The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; Bikeway Master Plan; Bikeway Master Plan; 2001-09-01Bikeway Master Plan Prepared for the City of Carlsbad by Kawasaki Theilacker Ueno + Associates Planning + Landscape Architecture September 2001 TABLE O F CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 Significant Findings 1 2 Primary Recommendations CHAPTER 2 • INTRODUCTION 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 Project Scope Project Study Area Methodology 2 3 1 Literature Review 2 3 2 Field Work 2 3 3 Survey Questionnaire 2 3 4 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Project Approach and Goals Project Definitions CHAPTER 3» BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3 1 Carlsbad Circulation Element 3 1 1 Setting 3 1 2 Circulation Goals and Objectives 3 1 3 Implementing Policies and Action Programs 3 1 4 Regional Circulation Considerations 3 2 Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Element 3 3 Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan 3 3 1 Introduction to the Plan 3 3 2 Physical Implications 3 3 3 Issues Summary 3 4 Carlsbad Trail System 3 4 1 Trails and Community Parks 3 4 2 Classification 3 4 3 Signage and Interpretive Information 3 5 Surrounding Communities 3 5 1 Oceanside 3 5 2 Vista 3 5 3 San Marcos 3 5 4 Encinitas 3 6 County Trail Efforts 3 7 NCTD Rail Trails CHAPTER 4 • CIRCULATION SYSTEM 4 1 Roadway System 4 2 Programmed Roadways 4 3 Existmg Bicycle Facilities 4 4 Programmed Bicycle Facilities 4 5 Trail Systems 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2 1 2-1 2 2 2-2 2-2 3-1 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 3-3 3-4 3-4 3 4 3 4 3-4 3 5 3-5 3 5 3-5 3 5 3-5 3 7 3 7 3-7 3-7 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 A CHAPTER 5 • TRIP ORIGIN ANALYSIS 5 1 Existing Land Use 5-1 5 2 Future Land Use 5-1 5 3 Existing Residential Areas 5-2 5 4 Existing Population Density 5-2 5 5 Future Population Density 5-2 5 6 Summary of Trip Origins 5-2 CHAPTER 6 • TRIP DESTINATION ANALYSIS 6 1 Existing Activity Centers 6-1 6 2 Employment Centers 6-1 6 3 Existing Parks/Schools/Civic Activity Centers 6-2 6 4 Trip Destinations Summary 6-2 CHAPTER 7 • MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS 7 1 North County Transit District 7-1 7 2 AMTRAK 7-1 7 3 Existing Park and Ride Facilities 7-1 7 4 Existing Transit Centers 7-2 7 5 Transfer Point Summary 7-2 CHAPTER 8 • SAFETY ANALYSIS 8 1 Literature Review 8-1 8 2 User Types and Capabilities 8-1 8 2 1 User Classification 8 1 8 2 2 User Capabilities 8 2 8 3 Bicycle/Roadway Compatibility Analysis 8-2 8 3 1 Typical Roadway/Intersection Conflicts 8 2 8 3 2 Roadway Segment Suitability Equation 8 5 8 3 3 Roadway Segment Suitability Ratings 8-8 8 4 Site-Specific Analysis 8-10 8 4 1 Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street 8 13 8 4 2 Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive 8-15 8 4 3 Carlsbad Blvd /Palomar Airport Road 8 15 8 5 User Questionnaire Response and Analysis 8-18 CHAPTER 9 • OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES 9 1 Coastal Rail Trail Opportunities 9-1 9 2 Oceanside/Escondido Rail Trail Opportunity 9-1 9 3 Lagoons 9-1 9 4 Future Street Additions and Extensions with Bicycle Facilities 9-1 9 5 Other Proposed Trails 9-1 9 6 Prioritized Safety Issues 9-1 9 7 Connectivity Issues 9-2 9 8 Connectivity Opportunities 9-2 9 9 Projected Bicycle Facility Demand 9-2 CHAPTER 10 • RECOMMENDATIONS 10 1 Proposed Bikeway Facility Map 10-1 10 2 Class 3 Facilities 10-1 10 3 Class 2 Facilities 10-2 10 3 1 New Street Extensiosn and Additions of Class 2 to Existing Streets 10 2 10 3 2 Improvements to Existing Facilities 10 2 Page-ii Table of Contents 10 4 Class 1 Facilities 10-3 10 4 1 Coastal Rail Trail 10-3 10 4 2 Mid-City Historic Trail (Coast to Carrillo Ranch) 10 14 10 4 3 Specific Park Connections 10 14 10 5 Multi-use Trail Facilities 10-14 10 6 Other Bicycle Facilities 10-14 10 6 1 Undesignated Bicycle Facilities 10 14 10 6 2 Site specific Projects 10 14 10 6 3 Urban Access Pathways 10 15 10 6 4 Connections to Urban Centers 10 15 10 6 5 School Access Paths/Routes 10 15 10 6 6 Intermodal Facilities 10 15 10 7 Current Constraints to Cycling 10-15 10 7 1 Narrow Bridges 10 15 10 7 2 Topography 10 15 10 7 3 Connectivity 10 16 10 7 4 High Speeds 10 16 CHAPTER 11 • CIPs & BIKEWAY FUNDING 111 Specific Projects 11-1 11 1 1 Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street 11 1 11 1 2 Carlsbad Boulevard/Palomar Airport Road 11-1 11 1 3 Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive 11 1 11 2 Bikeway Development Priorities 11-1 113 Typical Unit Construction Costs 11-1 113 1 Multi-Use Trails (Segments 36 37) 11-1 113 2 Class 1 Bikeways Segments 28 35) 11-1 113 3 Class 4 Bikeways (Segments 10 27) 11-1 113 4 Class 3 Bikeways (Segments 19) 112 113 5 Bikeway Bridge Improvements 11 2 11 4 Rail Trail Construction 11-3 114 1 Class 1 Bikeway 11 114 2 Bike Bridges 11 114 3 Signage 11 114 4 Rest Stops 11 11 4 5 Public Art 11 114 6 Transit Center Improvements 11 114 7 Summary 11 11 5 Bikeway Funding Sources 11- 115 1 Federal Sources 11 115 2 State Sources 11 115 3 Other Sources of Funding for Bicycle Projects 11 115 4 Local Sources 1110 CHAPTER 12 • FACILITY GUIDELINES 12 1 Bikeway Planning 12 11 Local Emphasis 12 12 Master Plan Process 12 13 Institutionalizing Bicycle Planning 12 14 Primary Planning Considerations 12 15 Integration with Other City Plans and Programs 12 16 Education and Encouragement 12 17 Regulating Land Use and Community Design to Benefit Cycling 12 18 Locating Bicycle Facilities on Roadways 12 19 Integrating Bicycle Facilities into the Roadway Planning Process 12 2 General Physical Guidelines 12 2 1 Pavement Width 12 2 2 Sight Distance 12 2 3 Truck Traffic 12 2 4 Steep Grades 12 2 5 Unavoidable Obstacles 12-1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 2 12 2 12 2 12 3 12 3 12-4 12 4 12 5 12 5 12 7 12-7 Table of Contents Page HI 12 2 6 Pavement Design 12 2 7 Raised Roadway Markings 12 2 8 Utilities 12 2 9 Drainage Facilities 12 2 10 Combination Curb and Gutter 12 2 11 Bridges 12 2 12 Traffic Control Devices 12 2 13 Intersections and Driveways 12 2 14 Roadside Obstacles 12 2 15 Railroad Crossings 12 2 16 TSM Type Improvements 12 2 17 Marginal Improvements/Retrofitting Existing Roadways 12 2 18 Access Control 12 2 19 Bikeway Reconstruction after Construction 12 2 20 Maintenance Priorities 12 2 21 Intermodal Planning and Facilities 12 2 22 Traffic Calming 12 3 Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Facility Guidelines 12 3 1 Class 1 Planning Issues 12 4 Design of Class 1 Facilities (Paths Primarily Used by Bicycles) 12 4 1 Width and Clearance 12 4 2 Horizontal Separation for Roadways 12 4 3 Design Speed 12 4 4 Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation 12 4 5 Grade 12 4 6 Switchbacks 12 4 7 Sight Distances 12 4 8 Intersections 12 4 9 Signing and Marking 12 4 10 Pavement Structure 12 4 11 Structures 12 4 12 Drainage 12 4 13 Lighting 12 4 14 Barriers to Motor Vehicle Traffic 12 5 Unpaved Multi-Use Facilities 12 6 Class 2 Facilities 12 6 1 Lane Widths 12 6 2 Intersections 12 6 3 Signing and Striping Requirements 12 7 Class 3 Facilities 12 7 1 Roadway Engineering 12-7 12-7 12-7 12 7 12 8 12 8 12 9 12 10 12 11 12-11 12-11 12 11 12 11 12 12 12-12 12-12 12 13 12-14 12 14 12-16 12-16 12-16 12-16 12-17 12 17 12 17 12-17 12 17 12 18 12 18 12-19 12-19 12-20 12 20 12-20 12-20 12 21 12 21 12 21 12-22 12-22 LIST O F FIGURES CHAPTER 2 • INTRODUCTION Figure 2 1, Project Location Figure 2 2, Bikeway Facility Types Figure 4 1, Existing and Programmed Roadways Figure 4 2, Existing and Programmed Bicycle Facilities 2 3 2 4 CHAPTER 3» BACKGROUND INFORMATION Figure 3 1, Adjacent Communities 3 6 CHAPTER 4 • CIRCULATION SYSTEM 4 3 4 4 Page-iv Table of Contents CHAPTER 5 • TRIP ORIGIN ANALYSIS Figure 5 1, 1990 Land Use 5 3 Figure 5 2, 2000 Land Use 5 5 Figure 5-3, 1990 Housing Density 5-7 Figure 5-4, 2000 Housing Density 5-9 Figure 5 5, 1990 Population Density 5 11 Figure 5 6, 2000 Population Density 5 13 CHAPTER 6 • TRIP DESTINATION ANALYSIS Figure 6 1 Employment Density 6 3 Figure 6 2, Activity Centers 6 5 CHAPTER 7 • MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS Figure 7 1, Transfer Points 7 3 CHAPTER 8 • SAFETY ANALYSIS Figure 8 1 Bikeway User Classification 8 3 Figure 8 2, Controlled Intersection Conflicts 8 4 Figure 8 3, Uncontrolled Non-Intersection Conflicts 8 6 Figure 8 4, Roadway Segment Conflicts 8 7 Figure 8 5, Roadway Segment Suitability Rating Example 8 9 Figure 8 6, Roadway Segment Suitability 8 11 Figure 8-7, Site Specific Conflicts State Street/Carlsbad Boulevard 8 14 Figure 8-8 Site Specific Conflicts Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive 8 16 Figure 8 9, Site Specific Conflicts Carlsbad Boulevard/Palomar Airport Road 8 17 Figure 8 10, Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Questionnaire Map 8 19 Figure 8-11, Questionnaire Response Summary 8 21 Figure 8 12, Blank Questionnaire 8 22 CHAPTER 10 • RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 10 1 to 10 4, Coastal Rail Corridor Multi Use Trail Improvements 10 5 to 10 12 Figure 10 5 Proposed Bicycle Facilities 10 13 CHAPTER 11 • CIPs & BIKEWAY FUNDING Figure 11 1 Proposed CIP Project Segments 11 4 LIST O F T A B L ES CHAPTER 11 • CIPs & BIKEWAY FUNDING Table 11-1 Typical Bikeway Construction Costs Table 11-2 Capitol Improvement Projects Table 11-3A &B Trail and Bikeway Facility Funding Summary CHAPTER 12 • FACILITY GUIDELINES Table 12-1 Recommended Pavement Widths 11-2 11 5 11-11 to 11 12 12 6 APPENDIX A, Roadway Segment Suitability Rating Forms APPENDIX B, City of Carlsbad Public Art Guidelines APPENDIX C, Supplemental Facilities APPENDIX D, CIP Cost Analysis APPENDIX E, California Vehicle Code Bicycle Sections (21200 21212) A 1 B 1 C 1 D-1 E 1 Table of Contents Page-v 1 1 Significant Findings From a bicycle comnnuting perspective, Class 2 lanes (marked lanes on existmg roadways) are usually pre- ferred over Class 1 (separated bike trails) or Class 3 (routes marked by signage oniy) facilities This is prima- rily because Class 1 trails are generally used by recreationists such as walkers, joggers skaters and cy- clists with limited cycling experience, all of which com- bine to make Class 1 trails less desirable for commut- ing Class 1 facilities are also much more difficult and expensive to build, which has typically resulted in phased and piecemeal route systems Class 1 facilities, however, are important to non-com- muting cyclists They are perceived to be safer facilities which may encourage people to use their bikes, even if at first they are using the trails only for recreational pur- poses These individuals may, in time, decide to use other bikeway facilities for commuting purposes Also, a trail system such as that proposed for the Coastal Rail Trail may actually provide a more direct and faster route for commuters This is due, in part, to the limited num- ber of roadway crossings, minimal traffic control de- vices and relatively flat grades Other Class 1 facilities may play an important part in providing more direct connections throughout the com- munity Due to the topography and natural open spaces in Carlsbad, cyclists face a large number of bikeway system gaps Class 1 trails may provide the only pos- sible short cuts between Class 2 lanes Some of these off-street routes could be implemented in conjunction with Carlsbad's programmed trails According to survey questionnaire results and observed use of "unofficial" routes, there is considerable demand for this type of route The majority of the City of Carlsbad's existmg major roadways are well served by on-street Class 2 bicycle facilities In addition, virtually all future major roadways or extensions will also be equipped with Class 2 lanes Full implementation ofthe programmed roadways and their associated Class 2 facilities will provide a compre- hensive on-street bicycle facility system However, there are a number of planned arterials as yet unbuilt, espe- cially in the hilly southeastern portion ofthe city, creat- ing significant gaps in Carlsbad's bicycle facility sys- tem This lack of routes is only a minor inconvenience for motor vehicle dnvers, but cyclists are required to make longer, more indirect trips than they would prefer Several problems consistently constrain bicycle use in Carlsbad The most common constraints to bicycle use result from narrow bridges, lack of crossings over barri- ers such as highways and rail lines, and topography Especially in the southeastern and east central portions of the city, long and often steep grades are common Also, many of Carlsbad's existing Class 2 roadways have relatively high posted motor vehicle speeds Experienced cyclists are generally not concerned with adjacent mo- tor vehicle speeds, especially when they can rely on the relative safety of their own lane However, less ex perienced cyclists are more likely to find such condi- tions uncomfortable and are therefore less likely to use these roadways Finally, site-specific problems encountered in Carlsbad are not numerous, but a few locations have conditions detrimental enough to a safe bicycle facility system to warrant special attention (These were at State Street/ Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Boulevard/Palomar Air- port Road, and Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive ) Though the vast majority of intersections do not pose a threat to competent cyclists in Carlsbad, these three were singled out for further analysis Personal experience and field work revealed these locations posed special chal- lenges, even for experienced cyclists A common thread running through the layout of these locations was that they were intersections with motor vehicle traffic merg- ing without sufficient advance notice for cyclists or motorists to beware of each others presence, whether by line of sight or by signed warnings, or both Much of Carlsbad offers ideal conditions for cyclists Executive Summary 1 2 Recommendations These recommendations are intended to take advantage of programmed roadways, bicycle facilities and trails to resolve cyclists' concerns for safety and connectivity A primary recommendation for this study is to provide improved connectivity via increased access points across the rail right-of-way and 1-5 While the northern portion of Carlsbad will have a sufficient number of points to cross 1-5, programmed plans do not include many rail line crossings Crossings at Chestnut Avenue and Chin- quapin Avenue would help to alleviate the connectivity issues for this area A second primary recommendation is the addition of several Class 1 off-street routes in the undeveloped ar- eas of Carisbad User questionnaire responses indicate there is a considerable demand for this type of route A third primary recommendation is that the programmed roadways with associated Class 2 lanes should be imple- mented as soon as possible, but that some of the rec- ommended Class 1 routes could supplement the Class 2 lanes until they are actually built These routes, once built, may be able to remain adjacent to the extended roadways Carlsbad currently has no Class 1 facilities, but the po- tential exists for creating a Class 1 trail system through- out the city (See Figure 10-5, Proposed Bikeway Facil ity Map ) Since Carlsbad already has an extensive Class 2 system, and since there is a substantial amount of land designated as open space without Class 1 routes through them, most of the new routes shown on the map are Class 1 trails Several ofthe proposed system's Class 1 facilities would fall at least partially within the rights-of way of programmed roadways Class 1 facilities could be provided until the roadways are actually built, or be permanently installed and offset as far as possible from the roadways Opportunities exist for the installation of several Class 1 facilities that would not only provide the relaxed recre ational atmosphere associated with off-street facilities, but would also improve commuter connections Nor- mally, Class 2 facilities are preferred for transportation or commuting purposes However, if no roadways exist through a relatively large area, Class 1 facilities will be useful to commuters Together, these facilities would fill in many ofthe gaps in the current system where topog raphy and lack of facilities currently limit access The proposed Class 1 routes would be paved paths offi- cially designated as Class 1 routes, and designed for multipurpose use versus the generally unpaved surface treatment endorsed for most informal trail facilities The paths should be wide enough (12 feet minimum) to ac- commodate multiple user types and should include an unpaved side path (2 to 4 feet) for users who prefer a softer trail The Class 1 path is not m addition to any proposed soft surface trail, but would replace it where the trails coincide Paving is recommended for these specific routes within the context ofthe overall trail sys- tem to maximize their value for recreational and trans- portational cycling throughout Carlsbad Proposed Class 1 facilities would connect several exist- ing and programmed parks in the central portion ofthe city The proposed Class 1 facilities would also inter- sect with other proposed trails and allow connection via those trails with several other parks around the pe- riphery of the city A major Class 1 facility that will be running through the City of Carlsbad is the Coastal Rail Trail A recommen- dation IS made to design proposed rest stops to be pur- posefully specific to Carlsbad to help to distinguish the City from other municipalities along the route They would occur at three scenic points along the Coastal Rail Trail within Carlsbad and would be equipped with a number of amenities for cyclists In conjunction with Rail Trail development, the areas immediately surrounding transit stations in Carlsbad are proposed to have enhanced urban design amenities to highlight the importance of the stations The existing design elements of these transit centers could be ex- panded throughout the urban design zones, with pro- gressively more detail as users got closer to the transit center themselves The urban design detailing could form relatively concentric zones of certain elements, beginning with landscaping, for example, and layering on the other amenities such as lighting, paving, fencing and site structures, culminating in a zone immediately around the transit center with all proposed amenities, as well as site structures that resemble the existing tran- sit center buildings, but on a smaller scale Public art is recommended for inclusion within the Coastal Rail Trail development and may be particularly appropri- ate at the transit stations, within the special urban design zones and at the proposed rest stops For example, inter- pretive features at the rest stops could be designed to be part of the public art and take advantage of the views Page 1 -2 Chapter 1 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan The lagoons provide an opportunity for an extensive scenic recreational trail system that could also provide more direct bicycle transportation access than is now possible between the central and coastal sections of Carlsbad This is especially true for Batiquitos Lagoon, for example, where the nearest current roadways to the north and south have either significant grades or expe- rience high motor vehicle traffic volumes and high speeds A trail along the northern shore would provide a scenic connection and would be a convenient and relatively level link between coastal Carlsbad and the La Costa area Agua Hedionda Lagoon presents a similar case where a trail along the shore could connect the major employment center around Palomar Airport with down- town Carlsbad This paved trail alongthe Agua Hedionda Lagoon could also connect coastal Carlsbad to the Carrillo Ranch site in eastern Carlsbad and continue on to connect to trail systems in San Marcos and Vista The City of Carlsbad has an almost complete system of Class 2 bikeways along its major roadways, and plans to install Class 2 facilities on the as-yet unbuilt roadways as well Implementation ofthe programmed major roadways will provide greater choice m Class 2 routes between rela- tively isolated sections of Carlsbad Full implementation of the programmed Class 2 facilities would provide a rela- tively complete Class 2 system A general improvement to the Class 2 facilities is the provision of more roadway width on freeway and rail line bridges and underpasses It is common for bikeway facilities to end prior to where the roadway crosses a bridge and to have the curb pinch inward, eliminating the previously available space for cyclists In addition, many bridges have excessively high curbs that could potentially catch a cyclist's pedals, especially ifthe cy- clist was attempting to stay far to the right to avoid the motor vehicles on a narrow bridge In general, there are a number of solutions short of the ideal, which would be to actually widen the bridges In some cases, the lanes could be restriped, the sidewalk width decreased or a lane of traffic eliminated In other situations where high motor vehicle volumes and limited width create particularly difficult cycling situations, alternative routes could be provided Carlsbad has some Class 3 facilities, but several road- way segments are currently listed within the SANDAG data base as parts of "proposed routes" and "existing undesignated routes" that could be upgraded to Class 3 These possible Class 3 routes could link proposed trails along the shores of two lagoons and provide an attractive route through residential neighborhoods The roadway segments proposed for these routes are, for the most part, not subject to heavy traffic For example. Chestnut Avenue is not currently desig- nated as a bikeway This street connects Carlsbad Bou- levard to EI Camino Real, unimpeded exceptforthe rail line It runs almost entirely through residential neighbor- hoods and generally has low motor vehicle traffic vol- umes It has definite potential as a Class 3 facility and is recommended for designation, especially if a crossing can be implemented where it intersects the rail line Though It will consider new crossings on a case-by-case basis, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) prefers no net increase in crossings, meaning that it is desirable to close an old crossing when proposing a new one In some cases, the City can install new crossings if it is willing to take liability for them The PUC will be more likely to grant permission for a new crossing that can be proven to be substantially safer than the unofficial one It IS replacing Finally, suggested solutions for the site-specific prob- lems (State Street/Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Boule- vard/Palomar Airport Road, and Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive) range from simply restriping the approaches to these intersections to completely reconfiguring them For example, the most drastic solution would be at the Palomar Airport Road/Carlsbad Boulevard interchange, where a distinct motor vehicle bias makes cycling through It an uncomfortable undertaking The problems with this interchange can probably only be resolved by completely reconfiguring the intersection and eliminat- ing some of the high speed on and off ramps This is now a programmed project that is slated to rebuild the interchange as a standard intersection more condusive to all modes of transportation, not just motor vehicles Chapter 1 Page 1 -3 This bikeway master plan is intended to guide bicycle facility planning for the City of Carlsbad The process included evaluating existing roadways and bicycle fa- cilities using conventional field techniques, comput- erized geographic information systems, survey question- naires and a bicycling suitability formula The plan rec- ommends revisions to existing facilities, construction of new facilities and an implementation program The plan also includes general design and engineering guidelines for the development of these facilities 2 1 Project Scope The scope of this project included documenting and evaluatingthe existing bicycle facility system ofthe City of Carlsbad and its relationship to other existmg sys- tems such as mass transit, and recommending improve- ments wherever appropriate Based on observation, experience and research, a num- ber of potential problems related to bikeways have been encountered A number of categories of typical prob- lems were evaluated and noted while performing field work They included problems such as high speed merg- ing arterials or high speed merge lanes (such as freeway on and off ramps), roadways with rapidly narrowing lanes (such as at bridges), on-street parking (especially on narrow roadways), uncontrolled left turns, high speed nght turn lanes, and situations with significant roadway speed differentials between motor vehicles and bicycles A more complete review of the types of analysis under- taken dunng field work can be found in Figure 8-6, Road- way Segment Suitability The data were further refined to include specific critena used to determine a roadway segment's bicycle suitability using an equation described in Section 8 3 2, Roadway Segment Suitability Equation 2 2 Project Study Area The project study area was specifically within the City of Carlsbad Surrounding communities were analyzed where an adjoining community's bicycle systems indi- cated opportunities for connections with Carlsbad's (See Figure 2-1, Project Location ) 2 3 1 Literature Review A literature review was conducted of applicable excerpts from documents relevant to this bikeway master plan These documents were from the City of Carlsbad, adja- cent communities, the County of San Diego, and a vari- ety of specialized bicycling publications In addition, the gathering of data for the project GIS data base could be considered part of the traditional literature review Data were acquired from San Diego Association of Govern- ments (SANDAG), the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad (See Chapter 3, Background Information ) 2 3 2 Field Work All roadway segments with an existing bicycle facility, as well as a number of additional segments, were in- ventoried at least once by the project team via bicycle because it was felt that a cyclist's perspective was im- portant to understanding the condition of the bikeway system in Carlsbad Observation items examined within each segment were the presence or absence of bicycle facilities, posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, estimated outside lane width, and the presence of spe- cific paving and roadway conditions that could adversely affect cycling, such as rough paving or steep grades (See Figure 8-6, Roadway Segment Suitability) Roadways were divided into segments at points where sufficient variation occurred in roadway configuration to warrant regarding a segment as different from adjoin- ing segments Such variations included changes in the number of lanes, posted speed limits, roadway widths, or presence or absence of bicycle facilities 2 3 3 Survey Questionnaire A questionnaire was produced and distributed prima- rily through local bicycle shops and bicycle advocacy groups It was a single sheet with informational and at titudinal questions on the front and a map of the current bikeways as indicated in the City of Carlsbad's Circula- tion Element on the back side This map included in- structions to the respondent to indicate which routes they used most frequently, where they would like to see new routes, which routes they did not use and why (See Section 8 5, User Questionnaire Response and Analysis) 2.3 Methodology The project methodology included a literature review of applicable documents, field work, a mail-in survey questionnaire and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis of the field work data Carlsbad's existing bikeway system was analyzed for a number of factors using both traditional field survey and GIS techniques Introduction 2 3 4 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) An industry textbook describes CIS as "An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced information " While this defi- nition IS technically accurate, it is rather cryptic for the layperson Basically, a GIS is a computerized map with various types of associated information attached to spe- cific places on the map Using a computer system con- figured for the purpose, a user can query the GIS about the place in question and selectively call up its associ- ated information A GIS is much more than just a com- puter system for making maps It is an analytical tool that allows the user to identify spatial relationships be- tween map features A GIS does not store a map in the conventional sense, nor does it store a particular image or view of a geo- graphic area Instead, a CIS stores the data from which a user can draw a desired view to suit a particular pur- pose (The majority ofthe maps in this report were gen- erated from a single data base compiled specifically for this project) With a computer system capable of hold- ing and using data descnbing specific features on a map, a user can overlay a number of related data layers to represent the many interrelated characteristics of the feature in question The real value of GIS is its ability to overlay information from multiple sources over a map feature, often revealing relationships that would not oth- erwise have been noticeable Several data sources were used to contribute to the GIS data base for this project Land use data was acquired from SANDAG and roads and trails from the County's Regional Urban Informa- tion System (RUIS) Coastal Carlsbad is popular as both a cycling route and destination, even though it contains a large number of parking areas and suffers from periodic congestion 2.4 Project Approach and Goals The overall approach for this master plan is summa- nzed in the following paragraphs The approaches listed below also constitute the planning goals for this study • The bicycle master plan should be integrated into all trans portation plans, especially if the proposed bicycle facili ties will use general purpose roads shared with other forms of transportation The planning efforts should include the integration of various modes of transportation including transfers between modes at transit centers and park and ride facilities • The aim of planning for bicycles should not be focused on any particular facility type so much as it should be focused on the safe and efficient travel of cyclists This will generally require both the use of the existing trans portation infrastructure and the construction of special facilities for cyclists • The maintenance of bicycle facilities and the monitoring and assessment of their performance are critical for en suring safe and efficient travel for cyclists Planning for cyclists IS an ongoing process • The coexistence of cyclists and drivers on roads requires that both are sensitive to and recognize a common set of rules Training, education and enforcement are as impor tant as physical planning and design • It IS imperative that a "bicycle perspective" guide any planning for cyclists The bicycle has its own character istics, constraints and opportunities thatthe planner must consider This must be combined with the recognition that cyclists do not form a homogeneous group in terms of age, ability, experience or traffic judgment • An integration of land use planning and transportation planning is needed in order to support future projects that are not intensively dependent on the automobile This study needs to take into account future land use and population projections and provide bicycle facilities to help decrease auto dependence 2 5 Project Definitions To prevent the confusion that can occur when referring to bikeways, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, bicycle trails or bicycle paths, the Caltrans standard for referring to bikeway facility types is used throughout this document (See Figure 2-2, Bikeway Facility Types) • Class 1 Bicycle path physically separated from vehicu- lar roadway intended specifically for non-motorized use • Class 2 - On street bicycle lane designated by striping and signage • Class 3 On street bicycle route designated by signage only • Undesignated An additional category defined as locally recommended on-street bicycle routes that appear on bikeway maps only Page 2-2 Chapter 2 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Oceanside ^ Oceanside Pacific Ocean San Marcos Chapter 2 Page 2 3 Introduction IKEWAY FACILITY TYPES CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Typical Sections Locational Criteria Typical Users -S « £ CO (8 paved + 2 graded edge mm for two way) (Greater width recommended where high bike volumes or hrgh levels of mixed use occur) Separate right-of way away from motor vehicular traffic Used where adjacent roadway speeds and ADTs are too high for safe joint use, for connections through open space areas and parks or where no other facility type is feasible Kids, Family Recreational, Adult Exercise, Skaters, Joggers, Recreational Walkers, Exercise Walkers — ere — (0 g .1, S ^ o (5 min total width where curb occurs) (Wider bike lane recommended where bike volumes are high) Within vehicular right of way, but typically delineated by warning symbols ana striping Used where roadway speeds and ADTs may be fairly high, but where adequate roadway width IS available Directness and number of users are significant factors Adult Recreational, Commuters and Serious Cyclists — 3 ~ O (« ^ Cfl (Wider than standard outside lane recommended) Within vehicular right of way, but typically delineated by airectional signage only Used where roadway speeds and ADTs are fairly low, and where route directness and number of users is not likely to be significant Primarily for route directions on suggested roadways Commuters and Serious Cyclists T3 re c 60 3! o c D (No modifications required) Within vehicular right-of- way, but not signed or delineated except in bikeway maps Used where roadway speeds and ADTs are quite low, and where route directness and number of users is not likely to be significant Used to informally connect other facilities Kids, Family Recreational, Commuters and Serious Cyclists Page 2-4 Chapter 2 3 1 Carlsbad Circulation Element A Circulation Element is required by state law (Govern- ment Code Section 65032(b)) and must consist of "the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the Land Use Element of the General Plan " The Circulation Element must state the overall goals, objec- tives and policies concerning the circulation needs of the City and specifically address issues relating to ma- jor thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and other local public utilities and facilities The City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element also addresses issues of public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, railroads and light rail transit, air travel, parking, transportation demand management, vehicular and pedestrian safety The City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element is most closely related to, and is a reflection of, the Land Use Element of the General Plan The Circulation Element was de- veloped in conjunction with computerized traffic mod- eling and analysis utilizing the projected land uses con- tained in Carlsbad's Land Use Element, as well as the land use plans of surrounding communities The comprehensive nature of the Circulation Element requires that it relate to and correlate with all other ele- ments of the General Plan including the Noise, Hous- ing, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recre- ation, and Public Safety Elements All these elements address various aspects of the circulation system and together they provide the basic policies and guidelines for the development of a safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing transportation network 3 1 1 Setting Carlsbad's dominant natural and man-made features, which establish the framework within which the circulation network must function, include the Pacific Ocean to the west, the three natural lagoons extending from the ocean to the interior of the City, the steep hills and canyons which punctuate the eastern half of the City, Highway 78 alongthe northern boundary, the Coast Highway, the San Diego Northern Railway and Interstate 5 along the coast These features all serve to separate the coastal portion of the City from the interior portion There are five prime arterials (ADTs > 40,000) in the City (See Figure 2-1, Project Location ) • El Camino Real • Palomar Airport Road • Melrose Drive • Olivenhain Road • Rancho Santa Fe Road There are also six major arterials (ADTs = 20,000 to 40,000) • Alga Road • Cannon Road • Carlsbad Boulevard • College Boulevard • La Costa Avenue (west of El Camino Real) • Poinsettia Lane Given the existing topographic constraints, the City has developed an integrated land use and circulation plan to take advantage of the natural land form features and the existing transportation facilities A major challenge for the City in the future will be to complete the remain ing roadway segments of the Circulation Element in a timely manner within a climate of increasingly strict environmental guidelines The City must also find ways to refine the existing circulation network in the devel- oped portions of the City to accommodate increased redevelopment activity and the development of sur- rounding communities Finally, it is recognized that the City circulation system is a part of the larger regional, state and national transportation systems As such, the City circulation system will continue to be influenced by the demands placed upon it by larger transportation system needs 3 12 Circulation Goals and Objectives Goals • A City with an integrated transportation network serving local and regional needs which accommodates a balance of different travel modes based on safety convenience attractiveness, costs, environmental and social impacts • A City with an adequate circulation infrastructure to serve the projected population • A City with a comprehensive network of roads which pro vides appropriate access to all land uses • A City with properly maintained, smooth functioning and safe traffic control systems Background Information Objectives • To provide an adequate circulation infrastructure concurrent with or prior to the actual demand for such activities • To design streets for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods and services within and through the City in the most environmentally sound and aesthetically pleas ing manner possible • To enhance the economic value of property and improve the economic competitiveness of the City through the construction of well designed, efficient, and cost effec- tive transportation facilities Alternative Modes of Transportation Goal • A City which promotes, encourages, and accommo dates a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile Objectives • To provide infrastructure and facilities necessary to ac commodate pedestrians, bicycles and other non automo ^>bile modes of transportation • To reduce the number and severity of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian-related accidents Implementing Policies and Action Programs • Install sidewalks and trail systems within existing and new industrial developments • Encourage school districts to implement safety programs for pedestrians and bicyclists within the public school system • Employ improved traffic control devices and monitor police accident reports to increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety • Coordinate the location of bicycle routes with the Parks and Recreation Element and the Open Space and Con- servation Element • Extend bicycle routes to cultural educational and recre- ational facilities whenever possible • Develop and implement employer incentive programs to encourage the placement of strategic bicycle storage lock ers (or other secure bicycle parking) and the construction of safe and convenient bicycle facilities • Design bicycle routes in accordance with "Bicycle Route Standards" Chapter 1000 ofthe State of California High way Design Manual • Improve bicycle access to beach areas • Review, periodically the Circulation Element Bicycle Route Map and revise, as necessary, to reflect existing roadway conditions and changed land uses • Provide linkage to bus, pedestrian and bicycle routes from any new light rail commuter transit facility • Encourage passive and active use of the railroad right of- way as trail linkage and bicycle pathway Scenic Roadways Goal • A City which preserves and enhances the visual environ- mental and historical characteristics ofthe local commu- nity through sensitive planning and design of transporta- tion and utility corridors Objectives • To enhance the scenic, environmental and historical qual ity of roadways in conjunction with the Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, and Park and Recreation Eie ments of the General Plan • To establish a route map identifying existing and future scenic roadway railroad and utility corridors within the City • To consider a system of routes and special treatments to increase the enjoyment of and opportunities for recre ational and cultural pursuits and tourism in Carlsbad • To provide a process for the establishment of convenient and safe scenic routes to major recreational areas and points of historic, scenic or cultural significance • To provide multiple recreational uses, such as bikeways, roadside rests and observation points, when appropriate, on lands within and adjacent to designated scenic corn dors, and provide a means of coordinating scenic road ways with other transportation and recreational opportu nities within the City 3 13 Implementing Policies and Action Pro- grams Establish four categories of scenic corridors and desig- nate streets to be included within those categories as follows Community Theme Comdors - connect Carlsbad with adjacent municipalities and present the City of Carls- bad to persons entering and passing through the com- munity Community Theme Corridors mclude • El Camino Real • Carlsbad Boulevard • Palomar Airport Road • La Costa Avenue • Melrose Drive Page 3-2 Chapter 3 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Community Scenic Corridors - interconnect major sub- areas ofthe present and planned Carlsbad community Community Scenic Corndors include • College Boulevard • Cannon Road • Carlsbad Village Drive • Faraday Avenue • Interstate 5 • La Costa Avenue • Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road • Poinsettia Lane/Carrillo Way Natural Open Space and Recreation Corridors - offer spectacular views of waterscapes, land forms, wildlife, and the Pacific Ocean Natural Open Space and Recre- ation Comdors include • Adams Street/Park Drive • Batiquitos Drive • Jefferson Street (portion adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon) Railroad Corridor - presents the City of Carlsbad to people passing through the City by rail The only Rail Corridor is • San Diego Northern Railway Include roadways as scenic routes which provide sig- nificant views of the ocean, lagoons, open space lands, back country and urban activity 3 14 Regional Circulation Considerations Goals • A City with a transportation system which helps mini- mize air pollution and traffic congestion and supports commerce and economic development • A City which participates with other cities in the County, through the San Diego Association of Governments, in working toward the solution of regional transporta- tion issues Objective • To participate with other cities in the County in develop- ing the Regional Growth Management Strategy which addresses air quality transportation system management, and transportation demand management for San Diego County on a "regional community" basis 3 2 Carlsbad Open Space and Conser- vation Element Under State law, cities must adopt both Open Space and Conservation Elements, which the City of Carlsbad chose to combine into one comprehensive element be- cause of their strong interrelationship There is also a relationship between the Circulation and Noise Elements in that larger open space buffers and setbacks are en- couraged along designated scenic roadway corridors, which not only provide visual open space, but help to mitigate noise from roadway traffic Such corridors are often feasible options for bikeway development as well, both because of their desirability as efficient and scenic bicycle routes and their generally ample right-of-way widths The City of Carlsbad's Open Space and Conservation Element relates to its Parks and Recreation Element in that parks are considered necessary and beneficial open space uses Because parks are often considered to be activity centers, their inclusion is typically a concern in bikeway master planning It is often desirable to con nect parks with available open space corridors as part of recommended bikeway system development since neighborhood parks usually serve as localized recre- ational "hubs" The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Gen- eral Plan establishes policies for the development of a comprehensive, connected open space system and for the protection and conservation ofthe City's natural and historic resources The Open Space and Conservation Element divides open space types into five categories including Category 3 Open Space for Outdoor Recre- ation This category is further subdivided into eight sub categories, the applicable ones being Greenways, Pub he Parks/Recreation Areas and Trails The inclusion of the Equestrian Facilities category could also be appli- cable Public Parks/Recreation Areas are described as those parks and recreation areas for access to park and recre- ation sites, lake shores, beaches, lagoons, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, estuaries and coastal bluffs and cliffs Greenways are described as the links between major recreational and open space areas, including the recre- ational use of utility easements, railroad corridors, banks of nvers and streams or scenic highways Trails are listed as areas for walking, hiking, biking, and skateboarding, including associated improvements such as staging areas, picnic areas and viewpoints Chapter 3 Page 3 3 Background Information Category 4 Open Space for Aesthetic, Cultural and Educational Purposes, is defined as buffers between land uses, including larger setbacks and greenbelts providing separation from surrounding communities (Though not likely to be as important as Open Space for Outdoor Recreation for this study, such areas are another potential consideration and could provide critical connectivity) 3 3 Carlsbad Open Space and Conser- vation Resource Management Plan The Open Space and Conservation Resource Manage- ment Plan deals almost exclusively with off-street trails as links between recreational opportunities such as park sites and key natural resource areas A secondary con- cern was to provide an alternative non-vehicular trans- portation system throughout the City On-street bike- ways are included only where absolutely necessary to connect trail segments where no other method is fea- sible Though unpaved trails are likely to be a compo- nent of any bikeway master plan, the majority of pro- posed routes normally emphasize on-street facilities with due consideration of viable off-street paved routes and destinations 3 3 1 Introduction to the Plan Over the past three years the City of Carlsbad has con- ducted a vanety of studies aimed at defining a potential trail system and understanding what the implications of pursuing such a system would be The Carlsbad Trails Feasibility Study, completed in 1990, concluded that a trail system was physically and financially viable As a result, a proposed Carlsbad Trail System has been in- cluded as a major component of this Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan 3 3 2 Physical Implications There are a number of landscape resources distributed throughout the City which have high intnnsic aesthetic quality and also form representative examples of the natural landscape of the City Protection of these re- sources within open space will serve to perpetuate the high quality environment to which the City aspires Access to these resources via a trail system will enhance the recreational opportunities for City residents while allowing them to retain a connection with and to de- velop an understanding of the natural landscape upon which their community is built The City is undeveloped over enough of its land area that the majority of the trail system can be achieved through integration of trail needs with future develop- ment planning A large proportion ofthe trail segments in undeveloped areas pass through large single land ownerships or Master Plan areas In these cases, the implementation ofthe trail system should be especially easy provided trail needs are identified early enough in the planning and negotiation process In those areas of the City which are already built up, potential exists to complete the citywide trail network through the improvement of existing open space corri- dors In a small number of cases, trail linkages will only be possible along sidewalks and through the use of bi- cycle lanes within the right-of-way The City has a range of natural resources including water bodies, riparian habitat, chaparral and coastal sage scrub, and naturalized tree groves which have varying capacity to accommodate human land uses The trail system must be sited and designed so as to avoid negative impacts on these resources in particular, the wetland and riparian areas of the City and areas of chaparral and scrub with sensitive and/or rare and endangered species will be carefully treated In assessing the physical feasibility of the system, these resources were considered If the City decides to implement the trail system, full environmental review will have to be part of the planning and design process on each proposed project 3 3 3 Issues Summary The City should monitor trail use and be prepared to restrict mixed bicycle and pedestrian use where the busi- est areas of the trail system are determined to create adverse impacts due to mixed use The City should establish and maintain periodic con- tact with surrounding jurisdictions to ensure thatthe link- ages necessary to achieve a regionally connecting trail system are effected 3 4 Carlsbad Trail System The 1990 Trails Feasibility Study commenced with the alignments indicated on the 1989 Comprehensive Open Space Network Map produced as part of the Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space The intention was to link together key recreational opportunities in the City including park sites and key natural resource areas A secondary concern was to provide an alternative non- vehicular transportation system throughout the City For all alignments, the first choice of location was to be in an unimproved open space corridor away from any road- way The second choice was to locate the trail within a power line easement Third choice was to locate the trail within its own right-of-way parallel to a roadway Only where none of these options was available does the trail system use sidewalks and bicycle lanes to con- nect together open space linkages Page 3 4 Chapter 3 Carisbad Bikeway Master Plan 3 4 1 Trails and Community Parks One of the objectives ofthe trail system was to connect to the various existing and proposed community parks located throughout the City The system developed in this plan connects all the following sites • Hosp Grove Park • Larwin Park* • Calavera Park • Veterans Memorial Park* • Poinsettia Park • Alga Norte Park* • Carrillo Ranch • Stagecoach Park *Planned not yet existing In addition, Hosp Grove and the area around Lake Calavera are under consideration as Special Resource Areas In both cases, the intent of a trails oriented Spe- cial Resource designation would be to provide an un- improved natural area for hiking and bike use 3 4 2 Classification The trail system includes 74 miles of pedestrian, bicycle and joint use trails, of which 61 miles are unpaved hik- ing and bicycle paths The proposed trail system indicates joint use by bicycles and pedestrians of both paved and unpaved paths The design standards for the paved paths show a minimum width of 12 feet which conforms to the Caltrans stan- dard of joint use However, m some cases it is possible that joint use ofthe eight foot wide unpaved trails could be dangerous if, for example, particularly heavy use was made of a trail segment The City may need either to restrict use to pedestrians only, for example, or construct an additional parallel path within the right-of-way and use signage to keep pedestrians and cyclists separated 3 4 3 Signage and Interpretive Information An important component of the trails improvement will be the provision of adequate signage Three primary types are envisioned for the Carlsbad trail system They mclude trail markers at one mile intervals and at trail junctions, signboards at staging areas, and interpretive signage at viewpoints In general, the City should de- velop a consistent signage standard for the trail system describing both what specific information will be com- municated and the design of the signs and markers to be used 3 5 Surrounding Communities The City of Carlsbad is bounded by the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos and Encinitas and by un- incorporated sections ofthe County of San Diego (See Figure 3-1, Adjacent Communities ) Each of these juns- dictions have their own trail planning efforts at different levels of detail and stages of implementation As part of the planning process, contact was made with all the surrounding jurisdictions to ensure the development of concepts and alignments which would be compatible with those of the surrounding areas A summary of the issues regarding each community is presented below The City should maintain periodic contact with sur- rounding jurisdictions to ensure that the linkages nec- essary to achieve a regionally connecting trail system are accomplished 3 5 1 Oceanside With the exception ofthe north south linkage along the coastal railroad corridor, there is only one strong trail linkage opportunity between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside The physical barriers presented by Route 78 and Buena Vista Lagoon effectively pre- clude any other possibilities The one linkage identified by the Open Space Plan, other than the regional link alongthe railroad right-of-way, connects Lake Calavera with a recently constructed neighborhood park in the Oceanside immediately south of Lake Boulevard, just beyond the northeast corner of the City of Carlsbad Additional linkages between the two cities have tenta- tively been identified within the rights-of-ways along Coast Highway, Jefferson Street, El Camino Real, Rancho del Oro and within the future alignment of College Bou- levard These will be comprised of bicycle lanes and sidewalks and, as such, would not constitute the type of trail system being considered within the Open Space Plan It is recommended that the City of Carlsbad en- sure that any future planning for bicycle circulation take into account linkages to Oceanside 3 5 2 Vista Exhibit "E" ofthe Bicycle, Hiking and Equestrian Trails Elementof the Vista General Plan indicates a number of trail links running north and east from Lake Calavera into Vista All these alignments (which are shown very conceptually) run through already developed areas of the City of Oceanside Vista is also conceptually con- sidenng a trail linkage westward from Buena Vista Park into the City of Oceanside In this case, field investiga- tion and assessment of ownership revealed the only physically feasible link would have to run across the top of a steep slope held under seven different owner- ships from whom access rights would have to be ac- Chapter 3 Page 3-5 Background Information ADJACENT m COMMUNITIES CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN J 'mi" ^ Mm 4 l V,, % I San Diego County San Diego County Page 3-6 Chapter 3 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan quired or dedication made by the property owners Given thatthe trail would provide visual access into the homes concerned, this whole linkage seemed very un- likely to succeed Moreover, with access to Squires Dam limited, and the views of the reservoir from afar bemg cluttered with large industrial structures, it was not felt that this linkage was worth pursuing The City of Vista also indicates on Exhibit "E" a link along Melrose Drive This could be connected to Segment No 26 ofthe Open Space Plan (See pages 245 and 246, Maps 10 and 11) 3 5 3 San Marcos The City of San Marcos City Council adopted a Master Trails Plan which defines a proposed citywide trail sys- tem Four segments are shown in the San Marcos Plan which connect to Carlsbad Connection to the San Marcos trails is included in this Plan via Segments Nos 36, 47, 48, 53 and 58A (See pages 249, 252, 253, 256 and 257, Maps 14, 17, 18, 21 and 22 ) Trail Segment No 58A in Carlsbad is proposed to be a equestrian trail to link with systems in Encinitas and San Marcos 3 5 4 Encinitas The City of Encinitas is proceeding with implementa- tion of a trail system which potentially connects with Carlsbad's trails in a number of places Segment No 55 of this Plan has been aligned so as to create a connec- tion with Encinitas which will lead into the proposed Escondido Creek Trail (the spine of the Encinitas trail system) which will eventually lead to the San Elijo La- goon Segments Nos 55A and 56A have both been in- cluded in the proposed Carlsbad trail system following a request from Encinitas It is proposed that Trail Seg- ment No 58A in Carlsbad allow equestrian use in order to connect the equestrian trail systems of Encinitas and San Marcos (See pages 255 and 256, Maps 20 and 21 of the City of Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan) A potential linkage between the two cities may occur to the west of El Camino Real and the final alignment of the southern end of Segment No 50 of this Plan should be coordinated with Encinitas It is also possible that a connection could lead from the north end of Segment No 50 in a westerly direction into Encinitas Connec- tive opportunity also lies along the coastal rail right-of- way. Segment No 40 (See page 250, Map 14) Bicycle lanes have already been striped and signed along El Camino Real from Garden View Road to Santa Fe Drive In addition, a northbound bicycle lane has been striped and signed from a point near Tennis Club Drive to Santa Fe Drive It is recommended that these bicycle lanes be extended north to a connection with Carlsbad bikeways at Olivenhain Road Project L19 is located largely within the City of Carls- bad adjacent to Encinitas city limits (See Page 59, Fig- ure 25 This IS a bicycle lane along La Costa Avenue from Saxony Road eastward ) It is mentioned in this study because it represents a significant link in the plan and would serve residents of Encinitas as well as those of Carlsbad The costs for this project would logically be paid for by the City of Carlsbad, but since this project is more significant to the Encinitas Bikeway System, Encinitas may need to pay for most or all of the cost to ensure its timely completion 3 6 County Trail Efforts The San Dieguito Community Planning Area Riding and Hiking Trails Plan (adopted as General Plan Amendment GPA 87-03, Item 4) indicates a proposed trail corridor crossing County land between the City of Carlsbad and the City of San Marcos If this connection could be imple- mented. It could have potential for linking into the Carls bad system However, the County map was created with minimal field study and many of the indicated align- ments are not practicable It has not been possible to confirm the validity of indicating a trail in this area If at some future date this County trail connection were to be completed, the short easterly spur of Segment No 53 IS designed to make this connection (See pages 253 and 256, Maps 18 and 21) 3 7 NCTD Rail Trails The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) funded a study in 1989 to evaluate the feasibility of a Class I coastal corridor bicycle path between Oceanside and downtown San Diego running primarily within the existing rail right-of-way The rail trail concept was ongi- nally developed as an efficient way to adaptively reuse abandoned rail right-of ways, but has recently been extended to include functioning rights-of-way as well Rail trails provide a regional, multi-use, non motorized recreation and transportation facility that takes advan- tage ofthe ease of travel afforded by the minimal grades originally created to serve the needs of rail traffic The SANDAG study's conclusions were preliminary, but for Its entire alignment through the Carlsbad portion of the route, it proposed that the bikeway should run along the west side of the tracks However, field analysis for this project indicates that topographic constraints along much of the west side of track require that the rail trail be placed on the east side of the tracks throughout the Carlsbad portion of the route Chapter 3 Page 3 7 Background Information This represents the long term solution to be implemented in conjunction with the installation of a planned sec- ond trackway In the short term prior to installation of the second trackway, two segments would be placed on the west side Topographic constraints on the east side and the limited availability of reasonably safe cross- ing points required these segments to be positioned on the west side ofthe rail right-of-way until installation of the second trackway occurs These diversions to the west side would be required to circumvent the lagoons in Carlsbad For this reason, a significant portion of the proposed rail trail at the southern end ofthe city and a shorter segment at the northern end would actually be on Carlsbad Boulevard This would be the case until the planned second trackway was installed, at which time new bridges with integral bicycle lanes would be built across the lagoons, allowing the rail trail to be con- structed entirely within the rail right-of-way An additional rail trail is currently in design just north of Carlsbad along the rail line between Oceanside and Escondido Though the trail will run somewhat north of the Carlsbad city limits within Oceanside, it is impor- tant to consider it in this study because it will connect with the Oceanside to San Diego rail trail that passes through Carlsbad, providing Carlsbad with a direct link to the regional rail trail system Page 3-8 Chapter 3 4-CIRCULATION SYSTEM 4.1 Roadway System The City of Carlsbad's roadway system is in generally good condition and quite adequately serves the vehicu- lar and bicycle needs of residents within the developed portions of the city However, there are still sizable ar- eas, especially in the eastern half of the city, where paved roadway access has not been provided Reviewing a map of the entire city reveals that these areas are cur- rently undeveloped and create considerable blocks of open space between the more distinct developed en- claves that make up the City of Carlsbad (See Figure 4- 1, Existing and Programmed Roadways ) This is one of Carlsbad's distinguishing charactenstics, and is prima- rily the result of local topography and managed growth policies Land form also tends to limit the number of major north-south routes through the city, primarily due to the occurrence of lagoons that stretch a considerable distance inland from the coast 4 2 Programmed Roadways The City of Carlsbad's roadway system is not complete since the city is not built out This accounts for substan- tial areas of the city that are not yet accessible by paved roadway This situation may cause some inconvenience for cyclists such as commuters because they do not have direct routes to their destinations This lack of roadways also limits bicycle access to and from communities ad- joining Carlsbad's eastern limits It is likely that motor- ists do not feel particularly inconvenienced by the present roadway system However, the available routes around and through the hilly steep topography of the eastern half of the city almost certainly deters some us- ers from other than recreational cycling (See Figure 4- 1, Existing and Programmed Roadways ) 4.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities The City of Carlsbad probably has the highest percent- age of major roadways with bicycle facilities than any other city of comparable size in the region Virtually all major roadways have Class 2 facilities in place There are no designated Class 1 facilities, though several ex- isting unpaved paths around the lagoons fulfill the pur- pose of unpaved off-street trails Class 3 facilities also exist in Carlsbad, but they are not likely to be proposed in the future 4 4 Programmed Bicycle Facilities Virtually all proposed major roadways to be extended in Carlsbad are planned to include Class 2 bicycle fa- cilities, according to the city's General Plan Circulation Element (See Figure 4-2, Existing and Programmed Bi- cycle Facilities) Carlsbad has a variety of bike facilities including those that run along the coast, through neighborhoods and connect to other bike facilities to the south and north of Carlsbad Circulation System 4.5 Trail Systems Since the City of Carlsbad will be developing a trails master plan, discussion of trail systems should appro- priately be addressed in such a document However, due to the increasing populanty of off-road bicycling, the trails master plan should consider the needs of off- road cyclists, as well as other recreational users, and examine where connections between on-street and off- street facilities can benefit of all users A City of Carlsbad trails system may some day include trails within natural open space systems, such as around Batiquitos Lagoon Page 4 2 Chapter 4 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAYS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Figure 4-1 Agua Hedionda Lagoon CARLSBAD Batiquitos Lagoon ENCINITAS July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 4 Page 4 3 Circulation System m Agua Hedionda Lagoon Batiquitos Lagoon ENCINITAS July 2001 1 Miles Page 4-4 Chapter 4 In the context of a bikeway master plan analysis, "trip origins" are defined as those areas or specific locations from which the majority of bicycle usage is likely to come Determining where these trip origins are now or will be in the future is important in guiding the design and implementation of a cost-effective bicycle facility system that will maintain its usefulness overtime This includes tracking projected changes in land use, popu- lation density and housing data, but defining the trip ongins for a particular city is usually not so straightfor- ward Extracting useful information from some of the data described in the following sections sometimes re- quired evaluating data from other sources and synthe- sizing the results Other sources of information were reviewed based on well known principles employed in most bikeway master plan projects For instance, resi- dential areas are, in general, trip origin points In all cases, the primary information sought was how and where changes are projected to occur in Carlsbad in the near future 5 1 Existing Land Use SANDAG provided much of the data needed to pro- duce the maps used in the trip origin analysis and pro- duced for this chapter These maps represent demo- graphic information derived from data collected for the 1990 census as well as other land use data developed from remotely sensed imagery The land use map reveals a striking pattern within the City of Carlsbad, one that repeats itself throughout the maps in this chapter Development is fragmented into specific areas, with large areas of open space separat- ing the developed areas from each other The arrange- ment makes more sense when topography is taken into account The development pattern has evolved to ac- commodate the steep hills ofthe eastern half of the city and the lagoons cutting across the center, north and south ends, while the ocean on the west also creates a defini- tive boundary The result is that development has oc- curred in a predictable and constrained manner in Carls- bad (See Figure 5-1, 1990 Land Use ) Carlsbad's devel- opment pattern is markedly different than its neighbor- ing communities The adjoining cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos and Encinitas have a much lower percentage of remaining open space compared to the City of Carlsbad These other cities also have a more dispersed development pattern Carlsbad's development IS unique to cities in the area because it has created a much more distinct clustered development pattern sur- rounded by large contiguous areas of open space In terms of bicycle facility planning, significant concen- trations of housing or employment can better support the costs of bicycle facilities because potential users are clustered Higher housing or employment densities tend to be the most cost-effective situations for bicycle facili- ties because they provide the most potential users for a given area Carlsbad's clustered development arrange- ment could be even more advantageous to recreational and commuting cycling because the open spaces sepa- rating the developed areas can provide locations for off- street facilities with minimal exposure to high speed vehicular traffic 5 2 Future Land Use Comparison of the 1990 and projected 2000 land uses reveals several noteworthy changes First, after having occupied a substantial portion of central Carlsbad, the year 2000 data indicate that agriculture will no longer be represented at all The agncultural land use has been replaced by open space and low density housing An- other trend that commonly occurs as a city matures is that changes in land uses tend toward conglomeration, creating fewer but larger blocks of similar land uses This trend is clearly visible in the land use maps (See Figure 5-2, 2000 Land Use ) The changes in land use noted above indicate a trend toward more concentrated development, in general, and more housing, in particular, in the central portion ofthe city This will tend to create new demands for bicycle facilities where no concentrated land uses had existed before Among the new more concentrated land uses is the large Legoland development in west central Carls- bad, where agricultural land uses are being converted to tourist resort and golf uses There will be ample re- maining open space contiguous with the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the immediate north Recreational bicycling demand can be expected to increase in this area Another land use change which will affect demand for bicycle facilities is the significant parcel of agricultural land between El Camino Real and Lake Calaveras slated to become low density housing, while an adjoining siz- able section surrounding the lake will be open space There will also be a new school site in the center ofthe new housing development area These three new land uses will all create greater bicycle facility demand where little had existed before Notable amounts of travel con- necting these three uses is likely, as well as travel from this area to other parts of Carlsbad, especially westward to the downtown area and the coastal strip Finally, the year 2000 land use map indicates large ar- eas of industnal land use immediately adjacent to the Palomar Airport and extending east and west from the airport along Palomar Airport Road Much of this de- Trip Origin Analysis velopment was coded as vacant or under construction in the year 1990 data, but sizable areas of agricultural land south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real will also be affected This agncultural land IS destined to become open space and low density hous- ing, like much ofthe agncultural land in the year 1990 data The industrial areas north, east and west of the airport will create a corridor of employment destina- tions stretching from the eastern boundary of the Legoland development to the City of Vista The corridor anchored by Palomar Airport Road will continue to grow as the primary employment center of Carlsbad Its im- portance in terms of bicycle planning is based on its centrally located position within the city as a major bi- cycle commuting destination point The demand for bicycle facilities can be expected to grow with increases in employment density, especially for amenities favored by commuters such as secure bicycle parking, bike lock- ers and showers at their destination points 5 3 Existmg Residential Areas Residential land uses are by far the most common on- gin points for bicycle trips within a community, followed by those bicycle trips originating in the residential areas of immediately adjacent communities The bicycling trips originating in residential areas typically terminate at schools and employment centers, retail and enter- tainment centers, parks and open space, as well as at other residential areas For this reason, the sizes, densi- ties and locations of residential developments and their relationships to other land uses such as schools, em- ployment centers and parks and open space are cru- cially important to bicycle facility planning Like all development in Carlsbad, residential areas are clustered in specific areas throughout the city (See Fig- ure 5-3, 1990 Housing Density) The largest one is "Old Carlsbad", the city "center" in the northwestern corner It extends eastward past 1-5 and beyond El Camino Real where it ends at the edge of large expanses of open space separating Carlsbad and adjoining communities This housing center is bounded on the north and south by river valleys and lagoons and on the west by ocean The next largest housing center is in the southeast cor- ner bounded by San Marcos and Encinitas on the east and south Open space bounds the northern edge of this area and Batiquitos Lagoon forms a boundary on the west This area is projected to expand considerably in the near future (See Figure 5-4, 2000 Housing Den- sity) The coastal strip between the Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons is a third residential area of note SANDAG indicates that It will expand considerably east of 1-5 It also displays the greatest per capita increase in housing density of the three pnmary housing areas In general, the existing residential land use areas will increase in density, based on the year 2000 data, but the increases are not nearly as significant a factor as the projected increases in housing area The existing hous- ing areas will expand beyond their immediate bound- anes, in many cases into areas previously coded as va- cant or agricultural The northwestern and coastal hous- ing clusters will spread eastward, while the southeast- ern cluster will expenence in-fill and spread northward 5.4 Existing Population Density The highest population density occurs in the "down- town" Carlsbad, the city "center" in the northwestern corner This population center extends beyond El Camino Real where densities are lower than downtown, but still contain pockets of higher density The south- east population center's density resembles that of the northwestern population density east of 1-5 Overall, the southeastern center has the lowest population density in Carlsbad The coastal strip population center between the Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons has moder- ate densities with a distinct zone of high densities around the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Paseo del Norte (See Figure 5-5, 1990 Population Density) 5.5 Future Population Density Population density for all three population centers in Carlsbad exhibit the expected trend of moderate in- creases in the year 2000 data compared to 1990 The areas of highest density display a trend to outward ex- pansion while remaining essentially contiguous The de- velopment of additional high density centers is not in- dicated in the year 2000 data (See Figure 5-6 ) 5.6 Summary of Trip Origins Based on the foregoing analysis of housing density, popu- lation density and land use, most future bicycle activity IS likely to originate from within the distinct clustered residential areas of Carlsbad These areas will become large enough in terms of population density and physi- cal size to generate some bicycle traffic that originates and terminates within them, as well as supplying users for the citywide bicycle system Questionnaire results also indicated that a substantial number of commuting cyclists currently come from neighboring communities As employment densities increase, especially along the expanding Palomar Airport Road industnal corndor, the number of commuting cyclists from neighboring com- munities can also be expected to grow as well This employment center's position is equidistant from the neighboring communities of Vista, San Marcos and Encinitas The boundaries of these communities and, more importantly, residential areas within them, all lie within two miles of this employment center Page 5 2 Chapter 5 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan 1990 LAND USE CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN • (•I 1 Vacant 5-1 Trans ./Comm./ ^ Open Space/ Residential Preserves Commercial ^| Agritculture Office Water Public Services Under Construction Schools Parks 1 Agua hedionda Lagoon Saiiqijitas Lagoon July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 5 Page 5-3 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Mi 2000 PLANNED LAND USE CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Commercial Office Public Services _ Schools ^1 Parks Trans./Comm./ Residential Rgure 5-2 1 Miles July 2001 Chapter 5 Page 5-5 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan 1990 HOUSING DENSITY CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Figure 5-3 5^ Aim Ht(Bmti iJtoon July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 5 Page 5-7 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan 2000 HOUSING DENSITY CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Figure 5-4 July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 5 Page 5-9 Carisbad Bikeway Master Plan Mi 1990 POPULATION DENSITY July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 5 Page 5-11 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Mi 2000 POPULATION DENSITY CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 5 Page 5-13 TRIP DESTINATIONS Trip destination points in terms of bicycle facility plan- ning are generally referred to as a community's "activ- ity" centers. In the context of a bicycle master plan analy- sis, the term "activity" specifically refers to bicycling usage generated as a result ofthe particular trip destina- tion. A list of a community's activity centers can include its schools, parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, librar- ies, community centers, retail complexes and employ- ment centers. The types and locations of these activity centers within a community reflect the amount and types of bicycle usage they can be expected to generate. This is especially true in terms of their proximity to residen- tial areas. 6.1 Existing Activity Centers The SANDAG data defines activity centers as a community's major employers, office buildings, indus- trial sites, government sites, retail centers, hospitals, major attractions, colleges, universities, schools or parks. The commercial and retail activity centers can also be regarded as employment centers because, in addition to the customers that constitute the typical activity cen- ter users, they also represent significant numbers of employees. Carlsbad's major retail centers are repre- sented in SANDAG's data within the highest employ- ment density category. The civic activity centers include Carlsbad's parks and schools, which are discussed in a following section. Reviewing a map of the existing activity centers (See Figure 6-2, Activity Centers) confirms that there is an abundance of major employers, office buildings and industrial sites clustered in the area immediately around Though the Palomar Airport area contains a significant number of large employers, downtown Carlsbad also has significant employment density. Palomar Airport. Based solely on this map, it appears to be the commercial and office hub of Carlsbad. How- ever, comparing the activity center information map with the existing employment density map from the previ- ous section (See Figure 6-1, Employment Density) re- veals that the employment density is just as high in four other areas of Carlsbad. These other areas have few of- fice buildings or major employers, but still have high employment density, which indicates that they encom- pass large numbers of smaller businesses. Employment density is an indicator of bicycle facility demand in gen- eral, but more specifically, it is an indicator for shop- ping trips to areas with numerous small businesses ver- sus commuting trips to areas with major employers. 6.2 Employment Centers In most cases, the City of Carlsbad's employment cen- ters tend to coincide with the intersections of the city's major roadways. For this reason, they are scattered throughout the city, but are distinct enough to be easily discernible on a map. (See Figure 6-1, Employment Den- sity and Figure 6-2, Activity Centers.) There are five dis- crete employment areas, including the downtown area west of 1-5, at the intersections of SR 78 and El Camino Real, the largest zone immediately around Palomar Air- port, at La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, and a zone on either side of 1-5 centered on Palomar Airport Road. The zone around the airport also contains the largest concentration of major employers. The new Legoland theme park site lies between this zone and the coastal zone centered on Palomar Airport Road. Essentially, all the employment center locations in Carls- bad lie along 1-5, El Camino Real or Cadsbad Boulevard. WWiiiilffll^^ The entire coastal strip contains important destination points for both commuters and recreational cyclists. Trip Destination Analysis Several other major employment centers occur in the adjoining communities of San Marcos, Vista and Oceanside. Several are close enough to the City of Carls- bad to warrant consideration in this study. They all tend to be accessible along major roadways that connect them with Carlsbad. 6.3 Existing Parks/Schools/Civic Activ- ity Centers Considering the parks and schools independently ofthe other activity centers is intended to emphasize the more local, neighborhood and recreational functions of these centers. Like most communities, Cadsbad's parks and athletic facilities are often associated with the school sites. These centers are used by a much higher percent- age of children than the other types of activity centers, which is an important factor in community-wide bicycle facility design. The location of schools, in particular, is a major factor in identifying safe bicycle routes because bicycling has traditionally been an important transpor- tation mode for elementary and middle school age chil- dren. (See Figure 6-2, Activity Centers.) Analysis of the locations of Carlsbad's schools indicate that they are all adjacent to residential areas with quiet streets. However, Carlsbad's schools are no different than any other city's schools in that they are in close proxim- ity to at least one major street. Fortunately, the schools and the residential neighborhoods they serve tend to fall on the same side ofthe major streets. Therefore, the schools' primary bicycling access is likely to be from the surrounding residential streets that allow children access to their schools without having to ride on the busier streets and minimizes their having to cross them. 6.4 Trip Destinations Summary Schools and parks are the most common bicycling des- tinations, followed by commercial, retail and employ- ment centers. This is likely to hold true in Carlsbad as well. The schools will draw users from the immediate residential area of up to approximately a mile, which is the typical maximum distance that most children can be expected to want to ride. The major commercial cen- ters such as downtown Carlsbad and the area around Palomar Airport, the retail complexes at the northern end of Carlsbad and several smaller ones scattered else- where throughout the central portion ofthe city can also be expected to be popular destinations, and will typi- cally draw users from farther away than the schools. There are always special destinations that are charac- teristic of a particular community. In Cadsbad these spe- cial destinations include the beaches and coastal strip and, where access is available, the lagoons. These ar- eas also comprise the more level coastal portions of Carlsbad where cycling is easier, making them desir- able destinations for visitors as well as residents. Typi- cally, the coastal strip has higher levels of bicycle use than any other part of the city, especially for recreational and exercise cycling. Like the visitors who ride the coastal strip at a more casual pace, many of the exer- cise cyclists are not Carlsbad residents. They typically pass through Carlsbad as part of a loop training ride on Carlsbad Boulevard. The coastal north San Diego County area is well known as a center for competitive athletic training, especially for cyclists and triathletes. Because of its attractiveness for cycling of various types, the coastal portion of Carlsbad should be considered a des- tination in itself. Parks are important destination points, though they tend to serve the immediate community and do not generate longer distance bike commuting trips. Page 6-2 Chapter 6 Draft Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan EMPLOYMENT DENSITY CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Figure 6-1 © Major Employer frk - 1 1 Under 1 Person 1 -5 !\ 1 IH 5-10 -j^ 10-15 ~\L 15-20 I Hi over 20 people 'numbers denote housing per acre by MGRF unit July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 6 Page 6-3 Draft Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan ACTIVITY CENTERS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Figure 6-2 Agua Hedionda Lagoon CARLSBAD Batiquitos Lagoon July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 6 Page 6-5 7-MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS The efficiency of bicycle transportation, especially for commuting, can be enhanced by connecting the bicycle facility system with other modes of transportation Cyclists can use their bicycles to get to or from a multi-modal transfer point as part of their regular commute Where transit modes allow bicycles on board, multi-modal transit becomes a very useful transportation option Whether the other modes allow bicycles to be brought on board or not, they allow for much greater flexibility for persons choosing to commute by modes other than the private automobile In the case of Carlsbad, only the frequent- stop local bus routes do not provide a way to take bicycles along The coastal and express buses employ outside bicycle racks and the Coaster commuter rail trains provide interior space for bicycles 71 North County Transit District Though the coastal strip and northwestern Carlsbad are well served by North County Transit District (NCTD) bus routes on arterials and local streets, the central portion of the city IS served primarily by routes on major arterials, and the southeastern sector has few routes or stops This pattern tends to reflect both the topography and the housing density of each area The northwestern and coastal sectors have concentrations of both housing and employment and gentle land form The central sector has little housing, but does contain the majority of Carlsbad's major employers Bus routes do tend to serve the areas of highest employment density, which are generally situated along the major arterials The southeastern sector's dispersed, low density residential development pattern and relatively steep grades probably preclude the efficient implementation of mass transit The bicycle rack-equipped routes are local route 301 with several stops along the coast on Carlsbad Boule- vard, express route 310 which runs from Oceanside to University Towne Center on 1-5 with stops at Carlsbad Village Drive, the Plaza Camino Real shopping com plex and La Costa Avenue, and express route 320 which runs from Oceanside to Escondido and stops at Plaza Camino Real Each bus can carry up to four bicycles NCTD also provides Coaster commuter tram service from Oceanside to downtown San Diego, with two stops in Carlsbad One is at Carlsbad Village Station in downtown Carlsbad between Grand Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive and the second at Poinsettia Station near Poinsettia Lane between 1-5 and Carls- bad Boulevard on Avenida Encinas The Coaster tram service allows cyclists to bring bicycles on board without restriction Each car has space for several bicycles (See Figure 7-1, Transfer Points ) 7 2 AMTRAK The AMTRAK train stops closest to Carlsbad are imme- diately to the north in Oceanside and in Solana Beach to the south The Oceanside stop is at the Oceanside transit center, and is the closest and probably the most convenient access for Carlsbad residents It also serves as a transfer point for Greyhound Bus Lines, Metrolink commuter trains providing service from Oceanside and points north and NCTD's Coaster commuter tram serv- ing Oceanside to downtown San Diego AMTRAK al- lows bicycles on board trains as checked baggage only AMTRAK IS less likely to be used for daily bicycle-re- lated commuting since Coaster service now provides convenient and more complete commuter rail service to Oceanside and points south to downtown San Diego 7 3 Existing Park and Ride Facilities There is only one official park and ride facility in Carls- bad, in far south Carlsbad just east of 1-5 at La Costa Avenue near the south shore of Batiquitos Lagoon (See Figure 7-1, Transfer Points ) Though it is not within Carlsbad's city limits, there is a park and ride lot imme- diately north of Carlsbad in Oceanside at 1-5 and SR 78 Within Carlsbad, the parking lot at the Poinsettia Sta- tion IS large enough to accommodate a park and ride function and is virtually never full Especially since the station IS guarded, it could be used as a park and ride lot, even if it is not officially recognized as such Bus stops and transit stations can become important multi- modal links if bus bicycle racks and on site bicycle lockers are provided Multi-Modal Analysis 7 4 Existmg Transit Centers There are two transit centers in Carlsbad One is the Cadsbad Village Station in downtown Carlsbad It is served by the Coaster commuter tram and three bus routes, one of which is equipped with bicycle racks The second ts at the Plaza Camino Real retail complex at SR 78 and El Camino Real served by nine bus routes, two of which are bicycle rack-equipped express routes Finally, although not officially recognized as a transit center, the Poinsettia Station is also a Coaster stop and IS served by one bus route which does not provide bi- cycle racks Bicycle parking at these transit centers con- sist of both bicycle lockers and racks (See Figure 7-1, Transfer Points ) 7 5 Transfer Point Summary The northwestern sector of Carlsbad is served by nu- merous local bus routes and transit centers at the Carls- bad Village Station and the Plaza Camino Real retail complex Coastal Carlsbad is served by a local bus route along Carlsbad Boulevard and another one along the east side of 1-5 that also accesses the Poinsettia Station, one of two commuter rail stations The remainder ofthe city, comprised ofthe central and southeastern portions of Carlsbad, is served by only two bus routes, one run- ning from Oceanside to Encinitas on El Camino Real and the other from San Marcos to Encinitas on Rancho Santa Fe Road Neither of these routes employs buses equipped with bicycle racks Secure bike locker facilities are important elements for those cyclists who will not be taking their bicycles aboard buses or commuter rail trains The Coaster commuter rail system represents an important multi-modal link for cyclists because its trams provide space for bikes on board Page 7 2 Chapter 7 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan TRANSFER POINTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Agua Hedionda Lagoon Babquitos Lagoon ENCINITAS July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 7 Page 7-3 Safety is a pnmary concern in evaluating an existing bicycle facility system or in proposing new facilities or extensions The primary lesson learned from the litera- ture reviewed for this bicycle master plan and others is that installation of bicycle facilities without careful con- sideration of their specific attributes and drawbacks can actually exacerbate already problematic safety situa- tions This IS particularly true for facilities that are likely to be used by other types of users such as walkers, run- ners and skaters, in addition to cyclists Well-designed, attractive, off street bicycle facilities tend to become mixed use facilities and the other user types do not move with the relative predictability of vehicles On the other hand, even though they move with more predictability, cyclists using on-street facilities must contend with the omnipresent automobile Safety concerns vary consid- erably depending on the type of bicycle facility Safety is reviewed in the following sections through applicable literature, examination of user types and ca- pabilities, analysis of bicycle/roadway compatibility, suitability of specific roadways for cycling, specific prob- lem intersections and user questionnaires 8 1 Literature Review Several references that highlighted the design and safety aspects of bikeway systems were reviewed for this por- tion of the study A review of the titles and subtitles should reveal that cyclists are not being considered the exclusive users of bicycle facilities These publications included comprehensive literature reviews, technical design criteria and case studies • Bicycle Transportation - A Guide for Cycling Transporta tion Engineers Second Edition, John Forester • Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Ameri- can Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) • Bicycle Blueprint - A Plan to Bring Bicycling into the Mainstream in New York City, Transportation Alternatives • Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety - A Review of Key Pro- grams and Countermeasure Developments During the 1980's, University of North Carolina Highway Research Safety Center • The National Bicycling and Walking Study Transporta tion Choices for a Changing Amenca U S Dept of Trans portation. Federal Highway Administration • Technical Handbook of Bikeway Design - Planning, De sign. Implementation, Second Edition, Velo Quebec, Ministere des Transports du Quebec 8 2 User Types and Capabilities Users can be classified using a number of critena in- cluding the cyclists' ages, their cycling experience and physical condition, for examples, to come up with a profile of the types of users expected to make use of a particular bikeway system Such a user classification is very useful for bikeway planning purposes 8 2 1 User Classification The Amencan Association of State Highway and Trans- portation Officials (AASHTO) is developing a revised edition of their widely used Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities A recently publicized excerpt from the new edition is a cyclist classification system designed to be used as a guide to assist in the selection of appro- priate facilities The classification system is as follows • Group A Advanced Bicyclists (Experienced) Group A bicyclists fall into two categories, commuting/utility and sports /touring • Croup B - Basic Bicyclists (casual, novice, occasional, recreational) • Group C Children (preteen) AASHTO estimates that only about 5% of the cycling population are experienced cyclists Though there are no data to support this estimate, this is probably accu rate enough for general use in the United States How- ever, north coastal San Diego County may have a con- siderably higher percentage of experienced cyclists than other areas ofthe country due to locally favorable topo- graphic, climatic and economic conditions The actual number of expenenced cyclists is probably not verifi able, but this likely higher percentage should be kept in mind during planning and design of any future bicycle facilities in Carlsbad They may be responsible for more than half of bicycle facility use during certain periods, especially along the coastal strip from communities north and south of Carlsbad Even so, it should be noted that the majority of cyclists are not experienced AASHTO states that, in most circumstances. Group B and Group C cyclists can be combined However, Group C cyclists are much more likely to ride almost daily, and especially to ride bicycles to and from schools dur- ing mornings and afternoons most ofthe year This would also include Group B teens The majority of Group B adult cyclists are more likely to ride on weekends and some evenings during the summer since they are more likely to be riding for recreation rather than for com- muting More importantly, the groups also tend to ride on different types of streets Group C cyclists tend to stay in residential areas, while Group B cyclists will tend to ride on busier streets if there is sufficient width and bike lanes Parents will usually not allow their young Safety Analysis children to ride on busy streets, even ones with bike lanes Group A cyclists are accustomed to riding on busy streets, with or without bike lanes Experience level tends to determine whether an adult is a Group A or Group B cyclist Perhaps one way to dis- tinguish between Group A and Group B cyclists is to observe where they wait for a signal to change at inter- sections Experienced, Group A cyclists tend to stay far enough to the left of the curb lane to allow nght turning motor vehicles to safely go by on their right When the I ight changes, they steer directly for the right side of the curb lane across the intersection This keeps them m direct view of motorists who are also proceeding straight through the intersection and gets them out of these motorists' path as quickly as possible Since the motor- ists are starting forward from a standstill, the risk of in- jury IS minimal Inexperienced, Group B cyclists tend to hug the curb, putting them at risk of vehicular traffic turning right across their paths Typical bicycle facility system users tend to reflect the AASHTO group categories, though individuals of differ ent groups may choose to ride together, such as when adult parents (Group B) ride with their children (Group C) This combination probably occurs frequently, espe- cially on weekends, but as the AASHTO study author said, these two groups can be combined, making them functionally one group For this study, bicyclists are classified by AASHTO group However, since it is likely that any Class 1 bicycle facil- ity will attract users other than cyclists, this study tends to regard bicycle paths as multi-use that will also be used by skaters, joggers, recreational and exercise walk- ers Experience has shown this to be the case, and un- less the numbers of users become excessive, this mixed use IS acceptable This mixing of uses tends to occur primarily on paths with relatively benign grades Expe- rienced cyclists who prefer to travel at higher speeds tend to avoid Class 1 facilities that attract other types of slower users in favor of less traveled, more challenging routes, mcluding those with significant hills, usually Class 2 or 3 (See Figure 8-1, User Classification ) 8 2 2 User Capabilities Typical user capabilities vary considerably depending on age, experience and physical conditioning Figure 8-1, Bikeway User Classification, summarizes the aver- age speeds and distances of which specific user types are generally capable Note that these averages vary widely within the cyclist groups, and within the non- cyclist user types Skaters' speeds closely approximate cyclist speeds, for instance, while recreational walkers move considerably slower than cyclists It should be noted that speed and maneuverability are inversely proportional Another crucial aspect of user capability is expenence, which can also be defined as knowledge of appropriate traffic behavior or roadway aptitude This factor is not as tangibly measured as physical capabilities, but it is no less important It can probably be assumed that Group A cyclists are far more knowledgeable about appropri- ate traffic conduct than other cyclists and are likely to be the most attentive users due to long term roadway expenence However,ibicycle facility design and plan- ning must also take into account the other end of the spectrum, meaning not only the much larger numbers of Group B and Group C cyclists, but also the skaters, joggers and walkers that are likely to use a facility These users can represent all levels of experience and, there- fore, all levels of roadway aptitude 8 3 Bicycle/Roadway Compatibility Analysis Another aspect of bicycle facility system safety is the compatibility of specific roadway configurations and roadway conditions with bicycling The existing bike- way system and other potential additions were reviewed for compatibility in terms of problems that have typi- cally been encountered in similar situations in other cit- ies and the specific problems encountered during field investigation in Carlsbad 8 3 1 Typical Roadway/Intersection Conflicts There are a number of different types of conflicts that can occur between motor vehicles and bicycles In many of the cases to be discussed in this section, fault lies with the motorist's failure to see and rightfully yield to the cyclist In other cases, some of these conflicts occur because the cyclist does not rightfully yield to the mo- tor vehicle In either case, the cyclist is bound to suffer the most from the encounter The first class of conflicts are those that occur while motor vehicles or bicycles are turning at intersections (See Figure 8-2, Controlled Intersection Conflicts ) Many of the scenarios illustrated in the graphic occur where vehicular turning motions catch cyclists unaware be- cause they assume the motorist sees them and expect the vehicle to yield The motorists involved in these sce- narios, in many cases, did not see the oncoming cy- clists or misjudged the cyclists' speed Many motorists that do not ride bicycles do not realize how fast a bi- cycle can go, nor that cyclists have equal vehicular rights and responsibilities under California law Note that several of these accident scenarios (C4-C7) occur at high speed large radius right turn intersections Safety experts generally agree that this configuration is not at all conducive to safe cycling or walking because It encourages motorists to maintain relatively high speeds Page 8 2 Chapter 8 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan BIKEWAY USER CLASSIFICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Typical Ages Preferred Facility Typical Usage Days per Speed Average Typical Origins Week Range Distance and Destinations OQ 6 16 Sidewalks, trails, quiet streets, flat terrain (Class I) Early weekday mornings and afternoons, weekends 5-6 4 8 mph 1 2 miles Residences, schools, parks, open space, retail centers 3 ^T- o < n Li 18 55 Streets, bike lanes, direct arterial routes (Class 11 & III) Early weekday mornings and late afternoons 4 6 10-20 mph 3-20 miles Family Recreational (AASHTO Group B/C) Weekends, occasional 1 early evenings 5 10 mph 2 4 miles Residences, parks, open space Family Recreational (AASHTO Group B/C) Adult Exercise (AASHTO Group B) ^LJI Quiet streets 25 65+ scenic trails Weekends, occasional •] 2 early evenings 8-15 mph 5 20 miles Residences, parks, open space, coastal routes Residences, employment centers, retail centers 18-55+ Arterials, flat or hilly circuitous routes (Class II & III) Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends 2 5 Residences 12-25 20-75 (Rides typically mph miles onginate or extend outside city) V) a; rs Mi 16 45 Quiet streets paved trails, flat terrain (Class I) Weekends, occasional early evenings 1 2 5 15 mph 2 5 miles Residences, schools, parks, coastal routes o A 18 55 Sidpwalks ^^'''y weekday bidewa ks mornings and , . scenic trai s, fla ^^^^ afternoons, ^ 6 terrain (Class I) weekends 5 9 mph 3 5 miles Residences, parks open space coastal routes re £ <« o res u re 16 70+ Sidewalks, Scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) Weekday mornings and late afternoons, weekends 2 5 3 5 mph 1-2 miles Residences, parks, retail centers, coastal routes 01 X UU > 16 70+ Sidewalks, scenic trails, flat terrain (Class I) Weekday mornings and late afternoons weekends 2 5 4-7 mph 2-4 miles Residences, parks, open space, coastal routes Chapter 8 Page 8 3 Safety Analysis CONTROLLED INTERSECTION CONFLICTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Cl • Vehicular right turn across bike lane C2 • Vehicular left turn from oncoming traffic C3 • Vehicular nght turn from perpendicular roadway C4 • Vehicular left turn into bicycle exiting a wide radius right turn C5 • Vehicular high speed right tum overtaking straight-through cyclist prior to intersection C6 • Inadequate high speed exit lane passing width C7 • Vehicular high speed right turn into cyclist at intersection Page 8-4 Chapter 8 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan entering and exiting the intersection This type of move- ment also encourages the motorist to pay attention to traffic approaching on the left, ignoring pedestrians or cyclists on the right This endangers cyclists both turn- ing or proceeding straight through the intersection This configuration is unsafe for walkers for the same reasons and because it creates a much wider crossing than a standard intersection Redesigning the islands to slow motor vehicle traffic or installing stop signs would im- prove both bicycle and pedestrian safety The second major class of conflicts are those that occur at points where motor vehicles can enter or exit the road- way at other than established intersections, such as at curb cuts or freeway ramps Once again, many of these Right turns across bike lanes are perhaps the most common safety problem These turns occur at intersections as well as non intersection curb cuts can occur when the motorist fails to see and yield to the cyclist (See Figure 8-3, Uncontrolled Non-Intersection Conflicts) These scenarios are similar to those that can occur at intersections, but those at freeway ramps can be even more devastating to the cyclist because the ve- hicle may be moving faster than it would at a controlled intersection Accidents can and do occur due to the neg- ligence of the cyclist, but of all six conflicts illustrated in this graphic, only the third one (U3) is most likely the fault of the cyclist The third class of conflicts are those that occur along roadway segments away from intersections Though the majority of accidents occur at intersections and they are generally the most severe, cyclists can and do get hurt on roadway segments away from intersections (See Figure 8-4, Roadway Segment Conflicts) Most of Carlsbad's arterials are ideal for cyclists in terms of curb lane widths and the limited number of curb cuts However, there is the possibility of a motor vehicle drifting into the bicycle lane at high speed, though this is extremely rare Note that three of these conflicts involve parked vehicles (R1-R3) Vehicular parking along bicycle routes is gen- erally unsatisfactory in terms of safety, but some types of parking are more problematic than others Vehicles illegally parked on the bicycle route itself (RI) or paral- lel parking with its inherent door opening conflicts (R3) are still probably not as dangerous as angled parking (R2) This IS because a motorist leaving an angled park- ing space IS unable to see the approaching cyclist due to the adjacent vehicles Conflict R5 (vehicle backing out of driveway) is very similar to R2 when on-street parking is present Finally, R5 (vehicle overtaking cy- clist with inadequate passing width) can occur on bndges where the roadway often narrows 8 3 2 Roadway Segment Suitability Equation A major project task was evaluating all the bicycle fa- cilities in Carlsbad for their suitability for cycling use The evaluation method was published in an American Angled parking adjacent to bike lanes creates a safety problem since leaving parking spaces requires the driver to back into the bike lane with a substantial blind spot Temporary stopping or parking in bike lanes is common in areas with limited parking such as along the beach Chapter 8 Page 8 5 Safety Analysis m UNCONTROLLED NON-INTERSECTION CONFLICTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Ul • Overtaking vehicle turning right into curb cut U2 • Vehicular right or left turn from curb cut across bike lane US • Bicycle left turn to curb cut U4 • Oncoming vehicle left turn to curb cut U5 • High speed vehicular merge lane from off-ramp U6 • High speed vehicular merge to on-ramp Page 8-6 Chapter 8 Carisbad Bikeway Master Plan ROADWAY m SEGMENT CONFLICTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN RI • Vehicles parked in bicycle lane R2 • Vehicle backing out of angled parking space R3 • Vehicle opening door or pulling out of parallel parking space R4 • Overtaking vehicle drifting into cyclist R5 • Vehicle backing out of driveway R6 • Vehicle overtaking cyclist with inadequate passing width Chapter 8 Page 8 7 Safety Analysis Society of Civil Engineenng (ASCE) journal that described an equation developed specifically to quantitatively rate roadway segment bicycle suitability Like conventional subjective evaluation methods, each route was first di- vided into segments based on how each section differed from those at either end of it For examples, changes in the number of lanes, the posted speed limit or the type of bicycle facility warranted designating a section of roadway as a segment Once the individual segments were designated, each was field surveyed by bicycle and at least once by car Specific observation items were recorded within each segment including the presence or absence of bicycle facilities, the posted speed limit, the number of travel lanes, the estimated outside lane width, and the pres- ence of specific paving and roadway conditions that could adversely affect cycling, such as rough paving or steep grades After the specific roadway segment observations were noted and compiled, they were incorporated into the equation designed to define each segments' suitability for cycling The observation items were plugged into the equation as coefficients which then yielded a nu- merical value that defined the cycling suitability of the particular roadway segment The equation is given be- low, followed by an explanation of the coefficients Cycling Suitability = ADT / (L x 2500) + S / 35 + (14 W) + PF + LF • ADT Average Daily Trips - Number of motor vehicles traveling both ways on a particular segment during an average 24 hour period Data acquired from SANDAG • L Travel lanes Number of travel lanes both ways • S Posted Speed Limit Posted vehicular speed limit • W Outside Lane Width Estimated curb lane width in feet coded as good (12' or greater) fair (11'), and inad equate (less than 11') • PF Pavement Factors - Subjective evaluation of local ized pavement problems such as cracks or potholes (See Figure 8-5, Roadway Segment Suitability Rating Example) • LF Location Factors Subjective evaluation of problems or advantages specific to location such as parallel park ing or paved shoulders (See Figure 8 5 Roadway Seg- ment Suitability Rating Example) The quantitative values represented by the first four vari- ables listed above had to be plugged into the equation in a specific manner and therefore had substantial ef- fects on the resulting calculations The last two vari- ables, pavement and location factors, were subjective and their values were simply added on at the end ofthe equation, giving them less weight than the other van ables in the results Even so, the equation was almost completely quantitative because even these last two variables were succinctly defined, generally by their presence or absence They contributed a positive or negative fractional number to the segment rating The lower the score a segment received, the better its bi- cycle suitability The numerical scores and their mean- ing are as follows • Excellent Less than 1 Extremely favorable for cycling • Good 1 to 4-Conducive to cycling, but with minor draw- backs Group A cyclists are generally not affected by these drawbacks • Fair 4 to 7 Marginal desirability for Group A cyclists Not recommended for Group B or C cyclists • Poor Greater than 7 - Generally not recommended for cycling The equation was tested on a number of different types of segments to verify a rating scale The equation's "quantitativeness" meant that it could be applied in southern California with minimal modification, even though it was developed in Georgia The modifications that were made involved adding factors specific to Carlsbad or removing others specific to Georgia Once verified, the observation values from all segments were incorporated into the GIS data base for Carlsbad to produce a roadway map coded by cycling suitability (See Figure 8-5 for an example of the rating forms Appendix A contains rating forms for all segments evaluated ) Assuming certain variables such as expected ADT, for example, could be fixed in advance, it is possible that the suitability of future roadways could be predicted using this equation 8 3 3 Roadway Segment Suitability Analysis The roadway segment analysis generated a map por- traying Carlsbad's major roadways in terms of bicycle suitability It was evaluated in comparison to field ex- perience and questionnaire responses (See Figure 8-6, Roadway Segment Suitability) The majority of Carlsbad's major roadway segments re- ceived a "fair" rating, followed by a significant number rated as "good" and a few rated as "poor" Only one short segment received a rating of "excellent " This rat- ing reflects the scoring method that weighted the model results toward the middle of the scale Carlsbad's exist- ing roadways actually fared quite well when rated by this bicycling suitability model The primary reason that the vast majority of Carlsbad's major roadways received a rating of "fair" in the bicy- cling suitability model was not that there is something fundamentally or physically wrong with most of the city's Page 8-8 Chapter 8 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan ROADWAY SEGMENT SUITABILITY RATING EXAMPLE CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADT/(L X 2500) + S/35 + (14 - W) + PF + LF Street Cannon Road Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1, II or III 2 2 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 35 35 35 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 7400 1 7400 8900 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 2 4 1 4 Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width good (12 ) fair (11') or inadequate (<11') 11 12 12 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 / / / Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Total Pavement Factor Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / / Total Location Factor 0 25 05 0 25 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 0 25 0 5 Segment Bicycling Suitability** 5 48 3 49 4 39 •Bicycle Suitability Rating = ADT/(L x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF "Excellent = less than 1 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 1 to 4 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 4 to 7 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = greater than 7 (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Chapter 8 Page 8 9 Safety Analysis bikeways It is that many of these arterials that were rated as "fair" also have fairly high motor vehicle vol- umes and speeds The equation used to construct the bicycling suitability model rightfully places the traffic volume and speed coefficients in positions that have significant impact on the model results 8.4 Site-Specific Analysis As useful as the suitability model is for determining roadway segment suitability for cycling, it can not ad- dress every concern, including the many forms that site-specific problems can take and that are almost always present in any existing bikeway system The site-specific problems encountered in Carlsbad were not numerous, but were detrimental enough to a safe bicycle facility system to warrant special attention It should be reiterated that having such problems is not unique Every city is different and virtually any city has similar problem sites or has different types of prob- lem sites that are similarly detrimental to maintaining a safe cycling environment Since employing the suitability model had already high- lighted specific segment problems, three problem in- tersections were singled out for further analysis The vast majority of intersections do not pose a threat to competent cyclists in Carlsbad However, personal experience and field work revealed three that posed special challenges, even for experienced cyclists, and required further analysis Segments of Rancho Santa Fe Road have very limited widths with no lane markings The raised curb tends to decrease the available space for cyclists and restricts their ability to get off the road quickly if a driver does not provide sufficient space Roadway widths tend to decrease at bridge crossings and high curbs make marginal lanes even narrower This bridge over 1-5 was recently rebuilt and upgraded, but similar bikeway situations still exist on other bridges in Carlsbad On street parking and no roadway shoulders combine to make Avenida Encinas a bike unfriendly road •f * There are few routes crossing I 5 appropriate for cyclists This photo of Carlsbad Village Drive shows how little curb width IS available approaching 1-5 Page 8-10 Chapter 8 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan ROADWAY SEGMENT SUITABILITY CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Figure 8-6 Ufoon July 2001 1 Miles Chapter 8 Page 8-11 Carisbad Bikeway Master Plan 8 4 1 Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street This intersection configuration was the result of numerous factors working against each that created an unsafe bicycling situation The factors include the juxtaposition of a grid street pattern intersecting a curvilinear coastal highway route close to where it was necessary to bridge the coastal highway over a rail right of-way (See Figure 8-7, Site-Specific Conflicts State Street/Carlsbad Boulevard ) For northbound cyclists on Carlsbad Boulevard, the danger is not so much being struck by a car, but vice versa The cyclist is moving at a fairly high speed approaching the intersection after coming down off the bridge over the rail line and must watch for southbound motor vehicles turning left onto State Street These motor vehicles have a yield sign, not a stop, and the drivers can misjudge the cyclists' speed This IS exacerbated by the speed that experienced cyclists can attain on this grade and the number of serious cyclists who use this route as a training ride The northbound cyclist also wants to move over to the relative safety ofthe curb lane as soon as possible This IS difficult because of the blind intersection conditions created by the acute angle ofthe State Street merge lane, and exacerbated by the planting and structures blocking the cyclist's and motorist's views of each other (See #1 in Figure 8-7) For southbound cyclists on Cadsbad Boulevard wanting to turn left onto State Street, the situation is reversed They must contend with high speed motor vehicles in a rela- tively short vertical and horizontal sight distance situation as the vehicles come over the rail bridge and down to- ward the intersection There is sufficient room to wait for the proper moment to make the left turn, but the cyclists must also be concerned about drivers approaching from behind who know that they have oniy to yield, not to stop (See #2 in Figure 8-7) The intersection of State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard is an especially difficult one for cyclists Potential solutions include the following 1 Reroute northbound cyclists onto State Street prior to the intersection at a nearby cross street, such as at Grand Avenue 2 Re-stripe northbound Cadsbad Boulevard and the northbound State Street approach at the current merge point in a manner that would allow for the installation of stop sign control for northbound State Street traffic The introduction of a stop sign at a location where there was previously free movement should always be done with extreme caution and plenty of prior notice In many instances, a red flashing light is placed in advance of the new stop sign for a period of time until local users of the road become accustomed to the new traffic control 3 Re-stripethe southbound Carlsbad Boulevard left turn lane channelization (short bike lane positioned next to the yield sign) to provide a place of sanctuary for cy- clists waiting to tum left onto State Street out of the path of motorists also turning left 4 Reconfigure the intersection into a "T" arrangement The new intersection may be signalized, but a stop sign at northbound State Street is probably sufficient consid- enng local traffic volumes Poor judgement of a cyclist s speed down this hill by a motorist turning left onto State Street from southbound Carlsbad Boulevard could result in a failure to yield situation and collision 8 4 2 Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive The problems specific to this intersection and the im- mediate vicinity are numerous They include lack of bicycle facilities, high vehicular traffic volumes, a large number of curb cuts, narrow lanes over the 1-5 bndge, and the close proximity of a perpendicularly intersect- ing street (Pio Pico Drive) to an interstate highway on- ramp (See Figure 8-8, Site-Specific Conflicts Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive) Chapter 8 Page 8-13 Safety Analysis SITE-SPECIFIC CONFLICTS STATE STREET/CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN 1 • Cyclists northbound on Carlsbad Boulevard and northbound vehicular traffic from State Street merging with Carlsbad Boulevard have poor visibility of each other due to a blind corner situation created by the acute angle of the intersection occupied by a building, large plant material and signage The added lane puts northbound cyclists on Carlsbad Boulevard in the middle of motor vehicle traffic The lane also means that northbound motorists entering from State Street do not have to slow at all for this intersection because they have their own lane to enter and do not have to merge with the traffic in the lane from Carlsbad Boulevard The situation is compounded by the northbound cyclists' high speed descent from the railway bridge overcrossing immediately south of the intersection, combined with the cyclists' desire to move over to the relative safety of the right curb as soon as possible 2 • It is a difficult lane change transition for cyclists southbound on Carlsbad Boulevard to cross over to State Street because they are forced to cross the northbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard to get to State Street at an intersection controlled by a yield sign affecting southbound traffic only Vehicular traffic is fairly high here, and there is no traffic signal close enough to the north of this intersection to cause cars to group together so that cyclists could cross more easily between groups of cars Page 8 14 Chapter 8 Carisbad Bikeway Master Plan The close proximity of the Pio Pico Drive/Tamarack Av- enue intersection to the 1-5 on-ramp from Tamarack Av- enue IS the mam problem which the others problems sim- ply exacerbate Because the on-ramp is so close to where Pio PICO Drive intersects with Tamarack Avenue and ap- pears to be adequate for merging, motorists may make the right turn (westbound) from Pio Pico Drive directly to the 1-5 on-ramp without making certain there are no cy- clists approaching westbound on Tamarack Avenue Potential solutions include the following 1 Tamarack Avenue's physical roadway width will not allow for a westbound bike lane The current striping configuration of southbound Pio Pico Drive provides sufficient width for vehicles turning right onto Tama- rack Avenue to pass to the right of other vehicles wait- ing (for the green light) to turn left This side by-side positioning further impairs the ability of motonsts turn- ing right to see approaching cyclists If the southbound Pio Pico Drive approach was re-striped (narrowed), it There are no Class 2 facilities on Tamarack Avenue where it crosses I 5 Curb cuts, on ramps and high traffic volume makes this a difficult roadway segment for cyclists 5>^S%.„ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The freeway type intersection at Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard creates difficult merges across high speed traffic for cyclists would likely improve the situation, but would not solve the problem of inattentive motorists 2 Another more effective measure, which unfortunately would increase vehicle delays, involves the prohibition of right turns from Pio Pico Dnve during the red light phase A more detailed study would be needed to de- termine if the added traffic delay during peak periods would result in an unacceptable level of service 8 4 3 Carisbad Blvd /Palomar Airport Road This intersection is particularly complicated for all us- ers, cyclists and motorist alike Its complexity derives from Its design using highway standards intended to avoid motor vehicle delays and stopping as much as possible It was not built with other types of users in mind (See Figure 8-9, Site-Specific Conflicts Cadsbad Boulevard/Palomar Airport Road) The result is multiple instances of commonly occurring problems These in elude high speed merge lanes where cyclists must watch out for motor vehicfe traffic approaching from the rear or the side, depending upon whether the cyclist is do ing the merging or is proceeding straight through the intersection (See #1 in Figure 8-9) Another problem is the high speed off-ramps that force cyclists to watch for motor vehicles attempting to turn right either in front or behind cyclists that are proceed ing straight through the intersection This situation oc- curs at three points within this configuration (See #2 in Figure 8-9) This intersection also has two very narrow bridges with high curbs that could pose a hazard by catching a cyclist's pedals (See #3 in Figure 8-9) No matter what the cyclists' destination after passing through this inter- section, cyclists must pass through one or more of the Bridges over the rail line at Palomar Airport Road and at Poinsettia Lane and the braided ramps of Carlsbad Boulevard are narrow and bike lanes end abruptly Raised curb heights also contribute to limited bike travel lane area Chapter 8 Page 8 15 Safety Analysis SITE-SPECIFIC CONFLICTS TAMARACK AVENUE/PIO PICO DRIVE CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN 1 • Inadequate distance between Pio Pico Drive/Tamarack Avenue intersection and 1-5 on-ramp Because the on-ramp is so close to Pio Pico Drive and appears adequate for merging, motorists may make the right turn from Pio Pico to 1-5 on-ramp without due regard for other traffic, mcluding cyclists 2 • Tamarack Avenue narrow on bridge over 1-5 3 • High concentration of intersections and curb cuts in this area There are no bicycle facilities here, either The combination of curb cuts, high levels of vehicular traffic and lack of bicycle facilities create unsatisfactory conditions for cycling Page 8 16 Chapter 8 Carisbad Bikeway Master Plan SfTE-SPEGFIC CONFLICTS G^R[^BAD BLVDTPALOMARAIRPORT RD CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN This "intersection" is actually designed to highway interchange standards intended to minimize motor vehicle delays It is, in general, not conducive to bicycling safety because of the high motor vehicular speeds and the following problems High speed merge lanes occur at several locations around this intersection, forcing cyclists to watch for high speed motor vehicles approaching from the rear or side High speed off-ramps occur at three locations, forcing cyclists proceeding straight (2) through to watch for high speed motor vehicle traffic approaching from the rear and attempting to weave m front of or behind cyclists to reach the off-ramp The two bridges on Palomar Airport Road are narrow and lack bicycle facilities ^ The curbs are high, as well, creating the potential for catcning pedals Chapter 8 Page 8-17 Safety Analysis situations described above Though this intersection is slated for realignment into a typical "J" configuration, this IS not likely to occur for some time Potential interim solutions include the following 1 Provide an alternative route for less experienced cyclists However, the nearest alternative east-west routes are well south at Poinsettia Lane where the bridge over the rail line IS also narrow with high curbs, and north at Cannon Road The nearest parallel route is Avenida Encinas In the long term, the Coastal Rail Trail would provide a viable alternative route to bypass this intersection 2 Place stop signs at the merge ramps onto eastbound Palomar Airport Road The other two merge points could only be improved by providing a short bike path prior to the merge point that would permit cyclists to cross the merging lane at a right angle 8 5 User Questionnaire Response and Analysis User questionnaires are often employed in master plan- ning projects to take advantage of the knowledge and experience of local residents A user questionnaire was developed specifically for this project to gather infor- mation on user demographics, user satisfaction with the current bicycle facility system, user facility preferences and to determine where users felt new facilities were needed (See page 8-23 ) The questionnaire was distributed through local bicycle shops and the City of Carlsbad Community Develop- ment Services counter It was also mailed to members of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition who live in Carlsbad and surrounding cities The questionnaires were postage-paid to encourage user response (Note that if the percentages for many of the responses to the following questions were added up, they would total more than 100% This is because the instructions to the respondents were to select all answers that they felt ap- plied to them Therefore, percentages are given based on the number of respondents who selected a particular answer divided by the total number of respondents (See Figure 8-10, Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Questionnaire) The first section of the questionnaire gathered conven- tional demographic information about the bicycle sys- tem users in Carlsbad It included questions about resi- dency, age, reasons for cycling, frequency of cycling, typical destinations, and the average distance ridden The responses to question #1 indicated that 35% were Carlsbad residents, 24% were from Oceanside, 6% each from Vista, San Marcos and Encinitas and the remain- der split between Del Mar, San Diego, Poway and Escondido In responses to question #2, approximately 70% of the respondents described themselves as be- tween the ages of 40 and 59, 30% were between 19 and 39 years old, and 6% were between the ages of 13 and 18 The average respondent's age was 45 years old Respondents were asked to select from a list of types of cycling they engaged in for question #3 All the types were selected in varying numbers in the following or- der recreation (82%), exercise (59%), transportation to/ from work (47%), training for competition (35%), so- cial cycling (29%), transportation for shopping or er- rands (24%), and transportation to/from school (12%) The number of respondents using their bicycles as trans- portation to and from school appeared to be low, but this IS probably due to the relatively high average age (45) of the respondents and the method of distribution of the questionnaire Question #5 asked about typical destinations The re- sults indicate that many respondents commute because the highest percentage (70%) of respondents selected "destination beyond Carlsbad " The other choices were as follows beaches (41%), no destination/loop ride (35%), employment centers (29%), shopping centers (24%), parks/sports facilities (18%), and schools or li- braries (6%) Under the "other" category, another 6% wrote in "off-road " The responses to question #6 indicated that the most popular time to ride by far was weekend mornings (75%) and the least popular was weekend evenings (12%) The remainder of the responses were fairly evenly distrib- uted across the week, ranging from 35% for weekday mid-days to 47% for weekday mornings and evenings The final question of this series (#7) asked for the aver- age distance covered in the respondent's rides The re- sults definitely reflect more experienced cyclists The most popular choice was more than 25 miles (70%), followed by 11-24 miles (29%) and 6-10 miles (6%) It IS noteworthy that no one selected any answer below 6 miles This is another example of the high average cy- cling experience of the respondents The next set of questions probed the respondent's attitude concerning cycling in Cadsbad and their specific cycling experiences, not just in Carlsbad It included questions about what prevented the respondent from riding more often, how satisfied the respondent was with current bikeway maintenance in Cadsbad, any involvement in cycling accidents, bikeway facility preferences and specific bikeway facility concerns Page 8-18 Chapter 8 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Oceanside Using a colored pen or pencil^ please show us 1 where you live 2 Typical destination points of your rides 3 The routes you use most often 4 The routes you avoid 5 where you would like additional routes 6 Any locations with dangerous traffic, roadway or speed conditions San Marcos Existing Major Roads with Bike Facilities Future Major Roads with Bike Facilities Future Major Roads without Bike Facilities Existing Minor Roads without Bike Facilities Rail Line and Transit Stations Chapter 8 Page 8 19 Safety Analysis Question #8 asked what prevented the respondent from nding more The most commonly selected response was "trips take too long, can't afford the time," (53%), followed by "lack of safe/direct bikeways," (29%) The remainder ofthe choices received uniformly small response rates of zero to 6% Question #9 asked how satisfied the respondents were with the current bikeway maintenance in Carlsbad The results were very favorable with the majority saying they were very satisfied (35%) or somewhat satisfied (41%) The choices of somewhat unsatisfied or very unsatisfied received only one response each This question also had space for comments The problems mentioned included debris such as glass and dirt in the bikeway, landscape maintenance vehicles blocking the cyclist's path, and road maintenance and construction Question #10 asked whether the respondents had been involved in any cycling accidents in the past five years It did not inquire about location, but did ask for a brief descnption ofthe incident Of the 24% ofthe respondents that had been in an accident, all but one involved a motor vehicle and all of those said their accidents were caused by the dnver The one exception was a cyclist who was hit by a loose skateboard The motor vehicle/bicycle accidents included hitting a car door suddenly opened into the cyclist's path, an illegal motor vehicle u-turn across the cyclist's path, a motor vehicle pulling out into cyclist's path, and a motor vehicle turning right across the cyclist's path In this case, even though the cyclist had just passed the motor vehicle at the previous intersection and was wearing bright clothing and was riding with lights, the motor vehicle dnver turned in front of the cyclist without slowing, signaling or easing into the bicycle lane Question #11 asked what type of bikeway facilities were preferred The majority (53%) preferred Class 2 "bicycle lanes," followed closely by Class 1 "bicycle paths," (47%) The next selections was "trails/single track dirt paths," (35%) followed by a tie between "modified Class 1 (multi- use trail)" and "off-highway dirt roads," (12%) No one selected Class 3 "bicycle routes-signed only" Question #12 included a list of facility problems and asked respondents to select al I those that concerned them most The ten choices received 6 to 59% response rates in the following order beginning with the most frequently selected narrow roadways (59%), streets with high speed vehicular traffic (47%), parked cars on street (47%), high speed off-ramps and merge lanes (41%), high speed right turns for vehicles (24%), roadway hazards such as grates or poor lighting (24%), high number of mid-block curb cuts or dnveways (12%) and high number of mid-block left turns from oncoming traffic (12%) The final question asked respondents to select from a list of 11 potential improvements that would convince them to commute or ride more often The most often selected Item was wider streets (47%) This was followed by three Items that tied at41% more Class 2 (striped lanes) along safe streets, more Class 1 (separate pathways) connecting parks, schools, activity centers and workplaces, and bicycle sensitive loops in intersections The remainder of the responses were selected by 6 to 29% of the respondents Several respondents also included comments concerning educating motorists and better enforcement of existing traffic laws One respondent suggested improvements in urban planning to emphasize mixed uses containing housing and employment The questionnaire also asked for general written comments Among them were requests for more Class 1 and mixed-use off-road trails and information concerning where to legally ride off-road in Carlsbad, better pavement patching, provision of more bicycle racks and lockers at employment and entertainment centers and the construction ofthe rail trail to San Diego One respondent said that "unaware dnvers" were the greatest problem confronting cyclists Finally, in addition to written comments, the respondents were also instructed to review a city map on the back of the questionnaire and to annotate it with the routes most often used, the routes they tended to avoid and why, where new routes were desirable, and specific locations with dangerous traffic or roadway conditions This data- gathering technique proved to be very useful, particulady in determining where the respondents felt that problems existed within the Carlsbad system They were able to pinpoint problem locations much more accurately than if they had only been able to describe them in words This was especially true of roadway segments that respondents felt were not conducive to cycling, either because of excessive motor vehicle speeds, lack of bicycle facilities or limited width Figure 8-11, Questionnaire Response Summary, represents a compilation of the problem areas that respondents noted on their questionnaire maps One point of interest was that though the respondents did not propose any new on-street routes, several respondents did indicate off-road routes they were currently using or would like to see designated as official routes Finally, since questionnaire responses and comments mentioned specific roadway segments with problems, it was enlightening to compare the questionnaire summary denved from the annotated maps and wntten comments to the suitability model results There was a considerable amount of concurrence, meaning that the suitability model did generally assign low ratings to roadway segments that the respondents felt had problems Page 8-20 Chapter 8 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan m QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE SUMMARY CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Oceanside Oceanside San Marcos LEGEND Angled Vehicular Parking Narrow Underpasses (3) No Facilities/Numerous Parked Cars (4) Narrow Bridges/On and Off Ramps (5) Inadequate On-ramps (6) Narrow Roadway Segments mmm High Speed Vehicular Traffic 1111 Steep Grades smms "Unofficial" Off-road Routes in current use Chapter 8 Page 8 21 Safety Analysis CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE The Oty of Carlsbad is formulating a bikeway master plan lour answen to Ihe following questions will provide vilal infoimation lor this plan Vou may check more than one box where appropnate After completing these questions please mark up the map on the back of this sheet Finally please fold and tape this questionnaire shut and drop il in ihe mail soon If you have any questions or need more copies of this questionnaire please call Sieve JanQ of Ihe City of Carlsbad (438 Mil ext 4354) or Nike Singleton of KTU+t (4S2 2828) Thank you I Where do you live? D Carlsbad • San Marcos • Oceanside • Encinitas • Vista • Other 3 What types of cycling do you engage in? n Recreation D Transportation to/fhom work D Social cycling D Transportation to/from school D Exercise O Transportation to shopping / errands D Training for competition • Other 5 What are your typical destinations? D Schools or library • Employment centers • Beaches • Shopping centers • Parte / sports facilities • Destination beyond Carlsbad • Other _ 2 What age group are you in? • 5 12 0 40 59 • 13 18 • 60andabove • 19 39 4 How often do you nde in Carlsbad? • Daily • Weekly • Monthly • No destination loop nde only 6 When do you typically nde? [H Weekday mornings • Weekend mornings • Weekday mid days • Weekend mid-days • Weekday evenings LJ Weekend evenings 7 Average distance of your nde? Q Under 2 miles D 11 24 miles • 3 5 miles • 6 10 miles 8 What prevents you from riding nnore often? D Tnps too far can t physically handle D Poor bikeway / street maintenance D Tnps take too long can t afford the time D Unreli^le weather or darkness • Lack of safe / direct bikeways • Can t carry parcels / packs 9 How satisfled are you with current bikeway maintenance in Carlsbad^ n Very satisfied [3 Somewhat unsatisfied D Somewhat satisfied D Very unsatisfied D 25 and above O Change of clothing / shower D Not interested in commuting • other If a problem list specifics below- 10 Have you been involved in a cycling accident m the past five years? O no [D yes (If yes bnefly descnoe the circumstances of the accident Include the type of road or bike facility w^ere it occurred type{s) of vehicles involved if pedestrians were involved and the seventy of injunes or any roadway design factors that have contnbuted to the KCtdent) What type of bike facility would you prefer to use? n Class 1 trail separated from streets for exclusive use of cyclists (8 16 width) D Modified Qass I multnpurpose 'U'ail for bikes pedestnans joggers and skaters D Class 11 stnped bike lanes on streets (4 6 width) D Oass III routes only marked by silage • Off Highway dirt roads • Trails single track dirt paths 12 What conditions or facility problems concern you most? D Streets with high speed vehicular traffic iZl Streets wrth high volume of vehicular traffic D Narrow width roadways D Parked cars on street n High number of curbcuts or drivewa/s midblock betv/een intersections D High number of mid block left tums from oncoming vehicles D High speed nght tums for vehicles [Zl High speed off ramps and merge lanes D Poor pDad maintenance and debris Q Roadway hazards grates and poor lighting • Other 13 Would you commute or nde more often if D More Class 11 (stnped lanes) were available along safe streets n Qass I pathways were available connecting parks schools activity centers and vrarkplaces D Bike facilities connected with transit centers (bus or commuter rail) D Employment areas provided showers and lockers D Employers offered incentives D Streets were generally wider D Low vehicular volume streets were more interconnected across the community D Streets contained medians thereby limiting left turns in front of cyclists D Streets were better maintained n Intersections included bike sensitive loop detectors for control of left tum and through traffic signals • Other Any additional comments are welcome Thank you for participating in this study and remember to mark up the map on the back of this sheet and send it in Page 8-22 Chapter 8 Carlsbad's extensive existing bikeway system provides an excellent foundation for further expansion of the bicycle facilities The system is currently heavily weighted toward Class 2 facilities to take advantage of the arterials built throughout the city Partly because of the preponderance of Class 2 facilities, the opportunities considered below would employ Class 1 facilities Some of the issues discussed in the following sections possess positive attributes, such as the rail right-of-way for example 91 Coastal Rail Trail Opportunities The Coastal Rail Trail is a proposed multi-use trail that will run along the existing rail right-of-way between Oceanside and downtown San Diego passing through all coastal cities It represents an opportunity to provide a regional bicycle facility that can also anchor an extensive and scenic Class 1 bicycle system looping around the lagoons and across the City of Carlsbad However, detouring the rail trail onto the adjacent streets may be necessary until a planned second trackway is built The present rail bridges over the lagoons will not accommodate bicycle facilities in their current configuration Only when this second trackway is built, along with the bridges capable of supporting a trail, would the rail trail be entirely within the rail right-of-way and be able to avoid city streets altogether Until then, the rail trail would need to be at least partially on the streets and partially on reconstructed bridges 9 2 Oceanside-Escondido Rail Trail Opportunity This rail trail will run along the existing rail right-of-way from Oceanside to Escondido passing through Vista and San Marcos It will provide a regional bicycle facility connection for Carlsbad because it will be linked with Carlsbad via the Coastal Rail Trail just north of Carlsbad in Oceanside The Coastal Rail Trail would provide a direct, scenic, and convenient link to the Oceanside- Escondido Rail Trail Other connections to the Oceanside-Escondido Rail Trail (from the northern end of Carlsbad across a small portion of Oceanside) are possible, but this may be problematic due to the topography in Oceanside south of the rail trail and the lack of safe crossing points over SR 78 leading into Oceanside The only cJirect connection to the Oceanside-Escondido Rail Trail from Carlsbad other than via El Camino Real would be via the proposed Coastal Rail Trail itself 9 3 Lagoons The lagoons and their drainages can provide relatively level locations for scenic, off-street bicycle facilities Their east-west orientation makes them ideal for connecting the coastal strip's bicycle facilities with those in the central portion of the city Though they could probably be considered primarily for recreational cyclists, implementation of routes continuing eastward of the lagoons would benefit the commuting cyclists of Carlsbad as well These routes could largely bypass the current Class 2 arterials with their steep grades This would make them desirable for both recreational and commuting cyclists 9 4 Future Street Additions and Extensions with Bicycle Facilities Virtually all programmed arterials within the City of Carlsbad are planned to include Class 2 bicycle facilities When this road and bicycle facility development is complete as planned, it will provide a comprehensive network of Class 2 routes throughout the city, closing many of the current gaps that may prevent more bicycle travel Many experienced cyclists prefer on-street facilities and they should find that the finished on-street system will provide ample and adequate routes for transportational cycling 9 5 Other Proposed Trails A number of unpaved trails are proposed for development in the open space areas within the city (See Figure 4-3, Existing and Programmed Trail Systems) These trails would provide primarily east-west connections in areas with little planned development This is likely to make them attractive to cyclists as well, and just as off-street Class 1 bicycle paths tend to become multi-use facilities, it is likely that trails will be affected the same way It may be inadvisable to designate specific trails as either bicycle or pedestrian facilities since enforcement will be difficult Referring to all trails as "multi-use" facilities will probably be sufficient to advise users that they should expect different types of users Unless congestion reaches unacceptable levels, mixed-use trails generally function quite well 9 6 Prioritized Safety Issues The study questionnaire revealed that the respondents' primary concerns were about safety Most often mentioned were limited roadway widths, parked cars on streets, high speed vehicular traffic and high speed off-ramps and merge lanes Field experience indicates that general safety priorities should include adequate roadway widths over freeway and rail line bridges, as well as the elimination of angled vehicular parking Other priorities should include the three specific problem intersections described in Section 8 4, (Site-Specific Analysis) Opportunities and Issues Summary A 9.7 Connectivity Issues The overall configuration of the City of Carlsbad is a series of separated neighborhoods distributed across the city limits Currently, topographic constraints and limited bicycle facilities somewhat restnct transportation between these neighborhoods In many cases, bicycle transportation means riding on high speed, high volume arterials when traveling any distance east-west or north- south This IS partially due to the fact that many of Carlsbad's major streets have not yet been completed, and may not be built for some time to come The intracity traffic naturally converges on the existing arterials, where the existing bicycle facilities are also located It should be reiterated that the primary reason that the majority of Carlsbad's major roadways received a rating of only "fair" in the bicycling suitability model is that many of the arterials that have bike lanes also have fairly high motor vehicle volumes and speeds and the bicycling suitability equation's coefficients for traffic volume and speed have significant impact on the outcome of the model A second connectivity issue is the rail line between Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue Though it traverses some of Carlsbad's most densely populated areas, no streets cross the tracks between Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue and access to the rail right-of-way is prohibited There are some illegal crossing points in regular use now, but they are convenient to pedestrians, not cyclists Finally, like many cities, the interstate highway presents significant problems in terms of connectivity The limited number of crossing points forces cyclists to plan east-west trips based on their locations Even then, where underpasses and overpasses do provide access, the roadway is often narrow and cyclists using it are confronted with motor vehicles making their way to and from high speed vehicular off and on-ramps 9 8 Connectivity Opportunities Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail and the city's programmed roadways would create more opportunities to develop an improved bikeway system in Carlsbad Specifically, designating Chestnut Avenue as a bikeway and providing an access across the rail right-of-way would create another east-west connection through the largest residential section of Carlsbad, creating a connection between the coast and El Camino Real Chestnut Avenue IS also a good candidate for an east-west connection because it bypasses 1-5 via an existing underpass specifically for Chestnut Avenue The underpass provides no access to i-5, meaning there are no vehicular on-ramps or off-ramps to contend with at this location (See Figure 10-5, Proposed Bikeway System Conceptual Linkages) The Chestnut Avenue rail crossing is the only one recommended by NCTD Other major crossing points observed during field work occur at State Street, Oak Avenue, Chinquapin Avenue, at the SDG&E Encinas power plant and just south of Palomar Airport Road The crossing at State Street would be accommodated by programmed trail development along the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon The SDG&E power plant crossing would be replaced by a proposed east-west trail at Cannon Road connecting to the Coastal Rail Trail A crossing at Chinquapin Avenue would create a direct connection between an existing east-west Class 2 facility with a safe overcrossing of 1-5 and with the rail trail and the coastal corridor The observed Oak Avenue crossing IS probably not needed since it is so close to the Carlsbad Village Station The observed Palomar Airport Road crossing location is probably not a safe crossing location Instead, an additional crossing is proposed at Manzano Drive just north of Palomar Airport Road This location would provide a safer crossing that also would help to direct users from crossing at Palomar Airport Road 9 9 Projected Bicycle Facility Demand The respondents to the questionnaire distributed for this study felt that the city's bikeway facilities were generally physically sufficient The pnmary concerns with existing facilities were generally about limited roadway widths, parked cars on streets and high speed vehicular traffic The provision of showers and bicycle lockers at employment centers was commonly mentioned, as well as adequate bicycle lockers at transit centers However, the most common request for additional facili ties was for off-street facilities such as dirt roads and single- track trails that connect parks, schools, activity centers and workplaces This may be due to a desire to avoid motor vehicle traffic in general, a desire for more experi- ence of open space, or a reflection of the still growing popularity of mountain bikes There appears to be signifi cant demand for informal dirt trails within the city and implementation of the city's programmed trail systems should address much of this off-street demand Such trails would primarily serve recreational users since most commuters will prefer to ride on paved surfaces Page 9 2 Chapter 9 Based on the previous chapters of this master plan, this chapter describes the general bikeway system improve- ments recommended for the City of Carlsbad The following recommendations are intended to take advantage of programmed roadways, bicycle facilities and trails to resolve cyclists' concerns for safety and connec- tivity The City of Carlsbad has an almost complete sys- tem of Class 2 bikeways along its major roadways, and plans to install Class 2 facilities on the as-yet unbuilt road- ways as well Implementation of the programmed major roadways will provide greater choice in Class 2 routes between relatively isolated sections of Carlsbad Full implementation of the programmed Class 2 facilities would provide a relatively complete Class 2 system Short but important gaps in the system now occur, es- pecially on the bridges over highways and rail lines where the roadways tend to narrow significantly Two such potentially important gaps are the crossings of Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane over the coastal rail line (See Figure 4-2, Existing and Pro- grammed Bicycle Facilities ) However, the widening of both bridges has now been added to the list of pro- grammed facilities and both will then accommodate Class 2 bicycle facilities While the northern portion of Carlsbad will have a suf- ficient number of points to cross 1-5, the programmed plans do not include many rail line crossings Crossings at Chestnut Avenue and Chinquapin Avenue would help to alleviate the connectivity issues for this area Carlsbad has no Class 1 facilities, but the potential ex- ists for creating a Class 1 trail system throughout the city (See Figure 10-5, Proposed Bikeway Facility Map ) Figure 10-5 is a map of proposed routes that would fa- cilitate cycling throughout Carlsbad Since Carlsbad al- ready has an extensive Class 2 system, a substantial amount of land designated as open space and no Class 1 routes, most ofthe new routes shown on the map are Class 1 trails 10 1 Proposed Bikeway Facility Map The facilities shown on the Proposed Bikeway Facility Map (See Figure 10-5) represent a number of types rang- ing from Class 1 bikeways to improvements in intermodal connections to benefit bicycle commuting The following sections describe these bikeway compo- nents in detail 10 2 Class 3 Facilities Class 3 bikeways (often called bike routes) are not striped as bike lanes, but are identified by signage and shown on bikeway maps They are recommended for residen- tial streets where motor vehicle traffic volumes are low, for streets where right-of-way restrictions prevent the installation of a Class 2 facility and for rural routes where upgrading to Class 2 facilities is not warranted due to the expense of right-of-way acquisition and construc- tion costs versus the projected volume of bicycle use Since bicycles are permitted on all highways (except for some freeways), the decision to sign a route should be based on the advisability of encouraging bicycle traf- fic on the route In addition, destination signing of Class 3 routes is advisable where the route covers consider- able distances, or provides access to a number of differ- ent neighborhoods or destination points Class 3 facilities are routes designated by signage only, without street stnping Their primary purpose is to cre- ate local or neighborhood street connections between Class 2 facilities They are used on roadway segments where bicycle traffic volumes are not large enough to warrant roadway striping and designation as Class 2 fa- cilities, but the segment fulfills the primary purpose just mentioned They are commonly employed in residen- tial areas and to access schools However, they should only be employed on roadway segments with low ADTs and posted speeds Carlsbad has some Class 3 facilities, but several road- way segments are currently listed withm the SANDAG data base as parts of "proposed routes" and "existing undesignated routes" that could be upgraded to Class 3 One possible Class 3 includes Las Flores Dnve, sec- tions of Highland Road, Chinquapin Avenue, Adams Street, Highland Drive and Park Drive (See Figure 10- 5, Proposed Bicycle Facilities) These six roadway seg- ments form a contiguous link between northwestern Carlsbad near Buena Vista Lagoon and north central Carlsbad near Agua Hedionda Lagoon to near El Camino Real This proposed Class 3 facility would also link pro- posed trails along the shores of these two lagoons and provide an attractive route through the residential neigh- borhoods east of 1-5 and then along Agua Hedionda Lagoon The roadway segments proposed for this route are, for the most part, not subject to heavy traffic Park Drive between Monroe Street and Adams Street inter- sects the previously proposed Class 3 route and con- nects It with another existing Class 3 that accesses a high school and city pool complex on Monroe Street (See Figure 10-5, Proposed Bicycle Facilities ) Recommendations No segment of Chestnut Avenue is currently designated as a bikeway and it is disrupted by the rail corridor right- of-way However, this street proceeds unimpeded un- der 1-5 through an underpass and, except for the rail line, connects Carlsbad Boulevard to El Camino Real It IS also rated as "good" and "fair" in the bicycling suit- ability model This route runs almost entirely through residential neighborhoods and generally has low motor vehicle traffic volumes It has definite potential as a Class 3 facility and is recommended for designation, espe- cially if a crossing can be implemented where it inter- sects the rail line Finally the segment of Carlsbad Village Drive between Harding Street west of 1-5 and Highland Drive east of 1-5 IS currently designated as a Class 3 facility It has two lanes of traffic each way, heavy traffic volumes, numerous curb cuts and limited width It is a decidedly unpleasant and unsafe place to ride a bicycle In its present configuration, its use should not be encouraged as a bicycle facility It should either be widened to accommodate a Class 2 striped lane or have the Class 3 designation removed Since it is very unlikely that additional width could be provided short of removing a travel lane, it is probably more feasible to remove the Class 3 designation 10 3 Class 2 Facilities Class 2 bikeways (often called bike lanes) are one way facilities within roadways placed next to the curb for the preferential use of bicycles within the paved area of streets They are designated by striping, pavement mark- ings and signage Class 2 facilities must be at least four feet wide where no parking occurs and five feet wide where parking does occur Class 2 facilities are in place throughout the City of Carlsbad and more are planned along all programmed major roadways 10 3 1 New Street Extensions and Addition of Class 2 to Existing Streets A specific location where widening and Class 2 lanes are needed is Avenida Encinas just north of Poinsettia Lane This roadway is quite narrow in places and lacks bicycle facilities, even though it is currently the only access to Poinsettia Station, and will be until the Coastal Rail Trail IS constructed This segment in its current configuration received one ofthe few "poor" ratings in the bicycling suitability model and was referred to by several questionnaire respondents as uncomfortably narrow and having excessive amounts of adjacent parking Field surveys also revealed that the pavement edge fell away abruptly several inches onto adjacent gravel parking lots along some portions ofthe roadway near Poinsettia Lane The entire length of Rancho Santa Fe Road within the Carlsbad city limits received a "poor" rating it is the longest contiguous segment to be rated so low Its prob- lems include limited width, high speeds and a section with significant grades However, it is likely that widen- ing could be accomplished to mitigate the effects of the traffic speeds on most of its length Where widening is more difficult at the steep grade just south of Melrose Drive, the existing three lanes could be restriped to two and Class 2 lanes added 10 3 2 Improvements to Existing Facilities The portion of La Costa Avenue between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real was mentioned by several questionnaire respondents who said they disliked using It It received a "fair" rating in the suitability model It has varying numbers of lanes, parking configurations Sections of Avenida Encinas should be widened to accommodate a Class 2 facility If the Coastal Rail Trail is constructed adjacent to this area, this Class 2 facility would provide a convenient connection to the Poinsettia Station and the Coastal Rail Trail from Poinsettia Lane and bicycle facilities throughout its length, and relatively high traffic volumes and posted speeds Currently, vari- ous parts of the segment are designated as Class 2 and Class 3 Restriping the roadway to create Class 2 condi tions throughout and to provide more space for cyclists may be an option to make it a more comfortable route for cycling This would require reducing the number of lanes for motor vehicle traffic to one lane each way and perhaps reducing or eliminating the existing parallel parking However, City engineers indicated that chang- ing this street is not feasible A general improvement to the Class 2 facilities is the provision of more roadway width on freeway and rail line bridges and underpasses It is common to find that the bikeway facility ends prior to the roadway segment crossing a bridge and to have the curb pinch inward, eliminating the previously available space for cyclists Page 10 2 Chapter 10 Carisbad Bike Facility Master Plan In addition, many ofthe bridges have excessively high curbs that could potentially catch a cyclist's pedals, es- pecially if the cyclist was attempting to stay far to the right to avoid the motor vehicles on a narrow bridge Many questionnaire respondents noted narrow bridges as a problem in Carlsbad In general, there are a number of solutions short of the ideal, which would be to actually widen the bridges In some cases, the lanes could be restriped, the sidewalk width decreased or a lane of traffic eliminated In other situations where the motor vehicle volumes and lim- ited width create particularly difficult cycling situations, alternative routes could be provided 10 4 Class 1 Facilities Class 1 bikeways (often called bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right-of-way for bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows by motor vehicles kept to a minimum They are physically separated from motor vehicle routes A wide physical separation is recommended where a Class 1 facility parallels a motor vehicle route Any sepa- ration of less than five feet from the pavement edge of a motor vehicle route requires a physical barrier to pre- vent cyclists from encroaching onto the roadway Any- where there is the potential for motor vehicles to en- croach onto a Class 1 bicycle facility, a barrier should be provided Class 1 routes immediately adjacent to a street are not recommended because many cyclists will find It less convenient to ride on this type of facility as compared to streets, especially for utility trips such as commuting Other reasons that Class 1 routes immedi- ately adjacent to a street are not recommended is be- cause they can encourage wrong way riding on the street and can create safety problems at intersection crossings Unlike on-street facilities that already have defined mini- mum design speeds, the minimum design speed of Class 1 facilities IS a factor to consider In general, the mini- mum design speed should be 20 mph Speed limits may also be implemented and are generally 10 or 15 mph Opportunities exist for the installation of several Class 1 facilities that would not only provide the relaxed recre- ational atmosphere associated with an off-street facility, but would also improve commuter connections Nor- mally, Class 2 facilities are preferred for transportation or commuting purposes However, if no roadways exist through an area, these Class 1 facilities will be useful to commuters Together, these facilities would fill in many of the gaps in the current system where topography and lack of facilities currently limit access The location and alignment of the Class 1 facilities are subject to further study and environmental review (See Figure 10-5, Pro- posed Bicycle Facilities) The City has adopted, as part ofthe General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, a master plan of pri- marily pedestrian pathways known as the Carlsbad Trails System (CTS) Some of the proposed Class 1 routes fol- low the planned routes of some of the CTS trails The Class 1 routes proposed m Figure 10-5 would differ from the CTS trails because they would be wider paved paths designated as Class 1 routes, and designed for mul- tipurpose use versus the generally unpaved surface treat ment and pedestrian orientation endorsed for the adopted trails plan Class 1 paths must be wide enough (12 feet minimum) to accommodate multiple user types and must include an unpaved side path (2 to 4 feet) for users who prefer a softer trail The Class 1 path would not be in addition to any proposed soft surface trail of the CTS, but would replace it where the trails coincide Paving IS recommended for these specihc routes within the context of the overall trail system to maximize their value for recreational and transportational cycling throughout Carlsbad Because of the many differences between CTS and the proposed Class 1 routes, a Gen- eral Plan Amendment would be necessary to develop the Class 1 facilities in this Bikeway Master Plan Where the use of asphalt or concrete paving conflicts with an approved trails master plan, environmental re- sources, or where a more informal, rural ambience is desired, soil polymer technology should be investigated Several manufacturers produce soil stabilizing emulsions that are applied on existing or imported soil or decom- posed granite to create a natural looking trail surface A light concentration stabilizes the surface and controls dust, while a heavier concentration mixed into the soil and compacted can be used to create a resilient surface suitable for wheelchairs 10 4 1 Coastal Rail Trail The Coastal Rail Trail to run between downtown San Diego and Oceanside within the right-of-way of the existing rail line is currently in design It will connect with another trail being designed within the rail right- of-way between Oceanside and Escondido These fa- cilities will be paved, multi-use, regional routes con- necting the coastal cities of San Diego County, as well as the cities roughly paralleling SR78 between the coast and Escondido The Coastal Rail Trail is commonly regarded as an excel- lent opportunity to provide a regional trail link connect- ing Carlsbad with other coastal communities, and by link- age with the Oceanside to Escondido rail trail, to inland communities as well However, it also provides additional trail opportunities within Carlsbad by providing a north- south spine from which to extend a series of east-west trails across the city This system would allow users to Chapter 10 Page 10 3 Recommendations traverse the length and breadth ofthe City, including go- ing through areas where they can not currently go, either as a leisurely recreational rider meandering around the lagoons, or as a commuter on routes that shorten the current bicycle travel time between the coastal and in- land areas of Carlsbad, all without encountering motor vehicle traffic and limiting street crossings Because any attractive Class 1 bicycle facility can and will attract many other types of users, such as walkers and skaters, the term "rail trail" is simply a more widely used and generally understood term for what is actually a "rail corridor multi-use path" (See Section 8 2 1, Bikeway User Classification ) With this in mind, a se- ries of typical plan and section details were developed to guide implementation of the rail trail The details highlight the many different right-of-way configurations likely to be encountered while design- ing and building the rail trail through Carlsbad and the variations in implementation that may be necessary to provide the maximum level of user safety It is not likely that all the illustrated configurations will be encoun- tered in any one city, but the rail trail through Carlsbad must cross three lagoons, as well as traverse very nar- row sections of right-of-way near downtown (See Fig- ures 10-1 to 10-4, Coastal Rail Corridor Multi-Use Trail Improvements) • Bridges Over Lagoons Except for the relatively short crossing at Agua Hedionda, the bicycle bridges needed to cross the lagoons are planned to be constructed when the current single rail line IS converted to a dual line system At that time, the bridges would be designed and built to accommodate rail and bicycle facilities on a single structure at each lagoon, both to reduce costs and to minimize environ- mental impacts to wetlands This upgrade is not expected to occur for some time, perhaps not for twenty years For the foreseeable future, the Coastal Rail Trail bicycle route will detour away from the rail right-of-way onto nearby parallel surface roadways, wherever necessary, to bypass the lagoons (See Section 113 4, Bikeway Bridge Improvements, for more information ) • Rail Crossing Points The proposed rail crossing points would follow specific NCTD guidelines for the entire length of the Coastal Rail Trail However, there is dissension between this master plan and NCTD concerning the allowable width of the openings in the fence at the rail crossing points The mini- mum required width for a multi-use trail to receive offi- cial Class 1 bikeway designation is ten feet, so this master plan calls for fence openings the full width of the trail NCTD does not allow ten foot openings m rail line fenc- ing (Perhaps a compromise can be reached in which openings narrower than ten feet can be implemented with appropriate warning striping and guardrails that would funnel cyclists and pedestrians into the opening while also helping to inform them beforehand that they are approaching a potentially hazardous rail right-of-way Though It IS not generally desirable nor recommended to reduce the width of a Class 1 bikeway to less than ten feet wide at any point, combined with these types of visual warning cues, such narrowing may in this instance, be desirable at these rail line crossing points) Though It will consider new crossings on a case-by-case basis, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) prefers no net increase in crossings, meaning that it is desirable to close an old crossing when proposing a new one In some cases, the City can install new crossings if it is willing to take liability for them The PUC will be more likely to grant permission for a new crossing that can be proven to be substantially safer than the old unofficial one It IS replacing The Coastal Rail Trail has the potential to be both an important recreational and commuter bike facility • Rest Stops (including amenities and inter- pretive options) The design of the proposed rest stops would be purpose- fully specific to Carlsbad to help to distinguish the city from other municipalities along the route They would occur at three scenic points along the Coastal Rail Trail within Cadsbad and would be equipped with a number of amenities (See Section 11 4, Rail Trail Construction ) Page 10 4 Chapter 10 3" Asphalt Concrete PavenneiM with 6" Granular Sub-base 72" Welded Wire Mesh or Heav7 Gauge Chain Link Fence -Graded Shoulders _ Min. Distance from Edge of ROW Allow maximum clearance as pennitted by Tield conditions (Minimun clearance: 25'per NCTD) ' 100' 200' Total Right-of-way Existing Track SECTION • FULL (200') ROW WIDTH AVAILABLE ® Existinf 2n< I I I I I -I*- 'or Future I Track 3" Asphalt Concrete Pavement with 6" Granular Sub-base 72" Welded Wire Mesh or Heavy Gauge Chain Link Fence I Multi-Use Trail Graded Shoulders Min. Distance from Edge of ROW 50' J 25' - 30' Allow maximum clearance *ll as permitted by Field • conditions (Minimun clearance: 25' per NCTD) 100' Total Right-of-way Existing Track SECTION • LIMITED (100') ROW AVAILABLE ® Existing or Future 2nd Track 3" Asphalt Concrete Pavement with 6" Granular Sub-base 72" Welded Wire Mesh or Heavy Gauge Chain Link Fence % Max. ' hi J^i Lr Multi-Use Trail IAT/ kl Multi-Use Trail IA 1—Graded Shoulders —I -Graded Shoulders Min. Distance from "Edge of ROW I 100 200' Total Right-of-way Allow maximum clearance as permitted by field conditions (Minimun clearance: 25' per NCTD) i n (Typical) I I I I I Existing Track Existing or Future 2nd Track 3" Asphalt Concrete • Pavement with 6" Granular Sub-base 72" Welded Wire Mesh or Heavy Gauge Chain Link Fence Allow maximum clearance as permitted by field conditions Min. Distance from (Minimun clearance: Edge of ROW 25' tier NCTD) 100' ' 200' Total Right-of-way Existing Track Existini 2ni > or Future 1 Track SECTION • MULTI-USE TRAIL ON LEVEL GROUND ® SECTION* MULTI-USE TRAIL ON FILL SLOPE ® 3" Asphalt Concrete Pavement with 6" Granular Sub-base 72" Welded Wire Mesh or • Heavy Gauge Chain Link Fence (Typical) Graded Shoulders Min. Distance from Edge of ROW Allow maximum clearance | as permitted by Fieid | corxlitions (Minimun clearatKe: 25'per NCTD) • Oypical) I 100'-200' Right-of-way T Existing Track Existing or Future 2nd Track 3" Asphalt Concrete Pavement with 6" Granular Sub-base 72" Welded Wire Mesh or Heavy Gauge Chain Link Fence 15' Min. Distance ftom Edge of ROW Allow maximum clearance as permitted by Held conditions (Minimun clearance: 25' per NCTD) 100'-200' (Typical) Right-of-way Existing Track Existing or Future 2na Track SECTION • MULTI-USE TRAIL ON CUT SLOPE W/RETAINING WALLS (D SECTION • MULTI-USE TRAIL ON CUT SLOPE W/O RETAINING WALLS ® COASTAL RAIL CORRIDOR MULTI-USE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN 42" Railing Wood Trestle Bridge with Wood Decking Existing Track Right-of-way Multi-Use Trail SECTION • MULTI-USE TRAIL ON NEW DETACHED BRIDGE @ • 42" Railings 100'-200' Right-of-way SECTION • NEW RAIL BRIDGE WITH INTEGRAL MULTI- USE TRAIL DIRECTLY BELOW MAIN DECK ® 42" Railings SECTION • ® NEW RAIL BRIDGE WITH INTEGRAL MULTI- USE TRAIL OFFSET BELOW MAIN DECK SECTION • ® 100'-200' 72" Welded Wire Mesh or Heavy Gauge Chain Link Fence 42" Railing Right-of-way NEW RAIL BRIDGE WITH INTEGRAL MULTI- USE TRAIL AS EXTENSION OF MAIN DECK 72" Welded Wire Mesh or Heavy Gauge Chain Link Fence 42" Railing 1 Existing Track 100'-200' Right-of-way SECTION • MULTI-USE TRAIL ATTACHED TO EXISTING BRIDGE ® Existing or Future 2nd Track SECTION* PEDESTRIAN/TRAIL BRIDGE OVERCROSSING ® COASTAL RAIL CORRIDOR MULTI-USE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Trail slopes 6-8% to 16' below grade istli rac 1 Existing Track Existing or Future 2n3 Track 100'-200' Right-of-way ^^^^^^ — Lighting I Depressed Section I 1 of Multi-Use Trail I 3" Asphalt Concrete Pavement with 6" Granular Sut>-base SECTION* PEDESTRIAN/TRAIL BRIDGE UNDERCROSSING 10' Min. 3" Asphalt Concrete Pavement with 6" Granular Sub-base Train-actuated Warning at 10' Opening in 72" Fence Perpendicular Pedestrian Trail 100'-200' Right-of-way Existing Track Existing or Future 2nd Track SECTION* PEDESTRIAN/TRAIL CROSSING AT GRADE @ ® DETAILS DETAILS ——~^ (i BIKE XING STOP HEM WHENCATt IS DOWN & Trail Stop Sign/Barrier Motorist Warning Signage/ Lighting Trail VVarning Motorist Signage Warning Signage Lighting 300' to 500' (rom Crossing Motorist Warning Signage PLAN * PASSIVE CONTROL AT MID-BLOCK CROSSING © Trail Stop Sign/Barrier with Signal Actuator Motorist Warning Signage/ Lighting Trail 300' lo 500' from Crossing Warning Motorist Signage Warning Signage Lighting Motorist Warning Signage 10'-6" Min. 100' £32'„8' CO) CXD CDP 72" Fence (Per NCTD) PLAN * ACTIVE CONTROL AT MID-BLOCK CROSSING ® Signal Push Button and Sign ' Standard Pedestrian Ramps and Crosswalk Signal Push Button and Sign PLAN * DIVERSION TO INTERSECTION ® Note: For non-signalized intersections, delete signal push buttons and signs. Standard Pedestrian Ramps and Crosswalk PLAN * DIVERSION AROUND STATION AND PARKING ® m COASTAL RAIL CORRIDOR MULTI-USE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN MAP LEGEND ~ Existing Rail Alignment mmtmmmt^*'' Long-Tcrm Rail Corridor Trail Alignment mmimmmm'^'^'' Interim Rail Corridor Trail Alignment •«. ' Proposed Pedestrian Trails/Class 1 Existing Bicycle Facilities/Class 2 Proposed Bicycle Facilities/Class 2 • Proposed Bicycle Facilities/Class 3 ^iiiiij. Pedestrian Zones 1/4 mile radius from transit stations with extensive pedestrian connections Urban Design Treatment Zones Rail ROW within urban areas with upgraded landscaping, lighting, paving and fencing A NCTD Recommended Crossing Point Observed Major Pedestrian Crossing Points Transit Stations Interstation Rest Stops Locations based on iristance from stations and viewing opportunities COASTAL RAIL CORRIDOR MULTI-USE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Note: Circled numbers conespond to Rail Trail conceptual details (Numbered 1 to 1 8 in Figures 10-1 to 10-.3 on previous pages). Also see Section 10.4.1 for further information. Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan PROPOSED m BICYCLE FACILITIES CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Oceanside San Marcos if^ iit# '*<icd sh^fit* LEGEND —— Existing Major Roadways (With Class 2 Lanes) Existmg Rail Line and Transit Stations •••• Existing Class 3 Routes to Remain Planned Major Roads (With Class 2 Lanes) " Existing Roads Recommended for Class 2 Lanes ••••' Existing Roads Recommended for Class 3 Routes Proposed Paved Class 1 Trails Proposed (Paved or Unpaved) Multi-Use Trad Links ^ Proposed Park and Ride Lots ^ Proposed Rail Line Crossing ^ Existing Parks Linked by Proposed Bikeway System Q Site-specific Problem Areas ^ , Coches^tfij Encinitas Chapter 10 Page 10 13 Recommendations • Intersections (crossing treatments) Midblock crossing points would follow specific guidelines developed for this project and would incorporate a number of safety features The basic facility design could be used for the entire length ofthe Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside to downtown San Diego (See Figure 10 3) • Special Urban Design Zones The areas immediately surrounding transit stations in Carlsbad are proposed to have enhanced urban design amenities to highlight the importance of the stations This may include improvements in paving, landscap- ing, lighting, fencing, site furnishings, signage and art that would relate to both the design of the transit sta- tions and their urban context For a distance of half a mile along the rail line and within the rail right-of-way, these enhanced urban design treat- ments would highlight the approach to the core of two unique areas of the City, anchored by their transit cen- ters The existing design elements of these transit cen- ters could be expanded throughout the urban design zones, with progressively more detail as users got closer to the transit center themselves The urban design de- tailing could form relatively concentric zones of certain elements, beginning with landscaping, for example, and layering on the other amenities such as lighting, pav- ing, fencing and site structures, culminating in a zone immediately around the transit center with all proposed amenities, as well as site structures that resemble the existing transit center buildings, but on a smaller scale • Public Art Public art for inclusion within the Coastal Rail Trail de- velopment may be particularly appropriate at the transit stations, within the special urban design zones and at the proposed rest stops For example, interpretive features at the rest stops could be designed to be part of the public art and take advantage of the views Specific guidelines for public art in Carlsbad can be found in Appendix B 10 4 2 Mid-City Historic Trail (Coast to Carrillo Ranch) A paved trail along the Agua Hedionda Lagoon could be extended eastward to the Carrillo Ranch site in east- ern Carlsbad near San Marcos Its alignment would run from the shore of the lagoon eastward to a point just east of the Carlsbad Ranch development (Legoland) where it could turn south through a proposed golf course development to cross Palomar Airport Road From just south of Palomar Airport Road, it could run eastward to cross EI Cammo Real south of Camino Vida Roble and then up the valley to the Carrillo Ranch site From here It could continue on unpaved and connect with the City of San Marcos trail system 10 4 3 Specific Park Connections The proposed Class 1 facilities will connect several ex- isting and programmed parks in the central portion of the city These include Alta Mira, Veterans Memorial, Calavera Hills, Laguna Riviera, Carrillo Ranch, Alga Norte and Poinsettia Parks The proposed Class 1 facili- ties would also intersect with other proposed trails and allow connection via those trails with several other parks around the periphery of the City 10.5 Multi-use Trail Facilities This type of facility is proposed for only one route sys- tem in this bikeway master plan, leading to and around Lake Calaveras This facility is intended to take advan- tage of existing well established dirt roads in the area as an off-street route Whether or not this route is paved will be based on environmental constraints and deter- mined prior to implementation Maintaining its unpaved status means that it can not be designated a Class 1 bi cycle facility, but this route is intended to be an infor- mal route for all types of trail users, not just cyclists 10 6 Other Bicycle Facilities Several other types of bicycle facilities are recommended under this master plan, but are not shown on the facility map due to scale or other factors 10 6 1 Undesignated Bike Facilities These routes are indicated on bikeway system maps only, without signage or striping No undesignated bike fa- cilities are proposed in this bikeway master plan Typi- cally, undesignated routes are most useful in more densely populated urban areas, but Cadsbad's relatively small areas of dense development should allow its bikeway system to function without the need for this type of facility It should be noted that all of the cur- rently existing undesignated routes are proposed to be upgraded to Class 3 facilities under this master plan Implementing this upgrade would be of minimal cost since It would require the addition of bicycle route sig- nage only However, it should be a goal of any work- able bikeway system to make as many streets as pos- sible compatible for bicycle use 10 6 2 Site-specific Projects The site-specific project areas are intersections and bridges that will all require minor to significant reconfiguration to make them functional components of a safe bikeway system (See Chapter 8 ) Page 10 14 Chapter 10 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan 10 6 3 Urban Access Pathways In some cases, opportunities to increase intermodal tran- sit use may be available simply by providing conve- nient access between transit centers and bikeways where none yet exists Where these urban access paths may prove useful, they would require development of multi- use pathways for non-motorized use because they would naturally attract pedestnan use as well Therefore, multi- use standards should be implemented in the design of these access paths 10 6 4 Connections to Urban Centers Among the criteria used in the selection of routes for this bikeway master plan was the definition of activity and employment centers, as well as CIS evaluation of population and employment densities These types of data probably best represent what could be called "ur- ban centers " Using this data, bikeway routes were se- lected to provide the most direct connections possible between these urban centers and the existing transit centers In some cases, existing bikeways already ran adjacent to transit centers, or an adjacent undesignated roadway was determined to be a candidate route 10 6 5 School Access Paths/Routes In most cases, a considerable percentage of students at any particular school will get there by bicycle Many of these children are not experienced, knowledgeable or comfortable with riding on streets in the midst of motor vehicle traffic For them, alternate routes should be des- ignated to access schools from the surrounding neigh- borhoods they serve These routes would utilize lightly traveled streets where sidewalk riding would be unlikely to pose safety problems for themselves or other users These routes should also be designed to cross arterials or other high volume streets, when necessary, at spe- cific points with sufficient sight distances, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and, where appropriate, crossing guards The students for whom these routes are desig- nated should be encouraged to use them 10 6 6 Intermodal Facilities For this bikeway master plan, intermodal facilities in- clude bus stops, commuter rail stops and park and ride lots These park and ride facilities need to be accessible to cyclists and should be equipped with bicycle lock- ers The two coastal commuter rail stations could per- haps be improved by installing additional bicycle lock- ers as demand requires A proposed park and ride lot at the Poinsettia Station commuter rail stop could provide some benefits for bi- cycle, automobile and commuter rail users The exist- ing parking lot is probably large enough to accommo- date a park and ride function without expansion Put- ting a park and ride lot at the commuter rail station would probably foster commuter rail use and would still place It close enough to 1-5 to be convenient to persons who continued to drive A potential added benefit may be that exposure to the commuter rail environment may encourage automobile commuters to try rail commuting Another park and ride lot could be installed at the Plaza Camino Real retail complex at SR 78 and El Camino Real An existing transit center there is served by at least nine bus routes, including two express routes using bi- cycle rack-equipped buses, but bicycle lockers are needed (See Figure 10-5, Proposed Bicycle Facilities ) 10 7 Current Constraints to Cycling Several problems consistently constrain bicycle use in Carlsbad The following sections describe the most prevalent ones 10 7 1 Narrow Bridges The most common constraint to bicycle use in Cadsbad results from narrow bridges, or from a lack of crossings over barriers such as highways and rail lines Bridge construction or reconstruction takes place very infre- quently, but when such work is planned, the needs of cyclists should be considered and crossing opportuni- ties implemented Retrofitting bicycle facilities onto ex- isting substandard bridges is much more costly than in- cluding bicycle facilities within a scheduled improve- ment project In some cities, the provision of bicycle facilities on bridges has been made a standard compo- nent of new bridge planning, design and construction Besides roadway bridges, bicycle facilities have also been implemented as part of pipeline crossings over riv- ers, for example 10 7 2 Topography The next greatest constraint to cycling in Carlsbad is topography, especially in the southeastern and east cen- tral portions ofthe city Long and often steep grades are common Though a small percentage of cyclists may actually seek out such grades, most would rather avoid them Little can be done to alleviate this problem ex- cept to provide alternative routes to circumvent steep areas wherever possible One example of such an alter- native route IS the proposed segment along the north- ern shore of Batiquitos Lagoon This particular segment IS intended to serve as a multi-use route to take advan- tage of the views of the lagoon However, it can also serve as an alternate route connecting coastal Carlsbad to El Camino Real without having to ride up and over the hills just north ofthe lagoon via Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway Chapter 10 Page 10-15 Recommendations 10 7 3 Connectivity There are a number of planned arterials as yet unbuilt, especially in the hilly southeastern portion ofthe city Under current conditions, this lack of routes creates only minor inconvenience for motor vehicle drivers How- ever, until these streets are actually in place, there is a lack of desirable routes and cyclists are required to make longer, more indirect trips than they would prefer Once in place, these planned arterials would provide cyclists with much more convenient routes from one neighbor- hood to another 10 7 4 High Speeds Many of Cadsbad's existing Class 2 roadways have rela tively high posted motor vehicle speeds Experienced cyclists are generally not concerned with adjacent mo- tor vehicle speeds, especially when they can rely on the relative safety of their own lane However, less ex- penenced cyclists are more likely to find such condi- tions uncomfortable and are therefore less likely to use these roadways Page 10-16 Chapter 10 - CIP PRO)ECTS & FUNDING Sections 11 1 to 11 3 define the recommended bikeway system improvements as CIP projects and provide con- struction costs See Figure 11-1, Proposed CIP Project Segments, for a graphic overview of the proposed bikeway segments See Table 11-1 for general costs For a description of each segment, see Table 11 -2 and the specific CIP segment cost analyses spreadsheets in Ap- pendix D The remaining sections of this chapter de- scribe the funding sources available for bikeway projects, followed by a summary. Tables 11-3A and B, Trail and Bikeway Facility Funding Summary 111 Specific Projects These are locations that presently do not function opti- mally for cyclists' safety The changes needed range from restriping and signage to complete reconfiguration However, for this master plan, their CIP projects costs are considered to be only the restriping and signage needed to complete the improvements The costs of actual reconstruction due to recommended reconfiguration is not included because the two inter- sections recommended for reconfiguration are already slated for such work The necessary reconstruction is de- scribed in the following paragraphs, but are not tallied 11 1 1 Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street This intersection is probably the most problematic in the City of Cadsbad The recommended (and planned) solution IS to realign State Street so that it forms a "T" intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard State Street would be controlled by a stop sign and a left turn lane would probably be provided on southbound Carlsbad Boule- vard These alterations would greatly improve safety at this intersection, for cyclists and motorists alike How- ever, environmental concerns about this reconfiguration may be troublesome considering the potential impacts to adjacent wetlands 1112 Carlsbad Blvd /Palomar Airport Road This intersection, like the previous one, is planned to be reconfigured with a standard intersection configura- tion This will be a significant undertaking since this reconfiguration requires the removal and realignment of an intersection styled after those used on interstate highways, complete with cloverleaf ramps and overpasses 1113 Tamarack Avenue/Pio Pico Drive This intersection is currentiy lightly traveled by cyclists, but the recommended improvements to make it safer for them would not be costly Restriping the lanes to accommodate a Class 2 lane and providing signage warning motorists to watch for cyclists would probably be sufficient for this intersection 112 Bikeway Development Priorities The factors used in prioritzing the implemention of po- tential bikeway project types included probable demand, available funding, regional significance and transporta- tional efficiency With these criteria, the proposed Coastal Rail Trail was given first priority, followed by on-street routes and off-street routes See Table 11 -2, Capital Improvement Projects, for more information 113 Typical Unit Construction Costs The cost of bicycle facility construction varies widely depending on the type of facility concerned A general- ized list of typical unit construction costs are shown in Table 11-1 These figures can be used for preliminary cost estimates, but they do not reflect special circum- stances that may occur in specific situations, such as the long bridges that would be needed to span lagoons, for instance The following sections provide generalized costs per mile for each class of bicycle facility, as well as what these costs cover, and just as importantly, what they do not 113 1 Multi-Use Trails (Segments 36-37) This type of trail is represented by a small trail system leading to and around Lake Calaveras These segments would not fulfill Caltrans official bikeway designations because they are intended to serve as multi-purpose routes that may or may not be paved, depending upon environmental review prior to implementation Until sur- face type IS determined, costs for multi-use trails should be considered the same as those for Class 1 bikeways 113 2 Class 1 Bikeways (Segments 28-35) Because they are constructed independently of existing or programmed motor vehicle facilities. Class 1 paths are by far the most expensive of all bicycle facilities Typical costs are $150,000 to $350,000 per mile, ex- clusive of right-of-way acquisition, bridges and other potential major expenses such as extensive grading The range of costs is primarily due to topography and facil- ity width For example, a Class 1 facility being converted from an abandoned rail roadbed will require far less grub- bing, grading and structural enhancements than a facility being constructed through undeveloped hilly terrain 113 3 Class 2 Bikeways (Segments 10-27) Class 2 facility costs are approximately $15,000 to $35,000 per mile This cost includes all necessary lane stnping and signage, but does not include widening of roadways The cost variation is due to the amount of striping and signage installed The cost will be higher where substantial restriping is needed, such as where multiple motor vehicle lanes require restriping CIP Projects and Bikeway Funding 113 4 Class 3 Bikeways (Segments 1-9) Class 3 routes costs are the lowest of all facility types because the only physical improvement to be installed IS route signage The cost range of $1,500 to $5,000 per mile IS due to the distance between signs, which can vary considerably depending upon factors such as hori- zontal and vertical curvature, the number the intersec- tions and curb cuts, and how often the route changes direction onto a different roadway 113 5 Bikeway Bridge Improvements The following information concerns bridges designed to serve bicycle facilities in locations other than planned or programmed roadway bridges Typical roadway bridges are constructed of reinforced concrete to with- stand the enormous stresses of motor vehicle traffic and seismic activity Bridges intended for non-motorized uses do not need to be as robust or as costly as bridges de- signed for regular motor vehicle use Bridges costs depend on design load and foundation, and to a lesser extent, length, width and materials Bridges must be designed to carry the same loads as the bicycle facility they serve On Class 1 facilities, for ex- ample, where patrol, emergency or maintenance ve- hicles are expected to use the bridge, it must be able to support at least the gross weight of the heaviest antici- pated vehicle Bridges intended to support motor ve- hicles will require much sturdier construction and in- creased width, both of which will increase costs Unstable soil conditions will require any bridge to be built with more expensive foundations in the form of larger footings or piers Wooden bridges tend to be less expensive than metal bridges, though their useful life may be shorter Bridge costs increase almost exponen- tially as their height increases due to increased struc- tural complexity Finally, prefabricated bridges are gen- erally cheaper and less environmentally damaging to install than constructed-in-place bridges For bridge pre- liminary cost estimates, $1,200 to $1,500 per linear foot IS adequate Typical Bikeway Construction Costs Table 11 -1 Description • Unit Unit Cost Clearing and Grubbing LP $10 00-$30 00 Excavation CY $30 00-$40 00 Asphalt Pavement (4") SF $1 20-$1 50 Soil Polymer Stabilizer SF $0 07-$0 10 Bike Lane Striping LF $0 60-$0 80 Pavement Markings EA $40 00-$50 00 Fencing (Chain link) LF $16 00-$20 00 Guardrail LF $20 00-$25 00 8' Steel or Concrete Bridge LF $1,200-$1,500 36" Retaining Wall (Concrete) SF $32 00-$40 00 Relocate Signs/Fencing LF $1 00-$2 00 Drainage LF $1 00-$5 00 Traffic/Bike Path Signing LF $2 40-$3 00 Lighting EA $500 00 Traffic Control LF $0 20-$0 40 Clean up LF $0 10-$0 20 To subtotal above, add 20% for contin^ ;encies, 10% for engineering ; and design, 5% for administration and 7% for construction management Page 11 2 Chapter 11 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan 114 Rail Trail Construction The planning, design and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail will need to acknowledge some specific cost issues not commonly encountered in most bikeway projects The following sections illustrate the specific concerns behind some of these issues 114 1 Class 1 Bikeway Though It IS planned to be a multi-use facility, the Coastal Rail Trail is being designed to meet Caltrans Class 1 bikeway standards Therefore, costs for the bikeway can utilize the estimates from Section 113 1, Typical Unit Construction Costs, for Class 1 Bikeways As described in that section, specific significant additional expenses related to topography, bridges, etc need to be added to normal costs However, since the bikeway will be built adjacent to a prepared rail roadbed and land acquisi- tion costs are not likely to be a factor, costs for this Class 1 facility may be somewhat lower than typical installa- tions On the other hand, the bridges needed to cross the lagoons will add substantially to the overall costs A factor that will play a role in facility costs specific to the City of Carlsbad is the width ofthe rail right-of-way The right-of-way width varies through the city, being narrowest in the northern half of the city near down town and the existing transit center at Carlsbad Village Drive, and widest in the southern half of the city Where the right-of-way width is large, construction costs should be at the low end relative to typical Class 1 bikeways However, where right-of-way widths are restricted, ad- ditional costs are likely to be incurred in the form of supplementary earth moving, grading, compaction and retaining wall construction to provide the necessary level linear space for Class 1 bikeway development 114 2 Bike Bridges The bike bridges for the coastal bikeway are significantly different from most bikeway installations for three rea- sons First, they will require longer bridges than nor- mally constructed for typical bikeways Second, these bridges would likely be built as adjuncts to new rail bridge construction Third, the rail bridge construction IS not likely to occur for some time For these reasons, costs are difficult, if not impossible, to determine at this time, especially since the type of rail bridge construc- tion will determine the type of added bikeway decking and attachment Therefore, in lieu of bridge costs, road- way segments that are planned to be used to circum- vent the lagoons should be used for cost analyses for the foreseeable future For more information on bridge construction requirements, see Section 113 4, Bikeway Bridge Improvements 114 3 Signage The City of Carlsbad's approved design for signage iden- tifying the Coastal Rail Trail incorporates an icon that identifies the City of Carlsbad within its portion of the coastal route, as well as incorporates a graphic emblem that generally identifies the Coastal Rail Trail through- out Its alignment from Oceanside to San Diego This general configuration should be used by the other mu- nicipalities throughout the Coastal Rail Trail alignment This identifying signage should be placed in an uniform method such as at all trail crossing and access points, rest stops and transit stations The selected size and method of installation should follow a standard accept- able and agreed to by all the municipalities along the Coastal Rail Trail alignment The standard sign is likely to be a small, baked enamel-coated metal plate securely bolted to a sturdy wooden post 11 4 4 Rest Stops Rest stops are proposed for three locations within the City of Carlsbad's portion ofthe Coastal Rail Trail align- ment Their locations were selected to provide conve- niently dispersed stopping points, to take advantage of available viewpoints at scenic areas and at points of natural interpretive opportunities along the Coastal Rail Trail alignmentwithin the City of Carlsbad The selected rest stops represent the culmination of the three critena The City of Carlsbad envisions a substantial array of amenities at these rest stops Among them are the fol- lowing • Bike racks, • Shade shelters, • Seating, • Signage (interpretive and directional), • Lighting, • Trash receptacles, • Emergency telephones, • Portable restrooms, • Water fountains (with bottle spouts and dog basins) Incorporation of all of these components into the rest stops would require some expense, but should be seen as an opportunity to create a favorable impression of the City of Carlsbad for large numbers of trail users in an highly effective manner The provision of these ameni- ties at scenic vista points within Cadsbad would leave a lasting favorable impression on users To help ensure this, the signage should cleady identify the rest stops as being provided by the City of Carlsbad Chapter 11 Page 11 -3 CIP Projects and Bikeway Funding PROPOSED CIP PROJECT SEGMENTS CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Oceanside Figure 11-1 Oceanside (See Pocket Map in back of document for larger version of this map) Vista San Marcos Pacific Ocean LEGEND Proposed Class 1 Trails - " Proposed Multi-Use Trails •" Existing Class 2 Bike Lanes —— Planned Roads with Class 2 Bike Lanes Proposed Class 2 Bike Lanes Existing Class 3 Bike Routes Proposed Class 3 Bike Lanes O Proposed Park and Ride Lots / A Proposed Rail Line Crossings O Existing and Planned Parks Site-specific Corrective Projects CIP Segments (g) Encinitas Page 11 -4 Chapter 11 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Table 11-2 Class* Feet Miles Description Notes Seg. Costs Proj. Total! Prop 3 1 485 0 28 Laguna Drive from Slate Street to Jefferson Street $1 449 Prop 3 2 484 0 47 State Street from Grand Avenue to Carlsbad Boulevard $1,449 Prop 3 3,150 0 60 Las Flores Drive from Jefferson Street to Highland Drive $1 449 Prop 3 6 643 1 26 Highland Drive from Las Flores Drive to Chinquapin Avenue $3 382 Prop 3 10 302 1 95 Chestnut Street from Carlsbad Boulevard to El Camino Real $4 831 Prop 3 3 690 0 70 Chinquapin Avenue from Coastal Rail Trail to Highland Drive $1 932 Prop 3 4 435 0 84 Adams Street from Chinquapin Avenue to Park Dnve $1 932 * Prop 3 9163 1 74 Park Drive from Tamarack Avenue to Kelly Drive $4 348 1 9 Prop 3 1 718 0 33 Batiquitos Drive to end of Gabbiano Lane $966 $21,738 10 Prop 2 2 500 0 47 Batiquitos Drive from Poinsettia Lane to Gabbiano Lane $12 191 11 Prop 2 1,030 0 20 Camino de los Ondas from Hidden Valley Rd to Paseo del Norte $8 406 $20,597 12 Prop 2 4 082 0 77 Carlsbad Village Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard to Highland Drive $32 421 13 Prop 2 4 069 0 77 Carlsbad Village Drive from Olympia Drive to Victoria Avenue $30 578 $62,?99 14 Prop 2 6 984 1 32 Marron Road from Avenida de Anita to City of Oceanside $7 518 $7,511 15 Prop 2 3 167 0 60 Paseo del Norte from Car Country Drive to Cannon Road $23 781 16 Prop 2 4 927 0 93 Avenida Encinas from Poinsettia Lane to Cannon Road $37,051 $60,832 17 Prop 2 3 677 0 70 Palomar Airport Road from Paseo del Norte to Carlsbad Boulevard $27 694 18 Prop 2 12 936 2 45 Rancho Santa Fe Road from Camino de los Coches to Melrose Drive $97 097 19 Prop 2 3 612 0 68 Rancho Santa Fe Road from Olivenhain Road to City of Encinitas $27 216 $124,313 20 Plan 2 21 336 4 04 Cannon Road from Paseo del Norte to City of Oceanside $156 960 21 Plan 2 9100 1 72 Faraday Avenue from current east end to City of Vista $49 488 22 Plan 2 11 880 2 25 Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive $88 007 23 Plan 2 2 545 0 48 Melrose Avenue from Palomar Airport Road to City of Vista $19 528 24 Plan 2 1 848 035 El Fuerte Street from current north end to Faraday Avenue $14 400 25 Plan 2 7 465 1 41 Planned road from Rancho Santa Fe Road to City of Encinitas $55 481 26 Plan 2 4 186 0 79 La Costa Ave from Rancho Santa Fe Road to planned road $31117 27 Plan 2 10 425 1 97 College Boulevard from El Camino Real to Tamarack Avenue $77 820 1 $492,101 28 Paved 1 1 635 031 Connection between Carlsbad Blvd and Rail Trail along Agua Hedionda Lagoon $29 647 $29,647 29 Paved 1 6 721 1 27 Agua Hedionda Creek drainage from El Camino Real to College Blvd (2) $442 960 30 Paved 1 8 279 1 57 Class 1 path along west end of Faraday Avenue alignment (2) $545 643 1 $545,643 31 Paved 1 4 480 0 85 Class 1 route from Faraday Avenue alignment to Palomar Airport Road (2) $295 263 32 Paved 1 12 857 2 44 Class 1 route paralleling Palomar Airport Rd from College Blvd to El Cammo Real (2) $847 364 33 Paved 1 7110 1 35 Class 1 route paralleling Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to El Fuerte St (2) $468 598 1 $1,611,225 34 Paved 1 4 870 0 92 Class 1 route from El Fuerte Street to Melrose Dnve (3) $320 966 1 $320,966 35 Rail Trail 35 064 6 64 Class 1 route paralleling rail line from Oceanside to Encinitas (4) $3 091 230 1 $3,091,230 36 Multi Use 10 909 2 07 Lake Calaveras loop 0) $420 324 37 Multi Use 4 578 0 87 End of Carlsbad Village Drive at College Boulevard to Lake Calaveras loop $301,722 1 $722,046 SSI Site-specific Intersection of State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard (5) SS2 Site-specific Intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard (5) SS3 Site specific Intersection of Tamarack Avenue Pio Pico Drive and 1 5 (6) *Legend: Notes: Total: $7,111,555 Paved 1 Proposed paved Class 1 paths Unpaved 1 Proposed multi-use trail link Prop 2 Proposed Class 2 lanes on existing roads Plan 2 Class 2 lanes on planned roads Prop 3 Class 3 routes on existing roads Rail Trail Planned Class 1 trail in rail ROW (General) Bridges and major grading not included in costs (1) Route may lie partially within Oceanside (2) Some parallel Class 2 routes may be built in place of these Class 1 routes The final cost of construction would be determined by which types of routes are eventually built in each segment location (3) class 1 access lo Leo Carrillo Ranch (4) Currently in design (5) r intersection planned Improvements temporary (6) May require structural work though restriping could be sufficient Lower priority Chapter 11 Page 11 -5 CIP Projects and Bikeway Funding 11 4 5 Public Art Public art should be considered under any large-scale community project, including a bikeway master plan Art installations are most appropriate where the largest number of users can experience and appreciate them For this master plan, those locations would be along the Coastal Rail Trail, primarily at the transit centers and secondarily at the rest stops, assuming that a numerical criterion is used The coastal areas of the city are the most heavily used and the Coastal Rail Trail is expected to continue that trend Public art at the transit stations would also benefit a great many more users than those specifically using the Coastal Rail Trail Rail and bus users embarking and disembarking at the transit centers could also appreciate public art in such a highly visible venue (See Appendix B for specific city guidelines for public art in Carlsbad ) 114 6 Transit Center Improvements Transit center improvements directly contribute to the intermodal integration ofthe rail trail and the transit center The type of improvements that specifically benefit both facilities where they intersect are pnmanly bicycle storage facilities such as bike lockers and bike racks Other recommended transit center improvements are more general in nature and are intended to highlight the immediate area and direct users to the transit center (See Section 10 4 1, Special Urban Design Zones, for more information regarding these general improvements ) 114 7 Summary Due to the length and complexity ofthe bridges required to cross the lagoons and the additional construction necessary where available right-of-way width is limited. Class 1 bikeway costs will be significantly higher in these locations within the City of Carlsbad In almost all other respects, costs for the remainder of the Class 1 coastal facility should be similar to more typical installations, and may even be less due to the condition of the estab- lished rail roadbed and its moderate slopes 115 Bikeway Funding Sources Federal, State and local government agencies invest bil- lions of dollars every year in the nation's transportation system Only a fraction of that funding is used in devel- opment projects, policy development and planning to improve conditions for cyclists Even though appropri- ate funds are limited, they are available, but desirable projects sometimes go unfunded because communities may be unaware of a fund's existence, or may apply for the wrong type of grants Also, the competition between municipalities for the available bikeway funding is of- ten fierce Whenever Federal funds are used for bicycle projects, a certain level of State and/or local matching funding is generally required State funds are often available to local governments on the same terms Almost every imple- mented bicycle program and facility in the United States has had more than one funding source and it often takes a good deal of coordination and opportunism to pull the various sources together According to the FHWA's publication. An Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at the Federal, State and Local Levels, where successful local bike facility programs exist, there is usually a full-time bicycle coor- dinator with extensive understanding of funding sources Cities such as Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon and San Diego are prime examples Bicycle coordina- tors are often in a position to develop a competitive project and detailed proposal that can be used to im- prove conditions for cyclists within their jurisdictions Much ofthe following information on Federal and State funding sources was derived from the previously men- tioned FHWA publication 115 1 Federal Sources U S Department of Transportation ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef- ficiency Act) Enhancement Funds In 1991, Congress re-authorized the collection and dis- tribution of the Federal gasoline tax and related trans- portation spending programs The legislation was seen as particularly significant because the focus of 30 years of Federal transportation investment, the Interstate High- way System, was neanng completion The new legisla- tion provided the opportunity to rethink transportation priorities and philosophies ISTEA funding is managed through the State and regional agencies, in this case the San Diego Area Council of Governments (SANDAG) Most, but not all, ofthe fund- ing programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with the emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing intermodal connections Funding criteria in- clude completion and adoption of a bicycle master plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (mcluding saved vehicle tnps, reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, CEQA com- pliance and the commitment of local resources In most cases, ISTEA provides matching grants of 80 to 90 per- cent The amount of money available through ISTEA is substantial (over $155 billion from 1992-97), but there IS always strong competition to obtain those funds ISTEA IS currently undergoing re-authorization in Con- gress and was slated for final approval in late 1997 Cur- rent indicators are that ISTEA programs will continue, though under a new name, and states will be given more control over how funds are spent Page 11 6 Chapter 11 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan Federal funding through the ISTEA program provides the bulk of outside funding ISTEA is comprised of two ma- jor programs, Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), along with other programs such as the Na- tional Recreational Trails Fund, Section 402 (Safety) funds. Scenic Byways funds and Federal Lands High- ways funds, though municipalities are unlikely to be eligible for funding from all of these sources Among the new concepts in the original legislation were intermodalism, transportation efficiency, funding flex- ibility and planning, all of which had direct benefits for cycling The legislation also created a wide range of funding opportunities for bicycle-related activities, in- cluding the following that may represent opportunities for the City of Carlsbad • Surface Transportation Program (STP) Section 1007 (a)(l)(b)(3) allows states to spend their al- location of Surface Transportation Program funds on a range of activities similar to those of the NHS Bicycle facilities are specifically listed as eligible items STP Funds can also be used for "nonconstruction bicycle projects related to safe bicycle use " Section 1007 (b)(2)(C)(c) created a new category of trans- portation enhancement activities (TEA) on which States were required to spend at least 10 percent of their Sur- face Transportation Program funds TEAs are very broadly defined as ' with respect to any project or the area to be served by the project, provision of facilities for pedestrians and cy clists, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or his- toric sites, scenic or historic highway programs landscap mg and other scenic beautification, historic preservation rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities including historic rail road facilities and canals, preservation of abandoned rail- way corndors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails) control and removal of outdoor advertising archaeological planning and research and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff " Surface Transportation Program funds are allocated to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which makes the decisions as to how the funds are ac- tually spent The Federal government does not allocate funds to specific projects Therefore, for a bicycle project to be funded, it must appear on the list of potential projects under consideration at the State, regional, or City level, whichever is appropriate • Local Planning Section 1024 (a) requires each metropolitan area (with a population greater than 200,000) to develop an an- nual or biannual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that "shall provide for the development of trans- portation facilities (including pedestnan walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) which will function as an intermodal transportation system " These TIPs must be based on available funding for projects in the pro- gram and they must be coordinated with transportation control measures to be implemented in accordance with Clean Air Act provisions Final project selection rests with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), with technical input from Caltrans • State Planning Two sections of the Act explicitly require the State to develop a TIP to "consider strategies for incorporating bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways in projects, throughout the State," (Section 1025 (c)(3)), and to "develop a long-range plan for bicycle transpor- tation facilities and pedestnan walkways for appropri- ate areas of the State, which shall be incorporated into the long-range transportation plan,' (Section 1025 (e)) These provisions are important on a municipal level because they are crucial for getting incidental bicycle projects funded The intent behind these sections is to ensure that if bicycle facilities are identified in a TIP or long-range plan as being necessary in a corridor and construction or reconstruction work in those corridors IS planned, then the relevant bicycle improvements called for in the planning must be included and imple- mented Opportunities for incorporating bicycle projects are not limited to large transportation projects and not even to actual construction projects Independent bicycle and pedestrian projects, such as trails away from highway corridors and nonconstruction projects, such as map- ping, also need to be incorporated into State and City planning documents if they are to be funded Section 1033 states thatthe Federal share under ISTEA of bicycle transportation facilities is to be 80 percent The remaining 20 percent ofthe funds must be matched by the State or local government agency implementing the project The section also states that, to be funded, a bicycle transportation facility must be principally for transportation rather than recreation purposes This has been defined by the FHWA to mean Where Federal-aid highway funds are used, these projects should serve a transportation function A circular recre- ation path, for example, would not be eligible However, any type of facility which does serve a valid transporta tion need while also fulfilling recreation purposes would be eligible" Chapter 11 Page 11 -7 CIP Projects and Bikeway Funding The section goes on to describe a "bicycle transporta- tion facility" as "new or improved lanes, paths or shoulders for the use of cyclists, traffic control devices, shelters and parking fa cilities for cyclists " • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Pro- gram (CMAQ) Section 1008 is referred to as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) This part ofthe legis- lation IS intended to fund programs and projects likely to contnbute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amend- ments Five areas of eligibility have been defined Transportation activities in an approved State Implemen- tation Plan (SIP) developed under the Clean Air Act • Transportation Control Measures listed in Section 108 (b)(1 )(A) of the Clean Air Act, which include "(ix) programs to limit portions of roadway surfaces or cer tain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of non motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place "(x) programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of cyclists in both public and private ar- eas, and "(xv) programs for new construction and major reconstruc tion of paths tracks, or areas solely for the use by pedes trians or other non-motorized means of transportation, when economically feasible and in the public interest " "Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, nonconstruction projects related to safe bicycle use and State bicycIe/pedestrian coordinator positions as estab- lished in the ISTEA for promoting and facilitating the in creased use of non motorized modes of transportation This includes public education, promotional and safety programs for using such facilities ' To be funded under this program, projects and programs must come from a transportation plan (or State (STIP) or Regional (RTIP) Transportation Improvement Program) that conforms with the SIP and must be consistent with the conformity provisions of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act • Section 402 (Safety) Funds Section 402 funds address State and community high- way safety grant programs The priority status of safety programs for cyclists expedites the approval process for these safety efforts Symms National Recreational Trails Act The Symms National Recreational Trails Act created a trust fund for the construction and maintenance of trails At least 30 percent of the funds must be spent on trails for non-motorized users and at least 30 percent for trails for motorized users The remainder is to be allocated to projects as determined by the State Recreational Trails Advisory Board of the California Department of Parks and Recreation which the State must have to be eligible for the funds Federal Transit Act Section 25 ofthe 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act states that "For the purposes of this Act a project to provide access for bicycles to mass transportation facilities, to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in and around mass transportation facilities, or to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transpor- tation vehicles shall be deemed to be a construction project eligible for assistance under sections 3, 9 and 18 of this Act" The Federal share for such projects is 90 percent and the remaining 10 percent must come from sources other than Federal funds or fare-box revenues Typical funded projects have included bike lockers at transit stations and bike parking near major bus stops To date, no projects to provide bikeways for quicker, safer or easier access to transit stations have been requested or funded Department of the Interior Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) This funding source is administered by the U S Recre- ation and Heritage Conservation Service and the State Department of Park and Recreation Any project for which LWCF funds are desired must meet two specific criteria The first is that projects acquired or developed under the program must be pnmanly for recreational use and not transportation purposes and the second is that the lead agency must guarantee to maintain the fa- cility in perpetuity for public recreation The application will be considered using criteria such as priority status within the State Comprehensive Out- door Recreation Plan (SCORP) State Department of Park and Recreation will select which projects to submit to the National Park Service (NPS) for approval Final ap- proval IS based on the amount of funds available that year, which is determmed by a population-based for- mula Trails are the most commonly approved project type A recent example is the restoration and expansion of trails withm Florida Canyon in San Diego's Balboa Park Page 11-8 Chapter 11 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan National Recreational Trail Fund This funding source is intended to pay for a variety of recreational trails programs to benefit cyclists, pedestri- ans and other non-motorized users Projects must be consistent with the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan required by the Land and Water Conservation Act 11 5 2 State Sources Streets and Highways Code Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) Section 2106 (b) ofthe Streets and Highways Code trans- fers funds annually to a Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) from the revenue derived from the excise tax on motor ve- hicle fuel The BLA is administered by the Caltrans Of- fice of Bicycle Facilities which allocates funds to cities and counties It is locally administered through SANDAG to counties and cities Approximately $1 2 million is available annually to projects m San Diego County For a project to be funded from the BLA, the project shall i) Be approximately parallel to a State, county, or city road- ways, where the separation of bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic will increase the traffic capacity of the road way, and II) Serve the functional needs of commuting cyclists, and III) Include but not be limited to • New bikeways serving major transportation corridors, • New bikeways removing travel barriers to potential bi cycle commuters • Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots and transit terminals, • Bicycle carrying facilities on public transit vehicles, • Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety and efficiency of bicycle travel, • Elimination of hazardous conditions on existmg bikeways serving a utility purpose • Planning and • Safety and education Maintenance is specifically excluded from funding and allocation takes into consideration the relative cost ef- fectiveness of the proposed project State Highway Account Section 157 4 ofthe Streets and Highways Code requires Caltrans to set aside $360,000 for the construction of non-motorized facilities that will be used in conjunc- tion with the State highway system The State Highway Account fund is also administered by the Office of Bi- cycle Facilities Funding is divided into different project categories Mi- nor B projects (less than $42,000) are funded by a lump- sum allocation by the CTC and are used at the discre- tion of each Caltrans District office Minor A projects (estimated to cost between $42,000 and $300,000) must be approved by the CTC Major projects (more than $300,000) must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program and ap- proved by the CTC Funded projects have included fenc- ing and bicycle warning signs related to rail corridors Transportation Development Act Article III (Senate Bill 821) Transportation Development Act Article III funds are State block grants awarded annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California The funds originate from the State retail sales tax and are distrib- uted through the Congestion Management Agency to local jurisdictions based generally of population Ex- amples of expenditures have included construction of bicycle facilities and pnnting of bicycle safety posters on the back of city buses (Carlsbad is slated to receive $340,000 in TDA funds in FYl 998 ) 115 3 Other Sources of Funding for Bicycle Projects Governor's Energy Office (Oil Overcharge Funds) The Federal government forced oil companies to repay the excess profits many of them made when they vio- lated price regulations enacted in response to the en- ergy crisis of the early 1970's Few states have taken advantage of this fund, but some have received grants for bike coordinators and bicycle facilities The types of projects eligible for funding vary by state, as does the level of allocation available Coastal Conservancy Funds Coastal communities are eligible to receive funds from the Coastal Conservancy from its Coastal Access Pro- gram Bicycle parking and bicycle access projects are eligible, but must be within the coastal zone as defined by the locally adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP) Generally, projects must meet the following criteria • Serve a greater than local need, • Address a critical public safety problem, • Take advantage of a unique opportunity, • Be part of a comprehensive regional access program, • Demonstrate an innovative and cost effective design that meets the "Conservancy's Coastal Access Standards and Recommendations", • Be completed within one year of grant approval, and • Provide wheelchair access opportunities Chapter 11 Page 11 -9 CIP Projects and Bikeway Fundmg 115 4 Local Sources TransNet Sales Tax funds San Diego County voters passed a local tax ordinance authonzing the creation of the TransNet Sales Tax, im- posing a 1/2 cent "transaction and use tax" solely to fund transportation improvements About one million dollars has been allocated for improved bicycle routes throughout the region The ordmance descnbes bicycle facilities and requirements for facilities as "All purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right of-way acquisition and construction of facilities intended for the use of bicycles Bicycle facilities shall also mean facilities and programs that help to encourage the use of bicycles, such as secure bicycle parking facilities, bicycle promotion programs and bicycle safety education pro grams " 'All new highway projects funded with revenues as pro vided in this measure, which are also identified as bikeway facilities in the regional Transportation Plan, shall be re quired to include provision for bicycle use " Proposition A This is a funding source administered by SANDAG with an annual availability of approximately $1 million per year Assembly Bill 2766 / 434 This bill funds air pollution reduction projects related to alternate modes of transportation This fund is ad- ministered by the Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) Approximately $3 million is available annually Commuter Computer This program is funded by Caltrans and covers a variety of transportation management activities including projects such as bicycle lockers and security devices These will be provided, installed and maintained for public agencies at no cost to the requesting agency Commuter Computer also offers a bicycle locker loan program to private sector entities Developer Impact Fees As a condition for development approval, it is possible to require the developer to provide certain infrastruc- ture improvements, which can include bicycle projects These projects have commonly provided Class 2 facili- ties for portions of on-street, previously planned routes They can also be used to provide bicycle parking or shower and locker facilities The type of facility that should be required to be built by developers should re- flect the greatest need for the particular project and its local area Legal challenges to these types of fees have resulted in the requirement to illustrate a clear nexus between the particular project and the mandated im- provement and cost New Construction Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing on-street bicycle facilities To en- sure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed It is important that the review pro- cess includes input pertaining to consistency with the proposed system Future development in the City of Carls- bad will contribute only if the projects are conditioned Restoration Cable TV and telephone companies sometimes need new cable routes within public rights-of-way Recently, this has most commonly occurred dunng expansion of fiber optic networks Since these projects require a sig- nificant amount of advance planning and disruption of curb lanes, it may be possible to request reimbursement for affected bicycle facilities to mitigate construction impacts In cases where cable routes cross undeveloped areas, it may be possible to provide for new bikeway facilities following completion of the cable trenching, such as sharing the use of maintenance roads Other Sources Local sales taxes, fees and permits may be imple- mented as new funding sources for bicycle projects However, any of these potential sources would require a local election Volunteer programs may be developed to substantially reduce the cost of implementing some routes, particu- larly multi-use paths For example, a local college de- sign class may use such a multi-use route as a student project, working with a local landscape architectural or engineering firm Work parties could be formed to help clear the right-of-way for the route A local construction company may donate or discount services beyond what the volunteers can do A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, in which the businesses can "adopt" a route and help to construct and maintam it Most Likely Sources According to City of Carlsbad sources, the most likely local sources of bikeway funding are the following 1) TDA/CIP (Transportation Development Act, Capital Improvement Projects) 2) TIF (Traffic Impact Fee Fund) 3) City of Carlsbad General Fund 4) Developer Impact Fees 5) BLA (Bicycle Lane Account) 6) APCB (Air Pollution Control Board) Page 11 10 Chapter 11 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 1 Laguna Drive from Jefferson Street to State Street This segment would be on a roadway with low motor vehicle traffic volume and would provide a connection between the northernmost east/west routes in the City of Carlsbad and the coastal north/south routes Its western end would be near both the existing Class 2 facility on Carlsbad Boulevard and the planned Class 1 Coastal Rail Trail This segment would also provide access to Maxton Brown Park on the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon Class 3 Length 3,150 Feet 0 60 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 6 $990 Subtotal $990 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $198 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,188 Engmeering and Design (10%) $119 Administration (5%) $59 Construction Management (7%) $83 Total Construction Cos $1,449 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 2 State Street from Grand Avenue to Carlsbad Boulevard This segment parallels the rail line on a street with moderate motor vehicle traffic volumes It would provide access to the downtown transit center and connect it with routes to the north and south, including the planned Coastal Rail Trail and the existing Class 2 route on Carlsbad Boulevard This segment could also be considered an alternative route for the Coastal Rail Trail Class 3 Length 2,484 Feet 0 47 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 6 $990 Subtotal $990 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $198 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,188 Engineering and Design (10%) $119 Administration (5%) $59 Construction Management (7%) $83 Total Construction Cos $1,449 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 3 Las Flores Drive from Jefferson Street to Highland Drive This segment connects the northeastern residential sections of Carlsbad immediately east of 1-5 to the downtown business district west of 1-5 using the existmg Las Flores Drive bridge over 1-5 The Las Flores Drive bike route then connects to an existing Class 2 route (Jefferson Street) running north/south Class 3 Length 3,150 Feet 0 60 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 6 $990 9 Subtotal $990 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $198 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,188 Engineering and Design (10%) $119 Administration (5%) $59 Construction Management (7%) $83 Total Construction Cos $1,449 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 4 Highland Drive from Las Flores Drive to Chinquapin Avenue This segment creates a north/south link east of 1-5 from northern Carlsbad to just north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon Much of this proposed segment is currently listed as "undesignated" routes and would occur on relatively lightly traveled roadways through residential areas Class 3 Length 6,643 Feet 1 26 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 14 $2,310 Subtotal $2,310 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $462 Construction Costs with Contingencies $2,772 Engineering and Design (10%) $277 Administration (5%) $139 Construction Management (7%) $194 $3,382 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 5 Chestnut Street from Carlsbad Boulevard to El Camino Real This segment takes advantage of an existing crossing under 1-5 that is not encumbered by a freeway intersection Chestnut Street does not have high motor vehicle traffic volumes and runs through primarily residential areas from north central Carlsbad at El Camino Real to Carlsbad Boulevard on the coast The only missing section is at the rail line right-of-way, but this is also one ofthe points at which a rail line crossing is proposed under this bikeway master plan Class 3 Length 10,302 Feet 1 95 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 20 $3,300 Subtotal $3,300 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $660 Construction Costs with Contingencies $3,960 Engineering and Design (10%) $396 Administration (5%) $198 Construction Management (7%) $277 $4,831 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 6 Chinquapin Avenue from Coastal Rail Trail to Highland Drive This proposed segment would take advantage of an existing crossing over 1-5 that IS not encumbered by a freeway intersection It would connect Segment 4 to the proposed Coastal Rail Trail and with Segment 7 along the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon Chinquapin Avenue has relatively low motor vehicle traffic volumes and runs primarily through residential areas Class 3 Length 3,690 Feet 0 70 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 8 $1,320 Subtotal $1,320 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $264 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,584 Engineering and Design (10%) $158 Administration (5%) $79 Construction Management (7%) $111 $1,932 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 7 Adams Street from Chinquapin Avenue to Park Drive This segment would provide part of a scenic connection from the residential areas of northwestern Carlsbad to central Carlsbad alongthe northern shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon This proposed segment is currently considered an "undesignated" route Adams Street has relatively low motor vehicle traffic volumes Class 3 Length 4,435 Feet 0 84 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 8 $1,320 Subtotal $1,320 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $264 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,584 Engineermg and Design (10%) $158 Administration (5%) $79 Construction Management (7%) $111 Total Construction Cost $1,932 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 8 Park Drive from Tamarack Avenue to Kelly Drive This segment is a continuation of an existing Class 3 route adjacent to Carlsbad High School and other municipal facilities on Monroe Street, to Park Drive crossing Tamarack Drive It would connect this area of central Carlsbad to El Camino Real via the northern shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and then on an existing Class 2 route on Kelly Drive adjacent to an elementary school and park The proposed Segment 7 on Adams Street that intersects this segment would provide a link to the residential areas immediately east of 1-5 and then to areas west of 1-5 via Chinquapin Avenue (Segment 6) Class 3 Length 9,163 Feet 1 74 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 18 $2,970 Subtotal $2,970 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $594 Construction Costs with Contingencies $3,564 Engineering and Design (10%) $356 Administration (5%) $178 Construction Management (7%) $249 -4 $4,348 hi Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 9 Gabbiano Lane from Batiquitos Drive to Batiquitos Lagoon This segment would provide a link between the Class 2 and 3 on-street sections of the City of Carlsbad bikeway system and Batiquitos Lagoon This segment would run from Segment 10 (Class 3, Batiquitos Drive off Poinsettia Lane), to Batiquitos Lagoon Class 3 Length 1,718 Feet 0 33 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 4 $660 Subtotal $660 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $132 Construction Costs with Contingencies $792 Engineering and Design (10%) $79 Administration (5%) $40 Construction Management (7%) $55 Total Construction Cost —I I $966 Carisbad Bikeway Master Plan Project B Capital Cost Estimate Segment 10 Batiquitos Drive from Gabbiano Lane to Poinsettia Lane This segment would provide part of an alternative east/west route paralleling Aviara Parkway that would avoid much of its steepest grades, its higher motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes It would provide a more relaxed and scenic route since much of it runs parallel to Batiquitos Lagoon Class 3 Length 2,500 Feet 0 47 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 47 $1,563 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 5 $825 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 2,500 $5,500 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 2,500 $0 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $8,328 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $1,666 Construction Costs with Contingencies $9,993 Engineering and Design (10%) $999 Administration (5%) $500 Construction Management (7%) $700 Total Construction $12,191 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project B Capital Cost Estimate Segment 11 Cammo de los Ondas from Hidden Valley Rd to Paseo del Norte This segment would close a gap between two existing Class 2 facilities and connect Palomar Airport Road with Paseo del Norte It would allow riders to avoid a very busy intersection by creating an alternative route that runs through a relatively lightly traveled residential area Class 2 Length 1,030 Feet 0 20 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 20 $660 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 2 $330 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 1,030 $2,266 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 1,030 $2,266 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 4 $220 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $5,742 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $1,148 Construction Costs with Contingencies $6,890 Engmeering and Design (10%) $689 Administration (5%) $345 Construction Management (7%) $482 $8,406 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project C Capital Cost Estimate Segment 12 Carlsbad Village Dnve from Carisbad Boulevard to Highland Drive This segment represents a continuation of the existing Class 2 lanes on Carlsbad Village Drive east of 1-5 through to downtown, Carlsbad Boulevard and the coast This route would provide access to the downtown transit station and the proposed Coastal Rail Trail from residential areas east of 1-5 It would require restriping and possibly reconfiguration of substantial portions of Carlsbad Village Drive due to the minimal roadway width currently available through much of this proposed segment Class 2 Length 4,082 Feet 0 77 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 77 $2,551 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 3 $510 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,082 $8,980 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,082 $8,980 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $21,462 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $4,292 Construction Costs with Contingencies $25,755 Engineering and Design (10%) $2,575 Administration (5%) $1,288 Construction Management (7%) $1,803 $31,421 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project C Capital Cost Estimate Segment 13 Carlsbad Village Drive from Olympia Drive to Victoria Avenue This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segments 12 and 14) of Class 2 lanes on Carlsbad Village Drive along a section where no facilities currently exist This would create a direct Class 2 route from coastal Carlsbad to the City of Oceanside once College Boulevard IS completed Class 2 Length 4,069 Feet 0 77 Miles Primary Costs Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 77 $2,543 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,069 $8,952 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,069 $8,952 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $20,887 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $4,177 Construction Costs with Contingencies $25,064 Engineering and Design (10%) $2,506 Administration (5%) $1,253 Construction Management (7%) $1,754 $30,578 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project D Capital Cost Estimate Segment 14 Marron Road from Avenida de Anita to City of Oceanside This segment would be a continuation of the Class 2 lanes currently existing on Marron Road once its construction proceeds eastward to the City of Oceanside There is little bicycle traffic on Marron Road east of El Camino Real at present because it currentiy stops not far east of El Camino Real This should change upon completion into Oceanside because this segment will provide a east/west route paralleling SR78 to the coast as well as accessing a regional shopping center and transit center Class 2 Length 6,984 Feet 1 32 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signmg Ml $3,300 00 1 32 $4,365 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 0 $0 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 0 $0 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 14 $770 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $5,135 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $1,027 Construction Costs with Contingencies $6,162 Engineering and Design (10%) $616 Administration (5%) $308 Construction Management (7%) $431 $7,518 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project E Capital Cost Estimate Segment 15 Paseo del Norte from Car Country Drive to Cannon Road This segment would constitute the completion of Class 2 lanes on Paseo del Norte Class 2 lanes currently exist along the remainder of this street This would create a direct Class 2 route from Poinsettia Lane to Cannon Road and provide access to areas west of 1-5 via three freeway crossing points within the middle third of the City of Carlsbad This proposed segment would also provide access to several eastward routes that would in turn access employment centers within central Carlsbad Class 2 Length 3,167 Feet 0 60 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 60 $1,979 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 3,167 $6,967 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 3,167 $6,967 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 6 $330 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $16,244 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $3,249 Construction Costs with Contingencies $19,493 Engineering and Design (10%) $1,949 Administration (5%) $975 Construction Management (7%) $1,365 $23,781 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project E Capital Cost Estimate Segment 16 Avenida Encinas from Poinsettia Lane to Cannon Road This proposed segment would provide direct Class 2 route access to the Poinsettia Station transit center between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road from as far north as Cannon Road It would also provide access to the planned Coastal Rail Trail at a point just south of Poinsettia Road where Avenida Enemas swings west and intersects Carlsbad Boulevard and the Coastal Rail Trail Class 2 Length 4,927 Feet 0 93 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 93 $3,079 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,927 $10,839 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,927 $10,839 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 10 $550 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $25,308 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $5,062 Construction Costs with Contingencies $30,370 Engineering and Design (10%) $3,037 Administration (5%) $1,518 Construction Management (7%) $2,126 $37,051 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project F Capital Cost Estimate Segment 17 Palomar Airport Road from Paseo del Norte to Carlsbad Blvd This proposed segment would constitute the completion of Class 2 lanes on Palomar Airport Road aiong a section where no facilities currentiy exist This segment would intersect Carlsbad Boulevard, creating a direct Class 2 route between coastal Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This segment has a major problem in the limited width currentiy available on the bridge over the rail line However, any improvements in the short term are to be considered temporary since this problematic intersection is slated to be replaced with a "T" configuration Class 2 Length 3,677 Feet 0 70 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 70 $2,298 No Parking Signs EA $1 65 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 3,677 $8,089 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 3,677 $8,089 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $18,917 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $3,783 Construction Costs with Contingencies $22,700 Engmeering and Design (10%) $2,270 Administration (5%) $1,135 Construction Management (7%) $1,589 $27,694 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project G Capital Cost Estimate Segment 18 Rancho Santa Fe Rd from Camino de los Coches to Melrose Dr Only a short section of Rancho Santa Fe Road currently has Class 2 lanes in place This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segment 19) of Class 2 lanes on the entire length of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the sections where no facilities currently exist within the City of Carlsbad Much of the improvements can be accomplished within the existmg right-of- way, but the southern portion of this segment between Denning Drive and La Costa Avenue may need to be widened to accommodate a Class 2 facility Class 2 Length 12,936 Feet 2 45 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 2 45 $8,085 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 12,936 $28,459 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 12,936 $28,459 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 24 $1,320 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $66,323 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $13,265 Construction Costs with Contingencies $79,588 Engmeering and Design (10%) $7,959 Administration (5%) $3,979 Construction Management (7%) $5,571 $97,097 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project G Capital Cost Estimate Segment 19 Rancho Santa Fe Road from Olivenhain Road to City of Encinitas Only a short sechon of Rancho Santa Fe Road currently has Class 2 lanes in place This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segment 18) of Class 2 lanes on the entire length of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the sections where no facilities currently exist within the City of Carisbad Some of the improvements may be accomplished with restriping, but this segment will need to be widened to accommodate a Class 2 facility It would create a link between the northeastern section of the City of Encinitas and coastal Carisbad via Olivenhain Road or La Costa Avenue Class 2 Length 3,612 Feet 0 68 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 68 $2,258 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 3,612 $7,946 Restripe Centerline w/Ref lectors LF $2 20 3,612 $7,946 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Roadway Widening LF Subtotal $18,590 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $3,718 Construction Costs with Contingencies $22,308 Engineermg and Design (10%) $2,231 Administration (5%) $1,115 Construction Management (7%) $1,562 $27,216 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 20 Cannon Road from Paseo del Norte to City of Oceanside This long segment represents a planned eastward extension of Cannon Road to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a direct Class 2 route between the City of Oceanside and coastal Carlsbad Several other proposed north/south segments would intersect this segment, making it a regional connection Class 2 Length 21,336 Feet 4 04 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 4 04 $13,335 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 21,336 $46,939 Restripe Centeriine w/Reflectors LF $2 20 21,336 $46,939 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 0 $0 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $107,213 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $21,443 Construction Costs with Contingencies $128,656 Engineermg and Design (10%) $12,866 Administration (5%) $6,433 Construction Management (7%) $9,006 $156,960 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 21 Faraday Avenue from current east end to City of Vista This segment represents a planned eastward extension of Faraday Avenue to include Class 2 lanes into the City of Vista This proposed segment would complete a Class 2 route connecting Vista and coastal Carlsbad via Faraday Avenue and Cannon Road Class 2 Length 6,280 Feet 1 72 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Totai Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing MI $3,300 00 1 72 $5,676 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 6,280 $13,816 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 6,280 $13,816 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 9 $495 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $33,803 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $6,761 Construction Costs with Contingencies $40,564 Engineering and Design (10%) $4,056 Administration (5%) $2,028 Construction Management (7%) $2,839 $49,488 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 22 Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive This proposed segment represents the planned extension of Poinsettia Lane to include Class 2 lanes from where Poinsettia Lane currently ends just east of El Camino Real to Melrose Drive Besides connecting coastal Carlsbad with the Cities of Vista and San Marcos via Melrose Drive, other existing and planned north/south segments also intersect this segment within Carlsbad, making it a regional bikeway link Class 2 Length 11,880 Feet 2 25 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 2 25 $7,425 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 11,880 $26,136 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 11,880 $26,136 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 20 $1,100 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $60,797 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $12,159 Construction Costs with Contingencies $72,956 Engineering and Design (10%) $7,296 Administration (5%) $3,648 Construction Management (7%) $5,107 $89,007 J ' Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 23 Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to City of Vista This segment represents a planned northward extension of Melrose Avenue from Palomar Airport Road into the City of Vista to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a contiguous Class 2 route connecting the Cities of Encinitas, San Marcos and Vista via Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road Class 2 Length 2,545 Feet 0 48 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 48 $1,591 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 2,545 $5,599 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 2,545 $5,599 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 10 $550 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $13,339 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $2,668 Construction Costs with Contingencies $16,006 Engineermg and Design (10%) $1,601 Administration (5%) $800 Construction Management (7%) $1,120 $19,528 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 24 El Fuerte Street from current north end to Faraday Avenue This segment represents a planned northward extension of El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to Faraday Avenue to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a Class 2 route connecting east central and south central Carlsbad, and intersect three other existing and proposed east/west routes Class 2 Length 1,848 Feet 0 35 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Stripmg/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 35 $1,155 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 1,848 $4,066 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 1,848 $4,066 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 10 $550 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $9,836 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $1,967 Construction Costs with Contingencies $11,803 Engmeering and Design (10%) $1,180 Administration (5%) $590 Construction Management (7%) $826 $14,400 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 25 Planned road from Rancho Santa Fe Rd to City of Encinitas This segment represents a planned northward extension of a roadway from the City of Encinitas mto the City of Carlsbad that would mclude Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a Class 2 route connecting northern Encinitas with western San Marcos and Vista via eastern Carlsbad using contiguous sections of the planned road, Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue Class 2 Length 7,465 Feet 1 41 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 41 $4,666 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 7,465 $16,423 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 7,465 $16,423 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 7 $385 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $37,897 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $7,579 Construction Costs with Contingencies $45,476 Engmeering and Design (10%) $4,548 Administration (5%) $2,274 Construction Management (7%) $3,183 $55,481 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 26 La Costa Ave from Rancho Santa Fe Rd to planned road This segment represents a planned eastward extension of La Costa Avenue to Camino de los Coches that would include Class 2 lanes This would eventually provide a Class 2 connection from the northeastern section of the City of Encinitas through southern Carlsbad to the coast via La Costa Avenue Class 2 Length 4,186 Feet 0 79 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing MI $3,300 00 0 79 $2,616 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,186 $9,209 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,186 $9,209 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 4 $220 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $21,255 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $4,251 Construction Costs with Contingencies $25,506 Engineermg and Design (10%) $2,551 Administration (5%) $1,275 Construction Management (7%) $1,785 $31,117 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 27 College Boulevard from El Camino Real to Tamarack Avenue This segment represents the planned northward extension of College Boulevard from El Camino Real into the City of Oceanside to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would complete a Class 2 route along the entire length of College Boulevard within the City of Carlsbad It would provide a northeast to southwest central artery through Carlsbad into Oceanside, intersecting several other planned east/west segments Class 2 Length 10,425 Feet 1 97 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing MI $3,300 00 1 97 $6,516 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 10,425 $22,935 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 10,425 $22,935 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 14 $770 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $53,156 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $10,631 Construction Costs with Contingencies $63,787 Engineering and Design (10%) $6,379 Administration (5%) $3,189 Construction Management (7%) $4,465 $77,820 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project I Capital Cost Estimate Segment 28 Agua Hedionda connection This segment would connect the proposed Coastal Rail Trail alignment with the existing Carlsbad Boulevard Class 2 facility Much of this route is existing as asphalt roadway Class 1 Length 1,635 Feet 0 31 Miles Primary Costs Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 31 $1,023 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 13,080 $15,958 2-24" Parallel DC Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 6,540 $3,270 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 0 $0 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 0 $0 Drainage LF $5 50 0 $0 Fencing LF $13 20 0 $0 Subtotal $20,251 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $4,050 Construction Costs with Contingencies $24,301 Engmeering and Design (10%) $2,430 Administration (5%) $1,215 Construction Management (7%) $1,701 $29,647 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project J Capital Cost Estimate Segment 29 Agua Hedionda Creek from El Camino Real to College Blvd This segment runs alongthe south side ofthe Agua Hedionda Creek dramage in a generally northeast to southwest direction as a scenic Class 1 route Class 1 Length 6,721 Feet 1 27 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing MI $3,300 00 1 27 $4,201 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 53,768 $65,597 2-24" Parallel DC Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 26,884 $13,442 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 80,652 $44,359 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,987 $49,287 Drainage LF $5 50 6,721 $36,966 Fencing LF $13 20 6,721 $88,717 Subtotal $302,568 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $60,514 Construction Costs with Contingencies $363,082 Engineering and Design (10%) $36,308 Administration (5%) $18,154 Construction Management (7%) $25,416 $442,960 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project J Capital Cost Estimate Segment 30 Class 1 path along west end of Faraday Ave alignment This segment would be one of ftve (30, 31, 32, 33 and 34) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the northern terminus for this senes of Class 1 segments at Cannon Road and proceed parallel with the alignment of Faraday Avenue (Specific alignment would be determined pending a future route location study, possibly including the City of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course) Class 1 Length 8,279 Feet 1 57 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 57 $5,174 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 66,232 $80,803 2-24" Parallel DC Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 33,116 $16,558 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 99,348 $54,641 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 3,680 $60,713 Drainage LF $5 50 8,279 $45,535 Fencing LF $13 20 8,279 $109,283 Subtotal $372,707 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $74,541 Construction Costs with Contingencies $447,248 Engineering and Design (10%) $44,725 Administration (5%) $22,362 Construction Management (7%) $31,307 $545,643 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 31 Class 1 path from Faraday Ave to Palomar Airport Rd This segment would be one of ftve (30, 31, 32, 33 and 34) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be a Class 1 access route connecting Faraday Avenue with the remainder of this series of segments running roughly parallel and south of Palomar Airport Road This Class 1 system would provide an alternative to cycling on major roadways with high motor vehicle volumes and relatively high speeds (Speciftc alignment would be determined pending a future route location study ) Class 1 Length 4,480 Feet 0 85 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 85 $2,800 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 35,840 $43,725 2-24" Parallel DC Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 17,920 $8,960 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 53,760 $29,568 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 1,991 $32,853 Drainage LF $5 50 4,480 $24,640 Fencing LF $13 20 4,480 $59,136 Subtotal $201,682 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $40,336 Construction Costs with Contingencies $242,019 Engineering and Design (10%) $24,202 Administration (5%) $12,101 Construction Management (7%) $16,941 $295,263 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 32 Class 1 path paralleling Palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real This segment would be one of ftve (30, 31, 32, 33 and 34) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the Class 1 connection between College Boulevard and EI Camino Real (Speciftc alignment would be determmed pending a future route location study) Class 1 Length 12,857 Feet 2 44 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 2 44 $8,036 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 102,856 $125,484 2-24" Parallel DC Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 51,428 $25,714 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 154,284 $84,856 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 5,714 $94,285 Drainage LF $5 50 12,857 $70,714 Fencing LF $13 20 12,857 $169,712 Subtotal $578,801 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $115,760 Construction Costs with Contingencies $694,561 Engineering and Design (10%) $69,456 Administration (5%) $34,728 Construction Management (7%) $48,619 $847,364 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 33 Class 1 along Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to El Fuerte St This segment would be one of ftve (30, 31, 32, 33 and 34) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the Class 1 connection between El Camino Real and EI Fuerte Street (Speciftc alignment would be determined pending a future route location study ) Class 1 Length 7,110 Feet 1 35 Miles Primary Costs Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Stripmg/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 35 $4,444 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 56,880 $69,394 2-24" Parallel DC Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 28,440 $14,220 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 85,320 $46,926 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 3,160 $52,140 Drainage LF $5 50 7,110 $39,105 Fencing LF $13 20 7,110 $93,852 Subtotal $320,080 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $64,016 Construction Costs with Contingencies $384,096 Engmeering and Design (10%) $38,410 Administration (5%) $19,205 Construction Management (7%) $26,887 $468,598 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project L Capital Cost Estimate Segment 34 Class 1 route from El Fuerte Street to Melrose Drive This segment would be one of ftve (30, 31, 32, 33 and 34) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the Class 1 connection between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue and the eastern terminus for this series of Class 1 segments It would also provide Class 1 access to Carrillo Ranch (Speciftc alignment would be determined pending a future route locafton study ) Class 1 Length 4,870 Feet 0 92 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 92 $3,044 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 38,960 $47,531 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 19,480 $9,740 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 58,440 $32,142 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,164 $35,713 Dramage LF $5 50 4,870 $26,785 Fencing LF $13 20 4,870 $64,284 Subtotal $219,239 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $43,848 Construction Costs with Contingencies $263,087 Engmeering and Design (10%) $26,309 Administration (5%) $13,154 Construction Management (7%) $18,416 $320,966 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project M Capital Cost Estimate Segment 35 Coastal Rail Trail When completed, the planned Coastal Rail Trail would be the single longest segment proposed withm this bikeway master plan It would run within the rail nght-of-way along the east side of the rail line from the City of Oceanside to the City of Encinitas It would be part of the long-range Class 1 route from Oceanside to downtown San Diego Constructing this segment would require crossing three lagoons, but for the foreseeable future, portions of this Class 1 facility would probably occur on surface streets as a Class 2 or 3 facility to temporarily circumvent the lagoons This cost analysis reftects the estimated completed cost Note Does not include bridges over lagoons Class 1 Length 35,064 Feet 6 64 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Stripmg/Signing Ml $3,300 00 6 64 $21,915 AC Paving w/Agg Base (3" on 6") SF $1 22 280,512 $342,225 24" Parallel DG Paving Path (3") SF $0 50 280,512 $140,256 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 420,768 $231,422 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 15,584 $257,136 Drainage LF $5 50 35,064 $192,852 Fencing LF $13 20 70,128 $925,690 Subtotal $2,111,496 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $422,299 Construction Costs with Contingencies $2,533,795 Engineering and Design (10%) $253,379 Administration (5%) $126,690 Construction Management (7%) $177,366 $3,091,230 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project N Capital Cost Estimate Segment 36 Lake Calaveras loop This segment would be a recreationally oriented loop around Calaveras Lake It would take advantage of the numerous existing trails around the lake to deftne a alignment connected to the remainder of the City of Carlsbad's bikeway system Connection with bikeways withm the City of Oceanside from this segment should also be feasible Note Because trail surfacing is to be determined prior to implementation, the cost analysis assumes Class 1 type paving Class 1 Length 10,909 Feet 2 07 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Stripmg/Signing 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3 "/6") 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") Clear and Grub Subgrade Prep/Exec Drainage Fencing Ml $3,300 00 2 07 $6,818 SF $1 22 87,272 $106,472 SF $0 50 43,636 $21,818 SF $0 55 130,908 $71,999 CY $16 50 4,848 $79,999 LF $5 50 0 $0 LF $13 20 0 $0 Subtotal $287,107 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $57,421 Construction Costs with Contingencies $344,528 Engineering and Design (10%) $34,453 Administration (5%) $17,226 Construction Management (7%) $24,117 13 $420,324 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project N Capital Cost Estimate Segment 37 End of Carlsbad Village Dr at College Bvid to Lake Calaveras loop This segment would be the primary connechon between the City of Carlsbad's Class 2 route system and the loop (Segment 36) proposed around Lake Calaveras, as well as the northern terminus of a proposed Class 1 system along the Agua Hedionda Creek drainage Note Trail surfacing is to be determined prior to implementafton, but the cost analysis assumes Class 1 type pavmg Class 1 Length 4,578 Feet 0 87 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Stripmg/Signing MI $3,300 00 0 87 $2,861 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 36,624 $44,681 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 18,312 $9,156 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 54,936 $30,215 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,035 $33,572 Drainage LF $5 50 4,578 $25,179 Fencing LF $13 20 4,578 $60,430 Subtotal $206,094 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $41,219 Construction Costs with Contingencies $247,313 Engineering and Design (10%) $24,731 Administration (5%) $12,366 Construction Management (7%) $17,312 iMaj $301,722 2 - FACILITY GUIDELINES These facility guidelines are intended to guide develop- ment of all types of bikeway facilities The first section considers the necessary planning aspects of bikeway system design in general The following section discusses general physical design guidelines Subsequent sections provide physical design information for specific classes of bikeway facilities 12 1 Bikeway Planning Successfully implementing a bikeway system involves careful planning that considers a number of issues, in- cluding setting up appropriate mechanisms to take ad- vantage of bikeway opportunities as they become avail- able Author and bicycle planning expert Susan Pinsof has perhaps described the process most succinctly "A comprehensive, affordable approach to bicycle plan- ning involves maximizing the usefulness of existing in- frastructure by improving the safety of shared roadway space, usmg opportunities, such as available open space corridors for trails, creating more "bicycle-fnendly" com- munities through planning, design and regulation, and addressing the need for bicycle safety education and encouragement" 12 11 Local Emphasis Cycling IS primarily a local activity since most trips do not exceed five miles Experienced cyclists routinely ride further than this and their cross-community travel should be accommodated However, if it is a community goal to make localized cycling a viable option for personal transportation, then cyclist mobility must be improved and enhanced throughout the community, especially to important local destinations Even though State or Fed- eral policies may influence or even dictate some design and implementation decisions, it is local decisions that will most significantly affect the potential for cycling within a community 12 12 Master Plan Process The basis for a bicycle-friendly community can be es- tablished by instituting appropriate policies through the development and adoption of this bicycle master plan A program of physical improvements and workable implementation strategies that reflects local needs was developed as part of this master plan A bicycle master plan will be of little value if it is not part of an active and ongoing planning process that continually seeks to integrate cycling considerations into all areas of local planning Within this master plan, facility design guidelines have been tailored to local conditions, but are also consis- tent with national guidelines, such as the AASHTO Guide to Development of Bicycle Facilities State guide- lines are also referenced, specifically, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design and the Caltrans Traffic Manual Elements of these guidelines without relevance to the region have been excluded 12 13 'institutionalizing" Bicycle Planning Achieving implementation of this master plan will be greatly expedited by "institutionalizing" bicycle plan- ning, a concept first developed by Peter Lagerway of the city of Seattle, Washington as part of his efforts as the city's pedestrian and bicycle coordinator The term refers to coordinating local planning and regulatory func- tions in the development of a program of improvements Three elements are needed to institutionalize bicycle planning on a local level 1) a bicycle advisory commit- tee, 2) a bicycle coordinator, and 3) committed public officials 1) Public involvement can be promoted through the for- mation of a bicycle advisory committee as a new city committee, or as a subcommittee of an appropriate ex- isting committee Its primary benefit would be in pro- viding an avenue for public participation and support 2) City government involvement can occur through the designation of a bicycle coordinator For a city the size of Carlsbad, this may be a part-time position, but this does not diminish its importance Since a truly compre- hensive bicycle planning effort will involve many city departments including public works, parks and recre ation, planning, schools and police, the bicycle coordi- nator would be in a position to organize interdepart- mental efforts and make certain that bicycle concerns are integrated into other city activities in the planning stages, as well as coordinate with adjacent communi- ties and jurisdictions 3) The third aspect of institutionalization of bicycle planning involves obtaining the commitment of pub- lic officials Leadership for bicycle improvements may already come from public officials, but even if it does not, officials will be more likely to be supportive if they can be certain their constituency wants a more bicycle-friendly community 12 14 Primary Planning Considerations The safety, efficiency and enjoyment of the bike facil- ity by expected users should be the primary consid- erations employed in the planning of new bicycle facilities More specifically, such considerations should include the following Facility Guidelines • Direct and convenient alignment to serve trip origins and destinations • Access to and from existmg and planned bicycle facili ties • Avoiding abrupt facility discontinuity, • Avoiding steep grades whenever possible • Adequate lighting and sight lines, • Convenient bicycle parking at destinations, and • Adequate commitment to maintenance 12 15 Integration with Other City Plans and Programs Bicycle facility planning requires a high level of coordi- nation because it is directly affected by the planning decisions of other City departments, as well as those of adjacent communities, the county, regional and state agencies Land use, zoning, street design, open space and park planning all affect how bicycle-friendly a com- munity can be For examples, land use patterns affect cycling by determining the locations of trip origins and destinations by si ich means as creatmg areas of employ- ment and housing densities sufficient to sustain bicycle facilities, or by providing a balance of housing and jobs by encouraging multi-use development Access or bi- cycle parking facilities can often be included in devel- opments at a \ovj cost Also, the provision of better ac- cess and connections between developments for cyclists and pedestrians may be more easily provided ifthe need IS understood and articulated as early as possible in the planning process Effective bicycle planning may require review of regional transportation plans, local street plans, park and open space plans and even site plan review Transportation plans provide opportunities for low cost improvements to be designed mto subsequent projects Local street plans provide opportunities to implement changes that make streets more conducive to cycling using techniques such as "traffic calming" (Section 12 2 22) Park and open space planning provide opportunities to acquire greenways and to build multi-use trails Site plan re- view provides opportunities to ensure that project de- sign accommodates cyclists through the provision of improvements such as access or parking facilities and that the project's vehicular traffic does not decrease the safety of cyclists of adjacent facilities 12 16 Education and Encouragement Education and encouragement of cycling are important elements of any bicycle planning effort and can occur through instructional venues such as school curricula and through the efforts of large employer-based trans- portation programs There is no shortage of educational materials available through a number of private and government organizations The dissemination of mean- ingful information can also be augmented by the par- ticipation of local businesses such as bike shops, espe- cially since they have a vested interest in promoting safe cycling m Carlsbad 12 17 Regulating Land Use and Community Design to Benefit Cycling Land use and design options are largely determmed by regulatory functions that, in turn, help to define com- munity character and functionality These regulatory functions such as subdivision regulations, zoning re- quirements and developer exactions are also often used to set requirements for amenities in new development projects These same regulations can be used to help define development patterns more conducive to cycling such as incorporating more mixed use, higher densities and connections between communities and land uses Street patterns and hierarchy can greatly affect average daily (motor vehicle) trips (ADTs), connectivity and motor vehicle speeds, which in turn positively or negatively affect cycling Street design can be modified to discour- age high motor vehicle speeds and to provide width for a bike lane Linear open space can become land for greenway routes that benefit all non-motorized users, not just cyclists Though prioritization of bikeway projects is defined by State and local decisions, it is Federal funding and poli- cies that currently encourage the use of transportation funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects However, Federal funding can not be counted upon as a reliable source for the foreseeable future since it depends on the political nature of legislative action Bicycle plan- ning can not sustain itself on the occasional Federal grant Future local implementation will more likely de- pend on instituting bicycle improvements as part of infrastructural projects, which is when they are most cost-effective Similarly, the most economical way to include bicycle facilities in private development is through initial project planning and design, not as an afterthought Ordinances can be written that bikeway systems be included as part of new developments An effort should be made to show developers that such requirements are worthwhile be- cause they create well-established marketing advantages gained from providing pedestrian and bicycle ameni- ties Ordinances can also require bicycle amenities such as bicycle parking, showers and lockers at employment sites In all cases, a bicycle master plan is important for establishing priorities for such public/private projects Review of developments for transportation impacts should address how on-site bicycle facilities are planned Bicycle storage racks should be provided at commer- cial facilities at locations convenient to building en- trances and covered from the elements This is espe- Page 72 2 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan cially important at retail and service establishments At employment sites, secure bicycle racks and/or lockers should be provided (For a further discussion regarding bicycle storage facilities, see Appendix C, Supplemen- tal Facilities) Requiring developments near commuter rail stations to provide access pathways to these transit centers as part of urban in-fill may improve multi-modal connections for pedestrians and cyclists alike Other developers should contribute to bicycle master plan implementa- tion projects in newly developing areas Park land dedi- cation or fees in lieu of dedication is another possible component of strategies to acquire local trail and bi- cycle path rights-of-way 12 18 Locating Bicycle Facilities on Roadways The appropriateness of a roadway facility for bicycling IS influenced by a number of factors These factors can generally be classified into the following categories • Land Use and Location Factors These factors represent the most significant category af- fecting compatibility Since bicycle trips are generally shorter than motor vehicle or mass transit trips, there must be a manageable distance between origins and destinations, such as between residential areas and places of employment There are certain key land uses which are especially likely to generate bicycle traffic if good bicycle facilities are available These consist of, but are not limited to, transit centers, schools, employ- ment centers with nearby residential areas, recreation areas and mixed use areas • Physical Constraint Factors These consist of roadway geometric or physical obstacles to bicycling which are difficult or costly to remedy For example, a roadway may be appropriate because of lo- cation factors but not appropriate because of the exist- ence of physical constraints to bicycling such as a nar- row bridge, insufficient right-of-way or intersections with restricted lane widths resulting from lane channelization The feasibility of correcting these physical constraints must be weighed in designating bikeways • Traffic Operations Factors These include traffic volume, speed, the number of curb cuts or conflict pomts along the roadway, sight distance and bicycle-sensitive traffic control devices Experienced cyclists will use roadways even if they have limiting traf- fic operational factors, but less confident cyclists will perceive such roadways as unsafe and intimidating These roadway facilities should be designed or improved to accommodate cyclists through the shared use of road- ways However, they are inappropriate for full designa- tion as bikeways Other safety issues such as maintenance and pavement repair are also important considerations m the designa- tion of bikeways, but do not directly affect the planning aspects of appropriate facilities 12 19 integrating Bicycle Facilities into the Roadway Planning Process Planning for bicycle facilities on roadways should be- gin at the very earliest stage of project development on all sizes and types of roadway projects Even the small- est roadway reconstruction project could result in a missed opportunity if cyclists are not taken into consid- eration at the initiation of the project At the municipal level, planners should address these roadway planning issues in the comprehensive context of the circulation element in the municipal master plan The following procedure offers the planner and designer guidance in determining the need for bikeways during the usual phases of project development • Needs Assessment The first step in the planning process for any transporta- tion project IS the assessment of needs Existing and planned land use, current and projected traffic levels and the special needs ofthe area population are exam- ined There are circumstances in which a portion ofthe transportation need might be served by non-motorized means, as well as locations where existing bicycle de- mand would be better served by improved facilities The following land use and location factors assist in recog- nizing the potential for non-motorized travel and evalu ating the needs of cyclists at the street level The roadway • Serves an activity center which could generate bicycle trips • Is included on a county or municipal bicycle master plan • Provides continuity with or between existing bicycle fa cilities including those of adjacent cities • Is located on a roadway which is part of a mapped bike route or utilized regularly by local bicycle clubs • Passes within two miles of a transit center • Passes within two miles of a high school or college • Passes within a half mile of an elementary school or middle school, • Passes through an employment center especially if there 15 a significant residential area within a three mile radius or • Provides access to a recreation area or otherwise serves a recreation purpose If any one of these factors exist, the roadway has the potential to attract less experienced bicycle riders and/ or significant numbers of advanced riders As a result, it should be considered as potentially appropriate for des- ignation as a bikeway Chapter 12 Page 12 3 Facility Guidelines The planner should mclude a description ofthe poten- tial significance of the roadway as a bicycle facility m the project initiation or scoping document that will be forwarded to the project designer If the planner deter- mines that the project is potentially appropriate for des- ignation as a bikeway, the nature of potential bicycle use should be addressed, including factors affect- ing roadway design, such as roadway truck volumes or intersections • Preliminary Engineering Roadway facilities which have been determined through needs assessment to be potentially appropriate for bikeways should be analyzed to determine whether any physical constraints exist that may limit the facility type that could be provided The following factors should be considered • Sufficient right-of way exists or additional right-of way can be acquired to allocate the required space for a bikeway, • Physical impediments or restrictions exist, but they can be avoided or removed to allow for the required pave ment width to provide a bikeway, • Bridges allow for bicycle access in accordance with bikeway standards and • Travel or parking lanes can be reduced in width or elimi nated to allow space for bikeways If these factors occur, a bikeway should be recom- mended at the completion ofthe preliminary engineer- ing phase for the following situations • Transportation facilities or segments that connect bicycle traffic generators within five miles of each other or • Segments of transportation facilities that provide continu Ity with existing bicycle facilities If physical constraint factors that preclude allocation of space and designation of bikeways exist along a par- ticular roadway and cannot be avoided or remedied, these factors should be reported to the project manager in the final design phase and alternative design treat- ments should be generated Planning and engineering should consider more than roadway cross-sections Often, the most difficult poten- tial areas of conflict are at intersections In general, high speed interchanges, merge lanes and wide radius curbs are unsafe for cyclists and should be avoided • Final Design And Facility Selection Class 2 facilities are usually more suitable in urban set- tings on roads with high traffic volumes and speeds Class 3 facilities are often used in urban settings to guide cy- clists along alternate or parallel routes that avoid major obstacles, or have more desirable traffic operational fac- tors In rural settings. Class 2 facilities are not usually neces- sary to designate preferential use On higher volume roadways, wide shoulders offer cyclists a safe and com- fortable riding area On low volume roadways, most cyclists prefer the appearance of a narrow, low speed country road Table 12-1 recommends the type of bikeway and pave- ment width for vanous traffic conditions For locations where pavement widths do not meet the criteria listed in the table, the local municipal bicycle authority should be consulted to assist in the decision-making process Where physical obstructions exist that can be removed in the future, the roadway facility should be designed to meet bikeway space allocation requirements and up- graded and designated when the physical constraint is remedied (i e , bndge is replaced and improved to al- low designated facility) The fmal design should be coordinated with the bicycle coordinator for review and approval prior to construction When the needs assessment and preliminary design in- dicate the need for bikeways, the designer should con- sider traffic operations factors in determining the actual design treatment for the bikeway The following should be considered m the design ofthe roadway and bicycle facility • Existing and projected traffic volumes and speeds • Existence of parking (Can parking be restricted or removed to allow better sight distances?) • Excessive intersection-conflict points (Can intersection conflict points be reduced along roadways?), • Turn lanes at intersections that can be designed to allow space for cyclists • Sections with insufficient sight distance or roadway geometries be changed, or • Traffic operations be changed or "calmed' to allow space and increased safety for cyclists 12 2 General Physical Guidelines The following sections cover physical design guidelines applicable to all bicycle facility types Guidelines spe- cific to Class 1, 2 and 3 facilities are covered m subse- quent sections 12 2 1 Pavement Width At a minimum, all roadway projects shall provide suffi cient width of smoothly paved surface to permit the shared use of the roadway by bicycles and motor vehicles Page 12 4 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan Table 12-1 is based on the FHWA publication. Select- ing Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bi- cycles Pavement widths represent minimum design treatments for accommodating bicycle traffic These widths are based on providing sufficient pavement for shared use by bicycle and motor vehicle traffic and should be used on roadway projects as minimum guide- lines for bicycle compatible roads Considerations in the selection of pavement width in- clude traffic volume, speed, sight distance, number of large vehicles (such as trucks) and grade The dimen- sions given in Table 12-1 for shared lanes are exclusive ofthe added width for parking, which is assumed to be eight feet On shared lanes with parking, the lane width can be reduced if parking occurs only intermittently On travel lanes where curbs are present, an additional one foot IS necessary On very low volume roadways with ADTs of less than 1,200, even relatively high speed roads pose little risk for cyclists since there will be high probability that an overtaking motor vehicle will be able to widely pass a bicycle When an overtaking car is unable to immedi- ately pass a bicycle, only a small delay for the motorist IS likely These types of roadways are jointly used by both cyclists and motorists m a safe manner and widen- ing of these roads is not usually recommended Costs of providing widening of these roads can seldom be justi- fied based on either capacity or safety Similarly, moderately low volume roadways with ADTs between 1,200 and 2,000 generally are compatible for bicycle use and will have little need for widening How- ever, since there is a greater chance of two opposing cars meeting at the same time as they must pass a cy- clist, providing some room at the outside of the outer travel lane is desirable on faster speed roadways On low speed roadways, motorists should be willing to ac- cept some minimal delay With ADTs from 2,000 to 10,000, the probability be- comes substantially greater that a vehicle overtaking a bicycle may also meet another oncoming vehicle As a result, on these roads, some room at the edge of the roadway should be provided for cyclists This additional width should be two to three feet added to a typical 11 foot outer travel lane At low speeds, such as below 25 mph, little separation is needed for both a cyclist and a motorist to feel comfortable during a passing maneu- ver With higher speeds, more room is needed At volumes greater than 10,000 ADTs, vehicle traffic in the curb lane becomes almost continuous, especially during peak periods As a result, cyclists on these road- ways require separate space to safely ride, such as a Class 2 facility In addition, improvements to the road- way edge and the shoulder area will be valuable for motorists as well Caltrans guidelines for highways recommend that a full eight foot paved shoulder be provided for State high- ways On highways havmg ADTs greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, or on which more than five percent of the traffic volume consists of trucks, every effort should be made to provide such a shoulder for the benefit of cyclists, to enhance the safety of motor vehicle move- ments and to provide "break down" space, as well as a Class 2 facility Otherwise, the highway should prob- ably not be designated as a bicycle facility 12 2 2 Sight Distance Roadways with adequate sight distance will allow a motorist to see, recognize, decide on the proper ma- neuver and initiate actions to avoid a cyclist Adequate decision sight distance is most important on high speed highways and narrow roadways where a motorist would have to maneuver out of the travel lane to pass a cy- clist The pavement widths given in Table 12 1 are based on the assumption that adequate sight distance is available In situations where there is not adequate sight distance, the provision of additional width may be necessary 12 2 3 Truck Traffic Roadways with high volumes of trucks and large vehicles, such as recreational vehicles, need additional space to minimize cyclisVmotorist conflicts on roadways Addi- tional width will allow overtaking of cyclists by trucks with less maneuvering Additionally, overtaking by a truck will exert less lateral force from truck drafts and provide greater sight distance for following vehicles Although there is no established threshold, additional space should be considered when truck volumes ex- ceed five percent ofthe traffic mix, or on roadways that serve campgrounds, or where a high level of tourist travel IS expected using large recreational vehicles Where truck volumes exceed 15 percent ofthe total traffic mix, widths shown on the table should be increased by a minimum of one foot Chapter 12 Page 12 5 Facility Guidelines Recommended Pavement Widths* Posted Speed Limit Urban w/ Parking Urban w/o Parking Table 12-1 Rural 1,200 to 2,000 ADTs <30 mph 31-40 mph 41-50 mph >50 mph 12 ft SL Uft SL 15 ft SL NA 11 ft SL Hft SL 15 ft SL 4ft SH 10 ft SL 12 ft SL 3 ft SH 4ft SH 2,000 to 10,000 ADTs <30 mph 31-40 mph 41-50 mph >50 mph Uft SL U ft SL 15 ft SL NA 12 ft SL Uft SL 15 ft SL 6ft SH 12 ft SL 3 ft SH 4ft SH 6ft SH More thart 10,000 ADTs or Trucks over 5% <30 mph 31-40 mph 41-50 mph >50 mph Uft SL Uft SL 15 ft SL NA Uft SL 4ft SH 6ft SH 6ft SH Uft SL 4ft SH 6ft SH 6ft SH Notes *Primarily applicable to Class 3 and "Undesignated" routes SH = Shoulder SL = Shared Lane Shared lane is acceptable for volumes less than 1,200 ADTs Provide 8' shoulder for volumes greater than 10,000 ADTs Source Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, FHWA Page 12 6 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan 12 2 4 Steep Grades Steep grades influence overtaking of cyclists by motor- ists Cyclists climbing steep grades are often unsteady (wobbly) and may need additional width Also, the dif- ference in speed between a slow, climbing cyclist and a motor vehicle results in less time for the driver to react and maneuver around a cyclist The slowing of a motor vehicle on a steep grade to pass a cyclist can result in a diminished level of service 12 2 5 Unavoidable Obstacles Short segments of roadways with multiple unavoidable obstacles that result in inadequate roadway width are acceptable on bicycle compatible roadways if mitigated with signing or striping Typical examples include bridges with narrow widths and sections of roadway that can- not be widened without removing significant street trees These conditions preferably should not exist for more than a quarter of a mile, or on high speed highways "Zebra" warning striping should be installed to shift traf- fic away from the obstacle and allow for a protected buffer for bicycle travel In situations where a specific obstacle such as a bridge abutment can not be avoided, a pavement marking con- sisting of a single six inch white line starting 20 feet before and offset from the obstacle can also be used to alert cyclists thatthe travel lane width will soon narrow ahead (See Section 1003 6 ofthe Caltrans Highway De- sign Manual for specific instructions ) In either situation, where bicycle traffic is anticipated, a "SHARE THE ROAD" sign should be used to supple- ment the warning striping On longer sections of road- way that are irrevocably narrow, edge striping should be employed to narrow the travel lane and apportion pavement space for a partial shoulder In situations where even these measures may not provide adequate road way space for cyclists, it is recommended that an alter- nate route be designated 12 2 6 Pavement Design Though wider tires are now very common and bicycle suspension systems are becoming increasingly preva- lent, bicycles still require a riding surface without sig- nificant obstacles or pavement defects because they are much more susceptible to such surface irregularities than are motor vehicles Asphalt is preferred over concrete where shoulders are employed The outside pavement area where bicycles normally operate should be free of longitudinal seams Where transverse expansion joints are necessary on concrete, they should be saw cut to ensure a smooth transition In areas where asphalt shoul- ders are added to existing pavement, or where pave- ment IS widened, pavement should be saw cut to pro- duce a tight longitudinal joint to minimize wear and expansion ofthe joint 12 2 7 Raised Roadway Markers Raised roadway markers such as reflectors or rumble strips should not be used on roadway edges where bi- cycles are most likely to operate because they are a sur- face irregularity that can be hazardous to bicycle stabil- ity Painted stripes or flexible reflective tabs are preferred In no case should strips of raised reflectors that are in- tended to warn motorists to reduce vehicle speeds prior to intersections be allowed to cross through the bicycle travel lane 12 2 8 Utilities Because bicycles are much more sensitive to pavement irregularities than motor vehicles, utility covers should be adjusted as a normal function of any pavement re- surfacing or construction operations Failure to do so can result in the utility cover being sunken below the paving surt^ace level which creates a hazard experienced cyclists refer to as "black holes " Also, it is common practice to excavate trenches for new utilities at road edges, the same location as bicycle facilities When such trenching is completed, care should be given to replac- ing the full surface of the bicycle lane from the road edge to the vehicle travel lane instead of narrow strips that tend to settle or bubble, causing longitudinal ob- structions Replacement of the bike lane striping should also be required 12 2 9 Drainage Facilities Storm water drainage facilities and structures are usu- ally located along the edge of roadways where they of- ten present conflicts with cyclists Careful consideration should be given to the location and design of drainage facilities on roadways with bicycle facilities All drainage grate inlets pose some hazard to bicycle traffic The greatest hazard comes from stream flow drainage grates which can trap the front wheel of a bi- cycle and cause the cyclist to lose steering control, or have the narrow bicycle wheels drop into the grate A lesser hazard is caused by cyclists swerving into the lane of traffic to avoid any type of grate or cover Riding across any wet metal surface increases the chances of a sud- den slip fall Only a "bicycle safe" drainage grate with acceptable hydraulic characteristics should be used The inlet grate should be used in all normal applications and should be installed flush with the final pavement Where addi- tional drainage inlet capacity is required because of Chapter 12 Page 12 7 Facility Guidelines excessive gutter flow or grade (greater than two percent), double inlets should be considered Depressed grates and stream flow grates should not be used except in unique or unusual situations which require their use and only outside the lane sharing area Where necessary, depressed grates should only be installed on shoulders SIX feet wide or greater Where projects offer the possi- bility for replacement of stream flow grates located in the lane sharing area, these grates should be replaced with the "bicycle safe" grate When roads or intersections are widened, new bicycle safe drainage grates should be installed at a proper lo- cation at the outside of the roadway, existing grates and inlet boxes should be removed and the roadway recon- structed Drainage grate extensions, the installation of steel or iron cover plates or other "quick fix" methods which allow for the retention of the subsurface dram inlet are unacceptable measures since they will create a safety hazard in the portion of the roadway where cyclists operate Manholes and covers should be located outside ofthe lane sharing area wherever possible Utility fixtures lo- cated within the lane sharing area, or any travel lane used by bicycle traffic, should be eliminated or relo- cated Where these fixtures cannot be avoided, the util- ity fixture cover should be made flush with the pave- ment surface 12 2 10 Combination Curb and Gutter These types of curbs reduce space available for cyclists The width of the gutter pan should not be used when calculating the width of pavement necessary for shared use by cyclist On steep grades, the gutter should be set back an additional one foot to allow space to avoid high speed crashes caused by the longitudinal joint between the gutter pan and pavement Where the combination curb and gutter is used, pavement width should be cal- culated by adding one foot from the curbed gutter 12 2 11 Bridges Bridges provide essential crossings over obstacles such as rivers, rail lines and high speed roadways, but they have been almost universally constructed for the expe- dience of motor vehicle traffic and often have features that are not desirable for bicycling Among these fea- tures are widths that are narrower than the approach roadways (especially when combined with relatively steep approach grades), low railings or parapets, high curbs and expansion joints that can cause steering prob lems Though sidewalks are generally not recommended for cycling, there are limited situations such as long or nar- row bridges where designation of the sidewalk as an alternate bicycle facility can be beneficial to cycling, especially when compared to riding in the narrow bridge roadway This is only recommended where the appro- priate curb cuts, ramps and signage can also be included Using the bndge sidewalk as a bicycle facility is espe- cially useful where pedestrian use is expected to be minimal Appropriate signage directed to all potential users should be installed so that they will be aware of the shared use situation Bridge railings or barrier curb parapets where bicycle use is anticipated should be a minimum of 4 5 feet high • Modifications of Narrow Bridges Over Rail Lines and Highways Short of wholesale replacement of the existing narrow bridges over rail lines and highways, there are a few measures to substantially improve safety for cyclists Signage warning motonsts of both the presence of cy- clists and the minimal bridge width should be installed at the bridge approaches "Zebra" warning stripe areas should be painted along high curbs to deter cyclists from riding too close to them which can result in the pedal hitting these high curbs, causing an accident This situ- ation IS of particular concern since the cyclist will want to stay as far to the right as possible to avoid passing motor vehicles traffic, even though riding far to the right increases the chances of hitting the high curb Though the first alternative mentioned above, bridge replacement, is the preferred alternative for bridges that are too narrow, it is the least likely to occur due to cost A second alternative is to direct cyclists to alternate, safer routes, but this will not always be practical since highway and rail crossing points are usually limited in number and considerable distances apart In any case, these other crossing points may well have similar width restrictions A third alternative is to build separate bridges for cyclist and pedestrian use Where access warrants a workable solution, this could be a cost-effective long-term solu- tion compared to rebuilding the motor vehicle bridge These additional bridges could be built adjacent to the motor vehicle bridges, or be installed well away from them, depending upon where best to conveniently ac- commodate cyclists and pedestrians, who would also undoubtedly use such facilities An advantage to con- structing the bridges away from the motor vehicle bridges IS that only one bndge would be needed since building bicycle/pedestrian bridges immediately adjacent to ex- isting motor vehicle bridges would require constructing two one-way spans, one on each side of the roadway, for optimum user safety Page 12 8 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan Recommended locations for new bikeway bridges or bridge expansions include Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road over the rail line and at Tamarack Avenue, Jefferson Street and Las Flores Drive over 1-5 If sidewalk widths are sufficient, directing cyclists to use the sidewalks and installing ramps at the bridge ends is a possible solution In general, sidewalks are not rec- ommended as a cycling venue and riding on sidewalks IS illegal, but in cases where narrow bridges are not ex- pected to be rebuilt for an extended period of time, this may be a reasonable alternative If possible, a railing should be installed between the roadway and the sidewalk Finally, it should be noted that all the other alterna- tives are inherently inferior to the first alternative of rebuilding narrow bridges in terms of safety, and should only be considered where the first alternative can not be implemented 12 2 12 Traffic Control Devices As legitimate users of California's roadways, cyclists are subject to essentially the same rights and responsibili- ties as motorists In order for cyclists to properly obey traffic control devices, those devices must be selected and installed to take their needs into account All traffic control devices should be placed so they can be ob- served by cyclists who are properly positioned on the road This includes programmed visibility signal heads • Traffic Signals and Detectors Traffic-actuated signals should accommodate bicycle traffic Detectors for traffic-activated signals should be sensitive to bicycles, should be located in the cyclist's expected path and stenciling should direct the cyclist to the point where the bicycle will be detected Examples of successful bicycle-sensitive signal detector installa- tion and their specific applications are shown at right Since detectors can fail, added redundancy in the event of failure is recommended in the form of pedestnan push buttons at all signalized intersections These buttons should be mounted in a location which permits their activation by a cyclist without having to dismount It IS increasingly common for bicycles to be made of so little ferrous metals that they may not be detectable by many currently installed types of loop detectors Ofthe types available, those illustrated at right should be used Where left turn lanes are provided and only protected left turns are allowed, bicycle sensitive loop detectors should be installed in the left turn lane, or a pedestrian style push button should be provided that is accessible to the cyclist in the median immediately adjacent to the turn lane to permit activation of the left turn phase Where moderate or heavy volumes of bicycle traffic exist, or are anticipated, bicycles should be considered in the timing ofthe traffic signal cycle as well as in the selection and placement of the traffic detector device In such cases, short clearance intervals should not be used where cyclists must cross muIti-lane streets Ac- cording to the 1991 AASHTO Guide for the Develop- ment of Bicycle Facilities, a bicycle speed of 10 mph and a perception/reaction time of 2 5 seconds can be used to check the clearance interval Where necessary, such as for particularly wide roadways, an all-red clear- ance interval can be used In general, for the sake of cyclist safety, protected left turns are preferred over unprotected left turns In addi- tion, traffic signal controlled left turns are much safer for cyclists than left turns at which motorists and cy- clists must simply yield This is because motor vehicle drivers, when approaching an unprotected left turn situ- ation or planning to turn left at a yield sign, tend to watch for other motor vehicles and may not see an ap- proaching cyclist More positive control of left turns gives cyclists an added margin ot safety where they need it most / Quadrupole Loop • Detects most strongly in center • Sharp cut off of sensitivity • Used in bike lanes Diagonal Quadrupole Loop • Sensitive over whole area • Sharp cut-off of sensitivity • Used in shared lanes / Standard Loop • Detects most strongly over wires • Gradual cut off • Used for advanced detection Source City of San Diego loop detectors should be selected for specific sites based on range and cut off distance These configurations have been shown to function well in the applications indicated Chapter 12 Page 12 9 Facility Guidelines • Signing When designating a bicycle route, the placement and spacing of signs should be based on the Caltrans Traffic Manual and Highway Design Manual For bike route signs to be functional, supplemental plaques can be placed beneath them when located along routes lead- ing to high demand destinations (e g "To Downtown," "To Transit Center," etc ) Since bicycle route continuity IS important, directional changes should be signed with appropriate arrow subplaques Signing should not end at a barrier Instead, information directing the cyclist around the barrier should be provided According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Part 2A-6 "Care should be taken not to install too many signs A conservative use of regula- tory and warning signs is recommended as these signs, if used to excess, tend to lose their effectiveness On the other hand, a frequent display of route markers and di- rectional signs to keep the driver informed of his loca- tion and his course will not lessen their value " "BIKE ROUTE" - This sign is mtended for use where no unique designation of routes is desired However, when used alone, this sign conveys very little information It can be used in connection with supplemental plaques giving destinations and distances (See Section 1003-3 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and Part 9B-22 of the MUTCD for specific information on subplaque options ) Roadways that are appropriate for bicycle use, but are undesignated, usually do not require regulatory, guide or informational signing in excess of what is normally required for motorists In certain situations, however, additional signing may be needed to advise both mo torists and cyclists of the shared use of the roadway, including the travel lane "NO PARKING/BIKE LANE" - This is a combination sign employed by the City of Carlsbad where designa- tion of a route is needed, but where the prevention of automobile parking within the bicycle lane is also a pri- ority For example, it is likely to be used on roadways along the beaches where parking problems tend to oc- cur more frequently "SHARE THE ROAD" - Though not currently used by the City of Carlsbad, this sign is recommended where the following roadway conditions occur • Shared lanes (especially if lane widths do not comply with Table 12 1) with relatively high posted travel speeds of 40 mph or greater, • Shared lanes (conforming with Table 12 1) in areas of limited sight distance • Situations where shared lanes or demarcated shoulders or marked bike lanes are dropped or end and bicycle and motor vehicle traffic must begin to share the travel lane, • Steep descending grades where bicycle traffic may be operating at higher speeds and requires additional ma neuvering room to shy away from pavement edge condi tions, • Steep ascending grades especially where there is no paved shoulder, or the shared lane is not adequately wide and bicycle traffic may require additional maneuvering room to maintain balance at slow operating speeds, • High volume urban conditions, especially those with travel lanes less than the recommended width for lane sharing • Other situations where it is determined to be advisable to alert motorists ofthe likely presence of bicycle traffic and to alert all traffic ofthe need to share available roadway space 12 2 13 Intersections and Driveways High speed, wide radius intersection designs increase traffic throughput for motor vehicles by minimizing speed differentials between entering and exiting vehicles and through vehicles However, these designs exacer- bate speed differential problems faced by cyclists trav- eling along the right side of a roadway and encourage drivers to fail to yield the right-of-way to cyclists As a result, where wide radius turns are bemg considered, specific measures should be employed to ensure that the movement of cyclists along the roadway will be vis- ible to motorists and to provide cyclists with a safe area to operate to the left of these wide radius right turn lanes One method to accomplish this is to stripe (dash) a bi- cycle lane throughout the intersection area Also, "SHARE THE ROAD" signs should be posted m advance of the intersection to alert existing traffic In general, however, curb radii should be limited to distances which communicate to the motorist that he or she must yield the right-of-way to cyclists traveling along the roadway, or to pedestrians walking along the sidewalk or road- way margin Sand, gravel and other debris in the cyclist's path present potential hazards In order to minimize the possibility of debris from being drawn onto the pavement surface from unpaved intersecting streets and driveways, dur mg new construction, reconstruction and resurfacing, all unimproved intersecting streets and driveways should be paved back to the right-of-way line or a distance of 10 feet Where curb cuts permit access to roadways from abutting unpaved parking lots, a paved apron should be paved back to the right-of-way line, preferably 10 feet from the curb line These practices will lessen the need for maintenance debris removal The placement of the paved back area or apron should be the respon- Page 12 10 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan sibility of those requesting permits for access via curb cuts from driveways and parking lots onto the road- way system 12 2 14 Roadside Obstacles To make certain that as much of the paved surface as possible IS usable by bicycle traffic, obstructions such sign posts, light standards, utility poles and other simi- lar appurtenances should be set back a one foot mini- mum "shy distance" from the curb or pavement edge with exceptions for guard rail placement in certain in- stances Additional separation distance to lateral obstruc- tions IS desirable Where there is currently insufficient width of paved surface to accommodate bicycle traffic, any placement of equipment should be set back far enough to allow room for future projects (widening, re- surfacing) to bring the pavement width into conform- ance with these guidelines Vertical clearance to ob- structions should be a minimum of 8 feet, 6 inches (See Section 1003 1 of the Caltrans/-//ghwayDes/gnAtanua/) 12 2 15 Railroad Crossings As with other surface irregularities, railroad grade cross- ings are a potential hazard to bicycle traffic To mini- mize this hazard, railroad grade crossings should, ide- ally, be at a right angle to the rails This minimizes the possibility of a cyclist's wheels being trapped in the rail flangeway, causing loss of control Where this is not feasible, the shoulder (or wide outside lane) should be widened, or "bumped out" to permit cyclists to cross at right angles (See Section 1003 6 of the Caltrans High-, way Design Manual) It IS important that the railroad grade crossing be as smooth as possible and that pavement surfaces adja- cent to the rail be at the same elevation as the rail Pave- ment should be maintained so that ridge buildup does not occur next to the rails Options to provide a smooth grade crossing include re- moval of abandoned tracks, use of compressible flangeway fillers, timber plank crossings or rubber grade crossing systems These improvements should be in- cluded in any project which offers the opportunity to do so 12 2 16 TSM Type Improvements Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improve- ments are minor roadway improvements which enhance motor vehicle flow and capacity They mclude inter- section improvements, channelization, the addition of auxiliary lanes, turning lanes and climbing lanes TSM improvements must consider the needs of bicycle traf- fic m their*design, or they may seriously degrade the ability of the roadway to safely accommodate cyclists The inclusion of wider travel lanes or adjacent bike lanes will decrease traffic conflicts and increase vehicular flow Designs should provide for bicycle compatible lanes or paved shoulders Generally, this requires that the out- side through lane and (if provided) turning lane be 14 feet wide Auxiliary or climbing lanes should conform with Table 12-1 by either providing an adjacent paved shoulder, or a shared lane width of at least 15 feet Where shared lanes and shoulders are not provided, it must be assumed that bicycle traffic will take the lane 12 2 17 Marginal Improvements/Retrofitting Existing Roadways There may be instances or locations where it is not fea- sible to fully implement guidelines pertaining to the pro- vision of adequate pavement space for shared use due to environmental constraints or unavoidable obstacles In such cases, warning signs and/or pavement striping must be employed to alert cyclists and motorists of the obstruction, alert motorists and cyclist of the need to share available pavement space, identify alternate routes (if they exist), or otherwise mitigate the obstruction On stretches of roadway where it is not possible to pro- vide recommended shoulder or lane widths to accom- modate shared use, conditions for bicycle traffic can be improved by • Striping wider outside lanes and narrower interior lanes, or • Providing a limited paved shoulder area by striping a nar I row travel lane This tends to slow motor vehicle operat mg speeds and establish a space (with attendant psycho logical benefits) for bicycle operation Where narrow bridges create a constriction, zebra strip ing should be used to shift traffic away from the parapet and provide space for bicycle traffic Other possible strategies include • Elimination of parking or restricting it to one side of the roadway • Reduction of travel lanes from two in each direction to one in each direction plus center turn lane and shoul ders, or • Reduction ofthe number of travel lanes m each direction and the inclusion or establishment of paved shoulders 12 2 18 Access Control Frequent access driveways, especially commercial ac- cess driveways, tend to convert the right lane of a road- way and Its shoulder area into an extended auxiliary acceleration and deceleration lane Frequent turning movements, merging movements and vehicle occu- pancy of the shoulder can severely limit the ability of Chapter 12 Page 12 11 Facility Guidelines cyclists to utilize the roadway and are the primary causes of motor vehicle-bicycle collisions As a result, access control measures should be employed to minimize the number of entrances and exits onto roadways For drive- ways having a wide curb radius, consideration should be given to marking a bicycle lane through the dnve- way intersection areas As with other types of street in- tersections, driveways should be designed with suffi- ciently tight curb radii to clearly communicate to mo- torists that they must fully stop and then yield the right- of-way to cyclists and pedestrians on the roadway 12 2 19 Bikeway Reconstruction after Con- struction Since roadways with designated bicycle facilities carry the largest volumes of users, their reconstruction should be of particular concern Unfortunately, bicycle facili- ties are often installed piecemeal and users can find themselves facing construction detours and poor inte- gration of facilities where the facilities begin and end Bicycles facilities also sometimes seem to "disappear" after roadway construction occurs This can happen in- crementally as paving repairs are made over time and are not followed by proper bikeway restriping When combined with poor surface reconstruction following long periods out of service due to road work, this can result in the eventual loss of affected bikeway facilities and decrease the number of cyclists regularly using bi- cycle facilities within the City of Carlsbad Adjacent construction projects that require the demolition and rebuilding of roadway surfaces can cause problems in maintaining and restoring bikeway function Construction activities controlled through the issuance of permits, especially driveway, drainage, utility, or street opening permits, can have an important effect on the quality of a roadway surface where cyclists operate Such construction can create hazards such as mismatched pavement heights, rough surfaces or longitudinal gaps in adjoining pavements, or other pavement irregularities Permit conditions should ensure that pavement foun- dation and surface treatments are restored to their preconstruction conditions, that no vertical irregulari- ties will result and that no longitudinal cracks will de- velop Stricter specifications, standards and mspections designed to prevent these problems should be devel- oped, as well as more effective control of construction activities wherever bikeways must be temporarily de molished A five year bond should be held to assure correction of any deterioration which might occur as a result of faulty reconstruction of the roadway surface Spot widening associated with new access driveways frequently results in the relocation of drainage grates Any such relocation should be designed to close per- manently the old drainage strurture and restore the road way surface New drainage structures should be selected and located to comply with drainage provisions estab- lished in these guidelines 12 2 20 Maintenance Priorities Bikeway maintenance is easily ovedooked The "sweep- ing" effect of passing motor vehicle traffic readily pushes debris toward the roadway edges where it can accumu- late within an adjoining bicycle facility Litter and bro- ken glass usually ends up in these areas as well Since the potential for loss of control can exist due to a blow- out caused by broken glass, or through swerving to avoid other debris, proper maintenance is directly related to safety For this reason, street sweeping must be a prior- ity on roadways with bike facilities, especially in the curb lanes and along the curbs themselves The police department could assist by requiring towing companies to fully clean up accident scene debris, or face a fine This would prevent glass and debris from being left in place after a motor vehicle accident, or simply swept into the curb or shoulder area Suggested minimum sweeping schedule • Class 1 heavy use monthly light use twice/year • Class 2 heavy use monthly • Class 3 twice/year The availability of a forum through which citizens can conveniently notify the proper city authority of bicycle facility problems or shortcomings is desirable The City of San Diego Street Division, for example, makes avail- able a Service Request form via the city's Internet home page to allow citizens to report problems relating to streets, sidewalks, drains and other civil engineering infrastructural issues It does not specifically mention bicycle facilities in its list of selected problems, but does offer the user the opportunity to type in the particulars of any street-related issue 12 2 21 Intermodal Planning and Facilities Creating an environment conducive to intermodal tran- sit begins with providing the proper types of facilities and amenities in locations convenient enough to attract potential users Such facilities can include those de- scribed in the following sections Page 12 12 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan • Bike Lockers and Racks The provision of bicycle racks and lockers is an impor- tant first step in making a multi-modal system work for cyclists Their presence encourages cyclists to use avail- able transit because these facilities help to alleviate con- cerns about security, primarily theft or vandalism of bi- cycles parked for long periods • Additional Bus-mounted Racks The provision of bus-mounted bicycle racks on more bus routes may encourage cyclists to use the bus sys- tem, especially in the outlying sections ofthe city where topography is the most pronounced These racks should be mounted on the front of the bus to increase visibility between the bus driver and the cyclist using the rack and to decrease the chance of theft while the bus is stopped 12 2 22 Traffic Calming There exist roadway conditions in practically ali com- munities where controlling traffic movements and re- ducing motor vehicle speeds is a worthwhile way to create a safer and less stressful environment for the ben- efit of non-motorized users such as pedestrians and cy- clists These controlling measures are referred to as traf- fic calming These measures are also intended to miti- gate impacts of vehicular traffic such as noise, accidents and air pollution, but the primary link between traffic calming and bicycle planning is the relationship between motor vehicle speed and the severity of accidents Eu- ropean studies have shown that instituting traffic calm- ing techniques significantly decreases the number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in accidents involving motor vehicles, as well as the level of injuries and air pollution, without decreasing traffic volume • Stop Signs/Yield Signs The installation of stop signs is a common traffic calm- ing device intended to discourage vehicular through traf- fic by making the route slower for motorists However, stop signs are not speed control devices, but rather right- of-way control devices They do not slow the moving speed of motor vehicles and compliance by cyclists is very low Requiring motor vehicles to stop excessively also contributes to air pollution Cyclists are even more inconvenienced by stop signs than motorists because unnecessary stopping requires them to repeatedly rees- tablish forward momentum The use of stop signs as a traffic management tool is not generally recommended unless a bicycle route must intersect streets with high motor vehicle traffic volumes Controlled intersections generally facilitate bicycle use and improve safety and stop signs tend to facilitate bicycle movement across streets with heavy motor vehicular traffic An alterna- tive to stop signs may be to use yield signs or other traf- fic calming devices as methods to increase motorist awareness of crossing cyclists • Speed Bumps and Tables Though many cities are no longer installing speed bumps, they have been shown to slow motor vehicle traffic speeds and reduce volume If speed bumps are employed as a traffic management tool, a sufficiently wide gap must be provided to allow unimpeded bicycle travel around the bump to prevent safety hazards for cyclists Standard advance warning signs and markers must be installed as well • Partial Traffic Diverters These traffic calming devices include traffic circles and chicanes, both of which force traffic to follow a curved path which had formerly been straight They are usu- ally employed in areas of traditional grid street configu- ration These devices can actually increase traffic haz- ards if they are not substantial enough to decrease mo tor vehicle speeds, or if appropriate side street access points are not controlled • Total Traffic Diverters These diverters close roadways to motor vehicles only, or divert them to other routes while continuing to pro- vide access to non-motorized users Partial diverters al- low access for cyclists in both directions, but block motor vehicle entry at one end Both devices reduce motor vebicle driver options as a means to reduce the local traffic volume while allowing unrestricted access for pedestrians and cyclists They are only useful where bicycles are fully exempt from the restrictions prevent- ing the access of motor vehicles Bicycle access should be clearly signed where motor vehicle access is limited so that cyclists are made aware that they can proceed even though motor vehicles can not • Curb Extensions and Radius Reductions Larger curb radii are intended to facilitate high speed right-turn movements for the convenience of motorists However these larger radii are more dangerous for cross- ing and adjacent cyclists and pedestrians both because of the resulting higher motor vehicle speeds and the longer crossing distance for the cyclists and pedestri- ans Motorists tend to spend less time looking for pe- destrians and cyclists when they are attempting to make a high speed turn because their attention is focused on watching for oncoming traffic from the left Their ten- dency to watch for pedestrians crossing from the right is also reduced In addition, this type of intersection en- Chapter 12 Page 12 13 Facility Guidelines courages higher speed movements across the bicycle travel lane, increasing the risk of collisions To avoid these problems, curb radii should be reduced and curb extensions installed that pinch in toward the motor ve- hicle traffic lanes This narrowing ofthe roadway tends to reduce traffic speeds, which creates a longer period for drivers to see potential conflicts before making right turns However, due to the resulting reductions in mo- tor vehicle speeds, this approach may not be appropri- ate at congested intersections In such cases, there should instead be a safe lane and crossover segment especially for cyclists Extensions are curb bulbs extending into the intersec- tion from the corners of one or both of the intersecting roadways Reducing curb radii functionally narrows the intersection, shortening the crossing distance for pedes- trians and cyclists and slowing approaching traffic Curb extensions are even more effective than reduced curb radii in decreasing crossing distance and slowing traf- fic They can also serve the additional purposes of de- fining parking lanes and improving visibility at corners The use of curb extensions should be confined to resi- dential areas with limited through traffic since they limit the use of the curb lane to parking instead of providing extra roadway space beneficial for cycling Reduced curb radii can be used more widely, but should not be used on streets with bus service, or on streets with rou- tine large truck use requiring right turns 12 3 Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Guidelines Class 1 facilities are generally paved multi-use paths or trails, separated from motor vehicle traffic Off street routes are rarely constructed for the exclusive use of cyclists since other non-motonzed user types will also find such facilities attractive For that reason, the facili- ties recommended in this master plan should be con- sidered multi-use where cyclists will share the pathways with other users The recommended Class 1 routes (bike paths) are primarily intended to provide commuting routes through areas that are not yet served by roadways Their primary purpose notwithstanding, most cyclists will find bicycle paths inviting routes to nde, especially if travel efficiency is secondary to enjoyment of cycling Since these paths would augment the existing roadway system, they can extend circulation options for cyclists, making trips feasible which would not otherwise be possible if the cyclists had to depend exclusively on roadways, especially in areas where usable roads are limited Class B and C (casual and children) cyclists would likely also appreciate the relative freedom from conflicts with motor vehicles compared to riding on typi- cal roadways The presence of a Class 1 route near an existing road- way should not be construed as justification for prohib- iting bicycles on the parallel or nearly parallel road- way In several cases, this master plan calls for Class 1 routes parallel to the alignments of planned roadways The decision to retain the adjacent Class 1 routes or to replace them with the roadway equipped with a Class 2 facility will be based on critena defined by the City pnor to the time of roadway construction Should any of these Class 1 routes be retained parallel to the new roadways, these roadways should still be designed to be compat- ible with bicycle use (According to the City transporta- tion element, most new roadways are planned to in- clude Class 2 bike lanes ) Two reasons to retain parallel facilities are that an experienced cyclist may fmd Class 1 paths inappropriate because of intensive use, or the routes may not be direct enough to suit the experienced cyclist By the same token, the Class 1 path will likely be much more attractive to less experienced cyclists than a parallel facility on the street In general. Class 1 facilities should not be placed im- mediately adjacent to roadways Where such conditions exist. Class 1 facilities should be offset from the street as much as possible and separated from it by a physical barrier These measures are intended to promote safety for both the cyclists and the motorists by preventing movement between the street and the Class 1 facility 12 3 1 Class 1 Planning Issues • Shared Use of Multiple Use Path Since off-street paths (Class 1) are now rarely constructed for the exclusive use of cyclists, they must be designed for the safety of cyclists and other expected user types Heavy use of multi-use trails can create conflicts be- tween different types of users These conflicts can in- clude speed differentials between inexperienced and experienced cyclists as well as between pedestrians, joggers and in-Iine skaters, differences in the movements typical of particular user types and even the kinds of groupings common to the different user types as they casually move down the pathway As long as volumes are low, the level of conflict be- tween different user types can be managed without en- forcement However, even moderate increases in user volume can create substantial deterioration in level of service and safety Conflicts between different user types are especially likely to occur on regionally significant recreational trails that attract a broad diversity of users, especially adjacent to the beaches (such as the proposed Coastal Rail Trail) In general, paths that are expected to receive heavy use should be a minimum of 14 feet wide, paths expected to experience moderate use should be at least 12 feet wide and low volume paths can be 10 Page 12 14 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan feet wide Caltrans Class 1 requirements call for eight feet (2 4 meters) as the minimum width with two foot (0 6 meters) clear areas on each side • Regulation of Multiple Use Paths The potential for multiple-use path conflicts has in- creased substantially in recent years with the increased popularity of jogging, mountain bikes and in-line skat- ing Where multi-use trails were once commonly used primarily by pedestrians and secondanly by cyclists, today they tend to be used by a roughly equal distribu- tion of pedestrians, cyclists and in-line skaters In-line skating has been the fastest growing sport in America for several years Also, the majority of bicycles sold in the United States over the last decade have been mountain bikes, far outstripping sales of drop-bar type road bike sales The mountain bike's relative comfort and upright riding position have helped to encourage inexperienced cyclists who previously rarely rode to do so more often Methods used to reduce trail conflicts have included providing separate facilities for different groups, prohib- iting certain user types, restricting certain uses to spe- cific hours, widening existing facilities or marking lanes to regulate traffic flow Examples of all of these types of actions occur along the coastal trails of southern Cali- fornia where conflicts between different user types can be especially severe dunng peak periods I I • Compatibility of Multiple Use of Paths or Trails Joint use of paths by cyclists and equestrians can pose problems due to the ease with which horses can be startled Also, the requirements of a Class 1 bicycle fa- cility include a solid surface, which is not desirable for horses Therefore, where either equestrian or cycling activity IS expected to be high, separate trails are rec- ommended On facilities where Class 1 designation is not needed and the facility will be unpaved, mountain bikes and horses can share the trail if adequate passing width IS provided, the expected volume of traffic by both groups IS low and available sight distances allow eques- trians and cyclists to anticipate and prepare for possible conflicts Education of all trail users in "trail etiquette" has proven to be helpful on shared trails elsewhere The recent surge in the popularity of mountain bikes have increased conflicts on narrow trails with minimal surface improvements that were originally designed for hiking alone On some trails, especially ones that are contiguous over distances greater than the average hiker's typical one day hiking range, mountain bikes now commonly outnumber hikers The primary problem with this mixed use is the speed differential between mountain bikers and hikers This speed difference is exacerbated by additional concerns such as limited sight distances due to topography and vegetation Mountain bikes can also cause some ero- sion or compaction problems Therefore, mountain bike use should be restricted to wider multi-use trails and dirt roads that have adequate sight distances and drain- age improvements to protect against erosion Once again, education is an important component in mini- mizing conflicts This includes situations where adja- cent vegetation or habitat is considered sensitive Signs restricting users to the trail may be sufficient, though the addition of fencing or railings may be required ff signage does not achieve the desired results • Urban Access Pathways Conflicts between different user types on multiple use routes occur primarily on heavily used recreational paths, or near major pedestrian trip generators Lightly used neighborhood pathways and community trails can be safely shared by a variety of user types Construction of urban access pathways between adjoining residen- tial developments, schools, neighborhoods and sur- rounding streets can substantially expand the circula- tion opportunities for both pedestrians and cyclists However, bicycle use of urban access pathways should not include sidewalks adjacent to streets for a number of reasons First, sidewalks are designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability Second, they are usually encumbered by parking meters, utility poles, benches, trees, etc Third, other types of users and their specific types of maneuverability can also pose a safety issue for cyclists Though sidewalks are, in general, not conducive to safe cycling, an exception is Class C cyclists, young chil- dren This type of bicycle use is generally acceptable because it provides young children who do not yet have the judgment or skill to ride in the street an opportunity to develop their riding skills Sidewalks in residential areas generally have low pedestrian volumes and are usually accepted as play areas for children Finally, one other exception to sidewalk use by cyclists should be allowed This is where the walkway is at least eight feet wide and well away from streets, such as within parks In such cases, bicycle use on walkways can oc- cur safely • Bicycle Paths Adjacent to Roadways Two-way bicycle facilities located immediately adjacent to a roadway are not generally recommended because they require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against motor vehicle traffic, contrary to the normal "Rules of Chapter 12 Page 12 15 Facility Guidelines the Road " This puts the wrong way cyclists in the mo- torists' "blind spot" at intersections where they do not have the right-of-way, or are not noticed by motorists turning right because the cyclists are not on the road- way Many cyclists will also find it less convenient to ride on this type of facility as compared to streets, espe- cially for utility trips such as commuting This more ex- perienced group of cyclists may find the roadway more efficient, safer, or better maintained than the adjacent bicycle facility The AASHTO guide says that " bicycle lanes, or shared roadways should generally be used to accommodate bicycle traffic along highway corridors rather than providing a bicycle path immediately adja- cent to the highway " An exception to this general rule can occur where an off-road route intended primarily for bicycle use must be located adjacent to a roadway for a short distance to maintain trail continuity such as when an existing roadway's bridge will be used by the trail Even so, physi- cal separation of the bicycle facility from the roadway must be provided 12 4 Design of Class 1 Facilities (Paths Primarily Used by Bicycles) A substantial portion ofthe following sections are taken directly from the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1991 In keeping with standards employed in other reviewed master plans, the AASHTO excerpts are italicized Note that AASHTO's use of the term "bicycle path" is equivalent to a "Class 1 bicycle facility" as defined by Caltrans and as used in this mas- ter plan Also, the AASHTO term "highway" is synony- mous with the term "roadway" Finally, all measurements in the Caltrans documents are now in metric form 12 4 1 Width and Clearance The paved width and the operating width required for a bicycle path are primary design considerations Under most conditions, recommended paved width for a two- directional bicycle path is 10 feet In some instances, however, a minimum of eight feet can be adequate This minimum should be used only where the following con ditions prevail (1) bicycle traffic is expected to be low, even on peak days or durmg peak hours, (2) pedestrian use ofthe facility is not expected to be more than occa- sional, (3) there will be good horizontal and vertical alignment providing safe and frequent passing opportu- nities, and (4) the path will not be subject to mainte- nance vehicle loading conditions that would cause pave- ment edge damage Under certain conditions it may be necessary or desirable to increase the width of bicycle path to 12 feet or more, for example', because of sub- stantial bicycle volume, probable shared use with jog- gers and other pedestrians, use by large maintenance vehicles, steep grades, or where bicycles will be likely to ride two abreast Reduced widths are acceptable on access pathways due to their generally short length and low volumes How- ever, wherever possible, minimum width standards should be employed One-directional bicycle facilities are not generally recommended since they will almost certainly be used as two-way facilities A minimum of 2 feet width graded area should be mam tamed adjacent to both sides of the pavement How ever, 3 feet or more is desirable to provide clearance from trees, poles, walls, fences, guardrails, or other lat- eral guidelines A wider graded area on either side of the bicycle path can serve as a separate jogging path The vertical clearance to obstructions should be a mini- mum of 8 feet However, vertical clearance may need to be greater to permit passage of maintenance vehicles and, in undercrossings and tunnels, a clearance of 10 feet IS desirable for adequate vertical shy distance M 42 Horizontal Separation from Roadways Class 1 bicycle facilities are generally physically sepa- rated from roadways However, where a Class 1 facility must be considered within a roadway right-of-way, a wide separation between a bicycle path and adjacent highway is desirable to confirm for both the cyclist and the motorist that the bicycle path functions as an inde- pendent highway for bicycle traffic In addition to physi- cal separation, landscaping or other visual buffer is de sirable When this is not possible and the distance be- tween the edge of the roadway and the bicycle path is less than 5 feet, a suitable physical divider may be con- sidered Such dividers serve both to prevent cyclists from making unwanted movements between the path and the highway shoulder for the protection of cyclists from motor vehicles and to reinforce the concept that the bi- cycle path IS an independent facility Where used, the divider should be a minimum of 4 5 feet high, to pre- vent cyclists from toppling over it and it should be de- signed so that It does not become an obstruction or traf- fic hazard in itself 12 4 3 Design Speed The speed that a cyclist travels is dependent on several factors, including the type and condition ofthe bicycle, the purpose of the trip, the condition and location of the bicycle path, the speed and direction of the wind and the physical condition ofthe cyclist Bicycle paths should be designed for a selected speed that is at least as high as the preferred speed of the faster cyclists In general, a minimum design speed of 20 mph should be used However, when the grade exceeds four percent, a design speed of 30 mph is advisable Page 12 16 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan On unpaved paths, where cyclists tend to ride slower, a lower design speed of 15 mph can be used Similarly, where the grades dictate, a higher design speed of 25 mph can be used Since bicycles have a higher tendency to skid on unpaved surfaces, horizontal curvature de- sign should take into account lower coefficients of fric- tion 12 4 4 Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation The minimum radius of curvature negotiable by a bi- cycle IS a function of the superelevation rate of the bi- cycle path surface, the coefficient of friction between the bicycle tires and the bicycle path surface and the speed of the bicycle The minimum design radius of curvature can be derived from the following formula R= 127 • R = Minimum radius of curvature (meters) V= Design speed (kph) e = Rate of superelevation f = Coefficient of friction For most bicycle path applications, the superelevation rate will vary from a minimum two percent (the mini- mum necessary to encourage adequate drainage) to a maximum of approximately five percent (beyond which maneuvering difficulties by slow bicycles and adult tricyclists might be expected) The minimum superelevation rate of two percent will be adequate for most conditions and will simplify construction The coefficient of friction depends upon speed, surface type, roughness and condition, tire type and condition, and whether the surface is wet or dry Friction factors used for design should be selected based upon the point at which centrifugal force causes the cyclist to recog- nize a feeling of discomfort and instinctively act to avoid higher speed Extrapolating from values used in high way design, design factors for paved bicycle paths can be assumed to vary from 0 30 at 15 mph to 0 22 at 30 mph (Based on a superelevation rate (e) of two percent, minimum radii of curvature can be selected from Figure 1003 IC of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual) When substandard radius curves must be used on bi- cycle paths because of right-of-way, topographical, or other considerations, standard curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings should be installed in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual The negative effects of substandard curves can also be partially offset by widening the pavement through the curves 12 4 5 Grade Grades on bicycle paths should be kept to a minimum, especially on long inclines Grades greater than five percent are undesirable because the ascents are diffi- cult for many cyclists and the descents cause some cy- clists to exceed the speeds at which they are compe tent Where terrain dictates, grades over five percent and less than 500 feet long are acceptable when a higher design speed is used and additional width is provided 12 4 6 Switchbacks In areas of steep terrain, a series of "switchbacks" may be the only solution to traversing changes in elevation At these locations, a grade of eight percent is accept- able for a distance of no more than 100 feet Grades steeper than eight percent will not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards Switchback radii should be larger than normally employed for pedestrian facilities to allow for cyclists to be able to safely make the turns without having to dismount Pavement width should be a minimum of 12 feet wide to allow ascend- ing cyclists room to walk their bicycles when neces- sary The switchbacks should be completely visible from the next uphill turn Runouts at the end of each turn should be considered for cyclists unable to slow down quickly enough to make the turn Railings should be installed to discourage shortcuts and appropriate sign- ing should be placed at the top of the descent 12 4 7 Sight Distances To provide cyclists with an opportunity to see and react to the unexpected, a bicycle path should be designed with adequate stopping sight distance The distance re- quired to bring a bicycle to a full controlled stop is a function of the cyclist's perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the tires and the pavement and the brak- ing ability ofthe bicycle Figure 1003 1D of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual indicates the minimum stop- ping sight distance for various design speeds and grades based on a coefficient of 0 25 to account for the poor wet weather braking characteristics of many bicycles For two-way bicycle paths, the sight distance in descend- ing direction, that is, where "C" is negative, will con- trol the design 12 4 8 Intersections Intersections with roadways are important considerations in bicycle path design If alternate locations for a bi cycle path are available, the one with the most favor- able intersection conditions should be selected For crossings of freeways and other high-speed, high-vol- ume arterials, a grade separation structure may be the Chapter 12 Page 12 17 Facility Guidelines only possible or practical treatment Unless bicycles are prohibited from the crossing highway, providing for turn- ing movements must be considered When intersections occur at grade, a major consideration is the establish- ment of right-of-way The type of traffic control to be used (signal, stop sign, yield sign, etc) and locations, should be provided in accordance with the Caltrans Traf- fic Manual Sign type, size and location should also be in accor- dance with the Caltrans Traffic Manual Care should be taken to ensure that bicycle path signs are located so that motorists are not confused by them and that road- way signs are placed so that cyclists are not confused by them Other means of alerting cyclists of a highway crossing include grade changes or changing surfaces at the ap- proach Devices installed to prohibit motorists from entering the bike path can also assist with alerting cy- clists to crossings It IS preferable that the crossing of a bicycle path and a highway be at a location away from the influence of intersections with other highways Controlling vehicle movements at such intersections is more easily and safely accomplished through the application of standard tra f- fic control devices and normal Rules ofthe Road Where physical constraints prohibit such independent intersec- tions, the crossings may be at or adjacent to the pedes- trian crossing Right of way should be assigned and sight distance should be provided so as to minimize the po- tential for conflict result ng from unconventional turn- ing movements At crossings of high volume multi-lane arterial highways where signals are not warranted, con- sideration should be given to providing a median ref- uge area for cyclists When bicycle paths terminate at existing roads, it is important to integrate the path into the existing system of roadways Care should be taken to properly design the terminals to transition the traffic into a safe merging or diverging situation Appropriate signing is necessary to warn and direct both cyclists and motorists regarding these transition areas Bicycle path intersections and approaches should be on relatively flat grades Stopping sight distances at in- tersections should be checked and adequate warning should be given to permit cyclists to stop before reach- ing the intersection, especially on downgrades Ramps for curb cuts at intersections should be the same width as the bicycle paths Curb cuts and ramps should provide a smooth transition between the bicycle paths and the roadway Page 12 18 12 4 9 Signing and Marking Adequate signing and marking are essential on bicycle paths, especially to alert cyclists to potential conflicts and to convey regulatory messages to both cyclists and motorists at highway intersections In addition, guide signing, such as to indicate directions, destinations, dis- tance, route numbers and names of crossing streets, should be used in the same manner as they are used on highways In general, uniform application of traffic con- trol devices, as described m the Caltrans Highway De- sign and Traffic Manuals, will tend to encourage proper cyclist behavior A designer should consider a 4 inch wide yellow centerline stripe to separate opposite directions of travel This IS particularly beneficial in the following circum- stances (1) for heavy volumes of bicycles, (2) on curves with restricted sight distances, and (3) on unlightedpaths where nighttime riding is expected Edge lines can also be very beneficial where nighttime bicycle traffic is ex- pected General guidance on signing and marking is provided in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Care should be exercised in the choice of pavement marking mate- rials Some marking materials are slippery when wet and should be avoided in favor of more skid-resistant materials 12 4 10 Pavement Structure Under most circumstances, a two inch thick asphalt top course placed on a six inch thick select granular sub- base IS suitable for a bikeway pavement structure Where unsatisfactory soils can be anticipated, a soil investiga- tion should be conducted to determine the load-carry- ing capabilities of the native soil and the need for any special provisions In addition, some basic differences between the operat- ing characteristics of bicycles and those of motor ve- hicles should be recognized While loads on bicycle paths will be substantially less that typical roadway loads, paths should be designed to sustain without dam- age the wheel loads of occasional emergency, patrol, maintenance and other motor vehicles that are expected to use or cross the path Where such motor vehicle use will be required, four inches of asphalt should be used Additional pavement structure may also be necessary in flood plains and in locations where shallow root sys- tems may heave thin pavement sections Special consideration should be given to the location of motor vehicle wheel loads on the path When motor vehicles are driven on bicycle paths, their wheels will usually be at or very near the edges of the path Since this can cause edge damage that, in turn, will result in the lowering ofthe effective operating width ofthe path. Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan adequate edge support should be provided Edge sup- port can be either in the form of stabilized shoulders or in constructing additional pavement width Construct- ing a typical pavement width of 12 feet, where right-of- way and other conditions permit, eliminates the edge raveling problem and offers two other additional ad- vantages over shoulder construction First, it allows ad- ditional maneuvering space for cyclists and second, the additional construction cost can be less than that for constructing shoulders because the separate construc- tion operation is eliminated It IS important to construct and maintain a smooth riding surface on bicycle paths Bicycle path pavements should be machine laid Root barriers should be used where necessary to prevent vegetation from erupting through the pavement, and on Portland cement concrete pave- ments, transverse joints, necessary to control cracking, should be saw cut to provide a smooth ride On the other hand, skid resistance qualities should not be sac- rificed for the sake of smoothness Broom finish or bur- lap drag concrete surfaces are preferred over trowel fin- ishes, for example At unpaved highway or driveway crossings of bicycle paths, the highway or driveway should be paved a mini- mum of 10 feet on each side of the crossing to reduce the amount of gravel being scattered along the path by motor vehicles The pavement structure at the crossing should be adequate to sustain the expected loading at the location 4 , 12 4 11 Structures An overpass, underpass, small bridge, drainage facility or facility on a highway bridge may be necessary to provide continuity to a bicycle path On new structures, the minimum clear width should be the same as the approach paved bicycle path and the desirable clear width should include the minimum two foot wide clear areas Carrying the clear areas across the structures has two advantages First, it provides a mmimum horizon- tal shy distance from the railing or barrier, and second. It provides needed maneuvering space to avoid con flicts with pedestrians and other cyclists who are stopped on the bridge Access by emergency, patrol and mainte- nance vehicles should be considered in establishing the design clearances of structures on bicycle paths Simi- larly, vertical clearance may be dictated by occasional motor vehicles usmg the path Where practical, a verti- cal clearance of 10 feet is desirable for adequate verti- cal shy distance Railings, fences, or barriers on both sides of a bicycle path structure should be a minimum of 4 5 feet high Smooth rub rails should be attached to the barriers at handlebar height of 3 5 feet Bridges designed exclusively for bicycle traffic may be designed for pedestrian live loading On all bridge decks, special care should be taken to ensure that bicycle safe expansion joints are used Where it is necessary to retrofit a bicycle path onto an existing highway bridge, several alternatives should be considered in light of what the geometries ofthe bridge will allow One option is to carry the bicycle path across the bridge on one side This should be done where (1) the bridge facility will connect to a bicycle path at both ends, (2) sufficient width exists on that side of the bridge, or can be obtained by widening or restriping lanes, and (3) pro- visions are made to physically separate bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic as discussed above A second option is to provide either wide curb lanes or bicycle lanes over the bridge This may be advisable where (l)the bicycle path transitions into bicycle lanes at one end ofthe bridge, and (2) sufficient width exists, or can be obtained by widening or restriping A third option is to use existing sidewalks as one-way or two-way facilities This may be advisable where (1) con- flicts between cyclists and pedestrians will not exceed tolerable limits, and (2) the existing sidewalks are ad- equately wide Under certain conditions, the cyclist may be required to dismount and cross the structure as a pedestrian Because of the large number of variables involved in retrofitting bicycle facilities onto existing bridges, com- promises in desirable design criteria are often inevitable Therefore, the width to be provided is best determined by the designer, on a case-by-case basis after thoroughly considering all the variables 12 4 12 Drainage 7^e recommended minimum pavement cross slope of two percent adequately provides for drainage Sloping in one direction instead of crowning is preferred and usually simplifies the drainage and surface construction A smooth surface is essential to prevent water ponding and ice formation Where a bicycle path is constructed on the side of a hill, a ditch of suitable dimensions should be placed on the uphill side to intercept the hillside drainage Such ditches should be designed in such a way that no un- due obstacles are presented to cyclists Where neces- sary, catch basins with drains should be provided to carry the intercepted water under the path Drainage grates and manhole covers should be located outside of the travel path of the cyclist (See Section 1003 6 of the Chapter 12 Page 12 19 Facility Guidelines Caltrans Highway Design Manual) To assist in draining the area adjacent to the bicycle path, the design should include considerations for preserving the natural ground cover Seeding, mulching and sodding of adjacent slopes, swales and other erodible areas should be in- cluded in the design plans 12 4 13 Lighting Fixed-source lighting reduces conflicts along the paths and at intersections In addition, lighting allows the cy- clist to see the bicycle path direction, surface condi- tions and obstacles Lighting for bicycle paths is impor- tant and should be considered where riding at night is expected, such as bicycle paths serving college students or commuters and at highway intersections Lighting should also be considered through underpasses or tun- nels and when nighttime security could be a problem Dependmg on the location, average maintained hori- zontal illumination levels of 5 to 22 lux should be con- sidered Light standards (poles) should meet the recom- mended horizontal and vertical clearances Luminaires and standards should be at a scale appropriate for a pedestnan or bicycle path (See Section 1003 6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual) 12 4 14 Barriers to Motor Vehicle Traffic Bicycle paths often need some type of physical barrier at highway intersections and pedestrian load bridges to prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from using the fa- cilities Provisions can be made for a lockable, remov- able post to permit entrance by authorized vehicles The post should be permanently reflectorized for nighttime visibility and painted a bright color for improved day- time visibility When more than one post is used, a five foot spacing is desirable Wider spacing can allow en- try to motor vehicles, while narrower spacing might pre- vent entry by adult tricycles and bicycles with trailers Striping an envelope around the barrier is recommended (See Section 1003 1 of the Caltrans Highway De- sign Manual ) An alternate method of restricting entry of motor ve- hicles IS to split the entry way into two five foot sections separated by low landscaping Emergency vehicles can still enter if necessary by straddling the landscape The higher mamtenance costs associated with landscaping should be acknowledged, however, before this alterna- tive method is selected 12 5 Unpaved Multi-Use Facilities In some cases, unpaved trails or roads may be used as part of a bikeway system Though not eligible for offi- cial designation as bicycle facilities, they can be ac- knowledged as "informal" unpaved connections be- tween official paved segments Because these routes are generally in less developed areas, they may also be con- sidered scenic unpaved "byways" that can be accessed via the official bikeway system Most ofthe bicycles sold today are mountain bikes de- signed for use on unpaved surfaces and come equipped with wide tires and low gearing Many recreational cy- clists ride this type of bicycle and would gladly use them on a well maintained unpaved route Unpaved routes are unlikely to attract many commuting cyclists, but the routes may experience some utility use if they provide convenient shortcuts between popular destinations where such routes would not otherwise exist Available guidelines for unpaved facilities are limited In general, the coefficient of friction used in calculating curve radii and a factor in determining design speed, should be reduced Although there are not data avail- able for unpaved surfaces, it is suggested that friction factors be reduced by 50 percent to allow a sufficient margin of safety This reduction in friction affects all situ- ations where traction is important, especially on grades Grades steeper than three percent may not be practical for bicycle paths with crushed stone surfaces In cases where switchbacks are necessary for unpaved paths that occur in steep terrain, curve radii may be enlarged, the path widened and runout areas provided In areas of erosive soils, it is also advisable to install signage requinng cyclists to dismount when traversing the switchbacks 12 6 Class 2 Facilities Class 2 facilities are marked bicycle lanes within road- ways usually adjacent to the curb lane, delineated by appropriate striping and signage Bicycle lanes can be considered when it is desirable to delineate available road space for preferential use by cyclists and motorists and to provide for more predict- able movements by each Bicycle lane markings can increase a cyclist's confidence in motorists not straying into his/her path of travel Likewise, passing motorists are less likely to swerve to the left out of their lane to avoid cyclists on their right Bicycle lanes should always be one-way facilities and carry traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic Two-way bicycle lanes on one side of the roadway are unacceptable because they promote riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic Wrong- way riding IS a major cause of bicycle accidents and violates the "Rules ofthe Road" stated in the Uniform Vehicle Code Bicycle lanes on one-way streets should be on the right side ofthe street, except in areas where a bicycle lane on the left will decrease the number of Page 12 20 Chapter 12 Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan conflicts (e g, those caused by heavy bus traffic) In unique situations, it may be appropriate to provide a contra-flow bicycle lane on the left side of a one-way street Where this occurs, the lane should be marked with a solid, double yellow line and the width of the lane should be increased by one foot 12 6 1 Lane Widths Under ideal conditions, the minimum bicycle lane width IS five feet However, certain edge conditions dictate additional desirable bicycle lane width Figure 1003 2A of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual depicts four common locations for such facilities in relation to the roadway The first figure depicts bicycle lanes on an urban curbed street where a striped parking lane is pro- vided The mmimum bicycle lane width for this loca- tion IS five feet If parking volume is substantial or turn- over IS high, an additional one or two feet of width is desirable for safe bicycle operation Bicycle lanes should always be placed between the parking lane and the motor vehicle lanes Bicycle lanes between the curb and the parking lane can create obstacles for cyclists and eliminate a cyclist's ability to avoid a car door as it IS opened Therefore, this placement should not be considered The second figure depicts an urban curbed street where parking is allowed, but without striping for a separate bike lane This parking lane shared with bicycles should be 11 to 12 feet wide 13 feet is recommended where parking turnover is high, such as commercial districts Cyclists do not generally ride near a curb because of the possibility ofdebns, of hitting a pedal on the curb, of an uneven longitudinal joint, or of a steeper cross slope The third figure shows a roadway where parking is pro hibited Bicycle lanes in this location should have a minimum width of five feet where a curb occurs (mea- sured from the curb face) and four feet where no curb is used If the longitudinal joint between the gutter pan and the roadway surface is uneven and falls within five feet ofthe curb face, a minimum of four feet should be provided between the joint and the motor vehicle lanes The fourth figure depicts bicycle lanes on a roadway where parking is prohibited and without curbs Bicycle lanes should be located between the motor vehicle lanes and the roadway shoulders In this situation, bicycle lanes may have a minimum width of four feet, since the shoulder can provide additional maneuvering width A width of five feet or greater is preferable Additional widths are desirable where substantial truck traffic is present, or where vehicle speeds exceed 40 mph In certain situations, it may be appropriate to designate the full shoulder as the bike lane 12 6 2 Intersections Bicycle lanes tend to complicate both bicycle and mo- tor vehicle turning movements at intersections Because they encourage cyclists to keep to the right and motor- ists to keep to the left, both operators are somewhat discouraged from merging in advance of turns Thus, some cyclists will begin left turns from the right side of the bicycle lane and some motorists will begin right turns from the left side of the bicycle lane Both maneuvers are contrary to established Rules ofthe Road and result in conflicts Design treatment for bicycle lanes at a simple intersec- tion IS shown in Figure 1003 2B of the Caltrans High- way Design Manual On a two lane roadway, the edge line along the bike lane should end approximately 200 feet from the intersection to allow left turning cyclists and right turning motorists to "weave " Design treatment at multi-lane intersections is more complex Figure 1003 2C ofthe Caltrans Highway De- sign Manual presents examples of pavement markings for bicycle lanes approaching motorist right-turn-only lanes Where there are ni merous left turning cyclists, a separate turning lane should be considered The design of bicycle lanes should also include appropriate sign- ing at intersections to reduce the number of conflicts General guidance for pavement marking of bicycle lanes IS contained in Section 1003 2 ofthe Caltrans Highway Design Manual (See the Caltrans Traffic Manual for more specific information) Adequate pavement surface, bicycle-safe grate inlets, safe railroad crossings and traffic signals responsive to bicycles should always be provided on roadways where bicycle lanes are being designated Raised pavement markings and raised barriers can cause steering diffi culties for cyclists and should not be used to delineate bicycle lanes 12 6 3 Signing and Striping Requirements Signing and striping should be in accordance with Sec- tion 1004 ofthe Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the Caltrans Traffic Manual Bicycle lanes should be well- marked and signed to ensure clear understanding of the presence and purpose ofthe facility by both cyclists and motorists The Caltrans Traffic Manual also specffies stan- dard signing for bicycle lanes The appropriate signs should be used in advance ofthe beginning of a marked designated bicycle lane to call attention to the lane and to the possible presence of cyclists Signs should be used only in conjunction with the appropriate pavement marking and erected at periodic intervals along the des- ignated bicycle lane and in the vicinity of locations where the preferential lane symbol is used Chapter 12 Page 12 21 Facility Guidelines where it is necessary to restrict parking, standing, or stopping in a designated bicycle lane, appropriate signs, as described in the Caltrans Traffic Manual, may be used The City of Carlsbad also uses a combination "NO PARK- ING/BIKE LANE" sign Bicycle lane stripes should be solid, six to eight inch wide white lines Care should be taken to use pave- ment striping that is skid-resistant Thermoplastic tape and painted markings can become slippery and cause the cyclist to fall Impregnated grit, nonskid, preformed tape IS an acceptable striping material It IS very important to reapply bicycle lane markings when they begin to fade, since faded bicycle lane mark- ings can lead to confusion for motorists and cyclists If necessary, reapplication of bicycle lane stripes should be placed on a more frequent schedule than regular roadway restriping projects Old markings should be removed prior to restriping if new layers of marking materials would otherwise create raised areas that would be hazardous to cyclists Prompt replacement of bicycle lane striping following pavement repairs should be the responsibility of the paving contractor for projects that have required the removal and replacement of bike lane paving Too of- ten, lane striping is not replaced following construction or repaving projects Preferential bicycle lane symbols should be installed on the pavement in bicycle lanes Symbols should be installed at regular intervals (no more that 350 feet between sym- bols), immediately after intersections and at areas where bicycle lanes begin Pavement letters that spell "BIKE ONLY," and arrows are optional, but desirable 12 7 Class 3 Facilities A Class 3 facility is a suggested bicycle route that usu- ally consists of a series of signs designating a preferred route between destinations such as residential and shop- ping areas A network of such routes can provide ac- cess to a number of destinations throughout the com- munity In some cases, looped systems of scenic routes have been created to provide users with a series of rec- reational experiences In addition, such routes can pro- vide relatively safe connections for commuting to work- places or schools The designation of a roadway as a Class 3 facility should be based primarily on the advisability of encouraging bicycle use on that particular roadway While the road ways chosen for bicycle routes may not be free of prob- lems, they should offer the best balance of safety and convenience of the available alternatives In general, the most important considerations are pavement width and geometries, traffic conditions and appropriateness of the intended purpose A certain amount of risk and liability exists for any area that the City signs as a Class 3 route The message to the user public is that the facil- ity IS a safe route Therefore, routes should not be placed on streets that do not meet appropriate safety standards Attributes which describe how appropriate a particular road IS for a bicycle route include directness, connec- tivity with other bicycle facilities, scenery and available services Directness is important for cyclists traveling for a purpose, such as commuting, though this is not the case for recreational riders, for whom scenery may be the primary factor in selecting a route For recre- ational riders traveling more than a few miles, services such as food, water, restrooms and pressurized air may be of interest 12 7 1 Roadway Engineering while design of all Class 1 and 2 bikeways should fol- low the Bikeway Planning and Design Chapter 1000 of Caltrans' Highway Design and Traffic Manuals, there are bound to be situations where the recommended geometries for a Class 3 facility can not be achieved due to right-of-way constraints, for example Planning and design ofthe Class 3 facility should emphasize safety for cyclists and provide additional warnings to motor- ists to be aware of the presence of cyclists Page 12 22 Chapter 12 A: ROADWAY SEGMENT SUITABILITY RATING FORMS B: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC ART GUIDELINES C: SUPPLEMENTAL FACILITIES D: CIP COST ANALYSIS E: CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE BICYCLE SECTIONS (21200-21212) APPENDICES APPENDIX mi Roadway Segment Suitability Rating Forms a Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street Aa(^vv\9' ^^44^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1, II or 111 -— Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) ^^ Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) Travel Lanes (D* Number of travel lanes both ways Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate w Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 y Patched or weathered paving 0 25 Cracked paving 0 50 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 Rough RR crossing 0 50 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 Drainage grates 0 75 Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 Total Pavement Factor 0 Rcation Factors (IF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades 0 25 Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Uncontrolled right turn lanes 0 25 Severe grades 0 50 Center turn lane 0 25 Median present 0 25 Paved shoulder 0 75 Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking 0 25 High level of off street parking 0 50 On street parallel parking 0 50 On-street angled parking 0 75 On-street truck parking 1 00 Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 Total Location Factor 0 & Total Pavement and Location Factors 05" Segment Bicycling Suitability** •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADT/(L x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that extiibit extremely favorable charaaeristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m. street Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 123456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1 II or III 12- i Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 40 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) ) I '1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4-1 1 • Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 1-2-It-i 1 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 / ! 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 i I Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 OSO 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Total Pavement Factor ' 1 1 i 1 . Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 i 1 : Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / 1 1 t Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / 1 / Total Location Factor 0 ' 0 ' 1 1 i 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street /^/(cW<^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or 111 _ i 1 ' ' 1 1 , 1 i Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 3^' ' 1 , ' i Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) 111 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways ^ ' ! 1 \ Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 - ,11 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 .-— , 1 , Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' , : ! Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 i i ' ! Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' ^ 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 I'l Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , i i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 ! Total Pavement Factor Ot^\ ' ' ' i 1 B&tion Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 > 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 J— j 1 ! 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y 1 1 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y ' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i ' ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 , 1 \ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 I 1 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 i ill Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street iKutv^yd^ Ci/^^ifi^^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 123456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or 111 — I - ! I Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) So Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) 1 ' 1 ' 1 , Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways % 2- 1 4 1 1 Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 10 \e 11 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y ^ 1 N/ 1 ! Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor 0 t'^l Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 t Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y ^ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y 1 Total Location Factor 0 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors [ 0 O 'Ot^. Segment Bicycling Suitability** I 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix L Street f>,./^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1, II or 111 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit m miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 j Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 X 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ! Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 \ 1 Total Pavement Factor 1 ! ^pation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y 1 ! 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 [ 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ! 1 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 0 V?' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no ad|acent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y \ Total Location Factor 0 ^\ 1 1 ! 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 0 I Segment Bicycling Suitability** •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street C^mnA^ A p5 C^^^/^i, Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1 11 or 111 1 1 ^ Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) I 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) 1 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways -2-L ' ! ' Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 12-12-i 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y i 1 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 j - Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 I Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 t Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Total Pavement Factor i i j Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 j ; I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 t Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 I 1 j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dtst) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y I 1 Total Location Factor 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors -0 li 0 $ Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula charactenstics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF "Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix |?*^| Street C^moA^ \JiLt l^!aU Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 123456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or III Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways Z "2- 1 i I Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, margmal or inadequate fZ- It- 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y \ , Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i \ 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 ' 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' \ 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ! ! ^ Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 III 1 1 ! Total Pavement Factor HItion Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i • , , ' ; , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 . 1 ' 1 ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 I i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ,! 1 ' i ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i 1 i \ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 \ y , . 1 , 1 1 , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 • , ' ' ' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y ' I ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ' ' I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 i 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ' 1 ! 1 Total Location Factor 0 a \ ; i 1 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m Street ^/}/u>yi '^o^-J^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1 11 or 111 - 2- ^ , 1 ' Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) ^'5 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 1 1 Travel Lanes (D* Number of travel lanes both ways A \ 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate \t\ Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y ^1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Total Pavement Factor Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 / 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 , 1 ' 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 I 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y i i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ' 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / , • ' 1 1 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 Segment Bicycling Suitability** •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula charactenstics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m. ^1 '4 Street ^W^kU ^//^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or 111 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 1 5o i 3o , -50 5 0 >f$ 1 ' , Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 • ' ' 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways ^ ; ^ 14^ 14- 2, 4 ' 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 11 \V \l 12. 1^ 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y y' y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , 1 1 I i 1 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 Total Pavement Factor 0 \Q 16\O t5i 0 •} i4' i 1 Biation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 t 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 [ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 t 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 \ ' 1 • "I 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 y 1 1 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y ^ \ y ' y, \ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y I 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ! / f i 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 v/ n ^/^ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / '\ _ .--^ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / b 1 Total Location Factor -10 0-2-^' 0 2i 0 i,^ 0l6\ i Total Pavement and Location Factors 'ioi0 1 0 0 s Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable charactenstics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix street CMs'M \/' Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or 111 — - ! - , 2- '2^ ' - \ % 1 ' Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) ! : 1 Travel Lanes (D* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 4 4 1^14,2-^ 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate II li 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y y y y ,y y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ! Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 I 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 ' 1 1 I Total Pavement Factor 0 1<h Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y^y\ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 \ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y y y' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y\ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 I 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 sy 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y 1 / 1 y y Total Location Factor i Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 $ 0 -0 2$ O Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle buitability Rating Formula charactenstics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street cMruA A^eyi^^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or 111 - -2- 3 , 2- 2^ 4- ' Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) III ' Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate VL Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y \ y y 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 j 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ! 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ! 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 ' 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Pavement Factor 0 0 o 0 <^ V^' i> IT' ^Pition Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ' 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i i ! ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 \ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 1 ' t Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ' \ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y / ^1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 'y y ! > Total Location Factor 0 6 0 6 (? •5' 1 'i" <? 1 1 1 , Total Pavement and Location Factors op 0 15-0 75- ^ Q Segment Bicycling Suitability** I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street OV\\A<^y'^^'^ -hftY^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1, 11 or 111 - Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate \^ Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 Patched or weathered paving 0 25 Cracked paving 0 50 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 Rough RR crossing 0 50 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 Drainage grates 0 75 Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 Total Pavement Factor —I Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades 0 25 Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Uncontrolled right turn lanes 0 25 Severe grades 0 50 Center turn lane 0 25 Median present 0 25 Paved shoulder 0 75 Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking 0 25 High level of off street parking 0 50 On street parallel parking 0 50 y On street angled parking 0 75 On street truck parking 1 00 Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 Total Location Factor 0 6 Total Pavement and Location Factors 016 Segment Bicycling Suitability** •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m il Street dlit^ i^lyd. Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or III ^: 1 i 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 40 '\ ' 1 1 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) I'll 1 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 1 1 1 1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 1 1 1 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ( 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 t Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor OXS\ 1 1 ' III, ^pation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / ' i 1 I 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 III Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 i i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 I 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 I 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 f Total Location Factor otH \ \ II Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 ^ Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable charactenstics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended lor cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m. street 6( CAmtA^ ^eA\ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or III Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) A'5 \ A-^ A'f AS ^ Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) i ' 1 1 1 • Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways (j> 4- \ G '-f-ic> if !6 14- ,6 i>r Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate \L Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y \ y \ y y\y 1/ 1 y y ' y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ! y ' ; Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ! 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 I 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ' i 1 j Total Pavement Factor 0 *4 0 l-'S 0 is\ Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y \ y y y y y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y y : y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / ^1 : Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / y y y y i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y y y y ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking / Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ! i 1 / / Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor cur/es (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On-street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / / y\ y, y y y Total Location Factor M5 \ 0 Q Total Pavement and Location Factors Ol^'i 0 ^ 0^-, 0 0 0 0 25 O Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 I I I It- y y y o ^ of- , , - « ^^x^w, . ^, T \i-r TT, T I I T i_i uAi_ciiciii — u WJ t vjegiiiciiis iiidi exiiiuii extremely lavoraoi characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m Street ^^u€v4^ e^^c^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or III — 1 — ' ' ' 1 i Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) -^.c? 55 1 ! 1 , 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) • : I I i ' 1 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways \ 1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 1^ ,(4 1 i ! 1 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y ' ! 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 i I 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ; 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 , Total Pavement Factor ' ! 1 1 , 1 ^^tion Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 i 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / 1 1,1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y y i 1 i : ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i ! : 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ! I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y , 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Total Location Factor o 0 1 1 1 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 IS" 0 Segment Bicycling Suitability** ' o • —— , . .X.. ..,Tii ii'^'-ciicin - u lu t loegiiieiiib iiidi exniDii extremely lavoraDl charactenstics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street ^-M^^Jy-^y- Qn/V Segments. Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use, Class 1, II or 111 ^1 • • ! 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) , ' 1 ' ' I Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 , , , , , , Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 1 1 i i i Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate It-11 11^' Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 1 1 Patched or weathered paving 0 25 1 1 1 Cracked paving 0 50 t 1 1 1 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 1 , Rough RR crossing 0 50 1 1 ' 1 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 1 1 ' i 1 Drainage grates 0 75 Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor 1 1 Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades 0 25 1 1 1 Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 1 , Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Uncontrolled nght turn lanes 0 25 1 Severe grades 0 50 ; Center turn lane 0 25 y Median present 0 25 Paved shoulder 0 75 1 1 Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking 0 25 y 1 • High level of off street parking 0 50 On street parallel parking 0 50 On street angled parking 0 75 1 1 ' On street truck parking 1 00 Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 Total Location Factor ^ i , 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , 5 . - , ,,vu ^ i^v^w T -r MT Yv) T ri xLr cxceiieiii = u lo toEgmenis inBi exniDii extremciy tavorabi charactenstics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m street ^^^^^ A/^K'<^e/ Suitability Factors Existing Bicycle Facilities Posted Speed Limit (S)* Traffic Volume (ADT)* Travel Lanes (L)* Outside Lane Width (W)* Pavement Factors (PF)* Pation Factors (LF)* Segments. Factor Descriptions and Values Multiple use. Class 1 11 or III Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Average daily trips (ADT) Number of travel lanes both ways Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 6 7 8 9 10 •2^ ^ , ^ 4.4'^ Curb and gutter 0 25 Patched or weathered paving 0 25 Cracked paving 0 50 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 Rough RR crossing 0 50 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 Drainage grates 0 75 Potholes or rough pavement edges 11 0 75 y ih. Total Pavement Factor 0 L^IO i^O l"^ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking | 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability* 0 25 1 j 1 0 25 [ 1 0 25 1 0 25 1 1 i I 0 50 ! 1 ' , 0 25 7^ i 1 0 25 y I 1 1 1 1 0 75 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; - y y 1 1 [ 1 1 1 • 1 y 1 0 7 \ 0 , 1 1 1 LLI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .cycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) . S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF -Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable charactenstics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street ii^^-<i>r<^ Sfr^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use, Class 1 11 or III 2-1 ill! Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 1 ' ' ' Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 i 1 , ! I Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 1 i ' 1 ! , 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate , 1 1 ! Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , j Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 t j i Total Pavement Factor 0 1 1 1 i 1 1 Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 \ \ ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Total Location Factor ' 1 1 ! 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 IS Segment Bicycling Suitability** i 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula charactenstics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) o . — , — . . T ^, i^Ai-cHciii - u lu t locgiiieiiib iiidi exiiiDit extremely ravoraoi characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix 1 Street p~W Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or 111 — 1 - 1 , 1 1 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 2^ 1-2-$ 1 1 i 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 i 1 1 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 2- ^ ' , 1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate l( II 1 , Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 , 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i I ' ' Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' ' 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ! 1 1 1 ' , . . . . L_. . 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 , ' Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 i i 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' 1 Total Pavement Factor 0 1 0 , , ' 1 ^^tion Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ' 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 \ \ , 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i 1 ' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 , i ( 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 I'i, i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 , 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ' 1 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ; 1 1 1 Total Location Factor 0 15 OXh\ ! 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m Street J^i^scw '^reet' Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 123456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or III -^ i _ - - 1 1 1 , Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 1 1 -2^ 2--^ ! 2.$ ' \ 1 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) 1 ' 1 i 1 Travel Lanes (D* Number of travel lanes both ways -2-12-1^ t ' , 1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 11 (t-12. 1 1 2-' \V Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y y y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor 0 V? 0 ^$ 0 0'L6\ 1 Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y y y j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor a 1 3 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 ^ 0 J li Segment Bicycling Suitability** I I 1 I I •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula charactenstics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix li^! Street: |<ell^ pz-iv^ Segments* Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1, II or III Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 2. Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 y Patched or weathered paving 0 25 Cracked paving 0 50 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 Rough RR crossing 0 50 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 Drainage grates 0 75 Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor Vocation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades 0 25 Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Uncontrolled nght turn lanes 0 25 Severe grades 0 50 Center turn lane 0 25 Median present 0 25 Paved shoulder 0 75 Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking 0 25 High level of off street parking 0 50 On street parallel parking 0 50 y On street angled parking 0 75 On street truck parking 1 00 Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 Total Location Factor oe>o Total Pavement and Location Factors one Segment Bicycling Suitability** •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m. Street 1^^ Co^^^ hjtw^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or 111 - : ^ 3 ^- 2, . - i Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit m miles per hour (mph) "bo io Ao 40 1 i Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 III Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 4- ! 2. 4 i 2- ; -2- i Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate (4- I K 1 14- (2- 1 (Z- I 12 1 ! Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y . y \ y ' y y v t Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1 ] Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 i 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 \ y \ y\ Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 \ \ I Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 \ ' 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 Total Pavement Factor a l5\o ^'i^6lS0 5 \j 1 Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 \ y' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 [ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i : 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ' y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 . y ' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 y , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ' ' ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ly' y i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ! \ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 , i y I 1 Total Location Factor 0 \ 0 1 0 '5 lo i6\ ^1 0\ Q 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula charactenstics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF •'Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street, [.^(AVA-Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1 II or III — 1 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate \^' Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 Patched or weathered paving 0 25 Cracked paving 0 50 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 Rough RR crossing 0 50 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 Drainage grates 0 75 Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor Vocation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades 0 25 Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 Uncontrolled right turn lanes 0 25 Severe grades 0 50 Center turn lane 0 25 Median present 0 25 Paved shoulder 0 75 Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking 0 25 High level of off street parking 0 50 On street parallel parking 0 50 0 On street angled parking 0 75 On street truck parking 1 00 Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 Total Location Factor 0 5 I Total Pavement and Location Factors 05- Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street U^s ^lo,c^ >'v6 Suitability Factors Existing Bicycle Facilities Posted Speed Limit (S)* Traffic Volume (ADT)* Travel Lanes (L)* Outelde Lane Width (W)* Pavement Factors (PF)* Location Factors (LF)* Segments Factor Descriptions and Values Multiple use Class 1 II or I Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Average daily trips (ADT) Number of travel lanes both ways Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 7 8 9 10 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Total Pavement Factor 0 t<i\ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking y 1 1 { 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 j 1 0 1 i 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 y i 1 1 1 1 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 11 I | | | | | icyc e Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorab e c aracten ICS for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segm of marginal desirability for cycling, Poor = e or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) HI , , J, „ - ..lJ,,^../^ ^jw; -r j,_.j -r tin YV, T rr + LP "excellent = u to 4 (segments tnatexnitJit extremely (avorabi characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix _J Street M^^AohA Aveme/ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1, II or III 3 , , - 1 ' Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 1 ! 1 , Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 2- , 1 1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate // i 1 ^ ' Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 1 Patched or weathered paving 0 25 1 1 Cracked paving 0 50 1 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 1 1 Rough RR crossing 0 50 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 1 1 I 1 Drainage grates 0 75 1 i 1 1 Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Pavement Factor ^^tion Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades 0 25 1 1 1 Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 1 ' 1 i I'll, Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) 0 25 1 ! , Uncontrolled nght turn lanes 0 25 1 Severe grades 0 50 1 1 Center turn lane 0 25 II II Median present 0 25 i i ^ i Paved shoulder 0 75 1 1 1 ; Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking 0 25 , II High level of off street parking 0 50 1 1 1 1 On street parallel parking 0 50 y 1,1, I 1 On street angled parking 0 75 1 111! On-street truck parking 1 00 1 I Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Location Factor 0 e> I'll Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 6 Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street (Ajuy^-h f^^J-Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 123456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use, Class 1 II or 111 -^1- i \ 1 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) \ \ 1 \ Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) \ 1 \ Travel Lanes (D* Number of travel lanes both ways A 1 2-1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 I 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Total Pavement Factor , Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 , i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ' y 1 , 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 75 oe Segment Bicycling Suitability** I I 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m tation Factors (LF)* Street Mclro^ A/^hM& Segments. Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use, Class 1,11 or 111 2- ! , I ' Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 40] , ] ; ' Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1,1, 1 • ' Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways , i Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 y \ > 1 1 1 ' ! Patched or weathered paving 0 25 1 Cracked paving 0 50 1 i ! 1 Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 1 1 1 Rough RR crossing 0 50 1 ' 1 : High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 i 1 ! ' Drainage grates 0 75 , ! ! Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 1 I 1 1 1 Total Pavement Factor a^5\ j ' 1 1 1 i . J Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 -0 75 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability* •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) 1 1 1 , y —,—_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 y I t 1 111 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street /Homo^ ^^T^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use, Class 1 II or III — " i 1 1 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 40 \3>0 2^1 i 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 j Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 2-z 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate /2. il , 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Total Pavement Factor 0 t^\o %e 0 Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 , ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 \ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / Total Location Factor Ot'7\ 0 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 ve Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 I 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula charactenstics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) — —• 2z—- Wl 11 \j ^.j . \ ji_^i ii\,iiLj iiiai i^/\iiiLyii cAii Cl I ICI y I a VUI aui 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Mati fix Street C,((vc/ihtM'A t^aAj. Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or 111 - ' 1- 1 ' ' i , Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 1^-1'' Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate ll 1 14 i , 1 , 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y 1 • • •-Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ' 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ; 1 i j 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 ! Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1 ' 1 1 Total Pavement Factor / 0 1 1 ' 1 1 Ration Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ' 1 ' i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y\ 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ! 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 ~ y- Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y 1 1 I 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (popr sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On-street parallel parking On-street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y 1 \ Total Location Factor 0 ^ 0$ 1 1 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** III •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix ''S^^ Street o/H<^'r cX.ry-r-^' ^ o-^.^i Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or 111 - 1 2- 1 - "2- 1 ill Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) l^S1$5 55 1 1 •'• Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) 1 > 1 1 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways (2 4 4 1 1 1 Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate u 1 It- 1 , Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y\^ : 1 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 , Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 Total Pavement Factor Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ! i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 _ 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y y\ ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y\ ^ \ 1 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 \ 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 \ \ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Total Location Factor 0 b '^ot^^oa^' 1 1 1 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors a '?s 0 15 0 o Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ' • • • • i . ^1 t^'-c'iciii - u lu f ijegirieiub mat exniDit extremely tavorabi charactenstics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix ration Factors (LF)* Street ^^rk. Dnvs Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or III -— Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways •2- 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate \-b Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter 0 25 y / Patched or weathered paving 0 25 1 Cracked paving 0 50 1 ' 1 ! Moderate frequency of curb cuts 0 50 , 1 Rough RR crossing 0 50 High frequency of curb cuts 0 75 ' 1 Drainage grates 0 75 1 Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 75 ! ' i ft , Total Pavement Factor 0 T^i (J.15 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** ill J ' ! y 1 y , 1 1 1 1 0 5 |« 5 ! 1 1 Ill •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m street f/^sca ^ klar^e Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or 111 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) S5l4c? 1 ' i . 1 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 , ! 'Ill Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 14- 1 ^ 1 -z. 1 • 1 Outside Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 12. 1 l«-\ \ Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y y\^^ , Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor one (5-l6i 1 1 Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ; Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 i I Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On-street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Total Location Factor 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors \i<o Die 1 2-$ Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street f,^ Av-^'M-?y Segments Eation Factors (LF)* Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or III 1 , —^ } " 1 1 1 1 , 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) ^5 1 1 1 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) j j 1 1 1 Travel Lanes (D* Number of travel lanes both ways ^- 1 ! ! 1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 1 ' 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 \ 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 i t Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , ' \ ' 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ' ! 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 I 1 , Total Pavement Factor 0 1 ' 1 i 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 , 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 ! 1 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ' 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 1 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 ! 1 y 1 1 • 1 y , 1 ! i 1 [ ! 0 ^ ' 1 1 1 1 1 oie> III " i:"'-'-'''-'I". — w -r vjtgi I iti iij ll lai CAl iiuii CALI cmciy idVUidUl characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street foMs^-H-t^ U-^'t/to Segments: Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use. Class 1, II or III n^\- .ny 1 1 1 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 50 ' 40 ' 1 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 i 1 i ! 1 ' Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 2-14 \ ^ \ 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate II 12- 1 (-2^ 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y y 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor 0 V7 0 vb 1 Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 j Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor 0 o 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors 0 t& 0 $ 0 2^ Segment Bicycling Suitability** I 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m. Street ^^/\cko 'B'A^-t^ f-e^ ^o^d Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1, II or 111 1 Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) •40 40 45 , 1 I i 1 ' Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 1 i 1 Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways -2-12-^ i 1 1 1 1 ! Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate 1/ 1 li^i 11 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y 1/, 1 1 1 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 ' Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 1 1 ' Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 i 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ( i 1 1 , 1 ' ! Total Pavement Factor 0ii>\<}t'7O ill!',' B^ation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 i 1 1 1 1 ' ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 t 1 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 , i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 , 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 1 ' 1 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ' 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 , 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled nght turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 / y y \ 1 ' 1 Total Location Factor 1 1 t Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix I Street <^r\:e^ ^azt Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or III - ^ Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 ' Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 12- ' I2-, Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 / Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Total Pavement Factor 0 ve\on^ Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ' Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y 1 I Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors 6 ( e> Segment Bicycling Suitability** i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m. street •$uy^/W)Wvll Pny-^-Segments' Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use, Class 1, II or III — Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate, marginal or inadequate IZ- Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Total Pavement Factor 0 0 Vocation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 -0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula = ADTAL x 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable characteristics for cycling) Good = 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments of marginal desirability for cycling) Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m street T^/wiv-Ack P^tY^t> Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or III Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 1. 2- 4 2- Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 12^, li 12- \T, iz- Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y y y y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 OSO 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Total Pavement Factor Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 / y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y y Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** Ill •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely tavorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive lo cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally nol recommended tor cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix m street VMIIACIA AV€AO^ Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 11 or III 1 1 • 1 1 i 1 i Posted Speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) 1 ^ i 1 1 1 ' 1 Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily trips (ADT) 1 1 1 1 1 Travel Lanes (D* Number of travel lanes both ways 1 1 1 1 1 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 1 ' 1 1 1 Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ft Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ft Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ft Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ft Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , ft Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ft Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 ft Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 ft Total Pavement Factor 1 cation Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 Total Location Factor Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability* 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 T~r-r •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive to cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan - Roadway Segment Rating Matrix Street [AmJir-o^-^ Cwnde, Segments Suitability Factors Factor Descriptions and Values 1 23456789 10 Existing Bicycle Facilities Multiple use Class 1 II or 111 Posted speed Limit (S)* Posted speed limit in miles per hour (mph) Traffic Volume (ADT)* Average daily tnps (ADT) Travel Lanes (L)* Number of travel lanes both ways 4 Outelde Lane Width (W)* Lane width adequate marginal or inadequate 12- Pavement Factors (PF)* Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 y Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 , 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 1 1 Curb and gutter Patched or weathered paving Cracked paving Moderate frequency of curb cuts Rough RR crossing High frequency of curb cuts Drainage grates Potholes or rough pavement edges 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 75 0 75 0 75 Total Pavement Factor Location Factors (LF)* Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 1 ! Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 , 1 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 y i , , Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 0 25 0 75 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 y Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 \ 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 i Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 ^ Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 Typical Section Factors Moderate grades Frequent vert curves (poor sight dist) Frequent hor curves (poor sight dist) Uncontrolled right turn lanes Severe grades Center turn lane Median present Paved shoulder Roadway and Parking Factors Moderate level of off street parking High level of off street parking On street parallel parking On street angled parking On street truck parking Little or no adjacent parking 0 25 0 50 0 50 0 75 1 00 0 25 1 \ Total Location Factor C? , 1 1 Total Pavement and Location Factors Segment Bicycling Suitability** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •Bicycle Suitability Rating Formula characteristics for cycling) Good = of marginal desirability for cycling) = ADTAL X 2500) + S/35 + (14 W) + PF + LF ••Excellent = 0 to 4 (Segments that exhibit extremely favorable 4 to 5 (Segments which are conducive lo cycling but with some minor drawbacks) Fair = 5 to 6 (Segments Poor = 6 or above (Segments of questionable desirability and generally not recommended for cycling) APPENDIX City of Carlsbad Public Art Guidelines Artworks The City of Carlsbad wishes to encourage the broadest interpretation of art and the diverse venues used by artists The various media and materials which can be used by contemporary artists include 1 Sculpture Free-standing, wall supported or suspended, kinetic, electronic, etc , in any material or combina- tion of materials 2 Murals or portable paintings In any material or variety of materials, with or without collage or the addition of non traditional materials and means 3 Earthworks, fiberworks, neon, glass, mosaics, photographs, prints, calligraphy, any combination of forms of media including sound, film, holographic and video systems, hybrids of any media and new genres 4 Standardized fixtures such as gates, streetlights, etc , may be contracted to artists for unique or limited editions, provided the work is designed specifically for the city as public art 5 Architectural elements designed and executed by visual artists in collaboration with an architect or landscape architect, which may be incorporated into, upon or adjacent to publicly funded structures 6 Design elements incorporated into a capital improvements project that are designed by an artist for fabrication and execution by the project contractor Exclusions The following items are identified as ineligible for inclusion in the City's Art in Public Places Program (These Items may be funded through other programs or departments within the City, but they do not fall within the parameters of art in public places) 1 Directional elements such as supergraphics, signage, or color coding except where these elements are integral parts of the original work of art 2 "Art objects" which are mass produced as a standard design such as playground equipment, fountains or statuary objects 3 Reproductions by mechanical or other means of original works of art, except in cases of film, video photog- raphy, printmaking or other media arts, specifically commissioned by the City 4 Decorative, ornamental or functional elements which are designed by the building architect as opposed to an artist commissioned for this purpose 5 Landscape architecture and landscape gardening except where these elements are designed by an artist and/ or are an integral part of the work of art by an artist 6 Services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain the artwork over time 7 Existing works of art offered for sale or donation to the City which do not have an established and recognized significance as art in public places among arts professionals and art appraisers 8 Works of art which are not publicly accessible or visible 9 Works of art which cannot reasonably be maintained within the resources allocated by the citizens of Carlsbad APPENDIX a Supplemental Facilities The following brochures are included to acquaint the reader with the range of site products readily available to municipalities for bikeway projects Though the rec ommendations of fellow professionals who have utilized some of these products were employed m selecting these brochures for mclusion, no endorsement or recommen dation of the products advertised m them is specifically intended or implied It IS strongly recommended that qualihed bicycle facil- ity design professionals be consulted when determin- ing which site products would best function for any par- ticular situation, including, for examples, selection and installation guidelines Finally, new products are constantly being introduced and bicycle facility product selection need not be based solely on these brochures 02874/MAD BIKE RACKS T H AT COMBINE FORM AND FUNCTION Genesis m The Genesis™ bicycle rack transcends form and function to make a bold aesthetic statement When empty the simple floating concentric rings of the Genesis™ look like an attractive outdoor sculpture When full these same concentric rings park bikes safely and securely The Genesis™ offers two contact points at front and rear for locking The unique concentric design of the Genesis™ helps guide bikes into proper parking position while providing double the parking space of typical serpentine racks The Genesis™ features a heavy duty 2 3/8 (60mm) steel frame U IS available in configurations that park up to 8 bicycles The Genesis™ is available in a galvanized finish or a wide range of powder coat colors It is also available m stainless steel Style - unique concentric design makes the Genesis™ the ideal bicycle rack for buildings Security - heavy duty construction and concentric design are ideal for use with U type locks See SweetSource for additional product informatioa Call 1-800-551-3796 to order SweetSource Patent applied for GENESIS™ ORDER INFORMATION Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) 70 1/8 (1781) 3 Hoop Genesis™ (6 Bikes) THoofGinesr?""(8^(kes^ CNSi_. CNS6 CNS8 97 1/4 (2470) ' Li Standard Height 34" (864mm) Add Suffixes For Installation Method (IC) - In Ground (SF) - Surface Flange Mount SPACE REQUIREMENTS GNS4 Add Suffixes For Finish/Material (G) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabrication (P) - TGIC Polyester Powder Coat See Page 8 for color selection (S) - Stainless Steel CNS 8 SF GNSe CNS 8 ^ 11 Crt> CNS 6 SF GNS 4 SF No matter how bikes evolve in the next thousand years, the Circa 2000" will park them safely and securely Circa s concentric design helps guide bikes into place while spacing them safely apart Once in place, the Circa 2000" offers bikes two distinct contact points, at front and rear, for secure locking Each circle of Circa 2000" parks two bikes Racks are available in configurations that park up to eight of present style bicydes In the future, who knows how many bikes Circa 2000" will park' The Circa 2000" bike rack is designed to last well into the next millennium Its sturdy 1 90" (48 mm) 0 D diameter steel frame stands up under the most punishing use and hostile environments In fact, NASA is currently evaluating Circa 2000* for use on Mars (not really, but they should) The Circa 2000' is available in a galvanized finish or a wide range of powder coat colors It IS also available m stainless steel PATENT APPLIED FOR It's impossible to know the future We don't know what kind of bicycles people will ride during the next millennium But, we do know one thing As long as bikes have two wheels, they'll be parking them at Circa 2000" bike racks 2210Pinehurst Drive Middleton,WI 53562 TEL: (601) 831-9040 FAX: (601) 131-7623 TOLL FREE: (800) 448-793 e-mail: graber@madrax.c Web Site; http://www.madrax.com V) CIR 6 SF U190 SF U Rack (For Matching U Racks (For 2 Bikes) Please Refer To Our Item No UigO) Circa 2000™ 1.90" OD Item N«. Description (Capacity) CIR 4 G 2 Hoop Crca 2000™ (4 3ikes) 48 L Galvanized 32 CIR 4 P 2 Hoop Circa 2000™ (4 Bikes) 48 L Powder Coated 32 CIR 4 S 2 Hoop Circa 2000™ (4 Sikes) 48 L Stainless Steel 40 CIR 6 G 3 Hoop Circa 2000™ (6 3ikes) 80 L Galvanized 47 CIR 6 P 3 Hoop Circa 2000™ (6 Bikes) 80 L Powder Coated 47 CIR 6 S 3 Hoop Circa 2000™ (6 Bikes) 80 L Stainless Steel 60 CIR 8 G 4 Hoop Circa 2000™ (8 3ikes) 112 L Galvanized 62 CIR 8 P 4 Hoop Circa 2000™ (8 3ikes) 112 L Powder Coated 62 CIR 8 S 4 Hoop Circa 2000™ (8 Bikes) 112 L Stainless Steet 80 Please Add Suffixes For Installation Method ( IG) - In Ground (If Not Specified) ( SF) - Surface Flange Mount Grout Cover Set For In Ground Mount In Matching Finish Finish/Material ( G) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabrication (If Not Specified) ( P) -TGIC Polyester Powder Coat Color ( S) - Stainless Steel Standard Height 34 (864 mm) # Of Bikes Finish / Material ORDERING NOTATION FOR 1 1 ORDERING NOTATION FOR 1 CIR 1 - [T] -1 SF 1 - 1 P 1 -1 (Color)* I Circa 2000™ 1 CIR 1 Installation Method 1 (If Powder Coat) STOCKED POWDER COAT FINISHES* Patriot Blue Tea! Forest Green Yellow Brown Mesa Tan Black Hundreds of additional powder coat colors available Due to variations in the printing process colors shown may not be an exact nnatch Please request color charts from the factory Specifications subject to change without prior notice Printed in U S A 02874/MAD BuyLine 6661 Heavy Duty Winder & Winder-Plus The Heavy Duty Winder and Winder Plus bicycle parking racks meet or exceed the specifications of similar serpentine type stands In addition their loop dimensions are calculated to provide suf ficient clearance for bicy cle handlebars pedals and seats - clearances not always available on all serpentine type stands The overall height of 42 (1067mm) makes for easier loading of the racks from one or both sides See SweetSource for additional product information. Call 1 800 S51-3796 to order SweetSource The Heavy Duty Winder's' massive frame (2 3/8 (60mm) 0 D structural steel) is suited to the most abusive institutional environment and allows the use of high security U type locks to secure the frame of the bicycle to the rack The Winder Plus bicycle parking rack has the same sleek modern look as heavy duty serpentine type racks with radii that provide even more clearance for bicycles than its big brothers The Winder Plus is constructed of strong high quality 15/8 (41mm) diameter structural steel tubing The Heavy Duty Winder and Winder Plus racks are available in 3 5 7 9 11 and 13 bike capacity models for below grade (standard) or surface mounting (13 bike models have an additional center support) They are offered in a hot dipped galvanized (standard) stainless steel or electrostatically applied powder coat finish Form - massive contemporary looks blend nicely in any setting Function - high security U type locks can be used to secure bicycle frame to the rack WINDER SERIES ORDER INFORMATION Heavy Duty Winder 2 3/8 ' OD Winder Plus 1 5/8" OD Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) Item No Length (mm) rHW238 3* 145/8 (371) 1 Loop (3 Bikes) WP158 3* 15 V4 (400) 1 HW238 5 391/8 (994) 3 Loop (5 Bikes) WPI58 5 44 (1118) rHW238 7 63Vs (1616) 5 Loop (7 Bikes) WP158 7 72V4TI835) 1 HW238 9 885/8 (2251) 7 Loop (9 Bikes) WPI58 9 1001/2 (2553) IHW238II 1125/8 (2861) 9 Loop (11 Bikes) WPI58 11 128V4 (3270) 1 HW238 1 3 1375/8 (3496) 11 Loop (13 Bikes) WP158 13** 157 (3988) *Ships UPS Add Suffixes For Installation Method (IC) - In Ground (Standard) ( SF) - Surface Flange Mount (SC) - Surface Gusset Mount (not available in Stainless Steel) Add Suffixes For Finish/Material (C) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabrication (Standard) (P) - TGIC Polyester Powder Coat (**not available for WP158 13) See Page 8 for color selection (S) - Stainless Steel (not available m Gusset Mount) SPACE REQUIREMENTS -6-4 —I I 8 7 4 Hi WW HEAVY DUTY WINDER IN^GROUND SURFACE GUSSET MOUNT WINDER PLUS /f^ ^ HW238 3 WPI58 3 HW238 5 WP158 5 HW238 7 WP158 7 HW238 9 WPI58 9 HW238 11 WPI 58 II HW238 13 WPI 58 13 SURFACE GUSSET MOUNT U-Two & Bike Benches The U Two is an attractive high function bicycle parking rack It offers a secure stable parking option for bicycles The U type lockable U Two is offered in five configurations to accommodate 2 to 10 bikes The U Two provides a stable two point contact when a bike is resting against it The loops are attached to heavy duty galvanized rails for ease of installation The Bike Bench'^ bicycle parking rack (Patent Nos 5 098 155) is a unique alternative to unattractive conven tional grid type parking racks It provides the dual function of bicycle parking and outdoor seating in one attractive site furnishing The Bike Bench® is perfect for bike trails malls neighborhood parks tennis courts or wherever the needs of both cyclists and pedestnans must be served The frame is constructed of 15/8 0 D structural steel tubing The Contemporary Bike Benchi^ (Patent Nos 5 098 155) is a heavier 2 3/8 0 D tubing version of the traditional Bike Bench® It is a permanent mount rack that allows the use of U type locks U TWO ORDER INFORMATION Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) rijT160 2 IC* N/A UTl 60 2 SF* N/A I Loop U Two (2 Bikes) In Ground [ I Loop U Two (2 Bikes) Surface Flange UTl 60 4' 323/8 (822) 2 Loop U Two (4 Bikes) • 3 Loop U Two (6 Bikes) TLOTpTlinVvo (8 Bikes)"" 5 Loop U Two (10 Bikes) UTl 60 6* 593/4 (1518) rOrieol^ sv/s {22JW UTl 60 10 1141/2 (2908) •Ships UPS standard Height 34" (864mm) standard Width 16" (406mm) Add Suffixes For Finish (B) - Black Powder Coat Finished Loops (G) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabrication Loops (Note Rails are galvanized for both the Black and Galvanized Loops) SPACE REQUIREMENTS 1-5-1 |_7-8 —1 BIKE BENCH« ORDER INFORMATION Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) [16158* BBI 58W* 72 (1829) Frame Only (4 Bikes) 72 (1829) Pressure treated Wood Seating (6 ea 2x4 Boards - 4 Bikes) , BBI SSR* 72 (1829) Recycled Plastic Seating W(2 ea Light Grey 2x10 Planks - 4 Bikes) •Ships UPS CONTEMPORARY BIKE BENCH« ORDER INFORMATION Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) ! CBI 00 72irmr~ CBIOOW 72 (1829) ^'^[3[n?J?n!yJ4 iikes) Pressure treated Wood Seating (6 ea 2x4 Boards - 4 Bikes) ITBTOOR 72 (1829) 0^ Recycled Plastic Seating ^(2 ea Light Grey 2x10 Planks - 4 Bikes) Add Suffixes For Finish (B) - Black Powder Coat Finish (G) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabrication 8 2 UTl602 UTl604 UTl606 UTl608 UTl60 10 BBI 58 CBI 00 02874/l\/IAD BuyLine 6661 Gridrac, Grand Stand & Guard Rail g!i Jm^^ m GD145fC The Cridrac features a traditional design ideal for high volume/low security use Choose either 48 or 110 long stands with parking spaces provided on one or both sides for up to 18 bicycles Add on units are available for attach ment to basic units for easy and economical expansion The Gndrac is constructed of rugged 1 5/8 (41mm) OD and 3/4 (19mm) OD 14 gauge steel tubing All vertical spacers are welded in place 48" Gridracs ship UPS at substantial savings The Grand Stand is an economically pnced ruggedly con structed bicycle parking rack for the homeowner small retailer or small office Its one piece grid frame is 1 1/4 (32mm) 0 D structural steel tubing with 3/4 structural steel vertical spacers welded in place The Grand Stand holds 6 bikes and is available in a black or galvanized finish The Guard Rail is designed to accommodate 2 to 4 bicycles with handlebars alternated The user has the option of securmg the bikes frame to the top or second rail The length of the Guard Rail and the presence of the 1 5/8 (41mm) OD second rail also help prevent bicycles from sliding under the rack if the bike is inadvertently moved GRIDRAC & GRAND STAND ORDER INFORMATION Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) GUARD RAIL ORDER INFORMATION Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) 5 GRIlO CRIII* LCR112C** CRIUC* [CRTTF GRI 15* CR117G* rGT200*~" ''UIU 9' - ^H^I^ Basic - park both sides (8 Bikes - 4 each side) 48 (1219) Gridrac Add on - park both sides (8 Bikes - 4 each side) TTF(2794) Cridric'Basic'^^k b^FsTdlsTTMiker-l^Mcirslder"" Gndrac Add on - park both sides (18 Bikes - 9 each side) I GDI 40 C 54 (1372) CD145G 54 (1 372) 110 (2794) l8ir2T9r Cridrac Basic - park one side (4 Bikes) 1 48 (1219) Gndrac Add on - park one side (4 Bikes) Cridrac Basic - park one side (9 Bikes) 110 (2794) Cridrac Add on - park one side (9 Bikes) ~39 1/2IT003) Grand" SliTcT^rFboffill^^ Guard Rail (2 to 4 Bikes)-Surface Mount Standard Height 33" (838mm) Add Suffixes For Finish (G) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabrication SPACE REQUIREMENTS AK900 Concrete Anchor Kit for Gndracs (includes expansion bolts) *Ships UPS **Powder coat finish not available Standard Width Cridrac 36" (914mm) Standard Width Grand Stand 29" (737mm) Add Suffixes For Finish (B) - Black Powder Coat Finish (G) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabrication SPACE REQUIREMENTS CDI40/GDI45 CR110 CR112 CR114 CR116 GS200 'U' Racks & Class II The 'U' Rack provides economical secure bicycle parking for apartments retail outlets office malls or other settings where appearance is important but economy is a consideration The U Rack is offered in two different sizes 2 3/8 0 D (2 pipe) and 1 90 0 D (1 1/2 pipe) structural steel tubing The U Rack allows the use of U type locks and two point contact when the bike is resting against it The lean bars add additional support by keeping the front wheel from turning With the addition of cabling to the lean bar the U Rack meets Class 11 specifications by allowing the bikes frame and both wheels to be locked with one padlock The U Rack is offered m an in ground or surface mount unit and can be shipped U PS U' RACK ORDER INFORMATION 2 3/8' OD Steel Item No Length (mm) Description (Capacity) 22 (559) UX238 30 (762) 1J238 LB"" 221559)"" UX238 LB 30 (762) [LFx238lSriF(762^ JJJjckJ2Jikes)^ 30 U Rack (2 Bikes) "IFRadc with LeaiTBar (2 Bikes) 30 U Rack with Lean Bar (2 Bikes) 1 90" OD Steel Item No Length (mm) UBO_ UX190 JJJ9PJ,B_ UXi90 LB JO U_Jac_k with Leaj Baj;jnd 2 Cables (2 "Bikes) "TjxTgolBC" J0J508)_ 30 (762) J JO (508]_ 30 (762) Standard Height 34" (864miii) Add Suffixes For Installation Method (IC) - In Ground (Standard) (SF) ~ Surface Flange Mount Other installation options are available upon request Add Suffixes For Finish/Material (C) - Hot Dipped Galvanized After Fabncation (P) - TGIC Polyester Powder Coat See Page 8 for color selection (S) - Stainless Steel SPACE REQUIREMENTS U238 UI90 02874/l\/IAD BuyLine 6661 Dura-Locker Dura Locker™ offers protec tion and selection The Dura Locker™ provides bicycles with the highest level of security and protection The solid heavy duty construction of these units makes them practi cally impervious to weather vandalism or theft It also means Dura Locker™ will pro vide many years of virtually maintenance free service Dura Locker™ is the first locker manufacturer to offer lockers in fiberglass molded HDPE powder coated steel and stainless steel materials The wide selection of materials means there is a Dura Locker™ for virtually any budget environment or location Double door Dura Lockers™ park two bikes Its easy to add more units so Dura Locker™ expands with your needs The tamper proof designs have no external fasteners Units come {"7^^^ with surface mounted anchor ! / X See SweetSource for , Si^MVOTe'to™''''""' systems and adjustable feet 'TL^*^''^.. for proper easy installation MOLDED HDPE FIBERGLASS DURA LOCKER™ ORDER INFORMATION Item No Length (mm) Description (Locker Units-Capacity) r DLIOO I 42 (1067) Dura Locker™ DLIOO 2 42 (1067) Dura Locker™ LDL1J)0_4 DLIOO 6 84 (2134) Dura Locker™ 126 (3200) fPCTOOl res (4"267r DLIOO 10 210 (5334) [ DUOOlT 2"5rT540ir Dura Locker™ Dura LocfeF™ DLIOO 14 294 (7468) ['PlTOOir" ""316 l8534r DLIOO 18 378 (9601) DLIOO 20 420 (10668) Dura Locker™ Dura Cocker^ Dura Locker™ "Dura LockeT™ Dura Locker™ Dura Locker™ 1 Unit - 2 Bikes) rUnirs"-l¥k"es) 3 Units - 6 Bikes) 4"Umts^ 8""Bikes)"" 5 Units - 10 Bikes) rUnits^f2liS^ 7 Units-14 Bikes) Fuliit:s""-"T6lTkesTJ] 9 Units - 18 Bikes) lOUnrtl^iikesr" Standard Color Sand Beige or Dove Grey Add Suffixes For Finish/Material (F) - Fiberglass (P) - TGIC Polyester Powder Coated Steel ( R) - Roto Molded HDPE (S) - Stainless Steel SPACE REQUIREMENTS 7 6- DLI00 2 MOLDED HDPE FIBERGLASS Specifications Genesis™ - The bicycle parking rack shall be the GNS (insert Bike Capacity Finish and Installation Method) Genesis" _ bike capacity parking rack as manufactured by Madrax Inc Galvanized and Powder Coated Versions Rack shall be constructed of ASTM A53 2 Schedule 40 steel pipe (2 3/8 OD x 154 wall) Stainless Steel Rack shall be constructed of ASTM A312 s,'^-^ additional product infonnation 2 Schedule 40 TP 304 stainless Steel I Call 1-800-551-3796 to order SweetSource (2 3/8 OD X 154 wall) Heavy Duty Winder - The bicycle parking rack shall be the HW238 _ _ _ (insert Bike Capacity Finish and Installation Method) Heavy Duty Winder _ bike capacity parking rack as manufactured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be a minimum of 42 High to provide proper clearance for parked bicycles Galvanized & Powder Coated Versions Rack shall be constructed of ASTM A53 2 Schedule 40 steel pipe (2 3/8 OD X 154 wall) Stainless Steel Rack shall be constructed of ASTM See SweetSource for A312 2 Schedule 40 TP 304 Stainless additional product inlomiation. . i m -> to f\ r\ A II\ Call 1-800-551-3796 to Steel (2 3/8 OD X 154 wall) order SweetSource. Winder Plus - The bicycle parking rack shall be the WPI 58 (insert Bike Capacity Finish and Installation Method) Winder Plus _ bike capacity parking rack as manufactured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be a minimum of 42 High to provide proper clearance for parked bicycles Rack shall be of one piece construction to prevent disassem bly Rack shall be constructed of 1 5/8 OD - 12 ga (109 wall) structural steel tubing U Two - The bicycle parking rack shall be the UTl 60 (insert Bike Capacity and Finish selection) U Two _ bike capacity rack as manufac tured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be constructed of 1 5/8 0 0 - 13 ga ( 095 wall) structural steel tubing and 2 x 1 steel rail Bike Bench^ - The bicycle parking rack shall be the BB158 (insert Item Nos and Finish selection) Bike Bench* 4 bike capacity rack as manufactured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be constructed of 15/8 0 D and 3/4 0 D -14 ga (083 wall) structural steel tubing with all members of the grid section welded Contemporary Bike Bench"' - The bicycle parking rack shall be the CBIOO G Contemporary Bike Bench* 4 bike capacity rack as manufac tured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be constructed of ASTM A53 2 Schedule 40 steel pipe (2 3/8 OD x 154 wall) Gndrac - The bicycle parking rack shall be the GRU (insert Item Nos and Finish selection) Gridrac _ bike capacity rack as manufac tured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be constructed of 15/8 0 D and 3/4 0 D - 14 ga ( 083 wall) structural steel tubing with all members of the grid section welded ATL GraberCo 2210 Pinehurst Drive Middleton, Wl S3562 800 448 7931 PHONE 608 831 9040 FAX 608 831 7623 STOCKED POWDER COAT FINISHES* Patriot Blue Teal Forest Green Yellow Red Grand Stand - The bicycle parking rack shall be the GS200 _ (insert Finish) Grand Stand 6 bike capacity rack as manufactured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be constructed of 11/4 OD and 3/4 OD - 16 ga ( 065 wall) structural steel tubing with all members of the grid section welded Guard Rail - The bicycle parking rack shall be the GD14 _G (insert Item Nos selection) Guard Rail _ bike capacity rack as manufactured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be constructed of 1 7/8 0 D - 10 ga (134 wall) structural steel tubing 'U' Rack & Class II - The bicycle parking rack shall be (insert Item Nos Finish and Installation Method) U Rack 2 bike capacity parking rack as manufactured by Madrax Inc Rack shall be of one piece construction to prevent disassembly Rack shall be constructed of structural steel Dura Locker™ - The bicycle locker shall be the DLIOO (insert Bike ( Capacity and Finish/Material) as manufactured by Madrax Inc See SweetSource* for additional product infonnatioa Call 1-800-551-3796 to order SweetSource FINISHES Galvanized (G) The parking rack shall be hot dipped galvanized after fabrication Rack shall be hand hied to remove galvanizing flash Powder Coat (P) / Black Powder Coat (B) Rack shall be powder coated after complete fabrication with triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC) powder a polyester coanng The color shall be (list color) To insure powder coat adhesion steel must be free of any scale paint varnish or rust Substrate preparation prior to powder coating IS to include a chemical wash and rinse followed with an iron phosphate treatment Stainless Steel (S) Satin #4 INSTALLATION METHOD In Ground (IG) (Standard) Surface Flange Mount ( SF) Surface Gusset Mount ( SG) ORDERING NOTATION Example for Heavy Duty Winded HW238-9-SG-C-TEAL No of Bikes Finish/Material HW238 -9 -SG -G - Item No Berry T Installation Method (Color)' (If Powder Coat) Brown Mesa Tan Black White -ME, 4a ^ .it, , Hundreds of additional powder coat colors available Due to variations in the printing process colors shown may not be an exact match Please request color charts from the factory Specificauons subject to change without prior notice Printed in U S A ® Copyright 1995 r ii 6' •u® The Bike Rib®'s user frieniily design albws easy loci" -up of- )ike-fdme anci^wheelt - ANll-prom 3tes- : organizeiJ and efficient bike parlling Tile Bike Rib® fits Ivhere ither racks won't and]provides optimum flexibility in site orientation Making Bike Racks ThatWorkr THE BIKE RIB® SPECIFICATIONS FINISH OPTIONS • Galvanized Hot dipped after fabrication 1 1/2 (1 7/8 od) Schedule 40 Steel Pipe • Powder Coat Paint Polyester powder coat Standard color black wrinkle Other colors available • Thermo Plastic Coating A kind to the bike finish (soft to the touch) Standard color black Limited colors available • Stainless Steel A 11/2 T 304 stainless 083 wall/14 gauge tubing with #4 (brushed) to #7 (polished) finish is available *other sizes and dimensions available 32 MOUNTING OPTIONS (y) Surface Mount 6 1/2 X3/16 round base plates- two anchor holes each Drill four 1/2 d holes for drop in expansion anchors and attach rack with bolts Bolts and anchors included imbedded The rack drops 4 into sleeves imbedded in concrete and anchored with epoxy Inground The rack is left long to accommodate core dniling (approx 4 ) or up to 12 long for below grade installation Model numbers correspond to number of bikes each rack holds MODEL #BR4 30 long MODEL #BR6 60 long MODEL #BR8 84 long GROUPING OPTIONS The Bike Rib® Rack IS a series of Bike Rib®s connected to bottom rails using stainless steel security bolts washers and locking nuts The simple on site assembly makes shipping and handling of racks easy Fully welded assembly also available For anchoring rack to surface see attachment detail above and suriace mounting instructions Anchors and bolts included Function First Bike Security was established to encourage bicycle use as a transportation alternative to automobiles Our goal is to provide products that support cycling Function First Bike Security PO Box 44137 Tucson, AZ 85733 4137 (520) 322 9626 or 1 888 BIKE RIB Fax (520) 326 4801 PLACEMENT SUGGESTIONS For the BikeRib'' The Bike Rib® bike rack provides optimum flexibility in site orientation It can be positioned in many ways - parallel (as illustrated) end to end at a 45 degree angle in groups (see above right) or dispersed around a building (minimum clearances required) (n) (y) (U) 24 from parallel wall or object 24 30 apart ^ Pnnted on Recycled Paper The Bike Rr Series II The Series I , ' r 1 1 emphasizes functi(pn over form a' The^esult is a ven; aestheticbike^rack that, equal access at each point of attachment and easy lock-up of bike frame and wheels flRST BIKESECimin J I Making Bike Racks -That4Work. lows. A LITTLE HISTORY Traditional Linear Bike Racks Obviously obsolete - it s not enough to lock just the front wheel When used as intended this design prohibits the use of the U lock on the bike frame except when parking at either end of the rack The remainder of the bikes are left unsecured The Serpentine-Shaped Rack (adding visual appeal to bike parking) Better than its predecessor but the design creates its own set of problems Difficulty in bike placement and access can cause this rack to become full at two thirds of Its intended capacity An interesting form but not the most functional bike rack The Bike Rib® Series II (form following function) Each bika has equal access to the rack for locking bike frame ( and front wheel (the front wheel is the most vulnerable to theft) Parking only requires access from one side and all bikes may be parked in the same direction The rack may be placed as little as two feet from adjacent wall or object INTRODUCING THE BIKE RIB® SERIES II 61/2 Diameter x 3/16 Domed Base Plate SPECIFICATIONS 1 1/2 (1 7/8 od) Schedule 40 Steel Pipe FINISH OPTIONS • Powder Coat Paint A polyester powder coat Standard color black wnnkle Other colors available • Thermo Plastic Coating A kind to the bike finish (soft to the touch) Standard color black Limited colors available • Galvanized Hot dipped after fabrication Function First Bike Security was established to encourage bicycle use as a transportation alternative to automobiles Our goal is to provide products that support cycling Function First Bike Security PO Box 44137 Tucson, AZ 85733 4137 (520) 322 9626 or 1 888 BIKE RIB Fax (520) 326 4801 MODELS Model numbers correspond to the number of bikes each rack holds #BR4 #BR6 fr^ (7^ fr^ -120 MOUNTING OPTIONS Inground The rack is left long to accommodate core dnlling (approx 4 ) or up to 12 long for below grade installation Surface Moi 61/2 X3/16 round base plates - _ two anchor holes f Dnll tour 1/2 d hole§1 drop in expansion anchors and attach rack with bolts Bolts and anchors included )unH roun^^ olesTlP ^ Printed on Recycled Paper HVi ^^^^^ 4i>i:jf^i•^!*:.;•fev^,4^*^^ig^ The Bike Rib' Series III The Series III combines ithe proven functioriality of the Bike Rib® with a contemlporaryj sculptural appeal resulting in an aesthetic, user friendly rack that promotes organized and efficient bike parking Making Bike Racks That Work. THE BIKE RIB® SERIES III - FORM FOLLOWING FUNCTION Each rib of the rack supports two bikes Each bike has equal access to the rack for locking bike frame and wheels (the front wheel is the most vulnerable to theft) Parking only requires access from one side and all bikes may be parked in the same direction The rack may be placed as little as two feet from adjacent wall or object MODELS Model numbers correspond to the number of bikes each rack holds INTRODUCING THE BIKE RIB® SERIES III SPECIFICATIONS 1 1/2 (1 7/8 od) Schedule 40 Steel Pipe 32 1 Clearance 61/2 Diameter x 3/1 f Domed Base Plate FINISH OPTIONS • Powder Coat Paint A polyester powder coat applied to pipe Standard color black wrinkle Other colors available • Thermo Plastic Coating A kind to the bike finish (soft to the touch) Standard color black Limited colors available • Galvanized Hot dipped after fabrication : Function First Bike Security was established to encourage bicycle use as a transportation alternative to automobiles Our goal is to provide products that support cycling Function First Bike Security PO Box 44137 Tucson, AZ 85733 4137 (520) 322 9626 or 1 888 BIKE RIB Fax (520) 326 4801 PLACEMENT SUGGESTIONS (minimum clearances required) 24 from parallel wall or object MOUNTING INSTRUCTIONS Inground The rack is left long to accommodate core drilling (approx 4 ) or up to 12 long for below grade installation Surface Mount 61/2 x3/16 round base plates| two anchor holes each Dnll four 1/2 d holes for drop in expansion anchors and attach rack with bolts Bolts and anchors include ^ Printed on Recycled Paper BIK€-SH€U series The BIKE-SHELL"Solution The Model 352 is our best made bike locker more durable more attractive and lower maintenance than all others The construction of fiberglass reinforced plastic IS highly resistant to impact and scratching The finish never needs painting will not rust or corrode and is extremely resistant to most stains I The standard key lock mechanism is completely internal and resists tampering I I Reduced costs due to low maintenance and long life Security free due to built m door locks with concealed hinges Locking bar from top to bottom of door American Bicycle Security Company is one of the largest makers of bike security systems in the world with dozens of satisfied customers and hundreds of successful installations throughout the United States Our wide experience can help you get your bicycle transportation program off the ground and running fast Phone today for more information concerning the new line of lockers Visit our web site for custom design ideas //www ameribike com/ flAACRKflN BICVCLC SCCURITV COn/IPRNV For further information American Bicycle Security Company PO Box 7359 Ventura CA 93006 Tel 800 245 3723 805 933 3688 Fax 805 933 1865 e mail turtle@ameribike com http //wwwamenbike com/ 49 -124 46 cm height ^center ime'pp,j||«|*>|.^ f 121 92 cm 48 Door width -26 -66 04 cm 49 -124 46 cm height-center line top line toM"3*l?"-^ cm 74 1/2 Door width -26 -66 04 cm Patent No D378 033 Patent No D378 033 Specifications Structure and Finish Molded composite lockers shall be manufactured with hberglass reinforced plastic with a solid color stipple texture hnish Finish allows easy removal of grafhti and is resistant to impact scratches and U V damage Lockers shall not use an external or internal frame Walls and top shall be double wall construction for high strength and insulation from the elements roof shall be crowned for water run off and all corners are curved Finish does not need paint mg resists impact plus chemicals and stains Materials will with stand extremes in temperature and other weather/environmental conditions Interior walls shall be OSB exterior board The locker body components shall be joined by internal fasteners Seven standard colors or CUSTOM COLORS can be matched with a color sample Locks and Locking Hardware Chicago ACI II 7 pm tumbler Pop Out T Handle locks with three keys and removable lock cylinders Internal locking hardware con sists of a sliding locking bar 4 feet 2 inches in length which is Architects and designers see our integrated site amenities catalog - integrated seats, planters and custom artistic molded designs secured to the door with 1/2 inch stainless steel bolts and rides on teflon washers Movement of locking bar is controlled by stainless steel cams attached to the shaft of the lock Lock is recessed in the door face High quality heavy gauge stainless steel continuous door hinge will not rust All fasteners and assembly hardware is zinc plat ed or better Optional Features • Heavy Duty pad lock system that will accommodate high security pad locks • MEDECO Stainless Steel high security THandle lock • Com and Token operated locks for collection or return • Ventilation system includes stainless steel louvered vents on exterior walls for dissipation of heat and dampness Also allows air exchange throughout all lockers See price sheet for more options Model 352 -2 Ooof / 2 Sike Capacity rrtia 5 to obstrurttort HUNTER GREEN SPECTRUM BLUE GRAY CLOUD ©JAN 1998 3 5 ln€-SH«LI series The BIKE-SHELL"Solution The model 251 b 252 Series is our mid pnce bike locker made for all climates using FRP finish with plywood core One piece frame with pre hung door alleviates adjustment The locker is of fiberglass reinforced plastic and is highly resistant to impact and scratching The outer finish never needs painting will not rust or corrode and is extremely resistant to most stains and chemicals The standard key lock mechanism is completely internal and resists tampering Modular design American Bicycle Security Company is one of the largest makers of bike security systems in the world with dozens of satisfied customers and hundreds of successful installations throughout the United States Our wide experience can help you get your bicycle transportation program off the ground and running fast Phone today or visit our web site for more information concerning our new line of lockers and features niVlCRICnN BICVCLC SCCURITV COAAPRNV For further information American Bicycle Security Company PO Box 7359 Ventura CA 93006 Tel 800 245 3723 805 933 3688 Fax 805 933 1865 e mail turtle@ameribike com http //wwwamenbike com/ 1 ©®®c - S i A 52 07 cm ^ 20 I /2 Specifications Structure and finish Extenor walls tops doors and door frames made of colored hber glass reinforced plastic with DF ext grade core (ASTM PSI 83) Solid color never needs painting is graffiti resistant and resists impact and scratches Interior walls of OSB exterior board Standard color is tan Bottom of all walls are encapsulated in plastic or aluminum extrusions for superior durability Frame Walls tops and door frames shall lock together utilizing custom extrusions manufactured from 5063 T5 Commercial Anodized aluminum Visit our web site for the most current list of new designs and features //www ameribike com/ Locks and Locking Hardware Chicago ACI II 7 pin tumbler Pop Out T Handle locks with three keys and removable lock cylinders Internal locking hardware con sists of five chromolly steel cams controlling an extruded aluminum locking bar which engages the door frame over 3 foot span High quality custom extruded continuous door hinge has no hinge pins to wear or rust All fasteners and assembly hardware is zinc plated or better and internal to prevent tampering Optional features • Heavy Duty pad lock system that will accommodate high security pad locks • MEDECO Stainless Steel high security T Handle lock • Com and Token operated locks for collection or return • Ventilation system includes stainless steel louvered vents on exterior walls for dissipation of heat and dampness Also allows air exchange throughout all lockers See pnce sheet for more options Model 251 -i Door I Bike Capacity Model 252 RAACRKRN BICVCL( SCCURITV COMPRNV © JAN 1998 3 5 1 -N . ..1 r:J^ V.>^!.:.1 The Bike-Shell Solution (_) Model 201 & 202 Series is designed for the economically motivated buyer using FRP materials with OSB marine core O One piece frame with pre hung door alleviates adjustment Q) An extenor of fiberglass reinforced plastic IS highly resistant to impact and scratching (3 The outer finish never needs painting will not rust or corrode and is extremely resistant to most stains and chemicals i@ The standard key lock mechanism is completely internal and resists tampering (System for user provided padlock is also available) @ Security free due to built in door locks with concealed hinges Locking bar from top to bottom American Bicycle Security Company is one of the largest makers of bike security systems m the world with dozens of satisfied customers and hundreds of successful installations throughout the United States Our wide experience can help you get your bicycle transportation program off the ground and running fast Phone today for more information concerning our new line of lockers RAACRICRN BICVCLC SCCURITV COMPRNV For further information American Bicycle Security Company PO Box 7359 Ventura CA 93006 Tel 800 245 3723 805 933 3688 Fax 805 933 1865 e mail turtle@ameribike com http //www amenbike com/ DOOR _68 58 cm^ 27 t 1 Specifications Structure and finish Walls tops doors and door frames made of colored fiberglass reinforced plastic with OSB core Solid color never needs paint ing IS graffiti resistant and resists impact and scratches Interior walls of OSB sealed two side Standard color is tan Bottom of all walls are encapsulated in plastic or aluminum extrusion for superior durability Frame Walls tops and door frames shall lock together utilizing custom extrusion manufactured from 6063 T5 commercial anodized aluminum Locks and lockmg hardware Chicago ACI II 7 pin tumbler Pop Out T handle locks with three keys and removable lock cylinders Internal locking hard ware consists of six chromolly steel cams controlling an extruded aluminum locking bar which engages the door frame over 3 foot span High quality custom extruded continuous door hinge has no hinge pins to wear or rust All fastener and assembly hard ware is zinc plated or better and internal to prevent tampering Optional features • Heavy Duty pad lock system that will accommodate high security pad locks • MEDECO Stainless Steel high security T Handle lock • Com and Token operated locks for collection or return • Ventilation system includes stainless steel louvered vents on exterior walls for dissipation of heat and dampness Also allows air exchange throughout all lockers Visit our web site for the most current list of new designs and features //www ameribike com/ See price sheet for more options Modi-I 201 Modtil 202 RMCRICRN BICVC SCCURITV COMPRNV ©JAN 1998 3 5 BIK€-SH€LI series The Bike-SheirSolution The Pie design is our most creative design in configuration to date to accommodate those buyers who are limited by certain space requirements User friendly with easy access proves highly functional for the cyclist The construction of fiberglass reinforced plastic IS highly resistant to impact and scratching The finish never needs painting will not rust or corrode and is extremely resistant to most stains The standard key-lock mechanism is completely internal and resists tampering Security free due to built in door locks with concealed hinges Locking bar from top to bottom American Bicycle Security Company is one of the largest makers of bike security systems in the world with dozens of sahsfied customers and hundreds of successful installations throughout the United States Our wide experience can help you get your bicycle transportation program off the ground and running fast Phone today for more information concerning our new line of lockers RMCRICRN BICVCLC SCCURITV COMPRNV TM For further information American Bicycle Security Company PO Box 7359 Ventura CA 93006 Tel 800 245 3723 805 933 3688 Fax 805 933 1865 e mail turtle@ameribike com http //wwwamenbike com/ 85 73 cm 33 3/4 124 46 cm 49 l_ 68 58 cm ' 27 BIKE-SHELL Bike Locker Layouts Circular (16 unit) Typical wall or fence Three Quarter (IZ unit] BIB ^ f Specifications Structure and finish Walls tops doors and door frames made of colored fiberglass reinforced plastic 201 P with OSB core and 251 P with DF ext grade core (ASTM PSI 83) Solid color never needs painting is graffiti resistant and resists impact and scratches Intenor walls of OSB sealed two side Standard color is tan Bottom of all walls are encapsulated in plastic or aluminum extrusion for superior durability Frame Walls tops and door frames shall lock together utilizing custom extrusion manufactured from 6063 T5 commercial anodized aluminum Locks and locking hardware Chicago ACI II 7 pm tumbler Pop Out T handle locks with three keys and removable lock cylinders Internal locking hard ware consists of five chromolly steel cams controlling an extrud ed aluminum locking bar which engages the door frame over 3 span High quality custom extruded continuous door hinge has no hinge pins to wear or rust All fastener and assembly hard ware is zinc plated or better and internal to prevent tampering Optional features • Heavy Duty pad lock handle system that will accommodate high security pad locks • MEDECO Stainless Steel high security T Handle lock • Com and Token operated locks for collection or return • Ventilation system includes stainless steel louvered vents on exterior walls for dissipation of heat and dampness Also allows air exchange throughout all lockers See price sheet for more options Visit our web site for the most current list of new designs and features //www ameribike com/ ©JAN 1998 3 5 V:^BfiMi|M5463;j^ iMlBSj^ffiffiS'^—^^^^ ' I* TimberForm Palomar This bold and straightforward feat?rp.^^'r^ '"^"'^'^'"9 fa^^'ly features a heavy duty schedule 40 of%L7^ ^"PP°rt system with a choice seats and Seating Surfaces Seating surfaces are offered in perforated steel half round steel bar or IZt'^"' °'T'"" Alaska yeSw sSs Marine Teak or PurpleheaVt wood Litter Containers Complementary perforated steel litter Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7™ designer Mounting Permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mounting M«aestal A. 3?=^ 02870 COL BuyLine 5466 About the Company TimberForm Site Complements are manufactured and distnbuted throughout the world by Columbia Cascade Company For over a quarter of a century site related products carrying the TimberForm brand name have earned a reputation for design excellence durability and value In addition to site furniture the company produces a complete line of playground equipment and outdoor fitness systems under the trade names TimberForm and PipeLine° See the back cover of this brochure for examples Matching CycLoops™ bicycle racks and CycLocker™ bicycle lockers appear in Sweets Catalog under File Number 02842 COL This Brochure These 16 pages present a bnef overview of our most popular site furnishing design families A detailed presentation of each product and senes appears in the TimberForm Site Complement Catalog Several examples of our play equipment and fitness systems are shown on the last page of this brochure Site Catalog, Drawings, Specifications and Samples For a copy of our comprehensive site complement catalog specific product drawings and specifications (for inclusion in bid documents) or to view wood or color coating samples contact your nearby TimberForm regional representative Current delivered pnces will also be provided upon request Regional Representatives Columbia Cascade maintains a worldwide network of experienced women and men who are familiar with all of our products They can provide knowledgeable input dunng the early planning stages of a project For the name and phone number of the TimberForm representative serving your area call the Sweet s BuyLine 24 hours a day seven days a week If immediate product information or consultation is required please contact our Oregon design headquarters toll free at 1 800/547 1940 To identify yourself as a professional specifier request extension 970 Our headquarters facsimile number is 503/223 4530 and our Oregon telephone number is 503/223 1157 •1 Ijji TimberForm Willow This fresh family of unique street park and mall furniture incorporates graceful design elements into each of the products The strong all steel welded construction features round rod willows and Schedule 40 pipe frames The senes includes bench seat settee and chair plus matching litter containers ash receptacle and planter Seating Surfaces All seating surfaces are of contoured rectangular formed steel tube Litter Containers Matching steel litter containers are offered with 18 gallon steel liner Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top and Hamper Top Complementary Accessories Ash receptacle and planter Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7™ designer colors Mounting Permanent embedment pedestal (surface) mounting or leveling (movable) TimberForm Craftsmen Inspired by the subtle design qualities of Gustav Leopold and J George Stickley s 1901 Amencan Craftsman wooden furniture this award winning senes replicates that distinct penod style in cast metal The TimberForm Craftsmen family of classic site furnishings features benches and seats of cast metal with wood slats and cast litter containers Graphics and Lettering The chrysanthemum graphic shown (far left) IS the standard motif on all castings a rhododendron emblem (see below) is optional Custom symbols and logos can be included in relief on any cast face lettering can be added on seats and litter containers Seating Surfaces Wood seating surfaces are offered in kiln dned Alaska yellow cedar Manne Teak or Purpleheart Litter Containers Cast surround includes a metal 32 gallon steel liner Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top Hamper Top Hamper Top with ash tray and Hamper Top with covered ash tray Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting Permanent surface mounting or movable applications 2663-6 2660-6 ! I 'IP^'i rv' b iXLlULkA.' ' .0287,0^aL^,^- BuyLine5466 ^ TimberForm Renaissance The TimberForm Renaissance family of solid steel furnishings offers traditional styling with unparalleled utility for use in the most demanding public settings indoors or out The senes includes benches seats litter containers an ash receptacle and a planter Seating Surfaces Contoured seating surfaces are of formed steel Seating Options Wall mount seats and intermediate armrests on all benches and seats are available Litter Containers Two sizes of formed steel litter containers are offered One uses a standard capacity 23 gallon steel liner the other a large capacity 32 gallon liner Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top or Hamper Top Complementary Accessories Matching ash receptacle 2812 and a planter is offered Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting Permanent surface or movable depending on model " " ......... .-•^^^y^^-'^-'-'^^?-':;";"^ Mia ——— rr TimberForm Profile The TimberForm Profile family of contemporary site furnishings features welded wire surfaces supported by strong schedule 40 round steel pipe frames The senes includes straight and curved benches and seats tables plus litter containers an ash receptacle and a planter Seating Surfaces Seating surfaces are welded wire Seating Options Choose from modular straight or curved seats and benches with individual seating pods and optional armrests on the ends only or also between sections Non modular seats and benches in lengths of six and eight feet are also offered in this senes Litter Container Litter container is welded wire and includes an 18 gallon steel liner Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top or Hamper Top Complementary Accessories Welded wire ash receptacle and planter GameBoard for tables Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting Permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mounting Pedestal mount includes matching base covers to conceal fasteners t^y^i'-j-HA - I ^^-.f,, I I,I.J. Ml, I TimberForm Skyline The TimberForm Skyline senes is a modern design family of site furnishings featunng benches and seats with cast metal frames and wood slats Matching wood surrounds appear on the litter container ash receptacle and planter Lettering Custom lettenng can be included in relief on the cast metal seat and bench end frames Seating Surfaces Wood seating surfaces are offered in kiln dned Alaska yellow cedar Manne Teak or Purpleheart Litter Containers Includes a metal 36 gallon steel liner Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top Hamper Top Hamper Top with ash tray or Hamper Top with covered ash tray Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting Permanent or movable surface applications 02870/COL BuyLmc 5466 2115-6 2111-6 2117-6 2113-6 titm TimberForm Madison The stalwart TimberForm Madison family of site furnishings features substantial tubular steel frames with premium 3x4 wood or recycled plastic seating surfaces Seating Surfaces Seating surfaces are of premium kiln dned Douglas fir or recycled plastic Litter Containers Kiln dried wood surround includes a metal 36 gallon liner featuring side removal Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top Hamper Top Hamper Top with ash tray or Hamper Top with covered ash tray Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special GASPAX 7 designer colors Mounti^ng Permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mounting with leveling feet Also offered for moveable applications 2120-6 TimberForm Restoration The TimberForm Restoration senes is a twin family of site furnishings featunng benches and seats with cast iron frames and wood slats Matching wood surrounds appear on the litter container ash receptacle and planter Two design series are offered One the 2118 style (facing page) features wide sweeping armrests with a rose relief cast in the bench and seat ends It was the recipient of the prestigious G Mark of design excellence from the Japanese government The other the 2120 style (this page) is a classical civic furniture design with simplified elements Each style has been successfully used for intenor and extenor applications throughout the world Symbols and Logos Custom symbols and graphics can be included in relief on seat and bench ends replacing the existing motifs Seating Surfaces Wood seating surfaces are offered in kiln dned Alaska yellow cedar Manne Teak or Purpleheart Seating Options Long lengths intermediate support frames and armrests are offered Litter Containers Matching wood surrounds a metal 21 or 36 gallon steel liner Top ophons Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top Hamper Top Hamper Top with ash tray or Hamper Top with covered ash tray Complementary Accessories Matching ash receptacles and planters Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting Permanent surface mounting or movable applications 02870/COL BuyLine- 5466 3Tc h 011 I*'«I a i E r! i;i I |j ij] q n r/rj ! ia' i a; i' ?^n]j I'fi!! IS i 0^ I r ^ t Grip M 7-3516 TimberForm Manor The TimberForm Manor family of classic Early Amencan styled estate furnishings features all steel construction for the toughest applications The senes includes arched back straight back and curved seating plus matching accessory table litter containers ash receptacle and planters Seating Surfaces All seating surfaces are of formed steel Seating Options Intermediate and center armrests can be added Litter Containers Two sizes of matching steel litter containers are offered one uses a standard capacity 21 gallon steel liner the other a large capacity 36 gallon insert Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top Hamper Top Hamper Top with ash tray and Hamper Top with covered ash tray Complementary Accessories Accessory table GameBoard ash receptacle and planters Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting Permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mounting with leveling feet Also offered for moveable applications 37-07 • B I V 02870/COL BuyLmc 5466 TimberForm Plaza The elegant TimberForm Plaza family of site furniture features wood slats that appear to float above the round steel frames Benches and seats are offered with and without armrests The senes includes straight single benches and seats sectional curved multiple benches plus two litter containers an ash receptacle and a planter Seating Surfaces Wood seating surfaces are offered in kiln dned Alaska yellow cedar Manne Teak or Purpleheart Seating Options Benches can be used back to back for a unique appearance and enhanced space utility Litter Containers Two sizes of wood faced litter containers are offered one uses a standard capacity 18 gallon steel liner the other a large capacity 32 gallon insert Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top or Hamper Top Complementary Accessories Raised Double Seat 2731 6 can function as a table with or without GameBoard Other accessories include an ash receptacle and a planter Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting By permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mounting with leveling feet 2731-6 2761-6 2751-6 2603-6 2605-FT 263i-6 TimberForm Boulevard This elegant all steel senes of furnishings includes a matching seat bench picnic table litter container ash receptacle and planter Using 14 gauge perforated steel supported by strong schedule 40 pipe (rather than thin walled tubing) this stylistic family is equally at home on the street or at the mall Seating Surfaces Seating surface is patterned perforated steel Litter Containers Perforated steel surround with an 18 gallon steel liner Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top or Hamper Top Complementary Accessories Other accessones include an ash receptacle a planter and a picnic table Colors Choose from ten standard and over 170 special CASPAX 7 designer colors Mounting Permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mounting with leveling feet 2601-6 Vm m ,r->f-^<^: ' D "v"*^ ''•j ~^'r—>" "• TimberForm Parkway TimberForm Parkway furnishings use premium kiln dned Douglas fir slats with steel frames Choose from seats benches picnic and game tables litter containers ash receptacle and planters Seating and Table Surfaces Wood seating and table surfaces are patterned kiln dned Douglas fir Seating Options Straight back and contour benches wall mount benches and seats double benches and platform seats Litter Containers Wood surround with a 36 gallon steel liner All top options available Complementary Accessories Several standard and accessible picnic and game tables GameBoard litter receptacle holder ash receptacle and planter Colors Ten standard color coating hues Mounting Permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mounting # TimberForm Greenway Time proven functional and tough TimberForm Greenway park furnishings use premium kiln dned Douglas fir slats with steel frames Choose from seats benches picnic and game tables litter containers ash receptacle and planters Seating and Table Surfaces Wood seating and table surfaces are patterned kiln dned Douglas fir Seating Options Select from flat back and contour benches wall mount benches and seats double benches and platform seats Litter Containers Wood surround with a 36 gallon steel liner Top options Open Top Flat Top Domed Top Ash/Dome Top Hamper Top Hamper Top with ash tray or Hamper Top with covered ash tray Complementary Accessories Several standard and accessible picnic and game tables GameBoard litter containers and planter Colors For metal frames choose from 10 standard powder coating hues Mounting Permanent embedment or pedestal (surface) mount 02870 COL BuyLine 5466 • i t f 2140-6 2162-t-P 2139-6-P •... ••«i-TMi>3im.'slrfJ''irf».'j'»'r. 2141-6 TimberForm Recycled Slats Selected TimberForm benches seats picnic and game tables are offered with recycled plastic slats Shown here are examples from the Madison''''^ and Parkway™ families Contact your nearby representative for availability on products from other design series 2S49-S-M 2S42-6-M • • ^- I Other Products for the Site In addition to the sampling of sit furnishings shown in this brochun manufacture hundreds of other si complements Among them met£ bollards timber and metal sign structures picnic and game table CycLoops & CycLockers We offer four styles of bike rack: single or multiple bicycle lockers in range of colors to match our Timt Site Complements For a comple presentation see Sweet s Catalog I 02842 COL or request a copies c CycLoops and CycLocker bicycle brochures 02870/COL BuyLine 5466 Custom Site Products We are often called upon by architects landscape architects and designers to produce unique products of their own design or for custom modifications of our cataloged items for special applications As one of the world s leading producers of wood and metal site furnishings we have the ability expenence and manufactunng capability to produce almost any product destined for the site We actively encourage designer input anc solicit inquines for custom designed or modified products Contact your nearby TimberForm Site Complement representative for more information and specification assistance Custom Profile™ Benches pg Columbia Cascade ^^^^^^^^ Site Complements Catalog A comprehensive and detailed specifier catalog of TimberForm Site Complements plus wood and color samples are available by contacting your nearby TimberForm regional site furniture representative or our design headquarters at Portland Oregon Play Equipment and Fitness Catalogs Play Equipment and/or Fitness System catalogs are available from your regional TimberForm & PipeLine representative Call the Sweet s BuyLine or the toll free number listed below for the name and telephone number of the technical representative serving your area yy For representative or product Information, call toll-free 1 -800/547-1940, request extension 970 1975 3 W Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201-5293 U.S.A Telephone 503 223-1157 FacslTsile 503 223-4530 Publication No. S,C-970 Copyright 1996 Columbia Cascade Company, all rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. 02874 COL BuyLmc 6299 A Catalog of Bicycle Management Products Original Original CycLoops are the time proven favorite of the design community These looped bike racks are offered in five standard lengths to accommodate from five through 13 bicycles Each is formed from a single 2 3/8 (60mm) diameter ASTM schedule 40 steel pipe Standard mounting IS by embedment Pedestal (surface) mounting with matching base cover is optional Choose from 10 standard color coating hues or from a wide spectrum of nearly 200 special CASPAX 7™ designer colors CASPAX 7 is an electrostatically applied colored polyester powder coating applied to a thickness of 6 8 mils ( 15 2mm) and oven cured at 400° F (204° C) to chemically bond the finish to the metal substrate A stainless steel version {schedule 40 type 304) is offered for elegant settings and a galvanized version IS available for utilitanan applications Embedment wiy--m Pedestal CycLoops Base Cover fUl fuui finn/i 2170 5 2170 7 2170 9 mm fuumnn . 2170-11-C ! 2170 11 2170 13 Super Super CycLoops bike racks employ hefty 4 1/2 (115mm) diameter ASTM schedule 40 steel pipe with integral smaller steel dividers permanently welded in place Two lengths are offered to accommodate eight (2175 8) or ten (2175 10) bicycles each with embedment or pedestal (surface) mount option Matching base covers are supplied with all Super CycLoops Color coated stainless steel or galvanized finished bike racks are available 2175-8 2175 10 IH ^$^f^l'*! 4r V^igt's A^** », » M'|-*><4lV ... 028I4/COL Bollard & Will Bollard CycLoops are domed 4 1/2 (115mm) diameter ASTM schedule 40 steel posts that are 3 (915mm) tall Integral steel loop(s) are at bike height Select from one two or three loop models Polyester color powder coating or galvanizing are finish options Mounting is pedestal (surface) mount with matching base cover or embedment (A removable version is offered for special applications ) Wall CycLoops is a single loop (one bike) 1 5/16 (33mm) diameter ASTM sc/iecfu/e 40 curved steel pipe permanently welded to a 16 (405mm) long mounting plate Polyester color powder coating or galvanizing are finish options Wall CycLoops are attached to existing walls or building facades singularly or in rows 1, / n \l y 2176-2 Multiple Unit Side Elevation Cutaway Plan-view The CycLocker is a modular bicycle storage cabinet 3 3 (990mm) wide 7 4 (2235mm) ong and 3 10 (1170mm) high Each module s diagonally separated to accommodate two bikes with access via a door on each end Modules can be used separately or in linear combination with a shared common wall The Tame is tubular steel the roof and walls are 16 gauge (1 5mm) steel sheet Intenor dividers are Df 1/2 (13mm) medium density overlaid marine plywood Each door incorporates a stainless steel piano hinge and a heavy duty key locking latch assembly that features a dual top and bottom deadlock latch with an interior manual lock release mechanism for safety CycLocker modules are surface mounted using anchor bolts Polyester color powder coating two toned color schemes or stainless steel finish options are available till! 'Iil»l Visit us on the internet at www.timberform.com Our e-mail address is hq@timberform.com • 1 1975 sw Fiftl^^e .'Pcrtiana 0'-|:gMl9Z2pi 52^3 USA Fanimilc t)C3 223 4530 Publication No SC 977 (ylrissic c^i//fnliciiu - RSO-25 IHEfRSO SERIES OF LITTER RECEPTACLES OW ^ou can proviije safer working conditions,Veduce your-insuence costs and increase worker productivity with the Cost ContameFlitter Receptacle from McC 11 ntpck Metal The uniquf side Mding design reduces the risk of cbstlyiofck injurieai •Awling safe, easy access for unloading without th'e needTOiiftthe^32'gallon mterilolceptaclaiver the ^'^tl'SB top of the unit Designed and nnanufactured in the ^ Mi r*^^^r ^^^^ USA, the C0|;M;onta[ner**al^OTelps.you rexjme maj-pte.n|nce^isls jthahks to its vandal-res|^t|nt finish Unlike y stone or| concr|te , iQntainers* graffitiis easily removed from the ^smooth surface with a nld solvent •.jg'ttmfiftiitm Manufactured by Mc(|LINtO# METAL FABRICATORS JI^C. , -'45.5 HarfJAVG ' ^ >WQ0dland,CAf57|6,," 1-800-350-3588. *FAX (530) 666-7071 email bearproof@aol com *i The RSO-25 Available in monochromatic all-steel construction, or with brushed stainless steel tops Other options include ash urns and controller/litter receptacle combinations Advanced Side Loading Design Reduces risk of back injury and associated insurance claims High density polyethylene liner included 5 Minute Graffiti Solution Quick, easy cleanup Stainless Steel Continuous Hinge Rust-free performance Durable-Vandal Resistant Low maintenance, long life Sleek Lines-Small Footprint No front or rear side Enhances vintage or contemporary streetscapes Easy Installation Free standing or bolt down ADA Compliant The RSO-25 The litter receptacle specified by the City of San Jose, California, for the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan Capacity Dimensions Weight Operation Construction Body Floor Plate and Hinge Top Liner Finish Lock Materials Installation 32 Gallons 24 Diameter 44 Height 30 3/4 to the opening 150 pounds Side swings open to unload so operators don't need to lift the filled intenor receptacle over the top 12 gauge (0 1046 thick) ASTM A 569 steel Type 304 stainless steel 11 gauge (0 1196" thick) ASTM A 569 steel (standard), 11 gauge type 304 stainless steel (optional) 32 gallon high density polyethylene with cut out handholds for lifting Tnemec Senes 74 Endura-Shield IV polyurethane high gloss non chalking graffiti resistant Approved by the City of San Jose, California Santa Clara Transit Authority and San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit standard color is dark green or navy, wide selection of optional colors Tamper resistant keyless lock with interior latch guard Minimum 20% recycled steel Unit can be free standing or attached to the ground with concealed internal fasteners or mounted on imbedded anchors concealed under unit mi^d and manufactured m Woodland, California by McCLINTOCK METAL FABRICATORS, INC Wf Woodland, CA 95776 • (530) 666 6007 • 1 800 350 3588 • FAX (530) 666 7071 • email bearproof @aol com D ° D Hid-A-Bag® features • Sturdy construction designed to stop animal access • Mounting holes for permanent bolt down sites • Easy to use, self-closing wind- proof loading lids • Convenient removal of bagged garbage Complete the Landscape USED BY Parks National Provincial State Municipal Golf Courses Campgrounds Rest Areas Dept of Highways Resorts Schools Playgrounds Ski Lodges Recreation Areas Hld-A-Bag® advantages • Rust protected using galvanneal Steel, Stainless hinges and handles, with durable urethane paint • Aesthetically designed and coloured to blend in with any environment • Securely mounted to concrete base, controlled access to unloading door with optional keylock • Slide-out bag minimizes lifting Self closing lids with or without Animal Proof latches HID-A-BAG SPECIFICATIONS CAPACITY DIMENSIONS Width Depth Height HID A BAG 1 70 Gal (260 L) 26 (660) 42 (1 070) 48 (1 220) HID A BAG II 130 Gal (500L) 48 (1 200) 42 (1 070) 48 (1 220) WEIGHT Standard w/1 X 4 Cedar 220 lbs (100 kg) 295 lbs (135 kg) 240 lbs (110 kg) Not Available PRECAST MOUNTING PADS AND STEPS AVAILABLE BAG REQUIREMENTS 2 5 mil 42 x 50 (1 070 x 1 270) OPTION Reuseable Bags HID A BAG and the shape of the HID A BAG container are registered Trademarks of Haul All Equipment Ltd "Quality Products" The Hid-A-Bag Mini is avail- able as a Single or double unit, with or without cedar facing Lid options include "animal-proof" latches, a recycling top or a combina- tion waste/recyclmg lid as shown Hid-A-Bags are easily installed with precast mounting pads The Mini uses a standard refuse bag or an optional reuseable bag To remove refuse simply pull out hinged bag rack, slip off the top of the bag and slide the contents out HID-A-BAG MINI SPECIFICATIONS CAPACITY DIMENSIONS Width Depth Height MINI I 32 Gal (120 L) 21 (530) 34 (860) 42 (1 065) MINI II 60 Gal (225L) 38 (960) 34 (860) 42 (1 065) WEIGHT Standard w/1 X 4 Cedar 155 lbs (70 kg) 225 lbs (102 kg) 170 lbs (77 kg) 250 lbs (113 kg) PRECAST MOUNTING PADS AND STEPS AVAILABLE BAG REOUIREMENTS 2 5 mil 30 x 42 (760 x 1 070) OPTION Reuseable Bags "Efficient Service" Hld-A-Bag® RECYCLER Convenient user openings Restricted removal of material for areas with beverage container deposits Hid-A-Bag® features • Standard keylock on unloading door • Mounting on a poured or pre-cast pad • Clustered to handle most recyclables • Convenient, durable and aesthetically pleasing • Standard plastic or re-usable canvas bags Hld-A-Bag® Depot advantages • Low cost drop-off collection • Minimal space requirements - expandable for future material or higher volumes • Simple unloading of bags - No special equipment required • Easily installed on grass, pavement or concrete surface us Patent No D291135 EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS Haul-All reaches y«u thraugh a netwark af selected distributars whase Integrity and praduct knawledge qualifies them ta assist yau in the seiectian and jilanning af yaur salid waste and recycling eguijtment needs. HAUL-ALL, HID-A-BAG, HYD-A-WAV and TBANSTOR® are registered trademarks. Phane (403) 32S-7719 e-mail: sales®haulall.cam Fax (403) 32»-9956 www.haulall.cam McCDntock Metal Fabricators, Inc 455 Harter Avenue Woodland, CA 95776-6105 (800) 350 3588 (530)666-6007 (530)666-7071 FAX DISTRIBUTOR Printed in Canada on Recycled Paper grarhctm IM-01-93/IM-01-95/IM-OI-97 \Q/~7 The Mb d e r n C 1 a 5 5 i c 5 ystonc Ridge Designs introduces Modern Classics in exclusive site ixirniture. Keystone Ridge Designs manufactures premier site fxxrnisliings including: benches, litter receptacles food court seating, planters, ash urns, picnic tables, bike rack and bollards. Withi more than a decade of experience and a reputation as a leader in site amenities, our products stand the test of time—from putdbbr city streetscapes to indoor shopping malls across America. Combining superior workmanship with an architectural flairj we create a stuniiing piece of furniture which will enhance your outdoor environment or interior setting. Keystone Ridge Designs offers the best value comprised of top quality products, competitive pricing, irinovative designs and personal service. Produced by skilled craftsmen, our continuous-flow weld seam is practically unnoticeable. This weld process penetrates the metal ensuring a virtually inseparable weld that deters rust. Iri additioh, each pieGe goes through a rigorous inspection that guarantees the Kejfstone Ridge Designs' seal of quality approval. Oflfering the exchxsive KEYSHIELDTM metal finish. Keystone Ridge Designs; begins with unsurpassed metal preparation followed by the application of 7-15 mils of colored polyester powder Goating. The rcsult is a first class appearance and extremely durable finish that is rust, abuse, and sun fade resistant. KEVSHIELD^"^ is strength, durability and quality—our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost in the industry. Keystone Ridge Designs is uniquely able to create custom products to meet yoiir specifications and designs. Our in-house CAD designers will gladly provide you with presentation-ready specification drawings for your next custom project. Quality, craftsmanship, dedication to your creative vision^— these are the hallmarks of Keystone Ridge Designs. CATALMA y*ERiE.y ^ (Patent Pending) si , A Georgian visionary, the Catalma ' series separates itself from the mainstream with a delicate flow of curves brmging with it sunshine and warmth The Catalma back design hints at an era of gentility and gracious livmg • Curved rolled and straight bar form an industry unique back design • Delicate bar on the arm and under the seat represents Georgian embellishment complementing the flow of the back • Backless bench also has sunburst effect • Bench available with back or flat m any length mounting or standard color CA26 CA28 CAI6 CAI8 CA3 22 CA3 32 Catalma Bench w/back 6 Catalma Bench w/back 8 Catalma Bench flat 6 Catalma Bench flat 8 Catalma litter 22 gal Catalma litter 32 gal $670 $770 $520 $620 $670 $720 Litter receptacle includes plastic liner flat lid anti-theft lanyard tn either 22- or 32-gaUon capacity with any mounting or standard color optional lids and liners (see page 1 7) Exclusive KEYSHIELD™ polyester powdercoatmg finish— our stamp of armoied excellence that IS foremost in the industry 4- To order or for more infoi mation call 1-800-284-8208 Wt e n t Pending) miiiiim In the style of the Arts and Crafts Movement, the McConnell bench focuses attention on the creation of the heart and hand A regal appearance IS dl amatized by the arm design with evidence of horizontal lines and artistic engineering The back is crowned with an arc completing this period recreation • Double steel reinforcement in the arms of the bench • Curved rectangular tubing accents top of bench • Bench available with back or flat in any length mounting, or standard color kLitter receptacle includes plastic liner flat lid fanti-theft lanyard m either 22- or 32-gallon • capacity with any mounting or standard color (jptional lids and liners (see page 1 7) Exclusive KEYSHIELD polyester powdercoatmg finish—our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost m the industry MC26 MC28 MCI6 MCI8 MC3-22 MC3-32 MC5 mm & • McConnell Bench w/back 6 $810 McConnell Bench w/ back 8 $910 McConnell Bench flat 6 $590 McConnell Bench flat 8 $690 McConnell htter 22 gal $840 McConnell litter 32 gal $890 McConnell Ash Urn $425 To order or for more informatton call 1-800-284-8208 5 ART lyA /i y t R i ty* (Patent Pending) At ts and Crafts design and simple aetincQEstm|:jxt to government buildings and estates for 1 estoration and workman integrity with The Afti craftsmanship in todays contemporary form • Exclusive design features a high handsome back . V *Af''®,'y^on(i shapes allude Co, a stained glass window appearat. iinounting or standaid color, optional AR26 Artisan Bench w/back 6 $845 AR28 Artisan Bench w/back 8 $990 AR3 22 Artisan htter 22 ?^ $760 AR3 32 Artisan litter 32 gal $790 AR5 Artisan Ash Urn $445 p,ol^^er|pqwdercoating finish—out; stamp [^^^Sw^tKclindustrv mmi:my-mm*vg:^gjf^4.si: sm.---.''-,.-. ' 6' To order or for more information call 1-800-284-8208 KEVSTONEIIIDGE ULLMA/1 ytRlty The workhorse of commercial benches this versatile metal bench delivers che required stability needed for any project and an appeal ance that blends with any decor The Pullman is a popular satisfying choice for any setting Combining to take site furnituie into the 21st century the PuUenium fits the mold for futuristic seating systems Sleek and stylish yet fully assembled for ease of installation and optimum stability the PuUenium makes tomorrows visions a reality today • Lumbar support for supreme comfort • Fully assembled • Center arm option • Modular seating perfect for public waiting areas • Straight Ol curved Bench available with back or flat in any Wcngth mounting or standard color 'Exclusive KEYSHIELD TM polyester • powdeicoating finish—our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost in the industry P26C P28C P26 P28 P2CU3 P2CU6 P2CU8 Pullman w/back 6' Pullman w/back 8' Pullman Curved w/back 3 PuUman Curved w/back 6 Pullman Curved w/back 8 $725 ^ $825 ^ $650 J $1200 1 $1600 'j Pullman w/back 6' w/center arm Pullman w/back 8' w/center arm $850 $950 PL2M3 fullenium . w/back straight $850 PL2MCU3 Pullcnium 3 Seat Modular w/back curved $890 PI6 PIS Pullman flat 6 Pullman flat 8 $610^1 PLIM3 ~^ Fullenium J seat Modular flat straight $700 PLIMCU3 PuUenium 3 Seat Modular flat curved $740 KPVSIDNERIDGE To order or for more information call 1-800-284-8208 7 ATLA/NTA y*E.RiE.y (Patent /I o Ues 572 155) Inspired by aichitects the patented Atlanta bench offets the distinctive grace that many settings require with the quality manufacturing of a fully assembled metal unit Innovative engineering has given the Atlanta the freedom to curve and adapt CO any surrounding Bend the Rules—We Did' • Grace of curved lines with the option of a curved seat and back • Fully assembled unit • Bench available with back or flat in any length mounting or standard color • Litter receptacle includes plastic liner flat lid anti-theft lanyard in either 22- or 32-gallon capacity with any mounting oi standard color, optional lids and Imers (see page I 7) • Exclusive KEYSHIELD™ polyester powdercoatmg finish—our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost m the industry AT24 Atlanta w/back 4' AT26 Atlanta w/back 6' AT28 Atlanta w/back 8' $760 $825 $930 Atlanta flat 6' Atlanta flat 8' $595 $695 AT2CU6 Curved Atlanta w/back 6' $1250 AT2RCU6 Reverse curved Atlanta w/back 6' $2000 ATRT Atlanta rectangular table w/ash insert $776 AT3SQ 32 Atlanta square litter i 32 gal $7^ AT4SQ Atlanta square planter $695 AT3 22 Atlanta litter 22 gal $43g AT3 32 Atlanta litter 32 gal $5^ 8 To order or for more information call 1-800-284-8208 itosroNEiaDGE AT9 6 Atlanta Fence 6 AT9 8 Atlanta Fence yiG/iATURE.yERI^ For the ultimate in customized furnishings add your corporate logo or community crest co the Atlanta The Keystone Ridgc Designs Logo Option IS literally a Signature piece and allows the opportunity to add a truly personal touch to your surroundings • Duplication of any logo • Option of curved or straight backed Atlanta • Exclusive KEYSHIELD™ polyester powdercoatmg finish—our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost m the industry ATS2CU6 Signature Curved Atlanta w/back 6' $1350 INERIME TO order or for more information call 1-800-284-8208 9 1 K^raONEHW PULLMA/1 TAbLE. ft.lf Enhance a food court by creating an extraordinary setting for enjoying a luncheon while dining either inside oi out The PuUman proves its adaptability once again with this series extension while reinforcing its stitement of durability and comfort • Optional round square or rectangular table tops • Seating options flat or with back • Mounting options freestanding poi table or pedestal • Umbrella hole option • Opcional porcablc glides or stationary anchoring systems • Exclusive KEYSHIELD™ polyester powdercoatmg finish—our stamp of armored excellence thit IS foremost m the industry P6P 2RT Pullman portable rectangular table & seats w/back P6 2 Pullman table & seats w/back $1450 P6C-P Pullman courtyard table & chairs $1480 w/pedestal leg $1350 P6P 2SQ Pullman portable square table & seats w/back $1565 P6P 2RD Pullman portable round table & seats w/back $ 15 6 5 10 To Older or for more information call 1-800-284-8208 K^miErawsE \ P6C Pullman courtyard table & chairs (Signature logo option shown) $1350 UMB7 UMB9 Umbrella 7 ft Umbrella 9 ft Call Jor Umbrella color choices $299 $399 KPSIDNERIDGE TO order or for more informatton caU 1-800-284-8208 11 (Patent /Vo Des 576 27 0) Designed in the style of a wooden country garden bench, this patented sturdy metal bench ts equaUy at home m a tram station or an exclusive maU • Ruggedly-made available in multi-color • Bench available with back or flat in any length mounting or standard color • Littei with door offers self-latching hinge system CO avoid lost keys and open hanging door • Ltttei receptacle includes plastic liner flat lid anti-theft lanyard in either 22- or 32-gaUon capacity with any mounting or standard color optional lids and liners (see page I 7) • Exclusive KEYSHIELD™ polyester powdercoatmg finish—our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost in the industry RE26 Reading w/back 6' RE28 Reading w/back 8' $850 $1050 *RE2CU6 Curved Reading w/back 6' one color $1150 War.? " ' fe2CU6X Curved Reading w/back 6'two color $1250 • fimVUf READI/IG bE/ICN Astunning design that leflccts light and adds lustre to museums and gaUeries or reinforces a perception of puiity for medical facilities Inspired by the Reading design this piece offei s exceptional strength and a pristine contemporary look for the distinctive site • Available in mirror or brushed finish • FuUy assembled unit • Bench available with back or flat in any length ot mounting 12 To order or for more informition call 1-800-284-8208 K^JSTONERlDCE RE2CU6X Curved Readmg w/back 6' two color ~ $I250 RERT Readmg lectangular table $55jy HIII 22 Harmony III litter w/dome option ^ >- - —^ m 22 gal $475-^ RE2CU6 Curved Readmg w/back 6' one coloi ^-Ul \M\ RE22 Hin 32 Reading Chair Harmony III litter 32 gal RE 16 Readmg flat 6' REI8 Reading flat 8' RE3 22 Readmg litter 22 gal RE3 32 Readmg litter 32 gal , ^ RE3SQ 32 Reading squaie litter 32 gal RE4SQ Readmg squire planter KPsro^iEl^ll)GE To oldei or for more mfoi mation caU I-800-284-82('Lf MORIZO/N y^ERiEy (Patent Pending) East meets west in the dtsttnccive Horizon Series Expertly designed to ftt into any setting from a Japanese garden to a downtown cultural district this bench lends itself to anyoiae who has a taste for culture and adventure Single rolled bar framed in a curved rectangular tubing incorporates the image of sun dawning on the Horizon • Unsurpassed comfort with bench back lumbar support • Repetition of solid metal tubing, evenly spaced, creates a superior seating experience • Horizontal hnes enhance any decor • Bench available with back or flat in any length mounting or standard color • Litter receptacle includes plastic liner flat lid anti-theft lanyard in either 22- or 32-gallon capacity wich any mouncmg or sCandard color opctonal lids and liners (see page I 7) • Exclusive KEYSHIELD™ polyescer powdercoacing finish— our scamp of armored excellence that is foremost m the industry U To order or foi more tnformation, call 1-800-284-8208 KEysroNERioGE RE.yCE:/NT ytRlEy 'a t e n t Pending) In the shape of a half-moon delicate arcs and accent curves complement the Crescent Series while taking the back detail to new dimensions This series is an enchanting, soft alternative to straight-lined designs • Durable tubular steel frame • Lower bench back provides an invitation to star gaze or to relax • Curved seat provides stability and a graceful look, enhancing any setting • Bench avaUable with back tn any length mounting OI standatd color • Litter receptacle includes plastic Imer flat ltd kantt-theft lanyard in either 22- or 32-gaUon "capacity with any mounting or standard color, ^^optional lids and liners (see page I 7) ^Kxclusive KEYSHIELD TM polyester ^^^powdercoating finish—our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost in the industry CR26 CR28 CR3 22 CR3 32 CR5 Crescent Bench w/back 6 Crescent Bench w/back 8 Crescent litter 22 gal Crescent litter 32 gal Crescent Ash Urn KBSIDNERIDGE To order or for more information, call 1-800-284-8208 15 ^^mitm RtctPTkCLtf, TERy, A/^C7 AyM URny A c AT3 22 AT3 32 RE3 22 RE3 32 HI 22 HI 32 HIII 22 HIII 32 Atlanta litter 22 gal Atlanta litter 32 gal Reading litter 22 gal Readmg htter 32 gal Harmony I litter 22 gal Harmony I litter 32 gal Harmony III litter 22 gal Harmony III litter 32 gal 5-- ^ W: ^'•.•iif'.Vmtm. san litter 22 gal san litter 32 gal Jrent htter 22 gal cint litter 32 gal m%n litter 22 gal I j^rizon litter 32 gal $760 $790 $450 $495 $500 $565 HID 32E HID 32 Harmony I w/door and elevated lid option 32 gal $820 Harmony I w/door 32 gal $720 RE3 22AD Readmg litter w/ash dome option 22 gal $6 RE3 32AD Reading htter w/ash dome option 32 gal p)'r more infoimation call 1-800-284-8208 K^^E^E • All round litter receptacles are available m either 22- or 32-gallon size • Standard features plastic liner flat lid and vinyl-coated stainless steel anti-theft lanyard • Litter receptacle with door offers self-latching hinge system to avoid lost keys and open hanging door • Optional lids dome ash dome elevated elevated ash (see photo) • Planters and square litter receptacles available m aU styles with galvanized liner, with or without drain hole • Exclusive KEYSHIELD TM polyester powdercoatmg finish— our stamp of armored excellence that is foremost in the industiy LITTER RECEPTACLE LIP OPTIO/V e Flat—mcluded Elevated ash hd (EA) add $135 Dome (X))—add $100 Elevated hd (T)—add $100 Ash dome (AD)—add $135 A/M UR>V J CA3 22 Catalma litter 22 gal $670 K MC3 22 McConneU htter CA3 32 Catalma litter 32 gal $720 22 gal MC3 32 McConneU htter 32 gal HI 5 $840 AT5 P5 $890 Harmony I ash urn Atlanta ash urn Pullman ash urn $315 S315 ^ $315 TRAX-TOP LITTER RECEPTACLE/ CR5 Crescent ash urn HIII 5 Harmony III ash urn AR5 Artisan ash urn MC5 McConnell ash urn $315 $315 $445 $425 L EM3T 32 Emporium tray top htter M GA3T 32 Galleria tiay top litter 32 gal $955 32 gal $860 KPSIDNERIDGE TO order or for more information call 1-800-284-8208 171 Ji b I K E R A c Ky & bOLLAR[?y biKE RACIV • Optional lengths available bOLLARiy • Pedestnan and vehicle traffic deterrent • Bicycle mount with one or two loop attachment • Exclusive KEYSHIELD TM polyester powdercoatmg finish—our stamp of armored exceUence that is foremost in the industry RE 104 Reading bike rack capacity 4 RE 108 Reading bike rack capacity 8 $300 $400 P 105 Pullman bike rack capacity 5 $300 BOLLARDE BOLLARDR BOLLARD IE BOLLARD IR BOLLARD2E BOLLARD2R Straight permanent bollard Straight removable bollard I loop permanent bollard 1 loop removable bollard 2 loop permanent bollard 2 loop removable bollard $170 $230 $195 $265 $220 $285 LAMPLIGMTE.R y*E.RIE.^ 0 ^IST^STL Lamplighter steel w/back 6' L28STL Lamplighter steel w/back 8' POWI7E.R COATMG y*TA/NI7ARI7 COLORy Bumper Black Gold Bronze Hunter Green ndy Cadet Blue Ocean Blue Eveigreen Peach An additional 160 custom colors ire available on request $805 $895 18 To order Ol for more information call 1-800-284-8208 KfiysiDNERiDcE RMy & Co/iPiTio/iy i^STONERlDGE V/ARRA/ITy Miterials and woikmanship are warrinted agamst defect foi a period of one year fiom dace of purchase Keystone Ridgc Designs Inc will repair or replace any part found defective upon wiittcn notificition and mspection by our factory representative Warranty covers only drosc items which have been installed according to our instructions and does not covet abnormal use vindilism or acts of nature Keystone Ridge Designs Inc reserves the right to alter product design matenals or constiuction without notice P R I C I /I G Prices in this catilog supersede all other pricing and are subject to change without notice Shipping charges ire noc included in prices 'J 670 Mercer Road PO Box 2008 Butler, Pennsylvania 16003-2008 'ji^ 1-800-284-8208 (724) 284-1213 Fax (724) 284-1253 e-mail KeystonRdg@aol conf Gt/HERAL yPEClFICATIOAy 1 Hardware Scunless steel Anchoring boles are noc supplied 2 KEYSHIELD™ Metal Finish Ail steel is coated using a coloied polyester powder coating applied Co a chickncss of 7 15 mils Substrate preparation consists of removing impuntiLS such as heavy mill oils and rust inhibitors ensuring chiC all surface contaminancs ne lemoved The subscnce is sandblasted to a white finish the ulnmace degree in powder #coat piepai ation The substrate receives a coriosion inhibiting iron phosphate coating per TT C 490 method II prior to application of the powderco icing The substrace is preheaced and che powdercoatmg is electrostatically applied to provide a smooth satin like ^^^•hnish The product is chen oven cured according to powdercoatmg manufacturing ^^^sptcificaDons The result A product with che Keystone Ridge Designs stamp of quality with the KEYSHIELD™ armor Co resisc chipping cracking rusting and UVA damage .'li' O p 1 \ o n f 1 Colors Ten standard colors with an additional 160 custom colors availrble surchirge loi custom coloi ma) be applied based on quantity Colors in photos may not be eAact call foi color chart 2 Bench lengths Standard sizes art 6' and 8' with custom size options 3 Mountings Suiface and bury installation is standard portable is optional Litters and planteis can be ordered with optional elevated leg for permanent installation 4 Litter receptacles with doors Otfer che self htchmg hinge system Co avoid lost keys md open hanging doors 5 Lids Powdercoated flat mecal lids with clear coated stainless sceel anci theft lanyards irc scandird on ill litter receptacles 6 Litter liners Round black plastic liners are standard Round oi square powdercoaced sCeel hnets aie available options 7 Planter liners Pow dercoaced metal with or without dram holes 8 \sh mserts Stainless steel wich anci theft lanyards 9 Terms and conditions All cuscom designs lequire 50% down balance C OD or prepay • Foi all ochei oiders please call our office for billing information MasterCard and Visa lilso acccpced 10 Delivery Keystone Ridge Designs Inc is released of all responsibility for damages kpr shoitagcs once che bill of lading is signed by che common carrier indicacmg the 'hipmenc was made compkcc and in good condicion The freighc bill is joui receipt and should be confirmed against the shipment received Any damages or shortages should be indicated on che freighc bill before the shipment is accepced ^^^^^^ VISA Sweets 1998 Volume I BuyLme® I-800-892-1165 02870/KEY BuyLme 7880 See SweecSource® for addicion; CaU I-800-55I-3796 Co ordei © Copyright 1998 AU Right Keystone Ridge Designs Inc Catalog 3-98 Printed in U v' I^SIDNERIDGE 670 Mercer Road PO Box 2008 Butler, Pennsylvania 16003-2008 1-800-284-8208 (724) 284-1213 Fax (724) 284-1253 e-mail KeystonRdg@aol com Address Correction Requested BULK RATE US POSTAGE PAID Butler, PA Permit No 19 NEW FROM GRABER HE BIHE BANK THE BIKE BANK The BIKE BANK was designed for the cyclist who needs maximum protection against theft Wht providing the luxury and convenience of personal storage the bike bank s lock shelter is hiker fiendly easily accessible and will accommodate either padlocks or U locks A durable mamtenance free weather resistant polyvinyl coating covers all areas ofthe unit that come in contact with the bicycle preventing scratching or marring of the bicycle finish Units are offered in both single and double capacity The Bike Bank A unified locking system locks bicycle frame both wheels lock shelter and storage bank as one The tamper proof steel locking shelter m combination with the bike bank cover deters theft by making it very difficult to gam access to the hikers lock with a holt cutter The ', to pivot freely offer maximum stren\_ and security and withstand even the >\ >' most severe weather ^ ^ conditions for yea, of trouble free use The rolled steel storage hank was designedfor commuters students or cyclists who need to store their ^ in a secure place Great for helmets seats book bags ram gear and bike accessones SEE SPECIFICATIONS ON OTHER SIDE NEW FROM GRABER HE BIKE SAFE THE BIKE SAFE The BIKE SAFE offers maximum security I locking both wheels andframe of hike simultaneously in a biker friendly unified locking system The locking shelter accepts both padlock or U-locks and protects them from bolt cutters prying and the weather A black polyvinyl coating covers all areas that come in direct contact with the bicycle Available in single or double capacity Nioiel Descnption Size (inches) Weight THE BIKE BANK 8001 Double w/storage 26 9Wx580Lx32 5H ll2i 8002 Single w/stowge 26 9Wx2801x325H 55# THE BIKE SAFE 8003 Double no storage 26 9Wx58 0Lx325H 98i 8004 Single no storage 26 9Wx280Lx325H 46# SPECIFICATIONS Steel base is 3/16 thick by 1 75 high by 4 9 wide Arms = rectangular tubing 14 ga 1 1/2 x 3 Lock shelter = 14 ga Storage bank 14 ga 9 x 12 x21 Locking arm = case hardened steel 1/4 x 1 1/2 x 10 3/4 Locking pins = case hardened steel 5/8 diameter x 8 Finish = black polyvinyl in areas that come in contact with the bike and black polyester paint in all other areas Special anchor expansion mounting bolts 1/2 x4 3/4 included (3 with single or 5 with double) GRy^BER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE PATENTS PENDING GRABEi^ FOR NEAREST DEALER m.mmmj83M7 APPENDIX CIP Cost Analysis Cosfs shown in the spreadsheet format reflect those di- rectly related to construction of bicycle lanes or routes only For example, proposed Class 2 or 3 facilities where such lanes have already been programmed by the City of Carlsbad reflect the costs of items such as striping and signage only The costs of physical bicycle lane con struction items, such as asphalt and subbase, is not in- cluded in these spreadsheets since they would already have been accounted for within the programmed CIP for the roadway Since the proposed Class 1 paths have not been previ- ously programmed, their spreadsheet format does include construction costs, but does not include land acquisition costs or other unknown factors such as the extent of grad- ing or the length and height of necessary bridges (See Section n 3, Typical Unit Construction Costs) Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 1 Laguna Drive from Jefferson Street to State Street This segment would be on a roadway with low motor vehicle traffic volume and would provide a connection between the northernmost east/west routes in the City of Carlsbad and the coastal north/south routes Its western end would be near both the existing Class 2 facility on Carlsbad Boulevard and the planned Class 1 Coastal Rail Trail This segment would also provide access to Maxton Brown Park on the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon Class 3 Length 3,150 Feet 0 60 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 6 $990 Subtotal $990 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $198 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,188 Engineering and Design (10%) $119 Administration (5%) $59 Construction Management (7%) $83 iiriir«i iMinri $1,449 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 2 State Street from Grand Avenue to Carlsbad Boulevard This segment parallels the rail line on a street with moderate motor vehicle traffic volumes It would provide access to the downtown transit center and connect it with routes to the north and south, including the planned Coastal Rail Trail and the existing Class 2 route on Carlsbad Boulevard This segment could also be considered an alternative route for the Coastal Rail Trail Class 3 Length 2,484 Feet 0 47 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 6 $990 Subtotal $990 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $198 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,188 Engineering and Design (10%) $119 Administration (5%) $59 Construction Management (7%) $83 •Int - I in' • $1,449 • Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 3 Las Flores Drive from Jefferson Street to Highland Drive This segment connects the northeastern residential sections of Carlsbad immediately east of 1-5 to the downtown business district west of 1-5 using the existing Las Flores Drive bridge over 1-5 The Las Flores bike route then connects to an existing Class 2 route (Jefferson Street) running north/south Class 3 Length 3,150 Feet 0 60 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 6 $990 Subtotal $990 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $198 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,188 Engineering and Design (10%) $119 Administration (5%) $59 Construction Management (7%) $83 $1,449 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 4 Highland Drive from Las Flores Drive to Chinquapin Avenue This segment creates a north/south link east of 1-5 from northern Carlsbad to just north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon Much of this proposed segment is currently listed as "undesignated" routes and would occur on relatively lightly traveled roadways through residential areas Class 3 Length 6,643 Feet 1 26 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 14 $2,310 Subtotal $2,310 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $462 Construction Costs with Contingencies $2,772 Engineering and Design (10%) $277 Administration (5%) $139 Construction Management (7%) $194 $3,382 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 5 Chestnut Street from Carlsbad Boulevard to El Camino Real This segment takes advantage of an existing crossing under 1-5 that is not encumbered by a freeway intersection Chestnut Street does not have high motor vehicle traffic volumes and runs through primarily residential areas from north central Carlsbad at El Camino Real to Carlsbad Boulevard on the coast The only missing section is at the rail line right-of-way, but this is also one ofthe points at which a rail line crossing is proposed under this bikeway master plan Class 3 Length 10,302 Feet 1 95 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 20 $3,300 Subtotal $3,300 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $660 Construction Costs with Contingencies $3,960 Engineering and Design (10%) $396 Administration (5%) $198 Construction Management (7%) $277 ii:0tai|iiil3m •J—: ^ — .1. —^--JJ.:--• $4,831 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 6 Chinquapin Avenue from Coastal Rail Trail to Highland Drive This proposed segment would take advantage of an existing crossing over 1-5 that IS not encumbered by a freeway intersection It would connect Segment 4 to the proposed Coastal Rail Trail and with Segment 7 alongthe north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon Chinquapin Avenue has relatively low motor vehicle traffic volumes and runs primarily through residential areas Class 3 Length 3,690 Feet 0 70 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 8 $1,320 Subtotal $1,320 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $264 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,584 Engineering and Design (10%) $158 Administration (5%) $79 Construction Management (7%) $111 •iii5iiiinifi' % $1,932 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 7 Adams Street from Chinquapin Avenue to Park Drive This segment would provide part of a scenic connection from the residential areas of northwestern Carlsbad to central Carlsbad alongthe northern shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon This proposed segment is currently considered an "undesignated" route Adams Street has relatively low motor vehicle traffic volumes Class 3 Length 4,435 Feet 0 84 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 8 $1,320 Subtotal $1,320 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $264 Construction Costs with Contingencies $1,584 Engineering and Design (10%) $158 Administration (5%) $79 Construction Management (7%) $111 $1,932 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 8 Park Drive from Tamarack Avenue to Kelly Drive This segment is a continuation of an existing Class 3 route adjacent to Carlsbad High School and other municipal facilities on Monroe Street, to Park Drive crossing Tamarack Drive It would connect this area of central Carlsbad to EI Camino Real via the northern shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and then on an existing Class 2 route on Kelly Drive adjacent to an elementary school and park The proposed Segment 7 on Adams Street that intersects this segment would provide a link to the residential areas immediately east of 1-5 and then to areas west of 1-5 via Chinquapin Avenue (Segment 6) Class 3 Length 9,163 Feet 1 74 Miles Primary Costs Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 18 $2,970 Subtotal $2,970 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $594 Construction Costs with Contingencies $3,564 Engineermg and Design (10%) $356 Administration (5%) $178 Construction Management (7%) $249 ioJaliipnstructioniCi $4,348 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project A Capital Cost Estimate Segment 9 Gabbiano Lane from Batiquitos Drive to Segment 46 This segment would provide a link between the Class 2 and 3 on-street sections of the City of Carlsbad bikeway system and a proposed multi-use unpaved trail system proposed along Batiquitos Lagoon This sement would run from Segment 10 (Class 3, Batiquitos Drive off Poinsettia Lane), to Segments 46 and 47 which comprise the unpaved, multi-use trail along the entire northern shore of Batiquitos Lagoon from El Camino Real to the planned Coastal Rail Trail west of 1-5 Class 3 Length 1,718 Feet 0 33 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Route Signs EA $165 00 4 $660 Subtotal $660 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $132 Construction Costs with Contingencies $792 Engineering and Design (10%) $79 Administration (5%) $40 Construction Management (7%) $55 $966 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project B Capital Cost Estimate Segment 10 La Costa Avenue from El Camino Real to Calle Madero This segment differs from all other segments in that it is proposed to have Class 2 facilities eastbound and Class 3 westbound City engineers indicated that physical changes to this street are not feasible and any proposed changes to existing bicycle facilities would need to fit within the current street configuration This combination of facility types is unusual, but will allow for continued parallel parking while making the route safer for cyclists Cycling volumes do not appear to be high on this segment at present, but this route forms an important east/west connection across southern Carlsbad, connecting the southeast section with the coastal strip Class 2 Length (Eastbound only) 6,590 Feet Class 3 Length (Westbound only) 6,590 Feet 1 25 Miles 1 25 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility (one way) Bike Lane Stnpmg/Signing Ml $1,650 00 1 25 $2,059 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 1 25 $206 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 6,590 $14,498 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 6,590 $14,498 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 14 $770 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Class 3 Facility (one way) Bike Route Signing Ml $165 00 6 $990 Subtotal $33,021 Additional Costs: ifdtal'Co^siii:tioif;C6^ .'aL.M.1i.-.,.-"-.j.S.JR.J.'.. • Contingencies (20%) $6,604 Construction Costs with Contingencies $39,626 Engineering and Design (10%) $3,963 Administration (5%) $1,981 Construction Management (7%) $2,774 $48,343 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project C Capital Cost Estimate Segment 11 Batiquitos Drive from Gabbiano Lane to Poinsettia Lane This segment would provide part of an alternative east/west route paralleling Aviara Parkway that would avoid much of its steepest grades, its higher motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes It would provide a more relaxed and scenic route since much of it runs parallel to Batiquitos Lagoon Class 3 Length 2,500 Feet 0 47 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 3 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 47 $1,563 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 5 $825 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 2,500 $5,500 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 2,500 $0 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $8,328 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $1,666 Construction Costs with Contingencies $9,993 Engineering and Design (10%) $999 Administration (5%) $500 Construction Management (7%) $700 »rn'ihm»'»i.<'iti-i $12,191 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project C Capital Cost Estimate Segment 12 Camino de los Ondas from Hidden Valley Rd to Paseo del Norte This segment would close a gap between two existing Class 2 facilities and connect Palomar Airport Road with Paseo del Norte It would allow riders to avoid a very busy intersection by creating an alternative route that runs through a relatively lightly traveled residential area Class 2 Length 1,030 Feet 0 20 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 20 $660 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 2 $330 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 1,030 $2,266 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 1,030 $2,266 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 4 $220 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $5,742 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $1,148 Construction Costs with Contingencies $6,890 Engineering and Design (10%) $689 Administration (5%) $345 Construction Management (7%) $482 flTiotaliConstructioniCosi $8,406 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project D Capital Cost Estimate Segment 13 Carlsbad Village Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard to Highland Drive This segment represents a continuation of the existing Class 2 lanes on Carlsbad Village Drive east of 1-5 through to downtown, Carlsbad Boulevard and the coast This route would provide access to the downtown transit station and the proposed Coastal Rail Trail from residential areas east of 1-5 It would require restriping and possibly reconfiguration of substantial portions of Carlsbad Village Drive due to the minimal roadway width currently available through much of this proposed segment Class 2 Length 4,082 Feet 0 77 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 77 $2,551 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 3 $510 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,082 $8,980 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,082 $8,980 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $21,462 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $4,292 Construction Costs with Contingencies $25,755 Engineering and Design (10%) $2,575 Administration (5%) $1,288 Construction Management (7%) $1,803 llotai||onsti;uct^^ $31,421 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project D Capital Cost Estimate Segment 14 Carlsbad Village Drive from Olympia Drive to Victoria Avenue This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segments 12 and 14) of Class 2 lanes on Carlsbad Village Drive along a section where no facilities currently exist This would create a direct Class 2 route from coastal Carlsbad to the City of Oceanside once College Boulevard is completed Class 2 Length 4,069 Feet 0 77 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 77 $2,543 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,069 $8,952 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,069 $8,952 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $20,887 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $4,1 77 Construction Costs with Contingencies $25,064 Engmeering and Design (10%) $2,506 Administration (5%) $1,253 Construction Management (7%) $1,754 $30,578 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project D Capital Cost Estimate Segment 15 Carlsbad Village Drive from Tamarack Avenue to College Blvd This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segments 12 and 13) of Class 2 lanes on Carlsbad Village Drive along a section where no facilities currently exist This segment would intersect College Boulevard when It IS completed into the City of Oceanside, creating a Class 2 route from coastal Carlsbad to Oceanside This proposed segment would also intersect with a Class 1 route to Lake Calaveras and a Class 1 route southwest along the Agua Hedionda Creek drainage back to the coast Class 2 Length 1,481 Feet 0 28 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 28 $926 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 1,481 $3,258 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 1,481 $3,258 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 4 $220 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $7,662 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $1,532 Construction Costs with Contingencies $9,194 Engineering and Design (10%) $919 Administration (5%) $460 Construction Management (7%) $644 $11,217 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project E Capital Cost Estimate Segment 16 Marron Road from Avenida de Anita to City of Oceanside This segment would be a continuation of the Class 2 lanes currently existing on Marron Road once its construction proceeds eastward to the City of Oceanside There is little bicycle traffic on Marron Road east of El Camino Real at present because it currently stops not far east of El Camino Real This should change upon completion into Oceanside because this segment will provide a east/west route paralleling SR78 to the coast as well as accessing a regional shopping center and transit center Class 2 Length 6,984 Feet 1 32 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 32 $4,365 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 0 $0 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 0 $0 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 14 $770 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $5,135 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $1,027 Construction Costs with Contingencies $6,162 Engmeering and Design (10%) $616 Administration (5%) $308 Construction Management (7%) $431 l."*<T'. >• ~ .U- , 11 • ii<l $7,518 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project F Capital Cost Estimate Segment 17 Paseo del Norte from Car Country Drive to Cannon Road This segment would constitute the completion of Class 2 lanes on Paseo del Norte Class 2 lanes currently exist along the remainder of this street This would create a direct Class 2 route from Poinsettia Lane to Cannon Road and provide access to areas west of 1-5 via three freeway crossing points within the middle third of the City of Carlsbad This proposed segment would also provide access to several eastward routes that would in turn access employment centers within central Carlsbad Class 2 Length 3,167 Feet 0 60 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 60 $1,979 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 3,167 $6,967 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 3,167 $6,967 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 6 $330 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $16,244 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $3,249 Construction Costs with Contingencies $19,493 Engmeering and Design (10%) $1,949 Administration (5%) $975 Construction Management (7%) $1,365 SotalSidnst^ ft-/-#r r $23,781 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project F Capital Cost Estimate Segment 18 Avenida Encinas from Poinsettia Lane to Cannon Road This proposed segment would provide direct Class 2 route access to the Poinsettia Station transit center between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road from as far north as Cannon Road It would also provide access to the planned Coastal Rail Trail at a point just south of Poinsettia Road where Avenida Enemas swings west and intersects Carlsbad Boulevard and the Coastal Rail Trail Class 2 Length 4,927 Feet 0 93 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 93 $3,079 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,927 $10,839 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,927 $10,839 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 10 $550 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $25,308 Additional Costs: lliilSEonltr^io Contingencies (20%) $5,062 Construction Costs with Contingencies $30,370 Engmeermg and Design (10%) $3,037 Administration (5%) $1,518 Construction Management (7%) $2,126 $37,051 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project G Capital Cost Estimate Segment 19 Faraday Avenue from College Blvd to current northwest end This proposed segment is currently incomplete, but it is recommended for Class 2 lanes upon completion of this roadway The rest of this roadway, existing and planned, includes or will include Class 2 facilities This roadway IS designed with sufficient width for Class 2 facilities and it would provide access to the employment centers in the area from future Cannon Road and the existing sections of College Boulevard Class 2 Length 4,491 Feet 0 85 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 85 $2,807 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,491 $9,880 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,491 $9,880 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $23,007 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $4,601 Construction Costs with Contingencies $27,609 Engmeering and Design (10%) $2,761 Administration (5%) $1,380 Construction Management (7%) $1,933 italponstnietioniCosts $33,683 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 20 Palomar Airport Road from Paseo del Norte to Carlsbad Blvd This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segment 21) of Class 2 lanes on Palomar Airport Road along a section where no facilities currently exist This segment would intersect Carlsbad Boulevard, creating a direct Class 2 route between coastal Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This segment has a major problem in the limited width currently available on the bridge over the rail line However, any improvements in the short term are to be considered temporary since this problematic intersection IS slated to be replaced with a "T" configuration Class 2 Length 3,677 Feet 0 70 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 70 $2,298 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 3,677 $8,089 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 3,677 $8,089 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $18,917 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $3,783 Construction Costs with Contingencies $22,700 Engineering and Design (10%) $2,270 Administration (5%) $1,135 Construction Management (7%) $1,589 M f « 11 "ill $27,694 • Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project H Capital Cost Estimate Segment 21 Palomar Airport Road from Melrose Drive to City of San Marcos This proposed segment would constitute the completion, (along with Segment 19) of Class 2 lanes on Palomar Airport Road along a section where only temporary facilities currently exist Permanent facilities will be constructed when development occurs This segment will provide the final Class 2 link in a route connecting Coastal Carlsbad with the City of San Marcos This segment would also intersect Melrose Avenue when it is completed north of Alga Road into the City of Vista Class 2 Length 5,543 Feet 1 05 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 05 $3,464 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 5,543 $12,195 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 5,543 $12,195 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 12 $660 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $28,514 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $5,703 Construction Costs with Contingencies $34,216 Engineering and Design (10%) $3,422 Administration (5%) $1,711 Construction Management (7%) $2,395 $41,744 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project I Capital Cost Estimate Segment 22 Rancho Santa Fe Rd from Camino de los Coches to Melrose Dr Only a short section of Rancho Santa Fe Road currently has Class 2 lanes in place This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segment 22) of Class 2 lanes on the entire length of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the sections where no facilities currently exist within the City of Carlsbad Much of the improvements can be accomplished withm the existing right-of- way, but the southern portion of this segment between Denning Drive and La Costa Avenue may need to be widened to accommodate a Class 2 facility Class 2 Length 12,936 Feet 2 45 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 2 45 $8,085 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 12,936 $28,459 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 12,936 $28,459 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 24 $1,320 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $66,323 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $13,265 Construction Costs with Contingencies $79,588 Engineering and Design (10%) $7,959 Administration (5%) $3,979 Construction Management (7%) $5,571 I $97,097 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project I Capital Cost Estimate Segment 23 Rancho Santa Fe Road from Olivenhain Road to City of Encinitas Only a short section of Rancho Santa Fe Road currently has Class 2 lanes in place This proposed segment would constitute the completion (along with Segment 21) of Class 2 lanes on the entire length of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the sections where no facilities currently exist within the City of Carlsbad Some of the improvements may be accomplished with restriping, but this segment will need to be widened to accommodate a Class 2 facility It would create a link between the northeastern section of the City of Encinitas and coastal Carlsbad via Olivenhain Road or La Costa Avenue Class 2 Length 3,612 Feet 0 68 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 68 $2,258 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 3,612 $7,946 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 3,612 $7,946 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 8 $440 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Roadway Widening LF Subtotal $18,590 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $3,718 Construction Costs with Contingencies $22,308 Engineering and Design (10%) $2,231 Administration (5%) $1,115 Construction Management (7%) $1,562 Sl!o;lalil^iisti3uieti<]« $27,216 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project j Capital Cost Estimate Segment 24 Cannon Road from Carlsbad Boulevard to Paseo del Norte The section of Cannon Road that currently exists from Carlsbad Boulevard to just east of 1-5 has sufficient width along most of its length to accommodate a Class 2 facility This proposed segment would provide access to the coastal rail trail and to the Poinsettia Station transit center a short distance to the south In addition. Cannon Road is proposed to continue eastward to the City of Vista (Segment 24), creating a direct route between Vista and coastal Carlsbad with a Class 2 facility Class 2 Length 2,818 Feet 0 53 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 53 $1,761 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 2,818 $6,200 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 2,818 $6,200 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 6 $330 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $14,490 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $2,898 Construction Costs with Contingencies $17,389 Engineering and Design (10%) $1,739 Administration (5%) $869 Construction Management (7%) $1,217 Qtali€onstruGtiondSosti $21,214 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 25 Cannon Road from Paseo del Norte to City of Vista This long segment represents a planned eastward extension of Cannon Road to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a direct Class 2 route between the City of Vista and coastal Carlsbad Several other proposed north/south segments would intersect this segment, making it a regional connection Class 2 Length 21,336 Feet 4 04 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 4 04 $13,335 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 21,336 $46,939 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 21,336 $46,939 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 0 $0 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $107,213 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $21,443 Construction Costs with Contingencies $128,656 Engineering and Design (10%) $12,866 Administration (5%) $6,433 Construction Management (7%) $9,006 — $156,960 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 26 Faraday Avenue from current northwest end to Cannon Road This segment represents a planned northward extension of Faraday Avenue to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a Class 2 link between a proposed extension of Cannon Road and an existing section of College Boulevard and continue eastward into the City of Vista where it would intersect with the planned northward extension of Melrose Drive The completion of Faraday Avenue would provide a connection between central Carlsbad and the City of Vista, and then on to coastal Carlsbad via the future extension of Cannon Road to intersect with Faraday Avenue Class 2 Length 6,286 Feet 1 19 Miles Primary Costs Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 19 $3,929 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 6,286 $13,829 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 6,286 $13,829 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 6 $330 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $31,917 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $6,383 Construction Costs with Contingencies $38,301 Engineering and Design (10%) $3,830 Administration (5%) $1,915 Construction Management (7%) $2,681 $46,727 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 27 Faraday Avenue from current east end to City of Vista This segment represents a planned eastward extension of Faraday Avenue to include Class 2 lanes into the City of Vista This proposed segment would complete a Class 2 route connecting Vista and coastal Carlsbad via Faraday Avenue and Cannon Road Class 2 Length 6,280 Feet 1 72 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 72 $5,676 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 6,280 $13,816 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 6,280 $13,816 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 9 $495 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $33,803 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $6,761 Construction Costs with Contingencies $40,564 Engineering and Design (10%) $4,056 Administration (5%) $2,028 Construction Management (7%) $2,839 )|ay|gng||iGtipiftio $49,488 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 28 Poinsettia Lane from Aviara Pkwy to Melrose Drive This lengthy proposed segment represents the planned extension of Poinsettia Lane to include Class 2 lanes from where Poinsettia Lane currently ends just east of Aviara Parkway to Melrose Drive Besides connecting coastal Carlsbad with the Cities of Vista and San Marcos via Melrose Drive, other existing and planned north/south segments also intersect this segment within Carlsbad, making it a regional bikeway link Class 2 Length 19,100 Feet 3 62 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 3 62 $11,938 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 19,100 $42,020 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 19,100 $42,020 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 20 $1,100 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $97,078 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $19,416 Construction Costs with Contingencies $116,493 Engineermg and Design (10%) $11,649 Administration (5%) $5,825 Construction Management (7%) $8,155 ftiliiPi^t^ilti-$142,121 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 29 College Boulevard from Poinsettia Lane to Palomar Airport Road This segment represents a planned southward extension of College Boulevard to align with Aviara Parkway at Palomar Airport Road and would include Class 2 lanes Construction of this segment, along with Segment 33, would complete a regional Class 2 link from the City of Oceanside to southern Carlsbad This particular segment also connects two of the most important east/west segments, Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road Class 2 Length 5,556 Feet 1 05 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 05 $3,473 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 5,556 $12,223 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 5,556 $12,223 Restripe Continuous Left Tum LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 6 $330 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $28,249 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $5,650 Construction Costs with Contingencies $33,899 Engmeermg and Design (10%) $3,390 Administration (5%) $1,695 Construction Management (7%) $2,373 $41,356 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 30 Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to City of Vista This segment represents a planned northward extension of Melrose Avenue from Palomar Airport Road into the City of Vista to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a contiguous Class 2 route connecting the Cities of Encinitas, San Marcos and Vista via Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road Class 2 Length 2,545 Feet 0 48 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 48 $1,591 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 2,545 $5,599 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 2,545 $5,599 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 10 $550 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $13,339 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $2,668 Construction Costs with Contingencies $16,006 Engineering and Design (10%) $1,601 Administration (5%) $800 Construction Management (7%) $1,120 Total Construction Costs $19,528 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 31 El Fuerte Street from current north end to Faraday Avenue This segment represents a planned northward extension of El Fuerte Street from Alga Road to Faraday Avenue to include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a Class 2 route connecting east central and south central Carlsbad, and intersect three other existing and proposed east/west routes Class 2 Length 9,583 Feet 1 81 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 81 $5,989 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 9,583 $21,083 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 9,583 $21,083 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 10 $550 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $48,705 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $9,741 Construction Costs with Contingencies $58,445 Engineering and Design (10%) $5,845 Administration (5%) $2,922 Construction Management (7%) $4,091 $71,303 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 32 Planned road from Rancho Santa Fe Rd to City of Encinitas This segment represents a planned northward extension of a roadway from the City of Encinitas into the City of Carlsbad that would include Class 2 lanes This proposed segment would create a Class 2 route connecting northem Encinitas with western San Marcos and Vista via eastern Carlsbad using contiguous sections of the planned road, Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue Class 2 Length 7,465 Feet 1 41 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 41 $4,666 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 7,465 $16,423 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 7,465 $16,423 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 7 $385 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $37,897 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $7,579 Construction Costs with Contingencies $45,476 Engineering and Design (10%) $4,548 Administration (5%) $2,274 Construction Management (7%) $3,183 $55,481 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 33 La Costa Ave from Rancho Santa Fe Rd to planned road This segment represents a planned eastward extension of La Costa Avenue eastward into the City of Encinitas via Camino de los Coches that would include Class 2 lanes This would eventually provide a Class 2 connection from the northeastern section of the City of Encinitas through southern Carlsbad to the coast via La Costa Avenue Class 2 Length 4,186 Feet 0 79 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 79 $2,616 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 4,186 $9,209 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 4,186 $9,209 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 4 $220 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $21,255 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $4,251 Construction Costs with Contingencies $25,506 Engineering and Design (10%) $2,551 Administration (5%) $1,275 Construction Management (7%) $1,785 iotaliConstruGtioniCost Itriittlir'i •.'rtfTif'*«'''.V"> fTViT;8'i^rfyiTii5r'ri''i--"-"i rirrViJ $31,117 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project K Capital Cost Estimate Segment 34 College Boulevard from El Camino Real to City of Oceanside This segment represents the planned northward extension of College Boulevard from El Camino Real into the City of Oceanside to include Class 2 lanes In combination with Segment 28, this proposed segment would complete a Class 2 route along the entire length of College Boulevard within the City of Carlsbad It would provide a northeast to southwest central artery through Carlsbad into Oceanside, intersecting several other planned east/west segments Class 2 Length 13,900 Feet 2 63 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 2 Facility Bike Lane Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 2 63 $8,688 No Parking Signs EA $165 00 0 $0 Stripe Removal LF $2 20 13,900 $30,580 Restripe Centerline w/Reflectors LF $2 20 13,900 $30,580 Restripe Continuous Left Turn LF $3 30 0 $0 Pavement Markings EA $55 00 14 $770 Bike Detector Loops EA $385 00 0 $0 Through Loops EA $825 00 0 $0 Subtotal $70,618 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $14,124 Construction Costs with Contingencies $84,741 Engineermg and Design (10%) $8,474 Administration (5%) $4,237 Construction Management (7%) $5,932 otaljiDMi'ui^ipjiilost^ $103,384 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project L Capital Cost Estimate Segment 35 Lake Calaveras loop This segment would connect the proposed Coastal Rail Trail alignment with the existing Carlsbad Boulevard Class 2 facility Much of this route is existmg as asphalt roadway Class 1 Length 1,635 Feet 0 31 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 31 $1,023 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 13,080 $15,958 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 6,540 $3,270 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 0 $0 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 0 $0 Drainage LF $5 50 0 $0 Fencing LF $13 20 0 $0 Subtotal $20,251 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $4,050 Construction Costs with Contingencies $24,301 Engineering and Design (10%) $2,430 Administration (5%) $1,215 Construction Management (7%) $1,701 g|glaj|ipn|^^ $29,647 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project M Capital Cost Estimate Segment 36 Agua Hedionda Creek from Segment 40 to El Camino Real This segment is one of a series of three segments (36, 37 and 39) running along the south side of the Agua Hedionda Creek drainage in a generally northeast to southwest direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route almost all the way to the coast from northeastern Carlsbad Much of this segment could be retained once Cannon Road is completed and be designed to run parallel with it, orcould be replaced by the Class 2 facility planned for Cannon Road Class 1 Length 6,721 Feet 1 27 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 27 $4,201 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 53,768 $65,597 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 26,884 $13,442 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 80,652 $44,359 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,987 $49,287 Drainage LF $5 50 6,721 $36,966 Fencing LF $13 20 6,721 $88,717 Subtotal $302,568 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $60,514 Construction Costs with Contingencies $363,082 Engineering and Design (10%) $36,308 Administration (5%) $18,154 Construction Management (7%) $25,416 $442,960 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project M Capital Cost Estimate Segment 37 Agua Hedionda Creek from El Camino Real to Segment 39 This segment would be one of three segments (36, 37 and 39) running along the south side of the Agua Hedionda Creek drainage in a generally northeast to southwest direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route almost all the way to the coast from northeastern Carlsbad Much of this segment could be retained once Cannon Road is completed and be designed to run parallel with it, orcould be replaced by the Class 2 facility planned for Cannon Road Class 1 Length 4,773 Feet 0 90 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 90 $2,983 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 38,184 $46,584 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 19,092 $9,546 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 57,276 $31,502 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,121 $35,002 Drainage LF $5 50 4,773 $26,252 Fencing LF $13 20 4,773 $63,004 Subtotal $214,873 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $42,975 Construction Costs with Contingencies $257,847 Engineering and Design (10%) $25,785 Administration (5%) $12,892 Construction Management (7%) $18,049 $314,573 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project M Capital Cost Estimate Segment 38 Agua Hedionda Creek from El Camino Real to Kelly Drive This segment would split off from the junction of El Camino Real and segments 36 and 37 and run along the north side ofthe Agua Hedionda Creek drainage It would connect at its west end at the junction ofthe Class 2 and 3 segments on Kelly Drive and Park Drive near an elementary school and park Class 1 Length 5,357 Feet 1 01 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 01 $3,348 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 42,856 $52,284 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 21,428 $10,714 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 64,284 $35,356 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,381 $39,285 Drainage LF $5 50 5,357 $29,464 Fencing LF $13 20 5,357 $70,712 Subtotal $241,163 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $48,233 Construction Costs with Contingencies $289,396 Engineering and Design (10%) $28,940 Administration (5%) $14,470 Construction Management (7%) $20,258 $353,063 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project N Capital Cost Estimate Segment 39 Cannon Road alignment from Segment 40 to Paseo del Norte This segment would be one of three segments (36, 37 and 39) running along the south sideof the Agua Hedionda Creekdrainage in a generally northeast to southwest direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route almost all the way to the coast from northeastern Carlsbad as well as providing access to another Class 1 system (beginning with Segment 40) connecting the Agua Hedionda Lagoon area with southeast Carlsbad Much of this segment could be retained once Cannon Road is completed and be designed to run parallel with it, or could be replaced by the Class 2 facility planned for Cannon Road Class 1 Length 7,013 Feet 1 33 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 33 $4,383 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 56,104 $68,447 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 28,052 $14,026 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 84,156 $46,286 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 3,117 $51,429 Drainage LF $5 50 7,013 $38,572 Fencing LF $13 20 7,013 $92,572 Subtotal $315,714 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $63,143 Construction Costs with Contingencies $378,856 Engineering and Design (10%) $37,886 Administration (5%) $18,943 Construction Management (7%) $26,520 :ptalsSipnstructioii|£osts: $462,205 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project N Capital Cost Estimate Segment 40 Faraday Ave from current north end to Cannon Rd alignment This segment would be one of five (40, 41, 42, 43 and 44) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the northern terminus for this series of Class 1 segments at its intersection with Segment 39 and proceed along the proposed alignment of Faraday Avenue to Its current northwest end (Specific alignment would be determined pending a future route location study ) Much of this segment could be retained once Faraday Avenue is completed and be designed to run parallel with it, or could be replaced by the Class 2 facility planned for Faraday Avenue Class 1 Length 8,279 Feet 1 57 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 57 $5,174 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (376") SF $1 22 66,232 $80,803 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 33,116 $16,558 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 99,348 $54,641 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 3,680 $60,713 Dramage LF $5 50 8,279 $45,535 Fencing LF $13 20 8,279 $109,283 Subtotal $372,707 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $74,541 Construction Costs with Contingencies $447,248 Engineering and Design (10%) $44,725 Administration (5%) $22,362 Construction Management (7%) $31,307 ,iisiloSiaii«i $545,643 • Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project O Capital Cost Estimate Segment 41 Class 1 path from Faraday Ave alignment to Palomar Airport Rd This segment would be one of a series of five (40, 41, 42, 43 and 44) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be a permanent Class 1 access route connecting Faraday Avenue with the remainder of this series of segments running roughly parallel and south of Palomar Airport Road This Class 1 system would provide an alternative to cycling on major roadways with high motor vehicle volumes and relatively high speeds (Specific alignment would be determined pending a future route location study ) Class 1 Length 4,480 Feet 0 85 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 85 $2,800 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 35,840 $43,725 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 17,920 $8,960 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 53,760 $29,568 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 1,991 $32,853 Drainage LF $5 50 4,480 $24,640 Fencing LF $13 20 4,480 $59,136 Subtotal $201,682 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $40,336 Construction Costs with Contingencies $242,019 Engineering and Design (10%) $24,202 Administration (5%) $12,101 Construction Management (7%) $16,941 -a otaliion^tKUitionii^^^^^^ —I—•— nr liiii $295,263 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project O Capital Cost Estimate Segment 42 Class 1 path paralleling Palomar Airport Rd to El Camino Real This segment would be one of five (40, 41, 42, 43 and 44) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the Class 1 connection between the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real (Specific alignment would be determined pending a future route location study) Class 1 Length 12,857 Feet 2 44 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Stripmg/Signing Ml $3,300 00 2 44 $8,036 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 102,856 $125,484 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 51,428 $25,714 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 154,284 $84,856 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 5,714 $94,285 Drainage LF $5 50 12,857 $70,714 Fencing LF $13 20 12,857 $169,712 Subtotal $578,801 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $115,760 Construction Costs with Contingencies $694,561 Engineering and Design (10%) $69,456 Administration (5%) $34,728 Construction Management (7%) $48,619 Total;Constructiori Cos n^yi^i..ixje.-,=air.^jf $847,364 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project O Capital Cost Estimate Segment 43 Class 1 along Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to El Fuerte St This segment would be one of five (40, 41, 42, 43 and 44) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the Class 1 connection between El Camino Real and El Fuerte Street (Specific alignment would be determined pending a future route location study ) Class 1 Length 7,110 Feet 1 35 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 1 35 $4,444 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 56,880 $69,394 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 28,440 $14,220 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 85,320 $46,926 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 3,160 $52,140 Drainage LF $5 50 7,110 $39,105 Fencing LF $13 20 7,110 $93,852 Subtotal $320,080 Additional Costs: Contingencies (25%) $64,016 Construction Costs with Contingencies $384,096 Engineering and Design (10%) $38,410 Administration (5%) $19,205 Construction Management (7%) $26,887 ^1|o|a!|§pn§truGtipn|.g^ $468,598 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project P Capital Cost Estimate Segment 44 Class 1 route from El Fuerte Street to Melrose Drive This segment would be one of five (40, 41, 42, 43 and 44) running in a generally northwest to southeast direction across central Carlsbad These segments would provide a scenic Class 1 access route from west central Carlsbad to the City of San Marcos This particular segment would be the Class 1 connection between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue and the eastern terminus for this series of Class 1 segments It would provide Class 1 access to Carrillo Ranch when the ranch IS opened to the public (Specific alignment would be determined pending a future route location study ) Class 1 Length 4,870 Feet 0 92 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 92 $3,044 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 38,960 $47,531 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 19,480 $9,740 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 58,440 $32,142 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,164 $35,713 Drainage LF $5 50 4,870 $26,785 Fencing LF $13 20 4,870 $64,284 Subtotal $219,239 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $43,848 Construction Costs with Contingencies $263,087 Engineering and Design (10%) $26,309 Administration (5%) $13,154 Construction Management (7%) $18,416 Ipfs: ^ $320,966 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project Q Capital Cost Estimate Segment 45 Coastal Rail Trail The planned Coastal Rail Trail would be the single longest segment proposed withm this bikeway master plan, once completed It would run within the rail right-of-way along the east side of the rail line from the City of Oceanside to the City of Encinitas It would be part of the long-range Class 1 route from Oceanside to downtown San Diego Constructing this segment would require crossing three lagoons, but for the foreseeable future, this Class 1 facility would probably occur on surface streets as a Class 2 or 3 facility to temporarily circumvent the lagoons This cost analysis reflects the estimated completed cost Note Does not include bridges over lagoons Class 1 Length 35,064 Feet 6 64 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 6 64 $21,915 AC Paving w/Agg Base (3" on 6") SF $1 22 280,512 $342,225 24" Parallel DG Paving Path (3") SF $0 50 280,512 $140,256 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 420,768 $231,422 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $1650 15,584 $257,136 Drainage LF $5 50 35,064 $192,852 Fencing LF $13 20 70,128 $925,690 Subtotal $2,111,496 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%>) $422,299 Construction Costs with Contingencies $2,533,795 Engineering and Design (10%) $253,379 Administration (5%) $126,690 Construction Management (7%) $177,366 J!otalf(|onstructionpost $3,091,230 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project R Capital Cost Estimate Segment 46 Lake Calaveras loop This segment would be a recreationally oriented loop around Calaveras Lake It would take advantage of the numerous existing trails around the lake to define a paved alignment connected to the remainder of the City of Carlsbad's bikeway system Connection with bikeways within the City of Oceanside from this segment should also be feasible Class 1 Length 10,909 Feet 2 07 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 2 07 $6,818 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 87,272 $106,472 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 43,636 $21,818 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 130,908 $71,999 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 4,848 $79,999 Drainage LF $5 50 0 $0 Fencing LF $13 20 0 $0 Subtotal $287,107 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $57,421 Construction Costs with Contingencies $344,528 Engmeering and Design (10%) $34,453 Administration (5%) $17,226 Construction Management (7%) $24,117 ;Mip^itp«i»l)stl $420,324 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project R Capital Cost Estimate Segment 47 End of Carlsbad Village Dr at College BvId to Lake Calaveras loop This segment would be the primary connection between the City of Carlsbad's Class 2 route system and the Class 1 loop (Segment 46) proposed around Lake Calaveras, as wei I as the northern terminus of a proposed Class 1 system along the Agua Hedionda Creek drainage Class 1 Length 4,578 Feet 0 87 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Class 1 Facility Bike Path Striping/Signing Ml $3,300 00 0 87 $2,861 96" AC Path w/Agg Base (3"/6") SF $1 22 36,624 $44,681 2-24" Parallel DG Paving Paths (3") SF $0 50 18,312 $9,156 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 54,936 $30,215 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 2,035 $33,572 Drainage LF $5 50 4,578 $25,179 Fencing LF $13 20 4,578 $60,430 Subtotal $206,094 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $41,219 Construction Costs with Contingencies $247,313 Engineermg and Design (10%) $24,731 Administration (5%) $12,366 Construction Management (7%) $17,312 bnstrucdtioniiaS! $301,722 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project S Capital Cost Estimate Segment 48 Unpaved multi-use trail from El Camino Real to Gabbiano Lane This segment would be one of two contiguous segments (48 and 49) alongthe northern shore of Batiquitos Lagoon between El Camino Real and the Coastal Rail Trail It would be unpaved and would not be an official route Much of this particular segment already exists as a well established dirt road To take advantage of this road and the more natural experience it affords, these two segments would differ from all other proposed segments in this bikeway master plan by remaining unpaved Since this segment would be primarily for recreational use, commuting cyclists who preferred to ride on paved streets could use the closely parallel Batiquitos Drive Unpaved Multi Use Trail Length 11 688 Feet 2 21 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Unpaved Multi Use Trail Facility Upgrade existmg dirt road (10,032 feet/1 9 miles) Multi use Path Signing Ml $165 00 10 0 $1,650 12' DG Path (3" deep) SF $0 50 120,384 $60,192 Drainage LF $5 50 0 $0 Fencing LF $13 20 0 $0 Where no dirt road exists (1,584 feet/0 3 miles) Multi use Path Signing Ml $165 00 ICQ $1,650 12' DG Path (3" deep) SF $0 50 19,008 $9,504 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 19,008 $10,454 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 704 $11,616 Drainage LF $5 50 0 $0 Fencing LF $13 20 0 $0 Subtotal $95,066 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $19,013 Construction Costs with Contingencies $114,080 Engineering and Design (10%) $11,408 Administration (5%) $5,704 Construction Management (7%) $7,986 $139,177 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan Project S Capital Cost Estimate Segment 49 Unpaved multi-use trail from Gabbiano Lane to Coastal Rail Trail This segment would be one of two contiguous segments (48 and 49) running along the northern shore of Batiquitos Lagoon between El Camino Real and the Coastal Rail Trail These two segments would differ from all other proposed segments in this bikeway master plan by remaining unpaved This segment would require substantial engineering effort to cross under 1-5 to connect with the planned Coastal Rail Trail just north of Batiquitos Lagoon Note Requires passage under Interstate 5 Unpaved Multi-Use Trail Length 2,240 Feet 0 42 Miles Primary Costs Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Unpaved Multi-Use Trail Facility Multi-use Path Signing Ml $165 00 10 00 $1,650 12' DG Path (3" deep) SF $0 50 26,880 $13,440 Clear and Grub SF $0 55 26,880 $14,784 Subgrade Prep/Exec CY $16 50 996 $16,427 Drainage LF $5 50 0 $0 Fencing LF $13 20 0 $0 Subtotal $46,301 Additional Costs: Contingencies (20%) $9,260 Construction Costs with Contingencies $55,561 Engineering and Design (10%) $5,556 Administration (5%) $2,778 Construction Management (7%) $3,889 $67,784 APPENDIX The following sections ofthe State Vehicle Code with spe- cific application to cycling are included as a reference source concerning the legal implications of operating a bicycle on the roadways within the state of California California Vehicle Code* Bicycle Sections (21200-21212) 21200 (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions conceming driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16 7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000 1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application (b) (1) Any peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4 5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, operating a bicycle during the course of his or her duties is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a), except as those requirements relate to dnving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, if the bicycle is being operated under any of the following circumstances (A) In response to an emergency call (B) While engaged in rescue operations (C) In the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law (2) This subdivision does not relieve a peace officer from the duty to operate a bicycle with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway 21200 5 Notwithstanding Section 21200, it is unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug Any person arrested for a violation of this section may request to have a chemical test made of the person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed A conviction of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) Violations of this section are subject to Section 13202 5 21201 (a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless It IS equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry level, clean pavement (b) No person shall operate on the highway any bicycle equipped with handlebars so raised that the operator must elevate his hands above the level of his shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area (c) No person shall operate upon any highway a bicycle which IS of such a size as to prevent the operator from safely stopping the bicycle, supporting it in an upnght position with at least one foot on the ground, and restarting It in a safe manner (d) Every bicycle operated upon any highway during darkness shall be equipped (1) with a lamp emitting a white light which, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, (2) with a red reflector on the rear which shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle, (3) with a white or yellow reflector on each pedal visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet, and (4) with a white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and with a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle, except that bicycles which are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and the rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors Such reflectors and reflectorized tires shall be of a type meeting requirements established by the department (e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by clause (1) of subdivision (d) 21201 5 (a) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, a reflex reflector or reflectorized tire of a type required on a bicycle unless It meets requirements established by the department If there exists a federal Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation applicable to bicycle reflectors, the provisions of that regulation shall prevail over provisions of this code or requirements established by the department pursuant to this code relative to bicycle reflectors (b) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, a new bicycle that IS not equipped with a red reflector on the rear, a white or yellow reflector on each pedal visible from the front and rear of the bicycle, a white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle except that bicycles which are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors Appendix 1 (c) Area reflectorizing material meeting the requirements of Section 25500 may be used on a bicycle 21202 (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall nde as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any ofthe following situations (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656 For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable 21203 No person riding upon any motorcycle, motorized bicycle, bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle shall attach the same or himself to any streetcar or vehicle on the roadway 21204 (a) No person operating a bicycle upon a highway shall ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat attached thereto (b) No operator shall allow a person riding as a passenger, and no person shall ride as a passenger, on a bicycle upon a highway other than upon or astride a separate seat attached thereto If the passenger is four years of age or younger, or weighs 40 pounds or less, the seat shall have adequate provision for retaining the passenger m place and for protecting the passenger from the movmg parts of the bicycle 21205 No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle or article which prevents the operator from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars 21206 This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities provided such regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of this code 21207 (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as defmed in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and Highways Code 21207 5 Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless It IS within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency havmg jurisdiction over such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation 21208 (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that such person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if such overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement 21209 (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows (1) To park where parking is permitted (2) To enter or leave the roadway (3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection (b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207 5, at a speed no greater than is • AppencJix E 2 Appendices Draft Carlsbad Bike Facility Master Plan m reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility, traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of bicyclists 21210 No person shall leave a bicycle lying on its side on any sidewalk, or shall park a bicycle on a sidewalk in any other position, so that there is not an adequate path for pedestrian traffic Local authorities may, by ordmance or resolution, prohibit bicycle parking in designated areas of the public highway, provided that appropriate signs are erected 21211 (a) No person shall stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any class I bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 890 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public or private bicycle path or trail, if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist (b) No person shall place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or is otherwise in compliance with the law (c) This section does not apply to drivers or owners of utility or public utility vehicles, as provided m Section 22512 (d) This section does not apply to owners or drivers of vehicles who make brief stops while engaged in the delivery of newspapers to customers along the person's route 21212 (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2373 ofthe Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90 4 bicycle helmet standard) or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use m Bicycling This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while m a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle (b) Any helmet sold or offered for sale for use by operators and passengers of bicycles shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the standard described in subdivision (a) which shall constitute the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standards (c) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, for use by an operator or passenger of a bicycle any safety helmet which IS not of a type meeting requirements established by this section (d) (1) A person who violates a requirement of this section in 1994 shall be warned of the violation by the enforcing official, but shall not be issued a notice to appear (2) Any charge under this subdivision shall be dismissed when the person charged alleges in court, under oath, that the charge against the person is the first charge against that person under this subdivision, unless it is otherwise established in court that the charge is not the first charge against the person (e) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than twenty-five dollars ($25) The parent or legal guardian having control or custody of an unemancipated minor whose conduct violates this section shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed pursuant to this subdivision (f) Notwithstanding Section 1463 of the Penal Code or any other provision of law, the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows (1) Seventy-two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be deposited in a special account ofthe county health department, to be used for bicycle safety education and for assisting low-income families in obtaining approved bicycle helmets for children under the age of 18 years, either on a loan or purchase basis The county may contract for the implementation of this program, which, to the extent practicable, shall be operated in conjunction with the child passenger restraint program pursuant to Section 27360 (2) Two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be deposited in the county treasury to be used by the county to administer the program described in paragraph (1) (3) Ifthe violation occurred within a city, 25 percent of the amount collected shall be transferred to and deposited in the treasury of that city If the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this 25 percent shall be deposited and used pursuant to paragraph (1) Appendices Appendix E 3 SANDMS San Diego s Regional Planning Agency 401 B Street Suite 800 San Diego CA 92101 4231 (619) 595 5300 Fax (619) 595 5305 www sandag org March 25, 2002 RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2002 ENGINEERIfJ. DEPARTa/sEN' Mr Steve Jantz City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, CA 92008 MEMBER AGENCIES Cities of Carlsbad Ctiula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Innperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista and County oi San Diego ADVISORY MEMBERS California Department of Transportation Metropolitan Transit Development Board North San Diego County Transit Development Board United States Department of Defense San Diego Unified Port District San Diego County Water Authority Tijuana/Baja California/Mexico Dear Steve The SANDAG Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee, at its December 2001 meeting reviewed the City of Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan The committee found that the plan is complete consistent with the 2020 Regional Transportation, and coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions' bicycle plans I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the state Bicycle Program Manager Please let me know if you need additional assistance with your Bicycle Transportation Account application Sincerely, STEPHAN M VANCE Senior Transportation Planner SV/jdk City of Carlsbad I? ub I Wo r ks ^--^ E n g i n e e r In g May 16, 2002 Mr David Pnebe Bicycles Facilities Umt, MS-1 Division of Local Assistance California Department of Transportation P O Box 942874 Sacramento CA 94274-0001 CITY OF CARLSBAD BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN Pursuant to the provisions of Streets and Highways Code Section 891 2, the City of Carlsbad respectfiilly submits the Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan for your consideration The Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan was developed through a coordinated approach with the adjacent Cities of Encinitas, Oceanside, San Marcos and Vista to ensure compliance with their bikeway circulation plans The proposed facilities were compared and evaluated based on adopted goals and pohcies within each city's General Plan Review of their Circulation Elements, Pedestnan and Trails Elements, and Land Use Elements were crucial to ensure compatibility The San Diego Bicycle Coalition also reviewed the Master Plan and specific comments were mcluded m the final document The public was given opportumties to provide mput mto the Master Plan through public workshops and the completion of a bicycle user questionnaire Enclosed, for your review and consideration, are the following 1 Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan 2 Carlsbad City Coimcil Agenda Bill and Resoluton No 2001-313 acceptmg the Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan ' 3 A letter from the San Diego Association of Govemments Bicycle-Pedestnan Advisory Comnuttee confimimg their action relative to the Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan The City of Carlsbad feels that this document complies vwth the provisions of Streets and Hi^ways Code Section 891 2 If you have any questions or would like further clanfication ofthe Master Plan, please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-2738 Smcerely, STEVEN C JANTZ Associate Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562