the Minimum Standards for Street Widths provided in the Municipal
Code. Presently, the Municipal Code uses a functional classification that is
formula driven and generic. The existing lane widths favor speed, and do not
encourage walkability or livability. Additionally, the minimum standards for
curbs, sidewalks and pedestrian widths at 4 feet (residential) and 5 - 12 feet
(elsewhere) are too narrow. The requirement that sidewalks “are located within
the street right-of-way not closer than six (6) inches from the dedicated
boundary of the street” does not speak to improving the pedestrian experience or
buffering the pedestrian from moving vehicles.
Prioritize Capital Improvement Projects based on Complete Streets and/or
Livability criteria.
Utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques to alter travel
behavior through programs, incentives, services, and policies. Carpooling and
vanpooling, changes in work schedules, and home-office incentives can move
trips out of the peak period or eliminate them.
The following objectives and policies related to transportation improvements appear in the Land
Use Element section:
It shall be the objective of the City of Redondo Beach to commit lands for the continued
operation of public infrastructure which supports residents, businesses and visitors and
protects them from environmental hazards.
It shall be the policy of the City of Redondo Beach to:
Allocate lands for the continuation and expansion of public streets and highways
in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, as defined in the
Transportation and Circulation section of the General Plan (I1.1, I1.2).
Allow for the continuation of utility corridors, easements, and facilities (sewer,
water, energy, storm drainage, telecommunications, and other) to provide for
existing and future land use development in areas classified as Public (“P”) on
the Land Use Plan map (I1.1).
Provide lands for the expansion of public infrastructure as necessary to maintain
the level of service for the City's residents and accommodate future development
(I1.1).
Develop plans and programs for the reuse of infrastructure and utility properties
and easements should they no longer be required for their intended operations
(I1.1).
Recommendation:
The Objective could speak to supporting and protecting users, while encouraging well-
being. The Policies speak to the expansion of public streets but do not speak to the
significant impact that streets have on place and placemaking. Policies should speak to
preserving and protecting rights of way as a community resource. Additionally,
expansion of the public infrastructure to maintain current levels of service may run
counter to livability measures. The community should consider what level of service
means for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.
The City of Redondo Beach sets for the following Objective in its General Plan:
Establish and implement a comprehensive plan for the upgrade of Pacific Coast
Highway's streetscape to incorporate street trees, landscape (planters), street furniture
(benches, trash receptacles, news racks, etc.), street and crosswalk paving, lighting,
public signage, and other appropriate elements, as permitted by Caltrans (I1.17).
Recommendation:
Complete Streets elements and language that supports biking, walking and transit
should be included in the upgrade of Pacific Coast Highway. In the Land Use Element,
the City points to Pacific Coast Highway as a potential location for housing based on RH
designation. Streetscape improvements, like those noted above, appear in many of the
corridor plans yet they do not speak to intended outcomes: livability, improved well-
being, aging/living in place, increased civic engagement and safety. Guiding Principles
are notably absent from the General Plan’s Land Use Element and so the Plan Objectives
and Policies may point to the desire for a healthy, active community, but this is not an
organizing theme.
The City of Redondo Beach sets forth the following Objective in its General Plan:
Examine the feasibility of re-routing North Catalina Avenue coincident with the railroad
right-of-way from approximately North Broadway Avenue to Herondo Street;
concurrently implementing traffic control mechanisms to reduce the speed of traffic (e.g.,
angled parking, additional signalization or stop signs, widened sidewalks, and limited
access to and from Pacific Coast Highway) (I 1.19).
The General Plan Land Use Element could speak to traffic control mechanisms and
traffic calming features and their desired outcomes for pedestrians and bicycles. The
General Plan should speak to why the community needs to calm traffic and behaviors of
concern versus desired behaviors. This is an opportunity to speak to the community’s
vision when it comes to transportation corridors and user rights and responsibilities.
The Circulation Element does a nice job of assessing existing conditions in Redondo Beach and
outlining opportunities to improve Level of Service for vehicles. The Element provides the
regulatory issues affecting transportation improvements in Redondo Beach, which should be
noted for this project:
Measure DD – Requires voter consent for major changes in the City’s General Plan
or Zoning Ordinances
AB 1358 – Complete Streets Act – It requires circulation elements to address the
transportation system from a multi-modal perspective. Streets must meet the needs
of all users.
AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act – The State of California is committed to
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
SB375 – Adopted to achieve regional GHG targets, it requires Metropolitan Planning
Organizations to create a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” to meet regional
targets. It also requires that housing elements and transportation plans be
synchronized on eight year schedules and it allows for streamlining incentives for
preferred development types.
The Circulation Element outlines bicycle and pedestrian facilities and opportunities to reduce
gaps in network and to create linkages to existing and proposed facilities. The following existing
Goals and Policies for bicyclists and pedestrians have been identified and should be recognized
as part of the Vitality City project.
Goal: Pursue Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities
Policies:
Link Existing and Proposed Facilities.
Connect North Redondo Beach and South Redondo Beach with bike facilities.
Focus on access at transit stations, the waterfront, South Bay Galleria, Artesia
Boulevard, Riviera Village, Pacific Coast Highway retail zones and school zones.
Reduce travel vehicle lanes and create minimum 5’ bike lanes.
Goal: Enhance Bicycle Infrastructure
Policy:
Increase the provision of bike lockers, bike racks and lighting for bike facilities.
Goal: Create Opportunities for Physical Activity
Policies:
Ensure that residents will be able to walk or bicycle to destinations such as the
beach, the Civic Center, Redondo Beach Pier, Riviera Village and other activity
centers.
Conduct walkability and bikability audits.
Work with Redondo Beach Unified School District to create Safe Routes to
School.
Time signals to allow adequate crossing time for pedestrians and install
pedestrian islands or bulb-outs on wide streets to shorten crossing distances.
Close existing gaps in sidewalk infrastructure, maintain sidewalks and require
sidewalks with all new development.
Provide climate appropriate landscaping, adequate lighting and street amenities
to make walking safe, interesting and enjoyable.
Promote the use of alternative transportation for short trips and conduct
periodic bicycle and pedestrian counts to assess whether alternative mode use is
increasing.
Recommendation:
The Circulation Element does not speak to the community’s vision for active
transportation, active living or livability. While the Goal may be to “Create
Opportunities for Physical Activity,” this should be in support of a community vision of
health, well-being, active living or quality of life. Additionally, the Vitality City project
leaders should review the plans and policies established by the community within the
Circulation Element for an update on progress and prioritization since adoption. This
would indicate support of and resistance to policies.
Municipal Code
The Municipal Code provides instruction for what one may or may not do. The following topics
speak to pedestrian transportation:
1. Pedestrian Safety - Ordinance 4-22.08 and 9-1.22: Protection of Pedestrians - Pedestrian
safety refers to construction. Nothing speaks to creating a safe pedestrian environment.
2. Crosswalks - Ordinance 3.7.1001 provides for the establishment of crosswalks and gives
authorization to the City Manager to establish and mark crosswalks in cases where the
Council determines that there is exceptional hazard to pedestrians crossing the roadway
in any of the following places:
At any intersection;
a) Near the mid-block point in any block in the Central Traffic District which
exceeds 400 feet in length;
b) Near the mid-block point in any block outside the Central Traffic District which
exceeds 400 feet in length provided the volume of vehicular traffic and the volume
of pedestrian travel indicate a special need for such crosswalk as defined in the
Traffic Manual; and
c) At any loading platform on a private right-of-way of any common passenger
carrier. (§ 39, Ord. 1539)
This does not speak to utilizing context sensitive design solutions. Other ordinances speak to
limiting pedestrian crossings to crosswalks within the Central Traffic District and requiring
pedestrians to cross a roadway “at right angles to the curb, or by the shortest route to the
opposite curb, except in a marked crosswalk (§ 41, Ord. 1539). The Code states “no person shall
stop or stand on a sidewalk except as near as is physically possible to the building line or the
curb line at any place in the Central Traffic District or any business district (§ 43, Ord. 1539).
This goes against livability principles and it is not clear what this Ordinance is in support of.
3. Wayfinding - In terms of pedestrian scaled wayfinding, Ordinance 3-7.1006 Signs states
that pedestrian scaled signage will alert pedestrians to street closures. It does not speak
to pedestrian scaled signage and wayfinding otherwise.
4. Safety - Bicycle safety focuses on licenses and fees, and outlines the prohibitions for
bicycles on sidewalks, ramps and in parking structures. Interestingly, Code 3-1.03 to 3-
1.07 prohibits skateboards and roller skates from streets, bike paths and alleys, as well as
limits their usage on sidewalks—so it is not clear where they are desired within the City.
5. Transportation Demand Management - Ordinance 10-2.2406 sets forth requirements for new
applicable developments to provide facilities and/or programs that encourage and
accommodate the use of ridesharing, transit, pedestrian and bicycle commuting as
alternatives to single-occupant motor vehicle trips. Under the Purpose, it states “A
reduction in such trips can be expected to assist in reduced traffic congestion, air
pollution and energy consumption impacts related to employment growth generated by
new development. Further, it is the intent of this article to comply with the requirements
of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP).” (§ 1, Ord. 2905 c.s.,
eff. August 5, 2003)
6. Bicycle Parking - Bicycle parking requirement of four spots per 50,000 square feet is low.
New York City places their requirement at one spot per 7, 500 square feet for commercial
uses.
The WALC Institute team acknowledges that the Redondo Beach Sustainable City Plan includes
some recommendations related to those described in this livability report. The Institute team
was introduced to the Sustainable City Plan toward the close of the livability project and thus, it
wasn’t reviewed as part of this effort. It is referenced here as a possible resource document.
City of Hermosa Beach
Land Use Element
The City includes the following Goals in its General Plan:
Goal 1: Protect and maintain the small town beach community atmosphere of
Hermosa Beach.
Goal 2: Accommodate existing and future commercial land uses to provide service to
both local residents and regional shoppers.
Goal 3: Encourage land uses which enhance and promote the City’s coastal
environment.
Goal 4: Provide for the development and maintenance of public infrastructure to
adequately serve the needs of residents and permitted land uses.
Goal 5: Provide community resource facilities which will adequately support the
needs of local residents and businesses.
Goal 6: Maintain existing land use standards and controls for the commercial and
industrial districts.
One of the Goals for the City of Hermosa Beach should be the creation of community conditions
that positively affect quality of life, health and well-being. Nothing in the goals speaks to these
things. There is an opportunity here to speak to the protection of natural resources; access to
healthy foods; safe streets, neighborhoods and parks providing better living, working and playing
environments; or better health outcomes.
Recommendation:
The City of Hermosa should consider including a Health and Wellness Chapter in its
General Plan. This would allow the community to accomplish the following:
Document the status of health and wellness today, including a review of current
conditions relative to healthy living determinants.
Highlight key findings and recommendations based on an existing conditions
analysis to improve quality of life, health and well-being.
Define goals for promoting healthy living.
Identify policies and implementable actions to address challenges and opportunities
to foster health and wellness community-wide.
Including well-being as a critical path for improving conditions within the community is
central to long-term success and sustainability. Although a Community Health and
Wellness Element is not a state-mandated element, its inclusion in the General Plan ensures
that public health and wellness remains a city priority. The Element is consistent with
Section 65303 of the State of California Government Code, which authorizes local
jurisdictions to adopt additional elements to those required by state law when they relate to
the physical development of the jurisdiction.
General Plan Goals, Objectives and Implementation Policies: Hermosa Beach’s present
policies in support of the City’s Goals and Objectives may run counter to livability principles. Of
concern are the following policies:
Restriction on land uses is based on compatibility, with no explanation or
establishment of compatibility/incompatibility guidelines.
Adequate separation from the lot line of residential and nonresidential uses; setback
requirements.
Pedestrian oriented design is limited to specific commercial areas as opposed to a city-
wide initiative.
Mitigation of impacts of commercial development on adjacent residential land uses.
Commercial corridor limitations on residential land uses for Pacific Coast Highway.
Landscape buffering speaks to an interface between residential development and the
Pacific Coast Highway, but nothing speaks to buffering pedestrians from traffic or
providing drought-resistant landscaping treatments for water reduction, pedestrian
comfort or to improve sight lines.
Maximizing the use of public and private parking, and private downtown parking
structures.
Consideration of existing rights of way but no discussion of long term protection of
existing rights of way as green spaces or multi-use trails or for transit. No discussion of
the City’s plan for engaging the public when it comes to preserving the right of way.
There is no explanation of the Downtown Business Enhancement Commission – who
they are, their role and why they will review major development plans.
It is noted here that the City is collecting a General Plan Maintenance Fee to fund the General
Plan update. Additionally, due to compact form, scale and density, we should note that Hermosa
Beach does provide a horizontally mixed use form, where commercial and residential uses are in
close proximity to one another within much of the City. The City’s high parking standards,
however, run counter to livability at 2 plus 1 guest space required.
Recommendation:
Hermosa Beach has the opportunity to update its General Plan to include livability, active
living and green principles for improved community well-being.
Hermosa Beach should consider rewriting its Goals for improved well-being by adding:
Goal 1: Improve Access to Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Goal 2: Expand Healthy Food and Nutrition Choices
Goal 3: Ensure Access to Critical Services, such as Hospitals and Schools
Goal 4: Encourage Safe and Convenient Public Transit and Active Circulation
Options
Goal 5: Provide a Range of Quality and Affordable Housing
Goal 6: Expand Economic Opportunity
Goal 7: Develop Complete Streets and Neighborhoods
Goal 8: Improve Safety in Neighborhoods and Public Spaces
Goal 9: Improve Environmental Quality
Goal 10: Promote Green and Sustainable Development Practices
Goal 11: Become a Leader in Building Healthy Communities
The opportunity to speak to appropriate, compatible Land Uses could fall under a number of
these goals, but would frame the discussion with the community’s well-being at the center so
that the policies are in support. Within the General Plan, the City of Hermosa Beach should
frame the Vision with policies and strategies to assist with prioritizing and implementing
recommendations.
Recommendation:
The following examples provide a guiding principle, followed by policies and strategies that
support.
1. Guiding Principle: Improve Access to Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Implementable Policies:
Provide a comprehensive and interconnected system of parks, plaza, playgrounds
and open space.
Expand and tailor recreational programs and services to meet the community’s
needs.
Enhance and protect the community’s access to the shoreline.
Actionable Strategies:
Parks Master Plan Update
Expand the Parkland Dedication Ordinance
Park Dedication Incentive Program
Joint-Use Agreements for private use of public facilities.
City-Wide Recreation Program Update
2. Guiding Principle: Expand Healthy Food and Nutrition Choices
Implementable Policies:
Promote the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Support community gardens, urban agriculture and local farmers.
Require restaurants to provide nutritional information to customers.
Begin Farm to School Programs.
Actionable Strategies:
Create a Healthy Food Incentives Program.
Undertake a Sustainable Urban Agriculture Assessment.
Provide nutrition information display guidelines.
Create a Healthy Food Task Force with the School Board to bring fresh fruits,
vegetables and local foods into schools.
3. Guiding Principle: Adopt Safe and Convenient Public Transit and Active
Circulation Options
Implementable Policies:
Support an enhanced public transportation system to improve access for all
residents and visitors.
Provide a comprehensive para-transit service within the City.
Promote walking and biking as safe, convenient modes of transportation.
Create a safety campaign for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.
Promote mixed-use development.
Actionable Strategies:
Update the Community’s Access and Mobility Criteria.
Update the City’s Traffic Calming Program.
Update the Streetscape Improvement Plan with Complete Streets policies.
Street Design Guidelines Update.
Green Streets Program Update.
4. Guiding Principle: Develop Complete Streets and Neighborhoods
Implementable Policies:
Encourage dense, mixed-use infill development.
Identify community needs by neighborhood through walking and bike audits.
Build Complete Streets and incorporate Complete Streets language into all
planning documents.
Actionable Strategies:
Update the Corridor Improvement Plan.
Update/Create the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.
Integrate Complete Streets and Complete Neighborhoods policy language in all
guiding documents and internal communications.
5. Guiding Principle: Become a Leader in Building Healthy Communities
Implementable Policies:
Strengthen the City’s internal capacity to support and implement health-
related policies and programs.
Support Health and well-being monitoring and tracking of health outcomes
identified by the Health Department.
Kick off a “Healthy Choices” Information Campaign.
Create a Healthy Development Recognition Program.
Actionable Strategies:
Form a Healthy Development Task Force.
Create a Healthy Development Checklist. See
http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/healthy_development_checklist.pd
f
Review the County’s RENEW program and its goals.
Hermosa Beach may also wish to include principles, policies and strategies related to
sustainability and improving environmental quality. Current initiatives that could be framed for
improved well-being through transportation improvements follow:
Air Pollution Reduction Strategies
Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality Guidelines
Sensitive Use Location Guidelines (Habitat Protection Guidelines)
Truck Routes Study
Site Remediation Strategies
Renewable Energy Program
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
Water Conservation and Recycling Programs
City Vehicle Transition Program (green technologies)
The City of Hermosa Beach has a strong background in Green Initiatives. Tying transportation
improvements to conservation, resource protection and green living might be a good strategy for
the City. Those Green Initiatives taken by the City of Hermosa Beach to date follow. There is
greater opportunity for green initiatives through transportation improvements, and this should
be a focus for the City.
1970-1999
Street sweeping weekly city-wide (10 tons/week removed from streets that won’t reach
ocean).
Adopted 4/10 (M-Th) work week schedule to conserve fuel for employee commutes and
energy use in facilities.
Adopted stormwater ordinance to implement NPDES regulations.
Use reclaimed water for 75% of parks, greenbelt and medians.
Employee Ride Share: City financial incentive to employees to ride share or use transit.
Initiated city annual Household Hazardous Waste collection day.
Instituted annual beach clean-up day.
Banned use of pesticides or herbicides on city parks and open spaces.
2000-2007
Installed catch basin filters in downtown area (before most cities).
All green waste (grass and tree trimmings) from city facilities recycled. Plastics and
paper are recycled.
50% construction debris recycling required (500 sf + construction and demolition
projects).
Participate in Adopt-A-Storm-Drain Program (corporate sponsorship of BMPs).
Initiated program to replace gas vehicles with alternate fuels (CNG, propane, electric)
(6-7 in 2001).
Began installation of infiltration basins to reduce pollutants reaching ocean.
No smoking on public beaches.
All custodial supplies are green (toilet paper, cleaning agents, etc.).
Green building checklist adopted by Planning Commission applicable to new residential
condominiums.
Rain gage control of majority of park areas to minimize water use.
Waterless and ultra-low flow urinals and tankless water heaters installed at city
facilities.
Solar powered flashing red beacons at 8 stop locations.
Waive portion of plan check fees for solar energy systems.
2008
Amended zoning code to facilitate solar energy systems consistent with state law.
Created green webpage on City website (www.hermosabch.org).
City Monthly E-newsletter informs people about Green Task Force and also includes
The Green Corner.
Clean Beach Restaurant Program initiated – 1st in L.A. County.
Replaced +- 900 lighting fixtures in City buildings with energy efficient fixtures.
Converted all traffic signals to LED.
Installed controllers of various types to reduce electric use at city facilities.
2009
City Council created city’s Green Task Force to advise on green initiatives and prepare a
climate action plan.
Received CBI Grant to construct stormwater infiltration trench on beach for Pier
Avenue Drain.
Placed ‘Sharrow’ (share the lane) markings on Hermosa Avenue (Pier Avenue to follow
after reconstruction).
Municipal Greenhouse Gases Inventory completed.
Updated Energy Audit for City facilities (ARRA funding opportunities).
Adopted form-based zoning to make Pier Avenue more desirable for walking and
environmentally sustainable.
Submitted ARRA application to retrofit lighting at CITY parking garage and courts.
Amended zoning code to allow small wind energy systems throughout city.
City is testing LED street lights in select locations.
2010
Selected to participate in Local Use Vehicle (net zero) Demonstration Program
(SBCCOG).
Pier Avenue project reconstruction: stormwater infiltration and other storm water
controls, ocean-friendly landscape, recycled water, efficient lighting. Wins EPA and
American Public Works Association awards.
Adopted water conservation and drought management ordinance (Green Task Force
initiative).
Adopted water efficient landscape ordinance that exceeds state requirements (Green
Task Force initiative).
City offers compost and worm bin at discounted price (Green Task Force initiative).
City distributes recycling guide to every house and business (Green Task Force
initiative).
Instituted power management features on computers and monitors (EPA Low Carbon IT
campaign).
Instituted Special Events sustainability requirements (Green Task Force initiative).
Ocean Friendly Garden demonstration project installed at 22nd St. and The Strand.
(‘Grades of Green’ school program).
Community Greenhouse Gases Inventory completed.
City declares its goal to become a carbon neutral/green idea city.
Adopts Cal Green building code that exceeds state requirements (Green Task Force
initiative).
2011
Recommends ban on polystyrene take-out food containers (est. Completion June 2011)
(Green Task Force initiative)
Sustainability Plan (Green Task Force)
Initiatives that address the built environment and its impacts on well-being and sustainability
could be furthered. Active Transportation initiatives and a focus on improving individual and
community health are hopefully part of the City’s Sustainability Plan.
Pedestrian Safety Assessment - In 2008, the City of Hermosa completed a Pedestrian Safety
Assessment which noted areas for Enhancement and Opportunity for pedestrian travel. It noted
the following areas for enhancement:
ADA Transition Plan for Streets and Sidewalks
Bicycle Parking Requirements
Collision History and Collision Reports
Design Policies and Development Standards
Institutional Obstacles
Open Space Requirements
Pedestrian Safety Education
Pedestrian Safety Program
Need for Walking Audits
Pedestrian traffic control devices (Signs, Markings, and Signals)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Coordinator Needed
Public Involvement and Feedback Process
Safe Routes to School Program and Grant Funding
Speed Limits and Speed Surveys
Street Furniture Requirements
Traffic Calming Programs
Transportation Demand Management Programs
Crosswalk Installation, Removal and Enhancement Policy
Economic Vitality
Historic Sites Protection
Health Agencies Integration
Inventory of sidewalks, informal pathways and key pedestrian opportunity areas
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrian Volumes
Pedestrian Master Plan
Routine Accommodations in New Development
The report provides pedestrian improvement measures, their benefits and appropriate
applications for the community—a great resource—and an update that speaks to the specific
policies and strategies used to address these measures would be useful. An update on the
progress since plan adoption would speak to community support or resistance to active
transportation initiatives.
Circulation Element
The Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element was updated in 1990 and supersedes the
1978 Element. The introduction acknowledges the need for alternative modes of transportation
and decreasing reliance on the single occupant automobile. There are a number of policy
recommendations within this document that should be considered in terms of livability,
including street designation; one-way streets; turning prohibitions; walk streets; a pedestrian
and jogging path within the railroad right of way; bike lanes; mid-block barriers for automobiles
and thru lanes for bikes and walkers; minimum set back requirements; and parking
requirements. This document needs to be updated to comply with State requirements.
Municipal Code
There are opportunities within the Municipal Code to speak to pedestrian rights and
responsibilities. Pedestrians are not included within the Vehicle and Traffic section, aside from
the following:
0.20.010 - Establishment and designation of crosswalks.
10.20.020 - Crossing roadways in certain districts to be only at crosswalks.
10.20.030 - Obeying pedestrian traffic signals.
Overall, the guiding documents for Hermosa Beach speak to concerns about land use
designations. Specifically, concerns about the City’s ability to ensure greater predictability of
existing and future land uses exists. Secondly, concerns about negative external impacts from
incompatible uses also exist. Additionally, parking is a major concern to Hermosa Beach and
should be addressed in terms of land value. Maintaining an appropriate scale is also mentioned
in the Urban Design Element, and the Municipal Code offers opportunities for inclusion of
pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist rights and responsibilities.
City of Manhattan Beach
Land Use Element
The Introduction to the General Plan states, “The Manhattan Beach General Plan describes how
residents will work to retain the small-town atmosphere that makes our City unique, but at the
same time, responds to the dynamics of regional traffic issues and meets changing community
needs. The General Plan serves as a policy guide, balancing these interrelated factors to
Manhattan Beach’s community vision.” The vision for Manhattan Beach is set forth as follows in
the Land Use Element. It states, “As we look to the future, we envision Manhattan Beach
continuing to be a community of high quality, both functionally and visually. We see distinctive
residential neighborhoods that accommodate the varied needs of our diverse residents. Our
vibrant Downtown enhances the small-town character and caters to both residents and visitors.
Commercial districts meet our shopping needs and provide employment. Open space is well
landscaped and maintained, and offers a range of recreational opportunities. We envision a place
where new uses blend with established development. We envision Manhattan Beach where
quality development remains a high priority.”
The vision set forth in the General Plan speaks to a robust public process that led to the creation
of the following overarching principles:
Maintain a small-town-community feel that preserves the unique characteristics of
individual neighborhoods.
Provide a balanced transportation system that minimizes cut-through traffic in
residential neighborhoods and provides adequate parking in all areas of the City.
Maintain vibrant commercial areas throughout the City with businesses that meet the
desired needs of the community.
Provide a high level of public safety, ensuring a strong sense of protection for all those
who live and visit the City.
Safeguard picturesque vistas of the ocean, and protect existing trees and landscape
resources that add value to the City.
Create a sense of community that bonds residents together, making a stronger, better
Manhattan Beach.
Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities that meet the diverse needs and
interests of the community.
Recommendation:
This is a very thoughtful vision that is supported by seven overarching principles but it
does not speak to community health or well-being through livability. The seven
overarching principles form the foundation of the General Plan and are embodied in
every goal and policy of this Plan. Including language that speaks to the community’s
vision for individual and community health is an important step towards livability.
The Plan outlines those regulatory issues affecting transportation improvements in Manhattan
Beach:
California Coastal Act of 1976
Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Congestion Management Plan
Air Quality Management Plan
California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
The WALC Institute team notes the levels of regulation surrounding transportation
improvements in the beach cities. Interestingly, it is the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
and the Congestion Management Plan that focus on regional priority issues such as mobility,
economic development and overall quality of life in the region. The SCAG Regional
Comprehensive Plan focuses on developing regional strategies to minimize traffic congestion,
protect environmental quality, and provide adequate housing. The Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide sets forth broad goals intended to be implemented by participating local and regional
jurisdictions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Congestion
Management Plan aims to link land use, transportation and air quality decisions; to develop a
partnership among transportation decision makers on devising appropriate transportation
solutions that include all modes of travel; and to propose transportation projects that are eligible
to compete for state gas tax funds.
The Land Use Element introduces the following neighborhoods in Manhattan Beach and
provides some vision for development:
Sand Section (Beach Area) – A Local Coastal Plan has been prepared.
Downtown – Downtown Manhattan Beach Guidelines were adopted in 1998 and
establish three themes for Downtown:
o Preserve the small-town village character of downtown Manhattan Beach.
o Preserve and enhance the pedestrian orientation of downtown Manhattan
Beach.
o Protect and encourage streetscape amenities.
North End – Limited Parking and Streetscape beautification listed as key concerns.
Tree Section – The Tree Protection Ordinance of 2003 was adopted to protect front
yard trees in this neighborhood and was eventually expanded City-wide, except to the
Sand Section.
Sepulveda Boulevard – As the only State highway in Manhattan Beach, it serves as a
major transportation corridor and commercial corridor. The City adopted the
Sepulveda Boulevard Design Guide to provide a framework for acceptable development
along this corridor.
Hill Section – Contains mostly single family residences, with some commercial uses
along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. This neighborhood is home to large lots, large
homes and the highest real estate prices in the City.
Manhattan Village – This area used to be home to the Chevron Oil field. This area has a
diverse mix of uses, including high density apartments, commercial uses, schools and
recreational features.
Eastside – Home to 1940’s and 1950’s post World War II tract homes and higher density
and commercial uses on Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard and Aviation
Boulevard. Five schools are located in this area, including the City’s only public high
school and the only middle school.
Recommendation:
Consider including a vision for each of these neighborhoods that speaks to health, well-
being and quality of life for residents and visitors. Given the concentration of schools
within the Eastside neighborhood, consideration of Safe Routes to School, walkability
and active transportation should be emphasized. The Land Use section provides an
existing conditions/historic report of Manhattan Beach. Part II of the Land Use Element
speaks to Neighborhood Character. There is an opportunity between these two sections
to speak to a vision on a neighborhood level and to tie this to the community’s overall
vision for livability. Neither area speaks to health, well-being, living in place, active
living, quality of life or active transportation as organizing principles.
Small Town Character - Within the General Plan, Manhattan Beach notes “Small Town Character”
as a value. The policy they set forth is low-profile development. The strategy is to limit the
height of new development to three stories where the height limit is 30 feet or to two stories
where the height limit is 26 feet.
Recommendation:
The height requirements aim at protecting privacy, reducing shading, protecting vistas of
the ocean and preserving the low profile image of the community to reinforce small-town
character. While building height may be regulated by a number of plans, justifications
are mainly aesthetic and the community should consider how to tie aesthetic regulations
to other regulatory requirements. For instance, low profile development might also
support Green Initiatives through ventilating breezes, solar energy or fall in line with
SEPA requirements. The City could also speak to the desired outcomes of low-profile
development as it relates to livability, walkability, Smart Growth, placemaking, active
living and crime prevention through environmental design.
Open Space Requirements - Open Space requirements set forth in the General Plan for Manhattan
Beach are at 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. While the City met open space requirements at the
time of Plan adoption, it noted that open spaces were concentrated in the Sand Section and
Manhattan Village Area. To address this, the City encourages mature trees on streets and private
landscaped open areas as a means for increasing open space. The City recognizes that residents
in the Tree Section, Hill Section and Eastside use school grounds for recreational activities.
Within the General Plan, Open Space requirements require the provision and retention of private
landscaped areas to give the impression of public open space. The City should determine
whether public-private agreements might formalize these Open Spaces during development so
that they are considered part of an Open Space network. The only other actionable strategy for
Open Spaces focuses on protecting existing mature trees throughout the City and replacing them
with specimen trees whenever lost or removed.
Community Aesthetics - The General Plan points to the pride Manhattan Beach residents show in
the quality of the built environment. An aesthetic, well-kept Manhattan Beach is a principle.
The General Plan speaks to establishing and implementing consistent design standards for
aesthetics and includes the promotion of adopted design guidelines within the Downtown,
Sepulveda Boulevard and in other areas where guidelines apply. The Vitality City project team
should review these design guidelines for compatibility with livability principles.
Recommendation:
The community speaks to minimizing ugliness by using stealth design for telecommunications
antenna and related facilities; creating standards for public signage and City street signage; and
the beautification of streets through landscaping. Other issues such as garbage or debris
removal; crime prevention through environmental design; and storage are as important as
vegetation in terms of aesthetics. Aesthetic regulations can balance the burdens they impose on
property owners by showing the health and safety justifications that complement the regulation.
For instance, regulations on signage might speak to pedestrian scaled signage; maintaining sight
lines; travel lanes versus furniture lanes on sidewalks; in addition to the aesthetic they support.
Neighborhood Character & Economic Viability - The community provides the vision for each of the
neighborhoods identified earlier (Part I of the Land Use Element). Within these sections, the
following are stated as Goals:
Preserve the features of each community neighborhood, and develop solutions tailored to each
neighborhood’s unique characteristics.
Protect residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of inappropriate and incompatible uses.
Maintain the viability of the commercial areas of Manhattan Beach.
Recommendation:
The goals set forth by the City for neighborhood character and economic vitality could
be strengthened by defining context sensitive design and the vision neighborhood
residents have for maintaining place. Images specific to each neighborhood for what is
desired and what is not desired help in localizing street treatments, while maintaining a
sense of connectivity and continuity within the community. The City should include
images of what is prioritized and what is undesirable in their neighborhood section.
The Design Overlay District was established in 1991 by Ordinance 1382. The City should
determine whether these standards are still applicable and supportive of livability. The
document speaks to noise, incompatible uses and design standards that are meant to
limit commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. It would be interesting to learn how
“walk streets” have evolved since 1991.
The goals speak to supporting and encouraging small businesses; a diverse mix of
business to support the local tax base and that benefit residents; a variety of commercial
development types; and the need to balance the needs of commercial and residential uses
in mixed-use areas. Inclusion of livability, quality of life, active living and smart growth
could frame this discussion as opposed to the potential negative impacts of mixed uses
on residents. There is a fear of the impacts commercial uses might have on residential
neighborhoods, which may be exacerbated by commuter traffic currently flooding
residential neighborhoods.
The Circulation Element of Manhattan Beach recognizes that quality of life and livability are
impacted by infrastructure. It states:
Infrastructure forms the backbone of our community. Our streets connect our
neighborhoods, schools, business districts, and parks. The water storage and delivery
system and wastewater collection lines are critical to urban living. Storm drains protect
our properties from flooding. Electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications
facilities help us live in comfort. These systems all support the quality of life in
Manhattan Beach.
How will our infrastructure continue to contribute to and enhance the livability of our
community? As a community, we envision local streets as truly neighborhood streets,
with cut through automobile traffic and its associated noise in our neighborhoods
reduced. We look to increase parking opportunities in Downtown and the beach areas to
minimize parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. We see water used efficiently so
that demands today do not compromise the needs of tomorrow. We expect our storm
drain system to collect rainwater in a manner that reduces pollutant loads entering the
ocean and that addresses localized flooding concerns. We look for telecommunications
infrastructure to continue to be state-of-the-art, connecting us to the world around us.
As a community conscientious about the sustainability of our environment, we envision
Manhattan Beach continuing to function effectively and efficiently, providing all
infrastructure necessary to improve our lives and grow our economy.
In 2002, the City of Manhattan Beach completed a community survey in which the community
was asked to define the most significant issue in Manhattan Beach other than traffic and parking.
In response to this survey, residents overwhelming responded with traffic and parking as the
main concern. Residents were vocal in their unhappiness that significant traffic loads were
overflowing into adjoining neighborhood streets, causing noise, traffic, and safety impacts during
peak periods of the day.
Manhattan Beach recognizes that their local circulation is linked with the regional system.
Therefore, policies in their Circulation Element highlight Manhattan Beach’s continued need to
participate in regional programs to alleviate traffic congestion through capacity enhancements
and trip reduction.
In order to deal with traffic and congestion, the City identified two primary courses of action to
improve congestion:
1. Focused physical improvements for enhanced function of intersections, which function
as the control points in the circulation network.
2. Creative, technological solutions to improve mobility.
Unfortunately, examples of the proposed physical improvements listed in the General Plan focus
on street widenings, and do not speak to Complete Streets or encouraging active transportation.
The list includes:
Widening the bridge on Sepulveda Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine
Avenue
Widening of Rosecrans Avenue between Douglas Street and Aviation Boulevard
Widening of Aviation Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine Avenue
Intersection improvements at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard and
Marine Avenue/Sepulveda Boulevard
Intersection improvements at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Redondo Avenue
Safe Routes to School - Safe Routes to School are mentioned as a challenge. The Circulation Element
states:
One demographic group continually challenged to find public transit is school children.
When the State budget is unable to assist with school bus funding, the Manhattan Beach
Unified School District cannot bear the cost of providing bus service to its schools.
Traffic congestion around schools, particularly in the morning, creates not only delays
but safety risks to Manhattan Beach’s younger residents. Working cooperatively with
the District, the City may be able to find new ways to provide safe routes to school.
It is the WALC Institute’s understanding that the City has developed plans to implement Safe
Routes to School programs. This is good news. An example of a Safe Routes to School Report
can be found here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17132277/CasperWY_SafeRoutesToSchool_1_Report_FinalWithAppen
dix_WALC-Institute_2011-05_SmallFile.pdf.
Because the City recognizes that traffic and congestion impact quality of life and livability,
emphasis should be placed on encouraging active living and active transportation, with greater
integration of transit. The Circulation Element includes a section on Expanding Mobility
Options through:
Enhancing Transit Services
Incorporating Transportation Demand Management
Maintaining Truck Routes
Recommendation:
Greater emphasis on multi-modal transportation, Complete Streets policies and
educational/outreach campaigns to encourage active living are needed. The City does a nice
job of introducing existing conditions. Specific policy recommendations to relieve traffic and
congestion through active transportation and better integration of transit services are not
provided. An explanation of Level of Service as it applies to all modes is needed. Intersection
and roadway treatments other than widenings are not examined. If these widenings are to
provide pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities, this is not mentioned.
Municipal Code
The Municipal Code provides those regulations specific to pedestrians:
14.32.010 - Traffic engineer to establish marked crosswalks.
14.32.020 - When pedestrians must use crosswalks.
14.32.030 - Pedestrians to obey special pedestrian traffic signals.
14.32.040 - Pedestrians prohibited from standing on divisional island.
14.32.010 - Traffic engineer to establish marked crosswalks.
If the City chooses to implement pedestrian refuge islands, it may need to look at the wording of
the following ordinance and its intent:
14.32.040 - Pedestrians prohibited from standing on a divisional island. No
pedestrian shall stand on any divisional island as defined in Section 14.01.060 of this
Code, or delay their movement upon any divisional island longer than is necessary to
avoid conflict with traffic when entering or crossing a divided street or roadway.
Nothing in this section prevents a City employee or City contractor from being on a
divisional island for the purpose of carrying on construction or maintenance
activities.
Livability principles favor integration of modes, and the following Ordinances speak to
segregating the modes. Additionally, there is recognition that the bicycle path may become too
congested for cyclists:
14.28.130 - Beach bicycle path.
14.28.140 - Bicycle path hazard.
14.28.130 - Beach bicycle path.
Beach Bicycle Path: That facility designed, constructed and designated as the beach
bicycle path, including all ingress or egress ramps thereto, as shown on the map on file in
the City Engineer's office, shall be used exclusively for the riding or propelling of bicycles
by human power. The bicycle path shall not be used by pedestrians or animals of any
kind, except that pedestrians may cross the same at right angles in a manner so as not to
interfere with any bicycles on the bicycle path when necessary to do so to gain access to
or from the beach. (§ 1, Ord. 1351, eff. February 7, 1974)
Bicycle Path Hazard: Any Public Safety Officer (Police Officer, Lifeguard or Firefighter)
may declare that the number of pedestrians and bicyclists is sufficient so as to create an
undue hazard upon the bicycle path. When such conditions exist, a "Walk Only" zone
may be created to require the walking of bicycles in the designated area of the bicycle
path. When signs are erected declaring a "Walk Only" zone, it shall be unlawful for
anyone to ride a bicycle in the area designated by signs. (§ 1, Ord. 1801, eff. June 1, 1989)
Recommendation:
Consider integrating the modes by providing slow-moving lanes and fast-moving lanes on
the bicycle path. Knowing how the “Walk Only” zone is enforced on the bike path would
help in understanding mobility and accessibility concerns for all modes.
Walk Streets: “Walk streets” are not codified aside from design standards. so setting or
enforcing acceptable behaviors may be challenging. The definition within the Code is “A
dedicated public street which has been closed to vehicular traffic.” Whether this is
temporary or permanent, seasonal, or based on time of day is not specified.
The WALC Institute team acknowledges that the City of Manhattan Beach’s Community
Development Department created two guidance documents – “Construction and Landscaping on
Public Property” in 2004, and “Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook” in 2005 –
that may address certain recommendations in this report. The Institute team was introduced to these
documents toward the close of the livability project and thus, they weren’t reviewed as part of this
effort. They are referenced here as possible resource documents.
Transportation policy that supports livable communities calls for changing the way we approach
transportation to ensure our communities are desirable places to live, work and play. This vision
contrasts with current transportation trends, which focus narrowly on congestion and our
deteriorating transportation systems. A focus on livability assesses transportation projects based
on how they will improve quality of life and livability in communities.
Obstacles to achieving transportation policy that supports livable communities include:
Traditionally, Departments of Transportation and municipalities have focused on
programming standards that favor the single occupant automobile. Livability is not
included in the criteria. The impacts of transportation planning and land use decisions
on quality of life are absent from most planning documents.
Auto-oriented development patterns have changed the form of communities from
walkable, transit oriented, street grid systems to strip and single-family development
accessed by regional automobile corridors.
Communities have not focused on integrating transportation and land use planning to
protect rural resource lands from the impacts of development.
Livability requires context-sensitive design solutions that address the needs of rural,
urban and suburban areas. Communities must develop and localize those acceptable
street treatments that support livability.
Level of Service focuses mainly on vehicle mobility at the expense of all other modes.
Acceptable Levels of Service for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users are almost
never considered and the impact from vehicular traffic on other modes is often ignored.
A community’s General Plan memorializes the community’s desired development goals and
embodies public policy relative to present and future land use decisions. The General Plan serves
to:
Identify the community’s land use, circulation, environmental, economic and social
goals and policies as they relate to land use and development.
Provide a basis for local government decision-making, including decisions on
development approvals and exactions.
Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities.
Inform citizens, developers, decision-makers and other cities and counties of the ground
rules that guide development within a particular community.
All recommendations must fall in line with the vision set forth by the community in their guiding
document. Each of the beach cities has indicated concerns and reservations about the following:
Mixed-use development and its impacts on residential uses
Traffic and congestion, especially overflow commuter traffic in residential
neighborhoods
Parking and parking management
The community aesthetic and preserving their historic sense of place
Development as a potential threat to place-making
Conservation and protection of resources
Access to natural resources
Safe Routes to School
As we address these concerns over the course of the Vitality City project, there is an opportunity
to include livability, well-being and quality of life as guiding principles for each of the beach
cities. Transportation policies that support livable communities will provide the following
benefits to the beach communities:
Sustainable, cost-effective land use and transportation patterns.
Reduced infrastructure costs.
Localized transportation investments.
Transportation choices for children, teens, adults and senior citizens to encourage
healthier lifestyles and active living for life.
Protection of natural and cultural resources.
Opportunities for residents to interact to create a vibrant community.
Healthy people in healthy environments.
Resources
Many models exist in California that the beach cities can look to for sample language and
inspiration as they undertake efforts to update their General Plans and Municipal Code to be
more supportive of livability, health and well-being.
One wonderful resource is the Healthy Eating Active Living Cities Campaign, online at
www.healcitiescampaign.org. The Campaign’s website includes many links to examples of city
policies, land-use plans, general plans and other guiding documents from cities throughout
California that are becoming more supportive of active living.
For example, the Campaign’s page, “Healthy Zoning Regulations” includes links to city policies.
See:
http://healcitiescampaign.org/healthy_zone.html
The “General Plan Update” page includes links to Health Elements, General Plans and a Model
General Plan Policy that illustrate how communities can incorporate health and well-being into
their guiding documents. See:
http://healcitiescampaign.org/general_plan.html
Don’t delay in making
the changes that can
be made immediately.
For example, an
intersection may
require significant
work that takes more
than a year to install,
but repainting the
crosswalks with high-
emphasis markings can
be done in a matter of
weeks.
To improve well-being and to ensure that future development patterns support active living,
careful planning and execution are required. Immediate action is also needed, however, and
the beach cities are full of opportunities to make immediate improvements with tools as
simple as paint, in addition to infrastructure changes that can take between one and five
years to fully implement.
In addition to adopting the recommendations of
Vitality City and the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan, the beach cities should consider the
following recommendations that build upon the
previous section on policies. They are organized
as transformations that can be made on regional
and local corridors, as well as general guidance
for all beach cities streets.
Although some recommendations will require
studies, robust public processes and possibly
several years to fully implement, the effort can
begin now.
Don’t delay in making the changes that can be
made immediately. For example, certain
intersections may require significant
improvements such as adding a median that
takes more than a year to plan, fund and install,
but it is completely reasonable to expect to be
able to repaint the crossings with high-emphasis
markings within a matter of weeks.
Some residents may
at first express
concern. But
community members
can—and should—
adapt to slight
reductions in vehicle
speeds.
Consider the main
goal: to improve
well-being through
streets that support
walkability and
livability, making the
active way the easy
way.
This report encapsulates the WALC Institute team’s key findings and recommendations based
on the team members’ observations of existing conditions, interaction with the public during
workshops, interviews with stakeholders, design and training sessions with city staff and
knowledge of best practices from throughout the country acquired during more than 40 years of
combined work experience in active living, walkability, livability, civic engagement, education
and community outreach.
The recommendations of this report were developed with a goal of improving well-being in the
beach cities through changes to the built environment that will better support active living and
active transportation. Each of the recommendations represents a broad set of expectations that
traffic speeds should be brought under control in areas where walking, bicycling and active
living are to be encouraged. Through the mix of proposed treatments, vehicles will be slowed to
appropriate speeds in appropriate areas, people driving cars will be more likely to yield to people
on foot and all modes of transport will work better together. The urgency of this balance is
driven by the aging population that will in time be limited in their use of automobiles. When
factoring in aging and youth populations, the appropriate speed is about providing freedom for
all residents to travel throughout a community.
Many of these recommendations represent best
practices from throughout the country, including
many that are not conventional in their approach.
They will require flexibility and creativity on the part
of the government staff developing them and
considerable outreach to the people most affected by
the changes. As they are implemented, some residents
or business operators may at first express concern or
resistance. Bring them into the process and help them
understand the value of the effort. Be assured
throughout that these recommendations are based on
extensive knowledge of tools that are working in
other places in the country and even in Southern
California, and can work in the beach cities.
In some cases, commute times in vehicles will be
slightly longer, although usually by a matter of
seconds or mere minutes. But community members
can—and should—adapt to slight reductions in
vehicle speeds by leaving a minute or two earlier for
their combined trip, so that they are not late for work
and don’t feel compelled to drive fast near schools or
other places where people should be walking and
biking.
By adopting and implementing these recommendations, the beach cities will be joining hundreds
of communities throughout the country that concede a marginal reduction in roadway efficiency
in select places in exchange for livability and supporting children, beachgoers, seniors and others
who want or need to walk and bike for transport.
It won’t be only commuters who need to adjust. In fact, some of the recommendations will
require drivers of delivery trucks, buses, fire trucks and other machinery to adapt to the new road
designs. They will do so successfully and the combined system will work for all.
Consider the main goal of this effort: to improve well-being through streets that support
walkability and livability, making the active way the easy way. Envision the recommended
changes and you will see how they will help.
Most of the recommendations that follow can be implemented and on-the-ground within weeks
or months, not years. It is important to emphasize that the beach cities won’t in most cases be
the first to carry out many of these recommendations, and they can draw on other communities
for support and guidance. Be assured throughout that these recommendations are based on
extensive knowledge of tools that are working in other places in the country and even in
Southern California, and can work in the beach cities.
Currently, unlike Aviation and many of the east-west streets, all available right-of-way for the
Pacific Coast Highway is consumed by vehicle travel lanes and parking at certain times.
However, the WALC Institute team understands that two of the three beach cities are working
out a program to inherit this corridor from Caltrans. Once ownership is taken, it will be possible
to use the corridor to build value and help shape land use. The third city should work closely
with Caltrans and with the other two cities to make appropriate changes to the built form of
PCH in support of active living.
Pacific Coast Highway/Sepulveda is a major arterial with high traffic volumes that serves
multiple cities. Where it passes through the beach cities, it represents a great opportunity to
build their community through this transportation investment as opposed to dividing and
devaluing the land uses adjacent to it.
A realistic and appropriate goal would be to amend the roadway design to better accommodate
walking and biking, and to slow vehicle speeds while also keeping traffic moving. Such
transformations have been achieved on Wilshire Blvd. in Santa Monica in a relatively short
period of time. Traffic numbers and rights-of-way on Wilshire are similar to Pacific Coast
Highway, so Wilshire would be a good model to study.
Based upon the results of traffic studies and a strong vision for the area’s livability, consider
adding additional signalized intersections and setting "progression speeds" between 27 mph and
33 mph. In fact, the ideal speed in many sections likely is 30 mph. Most portions of the Pacific
Coast Highway have attached sidewalks and four to seven lanes for vehicle travel.
Mid-block crossings without medians
or other appropriate treatments create
multiple-threat exposure for
pedestrians. At a minimum, raised
median islands and pedestrian-
activated signals are needed for many
crossings, such as those found on
Sepulveda in Manhattan Beach. Mid-
block crossings are placed toward the
center of a block, away from the
turning conflicts found at
intersections. They are most often placed where "desire lines" between two important points are
found, such as near a beach, a park or civic building.
Due to the regional significance and high traffic volumes of this corridor, it likely will be best to
select a half-mile or one-mile section to create a model project. The city in which this occurs first
will need to be fully committed to the idea that they are building their community through a
transportation investment, instead of allowing a regional transportation corridor to determine
the character of their community. See the section above, “Needed: Flexibility, Creativity and
Courage.”
At the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian St. sits a neighborhood treasure—Eat at
Joe’s. Based on the volume of people observed throughout the day, this is a very popular site with
locals and visitors alike. The location is a great place to start a livability project: it’s located
within a neighborhood, near retail, near the city seat and along a stretch of road with high
visibility to passerby. Additionally, the owner of Eat at Joe’s is very interested in investing in
outdoor seating, and the leadership of Redondo Beach is interested in engineering treatments
that would turn this section of the corridor into a people-friendly place. Thus, the corner of
Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian has strong potential to become a true catalyst for similar
improvements all throughout the three beach cities.
Depending on studies to be done, the following key recommendations and phases should be
considered:
Year One
Repaint the vehicle travel lanes on Pacific Coast Highway to be narrower. This will help
slow vehicle speeds slightly and provide additional right-of-way for other uses, such as
providing more buffer between cars and people on foot. On Carnelian, consider removing
the center line altogether; many communities have found that vehicles slow down and
drivers operate in a more cautious manner when the center lines are removed. (See
appendix. How to Do It: Road Diets)
Install high-emphasis crosswalk markings. (See appendix. How to Do It: Crossings.)
Adjust crosswalk signals to recall to “WALK.” Set signal timing for the walk interval to
be as long as feasible during the green time in the concurrent vehicle phase. Unless push
buttons activate the signal on a recall demand, remove them.
Eliminate the right-turn-on-red from Carnelian onto Pacific Coast Highway. Doing so
better supports pedestrians.
Add head-out angled on-street parking and curb extensions on Carnelian. (See appendix.
How to Do It: Parking and How to Do It: Curb Extensions.)
“Green” the street with landscaping. Create art-on-the-corner projects at intersections
and provide informational kiosks or bulletin boards.
Develop and adopt policies that support outdoor seating for restaurants.
At Carnelian and Ave. N, install a mini-circle to enhance accessibility into and from the
neighborhood and to keep traffic in this residential area calm.
Year Two
Add curb extensions on all appropriate side streets.
Conduct a community redevelopment study with a radius of a quarter-mile or half-mile
from the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian to develop a reinvestment
strategy. Although the Pacific Coast Highway corridor has high traffic volume, it is still a
great candidate for a village reinvestment. (See appendix. How to Do It: Convert
Suburban Strips to Village Centers.)
Years Three to Five
Depending on the results of studies, convert the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway
and Carnelian to a modern roundabout with two lanes entering from each side of PCH
and single lanes entering from each side of Carnelian. Following the anticipated success
of this roundabout, study additional intersections and add others. (See appendix. How
to Do It: Traffic-Calming Roundabouts.)
Aviation Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. are heavily used by both commuters and visitors to
the beach cities, but they don’t adequately support active living. The cities can make the
following changes to create a more livable environment:
Adopt the recommendations of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan as they relate to
Aviation Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. In general, streets like these benefit from
restriping the road to allow five-foot bike lanes. The stripe should be wide and bold at
eight to 10 inches or more.
Place median crossing islands and rapid-flash beacon treatment near transit stops. Start
with one location on each roadway, as model projects, and over time increase the
number of these crossings.
Upgrade transit stops to be welcoming and comfortable.
Mark all intersections with high-emphasis crosswalks. These crosswalks should be at
least 12 feet deep.
Signal cycles should rest on “walk” and hold the walk phase as long as practicable.
Install countdown crossing signals as soon as equipment rotation permits.
Provide strong support of pedestrians
by adding a crosswalk and a crossing
island that reduces the amount of time
and distance over which pedestrians
are exposed to traffic, and allows them
to cross only a couple of lanes of traffic
at once. This image illustrates one
possible solution that seeks to
accommodate people from the
residential areas on the west side of the
street who want to access the transit
center and shopping amenities to the
north, on the east side of the street.
Depending on the results of an engineering study, this intersection might be a prime candidate
for a hybrid roundabout, with an extra leg coming in from the northbound lane of Prospect,
turning right onto Artesia. An approximate "shadow fit" is shown in the illustration. This assists
with a reduction of vehicles speeds on Prospect and Artesia.
Place high-emphasis crossings on all legs. Place stop lines on all legs. Northeast and southeast
intersections should be considered for raised “pork chop islands.” Move crossing islands to
locations where pedestrians do not have their back to traffic.
At the intersection of
Redondo Beach and
Hermosa Beach, where
The Strand trail merges
with Harbor Drive, there
is much confusion and
there are many conflict
points between cars,
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Additionally, The Strand
makes an awkward 90-
degree turn, which is
difficult for bicyclists to
maneuver through,
especially if pedestrians
are present. On Harbor
Drive, it isn’t clear to
bicyclists traveling north
on the east side of the
street how they should
cross to get to The Strand.
To alleviate this confusion,
reduce the number of
conflict points and create
better connectivity for the
trail through this area,
while also improving
livability along Harbor
Drive, the communities
should consider the
following:
Remove a section of the wall that separates The Strand from the adjacent parking lot and run
the trail along the west side of the lot.
Connect the trail to Harbor Drive via a new path through the city parking lot.
Add head-out angled parking and widen the sidewalks along Herondo St.
Consider replacing the signalized intersection at Harbor and Herondo with a roundabout.
Create a Class I bicycle facility on Harbor Dr.
Where possible, limit or eliminate driveway entries on Harbor Dr.
Running along each side of the Greenbelt through Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, these
two streets would be ideal for both walking and bicycling if vehicle speeds were kept reasonable
and if many of the stop controls were removed. Constant starting and stopping along this
corridor makes drivers want to speed between stops. It also makes bicycling inefficient and
uncomfortable. In fact, during the WALC Institute’s site visits, a radar gun found cars traveling
at 35 mph, which is unacceptable on these narrow residential streets.
Mini traffic circles can bring down vehicle speeds and allow a smooth and efficient blending of
bicycling, driving and walking. Residents would find it safer and easier to get into and out of
driveways.
Due to the very narrow right-of-way and the strong desire for this corridor to support people
walking and biking, one-way couplets could be a good solution here. The communities should
consider removing one vehicle travel lane and making each segment one-way, as exists in
Manhattan Beach, for the sections of Valley and Ardmore that bound the Greenbelt. Removing a
vehicle lane would allow the addition of a bike lane. The bike lane would be placed between the
vehicle travel lane and the on-street parking. Care would need to be taken to ensure conflict
points are properly managed at the mini circles.
These changes would help to calm traffic and make it easier and safer to park and un-park, to get
in and out of driveways, and to make entries from side roads. Public safety members also believe
that creating a one way corridor could allow faster response times for fire services, when PCH is
congested. Due to fire truck sizes, at this time there is not an alternate route for a large truck
heading to a fire in Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach.
It is important to note that for some motorists, the one-way couplets would add slightly to their
drive times. In particular, one area of concern raised is along Valley and Ardmore from
Gould/Artesia to Pier. As noted in the section, “Needed: Flexibility, Creativity and Courage,” in
some cases commute times will be slightly longer, but community members should consider the
goal: to improve well-being through streets that support walkability and livability, making the
active way the easy way. Additionally, strong civic engagement should be achieved to build
capacity and support for such a change.
Along this corridor, an area for creative thinking is at Hermosa Valley Elementary School, to help
alleviate confusion during drop-off and pick-up periods. An additional Safe Routes to School
effort could be undertaken to clarify how to approach drop-off and pick-up in this area if the
streets become one-way couplets. This could become a model project for the broader community.
Roundabouts can
reduce injury crashes
by 76 percent and
reduce fatal crashes
by 90 percent.
See the section, “Key
Tools and Terms for
a Better Built Form,”
and the appendix for
more details.
North and South Catalina lack adequate pedestrian
crossings. Travel lanes are wider than necessary in
many locations, and could be narrowed to widen bike
lanes. Catalina parallels the Pacific Coast Highway, and
major portions appear to be good candidates for road
diets. Road diets help calm traffic, keep vehicle speeds
down, simplify crossings, improve sight lines and
improve signal efficiency, all while increasing support
for active modes of travel such as biking and walking.
In order for a road diet strategy to work fully, however,
it would be important to consider roundabouts or
mini-circles at several key intersections, such as Topaz,
Sapphire and Knob Hill, and avenues B, D, E, G and I.
Roundabouts can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent
and reduce fatal crashes by 90 percent. (See the section,
“Key Tools and Terms for a Better Built Form,” on page
21 and the Best Practices section of the appendix for more details.)
A continuous median could also be placed, helping green the area and directing motorists
seeking access to the opposite side of the road to travel to the next mini-circle.
In the image below, which is not to scale, the bike lanes and parking lanes are each nine feet
wide, leaving about ten feet for the median.
In addition to the specific recommendations above, the WALC Institute suggests the beach cities
consider the following guidelines. Some of these already are being applied at many intersections
in the beach cities, but they should be applied to the extent possible in all locations in the beach
cities:
Set walk signals for crossing minor streets to always default to or begin with “WALK.”
In addition, set signal timing so that the walk interval is as long as feasible for the green
time in the concurrent vehicle phase. In areas where pedestrians should be fully
supported, remove push button controls and allow the signal to default to the “WALK”
phase. Generally, strive to recall signals on a frequent basis to minimize wait times for
pedestrians. Full cycle lengths of 60 to 90 seconds are best. In people-rich areas, note
that seniors, who need the most time, may be the last to leave the curb, and that it may
take three to five seconds for them to get into the street.
Use countdown signals on a soft replacement basis when other changes are budgeted
and implemented. Start with high priority walking locations, such as near and around
schools, important transit stops, plazas, parks, medical centers, senior centers and town
centers.
Consider eliminating Right-Turn-On-Red if motorists aren’t showing the appropriate
level of caution for the area.
Consider adopting Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) to step pedestrians out first, when
there are high pedestrian counts or when problems with turning motorists or other
conditions warrant this phase. The interval is typically three to six seconds. Use
enhanced crosswalk markings and bold stop bars to better identify crossings and to
keep motorists out of crossing areas.
Evaluate or audit all crosswalks. Repaint
and increase visibility of crosswalks. Start
this process in each downtown and near
schools.
Place “yield paddles” at non-signalized
crosswalks without adequate signage
where pedestrian crossing volumes are
high or should be. Plan on replacing these
paddles every other month initially.
See the Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies’ report,
“Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Unsignalized Crossings” for more
information:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchr
p/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf
Identify sidewalk gaps, especially near schools, major transit stops and large parks and prioritize
their construction. Sidewalks are needed to support children walking to school, in and around all
senior centers and as approaches to all retail centers, transit stops and parks or plazas. Highest-
priority sidewalks should include filling gaps along principal roadways (arterials and collectors).
Identify locations for bike lanes and restripe these roadways. The regional bike master plan
which is underway will identify those areas most important for bike travel.
Attractive, functional bike racks should be provided at all destinations. An excellent model
location is at the beach cities Health District. Bike storage can also include indoor parking, bike
lockers or sheltered parking. Locate bike parking where there are many “eyes” on the bikes to
reduce theft. The WALC Institute team understands that Manhattan Beach recently installed 39
new bike racks throughout the community; such efforts should be celebrated and continued.
Provide attractive seating, benches, ledges and even garbage cans throughout each town center
and other popular walking locations in neighborhoods. Avoid use of commercial ad seating,
when possible; sponsor memorial benches and seats and other innovations for seating.
An abundance of stop signs makes bicycling
difficult. Especially in hilly areas, some
bicyclists will treat stop signs as yields in order
to maintain their momentum. In fact, to
accommodate bicyclists’ unique needs, the
state of Idaho has adopted a stop-as-yield law
that allows cyclists to proceed through a sign-
controlled intersection without stopping.
Other solutions that may be more viable in the
beach cities and don’t require changing a law:
(1) change stop signs where appropriate, such
as those along trails, to require vehicles—
instead of people walking or biking—to stop,
and (2) install mini circles where feasible
throughout the cities, but especially along
portions of Prospect, Valley-Ardmore and east-
west routes like Manhattan Beach Blvd. and
Marine Ave. This will bring traffic on
neighborhood streets to safer speeds while
letting bicyclists and motorists stay in motion.
Oversized roads are a major problem in each of the beach cities. Efforts are needed to reduce the
size, scale and complexity of intersections. Most principle roads have speeds much higher than
are safe or comfortable for walking and bicycling. Use bike lanes, tree plantings and other visual
and actual narrowing of through lanes to bring speeds back down to desired levels. This
recommendation is listed as a potential “immediate gain” because a road diet can sometimes be
achieved simply by moving the paint striping of the vehicle travel lanes to make them narrower.
The beach cities each should
develop comprehensive
wayfinding programs that help
people who live in, shop in or
visit the area find ease in
navigation. Wayfinding signs
also establish the character and
charm of the town. Once the
plans and designs are developed,
the effort can be aided by local
industrial schools or others that
can manufacture signs. At a
minimum, priorities for
wayfinding should include all
areas near civic centers, popular
or desired approaches to the
Greenbelt, beach areas, prime commercial districts, transit centers and historic or scenic areas.
Start an “active transportation” work day. Encourage all public servants, employees and elected
leaders to park their car for a full day and to use feet and wheels to commute, conduct errands
and get to all their daily needs. This process will help focus attention on how to emphasize
healthy transportation. Events such as active transportation work days create positive publicity
for the movement toward walkability, livability and improved well-being.
Start "bicycle cafes” where the cities, the county, bike shops or other specialists provide free bike
repairs, a bicycling clinic and otherwise support biking as a lifestyle.
When projects are completed and the new facility or amenity is ready for public use, celebrate
the success. Hold a ribbon cutting, post an announcement online, issue a news release or utilize
whatever channel is available to broadly disseminate the importance and value of the
improvement. This helps not only publicize that the amenity is now available, but it also can be
an important way to educate people about how to use it (for example, a roundabout) and it helps
engender support for future projects.
Look for early opportunities to complete missing street connections other than those specifically
identified in this report. With the energy of the Vitality City project, it is likely that some
unusual partnering for “missing link” streets can be agreed upon and built. For example, just
south and west of the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Diamond St. in Redondo Beach—just
south of the beach cities Health District—Diamond St. dead-ends into a fenced-off trail and then
opens up again one-tenth of a mile northeast as Flagler Lane. Completing street connections such
as this one would provide better access between the adjacent neighborhood, the high school, the
nearby sports complexes and parks, and services in the area including the Health District.
The beach cities have an opportunity to capitalize on Vitality City’s efforts to work toward
getting even more employers to support and promote active commuting. For example, the cities
can create incentives for employers of a certain size—say, with 10 or more employees—to get at
least 40 percent of workers to no longer drive to work on a regular basis. The South Coast Air
Quality Management District could be a good additional partner in such an effort.
To encourage active commuting, employers—including the cities themselves—need to provide
showers as part of building renovations. Employers with 25 or more employees can be
encouraged to build this into future building leases as a requirement. Each of the beach cities
should study code language adopted in Palo Alto, California for replacement of parking
requirements through alternatives that include quality bike parking.
Where they don’t already exist, start cops-on-bikes programs and bicycle rescue teams. The
WALC Institute team saw several law enforcement officers on bikes and on foot during the site
visits, but not nearly as many as one should expect for a beach context. Expand existing
programs to give residents and visitors as strong sense of police surveillance and more direct
engagement and involvement. Having officers and EMS “on the ground” also puts them in a good
position to report needed maintenance or improvements to the public works departments.
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Healthy Building Placement
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Livable Schools
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Regional Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Local Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Best Practices
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
a
Most land-use codes were written at a time when U.S.
cities had an abundance of land, water, clean air and
other resources. We assumed continued availability
of these resources, as well as financing, which led
communities to construct poorly connected and
outwardly expanding light-density development, street
networks and other inefficient infrastructure. As a result,
land uses were separated – sometimes by miles – and
urban areas were allowed to decay.
Today, we have a better understanding of the limitations
of our available resources. Roads, bridges, sewers and
water lines that are now failing, need to be replaced
or refurbished. Doing so will be two to eight times
more expensive than if we had stayed current with
maintenance.
As we make “brick and mortar” changes to the physical
infrastructure, we also should update the policy
infrastructure, including land-use codes, to foster more
livable, walkable communities. Existing codes promote
poor connectivity, which leads to higher dependence
on cars – and even greater strain on infrastructure.
Facing high gas and energy costs, residents are ready
for change. But it will require more than Band-Aid
solutions. Metaphorically speaking, we’re talking surgery
and radical changes to get our towns back to good
health.
Toward Change: Mix Uses and Connect Streets
Walkable and livable communities can’t develop without
transit, dense development, mixed land uses and
strong street connectivity. Most existing codes do not
tolerate - let alone encourage - such forward-thinking
development. Instead, codes have generated misplaced
development, forcing residents to get into their cars
and leave their neighborhoods to access basic services.
Progressive developers, planning board members,
architects and others have seen the need to embrace
a better system, one that promotes sustainability, eco-
friendly practices, walkability and transit-friendly design.
Unfortunately, their efforts have been slowed by
outdated code and regulations. A number of cities
throughout the country have even drafted visionary
plans. However, too often these plans are relegated to
How to Do It: Codes to Create Traditional,
Walkable Communities
back shelves as leaders and planners grapple with code-
related challenges. The question is: How can we shape
codes to encourage better development? The first step
is to develop a process that is inclusive, comprehensive
and clear.
1. Fully engage all stakeholders to develop a vision.
Enlist both the general public and the development
community in the process of creating new code that
supports smart, complete and predictable standards
for development. Include stakeholders with differing
opinions to help create a vision that is holistic, practical
and collaborative. Broad support will provide the
necessary political shield for leaders to write, adopt and
enforce new codes that promote sustainability, green
design, active living and livable communities.
2. Understand that many factors affect the built
environment. New proposals should address all of the
factors that can influence design standards, not just
the obvious ones. For example, tenant expectations
shouldn’t be an afterthought.
Engage in Vitality City: The communities of Hermosa
Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have a
unique opportunity to improve livability with the help of
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City. The cities should
utilize resources made available to them to engage stake-
holders and develop community vision plans where they
don’t already exist.
Beach CitiesBlueprint for 2011
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONESvitality City®
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONES
vitality City
presented by Beach Cities Health District
March 22, 2011
b
3. Create a master plan that clearly communicates the
development expectations. Standards that are clear,
concise and predictable are more likely to be accepted
and to succeed. In fact, predictability is the developer’s
friend. Standards must be highly graphical and easy to
understand for both builders and regulators. Programs
should be reviewed and evaluated yearly, and amended as
appropriate.
Seek Examples of Success
A municipality doesn’t need to change its entire book of
codes overnight. In fact, it’s probably smarter to make
changes incrementally.
For example, the central Florida city of Eustis, like
many small towns, has taken the time during this
latest market lull to “right the ship.” While reviewing
the city’s land-development regulations, city leaders
recognized the need for a downtown vision and began a
concurrent vision plan driven by the public. They have
found a common language in creating walkable streets,
balancing automobiles with pedestrians and alternative
modes of transport, and melding land-use decisions
with transportation goals. They have adopted new
form-based codes with district design standards, block
developments, typical streetscapes and a vision plan to
focus future development.
When the market recovers, Eustis will be prepared to
receive development as part of a community vision that
will result in a more sustainable, vibrant and livable city.
It is admirable that so many communities throughout the
country want to promote walkable, livable communities.
The next step is for governments, residents, developers
and planners to work together to make this a reality. It’s
time to throw out archaic codes and create new rules
that foster smarter - and healthier - growth.
Over time, buildings in town centers should front the streets, such as these retail shops in Hermosa Beach, CA. New buildings, or adapted buildings, can provide important added presence of people in the downtown.
c
Roundabouts facilitate through-traffic and turning
movements without requiring signal control. Roundabouts
are made up of a circulating roadway with an island
that is often used for landscaping or other decorative
features. The circulating roadway is typically wider than
the approach roadways and features an additional ‘apron’
against the edges of the island; both of these features
allow for fire trucks, ambulances and other large vehicles.
Roundabouts increase intersection volume by up to 30
percent. As the only requirement for yielding the right-
of-way is to traffic already in the circulating roadway,
vehicles can continue moving through intersections
carrying a light volume,
requiring no queue at the
approach roadways and
potentially allowing all
intersecting streets to use
the intersection at once.
Due to their low speed
and the reduced points
of potential conflict,
roundabouts also can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent
and fatal crashes by 90 percent. See the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety’s website: www.iihs.org/research/
topics/roundabouts.html.
How to Do It: Traffic-Calming Roundabouts
Roundabouts reduce delay, which reduces idling engines,
air pollution, noise and lost time. Roundabouts provide
safer and more comfortable pedestrian crossings.
Splitter islands serve as a pedestrian refuge. Allowing
one car length between the crossing and circulating
lane(s) optimizes roundabout efficiency for vehicles.
Roundabouts reduce conflicts in multiple ways: when
crossing, pedestrians face only one potential conflict
(traffic either entering or exiting the roundabout, divided
by the splitter island), and not the six conflicts per crossing
leg in full-crossing intersections. In properly designed
roundabouts, all conflicts are at low speeds for both
entering and exiting traffic. Roundabouts also create the
least delay to pedestrians wishing to cross a street. Instead
of waiting for up to two minutes to cross (common with
a signal), the pedestrian reaching a roundabout rarely has
more than a two- to eight-second delay for each leg that
they cross. Most bicyclists circulate easily with traffic,
since traffic is now going their speed.
For more information about roundabouts, see the Federal
Highway Administration’s educational video about
roundabouts, at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/
roundabouts/fhwasa10023/wmv_cc_final/10-2124_
Roundabouts.wmv.
Due to their low speed and the reduced points of potential conflict, roundabouts can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent and fatal crashes by 90 percent.
d
By helping re-scale a roadway, roundabouts help set
the stage for more successful retail trade and social life.
The roundabout below transformed an ugly strip street
in Golden, Colorado, into a much better proportioned
street. Four roundabouts were built; all signals were
removed. One surprising result: retail trade in the
corridor outperformed all other streets in Colorado
during the last recession.
Top photo, Holland, Michigan.
Bottom photo, Orlando, Florida. Both mini-circles
manage traffic quietly, maximize on street parking by
bringing speeds down, and offer attractive corners in
the commercial districts they occupy. A mini-circle or
two on key streets on gateway approaches to town, in
downtowns and other locations will add charm, beauty
and movement. Mini-circles are low cost and attractive
traffic management tools that can be easily designed
and installed. Although costs can be as low as $15-25k,
much more attractive circles are recommended for a
number of historic roads where speeds are too high.
A cost range of $75-125k would be appropriate for
central locations, while modest price circles can be used
elsewhere in the community. Mini-circles reduce the
potential for crashes by 90%. Yield controls are used
on all approaches. Seattle, Washington has placed over
1,000 mini-circles.
e
The addition of street network and roundabouts help
to keep traffic flowing, but keep it flowing slowly, which
creates a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
In some areas, roundabouts should have right-turn
bypass lanes, as illustrated below.
Roundabouts with Right-Turn Bypass Lanes
The top images are of a roundabout in Boulder, CO
and the bottom image is of a roundabout leading to the
Charlottesville, VA airport.
f
Communities can draw inspiration from Bradenton
Beach, Florida, where this state road previously exposed
pedestrians to high speeds at this crossing. On average,
one pedestrian was killed each year. Walking for exercise,
pleasure or transportation was suppressed. Following the
construction of the roundabout, all crashes disappeared,
and a new stage was set for mixed use development
After
Before
Success Story: Roundabouts and Crossings
After 14 years of operation, there had been no reported
crashes of any type. New economic life has set a mood
of prosperity to the entire shopping district. Today, there
is an abundance of pedestrian life.
g
Crossings should be located where there is a strong
desire to cross, where sight distances are good and
where vehicle speeds are low or can be lowered through
design and treatments. Shown on these pages, the use
of materials to create attractive streetscape features add
beauty, function and place. Each functional part (i.e.
parking, crossings, curb extensions, lane narrowing)
should be designed to add to effectiveness of the
crossing. Properly designed, crossings will “read”
How to Do It: Crossings
correctly, sending messages to drivers as they approach
that they are to slow down and that pedestrians should
be expected. For more information on the safety
impacts of crossings, see the Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies’ report, “Improving
Pedestrian Safety and Unsignalized Crossings,” available
online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
h
Use high-emphasis markings. A new approach is being used with paving ground down about 1/3rd of an inch. A
hot ceramic mix is poured in, then reflective glass beads are settled on top. This anti-slip design is expected to wear
well and outlast the life of the road surface. If desired, crossings can also be raised. This raised table has a 1:16
gradient change.
This Golden, Colorado crossing makes use of several important principles, the street is narrowed (to sixteen feet of
asphalt, with another 2 feet in each valley gutter).Growth of ground cover (keep trimmed to 20-28 inches) and tall
vertical trees, in time, will complete this crossing. This road was once 40 feet wide. Today parents feel comfortable
having their children make crossings along a popular park and trail.
i
Tools used to slow traffic and help people cross
streets.
If space exists where some crossings will be warranted,
then a median island can be added. This is a former
four-lane road, in Olympia, Washington. With medians,
pedestrians are only exposed to one direction of moving
traffic at a time. Medians should have both ground cover
and trees to make them more noticeable to motorists
from greater distances. Use of these features slows
speed, then draws attention to the crossing.
j
Additional tools can be used to aid
pedestrians in crossing streets safely.
Curb extensions reduce crossing
distances. Landscaping helps
channel pedestrians to ramps. Using
two ramps per corner simplifies
crossings. Color contrast is an aid
for older pedestrians and pedestrians
with visual problems. Count down
timers are now recommended as a
soft replacement for all urban area
signalized crossings.
k
The conversion of a strip to a village
center starts with taking critical corners
and placing urban buildings there.
These new buildings help size and
shape the importance of the corner
and the corridor. In time, well placed
buildings are joined together to create
vertical walls that provide character
and community. This works in small
scale hamlets to larger scale shopping
districts. Illustrations here show how the
new visual qualities help dampen traffic
speeds. Buildings start the critical process
of “enclosing” streets, giving them a feel
of “place” and importance. The two
photos below illustrate the importance
of architecture and town form in
controlling the speed of roadways.
There is little more than engineers can
do in the bottom image to control
speed. Meanwhile, careful, thoughtful,
placement of buildings and placemaking
brings speeds, and therefore development
opportunities alive.
Shown to the right is a correctly as-
sembled urban block, and below it a
conventional suburban block. Note
how the suburban strip image is
unappealing for walking (or even driv-
ing), and hastens motorists through a
space. This increases the potential for
speeding. Thus, poorly designed build-
ings and block patterns impact busi-
ness life and people multiple ways.
Correctly designed and placed ur-
ban form is necessary to help heal
downtowns or other places where
people are to spend time and money.
Unless code calls for an urban form,
do not expect such development. It
costs more, but it produces more.
Urban mixed-use development typi-
cally yields $25-60/square foot, while
single-use commercial zoning built to
suburban models yields only $5-15/
square foot.
How to Do It: Convert Suburban Strips to Village Centers
l
Suburban influences in town
centers can be replaced over time.
A partnership between private and
public land holders can result in
scenes that look much like these,
and even better.
Public streets form and frame so
much of our public realm that by
emphasizing speed of cars, we
destroy character and sense of
community. Once streets are rebuilt
for lower, but steady, speeds, it is
possible to provide new, mixed use
buildings that create a sense of
place, character and arrival.
As these transitions occur land can
increase in value from $5-15/sq
ft to $35-60/ sq ft. Scene to the
right: In time either the entire mall
can be replaced, or a portion in the
middle can be taken down to create
an attractive pathway that invites a
direct route to street shops.
m
The illustration to the right emphasizes those streets
(outlined in red) that are “A” Streets. “B” Streets in the
illustration are not highlighted with red. These can be
alleys, or any type of a utility street.
In the two photos at the bottom of the page, it is clear
that two developers were involved. To the right, the
developer privatized the neighborhood. Even though
the developer was required to install sidewalks, the wall
(“B” treatment) assures that no one will walk here. In
contrast, across the street, another developer “honored
the street” by placing “eyes” to the street. In this case
the street is being treated as an “A” street. Town codes
must stress that if people are to walk to destinations,
a series of “A” streets must be created, and developers
cannot put back yards to these important streets.
Of course, it is more complicated than that. If the
city, or state wants to use the collector as a higher speed
conduit, void of trees and other place, developers will
find it hard to sell homes along the street. The street
is the core tool for creating successful neighborhoods,
security and a desire to walk.
How to Do It: From Placeless to Place, Convert “B” Streets to “A”
n
In the photograph above, the functional use of a street is defined. Places where people want to walk are “A” streets (where buildings are designed to watch over the street. Meanwhile a series of “B” streets are needed to provide for utilities, deliveries and other internal functions. For the most part, people will not walk along “B” corridors.
Meanwhile, the above “B” street performs quite well for people who live here or make deliveries here. In the next row of images, a street not designed for walking (middle left) can be transformed into an “A” street which watches over parks, schools or corridors where continuous walking trips are important.
Right and above photos: This suburban style “B” street is transformed into the image below, changing the function of the street into an “A” category. In recent years, teams of planners, engineers, architects and landscape architects have made transitions allowing areas to become alive and active. It often takes more than one discipline to do this. Indeed, those areas that do not transform well are areas where people do not understood multiple functions needed in corridors.
o
Optimizing Your View and Increasing Social Interaction and Social Equity
When terminating views guide the human eye down
a street, several important things happen. The iconic
building, mountain or lake vista provides an attraction
that draws the person toward the destination, just as an
anchor store does in a mall. The terminal point also
reduces the tendency to speed, since motorists realize
their journey will be interrupted. The terminating vista
also acts as a navigational aid.
To maximize the value of land, the destination property
(park, lake, plaza) should have a well designed, quiet and
attractive street running parallel to it. The more sides
that have access, the more valuable the land becomes.
Other streets need to lead up to this perimeter street
and connect with it. In some cases, a well designed trail
acts as the “street” enabling people to walk or bicycle
comfortably along the water’s edge. In no case should
a stream, river, lake, park or even school yard feel
privatized through absence of access.
In these illustrations, the red lines rep-resent the edges of adjacent proper-ties that have access to the amenity.
On top, connected streets provide the highest access to the amenity, support social exchange, reduce crime rates, and increase land values.
Below, disconnected streets privatize the amenity, decrease walking, and increase potential for property and personal crime.
p
Privatized -- Wrong Way. The above layout of streets
privatizes the lake. Although homes along the shoreline
may hold a 10% higher sale and resale value, the amenity,
which should belong to the entire community, is now inac-
cessible to others. Even if a small beach front is acces-
sible at some point, the overall value of homes going 2 to
10 blocks deep are devalued. The developer makes less
money on total property values, and the community suf-
fers from reduced social interaction.
Public Access -- Right Way. This alternative design maxi-
mizes access to the neighborhood feature (lake, park,
school). As access is increased, the number of walking and
bicycling trips increase, there is less need for expensive and
environmentally damaging parking lots, and the develop-
ment community makes a greater return on investment. In
the scene to the left, the project may not “pencil out” once
all associated utilities, street and other costs are worked
out. With higher values, the project is more likely to be
viable.
Right Way. This design maximizes connectivity and access
to the park, square or plaza. By placing more activity along
the park (walking, bicycling and driving) the park becomes
more interactive and better used. Ideally, all streets sur-
rounding the park will have either parallel or angled park-
ing, thus minimizing the amount of park land that must be
devoted to parking. This also lightens the environmental
damage, since on-street parking takes up only 1/3rd the
amount of space as off-street parking.
Wrong Way. Streets do not connect on the left hand side.
The above layout of streets breaks street connectivity and
privatizes the park. This reduces access to the park. In a
small park, this gives the park user the feeling that they are
in someone’s yard. Since the property often has its back to
the park, it reduces the “eyes” on the park and creates an
increasing risk that the park will not be used fully. Reduced
park use, in turn, invites crime in the park and to adjacent
property owners. Low park use also reduces property val-
ues.
q
Major streets with moderate to high volumes of
traffic should be transformed into “Complete Streets.”
Bike lanes, bike trails, sidewalks, streetscaping, curb
extensions, mid-block crossings and other tools are
applied.
Traffic calming and traffic management techniques
should be used. On-street parking can be striped, and
curb extensions, tree wells and medians can be added.
Such improvements not only bring down speeds, they
improve town centers and connect streets by reducing
noise and perceived danger.
Most principal streets should have lanes narrower than
today, especially when combined with bike lanes. Bike
lanes add a buffer to parking and sidewalks.
Sidewalk construction and maintenance should be a
priority, especially within a quarter-mile or half-mile of
town centers and schools.
Ramps should comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and “universal design” standards.
Above and below: Example of a two-lane road with a me-dian, inset parking, one ten foot wide lane in each direction and bike lanes. A roadway based on these concepts can move up to 20,000 ADT (if used with roundabouts at key intersections). If roundabouts are not used, more lanes are added at intersections for storage and turns at key inter-sections -- not the entire section.
(Photo: Issaquah Highlands, Issaquah, Washington)
How to Do It: Complete Streets
r
Complete Streets vary in design based on the type of street involved, speed and volume, block form, whether
parking is needed or not, climate, demographics and other factors. These sections illustrate a number of desired
features, including support for walking and bicycling along streets, and the ability to cross over. Trees are generally
spaced each 15 to 30 feet. Minimum dimensions for an environmentally friendly street are provided in the bottom
illustration. A center turn storage lane of ten feet, two travel lanes of ten feet each, two five foot bike lanes (using
an extended gutter pan that is saw cut for joints, two planter strips of 5 feet each and two sidewalks of five feet each
can fit inside a 60 foot right-of-way.
s
How to Do It: Road Diets
WHO
Typically implemented by city, county or state
transportation agencies, road diets help achieve the
policies advocated for by Complete Streets (www.
completestreets.org), Smart Growth America (www.
smartgrowthamerica.org), and many other national, state
and local groups seeking a safer, more walkable and
livable community for road users of all ages and abilities.
WHAT
A road diet involves eliminating travel lanes on a
roadway to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
While there can be more than four travel lanes before
treatment, road diets are generally conversions of
four-lane, undivided roads into three lanes—two
through lanes plus a center turn lane or median island.
The fourth lane may be converted into a bicycle lane,
sidewalk, planter strip for street trees, a bus stop, a
separated multi-use trail, a wider outside lane and/or for
on-street parking. Rural areas might add wider shoulders
for bicyclists, roundabouts near a town – especially as
a gateway treatment - or separated multi-use trails. In
other words, based on the surrounding land use and
travel speeds or context of the road, the street cross
section is reallocated.
WHERE
Lane and Road Diets can be successfully implemented
on collector and arterial streets, main streets, commercial
corridors, or town centers; on any street that is over-
designed to give priority to the motor vehicle; and in
areas where there is greater need to provide for multi-
modal travel.
WHEN
Context is the key to a successful lane or road diet,
Complete Streets, and Smart Growth. The objective
of any design change should be to match the roadway
environment with the actual roadway function.
Candidate roads will usually have an ADT (Average
Daily Trips) of less than 20,000 to ensure minimal
effects on vehicle capacity, although successful road diets
have been performed with volumes reaching 30,000
ADT and the roadway did not reach the most congested
condition of LOS F (a level-of-service failing grade.)
Ideal roads are in need of mitigation to reduce traffic
conflict, crashes, and to slow down vehicles, and are in
areas that wish to encourage economic development,
address parking circulation, improve streetscapes, and
create safer roads.
WHY
The benefits of road diets are numerous: they improve
road safety for users of all ages and abilities, whether
they travel by foot, wheelchair, bicycle, stroller, or motor
vehicle; create a welcoming community environment;
and help to solve some of our more pressing public
health issues such as reducing obesity, and rates of
heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure by
encouraging active living. Other benefits can include:
economic development, increased property values,
improved streetscape, better parking circulation, reduced
vehicle speeds, improved mobility and more efficient
land uses - mixed uses that offer affordable housing,
retail, restaurant, and/or office options.
Anecdotal case study results support the conclusion
that pedestrians, bicyclists, and adjacent landowners
typically prefer the corridor environment of a road diet,
especially a two-lane cross section with median islands.
When people are the priority, a true livable community
and sense of place exist.
t
HOW
Conduct a traffic study, and before/after traffic counts of all road users; understand the limitations of traffic
modeling; consider special bus designs such as bus pull-outs. Engage the community, educating residents and
local leaders on why lane/road diets are a good idea. Survey affected merchants and residents along the corridor
to learn what the expectations and objections of a road diet might be. Garner local political support from elected
leaders, leverage financial resources from various sources. Funding for road diets can often come from economic
development programs, state and local transportation departments, regional metropolitan transportation planning
organizations, state and county health departments, main street programs, tree planting or green-up programs.
There are many funding sources that can be explored to create significant change.
Many American towns have the potential to go from having too many lanes for storing cars, to fewer lanes which then build place and the local economy. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, Pacific Ave. in Santa Cruz, CA was rebuilt to the scene be-low. Now with narrower street widths and a sense of place, the street teems with life and vitality and generates revenue.
u
The retail life of a town center is supported best by
having sufficient on-street parking. Many towns fail to
use their streets wisely. They induce speeding by having
too much space for vehicular flow, and not enough for
car storage.
On-street parking only takes one third as much land as
off street parking. On-street parking belongs on center
city streets, serving as a buffer to moving cars and a
natural traffic calming tool. When used in conjunction
with curb extensions (bump outs) and tree wells, parking
is said to be inset, narrowing streets, making pedestrian
crossings easier, more comfortable and safe.
In time, to achieve compact town center form, where
more people can live and help activate the town center,
it will be necessary to move away from most off-street
parking. Once a full and vibrant retail life is achieved,
each parking space becomes worth $200,000 per year.
Thus, attention to using town center streets to maximize
convenient parking, is urgent and paramount.
If head-out angled parking is used, which is highly
How to Do It: Parking
recommended, the entire curb to curb dimension can
be 54-56’. When head-out angled parking is used, lane
widths can be much narrower, since back out “discovery
time” is not needed. Also, the back end of vehicles have
more overhang, so less space is used.
Parking bay depths should be 15 feet. An added two
foot of space is picked up when valley gutters are used
(highly recommended). See valley gutter in photos.
Keep travel lanes to a combined with of 20-22 feet. A
center line is not used. This tight driving space helps
keep speeds low, which reduces the chance of vehicle
crashes.
v
There are multiple benefits to head-out angled parking.
It is the safest way to park a vehicle and it increases the
amount of on-street parking that can be made available.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking can increase
the number of parking spaces that will fit on a street by
30 to 110 percent over parallel parking. Also, head-out
angled parking reduces the amount of off-street parking
- and related infrastructure needed. In fact, it can take up
as little as one-third of the space of off-street parking.
Head-out angled parking is easier to do than parallel
parking because the driver essentially is only making
the first maneuver of parallel parking -- the backing-
in maneuver. Once in the space, the driver has many
benefits over parallel or front-IN parking.
For example, when in a head-out space and the doors
are opened, passengers are directed away from passing
traffic and toward the sidewalk. The trunk is accessible
from the sidewalk. And when pulling out, the driver can
see oncoming vehicles and bicyclists.
To install it well, keep sidewalks wide and comfortable.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking allows cars’
trunks to overhang more than front-in parking, so set
all fixtures (lamps, hydrants, signs, trees) at least 24 to
30 inches from the edge of the curb. Also, be careful
to develop robust and effective educational programs
to help all roadway users become comfortable with the
practice, especially if it is new in the community.
Head-Out Angled Parking
w
With front-in angled parking many communities max out their parking gain by using 60 degrees. With head-
out angled parking (also called “back-in angled parking), the “yield” is reduced when a 45-degree angle is used.
Either angle is possible, but with head-out, 45 degrees is more common, since it is easier to park. It is generally
recommended that parking bays be no more than fifteen feet deep (perpendicular measurement). With a two-foot-
wide valley gutter, bringing the full depth to 17 feet, all conventional and many oversized vehicles fit in this space.
Omit center lane lines when using on street parking to allow motorists to go around a car in the process of parking
when there is no opposing traffic. Removal of center lane lines has been shown to reduce traffic speeds and crashes.
x
Sometimes a building-to-building right-of-way is too
tight to plant trees in sidewalk areas. Use of in-street
tree wells can allow the street to be “greened” and often
without removal of parking. Tree wells can either be
installed to allow water to flow naturally in existing
channels, or, if a complete reconstruction is needed, to
insert drainage in a pattern that supports these green
innovations. Tree wells are used on many local streets,
but can also be used, along with curb extensions on
roads like SR 70 and SR 17, in Florida. A number of
state roads apply tree wells in a variety of states and
provinces (including snow country, such as Boise, Idaho
and Columbus, Ohio) in urban areas. Use of tree wells
and curb extensions, in combination, help bring speeds
to more appropriate urban levels.
How to Do It: Tree Wells
y
Placemaking: The transforming of a street, sidewalk,
plaza, square, paseo, open lot, waterfront or other space
to be attractive, rewarding and a community source
of distinction and pride. Good places make good
experiences possible and have consequences in our lives.
People want to share experiences and ideas on common
ground, in attractive, well designed and cared for public
places.
Principles: Reinvestment in streets, between buildings,
and in other well located public spaces brings added
value to all buildings and homes in a town center. A
front porch storing last decades sofa and washing
machine detracts. Placemaking, like interior decorating,
must create a strong, compelling sense of place that
makes time spent in these spaces rewarding and
memorable. Consider the public and private realm of a
town center as a public/private partnership. Consider
the greater town center as a canvas waiting for rich,
vibrant tones, textures and colors that honor existing or
adapted buildings and streets. Nothing should be ho-
hum. Places can be funky and relaxed, but they must be
thoughtful, sensitive to place, and cared for.
Streetscapes help create character and charm. In many
towns, many decades of deterioration must be attended
to. The town center is a fine home for things waiting to
happen, but many existing furnishings, old facades, litter
cans, upheaved sidewalks, detract.
The waiting plaza space shown in the upper corner is
truly the opportunity that can be the “tipping point” to
all other investments.
Plaza spaces must be carefully crafted to bring about
proper levels of enclosure, transparency, human scale,
complexity, “imageability” and comfort.
Even small public spaces need a minimum of ten
different treats or activities or points of interest for the
public to become fully engaged. Don’t overlook the
needs of seniors, and the drawing power of children to
come to these places.
Not ready for prime time: Above is an example of a physi-cal space that can become an important plaza, outdoor room and connector.
Below: Adapted into public space.
How to Do It: Paseos and Plazas that Create a Sense of Place
z
Placemaking includes outdoor
“rooms.”
Just as with a home environment,
cities have the opportunity to
draw in visitors and residents to
special “rooms” created for social
exchange or instead a chance to
relax, read, or simply hang out.
These are examples of paseos and
other spaces between buildings that
take on a unique life. Common to
all, plenty of design, “eyes on the
realm” and comfort.
aa
Principles: Sidewalks in a town center require high
levels of design and care. It is within the protected
spaces of a sidewalk where people move freely, but
also spend time engaging others and spending time to
enjoy the beauty of their public space. Sidewalks work
best when they are fully buffered from moving traffic.
The following considerations should be provided when
laying out sidewalks.
Use color, texture, street furniture and other materials to
distinguish functional areas of walkways. Sidewalks have
three parts (shy zone, furniture zone and the walk/talk
zone). See illustration to the right.
If driveways must interrupt, keep these to minimal
widths (14 foot for one way, 26-28 for two way). Use
contrasting colors and materials, and keep sidewalks
fully flat across driveways.
Sidewalk widths may need to vary, according to existing
building placement, and other constraints. Try to keep
town center sidewalks to 12-16 feet, when practicable,
but be willing to narrow when constraints exist.
How to Do It: Sidewalks
ab
Curb extensions help transform a place into a more attrac-
tive, natural, functional and prosperous town and center.
Curb extensions capture all space not used by autos. By
adding curb extensions, towns turn these vital spaces into
civic and retail uses. All construction should be done in a
way that it least disrupts local businesses. Winter Park,
and Sanford, Florida replaced sewers, water lines and other
infrastructure as part of its reconstruction. Streets were
worked on at night, then covered during the day to maxi-
mize retail success.
How to Do It: Curb Extensions
ac
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
Nearly every community in the country could benefit from some sort of change or improvement to the built
environment to create or support walkability and livability. As groups of residents, leaders or organizations come
together to create momentum for those changes, consideration should be given to which projects or interventions
have the greatest chance of succeeding and which will have the greatest benefit. The scoring system below, created
by Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Health Promotion as part of the Community Physical Activity Planning resource
manual, provides a good starting point for prioritizing efforts.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
Completely Satifactorily Not at all
54 3 21
Will achieve the goals and objectives of the plan
Will addresses the needs of segments of the community targeted in our plan
Will produce the desired results in the desired timeframe
Will be supported by the parties responsible for implementation
Has an existing agency prepared to assume responsibility for implementation
Will be supported by the community
Will be supported by community and external funding agencies
Will not conflict with or duplicate existing projects in the community
Takes full advantage of existing resources in the community
Can realistically be implemented within the plan’s timeframe
Can be implemented with available financial resources
Can be implemented with available staff resources
Is financially viable and sustainable over the long term
Other Criteria:
HOW TO PLAN & PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY
PAGE 50
TOOLKIT 2B
Identifying the Best Projects for the Physical Activity Plan:
A Checklist
This checklist identifies a number of criteria that can be used to select projects for
your plan. Not all criterion will be applicable to every project. Your committee may
identify other criteria relevant to your plan. Rank proposed projects on a scale of
1-5 depending on how well they fulfill each criterion.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
ad
HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
Please provide written responses to each applicable question. For those questions
which are not applicable, please indicate so on the form. Attach additional sheets if
more space is necessary to respond fully to the questions. Submit completed form
with your project/development application.
PROJECT NAME: ________________________________________________________
ADRESS/LOCATION: _____________________________________________________
CASE #: ______________________
TYPE OF PROJECT: Residential Mixed Commercial Office Civic
YES NO
Does the project/development promote interaction between
neighbors?
If YES please list: _____________________________________
Is the physical design of the project harmonious with the overall
neighborhood?
Is this development adjacent to existing development and
connecting to the development with pedestrian links and roadway
connections?
Is there an adequate mix of land uses that provide a variety of
housing choices?
Do these mixes provide for a great diversity in incomes, and
especially provide for affordability?
Are there locations for non residential land uses that are integrated
with the residential?
Is the land use configured around a walkable block size ( ¼ mile
perimeter)?
Is there a range of density permitted in the neighborhood?
Are fronts of homes properly placed and have windows watching
over schools, parks, streets, trails and other public places?
Is the architecture of buildings attractive and supportive of life on the
street, park, school?
Are there provisions eliminating garages from “mooning” the street
(i.e. required garage setbacks, lot frontage percentage)?
Are public buildings, parks and other common destinations properly
placed to maximize the number of people that can walk to them?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in ten
minutes (2500 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
an elementary school?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in twenty
minutes (5000 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
a high school?
Is there too much emphasis on providing large amounts of off-street
parking (relates to affordability, density)?
LAND USE
Just as with the checklist on the previous page, groups of people or organizations coming together to improve the
built environment to support walkability and livability should assess any potential projects for existing shortcomings
or opportunities for improvement. The checklist below, developed by WALC Institute team members, provides a
list of qualities that should be assessed as a first step in evaluating an effort’s viability.
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
ae
YES NO
Does the project/development achieve a connectivity index of 1.4?
The index is calculated by dividing the number of street links (street
sections between intersections, including cul-de-sacs) by the number
of street nodes (intersections and cul-de-sacs). A grid street network
would yield an index of 2.0.
Does the project/development provide mobility options for those who
cannot drive?
Does the project/development have a well connected sidewalk
system that lead to local destinations?
If YES what is the proposed width of the sidewalks (5.0 foot minimum
recommended)? __________________________________________
Are sidewalks detached from the curb allowing planter strips to take
up driveway elevation changes?
Do all corners have ADA accessible ramps (2 ramps per corner
preferred)?
Do planter strips offer canopy street trees (each 15-30 feet
recommended)?
If median tree plantings are preferred, are plantings adequate for
canopy development (each 15-30 feet recommended)?
Are there adequate provisions made for proper care and
maintenance of canopy trees?
Do building practices eliminate privacy fences (above 4.0 feet)
toward the public side of properties?
Are there specifications that public facing fencing be attractive and
transparent above 4.0 feet?
Do curbs, swales, curb extensions, or other designs keep cars
parked in correct locations (no rollover curbs)?
Does the project/development have, or connect to, a trail system for
walking or biking?
Does the project/development contain elements that enhance the
feeling of neighborhood security and safety?
Are local streetlights provided?
Are houses oriented toward the street to provide “eyes on the street?”
Are the buildings addressing the street? (i.e. front doors)
Is there parking between the building and the street?
Can a child walk safely, comfortably, and feel watched over enroute
to school?
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the route to the school(s)?
What is the walking distance to the area’s schools? ______________
Is the visibility at intersections good? Can drivers see short children,
physically handicapped?
Does the route contain known dangerous intersections?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Are there crossing guards at these intersections?
Will the project/development contain a significant elderly population?
Can the elderly walk to important destinations (i.e. banks, post office
community centers, and library)? What is the walking distance to
these destinations? ________________________________________
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN
Access management strategies aimed
at reducing the number of driveway
crossings and increasing the width of the sidewalk corridor significantly
improve the pedestrian experience for
existing developments.
af
YES NO
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the routes to these
destinations?
Is the overall speed at or below 25 mph for all local streets?
Is the overall speed at or below 30 mph for all collector streets?
Does the project contain design elements to calm traffic such as curb
extensions, mini-circles, parking chicanes, roundabouts, medians,
raised street crossings, or similar features?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Does the project/development present unsafe conditions or deter
access and free mobility for the physically handicapped?
For projects/development on arterial streets, does the plan include
pedestrian crossing signals and/or mid-block crossing islands?
Is public transportation available?
If YES, where and how close is the nearest bus/train stop? ________
_________________________________________________________
Does the nearest bus/train stop have a shelter?
Does the nearest the bus/train stop have a bench and litter can?
Do curb extensions or other treatments prevent motorists from
parking too close to corners?
If narrow streets are used, do streets provide a physical space (20
feet wide) every 200 feet for emergency response operations?
If alleys are used, is there high transparency (surveillance) in the
alley?
If paseos (connectors or links) are used, is there high transparency
(surveillance) to the paseo?
Do schools, parks, and other public destinations have adequate well
located and secure bike parking?
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN CONTINUED
YES NO
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in five
minutes (1500 feet) to a public gathering place, park, plaza, or
community center?
Are there an adequate number of parks provided within walking
distance (1/8 – ¼ mile ) from every residence?
Are there sidewalks/pathways, ADA ramps along the route to the
above services?
What is the walking distance to the area’s amenities? _____________
Is the size of parks and open space adequate for the amount of
potential residents?
Are there a number of buildings/houses that watch over parks, trails,
and open space?
Are these parks well used? If not yet built, are there a number of
things to discover and do in these parks?
Do parks have appropriate on-street parking, or is there too much
off-street parking?
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Healthy Development Checklist, from Walkable Communities:
http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/healthy_development_checklist.pdf
Active School Neighborhood Checklist, from the Arizona Department of Transportation:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/swprojmgmt/Enhancement_Scenic/saferoutes/SafeRoutes_Common
/Apply_Active_School_Neighborhood_Checklist.asp
Healthy, Active & Vibrant Community 2009 Toolkit, from Trailnet:
http://www.trailnet.org/HAVC_Toolkit.phpJuly 6, 2011
Growing Demand for Communities that Promote Health, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_WalkableCommunities.pdf
At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy, from
the American Public Health Association:
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-FB68-4112-8C75-
49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.pdf
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, from the Local Government Commission:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/Healthy_Kids_Healthy_Communitie
s.pdf
Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf
Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance, from Active Living
Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf
Additional Resources
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Sample Safe Routes to Schools Programs, from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/4233
Parent Survey about Walking and Biking to School, from the National Center for Safe Routes:
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/collateral/Parent_Survey_English_Scan2009.pdf
Teaching Children to Walk Safely as They Grow and Develop: A guide for parents/caregivers
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/graduated_walking/index.cfm
Adult School Crossing Guard Guidelines
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/crossing_guard/index.cfm
The Walking School Bus: Combining safety, fun and the walk to school
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/walking_school_bus/index.cfm
Student Drop-off and Pick-up
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Dropoff-Pickup.pdf
Media and Visibility
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/media/index.cfm
Education
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Education.pdf
Enforcement
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Enforcement.pdf
Evaluation Guide for Community Safe Routes to School Programs
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Evaluation.pdf
Many more Safe Routes to School guides and tools are available at www.saferoutesinfo.org.
Additional Resources
Safe Routes to School
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
1215 Lawrence Street, Unit 001
Port Townsend, WA 98368
www.walklive.org
360.385.3421
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Healthy Building Placement
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Livable Schools
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Regional Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Local Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Best Practices
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
a
Most land-use codes were written at a time when U.S.
cities had an abundance of land, water, clean air and
other resources. We assumed continued availability
of these resources, as well as financing, which led
communities to construct poorly connected and
outwardly expanding light-density development, street
networks and other inefficient infrastructure. As a result,
land uses were separated – sometimes by miles – and
urban areas were allowed to decay.
Today, we have a better understanding of the limitations
of our available resources. Roads, bridges, sewers and
water lines that are now failing, need to be replaced
or refurbished. Doing so will be two to eight times
more expensive than if we had stayed current with
maintenance.
As we make “brick and mortar” changes to the physical
infrastructure, we also should update the policy
infrastructure, including land-use codes, to foster more
livable, walkable communities. Existing codes promote
poor connectivity, which leads to higher dependence
on cars – and even greater strain on infrastructure.
Facing high gas and energy costs, residents are ready
for change. But it will require more than Band-Aid
solutions. Metaphorically speaking, we’re talking surgery
and radical changes to get our towns back to good
health.
Toward Change: Mix Uses and Connect Streets
Walkable and livable communities can’t develop without
transit, dense development, mixed land uses and
strong street connectivity. Most existing codes do not
tolerate - let alone encourage - such forward-thinking
development. Instead, codes have generated misplaced
development, forcing residents to get into their cars
and leave their neighborhoods to access basic services.
Progressive developers, planning board members,
architects and others have seen the need to embrace
a better system, one that promotes sustainability, eco-
friendly practices, walkability and transit-friendly design.
Unfortunately, their efforts have been slowed by
outdated code and regulations. A number of cities
throughout the country have even drafted visionary
plans. However, too often these plans are relegated to
How to Do It: Codes to Create Traditional,
Walkable Communities
back shelves as leaders and planners grapple with code-
related challenges. The question is: How can we shape
codes to encourage better development? The first step
is to develop a process that is inclusive, comprehensive
and clear.
1. Fully engage all stakeholders to develop a vision.
Enlist both the general public and the development
community in the process of creating new code that
supports smart, complete and predictable standards
for development. Include stakeholders with differing
opinions to help create a vision that is holistic, practical
and collaborative. Broad support will provide the
necessary political shield for leaders to write, adopt and
enforce new codes that promote sustainability, green
design, active living and livable communities.
2. Understand that many factors affect the built
environment. New proposals should address all of the
factors that can influence design standards, not just
the obvious ones. For example, tenant expectations
shouldn’t be an afterthought.
Engage in Vitality City: The communities of Hermosa
Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have a
unique opportunity to improve livability with the help of
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City. The cities should
utilize resources made available to them to engage stake-
holders and develop community vision plans where they
don’t already exist.
Beach CitiesBlueprint for 2011
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONESvitality City®
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONES
vitality City
presented by Beach Cities Health District
March 22, 2011
b
3. Create a master plan that clearly communicates the
development expectations. Standards that are clear,
concise and predictable are more likely to be accepted
and to succeed. In fact, predictability is the developer’s
friend. Standards must be highly graphical and easy to
understand for both builders and regulators. Programs
should be reviewed and evaluated yearly, and amended as
appropriate.
Seek Examples of Success
A municipality doesn’t need to change its entire book of
codes overnight. In fact, it’s probably smarter to make
changes incrementally.
For example, the central Florida city of Eustis, like
many small towns, has taken the time during this
latest market lull to “right the ship.” While reviewing
the city’s land-development regulations, city leaders
recognized the need for a downtown vision and began a
concurrent vision plan driven by the public. They have
found a common language in creating walkable streets,
balancing automobiles with pedestrians and alternative
modes of transport, and melding land-use decisions
with transportation goals. They have adopted new
form-based codes with district design standards, block
developments, typical streetscapes and a vision plan to
focus future development.
When the market recovers, Eustis will be prepared to
receive development as part of a community vision that
will result in a more sustainable, vibrant and livable city.
It is admirable that so many communities throughout the
country want to promote walkable, livable communities.
The next step is for governments, residents, developers
and planners to work together to make this a reality. It’s
time to throw out archaic codes and create new rules
that foster smarter - and healthier - growth.
Over time, buildings in town centers should front the streets, such as these retail shops in Hermosa Beach, CA. New buildings, or adapted buildings, can provide important added presence of people in the downtown.
c
Roundabouts facilitate through-traffic and turning
movements without requiring signal control. Roundabouts
are made up of a circulating roadway with an island
that is often used for landscaping or other decorative
features. The circulating roadway is typically wider than
the approach roadways and features an additional ‘apron’
against the edges of the island; both of these features
allow for fire trucks, ambulances and other large vehicles.
Roundabouts increase intersection volume by up to 30
percent. As the only requirement for yielding the right-
of-way is to traffic already in the circulating roadway,
vehicles can continue moving through intersections
carrying a light volume,
requiring no queue at the
approach roadways and
potentially allowing all
intersecting streets to use
the intersection at once.
Due to their low speed
and the reduced points
of potential conflict,
roundabouts also can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent
and fatal crashes by 90 percent. See the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety’s website: www.iihs.org/research/
topics/roundabouts.html.
How to Do It: Traffic-Calming Roundabouts
Roundabouts reduce delay, which reduces idling engines,
air pollution, noise and lost time. Roundabouts provide
safer and more comfortable pedestrian crossings.
Splitter islands serve as a pedestrian refuge. Allowing
one car length between the crossing and circulating
lane(s) optimizes roundabout efficiency for vehicles.
Roundabouts reduce conflicts in multiple ways: when
crossing, pedestrians face only one potential conflict
(traffic either entering or exiting the roundabout, divided
by the splitter island), and not the six conflicts per crossing
leg in full-crossing intersections. In properly designed
roundabouts, all conflicts are at low speeds for both
entering and exiting traffic. Roundabouts also create the
least delay to pedestrians wishing to cross a street. Instead
of waiting for up to two minutes to cross (common with
a signal), the pedestrian reaching a roundabout rarely has
more than a two- to eight-second delay for each leg that
they cross. Most bicyclists circulate easily with traffic,
since traffic is now going their speed.
For more information about roundabouts, see the Federal
Highway Administration’s educational video about
roundabouts, at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/
roundabouts/fhwasa10023/wmv_cc_final/10-2124_
Roundabouts.wmv.
Due to their low speed and the reduced points of potential conflict, roundabouts can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent and fatal crashes by 90 percent.
d
By helping re-scale a roadway, roundabouts help set
the stage for more successful retail trade and social life.
The roundabout below transformed an ugly strip street
in Golden, Colorado, into a much better proportioned
street. Four roundabouts were built; all signals were
removed. One surprising result: retail trade in the
corridor outperformed all other streets in Colorado
during the last recession.
Top photo, Holland, Michigan.
Bottom photo, Orlando, Florida. Both mini-circles
manage traffic quietly, maximize on street parking by
bringing speeds down, and offer attractive corners in
the commercial districts they occupy. A mini-circle or
two on key streets on gateway approaches to town, in
downtowns and other locations will add charm, beauty
and movement. Mini-circles are low cost and attractive
traffic management tools that can be easily designed
and installed. Although costs can be as low as $15-25k,
much more attractive circles are recommended for a
number of historic roads where speeds are too high.
A cost range of $75-125k would be appropriate for
central locations, while modest price circles can be used
elsewhere in the community. Mini-circles reduce the
potential for crashes by 90%. Yield controls are used
on all approaches. Seattle, Washington has placed over
1,000 mini-circles.
e
The addition of street network and roundabouts help
to keep traffic flowing, but keep it flowing slowly, which
creates a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
In some areas, roundabouts should have right-turn
bypass lanes, as illustrated below.
Roundabouts with Right-Turn Bypass Lanes
The top images are of a roundabout in Boulder, CO
and the bottom image is of a roundabout leading to the
Charlottesville, VA airport.
f
Communities can draw inspiration from Bradenton
Beach, Florida, where this state road previously exposed
pedestrians to high speeds at this crossing. On average,
one pedestrian was killed each year. Walking for exercise,
pleasure or transportation was suppressed. Following the
construction of the roundabout, all crashes disappeared,
and a new stage was set for mixed use development
After
Before
Success Story: Roundabouts and Crossings
After 14 years of operation, there had been no reported
crashes of any type. New economic life has set a mood
of prosperity to the entire shopping district. Today, there
is an abundance of pedestrian life.
g
Crossings should be located where there is a strong
desire to cross, where sight distances are good and
where vehicle speeds are low or can be lowered through
design and treatments. Shown on these pages, the use
of materials to create attractive streetscape features add
beauty, function and place. Each functional part (i.e.
parking, crossings, curb extensions, lane narrowing)
should be designed to add to effectiveness of the
crossing. Properly designed, crossings will “read”
How to Do It: Crossings
correctly, sending messages to drivers as they approach
that they are to slow down and that pedestrians should
be expected. For more information on the safety
impacts of crossings, see the Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies’ report, “Improving
Pedestrian Safety and Unsignalized Crossings,” available
online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
h
Use high-emphasis markings. A new approach is being used with paving ground down about 1/3rd of an inch. A
hot ceramic mix is poured in, then reflective glass beads are settled on top. This anti-slip design is expected to wear
well and outlast the life of the road surface. If desired, crossings can also be raised. This raised table has a 1:16
gradient change.
This Golden, Colorado crossing makes use of several important principles, the street is narrowed (to sixteen feet of
asphalt, with another 2 feet in each valley gutter).Growth of ground cover (keep trimmed to 20-28 inches) and tall
vertical trees, in time, will complete this crossing. This road was once 40 feet wide. Today parents feel comfortable
having their children make crossings along a popular park and trail.
i
Tools used to slow traffic and help people cross
streets.
If space exists where some crossings will be warranted,
then a median island can be added. This is a former
four-lane road, in Olympia, Washington. With medians,
pedestrians are only exposed to one direction of moving
traffic at a time. Medians should have both ground cover
and trees to make them more noticeable to motorists
from greater distances. Use of these features slows
speed, then draws attention to the crossing.
j
Additional tools can be used to aid
pedestrians in crossing streets safely.
Curb extensions reduce crossing
distances. Landscaping helps
channel pedestrians to ramps. Using
two ramps per corner simplifies
crossings. Color contrast is an aid
for older pedestrians and pedestrians
with visual problems. Count down
timers are now recommended as a
soft replacement for all urban area
signalized crossings.
k
The conversion of a strip to a village
center starts with taking critical corners
and placing urban buildings there.
These new buildings help size and
shape the importance of the corner
and the corridor. In time, well placed
buildings are joined together to create
vertical walls that provide character
and community. This works in small
scale hamlets to larger scale shopping
districts. Illustrations here show how the
new visual qualities help dampen traffic
speeds. Buildings start the critical process
of “enclosing” streets, giving them a feel
of “place” and importance. The two
photos below illustrate the importance
of architecture and town form in
controlling the speed of roadways.
There is little more than engineers can
do in the bottom image to control
speed. Meanwhile, careful, thoughtful,
placement of buildings and placemaking
brings speeds, and therefore development
opportunities alive.
Shown to the right is a correctly as-
sembled urban block, and below it a
conventional suburban block. Note
how the suburban strip image is
unappealing for walking (or even driv-
ing), and hastens motorists through a
space. This increases the potential for
speeding. Thus, poorly designed build-
ings and block patterns impact busi-
ness life and people multiple ways.
Correctly designed and placed ur-
ban form is necessary to help heal
downtowns or other places where
people are to spend time and money.
Unless code calls for an urban form,
do not expect such development. It
costs more, but it produces more.
Urban mixed-use development typi-
cally yields $25-60/square foot, while
single-use commercial zoning built to
suburban models yields only $5-15/
square foot.
How to Do It: Convert Suburban Strips to Village Centers
l
Suburban influences in town
centers can be replaced over time.
A partnership between private and
public land holders can result in
scenes that look much like these,
and even better.
Public streets form and frame so
much of our public realm that by
emphasizing speed of cars, we
destroy character and sense of
community. Once streets are rebuilt
for lower, but steady, speeds, it is
possible to provide new, mixed use
buildings that create a sense of
place, character and arrival.
As these transitions occur land can
increase in value from $5-15/sq
ft to $35-60/ sq ft. Scene to the
right: In time either the entire mall
can be replaced, or a portion in the
middle can be taken down to create
an attractive pathway that invites a
direct route to street shops.
m
The illustration to the right emphasizes those streets
(outlined in red) that are “A” Streets. “B” Streets in the
illustration are not highlighted with red. These can be
alleys, or any type of a utility street.
In the two photos at the bottom of the page, it is clear
that two developers were involved. To the right, the
developer privatized the neighborhood. Even though
the developer was required to install sidewalks, the wall
(“B” treatment) assures that no one will walk here. In
contrast, across the street, another developer “honored
the street” by placing “eyes” to the street. In this case
the street is being treated as an “A” street. Town codes
must stress that if people are to walk to destinations,
a series of “A” streets must be created, and developers
cannot put back yards to these important streets.
Of course, it is more complicated than that. If the
city, or state wants to use the collector as a higher speed
conduit, void of trees and other place, developers will
find it hard to sell homes along the street. The street
is the core tool for creating successful neighborhoods,
security and a desire to walk.
How to Do It: From Placeless to Place, Convert “B” Streets to “A”
n
In the photograph above, the functional use of a street is defined. Places where people want to walk are “A” streets (where buildings are designed to watch over the street. Meanwhile a series of “B” streets are needed to provide for utilities, deliveries and other internal functions. For the most part, people will not walk along “B” corridors.
Meanwhile, the above “B” street performs quite well for people who live here or make deliveries here. In the next row of images, a street not designed for walking (middle left) can be transformed into an “A” street which watches over parks, schools or corridors where continuous walking trips are important.
Right and above photos: This suburban style “B” street is transformed into the image below, changing the function of the street into an “A” category. In recent years, teams of planners, engineers, architects and landscape architects have made transitions allowing areas to become alive and active. It often takes more than one discipline to do this. Indeed, those areas that do not transform well are areas where people do not understood multiple functions needed in corridors.
o
Optimizing Your View and Increasing Social Interaction and Social Equity
When terminating views guide the human eye down
a street, several important things happen. The iconic
building, mountain or lake vista provides an attraction
that draws the person toward the destination, just as an
anchor store does in a mall. The terminal point also
reduces the tendency to speed, since motorists realize
their journey will be interrupted. The terminating vista
also acts as a navigational aid.
To maximize the value of land, the destination property
(park, lake, plaza) should have a well designed, quiet and
attractive street running parallel to it. The more sides
that have access, the more valuable the land becomes.
Other streets need to lead up to this perimeter street
and connect with it. In some cases, a well designed trail
acts as the “street” enabling people to walk or bicycle
comfortably along the water’s edge. In no case should
a stream, river, lake, park or even school yard feel
privatized through absence of access.
In these illustrations, the red lines rep-resent the edges of adjacent proper-ties that have access to the amenity.
On top, connected streets provide the highest access to the amenity, support social exchange, reduce crime rates, and increase land values.
Below, disconnected streets privatize the amenity, decrease walking, and increase potential for property and personal crime.
p
Privatized -- Wrong Way. The above layout of streets
privatizes the lake. Although homes along the shoreline
may hold a 10% higher sale and resale value, the amenity,
which should belong to the entire community, is now inac-
cessible to others. Even if a small beach front is acces-
sible at some point, the overall value of homes going 2 to
10 blocks deep are devalued. The developer makes less
money on total property values, and the community suf-
fers from reduced social interaction.
Public Access -- Right Way. This alternative design maxi-
mizes access to the neighborhood feature (lake, park,
school). As access is increased, the number of walking and
bicycling trips increase, there is less need for expensive and
environmentally damaging parking lots, and the develop-
ment community makes a greater return on investment. In
the scene to the left, the project may not “pencil out” once
all associated utilities, street and other costs are worked
out. With higher values, the project is more likely to be
viable.
Right Way. This design maximizes connectivity and access
to the park, square or plaza. By placing more activity along
the park (walking, bicycling and driving) the park becomes
more interactive and better used. Ideally, all streets sur-
rounding the park will have either parallel or angled park-
ing, thus minimizing the amount of park land that must be
devoted to parking. This also lightens the environmental
damage, since on-street parking takes up only 1/3rd the
amount of space as off-street parking.
Wrong Way. Streets do not connect on the left hand side.
The above layout of streets breaks street connectivity and
privatizes the park. This reduces access to the park. In a
small park, this gives the park user the feeling that they are
in someone’s yard. Since the property often has its back to
the park, it reduces the “eyes” on the park and creates an
increasing risk that the park will not be used fully. Reduced
park use, in turn, invites crime in the park and to adjacent
property owners. Low park use also reduces property val-
ues.
q
Major streets with moderate to high volumes of
traffic should be transformed into “Complete Streets.”
Bike lanes, bike trails, sidewalks, streetscaping, curb
extensions, mid-block crossings and other tools are
applied.
Traffic calming and traffic management techniques
should be used. On-street parking can be striped, and
curb extensions, tree wells and medians can be added.
Such improvements not only bring down speeds, they
improve town centers and connect streets by reducing
noise and perceived danger.
Most principal streets should have lanes narrower than
today, especially when combined with bike lanes. Bike
lanes add a buffer to parking and sidewalks.
Sidewalk construction and maintenance should be a
priority, especially within a quarter-mile or half-mile of
town centers and schools.
Ramps should comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and “universal design” standards.
Above and below: Example of a two-lane road with a me-dian, inset parking, one ten foot wide lane in each direction and bike lanes. A roadway based on these concepts can move up to 20,000 ADT (if used with roundabouts at key intersections). If roundabouts are not used, more lanes are added at intersections for storage and turns at key inter-sections -- not the entire section.
(Photo: Issaquah Highlands, Issaquah, Washington)
How to Do It: Complete Streets
r
Complete Streets vary in design based on the type of street involved, speed and volume, block form, whether
parking is needed or not, climate, demographics and other factors. These sections illustrate a number of desired
features, including support for walking and bicycling along streets, and the ability to cross over. Trees are generally
spaced each 15 to 30 feet. Minimum dimensions for an environmentally friendly street are provided in the bottom
illustration. A center turn storage lane of ten feet, two travel lanes of ten feet each, two five foot bike lanes (using
an extended gutter pan that is saw cut for joints, two planter strips of 5 feet each and two sidewalks of five feet each
can fit inside a 60 foot right-of-way.
s
How to Do It: Road Diets
WHO
Typically implemented by city, county or state
transportation agencies, road diets help achieve the
policies advocated for by Complete Streets (www.
completestreets.org), Smart Growth America (www.
smartgrowthamerica.org), and many other national, state
and local groups seeking a safer, more walkable and
livable community for road users of all ages and abilities.
WHAT
A road diet involves eliminating travel lanes on a
roadway to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
While there can be more than four travel lanes before
treatment, road diets are generally conversions of
four-lane, undivided roads into three lanes—two
through lanes plus a center turn lane or median island.
The fourth lane may be converted into a bicycle lane,
sidewalk, planter strip for street trees, a bus stop, a
separated multi-use trail, a wider outside lane and/or for
on-street parking. Rural areas might add wider shoulders
for bicyclists, roundabouts near a town – especially as
a gateway treatment - or separated multi-use trails. In
other words, based on the surrounding land use and
travel speeds or context of the road, the street cross
section is reallocated.
WHERE
Lane and Road Diets can be successfully implemented
on collector and arterial streets, main streets, commercial
corridors, or town centers; on any street that is over-
designed to give priority to the motor vehicle; and in
areas where there is greater need to provide for multi-
modal travel.
WHEN
Context is the key to a successful lane or road diet,
Complete Streets, and Smart Growth. The objective
of any design change should be to match the roadway
environment with the actual roadway function.
Candidate roads will usually have an ADT (Average
Daily Trips) of less than 20,000 to ensure minimal
effects on vehicle capacity, although successful road diets
have been performed with volumes reaching 30,000
ADT and the roadway did not reach the most congested
condition of LOS F (a level-of-service failing grade.)
Ideal roads are in need of mitigation to reduce traffic
conflict, crashes, and to slow down vehicles, and are in
areas that wish to encourage economic development,
address parking circulation, improve streetscapes, and
create safer roads.
WHY
The benefits of road diets are numerous: they improve
road safety for users of all ages and abilities, whether
they travel by foot, wheelchair, bicycle, stroller, or motor
vehicle; create a welcoming community environment;
and help to solve some of our more pressing public
health issues such as reducing obesity, and rates of
heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure by
encouraging active living. Other benefits can include:
economic development, increased property values,
improved streetscape, better parking circulation, reduced
vehicle speeds, improved mobility and more efficient
land uses - mixed uses that offer affordable housing,
retail, restaurant, and/or office options.
Anecdotal case study results support the conclusion
that pedestrians, bicyclists, and adjacent landowners
typically prefer the corridor environment of a road diet,
especially a two-lane cross section with median islands.
When people are the priority, a true livable community
and sense of place exist.
t
HOW
Conduct a traffic study, and before/after traffic counts of all road users; understand the limitations of traffic
modeling; consider special bus designs such as bus pull-outs. Engage the community, educating residents and
local leaders on why lane/road diets are a good idea. Survey affected merchants and residents along the corridor
to learn what the expectations and objections of a road diet might be. Garner local political support from elected
leaders, leverage financial resources from various sources. Funding for road diets can often come from economic
development programs, state and local transportation departments, regional metropolitan transportation planning
organizations, state and county health departments, main street programs, tree planting or green-up programs.
There are many funding sources that can be explored to create significant change.
Many American towns have the potential to go from having too many lanes for storing cars, to fewer lanes which then build place and the local economy. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, Pacific Ave. in Santa Cruz, CA was rebuilt to the scene be-low. Now with narrower street widths and a sense of place, the street teems with life and vitality and generates revenue.
u
The retail life of a town center is supported best by
having sufficient on-street parking. Many towns fail to
use their streets wisely. They induce speeding by having
too much space for vehicular flow, and not enough for
car storage.
On-street parking only takes one third as much land as
off street parking. On-street parking belongs on center
city streets, serving as a buffer to moving cars and a
natural traffic calming tool. When used in conjunction
with curb extensions (bump outs) and tree wells, parking
is said to be inset, narrowing streets, making pedestrian
crossings easier, more comfortable and safe.
In time, to achieve compact town center form, where
more people can live and help activate the town center,
it will be necessary to move away from most off-street
parking. Once a full and vibrant retail life is achieved,
each parking space becomes worth $200,000 per year.
Thus, attention to using town center streets to maximize
convenient parking, is urgent and paramount.
If head-out angled parking is used, which is highly
How to Do It: Parking
recommended, the entire curb to curb dimension can
be 54-56’. When head-out angled parking is used, lane
widths can be much narrower, since back out “discovery
time” is not needed. Also, the back end of vehicles have
more overhang, so less space is used.
Parking bay depths should be 15 feet. An added two
foot of space is picked up when valley gutters are used
(highly recommended). See valley gutter in photos.
Keep travel lanes to a combined with of 20-22 feet. A
center line is not used. This tight driving space helps
keep speeds low, which reduces the chance of vehicle
crashes.
v
There are multiple benefits to head-out angled parking.
It is the safest way to park a vehicle and it increases the
amount of on-street parking that can be made available.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking can increase
the number of parking spaces that will fit on a street by
30 to 110 percent over parallel parking. Also, head-out
angled parking reduces the amount of off-street parking
- and related infrastructure needed. In fact, it can take up
as little as one-third of the space of off-street parking.
Head-out angled parking is easier to do than parallel
parking because the driver essentially is only making
the first maneuver of parallel parking -- the backing-
in maneuver. Once in the space, the driver has many
benefits over parallel or front-IN parking.
For example, when in a head-out space and the doors
are opened, passengers are directed away from passing
traffic and toward the sidewalk. The trunk is accessible
from the sidewalk. And when pulling out, the driver can
see oncoming vehicles and bicyclists.
To install it well, keep sidewalks wide and comfortable.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking allows cars’
trunks to overhang more than front-in parking, so set
all fixtures (lamps, hydrants, signs, trees) at least 24 to
30 inches from the edge of the curb. Also, be careful
to develop robust and effective educational programs
to help all roadway users become comfortable with the
practice, especially if it is new in the community.
Head-Out Angled Parking
w
With front-in angled parking many communities max out their parking gain by using 60 degrees. With head-
out angled parking (also called “back-in angled parking), the “yield” is reduced when a 45-degree angle is used.
Either angle is possible, but with head-out, 45 degrees is more common, since it is easier to park. It is generally
recommended that parking bays be no more than fifteen feet deep (perpendicular measurement). With a two-foot-
wide valley gutter, bringing the full depth to 17 feet, all conventional and many oversized vehicles fit in this space.
Omit center lane lines when using on street parking to allow motorists to go around a car in the process of parking
when there is no opposing traffic. Removal of center lane lines has been shown to reduce traffic speeds and crashes.
x
Sometimes a building-to-building right-of-way is too
tight to plant trees in sidewalk areas. Use of in-street
tree wells can allow the street to be “greened” and often
without removal of parking. Tree wells can either be
installed to allow water to flow naturally in existing
channels, or, if a complete reconstruction is needed, to
insert drainage in a pattern that supports these green
innovations. Tree wells are used on many local streets,
but can also be used, along with curb extensions on
roads like SR 70 and SR 17, in Florida. A number of
state roads apply tree wells in a variety of states and
provinces (including snow country, such as Boise, Idaho
and Columbus, Ohio) in urban areas. Use of tree wells
and curb extensions, in combination, help bring speeds
to more appropriate urban levels.
How to Do It: Tree Wells
y
Placemaking: The transforming of a street, sidewalk,
plaza, square, paseo, open lot, waterfront or other space
to be attractive, rewarding and a community source
of distinction and pride. Good places make good
experiences possible and have consequences in our lives.
People want to share experiences and ideas on common
ground, in attractive, well designed and cared for public
places.
Principles: Reinvestment in streets, between buildings,
and in other well located public spaces brings added
value to all buildings and homes in a town center. A
front porch storing last decades sofa and washing
machine detracts. Placemaking, like interior decorating,
must create a strong, compelling sense of place that
makes time spent in these spaces rewarding and
memorable. Consider the public and private realm of a
town center as a public/private partnership. Consider
the greater town center as a canvas waiting for rich,
vibrant tones, textures and colors that honor existing or
adapted buildings and streets. Nothing should be ho-
hum. Places can be funky and relaxed, but they must be
thoughtful, sensitive to place, and cared for.
Streetscapes help create character and charm. In many
towns, many decades of deterioration must be attended
to. The town center is a fine home for things waiting to
happen, but many existing furnishings, old facades, litter
cans, upheaved sidewalks, detract.
The waiting plaza space shown in the upper corner is
truly the opportunity that can be the “tipping point” to
all other investments.
Plaza spaces must be carefully crafted to bring about
proper levels of enclosure, transparency, human scale,
complexity, “imageability” and comfort.
Even small public spaces need a minimum of ten
different treats or activities or points of interest for the
public to become fully engaged. Don’t overlook the
needs of seniors, and the drawing power of children to
come to these places.
Not ready for prime time: Above is an example of a physi-cal space that can become an important plaza, outdoor room and connector.
Below: Adapted into public space.
How to Do It: Paseos and Plazas that Create a Sense of Place
z
Placemaking includes outdoor
“rooms.”
Just as with a home environment,
cities have the opportunity to
draw in visitors and residents to
special “rooms” created for social
exchange or instead a chance to
relax, read, or simply hang out.
These are examples of paseos and
other spaces between buildings that
take on a unique life. Common to
all, plenty of design, “eyes on the
realm” and comfort.
aa
Principles: Sidewalks in a town center require high
levels of design and care. It is within the protected
spaces of a sidewalk where people move freely, but
also spend time engaging others and spending time to
enjoy the beauty of their public space. Sidewalks work
best when they are fully buffered from moving traffic.
The following considerations should be provided when
laying out sidewalks.
Use color, texture, street furniture and other materials to
distinguish functional areas of walkways. Sidewalks have
three parts (shy zone, furniture zone and the walk/talk
zone). See illustration to the right.
If driveways must interrupt, keep these to minimal
widths (14 foot for one way, 26-28 for two way). Use
contrasting colors and materials, and keep sidewalks
fully flat across driveways.
Sidewalk widths may need to vary, according to existing
building placement, and other constraints. Try to keep
town center sidewalks to 12-16 feet, when practicable,
but be willing to narrow when constraints exist.
How to Do It: Sidewalks
ab
Curb extensions help transform a place into a more attrac-
tive, natural, functional and prosperous town and center.
Curb extensions capture all space not used by autos. By
adding curb extensions, towns turn these vital spaces into
civic and retail uses. All construction should be done in a
way that it least disrupts local businesses. Winter Park,
and Sanford, Florida replaced sewers, water lines and other
infrastructure as part of its reconstruction. Streets were
worked on at night, then covered during the day to maxi-
mize retail success.
How to Do It: Curb Extensions
ac
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
Nearly every community in the country could benefit from some sort of change or improvement to the built
environment to create or support walkability and livability. As groups of residents, leaders or organizations come
together to create momentum for those changes, consideration should be given to which projects or interventions
have the greatest chance of succeeding and which will have the greatest benefit. The scoring system below, created
by Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Health Promotion as part of the Community Physical Activity Planning resource
manual, provides a good starting point for prioritizing efforts.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
Completely Satifactorily Not at all
54 3 21
Will achieve the goals and objectives of the plan
Will addresses the needs of segments of the community targeted in our plan
Will produce the desired results in the desired timeframe
Will be supported by the parties responsible for implementation
Has an existing agency prepared to assume responsibility for implementation
Will be supported by the community
Will be supported by community and external funding agencies
Will not conflict with or duplicate existing projects in the community
Takes full advantage of existing resources in the community
Can realistically be implemented within the plan’s timeframe
Can be implemented with available financial resources
Can be implemented with available staff resources
Is financially viable and sustainable over the long term
Other Criteria:
HOW TO PLAN & PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY
PAGE 50
TOOLKIT 2B
Identifying the Best Projects for the Physical Activity Plan:
A Checklist
This checklist identifies a number of criteria that can be used to select projects for
your plan. Not all criterion will be applicable to every project. Your committee may
identify other criteria relevant to your plan. Rank proposed projects on a scale of
1-5 depending on how well they fulfill each criterion.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
ad
HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
Please provide written responses to each applicable question. For those questions
which are not applicable, please indicate so on the form. Attach additional sheets if
more space is necessary to respond fully to the questions. Submit completed form
with your project/development application.
PROJECT NAME: ________________________________________________________
ADRESS/LOCATION: _____________________________________________________
CASE #: ______________________
TYPE OF PROJECT: Residential Mixed Commercial Office Civic
YES NO
Does the project/development promote interaction between
neighbors?
If YES please list: _____________________________________
Is the physical design of the project harmonious with the overall
neighborhood?
Is this development adjacent to existing development and
connecting to the development with pedestrian links and roadway
connections?
Is there an adequate mix of land uses that provide a variety of
housing choices?
Do these mixes provide for a great diversity in incomes, and
especially provide for affordability?
Are there locations for non residential land uses that are integrated
with the residential?
Is the land use configured around a walkable block size ( ¼ mile
perimeter)?
Is there a range of density permitted in the neighborhood?
Are fronts of homes properly placed and have windows watching
over schools, parks, streets, trails and other public places?
Is the architecture of buildings attractive and supportive of life on the
street, park, school?
Are there provisions eliminating garages from “mooning” the street
(i.e. required garage setbacks, lot frontage percentage)?
Are public buildings, parks and other common destinations properly
placed to maximize the number of people that can walk to them?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in ten
minutes (2500 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
an elementary school?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in twenty
minutes (5000 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
a high school?
Is there too much emphasis on providing large amounts of off-street
parking (relates to affordability, density)?
LAND USE
Just as with the checklist on the previous page, groups of people or organizations coming together to improve the
built environment to support walkability and livability should assess any potential projects for existing shortcomings
or opportunities for improvement. The checklist below, developed by WALC Institute team members, provides a
list of qualities that should be assessed as a first step in evaluating an effort’s viability.
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
ae
YES NO
Does the project/development achieve a connectivity index of 1.4?
The index is calculated by dividing the number of street links (street
sections between intersections, including cul-de-sacs) by the number
of street nodes (intersections and cul-de-sacs). A grid street network
would yield an index of 2.0.
Does the project/development provide mobility options for those who
cannot drive?
Does the project/development have a well connected sidewalk
system that lead to local destinations?
If YES what is the proposed width of the sidewalks (5.0 foot minimum
recommended)? __________________________________________
Are sidewalks detached from the curb allowing planter strips to take
up driveway elevation changes?
Do all corners have ADA accessible ramps (2 ramps per corner
preferred)?
Do planter strips offer canopy street trees (each 15-30 feet
recommended)?
If median tree plantings are preferred, are plantings adequate for
canopy development (each 15-30 feet recommended)?
Are there adequate provisions made for proper care and
maintenance of canopy trees?
Do building practices eliminate privacy fences (above 4.0 feet)
toward the public side of properties?
Are there specifications that public facing fencing be attractive and
transparent above 4.0 feet?
Do curbs, swales, curb extensions, or other designs keep cars
parked in correct locations (no rollover curbs)?
Does the project/development have, or connect to, a trail system for
walking or biking?
Does the project/development contain elements that enhance the
feeling of neighborhood security and safety?
Are local streetlights provided?
Are houses oriented toward the street to provide “eyes on the street?”
Are the buildings addressing the street? (i.e. front doors)
Is there parking between the building and the street?
Can a child walk safely, comfortably, and feel watched over enroute
to school?
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the route to the school(s)?
What is the walking distance to the area’s schools? ______________
Is the visibility at intersections good? Can drivers see short children,
physically handicapped?
Does the route contain known dangerous intersections?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Are there crossing guards at these intersections?
Will the project/development contain a significant elderly population?
Can the elderly walk to important destinations (i.e. banks, post office
community centers, and library)? What is the walking distance to
these destinations? ________________________________________
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN
Access management strategies aimed
at reducing the number of driveway
crossings and increasing the width of the sidewalk corridor significantly
improve the pedestrian experience for
existing developments.
af
YES NO
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the routes to these
destinations?
Is the overall speed at or below 25 mph for all local streets?
Is the overall speed at or below 30 mph for all collector streets?
Does the project contain design elements to calm traffic such as curb
extensions, mini-circles, parking chicanes, roundabouts, medians,
raised street crossings, or similar features?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Does the project/development present unsafe conditions or deter
access and free mobility for the physically handicapped?
For projects/development on arterial streets, does the plan include
pedestrian crossing signals and/or mid-block crossing islands?
Is public transportation available?
If YES, where and how close is the nearest bus/train stop? ________
_________________________________________________________
Does the nearest bus/train stop have a shelter?
Does the nearest the bus/train stop have a bench and litter can?
Do curb extensions or other treatments prevent motorists from
parking too close to corners?
If narrow streets are used, do streets provide a physical space (20
feet wide) every 200 feet for emergency response operations?
If alleys are used, is there high transparency (surveillance) in the
alley?
If paseos (connectors or links) are used, is there high transparency
(surveillance) to the paseo?
Do schools, parks, and other public destinations have adequate well
located and secure bike parking?
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN CONTINUED
YES NO
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in five
minutes (1500 feet) to a public gathering place, park, plaza, or
community center?
Are there an adequate number of parks provided within walking
distance (1/8 – ¼ mile ) from every residence?
Are there sidewalks/pathways, ADA ramps along the route to the
above services?
What is the walking distance to the area’s amenities? _____________
Is the size of parks and open space adequate for the amount of
potential residents?
Are there a number of buildings/houses that watch over parks, trails,
and open space?
Are these parks well used? If not yet built, are there a number of
things to discover and do in these parks?
Do parks have appropriate on-street parking, or is there too much
off-street parking?
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Healthy Development Checklist, from Walkable Communities:
http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/healthy_development_checklist.pdf
Active School Neighborhood Checklist, from the Arizona Department of Transportation:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/swprojmgmt/Enhancement_Scenic/saferoutes/SafeRoutes_Common
/Apply_Active_School_Neighborhood_Checklist.asp
Healthy, Active & Vibrant Community 2009 Toolkit, from Trailnet:
http://www.trailnet.org/HAVC_Toolkit.phpJuly 6, 2011
Growing Demand for Communities that Promote Health, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_WalkableCommunities.pdf
At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy, from
the American Public Health Association:
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-FB68-4112-8C75-
49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.pdf
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, from the Local Government Commission:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/Healthy_Kids_Healthy_Communitie
s.pdf
Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf
Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance, from Active Living
Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf
Additional Resources
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Sample Safe Routes to Schools Programs, from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/4233
Parent Survey about Walking and Biking to School, from the National Center for Safe Routes:
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/collateral/Parent_Survey_English_Scan2009.pdf
Teaching Children to Walk Safely as They Grow and Develop: A guide for parents/caregivers
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/graduated_walking/index.cfm
Adult School Crossing Guard Guidelines
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/crossing_guard/index.cfm
The Walking School Bus: Combining safety, fun and the walk to school
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/walking_school_bus/index.cfm
Student Drop-off and Pick-up
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Dropoff-Pickup.pdf
Media and Visibility
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/media/index.cfm
Education
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Education.pdf
Enforcement
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Enforcement.pdf
Evaluation Guide for Community Safe Routes to School Programs
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Evaluation.pdf
Many more Safe Routes to School guides and tools are available at www.saferoutesinfo.org.
Additional Resources
Safe Routes to School
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
1215 Lawrence Street, Unit 001
Port Townsend, WA 98368
www.walklive.org
360.385.3421
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
August 2011
1
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City:
Beach Cities Livability Plan
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONES VITALITY CITY: BEACH CITIES LIVABILITY PLAN
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3
A NOTE FROM DAN BURDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WALC INSTITUTE ......................................... 10
2 TOWARD WELL-BEING IN THE BEACH CITIES .................................................................... 11
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN .................................................................................................................. 12
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................... 15
WHY A BETTER BUILT FORM? ......................................................................................................... 16
KEY TOOLS AND TERMS FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM ............................................................................ 17
KEY PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM ................................................................. 23
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 31
WHAT WE HEARD: FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, CITY STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS ........... 31
WHAT WE SAW: OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE BEACH CITIES’ BUILT ENVIRONMENT ................................... 34
4 POLICY FOR LIVABLE BEACH CITIES .................................................................................. 41
POLICY TO ACHIEVE LIVABILITY GOALS IN THE BEACH CITIES .................................................................. 42
GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEW ................................................................................. 52
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS .................................... 74
5 CHANGES FOR A BETTER BUILT FORM .............................................................................. 76
NEEDED: FLEXIBILITY, CREATIVITY AND COURAGE ............................................................................... 77
TRANSFORM REGIONAL CORRIDORS ................................................................................................. 79
TRANSFORM LOCAL CORRIDORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS ............................................................ 85
GENERAL GUIDANCE ..................................................................................................................... 89
6 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................ 94
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City:
Beach Cities Livability Plan
August 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Sarah Bowman, Director of Education
“By focusing on livability, we can help transform the way transportation serves the American
people—and create safer, healthier communities that provide access to economic opportunities.”
– U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
This report focuses on how to improve livability and well-being in Hermosa Beach, Manhattan
Beach and Redondo Beach – the “beach cities” – through land-use and transportation systems
that better support active living.
Livability refers to the quality of life a place allows and is heavily influenced by the land-use and
transportation planning choices made. The built environment impacts health, well-being and
happiness – either positively or negatively. It is a reflection of the care and thoughtfulness put
into creating the places where we live, go to work, attend school, and play.
Study after study shows that walkable, bikeable, and livable communities are also healthier
communities, not only in terms of individual health, but also environmental and economic
health. Consider that:
A study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association in 2006 found that for
every five-percent increase in walkability, a community could expect more than a 30-
percent increase in “physically active travel” and nearly a quarter-point reduction in
individual body mass index, which is a common indicator for obesity and health. The
increase in walkability also was correlated with more than a five-percent reduction in
air pollutants that are associated with vehicle travel.1
1 Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Conway, T.L., Chapman, J.E., Saelens, B.E., & Bachman, W. (2006), “. "Many
pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighbourhood walkability and active
transportation, body mass index, and air quality.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1). 75-87; at
http://www.planning.org/library/bibliography/resource.htm?ResourceID=1167
Executive Summary
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City: Beach Cities Livability Plan
August 2011
Livability refers to
quality of life.
Livability is not
about sacrifice.
Livability is
achieved when we
set our course to
complete streets
and embrace well-
being.
Analysis published in Preventive Medicine in 2010 indicates that installing sidewalks on all
of a city’s streets would increase physical activity enough to offset weight gain in about
37 percent of the population, leading to healthcare savings likely to be enough to repay
the cost of installing the sidewalks.2
A study published by CEOs for Cities in 2009 shows that in 13 of 15 housing markets
evaluated, a one-point increase in a neighborhood’s WalkScore (www.walkscore.com)
increased homes values as much as $3,000.3
Other benefits noted through observation and reported by numerous government entities,
independent researchers and non-profit organizations include:
Protection of natural and cultural resources (http://www.epa.gov/dced/)
Increased economic development
(http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Shoup-
Ewing_March2010.pdf)
Reduction in crime and violence
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/cpted.html)
Opportunities for social connectedness and community building
(http://bowlingalone.com/)
Reduce sprawl and infrastructure costs
(http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/axelrad.html)
Transportation equity (http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf)
Further, when cities and towns provide equitable access
to a complete transportation system, they send the
message that people – not just cars - belong. No matter
one’s age, income, ability, or mode of transport, the place
works and the benefits are tremendous:
Livability is not about sacrifice. When we design our
streets for well-being, we get well-being. We can turn
our communities into thoroughfares or we can turn our
communities into destinations. Our streets are attractive
and safe for all users, or they are not. Our streets
encourage a variety of transportation options, including
walking and bicycling, or they limit choices. Our streets
enable social interaction, or they segregate. Our streets
improve individual, economic and environmental health,
2 Jessica Y. Guo and Sasanka Gandavarapu (2010), “An Economic Evaluation Of Health-Promotive Built
Environment Changes,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, Supplement 1, January 2010, pp. S44-S49; at
www.activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/journalspecialissues
3 Cortright, Joe and Impresa, Inc. (2009), “Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in
U.S. Cities.” For CEOs for Cities; at http://www.ceosforcities.org/work/walkingthewalk
or they diminish these things. These are the choices we have before us. Livability is achieved
when we set our course to complete streets and embrace well-being. This report outlines the
ways in which our elected leaders, city staff and residents can support the livability movement.
Presently, too many of our streets prioritize vehicle mobility. Because of this, the primary role of
streets is to move vehicles quickly and this deters other modes of transportation, especially
transit, biking and walking. Over-reliance on one system has led to an imbalance where
walking and bicycling have become challenging and unnatural activities. We have limited our
choices. The results are lower levels of health, happiness and social connectedness. A focus on
building livable communities recognizes the significance of streets and transportation
investments in individual and community life.
Through active transportation, the beach cities can improve the health, happiness and
productivity of residents. To help determine how best to go about this effort, the WALC
Institute team listened to residents and local leaders, observed existing conditions, and
identified context-sensitive solutions and best practices appropriate for the communities.
As a result, the Institute team suggests the following goals for the beach cities:
Goal 1: A complete network of streets and public spaces to support active living
Goal 2: Safe, natural and enjoyable walking and biking conditions
Goal 3: Sustainable transportation choices
Goal 4: Healthier, happier people
In order to achieve these goals, we have set forth the following key recommendations which are
detailed in this report:
1. Adopt Complete Streets policies and incorporate Complete Streets policy language into
all beach cities planning documents
2. Create and adopt street design guidelines that support livability
3. Develop a regional pedestrian master plan
4. Adopt and implement the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
5. Increase enforcement for pedestrian safety
6. Increase education and awareness for all road users
7. Improve and enhance Safe Routes to School programs
8. Update the General Plans and Municipal Codes to include livability principles
9. Transform regional corridors, local corridors and neighborhood streets to encourage
active transportation
10. Apply best practices, lessons learned and available resources to improve livability
throughout the beach cities
The Vitality City team worked closely with the three beach cities to review the livability plan
developed by the WALC Institute and use it as a foundation to develop top priorities for
improving livability in the region. The goal was to identify and prioritize efforts that will not
only improve support for walking and biking in the beach cities, but when fully implemented
will also improve air quality, reduce congestion, and reduce overall travel time by automobiles
along corridors. Find details about Vitality City at: www.vitalitycity.com.
The top priorities, as developed by Vitality City and representatives from the beach cities, are:
Adopt Livability Policies
o All three cities are encouraged to direct staff to place livability principles into each
city’s General Plan and Municipal Codes and to provide draft policy revisions to
appropriate commissions and the city councils for review and approval by February
2012. This addition provides a mission or guiding framework for city policies. (The
WALC Institute analysis and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are detailed in, “General Plan and Municipal Code Review,” starting on page
54.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to revise appropriate policies and plans to include
“Complete Streets” policies and design guidelines for livable streets. Route the
recommended revised policies through appropriate commissions and city councils
for review and approval by April 2012. (The WALC Institute recommendation that
supports this Vitality City priority is detailed in, “Develop and Adopt Complete
Streets Policies,” starting on page 42.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to adopt the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan by
December 2011. (The WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support
this Vitality City priority are referenced on pages 28, 41, 43, 76 and 82.)
o All three cities are encouraged to develop and adopt city and regional pedestrian
plans. Cities are encouraged to direct staff to pursue funding in 2012 to begin the
planning process for 2013. (The WALC Institute recommendation that supports this
Vitality City priority is detailed in, “Develop and Adopt a Regional Pedestrian
Master Plan,” starting on page 44.”)
Build Stuff
o All three cities are encouraged to identify locations and plans to install mini-circles.
They can improve safety and traffic flow while reducing air and noise pollution. (The
WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are referenced on pages 21, 34, 87, 88, 91, and in the Appendix section,
“Photo-Visualizations: Local Corridor.”)
o All three cities are encouraged to work cooperatively and potentially with two cities
north of the beach cities to install bike lanes on Aviation Boulevard, creating
connection to employment centers. This should begin in 2012 with setting up a joint
staff task force and a joint community task force to complete sufficient planning to
be able to apply for funding by late 2012. (The WALC Institute recommendations
that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 79 and 82.)
o All three cities are encouraged to reset intersection signals in areas of high pedestrian
counts so that the WALK phase is automatic for the pedestrian. This helps create a
pedestrian-friendly culture. (The WALC Institute guidance and recommendations
that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 81, 82 and 89.)
o All three cities are encouraged to continue efforts to secure funding to build Safe
Routes to Schools improvements. (The WALC Institute guidance and
recommendations that support this Vitality City priority are on pages 22, 33, 69, 71,
72, 74, and 87, as well as in the section, “Improve and Enhance Safe Routes to School
Programs, starting on page 48.)
o The City of Redondo Beach is encouraged to complete engineering studies and
planning process to install a cycle-track (two-way bikeway separated from cars) on
N. Harbor Drive by 2013. (The WALC Institute recommendations that support this
Vitality City priority are detailed in the section, “Harbor Drive at Yacht Club Way”
on page 86.)
o The City of Redondo Beach is encouraged to replace signs along the North Redondo
Beach Bikeway to have stops only for motorists, not cyclists/pedestrians. (The
WALC Institute guidance and recommendations that support this Vitality City
priority are on pages 32 and 91 and in the Appendix section, “Photo-Visualizations:
Local Corridor.”)
o The Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach are encouraged to establish a
committee to plan how to restripe Valley Ardmore, converting each street to one-
way with bike lanes on the street. (The WALC Institute recommendations that
support this Vitality City priority are detailed in the section, “Valley Dr. and
Ardmore Dr.” on page 87.)
Educate and Enforce
o All three cities are encouraged to partner with the South Bay Bicycle Coalition and
other stakeholders to develop plans to increase education and enforcement for
pedestrian and bike safety. Education is for all parties, not just motorists. (The
WALC Institute recommendations that support this Vitality City priority are
detailed in the sections, “Increase Education and Awareness for All Road Users” on
page 47 and “Increase Enforcement for Pedestrian Safety” on page 46, as well as on
page 93.)
This report provides a general assessment of existing conditions in the beach cities, followed by
specific recommendations for improving policy and the built form to be more supportive of
livability.
It includes the following:
A personal message on livability from Dan Burden, Executive Director of the Walkable
and Livable Communities Institute
An explanation of the purpose of this livability plan and why we need a better built
form
Summary of existing conditions in the beach cities
Policy recommendations for improved livability
Specific actions the beach communities should take for a better built form more
supportive of livability
Photo-visualizations of a regional corridor and a local corridor to assist with visioning
and capacity-building
Best practices and resources for improving livability
This report outlines how beach cities elected leaders and city staff can support the livability
movement. They should:
1. Apply their personal knowledge, skills, love and care for their communities to build
places of the heart that people will cherish, enjoy and wish to spend time in.
2. Teach others about the value of Complete Streets policies and look for opportunities to
incorporate Complete Streets principles into all projects.
3. Take to the street to assess the built environment with the community and to learn from
residents and visitors.
4. Work with law enforcement and schools to improve pedestrian safety and to increase
education and awareness for all road users.
5. Assess their General Plans and Municipal Codes for livability principles and to
determine where health and well-being might be incorporated more fully.
6. Transform regional corridors, local corridors and neighborhood streets to encourage
active transportation.
7. Know the best practices, lessons learned and available resources to improve livability
throughout the beach cities.
Beach cities residents, business operators and employees of the area can support the livability
movement too. They should:
1. Become active participants in Vitality City efforts by signing up at
www.vitalitycity.com.
2. Familiarize themselves with the contents of this report.
3. Contact their elected leaders and city staff and share their thoughts on the livability
plan.
4. Act locally to improve livability by assessing conditions and communicating
observations to city staff and elected leaders on an on-going basis.
5. Volunteer! Livability requires it.
Livable communities are destinations. These places are built with vision, patience, love, common
sense, teamwork, and openness. They have a shared commitment to improving quality of life for
all. They are graced with a widely held and firmly developed sense of ownership and
custodianship because residents of livable communities care for their community. Livable
Communities are talked about, celebrated, and loved for their uniqueness and ability to
champion the natural environment and human spirit. This report provides key
recommendations for improving the built environment so that we encourage greater livability in
the beach cities.
I have dedicated the bulk of my life to helping the world get back on its feet by improving
communities’ built forms to be more walkable, livable, healthy and welcoming of people of all
ages and abilities.
As executive director of the WALC
Institute, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to assist the beach cities as
they strive to improve their built form to be
more supportive of well-being.
Now is the time for unified action in the
beach cities. As Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe said, “Dream no small dreams for
they stir not the hearts of men.” Livability
becomes a reality when community insights
are combined and many people come
together to collaborate. The beach cities –
with the help of Vitality City – have a rare opportunity to adopt interventions that will
significantly improve well-being.
Having met with and seen the commitment of local government and health officials, residents,
business leaders, community advocates and other stakeholders, I am a believer in your future.
The right people are already coming together to make walkable, livable and healthy
communities a reality. There is no doubt, though: the beach cities have their fair share of
challenges to achieving healthier communities, such as streets that encourage too-fast vehicle
speeds and missing sidewalks and trails.
The good news is that all of these challenges can be overcome, and this report provides guidance
for beginning to do just that. The task is immense, and work on it must begin now.
Wherever the communities begin their work, I and many others will be watching. And as
projects get underway to place the focus back on people and health, we will share your stories
and successes broadly. May the winds of change bring much good to you, and through you.
Sincerely,
As we made it
easier to do
everything by car,
we stopped
accommodating
other modes of
transport, and
thus made it
necessary to do
everything by car.
This plan advances the Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City program in the Los Angeles-area
South Bay communities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach—the “beach
cities”—by analyzing the built environment and recommending strategies to return well-being
to citizens through improved livability and opportunities for active living.
In recent decades, the beach cities have done what many
other communities throughout the country have done:
made walking and active transportation unnatural and
difficult. Structural changes to our built environment
were made to favor the car over other forms of getting to
and from the places we like and need to go. As a result,
the nation has seen declines in public health, social
engagement and access to healthy food.
Dependence on the car keeps many people confined in
their vehicles for long periods each day. It may have been
unintended, but as we made it easier to do everything by
car, we stopped accommodating other modes of
transport, and thus made it necessary to do everything by
car.
As travel by car increased, the distances between the
places people travel also increased. In time, many people found that even if they wanted to walk
to a destination, it was too far and they would have to get in the car. In fact, between 1982 and
1997, these effects became very pronounced. During this period, the urbanized land area in the
U.S. rose 47 percent while the population grew only 17 percent, for a net decrease of more than
20 percent in urban density. During the same period, vehicle miles traveled increased 55 percent.
People now spend more time sitting in cars while getting to destinations that are further apart.
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City is a community-wide well-being improvement initiative
to create healthier, happier and more productive citizens. It uses permanent, evidence-based
environmental and policy changes to help people adopt and maintain healthier lifestyles.
The Vitality City initiative includes ten strategies to improve well-being—a combination of
physical, social and emotional health. This roadmap for livability is one strategy which aims to
increase well-being in the beach cities in part by helping to make streets and neighborhoods
more supportive of walking and bicycling, and by allowing residents and visitors to choose
active modes of transportation.
The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute is a non-profit, educational organization that
works throughout the country and the world to create healthy, connected communities that are
supportive of active living and that advance opportunities for all people through walkable
streets, livable cities and better built environments.
The Institute joins the Vitality City initiative with a goal to build capacity by promoting a shared
language among residents, government staff and elected officials; illustrating through examples
and audits how walkability and livability benefit a community and how they can be achieved;
and inspiring everyone to become involved in the movement toward active living. The focus is on
significant enhancements being implemented and on-the-ground within six months to one year,
and many other enhancements well into implementation within three years.
The WALC Institute team—led by Executive Director Dan Burden, Director of Outreach and
Communications Kelly Morphy and Director of Education Sarah Bowman—is assisting the
Vitality City project in three phases to address the beach cities’ built environment and guiding
documents, how they affect active living and ways to improve upon existing conditions.
During the first phase of the WALC Institute’s involvement, launched in December 2010, the
Institute team conducted a walking audit and a bicycle audit to experience firsthand the
conditions that create barriers to active living in the beach cities.
Also during the first phase, the
Institute team held stakeholder
interviews and delivered training
to city staff from all three
communities on best practices in
traffic calming, creating complete
streets and otherwise providing a
built environment that supports
active living and active
transportation. The team also
took part in the Vitality City
media launch, which garnered
local, regional and national
coverage.
During the second phase, which
began in January 2011, the
Institute team conducted four
public workshops and walking
audits (three of them in
conjunction with the public
process for developing a regional
bicycle master plan), evaluated
existing conditions throughout
the cities, identified opportunities
for improvements, led a visioning
and design session with city staff
from all three communities and
participated in other public
outreach efforts.
The third phase of work, beginning in February 2011, includes development of this report,
delivering the team’s findings and recommendations to the communities, and continuing to
support Vitality City outreach efforts.
The benefits of livability and walkability are numerous, and are particularly important in places
like the beach cities where, according to the Beach Cities Vitality City Blueprint, nearly 60
percent of residents are either overweight or obese and 16 percent experience significant anger.
In fact, study after study shows additional benefits of livable communities, not only in
terms of individual health, but also environmental and economic health. Consider that:
For every five-percent increase in walkability, a community can expect more
than a 30-percent increase in “physically active travel” and nearly a quarter-point
reduction in individual body mass index, which is a common indicator for
obesity and health. The increase in walkability also is correlated with more than
a five-percent reduction in air pollutants that are associated with vehicle travel.4
Installing sidewalks on all of a city’s streets can increase physical activity enough
to offset weight gain in about 37 percent of the population, leading to healthcare
savings likely to be enough to repay the cost of installing the sidewalks.5
In 13 of 15 housing markets evaluated, a one-point increase in a neighborhood’s
WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) increased homes values as much as $3,000.6
In addition to the individual health improvements that can be achieved when people opt for
active modes of transportation, changing the built form to be more supportive of walking, biking,
transit and other active alternatives also benefits communities through:
Protection of natural and cultural resources (http://www.epa.gov/dced/)
Increased economic development
(http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Synthesis_Shoup-
Ewing_March2010.pdf)
Reduction in crime and violence
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/cpted.html)
Opportunities for social connectedness and community building
(http://bowlingalone.com/)
Reduce sprawl and infrastructure costs
(http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/axelrad.html)
Transportation equity, such as options for people who don’t drive, including
children, senior citizens, and those who don’t have or can’t afford cars.
(http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf)
Improved mood and decrease anxiety
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494409000838).
4 Sallis, et al.
5 Guo and Gandavarapu
6 Cortright and Impresa, Inc.
Active Transportation: Also known
as non-motorized transportation,
this includes walking, bicycling,
using a wheelchair or using “small-
wheeled transport” such as skates, a
skateboard or scooter. Active modes
of transportation offer a combination
of recreation, exercise and
transportation. (See Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, www.vtpi.org.)
Aging in Place: The ability to
continue to live in one’s home safely,
independently and comfortably,
regardless of age, income or ability level. It means living in a familiar environment, and being able
to participate in family and other community activities. Also sometimes called, “Living in Place.”
(See National Aging in Place Council, www.ageinplace.org.)
Charrette: [pronounced, “shuh-
RET”] A collaborative session to solve
urban-design problems. It usually
involves a group of designers working
directly with stakeholders or
residents to identify issues and
solutions. It is a much more
successful form of public process
than traditional public hearings, as it
focuses on building informed consent.
A charrette can last only a day, several
days, or weeks. (See Walkable and
Livable Communities Institute, www.walklive.org.)
Complete Streets: Roads that are designed for everyone, including people of all ages and
abilities. Complete Streets are accessible, have vehicle speeds appropriate for the area, are
comfortable for walking and biking, and include sidewalks, street trees and other amenities that
make them feel “complete.” (See National Complete Streets Coalition,
www.completestreets.org.) Further, according to California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Deputy Directive 64-R1, a Complete Street is a transportation facility that is planned,
designed, operated and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit riders and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility.
Complete Street concepts apply to rural, suburban and urban areas.
Head-Out Angled Parking: Also called
“back-in” or “reverse” angled parking,
this is arguably the safest form of on-
street parking. A driver “backs in” to the
angled parking spot, which is easier
than parallel parking because it is
basically only the first maneuver of
parallel parking. Head-out parking
creates a sight line between the driver
and other road users when pulling out.
Additionally, head-out parking allows
the driver to load their trunk from the
curb, instead of adjacent to the travel
lane. And for drivers with young children, when parked in a head-out spot, the open car doors
guide passengers toward the sidewalks, reducing the chance of a child stepping into the vehicle
travel lane. (See appendix, How to Do It: Parking.)
Joint Powers Authority: Also called “JPA,” this is an entity permitted under the law, whereby
two or more public authorities (e.g. local government agencies or utility or transport districts)
can operate collectively.
Level of Service: Also called “LOS,” this is a qualitative measure describing the flow of traffic on
a roadway. It generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, safety and the perceived comfort and convenience of the driver.
The interruptions to other modes are not generally considered.
Livability: In the context of community environments and quality of life, this refers to all of the
factors that add up to a community’s quality of life, including the built and natural environments.
(See Partners for Livable Communities, www.livable.org.)
Moai: A term from the Blue Zone of Okinawa, Japan, referring to small groups of friends who
regularly meet.
Median Crossing Islands: A short island,
about 40 to 80 feet long, in the center of the
roadway, serves as a traffic-calming device or a
pedestrian refuge. Islands are generally eight
to 12 feet wide, but narrower island can
achieve their purpose, as well. Islands should
be landscaped with low, slow-growth ground
cover, and tall trees without branches or leaves
at ground height—such as palm trees—that
help motorists see the islands well in advance
but don’t obstruct sight lines.
Pedestrian Yield Paddles: Flexible, high-visibility vertical signs placed in the center of streets
with lower speeds (30 mph or less) to heighten awareness of marked pedestrian crossings.
Pork Chop Islands: A special intersection island that separates right-turning vehicles from
other traffic movement and creates a refuge for pedestrians crossing wider streets. From above,
pork chop islands look like pork chops.
Road Diet: When a road is overly wide or has more vehicle travel lanes than are needed or safe,
travel lanes can be removed and the extra width used to add bike lanes, sidewalks, a buffer
between the travel lanes and sidewalks, on-street parking, a landscaped median or some
combination thereof. A common road diet transforms a four-lane road without bike lanes into a
three-lane road (one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane or median) with bike
lanes and street trees. (See Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, www.walklive.org. Also see
appendix, How to Do It: Road Diets.)
MINI TRAFFIC CIRCLES, ROTARIES AND ROUNDABOUTS
Mini Traffic Circles: Also called “mini circles,”
these are intersections that navigate vehicles around
a small island about eight to 15 feet in diameter that
is either lightly domed or raised. When raised, a
mini traffic circle should be visible from hundreds of
feet away, creating the feeling of a small park in the
neighborhood. The circles should be designed to
reduce speeds to 15 to 18 mph at each intersection. A
proper number of them will reduce vehicle speeds to
22 to 25 mph along the corridor while helping traffic
flow more smoothly due to the decreased number of complete stops.
Rotaries: Also called traffic circles, rotaries are intersections that navigate cars around very large
circulating islands, as big as a football fields in some cases. Rotaries can be cumbersome and can
induce higher crash rates. Many rotaries are being replaced with roundabouts.
Roundabouts: Also called “modern
roundabouts,” they navigate cars around a
circulating island, usually about 60 feet in
diameter. Roundabouts are ideal for collector
and arterial roads, and around freeway on-off
ramps. They eliminate the need for cars to
make left turns, which are particularly
dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Properly designed, roundabouts hold vehicles
speeds to 15 to 20 mph. They can reduce
injury crashes by 76 percent and reduce fatal
crashes by 90 percent. (See the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety’s website:
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/roundab
outs.html.) Roundabouts also can increase
capacity by 30 percent by keeping vehicles
moving. When installing roundabouts in a
community for the first time, care should be
taken to make roadway users comfortable
with the new traffic pattern and to educate
them about how to navigate roundabouts
properly and to yield as appropriate. For
more information about roundabouts, see the
Federal Highway Administration’s
educational video about roundabouts, at
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/fhwasa10023/wmv_cc_final/10-
2124_Roundabouts.wmv.
Safe Routes to School: A national program
to improve safety and encourage more
children, including children with
disabilities, to walk, bike and roll to school.
The program focuses on improvements
through the five E’s: engineering, education,
enforcement, encouragement and
evaluation. (See National Center for Safe Routes
to School, www.saferoutesinfo.org.)
Sharrows: A “shared roadway marking”—usually paint—placed in the center of a travel lane to
alert motorists and bicyclists alike to the shared use of the lane. They help position bicyclists
away from the opening doors of cars parked on the street, encourage safety when vehicles pass
bicyclists and reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.
Smart Growth: Growing in a way that expands economic opportunity, protects public health
and the environment and creates and enhances places that people love. (See U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/.)
Traffic Calming: Using traffic engineering and other tools designed to control traffic speeds and
encourage driving behavior appropriate to the environment. Examples include street trees, bulb
outs, medians, curb extensions, signage, road diets and roundabouts. Traffic calming should
encourage mobility for all modes.
Walk Streets: Streets intended and designed to provide local access solely for pedestrians and
cyclists.
Walking Audit: Also called a “walking
workshop,” this is a review of walking
conditions along specified streets conducted
with a diverse group of community members.
Participants experience firsthand the
conditions that either support or create
barriers to walking and biking. (See more
about walking audits: Walkable and Livable
Communities Institute, www.walklive.org.)
Walking School Bus: Often organized as part
of a Safe Routes to School program, a walking
school bus involves children walking along a set route, at set times, to and from school, with an
adult chaperone. Many parent organizations and neighborhoods develop informal walking
school buses that are as effective and organized as those created as part of a Safe Routes
program.
Why do people walk, bike, blade, board or scoot in some parts of the beach cities, and not in
other parts? Why are some communities throughout the country considered very walkable, and
others hardly walkable at all?
Near the beaches and along streets that have been designed to support beachgoers, people are
seen arriving in cars, by bike, on foot and via other modes of active transportation. People also
are seen walking, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding and scooting along the fun, vibrant trails
in the region. These are hot spots and they help illustrate that walkable, livable places really do
work. But why do they work? And how can the beach cities change their built forms to be more
supportive of active living in places further from the beaches?
Walkability is the measure of the overall walking, bicycling and living conditions in an area,
defined as the extent to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of people, and
not just cars. Walkable streets may teem with people shopping, commuting by foot, or simply
enjoying recreation and exercise. Factors improving walkability include:
Nearby land uses, such as retail shops located near offices and housing, and schools
located within neighborhoods.
Street connectivity, ideally in a fine-grain grid without unnecessary cul-de-sacs or one-
way streets, which tend to contribute to higher and unsafe vehicle speeds.
Residential areas that are “denser” than the suburban format that has proliferated in
some areas. In most residential areas of the beach cities, neighborhoods already provide
good density and potential for active transportation, but are in need of enhancements to
the streets to become truly walkable places.
Road widths that contribute to slower vehicle speeds. Vehicle speeds affect walkability
and livability: the wider a road or a vehicle travel lane is (or appears to the driver to be),
the faster the driver tends to travel. The faster cars are traveling, the less safe and
comfortable a person feels walking or bicycling next to them.
A sense of security and “eyes on the street.” This feeling of comfort is created by orienting
the homes and buildings toward the street, and providing transparency—occupied
buildings and homes with windows and doors at the street level—so occupants can
watch over the street.
Quality place-making contributes to improved walkability. Streets that are laid out well, public
squares, plazas and small parks create a human scale and a sense of enclosure to the street,
helping to keep vehicle speeds low. Lower vehicle speeds contribute to safety and security for
motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.
Table 1. Probability of pedestrian death resulting from various vehicle impact speeds.
Vehicle
speed (mph)
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
(%)*
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 14 and under
(%)**
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 15 to 59 (%)**
Probability of
pedestrian fatality
age 60 and older
(%)**
20 5 1 1 3
30 45 5 7 62
40 85 16 22 92
* Source: Ref (3); ** Source: Ref (4)
Walkability is improved as an area takes on its own charm and sense of place and is further
enhanced when walkway environments are rich and complex, with many things to do, see and
experience.
Perhaps most importantly, walkability is greatly affected by the behavior of cars. In areas where
vehicle speeds are too high for the street’s adjacent land uses, traveling by any mode other than a
car can feel very uncomfortable and, in some cases, is downright dangerous.
Specific engineering considerations that affect walkability include sidewalks, crossings and
bikeways.
Sidewalks are often built too narrow, with poles obstructing travel, driveway ramps that are too
steep for crossing and inadequate bus stops. Communities should correct these and other
problems to build sidewalks that support active living:
The pedestrian environment should be safe, inviting and accessible to people of all ages
and physical abilities. It should connect people to places and be easy to understand.
All sidewalks should adhere to Americans with Disability Act standards.
Driveway aprons should be confined to the Furniture and Curb Zones.
Landscaped buffers or fences should separate sidewalks from parking.
Sidewalk surfaces should be stable, firm, smooth and slip-resistant.
Pedestrian and driver sight distances should be maintained near driveways.
Regulations regarding walls, fencing and foliage near the intersection of sidewalks and
driveways should ensure adequate sight distances as vehicles enter or exit.
Bike lanes provide more than
30 benefits to a community
and only a few are specifically
for bicyclists. Benefits to
motorists include extending
sight lines to make it easier to
pull out from driveways;
increasing the turning radius
at intersections, which allows
larger vehicles to make turns
without “riding the curb”;
and creating a buffer
between travel lanes and
parked cars, which makes it
easier to park, un-park, and
get in and out of the car.
People riding bikes should have safe, convenient and comfortable access to all destinations. In
fact, every street is a bicycle street, regardless of whether it includes a designated bikeway or
trail or not. Street designs should accommodate all types, levels and ages of bicyclists. Also,
bicyclists should be separated from pedestrians.
Bikeway facilities should take into account vehicle speeds and volumes. For example, on streets
with low vehicle volumes and low vehicle speeds, the travel lanes can be shared between
bicyclists and motorists. Where higher vehicles volumes and speeds are present, the two types of
street users should be separated.
For specific guidance on bikeway design and locations, consult the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan. In general terms, bikeway treatments should provide clear guidance to enhance the safety
of all roadway users. Bike lanes are needed most on higher speed and higher volume roadways.
When bike lanes are added to principal roadways, they should be at least five feet wide.
In urban areas, the addition of bike lanes is
one of the greatest new safety benefits for
all roadway users, including motorists, bus
users, freight truck operators and
pedestrians. Bike lanes provide more than
30 benefits to a community, and only a few
are specifically for bicyclists.
Bike lane benefits to motorists include
extending sight lines to make it easier to
pull out from driveways; increasing the
turning radius at intersections, which
allows larger vehicles to make turns
without “riding the curb”; and creating a
buffer between travel lanes and parked
cars, which makes it easier to park, un-
park, and get in and out of the car.
Additionally, bike lanes can serve as a
temporary space for broken-down cars,
make mail deliveries easier and aid in
emergency responses.
Crossing a street should not be difficult. The experience comes down to the behavior of the
person walking and the behavior of the person driving, combined with the design of the
intersection or crossing. A variety of factors influence whether a person driving will stop for a
person attempting to cross the street, including vehicle speed. A driver going slowly has time to
see, react to and stop for the pedestrian. The number of pedestrians present also influences
drivers: in general, more people walking raises drivers' awareness of the likelihood of
pedestrians crossing the street.
Effective traffic management can address concerns about traffic speed and volume. Most tools
addressing crossing challenges are engineering treatments, but tools from the enforcement,
education and planning toolboxes are also important in developing effective and successful
crossings.
Providing marked crosswalks is only one of the many possible engineering measures. Thus,
when considering how to provide safer convenient crossings for pedestrians, the question
should not simply be: "Should we provide a marked crosswalk or not?" but instead, "What are
the most effective measures that can be used to help people cross this street safely and
conveniently?" Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in
meeting the objective to create safe pedestrian crossings.
In the beach cities, land uses and the design of the street, site and building are critically
important to ensuring that coherent, safe, functional and valuable places result. See the following
two town-maker’s guides—which are also provided as electronic attachments to this report—for
general guidance. These posters are especially helpful when printed or displayed at full poster
size—24 inches by 36 inches—to illustrate many of the key concepts of livability, walkability
and better built form.
The WALC Institute team evaluated existing conditions in the beach cities during two multiple-
day site visits, one in December 2010 and one in January 2011. During these visits, the team
conducted public workshops and walking audits, traveled beach cities streets and visited
neighborhoods to document existing conditions through field notes and photography. It is
important to point out that this analysis of existing conditions doesn’t draw on any studies
conducted specifically for this project, such as traffic studies or detailed analyses of pedestrian
networks and street connectivity. Rather, the existing conditions described below represent key
findings from the team’s on-site observations.
Over the course of four public workshops and two technical training sessions, the WALC
Institute team heard from a broad cross-section of community members, business operators,
educators, city staff and elected leaders about the changes they deem important for improving
well-being through livability and better built form in the beach cities. The key feedback provided
includes:
Most beach cities residents really believe in walkability and livability and would
support efforts to make their communities more walkable and livable.
The beach community character is important to many people, and residents understand
that it relates well to the principles of livability and the qualities of a built form that
supports active transportation.
Commuting by bicycle is
difficult along many east-
west routes due to hills. It
would be helpful to have
climbing lanes for
bicyclists and reduce the
frequency of stop signs,
allowing cyclists to
maintain momentum.
Despite high vehicle
speeds of more than 40
mph during weekdays and
as high as 65 mph at times,
Pacific Coast Highway—
which becomes Sepulveda
Blvd. in Manhattan
Beach—is reported by
many commuters to
harbor nearly unbearable
stop-and-go traffic, which is a common problem along commute corridors.
The difficulty of crossing key streets such as Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Boulevard,
Manhattan Beach Boulevard and other multi-lane roadways divides the community and
dampens the desire to walk to common destinations. Addressing these unsafe and
inconvenient crossings is important.
In some areas, distances to a designated place to cross streets are too far to make
walking convenient, and sidewalk gaps prevent pedestrians from getting to the
crossings easily.
There are too few places
throughout the beach cities to
safely and conveniently park
bicycles.
People seek more destinations in
their neighborhoods, or within
walking distance of where they
live. Eateries, pocket parks and
commercial or retail destinations
are as important to residents as
the beaches themselves.
The Valley-Ardmore streets and Greenbelt through Hermosa Beach and Manhattan
Beach are key community assets that aren’t currently fulfilling their potential. Many
vehicle commuters use the section to bypass Pacific Coast Highway and Sepulveda Blvd.
and travel at speeds making the sections uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists.
Additionally, where the Greenbelt crosses streets, pedestrians don’t feel safe and
comfortable.
Safe Routes to School programs are in various stages of planning and implementation in
the beach cities. Despite several successful efforts on the part of the beach cities, there
still is concern, for example, that more emphasis is needed on education and
encouragement. In particular, more awareness is needed amongst parents and students
about the benefits of active commuting to and from school and resources available to
support their efforts to use an active form of transportation.
The WALC Institute team traveled the beach cities’ streets and observed how intersections and
roadways function in general. The following assessment of existing conditions is a summary of
findings and includes general statements about the communities that don’t necessarily apply to
every neighborhood or every street. They are important, though, for each community to address,
because they affect residents’ and visitors’ ability to choose active modes of transportation and
enjoy active living. Additionally, it is important to note that several of the solutions proposed in
this plan would require studies or evaluations to be conducted prior to implementing them.
The one-way travel lanes on Valley and Ardmore in Manhattan Beach make the best of a
difficult situation. The right-of-way is very narrow and is bordered by key community
assets – on one side, the Greenbelt and on the other side, residences, schools and other
important public facilities. Thus, it is not possible to widen the roadway to add typical
“complete streets” accommodations such as bike lanes, wider sidewalks, landscaped
buffer zones and two-way vehicle travel lanes. Generally, one-way travel lanes are
discouraged because they often contribute to faster – and less safe – vehicle speeds and
reduced connectivity. In this case, though, the one-way travel lanes allow the city to
better accommodate the other street uses. They would benefit, however, from a few
enhancements such as added bike lanes and mini traffic circles that would help calm
traffic, better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians and provide a stronger sense of
place and community in this thriving residential area. Sharrows and colorized bike lanes
also should be considered as options in this area.
Many parts of the beach cities already have good “density” that keeps land uses compact
and that reduces travel distances. Even these compact areas, though, would benefit from
improvements to the built form, such as better sidewalks and intersection crossings.
The sharrows in Hermosa Beach represent an emerging best practice that indicates to
motorists and bicyclists alike that they are to share the road.
Several mixed-use developments have been created that are illustrating how streets
with a strong sense of place and high walkability can thrive. Examples include the area
of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Ave. in Manhattan Beach, among
others.
The traffic circle at the intersection of Esplanade, Paseo de la Playa and Calle Miramar in
Redondo Beach helps calm traffic in an area where pedestrian and bicycling activities are
high.
Along the Esplanade, pictured below, a recent streetscaping project has greatly enhanced
walkability and livability with improvements that make people feel comfortable using
active forms of transportation and recreation in the area. The project added bulb-outs,
added bike lanes separated from the parking lane by a 3-foot buffer and narrowed the
vehicle travel lanes.
Regional roads throughout the beach cities have become so wide that they discourage active
living. Many streets, such as sections of Sepulveda Blvd., Aviation Blvd., Artesia Blvd., Prospect
Ave. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. are dominated by fast-moving vehicles most hours of the day.
The Pacific Coast Highway, which becomes Sepulveda Blvd. in Manhattan Beach, serves all
three beach cities. It is quite uncomfortable to walk or bicycle along. Much of this discomfort is
a result of high vehicle speeds, often faster than 40 mph—the speed at which a collision is
almost guaranteed to be fatal for a pedestrian. In fact, one taxi carrying a WALC Institute team
member went through an intersection along PCH at 65 mph. Despite the vehicle speeds, many
commuters report unbearable stop-and-go traffic during peak travel periods, which is a common
problem along commute corridors.
Some intersections seem to have become less efficient for all users as they have grown wider. The
combination of higher speeds and high traffic volumes for most hours of the day has created
conditions that impact surrounding properties and are depressing the opportunities for retail,
social life and active living.
Additionally, in many areas traffic signals are spaced far apart, which further supports high
vehicle speeds.
The Valley-Ardmore streets through both Hermosa and Manhattan harbor vehicle speeds
inappropriate for the context. The streets serve residential neighborhoods, schools and the
Greenbelt, yet vehicle speeds in some sections were documented by radar gun in excess of 35
mph and at other times cars appeared to be traveling even faster, near 40 mph.
Failure to provide crosswalk markings on one or more legs of key intersections is noted in parts
of the beach cities. When a crosswalk marking is missing, the number of points of potential
conflict between a pedestrian and a vehicle increases from six points to eighteen, which in effect
triples the risk of a collision. The amount of time it takes to cross also increases, lengthening the
pedestrian’s exposure time.
This is of special concern on
arterials that carry higher
traffic volumes. But it also
presents a real concern on
smaller streets with special
circumstances, such as places
where vehicles tend to speed
through the same areas where
people on foot and bike really
want to cross to access the
beach, schools and other amenities. Examples of this are found along parts of Valley and
Ardmore. Additionally, most places where the Greenbelt crosses streets in Hermosa Beach and
Manhattan Beach don’t adequately accommodate pedestrians.
Further, in many parts of the beach cities, continuous right-turn lanes and other means to
maximize the number of vehicles that can get through a signalized intersection make crossings
too wide for people wanting to cross.
It is important to note that removing or failing to place crossings in order to try to force
pedestrians to take an alternate route can be very risky. “Desire lines,” or places where people
naturally want to cross a street, develop for a reason, whether because it’s the most convenient
place to cross or because particularly significant services or amenities can be accessed there. If a
desire line exists, care should be taken to accommodate all street users – not just cars – and
provide appropriate treatments for accessibility and safety for all.
Transparency refers to the amount of visibility between a pedestrian and the interior of
buildings that line the street. It is affected by how far back the building sits from the sidewalk,
how much of the front of the building is window as opposed to wall, how much glazing or
reflective material is used and where the door is placed. Transparency contributes to safety and
security. In fact, motorists tend to drive slower when buildings are correctly set toward the
street, and when windows are watching over the street. Many well-developed entryways to
homes or other properties contribute to the perception of human activity beyond the street,
while those with blank walls and garages suggest that people are far away. Neighborhoods with
blank "snout" garages are less supportive of walkability, whereas neighborhoods with a variety
of homes that face the street tend to make a person feel watched over and more comfortable
walking.
Most of the neighborhood streets in the beach cities have good transparency. Suburban and
strip areas of important streets like Sepulveda, Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard lack
adequate transparency and would benefit from clusters of buildings brought toward the street
to help “hold” the street and create pockets of settlement.
The ultimate in transparency is when internal activities are “externalized” or brought out to the
sidewalk. Outdoor dining and outdoor merchandising are examples. For this reason, efforts to
create one, then another, and then another outdoor eating experience at places such as Eat at
Joe's in Redondo Beach will become important.
People want and need to feel that personal harm from others, including motorists, is not likely.
In many parts of the beach cities, people seem to feel free of harm most of the time. In some
portions, though, there are too many dark places, and too few people walking, which make those
lone pedestrians feel unsafe. For example, despite being amidst areas of high activity, Harbor
Drive between Beryl St. and Herondo St. feels secluded and unsafe at night. Other examples
include several of the intersections that link the Greenbelt and Valley-Ardmore with east-west
streets, S. Camino Real near the Alta Vista Community Center, and many stretches of the Pacific
Coast Highway.
Complexity refers to the visual richness of a place and depends on the variety of the physical
environment, the variety of buildings, architectural diversity and ornamentation, landscape
elements, street furniture, signage and human activity. Motorists also tend to respond to areas of
great complexity by driving more slowly through them.
Most parts of the beach cities have built-in complexity on neighborhood streets. Some are much
richer than others, especially areas in Manhattan Beach designed to be pedestrian streets. The
great variety in size, scale and richness of homes makes walks up and down many streets not just
pleasant, but a chance to constantly see and experience new things. Some portions of the
greenway trails, Strand path and the bikeway along the beach have such a great kaleidoscope of
human activity that the people alone can make walking or bicycling rich and rewarding. Future
zoning and code language should encourage this diversity of housing type.
Communities that are built to a human scale accommodate the size, proportions and walking
speed of people. Building details, pavement texture, street trees and street furniture are all
physical elements contributing to human scale. Another impact of designing roadways only for
cars—and this doesn’t apply to freeways, but rather to community streets, collector streets, town
centers and neighborhoods—has been that travel speeds of 60 mph are encouraged, when human
scale calls for 30 mph. For example, large signage and lettering meant to be read by a motorist
passing at 60 mph is completely disorienting and confusing to a person approaching on foot or
bicycle. For pedestrians, small signs with small lettering are much more comfortable.
There are many places in the beach cities where moderate-sized buildings, narrow streets and
small spaces can create human-scale environments. As an example, the strip center across from
the Redondo Beach city hall—between N. Elena and Pacific Coast Highway—could one day
become a nicely scaled “village” that is in an urban form and accommodates people, not just cars.
Vast parts of each of the beach cities’ main streets—Aviation, Sepulveda and Manhattan Beach
Boulevard, for example—lack a human scale. It may not be possible to recapture all of these
areas, but over time it will be essential for each of the three communities to create "village-like"
spaces through the careful placement of buildings and trees.
People will walk more when they can easily navigate and have a sense of where they are at all
times. The more “legible” or understandable a place is, the easier it is to navigate. This is
improved by a street or pedestrian network that provides travelers with a sense of orientation
and relative location and by physical elements that serve as reference points.
Complementary to legibility, wayfinding is a system of signage and visual cues that help people
move successfully to reach a destination. Places with strong edges, distinct landmarks, busy
nodes and effective wayfinding systems allow people to form detailed and relatively accurate
mental maps. Conversely, a city that has no definite edges, nodes, or visually interesting features,
will be difficult to make sense of and to remember.
Portions of the beach cities, such as on Pier Ave. and on the Strand, have very high legibility.
Other areas around the Strand and beach environments have adequate wayfinding. The beach
cities in general, however, lack legibility and effective wayfinding. Indeed, outside of a few
welcoming signs and some unique street signing, bicycle rides through the area remain
confusing to someone not familiar with the streets.
A policy-based approach to transportation investments allows livability to come to the
forefront. It sets a critical path for improving conditions that will foster the well-being of
residents and visitors, and allows agencies to set direction and prioritize projects based on their
effect on quality of life. Policy helps designate where new growth, infill development and
redevelopment will occur, and moves communities away from piecemeal projects that fail to
reinforce the community’s planning principles.
The vision of this report is livability for the beach cities. Strong first steps toward improving
livability in the beach cities have included the cities’ commitment to participating in, supporting
and adopting recommendations of Vitality City and the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. The cities
should continue to do so. Further, the WALC Institute team suggests the following goals for the
beach cities:
Goal 1: A complete network of pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces
Goal 2: Safe, natural and enjoyable walking conditions
Goal 3: Sustainable transportation choices
Goal 4: Healthier, happier people
The first section of this chapter presents recommendations for accomplishing these goals:
1. Adopt Complete Streets policies and incorporate Complete Streets policy
language into all beach cities planning documents
2. Create and adopt Livable Street Design Guidelines
3. Develop a Regional Pedestrian Master Plan
4. Increase enforcement for pedestrian safety
5. Increase education and awareness for all road users
6. Improve and enhance Safe Routes to School Programs
Additionally, it is recommended that the beach cities adopt and implement the South Bay Bicycle
Master Plan.
The second section of this chapter focuses on bridging the gap between the goals and
recommendations, and the guidance found in the cities’ municipal codes and general plan land-
use and circulation elements. Quite simply: the values of a culture are expressed in the planning
and design of its cities. Cities that accommodate walkers, bicyclists, transit, and automobiles
support the core role of cities: to maximize exchange. By allowing individuals to travel safely via
inviting and diverse transportation modes, we create a place where we are more likely to move in
harmony with others. Streets either enforce good behaviors or bad behaviors. Bad design leads to
bad behaviors; good design leads to good behaviors. Where a city has multiple accidents or
pedestrian fatalities, congestion and demonstrated bad behaviors, the corridor must be assessed
and improved. With a solid street network and improved design, our cities become world-class
destinations—attracting people, businesses and creating opportunities.
The beach cities should require a complete transportation network that meets the needs of all
users. In order for this to happen, the beach cities must prioritize the development of Complete
Streets. The beach cities should adopt Complete Streets policies into all planning documents by
action of their city councils, and then incorporate the policy language as appropriate into
planning documents as they are updated.
Adopting Complete Streets policy language into all planning documents ensures that projects
are designed with all users in mind. This leads to improved well-being for residents and
visitors. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration identified three areas where exceptions to
Complete Streets policies are acceptable: accommodation is not necessary on corridors where 1)
non-motorized use is prohibited; 2) the cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate
to the need or probable use; or 3) a documented absence of current or future need is present.
For the most part, these exemptions do not apply to the beach cities, except in a few minor
locations (i.e. such as a sidewalk on the same side of the street as a railroad track).
A Complete Streets policy ensures that we offer choices to the community by making walking,
bicycling and taking public transportation convenient, easy and safe. A Complete Streets policy
also assures transportation equity. Changing policy so that our transportation system considers
the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users means that people of all ages and abilities
are included in planning and design processes. Complete Streets policies benefit the entire
community by improving individual and community health, improving the efficiency and
capacity of existing roads, and reducing congestion and vehicle miles traveled. Complete Streets
policies also can address how eco-friendly practices such as “bio swales” can be incorporated into
street designs to maximize their benefits.
The National Complete Streets Coalition has identified ten elements of an ideal Complete Streets
policy. See: http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/policy/cs-policyelements.pdf.
Developing and adopting a Complete Streets policy doesn’t need to be a lengthy process, but it
does require the commitment and understanding on the part of elected leaders. In Winter Park,
FL, the city commission adopted a Complete Streets policy in early 2011 and is building upon the
effort to adjust transportation approaches and the capital improvement budget. See:
http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Docs/Government/meeting_agendas/agd_05_9_11rs.pdf.
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, once adopted, will also offer language appropriate to
incorporate into Complete Streets policies.
Faced with the challenges of meeting transportation demand while preserving the character of
the community, municipalities are creating and adopting street design guidelines to support
livability.
Street design guidelines will allow the beach cities to bring land use and transportation planning
together so that level-of-service for cars is no longer the sole criterion for street design. Design
guidelines set forth standards and provide guidance as the cities design and improve streets. The
guidelines provide new metrics for measuring the success of a street, provide an assessment of
local street types and highlight traffic calming features that have a history of success locally.
When crafting street designgGuidelines, communities should look to the following documents
to ensure the guidelines fall within the acceptable standard:
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“The Green Book”)
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traditional Neighborhood Development
Street Design Guidelines
ITE’s Traffic Engineering Handbook
Additional recommended reading includes Randall Arendt’s Rural by Design, Christopher
Alexander’s The Timeless Way of Building and A Pattern Language, and Galina Tachieva’s Sprawl Repair
Manual. Los Angeles County is scheduled to release the Model Design Manual for Living Streets in Fall
2011, which will serve as a good example for the beach communities.
In order to develop a complete network of pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces, the
beach cities should develop a regional pedestrian master plan. At a regional level, this would
allow the beach cities to identify gaps and deficiencies in the pedestrian network and to
evaluate continuity of facilities across borders. Those areas where municipalities bump up
against each other can show a visible seam due to differences in vision, prioritization and
implementation of pedestrian infrastructure improvements. Specifically, a regional pedestrian
master plan will allow the beach cities to:
Review existing plans, policies, guidelines and codes to determine whether inherent
conflicts exist within these documents that might impact the continuity of pedestrian
infrastructure across the cities’ borders.
Build a toolbox and best practices guide that informs pedestrian planning at a regional
level. Tools can include performance methods and monitoring that functions across
borders.
Propose and refine treatments to ensure the integrity of the pedestrian network
regionally, and to provide clear messaging to users that traverses geographical borders.
Perform field research to identify conflicts at a regional level, especially noting
conditions at shared borders, such as network gaps, and the geographic distribution of
existing pedestrian facilities which will aid in the development of regional amenities
such as trails.
Conduct civic engagement that brings local partners together, thereby building capacity
for walkability at both a local and a regional level.
Analyze needs and demand based on information gathered regionally, allowing the
beach cities to understand patterns, behaviors, origins and destinations at a regional
level.
Conduct a destination analysis. When people are too far from parks, plazas, places to
eat healthy food, retail or other useful and fun destinations, they will not walk, or even
eat well. "Destination deserts" can be quickly mapped in a community within the plan.
Perform a security analysis. People will not walk if they feel that they must navigate a
void in watchfulness or activity. These are easily mapped through a civic engagement
process during the regional planning efforts.
Develop criteria for ranking, prioritizing and implementing projects regionally for
maximum impact and to better support one another’s initiatives.
Develop funding strategies that may reduce the burden to any one community and allow
the beach cities to show regional support of one another’s initiatives. This may provide
the opportunity for the beach cities to leverage regional resources for funding
opportunities.
Allow the beach cities’ City Councils, Planning Commissions, school boards, utility
boards, library boards, fire boards and Staffs to work together, to share common
problems, programs, lessons learned and best practices, and to establish partnerships. A
monthly meeting of representatives can increase cohesion and collaboration and
facilitate the establishment of common and shared goals.
Identify planned improvements to determine whether they support or conflict with other
regional initiatives.
Regional master plans are somewhat challenging to find, so this would place the beach cities at
the forefront of smart planning. The following pathways master plan provides a good example
of regional planning: http://www.meridiancity.org/parks_rec.aspx?id=2667.
In order to fund the development of the pedestrian master plan or to fund a regional bicycle and
pedestrian coordinator position, the beach cities might consider forming a Joint Powers
Authority (JPA). The JPA would allow the beach cities to prioritize improvements to close gaps
and fix deficiencies in the pedestrian network. The JPA would foster a collaborative discussion
among the beach cities to coordinate pedestrian planning and implementation activities, with
an emphasis on improving the pedestrian network across jurisdictions.
To learn more about how JPAs can fund transportation improvement projects in California, see:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=gov&group=0600107000&file=6500-6536
To learn more about a specific JPA transportation project in San Francisco, see:
http://transbaycenter.org/tjpa/about-the-tjpa and http://www.sdrp.org/jpa.htm.
Additionally, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program can be
used to fund transportation related projects that are designed to reduce traffic congestion and
improve air quality. CMAQ has seven major project categories, including pedestrian and bicycle
improvement projects. Pedestrian and bicycle projects comprise approximately 13 percent of
CMAQ projects. This funding can be used for constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
are not exclusively recreational and that reduce vehicle trips. The program funds one full-time
position per state and it can also be used to fund bicycle parking, pedestrian and bicycling
promotion, sidewalk or pedestrian improvements and enhancements, bike maps and planning,
and educational efforts. To learn more, visit:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=4274.
If undertaking a regional pedestrian planning effort is not feasible, the three beach cities should
create citywide pedestrians plans that are developed in coordination with each other and that
are complementary in supporting all people in the beach cities.
One of the most critical factors in street safety is enforcement that concentrates on intersections
and corridors with high crash rates. An enforcement program for pedestrian safety should
include an evaluation of motorist, bicyclist, pedestrian and transit users to determine whether
we are anticipating and accommodating one another appropriately. For instance, an
enforcement program will look at whether motorists yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in
crosswalks and should address some of the more critical problems such as speeding, shortcuts
through neighborhoods, red light running and obstructions to the pedestrian right of way such
as parking. An enforcement program will look at pedestrian behaviors, too, and whether
pedestrians are engaging in aggressive or dangerous activities such as walking into a stream of
traffic, or crossing intersections against the signal and thereby disrupting the flow for other
modes. It should also include bicyclist enforcement programs aimed at curtailing problematic
behaviors such as riding the wrong way in a traffic lane, riding at night without lights or
required reflectors, or bicycle parking that impedes other modes.
Compliance and enforcement activities are most often overseen by the police. In order to
improve safety, health and livability for the beach cities, the beach cities should increase
enforcement activities around school zones and other critical areas where vehicle-pedestrian
conflicts have been high or where poor yielding behaviors by motorists have been observed. To
aid in enforcing the rights of all street users, the beach cities should increase the number of
police officers walking and biking in the community. Additionally, the municipalities should
survey the built environment and the community to determine whether streets are in
compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. See:
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards.htm.
To collect information about problematic areas, the beach cities should provide a system for
recording pedestrian safety concerns such as poor lighting, broken sidewalks, obstructions,
perceived sense of danger or gaps in the pedestrian network. This may be a website or a display
at libraries and schools.
Many drivers ignore the pedestrian’s right-of-way. One extremely dangerous situation happens
when there are multiple travel lanes and one vehicle stops for the pedestrian crossing, and
another overtakes and passes the stopped car, striking the pedestrian. The Uniform Vehicle
Code (UVC) is a set of traffic laws prepared by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic
Laws and Ordinances which serves as a model in most states. See http://www.ncutlo.org.
Pedestrians, too, have duties to ensure the safety and comfort of other road users. There are
places where they are prohibited (interstates, for example) and they must comply with traffic
signals. For more information on pedestrian and bicycle safety enforcement, see:
http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/b15cXFxa20090311142525.pdf.
An educational and awareness campaign can take the guesswork out of navigating our streets. In
order to improve safety and enjoyment of using streets, the beach cities should:
Develop culturally sensitive messaging for all pedestrian safety programs and information.
For an example or an outreach brochure for education and awareness, see:
http://www.metroplanorlando.com/files/view/10_things_motorists_should_know_about_bicy
cling.pdf.
An example of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Public Awareness campaign can be
found here: http://www.bestreetsmart.net/resources/2010/SS10_Summary_v1.pdf.
Train city staff on planning and designing roadways for pedestrians through walking
audits. A walking audit, also known as a “walking workshop,” is conducted with
residents, officials, city staff, community groups and other stakeholders of an area. These
walks can take from sixty minutes to two or more hours.
Diverse groups of people, including city and county officials, planners, engineers,
emergency responders, neighborhood leaders, community groups and residents see, feel
and hear problems up close. Dan Burden leads the walk and asks those taking part to
explain “what is working here or what is not working here” each time the group stops.
When groups are diverse, many insights and options are discovered.
Walking audits are one of the most powerful tools for people to discuss common issues of
interest or concern related to the design, operation of streets, parks and open spaces, as
well as a way to discuss security, safety and other features of their community. In many
cases, complex and challenging issues are addressed and solved right in the field. This
initiative would allow the beach cities to assess and document existing conditions, while
building local partnerships at the local level. The walking audit is a community
engagement tool as much as it is a community assessment tool.
Develop safety tips for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users based on critical
local issues. New York City’s Department of Transportation noted that although older
adults make up only 13 percent of the city’s population, they make up 33 percent of
pedestrian deaths. Educational and enforcement campaigns remind drivers that older
adults or others with special needs may need more time crossing at an intersection.
Additionally, they look at areas around schools and parks where children may dart out
from between parked cars. They recognized that one-third of all pedestrian injuries
happen after dark and so they include this information in their outreach campaigns along
with a dusk-to-dawn headlight reminder. Safety tips remind pedestrians that a vehicle
traveling at 30 mph may need 125 feet to come to a complete stop. The city’s outreach
materials focus on walking under the influence in addition to the dangers of driving under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. Their materials state that in 1998, one of every 10
pedestrians killed was under the influence of alcohol, other drugs (including prescription
medication), or a combination of both. To see their educational campaign, go to:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/safety/safetyedu.shtml.
The beach cities should continue Safe Routes to School programs and projects to improve safety
for students. The WALC Institute notes that the cities have developed programs in the past and
grant funding recently has been secured for additional Safe Routes work. This is good news.
Where the following actions haven’t already been taken by the beach cities, they should:
Apply for Safe Routes to School funds and work with agencies, governments,
organizations, residents, students, the School Board and others to encourage active
transportation for students.
Encourage the development of walking school buses for students and encourage
walking Moai Teams within neighborhoods to provide local support, opportunities for
friendships and on-going review of existing conditions, in addition to placing “eyes on
children” as they walk or bicycle to and from school.
Implement both classroom and active/hands-on learning. Lessons should focus on basic
pedestrian, bicycle and motor-vehicle occupant safety and encourage children to walk
and ride bicycles as a regular means of transportation.
Identify school trip management techniques to encourage parents, students and staff to
reduce automobile trips and to use alternative modes for travel to and from schools. This
can support community livability objectives including transportation choice,
accessibility, walkability, affordability, community interaction and reduced traffic on
local streets.
Ensure that local Safe Routes to School committees have members with experience in
the areas of health, engineering, education, disadvantaged communities, law
enforcement, planning and recreation.
Assist Safe Routes to School grant recipients in preparing before and after surveys to
capture desired outcomes and metrics for project success.
Publicize local resources and website content addressing Safe Routes to School.
Identify low-income communities and schools to improve participation in Safe Routes
to School programs. The beach cities should conduct a special outreach campaign to
ensure that communities are aware of Safe Routes to School opportunities and available
technical assistance in the application process.
Create culturally sensitive materials that highlight Safe Routes to School opportunities
for the beach cities.
Sample Safe Routes to Schools Programs from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership are
found here:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/4233.
Parent surveys about walking and biking to school from the National Center for Safe Routes to
School are here:
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/collateral/Parent_Survey_English_Scan2009.pdf.
Additionally, in June 2011, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership released a publication
entitled Safe Routes to School Local Policy Guide to help local communities and schools create, enact
and implement policies which will support active and healthy community environments that
encourage safe walking and bicycling and physical activity by children through a "Health in All
Policies" approach. See:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/media/file/Local_Policy_Guide_2011.pdf.
Encouraging multi-modal and active transportation helps reduce “vehicle miles traveled”, or
VMT. According to the Brooking Institute, the U. S. is experiencing its longest and steepest
drop in driving, signaling a permanent shift away from reliance on the car to other modes of
transportation. Their report, The Road…Less Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends in the
U.S., shows that national VMT began to plateau as far back as 2004 and dropped in 2007 for the
first time since 1980.
Per capita driving showed slowed growth after 2000 and rates have fallen since 2005. These
recent declines in driving predated the rising gas prices during 2007 and 2008. Recent drops in
VMT (90 billion miles) and VMT per capita (388 miles) are the largest annualized drops since
World War II, according to this report.
Additionally, the report states that from October 2007 to September 2008, Americans drove 90
billion fewer miles than the same time period the year before. Transit use is at its highest level
since the 1950’s, and Amtrak set a ridership record in 2009. While total driving in both rural and
urban areas grew between January 1991 and September 2008, rural and urban VMT have been
declining since 2004. The report also presents a survey which ranks all 50 states and the nation’s
100 largest metro areas for their “driving footprint” and shows who drives the most, who drives
the least, and where driving is declining the fastest.
To review the report, see:
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1216_transportation_tom
er_puentes/vehicle_miles_traveled_report.pdf
When streets emphasize an inviting, people-first approach to design, automobile and freight
movement are well supported. The design of corridors and intersections should focus on
promoting people and businesses first through a complete network that accommodates all
modes of transportation. This approach is the oldest way of building a city or town; it is an
approach that honors the great city making art and science known throughout human history.
It is only in recent years that street making practices have led to an erosion of social space and
living space through an over emphasis on single occupant automobiles. The consequences of
this are social isolation, less daily physical activity and lower volunteerism rates. Returning to
the time honored way of building streets to accommodate all users will help improve the quality
of life, restore social and economic opportunity, and lead to a more sustainable pattern of city
making and city life.
The following resources speak to the benefits of active transportation:
Healthy, Active & Vibrant Community 2009 Toolkit, from Trailnet:
http://www.trailnet.org/HAVC_Toolkit.php
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, from the Local Government Commission:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/Healthy_Kids_Healthy_
Communities.pdf
Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes, from Active
Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf
Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance,
from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf
Growing Demand for Communities that Promote Health, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_WalkableCommunities.pdf
At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy
Transportation Policy, from the American Public Health Association:
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-FB68-4112-8C75-
49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.pdf
All cities are required by California law to prepare and adopt a General Plan, which establishes
the long-range goals for the physical development of the community. Manhattan Beach refers to
the General Plan as the "constitution" for development in the city, reflecting the long-term vision
of the community through its goals, policies and objectives.
A General Plan also reflects the community’s concerns. In each of the beach cities, concern about
mixed-use development and its impact on residential uses exists. Traffic congestion, parking,
parking management and parking requirements are also main concerns, along with overflow
traffic into residential neighborhoods. Maintaining a sense of place is identified as important and
in some cases, development is seen as a threat to maintaining charm and the overall aesthetic.
While Manhattan Beach explicitly states the correlation between livability, quality of life and the
built environment, the beach cities should consider how their guiding principles can be
broadened, so that implementable policies and actionable strategies follow. This ensures the
community vision is documented first and then policies and strategies implement it.
As policy documents, General Plans are just that—general in nature— and rely on the Municipal
Code to provide specificity for enforcement. In all three communities, the Municipal Code could
tie better to the General Plan. Enforcement activities and ordinances don’t provide the
framework or the vision. The purpose of Municipal Code is to promote and protect public peace,
health, safety and welfare, and to guide growth and development in keeping with the vision set
for by the community in their General Plan.
Livability is, in large part, determined by the physical form of the city. The built form either
encourages well-being through healthy choices or it makes unhealthy choices easiest and
common. The following principles may eventually be included in the guiding documents of all
three beach cities for improved well-being:
Provide a mix of land uses
Build compact design and increase density, where possible
Prioritize walkable communities and active transportation
Foster distinctive, attractive neighborhoods with a strong sense of place
Preserve open space, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities
Provide a variety of transportation and housing opportunities and choices
Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions
Against this backdrop of livability principles, the WALC Institute team reviewed the Land Use
and Circulation Elements of the beach cities’ General Plans and their Municipal Codes. The
Institute team has identified areas where livability principles could be better integrated into
their guiding documents. Those areas are described in the sections that follow.
Note that resources are provided at the end of this chapter to help the cities in developing
updated language, policies and practices to support livability.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that its intent is to establish the goals,
objectives, policies and implementation programs to guide the manner in which new
development will occur and to conserve existing uses. The Land Use Element aims at
addressing nine fundamental issues for the City:
What types of land uses should be permitted in the City of Redondo Beach?
How should the land uses be distributed throughout the City?
In each of the City's land use districts, what should be their functional role, what uses
should be permitted, and what should be their physical form and character?
What mechanisms can be used to increase the supply of housing units affordable for
very low, low and moderate income households?
How should existing uses which are inconsistent with an area's objectives be
maintained or replaced?
How can the City's properties, structures and public open spaces be designed to
provide a high quality image and character for the City?
How can compatibility be ensured between land uses characterized by differing
functions and intensities?
What mechanisms can be used to maintain the quality of the City's built environment?
What mechanisms can be used to ensure the maintenance of environmental quality in
the City?
The policy set forth addresses these questions and provides direction to:
Retain existing residential neighborhoods and principal commercial districts, allowing
for infill development and uses that are comparable in function and scale to existing
development.
Allow for the modest intensification of selected key sites which are economically
underutilized or contain marginal uses, have the potential for achieving significant
benefits to the City, and can be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses.
Allow for a change of use on selected sites to improve the economic viability and
compatibility with adjacent uses.
Because the Land Use policy provides the pattern and form of development, it is central that
livability principles are included in this part of the General Plan. For example, the City identifies
a “hodge-podge” of existing development along the City's arterial corridors (Pacific Coast
Highway, Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard) and that viable and healthy commercial
development needs to be in definable and focused clusters, rather than spread continuously along
corridors.
The Plan provides two polices mechanisms to address this:
1. Re-differentiation of the corridors into pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, high activity,
and general automobile oriented segments.
2. Recycling of selected properties for residential development. To stimulate the latter,
residential densities are permitted which are somewhat higher than those allowed in
other areas of the City.
The City recognizes the value of mixed use development to:
Reduce vehicular trips and associated air pollution by providing housing opportunities
in proximity to jobs
Establish active, pedestrian-oriented districts which enhance the quality of life and
vitality of the city
Increase the supply of moderately priced and affordable housing without increasing the
densities of traditional residential neighborhoods.
The General Plan does not mandate the development of mixed-use structures, but it does permit
them in a number of key activity areas of the City: the western segment of Artesia Boulevard; the
Torrance Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway intersection; and the southern segment of Pacific
Coast Highway.
Recommendation:
Within the General Plan, the City of Redondo Beach has the opportunity to recognize
the impact of transportation corridors on community well-being. The beach cities
should set the vision for how transportation corridors function for the beach cities and
indicate the guiding principles, implementable policies and actionable strategies for
moving towards the vision.
An example of this follows:
Guiding Principle: Foster the redevelopment of key corridors as vital spines with nodes
of mixed-use and higher density development to bring services closer to people, with
street designs that encourage active transportation.
Implementable Policy: Adopt Complete Streets policies into all planning documents by
action of the city council.
Actionable Strategies:
Include Complete Street language in all planning documents.
Update the General Plan to include a focus on livability and well-being through
Complete Streets and active transportation.
Review the Minimum Standards for Street Widths provided in the Municipal
Code. Presently, the Municipal Code uses a functional classification that is
formula driven and generic. The existing lane widths favor speed, and do not
encourage walkability or livability. Additionally, the minimum standards for
curbs, sidewalks and pedestrian widths at 4 feet (residential) and 5 - 12 feet
(elsewhere) are too narrow. The requirement that sidewalks “are located within
the street right-of-way not closer than six (6) inches from the dedicated
boundary of the street” does not speak to improving the pedestrian experience or
buffering the pedestrian from moving vehicles.
Prioritize Capital Improvement Projects based on Complete Streets and/or
Livability criteria.
Utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques to alter travel
behavior through programs, incentives, services, and policies. Carpooling and
vanpooling, changes in work schedules, and home-office incentives can move
trips out of the peak period or eliminate them.
The following objectives and policies related to transportation improvements appear in the Land
Use Element section:
It shall be the objective of the City of Redondo Beach to commit lands for the continued
operation of public infrastructure which supports residents, businesses and visitors and
protects them from environmental hazards.
It shall be the policy of the City of Redondo Beach to:
Allocate lands for the continuation and expansion of public streets and highways
in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, as defined in the
Transportation and Circulation section of the General Plan (I1.1, I1.2).
Allow for the continuation of utility corridors, easements, and facilities (sewer,
water, energy, storm drainage, telecommunications, and other) to provide for
existing and future land use development in areas classified as Public (“P”) on
the Land Use Plan map (I1.1).
Provide lands for the expansion of public infrastructure as necessary to maintain
the level of service for the City's residents and accommodate future development
(I1.1).
Develop plans and programs for the reuse of infrastructure and utility properties
and easements should they no longer be required for their intended operations
(I1.1).
Recommendation:
The Objective could speak to supporting and protecting users, while encouraging well-
being. The Policies speak to the expansion of public streets but do not speak to the
significant impact that streets have on place and placemaking. Policies should speak to
preserving and protecting rights of way as a community resource. Additionally,
expansion of the public infrastructure to maintain current levels of service may run
counter to livability measures. The community should consider what level of service
means for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.
The City of Redondo Beach sets for the following Objective in its General Plan:
Establish and implement a comprehensive plan for the upgrade of Pacific Coast
Highway's streetscape to incorporate street trees, landscape (planters), street furniture
(benches, trash receptacles, news racks, etc.), street and crosswalk paving, lighting,
public signage, and other appropriate elements, as permitted by Caltrans (I1.17).
Recommendation:
Complete Streets elements and language that supports biking, walking and transit
should be included in the upgrade of Pacific Coast Highway. In the Land Use Element,
the City points to Pacific Coast Highway as a potential location for housing based on RH
designation. Streetscape improvements, like those noted above, appear in many of the
corridor plans yet they do not speak to intended outcomes: livability, improved well-
being, aging/living in place, increased civic engagement and safety. Guiding Principles
are notably absent from the General Plan’s Land Use Element and so the Plan Objectives
and Policies may point to the desire for a healthy, active community, but this is not an
organizing theme.
The City of Redondo Beach sets forth the following Objective in its General Plan:
Examine the feasibility of re-routing North Catalina Avenue coincident with the railroad
right-of-way from approximately North Broadway Avenue to Herondo Street;
concurrently implementing traffic control mechanisms to reduce the speed of traffic (e.g.,
angled parking, additional signalization or stop signs, widened sidewalks, and limited
access to and from Pacific Coast Highway) (I 1.19).
The General Plan Land Use Element could speak to traffic control mechanisms and
traffic calming features and their desired outcomes for pedestrians and bicycles. The
General Plan should speak to why the community needs to calm traffic and behaviors of
concern versus desired behaviors. This is an opportunity to speak to the community’s
vision when it comes to transportation corridors and user rights and responsibilities.
The Circulation Element does a nice job of assessing existing conditions in Redondo Beach and
outlining opportunities to improve Level of Service for vehicles. The Element provides the
regulatory issues affecting transportation improvements in Redondo Beach, which should be
noted for this project:
Measure DD – Requires voter consent for major changes in the City’s General Plan
or Zoning Ordinances
AB 1358 – Complete Streets Act – It requires circulation elements to address the
transportation system from a multi-modal perspective. Streets must meet the needs
of all users.
AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act – The State of California is committed to
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
SB375 – Adopted to achieve regional GHG targets, it requires Metropolitan Planning
Organizations to create a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” to meet regional
targets. It also requires that housing elements and transportation plans be
synchronized on eight year schedules and it allows for streamlining incentives for
preferred development types.
The Circulation Element outlines bicycle and pedestrian facilities and opportunities to reduce
gaps in network and to create linkages to existing and proposed facilities. The following existing
Goals and Policies for bicyclists and pedestrians have been identified and should be recognized
as part of the Vitality City project.
Goal: Pursue Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities
Policies:
Link Existing and Proposed Facilities.
Connect North Redondo Beach and South Redondo Beach with bike facilities.
Focus on access at transit stations, the waterfront, South Bay Galleria, Artesia
Boulevard, Riviera Village, Pacific Coast Highway retail zones and school zones.
Reduce travel vehicle lanes and create minimum 5’ bike lanes.
Goal: Enhance Bicycle Infrastructure
Policy:
Increase the provision of bike lockers, bike racks and lighting for bike facilities.
Goal: Create Opportunities for Physical Activity
Policies:
Ensure that residents will be able to walk or bicycle to destinations such as the
beach, the Civic Center, Redondo Beach Pier, Riviera Village and other activity
centers.
Conduct walkability and bikability audits.
Work with Redondo Beach Unified School District to create Safe Routes to
School.
Time signals to allow adequate crossing time for pedestrians and install
pedestrian islands or bulb-outs on wide streets to shorten crossing distances.
Close existing gaps in sidewalk infrastructure, maintain sidewalks and require
sidewalks with all new development.
Provide climate appropriate landscaping, adequate lighting and street amenities
to make walking safe, interesting and enjoyable.
Promote the use of alternative transportation for short trips and conduct
periodic bicycle and pedestrian counts to assess whether alternative mode use is
increasing.
Recommendation:
The Circulation Element does not speak to the community’s vision for active
transportation, active living or livability. While the Goal may be to “Create
Opportunities for Physical Activity,” this should be in support of a community vision of
health, well-being, active living or quality of life. Additionally, the Vitality City project
leaders should review the plans and policies established by the community within the
Circulation Element for an update on progress and prioritization since adoption. This
would indicate support of and resistance to policies.
Municipal Code
The Municipal Code provides instruction for what one may or may not do. The following topics
speak to pedestrian transportation:
1. Pedestrian Safety - Ordinance 4-22.08 and 9-1.22: Protection of Pedestrians - Pedestrian
safety refers to construction. Nothing speaks to creating a safe pedestrian environment.
2. Crosswalks - Ordinance 3.7.1001 provides for the establishment of crosswalks and gives
authorization to the City Manager to establish and mark crosswalks in cases where the
Council determines that there is exceptional hazard to pedestrians crossing the roadway
in any of the following places:
At any intersection;
a) Near the mid-block point in any block in the Central Traffic District which
exceeds 400 feet in length;
b) Near the mid-block point in any block outside the Central Traffic District which
exceeds 400 feet in length provided the volume of vehicular traffic and the volume
of pedestrian travel indicate a special need for such crosswalk as defined in the
Traffic Manual; and
c) At any loading platform on a private right-of-way of any common passenger
carrier. (§ 39, Ord. 1539)
This does not speak to utilizing context sensitive design solutions. Other ordinances speak to
limiting pedestrian crossings to crosswalks within the Central Traffic District and requiring
pedestrians to cross a roadway “at right angles to the curb, or by the shortest route to the
opposite curb, except in a marked crosswalk (§ 41, Ord. 1539). The Code states “no person shall
stop or stand on a sidewalk except as near as is physically possible to the building line or the
curb line at any place in the Central Traffic District or any business district (§ 43, Ord. 1539).
This goes against livability principles and it is not clear what this Ordinance is in support of.
3. Wayfinding - In terms of pedestrian scaled wayfinding, Ordinance 3-7.1006 Signs states
that pedestrian scaled signage will alert pedestrians to street closures. It does not speak
to pedestrian scaled signage and wayfinding otherwise.
4. Safety - Bicycle safety focuses on licenses and fees, and outlines the prohibitions for
bicycles on sidewalks, ramps and in parking structures. Interestingly, Code 3-1.03 to 3-
1.07 prohibits skateboards and roller skates from streets, bike paths and alleys, as well as
limits their usage on sidewalks—so it is not clear where they are desired within the City.
5. Transportation Demand Management - Ordinance 10-2.2406 sets forth requirements for new
applicable developments to provide facilities and/or programs that encourage and
accommodate the use of ridesharing, transit, pedestrian and bicycle commuting as
alternatives to single-occupant motor vehicle trips. Under the Purpose, it states “A
reduction in such trips can be expected to assist in reduced traffic congestion, air
pollution and energy consumption impacts related to employment growth generated by
new development. Further, it is the intent of this article to comply with the requirements
of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP).” (§ 1, Ord. 2905 c.s.,
eff. August 5, 2003)
6. Bicycle Parking - Bicycle parking requirement of four spots per 50,000 square feet is low.
New York City places their requirement at one spot per 7, 500 square feet for commercial
uses.
The WALC Institute team acknowledges that the Redondo Beach Sustainable City Plan includes
some recommendations related to those described in this livability report. The Institute team
was introduced to the Sustainable City Plan toward the close of the livability project and thus, it
wasn’t reviewed as part of this effort. It is referenced here as a possible resource document.
City of Hermosa Beach
Land Use Element
The City includes the following Goals in its General Plan:
Goal 1: Protect and maintain the small town beach community atmosphere of
Hermosa Beach.
Goal 2: Accommodate existing and future commercial land uses to provide service to
both local residents and regional shoppers.
Goal 3: Encourage land uses which enhance and promote the City’s coastal
environment.
Goal 4: Provide for the development and maintenance of public infrastructure to
adequately serve the needs of residents and permitted land uses.
Goal 5: Provide community resource facilities which will adequately support the
needs of local residents and businesses.
Goal 6: Maintain existing land use standards and controls for the commercial and
industrial districts.
One of the Goals for the City of Hermosa Beach should be the creation of community conditions
that positively affect quality of life, health and well-being. Nothing in the goals speaks to these
things. There is an opportunity here to speak to the protection of natural resources; access to
healthy foods; safe streets, neighborhoods and parks providing better living, working and playing
environments; or better health outcomes.
Recommendation:
The City of Hermosa should consider including a Health and Wellness Chapter in its
General Plan. This would allow the community to accomplish the following:
Document the status of health and wellness today, including a review of current
conditions relative to healthy living determinants.
Highlight key findings and recommendations based on an existing conditions
analysis to improve quality of life, health and well-being.
Define goals for promoting healthy living.
Identify policies and implementable actions to address challenges and opportunities
to foster health and wellness community-wide.
Including well-being as a critical path for improving conditions within the community is
central to long-term success and sustainability. Although a Community Health and
Wellness Element is not a state-mandated element, its inclusion in the General Plan ensures
that public health and wellness remains a city priority. The Element is consistent with
Section 65303 of the State of California Government Code, which authorizes local
jurisdictions to adopt additional elements to those required by state law when they relate to
the physical development of the jurisdiction.
General Plan Goals, Objectives and Implementation Policies: Hermosa Beach’s present
policies in support of the City’s Goals and Objectives may run counter to livability principles. Of
concern are the following policies:
Restriction on land uses is based on compatibility, with no explanation or
establishment of compatibility/incompatibility guidelines.
Adequate separation from the lot line of residential and nonresidential uses; setback
requirements.
Pedestrian oriented design is limited to specific commercial areas as opposed to a city-
wide initiative.
Mitigation of impacts of commercial development on adjacent residential land uses.
Commercial corridor limitations on residential land uses for Pacific Coast Highway.
Landscape buffering speaks to an interface between residential development and the
Pacific Coast Highway, but nothing speaks to buffering pedestrians from traffic or
providing drought-resistant landscaping treatments for water reduction, pedestrian
comfort or to improve sight lines.
Maximizing the use of public and private parking, and private downtown parking
structures.
Consideration of existing rights of way but no discussion of long term protection of
existing rights of way as green spaces or multi-use trails or for transit. No discussion of
the City’s plan for engaging the public when it comes to preserving the right of way.
There is no explanation of the Downtown Business Enhancement Commission – who
they are, their role and why they will review major development plans.
It is noted here that the City is collecting a General Plan Maintenance Fee to fund the General
Plan update. Additionally, due to compact form, scale and density, we should note that Hermosa
Beach does provide a horizontally mixed use form, where commercial and residential uses are in
close proximity to one another within much of the City. The City’s high parking standards,
however, run counter to livability at 2 plus 1 guest space required.
Recommendation:
Hermosa Beach has the opportunity to update its General Plan to include livability, active
living and green principles for improved community well-being.
Hermosa Beach should consider rewriting its Goals for improved well-being by adding:
Goal 1: Improve Access to Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Goal 2: Expand Healthy Food and Nutrition Choices
Goal 3: Ensure Access to Critical Services, such as Hospitals and Schools
Goal 4: Encourage Safe and Convenient Public Transit and Active Circulation
Options
Goal 5: Provide a Range of Quality and Affordable Housing
Goal 6: Expand Economic Opportunity
Goal 7: Develop Complete Streets and Neighborhoods
Goal 8: Improve Safety in Neighborhoods and Public Spaces
Goal 9: Improve Environmental Quality
Goal 10: Promote Green and Sustainable Development Practices
Goal 11: Become a Leader in Building Healthy Communities
The opportunity to speak to appropriate, compatible Land Uses could fall under a number of
these goals, but would frame the discussion with the community’s well-being at the center so
that the policies are in support. Within the General Plan, the City of Hermosa Beach should
frame the Vision with policies and strategies to assist with prioritizing and implementing
recommendations.
Recommendation:
The following examples provide a guiding principle, followed by policies and strategies that
support.
1. Guiding Principle: Improve Access to Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Implementable Policies:
Provide a comprehensive and interconnected system of parks, plaza, playgrounds
and open space.
Expand and tailor recreational programs and services to meet the community’s
needs.
Enhance and protect the community’s access to the shoreline.
Actionable Strategies:
Parks Master Plan Update
Expand the Parkland Dedication Ordinance
Park Dedication Incentive Program
Joint-Use Agreements for private use of public facilities.
City-Wide Recreation Program Update
2. Guiding Principle: Expand Healthy Food and Nutrition Choices
Implementable Policies:
Promote the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Support community gardens, urban agriculture and local farmers.
Require restaurants to provide nutritional information to customers.
Begin Farm to School Programs.
Actionable Strategies:
Create a Healthy Food Incentives Program.
Undertake a Sustainable Urban Agriculture Assessment.
Provide nutrition information display guidelines.
Create a Healthy Food Task Force with the School Board to bring fresh fruits,
vegetables and local foods into schools.
3. Guiding Principle: Adopt Safe and Convenient Public Transit and Active
Circulation Options
Implementable Policies:
Support an enhanced public transportation system to improve access for all
residents and visitors.
Provide a comprehensive para-transit service within the City.
Promote walking and biking as safe, convenient modes of transportation.
Create a safety campaign for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.
Promote mixed-use development.
Actionable Strategies:
Update the Community’s Access and Mobility Criteria.
Update the City’s Traffic Calming Program.
Update the Streetscape Improvement Plan with Complete Streets policies.
Street Design Guidelines Update.
Green Streets Program Update.
4. Guiding Principle: Develop Complete Streets and Neighborhoods
Implementable Policies:
Encourage dense, mixed-use infill development.
Identify community needs by neighborhood through walking and bike audits.
Build Complete Streets and incorporate Complete Streets language into all
planning documents.
Actionable Strategies:
Update the Corridor Improvement Plan.
Update/Create the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.
Integrate Complete Streets and Complete Neighborhoods policy language in all
guiding documents and internal communications.
5. Guiding Principle: Become a Leader in Building Healthy Communities
Implementable Policies:
Strengthen the City’s internal capacity to support and implement health-
related policies and programs.
Support Health and well-being monitoring and tracking of health outcomes
identified by the Health Department.
Kick off a “Healthy Choices” Information Campaign.
Create a Healthy Development Recognition Program.
Actionable Strategies:
Form a Healthy Development Task Force.
Create a Healthy Development Checklist. See
http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/healthy_development_checklist.pd
f
Review the County’s RENEW program and its goals.
Hermosa Beach may also wish to include principles, policies and strategies related to
sustainability and improving environmental quality. Current initiatives that could be framed for
improved well-being through transportation improvements follow:
Air Pollution Reduction Strategies
Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality Guidelines
Sensitive Use Location Guidelines (Habitat Protection Guidelines)
Truck Routes Study
Site Remediation Strategies
Renewable Energy Program
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
Water Conservation and Recycling Programs
City Vehicle Transition Program (green technologies)
The City of Hermosa Beach has a strong background in Green Initiatives. Tying transportation
improvements to conservation, resource protection and green living might be a good strategy for
the City. Those Green Initiatives taken by the City of Hermosa Beach to date follow. There is
greater opportunity for green initiatives through transportation improvements, and this should
be a focus for the City.
1970-1999
Street sweeping weekly city-wide (10 tons/week removed from streets that won’t reach
ocean).
Adopted 4/10 (M-Th) work week schedule to conserve fuel for employee commutes and
energy use in facilities.
Adopted stormwater ordinance to implement NPDES regulations.
Use reclaimed water for 75% of parks, greenbelt and medians.
Employee Ride Share: City financial incentive to employees to ride share or use transit.
Initiated city annual Household Hazardous Waste collection day.
Instituted annual beach clean-up day.
Banned use of pesticides or herbicides on city parks and open spaces.
2000-2007
Installed catch basin filters in downtown area (before most cities).
All green waste (grass and tree trimmings) from city facilities recycled. Plastics and
paper are recycled.
50% construction debris recycling required (500 sf + construction and demolition
projects).
Participate in Adopt-A-Storm-Drain Program (corporate sponsorship of BMPs).
Initiated program to replace gas vehicles with alternate fuels (CNG, propane, electric)
(6-7 in 2001).
Began installation of infiltration basins to reduce pollutants reaching ocean.
No smoking on public beaches.
All custodial supplies are green (toilet paper, cleaning agents, etc.).
Green building checklist adopted by Planning Commission applicable to new residential
condominiums.
Rain gage control of majority of park areas to minimize water use.
Waterless and ultra-low flow urinals and tankless water heaters installed at city
facilities.
Solar powered flashing red beacons at 8 stop locations.
Waive portion of plan check fees for solar energy systems.
2008
Amended zoning code to facilitate solar energy systems consistent with state law.
Created green webpage on City website (www.hermosabch.org).
City Monthly E-newsletter informs people about Green Task Force and also includes
The Green Corner.
Clean Beach Restaurant Program initiated – 1st in L.A. County.
Replaced +- 900 lighting fixtures in City buildings with energy efficient fixtures.
Converted all traffic signals to LED.
Installed controllers of various types to reduce electric use at city facilities.
2009
City Council created city’s Green Task Force to advise on green initiatives and prepare a
climate action plan.
Received CBI Grant to construct stormwater infiltration trench on beach for Pier
Avenue Drain.
Placed ‘Sharrow’ (share the lane) markings on Hermosa Avenue (Pier Avenue to follow
after reconstruction).
Municipal Greenhouse Gases Inventory completed.
Updated Energy Audit for City facilities (ARRA funding opportunities).
Adopted form-based zoning to make Pier Avenue more desirable for walking and
environmentally sustainable.
Submitted ARRA application to retrofit lighting at CITY parking garage and courts.
Amended zoning code to allow small wind energy systems throughout city.
City is testing LED street lights in select locations.
2010
Selected to participate in Local Use Vehicle (net zero) Demonstration Program
(SBCCOG).
Pier Avenue project reconstruction: stormwater infiltration and other storm water
controls, ocean-friendly landscape, recycled water, efficient lighting. Wins EPA and
American Public Works Association awards.
Adopted water conservation and drought management ordinance (Green Task Force
initiative).
Adopted water efficient landscape ordinance that exceeds state requirements (Green
Task Force initiative).
City offers compost and worm bin at discounted price (Green Task Force initiative).
City distributes recycling guide to every house and business (Green Task Force
initiative).
Instituted power management features on computers and monitors (EPA Low Carbon IT
campaign).
Instituted Special Events sustainability requirements (Green Task Force initiative).
Ocean Friendly Garden demonstration project installed at 22nd St. and The Strand.
(‘Grades of Green’ school program).
Community Greenhouse Gases Inventory completed.
City declares its goal to become a carbon neutral/green idea city.
Adopts Cal Green building code that exceeds state requirements (Green Task Force
initiative).
2011
Recommends ban on polystyrene take-out food containers (est. Completion June 2011)
(Green Task Force initiative)
Sustainability Plan (Green Task Force)
Initiatives that address the built environment and its impacts on well-being and sustainability
could be furthered. Active Transportation initiatives and a focus on improving individual and
community health are hopefully part of the City’s Sustainability Plan.
Pedestrian Safety Assessment - In 2008, the City of Hermosa completed a Pedestrian Safety
Assessment which noted areas for Enhancement and Opportunity for pedestrian travel. It noted
the following areas for enhancement:
ADA Transition Plan for Streets and Sidewalks
Bicycle Parking Requirements
Collision History and Collision Reports
Design Policies and Development Standards
Institutional Obstacles
Open Space Requirements
Pedestrian Safety Education
Pedestrian Safety Program
Need for Walking Audits
Pedestrian traffic control devices (Signs, Markings, and Signals)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Coordinator Needed
Public Involvement and Feedback Process
Safe Routes to School Program and Grant Funding
Speed Limits and Speed Surveys
Street Furniture Requirements
Traffic Calming Programs
Transportation Demand Management Programs
Crosswalk Installation, Removal and Enhancement Policy
Economic Vitality
Historic Sites Protection
Health Agencies Integration
Inventory of sidewalks, informal pathways and key pedestrian opportunity areas
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrian Volumes
Pedestrian Master Plan
Routine Accommodations in New Development
The report provides pedestrian improvement measures, their benefits and appropriate
applications for the community—a great resource—and an update that speaks to the specific
policies and strategies used to address these measures would be useful. An update on the
progress since plan adoption would speak to community support or resistance to active
transportation initiatives.
Circulation Element
The Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element was updated in 1990 and supersedes the
1978 Element. The introduction acknowledges the need for alternative modes of transportation
and decreasing reliance on the single occupant automobile. There are a number of policy
recommendations within this document that should be considered in terms of livability,
including street designation; one-way streets; turning prohibitions; walk streets; a pedestrian
and jogging path within the railroad right of way; bike lanes; mid-block barriers for automobiles
and thru lanes for bikes and walkers; minimum set back requirements; and parking
requirements. This document needs to be updated to comply with State requirements.
Municipal Code
There are opportunities within the Municipal Code to speak to pedestrian rights and
responsibilities. Pedestrians are not included within the Vehicle and Traffic section, aside from
the following:
0.20.010 - Establishment and designation of crosswalks.
10.20.020 - Crossing roadways in certain districts to be only at crosswalks.
10.20.030 - Obeying pedestrian traffic signals.
Overall, the guiding documents for Hermosa Beach speak to concerns about land use
designations. Specifically, concerns about the City’s ability to ensure greater predictability of
existing and future land uses exists. Secondly, concerns about negative external impacts from
incompatible uses also exist. Additionally, parking is a major concern to Hermosa Beach and
should be addressed in terms of land value. Maintaining an appropriate scale is also mentioned
in the Urban Design Element, and the Municipal Code offers opportunities for inclusion of
pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist rights and responsibilities.
City of Manhattan Beach
Land Use Element
The Introduction to the General Plan states, “The Manhattan Beach General Plan describes how
residents will work to retain the small-town atmosphere that makes our City unique, but at the
same time, responds to the dynamics of regional traffic issues and meets changing community
needs. The General Plan serves as a policy guide, balancing these interrelated factors to
Manhattan Beach’s community vision.” The vision for Manhattan Beach is set forth as follows in
the Land Use Element. It states, “As we look to the future, we envision Manhattan Beach
continuing to be a community of high quality, both functionally and visually. We see distinctive
residential neighborhoods that accommodate the varied needs of our diverse residents. Our
vibrant Downtown enhances the small-town character and caters to both residents and visitors.
Commercial districts meet our shopping needs and provide employment. Open space is well
landscaped and maintained, and offers a range of recreational opportunities. We envision a place
where new uses blend with established development. We envision Manhattan Beach where
quality development remains a high priority.”
The vision set forth in the General Plan speaks to a robust public process that led to the creation
of the following overarching principles:
Maintain a small-town-community feel that preserves the unique characteristics of
individual neighborhoods.
Provide a balanced transportation system that minimizes cut-through traffic in
residential neighborhoods and provides adequate parking in all areas of the City.
Maintain vibrant commercial areas throughout the City with businesses that meet the
desired needs of the community.
Provide a high level of public safety, ensuring a strong sense of protection for all those
who live and visit the City.
Safeguard picturesque vistas of the ocean, and protect existing trees and landscape
resources that add value to the City.
Create a sense of community that bonds residents together, making a stronger, better
Manhattan Beach.
Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities that meet the diverse needs and
interests of the community.
Recommendation:
This is a very thoughtful vision that is supported by seven overarching principles but it
does not speak to community health or well-being through livability. The seven
overarching principles form the foundation of the General Plan and are embodied in
every goal and policy of this Plan. Including language that speaks to the community’s
vision for individual and community health is an important step towards livability.
The Plan outlines those regulatory issues affecting transportation improvements in Manhattan
Beach:
California Coastal Act of 1976
Manhattan Beach Local Coastal Program
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Congestion Management Plan
Air Quality Management Plan
California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
The WALC Institute team notes the levels of regulation surrounding transportation
improvements in the beach cities. Interestingly, it is the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
and the Congestion Management Plan that focus on regional priority issues such as mobility,
economic development and overall quality of life in the region. The SCAG Regional
Comprehensive Plan focuses on developing regional strategies to minimize traffic congestion,
protect environmental quality, and provide adequate housing. The Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide sets forth broad goals intended to be implemented by participating local and regional
jurisdictions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Congestion
Management Plan aims to link land use, transportation and air quality decisions; to develop a
partnership among transportation decision makers on devising appropriate transportation
solutions that include all modes of travel; and to propose transportation projects that are eligible
to compete for state gas tax funds.
The Land Use Element introduces the following neighborhoods in Manhattan Beach and
provides some vision for development:
Sand Section (Beach Area) – A Local Coastal Plan has been prepared.
Downtown – Downtown Manhattan Beach Guidelines were adopted in 1998 and
establish three themes for Downtown:
o Preserve the small-town village character of downtown Manhattan Beach.
o Preserve and enhance the pedestrian orientation of downtown Manhattan
Beach.
o Protect and encourage streetscape amenities.
North End – Limited Parking and Streetscape beautification listed as key concerns.
Tree Section – The Tree Protection Ordinance of 2003 was adopted to protect front
yard trees in this neighborhood and was eventually expanded City-wide, except to the
Sand Section.
Sepulveda Boulevard – As the only State highway in Manhattan Beach, it serves as a
major transportation corridor and commercial corridor. The City adopted the
Sepulveda Boulevard Design Guide to provide a framework for acceptable development
along this corridor.
Hill Section – Contains mostly single family residences, with some commercial uses
along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. This neighborhood is home to large lots, large
homes and the highest real estate prices in the City.
Manhattan Village – This area used to be home to the Chevron Oil field. This area has a
diverse mix of uses, including high density apartments, commercial uses, schools and
recreational features.
Eastside – Home to 1940’s and 1950’s post World War II tract homes and higher density
and commercial uses on Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard and Aviation
Boulevard. Five schools are located in this area, including the City’s only public high
school and the only middle school.
Recommendation:
Consider including a vision for each of these neighborhoods that speaks to health, well-
being and quality of life for residents and visitors. Given the concentration of schools
within the Eastside neighborhood, consideration of Safe Routes to School, walkability
and active transportation should be emphasized. The Land Use section provides an
existing conditions/historic report of Manhattan Beach. Part II of the Land Use Element
speaks to Neighborhood Character. There is an opportunity between these two sections
to speak to a vision on a neighborhood level and to tie this to the community’s overall
vision for livability. Neither area speaks to health, well-being, living in place, active
living, quality of life or active transportation as organizing principles.
Small Town Character - Within the General Plan, Manhattan Beach notes “Small Town Character”
as a value. The policy they set forth is low-profile development. The strategy is to limit the
height of new development to three stories where the height limit is 30 feet or to two stories
where the height limit is 26 feet.
Recommendation:
The height requirements aim at protecting privacy, reducing shading, protecting vistas of
the ocean and preserving the low profile image of the community to reinforce small-town
character. While building height may be regulated by a number of plans, justifications
are mainly aesthetic and the community should consider how to tie aesthetic regulations
to other regulatory requirements. For instance, low profile development might also
support Green Initiatives through ventilating breezes, solar energy or fall in line with
SEPA requirements. The City could also speak to the desired outcomes of low-profile
development as it relates to livability, walkability, Smart Growth, placemaking, active
living and crime prevention through environmental design.
Open Space Requirements - Open Space requirements set forth in the General Plan for Manhattan
Beach are at 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. While the City met open space requirements at the
time of Plan adoption, it noted that open spaces were concentrated in the Sand Section and
Manhattan Village Area. To address this, the City encourages mature trees on streets and private
landscaped open areas as a means for increasing open space. The City recognizes that residents
in the Tree Section, Hill Section and Eastside use school grounds for recreational activities.
Within the General Plan, Open Space requirements require the provision and retention of private
landscaped areas to give the impression of public open space. The City should determine
whether public-private agreements might formalize these Open Spaces during development so
that they are considered part of an Open Space network. The only other actionable strategy for
Open Spaces focuses on protecting existing mature trees throughout the City and replacing them
with specimen trees whenever lost or removed.
Community Aesthetics - The General Plan points to the pride Manhattan Beach residents show in
the quality of the built environment. An aesthetic, well-kept Manhattan Beach is a principle.
The General Plan speaks to establishing and implementing consistent design standards for
aesthetics and includes the promotion of adopted design guidelines within the Downtown,
Sepulveda Boulevard and in other areas where guidelines apply. The Vitality City project team
should review these design guidelines for compatibility with livability principles.
Recommendation:
The community speaks to minimizing ugliness by using stealth design for telecommunications
antenna and related facilities; creating standards for public signage and City street signage; and
the beautification of streets through landscaping. Other issues such as garbage or debris
removal; crime prevention through environmental design; and storage are as important as
vegetation in terms of aesthetics. Aesthetic regulations can balance the burdens they impose on
property owners by showing the health and safety justifications that complement the regulation.
For instance, regulations on signage might speak to pedestrian scaled signage; maintaining sight
lines; travel lanes versus furniture lanes on sidewalks; in addition to the aesthetic they support.
Neighborhood Character & Economic Viability - The community provides the vision for each of the
neighborhoods identified earlier (Part I of the Land Use Element). Within these sections, the
following are stated as Goals:
Preserve the features of each community neighborhood, and develop solutions tailored to each
neighborhood’s unique characteristics.
Protect residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of inappropriate and incompatible uses.
Maintain the viability of the commercial areas of Manhattan Beach.
Recommendation:
The goals set forth by the City for neighborhood character and economic vitality could
be strengthened by defining context sensitive design and the vision neighborhood
residents have for maintaining place. Images specific to each neighborhood for what is
desired and what is not desired help in localizing street treatments, while maintaining a
sense of connectivity and continuity within the community. The City should include
images of what is prioritized and what is undesirable in their neighborhood section.
The Design Overlay District was established in 1991 by Ordinance 1382. The City should
determine whether these standards are still applicable and supportive of livability. The
document speaks to noise, incompatible uses and design standards that are meant to
limit commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. It would be interesting to learn how
“walk streets” have evolved since 1991.
The goals speak to supporting and encouraging small businesses; a diverse mix of
business to support the local tax base and that benefit residents; a variety of commercial
development types; and the need to balance the needs of commercial and residential uses
in mixed-use areas. Inclusion of livability, quality of life, active living and smart growth
could frame this discussion as opposed to the potential negative impacts of mixed uses
on residents. There is a fear of the impacts commercial uses might have on residential
neighborhoods, which may be exacerbated by commuter traffic currently flooding
residential neighborhoods.
The Circulation Element of Manhattan Beach recognizes that quality of life and livability are
impacted by infrastructure. It states:
Infrastructure forms the backbone of our community. Our streets connect our
neighborhoods, schools, business districts, and parks. The water storage and delivery
system and wastewater collection lines are critical to urban living. Storm drains protect
our properties from flooding. Electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications
facilities help us live in comfort. These systems all support the quality of life in
Manhattan Beach.
How will our infrastructure continue to contribute to and enhance the livability of our
community? As a community, we envision local streets as truly neighborhood streets,
with cut through automobile traffic and its associated noise in our neighborhoods
reduced. We look to increase parking opportunities in Downtown and the beach areas to
minimize parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. We see water used efficiently so
that demands today do not compromise the needs of tomorrow. We expect our storm
drain system to collect rainwater in a manner that reduces pollutant loads entering the
ocean and that addresses localized flooding concerns. We look for telecommunications
infrastructure to continue to be state-of-the-art, connecting us to the world around us.
As a community conscientious about the sustainability of our environment, we envision
Manhattan Beach continuing to function effectively and efficiently, providing all
infrastructure necessary to improve our lives and grow our economy.
In 2002, the City of Manhattan Beach completed a community survey in which the community
was asked to define the most significant issue in Manhattan Beach other than traffic and parking.
In response to this survey, residents overwhelming responded with traffic and parking as the
main concern. Residents were vocal in their unhappiness that significant traffic loads were
overflowing into adjoining neighborhood streets, causing noise, traffic, and safety impacts during
peak periods of the day.
Manhattan Beach recognizes that their local circulation is linked with the regional system.
Therefore, policies in their Circulation Element highlight Manhattan Beach’s continued need to
participate in regional programs to alleviate traffic congestion through capacity enhancements
and trip reduction.
In order to deal with traffic and congestion, the City identified two primary courses of action to
improve congestion:
1. Focused physical improvements for enhanced function of intersections, which function
as the control points in the circulation network.
2. Creative, technological solutions to improve mobility.
Unfortunately, examples of the proposed physical improvements listed in the General Plan focus
on street widenings, and do not speak to Complete Streets or encouraging active transportation.
The list includes:
Widening the bridge on Sepulveda Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine
Avenue
Widening of Rosecrans Avenue between Douglas Street and Aviation Boulevard
Widening of Aviation Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine Avenue
Intersection improvements at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard and
Marine Avenue/Sepulveda Boulevard
Intersection improvements at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Redondo Avenue
Safe Routes to School - Safe Routes to School are mentioned as a challenge. The Circulation Element
states:
One demographic group continually challenged to find public transit is school children.
When the State budget is unable to assist with school bus funding, the Manhattan Beach
Unified School District cannot bear the cost of providing bus service to its schools.
Traffic congestion around schools, particularly in the morning, creates not only delays
but safety risks to Manhattan Beach’s younger residents. Working cooperatively with
the District, the City may be able to find new ways to provide safe routes to school.
It is the WALC Institute’s understanding that the City has developed plans to implement Safe
Routes to School programs. This is good news. An example of a Safe Routes to School Report
can be found here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17132277/CasperWY_SafeRoutesToSchool_1_Report_FinalWithAppen
dix_WALC-Institute_2011-05_SmallFile.pdf.
Because the City recognizes that traffic and congestion impact quality of life and livability,
emphasis should be placed on encouraging active living and active transportation, with greater
integration of transit. The Circulation Element includes a section on Expanding Mobility
Options through:
Enhancing Transit Services
Incorporating Transportation Demand Management
Maintaining Truck Routes
Recommendation:
Greater emphasis on multi-modal transportation, Complete Streets policies and
educational/outreach campaigns to encourage active living are needed. The City does a nice
job of introducing existing conditions. Specific policy recommendations to relieve traffic and
congestion through active transportation and better integration of transit services are not
provided. An explanation of Level of Service as it applies to all modes is needed. Intersection
and roadway treatments other than widenings are not examined. If these widenings are to
provide pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities, this is not mentioned.
Municipal Code
The Municipal Code provides those regulations specific to pedestrians:
14.32.010 - Traffic engineer to establish marked crosswalks.
14.32.020 - When pedestrians must use crosswalks.
14.32.030 - Pedestrians to obey special pedestrian traffic signals.
14.32.040 - Pedestrians prohibited from standing on divisional island.
14.32.010 - Traffic engineer to establish marked crosswalks.
If the City chooses to implement pedestrian refuge islands, it may need to look at the wording of
the following ordinance and its intent:
14.32.040 - Pedestrians prohibited from standing on a divisional island. No
pedestrian shall stand on any divisional island as defined in Section 14.01.060 of this
Code, or delay their movement upon any divisional island longer than is necessary to
avoid conflict with traffic when entering or crossing a divided street or roadway.
Nothing in this section prevents a City employee or City contractor from being on a
divisional island for the purpose of carrying on construction or maintenance
activities.
Livability principles favor integration of modes, and the following Ordinances speak to
segregating the modes. Additionally, there is recognition that the bicycle path may become too
congested for cyclists:
14.28.130 - Beach bicycle path.
14.28.140 - Bicycle path hazard.
14.28.130 - Beach bicycle path.
Beach Bicycle Path: That facility designed, constructed and designated as the beach
bicycle path, including all ingress or egress ramps thereto, as shown on the map on file in
the City Engineer's office, shall be used exclusively for the riding or propelling of bicycles
by human power. The bicycle path shall not be used by pedestrians or animals of any
kind, except that pedestrians may cross the same at right angles in a manner so as not to
interfere with any bicycles on the bicycle path when necessary to do so to gain access to
or from the beach. (§ 1, Ord. 1351, eff. February 7, 1974)
Bicycle Path Hazard: Any Public Safety Officer (Police Officer, Lifeguard or Firefighter)
may declare that the number of pedestrians and bicyclists is sufficient so as to create an
undue hazard upon the bicycle path. When such conditions exist, a "Walk Only" zone
may be created to require the walking of bicycles in the designated area of the bicycle
path. When signs are erected declaring a "Walk Only" zone, it shall be unlawful for
anyone to ride a bicycle in the area designated by signs. (§ 1, Ord. 1801, eff. June 1, 1989)
Recommendation:
Consider integrating the modes by providing slow-moving lanes and fast-moving lanes on
the bicycle path. Knowing how the “Walk Only” zone is enforced on the bike path would
help in understanding mobility and accessibility concerns for all modes.
Walk Streets: “Walk streets” are not codified aside from design standards. so setting or
enforcing acceptable behaviors may be challenging. The definition within the Code is “A
dedicated public street which has been closed to vehicular traffic.” Whether this is
temporary or permanent, seasonal, or based on time of day is not specified.
The WALC Institute team acknowledges that the City of Manhattan Beach’s Community
Development Department created two guidance documents – “Construction and Landscaping on
Public Property” in 2004, and “Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook” in 2005 –
that may address certain recommendations in this report. The Institute team was introduced to these
documents toward the close of the livability project and thus, they weren’t reviewed as part of this
effort. They are referenced here as possible resource documents.
Transportation policy that supports livable communities calls for changing the way we approach
transportation to ensure our communities are desirable places to live, work and play. This vision
contrasts with current transportation trends, which focus narrowly on congestion and our
deteriorating transportation systems. A focus on livability assesses transportation projects based
on how they will improve quality of life and livability in communities.
Obstacles to achieving transportation policy that supports livable communities include:
Traditionally, Departments of Transportation and municipalities have focused on
programming standards that favor the single occupant automobile. Livability is not
included in the criteria. The impacts of transportation planning and land use decisions
on quality of life are absent from most planning documents.
Auto-oriented development patterns have changed the form of communities from
walkable, transit oriented, street grid systems to strip and single-family development
accessed by regional automobile corridors.
Communities have not focused on integrating transportation and land use planning to
protect rural resource lands from the impacts of development.
Livability requires context-sensitive design solutions that address the needs of rural,
urban and suburban areas. Communities must develop and localize those acceptable
street treatments that support livability.
Level of Service focuses mainly on vehicle mobility at the expense of all other modes.
Acceptable Levels of Service for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users are almost
never considered and the impact from vehicular traffic on other modes is often ignored.
A community’s General Plan memorializes the community’s desired development goals and
embodies public policy relative to present and future land use decisions. The General Plan serves
to:
Identify the community’s land use, circulation, environmental, economic and social
goals and policies as they relate to land use and development.
Provide a basis for local government decision-making, including decisions on
development approvals and exactions.
Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision-making
processes of their communities.
Inform citizens, developers, decision-makers and other cities and counties of the ground
rules that guide development within a particular community.
All recommendations must fall in line with the vision set forth by the community in their guiding
document. Each of the beach cities has indicated concerns and reservations about the following:
Mixed-use development and its impacts on residential uses
Traffic and congestion, especially overflow commuter traffic in residential
neighborhoods
Parking and parking management
The community aesthetic and preserving their historic sense of place
Development as a potential threat to place-making
Conservation and protection of resources
Access to natural resources
Safe Routes to School
As we address these concerns over the course of the Vitality City project, there is an opportunity
to include livability, well-being and quality of life as guiding principles for each of the beach
cities. Transportation policies that support livable communities will provide the following
benefits to the beach communities:
Sustainable, cost-effective land use and transportation patterns.
Reduced infrastructure costs.
Localized transportation investments.
Transportation choices for children, teens, adults and senior citizens to encourage
healthier lifestyles and active living for life.
Protection of natural and cultural resources.
Opportunities for residents to interact to create a vibrant community.
Healthy people in healthy environments.
Resources
Many models exist in California that the beach cities can look to for sample language and
inspiration as they undertake efforts to update their General Plans and Municipal Code to be
more supportive of livability, health and well-being.
One wonderful resource is the Healthy Eating Active Living Cities Campaign, online at
www.healcitiescampaign.org. The Campaign’s website includes many links to examples of city
policies, land-use plans, general plans and other guiding documents from cities throughout
California that are becoming more supportive of active living.
For example, the Campaign’s page, “Healthy Zoning Regulations” includes links to city policies.
See:
http://healcitiescampaign.org/healthy_zone.html
The “General Plan Update” page includes links to Health Elements, General Plans and a Model
General Plan Policy that illustrate how communities can incorporate health and well-being into
their guiding documents. See:
http://healcitiescampaign.org/general_plan.html
Don’t delay in making
the changes that can
be made immediately.
For example, an
intersection may
require significant
work that takes more
than a year to install,
but repainting the
crosswalks with high-
emphasis markings can
be done in a matter of
weeks.
To improve well-being and to ensure that future development patterns support active living,
careful planning and execution are required. Immediate action is also needed, however, and
the beach cities are full of opportunities to make immediate improvements with tools as
simple as paint, in addition to infrastructure changes that can take between one and five
years to fully implement.
In addition to adopting the recommendations of
Vitality City and the South Bay Bicycle Master
Plan, the beach cities should consider the
following recommendations that build upon the
previous section on policies. They are organized
as transformations that can be made on regional
and local corridors, as well as general guidance
for all beach cities streets.
Although some recommendations will require
studies, robust public processes and possibly
several years to fully implement, the effort can
begin now.
Don’t delay in making the changes that can be
made immediately. For example, certain
intersections may require significant
improvements such as adding a median that
takes more than a year to plan, fund and install,
but it is completely reasonable to expect to be
able to repaint the crossings with high-emphasis
markings within a matter of weeks.
Some residents may
at first express
concern. But
community members
can—and should—
adapt to slight
reductions in vehicle
speeds.
Consider the main
goal: to improve
well-being through
streets that support
walkability and
livability, making the
active way the easy
way.
This report encapsulates the WALC Institute team’s key findings and recommendations based
on the team members’ observations of existing conditions, interaction with the public during
workshops, interviews with stakeholders, design and training sessions with city staff and
knowledge of best practices from throughout the country acquired during more than 40 years of
combined work experience in active living, walkability, livability, civic engagement, education
and community outreach.
The recommendations of this report were developed with a goal of improving well-being in the
beach cities through changes to the built environment that will better support active living and
active transportation. Each of the recommendations represents a broad set of expectations that
traffic speeds should be brought under control in areas where walking, bicycling and active
living are to be encouraged. Through the mix of proposed treatments, vehicles will be slowed to
appropriate speeds in appropriate areas, people driving cars will be more likely to yield to people
on foot and all modes of transport will work better together. The urgency of this balance is
driven by the aging population that will in time be limited in their use of automobiles. When
factoring in aging and youth populations, the appropriate speed is about providing freedom for
all residents to travel throughout a community.
Many of these recommendations represent best
practices from throughout the country, including
many that are not conventional in their approach.
They will require flexibility and creativity on the part
of the government staff developing them and
considerable outreach to the people most affected by
the changes. As they are implemented, some residents
or business operators may at first express concern or
resistance. Bring them into the process and help them
understand the value of the effort. Be assured
throughout that these recommendations are based on
extensive knowledge of tools that are working in
other places in the country and even in Southern
California, and can work in the beach cities.
In some cases, commute times in vehicles will be
slightly longer, although usually by a matter of
seconds or mere minutes. But community members
can—and should—adapt to slight reductions in
vehicle speeds by leaving a minute or two earlier for
their combined trip, so that they are not late for work
and don’t feel compelled to drive fast near schools or
other places where people should be walking and
biking.
By adopting and implementing these recommendations, the beach cities will be joining hundreds
of communities throughout the country that concede a marginal reduction in roadway efficiency
in select places in exchange for livability and supporting children, beachgoers, seniors and others
who want or need to walk and bike for transport.
It won’t be only commuters who need to adjust. In fact, some of the recommendations will
require drivers of delivery trucks, buses, fire trucks and other machinery to adapt to the new road
designs. They will do so successfully and the combined system will work for all.
Consider the main goal of this effort: to improve well-being through streets that support
walkability and livability, making the active way the easy way. Envision the recommended
changes and you will see how they will help.
Most of the recommendations that follow can be implemented and on-the-ground within weeks
or months, not years. It is important to emphasize that the beach cities won’t in most cases be
the first to carry out many of these recommendations, and they can draw on other communities
for support and guidance. Be assured throughout that these recommendations are based on
extensive knowledge of tools that are working in other places in the country and even in
Southern California, and can work in the beach cities.
Currently, unlike Aviation and many of the east-west streets, all available right-of-way for the
Pacific Coast Highway is consumed by vehicle travel lanes and parking at certain times.
However, the WALC Institute team understands that two of the three beach cities are working
out a program to inherit this corridor from Caltrans. Once ownership is taken, it will be possible
to use the corridor to build value and help shape land use. The third city should work closely
with Caltrans and with the other two cities to make appropriate changes to the built form of
PCH in support of active living.
Pacific Coast Highway/Sepulveda is a major arterial with high traffic volumes that serves
multiple cities. Where it passes through the beach cities, it represents a great opportunity to
build their community through this transportation investment as opposed to dividing and
devaluing the land uses adjacent to it.
A realistic and appropriate goal would be to amend the roadway design to better accommodate
walking and biking, and to slow vehicle speeds while also keeping traffic moving. Such
transformations have been achieved on Wilshire Blvd. in Santa Monica in a relatively short
period of time. Traffic numbers and rights-of-way on Wilshire are similar to Pacific Coast
Highway, so Wilshire would be a good model to study.
Based upon the results of traffic studies and a strong vision for the area’s livability, consider
adding additional signalized intersections and setting "progression speeds" between 27 mph and
33 mph. In fact, the ideal speed in many sections likely is 30 mph. Most portions of the Pacific
Coast Highway have attached sidewalks and four to seven lanes for vehicle travel.
Mid-block crossings without medians
or other appropriate treatments create
multiple-threat exposure for
pedestrians. At a minimum, raised
median islands and pedestrian-
activated signals are needed for many
crossings, such as those found on
Sepulveda in Manhattan Beach. Mid-
block crossings are placed toward the
center of a block, away from the
turning conflicts found at
intersections. They are most often placed where "desire lines" between two important points are
found, such as near a beach, a park or civic building.
Due to the regional significance and high traffic volumes of this corridor, it likely will be best to
select a half-mile or one-mile section to create a model project. The city in which this occurs first
will need to be fully committed to the idea that they are building their community through a
transportation investment, instead of allowing a regional transportation corridor to determine
the character of their community. See the section above, “Needed: Flexibility, Creativity and
Courage.”
At the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian St. sits a neighborhood treasure—Eat at
Joe’s. Based on the volume of people observed throughout the day, this is a very popular site with
locals and visitors alike. The location is a great place to start a livability project: it’s located
within a neighborhood, near retail, near the city seat and along a stretch of road with high
visibility to passerby. Additionally, the owner of Eat at Joe’s is very interested in investing in
outdoor seating, and the leadership of Redondo Beach is interested in engineering treatments
that would turn this section of the corridor into a people-friendly place. Thus, the corner of
Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian has strong potential to become a true catalyst for similar
improvements all throughout the three beach cities.
Depending on studies to be done, the following key recommendations and phases should be
considered:
Year One
Repaint the vehicle travel lanes on Pacific Coast Highway to be narrower. This will help
slow vehicle speeds slightly and provide additional right-of-way for other uses, such as
providing more buffer between cars and people on foot. On Carnelian, consider removing
the center line altogether; many communities have found that vehicles slow down and
drivers operate in a more cautious manner when the center lines are removed. (See
appendix. How to Do It: Road Diets)
Install high-emphasis crosswalk markings. (See appendix. How to Do It: Crossings.)
Adjust crosswalk signals to recall to “WALK.” Set signal timing for the walk interval to
be as long as feasible during the green time in the concurrent vehicle phase. Unless push
buttons activate the signal on a recall demand, remove them.
Eliminate the right-turn-on-red from Carnelian onto Pacific Coast Highway. Doing so
better supports pedestrians.
Add head-out angled on-street parking and curb extensions on Carnelian. (See appendix.
How to Do It: Parking and How to Do It: Curb Extensions.)
“Green” the street with landscaping. Create art-on-the-corner projects at intersections
and provide informational kiosks or bulletin boards.
Develop and adopt policies that support outdoor seating for restaurants.
At Carnelian and Ave. N, install a mini-circle to enhance accessibility into and from the
neighborhood and to keep traffic in this residential area calm.
Year Two
Add curb extensions on all appropriate side streets.
Conduct a community redevelopment study with a radius of a quarter-mile or half-mile
from the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Carnelian to develop a reinvestment
strategy. Although the Pacific Coast Highway corridor has high traffic volume, it is still a
great candidate for a village reinvestment. (See appendix. How to Do It: Convert
Suburban Strips to Village Centers.)
Years Three to Five
Depending on the results of studies, convert the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway
and Carnelian to a modern roundabout with two lanes entering from each side of PCH
and single lanes entering from each side of Carnelian. Following the anticipated success
of this roundabout, study additional intersections and add others. (See appendix. How
to Do It: Traffic-Calming Roundabouts.)
Aviation Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. are heavily used by both commuters and visitors to
the beach cities, but they don’t adequately support active living. The cities can make the
following changes to create a more livable environment:
Adopt the recommendations of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan as they relate to
Aviation Blvd. and Manhattan Beach Blvd. In general, streets like these benefit from
restriping the road to allow five-foot bike lanes. The stripe should be wide and bold at
eight to 10 inches or more.
Place median crossing islands and rapid-flash beacon treatment near transit stops. Start
with one location on each roadway, as model projects, and over time increase the
number of these crossings.
Upgrade transit stops to be welcoming and comfortable.
Mark all intersections with high-emphasis crosswalks. These crosswalks should be at
least 12 feet deep.
Signal cycles should rest on “walk” and hold the walk phase as long as practicable.
Install countdown crossing signals as soon as equipment rotation permits.
Provide strong support of pedestrians
by adding a crosswalk and a crossing
island that reduces the amount of time
and distance over which pedestrians
are exposed to traffic, and allows them
to cross only a couple of lanes of traffic
at once. This image illustrates one
possible solution that seeks to
accommodate people from the
residential areas on the west side of the
street who want to access the transit
center and shopping amenities to the
north, on the east side of the street.
Depending on the results of an engineering study, this intersection might be a prime candidate
for a hybrid roundabout, with an extra leg coming in from the northbound lane of Prospect,
turning right onto Artesia. An approximate "shadow fit" is shown in the illustration. This assists
with a reduction of vehicles speeds on Prospect and Artesia.
Place high-emphasis crossings on all legs. Place stop lines on all legs. Northeast and southeast
intersections should be considered for raised “pork chop islands.” Move crossing islands to
locations where pedestrians do not have their back to traffic.
At the intersection of
Redondo Beach and
Hermosa Beach, where
The Strand trail merges
with Harbor Drive, there
is much confusion and
there are many conflict
points between cars,
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Additionally, The Strand
makes an awkward 90-
degree turn, which is
difficult for bicyclists to
maneuver through,
especially if pedestrians
are present. On Harbor
Drive, it isn’t clear to
bicyclists traveling north
on the east side of the
street how they should
cross to get to The Strand.
To alleviate this confusion,
reduce the number of
conflict points and create
better connectivity for the
trail through this area,
while also improving
livability along Harbor
Drive, the communities
should consider the
following:
Remove a section of the wall that separates The Strand from the adjacent parking lot and run
the trail along the west side of the lot.
Connect the trail to Harbor Drive via a new path through the city parking lot.
Add head-out angled parking and widen the sidewalks along Herondo St.
Consider replacing the signalized intersection at Harbor and Herondo with a roundabout.
Create a Class I bicycle facility on Harbor Dr.
Where possible, limit or eliminate driveway entries on Harbor Dr.
Running along each side of the Greenbelt through Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, these
two streets would be ideal for both walking and bicycling if vehicle speeds were kept reasonable
and if many of the stop controls were removed. Constant starting and stopping along this
corridor makes drivers want to speed between stops. It also makes bicycling inefficient and
uncomfortable. In fact, during the WALC Institute’s site visits, a radar gun found cars traveling
at 35 mph, which is unacceptable on these narrow residential streets.
Mini traffic circles can bring down vehicle speeds and allow a smooth and efficient blending of
bicycling, driving and walking. Residents would find it safer and easier to get into and out of
driveways.
Due to the very narrow right-of-way and the strong desire for this corridor to support people
walking and biking, one-way couplets could be a good solution here. The communities should
consider removing one vehicle travel lane and making each segment one-way, as exists in
Manhattan Beach, for the sections of Valley and Ardmore that bound the Greenbelt. Removing a
vehicle lane would allow the addition of a bike lane. The bike lane would be placed between the
vehicle travel lane and the on-street parking. Care would need to be taken to ensure conflict
points are properly managed at the mini circles.
These changes would help to calm traffic and make it easier and safer to park and un-park, to get
in and out of driveways, and to make entries from side roads. Public safety members also believe
that creating a one way corridor could allow faster response times for fire services, when PCH is
congested. Due to fire truck sizes, at this time there is not an alternate route for a large truck
heading to a fire in Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach.
It is important to note that for some motorists, the one-way couplets would add slightly to their
drive times. In particular, one area of concern raised is along Valley and Ardmore from
Gould/Artesia to Pier. As noted in the section, “Needed: Flexibility, Creativity and Courage,” in
some cases commute times will be slightly longer, but community members should consider the
goal: to improve well-being through streets that support walkability and livability, making the
active way the easy way. Additionally, strong civic engagement should be achieved to build
capacity and support for such a change.
Along this corridor, an area for creative thinking is at Hermosa Valley Elementary School, to help
alleviate confusion during drop-off and pick-up periods. An additional Safe Routes to School
effort could be undertaken to clarify how to approach drop-off and pick-up in this area if the
streets become one-way couplets. This could become a model project for the broader community.
Roundabouts can
reduce injury crashes
by 76 percent and
reduce fatal crashes
by 90 percent.
See the section, “Key
Tools and Terms for
a Better Built Form,”
and the appendix for
more details.
North and South Catalina lack adequate pedestrian
crossings. Travel lanes are wider than necessary in
many locations, and could be narrowed to widen bike
lanes. Catalina parallels the Pacific Coast Highway, and
major portions appear to be good candidates for road
diets. Road diets help calm traffic, keep vehicle speeds
down, simplify crossings, improve sight lines and
improve signal efficiency, all while increasing support
for active modes of travel such as biking and walking.
In order for a road diet strategy to work fully, however,
it would be important to consider roundabouts or
mini-circles at several key intersections, such as Topaz,
Sapphire and Knob Hill, and avenues B, D, E, G and I.
Roundabouts can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent
and reduce fatal crashes by 90 percent. (See the section,
“Key Tools and Terms for a Better Built Form,” on page
21 and the Best Practices section of the appendix for more details.)
A continuous median could also be placed, helping green the area and directing motorists
seeking access to the opposite side of the road to travel to the next mini-circle.
In the image below, which is not to scale, the bike lanes and parking lanes are each nine feet
wide, leaving about ten feet for the median.
In addition to the specific recommendations above, the WALC Institute suggests the beach cities
consider the following guidelines. Some of these already are being applied at many intersections
in the beach cities, but they should be applied to the extent possible in all locations in the beach
cities:
Set walk signals for crossing minor streets to always default to or begin with “WALK.”
In addition, set signal timing so that the walk interval is as long as feasible for the green
time in the concurrent vehicle phase. In areas where pedestrians should be fully
supported, remove push button controls and allow the signal to default to the “WALK”
phase. Generally, strive to recall signals on a frequent basis to minimize wait times for
pedestrians. Full cycle lengths of 60 to 90 seconds are best. In people-rich areas, note
that seniors, who need the most time, may be the last to leave the curb, and that it may
take three to five seconds for them to get into the street.
Use countdown signals on a soft replacement basis when other changes are budgeted
and implemented. Start with high priority walking locations, such as near and around
schools, important transit stops, plazas, parks, medical centers, senior centers and town
centers.
Consider eliminating Right-Turn-On-Red if motorists aren’t showing the appropriate
level of caution for the area.
Consider adopting Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) to step pedestrians out first, when
there are high pedestrian counts or when problems with turning motorists or other
conditions warrant this phase. The interval is typically three to six seconds. Use
enhanced crosswalk markings and bold stop bars to better identify crossings and to
keep motorists out of crossing areas.
Evaluate or audit all crosswalks. Repaint
and increase visibility of crosswalks. Start
this process in each downtown and near
schools.
Place “yield paddles” at non-signalized
crosswalks without adequate signage
where pedestrian crossing volumes are
high or should be. Plan on replacing these
paddles every other month initially.
See the Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies’ report,
“Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Unsignalized Crossings” for more
information:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchr
p/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf
Identify sidewalk gaps, especially near schools, major transit stops and large parks and prioritize
their construction. Sidewalks are needed to support children walking to school, in and around all
senior centers and as approaches to all retail centers, transit stops and parks or plazas. Highest-
priority sidewalks should include filling gaps along principal roadways (arterials and collectors).
Identify locations for bike lanes and restripe these roadways. The regional bike master plan
which is underway will identify those areas most important for bike travel.
Attractive, functional bike racks should be provided at all destinations. An excellent model
location is at the beach cities Health District. Bike storage can also include indoor parking, bike
lockers or sheltered parking. Locate bike parking where there are many “eyes” on the bikes to
reduce theft. The WALC Institute team understands that Manhattan Beach recently installed 39
new bike racks throughout the community; such efforts should be celebrated and continued.
Provide attractive seating, benches, ledges and even garbage cans throughout each town center
and other popular walking locations in neighborhoods. Avoid use of commercial ad seating,
when possible; sponsor memorial benches and seats and other innovations for seating.
An abundance of stop signs makes bicycling
difficult. Especially in hilly areas, some
bicyclists will treat stop signs as yields in order
to maintain their momentum. In fact, to
accommodate bicyclists’ unique needs, the
state of Idaho has adopted a stop-as-yield law
that allows cyclists to proceed through a sign-
controlled intersection without stopping.
Other solutions that may be more viable in the
beach cities and don’t require changing a law:
(1) change stop signs where appropriate, such
as those along trails, to require vehicles—
instead of people walking or biking—to stop,
and (2) install mini circles where feasible
throughout the cities, but especially along
portions of Prospect, Valley-Ardmore and east-
west routes like Manhattan Beach Blvd. and
Marine Ave. This will bring traffic on
neighborhood streets to safer speeds while
letting bicyclists and motorists stay in motion.
Oversized roads are a major problem in each of the beach cities. Efforts are needed to reduce the
size, scale and complexity of intersections. Most principle roads have speeds much higher than
are safe or comfortable for walking and bicycling. Use bike lanes, tree plantings and other visual
and actual narrowing of through lanes to bring speeds back down to desired levels. This
recommendation is listed as a potential “immediate gain” because a road diet can sometimes be
achieved simply by moving the paint striping of the vehicle travel lanes to make them narrower.
The beach cities each should
develop comprehensive
wayfinding programs that help
people who live in, shop in or
visit the area find ease in
navigation. Wayfinding signs
also establish the character and
charm of the town. Once the
plans and designs are developed,
the effort can be aided by local
industrial schools or others that
can manufacture signs. At a
minimum, priorities for
wayfinding should include all
areas near civic centers, popular
or desired approaches to the
Greenbelt, beach areas, prime commercial districts, transit centers and historic or scenic areas.
Start an “active transportation” work day. Encourage all public servants, employees and elected
leaders to park their car for a full day and to use feet and wheels to commute, conduct errands
and get to all their daily needs. This process will help focus attention on how to emphasize
healthy transportation. Events such as active transportation work days create positive publicity
for the movement toward walkability, livability and improved well-being.
Start "bicycle cafes” where the cities, the county, bike shops or other specialists provide free bike
repairs, a bicycling clinic and otherwise support biking as a lifestyle.
When projects are completed and the new facility or amenity is ready for public use, celebrate
the success. Hold a ribbon cutting, post an announcement online, issue a news release or utilize
whatever channel is available to broadly disseminate the importance and value of the
improvement. This helps not only publicize that the amenity is now available, but it also can be
an important way to educate people about how to use it (for example, a roundabout) and it helps
engender support for future projects.
Look for early opportunities to complete missing street connections other than those specifically
identified in this report. With the energy of the Vitality City project, it is likely that some
unusual partnering for “missing link” streets can be agreed upon and built. For example, just
south and west of the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Diamond St. in Redondo Beach—just
south of the beach cities Health District—Diamond St. dead-ends into a fenced-off trail and then
opens up again one-tenth of a mile northeast as Flagler Lane. Completing street connections such
as this one would provide better access between the adjacent neighborhood, the high school, the
nearby sports complexes and parks, and services in the area including the Health District.
The beach cities have an opportunity to capitalize on Vitality City’s efforts to work toward
getting even more employers to support and promote active commuting. For example, the cities
can create incentives for employers of a certain size—say, with 10 or more employees—to get at
least 40 percent of workers to no longer drive to work on a regular basis. The South Coast Air
Quality Management District could be a good additional partner in such an effort.
To encourage active commuting, employers—including the cities themselves—need to provide
showers as part of building renovations. Employers with 25 or more employees can be
encouraged to build this into future building leases as a requirement. Each of the beach cities
should study code language adopted in Palo Alto, California for replacement of parking
requirements through alternatives that include quality bike parking.
Where they don’t already exist, start cops-on-bikes programs and bicycle rescue teams. The
WALC Institute team saw several law enforcement officers on bikes and on foot during the site
visits, but not nearly as many as one should expect for a beach context. Expand existing
programs to give residents and visitors as strong sense of police surveillance and more direct
engagement and involvement. Having officers and EMS “on the ground” also puts them in a good
position to report needed maintenance or improvements to the public works departments.
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Healthy Building Placement
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Town Maker’s Guide:
Livable Schools
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Regional Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Photo-Visualization:
Local Corridor
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications
Best Practices
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
a
Most land-use codes were written at a time when U.S.
cities had an abundance of land, water, clean air and
other resources. We assumed continued availability
of these resources, as well as financing, which led
communities to construct poorly connected and
outwardly expanding light-density development, street
networks and other inefficient infrastructure. As a result,
land uses were separated – sometimes by miles – and
urban areas were allowed to decay.
Today, we have a better understanding of the limitations
of our available resources. Roads, bridges, sewers and
water lines that are now failing, need to be replaced
or refurbished. Doing so will be two to eight times
more expensive than if we had stayed current with
maintenance.
As we make “brick and mortar” changes to the physical
infrastructure, we also should update the policy
infrastructure, including land-use codes, to foster more
livable, walkable communities. Existing codes promote
poor connectivity, which leads to higher dependence
on cars – and even greater strain on infrastructure.
Facing high gas and energy costs, residents are ready
for change. But it will require more than Band-Aid
solutions. Metaphorically speaking, we’re talking surgery
and radical changes to get our towns back to good
health.
Toward Change: Mix Uses and Connect Streets
Walkable and livable communities can’t develop without
transit, dense development, mixed land uses and
strong street connectivity. Most existing codes do not
tolerate - let alone encourage - such forward-thinking
development. Instead, codes have generated misplaced
development, forcing residents to get into their cars
and leave their neighborhoods to access basic services.
Progressive developers, planning board members,
architects and others have seen the need to embrace
a better system, one that promotes sustainability, eco-
friendly practices, walkability and transit-friendly design.
Unfortunately, their efforts have been slowed by
outdated code and regulations. A number of cities
throughout the country have even drafted visionary
plans. However, too often these plans are relegated to
How to Do It: Codes to Create Traditional,
Walkable Communities
back shelves as leaders and planners grapple with code-
related challenges. The question is: How can we shape
codes to encourage better development? The first step
is to develop a process that is inclusive, comprehensive
and clear.
1. Fully engage all stakeholders to develop a vision.
Enlist both the general public and the development
community in the process of creating new code that
supports smart, complete and predictable standards
for development. Include stakeholders with differing
opinions to help create a vision that is holistic, practical
and collaborative. Broad support will provide the
necessary political shield for leaders to write, adopt and
enforce new codes that promote sustainability, green
design, active living and livable communities.
2. Understand that many factors affect the built
environment. New proposals should address all of the
factors that can influence design standards, not just
the obvious ones. For example, tenant expectations
shouldn’t be an afterthought.
Engage in Vitality City: The communities of Hermosa
Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have a
unique opportunity to improve livability with the help of
Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City. The cities should
utilize resources made available to them to engage stake-
holders and develop community vision plans where they
don’t already exist.
Beach CitiesBlueprint for 2011
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONESvitality City®
HEALTHWAYS | BLUE ZONES
vitality City
presented by Beach Cities Health District
March 22, 2011
b
3. Create a master plan that clearly communicates the
development expectations. Standards that are clear,
concise and predictable are more likely to be accepted
and to succeed. In fact, predictability is the developer’s
friend. Standards must be highly graphical and easy to
understand for both builders and regulators. Programs
should be reviewed and evaluated yearly, and amended as
appropriate.
Seek Examples of Success
A municipality doesn’t need to change its entire book of
codes overnight. In fact, it’s probably smarter to make
changes incrementally.
For example, the central Florida city of Eustis, like
many small towns, has taken the time during this
latest market lull to “right the ship.” While reviewing
the city’s land-development regulations, city leaders
recognized the need for a downtown vision and began a
concurrent vision plan driven by the public. They have
found a common language in creating walkable streets,
balancing automobiles with pedestrians and alternative
modes of transport, and melding land-use decisions
with transportation goals. They have adopted new
form-based codes with district design standards, block
developments, typical streetscapes and a vision plan to
focus future development.
When the market recovers, Eustis will be prepared to
receive development as part of a community vision that
will result in a more sustainable, vibrant and livable city.
It is admirable that so many communities throughout the
country want to promote walkable, livable communities.
The next step is for governments, residents, developers
and planners to work together to make this a reality. It’s
time to throw out archaic codes and create new rules
that foster smarter - and healthier - growth.
Over time, buildings in town centers should front the streets, such as these retail shops in Hermosa Beach, CA. New buildings, or adapted buildings, can provide important added presence of people in the downtown.
c
Roundabouts facilitate through-traffic and turning
movements without requiring signal control. Roundabouts
are made up of a circulating roadway with an island
that is often used for landscaping or other decorative
features. The circulating roadway is typically wider than
the approach roadways and features an additional ‘apron’
against the edges of the island; both of these features
allow for fire trucks, ambulances and other large vehicles.
Roundabouts increase intersection volume by up to 30
percent. As the only requirement for yielding the right-
of-way is to traffic already in the circulating roadway,
vehicles can continue moving through intersections
carrying a light volume,
requiring no queue at the
approach roadways and
potentially allowing all
intersecting streets to use
the intersection at once.
Due to their low speed
and the reduced points
of potential conflict,
roundabouts also can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent
and fatal crashes by 90 percent. See the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety’s website: www.iihs.org/research/
topics/roundabouts.html.
How to Do It: Traffic-Calming Roundabouts
Roundabouts reduce delay, which reduces idling engines,
air pollution, noise and lost time. Roundabouts provide
safer and more comfortable pedestrian crossings.
Splitter islands serve as a pedestrian refuge. Allowing
one car length between the crossing and circulating
lane(s) optimizes roundabout efficiency for vehicles.
Roundabouts reduce conflicts in multiple ways: when
crossing, pedestrians face only one potential conflict
(traffic either entering or exiting the roundabout, divided
by the splitter island), and not the six conflicts per crossing
leg in full-crossing intersections. In properly designed
roundabouts, all conflicts are at low speeds for both
entering and exiting traffic. Roundabouts also create the
least delay to pedestrians wishing to cross a street. Instead
of waiting for up to two minutes to cross (common with
a signal), the pedestrian reaching a roundabout rarely has
more than a two- to eight-second delay for each leg that
they cross. Most bicyclists circulate easily with traffic,
since traffic is now going their speed.
For more information about roundabouts, see the Federal
Highway Administration’s educational video about
roundabouts, at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/
roundabouts/fhwasa10023/wmv_cc_final/10-2124_
Roundabouts.wmv.
Due to their low speed and the reduced points of potential conflict, roundabouts can reduce injury crashes by 76 percent and fatal crashes by 90 percent.
d
By helping re-scale a roadway, roundabouts help set
the stage for more successful retail trade and social life.
The roundabout below transformed an ugly strip street
in Golden, Colorado, into a much better proportioned
street. Four roundabouts were built; all signals were
removed. One surprising result: retail trade in the
corridor outperformed all other streets in Colorado
during the last recession.
Top photo, Holland, Michigan.
Bottom photo, Orlando, Florida. Both mini-circles
manage traffic quietly, maximize on street parking by
bringing speeds down, and offer attractive corners in
the commercial districts they occupy. A mini-circle or
two on key streets on gateway approaches to town, in
downtowns and other locations will add charm, beauty
and movement. Mini-circles are low cost and attractive
traffic management tools that can be easily designed
and installed. Although costs can be as low as $15-25k,
much more attractive circles are recommended for a
number of historic roads where speeds are too high.
A cost range of $75-125k would be appropriate for
central locations, while modest price circles can be used
elsewhere in the community. Mini-circles reduce the
potential for crashes by 90%. Yield controls are used
on all approaches. Seattle, Washington has placed over
1,000 mini-circles.
e
The addition of street network and roundabouts help
to keep traffic flowing, but keep it flowing slowly, which
creates a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
In some areas, roundabouts should have right-turn
bypass lanes, as illustrated below.
Roundabouts with Right-Turn Bypass Lanes
The top images are of a roundabout in Boulder, CO
and the bottom image is of a roundabout leading to the
Charlottesville, VA airport.
f
Communities can draw inspiration from Bradenton
Beach, Florida, where this state road previously exposed
pedestrians to high speeds at this crossing. On average,
one pedestrian was killed each year. Walking for exercise,
pleasure or transportation was suppressed. Following the
construction of the roundabout, all crashes disappeared,
and a new stage was set for mixed use development
After
Before
Success Story: Roundabouts and Crossings
After 14 years of operation, there had been no reported
crashes of any type. New economic life has set a mood
of prosperity to the entire shopping district. Today, there
is an abundance of pedestrian life.
g
Crossings should be located where there is a strong
desire to cross, where sight distances are good and
where vehicle speeds are low or can be lowered through
design and treatments. Shown on these pages, the use
of materials to create attractive streetscape features add
beauty, function and place. Each functional part (i.e.
parking, crossings, curb extensions, lane narrowing)
should be designed to add to effectiveness of the
crossing. Properly designed, crossings will “read”
How to Do It: Crossings
correctly, sending messages to drivers as they approach
that they are to slow down and that pedestrians should
be expected. For more information on the safety
impacts of crossings, see the Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies’ report, “Improving
Pedestrian Safety and Unsignalized Crossings,” available
online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
h
Use high-emphasis markings. A new approach is being used with paving ground down about 1/3rd of an inch. A
hot ceramic mix is poured in, then reflective glass beads are settled on top. This anti-slip design is expected to wear
well and outlast the life of the road surface. If desired, crossings can also be raised. This raised table has a 1:16
gradient change.
This Golden, Colorado crossing makes use of several important principles, the street is narrowed (to sixteen feet of
asphalt, with another 2 feet in each valley gutter).Growth of ground cover (keep trimmed to 20-28 inches) and tall
vertical trees, in time, will complete this crossing. This road was once 40 feet wide. Today parents feel comfortable
having their children make crossings along a popular park and trail.
i
Tools used to slow traffic and help people cross
streets.
If space exists where some crossings will be warranted,
then a median island can be added. This is a former
four-lane road, in Olympia, Washington. With medians,
pedestrians are only exposed to one direction of moving
traffic at a time. Medians should have both ground cover
and trees to make them more noticeable to motorists
from greater distances. Use of these features slows
speed, then draws attention to the crossing.
j
Additional tools can be used to aid
pedestrians in crossing streets safely.
Curb extensions reduce crossing
distances. Landscaping helps
channel pedestrians to ramps. Using
two ramps per corner simplifies
crossings. Color contrast is an aid
for older pedestrians and pedestrians
with visual problems. Count down
timers are now recommended as a
soft replacement for all urban area
signalized crossings.
k
The conversion of a strip to a village
center starts with taking critical corners
and placing urban buildings there.
These new buildings help size and
shape the importance of the corner
and the corridor. In time, well placed
buildings are joined together to create
vertical walls that provide character
and community. This works in small
scale hamlets to larger scale shopping
districts. Illustrations here show how the
new visual qualities help dampen traffic
speeds. Buildings start the critical process
of “enclosing” streets, giving them a feel
of “place” and importance. The two
photos below illustrate the importance
of architecture and town form in
controlling the speed of roadways.
There is little more than engineers can
do in the bottom image to control
speed. Meanwhile, careful, thoughtful,
placement of buildings and placemaking
brings speeds, and therefore development
opportunities alive.
Shown to the right is a correctly as-
sembled urban block, and below it a
conventional suburban block. Note
how the suburban strip image is
unappealing for walking (or even driv-
ing), and hastens motorists through a
space. This increases the potential for
speeding. Thus, poorly designed build-
ings and block patterns impact busi-
ness life and people multiple ways.
Correctly designed and placed ur-
ban form is necessary to help heal
downtowns or other places where
people are to spend time and money.
Unless code calls for an urban form,
do not expect such development. It
costs more, but it produces more.
Urban mixed-use development typi-
cally yields $25-60/square foot, while
single-use commercial zoning built to
suburban models yields only $5-15/
square foot.
How to Do It: Convert Suburban Strips to Village Centers
l
Suburban influences in town
centers can be replaced over time.
A partnership between private and
public land holders can result in
scenes that look much like these,
and even better.
Public streets form and frame so
much of our public realm that by
emphasizing speed of cars, we
destroy character and sense of
community. Once streets are rebuilt
for lower, but steady, speeds, it is
possible to provide new, mixed use
buildings that create a sense of
place, character and arrival.
As these transitions occur land can
increase in value from $5-15/sq
ft to $35-60/ sq ft. Scene to the
right: In time either the entire mall
can be replaced, or a portion in the
middle can be taken down to create
an attractive pathway that invites a
direct route to street shops.
m
The illustration to the right emphasizes those streets
(outlined in red) that are “A” Streets. “B” Streets in the
illustration are not highlighted with red. These can be
alleys, or any type of a utility street.
In the two photos at the bottom of the page, it is clear
that two developers were involved. To the right, the
developer privatized the neighborhood. Even though
the developer was required to install sidewalks, the wall
(“B” treatment) assures that no one will walk here. In
contrast, across the street, another developer “honored
the street” by placing “eyes” to the street. In this case
the street is being treated as an “A” street. Town codes
must stress that if people are to walk to destinations,
a series of “A” streets must be created, and developers
cannot put back yards to these important streets.
Of course, it is more complicated than that. If the
city, or state wants to use the collector as a higher speed
conduit, void of trees and other place, developers will
find it hard to sell homes along the street. The street
is the core tool for creating successful neighborhoods,
security and a desire to walk.
How to Do It: From Placeless to Place, Convert “B” Streets to “A”
n
In the photograph above, the functional use of a street is defined. Places where people want to walk are “A” streets (where buildings are designed to watch over the street. Meanwhile a series of “B” streets are needed to provide for utilities, deliveries and other internal functions. For the most part, people will not walk along “B” corridors.
Meanwhile, the above “B” street performs quite well for people who live here or make deliveries here. In the next row of images, a street not designed for walking (middle left) can be transformed into an “A” street which watches over parks, schools or corridors where continuous walking trips are important.
Right and above photos: This suburban style “B” street is transformed into the image below, changing the function of the street into an “A” category. In recent years, teams of planners, engineers, architects and landscape architects have made transitions allowing areas to become alive and active. It often takes more than one discipline to do this. Indeed, those areas that do not transform well are areas where people do not understood multiple functions needed in corridors.
o
Optimizing Your View and Increasing Social Interaction and Social Equity
When terminating views guide the human eye down
a street, several important things happen. The iconic
building, mountain or lake vista provides an attraction
that draws the person toward the destination, just as an
anchor store does in a mall. The terminal point also
reduces the tendency to speed, since motorists realize
their journey will be interrupted. The terminating vista
also acts as a navigational aid.
To maximize the value of land, the destination property
(park, lake, plaza) should have a well designed, quiet and
attractive street running parallel to it. The more sides
that have access, the more valuable the land becomes.
Other streets need to lead up to this perimeter street
and connect with it. In some cases, a well designed trail
acts as the “street” enabling people to walk or bicycle
comfortably along the water’s edge. In no case should
a stream, river, lake, park or even school yard feel
privatized through absence of access.
In these illustrations, the red lines rep-resent the edges of adjacent proper-ties that have access to the amenity.
On top, connected streets provide the highest access to the amenity, support social exchange, reduce crime rates, and increase land values.
Below, disconnected streets privatize the amenity, decrease walking, and increase potential for property and personal crime.
p
Privatized -- Wrong Way. The above layout of streets
privatizes the lake. Although homes along the shoreline
may hold a 10% higher sale and resale value, the amenity,
which should belong to the entire community, is now inac-
cessible to others. Even if a small beach front is acces-
sible at some point, the overall value of homes going 2 to
10 blocks deep are devalued. The developer makes less
money on total property values, and the community suf-
fers from reduced social interaction.
Public Access -- Right Way. This alternative design maxi-
mizes access to the neighborhood feature (lake, park,
school). As access is increased, the number of walking and
bicycling trips increase, there is less need for expensive and
environmentally damaging parking lots, and the develop-
ment community makes a greater return on investment. In
the scene to the left, the project may not “pencil out” once
all associated utilities, street and other costs are worked
out. With higher values, the project is more likely to be
viable.
Right Way. This design maximizes connectivity and access
to the park, square or plaza. By placing more activity along
the park (walking, bicycling and driving) the park becomes
more interactive and better used. Ideally, all streets sur-
rounding the park will have either parallel or angled park-
ing, thus minimizing the amount of park land that must be
devoted to parking. This also lightens the environmental
damage, since on-street parking takes up only 1/3rd the
amount of space as off-street parking.
Wrong Way. Streets do not connect on the left hand side.
The above layout of streets breaks street connectivity and
privatizes the park. This reduces access to the park. In a
small park, this gives the park user the feeling that they are
in someone’s yard. Since the property often has its back to
the park, it reduces the “eyes” on the park and creates an
increasing risk that the park will not be used fully. Reduced
park use, in turn, invites crime in the park and to adjacent
property owners. Low park use also reduces property val-
ues.
q
Major streets with moderate to high volumes of
traffic should be transformed into “Complete Streets.”
Bike lanes, bike trails, sidewalks, streetscaping, curb
extensions, mid-block crossings and other tools are
applied.
Traffic calming and traffic management techniques
should be used. On-street parking can be striped, and
curb extensions, tree wells and medians can be added.
Such improvements not only bring down speeds, they
improve town centers and connect streets by reducing
noise and perceived danger.
Most principal streets should have lanes narrower than
today, especially when combined with bike lanes. Bike
lanes add a buffer to parking and sidewalks.
Sidewalk construction and maintenance should be a
priority, especially within a quarter-mile or half-mile of
town centers and schools.
Ramps should comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and “universal design” standards.
Above and below: Example of a two-lane road with a me-dian, inset parking, one ten foot wide lane in each direction and bike lanes. A roadway based on these concepts can move up to 20,000 ADT (if used with roundabouts at key intersections). If roundabouts are not used, more lanes are added at intersections for storage and turns at key inter-sections -- not the entire section.
(Photo: Issaquah Highlands, Issaquah, Washington)
How to Do It: Complete Streets
r
Complete Streets vary in design based on the type of street involved, speed and volume, block form, whether
parking is needed or not, climate, demographics and other factors. These sections illustrate a number of desired
features, including support for walking and bicycling along streets, and the ability to cross over. Trees are generally
spaced each 15 to 30 feet. Minimum dimensions for an environmentally friendly street are provided in the bottom
illustration. A center turn storage lane of ten feet, two travel lanes of ten feet each, two five foot bike lanes (using
an extended gutter pan that is saw cut for joints, two planter strips of 5 feet each and two sidewalks of five feet each
can fit inside a 60 foot right-of-way.
s
How to Do It: Road Diets
WHO
Typically implemented by city, county or state
transportation agencies, road diets help achieve the
policies advocated for by Complete Streets (www.
completestreets.org), Smart Growth America (www.
smartgrowthamerica.org), and many other national, state
and local groups seeking a safer, more walkable and
livable community for road users of all ages and abilities.
WHAT
A road diet involves eliminating travel lanes on a
roadway to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
While there can be more than four travel lanes before
treatment, road diets are generally conversions of
four-lane, undivided roads into three lanes—two
through lanes plus a center turn lane or median island.
The fourth lane may be converted into a bicycle lane,
sidewalk, planter strip for street trees, a bus stop, a
separated multi-use trail, a wider outside lane and/or for
on-street parking. Rural areas might add wider shoulders
for bicyclists, roundabouts near a town – especially as
a gateway treatment - or separated multi-use trails. In
other words, based on the surrounding land use and
travel speeds or context of the road, the street cross
section is reallocated.
WHERE
Lane and Road Diets can be successfully implemented
on collector and arterial streets, main streets, commercial
corridors, or town centers; on any street that is over-
designed to give priority to the motor vehicle; and in
areas where there is greater need to provide for multi-
modal travel.
WHEN
Context is the key to a successful lane or road diet,
Complete Streets, and Smart Growth. The objective
of any design change should be to match the roadway
environment with the actual roadway function.
Candidate roads will usually have an ADT (Average
Daily Trips) of less than 20,000 to ensure minimal
effects on vehicle capacity, although successful road diets
have been performed with volumes reaching 30,000
ADT and the roadway did not reach the most congested
condition of LOS F (a level-of-service failing grade.)
Ideal roads are in need of mitigation to reduce traffic
conflict, crashes, and to slow down vehicles, and are in
areas that wish to encourage economic development,
address parking circulation, improve streetscapes, and
create safer roads.
WHY
The benefits of road diets are numerous: they improve
road safety for users of all ages and abilities, whether
they travel by foot, wheelchair, bicycle, stroller, or motor
vehicle; create a welcoming community environment;
and help to solve some of our more pressing public
health issues such as reducing obesity, and rates of
heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure by
encouraging active living. Other benefits can include:
economic development, increased property values,
improved streetscape, better parking circulation, reduced
vehicle speeds, improved mobility and more efficient
land uses - mixed uses that offer affordable housing,
retail, restaurant, and/or office options.
Anecdotal case study results support the conclusion
that pedestrians, bicyclists, and adjacent landowners
typically prefer the corridor environment of a road diet,
especially a two-lane cross section with median islands.
When people are the priority, a true livable community
and sense of place exist.
t
HOW
Conduct a traffic study, and before/after traffic counts of all road users; understand the limitations of traffic
modeling; consider special bus designs such as bus pull-outs. Engage the community, educating residents and
local leaders on why lane/road diets are a good idea. Survey affected merchants and residents along the corridor
to learn what the expectations and objections of a road diet might be. Garner local political support from elected
leaders, leverage financial resources from various sources. Funding for road diets can often come from economic
development programs, state and local transportation departments, regional metropolitan transportation planning
organizations, state and county health departments, main street programs, tree planting or green-up programs.
There are many funding sources that can be explored to create significant change.
Many American towns have the potential to go from having too many lanes for storing cars, to fewer lanes which then build place and the local economy. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, Pacific Ave. in Santa Cruz, CA was rebuilt to the scene be-low. Now with narrower street widths and a sense of place, the street teems with life and vitality and generates revenue.
u
The retail life of a town center is supported best by
having sufficient on-street parking. Many towns fail to
use their streets wisely. They induce speeding by having
too much space for vehicular flow, and not enough for
car storage.
On-street parking only takes one third as much land as
off street parking. On-street parking belongs on center
city streets, serving as a buffer to moving cars and a
natural traffic calming tool. When used in conjunction
with curb extensions (bump outs) and tree wells, parking
is said to be inset, narrowing streets, making pedestrian
crossings easier, more comfortable and safe.
In time, to achieve compact town center form, where
more people can live and help activate the town center,
it will be necessary to move away from most off-street
parking. Once a full and vibrant retail life is achieved,
each parking space becomes worth $200,000 per year.
Thus, attention to using town center streets to maximize
convenient parking, is urgent and paramount.
If head-out angled parking is used, which is highly
How to Do It: Parking
recommended, the entire curb to curb dimension can
be 54-56’. When head-out angled parking is used, lane
widths can be much narrower, since back out “discovery
time” is not needed. Also, the back end of vehicles have
more overhang, so less space is used.
Parking bay depths should be 15 feet. An added two
foot of space is picked up when valley gutters are used
(highly recommended). See valley gutter in photos.
Keep travel lanes to a combined with of 20-22 feet. A
center line is not used. This tight driving space helps
keep speeds low, which reduces the chance of vehicle
crashes.
v
There are multiple benefits to head-out angled parking.
It is the safest way to park a vehicle and it increases the
amount of on-street parking that can be made available.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking can increase
the number of parking spaces that will fit on a street by
30 to 110 percent over parallel parking. Also, head-out
angled parking reduces the amount of off-street parking
- and related infrastructure needed. In fact, it can take up
as little as one-third of the space of off-street parking.
Head-out angled parking is easier to do than parallel
parking because the driver essentially is only making
the first maneuver of parallel parking -- the backing-
in maneuver. Once in the space, the driver has many
benefits over parallel or front-IN parking.
For example, when in a head-out space and the doors
are opened, passengers are directed away from passing
traffic and toward the sidewalk. The trunk is accessible
from the sidewalk. And when pulling out, the driver can
see oncoming vehicles and bicyclists.
To install it well, keep sidewalks wide and comfortable.
Depending on the angle, head-out parking allows cars’
trunks to overhang more than front-in parking, so set
all fixtures (lamps, hydrants, signs, trees) at least 24 to
30 inches from the edge of the curb. Also, be careful
to develop robust and effective educational programs
to help all roadway users become comfortable with the
practice, especially if it is new in the community.
Head-Out Angled Parking
w
With front-in angled parking many communities max out their parking gain by using 60 degrees. With head-
out angled parking (also called “back-in angled parking), the “yield” is reduced when a 45-degree angle is used.
Either angle is possible, but with head-out, 45 degrees is more common, since it is easier to park. It is generally
recommended that parking bays be no more than fifteen feet deep (perpendicular measurement). With a two-foot-
wide valley gutter, bringing the full depth to 17 feet, all conventional and many oversized vehicles fit in this space.
Omit center lane lines when using on street parking to allow motorists to go around a car in the process of parking
when there is no opposing traffic. Removal of center lane lines has been shown to reduce traffic speeds and crashes.
x
Sometimes a building-to-building right-of-way is too
tight to plant trees in sidewalk areas. Use of in-street
tree wells can allow the street to be “greened” and often
without removal of parking. Tree wells can either be
installed to allow water to flow naturally in existing
channels, or, if a complete reconstruction is needed, to
insert drainage in a pattern that supports these green
innovations. Tree wells are used on many local streets,
but can also be used, along with curb extensions on
roads like SR 70 and SR 17, in Florida. A number of
state roads apply tree wells in a variety of states and
provinces (including snow country, such as Boise, Idaho
and Columbus, Ohio) in urban areas. Use of tree wells
and curb extensions, in combination, help bring speeds
to more appropriate urban levels.
How to Do It: Tree Wells
y
Placemaking: The transforming of a street, sidewalk,
plaza, square, paseo, open lot, waterfront or other space
to be attractive, rewarding and a community source
of distinction and pride. Good places make good
experiences possible and have consequences in our lives.
People want to share experiences and ideas on common
ground, in attractive, well designed and cared for public
places.
Principles: Reinvestment in streets, between buildings,
and in other well located public spaces brings added
value to all buildings and homes in a town center. A
front porch storing last decades sofa and washing
machine detracts. Placemaking, like interior decorating,
must create a strong, compelling sense of place that
makes time spent in these spaces rewarding and
memorable. Consider the public and private realm of a
town center as a public/private partnership. Consider
the greater town center as a canvas waiting for rich,
vibrant tones, textures and colors that honor existing or
adapted buildings and streets. Nothing should be ho-
hum. Places can be funky and relaxed, but they must be
thoughtful, sensitive to place, and cared for.
Streetscapes help create character and charm. In many
towns, many decades of deterioration must be attended
to. The town center is a fine home for things waiting to
happen, but many existing furnishings, old facades, litter
cans, upheaved sidewalks, detract.
The waiting plaza space shown in the upper corner is
truly the opportunity that can be the “tipping point” to
all other investments.
Plaza spaces must be carefully crafted to bring about
proper levels of enclosure, transparency, human scale,
complexity, “imageability” and comfort.
Even small public spaces need a minimum of ten
different treats or activities or points of interest for the
public to become fully engaged. Don’t overlook the
needs of seniors, and the drawing power of children to
come to these places.
Not ready for prime time: Above is an example of a physi-cal space that can become an important plaza, outdoor room and connector.
Below: Adapted into public space.
How to Do It: Paseos and Plazas that Create a Sense of Place
z
Placemaking includes outdoor
“rooms.”
Just as with a home environment,
cities have the opportunity to
draw in visitors and residents to
special “rooms” created for social
exchange or instead a chance to
relax, read, or simply hang out.
These are examples of paseos and
other spaces between buildings that
take on a unique life. Common to
all, plenty of design, “eyes on the
realm” and comfort.
aa
Principles: Sidewalks in a town center require high
levels of design and care. It is within the protected
spaces of a sidewalk where people move freely, but
also spend time engaging others and spending time to
enjoy the beauty of their public space. Sidewalks work
best when they are fully buffered from moving traffic.
The following considerations should be provided when
laying out sidewalks.
Use color, texture, street furniture and other materials to
distinguish functional areas of walkways. Sidewalks have
three parts (shy zone, furniture zone and the walk/talk
zone). See illustration to the right.
If driveways must interrupt, keep these to minimal
widths (14 foot for one way, 26-28 for two way). Use
contrasting colors and materials, and keep sidewalks
fully flat across driveways.
Sidewalk widths may need to vary, according to existing
building placement, and other constraints. Try to keep
town center sidewalks to 12-16 feet, when practicable,
but be willing to narrow when constraints exist.
How to Do It: Sidewalks
ab
Curb extensions help transform a place into a more attrac-
tive, natural, functional and prosperous town and center.
Curb extensions capture all space not used by autos. By
adding curb extensions, towns turn these vital spaces into
civic and retail uses. All construction should be done in a
way that it least disrupts local businesses. Winter Park,
and Sanford, Florida replaced sewers, water lines and other
infrastructure as part of its reconstruction. Streets were
worked on at night, then covered during the day to maxi-
mize retail success.
How to Do It: Curb Extensions
ac
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
Nearly every community in the country could benefit from some sort of change or improvement to the built
environment to create or support walkability and livability. As groups of residents, leaders or organizations come
together to create momentum for those changes, consideration should be given to which projects or interventions
have the greatest chance of succeeding and which will have the greatest benefit. The scoring system below, created
by Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Health Promotion as part of the Community Physical Activity Planning resource
manual, provides a good starting point for prioritizing efforts.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
Completely Satifactorily Not at all
54 3 21
Will achieve the goals and objectives of the plan
Will addresses the needs of segments of the community targeted in our plan
Will produce the desired results in the desired timeframe
Will be supported by the parties responsible for implementation
Has an existing agency prepared to assume responsibility for implementation
Will be supported by the community
Will be supported by community and external funding agencies
Will not conflict with or duplicate existing projects in the community
Takes full advantage of existing resources in the community
Can realistically be implemented within the plan’s timeframe
Can be implemented with available financial resources
Can be implemented with available staff resources
Is financially viable and sustainable over the long term
Other Criteria:
HOW TO PLAN & PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY
PAGE 50
TOOLKIT 2B
Identifying the Best Projects for the Physical Activity Plan:
A Checklist
This checklist identifies a number of criteria that can be used to select projects for
your plan. Not all criterion will be applicable to every project. Your committee may
identify other criteria relevant to your plan. Rank proposed projects on a scale of
1-5 depending on how well they fulfill each criterion.
Criteria Not applicable Proposed Projects Fulfills Criterion
ad
HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
Please provide written responses to each applicable question. For those questions
which are not applicable, please indicate so on the form. Attach additional sheets if
more space is necessary to respond fully to the questions. Submit completed form
with your project/development application.
PROJECT NAME: ________________________________________________________
ADRESS/LOCATION: _____________________________________________________
CASE #: ______________________
TYPE OF PROJECT: Residential Mixed Commercial Office Civic
YES NO
Does the project/development promote interaction between
neighbors?
If YES please list: _____________________________________
Is the physical design of the project harmonious with the overall
neighborhood?
Is this development adjacent to existing development and
connecting to the development with pedestrian links and roadway
connections?
Is there an adequate mix of land uses that provide a variety of
housing choices?
Do these mixes provide for a great diversity in incomes, and
especially provide for affordability?
Are there locations for non residential land uses that are integrated
with the residential?
Is the land use configured around a walkable block size ( ¼ mile
perimeter)?
Is there a range of density permitted in the neighborhood?
Are fronts of homes properly placed and have windows watching
over schools, parks, streets, trails and other public places?
Is the architecture of buildings attractive and supportive of life on the
street, park, school?
Are there provisions eliminating garages from “mooning” the street
(i.e. required garage setbacks, lot frontage percentage)?
Are public buildings, parks and other common destinations properly
placed to maximize the number of people that can walk to them?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in ten
minutes (2500 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
an elementary school?
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in twenty
minutes (5000 feet), and without crossing dangerous intersections to
a high school?
Is there too much emphasis on providing large amounts of off-street
parking (relates to affordability, density)?
LAND USE
Just as with the checklist on the previous page, groups of people or organizations coming together to improve the
built environment to support walkability and livability should assess any potential projects for existing shortcomings
or opportunities for improvement. The checklist below, developed by WALC Institute team members, provides a
list of qualities that should be assessed as a first step in evaluating an effort’s viability.
Checklist: Moving Toward Change
ae
YES NO
Does the project/development achieve a connectivity index of 1.4?
The index is calculated by dividing the number of street links (street
sections between intersections, including cul-de-sacs) by the number
of street nodes (intersections and cul-de-sacs). A grid street network
would yield an index of 2.0.
Does the project/development provide mobility options for those who
cannot drive?
Does the project/development have a well connected sidewalk
system that lead to local destinations?
If YES what is the proposed width of the sidewalks (5.0 foot minimum
recommended)? __________________________________________
Are sidewalks detached from the curb allowing planter strips to take
up driveway elevation changes?
Do all corners have ADA accessible ramps (2 ramps per corner
preferred)?
Do planter strips offer canopy street trees (each 15-30 feet
recommended)?
If median tree plantings are preferred, are plantings adequate for
canopy development (each 15-30 feet recommended)?
Are there adequate provisions made for proper care and
maintenance of canopy trees?
Do building practices eliminate privacy fences (above 4.0 feet)
toward the public side of properties?
Are there specifications that public facing fencing be attractive and
transparent above 4.0 feet?
Do curbs, swales, curb extensions, or other designs keep cars
parked in correct locations (no rollover curbs)?
Does the project/development have, or connect to, a trail system for
walking or biking?
Does the project/development contain elements that enhance the
feeling of neighborhood security and safety?
Are local streetlights provided?
Are houses oriented toward the street to provide “eyes on the street?”
Are the buildings addressing the street? (i.e. front doors)
Is there parking between the building and the street?
Can a child walk safely, comfortably, and feel watched over enroute
to school?
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the route to the school(s)?
What is the walking distance to the area’s schools? ______________
Is the visibility at intersections good? Can drivers see short children,
physically handicapped?
Does the route contain known dangerous intersections?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Are there crossing guards at these intersections?
Will the project/development contain a significant elderly population?
Can the elderly walk to important destinations (i.e. banks, post office
community centers, and library)? What is the walking distance to
these destinations? ________________________________________
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN
Access management strategies aimed
at reducing the number of driveway
crossings and increasing the width of the sidewalk corridor significantly
improve the pedestrian experience for
existing developments.
af
YES NO
Are there sidewalks/pathways along the routes to these
destinations?
Is the overall speed at or below 25 mph for all local streets?
Is the overall speed at or below 30 mph for all collector streets?
Does the project contain design elements to calm traffic such as curb
extensions, mini-circles, parking chicanes, roundabouts, medians,
raised street crossings, or similar features?
If YES please list ___________________________________________
Does the project/development present unsafe conditions or deter
access and free mobility for the physically handicapped?
For projects/development on arterial streets, does the plan include
pedestrian crossing signals and/or mid-block crossing islands?
Is public transportation available?
If YES, where and how close is the nearest bus/train stop? ________
_________________________________________________________
Does the nearest bus/train stop have a shelter?
Does the nearest the bus/train stop have a bench and litter can?
Do curb extensions or other treatments prevent motorists from
parking too close to corners?
If narrow streets are used, do streets provide a physical space (20
feet wide) every 200 feet for emergency response operations?
If alleys are used, is there high transparency (surveillance) in the
alley?
If paseos (connectors or links) are used, is there high transparency
(surveillance) to the paseo?
Do schools, parks, and other public destinations have adequate well
located and secure bike parking?
TRANSPORTATION, STREETSCAPING, & STREET DESIGN CONTINUED
YES NO
Can the majority of people walk safely and comfortably in five
minutes (1500 feet) to a public gathering place, park, plaza, or
community center?
Are there an adequate number of parks provided within walking
distance (1/8 – ¼ mile ) from every residence?
Are there sidewalks/pathways, ADA ramps along the route to the
above services?
What is the walking distance to the area’s amenities? _____________
Is the size of parks and open space adequate for the amount of
potential residents?
Are there a number of buildings/houses that watch over parks, trails,
and open space?
Are these parks well used? If not yet built, are there a number of
things to discover and do in these parks?
Do parks have appropriate on-street parking, or is there too much
off-street parking?
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Healthy Development Checklist, from Walkable Communities:
http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/healthy_development_checklist.pdf
Active School Neighborhood Checklist, from the Arizona Department of Transportation:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/swprojmgmt/Enhancement_Scenic/saferoutes/SafeRoutes_Common
/Apply_Active_School_Neighborhood_Checklist.asp
Healthy, Active & Vibrant Community 2009 Toolkit, from Trailnet:
http://www.trailnet.org/HAVC_Toolkit.phpJuly 6, 2011
Growing Demand for Communities that Promote Health, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_WalkableCommunities.pdf
At the Intersection of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy, from
the American Public Health Association:
http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-FB68-4112-8C75-
49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.pdf
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities, from the Local Government Commission:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/Healthy_Kids_Healthy_Communitie
s.pdf
Walking and Biking to School, Physical Activity and Health Outcomes, from Active Living Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf
Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance, from Active Living
Research:
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf
Additional Resources
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Sample Safe Routes to Schools Programs, from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership:
http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/4233
Parent Survey about Walking and Biking to School, from the National Center for Safe Routes:
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/collateral/Parent_Survey_English_Scan2009.pdf
Teaching Children to Walk Safely as They Grow and Develop: A guide for parents/caregivers
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/graduated_walking/index.cfm
Adult School Crossing Guard Guidelines
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/crossing_guard/index.cfm
The Walking School Bus: Combining safety, fun and the walk to school
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/walking_school_bus/index.cfm
Student Drop-off and Pick-up
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Dropoff-Pickup.pdf
Media and Visibility
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/media/index.cfm
Education
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Education.pdf
Enforcement
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Enforcement.pdf
Evaluation Guide for Community Safe Routes to School Programs
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/pdf/SRTS-Guide_Evaluation.pdf
Many more Safe Routes to School guides and tools are available at www.saferoutesinfo.org.
Additional Resources
Safe Routes to School
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute for Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
1215 Lawrence Street, Unit 001
Port Townsend, WA 98368
www.walklive.org
360.385.3421
Beach Cities Livability Plan
For Healthways | Blue Zones Vitality City
July 6, 2011
Prepared by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
Dan Burden, Executive Director
Kelly Morphy, Director of Outreach and Communications