CITY of COALINGA that numbering may not be consecutive, as only those policies most relevant are...

CITY of

COALINGAAPPENDICES

VOL. IV OF IV

MARCH 2017

Prepared by:

APLAN AND POLICY REVIEW

Local Plans and Policies A-2

Regional Plans and Policies A-10

Statewide Plans and Policies A-12

Federal Plans and Policies A-14

CCOMMUNITY INPUT

School Audit Observations C-2

Community Website C-4

Community Survey C-4

BBACKGROUND COLLISION ANALYSIS

Collision Analysis B-2

DHEALTH AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Health Analysis D-2

Benefit Impact Analysis D-2

TABLE of CONTENTS

EPROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

GCLASS I TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND COST ESTIMATES

HACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COMPLIANCE

FFUNDING SOURCES

Federal Sources F-2

State Sources F-5

Regional and Local Sources F-6

TABLE of CONTENTS

This appendix contains a review of adopted planning and policy documents relevant to the Coalinga Active Transportation Plan. Documents are grouped into local and regional, statewide, and federal efforts. This appendix includes:

Goals, policies, and other items that relate directly to walking and bicycling are included in this review, while items that are less relevant have been omitted for clarity. As a result, numbering may be nonconsecutive.

APPENDIX A:

PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW

CITY OF COALINGA GENERAL PLAN 2005-2025

The Coalinga General Plan, last updated

in 2009, is organized around a number

of core guiding principles. Relevant

principles include:

• Protect City Center

Protect and enhance the Downtown

as the City’s commercial, civic, cultural

and recreational center while acknowl-

edging its historical qualities.

• Encourage Job Growth

Encourage the expansion of existing

businesses and actively seek to attract

industries and businesses that create

jobs and generate revenue for the

City.

• Support Redevelopment

Support new residential and commer-

cial infill development on vacant land

within the established City core and

encourage re-use or redevelopment of

underutilized parcels.

• Support Educational, Medical and

Airport Facilities

Encourage, support and expand high

quality educational, medical and

airport facilities needed to meet the

needs of the City’s expanding resident

and tourist population.

• Promote Smart Growth Objectives

Establish sustainable development

guidelines that encourage compact

neighborhood design which offers a

mix of uses within close proximity.

Additionally, the General Plan positions

Coalinga as a city that:

• Provides a practical, landscaped,

aesthetically pleasing, and environ-

mentally sensitive transportation cir-

culation network that includes roads,

bike paths, walkways, and trails that

are easily accessible and efficiently and

safely transport residents and visitors

throughout the City and surround-

ing region. The circulation system,

especially major corridors, will provide

panoramic views of the community’s

surrounding environment and will

avoid blocking these views with walls,

fences, overhead power lines or other

visually negative features. The circula-

tion system will be landscaped and will

link neighborhoods, parks, schools,

libraries, shopping areas, topographic

features, pristine primitive areas, and

wildlife habitat.

• Develops a convenient and compre-

hensive system of neighborhood

parks, community parks, athletic

parks, primitive natural areas, green

belts, open space, bike paths, trails,

scenic vistas and other recreational

opportunities that meets the needs

of the citizens and enriches the lives

of residents and visitors. Indoor and

outdoor parks and recreation facilities

that will be adaptable to changes in the

population, and provide beauty and

functional efficiency to complement

the City’s natural environment and the

needs of its citizens.

Circulation Element

The Coalinga General Plan describes

three categories of bikeways:

• Class I Bikeways (bike path) provide

for bicycle travel on a right-of-way

completely separated from any street

or highway.

• Class II Bikeways (bike lane) provide

a restricted right-of-way for the

exclusive use of bicycles with vehicle

parking and cross flow by pedestrians

and motorists permitted. Bike lanes

are normally striped within paved

areas of highways.

• Class III Bikeways (bike route by sign)

provide for shared use with pedestrian

and auto traffic.

The Circulation element also includes a

number of goals, policies, and implemen-

tation measures. Those relevant to this

Active Transportation Plan are listed

below. Note that numbering may not be

consecutive, as only those policies most

relevant are included in this review.

Local Plans and Policies

A-2 INTRODUCTION

Goal C1

A balanced, safe, and efficient circula-

tion system that includes cars, public

transportation, bicycles, and pedes-

trians while accommodating future

growth, maintaining acceptable Levels

of Service.

• Policy C1-2

New development projects shall be

required to mitigate their impacts and

to pay their fair share of countywide

traffic improvements they contribute

to the need for.

» Implementation Measure C1-2.1:

Consider a countywide traffic

impact fee to address cumulative

(i.e. not project-specific) impacts

associated with new development.

Fees shall be used to pay for the cost

of network improvements as well as

other transportation improvements

such as transit within the Coalinga

AOI.


Establish development standards

that require payment of traffic

impact fees for all new development

and periodically update.

• Policy C1-3

The City recognizes that Level of

Service (LOS) D may not always be

achieved on some roadway segments,

and may also not be achieved at come

intersections. Roadways on which

LOS D is projected to be exceeded

are shown in the General Plan or the

General Plan EIR, based on the study

conducted by KD Anderson (August,

2008). On these roadways, the City

shall ensure that improvements to

construct the ultimate roadway

system as shown in this Circulation

Element are completed, with the

recognition that maintenance of the

desired level of service may not be

achievable.


Pursue all feasible circulation

system alternatives that reduce

the potential for street segments

in the Downtown commercial core

to operate below LOS D as a result

of competing commercial develop-

ments in other areas of the city.

• Policy C1-4

Maintain and improve existing circula-

tion and transportation facilities.


Coordinate with Coalinga Transit

and Fresno County Rural Transit

Agency to provide safe and efficient

transit system for local and regional

travel, particularly for youth, elderly,

low-income, or disabled persons.


Establish and implement a street and

sidewalk repair program.


Realign offset intersections where

they create traffic problems.


The City shall require new develop-

ment proposals, including Public

Works projects, to include an evalu-

ation of whether or not roundabouts

could be used as an alternative to

stop sign or traffic signal controlled

intersections.

A-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

• Policy C1-5

The City shall identify necessary

improvements for all roads and streets

in its planning area and implement

measures and development plans to

implement those improvements.


Prepare a Feasibility Study and

develop a bridge impact fee to fund

a bridge and roadway improvements

for a north/south connector from

Phelps Avenue to Jayne Avenue.

» Implementation Measure

C1-5.2: Develop and implement

with Caltrans a SR 33 Access

Management Plan which would

identify the location of future access.


Update the traffic mitigation fee to

include the cost of constructing SR

33 improvement in those locations

where fronting development is

unlikely and roadway widening will

likely be necessary at the General

Plan built out.


The City and Caltrans should

complete a plan line study for SR 33

from Cambridge Avenue to Fifth

Street to identify the configuration

and limits of ultimate improvements

to SR 33 through the developed

areas of Coalinga.

• Policy C1-6

Shall encourage the use of transporta-

tion alternatives that reduce the use of

personal vehicles.


Funding for development, opera-

tions, and maintenance of facilities

for mass transit, bicycle, and pedes-

trian modes of transportation shall

be considered in the City’s budgeting

process.


Implement policies and implemen-

tation measures in the Air Quality

Element which seek to encourage

non-vehicle transportation alterna-

tives in Coalinga.


Support positive incentives such as

carpool and vanpool parking, bus

turnouts, and pedestrian-friendly

project designs to promote the use

of transportation alternatives.

• Policy C1-7

Shall require that transit service is

provided in all areas of Coalinga, so

that transit dependent residents of

those areas are not cut off from com-

munity services, events, and activities.


Shall require that any local or

regional transit agency serving

Coalinga serve all areas of the city.

Goal C2

A network of multi-use recreational

trails along Los Gatos and Warthan

Creeks with inner City and regional

connections for use by local residents

and visitors.

• Policy C2-1

Promote non-motorized bike and

pedestrian circulation facilities to

serve all areas of the City and link

regional systems, with priority coor-

dination with school, park, transit and

major facilities.


Develop a Multi-Use Off-Street

Trails Master Plan.


Establish development standards

requiring new development provide

the necessary funding, easements,

dedications and improvements

needed to establish a network of

recreational trails.


Pursue grant opportunities and

other financing programs to fund

the construction and maintenance

of recreational trails including taxes,

fees, bonds, assessments, and/or

donations.

A-4 INTRODUCTION

Goal C3

Create a system of pedestrian and

bicycle routes and transit related facili-

ties that provide an efficient alternative

to automobile transportation.

• Policy C3-1

Promote installation of additional,

distinctive transit stops at key activity

areas and encourage covered shelters

at new stops that are linked to safe

pedestrian and bicycle routes.


Require new development to

dedicate land and/or construct/

install bicycle facilities and indented

curbs for bus pullouts, bus shelters,

and other transit-related public

improvements where appropriate.


Install dedicated sidewalks along

major arterials, and plant and

maintain trees to reinforce a pedes-

trian-friendly atmosphere.


Consider bicycle operating char-

acteristics and safety needs in the

design of roadways, intersections,

and traffic control systems.


Promote and facilitate the use of

bicycles with other transportation

modes.


Maintain and update, when required,

a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master

Plan (PBMP) for Coalinga. Regional

Bikeways Plan routes shall be shown

as Class II facilities in the PBMP

unless otherwise designated.


Seek Caltrans certification for the

PBMP to facilitate its use for grants

and other funding.

Air Quality Element

Goal AQ2

Reduction of motor vehicle trips and

vehicle miles traveled.

• Policy AQ2-1

Encourage and support development

projects that propose alternatives to

standard vehicle trips.

» Implementation Measure AQ2-1.1:

Where feasible, projects that should

propose pedestrian or transit-

oriented designs at suitable locations

and encourage higher densities in

areas served by a full range of urban

services.


Require larger development projects

and Master Plan Growth Areas to

consider inclusion of mixed-use

components that provide com-

mercial services such as day care

centers, offices, restaurants, banks

and stores.


Promote downtown Coalinga as the

primary pedestrian-oriented, com-

mercial, and financial center of the

City as outlined in the Downtown

Mixed Use overlay standards and the

Downtown Design Standards.


Require adequate neighborhood

commercial shopping areas to

provide services to new residential

developments, provided they

don’t compete directly with the

Downtown.


Within two (2) years of adoption

of the General Plan the City shall

develop a Safe Routes to School

program. This program should be

developed in close cooperation with

the Coalinga-Huron Unified School

District and should help the District

choose school sites that allow

students to safely walk or bike from

their homes.


Develop park and ride lots and

rideshare programs to serve long

distance and regional commuters.


Work with public and private

organizations (e.g., the Chamber of

Commerce, West Hills College) to

attract employers to the community

to help improve the jobs/housing

balance.


Require new development to provide

pedestrian and bicycle connections

to transit facilities, commercial and

neighboring uses, and other poten-

tial destinations.


Create car-pooling, telecommuting

and mass-transit programs for com-

munity members and businesses.

» Implementation Measure AQ2-

1.13: Implement a police on bicycles

program as appropriate and feasible.


• Policy AQ2-2

Support upgrades and improvements

to the transportation system that

benefit bicycle, pedestrian, and other

non-vehicular forms of circulation.

(See also Goal C3 and its associated

policies and implementation measures

in the Circulation Element)


The City shall pursue and use state

and federal funds earmarked for

bicycle and transit improvements.


The City shall require new devel-

opment to dedicate land for bus

turnouts and shelters at sites

deemed appropriate and necessary

by the City and the transit providers.


Design arterial and collector streets

with on-street bike lanes and

detached pedestrian walkways.


Within two (2) years of adoption of

the General Plan, prepare a Bicycle

and Pedestrian Master Plan to

provide a comprehensive system of

bikeways and pedestrian paths.


Require developers to provide

regional and commuter bikeways to

serve their developments through

construction of improvements or

payment of an in-lieu fee.


Develop Zoning Ordinance stan-

dards to require developers to

provide bicycle racks, or enclosed

and locked bicycle storage, at major

activity centers, offices, and com-

mercial establishments to serve

patrons and employees.


Develop Zoning Ordinance stan-

dards that require larger develop-

ments to provide facilities and

programs that increase the effec-

tiveness of transportation control

measures (e.g., employer based

trip reduction programs, transit

programs, ride share programs, or

parking reductions).

A-6

COALINGA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN (2013)

The Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) Transition Plan includes a com-

prehensive survey of accessibility to

public spaces and programs in Coalinga.

This Active Transportation Plan will

include relevant sidewalk and curb

ramp recommendations from the ADA

Transition Plan, as outlined below.

Curb Ramps

Curb ramps generally provide access

between the sidewalk and roadway

surface at crosswalks and intersections,

but may be used in other locations. They

must meet the following design stan-

dards set by ADA:

• Curb ramps must be a minimum of

four feet in width

• Cross slope must not exceed a two

percent grade

• Flares must not exceed a 10 percent

grade

• Slope of the ramp must not exceed

8.33 percent grade

• Smooth transitions must be provided

to the gutter or road surface

• Truncated domes are applied to the

center base of a curb ramp to alert

pedestrians that they are exiting the

sidewalk

The ADA Transition Plan identified 624

existing curb ramps that do not meet

ADA guidelines and 288 locations

where curb ramps are missing.

Sidewalks

Sidewalks are pedestrian walkways typi-

cally found adjacent to roads, but may

also be located in parks, schools, parking

lots, or other locations. Sidewalk guide-

lines also affect driveway approaches

where they cross sidewalks. These

guidelines include:

• Sidewalks must have a clear width of

at least 48 inches, not including any

curb

• Running slope shall not exceed the

grade of the adjacent road or five

percent, whichever is greater

• Cross slope must be no less than

one percent and no greater than two

percent

• If a sidewalk has a running slope

exceeding five percent for at least

400 feet, a 60-inch long landing with

a maximum slope of 2 percent shall be

provided every 400 feet of sidewalk

length

• Where a sidewalk crosses a driveway

approach, the minimum width of 48

inches and the maximum cross slope

of two percent shall be provided for

the entire width of the drive approach

• Drive approach entries shall not be

designed or used as curb ramps

The ADA Transition Plan identified

41,130 linear feet of missing side-

walks and 5,660 linear feet of existing

sidewalk that does not meet ADA

guidelines. The plan also identified 1,271

driveway approaches and 159 alley

approaches that do not meet sidewalk

guidelines. Figure A-1 and Figure A-2

show the locations of the sidewalks and

curb ramps that still do not meet ADA

Requirements.


CoalingaSports Complex

Centennial Park

KeckPark

OlsenPark

Los Gatos Creek

Warthan Creek

Los Gatos Creek

198

33

33

Gale AveGale Ave

Elm

Av

eE

lm A

ve

Polk StPolk St

Mo

nt

ere

y A

ve

Phelps AvePhelps Ave

Co

ali

ng

a S

tC

oa

lin

ga

St

Fifth St

Fifth St

Mer

ced

Av

e

Valley St

Fourth St

Fr

esn

o S

t

Third St

Third St

Cambridge AveCambridge Ave

Baker St

Pin

e S

t

Sixth St

Sixth St

Fore

st A

ve

Fore

st A

veS

un

set

St

Lucille Ave

Gle

nn AveD

urian A

ve

ELM A

ve

Van Ness StVan Ness St

Sc

ho

ol

Rd

Pleasant St

Pacific St

Pacific St

Falc

on

Ln

Ha

ch

ma

n S

t

Ced

ar A

ve

Houston St

Washington StWashington St

Tractor Ave

El Rancho Blvd

Jun

iper

Rid

ge

Blv

d

Walnut Ave

Sacramento St

Mer

lot

Wa

y

Lin

co

ln S

t

Birch A

ve

Joa

qu

in S

t

Roosevelt St

Ca

lifo

rn

ia S

tC

ali

for

nia

St

Firestone Ave

Yale Ave

Cherry Ln

Gr

an

t S

t

Mic

hel

le S

t

Buena Vista Dr

Lo

ng

ho

llo

w W

ay

Pinto St

Janay Ct

Bu

ck

ey

e S

prin

gs

St

Pr

inc

et

on

Av

e

En

ter

pris

e P

kw

y

Ha

nn

ah

Av

e

Locust Ave

Malibu DrA

lic

ia S

t

Mesa Way

Harvard AveHarvard Ave

San Madele Ave

Su

nse

t S

tS

un

set

St

Joa

qu

in S

t

Jayne AveJayne Ave

College Ave

0 0.45 0.9 MILES

CITY LIMITSPARKS

ADA TRANSITION PLANSIDEWALKS

ADA TRANSITION PLANSIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS

Figure A-1

CoalingaSports Complex

Centennial Park

KeckPark

OlsenPark

Los Gatos Creek

Warthan Creek

Los Gatos Creek

198

33

33

Gale AveGale Ave

Elm

Av

eE

lm A

ve

Polk StPolk St

Mo

nt

ere

y A

ve

Phelps AvePhelps Ave

Co

ali

ng

a S

tC

oa

lin

ga

St

Fifth St

Fifth St

Mer

ced

Av

e

Valley St

Fourth St

Fr

esn

o S

t

Third St

Third St

Cambridge AveCambridge Ave

Baker St

Pin

e S

t

Sixth St

Sixth St

Fore

st A

ve

Fore

st A

veS

un

set

St

Lucille Ave

Gle

nn AveD

urian A

ve

ELM A

ve

Van Ness StVan Ness St

Sc

ho

ol

Rd

Pleasant St

Pacific St

Pacific St

Falc

on

Ln

Ha

ch

ma

n S

t

Ced

ar A

ve

Houston St

Washington StWashington St

Tractor Ave

El Rancho Blvd

Jun

iper

Rid

ge

Blv

d

Walnut Ave

Sacramento St

Mer

lot

Wa

y

Lin

co

ln S

t

Birch A

ve

Joa

qu

in S

t

Roosevelt St

Ca

lifo

rn

ia S

tC

ali

for

nia

St

Firestone Ave

Yale Ave

Cherry Ln

Gr

an

t S

t

Mic

hel

le S

t

Buena Vista Dr

Lo

ng

ho

llo

w W

ay

Pinto St

Janay Ct

Bu

ck

ey

e S

prin

gs

St

Pr

inc

et

on

Av

e

En

ter

pris

e P

kw

y

Ha

nn

ah

Av

e

Locust Ave

Malibu DrA

lic

ia S

t

Mesa Way

Harvard AveHarvard Ave

San Madele Ave

Su

nse

t S

tS

un

set

St

Joa

qu

in S

t

Jayne AveJayne Ave

College Ave

0 0.45 0.9 MILES

CITY LIMITSPARKS

ADA TRANSITION PLANCURB RAMPS

ADA TRANSITION PLANCURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTS

Figure A-2

MUNICIPAL CODE

The City of Coalinga has bicycle parking

requirements in the Municipal Code. It

says:

(a) Bicycle Parking and Facilities

(1) Lockable bicycle parking shall be

provided for commercial, industrial, and

public facility projects with buildings

greater than 5,000 square feet in size

and for multi-family residential projects

of four (4) or more units.

(2) Bicycle parking shall be provided at

ten (10) percent of required automo-

bile spaces. For public facilities, bicycle

parking shall be provided at twenty-five

(25) percent of required automobile

spaces.

(3) Bicycle racks and lockers shall be

located in highly visible locations with

adequate lighting. Bicycle racks shall

be designed such that bicycles may be

secured in two (2) places.

(4) All developments with 20,000

square feet of gross area or more are

required to include bicycle showers and

lockers for employees, at a minimum

of two (2) showers for the first 20,000

square feet of gross floor area, and one

additional shower for every additional

10,000 square feet of gross floor area.

The showers shall be designated male

and female and shall be ADA compli-

ant. Each shower shall include a toilet

or be located within a restroom facility.

Employee lockers shall be within fifty

(50) feet of the provided showers.

(b) All commercial, industrial and public

facility projects of over 1,000 square

feet are required to provide incentives

to encourage their employees to use

alternative modes of transportation,

including but not limited to walking,

cycling, and taking transit.

(Ord. No. 776, § 1(Exh. A), eff. 9-5-2014)

Regional Plans And PoliciesFRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY

The Fresno Council of Governments

(Fresno COG) Regional Transportation

Plan and Sustainable Communities

Strategy (RTP) was adopted in 2014

with a horizon of 2040. It outlines a plan

for transportation improvements across

the county, including walking and bicy-

cling improvements near Coalinga.

The RTP proposes a total of $94 million

to fund bicycle and pedestrian improve-

ments. See Figure A-3.

FRESNO COUNTY REGIONAL BICYCLE & RECREATIONAL TRAILS MASTER PLAN

The Fresno County Regional Bicycle &

Recreational Trails Master Plan, adopted

in 2013, identifies several Class I

shared-use paths and Class II bike lanes

near Coalinga, as shown in Figure A-4

and Figure A-5 respectively.

COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX A | A-10

REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES

Fresno Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy

The Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable

Communities Strategy (RTP) was adopted in 2014 with a horizon of 2040. It outlines a plan for

transportation improvements across the county, including walking and bicycling improvements

near Coalinga.

The RTP proposes a total of $94 million to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements. See Figure

A-3.

Fresno County Regional Bicycle & Recreational Trails Master Plan

The Fresno County Regional Bicycle & Recreational Trails Master Plan, adopted in 2013, identifies

several Class I shared-use paths and Class II bike lanes near Coalinga, as shown in Figure A-4 and

Figure A-5 respectively.

Figure A-3: Fresno COG RTP Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

Figure A-3: Fresno COG RTP Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

A-10

CO

ALI

NG

A A

CT

IVE

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N P

LAN

AP

PE

ND

IX A

| A

-11

Fig

ure

A-4

: Fre

sno

Co

unty

Reg

iona

l Bic

ycle

Pla

n –

Cla

ss I

Bik

eway

s

Figure A-4: Fresno County Regional Bicycle Plan – Class I Bikeways


Statewide Plans and PoliciesAB 32

Global Warming Solutions Act & SB 375 – Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act

The past ten years have seen an expan-

sion of legislative and planning efforts in

California to reduce emissions of green-

house gases (GHGs) in order to mitigate

climate change. Assembly Bill 32, the

California Global Warming Solutions Act

of 2006, aims to reduce the state’s GHG

emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to

80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Meanwhile, Senate Bill 375, passed into

law in 2008, is the first in the nation that

will attempt to control GHG emissions

by directly linking land use to transpor-

tation. The law required the state’s Air

Resources Board to develop regional

targets for reductions in GHG emissions

from passenger vehicles for 2020 and

2035 as a way of supporting the targets

in AB32.

AB 1358

Complete Streets Act

Assembly Bill 1358 requires “that the

legislative body of a city or county, upon

any substantive revision of the circula-

tion element of the general plan, modify

the circulation element to plan for a

balanced, multimodal transportation

network that meets the needs of all

users [including] motorists, pedestrians,

bicyclists, children, persons with dis-

abilities, seniors, movers of commercial

goods, and users of public transporta-

tion….” This provision of the law went

into effect on January 1, 2011, and has

resulted in a new generation of circula-

tion elements and a surge in complete

streets policies around the state as

general plans are updated over time.

SB 99

Active Transportation Program Act

The Active Transportation Program was

established by this legislation in 2013,

and serves as the mechanism for distrib-

uting federal funds for local and regional

efforts to promote walking and bicy-

cling. It specifies goals that the funding

will be disbursed to help meet, including

increasing the mode shares of biking

and walking trips, increasing safety for

non-motorized users, and providing

support to disadvantaged communities

to promote transportation equity. It

also updated the list of requirements for

completed Active Transportation Plans

including the number and location of

collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities

suffered by bicycle riders in the Plan

area, a description of bicycle safety

and education programs conducted

in the area, and a resolution showing

adoption of the Plan by the Council of

Governments.

CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2040

The California Transportation Plan

2040 seeks to provide for mobility and

accessibility of people, goods, services,

and information throughout California.

It encourages consideration of bicycle

and pedestrian facilities in capacity

improvement projects, and promotes

integration of active transportation into

modeling and projection efforts.

The Plan also speaks to the public health

benefits of active transportation, urging

better education of youth on personal

health and air quality impacts of making

trips by bicycle or on foot.

CALTRANS COMPLETE STREETS POLICY AND DEPUTY DIRECTIVE 64

In 2001, the California Department

of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted

Deputy Directive 64, “Accommodating

Non-Motorized Travel,” which contained

a routine accommodation policy. The

directive was updated in 2008 and in

2014 as “Complete Streets – Integrating

the Transportation System.” The policy

includes the following language:

The Department views all transporta-

tion improvements as opportunities to

improve safety, access, and mobility for

all travelers in California and recognizes

bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as

integral elements of the transportation

system.

The Department develops integrated

multimodal projects in balance with

community goals, plans, and values.

Addressing the safety and mobility

needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and

transit users in all projects, regardless

of funding, is implicit in these objectives.

Bicycle, pedestrian and transit travel is

facilitated by creating “complete streets”

beginning early in system planning and

continuing through project delivery and

maintenance operations.

A-12

CO

ALI

NG

A A

CT

IVE

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N P

LAN

AP

PE

ND

IX A

| A

-12

Fig

ure

A-5

: Fre

sno

Co

unt

y R

egio

nal B

icyc

le P

lan

– C

lass

II B

ikew

ays

Figure A-5: Fresno County Regional Bicycle Plan – Class II Bikeways


The directive establishes Caltrans’

own responsibilities under this policy.

The responsibilities Caltrans assigns to

various staff positions under the policy

include the following:

• Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit

interests are appropriately repre-

sented on interdisciplinary planning

and project delivery

development teams.

• Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit

user needs are addressed and defi-

ciencies identifies during system and

corridor planning, project initiation,

scoping, and programming.

• Ensure incorporation of bicycle,

pedestrian, and transit travel elements

in all Department transportation plans

and studies.

• Promote land uses that encourage

bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel.

• Research, develop, and implement

multimodal performance measures.

In part to address these issues,

Caltrans adopted the Complete Streets

Implementation Action Plan in 2010.

The plan sets forth actions under

seven categories to be completed by

various Caltrans districts and divisions

within certain timelines to institution-

alize complete streets concepts and

considerations within the department.

The action categories include updating

departmental plans, policies, and

manuals; raising awareness; increasing

opportunities for training; conducting

research projects; and actions related to

funding and project selection. As one of

its implementation activities, Caltrans

updated the Highway Design Manual in

large part to incorporate multi-modal

design standards.

US DOT POLICY STATEMENT ON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATION REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The United States Department of

Transportation (US DOT) issued

this Policy Statement to support and

encourage transportation agencies at

all levels to establish well-connected

walking and bicycling networks. The

following Policy Statement and actions

are relevant to the Coalinga Active

Transportation Plan.

Policy Statement

The DOT policy is to incorporate safe

and convenient walking and bicycling

facilities into transportation projects.

Every transportation agency, including

DOT, has the responsibility to improve

conditions and opportunities for walking

and bicycling and to integrate walking

and bicycling into their transportation

systems. Because of the numerous

individual and community benefits that

walking and bicycling provide – including

health, safety, environmental, transpor-

tation, and quality of life – transporta-

tion agencies are encouraged to go

beyond minimum standards to provide

safe and convenient facilities for these

modes.

Recommended Actions

• The DOT encourages States, local

governments, professional asso-

ciations, community organizations,

public transportation agencies, and

other government agencies, to adopt

similar policy statements on bicycle

and pedestrian accommodation as

an indication of their commitment

to accommodating bicyclists and

pedestrians as an integral element of

the transportation system. In support

of this commitment, transportation

agencies and local communities should

go beyond minimum design standards

and requirements to create safe,

attractive, sustainable, accessible,

and convenient bicycling and walking

networks. Such actions should include:

• Considering walking and bicycling

as equals with other transporta-

tion modes: The primary goal of a

transportation system is to safely

and efficiently move people and

goods. Walking and bicycling are

efficient transportation modes for

most short trips and, where con-

venient intermodal systems exist,

these non-motorized trips can easily

be linked with transit to significantly

increase trip distance. Because of the

benefits they provide, transportation

agencies should give the same priority

to walking and bicycling as is given to

other transportation modes. Walking

and bicycling should not be an after-

thought in roadway design.

Federal Plans and Policies

A-14

• Ensuring that there are transporta-

tion choices for people of all ages

and abilities, especially children:

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should

meet accessibility requirements and

provide safe, convenient, and inter-

connected transportation networks.

For example, children should have safe

and convenient options for walking or

bicycling to school and parks. People

who cannot or prefer not to drive

should have safe and efficient trans-

portation choices.

• Going beyond minimum design

standards: Transportation agencies

are encouraged, when possible, to

avoid designing walking and bicycling

facilities to the minimum standards.

For example, shared-use paths that

have been designed to minimum

width requirements will need ret-

rofits as more people use them. It is

more effective to plan for increased

usage than to retrofit an older facility.

Planning projects for the long-term

should anticipate likely future demand

for bicycling and walking facilities and

not preclude the provision of future

improvements.

• Integrating bicycle and pedestrian

accommodation on new, rehabilitated,

and limited-access bridges: DOT

encourages bicycle and pedestrian

accommodation on bridge projects

including facilities on limited-access

bridges with connections to streets

or paths.

• Collecting data on walking and biking

trips: The best way to improve trans-

portation networks for any mode

is to collect and analyze trip data to

optimize investments. Walking and

bicycling trip data for many com-

munities are lacking. This data gap

can be overcome by establishing

routine collection of non-motorized

trip information. Communities that

routinely collect walking and bicycling

data are able to track trends and

prioritize investments to ensure the

success of new facilities. These data

are also valuable in linking walking and

bicycling with transit.

• Setting mode share targets for walking

and bicycling and tracking them over

time: a byproduct of improved data

collection is that communities can

establish targets for increasing the

percentage of trips made by walking

and bicycling.

• Improving non-motorized facilities

during maintenance projects: Many

transportation agencies spend most of

their transportation funding on main-

tenance rather than on constructing

new facilities. Transportation agencies

should find ways to make facility

improvements for pedestrians and

bicyclists during resurfacing and other

maintenance projects.


This section reviews collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), a statewide repository of collision reports submitted by local enforcement agencies.

While collision data are sometimes incomplete and do not capture ‘near misses,’ they do provide a general sense of the safety issues facing pedestrians and bicyclists in Coalinga. Five years of data were evaluated, from 2011 to 2015. In that time frame, there were 65 total collisions; five involved a bicycle and nine involved a pedestrian. This means that 20 percent of collisions involve a pedestrian or person on a bicycle.

APPENDIX B:

BACKGROUND COLLISION ANALYSIS

Collision AnalysisBICYCLE-INVOLVED COLLISIONS

Total Collisions

There were a total of five bicycle-

involved collisions in Coalinga during the

study period, shown in Figure B-1. Four

bicyclists were classified as victims.

Collision Locations

Locations of bicycle-involved collisions

were spread out throughout the city and

occurred at the following locations:

• Elm Avenue and Cherry Lane

• W Ivy South and E Polk Street

• Sunset Street and Cedar Avenue

• E Valley Street and Warthan Street

• Boardagaray Lane and Haliburton

Way

No one intersection or street had more

than one bicycle-involved collision

during the study period.

Age

Three of the four bicyclist victims were

under the age of 25 at 11, 15, and 19

years old. The fourth victim was 62

years old at the time of the collision.

Collision Severity

Four bicyclists sustained injuries in

collisions during the study period. One

bicyclist had a severe injury while three

bicyclists experienced other visible

injuries. See Figure B-2.

COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX B | B-1

Background Collision Analysis COLLISION ANALYSIS

This section reviews collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System

(SWITRS), a statewide repository of collision reports submitted by local enforcement agencies.

While collision data are sometimes incomplete and do not capture ‘near misses,’ they do provide a

general sense of the safety issues facing pedestrians and bicyclists in Coalinga. Five years of data

were evaluated, from 2011 to 2015. In that time frame, there were 65 total collisions; five involved a

bicycle and nine involved a pedestrian. This means that 20 percent of collisions involve a

pedestrian or person on a bicycle.

Bicycle-Involved Collisions

Total Collisions

There were a total of five bicycle-involved collisions in Coalinga during the study period, shown in

Figure B-1. Four bicyclists were classified as victims.

Figure B-1: Bicycle-involved collisions

0

1

2

3

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

RE

PO

RT

ED

CO

LLIS

ION

S

YEAR

Figure B-1: Bicycle-involved collisions

Fault and Primary Collision Factors

Bicyclists were deemed to be at fault in

three of the five bicycle-involved colli-

sions during the study period, as shown

in Figure B-3. Limited information was

available on the type of violations that

contributed to collisions. This informa-

tion was not stated in the police reports

for these bicycle collisions.

See Table B-1.

Movement Preceding Collision

Both motorists and bicyclists were most

commonly proceeding straight before a

collision occurred. See Table B-2.

B-2


Collision Locations

Locations of bicycle-involved collisions were spread out throughout the city and occurred at the

following locations:

• Elm Avenue and Cherry Lane

• W Ivy South and E Polk Street

• Sunset Street and Cedar Avenue

• E Valley Street and Warthan Street

• Boardagaray Lane and Haliburton Way

No one intersection or street had more than one bicycle-involved collision during the study period.

Age

Three of the four bicyclist victims were under the age of 25 at 11, 15, and 19 years old. The fourth

victim was 62 years old at the time of the collision.

Collision Severity

Four bicyclists sustained injuries in collisions during the study period. One bicyclist had a severe

injury while three bicyclists experienced other visible injuries. See Figure B-2.

Figure B-2: Bicyclist injury severity


Bicyclists were deemed to be at fault in three of the five bicycle-involved collisions during the

study period, as shown in Figure B-3.

Severe Injury25%

Other visible injury75%

Figure B-2: Bicyclist injury severity

Table B-1: Violation Categories for Bicycle-Involved CollisionsPARTY AT FAULT

COLLISION FACTOR BICYCLIST NOT STATED

Wrong side of road

Violated automobile right-of-way 1

Failure to obey traffic signs and signals

Substandard brakes

Other/Not Stated 5 4

Taxicab, motorcycle, or other 1.2% 1.3%

Worked at home 2.3% 5.3%

Table B-2: Movements Preceding Bicycle-Involved Collisions

MOVEMENT BICYCLIST MOTORIST PEDESTRIANPARKED VEHICLE

Proceeding straight 5 3

Parked 1

Other/Not Stated 1

B-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS

Total Collisions

There were a total of nine pedestrian-

involved collisions in Coalinga during

the study period, shown in Figure B-4.

These collisions involved 12 pedestri-

ans, eight of whom were classified as

victims.

Top Collision Locations

Three corridors had the highest number

of pedestrian-involved collisions during

the study period with two collisions

along each corridor. These corridors

include: East Polk St, Van Ness Avenue,

and Elm Avenue.

No intersection had more than one

pedestrian-involved collision occur

during the study period.

Age

When the age distribution of pedestrian

collision victims is compared to that of

the general population in Figure B-5, it

is evident that pedestrians 45-54 years

old were most significantly overrepre-

sented among collision victims. Data

on the age distribution of Coalinga

residents was obtained from the 2014

American Community Survey.

Collision Severity

No pedestrian fatalities were reported

during the study period. Victims either

experienced visible injuries or com-

plaints of pain, as shown in Figure B-6


Pedestrians were deemed to be at fault

in just less than half of collisions during

the study period, as shown in Figure B-7.


A significant number of collisions

occurred when motorists were proceed-

ing straight. Other movements preced-

ing pedestrian-involved collisions are

shown in Table B-4. Pedestrian actions

at the time of the collisions varied. See

Table B-5.


Figure B-4: Pedestrian-involved collisions

Top Collision Locations

Three corridors had the highest number of pedestrian-involved collisions during the study period

with two collisions along each corridor. These corridors include: East Polk St, Van Ness Avenue,

and Elm Avenue.

No intersection had more than one pedestrian-involved collision occur during the study period.

Age

When the age distribution of pedestrian collision victims is compared to that of the general

population in Figure B-5, it is evident that pedestrians 45-54 years old were most significantly

overrepresented among collision victims. Data on the age distribution of Coalinga residents was

obtained from the 2014 American Community Survey.

0

1

2

3

4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

RE

PO

RT

ED

CO

LLIS

ION

S

YEAR

Figure B-4: Pedestrian-involved collisions

B-4


Figure B-5: Pedestrian victim age distribution

Collision Severity

No pedestrian fatalities were reported during the study period. Victims either experienced visible

injuries or complaints of pain, as shown in Figure B-6.

Figure B-6: Pedestrian injury severity


Pedestrians were deemed to be at fault in just less than half of collisions during the study period,

as shown in Figure B-7.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 andover

Pedestrian Victims Coalinga Population

Visible Injury33%

Complaint of Pain

67%



Collision Severity

No pedestrian fatalities were reported during the study period. Victims either experienced visible

injuries or complaints of pain, as shown in Figure B-6.

Figure B-6: Pedestrian injury severity


Pedestrians were deemed to be at fault in just less than half of collisions during the study period,

as shown in Figure B-7.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 andover

Pedestrian Victims Coalinga Population

Visible Injury33%

Complaint of Pain

67%


Figure B-7: Fault in pedestrian-involved collisions

Information was limited in terms of violations that contributed to collisions. Of the information that

was available, one collision was due to a pedestrian violation and another collision was due to

unsafe starting or backing. See Table B-3.

Table B-3: Violation Categories for Pedestrian-Involved Collisions

Collision Factor

Party at Fault

Pedestrian Motorist Not Stated

Pedestrian violation 1

Unsafe starting or backing

1

Other/Not Stated 7


A significant number of collisions occurred when motorists were proceeding straight. Other

movements preceding pedestrian-involved collisions are shown in Table B-4.

Table B-4: Movements Preceding Pedestrian-Involved Collisions

Movement Pedestrian Motorist

Proceeding straight 1 5 Making left turn 1 1 Stopped 2 Other/Not Stated 5 3

Pedestrian actions at the time of the collisions varied. See Table B-5.

Table B-5: Pedestrian Actions

Pedestrian Action Number

Crossing in crosswalk at intersection 3

Crossing not in a crosswalk 3 In road, including shoulder 3

Pedestrian4,

44%Motorist5,

56%


Figure B-7 Fault in pedestrian-involved collisions

Figure B-6 Pedestrian injury severity


Table B-3: Violation Categories for Pedestrian-Involved Collisions

PARTY AT FAULT

COLLISION FACTOR PEDESTRIAN MOTORIST NOT STATED

Pedestrian violation 1

Unsafe starting or backing 1

Other/Not Stated 7

Table B-4: Movements Preceding Pedestrian-Involved Collisions

MOVEMENT PEDESTRIAN MOTORIST

Proceeding straight 1 5

Making left turn 1 1

Stopped 2

Other/Not Stated 5 3

Table B-5: Pedestrian Actions

PEDESTRIAN ACTION NUMBER

Crossing in crosswalk at intersection 3

Crossing not in a crosswalk 3

In road, including shoulder 3

Other/Not Stated 3

B-6

COMPARABLE CITIES COLLISION RATES

As a form of comparison, the collision

numbers for several similarly-sized cities

in California with similar rates of walking

and bicycling were analyzed. These

cities, along with a few out of state cities,

were used in Appendix C: Health and

Benefit Analysis. The collision data used

here came from 2011-2015 SWITRS for

consistency. Table B-6 presents these

numbers.

Table B-6: Collision rates for Comparable California Cities

COMPARABLE CITIES

BICYCLE-RELATED

COLLISIONS

PEDESTRIAN-RELATED

COLLISIONS

Atherton, CA 26 total (0 killed) 7 total (1 killed)

Calistoga, CA 9 total (0 killed) 5 total (0 killed)

Claremont, CA 87 total (2 killed) 63 total (3 killed)

Eureka, CA 108 total (2 killed) 150 total (10 killed)


In November 2015, the consultant team observed either morning arrival or afternoon dismissal at each school site to identify infrastructure or behavior challenges that may be addressed through recommendations in the Coalinga Active Transportation Plan. A summary of the observations from each school is provided below.

APPENDIX C:

COMMUNITY INPUT

School Audit ObservationsThis appendix summarizes community

input received events held in November

2015 and October 2016. Events and

attendance are summarized in Table C-1

below.

CHENEY KINDERGARTEN

• California Street is a well-used walking

route for students at Cheney and at

schools to the north

• California Street at Jefferson Street is

an uncontrolled intersection with no

marked crosswalks

• Sidewalk gaps exist on the east side of

California Street

• Students and parents cross California

Street at an unmarked midblock

location to move between the two

school campuses near Adams Street

• Students also cross during the school

day

Table C-1: Event Locations and Attendance

EVENT DATE ATTENDEES

Public Workshop November 18, 2015 0

School Audit: Cheney Kindergarten November 19, 2015 0

School Audit: Bishop/Dawson/ Sunset Schools November 19, 2015 0

School Audit: Coalinga Middle School November 20, 2015 0

School Audit: Coalinga High School November 20, 2015 0

Walking and Bicycling Tour November 21, 2015 0

Public Workshop October 26, 2016 14

• Parents park along both sides of

Adams Street and California Street to

walk children into school

• Curb ramps are missing at some

crossing locations

• Higher vehicle speeds were observed

on Sunset Street

BISHOP/DAWSON/SUNSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

• Need for traffic calming studies on

Sunset Avenue and on California

Street

• Few students use school buses

• More students are picked up by

parents on Sunset Avenue than

California Street

• Bus and drop-off loop at Bishop

Elementary is severely congested and

lacks clear direction for drivers

• Few marked crosswalks are provided

along Sunset Avenue

• There is a sidewalk gap along Sunset

Avenue in front of the Bishop

Elementary bus loop

• The gravel loop in front of Dawson

Elementary is too narrow for two cars

to pass, creating congestion

• A PG&E vault on California Street

near Harvard Avenue obscures half

the sidewalk, leaving less than two feet

clear

• Sidewalks along California Street and

Baker Street are uneven in places

• California Street has rolled curbs

north of Harvard Avenue, resulting in

some parked cars encroaching on the

sidewalk

• Crosswalks on California Street do not

meet current best practices; many are

too narrow or angled across the road

C-2

COALINGA MIDDLE SCHOOL

• Crosswalks at Cambridge Avenue

loading loop entrance and exit are set

back from the street, and do not line

up with curb ramps

• Cambridge Avenue loading loop exit is

signed “Right turn only” but has both

right and left turn lanes striped

• Bike racks do not meet current best-

practice standards for security and

ease of use

• Cambridge Avenue loading loop is

blocked with cones during morning

arrival due to past congestion

challenges

• Parents did not pull forward to load/

unload, creating congestion near the

entrance

• The midblock crosswalk on Cambridge

Avenue in front of the school lacks

advance yield lines and appropriate

signage

• Some parents park on the north side

of Cambridge Avenue to drop off

students

• Students enforce good driver behavior

by reprimanding parents who park

in bus zones or talk on their phones

while driving

• Need for a traffic calming study on

Sunset Avenue

• Bus loop off Sunset Avenue is used

by one school bus, and some parents

dropping off students

• Loop also provides access to limited

parking available at back of school

• Many students walk from Sunset

Avenue along the bus loop to access

the campus

• No sidewalk is provided on the east/

west leg of the loop from Sunset

Avenue to the south end of campus

• No signs at Cambridge Avenue end

of bus loop inform drivers that it is

one-way access from Sunset Avenue

to the bus loading area

• Some parents made U-turns or

otherwise drove the wrong way in the

bus loop

COALINGA HIGH SCHOOL

• Curbs around school are variously

striped red, green, yellow, or white,

but compliance with any of these

parking zones is nonexistent

• Many students walk across Van Ness

Street and along 3rd Street or 4th

Street towards downtown Coalinga

• The complex intersection at Van Ness

Street, Sunset Street, 4th Street, and

Sunset Avenue is chaotic and con-

gested with pedestrians and motorists

• A sidewalk gap exists on the south side

of Van Ness Street east of 4th Street

• Need for traffic calming studies on

Sunset Avenue and Van Ness Street

• Visibility is limited by on-street parking

near most marked crosswalks

• No loading area for pick up or drop off

is identified

• Drivers stop in travel lanes on Sunset

Avenue to pick up students, blocking

other drivers and school buses

C-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Community WebsiteA website was created for the Coalinga

Active Transportation Plan. The website

explains the purpose of an Active

Transportation Plan, gives links to the

community survey (see section below),

and will provide the project documents

when available. The website is available

at http://walkbikecoalinga.org/.

Community SurveyThe Coalinga Community Survey was

open from October 13, 2015 to January

18, 2016. It received four responses in

English and one in Spanish. The sections

below show the combined survey

responses by question.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Age

Of the five survey respondents, two

were between 25 and 34 years of age.

One is 35 to 44 years old, one is 45 to

54 years old, and one is 65 or older.

Figure C-1 shows the age breakdown of

survey respondents.

Gender

Of the survey respondents, 80 percent

(four respondents) identify as female.

The remaining respondent identifies as

male.

When you make trips less than one mile, how do you typically travel?

For trips less than one mile, driving

alone and carpooling were the most

commonly reported transportation

modes. Transit was the least common

reported mode followed by bicycling

and walking. See Figure C-2.

COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN APPENDIX C | C-4

Figure C-1: Age of survey respondents

Gender

Of the survey respondents, 80 percent (four respondents) identify as female. The remaining

respondent identifies as male.


For trips less than one mile, driving alone and carpooling were the most commonly reported

transportation modes. Transit was the least common reported mode followed by bicycling and

walking. See Figure C-2.

Figure C-2: Travel modes for trips less than one mile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Walk Bicycle Transit Drive alone Carpool

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Figure C-1 Age of survey respondents

When you make trips less than five miles, but more than one mile, how do you typically travel?

For longer trips, survey respondents

most commonly choose to carpool

or drive alone. Transit, bicycling and

walking were less frequently reported,

as shown in Figure C-3.

C-4


Figure C-1: Age of survey respondents

Gender

Of the survey respondents, 80 percent (four respondents) identify as female. The remaining

respondent identifies as male.


For trips less than one mile, driving alone and carpooling were the most commonly reported

transportation modes. Transit was the least common reported mode followed by bicycling and

walking. See Figure C-2.

Figure C-2: Travel modes for trips less than one mile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Figure C-2 Travel modes for trips less than one mile



For longer trips, survey respondents most commonly choose to carpool or drive alone. Transit,

bicycling and walking were less frequently reported, as shown in Figure C-3.

Figure C-3: Travel mode for trips from 1 to 5 miles

Walking

On a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 is “never” and 4 is "several times per week," how often do you walk?

Respondents reported walking most frequently for exercise, recreation, or to walk the dog,

followed by personal errands or commuting to work or school. See Figure C-4.

Figure C-4: Frequency of walking by trip type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Commuting to work or school

Access transit

Personal errands

Drop off/pick up someone

Exercise/Recreation/Walk the dog

Visit a friend or relative

0 1 2 3 4

Figure C-3 Travel mode for trips from 1 to 5 miles




For longer trips, survey respondents most commonly choose to carpool or drive alone. Transit,

bicycling and walking were less frequently reported, as shown in Figure C-3.

Figure C-3: Travel mode for trips from 1 to 5 miles

Walking

On a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 is “never” and 4 is "several times per week," how often do you walk?

Respondents reported walking most frequently for exercise, recreation, or to walk the dog,

followed by personal errands or commuting to work or school. See Figure C-4.

Figure C-4: Frequency of walking by trip type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Access transit

Personal errands


Exercise/Recreation/Walk the dog


0 1 2 3 4

Figure C-4 Frequency of walking by trip type

WALKING

On a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 is “never” and 4 is “several times per week,” how often do you walk?

Respondents reported walking most

frequently for exercise, recreation, or

to walk the dog, followed by personal

errands or commuting to work or

school. See Figure C-4.

Please tell us about your walking experiences in Coalinga.

Most respondents feel as if they have

enough time to cross roads at traffic

signals. That respondents feel safe from

cars is the most-disagreed-with state-

ment, as shown in Figure C-5.

When you walk, how far do you typically travel?

Of the respondents, none say they walk

more than two miles and 20 percent

replied that they do not walk. See Figure

C-6.

C-6



Most respondents feel as if they have enough time to cross roads at traffic signals. That

respondents feel safe from cars is the most-disagreed-with statement, as shown in Figure C-5.

Figure C-5: Walking experiences in Coalinga


Of the respondents, none say they walk more than two miles and 20 percent replied that they do

not walk. See Figure C-6.

Figure C-6: Typical walking distance

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I can conveniently walk where I want

I feel safe from cars

I have enough time to cross roads attraffic signals

I am not concerned about mypersonal safety (I feel safe)

Pedestrian walkways in retail andcommercial areas are well lit

Agree Neutral Disagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

I don't walk

0-1 mile

1-2 miles

More than 2 miles



Most respondents feel as if they have enough time to cross roads at traffic signals. That

respondents feel safe from cars is the most-disagreed-with statement, as shown in Figure C-5.

Figure C-5: Walking experiences in Coalinga


Of the respondents, none say they walk more than two miles and 20 percent replied that they do

not walk. See Figure C-6.

Figure C-6: Typical walking distance

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I can conveniently walk where I want


I have enough time to cross roads attraffic signals

I am not concerned about mypersonal safety (I feel safe)

Pedestrian walkways in retail andcommercial areas are well lit


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

I don't walk

0-1 mile

1-2 miles

More than 2 miles

Figure C-5 Walking experiences in Coalinga

Figure C-6 Typical walking distance



What is the main reason that you choose to walk instead of some other form of transportation?

Most respondents indicated they choose to walk because of the exercise/recreation benefits it

offers or because they enjoy it (Figure C-7).

Figure C-7: Reasons for walking

What prevents you from walking more often?

Lack of time and lack of adequate sidewalks are the most common reasons respondents cited

when asked what prevents them from walking more often, as shown in Figure C-8.

Figure C-8: Factors that discourage walking

Comments noted under “other” included the presence of small children and the lack of enjoyable

walking routes.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I don't walk

Walking is cheaper

Walking is faster

For exercise/recreation

I enjoy walking

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Concerns about safety

Sidewalks in poor condition

Lack of sidewalks

Not enough time/ Destinations are too far

Insufficient lighting

Disability/other health impairment

Other (please specify)

Figure C-7 Reasons for walking


Most respondents indicated they

choose to walk because of the exercise/

recreation benefits it offers or because

they enjoy it (Figure C-7).


Lack of time and lack of adequate

sidewalks are the most common reasons

respondents cited when asked what

prevents them from walking more often,

as shown in Figure C-8. Comments

noted under “other” included the

presence of small children and the lack

of enjoyable walking routes.

What are your favorite places or streets to walk? Please note specific streets or destinations.

Four respondents answered this open

ended question. Two of the respon-

dents indicated that they walk around

downtown. Another stated that South

Monterey Street was a favorite. The

other said their favorite place to walk

was from Polk Avenue up Monterey

Street to the Caballo Club horse stables;

they also noted that they prefer quieter

routes with little traffic.

What are your LEAST favorite places or streets to walk? Please note specific streets or destinations.

There were two respondents who

replied to this open-ended question.

One indicated that Madison Street

toward Sunset Street was not their

favorite. The other stated Elm Avenue/

Main Street was their least favorite.

Rate the importance of improving walking access to the following locations.

Respondents indicated a desire for

improved walking access to parks,

stores, and schools (see Figure C-9).

C-8



Most respondents indicated they choose to walk because of the exercise/recreation benefits it

offers or because they enjoy it (Figure C-7).

Figure C-7: Reasons for walking


Lack of time and lack of adequate sidewalks are the most common reasons respondents cited

when asked what prevents them from walking more often, as shown in Figure C-8.

Figure C-8: Factors that discourage walking

Comments noted under “other” included the presence of small children and the lack of enjoyable

walking routes.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I don't walk

Walking is cheaper

Walking is faster


I enjoy walking

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


Sidewalks in poor condition

Lack of sidewalks






What are your favorite places or streets to walk? Please note specific streets or destinations.

Four respondents answered this open ended question. Two of the respondents indicated that they

walk around downtown. Another stated that South Monterey Street was a favorite. The other said

their favorite place to walk was from Polk Avenue up Monterey Street to the Caballo Club horse

stables; they also noted that they prefer quieter routes with little traffic.

What are your LEAST favorite places or streets to walk? Please note specific streets or destinations.

There were two respondents who replied to this open-ended question. One indicated that Madison

Street toward Sunset Street was not their favorite. The other stated Elm Avenue/Main Street was

their least favorite.

Rate the importance of improving walking access to the following locations.

Respondents indicated a desire for improved walking access to parks, stores, and schools (see

Figure C-9).

Figure C-9: Importance of walking access to destinations

Bicycling

On a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 is "never" and 4 is "several times per week," how often do you bicycle?

Respondents reported bicycling most commonly for exercise/recreation or for personal errands.

See Figure C-10.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Work

School/ campus

Community centers

Parks

Stores

Transit

Very Important Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important

Figure C-8 Factors that discourage walking

Figure C-9 Importance of walking access to destinations


BICYCLING

On a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 is “never” and 4 is “several times per week,” how often do you bicycle?

Respondents reported bicycling most

commonly for exercise/recreation or for

personal errands. See Figure C-10.

Please tell us about your biking experiences in Coalinga.

Respondents generally agreed that

they have enough time to cross roads at

traffic signals, as shown in Figure C-11.

When you bike, how far do you typically travel?

Most of the respondents report bicy-

cling more than two miles on a typical

trip (see Figure C-12).


Figure C-10: Frequency of bicycling by trip type


Respondents generally agreed that they have enough time to cross roads at traffic signals, as

shown in Figure C-11.

Figure C-11: Bicycling experiences in Coalinga


Most of the respondents report bicycling more than two miles on a typical trip (see Figure C-12).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Access transit

Personal errands


Exercise/Recreation


0 1 2 3 4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I can conveniently bike where I want


I have enough time to cross roads at trafficsignals

I am not concerned about my personal safety (Ifeel safe)


Figure C-10 Frequency of bicycling by trip type

What is the main reason that you choose to bike instead of some other form of transportation?

Exercise/recreation and enjoyment

were cited as the main reasons for

choosing to bicycle. See Figure C-13.

What are your favorite places or streets to bike? Please note specific streets or destinations.

The following lists the four responses

for this survey question:

• Out by the oil fields

• South Monterey

• Polk Ave. up around the water tower,

past oil rigs and loop around back to

Monterey.

• Monterey Avenue

What are your LEAST favorite places or streets to bike? Please note specific streets or destinations.

There were two responses to this

survey question, which were, “Most

highways particularly Hwy 198 towards

King City” and “Elm Avenue and Jayne

Road.”

C-10


Figure C-10: Frequency of bicycling by trip type


Respondents generally agreed that they have enough time to cross roads at traffic signals, as

shown in Figure C-11.

Figure C-11: Bicycling experiences in Coalinga


Most of the respondents report bicycling more than two miles on a typical trip (see Figure C-12).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Access transit

Personal errands


Exercise/Recreation


0 1 2 3 4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I can conveniently bike where I want


I have enough time to cross roads at trafficsignals

I am not concerned about my personal safety (Ifeel safe)



Figure C-12: Typical biking distance


Exercise/recreation and enjoyment were cited as the main reasons for choosing to bicycle. See

Figure C-13.

Figure C-13: Reasons for bicycling


The following lists the four responses for this survey question:

Out by the oil fields

South Monterey

Polk Ave. up around the water tower, past oil rigs and loop around back to Monterey.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I don't bike

0-1 mile

1-2 miles

More than 2 miles

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I don't bike

Biking is cheaper

Biking is faster


I enjoy biking


Figure C-11 Bicycling experiences in Coalinga

Figure C-12 Typical biking distance


What prevents you from biking more often?

Survey respondents overwhelmingly

reported the lack of bicycle infrastruc-

ture as the primary factor that pre-

vented them from bicycling more often,

as shown in Figure C-14.

The reason listed for “other” was the

presence of young children and the lack

of bicycle trails.

Rate the importance of improving biking access to the following locations.

Stores and parks were among the des-

tinations survey respondents felt were

most important for improved bicycle

access, as shown in Figure C-15. Other

locations included school and work.

Would you like to see walking and biking trails in Coalinga, separate from on-street facilities? Where might you like to have a trail?

This open ended question had three

responses. The following list gives each

person’s response:

• More trails if they are wide enough

• Absolutely! Trails to the Coalinga “C”

and anywhere there is open space

including hill country. (Scenic is good.)

• Yes, anywhere, by the creek is always

nice, sports complex area

Additional Comments

Respondents were provided an oppor-

tunity at the end of the survey to include

any other comments or concerns related

to walking or bicycling in Coalinga. The

two responses were:

• I hope to see walking and biking trails

happen!

• The streets in this town are very dark

at night.


Figure C-12: Typical biking distance


Exercise/recreation and enjoyment were cited as the main reasons for choosing to bicycle. See

Figure C-13.

Figure C-13: Reasons for bicycling


The following lists the four responses for this survey question:

Out by the oil fields

South Monterey

Polk Ave. up around the water tower, past oil rigs and loop around back to Monterey.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I don't bike

0-1 mile

1-2 miles

More than 2 miles

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I don't bike

Biking is cheaper

Biking is faster


I enjoy biking


Figure C-13 Reasons for bicycling

C-12


Monterey Avenue

What are your LEAST favorite places or streets to bike? Please note specific streets or destinations.

There were two responses to this survey question, which were, “Most highways particularly Hwy

198 towards King City” and “Elm Avenue and Jayne Road.”

What prevents you from biking more often?

Survey respondents overwhelmingly reported the lack of bicycle infrastructure as the primary

factor that prevented them from bicycling more often, as shown in Figure C-14.

Figure C-14: Factors that discourage bicycling

The reason listed for “other” was the presence of young children and the lack of bicycle trails.

Rate the importance of improving biking access to the following locations.

Stores and parks were among the destinations survey respondents felt were most important for

improved bicycle access, as shown in Figure B-15. Other locations included school and work.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


Lack of dedicated bicycle space (bike lanes,paths)






Figure C-15: Importance of bicycling access to destinations

Would you like to see walking and biking trails in Coalinga, separate from on-street facilities? Where might you like to have a trail?

This open ended question had three responses. The following list gives each person’s response:

More trails if they are wide enough

Absolutely! Trails to the Coalinga "C" and anywhere there is open space including hill

country. (Scenic is good.)

Yes, anywhere, by the creek is always nice, sports complex area

Additional Comments

Respondents were provided an opportunity at the end of the survey to include any other

comments or concerns related to walking or bicycling in Coalinga. The two responses were:

I hope to see walking and biking trails happen!

The streets in this town are very dark at night.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Work

School/ campus

Community centers

Parks

Stores

Transit

Very Important Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important

Figure C-14 Factors that discourage bicycling

Figure C-15 Importance of bicycling access to destinations


Additional MeetingsVISIONING SESSION

On October 15, 2015, Coalinga City

Council met for a visioning session

where councilmembers were presented

with examples of Active Transportation

Plans and given information about next

steps.

CALTRANS DISTRICT 6 MEETING

On August 2, 2016, Caltrans staff

met with City and consultant staff to

discuss the possibility of a road diet on

Elm Avenue within Coalinga city limits.

Caltrans fully supported the project and

wrote a letter of support on September

14, 2016 to the Mayor of Coalinga. The

letter and minutes from that meeting

are found at the end of this appendix.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

On August 23, 2016, Staff and consul-

tants presented the draft Plan recommen-

dations including the Elm Avenue Road

Diet concept and Loop Trail concepts. The

Planning Commission fully supported the

Elm Avenue Rod Diet concept and asked

how quickly it could be implemented.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

On September 15, 2016, Staff and consul-

tants presented to Coalinga City Council

to provide an update on the project,

explain the Elm Avenue Road Diet and

other recommended treatments such as

the pedestrian refuge islands. Additionally,

more information was given on the Loop

Trail projects from Volume II of this Plan.

C-14

Walk To School DayOn October 26, 2016, the City part-

nered with the Coalinga-Huron School

District and the elementary and middle

schools’ PTOs to hold a Walk to School

Day event. The event included Walking

School Buses as well as demonstration

projects at select intersections around

the schools to highlight the need for

more visible roadway crossings.

WALKING SCHOOL BUS

A Walking School Bus is an organized

group of students who walk to school

under the supervision of a parent/adult

volunteer. For the Coalinga Walk to

School Day, four routes were chosen

to cover a major part of the city. Figure

shows these routes and the “walking

bus stop” where families met prior to

walking to school. If students par-

ticipated in Walk to School Day, they

received a sticker from their route

volunteer. The classroom with the most

participation received a pizza party. The

images above show the high levels of

participation on Walk to School Day.


DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Demonstration projects are temporary

installations of projects used to test

impacts to the transportation system.

Using temporary materials such as spray

chalk, roofing tar paper, cones, and hay

bales donated by Farm of the Future,

four locations were retrofitted for

Walk to School Day to include shorter

crossing distances and high-visibility

crosswalks. The locations were:

• Sunset Avenue at Van Ness Street

• Van Ness Street at Birch Avenue/

Third Street

• Sunset Avenue at Baker Street

• On Sunset Avenue in front of Nell

Dawson Elementary School

Images above show the demonstration

projects.

C-16

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP

On October 26, 2016, the City of

Coalinga held a Community Workshop

to present draft recommendations from

this Plan. Fourteen people signed into

the meeting. A brief presentation was

given at the beginning of the workshop

with attendees moving between

tables to learn about the various Plan

recommendations. The four tables were

divided into pedestrian, bikeways and

trails, the Elm Avenue roadway reconfig-

uration, and the Safe Routes to School

projects.


This section offers various resources that could help frame the health status for Coalinga residents. Factors researched were aerobic capacity (the maximal amount of physiological work that an individual can do as measured by oxygen consumption; the higher the capacity, the higher endurance a person has), asthma rates, and obesity.

APPENDIX D:

HEALTH AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Health AnalysisSCHOOL-AGE PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING

Each school year, the California

Department of Education requires

schools to conduct physical fitness

testing for 5th, 7th, and 9th grade

students. For the Coalinga-Huron

Unified District in the 2014-2015

school year, 6.4 percent of 5th grade,

14.7 percent of 7th grade, and 19.4

percent of 9th grade students are listed

as having a health risk due to their low

aerobic capacity.1

CALENVIROSCREEN 2.0

The California Environmental

Protection Agency (CalEPA) created

a tool called CalEnviroScreen 2.0.

CalEnviroScreen is a screening meth-

odology that can be used to help

identify California communities that are

disproportionately burdened by multiple

sources of pollution. This tool was used

to determine the number of Coalinga

residents who have been diagnosed

with asthma at some point in their lives.

According to the tool, 39 people per

10,000 people in Coalinga visited the

emergency department for asthma.

KIDSDATA.ORG

Kidsdata.org is a program of the Lucile

Packard Foundation for Children's

Health. It presents data on more than

500 measures of child health and

well-being. This resource was used to

find the percent of students who are

overweight or obese by grade level. In

2015, 52.9 percent of 5th grade, 42.2

percent of 7th grade, and 46 percent

of 9th grade students were considered

overweight or obese. This is high, espe-

cially compared to California as a whole.

On average in California, 40.3 percent

of 5th grade, 38.5 percent of 7th grade,

and 36 percent of 9th grade students

are overweight or obese.

Benefit Impact AnalysisINTRODUCTION

This memo contains an analysis of the

quantified benefits that might occur

as the result of implementing the

recommended bicycle and pedestrian

projects included in the Coalinga Active

Transportation Plan. The analysis

estimates the number of bicycle and

walking trips that would directly result

from the implementation of the project

list, approximates the corresponding

reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle-

miles traveled (VMT), and assesses the

potential health-, environmental-, and

transportation-related benefits.

METHODOLOGY

The impact analysis uses a standard

methodology for calculating health-,

environmental-, and transportation-

related benefits. All projections are

based on the most recent five-year esti-

mates from the American Community

Survey (ACS), which are then extrapo-

lated through the use of various multipli-

ers derived from national studies and

quantified in terms of monetary value

where appropriate. The estimated

monetary values are then calibrated to

baseline values and compared to walking

and bicycle commute mode shares of

peer cities.

Selecting Peer Cities

In order to estimate potential future

increases in bicycle and walking

mode share that may result from the

implementation of the recommended

bicycle projects listed in the Coalinga

Active Transportation Plan, the con-

sultant team examined travel patterns

in six peer cities that have bicycle

infrastructure similar to the bicycle

network proposed in the Coalinga

Active Transportation Plan. Sedona

(AZ), Atherton (CA), Calistoga (CA),

Claremont (CA), Eureka (CA), and

Sturgeon Bay (WI) were chosen as peer

cities based on similarities in the design

of their roadway networks, regional

proximity, climates, terrain, population

size and demographics, and existing

walking and bicycle infrastructure (See

Table D-1).

After the identification of peer cities

based on general characteristics, the

consultant team analyzed the walking

and bicycle commute data from each

city. Compared to the selected peer

cities, Coalinga has the second lowest

bicycle commute mode share (0.6

percent) and third lowest walk commute

mode share (4.5 percent), according

to 2010-2014 ACS data. Table D-2

shows the existing bicycle and walking

commute mode shares for Coalinga and

its six peer cities, as well as the range of

forecasted bicycle and walking commute

mode shares for Coalinga.

1. California Department of Education Data Quest, http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

D-2

Table D-1: Peer City Comparison

CITIES REGION CLIMATE2 ELEV.3 POPULATION4 POP. DENSITY5

PERCENT MINORITY POP. 6

BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY AWARD7

Coalinga (CA) Pacific West Bsk 673 ft 17,235 2,816/sq. mile 42.2% None

Sedona (AZ) S. West Bsk 4,500 ft

10,092 527/sq. mile 9.9% Bronze

Atherton (CA) Pacific West Csb 59 ft 7,034 14/sq. mile 19.5% None

Calistoga (CA) Pacific West Csb 348 ft 5,244 2,016/sq. mile 28.5% Silver

Claremont (CA) Pacific West Csb 1,168 ft 35,569 2,664/sq. mile 29.4% Silver

Eureka (CA) Pacific West Csa 20 ft 27,039 2,882/sq. mile 20.7% Bronze

Sturgeon Bay (WI) Midwest Dfb 577 ft 9,093 926/sq. mile 4.9% None

2. KöppenClimateClassificationSystem: Dfc Continental subarctic or boreal climates Dfb Warm summer continental or hemiboreal climates Csa/Csb Dry-summer or Mediterranean climates Bsk Dry, semiarid climates

3. USGS,GeographicNamesInformationSystem(GNIS), http://geonames.usgs.gov/

Table D-2: Existing and Forecasted Commute Bicycle Mode Split

CITIESEMPLOY- ED POP.

EXISTING BICYCLE COMMUTE TRIPS/ DAY

EXISTING BICYCLE COMMUTE MODE SPLIT

EXISTING WALKING COMMUTE TRIPS/DAY

EXISTING WALKING COMMUTE MODE SPLIT

FORECASTED FUTURE BICYCLE/WALKING MODE SPLIT

LOW8 MID9 HIGH10

Coalinga (CA) 6,000 36 0.6% 270 4.5% .94% / 4.81%

2.01%/ 5.65%

2.25%/ 7.36%

Sedona (AZ) 4,650 99 2.1% 212 4.6%

Atherton (CA) 2,569 16 0.6% 52 2.0%

Calistoga (CA) 2,444 113 4.6% 140 5.7%

Claremont (CA) 15,184 288 1.9% 1358 8.9%

Eureka (CA) 12,037 276 2.3% 951 7.9%

Sturgeon Bay (WI) 4,440 19 0.4% 247 5.6%

8. ThelowestimateforfuturebikecommutemodeshareisthedifferencebetweenCoalinga’s existing bike commute mode share and the 25th percentile bike mode share of the six selected peer cities

9. ThelowestimateforfuturebikecommutemodeshareisthedifferencebetweenCoalinga’s existing bike commute mode share and the 50th percentile bike mode share of the six selected peer cities

4. USCensus,AmericanCommunitySurvey,five-yearestimates(2010-2014)

5. USCensus,QuickFacts,PopulationDensity(2010), http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table

6. USCensus(2010)

7. TheLeagueofAmericanBicyclists(2015),http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/BFC_Master_Spring_2015.pdf.

10. Thelowestimateforfuturebikecommutemodeshareisthedifferencebetween Coalinga’s existing bike commute mode share and the 75th percentile bike mode share of the six selected peer cities

D-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

If Coalinga increased its bicycle mode

share to the 25th percentile of its six

peer cities, it would see a 0.34 percent

increase in the number of bicycle com-

muters (0.6 percent to 0.94 percent).

At the 50th percentile, it would see a

1.41 percent increase in the number of

bicycle commuters (0.6 percent to 0.94

percent). And at the 75th percentile, it

would see a 1.65 percent increase in

the number of bicycle commuters (0.6

percent to 2.25 percent).

If Coalinga increased its walking mode

share to the 25th percentile of its six

peer cities, it would see a 0.31 percent

increase in the number of walking com-

muters (4.5 percent to 4.81 percent).

At the 50th percentile, it would see a

1.15 percent increase in the number of

bicycle commuters (4.5 percent to 5.65

percent). And at the 75th percentile, it

would see a 2.86 percent increase in

the number of bicycle commuters (4.5

percent to 7.36 percent).

Multipliers

Multipliers were developed through

an analysis of the relationship between

two or more model inputs, such as

the number of vehicle-miles traveled

and the cost of road maintenance. The

model used for this study includes over

50 multipliers in order to extrapolate

annual trip rates, trip distance, vehicle

trips replaced, emission rates, physical

activity rates, and other externalities

linked to an increase in bicycling trips

and to a decrease in motor vehicle trips.

Limitations

The primary purpose of the analysis is to

enable a more informed policy discus-

sion on whether and how best to invest

in a bicycle and pedestrian network in

Coalinga. Even with extensive primary

and secondary research incorpo-

rated into the impact analysis model,

it is impossible to accurately predict

the exact impacts of various factors.

Accordingly, all estimated benefit values

are rounded and should be considered

order of magnitude estimates, rather

than exact amounts.

HEALTH BENEFITS

The implementation of a well-designed,

connected pedestrian and bicycle

network across Coalinga will encourage

a shift from energy-intensive modes of

transportation such as cars and truck

to active modes of transportation such

as bicycling. The Benefit Impact Model

evaluated and quantified the estimated

increase in bicycling trips, the estimated

increase in hours of physical activity,

and the annual savings resulting from

reduced healthcare costs. The primary

inputs into the health component of

the Benefit Impact Model derived

from 2010-2014 ACS journey to work

data, 2009 National Household Travel

Survey, and historic Safe Routes to

School data. Existing bicycle commute

data was multiplied by national trip

purpose ratios to generate mode split

data that includes all trip purposes. This

balanced mode split data was indexed

against the mode split data of Coalinga’s

six peer cities, and multiplied by various

health factors.

If Coalinga implements all of the rec-

ommended bicycle projects, the city

could experience between 237,000

and 566,000 more bicycling trips

per year and between 440,000 and

854,000 miles bicycled per year,

resulting in 218,000 to 522,000 fewer

vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) annually. If

Coalinga implements all of the recom-

mended pedestrian projects, the city

could experience between 1,510,000

and 2,310,000 more walking trips

per year and between 986,000 and

1,219,000 miles walked per year,

resulting in 329,000 to 406,000 fewer

vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) annually.

These annual distance estimates and

VMT reduction estimates were used

to calculate changes in physical activity

rates among residents in Coalinga.

Implementation of the recommended

projects could result in between

373,000 and 491,000 more hours

of physical activity per year among

Coalinga residents than current activity

rates. This increase in physical activity

means that between 2,870 and 3,776

more residents will be meeting the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention’s guidelines for the minimum

recommended number of hours of

physical activity per day, which is equal

to a jump from approximately 15.71

percent of the regional physical activity

need being met to between 16.65 and

21.91 percent of the regional physical

activity need being met. This growth

in the percent of people within the city

exercising also equates to a $67,000

to $114,000 reduction in healthcare

expenses per year.

Table D-3 summarizes the annual health

benefits for Coalinga.

D-4

Table D-3: Annual Health Benefits FUTURE ESTIMATES

BASELINE LOW MID HIGH

TOTAL TOTAL DIFF. TOTAL DIFF. TOTAL DIFF.

Annual Bike Trips 151,000 237,000 86,000 506,000 355,000 566,000 415,000

Annual Miles by Bike

332,000 440,000 108,000 778,000 446,000 854,000 522,000

Annual Walk Trips 1,413,000 1,510,000 97,000 1,773,000 360,000 2,310,000 897,000

Annual Miles by Walking

957,000 986,000 29,000 1,062,000 105,000 1,219,000 262,000

Annual Hours of Physical Activity

352,000 373,000 21,000 432,000 80,000 491,000 139,000

Rec. Physical Activity Minimum Met

2,708 2,869 161 3,323 615 3,777 1,069

Regional Physical Activity Need Met

15.71% 16.65% 0.94% 19.28% 3.57% 21.91% 6.2%

HEALTHCARE COST SAVINGS

$59,000 $67,000 $8,000 $92,000 $40,000 $114,000 $55,000

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

The Benefit Impact Model evaluated

and quantified the estimated increase in

bicycle trips and the annual savings from

reduced vehicle emissions. In order to

evaluate these environmental factors, a

number of readily-available data inputs

were analyzed. Using the estimates

of VMT reductions calculated in the

health benefits analysis, changes in

hydrocarbon, particulate matter, nitrous

oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon

dioxide were analyzed. In total, the

replacement of motor vehicle trips with

active transportation trips may result

in an estimated range of 1,311,000 to

1,685,000 fewer pounds of CO2 emis-

sions per year and between 23,000 and

42,000 fewer pounds of other vehicle

emissions. Based on a review of air

emissions studies, each pound of emis-

sions was assigned an equivalent dollar

amount based on how much it would

cost to clean up the pollutant or the cost

equivalent of how much damage the

pollutant causes to the environment.

The total reduction in vehicle emissions

is equal to a savings between $24,000

and $43,000 in related environmental

damage or clean-up per year. Other

potential ecological services associated

with the bicycle projects such as water

regulation, carbon sequestration,

carbon storage, and waste treatment

exist, but the quantifiable value of these

services are negligible on the overall

impact of the recommended project

list. Table D-4 summarizes the annual

environmental benefits for Coalinga.


TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS

The most readily-identifiable benefits

of the recommended project list exist

in its ability to increase transporta-

tion options and access to activity

centers for Coalinga residents and

visitors. While money rarely changes

hands, real savings can be estimated

from the reduced costs associated

with congestion, vehicle crashes, road

maintenance, and household vehicle

operations. Using the same annual VMT

reduction estimates highlighted in the

health and environmental components,

transportation-related cost savings

were calculated. By multiplying the

amount of VMT reduced by established

multipliers for traffic congestion, vehicle

collisions, road maintenance, and vehicle

operating costs, monetary values were

assigned to the transportation-related

benefits. In total, an annual cost savings

between $480,000 and $5,910,000

is estimated for the city. Table D-5

summarizes the annual transportation

benefits

for Coalinga.

TOTAL BENEFITS

If all of the bicycle projects on the

Coalinga Active Transportation Plan

recommended project list are imple-

mented, the city could experience

between $1,023,000 and $1,827,000 in

additional health-, environmental-, and

transportation-related benefits per year.

Table D-6 summarizes all calculated

benefits.

Table D-4: Annual Environmental Benefits FUTURE ESTIMATES



CO2 Emissions Reduced (lbs)

994,000 1,311,000 317,000 2,292,000 1,298,000 2,679,000 1,685,000

Other Vehicle Emissions Reduced (lbs)

20,000 23,000 3,000 34,000 14,000 42,000 22,000

TOTAL VEHICLE EMISSION COSTS REDUCED

$21,000 $24,000 $3,000 $36,000 $15,000 $43,000 $22,000

D-6

Table D-5: Annual Transportation Benefits FUTURE ESTIMATES



Annual VMT Reduced 611,000 723,000 112,000 1,059,000 448,000 1,294,000 683,000

Reduced Traffic Congestion Costs

$43,000 $50,000 $7,000 $74,000 $31,000 $91,000 $48,000

Reduced Vehicle Crash Costs

$306,000 $361,000 $55,000 $529,000 $223,000 $647,000 $341,000

Reduced Road Maintenance Costs

$92,000 $109,000 $17,000 $159,000 $67,000 $194,000 $102,000

Household Vehicle Operation Cost Savings

$348,000 $412,000 $64,000 $604,000 $256,000 $738,000 $390,000

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS

$789,000 $932,000 $143,000 $1,366,000 $577,000 $1,670,000 $889,000

Table D-6: Total Annual Benefits FUTURE ESTIMATES



Health Benefits $59,000 $67,000 $8,000 $92,000 $40,000 $114,000 $55,000

Environmental Benefits

$21,000 $24,000 $3,000 $36,000 $15,000 $43,000 $22,000

Transportation Benefits

$789,000 $932,000 $143,000 $1,366,000 $577,000 $1,670,000 $889,000

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS

$789,000 $932,000 $143,000 $1,366,000 $577,000 $1,670,000 $889,000


This appendix provides the full list of project recommendations. Table E-1 shows the projects that have received funding through the Caltrans Active Transportation Program Cycles 2 and 3. Table E-2 shows the Tier 1 recommended projects including project scores and their cost estimates. Table E-3 shows the Tier 2 recommended projects and Table E-4 shows the Tier 3 projects.

APPENDIX E:

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Table E-1: Funded Projects

PROJECT LOCATION START END DIR. NOTES FEET

Yellow High-Visibility Crosswalk

California St Cambridge Ave - S 65.11


Washington St California St - N 74.66


Washington St California St - S 74.65

Curb ramp Van Ness St Elm Ave - NW -

Curb ramp Polk St Ivy Ave - NW -

Sidewalk California St Cambridge Ave Baker St E 2119.96

Sidewalk California St Alley south of College Ave

Washington St W 147.88

Sidewalk Elm Ave 135 ft south of Cherry Ln

290 ft south of Cherry Ln

W 154.59

Sidewalk Elm Ave 350 ft south of Cherry Ln

450 ft south of Cherry Ln

W 106.80

Sidewalk Polk St 5th St Hayes St S 73.88

Sidewalk Polk St Hawthorne St 55 ft east of Hawthorne St

N 75.45

Sidewalk Hawthorne St Polk St 60 ft north of Polk St

W 60.36

Sidewalk Polk St Glenn Ave 220 ft east of Glenn Ave

N 215.28

Curb ramp Baker St Mountain View Pl - SE -

Curb ramp Baker St Mountain View Pl - SW -

Curb ramp California St Baker St - SE -

Curb ramp Elm Ave Baker St - NW -

Curb ramp Elm Ave Baker St - SW -

Curb ramp Polk St Hawthorne St - NE -


California St Yale Ave N 36.16


Harvard Ave California St N 36.39


Cornell Ave California St N 39.95

E-2




Mountain View Pl Baker St W 41.78


Sunset St Baker St W 52.86


Adams St Sunset St - N 52.08


California St Adams St - N 64.24


Adams St California St - E 57.29


California St Adams St - S 62.14

Sidewalk Van Ness St Durian Ave Elm Ave S 493.55


California St University Ave - S 74.63


California St Baker St - E 62.22

California St College Ave University Ave W 261.40

California St College Ave Alley South of College Ave

W 120.57

Sidewalk Falcon Ln Cherry Ln Baker St E 734.18

Sidewalk Baker St Elm Ave Truman St S 143.57

Sidewalk Truman St 130 ft south of Baker St

50 ft north of Van Ness St

W 275.83

Sidewalk Grant St 280 ft north of Baker St

Baker St E 237.98

Sidewalk Baker St Grant St Elm Ave N 143.96

Sidewalk Baker St Lincoln St Grant St N 321.32

Sidewalk Buchanan St 60 ft north of Baker St

Baker St E 49.68

Sidewalk Baker St 80 ft west of Baker Buchanan St S 79.39

Sidewalk Hawthorne St 3rd St 90 ft south of 3rd St

W 50.01

Sidewalk 3rd St Hawthorne St 165 ft east of Hawthorne St

S 116.08

continued

E-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN



Sidewalk 4th St 165 ft west of Hawthorne St

Hawthorne St S 118.94

Sidewalk Ivy Ave 155 ft south of 4th St

200 ft south of 4th St

E 49.96

Sidewalk Ivy Ave 5th St 155 ft north of 5th St

E 130.12

Sidewalk Glenn Ave 5th St 60 ft south of 5th St

E 49.76

Sidewalk 6th St Glenn Ave 100 ft east of Glenn Ave

S 108.08

Sidewalk 6th St Glenn Ave 150 ft east of Glenn Ave

S 108.42

Curb ramp improvement

Sunset St Adams St - E -

Curb ramp Cherry Ln Buchanan St - SE -

Curb ramp Cherry Ln Buchanan St - SW -

Curb ramp Truman St Baker St - NW -

Curb ramp Truman St Baker St - SW -

Curb ramp Truman St Van Ness St - NW -

Curb ramp Truman St Van Ness St - SW -

Curb ramp Van Ness St 2nd St - SE -

Curb ramp Van Ness St Falcon Wy - S -

Curb ramp Baker St Lincoln St - SW -

Curb ramp Baker St Buchanan St - NE -

Curb ramp Baker St Buchanan St - SE -

Curb ramp Baker St Buchanan St - SW -

Curb ramp Baker St Pierce St - SE -

Curb ramp Baker St Pierce St - SW -

Curb ramp Baker St Fillmore St - SW -

Curb ramp Baker St Grant St - NW -

Curb ramp Baker St Grant St - NE -

Curb ramp 3rd St Hawthorne St - SE -

continued

E-4



Curb ramp 3rd St Hayes St - SE -

Curb ramp 5th St Glenn Ave - NE -

Sidewalk Loading Driveway Sunset St California St 8 feet wide; Funded

471.55

Sidewalk California St Alley south of Harvard Ave

Yale Ave W 115.17

Sidewalk California St Yale Ave Alley south of Yale Ave

W 112.66

continued


Table E-2: Tier 1 Recommended Projects

PROJECT LOCATION START END DIR. NOTES MILES SAFETY CONNECT NEEDIMP- LEMENT

TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Class II Bike Lanes Polk St Monterey Ave Merced Ave 1.61 25 30 20 20 95 $40,000

Class II Bike Lanes Van Ness St/Washington St Elm Ave California St 0.51 25 30 20 20 95 $5,420

Class II Buffered Bike Lanes Elm Ave Polk St El Rancho Blvd 1.58 17 30 20 20 87 $50,020

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Sunset St Polk St Van Ness St Consider roundabout at 5th St/Birch Ave

0.49 25 30 0 20 75 $6,530

Crosswalk California St W Jefferson St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $480

Crosswalk W Jefferson St California St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $360

Crosswalk California St W Jefferson St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $480

Crosswalk W Jefferson St California St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $350

Crosswalk California St Madison St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $430

Crosswalk Madison St California St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $430

Crosswalk California St Madison St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $460

Crosswalk Madison St California St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $420

Crosswalk W Elm St Truman St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $560

Crosswalk Truman St W Elm St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $420

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St Sunset St - NW - 25 30 20 5 80 $1,000

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Polk St - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Merced Ave - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Cambridge Ave - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Hachman St E Polk St - N 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,360

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Hachman St - E 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,360

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Hachman St E Polk St - S 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,420

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Hachman St - W 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,420

High-Visibility Crosswalk Ivy Ave E Polk St - N 0.02 8 30 20 20 78 $1,980

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 1st St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 8 30 20 20 78 $2,270

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Garfield St E Polk St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,280

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Garfield St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,330

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Garfield St E Polk St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,250

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Garfield St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,310

E-6



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Class II Bike Lanes Polk St Monterey Ave Merced Ave 1.61 25 30 20 20 95 $40,000

Class II Bike Lanes Van Ness St/Washington St Elm Ave California St 0.51 25 30 20 20 95 $5,420

Class II Buffered Bike Lanes Elm Ave Polk St El Rancho Blvd 1.58 17 30 20 20 87 $50,020

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Sunset St Polk St Van Ness St Consider roundabout at 5th St/Birch Ave

0.49 25 30 0 20 75 $6,530

Crosswalk California St W Jefferson St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $480

Crosswalk W Jefferson St California St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $360

Crosswalk California St W Jefferson St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $480

Crosswalk W Jefferson St California St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $350

Crosswalk California St Madison St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $430

Crosswalk Madison St California St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $430

Crosswalk California St Madison St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $460

Crosswalk Madison St California St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $420

Crosswalk W Elm St Truman St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $560

Crosswalk Truman St W Elm St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $420

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St Sunset St - NW - 25 30 20 5 80 $1,000

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Polk St - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Merced Ave - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Cambridge Ave - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Hachman St E Polk St - N 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,360

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Hachman St - E 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,360

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Hachman St E Polk St - S 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,420

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Hachman St - W 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,420

High-Visibility Crosswalk Ivy Ave E Polk St - N 0.02 8 30 20 20 78 $1,980

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 1st St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 8 30 20 20 78 $2,270

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Garfield St E Polk St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,280

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Garfield St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,330

High-Visibility Crosswalk N Garfield St E Polk St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,250

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St N Garfield St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,310




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

High-Visibility Crosswalk Pine St E Polk St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,420

High-Visibility Crosswalk Hayes St E Polk St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,330

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St Hayes St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,290

High-Visibility Crosswalk Hayes St E Polk St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,360

High-Visibility Crosswalk S 5th St E Polk St - N 0.03 0 30 20 20 70 $2,770

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,020

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave E Polk St - E 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,140

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,400

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave E Polk St - W 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,550

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 7th St W Elm Ave - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,570

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 7th St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,520

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 7th St W Elm Ave - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,540

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 7th St - W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,560













High-Visibility Crosswalk N 3rd St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,680

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 3rd St - E 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,630

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 3rd St W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,740

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 3rd St - W 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,630

continued

E-8



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

High-Visibility Crosswalk Pine St E Polk St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,420

High-Visibility Crosswalk Hayes St E Polk St - N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,330

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St Hayes St - E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,290

High-Visibility Crosswalk Hayes St E Polk St - S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,360

High-Visibility Crosswalk S 5th St E Polk St - N 0.03 0 30 20 20 70 $2,770

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,020

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave E Polk St - E 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,140

High-Visibility Crosswalk E Polk St W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,400

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave E Polk St - W 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $2,550

















High-Visibility Crosswalk N 3rd St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,680

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 3rd St - E 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,630

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 3rd St W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,740

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 3rd St - W 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,630




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 2nd St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,730

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 2nd St - E 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,700

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 2nd St W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,720

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 2nd St - W 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,780

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Phelps Ave W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,850

High-Visibility Crosswalk El Rancho Blvd W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,860

Restriping Cambridge Ave Elm Ave Monterey Ave Stripe right side of bike lane 1.00 0 30 20 20 70 $10,590

Restriping Washington St Monterey Ave California St Stripe right side of existing bike lanes

0.38 0 30 20 20 70 $4,000

RRFB W Washington St Sunset Ave - - 25 30 20 15 90 $50,000

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave 500 ft West of Falcon Wy - - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave Parking Lot Entrance - East - E Sign - "Exit Only" - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave Parking Lot Entrance - East - W Sign - Right turn only during school hours

- 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave Parking Lot Entrance - West - W Sign - "One Way" with arrow - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave 150ft East of Sunset St - S Sign - School Zone - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave 300ft East of Falcon Ln - N Sign - School Zone - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

Study: Intersection Improvements

Van Ness St Between Sunset St North and Sunset St South

- Chaotic close-set and irregular intersections, very challenging at school dismissal

- 25 30 20 25 100 $20,000


W Elm Ave Polk St - - 0 30 20 25 75 $20,000


E Polk St S 5th St - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500


Sunset St - East Van Ness St N Existing faded transverse markings

0.01 17 30 20 20 87 $1,110


Sunset St - West Washington St W Existing faded transverse markings

0.01 17 30 20 20 87 $1,580


W Cherry Ln W Elm Ave N 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,510


E Cherry Ln W Elm Ave E 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,160


W Cherry Ln W Elm Ave S 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,420

continued

E-10



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 2nd St W Elm Ave - N 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,730

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 2nd St - E 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,700

High-Visibility Crosswalk N 2nd St W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,720

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Elm Ave N 2nd St - W 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,780

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Phelps Ave W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,850

High-Visibility Crosswalk El Rancho Blvd W Elm Ave - S 0.02 0 30 20 20 70 $1,860

Restriping Cambridge Ave Elm Ave Monterey Ave Stripe right side of bike lane 1.00 0 30 20 20 70 $10,590

Restriping Washington St Monterey Ave California St Stripe right side of existing bike lanes

0.38 0 30 20 20 70 $4,000

RRFB W Washington St Sunset Ave - - 25 30 20 15 90 $50,000

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave 500 ft West of Falcon Wy - - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave Parking Lot Entrance - East - E Sign - "Exit Only" - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave Parking Lot Entrance - East - W Sign - Right turn only during school hours

- 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave Parking Lot Entrance - West - W Sign - "One Way" with arrow - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave 150ft East of Sunset St - S Sign - School Zone - 0 30 20 20 70 $500

School Assembly Sign Cambridge Ave 300ft East of Falcon Ln - N Sign - School Zone - 0 30 20 20 70 $500


Van Ness St Between Sunset St North and Sunset St South

- Chaotic close-set and irregular intersections, very challenging at school dismissal

- 25 30 20 25 100 $20,000


W Elm Ave Polk St - - 0 30 20 25 75 $20,000


E Polk St S 5th St - - 0 30 20 25 75 $2,500


Sunset St - East Van Ness St N Existing faded transverse markings

0.01 17 30 20 20 87 $1,110


Sunset St - West Washington St W Existing faded transverse markings

0.01 17 30 20 20 87 $1,580


W Cherry Ln W Elm Ave N 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,510


E Cherry Ln W Elm Ave E 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,160


W Cherry Ln W Elm Ave S 0.01 8 30 20 20 78 $1,420




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE


W Cherry Ln W Elm Ave W 0.02 8 30 20 20 78 $1,670


Walnut Ave W Elm Ave N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,490


Adams St Sunset St S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,070


Sunset St Adams St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,250


Adams St California St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,220


Monroe St Coalinga St N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,000


Monroe St Coalinga St E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,020


Monroe St Coalinga St S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $980


Monterey Ave Monroe St E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,190


Cambridge Ave 400ft West of Falcon Ln S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $720




Sunset Elementary Driveway Mountain View Pl 0.00 0 30 20 20 70 $430


Baker St Sunset St S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $830


Sunset St 375ft North of Baker St N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $690


Sunset St 875ft North of Baker St 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $790


Cambridge Ave Sunset St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,340


Sunset St Cambridge Ave S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $880


Cambridge Ave Sunset St E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,200


Sunset St Cambridge Ave N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $960

continued

E-12



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE


W Cherry Ln W Elm Ave W 0.02 8 30 20 20 78 $1,670


Walnut Ave W Elm Ave N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,490


Adams St Sunset St S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,070


Sunset St Adams St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,250


Adams St California St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,220


Monroe St Coalinga St N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,000


Monroe St Coalinga St E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,020


Monroe St Coalinga St S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $980


Monterey Ave Monroe St E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,190






Sunset Elementary Driveway Mountain View Pl 0.00 0 30 20 20 70 $430


Baker St Sunset St S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $830


Sunset St 375ft North of Baker St N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $690


Sunset St 875ft North of Baker St 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $790


Cambridge Ave Sunset St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,340


Sunset St Cambridge Ave S 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $880


Cambridge Ave Sunset St E 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $1,200


Sunset St Cambridge Ave N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $960




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE


Monroe St Coalinga St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $980


Coalinga St Jackson St N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $840


Van Ness St 130ft West of Birch Ave Existing faded transverse markings

0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $980


Van Ness St Third St W Existing faded irregular crosswalk markings

0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $910

continued

E-14



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE


Monroe St Coalinga St W 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $980


Coalinga St Jackson St N 0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $840


Van Ness St 130ft West of Birch Ave Existing faded transverse markings

0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $980


Van Ness St Third St W Existing faded irregular crosswalk markings

0.01 0 30 20 20 70 $910




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Class II Bike Lanes Forest Ave Houston St Truman Ln 0.90 0 30 0 20 50 $9,530

Class II Bike Lanes Monterey Ave Polk St Washington St Stripe right side of bike lane where on-street parking is present

0.50 0 30 0 20 50 $5,310

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Sunset St Van Ness St Cambridge Ave 0.49 17 30 0 20 67 $6,510

Class III Bicycle Boulevards California St Polk St Cambridge Ave 1.00 8 30 0 20 58 $13,200

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Coalinga St Southern terminus Cambridge Ave 1.50 8 30 0 20 58 $19,800

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Harvard Ave Monterey Ave California St 0.38 0 30 0 20 50 $4,980

Class III Bicycle Boulevards California St Washington St Cambridge Ave 0.49 0 30 0 20 50 $6,530

Crosswalks California St Monroe St - N 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $480

Crosswalks Monroe St California St - E 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $440

Crosswalks California St Monroe St - S 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $480

Crosswalks Monroe St California St - W 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $430

Crosswalks Fresno St Monroe St - N 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $410

Crosswalks Monroe St Fresno St - E 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $370

Crosswalks Fresno St Monroe St - S 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $440

Crosswalks Monroe St Fresno St - W 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $370

High-Visibility Crosswalk San Simeon Ln Posa Chanet Blvd N 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $1,210

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Polk St S Princeton Ave - E 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $960

Study: Bus Shelter E Elm Ave Cherry Ln - - 13 0 20 25 58 $2,500

Study: Stop Control Polk St Coalinga St - - 0 30 0 25 55 $2,500

Study: Stop Control Washington St Coalinga St - - 0 30 0 25 55 $2,500

Future Spot Study Polk St Monterey Ave - - 0 30 0 25 55 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Phelps Ave - - 0 0 20 25 45 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave El Rancho Blvd - - 0 0 20 25 45 $2,500

Curb extension Sunset Ave Cambridge Ave - - 0 30 20 5 55 $20,000

Sidewalks E Polk St S Barker St 100ft East of S Alfred St

S 0.05 8 30 20 5 63 $18,560

Sidewalks E Polk St S 5th St 100ft East of Hayes St

N 0.02 0 30 20 5 55 $6,380

E-16



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Class II Bike Lanes Forest Ave Houston St Truman Ln 0.90 0 30 0 20 50 $9,530

Class II Bike Lanes Monterey Ave Polk St Washington St Stripe right side of bike lane where on-street parking is present

0.50 0 30 0 20 50 $5,310

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Sunset St Van Ness St Cambridge Ave 0.49 17 30 0 20 67 $6,510

Class III Bicycle Boulevards California St Polk St Cambridge Ave 1.00 8 30 0 20 58 $13,200

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Coalinga St Southern terminus Cambridge Ave 1.50 8 30 0 20 58 $19,800

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Harvard Ave Monterey Ave California St 0.38 0 30 0 20 50 $4,980

Class III Bicycle Boulevards California St Washington St Cambridge Ave 0.49 0 30 0 20 50 $6,530

Crosswalks California St Monroe St - N 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $480

Crosswalks Monroe St California St - E 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $440

Crosswalks California St Monroe St - S 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $480

Crosswalks Monroe St California St - W 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $430

Crosswalks Fresno St Monroe St - N 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $410

Crosswalks Monroe St Fresno St - E 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $370

Crosswalks Fresno St Monroe St - S 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $440

Crosswalks Monroe St Fresno St - W 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $370

High-Visibility Crosswalk San Simeon Ln Posa Chanet Blvd N 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $1,210

High-Visibility Crosswalk W Polk St S Princeton Ave - E 0.01 0 30 0 20 50 $960

Study: Bus Shelter E Elm Ave Cherry Ln - - 13 0 20 25 58 $2,500

Study: Stop Control Polk St Coalinga St - - 0 30 0 25 55 $2,500

Study: Stop Control Washington St Coalinga St - - 0 30 0 25 55 $2,500

Future Spot Study Polk St Monterey Ave - - 0 30 0 25 55 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave Phelps Ave - - 0 0 20 25 45 $2,500

Future Spot Study Elm Ave El Rancho Blvd - - 0 0 20 25 45 $2,500

Curb extension Sunset Ave Cambridge Ave - - 0 30 20 5 55 $20,000

Sidewalks E Polk St S Barker St 100ft East of S Alfred St

S 0.05 8 30 20 5 63 $18,560

Sidewalks E Polk St S 5th St 100ft East of Hayes St

N 0.02 0 30 20 5 55 $6,380




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Sidewalks E Polk St W Glenn Ave 230ft East of S 6th St

N 0.04 0 30 20 5 55 $16,150

Sidewalks E Polk St 200ft West of W Glenn Ave 60ft East of S 6th St

S 0.05 0 30 20 5 55 $18,620

Sidewalks E Polk St/Jayne Ave 650ft East of Enterprise Pkwy Wartham Creek N 1.14 0 30 20 5 55 $449,670

Sidewalks E Polk St/Jayne Ave 650ft East of Enterprise Pkwy S Thompson St S 1.21 0 30 20 5 55 $480,840

Sidewalks Elm Ave El Rancho Blvd Phelps Ave W 0.16 0 30 20 5 55 $64,750

Sidewalks Elm Ave Phelps Ave 40ft South of Stop Line

W 0.01 0 30 20 5 55 $3,270

Sidewalks Elm Ave 45ft South of Walnut Ave 330ft South of Walnut Ave

W 0.06 0 30 20 5 55 $21,820

Sidewalks E Polk St/W Hawthorne St S Barker St 80ft North of E Polk St

N 0.03 0 30 20 5 55 $10,060

RRFB E Elm Ave Baker St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Polk St Garfield St - E - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Elm Ave N Truman St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave E Walnut Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St W Glenn Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St/Jayne Ave Willow Springs Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St/Jayne Ave S Merced Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St Pine St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB California St Washington St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Cambridge Ave Coalinga Middle School - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave Cambridge Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave Phelps Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave El Rancho Blvd - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave Pacific St - - 13 30 0 15 58 $50,000

Curb extension Elm Ave Polk St - - 0 30 20 5 55 $20,000

RRFB Phelps Ave Hannah Ave - E - 0 30 0 15 45 $50,000

RRFB Polk St Princeton Ave - E - 0 30 0 15 45 $50,000

RRFB W Polk St S Princeton Ave - - 0 30 0 15 45 $50,000

continued

E-18



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Sidewalks E Polk St W Glenn Ave 230ft East of S 6th St

N 0.04 0 30 20 5 55 $16,150

Sidewalks E Polk St 200ft West of W Glenn Ave 60ft East of S 6th St

S 0.05 0 30 20 5 55 $18,620

Sidewalks E Polk St/Jayne Ave 650ft East of Enterprise Pkwy Wartham Creek N 1.14 0 30 20 5 55 $449,670

Sidewalks E Polk St/Jayne Ave 650ft East of Enterprise Pkwy S Thompson St S 1.21 0 30 20 5 55 $480,840

Sidewalks Elm Ave El Rancho Blvd Phelps Ave W 0.16 0 30 20 5 55 $64,750

Sidewalks Elm Ave Phelps Ave 40ft South of Stop Line

W 0.01 0 30 20 5 55 $3,270

Sidewalks Elm Ave 45ft South of Walnut Ave 330ft South of Walnut Ave

W 0.06 0 30 20 5 55 $21,820

Sidewalks E Polk St/W Hawthorne St S Barker St 80ft North of E Polk St

N 0.03 0 30 20 5 55 $10,060

RRFB E Elm Ave Baker St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Polk St Garfield St - E - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Elm Ave N Truman St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave E Walnut Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St W Glenn Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St/Jayne Ave Willow Springs Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St/Jayne Ave S Merced Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB E Polk St Pine St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB California St Washington St - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Cambridge Ave Coalinga Middle School - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave Cambridge Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave Phelps Ave - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave El Rancho Blvd - - 0 30 20 15 65 $50,000

RRFB Elm Ave Pacific St - - 13 30 0 15 58 $50,000

Curb extension Elm Ave Polk St - - 0 30 20 5 55 $20,000

RRFB Phelps Ave Hannah Ave - E - 0 30 0 15 45 $50,000

RRFB Polk St Princeton Ave - E - 0 30 0 15 45 $50,000

RRFB W Polk St S Princeton Ave - - 0 30 0 15 45 $50,000




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Class III Bicycle Boulevards 4th St Van Ness St Ivy Ave 0.64 17 0 0 20 37 $8,390

Class III Bicycle Boulevards N 6th St Sunset St E Polk St 0.43 0 0 0 20 20 $5,650

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Ivy Ave S 4th St Hayes St 0.04 0 0 0 20 20 $510

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Hoover St Hayes St N Garfield St 0.28 0 0 0 20 20 $3,640

Class III Bicycle Boulevards N Garfield St Hoover St Roosevelt St 0.14 0 0 0 20 20 $1,890

Curb extension Sunset St Baker St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb extension Sunset Ave Harvard Ave - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb extension Sunset Ave Cornell Ave - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb extension Elm Ave Cherry Ln - - 13 0 20 5 38 $20,000

Curb extension W Polk St S Princeton Ave - - 0 30 0 5 35 $20,000

Curb extension E Elm Ave Baker St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb extension Elm Ave N 6th St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000



Curb extension Elm Ave South of Truman St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St E Birch Ave - NW - 0 30 20 5 55 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St N 3rd St - NE - 0 30 20 5 55 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St N 3rd St - NW - 0 30 20 5 55 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - NW - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - SW - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - NE - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - SE - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp W Washington St E Birch Ave - SW - 0 0 20 5 25 $3,500

Parking Access Rd South of Cambridge Ave

Sunset St 325ft East of Sunset St

Pave unpaved area 0.06 0 0 20 20 40 $24,300

Pedestrian Refuge Island E Elm Ave Baker St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $15,000

Pedestrian Refuge Island W Washington St Sunset Ave - - 25 0 20 5 50 $15,000

School Assembly Sign California St Harvard Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Harvard Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

E-20



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Class III Bicycle Boulevards 4th St Van Ness St Ivy Ave 0.64 17 0 0 20 37 $8,390

Class III Bicycle Boulevards N 6th St Sunset St E Polk St 0.43 0 0 0 20 20 $5,650

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Ivy Ave S 4th St Hayes St 0.04 0 0 0 20 20 $510

Class III Bicycle Boulevards Hoover St Hayes St N Garfield St 0.28 0 0 0 20 20 $3,640

Class III Bicycle Boulevards N Garfield St Hoover St Roosevelt St 0.14 0 0 0 20 20 $1,890

Curb extension Sunset St Baker St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb extension Sunset Ave Harvard Ave - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb extension Sunset Ave Cornell Ave - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb extension Elm Ave Cherry Ln - - 13 0 20 5 38 $20,000

Curb extension W Polk St S Princeton Ave - - 0 30 0 5 35 $20,000

Curb extension E Elm Ave Baker St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000




Curb extension Elm Ave South of Truman St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $20,000

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St E Birch Ave - NW - 0 30 20 5 55 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St N 3rd St - NE - 0 30 20 5 55 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement W Washington St N 3rd St - NW - 0 30 20 5 55 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - NW - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - SW - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - NE - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp improvement S Coalinga St W Pleasant St - SE - 0 30 0 5 35 $1,000

Curb ramp W Washington St E Birch Ave - SW - 0 0 20 5 25 $3,500

Parking Access Rd South of Cambridge Ave

Sunset St 325ft East of Sunset St

Pave unpaved area 0.06 0 0 20 20 40 $24,300

Pedestrian Refuge Island E Elm Ave Baker St - - 0 0 20 5 25 $15,000

Pedestrian Refuge Island W Washington St Sunset Ave - - 25 0 20 5 50 $15,000

School Assembly Sign California St Harvard Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Harvard Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

School Assembly Sign California St Cornell Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Cornell Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - South - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - South - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - North - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - North - N - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St 425ft North of Baker St - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St 425ft North of Baker St - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Access Road - Parking Lot Cambridge Ave - Sign - Do Not Enter/Wrong Way

- 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Baker St Mountain View Pl - N - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Baker St - S Sign - School Zone - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - North - N Sign - School Zone - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St 100ft South of Adams St - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St 100ft South of Adams St - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Baker St Mountain View Pl - S - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St University Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St University Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Yale Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Yale Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

Sidewalk Access Rd South of Cambridge Ave

Sunset St East terminus of Access Rd

Drainage impacts? DG path? 0.08 0 0 20 5 25 $32,660

Sidewalks Baker St California St Sunset St S 0.10 0 30 20 5 55 $37,640

Sidewalks Sunset St 100ft South of Cambridge Ave

700 ft south of Cambridge Ave

W 0.10 0 30 20 5 55 $40,290

Sidewalks Harvard Ave 85ft West of California St 150ft West of California St

S 0.01 0 30 20 5 55 $4,920

Sidewalks Harvard Ave 140ft East of Fresno St 230ft East of Fresno St

S 0.02 0 30 20 5 55 $6,390

Sidewalks California St 150ft North of Yale Ave 190ft North of Yale Ave

E Curb ramp 0.01 0 30 20 5 55 $3,030

Sidewalks El Rancho Blvd Elm Ave 400ft West of Elm Ave

S 0.07 0 30 0 5 35 $27,500

continued

E-22



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

School Assembly Sign California St Cornell Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Cornell Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - South - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - South - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - North - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - North - N - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St 425ft North of Baker St - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St 425ft North of Baker St - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Access Road - Parking Lot Cambridge Ave - Sign - Do Not Enter/Wrong Way

- 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Baker St Mountain View Pl - N - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Baker St - S Sign - School Zone - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Sunset St Baker St - North - N Sign - School Zone - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St 100ft South of Adams St - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St 100ft South of Adams St - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign Baker St Mountain View Pl - S - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St University Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St University Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Yale Ave - E - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

School Assembly Sign California St Yale Ave - W - 0 0 20 20 40 $500

Sidewalk Access Rd South of Cambridge Ave

Sunset St East terminus of Access Rd

Drainage impacts? DG path? 0.08 0 0 20 5 25 $32,660

Sidewalks Baker St California St Sunset St S 0.10 0 30 20 5 55 $37,640

Sidewalks Sunset St 100ft South of Cambridge Ave

700 ft south of Cambridge Ave

W 0.10 0 30 20 5 55 $40,290

Sidewalks Harvard Ave 85ft West of California St 150ft West of California St

S 0.01 0 30 20 5 55 $4,920

Sidewalks Harvard Ave 140ft East of Fresno St 230ft East of Fresno St

S 0.02 0 30 20 5 55 $6,390

Sidewalks California St 150ft North of Yale Ave 190ft North of Yale Ave

E Curb ramp 0.01 0 30 20 5 55 $3,030

Sidewalks El Rancho Blvd Elm Ave 400ft West of Elm Ave

S 0.07 0 30 0 5 35 $27,500




TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Sidewalks Cherry Ln 500ft East of Elm Ave 575ft East of Elm Ave

N 0.01 0 30 0 5 35 $5,190

Sidewalks Baker St Lincoln St Grant St N 0.06 0 30 0 5 35 $24,100

Sidewalks Coalinga St Tyler St Driveway South of Monroe St

W 0.10 0 30 0 5 35 $39,850

Sidewalks Garfield St Polk St 100ft North of Valley St

E 0.03 0 30 0 5 35 $13,190

Sidewalks Tompson St Polk St 90ft South of Polk St

E 0.01 0 30 0 5 35 $4,560

Sidewalks Pleasant St 120ft East of Garfield St 170ft East of Garfield St

N 0.01 0 30 0 5 35 $3,600

Sidewalks Pleasant St 160ft West of Tompson St 260ft West of Tompson St

N 0.02 0 30 0 5 35 $7,200

Sidewalks Garfield St Valley St Alley South of Valley St

E 0.02 0 30 0 5 35 $9,720

Sidewalks Baker St Buchanan St 100ft West of Buchanan St

S 0.02 0 30 0 5 35 $5,950

Sidewalks Baker St Lincoln St Alley West of Lincoln St

S 0.03 0 30 0 5 35 $11,350

Sidewalks Cherry Ln School Rd 225ft West of School Rd

N 0.05 0 30 0 5 35 $19,740

Sidewalks Adams St Fresno St Murietta Way S 0.04 0 30 0 5 35 $14,460

Study: Bus Shelter W Durian Ave Midblock between N 5th St and N 6th St

- - 0 0 0 25 25 $2,500

continued

E-24



TOTAL SCORE

COST ESTIMATE

Sidewalks Cherry Ln 500ft East of Elm Ave 575ft East of Elm Ave

N 0.01 0 30 0 5 35 $5,190

Sidewalks Baker St Lincoln St Grant St N 0.06 0 30 0 5 35 $24,100

Sidewalks Coalinga St Tyler St Driveway South of Monroe St

W 0.10 0 30 0 5 35 $39,850

Sidewalks Garfield St Polk St 100ft North of Valley St

E 0.03 0 30 0 5 35 $13,190

Sidewalks Tompson St Polk St 90ft South of Polk St

E 0.01 0 30 0 5 35 $4,560

Sidewalks Pleasant St 120ft East of Garfield St 170ft East of Garfield St

N 0.01 0 30 0 5 35 $3,600

Sidewalks Pleasant St 160ft West of Tompson St 260ft West of Tompson St

N 0.02 0 30 0 5 35 $7,200

Sidewalks Garfield St Valley St Alley South of Valley St

E 0.02 0 30 0 5 35 $9,720

Sidewalks Baker St Buchanan St 100ft West of Buchanan St

S 0.02 0 30 0 5 35 $5,950

Sidewalks Baker St Lincoln St Alley West of Lincoln St

S 0.03 0 30 0 5 35 $11,350

Sidewalks Cherry Ln School Rd 225ft West of School Rd

N 0.05 0 30 0 5 35 $19,740

Sidewalks Adams St Fresno St Murietta Way S 0.04 0 30 0 5 35 $14,460

Study: Bus Shelter W Durian Ave Midblock between N 5th St and N 6th St

- - 0 0 0 25 25 $2,500


This appendix presents potential funding sources that the City of Coalinga may seek to implement the recommendations in this Plan. It is broken down by Federal, State, Regional, and Local sources.

APPENDIX F:

FUNDING SOURCES

Federal SourcesTHE FIXING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION (FAST) ACT

The FAST Act, which replaced Moving

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

Act (MAP-21) in 2015, provides long-

term funding certainty for surface trans-

portation projects, meaning States and

local governments can move forward

with critical transportation projects

with the confidence that they will have

a Federal partner over the long term (at

least five years).

The law makes changes and reforms to

many Federal transportation programs,

including streamlining the approval

processes for new transportation

projects and providing new safety tools.

It also allows local entities that are

direct recipients of Federal dollars to

use a design publication that is different

than one used by their State DOT, such

as the Urban Bikeway Design Guide

by the National Association of City

Transportation Officials.

More information:

https://www.transportation.gov/

fastact

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (STBGP)

The Surface Transportation Block

Grant Program (STBGP) provides states

with flexible funds which may be used

for a variety of highway, road, bridge,

and transit projects. A wide variety of

bicycle and pedestrian improvements

are eligible, including trails, sidewalks,

bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian

signals, and other ancillary facilities.

Modification of sidewalks to comply

with the requirements of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) is also an

eligible activity. Unlike most highway

projects, STBGP-funded pedestrian

facilities may be located on local and

collector roads which are not part of the

Federal-aid Highway System.

Fifty percent of each state’s STBGP

funds are sub-allocated geographically

by population. These funds are funneled

through Caltrans to the MPOs in the

state. The remaining 50 percent may be

spent in any area of the state.

STBGP SET-ASIDE: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM

Transportation Alternatives Program

(TAP) has been folded into the Surface

Transportation Block Grant program

(STBG) as a set-aside funded at $835

million for 2016 and 2017, and $850

million for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Up

to 50 percent of the set-aside is able

to be transferred for broader STBGP

eligibility.

Improvements eligible for this set-

aside fall under three categories:

Transportation Enhancements (TE),

Safe Routes to School (SR2S), and the

Recreational Trails Program (RTP).

These funds may be used for a variety

of pedestrian and streetscape projects

including sidewalks, multi-use paths, and

rail-trails. TAP funds may also be used

for selected education and encourage-

ment programming such as Safe Routes

to School.

Non-profit organizations (NGOs) are

now eligible to apply for funding for

transportation safety projects and

programs, including Safe Routes to

School programs and bike share.

Complete eligibilities for TAP include:

Transportation Alternatives

This category includes the construc-

tion, planning, and design of a range

of pedestrian infrastructure including

“on–road and off– road trail facilities

for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other

active forms of transportation, including

sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedes-

trian and bicycle signals, traffic calming

techniques, lighting and other safety–

related infrastructure, and transporta-

tion projects to achieve compliance

with the Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990.” Infrastructure projects and

systems that provide “Safe Routes for

Non-Drivers” is still an eligible activity.

Recreational Trails

TAP funds may be used to develop

and maintain recreational trails and

trail related facilities for both active

and motorized recreational trail uses.

Examples of trail uses include hiking,

in-line skating, equestrian use, and

other active and motorized uses. These

funds are available for both paved and

unpaved trails, but may not be used to

improve roads for general passenger

vehicle use or to provide shoulders or

sidewalks along roads.

F-2

Recreational Trails Program funds may

be used for:

• Maintenance and restoration of

existing trails

• Purchase and lease of trail construc-

tion and maintenance equipment

• Construction of new trails, including

unpaved trails

• Acquisition or easements of property

for trails

• State administrative costs related to

this program (limited to seven percent

of a state’s funds)

• Operation of educational programs

to promote safety and environmental

protection related to trails (limited to

five percent of a state’s funds)

Safe Routes to School

There are two separate Safe Routes

to School Programs administered by

Caltrans. There is the Federal program

referred to as SRTS, and the state-

legislated program referred to as SR2S.

Both programs are intended to achieve

the same basic goal of increasing the

number of children walking and bicycling

to school by making it safer for them to

do so. All projects must be within two

miles of primary or middle schools (K-8).

The Safe Routes to School Program

funds nonmotorized facilities in conjunc-

tion with improving access to schools

through the Caltrans Safe Routes to

School Coordinator.

Eligible projects may include:

• Engineering improvements. These

physical improvements are designed

to reduce potential bicycle and pedes-

trian conflicts with motor vehicles.

• Physical improvements may also

reduce motor vehicle traffic volumes

around schools, establish safer and

more accessible crossings, or con-

struct walkways or trails. Eligible

improvements include sidewalk

improvements, traffic calming/speed

reduction, and pedestrian crossing

improvements.

• Education and Encouragement

Efforts. These programs are designed

to teach children safe walking skills

while educating them about the health

benefits and environmental impacts.

Projects and programs may include

creation, distribution and imple-

mentation of educational materials;

safety based field trips; interactive

pedestrian safety video games; and

promotional events and activities (e.g.,

assemblies, walking school buses).

• Enforcement Efforts. These programs

aim to ensure that traffic laws near

schools are obeyed. Law enforcement

activities apply to cyclists, pedestrians

and motor vehicles alike. Projects may

include development of a crossing

guard program, enforcement equip-

ment, photo enforcement, and pedes-

trian sting operations.

Planning, designing, or constructing roadways within the right-of-way of former Interstate routes or divided highways

At the time of writing, detailed

guidance from the Federal Highway

Administration on this new eligible

activity was not available.

405 NATIONAL PRIORITY SAFETY PROGRAM

Approximately $14 million annually (5

percent of the $280 million allocated to

the program overall) will be awarded to

States to decrease bike and pedestrian

crashes with motor vehicles. States

where bike and pedestrian fatalities

exceed 15 percent of their overall traffic

fatalities will be eligible for grants that

can be used for:

• Training law enforcement officials on

bike/pedestrian related traffic laws.

• Enforcement campaigns related to

bike/pedestrian safety

• Education and awareness programs

related to relevant bike/pedestrian

traffic laws

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)

The Highway Safety Improvement

Program (HSIP) provides $2.4 billion

nationally for projects that help com-

munities achieve significant reductions

in traffic fatalities and serious injuries

on all public roads, bikeways, and

walkways. Noninfrastructure projects

are no longer eligible. Eligible projects

F-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

are no longer required to collect data

on all public roads. Pedestrian safety

improvements, enforcement activities,

traffic calming projects, and crossing

treatments for active transportation

users in school zones are examples of

eligible projects. All HSIP projects must

be consistent with the state’s Strategic

Highway Safety Plan.

The 2015 California SHSP is located

here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/

trafficops/shsp/.

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CMAQ)

The Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)

provides funding for projects and

programs in air quality nonattainment

and maintenance areas for ozone,

carbon monoxide, and particulate

matter which reduce transportation

related emissions. These federal dollars

can be used to build pedestrian and

bicycle facilities that reduce travel by

automobile. Purely recreational facilities

generally are not eligible.

To be funded under this program,

projects and programs must come from

a transportation plan (or State (STIP)

or Regional (RTIP) Transportation

Improvement Program) that conforms

to the SIP and must be consistent with

the conformity provisions of Section

176 of the Clean Air Act. States are now

given flexibility on whether to under-

take CMAQ or STBGP-eligible projects

with CMAQ funds to help prevent

areas within the state from going into

nonattainment.

CMAQ funding is administered through

the Fresno Council of Governments

(FresnoCOG) on the local level. These

funds are eligible for transportation

projects that contribute to the attain-

ment or maintenance of National

Ambient Air Quality Standards in non-

attainment or air-quality maintenance

areas. Examples of eligible projects

include enhancements to existing

transit services, rideshare and vanpool

programs, projects that encourage

pedestrian transportation options,

traffic light synchronization projects

that improve air quality, grade separa-

tion projects, and construction of high-

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Projects

that are proven to reduce direct PM2.5

emissions are to be given priority.

PARTNERSHIP FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Founded in 2009, the Partnership for

Sustainable Communities is a joint

project of the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD), and the U.S. Department of

Transportation (USDOT). The part-

nership aims to “improve access to

affordable housing, more transporta-

tion options, and lower transportation

costs while protecting the environ-

ment in communities nationwide.” The

Partnership is based on five Livability

Principles, one of which explicitly

addresses the need for pedestrian infra-

structure (“Provide more transportation

choices: Develop safe, reliable, and

economical transportation choices to

decrease household transportation

costs, reduce our nation’s dependence

on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, and promote

public health”).

The Partnership is not a formal agency

with a regular annual grant program.

Nevertheless, it is an important effort

that has already led to some new grant

opportunities (including the TIGER

grants).

More information: https://www.sus-

tainablecommunities.gov/

F-4

State SourcesACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP)

In 2013, Governor Brown signed legisla-

tion creating the Active Transportation

Program (ATP). This program is a con-

solidation of the Federal Transportation

Alternatives Program (TAP), California’s

Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA),

and Federal and California Safe Routes

to School (SRTS) programs.

The ATP program is administered by

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance,

Office of Active Transportation and

Special Programs.

The ATP program goals include:

• Increase the proportion of trips

accomplished by biking and walking

• Increase safety and mobility for non-

motorized users

• Advance the active transportation

efforts of regional agencies to achieve

greenhouse gas reduction goals,

• Enhance public health

• Ensure that disadvantaged communi-

ties fully share in the benefits of the

program

• Provide a broad spectrum of projects

to benefit many types of active trans-

portation users

The California Transportation

Commission ATP Guidelines are

available here: http://www.catc.

ca.gov/meetings/agenda/2014Age

nda/2014_03/03_4.12.pdf

Eligible bicycle and Safe Routes to

School projects include:

• Infrastructure Projects: Capital

improvements that will further

program goals. This category typi-

cally includes planning, design, and

construction.

• Non-Infrastructure Projects:

Education, encouragement, enforce-

ment, and planning activities that

further program goals. The focus of

this category is on pilot and start-up

projects that can demonstrate funding

for ongoing efforts.

• Infrastructure projects with non-

infrastructure components

The minimum request for non-SRTS

projects is $250,000. There is no

minimum for SRTS projects.

More information: http://www.dot.

ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/

OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) GRANTS

Office of Traffic Safety Grants are

supported by Federal funding under

the National Highway Safety Act and

SAFETEA-LU. In California, the grants

are administered by the Office of Traffic

Safety.

Grants are used to establish new traffic

safety programs, expand ongoing

programs or address deficiencies in

current programs. Eligible grantees

are governmental agencies, state

colleges, state universities, local city and

county government agencies, school

districts, fire departments, and public

emergency services providers. Grant

funding cannot replace existing program

expenditures, nor can traffic safety

funds be used for program maintenance,

research, rehabilitation, or construction.

Grants are awarded on a competitive

basis, and priority is given to agencies

with the greatest need. Evaluation

criteria to assess need include potential

traffic safety impact, collision statistics

and rankings, seriousness of problems,

and performance on previous OTS

grants.

The California application deadline

is January of each year. There is no

maximum cap to the amount requested,

but all items in the proposal must be

justified to meet the objectives of the

proposal.

More information: http://www.ots.

ca.gov/


Regional and Local SourcesREGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

A portion of the statewide ATP program

is distributed to local CMAs and MPOs

for distribution locally. The Regional

ATP targets projects that increase

walking, improve safety, and benefit

disadvantaged communities. In the

Fresno County, regional ATP funding is

distributed through FresnoCOG.

Regional ATP applications are gener-

ally the same as the application for

the statewide program, with a few

additional questions. Applications not

funded in the statewide program are

no longer automatically considered for

the regional program. Applicants must

complete the additional questions and

apply separately.

More information: http://

www.fresnocog.org/

active-transportation-program.

DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES

As a condition for development

approval, municipalities can require

developers to provide certain infra-

structure improvements, which can

include bikeway projects. These

projects have commonly provided Class

II facilities for portions of on-street,

previously-planned routes. They can

also be used to provide bicycle parking

or shower and locker facilities. The type

of facility that should be required to be

built by developers should reflect the

greatest need for the particular project

and its local area. Legal challenges to

these types of fees have resulted in the

requirement to illustrate a clear nexus

between the particular project and the

mandated improvement and cost.

ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND UPGRADE

Future road widening and construction

projects are one means of providing

improved pedestrian and bicycle facili-

ties. To ensure that roadway construc-

tion projects provide these facilities

where needed, it is important that the

review process includes input pertain-

ing to consistency with the proposed

system. In addition, California’s 2008

Complete Streets Act and Caltrans

Deputy Directive 64 require that the

needs of all roadway users be consid-

ered during “all phases of state highway

projects, from planning to construction

to maintenance and repair.”

More information: http://www.dot.

ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_

streets.html

UTILITY PROJECTS

By monitoring the capital improvement

plans of local utility companies, it may be

possible to coordinate upcoming utility

projects with the installation of bicycle

and pedestrian infrastructure within the

same area or corridor. Often times, the

utility companies will mobilize the same

type of forces required to construct

bikeways and sidewalks, resulting in the

potential for a significant cost savings.

These types of joint projects require

a great deal of coordination, a careful

delineation of scope items and some

type of agreement or memorandum of

understanding, which may need to be

approved by multiple governing bodies.

CABLE INSTALLATION PROJECTS

Cable television and telephone compa-

nies sometimes need new cable routes

within public right-of-way. Recently, this

has most commonly occurred during

expansion of fiber optic networks. Since

these projects require a significant

amount of advance planning and disrup-

tion of curb lanes, it may be possible to

request reimbursement for affected

bicycle facilities to mitigate construction

impacts. In cases where cable routes

cross undeveloped areas, it may be

possible to provide for new bikeway

facilities following completion of the

cable trenching, such as sharing the use

of maintenance roads.

F-6

This appendix summarizes guidance for the design of Class I facilities. CalTrans Class I Bike Facility design guidelines are summarized in Table G-1 while Table G-2 summarizes Information about trail compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Detailed cost estimates for each of the 14 proposed trail segments follows the guidelines.

APPENDIX G:

CLASS I TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND COST ESTIMATES

Table G-1: Caltrans Class I Bike Facility Design Guidelines

DESCRIPTION

Class I bike paths are facilities with exclusive right-of-way (ROW) for bicycles and pedestrians, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Experience has shown that if significant pedestrian use is anticipated, a completely separate facility for pedestrians is necessary to minimize conflicts. The anticipated range of users and forecast level of use by different user groups should dictate the design of each specific facility. At a minimum, Class I bike paths require a minimum eight-foot-wide paved surface and a minimum of two-foot-wide clear, graded shoulders on both sides. For moderate to high-use segments, a wider paved surface of 10 feet to 12 feet (minimum) should be considered. In areas where a variety of users are expected, expanded unpaved shoulders should be included where possible. Class I bike paths immediately parallel and adjacent to highways must be separated from automobile traffic by a five-foot horizontal separation or a two-foot separation with barrier, per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Under certain circumstances, Caltrans may approve exceptions to the Class I bike path design standards.

GRAPHIC

COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CLASS I DESIGN GUIDELINES | G-1

Class I Design GuidelinesThis appendix summarize guidance for the design of Class I facilities. CalTrans Class I Bike Facility

design guidelines are summarized in Table G-1 while Table G-2 summarizes Information about trail

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Table G-1: Caltrans Class I Bike Facility Design Guidelines

Description

Class I bike paths are facilities with exclusive right-of-way (ROW) for bicycles and pedestrians, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Experience has shown that if significant pedestrian use is anticipated, a completely separate facility for pedestrians is necessary to minimize conflicts. The anticipated range of users and forecast level of use by different user groups should dictate the design of each specific facility. At a minimum, Class I bike paths require a minimum eight-foot-wide paved surface and a minimum of two-foot-wide clear, graded shoulders on both sides. For moderate to high-use segments, a wider paved surface of 10 feet to 12 feet (minimum) should be considered. In areas where a variety of users are expected, expanded unpaved shoulders should be included where possible. Class I bike paths immediately parallel and adjacent to highways must be separated from automobile traffic by a five-foot horizontal separation or a two-foot separation with barrier, per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Under certain circumstances, Caltrans may approve exceptions to the Class I bike path design standards.

Graphic

This graphic is presented to illustrate classification standards and not meant as design guidelines.

Bike Path*

STANDARDS

• 10’-12’ paved width (8’ min.) for a two-way bike path

• 12’ width where path doubles as an access route for maintenance or emergency vehicles

• 2’ minimum required clear graded shoulder width on each side, 3’ preferred

• 8’ minimum vertical clearance, 10’ preferred

• 2% cross slope to facilitate drainage

• A grade of 2% or less accommodates the widest range of cyclists and is recommended. A 5% (maximum) grade allowed. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short segments (up to about 500 feet), although design speeds should be increased and path width should allow for additional maneuverability.

• The CA MUTCD provides guidance on appropriate signage and controls at trail roadway intersections.

G-2

Table G-2: ADA Trail Access Guidelines

DESCRIPTION

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that public facilities be designed so that people of all abilities can access and use them. Often, local site characteristics present constraints that make meeting ADA guidelines difficult and sometimes prohibitive. The 2013 Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines; Outdoor Developed Areas establish accessibility guidelines pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) for camping facilities, picnic facilities, viewing areas, trails, and beach access routes that are constructed or altered by or on behalf of the Federal government. These guidelines also apply to local agencies that are using Federal funds to design or construct a facility.

The technical provisions for ADA-accessible pathways require the surface to be firm and stable, a minimum clear tread width of 36 inches, passing spaces at least 60 inches wide and maximum obstacle heights of ½ to 2 inches depending on surface type. Additional provisions address openings, slopes, resting intervals, protruding objects, gates, and barriers.

Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 82-05 (DIB 82-05): Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects is the primary reference for Caltrans’ ADA guidelines. DIB 82-05 provides design guidance on a number of items, including walkway surface, clear width, vertical clearance, grade, and curb ramps.

California State Parks’ Accessibility Guidelines (2009) present principles for providing accessibility within the State Parks. The Guidelines include standards and recommendations for numerous facilities common to parks, including pathways. As stated in the Guidelines, every effort should be made to install and maintain accessible pathways. To this end, the Guidelines contain standards for accessible pathways such as maximum running slopes, minimum width and frequency of resting spaces, maximum acceptable gaps in the pathway surface, optimal clearances and signage requirements. The Guidelines further state that accessible pathways should represent the most significant features and environmental experiences unique to the area.

The following table represents the best practices as outlined by the California State Parks Accessibility guidelines and the U.S. Access Board’s Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines; Outdoor Developed Areas.

GRAPHIC

COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CLASS I DESIGN GUIDELINES | 2

Standards

• 10’-12’ paved width (8’ min.) for a two-way bike path

• 12’ width where path doubles as an access route for maintenance or emergency vehicles

• 2’ minimum required clear graded shoulder width on each side, 3’ preferred

• 8’ minimum vertical clearance, 10’ preferred

• 2% cross slope to facilitate drainage

• A grade of 2% or less accommodates the widest range of cyclists and is recommended. A 5% (maximum) grade allowed. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short segments (up to about 500 feet), although design speeds should be increased and path width should allow for additional maneuverability.

• The CA MUTCD provides guidance on appropriate signage and controls at trail roadway intersections.

Table G-2: ADA Trail Access Guidelines

Description

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that public facilities be designed so that people of all abilities can access and use them. Often, local site characteristics present constraints that make meeting ADA guidelines difficult and sometimes prohibitive. The 2013 Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines; Outdoor Developed Areas establish accessibility guidelines pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) for camping facilities, picnic facilities, viewing areas, trails, and beach access routes that are constructed or altered by or on behalf of the Federal government. These guidelines also apply to local agencies that are using Federal funds to design or construct a facility.

The technical provisions for ADA-accessible pathways require the surface to be firm and stable, a minimum clear tread width of 36 inches, passing spaces at least 60 inches wide and maximum obstacle heights of ½ to 2 inches depending on surface type. Additional provisions address openings, slopes, resting intervals, protruding objects, gates, and barriers. Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 82-05 (DIB 82-05): Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects is the primary reference for Caltrans’ ADA guidelines. DIB 82-05 provides design guidance on a number of items, including walkway surface, clear width, vertical clearance, grade, and curb ramps.

Trail gradients as recommended by the California State Parks Accessibility

Guidelines

COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CLASS I DESIGN GUIDELINES | 3

California State Parks’ Accessibility Guidelines (2009) present principles for providing accessibility within the State Parks. The Guidelines include standards and recommendations for numerous facilities common to parks, including pathways. As stated in the Guidelines, every effort should be made to install and maintain accessible pathways. To this end, the Guidelines contain standards for accessible pathways such as maximum running slopes, minimum width and frequency of resting spaces, maximum acceptable gaps in the pathway surface, optimal clearances and signage requirements. The Guidelines further state that accessible pathways should represent the most significant features and environmental experiences unique to the area. The following table represents the best practices as outlined by the California State Parks Accessibility guidelines and the U.S. Access Board’s Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines; Outdoor Developed Areas.

Standards

Item Recommended Treatment Purpose

Pathway Surface Hard surface such as asphalt, concrete, wood, compacted gravel

Provide smooth surface that accommodates wheelchairs

Pathway Gradient (running slope)

5% maximum without landings 8.33% maximum with landings 10% maximum for a distance of 30 feet 12% maximum for a distance of 10 feet

Greater than 5% is too strenuous for wheelchair users

Pathway Cross Slope 2% maximum Provide positive pathway drainage, avoid excessive gravitational pull to side of trail

Pathway Width 36” minimum, 60” passing areas Accommodate a wide variety of users and allows for the passage of two wheelchairs

Pathway amenities, phones, drinking fountains and pedestrian-actuated buttons

Place no higher than 4’ off ground Provide access within reach of wheelchair users

Detectable pavement changes at curb ramp approaches

Place at top of ramp before entering roadways

Provide visual and/or tactile queues for visually impaired users

Trailhead Signage Accessibility information such as pathway gradient/profile, distances, tread conditions, location of drinking fountains and rest stops

User convenience and safety

Parking Provide at least one accessible parking area per every 25 vehicles spaces at each trailhead


Rest Areas On pathways specifically designated as accessible, provide rest areas or widened areas on the pathway optimally at every 300 feet


G-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Table G-2: ADA Trail Access Guidelines continued

STANDARDS

Item Recommended Treatment Purpose

Pathway Surface Hard surface such as asphalt, concrete, wood, compacted gravel

Provide smooth surface that accommodates wheelchairs

Pathway Gradient Sunset St Polk St

(Running slope) 5% maximum without landings Polk St

8.33% maximum with landings Sunset St - East Van Ness St

10% maximum for a distance of 30 feet

Sunset St - West Washington St

12% maximum for a distance of 10 feet

Greater than 5% is too strenuous for wheelchair users Van Ness St

Pathway Cross Slope 2% maximum Provide positive pathway drainage, avoid excessive gravitational pull to side of trail

Pathway Width 36” minimum, 60” passing areas Accommodate a wide variety of users and allows for the passage of two wheelchairs

Pathway amenities, phones, drinking fountains and pedestrian-actuated buttons

Place no higher than 4’ off ground Provide access within reach of wheelchair users

Detectable pavement changes at curb ramp approaches

Place at top of ramp before entering roadways Provide visual and/or tactile queues for visually impaired users

Trailhead Signage Accessibility information such as pathway gradient/profile, distances, tread conditions, location of drinking fountains and rest stops


Parking Provide at least one accessible parking area per every 25 vehicles spaces at each trailhead


Rest Areas On pathways specifically designated as accessible, provide rest areas or widened areas on the pathway optimally at every 300 feet


G-4

Table G-3: Summary Cost Estimates

SEGMENT LENGTH (LF) LENGTH (MI)CONSTRUCTION

ONLY TOTAL COST

1 500 0.10 $874,300 $1,225,300

2 2,500 0.47 $555,000 $778,000

3 2,600 0.49 $676,600 $948,600

4 1,800 0.34 $408,900 $573,900

5 2,500 0.47 $617,500 $865,500

6 6,200 1.17 $1,359,200 $1,903,200

7 4,600 0.87 $1,006,600 $1,409,600

8 6,600 1.25 $1,643,600 $2,301,600

9 4,200 0.79 $1,030,200 $1,443,200

10 3,250 0.62 $816,000 $1,143,000

11 2,100 0.40 $503,600 $705,600

12 4,050 0.77 $1,011,300 $1,416,300

13 2,800 0.53 $619,800 $867,800

14 2,700 0.51 $652,200 $914,200

TOTAL 46,400 8.78 $11,774,800 $16,495,800


Segment 1 Cost Estimates

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTIONESTIMATED

QTY. UNIT UNIT COST COST

1 Drainage and Utility Allowance 1 LS $10,000 $10,000

2 10' Asphalt Multi Use Path 38,500 SF $12 $462,000

3 3" Raised Speed Table at Driveway 60 LF $120 $7,200

4 High Visibility Crosswalk Striping at Driveway

1 LS $1,500 $1,500

5 Curb Ramps at Driveway 2 EA $3,000 $6,000

6 Landscape Buffer 2,500 SF $6 $15,000

7 Decomposed Granite Shoulders for Path

23,100 SF $16 $369,600

8 Misc.. Signage and Striping 1 LS $3,000 $3,000

SUBTOTAL ITEMS $874,300

CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 25% $219,000

PERMITTING 15% $132,000

SEGMENT 1 - TOTAL $1,225,300







15,000 SF $16 $240,000

8 Misc. Signage and Striping 1 LS $5,000 $5,000




SEGMENT 2 - TOTAL $778,000

G-6






3 Reconstructed Bridge 1 LS $100,000 $100,000


15,600 SF $16 $249,600











3 3" Raised Speed Table at Cherry Lane 30 LF $120 $3,600

4 High Visibility Crosswalk Striping at Cherry

1 LS $1,500 $1,500


10,800 SF $16 $172,800












3 Split Rail Fence 2,500 LF $25 $62,500


15,000 SF $16 $240,000












37,200 SF $16 $595,200


SUBTOTAL ITEMS $1,359,200




G-8







27,600 SF $16 $441,600













39,600 SF $16 $633,600












3 Split Rail Fence 4,200 LF $25 $105,000

4 High Visibility Crosswalk Striping at Elm

1 LS $3,000 $3,000


25,200 SF $16 $403,200











4 High Visibility Crosswalk Striping at Lucille

1 LS $1,500 $1,500



19,500 SF $16 $312,000






G-10






6 Trees 70 EA $500 $35,000


12,600 SF $16 $201,600













24,300 SF $16 $388,800













16,800 SF $16 $268,800











7 Post and Cable Barrier 2,700 SF $20 $54,000


16,200 SF $16 $259,200






G-12

This Plan meets eligibility criteria laid out by the Caltrans Active Transportation Program. Table H-1 lists these criteria and identifies the location(s) in Volume 1 of this Plan where the relevant information can be found.

APPENDIX H:

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COMPLIANCE

Table H-1: Active Transportation Program Criteria

SUBJECT ATP COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST LOCATION IN PLAN

Future Trip Estimates The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan.

Appendix D

Collision Report The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan.

Chapter 3 and Appendix B

Land Use Patterns A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations.

Chapter 2

Existing and Proposed Facilities and Programs

A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities, including a description of bicycle facilities that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five Es (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of bicycling to school.

Chapter 2 and Chapter 6

End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities


Bicycle Parking Policy A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments.

Chapter 6 and Appendix A

Bicycle Connections to other Modes

A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.

Chapter 2

Pedestrian Connections to other Modes

A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities at major transit hubs. These must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings.

Chapter 2

Wayfinding A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations.


H-2

Table H-1: Active Transportation Program Criteria

SUBJECT ATP COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST LOCATION IN PLAN

Maintenance A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting.

Chapter 8

Education Programs A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists and pedestrians.

Chapter 7

Community Involvement A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities.

Chapter 3 and Appendix C

Regional Plan Coordination A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan.

Appendix A

Project List A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.

Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8, and Appendix E

Past Expenditures and Future Financial Needs

A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses.

Appendix F

Implementation A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.

Chapter 8

Adoption Resolution A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located.

Forthcoming

continued

H-3CITY OF COALINGA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The City of Coalinga would like to thank the parent volunteers who participated in the Walk to School Day on October 26, 2016 as well as the residents who provided valuable input in the development of this plan. The development of this plan was financially supported by the California Transportation Commission and the Fresno Council of Governments.

CITY COUNCIL

Nathan Vosburg, Mayor

Steve Raine, Mayor Pro-Tem

Ron Lander

Ron Ramsey

Tanya Stolz

PLANNING COMMISSION

Ken Stoppenbrink, Chairman

Joshua Sailer, Vice Chairman

Luis Gonzales

Michele Helmar

James Jacobs

CITY STAFF

Sean Brewer, Project Manager, Community Development Director

Amy Martinez, Community Development Assistant

Pete Preciado, Public Works and Utilities Director

Acknowledgements

COALINGA-HURON SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF AND PARENT-TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS VOLUNTEERS

James Allen

James Reckas

Janelle Jackson

Maxine Balling

Sarah Walker

Becky Frost

Cynthia Chavez

ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN

Bryan Jones, Principal

Jeff Knowles, Associate Planner

Emily Tracy, Senior Planner

Michael Sampson, Senior Engineer

Lola Torney, Planner

Ben Frazier, Planner

Zach Robinson, GIS Analyst

Peggy Moore

Angie Abbott

Becky Wagner

Lana Smith

Christy Perkins

Jose Carillo

CITY of COALINGA that numbering may not be consecutive, as only those policies most relevant are...

Documents

Transcript of CITY of COALINGA that numbering may not be consecutive, as only those policies most relevant are...