Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3455; Coastal Rail Trail; Coastal Rail Trail; 2000-10-01
•ffl ! OCEANSIDE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Project Study Report CARLSBAD ENQNITAS SOLANA BEACH DEL MAR FINAL October 2000 SAN DIEGO Final Draft Project Study Report Coastal Rail Trail Preparedfor: City ofCarisbad City of Del Mar City of Encinitas City of Oceanside City of San Diego City of Solana Beach In Conjunction With: California Department of Transportation Marine Corps Air Station Miramar North San Diego County Transit Development Board San Diego Association of Govemments San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board Prepared by: Chapin Land Management, Inc and Transtech Engineering, Inc. January 28,1999 Revi§ed July 27,2000 Revised October 26,2000 Acknowledgments Public Agencies Preparation of the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report involved participation by numerous public agencies. The following individuals were indispensable with helpful suggestions and constructive critique: CityofCarlsbad Steven Jantz, Project Manager Eric Munoz, Senior Planner City of Del Mar Monica Tuchscher City of Encinitas Gary Barberio City of Oceanside Steve Tisdale, Jerry Hittieman City of Solana Beach Andrew O 'Leary City of SanDiego Richard Hanson, Joel Rizzo North County Transit District Leslie Blanda Metropolitan Transit District Board Jack Limber, Dave Ragland, Dennis Wahl San Diego Association of Govemment Stephan Vance MCAS Miramar Capt. Brad Bartelt, Bruce Shaffer, Laura Thornton Califomia Department of Transportation Gerald Seubert Public involvement throughout the develqimestt of this project included presentaticais to over 50 di£ferait community groups. Commissions, and City Coimcils. There were over 100 persons at the trails conference in Descanso yMo expressed enthusiasm of the project; over 70 representatives from pubhc agencies attraided a hability woricshqp in Carlsbad, A^le numerous others participated in other community groups and workshops c<mducted throughout the coastal communities. The 1" Intemationai Trails and Greenways Ccmferraice held in San Diego in January 1998 hosted a field trip along the corridor attended by perscms from aroimd the coimtry. Numerous individuals extaided their time, voiced their qpinicms, provided support, and/or made recommendations. All of those who provided their valuable input are greatly appreciated. Acknowledgments Consultant Services Transtech Engineering, Inc. Peggy Gentry, AICP - Lead Project Manager David Aim, Steve Bliss, Ali Cayir, Turgut Carcafdraga Elie Farrah, Ken Gerdes, David Ragland Fehr & Peers, Associates, Lafeyette, CA Julie Noh, Matthew Ridgeway Helming Engineering, Carlsbad, CA Doug Helming (under separate contract with the City of Carlsbad) Lintvedt, McColl & Associates, San EHego, CA Michael W. Borahs, Gary A. Lintvedt Michael Brandman Associates, Inc., Tustin, CA Dr. Thomas Leslie, Claude G. Edwards Alta Transportation and Planning, Fairfax, CA Michael Jones Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, San Diego, CA Teresa Tellez-Giron, Ogden Project Director Theodore Cooley, Kathleen Crawford, Paula Jacks, Lori Walker Photo Geodetic Corp. of San Diego, CA John G. Ing, Michael G. Ing Rails lo Trails Conservancy, Washinton, D.C. Andrea C. Ferster, Attomey at Law Thomas Leslie Associates, Temecula, CA Dr. Thomas Leslie The Willett Company, Oceanside, CA Margaret Barrelman. Ward "Chip" Willett, Wallace Roberts & Todd, San Diego, CA Laura Burnett, ASLA - WRT Project Director Rick Espe, Kathleen A. Garcia, ASLA, Federico Garcia-Anguiano, John Gibbs ASLA, Phil Patterson. John Shank, Lisa Worthington Editor - Tamara Swanson m Table of Contents Executive Summary 9 1.0 Project Scope 15 1.1 Project Description 15 1.2 Background 15 1.3 Project Setting and History 19 2.0 Goals and Objectives 21 2.1 Project Goals 21 2.2 Summary of General Plans and Other Adopted Plans 22 2.3 Summary of NCTD/MTDB Service Plans 30 2.4 Connections to Other Trails 31 3.0 Need and Purpose 35 3.1 Destinations 36 3.2 Roadway Conflicts and TraflSc Volumes 36 3.3 Accident Summary 37 3.4 Future Land Use and Demographic Changes 40 3.5 Projected Short and Long Term Coastal Rail Trail Usage 40 3.6 Economic impact 43 3.7 Multi-Use TraU Conflicts 44 3.8 Air Pollution Reduction 45 4.0 Implementation 47 4.1 Funding 47 4.2 Agreements 49 4.3 Trail Management 51 4.4 Operation and Maintenance 52 4.5 Projeci Costs 57 5.0 Trail Alignment 60 5.1 Segment 1 City of Oceanside, San Luis Rey River Path-Buena Vista Lagoon 62 City of Carlsbad, Buena Vista Lagoon-Agua Hedionda Lagoon 63 City of Carlsbad, Agua Hedionda Lagoon-Batiquilos Lagoon 66 City of Encinitas, Batiquitos Lagoon-Encinilas Station 68 City of Encinitas, Encinitas Station-San Elijo Lagoon 70 City of Solana Beach, San Elijo Lagoon-Via dc la Valle 72 City of Del Mar, Via de la Valle- Carmel Valley Road 74 City of San Diego, Carmel VaUey Road- Genesee Avenue 76 City of San Diego, Genesee Avenue-Balboa Avenue 79 5.10 Segment 10: City of San Diego, Balboa Avenue-Old Town Transit Center 81 5.11 Segment 11: Cily of SanDiego, Old Town Transit Center-Santa Fe Depot 83 5.12 Trail AUgnment Siunmary 85 5.2 Segment 2 5.3 Segment 3 5.4 Segment 4 5.5 Segment 5 5.6 Segment 6 5.7 Segment 7 5.8 Segment 8 5.9 Segment 9 6.0 Trail Design 86 6.1 Plarming and Design Standards 86 6.2 TraU Design-Class I 87 6.3 Constrained Cross Section 92 6.4 Overcrossings/Undercrossings 93 6.5 Fencing and Other Barriers for Class I 96 IV 6.6 TraU Design-Class II Bike Lanes and Class in Bike Routes 98 6.7 Roadway Grade Crossings 101 6.8 At-Grade RaUroad Crossings 104 6.9 Coaster/ TroUey Stations 105 6.10 UtUities and Lighling 105 7.0 Signing and Maridng 114 7.1 Standard CalTrans and MUTCD Sign Panels 114 7.2 Coastal RaU TraU Signs 120 8.0 Landscaping Along the Trail 130 8.1 TraU Amenities 130 8.2 Landscaping 131 9.0 LiaWity of RaUs with TraUs 148 9.1 Preface 148 9.2 Immunities AvaUable Based on Recreational Use 150 9.3 LiabUity for the TraU as a Highway 153 9.4 LiabiUty for Dangerous Condilions on Adjacent Property 155 9 .5 LiabUity of Railroad Operators/Track Owners 157 9.6 LiabiUty of Private Adjacent Landowners for Injury Sustained by TraU User 158 9.7 Guidance for Minimizing LiabiUty Exposure 159 9.8 LiabiUty Conclusions 161 10.0 Enviroimiental Constraints Analysis 163 10.1 Purpose 163 10.2 Gap Analysis 164 10.3 Califomia Natural Diversity Dala Base Resulls 164 10.4 Critical Field Surveys 164 10.5 Area of Potential Effect 165 10.6 CEQA/ NEPA Review 165 10.7 Oceanside AUgnment 166 10.8 Carlsbad Alignment 169 10.9 Encinitas AUgrunent 172 10.10 Solana Beach AUgranent 173 10.11 Del Mar AUgnment 174 10.12 San Diego AUgnment 176 10.13 Summary 181 List of Tables Table 1 Population and Employment Growth Forecasts Table 2 TraU Recreational Usage Projections Table 3 Joumey lo Work Mode Split Table 4 Maintenance Schedule Table 5 Preliminaiy Cost Estimate Table 6 Segment 1: San Luis Rey River Path - Buena Visla Lagoon Table 7 Segment 2: Buena Vista Lagoon - Agua Hedionda Lagoon Table 8 Segment 3: Agua Hedionda Lagoon - Batiquitos Lagoon Table 9 Segment 4: Batiquitos Lagoon - Encinitas Station Table 10 Segment 5: Encinitas Station - San Elijo Lagoon Table 11 Segment 6: San EUjo Lagoon - Via de la Valle Table 12 Segment 7: Via de la VaUe - Carmel VaUey Road Table 13 Segment 8: Carmel VaUey Road - Genesee Avenue Table 14 Segment 9: Genesee Avenue - Balboa Avenue Table 15 Segment 10: Balboa Avenue - Old Town Transit Center Table 16 Segment 11: Old Town Transit Center - Sanla Fe Depot Table 17 Trail AUgnment Summary Table 18 Proposed Coastal RaU TraU Bridges Table 19 Unprotected Roadway Crossings Table 20 Roadway Crossings at Existing Intersections Table 21 Grade Separated Roadway Crossings Table 22 Recommended Signing and Maridng Table 23 Plant Matrix- Trees and Shrubs Table 24 Plant Matrix- Groundcovers and Vines Table 25 Documentation ^^Ucable to the Proposed Projeci Table 26 Relevant Adequate Cultural Resources Dala Table 27 Sensitive Plant Species Known from the Project Vicinity Table 28 Sensitive WUdlife Species Known from the Project Vicinity 40 42 43 56 58 61 63 66 68 70 72 74 77 79 81 83 85 93 102 103 104 116 144 147 183 184 185 186 List of Figures Fig. 1.1 Rail TraU Corridor 18 Fig. 2.1 Summaiy of NCTD/MTDB Curreni & Planned Projecis 32 Fig. 2.2 Connecting Class I (Separated) Pathways 33 Fig. 2.3 Connecting Routes for Class n Bike Lanes 34 Fig. 3.1 Average Wedcday Traffic Volumes Oceanside lo Solana Beach 38 Fig. 3.2 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Del Mar to San Diego 39 Fig. 5.1 Segment #1 San Luis Rey River Path lo Buena Vista Lagoon 62 Fig. 5.2 Segment #2 Buena Vista Lagoon to Agua Hedionda Lagoon 65 Fig. 5.3 Segment #3 Agua Hedionda to Batiquitos Lagoon 67 Fig. 5.4 Segment #4 Batiquitos Lagoon lo Encinitas Slation 69 Fig. 5.5 Segment #5 Encinitas Station to San EUjo Lagoon 71 Fig. 5.6 Segment #6 San EUjo Lagoon to Via de la VaUe 73 Fig. 5.7 Segment #7 Via de la VaUe lo Carmel VaUey Road 75 Fig. 5.8 Segment #8 Carmel VaUey Road to Genesee Avenue 78 Fig. 5.9 Segment #9 Genesee Avenue to Balboa Avenue 80 Fig 5.10 Segment #10 Balboa Avenue to Old Town Transit Center 82 Fig. 5.11 Segment #11 Old Town Transit Center to Santa Fe Depot 84 Fig. 6.1 Class I Rail/TraU (Mirumum Siandards) 90 VI Fig. 6.2 Recommended Class I RaU Trail 91 Fig. 6.3 Roadway Undercrossings 95 Fig. 6.4 Class n Bike Lanes at Arterial Intersections (Recommended) 100 Fig. 6.5 Uiq)rolected Roadway At-Grade Crossing Type 1 106 Fig. 6.6 Class I Roadway Crossing Type 1 107 Fig 6.7 Class I Roadway Crossing Type 2 108 Fig. 6.8 Class I Roadway Crossing Type 3 109 Fig. 6.9 Grade Separated Roadway Crossing Type 4 110 Fig. 6.10 Grade Separated Roadway Crossing Type 4 111 Fig. 6.11 Bridge Overcrossings 112 Fig 6.12 Slation Routing Options 113 Fig. 7.1 Bike Lane Signing and Marking (Class 11) 117 Fig. 7.2 Bike Lane Signing and Marking (Class II) 118 Fig. 7.3 Coastal RaU TraU Logo 119 Fig 7.4 Bike Lane Sign 122 Fig 7.5 Trail Head Sign 123 Fig. 7.6 Bilingual Safety Sign Post 124 Fig. 7.7 TraU Intersection Sign Post 125 Fig. 7.8 Kiosk 126 Fig. 7.9 Trail Map 127 Fig. 7.10 Pavement Maridngs at Intersection 128 Fig. 7.11 Distance Maridngs on Pavement 129 Fig. 8.1 Constrained Section 137 Fig. 8.2 Unconstrained Section 138 Fig. 8.3 Constrained Section 139 Fig. 8.4 Unconstrained Section 140 Fig. 8.5 Unconstrained Section 141 Fig. 8.6 Ck)nstrained Section 142 Fig. 8.7 Landscape Zones 143 vu Appendices A. PiibUc Participation Process 187 B. PubUc Meetings 191 C. Coastal RaU TraU Ck)mmittee Meetings 194 D. Responses to (gestions from "Addressing LiabiUty of RaUs with Trails" Woritshop 196 E. Memorandum of Understanding 200 F. Sample Agreement for the Use of Portions of RaUroad Right-of-Way 205 G. Acronym Reference Guide 222 H. Funding Summaiy 225 I. CalTrans Hiehwav Design Manual, "Chapter 1000- BUceway Planning And Design" 231 J. Public UtiUties Commission of the Stale of Clalifomia- Standards 262 K. BibUography 270 Project Alignment AUgnment Concept Plan (Drawing No. 376-9) pages 1-48 VIU Executive Summary Chapter One Project Scope The Coastal RaU TraU is a proposed multi-use pathway to be located within the San Diego Northem RaUway right-of-way. The traU wiU traverse from the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside, to the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego, connecting transit stations with a paved Class I bikeway for non-motorized users. The project is located within the jurisdictions of six coastal cities in San Diego County. Each of the sbc cities, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and San Diego combined their efforts to pursue development of the traU. Participation from the six cities. North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB), the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG), CaUfomia Department of Transportation (CalTrans) and MCAS Miramar resuhed in the preparation of this Project Study Report. This report is intended to serve as a guide by each agency in developmg the Coastal RaU Trail within theu" city. The report documents the project history; identifies potential users and thefr needs; analyzes constraints and envfronmental hnpacts; offers potential solutions; identifies constructable aUgnments and costs; and illustrates design guidelines relative to liabUity, safety, landscaping, maintenance, and CalTrans '*Best Practices" for Class I bike paths. Chapter Two Goals and Objectives The Coastal RaU Trail is primarily located along the coastline, foUowing along the old AT&S.F. raUroad right-of-way, now owned by the San Diego Northem RaUway (SDNR). Fonnal and informal traUs along the railway have been in existence since communities first began developing along this 44-mile corridor. Community interest to develop a fonnal traU, prompted the San Diego Association of Cjovemments (SANDAG) to sponsor a grant apphcation to conduct the "Coastal Corridor Bicycle Path Analysis" in 1989. The study concluded that a formal trail was feasible for the entfre distance from Oceanside to San Diego. Continued interest by the cities and communities along the corridor coincided with an increase of avaUable federal funding for bicycle faciUties through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Once again, SANDAG sponsored the apphcation on behalf of the coastal cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, with the City of Carlsbad serving as the lead ^ency. Twenty percent matching state fimds augmented the Congestion Mitigation Air Quaiity (CMAQ) grant, a program of ISTEA Once the grant was awarded, the cities teamed together cooperatively to explore opportunities and constraints of the Coastal RaU TraU. The concept of the path was presented to over 50 community groups for thefr input. Monthly meetings, coordmated by the City of Carlsbad, were conducted for over 30 months to identify issues, aUgnment, and design questions. The recommendations of the committee are presented in this report. Chester Three Need and Purpose San Diego County's 1995 population of over 2.6 miUion persons is expected to increase by 44% to over 3.8 miUion persons by the year 2020. As the popiUation continues to rise, the need for both commuting and recreation facUities also continues to rise. In 1994, the Coimty of San Diego completed a survey to determme why more people do not ride bicycles. The study concluded that 65% would ride, if there were traUs that were separated from the roadway. The Cahfomia Outdoor Recreation Plan' ranks trail uses as one of the highest in the activity participation survey. The Coastal Rail Trail wUl dfrectiy or indfrectly serve virtually all of the regional and local destinations along the corridor. These destinations may be a local city park or a regional destination such as the Del Mar Racetrack. The trail wiU be designed for commuting and recreation. The anticipated major uses are bicycUng, waUdng, nmning, and roUer blading for individuals, groups, famihes, and tourists. Bicycling and running fundraising events may also frequently occur along this traU. In order to estimate the number of future traU users and the reduction of vehicle trips, several assumptions were made about the potential users and the Coastal Rail Trail itself, which mcluded peak season, and off* season usage. Based on a series of stated assumptions, the traU usage projections are estunated at over 7 mUIion annually, with reduced vehicle trips of 570,000. Projections of usage by commuters is derived from the 1990 Census "Joumey to Work" data. The current percentage of employed adults who walk to work is approximately 3-4%, while bicychsts comprise about 1% of commuters. Based on the 'T^ational Walkmg and Bicychng Study" conducted by the U. S. Department of Transportation, it is estimated that once the Coastal Rail TraU is complete, the number of bicycle commuters v^U double. This translates mto an estimated 15,000 employed adult commuters who wUl walk or ride to work on a typical weekday. Add to this figure an estunated 15% of students who wiU walk or ride, the total daily number of commuters waUdng or bicycUng along the Coastal Rail TraU corridor is projected to be 22,500. Chapter Four Implementation Upon adoption ofthe Project Study Report, the participating agencies wUl need to resolve issues related to fimding, access agreements, project management, and maintenance operation. Funding Fundmg for planning and envfronmental research, and partial fimdmg for permittuig, design, and constmction ofthe Coastal RaU TraU has been achieved through state and federal grants resultmg in a total of approxunately eight (8) miUion dollars. Funding through other grant sources wUl need to be pursued m order to achieve project implementation and to fiind additional amenities such as landscaping and overcrossmgs. Fundmg sources for ongomg maintenance and operation ' Slate of California, The Resource Agency CaUfomia Ouldoor Recreation Plan, 1996 10 may be reaUzed through the general fimds of each of the agencies, donations, fimdraisers and the use of voluntary manpower. Agreements A Memorandum of Understandmg (MOU) was estabhshed to provide a cooperative anangement to plan, design, and constmct the Coastal RaU TraU. The signatory agencies are the cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Oceanside, San Diego, Solana Beach, NCTD and MTDB. Agreements between each agency and the property owner of the raifroad right-of-way wiU allow for public use ofthe raUroad. The City of Solana Beach and NCTD have taken the lead m the preparation of an "Agreement For Use of Portions of the RaUroad Right-of-Way", which wUl guide other similar agreements. Trail Management TraU Management consists of design, construction, mamtenance and monitoring, which may be accompUshed in several ways: 1) Each agency can manage the traU within thefr own jurisdiction; 2) One agency can provide project management for the entire traU; or 3) An independent non- profit organization can manage the entire traU. There are various advantages and disadvantages of each option, which may affect trail design, habUity and cost. Project Costs The Project Study Report has attempted to develop trail guidelmes to assist in designing the trail. Adherence to these guidehnes and CalTrans standards wUl provide a coordinated traU system, which is easier to maintain. It is understood that each agency may vary from the guidehnes to meet specific community concems and site constraints. However, there are a number of design components that can be standardized such as traU design, paving, stripmg, and signing. These standardized elements were used to develop the overaU cost estimates. In some areas where there are known variables, such as bridges or fencing, the cost was adjusted accordingly. These costs may vary as each city (or cities) proceeds into the final design phase and modifies specific design elements. Optional costs, such as benches, picnic tables, bicycle racks, landscaping, irrigation, etc., are summarized for each city, but are not mcluded in the overall cost estimate. The entfre Coastal Rail Trail through six jurisdictions is estimated to cost approximately $40,018,893. Chapter Five Trail Alignment The mam purpose of the Project Study Report is to identify an aUgnment which is constmctable, not cost prohibitive, and which mamtains the continuity of a commuter route from Oceanside to San Diego. An altemative analysis of the corridor was conducted through extensive fieldwork, map analysis, and coordination with resource agencies. The recommended aUgnment presented in this report was made considering cost constramts, potential envfroimiental impacts, and potential users. This aUgnment reflects a Class I bike path along the San Diego Northem Railway for approxunately 32-miles of the 44-mUe corridor. In mstances where the railroad bridges across a lagoon, the traU diverts to existing Class H bike lanes along Highway 101 (Coast Highway). The II traU also diverts to either Class II or Class HI bUce facUities m areas where there may be other constraints that restrict the ease of construction. The 44-mUe Coastal Rail TraU ahgimient has been divided into 11 distinct project segments for closer evaluation. The methodology used to select the prefened aUgnment includes the foUowmg criteria: • AvaUable width of raUroad right-of-way; • Physical obstmctions along raUroad right-of-way; • Access to transit stations; • Utilization of existing faciUties; • Envfronmental constraints; and • Costs. Upon completion of this draft document, envfroimiental studies were conducted that resulted m adjustments to the traU. Essentially, the trail was relocated to existing roadways when the biological studies revealed envfronmental restrictions which would make the trail, as a Class I bicycle path, unfeasible. It is anticipate that minor adjustments to the trail alignment wiU occur during final design to accommodate existing utUities and elevation changes. Chapter Six Trail Design The design of the rail traU is based on specific standards or guideUnes developed for multi-use traUs throughout the United States and incorporate CalTrans, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design Standards. However, there are no '1)est practices" design standards developed for raUs vwth traUs. The recommended design standards developed m this document are drawn from experiences of active raU traUs around Califomia and the United States, accepted CalTrans Class I standards, the Cahfomia PubUc Utihties Commission Standards, and unique constraints of the Coastal RaU TraU. Specific designs for at-grade traU crossings vnH be developed during the final design with consultation with NCTD and the Pubhc UtUities Commission (PUC). Chester Seven Signing and Marking The Coastal RaU TraU wUl be identified by a consistent, unique logo, which is represented on the front cover and m this chapter. The fimdamental concept of the logo is a striped pattem for raUroad ties, sunulating the shape of a wave, which curves around each local agency's city seal. This sign, or one similar, wUl be used along the entire 44-mUe corridor to provide identification and continuity. Mileage markers wUl be identified withm the pavement reflecting both northbound and southboimd distances. Other types of signs will be educational and dfrectional kiosk signs, bicycle signs consistent with CalTrans standards, and trail information sign panels to identify potential safety hazards and regulations for the use of the traU. 12 Chcq}ter Eight Landscaping Along the Trail Dependmg on corridor width and trail distance from the raU, fencing and other buffering methods, such as vegetation, are often used to separate a raU traU from adjacent active raifroads. Landscaping along the traU wiU be determined by each local jurisdiction dependmg on the width of the right-of-way and coordination wath the raifroad operators. The need for, type of, and distances of buffering between active raifroad Unes and raU traUs are cunently being reviewed at the state and national level. Upon adoption of state and/or national standards, buffering issues as well as at-grade crossmg standards will be largely defined. The use of buffering techniques along the Coastal Rail Trail wUl be determined jointly with SDNR during the final design phase, based on site specifics such as distance to the tracks, envfronmental unpacts, view obstmction, lateral movement, and overaU safety. In order to provide design continuity within the corridor, landscape designs, which express the natural and cultural elements of the local environment, have been identified in this chapter. The landscape guidehnes focus on the urban and more native enviroimient. Various types of planting are portrayed, some that may be used in more constrained areas and others that may be used m a wider area. Chcpter Nine Liability of Rails with Trails LiabUity is the greatest concem expressed by local agencies that manage traUs. LiabiUty cases generally involve perceived negligence. Potential liabiUty issues related to the proposed raU traU have been examined in cooperation with the legal counsel for the Rails to TraUs Conservancy. Research into relevant UabiUty issues, comparable facUities around the country, and steps that local jurisdictions can take to minimize thefr exposure are documented in this section. Based on prior research - when properly designed, maintained, and operated - rail trails have not posed a greater liability risk than other pubhc facUities. Chapter Ten Constraints Analysis An extensive review of existing, related envfronmental documents was conducted, which provides a benchmark for what additional envfronmental review wUl be needed to comply with Califomia Envfronmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Envfronmental Protection Act (NEPA). This review involved analyzing numerous EIR/EIS documents for projects along the corridor to determine what information may be used without having to repeat work that afready has been completed. A Natural Diversity Database Record Search was conducted to reveal potentia] sensitive plant and animal species which may exist along the proposed aUgnment. Once this data was analyzed, a data gap analysis concluded that additional studies were necessary to determine potential impacts. Since the initial constraints analysis, the City of Carlsbad, conducted additional environmental analysis on noise, cultural resources and biological resources. Due to 13 potential impacts to native habitats, in some areas the traU was reahgned to use existing roadway. In 2000, the City of Carlsbad, on behalf of the northem coastal cities of Oceanside, Encmitas, Solana Beach, and Del Mar completed environmental analysis for the Coastal RaU TraU within the 5 northem coastal cities and issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for pubhc review m November 2000. 14 1.0 Proiect Scope Ll Project Description The Coastal Rail TraU is rntended to be a Class I paved bUceway-constmcted 12' wide, with 2' shoulders on each side, within the SDNR right-of-way for approxunately 32 mUes of the total 44 mUes. The traU wUl begin at the San Luis Rey River and terminate at the Santa Fe Depot. Segments located on adjacent roadways wiU meet the CalTrans Standards for bikeways. Specific design details are identified in Chapter 6. 1.2 Background The San Diego County coast is defined by the ocean, beaches, lagoons, and communities that hne its shores. Despite rapid growth over the past 20 years, the coastal cities stiU maintain a 'beach' atmosphere, which San Diegans cherish. Evidence of the desire to connect to the water is evident by the numerous paths and traUs leading to the beaches, some attracting visitors from the region and beyond, while other trails are known mostly by the local residents. Everyday these paths and traUs, along with roadways such as the Pacific Coast Highway, are heavily used by surfers, famihes, joggers, bicychsts, and many others. The former Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Raifroad (AT&S.F.), now owned by the San Diego Northem Railway (SDNR) and operated by the North County Transit District (NCTD), is a defining feature of the area. The Coaster, AT&S.F. freight, and AMTRAK trains provide a level of raU service rare on the West Coast. Trains traveUng at speeds of up to 90 mph operate from downtown San Diego to Oceanside, with connections, to Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Bicychsts can take their bUces on board the trains for no additional charge. New stations along the corridor have become the focal point of downtown redevelopment and increased vitahty, thereby increasing raU usage as these developments occur. These two features, the beaches and the raifroad, provide the corridor for the Coastal RaU TraU. As shovwi in Figure 1.1, the raifroad foUows the coasthne for much of its distance. Portions of railroad right-of-way continue to be heavily used by pedestrians, bicycUsts and other users, which is unauthorized by SDNR. The raifroad hnks dfrectiy to many local and regional destmations, from parks and beaches to shopping areas to employment centers. In May of 1989, the engineering consulting firm of Morrison-Knudson completed the "Coastal Corridor Bicycle Analysis"^ under contract with the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). This study identified design and right-of-way concems and discussed safety issues related to raU and bicycle operation. The study concluded that it is technicaUy feasible to constmct a multi-use path along the railroad nearly its fliU length from Oceanside to San Diego. (Coastal Corridor Bicycle Path Analysis, pp. 1-2) ^ "San Diego-Oceanside Conunuter RaU Study, Coastal Corridor Bicycle Path Analysis" prepared by Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, Inc., San Diego Association of Govemmaits, May 1989. 15 Contmued interest by the cities and communities along the corridor comcided with an increased avaUabUity of federal fimdmg for development of bicycle and pedestrian faciUties through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). In 1992, SANDAG, in association with the coastal cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, Encmitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego, sponsored an ISTEA fimding appUcation to conduct a detaUed feasibUity study. The grant was awarded, and together with an additional grant through a State of Cahfomia fimding project. Transportation Systems Management, the cities embarked on a major effort to plan, design, and constmct the longest, contmuous raU traU of its type m the country. This major effort to develop a comprehensive feasibUity study is packaged into a Project Study Report. Federal fundmg of the project mandates oversight by the CaUfomia Department of Transportation (CalTrans). CalTrans has established a weU-defined process for the development of regional transportation improvements. The first step in the process is the development of a Project Study Report (PSR). The PSR explores and identifies most aspects of the project development includmg purpose and need, pubhc review process, envfronmental process, funding, agreements, and design options mvolvmg opportunity and constramt analysis. The purpose ofthis Project Study Report (PSR) is to: • provide background on the project history, goals, and relationship to existmg plans and other relevant documents; • identify the fiiture Coastal RaU TraU users and thefr needs; • identify constraints and recommended solutions including grade crossings, envfronmental conditions, property ownership, and raUroad operations; • develop altemative ahgranents where constraints cannot be overcome in either the short or long-term; • develop design guidehnes to facihtate development and ensure consistency across cities utilizing estabUshed state and national standards; • provide unplementation detaUs on funding, liability, safety, landscapmg, maintenance, legal agreements, envfronmental permits, and other items; and • provide a fomm for resolving plannmg and design issues to developing constmction documents. Rail traUs have been constmcted throughout the nation. The Rails to TraUs Conservancy (RTC), a nationwide organization formed for the purpose of utilizing abandoned raUways for trails is now assistmg m the development of trails along active railways. A survey conducted by RTC m 1997 Usts 49 existmg raUs-with-trail and provides detailed information on the physical and operatmg characteristics of the fadlities. The study summaiy states that trails are compatible with active raUroads and concludes that these traUs are success.f ul altematives for transportation and provide an ideal opportunity for recreation. 16 As the Coastal RaU Trail progresses, other communities are pursuing raU traUs m their own communities. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority in San Mateo Counfy recentiy completed a FeasibUity Study for the development of a raU traU along a 27-inUe rail corridor. Washmgton D. C. conducted the '*Met Branch FeasibUity Study" for a 7-niile trail from Union Station and the MaU m Washington D. C, to SUver Spring m Montgomery County, Maryland and has completed a portion of the traU through Northeast Washington bordering a Cathohc University. Mmneapohs' Cedar Lake TraU, which paraUels an active rail line is about two-thfrds complete. Other cities such as Ventura, San Luis Obispo, San Clemente, and Cincmnati, are proceeding with prehminary plans. In other areas, rail traUs are success.f ul, such as the Cjeorgetown Branch TroUey TraU, which connects Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and Silver Springs, Maryland. The Mission Trail in San Fernando, Cahfomia is located next to the Metrohnk, an active raU corridor. The traU, a paved pathway separated by a 5' high fence, channehzes bicycUsts and pedestrians to the traU where in the past the corridor had a high rate of people waUdng on the rail. 17 Oceansldi Oceanside Transit Center Carlsbad Village Station Carl Carlsbad Poinsettia Station San Marcos Encinitas Station Rancho Santa Fe Solana Beach Soiana Beadi Station Del Mar Sorrento Valiey Station La Jolla University City Mission Beacii Old Town TVansIt Center 0 N Not to Scale MCAS Miramar Linda Vista Point Loma Old TownStation Santa Fe Depot San Dlego FIGURE 1.1 RAIL TRAIL CORRIDOR COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 1.3 Project Setting and History The project study area includes the central and northem parts of the City of San Diego, and the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Oceanside. Total population of these communities was over 1.4 mUhon m 1995 and projected to increase to 2 mUUon by 2020. The topography of the study area ranges from a level marine plateau m the north to mgged hiUs with anoyos and canyons between Del Mar and San Diego. Salt-water lagoons (Batiquitos, Agua Hedionda, San Ehjo, San Dieguito and Los Penasquitos) and the fresh water Buena Vista lagoon accentuate the tenam. The land uses along the railroad consist of medium to low density housing, industrial and commercial land uses. Large undeveloped land tracts exist around the lagoons in Carlsbad, and in north San Diego. Intense commercial development, mcluding high-rise office buUdmgs and heavy industrial uses, border the raUway through downtown San Diego and Sonento VaUey. The north-south transportation system is dominated by three major faciiities: (a) the 1-5 freeway which is located between 1 and 5 miles inland from the coast, (b) the former Pacific Coast Highway, known as the Coast Highway, Carlsbad Boulevard, and Pacific Highway, which traverses parallel to the shorehne from Oceanside to Del Mar, and (c ) the SDNR raUway right-of- way, which is generaUy located between the Pacific Coast Highway and 1-5 except through Carmel VaUey, Rose Canyon, and the Marine Corps Afr Station at Miramar. Informal traUs along the San Diego Northem Railway right-of-way have been in existence smce communities began to develop along the coast. Walking or joggmg within the right-of-way and crossing the tracks at unprotected locations is considered trespassmg by the raUroad. SDNR has attempted to keep people off the tracks by posting waming signs every 600 feet and issuing tickets. Since SDNR purchased the railway, NCTD has provided security personnel who patrol the corridor to cite individuals for violations such as walking on the railway, placing rocks on the tracks, and crossing the tracks at unprotected crossmgs. Since the mitial feasibility study (Coastal Corridor Bicycle Analysis, 1989) was completed, several conditions have changed. First, the AT&S.F. sold the north county portion of the railroad to NCTD and the San Diego portion to MTDB m December 15, 1992. The raUroad Une known as the SDNR, leased trackage rights for freight operations back to the Santa Fe RaUroad, while commuter service is provided by NCTD between Oceanside and San Diego with the bi-directional Coaster trains. Metropohtan Transit Development Board provides "TroUey" service, a light rail train connectmg Old Town San Diego to the Santa Fe Depot and to Tijuana, Mexico. Recent improvements to the TroUey service include connections to Mission Valley and Qualcomm Stadium (previously named Jack Murphy Stadium). AMTRAK provides inter-city passenger service to Los Angeles and points beyond. Additional commuter service may soon become available by Southem Califomia Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) who operates the Metrohnk rail service throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Continued interest by the cities and communities along the corridor coincided with increased available federal fimding for bicycle facilities through the Intermodal Surface Transportation 19 Efficiency Act (ISTEA). In 1992, SANDAG's Bicycle FacUities Coordmating Committee (BFCC) sponsored an ISTEA fimdmg appUcation for $768,000 m Congestion Mitigation and Afr Quahty (CMAQ) fimdmg for a 44-mUe Coastal RaU Trail. The apphcation was success.f ul. The 20% match fimding was provided by the state with $192,000 from Transportation Systems Management (TSM) fimds. In 1996, feasibUity and prehminary design study of the Coastal RaU TraU was begun by a consiUtant team headed by Transtech Engmeers, Inc. of Oceanside, CaUfomia, culmmating m this Project Study Report (PSR). Design and constmction of the Coastal Rail TraU wUl occur in phases, with the design of the Solana Beach segment is scheduled for fall 2000 and Oceanside through Encmitas m 2001. Completion of the entire alignment is subject to funding avaUabihty, resolution of envfronmental issues, and public access agreements (see Section 4.2). 20 2.0 Goals and Obiectives 2.1 Project Goals ISTEA funding, which is being used to design and constmct the Coastal RaU TraU, is intended to benefit altemative transportation. The federal govemment considers a bike trip as bemg used for transportation purposes, if it connects an origm to a destmation. Altemative transportation is defined as any trip that resuhs in a reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle mUes traveled in the corridor, ultimately improving afr quahty in regions designated as severe air quality non- attainment by the Afr PoUution Control District (APCD). By hnkmg neighborhoods directly to the transit stations and employment centers, the Coastal Rail TraU wiU provide an altemative mode of transportation, and wiU serve a dfrect fiinction of encouraging commuters to bike or waUc to thefr destinations rather than to drive. Recreation trips, if they replace trips otherwise made by a vehicle, also meet the mission of the ISTEA fimdmg program and achieves goals incorporated into SANDAG's Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). The six cities, in conjunction with, SANDAG, NCTD, MCAS, CalTrans and MTDB developed the following project goals: Goal I: Locate, wherever possible, the trail within the raifroad right-of-way Ul order to provide an altemative to using heavUy traveled paraUel roadways m a safe and legal environment. Goal 2: The Coastal Rail TraU should be a fimctional weU-planned fadlity that provides a relatively dfrect north-south connection in the County, and foUows routes afready used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and others. Goal 3: The Coastal RaU Trail should consider connections to existing and proposed trails to further expand altemative transportation choices. Goal 4: Maximize safety along the railroad corridor by organizing and managmg pedestrian and bicychng activity along the raUway through appropriate design and operation of the facUity. Goal 5: Preserve the primary use of the SDNR and recognize the desfre that fiiture service may requfre that SDNR double-track the railroad in the future for additional raU service, for additional tracking for the hght raU system, and fiiture transit stations. Goal 6: Preserve existing access routes to beaches and other destinations. Where needed, relocate some access routes to new-channeled crossings. 21 Goal 7: Protect existing wetiands and other envfronmentaUy sensitive habitats along the right-of-way. This may result in the diversion of the Coastal Rail Trail to altemate routes off" the raifroad corridor. Goal 8: Design, constmct, and maintain the faciUty to meet appropriate state and federal standards and the intent of the American with DisabUities Act (ADA). Goal 9: Wherever desfrable or due to specific constraints, provide separate treadways for pedestrians and wheeled-users. Goal /O.-Design grade crossings at roadways, which maxunize trail user safety and convenience. 2.2 Summary of General Plans and Other Adopted Plans The project hes within the boundaries of six local jurisdictions, each having thefr own (jeneral Plan, Local Coastal Plan (LCP), implementing elements, ordmances, and poUcies. Each relative dociunent was reviewed along with regional and statewide goals to determine consistency of the Coastal Rail TraU vwthin each jurisdiction. These mcluded General Plans, and Local Coastal Plans, cfrculation elements, appUcable master plans, specific plans, parks and recreation plans, bikeway master plans, raU service plans, environmental documents, demographic and land use data, traffic volumes, accident data and other reports. A summary of this analysis is presented below including its apphcabUity to the Coastal Rail TraU. Califomia Coastal Commission The 1972 Califomia Coastal Act is intended to protect the natural and scenic qualities of the Califomia Coastal Zone. Portions ofthe Coastal Rail Trail corridor and alternate routes he withm the Local Coastal Program Boundary and are subject to the review of the Cahfomia Coastal Commission. The CaUfomia Coastal Act regulations requfre that a coastal plan include "a pubhc access element for maximum visual and physical use and enjoyment of the coastal zone by the pubhc". It also requires each local govemment agency to prepare a specific pubhc access component. The Coastal Act poUdes, which are related to shorehne access, are as foUows: Section 30210. Requfres maximum access and broad recreational opportunities for aU people in beach and coastal areas. Section 30211. Requfres that new development not mterfere with the pubhc's right of access to coastal areas. Throughout the development of the PSR, the pubhc right of access across the raU corridor has been a great consideration. WhUe the design of the Coastal RaU TraU may mandate buffering, such as landscapmg or fencing in some areas to ensure safety, adequate access for the pubhc access at 22 existing at-grade crossmgs and highly used corridors must be maintained to ensure coast accessibUity. San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG) The San Diego Assodation of Govemments (SANDAG) is mandated to prepare and update the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) by Section 65080 of the State Ciovemment Code. This section also specifies that actions by transportation agencies, including CalTrans and the Transit Development Boards must be consistent with the RTP. Local agencies utUize this document for planning for fiiture transportation facUities, then incorporate the transportation plan into thefr (jeneral Plan Land Use and Cfrculation Elements. In order to obtain state, federal, or transportation sales tax fimdmg, the project must be consistent with the RTP. The RTP was updated in 1996 to mclude the Coastal Rail Trail as a regional bicycle facility. ^ The RTP identifies the Coastal Rail Trail as a proposed regional traU stating that the "affected cities and the County of San Diego, with the cooperation of NCTD, wiU evaluate altemative aUgnments where needed, complete design and constmction of the Coastal RaU TraU."* City of Oceanside The City of Oceanside is located at the juncture of the north-south SDNR raUroad and the east- west Oceanside-Escondido rail. The city has recognized the opportunity that this juncture brings to non-motorized trail use. General Plan. Cfrculation Element 0995): The plan identifies two recreational routes for pedestrians and bicycles: the Pacific Coast TraU and the San Diego-Anza Bonego Desert Corridor. The planned location for Desert Corridor is adjacent to the old Santa Fe Escondido Branch hne (and fiiture hght rail hne) mnning east from Oceanside to Escondido. Another major bUce/pedestrian improvement cunentiy under design is the San Luis Rey River Bike Loop, at the northem end of the City. This loop wUl connect the beach area near the proposed Coastal RaU Trail and Pacific Street, to the mland portions of Oceanside along the San Luis Rey River. Relevant pohcies include commitments to "assure that transit centers have adequate bicycle and pedestrian access, including secure bicycle storage" (p. 52) and "provide connection and continuation of the Pacific Coastal Bicycle Corridor and the San Diego-Anza Bonego Bicycle Conidor" (p. 54). Cieneral Plan. Land Use Element (January 1989): The plan recognizes the need to enhance non- motorized transportation fadlities in order to provide safe and efficient movement of people in and through the City of Oceanside. AdditionaUy, Section 2.7132 (p. 63) states that ''tiie City shall encourage the use of the raifroad right-of-way for recreation and similar uses."^ ^ 1996 Regional Transportation Plan, September 1996, San Diego Assodation of Govonments, pp 168. Ibid, pp 176 ' Oceansidci, City of. City of Oceanside General Plan, March 1989 23 Master Plan of Parks and Recreation (1996); The document focuses entirely on parks and the need for active recreational uses rather than on bikeways or hnear corridors. The purpose of the document is to address the needs of the commimity for new parks, park acquisition, and park operations and maintenance. The raUway right-of-way is not designated as an open space corridor or slated for a multi-use path within the land use element. The Coastal RaU Trail is consistent with the City of Oceanside's goals and objectives, which encourages non-motorized facUities and the use of the raifroad right-of-way for recreation and sinular uses. CityofCarlsbad The City of Carlsbad has identified the Coastal RaU Trail in thefr Cieneral Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The foUowing documents recognize the opportunity of a traU along the rail right-of- way: (jeneral Plan. Circulation Element: Pohcy C.19 reads: 'Encourage passive and active use of the raUroad right-of-way trail linkage and bicycle Coastal Rail TraU." Other pohcies encourage improvements to both pedestrian and bicycle circulation including safety improvements and expanded facilities. Bicycle Master Plan (1996): Section 10 of this document recognizes the Coastal RaU Trail as a north-south spine along the coast and a regional connection to east-west trails. The plan includes conceptual solutions to various design issues including bridge crossmgs, undercrossings, and at- grade crossings. Buena Vista Lagoon. Hill Street/Carlsbad Boulevard Boardwalk (November 1991): A pedestrian boardwalk is proposed along the eastem side of Carlsbad Boulevard/Coast Highway over the Buena Vista Lagoon connecting Carlsbad and Oceanside. This pedestrian sidewalk would be elevated above street level to provide a pedestrian system aroimd the lagoon edge. The Coastal RaU Trail is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. It does not conflict with the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation's proposed pedestrian boardwalk for the east side of the Coast Highway, connecting Oceanside and Carlsbad. The Coastal Rail TraU would augment the Carlsbad trail system by providing a route for bicyclists and connections to existing and proposed east-west bicycle and traU routes. City of Encinitas The railroad right-of-way within the City of Encmitas experiences a high number of users crossing the tracks to access the beach. This is due m a large part to the Umited number of surface streets that cross the tracks, and the large residential areas which border the east side of the tracks m communities such as Leucadia, Old Encinitas, and Cardiff* by the Sea. The City of Encmitas goals and objectives are presented m the foUowmg documents: 24 (jeneral Plan (1989): The General Plan recognizes the need to retain access to the beaches and the potential of the raifroad right-of-way as a resource for a multi-use traU. As stated in the Introduction, Raifroad Crossings/Right-of-Way: "The lunited number of raifroad crossings acts as a detenent to east-west pedestrian and vehicular movement. This obstacle to movement resuhs in uncontrolled pedestrian crossings of the track wherever it is convenient. The right-of-way represents a significant source of noise, but is also a potentiaUy valuable area for the estabhshment of a riding/hiking/bicycUng path for north-south movement near the coast and a landscaped buffer adjacent to the major north-south cfrculation roadways. Highway 101 and Vulcan Avenue. Enhancement of the rail corridor, including the possible depression of the track grade to address these issues, is wananted."* The General Plan also mcludes a bUceway facUities map, which identifies a separate bikeway along the raUroad right-of-way. Master Bikewav Plan and Engmeering Feasibihty Study (1990): This document provides ample detaU regarding bicycles, riding habits, and the riders themselves including age, sex, trip purpose, frequency of use, and other information. Most survey respondents in Encinitas identified separate bike paths as thefr prefened type of bicycle facUity. The Plan evaluates the potential for a bike path along the railroad right-of-way, and provides an altemative that includes widening paraUel streets for bike lanes (Vulcan/San Elijo) in order to minimize conflicts with pedestrians and other trail users. The 'AT&S.F. Railroad' option is evaluated in three distinct segments, projected to have a 10 to 12 foot width, and be located on the east side of the tracks. Total cost of the fadlity was projected to be $3.4 mUlion doUars for 5.8 mUes of bike path. Downtown Endnitas Specific Plan (1994): The circulation elements of this plan cover both pedestrian and bicycle movement, with a multi-purpose traU identified along the raifroad corridor south from E Street. The plan recommends pursuing development of this facUity in cooperation with NCTD. North 101 Corridor Specific Plan (1997): This plan recommends a "multi-modal recreational path within the railroad right-of-way east of North IDghway 101. This bike path wiU replace the existuig nanow asphalt pathway along North Highway 101" The plan also recommends paraUel on-street bike lanes on North Highway 101 and Vulcan Avenue. The Coastal RaU TraU is consistent with the City of Encmitas' (jeneral Plan and Master BUceway Plan, which identify the nulway conidor as an opportune area for a multi-use path without reducing the existing bike lanes. City of Solana Beach The City of Solana Beach has taken extensive steps to prepare for a traU along the raifroad. The city goals and objectives are succinctiy stated in the followmg documents: Solana Beach Linear Park Master Plan (1995): This document covers the planning and preUmmaiy design of a 1.8-mUe Unear park along the raifroad right-of-way (essentiaUy the same alignment as the proposed Coastal Rail Trail). The plan contains detaUs on the pubhc Encinitas Cjeneral Plan, 1989. Pp 1-6 25 uivolvement process, relevant plans, existmg mfluences such as topography, vegetation, and cfrculation, conceptual plans, cross sections, and design elements such as hghting, entry features, plazas, fencing, bridges, and landscapmg. The plan provides the most detaUed design framework for the proposed Coastal RaU TraU in the entfre corridor. It includes design recommendations but acknowledges that the specific design of the Linear Park wUl occur during the final design phase. Highway 101 Conidor Specific Plan (1992): This plan covers the area adjacent to U.S. 101 through the City and consists of land use, community facUities, and drcuiation components. There is substantial overlap m this plan's study area and that covered by the more recent Linear Park Master Plan (see above). The plan recognizes the future Lmear Park and the need to create better pedestrian Unkages across Highway 101 to the Lmear Park. Solana Beach BUceway Master Plan (1993) and BUcewav Addendum (1996): These plans cover on-street and off-street bicycle facUities in the city, along with support facihties such as bUce racks. They identify the 'Coastal Corridor' Class I bUce path 'to be buUt by others' through Solana Beach. They also provide most of the basic information requfred for state and federal fimding, and other tools needed to guide fiiture development of the bikeway system. EIR for the Proposed Lomas Santa Fe Drive (frade Separation Project for the San Diego Northem RaUwav. (1995): Jointiy, NCTD and the City of Solana Beach developed a plan to lower the train tracks approxunately 35 feet below thefr existing level in order for the trams to pass under the intersection at Lomas Santa Fe Drive and Highway 101. The purpose ofthis "grade separated raUway" is to reduce traffic congestion at Lomas Santa Fe and noise unpacts to adjacent residential and commercial properties. As part of the "Lomas Santa Fe (jrade Separation Project," the City pursued the development ofa linear park along the railway right-of-way for the purpose of creatmg a parkhke setting, to provide a fonnal traU for pedestrian and bicychsts, and to contmue to reduce confiicts with bicychsts and vehicles. The design criteria set forth in the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report support the poUdes identified in the City's Cfeneral Plan (1988), the Fletcher Cove Master Plan and supporting EIR (1992), Linear Park Master Plan. Bikewav Master Plan (1993). and Bikewav Addendum (1996). City of Del Mar The City of Del Mar recognizes the need to provide alteraative transportation, but also the need to preserve the coastal bluffs along the railroad. These poUcies and goals are identified m the foUowing documents: (jeneral Plaa Recreation Element (May 1, 1985): Promotes the use of bicycle faciUties and trails. Section C ofthe Implementation Program recommends that a contmuous bluff*-top pedestrian trail be developed. The Communitv Plan (March 1996): Open space goals recognize the need to preserve the sandstone bluffs, which he along the coast of Del Mar. These bluffs receive extensive pedestrian activity year round, as weU as host the San Diego Northera RaUway. The Community Plan, (joal 26 2, Objectives and Pohcies A reads: "encourage a pedestrian-oriented, non-motorized community by developing a system of bicycle rights-of-way and pedestrian paths. Zonmg Code. Railroad Right-of-Way Zone (1985): The City of Del Mar's zonmg code (Chapter 30.28) SpecificaUy states that the uses within the raUroad right-of-way are hmited to raUroad transportation fadlities and related stmctures and uses. Since the proposed traU along the right- of-way in Del Mar is hmited to an unimproved pedestrian traU, the proposed Coastal RaU TraU is consistent with this zoning code. Camino Del Mar Streetscape Plan (September 6, 1996): The intent of the plan is to consider specific design modifications which wUl enhance the three mUe length of Camino Del Mar through the City of Del Mar. The plan maintains the need for bicycle lanes through the City and identifies a bicycle/pedestrian bridge at the Jimmy Durante - (frand Avenue/Camino Del Mar merge. Del Mar TraU Subcommittee (December 1996): The City of Del Mar's City CouncU dfrected its staff to work with community groups m the development of the Coastal Rail TraU and to explore traU altematives. The traU subcommittee considered a paved bicycle/pedestrian traU along the raifroad right-of-way, however, due to width and drainage constraints along the bluffs and known bluff instabUity, the committee agreed to divert bicychsts to existing bicycle lanes on Camino del Mar whUe maintaining existing pedestrian paths along the west side of the raUway, on top of the bluffs. The Coastal RaU TraU is consistent with the City of Del Mar's programs and policies since it encourages the preservation of the coastal bluffs and the continued use of the existing trails and bicycle lanes. It also mcludes the location of the pedestrian bridges across the raUway as proposed by the City CouncU TraU Subcommittee and the proposed bicycle bridge at the Jimmy Durante - Grand Avenue/Camino del Mar merge. City of San Diego The Coastal RaU TraU traverses through and is adjacent to several City of San Diego planning areas. Development in these areas is controlled by community adopted plans. These include the North City West Community Plan (a.k.a. Carmel VaUey), Toney Pines Conimunity Plan, University City Community Plan, Mfra Mesa Conimunity Plan and the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Summaries of these and other relevant documents foUow: Progress Cfuide and (jeneral Plan (1989): The City of San Diego's (jeneral Plan recognizes that walking and bicycling are both important means of transportation in San Diego. It states "the pedestrian and bicycle trips each exceed the number of trips made by transit today. Moreover, travel forecasts indicate that non-motorized transportation wUl mcrease significantly and will continue to outpace transit ridership."^ The plan also encourages separate bikeway facihties to reduce vehicle conflicts and recognizes the coastal bikeway as a regional corridor for bicychsts. ^ City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan, 1989, pp 262. 27 North City West Conununity Plan (October 1988): Although the North City West Community Plan is located immediately to the east of the City of Del Mar, bike and pedestrian ways are recommended to be paraUel to major and coUector streets but to be physicaUy separated and connected to community activity centers. The Coastal RaU Trail wUl allow for connections to bUce paths constmcted in the North City West area. Toney Pines Communitv Plan (AprU 16, 1996): Transportation Element Goals identify three Class I bicycle paths: on the south side of Carmel VaUey Road between McGonigle Road and Sonento VaUey Road; the San Dieguito River Valley bicycle path; and the Coastal Bicycle path along the railroad right-of-way from San Diego to Oceanside. * A concept sketch is provided within the Transportation Element for a joint use pathway to be shared by bicychsts and pedestrians, physically separated from Carmel VaJley Road. The pathway "should be constmcted with a combmation of concrete and wood the path should meander along the lagoon". Smce the 1996 adoption of the Toney Pmes Community Plan, the City of San Diego embarked on a feasibihty study for a separated pathway along Carmel Valley Road. The "Carmel Valley Road Enhancement Project Task Force" met over several months during the summer and fell of 1997. The task force concluded that a separated trail along the south side of Carmel Valley Road would significantiy unpact the Los Penasquitos Lagoon and the available parkmg. The City of San Diego is proceeding with plans to widen the road to accommodate bike lanes along Carmel VaUey Road. University City Communitv Plan (January 16, 1990): The University City Commimity Plan covers the area immediately south of the Toney Pines area, incorporating the University of California, San Diego and the University City community, just north of the Marian Bear Memorial Park. The goals of the Transportation Element, Section D, Non-Motorized Transportation states: "Implement a program for the development of bikeways with an emphasis on separated bike paths that are interconnecting." A proposed Class I bikeway is identified along the railroad right-of- way through the Rose Canyon Recreation area. The Urban Design Element of the University City Community Plan states "that bUceways are important in and around University campuses not only for transportation but also for recreational purposes. An expanded system of bikeways wUl encourage additional students to bicycle to and from campus." Mfra Mesa Communitv Plan and Local Coastal Program (March 1981): The Transportation Element "proposes a system of bUceways that provides both good mter-community service and access to the City-wide system."' A Class I bUce path is proposed along Miramar Road but has not been constmcted. The raifroad right-of-way progresses through an area identified m the Mfra Mesa Community Plan as Sub-area'T)" (CanoU/Soledad Canyon Interface). The canyon forms an extremely scenic subsystem that has value for recreation and conservation of natural resources. City of San Diego, Torrey Pines Commimity Plan, pp 47. City of San Diego, Mira Mesa Commtmity Pian and Local Coastal Program, pp 59. 28 ReaUgnment of NAS Mframar EIR (Febmary 1996) was prepared in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Reahgnment Act (BRAC) of 1990. As a result ofthe BRAC 93 decision NAS Miramar was closed and assets (afrcraft, equipment, and personnel) cunentiy stationed at MCAS Tustm and MCAS El Toro were relocated to MCAS Mramar. Section 3.8 Pubhc Health and Safety identifies the westem portion of the base, which mcludes the railway right-of-way as being located within the estabhshed Accident Potential Zone (APZ). The purpose of estabhshmg APZ's is to dehneate recommended sunoundmg land use for the protection of persons and property on the ground. Section 4.11 Noise identifies areas of Fhght Corridor Activity and the associated unpacts of increased noise levels. These noise levels are intermittent and varied. MCAS Miramar does not have plans to expand facihties to the area adjacent to the right-of-way. Each community plan was reviewed to detemiine its consistency with Coastal RaU Trail project. The City's (jeneral Plan and the related community plans note the need to pursue bUceway facihties, to ensure connections to other bicycle facUities, and to provide safe altemative transportation modes. The estimated usage of the fraU through MCAS Miramar wiU not exceed the threshold established by the APZ. County of San Diego The traU corridor does not Ue withm the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego. However, it does provide connections to existing and planned traUs within the County areas. These include the San Luis Rey River Path, \^ch extends mto the community of FaUbrook, the San Dieguito River Park traUs which traverse easteriy to Vulcan Mountain m Juhan, the Los Penasquitos traU, which connects the inland community of Poway to the coast, and the east-west raU trail from Oceanside to Escondido, which wUl traverse through portions of the county and is cunently in the design phase. San Dieguito River Park Concept Plan (September 15, 1993) states that "an ambitious but achievable goal of the Concept Plan is to create a traU system that wUl extend from the ocean at Del Mar to the desert just east of Vulcan Mountain." Once constmcted this multi-use Class I trail wUl provide a regional multi-use traU connection extending over 55 mUes as far as Vulcan Mountain in Julian to the Coastal RaU TraU at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Ongoing coordination with the San Dieguito Riverpark, the City of San Marcos (lead agency for the Oceanside- Escondido raU traU), the City of Oceanside for the San Luis Rey River Path, and the City of San Diego for the connection to the Los Penasquitos TraU, wUl continue to ensure connection to these regional east-west traUs 29 2.3 Summary of NCTD/MTDB Service Plans Cunent passenger service between Oceanside and San Diego is provided by both AMTRAK (8 trains per dfrection per day) and Coast Express Service ('Coaster') provided by the SDNCTDB (9 trains per dfrection per day). There is an average of 34 total passenger train movements per day along the corridor and approximately six freight trams, or roughly two trains per hour on average. The Coaster tram operates at speeds up to 90 mph. Existmg transit stations are located at the Oceanside Transit Center, Carlsbad VUlage Station, Pomsettia Station, Encinitas Station, Solana Beach Station, Sonento VaUey Station, Old Town Transh Center, and Santa Fe Depot. The NCTD Board recognized the unportance of bike paths along the Oceanside to San Diego raU corridor and approved the Memorandum of Understanding on November 20, 1997. A raU traU is identified along the existing railroad right-of-way from Oceanside to Escondido in the Envfronmental Assessment and Envfronmental Impact Report for the proposed passenger rail hne along this corridor. The proposed raU traU along the Oceanside to Escondido raU hne wUl provide an east-west connection for bicychsts and pedestrians to the Coastal Rail Trail m Oceanside. On April 30, 1998, the NCTD Board approved the preparation of a "North County District Business Plan and Capital Needs Study". A component of that study, 'Long Range RaU Master Plan and Capital Element" wiU explore future raU hnprovements along this corridor. Figure 2.1 shows a summary of cunent planned projects. The results of this two-year study wUl determine the timing of these and possibly other raU projects. The Metropohtan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is cunently conducting prehminary engineering for the hght raU system which is described m the Mid-Coast Corridor Alteraative Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Envfronmental Impact Report. This report summarizes the impacts and costs of the hght raU project and other highway unprovement alternatives along this corridor. The Light RaU Transit (LRT) Altemative would include constmction of two LRT tracks located east of and immediately adjacent to the existmg SDNR railway. Both LRT tracks would cross over Balboa Avenue on a new bridge and additional LRT stations would be constmcted at Balboa Avenue and Morena Boulevard, Clairemont Drive and Morena Boulevard, and Tecolote Road and West Morena Boulevard. The certified EIR, adopted by MTDB Board m October 1995, mcludes analysis of the LRT extension to Balboa Avenue and Coaster Station projects. Coorduiation with MTDB during the design phase of the Coastal RaU TraU wUl need to occur to ensure that right-of-way access is mamtained for the second track for the Light RaU Transit. NCTD is exploring options to straighten the section ofthe raifroad from 1-805 to Mframar Road due to the extreme grade, which requires trams to reduce speeds to adjust for the grade and curves. The Mframar HiUs Curve ReaUgnment and Second Track. Altematives Analvsis Report. released ui August 1997, recommends alteraative aUgnments for both the raU and traU. 30 2.4 Connections to Other Trails The Coastal RaU TraU wUl paraUel the existing Class n bicycle lanes along Highway 101 (Coast Highway) except for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon where the traU wUI divert from the raUway right- of-way and UtUize the Highway 101/Coast Highway bicycle lanes. The rail traU vwU provide an opportunity to waUc/bUce along the Coastal RaU Trail and access the bicycle lanes or sidewaUcs at numerous locations along the coast. This 44-mile corridor wiU provide an exceUent connection to other regional east-west routes. Class I bicycle paths. Class H bicycle lanes, and other natural walking paths such as at the Marian Bear Natural Park Recreation area and the Rose Canyon Open Space Park. These connecting routes for Class I facUities (existing and proposed) and natural pathways are identified on Figure 2.2 and the connectmg Class H facilities are identified on Figure 2.3. Key connections to Class I bicycle paths include the San Luis Rey River Bicycle Path (m-design), Oceanside-Escondido raU trail (in-design). Mission Bay Park bicycle/pedestrian paths (existing). Fiesta Island (existmg), and the Bayshore BUceway (ui-design). The Coast to Crest TraU system through the San Dieguho River Park will connect from the beach m Del Mar, crossing the raifroad tracks south of the San Dieguito River, to the Vulcan Moimtauis m Julian. 31 Double Tracking Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Drive (Carlsbad) Oceanside Transit O Double Tracking Station E Street to Birmingham Street (Encinitas) Grade Separation San Elijo Lagoon to Via de la Valle (Solana Beach) O Transit Platform Del Mar Racetracks (Del Mar) 0 Sorrento Valley Station Parking Lot Q Double Tracking & Curve Realignment Miramar Hill (City of San Diego) A Nobel Drive Tyolley Station Nobel Drive (City of San Diego) |!| Elvira Curve Straightening Across from Mission Bay Drive (City of San Diego) ^ False Bay Siding (Double Tracking) ^ Balboa Avenue to Mission Bay Drive (City of San Diego) Mid-Coast Trolley Project (Ught Rail Extension) San Diego River to North University City (City of San Diego) San Marcos Solana Beach Station Q o Del Mar Sorrento Valley Station Mission Beacti Old Town Transit Center Source: NCTD, MTDB 0 N Not to Scale Santa Fe Depot Point Loma DIego FIGURE 2.1 SUMMARY OF NCTD / MTDB CURRENT AND PLANNED PROJECTS COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 12 Oceanside Transit Station San Luis Rey River Path Oceanside-Escondido Rail-Trail (proposed) Endnitas Station Santa Fe Solana San Dieguito River Park Beachy * Coast to Crest TVail Solana Beach Station Q (proposed) Del Mar ~ Highway 56 (paved) Los Penasquitos Park ^ - ' ' (unpaved) ^ Sorrento Valley Sorrento Valley Station Gilman Drive Bike Path La Jolla Rose Canyon Path J^r^^^ (unpaved) Clairemont Marian Bear Regional Park (unpaved) Mission Beach Z. vEta Friars Road Path Mission Bay Trails .,,iini%^^^*' Old Town 0 N Not to Scale Old Town Transit Center Ocean Beach Bayshore Blkewa/'^ SantaFe Depot Point Loma HBBHn \ wk San Dlego FIGURE 2.2 CONNECTING CLASS I (SEPARATED) PATHWAYS COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 33 Oceanside Transit Center Tamarack Avenue \sai Carlsbad Poinsettia l^ne 1^ Costa Avenue Palomar Airport Road EncinltasStation Encinitas Boulevard Lomas Santa Fe Drive Solana Beach Station Qn"Hni"«^^'"' Del Mar Via de la Valle Del Mar Heights Carn.al valley |^ Sorrento VaHey Sorrento Valley Road Sorrento Valley Station Torrey Pines Road I'liiiiiiiiiiiifinV^^ La Jolla University City I % Mira Mesa Boulevard -51. Mission Beach Old Town D-ansIt Center MCAS Miramar \ Clairemont I X I ^ ^"LS,,., Genesee Avenue Linda 7" Vista ,^ 0 N Not to Scale Point Loma Linda VIsta Road Friars Road Old Town Santa Fe Depot San Dlego FIGURE 2.3 CONNECTING ROUTES FOR CLASS II BIKE LANES ^£OASTAL RAIL TRAIL 34 3.0 Need and Purpose The California Outdoor Recreation Plan of 1993 identifies walking as havmg the highest partidpation rate (88%) for outside recreation and bicychng on paved surfaces is Usted with a partidpation rate of 45.8%.^" The need for the Coastal Rail TraU is demonstrated by the niunber and variety of people who afready use the corridor and potential users based on the success of multi-use traUs afready constmcted in San Diego County, other areas of CaUforaia, and across the nation. Each user group has specific needs, which wUl dfrectiy affect the planning and design of the Coastal RaU Trail. For example, most pedestrians prefer to waUc on a soft-surface, meandering, shaded traU, most bicychsts prefer to ride on a firm surface vnth few curves, while roller skaters requfre hard asphalt or concrete surface. The "San Diego County Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey" completed in May 1994 concluded that over 41% of those surveyed did not cycle "because of a lack of desired bUce fecUities. ...The bikeway most prefened by cychst respondents was a separate path that excludes cars (65%)".^^ Existing pedestrian and bicychng activity in the corridor ranges from intense to low depending on the location, season and day of the week. Cunent uses can be categorized into the foUowing groups: Commuters Commuters are generaUy defined as employed aduhs, adult students, and school chUdren. AduU commuters are typicaUy seasoned bicychsts and waUcers, who can move at or above average speeds and maneuver across busy arterial roads. Often these commuters prefer to ride on the street rather than on a bike path. School chUdren move more slowly and are less adept at crossing busy streets, and any new street and raU grade crossmgs must be designed with this user m mind. Access points from the traU to schools, neighborhoods, employment centers, and multi-modal stations must also be provided for the trail to serve as an effective commuter corridor. Other commuters consist of persons who commute to services. These commuters may choose to walk or bUce to the store or other service facihty. Beach Users Whether they are bound for the beach to walk, sunbathe, or surf, beach users share many of the same characteristics. Local beach users typically arrive by vehicle and park in lots or utUize on street parking as close as possible to reduce the distance they wiU have to cany various beach articles. They often use an intricate network of informal traUs to reach nearby beaches, most of which cross the raifroad tracks. '° State ofCalifornia, Department of Paite and Recreation, "Caiifomia Outdoor Recreation Plan 1993", April 1994. pp. 32. ^' Research Network Ltd., "San Diego Coxmty Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey," Laguna Hills, Ca.,May 1994. pp 10. 35 The Coastal RaU TraU is expected to cany a high number of beach users who wUl be seeking access to the beach at numerous locations along the corridor. Beach goers wiU likely park along the traU and waUc to thefr prefened beach access pomt. In this manner, the Coastal RaU TraU wiU enhance access to the beaches by allowmg people to park farther away, or hopefully bicycle or walk rather than drive. Recreation The Coastal RaU TraU wiU attract a significant number of users who simply desire to use the corridor for exercise and recreation. This mcludes famUies with young chUdren, members of clubs, long distance bicycUsts, people walking thefr dogs, roUer skaters/bladers, and joggers. Benches, drinkmg fountams, signage, bicycle racks, and waste receptacles are just a few of the items typicaUy requfred for recreational and commuter traU users alike. Because of this multiplicity of needs, the Coastal Rail TraU is designed to separate different user groups, as much as possible, on a wider paved surface. Separated paved or unpaved facUities may be considered after the mitial implementation m areas where the traU experiences heavy usage. 3.1 Destinations The Coastal RaU TraU wiU directiy or indfrectly serve virtuaUy aU of the regional and local destinations along the corridor. Destinations may be a local city park or a regional destination such as the Del Mar Racetrack or Carlsbad State Beach. Identifymg these destinations wUl assist in locating requfred access points and connecting facUities as part of the planning and prehminary design process. A hst of recreational and commuter destination pomts is provided as a part ofthe description of each of the ahgnment segments found in Chapter 5.0. 3.2 Roadway Conflicts and Traffic Volumes Bicyclists, pedestrians, and others cunentiy traveling along the corridor have the choice of using roadways such as the Coast Highway, Camino Del Mar, and Toney Pmes Road. WhUe bUce lanes and/or wider curb lanes are provided along some of the route, the roadways present a combination of high traffic volumes, higher speeds, and side fiiction from driveways, parked vehicles, and mtersecting roadways. Most roadways are adequate and may be the facihty of preference by experienced bicychsts; however, less experienced bicychsts, such as chUdren, the elderly, and famUies, are Ukely to be mtimidated by these conditions. Wheelchafr users wUl prefer a Class I fadlity because it wUl hmit the number of times they must cross streets; they wUl encounter fewer obstmctions, and more even surfaces. Pedestrian facUities such as sidewalks or traUs provide areas for walkers, joggers, and other users who feel uncomfortable usmg the existing coastal north-south roads. In some areas, such as the community of Leucadia in the City of Endnitas, pedestrians typicaUy waUc on shoulders on Vulcati and cross Highway 101 at improtected crossings. 36 The typical Average DaUy Traffic (ADT) volumes on the major north-south routes paraUel to the Coastal Rail TraU are between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles. As population and job opportunities continue to expand along the corridor, so wUl traffic volumes. As shown m Figures 3. 1 and 3.2, traffic volumes on north-south and east-west roadways adjacent to the corridor are projected to increase. The only exceptions are Santa Fe Drive and (Jenesee Avenue at the northera-most portion of State Route 805. 3.3 Accident Summary Accident data of bicycle/waUcer and vehicle conflicts are relevant to the Coastal RaU Trail, as higher than average accident rates for some cities may make the Coastal RaU Trail a useful solution for separating vehicles and walkers/bicycles. Local jurisdictions and the Califomia Highway Patrol record uiformation on accidents. Data from most acddent reports is filed into the Statewide Record Keeping System (SWTRS). Bicycle and pedestrian acddents are typicaUy only recorded when they uivolve serious injury or death, or motor vehicles. As such, bicycle and pedestrian accident records are usuaUy under-reported. A review of bicycle related accidents in the City of Encinitas between 1992 and 1995 showed a high number of accidents along the routes paraUel to the Coastal Rail TraU (Vulcan Avenue, San Ehjo Avenue, North Coast ffighway 101, and South Coast Ifighway 101), accounting for 25% of aU reported bicycle-related acddents m the City. The smgle worst accident location for bicychsts within the City of Encmitas is between "Restaurant Row" and the southem city hmits along the Ifrghway 101.*^ Constmction of the Coastal RaU Trail would remove many bicycUsts that may be uncomfortable or inexperienced with cychng on the road, thereby avoiding numerous confUcts at many of the intersections ui this corridor. Statistics reflecting pedestrian and bicycle accidents on the raifroad tracks are recorded by NCTD. There were 11 recorded fataUties on the tracks in 1992, 13 m 1993, 8 in 1994, and 5 ui 1995. Of the 37 recorded fatahties, 13 (35%) were mled suicides and the remainder accidents. The number of fatal accidents on the tracks has dechned every year since 1992; except, in 1996 there were twelve fatahties reported. Contrasting with the NCTD statistics are reports from the Federal RaUway Admmistration that the 1996 statistics reveal deaths among trespassers were down 4.4% and injuries among trespassers were up 1.3%, nationwide. Barton-Ashman Associates, Inc., "Master Bikeway Plan and Engineering Feasibility Study for theCity of Encinitas," 1990, pp39 37 24,000 (27,000) 24,000 (25,000) Carlsbad Village Station Kev: 1995 ADT (2015 ADT) Encinitas Station 18,000 (18.000) 9,000 (12,000) Solana Beach Station 18,000 (18,000) Smirce: San Dlego Association of Governments Dei Mar FIGURE 3.1 1995 AND 2015 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES OCEANSIDE TO SOLANA BEACH COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 38 0 N Not to Scale Source: San Dlego Association of Govemments FIGURE 3.2 1995 AND 2015 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES DEL MAR TO SAN DIEGO ^X:OASTAL RAIL TRAIL 39 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 3.4 Future Land Use and Demographic Changes San Diego County's 1995 estunated population of 2,669,300 is expected to mcrease by 44% to 3,853,900 by 2020, as shown in Table 1 (INFO SANDAG/Sourcepomt, September-October 1999, No. 5 pg. 8). The Nortii County West Metropohtan Statistical Area (MSA), mcludmg the corridor cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encmitas, Oceanside, and Solana Beach, make up 10.8% of the County's population. The City of San Diego, the largest city m the County, makes up 44% of the population. These six cities, which wiU enjoy dfrect access to the proposed Coastal RaU TraU, share significant features as summarized below: • Since 1990, the cities have had an average gam of 17.2% as of January 1, 2000 with Carlsbad gaining 30.5% and Oceanside 25.2%.of the share. • The cities expect an average employment gam of 27.5% by 2010, with Carlsbad and Oceanside gaining 47.1% and 51.5%, respectively; and • Five of the six cities meet the 1% national average of commuters who bike to work. (jiven the scenic beauty of the corridor, warm chmate, and projected growth in both population and employment, the existing average mode spUt of 3.4% for waUcing and 0.8% for bicychng for the sbc cities has the potential to be much higher. Table 1 Population and Employment Growth Forecasts Jurisdiction Population Growth Forecast Employment Growth Forecast Carlsbad 1995 2020 132,200 % Change 97% 1995 41,200 2020 86,200 % Change Carlsbad 67,200 2020 132,200 % Change 97% 1995 41,200 2020 86,200 45.0% DdMar 5,100 6,100 20% 3,200 5,600 13.0% Endnitas 56,800 70,800 25% 22,600 27,800 23.0% Oceanside 145,900 202,600 39% 34,600 67,100 94.0% San Diego 1,174,400 1,693,500 44% 606,600 836,900 38.0% Solana Beach 13,500 16,100 19% 8,700 9,700 11.0% San Diego County 2,669,300 3,853,300 44% 1,089,900 1,627,900 50% Sandag Info Sept-Oct. 1999 3.5 Projected Short and Long Term Coastal Rail Trail Usage'^ The proposed Coastal Rail Trail wUl be designed for multiple-use commuting and recreation. The major uses that are anticipated mclude bicychng, walkmg, mnning, and roller skating/bladmg. The potential recreational uses are put into perspective by a 1996 national survey for the "President's 13 Information in this di^iter partially derived from Sacramento River Gremway Master Plan, 1991. 40 Commission on Americans Outdoors", showing the percentage of adults who participate in the foUowmg selected activities one or more times during a year: WaUcing for pleasure 84% Bicychng 46% Running or jogging 42% Day hUcing 27% Other uses wUl undoubtedly occur with new trends and activities. Along with the types of uses, the demand or total numbers of recreational users can be expected to increase. The number of recreational activities in San Diego County has mcreased steadUy with the growth m population and increased interest in bicychng, walking, and jogging. This trend is expected to continue. The nature of the Coastal RaU TraU wiU be somewhat different than miUti-use traUs elsewhere. Use of the traU near the beaches, such as in the City of Encinitas, is expected to be heavy vwth people using the Coastal RaU TraU to reach the shorehne. It is expected that many residents, who cunently drive to the beach, will now choose to ride or waUc using the Coastal Rail Trail. In other areas, local residents and longer distance walkers and cychsts wUI use the traU. Commuting activity is expected to be high near raU stations, schools, universities, and major employers and commercial centers. The Coastal RaU TraU has the advantage of uicorporating routes and usage pattems that afready exist since the corridor is afready extremely popular, especially in the summer months, and is estimated to generate a substantial number of destmation trips. People from San Diego County and the immediate vicmity dominate cunent use in general, although it is likely that, once completed, the Coastal RaU TraU wiU attract visitors from outside the region. For example, residents of Orange and Los Angeles Counties could use MetroLmk to Oceanside to access the trail for day trips. In order to estimate the niunber of future recreational traU users, several assumptions must be made about potential users and the Coastal Rail TraU itself These include the foUowing: • Peak season assumed to be 210 days long. • Off"-season usage assumed to be 25% of peak season (155 days). • OveraU weekday use is assumed to be 25% of weekend or hohday use. • A ratio of pedestrians to bicycUsts is assumed to be 3:2. • A range of age use for the trail system is assumed. Assumed age groups utiUzmg the Coastal Rail Trail are as foUows: Under 15 years 20% 16-25 15% 26-35 20% 36-45 22% 46-55 12% 56 and over 11% 41 Assumptions on the characteristics of traU users include the foUowing: • 70% of the traU demand wUl be derived from the local community. • 90% of the trail users wUI arrive on foot, by bicycle, bus, or train. • 10% of the traU users wUl drive specificaUy to use the Coastal RaU TraU. • Average round trip waUcing distance is assumed to be 1 mile. • Average round trip bicychng distance is assumed to be 5 mUes. • The number of average annual trips per capita in North County is assumed to be seven (7). • The number of average annual trips per capita in San Diego County is assumed to be one (1). Based on these assumptions and an estunated 1995 population base of 1.4 miUion persons for the six participating dties, the trail recreational usage projections are shown below in Table 2. Table 2 1 Trail Recreational Usage Projections Type of Activity Paiticqiatiaii Percentaf^ Annual Average Number of Trail Useni" Peak Day Nund>er of Users Annual Number of reduced vdiide trips'^ Walking for pleasure 84% 2,990,000 12,000 240,000 Bicycling 46% 1,640,000 6,600 132,500 1 Running or jogging 42% 1,490,000 6,000 120,000 iDay hiking 27% 960,000 3,900 77,500 [Total 7,080,000 28,500 570,OOo| Projections of usage by commuters are derived from the 1990 U.S. Census 'Journey to Work' data, which covers employed adults ages 16 years and older (see Table 3). Added to these commuters are an estimated 50,000 school age chUdren and coUege/university students living withm 2 mUes of the Coastal Rail Trail who may be able to waUc or ride to school rather than drive. The cunent percentage of employed adults who waUc to work is approxunately 3-4%, whUe bicyclists comprise about 1% of commuters. With completion of the Coastal RaU TraU and connections to the transit stations and employment centers, these percentages are expected to double. This translates into an estimated 15,000 employed aduh commuters who will walk or ride to work on a typical weekday. Add to this figure an estunated 15% of students who wUl waUc or ride, and the total daily number of commuters walking or bicycUng m the Coastal RaU TraU corridor is projected to be 22,500. 14 15 On tetal trail systoa Counts at individual locations will be si^ificantly lower. Does not indude people crossing the Coastal RaU Trail. Assumes tfiat 10% of trail usen drive to trail, n4iile 30% of users walk or ride rather than driv& Assumes only 1/3 ofwaOccrs to be currant usos rather than new users, whidi wtHild not affect reduced vehicular trq>s. Net reductioa equals 20% Assumes average vehide ocoqisncy of 2.3 persoas per vehide for recreational tiips. 16 U.S. Depattmoit of Tran^rartatioo, "National Walking and Bicyding Study," 1995. 42 Table 3 Joumey to Work Mode Split Jurisdiction Total Travel to Woric*^ Mode RaU % WaUc % Bicycle Carlsbad 33,132 75 2% 526 1.5% 272 .8% Del Mar 3,041 0 0% 148 4.9% 24 .8% Endnitas 31,259 11 .03% 718 2.3% 317 1% Oceanside 58,058 50 .08% 1127 1.9% 254 .4% San Diego 560,913 115 .02% 27,250 4.9% 6,111 1% Solana Beach 7,266 6 .08% 357 4.9% 80 1.1% San Diego County 1,230,466 373 .03% 55,749 4.5% 10,785 .8% 1 Source: 1990 U.S. Census 3.6 Economic Impact Califomia has one of the world's largest tourism economies, contributing over $52.7 bUhon annuaUy and over 750,000 jobs. Tourism is one of the major industries in San Diego County. The 1993 California Outdoor Recreation Plan states that trends, which affect tourism, also affect recreation, with shorter and more frequent escapes replacing the standard two week vacation. Recreational activities can generate a substantial net benefit to the community. This results in spending for food, lodging, fiael, and clothing. Research has shown that residents of the area wiU also spend money associated with the recreational activities they pursue. Multi-use traUs have been shown to have a positive economic impact on the communities they serve. The economic benefits can be both direct and indfrect. The direct economic benefits derive from people coming into the conimunity to use the Coastal Rail Trail and the spending that occurs during thefr visit. An inchrect economic benefit, which wiU result from the Coastal RaU TraU, involves an increase m the quality of Ufe in the community, improving property values near the facility, increasing tourism and improving afr quality. Greater quality of life results in the community bemg a more desfrable relocation destination for families and companies. Using the assumption that 70% of recreational users wUl come from the local conimunity, projections of new spendmg associated with the Coastal Rail Trail can be made. TraU users spend 17 Workers 16 years md older. 43 an average of about $14/per capita, meaning that the 2.1 milhon non-local recreational traU users wUI bring an estunated $29 milhon mto the coastal communities annuaUy. While there is often mitial reluctance on the part of traU ndghbors to having a pubhc thoroughfare estabhshed near thefr residence, research has shown that a well-designed and managed traU system quickly becomes a conimunity asset and in fact can increase property values of homes near the trail. A survey of homeowners found that between 23% and 30% felt that an adjacent traU 1 St significantiy or slightiy increased the value of thefr homes. Other evidence of this economic benefit can be found in the newspaper hstmgs for homes for sale, which cite proximity to the trail as a selhng feature not unlike proxunity to a park or community center. TraUs coexist, and in fact thrive, even ui aflfluent areas such as San Juan Capistrano, Rancho Santa Fe, Mission Beach, and Lafayette, CaUfornia where home values can exceed $1 mUhon. Many of these private residences have estabhshed gates to access the adjacent traU when the traU is not openly accessible. 3.7 Multi-Use TraU Conflicts In designing a traU, it is important to retain the freedom of choice for multi-use traU users. The rail traU is designed to aUow twelve foot wide two-way traffic on a hard surface with two foot wide dfrt shoulders for dramage and walking^oggmg. It is anticipated, that ui areas where there is adequate room, separated natural (dirt) traUs for pedestrians may be constmcted. Conflicts can occur for numerous reasons and 'liave been found to be related to activity style (mode of travel, level of technology, envfronmental dominance, etc.), focus of trip, expectations, attitudes toward and perceptions of the envfronment, level of tolerance for others, and different norms held by different users."^^ Conflicts, which may occur on multi-use traUs, may be avoided or resolved by the use of some techniques utUized by other traU managers. The following is a hst of possible techniques recdved from traU managers in response to a RaUs to Tr^s Conservancy survey "Sharing Conidors for Transportation and Recreation" (these are hsted from the most to least frequently reported): • signage, • education, • meetings with user groups, • expanding fadlities, • enforcement of regulations, • brochures, articles in newsletters or local newspapers, • unposing speed hmits, • volunteer traU patrols, • partial closing of the traU, IS "The Impact ofthe Brudi Creek Trail on Property Values and Crime", Sonoma Stale IMiversity, 1993. 19 Conflicts on Mutt^le-Use Trails: Synthesis ofthe literature and State of Practice, Federal Hi^way Administration, 1994 pp 1,16. 44 • bicycle beU give-away. (•The East Bay Regional Park District in Califomia requires bicycUsts to have beUs on thefr bikes in order to wam other users when they pass.) Some multi-use trail managers have reported user conflicts when there is extensive use and there is not adequate room for aU users to enjoy the pathway during those peak periods. The City of San Diego is cunently considering widening the existing 10' wide concrete muhi-use trail at Mission Beach Boardwalk for this reason. The proposed plan calls for a separation of the 'Svheeled" users (bicychsts, roUer bladers, and skate boarders) from walkers/joggers. Studies reveal that the Mission Beach BoardwaUc peak usage is over 3,000 users in a 15 minute period. Uses vary based on weather and activities along this 2-mUe path. In an attempt to curtail high- speed cyclists and avoid potential conflicts, the City of San Diego enacted a speed hmit of 8 mph for bicychsts and other wheeled users using the Mission Beach BoardwaUc. Future monitoring of this program wUI determine its effectiveness and cost to implement. There is no one best solution to avoid or resolve user conflicts on a multi-use trail. However, thoughtfiil design, ongoing education, and a trail management program that is resolution-directed, user conflicts wiU be reduced. 3.8 Air Pollution Reduction The federal Clean Afr Act (CAA) forms the basis for the effort to reduce air pollutants. National Ambient Afr Quahty Standards (NAAQS) is a basic element of the CCA, which provides a threshold for pollutants. Areas with levels that exceed the threshold for specified poUutants are designated as "non-attainment areas". Each state is mandated to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) which specifies the measures taken by each state to reduce pollutants. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) prepares the San Diego region's SIP. The adopted SIP includes four air quality strategies: ridesharing, transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, and bicycle facilities and bicycle programs. "On-road vehicle emissions account for approximately 60% of smog in the San Diego region."^*^ Walkmg and bicyclmg do not consume petroleum products and are non-polluting modes of transportation. Walking and bicycling generally replace short distance commuting trips, which are the most poUutmg of vehicle trips. The 1990 amenchnents to the CCA recognize the use of bicychng and walking as transportation and one that can effectively reduce carbon monoxide emissions from mobUe sources (cars, tmcks, buses, etc). There have been some studies completed to address the potential benefits to air quality. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has conducted numerous studies on the benefits of cycUng. In the United States in 1991, it was estimated "that bicychng and walking were equivalent to 7.6 and 28.1 bUUon motor vehicle miles, saving 370 to 1,340 miUion gaUons of gasolme and 4.4 SANDAG, "1998 Regional Transportation Plan". 45 to 16.3 miUion metric tons of exhaust emission afr poUution."^* Additional estimates of the afr pollution cost savings resuhmg from increased waUdng or bicycUng rather than drivmg a car, are estimated at $0.40 per 2.5-niUe urban commute trip and $0.24 for aU other urban trips.^ Quantifying these benefits by monitoring changes m air quahty is difficult because madequate data exists and it is difficult to recognize the benefit of just one program when there are many other reasons or programs which may contribute to a reduction in afr pollution. AdditionaUy, it is difficult to project what the usage wiU be of a facihty that has yet to be buUt. The Air PoUution Control District encourages the use of uitegrated planning for land use, transportation, and afr quality, which supports aU modes of transportation. The CaUfomia Afr Resources Board (CARB) estimates that a fiiUy integrated plan can achieve trip reductions of 10 to 23 percent with commensurate air quaUty benefits. Incorporating non-motorized transportation and mass transit programs can effectively resuh m increased afr quality. Federal Hi^way Administration, "The National Bicyding and Walking Study," pp 18. 22 Georgia Institute of Tedmology Center fiw Pianning and Devdopment, Nefcon, Arthur C. "Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicyde Access Ways: Public Policy Rationale andthe Nature of Public and Private Bene^iU", 1995, ppI3 46 4.0 Implementation Upon adoption of the Project Study Report and approval of the environmental document, several key issues wiU need to be resolved prior to actual implementation. These key issues are hsted below and are discussed in detail within this chapter: • How wUl design and constmction of the project be fiinded? • What agreements need to be negotiated to permit public access within the railroad right-of-way? • Who wiU manage the trail? • How wiU the project be operated and maintained? 4.1 Funding Funding to plan the trail, conduct envfronmental review, complete the pemiits, design, and constmct the Coastal RaU TraU has come from a variety of local, state, and federal fimding sources. To date, the foUowing grant fiinds have been awarded: Congestion Management and Air Quality (Federal) $ 5,824,000 TransNet (State) 1,461,500 Transportation Enhancement Activities (Federal-TEA21) 4,513,500* Transportation Enhancement (Federal) 600,000 Afr PoUution Control District (State) 184.000 Total $12.583.000 •Includes both 1996/97 & 1998/99 fimding Additional fimding wUl need to be obtained, dther mdependently or jointly with two or more agencies, m order to fund the balance of the design and constmction. The potential for fundmg the project through grant funds is very favorable. Bicycle advocacy has increased considerably since the unplementation of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This act made the most comprehensive revision of federal surface transportation fimdmg in 35 years. The legislation shifted many transportation decisions previously made by the federal government to the states and Metropohtan Planning Organizations (MPO's). Some fiinds previously reserved for motorized transportation were aUocated for bicycle and pedestrian facUities programs. TEA- 21, the reauthorization of ISTEA, approved in spring of 1998 allocated additional fimds for pedestrian and bicycle enhancement projects, mcludmg education, over the next six years. Within the ISTEA umbreUa, a program called Congestion Management and Afr Quality (CMAQ) encourages transit-related, altemate mode projects. CMAQ funds are intended for use in non- attainment air quality areas for the purpose of improvuig air quality by redudng traffic congestion, road maintenance, petroleum consumption and demand for additional roads. Approved CMAQ fiinded projects mclude new or improved bicycle lanes, or paths; traffic control devices to facUitate bicycle travel; parkmg facUities for bicycles; bicycle route maps; and programs for bicycle safety, education, and promotion. 47 Other bicycle-related funding programs are summarized below. A comprehensive list of all local, state and federal fimdmg programs that can be used to develop traUs and bikeways, are hsted ui Table 36, located in Appendix H. The Surface Transportation Program (STP): **the other ISTEA program" operates as a block grant program and may be used by states and local govemments for a variety of roadway and altemative travel mode projects. Under ISTEA, 10% of the states' STP fijnds are earmarked for Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA). Projects fimded through TEA must have a direct relationship to the muhi-modal transportation system and provide features, which enhance traditional transportation projects. Local agendes must fund an 11.5% match for bicycle, pedestrian, and right-of-way projects. During 1993/94, the CaUfomia Transportation Commission allocated $3.8 mUUon in TEA fimds for bikeway and bicycle/pedestrian projects in the San Diego region. Funding earmarked for regional bUceway projects wUl create both north-south and connecting east-west trails throughout the county. The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program: a state fiinding program for projects that offset environmental unpacts of modified or new pubhc transportation facihties. These include streets, mass transit guideways, park and ride facihties, and transit stations. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) levies fees of up to $4 per vehicle through motor vehicle registration fees to fiind projects which contribute toward meeting Cahfomia Clean Afr Act goals. Projects funded have mcluded bicycle safety enforcement, commuter education, and other programs that have a high potential to improve air quaUty. Transportation Development Act Article HI (SB 821). state block grants awarded annuaUy to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in Califomia. These fimds origmate from state sales tax and are distributed through the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) to local jurisdictions based on criteria adopted by the RTP A. AB 434: fimds are avaUable to dean afr transportation projects, including bicycle projects, in California. The State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA): coordinates an annual program that is available for fimdmg bicycle projects. AvaUable as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects, which encourage bicychng for commuting purposes. Recent changes in this program uicreased the fimduig from $360,000 avaUable statewide annually to over $12 mUUon over a 5 year period. The Railroad-Highway Crossing Program: provides fiinds for site improvements and mstallation of safety and protection systems, such as waming devices, Ulumination and signals on existing raifroad-highway grade crossings. To qualify for this federal program, a project must be on a pubUc road, sponsored by a County or City, be mcluded on the CPUC "Recommended List of Pubhc Crossmgs m Cahfomia for Improved Crossing Protection with Federal Funduig", and be included in the appropriate Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) developed by a 48 Metropohtan Planning Organization (MPO). A ten percent local matching fund is required. (The CPUC and CalTrans both administer the at-grade and grade separated fiinding programs. Both programs are potential sources of Coastal RaU TraU fiinding, if bicycle and pedestrian facihties are mcluded as part of the crossmg improvement.) Grade Separation Program: provides fimds for raUroad grade separation projects by estabUshing a priority list of those most urgentiy m need of separation, including the elimination of existing or proposed grade crossings, the elimination of grade crossings by removal or relocation of streets or railroad tracks, and existing grade separations most urgently in need of reconstmction. The list, based on criteria estabUshed by the PUC, includes projects on dty streets, county roads, and state highways, which are not freeways. Funding applications may requfre completion and adoption of a bicycle master plan, estimates of the costs and benefits of the system (mcludmg saved vehicle trips and reduced afr poUution), proof of pubUc uivolvement and support, CEQA compUance, access to right-of-way, and commitment of local resources. NCTD issued a pohcy in 1998, which stated that they would remain fiscaUy neutral to any activity associated with the Coastal RaU Trail. 4.2 Agreements NCTD (within Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and Del Mar) and MTDB (within the City of San Diego) own the raifroad right-of-way. Cunently, the right-of-way does not pemiit pubhc access, except for the segments m Solana Beach and Cardiff where there are agreements with NCTD and Solana Beach to pennit public access. At the beginning of this planning process, for the Coastal RaU TraU, h was determmed that a Memorandum of Understandmg was necessary to ensure that aU of the cities and the transit agency were m agreement to cooperatively work together towards developing a traU withui the raUroad right-of-way. Memorandum of Understanding In an effort to ensure contmued coorduiation and cooperation, the Coastal RaU Trail Committee prepared a Memorandum of Understandmg (MOU). City Coundl meetmgs were held to review the MOU, which estabhshes a basic framework and agreement for working cooperatively in planning, designing, constmcting, and mamtauiing the Coastal Rail Trail (see Appendix E). The signatory agencies are the cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Oceanside, San Diego, Solana Beach, and NCTD and MTDB. City of Carlsbad as Lead Agency for CEQA Compliance Each of the four coastal cities, Oceanside, Encinitas, Solana Beach and Del Mar approved resolutions, which authorized the City of Carlsbad to act as lead agency for purposes of CEQA compliance for the Coastal Rail Trail project. The City of San Diego elected to process thefr own environmental document independently from the five northera coastal cities. City of Carlsbad anticipates release ofthe environmental document for pubhc review in late 2000. 49 Public Access Agreements The raU right-of-way acqufred by NCTD or MTDB ranges from *in fee', easement, and ''filing lands" under the general Raifroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875. Historic easements granted to the raifroad are based on the corridor being used as a raifroad facUity. Other uses have been approved by the raUroad as long as the use does not infifrige on raifroad operations. Easements within the SDNR right-of-way range from parking stmctures encroaching mto the right-of-way, to gas, sewer, water, and cable hnes, to a beautification project m Cardiff. Upon completion of this PSR and prior to implementation of any of the traU segments, additional agreements for public access vwU need to be negotiated between each agency and the right-of-way owner (NCTD or MTDB). The easement or license would specificaUy identify the location ofthe traU, setbacks, and areas for required constmction. At a minimum, a twenty (20) foot easement would be requfred to accommodate the traU, requfred setbacks and gracUng. The easement boundaries would need to be surveyed and field marked for the constmction phase and future maintenance. A sample agreement is included m Appendbc F (Sample Agreement for Use of Portions of RaUroad Right-of-Way). As a part of the final design for each phase, other possible impacts related to constmction and existing utility easements wUl be determined. Generally, the trail may be adjusted to avoid above ground utUity poles, sewer manholes, and stmctures, such as parking lots. Prior to constmctmg on top of an easement for cable, gas, water, sewer, etc, the trail manager would require agreements which indemnify the utUity company, mandate liabihty insurance, and require rdmbursement for the upgrade or relocation of facilities (i.e. encasing pipes below the trail). Most ofthe existing utihty easements mn paraUel along the raifroad, those that cross the right-of- way do so at a 90 degree angle. Minimum clearance for facUities below the track is six (6) feet below bottom of rail. Mmimum clearance for facihties above the rail lines is twenty-six (26) feet. For horizontal facihties, there is no minimum clearance. Utihty firms may consider placing fiber optic cables within or under the pavement of the Coastal Rail TraU for ease of maintenance and identification. The Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park Ul Vfrgmia, who acqufred an abandoned raUroad corridor, has been able to seU yearly hcenses for fiber optic cables, which are mstaUed withm the paved trail. AU of the fimds necessary to maintain and operate the traU are received from these annual license fees. 50 4.3 Trail Management Project management includes design, constmction, maintenance and monitoring. The project wiU traverse across the boundaries of six cities and each may choose to manage the trail within thdr jurisdictions. However, there are other options to consider related to the management of the Coastal RaU Trail. 1. Each agency might conduct project management of the raU trail within thefr jurisdictions through a joint agreement with NCTD or MTDB for use ofthe corridor. 2. One agency (dther a city or the raUroad), through a Joint Powers Authority Agreement (JPA), mi^t conduct project management for the entfre traU. 3. An mdependent, non-profit organization might conduct trail management on behalf of one or more of the six agencies. The advantages of each mdividual agency constmcting and maintaining the traU within their city limits are that each agency is famihar wdth the needs of their city; will have more flexibUity m the design of the project within their jurisdiction; will have control over the maintenance and monitoring of the traU; and may pursue fiinding for thefr segment of the trail. The advantages of one agency operating and maintaining the traU for more than one city may include reduced insurance costs, less duphcation in manpower and equipment, and greater abUity to lobby for grant fijnds. Since the trail wiU be constmcted in phases, agreements with NCTD or MTDB wiU occur during the design phase of each segment. Upon completion of the entfre 44 mUe trail or upon completion of the traU through several cities, it may be desfrable at that time to enter into a JPA for the ongoing trail management. There are obvious cost and efficiency advantages to having one agency or a Joint Powers Authority Agency control unplementation and operation of the trail. The agency would be in a better position to secure capital fiinding as a regional, muhi-jurisdictional project and provide consistent and coordinated design, constmction, maintenance and operations. Under this scenario, uidividual cities and SDNR would participate in the final design of the traU, assuming it met minimum standards prescribed. A joint liability insurance policy that protects all of the participating agencies from the costs of any potential lawsuit and uniform indemnification polides to SDNR may be more affordable. An additional option for traU management is to have the raU operator (NCTD) maintain the traU. The advantages in having NCTD control the Coastal RaU TraU aUows for coordination of operations, mamtenance, and security in conjunction with the operations of the raifroad and managing the liability aspects of the trail system. The costs to conduct trail management may be assessed to each agency based on the mileage of trail within thefr jurisdiction. The disadvantage to NCTD operating the traU is that NCTD is not in the business of maintaining or constmctmg trails or parks and their primary focus will be on operating a railroad and bus service. 51 The cities, or NCTD and MTDB, may determine that a JPA is the vehicle, which wiU provide the best ongoing management. The JPA agreement wUl detaU and identify who the members are, their duties and authority, meetmg and votmg powers, finances, debts and habihties, amendment procedures, and meeting times and places. Procedures for operatmg the traU would be adopted by the JPA as a separate document, which would allow for modifications and amendments. Several other raU trails have elected to have a non-profit trail organization operate and maintam the traU. A non-profit corporation, owned by three counties in Pennsylvania, operates the 42 mUe Youghiogheny River TraU, both a traU along an abandoned raUroad right-of-way, and a raU traU along an active raUroad. The non-profit corporation recdves fimding from the three counties, grants, adopt-a-trail programs, volunteer efforts, sale of t-shirts, and other fimdraisers. The advantage to having a non-profit corporation operate the traU is that it allows and encourages active participation by the conununity, creates a non-biased entity, provides a dedicated organization to manage the trail, may be more self-serving as thefr only mterest is to develop and manage the traU, may be more cost effective, and may provide a more regional, coordinated management effort. The disadvantages found in the Regional TraU Corporation are lack of uniform financial commitment by the participating agencies, hmited commitment, and contradictory goals. 4.4 Operation and Maintenance Success.f ul operation and mamtenance ofthe Coastal RaU TraU is of utmost importance for the productive use of the facility, and the financial and habUity resources of the local jurisdictions. As discussed ui the previous section, each individual agency, a single agency, a Jomt Powers Authority, or a nonprofit agency may undertake operation and maintenance. This chapter identifies the issues related to the tasks associated with the actual operation and maintenance. Operation activities on the raU traU wUl consist primarUy of monitoring and security. Monitoring accidents, which includes identifying the primary cause of the accident and rectifying any physical deficiencies, must be accomphshed by each jurisdiction. The local police department typically has the responsibihty for coUectmg accident information and identifying responsibUity, whUe the pubhc works, engmeering, or community services department has the responsibUity for identifying and improving physical or operational conditions, which may have contributed to the acddent. Additionally, the raifroad operator, such as NCTD/ MTDB and the Federal Raifroad Administration (FRA) maintain accident records for occunences on the tracks. TypicaUy, the pubhc works department also has the responsibUity for making the determination to wara trail users of conditions, and to close the traU when wananted. Security and Safety Most muhi-use trails in the United States do not have a dedicated pohce patrol for the facUity. It is more coinmon for local pohce to patrol sections of paved traUs not visible from adjacent streets on an mtermittent basis. Based on other smular traUs, a multi-use traU such as the Coastal RaU TraU with average usage (250,000 user days per year) or greater wUl require 1 man-hour per day for every 5 mUes of bUce path. This translates uito roughly 8 man-hours per day for the entire 52 Coastal RaU TraU based on the cunent aUgnment. This figure would also vary by time of week and year. Off-peak weekdays may requfre only 3 man-hours per day, whUe peak weekends may requfre as much as 20 man-hours per day. WhUe each local pohce department is responsible for selecting the most appropriate means of patroUing thefr segment (if at aU), it may be beneficial to patrol the Coastal RaU Trail using bicycle-mounted officers. Volunteers from local bicychng organizations could provide information to trail users and report problems to the authorities to supplement traU patrols. However, police or volunteer patrols are not required elements of a success.f ul multi-use trail. A summary of key security recommendations is presented below: • Make all segments of the Coastal RaU TraU accessible, to within 500 feet, for emergency vehicles. • Locate mileposts every mile or one half mUe and identify markers on maps. • lUuminate aU grade crossings and under crossings using photosensitive triggers. • Locate all vegetation at least 10 feet from the Coastal RaU Trail where possible. • Design bridges and under crossings so that visibility is maximized; under crossmgs should be visible for entire length; use graffiti resistant materials. • Provide bicycle racks (that aUow for both frame and wheels to be locked) and lockers at transit stations and other key destinations. • Provide fire and pohce departments with a map of the entire traU system, along with access points and keys/combinations to gates/bollards. • Enforce speed hmits and other mles of the road. Studies conducted by the RTC of trails along active raU lines have shown that safety is not a significant problem. The RTC survey of 49 rails-with-trails facUities show that there has only been one recorded accident that was dfrectly related to the trail's proximity to the raUway tracks. In this case, a woman ignored the lowered gates, flashing lights, and ringing bell at a grade crossing. Considering that the existing rail traUs had more than 9.2 milUon annual user-days, the accident rate does not indicate safety as a primary concern.^ The Coastal RaU Trail is unique in that the corridor hosts 43 trains daily, with speeds up to 90 mph and it borders an attractive recreational element, the beach. By way of comparison, bicycUsts and pedestrians in the corridor must now ride or walk on existuig roadways within several feet of up to 40,000 vehicles per day travehng upwards of 50 or 60 mUes per hour. By this measurement, people's exposure to potential injury wiU be greatly reduced on the Coastal RaU Trail, where the number of trains is substantiaUy lower than adjacent roadway volumes. The fact is that people afready waUc along and cross the railway tracks which, without tremendous investment in fencing, maintenance, and enforcement, will continue. Providing a trail away from the raUway tracks and baniers, where requfred, between the railway tracks and the traU, helps 23 RaUs-With-Trails Conservancy, "RaUs-With-TraUs, September 1997 Update", Patrick Kraich, 1997 53 organize and separate an activity that afready exists. The raUroad tracks are located adjacent to streets, sidewalks, tram stations, parking lots, and other areas where they are completely unprotected. The safety conceras of a traU along the raifroad tracks, set back to the far edge of the raifroad right-of-way, should not be any different than an adjacent street and sidewaUc. Any activity within the raUroad right-of-way should be evaluated regarding safety concems. Safety should be addressed on the Coastal Rail Trail in the foUowing manner: • Adhere to the estabhshed design, operation, and maintenance standards presented in this document. • Supplement these standards with the sound judgement of professional engineers and park mamtenance personnel. • Maintain adequate recording and response mechanisms for reported safety and maintenance problems. • Thoroughly research and document the causes of each reported accident on the Coastal RaU TraU. Respond to accident investigations by appropriate design or operation hnprovements. • Provide mUe posts on the traU so that emergency response can be dfrected. • Design the trail, its stmctures, and access points to be accessible by emergency vehicles. BoUards at the entrance to each traU segment should be removable by the appropriate fire, ambulance, and police agencies. Constrained segments of the traU that cannot accommodate emergency vehicles should not be longer than 500 feet. • Estabhsh a haison with the raifroad operations department to respond to safety conceras. Special Safety Features Special features, which may enhance the safety on the Coastal RaU TraU, include the use of solar- powered phones, panic buttons, and closed-cfrcuit television. However, no conclusive proof exists that these devices are effective at reducing crime or improvuig response time. Installation of solar phones or closed cfrcuit televisions (CCTV) may be warranted when it has been determined that a safety problem exists. They would need to be monitored 24 hours per day in order to be effective and not represent a UabUity to the traU manager. Solar phones, sinular to those being installed by CalTrans along highways, offer a more cost effective approach that may be appropriate to certain sections ofthe Coastal Rail TraU. They are not intended, however, to be a primary response mechanism for emergencies but rather a support feature. Undercrossmgs that exceed 75 feet m length are good candidate locations for phones, as a supplement to appropriate hghting. The Vasona TraU m Santa Clara Coimty mstaUed solar phones, which are mamtained by the County Parks. Emergency caUs are unmediately trans.f ened to the appropriate Pohce/Ffre service. A typical concem expressed by people famihar with the Coaster train is that they cannot hear the train when it is approachmg. Flashing hghts located along the traU to alert traU users that a train is coming may be desfrable. 54 Monitoring Specific responsibilities should be assigned within each city to individuals responsible for monitoring the unplementation of the Coastal RaU Trail over time or with a Joint Agency Trail Manager. This TraU Coordinator/Manager might be responsible for the following: ensuring appropriate design and constmction standards, acting as clearinghouse for aU reported maintenance and safety problems, collecting information from and dispersing information to the appropriate departments workmg with local pubhc advocacy and advisory bodies m the design and operation of the traU, preparing fimding apphcations to implement and maintain the trail, administering grant programs, maintaining maintenance log, conductmg fiindraismg events to fimd additional amenities for the trail managmg volunteer programs for maintenance and/or monitoring safety practices, and developing fundraising products for distribution, managing traU events, and conducting "adopt a traU" programs. Mainterumce Regular maintenance and maintenance logs are essential to ensuring that the facUity remains an asset to the community and, most importantly, reduces liability. Many of these maintenance items are dependent on the type and amount of landscaping and supporting infrastmcture that is developed along the traU. It is recommended that a consistent maintenance procedure be developed for each jurisdiction along the RaU TraU to ensure, at a minimum, that the facility is safe for trail users. Each jurisdiction should have a mechanism to identify, record, and respond to maintenance problems, and to keep written records of such actions. Special mamtenance equipment such as a sweeper may be purchased jouitly by all local jurisdictions, if a joint agency does not manage the trail, thereby reducing costs. Typical maintenance vehicles for the traU wUl be hght pick up tmcks, sweepers, and occasionaUy heavy dump tmcks and tractors. Care should be taken when operating heavier equipment on the Coastal Rail TraU to wam traU users and to avoid breaking edges of the traU surface. If the Coastal RaU TraU serves as a maintenance access road for the raifroad, the traU width and pavement section should reflect the anticipated wdght and frequency of vehicles. Agreements with the raUroad on access to the traU and methods of warning traU users when track repair is in progress should be developed as part of the easement process. 55 Table 4 shows the regular mamtenance activities requfred for the Coastal RaU TraU. Table Maintenance 4 Schedule Item Frequency Sign replacement and repafr 1-3 years Pavement maridng refdacement 1-3 years Tree, shrub, & grass trimming/fertilization 5 months -1 year Pavement sealing/potholes 5-15 years Clean draina^ system 1 year Pavement sweeping Monthly - annuaUy as needed ShoiUder & grass mowing as needed Trash disposal as needed Lighting replacement/repair 1 year Ciraffiti removal weekly - monthly as needed Maintain fimuture 1 year Fountain/restroom cleaning/repafr weekly - monthly as needed Pnming 1 -4 years Bridge/tunnel inspection 1 year Remove &Uen trees as needed Weed control monthly - as needed Maintain emer^ncy phones, CCTV 1 year Maintain irrigation lines/ replace stmnklers 1 year Irrigate/water plants weekly - monthly as needed The total estunated annual maintenance cost for the Class I portion of the Coastal RaU TraU is $375,000 for the 32-niile aUgnment. This is based on an mdustry-standard of $8,500 per mile of bUce path annuaUy. In areas where there is landscaping, frrigation, parklike amenities, the costs for maintenance would be much greater. The Coastal RaU TraU wiU be located parallel or adjacent to private properties along most of its proposed aUgnment. Most of the corridor is cunently used for access, however increased use may resuk in a percdved sense of loss of privacy and security. Ndghbor concems typically include a loss of visual privacy, increased crime, vandahsm, noise, and fire. Wherever feasible, the traU should be located as far away from residences as possible to protect the privacy of homeowners. New privacy fencing is generaUy not requfred as part of the raU traU project as most land owners have already taken measures to screen thefr property from existing passenger trams and informal users ofthe right-of-way. Fencing types, designs, and landscaping suggestions may be provided to property owners so that they can select the most appropriate type of privacy barrier for their property. Studies conducted by Sonoma State University", City of Escondido^', and the Rails-to-TraUs Conservancy^ have shown that new multi-use trails do not resuh in increased crime to adjacent 24 25 Brush Creek TraU Study, Sonoma State University, 1992. City of Escondido, Report on Safety for Escondido Creek Channel Bike Path, November 1998. 56 property owners. Criminal activity is not Ukely to occur along a traU that is weU planned, designed, operated, mamtained, and monitored. Both the City of Escondido and the RaUs-to- TraUs Conservancy reports mdicated that traUs actuaUy tend to reduce crime by cleanmg up the landscape and attractuig people who use the traU for recreation and transportation. TraU users wUl need to be managed during constmction and periodic maintenance ofthe raU fraU, when sections ofthe trail wiU be closed or unavaUable to traU users. Trail users must be warned of unpending traU closures, and given adequate detour uiformation to bypass the closed or unfinished section of trail. This can be accomplished through the use of standard signage at the entrance to each affected section of traU (i.e. "TraU Closed"), uicludmg (but not Umited to) information on altemate routes and dates of closure. Sections of the traU that are closed must be gated or otherwise blockaded and clearly signed as closed to pubUc use. TraU users should be dfrected to alteraate routes on nearby surface streets. 4.5 Project Costs Project costs mclude clearmg, demohtion, grading, and constmction of the path. Separate hne hems are mcluded for at-grade crossing treatments, bridges, drainage stmctures, signs, and striping. Unit prices for site amenities such as trash receptacles, benches, drinking fountains, solar emergency caU boxes, and hghting are hsted as optional items. The cost estimates are prehminary only. More detaUed estunates wUl be prepared during the final design phases for each constmction project. The cost estimates were prepared based the foUowing assumptions: 1. Gfrading width is 20'. Paved traU is 12' wide with 2' shoulders. 2 Fencing is induded in specific areas where noted. Fendng costs may vary based the type of fencing selected by each city and the spedfic use, i.e., constraining or dehneation, however the cost estimate used equates to a welded-wfre mesh fence or one simUar to quality. 3. Asphalt costs are based on 3" thick with 6' base. 4. Optional items are not included in the final constmction costs estimates. 5. Street grade crossings costs include signing, striping, loop detectors, and median modification improvements. 6. Cost for improvements for unsignalized roadway crossings for low volume streets are included in overall striping and signing costs. 7. Specific costs are identified for unsignalized arterial crossings, which wiU require flashing warning lights. 8. Landscaping and frrigation under optional items is assumed for a 5' wide landscaped and urigated section on both sides of the traU. 9. At-grade crossings are "typical" at-grade pedestrian costs. Costs may vary depending on distance to connect to nearest railroad crossing. ^^Rail trails and Safe Commiinities, the Experience on 372 TraUs, RaUs to Trails Conservancy in cooperation with National Park SCTvice, January 1998. 57 COASTAL HAIL TRAft PRELrHtNARY COST ESTIMATE DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTIQW UNIT UNIT PRICE Gfadrng (20' wido) (Del Mar = 9' wtde} Bench Gfadng AsphaH Paving (4' thick) Cl II Agg Base (6" Thick) PCC Pavmg (7') Fencing - 6' Chain Link Fencing - 4' Cham Link AC Overlay Drainage SlnpmgS Signing StreafGrade Crossing New Signakzed Sbaat Crossings Al-Gtade Crossing Easement AcquisIbon Retaining Wall Bridge « Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bridge 9 Jmmy Duianle Pedestrian Overaossing Bridge 9 Dralnaga Charmel Mobflu ation ClaatA Qrub Furnish i Install Project Signs Salaty Railing Grind Pavement la Overlay Fadlity a Utility Relocation Adjust Manho4a Traftk: Control Erosion Control Landscape ft Inigahan Construcnon Sutitotal ConlmgBncy 20K Construction Total AHENmES ICla«. I .cclton nnl»f Trash Receptades (S/mi) Benches (S/mi) Drinking FaucBlsd mil) Waler Main Connoclton (l'i"*) Solar Cal Boies (1/mi) Lt^bng (300H) Bike Racks (lAni) Putjfcc Art (1% Constructton) Amenities SutMolal Contngoncy [20%; AmenMlas Totsl SOFT COSTS CY S BOO LF $ 7 so SF 5 1 30 SF S OBO SF S 4 50 LF $ 30 00 LF S 850 SF S 0.60 LS S 33.000 00 LF f 1.25 EA $ 15.000 00 EA S 50,000 00 EA SIOO.OOO 00 SF t 2 50 SF s 40 00 SF S 200 00 IS $230,000 00 EA (375,000 00 SF S 100 00 LS s 10.000 00 AC $ B.OOO 00 EA « 1.500.00 LF s 90.00 SF t 0 25 MUe t 10,000 00 EA s 490 00 LS i 10.000 IX) AC s t.000.00 SF t 4 25 EA t 300.00 EA t 65 00 EA s 2,000 00 EA s 5,000 00 EA s S.OOO 00 EA $ 5.000 00 EA s 350 00 LS 1% Final Englneadng Design A Topography (15%) Envfconmanlat A Patmits (10%) Legal. Apptaisal. fl/W S Misc (5%) Project Managemant (S%) flalltoad Plan Check. lnsp«*k>n a Flagjng (5%) Inspection (7%) Surveying (3%) Sort Co<l« Total PROJECT TOTAL CHy ol Ocaansldt QUANTITY 8.B40 t 70.720 29,500 ( 236.000 129.912 S 168.886 354.000 t 460.200 129.912 i 103.930 354.000 s 283.200 1,558 s 46,740 lO.tSO s 304,500 25.000 $ 12,500 s s s 17.800 s 22.250 36.500 s 45.825 8 1 120.000 E s 90.000 s 2 s 100.000 s 1 s 100,000 10.000 1 25.000 47,572 s 118.930 2,660 s 106,400 4.520 % 180.800 s 3.520 s 704,000 1 S 10,000 5 S 40.000 2 % 3,000 250 t 22,500 25.000 $ 6.250 2-OS S 20.504 I 00 S 10.000 5.00 J 5.000 108.260 t 460,105 t 1.253.784 S 250.757 $ 1.504.541 10 S 3,076 10 t 6S0 Z t 4.000 2 S 10.000 2 I 10,000 36 $ 180.000 2 1 700 I 15,045 t 223,471 $ 44,694 I 268,165 225.681 160,454 75.227 7S.227 75,227 105.316 46,138 t 762,270 $ 2,524,976 CHy of Cariabad 600 S 60.000 1 t 10.000 13 5 4 108.000 2 S 3,000 750 t 67.500 $ 5 59 ( 55.871 1 00 S 10.000 13 5 $ 13.500 290,000 J 1,232.500 S 4,203.628 S 840,725 I 6,044,351 28 f 8.400 28 i 1,620 6 $ 12.000 6 % 30.000 6 t 30.000 98 t 490,000 6 S 2,100 $ 50.444 s 574,320 s 114.864 t 689.1B4 $ 756,663 s 604,435 s 252,216 $ 2S2.218 t 252,218 t 353,105 s 161,331 t 2,522,176 $ «,2$5,711 CHy ol EnclnHai COST 22,358 S 178.864 B.OOO $ 60.000 268.296 J 346.786 268.296 S 214,637 5,300 t 159.000 1 S 33.000 32,860 S 41.100 6 S 90.000 s 2 S 200.000 10,000 I 25.000 12.560 S 502.400 $ 960 S 96,000 t i 10,000 '0 3 $ 82,400 2 S 3,000 300 S 27.000 $ 4.23 S 42,348 1.00 S 10.000 10 3 $ 10,300 223.580 $ 960.215 S 3,064,049 9 616,810 $ 3.700,659 Zl % 6.300 21 $ 1,366 4 S 8,000 4 S 20.000 4 f 20,000 75 » 375,000 4 t 1,400 $ 37,009 9 432,066 J 86,413 9 516,478 CHy of Solana B»ach 100.600 100.BOO 1 8,400 2 131,040 60,640 16,500 10.500 30,000 750,000 10,000 24,800 3,000 10.000 3.100 360.200 1,738,960 347,796 2,066,776 8 s 2,400 B $ 620 2 $ 4,000 2 % 10,000 2 t 10,000 57 s ZBS.OOO 2 s 700 t 20,866 $ 312,620 $ 62.524 $ 375,144 s 555,129 S 313.016 $ 370,086 $ 208.678 $ 185,043 $ 104.339 s 166,043 s 104,339 t 185,043 s 104,339 s 269,060 s 148,074 s 111.026 $ 62,603 1 1.850,429 t 1,043,388 $ «,0e»,7S6 $ 3,505,308 y of Dal Mar CKv ol San DIMO PROJECT ' COST QUANTITY COST OUANTITV COST ; 24.000 10380 $ 83.040 82,476 S 659,624 s 6,000 I 60,000 958.400 S 1,245,920 1.811.406 S 2,354,630 956.400 S 756.720 1.811.408 t 1.449.126 106,000 S 477,000 106.000 t 477,000 44.950.00 $ 1.348.500 70,358 S 2,110,740 5,000.00 s 42.500 5.000 t 42,500 s 25,000 S 12,600 300 S 99.000 5 S 148,500 ! 32.563 117.200 00 $ 146,600 121,630 t 296,536 90,000 15.00 « 225.000 43 t 645,000 s 2 S 100,000 400.000 100 S 100,000 S S 800.000 s 67,572 S 168,930 1,720 $ 68,800 21,460 f 856,400 $ 3.520 S 704,000 230.000 s 1 * 230,000 200 % 750.000 4 » 1,500,000 2.400 00 % 240,000 4,160 $ 416,000 15 S 150,000 19 $ 190,000 0.60 S 4,803 33 S 260,003 % 6 S 12,000 % 1.300 S 117,000 t 25,000 1 6,250 % 12 S 118,723 1 » 490 1 $ 490 600 $ 50,000 9 $ 90,000 2000 S 20.000 52 S 51,900 649,000 00 S 3.606.250 1,553,240 t 6,601.270 776.563 s 9,426,523 s Z0,483,524 155,313 1 1.885.305 s 4,096,706 931,875 s 11.311.627 $ 24.580,229 eo oo t 24.000 147 S 44,178 BOOO $ 5.200 147 $ 9,666 16 00 $ 32,000 30 S 60,000 1600 S 80,000 30 * 150,000 16 00 $ 80.000 30 t 150,000 350 00 $ 1,750,000 816 t 3,060,000 16 00 $ 6,800 30 S 10,500 S ( 123.366 S S 1.978.800 $ 3.6044!31 $ \ 395,360 $ 700 B46 s % 2,372.160 $ 4,205,077 $ 139.781 t 1.698.774 « 3.667,034 $ 93.188 t 1,131,183 9 2,156,158 s 46,694 $ 666,691 $ 1.078,079 % 46.594 s 565,591 » 1,078,079 % 46.594 565,591 t 1.078,079 % 65.231 791,628 9 1,509.310 27.956 339.36481 f 646,847 1 s 465,938 1,397,813 $ $ 1 5,656,914 9,33»,M>1 S T 11,233,687 M,018,8B3 Prepared by Helming Engineeiing Sept 12, 2000 based on quanHli** from Transtech Estimate dicusslon ModliedOct 1,2000 to Include Diy ol Soi Olego. Modified Oct. 25,2000 to indude CHies ol Sdwia Beach ft Del Mw. with Dokken Engineerkig and addiUonal Hekl teview 5.0 Trail Alignment The entfre 44-imle raUway corridor was evaluated to determme whether it was economicaUy viable and envfronmentaUy sound to constmct a multi-use path along the right-of-way for the entfre distance from Oceanside to San Diego. Prehminary analysis of the corridor was conducted and potential altematives were explored by walkmg along the right-of-way, reviewmg avaUable mappmg, and scmtinizmg aerial photographs. The ahgnment was divided into 11 distinct project segments withm each city for closer evaluation. The methodology used to identify various altematives and recommend the preferted alignment, mcluded the following considerations: • AvaUable width of the raUroad right-of-way; • Physical obstmctions of the raUroad right-of-way; • Access to transit stations; • UtUization of existing mformal traUs; • Envfroimiental constraints; and • Cost. The final ahgnment discussed in this chapter and presented m the detaUed project ahgnment drawings (Drawing No. 376-9) foUowing the Appendices, represents a consdentious effort to locate a multi-use path m logical, non-prohibitive areas. The prehminary study completed m 1989 by Morrison-Knudsen considered traU bridges across the five lagoons that separate each of the northera coastal cities. However, upon fiarther review m conjunction with this PSR, constmction ofthe pathway across the lagoons is not bdng considered at this time, except a proposed bridge over an existing sewer hne across the Agua Hedionda Lagoon m Carlsbad. Constmction ofnew bridges across the lagoons or constmction of a bridge extension along existing railway tresties would be cost prohibitive and environmentally constrained. Avoidance of the lagoons does not reduce the overall continuity and benefits of the Coastal Rail Trail. In the fiiture, fiirther analysis ofa trail across one or more of the lagoons may be considered when the SDNR explores reconstmction of existuig bridges or constmction of new bridges to accommodate increased raU services. At that time, local agencies may encourage the constmction of a separate Class I traU in conjunction vnth the SDNR project(s). AdditionaUy, NCTD is conducting a Capital Study Master Plan for the entfre raifroad right-of-way, which could impact the alignment ofthe Coastal RaU TraU. At each lagoon, the traU wUl utUize existuig Class II bicycle lanes along Highway 101 (Coast Highway). In downtown San Diego, the Coastal RaU Trail wUl divert to Pacific Coast Highway bicycle lanes due to a constrained right-of-way and high traffic volumes on east-west major roads. The raUway curtently has two tracks from the Old Tovm Transit Center to the Santa Fe Depot. Future plans identify four tracks to accommodate hght rail troUey service and AMTRAK/Coaster service. In order to ensure accessibUity from residential developments to the beach there are numerous at- grade bicycle/pedestrian crossmgs identified. Although these are viable options for safe raifroad crossmgs, each of these at-grade crossmgs wUl be addressed separately, either by each individual 59 jurisdiction or jomtly by more than one agency. The City of Solana Beach has proposed and wUl develop two overcrossings as part of thefr Linear Park Project. This chapter describes each of the 11 segments of the Coastal RaU TraU as the ahgnment proceeds north to south.. 5.1 Segment 1: City of Oceanside, San Luis Rey River Path to Buena Vista Lagoon The Coastal RaU TraU begms at the northem end of the City of Oceanside, at the San Luis Rey River Bicycle Path (a separate City of Oceanside project) on the eastem side of the tracks. The Class I pathway would proceed south along the eastem side of the right-of-way where there is sufficient width except near Surfiider Way and between Pier View Way and Civic Center Drive where two pubhc parkmg lots have been constmcted. The traU would divert around two parking lots utUizmg adjacent streets. Standardized Coastal RaU TraU signs consistent with the Project Study Report would be erected to identify the Class DI bicycle route along these streets. To avoid diverting in and out of the raU right-of-way, the traU would head easterly on Neptime Way to Cleveland Street. At Cleveland Street, the fraU would cross over Surfiider Way, Sportfisher Way, Civic Center Drive, Pier View Way, Mission Avenue, and Seagaze Way. At Seagaze Way, the trail would go easterly to Tremont Street where it would proceed south past the Oceanside Transit Center. The trail would proceed past the transh station to Missouri Avenue. At \fissouri Avenue, the traU would proceed westerly accessmg the eastem side of the railway right-of-way. The Coastal RaU Trail project would proceed southerly within the raifroad right-of- way along the east side of the tracks to Oceanside Blvd. The traU would proceed as a Class II bUceway west two blocks to Pacific Street where it would utUize a Class ID bicycle route to Buccaneer Beach Park. At Buccaneer Beach Park, bicychsts would connect to an existmg pedestrian path, which traverses along the north side of the Park and proceeds easterly under the raUway trestle. An approximate 60' long retaining waU would be constmcted under the raUroad trestie. The height of the waU would vary from 2' to 8' above top of footing. Approximately 280 s.f of retaining waU would be constmcted in this location to accommodate the Avidth of the bicycle path. The pedestrian path would be widened to a 12' wide multi-use Class I traU and would coimect to the eastern edge of the raUroad right-of-way. The traU would then proceed south along the right-of- way to Vista Way, just north of the Buena Vista Lagoon, where it would utihze Class III route to Coast Highway Class II bicycle lanes. 60 Table 6 Segment 1: San Luis Rey River Path to Buena Vista Lagoon Total Length Class I - 2.05 miles (3.30 km) Class n - .96 mUes (1.55 km) Class m - .35 miles (.56 km) 3.36 mUes (5.41 km) ROW widtii 65'-200' Arterial Grade Crossings (Mission Ave., Oceanside Blvd., Cassidy Ave.) 3 Undercrossings (Buccaneer Park) 1 Bridges/Overcrossmgs 0 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings (Oceanside Blvd., Wisconsm, Surfiider Way, Pierview Way, Seagaze Way, Michigan Avenue) 6 At-grade Pedestrian R/R Crossings 0 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Oceanside Beaches, Harbor & Pier Oceanside Transit Station Buccaneer Beach Park Downtown Oceanside retaU and business district Pacific Street Lmear Park Camp Pendleton Oceanside-Escondido RaU TraU (proposed) Oceanside City HaU, Library, and Art Center San Luis Rey River Bicycle Path Library and Art Center 61 Vv^^ San Luis Rey River Path \ Vista Oceanside Transit Center 321 Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot San Diego FIGURE 5.1 SEGMENT #1 SAN LUIS REY RIVER TO BUENA VISTA LAGOON COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 62 5.2 Segment 2: City of Carlsbad, Buena Vista Lagoon to Agua Hedionda Lagoon Southbound users would proceed south along Coast Highway on Class n bicycle lanes; The traU would divert from Class II bUces lanes through city-owned property at the Home Plant Lift Station. The traU would foUow along the southera boundary of the hft station property and would access the eastem side of the right-of-way. A retaining wall would be needed to support the slope from the northerly bridge abutment. The retaming waU would be approximately 200' in length with hdght varying from 4' - 8' above top of footmg. The area of the wall would be approximately 1,200 s.f The traU would foUow the raUroad right-of-way to the Carlsbad VUlage Transit Station parking lot. There the traU would proceed along the northem edge of the parking lot to State Street. The trail would utUize a Class IH bicycle route to along State Street to Oak Street where the trail would access the eastem edge of the railroad right-of-way. A Class I bicycle path would be constmcted within the eastem edge of the right-of-way proceeding south. At Chestnut Avenue, an at-grade pedestrian^icycle crossmg would be constmcted m order to aUow bicycle/pedestrian access to Chestnut Avenue on the west side of the tracks. The Class I bicycle path would continue along the eastem edge of the right-of-way to the north side of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Table 7 Segment 2: Buena Vista Lagoon -Agua Hedionda Lagoon City ofCarlsbad Total Lengtii Class I - 1.80 (2.90 km) Class n- .1.04 (.1.67 km) Class ffl- .36 (.58 km) 3.2 mUes (5.15 km) ROW width 100'-200' Arterial Grade Crossings (Carlsbad ViUage Drive) 1 Undercrossings (South side of Buena Vista Lagoon) 1 Bridges/overcrossings 0 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings (Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, & Tamarack) 3 At-grade Pedestrian R/R Crossing (Chestnut Ave.) 1 63 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Hotels/Motels Carlsbad VUlage RetaU and Busmess district Encina Pubhc Fishing Area Carlsbad VUlage Coaster Station Carlsbad State Beach Army/Navy Academy Carlsbad ViUage Kaiser Hospital Medical Offices Legoland Amusement Center 64 Oceanside ^ Transit Center Encinitas Station Solana Beach Soiana Beach Station Q Del Mar Sorrento Valley Station 0 N Not to Scale Old Town TYansit Center Point Loma SEGMENT #2 FIGURE 5.2 BUENA VISTA LAGOON TO AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON S^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 65 5.3 Segment 3: City of Carlsbad, Agua Hedionda Lagoon to Batiquitos Lagoon The trail proceeds south crossing the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on a bridge spanning the channel for approxunately 220' ui length. The bridge design would accommodate the future 48" to 54" Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer Mam. The bridge design would not place supportmg columns or falsework m the channel. The Class I bicycle path would continue south along the Agua Hedionda Sewer Pump Station. A retaining waU would be necessary for approximately 600' in length with varying heights up to 10'. The trail continues as a Class I bicycle path along the easterly side of the right-of-way. A short bridge or stmcture, approximately 50' in length, would be constmcted over the storm drain inlet between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. The traU would proceed south to the Pomsettia Transit Station continuing on Class II bicycle lanes to Avenida Endnas. The traU continues on Avenida Encinas southerly to the Carlsbad Boulevard/Avenida Enemas mtersection. The intersection would requfre improvements to include sidewalks and loop detectors. At Carlsbad Boulevard, the traU proceeds south on Class n bicycle lanes across the Batiquhos Lagoon, whUe providing access to the Carlsbad State Beach. Table 8 Segment 3: Agua Hedionda Lagoon - Batiquitos Lagoon Total Lengtii Class I-3.68 mi. (5.79 km) Class n - .40 mi. (.64 km) 4.08 mUes (6.43 km) ROW width 100'-200' Arterial Grade Crossings (Cannon Road, Avenida Encinas) 2 Undercrossings (Pomsettia) 1 Bridges/Overcrossmgs (Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and north of Palomar Airport Road) 1 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings 0 At-Grade Pedestrian R/R Crossmg 0 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Hotels/Motels, Restaurants Hotels/Motels, Restaurants South Carlsbad State Beach Poinsettia Station Legoland Amusement Center Industrial Center (east from Palomar Airport Road) Palomar Airport Kaiser Hospital Medical Offices Businesses along Avenida Encinas 66 Oceanside Transit Center Vista Carisbad Village Station Carisbad \ Cartsbad Poinsettia Station Encinitas San Marcos Encinitas Station Rancho Santa Fe Solana Beach Dei Mar Oid Town Transit Center Point Loma 0 N Not to Scale Sorrento Valley Station La Jolla Mission Beach Santa Fe Depot San Diego FIGURE 5.3 SEGMENT #3 AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON TO BATIQUITOS LAGOON COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 67 5.4 Segment 4: City of Encinitas, Batiquitos Lagoon to the Encinitas Station The traU would proceed south on Class n bicycle lanes along Coast Highway to the City of Endnitas. At the signahzed La Costa Avenue mtersection and Coast Highway, users would enter the westem edge of the raUroad right-of-way. This uitersection wUl be modified by the City of Endnitas to accommodate the Coastal RaU TraU and wiU include accommodations for a Class I bicycle path along the west side of the raU road right-of-way. The traU continues south along the westem side of the right-of-way towards Encinitas Boulevard replacing an existing 4' wide bike path currently located within the right-of-way. At Marcheta Street/Orpheus Avenue, a bicycle/pedestrian at-grade crossmg would be constmcted to the east side of the right-of-way. Proceeding south to Encmitas Boulevard the trail continues as a Class I bicycle path along the eastem edge of the raifroad right-of-way. The traU would cross Encinitas Boulevard at the mtersection of Encinitas Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue and continue to the Encinitas Transit Station. Table 9 1 Segment 4: Batiquitos Lagoon - Encinitas Station City of Encinitas Total Lengtii - Class I - 2.65 miles (4.26 km) Class n- .45 mUes (.72 km) 3.1 mUes (4.98 km) ROW width 100' Arterial Grade Crossmgs (La Costa Avenue, Leucadia Blvd, Encinitas Blvd) 3 Undercrossings 0 Bridges/Overcrossings 0 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings 0 At-grade Pedestrian R/R Crossings (Grandview St./Hillcrest Dr., between Jason/E. Jason St.'s and Glaucus/E. Glaucus St.'s and Marcheta St /Orpheus Ave.) 3 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Ponto Beach State Park Paul Ecke Central Elementary School Nortii Coast Highway 101 Commercial Corridor North Coast Highway 101 Commerdal Corridor City Beaches (Grandview, Beacons, Stone Steps, and Moonhght) Encinitas Station City Parks (Leucadia Roadside, Orpheus, and Endnitas Viewpoint) Endnitas City HaU, Library Downtown Old Encmitas Downtown Old Encmitas 68 Oceanside Transit Center Santa Fe Depot San Diego FIGURE 5.4 SEGMENT #4 BATIQUITOS LAGOON TO ENCINITAS STATION COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 69 5.5 Segment 5: City of Encinitas, Encinitas Station to San Elijo Lagoon The trail would divert to the eastside of the railroad right-of-way at E Street and proceed south to Chesterfield Drive. The tertam with the right-of-way varies and short retaming walls may be necessary to develop the traU within this section. The traU would not impact the existing unimproved parking along San EUjo Avenue since the Class I path drops below the road. Just north of Chesterfield Drive, a bridge (adjacent to the existing pedestrian bridge) would be constmcted to accommodate bicycles and additional non-motorized traffic. This bridge would be of similar constmction as to the existing 5' wide pedestrian bridge and of sunUar length, approximately 60'. At Chesterfield Drive, the trail crosses the tracks at the intersection and joms the existing Class II bUce lanes on South Coast Highway 101, and proceeds south across the San Ehjo Lagoon to the City of Solana Beach. Due to the active use of residents and vishors accessing the beach. Downtown Old Encinitas, and the San Elijo State Campground, four new at-grade pedestrian crossings are proposed, in addition to the three existing at-grade street crossmgs at D Street, E Street, and Chesterfield Drive. These would be located at East I Street, Santa Fe Drive, Montgomery Avenue, and Birmingham Drive. Table 10 Segment 5: Encinitas Station - San Elijo Lagoon City of Encinitas Total Length Class I -1.58 mUes (2.54 km) Class n- .45 mUes (.72 km) Class in - .29 mUes (.46 km) 3.12 mUes (5.02 km) ROW widtii 70-200' Arterial Grade Crossmgs (Chesterfield Dr.) 1 Undercrossings 0 Bridges/Overcrossings 0 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings (D St. and E St.) 2 At-Grade Pedestrian R/R Crossings (East I St., Santa Fe Drive, Montgomery Avenue, Birmingham Drive) 4 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Downtown Old Encmitas Encinitas Station City Beaches (Moonhght, D Street, Swami's), Downtown Old Endnitas City Parks (MUdred Macpherson, George Berkich, and Glen) Encmitas City HaU, Library Cardiff*Elementary School State Beaches (Moonhght, San Ehjo, Cardiff) Downtown Cardiff 70 Oceanside Transit Center Encinitas Station Solana Beach Station Dei Mar Sorrento Valley Station Old Town Transit Center Point Loma N Not to Scale San Dlego FIGURE 5.5 SEGMENT #5 ENCINITAS STATION TO SAN ELIJO LAGOON COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 71 5.6 Segment 6: City of Solana Beach, San Elijo Lagoon to Via de la Valle The traU would proceed south to Cliff* Street crossing the street at an existing signalized intersection to access the westem edge of the raifroad right-of-way. The Class I bicycle path would proceed south through the City of Solana Beach, crossing Lomas Santa Fe Road and continuing to Via de la Valle m the City of Del Mar. The City of Solana Beach has prepared and adopted the Solana Beach Linear Park Master Plan, which provides design guidelmes for the rail trail through thdr city. Ultimately, the City's plans include constmction of landscaped nodes, a nature waUc along San Elijo lagoon, parkhke amenities, and bridge overcrossings at Cliff Street and Rosa Street. Jointly NCTD and the City of Solana Beach completed the Lomas Santa Fe Grade Separation project, which lowered the raifroad 35 feet below grade and adds a passing track. The project began constmction in May of 1998 and was completed ui spring 2000. The remaining right-of- way along the westside of the railway has been identified for a muhi-use pathway. The traU wUl proceed across Lomas Santa Fe at the uitersection. The raU traU diverts from the tracks at the south end of the dty at the Via de la VaUe intersection and proceeds south towards the City of Del Mar on existing Class n bicycle lanes on Camino Del Mar. Table 11 Segment 6: San Elijo Lagoon - Via de la Valle City of Solana Beach Total Length - Class 1-1.56 mUes (2.51 km) 1.56 mUes ROW widtii 70*-100' Arterial Grade Crossings (Lomas Santa Fe, Cliff Street/ Highway 101) 2 Undercrossings 0 Bridges/Overcrossings (Cliff Street, Rosa Street) 2 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings 0 At-Grade pedestrian R/R Crossings 0 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Visitors Infonnation Center City HaU Tide Beach City Park Transit Station Fletcher Cove Park South Cedros Design District Seascape Surf Hwy 101 Conunercial & RetaU Del Mar Shores Beach Park Del Mar Racetrack and Fairgrounds 72 Oceanside Transit Center Old Town Transit Center Point Loma N Not to Scale Santa Fe Depot San Diego FIGURE 5.6 SEGMENT #6 SAN ELIJO LAGOON TO VIA DELA VALLE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 73 5.7 Segment 7: City of Del Mar, Via de la Valle to Carmel VaUey Road The raU trail ends at the Via de la Valle intersection and proceeds south through the City of Del Mar along Camuio del Mar on Class n bUce lanes. The traU contmues south along Camino del Mar through the retaU district of Del Mar, using existing Class II bike lanes. The City of Del Mar is separated from the ocean by the raUroad tracks, which graduaUy cUmb the bluffs and UteraUy sit on the edge of eroding chffs above the beach. Due to concems related to the stabihty of the bluffs, a City Coundl appomted traUs committee recommended that the City Council adopt the street route for bicyclists and maintain the existmg dfrt traU along the bluffs for pedestrians. The pedestrian traU proceeds along the raUroad right-of-way at Power House Park, using the westem side of the right-of-way. At the southem limits of Del Mar, the traU goes under the raUroad connecting with an existing paved path at the Torrey Pines Preserve parkmg lot. In order to provide safe public access to the beach, four at-pedestrian crossmgs are proposed by the City of Dd Mar for tiie following locations: Torrey Pines, 8* Street, and 11* Street and 29"" Street. Table 12 1 Segment 7: Via de la Valle - Carmel Valley Road Cityof Del Mar Total Length - Class n - 2.7 miles (4.35 km) Pedestrian Path - 2.13 (3.42 km) 2.7 miles ROW width 100'-200' Arterial Grade Crossmgs (Jimmy Durante Road, Del Mar Hdghts Road, Via de la VaUe) 3 Undercrossings 0 Bridges/ Overcrossings 0 CoUector/Local Grade Crossmgs 7 At-grade pedestrian R/R crossmgs(Torrey Pines, 8 St, 11 St, and 29* St. 4 Major Destinations Recreational Conunuter Torrey Pines State Beach Del Mar City HaU and Library Seagrove Park Downtown Del Mar retaU and commercial San Dieguito River Park Coast to Crest TraU Del Mar Racetrack and Fafrgrounds Del Mar Racetrack and Fairgrounds 74 Oceanside Transit Center Carlsbad Encinitas Station Rancho Santa Fe ^Solana Beach n Q • Del Mat Sorrento Valiey Station Sorrento Valley Mission Beach Oid Town Transit Center Point Loma 0 N Not to Scale Santa Fe Depot San Dlego FIGURE 5.7 SEGMENT #7 VIA DE LA VALLE TO CARMEL VALLEY ROAD COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 75 5.8 Segment 8: City of San Diego, Carmel Valley Road to Genesee Avenue At Carmel Valley Road, the trail would utUize the bicycle lanes currentiy in the design phase by the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego is proposmg a pedestrian traU along the south side of Carmel Vahey Road as part of the Carmel Valley Road street improvement project. At Sorrento Valley Road both cychsts and pedestrians would utilize a Class I bicycle path. The City of San Diego is considering closmg this portion of the road for pedestrians and cychsts, which would connect to Carmel Mountaui Road. Just past Carmel Mountain Road, the trail would access the rmlroad right-of-way and proceed behind the industrial area. The rail traU wUl pass along the Sorrento Valley Station on Sorrento Valley Road at 1-5 and then access the railway right-of-way at the eastem edge. The rail trail follows the raifroad, along the existing SDNR service road. Due to the limited width of the right-of-way, a fence would be installed between the tracks and the traU. The trail may be reduced to the CalTrans minimum standard for a Class I trail of 8 feet through this section due to the constraints. The rail proceeds up a steep hiU with an access road along the eastem edge. It is anticipated that this access road would accommodate a mimmum width traU with fencing. NCTD is in the process of designing a second track from 1805 to Mframar Road. It is recommended that the trail be developed in conjunction with the fiiture realignment of the raUway. The trail would cross under Mframar Road where a retaining wall is necessary between the bridge abutment and the slope. The traU then enters MCAS Miramar, crossing a Y-spur line on at-grade crossings. Through this open space area, the trail will follow the existing dirt access road located approxunately 25 feet from the raUroad. The trail would remain on the east side of the right-of- way though this corridor to 1-805. MCAS recommends a fence be mstalled at the edge of the right-of-way to reduce encroachment on the mihtary base. At 1-805, the traU crosses the raifroad on a separate overcrossing to the north side of the railway. The south side of the raUroad is Rose Canyon Open Space Park, a protected natural area that contains sensitive habitats such as Oak Woodland and riparian areas. The trail utUizes existing dirt trails on the north side of the railroad. At Genesee, the traU goes under the road following the raifroad. 76 Table 13 Segment 8: Carmel Valley Road to Genesee Avenue City of San Diego Total Length - Class I - 9.4 miles (15.13 km) Class n- .7 mUes (1.12 km) 10.6 miles (17.05 km) ROW width 70-200' Arterial Grade Crossings (Sortento VaUey Road/RoseUe Street) 1 Undercrossings (Mframar road) 1 Bridges (North of Sorrento VaUey Road., south of Soirento Valley Road) 2 Overcrossings (I 805) 1 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings (Del Mar Scenic Parkway, Via ApriUa, Via Grimaldi, Portofino Drive) 4 At-Grade Pedestrian R/R Crossings (MCAS spur lines) 2 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Torrey Pines City Beach and Park University of Cahfomia, San Diego Torrey Pines State Reserve and Beach Sorrento VaUey Station MCAS Miramar University Town Center (UTC) 77 Oceanside Transit Center Encinitas Station \ -LZ/V—y Rancho Santa Fe Solana Beach Station Dei Mar mk Sorrento Valley Sorrento Valley Station Oid Town Transit Center 0 N Not to Scale Point Loma Santa Fe Depot 1'.. San Dlego FIGURE 5.8 SEGMENT #8 CARMEL VALLEY ROAD TO GENESEE AVENUE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 78 5.9 Segment 9: City of San Diego, Genesee Avenue to Balboa Avenue The rail traU proceeds under Genesee Avenue, providing access to existing Class II bicycle lanes on Genesee Avenue . The rail trail wUl connect to the proposed Nobel Drive Coaster Station, thus increasing the potential commuter use of this particular traU segment. The rail traU proceeds westerly and connects to an existmg paved raU traU at GUman Drive. The existuig trail will be v^dened to 12' with striping and signing. Where the existing path ends at Santa Fe Street, the traU wUl utiUze a Class ffl bicycle route along Santa Fe Street. Once past Santa Fe Street, the traU would access the westem side of the alignment and proceed south. A flashing hght and signs are recommended at the crossmg at Santa Fe Street to alert motorists of bicycle cross-traffic. The trail proceeds south along the west side of the railroad, slowly progressing above the roadway to Balboa Avenue. The trail would cross over Balboa Avenue on a separate bridge, due to the traffic volumes of over 51,000 ADT, grade difference, poor visibUity, and road configuration which makes it very dangerous for a bicyclists to navigate this road segment. Table 14 Segment 9: Genesee Avenue - Balboa Avenue Total Length - Class 1-3.57 mUes (5.74 km) Class ffl-.45 mUes (.73 km) 3.7 mUes (5.95 km) ROW widtii 100'-200' Arterial Grade Crossings 0 Undercrossing 0 Bridges/Overcrossings (Balboa Avenue) 1 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings (Santa Fe Street) 1 At-Grade pedestrian R/R Crossmgs 0 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Marian Bear Park/San Clemente Canyon University of California, San Diego, Tortey Pmes High School Rose Canyon Park Multi-famUy residential communities Soledad Natural Park University Town Center and surtounding offices and commercial uses 79 Oceanside TVansit Center Soiana Beach Station Dei Mar Sorrento Valley Station Mission Beach Oid Town Transit Center Ocean Beach 0 N Not to Scale Point Loma Santa Fe Depot San Diego SEGMENT #9 GENESEE AVENUE TO ! BALBOA AVENUE FIGURE 5.9 SEGMENT #9 GENESEE AVENUE TO ! BALBOA AVENUE iJ^OASTAL RAIL TRAIL 80 5.10 Segment 10: City of San Diego, Balboa Avenue to the Old Town Transit Center This segment woiUd begin at a new bridge over Balboa Avenue. UntU the bridge is constmcted, traU users could be dfrected to the Morena Boulevard crossing. Between Balboa Avenue and Clairemont Drive, the trail will be located on the west side of the tracks paraUehng Morena Boulevard. MTDB is proposing trolley service, which wUl require two additional light raU tracks and traction substations. In addhion, NCTD proposes an additional track for Coaster services, known as the False Bay Sidmg Project. Coordination with MTDB and NCTD during final design wUl be essential to determine available right-of-way. The rail traU may utilize Class II bUce lanes along Morena Boulevard, if the right-of-way becomes lunited as a result of the increased rail services. The trail vwU divert to the east above Friars Road to Pacific Coast Mghway Class II bicycle lanes. Table 15 Segment 10 : Balboa Avenue to Old Town Transit Center Total Length - Class 1-3.13 mUes (5.08 km) Class n- .53 nules (.85 km) 3.66 mUes (5.9 km) ROW width 70'-100' Arterial Grade Crossings (Taylor Street, Clairmont Drive) 2 Undercrossings (Padfic Highway) 1 Bridges/Overcrossings 0 CoUector/Local Grade Crossings 0 At-Grade Pedestrian R/R Crossings 0 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Mission Bay Park University of San Diego Tecolote Canyon Natural Park Old Town Transit Center Mission Beach Boardwalk Mission VaUey RetaU and Conunercial areas Old Town State Historical Park 81 Oceanside Transit Center Encinitas Station Solana Beach Station Del Mar Sorrento Valley Station Old Town lYansIt Center Point Loma N Not lo Scale SEGMENT #10 BALBOA AVENUE TO OLD TOWN TRANSIT CENTER FIGURE 5.10 SEGMENT #10 BALBOA AVENUE TO OLD TOWN TRANSIT CENTER m j:OASTAL RAIL TRAIL 82 5.11 Segment 11: City of San Diego, Old Town Transit Center to the Santa Fe Depot Due to the limited available right-of-way and high volume east-west traffic, the Coastal RaU TraU will continue along Pacific Highway utUizuig the existing Class II bicycle lanes and terminate on the south end at the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. This is the logical terminus of the traU. Connections to the Old Town Transit Center wiU provide troUey service to east San Diego communities and Qualcomm Stadium. The Santa Fe Depot offers connections to the San Diego Civic Center, historic Gaslamp Quarter, the Children's Museum, and Tijuana, Mexico. Table 16 Segment 11: Old Town Transit Center to the Santa Fe Depot City of San Diego Total Length: Class II - 3.65 miles (5.87 km) 3.65 mUes ROW width 70'-100' Arterial Grade Crossings (Broadway, Grape, Ash, Laurel) Undercrossings Bridges/Overcrossings CoUector/Local Grade Crossmgs (Bamett Ave., Washington St., Palm St., Juniper St., Cedar St. ) At-Grade Pedestrian R/R Crossings 0 Major Destinations Recreational Commuter Maritime Museum/Waterfront Downtown San Diego Convention & Performing Arts Center San Diego Intemationai Airport Balboa Park and Zoo U.S. Naval Supply Center Horton Plaza/Downtown Shopping District, Gaslamp Quarter and theaters County Administrative Center Old Town State Historical Park Sports Arena Bayshore BUceway Ferry Service to Coronado 83 Oceanside Transit Center Encinitas Station Solana Beach Station Del Mar Sorrento Valley Station Mission Beach Old Town Transit Center ^K, --Sin 0 N Not to Scale Point Loma // Hi. SantaFe Depot O San Diego FIGURE 5.11 SEGMENT #11 OLD TOWN TRANSIT CENTER TO SANTA FE DEPOT COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 84 5.12 Trail Alignment Summary The advantages of the preferred route are the relative ease of implementation, lower traffic volumes along the Class I segments, hmited impact on envfronmental resources, reasonable costs, and dfrectness of route. The disadvantages include a lack of appeal for recreational users in areas where the traU utilizes the roadway. Table 17 Oceanside Carlsbad Endnitas Solana Beach Del Mar San Diego Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II Total Length Class! 2.05 1.80 3.68 2.65 1.58 1.56 2.7 9.4 3.57 3.13 0 32.12 Length Class II .96 0 .40 .45 1.25 0 0 .7 0 .53 3.65 7.94 Length Class m .35 .36 0 0 .29 0 2.13 0 .45 0 0 3.58 Arterial Grade Crossings 2 1 2 3 I 2 3 1 0 2 4 20 Road Undercrossing s 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 Bridges/ Overcrossings 0 1 I 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 13 Collector/ local Grade crossings 6 3 0 0 2 0 3 4 1 0 5 26 At-grade ped R/R crossings 0 1 0 3 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 13 85 6.0 Trail Design 6.1 Planning and Design Standards This chapter provides specific design and implementation guidehnes and standards to ensure that the Coastal RaU TraU is consistently constmcted to the highest and best standards curtently available in the United States. Planning, design, and implementation standards are derived from the foUowing sources: CalTrans: "Highway Design Manual" (Chapter 1000; BUceway Plannmg and Design) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): 'Tohcy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" State of Florida: Florida Bicycle Facihties Planning and Design Manual (1996) CalTrans: Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) USDOT, FHWA: "Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles" Bicycle Federation of America (BFA): "Selectmg and Designuig Bicycle Routes" USDOT/FHWA: Conflicts on Multiple-Use TraUs Institute of Traffic Engmeers (ITE): 'Design and Safety of Pedestrian FacUities" Rails to Trails Conservancy (RTC): Rails-vtath-Trails. Sharing Corridors for Transportation and Recreation It is usefiil to note that whUe there are a considerable number of trails on active raUroads around the United States, there are few design guidelines that have been developed specificaUy for this type of faciUty. The sources hsted above provide detaUs on many aspects of a rail trail, but a) may contain recommendations that conflict with each other, b) are not, in most cases, officiaUy recognized 'requirements,' and c) do not cover all of the conditions on most rail trails. Except for the CalTrans guidelines, aU design guidelines must be considered as simply design resources for the Coastal RaU TraU, to be supplemented by the reasonable judgement ofthe traU designer and traU manager. In addition to the published resources Usted above, the trail design reflects recommendations from active raU trail managers around CaUfomia and the United States. Unfortunately, there are few raU trails around the coimtiy, which reflect the sunilar characteristics of the Coastal RaU TraU corridor Ul terms of grade crossings, fencing, setbacks, speed of trains, tram frequency and draw of users to the beach. Currently a committee has been formed at the Federal Railroad Administration to review and establish a set of standards for rail trails nationwide. UntU CalTrans or the Federal Highways Administration adopts specific standards for raU traUs, the CalTrans basic design parameters wUl be used. Mandatory standards are shown m bold face. Advisory standards are important but aUow for greater flexibiUty and are identified by the word 'should.' Permissive standards are identified by the words 'should' or 'may', and can be apphed at the discretion ofthe project engineer. Controllmg Criteria, as defined by the FHWA, consists of 13 specific criteria to be used m the selection of design standards. They are: (1) design speed, (2) lane width, (3) shoulder width, (4) bridge width, (5) horizontal ahgnment, (6) vertical 86 alignment, (7) grade, (8) stoppmg sight distance, (9) cross slope, (10) super elevation, (11) horizontal clearance, (12) vertical clearance, and (13) bridge stmaural capadty. Designs which deviate from the mandatoiy CalTrans design standards shall be approved by the Chief Office of Project Planning and Design, or by delegated Project Managers. These standards represent the basic guidehnes set fourth by CalTrans. There are many condhions, which are not explicitiy covered in the CalTrans or AASHTO guidehnes. These may be she spedfic, user specific, or policy specific. 6.2 Trail Design - Class I Recommended Width The recommended minimum width for paved multi-use trails in Califomia is 8-feet, with 2- feet of lateral clearance and 8-feet of vertical clearance. The minimum standards for a Class I rail trail are reflected in Figure 6.1. The raU trail is projected to have higher volumes of bicycUsts and other users, and may accommodate maintenance vehicles on a regular basis for both the railroad and the trail. The foUowing are the recommended design dunensions: 1) 12-feet width with the same lateral and vertical clearances, (2) 2' wide unpaved shoulders, with a compacted surface, on each side of the paved surface to accommodate joggers and others who prefer a softer surface, and (3) a 2% cross slope for drainage. The recommended Class I rail traU is shown in Figure 6.2. Signing and Striping A yellow centerlme stripe may be desirable, but is not required on sections of the trail that have heavy usage, curves with restricted sight hnes, at approaches to intersections, and/or where nighttime riduig is expected. Signing of the trail is addressed in Chapter 7.0. Intersections and Crossings The trail alignment should take into consideration the frequency and conditions of grade crossings at roadways. Grade separations, such as bridges or undercrossings, are recommended if traffic volumes are heavy. If grade separation is not feasible, traffic signals may suffice. Stop or yield signs for bicyclists are acceptable where traffic volumes are not heavy. Trail crossmgs should occur at estabhshed pedestrian crossings wherever possible. Mid-block crossings should address right-of-way for the motorist and trail user through use of yield, stop, or traffic signals that can be activated by trail users. Trail approaches at intersections should always have stop or yield signs to minimize conflicts with autos. Ramps should be placed on sidewaUc curbs for bicychsts. 87 Separation of Pathways The CPUC has specific minimum setbacks from any sidewalk or trail that paraUels active raUroad tracks. These standards are typicaUy appUed to the mmunum distance that crossing guard equipment is located from tracks. Minimum distances from the centerhne of an active raifroad to the outside edge of a traU or bUceway is 8'6" on tangent and 9'6" on curved track as shown m Figure 6.1. Wherever possible, it is recommended that the trail be set back at least 25 feet from the centeriine of the tracks, or at least 15 feet when there is a vertical separation of more than 10 feet (see Figure 6.2). Design Speed The minimum design speed for bike paths is 20 miles per hour, except on sections where there are long downgrades (steeper than 4%, and longer than 500-feet). Speed bumps or other surface irregularities should never be used to slow bicycles. Horizontal Alignment Recommended radius for a curve and elevation are reflected ui CalTrans Standards Specifications in Appendix I. A 2% cross slope is recommended for drainage. Stopping Sight Distances and Crest Vertical Curves Recommended stopping sight distances reflected in the CalTrans Standards Specifications (see Appendix I) should be applied to the downgrade portion of any two-way trail. The recommended length of crest of vertical curves is also shown. Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves The mimmum clearance to line of sight obstmctions on horizontal curves can be calculated by takmg the lateral clearance information from the CalTrans Standards Specifications, required stopping sight distance, and the proposed horizontal curve radius. Gradients Steep grades should be avoided on any bike path or multi-use trail. A 5% maxunum gradient is recommended. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short distances (up to about 500 feet), but must also meet ADA requirements. Structural Section Bike path constmction should be conducted in a sunUar manner as roadway constmction, with sub-base thickness to be determuied by soils condition and expansive soil types requiring special stmctural sections. Minimum asphalt thickness should be 2" of Type A or Type B, with Vi' 88 maximum aggregate and medium grading as described in CalTrans Standard Specifications in Appendix I. Drainage The 2% cross slope wiU resolve most drainage issues on a bUce path, except along cut sections where uphill water must be collected in a ditch and directed to a catch basin. Barrier Posts Posts or bollards at trail intersections and entrances may be necessary to keep vehicles from entering. Posts should be designed to be visible to bicychsts and others, especially at night, with reflective materials and appropriate striping. Posts should be designed in such a way that they are moveable by emergency vehicles. Street Lights Streetiights may be desirable in specific locations. Possible locations are: where night use is expected or encouraged, at intersections, where they may be wartanted to ensure safety or to provide accent m a park lUce setting. Flashing Lights Due to the quietness of newer passenger trains, it may be worthwhUe to instaU flashmg Ughts along the trail which indicate a tram is approaching. This may reduce the amount of homblowuig to alert trail users of an oncoming train. The flashing hghts may be especiaUy usefiil in areas where there is lunited right-of-way width, high volumes of users, and/or no physical barrier present. 89 Double Track Right of Way with Bikeway Minimum PUC and Caltrans Dimensions Two-Way Bil<e Path Railroad Tracks Drainage 4'-6' Fence or Vegetation Drainage Caltrans Standard for Class I Bikepath CPUC Standard for minimum distance from railroad FIGURE 6.1 CLASS 1 RAIL/TRAIL (MINIMUM STANDARDS) ^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 90 Level Terrain Right of Way {100'min.) 2' 2' 12' 2' 2' 25' min. Fence or vegetatton recommended where O there is existing foot traffic that requires channelization, or Q pathway is closer than 25' to the centeriine of the nearest track Fill Section Fence or vegetation may be required if slope is greater than 45%. 16' 15' min. (• d n Ifil n u o L o o o FIGURE 6.2 RECOMMENDED CLASS 1 RAIL TRAIL ^i^OASTAL RAIL TRAIL 9i Bikeways and Railroads BUceway crossings at raifroad fracks should be at least as wide as the approach bUceway, and should be at right angles (90 degrees) to the tracks. Pavement should be maintamed so that ridge buildup adjacent to the tracks does not occur, with timber plank or other enhanced surfaces instaUed when possible. The Califomia Pubhc UtUities Commission (CPUC) regulates raUroad crossmgs. AU new at-grade crossings must be approved by the CPUC. Necessary raUroad protection wUl be determuied based on a joint field review involving the appUcant, the railroad company, and the CPUC. Signing, Markings, artd Traffic Control Devices Uniform signs, markings, and traffic control devices shall be used per section 2376 of the Streets and Highways Code An optional 4" yellow centeriine stripe may be used to separate users on a Class I bUce path. Bike lane signs (R81) shall be placed at the beginning ofall bike lanes, on the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction, and at maximum half-mile intervals. Bike lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection. BUce path, bUce lane, and bUce route signmg and markings should foUow the guideUnes as developed by CalTrans and presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This includes advisoiy, waming, dfrectional, and uiformational signs for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. The final striping, marking, and signing plan for the Coastal Rail TraU should be reviewed and approved by a hcensed fraffic engineer or civil engineer. 6.3 Constrained Cross Section The major design objective of the Coastal Rail Trail is to locate the trail withm the existing raifroad right-of-way. The raUroad right-of-way generaUy ranges from 100 to 200 feet, although the effective or avaUable width may be considerably less. For example, through wetlands or areas of mgged topography, the raUway tracks are often on narrow fiU or cut sections, or on bridges, leaving Uttie space for a maintenance road or the raU traU. Excess right-of-way for the traU is constramed in many locations by tertain, wetlands, waterways and bridges, utility poles, signal equipment, sub-surface utUities, dramage ditches, buildings, transit Unes, and existmg or fiiture raUroad sidings. The selection of the aUgnment reflects these constraints, with the result that in some locations the rail trail may be reduced ui width or relocated from the raifroad right-of-way to existing bike lanes adjacent to roadways. A constrained cross section has been developed, where it may be preferable to keep the raU traU within the raUroad right-of-way, rather than re-route the traU onto adjacent roads. The conditions under which a constrained cross-section should be used are described below: 92 • Altemate routes have been studied and are not acceptable because of functional or safety reasons; • The constrained section is for a relatively short distance, generaUy less than 500 feet; • TraU volumes are not projected to be above average; • Hazards are clearly marked; • TraU speed liinits are 10 mUes per hour; and • Bicyclists are required to dismount when appropriate. The minimum width for a constrained section is six (6) feet, with at least one (1) foot of lateral clearance and eight (8) feet of vertical clearance. AU other standards identified by CalTrans Standard Specifications should be met. 6.4 Overcrossings /Undercrossings Bridges A key factor in selecting the preferted raU trail aUgnment was to minimize the number of bridges across lagoons or wetlands that would need to be constmcted, due primarUy to the cost constraints and avaUabUity of fimding, but also due the potential environmental impact on lagoon or riparian habhat. Wherever possible, the fraU utUizes existing roadway bridges thus eliminating major expense associated with bridge constmction. Aside from numerous minor crossings of culverts and mmor waterways, there are several major bridges that are mcluded as part of the preferred alignment. These stmctures are hsted below in Table 17. Table 18 Proposed Coastal Rail Trail Bridges Agua Hedionda Lagoon TraU bridge constmcted on top of existing sewer main, (see Section 5.2) 1-805 Overcrossing from south side to north side (see Section 5.8) Balboa Avenue TraU bridge over Balboa Avenue see Section 5 .91 In addition to these stmctures, other existing roadway accommodate bike lanes or a bridge attachment may be used, trail may be either on bridges, undercrossings, or possibly at- points to the raU traU and across the adjacent railway tracks to crossings has been identified for Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, exact location, type, and number of these crossings wiU be the and CPUC approval. bridges may need widening to Lateral access points along the rail -grade. The need for lateral access supplement existing roadway grade Solana Beach, and San Diego. The subject of evaluation during design The railroad corridor north of San Diego mcludes several long fUl sections through wetiands coupled with long trestles or bridges over the saltwater lagoons. The profile of the fUl sections 93 and presence of adjacent wetlands makes locating the Coastal Rail TraU problematic m these areas, hence the relocation of the raU traU to nearby roadways. AU new bridges should provide a clear 8-foot wide trail, with CalTrans approved railings. The stmctural load bearing capacity of bridges should meet or exceed CalTrans standards, and be able to support emergency vehicles. Bridges may have to meet special requfrements such as stagmg, material types, and spedfications when crossing CalTrans or railroad facUities. AU bridges must meet ADA requirements for a maximum 5% gradient, which resiUts in long approaches to the overcrossing. Most recreational bike path bridges ui Cahfomia are pre-fabricated steel stmctures, with smgle spans in excess of 300 feet. Cast-in-place concrete bridges may prove to be a better solution when subject to salt-water cortosion. Undercrossings No new undercrossings have been identified for the Coastal RaU TraU, other than at locations where the trail wUl pass under an elevated raU or roadway overcrossing. It may prove to be more cost effective to tunnel under the raUroad where the traU is below the track level, rather than bridge the railway tracks. A new technology has been developed that allows pre-fab casmgs to be put in place while the railway tracks are bemg used, thereby ehmmatmg the need to close the raUway tracks to excavate the under crossmg. This technology may have apphcations at new lateral access points along the Coastal Rail TraU. Undercrossmgs under existmg roadways or rail in excess of 50 feet should be well Ut and be visible for the entire length by bicychsts entering one end. Figure 6.3 graphically describes typical undercrossing issues and requfrements. 94 1^ ^ ]• ^ H ffi B B B 1^ ^ 1^ B (5 B • • mm Typical Cross Section Lighting / security needed for undercrossings over 40' length. Must be designed to support bulldozer to clear silt. Must meet ADA slope requirements. May require reduced width. ^ • • PI, o I la o o Path may be located below flood or normal flow levels to acheive minimum 8' clearance. Design should allow for clearing by bulldozer. FIGURE 6.3 ROADWAY UNDERCROSSINGS COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 95. 6.5 Fencing and Other Barriers for Class I Where the traU is located m close proxunity to the raUroad tracks (15' or less from the outside edge of the tracks) a barrier or fence is necessary to provide a safe separation between the traU and the tracks. Fencing, vegetation, and other barriers may be used to separate a rail traU from adjacent active raUroads on one side and/or from adjacent land uses on the other side. MCAS Mframar has requested that a fence be instaUed on both sides of the right-of-way to ensure protection of envfronmental resources and restrict base access. Barriers between the traU and raUway tracks have been the subject of a study conducted by the Rails-to-TraUs Conservancy (RTC). Of the 37 traUs-with-raUs ui the United States surveyed by RTC Ul 1996, 11 (30%) of the trams operate at speeds of 40 mUes per hour or greater The SDNR right-of-way operates 43 trains daily at speeds up to 90 miles per hour. The median distance (of aU raU traUs) from the edge of the trail to the centerhne ofthe nearest raUroad track was 55 feet, although 36% of the trails were located within 20 feet ofthe centerhne ofthe raUway tracks. Ofall rail traUs, the majority (70%) had a barrier separating the railway tracks and frail, with the most common types of barriers being vegetation (32%), vertical separation (27%), and fencmg (21%). Although the traUs surveyed do not reflect the speed or frequency rates ofthe SDNR corridor, the survey is valuable when identifymg the success of rail traU projects, design standards, and usage pattems. FHWA is curtentiy conducting a thorough survey of other rails with trails. Rail traUs across the nation are bemg surveyed to find out how various issues have or have not been addressed. The study is due to be released in late 2001. The purpose of the study is to determine if standards should be developed which meet the needs of the railroad operators, the PubUc UtUities Commission, Federal RaUroad Admmistration, and others. Some of the major issues include: a. Foisting Conditions: Raifroads are seldom fenced through urban or suburban areas in California. Vegetation, fencmg, or other barriers are typically not provided where a raUroad is directly adjacent to a roadway with sidewalks. b. Parallel Movement: TypicaUy pedestrians, bicychsts, and others are not permitted on the railroad right-of-way, although there has been historic pubhc use of railroad right-of-ways. Most people waUcmg or riding on railroad right-of-ways are usually not on the raUroad tracks themselves unless there is no other viable place to waUc. c. Lateral movement: There is considerable lateral movement across railroad tracks ui most communities, and even more so along the Coastal RaU TraU due to the location of the raUroad tracks between beaches and residential neighborhoods. This lateral movement, while considered trespassing, is a historic pattem in many communities. d. Right of Access: Related to lateral movement is the fact that any attempt to prevent informal crossings of raifroad railway tracks usmg fencmg or other materials may resuh m 96 protests from local groups such as the Surfiiders Association, Califomia Coastal Commission and other public and private organizations. e. Environmental Impact: Extensive fendng or other stmctural barrier would inhibit wUdlife that currently migrates across the corridor, especially in the Rose Canyon Open Space Park and MCAS Miramar. / Vandalism: Fencing or other stmctural barriers that are constmcted to prevent historic pedestrian patteras are typicalfy repeatedly vandalized, includmg cutting holes in, puUmg down, or jumping over fencing. g. Cost: Fencmg and other stmctural barriers, depending on the type of materials used, height, and length, can be one of the most expensive features of a raU trail, and may, in some cfrcumstances, impact the overaU project feasibUity. h. Aesthetics: Depending on the type and height of the barrier, the aesthetics of a Coastal Rail TraU could be impacted by eUminating or redudng views and othenvise creating a 'bowling alley' effect for fraU users. Stmctural barrier materials should contribute to rather than detract from the overaU community aesthetics. Choices on barrier type and height could impact the overall attractiveness of the facility. Shmbs may provide a solid barrier whUe reducing visual impacts of a fence or waU. /. Safety: The majority of existing raU-traUs have some type of barrier between the fraU and railway tracks. It is reasonable to assume that the safety record is related somewhat to the presence of barriers in some cfrcumstances. Those circumstances are assumed to be where the traU is located ui close proximity to an active mainUne or where there is heavy lateral movement across the raUway tracks. j. Security: Vegetation or fencmg barriers between the fraU and adjacent land uses can protect the privacy and security of the property owners. WhUe crime or vandaUsm has not proven to be a common problem along most muhi-use trails, fencmg in this uistance is stiU considered a pmdent feature. The type, hdght, and responsibihty of the barrier are dependent on local policies. k. Barrier height: The height and design of the vegetation or fence influences whether lateral movement wUl be inhibited. Barriers that cannot be chmbed wUl typicaUy be cut or otherwise vandahzed. Heavy-duty fencmg such as wrought fron or other styles of fendng that are difficult to climb may be cost prohibitive. If people are given the opportunity to cross at a new crossing within 250 feet m dther dfrection, the desfre to cUmb over the fence or barrier is reduced. /. Noise and wind: Due to high speeds of the Coaster and other trains, noise, wind, dust, vibration, and the sheer surprise of an 90-mph train to a trail user located in close proxunity to the raUway tracks may be overwhelming. A vegetated or solid barrier wUl reduce the effects of noise and wind. 97 Based on these issues and available research, the followmg recommendations regarding barriers on the Coastal RaU TraU have been proposed, subject to revision by the individual jurisdictions and a proposed statewide reviewing panel: a. Vegetation and/or other physical barriers shall be instaUed where the raU trail is located closer than 25 feet from the edge of the traU to the centerhne ofthe closest track; where the vertical separation is 10 feet or less; and where there are no existing physical barriers such as drainage ditches. b. Vegetation and/or other physical barriers shall be instaUed where there is observed lateral crossings by pedestrians and others. Where fencing is mstalled for this purpose, new crossings shaU be mstaUed no less than every 500 feet. New crossings may be bridges, undercrossings, or at-grade crossings. c. Vegetation and/or other physical barriers shaU provide breaks or openmgs at least 5 feet wide every 500 feet. d. Vegetation and/or other physical barrier height may range between 36 mches and 72 mches although the recommended height is between 36 mches and 48 inches. Where the edge ofthe trail is located closer than 15 feet from the centerhne ofthe nearest track, and the vertical separation is less than 10 feet, the barrier shaU be at least 60 mches high with appropriate baffling material. Baffling material mcludes vegetation such as ivy or other vines, or a sohd material, such as wood. e. Other barrier types such as vegetation, ditches, or berms may be used where the edge of the trail is located fiirther than 25 feet from the centeriine ofthe closest track, or where the vertical separation is greater than 10 feet. Recommended vegetation types should be low water, low-mamtenance, such as pyracanthea (see Chapter 8.0). Ditch or berm gradients should not exceed 2:1 slopes or be greater than 10 feet in depth or height. 6.6 Trail Design - Class H Bike Lanes and Class m Bike Routes Portions ofthe proposed Coastal Rail Trail will be located on local surface streets and classified as either bUce lanes or bike routes. Standards for Class II bike lanes and Class ffl bike routes are presented below, with mandatory standards in bold type and are reflected m the CalTrans Standard Specifications in Appendix I. a. Bike lanes shall be one-way facUities, and located on both sides of two-way streets. b. Bike lanes shall be 5-feet wide when adjacent to on street parking or a minimum of 4-feet wide if there is no on street parking. One (1) feet of the gutter pan may be induded in the 4-feet Combination parking/bike lanes may be used that have one outside stripe and are 11 or 12-feet wide, depending on the type of curb. c AU striping should be continuous 6" solid white, except for the line between the lane and parking, which may be 4" solid white. 98 d. Bike lanes shaU not be placed between the parking area and curb. e. Bike lanes shaU be striped next to curbs where parking is prohibited during certain hours only in conjunction with special signing. f Typical vehicle lanes next to a bUce lane are 12-feet wide, with 11-feet acceptable where favorable conditions exist. g. Raised barriers sucb as curbs shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. h. Intersection design should be accomplished accordmg to the designs presented in Figure 6.4. 1. Class ffl bike routes are unstriped shared facUities with motorists or pedestrians that should provide continuity to the bUceway system, and provide the bicychst with a higher degree of service than altemative routes. A higher degree of service includes directness, adjusted traffic control devices giving priority to bicychsts, removal of on street paricing when possible, surface imperfections corrected, and/or a higher standard of maintenance than other comparable routes. j. Sidewalks should generally not be used as a bike route, except under spedal circumstances. k. Bikeways or trails paraUel to roadways should be located no doser than 5-feet from the edge of the roadway, unless a physical barrier is provided. GeneraUy, bikeways are not recommended dfrectly paraUel to roadways as most bicyclists wiU find it less usable than the sfreet hself, assuming there is adequate width on the street. Bridge and Grate Standards Bicycles on bridges are best accommodated by bUce lanes. BUceway approaches to a two-way bUceway on one side of a bridge shoiUd be by way of a two-way bike path (not bike lane). A physical separation (such as a fence or raiUng) shaU be provided between a two-way bike path directly adjacent to travel lanes on a bridge (see Figure 6.11). Separate highway overcrossing structures for bicydes should conform to CalTrans' standard design loading of 85 pounds per square foot, with the minimum clear width the same as the approach bikeway. Drainage inlet grates on bikeways shaU have openings narrow enough and short enough to assure bicycle tires wiU not drop into the grates. 99 Minimum 72'-80' Minimum 36'-40' Right Of Way FIGURE 6.4 CLASS II BIKE LANES AT ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS (RECOMMENDED) COASTAL RAIL TRAIL m 6.7 Roadway Grade Crossings One of the major criteria used to select the preferred ahgnment was the reduction or ehmination of raU or roadway crossings. Currently a bicycUst riding along the entire 44-mUe Coastal RaU Trail corridor would have to ride on major arterials and highways, and cross over 150 streets includmg many high traffic arterials. The proposed trail wUl reduce the number of crossings to 39. Many of these crossings occur along the Class n bike lanes and not along the Coastal Rail TraU Class I path. As most bicycle and pedestrian-related acddents occur at intersections, this reduction in crossings and conflicts represents one of the significant benefits of the Coastal Rail TraU. This is not to imply that the proposed rail traU crossings wUl eUminate bicycle and pedestrian- related accidents. Grade crossings represent one of the key obstacles to traU implementation. Motorists are often not expecting to see bicychsts and pedestrians at unprotected locations or at railroad crossings. However, based on the more than 60 active rail traUs around the United States, all of which have at-grade crossings, safety has generally not been a problem. When considering a proposed separated bike path and requfred crossings of roadways, it is unportant to remember two items: (1) traU users wiU be enjoying an auto-free experience and may enter into an intersection unexpectedly, and (2) motorists wUl not expect to see bicyclists entering from an unmarked mtersection into the roadway. In most cases, bUceway roadway crossmgs can be properly designed to a reasonable degree of safety. The final design of a traU will consider vehicle traffic patteras, traffic speeds, street width, fraffic volumes (average daUy traffic, and peak hour), Une of sight, and traU user profile (age distribution, destinations) to determine appropriate design measures. When the Coastal RaU TraU accesses adjacent roadways, it wUl generally utUize existing Class II bUce lanes along Coast Highway (Highway 101). The proposed systems approach in this report is based on estabhshed standards, pubhshed technical reports, and the experiences documented on existing facihties. Vutually all roadway crossings fit into one of four basic categories, described below: Unprotected Roadway Crossings (Type 1) An unprotected roadway crossing consists of a crosswalk, signing, and often no other devices to slow or stop traffic (see Figures 6.5 and 6.6). The approach to designing roadway crossings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, fraU traffic, use patteras, road type and width, and other safety issues such as the location of nearby schools. The table below identifies the general thresholds below which unprotected roadway crossings may be acceptable. IOl Table 19 Unprotected Roadway Crossings Install Crosswalks All locations^' Maximum Traffic Voliunes: 10,000-15,000 (ADT), 1,000-1,500 peak hour j Maximum 85th Percentile Speeds: 35-45 mph Maximmn TraU User Volmnes: 50-75 per hour, 300-400 per day Maximimi Street Width 60 feet (no median) Minimum Line of Sight 25n:^h zone: IOO feet 35mph zone: 200 feet 45mph zone: 300 feet On residential and collector streets below 10,000 ADT, crosswalks and waming signs ('Bike Xmg') should be provided for motorists, and STOP signs and slowing techniques (bollards/geometry) used on the traU approach. Care should be taken to keep vegetation and other obstacles out of the sight hne for motorists and trail users. Collector streets up to 15,000 ADT requfre a higher level of freatment for roadway crossmgs than residential sfreets. In addition to the features described for residential streets, signmg locations may need to be moved towards oncommg traffic and made more visible for motorists. A fiashuig yeUow beacon (costing between $15,000 and $30,000) may be used, preferably one that is activated by the frail user rather than one that is continuously flashmg. The East Bay Regional Park District in Northem Califomia is success.f uUy usmg a flashing beacon that is activated by motion detectors on the traU, triggering the beacon as trail users approach the intersection. This equipment, while shghtiy more expensive, helps to keep motorists alert. Higher volume arterials (over 15,000 ADT) may be unprotected m some drcumstances, for example if they are located near a signahzed intersection and there are substantial 'gaps' in the traffic, and/or there is a median island. This would not be appropriate if there were a significant number of children using the fraU. Roadway Crossings (Type 2) Bike paths which dther parallel a roadway or emerge closer than 200 to 250 feet from a protected intersection, should be routed to that crossing in most cases (see Figure 6.7). The reason is that motorists are not expecting to see pedestrians and bicyclists crossmg so close to an intersection; traffic congestion may extend this distance; and the crossmg may unnecessarily impact traffic capacity. Where the rail fraU does not emerge at an existing mtersection, a barrier and directional signmg wUl be required to keep bicyclists and others from crossmg at the unmarked location. 27 Some traffic design guidelines suggest that crosswalks are not required with ADT volumes below 7,000. 102 Table 20 Roadway Crossings at Existing Intersections Maximimi Distance from Coastal Rail Trail to Intersection: Length of barrier to prevent informal crossing Intersection Improvements Street width 40 feet or iess: 200-250 feet Street width over 40 feet: 250 feet Street width 40 feet or less: 50 feet Street width over 40 feet: IOO feet Waming Signs for Motorists Right tum on red prohitHtions Elimination of hi^ speed and free right tums Adequate crossing time Pedestrian activated signals One of the key problems with using existing mtersections is that it requires bicychsts to transition from a separated two-way faciUty to pedestrian facUities, such as sidewaUcs and crosswaUcs. Widening and striping of the sidewaUc (if possible) between the trail and mtersection may help to alleviate some of these conceras. Signalized Roadway Crossings (Type 3) When a fraU must cross a roadway that exceeds the maximum thresholds identified for unprotected crossings, generaUy 10,000 ADT'S, some type of signahzed control must be instaUed to protect the trail users (see Figure 6.8). Signals requfre the input of local traffic engineers, who review potential impacts on traffic progression, capacity, and safety. On corridors with timed signals, a new traU crossing may need to be coordinated with adjacent signals to maximize efficiency. Trail signals are normaUy activated by push buttons, but also may be triggered by motion detectors. The maximum delay for activation of the signal should be two minutes, with ininimum crossing times determined by the width of the street and trail volumes. The signals may rest on flashmg yeUow or green for motorists when not activated, and should be supplemented by standard advance warning signs. Grade-Separated Roadway and Railroad Crossings (Type 4) Arterials, expressways, and freeways carrying over 25,000 ADT wUl probably require some type of grade separation, ehher an undercrossmg or overcrossing (Figures 6.9 and 6 .10). Overcrossmg altematives are typically less expensive than tunneling under a roadway, but requfre as much as 400 or 500 feet of approach stmcture on each end due to the maxunum 5% gradient as specified by ADA. Overcrossings also have a higher visual impact and meet with resistance from some fraU users who may attempt to cross at-grade rather than cUmb the approach ramps. Safety concerns are a major issue with both raifroad overcrossings and undercrossings (tunnels). In both cases traU users may be temporarily 'out-of-sight' from public view, and have poor visibiUty themselves. Undercrossings, like parking garages, have the reputation of being places 103 where crimes occur. Most crime on traUs, however, appears to have more in common with the general crime rate of the community and the overall usage of the frail than to any specific design feature. There are design and operation measures which can address fraU user conceras. For example, an undercrossing can be designed to be spacious, weU Ut, with emergency caU phones at each end, and completely visible for its entire length prior to entering. Other potential problems with undercrossmgs mclude conflicts with utilities, drainage, flood control, and mauitenance requirements. Proper design to address these issues wiU reduce potential problems including providing adequate access for maintenance vehicles. Table 21 Grade Separated Roadway Crossings Traffic volume thresholds: 25,000 - 45,000 ADT Recommended mimmum trail width: 8 feet (under crossings should provide tapered sides with wider clearances at top) Recommended minimum overhead clearance: 10 feet (14 feet if equestrian use) Estimated stmcture costs per hnear feet: $600 -$800 Maximum gradient per ADA: 5% AncUlary features: Ughting, caU phones, landscaping 6.8 At-Grade RaUroad Crossings The Coastal Rail TraU wiU cross at numerous established roadway crossings. Generally the traU crossing configuration wUl be where the Coastal RaU Trail crosses a roadway dfrectiy adjacent to the raUway tracks at an uncontrolled or controUed intersection (Type 1 & 2). Lateral access pomts to the Coastal RaU Trail will be provided by a combmation of existmg roadways, sidewalks, and pathways. In some cases, new trails or connectors into adjacent ndghborhoods may be provided. Where lateral movement is heavy, new at-grade crossings wiU be required approximately every 500 feet. The City of Carlsbad proposes one at-grade lateral crossing, seven are proposed by the City of Encinitas, and four are proposed by the City of Del Mar. As the trail proceeds through MCAS Miramar, the trail will cross the Y spur line and there is an interim at-grade lateral crossing proposed west of 1-805, within the City of San Diego. Grade separated crossings to accommodate all lateral movement wUl be prohibitively expensive and, m some cases, not warranted by the volumes of pedestrians or bicycUsts. Pedestrian grade crossings of active mainlmes curtentiy exist in San Mateo County, and the Cahfomia cities of San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, and Dixon, California, among other locales. The North San Diego County Transit Development Board has an adopted policy, which states that the Board wUl permit ten year leases for the development of pedestrian at-grade crossings of the San Diego Northem RaUway, when the requesting pubhc agency agrees to provide fencing on both sides ofthe railway and fund the mstaUation of a grade separated pedestrian crossmg at the end of the lease period. The Califomia PubUc Utilities Commission (CPUC) has generaUy taken the position of not allowing additional at-grade crossmgs. Any proposed pedestrian at-grade crossings wUl require approval by the CPUC. 104 6.9 Coaster/Trolley Stations The Coastal RaU Trail wUl generaUy go around the fransit stations rather than use existing platforms to avoid confUcts with pedestrians boarding frains. Figure 6.12 reflects several options to route trail users through a station for those users accessing the frain. In the design of fiiture rail stations, the frail may be routed dfrectly through the station when the boarding platforms are 10 feet wide or more, passenger usage is for a limited time of day, or altemative routes around fransit stations are cfrcuhous and involve multiple street crossings. Currentiy, bicycle riding is not permitted on the platforms due to safety concems and is not being considered as an option by NCTD. It is recommended that when agreements are developed between the railroad and the trail operator that agreement consider the use of boarding platforms under the foUowing conditions: • A demonstration period of one year is aUowed during which complaints and accident information can be compiled. • The fraU officially 'terminates' where it interfaces with the platform, and it is designed to stop or slow bicyclists through the use of bollards or gates. • Bicyclists be requfred to dismount when trains are stopped at the station. • Maximum speed limit of 5 mph on the platform. • Stripmg on the platform to designate the location of bicycle and pedestrian flow. 6.10 UtUities and Lighting Surface and sub-surface utihties are located within the raifroad right-of-way, impacting the location and constmction of the Coastal Rail Trail. UtUities indude active and abandoned raifroad communications cable, signal and communication boxes, fiber optic cable, water and sewer Unes, and telephone lines. The Coastal Rail Trail will be designed to avoid moving most active surface utilities, although utUity poles no longer in use may be removed. The fraU may be located directly over existing sub-surface utiUties assuming (a) adequate depth exists between the trail surface and utility to prevent damage, and (b) agreements can be reached with the utility owner regarding access for repafrs and impact to the trail. 105 rixri lOBi III 111II rrm 11 ii iii om in 11 ii 11 Roadway Crossing Type 1: Pedestrian Crosswalk o a. Sources: 1. Manual on Unifomi Traffic Control Devices, 1988 2. Institute ofTransportation Engineers, Transportation and Land Development, 1988 3. Investioation of Exposure Based Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Local Street, and Arterials, Knoblauch, 1987 4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design 5. Caltrans Traffic Manual FIGURE 6.5 UNPROTECTED ROADWAY AT-GRADE CROSSING TYPE I COASTAL RAIL TRAIL m Roadway Crossing Type 1: Uncontrolled Midblock Roadway Crossing 4-4 01 CL (D CD STOP Basic Criteria: Speed Limit < 45mph Adequate Stopping Sight Distance Crosswalk Adequately Illuminated Below 10,000 ADT Sources: 1. Manual on Unifonn Traffic Control Devices, 1988 2. Institute ofTransportation Engineers, Transportation and Land Development, 1988 3. Investigation of Exposure Based Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Local Street, and Arterials, Knoblauch, 1987 4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design 5. Caltrans Traffic Manual FIGURE 6.6 CLASS I ROADWAY CROSSING TYPE 1 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL i07 Roadway Crossing Type 2: Roadway Crossing Diverted to Nearest Signalized Intersection Barricade with sign: Pedestrians and Bikes Use Crosswalk (R95, R96, R96B) Bike Xing (W79) Sources: 1. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Land Development, 1988 3. Investigation of Exposure Based Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Local Street, and Arterials, Knoblauch, 1987 4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design 5. Caltrans Traffic Manua! FIGURE 6.7 CLASS I ROADWAY CROSSING TYPE 2 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Roadway Crossing Type 3: Pedestrian Signal Roadway Crossing Bike Xing (W79) Basic Criteria: Crossing Major Arterial with 10,000>ADT Signalized intersection with crosswalk greater than 250' of Ped/Bike path Speed limit >45 mph CO Q. CD <D D. Sources: 1. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Land Development, 1988 3. Investioation of Exposure Based Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Local Street, and Arterials, Knoblauch, 1987 4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design 5. Caltrans Traffic Manual CLASS 1 ROADWAY FIGURE 6.8 CROSSING TYPE 3 ^i:OASTAL RAIL TRAIL 109 Grade Separated Roadway Crossing Type 4: Bridge itinriiiirriTiriToi: Ped / Bike Path Sources: 1. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 2. Institute ofTransportation Engineers, Transportation and Land Development, 1988 3. Investigation of Exposure Based Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Local Street, and Arterials, Knoblauch, 1987 4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design 5. Caltrans Traffic Manual FIGURE 6.9 GRADE SEPARATED ROADWAY CROSSING TYPE 4 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL no Grade Separated Roadway Crossing Type 4: Undercrossing Ped/Bike Path Sources: 1. Manua! on Unifomi Traffic Control Devices, 1988 2. Institute ofTransportation Engineers, Transportation and Land Development, 1988 3. Investigation of Exposure Based Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Local Street, and Arterials, Knoblauch, 1987 4. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design 5. Caltrans Traffic Manual FIGURE 6.10 GRADE SEPARATED ROADWAY CROSSING TYPE 4 ^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Hi Pedestrian bridge - Fredericksburg, Virginia City of Newport Beach FIGURE 6.11 BRIDGE OVERCROSSINGS ^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 112 Grade separated crossing Forces bicycles to slow through design Bikeway on opposite side from station may be acceptable if there is good access to station Statton Parking Lot Bikeway may be routed through platfonn, but bicyclists woukJ need to dismount and walk bicycles. (Potential enforcement issues) I. t 5 Station Parking Lot Station Parking Lot Reconfigure parking lot and/or add pathway (Use of aisles is acceptable Ff traffic volumes are low) STATION ROUTING ^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL FIGURE 6.12 OPTIONS ^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL U3 7.0 Signing and Marking Crossing features for aU roadways mclude warning signs for both vehicles and frail users. The type, location, and other criteria are identified in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. Consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and hne of sight, with clear visibUity of signing absolutely critical. 'Catching the attention* of motorists jaded to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing Ught, roadway stripmg, or changes in pavement texture. Signing for trail users must include a standard 'STOP' sign and pavement marking, sometimes combined with other features such as bollards or a zigzag approach to slow bicyclists. Care must be taken not to place too many signs at crossmgs lest they begin to lose thdr unpact and may be ignored. Direction signing is usefiil for trail users and motorists aUke. For motorists, a sign readmg 'Coastal RaU Trail Xmg' along with a traU emblem or logo helps at crossings to keep them aware of potential trail users nearby. The signing and marking of the Coastal RaU TraU is designed to be an integrated system of elements to communicate the foUowing: • Orient trail users along the route; • Wam traU users of potential hazards; • Provide for the interpretation of natural and cultural features along the traU; and • Announce the trail to motorists and train passengers; The signage system is designed to utUize the accepted design standards and fabrication technology utilized throughout San Diego County for marking roadways. The signage system mcludes the following types of signs and markmgs, a description and iUusfrations of each foUow: • Standard CalTrans and MUTCD sign panels, • Coastal RaU TraU Logo sign panel, • TraU information sign panels, • Kiosk, • TraU map, • Stripes of reflective tape in Coastal Rail TraU colors, and • Pavement markings. 7.1 Standard CalTrans and MUTCD Sign Panels For safety and consistency, the rail fraU mcludes the required and recommended CalTrans signing and marking standards. In addition, aU signs and markings should conform to the standards developed in the MUTCD. 114 Standard signs on the traU should match the design of vehicular signs, but thefr size should be smaUer, in scale with the needs of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Table 20 summarizes the reconunended signing and stripmg program for the Coastal RaU TraU. Figures 7.1 and 7.2, bUce lane signing and striping, iUustrate the recommended signing program for Class II portions of the rail trail at signahzed and unsignalized intersections. Class ffl bike routes wiU use standard CalTrans signs in conjunction wdth a Coastal RaU TraU logo sign (Figure 7.3). Recoinmended pavement markings should be consistent with CalTrans Standard Specifications included in the appendix and MUTCD. In general, aU signs should be located a minimum 3 to 4 feet from the edge of the paved surface, have a minimum vertical clearance of 8.5 feet (when located above the trail surface), and be a minunum of 4 feet above the trail surface (when located on the side of the trail). The designs (though not the size) of signs and markings should be the same as used for motor vehides. 115 Table 22 Recommended Signing and Marking Item Location MUTCD Designation 1 No Motor Vehicles Entrances to trail R5-3 Use Ped Signal/Yield to Peds At crosswalks; where using sidewalks R9-5,6 Bike Lane Ahead: Right Lane At beginning of bike lanes R3-16 Bikes Only R3-17 STOP, YIELD At trail intersections with roads Rl-1,2 Bicycle Crossing For motorists at trail crossings WIM Bike Lane At the far side of all arterial intersections DIl-1 Hazardous Condition Slippery or rough pavement W8-10 Tums and Curves At tums and curves which exceed 20 mph WI-1,2 design specifications WM,5,6 Trail Intersections At traU intersections where no STOP or W2-1, W2-2 W2-3, YIELD required, or sight lines limited W2^, W2-5 STOP Ahead Where STOP sign is obscured W3-1 Signal Ahead Where signal is obscured W3-3 Bikeway Narrows Where bikeway width narrows or is below 8' W5-J Downgrade Where sustained bikeway gradient is above 5% W7-5 Pedestrian Crossing Where pedestrian walkway crosses trail Wll A-2 1 Restricted Vertical Clearance Where vertical clearance is less than 8'6" Wl I A-2 1 Raifroad Crossing Where trail crosses rail tracks at grade WIO-I Directional Signs (i.e. At intersections where access to major Dl-Ib(r/I) Beaches, Downtown, Coaster destinations is available DI-I© Station, etc.) Right Lane Must Tum Right; Where bike lanes end before intersection R3-7 Begin Right Tum Here, Yield R4-4 to Bikes Coastal Rail Trail Logo At all trail entrances, major intersections/ n/a access points 1 Trail Regulations AU traU entrances n/a 1 Multi-purpose Trail: Bikes AU traU entrances n/a Yield to Pedestrians Bikes Reduce Speed & Call Every 2,000 feet n/a Out Before Passing Please Stay On Trail In environmentally-sensitive areas n/a C!aution: Storm Damaged Storm damaged locations n/a Trail Trail Closed: No Entry Until Where traU or access points closed due to n/a Made Accessible & Safe for hazardous conditions PubUc Use Speed Liniit Signs Near traU entrances: where speed limits should n/a be reduced from 20 mph TraU Cuifew 10PM - 5AM Based on local ordinances n/a 116 Notes: 1. The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is optional where the approach is controlled by a signal, stop sign, or yield si^. 2. 3. For urtan situations, post 250" priorto intersection, 750 In rural areas. The bike lane may either be dropped entirely approximately 200' in advance of the intersection, or a dashed line carried to the intersection Is optional. Ped Push Button Typical Signalized Intersection Varies' 3NVT 3»8 i.9H 13' 13' Ped Push Button When parkinq area becomes Rignt-Turn-Only lane Trical path of through bicyclist An optional 4" solid white stripe may be used in place at the cross stripes where parking stalls are unnecessary oecause parking is light and there Is concern that a motorist may misconstrue the bike lane to be a traffic lane TJ 0) Q. cn c X £ V o 2! a> FIGURE 7.1 BIKE LANE SIGNING AND MARKING (CLASS II) COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Notes: 1. The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is optional where the approach is controlled by a signal, stop sign, or yield sign. 2. 3. For uriian situations, post 250' priorto intersection, 750' In rural areas. The bike lane may either be dropped entirely approximately 200' in advance of the intersection, or a dashed line carried to the intersection is optional. pjepueis„.. LU inii 13- 0) i 0.1 tl il ^1 i^i CD .Q. ffi "o Q -• dOiS 0) l» Varies' R81 •g BIKE LANE TJ c *• tem Varies2 Typical Unsignalized Intersection CA3) 3NVT ]iia 4' « B 'E. % •g "o CO — C _ Q.X: o Q .oj o CO CO / 4'_ '™ standard A minimum 3' between the longitudinal joint at the concrete and 6" bike lane is required T3 0) s Q. n c (0 * O 0) 0) G93A FIGURE 7.2 BIKE LANE SIGNING AND MARKING (CLASS II) COASTAL RAIL TRAIL COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Logo Colors to match Pantone Process Yellow and Pantone Blue CVU 7 24" COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Logo with City Seal incorporated 1.5" R CO COASTAL RAIL TRAIL \ Typical Sign not to scale © FIGURE 7.3 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL LOGO COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 1-19 7.2 Coastal Rail Trail Signs Coastal Rail Trail Logo The Coastal RaU Trail will be identified by a consistent, unique logo that helps guide people to and along the traU. This logo is represented on the cover and m Figure 7.3. The colors and form of the logo (yeUow and dark blue bandmg) graphicaUy represents the various communities and envfronments along the Coastal RaU TraU. The fimdamental concept for the trail's logo and signage system is the striped pattera of raifroad ties. In the logo, the stripes disappear around the bend (see Figure 7.3), indicating the contmuity ofthe route. A Coastal RaU Trail logo sign panel and a sign stating the traU regulations should be located at each fraU head and at the top of all major Coastal RaU Trail sign poles to identify the fraU. Where the trail is reduced to a bike lane along a sfreet, the requfred signage includes a Coastal RaU Trail sign panel and an MUTCD standard bike lane sign (code R81) mounted on existing poles, where possible. AdditionaUy, the trail along the street is identified with the use of five stripes (two stripes of yellow between three stripes of dark blue) of reflective tape (see Figure 7.4). In addition to the placement of the Coastal RaU Trail logo sign panels along the traU, stripes of reflective tape should be employed to quickly identify the fraU as it passes through a range of environments. Three inch wide tape (3M or approved equal) should be wrapped m paraUel stripes (two yellow between three blue) around existing public elements such as utility poles along the trail (see Figures 7.4 and 7.5). Bollards should follow the San Diego Regional Standard Drawing No. M-l6 for a 'Removable Post'. The boUard is a smgle 48-inch tall by 4 inch O.D. (outside diameter) steel pipe set m a 5 inch I D. (inside diameter) steel sleeve ui a concrete footmg. It should be placed on tiie centeriine ofthe traU at aU entrances to prevent motor vehicles from entering. It should be locked to the sleeved footing for removal by emergency vehicles. The boUard shoiUd be marked with reflective tape fiirther identifying it as part of the Coastal RaU TraU (see Figure 7.5). The Coastal Rail Trail logo should be copyrighted for use only by the trail manager. Any proceeds generated from the use of the logo should be directed to the traU manager and used for further enhancement and/or mauitenance of the trail. Trail Information Sign Panels A variety of messages need to be communicated to the fraU user along the route. Informational signs to state the traU regulations, directions to assodated features, or warnings of potential safety hazards. A Coastal RaU TraU logo sign panel and a sign stating the traU regulations should be located at each fraiUiead (see Figure 7.5). Dfrectional uiformation is typicaUy site specific, such as indicating the intersection of another traU. Signs warning the traU user of potential safety hazards and regulations for the use of the fraU should be printed in both Enghsh and Spanish (see Figure 7.6) . Trail information should be printed on a series of long rectangular sign panels (see Figure 7.7) . 120 Kiosk A kiosk is a large sign panel that informs the user about the traU and/ or the adjacent community. A kiosk should be located at active trail heads, and at points along the trail which requfre additional signs; such as, at busy community intersections or at traU stations where there is the opportunity to relay information regarding historic or cultural features. The design of the kiosk repUcates a manual switch stand, common along the raUroad fracks. Each kiosk includes a trail map, regulations, community information and/or interpretive information. All information should be printed in EngUsh and Spanish. All kiosks should be designed to meet visual and physical access requirements of the Americans vwth DisabUities Act, induding features such as large type and/ or panels in Braille for the visuaUy impafred (see Figure 7.8). Kiosks may be designed to mclude the acknowledgment of sponsorships by local agencies, organizations, and/or corporations. Trail Map The trail map is a simpUfied graphic Ulustrating the relative locations of cities. Coaster Transit Stations, intersectmg fraUs, and ten kUometer markers and/or mUe markers along the fraU (see Figure 7.9). The graphic design of the map is based on typical maps of stations along a raifroad line. The traU map should be on rail brochures, publications, as weU as on each kiosk with an uidication on the kiosk as to its placement along the frail. LUce the Coastal RaU TraU logo, the traU map should be copyrighted as the property of the traU manager. Pavement Markings Bold stripes on the pavement alert bicycUsts and motorists of intersections (see Figure 7.10). Stripes and numerals mark the kilometers between Oceanside and San Diego for trail users and are visible to the train passengers (see Figure 7.11). TraU users traveUng south read the kilometers from Oceanside, while those travehng north read the kilometers from the Santa Fe Depot. 121 "7 4'-0" (1.22M) Existing street light pole Coastal Rail Trail identification colors marked in reflective tape 0' 2' FIGURE 7.4 BIKE LANE SIGN COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 122 2'-0" 7' (.6096M) Removable post with Coastal Rail Trail identification colors marked in reflective tape Trail Regulations ReglQsde CirculGlion • N: mc'::!:ed vch,:ies 1 No se perr^ilen vehiculos 2 N:saigaae.apsb (.9144M) distance to sign 0' 2' FIGURE 7.5 TRAIL HEAD SIGN COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 123^ 2'-0' (.6096M) REDUCE SPEED REDUZLA LA VEIOCIDAD CALLOUT BEFORE PASSING AVISE ANTES DE PASAR A ZI (.9144M) 0' 2' "^3 CL FIGURE 7.6 BILINGUAL SAFETY SIGN POST COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 124 2'-0" i(- (.6096M) Q COASTALKAILTBAIL Genesee Garden • (1.288M) 3'-0" / 3'-0" / / 0' 2' CM FIGURE 7.7 TRAIL INTERSECTION SIGN POST COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 125 > Hi Trail Rules 0 Trail Map > CQ c .0 > UJ Elevation A Elevation A Elevation B The kiosk is designed after the railroad's manual switch stand. Kiosks may be located at trai! heads or at trail stations. One direction of panels will discuss interpretive information and/or note special community or trail events, (see plan view) Panels facing the other direction witl provide trai! regulations and directional maps. Plan View Panels are to be bolted to a square post, (see plan view" One side of each panel should be written in English and the other in Spanish. Braille text should be adhered to both panels. (.9144M) 0* 2' FIGURE 7.8 KIOSK COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 126 40 km Detail of Trail Map 0" 3" SOLANA BEACH Solana Beach Station Coast Transit Station San Dieguito River Park Trail OCEANSIDE CARLSBAD ft •1 SOIANA ^ BEACH ENCINITAS SiMsno BMtfi StCltfi I ^^^^^ JCMVISU] ^^^^^ Stolun I OUbwnrimlCv«v JorrtofeDiOJ* ^ SANDIEGO Trail Map 0' 1' FIGURE 7.9 TRAIL MAP COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 127 Distance Marker Bicycle Lane Marker Removable Post ir> Stop Sign for bicyclists entering the intersection and Coastal Rail Trail identification sign facing the Intersection. 0' 20' FIGURE 7.10 PAVEMENT MARKINGS AT INTERSECTION COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 128 A I 6 Kilometers are marked with a line painted across the trail and the numerals stenciled of the distances measured from the north and south ends of the trail. For example, trail users traveling to the south read the distance measured from the northem trail head yet have the distance to the southern trail head for reference. rV Half kilometer marker is a stenciled symbol of the trail ^ segment. d 12'-o" I (.6096M) (3.65M) 2'-0" .6096M) 4' FIGURE 7.11 DISTANCE MARKINGS ON PAVEMENT COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 129 8.0 Landscaping Along the Trail 8.1 Trail Amenities In areas where there is adequate right-of-way, the Coastal RaU TraU provides an opportunity to create a parklUce corridor. Additional facilities along the traU may mclude the foUowing: • TraUheads; • Trail stations; and • Site fumishings (benches, picnic tables, trash contamers, drinking faucets, bicycle racks, solar phones and hghting). Trailheads TraiUieads are the primaiy pubUc entrance points to the traU. A traiUiead may contain regulatory signs, waste receptacles, drinking fountains, seatmg, telephones, restrooms, afr pumps, bUce lockers and racks, and parking. Since the rail fraU traverses past commercial development additional services such as restaurants, cofifee shops, bicycle shops, etc., will be avaUable along the trail. Trail Stations An urban node or traU station, is a point of interest along the path. They are not requfred at specific intervals but may be used to enhance the experience of the traU user. A station is an opportunity to engage the traveler in one or aU of the foUowuig themes: • Health and fitness; • The assodated geology, native plant community, animal habitat, and cUmate; • Local cultural feature or event, either historical or current; • Visual experience; • The local raUroad history and technology; • Regional fraU connection; and/or • Improvements in progress such as the San EUjo Lagoon Botanical/Nature Walk, or the San Dieguito River Park; • Biological resources such as the Audubon Center in Oceanside, Torrey Pines Reserve, etc. Appropriate elements at an urban node may include but are not lunited to: • wide open areas; • bicycle racks; • benches; • waste receptacles; 130 kiosks; interpretive signage; shade provided by a canopy free or a stmcture; drinkmg foimtains; and/ or air pumps. An urban node may be a type of improvement that may be constmcted and/or maintained by a private donor, or organization, such as the Boys and Giris Club, Woman's Club, Bicycle Club, etc. AU urban nodes should also address tram passengers. In subtle ways, such as the view ofa bench in a quiet spot along the traU, or vegetation that heralds the seasons with color, the traU character should communicate its presence and landscape expressions with frain riders. Site Fumishings A collection of site flimishmgs are recommended to meet the basic needs of fraU users along the length of the Coastal RaU TraU includmg: • seating; • waste receptacles; • drinking fountains; • bicyde racks. The site fiimishings recommended are made from durable materials. They are sunple forms that do not detract from the safety or aesthetics of the rail fraU. WhUe the site fiunishuigs should be durable and vandal resistant, they should reflect the character ofthe community. All fumishings should be specified for thdr proven durabUity in a public, coastal environment. Graffiti resistant finishes should be applied to applicable surfaces. Items should be located in high visibility areas to minimize inappropriate activity. 8.2 Landscaping The landscaping along the raU fraU is designed to express the natural and cultural elements of our local environment. The trail foUows a route through the heart of many distinctiy different regions of San Diego County. Travdmg through the urban-industrial and bacl^ard-residential areas of our cities and communities, to the native terrain associated with the coastal bluffs and inland canyons the trail user will experience the tme essence ofthe San Diego coast. The envfronment includes both the land along the fraU, within the right-of-way, and the greater environment as it is viewed from the traU and/or fraU stations. The trail landscape should respond to both local influences and city jurisdictions, whUe at the same time mamtainmg overall continuity. Improvements are recommended for the land adjacent to the traU within the right-of- way, to contribute to the fimctional and aesthetic goals of the trail. Functionally, the landscape 131 should not rnipede the effident hnk between destinations nor constrict the operation of the rail service. AestheticaUy, the landscape should provide a positive experience for the fraveler. Landscape improvements include the following: • Vegetation along the right-of-way reflecting both the local envfronment and the overaU trail • Irrigation to establish vegetation (temporary) or to provide ongoing, supplemental water to plants (permanent). In addition to expected trail users such as walkers, joggers, recreational and commuter bicyclists, and roller bladers, the trail will be experienced visually by passing passenger trains. There is an increasingly large population of transit users who wiU benefit from the view of users on the path, but also the improved landscape of the corridor. Along much of the raU corridor, the rail trail wiU be within view of train passengers. The objective is to engage them in the spfrit and activity of the trail. The train passenger will be able to read the kilometer/mile markers on the trail pavement, enjoy the added vegetation in each community, identify the trailheads, and will be encouraged to use the trail route. Vegetation A palette of plant species is recommended for the raU frail based on the uses of plants to serve the trails fimction and aesthetics; the characteristics of each species; and the plant's particular growth requirements (see Tables 23 and 24 Plant Matrix on pages 143-146). Coastal Southem California is generally characterized as a '^Mediterranean" cUmate type. Temperatures normally average 65-77 degrees year round. Rainfall usuaUy occurs in winter and spring. Rain amounts are often unpredictable from one year to the next, however 10-14 inches on average are measured annually. The Coastal RaU TraU generaUy lies within a single marine influenced zone. Winter and summer temperatures are heavUy regulated by the ocean, resulting in increased summertime fog and cooler temperatures year round when compared to inland locations. AU vegetation specified for the plantmg along the traU should be suited for these climate concUtions. Further attention should be given during the constmction design phase to matching specific species with the microchmates found along the traU corridor. For instance, the trail wiU remam virtually unprotected along segments ui Cardiff* whUe the traU along the oak woodlands in Rose Canyon provides an entfrely different envfronment. Each presents special plantmg situations that requfre a solid imderstanding of plant growth characteristics. Certain plants are more suhable to a given location than others based upon their requirements and perfonnance. Plants are recommended for their versatility in a variety of environmental conditions. This wUl ultimately increase the survival and growth rates. In many cases, a single plant may be suitable for a range of uses. For example, an accent plant at an entry very near the ocean could also be suited for use as a physical barrier in another coastal location. Figures 8.1 through 8.6 are typical cross sections of the rail traU iUusfrating the uses of vegetation. Although 132 there are an infinite number of planting situations along the traU, the situations can be summarized in the seven categories Usted below. Many species fall mto more than one category. • Physical Barrier. These species form a barrier to the pedestrian or cyclist when used m mass or in conjunction with others. The plants are dense, have sharp or stiff" branches or other repelling characteristics. Even the appearance of some species is enough to deter people from entering restricted areas. However, plants with thoras or sharp protmsions, that could inflict uijuiy or puncture bicycle tfres, should be not be located within the first 5-10 feet adjacent to the trail. Visual Screen. The form and density of some plants can be usefiil in screening unattractive areas or to dfrect sight lines for safety purposes. • Erosion Control. These plants are especiaUy helpfiil in retaining soU on slopes. They contribute to the development of adequate soU cover and have strong root systems that help to hold the slope. Many native species are exfremely success.f ul in chy, shaUow soUs of slopes. If planted and estabUshed properly, native species vwU not requfre extensive frrigation, which can cause additional erosion. • Accent Planting. For areas of high visibility or high use, some plants wUl provide special character. This comes m the way of seasonal color, striking form, shade, or other uniqueness. These species generaUy requfre more mamtenance than others on the list, but if used in special locations, will provide a more pleasing landscape to the public. • California Native. These native plant spedes are especially suited to the local, coastal environment of Southera California. They prosper with little care, and only require rainfaU as a means of irrigation after establishment. Local wildlife depends on these species for food and cover. Native plants are also important in Ulustrating the tme coastal character. See also the following section of Design and Implementation. • Coastal Planting. In areas of dose proximity to the ocean, some species have proven to be more tolerant of the salty and breezy air. These species should be used where dfrectly exposed to these coastal conditions. • Inland Planting. In inland areas of the Coastal RaU TraU, some species are more adaptive to the temperatures and evaportranspiration rates of the canyons that the traU passes through. Urban Nodes. These wide open areas provide a visual focus and identity and are discussed in the following section of Design and Implementation. • Community Zone. A Community Zone is a stretch of fraU that is readUy identified as a particular community. For example the relaxed, beach conununity of Leucadia, in the City of Encmitas, is readily identifiable by the older commercial development, eucalyptus and cypress tree-lined streets, and modest, older residential development. 133 Design and Implementation Because the Coastal RaU TraU is a large pubUc recreational facihty, the health and character of the vegetation wUl rely on the natural chmate, public investment m plant material, and supplemental irrigation. The character of the fraU wUl differ, not only m response to the character of the adjacent landscape, but also in the level of investment in the size and spacing of plant materials, frrigation, and maintenance. The Landscape Zones are iUustrated in Figure 8.7. The intent is to prioritize planting investment where it can mspire fiiture fiinding. Planting priorities include highly visible urban areas in need of shade frees, lengths of the traU along an active community, and where slope erosion is a problem. Plant Container Size cmd Spacing Consideration should be given to the specified plant size at tune of mstaUation to estabUsh the initial character, and the long-term mvestment in the planting based on constmction fimds available. In high visibility areas, such as traU intersections, entries, traU stations or urban nodes, larger container sizes should be used to deUver a more estabUshed appearance. SmaUer container sizes can be considered in the franshional sections if funding does not allow for larger material. With proper estabUshment, they wUl grow quickly to blend into their surtoundings. Spacing should be specified based on the plants' growth character. Plant Maintenance Plant spedes as hsted in the Plant Matrix are identified according to thefr use, character, and needs. Most plants hsted require httie care and low amounts of water. In this way, the collective maintenance should be relatively minimal. However, a regular maintenance schedule should be developed to ensure long term landscaping success. TypicaUy, the first five to seven years is a critical period when regular maintenance by a skilled, professional team is needed most. Planting areas should be kept free of weeds and debris. Vegetation should be reviewed to minimize fire hazard. Irrigation systems should be servicied and adjusted for efficient use of water. Over time, maintenance such as pnming, fertilization, weed control, and irrigation should be graduaUy adjusted according to plant needs. Irrigation The frrigation of vegetation at special sections along the traU may be appropriate. Opportunities for the mvestment of irrigation include: • TraU heads and urban nodes located in prominent dvic settings; • Where the traU parallels a city street that has an irrigated landscape theme. 134 An automatic irrigation system can mclude overhead spray heads, bubblers or a drip frrigation system. Spray and bubblers are typicaUy used in densely landscaped areas because they distribute large quantities of water. Drip irrigation is success.f ul m deUvering controlled quantities of water to individual plant roots makmg it difficult for weeds to estabUsh and reducmg the potential for soU erosion. For the purposes of planting appropriate vegetation that wUl have the best chance to thrive m the land along the 44-niile trail can be generaUy defined within one of the followmg three categories: • Urban Nodes; • Community Landscape Zone; or • Califomia Native Landsccpe. • Urban Nodes are points along the traU that are within a more densely populated or developed commerdal area. This includes areas that are active with a variety of pedestrians, motorists, transit riders and bicyclists, such as the train stations. These may be high priority areas for investing in a permanent irrigation system, with larger specimen frees, shmbs and ground cover planted densely to establish the presence of the Coastal RaU Trail withm the heart of each community. The urban envfronment takes on the challenge of organization. Our buUt envfronments contam regular pattems reacting with elements of surprise. The urban fraU landscape should capitalize on these notions, evoking visual interest and intrigue. Vegetation should be composed of masses ofa species type in geometric pattems. Trees and accent planting should present the regularity of repethion. Appropriate plant species may include those that requfre additional maintenance and water, or be exotic in origin. • Community Landscape Zone. The longest portions of the traU pass through areas that are partiaUy developed or are generally industrial. In these settings the mdividual identity ofthe community should be reflected ui the vegetation. The traU then acts as a hnk to these dependent, yet mdividual bodies. Cities and communities bring local influence to their respective trail sections. The fraU is often too far from a water source to provide affordable irrigation. Certain shes may be sdected to be fiimished with an automatic frrigation system. Local civic groups or busuiess sponsors may finance this type of system. An alteraative irrigation method, which should be considered, for plant establishment includes using a water tmck along the fraU on a regular basis. The plant palette for these areas includes hardy natives and drought tolerant exotic species that will ultimately require minimal or no supplemental frrigation. Trees must be carefuUy located to not negatively impact views estabhshed on adjacent private property nor to impact raU service. Trees should serve to shade points along the trail, mark its path across a landscape and contribute to the character of the community that the traU passes through. Fragments of native plant groups exist, but now compete with exotic-mvasive species. GeneraUy, clearing out non-natives and replanting native vegetation should restore these native remnants. 135 The project's overall success depends on the input by local communities. Support should be sought from the citizens and businesses to contribute for landscape improvements such as additional planting, irrigation, kiosks, trail stations, or site fiimishings. Adopt-a-Tree programs have been success.f ul in many communities, which can reduce costs associated with landscaping improvements and maintenance. These additional improvements to the trail landscape will enhance the community as a whole. • Califomia Native Landsccq>e Zone. The trail mns through expanses of native habitat including coastal bluffs, riparian, and inland coastal sage scmb. These areas are descriptive of the local cultural geography, geology, and plant and animal habitats. WUdlife depends on these open spaces as valuable habitat. The traU wiU infroduce the historic vegetation pattems and indigenous species to the frail user. Strictly native vegetation species should be established in these areas. In respect of thefr natural growuig cydes, these species are typically seeded in the late fall at the onset of the rainy season. Planting withm native habitat areas may requfre other species, m addition to the natives identified m the Plant Matrix, to comply with site specific restoration goals. GeneraUy, planting should only be added to disturbed areas, or to replace exotic-invasive species. Pubhc groups, including garden and wUdlife clubs, may provide valuable planting and long-term care assistance. With native plantmg, particularly hydro-seeded areas, it is critical to observe seasonal plantmg windows to match avaUable rainfaU with the specific requirements of the seed. Temporaiy frrigation in these areas may also be valuable to assist in plant estabhshment. Drip frrigation may prove to be the most efficient temporary irrigation for container plants. Each of the cooperatmg jurisdictions' cunent landscape and frrigation guidehnes and standards and the Califomia Department of Forestry Standards should be used as a reference in determining product type, instaUation method and plant care. 136 60" high barrier wrthin the ROW separation. Vegetation on the fence will buffer the visual impact of passing trains. nr-wrVt-rnn —^N. «'^* -^^w^S lot 7^ 15-0" (4.6M) 2'-0" 7^ 12'-0'' (3.6M) -7^ [o.m) FIGURE 8.1 CONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: horizontal = 15' COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 137 Native vegetation planted in the canyons provides a barrier and assists in controlling soil erosion on the slopes. 2'-0' 7^ 12'-0" (0.6M) 0' {3.m) 8' 7^ FIGURE 8.2 UNCONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: vertical = +10' horizontal = + 20'. COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 138 7^ 12'-0" (3.6M) Low maintenance, drought tolerant vegetation is planted to screen barrier fencing. 48" - 60" high barrier adjacent to the railroad tracks. 2'.o" 2O-0" (6.1M) (0.6(^) 0' FIGURE 8.3 CONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: horizontal -20' COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 139 Railroad tracks are placed below adjacent grade per NCTD plans. 48" - 60" high barrier with vegetation. Class II bike lane or class III bike route on adjacent surface street. A soft surface path can be offset from the main trail. 0' FIGURE 8.4 UNCONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: vertical = +10' horizontal = - 20'. COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 140 Bamer vegetation will assist in reducing pedestrian traffic across the ROW seperation. Plant species should be drought tolerant with low maintenance requirements. + 20' (10.4M) 2'-0' 12'-0" tl {0.6M) (3.6M) 8' UNCONSTRAINED SECTION ^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL FIGURE 8.5 Separation: horizontal = +20' ^COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 141 t 18'-20' Surface street with sidewalk and possible class II bike lane or class III bike route Street-side vegetation buffers the trail from the adjacent traffic while enhancing the overall street character. 48" high barrier within the ROW separation. Vegetation provides a visual screen along the barrier, reduces pedestrian traffic across the separation, and enhances the trail's aesthetics. Vegetation species should be drought tolerant with low maintenance requirements. (5.5M) 2'-0' 7^ 12'-0" (3.6M) (0.6M) 8' FIGURE 8.6 CONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: horizontal = -20' COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 142 Low Intensity Transition High Intensity Low Intensity Transition High Intensity Low Intensity Transition High Intensity Levels of Intensity required for planting, irrigation, & maintenance within each vegetation zone. The urban zone should inctude a permenant irrigation system; shade trees with seasonal color; shrubs and groundcover Urban Node The community zone may include a temporary irrigation system in high intensity areas and the use of a water truck in low intensity areas to establish shrubs and groundcover. Community Zone The natural vegetation zone may utilize a temporary irrigation system in the high intensity areas and use a water tnjck in low intensity areas to establish native shrubs species. Calif. Native Vegetation 0' 40' FIGURE 8.7 LANDSCAPE ZONES COASTAL RAIL TRAIL 143 Table 23 Plant Uses Characteristics Needs Trees & Shrubs SCIENTrFIC NAME Common Name Physical Barrier :-:ts •ii •:t . w 1 Erosion Control '•'•ia ••e :•< California Native CnaisitalFlantiniE:::: Inland Plantine tii-bah i^hdscape::::: Community Landscape Natural Landscape :'B -'b. •t Seasonal Color .•ili •« hi Small size at Maturitv 1 T Laree size at Maturitv Full Sun Partial Shade fri-igatlon Reqiiired::: BRAHEA ARMATA Blue Hesper Palm • '4 • :4 •4 BRAHEA EDUU5 Guadalupe Palm • • •4 •4 CASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA Gold Medallion Tree '•4 '••4 •4 :4 •4 • •4 CUPRESSUS FORBESE Tecate Cypress • • • •4 •4 '••4 DRACAENA DRACC Draeon Tree :4 •4 '^4 • '•4 • EUCALYPTUS CITRIODOR/ Lemon Scented Gum ••-4 • •4 '•'4 • •4 EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOS Silver Dollar Gum '•4. :^ -4. •4-• • JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLU Jacaranda '4. • '•4 • 4 ••4. •4- JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS TOROLUSy Hollvwood Juniper -4 -4 • •4 •4 --4 '•4-•4 •4. KOELREUTERL\ PANICULATE Golden Rain Tree 4'. • •4-• :4. '^4 LEPTOSPERMUM LAEVIGATUN Australian Tea Tree '•'4': .4-•4 '-4: • '-4: • '-4-:4' LEPTOSPERMUM SCOPARIUM New Zealand Tree Tree 4-•4 • • • 4-LYONOTHAMNUS FLORIBUNDUI Catalina Ironwood • •4-• 4 PHOENIX CANARIENSi; Canary Island Date Palm • 4 • '•4 • 4': PINUS HALEPENS15 Aleppo Pine 4-4 • 4-• 4:-4- PINUS PINEA Italian Stone Pine '•4''-4' 4 '4 4 4-• 4 PINUS TORREYAN^i Torrey Pine 4-• 4 4 • • 4-4-4 PLATANUS RACEMOSA California Sycamore 4 '4 • 4 • 4 QUERCUS AGRIFOLI/ Coast Live Oak 4'-• • 4 • 4-• 4: TIPUANA TIPL Tipu Tree 4-i-4 4: 4 4 WASHINGTONU ROBUSTA Mexican Fan Palm '4'-• 4. • 4-4: 4. 144 Table 23, pg 2 Trees & Shrubs SCIENTIHC NAME Common Name Plant Uses Characteristics Needs Table 23, pg 2 Trees & Shrubs SCIENTIHC NAME Common Name Physical Barrier :-9 :S ;> Erosion Control ••at California Native •:c :a -•e -••9 • •in Inland Planting iJrbah Landscape: :::: Community Landscape CaHfornia Native •.til Seasonal Color •0. Smalt size at Maturitv •** m •••£ s Large size at Maturity ••9 •£ 1 Partial Shade ra'. :'S •:er :l AGAVE AMERICANA Century Plant • •-:4 •4 • •4 • • '4 •4 • ALOE SPP. Aloe '•:4 '•'4 •4 • '•4 • •'4 • '•4 ALYOGYNE HUEGELH Blue Hibiscus •4 -4 • '•4- ARTEMESLV CALIFORNICA Coastal Sagebrush • '4 • • • •4 • •'4 ••4 ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS SPP. BREWERI Coastal Qual Bush • •4 • '•-'4 -.4-•-4 ^4. CARISSA MACROCARPA Natal Plum • 4 • •4 • •4 • •4 CEANOTHUS 'JOYCE COULTER' Ceanothus '•'4 • ••4 • •4 • ^4: • • •4. • • •'4. COREOPSIS MARITIMA Sea Dahalia • '••4 • •4 • • '•4: •4 DENDROMECON HARFORDD Channel Island Bush Poppy • •'4 •4 • • • '•4 ^4 DIPLACUS PUNICEUS Coast Monkey Flower •4: •4-• • •4-•4 DODONAEA VISCOSA Hopseed Bush •i-••4. '•4 -4. •4 ECHIUM FASTUOSUM Pride of Madeira • •4 • • • '4 '••'4 ENCELL\ CALIFORNICA Bush Sunflower • 4-•4 '4^. •i: 4. EREMOCARPUS SETIGERUS Dove Weed • 4. • Si •4': 4 ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM California Buchwheat • • • 4 • '^• 4. GNAPHALIUM CALIFORNICUM California Everlasting • • 4 • • • •i- HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOUA Toyon '4-4. • • 4-• HIBISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS Hibiscus •4-4-4 4. • • 4: • '4. KNIPHOFIA UVARL\ Red-hot Poker • 4'-• • 4 4. 4-• 4-• 4 LIGUSTRUM OVALIFOLIUM California Privet '4': 4. 4 4 4 4 4 145 Table 23, pg. 3 Plant Uses Characteristics Needs Trees & Shrubs SCIENTinC NAME Common Name Physical Barrier xt:' •.it i Erosion Control if •it '••< California Native •.-s •W >B -.9 3 '.QO 1 Inland Planting >s •-ao -•.a •••ti J Community Landscape California Native 1 tm bi Seasonal Color .•ili .-ta Small size at Maturity :m i Large size at Maturity F^llSuh:>:-:::::-:::-::::;::-:::::::: Partial Shade \^ ;B-•:©. •-'S •:s .2 MALOSMA LAURINA Laurel Sumac OENOTHERA CHERIANTHEFOLJA Beach Evening Primrose • •4. • •4 • • •4-• '-4 • MALOSMA LAURINA Laurel Sumac OENOTHERA CHERIANTHEFOLJA Beach Evening Primrose • • '^4. • • • -4-• '•4 • •4 PHORMIUM TENAX RUBRUN New Zealand Flax • •4 •4 •4 •4 •i • PRUNUS LYOND Catalina Cherri '•4 • •4 • ROMNEYA COULTER] Matilija Poppy • • • '•.4'-•-4 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA California CoH'eeberry • •4 • • •:4 • '•4 '4^- RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA Lemonade Berry 4-• • •4. • • •^4 '4': RIBES SPECIOSUM Fuchsia-flowering Gooseberry •4 • '4. •4 • • ''4-• 4': • RIBES VIBURNIFOLIU^ Catalina Current • 4': • 4. •4 • • '4-• 4- ROSABANKSIAI Lady Banks' Rose •4'. • 4-'4 • • 4 • 4 SALVIA MELLIFERA Black Sage 4: • • 4 • 4-• 4 4-4. STREUTZIA REGINA! Bird of Paradise 4 4. • 4 • '4-4 XYLOCOCCUS BICOLOE Mission Manznita • 4 4. • 4. • 4'-4-[ • • 4 146 Table 24 Plant Uses Characteristics Needs Groundcovers & Vines SCIENTIFIC NAME Common Name Physical Barrier ••jii .'til 'Ml :« J Erosion Control •^ '.A :£ -:-v: •••< California Native -:u :-K :'B -:9 •Mi 3 -.00 ilnland Planting tirbah L^hdiicape::: :: Community Landscape -t •bi Seasonal Color •O Small size at Maturity •.m Large size at Maturitv 1 i ParUal Shade IrrigiBtii»n Required ::: ACHNATHERUM CORONATUN Giant Needle Grass • •4 • • '•'-4. •4 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'EMERALD CARPE' Bearbcrry • •4 '4 • •4 • -:4 '••4 • '•:4 BACCHARIS PILULARi; Coyote Brush • •••4-^4 • •4 •4 -4 BOUGAINVILLEA SAN DIEGO REJ Bougainvillea • •4 •-4 • •4 • •i: • '•-4 • • •4 CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTAU: Creeping Ceanothus • •4. • :4 • '--4: • ••4 • •4 ^4 -•4. CLYTOSTOMA CALUSTEGIOEDE Violet Trumpet Vine :4 • •4: • "4. • -4 ELYMUS CONDENSATUS Giant Wildrye • • -4 • •:•:-: •4 •4 '•'4. LANTANA MONTEVIDENSI; Common Lantana •4 • •4 •4 • •4 '•-4 '•4 LONICERA JAPONICA "HALLIAN> Hall's Honeysuckle •4^-• '••4': '^4 '•4: LOTUS SCOPARIUS Deerweed •4. • • 4^: • :-4 LUPINUS BICOLOE Lupine • •4--• • •'4 • • 4^: • MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUTv^ Prostrate Myoporum • •4': • •4 • -4: '-4-'-4: MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS Deei^rass • • :4-• • '•4: •4 4': •4: • NASSELLA LEPIDA Foothill Needlegrass • • :4-• • :4-4': • PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA Boston Ivy 4: S: • '•4-4': POLYGONUM AUBERTE Silver Lace Vine • '4-'4': • • '•4: •4-4 •4 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS "PROSTRATU Creeping Rosemary • 4: 4. :4 • •4 '••4': •4-4: '•4. SALIWA SONOMENSi; Creeping Sage • • 4 • 4-4. SOLLYA HETROPHYLLA Australian Bluebell Creeper 4-: 4-'4 • 4 • • TECOMARIA CAPENSL* Cape Honeysuckle • •4: • 4 • 4 4: 4-4 TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDEi Star Jasmine • 4: -4:-• 4: • 4: 4-•4': 4:-4 VINCA MINOfi Dwarf Periwinkle • 4: • 4-4': 4 4- 147 9.0 Liabilitv of Rails with Trails The issue of liability has been an extremely important topic during the development of this report. In an effort to address all of the issues related to liability, the national organization, the Rails to Trails Conservancy was requested to provide a report addressing liability based on their expertise and experience related to rails with trails. A report was prepared by the attomey for the Rails to Trails Conservancy and presented at a public workshop on October 25, 1996. Over 75 individuals representing 24 public agencies and several local interest groups were in attendance. The report, since revised to address comments received at that public workshop, is presented in this chapter. Responses to specific questions are included in Appendix D. 9.1 Preface Liability issues have become increasingly important to local agencies that develop and maintain public facilities such as schools, parks, trails, and roads. The increased incidence of lawsuits coming from injuries or death sustained on public property has caused concern among many local agencies, most of which are self-insured. Of particular concem have been the large dollar amounts that have been sought from public agencies for both actual medical costs and punitive damages. It is apparent by the number of success.ful lawsuits against govemment agencies that traditional govemmental immunity is being diluted. The adoption of comparative negligence (assigning proportional responsibility) and general trend towards victim compensation by the party most able to pay for those costs, regardless of fault, is of concem to most govemment agencies today. The purpose ofthis chapter is to assist the six local jurisdictions who are responsible for managing and developing the Coastal Rail Trail by identifying (a) what the typical liabilities are of any public facility, (b) how other bikeway and greenways, around the country, have dealt with liability, and (c) Califomia law and how it relates to liability exposure for the trail manager, railroad, and adjacent property owners. The intent ofthe document is to assess the liability exposure of the agencies, and what steps have proven effective elsewhere to minimize that exposure. Existing Rail trails According to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC), as of 1997, there were at least 37 active "rails-with-trails" in the United States. These facilities represent an important resource in evaluating the operations, design, and overall success of trails along active raih-oads, and serve as a baseline with which to measure the Coastal Rail Trail. A summary of conditions on the 37 trails surveyed by the RTC is presented below: • Average length is 8.1 miles. • A majority (75%) is in urban or suburban terrain. • A railroad right-of-way no more than 100 feet wide (73%). • A trail width between 8 and 10 feet (68%). 148 Minimum distance from trail to tracks 12 feet or less (17%). Minimum distance from trail to tracks 20 feet or less (38%). Barrier between tracks and trail (70%). Vegetation is the most popular barrier type (32%). Trails cross active tracks (49%). Adjacent raih-oad is a Class I (mainline) facility (65%). Railroad did not oppose new trail (91%). At least 12 trains per day (28%). Trail is self-insured against liability (65%). Trail agency does not indemnify railroad against liability (84%). Number of trails with accidents as direct result of adjacent raih^oad (3%). Trails where claims have been filed against railroad (0%). Railroad maintenance does not infringe on trail corridor (78%). Trails which are fully or partially on easements (53%). A review of this summary information reveals, among many things, that liability and safety are not major concems on the 37 rails-with-trails surveyed by RTC. Only one fatality related to the trail being adjacent to a railroad was reported in the survey, which as stated previously, involved a bicyclist ignoring bells, flashing lights and riding around lowered crossing gates at a grade crossing next to the trail. Given that the 37 trails had about 9.2 million annual users, the resultant accident rate is less than significant. The proposed design of the Coastal Rail Trail falls within the broad range of existing rail trail designs currently in use today. Of the 37 rails-with-trails surveyed by the RTC, four are in Califomia (Fillmore Trail, Rose Canyon, Irvine/Santa Fe, and Garden Grove Boulevard). Of these, the Irvine/Santa Fe Rail trail is the most similar to the proposed Rail trail, being located on the same mainline and experiencing approximately the same number of trains. The Irvine/Santa Fe Rail trail mns from Sand Canyon Avenue to Peter's Canyon Trail (a total of 3.34 miles), and provides direct access to the regional trail system and major destinations such as the El Toro U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, and the Irvine MetroLink Station. The Irvine/Santa Fe Rail trail is a 10-foot wide muhi-use trail, located approximately a minimum of 25 feet from the mainline tracks and is bordered by a 6' high fence located between the trail and tracks, for most of the trail, and has at-grade crossings at major roads. As of September 1996, at least four additional rails-with-trails were being planned in Califomia including several comparable facilities. For example, a 27-mile rail trail is being plaimed alongside the CalTrain commuter rail corridor in San Mateo County, which experiences in excess of 50 trains per day. The planned rail trail will be located as close as 12 feet from the active railroad tracks. There is an attempt to coordinate planning and design of these facilities to a consistent set of standards that meet the approval of CalTrans, the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies. The City of San Clemente has completed preliminary design and environmental assessment for a rail trjul 149 bordering the beach. The Coastal Rail Trail will be designed to handle multiple non-motorized users, including pedestrians, in-line skaters, and bicyclists. Trail design (width, shoulders drainage, gradients, horizontal and vertical alignment, etc.) will be in accordance with CalTrans guidance for bicycle facilities, and will be supplemented by design features from rail trails around the country, as appropriate (See Chapter 6). The trail will include all ofthe recommended federal and state signing and marking standards, and appropriate crossing treatments (sign, barrier, signal, or grade-separation) depending on the average daily traffic at the intersection (See Chapter 7). Liability of the Six Cities as Trail Managers Since the trail managers will be govemmental entities either individually or jointly under an agreement such as a Joint Powers Agreement, their liability will depend on the extent to which their liability is shielded or limited by the Govemmental Tort Claims Act, Cal. Govt. Code § 810 to 996.6, which establishes both govemmental Hability and immunity for tortuous acts. In general, this Act provides that a public entity may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property (Gov. Code § 835).^^ However, there are exceptions, which provide for absolute liability in cases where the injury is caused by the condition of any trail or the natural condition of unimproved public property (Cal. Govt. Code, § 831.4). Califomia law also provides that pubUc entities will not be liable "to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity, including any person who assists the participant, for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity." Cal. Gov. Code, § 831.7(a). The following scenarios are likely to expose the cities to potential liability unless some sort of statutory immunity applies: • injuries caused by defects or conditions on the trail; • injuries caused by conditions on adjacent property, including the active raikoad; • Injuries resulting from conflicts among users or at trail/street crossings. 9.2 Immunities Available Based on Recreational Use Immunity for Defects on Trail To the extent the rail trail is used by recreationists, the California Tort Claims Act For the puiposes of ttiese statutes, a "public entity" includes tbe state, the Regents of the University of Califonua, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state. Cal. Gov. Code § 811.2 (Deaing 1986). "Public property" is correspondingly defined to include any real or personal propeity owned or controlled by a public entity, but does not include easements, enaoachments and other types of property tax that are located in public property but are not owned or controlled by the public entity in question Cal. Bovt. Code § 8308 (Deering 1986). 150 provides that "a public entity ... is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of: (a) any unpaved trail which provides access to specified recreational purposes, including "fishing, hunting, camping, riding, water sports, and recreational or scenic areas if such road is not considered a street or highway under the supervision of a govemmental entity," (b) "any trail used for the above purposes," or (c) "any paved trail, walkway, path or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property." Id. § 831.4.^^ Because the rail trail will be paved, subdivision (b) of Section 831.4 is the appHcable provision providing for govemmental immunity in the case of trail users who are injured by a condition on the trail. This immunity is absolute, and does not contain the limitation applicable to easements in subdivision (c), under which the govemment will be held liable if it fails to post adequate wamings of dangerous conditions. However, this immunity will probably not be available in the event injuries are caused by failure to manage conflict between users, since this would not be considered a "condition of the trail." The courts have held that the immunity granted under subdivision (b) relating to paved trails applies to trails being used for the recreation purposes enumerated in the previous section, regardless of whether they provide access to anything or not. See Giannuzzi v. CaHfornia, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 335 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1993); Amienio v. County of San Mateo, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 631, 634 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1994). In addition, the courts have held that the term "any trail" used within the statute makes the nature of the trail's surface irrelevant to the question of whether immunity is applicable to the public entity that owns the trail. Armenio v. County of San Mateo, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d at 634 One issue that is not resolved on the face of the statute or by case law is whether the statutory immunity will be available to persons who are not using the trail for recreation purposes, such as commuters. While the answer is not entirely clear, the thmst of the statute is to accord immunity based on the purpose of the trail itself rather than the purpose of any one particular person in using the trail. For example, the statute includes riding among the recreational uses, but does not expressly state that such riding must be recreational in nature. Thus, the intention would be to protect trails that are used primarily for recreational purposes, as distinct from trails that might primarily be used for a utilitarian purpose, such as an unpaved service or utility access road, or a street or highway. To date, California courts have not asserted the proposition that a trail subject to § 831.4 would completely lose immunity if it were demonstrated that non-recreational users also utilized the trail. To the contrary, in Delta Farms Reclamation District No. 2028 v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County, 33 Cal.3d 699, 709 (Cal. 1983) the Court distinguished § 831.4 from California's Recreational Use Statute (§ 846), noting that: M addition, the legi^ture recentty amended the Civil Code to i^vide that a public entity that pemiits the pubhc to use its property "for purposes of recreatiraial trail use" is entitted to recover the attraneys fees (up to $25,000) ifthe public entity prevails or the suit is dismissed without any payment from the pubhc entity. CaL Govt, code § 846.1(b). 151 "(T)he fact that the injured party was using the trail for a recreational purpose is immaterial and that where liability attaches in favor of a non-recreational user it will also attach in favor of the hunter, hiker, swimmer, camper, and so on." In prohibiting the application of the Recreational Use Statute to public entities, the Court suggested that under § 831.4, if a trail is used primarily for the outlined recreational purposes (i.e., riding), the immunity applies, regardless of whether individual users (such as commuters) utilize the trail for different purposes. Id. at 709. The issue is how the trail is intended to be used. The purpose for which a trail is used is ordinarily viewed as a factual issue, but it becomes a question of law if only one conclusion is possible. See Giannuzzi v. State ofCalifornia, 17 Cal.App.4th 462, 467 (App. 4 Dist. 1993), granted immunity to the state for injuries sustained by a motorcyclist in a state park because he was driving recreationally. Thus, the trail manager will be immune from liability from any trail users who are injured by some condition of the trail, only ifthe primary purpose of the Coastal Rail Trail is for recreation. Immunity for Hazardous Activities As noted above, Califomia law provides that public entities shall not be liable "to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity, including any person who assists the participant, for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out ofthat hazardous recreational activity." Cal. Gov. Code, § 831.7(a). "Hazardous activity" is specifically defined to include, among other things, animal riding, bicycle racing or jumping, rock cHmbing, tree rope swinging, and cross-country skiing. Id. § 831.7(b)(1). It also includes any "recreational activity conducted on property ofa public entity which creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or a spectator." Id. § 831.7(b). However, the trail manager may still be liable in the case where (1) the public entity failed "to guard or wara of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the trail manager that is not reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose," (2) the injury was proximately caused by the "negligent failure of the trail manager to properly constmct or maintain in good repair any stmcture, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvemem utilized in the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose," (3) where it "recklessly or with gross negligence promoted the participation in or observance of a hazardous recreational activity," or (4) otherwise engaged in "an act of gross negligence " Id. §831.7(c). Absolute hability is also accorded to pubhc entities in the case of injuries "caused by a natural condition of any unimproved pubiic property, including but not limited to any natural condition of any lake, stream, bay, river, or beach." Cal. Govt. Code. § 831.2. Since tiie coastal Rail Trail is not likely to be considered '"umn^ioved prt^wty," this section is unlikely to provide any significant immunities to the trail managers for injuries occurring as a result of a condition on or adjacent to the trail itself While the Section may provide some protections in the event pasons who sued ttie tiail to gain access to ttie beach or injured while at the beach, ttiat question is beyond the scope of tiiis memorandum. 152 It should be noted that roller blading is one of the expected activities that is likely to occur on the trail. The statute does not specifically define "roller blading" as a "hazardous activity." Therefore, immunity would be available in that context only if roller blading could be considered a recreational activity "which creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or a spectator." Id. § 831.7(b). Otherwise, the general liability provisions, discussed above, will govern. 9.3 Liability for the Trail as a Highway As noted above, absolute immunity for defects in the condition of the trail will only be available if the trail is used primarily for recreational purpose, and it "is not considered a street or highway under the supervision of a governmental entity." Cal. Gov. Code, § 831.4(b). The fact that the trail is being designed as a Class I bikeway, and is being funded with federal transportation dollars creates a possibility that the trail will be treated as a street or highway for liability purposes. If the trail is considered as a highway for liability purposes, the public entity will be liable for the trail as it would for any public property. A public entity is liable for injuries resulting from the dangerous or defective condition of public owned property if the legislative body, board or person authorized to remedy the condition: (a) had knowledge or notice of the defective or dangerous condition and (b) for a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge or receiving notice, failed to remedy the condition or to take action reasonably necessary to protect the public against the condition (Cal. Govt. Code § 835). Although classification of the trail as a highway opens the public entity up to greater liability, the statute provides for certain limitations to that liability under specified circumstances, outlined below. Grading or Repair of Unofficial Roads '"Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for any injury occurring on account of the grading or the performance of other maintenance or repair on or reconstmction or replacement ofany road which has not been officially been accepted as a part of the road system under the jurisdiction of the public entity." (Cal. Govt. Code § 831.3). Although this provision does provide some immunity from liability, it only addresses specific conditions of the road and does not preclude liability resulting from natural conditions. Design Immunity In addition to the various possible immunities described above, the government agency responsible for the trail may be able to assert design immunity under Cal. Govt. Code § 830.6. This statute provides that neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by the plan or design of constmction of or improvement to public property. However, this immunity only applies to liability arising under the same chapter (Sections 830 to 840.6), thus leaving the public entity subject to liability under other 153 enactments, (see Law Revision Commission Comments). In addition, the public entity may still be liable for negligence independent of design. The public agency must demonstrate three criteria in order to assert this immunity: approval, reasonableness, and causal relationship. Davis v. Cordova Recreation and Park Dist. 101 Cal.Rptr. 358, 362 (App. 3 Dist. 1972) this case granted immunity for design of lagoon that resulted in a drowning death. First, the public entity must establish that the plan or design alleged to have caused the injury was, in fact, approved in advance by the legislative body of the public entity, or by another body or employee with discretionary authority to provide such approval (Cal. Govt. Code § 830.6). In the altemative, the agency can attempt to show that the plan or design was prepared in conformity vnth previously approved standards (Id. § 830.6). The courts have shown substantial deference to local govemments in establishing legitimate approval. Bane v. State, 256 Cal.Rptr. 468 (App. 5 Dist. 1989), held that a traffic engineer's testimony that he approved the plan was sufficient, despite his failure to sign the plan in accordance with other regulations. Second, the agency must convince the court that there is substantial evidence enabling a reasonable legislative body, other body, or employee to approve the design or the relevant standards (Id. § 830.6). This showing will require the agency to prove that the presentation of the design was somewhat substantial and that it gave sufficient consideration to the details of the plan. See Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane 136 Cal. Rptr. 751, 753 (App. 1 Dist. 1977), which held that city council's approval of a one page drawing of a road design without requisite details, and failure to account for changes during constmction, precluded application of design immunity. Evidence that the design may in fact be defective will not eliminate immunity if the approval was still reasonable. See Compton v. City of Santee, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 660, 662 (App. 4 Dist. 1993), which held that bridge design exceeding state and county standards in effect at the time was reasonable basis for approval despite claim of sight restriction that later caused injury. Use of recognized design standards like the ones mentioned below will help to support the inference of reasonableness. Finally, the court will require the agency to show a causal relationship between the design or plan and the injury sustained. See Levin v. State, 194 Cal. Rptr. 223, 226 (App. 1 Dist. 1983), which held that a state's modification of a highway involving a ditch and no median divider had a causal relationship with fatal automobile accident. In cases where the public property is no longer in conformity with the approved design or plan, the immunity continues for a reasonable period of time sufficient to allow the entity to obtain funds and carry out remedial work necessary to retum the property to conformity, (Bane v. State, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 475). Notice ofthe non-conformity does not immediately eliminate this extension of immunity. If the public entity is unable to repair the property because of practical impossibility or lack of funds, the immunity will remain so long as the entity makes reasonable attempts 154 to provide adequate wamings of the condition, (Cal. Govt. Code § 830.6). However, where a person fails to respond to such a waming, the use of the property does not in itself constitute an assumption of the risk of the particular danger, (Id. § 830.6). Effect of Traffic Control Signals The failure to provide regulatory traffic control signals, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restrictions signs, or distinctive roadway markings does not, itself, create a dangerous condition for purposes of Cal. Govt. Code § 835 and Cal. Govt. Code § 830.4 (Deering 1986). However, if a public entity elects to install traffic signals and thereby invites reliance on such signals, the public entity can be held liable if it thereby creates a dangerous or defective condition, (Bakity v. County of Riverside, 12 Cal.3d 24, 90 Cal. Rptr. 541 (4th Dist. 1970)). Moreover, nothing exonerates a public entity from liability for an injury that was proximately caused by the failure to install a non-regulatory traffic control signal, sign or marking, if such a waming device was necessary to wara of a dangerous condition that endangered the safe movement of traffic and would not have been reasonably apparent to or anticipated by a person exercising due care, (Cal. Govt. Code § 830.8). Waming signs, while they do not provide for absolute immunity, induce a greater standard of care on behalf of the users of the property who have been waraed of dangerous conditions. Proper trail markings and signage, including posting and enforcement of trail regulations, will be particularly important, given the diverse users of the trail (e.g., bicyclists, roller bladers, walkers, joggers, etc.), and the potential for injury resulting from user conflict. (See RTC, Trails forthe 21st Century, pp. 158-99.) 9.4 Liability For Dangerous Conditions on Adjacent Property If a trail user is injured by a dangerous condition on adjacent property (such as the railroad), liability will be goveraed by the general provisions of the Califomia Tort Claims Act providing that a public entity may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the dangerous condition "created a reasonable foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred." (Cal. Govt. Code, § 835). This standard will govem regardless of whether the Coastal Rail Trail is entitled to absolute immunity as a recreational trail, since that immunity extends only to the condition of the trail itself A dangerous condition means a condition of property that creates a substantial, rather than a minor, trivial, or insignificant, risk of injury when the property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable, (Cal Ciovt. Code § 830(a) (Deering 1986)). Whether the Railroad is a "Dangerous Condition*' One obvious issue will be whether locating a trail next to an active railroad is a "dangerous condition" that creates a foreseeable risk of injury to trail users. In general, a public entity's liability for dangerous conditions on adjacent property depends on "the proximity and juxtaposition of the dangerous condition on adjacent property." Goss v. 155 State of Califomia, 82 Cal App.3d 426, 430, 147 Cal. Rptr. 110, 112 (1978), detemiined that the State was not liable when a tmck driver fell in a hole located 53 feet off state right-of-way. For example, the California Courts have held that the govemment was liable for injuries sustained by a pedestrian from a protmding water pipe located on private property 12 inches from the city's property, (see Jordan v. City of Long Beach, 17 Cal. App.3d 878, 95 Cal. Rptr. 246 (1971)). Whether the railroad is a "dangerous condition" that should be wamed against depends upon the specific facts and the nature of the area in question. In Durham v. City of Los Angeles, 91 Cal. App.3d 567, 154 Cal.Rptr. 243 (1979), the court heid that the City of Los Angeles was not liable when a child was injured by a train merely because the City maintained a crosswalk and street adjacent to the railroad track, with no waming or fences between the cross walk and the adjacent railroad. The Court specifically stated: [W]e find no duty on the political entity to erect some sort of barricade in order to maintain its street in a reasonably safe condition. Neither must the City provide supervision at that location, (91 Cal. App.3d at 576,154 Cal.Rptr. at 248). The Court also specifically held that the City could not be liable for failing to provide traffic control signals waming of the railroad, stating: As for 'appellants' contention that the City did not even post a sign to deter pedestrians from passing across the sidewalk into the graveled portion while waiting for a train to pass, the lack of regulatory traffic control signals does not produce a dangerous condition (Gov. Code § 830.4, 91 Cal. App. at 576, 154 Cal. Rptr. at 248). Accordingly, there is no real duty to erect barriers or signs to wam trail users of the potential danger of leaving the trail and straying onto the adjacent railroad tracks. This conclusion is based on the court mling described above. The Liability of the Cities for Injury from other Trail Users or At-Grade Crossings The Cities may be exposed to liability in the event that trail users are injured by other trail users or by vehicles at grade crossings unless adequate wamings or protections are utilized. Injuries resulting from the failure to manage user conflict or protect users at grade crossings would not result from a "condition of the trail" and therefore, may not be protected under the immunity conferred by Cal. Govt. Code § 841.4. In cases where the trail crosses the railroad tracks, the railroad could be considered a "dangerous condition," and the Cities should provide appropriate wamings and barriers to wam trail users of the hazard. In Holmes v. City of Oakland, the court found that the City could be held liable when a six-year old child was playing on unguarded railroad tracks crossing a city street, near a school area, and subsequently mn over by a passing 156 train, (67 Cal. Rptr. 197, 203 (App. 1 Dist 1968)).^^ The Court therefore held that the City had a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect children because it was foreseeable that children would be attracted to trains and railroad cars and be injured in precisely the manner that the plaintiff was injured. Likewise, a street containing vehicular traffic could, under some circumstances, constitute a dangerous condition, such as where the intersection is obstmcted or the street is not visible due to poor site distance. The Project Study Report indicates that appropriate crossing treatment (sign, barrier, signal, and/or grade-separation) will be installed depending on the average daily traffic at the intersection. This is consistent with the best practices of other trail managers. It is unlikely, however, that the Cities will be held liable for injuries resulting from user conflicts (i.e., roller bladers versus bicyclists versus joggers). Any resulting injuries would not be the result of a dangerous condition created by the Cities, even if the Cities could have minimized the risk of such injury by adopting or enforcing regulations to manage multiple uses. See State v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 32 Cal.App.4th 325 (1995) which held that the State was not liable when an equestrian was thrown from a horse when "spooked" by mountain bicyclist since the state was not Hable for a dangerous condition based on acts of third parties; Pekarek v. City of San Diego, 80 Cal. App. 9th 909, 36 Cal. Rptr. 22 (App. 4, Dist. 1994) held that the City was not Hable when a child was injured by a car after making a purchase from an ice-cream tmck even though the City could have acted to reduce the risk by regulating ice-cream tmcks; City's obligation extended on to the street, not to the pedestrians or vehicles using the street.) 9.5 Liability of Railroad Operators/Track Owners Since the trail managers will be absolutely immune from liability for injuries sustained by recreation users, where injury is caused by the condition of the trail, it is likely that any recreation users will opt to sue San Diego Northem Railway, the North Coimty Transit District, or the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, for any injuries that may resuh from train operations. Indemnification of the raih-oad owner by the rail trail operator is a method currently being used by other rail trails across the nation in order for the rail owners to permit public access within the right-of-way and to Hmit their potential exposure to fmancial risk. The liability of the railroad operators depends on the nature of the injury. Historically, however, raikoads have had limited liability. Railroad tracks have been a ubiquitous part of almost every American community since the 1880's, whether it be a msty branch line or high speed commuter rail line. In most cases, railroad corridors are not fenced by the raih"oad operator, and are accessible by adjacent property owners and at formal grade crossings. While crossing or walking along tracks is trespassing, enforcement has ^' In Holmes, the railroad right-of-way was not owned by the City but was an easement granted to the railway company. Although the court foimd that the City retained sufficient control over the easement to make it haWe, it emphasized the hability would still exist in that the raihoad made the City owned adjacent property subject to a dangerous condition under the terms ofthe law. 157 traditionally been lax, in part, because of the difficulty in supervising thousands of miles of trackage. However, the failure to fence or police a railroad has never been reHed on to find liability. As one court stated: Many miles of railroad track nm on or along streets and roads in Califomia. To fence rights-of-way on public streets would be impractical if not an unlawful obstmction of public thoroughfares. Joslin V. Southem Pacific Co., 189 Cal. App.2d 382, 388, 11 Ca. Rptr. 267, 270 (1961) held that the railroad was not liable when a child was injured while attempting to board a moving train. Nor will the "attractive nuisance" doctrine likely be applied to hold railroads liable for failing to erect fences or take other precautions to protect trail users from injury from moving trains. The "attractive nuisance" doctrine provides for liability of a landowner where a child trespasser is injured by a condition that the ovmer knows or should know would harm children, who may not realize the risk involved. As the Court explained in JosHn, (11 Cal. Rptr. at 268-69), "To hold that railways must install child-proof fences or to police the right-of-way in order to prevent children from being attracted to moving trains would place an unreasonable if not an intolerable burden upon the possessor maintaining the condition." (Id. at 270); see also Gutirrez v. Southera Pacific Co., 174 Cal. App.2d 866, 345 P.2d 326 (Cal. App, 1959) which held that the railroad was not liable under "attractive nuisance" theory when a boy was mn over while playing on the railroad right-of-way.^^ Therefore, the train operator will not be liable if the injury occurred under these circumstances. Thus, the question is what the raih-oad's Uability would be if a trail user is injured in some other way by a dangerous condition on the raih-oad tracks. Because both of the entities that are responsible for managing the railroad are govemmental entities, their liability for other defects on the railroad property will be identical to the liability of the cities for dangerous conditions on adjacent property, (i.e., the govemment may be liable if the plaintiff* is injured by a "dangerous condition" which "created a reasonable foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred." Cal. Govt. Code, § 835). 9,6 Liability of Adjacent Private Landowners for Injury Sustained by Trail User CaHfomia's Recreational Use Statute (RUS) provides that; An owner ofany estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or non-possessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purposes or to give any warning of hazardous 32 It should be noted that railroads are statutorily exempt from hability where a person is injured wbile getting on, or attempting to get on a moving locomotive or railroad car, without authority from the owner or the operator of ttie railroad. Cal. Civ. Code. §1714.7. It is unclear whether this statutory iinmunity apphes to pubUcly owned laihxwds. 158 conditions, uses of, stmctures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purpose, except as provided in this section, (Cal. Civ. Code, § 846). The RUS does not provide immunity in cases where (1) a fee or other consideration, is charged for entry, (2) the person injured has been "expressly invited" (as distinct from merely permitted) on the premises, or (3) where there is a "willful or malicious failure to guard or wam against a dangerous conditions, use, stmcture or activity". The exception for persons who were "expressly invited" includes "only those persons who were personally selected by the landowner" (Phillips v. United States, 590 F.2d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1979)). Thus, the landovmer's duty to the nonpaying, uninvited recreational user is, in essence that owed to a trespasser under the common law, (see Oraelas v. Randolph, 847 P.2d 560, 562 (Cal. 1993)). It should be noted that the RUS would not be applicable to protect either the cities or the railroad operator, both of whom are public entities, since the Califomia RUS has been determined not to be applicable to public entities, (see Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. No. 2028 V. Superior Court of San Joaquin County, 660 P.2d 1168 (Cal. 1983), cert, denied 464 U.S. 915 (1983)). However, with respect to adjacent landowners who are not pubHc entities, the scope of the property that is subject to the RUS is very broad, and includes not just the fee owners of land used for recreational purposes, but persons having a leasehold interest in the land, (see Hubbard v. Brown, 785 P.2d 1183 (Cal. 1990) (Owner of permit to graze cattle on federal land entitled to protection by RUS)). Nor is it relevant that the adjacent land itself is not inherently "suitable" for recreation purposes. Rather, immunity applies to any land, whether developed or undeveloped, mral or urban, so long as it was used for recreation by the plaintiff, (see Omelas, 847 P.2d at 567 (RUS protected farmer from suit by children who were injured while playing on farm equipment)).'^ The immunity applies without regard to whether the land is fenced or barricaded. Accordingly, the California RUS will provide immunity to any private adjacent landowners in the event any nonpaying, uninvited recreation user leaves the trail and is injured on private property. 9.7 Guidance for Minimizing Liability Exposure Based on experiences of other jurisdictions, as well as the case law in California, trail managers are unlikely to be exposed to substantial liability from trail users. Nonetheless, liability can become a problem under several conditions. A competent risk management program for the Coastal Rail Trail will help assure that the local govemment is doing all that it can to protect the public from injury or harm while using the Rail Trail. L Use of design standards. The designers, builders, and inspectors of a facility In Omelas, the Supreme Court of Cahfomia ovorulal a series of cases in wiiich the courts have held that tiie RUS did not protect lands that are "unsuitable for recreational use," such as constmcti<m sites (Potts v. Halsted financial Corp. 142 Cai. App. 3d 860, 191 Cal. Rptr. 209 (1983) and an unpaved road in a development project fWinneiimer v. Bear Branch Raiich. 204 Cal. App. 3d 1003. 251 Cal. Rpti". 681 (1988). 159 should adhere to widely accepted standards goveming the design and constmction of the trail. A standard of conduct includes adherence to published documents such as safety codes, standards, or guidelines, which are sponsored or issued by govemment agencies or voluntary associations, even though such documents lack the force and effect of law. Provisions of state laws related to transportation facilities, if mandatory, may provide the basis for a finding of negligence per se. Applicable Califomia standards are identified in Chapter 6 and include the Uniform Building Code, and CalTrans Design Manual for Class I and II Bikeways. Other available design standards include AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; Florida DOT's Trail Intersection Design Guidelines; Island Press's Greenways: a Guide to Planning, Design, and Development; and the Rail-to-Trails Conservancy's Trails for the 21st Century: A Plarming, Design, and Management Manual for Multi-Use Trails. Careful compliance with applicable laws, regulations, route selection criteria, and design standards should greatly reduce the risk of injury to bicyclists using the bikeway, and also provide strong evidence that the agency used reasonable care. 2. Traffic signals and waming devices. CalTrans has adopted a Traffic Design Manual, which defines the circumstances under which traffic signals and waming devices are required. While Califoraia law limits the liability of public entities for failure to install regulatory traffic signals, signage and markings, non-regulatory waming signs must be installed where necessary to wam of a dangerous condition, such as an intersection. All signals and waming devices must be adequately maintained, so as not to invite reliance on a defective warning device. 3. Use of professionals. Facilities that have been reviewed and approved by unregistered or unlicensed professionals may increase liability exposure. 4. Adhere to mainterumce standards. Maintenance practices should be consistent along the entire Coastal Rail Trail, and conform to recognized maintenance practices. The responsible maintenance agency(ies) should have a written procedure to follow to maintain all portions of the Coastal Rail Trail, including pre-existing conditions such as drain grates. 5. Monitor conditions. The responsible agency(ies) should have an intemal mechanism to monitor and respond to actual operating conditions on the trail. This is typically done through the maintenance procedures, a record of field observations and public comments, and an annual accident analysis. Accidents should be reviewed to determine if physical conditions on the bikeway were a contributing cause. 6. Keep written records. Written records of all maintenance activities and procedures, responses to reports of safety hazards, and other regular activities must be recorded in order to be of use. Where a rail trail travels through numerous jurisdictions, it may make sense to have one contact person/ department responsible for the entire facility, rather than risk confusion by incidents being reported to the wrong jurisdiction. Mileposts on the route may also help maintenance and enforcement persoimel respond to 160 problems. 7. Correct hazards. Trail managers should correct all hazards known by public officials in a timely fashion. 8. Wam of known hazards. Trail users should be wamed that the trail is adjacent to an active railroad corridor and to use caution when crossing the tracks or at intersections with roadways. 9. Insurance. Proper insurance coverage or budgeting for self-insurance to cover potential liability will do much to alleviate conceras. 10. Don't call it safe. Do not make any verbal or written comments that the Coastal Rail Trail is safe or safer than a non-designated route. For example, this report makes a statement that the rail trail reduces the number of intersections bicyclists and others must use in the corridor, and that most bicycle and pedestrian-related accidents occur at intersections. However, the report does not make any blanket claims that the rail trail is safe or safer than comparable routes. 11. Don't rush to settle. Fear that juries will award a plaintiff large sums for damages has made many attomeys eager to settle cases before they come to court. One defender settled a case where a bicyclist was injured while riding his bicycle on the shoulder of a roadway that was not a designated bikeway. The prosecution claimed that the local govemment had inferred some guarantee of safety by showing the route on an official map. The map itself made no explicit guarantee of safety, but did include recommended routes for bicyclists. The defender settled the case and forced the jurisdiction to remove all bicycle maps, which is now one of the few in the state that offer no such pubhcation. The net effect of prematurely settling a case in this instance was to arbitrarily limit the types of services fliat could be offered by the local govemment. In other cases, settling cases prematurely may simply encourage legal action by others. 9.8 Liability Conclusions Arguably, trails alongside active raikoad lines are no different than sidewalks along busy arterials. They are public facilities utilizing an existing transportation corridor. In some cases, railroad lines are crossed by informal pathways connecting community destinations that have been used by, and known about by the railroad company, for a hundred years or more. In short, if safety is judged by the volume and speed of vehicles that can injure or kill a pedestrian or bicyclist, roadways pose a far greater danger than raikoads and are not considered to be an unusual safety hazard in a community. Injuries and deaths on railroad tracks receive a disproportionate amoimt of press than do automobile accidents, much as airplane accidents do. The perception of safety is related to the drama of these incidents. It has also been difficuh to determine the extent that deaths on railroad tracks have actually been suicides rather than accidents. 161 A new multi-use trail located along a railroad alignment will attract additional people to the corridor. Most of these trail users were formerly walking or riding on other trails, along roadways, or on sidewalks, and do not represent "new" users to the community. People are attracted to multi-use trails because they perceive them to be safer than riding or walking on busy streets, with intersections, driveways, parked cars, and other obstmctions. The rail trail will help organize and manage the people who currently walk across or along the tracks on informal pathways, and in doing so will help lessen the number of people walking on (or crossing) the tracks. Will a trail along an active, high-speed rail corridor encourage people to walk or play on the tracks themselves? As was mentioned, most railroad tracks are currently not fenced and have limited enforcement of trespassing laws. People seeking to engage in vandalism or other illegal activities will seek places where they will not be easily seen or caught. A multi-use trail will increase the exposure of the tracks and discourage people from engaging in illegal or unsafe activities. 162 10.0 Environmental Constraints Analysis 10.1 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to assist in the planning and alignment selection for the Coastal Rail Trail along the San Diego Northem Railway (SDNR) from the San Luis Rey River Path in Oceanside to the San Diego Santa Fe Depot. As a result of the findings presented in this chapter, the alignment was modified to address biological and cultural conceras. Additional focused studies will be prepared as part of the Envkonmental Assessment/ Mitigated Negative Declaration as determined by FHWA (See Section 10.13). This section consists of 1. The environmental documents considered for evaluation of available data on the resources affected by project implementation; 2. Collection of information from the Natural Diversity Database Records Search; 3. Discussion of the CEQA /NEPA process; and 4. Identification of data gaps and necessary field studies. The environmental constraints analysis included a review of existing biological and cultural resource information for projects that encompass the proposed Coastal Rail Trail corridor. In this initial constraints effort, limited field recoimaissance was conducted. However, 200-scale County ortho-topo maps and site photographs were reviewed. A total of 13 EIRs and technical documents were also reviewed and are identified in the Bibliography. The Oceanside Transit Center location, and all the other stations, are addressed in the Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail Project Environmental Impact Report (Coaster EIR), prepared in 1989 by RECON. The EIR evaluated the proposed railroad improvements from Oceanside to San Diego. The analysis in the EIR is limited to the impacts associated with constmction of new stations and passing track improvements. Since the commuter rail service was planned to occur within the existing SDNR railroad tracks, and the proposed stations to be situated in previously disturbed developed areas, only minimum impacts were anticipated in that EIR. The Coaster EIR analysis provides focused assessments at four locations, which include the areas for new station constmction or railroad knprovements. The biological and cultural field surveys were based on the likelihood of potential impacts occuning from improvements at these locations. The four areas included 1) Carlsbad Poinsettia Station, 2) the Solana Beach Station, 3) the Miramar Hills Curve Straightening Project, and 4) the Elvira Curve Straightening Project. 163 In addition to the Coaster EIR, each additional environmental document was evaluated based on the level of detail associated with the resource maps, the relative amount of biological and archaeological resources identified, and the length of time that had elapsed since the environmental studies were conducted. In addition to reviewing reports, biological data from the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) and the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) were reviewed. The data associated with the MHCP and MSCP were based on existing maps prepared at a scale of 1 inch = 2,000 feet. 10.2 Gap Analysis A gap analysis is a process of reviewing existing relevant documents to determine where there are gaps in the existing cultural and biological information. The resuh of this gap analysis is included in this chapter. These gaps were identified based on the lack of data along the various alignment segments and also where the existing data was insufficient for the purposes of this project. The documents that were determined to be useful for this project are listed in Tables 25 and 26 related to biological and cultural resources. 10.3 Califomia National Diversity Data Base Results The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is an electronic catalog of sensitive plant, animal, and vegetation data that has been reported to the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This data can be retrieved for any USGS quadrangle desired, and each datum has relevant information attached to it, such as the date of the sighting, the population, and the location (sometimes precise, but usually general). The CDFG has established the CNDDB as part of the California Natural Heritage Program, in an attempt to catalog and preserve the natural resources ofthe state. The CNDDB search was conducted for the entire alignment. 10.4 Critical Field Surveys Field survey windows are optimum periods of time when sensitive species are known to occur. These survey windows were identified for the various sensitive species, which may occur along the proposed project corridor. These critical field surveys would only be required if the trail alignment extends through or adjacent to areas suspected to contain sensitive species. The critical survey window for the entke project generally occurs from mid-May to the end of July for senskive wildlife species. For sensitive plants, the crkical survey windows are March through May, and August through October. Although not all ofthe potential senskive species will be resident or m bloom during this period, k encompasses the ideal survey period for all of the federal and state-listed endangered and threatened species, which have the potential to occur onske. These survey windows are summarized as part of Table 27. 164 10.5 Area of Potential Effect (APE) The alignment maps, which accompany this PSR, will identify the biological and cultural areas that may be disturbed by project implementation. APE maps are subject to FHWA approval and review under Section 106. Current species lists are requked by US.F.WS for the entke alignment and field surveys can be no older than 2 years at the time FHWA approves the document. 10.6 CEQA/ NEPA Review Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA) The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15382 define "significant effect on the envkonment" as a "substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, water, flora, fauna, etc." The findings of significance are based on criteria outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, evaluation of technical data, and professional judgment and experience. To determine the level of documentation requked for state and local projects, a determination needs to be made as to the level of impacts, which may occur, with a proposed project. In the CEQA process, this determination is made through preparation of an Initial Study (IS). If it is determined that all impacts from a proposed project are less than significant or can be mitigated to below levels of significance, a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is then prepared as part of the inkial study process. Often, a lead agency may determine to prepare an Environmental Impact Report depending on the severity of the impacts, or whether there is substantial controversy relative to envkonmental conceras. Certain actions, such as the constmction of bicycle, pedestrian lanes, paths and facilities are often exempted from the CEQA process. In this case, a lead agency makes the determination that its proposed project will not resuk in any significant environmental impacts, and then prepares a Categorical Exemption. This determination can be supported by existing studies. CEQA provides for the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) when the potential envkonmental effects identified during the Inkial Study Process are reduced through project modifications which eliminate significant envkonmental impacts or reduce them to a level of insignificance (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (c ); CEQA Guidelines, § 1500, subd. (h), 15070, subd. (b)) Under CEQA guidelines, the contents of a Negative Declaration shall include the following components: • A brief description of the proposed project, including any commonly used name for the project; • The location of the project and the name of the project proponent; • A finding that the project, as proposed, will not have a significant effect on the 165 environment; • An attached copy of the Initial Study wkh reasons supporting the findings; and • For a MND, mitigation measures to be included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully enforceable through permk conditions, agreements, or other measures. Following completion of a MND, the draft MND undergoes a thirty (30) day public review period. At the end of this 30 day period, the lead agency may elect to approve or disapprove the project. Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (NEPA) Similar to CEQA, NEPA, also exclude actions such as constmction of bicycle lanes from the environmental process. Environmental clearance for actions wkh minimal to no environmental impacts are also subject to the issuance of categorical exemptions. The federal equivalent to the CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significance (EA/FONSI). When a lead agency identifies significant, unmitigable impacts for a federal project, k is then required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Prior to issuance of a categorical exemption, appropriate environmental studies are sometimes required to determine: (1) level of significance, (2) if significant impacts could occur on properties protected by Section 4(f) for public parks, or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for cultural resources, or (3) if substantial controversy exists based on environmental issues. NEPA review is required for projects receiving federal funding. The Coastal Rail Trail has received federal funds through ISTEA and is subject to NEPA. The project review is conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and administered by the Califomia Department ofTransportation, (CalTrans) District 12. The requkements of 36CFR800 must be met prior to public ckculation ofthe EA/FONSI. The EA provides the basis for a finding by CalTrans that either: 1) the project is categorically excluded from NEPA, 2) the project has no significant impacts or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) as identified during the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES), or 3) the project has significant impacts and requires preparation of an Envkonmental Impact Statement (EIS). For purposes of the Coastal Rail Trail project, the lead agency (The Cky of Carlsbad) will be responsible for carrying forth the requked environmental documentation process. It is the intent of the ckies of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinkas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego to implement development of the trail within their jurisdictions as separate and independent projects or as joint projects between two or more cities. As indicated by CalTrans, categorical exemptions may be issued to those jurisdictions wkh minimal environmental constraints. 166 Prior to issuance of a categorical exemption, the lead agency needs to demonstrate compliance wkh the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) requirements and evidence of necessary resource permits, if required for the project. 10.7 Oceanside Alignment (See 5.1) The Coastal Rail Trail alignment begins at the San Luis Rey River along the east side of the railway, just south of Harbor Drive in Oceanside. The trail follows the railroad through a generally disturbed area. In two areas, due to design and cost constraints the alignment shifts to surface streets. The alignment extends along an existing Class III bike route on Pacific Street for approximately three blocks to Buccaneer Beach Park. The path connects back to the railroad right-of-way under the railroad trestle. At this point, k connects to the railroad corridor by crossing under the bridge to the east side. The trail continues southerly towards Carlsbad. At Eaton Street, the trail takes surface streets across the Buena Vista Lagoon. Biological Resources The trail alignment avoids a potentially biologically sensitive area south of Eaton Street approaching Buena Vista Lagoon. The trail has been realigned to take surface streets rather than utilize an existing dirt path, adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon. Although no dkect impacts were expected to the wetland habkat associated with the Buena Vista Lagoon, the proximky of the path could potentially increase human disturbances at the edge of the habkat. Based on a review of the MHCP biological maps, there is a potential for several federal and state-listed species to occur in the vicinity of the alignment, particularly along the lagoon. Among these senskive species are the following: least BeU's vkeo, light-footed clapper rail, Califomia red-legged frog, and tidewater goby. A complete list of federal and state-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that have the potential to occur in the vicinky of the alignment is presented in Tables 27 and 28. The existing biological information for the Oceanside alignment is sufficient for a majority of the current project. Two areas that do not have adequate data to detemiine if the project vnW adversely affect senskive biological resources are located at the northera terminus of the trail alignment and the northem fringe of Buena Vista Lagoon. A review of the Califomia Natural Diversky Data Base (CNDDB) determined that there are at least six senskive wildlife species that are either state or federally-listed as threatened or endangered which are historically known to occur in the vicinity of the Oceanside alignment. These six species are the least BeU's vireo, light-footed clapper rail, Califomia red-legged frog, CaUforaia gnatcatcher, Belding's savannah sparrow, and tidewater goby. Several other species wkh lower senskivky status occur in the area, including the southwestem pond turtle, northem harrier, and white-tailed kite. One plant species designated as rare at the federal level, sticky dudleya, is also known to occur in the vicinity of the Oceanside alignment. Several other plant species with lower sensitivky ratings also are knovra to occur in the area, and are summarized as part of 167 Table 27. Crkical survey windows for senskive wildlife and plant species that may potentially occur in native habitats along the two areas of this alignment generally mns from March through July. This time frame will allow surveys to be performed at the optimal time to detect the presence of the federal and state threatened or endangered species. Wetland impacts are not expected because the trail utilizes existing roadways and bridges to traverse weflands that coincide wkh the alignment. However, if k is later determined, either through field investigations or project re-design, that wetlands or waters would be affected, then a 404 permk would be needed from ACOE, water qualky certification would be needed from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be needed from Califomia Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) prior to any impacts to the wetlands. Issuance of a categorical exemption may be obtained for the Oceanside segment since the potential areas of effect are Umited to two small areas. Since these areas have been avoided through trail realignment or through site design measures, the impacts are minimal. Cultural Resources No disturbance to cultural resources is expected to occur where the trail extends along the existing Class III bike route from Pacific Street to Buccaneer Beach Park. However, potential areas of concera that may constrain trail development include the area where the proposed trail would extend along the existing SDNR right-of-way. Although the majority of the right-of-way has been disturbed by grading, the potential exists for subsurface artifacts to be located along these areas. The cultural resources survey conducted for the Coaster EIR focused its study at the proposed station locations. The limited field surveys that were conducted for the entke length ofthe Coaster HIR were undertaken only in undeveloped areas. Areas where the commuter rail project area had already been graded, or were covered by existing development, were not examined for cultural resources. All survey areas covered on foot were indicated to have been inspected by walking parallel transects no farther than five meters apart. Information in the EIR and technical documents did not indicate specific archival research, locations of the field survey, or other data collection methods. Based on the Umited availabiUty of specific information in the Coaster EIR relative to the proposed Coastal Rail Trail project, k is unknown whether the proposed trail extends through unsurveyed areas, specifically as it extends along the SDNR. These areas may contain cultural resources that would need to be addressed prior to selection of a final trail alignment. Surveys for historic resources have been conducted in the City of Oceanside in the vicinky of the SDNR tracks to identify historic stmctures and buildings. While a number 168 of residences and small businesses dating from the 1910 era to the 1950s are located in proximity to the SDNR right-of-way, these stmctures are located outside of the raikoad right-of-way and the proposed trail alignment. A review of Sanbom Fire Insurance Company maps indicates that prior to the 1940s, a number of stmctures associated with the railroad and ks activkies (i.e., baggage storage, oil tanks, etc.) were located within the SDNR right-of-way. It is possible that foundations or subsurface remains of these stmctures may be present. Field surveys and archival studies for prehistoric and paieontological resources conducted for the Coaster commuter rail project were limked to the areas where constmction ofthe new stations and addkional tracks would occur. Therefore, although portions of the Coastal Rail Trail are located within the right-of-way, a majority of the alignment was not evaluated for prehistoric or paieontological resources in the Coaster EIR. Disturbance to these resources may occur during constmction of the rail trail. The areas identified in the final aUgnment should be initially surveyed for potential resources. A background records and Uterature search from the South Coastal Information Center is also recommended to provide location data and information to complete ske form data records on all previously recorded cultural resource skes wkhin the trail alignment. This initial information would serve as the basis for determining the presence/absence of cultural resources. Should resources be identified, potential impacts may be avoided through trail realignment. 10.8 Carlsbad Alignment (See 5.2 & 5.3) The portion of the Coastal Rail Trail that extends through the Cky of Carlsbad along the Coast Highway (Highway 101) begins at Carlsbad Boulevard at the north end of Buena Vista Lagoon. The trail accesses the right-of-way just north of the bridge at Coast Highway, crossing under Carlsbad Boulevard and connecting to the Carlsbad Village Station. The trail continues south along surface streets and then connects to the rail right- of-way at Oak Avenue. The trail crosses the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on a prefabricated bridge and proceeds southerly along east side of existing tracks, k then crosses over Avenida Encinas on a Class II bike lane along Carlsbad Boulevard to La Costa Avenue. EnvironmentaUy constrained areas within the Cky of Carlsbad are generally limited to a few areas where the proposed rail trail extends adjacent to areas with mostly disturbed senskive habkats. The trail generally follows existing roadways and the SDNR right-of- way. The Buena Vista Lagoon Ecological Reserve contains 196 acres of coastal freshwater lagoon habitat with an elevation range of 6 to 30 feet above MSL. The Buena Vista Lagoon is the only freshwater lagoon in southem CaHfomia. The constmction of the bridges for 1-5, Carlsbad Boulevard/Coast Highway and the tracks visually separates the lagoon into four basins, although water ckculation is allowed xmder these stmctures. 169 Presently, the Buena Vista Lagoon Reserve is mainly used for passive recreational and educational activities. Biological Resources Three documents were reviewed for existing biological resources within the Carlsbad alignment. These include: 1) Coaster EIR (and technical document), 2) Batiqukos Lagoon Dredge Project EIR, and 3) Poinsettia Properties EIR. The Coaster EIR and the associated biological technical report documents the presence of senskive biological resources, within the SDNR right-of-way, in the vicinky of the Poinsettia Station. Although the biological data presented in these documents provide background information, the information dates back to 1989. The extent of time that has passed since the study was performed make this data inadequate to evaluate the sensitive biological resources along the Carlsbad segment of the project. The second environmental document that was reviewed, the Batiqukos Lagoon Dredge Project EIR produced ki 1990, provided vegetation mapping at the west end of Batiquitos Lagoon in the vicinity ofthe Carlsbad alignment. The proposed Carlsbad trail alignment extends through a predominantly developed area surrounded by mixed land uses except for the area between Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Batiqukos Lagoon. The trail extends next to two potentially senskive areas. This includes the area along the SDNR right-of-way, where the trail extends from Palomar Airport Road approximately 5,000 feet to the south. From aerial photographs taken during 1995, this narrow corridor appears to be vegetated with disturbed coastal sage scmb. Based on the preliminary trail alignment, the trail would extend within the existing right-of-way, outside of the adjacent habitat. Measures to avoid disturbance of coastal sage scmb habitat should be considered during constmction. Use of fencing to maintain trail users along the trail should also be considered to avoid human encroachment onto the coastal sage scmb habitat. The second location that may be environmentally constrained includes the area within the SDNR right-of-way in the vicinity of the Poinsettia Station, as identified in the Coaster EIR and the proposed Poinsettia Properties residential development. Mapping in this general area documented federal and state-listed endangered plant species, San Diego button celery, as well as wetland habitat. It is currently unknown whether these senskive plant species remain in the project vicinky since constmction of Poinsettia Station began. However, based on the Poinsettia Properties EIR and supporting biological study, vernal pools have been documented along the eastera side of the railroad right-of-way and may extend wkhin the right-of-way. Based on these documents and the existing MHCP biological data, there is a potential for the following federal or state-listed senskive species to occur within or near the Carlsbad aUgnment in the vicinity of the Poinsettia Station. These include: Pacific little pocket mouse. Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, and veraal pool fairy shrimp. The trail has been designed to avoid vemal pool areas by diverting to adjacent roadways. Species that are known to occur in the vicinky of the Carlsbad alignment, according to 170 the CNDDB, include Belding's savannah sparrow and Califoraia gnatcatcher. The coastal cactus wren, a Califomia "species of special concern," also is known to occur in the vicinity. Several sensitive plants are either known or have the potential to occur wkhin the Carlsbad alignment. These species are presented in Table 27. Critical survey windows for sensitive wildlife and plant species that may potentially occur in native habitats along the two areas of this alignment generally mn from April through July. This time frame will allow surveys to be performed at the optimal time to detect the presence of the federal and state threatened or endangered species. Issuance of a categorical exemption may be obtained for the Carlsbad segment since the potential areas of effect are limked to two small areas. If these areas can be avoided through trail realignment or through site design measures, then the impacts can be minimized. Should issuance of resource permits be requked, early consukation should be initiated to faciUtate preparation of the necessary envkonmental documents. Cultural Resources The Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project EIR/EIS. prepared in 1990, addresses issues related to the project at Batiquitos Lagoon. The project area included a segment of the rail right-of-way, the area immediately adjacent to the railway, and Batiquitos Lagoon. AvailabiUty of relevant data was limited to the information provided in the EIR/EIS; no technical studies were available for information related to specific field and archival survey information, maps showing ske locations, data collection techniques, or testing resuhs. The EIR/EIS identified 14 cultural resource sites that were recorded within the immediate vicinity of the lagoon. Of these 14 skes, two were described in the text as occurring near the SDNR right-of-way; however, no maps were available in the EIR/EIS to show the location of these skes. The trail alignment avoids these skes, therefore, there are no potential of impacts identified. The proposed rail trail extends along the right-of-way or along existing roadways. Based on a review of current aerial photographs, there are no historic resources located along the existing roadway, the raikoad right-of-way, or within the lagoon area. No buildings or stmctures appear within the SDNR right-of-way or within the existing roadways where the rail trail would be located. Due to the limked amount of data found in the existing documentation, it is unknown whether prehistoric or paieontological resources have been identified within the railroad right-of-way. Disturbance to these resources may occur during constmction of the bike trail. These constraints are largely associated where the trail extends adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, along potentially unsurveyed areas. The proposed trail should be inkially surveyed for potential resources. A background records and Uterature search from the South Coastal Information Center is also recommended to provide location data and site form information on all previously recorded cultural resource sites within the trail alignment 171 10.9 Encinitas Alignment (See 5.4 & 5.5) The Encinitas alignment starts just south of Batiquitos Lagoon, at La Costa Avenue connecting to the west side of the railroad. The trail follows the rail right-of-way through the majority of Encinitas, except at Encinitas Boulevard and at Chesterfield Drive. The right-of-way consists of small areas of disturbed sensitive habkats. The trail generally follows existing roadways and the SDNR right-of-way. Existing vegetation includes omamental landscaping (street trees, lawns, and eucalyptus trees). The San Elijo Lagoon is within the Cky of Encinitas' jurisdiction and is 530 acres in size. The lagoon is primarily a shallow-water brackish wetland that rarely experiences tidal flows. The westem portion of the lagoon is bordered by South Coast Highway 101 and the SDNR right-of-way. Biological Resources The Coaster EIR and the biological technical appendix were reviewed for existing biological documentation within the Encinitas segment of the project. These studies focused primarily on the new stations and minimal survey work was conducted along the raikoad. Based on 1975 and 1995 aerial photograph interpretation, one potentially constrained area of disturbed coastal sage scmb, located south of La Costa Avenue, was identified. The trail alignment diverts to Class II bicycle lanes on North Coast Highway 101 to avoid any disturbance of this area. The remainder of the alignment is located within the SDNR right-of-way through predominantly developed areas. Although no federal or state-listed senskive species have been documented along the Encinkas trail alignment, based on MHCP data, the state-listed Belding's savannah sparrow has been identified within coastal sage scmb habitat in the vicinity of the alignment. A complete list of state and federally endangered, threatened, and candidate species that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the alignment, such as Pacific little pocket mouse, is presented in Table 28. The CNDDB search determined that there are two state or federally listed endangered or threatened species known to occur in the vicinity of the Encinkas alignment. These species include, Belding's savannah sparrow and Califoraia gnatcatcher. The coastal cactus wren is also of concem along this portion of the project. One state endangered plant species, Encinitas baccharis, is known to occur along fliis segment of the project. Table 27 summarizes the senskive plants that are ekher known or have the potential to occur within the Encinkas aUgnment. Critical survey windows for senskive wildlife and plant species that may potentially occur in native habitats along the aUgnment generally mns from March through July. This time frame will allow surveys to be performed at the optimal time to detect the presence of the federal and state threatened or endangered species. 172 Issuance of a categorical exemption may be obtained for the Encinitas segment since the potential areas of effect is limited to one smaU area. If these areas can be avoided through trail realignment or through ske design measures, then the impacts can be minimized. Should issuance of resource permits be required, early consultation should be inkiated to faciUtate preparation of the necessary envkonmental documents. Cultural Resotirces The Downtovyn Encinitas/North 101 Corridor Specific Plans Supplemental Envkonmental Impact Report was reviewed for information regarding the Encinkas alignment. This EIR addressed cultural resources within the City of Encinkas General Plan. The General Plan identified 203 historic sites within the general cky boundaries. The trail will extend outside the area of historic resources. Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur. Prehistoric resources were not addressed in the corridor document, therefore, it could not be determined if prehistoric or paieontological resources are present within the trail alignment. To detennine whether segments of the proposed trail extend through areas, which may contain these resources, the Cky of Encinitas should conduct a visual ske survey to help identify potential areas of concem. A background records and literature search are also recommended to provide location data and site form information on all previously recorded prehistoric resource skes within the trail alignment. 10.10 Solana Beach Alignment (See 5.6) The Solana Beach alignment extends for 1.6 miles wkhin the raikoad right-of-way including an area that is being developed as part of the Lomas Santa Fe Grade Separation project. Environmental clearance for the railroad grade separation and linear park has already been completed. Biological Resources The environmental document for the Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation project was reviewed for existing biological information within the Solana Beach segment of the Coastal Rail Trail project. This document covered the Solana Beach alignment from San EUjo Lagoon to Via de la Valle along Highway 101. The Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation document addressed impacts associated with removal of existing trees and vegetation that would occur with implementation of the grade separation. This area coincides wkh the proposed Coastal Rail Trail. The grade separation project will remove most of the existing vegetation wkhin the proposed Solana Beach aUgnment prior to placement of the trail. The Cky of Solana Beach will box and relocate 14 mature Toney Pine trees located along the right-of-way. To date, the cky has moved and relocated 176 trees that had been identified for removal. For this reason, the Solana Beach alignment would not encounter any sensitive biological areas. 173 Cultural Resources The Lomas Santa Fe Cultural Resources Technical Study was available for review. Two historic skes were discovered during the field survey which were determined to not be historically significant. Both sites were determined to not be eligible for nomination to the National Register. One site, CA-SDI-1307H, was located on the northeast coraer of Cedros Avenue and Lomas Santa Fe. The ske consists of a paved lot with asphak and eleven concrete foundations and pads enclosed by a chain link fence. The cultural resources assessment was based on an archaeological record and literature search and a "visual" field survey of the Lomas Santa Fe Grade Separation project area. The archival search and field surveys did not reveal any previously recorded or new prehistoric skes wkhin the project area. 10.11 Del Mar Alignment (See 5.7) This segment of the alignment begins at Via de la Valle in the City of Del Mar. At this point, the corridor alignment is proposed to connect to the Class II bike lanes to the west, passing the Del Mar Race Track and Fairgrounds. The bicyclists continue on bicycle lanes on Camino del Mar through the Cky of Del Mar. Pedestrians proceed to Powerhouse Park where the pedestrian trail accesses the west side of the rail right-of- way. The pedestrian trail will utilize existing dirt paths along the top ofthe bluffs. Biological Resources Documents reviewed for the Del Mar aUgnment include the San Dieguko River Park Plan Em, the Mid-Coast Corridor EIR and the Coaster EIR. The Coaster EIR and Mid-Coast Corridor Altematives Analvsis documents provide only intermittent coverage of biological resources along this portion of the project, generally in the vicinity of Via de la Valle. As previously stated, the data provided in the Coaster EIR document is limited to the station areas. The San Dieguko River Park Plan EIR contains biological data compiled from the existing MSCP mapping in the vicinity of the Del Mar alignment at the west end of San Dieguko Lagoon. The data from this relatively recent study is sufficient for the portion of the alignment in the vicinity ofthe San Dieguito Lagoon. The area that is important in terms of biological resources along the Del Mar alignment is located within the SDNR right-of-way north of Del Mar Heights road. Existing native habitats along the coastal bluff may constrain any realignment of the pedestrian trail. Although coastal sage scmb, coastal bluff scmb, maritime succulent scmb, southera coastal salt marsh, or beach/saltpan habitats are known to occur along the aUgnment, there are no expected impacts since the trail will not be constmcted within the raikoad right-of-way. No federal or state-listed senskive species are known to occur directly along the Del Mar alignment; however, important sensitive species that have been documented in the vicinky of the Del Mar alignment include, Belding's savannah spanow and Califomia gnatcatcher. A complete list of federal and state-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that have the potential to occur in the 174 vicinity of the aUgnment is presented in Table 28. The Mid-Coast Corridor EIR and the Coaster EIR included coverage of the area outside of the proposed trail alignment. Therefore, data from these reports were not appUcable for purposes of this analysis. The San Dieguko River Park Plan EIR provided data that is relatively cunent for the area where the Del Mar aUgnment crosses San Dieguko Lagoon, however, at this location, the proposed trail avoids the lagoon. A proposed at-grade crossing at 29th Street would provide access from the San Dieguko River Park trails to the Coastal Rail Trail. The at-grade crossing is located in an area, which has been previously disturbed. The results of the CNDDB search for the Del Mar alignment indicated that there are four wildlife species that are considered threatened or endangered at the state or federal level that have been known to occur in the vicinity. These include the following species: California least tern, California gnatcatcher, Belding's savannah spanow, and westem snowy plover. Two plant species considered endangered by the state, short-leafed dudleya and Orcutt's spineflower are knovm historically to occur in the area. A list of senskive plants potentially occurring along the alignment is presented in Table 27. There are several other senskive wildlife species associated with the area, including the orange- throated whiptail, and the coast banel cactus, presented in Table 28. The Mid-Coast Conidor EIR and the Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail EIR were not ske specific to determine the availabiUty of existing data for the proposed trail. The data provided in the San Dieguko River Park Plan EIR is relatively cunent. However, the rail trail is not expected to affect the San Dieguko Lagoon. Portions of the Del Mar aUgnment, where k potentially traverses senskive biological areas south of Del Mar Heights Road as well as south of Stratford Court, should be surveyed if any new trails are constmcted. Crkical survey windows for senskive wildlife and plant species that may potentially occur kl native habkats along the two areas of this alignment generally mns from April through July. This time frame will allow surveys to be performed at the optimal time to detect the presence of the federal and state threatened or endangered species. As noted for the trail alignments described above, if federal or state-listed species are detected during the required biological surveys, then the US.F.WS and CDFG would need to be contacted to discuss the project's affects and required mkigation ekher through formal or informal consukations. Since there are no proposed trail improvements there is no need to pursue surveys unless the trail is realigned along the right-of-way. Issuance of a categorical exemption may be obtained for the Del Mar segment since no new trails are proposed. 175 Cultural Resources The cultural resources section of the San Dieguko River Park Concept Plan EIR was prepared in 1993 by (jallegos & Associates. The section consisted of a Uterature review only of the proposed study area and did not include field survey, or resource evaluation testing programs. Since the park area extends 55 miles to the east and the area of the bike trail, which is wkhin the park boundaries, will be located on the road, this study does not provide any relevant data. Review of cunent aerial photographs indicates that no historic resources are located within the cunent raikoad right-of-way; therefore, no historic resources will be affected by the proposed project. The available documentation for the Del Mar segment identifies the potential of several prehistoric skes to occur ki the general vicinity. No maps were included to show the survey boundaries and locations of the prehistoric sites, therefore, the study caimot be used to determine the absence/presence and potential significance of cultural resources wkhin the cunent study area. Potential areas of concem associated wrth prehistoric resources are generally limked to the SDNR right-of-way. Should any new trails be developed, a survey consisting of a walkover would help detemiine whether prehistoric sites exist along the aUgnment. For any new trails, a data records search should be conducted to provide location data and site form information on all previously recorded cultural resource sites within the trail alignment. 10.12 SanDiego AUgnment (See 5. 8-5.11) This trail enters the City of San Diego at Carmel Valley Road in the Toney Pines area. From the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and North Toney Pines Road, the pedestrian trail alignment follows the railroad right-of-way southeast for approximately 100 feet through the Toney Pines State Reserve until k shifts further eastward along the Carmel Valley Road right-of-way. The trail alignment extends near the ske ofthe future SR-56. This freeway, which is cunently under constmction, will provide east-west access from 15 to the inland communkies of Los Penasqukos, Poway, and Rancho Bernardo. At the pomt where Carmel Valley Road intersects with Sonento Valley Road, the trail alignmem shifts directly south until k reunites with the SDNR and continues along the railroad crossing under the 1-5 freeway first and fiirther southeast under the I- 805 freeway. After crossing under the 1-805 freeway, the alignment continues eastward along the SDNR right-of-way, through Soledad Canyon until k reaches Miramar Road within the Miramar Marine Corps Ak Station. After crossing under Mkamar Road and entering MCAS Mkamar, the trail aUgnment continues southwest along the east side of the railroad right-of-way, utilizing an existing dirt road, and crosses to the north side of the rail at 1-805 where k proceeds through the Rose Canyon and University Cky area until k reaches the westem portion of Highway 52. The Nobel Drive station is proposed by NCTD along this segment. 176 The rail trail travels south through or near the Clairmont, Pacific Beach and Mission Bay areas. At Balboa Avenue, the alignment crosses on a bridge over Balboa Avenue, continually following the raikoad. At Friars Road, the trail crosses under the rail right- of-way to Pacific Highway, accessing existing bicycle lanes. The alignment would continue along Pacific Highway to the Santa Fe Train Depot in dovmtown San Diego. Biological Resources Seven environmental documents were reviewed to determine existing biological resources along the San Diego alignment including the Oceanside to San Diego Rail Commuter Rail Project (Coaster Rail Project), North City Water Reclamation Plant Rose Canyon Tmnk Sewer. Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analvsis DEIS/DEIR, Nobel Drive Extension. Nobel Drive Commuter Rail Station projects, and the Realignment of NAS Mkamar EIS. These documents covered areas along the alignment from Canoll Canyon Road east of 1-805, up to \firamar Road, through MCAS Miramar and back to the southera underpass of 1-805, 500 feet west of the freeway. Environmental documentation also covered from 0.25 mile east of Genesee Avenue to the west end of Highway 52, and from the west end of Highway 52 to Balboa Avenue. All of these documents, wkh the exception of the Coaster EIR, are relatively recent, and provide a great deal of adequate information. The majority of the San Diego alignment goes through developed areas; however, the proposed trail alignment extends through three areas considered to be environmentally constrained. The fkst area where the trail extends through highly senskive habkat occurs when the alignment crosses one of the tributaries of Los Peiiasqukos Creek in the Sonento Valley area. Potential bridge crossings along the creek would involve minor distuibance to wetland habkats in Sonento Valley. The second area where the trail extends through a sensitive area occurs through Soledad Canyon north of MCAS Mkamar. This area is predominantly covered by coastal sage scmb and chapanal habkats. The area is disturbed by numerous informal trails. The trail would be located adjacent to the railroad as k proceeds up Mkamar Hill avoiding the sensitive valley floor. Another area of concem includes the MCAS Miramar property. To the extent possible, the proposed trail would utilize an existing access road as k extends through the MCAS Miramar property. However, areas within MCAS Mkamar consist of highly senskive biological resources and wildlife corridors, as identified in the MCAS Miramar EIS. Use of baniers may constrain three wildlife corridors that extend through MCAS Mkamar. These wildlife corridors lead to Soledad Canyon, Periasqukos Lagoon, and Toney Pines State Reserve. Should barriers be requked along the entke length ofthe trail through the ak station, potential impacts to wildlife conidor movement could occur unless a vegetation barrier is used or a fence which allows for movement of wildlife. Indirect impacts due to increased human disturbance may also occur to senskive biological resources, including veraal pool and coastal sage scmb habkats, as well as senskive plant and animal species. Interpretive signs in these locations may be used to limk access in 177 these areas. One federally threatened bkd species, the Califomia gnatcatcher and one state endangered bird species, Belding's savarmah spanow, are documented in the CNDDB as occurring in the vicinky of MCAS Miramar. Two plant species listed as endangered at the state and federal level are also associated wkh this segment of the project. San Diego mesa mint and San Diego button celery are known to occur in vemal pools in the southwestem part of the County, including those found in the vicinky of MCAS Mkamar. The CNDDB search results also detemiined that the state endangered, short- leafed dudleya and Orcutt's spineflower are both known to have occuned historically in the vicinity. A summary of the sensitive plants potentially occurring wkhin the Sonento VaUey alignment is shown in Table 27. Rose Canyon Open Space Park contains oak woodland habkat. The trail has been diverted to avoid this area by placing a bridge over the railway at 1-805 in the long-term. In the short-term, an at-grade crossing may be considered. The trail proceeds along the north side of the railroad avoiding the Open Space Paric. The CNDDB indicates that the following federal and state-listed species may occur in the vicinity of the alignment: San Diego button celery, San Diego mesa mint, Califomia gnatcatcher, Belding's savannah spanow, and San Diego fairy shrimp. Other sensitive species may potentially occur in the vicinity of the San Diego alignment. Califoraia gnatcatchers have been sighted in the vicinity of the Nobel Drive Transk Station Ske. The North City Water Reclamation Plant, the Nobel Drive Commuter Rail Station. Rose Canyon Tmnk Sewer. Nobel Drive Extension, and the Realignment of NAS Miramar EIS documents all provide extensive documentation of biological resources along the San Diego alignment from 500 feet west of 1-805, until k reaches the south side of Miramar Road at the edge of MCAS Mkamar. The Mid-Coast Conidor EIR and the Oceanside- San Diego Commuter Rail EIR did not provide adequate biological coverage of the San Diego alignment. Critical survey windows for sensitive wildlife and plant species that may potentially occur kl native habitats along the two areas of this alignment generally mns from March through July. This time frame will allow surveys to be performed at the optimal time to detect the presence of the federal and state threatened or endangered species. The San Diego trail alignment has been modified to avoid traversing through three key areas, which may pose greater environmental constraints. Based on the potential number of impacts and potential issuance of resources permits, the proposed project may require preparation of an Inkial Study/Environmental Assessment. Through trail realignment or ske design measures, impact may be avoided or minimized. 178 Cultural Resources Portions of the San Diego alignment have been addressed by several different reports and studies including the Realignment of NAS Miramar EIS document. This recent study addressed the cultural resources wkhin the boundaries of the MCAS Miramar, however, the segment of the base that included the railway was specifically exempted from the study. Therefore, no cultural surveys were conducted along the SDNR aUgnment for the MCAS Miramar study. The Mid-Coast Corridor Envkonmental Impact Statement and Cultural Resources Technical Report deal with a small portion of the area encompassed by the San Diego trail. The study area for the Mid-Coast Corridor crosses the railroad Une just north of Sonento Valley Boulevard, and again in the vicinity of Miramar Road, Rose Canyon and continues on to Mission Valley and downtown San Diego. No cultural resources were located wkhin the Sonento Valley area of the alignment. Eight studies were available for review for the Universky portion of the alignment and three of the EIR studies and the associated cultural resources technical reports are considered to be adequate to address potential cultural resources that may occur along the trail alignment. The Mid-Coast Corridor EIR and Cultural Resources Technical Report: the Nobel Drive EIR and Cultural Resources Technical Report: and the Rose Canyon Tmnk Sewer EIR and Cultural Resources Technical report address cultural resources in these areas. The Mid-Coast Corridor study included a record search, field study, and significance determinations for 17 prehistoric sites, and 8 historic sites. Three ofthe prehistoric skes had previously been determined to meet the criteria for significance under both Section 106 and CEQA in the Rose Canyon Tmnk Sewer EIR document. The Mid-Coast Corridor study concuned with these findings. The Phase I Historic Properties Inventory of the Nobel Drive Station conducted by Ogden Environmental in 1993 covers a small section of the aUgnment that extends along the railroad line in Rose Canyon from the railroad track on the north side to Nobel Drive for a portion of the distance centered between Towne Center and Shoreline Drives. The study included a field survey and archival research, which concluded that no cultural resources were present along the north portion of the track up to Nobel Drive. The southera portion below the track was not surveyed. The report is considered to have adequately addressed cultural resources north of the track for purposes of the Rail Trail PSR but the area south of the track for the bike path was not addressed. This area of study would need to be addressed for this portion of the track. The Nobel Drive Extension EIR/EIS study was completed in 1996. The study area for the project extended from north of Mkamar Road along Interstate 805, crossed the railroad tracks and continued south along 1-805 below Govemor Drive. A portion ofthe raikoad tracks was covered by the study. The study included archival research, a field survey and testing of 35 prehistoric skes. No historic sites were found. The testing program concluded that one prehistoric ske was eligible for the National Register, under Section 106, criteria and two others were significant under CEQA criteria only. The study is 179 considered to have adequately addressed cultural resources wkhin the project area and the area to be covered by the rail trail. The Mid-Coast Corridor Environmental Impact Statement and Cultural Resources Technical reports also address the area that extends along the railroad line from just west of Genesee Street where it crosses the track and continues southward through Rose Canyon down to where the raikoad track parallels Interstate 5 then continues on to Interstate 8. The study lists cultural resources along the railroad track in the section of the alignment from Interstate 8 north to Rose Canyon. The field survey, archival research and testing program are considered adequate to address cultural resources along the SDNR right-of-way and the proposed bike path. The Realignment of NAS Miramar EIS document addressed the cultural resources within the boundaries of the MCAS Miramar. The base was surveyed and cultural resources were tested for significance, with the exception of a corridor that included the raikoad and the immediately sunounding territory. Therefore, the base realignment document contains no information relative to cultural resources that would directly relate to the constmction of the rail trail. The Mid-Coast Corridor Envkonmental Impact Statemem and Cukural Resources Technical Report deal wkh a small portion of the area encompassed by the Sonento Valley Alignment. An archival search and field survey were conducted and determinations of significance were made for cultural resources within the project area. The Mid-Coast Conidor study is considered to have adequately addressed the cultural resources within the survey area. The Area of Potential Effect addressed in that report included a 200-foot corridor along the railroad (100 feet on each side of the track). As cunently proposed, a majority of the raU trail extends in close proximky to the SDNR railroad, and therefore is included wkhin the 200 foot corridor study. The Rose Canvon Tmnk Sewer EIR (1992), the Rose Canvon Tmnk Sewer Cultural Resources Technical Report (1992). and the Rose Canyon Interceptor No. 3 Constraints Analvsis Report (1989) cover similar territory in Rose Canyon aJong the raikoad line. The Rose Canyon Interceptor No. 3 Constraints Analvsis Report consisted of archival research and a 'Svindshield" level field survey. A total of 19 skes were revealed during the archival research. No testing of the sites or significance determinations were made as part of the study. The Rose Canyon EIR and Cultural Resources Technical Report studies included a field survey, a record search, and testing of 5 prehistoric skes and 2 historic sites for significance under both Section 106 and CEQA. Three sites were considered to meet the criteria for both levels of significance and the other four were considered to not be significant. The three studies taken together are considered to have adequately addressed the cultural resources issues along the Rose Canyon section and the portion of the railroad assuming the proposed trail stays within the 200 foot corridor covered by these studies. The Phase I Historic Properties Inventorv of the Nobel Drive report provides adequate cover for the northera portion of the railway. The area to the south of the tracks. 180 however, were not included in that Historic Properties study. The Nobel Drive Extension EIR/EIS study is considered to have adequately addressed cultural resources within the project area, which encompasses the area, traversed by the proposed bike trail. Unsurveyed areas traversed by the proposed trail were identified to occur north of and within MCAS Mkamar. Archaeological surveys should be conducted to avoid or minimize potential cultural resources along these areas. Unsurveyed areas for cultural resources were identified where the proposed trail extends along the southem side of the railroad line through Rose Canyon. Should placement of the trail occur in this southem area, archaeological surveys would be required. The eight EIRs and associated cultural resources technical studies provided for review - the Rose Canyon Tmnk Sewer EIR and associated reports, the Nobel Drive EIR and associated reports, the Mid-Coast Corridor EIR and associated studies for the Rose Canyon/ Universky Cky area are considered adequate to address the potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the constmction of the bike path for the portions of the alignment which they covered. However, the studies do not cover the entire alignment. Unsurveyed areas for cultural resources were identified where the proposed trail extends along the southem side of the railroad line through Rose Canyon. Should placement of the trail occur in this southem area, archaeological surveys would be requked. 10.13 Summary The Coastal Rail Trail project as a whole must be discussed in the NEPA document to receive FHWA approval. On July 25, 1997, the FHWA representative determined that: 1) a NEPA EA/FONSI document is requked and 2) The studies requked are biological, noise and cultural resource focused studies. A subsequent meeting on January 21, 1998, with the Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, US.F.WS, and Fish and Game determined that there was no potential affect to water quality. Biological survey and wetland delineation have not been completed for areas identified in this chapter. Further analysis of the impact on sensitive biological resources would be conducted as part of the NEPA/CEQA process. Permks from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be determined. It is anticipated that the trail may be adjusted to avoid areas of encroachment into sensitive habkats. Any biological studies, which are 2 years old at the time of final environmental approval, will need to be updated and an updated species list win need to be requested from US.F.WS. The specific locations of constmction activkies related to the rail trail have not been field surveyed in most cases to determine the presence (or absence) of prehistoric cultural resources sites. The only exceptions are cases where a site has been previously tested and a report of the resuks is available. For sites where no ske testing has been conducted and, for purposes ofthis document, cultural resources can only be preliminarily assessed for 181 significance/importance using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and CEQA criteria. When final trail alignments are selected and specific information related to site constmction activity (i.e., earth removal, depth of grading, etc.) are known, archaeological (deposk bearing)/cukural resources (prehistoric) would need to be evaluated. If skes are identified, testing is usually required to determine significance and/or importance. The testing evaluation estabUshes site size, extent, depth, integrity, and potential to address important research questions. This information can then be used as a means of accurately assessing impacts to these important resources, and to guide development of the project to avoid the skes or implement appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. 182 Table 25 DOCUMENTATION APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Project Coverage Vegetation Sensitive Plants Sensitive Wildlife Comments Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis 1-8 to Villa dc la Valle Map avaiiabte (1991 data) Map available (1991 data) Map available (1991 daia) Data may be somewhat outdated, and portions conflict with Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer data Nobel Drive Extension 500 ft. wesl and 2000 ft. east of 1-805 Map available (1993 data) Map available (1993 data) Map available (1993 data) Nobel Drive Commuter Rail Station 0.5 mile west ofl-805, between Nobel Drive and the AT&SF righl-of-way Map available (1993 data) Map available (1993 data) Surveys conducted (1993), but no map provided in the BA (text description only) Realignment of NAS Miramar i-805 east to south of Miramar Rd. Map available (Ogden GIS) Map available (Ogden GIS) Map available (Ogden GIS) San Dieguito River Valley Regional 0/S Park Highway IOI at west end of San Dieguito Lagoon MSCP mapping No detailed surveys No detailed surveys No detailed biological surveys were conducted; all data based on existing MSCP mapping North City Water Reclamation Plant East of 1-805 at Miramar Road M^p available (1992 data) Text only (1992) Text only (1992) Property is near, but does not Include, the proposed Coast Rail Trail alignment; detailed sensitive biological data exists, but we don't have it Batiquitos Lagoon Dredge Project West end of Batiquitos Lagoon Map available (1990 data) no data no data Vegetation has probably changed after the lagoon was dredged; no sensitive species surveys were conducted Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer From Avati Drive at Morena Boulevard, to 0.25 mile east of Genesee Avenue Map available (1992 data) text only text only Sensitive species documentation Is "text only" because no sensitive plants or animals were found Table 26 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL RELEVANT ADEQUATE CULTURAL RESOURCES DATA 00 Project Coverage NR/CEQA Sites Project Area Covered Mid-Coast Corridor EIR/Cult. Res. Tech. Report 1-8 to Via de La Valle 3 prehistoric sites Intersection of RR line and 1-5 North of Sorrento Valley Road; Rose Canyon south to 1-8 Nobel Drive Extension EIR/Cult. Res. Tech Report 500 ft. west/2000 ft. east of 1-805 1 prehistoric - NR 2 prehistoric - CEQA East of Rose Canyon on both sides of 1-805 Cultural Resources Study for the Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer Project; EIR and Cult. Res. Tech. Report East and south of University Towne Centre; along Rose Creek to i-5; and parallel to 1-5 on the east side 3 prehistoric sites Rose Canyon from east of Genesee to 1-5 and south along 1-5 Table 27 00 „ . . Coastal Rail Trail Sensitive Plant Species Known from the Project Vicinity FE =federally endangered SE =state endangered FT ^federally threatened PE ^currently petitioned for federal endangered status R ^federally rare PE ^currently under petition for federal endangered stams PT =cuirently under petition for federal threatened status CEQA s=considered sensitive under CEQA ^s^riod when plant is in bloom, and is easiest to identify O =Oceanside C =Carlsbad E =Encinitas SB s=Solana Beach D =DelMar SD >^an Diego X =species is known from the area * =species may occur in the arca Data from Document Review. MSCP. MHCP, CNDDB, and CNPS data bases. Table 28 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN FROM THE PROJECT VICINITY 186 APPENDIX A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 187 Public Participation Process Throughout the development of this project, numerous public meetings and workshops were conducted. The purpose of these meetings was to inform the public about the project, encourage public interest, and to solick public response and comments. Grenerally, the format of the meetings included a slide presentation, scope of the project, funding, the process, and project schedule followed by questions and answers. The workshops were conducted by a team consisting of the project manager, Steve Jantz from the City of Carlsbad and the Transtech Engineers, Inc. staff Additional support was provided by the Coastal Rail Trail Committee members. The attendance at these presentations varied from five attendees at the Solana Beach Historical Society to over 100 at the 1st Annual San Diego Trails Councii Conference held in Descanso. Overall enthusiastic comments were received at these community workshops and presentations about the project. The most frequently asked questions or coinments included: Question: How many people do you expect to use the trail? Answer: Based on population projections, peak season usage, and corresponding data from other similar trails, it is estimated that over 7 million bicyclists, joggers, walkers, and roller bladers will use the trail annually. Question: This trail might be fine for some people but I won't use it. Response: The intent of the trail is to provide a trailfacility for those persons who are not comfortable biking on a busy roadway, adjacent to traffic. The trail will provide a walking corridor for pedestrians as well Question; Will the bicycle lanes on Highway 101 be removed when the Coastal Rail Trail is completed? Answer: No, the San Diego Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey conducted in May 1994 concluded that 41% of persons did not bicycle because there was a "lack of desired bike facilities ". The Coastal Rail Trail will provide a facility for those users who do not currently bike on the road Question: When the project is complete will there no longer be the packs of bicyclists on Highway 101? Answer: Bicyclists who currently ride in the street will probably continue to ride in the street. (^estion: What are the economic benefits of the trail? Answer: Trail users spend cq>proximately $I4/per capita. It is estimated that the trail will have cq>proximately 2.1 million annual non-local users which will generate an estimated $29 million annually to the San Diego region. Question: Who will pay to build the trail? Answer: The trail is currently being funded through various grants. It is the intent 188 of the six cities to continue to pursue grant ftmding to design and construct the trail Question: Answer: Question: Answer: Question: Answer: Question: Answer: Question: Answer: Who will maintain the trail? // is assumed maintenance will be performed by the jurisdiction in which the trail is located However, the six cities may consider forming a regional trail authority (a JPA) or assigning the maintenance responsibilities to an existing regional agency for coordination and cost savings benefits. Does the trail have to be paved? The trail is being designed to CalTrans stcmdards for a Class I Bikeway cmd Americans with Disabilities Act. A Class I Bikeway is defined as a "minimum paved width for two-way bike path shall be 8 feet". A paved surface may be asphalt, concrete, or a hard surface slurry seal that blends with the environment Each jurisdiction may select a paving surface that is more conducive to their particular location. Will there be a fence? How high will the fence be? What is the purpose of the fence? A barrier, either vegetation or fencing, is recommended when the trail is located closer than 25 feet from the edge of the trail to the centeriine of the closest track and where the vertical separation is less than 10 feet. Height of afence or vegetation barrier will be determined in the design phase based on the specific circumstance. Will there be landscaping between the trail and the railroad? Lcmdscaping is recommended to provide a physical barrier between the trail and the railroad, as well as provide visual quality. Does the raikoad owner want the trail? The Board of Directors of the San Diego Northem Railway has formally supported the construction of the Coastal Rail Trail cmd is a signatory of the MOU. Question: How close will the trail be to the railroad? Answer: The trail will be located a minimum of 15'from the centeriine of the railroad. In areas where the right-of-way permits, the trail will be located farther. Question: How soon will it be completed? Answer: The trail will be constructed in phases, as funding is achieved, over a period of ten years. The first phase is scheduled to begin constmction in 1999. 189 Question; Will there be more than one trail — one for bicyclists and one for pedestrians? Answer: Where the right-of-way is wide, it is recommended that a separate trail for pedestrians be constructed. 190 APPENDIX B PUBLIC MEETINGS 191 Public Meetings Meetings were held at the following locations and dates: Date Oreanization Location 09/20/95 Parks and Recreation Commission City of Solana Beach 01/10/96 City Council Cky of Oceanside 02/13/96 City Council City ofCarlsbad 02/14/96 Optimist Club Del Mar Hikon, Del Mar 02/21/96 Planning Group NAS Mkamar 03/18/96 City Council Solana Beach 05/29/96 Bicycle Advisory Committee SANDAG, SanDiego 06/03/96 ROSE Extension Committee Scripps Miramar Rimch Library 06/06/96 Rose Canyon Recreation Council Doyle Recreation Center, San Diego 06/11/96 American Public Works Assoc. Cky of Carlsbad, Engineering Office San Diego/Imperial Valley Chapter Cky of Carlsbad, Engineering Office 06/12/96 Miriam Bear Recreation Council Clairmont Recreation Center 06/19/96 Solana Beach Parks & Recreation City Council Chambers, Solana Commission Beach 06/20/96 NCTD Board of Dkectors NCTD, Tremont Street, Oceanside 08/01/96 Rose Canyon Recreation Council Doyle Recreation Center 08/05/96 Rose Ckizens' Advisory Committee Scripps Mkamar Ranch Library Center 08/08/96 Toney Pines Plarming Group Del Mar Heights School, Del Mar 08/29/96 Highway 101 Merchants Assn. Solana Beach, CA 09/10/96 Solana Beach Chamber of Highway 101, Solana Beach Commerce 09/10/96 City Council Cky of San Marcos 09/19/96 Solana Beach South Siena Solana Beach, CA Homeowners Assoc. 09/19/96 Solana Beach Tennis Club Solana Beach, CA 09/23/96 Solana Beach Historical Society Fletcher Cove Recreation, Solana Beach 09/24/96 San Diego County Cky Engineers City ofCarlsbad 09/24/96 Cky Council City of San Marcos 09/30/96 South Cedros Merchants Assoc. Belly Up Tavern, Solana Beach 10/01/96 Cky Council Solana Beach, CA 10/04/96 San Dieguito River Park Rancho Bemardo Heights Rec. Citizen Advisory Committee Center 10/05/96 San Diego Trails Council Descanso, CA 1st Armual Conference 10/07/96 Cky Council City of Del Mar 10/15/96 Cky Council Solana Beach 10/25/96 LiabiUty Workshop City of Carlsbad, Safety Center 11/05/96 City Council City ofCarlsbad 11/13/96 Cky Council City of Encinitas 192 12/02/96 City Coimcil City of Del Mar 12/05/96 Bicycle Coalition Tiena Santa Recreation Center 12/09/96 Encinitas Workshop City Hall, Encinitas 12/18/96 SANDAG San Diego, CA 01/08/97 City Council City of Oceanside 03/19/97 City of San Diego Cky Council San Diego, CA Natural Resource Committee 04/29/97 Operation Lifesaver Los Angeles, CA 04/16/97 Frederick R. Harris, Inc. City Hall, Solana Beach 05/17/97 Agua Hedionda Lagoon Committee Carlsbad, CA 06/03/97 Mission Bay Park Committee Mission Bay Park 06/11/97 Old Town Planning Group Old Town, San Diego 06/13/97 Solana Beach Civic Association Pacific Coast Grill Solana Beach 06/23/97 Pacific Beach Community Planning San Diego, C A Committee 07/03/97 Pacific Beach Pianning Group Pacific Beach Library Pacific Beach 07/19/97 Transportation Committee Administration Building San Diego 12/02/97 San Dieguito River Valley 02/06/97 Ad Hoc Coastal Rail Trail City of Del Mar Committee City of Del Mar 12/18/97 NCTD/MTDB San Diego, CA 01/15/98 MTDB San Diego, CA 01/29/98 1st Intemationai Rails-to-Trails San Diego, CA Conservancy Conference San Diego, CA 03/02/98 City ofCarlsbad Traffic Safety City of Carlsbad, City Council Commission Chambers 03/24/98 Carlsbad Village Business Carlsbad Irm Association 05/04/98 Northwest Quadrant Association Private Residence, Carlsbad 05/07/98 Rotary Club -Carlsbad Raintree Irm 05/22/98 MCAS, iVlkamar MCAS, Mkamar Community Land Use and Management Planning Committee 9/22/98 Oceanside Chamber of Commerce El Camino Inn, Oceanside 193 APPENDIX C COASTAL RAIL TRAIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS 194 Coastal Rail Trail Committee Meetings At the onset ofthe project, the Bicycle Advisory Commktee of San Diego Association of Govemments created a staff advisory committee to oversee the project. This Coastal Rail Trail Committee met on a monthly basis and was composed of representatives from each ofthe six agencies. The meetings were regularly attended by staff* representatives from the Ckies of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Diego and the San Diego Association of Governments, North County Transk District, and Califoraia Department of Transportation. Other agencies that were notified of the meeting but did not attend on a regular basis, including the Metropolitan Transk Development Board, NAS Miramar, and MCAS El Toro. Except for two occasions, the Coastal Rail Trail Committee meetings were held at the City ofCarlsbad, Engineering Offices, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad on the following dates: March 1,1996 April 18,1996 June 13, 1996 July 25, 1996 September 26, 1996 December 12, 1996 Febmary 27, 1997 May 29, 1997 July 31, 1997 September 25, 1997 November 20, 1997 March 12,1998 April 20, 1998 June 25, 1998 August 27,1998 November 19, 1998 May 25, 2000 July 27, 2000 October 26, 2000 March 21, 1996 May 16,1996 July 11, 1996 August 29, 1996 October 24,1996 January 23, 1997 March 24,1997 June 26, 1997 August 28, 1997 October 23, 1997 January 22, 1998 March 26, 1998 May 28, 1998 July 23, 1998 October 22, 1998 April 21, 2000 June 22, 2000 August 24, 2000 195 Appendix D Response to Questions from "Addressing Liability of Rails with Trails^ Workshop 196 Response to Questions from "Addressing Liability of Rails with Trails" Workshop Question: Are the RTC case studies relevant to the Coastal Rail Trail corridor, specifically in regards to high speed rail operations'? Response: Twenty-three (23) of the thirty-seven (37) case studies in the Rails-to- Trails Conservancy's "TraUs-wkh-Rails Study" are located along mainline railroads, which typically involve higher train speeds. One of those, the Irvine Rail trail, is actually on a similar type of high speed mainline as the Coastal Rail Trail and has essentially the same train frequencies and speeds. There are other Rail trails adjacent to mainUne raikoads wkh high speed rail service located in San Femando Valley, Davis, Sacramento, and other locations throughout the United States. There has been no known research published that conelates train speed with higher pedestrian or bicycle accident rates. The existing high speed raikoad corridors in California, fllinois, and the Northeast United States, including the NCTD conidor, all have grade crossings and parallel roadways where pedestrians and bicyclists are permitted near and on (crossing) active tracks. It may be useful to consider comparable situations to help answer this question. Ckies throughout San Diego County, Califomia, and the United States, regularly approve and build bike lanes and crosswalks that put pedestrians and bicyclists either directly in the path of motor vehicles or within two or three feet of motor vehicles. Sidewalks and crosswalks are accepted because k is assumed that a) pedestrians need to have access along and across streets and b) pedestrians can make a decision when it is appropriate (safe) to cross a street. Some of these roadways, such as Pacific Coast Highway in San Diego Coimty, carry over 20,000 vehicles per day, traveling at speeds of 55 miles per hour. There are documented accidents on these roadways involving pedestrians and bicyclists. From the perspective of placing pedestrians and bicyclists close to vehicles which can cause injury or death, a high speed railroad line with 30 trains per day poses substantially less of a safety risk than bike lanes or crosswalks on a busy high speed arterial. It may be argued that railroads are not similar to roadways in that they may attract people, especially children, to waUc or play on the tracks. Other than *No Trespassing Signs," there is little to deter anyone from crossing or walking along the raikoad. It could be argued that the presence of an active trail in the corridor would increase visibility and dissuade lokering or playing on the tracks. More importantiy, people who cunenfly walk along the tracks would be able to discontinue walking on the tracks and walk on a trail. 197 Question: How many of the RTC case studies are actually located within (as opposed to adjacent) the railroad right-of-way? Response: The RTC Report states that relatively few (22%) of the rail trails are located wkhin the active railroad corridor. The study does identify that 55% of the trails were located within 20 feet or less of the tracks, which would put them very close to active railroads. Research performed by NCTD indicates that about 26% of the trails were located within active railroad corridors. One purpose of the RTC study, and the reason it was included in this report, was to identify whether there are safety problems associated with locating trails near active raikoads. Safety is a fimction of proximity, fencing, and other physical and operating characteristics of the corridor. Safety is not directly related to land ownership. There are, however, numerous examples of trails being located on easements within active railroad right-of-ways. For example, the Alton Trail in Santa Ana is located on an easement wkhin an active Union Pacific Railroad corridor. The liabilky exposure of a raikoad is typically no greater when a rail trail is located on an easement within the right-of-way, than if k is immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. First, k is common for a Rail trail to indemnify the railroad as part of an easement agreement. Second, there is no documented conelation between rail trails along active raikoads and safety problems. Finally, regardless of the rail trail location the raikoad kself will remain private property and be fenced, patrolled, and/or signed as needed. Question: It appears to be the general rule that fencing is provided between the rail trail and tracks when the trail is located within the railroad right-of-way. What is the plem for the Coastal Rail Trail? Response: According to the RTC study, fencing is provided on approximately 20% of the 37 faciUties surveyed. The final draft Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report (PSR) recommends that barriers be provided wherever the trail is located closer than 25 feet to the centeriine of the nearest track, and where there are existing informal crossings that need to be charmelized. The Coaster Rail Trail will be located as far away from the tracks as possible. Barriers would likely be provided in all constrained parts of the corridor. Where the Coastal Rail Trail is located closer than 25' to the tracks, a 48"-60" barrier is recommended of a solid type to help baffle noise and wind. Breaks in the barriers are recommended every 500 feet, unless a suitable grade separated crossing is provided. Question: Are there cmy existing rail trails located within railroad corridors that have high speed rail service, cmd also have the same fencing specifications as the Coastal Rail Trail? Response: There are at least two rail trails that meet this criteria in Califomia. First, a rail trail has been designed, approved, and cunently out to bid ki Palo Alto that is located within the CalTrain right-of-way. The trail is wkhin 20 feet of high speed train. 198 and is fenced. Second, there is a section of rail trail located next to the Southem Pacific Railroad mainline in Sacramento that is located within the raikoad right-of-way, also with a fence. Specifics on these and other comparable facilities are being researched at this time. Question: Is it a general rule that trails located next to active railroads indemnify cmd provide insurance protection to the railroad? Response: According to the RTC study, the vast majority (84%) of trail easements do not indemnify or provide insurance protection to the adjacent raikoad for incidents that occur outside the trail easement. All rail trails provide thek own insurance and complete indemnification to the raikoad for incidents that occur within the trail easement, including breaches in fencing. The final anangement with NCTD will need to be negotiated as part of the implementation process. Question: If the trail is classified as a recreational facility (as suggested in this report), would that conflict with the fact that the trail is being financed as a commuter transportation facility? Response: Muki-use trails that are funded for commuter transportation purposes do not preclude use by people for recreational purposes, nor are the uses conflicting. Virtually all multi-use trails such as the Coastal Rail Trail that are funded by transportation funding sources have the goal of reducing vehicle trips to help relieve congestion. This does not conflict with the fact that many trail users will probably be recreational users, and therefore the trail could be defined by that primary use as a recreational faciUty. In summary, recreational use of the trail does not inhibk the use of the trail by commuters. 199 Appendix £ Memorandum of Understanding 200 MTDB Doc. No. L0348,0-98 OPS 940.8 (PC 415) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITIES OF OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD, ENCINrTAS, SOLANA BEACH, DEL MAR AND SAN DIEGO AND THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR COORDINATED PLANNING AND DESIGN OF A MULTI- MODAL, NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILWAY FROM SAN LUIS REY RIVER, OCEANSIDE TO THE SANTA FE DEPOT, SAN DIEGO. WHEREAS, the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encmitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, are hereinafter refened as Public Agencies; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies deske to develop a 42 mile multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility primarily withm the right-of-way of the San Diego Northem Railway, hereinafter refened to as SDNR, from the San Luis Rey River m Oceanside to tiie Santa Fe Depot in San Diego, hereinafter known as the Coastal Rail Trail; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Rail Trail will provide altemative transportation opportunities, reduce automobile trips, and thereby improve ak quality; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies also recognize tiie regional benefits tiiat a continuous multi- modal, non-motorized transportation facility will have on recreation, tourism, quality of life, and health; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG) has designated the City of Carlsbad as tiie lead agency in coordinating tiie planning and design effort for tiie "Coastal Rail Trail" project and have formaUzed this action by designating tiie Coastal Rail Trail witiiin tiie Regional Transportation Improvement Plan adopted by tiie SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, tiie North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB) and tiie San Diego Metropolitan Transk Development Board (MTDB) own tiie SDNR right-ofway, witii Nortii County Transit District (NCTD), tiie operating entity of NSDCTDB, serving as the managing agency; and WHEREAS, the SDNR was purchased for use primarily as a rail transportation conidor, hosting a federally designated high speed passenger corridor, as well as rail freight operations and; WHEREAS, the Public Agencies desire to develop, maintain, and operate the Coastal Rail Trail witiiin the SDNR right-of-way as an ancillary use subordinate to the primary use; and, WHEREAS, tiie Public Agencies acknowledge tiie unportance of designing a trail tiiat is safe and is separated from the railway; and. 201 WHEREAS, tiie Public Agencies deske to develop tiie Coastal Rail Trail witiiin the SDNR right- of-way, if feasible due to railway, legal, and land use Iknitations; and WHEREAS, in those segments of the San Diego Northem Railway right-of-way not suitable or feasible for the Coastal Rail Trail alignment, the Public Agencies kitend to explore altemative alignments utilizing city, state, or federal highway, utility right-of-ways, and private property; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies intend to work closely in a cooperative effort with NCTD, MTDB, and other affected local, state, and federal agencies to plan and design the Coastal Rail Trail in portions of the right-of-way not intended for railway and light rail use; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies, agree to work cooperatively to develop implementing agreements for the Coastal Rail Trail with affected property owners and to pursue grant funding for constmction, operation and maintenance of the Coastal Rail Trail facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by tiie Public Agencies and tiie Board of Directors ofofNSDCTDB and MTDB as follows: 1. That the above recitations are tme and conect. 2. That tiie City Manager of tiie cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, and tiie General Manager of NSDCTDB and MTDB are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of each City or Board of Dkectors, the Memorandum of Understandmg regarding tiie proposed "Coastal Rail Trail"witii the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encmitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego and NSDCTDB and MTDB, a copy ofwhich is attached as Exhibk "A" and incorporated by this reference. 202 crrv OF OCEANSIDE Mayor CITYOFC Date:_lrlV-?1 Datc:4i^a^ CITY OF ENCINITAS auren Wasserman, City Manager Date :/A/S f I CITY.OF SOLANA BEACH Robert Semple, City Manager Date::. /^C.-^^-?<^ OF DELMAR Lauraine Brekke-Esparca, City Manager Date: ^ CI SAN DIEGO Date: JackAlcGrory, City Manager NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRI Martin Minkoff, Executiye Director Date: //-J./^? ? J^ETROPOLITAJiJSAliOT- BOARD Thomas Larwin, General Manager Data: 203 Pace 4 of MOU Exhibit A rage ^ oi MWU CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATED PLANNING AND DESIGN OF THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL The railway from Oceanside to San Diego cormect the jurisdictions of the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encmitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego and offers the opportunity to create a 42 mile multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility known as the Coastal Rail Trail. In order to develop the Coastal Rail Trail and provide a regional benefit, a coordinated effort of the jurisdictions and NSDCTDB and MTDB is required. WHEREAS, the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encmitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar. and San Diego border or lie wdthin the boundaries of the San Diego Northem Railway right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies agree that k is their goal, if feasible, to create a continuous multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility for the benefit of the Public: and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies are willing to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate planning and design of tiie affecting the "Coastal Rail Trail' project in conjunction with NSDCTDB and MTDB. NOW THEREFORE, tiie PubHc Agencies hereby agree to study, research, coordinate, plan, and design the "Coastal Rail Trail" through coordinated funding, planning, environmental, and design effort to achieve a continuous 42-mile multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility. This coordinated effort shall include the following: COORDINATION: The design and planning effort shall be coordinated between the Public Agencies, NSDCTDB, MTDB, and other affected property owners, as well as related agencies including, but not limited to, NAS Miramar, Califomia Public Utilities Commission, Califomia Transportation Commission, Califomia Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Califoraia Department of Fish and Game, and tiie U. S. Department-of Fish and Wildlife. PLANNING: The planning effort shall consider issues related to the development ofthe Coastal Rail Trail within the railway right-of-way, from the San Luis Rey River in tiie City of Oceanside to the Sanla Fe Depot in the City of San Diego and shall consider altemative alignments or temporary alteraative alignments tiiat might be necessary due to railway use, legal, liability, physical or funding constraints. DESIGN: The design effort shall result in a 30% preliminary engineering design to assist the Public Agencies ki developmg consistent design standards, and analyzing costs to constmct and makitaki tiie Coastal Rail Trail and related facilities. CRTMOU082996 204 Appendix F Sampie Agreement For the Use of Portions Railroad Right-of-Way for a Public Trail 205 FORM OF AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF PORTIONS OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE QTY OF This License Agreement (the "Agreement") is made this day of . 199 between tiie NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, owner and operator ofthe SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILWAY ("Raikoad'*). heremafter refened to as '*NCTD," and the , heremafter refened to as "CITY." RECITALS A. CITY deskes to use the portion of the Raikoad right-of-way (the "Right-of-Way") owned by NCTD and more particularly described m Exhibk 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property") for pubUc recreational activities, mcludmg, but not Umited to, cycUng, jogging, and waUdng. B. CITY has designed a trail/park (the "Trail") to be developed for public use ki the City. The Trail will be configured and located generaUy as shown on the drawmg attached hereto as Exhibk 2 and made a part hereof C NCTD and CTTY intend tiie Trail to be a part of tiie "Coastal Rail Trail" being developed by a number of local cities and agencies ki cooperation with NCTD (the "Rail Trail"). NOW THEREFORE, m consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as foUows: 1. Grant of Use Rights. NCTD hereby agrees to aUow tiie CITY to use tiie Property for the purposes described m Section 3, below, subject to (1) aU preexisting rights, mterests and 206 easements affecting use of the Property and (2) aU rights, interests and easements aff*ecting use of the Property granted or conveyed by NCTD during the term of this Agreement that do not more than mkiknaUy interfere with CITY'S use of the Property, and upon the terms and conditions set forth kl this Agreement, for a term of fifty (50) years begiimmg on , 199 (the "Commencement Date") and endkig on , 204 or at an earUer date as is heremafter provided (the "Term"). 2. Pavment of Use Fee. CITY shaU pay a use fee to NCTD m the sum of one doUar ($1.00) as partial consideration for the use of the Property, payable in advance, on the first day of the Term. 3. Permitted Use. 3.1 During the Term, the Property shaU be used for the exclusive purpose of the constmction, maintenance and operation of the Trail, and for uses normaUy kicident to that purpose. CITY shaU not use or permit the Property to be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of NCTD. CITY shaU not commit or permit the commission by others of any damage, nuisance or waste on the Property. CITY shaU not place or permit to be placed upon the Property any gasoUne or any hazardous or explosive material, waste or substance. CrrYs use of the Property shaU not interfere with any raikoad operations on the Right-of-Way. 3.2 If CITY, its successors or assigns, shaU use the Property for any purpose other than as stated m this Section 3, or faUs to act ki strict accordance with the provisions ofthis Agreement, then NCTD shaU provide CITY with a timely written notice ofany clakn of default, meet and confer with CITY regardmg said claim of defeult, and aUow CITY an opportunity to cure said default so long as CITY proceeds ejq)editiously to cure said default. If CITY faUs to 207 cure said default ki a timely manner, NCTD may exercise ks remedies at law or equity against CITY. 3.3 No vehicular or pedestrian crossmg over NCTD's tracks shaU be mstaUed or used by CITY without the prior written permission of NCTD. 3.4 CITY shaU cooperate wdth NCTD and other local agencies ki the development and operation of the Rail Trail and shaU permit the use of the Trail as a part of the Rail TraU under such terms and conditions as are approved by CITY, which approval shaU not be imreasonably withheld. 3.5 It is expressly understood and agreed by CITY that CITY shaU use the Property without kiterference or damage to the pipe Unes, electric transmission Unes, telephone Unes, other communications faciUties and other faciUties of like character, existing or constmcted during the Term of this Agreement over, under, along and across the Property or the adjacent NCTD Right- of-Way. CITY hereby agrees that k wUl indemnify and save hannless NCTD and ks Hcensees and invitees from and against any and aU UabiUty for any such interference or damage. 4. Development Standards. The use of the Property for the TraU shaU be subject to the foUowing development standards: 4.1 The landscapkig of the Property shaU be subject to the foUowing conditions and restrictions: (a) No sprinklers or irrigation waters are permitted withm the Right-of-Way outside of the Property; (b) Adequate dramage must be provided for the Property so that at all times all water shaU flow away from the raUs and ties and other raUroad facUities; and, 208 (c) No vertical obstmction shaU be permitted within 25 feet of the center line of the raUroad tracks. Trees and shmbs must be planted more than 25 feet from the center Une of the raikoad tracks. However, no tree Umbs shaU encroach into that area which is 12 Vi feet from the center Une of the raikoad tracks and no tree shall be placed or aUowed to grow so as to create a risk of a tree or tree limb falling onto the raUroad tracks. 4.2 Portions of the TraU, including the pedestrian path, may be Ughted and in no kistance shaU any vertical object be closer than 25 feet from the center lme of the raUroad tracks. 4.3 CITY, at ks own discretion and expense, shaU instaU signage in connection with the TraU, subject to the prior approval of NCTD conceramg the size and location of any signage. In no instance shaU any signage be closer than 25 feet from center Une of the raUroad tracks. 4.4 CITY shaU constmct some form of barrier, the design of which shaU be approved by NCTD, between the TraU and the raUroad track and facUities to prevent users ofthe TraU from entering onto the portion of the Right-of-Way that is not the Property. 5. Constmction Matters. 5.1 CITY agrees that aU work to be done hereunder by CITY and/or ks contractors m the constmction and/or maintenance of knprovements on the Property shaU be performed ki a good and workmanUke manner and in accordance with plans and specifications approved by NCTD, which approval shaU concem only those matters occurring on, within or under the Property and are related to raUroad operations, improvements or equipment. Only those changes or modifications during constmction that affect the Property and/or are related to raU related operations, knprovements or equipment shaU be subject to approval by NCTD, which approval 209 shaU not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. AU work performed on, over, or under the Property shaU be done to the satisfaction of NCTD. 5.2 In the constmction of the TraU CITY shaU require ks contractor, at the contractor's expense, to: (a) obtain a Right-of Entry Permit from NCTD, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibk "3," and (b) procure and maintain in force at aU times during the constmction ofthe TraU, and for additional periods as described in the specifications for the constmction of the Trail, the msurance requked by the Right-of- Entry Permit. 5.3 CITY shaU reimburse NCTD within 30 days of mvoice for aU costs and expenses incuned by NCTD (includmg a 7.2% admkiistrative fee) in connection with the plannmg, design and constmction of the TraU including, but without limitation, consultants fees, mark out of raUroad facUities, the expense of fumishmg mspectors, security and flag protection as NCTD deems necessary, the instaUation and removal of false work beneath tracks, equipment rentals and restorations of the Right-of-Way. 5.4 Flag protection shaU be requked when constmction of the TraU and/or CITY's operations on or adjacent to the Right-of-Way present a danger to NCTD's raU facUities. NCTD shaU determkie the need for Flag Protection ki ks sole discretion. CITY agrees to execute time cards as requked by NCTD personnel providing Flag Protection services. 210 5.5 The foUowmg individuals shaU be contacted prior to the start of constmction of the TraU and shaU be the CITY's contacts regardmg work on the Property: (a) NCTD Contacts. Contact Noel Peck at (619) 967-2868 (810 Mission Ave.. Oceanade, CA 92054) or Chip \^^lUett at (619) 966-6504 (810 Nfission Ave., Oceanside, CA 92054) at least 7 days prior to the start of any work on the Right-of-Way. (b) MCI Contact. Contact LoweU Hardy of MCI Telecommunications Corporation at 905 East Discovery Lane, Anaheim, CA 92801 (310) 608-1939 prior to any excavation ki the Right-of-Way. (c) MFS Contact. Contact Thomas Stames of Price Technical Services at 7121 Engmeer Rd., San Diego, CA 92111 ((619) 277-3222) prior to any excavation ki the Right- of-Way. 5.6 NCTD shaU have the right to enter the Property to post notices of non- responsibUity. CITY shaU not permit any mechanics' or other Uens to be filed against the Property nor agamst CITY's mterest herem by reason of labor and materials fumished to the Property at CITY's msistence or request. If any such Uen is filed agamst the Property, CITY shaU cause the same to be discharged of record, either by payment of the claun or by posting and recording the bond contemplated by CaUfornia CivU Code 3143, wdthin twenty (20) days after demand by NCTD. CITY shaU mdemnity, hold harmless and defend NCTD from and agamst any such Uen. 5.7 The requkements stated m this Agreement related to the constmction ofthe TraU shaU be specificaUy identified in any project specifications and bidding documents prepared by 211 CITY for the constmction of aU or any part of the TraU, and shaU be subject to approval by NCTD. 5.8 Any contractor or subcontractor performing work on, or in coimection with the CITY'S use of or entry onto the Property pursuant to this Agreement, shaU be conclusively deemed to be the servant and agent of CITY, acting on behalf and withki the scope of such contractor's or subcontractor's employment for CITY and subject to the provisions of this Agreement. 5.9 Any and aU constmction work performed or caused to be performed by CITY on the Property shaU be performed ki accordance wdth any and aU appUcable laws, rules and regulations mcludmg, but not Umited to, the AMERICAN RAILWAY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION'S MANUAL FOR RAILWAY ENGINEERING, cunent edition, and such mles and regulations as are estabUshed by NCTD. CITY shaU submit work plans to NCTD for review and written approval. Any such Work must be carried out pursuant to work plans approved in writkig by NCTD. In addition, flag protection shaU be requked and paid for by the CITY when CITY'S use of the Property presents, ki the opinion of NCTD, a potential danger to raU operations on the right-of-way. NCTD shaU determine the need for Flag Protection m ks sole discretion. 6. Makitenance. 6.1 CITY acknowledges and agrees that NCTD shaU have no obUgation whatsoever to mamtam or repak the Property. CITY shaU be soiely responsible for maintenance and repak of aU knprovements constmrted on the Property and aU costs ki connection therewith, mcludmg, but not Umited to, the repak, resurfacing and reseaUng of the pedestrian path and the watering and makitenance of landscapkig, as necessaiy. CITY shaU perfonn aU mamtenance and clean-up of 212 the Property and the knprovements thereon as necessary to keep both m good order and a safe condition and m accordance wdth aU appUcable Federal and state laws and regulations. 6.2. CITY acknowledges that the use of Property ^mcludmg the pedestrian path) by NCTD and others entities having rights to use the Right-of-Way is necessary for the maintenance and repak of the improvements, facUities and equipment on or withm the Right-of-Way. Accordingly, NCTD, and its agents, invkees, Ucensees and employees, shaU have the right at any time to barricade any portion of the Property and prevent pubUc use thereof on a temporary basis as NCTD deems necessary for the duration of repak work. In the event such barricading is instaUed, NCTD shaU provide prompt notice to CITY by phone or telefex and m accordance wdth Section 17,bdow. Inthe exercise of rights under this Section 6.2, NCTD ^laU ensure that adequate precautions are provided for the protection of authorized TraU users. 7. Duty of Care of NCTD As To Improvements. NCTD shaU exercise aU reasonable care and precaution in the normal course of its business to avoid damaging the TraU improvements constmcted on the Property by CITY. 8. Indemnity. 8.1 In addition to and without Umitation on any other provision of this Agreement, CITY hereby agrees to mvestigate, defend, wdth counsel approved by NCTD (should special counsel be deemed necessary by CITY), mdemnify and hold NCTD, and ks members, oflBcers, agents and employees, hannless from and against any and aU loss, damage, UabiUty, claims, demands, detriments, costs, charges and ejqjenses (mcludmg attomeys' fees) and causes of action of whatsoever character which NCTD may incur, sustam or be subjert to on account of loss ofor damage to or destmction of property and loss of use thereof or for bodUy mjury to or death of 213 any persons (mcluding, but not Umited to property, employees, subcontrartors, agents, servants and invitees of NCTD, or any other person to whom a duty of care is owed), arising out of or in any way related, ki whole or m part, to (i) the condition of the Property, (u) the use of the Property by the CITY, including, but not Umited to, the authorized or unauthorized use ofthe TraU by any person, or (Ui) the use of the Property by the general pubUc for cycUng, joggmg, waUdng, or other activities, whether or not such loss, damage, destmction, loss of use, injury or death was jokitiy caused by or contributed to by, and irrespective of any negUgence or aUeged negUgence, active passive or otherwise, by NCTD, its officers, agents, servants or employees. 8.2. CITY further agrees to mdemnity and hold NCTD, and ks members, officers, agents and employees harmless from and agamst any and aU UabUity, costs, charges, penalties and expenses, mcludmg reasonable attoraeys' fees, which NCTD may incur as a result ofor ki connection with clakns, demands, or action by any govemmental entity or other party arising out ofor aUeged to have arisen out of raUroad operations, mcludmg, but not Umited to. any release or discharge ofany toxic, fiammable noxious or other hazardous material, includmg fiimes. onto, under, over, or withm the ak space of the Property or any part thereof, or any pond, landscapkig or other elements of the TraU. 8.3. This indemnity shaU not apply m cases of wdUful, gross, wanton or criminal negUgence on the part of NCTD or its members, officers, agents, servants or employees. 9. Condition of the Propertv 9.1 CITY warrants that k has mspected the Property and accepts the Property in an "AS IS, WHERE IS CONDITION, WITHOUT WARRANTY AS TO QUALTTY, CHARACTER, PERFORMANCE OR CONDmON" witii aU fault and witii fiiU knowledge of 214 (i) the physical condition of the Property, (U) aU zonmg and other land use laws and regulations afftsctkig the Property, (Ui) aU matters of record relating to the Property and (iv) aU other conditions, restrictions, encumbrances relatmg to the Property. 9.2 CITY hereby recognizes and acknowledges that raikoad tracks are located on or adjacent to the Property. CITY recognizes that the cunent and potential expanded fiiture operation of trains over the Right-of-Way does and wiU produce vibrations, fumes, visual impacts and noise levels which may be considered objectionable by the employees, agents, residents or invitees of the CITY. With knowledge and understandmg of these facts CITY hereby accepts the Property as provided in this Article 9 and agrees that no legal action or complaint of any kmd whatsoever shaU be mstituted agamst NCTD or other authorized users of the Right-of-Way by CITY or on CITY's behalf as result ofsuch vibrations, fiimes, visual impacts and noise levels or as a resuk of the operation of the Right-of-Way. 10. Utilities. CITY shaU anange and pay before deUnquency aU charges for utUities, kicluding without Umitation, water, power, heat, garbage, communications and sewer services reasonably necessary to conduct CITYs permitted use of the Property under this Agreement. 11. Relocation of Facilkies. If at any tkne NCTD in ks judgment decides that, due to the constmction or relocation of a raikoad facUity or equipment, any part of the improvements and appurtenances constmcted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement needs to be relocated k shaU provide a written sbrty (60) day notice to CITY or ks assignee(s). Thereafter, CFTY and NCTD wdU informaUy meet and confer to discuss the aUocation ofthe cost of relocating the affected pubUc improvements and appurtenances. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the 215 aUocation of the cost of relocating the affected pubUc improvements and appurtenances the parties shaU submit the matter to mediation with a mediator agreed to by the parties. 12. Insurance. 12.1 In addition to the msurance requked m Paragraph 5.2. above, at aU times whUe this Agreement is in effect, CITY shall, at ks sole expense, mamtain comprehensive general UabUity msurance written through an msurance company having a Best's rating of B+ 13 or better and Ucensed to do busmess ki the State of California, meetmg the requkements stated ki this Article 12 m a form satisfactory to NCTD for not less than a poUcy amount of Two MiUion DoUars ($2,000,000) (stated on a per occunence bases). 12.2 The poUcy of comprehensive generai UabUity insurance requked by Paragraph 12.1 shaU mclude the foUowing provisions: (a) The msurance shaU be prknary, without right of contribution from other msurance which may be m effect; (b) The msurance shaU not be mvaUdated by the acts or omissions of other msureds; (c) The insurance shaU not be modifiable or cancelable or non-renewable without 30 days' prior written notice to NCTD (except ki the case of canceUation for nonpayment of premium m which case canceUation shaU not take effect until at least 10 days notice has been given to NCTD). This provision is hereinafter referred to as "Notice of Modification or CanceUation"; 216 (d) NCTD and ks members, employees and agents shaU be named as an additional kisured as ks mterests may appear, (e) The insurance shaU cover contractual UabUities of CITY and NCTD, including, but not limited to tiiis Agreement; (f) The insurance shaU mclude comprehen^ve property and personal injury endorsements; and (g) The insurance shaU include a severabUity of mterest clause. 12.3 Any umbreUa or excess UabUity msurance wdU provide that if the underlying aggregate is exhausted, the excess coverage wdU drop down as primary msurance and wdU provide for Notice of Modification or CanceUation. 12.4 AU poUcy or endorsement limitations relating specificaUy to operations on or near raikoad property or track(s) shaU be ehmmated. 12.5 A properly completed certificate of insurance executed by an authorized representative of the kisurer or kisurers and a certified copy of the poUcy or poUcmg shaU be fiimished to NCTD prior to the Commencement Date and no later than thirty (30) days prior to expiration of any msurance poUcy. In the event CITY faUs to comply with this requirement, NCTD may, but shaU not be obUgated to, obtain such insurance and keep the same in effect and, upon demand, CITY shaU pay to NCTD the premium cost thereof. 12.6 The requkements as to the types and Umits of insurance coverage to be mamtained by CITY as requked by this Article 12, and any approval of said msurance by NCTD and/or ks agents, are not intended to and shaU not m any marmer Umit or quaUfy the UabUities and 217 obUgations otherwise assumed by CITY pursuant to this Agreement, inchidkig but not Umited to, the provisions concerning indemnification contained m Article 8 of this Agreement. 12.7 CITY shaU notify NCTD withki twenty-four (24) hours after the occunence ofany accident or kicident on the Property or adjacent property which could give rise to a clakn under any of the insurance poUcies requked hereunder. 12.8 Notwithstandmg any other provision of this Agreement, the CITY may self-kisure for any risk set forth ki this Article 12 m the manner and to the extent that the CITY self-kisures for simUar risks wdth respect to ks operations, equipment and property. The maimer in which such seif-kisurance is provided and the extent of such self-msurance shaU be set forth ki a Certificate of Self Insurance, deUvered to NCTD and signed by an authorized representative of CITY, which fiiUy describes the self-insurance program and how the program covers the risks set forth kl this Article 12. NCTD shaU have the right to consent to CITY's seif-kisurance program and any change made by CITY m ks self-kisurance program when any such change wouid affect the coverage requked by this Article 12, which consent shaU be given m the event that such change wUl not materiaUy, adversely affect NCTD. If at any tkne durkig the term ofthis Agreement the CITY elects to not self-msure. the CITY wUI comply wdth aU appUcable provisions of this Article 12 to the extent k does not so self-msure. 13. Termkiation. This Agreement may be termmated: (1) at any time upon the mutual agreement of NCTD and the CITY or (2) as provided m paragraph 3.2. above. Upon teraimation ofthis Agreement, CITY shaU leave the Property ki a neat and safe condition and aU repaks, alterations, additions and knprovement. made by CITY on the Property pursuant to this Agreement shaU be the property of NCTD and remam on the Property. However, NCTD may, at 218 NCTD's option, by thirty (30) day written notice of ks mtent to tenmnate, requke CITY to remove any such alterations and improvements from the Property and to restore the Property to ks origmal condition (normal wear and tear excepted) prior to termkiation of this Agreement at CITY'S sole cost and expense. If CITY faUs to do so, NCTD may perform such removal and restoration ki which case CITY shaU pay NCTD within thirty (30) days after demand therefor the cost of removal of such improvements. NCTD wdU use reasonable dUigence in the removal of such knprovements ifit elects to do so. Termination of this Agreement shaU not release either party from any UabUity or obligation hereunder resultmg from an event which occuned before termkiation. 14. Reserved Freight Easement and Other RaUroad Uses. CITY acknowledges that the Property (and the rights granted to CITY by this Agreement) is subject to a reserved freight easement ki favor of The BurUngton Northem and Santa Fe RaUway Company as successor by merger to the Santa Fe and the terms and conditions of the San Diego County Shared Use Agreement by and between MTDB, NCTD and the Santa Fe dated October 30, 1992 as weU as other rights and agreements that NCTD has entered into, or may enter mto ki the fiature conceramg the use of the Right-of-Way for raUroad purposes. 15. AttoraeVs Fees. If any party to this Agreement brings any action against the other to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, coUert any sum due under this Agreement, or if NCTD brings an action for imlawfiil detakier of the Property, the losmg party shaU pay reasonable attomey's fees ofthe prevaiUng party m addition to the judgement and court costs. 16. Nonwaiver. The feUure of any party to this Agreement to enforce or exercise ks rights with respect to any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shaU not be constmed as a 219 waiver of tliat term, covenant or condition for any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained in this Agreement. 17. Notices. AU notices shaU be in writing and shaU be deemed to have been given when deUvered personaUy or deposited ki the United States Mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, and addressed to the party to whom the notice is dkected at the address set forth below. To NCTD at; North County Transit District 810 NCssion Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 Attn: Right-of-Way Liaison or to such other address as NCTD may designate by written notice to the other parties to this Agreement. To CITY at; or to such other address as CITY may designate by written notice to the other parties to this Agreement. 18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entke agreement between the parties with respect to the License of the Property and supersedes aU prior agreements, communications, and representations, oral or written, express or knpUed, skice the parties kitend that this be an kitegrated agreement. This agreement shaU not be modified except by written agreement ofthe parties. Invalidity of Particular Provisions. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement or the appUcation thereof to any person or ckcumstance shaU to any extent be kivaUd or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the appUcation ofsuch term, covenant or 220 condition to persons or ckcumstances other than those as to which k is held kivaUd or unenforceable. shaU not be affected thereby, and each term, covenant and condition ofthis Agreement shaU be vaUd and be enforced to the fiUlest extent permitted by law. 20. Successors. This Agreement shaU bkid and mure to the benefit of both NCTD and CITY and thek respective successors, heks and legal representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. CITYOF Approved as to form: City Attomey Approved as to form: By. NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD By General Counsel North San Diego County Transk Deveiopment Board 221 APPENDIX G Acronym Reference Guide 222 Acronym Reference Guide AASHTO American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials ACOE Army Corps of Engineers ADA Americans wdth Disabilkies Act ADT Average Daily Traffic APCD Air Poiiution Conttol Board APZ Accident Protection Zone AT&S.F. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad BA Biological Assessment BFA Bicycle Federation of America BRAC Base Close & Realignment Act CAA Clean Air Act CalTrans Califomia Department of Transportation CARB Califomia Air Resources Board CDFG CaHfornia Department of Fish and Game CESA Caiifomia Endangered Species Act CEQA CaUfomia Envkonmental (Jualky Act CMAQ Congestion Management Air Quality CNDDB CaUforrua Natural Diversity Database Search CPUC CaHfomia Public UtUities Commission EIR Envkonmental Impact Report EIS Envkonmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FHA Federd Highway Administration FRA Federal Railway Administration ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITE Interaational Transportation Engineers LCP Local Coastal Program MHCP Multiple Habkat Conservation Program MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program MTDB Metropolitan Transk Deveiopment Board MUTCD Manual for Uniform Traffic Conttol Devices NAAQS National Ambient Ak (pality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act NARFA National American Religious Freedom Act NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan NCTD North County Transk District NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NSDCTDB North San Diego County Transk Development Board NEPA National Envkonmental Protection Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places 223 PSR Project Study Report RTC Rails to TraUs Conservancy RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWCQB R^onal Water Quality Conttol Board RUS Recreational Use Statute SANDAG San Diego Association of Govemments SDNR San Diego Northem Railway SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SRP Scientific Review Panel TSM Transportation System Management USDOT United States Department of Transportation US.F.WS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 224 APPENDIX H FUNDING SUMMARY 225 Funding Summary Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) Federal TEA-21 provides funding for roads, transit, safety and environmental enhancements. General state and local improvements for highways and bridges lhat accommodate additional modes of transit. Including, capital costs, publicly owned intercity facilities, and bicycle and Pedestrian facilities. Cities, counties, transit operators. Special districts may apply with sponsorship from an eligible applicant. Estimated at approximately $215 billion over the next 6 years, an increase of approximately $60 billion over ISTEA legislation. A 11.5% match is required. Surface Transportation Program Fund (STP) (Section 1108) Federal The Surface Transportation Program is a block grant fund. Funds are used for roads, bridges, transit capital and pedestrian and bicycle projects. Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Non-profit organizations and special districts may also apply with sponsorship from an eligible agency. Approximately $535 million annually. A local match of 20% is required for bicycle and pedestrian projects, 11.5% is required for all other types of projects. Transportation Enhancements Program Federal The TE Program is a 10% set aside of the Surface Transportation Program. Projects must have a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system through function, proximity, or impact. Local, regional and state pubiic agencies, special districts, non-profit and private organizations. Cities, counties and transit operators must sponsor and administer the proposed projecis. Approximately $630 million annually. A 11.5% local malch is required. Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Descriplion: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (Section 1110) Federal Funds are available for projects that will help attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) identified in the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans and MPOs. Non-profit organizations and Special districts may also apply with sponsorship from an eligible agency. Approximately $277 million annually. A 20% local or slate malch is required. National Highway System Fund (NHS) Federal NHS funds are lo provide for an interconnected system of principal arterial routes. The programs goal is to provide access to major population centers, intemationai border crossings, transportation systems, meet national defense requirements and serve interstate and interregional travel, which includes access for bicyclists and 226 Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Key Changes in TEA-21: Contact: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds; Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: pedestrians. Facilities must be located and designed pursuant to an overall plan developed by each MPO and State, and incorporated into the RTIP. State and local govenunents. Approximately $441 million annually. A local or state match of 20% is required. NHS funds can now be spent on nonmotorized projects within Interstate corridors. (Section 1202) IVAG (refer to Appendix A) Federal Lands Highway Program Fund Federal This Discretionary Program provides funding for any kind of transportation project {including pedestrian and bicycle facilities) that are within, provide access to or are adjacent to public lands. Facilities must be incorporated into the RTIP. Local jurisdictions, Caltrans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and lhe National Trail System Program. Approximately $150 million per annum rising to $165 million in FY 2003. No match required. Scenic Byways Program Fund Federal This program provides funding for the planning, design, and development of a State Scenic Byways Program. Funds may be used for the construction of faciiities along the highway for the use of pedestrians and bicyclist, including pedestrian/bicycle access, safety improvements, and rest areas. Local govemment agencies. Approximately $10 million annually state-wide. A 20% local match is required. Bridge Repair and Replacement Program Federal Funds are available for bridge rehabilitation and replacement. All bridges are eligible, and on-syslem bridges are eligible for discretionary funding. Bridge projects must be incorporated into the RTIP. City and county agencies, park and recreation districts. All agencies musl have a cily, county or transit operator as a sponsor. Approximately $260 million annually. No local match requirements specifically for bicycle accommodations. National Recreational Trails Fund (Section 1112) Federal Funds are available for recreational trails for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized and motorized users. Projects must be consistent wilh a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Annual funding begins at $30 million for FY 1998, it rises to $40 million for FY 1999 and increases to $50 million per annum for the remaining years. Private individuals or organizations, counties, cities, and other govemment agencies. Approximately $3 million annually. The State is required to use a portion of its tax revenue from fuel for off-highway recreation purposes. National Highway Safety Act (Section 402) Federal 227 Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligibie Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Procedure for Project Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: The Highway Safety Program is a non-capital safety project grant program under which states may apply for funds for certain approved safety programs and activities. EUgible projects include pedestrian and bicycle safety programs, program implementation, and identification of highway hazards. State departments, cities, counties, school and special districts. Approximately $150 million per annum rising to $165 million in FY 2003. No match required. Transit Enhancement Activity (Section 3003) Federal This brand new program is created with a one percent set-aside of Urban Area Formula transit grants (3007). The funding which could amount lo $50 million per year, can be used for among olher things bicycle and pedestrian access to mass transportation. Pending. Formula is pending. A 5% match required. Highway Safety, Research, and Development Fund (Section 2003) Federal Provides funding for research on ail phases of highway safety and traffic conditions. Uses, training and education of highway safety personnel, research fellowships in highway safety, development of improved accident investigation procedures, emergency service plan, and demonstration projects. Projects include improving pedestrian safety through education, police enforcement, and traffic engineering. Projects musl be incorporated into the RTIP. Cities, counties, and state agencies. Programs are often run by local community traffic safely programs. Schools and Roads Grants to States Federal Funds are used public roads and schools that are located in the same county as a National Forest. Cities and counties containing National Forest Land. Formula grants are 25% of the receipts collected from timber and land use fees to the respective counties. Fifty percent of these funds are used for roads. No match required. Section 3 Mass Transit Capital Grants Federal This discretionary funding program is used to finance mass transit systems, especially rail systems in urbanized areas with populations over 50,000 or more. Projects include station access, including bicycle and pedestrian access, and American with Disabilities Act projects, implementation of shelters, bicycle parking facilities, racks, and other equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles. Slates, regional and local govemmenls, appropriate boards and commissions, and transit operators. A local malch of 10% is required for bicycle projects, 5% for ADA projects. Projects must be included in the RTIP. Congress Section 9 Mass Transit Formula Grants Federal 228 Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts; Required Matching Funds: Eligible projects include construction, maintenance, improvement, and acquisition of transit facilities and access projects for bicycles. Urban areas with a population of 50,000 or more are eligible if a comprehensive mass transportation planning process exists. State, and local govemmenls, and transit operators are eligible. Public and privale non-profit organizations are eligible for subgrants. Projects must be consistent with the RTP and must be incorporated into the RTIP. A local match of 10% is required for bicycle projects. Local Transportation Fund (LTF), TDA Article 3 State TDA funds transportation improvements. One quarter cent of retail sales tax is returned to the county of origin. Up to two percent of funds can be sel aside for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and five percent can be spent for supplementing other funds lo implement bicycle safety education programs. 2% TDA funds are lumped together with TransNet (Proposition A) funds in the San Diego Area. Local jurisdictions. Approximately $2.5 million annually, of which 1 million comes from TransNet (Proposition A). No matching funds are required. Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description; Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts; Required Matching Funds: California Bicycle Transportation Act; Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) State The purpose of the Bicycle Transportation Account is to improve the safety and convenience of bicycling for utilitarian reasons. BTA funds are available for jurisdictions with approved bicycle transportation plans. No agency may receive more than 25% of the total funds appropriated. Priority projects serve bicycle commuters, have activity centers at each end point, are consistent with the bicycle plan/program, and close missing links. Projects musl be consistent with local Bikeway Plans, the RTP and incorporated into the RTIP if projects are regionally significant. Cities and counties with approved bicycle plans. $12million for a 5 year period 2001-2006.. A local match of 10% is required. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program State Funds are allocated to projects that offset envkonmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities and the acquisition or development of roadside recreational facilities, such as trails. Non-profit, local, state, and federal agencies. The program is funded at $10 million for 10 years, a $500,000 cap on individual projects is set. No malch required. Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) Program State This program is designed to reduce congestion on major transportation corridors by adding capacity to eiiher roadways or urban rail transit systems. Projects must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and musl be included in the RTIP, particularly, the county's Congestion Management Program (CMP). Cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans, and other state and federal agencies. Approximately $300 million annually state-wide. No match required. 229 Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Required Matching Funds: Habitat Conservation Fund Grant Program State This program originates from the Califomia Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 (Prop 117). Eligibie projects include the acquisition of various types of wildlife habitats, enhancement and restoration of various Projects must be incorporated into the RTIP if they are regionally significant. Cities, counties, and special districts. A local match of 50% is required. The local match can not be a state source. Name of Funding Program; Funding Type: Summary Description: Eligible Applicants: Required Matching Funds: Name of Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Description; Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Name of .Funding Program: Funding Type: Summary Descriplion: Eligible Applicants: Typical Funding Amounts: Required Matching Funds: Land and Water Conservation Fund State This program provides grants to plan, acquire, and develop recreational parks and facilities, especially in urban areas. Funds are based on a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, and limited to ouldoor recreational projects.. P*rojects must be incorporated into the RTIP if ihey are regionally significant. Cities, counties, park and recreation departments, special districts with park and recreation areas. State Department of Parks and Recreation, Wildlife Conservation Board, Departmenl of Water Resources, and Department of Boating and Waterways.: 50% is reimbursed to eligible agencies. TransNet Local Sales Tax Program (Proposition A) Local Proposition A is a local sales tax to fund transportation improvements. The tax generates $ 1 million annually. The funds are used to augment the available TDA funds. Proposition A funds are lumped with 2% TDA funds. Cities. County, and Transportation Agencies. 1 million annually. No match required. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Clean Air Funds are generated by a surcharge on automobile registration. Approximately $3 million is available biannually. These funds are competitive based on the projects cost effectiveness. Cities, County, Transportation Authority, and Transportation Agencies. Approximately $3 million region-wide for FY 2000-01. No matching funds required. 230 APPENDIX I CALTRANS fflGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL CHAPTER 1000 "BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN" 231 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-1 Juiy 1, 1995 CHAPTER 1000 BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN Topic 1001 - General Information Index 1001.1 - Definitions "Bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. (1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. (2) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. (3) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. 1001.2 Streets and Highways Code References - Chapter 8 - Nonmotorized Transportation (a) Section 887 - Definition of nonmotorized facility. (b) Section 887.6 - Agreements with local agencies to construct and maintain nonmotorized facilities. (c) Section 887.8 - Payment for constmction and maintenance of nonmotorized facilities approximately paralleling state highways. (d) Section 888 — Severance of existing major nonmotorized route by freeway constmction. (e) Section 888.2 - Incorporation of non- motorized faculties in the design of freeways. (f) Section 888.4 - Requires Caltrans to budget not less than $360,000 annually for nonmotorized faciUties used in conjunction with the state highway system. (g) Section 890.4 -- Class I, II, and 111 bike-way definitions. (h) Section 890.6 - 890.8 -- Caltrans and local agencies to develop design criteria and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic conU"ol devices for bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. (i) Section 891 - Local agencies must comply with design criteria and uniform symbols. (i) Section 892 ~ Use of abandoned right- of-way as a nonmotorized facility. 1001.3 Vehicle Code References - Bicycle Operation (a) Section 21200 Bicyclist's rights and responsibilities for traveling on highways. (b) Section 21202 -- Bicychst's position on roadways when traveling slower than the normal traffic speed. (c) Section 21206 — Allows local agencies to regulate operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities. (d) Section 21207 - Allows local agencies to establish bike lanes on non-state highways. (e) Section 21207.5 — Prohibits motorized bicycles on bike paths or bike lanes. (0 Section 21208 — Specifies permitted movements by bicyclists from bike lanes. (g) Section 21209 - Specifies permitted movements by motorists in bike lanes. (h) Section 21209 Prohibits bicycle parking on sidewalks unless pedestrians have an adequate path. (i) Section 21210 - Prohibits impeding or obstmction of bicyclists on bike paths. (j) Section 21212 ~ Requires a bicyclist under 18 years of age to wear an approved helmet. (k) Section 21717 - Requires a motorist to drive in a bike lane prior to making a tum. (I) Section 21960 - Use of freeway shoulders by bicyclists. 232 1000-2 Juiy I, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Topic 1002 - General Planning Criteria 1002.1 Introduction Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved maintenance and by upgrading existing roads used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated. This effort requires increased attention to the right- hand portion of roadways where bicyclists are expected to ride. On new constmction, and major reconstruction projects, adequate width should be provided to permit shared use by motorists and bicyclists. On resurfacing projects, the entire paved shoulder and traveled way shall be resurfaced. When adding lanes or turn pockets, a mini- mum 1.2 m shoulder shall be provided (see Topic 405 and Table 302.1). When feasible, a wider shoulder should be considered. When placing a roadway edge stripe, sufficient room outside the stripe should be provided for bicyclists. When considering the restriping of roadways for more traffic lanes, the impact on bicycle travel should be assessed. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic through constmction zones should be addressed in the project development process. These efforts, to preserve or improve an area for bicyclists to ride, can tenefit motorists as well as bicyclists. 1002.2 The Role of Bikeways Bikeways are one element of an effort to improve bicycling safety and convenience - either to help accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on shared roadways, or to complement the road system to meet needs not adequately met by roads. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors can be effective in providing new recreational opportunities, or in some instances, deskable commuter routes. They can also be used to close gaps where barriers exist to bicycle travel (e.g., river crossing). On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and convenience, espe- cially if other commitments are made in con- junction with establishment of bikeways, such as: elimination of parking or increasing roadway width, elimination of surface inegularities and roadway obstacles, frequent street sweeping, establishing intersection priority on the bike route street as compared with the majority of cross streets, and installation of bicycle- sensitive loop detectors at signalized intersections. 1002.3 The Decision to Develop Bikeways The decision to develop bikeways should be made with the knowledge that bikeways are not the solution to all bicycle-related problems. Many of the common problems are related to improper bicyclist and motorist behavior and can only be conected through effective educa- tion and enforcement programs. The develop- ment of weU conceived bikeways can have a positive effect on bicyclist and motorist behav- ior. Conversely, poorly conceived bikeways can be counterproductive to education and en- forcement programs. 1002.4 Selection of the Type of Faciiity The type of facility to select in meeting the bicycle need is dependent on many factors, but the following applications are the most common for each type. (I) Shared Roadway (No Bikeway Designa- tion). Most bicycle travel in the State now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway designations. This probably wiU be true in the future as well. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, and signing and striping for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, routes may be unsuitable for bicycle travel, and it would be inappropriate to encourage additional bi- cycle travel by designating the routes as bikeways. Finally, routes may not be along high bicycle demand corridors, and it would be inappropriate to designate bikeways re- gardless of roadway conditions (e.g., on minor residential streets). Many rural highways are used by touring bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel. In most cases, it would be inappropriate to designate the highways as bikeways because of the limited use and the lack of continuity with other bike routes. However, the development and maintenance of 1.2 m paved roadway shoulders with a standard 100 mm edge stripe can 233 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL significantly improve the safety and convenience for bicyclists and motorists along such routes. (2) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). GeneraUy, bike paths should be used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right of way exists, permitting such facilities to be constmcted away from the influence of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a recreational opportunity, or in some instances, can serve as dkect high-speed commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles can be minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utiUty right of way, abandoned railroad right of way, within college campuses, or within and between parks. There may also be situations where such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments. Another common application of Class I faciUties is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by constmction of freeways or because of the existence of natural barriers (rivers, mountains, etc.). (3) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Bike lanes are estabUshed along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. The purpose shouid be to improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the right of way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. But a more important reason for constmcting bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, or prohibiting parking on given streets in order to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on bike lane streets to improve the situation for bicyclists, that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal faciUties, etc.). Generally, stripes alone will not measurably enhance bicycling. 1000-3 July 1. 1995 If bicycle travel is to be controlled by delineation, special efforts should be made to assure that high levels of service are provided with these lanes. In selecting appropriate streets for bike lanes, location criteria discussed in the next section should be considered. (4) Class IH Bikeway (Bike Route). Bike routes are shared facilities which serve either to: (a) Provide continuity to other bicycle facili- ties (usually Class II bikeways); or (b) Designate prefened routes through high demand corridors. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages lo using these routes as compared with alteraative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Normally, bike routes are shared with motor vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class III bikeways is strongly discouraged. It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II and III should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application. In selecting the proper facUity, an overriding concem is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require bicy- clists or motorists to operate in a manner that is inconsistent with the mles of the road. An important consideration in selecting the type of facUity is continuity. Altemating segments of Class I and Class II (or Class III) bikeways along a route are generally incompatible, as street crossings by bicyclists are required when the route changes character. Also, wrong-way bicycle travel will occur on the sti"eet beyond the ends of bike paths because of the inconvenience of having to cross the street. 234 1000-4 July I, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Topic 1003 - Design Criteria 1003.1 Ciass I Bikeways Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bi- cycles and pedestrians". However, experience has shown that if significant pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians are necessary to minimize conflicts. Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles is undesirable, and the two should be separated wherever possible. Sidewaik facUities are not considered Class I facilities because they are primarUy intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bikeways, and do not minimize motorist cross flows. See Index 1003.3 for discussion relative to sidewalk bike- ways. By State law, motorized bicycles ("mopeds") are prohibited on bike paths uniess authorized by ordinance or approval of the agency having jurisdiction over the path. Likewise, all motor vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. These prohibitions can be strengthened by signing. (1) Widths. The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path shall be 2.4 m. The minimum paved width for a one-way bike path shall be 1.5 m. A minimum 0.6 m wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see Figure 1003.lA). A 1.0 m graded area is recommen(ted to provide clearance from poles, trees, walls, fences, guardrails, or other lateral obstructions. A wider graded area can also serve as a jogging path. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the graded area may be reduced accordingly; however, the graded area is a deskable feature regardless of the paved width. Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only after careful considera- tion due to the problems of enforcing one- way operation and the difficulties in maintaining a path of restricted width. Where heavy bicycle volumes are anticipated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the paved width of a two-way path should be greater than 2.4 m, preferably 3.6 m or more. Another important factor to consider in determining the appropriate width is that bicyclists will tend to ride side by side on bike paths, necessitating more width for safe use. Experience has shown that paved paths less than 3.6 m wide sometimes break up along the edge as a result of loads from main- tenance vehicles. Where equestrians are expected, a separate facility should be provided. (2) Clearance to Obstructions. A minimum 0.6 m horizontal clearance to obstructions shall be provided adja- cent to the pavement (see Figure 1003.lA). A I.O m clearance is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the clear- ance may be reduced accordingly; however, an adequate clearance is desirable regardless of the paved width. If a wide path is paved contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g., block wall), a 100 mm white edge stripe, 0.3 m fi'om the fixed object, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicycUst hitting it The clear width on structures between railings shall be not less than 2.4 m. Itis desirable that the clear width of structures be equal to the minimum clear width of the path (i.e., 3.6 m). The vertical clearance to obstruc- tions across the clear width of the path shall be a minimum of 2.5 m. Where practical, a vertical clearance of 3 m is desirable. (3) Striping and Signing. A yellow centeriine stripe may be used to separate opposing directions of travel. A centeriine stripe is particularly beneficial in the following cir- cumstances: (a) Where there is heavy use; (b) On curves with restricted sight distance; and. 235 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-5 July 1,1995 Figure 1003.1 A Two-way Bike Path on Separate Right of Way 1 5 Figure 1003.1 B Typical Cross Section of Bike Path Along Highway 0.6 m Graded Area (Afin.) «1.5 m or 2.4 m (MnjNfc^ ""^^ Edge of ihoulder Bike Path ""^^ Edge of ihoulder NOTE: See Index 1003.1(5). -)(• One-Way: 1.5 m Ihfinimiim Width IWo • Way: 2.4 m Muiimum Width 236 1000-6 July 1, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL (c) Where the path is unlighted and night- time riding is expected. (Refer to Topic 1004 for signing and striping details.) (4) Intersections with Highways. Intersections are a prime consideration in bike path de- sign. If alternate locations for a bike path are avaiiabie, the one with the most favorable intersection conditions should be selected. Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bi- cycle traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of right of way by traffic signals should be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for bicyclists may suffice. Bicycle path intersections and approaches should be on relatively flat grades. Stopping sight distances at intersections should be checked and adequate waming should be given to permit bicyclists to stop before reaching the intersection, especially on downgrades. When crossing an arterial street, the cross- ing should either occur at the pedestrian crossing, where motorists can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the influence of any intersection to permit adequate opportunity for bicyclists to see tuming vehicles. When crossing at midblock locations, right of way should be assigned by devices such as yield signs, stop signs, or traffic signals which can be activated by bicyclists. Even when crossing within or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize potential for conflict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path stop or yield signs are visible to approaching motor vehicle traffic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion. In some cases, Bike Xing signs may be placed in advance of the crossing to alert motorists. Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to preserve tiie utility of the bike path. Ramps 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. (5) Separation Between Bike Paths and Highways. A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways (see Figure 1003.IB). Bike paths closer than 1.5 m from the edge of the shoulder shall include a physical barrier to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the highway. Bike paths within the clear recovery zone of freeways shall include a physical barrier separation. Suitable barriers could in- clude chain link fences or dense shrubs. Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are not recom- mended because bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming automobile traffic. In instances where there is danger of mo- torists encroaching into the bike path, a positive barrier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guardrailing) should be provided. See Index 1003.6 for criteria relative to bike paths carried over highway bridges. Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips. (6) Bike Paths in the Median of Highways. As a general rule, bike paths in the median of highways are not recommended because they require movements contrary to normal rules of the road. Specific problems with such facilities include: (a) Bicyclist right tums from the center of roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and confusing to motorists. (b) Proper bicyclist movements through intersections with signals are unclear. (c) Left-tuming motorists must cross one dkection of motor vehicle traffic and two directions of bicycle traffic, which in- creases conflicts. (d) Where intersections are infrequent, bicy- clists wil! enter or exit bike paths at mid- block. (e) Where medians are landscaped, visual relationships between bicyclists and motorists at intersections are impaired. 237 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-7 July 1, 1995 For the above reasons, bike paths in the median of highways should be considered only when the above problems can be avoided. Bike paths shali not be designed in the medians of freeways or expressways. (7) Design Speed. The proper design speed for a bike path is dependent on the expected type of use and on the tenain. The minimum design speed for bike paths shall be 40 km/h except as noted in Table 1003.1. Table 1003,1 Bike Path Design Speeds Type of Facility Design Speed (km/h) Bike Paths with Mopeds Prohibited 40 Bike Paths with Mopeds Permitted 50 Bike Paths on Long Downgrades 50 (steeper than 4%, and longer than 150 m) Installation of "speed bumps" or other similar surface obstructions, intended to cause bicyclists to slow down in advance of intersections or other geometric constraints, shall not be used. These devices cannot compensate for improper design. (8) Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation. The minimum radius of curvature negotiable by a bicycle is a function of the superelevation rate of the bicycle path surface, the coefficient of friction between the bicycle tires and the bicycle path surface, and the speed of the bicycle. For most bicycle path applications the superelevation rate will vary from a minimum of 2 percent (the minimum necessary to encourage adequate drainage) to a maximum of approximately 5 percent (beyond which maneuvering difficulties by slow bicyclists and adult tricyclists might be expected). A straight 2% cross slope is recommended on tangent sections. The minimum superelevation rate of 2% wUl be adequate for most conditions and will simplify constmction. Superelevation rates steeper than 5 percent should be avoided on bike paths expected to have adult tricycle traffic. 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 bicyclist to recognize a feeling of discomfort and instinctively act to avoid higher speed. Extrapolating from values used in highway design, design friction factors for paved bicycle paths can be assumed to vary from 0.31 at 20 km/h to 0.21 at 50 km/h. Although there is no data available for unpaved surfaces, it is suggested that friction factors be reduced by 50 percent to allow a sufficient margin of safety. The minimum radius of curvature can be selected from Figure 1003.IC. W^en curve radii smaller than those shown in Figure 1003.IC must be used on bicycle paths because of right of way, topographical or other considerations, standard curve waming signs and supplemental pavement markings should be installed. The negative effects of nonstandard curves can also be partially offset by widening the pavement through the curves. (9) Stopping Sight Distance. To provide bicyclists with an opportunity to see and react to the unexpected, a bicycle path should be designed with adequate stopping sight distances. The distance required to bring a bicycle to a fuU controlled stop is a function of the bicyclist's perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the tires and the pavement, and the braking ability of the bicycle. Figure 1003.1D indicates the minimum stopping sight distances for various design speeds and grades. For two-way bike paths, the descending direction, that is, where "G" is negative, will control the design. 238 1000-8 July I. 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL (10) Length of Crest Vertical Curves. Figure 1003.IE indicates the minimum lengths of crest vertical curves for varying design speeds. (11) Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves. Figure 1003.1F indicates the mimmum clearances to line of sight obstmctions for horizontal curves. TTie required lateral clearance is obtained by entering Figure 1003.IF with the stopping sight distance from Figure 1003.ID and the proposed horizontal curve radius. Bicyclists frequentiy ride abreast of each other on bicycle paths, and on nanow bicycle paths, bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the middle of the path. For these reasons, and because of the serious consequences of a head on bicycle accident, lateral clearances on horizontal curves should be calculated based on the sum of the stopping sight distances for bicyclists traveling in opposite directions around the curve. Where this is not possible or feasible, consideration should be given to widening the path through the curve, installing a yellow center stripe, installing a curve ahead waming sign, or some combination of these altematives. (12) Grades. Bike paths generaUy attract less skilled bicyclists, so it is important to avoid steep grades in their design. Bicyclists not physically conditioned will be unable to negotiate long, steep uphill grades. Since novice bicyclists often ride poorly maintained bicycles, long downgrades can cause problems. For these reasons, bike paths with long, steep grades will generally receive very littie use. The maximum grade rate recommended for bike paths is 5%. It is desirable that sustained grades be limited to 2% if a wide range of riders is to be accommodated. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short segments (e.g., up to about 150 m). Where steeper grades are necessitated, the design speed should be increased and additional width should be provided for maneuverability. (13) Structural Section. The stmctural section of a bike path should be designed in die same manner as a highway, with consider- ation given to the quaUty of the basement soil and the anticipated loads the bikeway will experience. It is important to constmct and maintain a smooth riding surface with skid resistant qualities. Principal loads will normally be from maintenance and emergency vehicles. Expansive soil shouid be given special consideration and will probably require a special stmctural section. A minimum pavement thickness of 50 mm of asphalt concrete is recommended. Type "A" or "B" asphalt concrete (as described in Department of Transportation Standard Specifications), witii 12.5 mm maximum aggregate and medium grading is rec- ommended. Consideration should be given to increasing the asphalt content to provide increased pavement life. Consideration should also be given to sterilization of basement soil to preclude possible weed growth through the pavement. At unpaved highway or driveway crossings of bicycle paths, the highway or driveway should be paved a minimum of 3 m 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 that location. (14)Drainage. For proper drainage, the surface of a bike path should have a cross slope of 2%. Sloping in one direction usually simplifies longitudinal drainage design and surface construction, and accordingly is the preferred practice. Ordinarily, surface drainage from the path will be adequately dissipated as it flows down the gentiy sloping shoulder. However, when a bike path is constructed on the side of a hill, a drainage ditch of suitable dimensions may be necessary on the uphill side to intercept the hillside drainage. Where necessary, catch basins with drains should be provided to carry intercepted water across the path. Such ditches should be designed in such a way that no undue obstacle is presented to bicyclists. Culverts or bridges are necessary where a bike path crosses a drainage channel. 239 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-9 July 1, 1995 Figure 1003.IC Curve Radii & Superelevations R = 127 (iTo^f) where, R = Minimum radius of curvature (m), V = Design Speed (km/h), e = Rate of bikeway superelevation, percent f = Coefficient of friction Design Speed-V Friction Factor-f Superelevation-e Minimum Radius-R (km/h) (%) (m) 20 o!31 ^ 30 0.28 2 24 40 0.25 2 47 50 0.21 2 86 20 0.31 3 9 30 0.28 3 23 40 0.25 3 45 50 0.21 3 82 20 0.31 4 9 30 0.28 4 22 40 0.25 4 43 50 0.21 4 79 20 0.31 5 9 30 0.28 5 21 40 0.25 5 42 50 0.21 5 76 240 1000-10 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.1 D Stopping Sight Distance 250 S = 254 (f±G) 1.4 Where : S = stopping sight, m V = velocity, km/h f = coefficient of friction (use 0.25) G = grade, m/m (rise/mn) Descend Ascend 241 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-11 Feb. 9. 1998 Figure 1003.IE Stopping Sight Distances for Crest Vertical Curves L = 2S - 450 L = AS' when S > L when S < L 450 Height of cyclist eye -1400 mm Height of object -100 mm Double line represents S=L L = Min. length of vertical curve - meters A = Algebraic grade difference-% S = Stopping sight distance - meters V = Design speed km/h (Refer to Figure 1003.1D to detemiine "V", after "S" is determined.) GIVEN "A" AND "L"; FIND "S' L=50 m L=100 m L=150 m L=200 m L=250 m L=300 m A (%) S (m) S (m) S(m) S(m) S (m) S (m) 4.5 75 5 70 95 5.5 66 90 6 63 87 6.5 60 83 7 57 80 98 7.5 55 77 95 8 53 75 92 8.5 51 73 89 103 9 50 71 87 100 9.5 49 69 84 97 10 47 67 82 95 10.5 46 65 80 93 11 45 64 78 90 11.5 44 63 77 88 99 12 43 61 75 87 97 12.5 42 60 73 85 95 13 42 59 72 83 93 13.5 41 58 71 82 91 14 40 57 69 80 90 98 14.5 39 56 68 79 88 96 15 39 55 67 77 87 95 242 1000-12 Juiy 1. 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.1E Stopping Sight Distances for Crest Vertical Curves (continued) GIVEN "A" AND "S": FIND "L A (%) S=10 m S=15 m S=20 m S=25 m S=30 m S=35 m S=40 m S=45 m L (m) L (m) L (m) L (m) L (m) L (m) L (m) L (m) S=50 m L (m) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I. 9 3.5 5.0 6.3 7.5 8.6 9.5 10.4 II. 3 12.0 12.7 13.3 13.9 14.5 15.0 2.5 5.4 7.9 10.0 11.9 13.5 15.0 16.3 17.5 18.6 19.6 5.0 9.1 12.5 15.4 17.9 20.0 21.9 23.5 25.0 3.8 10.0 15.0 19.1 22.5 25.4 27.9 30.0 5.7 13.8 20.0 25.0 29.1 32.5 20.4 21.3 22.2 23.1 24.0 24.9 25.8 26.7 26.4 27.8 29.2 30.6 31.9 33.3 34.7 36.1 37.5 38.9 40.3 41.7 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0 50.0 52.0 54.0 56.0 58.0 60.0 35.4 38.1 40.8 43.6 46.3 49.0 51.7 54.4 57.2 59.9 62.6 65.3 68.1 70.8 73.5 76.2 78.9 81.7 5.0 15.7 23.8 30.0 35.0 39.1 15.0 25.7 33.8 40.0 45.0 10.0 25.0 35.7 43.8 50.0 42.7 46.2 49.8 53.3 56.9 60.4 64.0 67.6 71.1 74.7 78.2 81.8 85.3 88.9 92.4 96.0 99.6 103.1 106.7 49.5 54.0 58.5 63.0 67.5 72.0 76.5 81.0 85.5 90.0 94.5 99.0 103.5 108.0 112.5 117.0 121.5 126.0 130.5 135.0 55.6 61.1 66.7 72.2 77.8 83.3 88.9 94.4 100.0 105.6 lU.l 116.7 122.2 127.8 133.3 138.9 144.4 150.0 155.6 161.1 166.7 243 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-13 July 1,1995 Figure 1003.1 F Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves Sight distance (5) measured along this line S - Sight distance in meters. R - Rodius of 4. of tone in metsrs. trv - Distance from t of lone in meters. V - Design speed for S In km/h. (Refer to Rgure 1003.ID to determine "V. after "ST is determined.) Angle is expressed in degrees tn R Formulo applies only when S is equal to or less than length of curve. Line of sight is 600 mm obove ^ inside lone at point of obstruction. GIVEN "R"AND"S"; FIND "m' S=10 m S=20 m S=30 m S=40 m S=50 S=60 m S=70 m S=80 m S=90 m S=100 n S=110 m m 171 m m m m 171 m m m m R ^m^ meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters IS 0.50 1.97 4.37 7.58 11.49 15.94 20.75 25.73 i6.68 35.41 50 0.25 1.00 2.23 3.95 6.12 8.73 11.76 15.17 18.92 22.99 27.32 75 0.17 0.67 1.50 2.65 4.13 5.92 8.02 10.42 13.10 16.06 19.28 100 0.12 0.50 1.12 1.99 3.11 4.47 6.06 7.90 9.96 12.24 14.75 125 0.10 0.40 0.90 1.60 2.49 3.58 4.87 6.35 8.01 9.87 11.91 150 0.08 0.33 0.75 1.33 2.08 2.99 4.07 5.30 6.70 8.26 9.97 175 0.07 0.29 0.64 1.14 1.78 2.57 3.49 4.55 5.75 7.10 8.57 200 0.06 0.25 0.56 1.00 1.56 2.25 3.06 3.99 5.04 6.22 7.52 225 0.06 0.22 0.50 0.89 1.39 2.00 2.72 3.55 4.49 5.53 6.69 250 0.05 0.20 0.45 0.80 1.25 1.80 2.45 3.19 4.04 4.98 6.03 275 0.05 0.18 0.41 0.73 1.14 1.63 2.22 2.90 3.67 4.53 5.48 300 0.04 0.17 0.37 0.67 1.04 1.50 2.04 2.66 3.37 4.16 5.03 350 0.04 0.14 0.32 0.57 0.89 1.29 1.75 2.28 2.89 3.57 4.31 400 0.03 0.13 0.28 0.50 0.78 1.12 1.53 2.00 2.53 3.12 3.78 500 0.03 0.10 0.23 0.40 0.62 0.90 1.22 1.60 2.02 2.50 3.02 600 0.02 0.08 0.19 0.33 0.52 0.75 1.02 1.33 1.69 2.08 2.52 700 0.02 0.07 0.16 0.29 0.45 0.64 0.87 1.14 1.45 1.79 2.16 800 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.25 0.39 0.56 0.77 1.00 1.27 1.56 1.89 900 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.22 0.35 0.50 0.68 0.89 1.12 1.39 1.68 1000 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.31 0.45 0.61 0.80 1.01 1.25 1.51 244 1000-14 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL July 1. 1995 —— Figure 1003.IF Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves (continued) GIVEN "R"AND"m": FIND "S" m = I m = 2 m = 3 m = 4 m = 5 m = 6 m-7 m = 8 m = 9 m = 10m = 11 meter meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters R (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) S (m) 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 350 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 14.19 20.13 24.74 28.67 32.17 35.37 38.35 41.15 43.81 46.36 48.82 20.03 28.38 34.81 40.27 45.10 49.49 53.55 57.35 60.93 64.35 67.61 24.52 34.72 42.57 49.21 55.08 60.40 65.32 69.91 74.23 78.34 82.26 28.31 40.06 49.11 56.75 63.51 69.63 75.27 80.54 85.50 90.20 94.68 31.64 44.78 54.88 63.41 70.94 77.77 84.06 89.92 95.44 100.67 105.66 34.66 49.04 60.10 69.43 77.67 85.13 92.00 98.41 104.44 110.15 115.60 37.43 52.96 64.90 74.97 83.86 91.91 99.32 106.23 112.73 118.88 124.75 40.01 56.61 69.36 80.13 89.62 98.22 106.13 113.51 120.45 127.01 133.27 42.44 60.04 73.56 84.97 95.04 104.15 112.53 120.35 127.70 134.66 141.28 44.73 63.28 77.53 89.56 100.16 109.76 118.59 126.82 134.56 141.89 148.86 46.91 66.37 81.31 93.92 105.03 115.09 124.35 132.98 141.09 148.77 156.08 49.00 69.32 84.92 98.08 109.69 120.19 129.86 138.86 147.33 155.34 162.97 52.92 74.86 91.71 105.92 118.45 129.79 140.22 149.94 159.08 167.72 175.95 56.58 80.03 98.03 113.22 126.61 138.73 149.87 160.26 170.01 179.25 188.04 63.25 89.47 109.59 126.57 141.53 155.06 167.52 179.11 190.01 200.32 210.13 69.29 98.00 120.04 138.63 155.02 169.83 183.47 196.16 208.09 219.38 230.12 74.84 105.85 129.65 149.73 167.42 183.42 198.14 211.85 224.72 236.91 248.50 80.00 113.15 138.60 160.05 178.97 196.07 211.80 226.45 240.21 253.23 265.62 84.85 120.01 147.00 169.76 189.81 207.95 224.63 240.16 254.75 268.56 281.69 89.44 126.50 154.95 178.93 200.07 219.18 236.76 253.13 268.51 283.06 296.90 245 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-15 July 1, 1995 (]5)Barrier Posts. It may be necessary to install barrier posts at entrances to bike paths to prevent motor vehicles from entering. When locating such installations, care should be taken to assure that barriers are weli marked and visible to bicyclists, day or night (i.e., install reflectors or reflectorized tape). Striping an envelope around the baniers is recommended (see Figure 1003.IG). If sight distance is limited, special advance waming signs or painted pavement wamings should be provided. Where more than one post is necessary, a 1.5 m spacing should be used to permit passage of bicycle- lowed trailers, adult tricycles, and to assure adequate room for safe bicycle passage without dismounting. Barrier post installations should be designed so they are removable to permit entrance by emergency and service vehicles. Generally, barrier configurations that pre- clude entry by motorcycles present safety and convenience problems for bicyclists. Such devices should be used only where extreme problems are encountered. Figure 1003.IG Barrier Post Striping 0.3 m 100 mm Yellow stripe (16) Lighting. Fixed-source lighting reduces conflicts along paths and at intersections. In addition, lighting allows the bicyclist to see the bicycle path direction, surface conditions, and obstacles. Lighting for bicycle paths is important 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 tunnels, and when nighttime security could be a problem. Depending on the location, average main- tained horizontal illumination levels of 5 lux to 22 lux should be considered. Where special security problems exist, higher Ulumination levels may be considered. Light standards (poles) should meet the recommended horizontal and vertical clear- ances. Luminaires and standards should be at a scale appropriate for a pedestrian or bicycle path. 1003.2 Class II Bikeways Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for preferential use by bicycles are established within the paved area of highways. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote an orderly flow of traffic, by estabUshing specific lines of demarcation be- tween areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. This effect is supported by bike lane signs and pavement markings. Bike lane stripes can increase bicy- clists' confidence that motorists wiU not stray into their path of travel if they remain within the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve toward opposing traffic in making certain tiiey wUl not hit bicyclists. Class II bike lanes shall be one-way facilities. Two-way bike lanes (or bike paths that are contiguous to the roadway) are not permitted, as such facUities have proved unsatisfactory and promote riding against tiie flow of motor vehicle traffic. (I) Widths. Typical Class II bikeway con- figurations are illustrated in Figure 1003.2A and are described below: (a) Figure 1003.2A-(1) depicts bike lanes on an urban type curbed street where parking stalls (or continuous parking stripes) are marked. Bike lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes. As indicated, 1.5 m shall be the minimum width of bike lane where parking stalls are marked. If parking volume is substantial or tumover high, an additional 0.3 m to 0.6 m of width is desirable. 246 1000-16 July 1, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Bike lanes shall not be placed between the parking area and the curb. Such faciUties increase the conflict between bicyclists and opening car doors and reduce visibility at intersections. Also, they prevent bicy- clists from leaving the bike lane to tum left and cannot be effectively maintained. (b) Figure 1003.2A-(2) depicts bike lanes on an urban-type curbed street, where parking is permitted, but without parking stripe or stall marking. Bike lanes are established in conjunction with the parking areas. As indicated, 3.3 m or 3.6 m (depending on the type of curb) shall be the minimum width of the bike lane where parking is permitted. This type of lane is satisfacory where parking is not extensive and where tumover of parked cars is infrequent. However, if parking is substantial, tumover of parked cars is high, tmck traffic is substantial, or if vehicle speeds exceed 55 km/h, additional width is recommended. (c) Figure 1003.2A-(3) depicts bike lanes along the outer portions of an urban type curbed street, where parking is prohib- ited. This is generally the most desirable configuration for bike lanes, as it elimi- nates potential conflicts resulting from auto parking (e.g., opening car doors). As indicated, if no gutter exists, the minimum bike lane width shall be 1.2 m. With a normal 600 mm gutter, the minimum bike lane width shall be 1.5 m. The intent is to provide a minimimi 1.2 m wide bike lane, but with at least 0.9 m between the traffic lane and the longi- tudinal joint at the concrete gutter, since the gutter reduces the effective width of the bike lane for two reasons. First, the longitudinal Joint may not always be smootii, and may be difficult to ride along. Secondly, the gutter does not provide a suitable surface for bicycle travel. Where gutters are wide (say, 1.2 m), an additional 0.9 m must be provided because bicyclists should not be expected to ride in the gutter. Wherever possible, the width of bike lanes should be increased to 1.8 m to 2.4 m to provide forgreater safety. 2.4 m bike lanes can also serve as emer- gency parking areas for disabled vehicles. Striping bike lanes next to curbs where parking is prohibited only during certain hours shall be done only in conjunction with special signing to designate the hours bike lanes are to be effective. Since the Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to ride in bike lanes where provided (except under certain conditions), proper signing is necessary to inform bicyclists that they are requked to ride in bike lanes only during the course of the parking prohibition. This type of bike lane should be considered only ifthe vast majority of bicycle travel would occur during the hours of the parking prohibition, and only if there is a firm commitment to enforce the parking prohibition. Because of the obvious complications, this type of bike lane is not encouraged for general appUcation. Figure 1003.2A(4) depicts bike lanes on a highway without curbs and gutters. This location is in an undeveloped area where infrequent parking is handled off the pavement. This can be accomplished by supplementing the bike lane signing with R25 (park off pavement) signs, or R26 (no parking) signs. Minimum widths shall be as shown. Addi- tional width is desirable, particularly where motor vehicle speeds exceed 55kmAi. The typical traffic lane width next to a bike lane is 3.6 m. Lane widths nar- rower than 3.6 m must receive approval as discussed in Index 82.2. There are situations where it may be necessary to reduce the width of the traffic lanes in order to stripe bike lanes. In determin- ing the appropriateness of nanower traffic lanes, consideration should be given to factors such as motor vehicle speeds, truck volumes, alignment, and sight distance. Where favorable condi- tions exist, traffic lanes of 3.3 m may be feasible. 247 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-17 July 1,1995 Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep downgrades, where bicycle speeds greater than 50 km/h are expected. As grades increase, downhill bicycle speeds will increase, which increases the problem of riding near the edge of the roadway. In such situations, bicycle speeds can approach those of motor vehicles, and experienced bicyclists will generally move into the motor vehicle lanes to increase sight distance and maneuverability. If bike lanes are to be striped, additionai width should be provided to accommodate higher bicycle speeds. If the bike lanes are to be located on one- way streets, they should be placed on the right side of tiie street. Bike lanes on the left side would cause bicycUsts'and motorists to undertake crossing maneuvers in making left tums onto a two-way street. (2) Striping and Signing. Details for striping and signing of bike lanes are included under Topic 1004. Raised barriers (e.g., raised traffic bars and asphalt concrete dikes) or raised pavement markers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. Raised barriers prevent motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right tums, as required by the Vehicle Code, and restrict the movement of bicyclists desiring to enter or exit bike lanes. They also impede routine maintenance. Raised pavement markers increase the difficulty for bicycUsts when entering or exiting bike lanes, and dis- courage motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right mms. Bike lane stripes should be placed a constant distance from the outside motor vehicie lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted (3.3 m to 3.9 m between the bike lane line and the curb) should not be directed toward the curb at intersections or localized areas where parking is prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists from following a straight course. Where transitions from one type of bike lane to another are necessary, smooth tapers should be provided. (3) Intersection Design. Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections. For this reason, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a manner tiiat will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and wUI permit both to operate in accordance with the normal mles of the road. Figure 1003.2B illustrates a typical inter- section of multilane streets, with bike lanes on all approaches. Some common move- ments of motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A prevalent type of accident involves straight-through bicycle traffic and right-tuming motorists. Left-tuming bicy- clists also have problems, as the bike lane is on the right side of the street, and bicyclists have to cross the path of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicyclists are profi- cient enough to merge across one or more lanes of traffic, to use the inside lane or left- tum lane provided for motor vehicles. However, there are many who do not feel comfortable making this maneuver. They have the option of making a two-legged left tum by riding along a course similar to that followed by pedestrians, as shown in tiie diagram. Young children will often prefer to dismount and change dkections by walking their bike in the crosswalk. At intersections where there is a bike lane and traffic-acmated signal, installation of bicycle-sensitive detectors within the bike lane is desirable. Push button detectors are not as satisfactory as those located in the pavement because the cyclist must stop to actuate the push button. It is also desirable that detectors in left-tum lanes be sensitive enough to detect bicycles (see Chapter 9 of the Traffic Manual and Standard Plans for bicycle-sensitive detector designs). At intersections (without bike lanes) with significant bicycle use and a traffic-actuated signal, it is desirable to instaU detectors that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles. Figure 1003.2C iUustrates recommended striping pattems for bike lanes crossing a motorist right-tum-only lane. When confronted with such intersections, bicy- clists will have to merge with right-turning motorists. Since bicyclists are typicaUy 248 1000-18 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.2A Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections (On 2-lane or Multilane Highways) « , Parking Stalls or Optional 100 mm SoUd Stripe* - ISO mm SoUd White Stripe- Parking Bike Lane La^e « The opUonal soUd widte stripe may be advisable v/hen stalls are unnecessary (because parking Is light) but there Is concem that motorists may misconstrue ilie Uke lane to be a traffic lane. (1) STRIPED PARKING Parking Vertical Curb * 3.6 m Min. 150 mm SoUd White Stripe Motor Vehicle Lanes * 3.9 m is recommended where there is substantial parking or tumover of parked cars Is high (e.g. commercial areas) (2) PARKINQ PERMrrTED WITHOUT PARKING STRIPE OR STALL Rolled Curb ISO mm SoUd White Stripe ;n 1-5 m I -H Min. W- Bike l^ne (With Gutter) Motor Vehicle Lanes (3) PARKING PROHIBrrED (Wlthimt Oattv) -*j Min. Bike Lane 1 SO mm SoUd White Stripe. Motor Vehicle Lanes (4) ryplCAL ROADWAY IN OUTLYING AREAS PARKING RESTRICTED *Bike ljuie 249 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-19 July 1.1995 Figure 1003.2B Typical Bicycle/Auto Movements at Intersections of Multilane Streets Bike Travel Motor Vehicle Travel 250 1000-20 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.2C Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist Right-turn-only Lanes Ped. Crossing * If space is ovailable. •^Otherwise all delineation should be dropped ot ,^this point. t t RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE t t * LANE BIKE 1.2 m 1 min. \ t t f LANE BIKE^ * If Space is available Typical path of through bicyclist. PARKING AREA BECOMES RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE Ped. Crossing l\ Ped. Crossing \ Typicol path of through bicyclist. t t I / LANE BIKE OPTIONAL DOUBLE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE f LANE BIKE 1.2 m min. \ tit Typical poth of /^through bicyclist. * If space Is ovailoble. Drop bike lone stripe where right turn only designated. LANE BIKE RIGHT LANE BECOMES RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE 251 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-21 July 1. 1995 traveling at speeds less than motorists,they should signal and merge where there is sufficient gap in right-tuming traffic, rather than at any predetermined location. For this reason, it is recoinmended that all delineation be dropped at the approach of the right-tum lane (or off-ramp). A pair of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane crossing) to channel the bike merge is not recommended, as bicyclists will be en- couraged to cross at a predetennined location, rather than when there is a safe gap in right-tuming traffic. Also, some bicyclists are apt to assume they have the right of way, and may not check for right- tuming motor vehicle traffic. A dashed Une across the right-tum-only lane is not recommended on extremely long lanes, or where there are double right-tum- only lanes. For these types of intersections, all striping should be dropped lo permit judgment by the bicyclists to prevail. A Bike Xing sign may be used to wam motorists of the potential for bicyclists crossing their path. 1003.3 Ciass III Bikeways Class III bikeways (bike routes) are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along through routes not served by Class I or II bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeway (nonnally bike lanes). Class III facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class III facilities are established by placing Bike Route signs along roadways. Minimum widths for Class III bikeways are not presented, as the acceptable width is dependent on many factors, including the volume and character of vehicular traffic on the road, typical speeds, vertical and horizontal alignment, sight distance, and parking conditions. Since bicyclists are permitted on all highways (except prohibited freeways), the decision to sign the route should be based on the advis- ability of encouraging bicycle travel on the route and other factors Usted below. (I) On-street Bike Route Criteria. To be of benefit to bicyclists, bike routes should offer a higher degree of service than altemative streets. Routes should be signed only if some of the following apply: (a) They provide for through and dkect travel in bicycle-demand corridors. (b) Connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes. (c) An effort has been made to adjust traffic control devices (stop signs, signals) to give greater priority to bicyclists, as compared with alteraative streets. This could include placement of bicycle- sensitive detectors on the right-hand portion of the road, where bicyclists are expected to ride. (d) Street parking has been removed or re- stricted in areas of critical width to pro- vide improved safety. (e) Surface imperfections or irregularities have been corrected (e.g., utility covers adjusted to grade, potholes filled, etc.). (f) Maintenance of the route will be at a higher standard than that of other comparable streets (e.g., more frequent street sweeping). (2) Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria. In general, the designated use of sidewalks (as a Class III bikeway) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory. It is important to recognize that the devel- opment of extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel, as wide sidewalks will encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects. Sidewalk bikeways should be considered only under special circumstances, such as: (a) To provide bikeway continuity along high speed or heavily traveled roadways having inadequate space for bicyclists, and unintermpted by driveways and intersections for long distances. (b) On long, narrow bridges. In such cases, ramps should be installed at the sidewalk approaches. If approach bikeways are two-way, sidewalk facilities should also be two-way. 252 1000-22 July 1. 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Whenever sidewalk bikeways are estab- lished, a special effort should be made to re- move unnecessary obstacles. Whenever bicyclists are dkected from bike lanes to sidewalks, curb cuts should be flush with the street to assure that bicycUsts are not subjected to problems associated with crossing a vertical lip at a flat angle. Also curb cuts at each intersection are necessary, as well as bikeway yield or stop signs at uncontrolled intersections. Curb cuts should be wide enough to accommodate adult tricycles and two-wheel bicycle trailers. In residentiai areas, sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential con- flicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. Nevertheless, this type of sidewalk bicycle use is accepted. But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride facUities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. (3) Destination Signing of Bike Routes. For Bike Route signs to be more functional, supplemental plates may be placed beneath them when located along routes leading to high demand destinations (e.g., "To Down- town"; "To State College"; etc.- see Figure 1004.4 for typical signing). There are instances where it is necessary to sign a route to direct bicyclists to a logical destination, but where the route does not of- fer any of the above listed bike route fea- tures. In such cases, the route should not be signed as a bike route; however, destination signing may be advisable. A typical applica- tion of destination signing would be where bicyclists are directed off a highway to by- pass a section of freeway. Special signs would be placed to guide bicyclists to the next logical destination. The intent is to di- rect bicyclists in the same way as motorists would be directed if a highway detour was necessitated. 1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways In some instances, bicyclists are pemiitted on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be signed or striped as a bikeway, but it can be opened for use if it meets certain criteria. Essentially, the criteria involve assessing the safety and conve- nience of the freeway as compared with avail- able altemate routes. However, a freeway should not be opened to bicycle use if it is detemiined to be incompatible. The Headquarters Traffic Reviewer and the OPPD Coordinator must approve any proposals to open freeways to bicyclists. If a suitable altemate route exists, it would normally be unnecessary to open the freeway. However, if the altemate route is unsuitable for bicycle travel the freeway may be a better altemative for bicyclists. In determining the suitability of an altemate route, safety should be tiie paramount consideration. The following factors should be considered: • Number of intersections • Shoulder widths • Traffic volumes • Vehicle speeds • Bus, tmck and recreational vehicle volumes • Grades • Travel time When a suitable altemate route does not exist, a freeway shoulder may be considered for bicycle travel. Nonnally, freeways in urban areas will have characteristics that make il unfeasible to permit bicycle use. In determining if the freeway shoulder is suitable for bicycle travel, the following factors should be considered; • Shoulder widths • Bicycle hazards on shoulders (drainage grates, expansion joints, etc.) • Number and location of entrance/exit ramps • Traffic volumes on entrance/exit ramps When bicyclists are permitted on segments of freeway, it will be necessary to modify and supplement freeway regulatory signs, particularly those al freeway ramp entrances and exits (see Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual). 253 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-23 July 1, 1995 Where no reasonable altemate route exists wilhin a freeway corridor, the Depariment should coordinate with local agencies to develop or improve existing routes or provide parallel bikeways within or adjacent to the freeway right of way. The long term goal is to provide a safe and convenient non-freeway route for bicycle travel. 1003.5 Multipurpose Trails In some instances, it may be appropriaie for agencies to develop multipurpose trails - for hikers, joggers, equestrians, bicyclists, etc. Many of these trails will not be paved and will not meet the standards for Class I bikeways. As such, these faciUties should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they should be designated as multipuipose U-ails (or similar designation), along with regulatory signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropriate. If multipurpose trails are primarily to serve bicycle travel, they should be developed in accordance wilh standards for Class I bikeways. In general, multipurpose trails are not recommended as high speed transportation facilities for bicyclists because of conflicts belween bicyclists and pedestrians. Wherever possible, separate bicycle and pedestrian paths should be provided. If this is not feasible, additional width, signing and striping should be used to minimize conflicts. It is undesirable to mix mopeds and bicycles on the same facility. In general, mopeds should not be allowed on multipurpose trails because of conflicts with slower moving bicyclists and pedestrians. In some cases where an alternate route for mopeds does not exist, additional width, signing, and striping should be used to minimize conflicts. Increased patrolling by law enforcement personnel is also recommended to enforce speed limits and olher mles of the road. It is usually not deskable to mix horses and bicycle traffic on the same multipurpose traU. Bicyclists are often not aware of the need for slower speeds and additional operating space near horses. Horses can be startied easily and may be unpredictable if they perceive approaching bicyclists as a danger. In addition, pavement requirements for safe bicycle travel are not suitable for horses. For these reasons, a bridle trail separate from the multipuipose trail is recommended wherever possible. 1003.6 Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria The following are miscellaneous bikeway criteria which should be followed to the exlent pertinent to Class I, II and III bikeways. Some, by their very nature, will not apply to all classes of bikeway. Many of the criteria are important to consider on any highway where bicycle travel is expected, without regard lo whether or not bikeways are established. (I) Bridges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coordinated wilh approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For example, bicycle traffic bound in opposite directions is best accommodated by bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such cases, a two-way bike path on one side of a bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one direction of bicycle traffic would be required to cross the highway at grade twice to get to and from the bridge bike path. Because of the in- convenience, many bicyclists wUl be encouraged to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond the bridge termini. The following criteria apply to a two-way bike path on one side of a highway bridge: (a) The bikeway approach to the bridge should be by way of a separate two-way facility for the reason explained above. (b) A physical separation, such as a chain link fence or railing, shall be provided to offset the adverse effects of having bicycles traveling against motor vehicle traffic. The physical separation should be designed to minimize fixed end hazards to motor vehicles and if the bridge is an interchange stmcture, to minimize sight distance restrictions al ramp intersections. It is recommended that bikeway bridge railings or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at leasl 1.4 m high lo minimize tiie likelihood of bicyclists falling over the railings. Standard bridge railings which are lower than 1.4 m can be retrofitted with lightweight upper railings or 254 1000-24 July I, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL chain link fence suitable to restrain bicyclists. Separate highway overcrossing structures for bikeway traffic shall conform to Caltrans* standard pedes- trian overcrossing design loading. The minimum clear width shall be the paved width of the approach bikeway but not less than 2.4 m. If pedestrians are to use the stmcture, additional width is recommended. (2) Surface Quality. The surface to be used by bicyclists should be smooth, free of potholes, and the pavement edge uniform. For rideability on new constmction, the fin- ished surface of bikeways should not vary more than 6 mm from the lower edge of a 2.4 m long straight edge when laid on the surface in any direction. Table 1003.6 BIKEWAY SURFACE TOLERANCES Direction of Travel Grooves (1) Steps (2) Parallel to travel No more than No more 12 mm wide than 10 mm high Perpendicular to travel No more than 20 mm high (1) Groove-A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a bicycle wheel, such as a gap between two concrete slabs. (2) Step—A ridge in the pavemenl, such as lhat which might exist between the pavement and a concrete gutter or manhole cover; or that might exist belween two pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway. Table 1003.6 indicates the recommended bikeway surface tolerances for Class II and III bikeways developed on existing streets to minimize the potential for causing bicyclists to lose control of their bicycle (Note: Stricter tolerances should be achieved on new bikeway construction.) Shoulder mmble strips are not suitable as a riding surface for bicycles. See Traffic Manual Section 6-03.2 for additional infonnation regarding mmble strip design considerations for bicycles. (3) Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways. Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers, etc., on bikeways should be designed and inslalled in a manner that provides an adequate surface for bicyclists. They should be maintained flush with the surface when resurfacing. Drainage inlet grates on bikeways shall have openings narrow enough and short enough to assure bicycle tires will not drop into the grates (e.g., reticuline type), regardless of the direction of bicycle travel. Where it is not immediately feasible to replace exist- ing grates with standard grates designed for bicycles, 25 mm x 6 mm steel cross straps should be welded to the grates at a spacing of 150 mm to 200 mm on centers to reduce the size of the openings adequately. Corrective actions described above are recommended on all highways where bicycle travel is permitted, whelher or not bikeways are designated. Future driveway construction should avoid consuuction of a vertical lip from the drive- way to the gutter, as the lip may create a problem for bicyclists when entering from the edge of the roadway al a flat angle. If a lip is deemed necessary, the height should be limited to 15 mm. (4) At-grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards. Whenever il is necessary lo cross railroad tracks wilh a bikeway, special care must be taken lo assure that the safety of bicycUsts is protected. The bikeway crossing should be at least as wide as the approaches of the bikeway. Wherever possible, lhe crossing should be straight and at right angles to the rails. For on-street bikeways where a skew is unavoidable, the shoulder (or bike lane) should be widened, if possible, to permit bicyclists to cross at right angles (see Figure 1003.6A). If this is not possible, special constmction and materials should be considered to keep the flangeway depth and width lo a minimum. Pavement should be maintained so ridge 255 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-25 July 1,1995 RR Xinq Sign Figure 1003.6A Railroad Crossings ^ AK.O 45 Minimum angle. If less, a stop sign should be placed. CLASS I BiKEWAY / Large radii desirable Direction of bike travel Widen to permit right ongle croBsing CLASS 11 BIKEWAY 256 1000-26 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.6B Obstruction Markings 100 mm - 150 m Solid White Stripe Direction of Bike Trovel Pier, abutment or other obstruction LEGEND L = 2/3 V W where: L *= Length of approoeh marking (m) V = Averoge speed of bicyclists (km/h) W = Width of obstruction (m) 257 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-27 July 1, 1995 buildup does not occur next to the rails. In some cases, timber plank crossings can be justified and can provide for a smoother crossing. Where hazards to bicyclist cannot be avoided, appropriate signs should be installed to wara bicyclists of the danger. All railroad crossings are regulated by the Califomia Public Utihties Commission (CPUC). All new bike path railroad crossings must be approved by the CPUC. Necessary raikoad protection will be determined based on a joint field review involving the applicant, the raikoad company, and the CPUC. The presence of cattle guards along any roadway where bicyclists are expected should be clearly marked with adequate advance waming. (5^ Obstruction Markings. Vertical barriers and obstructions, such as abutments, piers, and other features causing bikeway constriction, should be clearly marked to gain the at- tention of approaching bicyclists. This treat- ment should be used only where unavoidable, and is by no means a substitute for good bikeway design. An example of an obstruction marking is shown in Figure 1003.6B. Signs, reflectors, diagonal black and yellow markings, or other treatments will be appropriate in other instances to alert bicyclists to potential obstmctions. Topic 1004 - Uniform Signs, Markings and Traffic Control Devices 1004.1 Introduction Per Section 891 of the Streets and Highways Code, uniform signs, markings, and traffic control devices shall be used. As such this section is mandatory, except where permissive language is used. See the Traffic Manual for detailed specifications. 1004.2 Bike Path (Ciass I) An optional 100 mm yellow stripe may be placed to separate opposing directions of travel. (See Index 1003.1 (3) for additional infonnation.) A 0.9 m long stripe with a 2.7 m space is the recommended striping pallem, but may be revised, depending on lhe situation. Standard regulatory, waming, and guide signs used on highways may be used on bike paths, as appropriate (and may be scaled down in size). Special regulatory, waming, and guide signs may also be used to meet specific needs. White painted word (or symbol) waming markings on the pavement may be used as an effective means of alerting bicyclists to approaching hazards, such as sharp curves, barrier posts, etc. 1004.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) Bike lanes require standard signing and pavement markings as shown on Figure 1004.3. This figure also depicts the proper method of striping bike lanes through intersections. Bike lane lines are not typically extended through intersections. Where motor vehicle right turns are nol permitled, the solid bike lane stripe should extend to the edge of the intersection, and begin again on the far side. Where right tums are permitted, the solid stripe should tenninate 30 m lo 60 m prior to the intersection. A dashed line, as shown in Figure 1004.3, may be canied lo, or near, the intersection. Where cily blocks are short (less than 120 m), the length of dashed stripe is typically close to 30 m. Where blocks are longer or motor vehicle speeds are high (greater lhan 60 km/h), the length of dashed stripe should be increased to 60 m. T-he R81 bike lane sign shall be placed at the beginning of all bike lanes, on the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction, and at maximum 1 km intervals. Bike lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection, and may be placed at other locations as desired. Raised pavement markers or other raised barriers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. The G93 Bike Route sign may also be used along bike lanes, but its primary purpose should be lo provide directional signing and destination signing where necessary. A proliferation of 258 1000-28 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL July 1. 1995 Bike Route signs along signed and striped bike lanes serves no useful purpose. Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists in bike lanes. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used specifically in conjunction wilh bike lanes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. 1004.4 Bike Routes (Class III) Bike routes are shared routes and do not require pavement markings. In some instances, a 100 mm white edge stripe separating the traffic lanes from the shoulder can be helpful in providing for safer shared use. This practice is particularly applicable on rural highways, and on major arterials in urban areas where there is no vehicle parking. Bike routes are established through placement of the G93 Bike Route sign. Bike route signs are to be placed periodically along the route. At changes in direction, the bike route signs are supplemented by G33 dkectional arrows. Typical bike route signing is shown on Figure 1004.4. The figure shows how destination signing, through application of a special plale, can make the Bike Route sign more functional for the bicyclist. This type of signing is recommended when a bike route leads lo a high demand destination (e.g., downtown, college, etc.). Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists. Standard waming and guide signs used specificaily in conjunction with bike routes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. 259 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-29 July 1.1995 Figure 1004.3 Bike Lane Signs and Markings WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PROHIBITED Centeriine or Lone Line ,c« 1.2 n Mininun „13U nn Vhi-te Stripe (See Figure 10D3.2A? r tee HQi •ptional Bashed Stripe CSee Note 4) 30 - 60 ^ -Curb or edge of pavenent RBI CNo Parking) (Bike Lane) (See Note 6) 1 r" Optional Markings CSee Note 1) WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PERMITTED Optional Dashed Stripe 3,3 n or 3.6 n Minlnun (See Figure 1003,2A) CSee Note 4) 30 n - 60 n 1 Mondatory Mork;nos ^ 5 „ M,^,^^, CSee Note 1) 150 nn White Stripe ptional Markings CSee Note 1) ts r. m n PARKING STALLS CSee Note 5) NO STALLS NOTES: 1. The Bike Lone pavement markings shall be pieced on the for side of eoch intersection, ond may be placed ot other locotlons os desired. 2. The use of the bicycle symbol pavement marking to supplement the word measoge is optionol. 3. The G93 Bike Route sign moy be placed Intermit- tently along the bike lone If desired. 4. Where motorist right turns are permitted, the solid bike lone line sholl either be dropped entirely, or doshed as shown, beginning at o point between 30 m ond 60 m In advance of the intersection. Refer to Detoil 39A in thc Traffic Monuol for striping pottern dimensions. r H 100 nn White R 81 CSee Note 6) STALLS In oreos where parking stalls ore not necessary (becauae porking is light), it is permissible to point c 100 mm solid white stripe to fully delineote the bike lone. This may be advisable where there Is concem that motorists may misconstrue the bike lane to be 0 traffic lone. The RBI bike lone sign shall be placed at the be- ginning of oil bike (ones, on the for side of every •rteriol street intersection, ot oil major chonges in direction, ond ot maximum O.B km intervals. 260 1000-30 July 1,1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1004.4 Bike Route Signing G33 DOIiiNTOLUN NOTES: The G93 Bike Route signs shall be placed at all points where the route changes direction and periodically as necessary. G93 Special Optional Destination Signing G93 Special Optional Destination Signing 261 APPENDIX J PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA- STANDARDS 262 Ckor Pftiil OS -i" 125'-0' Uitumum H tt O 5 STANDARD No. 3 WALKWAYS AT MAIN LINE SWITCHES ENTERING YARDS AND SERVING INDUSTRY TRACKS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN STANDARD No. 5 To r B'-G" Minimum 0 Min.- STANDARD No. 6 WALKWAYS IN YARDS AND POINTS WHERE INDUSTRIAL SWITCHING IS PERFORMED, BUT NOT LESS THAN 50 FT. IN ADVANCE OF SWITCH. o H H S SB o OBNEBAL ORDER No. 118 2 Ft Min- t MAIN LINE i SIDINS T« conletula 6.a 2S-D 2 Ft MM STANOARO No. 2 WALKWAYS ALONG MAIN LINE TRACKS t < SHOUT Line 0(j MANCN tWt, ^ »">|"« To e«it«ii !• 6.a 26-D 4^ H . a'-6' MiaiiWM • WALKWAY WALKWAY STANDARD No. 2-A WALKWAYS ALONG SHORT LINE AND BRANCH LINE TRACKS 26S 265 GENERAL ORDER No. 118 2 Ft Minimuin 2 Fl. Minimum STANDARD No. I WALKWAYS ALONG MAIN LINE TRACKS 2f J 267 Figure 2 STANDARD NO. 1-D PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCU RAIUtOAD GRADE CROSSING SIGN 16 SO RAILROAD CROSSING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES ONLY X BLACK LETTERING ON WHITE REFLECTORIZED BACKGROUND The wording "and bicycles" is optional and may be omitted where appropriate. C O. 75-C 268 FIflkirw 10 STANDARD NO. 10 CfOiling BtH CROSSINO — Padattrian ani BicycU flailrood Grod* Croiiinf Sig* (Slondord No l-O) Pipa Posi PEDEffTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSING PROTECTION FLASHING UGHT TYPE SEE NOTES 1, 2 AND 3. SECTION 8. GO. 75-C 269 APPENDIX K BIBLIOGRAPHY 270 Bibliography 1. American Association of State KQghway and Transportation Officials, '^Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2. Barton-Ashman Assoc., Inc. Master Bikewav Plan and Engineering Feasibility Studv for the City of Encinitas, November, 1990. 3. BRW, Inc. Altematives Analvsis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report for the Midcoast Corridor. Prepared for U.S. Depaitment of Transportation and Metropolitan Transit Development Board. February, 1995. 4. Bicycle Federation of America, "Selecting and Designing Bicycle Routes", 1996. 5. Butler Roach Group, Inc., Draft & Final EIR for the Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation Project for the SDNR Right-of-Wav. November 11, 1994 and May 19, 1995 respectively. 6. State of California, The Resource Agency. Califomia Outdoor Recreation Plan. 1993. 7. Callander Assoc. CalTrain Trail Feasibility Studv. August, 1996. 8. State of California, Department ofTransportation. liighwav Design Manual. Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design. 9. Carlsbad, City of City of Carlsbad General Plan. September 6, 1994 10. CH2M. Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS. Prepared for City of Carlsbad and Army Corps of Engineers. June, 1990. 11. Cotton Bekland Associates. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. Final Program EIR. City ofCarlsbad, July 1997. 12. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Medenhall, Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation. Solana Beach, CA, Engineering Report, 1992. 13. Del Mar, City of Del Mar Communitv Plan. March, 1976. 14. Del Mar, City of "Recreation Element". Del Mar Community Plan. May 1, 1985. 15. Dike Partnership, Inc., Master Plan of Parks and Recreation, prepared for the City of Oceanside, January 24, 1996. 16. Dike Partnership, Inc., Solana Beach Bikeway Master Plan. June, 1993. 17. Earth Technologies. Cultural Resources Report for the Lomas Santa Fe Drive/San Diego Northem Railway Right- of-Way. December, 1993. 18. Encinitas, City of City of Encinitas General Plan. March, 1989. 271 19. Florida, State of Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Manual. 1996 20. Institute of Traffic Engineers, "Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities" 1995 21. Kawasaki, Theilacker, Ueno, & Assoc. Technical Memo #2, Bicycle Master Plan for the City ofCarlsbad. 1996. 22. KEA Environmental, Inc. Nobel Drive and 1-805 Interchange and Extension Proiect Draft EIR/EIS. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration and Califomia Department of Transportation District 11. January, 1996. 23. Komblatt, Helene B. Draft EIR for Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail Project. Prepared for North San Diego Transit Development Board. September, 1989. 24. Nordquist Assoc., Inc., Solana Beach Linear Park Tree Inventory.. November 17, 1995.0ceanside, City of Engineering and Planning Departments, "Circulation Element", City of Oceanside, September, 1995. 25. Oceanside, City of Planning Department. Xand Use Element", 1989. 26. Ogden Environmental. Downtown Encinitas/North 101 Conidor Specific Plan Draft Supplemental EIR. Prepared for City of Encinitas. November, 1992. 27. Ogden Environmental. Phase 1 Historic Properties Inventorv of the Nobel Drive Station. August, 1993. 28. Ogden Environmental. Realignment of Miramar NAS DEIR/DEIS. Prepared for U.S. Department of Navy, SWDIV. August, 1995. 29. Ogden Environmental, Phase 1 Historic Properties Inventory of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transportation Altematives. August 1992. 30. Payne Gail "Guide to Bicycle Program Funding in Califomia" Planning and Conservation League Foundation, April 1995 31. Philips, Brandt, Redick, Citv of Solana Beach General Plan. 1988. 32. Recon, Inc., Final Environmental Impact Report, Fletcher Cove Master Plan. 1992. 33. Research Network, Ltd., San Diego County Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey, prepared for the County of San Diego, May, 1995. 34. Rails-with-Trails Conservancy, Sharing Corridors for Transportation and Recreation. September 1997, RTC and National Park Service, 1997. 35. Rails-wath-Trails Conservancy, The Experience on 372 Trails. January 1998. 36. San Diego Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan. September, 1996. 37. San Diego, City of , Clean Water Program. "Technical Appendices" for the Draft EIR for the proposed North Citv Water Reclamation Plant. September 11, 1992. 272 38. San Diego, City of. Department ofTransportation. Bicycle Accident Statistics, 1974. 39. San Diego, City of. North Chv West Community Plan. 1975. 40. San Diego, City of. Planning Dept. City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. June, 1989. Amendment October 1992 41. San Diego, City of. Planning Department. Mira Mesa Community Plan and Local Coastal Program. March. 1981. 42. San Diego, City of. Rose Canyon Truric Sewer Interceptor Line EIR. August, 1992. 43. San Diego, City of, Torrey Pines Communitv Plan. April 16, 1990. 44. San Diego, City of. University Community Plan. January 16, 1990. 45. San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority. Final EIR for San Dieguito River Park Concept Plan. November, 1993. 46. Spurlock/Poirier Landscape Architects and Victoria Touchstone, Susan A. Carter. San Dieguito River Park Concept PlaiL prepared for the San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority, June, 1990. Revised September 15, 1993. 47. Transtech Engineers, Inc., City of Solana Beach Bikewav Master Plan Addendum. 1996. 48. Wallace Roberts & Todd, Buena Vista Lagoon. Hill Street/Carlsbad Boulevard Boardwalk. Preliminary Concept Plan, prepared for Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation, November, 1991. 49. United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, "Conflicts on Multiple Use Trails", 1.996. 50. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles". 1996. 273 V (0 PROJECT ALIGNMENT 274