HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/7/2014 - Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport
Beach, CA 92660
July 7, 2014 - 5:00 PM
Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee Members:
Councilmember Tony Petros, Chair
Michael Alti
Greg Kline
Lou Cohen
Sean Matsler
John Heffernan
Frank Peters
Robert Kahn
Staff Members:
Brad Sommers, Sr. Civil Engineer (Public Works)
Lt. Jeff Lu (Police)
Fern Nueno, Associate Planner (Community Development)
Consultant:
Paul Martin, Alta Planning + Design
Michelle Lieberman, RBF Consulting
I.CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments are invited on agenda and non-agenda items generally considered to be within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the Committee. Speakers must limit comments to 3 minutes. Before
speaking, we invite, but do not require, you to state your name for the record. The Committee has the
discretion to extend or shorten the speakers' time limit on agenda or non-agenda items, provided the
time limit adjustment is applied equally to all speakers. As a courtesy, please turn cell phones off or set
them in the silent mode.
V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 7, 2014 Meeting Minutes
VI.CURRENT BUSINESS
A.Current Project Update
Staff update on current bicycle facility improvement projects.
B.Draft Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning presentation of the draft Bicycle Master Plan document.
C.Police Department Update
1
Staff update of recent bicycle statistics and enforcement activities.
VII.COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A
FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM)
VIII.DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING
A.Tuesday, September 2
IX.ADJOURNMENT
This Committee is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that the Committee's agenda be posted at
least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of each regular meeting and that the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the
Committee and items not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Committee. The Committee may limit public
comments to a reasonable amount of time, generally three (3) minutes per person.
It is the intention of the City of Newport Beach to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") in all respects. If, as an attendee or
a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City of Newport Beach will attempt to
accommodate you in every reasonable manner. If requested, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons
with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and
regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting to
inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible at (949) 644-3005 or cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov.
2
NEWPORT BEACH
ITEM TITLE: April 7, 2014 Meeting Minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
April 7, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes
3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: April 7, 2014
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Location: Newport Beach Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:04 pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Committee Members Present – Councilman/Chair Tony Petros, Lou Cohen, John Heffernan,
Michael Alti, Greg Kline, Sean Matsler, Frank Peters
Committee Members Absent –Robert Kahn
City Staff – City Manager Dave Kiff, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Associate Planner Fern Nueno,
Lt. Tom Fischbacher, Sergeant Mike Schiavi
Consultant Staff – Alta Planning and Design - Paul Martin, RBF Consulting - Michelle Lieberman
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. John Renfro asked what type of education the City is planning on having for motorists
regarding the “3-foot rule”. Sgt. Mike Schiavi responded the Police Department generally uses
Facebook and Nixel to get messages out. Additionally, officers will educate motorists during traffic
stops.
Committee Member Peters noted that the law is statewide and there will be statewide messaging
associated with it.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Committee Member Matsler noted that Mr. Jim Mosher provided written comments on the
minutes for the March 3, 2014 meeting.
ACTION: Motion by Committee Member Heffernan to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2014
meeting as presented. Motion Seconded by Committee Member Alti. Motion passed (AYEAS – 6,
NAYES – 0, Member Kahn absent).
4
6. CURRENT BUSINESS
A. Newport Bay Conservancy Letter – Back Bay Drive
Committee Member Matsler invited the public to provide comments regarding the letter
submitted by the Newport Bay Conservancy regarding Back Bay Drive.
Mr. Dan Hazard encouraged consideration of all users of Back Bay Drive and is supportive of
suggestion number five in the Newport Bay Conservancy’s letter to create a separate path for
walkers.
Committee Member Matsler noted the Committee will not be making any decisions regarding
changes to Back Bay Drive. He noted the City received emails regarding the topic and the public
can contact Committee Member Matsler or Sr. Civil Engineer Sommers to review the emails.
Committee Member Peters noted he sent an email to Chair Petros suggesting a subcommittee
be created to look at Back Bay Drive and that the subcommittee should be open to the public.
Mr. Jack Keating of the Newport Bay Conservancy expressed his appreciation to the Committee
for addressing the topic. He noted the Conservancy leads a number of tours in the area and he
expressed concerns about safety. He noted his support for creating a subcommittee.
A member of the public asked if there are documented collisions in the area. Mr. Keating
replied that he is aware of people being hit by bicycles, but he does not believe there have been
any serious injuries. He feels that enforcing the existing rules may be a solution.
Chair Petros asked if there was a desire from the Committee members to form a subcommittee
knowing Back Bay Drive will be reviewed as part of the Bicycle Master Plan. He also noted that
any recommendations would be taken to the City Council for final direction and approval.
Committee Member Alti noted he would like to hear more public comment on the topic prior to
considering a subcommittee. Committee Member Lou Cohen agreed.
Mr. Paul Deem expressed concern about limiting the bicycle traffic to one direction on Back Bay
Drive.
Mr. Brad Wheeler noted he was involved in an accident caused by having to avoid pedestrians
on the road. He feels that making Back Bay Drive one-way for cyclists is not the solution.
A member of the public noted the different users on Back Bay Drive. He said that the only place
for people to walk is in the bike lane. He feels there is an increase in group cycling and Back Bay
Drive is not an appropriate place for cyclists to train.
5
Mr. Allan Crawford expressed concerns about restricting cycling to one direction on Back Bay
Drive. He feels that cyclists would be forced to use Jamboree Road and suggests the City
prohibit cars on Back Bay Drive for certain times. Bus and handicap access could be exceptions.
A member of the public expressed concerns about different types of users sharing the same
space. He commented that restricting cyclists from Back Bay Drive would cause them to use
Jamboree Road, which lacks bike lanes.
A member of the public commented that his children are only able to bike to/from the beach
using Back Bay Drive. He asked that the City not make Back Bay Drive one-way for cyclists.
A member of the public commented that seniors are discouraged from walking when they do
not have a dedicated space to walk.
A member of the public suggested walkers and joggers should be required to stay to one side of
a yellow line. He suggested that the speed limit for cyclists be enforced. He felt making Back
Bay Drive one-way is a bad idea.
Ms. Kelley Gast feels people on Back Bay Drive do not know where they are supposed to be on
the road and suggested a path, similar to one in Long Beach, could be installed with three lanes-
one for pedestrians only and one for bikes in each direction. She commented that speed limits
should be enforced for both motorists and cyclists. She also feels two corners exist where
landscaping limits visibility.
Mr. Jeff Cyr suggested that the City look at bike-friendly areas in Europe as models.
Ms. Carol Barger feels Back Bay Drive is a safe place for children to bicycle and noted it is a place
for families to ride.
A member of the public commented that Back Bay Drive is dark at night and he has seen both
cyclists and pedestrians without lights or reflective clothing.
Ms. Stacy Kline noted Bill Sellin emailed a suggestion to Brad Sommers which included creating
an equitable solution by creating lanes for bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles.
A member of the public expressed concern with people with strollers who do not use the bike
lane. He considers the problem to be between cars and pedestrians.
A member of the public commented that pedestrians walk in the middle of Back Bay Drive and
that he thinks the priority should be for bicycles and cars and noted portions of an existing dirt
walkway that could be used for pedestrians.
6
City Manager Kiff noted the City classified Back Bay Drive as a multiuse trail and does not
prioritize one mode over another. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has contacted the City
with concerns regarding endangered species in this area. He explained that is difficult for the
Police Department to ticket large groups and feels that a design solution may be able to
promote lower speeds.
Chair Petros asked Mr. Martin what review has been completed as part of the master plan
project. Mr. Martin responded there were bike counts conducted at Eastbluff and the Back Bay
Trail. He recalled approximately 700 bicycles on a Saturday in a 3-hour period.
Chair Petros noted the Bicycle Master Plan will include recommendations for the Back Bay Trail
and asked if having a subcommittee focused on the area would help or stymy the preparation of
the Bicycle Master Plan. Mr. Martin responded that the Consultant has been asked by City staff
to look at Back Bay Drive and will provide options for the City to consider.
Chair Petros asked about schedule constraints. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine noted his
concern that a subcommittee could delay the delivery of the project and suggested a term of 30
days or less to review the area and provide recommendations. He noted that City staff has
received comments on the area from the public prior to the Conservancy’s letter.
A member of the public suggested a solution may be increasing public awareness.
A member of the public expressed support for establishing a subcommittee.
Committee Member Cohen commented a separate subcommittee is not necessary since the
Consultant is looking at the area, can present their findings to the Committee, and will provide
the public with an opportunity to comment.
Mr. Martin noted the Bicycle Master Plan draft recommendations include signage and striping
improvements on Back Bay Drive as options for the City to consider and may not be the final
solution.
Committee Member Cohen reiterated that the Committee will not have the final vote, but that
the issue with go to the City Council for a final decision.
Committee Member Alti said he would like to have a short-term subcommittee look at the area
to provide an opportunity to develop creative solutions. He feels that making the road one-way
for cyclists is not the solution.
Committee Member Kline said he would support forming a subcommittee. He would like to
include members of the public including non-cyclists.
7
Chair Petros asked City Manager Kiff if a subcommittee could include outside parties. City
Manager Kiff replied that it could.
Committee Member Peters suggested a subcommittee would provide an opportunity to
increase community involvement in bike safety initiatives. He said he would like to have more
than 30 days to meet and make recommendations. Chair Petros responded that the
subcommittee’s term will be 30 days to ensure it does not impede the consultant’s contract
schedule.
Mr. Heffernan said he would support creating a subcommittee and that he feels the input needs
to be broader than that of the Committee. He agreed 30 days in a reasonable schedule.
Mr. Matsler said he did not feel a subcommittee is needed. He suggested City staff report back
to the Committee with recommendations.
Mr. Heffernan and Mr. Peters will lead the subcommittee and were asked to report back at the
next Committee meeting.
Mr. Kiff noted the meetings will be open to the Public and suggested members of the public add
their information to the sign-in sheet.
ACTION: Motion by Committee Member Peters to create a subcommittee to review Back Bay
Drive consisting of Members John Heffernan and Frank Peters. Motion Seconded by
Committee Member Heffernan. Motion passed (AYES – 4, NAYES – 2 – Members Cohen and
Matsler, Member Kahn absent).
B. Recommendations for Bikeway Programs
Mr. Martin gave a presentation on the draft recommendations regarding the programs related
to Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation.
He summarized the recommendations in each category by implementing timeframes of near-
term, middle-term, and long term.
Committee Member Heffernan commented that safe corridors are needed prior to the
programs in order for people to feel comfortable riding. He suggested the City gain control over
all of Coast Highway in order to make changes. He would like the City’s planning process to
include considerations for bicycles in development projects.
Chair Petros asked who is responsible for providing crossing guards. Mr. Brine responded the
Police Department hires the crossing guards and runs the program. However, the Public Works
Department receives and evaluates the requests for crossing guards. Chair Petros asked that
City staff evaluate the intersection of Irvine and 16th for crossing guards.
8
Chair Petros commented he would like to see bicycle sharing moved up to a near-term
recommendation. He suggested a bike share program could be an asset for tourists and bicycle
commuters.
Committee Member Kline noted that infrastructure such as signage can be education. He
suggested putting messages on the back of existing signs.
Chair Petros commented he would like an evaluation of the Bicycle Master Plan to be added, on
a two or five year review cycle. Committee Member Matsler commented the review/evaluation
of the Bicycle Master Plan should be public.
Public Comment
Mr. Ramon Zavala commented that engineering is not separate from the programmatic side. He
noted the majority of his efforts at UCI are through marketing, education and outreach. He feels
cyclists receive very little education on safe cycling. He said that UCI has done research on bike
share and suggested the City reach out to bike rental shops as they may be opposed. He noted
the sustainability of a bike share program may rely on tourist fees.
A member of the public expressed support for a bike share program. He suggested businesses
may buy in to the program by servicing the bikes or providing the bikes for bike share.
A member of the public would like the focus to be on safe pathways before education. He
commented that there is no bike lane in front of City Hall. Mr. Kiff noted a bike lane will be
installed when the road is repaved in about a month.
Mr. Deem commented that programs like bike counters, bike share and community rides build
awareness and that having more community members involved helps make them more tolerant
of cyclists.
A member of the public commented that May is Bike to Work Month. She also said that safe
routes need to be highly visible in order for people to take them.
Chair Petros suggested the recommendation for Safe Routes to School be moved up to a near-
term recommendation.
Committee Member Matsler suggested the recommendation for bike counters be moved up to
a middle-term recommendation.
Mr. Martin noted the language in the plan may include pursuing grant funding to implement
programs.
Committee Member Kline asked if a recommendation to create a City staff bicycle coordinator
position was included in the plan. Mr. Martin responded he would discuss this with staff, but
would have to consider available resources. Mr. Kiff suggested the Bicycle Master Plan can
9
include the recommendation. Chair Petros commented he would like to include the coordinator
position as a recommendation for City Council to consider.
C. Police Department Update
Sgt. Schiavi provided an update regarding bicycle-involved collisions within the City. He noted
five bicycle-involved incidents in March 2014, resulting in 6 injuries, while there were nine in
March 2013 resulting in ten injuries.
Of the five collisions in March 2014, two were solo bicycle, one was a bicycle versus bicycle, and
two were bicycle versus moving motor vehicle. Of those two bicycle versus a moving motor
vehicle incidents, the actions of the motorists were found to be the primary cause of the
collision.
There have been 20 bicycle-involved collisions with 23 injuries in 2014 to date, while there were
17 collisions with 18 injuries for the same time period in 2013. 25 percent of the 2014 incidents
include a moving motor vehicle, while 65 percent for the same time period in 2013.
Sgt. Schiavi announced that April is Distracted Driver Awareness Month. The Newport Beach
Police Department issued 100 citations in the first six days of the month for distracted driving.
On April 1st, the Police Department gave the “Every Fifteen Minutes” presentation at Corona Del
Mar High School that educates high school drivers of the dangers of drunk driving.
The westbound lanes of Coast Highway will be closed from Fernleaf to MacArthur from 9 am to
9 pm until April 11th. There will be detour signs posted.
Chair Petros asked for the Police Department to report on the effectiveness of the new CAD
RMS system and if it could be linked to education and encouragement.
Committee Member Heffernan expressed his appreciation for the Police Department’s reporting
of collision information to the Committee.
Committee Member Alti asked if the Police Department knew the extent of the injuries for the
two cyclists involved in collisions with cars in March. Sergeant Schiavi responded he did not
have the information available.
Mr. Zavala commented on a recent newspaper article that states the citations that the Glendale
Police Department have been issuing for texting while driving is receiving positive comments.
He also commented that Houston has a “bait rider” program and suggested that the City look at
having a targeted enforcement operation on Coast Highway as part of education for motorists.
A member of the public asked what type of citation was given to the motorist who made a U-
turn in front of the bicycle. Sergeant Schiavi responded the citation was for an unsafe turning
movement.
10
7. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS FOR A FUTURE AGENDA
Committee Member Heffernan asked if private funding could make a specific improvement happen
faster. Mr. Kiff responded the topic could be put on a future agenda.
Chair Petros asked Mr. Martin when the next Committee meeting would be scheduled and
requested that there be discussion on funding opportunities. Mr. Martin responded he would
check on the schedule, but likely in June.
Mr. Martin noted the City would be having two community outreach booths- one on April 27th and
one on May 31st. Chair Petros asked that the dates and information for the outreach booths be put
on the City’s website.
8. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm.
Minutes Approved:
____________________________________________ ___
Chairman / Tony Petros Date
11
NEWPORT BEACH
ITEM TITLE: Draft Bicycle Master Plan
ITEM SUMMARY: Alta Planning presentation of the draft Bicycle Master Plan document.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft Bicycle Master Plan
12
City of Newport Beach
Draft Bicycle Master Plan
PREPARED BY:
Alta Planning + Design, RBF Consulting
PREPARED FOR:
City of Newport Beach
July 2014
13
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
II ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
14
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN III
City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee
Councilmember Tony Petros, Chair
Michael Alti
Lou Cohen
John Heff ernan
Robert Kahn
Greg Kline
Sean Matsler
Frank Peters
City of Newport Beach
Dave Kiff , City Manager
Dave Webb, Public Works Director
Brad Sommers, Project Manager
Fern Nueno, Associate Planner
Lt. Jeff Lu, Newport Beach Police Offi cer
Lt. Tom Fischbacher, Newport Beach Police Offi cer
Alta Planning + Design
Brett Hondorp, Principal
Paul Martin, Project Manager
Ryan Johnson, Planner
Brianne Clohessy, Planner
James Powell, Designer
RBF Consulting
Susan Harden, Vice President
Michelle Lieberman, Senior Associate
Stantec
Rock Miller, Traffi c Engineer
Melissa Dugan, Engineer
15
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
IV ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan ..........................................................................................................1
1.2 Benefi ts of Bicycling ......................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Plan Organization ...........................................................................................................................................2
2 Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions ...................................................................................................3
2.1 Vision ...................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies ...................................................................................................................3
2.3 Existing Plans and Policies ...........................................................................................................................7
3 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................................................................................19
3.1 Setting and Land Use ....................................................................................................................................19
3.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities and Programs .................................................................................................21
3.3 Past Bicycle-Related Projects ......................................................................................................................33
3.4 Pending Bicycle-Related Projects ..............................................................................................................33
4 Needs Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................................34
4.1 Types of Cyclists ...............................................................................................................................................34
4.2 Public Outreach ...............................................................................................................................................35
4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates and Forecasts ..........................................................................................39
4.4 Bicycle Counts ..................................................................................................................................................44
4.5 Bicycle Incident Analysis ..............................................................................................................................47
5 Recommended Bicycle Facilities and Programs ...............................................................................................52
5.1 Planned Bicycle Network Projects ............................................................................................................52
5.2 Bicycle Network Recommendations ........................................................................................................52
5.3 Recommended End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................67
5.4 Wayfi nding and Signage Plan ....................................................................................................................68
5.5 Recommended Programs ............................................................................................................................68
6 Implementation and Funding.................................................................................................................................82
6.1 Bicycle Facility Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................82
6.2 Total Recommended Bicycle Facility Costs ............................................................................................83
6.3 Maintenance Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................................84
6.4 Implementation Strategies .........................................................................................................................84
6.5 Potential Funding Sources ...........................................................................................................................86
6.6 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Compliance..............................................................................86
16
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN V
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions .......................................................................................................3
Table 2-2 Bicycle-Related Policies in the Circulation Element ..............................................................................10
Table 2-3 Bicycle-Related Policies in the Recreation Element ..............................................................................10
Table 2-4 Bicycle-Related Policies in the Natural Resources Element ................................................................11
Table 2-5 Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances .........................................................................................11
Table 2-6 California Green Code Bicycle Parking Requirements .........................................................................18
Table 3-1 Mileage of Existing Bicycle Facilities .........................................................................................................21
Table 3-2 Completed Projects/Actions 2009-2014 ..................................................................................................33
Table 3-3 Scheduled Projects 2014-2015 ...................................................................................................................33
Table 4-1 Model Estimate of Current Walking and Bicycling Trips .....................................................................40
Table 4-2 Current Walking and Bicycling Trip Replacement ................................................................................41
Table 4-3 Benefi ts of Current Bicycling and Walking Trips ....................................................................................42
Table 4-4 Project Area Future Demographics ...........................................................................................................42
Table 4-5 Mode Split Comparison with Neighboring Cities..................................................................................43
Table 4-6 Future (2030) Bicycling and Walking Trips ..............................................................................................43
Table 4-7 Benefi ts of Future Bicycling and Walking Trips ......................................................................................44
Table 4-8 Bicycle Count Locations ...............................................................................................................................45
Table 4-9 Bicycle Count Results ....................................................................................................................................45
Table 4-10 Bicycle Riders Counted by Location ..........................................................................................................46
Table 4-11 Hourly Bicycle Count Results ......................................................................................................................46
Table 4-12 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Year ..............................................................................................................50
Table 4-13 Highest Bicycle-Related Incident Roadways ..........................................................................................50
Table 4-14 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Day of the Week .......................................................................................50
Table 4-15 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Combination of Modes Involved .........................................................50
Table 4-16 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Mode of Party at Fault ............................................................................50
Table 5-1 Programmed Bikeway Projects ..................................................................................................................52
Table 5-2 Planned Bikeway Projects ............................................................................................................................52
Table 5-3 Recommended Bikeway Network Mileage Totals.................................................................................53
Table 5-4 Proposed Class I Multi-Use Paths ...............................................................................................................55
Table 5-5 Proposed/Enhanced Class II Bike Lanes. .............................................................................................56-7
Table 5-6 Proposed/Enhanced Class III Bike Routes ...........................................................................................58-9
Table 5-7 Sidewalks – Bicycle Riding Allowed ..........................................................................................................60
Table 5-8 Proposed Bicycle Boulevards ......................................................................................................................62
Table 5-9 Proposed Spot Improvements - City/OC Parks ......................................................................................64
Table 5-10 Proposed Spot Improvements - Caltrans.................................................................................................65
17
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
VI ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table 5-11 Recommended Programs ............................................................................................................................69
Table 6-1 Tier 1 Projects ...............................................................................................................................................83
Table 6-2 Total Cost of Bicycle Facility Recommendations ...................................................................................83
Table 6-3 Bicycle Facility Costs by Tier ........................................................................................................................84
Table 6-4 Bikeways Maintenance Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................84
Table 6-5 Recommended Measures of Eff ectiveness ....................................................................................85-86
Table A-1 Weekday Bicycle Count Results (Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) ..............123
Table A-2 Weekend Bicycle Count Results (Saturday, October 19, 2013 - 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM) .............123
Table A-3 Weekend Bicycle Count Results (Saturday October 19, 2013 - 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) ...............124
Table A-4 Design Standards for Recommended Sign Types .............................................................................186
Table A-5 CA MUTCD Sign Modifi cations ...............................................................................................................191
Table A-6 Specifi cations for Signage Implementation .......................................................................................191
Table A-7 Key Destinations by Category ...........................................................................................................191-92
Table A-8 Recommended Measures of Eff ectiveness ..........................................................................................192
Table A-9 Ranking Criteria and Weighting ...................................................................................................198-199
Table A-10 Ranking Maximum Score .........................................................................................................................200
Table A-11 Tier 1 Projects (Score of 29-40) ............................................................................................................202-3
Table A-12 Tier 2 Projects (Score of 24-28) ............................................................................................................204-5
Table A-13 Tier 3 Projects (Score of 23 or less) .................................................................................................206-209
Table A-14 Potential Funding Sources .................................................................................................................211-13
Table A-15 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Compliance .....................................................................215-16
Appendices
A Locations Where Bicycle Riders are Permitted on Sidewalks (City Council Resolution 82-148) .....88
B Bicycle Safety Guidelines Brochure .......................................................................................................................93
C Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee 2012 Final Report ....................................................................................96
D Task Force on Cycling Safety Final Report 2010 ............................................................................................103
E Past and Planned Bicycle-Related Projects .....................................................................................................116
F Bicycle Count Tables ................................................................................................................................................122
G Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines ......................................................................................................................125
H Wayfi nding and Signage Plan ..............................................................................................................................184
I Bicycle Facilities Prioritization Methodology .................................................................................................196
J Recommended Bicycle Facilities and Prioritization Rankings ..................................................................201
K Potential Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................................210
L Active Transportation Program (ATP) Compliance Table ...........................................................................214
18
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 1
INTRODUCTION
1 Introduction
The Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan is intended
to guide the development and maintenance of a
comprehensive bicycle network and set of programs
within the City for the next 20 years. This chapter presents
the reasons for creating the Newport Beach Bicycle
Master Plan, how the community has been involved in
the planning process, and the framework for the ensuing
chapters.
1.1 Purpose of the Bicycle Master
Plan
The Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan provides a broad
vision, as well as strategies and actions, to improve
conditions for bicycling throughout the City. As a means
of bettering the bicycling environment, this Plan provides
direction for expanding the existing bikeway network
and connecting gaps within the City and connecting to
adjacent cities. In addition to providing recommendations
for bikeways and support facilities, the Plan off ers
recommendations for education, encouragement,
enforcement, and evaluation programs.
1.2 Benefi ts of Bicycling
Bicycling is a low-cost and healthy transportation
option that provides economic and livability benefi ts to
communities. When residents and visitors bicycle for a
trip, it alleviates congestion, minimizes greenhouse gas
emissions, and helps extend and improve the quality of
people’s lives. Below is a brief overview of the benefi ts of
greater investments in bicycling.
1.2.1 Environmental Benefi ts
Due to emissions from “cold starts” (i.e., when a car
hasn’t been driven in a few hours and the engine is cool),
a one-mile automobile trip emits up to 70 percent as
much pollution as a 10-mile excursion. This means that
when people decide to bicycle or walk even just for
very short trips, they are still signifi cantly reducing their
environmental footprint1. Decreasing greenhouse gas
emissions helps the region meet state legislated targets
set by Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375. From reducing
local levels of harmful pollutants that cause asthma and
other respiratory illnesses to addressing global climate
change, higher rates of bicycling provide tangible,
signifi cant air quality benefi ts.
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (2007). Source Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
2 City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services
3 Cortright, Joe for CEOs for Cities. (2009). Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in US Cities
4 The Clean Air Partnership. (2009). Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business: A Study of Bloor Street in Toronto’s Annex Neighborhood.
5 Flusche, Darren for the League of American Bicyclists. (2009). The Economic Benefi ts of Bicycle Infrastructure Investments.
6 October 27, 1999 issue of the JAMA
Bicycling also does not pollute water as driving an
automobile does. Cars leak oil, petroleum products and
other toxins onto road surfaces that eventually make their
way to storm drains, creeks, and large bodies of water. This
“non-point source” pollution is a major threat to urban
aquatic habits, contaminates drinking water, and can
cause major illness. Some toxins and metals accumulate
in sea life and cause medical problems to people when
eaten. Others cause explosive growth of algae, which
depletes water of oxygen, killing fi sh and aquatic life2.
Every bicycle trip is one less opportunity for these toxins
to enter the environment, which on a large scale can make
the diff erence in the health of local water ways and aquatic
systems.
1.2.2 Economic Benefi ts to Cities
Multiple studies have shown that bikeable neighborhoods
are more livable and attractive, helping increase home
values3 and retain a more talented workforce that
result in higher property tax revenues and business
competitiveness. Similarly, bike lanes can improve retail
business directly by drawing customers and indirectly by
supporting the regional economy. Patrons who bike to
local stores have been found to spend more money when
visiting local businesses than patrons who drive4.
The League of American Bicyclists reports that bicycling
makes up $133 billion of the US economy, funding 1.1
million jobs5. The League also estimates bicycle-related
trips generate another $47 billion in tourism activity.
Many communities have enjoyed a high return on their
investment in bicycling. For example, the Outer Banks of
North Carolina spent $6.7 million to improve local bicycle
facilities, and reaped a reported benefi t of $60 million of
annual economic activity associated with bicycling.
1.2.3 Benefi ts to Households and Individuals
Biking is not just a form of travel; it is an important form of
exercise. Many public health experts associate the rising
and widespread incidence of obesity with automobile-
dominant development patterns and lifestyles that limit
such daily forms of physical activity6. This association
is perhaps most apparent, and acute, with respect to
children and school travel. After decades of declining rates
of walking and biking – from roughly half of all non-high
school students in 1968 to just 14 percent in 2009 – obesity
19
INTRODUCTION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
2 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
among youth has become an epidemic7. In California, one
in three kids age 9-17 are now at risk of becoming or are
already overweight8.
For children, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
recommends 60 minutes of daily aerobic exercise. The
CDC recommends 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous exercise,
in combination with muscle strengthening exercises, for
adults on a weekly basis. For many adults and children,
walking or biking to work or school is a viable – if not the
only – option for achieving these recommended exercise
regimens.
Bicycle infrastructure also provides transportation choices
to those who cannot or do not drive, including people
with disabilities, youth, seniors, and people with limited
incomes. Families that can replace some of their driving
trips with bicycling trips spend a lower proportion of their
income on transportation9, freeing additional income for
local goods and services. For others who do not live within
walking distance of their employment site, or who work
a distance from transit routes, bicycling may provide the
only aff ordable and reliable means of commuting.
1.3 Plan Organization
The Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan is organized into
the following chapters:
•Chapter 2: Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Policy
Actions summarizes existing regional plans and
policies that relate to the bicycle planning eff orts
in the City of Newport Beach.
•Chapter 3: Existing Conditions presents the
existing bicycling facilities and programs within
the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, past
expenditures and planned improvements are
identifi ed.
•Chapter 4: Needs Analysis presents the types of
cyclists discussion, review of public participation,
forecasts the benefi ts of increased bicycle activity
within the community, reviews current bicycling
activity, and incident history. Collectively these
items provide the basis for recommendations
identifi ed this Plan.
•Chapter 5: Recommended Bicycle Facilities
& Programs identifi es the bikeway network
recommendations, and proposed education,
7 United States Department of Transportation, National Household Travel Survey
8 The California Endowment. (No Date). Fighting California’s Childhood Obesity Epidemic. (http://www.calendow.org/article.aspx?id=348)
9 Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2005). Driven to Spend: Pumping Dollars out of Our Households and Communities.
encouragement, evaluation, and enforcement
programs.
•Chapter 6: Implementation & Funding presents
implementation strategies and funding
recommendations included in this Plan.
Photo 1 - Residents riding near Castaways Park
20
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 3
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS
2.1 Vision
The City of Newport Beach has prepared a comprehensive,
citywide Bicycle Master Plan that combines the necessary
elements for the City to plan, design, and construct cycling
improvements; create a comprehensive bicycle network;
and to develop sustainable bicycle-friendly policies,
education and outreach.
2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Policy
Actions
This section outlines the goals, objectives, and policy
actions that support the vision of the Plan and serves to
guide the development of the bicycle network.
In order to conduct a thorough and accurate planning
process, it is important to establish a set of goals,
objectives, and policies that will serve as the basis for
the recommendations in this Plan. Goals, objectives, and
policies guide the way public improvements are made,
where resources are allocated, how programs are operated,
2 Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
Table 2-1 Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions
Goal 1.0: A Bicycle Friendly Newport Beach
Create a bicycle-friendly environment throughout Newport Beach for all types of bicycle riders and all trip
purposes in accordance with the 5 E’s (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation).
Objective 1.1 Expand the existing bicycle network to provide a comprehensive, network of Class I, Class II, and
Class III facilities that increases connectivity between homes, jobs, public transit, and recreational
resources in the Newport Beach.
Policies •Develop an extensive bicycle facility network through the use of standard and
appropriate innovative treatments.
•Plan and install new bicycle lanes on major arterials with suffi cient width.
•Plan and install new bicycle paths along railroad tracks and in utility corridors, and the
extension of existing bicycle paths.
•Plan and install shared lane markings (“sharrows”) and signage on appropriate bicycle
routes where bicycle lane implementation is demonstrated to be infeasible.
•Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent to schools.
•Promote the preservation of bicycle access within all roadway rights-of-way, as well
as the development of innovative, safety-enhanced on-street facilities, such as bicycle
boulevards.
•Encourage reallocation of roadway rights-of-way where appropriate to accommodate
bicycling and bicycle facilities.
•Ensure that all facilities are designed consistently in accordance with the latest Federal,
State, and local standards.
•Provide amenities and enhancements along City bicycle facilities that increase utility
and enjoyment for the individual rider.
and City priorities are determined. The goals, objectives,
and policies in this Plan are derived from information
gathered over the course of the planning process,
including community input from public workshops, as well
as a review of bicycle master plans from other cities.
Goals are broad statements that express general public
priorities. Goals are formulated based on the identifi cation
of key issues, opportunities, and problems that aff ect the
bikeway system.
Objectives are more specifi c than goals and are usually
attainable through strategic planning and implementation
activities. Implementation of an objective contributes to the
fulfi llment of a goal.
Policies are rules and courses of action used to ensure plan
implementation. Policies often accomplish a number of
objectives.
Table 2-1 outlines the goals, objectives, and policy actions
of the Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan.
21
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
4 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
•Support bicycle improvement projects that close gaps in the regional bicycle network
either by implementing specifi c projects recommended in the Plan or through other
treatments.
•Encourage bicycle projects that connect local facilities to the bicycle corridors.
•Work cooperatively with adjoining jurisdictions to coordinate bicycle planning and
implementation activities.
•Promote consistent signage that directs bicyclists to neighborhood destinations and
increases the visibility of the regional bicycle network.
•Pursue diverse sources of funding and support eff orts to maintain or increase federal,
state and local funding for the implementation of Bicycle Master Plan programs and
infrastructures.
•Ensure that detours through or around construction zones are designed safely and
conveniently, and are accompanied with adequate signage for cyclists and motorists.
•Coordinate and communicate with aff ected jurisdictions and agencies regarding bicycle
facilities planning and implementation, including Caltrans facilities through the City of
Newport Beach.
Objective 1.2 Support bicycle-transit integration to improve access to major employment and other activity
centers and to encourage multimodal travel for longer trip distances.
Policies •Coordinate with transit providers to ensure bicycles can be accommodated on all
forms of transit vehicles and that adequate space is devoted to their storage on board
whenever possible.
•Coordinate with transit agencies to install and maintain convenient and secure short-
term and long-term bike parking facilities – racks, on-demand bike lockers, in-station
bike storage, and staff ed bicycle parking facilities – at transit stops, stations, and
terminals.
•Encourage the installation of regional on-demand bike lockers that are accessible using
a fare payment card that allows users to access a variety of transit modes administered
by multiple agencies.
•Encourage bicycle-friendly development activity and support facilities, such as bicycle
rental and repair, around transit stations.
•Provide current and relevant information to bicyclists regarding bike parking
opportunities located at transit stations through a variety of formats, such on City
websites and regional bike maps.
•Provide guidelines regarding bicycle accessibility on transit and widely distribute and
publicize these guidelines.
•Work with transit operators to develop, implement, maintain, expand, and enforce
improved intermodal bicycle access.
•Allow cyclists with disabled bicycles (due to mechanical failure or incident) to bring
them on transit vehicles, interior space permitting and at the vehicle operator’s
discretion, when the vehicle either does not have bicycle racks or have racks that are full.
Objective 1.3 Encourage the use of bicycles for everyday transportation by ensuring the provision of
convenient and secure bicycle parking and support facilities region-wide and promote facilities
to the public.
Policies •Install and support short-term, long-term, and high capacity bicycle parking within the
public right-of-way and on public property, especially in high demand locations, such as
near commercial centers.
•Encourage the installation of additional bicycle parking at public schools and colleges.
Table 2-1 Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions (continued)
22
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 5
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS
Policies
(continued)
•Encourage property owners to install bicycle parking facilities on private property.
•Provide bicycle parking that is sheltered from inclement weather.
•Prepare recommended bicycle parking standards that provide context sensitive
solutions for the location and number of spaces that should be provided.
•Develop additional guidelines for placement and design of bicycle parking within City
rights-of-way.
•Adopt bicycle parking ordinances or modify existing sections of the municipal code
to encourage bicycle-parking in each individual building of large, multiple-building
developments.
•Create policies or programs that incentivize building owners and employers to
provide showers and clothing lockers along with secure bike parking in areas where
employment density warrants.
•Provide current and relevant information to cyclists regarding bike parking
opportunities throughout the city through a variety of formats.
•Consider the installation of bike stations and attended bicycle parking facilities at major
events and destinations.
•Consider a bike sharing program with distribution stations located in major employment
and other activity centers throughout the region.
Goal 2.0: A Safe Bicycling Environment
Create a safe bicycling environment in Newport Beach through comprehensive education of cyclists,
pedestrians, motorists, and professionals whose work impacts the roadway environment, enforcement of
traffi c laws to reduce bicycle related confl icts, and maintenance of bicycle facilities.
Objective 2.1 Increase education of bicycle safety through programs and trainings of the general public and
City employees.
Policies •Create, fund, and implement bicycle-safety curricula and provide to the general public
and targeted populations, including tourists, diverse age, income, and ethnic groups.
•Provide bicycle-safety information in languages that are widely used in Newport Beach.
•Partner with neighboring jurisdictions to distribute bicycle-safety education materials.
•Encourage schools to develop and provide bicycle-safety curricula for use in elementary,
middle, and high schools.
•Support programs that educate professional and non-professional motorists, bicyclists,
and the general public about bicycle operation, bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities,
and lawful interactions between motorists and cyclists.
•Develop bicycle-safety classes for City employees and Caltrans staff working regularly
within City.
•Support marketing and public awareness campaigns aimed at improving safety.
•Provide a user education program developed and promoted to encourage proper trail
use and etiquette.
Objective 2.2 Continue enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths and roadways.
Policies •Continue enforcement of unsafe bicyclist and motorist behaviors and laws that reduce
bicycle/motor vehicle incidents and confl icts.
•Continue enforcement on shared-use and bicycle paths.
•Continue bicycle-mounted patrol offi cers.
•Promote effi cient mechanisms for reporting behaviors that endanger cyclists.
•Continue bicycle theft investigation as a high priority.
Table 2-1 Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions (continued)
23
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
6 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Objective 2.3 Maintain bicycle facilities that are clear of debris and provide safe riding conditions.
Policies •Establish routine maintenance schedule/standards for bicycle facilities for sweeping,
litter removal, landscaping, repainting of striping, signage, and signal actuation devices.
•Plan for cyclist safety during construction and maintenance activities.
•Encourage and empower citizens to report maintenance issues that impact bicyclist
safety.
•Establish a routine maintenance program which responds to both citizen and city
employee reports.
Goal 3.0: A Culture of Bicycling
Develop a region-wide infrastructure and institutional culture that respects and accommodates all users of the
road, leading to a more balanced transportation system.
Objective 3.1 Integrate consideration of bicycle travel into all roadway planning, design, and construction.
Policies •Incorporate the Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan in whole by reference into the City’s
General Plan and amend sections of the General Plan that are relevant to bicycling
according to the goals of this Plan.
•Ensure that all current and proposed Area Plans’ objectives and policies are consistent
with the goals of the Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan.
•Support the incorporation of bicycle facilities into other capital improvement projects,
where appropriate, to ensure maximum leveraging of funds from outside sources.
•Improve the safety of all road users through the implementation of neighborhood traffi c
calming treatments region-wide.
Objective 3.2 Foster community support for bicycling by raising public awareness about bicycling and
supporting programs that encourage more people to bicycle.
Policies •Support marketing and public awareness campaigns through a variety of media aimed
at promoting bicycling as a safe, healthy, cost-eff ective, environmentally benefi cial
transportation choice.
•Support programs aimed at increasing bicycle trips by providing incentives, recognition,
or services that make bicycling a more convenient transportation mode.
•Promote bicycling at City-sponsored and public events, such as Earth Day, Bike to Work
Day/Month, farmer’s markets, public health fairs, art walks, craft fairs, civic events.
•Apply for the designation of “Bicycle Friendly Community” through the League of
American Bicyclists.
•Expand bicycle promotion and incentive programs for City employees to serve as a
model program for other Newport Beach employers.
•Encourage and promote bicycle related businesses within Newport Beach.
Objective 3.3 Continuously monitor and evaluate Newport Beach’s implementation progress of Bicycle Master
Plan policies, programs, and projects.
Policies •Establish a monitoring program or database to measure the eff ectiveness and benefi ts
of the Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan.
Policies
(continued)
•Track citywide trends in bicycle commuting through the use of Census data, travel
surveys, and bicycle counts.
•Establish a staff bicycle coordinator position.
•Ensure that Bicycle Master Plan programs and projects are implemented in an equitable
manner, geographically and socioeconomically.
•Regularly monitor bicycle safety and seek a continuous reduction in bicycle-related
incidents.
Table 2-1 Goals, Objectives, and Policy Actions (continued)
24
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 7
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONSCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
2.3 Existing Plans and Policies
This chapter presents existing plans and policies relevant
to the Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan. It is organized
by City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and other
plans and policies.
2.3.1 City of Newport Beach
2.3.1.1 General Plan (2006)
The Newport Beach General Plan is the fi rst
comprehensive revision of the City’s General Plan in more
than thirty years. The General Plan is meant to guide
the City toward achieving what the community wants
Newport Beach to be now and in 2025. There are four
Elements in the General Plan that provide guidance on
bicycle planning in the City. These include the Circulation,
Recreation, Natural Resources, and Land Use Elements.
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element states that it aims to be an
Element that is friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. The
Element includes the City’s existing Bikeways Master
Plan, which consists of a map of existing and proposed
bicycle facilities, as shown in Figure 2-1, and the following
defi nitions of Bicycle Trails:
•Bicycle Lane: A lane in the street, either the
parking lane or a separate lane, designated for
the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles.
Through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians
is not allowed, vehicle parking may or may not be
allowed. Cross fl ow by motorists to gain access
to driveways and parking facilities is allowed.
Separation from the motor vehicle travel way is
normally by a painted solid stripe. Bicycle lanes
and bicycle routes together are also known as
Class III bicycle trails.
•Bicycle Route: A shared right-of-way for bicycle
operation, whether or not it is specifi ed by signs
or markings. All main streets and highways by
authority of the California Vehicle Code include
bicycle routes as defi ned herein. Bicycle lanes and
bicycle routes together are also known as Class 3
bicycle trails.
•Bicycle Trail: A pathway designated for the use of
bicycles which is physically separated from motor
vehicle traffi c. Pedestrian traffi c may or may not
be excluded. Bicycle trails are also known as Class
1 bicycle trails.
•Backbone Bikeway: Backbone bikeways are
major through bikeways, as shown on the Master
Plan of Bikeways. They are primarily on major
roads. Backbone bikeways may connect to
regional trails, as shown in the Master Plan.
•Secondary Bikeway: Secondary bikeways
connect to backbone trails and serve cyclists and
children riding to and from school. Secondary
bikeways may also be a bicycle lane, route, or trail.
General Plan
City of
Adopted July25, 2006
Newport Beach General Plan,
Adopted July 25, 2006
25
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
8 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
CI
T
Y
o
f
N
E
W
P
O
R
T
B
E
A
C
H
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
1
0
5
7
9
-
0
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
Urb
a
n
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
.
N 00
.51
Mil
e
s
Da
t
e
:
0
3
/
2
0
/
0
6
Fig
u
r
e
C
E
4
BI
K
E
W
A
Y
S
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
Le
g
e
n
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
26
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 9
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS
The Bikeways Master Plan map identifi es four of the
six types of bikeways existing in Newport Beach:
Bicycle paths (Class I Bikeways), bicycle lanes (Class
II Bikeways), bicycle routes (Class III Bikeways), and
bicycle trails (Class IV Bikeways). Class I, II, and III
Bikeways are Caltrans defi nitions to describe the
varying levels of separation of bicycle facilities from
motor vehicles. Class IV is not a Caltrans term; the
City uses it to describe separated unpaved trails
designated for the use of bicyclists and pedestrians.
In addition to the types of facilities listed above, the
City has designated off road facilities in the form of
sidewalk bikeways, which provide improved bike
safety for recreational riders and children within high
use corridors in the vicinity of schools, beaches, and
residential neighborhoods.
The Circulation Element includes a discussion of the
types of bicyclists using the aforementioned facilities.
It states:
The needs of bicyclists will vary with the function
of the trip and the speed and skill level of the rider.
Those residents who use bicycles daily for their
primary means of transportation are concerned
with utilizing the most convenient and direct
route available to reach their destination. These
bicyclists normally will select a route along a
primary or a major highway. In contrast, the
recreational rider might choose a route for
its scenic interest such as a ride on a bike trail
separated from vehicular traffi c. Thus, it is
necessary to provide bicycle facilities for bicyclists
along major transportation corridors as well as
residential and scenic areas. It is also necessary
to provide bicycle facilities which separate
faster cyclists from pedestrian travel and slower
cyclists, integrating bicycle travel more closely
with vehicular traffi c, and bicycle facilities which
separate slower cyclists from motor vehicle traffi c.
Table 2-2 displays policies in the Circulation Element
that relate to bicycling in Newport Beach.
Photo 2 - Public enjoyment of Upper Newport Harbor
Photo 3 - Upper Newport Harbor trailhead at
Constellation Drive
27
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
10 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Policy Text
R1.4 Density Bonuses Consider development of incentives such as density bonuses for private commercial,
offi ce, and other developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts,
pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails.
R 3.3 Facility Design Design guardrails on parks, piers, trails, and public viewing areas to take into
consideration the views at the eye level of persons in wheelchairs.
R9.1 Provision of Public
Coastal Access
Provide adequate public access to the shoreline, beach, coastal parks, trails, and bay,
acquiring additional public access points to these areas and provide parking, where
possible.
Table 2-3 Bicycle-Related Policies in the Recreation Element
Policy Text
CE 5.1.3 Pedestrian
Improvements in New
Development Projects
Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks,
walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails.
CE 5.1.5 Bikeway System Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate bikeways
and trails throughout the region.
CE 5.1.6 Bicycle Supporting
Facilities
Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new streets and
highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads.
CE 5.1.7 Bicycle Safety Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current
national standards and uniform practices.
CE 5.1.8 Bicycle Confl icts with
Vehicles and Pedestrians
Minimize confl ict points among motorized traffi c, pedestrians, and bicycle traffi c.
CE 5.1.9 Integrated Bicycle
Improvements
Coordinate community bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a citywide network for
continuity of travel.
CE 5.1.10 Bicycle Trail Signage Develop and implement a uniform signing program to assist the public in locating,
recognizing, and utilizing public bikeways and trails.
CE 5.1.11 School Access Work with schools to promote walking, biking, safe drop-off , and other
improvements.
CE 5.1.14 Newport Harbor Trails
and Walkways
Develop and implement a long-range plan for public trails and walkways to access
all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor, as determined to be physically and
economically feasible.
CE 5.1.16 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Safety
Provide for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians through provision of adequate
facilities, including maintenance of extra sidewalk width where feasible.
CE 6.2.1 Alternative
Transportation Modes
Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as
ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide
facilities that support such alternate modes.
CE6.2.2 Support Facilities for
Alternative Modes
Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with
development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential
parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas,
rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop
improvements.
Table 2-2 Bicycle-Related Policies in the Circulation Element
Recreation Element
The Recreation Element highlights that bikeways are
available in Newport Beach for recreation in addition to
transportation. For example, bicyclists use the unpaved
trails at Crystal Cove State Park. Table 2-3 identifi es
policies in the Recreation Element that relate to trails,
which can accommodate bicyclists and thus are relevant to
this Bicycle Master Plan.
28
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 11
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS
Policy Text
NR 6.4 Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance
Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which
promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and
provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes.
NR 6.5 Local Transit Agency
Collaboration
Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate
employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit
mechanisms for the reduction of work-related and non-work-related vehicle trips;
promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways,
origins and destinations, and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle
lanes, and other bicycle facilities.
Table 2-4 Bicycle-Related Policies in the Natural Resources Element
Natural Resources Element
The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element
is to provide direction regarding the conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources. Because
bicycle infrastructure can reduce the need for paved
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element does not specifi cally identify
linkages between land use planning and bicycle
transportation planning, but includes policies that
impact bicycle planning. There are many references in
the Element to creating walkable neighborhoods with
buff ers between the sidewalk and street, which can be
Table 2-5 Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances
Section Regulation
Chapter 11.04: Parks, park facilities, and beaches
11.04.090 Abandoned
Bicycle.
Any bicycle that is attached or fastened to any City property, including a bicycle rack,
or left in a park, park facility, on a beach, or oceanfront boardwalk for a period of
forty-eight (48) hours or longer shall be deemed abandoned property and may be
impounded by the City. Any bicycle which has been impounded by the City and held
for ninety (90) days without redemption by or on behalf of the lawful owner thereof
shall, if saleable, be sold at such time and place and in such a manner as required by
Civil Code Section 2080 et seq.
Chapter 12.16: Enforcement and obedience
12.16.070 Bicycles and
Animals.
Every person riding a bicycle or riding or driving an animal upon a highway shall be
granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver
of a vehicle by this title except those provisions which by their very nature can have no
application.
Chapter 12.32: Restricted use of certain streets
12.32.060 Pedestrians and
Bicycles Exempted.
The provisions of Sections 12.32.0201 and 12.32.0302 shall not apply to pedestrians
or to persons riding bicycles and shall not be used for the purpose of restricting or
impairing access to Balboa Island by pedestrians or such persons.
12.32.095 Balboa Peninsula
Traffi c Access—Exemptions.
The provisions of Section 12.32.090 shall not apply to pedestrians or to persons riding
bicycles and shall not be used for the purpose of restricting or impairing access to
Balboa Peninsula by pedestrians or bicyclists.
1Commercial Vehicles Prohibited From Using Certain Streets—Signposting.
2Exceptions to Balboa Island Restrictions
roadway space, bicycling is included in this Element
as a means of preserving natural resources. Table 2-4
identifi es policies that reference bicycling in the Natural
Resources Element.
accomplished through separated bicycle facilities and bike
parking.
2.3.1.2 Municipal Code
This section presents sections in the Newport Beach
Municipal Code that are relevant to bicycling. Relevant
ordinances are shown in Table 2-5.
29
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
12 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Section Regulation
Chapter 12.56: Bicycles - Registration and regulations
12.56.025 Voluntary
Licensing.
A. Any person who is a resident of the City may apply to the Police Department for a
bicycle license.
B. Fees for bicycle license issuance or renewal, shall be established by resolution
of the City Council. Fees shall be waived for all individuals who obtain a bicycle
license or renewal at a City sponsored bicycle safety program.
12.56.030 Operating Bicycle
on Sidewalk.
C. Prohibition. No person shall operate or ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk in the City.
D. Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
1. Sidewalks on which bicycles are permitted pursuant to a resolution adopted
by the City Council;
2. Tricycles which measure less than one of the following:
a. Eighteen (18) inches from ground level to the neck joint,
b. Twenty-four (24) inches in width measured from the outer rear wheels,
c. Eighteen (18) inches in front tire diameter, or
d. Twelve (12) inches in rear tire diameter.
3. To a bicycle operated by any peace offi cer employed by the City of Newport
Beach and acting within the course and scope of his or her employment.
12.56.040 Operating a
Surrey Cycle or Pedicab.
A. No person shall operate or ride a surrey cycle or pedicab upon any sidewalk,
boardwalk or any public pier in the City.
B. Any person who operates a surrey cycle or pedicab rental service, shop or facility
must inform each person who rents a surrey cycle or pedicab at the time of the
rental, in writing, of the restrictions contained in this section. Each rental surrey
cycle or pedicab shall be posted to clearly inform each rider of the particular areas
in the City where surrey cycles and pedicabs are prohibited.
C. Any person who operates a surrey cycle or pedicab rental service, shop or facility,
shall affi x to each rented surrey cycle or pedicab, a fl ag of suffi cient size and color
to increase visibility of the surrey cycle or pedicab. The fl ag, which shall be of
international orange or similar color, and of suffi cient size to enhance the visibility
of the surrey cycle or pedicab, shall be affi xed so that it reaches three feet above
the highest portion of the surrey cycle or pedicab.
12.56.050 Designation of
Bicycle Lanes.
The specifi ed portions of the following streets are designated as bicycle lanes and
shall be marked and signed in an appropriate manner.
•Southerly side of Cliff Drive from Kings Place to Dover Drive.
•Southerly side of Riverside Avenue—Cliff Drive from Coast Highway to El
Modena Avenue.
•Westerly side of Eastbluff Drive from Back Bay Drive to two hundred (200) feet
northerly of Mar Vista Drive.
•Southerly side of Vista del Sol from Vista del Oro to Eastbluff Drive.
12.56.060 Obedience to
Signs.
When signs are erected on any street or sidewalk giving notice that a portion of that
street or sidewalk has been designated as a bicycle lane, no person shall drive, park,
or operate any vehicle or any bicycle or other wheeled device or conveyance in any
manner contrary to the directions posted on such signs.
12.56.070 Placement of
Appropriate Signs.
Whenever this Code or any ordinance or resolution of the City designates any portion
of a street or sidewalk as a bicycle lane, the City Traffi c Engineer shall place and
maintain signs giving notice thereof, and no such regulation shall be eff ective unless
such signs are in place.
Table 2-5 Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances
30
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 13
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS
Section Regulation
12.56.080 Motorized
Bicycles.
The licensing requirements of this chapter are applicable to motorized bicycles as that
term is defi ned by the California Vehicle Code.
Chapter 13.18: Use of public sidewalks for outdoor dining
13.18.025 Outdoor Dining
Prohibited on Joint Bicycle/
Pedestrian Sidewalks.
Outdoor dining shall be prohibited on sidewalks designated by City Council resolution
for joint bicycle/pedestrian use.
Chapter 20.44: Transportation demand management requirements
20.44.010 Purpose.The purpose of this chapter is to implement the requirements of Orange County’s
Congestion Management Program. The requirements of this chapter are intended to:
B. Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, including
ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public bus and rail transit, bicycles and walking, as
well as those facilities that support the use of these modes;
20.44.030 Transportation
Demand Management
Program.
A. Program Preparation. Applicants for projects covered by this chapter shall prepare
a transportation demand management program applicable to the proposed project
that will:
2. Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes (e.g.,
ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking);
20.44.050 Site Development
Requirements.
Projects subject to the requirements of this chapter shall be subject to the following
site development requirements. Required improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the review authority concurrent with other project approvals.
B. Bicycle Racks/Lockers. Bicycle lockers or bicycle racks, as determined by the review
authority, shall be provided for use by employees or tenants. A minimum of two
lockers per one hundred (100) employees shall be provided. Lockers may be located in
a required parking space.
The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
(NBR-PC) is a 401-acre site located north of West Coast
Highway, south of 19th Street, and east of the Santa
Ana River. The Banning Ranch Development Plan
establishes appropriate zoning and regulates land use
and development consistent with the General Plan for the
41 acres of the site located within the City. The Banning
Ranch Development Plan of the NBR-PC establishes
land use district designations for open space, park and
recreation, visitor-serving resort, residential, commercial,
and mixed-use residential/commercial uses for the Project
site. The Banning Ranch Development Plan also includes a
circulation plan and infrastructure facilities to serve future
development.
The Bluff Park District (BP) includes 20.9 gross acres to
serve as a passive recreational area that allows footpaths,
view overlooks, picnic and information gathering areas,
a bluff -top trail, and access to a pedestrian and bicycle
bridge over the West Coast Highway. The bridge will cross
the highway from the south-western edge of the Resort
Colony to West Newport Park.
The Banning Ranch Development Plan includes a network
of new public roadways that provide access from West
Coast Highway, 15th Street, 16th Street, 17th Street,
and 19th Street. Traffi c calming design features are
recommended for local roads within the NBR-PC. Figure
2-2 illustrates the Banning Ranch trails plan.
Several of the Districts’ regulations include bicycle parking
requirements. Within the Visitor-Serving Resort/Residential
(VSR/R) Districts, bike racks must be provided at a
minimum ratio of one bicycle space per 2,500 gross square
feet of commercial area. In Residential Development
Districts, a minimum of one bicycle space per ten dwelling
units must be provided within multi-family residential
projects. At Homeowner Association (HOA) recreation
facilities, bicycle racks must be provided as determined at
the time of Site Development Review for the facility, and
no less than 10 lockable spaces must be provided.
Table 2-5 Bicycle-Related Municipal Code Ordinances
2.3.1.3 Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan (2011)
31
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
14 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
S A
N
T
A
A
N
A
R
I
V
E
R
ACOEWetlandsRestorationArea
18th Street
Wh
i
t
t
i
e
r
A
v
e
.
Mo
n
r
o
v
i
a
A
v
e
.
17th Street
Newhall Street
16th Street
15th Street
19th StreetBa
l
b
o
a
Str
e
e
t
West
Coa
s
t
Hig
h
w
a
y
S
e
m
e
n
i
u
k
Sl
o
u
g
h
Sunset RidgePark
Ro
a
d
B
l
u
f
f
NMUSD
Bluff R o a d
N
o
r
t
h
B
l
u
ff
R
o
a
d
N
o
r
t
h
CityUtilitiesYard
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
Talbert Trailhead
Upland Interpretive Trail
Bluff Park Trail
Lowland Interpretive Trail
To Talbert and FairviewNature Preserves
To WestCoastHighwayandBeach
Bluff Toe Trail
Large Arroyo Trail
Proposed Pedestrian/BicycleBridge over West Coast Highway
Multi-use Trail
'I' Stree
t
'F' Stree
t
'J'
S
t
r
e
e
t
'K'
S
t
r
e
e
t
'L'
S
t
r
e
e
t
'H' Stre
e
t
'G' Str
e
e
t
Scenic D
r
i
v
e
'D' S
t
r
e
e
t
Resort Col
o
n
y
R
o
a
d
Minor Arroyo
Upland Open Space Preserve
Northern Arroyo
Nature Center
Vernal Pool Interpretive Area
Central Community Park
South Community Park
LowlandOpen Space Preserve
Southern Arroyo
20± ParkingSpaces
160± ParkingSpaces
20± ProposedJoint-UseParking Spaces
4± ParkingSpaces
10± ParkingSpaces
240± Scenic DriveParking Spaces(120± Park Side,120± Village Side)
NorthCommunityPark
Exhibit 4-1
Master Trails and Coastal Access Plan
0 600 1,200
LEGEND
07 • 13 • 2011
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANCity of Newport Beach - California
EXISTING CONNECTIONS
DUAL-USE CONNECTIONS
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
PROPOSED BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
Project Site Boundary
kj Vista Points
Existing Trail
Multi-use Trail (1.9 miles)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over West Coast Highway
Bluff Park Pedestrian Trail (1.4 miles)
Bluff Toe Trail (0.4 miles)
Southern Arroyo Multi-use Trail (0.3 miles)
Upland Interpretive Multi-use Trail (0.8 miles)
Lowland Interpretive Multi-use Trail (2.0 miles)
Vernal Pool Elevated Walk (0.2 miles)
4'-6' Sidewalk (5.1 miles)
8' Sidewalk (0.7 miles)
Pedestrian Paseo (0.4 miles)
Bike Lane (3.4 miles)
Bluff Park (Minor trails not shown)
Multi-Use Bluff Park Trail (0.6 miles)
Public Parking
S:\clients\brooks_street_1729\1729001\08_gis\products\master_site_plan\mxds\ch4\mobility_11x17_110713.mxd
Figure 2-2 Newport Banning Ranch Proposed Bicycle Facilities
32
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 15
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS
2.3.2 County of Orange
2.3.2.1 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic
Plan (2009)
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
developed the Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP),
which outlines OCTA’s roles in bikeways planning. These
include:
•Suggesting regional priorities for optimal use by
local jurisdictions
•Assisting in coordinating plans between
jurisdictions
•Providing planning and design guidelines; and
•Participating in outreach eff orts to encourage
bicycle commuting
There is a chapter discussing each City’s bikeway planning
and bicycling conditions. Existing and proposed bikeways
in Newport Beach are shown in Figure 2-3.
2.3.2.2 OCTA Districts 1 and 2 Bikeways
Strategy (2013)
The Regional Bikeways Planning eff ort led by the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) plans to expand
upon the 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategy Report
to identify potential regional bikeway improvements in
Supervisorial Districts 1 and 2 (which include Newport
Beach). While this planning process has been initiated and
coordinated by OCTA, local jurisdictions will bring projects
from concept to construction.
Phase 1 of the eff ort is the Bikeways Strategy. The Strategy
identifi es regional bikeway corridors that connect to
major activity centers including employment areas,
transit stations, colleges and universities. The regional
bikeway corridors have been identifi ed based on
consensus-building and facilitation eff orts. In Phase 2,
feasibility studies will be developed to provide design
recommendations to the local jurisdictions.
The Strategy aims to enhance community interaction and
provide increased travel choices for a variety of residents
within northwestern Orange County. The integrated
planning eff ort establishes routes for focused attention to
improve bikeways for cyclists of all skill levels, coordinate
cross-jurisdictional eff orts, and serve major destinations
and employment centers. The coordinated eff orts by
OCTA and member agencies can result in improved
bicyclist safety, reduced automobile trips, reduced fuel
consumption and air emissions, and improved community
health outcomes.
A total of eleven regional bikeway corridors are proposed,
three of which are partially within Newport Beach. The
corridors include key connections to existing regional
bikeway routes, as well as to major destinations within the
districts. The corridors in Newport Beach are discussed
below and shown in Figure 2-4.
Corridor B: Bristol-Bear
This primarily north-south corridor runs from the Santiago
Creek Trail in the north to the Upper Newport Bay trail
system in Newport Beach. The corridor would utilize
Bear Street to cross over the I-405 freeway and under the
SR-73 freeway and Bristol Street to cross under the SR-55
freeway. The Bristol-Bear corridor would link with the PE
ROW and Slater-Segerstrom corridors.
The Bristol-Bear corridor is 12.2 miles long, with 2.8 miles
of the route already possessing bikeway facilities of some
type. The corridor will provide access to the Santiago
Creek Trail and the Newport Back Bay trails.
Corridor C: Pacifi c Coast Highway
The Pacifi c Coast Highway (PCH) corridor runs primarily
along State Route 1 from Seal Beach to Newport Beach.
PCH within the Strategy study area is primarily within
the State of California’s jurisdiction and is operated/
maintained by Caltrans, except for the section between
Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive in the City of
Newport Beach. The proposed corridor would both create
many miles of new bikeways and enhance existing Class
II on-street facilities. Major destinations along the PCH
corridor include the Newport Beach Peninsula, Upper
Newport Bay, and beaches and coastal parks.
Corridor K: Indianapolis-Fairview
This corridor forms a loop that connects to the PCH
corridor in downtown Huntington Beach and Newport
Beach at Back Bay, while also crossing near recreational
and civic uses in Costa Mesa. The Indianapolis-Fairview
corridor provides an inland bicycle route for the coastal
cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Newport
Beach, better serving residential neighborhoods. The
corridor serves Upper Newport Bay, Newport Harbor High
School, and PCH.
33
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
16 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
OC
T
A
C
B
S
P
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
i
n
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
34
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 17
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
OC
T
A
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
1
a
n
d
2
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
35
VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICY ACTIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
18 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
The LRTP highlight’s OCTA’s role in the CBSP, stating OCTA
will continue to support bicycle commuting by providing
amenities on buses (e.g. racks) and encouraging cities and
the County to adopt policies that promote investment in
bicycle amenities, increases in bicycle infrastructure, and
promotion of programs that encourage or incentivize
bicycle travel. OCTA will also encourage multi-modal
transportation hubs, including bicycle parking and rental
onsite. The LRTP is currently being updated by OCTA.
2.3.3 Other Plans and Policies
2.3.3.1 California Green Code (2011)
The California Green Code includes standards for bicycle
parking requirements for new development. The California
Green Code requirements are presented in Table 2-6.
2.3.2.3 Destination 2035: Long Range
Transportation Plan (2010)
The 2010 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is
OCTA’s vision of how people, goods, and services will use
the transportation system for work, commerce, school,
and recreational travel. Goals and objectives have been
developed that address travel needs and challenges
associated with providing a balanced transportation
system that meets the future needs of the residents,
workers, and visitors. The three overarching goals
identifi ed in the LRTP include:
•Expand Transportation System Choices
•Improve Transportation System Performance
•Ensure Sustainability
The LRTP recommends providing funding for local
jurisdictions to implement and expand bicycle facilities
and infrastructure as a means of transportation demand
management, noting one of its achievements is planning
to increase bicycle facility miles to over 75 percent above
2008 levels. OCTA’s ongoing role in regional bikeways
planning includes the following:
•Promoting the consideration of bicyclists
within environmental and planning documents
prepared by local agencies
•Maintaining the countywide bicycle
transportation plan
•Encouraging local agencies coordinate their
bikeways planning eff orts with the CBSP
•Working with local agencies to submit projects
for state, federal and local funding opportunities
as these become available
Table 2-6 California Green Code Bicycle Parking Requirements
Category Description
Bicycle Parking and
Changing Rooms
Comply with sections 5.106.4.1 and 5.106.4.2; or meet local ordinance or the University of
California Policy on Sustainable Practices, whichever is stricter.
Short-Term Bicycle
Parking
If the project is expected to generate visitor traffi c, provide permanently anchored bicycle
racks within 100 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of
visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack.
Long-Term Bicycle
Parking
For buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent
of motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space. Acceptable parking
facilities shall be convenient from the street and may include:
•Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles
•Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks
•Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers
Photo 4 - The new Civic Center was constructed consistent
with the California Green Code and attained a
LEED Gold rating.
36
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 19
EXISTING CONDITIONS
3 Existing Conditions
3.1 Setting and Land Use
3.1.1 Setting
The City of Newport Beach is located on the coast of
Orange County. It is bordered by Costa Mesa, Irvine,
Huntington Beach, and Laguna Beach. The city has an
estimated population of 84,4171 people. The purpose
of this chapter is to identify the existing bicycling
conditions in Newport Beach.
3.1.2 Land Use
Figure 3-1 presents Newport Beach’s land use
map. Single family residential homes account for
approximately 34 percent of the city’s land area while
eight percent is occupied by multi-family buildings.
Parks, open space, and recreational facilities account
for approximately nine percent of land. Commercial
and offi ce land uses both account for approximately
four percent of the city. This land use pattern makes
Newport Beach a place where people can both live
and work. In addition to accommodating residents,
the vast amount of commercial designations, parks,
open space, and recreational facilities make the city a
tourist destination
Photo 5 - Crystal Cove State Park
Photo 6 - Corona Del Mar Christmas Walk Photo 7 - Fashion Island is a regional shopping center,
attracting visitors from outside of the city.
1 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates
37
EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
20 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
k
s
,
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Tra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Oth
e
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Of
f
i
c
e
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Oth
e
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
F
l
o
o
d
W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Y
a
r
d
s
Ma
j
o
r
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
C
a
r
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
Mix
e
d
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Mix
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Mix
e
d
U
r
b
a
n
Mu
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Old
e
r
S
t
r
i
p
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Sin
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Un
d
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Va
c
a
n
t
Wa
t
e
r
Wh
o
l
e
s
a
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
Le
g
e
n
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
1
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
s
38
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 21
EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.2 Existing Bicycle Facilities and
Programs
As defi ned by the League of American Bicyclists, bicycle-
friendly cities demonstrate achievements in each of fi ve
categories, often referred to as the Five E’s of bicycle
planning. The Five E’s are:
•Engineering
•Encouragement
•Education
•Enforcement
•Evaluation
Engineering includes bicycle facilities, bicycle parking,
signage and maintenance. The other four E’s are
categorized as programs: encouragement, education,
enforcement and evaluation. Programs are a great
way to maximize use of bicycle facilities. Production
of bike maps and creation of special events encourage
people to ride bicycles. Education programs improve
safety and awareness. Programs that enforce legal and
respectful driving and bicycling make novice bicyclists
feel more secure. Evaluation programs provide a method
for monitoring improvements and informing future
investments. Collectively the Five E’s can enhance the
bicycling experience in Newport Beach. Analysis of
Newport Beach’s existing facilities and programs within
the framework of the Five E’s is one way to assess the city’s
bicycle-friendly status.
The City of Newport Beach has a growing network
of bicycle paths, lanes and routes throughout the
city. Programs to support bicycling have also been
implemented by the City. This section presents existing
facilities and programs in order to identify where new
facilities are needed and what programs will better
support bicycling throughout the city.
3.2.1 Engineering
Existing Bicycle Facilities
This report refers to standard bikeway defi nitions
identifi ed by Caltrans in Chapter 1000 of the Highway
Design Manual (Caltrans HDM). Additional concepts for
bicycle facilities have been promoted and implemented
throughout the United States; however, they have
not been adopted for use in the Caltrans HDM. Upon
preparation of the proposed network for the City, new
bicycle facilities and concepts will be further discussed
related to applicability and liability. The city currently has
approximately 84 miles of bicycle facilities including Class I
multi-use paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the three types of standard bikeways
that currently exist in the City. The existing network is fairly
well-connected, providing access to popular commercial
areas, destinations, and employment centers. The existing
bicycle facilities enable bicyclists to not only travel within
Newport Beach, but to surrounding cities as well.
Consistent with City Municipal Code Section 12.56.30
and City Council Resolution 82-148, bicycle riding is
allowed on various sidewalks throughout the city such as
Eastbluff Drive, Marguerite Avenue, and Coast Highway.
Appendix A provides a list of locations where sidewalk
riding is permitted per Municipal Code Section 12.56.30
and City Council Resolution 82-148. Additional locations
allow sidewalk cycling, indicating an update to the current
resolution is needed.
Table 3-1 shows the existing mileage for each type of
facility. Figure 3-3 displays the existing bikeway network
in Newport Beach.
Table 3-1 Mileage of Existing Bicycle Facilities
Facility Type Mileage
Class I Multi-Use Paths 18.8
Class II Bike Lanes 40.2
Class III Bike Routes 8.1
Sidewalks – Bicycle Riding Allowed21.2
Total88.3
Photo 8 - Bicycle crossing signage on Balboa Peninsula
39
EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
22 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Figure 3-2: Caltrans Shared Bikeway Classifi cations
Sources: Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2013), Federal Highway Administration’s MUTCD (2009), California MUTCD
(2012). Graphic refi ned for use in Newport Beach.
40
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 23
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Photo 9 - Striping on the west side of the Marine
Avenue bridge Bicycle Facilities
Photo 10 - Ramps on the east side of the bridge
As shown in Table 3-1, approximately half of the existing
bikeway facilities within the City of Newport are on-
street bike lanes (Class II). A few locations have unique
bicycle facilities that do not match the standard bikeway
defi nitions discussed above. The following is a list of
unique bicycle treatments within the city:
2. A Contra-Flow bike lane located on Seashore Drive between Orange Street and 32nd Street allows bicyclists to
ride two-way on a street restricted to one-way southbound travel for automobiles.
Photo 11 - Contra-Flow lane on 32nd Street Photo 12 - Contra-Flow bike lane on Back Bay Drive
1. The Marine Avenue bridge linking to Balboa Island
allows bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk. Ramps are
provided on the north side of the bridge to guide
cyclists on/off the sidewalk. Signs are provided on the
south side of the bridge reminding cyclists to not ride
on the sidewalks on Balboa Island.
41
EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
24 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Photo 13 - On-street parking and bike lane on Irvine Avenue
Photo 14 - Sharrows located along Coast Highway
in Corona del Mar
3. A Contra-Flow bike lane located on Back
Bay Drive between Shellmaker Road and
Eastbluff Drive allows bicyclists to ride
two-way on a street restricted to one-
way northbound travel for automobiles.
4. On-street bike lanes are provided on
Irvine Avenue near Newport Harbor
High School and Ensign Middle School,
however, on-street parking is allowed
between Cliff Drive and 15th Street. On-
street parking is restricted during the
morning school commute approaching
the school and during the afternoon
school commute leaving the school
to facilitate school-related bicycle
travel. This bicycle lane confi guration
is identifi ed in the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual (HDM) where the
vast majority of bicycle travel would
occur during the hours of the parking
prohibition.
5. The City has painted sharrows on a few
roadways with Class III routes. Sharrows,
or shared lane markings, are roadway
stencils used to encourage bicycle travel
and proper positioning within the lane
by cyclists. Sharrows are located on
Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and
along Bayside Drive between El Paseo
and Carnation Avenue.
42
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 25
EXISTING CONDITIONS
7. The Ocean Front Trail provides a shared-use
path between 36th Street and E Street on Balboa
Peninsula. A walk zone prohibits bicycling
through the plaza at the base of the Newport
Pier, and bicycle traffi c is directed through
the parking lot between 23rd Street and 21st
Place. Signage and pavement markings are
provided to identify a speed limit for cyclists,
and to remind users that the facility is shared
by multiple user types and to encourage
appropriate trail etiquette.
6. Bicycle lanes are provided on either side of the
Via Lido Bridge and an extension to the bridge
has been added on the north side serving
pedestrian travel. Signage is provided directing
cyclists to use the sidewalk on the north side of
the Via Lido Bridge.
Photo 15 - Bike lane on the west side of the Via
Lido Bridge
Photo 16 - Signage on Via Lido Bridge
Photo 17 - Signage and striping on Ocean Front Trail
43
EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
26 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irv
i
n
e
Ja
m
b
o
r
ee
Sant
a
A
n
a
Tu
s
t
i
n
Placentia
Bristo
l
16th
Baysid e
Mac
Arthur
Newp
ort
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
w
portCoast
17th
Su
p
e
r
i
or
San
t
i
a
g
o
1st
22n
d
San
Mig
uel
Eastbluff M
a
r
gu
e
r
i
t
e
Ca
m
pus
Dover
2nd
Po
p
p
y
Lid
o
A nteater
3
2
nd
BonitaCanyon
4th
3rd
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
B alboa
FordU
niv
e
r
s
ity
Co
a
s
t
H
w
y
Bis
o
n
Cali
for
nia
Pe
ltas
on
Aca
d
e
my
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
Pelican Hill
Vista Ridge
Ri
d
g
e Park
Newp
ort Center
Santa C
ru
z
Sp
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birch
Von Karm
an
W
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
Qua
i
l
Por
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
r
n
e
Sp yglass Hill
Newpo
rt Hills
15
t
h
Back Bay
Clay
S
t
N
ewport Hills
Cham b ord
Of
f
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
i
k
e
P
a
t
h
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
)
On
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
I
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
B
i
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
I
I
)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
-
-
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
i
n
g
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
Le
g
e
n
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
3
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
44
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 27
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Signage
The California Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices (CA
MUTCD) and the CA HDM outline the requirements for bikeway
signage. The Bike Lane Sign (R81) is required at the beginning
of each designated bike lane and at each major decision point.
The Bike Route Sign (D11-1) is required on Class III facilities.
Multi-use paths require additional standardized signs to
help manage diff erent user groups. The City has installed CA
MUTCD standard signs along the appropriate bikeways.
In addition to standard CA MUTCD signs, various warning,
informational and regulatory signs have been installed. Signs
located along the Ocean Front Trail inform trail users of bicycle
cross-traffi c. Advisory signs indicating to bicyclists to “Watch
Downhill Speed” are located on steep downhill sections of
Newport Coast Drive, Ridge Park Road, Vista Ridge Road,
and San Joaquin Hills Road. Informational signs have been
installed on Bayside Drive to increase awareness for use of the
sharrows.
Where bicycles are allowed on sidewalks, the City has installed
signage indicating to bicyclists that they are allowed to do so.
Appendix A provides a list of locations where sidewalk riding
is permitted.
Wayfi nding signage has also been installed along popular trails
such as the Back Bay Loop and the Mountains to Sea Trail. Photo 18 - Caltrans Bikeway Signs
Photo 19 - Signage permitting bicyclists to ride on the
sidewalk on Eastbluff Road Photo 20 - Wayfi nding with logos direct bicyclists to
local trails
R81
45
EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
28 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
3.2.2 Bicycle Parking
Bicycle storage can range from a simple and convenient
bicycle rack to storage in a bicycle locker or cage that
protects against weather, vandalism and theft. The
City does not currently have an inventory of existing
bicycle parking locations. Short-term bicycle racks can
be found at some major destinations, including racks
at the Newport Pier, along the Ocean Front Trail on the
Peninsula, Fashion Island, and most parks throughout the
city. Custom bike racks have been installed in Corona del
Mar Village and at the 15th Street public pier.
Many bicyclists resort to securing their bike to street
fi xtures such as trees, lights, telephone poles, and parking
meters when suffi cient parking facilities are not provided.
Photo 21 - New bicycle rack in
Corona del Mar
Photo 23 - Bicycles secured to street fi xtures
Photo 24 - Short-term bicycle parking at Newport PierPhoto 22 - New bicycle racks at 15th
Street on the Peninsula
46
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 29
EXISTING CONDITIONS
End-of-Trip Facilities
The presence and quality of trip-end facilities (e.g.
showers, lockers, and changing facilities) can greatly
infl uence a person’s decision to complete a trip via bicycle.
These facilities enable cyclists to change into work attire
(especially after riding in wet or hot conditions). The City
has incorporated trip-end facilities into new municipal
buildings, such as the new Civic Center, but currently does
not have an inventory of existing end-of-trip facilities.
Bicycle Signal Detection
Bicycle detection at actuated traffi c signals permits
bicyclists to trigger a green light, even when no motor
vehicle is present. California Assembly Bill 1581 requires all
new and replacement actuated traffi c signals2 to detect
bicyclists and to provide suffi cient time for a bicyclist to
clear an intersection from a standing start. Caltrans Policy
Directive 09-06 clarifi es the requirements and permits
any type of detection technology. The most common
technologies are in-pavement loop detectors and video
detection. More recently, microwave detection has been
used to detect and diff erentiate between bicyclists and
motor vehicles.
Current City of Newport Beach traffi c signals have Bicycle
Push Buttons that can be actuated by a cyclist to provide
the green phase. The City complies with the Caltrans
Policy Directive by installing detector loops designed to
detect bicycles during pavement rehabilitation and traffi c
signal upgrade projects. Traffi c signal timing is reviewed
and updated as necessary through traffi c signal corridor
timing projects, such as the Traffi c Signal Modernization
Project and the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) Traffi c Light Synchronization Projects.
The City is currently reviewing other bicycle-capable
technologies, such as video and radar detection for future
inclusion into the traffi c signal system.
Multi-Modal Connections
Integrating bicycling into daily transit trips off ers an
effi cient means of traveling using multiple modes of
transportation. Approximately eight percent of residents
use public transit to commute to work or school. Newport
Beach is served by multiple Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) bus routes, providing access to major
shopping and commercial areas, as well as the beach. The
Newport Transportation Center; located at 1550 Avocado
Avenue, serves as a hub for transit routes in the City of
Newport Beach. All OCTA buses are equipped with bicycle
racks located at the front of the vehicle that can carry two
bicycles at a time. Figure 3-4 displays the transit routes
and stops that serve Newport Beach.
The University of California, Irvine (UC Irvine) provides the
Anteater Express shuttle service free of charge for students
and faculty between the UC Irvine campus and Newport
Beach. The Anteater Express Newport Beach route
travels on Bison Avenue, Jamboree Road, Coast Highway,
Newport Boulevard, and Balboa Boulevard. The Anteater
Express shuttle service runs Monday through Friday, and
the shuttles include bike racks.
In addition to bus routes, the Balboa Island Ferry runs from
the Balboa Peninsula to Balboa Island. The ferry runs each
day from 6:30 AM to 12:00 AM, docking about every fi ve
minutes. Bicycles are allowed onboard, providing bicyclists
with easy access to Balboa Island.
2 Actuated traffi c signals stay red until the signal detects a car or bicyclist that is waiting for the light to turn green.
Photo 25 - Bicycles are allowed on board the Balboa Island Ferry
47
EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
30 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irvi
ne
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
Sa
n
t
a
A
na
Tu
s
t
i
n
Placentia
Bris
t
ol
16th
Baysid e
Mac
Arthur
New
port
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
wportCoast
17th
Su
p
e
r
i
or
San
t
i
a
g
o
1st
22n
d
San
Mig
uel
Eastbluff M
a
r
g
u
e
r
i
te
Ca
m
p
u
s
Dover
2nd
Po
p
p
y
Lido
A nteater
32nd
BonitaCanyon
4th
3rd
Universit
y
Ho
sp
ita
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
Balboa
For
dU
niv
e
rsity
Coa
s
t
Hwy
Bis
o
n
Cali
for
nia
P
elta
s
on
Aca
d
e
my
Ja
m
b
o
ree
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
P
elican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
o
rt Center
Santa Cruz
Sp
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birch
Von Karm
a
n
W
es
terly Quai
l
Por
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
r
n
e
Spy glass Hill
15
t
h
B
ack Bay
Clay
S
t
N
ewport Hills
Cham b ord
Le
g
e
n
d
!(#
OC
T
A
B
u
s
R
o
u
t
e
s
UC
I
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
Ba
l
b
o
a
I
s
l
a
n
d
F
e
r
r
y
OC
T
A
B
u
s
S
t
o
p
s
UC
I
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
S
t
o
p
s
OC
T
A
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
4
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
S
t
o
p
s
48
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 31
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Maintenance
Street maintenance programs aid in the quality and
longevity of bicycle facilities. The City of Newport Beach
currently has a Street Maintenance program that provides
staff with guidelines to inspect, schedule, and repair
City streets, alleys, and bike trails. The program provides
maintenance of signs, pavement markings, curb markings,
street name signs, and roadway striping. In addition to
as-needed repairs, the program annually repaints school
pavement legends and inspects school regulatory and
warning signs. Street sweeping occurs twice a month for
239 miles of streets and 33 miles of alleys.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves to develop
and construct major public improvements and address
signifi cant maintenance items. The CIP prioritizes and
allocates funding for large scale projects including
roadway resurfacing, repair projects, and improvements
within the city.
3.2.3 Education
Same Rules Same Road Campaign
The City’s Same Rules Same Road program includes street
light banners, Sharrow informational business cards,
and a website. As part of this program, The Bike Safety
website provides resources to community members
for information about bicycling in Newport Beach. The
website includes:
•Bicycle trails map
•Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee
(BMPOC) information and agendas
•City Council staff reports relevant to bicycling
•Safety Guidelines for Bicyclists and Motorists
brochure
•A tentative list of potential bicycle safety
improvements
•California Driver Handbook sections: Sharing the
Road and Traffi c Lanes
•Information about the Bicycle Safety
Improvement Fund
A copy of the Safety Guidelines for Bicyclists and Motorists
brochure is provided in Appendix B.
3.2.4 Encouragement
Citywide Bicycle Route Map
The City created a GIS-based bicycle route map that is
currently posted on the City’s website. Staff is soliciting
comments and questions from the public on the map, its
contents, or additional bike-related information.
Memorial Bike Ride and Bicycle Safety Improvement
Fund
On October 28, 2012, the City hosted the Memorial Bike
Ride to pay tribute to cyclists that had recently been
perished in cycling incidents in Newport Beach. The
community-raised funds raised for this ride were matched
by the City at a 3 to 1 ratio and put into a special Bicycle
Safety Improvement Fund.
Photo 26 - Sharrow Informational Business Card
(front and back)
49
EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
32 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
3.2.5 Enforcement
Bicycle Safety Operation
The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) conducts
specialized Bicycle Safety Operations annually. This
enforcement campaign targets vehicle, bicycle and
pedestrian safety. The goal of this program is to educate
bicyclists about how to safely and legally use the roads.
In addition to bicyclists, this program seeks to educate
motorists how to share the roadway with bicyclists and
pedestrians. The NBPD also sells bicycle licenses for
$2.00, available at the Police Department and at the Fire
Department during normal business hours. The NBPD
provides additional enforcement programs that help with
bicycle and motorist safety in the city such as Driving
Under the Infl uence (DUI) checkpoints, texting/cell phone
enforcement activities, and school liaisons.
Police Department Activity in the schools includes
Bike Rodeos, which are educational activities to teach
school-age children safe cycling habits and minor bicycle
maintenance, and assignment of a School Resource Offi cer
to each public high school and middle school.
By educating roadway users about the rules, laws
and safe behaviors, and enforcing them, bicycle and
pedestrian incidents can be reduced. The Police continue
enforcement of Municipal Code violations in order to
maintain safe operations. An Administrative Citation
carries a $100 fi ne for a fi rst off ense in one year.
Bicycle Registration Program
The City currently provides a voluntary bicycle licensing
program for any resident of Newport Beach, with
licenses available at both the Police Department and Fire
Department for $2.00 each. Residents are encouraged to
license their bicycles with the City to aid law enforcement
in the recovery of stolen bicycles.
3.2.6 Evaluation
Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee
The Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee (BMPOC)
was established in 2013, composed of seven community
members appointed by the Mayor and ratifi ed by City
Council. The Chair of the Committee is a City Council
member appointed by the Mayor. The Committee was
tasked with review and to give input, guidance, and a
public forum for the preparation of the Bicycle Master
Plan. City staff from the Public Works Department,
Community Development Department, and Police
Department attend the BMPOC meetings. Each
Committee meeting was advertised and open to the
public.
Bike to Work Day/Month
The City currently hosts an annual Bike to Work Day every
May to promote the enjoyment and benefi ts of bicycling
to work. The City of Newport Beach can look for more
opportunities to promote bicycling for work commutes
throughout Bike Month in May. In addition, OCTA hosts an
annual Bike Rally for Bike to Work Month every May.
BikeNewportBeach Neighborhood Bike Rides
In fall 2013, BikeNewportBeach.org has organized multiple
family-friendly neighborhood bike rides with help from
local bike shops and the City of Newport Beach Parks and
Recreation Department. The fi rst ride was the Saturday
before Halloween in Corona del Mar, while the second
ride was the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, with both
starting at the Civic Center. A third ride, the Harbor View
Holiday Lights Ride, was organized on December 23
oriented towards viewing holiday decorations and lights in
the Harbor View neighborhood.
Photo 27 - Harbor View Holiday Lights Ride
Photo 28 - Decorated home visited during Holiday Lights
Ride
50
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 33
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 3-2 Completed Projects/Actions 2009-2014
Description Completion
Date
Ocean Front Signage ImprovementsFall 2009
Bayside Drive Sharrows Fall 2010
Bicycle Downhill Advisory Signs Spring 2011
Castaways Trail Improvements Summer 2011
Fernleaf Ramp Sign Revisions Fall 2011
Remove Raised Pavement MarkersFall 2011
Bayside Drive Bike Ramp ImprovementsFall 2011
Bonita Canyon Drive Bike Lane
Improvements
Winter 2011
Coast Highway Bike Lane ImprovementsWinter 2011
Coast Highway Alternate Bike RouteWinter 2012
Newport Center Bike Lane InstallationSpring 2012
Coast Highway Bike Lane Improvement
at Jamboree Road
Fall 2012
Coast Highway Corona del Mar Sharrow
Project
Fall 2012
32nd Street Bike Lane Project Spring 2013
Avocado Avenue Bike Lane ProjectSpring 2014
Bayside Drive Sharrow Extension ProjectSpring 2014
3.4 Pending Bicycle-Related
Projects
The City has programed and obtained funding for multiple
bike lane projects as shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Scheduled Projects 2014-2015
Title/Description Completion
Date
Jamboree Road Bike Lane Project Fall 2014
Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road Bike Lane
Project
Fall 2014
Spyglass Hill Road Bike Lane ProjectFall 2014
San Joaquin Hills Road Bike Lane ProjectFall 2014
Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee
The Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee (CBSC) was
established in 2010 and sunset in 2013. The CBSC reviewed
existing bicycle infrastructure and identifi ed potential
improvements to promote bicycling and encourage safe
use of the roadways. A key accomplishment of the CBSC
was the installation of sharrows on Coast Highway in
Corona del Mar. Along with the sharrows, an outreach
and education program was implemented to teach local
cyclists about their benefi ts and use. The CBSC prepared
the 2012 annual report which is included in Appendix C.
Survey of Newport Beach Bicycle Rental Shops
CBSC member Michael Alti conducted a survey of bicycle
rental shops in Newport Beach in September, 2012.
Owners and/or representatives of eight rental shops on
the Peninsula were interviewed. The purpose of this
survey was to determine safety measures or instructions
provided by the shops, obtain demographics or statistics
about customers and history of accidents, and determine
their impressions of bicycle safety in Newport Beach.
Task Force on Cycling Safety
The Task Force was established in 2009, made up
of six citizens, all local cyclists. Other participants
included the City’s Traffi c Engineer, representatives of
the Police Department, the Public Information Offi cer,
representatives of the Orange County Bicycle Coalition,
and other members of the public. The Task Force was
asked to make recommendations to improve safety for
bicyclists on the roads, encourage cyclists to abide by
the laws, and encourage motorists to be respectful of
bicyclists’ rights. The Task Force created a Final Report
with recommendations to the City, which is included in
Appendix D.
3.3 Past Bicycle-Related Projects
The City has completed numerous bicycle facility
improvements in recent years. Table 3-2 shows the
completed actions/projects from 2009 to 2014. A more
detailed list, as well as planned projects with cost
estimates, can be found in Appendix E.
51
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
34 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
4 Needs Analysis
4.1 Types of Bicyclists
This Plan seeks to address the needs of all bicyclists
and potential bicyclists and therefore it is important to
understand the needs and preferences of all types of
bicyclists to develop a successful plan. Bicyclists’ needs
and preferences vary between skill levels and their
trip types. In addition, the propensity to bicycle varies
from person to person, providing insight into potential
increases in bicycling rates. Generally, bicycling propensity
levels can be classifi ed into four categories, displayed in
Figure 4-1.
1. Strong and Fearless bicyclists will ride on almost
any roadway despite the traffi c volume, speed
and lack of bikeway designation and are
estimated to be less than one percent of the
population.
Strong and Fearless (<1%)
Enthused and Confident (5%)
Interested but Concerned (60%)
No Way, No How (35%)
Figure 4-1 Types of Cyclists
Source: www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746
2. Enthused and Confi dent bicyclists will ride on
most roadways if traffi c volumes and speeds
are not high. They are confi dent in positioning
themselves to share the roadway with motorists
and are estimated to be fi ve percent of the
population.
3. Interested but Concerned bicyclists will ride if
bicycle paths or lanes are provided on roadways
with low traffi c volumes and speeds. They are
typically not confi dent cycling with motorists.
Interested but Concerned bicyclists are estimated
to be 60 percent of the bicyclist population and
the primary target group that will bicycle more if
encouraged to do so.
4. No Way No How are people that do not consider
cycling part of their transportation or recreation
options and are estimated to be 35 percent of the
population
52
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 35
NEEDS ANALYSIS
•December 2, 2013
•February 3, 2014
•March 3, 2014
•April 7, 2014
Community Open House
•November 4, 2013
•Online Survey
•September 17 to December 31, 2013
Youth Workshop
•January 28, 2014
Public Agency Stakeholder Meeting
•January 28, 2014
Online Interactive Draft Recommendations Mapping
•January 29 to March 19, 2014
4.2.1 Community Outreach Booths
Community outreach booths provided an informal
opportunity for the public to provide feedback and
suggestions for the Bicycle Master Plan. Project team
members set up a table and shelter with City-provided
banner and boards to facilitate comments. Outreach
booths were conducted to gain input from a mix of cyclists
including visitors to the City at Newport Pier as well as
road cyclists stopping at the restrooms located at West
Newport Park. Generally the booth was facilitated by 2-3
project team members for 2-3 hours on each of the four
dates identifi ed below:
•August 24, 2013;
•October 27, 2013;
•April 27, 2014; and
•May 31, 2014.
The needs of bicyclists also vary between trip purposes.
For example, people who bicycle for performance-
recreational purposes may prefer long and straight
unsignalized roadways, while bicyclists who ride with their
children to school may prefer direct roadways with lower
vehicular volumes and speeds. This Plan considers these
diff erences and develops a bikeway network to serve all
user types. This section describes the diff erent types of
bicyclists and the respective needs for these categories of
bicyclists.
•Commuters - adults who regularly bicycle
between their residences and work.
•Enthusiasts - skilled adults.
•Casual / Family / Elderly riders - adults who use
bicycles for running errands, recreation, tourism,
exercise, or as a family activity
•School Children - children who bicycle to school.
An eff ective bicycle network accommodates bicyclists of
all abilities. Casual bicyclists generally prefer roadways
with low traffi c volumes and low speeds. They also prefer
paths that are physically separated from roadways.
Because experienced bicyclists typically ride to
destinations or to achieve a goal, they generally choose
the most direct route, which may include arterial roadways
with or without bike lanes. Bicyclists of all abilities and
purposes ride every day in Newport Beach. Parents
bicycle with their children to school, people bicycle to
work, community members bicycle to transit stations, and
recreational bicyclists ride through the city on extended
bicycle trips.
4.2 Public Outreach
During the summer and fall of 2013, the project team
conducted a number of outreach activities to engage the
community in identifying initial challenges, opportunities,
and ideas for improving the cycling experience in Newport
Beach. The following community engagement activities
occurred:
Community Outreach Booths
•McFadden Plaza/Newport Pier, August 24, 2013
•Eastbluff Drive Adjacent to the Back Bay Trail,
October 27, 2013
•West Newport Park at Orange Street, April 27,
2014
•Eastbluff Drive Adjacent to the Back Bay Trail, May
31, 2014
Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee Meetings
•July 1, 2013
•September 3, 2013
•October 7, 2013 Photo 29 - Outreach event at the Newport Pier
53
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
36 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Type of CyclistStrong and
Fearless
Enthused and
Confi dent
Intersected but
Concerned
No Way, No
How
Number of Cyclists6 16 2 0
4.2.2 Community Open House
On Monday, November 4, 2013, an open house event
was held at the Newport Beach Main Library. Open
House guides were provided to participants, which
included a list and description of each station. In
addition to the sign-in table, seven stations were
provided to provide information and to collect ideas:
1. Background Presentation
2. Mapping
3. Bicycle Facilities
4. I Would Ride More Often If…
5. Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, &
Evaluation – What’s Working? What Can We
Do Better?
6. Survey Spot
7. Kids’ Station
Sign-in Table
The sign-in table included a map of the city and
neighboring cities where participants were asked to
place a dot sticker where they live. Most residents
who responded indicated that they do live within the
City of Newport Beach.
Participants were also asked to rate their riding
abilities. The image below shows that most
respondents self-designated themselves as “enthused
and confi dent”.
Photo 30 - Participants used stickers to show
where they live
Photo 31 - Boards used for participants to indicate their
cycling skill levels
Photo 32 - Participants spoke with staff about their concerns for bicycling in the community
54
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 37
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Station 1: Background Presentation
A brief, continuous running PowerPoint presentation
provided background information about the Bicycle
Master Plan project.
Station 2: Mapping
This station provided the opportunity for participants
to identify current cycling destinations, places that
they would like to bicycle to, and locations for possible
improvements including wayfi nding signs.
Station 3: Bicycle Facilities
This station provided the opportunity for participants
to view display boards that illustrated diff erent types of
bicycle facilities and suggest locations in Newport Beach
where they feel types of facilities may be appropriate.
Participants were asked to place a dot sticker next to
each facility type that they are interested in, and provide
comments about potential locations.
Station 4: I would ride more often if…
Participants were asked to fi nish the following sentence
on a post-it note and post the note on the board for
discussion with project team members and other visitors
to the workshop:
•“I would ride more often if…”
Station 5: Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, &
Evaluation – What’s Working? What Can We Do
Better?
Participants were asked to list current programs and
eff orts that they believe are important/helpful and to
make suggestions for additional eff orts.
Station 6: Survey Spot
Hard copies of an online survey were available for
participants to complete.
Station 7: Kids’ Station
Kids were given the opportunity to create drawings about
biking and bike safety. However, at this event, no children
were present.
4.2.3 Youth Workshop
On January 28, 2014, the City hosted a youth workshop
with students from the Associated Student Body class at
Ensign Intermediate School. Students worked in small
groups on a mapping exercise to identify current bike
routes, desired bike routes, barriers or challenging areas
that limit bicycling, and opportunities for improvements.
4.2.4 Public Agency Stakeholder Meeting
A Public Agency Stakeholder Meeting was held on January
28, 2014 in the afternoon at the Civic Center. The City
Photo 33 - Participants noted cycling destinations and
locations for improvements
Photo 34 - Participants showed their top choices for
programs with stickers
invited public agency staff representatives to participate
in this meeting to discuss opportunities and issues related
to implementing future bicycle facilities, connectivity to
surrounding cities, and potential partnerships between
agencies. Representatives from the City of Irvine, OCTA,
Caltrans, Newport-Mesa Unifi ed School District, City of
Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and State Parks attended
the meeting.
4.2.5 Online Interactive Draft
Recommendations Mapping
Community members were able to provide comments
on the draft bikeways network online using an interactive
mapping website. The website was available from January
28 to March 19, 2014. Participants were able to comment
on individual recommends, identify important concepts
by indicating “support” for them, and add new points and
recommendations to the map. Overall, 100 comments and
173 “supports” were provided through the website.
55
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
38 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
respondents do not work (18 percent). Most respondents
have a short commute to work or school that is under two
miles. Of those who commute to/from work, the majority
drive alone (59 percent), though approximately the same
amount of respondents have very high confi dence in their
bicycling abilities. Most respondents bicycle three to four
times per week (37 percent), mainly on on-street bike lanes
(49 percent). As shown in Figure 4-2, the main reason that
people bicycle is for exercise and recreation.
4.2.6 Surveys
An online survey was provided to community members
to gather input for the creation of the Bicycle Master Plan.
Between September 17, 2013 and December 31, 2013, 421
responses were counted and analyzed.
Of the 399 respondents, approximately 43 percent live
outside of Newport Beach. The majority of them were
over 55 years old, therefore a sizeable amount of all
Figure 4-2 Reasons for Bicycling
Figure 4-3 Barriers to Bicycling
Source: Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan – Bicycle Survey
Source: Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan – Bicycle Survey
Additional reasons entered for “Other” include socializing, training for triathalons, mental and physical health, and for fun.
When asked what keeps them from bicycling, respondents indicated that the top three reasons are the behavior of
motorists, concerns about safety, and not having enough time. Figure 4-3 displays the results of this question.
56
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 39
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Additional reasons for “Other” include the behavior of
bicyclists and pedestrians, lack of education of both
bicyclists and motorists, and the time of day as it relates to
automobile traffi c.
The most important considerations that respondents
make when making a decision to ride a bicycle are the
behavior of motorists, presence of on-street bike lanes,
traffi c volumes/speeds, and the presence of off -street bike
paths.
Programs that respondents are the most interested in are
public awareness campaigns, online information, Safe
Routes to School programs for children, maps and guides,
special events, and commuter incentive programs.
When respondents were asked to list streets and places
in Newport Beach that they felt were uncomfortable
for bicycling and the reasons why, common themes
arose. Coast Highway was the most frequently noted
location where bicyclists feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
Respondents were asked to list destinations in Newport
Beach where they would like to bicycle to, but do not feel
comfortable traveling to via bicycle. Commonly noted
destinations include:
• Corona del Mar
•Shopping centers (particularly Fashion Island)
•Peninsula (specifi cally the beach, pier and Balboa
Island)
•Schools
•Santa Ana River Trail
•Civic Center
•Other surrounding cities
•Crystal Cove State Park
•Back Bay
•Airport
4.3 Bicycle Commuter Estimates
and Forecasts
4.3.1 Assumptions
The model uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s American
Communities Survey (ACS) journey-to-work data and
applies a market segment approach to estimate the
number of bicycling or walking trips. Elementary school
and college students usually have a diff erent bicycle/
walking mode split than work commuters.
In addition, national transportation surveys, in particular
the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS, 2009), have
shown that commute trips are only a fraction of the total
trips an individual takes on a given day. The model uses
the NHTS fi ndings to estimate the number of non-work,
non-school trips taken by commuters to determine the
number of walking or bicycling trips that occur in a day.
This information can be projected out using standard trip
lengths by mode and trip purpose to estimate the number
of driving miles reduced by nonmotorized modes.
4.3.2 Data Used in the Model
The foundation of this analysis is the ACS 2008-2012 fi ve-
year estimate for Newport Beach. Model variables from
the ACS include: total population, employed population,
school enrollment (grades K-12 and college students), and
travel-to-work mode split.
The 2009 NHTS provides a substantial national dataset of
travel characteristics, particularly for trip characteristics
of bicycling and walking trips. Data used from this survey
include:
•Student mode split, grades K-12
•Trip distance by mode by trip purpose
•Ratio of walking/bicycling work trips to utilitarian
trips
•Ratio of work trips to social/recreational trips
•Average trip length by trip purpose and mode
Several of these variables provide a way to estimate the
number of walking and bicycling trips made for other
reasons than work trips, such as shopping and running
errands. NHTS 2009 data indicates that for every bicycle
work trip, there are slightly more than two utilitarian
bicycle trips made. Although these trips cannot be directly
attached to a certain group of people (not all of the
utilitarian bicycling trips are made by people who bicycle
to work), these multipliers allow a high percentage of the
community’s walking and bicycling activity to be captured
in an annual estimate.
The Safe Routes to School Baseline Data Report (2010) was
used to determine the percent of students who walk or
bicycle by the parents’ estimate of distance as well as the
frequency of carpooling for trip replacement.
As with any modeling projection, the accuracy of the result
is dependent on the accuracy of the input data and other
assumptions. Eff ort was made to collect the best data
possible for input to the model, but in many cases national
data was used where local data points were unavailable.
Examples of information that could improve the accuracy
of this exercise include the detailed results of local Safe
Routes to Schools parent and student surveys, a regional
household travel survey, and a student travel survey of
college students.
57
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
40 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table 4-1 Model Estimate of Current Walking and Bicycling Trips
BicyclingWalkingSource
Commute Trips
Bicycle/walking commuters 343815Employed population multiplied by mode split
Weekday bicycle/walking trips 6861,630Number of bicycle/walking commuters multiplied by
two for return trips
Walk- or bike-to-transit
commuters
15309Number of transit commuters multiplied by transit
mode split from the OCTA On-Board Survey
Weekday transit bicycle/
walking commute trips
30618Number of transit bicycle/walking commuters
multiplied by two for return trips
Weekday bicycle/walking
commuters
7162,248Number of bicycle/walk commuters plus number of
transit-bicycle/walk commuters
School Trips
K-12 bicycle/ walking
commuters
711,117School children population multiplied by mode split
Weekday K-12 bicycle/ walking
trips
1422,234Number of student bicyclists multiplied by two for
return trips
College Trips
College bicycle/ walking
commuters
7431,703College students multiplied by mode split provided by
UC Irvine.
Weekday bicycle/ walking
college trips
1,4863,406Number of college student bicyclists multiplied by two
for return trips
Utilitarian Trips
Daily adult bicycle/walking
commute trips
2,2025,654Number of bicycle/walking trips plus number of
bicycle/walking college trips
Daily bicycle/walking
utilitarian trips
3,44919,875Utilitarian bicycle/walking trips multiplied by ratio of
utilitarian to work trips (NHTS). Distributes weekly trips
over entire week (vs. commute trips over 5 days)
Total Current Daily Trips5,79327,763
As shown in Table 4-1, current commute, school, college and utilitarian trips via bicycle are estimated at approximately 5,800 trips daily.
4.3.3 Existing Walking and Bicycling Trips
Table 4-1 shows the results of the model. Based on the model assumptions, the majority of trips are non-work utilitarian
trips, which include medical/dental services, shopping/errands, family personal business, obligations, transport someone,
meals, and other trips.
Trip Replacement
To estimate the total distance residents travel to work
or school by walking and bicycling, the model isolates
diff erent walking and bicycling user groups and applies
trip distance information for walking or bicycling trips
by mode based on NHTS 2009. Table 4-2 shows the trip
replacement factors.
Yearly factors are calculated by assuming that work and
school/college trips occur fi ve days per week, while
utilitarian trips occur seven days per week. However, work
and utilitarian trips occur year-round, while school and
college trips are only three-quarters of the year, due to
summer vacation.
58
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 41
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Table 4-2 Current Walking and Bicycling Trip Replacement
Bicycling Walking Source
Commute Trips
Weekday vehicle trips
replaced
59121Trips multiplied by drive alone trips to
determine automobile trips replaced by
bicycle trips
Weekday miles
bicycled/walked
2,09214Number of vehicle trips reduced multiplied
by average bicycle/walking work trip length
(NHTS 2009)
School Trips
Weekday vehicle trips
reduced
41647Trips multiplied by drive alone trips to
determine automobile trips replaced by
bicycle/walking trips
Weekday miles
bicycled/walked
31497Number of vehicle trips reduced multiplied
by average trip length to/from school (SRTS
2010)
College Trips
Weekday vehicle trips
reduced
1,2262,810Trips multiplied by drive alone trips to
determine automobile trips replaced by
bicycle/walking trips
Weekday miles
bicycled/walked
1,8141,574Number of vehicle trips reduced multiplied
by average bicycle school/daycare/religious
trip length (NHTS 2009)
Utilitarian Trips
Daily vehicle trips
reduced
3,6758,143Number of daily utilitarian trips multiplied by
drive alone trips
Daily miles bicycled/
walked
7,3775,195Number of vehicle trips reduced multiplied
by average utilitarian trip length (NHTS 2009;
does not include work or home trips)
Yearly Results BicyclingWalkingTotalSource
Yearly bicycle/walking
trips
1,765,0978,949,40810,714,505Assumes commuting is 5 days/week year-
round, utilitarian trips year-round, and
school/college trips 5 days/week and three-
quarters of the yearYearly vehicle trips
reduced
1,065,7602,385,8003,451,560
Yearly miles bicycled/
walked
2,163,2581,544,8123,708,070
4.3.4 Current Benefi ts
To the extent that bicycling and walking trips replace
single-occupancy vehicle trips, they reduce emissions
and have tangible economic impacts by reducing traffi c
congestion, crashes, and maintenance costs. In addition,
the reduced need to own and operate a vehicle saves
families money. These benefi ts are shown in Table 4-3.
Photo 35 - Custom “Bike Rest” sign at business along
West Coast Highway
59
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
42 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table 4-3 Benefi ts of Current Bicycling and Walking Trips
Measure BicyclingWalking Source
Yearly vehicle miles reduced 2,163,2581,544,812
Air Quality Benefi ts
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year)6,486 4,362 EPA, 20051
Reduced Particulate Matter (pounds/year)4842EPA, 2005
Reduced Nitrous Oxides (pounds/year)4,5313,235EPA, 2005
Reduced Carbon Monoxide (pounds/year)59,13842,231EPA, 2005
Reduced Carbon Dioxide (pounds/year)1,759,8231,256,713EPA, 2005
Economic Benefi ts of Air Quality
Particulate Matter $4,046$2,889NHTSA, 20112
Nitrous Oxides $9,061$6,471NHTSA, 2011
Carbon Dioxide $30,173$21,547NHTSA,2011
1From EPA report 420-F-05-022 “Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.” 2005.
2NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table VIII-5 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ portal/site/nhtsa/ menuitem.
d0b5a45b55bfbe582f57529 cdba046a0/).
As shown in Table 4-3, current bicycle trip benefi ts
include the reduction of over 2 million vehicle trips
annually, and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions
by almost 2 million pounds annually.
4.3.5 Potential Future Walking and Bicycling
Trips
Estimating future benefi ts requires additional assumptions
regarding Newport Beach’s future population and
anticipated commuting patterns in 2030. Future
population predictions as determined by the Center for
Demographic Research in the Newport Beach Banning
Ranch Draft EIR were used in this model. Table 4-4 shows
the projected future demographics used in the future
analysis.
Table 4-4 Project Area Future Demographics
Demographic ValuePercent
of 2012
Population
Source
Population 96,982113.7%Center for Demographic Research 2007, in Newport
Beach Banning Ranch Draft EIR
Employed population 78,36691.8%Center for Demographic Research 2007, in Newport
Beach Banning Ranch Draft EIR
School population, K-12 12,00612.4%Assumes same percent as from ACS 2012 estimate
College student
population
6,813 7.0%Assumes same as 2012 ACS estimate
Photo 36 - Hoag Hospital “Trail to
Wellness” walking route sign
60
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 43
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Table 4-5 Mode Split Comparison with Neighboring Cities
Jurisdiction WalkBikeTransitCarpoolDrive Alone
Newport Beach 1.9%0.8%0.8%4.0%82.5%
Santa Ana 2.2%1.1%7.2%17.1%69.8%
Costa Mesa 3.0%2.2%3.2%9.8%75.0%
Huntington Beach 1.5%1.3%1.2%7.2%82.0%
Irvine 3.8%1.7%1.5%7.3%77.8%
Orange County 2.0%1.0%2.9%10.4%77.8%
California 2.8%1.0%5.1%11.7%73.0%
United States 2.8%0.5%5.0%10.2%76.1%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
The analysis predicts that the bicycle mode split will
more than double by 2030, due in part to bicycle
network implementation and education/encouragement
programs. As shown in Table 4-5, this would result in the
0.8% bicycle mode share increasing to 2%, which is similar
to the current mode splits of neighboring Costa Mesa and
Irvine. The forecast bicycling trips assuming an increase to
2% bicycle mode split are shown in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6 Future (2030) Bicycling and Walking Trips
Trip Type BicyclingWalking Discussion
Commute Trips
Bicycle/walking
commuters
1,567 1,489Employed population multiplied by mode split
Weekday bicycle/ walking
trips
3,134 2,978 Number of bicycle/walking commuters multiplied by
two for return trips
School Trips
K-12 bicycle/ walking
commuters
81 1,269 School children population multiplied by mode split
Weekday K-12 bicycle/
walking trips
162 2,538Number of student bicyclists multiplied by two for
return trips
College Trips
College bicycle/ walking
commuters
743 1,703 College students multiplied by mode split provided
by UC Irvine.
Weekday bicycle/ walking
college trips
1,4863,406Number of college student bicyclists multiplied by
two for return trips
Utilitarian Trips
Daily adult bicycle/
walking commute trips
4,6206,384Number of bicycle/walking trips plus number of
bicycle/walking college trips
Daily bicycle/walking
utilitarian trips
7,236 22,441Number of utilitarian bicycle/walking trips multiplied
by bicycle/walking utilitarian trip multiplier, spread
over entire week (vs. commute trips over 5 days)
Total Future Daily Trips12,01831,363
Table 4-5 Shows the mode split for Newport Beach
compared to neighboring jurisdictions. Forecast bicycling
mode share was increased to address the higher use
potentially generated by the addition of recommended
bikeway facilities to the existing system.
61
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
44 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
As shown in Table 4-6, assuming bicycle mode split
increases to 2%, forecast year 2030 commute, school,
college and utilitarian trips via bicycle are estimated to
grow to approximately 12,000 trips daily.
As shown in Table 4-7, assuming bicycle mode split
increases to 2%, forecast year 2030 benefi ts include the
reduction of almost 7 million vehicle trips annually, and
the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by over 5
million pounds annually.
4.4 Bicycle Counts
In order to better analyze the existing number of bicyclists
in Newport Beach, it is important to understand the
number of bicyclists and the patterns in which they
interact with the existing bicycle network. Newport
Beach’s bicycle counts provide a valuable snapshot for
the level of bicycling and walking that occurs. To do so,
a comprehensive count of bicyclists at 11 locations in
Newport Beach was performed during October 2013. The
eff orts included:
•Coordination with City staff to determine count
locations
•Instruction and standardized count forms
provided to volunteers
•One weekday morning count at each location
•One weekend mid-day at each location, with
additional morning counts at four locations
•Monitoring of bicycle counts by consultant team
•Data synthesis and analysis
The data analyzed in the previous section only accounts
for commute trips. By conducting its own counts, the
City can account for trips taken by bicycle that are not
commute trips, as well as better understand where
bicycling is occurring. The bicycle counts provide baseline
data for future comparison and evaluation of trends.
Analysis of the counts and count location characteristics
additionally provides useful information regarding the
relationship between bicycle ridership levels and the
bicycling environment.
4.4.1 Methodology
Bicycle counts were conducted at 11 locations, listed in
Table 4-8, on Thursday, October 17th, 2013 and Saturday,
October 19th, 2013. The weekday morning counts were
conducted from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and the weekend
counts from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Additional morning
counts were conducted on Saturday from 7:00 to 9:00 AM
to document early morning club riding activity at four
select locations. Criteria used to select count locations
include:
•Bicycle activity areas or corridors (near schools,
parks, downtowns, etc.)
•Key corridors that can be used to gauge the
impacts of future improvements
•Gaps and pinch points for bicyclists (potential
improvement areas)
1From EPA report 420-F-05-022 “Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.” 2005.
2NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table VIII-5 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ portal/site/nhtsa/ menuitem.
d0b5a45b55bfbe582f57529 cdba046a0/).
4.3.6 Future Benefi ts
The trip replacement factors remain the same as in the
model of current trips. Table 4-7 shows the air quality
benefi ts of the future projected walking and bicycling
trips.
Table 4-7 Benefi ts of Future Bicycling and Walking Trips
Measure Bicycling Walking Source
Yearly vehicle miles reduced 6,878,623 5,356,052
Air Quality Benefi ts
Reduced Hydrocarbons (pounds/year)20,624 16,059 EPA, 20051
Reduced Particulate Matter (pounds/year)153119EPA, 2005
Reduced Nitrous Oxides (pounds/year)14,40711,218EPA, 2005
Reduced Carbon Monoxide (pounds/year)188,043146,420EPA, 2005
Reduced Carbon Dioxide (pounds/year)5,559,7994,357,179EPA, 2005
Economic Benefi ts of Air Quality
Particulate Matter $12,866$10,018NHTSA, 20112
Nitrous Oxides $28,813$22,435NHTSA, 2011
Carbon Dioxide $95,942$74,705NHTSA,2011
62
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 45
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Table 4-8 Bicycle Count Locations
Location #Intersection
1 Coast Highway and Orange Street
2 Irvine Avenue and University Drive
3 Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street
4 Ocean Front and 28th Street
5 Irvine Avenue and 15th Street, adjacent Newport Harbor High School
6 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive
7 Eastbluff Drive and Back Bay Drive
8 Coast Highway and Iris Avenue
9 Bonita Canyon Drive and Chambord
10 Coast Highway and Newport Coast Drive
11 Newport Coast Drive and Ridge Park Road
Volunteer counters noted if the bicyclist was a male or
female adult, or a child under 13 years old. In addition, the
counters noted how many bicyclists did not wear helmets,
rode on the sidewalk, or were on the wrong side of the
road. Cyclists riding on the sidewalk were not counted as
traveling the wrong way.
4.4.2 Results
The total number of bicyclists counted for both count days
was 7,041 bicyclists as shown in Table 4-9.
Table 4-10 shows the total bicycle riders counted for each
study period at each count location. Table 4-11 shows the
calculated bicycle riders per hour at each count location.
While these provide an important snapshot of bicycling
in Newport Beach, it does not provide a comprehensive
count of all bicyclists. Instead, the data off ers clues as to
where and when the community is bicycling. Detailed
count results by location can be found in Appendix F.
Table 4-9 Bicycle Count Results
Characteristic Total Count
Total Bicyclists Combined 7,041
Total Bicyclists Weekday 1,078
Total Bicyclists Weekend Day 5,963
Total Female Bicyclists (combined)1,527
Total Male Bicyclists (combined) 5,339
Total Children Under 13 175
Total Bicyclists Without Helmets 1,769
Total Bicyclists Riding on Sidewalk 1,697
Total Bicyclists on Wrong Side of
Road
168
As shown in Table 4-9, 7,041 bicyclists were counted at
11 locations within the City of Newport Beach over 63
hours of data collection by local volunteers. Of the 7,041
bicyclists, male bicyclists were 76%, female bicyclists were
22%, and children under 13 were 2% of those counted.
Photo 37 - Bicycle parking at Ensign Intermediate School
63
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
46 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table 4-10 Bicycle Riders Counted by Location
#Location Thursday
7-9 AM
Saturday
7-9 AM
Saturday
10 AM-1 PM
1 Coast Highway and Orange Street 158 442 1,134
2 Irvine Avenue and University Drive 67 --103
3 Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street 57 --249
4 Ocean Front and 28th Street 165 --804
5 Irvine Avenue and 15th Street, adjacent
Newport Harbor High School
168--70
6 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive124--850
7 Eastbluff Drive and Back Bay Drive 159334713
8 Coast Highway and Iris Avenue21--220
9 Bonita Canyon Drive and Chambord85--68
10 Coast Highway and Newport Coast Drive36215372
11 Newport Coast Drive and Ridge Park Road38192197
As shown in Table 4-10, weekday bicycle rider counts
varied from 21 to 168 cyclists, with high counts occurring
at the following locations:
•Coast Highway/Orange Street;
•Ocean Front Path/28th Street;
•Irvine Avenue/15th Street;
•Coast Highway/Bayside Drive; and
•Eastbluff Drive/Back Bay Drive.
Table 4-11 Hourly Bicycler Rider Count Results
#Location Thursday
Morning
1-Hour Average
Saturday
Morning
1-Hour Average
Saturday
Mid-Day 1-Hour
Average
1 Coast Highway and Orange Street 79 221 378
2 Irvine Avenue and University Drive 34 --34
3 Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street 29 --83
4 Ocean Front and 28th Street 83 --268
5 Irvine Avenue and 15th Street, adjacent
Newport Harbor High School
84--23
6 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive62--283
7 Eastbluff Drive and Back Bay Drive 80167238
8 Coast Highway and Iris Avenue11--73
9 Bonita Canyon Drive and Chambord43--23
10 Coast Highway and Newport Coast Drive18108124
11 Newport Coast Drive and Ridge Park
Road
199666
Most of the weekday high volume locations are likely
related to recreational riding both along the beach and
along regional trails such as Back Bay Drive. Additionally,
the high counts at the Irvine Avenue/15th Street
intersection are related to student activity during morning
arrival at the adjacent Newport Harbor High School
(NHHS).
As also shown in Table 4-10, weekend bicycle rider counts
varied from 68 to 1,134 cyclists, with high counts occurring
at locations with direct access to the beach and regional
trails.
64
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 47
NEEDS ANALYSIS
As shown in Table 4-11, average hourly bicycle rider
counts varied from 11 to 378 cyclists, with high counts
occurring at locations with direct access to the beach and
regional trails. Counters noted that on the weekends there
were many groups of bicyclists. These weekend groups are
likely for recreation, as it was noted in the survey that most
community members bike mainly for this purpose.
The average weekday count was 98 bicyclists, and the
median weekday count was 85 bicyclists. The average
weekend count was 543 bicyclists, and the median
weekend count was 249 bicyclists. Figure 4-4 and Figure
4-5 display the number of bicyclists per hour at each
location.
The results of the Newport Beach bicycle counts show
that:
•The majority of the bicyclists counted were male
adults (76%).
•Approximately three percent of the bicyclists
were children under 13 years old.
•Bicycling is more common on the weekend than
weekdays.
•The most popular areas for bicycling on the
weekend are Coast Highway at Orange Street and
Coast Highway at Bayside Drive.
•The most popular areas for bicycling during the
week are Irvine Avenue at 15th Street and Ocean
Front Trail at 28th Street.
•One quarter of bicyclists counted did not wear
helmets, with higher percentages as the count
locations nearest the beach.
•24% of bicyclists counted were riding on the
sidewalk.
•2.4% of bicyclists counted were riding on the
wrong side of the road.
Based on the count, Newport Beach’s ratio of male cyclists
to female is approximately 3:1. This ratio is consistent with
count data and anecdotal evidence from cities throughout
the country. While bike-friendly cities in Northern
Europe have an even split between men and women (in
some cases more women cyclists than men), in North
American cities with limited bicycling infrastructure, the
number of men is higher in all cases. In cities that strive
to create a fully-integrated network of bike facilities such
as Portland, Oregon or Montreal, the number of female
cyclists has inched closer to male cyclists but continues to
be approximately half of the gross number of men. The
expectation in Newport Beach is that the ratio of men to
women will, in time, begin to balance out as the number
of traffi c-tolerant female cyclists increase as bicycle
infrastructure improvements are implemented.
The high percentage of bicyclists not wearing helmets
suggests a potential lack of understanding relating to
helmet usage or general noncompliance. Many bicyclists
are casual in nature near or at the beach, and often were
not wearing helmets. Many bicyclists were also counted
riding on the sidewalks, which also suggests that many
bicyclists are not aware of the rules of the road, although
in some locations this is allowed. Location seven, Eastbluff
Drive and Bayside Drive, has signage that indicates
bicyclists are allowed on the sidewalks. Only 2.4 percent
of bicyclists counted were riding on the wrong side of the
road. These observations suggest that programs educating
bicyclists on proper behavior and safety is necessary.
On the count forms, many counters made additional notes
about their observations. Common observations included
high vehicle speeds, distracted drivers, and large groups of
cyclists.
4.5 Bicycle Incident Analysis
Safety is a major concern for current and potential
bicyclists, and can infl uence the decision whether or not
to bicycle. Potential bicyclists that do not have experience
riding, especially in traffi c, typically will not ride if they
perceive the roadway as dangerous. People who do not
ride often express frustration when drivers do not see
them or do not understand that bicyclists are aff orded
the same rights as vehicles. Similarly, many bicyclists do
not know or follow the “rules of the road.” Uninformed or
unlawful roadway users can contribute to incidents.
This section reviews bicycle incidents from January 2008
to October 2013. The data shown in this section is from
reported traffi c incidents that have been reviewed by the
Police Department. Table 4-12 presents the number of
bicycle incidents in Newport Beach from 2008-2013. The
most incidents occurred in 2011, and have decreased since.
Photo 38 - Bicycle crossing push button for traffi c signals
65
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
48 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irvi
n
e
Ja
m
bo
r
e
e
Sa
n
t
a An
a
Tu
s
tin
Placentia
Bristol
16th
Baysid e
Mac
Arthu
r
New
port
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
wportCoast
17th
Supe
r
i
o
r
Santi
a
g
o
1st
22n
d
San
Mig
u
el
Eastbluff Mar
gu
e
r
i
t
e
Ca
m
p
u
s
Dover
2nd
Po
p
p
y
Lid
o
A nteater
32
n
d
BonitaCa
nyon
4th
3rd
U nivers
ity
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
Balbo
a
For
dU
niv
e
rsi
ty
Coa
s
t
H
wy
Bis
o
n
Cal
if
o
rnia
Pe
lta
s
on
Aca
d
e
m
y
Ja
m
b
o
r
ee
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
P
elican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
o
r
t Center
Santa C
ruz
Sp
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birc
h
Von Kar
ma
n
W
e
s
t
e
rly Quai
l
Port
Seab
o
u
r
n
e
Spy glass Hill
15
t
h
Back Bay
Clay
S
t
N
ewport Hills
Cham b o rd
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
e
r
s
C
o
u
n
t
e
d
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
0-
2
0
20
-
4
0
40
-
6
0
60
-
8
0
80
-
9
0
No
t
e
:
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
c
o
u
n
t
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
a
t
a
co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
-
4
-
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
e
r
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
66
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 49
NEEDS ANALYSIS
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irv
in
e
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
Sa
n
t
a
A
n
a
Tu
s
tin
Placentia
Bristol
16th
Baysid e
MacArthu
r
New
p
ort
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
ew
portCoast
17th
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
San
t
i
a
g
o
1st
22nd
San
Mig
uel
Eastbluff Ma
r
g
ue
r
i
t
e
Ca
m
p
u
s
Dover
2nd
Po
p
p
y
Lid
o
A nteater
32n
d
BonitaCan
yon
4th
3rd
Univers
ity
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
Balbo
a
FordU
niv
e
r
s
ity
Co
a
s
t
H
wy
Bis
o
n
C
alif
o
r
nia
P
elta
s
on
Acade
m
y
Ja
m
b
o
ree
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
P
elican Hill
Vista Rid
ge
Rid
g
e Park
Newport
Center
Santa Cr
u
z
S
p
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birch
Von Karm
a
n
We
s
t
e
r
l
y
Q uail
Por
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
r
n
e
Spyglass Hill
15
t
h
B
ack Bay
Clay
S
t
N
ewport Hills
Cham b ord
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
e
r
s
C
o
u
n
t
e
d
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
0-
4
0
40
-
9
0
90
-
1
3
0
13
0
-
2
9
0
29
0
-
3
8
0
No
t
e
:
W
e
e
k
e
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
c
o
u
n
t
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
a
t
a
co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
-
5
-
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
M
i
d
-
D
a
y
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
e
r
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
r
67
NEEDS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
50 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table 4-12 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Year
Year Number of Incidents
2008 92
2009 107
2010 105
2011 113
2012 106
2013 (partial)99
Total 622
Note: 2013 bicycle incident data includes
January-October incidents only.
The roadways with the most incidents generally refl ects
the concerns of those who responded to the survey.
Coast Highway had the most bicycle-related incidents
from 2008-2013, and was the most mentioned as being
uncomfortable for bicyclists in the survey. Table 4-13
displays the top 10 roadways with the most bicycle-related
incidents based on data from 2008-2012 (excluding the
partial year 2013 data).
Table 4-13 Highest Bicycle-Related Incident Roadways
Roadway Number
of Bike
Incidents
Annual
Average
Coast Highway 97 39
Newport Boulevard 51 10
Balboa Boulevard 50 10
Irvine Avenue 49 10
Jamboree Road 44 9
Bayside Drive 41 8
Dover Drive 34 7
Superior Avenue 29 6
Seashore Drive 27 5
Oceanfront Trail 23 5
Note: Based on 2008-2012 bike incident data.
Table 4-14 shows the percent of bike incidents based on
the day of the week.
Table 4-14 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Day of the Week
Day of the WeekPercent of Incidents
Monday 13%
Tuesday 11%
Wednesday 14%
Thursday 11%
Friday 12%
Saturday 21%
Sunday 18%
As shown in Table 4-14, the highest percentage of
bicycle-related incidents occurred on Saturdays, and the
second highest on Sundays. According to the survey,
most bicyclists in the area bicycle for the purpose of
recreation or exercise, which may be a reason that the
highest percentage of bicycle-related incidents occurred
on arterial roadways on the weekend. The bike counts
collected illustrate the hourly averages for bicyclists are
typically higher on Saturdays than weekday counts.
Table 4-15 shows the percentages of bicycle-related
incidents in Newport Beach based on the various
combinations of transportation modes.
Table 4-15 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Combination of
Modes Involved
Combination of Modes InvolvedPercent of
Incidents
Solo Bicycle (fell, struck fi xed object,
etc.)
29%
Bicycle-Moving Motor Vehicle 28%
Bicycle-Bicycle 8.7%
Bicycle-Parked Motor Vehicle 3.7%
Bicycle-Pedestrian 2.9%
Bicycle-Other/Not Stated 0.2%
As shown in Table 4-15, approximately 28% of bicycle-
related incidents do not involve a second party; the bicycle
rider either struck a fi xed object, fell after losing control
of the bicycle, or crashed for another reason not caused
by another person or vehicle. Similarly, approximately
28% of bicycle-related incidents involved both a bicycle
rider and a moving motor vehicle. Documented incidents
between bicycle riders and pedestrians are relatively rare,
accounting for fewer than 3% of incidents.
Table 4-16 shows the percent breakdown of the party
determined by law enforcement authorities to have been
at fault in a bicycle-related incident.
Table 4-16 Bicycle-Related Incidents by Mode of Party
Determined to Be at Fault
Mode of Party at Fault Percent of
Incidents
Bicycle Rider 73%
Motorist (includes parked vehicle)26%
Pedestrian 0.6%
Other 0.3%
As shown in Table 4-16, at approximately 73% of bicycle-
related incidents reviewed the bicyclist was determined to
be at fault.
68
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 51
NEEDS ANALYSIS
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irvi
n
e
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
San
t
a
A
n
a
Tusti
n
Placentia
Brist
o
l
16th
Baysid e
Mac
Arthur
New
p
ort
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
wportCoast
17th
Su
p
e
rior
Santiag
o
1st
22nd
Sa
n
Miguel
Eastbluff Ma
r
g
u
e
rit
e
Cam
p
u
s
Dover
2nd
Po
pp
y
Lid
o
A nteater
32
nd
BonitaCanyon
4th
3rd
Univ
ersit
y
Ho
s
p
it
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
Balb o a
FordU
niv
e
rsi
ty
Coa
s
t
Hwy
Biso
n
Cali
for
nia
P
e
ltason
Acad
emy
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
P
elican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
ort Center
Santa Cru
z
Sp
r
u
ce
Dove
Birc
h
Von Karm
a
n
W
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
Qua
i
l
Por
t S
e
a
b
o
u
rne Sp yglass Hill
15
t
h
B
ack Bay
Clay
S
t
N
ewport Hills
Cham b ord
!(!(!(!(
1-
3
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
4-
6
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
7-
9
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
10
+
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
Le
g
e
n
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
-
6
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
-
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
3
69
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
52 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
5 Recommended Bicycle Facilities and Programs
The City has secured funding and programmed
implementation of 7.3 miles of bikeway projects within
the next year. Table 5-1 identifi es the City-programmed
The implementation of bikeway projects on the Banning
Ranch property will be the responsibility of the developer,
and the schedule for implementation will be coordinated
through private sector development of the site.
5.2 Bicycle Network
Recommendations
The proposed bikeway network, when completed,
will include 145.3 miles of bicycle facilities to increase
connectivity within Newport Beach, and to surrounding
communities (Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine,
Laguna Beach). The proposed bikeway network has been
developed to create a comprehensive, safe, and logical
network.
Recommendations for bikeways within the City are subject
to a variety of factors that aff ect the schedule and fi nal
implementation:
•Recommendations have been developed based
on technical review and public input, however,
the recommendations are conceptual and further
feasibility review may be needed to address physical,
community, and fi nancial constraints.
•While a prioritized list is provided in the
Implementation Chapter, projects may be
implemented sooner based on coordination with
other City projects or funding opportunities.
bikeway projects. The Banning Ranch project plans to
construct 3.0 miles of Class I and Class II bikeways facilities
as identifi ed in Table 5-2.
Table 5-1 Programmed Bikeway Projects
Roadway From To Length (Miles)Facility Type
Eastbluff Drive-Ford
Road
Mar Vista DriveMacArthur Boulevard0.8Class II
Jamboree RoadBayview WayEast Coast Highway3.2Class II
San Joaquin Hills
Road
Spyglass Hill RoadJamboree Road2.2Class II
Spyglass Hill RoadSan Miguel DriveSan Joaquin Hills
Road
1.1Class II
Total7.3--
Table 5-2 Planned Bikeway Projects
Roadway From To Length (Miles)Facility Type
15th Street North Bluff RoadEastern Project
Boundary
<0.1 Class II
15th Street North Bluff RoadEastern Project
Boundary
<0.1 Class I
17th Street North Bluff RoadEastern Project
Boundary
<0.1 Class II
Bluff Park TrailResort Colony RoadSeashore Drive0.3 Class I
Bluff Road West Coast HighwayNorth Bluff Road0.4 Class II
Bluff Road TrailWest Coast HighwayNorth Bluff Road0.2 Class I
North Bluff RoadBluff Road 19th Street 1.1 Class II
North Bluff Road TrailBluff Road North of 17th Street0.7 Class I
Total 3.0 --
5.1 Planned Bicycle Network Projects
70
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 53
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Table 5-3 Recommended Bikeway Network Mileage Totals
Facility Type Existing
Bikeways
(Miles)
Planned/
Programmed
Bikeways
(Miles)
Proposed
Bikeways
(Miles)
Total Bikeways
(Miles)
Class I Multi-Use Path 18.8 1.3 7.7 27.8
Class II Bike Lane 40.2 9.0 20.0 69.2
Class III Bike Route 8.1 0.0 19.0 27.1
Sidewalks – Bicycle Riding Allowed21.2 0.0 0.0 21.2
Total88.3 10.3 46.7 145.3
Note: Spot improvements are not identifi ed within this table.
Enhanced bikeways removed from this table to avoid double-counting mileages.
As shown in Table 5-3, when accounting for planned,
programmed, and proposed bikeways, bikeways identifi ed
in this plan total 145.3 miles.
5.2.1 Cost Estimates
The following planning-level costs are typically utilized to
estimate capital expenditures required for implementation
of bikeways by classifi cation:
•Class I Multi-Use Path: $1,000,000 per mile;
•Class II Bike Lane: $50,000 per mile; and
•Class III Bike Route: $20,000 per mile.
While planning-level cost estimates can adequately
provide a sense of the capital required for implementation,
this Plan provides more detailed cost estimates based
on review of current conditions and likely costs for
implementation. The refi ned estimates are presented
in the following tables for Class I, Class II, and Class III
bikeways as well as for spot improvements. Cost estimates
do not include potential right-of-way acquisition,
extensive grading, landscaping, or potential utility
impacts. Cost estimates have been refi ned but may vary
based on further engineering review and are intended to
provide an estimate for budgeting purposes.
•Funding for the bikeway recommendations is discussed
further in the Implementation Chapter, and suggestions
are provided to the City to seek funding sources to
minimize the eff ect on the City of Newport Beach General
Fund for implementation.
•Various bicycle facility treatments are discussed in
Appendix G, however, the City may develop further criteria
and standards for use of bicycle treatments such sharrows,
green confl ict zone striping, bike lane buff ers, etc.
Table 5-3 summarizes the bicycle network
recommendations and total mileage by category.
Figure 5-1 shows the recommended bicycle
facilities network.
Photo 39 - Detour Signage during construction
activities at Jamboree Road
71
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
54 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irvi
n
e
Ja
m
bor
e
e
Sant
a
A
n
a
Tu
s
t
i
n
Placentia
Bristol
16th
Baysid e
MacArthur
Newport
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
wportCoast
17th
Sup
eri
o
r
San
t
i
a
g
o
1st
22n
d
San
Miguel
Eastbluff M
a
r
gu
e
r
i
te
Ca
m
p
u
s
Dover
2nd
Pop
p
y
Lid
o
A nteater
32
n
d
BonitaCanyon
4th
3rd
Univ
e
r
sity
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
Balbo
a
For
dU
niv
e
rsity
Coa
s
t
Hw
y
Biso
n
C
al
if
o
rn
ia
P
elta
s
on
Aca
d
em
y
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
Gol
d
e
n
rod
P
elican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
o
r
t Center
Santa Cr
u
z
Sp
r
u
ce
Dove
Birc
h
Von Kar
ma
n
W
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
Quai
l
Por
t
Sea
b
o
u
r
n
e
Spyglass Hill
15
t
h
Back Bay
Clay
S
t
N
ewport Hills
Cham bord
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
On
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
I
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
B
i
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
(
C
l
a
s
s
I
I
I
)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
-
-
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
i
n
g
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
Le
g
e
n
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
-
1
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
72
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 55
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Table 5-4 Proposed Class I Multi-Use Paths
Roadway From To Length
(Miles)Estimated Cost ($)
Bayview Trail ExtensionJamboree Road Back Bay Drive 0.4$225,000
Coast Highway Bayside Drive Dover Drive 0.4$2,000,000
Constellation Trail Constellation DriveBayview Trail 0.2$207,000
Coyote Canyon Landfi ll Off -
Street Path
Bonita Canyon Drive/
Chambord
San Joaquin Hills Road/
Newport Coast Drive
2.6$360,000
Crystal Cove Park Trail
Extension (includes Bridge)
Southern End of Existing
Off -Street Trail
El Moro State Park Signal0.24$3,000,000
Eastbluff Drive Bayview Trail/Jamboree
Road
Back Bay Drive 0.3$227,250
Lincoln School Trail Pacifi c View DriveSan Joaquin Hills Road0.2$230,000
New Bridge over Superior
Avenue
Superior AvenueFuture Banning Ranch
Class I
<0.1$5,000,000
New Class I Trail along Old
Newport Boulevard
Avon Street Class INewport Boulevard Bridge
Undercrossing
0.1$75,000
New Class I Trail Near Sunset
Ridge Park
Recommended Superior
Avenue Bridge
Future Bluff Road Class II
Bike Lanes
0.3$400,000
New Class I Trail to Arroyo
Park
North of MacArthur
Boulevard
Ford Road 1.2$1,265,000
New Class I Trail (Avon Street
Extension)
Old Newport BoulevardAvon Street 0.1$600,000
Port Streets Off -Street Trail
Improvements
Pacifi c View DriveFord Road 1.5$64,050
Santa Ana River Trail
Extension
Seashore Drive Santa Ana River Trail East
Bank Southerly Terminus
<0.1$500,000
Total Proposed Class I
Multi-Use Paths
7.7$14,153,300
5.2.2 Class I Multi-Use Paths
Class I off -street multi-use paths are often desired by
casual bicyclists, as well as bicyclists concerned about
interacting with vehicular traffi c. A network of off -street
multi-use paths provides greater opportunities for
connectivity to destinations throughout the community,
so recommendations have been developed to improve
the network within the City given notable property and
right-of-way constraints. Some of the recommendations
provided for multi-use paths require coordination with
other agencies such as OC Parks, Caltrans, and California
State Parks. Additionally, gaining access to existing
maintenance roads may provide increased opportunities
for Class I bicycle facilities.
Where there is not suffi cient space or right-of-way for a
Class I bicycle facility, buff ered or physically protected
Class II bike lanes can provide bicycle riders with a more
comfortable level of separation from motor vehicle
traffi c and parked vehicles. The subsequent section
further discusses Class II bicycle facilities in Newport
Beach.
Table 5-4 identifi es the proposed Class I multi-use paths
for the City of Newport Beach bicycle network.
As shown in Table 5-4 a total of 7.7 Class I multi-use paths are recommended.
73
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
56 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
provided, modifi cation of striping to provide a buff er
between on-street parking and/or vehicular traffi c is
recommended. At other locations with minimal crossings,
protected bike lanes may be recommended. The use of
buff ered or protected bike lanes will be considered on a
case-by-case basis through the design of the facility.
Table 5-5 identifi es the proposed or enhanced Class II bike
lanes for the City of Newport Beach bicycle network.
5.2.3 Class II Bike Lanes
Many commuters and recreational bicyclists may prefer
bike lanes due to their more direct routing. This report
recommends the city improve locations where existing
Class II bike lanes may have limited functionality due
to potential “dooring” issues adjacent to parked cars,
or locations where gutter pans and drainage grates
eff ectively narrow the width of the bike lane. In some
locations where wide Class II bike lanes are currently
Table 5-5 Proposed/Enhanced Class II Bike Lanes
Roadway From To Length
(Miles)
Estimated Cost
($)
32nd Street Newport BoulevardVia Lido 0.2$25,000
32nd Street (Enhance Existing)Balboa BoulevardNewport Boulevard0.1$241,500
Avocado AvenueEast Coast HighwayWaterfront Drive0.3$18,000
Back Bay Drive (Enhance
Existing)
Shellmaker RoadEastbluff Road2.9$290,000
Balboa BoulevardEast Coast Highway43rd Street0.2$50,000
Bayside DriveMid-block SignalMarine Avenue0.4$185,000
Birch StreetBristol Street SouthJamboree Road1.4$145,000
Bison AvenueJamboree RoadMacArthur Boulevard0.5$25,000
Campus DriveMacArthur BoulevardJamboree Road0.7$28,000
Dove StreetCampus DriveBristol Street North0.9$90,000
East Coast Highway (Enhance
Existing)
Dover DriveAvocado Avenue2.0$205,000
East Coast HighwaySeaward RoadPelican Point Drive0.7$70,000
East Coast Highway (Enhance
Existing)
Pelican Point Drive0.2 miles west of East City
Limit
2.1$210,000
East Coast Highway0.2 miles west of East City
Limit
Eastern City Limits0.2$20,000
Irvine AvenueEast 15th Street East 16th Street 0.3$90,000
Irvine Avenue (Enhance
Existing)
17th Street University Drive 2.9$200,000
Jamboree Road Bayview Way Bristol Street North 0.2$12,500
Jamboree Road Bristol Street NorthCampus Drive 0.9$350,000
MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive Jamboree Road 1.0$42,000
Marguerite Avenue Fifth Avenue San Joaquin Hills Road0.8$50,000
Newport Boulevard Via Lido 32nd Street 0.2$20,000
Newport Center Drive San Miguel DriveSan Miguel Drive 1.3$130,000
Newport Coast Drive (Enhance
Existing)
East Coast HighwaySR-73 Freeway 3.0$114,000
Newport Ridge Drive East/WestSan Joaquin Hills RoadSan Joaquin Hills Road1.2$50,000
Palm Street Ocean Front PathBalboa Boulevard<0.1$50,000
Pelican Hill Road Newport Coast DriveNewport Coast Drive2.1$84,000
Quail Street Campus Drive Dove Street 0.7$65,000
Ridge Park Road San Joaquin Hills RoadEastern Terminus 1.8$70,000
74
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 57
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
As shown in Table 5-5 a total of 39.7 Class II bike lanes
are recommended, of which 20.0 miles are new bikeways
and 19.7 miles are existing bikeways recommended for
enhancement.
The list of improvements identifi ed above includes
enhancement to the existing Back Bay Drive, a City-
designated multi-use trail. During the course of the
preparation of this Bicycle Master Plan, the treatment and
confi guration of Back Bay Drive has gained attention with
the Bicycle Master Plan Oversight Committee. A dedicated
subcommittee was formed to solicit public input on Back
Bay Drive and to provide recommendations to address
multi-modal needs along the trail which accommodates
one-way northbound vehicular travel between Shellmaker
Road and Eastbluff Drive. This Plan recommends
enhancements of Back Bay Drive, however, the refi ned
design and treatment for Back Bay Drive will be considered
by City Council and will be determined through detailed
review by City staff .
5.2.4 Class III Bike Routes
Any street that is legal for bicycles is inherently a shared
roadway in which bicyclists and drivers share a lane of
traffi c, and a car cannot necessarily pass a bicyclist in
the same lane. To improve motorists’ awareness of the
presence of bicyclists and to indicate good routes for
bicyclists, cities often post signs indicating that the road is
a “Class III Bike Route,” as well as painting shared roadway
markings in the travel lane. Class III bike routes are often
Roadway From To Length
(Miles)
Estimated Cost
($)
Riverside Avenue Cliff Drive Avon Street 0.2$20,000
San Joaquin Hills RoadJamboree Road Back Bay Drive 0.3$50,000
San Joaquin Hills Road (Enhance
Existing/Planned)
Jamboree Road Newport Coast Drive3.7$112,500
San Nicolas Drive Newport Center DriveAvocado Avenue 0.2$20,000
Santa Ana Avenue Cliff Drive 15th Street 0.4$18,000
Seashore Drive (Enhance
Existing)
Orange Street Balboa Boulevard1.5$30,000
Spruce Avenue Bristol Street NorthQuail Street 0.1$4,800
Vista Ridge Road Ridge Park RoadNewport Coast Drive1.4$60,000
Von Karman Avenue/Newport
Place Drive
Dove Street Campus Drive 0.7$45,000
West Coast Highway Western City LimitsOrange Street 0.3$21,000
West Coast Highway (Enhance
Existing)
Orange Street Newport Boulevard1.5$105,000
Westerly Place Quail Street Dove Street 0.3$30,000
Total Proposed/Enhanced
Class II Bike Lanes
39.7$3,446,300
Note: Class II enhancements are included in the table above.identifi ed at locations where the available street width is
not wide enough to accommodate an on-street bike lane
(Class II facility).
Table 5-6 identifi es the proposed or enhanced Class III
bike routes for the City of Newport Beach bicycle network.
There are bike routes identifi ed in the table below that
currently are shown on the bikeway map as existing,
however, improvements are recommended to better
identify the facility.
During community engagement activities, a high number
of comments were submitted requesting further use
shared lane markings (sharrows) within the City. Sharrows
are currently utilized in the City on East Coast Highway
within Corona del Mar, Bayside between El Paseo and
Marguerite Avenue, and Avocado Avenue north of San
Miguel Road. It is recommended that the City develop a
policy for use of sharrows to select the most appropriate
locations for implementation. Additional enhancements
for Class III bike routes include the increased use of “Bikes
May Use Full Lane” signage (MUTCD R4-11).
Table 5-5 Proposed/Enhanced Class II Bike Lanes (continued)
75
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
58 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table 5-6 Proposed/Enhanced Class III Bike Routes
Roadway From To Length
(Miles)
Estimated
Cost ($)
46th Street Balboa BoulevardSeashore Drive 0.1$20,000
47th Street Balboa BoulevardSeashore Drive 0.1$20,000
Agate Avenue South Bay FrontNorth Bay Front 0.2$20,000
Avon Street Riverside AvenueWestern Terminus 0.2$20,000
Balboa Boulevard 32nd Street G Street 2.7$50,000
Bayside Drive East Coast HighwayExisting Class I North of Coast
Highway
0.2$70,000
Beacon Street Tustin AvenueIrvine Avenue 0.3$40,000
Clay Street (Bike Boulevard)Orange AvenueEast 15th Street (East of St.
Andrews Road)
1.1$100,000
East 15th Street Western TerminusPlacentia Avenue 0.3$20,000
East Bay Avenue Palm Street Main Street 0.1$20,000
East Coast Highway (Enhance
Existing)
Poppy AvenueSeaward Road 0.1$10,000
East Ocean Boulevard G Street Channel Road 0.6$10,000
Fernleaf Avenue Bayside Drive Ocean Avenue 0.2$20,000
Fifth Avenue (Bike Boulevard)East Coast HighwayOrchid Avenue 0.7$50,000
Fullerton Avenue (Bike Boulevard)Cliff Drive 15th Street 0.3$50,000
G Street Balboa BoulevardOcean Boulevard <0.1$10,000
Goldenrod Avenue First Avenue Second Avenue 0.2$10,000
Goldenrod Avenue (Enhance
Existing)
East Coast HighwayNorthern Edge of Harbor
View Elementary School
0.3$20,000
Goldenrod Avenue Seaview AvenueOcean Boulevard 0.1$15,000
Hospital Road Superior AvenueOld Newport Boulevard0.4$30,000
Jamboree Road Coast HighwayBayside Drive 0.1$20,000
Main Street Ocean Front PathEdgewater Avenue 0.1$20,000
Marguerite Avenue Ocean BoulevardFifth Avenue 0.5$20,000
Marguerite Avenue San Joaquin Hills RoadPacifi c View Drive 0.2$7,500
Marine Avenue South Bay Front AlleyBayside Drive 0.4$20,000
Mesa Drive Birch Street Bayview Trail (150’ southeast
of Bayview Avenue)
0.5$30,000
Newport Boulevard AlleyVia Lido 32nd St 0.2$50,000
Newport Hills Drive WestFord Road Buff alo Hills Trail 1.0$30,000
North Bay Front Alley Marine AvenueAgate Avenue 0.4$15,000
Ocean Boulevard Fernleaf AvenuePoppy Avenue 0.7$20,000
Orange Avenue (Bike Boulevard)Clay Street 15th Street <0.1$20,000
Orchid Avenue (Bike Boulevard)Ocean BoulevardFifth Avenue 0.5$60,000
Pacifi c View Drive Lincoln Elementary
School West Driveway
Marguerite Avenue 0.2$30,000
Palm Street Balboa BoulevardEdgewater Avenue 0.1$10,000
Park Avenue South Bay FrontEast Bay Front 0.8$20,000
76
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 59
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
As shown in Table 5-6 a total of 20.8 Class III bike routes
are recommended, of which 19.0 miles are new bikeways
and 1.8 miles are existing bikeways recommended for
enhancement.
5.2.5 Sidewalks – Bicycle Riding Allowed
As noted early in this document, per the City Municipal
Code Section 12.56.30 and City Council Resolution 82-148,
bicycle riding is allowed on various sidewalks throughout
the city. This report doesn’t identify any new locations
for designation of bicycle riding, however, an update to
the current resolution is recommended and additional
wayfi nding and striping is recommended to further
strengthen where bicycle riding is allowed.
Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is observed regularly
throughout the City, and the City has built a network of
sidewalks to better accommodate both pedestrians and
bicyclists. Bicycle riding is often preferred by cyclists to
connect facilities. Typically the City has designated wider
sidewalks to allow for bicycle riding. Bike lane markings
cannot be utilized on sidewalks since they are exclusively
for use in on-street bike lanes. The City may consider the
use of custom markings on sidewalks such as “bike dots”
with arrows to direct cyclists and remind pedestrians that
bicyclists may be present on a sidewalk. The bike dot
shown here is approximately one foot in diameter.
Roadway From To Length
(Miles)
Estimated
Cost ($)
Poppy Avenue Fifth Street Ocean Avenue 0.6$20,000
Port Seabourne Place Newport Hills Drive
West
Buff alo Hills Trail 0.2$20,000
Santa Ana Avenue Old Newport BoulevardCliff Drive 0.2$30,000
Santiago Drive Irvine Avenue Tustin Avenue 0.4$20,000
Santiago Drive (Bike Boulevard)Polaris Drive Irvine Avenue 1.6$200,000
Seashore Drive Santa Ana River Trail
East Bank
Orange Street 0.3$20,000
South Bay Front Alley Agate AvenueMarine Avenue 0.5$30,000
St. Andrews Road Cliff Drive East 15th Street 0.3$50,000
Tustin Avenue Cliff Drive 15th Street 0.3$50,000
Via Lido Lafayette Road/32nd
Street
Via Lido Soud0.2$10,000
West Coast Highway (Enhance
Existing)
Dover DriveNewport Boulevard1.4$70,000
Westcliff DriveIrvine AvenueDover Drive0.3$20,000
Westminster AvenueOld Newport Boulevard15th Street 0.4$30,000
Total Proposed/Enhanced
Class III Bike Routes
20.8$1,547,500
Note: Class III bikeway enhancements are included in the table above.
Prior mapping of the bikeways network has identifi ed
the sidewalks where bicycling is allowed as Class I
facilities. Since the City-designated sidewalks are typically
directly adjacent to the edge of the roadway with no
buff er distance (or physical barrier) provided, the Class I
designation does not satisfy with State requirements.
This plan recommends that the City of Newport Beach
remove the Class I designation on sidewalks where
bicycling is allowed, and designate the locations shown
in Table 5-7 as “Sidewalks – Bicycle Riding Allowed”
locations. Figure 5-2 shows the network of sidewalks
where bicycle riding is allowed.
Table 5-6 Proposed/Enhanced Class III Bike Routes (continued)
77
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
60 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table 5-7 Sidewalks – Bicycle Riding Allowed
#Roadway From To
1Avocado Avenue San Miguel Drive East Coast Highway
2 Bison Avenue Camelback Street MacArthur Boulevard
3Bonita Canyon Drive MacArthur Boulevard SR-73 (East City Limit)
4East Coast Highway Bayside Drive Jamboree Road
5East Coast Highway Coast Highway Trail Eastern TerminusAvocado Avenue
6Eastbluff Drive North Jamboree Road Back Bay Drive
7Eastbluff Drive South Jamboree Road Mar Vista Road
8Ford Road Jamboree Road MacArthur Boulevard
9Jamboree Road East Coast Highway University Avenue/Eastbluff Drive
10MacArthur Boulevard Coast Hwy Bison Avenue
11Newport Boulevard Via Lido West Coast Hwy (Northbound
Newport On-Ramp)
12Newport Coast Drive East Coast Highway San Joaquin Hills Road
13San Joaquin Hills Road Park Newport San Miguel Drive
14San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive Newport Coast Drive
15San Joaquin Hills Road Free-Right San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road
16San Miguel Drive San Joaquin Hills Road Ford Road
17Spyglass Hill Drive San Miguel Drive San Joaquin Hills Road
18Via Lido Lafayette Road Via Lido Soud
19West Coast Highway Riverside Avenue Santa Ana River Trail
20West Coast Highway Dover Drive Bayside Drive
Photo 40 - Via Lido Bridge Photo 41 - Sidewalk riding near Vista Point
78
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 61
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
-
2
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
-
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
i
n
g
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
±
02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irv
i
n
e
Ja
m
bo
r
e
e
Sa
n
t
a
A
n
a
Tu
s
t
i
n
Placentia
Bris
t
o
l
16th
Baysid e
Mac
Arthur
New
p
ort
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
w
portCoast
17th
Su
peri
o
r
San
t
i
a
go
1st
22n
d
San
Miguel
Eastbluff M
a
r
g
u
e
rit
e
Ca
m
p
u
s
Dover
2nd
Po
p
py
Lido
Anteater
3
2nd
BonitaCanyon
4th
3rd
U nivers
i
t
y
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
B alb o a
FordU
niv
e
rsi
ty
Co
a
s
t
H
wy
Biso
n
Cal
if
o
rn
i
a
P
elta
s
on
Aca
d
e
m
y
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
P
elican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
o
r
t Center
Santa Cru
z
Sp
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birc
h
Von Kar
ma
n
W
es
t
e
r
l
y
Q uail
Por
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
r
n
e
Sp yglass Hill
15
t
h
B
ack Bay
Clay St
N
ewport Hills
Cham bord
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
-
-
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
i
d
i
n
g
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
Le
g
e
n
d
79
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
62 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
homes, jobs, public transit, and recreational resources
in the Newport Beach.” Table 5-8 and Figure 5-3
identifi es the recommended bicycle boulevards for the
City of Newport Beach bicycle network. A few of the
bicycle boulevards traverse multiple bikeway types (off -
street or on-street bikeways) as well as multiple streets,
so the proposed boulevards are numbered to illustrate
the routing. A total of 5.7 miles of bicycle boulevards
are recommended for further analysis and future
implementation by the City.
5.2.6 Bicycle Boulevards
Bicycle boulevards are generally defi ned as low-volume,
low-speed streets that have been optimized for bicycle
travel using treatments such as traffi c calming and
traffi c reduction, signage and pavement markings, and
intersection crossing treatments. The concept of bicycle
boulevards is supported by Objective 1.1 of this Plan,
which states, “Expand the existing bicycle network to
provide a comprehensive, network of Class I, Class II, and
Class III facilities that increases connectivity between
Table 5-8 Proposed Bicycle Boulevards
Bike
Boulevard #
RoadwayFromToLength
(Miles)
1 Clay Street Orange Avenue 15th Street 1.2Orange AvenueClay Street15th Street
2Fullerton AvenueCliff Drive15th Street 0.3
3 Santiago Drive Polaris Drive Tustin Avenue 1.9
4 Fifth Avenue Orchid Avenue East Coast Highway 0.9Orchid Avenue Fifth Avenue East Coast Highway
5 Avocado AvenueEast Coast HighwaySecond Avenue
1.4
Second Avenue Avocado Avenue Goldenrod Avenue
Goldenrod Avenue*Second Avenue Seaview Avenue
Seaview Avenue Goldenrod AvenuePoppy Avenue
Poppy Avenue Seaview Avenue East Coast Highway
Total 5.7
Note: * = Goldenrod Avenue Pedestrian Bridge requires riders dismount
Photo 42 - Fifth Avenue Trail through Jasmine View Park Photo 43 - Custom bicycle boulevard sign utilized on Vista
Street in Long Beach.
80
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 63
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
-
3
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
s
±02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irvi
n
e
Ja
m
b
o
ree
Sant
a
A
n
a
Tu
stin
Placentia
Bristol
16th
Baysid e
Mac
Arthu
r
Newport
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
w
portCoast
17th
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
San
t
i
a
g
o
1st
22n
d
San
Miguel
Eastbluff Ma
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
e
Ca
m
pu
s
Dover
Chambor d
2nd
Popp
y
Lid
o
A nteater
32
n
d
BonitaCan
yon
4th
3rd
Univers
i
t
y
Hosp
i
t
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
B alboa
FordU
niv
e
r
s
ity
Coa
s
t
H
w
y
Biso
n
Cali
f
ornia
Pe
lta
s
on
Aca
dem
y
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
Pelican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
o
rt Center
Santa Cr
u
z
Sp
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birch
Von Karm
a
n
W
es
t
e
r
ly Qua
i
l
Por
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
rne
Spy glass Hill
15
t
h
Back Bay
Clay St
N
ewport Hills
54
3
2
1
Le
g
e
n
d
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
i
k
e
Ro
u
t
e
(
B
i
k
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
)
81
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
64 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Potential
improvements may include changes to signage and
striping, modifi ed wayfi nding, and use of bicycle
treatments such as bike lane extensions or confl ict zone
striping. Proposed spot improvements located within
Caltrans or OC Parks right of way have been listed in a
separate table, where the fi nal implementation will be
the responsibility of an agency other than the City, with
coordination eff orts provided by City staff .
Table 5-9, Table 5-10, and Figure 5-3 identify the
recommended spot improvements; however, additional
locations will likely be considered based on continued
City evaluation of the system and in response to specifi c
concerns noted by the community.
Since no bicycle boulevards exist today, it is recommended
the City study the feasibility of bicycle boulevards
including public outreach in the community where the
improvements are proposed. Additional consideration
should be given to implementation of the fi rst bicycle
boulevards on streets where traffi c calming has historically
been requested or locations that bicyclists already utilize
as a parallel route to avoid a high traffi c volume or high
speed roadway.
5.2.7 Spot Improvements
Public input helped identify a variety of locations
where specialized refi nements are desired to improve
bicycle accommodation, and minimize confl icts
Table 5-9 Proposed Spot Improvements – City
#Location Ownership/
Right-of-Way
Notes Estimated
Cost ($)
1 32nd Street/Newport
Boulevard Intersection
City of Newport BeachModify intersection to use bike box and crossing
treatments to improve bicycle accommodation.
$30,000
2 Bayside Drive/El Paseo
Drive
City of Newport BeachImplement sidewalk improvements and extend
sharrows for northbound traffi c north of El
Paseo Drive for approximately 400 feet to close
gap with on-street bike lane.
$20,000
3 Bayside Drive/Marine
Avenue Intersection
City of Newport BeachReview intersection signage, markings, and
wayfi nding to improve bicycle accommodation.
$30,000
4 Irvine Avenue/ Santiago
Drive Intersection
City of Newport BeachReview striping to maintain Irvine Avenue on-
street bike lane in vicinity of Santiago Drive.
$30,000
5 Newport Coast Drive/
Ridge Park Road
Intersection
City of Newport BeachConstruct bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
Newport Center Drive in vicinity of Ridge Park
Road to provide connectivity with residential,
commercial, and school land uses.
$1,000,000
6 Newport Pier Parking
Lot
City of Newport BeachConstruct separated bicycle facility to continue
Ocean Front path through or around the parking
lot.
$405,000
7 San Joaquin Hills Road
(from Marguerite
Avenue to Spyglass Hill
Road)
City of Newport BeachUpdate signage, markings, and wayfi nding to
improve bicycle accommodation near school
related to student drop-off /pick-up activity.
$10,000
8 Superior Avenue/
West Coast Highway
Intersection
City of Newport BeachCoordinate with Caltrans to modify to use
confl ict zone striping and other treatments to
improve bicycle accommodation at merge/
transition areas for southbound travel
approaching intersection.
$40,000
Total$1,565,000
82
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 65
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Table 5-10 Proposed Spot Improvements – Caltrans/OC Parks
#Location Ownership/
Right-of-
Way
Notes Estimated
Cost ($)
9 Bayside Drive/
East Coast Highway
Intersection
CaltransCoordinate with Caltrans to update signage, markings,
and wayfi nding to improve bicycle accommodation.
$30,000
10 Bayview TrailOC ParksCoordinate with OC Parks to improve signage, markings,
and wayfi nding to slow cyclists approaching sidewalk
portion of trail along Eastbluff Drive.
$30,000
11 Crystal Cove Trail at
Ruby’s Shake Shack
CaltransCoordinate with Caltrans and California State Parks to
update signage, markings, and wayfi nding along the
off -street trail at the junction with the Ruby’s Shake Shack
parking lot along East Coast Highway. Improvements are
within State right of way, and require State approval.
$30,000
12 Dover Drive/West Coast
Highway Intersection
CaltransCoordinate with Caltrans to update signage, markings,
and wayfi nding to improve bicycle accommodation.
$30,000
13 Northbound SR-73 On-
Ramp/Newport Coast
Drive Intersection
CaltransCoordinate with Caltrans to modify roadway striping
at Newport Coast Drive approaching the northbound
on-ramp to remove the option through/right from
the center travel lane. Work with Caltrans and City of
Irvine to improve signage, markings, and wayfi nding at
intersection.
$60,000
14 Riverside Avenue/
West Coast Highway
Intersection
CaltransWork with Caltrans to improve signage, markings,
and wayfi nding at intersection and wayfi nding to
direct cyclists towards beach from Riverside Avenue.
Improvements are within State right of way, and require
State approval.
$30,000
15 Southbound SR-73 Off -
Ramp/Newport Coast
Drive
CaltransCoordinate with Caltrans to modify crossing between
motorists and bicyclists from junction with freeway off -
ramp. Consider speed reduction signs and transverse
audible warning lines on off -ramp, and pavement
improvements to better accommodate bicycle travel.
Long-term consideration may include realignment of
ramp (cost to be determined.)
$70,000
16 West Coast Highway
(from Newport
Boulevard to Riverside
Drive)
CaltransCoordinate with Caltrans to improve signage, markings,
and wayfi nding to guide cyclists from Newport Boulevard
to Riverside Avenue using sidewalks designated for
bicycling. Review sidewalks to remove and relocate
utilities and posts. Improvements are within State right of
way, and require State approval.
$300,000
17 West Coast Highway
(from Santa Ana River
Trail to Orange Street)
CaltransCoordinate with Caltrans to improve signage, markings,
and wayfi nding to guide cyclists from Santa Ana River
Trail to Orange Street using sidewalks designated for
bicycling. Review sidewalks to remove and relocate
utilities and posts. Improvements are within State right of
way, and require State approval.
$20,000
Total$600,000
83
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
66 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
-
4
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
S
p
o
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
±02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irvi
n
e
Ja
m
b
o
ree
Sant
a
A
n
a
Tu
stin
Placentia
Bristol
16th
Baysid e
Mac
Arthu
r
Newport
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
w
portCoast
17th
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
San
t
i
a
g
o
1st
22n
d
San
Miguel
Eastbluff Ma
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
e
Ca
m
pu
s
Dover
Chambor d
2nd
Popp
y
Lid
o
A nteater
32
n
d
BonitaCan
yon
4th
3rd
Univers
i
t
y
Hos
p
i
t
a
l
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
B alboa
FordU
niv
e
r
s
ity
Co
a
s
t
H
w
y
Biso
n
Cali
f
ornia
Pe
lta
s
on
Aca
dem
y
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
Pelican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
o
rt Center
Santa Cr
u
z
Sp
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birc
h
Von Karm
a
n
W
es
t
e
r
l
y
Qua
i
l
Por
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
rne
Spy glass Hill
15
t
h
Back Bay
Clay St
N
ewport Hills
16
14
8
15
7
13
6
5
4
12
11
10
9
3
1
17
2
Le
g
e
n
d
Sp
o
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
#
84
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 67
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
This plan also recommends implementation of adequate
short-term bicycle parking in the form of bicycle racks at
all major trip attractors, including commercial and civic
activity centers and transit hubs. The City should prioritize
the installation of bicycle parking throughout the city, with
particular attention directed at the following locations:
•Balboa Pier
•Branch Libraries
•City Hall/Central Library and other Civic Buildings
•Commercial/offi ce areas
•Community Centers
•Fashion Island Commercial Center
•Newport Pier
•Newport Transportation Center
•Parks
•Post Offi ces
•Schools
Although the number of racks is determined by the space
available, it is recommended that short-term bicycle
parking capacity to accommodate eight bicycles is
provided at each of the civic uses identifi ed above, and
short-term bicycle parking for commercial and offi ce areas
be determined based on intensity of development. The
adequacy of short-term bicycle parking requires regular
review to determine if additional capacity is needed.
5.3.2 Long-Term Bicycle Parking
Locations where visitors are expected to park their
bicycles for longer than 2 hours should provide more
secure, long-term bicycle parking options, such as bicycle
lockers (similar to the bicycle cage constructed at City Hall
in the parking garage).
City staff may coordinate with public and private sector
development opportunities to determine which projects
and facilities should incorporate secure bicycle parking
areas into their design. Secure bicycle parking areas that
provide services, such as bicycle rentals and repair may be
considered. The following are locations where long-term
bicycle parking is recommended.
•Airport Employment Area
•City Hall/Central Library
•Fashion Island Commercial Center
•Newport Transportation Center
5.3 Recommended End-of-Trip
Bicycle Facilities
Support facilities and connections to other modes of
transportation are essential components of a bicycle
system because they enhance safety and convenience for
bicyclists at the end of every trip. With nearly all utilitarian
and many recreational bike trips, bicyclists need secure
and well-located bicycle parking. A comprehensive bicycle
parking strategy is one of the most important things
that a jurisdiction can apply to immediately enhance
the bicycling environment. Moreover, a bicycle parking
strategy with connections to public transit will further the
geographical range of residents traveling without using an
automobile.
Bicycle parking can be categorized into short-term and
long-term parking. Bicycle racks are the preferred device
for short-term bike parking. These racks serve people who
leave their bicycles for relatively short periods of time,
typically for shopping or errands, eating or recreation.
Bicycle racks provide a high level of convenience and
moderate level of security. Long-term bike parking
includes bike lockers and bike rooms and serves people
who intend to leave their bicycles for longer periods of
time and are typically found in multifamily residential
buildings and commercial buildings. These facilities
provide a high level of security but are less convenient
than bicycle racks. Additional guidance on end-of-trip
bicycle facility design is provided in Appendix G.
5.3.1 Short-Term Bicycle Parking
This plan recommends the City adopt the short-term
bicycle rack types shown in Figure 5-5 as the standard
short-term parking.
U-Rack Post and Loop
Horseshoe Lightning Bolt™
or Varsity Rack™
Figure 5-5 Types of Bicycle Racks
85
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
68 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
5.4 Wayfi nding and Signage Plan
This Plan includes a citywide bicycle wayfi nding
and signage plan for Newport Beach, including the
establishment of an identity for the city’s primary
bikeways. The signage plan included in Appendix H
recommends strategies to assure bicyclists that they are
using a network that is continuous and easily navigated.
This wayfi nding system will direct bicyclists to major
destinations within the City, such as the Newport
Transportation Center, Balboa Peninsula, Newport Center
and other commercial centers, Back Bay, and Corona del
Mar. Signage recommendations are included to be placed
on all existing and proposed routes. Additionally, a group
of major routes have been identifi ed as primary named
routes, and will serve as a backbone to the system. The
Wayfi nding and Signage Plan is organized by proposed
signage design, signage location, kiosks, collaborative
eff orts, and the route naming system.
5.5 Recommended Programs
Improvements to and continued support of education,
enforcement and evaluation programs have been proven
to increase the number of bicycle trips and bicycling
safety. These programs can ensure that more community
members know about new and improved facilities,
learn the skills they need to integrate bicycling into their
activities, and receive positive reinforcement about
integrating bicycling into their daily lives. In essence, the
new and enhanced programs market the idea of bicycling
to the community and encourage a shift to bicycling as a
transportation option. This Plan supports the continuation
and enhancement of the City’s education, encouragement,
and enforcement programs that are currently in place.
The following additional programs are each designed to
promote bicycling in the City, increase safety for those
traveling by bicycle, and raise awareness of the benefi ts
of bicycling. Table 5-11 provides a summary of the
recommended programs.
5.3.3 Municipal Code Bicycle Parking
The Newport Beach Municipal Code currently requires
bicycle lockers or racks to “be provided for use by
employees or building tenants. A minimum of two
lockers per one hundred (100) employees shall be
provided. Lockers may be located in a required parking
space.”1 In addition, the General Plan Circulation Element
requires “new development projects to provide facilities
commensurate with development type and intensity to
support alternative modes, such as… bicycle lockers,
showers, [and] commuter information areas.”2
This plan recommends the City amend its Municipal
Code to include requirements on types of short-term and
long-term bicycle parking facility designs. Recommended
bicycle parking designs are provided in Appendix G.
Bicycle rack designs should include racks that provide two
points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked
from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This
will provide a higher degree of security and support for
the bicycle. This will more accurately address the bicycle
demand at a given development. Additionally, space
to maneuver the bicycle away from fi xed objects and
buildings is required to accommodate short-term bicycle
parking needs.
Key design aspects related to long-term bicycle parking
includes:
•Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently
anchored racks for bicycles.
•Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently
anchored racks; or
•Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.
When people commute by bicycle, they often sweat or
become dirty from weather or road conditions. Providing
changing and storage facilities encourage commuters to
travel by bicycle because they have a place to change and
prepare before work or school.
This Plan recommends the Newport Beach’s Municipal
Code be revised as needed to require all new mid-size
and large employers, offi ces, and businesses to supply
changing and storage facilities, such as by providing
showers and locker space within the buildings or
arranging agreements with nearby recreation centers to
allow commuters to use their facilities.
As noted in the following section, the installation of
bicycle maintenance hubs or stations at key high-traffi c
locations can accommodate bicyclists for a variety of
needs (such as minor repairs, infl ating tires, fi lling water
bottles, providing wayfi nding information, and promotion
of local businesses).
1Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 20.44.050.
2City of Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element, Section CE6.2.2.
Photo 44 - Long-term bicycle parking at the Civic Center
86
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 69
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Table 5-11 Recommended Programs
CategoryProgram Responsible PartyFunding SourceSchedule
Education Bicycle Safety and Share the Road
Campaigns
OCTA, City City; GrantsNear-Term
Bicycle Resource Website City City Near-Term
Adult Bicycling Skills ClassesBicycle Clubs, City,
OCTA
City; GrantsNear-Term
Youth Bicycle Safety Education
Classes
Bicycle Clubs, CityCity; GrantsNear-Term
Youth Bicycle Safety Clinics & Bicycle
Campus
City, Safe Routes
to School National
Partnership
City; GrantsMiddle-Term
Senior Bicycle Education ClassesBicycle Clubs, CityCity; GrantsMiddle-Term
Encouragement Bike Valet at City Events Special Event
Promoter, City
City Near-Term
Youth and Family-Oriented Bicycle
Rides
Advocacy Groups, CityPrivate Near-Term
“Be Seen in Newport Beach” Bike
Light Campaign
City City; GrantsNear-Term
Bike Festivals & Family Bike Fest/
Family Biking Day
City, Advocacy GroupsCity; SponsorshipsNear-Term
Launch Party for New Bicycle
Facilities
City City Near-Term
Bicycle Friendly Community
Designation
City N/A Near-Term
Tourism Integration City City Near-Term
Commuter Incentive ProgramsOCTA, City City; GrantsMiddle-Term
Safe Routes to School ProgramCity, Advocacy GroupsGrants Near-Term
Bicycle Friendly Business DistrictsBusiness Improvement
District/Association,
City
City;
ConContributions
from Business
Associations
Middle-Term
Bicycle Hubs City City; GrantsMiddle-Term
Media Outlets City In-Kind
Contributions;
Grants
Middle-Term
Individualized Marketing CampaignsOCTA, City Grants Middle-Term
Mobility Coordinator City City; GrantsLong-Term
Ride with the City City City Near-Term
Open Streets/Ciclovía EventsCity City; GrantsLong-Term
Bicycle Sharing City, OCTA Grants;
Sponsorships
Long-Term
Enforcement Speed Radar Trailer/Feedback SignsCity Grants Near-Term
Bicycle Patrol Units City City Near-Term
Bicycle Theft Abatement ProgramCity Grants Middle-Term
87
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
70 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Evaluation Bicycle Counts and Survey ProgramCityCity; GrantsNear-Term
Mapping Bikeway InvestmentsCityCityNear-Term
Bicycle Report CardCityCityMiddle-Term
Complete Streets PolicyCityCity; GrantsMiddle-Term
Bicycle Parking Policy and
Enforcement
CityCity; GrantsMiddle-Term
Bike Counters/Bicycle BarometersCityGrantsMiddle-Term
Note: Near-term = 0-3 years, Middle-Term = 3-6 years, Long-Term = 6+ years.
5.5.1 Education
Education programs are designed to improve safety and
awareness. Bicycle-related collision data shows that in
addition to infrastructure improvements, education about
riding on the right side of the road and how to properly
ride in traffi c may reduce bicycle-related collisions. The
following outlines recommended education programs.
Bicycle Safety and Share the Road Campaigns
Many of the bicycle safety and share the road campaigns
described below are well-suited for implementation by
a regional agency to coordinate eff orts across multiple
jurisdictions. A marketing campaign that highlights
bicyclist and pedestrian safety is an important part of
creating awareness of bicycling and walking. This type
of high-profi le campaign is an eff ective way to reach the
public, highlight bicycling and walking as viable forms
of transportation, and reinforce safety for all road users.
Since motorists and cyclists traveling through the City of
Newport Beach are often visitors from other jurisdictions,
a marketing campaign by a regional agency such as
OCTA can help reach a larger audience within the County.
Support by cities can include concurrent promotion
through social media, banners, and written media.
A well-produced safety campaign will be memorable
and eff ective. One good example is the Sonoma County
Transit “You’ve got a friend who bikes!” campaign. It
combines compelling ads with an easy-to-use website
focused at motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This type
of campaign is particularly eff ective when kicked off in
conjunction with other bicycling/walking events or back
to school in the fall. The safety and awareness messages
could be displayed near high-traffi c corridors (e.g., on
banners), printed in local publications, broadcast as radio
and/or television ads and be available in Spanish and other
languages.
Sample program:
Sonoma County (CA) Transit:
http:// www.sctransit.com/bikesafe/bikes.htm
Share the Road outreach is a way for cities to actively
disseminate the rules of the road in person to residents.
One way to conduct outreach is to conduct “checkpoints”.
Working with volunteers from a local advocacy group and
the police department, offi cers could stop motorists and
bicyclists to off er a brochure on the rules of the road as
they pertain to motorists and bicyclists. Within Newport
Beach, checkpoints could be planned at high-pedestrian
areas such as the Ocean Front Path, the piers, and the
Balboa Village, if checkpoints that stop moving traffi c on
roadway is not desired. An example of the Marin County
Bicycle Coalition’s Share the Road Checkpoints can be
found at the link below.
http://www.marinbike.org/Campaigns/ShareTheRoad/ Index.shtml
Developed by the City of San Jose, StreetSmarts uses print
media, radio spots and television spots to educate people
about safe driving, bicycling and walking behavior. More
information about StreetSmarts can be found at the link
below.
http://www.getstreetsmarts.org/
Many other cities, counties, and states produce bicycle
safety videos to educate riders and drivers. One such video
from the Chicago Department of Transportation’s Bicycle
Program explains why cyclists should ride on the street
rather than on the sidewalk3. A series of online videos
from the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, illustrates both
the dangers of wrong-way cycling and how motorists
should follow the City’s 5-foot passing rule4; these were
produced in both English and Spanish. One potential video
that the City could produce is a guide for motorists on how
to follow the recently adopted “Three Feet for Safety Act”
in California, which requires that drivers provide at least 3
feet of clearance when overtaking and passing a bicycle
that is traveling in the same direction5. The City of Roswell,
Georgia, produced a similar video6 to educate motorists
about that state’s 3-foot law. Other examples of “3 feet
to pass” outreach campaigns include those by the City of
Los Angeles7, Bicycle Colorado8, and bicycle advocates in
3Chicago Dept. of Transportation - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTZ1RtcH8_M
4 City of Albuquerque, ShareTheRoadABQ.com
http://youtu.be/74-NecLRcNo, http://youtu.be/ZsxOuy67ch8, http://youtu.be/05s4XoROkdc, http://youtu.be/bE6QaKqC16Q
Table 5-11 Recommended Programs (continued)
88
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 71
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
•Laws and ordinances specifi c to bicycling
•Guidance on requesting new bike racks
•Information for tourists (bike rental, where to get
a hard copy bikeways map)
Sample website:
http://www.bikelongbeach.org/
Adult Bicycling Skills Classes
Community members can be given the opportunity to
participate in bicycling skills classes. The most common
program is the League of American Bicyclists courses
(including Road I, Road II, and Commuting), taught by
League Certifi ed Instructors (LCIs). Courses cover bicycle
safety checks, fi xing a fl at tire, on-bike skills, crash
avoidance techniques, and traffi c negotiation. Courses
are already available in other Orange County cities and
are often hosted by the Orange County Bicycle Coalition
and Orange County Wheelmen. The City can invite LCIs
to host adult bicycling skills classes and can highlight
local or nearby courses on its bicycling website. The City
could advertise the courses in multiple languages and use
responses to the advertisement to determine the need for
multi-lingual instruction. Coordinating classes with OCTA
or adjacent cities may also help promote the event and
minimize costs to the City of Newport Beach.
In addition, the City can consider classes are oriented
toward and taught by women, in order to encourage more
women to participate. Recent all-female trainings in Los
Angeles County have attracted participants that may have
felt intimidated taking classes among and taught by men.
The women led training programs can provide a means
to increase the number of women instructors to continue
catering to women-only trainings.
Sample program:
•League of American Bicyclists:
http://bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php
•Women on Bikes SoCal’s all-female LCI trainings:
http://bikeleague.org/content/fi rst-all-female-lci-training-
huge-success
Nevada’s Lake Tahoe area. Given the number of visitors
to the City of Newport Beach, creation of a video to reach
a countywide audience may indicate preparation of an
educational video is best served by a regional authority
such as OCTA or SCAG.
OCTA is currently considering the development of a
bicycle use safety campaign for Orange County, starting
with an instructional video on how to use sharrows.
Additional concepts under consideration include eff orts
similar to those employed by LA County Metro promoting
“Every lane is a bike lane”9, a bicyclist anti-harassment
ordinance like that in Los Angeles10, and free bicycle safety
training for motorists and bicyclists. Examples of free
safety training classes include those off ered in 2013 by LA
County Metro11 (through a partnership with the LA County
Bicycle Coalition12) with grant funding from the California
Offi ce of Traffi c Safety.
Bicycle Resource Website
The City of Newport Beach hosts a website for bicycle
safety, as part of the Same Rules Same Road Campaign.
Additions or changes to the City website can include the
following to further promote bicycling opportunities and
safety tips:
•Bicycle parking map
•Map of bikeway implementation that is updated
as new facilities are completed
•Bicycling tips including information on how to:
ºCarry items using baskets and panniers
ºProperly lock a bicycle
ºRide in the rain with help from fenders and
rain gear
ºTips can also include information on the
importance of bicycle lights and refl ection
•Bicycle facility maintenance and repair phone
number
•Bicycle event calendar
•Promotion of Bicycle Events such as Bike Month,
trainings, and other events
•Education and skill class information
5 http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1371_bill_20130923_chaptered.htm
6 http://www.bikeroswell.com/3-foot-law/
7 http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/mayor-launches-give-me-3-campaign
8 http://bicyclecolo.org/articles/bicycle-safety-law-tips-pg1028.htm
9 http://www.metro.net/bikes/bikes-metro/safe-bicycling-tips/
10 City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 181817 (http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi .
viewrecord&cfnumber=09-2895)
11 http://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/la-metro-offi ce-of-traffi c-safety-partner-to-off er/
12 http://la-bike.org/streetcyclingskills
89
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
72 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
has been incorporated into public spaces throughout the
United States with examples at fairgrounds, elementary
schools, and parks. The City of Newport Beach and
interested stakeholders might consider opportunities for
implementing a bicycle campus at a local school, the OC Fair
& Event Center (located in Costa Mesa).
Sample program:
• http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Bicycles/CyclingSkillsClinic
• Story about Santa Monica’s Bike Campus:
http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/04/20/santa-monica-opening-
bike-campus-on-earth-day-sunday/
Senior Bicycle Education Classes
Senior bicycle education programs help older adults either
re-learn bicycling or learn how to bicycle with less agility.
Seniors who are no longer able to drive may still be able to
bicycle shorter distances on either a regular two-wheeled
bicycle or an adult tricycle. The City could collaborate with
interested agencies, health departments and senior centers,
such as OASIS Senior Center, to evaluate interest and
implement multi-lingual senior bicycle education classes,
potentially including a program that acquires adult tricycles
and brings them to senior centers for guided rides.
Sample program:
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/155167
5.5.2 Encouragement
Encouragement programs focus on encouraging people
to bicycle more frequently by providing incentives,
recognition, or services that make bicycling a more
convenient and viable transportation mode. For many of
the encouragement programs recommend, collaborative
relationships will ensure success between the City, the
business community, school representatives, and active
transportation and health advocates. Currently, Newport
Beach residents benefi t from encouragement initiatives
such as the City Bike Map, and recent BikeNewportBeach.
org Neighborhood Bike Rides. The following programs are
designed to encourage community members of all ages and
abilities to ride bicycles for transportation, recreation, and
fun.
Bike Valet at City Events
Providing safe and secure bicycle parking helps encourage
individuals to bicycle. Bicycle valet is similar to vehicle valet
in that bicyclists drop their bikes off at a designated area
to be guarded by event staff . In exchange for their bikes,
bicyclists are given a number or token to provide on return
so that bikes are not given to the incorrect person. San
Francisco passed a city ordinance that requires all major
city events to provide bike parking and pioneered an
innovative tool for stacking hundreds of bicycles without
racks. Temporary bicycle parking is appropriate for events
with expected large attendance and at regularly occurring
events like a farmers market. This program could be part of
Youth Bicycle Safety Education Classes
Typical school-based bicycle education programs educate
students about the rules of the road, proper use of bicycle
equipment, biking skills, street crossing skills, and the
benefi ts of biking. Education programs can be part of a
Safe Routes to School program and/or taught as part of
summer camp programs or at afterschool centers, such
as the Mariners Family YMCA. These types of education
programs are usually sponsored by a joint City/School
District committee that includes appointed parents,
teachers, student representatives, administrators, police,
active bicyclists and engineering department staff .
Pursuit of funding for youth bicycle safety courses may be
combined with eff orts to secure funding for a Safe Routes
to School Program.
Sample programs:
•Marin County Safe Routes to School Curriculum:
http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/curriculum.html
•Bicycle Transportation Alliance – Portland, OR:
http://btaoregon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/
curriculum-BSE.pdf
Youth Bicycle Safety Clinics & Bicycle Campus
Children’s bicycle safety clinics are individual events that
help students develop basic bicycling techniques and
safety skills through the use of a bicycle safety course.
The clinics use playgrounds or parking lots set-up with
stop signs, traffi c cones, and other props to simulate
the roadway environment. Students receive instruction
on how to maneuver, observe signs and markings, and
look for on-coming traffi c before proceeding through
intersections. Children’s bicycle safety clinics also provide
an opportunity for instructors to ensure children’s helmets
and bicycles are appropriately sized. Events can include
free or low-cost helmet distribution and bike safety
checks.
The City would work with elementary and middle
schools, trained adult volunteers, local police, and the
fi re department to administer children’s bicycle safety
clinics. The clinics can be stand-alone events or can be
incorporated into health fairs, back-to-school events, Bike
to School days, and Safe Routes to School eff orts.
The bicycle safety clinic can be temporary in nature, or
can be located on a permanent basis at a location within
the community, often referred to as a “bicycle campus.” A
bicycle campus is a permanent off -street learning area for
people of all ages and abilities to become confi dent about
their riding skills, and is sometimes known as a “safety
village.” The bicycle campus helps participants become
familiar with a variety of bicycle-friendly design features
and signage. These bicycle campuses are a resource for
bicycle educators, schools, and other groups that wish
to provide bicycle education. Local jurisdictions can
utilize existing land, such as underused parking lots, to
create a bicycle campus. The bicycle campus concept
90
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 73
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
nighttime is often held in the fall when daylight hours are
reduced, and the program can have concurrent eff orts
such as banners, poster, and TV/radio advertisements.
Sample Programs:
•Get Lit Program, Portland: http://www.
communitycyclingcenter.org/index.php/get-lit/
•Light Up the Night, San Francisco: http://www.sfbike.
org/?lights
Bike Festivals & Family Bike Fest/Family Biking Day
Promoting bicycling through bike festivals can encourage
people to want to give riding a try. Bike festivals often
include booths by local organizations and agencies,
exhibits, and food/beverage vendors. Long Beach hosts a
free annual bike festival with live entertainment, bike valet,
children’s activities, and local food and beverages.
Similarly, a Family Bike Fest or Family Biking Day – such
as those recently held in both Santa Monica and San
Francisco – can be geared toward families and provide
activities such as safety checks of children’s bicycle
seats or trailers, seminars on how to properly choose
child bicycle frames and seats, helmet fi tting stations,
family bike demonstrations, bike and helmet decoration
stations, and family rides that promote family bicycling
for transportation and recreation. The program can also
include:
•“Freedom from Training Wheels” workshop
•Bike rodeo
•How to carry kids by bicycle
•Adapted bicycles available for families to try
•Safety check
•Basic bike maintenance
•Group ride/parade
Development of family-oriented education may be a
program for implementation by local bicycle advocacy
groups where volunteers are readily available and willing
to improve cycling conditions within the community.
Sample programs:
•http://downtownlongbeach.org/Latest-News-Detail/
Bike-Fest-of-Long-Beach
•http://www01.smgov.net/bikesm/
•http://www.sfbike.org/?family_day
Launch Party for New Bicycle Facilities
When a new bicycle facility is built, some residents will
become aware of it and use it, while others may not
realize that they have improved bicycle facility options
available. A launch party/campaign is a good way to
inform residents about a new bicycle facility and can
also be an opportunity to share other bicycling materials
(such as maps and brochures) and answer resident
questions about bicycling. It can also be a media-friendly
the City’s Special Event Permit process and operated by
the special event coordinator.
Sample program:
www.sfbike.org/?valet
Youth and Family-Oriented Bicycle Rides
Parents often have concerns or fears about their children
riding bicycles in the roadway. Youth and family-oriented
bicycle rides are large group rides geared toward kids that
create safe, comfortable environments for families to ride
together. This type of ride has commonly been referred
to as a Kidical Mass ride. They are often hosted monthly
or quarterly with a fun theme to encourage attendance.
Rides do not require street closure, though the support
of traffi c offi cers is often necessary if the route includes
uncontrolled, challenging crossings. Kidical Mass rides can
include raffl es or incentives to boost participation.
BikeNewportBeach.org organized family-friendly
neighborhood bike rides provide a good example of a
simple method to encourage bicycling and appeal to a
diverse audience with low-stress group bicycle rides. The
recent rides have been oriented around holiday themes
such as Halloween or the Winter Holiday Lights. A Patriotic
4th of July ride, or a “Back to School” ride may provide
additional opportunities to cater to youth and families.
Sample programs:
•http://www.bikelongbeach.org/event/kidical-mass-10
•http://www.kidicalmass.org/about/
“Be Seen in Newport Beach” Bike Light Campaign
According to the California Vehicle Codes (CVC) for
bicycling, a white headlight and refl ectors are required by
law if riding when it’s dark (CVC 21201). Some jurisdictions
have led visibility campaigns through law enforcement
checkpoints and outreach activities. The usage of lights
and refl ectors at night may increase visibility and help
reduce collisions.
We recommend the City encourage cyclists to wear high-
visibility clothing and use daytime running lights during
outreach events and in materials distributed related to
bicycling. A campaign for increased visibility during
Photo 45 - Bike valet at Los Angeles Union Station
91
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
74 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
event, with elected offi cial appearances, ribbon cuttings,
and a press release that includes information about
the new facility, other existing and future facilities, and
any timely information about bicycling. In Vancouver,
when a new bicycle facility is built, the City throws a
neighborhood party to celebrate. In the Vancouver
example, cake, t-shirts, media and festivities are provided
and surrounding neighbors are invited as well as city
workers (engineers, construction staff , and planners) who
participated in project planning and implementation.
City hosting of launch parties for priority bicycle facility
projects can be aligned with promotion of City eff orts
through print and digital media.
Bicycle Friendly Community Designation
The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) recognizes
communities that improve bicycling conditions through
education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation
programs. Communities can achieve platinum, gold,
silver, or bronze status or an honorary mention. Bicycle
friendliness can indicate that a community is healthy and
vibrant. Like good schools and attractive downtowns,
bicycle friendliness can increase property values, spur
business growth and increase tourism. The following
Orange County agencies have achieved LAB designation
as a Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC):
•County of Orange: Bronze
•City of Huntington Beach: Bronze
•City of Irvine: Silver
For more info:
http://www.bikeleague.org/content/communities
Tourism Integration
To encourage visitors and tourists to consider bicycling in
the City, bicycling-related resources could be incorporated
into tourism information. The www.visitnewportbeach.
com website could include a calendar specifi c to bicycling
events and group rides, locations of bicycle rental and
repair shops, and a map of the City’s bikeways. In addition,
the existing “Explore Newport Beach” map on the website
could highlight tourist-friendly bikeways. Bicycling
information could also be distributed to people who check
into hotels or rent houses/condos/apartments in the City.
For visitors who are already interested in bicycle riding in
Newport Beach, bicycle rental businesses can distribute
bicycle route maps or links to mobile maps and riding
guidance upon renting.
Promotion of bicycling within the City can also be
implemented using the “MyNB” mobile application to
promote bike rental shops, bikeways, bicycle safety, and
other related topics that might appeal to visitors and
residents bicycling within the community.
Photo 46 - Existing “Explore Newport Beach” tourist map
Commuter Incentive Programs
A Commuter Incentive Program encourages people to
commute by non-motorized transportation and to make
the general public aware that bicycling and walking are
practical modes of transportation. OCTA manages the
Share the Ride campaign to promote and encourage
transportation choices to minimize single-occupant
vehicle (SOV) driving related to commute activity. Since
the OCTA program is already underway, we suggest
the City of Newport Beach work with OCTA to promote
the Share the Ride program and look for collaboration
activities.
San Luis Obispo (SLO) Regional Rideshare organizes the
“Commute for Cash Challenge” every October as part
of “Rideshare Month” in which commuters log the miles
that they commute using alternative transportation for
a chance to win prizes. This program could serve as a
starting point for a more permanent commuter incentive
program during the rest of the year.
Sample programs include:
•OCTA Share the Ride: http://www.octa.net/Share-the-
Ride/
•SLO Council of Governments Regional Rideshare: http://
rideshare.org/NewHome.aspx
Safe Routes to School Program
Helping children walk and bicycle to school is good
for children’s health and can reduce congestion, traffi c
dangers and air pollution caused by parents driving
children to school. Safe Routes to School programs
use a “5 E’s” approach using Engineering, Education,
Enforcement, Encouragement, and Evaluation strategies
to improve safety and encourage children walking and
biking to school. The programs are usually funded by a
State or Regional grant and facilitated by a coalition of
city government, school and school district offi cials, and
92
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 75
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Photo 47 - Traffi c calming near Newport Harbor HS
Bicycle Hubs
An eff ective way to encourage riding is by providing a
hub with support facilities for cyclists. The facilities might
include free maintenance equipment, air and water, maps
of bikeways, and restroom facilities. Recently a gas station
in the City of Fullerton installed maintenance equipment
for bicyclist use and pumps specifi cally for bicycle tires,
and a “fi x-it” station was installed on the campus of
California State University, Fullerton in Fall 2012. The City
of Cambridge, for example, has free bicycle maintenance
stations in several trip-generating locations. These stations
include items such as tire gauges, pumps, and tools for
small bicycle repairs. Bicycle maintenance stations are
an inexpensive alternative to providing stand-alone
bicycle repair shops. The City might consider housing or
commercial development projects of certain size and use
to provide facilities on-site as a method to encourage and
support bicycling to and adjacent their business.
Planning and implementing the bicycle hubs will likely
require coordination among several public agencies and
community stakeholders. Coordination can begin in the
near-term, even if project completion is not expected until
further in the future.
Figure 5-6 and the following list identify potential
locations for Bicycle Hubs in the City of Newport Beach
(which may require coordination with agencies such as OC
Parks and California State Parks):
•Back Bay View Park (Jamboree Road/East Coast
Highway)
•Bayview Trail (University Drive/Irvine Avenue)
•Bonita Canyon Sports Park (Mesa View Drive/Ford
Road)
•Bonita Creek Park (La Vida/University Drive)
•Crystal Cove State Park (Newport Coast Drive/East
Coast Highway)
•Future Lower Castaways Park (Dover Drive/West
Coast Highway)
•McFadden Plaza (base of Newport Pier)
•Vista Point Park (Eastbluff Drive/Back Bay Drive)
•West Newport Park (Orange Street/West Coast
Highway)
Sample programs:
•http://news.fullerton.edu/2012fa/Bike-Fixit-Stations.asp
•http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/17/business/la-fi -
autos-fl ex-fuel-20120517
•http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/
cambridge/2011/03/cambridge_installs_free_bike_m.
html
teachers, parents, students, and neighbors. A Safe Routes
to School program typically would cover elementary and
middle schools within the community. We recommend
the City pursue grant funding to develop and implement
a Safe Routes to School that develops infrastructure
recommendations to improve access to schools and
non-infrastructure recommendations to educate and
encourage walking and bicycling to schools. Creation of a
local coalition is useful to provide continuity in Safe Routes
to School eff orts and ensure encouragement activities
occur annually despite the transition of champions
(typically parents) when children graduate to higher
grades.
Sample program:
http://www.alamedacountysr2s.org/
Bicycle Friendly Business Districts
Local businesses have the potential to encourage bicycling
by providing their patrons that commute by bicycle with
discounts and other amenities. Jurisdictions can work with
businesses to create “Bicycle Friendly Business” programs
that honor businesses that support bicycling. Some
programs assign a gold, silver, or bronze designation to
businesses that apply for the program based on the level
of benefi ts they provide bicyclists. The League of American
Bicyclists has a Bicycle Friendly Business program as part
of its Bicycle Friendly Communities designation, which is a
good model to follow. The City of Long Beach’s program
provides cargo bikes for businesses to make deliveries,
and businesses provide shopping and dining discounts on
Saturdays. This program could be implemented through
the local Business Improvement Districts or Business
Associations.
Sample programs:
•http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/
bicyclefriendlyamerica/bicyclefriendlybusiness/about.php
•http://www.bikelongbeach.org/welcome/bike-share-
program/bicycle-friendly-business-district-program
93
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
76 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
-
6
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
H
u
b
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
±02
1
Mil
e
s
Hu
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
Be
a
c
h
Co
s
t
a
Me
s
a
Ir
v
i
n
e
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Be
a
c
h
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
·|}þ73
·|}þ1
4
0
5
Irvi
ne
Jam
b
or
e
e
Sa
n
t
a
A
n
a
Tu
s
t
i
n
Placentia
Bristol
16th
Baysid e
MacArthur
Newport
S a nJoaquinHills
5th
N
e
w
portCoast
17th
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
San
t
i
a
g
o
1st
22n
d
San
Miguel
Eastbluff Ma
r
gu
e
r
i
t
e
Ca
m
pu
s
Dover
Chambor d
2nd
Po
p
p
y
Lido
A nteater
3
2
n
d
BonitaCan
yon
4th
3rd
Univers
i
t
y
Ho
s
p
i
t
al
OceanFront
N
e
wportRidge
Balboa
FordU
niv
e
r
s
ity
Coa
s
t
H
w
y
Biso
n
Cali
f
ornia
Pe
lta
s
on
Aca
d
e
m
y
Ja
m
b
o
r
e
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
Pelican Hill
Vista Ridg
e
Rid
g
e Park
Newp
o
rt Center
Santa Cr
u
z
Sp
r
u
c
e
Dove
Birc
h
Von Karm
an
W
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
Qua
i
l
Por
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
r
n
e
Spy glass Hill
Newpo
rt Hills
15
t
h
Back Bay
Le
g
e
n
d
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
H
u
b
94
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 77
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
recently funded an Active Transportation Coordinator
position, and the City of Irvine already has staff dedicated
towards transit and active transportation topics. To take
full advantage of current bicycle planning and safety
eff orts and to assist with implementation of bicycling
programs, the City of Newport Beach could consider
creating and staffi ng an ongoing mobility coordinator
position to lead project implementation and grant
funding eff orts. A mobility coordinator could also work
on pedestrian, transit access, and Safe Routes to School
projects and grant funding applications. This position
would be contingent on available funding. Funding for the
position could potentially come from a grant source.
In addition to supporting existing programs, such as
bicycle parking provision and educational activities,
potential job duties for the mobility coordinator position
are listed below:
•Monitoring facility planning, design, and
constructions that may impact bicycling
•Staffi ng bicycle advisory committee meetings
•Coordinating the implementation of the
recommended projects and programs listed in
the Bicycle Master Plan
•Identifying new projects and programs that
would improve the City’s bicycling environment
and improve safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and
motorists
•Coordinating evaluation of projects and
programs, such as bicycle counts
•Pursuing funding sources for project and program
implementation
Ride with the City
In order to foster an open and collaborative environment
around bicycling, the City can organize regular bicycle
rides with public offi cials (e.g., City councilmembers,
planning commissioners) and/or agency staff such as the
City Manager or Public Works Director. The rides can range
from very casual with no agenda to events highlighting
specifi c infrastructure projects or program. In the City of
Pomona, the former Public Works Director, Daryl Grigsby,
started the popular “Ride around Pomona” (RAP) to foster
a healthy dialogue between city staff and members of
the public. While Director Grigsby is no longer working at
the City of Pomona, the monthly rides continue through
sponsorship by the local bicycle coalition.
Open Streets/Ciclovía Events
Open (or “Car-free”) Streets events have many names:
Sunday Parkways, Ciclovías, Summer Streets, and Sunday
Streets. The events are periodic street “openings” (i.e.,
“open” to users besides just cars; usually on Sundays) that
create a temporary park that is open to the public for
walking, bicycling, dancing, hula hooping, roller-skating,
Media Outlets
Local media have a high level of interest in stories related
to public welfare, community successes and bicycle
safety. There are many opportunities for local agencies
to gain publicity for bicycle-related programs and safety
issues. Developing and maintaining relationships with
local media outlets can assist with publicizing bicycle
encouragement and safety programs.
A cost-eff ective way for the City to promote bicycling as
an eff ective and enjoyable way to travel is to use existing
television public service announcements (PSAs) made
available through the National Highway Traffi c Safety
Administration (NHTSA), Safe Kids Coalition, and the
California Offi ce of Traffi c Safety (OTS). These agencies
provide existing award-winning television public service
announcements on the following topics:
•Bicycle education for seniors
•Bicycle education for the general public
•Bicycle education for children and their families
•Driver education on bicyclists
•Drivers running red lights
The media is also an eff ective tool for promoting bicycle-
related eff orts through press releases and invitations to
staged publicity-related events. Positive stories such as
ribbon cuttings or community events can encourage
residents to participate as well as increase awareness and
support for on-going eff orts.
Individualized Marketing Campaign
Building bicycling and walking infrastructure is essential
to eff ecting mode shift, but it is not enough to attract
large numbers of new users. The City of Portland, OR,
was one of the pioneers of individualized marketing
programs in the US. For a decade now, the City has
selected a residential target area ranging between 20,000
and 37,000 households, and used a combination of direct
mail outreach, customized travel information packets,
incentive gifts, and themed guided walks and bicycle rides
to engage residents and encourage them to drive less and
walk/bicycle more. The program has consistently garnered
over 20% participation, and resulted in approximately
10% reduction in drive-alone trips in the target area. More
recently, similar projects in Alameda, CA, St. Paul, MN, and
Cambridge, MA have used similar strategies to engage
residents on active transportation and single occupancy
vehicle reduction. This may be a program that can be
coordinated countywide through OCTA with support by
the City to reach a broad audience across city boundaries.
Mobility Coordinator Position
A number of cities around the country staff a part- or
full-time Mobility Coordinator position. Cities with such a
position usually experience relative success in bike plan
implementation. OCTA and the City of Santa Ana have
95
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
78 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
The Open Streets Guide has further information: http://
openstreetsproject.org/blog/2012/02/21/open-streets-
project-releases-best-practices-guide/
Planning and implementing Open Streets events will likely
require coordination among several public agencies and
community stakeholders. Coordination can begin in the
near-term, even if project completion is not expected until
further in the future.
etc. They have been very successful internationally and
are rapidly becoming popular in the United States. Open
Streets events promote health by creating a safe and
attractive space for physical activity and social contact,
and are cost-eff ective compared to the cost of building
new parks for the same purpose. Events can be weekly
events or one-time occasions, and are generally very
popular and well attended.
Ideally, these events would provide access to civic, cultural,
and/or commercial destinations. For future expansion of
the program, organizers could consider lessons learned
and best practices from other communities. Some
recommendations include:
•Make sure that there are programmed, family-
friendly activities along the route; an “open
street” alone is not suffi cient to draw participants
(and especially not on a repeat basis).
•These events lend themselves to innovative
partnerships and public/private funding. Health
care providers whose mission includes facilitating
physical activity are often major sponsors.
Businesses may also support the event if it brings
customers to their location.
•An event of this size is subject to City Special
Event policies as detailed in Council Policy B-8
and City Municipal Code Section 11. Police costs
to manage the road closure will be one of the
largest costs. Work with the police to develop a
long-term traffi c closure management strategy
that uses police resources where needed but also
allows well-trained volunteers to participate in
managing road closures.
•Consider utilizing new roadways or bicycle facility
improvements for Open Streets events similar to
the grand opening event of Tustin Ranch Road
recently in Tustin where the community was
invited to ride the new roadway before opening
to motorist use.
The City might consider Open Streets events on East Coast
Highway in Corona del Mar, or on Balboa Boulevard on
the Peninsula. These Open Streets events could be an
opportunity to highlight some of the new bicycle facilities
once they are constructed and can be combined with
larger community festivals such as the Corona del Mar
Christmas Walk.
Sample programs include:
•CicLAvia, Los Angeles: http://www.ciclavia.org/about/
•Sunday Streets, San Francisco: http://sundaystreetssf.com/
•Summer Streets, New York City: http://www.nyc.gov/html/
dot/summerstreets/html/home/home.shtml
Bike Sharing
Bike sharing is a system that allows users to check out
bikes from publicly accessible stations and return them
to other locations within the service area. Such systems
have become increasingly popular throughout North
America, with successful programs implemented in San
Francisco (Bay Area Bike Share), New York City, Washington,
D.C., Boston, Minneapolis, and Montreal. Locally, the City
of Anaheim recently tested bike share, and OCTA and
the City of Fullerton currently are demonstrating bike
share through the Bike Link program with stations in the
downtown and at the two colleges within the city. Future
bike share programs are being planned for several cities
across the country, including multiple cities within Los
Angeles County, San Diego, and Seattle.
Diffi culty providing bike sharing stations outside the city
limits ordinarily prevents cities of Newport Beach’s size
from implementing bike sharing. However, the City has
certain advantages that may improve the feasibility of a
system:
•A recently-launched system in Fullerton; although
the two cities are not directly connected by
bicycle, reciprocal memberships would enhance
the utility of the system for all users.
•High numbers of visitors and tourists, especially
in areas that contain key destinations and
experience parking shortages and traffi c
congestion at peak periods. Tourists may fi nd
that using a bicycle for short periods is more
convenient than relying on automobiles to move
around the City.
Photo 48 - Bike valet at Los Angeles Union Station
96
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 79
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
on Balboa Island). Bike offi cers undergo special training
in bicycle safety and bicycle-related traffi c laws and are
therefore especially equipped to enforce laws pertaining
to bicycling. Additional bicycle offi cers can help educate
bicyclists and motorists through enforcement and also
serve as excellent outreach personnel to the public at
parades, street fairs, and other gatherings.
Bicycle Theft Abatement Program
One strategy to combat bicycle theft is outfi tting several
bikes with hidden GPS tracking devices and locking
them in areas known for high rates of theft, then tracking
the bicycles if they are stolen. This might also help local
law enforcement identify bicycle theft rings if a pattern
emerges. Alternatively, the City could distribute GPS
devices to residents on an as-available basis, such as
when residents apply for a bicycle license. The City could
set aside general fund resources or apply for grants to
purchase GPS devices for the program. An example
program exists at the University of Texas at Austin:
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/UT-police-catching-
campus-thieves-with-GPS-bait-bikes-207488921.html
5.5.4 Evaluation and Policy
In order to track the progress of the Newport Beach
Bicycle Master Plan, it is critical that the City monitor
and evaluate changes in bicycling. It is also a useful way
to communicate success with elected offi cials as well as
local residents. Some eff ective methods to document the
performance of new facilities and programs are presented
below.
Bicycle Counts and Survey Program
Evaluation programs measure and evaluate the impact of
projects, policies, and programs. Data collected through
these eff orts can serve as a baseline each year and would
be a key part of an annual performance report. Typical
evaluation programs range from a simple year over year
comparison of US Census Journey to Work data to bicycle
counts and community surveys. Bicycle counts and
community surveys act as methods to evaluate not only
the impacts of specifi c bikeway improvement projects but
can also function as way to measure progress towards City
goals such as increased bicycle travel for trips one mile or
less.
A regular bicycle-related community survey and annual
bicycle count program will allow the City to track
changes in perception and concerns related to the
bicycle environment. Before and after counts provide
invaluable evaluation information about bicycle activity
corresponding with physical improvements to the bicycle
environment. Bicycle counts can match the locations
surveyed through the Bicycle Master Plan project which
included eleven (11) initial locations where bicycle counts
were collected during weekday and weekend conditions.
•Employment density and workplace
characteristics may drive bike sharing demand
signifi cantly more than residential density.
Newport Beach’s daytime population is much
higher than its evening population, and demand
may therefore be much higher than its population
would suggest.
Due to the regional nature of the bike share concept,
we recommend the City work with OCTA to develop a
regional bike share program that can include adjacent
jurisdictions and serve the community traveling into and
out of Newport Beach regularly. Coordination with local
bicycle shops and rental businesses is key to minimizing
concerns about competition and show how bike sharing
can increase overall bicycling activity.
Sample programs:
•OCTA/Fullerton Bike Link: http://www.octa.net/Share-the-
Ride/Bike/BikeShare/Overview/
•Bay Area Bike Share: https://bayareabikeshare.com/
5.5.3 Enforcement
Enforcement programs enforce legal and respectful use
of the transportation network. The following outlines
recommended enforcement programs to educate
both bicyclists and motorists about the rules and
responsibilities they have on the road.
Speed Radar Trailer/ Feedback Signs
Speed radar trailers help reduce traffi c speeds and enforce
speed limits in areas with speeding problems. Police
set up an unmanned trailer that displays the speed of
approaching motorists along with speed limit sign. Speed
trailers may be eff ective on busier arterial roads without
bikeway facilities or near schools with reported speeding.
Speed trailers work as both an educational and
enforcement tool. By itself, the unmanned trailer educates
motorists about their current speed in relation to the
speed limit. Speed trailers can transport easily to streets
where local residents complain about speeding problems.
The Newport Beach Police Department can station offi cers
near the trailer to issue speeding citations when speeding
continues to occur. It is recommended that City staff
provide the management role for this program, working
with the public to determine which locations are in most
need. This program can be administered randomly,
cyclically, or as demand necessitates because of the speed
trailers’ portability.
Bicycle Patrol Units
On-bike offi cers are an excellent tool for community and
neighborhood policing because they are more accessible
to the public and able to mobilize in areas where
patrol cars cannot (e.g., along coastal bike paths and in
congested shopping districts such as Marine Avenue
97
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
80 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
•Encourages street connectivity and aims to create
a comprehensive, integrated, connected network
for all modes.
•Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.
•Directs the use of the latest and best design
criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need
for fl exibility in balancing user needs.
•Directs that complete streets solutions will
complement the context of the community.
Newport Beach could use the Complete Streets Policy
Workbook (see link below) to create a locally-appropriate
Complete Streets policy. The Policy itself need not be
cumbersome in its language; however, the real “teeth”
associated with the Policy is the subsequent development
of design guidelines and development code that will meet
the goals established in the policy. Development of a
robust Complete Streets policy will require coordination
among several public agencies and community
stakeholders. Development of a Complete Streets Policy
would likely occur concurrent with an update to the
General Plan Circulation Element.
Complete Streets Policy Workbook:
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/resources/cs-
policyworkbook.pdf
Sample Programs:
•City of San Clemente Complete Streets Policy: http://bit.
ly/1cigoFg
•City of Baldwin Park Complete Streets Policy: www.
smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-ca-
baldwinpark-policy.pdf
Bicycle Parking Policy and Enforcement
Lack of good or suffi cient bicycle parking can make
bicycling for transportation much more diffi cult. We
recommend the City of Newport Beach include/update
bicycle parking requirements in its development code to
ensure they meet or exceed the guidelines put forth by
the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’
Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Edition (http://www.
apbp.org/?page=publications). The code should require
suffi cient high-quality bicycle parking, installed correctly,
based on land use classifi cation.
Developer bicycle parking code requirements are only
eff ective if they are enforced, however. If widespread
violations occur without consequence, adequate bicycle
parking will not be available to building users. Therefore,
code enforcement practices might also be examined
and updated if needed to ensure compliance before an
occupancy permit is issued.
Regular or annual counts at these and other supplemental
locations can show to what extent physical improvements
and programs have positively increased bicycle activity.
Mapping Bikeway Investments
Often, residents and decision-makers do not have ready
access to information about the construction and location
of new bikeways. After completing this Plan, the City
of Newport Beach could create a map reporting tool
specifi cally to report on the progress of planned bikeway
implementation. The map can be updated on an ongoing
basis.
Sample program:
http://www.bicyclela.org/maps_main.htm
Bicycle Report Card
The City could produce an annual report or ‘report card’
on bicycling. Annual reports developed from count and
survey eff orts can help the City measure its success toward
the goals of this Plan as well as rate the overall quality or
eff ectiveness of the ongoing eff orts to increase bicycling
in the City. In addition to bicycle counts, the City could
include measurements such as crash rates (both on- and
off -road), fatality and injury rates, and school bicycling
mode share. The report card can summarize recent
eff orts and success in obtaining funding for additional
improvements and programs.
Complete Streets Policy
A “complete street” is a roadway that has been designed
to serve all users, including those in motor vehicles, on
bicycles, on foot, or traveling by transit. Complete streets
provide safety and mobility for the widest range of the
population, including seniors, youth, and the disabled.
Many communities around the U.S. have adopted
Complete Streets Policies that call for roadway projects to
result in complete streets.
According to the National Complete Streets Coalition
(www.completestreets.org), an ideal policy would include
the following elements:
•Includes a vision for how and why the community
wants to complete its streets
•Specifi es that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians,
bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and
abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
•Applies to both new and retrofi t projects,
including design, planning, maintenance, and
operations, for the entire right of way.
•Makes any exceptions specifi c and sets a clear
procedure that requires high-level approval of
exceptions.
98
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 81
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
•Coast Highway bridge over Back Bay
Sample programs:
•http://portland-hawthorne-bridge.visio-tools.com/
•https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikecounter.htm
The City can also adopt a policy to encourage the
installation of high-capacity “Bike Corrals” that can fi t
several bicycles in popular commercial districts. One
possible arrangement is for the City to install the bike
corrals at the request of businesses that agree to maintain
and clean the corral area. The City of Los Angeles has
received Federal funds to install bike racks on sidewalks
through the “Request a Rack” program when requested by
stakeholders.
Sample programs:
•San Francisco: http://www.sfbike.org/?access
•Los Angeles: http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/bike-
corrals/
•Los Angeles: http://www.bicyclela.org/RackRequest.htm
Bike Counters/Bicycle Barometers
Cities are starting to install bike counters (sometimes
called “bicycle barometers”) at key locations with high
bicycle use. These counters automatically log every
bicycle trip and display it on a public-facing board. One
benefi t of bike counters is providing highly accurate count
data to the City – data that is collected at all times of day
and all times of year. Another benefi t is providing data
to the general public about actual bicycle usage, which
is often much higher than drivers estimate. This can help
counteract the impression that bikeway investments are
benefi tting only a few people. Bicycle barometers can
be permanent or temporary in nature, and can be used
to provide data to interested stakeholders about bicycle
traffi c. The County of Los Angeles recently purchased
portable bike counters for collection of data for 7-day
counts rotating throughout the county to evaluate
current activity.
Siting the bicycle counters/barometers may require
coordination among several public agencies and
community stakeholders, and ample communication
should be conducted to address liability concerns. In
addition, the City might consider applying for grants in the
near-term to purchase the counters/barometers, even if
installation is not expected until further in the future.
Possible locations for bike counters within the City
might be at key entry points into the community or key
constrained locations such as the following:
•West Coast Highway at Santa Ana River Trail or at
Orange Street
•Back Bay Trail near the Jamboree Road/Eastbluff
Drive intersection
Photo 49 - Bicycle counter found in Vancouver, BC
99
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
82 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
6 Implementation and Funding
This chapter provides a strategy for implementing the
capital project recommendations in this Plan. This
implementation strategy and sequence is guided by a
criteria-based ranking consistent with the goals of this
plan as well as the goals of other City, region, and State
plans and policies.
A lengthy list of recommendations has been provided in
this Plan, and ranking allows staff to prioritize the projects
to advance to implementation. A variety of variables will
infl uence the implementation including the availability
of funding, engineering analysis, and support from
community stakeholders and representatives.
Many signing and striping projects can be completed by
the City of Newport Beach Department of Public Works
and are exempt from CEQA requirements. Such projects
can be implemented using City or grant funds with
approval by the City Management and/or City Council,
if required due to the visibility or importance of the
project. More complex projects with greater associated
impacts typically include the following steps to advance to
implementation:
1. Preparation of a Feasibility Study involving a
conceptual design (with consideration of possible
alternatives and environmental issues) and cost
estimate for individual projects as needed.
2. Secure funding and any applicable environmental
approvals.
3. Completion of fi nal plans, specifi cations and
estimates, advertising for bids, receipt of bids and
award of contract(s).
4. Approval of the project by the City Council.
5. Construction of Project.
6.1 Bicycle Facility Project
Prioritization
The intent of ranking projects is to create a prioritized list
of bicycle projects for implementation. As projects are
implemented, lower ranked projects move up the list. The
project list and individual projects outlined in this Plan
are fl exible concepts that serve as a guideline. The ranked
project list, and perhaps the overall system and segments
themselves, may change over time as a result of changing
bicycling patterns, land use patterns, implementation
constraints and opportunities and the development of
other transportation system facilities.
Projects may be implemented out of scoring order
as opportunities arise. Opportunities may include
grant availability, new development projects, capital
improvement projects, or roadway repaving. The City
of Newport Beach should review the project list and
project ranking at regular intervals to ensure it refl ects
the most current priorities, needs, and opportunities for
implementing the bicycle network in a logical and effi cient
manner.
The ranking criteria and weighting of each criterion is
provided in Appendix I. Based on the ranking analysis,
three tiers of ranked projects have been identifi ed. Table
6-1 summarizes the Tier 1 high priority bicycle facility
projects. The full ranking analysis (Tiers 1 through 3)
for the recommended bicycle facilities is provided in
Appendix J.
All of the projects are recommended for implementation
over the next twenty (20) years. However, due to the
unpredictability of funding sources, economic conditions,
and community support, some projects, especially those
that require right-of-way purchase or coordination with
multiple jurisdictions, may not be completed within the
next twenty years.
Photo 50 - Cyclists enjoying the Ocean Front Trail in
Balboa Village
100
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 83
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Table 6-2 Total Cost of Bicycle Facility Recommendations
Facility Type MilesCost Estimate
Class I Multi-Use Path7.7$14,153,300
Class II Bike Lane39.7$3,446,300
Class III Bike Route20.7$1,547,500
Spot Improvements--$2,165,000
Total 68.1$21,312,100
6.2 Total Recommended Bicycle
Facility Costs
As noted in Chapter 5, refi ned cost estimates were
prepared for each recommended bicycle facility
improvement including spot improvements. Table 6-2
summarizes the total cost of implementation for the
bicycle facility recommendations.
Table 6-1 Tier 1 Projects (Score of 29-32)
Facility
Type
LocationStartEnd Total Score
(40 max)
IIWest Coast Highway (Enhance Existing)Orange StreetNewport Boulevard 32
Spot32nd Street/Newport Boulevard Intersection----31
IIBalboa Boulevard East Coast Highway43rd Street 31
IIEast Coast Highway (Enhance Existing)Pelican Point Drive0.2 miles west of East
City Limit
31
IIIrvine Avenue (Enhance Existing)17th StreetUniversity Drive 31
IINewport BoulevardVia Lido32nd Street 31
IISan Joaquin Hills Road (Enhance Existing/
Planned)
Jamboree RoadNewport Coast Drive 31
IISeashore Drive (Enhance Existing)Orange StreetBalboa Boulevard 31
SpotSuperior Avenue/West Coast Highway
Intersection
----31
IIWest Coast HighwayWestern City LimitsOrange Street 31
SpotWest Coast Highway (from Santa Ana River Trail
to Orange Street)
----31
IIBack Bay Drive (Enhance Existing)Shellmaker RoadEastbluff Road 30
IIIEast Coast Highway (Enhance Existing)Poppy AvenueSeaward Road 30
IIINewport Boulevard Alley Via Lido 32nd Street 30
SpotNewport Pier Parking Lot----30
IIRiverside Avenue Cliff Drive Avon Street 30
IIIWest Coast Highway (Enhance Existing)Dover DriveNewport Boulevard 30
II32nd Street Newport BoulevardVia Lido 29
IIIBayside Drive East Coast HighwayExisting Class I North
of Coast Highway
29
SpotBayside Drive/East Coast Highway Intersection----29
SpotBayview Trail ----29
ICoast Highway Bayside DriveDover Drive 29
SpotDover Drive/West Coast Highway Intersection----29
IIEast Coast Highway Seaward RoadPelican Point Drive 29
IEastbluff DriveBayview Trail/
Jamboree Road
Back Bay Drive 29
SpotRiverside Avenue/West Coast Highway
Intersection
----29
SpotWest Coast Highway (from Newport Boulevard
to Riverside Drive)
----29
Note: Refer to appendix for listing of Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects.
101
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
84 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
for all bicycle infrastructure projects. This report may be
combined with the prioritization review discussed below.
The fi rst update is recommended in Fall 2015.
Strategy 2: Review CIP Concurrence
The opportunity to implement projects concurrent with
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) can reduce the
burden of implementing bicycle facility projects, and
improve the schedule for use regardless of priority ranking
for each project.
Action Item: Annually evaluate the CIP for opportunities
to implement recommended bicycle facility projects
included within this Plan.
Strategy 3: General Plan Incorporation
Key policies, strategies and recommendations included
in this Bicycle Master Plan can be incorporated into
the General Plan Circulation Element during the next
update. At the least, the Circulation Element update
can incorporate the recommended bikeways network,
add revisions to the roadway cross-sections showing
dimensions for on-street bike lanes, and incorporate
policies for public and private realm accommodation of
bicycling activities. Additionally, roadways with excess
vehicular capacity can be reviewed to modify travel lanes
and provided on-street or protected bike lanes. The City
can also develop engineering standards for NACTO-type
bicycle treatments for ongoing use.
As shown in Table 6-4, the cost for maintaining bikeways
network assuming implementation of all paths, bike lanes,
and bike routes is approximately $898,500 annually. It
should be noted this cost will be realized over time as
implementation of the network is completed, and actual
costs will be lower until the entire network is constructed.
6.4 Implementation Strategies
The Bicycle Master Plan provides the long-term vision for
the development of a citywide bicycle network that can
be used by all residents for all types of trips. The following
strategies, action items and measures of eff ectiveness are
provided to guide the City toward the vision identifi ed in
the Plan.
Strategy 1: Strategically Pursue Infrastructure Projects
City staff can strategically pursue funding and
implementation of infrastructure projects recommended
in this Plan. Ideally, City staff will pursue capital
improvements funding or grant funding for high-priority
bicycle improvements fi rst. If grant requirements or
construction in conjunction with another roadway project
make construction of a lower priority project possible,
then the City might advance that project regardless of
priority.
Action Item: On an annual basis the City can publish a
public report documenting the status and ongoing actions
As noted in Table 6-2, the total cost estimate for
recommended bicycle infrastructure projects is $21.3
million, of which just over $14 million are attributed to
Class I multi-use paths and bridges.
Table 6-3 summarizes the costs of the recommended
bicycle facility projects by implementation tier.
Table 6-3 Bicycle Facility Costs by Tier
Tier Projects
Included
Cost Estimate
1 27 $4,495,750
2 31$6,937,000
3 61$9,879,350
Total 119$21,312,100
As shown in Table 6-3, 119 bikeway projects have been
recommended, and Tier 1 project implementation costs are
estimated at approximately $4.5 million.
6.3 Maintenance Cost Estimates
Bicycle facilities require regular maintenance and repair. On-
street bicycle facilities are maintained as part of the normal
roadway maintenance program and extra emphasis should
be placed on keeping bike lanes and roadway shoulders
clear of debris and keeping vegetation overgrowth from
blocking visibility. The cost of maintaining Class I facilities
may be shared among various agencies or departments.
The typical maintenance costs for the existing and proposed
bikeway network are shown in Table 6-4, and the cost for
maintaining the built out network is provided.
Table 6-4 Bikeways Maintenance Cost Estimates
Facility
Type
Unit Cost
($)
DescriptionLength
(Miles)
Annual
Cost ($)
Notes
Class I$15,000Miles/Year27.8$403,500Lighting and removal of debris and vegetation over-
growth
Class II$5,000Miles/Year69.2$355,000Repainting lane stripes and stencils, sign replacement as
needed
Class III$5,000Miles/Year27.1$132,500Sign replacement as needed
Total 124.1$898,500
102
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 85
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
updates may be needed to address changes in priority
and evaluation eff orts. State funding has typically
required updates to bicycle master plans every fi ve years
to establish funding opportunity for active transportation
projects. Often, cities provide a compliance update within
fi ve years and a comprehensive update every ten years.
Action Item: Provide compliance update to the Bicycle
Master Plan in fi ve years, and a more comprehensive full
update in ten years. Other elements of the Plan shall be
reviewed and updated as needed.
Strategy 7: Collaborate with Caltrans
Caltrans manages and operates various roadways within
the City of Newport Beach and intersections with freeway
ramps on SR-73. This Plan includes bicycle facility
recommendations that require regular coordination and
collaboration with Caltrans.
Action Item: Collaborate with Caltrans to implement
bicycle facility improvements on Caltrans-managed
facilities, including innovative and conventional treatments
using examples of similar facilities within the City, County,
and State as precedents.
Strategy 8: Establish Measures of Eff ectiveness
Measures of eff ectiveness (MOEs, also known as targets or
indicators) are used as a quantitative way to measure the
City’s progress toward implementing the Bicycle Master
Plan. Well-crafted MOEs track progress toward meeting an
agreed-upon goal within an established timeframe. Table
6-5 describes several MOEs recommended for use by the
City to track key achievements.
Action Item: Update the General Plan Circulation Element
and incorporate key items from the Bicycle Master Plan.
Strategy 4: Review City Representative
Current work on bicycle facility projects at the City has
been implemented by engineering staff within the Public
Works Department. The City may review the designated
bikeways representative to determine if other staff within
the City have availability or are suited to help secure
funding or programmatic recommendations provided
within this Plan.
Action Item: Review the designated staff person at the
City of Newport Beach to determine if additional or
diff erent staff have availability to provide support for both
infrastructure and non-infrastructure eff orts.
Strategy 5: Regularly Revisit Project Prioritization
Projects have been prioritized based on safety, public
input, transportation benefi t, connectivity benefi t, cost,
and feasibility. It is recommended that the prioritized list
be reviewed every fi scal year, with new projects added,
completed projects removed, and the priorities revised as
conditions change.
Action Item: Annual review and update of the bicycle
master plan’s recommended facilities list and programs
schedule. Updates to the list can be shared with the
public. The fi rst update is recommended in Fall 2015.
Strategy 6: Update the Bicycle Master Plan
While this Plan is intended to guide Newport Beach’s
bicycle transportation planning for the next 20 years,
Table 6-5 Recommended Measures of Eff ectiveness
Measure Benchmark Target
Bicycle journey to work
mode share
0.8% bicycle mode split per
Census
Increase bicycle mode split to 2.0% by 2030.
Bicycle Facility
Improvements
Implementation
Approximately 88 miles of
bikeways
Increase bikeways network by implementing bicycle
facility recommendations.
Bicycle counts Bike counts included in this PlanAnnually collect bike counts at baseline locations to
document ridership volumes.
Bicyclist trends/behaviorsBike counts included in this PlanIncrease bicycling by women 10% per year up to 50%
of total bicycling population, focus eff orts to reduce
wrong way bicycling where reported as cause in bike
incidents.
Public attitudes about
bicycling
Bike survey provides indication
of challenging locations and
current perspectives
Increase in positive attitudes about bicycling within
community.
Bicycle boulevard
demonstration project
Not applicable Develop demonstration bicycle boulevard on
selected corridor and evaluate for success in usage
and connectivity.
103
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
86 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
As new baseline information is discovered as conditions
change, and as the City implements the Bicycle Master
Plan, the MOEs should be reevaluated, revised and
updated. The City should regularly review the progress
made toward these targets and include results in the
annual “Report Card.”
6.5 Potential Funding Sources
Potential funding sources for implementation of
recommended bicycle facility infrastructure projects and
programs has been identifi ed for further consideration.
The funding sources listed are typically competitive
in nature, so the City will evaluate the applicability of
potential projects and likely scoring before developing a
grant application. Additionally, the City will determine the
availability of staff to prepare grant applications and to
administer the grant. Preparation of grant applications can
often be a time-intensive eff ort, and receipt of funding is
not guaranteed due to increasing competition for active
transportation projects. These resource demands should
be considered by the City of Newport Beach given the
potential benefi t of each grant opportunity.
We recommend the City identify potential projects that
would fi t well with the following funding sources and
initiate/continue discussions with key agencies and
stakeholders; funding sources are identifi ed with the date
of the next anticipated call listed in parentheses:
•Caltrans Active Transportation Program (Late 2014
or Early 2015)
•Orange County Measure M2 Local Return (Funds
disbursed quarterly)
•OCTA Bicycle Corridor Improvement Program
(BCIP) Call for Projects (2015)
•SCAG Sustainability Program (Future date subject
to SCAG Regional Council action)
•Land and Water Conservation Fund (2015)
Preliminary consideration of applicability and discussion
with stakeholders can help verify that a potential
opportunity is well-suited for the grant source, and
can help position the City to document a history of
collaboration and provide a venue to secure letters of
support for incorporation into the grant application.
Refer to Appendix K for a listing of additional funding
sources that may be considered for funding bicycle facility
improvements and programs.
Photo 51 - Right turn lane yield sign
6.6 Active Transportation
Program (ATP) Compliance
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is an annual
statewide discretionary grant program that funds
bicycle and pedestrian projects through the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Available as
grants to local jurisdictions, the ATP emphasizes projects
and programs that enhance bicycling for transportation
purposes. In order for Newport Beach to qualify for ATP
funding in future cycles, the Bicycle Master Plan must
contain specifi c elements. Appendix L displays the
requisite ATP components and their location within this
plan.
Measure Benchmark Target
Bicycle Friendly Community
Designation
Designated bronze level Bicycle
Friendly Community by League
of American Bicyclists
Secure League of American Bicyclists Bronze Award
by 2015 and Silver Award by 2020.
Grant funding Baseline to be establishedAttain an annual average funding of $400,000 or more
for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects.
Table 6-5 Recommended Measures of Eff ectiveness (continued)
104
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 87
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Appendices
Appendix A: Locations Where Bicycles are Permitted on Sidewalks (City Council
Resolution 82-148)
Appendix B: Bicycle Safety Guidelines Brochure
Appendix C: Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee 2012 Final Report
Appendix D: Task Force on Cycling Safety Final Report 2010
Appendix E: Past and Planned Bicycle-Related Projects
Appendix F: Bicycle Count Tables
Appendix G: Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Appendix H: Wayfi nding and Signage Plan
Appendix I: Bicycle Facilities Prioritization Methodology
Appendix J: Recommended Bicycle Facilities and Prioritization Rankings
Appendix K: Potential Funding Sources
Appendix L: Active Transportation Program (ATP) Compliance Table
105
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
88 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix A: Locations Where Bicycles are Permitted
on Sidewalks (City Council Resolution 82-148)
106
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 89
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
107
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
90 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
108
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 91
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
109
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
92 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
110
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 93
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Appendix B: Bicycle Safety Guidelines Brochure
111
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
94 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
112
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 95
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
113
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
96 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix C: Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee
2012 Final Report
114
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 97
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
TO: NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITIZENS BICYCLE SAFETY COMMITTEE
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2013
REPORT ON 2012 COMMITTEE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee (Committee) held its first meeting on
December 6, 2010, and has met monthly since then. In the creation of the Committee,
the City Council set out a number of tasks for the Committee. This is the 2012 Annual
Report to the Council on accomplishing those tasks.
The following are the activities prescribed:
1. Produce an updated Web based map that would include facilities,
safety information, points of interest, mileage and family friendly
routes.
a. The draft GIS-based bicycle route map is available on the City's Web site for comment.
2. Jointly develop and implement a plan to provide student bicycle safety
outreach with the Newport Unified School District (NMUSD).
a. Consistent with the Committee’s prior recommendations, the
Newport Beach Police Department (NPBD) has been hosting
bicycle rodeos at local schools.
b. The Committee is studying the area between Newport Harbor High
School and Ensign Middle School to identify ways to encourage safe bike
riding to and from school.
c. The Committee plans to invite/recruit members of the School Board to
future meetings to further improve cooperation and safety.
d. Future projects will reflect the Committee’s desire to enhance bicycle safety
around schools.
3. Develop and implement programs to educate and promote safety and
encourage bicycle use for health, recreation and alternative
transportation.
a. The Committee thoroughly evaluated installing sharrows on Coast Hwy in
Corona Del Mar (between MacArthur and Poppy) and recommended
installation to the Council along with an outreach and education program.
Sharrows were installed in Corona Del Mar in late October.
115
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
98 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
b. With support of the Committee and the Council’s initiative, the City hosted
a Bicycle Memorial Ride on October 28 following the tragic deaths of two
residents and another serious injury. Over 1200 riders participated.
c. The City established a Bicycle Safety Improvement Fund that includes a 3
to 1 matching program. As of the date of this report, approximately $78,000
has been raised. Including the City Council approved three to one match,
approximately $234,000, the Bicycle Safety Improvement Fund will totals
approximately $312,000.
d. As part of its overall focus, the Committee is focusing on improvements that benefit casual riders and that create safe routes to the beach.
e. Working in conjunction with the NPBD, a new brochure on bicycle safety
has been created.
f. The Committee has established a Subcommittee to address maintenance
vehicles parked along Newport Coast Drive which create a safety hazard for
cyclists.
g. Our regularly scheduled meetings are well attended by the general public
where new information is widely disseminated. The local news media
report to the broader community the latest news regarding bicycle
matters. The LA Times, Daily Pilot, Corona Del Mar Today, O.C.
Wheelmen, O.C. Bicycle Coalition and Charlie Gandy of Long Beach
have attended our meetings.
4. Review the City's Bicycle Facilities network and provide input to City staff
on maintenance.
a. As a result of the Committee's work, striping modifications have been
implemented at several locations including Newport Center Drive, San Miguel
Drive, Santa Barbara Avenue, Santa Cruz Drive, East Coast Highway, Bonita
Canyon Drive, and Jamboree Road at East Coast Highway.
b. New bicycle signage has been installed at various locations along Coast
Highway and Bonita Canyon Drive.
c. Coast Highway Alternate Bike Routes were created and signage was installed
to provide alternate passage through Corona del Mar,
d. The City was awarded Orange County Transportation Authority Bicycle
Corridor Improvement Grant funds. These funds will result in
striping/signage improvements along Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills
Road, Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road, and Spyglass Hill Road.
e. As a result of our regularly scheduled meetings and public comments,
potholes have been filled, bumps have been leveled, raised pavement
markers removed and trash/refuse removed. In addition, there is now a
feature on the City's Web site for reporting road hazards.
5. Review the City's Bicycle Master Plan and provide recommendations to City
Council for modifications and additions. ·
a. The Committee has proposed allocating additional resources to create a
Bicycle Master Plan that would become a subset of the City’s Circulation
Element. The Master Plan would outline the City’s bicycle infrastructure and
program goals and include specific, measurable targets.
116
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 99
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
b. A copy of the Committee’s recommendations for the Bicycle Master Plan is
attached to this report as Appendix A.
-
6. Review and prioritize the 18 recommended projects from the Task Force on
Bicycle Safety Final report dated May 11, 2010, including potential locations
for bicycle racks to promote bicycle usage.
a. The Committee established a Focus Area Subcommittee to identify key areas
in the City that warrant additional signage, striping, or other capital
improvements.
b. The Focus Area Subcommittee identified the area leading from Newport
Heights to the Balboa Peninsula as an area most in need of safety
improvements.
c. The Focus Area Subcommittee evaluated and reported on three of the City’s
intersections with the highest rate of bicycle-involved incidents: Riverside
Drive at Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard. at Via Lido, and Newport
Boulevard at 32nd Street.
d. The Focus Area Subcommittee’s Annual Report, outlining additional
recommendations to the City Council, is attached to this report as Appendix B.
e. As a result of the Committee's work, striping modifications have been
implemented at several locations including Newport Center Drive, San Miguel
Drive, Santa Barbara Avenue, Santa Cruz Drive, East Coast Highway, Bonita
Canyon Drive, and Jamboree Road at East Coast Highway..
f. City staff has obtained approval from Caltrans for striping and signage
improvements along Newport Coast Road near the SR-73.
g. The Committee has determined that Corona Del Mar, Balboa Village, and
Balboa Island are the three areas with the greatest need for additional bike
racks.
During the past year, the Committee has accomplished a number of its goals. However, the
installation of sharrows on Coast Highway in Corona Del Mar reinforces that additional
safety improvements throughout the City are necessary, along with more education and
outreach. The Committee needs more time to consolidate our efforts and ensure a solid
foundation of bicycle awareness and safety for the future. Future projects may include
installing sharrows in other parts of the City, creating a Bicycle Master Plan which is crucial
for obtaining state grants, using existing and future funds for capital improvements, finalizing
the City's bicycle map; working with the school district to develop safer routes to school;
and soliciting input for a Complete Streets program.
117
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
100 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix A
City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan
We, the City of Newport Beach Bicycle Safety Committee, see the need for a further
dedication of City resources in order to create a comprehensive and focused Bicycle Master
Plan. The current staff has been very responsive and helpful to the Bicycle Safety Committee
in addressing Bicycle Safety Improvements. However, the current allocation of staff time
(approximately 30-40% of one staff member’s time) is not sufficient to meet the current needs
of the bicycle safety needs of the community.
1. Overview – The City’s existing General Plan Circulation Element includes a Master
Plan of Bikeways and a number of policies intended to promote and enhance safe
cycling throughout the City. We do not believe that these measures go far enough.
The Committee therefore urges the City to allocate necessary resources (i.e., additional
staff time and a budget for an outside consultant) to create a Bicycle Master Plan,
which would ultimately become a subset of the existing Circulation Element or exist as
a new stand-alone General Plan element. This Master Plan should outline the City’s
bicycle infrastructure and programs goals and include specific, measurable targets. The
Master Plan of Bikeways can be intergraded into a Complete Streets Element once that
program is developed by the City. Pending further discussion, one possible goal of the
Master Plan would be to achieve Bicycle Friendly Community status by the League of
American Bicyclists.
2. Guiding Principles – The guiding principles for the Bicycle Master Plan are very
simple: (a) make cycling safer in the City of Newport Beach; and (b) encourage
cycling for transportation and recreation purposes in the City of Newport Beach.
3. Guidance – The City staff or outside consultants charged with creating the Bicycle
Master Plan should work closely with the City’s existing Bicycle Safety Committee or
a Master Plan Advisory Subcommittee thereof.
4. Master Plan Scope of Work – At a minimum, the Master Plan should include the
following:
a. Surveys - Conduct online surveys of, and convene community meetings with,
the cycling public to scope Master Plan priorities and goals. To make efficient
use of everyone’s time, the community meeting(s) may occur during, or
immediately following, a regular Bicycle Safety Committee meeting. The
purpose of this outreach is to determine what it is people want the Master Plan
to accomplish, and to gather their ideas on the most effective ways of achieving
those goals.
b. Funding – The Master Plan should be drafted with an eye toward funding, and
specifically infrastructure funding from sources other than the City’s General
Fund (e.g., Caltrans and Measure M). Expertise in obtaining such finding
118
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 101
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
should be a prerequisite for the City staff person or outside consultant charged
with drafting the Master Plan.
c. Existing Conditions – The existing conditions section of the Master Plan
should include, among other things, a map showing proposed future bicycle
facilities and routes along with current facilities, a description of the City’s
existing bicycle facilities, bicycle collision data, and expenditures for the last
five years for bicycle facilities. It should also contain an audit of the City’s
existing bicycle facilities, noting where improvements are warranted.
d. Policies and Objectives – Like all General Plan elements, the Master Plan
should include clear policies and objectives based on input from the public and
the Master Plan Advisory Subcommittee. There should be an emphasis on
measurable and quantifiable improvements (e.g. “Implement XX% of all
recommended facility improvements by 2020.”)
e. Education and Enforcement – Recognizing that cyclists are at fault in a number
of accidents within the City, the Master Plan should include a section
specifically discussing Education and Enforcement (e.g., in-school programs,
NBPD enforcement drives, and City-sponsored bicycling skills courses.)
f. Implementation: Capital Improvement Program – In order to ensure follow-
through on the recommendations made in the Master Plan, it should include a
CIP section containing: (1) A consolidated list of all proposed bicycle
improvement projects: (2) The priority or phasing for the implementation of
each improvement; (3) The cost of each project and a cost per year for all
projects to be implemented in the first five to ten years; and (4) The anticipated
source(s) of funding for each project.
g. Regular Updates – In order to ensure that the content of the Master Plan does
not become stale, it should build in annual review and update procedures to
reflect new conditions through, for instance, regular reviews with NBPD
(Reference: Bicycle Planning and Facility Design Best Practices, October 2005, Sacramento
Transportation & Air Quality Collaborative)
305159850.4
119
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
102 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appedix B
Citizen’s Bicycle Safety Committee
Focus Area Subcommittee 2012 Annual Report
A main task of the Citizen’s Bicycle Safety Committee is to review existing bicycle
infrastructure and identify improvements to promote cycling and encourage safe and
responsible roadway use. To accomplish this task, the Focus Area Subcommittee was formed.
Review of bicycle-related incident records provided by the Newport Beach Police
Department, showed the top three bicycle-related incident locations in the Newport Boulevard
entrance to the Peninsula and within Newport Heights and mainly consist of casual cyclists.
Considering this information, the Focus Area Subcommittee reviewed the locations and
related the incident rate to peninsula and beach access from Newport Heights, with the
Oceanfront path being the primary destination.
The following improvements are recommended by the Focus Area Subcommittee to enhance
bicycle safety while promoting responsible cycling.
1. Southbound Riverside Drive – Stripe 6” Bike Lane Stripe adjacent to the parked
vehicles.
2. Riverside Dr. at PCH – Add D 11-1 (Bike Route) Sign + M6-1(L) (Arrow) on the SEC
Signal Pole to direct bike route users to the correct side of the street..
3. Add Bike Route Guide signs for the Bike Route under Newport Blvd. May need
additional Guide Signs to reinforce the route.
4. Southbound Newport Blvd. south of PCH see if it is possible (enough room) to add a
SB Bike lane as far as possible (up to 32nd St.).
5. Newport Blvd. at Via Lido – add guide signs for the Bikes to Cross Via Lido and then
cross to the west side of Newport Blvd. Guide signs at the SEC Signal Pole(s).
6. Alley – Add Guide signs to direct Bikes to use the Alley as an alternative route to
Newport Blvd. See if the short portion of the one-way alley can be used for two-way
bike route.
7. Balboa Boulevard – add bike signage and/or sharrows between Newport Boulevard
and Balboa Boulevard.
8. 32nd Street at Balboa Boulevard – remove corner parking spot by installation of red
curb, restriping the westbound 32nd St. approach to relocate the bicycle lane, placing it
between the through and right-turn lanes, and stripe a pathway through the intersection
to either cross to Seashore Dr. or turn south to 31st St.
9. Install appropriate guide signs to direct the cyclist to the Oceanfront path.
10. PCH Westbound – add dashed Bike Lane Stripe from the Sterling Parking lot to
separate bike lane from the right turn lane similar to what was done on PCH towards
Newport Center.
11. PCH Eastbound - add dashed Bike Lane Stripe adjacent to the right turn lane similar
to what was done on PCH towards Newport Center.
Further Staff review for roadway conditions and compliance with local, state and federal
guidelines may be necessary. Additionally, some of recommended improvements are within
State right of way and will require Caltrans approval.
120
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 103
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Appendix D: Task Force on Cycling Safety
Final Report 2010
121
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
104 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
122
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 105
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
123
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
106 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
124
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 107
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
125
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
108 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
126
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 109
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
127
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
110 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
128
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 111
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
129
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
112 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
130
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 113
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
131
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
114 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
132
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 115
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
133
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
116 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix E: Past and Planned Bicycle-Related
Projects
134
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 117
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
1
RE
V
I
S
E
D
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
3
%,
&
<
&
/
(
)
$
&
,
/
,
7
<
,
0
3
5
2
9
(
0
(
1
7
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
6
8
0
0
$
5
<
1R
Y
H
P
E
H
U
3/
$
1
1
(
'
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
6
7,
7
/
(
'
(
6
&
5
,
3
7
,
2
1
(6
7
,
0
$
7
(
'
&2
0
3
/
(
7
,
2
1
'$
7
(
(6
7
,
0
$
7
(
'
35
2
-
(
&
7
&
2
6
7
1H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
O
Y
G
0
R
G
L
I
L
F
D
W
L
R
Q
9
L
D
/
L
G
R
W
R
WK
6
W
7K
L
V
S
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
Z
R
X
O
G
Z
L
G
H
Q
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
E
\
D
G
G
L
Q
J
R
QH
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
O
Q
R
U
W
K
E
R
X
Q
G
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
O
D
Q
H
I
U
R
P
WK
6
W
U
H
H
W
W
R
QG
6
W
U
H
H
W
D
Q
G
R
Q
H
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
R
X
W
K
E
R
X
Q
G
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
O
D
Q
H
I
U
R
P
9
L
D
/
L
G
R
W
R
QG
6
W
U
H
H
W
7
K
H
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
ZL
O
O
D
O
V
R
H
[
W
H
Q
G
W
K
H
H
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
R
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
O
D
Q
H
V
I
U
R
P
9
L
D
/L
G
R
W
R
QG
6
W
U
H
H
W
F
R
Q
Q
H
F
W
L
Q
J
Z
L
W
K
W
K
H
U
H
F
H
Q
W
O
\
LQ
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
R
Q
QG
6
W
U
H
H
W
F
R
Q
V
W
U
X
F
W
Q
H
Z
O
D
Q
G
V
F
D
S
H
P
H
G
L
D
Q
V
D
Q
G
V
W
U
H
H
W
O
L
J
K
W
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
P
R
G
L
I
\
H
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
WU
D
I
I
L
F
V
L
J
Q
D
O
V
&
R
Q
V
X
O
W
L
Q
J
V
H
U
Y
L
F
H
V
Z
L
O
O
E
H
X
V
H
G
I
R
U
W
K
H
G
H
V
L
JQ
R
I
W
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
)<
0
:H
V
W
&
R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
D
W
2
O
G
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
O
Y
G
$
U
F
K
H
V
,
Q
W
H
U
F
K
D
Q
J
H
0
R
G
L
I
L
F
DW
L
R
Q
7K
L
V
S
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
Q
Y
R
O
Y
H
V
Z
L
G
H
Q
L
Q
J
W
K
H
Z
H
V
W
E
R
X
Q
G
V
L
G
H
R
I
:
HV
W
&
R
D
V
W
+
L
J
K
Z
D
\
D
W
2
O
G
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
WR
D
F
F
R
P
P
R
G
D
W
H
D
W
K
L
U
G
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
O
D
Q
H
D
U
L
J
K
W
W
X
U
Q
S
R
F
N
H
W
D
Q
G
D
EL
F
\
F
O
H
O
D
Q
H
2
O
G
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
P
L
J
K
W
E
H
UH
D
O
L
J
Q
H
G
W
R
P
D
[
L
P
L
]
H
W
K
H
U
L
J
K
W
W
X
U
Q
S
R
F
N
H
W
V
W
R
U
D
J
H
O
H
Q
J
W
K
D
Q
G
LP
S
U
R
Y
H
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
J
H
R
P
H
W
U
L
F
V
/
D
Q
H
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
WK
H
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
R
I
D
Q
R
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
H
D
V
W
E
R
X
Q
G
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
O
D
Q
H
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
W
K
H
L
Q
W
H
U
F
K
D
Q
J
H
Z
L
O
O
D
O
V
R
E
H
H
Y
D
O
X
D
W
H
G
D
V
S
D
U
W
R
I
W
K
H
SU
R
M
H
F
W
&
R
Q
V
X
O
W
L
Q
J
V
H
U
Y
L
F
H
V
Z
L
O
O
E
H
X
V
H
G
I
R
U
W
K
H
G
H
V
L
J
Q
R
I
W
K
LV
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
)<
0
2Q
6
W
U
H
H
W
%
L
N
H
/
D
Q
H
V
R
Q
-
D
P
E
R
U
H
H
5
G
6
D
Q
-
R
D
T
X
L
Q
+
L
O
O
V
5
G
D
Q
G
6
S\
J
O
D
V
V
+
L
O
O
5
G
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
Z
L
O
O
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
V
W
U
L
S
H
G
R
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
D
O
R
Q
J
-
D
PE
R
U
H
H
5
R
D
G
6
D
Q
-
R
D
T
X
L
Q
+
L
O
O
V
5
R
D
G
D
Q
G
6
S
\
J
O
D
V
V
+L
O
O
5
R
D
G
6
W
D
I
I
K
D
V
D
S
S
O
L
H
G
I
R
U
D
Q
G
U
H
F
H
L
Y
H
G
D
S
S
U
R
Y
D
O
I
R
U
J
U
DQ
W
I
X
Q
G
L
Q
J
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
W
K
H
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
&
R
U
U
L
G
R
U
,P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
*
U
D
Q
W
3
U
R
J
U
D
P
%
&
,
I
R
U
W
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
/
R
F
D
O
6
W
D
W
H
D
Q
G
)
H
G
H
U
D
O
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
S
O
D
Q
D
S
S
U
R
Y
D
O
D
U
H
U
H
T
X
L
U
H
G
&R
Q
V
X
O
W
L
Q
J
V
H
U
Y
L
F
H
V
Z
L
O
O
E
H
X
V
H
G
I
R
U
W
K
H
G
H
V
L
J
Q
R
I
W
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
)<
*
U
D
Q
W
)X
Q
G
H
G
Z
&
L
W
\
0D
W
F
K
2Q
6
W
U
H
H
W
%
L
N
H
/
D
Q
H
V
R
Q
(
D
V
W
E
O
X
I
I
'
U
L
Y
H
)
R
U
G
5
R
D
G
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
Z
L
O
O
Z
L
G
H
Q
W
K
H
V
R
X
W
K
V
L
G
H
R
I
(
D
V
W
E
O
X
I
I
'
U
L
Y
H
D
W
-
D
PE
R
U
H
H
5
R
D
G
D
Q
G
P
R
G
L
I
\
W
K
H
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
W
R
LQ
V
W
D
O
O
D
Q
R
Q
V
W
U
H
H
W
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
R
Q
(
D
V
W
E
O
X
I
I
'
U
L
Y
H
D
Q
G
)
R
U
G
5
R
D
G
I
U
R
P
9
L
V
W
D
'
H
O
2
U
R
W
R
0
D
F
$
U
W
K
X
U
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
V
L
Q
F
R
U
S
R
U
D
W
H
G
L
Q
W
R
W
K
H
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
&
R
U
U
L
G
R
U
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
HQ
W
*
U
D
Q
W
3
U
R
J
U
D
P
%
&
,
&
R
Q
V
W
U
X
F
W
L
R
Q
F
R
V
W
L
V
HV
W
L
P
D
W
H
G
D
W
6
W
D
I
I
K
D
V
D
S
S
O
L
H
G
I
R
U
D
Q
G
U
H
F
H
L
Y
H
G
D
S
S
U
R
Y
D
O
I
R
U
J
U
D
Q
W
I
X
Q
G
L
Q
J
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
W
K
H
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
&R
U
U
L
G
R
U
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
*
U
D
Q
W
3
U
R
J
U
D
P
%
&
,
I
R
U
W
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
/
R
F
DO
6
W
D
W
H
D
Q
G
)
H
G
H
U
D
O
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
S
O
D
Q
D
S
S
U
R
Y
D
O
D
U
H
UH
T
X
L
U
H
G
&
R
Q
V
X
O
W
L
Q
J
V
H
U
Y
L
F
H
V
Z
L
O
O
E
H
X
V
H
G
I
R
U
W
K
H
G
H
V
L
J
Q
R
I
W
KL
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
)<
*
U
D
Q
W
)X
Q
G
H
G
Z
&
L
W
\
0D
W
F
K
135
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
118 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
2
RE
V
I
S
E
D
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
3
3/
$
1
1
(
'
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
6
&
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
H
G
7,
7
/
(
'
(
6
&
5
,
3
7
,
2
1
(6
7
,
0
$
7
(
'
&2
0
3
/
(
7
,
2
1
'$
7
(
(6
7
,
0
$
7
(
'
35
2
-
(
&
7
&
2
6
7
1H
Z
S
R
U
W
+
H
L
J
K
W
V
3
H
Q
L
Q
V
X
O
D
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
V
L
Q
W
K
H
F
R
Q
F
H
S
W
X
D
O
S
K
D
V
H
F
R
Q
V
L
G
H
U
L
Q
J
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
D
W
L
RQ
R
I
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
U
R
X
W
H
U
H
O
D
W
H
G
Z
D
U
Q
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
U
H
J
X
O
D
W
R
U
\
VL
J
Q
D
J
H
D
V
Z
H
O
O
D
V
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
P
D
U
N
L
Q
J
V
D
O
R
Q
J
E
L
N
H
U
R
X
W
H
V
I
U
R
P
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
+
H
L
J
K
W
V
W
R
W
K
H
%
D
O
E
R
D
3H
Q
L
Q
V
X
O
D
L
Q
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J
&
O
L
I
I
'
U
L
Y
H
5
L
Y
H
U
V
L
G
H
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
&
R
D
V
W
+
L
J
K
Z
D\
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
7
K
H
U
H
F
H
Q
W
O
\
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
EL
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
R
Q
QG
6
W
U
H
H
W
Z
H
U
H
S
U
H
Y
L
R
X
V
O
\
S
D
U
W
R
I
W
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
)<
7%
'
1H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
:
D
U
Q
L
Q
J
6
L
J
Q
V
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
Z
L
O
O
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
V
W
D
Q
G
D
U
G
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
Z
D
U
Q
L
Q
J
V
L
J
Q
V
R
Q
5
L
G
JH
3
D
U
N
5
R
D
G
D
Q
G
9
L
V
W
D
5
L
G
J
H
5
R
D
G
W
R
L
Q
I
R
U
P
PR
W
R
U
L
V
W
V
R
I
S
R
V
V
L
E
O
H
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
D
F
W
L
Y
L
W
\
)<
3H
Q
L
Q
V
X
O
D
3
R
L
Q
W
%
L
N
H
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
V
L
Q
W
K
H
F
R
Q
F
H
S
W
X
D
O
S
K
D
V
H
F
R
Q
V
L
G
H
U
L
Q
J
W
K
H
L
Q
V
W
D
O
OD
W
L
R
Q
R
I
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
P
D
U
N
L
Q
J
V
D
Q
G
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
W
R
%
D
O
E
R
D
%R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
E
H
W
Z
H
H
Q
0
D
L
Q
6
W
U
H
H
W
D
Q
G
*
6
W
U
H
H
W
)<
$Y
R
F
D
G
R
$
Y
H
D
Q
G
%
D
V
\
L
G
H
'
U
%
L
N
H
)
D
F
L
O
L
W
\
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
V
L
Q
F
R
U
S
R
U
D
W
H
G
L
Q
W
R
W
K
H
)
<
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
U
H
K
D
E
L
O
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
D
Q
G
Z
L
O
O
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
R
Q
$Y
R
F
D
G
R
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
I
U
R
P
&
R
D
V
W
+
L
J
K
Z
D
\
W
R
6
D
Q
0
L
J
X
H
O
'
U
L
Y
H
7
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
Z
L
O
O
D
O
V
R
U
H
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
6
K
D
U
U
R
Z
V
R
Q
%D
\
V
L
G
H
'
U
L
Y
H
D
Q
G
H
[
W
H
Q
G
P
D
U
N
L
Q
J
V
I
U
R
P
(
O
3
D
V
H
R
'
U
L
Y
H
W
R
0
D
U
J
X
H
UL
W
H
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
)<
7%
'
&L
W
\
:
L
G
H
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
5
R
X
W
H
0
D
S
$
G
U
D
I
W
*
,
6
E
D
V
H
G
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
U
R
X
W
H
P
D
S
X
V
L
Q
J
&
L
W
\
U
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
K
D
V
E
H
H
Q
S
U
H
S
D
U
H
G
7
K
H
P
D
S
L
V
F
X
U
U
H
Q
W
O
\
S
R
V
W
H
G
R
Q
W
K
H
&L
W
\
Z
H
E
V
L
W
H
D
Q
G
V
W
D
I
I
L
V
V
R
O
L
F
L
W
L
Q
J
F
R
P
P
H
Q
W
V
T
X
H
V
W
L
R
Q
V
7
K
L
V
L
WH
P
P
D
\
U
H
T
X
L
U
H
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
O
U
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
IU
R
P
W
K
H
*
,
6
'
L
Y
L
V
L
R
Q
&
R
Q
V
X
O
W
L
Q
J
V
H
U
Y
L
F
H
V
P
D
\
E
H
Q
H
F
H
V
V
D
U
\
W
R
S
X
E
O
L
V
K
K
D
U
G
F
R
S
L
H
V
R
I
W
K
H
P
D
S
7
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
KD
V
E
H
H
Q
L
Q
F
R
U
S
R
U
D
W
H
G
L
Q
W
R
W
K
H
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
0
D
V
W
H
U
3
O
D
Q
3
U
R
M
H
F
W
7%
'
7%
'
1H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
'
U
L
Y
H
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
V
L
Q
W
K
H
F
R
Q
F
H
S
W
X
D
O
S
K
D
V
H
F
R
Q
V
L
G
H
U
L
Q
J
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
O
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
D
Q
G
PD
L
Q
W
H
Q
D
Q
F
H
S
X
O
O
R
X
W
V
W
R
H
Q
K
D
Q
F
H
Y
H
K
L
F
O
H
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
D
Q
G
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
L
Q
W
H
U
D
F
W
L
R
Q
R
Q
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
'
U
L
Y
H
I
U
R
P
&
R
D
V
W
+Z
\
W
R
6
D
Q
-
R
D
T
X
L
Q
+
L
O
O
V
5
R
D
G
7
K
L
V
L
W
H
P
P
D
\
U
H
T
X
L
U
H
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
O
U
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
I
U
R
P
W
K
H
0
X
Q
L
F
L
S
D
O
2S
H
U
D
W
L
R
Q
V
'
H
S
D
U
W
P
H
Q
W
7%
'
7%
'
136
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 119
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
3
RE
V
I
S
E
D
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
3
3/
$
1
1
(
'
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
6
&
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
H
G
7,
7
/
(
'
(
6
&
5
,
3
7
,
2
1
(6
7
,
0
$
7
(
'
&2
0
3
/
(
7
,
2
1
'$
7
(
(6
7
,
0
$
7
(
'
35
2
-
(
&
7
&
2
6
7
&R
P
S
U
H
K
H
Q
V
L
Y
H
&
L
W
\
Z
L
G
H
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
0
D
V
W
H
U
3
O
D
Q
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
Z
L
O
O
G
H
Y
H
O
R
S
D
F
R
P
S
U
H
K
H
Q
V
L
Y
H
F
L
W
\
Z
L
G
H
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
P
D
VW
H
U
S
O
D
Q
Z
L
W
K
W
K
H
J
R
D
O
R
I
S
U
R
P
R
W
L
Q
J
V
D
I
H
D
Q
G
UH
V
S
R
Q
V
L
E
O
H
F
\
F
O
L
Q
J
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
W
K
H
&
L
W
\
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
G
H
Y
H
O
R
S
P
H
Q
W
R
I
D
F
R
PS
U
H
K
H
Q
V
L
Y
H
S
O
D
Q
I
R
U
R
X
W
U
H
D
F
K
D
Q
G
H
G
X
F
D
W
L
R
Q
LG
H
Q
W
L
I
L
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
L
Q
I
U
D
V
W
U
X
F
W
X
U
H
Q
H
H
G
V
D
Q
G
S
U
R
S
R
V
H
G
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
V
F
U
H
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
D
F
L
W
\
Z
L
G
H
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
QH
W
Z
R
U
N
W
R
D
F
F
R
P
P
R
G
D
W
H
D
O
O
O
H
Y
H
O
V
R
I
F
\
F
O
L
Q
J
F
R
Q
Q
H
F
W
L
R
Q
W
R
W
K
H
U
H
J
L
R
Q
D
O
W
U
D
L
O
V
\
V
W
H
P
V
D
Q
G
L
G
H
Q
W
L
I
L
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
IX
W
X
U
H
I
X
Q
G
L
Q
J
V
R
X
U
F
H
V
8
V
H
R
I
D
F
R
Q
V
X
O
W
L
Q
J
I
L
U
P
W
K
D
W
V
S
H
F
L
D
O
L
]H
V
L
Q
W
K
H
G
H
Y
H
O
R
S
P
H
Q
W
R
I
W
U
D
Q
V
S
R
U
W
D
W
L
R
Q
P
D
V
W
H
U
SO
D
Q
V
L
V
U
H
F
R
P
P
H
Q
G
H
G
Z
L
W
K
6
W
D
I
I
R
Y
H
U
V
L
J
K
W
7
K
L
V
L
W
H
P
P
D
\
U
H
T
X
LU
H
D
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
O
U
H
V
R
X
U
F
H
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
I
U
R
P
W
K
H
&R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
'
H
Y
H
O
R
S
P
H
Q
W
'
H
S
D
U
W
P
H
Q
W
7
K
H
S
U
R
F
H
V
V
L
V
H
Q
Y
L
V
L
R
Q
H
G
W
R
W
D
N
H
P
R
Q
W
K
V
D
Q
G
K
D
Y
H
D
V
X
E
V
W
D
Q
W
L
D
O
SX
E
O
L
F
R
X
W
U
H
D
F
K
F
R
P
S
R
Q
H
Q
W
)D
O
O
2&
7
$
8
S
G
D
W
H
W
R
W
K
H
6
X
S
H
U
Y
L
V
R
U
L
D
O
'
L
V
W
U
L
F
W
V
D
Q
G
5
H
J
L
R
Q
D
O
&
R
P
PX
W
H
U
%
L
N
H
Z
D
\
V
6
W
U
D
W
H
J
L
F
3
O
D
Q
7K
L
V
2
&
7
$
O
H
G
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
Z
L
O
O
U
H
Y
L
H
Z
D
Q
G
X
S
G
D
W
H
W
K
H
5
H
J
L
R
Q
D
O
&
R
P
P
X
W
H
U
%
L
N
H
Z
D
\
6
W
U
D
W
H
J
L
F
3
O
D
Q
V
L
Q
6
X
S
H
U
Y
L
V
R
U
L
D
O
'L
V
W
U
L
F
W
V
D
Q
G
L
Q
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J
W
K
H
&
L
W
\
R
I
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
H
D
F
K
7
K
L
V
L
V
D
F
R
O
O
D
E
R
U
D
W
L
Y
H
H
I
I
R
U
W
L
Q
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J
D
O
O
D
J
H
Q
F
L
H
V
D
Q
G
UH
O
D
W
H
G
V
W
D
N
H
K
R
O
G
H
U
V
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
'
L
V
W
U
L
F
W
V
D
Q
G
3
X
E
O
L
F
:
R
U
N
V
D
Q
G
&
R
P
P
X
Q
L
W
\
'
H
Y
H
O
R
S
P
H
Q
W
6
W
D
I
I
Z
L
O
O
D
F
W
L
Y
H
O
\
SD
U
W
L
F
L
S
D
W
H
L
Q
W
K
L
V
H
I
I
R
U
W
Z
L
W
K
W
K
H
J
R
D
O
R
I
S
U
R
P
R
W
L
Q
J
V
D
I
H
D
Q
G
UH
V
S
R
Q
V
L
E
O
H
E
L
F
\
F
O
L
Q
J
I
R
U
D
O
O
X
V
H
U
V
L
P
S
U
R
Y
L
Q
J
EL
F
\
F
O
H
I
D
F
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
H
G
X
F
D
W
L
R
Q
D
Q
G
R
X
W
U
H
D
F
K
D
Q
G
L
Q
F
U
H
D
V
L
Q
J
F
\
F
O
LQ
J
D
Z
D
U
H
Q
H
V
V
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
H
D
F
K
)<
7%
'
&R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
5
R
X
W
H
&
R
X
Q
W
\
Z
L
G
H
&
R
U
U
L
G
R
U
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
0
D
V
W
H
U
3
O
D
Q
,Q
L
W
L
D
W
H
G
E
\
W
K
H
&
L
W
\
R
I
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
H
D
F
K
W
K
H
&
R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
&
R
X
Q
W
\
Z
L
GH
&
R
U
U
L
G
R
U
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
0
D
V
W
H
U
3
O
D
Q
LQ
F
O
X
G
H
V
D
O
O
2
U
D
Q
J
H
&
R
X
Q
W
\
D
J
H
Q
F
L
H
V
W
K
D
W
K
D
Y
H
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
V
R
I
&
R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
5
R
X
W
H
L
Q
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J
&
D
O
W
U
D
Q
V
D
Q
G
2
&
7
$
7K
H
J
R
D
O
R
I
W
K
H
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
V
W
R
U
H
Y
L
H
Z
&
R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
I
D
F
L
O
L
W
\
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
2U
D
Q
J
H
&
R
X
Q
W
\
W
R
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
X
O
W
L
P
R
G
D
O
Y
H
K
L
F
O
H
EL
F
\
F
O
H
D
Q
G
S
H
G
H
V
W
U
L
D
Q
I
O
R
Z
R
I
O
R
F
D
O
D
Q
G
U
H
J
L
R
Q
D
O
W
U
D
I
I
L
F
Z
K
L
O
H
U
H
G
X
F
L
Q
J
L
P
S
D
F
W
V
W
R
O
R
F
D
O
D
J
H
Q
F
L
H
V
E
\
L
G
H
Q
W
L
I
\
L
Q
J
WK
H
Q
H
H
G
V
R
I
W
K
H
F
R
U
U
L
G
R
U
I
D
F
L
O
L
W
\
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
D
Q
G
I
X
Q
G
L
Q
J
V
RX
U
F
H
V
W
R
F
R
P
S
O
H
W
H
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
V
7%
'
7%
'
137
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
120 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
4
RE
V
I
S
E
D
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
3
&2
0
3
/
(
7
(
'
$
&
7
,
2
1
6
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
6
7,
7
/
(
'
(
6
&
5
,
3
7
,
2
1
&2
0
3
/
(
7
,
2
1
'
$
7
(
1H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
'
U
6
L
J
Q
D
Q
G
6
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
P
R
G
L
I
L
H
G
W
K
H
H
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
U
H
O
D
W
H
G
Z
D
U
Q
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
U
H
J
X
O
D
W
R
U
\
V
L
J
Q
V
R
Q
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
'U
L
Y
H
D
W
W
K
H
6
R
X
W
K
E
R
X
Q
G
6
5
R
Q
D
Q
G
R
I
I
U
D
P
S
V
W
R
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
W
K
H
Y
HK
L
F
O
H
F
\
F
O
L
V
W
P
H
U
J
H
D
Q
G
F
U
R
V
V
L
Q
J
D
W
W
K
L
V
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
7
K
H
SU
R
M
H
F
W
Z
D
V
F
R
P
S
O
H
W
H
G
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
D
&
D
O
W
U
D
Q
V
(
Q
F
U
R
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
3
H
U
P
L
W
$G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
O
O
\
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
Z
D
V
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
WR
W
K
H
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
'
U
L
Y
H
U
L
J
K
W
W
X
U
Q
S
R
F
N
H
W
V
I
U
R
P
6
D
Q
-
R
D
T
X
L
Q
+L
O
O
V
5
R
D
G
W
R
5
L
G
J
H
3
D
U
N
'
U
L
Y
H
7
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
D
O
V
R
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
VF
K
R
R
O
]
R
Q
H
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
D
Q
G
P
D
U
N
L
Q
J
V
D
U
R
X
Q
G
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
(
O
H
P
H
Q
W
D
U
\
6
F
K
R
R
O
L
Q
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J
D
G
G
L
Q
J
K
L
J
K
Y
L
V
L
E
L
O
L
W
\
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
W
W
K
H
1H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
R
D
V
W
'
U
L
Y
H
5
L
G
J
H
3
D
U
N
5
R
D
G
F
U
R
V
V
Z
D
O
N
V
6X
P
P
H
U
QG
6
W
%
L
N
H
/
D
Q
H
3
U
R
M
H
F
W
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
R
Q
QG
6
W
U
H
H
W
E
H
W
Z
H
H
Q
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
D
Q
G
%
D
O
E
R
D
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
UH
D
O
O
R
F
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
UL
J
K
W
R
I
Z
D
\
W
R
L
Q
F
R
U
S
R
U
D
W
H
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
O
D
Q
H
V
7
K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
D
O
V
R
H
[W
H
Q
G
H
G
W
K
H
6
H
D
V
K
R
U
H
E
L
N
H
S
D
W
K
I
U
R
P
WK
6
W
U
H
H
W
W
R
%
D
O
E
R
D
%R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
6X
P
P
H
U
&L
W
L
]
H
Q
V
%
L
F
\
F
O
H
6
D
I
H
W
\
&
R
P
P
L
W
W
H
H
±
3
X
E
O
L
F
:
R
U
N
V
6
W
D
I
I
6
X
S
S
R
U
W
W
R
G
D
W
H
7K
L
V
D
F
W
L
R
Q
L
V
3
X
E
O
L
F
:
R
U
N
V
W
L
P
H
DO
O
R
F
D
W
H
G
W
R
W
K
H
&
L
W
L
]
H
Q
¶
V
%
L
F
\F
O
H
6
D
I
H
W
\
&
R
P
P
L
W
W
H
H
W
R
G
D
W
H
L
Q
F
O
X
G
L
Q
J
V
W
D
I
I
W
L
P
H
W
R
S
U
H
S
D
U
H
PH
H
W
L
Q
J
L
W
H
P
V
D
J
H
Q
G
D
V
K
D
Q
G
R
X
W
V
P
H
H
W
L
Q
J
P
L
Q
X
W
H
V
P
H
H
W
L
Q
J
O
R
J
L
V
W
L
F
V
S
U
H
S
D
U
D
W
L
R
Q
I
R
U
U
H
V
S
R
Q
V
H
W
R
F
R
P
P
L
W
W
H
H
U
H
T
X
H
V
W
V
SU
H
S
D
U
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
U
H
S
R
U
W
V
D
Q
G
S
U
H
V
H
Q
W
D
W
L
R
Q
V
D
Q
G
F
R
R
U
G
L
Q
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
R
WK
H
U
&
L
W
\
6
W
D
I
I
7
K
L
V
L
W
H
P
D
F
F
R
X
Q
W
V
I
R
U
D
S
S
U
R
[
L
P
D
W
H
O
\
KR
X
U
V
R
I
3
X
E
O
L
F
:
R
U
N
V
6
W
D
I
I
W
L
P
H
I
R
U
W
K
H
W
Z
R
F
R
P
S
O
H
W
H
G
\
H
D
U
V
R
I
F
R
P
P
L
W
W
H
H
P
H
H
W
L
Q
J
V
Z
R
U
N
7
K
L
V
L
W
H
P
H
[
F
O
X
G
H
V
W
K
H
O
D
U
J
H
U
SU
R
M
H
F
W
V
D
O
U
H
D
G
\
O
L
V
W
H
G
L
Q
W
K
L
V
G
R
F
X
P
H
Q
W
:L
Q
W
H
U
2F
H
D
Q
)
U
R
Q
W
6
L
J
Q
D
J
H
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
,Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
Z
D
U
Q
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
U
H
J
X
O
D
W
R
U
\
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
2
F
H
D
Q
I
U
R
Q
W
W
UD
L
O
W
R
E
H
W
W
H
U
L
Q
I
R
U
P
R
F
H
D
Q
I
U
R
Q
W
W
U
D
Y
H
O
H
U
V
R
I
Y
D
U
L
R
X
V
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
FU
R
V
V
W
U
D
I
I
L
F
D
Q
G
W
R
H
Q
K
D
Q
F
H
W
K
H
R
F
H
D
Q
I
U
R
Q
W
H
[
S
H
U
L
H
Q
F
H
)D
O
O
%D
\
V
L
G
H
'
U
6
K
D
U
U
R
Z
V
7K
L
V
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
6
K
D
U
U
R
Z
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
P
D
U
N
L
Q
J
V
D
Q
G
³
6
+
$
5
(
7
+
(
5
2
$
'
´
V
L
J
Q
V
R
Q
%
D
\
V
L
G
H
'
U
L
Y
H
I
U
R
P
(
O
3
D
V
H
R
W
R
&D
U
Q
D
W
L
R
Q
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
W
K
H
F
X
U
Y
H
V
No
t
e
-
T
h
e
s
e
S
h
a
r
r
o
w
L
a
n
e
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
n
g
r
a
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
p
a
v
i
n
g
o
f
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
Dr
i
v
e
i
n
2
0
1
3
.
)
D
O
O
%L
F
\
F
O
H
'
R
Z
Q
K
L
O
O
$
G
Y
L
V
R
U
\
6
L
J
Q
V
,Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
³
:
$
7
&
+
'
2
:
1
+
,
/
/
6
3
(
(
'
´
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
D
G
Y
L
V
R
U
\
V
L
J
Q
V
R
Q
5
L
G
J
H
3
D
U
N
5
R
D
G
9
L
V
W
D
5
L
G
J
H
5
R
D
G
D
Q
G
6
D
Q
-
R
D
T
X
L
Q
+L
O
O
V
5
R
D
G
L
Q
W
K
H
V
W
H
H
S
G
R
Z
Q
K
L
O
O
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
V
6
S
U
L
Q
J
138
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 121
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
5
RE
V
I
S
E
D
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
3
&2
0
3
/
(
7
(
'
$
&
7
,
2
1
6
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
6
&
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
H
G
7,
7
/
(
'
(
6
&
5
,
3
7
,
2
1
&2
0
3
/
(
7
,
2
1
'
$
7
(
&D
V
W
D
Z
D
\
V
7
U
D
L
O
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
5H
Y
L
V
H
G
P
X
O
W
L
X
V
H
W
U
D
L
O
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
W
R
E
H
W
W
H
U
V
H
U
Y
H
D
O
O
X
V
H
U
V
D
Q
G
LQ
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
W
R
H
Q
F
R
X
U
D
J
H
V
K
D
U
H
G
X
V
H
R
I
W
K
H
W
U
D
L
O
6X
P
P
H
U
)H
U
Q
O
H
D
I
5
D
P
S
6
L
J
Q
5
H
Y
L
V
L
R
Q
V
3U
R
M
H
F
W
U
H
P
R
Y
H
G
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
S
U
R
K
L
E
L
W
L
R
Q
V
L
J
Q
V
D
Q
G
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
E
L
F
\
F
O
H
D
G
Y
L
V
R
U
\
V
L
J
Q
V
R
Q
W
K
H
)
H
U
Q
O
H
D
I
5
D
P
S
)D
O
O
5H
P
R
Y
H
5
D
L
V
H
G
3
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
0
D
U
N
H
U
V
3U
R
M
H
F
W
U
H
P
R
Y
H
G
U
D
L
V
H
G
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
P
D
U
N
H
U
V
L
G
H
Q
W
L
I
L
H
G
D
V
D
K
D
]
D
U
G
WR
F
\
F
O
L
V
W
V
R
Q
%
D
\
V
L
G
H
'
U
L
Y
H
D
Q
G
W
K
H
&
R
U
R
Q
D
'
H
O
0
D
U
6
W
D
W
H
%H
D
F
K
5
D
P
S
)D
O
O
%D
\
V
L
G
H
'
U
%
L
N
H
5
D
P
S
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
3U
R
M
H
F
W
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
D
E
L
N
H
U
D
P
S
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
D
Q
G
U
H
G
F
X
U
E
W
R
H
Q
D
E
O
H
F
\F
O
L
V
W
V
W
R
D
F
F
H
V
V
W
K
H
&
O
D
V
V
E
L
N
H
W
U
D
L
O
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
V
R
X
W
K
V
L
G
H
R
I
%D
\
V
L
G
H
'
U
L
Y
H
E
H
W
Z
H
H
Q
+
D
U
E
R
U
,
V
O
D
Q
G
'
U
L
Y
H
D
Q
G
0
D
U
L
Q
H
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
)D
O
O
%R
Q
L
W
D
&
D
Q
\
R
Q
'
U
%
L
N
H
/
D
Q
H
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
3U
R
M
H
F
W
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
H
Q
K
D
Q
F
H
G
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
W
L
Q
W
H
U
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
V
D
Q
G
W
X
U
Q
O
D
Q
H
V
D
Q
G
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
U
H
O
D
W
H
G
Z
D
U
Q
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
UH
J
X
O
D
W
R
U
\
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
E
H
W
Z
H
H
Q
0
D
F
$
U
W
K
X
U
%
R
X
O
H
Y
D
U
G
D
Q
G
6
5
:L
Q
W
H
U
&R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
%
L
N
H
/
D
Q
H
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
3U
R
M
H
F
W
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
P
L
V
V
L
Q
J
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
V
R
I
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
H
Q
K
D
Q
F
H
G
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
D
W
L
Q
W
H
U
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
V
D
Q
G
W
X
U
Q
O
D
Q
H
V
D
Q
G
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
H
G
EL
F
\
F
O
H
U
H
O
D
W
H
G
Z
D
U
Q
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
U
H
J
X
O
DW
R
U
\
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
I
U
R
P
'
D
K
O
L
D
$
Y
H
Q
XH
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
W
K
H
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
H
Q
W
H
U
'
U
L
Y
H
L
Q
W
H
U
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
:L
Q
W
H
U
&R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
%
L
N
H
$
O
W
H
U
Q
D
W
H
%
L
N
H
5
R
X
W
H
(V
W
D
E
O
L
V
K
H
G
D
Q
D
O
W
H
U
Q
D
W
H
E
L
N
H
U
R
X
W
H
W
R
&
R
D
V
W
+
L
J
K
Z
D
\
I
U
R
P
$
Y
R
F
D
GR
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
W
R
3
R
S
S
\
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
Q
R
U
W
K
D
Q
G
V
R
X
W
K
R
I
W
K
H
&
R
D
V
W
+L
J
K
Z
D
\
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
W
K
H
L
Q
V
W
D
O
O
D
W
L
R
Q
R
I
E
L
N
H
U
R
X
W
H
V
L
J
Q
V
$
O
V
R
L
Q
FO
X
G
H
G
E
L
N
H
U
R
X
W
H
V
L
J
Q
D
J
H
I
R
U
&
'
0
6
W
D
W
H
%
H
D
F
K
:L
Q
W
H
U
1H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
H
Q
W
H
U
%
L
N
H
/
D
Q
H
,
Q
V
W
D
O
O
D
W
L
R
Q
&U
H
D
W
H
G
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
L
Q
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
&
H
Q
W
H
U
D
V
S
D
U
W
R
I
D
S
D
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
U
H
K
D
EL
O
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q
S
U
R
M
H
F
W
%
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
V
Z
H
U
H
D
G
G
H
G
D
O
R
Q
J
1
H
Z
S
R
U
W
&H
Q
W
H
U
'
U
L
Y
H
6
D
Q
W
D
%
D
U
E
D
U
D
$
Y
H
Q
X
H
6
D
Q
0
L
J
X
H
O
'
U
L
Y
H
D
Q
G
6
D
Q
W
D
&
U
X
]
'
U
L
Y
H
6S
U
L
Q
J
&R
D
V
W
+
Z
\
%
L
N
H
/
D
Q
H
,
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
D
W
-
D
P
E
R
U
H
H
5
G
([
W
H
Q
G
W
K
H
H
[
L
V
W
L
Q
J
Z
H
V
W
E
R
X
Q
G
&
R
DV
W
+
Z
\
E
L
N
H
O
D
Q
H
W
R
W
K
H
L
Q
W
H
U
V
HF
W
L
R
Q
E
\
V
L
J
Q
L
Q
J
D
Q
G
V
W
U
L
S
L
Q
J
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
V
W
R
W
K
H
U
L
J
K
W
WX
U
Q
O
D
Q
H
D
Q
G
P
H
G
L
D
Q
P
R
G
L
I
L
F
D
W
L
R
Q
V
7
K
L
V
L
P
S
U
R
Y
H
P
H
Q
W
Z
D
V
L
Q
F
R
U
SR
U
D
W
H
G
W
R
W
K
H
L
Q
W
H
U
V
H
F
W
L
R
Q
7
U
DI
I
L
F
6
L
J
Q
D
O
5
H
K
D
E
L
O
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q
3U
R
M
H
F
W
)D
O
O
139
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
122 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix F: Bicycle Count Tables
140
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 123
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Table A-1 Weekday Bicycle Count Results (Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM)
Count Location MaleFemaleChildren
<13
No HelmetSidewalkWrong
Way
1- Coast Highway and Orange
Street
137210 45631
2- Irvine Avenue and University
Drive
568 3 384 7
3- Newport Boulevard and 32nd
Street
438 6 46224
4- Ocean Front Trail and 28th
Street
954624 990 0
5- Irvine Avenue and 15th Street 803256 151410
6- Coast Highway and Bayside
Drive
113110 15191
7- Eastbluff Drive and Back Bay
Drive
127311 9 7412
8- Coast Highway and Iris Avenue129 0 4 2 0
9- Bonita Canyon Drive and
Chambord
8230020
10- Coast Highway and Newport
Coast Drive
3420021
11-Newport Coast Drive and Ridge
Park Road
3314002
Table A-2 Weekend Bicycle Count Results (Saturday, October 19, 2013 - 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM)
Count Location MaleFemaleChildren
<13
No HelmetSidewalkWrong
Way
1- Coast Highway and Orange
Street
8552736 36479922
2- Irvine Avenue and University
Drive
642019 19110
3- Newport Boulevard and 32nd
Street
165813 1887537
4- Ocean Front Trail and 28th
Street
50826036 6890 36
5- Irvine Avenue and 15th Street 44206 42216
6- Coast Highway and Bayside
Drive
6821680 83566
7- Eastbluff Drive and Back Bay
Drive
4342781 733227
8- Coast Highway and Iris Avenue187312 187 1
9- Bonita Canyon Drive and Cham-
bord
5693250
10- Coast Highway and Newport
Coast Drive
321510 115 1
11-Newport Coast Drive and Ridge
Park Road
180161 3 100
141
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
124 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table A-3 Weekend Bicycle Count Results (Saturday October 19, 2013 - 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM)
Count Location MaleFemaleChildren <13No HelmetSidewalkWrong Way
1- Coast Highway and Orange
Street
389512 2 604
7- Eastbluff Drive and Back Bay
Drive
284482 0 1175
10- Coast Highway and Newport
Coast Drive
191240 3 02
11-Newport Coast Drive and Ridge
Park Road
167250 1 73
142
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 125
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Appendix G: Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
143
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
126 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Introduction
This chapter is intended to assist the Newport Beach in the selection and design of bicycle facilities. The following
pages pull together best practices by facility type from public agencies and municipalities nationwide. Within the
design section, treatments are covered within a single sheet tabular format relaying important design information and
discussion, example photos, schematics (if applicable), and existing summary guidance from current or upcoming
draft standards. Existing standards are referenced throughout and should be the first source of information when
seeking to implement any of the treatments featured here.
144
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 127
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
National Standards
The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control
devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public traffic. The
FHWA MUTCD forms the basis of the California MUTCD.
To further clarify the MUTCD, the FHWA created a table of contemporary bicycle facilities that
lists various bicycle-related signs, markings, signals, and other treatments and identifies their
official status (e.g., can be implemented, currently experimental). See Bicycle Facilities and
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.1 The FHWA Guidance on Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility explicitly supports the use of the AASHTO and NACTO
bikeway design guides.2
Bikeway treatments not explicitly covered by the MUTCD are often subject to experiments,
interpretations and official rulings by the FHWA. The MUTCD Official Rulings is a resource
that allows website visitors to obtain information about these supplementary materials. Copies
of various documents (such as incoming request letters, response letters from the FHWA,
progress reports, and final reports) are available on this website.3
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, updated in June 2012 provides guidance on dimensions,
use, and layout of specific bicycle facilities. The guidelines presented by AASHTO provide
basic information, such as minimum sidewalk widths, bicycle lane dimensions, detailed striping
requirements and recommended signage and pavement markings.
Meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is an important part of
any bicycle and pedestrian facility project. The United States Access Board’s proposed Public
Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines4 (PROWAG) and the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design5
(2010 Standards) contain standards and guidance for the construction of accessible facilities.
Caltrans Adopts NACTO
The National Association of City Transportation Officials’
(NACTO) 2012 Urban Bikeway Design Guide6 and
the 2013 Urban Streets Design Guide are the newest
publication of nationally recognized bikeway and street
design guidelines.
In an April 2014 memorandum, Caltrans encouraged
flexibility in highway design. The memo stated that
“Publications such as the National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO) “Urban Street Design
Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide,” ... are
resources that Caltrans and local entities can reference
when ma king planning and design decisions on the
State highway system and local streets and roads.”
1 FHWA. Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2011.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/mutcd_bike.htm
2 FHWA. Guidance on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility. 2013. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guid-
ance/design_guidance/design_flexibility.cfm
3 MUTCD Official Rulings. FHWA. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp
4 http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/
5 http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm
6 http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/
145
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
128 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Some of the treatments featured in the NACTO guides are not directly referenced in the current versions of the
AASHTO Guide or the MUTCD, although many of the elements of these treatments are found within these docu-
ments. In all cases, engineering judgment is recommended to ensure that the application makes sense for the
context of each treatment, given the many complexities of urban streets.
State Standards and Guidelines
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (2012)
The California MUTCD 2012 an amended version of the FHWA MUTCD 2009 edition modified for use in California.
While standards presented in the CA MUTCD substantially conform to the FHWA MUTCD, the state of California
follows local practices, laws and requirements with regards to signing, striping and other traffic control devices.
California Highway Design Manual (HDM) (2012)
This manual establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out highway design functions for the California
Department of Transportation. The 2012 edition incorporated Complete Streets focused revisions to address the
Department Directive 64 R-1.
Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and
Pedestrians (2010)
This California Department of Transportation reference guide presents information and concepts related to improving
conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians at major intersections and interchanges. The guide can be used to inform
minor signage and striping changes to intersections, as well as major changes and designs for new intersections.
Main Street, California: A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality (2013)
This Caltrans informational guide reflects California’s current manuals and policies that improve multimodal access,
livability and sustainability within the transportation system. The guide recognizes the overlapping and sometimes
competing needs of main streets.
NCHRP Legal Digest 53: Liability Aspects of Bikeways (2010)
This digest is a useful resource for city staff considering innovative engineering solutions to localized issues. The
document addresses the liability of public entities for bicycle collisions on bikeways as well as on streets and high-
ways. The report will be useful to attorneys, transportation officials, planners, maintenance engineers and all persons
interested in the relative rights and responsibilities of motorists and bicyclists on shared roadways.
146
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 129
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Some of these bicycle facilities covered by these guidelines are not directly referenced in the current versions of the
AASHTO Guide or the California MUTCD, although many of the elements of these treatments are found within these
documents. An “X” marking in the following table identifies the inclusion of a particular treatment within the national
and state design guides. A “–” marking indicates a treatment may not be specifically mentioned, but is compliant
assuming MUTCD compliant signs and markings are used.
In all cases, engineering judgment is recommended to ensure that the application makes sense for the context of
each treatment, given the many complexities of urban streets.
* Most NACTO treatments are compatible within AASHTO/MUTCD guidance, though some NACTO endorsed
designs may not be permitted on state roads at this time. Refer to FHWA Guidance on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facility Design Flexibility (2013).1
1 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/design_flexibility.cfm
Bicycle Facility Standards Compliance
California Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (2012)
Guide for the
Development of Bicycle
Facilities (2012)
Urban Bikeway Design
Guide (2012)
Signed Shared RoadwayXX
Marked Shared RoadwayXXX
Bicycle Boulevard–XX
Bicycle LaneXXX
Buffered Bicycle Lane–XX
Cycle Tracks–Called "one-way sidepath"X
Bike Box X
Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only LanesXXX
Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict AreasFHWA Interim Approval
Granted
XX
Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane–X
Intersection Crossing MarkingsXXX
Wayfinding Sign Types & PlacementXXX
Wayfinding Sign PlacementXXX
Shared-Use PathXX
Active Warning BeaconsXXX
Pedestrian Hybrid BeaconsXXX
147
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
130 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Multimodal Level of Service
Additional References and Guidelines
Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2010.
Florida Department of Transportation. LOSPLAN. 2012. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/los_sw2m2.shtm
Fehr&Peers. LOS+ Multi-Modal Roadway Analysis Tool. http://www.fehrandpeers.com/losplus/
Mineta Transportation Institute. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. 2011. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1005.html
Discussion
Limitations of the HCM 2010 model for Bicycle LOS calculations include:
• Gradients are not included in calculations.
• The presence of contemporary facility types included in this guide, such as shared lane markings, bike boxes or
cycle tracks are not included, although the Florida LOSPLAN update does features cycle tracks.
• Scoring is for a “typical” adult bicyclist, and weights the presence of a bike lane very heavily. Results may not be
appropriate in communities that seek to encourage bicycle travel by people of varying ages and abilities where
bike lanes may not be adequate.
A street with accommodation for people driving, walking, bicycling and taking transit will score well in a MMLOS evaluation.
Guidance
MMLOS modeling is an emerging practice, and current
methods may be improved on or revised. The knowl-
edge of local residents and planners should be used to
verify MMLOS model results.
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual includes dated
LOS models for bicycle and pedestrian users. Methods
presented in this edition and should not be used.
The current standard for MMLOS calculation is
described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM
2010). This method has limitations, particularly for
Bicycle LOS modeling. See Discussion below.
Consider using an alternative MMLOS method/tool if
HCM 2010 is not appropriate for your community. Other
multimodal “Service Quality” tools include:
• Florida DOT LOSPLAN
• LOS+
• Mineta Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis. (Bicycle
only scoring)
Description
Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) methods are
used to inventory and evaluate existing conditions, or
to forecast future conditions for roadway users under
different design scenarios. While automobile-oriented
LOS measures vehicle delay, Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Transit LOS is oriented toward user comfort.
MMLOS scores different modes independently, but their
results are interdependent, allowing an understanding of
trade-offs between modes for different street designs.
A compatible A-F scoring system makes comparison
between modes simple.
There are a variety of Multimodal or Bicycle/Pedestrian
LOS tools available for use. Different tools require differ-
ent data and may present different or conflicting results.
Despite potential limitations of MMLOS methodology,
the results help jurisdictions better plan for all road
users.
148
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 131
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Bicycle Facility Selection
There are no ‘hard and fast’ rules for determining the
most appropriate type of bicycle facility for a particular
location – roadway speeds, volumes, right-of-way
width, presence of parking, adjacent land uses, and
expected bicycle user types are all critical elements
of this decision. Studies find that the most significant
factors influencing bicycle use are motor vehicle traffic
volumes and speeds. Additionally, most bicyclists prefer
facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic or located
on local roads with low motor vehicle traffic speeds and
volumes. Because off-street pathways are physically
separated from the roadway, they are perceived as safe
and attractive routes for bicyclists who prefer to avoid
motor vehicle traffic. Consistent use of treatments and
application of bikeway facilities allow users to anticipate
whether they would feel comfortable riding on a particu-
lar facility, and plan their trips accordingly. This section
provides guidance on various factors that affect the
type of facilities that should be provided.
Facility Continua
Facility Classification
This Section Includes:
149
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
132 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Description
Consistent with bicycle facility classifications throughout
the nation, these Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
identify the following classes of facilities by degree of
separation from motor vehicle traffic.
Shared Roadways (No bikeway designation)
are bikeways where bicyclists and cars operate
within the same travel lane, either side by side or in
single file depending on roadway configuration. In
some instances, streets may be fully adequate and
safe without bicycle specific signing and pavement
markings.
Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes) are Shared
Roadways configured with pavement markings, signage
and other treatments including directional signage,
traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers and /or other traffic
calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes.
Such enhanced treatments often are associated with
Bicycle Boulevards.
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) use signage and
striping to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicy-
clists and motorists. Bike lanes encourage predictable
movements by both bicyclists and motorists. Buffered
bike lanes use a 2’-3’ wide hatched painted buffer to
increase space between bicyclists and motor vehicles.
Adding vertical separation such as bollards, flags or
planters creates a physically protected bicycle lane.
Class I Bikeways (Cycle Tracks) are paths elevated
from the roadway by a curb, for the exclusive use of
bicyclists. Cycle tracks feature design elements that
enhance safety and level of service beyond that pro-
vided by older “sidepath” designs.
Class 1 Bikeways (Shared-use Paths) are facilities
separated from roadways for use by bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Facility Classification
150
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 133
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
The following continua illustrate the range of bicycle facilities applicable to various roadway environments, based
on the roadway type and desired degree of separation. Engineering judgment, traffic studies, previous municipal
planning efforts, community input and local context should be used to refine criteria when developing bicycle facility
recommendations for a particular street. In some corridors, it may be desirable to construct facilities to a higher level
of treatment than those recommended in relevant planning documents in order to enhance user safety and comfort.
In other cases, existing and/or future motor vehicle speeds and volumes may not justify the recommended level of
separation, and a less intensive treatment may be acceptable.
Facility Continua
Arterial/Highway Bikeway Continuum (without curb and gutter)
Arterial/Highway Bikeway Continuum (with curb and gutter)
Collector Bikeway Continuum
Shared LaneMarked Wide
Curb Lane
Shoulder
Bikeway
Wide Shoulder
Bikeway
Cycle Track:
protected with
barrier
Shared-use Path
Conventional
Bicycle Lane
Buffered
Bicycle Lane
Cycle Track:
protected with
barrier
Cycle Track: curb
separated
Marked Wide
Curb Lane
Cycle Track: at-grade,
protected with
parking
Shared LaneMarked Wide
Curb Lane
Conventional
Bicycle Lane
Buffered
Bicycle Lane
Wide Bicycle
Lane
ArAterial/Highway Bikeway Continuum (without curb and gutter)
Least Protected Most Protected
151
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
134 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Shared Roadways
On shared roadways, bicyclists and motor vehicles use
the same roadway space. These facilities are typically
used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes,
however they can be used on higher volume roads with
wide outside lanes or shoulders. A motorist will usually
have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass
a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is
provided.
Shared roadways employ a large variety of treatments
from simple signage and shared lane markings to more
complex treatments including directional signage,
traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers, and/or other traffic
calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes.
Bicycle Boulevards
Bicycle boulevards are a special class of shared
roadways designed for a broad spectrum of bicyclists.
They are low-volume local streets where motorists and
bicyclists share the same travel lane. Treatments for
bicycle boulevards are selected as necessary to create
appropriate automobile volumes and speeds, and to
provide safe crossing opportunities of busy streets.
Marked Shared Roadway
Bicycle Boulevard
Signed Shared Roadway
This Section Includes:
152
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 135
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Description
Signed Shared Roadways are facilities shared with
motor vehicles. They are typically used on roads with
low speeds and traffic volumes, however can be used
on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or
shoulders. A motorist will usually have to cross over
into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a
wide outside lane or shoulder is provided.
Guidance
Lane width varies depending on roadway configuration.
Bicycle Route signage (D11-1) should be applied at
intervals frequent enough to keep bicyclists informed
of changes in route direction and to remind motorists
of the presence of bicyclists. Commonly, this includes
placement at:
• Beginning or end of Bicycle Route.
• At major changes in direction or at intersections
with other bicycle routes.
• At intervals along bicycle routes not to exceed ½
mile.A SHARE THE ROAD plaque
(W16-1p) may be used in
conjunction with a bicycle
warning sign (W11-1) to warn
drivers to watch for slower
forms of transportation.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Materials and Maintenance
Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are
similar to other signs, and will need periodic replace-
ment due to wear.
Signed Shared Roadway
MUTCD D11-1
Discussion
A Bicycle May Use Full Lane sign (R4-11) may be used on a lane that is too narrow for a
bicyclist and motorist to share the road side by side within the same lane.
153
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
136 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Description
A marked shared roadway is a general purpose travel
lane marked with shared lane markings (SLM, popularly
known as “sharrows”) used to encourage bicycle travel
and proper positioning within the lane.
In constrained conditions, the SLMs are placed in the
middle of the lane to discourage unsafe passing by
motor vehicles. On a wide outside lane, the SLMs can
be used to promote bicycle travel to the right of motor
vehicles.
In all conditions, SLMs should be placed outside of the
door zone of parked cars.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Materials and Maintenance
Placing SLMs between vehicle tire tracks will increase
the life of the markings and minimize the long-term
cost of the treatment.
Discussion
Bike Lanes should be considered on roadways with outside travel lanes wider than 15 feet, or where other lane
narrowing or removal strategies may provide adequate road space. SLMs shall not be used on shoulders, on
designated Bike Lanes, or to designate Bicycle Detection at signalized intersections. (MUTCD 9C.07)
Marked Shared Roadway
MUTCD R4-11
(optional)
When placed adjacent to parking, SLMs
should be outside of the “Door Zone”.
Minimum placement is 11’ from curb
Placement in center of
travel lane is preferred in
constrained conditions
MUTCD D11-1
(optional)
Guidance
• Lower than 35 mph speed limit preferred.
• In extreme circumstances, SLMs may be placed on
roadways above 35 mph.
• In constrained conditions, preferred placement is in
the center of the travel lane to minimize wear and
promote single file travel.
• Minimum placement of SLM marking centerline is
11 feet from edge of curb where on-street parking is
present, 4 feet from edge of curb with no parking. If
parking lane is wider than 7.5 feet, the SLM should
be moved further out accordingly.
154
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 137
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Bicycle Boulevard
Guidance
• Signs and pavement markings are the minimum
treatments necessary to designate a street as a
bicycle boulevard.
• Bicycle boulevards should have a maximum posted
speed of 25 mph. Use traffic calming to maintain an
85th percentile speed below 22 mph.
• Implement volume control treatments based on the
context of the bicycle boulevard, using engineering
judgment. Target motor vehicle volumes range from
1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day.
• Intersection crossings should be designed to
enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists.
Materials and Maintenance
Vegetation should be regularly trimmed to maintain
visibility and attractiveness.
Discussion
Bicycle boulevard retrofits to local streets are typically located on streets without existing signalized accommoda-
tion at crossings of collector and arterial roadways. Without treatments for bicyclists, these intersections can
become major barriers along the bicycle boulevard and compromise safety.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Ewing, Reid and Brown, Steven. (2009). U.S. Traffic Calming
Manual.
Curb Extensions shorten
pedestrian crossing distance.
Signs identify the street
as a bicycle
priority route.
Pavement Markings identify the
street as a bicycle priority route.
Shared Lane Markings are
MUTCD compliant and are used
in many jurisdictions to mark
bicycle boulevards.
Speed Humps
manage driver
speed.
Enhanced Crossings
use signals, beacons,
and road geometry to
increase safety at major
intersections.
Partial Closures and other
volume management tools
limit the number of cars
traveling on the bicycle
boulevard.
Mini Traffic Circles slow
drivers in advance of
intersections.
Description
Bicycle boulevards (also known as “Neighborhood
Greenways”) are low-volume, low-speed streets modi-
fied to enhance bicyclist comfort by using treatments
such as signage, pavement markings, traffic calming
and/or traffic reduction, and intersection modifications.
These treatments allow the through movement of
bicyclists while discouraging similar through-trips by
non-local motorized traffic.
155
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
138 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Designated exclusively for bicycle travel, separated
bikeways are segregated from vehicle travel lanes by
striping (Class II), or physical measures such as bollards
or curbs (Class I Cycle Tracks). Separated bikeways are
most appropriate on arterial and collector streets where
higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater
separation.
Separated bikeways can increase safety and promote
proper riding by:
• Defining road space for bicyclists and motorists,
reducing the possibility that motorists will stray into
the bicyclists’ path.
• Discouraging bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk.
• Reducing the incidence of wrong way riding.
• Reminding motorists that bicyclists have a right to
the road.
Bicycle Lane
Buffered Bicycle Lane
Cycle Track
Separated Bikeways
Bicycle Lane and Diagonal Parking
This Section Includes:
156
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 139
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Bicycle Lane
6” white line
3’ minimum ridable
surface outside of
gutter seam
Guidance
• 4 foot minimum when no curb and gutter is present.
• 5 foot minimum when adjacent to curb and gutter
or 3 feet more than the gutter pan width if the gutter
pan is wider than 2 feet.
• 14.5 foot preferred from curb face to edge of bike
lane. (12 foot minimum).
• 7 foot maximum width for use adjacent to arteri-
als with high travel speeds. Greater widths may
encourage motor vehicle use of bike lane.
Description
Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists
through the use of pavement markings and signage.
The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel
lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle
traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the
street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road
edge or parking lane.
Many bicyclists, particularly less experienced riders,
are more comfortable riding on a busy street if it has a
striped and signed bikeway than if they are expected to
share a lane with vehicles.
Materials and Maintenance
Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas;
consider thermoplastic or epoxy materials for reduced
life cycle costs.
Discussion
Wider bicycle lanes are desirable in certain situations such as on higher speed arterials (45 mph+) to increase
separation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. Consider Buffered Bicycle Lanes when further separation
is desired.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
R81(CA)
4” white line or
parking “Ts”
14.5’ preferred
157
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
140 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Bicycle Lane and Diagonal Parking
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013.
2’ buffer space
Materials and Maintenance
Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas;
consider thermoplastic or epoxy materials for reduced
life cycle costs.
Discussion
Conventional front-in diagonal parking is not compatible or recommended with the provision of bike lanes, as
drivers backing out of conventional diagonal parking have limited visibility of approaching bicyclists. Under these
conditions, shared lane markings should be used to guide bicyclists away from reversing automobiles. Examples
of back-in diagonal parking within the State of California include the cities of Chico, Sacramento, San Francisco,
and Ventura.
Guidance
Front-in Diagonal Parking
• Shared lane markings are the preferred facility with
front-in diagonal parking
Back-in Diagonal Parking
• 5 foot minimum marked width of bike lane
• Parking bays are sufficiently long to accommodate
most vehicles (so vehicles do not block bike lane)
Description
In certain areas with high parking demand such as
urban commercial areas, diagonal parking can be used
to increase parking supply.
Back-in diagonal parking improves sight distances
between drivers and bicyclists when compared to
conventional head-in diagonal parking. Back-in parking
is best paired with a dedicated bicycle lane.
Back-in Diagonal ParkingFront-in Diagonal Parking
Center placed shared
lane marking
R81 (CA)
158
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 141
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Buffered Bicycle Lane
Parking side buffer designed to
discourage riding in the “door zone”
Guidance
• Where bicyclist volumes are high or where bicyclist
speed differentials are significant, the desired
bicycle travel area width is 7 feet.
• Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If 3 feet or
wider, mark with diagonal or chevron hatching.
For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings,
consider a dotted line for the inside buffer boundary
where cars are expected to cross.
Materials and Maintenance
Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas;
consider thermoplastic or epoxy materials for reduced
life cycle costs.
Discussion
Commonly configured as a buffer between the bicycle lane and motor vehicle travel lane, a parking side buffer
may also be provided to help bicyclists avoid the ‘door zone’ of parked cars.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Description
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes
paired with a designated buffer space, separating the
bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane
and/or parking lane. Buffered bike lanes are allowed as
per MUTCD guidelines for buffered preferential lanes
(section 3D-01).
Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space
between the bike lane and the travel lane or parked
cars. This treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on
roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and
speed, adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of
truck or oversized vehicle traffic.
Color may be used at the beginning of
each block to discourage motorists from
entering the buffered lane
R81 (CA)
159
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
142 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Cycle Track
Guidance
Cycle tracks should ideally be placed along streets with
long blocks and few driveways or mid-block access
points for motor vehicles.
One-Way Cycle Tracks
• 7 foot recommended width to allow passing;
5 foot minimum width in constrained locations.
Add additional shy space if contained by vertical
elements such as curbs.
Two-Way Cycle Tracks
• Cycle tracks located on one-way streets have fewer
potential conflict areas than those on two-way
streets.
• 12 foot recommended minimum for two-way facility.
8 foot minimum in constrained locations
Description
A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility that combines
the user experience of a separated path with the
on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. A
cycle track is physically separated from motor traffic and
distinct from the sidewalk. Cycle tracks have different
forms but all share common elements—they provide
space that is intended to be exclusively or primarily
used by bicycles, and are separated from motor vehicle
travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks.
Raised cycle tracks may be at the level of the adjacent
sidewalk or set at an intermediate level between the
roadway and sidewalk to separate the cycle track from
the pedestrian area.
Materials and Maintenance
In cities with winter climates, barrier separated and
raised cycle tracks may require special equipment for
snow removal.
Discussion
Special consideration should be given at transit stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian interactions. Driveways
and minor street crossings are unique challenges to cycle track design. Parking should be prohibited within 30
feet of the intersection to improve visibility.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Cycle track can be
raised or at street
level
The cycle track shall be
located between the
parking lane and the
sidewalk 3’ parking
buffer
R81 (CA)
160
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 143
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Intersections are junctions at which different modes of
transportation meet and facilities overlap. An intersec-
tion facilitates the interchange between bicyclists,
motorists, pedestrians and other modes in order to
advance traffic flow in a safe and efficient manner.
Designs for intersections with bicycle facilities should
reduce conflict between bicyclists (and other vulnerable
road users) and vehicles by heightening the level of
visibility, denoting clear right-of-way and facilitating eye
contact and awareness with other modes. Intersection
treatments can improve both queuing and merging
maneuvers for bicyclists, and are often coordinated with
timed or specialized signals.
The configuration of a safe intersection for bicyclists
may include elements such as color, signage, medians,
signal detection and pavement markings. Intersection
design should take into consideration existing and antic-
ipated bicyclist, pedestrian and motorist movements. In
all cases, the degree of mixing or separation between
bicyclists and other modes is intended to reduce the
risk of crashes and increase bicyclist comfort. The level
of treatment required for bicyclists at an intersection
will depend on the bicycle facility type used, whether
bicycle facilities are intersecting, and the adjacent street
function and land use.
Separated Bikeways at
Intersections
Bike Box
Colored Bike Lane in Conflict Areas
Bike Lane at Right Turn Only Lanes
Combined Bike Lane / Turn Lane
Intersection Crossing Markings
Bike Lane at High Speed Interchanges
Diverging Diamond Interchanges Design
This Section Includes:
161
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
144 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Bike Box
May be combined with intersection
crossing markings and colored
bike lanes in conflict areas
Colored pavement can
be used in the box for
increased visibility
R10-11
R10-6aWide stop lines used
for increased visibility
If used, colored pavement should
extend 50’ from the intersection
Guidance
• 14 foot minimum depth
• A “No Turn on Red” (MUTCD R10-11) sign shall be
installed overhead to prevent vehicles from entering
the Bike Box.
• A “Stop Here on Red” sign should be post-mounted
at the stop line to reinforce observance of the stop
line.
• A “Yield to Bikes” sign should be post-mounted in
advance of and in conjunction with an egress lane
to reinforce that bicyclists have the right-of-way
going through the intersection.
• An ingress lane should be used to provide access
to the box.
• A supplemental “Wait Here” legend can be pro-
vided in advance of the stop bar to increase clarity
to motorists.
Description
A bike box is a designated area located at the head of
a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides
bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of
queuing motorized traffic during the red signal phase.
Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at
the rear of the bike box.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends
entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should
be a high priority.
Discussion
Bike boxes should be placed only at signalized intersections, and right turns on red shall be prohibited for motor
vehicles. Bike boxes should be used in locations that have a large volume of bicyclists and are best utilized in
central areas where traffic is usually moving more slowly.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
FHWA. Interim Approval (IA-14). 2011.
R10-15 variant
162
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 145
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Bike Lane at Right Turn Only Lane
Guidance
At auxiliary right turn only lanes (add lane):
• Continue existing bike lane width; standard width of
5 to 6 feet or 4 feet in constrained locations.
• Use signage to indicate that motorists should yield
to bicyclists through the conflict area.
• Consider using colored conflict areas to promote
visibility of the mixing zone.
Where a through lane becomes a right turn lane:
• Do not define a dotted line merging path for
bicyclists.
• Drop the bicycle lane in advance of the merge area.
• Use shared lane markings to indicate shared use of
the lane in the merging zone.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends
entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should
be a high priority.
Discussion
For other potential approaches to providing accommodations for bicyclists at intersections with turn lanes, please
see combined bike lane/turn lane, bicycle signals, and colored bike facilities.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010.
Description
The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to place
the bike lane between the right-turn lane and the right-
most through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient,
to use a shared bike lane/turn lane.
The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with
signage indicating that motorists should yield to bicy-
clists through the conflict area.
Colored pavement may be used
in the weaving area to increase
visibility and awareness of
potential conflict
Optional
dotted lines
MUTCD R4-4
(optional)
163
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
146 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Colored Bike Lane in Conflict Areas
Guidance
• Green colored pavement was given interim approval
by the Federal Highways Administration in March
2011. See interim approval for specific color
standards.
• The colored surface should be skid resistant and
retro-reflective.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends
entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should
be a high priority.
Discussion
Evaluations performed in Portland, OR, St. Petersburg, FL and Austin, TX found that significantly more motorists
yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the conflict area after the colored treatment.
Additional References and Guidelines
FHWA. Interim Approval (IA-14). 2011.
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Description
Colored pavement within a bicycle lane increases the
visibility of the facility and reinforces priority of bicyclists
in conflict areas.
Normal white dotted
edge lines should
define colored space
MUTCD R4-4
(optional)
164
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 147
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Combined Bike Lane / Turn Lane
Guidance
• Maximum shared turn lane width is 13 feet; nar-
rower is preferable.
• Bike Lane pocket should have a minimum width of
4 feet with 5 feet preferred.
• A dotted 4 inch line and bicycle lane marking
should be used to clarify bicyclist positioning within
the combined lane, without excluding cars from the
suggested bicycle area.
• A “Right Turn Only” sign with an “Except Bicycles”
plaque may be needed to make it legal for through
bicyclists to use a right turn lane.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of markings depends on
their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high
priority.
Discussion
Case studies cited by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center indicate that this treatment works best on
streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less). May not
be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with long right turn lanes.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Description
The combined bicycle/right turn lane places a standard-
width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn
lane. A dotted line delineates the space for bicyclists
and motorists within the shared lane. This treatment
includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of
proper positioning within the lane.
This treatment is recommended at intersections lacking
sufficient space to accommodate both a standard
through bike lane and right turn lane.
R4-4
Short length turn pockets
encourage slower motor
vehicle speeds
165
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
148 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Intersection Crossing Markings
Guidance
• See MUTCD Section 3B.08: “dotted line extensions”
• Crossing striping shall be at least six inches wide
when adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes. Dotted
lines should be two-foot lines spaced two to six feet
apart.
• Chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike
lanes in conflict areas may be used to increase
visibility within conflict areas or across entire inter-
sections. Elephant’s Feet markings are common in
Europe and Canada.
Materials and Maintenance
Because the effectiveness of marked crossings
depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked
crossings should be a high priority.
Discussion
Additional markings such as chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes in conflict areas are
strategies currently in use in the United States and Canada. Cities considering the implementation of markings
through intersections should standardize future designs to avoid confusion.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Description
Bicycle pavement markings through intersections indi-
cate the intended path of bicyclists through an intersec-
tion or across a driveway or ramp. They guide bicyclists
on a safe and direct path through the intersection and
provide a clear boundary between the paths of through
bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles
in the adjacent lane.
2’ stripe
ChevronsShared Lane
Markings
Colored
Conflict Area
Elephant’s
Feet
2-6’ gap
166
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 149
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Two-Stage Turn Box
Guidance
• The queue box shall be placed in a protected area.
Typically this is within an on-street parking lane or
cycle track buffer area.
• 6’ minimum depth of bicycle storage area
• Bicycle stencil and turn arrow pavement markings
shall be used to indicate proper bicycle direction
and positioning.
• A “No Turn on Red” (MUTCD R10-11) sign shall be
installed on the cross street to prevent vehicles from
entering the turn box.
Description
A two-stage turn box offers bicyclists a safe way to
make left turns at multi-lane signalized intersections
from a right side cycle track or bike lane.
On right side cycle tracks, bicyclists are often unable
to merge into traffic to turn left due to physical separa-
tion, making the provision of two-stage left turn boxes
critical. Design guidance for two-stage turns apply to
both bike lanes and cycle tracks.
Materials and Maintenance
Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in
winter climates.
Discussion
While two stage turns may increase bicyclist comfort in many locations, this configuration will typically result in
higher average signal delay for bicyclists versus a vehicular style left turn maneuver.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Cycle track turn box pro-
tected by physical buffer:
Bike lane turn box pro-
tected by parking lane:
Turns from cycle tracks may
be protected by a parking
lane or other physical buffer
Turns from a bicycle lane may be
protected by an adjacent parking
lane or crosswalk setback space
167
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
150 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Bike Lane at Diverging Ramp Lanes
Guidance
Entrance Ramps:
Angle the bike lane to increase the approach angle with
entering traffic. Position crossing before drivers’ atten-
tion is focused on the upcoming merge.
Exit Ramps:
Use a jug handle turn to bring bicyclists to increase the
approach angle with exiting traffic, and add yield striping
and signage to the bicycle approach.
Materials and Maintenance
Locate crossing markings out of wheel tread when
possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs.
Discussion
While the jug-handle approach is the preferred configuration at exit ramps, provide the option for through
bicyclists to perform a vehicular merge and proceed straight through under safe conditions.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010.
Description
Some arterials may contain high speed freeway-style
designs such as merge lanes and exit ramps, which can
create difficulties for bicyclists. The entrance and exit
lanes typically have intrinsic visibility problems because
of low approach angles and feature high speed differen-
tials between bicyclists and motor vehicles.
Strategies to improve safety focus on increasing sight
distances, creating formal crossings, and minimizing
crossing distances.
Ramp geometrics
minimize speed for
exiting vehicles
Dashed lane lines for
confident bicyclist to
continue through
Crossing located before
drivers’ attention is focused on
the upcoming merge
7 =
3 .
A
73738
73 738
73 738
Wayfinding signage
should clarify path to
destinations
W11-1
R1-2
W11-15
WWW
168
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 151
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Guidance
Entrance Ramps:
• A right-turn lane should be configured with a taper
as an “add-lane” for motorists turning right onto the
freeway entrance ramp.
• A bike lane should be provided along the left side of
the right turn lane. Dotted through bike lane striping
provides clear priority for bicyclists at right turn ‘add
lane’ on-ramps.
Exit Ramps:
• Motorists existing the freeway and turning onto
the crossroad should be controlled by a stop sign,
signal, or yield sign, rather than allowing a free-
flowing movement.
Materials and Maintenance
Locate crossing markings out of wheel tracks when
possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs.
Discussion
The on-ramps should be configured as a right-turn-only “add lane” to assert through bicyclist priority. Designs
that are functional for bicycle passage typically encourage slowing or require motor vehicle traffic to slow or
stop. Designs that encourage high-speed traffic movements are difficult for bicyclists to negotiate.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010.
Description
Freeway Interchanges can be significant obstacles to
bicycling if they are poorly designed. Travel through
some interchange designs may be particularly challeng-
ing for youth bicyclists.
Key design features at conflict areas through inter-
changes should be included to improve the experience
for bicyclists.
Freeway Interchange Design
Source: AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities. 2012.
169
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
152 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
R1-2
Bicyclists at Single Lane Roundabouts
Guidance
It is important to indicate to motorists, bicyclists and
pedestrians the right-of-way rules and correct way for
them to circulate in the roundabout.
• 25 mph maximum circulating design speed. Design
approaches/exits to the lowest speeds possible.
• Encourage bicyclists navigating the roundabout like
motor vehicles to “take the lane.”
• Maximize yielding rate of motorists to pedestrians
and bicyclists at crosswalks.
• Provide separated facilities for bicyclists who prefer
not to navigate the roundabout on the roadway.
Materials and Maintenance
Signage and striping require routine maintenance.
Discussion
On bicycle routes a roundabout is preferable to stop control as bicyclists do not like to lose their momentum due
to the physical effort required. At intersections of shared-use paths, pedestrian and bicycle only roundabouts are
an excellent form of non-motorized user traffic control.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
TRB. NCHRP 672 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. 2010
TRB. NCHRP Report 572 Roundabouts in the United States. 2007.
Hourdos, John et al. Investigation of Pedestrian/Bicyclist Risk in Minnesota
Roundabout Crossings. 2012.
Description
Roundabouts are circular intersections designed
with yield control for all entering traffic, channelized
approaches and geometry to induce desirable
speeds. They are used as an alternative to intersection
signalization.
Other roundabout-like intersection designs include:
Traffic Circles (also known as rotaries) are old style
circular intersections where traffic signals or stop signs
are used to control one or more entry.
Mini Roundabouts (also called neighborhood traffic
circles) are small-sized circular intersections of local
streets. They may be uncontrolled or stop controlled,
and do not channelize entry.
TRB. NCHRP 674 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn
Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. 2011.
Shaw and Moler. Bicyclist- and Pedestrian-Only Roundabouts. 2009. FHWA.
Brown, Rick. The Case of Roundabouts. 2012.
R1RR111RR1R1R1R1R11RRR1111RR-2-22-2-2-22-2--2-2--22--2-2-2--22222222222222222222
Crossings set back at least one
car length from the entrance
of the roundabout
Holding rails can provide support for
elderly pedestrians or bicyclists waiting to
cross the street.
Bicycle exit ramp in
line with bicycle lane
Bicycle ramps leading
to a wide shared facility
with pedestrians
Visible, well marked crossings
alert motorists to the presence
of bicyclists and pedestrians
(W11-15 signage)
Narrow circulating lane to
discourage attempted passing
by motorists
Truck apron can provide
adequate clearance for
longer vehicles
t
ww
W11-15
Sidewalk should be wider to
accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian traffic
170
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 153
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Channelized Turn Lane
Guidance
• The preferred angle of intersection between the
channelized turn lane and the roadway being joined
is no more than 15 degrees to allow for simultane-
ous visibility of pedestrians and potential roadway
gaps.
• Design with a maximum 30-35 foot turning radius.
• Signing: Pedestrian crossing sign assembly (W11-2)
or Yield (R1-2) to encourage yielding. Yield to Bikes
(R4-4) or similar if bike lanes are present.
• Raised Crossings in the channelized turn lane may
slow driver speed through the turning area.
Materials and Maintenance
Signage and striping require routine maintenance.
Discussion
This design requires trucks to turn into multiple receiving lanes, and may not be appropriate on the approach
to streets with one through lane. Channelized turn lanes can be very challenging for blind pedestrians. NCHRP
674 identified the use of sound strips (a full lane rumble strip-like device) in conjunction with flashing beacons to
increase yielding compliance.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
TRB. NCHRP 674 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Chan-
nelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities. 2011.
ITE. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares. 2010.
Description
In some intersections of arterials streets, design vehicle
requirements or intersection angles may result in wide
turning radii at corners. Configuring the intersection as a
channelized (or free-right) turn lane with a raised refuge
island can improve conditions for pedestrians trying to
cross the street.
Similar to a median refuge island, the raised refuge
island can reduce crossing distances, allow staged
crossing of the roadway, and improve visibility of
pedestrians crossing the roadway.
To improve safety and comfort for pedestrians,
measures to slow traffic at the pedestrian crossing are
recommended such as provision of a raised crosswalk,
signalized pedestrian walk phase, high visibility cross-
walk, and/or pedestrian crossing signage.
Dashed bike lane to
define merging area.
Color optional.
Turn lane should be
configured as an “add lane” to
provide for deceleration and
storage.
Locate crosswalk in
the middle of the
channelized turn lane,
One car length back
from the other street.
Appropriate bicycle lane markings for
free-flowing “slip lane” configuration.
(Not a preferred condition)
W11-2
it billkif
15o
MUTCD R4-4
(Not to scale)
171
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
154 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Determining which type of signal or beacon to use for a
particular intersection depends on a variety of factors.
These include speed limits, Average Daily Traffic (ADT),
anticipated bicycle crossing traffic, and the configuration
of planned or existing bicycle facilities. Signals may be
necessary as part of the construction of a protected
bicycle facility such as a cycle track with potential
turning conflicts, or to decrease vehicle or pedestrian
conflicts at major crossings. An intersection with bicycle
signals may reduce stress and delays for a crossing
bicyclist, and discourage illegal and unsafe crossing
maneuvers.
Bicycle Detection and Actuation
Bicycle Signal Head
Signalization
Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)
Active Warning Beacon
This Section Includes:
172
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 155
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Bicycle Detection and Actuation
Description
Push Button Actuation
User-activated button mounted on a pole facing the
street.
Loop Detectors
Bicycle-activated loop detectors are installed within the
roadway to allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a
change in the traffic signal. This allows the bicyclist to
stay within the lane of travel without having to maneuver
to the side of the road to trigger a push button.
Loops that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles
should be supplemented with pavement markings to
instruct bicyclists how to trip them.
Video Detection Cameras
Video detection systems use digital image processing
to detect a change in the image at a location. These
systems can be calibrated to detect bicycles. Video
camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000
per intersection.
Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detection
(RTMS)
RTMS is a system which uses frequency modulated
continuous wave radio signals to detect objects in the
roadway. This method marks the detected object with
a time code to determine its distance from the sensor.
The RTMS system is unaffected by temperature and
lighting, which can affect standard video detection.
Materials and Maintenance
Signal detection and actuation for bicyclists should
be maintained with other traffic signal detection and
roadway pavement markings.
Discussion
Proper bicycle detection should meet two primary criteria: 1) accurately detects bicyclists and 2) provides clear
guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate detection (e.g., what button to push, where to stand).
The requirement for bicycle detection at all new and modified approaches to traffic signals is formalized in Policy
Directive 09-06 and is included in the CA MUTCD 2012.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Caltrans. Policy Directive 09-06. 2009.
Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010.
In bike lane
loop detection
Push button
actuation
RTMS
Video detection
camera
Bicycle detector
pavement marking
(MUTCD Figure 9C-7)
B
p
((M
173
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
156 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Bicycle Signal Head
Materials and Maintenance
Bicycle signal heads require the same maintenance
as standard traffic signal heads, such as replacing
bulbs and responding to power outages.
Discussion
See CA MUTCD Section 4C.102 for detailed warrant requirements.
For improved visibility, smaller (4 inch lens) near-sided bicycle signals should be considered to supplement
far-side signals.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has
formed a Task Force that is considering adding guidance to the
MUTCD on the use of bicycle signals.
Description
A bicycle signal is an electrically powered traffic control
device that should only be used in combination with an
existing conventional or hybrid signal. Bicycle signals
are typically used to improve identified safety or opera-
tional problems involving bicycle facilities. Bicycle signal
heads may be installed at signalized intersections to
indicate bicycle signal phases and other bicycle-specific
timing strategies. Bicycle signals can be actuated with
bicycle sensitive loop detectors, video detection, or
push buttons.
Bicycle signal heads use standard three-lens signal
heads in green, yellow, and red. Bicycle signals are
typically used to provide guidance for bicyclists at
intersections where they may have different needs
from other road users (e.g., bicycle-only movements, or
leading bicycle intervals).
Guidance
California MUTCD Bicycle Signal Warrant is based
off bicyclist volumes, collision history, or geometric
warrants:
• Those with high volume of bicyclists at peak hours
• Those with high numbers of bicycle/motor vehicle
crashes, especially those caused by turning vehicle
movements
• Where a multi-use path intersects a roadway
• At locations to facilitate a bicycle movement that is
not permitted for a motor vehicle
Consider a 1/2 size
near-side bicycle
signal for greater
visibility
Visual variation in
signal head housing
may increase
awareness
Bicycle signals must utilize
appropriate detection and
actuation
Signage may
clarify proper
usage
174
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 157
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Active Warning Beacon
Guidance
• Warning beacons shall not be used at crosswalks
controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs or traffic
signals.
• Warning beacons shall initiate operation based on
pedestrian or bicyclist actuation and shall cease
operation at a predetermined time after actuation
or, with passive detection, after the pedestrian or
bicyclist clears the crosswalk.
Materials and Maintenance
Depending on power supply, maintenance can be
minimal. If solar power is used, RRFBs can run for
years without issue.
Discussion
Rectangular rapid flash beacons have the highest compliance of all the warning beacon enhancement options.
A study of the effectiveness of going from a no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon RRFB installation
increased yielding from 18 percent to 81 percent. A four-beacon arrangement raised compliance to 88 percent.
Additional References and Guidelines
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
FHWA. Interim Approval (IA-11). 2008.
Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010.
Description
Active warning beacons are user actuated illuminated
devices designed to increase motor vehicle yielding
compliance at crossings of multi lane or high volume
roadways.
Types of active warning beacons include conventional
circular yellow flashing beacons, in-roadway warning
lights, or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB).
RRFBs have blanket approval in California per FHWA
MUTCD IA11.Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
(RRFB) dramatically increase
compliance over conventional
warning beacons.
W11-15,
W16-7P
Median refuge islands provide
added comfort and should be
angled to direct users to face
oncoming traffic.
Providing secondary installations of
RRFBs on median islands improves
driver yielding behavior.
175
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
158 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Guidance
Pedestrian hybrid beacons may be installed without
meeting traffic signal control warrants if roadway
speed and volumes are excessive for comfortable user
crossing.
• If installed within a signal system, signal engineers
should evaluate the need for the pedestrian hybrid
beacon to be coordinated with other signals.
• Parking and other sight obstructions should be
prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and
at least 20 feet beyond the marked crosswalk to
provide adequate sight distance.
Materials and Maintenance
Signing and striping need to be maintained to help
users understand any unfamiliar traffic control.
Discussion
The hybrid beacon can significantly improve the operation of a bicycle route, particularly along bicycle boule-
vard corridors. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered
transportation engineer to identify sight lines, potential impacts on traffic, signal timing, capacity and safety.
Additional References and Guidelines
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
FHWA. Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing
Treatment. 2010.
Description
A pedestrian hybrid beacon, previously known as a
High-intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK), consists of
a signal-head with two red lenses over a single yellow
lens on the major street, and pedestrian and/or bicycle
signal heads for the minor street. There are no signal
indications for motor vehicles on the minor street
approaches. At a cost of about $85,000 per installation,
a beacon is less than a third of the cost of a typical
traffic signal.
Pedestrian hybrid beacons are used to improve non-
motorized crossings of major streets in locations where
side-street volumes do not support installation of a
conventional traffic signal or where there are concerns
that a conventional signal will encourage additional
motor vehicle traffic on the minor street. Hybrid beacons
may also be used at mid-block crossing locations.
Push button
actuation
W11-15May be paired with a bicycle
signal head to clarify bicycle
movement
Bike Route
176
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 159
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
The ability to navigate through a city is informed by
landmarks, natural features and other visual cues. Signs
throughout the city should indicate to bicyclists:
• Direction of travel
• Location of destinations
• Travel time/distance to those destinations
These signs will increase users’ comfort and accessibil-
ity to the bicycle systems.
Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes
including:
• Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle network
• Helping users identify the best routes to
destinations
• Helping to address misperceptions about time and
distance
• Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for people
who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g., “interested but
concerned” bicyclists)
A community-wide bicycle wayfinding signage plan
would identify:
• Sign locations
• Sign type – what information should be included
and design features
• Destinations to be highlighted on each sign – key
destinations for bicyclists
• May include approximate distance and travel time to
each destination
Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists
that they are driving along a bicycle route and should
use caution. Signs are typically placed at key locations
leading to and along bicycle routes, including the
intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs
tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommended
that these signs be posted at a level most visible to
bicyclists rather than per vehicle signage standards.
Bikeway Signing
Wayfinding Sign Type
Wayfinding Sign Placement
This Section Includes:
177
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
160 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
7+
69
69
Wayfinding Sign Types
Materials and Maintenance
Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are
similar to other signs and will need periodic replace-
ment due to wear.
Discussion
There is no standard color for bicycle wayfinding signage. Section 1A.12 of the MUTCD establishes the general
meaning for signage colors. Green is the color used for directional guidance and is the most common color of
bicycle wayfinding signage in the US, including those in the MUTCD.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Description
A bicycle wayfinding system consists of comprehensive
signing and/or pavement markings to guide bicyclists to
their destinations along preferred bicycle routes. There
are three general types of wayfinding signs:
Confirmation Signs
• Indicate to bicyclists that they are on a designated
bikeway. Make motorists aware of the bicycle route.
• May include destinations and distance/time. Do not
include arrows.
Turn Signs
• Indicate where a bikeway turns from one street
onto another street. Can be used with pavement
markings.
• Include destinations and arrows.
Decisions Signs
• Mark the junction of two or more bikeways.
• Inform bicyclists of the designated bike route to
access key destinations.
• Destinations and arrows are required, distances are
optional but recommended.
• The inclusion of bicycle travel time is non-standard,
but is recommended.
178
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 161
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Wayfinding Sign Placement
Materials and Maintenance
Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are
similar to other signs and will need periodic replace-
ment due to wear.
Discussion
It can be useful to classify a list of destinations for inclusion on the signs based on their relative importance
to users throughout the area. A particular destination’s ranking in the hierarchy can be used to determine the
physical distance from which the locations are signed.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012.
Guidance
Signs are typically placed at decision points along
bicycle routes – typically at the intersection of two or
more bikeways and at other key locations leading to and
along bicycle routes.
Decisions Signs
• Near-side of intersections in advance of a junction
with another bicycle route.
• Along a route to indicate a nearby destination.
Confirmation Signs
• Every ¼ to ½ mile on off-street facilities and every 2
to 3 blocks along on-street bicycle facilities, unless
another type of sign is used (e.g., within 150 feet
of a turn or decision sign). Should be placed soon
after turns to confirm destination(s). Pavement
markings can also act as confirmation that a
bicyclist is on a preferred route.
Turn Signs
• Near-side of intersections where bike routes turn
(e.g., where the street ceases to be a bicycle route
or does not go through). Pavement markings can
also indicate the need to turn to the bicyclist.
Library
Elementary
School
Confirmation
SignC
2 min
Decision
SignD
Turn SignT
D
C
C T T
T
C C
D
D
5
.<
5
D
T T
T
C C
D
Bike Route
Bi
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
179
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
162 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Most major streets are characterized by conditions
(e.g., high vehicle speeds and/or volumes) for which
dedicated bike lanes are the most appropriate facility
to accommodate safe and comfortable riding. Although
opportunities to add bike lanes through roadway widen-
ing may exist in some locations, many major streets
have physical and other constraints that would require
street retrofit measures within existing curb-to-curb
widths. As a result, much of the guidance provided in
this section focuses on effectively reallocating existing
street width through striping modifications to accom-
modate dedicated bike lanes.
Although largely intended for major streets, these mea-
sures may be appropriate for any roadway where bike
lanes would be the best accommodation for bicyclists.
Retrofitting Existing
Streets to add Bikeways
Lane Reconfiguration
Lane Narrowing
This Section Includes:
180
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 163
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Lane Narrowing
Materials and Maintenance
Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. Use bicycle
compatible drainage grates. Raise or lower existing
grates and utility covers so they are flush.
Discussion
Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before the
decision is made to narrow travel lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up
pavement space for bike lanes.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011.
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013.
Description
Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds
minimum standards to provide the needed space for
bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes
that are wider than those prescribed in local and
national roadway design standards, or which are not
marked. Most standards allow for the use of 11 foot and
sometimes 10 foot wide travel lanes to create space for
bike lanes.
Before
After
24’ Travel/Parking
8’ Parking6’ Bike10’ Travel
Guidance
Vehicle lane width:
• Before: 10-15 feet
• After: 10-11 feet
Bicycle lane width:
• Guidance on Bicycle Lanes applies to this
treatment
181
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
164 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Lane Reconfiguration
Guidance
Vehicle lane width:
• Width depends on project. No narrowing may be
needed if a lane is removed.
Bicycle lane width:
• Guidance on Bicycle Lanes applies to this
treatment.
Materials and Maintenance
Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. Use
bicycle compatible drainage grates. Raise or lower
existing grates and utility covers so they are flush.
Discussion
Depending on a street’s existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs and safety concerns, various lane
reduction configurations may apply. For instance, a four-lane street (with two travel lanes in each direction) could
be modified to provide one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
FHWA. Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on
Crashes. 2010.
Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013.
Description
The removal of a single travel lane will generally provide
sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street.
Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportuni-
ties for bike lane retrofit projects.
Before
After
11-12’ Travel
6’ Bike
10-12’
Travel 10-12’ Turn
11’ Travel
182
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 165
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
A shared-use path allows for two-way, off-street bicycle
use and also may be used by pedestrians, skaters,
wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized
users. These facilities are frequently found in parks,
along rivers, beaches, and in greenbelts or utility
corridors where there are few conflicts with motorized
vehicles. Path facilities can also include amenities such
as lighting, signage, and fencing (where appropriate).
Key features of greenways include:
• Frequent access points from the local road
network.
• Directional signs to direct users to and from the
path.
• A limited number of at-grade crossings with streets
or driveways.
• Terminating the path where it is easily accessible to
and from the street system.
• Separate treads for pedestrians and bicyclists when
heavy use is expected.
General Design Practices
Paths in Active Rail Corridors
Local Neighborhood Accessways
Shared-use Paths
Paths in Abandoned Rail Corridors
Paths in River and Utility Corridors
This Section Includes:
183
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
166 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
General Design Practices
Materials and Maintenance
Asphalt is the most common surface for bicycle
paths. The use of concrete for paths has proven to be
more durable over the long term.
Discussion
The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities generally recommends against the development of
shared-use paths along roadways.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Flink, C. Greenways. 1993.
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Description
Shared-use paths can provide a desirable facility,
particularly for recreation, and users of all skill levels
preferring separation from traffic. Bicycle paths should
generally provide directional travel opportunities not
provided by existing roadways.
Guidance
Width
• 8 feet is the minimum allowed for a two-way bicycle
path and is only recommended for low traffic
situations.
• 10 feet is recommended in most situations and will
be adequate for moderate to heavy use.
• 12 feet is recommended for heavy use situations
with high concentrations of multiple users. A
separate track (5’ minimum) can be provided for
pedestrian use.
Lateral Clearance
• A 2 foot or greater shoulder on both sides of the
path should be provided. An additional foot of
lateral clearance (total of 3’) is required by the
MUTCD for the installation of signage or other
furnishings.
• If bollards are used at intersections and access
points, they should be colored brightly and/or
supplemented with reflective materials to be visible
at night.
Overhead Clearance
• Clearance to overhead obstructions should be 8
8-12’ depending on usage
feet minimum, with 10 feet recommended.
Striping
• When striping is required, use a 4 inch dashed
yellow centerline stripe with 4 inch solid white edge
lines.
• Solid centerlines can be provided on tight or
blind corners, and on the approaches to roadway
crossings.
184
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 167
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Paths in River and Utility Corridors
Materials and Maintenance
If concrete is used, saw cut concrete joints rather than
troweled improve the experience of path users.
Discussion
Similar to railroads, public access to flood control channels or canals is undesirable by all parties. Appropriate
fencing may be required to keep path users within the designated travel way. Creative design of fencing is
encouraged to make the path facility feel welcoming to the user.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Flink, C. Greenways. 1993.
Description
Utility and waterway corridors often offer excellent
shared-use path development and bikeway gap closure
opportunities. Utility corridors typically include powerline
and sewer corridors, while waterway corridors include
canals, drainage ditches, rivers, and beaches. These
corridors offer excellent transportation and recreation
opportunities for bicyclists of all ages and skills.
Guidance
Shared-use paths in utility corridors should meet or
exceed general design practices. If additional width
allows, wider paths, and landscaping are desirable.
Access Points
Any access point to the path should be well-defined
with appropriate signage designating the pathway as a
bicycle facility and prohibiting motor vehicles.
Path Closure
Public access to the path may be prohibited during the
following events:
• Canal/flood control channel or other utility mainte-
nance activities
• Inclement weather or the prediction of storm
conditions
185
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
168 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Paths in Abandoned Rail Corridors
Materials and Maintenance
If concrete is used, saw cut concrete joints rather than
troweled improve the experience of path users.
Discussion
It is often impractical and costly to add material to existing railroad bed fill slopes. This results in trails that meet
minimum path widths, but often lack preferred shoulder and lateral clearance widths.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Flink, C. Greenways. 1993.
Guidance
Shared-use paths in abandoned rail corridors should
meet or exceed general design practices. If addi-
tional width allows, wider paths and landscaping are
desirable.
In full conversions of abandoned rail corridors, the sub-
base, superstructure, drainage, bridges, and crossings
are already established. Design becomes a matter of
working with the existing infrastructure to meet the
needs of a rail-trail.
If converting a rail bed adjacent to an active rail line, see
Paths in Active Rail Corridors.
Where possible, leave as much as the
ballast in place as possible to disperse
the weight of the rail-trail surface and
to promote drainage
Railroad grades are very
gradual. This makes rails-to-
trails attractive to many users,
and easier to adapt to ADA
guidelines
gg
Description
Commonly referred to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails,
these projects convert vacated rail corridors into
off-street paths. Rail corridors offer several advantages,
including relatively direct routes between major destina-
tions and generally flat terrain.
In some cases, rail owners may rail-bank their corridors
as an alternative to a complete abandonment of the line,
thus preserving the rail corridor for possible future use.
186
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 169
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Paths in Active Rail Corridors
Materials and Maintenance
If concrete is used, saw cut concrete joints rather than
troweled improve the experience of path users.
Discussion
Railroads typically require fencing with all rail-with-trail projects. Concerns with trespassing and security can vary
with the amount of train traffic on the adjacent rail line and the setting of the bicycle path, i.e. whether the section
of track is in an urban or rural setting.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
FHWA. Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned. 2002.
California Public Utilities Commission. General Orders.
Description
Rails-with-Trails projects typically consist of paths
adjacent to active railroads. It should be noted that
some constraints could impact the feasibility of rail-
with-trail projects. In some cases, space needs to be
preserved for future planned freight, transit or com-
muter rail service. In other cases, limited right-of-way
width, inadequate setbacks, concerns about safety/
trespassing, and numerous mid-block crossings may
affect a project’s feasibility.
Guidance
Paths in utility corridors should meet or exceed general
design standards. If additional width allows, wider
paths, and landscaping are desirable.
If required, fencing should be a minimum of 5 feet in
height with higher fencing than usual next to sensitive
areas such as switching yards. Setbacks from the active
rail line will vary depending on the speed and frequency
of trains, and available right-of-way.
Preferred separation from centerline of tracks depends
on the type of rail vehicle, speed, frequency of trains.
Centerline
of tracks
Varies; absolute minimum
8.5’/9.5’ to edge of trail
(straight/curved track,
respectively - CPUC
1948), greater separation
preferred
Fencing between trail
and tracks will likely be
required
187
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
170 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Local Neighborhood Accessways
Materials and Maintenance
If concrete is used, saw cut concrete joints rather than
troweled improve the experience of path users.
Discussion
Neighborhood accessways should be designed into new subdivisions at every opportunity and should be
required by City/County subdivision regulations.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Description
Neighborhood accessways provide residential areas
with direct bicycle and pedestrian access to parks,
trails, greenspaces, and other recreational areas. They
most often serve as small trail connections to and
from the larger trail network, typically having their own
rights-of-way and easements.
Additionally, these smaller trails can be used to provide
bicycle and pedestrian connections between dead-end
streets, cul-de-sacs, and access to nearby destinations
not provided by the street network.
Guidance
• Neighborhood accessways should remain open to
the public.
• Trail pavement shall be at least 8’ wide to accom-
modate emergency and maintenance vehicles,
meet ADA requirements and be considered suitable
for multi-use.
• Trail widths should be designed to be less than 8’
wide only when necessary to protect large mature
native trees over 18” in caliper, wetlands or other
ecologically sensitive areas.
• Access trails should slightly meander whenever
possible.
8’ wide concrete access
trail from street
5’ minimum
ADA access
8’ wide
asphalt trail
Property Line
55
AAA
From street or cul-de-sac
188
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 171
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
At-grade roadway crossings can create potential
conflicts between path users and motorists, however,
well-designed crossings can mitigate many operational
issues and provide a higher degree of safety and
comfort for path users. This is evidenced by the
thousands of successful facilities around the United
States with at-grade crossings. In most cases, at-grade
path crossings can be properly designed to provide
a reasonable degree of safety and can meet existing
traffic and safety standards. Path facilities that cater to
bicyclists can require additional considerations due to
the higher travel speed of bicyclists versus pedestrians.
In addition to guidance presented in this section, see
previous entries for Active Warning Beacons and
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons for other methods for
enhancing trail crossings.
Marked/Unsignalized Crossings
Path/Roadway Crossings
Signalized Crossings
Overcrossings
This Section Includes:
189
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
172 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Marked/Unsignalized Crossings
Guidance
Maximum traffic volumes
• ≤9,000-12,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume
• Up to 15,000 ADT on two-lane roads, preferably
with a median
• Up to 12,000 ADT on four-lane roads with median
Maximum travel speed
• 35 MPH
Minimum line of sight
• 25 MPH zone: 155 feet
• 35 MPH zone: 250 feet
• 45 MPH zone: 360 feet
Materials and Maintenance
Locate markings out of wheel tread when possible to
minimize wear and maintenance costs.
Discussion
Unsignalized crossings of multi-lane arterials over 15,000 ADT may be possible with features such as sufficient
crossing gaps (more than 60 per hour), median refuges, and/or active warning devices like rectangular rapid
flash beacons.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2012
Caltrans. California HDM. 2012.
Description
A marked/unsignalized crossing typically consists of a
marked crossing area, signage and other markings to
slow or stop traffic. The approach to designing cross-
ings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation
of vehicular traffic, line of sight, pathway traffic, use pat-
terns, vehicle speed, road type, road width, and other
safety issues such as proximity to major attractions.
When space is available, using a median refuge island
can improve user safety by providing pedestrians and
bicyclists space to perform the safe crossing of one
side of the street at a time.
Curves in paths help slow
path users and make them
aware of oncoming vehicles Detectable warning
strips help visually
impaired pedestrians
identify the edge of
the street
W11-15,
W16-9P
R1-2 YIELD or R1-1
STOP for path users
Crosswalk markings legally establish
midblock pedestrian crossing
If used, a curb ramp
should be the full
width of the path
Consider a median
refuge island when
space is available
eeddiaia
190
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 173
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Signalized Crossings
Guidance
Path crossings should not be provided within approxi-
mately 400 feet of an existing signalized intersection. If
possible, route path directly to the signal.
Materials and Maintenance
If a sidewalk is used for crossing access, it should be
kept clear of snow and debris and the surface should
be level for wheeled users.
Discussion
In the US, the minimum distance a marked crossing can be from an existing signalized intersection varies from
approximately 250 to 660 feet. Engineering judgement and the context of the location should be taken into
account when choosing the appropriate allowable setback.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.
Description
Path crossings within approximately 400 feet of an
existing signalized intersection with pedestrian cross-
walks are typically diverted to the signalized intersection
to avoid traffic operation problems when located so
close to an existing signal. For this restriction to be
effective, barriers and signing may be needed to direct
path users to the signalized crossing. If no pedestrian
crossing exists at the signal, modifications should be
made.
Barriers and signing may be
needed to direct shared-use
path users to the signalized
crossings
R9-3bP
If possible, route users
directly to the signal
191
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
174 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Overcrossings
Guidance
• 8 foot minimum width, 14 feet preferred. If
overcrossing has any scenic vistas additional
width should be provided to allow for stopping. A
separate 5 foot pedestrian area may be provided for
facilities with high bicycle and pedestrian use.
• 10 foot headroom on overcrossing; clearance below
will vary depending on feature being crossed.
Roadway: 17 feet
Freeway: 18.5 feet
Heavy Rail Line: 23 feet
• The overcrossing should have a centerline stripe
even if the rest of the path does not have one.
Materials and Maintenance
Potential issues with vandalism. Overcrossings can be
more difficult to clear of snow than undercrossings.
Discussion
Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which
strictly limits ramp slopes to 5% (1:20) with landings at 400 foot intervals, or 8.33% (1:12) with landings every 30
feet.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.
Description
Bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings provide critical
non-motorized system links by joining areas separated
by barriers such as deep canyons, waterways or
major transportation corridors. In most cases, these
structures are built in response to user demand for safe
crossings where they previously did not exist.
Grade-separated crossings may be needed where
existing bicycle/pedestrian crossings do not exist,
where ADT exceeds 25,000 vehicles, and where 85th
percentile speeds exceed 45 miles per hour.
Center line
striping
ADA generally limits
ramp slopes to 1:20
Railing height of
42 “ min.
Path width of 14 feet preferred for shared
bicycle and pedestrian overcrossings
17’ min.
192
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 175
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Bicycle Parking
Bicyclists expect a safe, convenient place to secure
their bicycle when they reach their destination. This may
be short-term parking of 2 hours or less, or long-term
parking for employees, students, residents, and
commuters.
Access to Transit
Safe and easy access to bicycle parking facilities is
necessary to encourage commuters to access transit
via bicycle. Providing bicycle access to transit and
space for bicycles on buses and rail vehicles can
increase the feasibility of transit in lower-density areas,
where transit stops are beyond walking distance of
many residences. People are often willing to walk only a
quarter- to half-mile to a bus stop, while they might bike
as much as two or more miles to reach a transit station.
Bicycle Parking
On-Street Bicycle Corral
Bicycle Lockers
Bicycle Support Facilities
Secure Parking Areas (SPA)
Bicycle Access to Transit
This Section Includes:
193
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
176 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Bicycle Parking
Guidance
• 2’ minimum from the curb face to avoid ‘dooring.’
• Close to destinations; 50’ maximum distance from
main building entrance.
• Minimum clear distance of 6’ should be provided
between the bicycle rack and the property line.
• Should be highly visible from adjacent bicycle
routes and pedestrian traffic.
• Locate racks in areas that cyclists are most likely to
travel.
Materials and Maintenance
Use of proper anchors will prevent vandalism and
theft. Educate snow removal crews to avoid burying
racks during winter months.
Discussion
Where the placement of racks on sidewalks is not possible (due to narrow sidewalk width, sidewalk obstruc-
tions, street trees, etc.), bicycle parking can be provided in the street where on-street vehicle parking is allowed
in the form of on-street bicycle corrals.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition. 2010.
Description
Short-term bicycle parking is meant to accommodate
visitors, customers, and others expected to depart
within two hours. It should have an approved standard
rack, appropriate location and placement, and weather
protection. The Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals (APBP) recommends selecting a bicycle
rack that:
• Supports the bicycle in at least two places, prevent-
ing it from falling over.
• Allows locking of the frame and one or both wheels
with a U-lock.
• Is securely anchored to ground.
• Resists cutting, rusting and bending or deformation.
A loop may be attached to
retired parking meter posts to
formalize the meter as bicycle
parking.
Avoid fire zones, loading
zones, bus zones, etc.D4-3
Bicycle shelters consist of bicycle racks
grouped together within structures with
a roof that provides weather protection.
4’ min
2’ min3’ min
194
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 177
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
On-Street Bicycle Corral
Guidance
See guidelines for sidewalk Bicycle Rack placement
and clear zones.
• Bicyclists should have an entrance width from the
roadway of 5’ – 6’.
• Can be used with parallel or angled parking.
• Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions are good
candidates for bicycle corrals since the concrete
extension serves as delimitation on one side.
Materials and Maintenance
Physical barriers may obstruct drainage and collect
debris. Establish a maintenance agreement with
neighboring businesses.
Discussion
In many communities, the installation of bicycle corrals is driven by requests from adjacent businesses, and is not
a city-driven initiative. In other areas, the city provides the facility and business associations take responsibility for
the maintenance of the facility.
Additional References and Guidelines
APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition. 2010.
Description
Bicycle corrals (also known as on-street bicycle parking)
consist of bicycle racks grouped together in a common
area within the street traditionally used for automobile
parking. Bicycle corrals are reserved exclusively for
bicycle parking and provide a relatively inexpensive
solution to providing high-volume bicycle parking.
Bicycle corrals can be implemented by converting one
or two on-street motor vehicle parking spaces into
on-street bicycle parking. Each motor vehicle parking
space can be replaced with approximately 6-10 bicycle
parking spaces.
Bicycle corrals move bicycles off the sidewalks, leaving
more space for pedestrians, sidewalk café tables, etc.
Because bicycle parking does not block sightlines
(as large motor vehicles would do), it may be possible
to locate bicycle parking in ‘no-parking’ zones near
intersections and crosswalks.
Improved corner visibility
Bicycle pavement marking
indicates maneuvering zone
Physical barrier to avoid
accidental damage to
bicycles or racks
Remove existing sidewalk
bicycle racks to maximize
pedestrian space
D4-3
Impr
195
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
178 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Bicycle Lockers
Guidance
• Minimum dimensions: width (opening) 2.5’; height
4’; depth 6’.
• 4 foot side clearance and 6 foot end clearance.
• 7 foot minimum distance between facing lockers.
• Locker designs that allow visibility and inspection of
contents are recommended for increased security.
• Access is controlled by a key or access code.
Materials and Maintenance
Regularly inspect the functioning of moving parts and
enclosures. Change keys and access codes periodi-
cally to prevent access to unapproved users.
Discussion
Long-term parking facilities are more expensive to provide than short-term facilities, but are also significantly
more secure. Although many bicycle commuters would be willing to pay a nominal fee to guarantee the safety of
their bicycle, long-term bicycle parking should be free wherever automobile parking is free.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition. 2010.
Description
Bicycle lockers are intended to provide long-term
bicycle storage for employees, students, residents,
commuters, and others expected to park more than two
hours. Long-term facilities protect the entire bicycle, its
components and accessories against theft and against
inclement weather, including snow and wind-driven rain.
Bicycle lockers provide space to store a few acces-
sories or rain gear in addition to containing the bicycle.
Some lockers allow access to two users - a partition
separating the two bicycles can help users feel their
bike is secure. Lockers can also be stacked, reducing
the footprint of the area, although that makes them
more difficult to use.
4’ side clearance
7’ between facing
lockers
6’ end clearance
196
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 179
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Secure Parking Areas (SPA)
Guidance
Key features may include:
• Closed-circuit television monitoring.
• Double high racks & cargo bike spaces.
• Bike repair station with bench.
• Bike tube and maintenance item vending machine.
• Bike lock “hitching post” – allows people to leave
bike locks.
• Secure access for users.
Materials and Maintenance
Regularly inspect the functioning of moving parts and
enclosures. Change keys and access codes periodi-
cally to prevent access to unapproved users.
Discussion
Long-term parking facilities are more expensive to provide than short-term facilities, but are also significantly
more secure. Although many bicycle commuters would be willing to pay a nominal fee to guarantee the safety of
their bicycle, long-term bicycle parking should be free wherever automobile parking is free.
Additional References and Guidelines
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.
APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition. 2010.
Description
A Secure Parking Area for bicycles, also known as a
BikeSPA or Bike & Ride (when located at transit sta-
tions), is a semi-enclosed space that offers a higher
level of security than ordinary bike racks. Accessible via
key-card, combination locks, or keys, BikeSPAs provide
high-capacity parking for 10 to 100 or more bicycles.
Increased security measures create an additional
transportation option for those whose biggest concern
is theft and vulnerability.
In the space formerly
used for seven
cars, a BikeSPA can
comfortably park 80
bikes with room for
future expansion.
Double-height racks help
take advantage of the
vertical space, further
maximizing the parking
capacity.
197
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
180 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Bicycle Access to Transit
Guidance
Access
• Provide direct and convenient access to transit
stations and stops from the bicycle and pedestrian
networks.
• Provide maps at major stops and stations showing
nearby bicycle routes.
• Provide wayfinding signage and pavement mark-
ings from the bicycle network to transit stations.
Bicycle Parking
• The route from bicycle parking locations to station/
stop platforms should be well-lit and visible.
• Signing should note the location of bicycle parking,
rules for use, and instructions as needed.
• Provide safe and secure long-term parking such as
bicycle lockers at transit hubs. Parking should be
easy to use and well maintained.
Materials and Maintenance
Regularly inspect the functioning of long-term parking
moving parts and enclosures.
Discussion
Providing bicycle routes to transit helps combine the long-distance coverage of bus and rail travel with the
door-to-door service of bicycle riding. Transit use can overcome large obstacles to bicycling, including distance,
hills, riding on busy streets, night riding, inclement weather, and breakdowns.
Additional References and Guidelines
APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition. 2010.
FHWA. University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation. Lesson 18: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to
Transit. 2006.
Description
Safe and easy access to transit stations and secure
bicycle parking facilities is necessary to encourage
commuters to access transit via bicycle. Bicycling to
transit reduces the need to provide expensive and
space consuming car parking spaces.
Many people who ride to a transit stop will want to bring
their bicycle with them on the transit portion of their trip,
so buses and other transit vehicles should be equipped
accordingly.
Map of bicycle
routes
Long-term bicycle
parking
Bicycle rack
198
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 181
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Regular bicycle facility maintenance includes sweep-
ing, maintaining a smooth roadway, ensuring that the
gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flat, and
installing bicycle-friendly drainage grates. Pavement
overlays are a good opportunity to improve bicycle
facilities. The following recommendations provide a
menu of options to consider to enhance a maintenance
regimen. Sweeping
Bikeway Maintenance
Gutter to Pavement Transition
Roadway Surface
Recommended Walkway and Bikeway Maintenance
Activities
Maintenance ActivityFrequency
Inspections Seasonal – at beginning and
end of Summer
Pavement sweeping/blowingAs needed, with higher
frequency in the early Spring
and Fall
Pavement sealing5 - 15 years
Pothole repair1 week – 1 month after report
Culvert and drainage grate
inspection
Before Winter and after major
storms
Pavement markings
replacement
As needed
Signage replacementAs needed
Shoulder plant trimming
(weeds, trees, brambles)
Twice a year; middle of growing
season and early Fall
Tree and shrub plantings,
trimming
1 – 3 years
Major damage response
(washouts, fallen trees,
flooding)
As soon as possible
Drainage Grates
This Section Includes:
199
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
182 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Sweeping
Guidance
• Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule that
prioritizes roadways with major bicycle routes.
• Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is
an accumulation of debris on the facility.
• In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up
debris; on open shoulders, debris can be swept
onto gravel shoulders.
• Pave gravel driveway approaches to minimize loose
gravel on paved roadway shoulders.
• Perform additional sweeping in the Spring to
remove debris from the Winter.
• Perform additional sweeping in the Fall in areas
where leaves accumulate .
Description
Bicyclists often avoid shoulders and bike lanes filled with
gravel, broken glass and other debris; they will ride in
the roadway to avoid these hazards, potentially causing
conflicts with motorists. Debris from the roadway should
not be swept onto sidewalks (pedestrians need a clean
walking surface), nor should debris be swept from
the sidewalk onto the roadway. A regularly scheduled
inspection and maintenance program helps ensure that
roadway debris is regularly picked up or swept.
Gutter to Pavement Transition
Guidance
• Ensure that gutter-to-pavement transitions have no
more than a ¼” vertical transition.
• Examine pavement transitions during every
roadway project for new construction, maintenance
activities, and construction project activities that
occur in streets.
• Inspect the pavement 2 to 4 months after trenching
construction activities are completed to ensure that
excessive settlement has not occurred.
• Provide at least 3 feet of pavement outside of the
gutter seam.
Description
On streets with concrete curbs and gutters, 1 to 2 feet
of the curbside area is typically devoted to the gutter
pan, where water collects and drains into catch basins.
On many streets, the bikeway is situated near the transi-
tion between the gutter pan and the pavement edge.
This transition can be susceptible to erosion, creating
potholes and a rough surface for travel.
200
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 183
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Drainage Grates
Roadway Surface
Guidance
• Maintain a smooth pothole-free surface.
• Ensure that on new roadway construction, the
finished surface on bikeways does not vary more
than ¼”.
• Maintain pavement so ridge buildup does not occur
at the gutter-to-pavement transition or adjacent to
railway crossings.
• Inspect the pavement 2 to 4 months after trenching
construction activities are completed to ensure that
excessive settlement has not occurred.
• If chip sealing is to be performed, use the smallest
possible chip on bike lanes and shoulders. Sweep
loose chips regularly following application.
• During chip seal maintenance projects, if the
pavement condition of the bike lane is satisfactory,
it may be appropriate to chip seal the travel lanes
only. However, use caution when doing this so as
not to create an unacceptable ridge between the
bike lane and travel lane.
Description
Bicycles are much more sensitive to subtle changes
in roadway surface than are motor vehicles. Various
materials are used to pave roadways, and some are
smoother than others. Compaction is also an important
issue after trenches and other construction holes are
filled. Uneven settlement after trenching can affect
the roadway surface nearest the curb where bicycles
travel. Sometimes compaction is not achieved to a
satisfactory level, and an uneven pavement surface can
result due to settling over the course of days or weeks.
When resurfacing streets, use the smallest chip size
and ensure that the surface is as smooth as possible to
improve safety and comfort for bicyclists.
Guidance
• Require all new drainage grates be bicycle-friendly,
including grates that have horizontal slats on them
so that bicycle tires and assistive devices do not fall
through the vertical slats.
• Create a program to inventory all existing drainage
grates, and replace hazardous grates as neces-
sary – temporary modifications such as installing
rebar horizontally across the grate should not be an
acceptable alternative to replacement.
Description
Drainage grates are typically located in the gutter area
near the curb of a roadway. Drainage grates typically
have slots through which water drains into the municipal
storm sewer system. Many older grates were designed
with linear parallel bars spread wide enough for a tire
to become caught so that if a bicyclist were to ride
on them, the front tire could become caught in the
slot. This would cause the bicyclist to tumble over the
handlebars and sustain potentially serious injuries.
Direction of travel 4” spacing max
201
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
184 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix H: Wayfi nding and Signage Plan
202
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 185
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Signage Design
Bicycle wayfi nding signage provides destination,
direction, and distance information to bicyclists
navigating through Newport Beach. The proposed
design guidelines use standard signs from the California
Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices (CA MUTCD)
including:
•D11-1: Bicycle Route Guide Sign
•D1-3a: Destination Supplemental Sign
•D3-1: Named Route Title Sign
•M7-1 through M7-7: Directional Arrow
Supplemental Sign
Using signage standards outlined in the CA MUTCD
allows for signage that is consistent throughout
jurisdictions. Proposed signs for Newport Beach include
revised modifi cations to enhance the branding of the
bicycle network and bicycle facilities. The Newport
Beach bicycle wayfi nding signage system recommends
the following four sign types as shown in Figure A-1:
•Standard signs: Confi rm a bicyclist is riding on
a designated bikeway. When used on one of the
city’s named routes, the name of the route is
added below the standard sign.
•Turn signs: Specify where a bikeway turns to
prepare bicyclists in advance. Turn signs also
ease navigation when cyclists are following
routes that traverse multiple streets.
•Hybrid Confi rmation and Decision signs:
Confi rm a bicyclist is riding on a designated
bikeway; include mileage to key destinations
that can be accessed by the bikeways; and
provide directional arrows to key destinations.
These can also be used to identify the junction
of two or more bikeways.
•Bicycle Boulevard signs: Used only on
designated bike boulevards, these signs contain
destination and distance information, as well as
graphic treatments to create an identity for the
route. This helps indicate to cyclists as well as
drivers that this street has been prioritized for
bicycle travel. The specifi c design of these signs,
and the degree of customization for the city, will
require a thorough design process.
Table A-4 displays design and placement standards
for the four recommended sign types presented in this
chapter. Figures A-2 and A-3 provide layout details for
bike route signage, and Figure A-4 provides example
signs for bicycle boulevards.
Photo 53 - D11-1: Bicycle Route Guide Sign
Photo 54 - Example Named Route Confi rmation
and Decision Sign
203
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
186 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
4
-
De
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
S
i
g
n
T
y
p
e
s
Ty
p
e
S
i
g
n
T
y
p
e
De
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Pl
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
Si
g
n
s
•
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
G
u
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
D
1
1
-
1
si
z
e
:
2
4
”
w
i
d
e
x
1
8
”
t
a
l
l
•
R
o
u
t
e
n
a
m
e
(
w
h
e
r
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
)
D
3
-
1
s
i
z
e
:
2
4
”
w
i
d
e
x
4
”
o
r
6
”
t
a
l
l
•
W
h
e
n
r
o
u
t
e
n
a
m
e
s
f
i
t
o
n
o
n
e
l
i
n
e
,
u
s
e
a
4
”
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
;
wh
e
n
n
a
m
e
s
d
o
n
o
t
f
i
t
o
n
o
n
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
w
o
-
l
i
n
e
e
n
t
r
y
ma
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
6
”
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
•
O
n
e
s
i
g
n
p
e
r
¼
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
l
e
(
m
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
)
an
d
a
t
t
h
e
f
a
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
k
e
y
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
•
A
d
d
r
o
u
t
e
n
a
m
e
s
i
g
n
w
h
e
n
s
i
g
n
s
a
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
al
o
n
g
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
n
a
m
e
d
ro
u
t
e
s
(
s
e
e
t
a
b
l
e
x
)
Tu
r
n
S
i
g
n
s
•
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
G
u
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
D
1
1
-
1
si
z
e
:
2
4
”
w
i
d
e
x
1
8
”
t
a
l
l
•
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
r
r
o
w
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Si
g
n
s
M
7
-
1
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
7
-
7
s
i
z
e
:
12
”
w
i
d
e
x
9
”
t
a
l
l
N/
A
•
S
i
g
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
t
h
e
a
t
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
a
n
e
s
a
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
m
u
s
t
t
r
a
v
e
l
ac
r
o
s
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
a
l
e
g
a
l
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
:
•
2
5
f
e
e
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
z
e
r
o
l
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
•
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
o
n
e
l
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
•
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
t
w
o
l
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
Hy
b
r
i
d
Co
n
f
i
r
m
a
-
ti
o
n
a
n
d
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
Si
g
n
s
•
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
G
u
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
D
1
1
-
1
si
z
e
:
2
4
”
w
i
d
e
x
1
8
”
t
a
l
l
•
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
i
g
n
s
D1
-
3
a
s
i
z
e
:
2
4
”
w
i
d
e
•
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
o
n
e
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
p
l
a
q
u
e
•
A
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
t
h
r
e
e
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
•
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
u
s
e
u
p
p
e
r
c
a
s
e
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
r
c
a
s
e
le
t
t
e
r
s
•
F
o
r
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
n
a
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
d
o
n
o
t
f
i
t
o
n
o
n
e
l
i
n
e
ab
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
t
w
o
-
l
i
n
e
e
n
t
r
y
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
•
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
b
y
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
th
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
•
S
i
g
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
b
i
k
e
w
a
y
’
s
e
n
d
p
o
i
n
t
a
l
o
n
g
th
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
r
o
u
t
e
•
W
h
e
r
e
a
b
i
k
e
w
a
y
e
n
d
s
a
t
a
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
n
o
ob
v
i
o
u
s
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
u
s
e
t
h
e
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
m
a
j
o
r
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g
b
i
k
e
w
a
y
o
r
th
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
i
f
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
o
b
v
i
o
u
s
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
•
L
e
f
t
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
a
r
r
o
w
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
l
i
g
n
e
d
l
e
f
t
o
n
t
h
e
si
g
n
;
r
i
g
h
t
a
r
r
o
w
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
l
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
•
T
w
o
s
i
g
n
s
p
e
r
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
l
e
•
S
i
g
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
a
n
e
s
a
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
m
u
s
t
t
r
a
v
e
l
ac
r
o
s
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
a
l
e
g
a
l
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
:
•
2
5
f
e
e
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
z
e
r
o
l
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
•
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
o
n
e
l
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
•
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
t
w
o
l
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
Bi
k
e
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Si
g
n
s
•
C
u
s
t
o
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
2
4
”
w
i
d
e
x
1
8
”
ta
l
l
•
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
g
n
s
p
e
r
H
y
b
r
i
d
Si
g
n
s
a
b
o
v
e
o
r
p
e
r
c
u
s
t
o
m
de
s
i
g
n
TB
D
•
E
v
e
r
y
¼
m
i
l
e
a
n
d
a
t
k
e
y
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
p
o
i
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
b
i
k
e
b
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
s
.
204
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 187
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
F
i
g
u
r
e
A
-
1
Si
g
n
T
y
p
e
s
205
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
188 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
-
2
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
B
e
a
c
h
D
1
1
-
1
L
a
y
o
u
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
206
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 189
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
-
3
D1
-
3
a
L
a
y
o
u
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
207
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
190 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Figure A-4 Example Bike Boulevard Signage
208
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 191
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
As noted earlier in this chapter, recommended signs deviate slightly from CA MUTCD standard signs. Table A-5 discusses
the diff erences between the CA MUTCD and recommended sign standards for use in Newport Beach.
Table A-5 CA MUTCD Sign Modifi cations
Modifi cationExplanation for Modifi cation
Reduce horizontal perimeter from 1.5” to 0.75”Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names
Maintains 24” wide supplemental sign (D1-1b)Consistency across the network increases user familiarly as
well as allows for the addition of destinations as the bikeway
network is implemented
Uses FHWA 2000 (Highway Gothic) C series condensed
font series (rather than D series)
Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names;
maintains 2” cap height; consistent with the cities of Chicago
and Seattle
Inclusion of Newport Beach city logo on D11-1 sign, by
reducing cap height of “BIKE ROUTE” to 2” (from 3”)
Providing a logo allows for improved identifi cation and brand-
ing of the Newport Beach bicycle network.
In order to maintain consistency and quality control in the wayfi nding system, it is important to follow a set of specifi ca-
tions for sign placement and installation. Table A-6 identifi es key specifi cations for the recommended Newport Beach
wayfi nding signage.
Table A-6 Specifi cations for Signage Implementation
Specifi cations
•The standard pole for bikeway guide signs is a 2” square perforated unistrut pole.
•The pole should be placed 18” to 24” in the ground, depending upon the overall weight of the signs and the
soil/pavement conditions.
•Heavy sign installations may require poles up to 36” into the ground.
•Poles of 12’ in length are generally adequate to accommodate a D11-1 with a supplementary D1-3a sign. Longer
poles are needed if additional signs will share the same pole.
•The D11-1 should be installed at 10’ in height as measured from the top edge of the sign. This height will allow
for the installation of supplementary signs while maintaining a minimum 7’ clearance to the bottom edge of
the bottom sign.
•When a D11-1 is mounted on a pole with an existing parking restriction sign, the D11-1 and any supplementary
sign should be located above the parking restriction sign.
•Signs should not be mounted to utility poles or traffi c signal mast arms.
•Existing poles should be used wherever practical.
Signage Locations
Table A-7 presents a list of suggested key destinations within Newport Beach for inclusion in signage. The city may
modify this list in the future as needed.
Table A-7 Key Destinations by Category
Destinations
Regional Facilities
OC Parks Mountain to Sea Trail (San Diego Creek Trail & Peters Canyon Regional Bikeway)
OC Parks Bayview Trail
OC Parks Santa Ana River Trail
Crystal Cove State Park Coastal Trail
Activity Centers
Newport Beach Civic Center
Libraries (Central, Mariners, Balboa, and Corona del Mar)
209
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
192 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Destinations
Community Centers (Balboa, Bonita Creek, Carroll Beek, Cliff Drive, Youth Center, Newport Coast OASIS Senior Center,
and West Newport)
Back Bay Science Center
Peter & Mary Muth Interpretive Center
Hoag Hospital
Regional Parks (Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, Arroyo Park, Bob Henry Park, Bonita Canyon Sports Park, Bonita
Creek Park, Buff alo Hills Park, Coastal Peak Park, Crystal Cove State Park, Eastbluff Park, Grant Howald Park, Irvine
Terrace Park, Lincoln Athletic Center, Mariners Mark & VJ Community Center, Peninsula Park, San Miguel Park)
Beaches
Beaches along the Peninsula
Corona del Mar State Beach
Little Corona Beach
Crystal Cove State Park
Newport and Balboa Piers
Transportation Centers
Newport Transportation Center (NTC)
John Wayne Airport, Orange County
Newport Beach City Bike Parking
Kiosks
In addition to an eff ective signage system, the Newport
Beach Wayfi nding and Signage plan also proposes the in-
stallation of informational kiosks to support the proposed
bikeway network and signage. Proposed kiosk locations
should be located at key destinations and include bicycle
facility information for the surrounding area as well as the
city of Newport Beach as a whole.
Figure A-5 presents a sample kiosk prototype. This pro-
totype is a conceptual design only, and its specifi c design
would need to be determined at a later date. It is recom-
mended that a single kiosk design be developed and used
throughout the city to help establish the bike network’s
identity and ease wayfi nding for riders. Kiosks should
provide the following information:
•A map of the city’s bicycle network with key
destinations and bike parking locations
•The Newport Beach city logo
•Recommended supplemental resources for the
kiosks include:
•Bicycle parking information
•Fold-up bicycle maps of the Newport Beach
bicycle network
•Fold-up maps of the Orange County bicycle
network (published by OCTA)
•Information regarding bicycle-related activities in
the area
•Bike safety information and other bicycle
resources
Agency Collaboration
Newport Beach should consider working with nearby
agencies to provide wayfi nding elements that are congru-
ent with adjacent cities and Orange County as a whole.
This will allow bicyclists to easily navigate to and from
bikeways in adjacent communities and link into a larger
countywide network. The city should coordinate eff orts
with the following adjacent jurisdictions:
•City of Huntington Beach
•City of Laguna Beach
•City of Costa Mesa
•City of Irvine
•City of Santa Ana
•Orange County
Newport Beach should also consider partnering with the
following agencies to install wayfi nding signage that will
help bicyclists navigate to the city’s bikeways:
•Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
•OC Parks
•California State Parks
•University of California, Irvine
Additionally, the city should consider partnering with
non-profi t organizations, schools, and bicycle advocacy
groups like the Orange County Bicycle Coalition in pursuit
of funding opportunities and grants for wayfi nding
signage. Potential funds would help with capital and
maintenance expenses. Partnerships often strengthen
grant applications and improve the likelihood of selection.
210
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 193
APPENDICES
Route Naming System
It is proposed that major routes within the city receive
standardized names to provide consistency among maps
and signage and to solidify the overall identity of the bike
network. The routes are listed in Table A-8, and were
Figure A-5 Sample Kiosk Prototype
chosen based upon the projected number of users on
the route, its connectivity to major destinations, and its
function as an attraction in itself. Figure A-6 shows the
location of named routes, and Figure A-7 illustrates the
Route Identifi cation Signs.
Table A-8 Named Routes within the Bicycle Network
Route Major Streets and Destinationsv
Back Bay Loop Back Bay Drive, Santiago Drive, Pacifi c Coast Highway, Back Bay Science Center, Upper
Newport Bay Nature Preserve
Balboa Pier RouteBayside Drive, Marine Avenue, Balboa Island Ferry, Palm Drive
Newport Pier RouteTustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Pacifi c Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, 32nd Street,
Oceanfront
Coastal Route Pacifi c Coast Highway
211
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
194 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Fi
g
u
r
e
A
-
6
Na
m
e
d
R
o
u
t
e
M
a
p
212
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 195
APPENDICES
24''
4''BACK BAY LOOP
24''
4''COASTAL ROUTE
BALBOA PIER
ROUTE
24''
6''
NEWPORT PIER
ROUTE
24''
6''
FHWA C Series Font, capital letters height 2.125'', all CAPS
.5''1.5''
radius
Figure A-7 Route Identifi cation Signs
213
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
196 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix I: Bicycle Facilities Prioritization Methodology
214
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 197
APPENDICES
Recommended Bicycle Facilities Prioritization
Methodology
Each criterion contains information about a facility and its
ability to address an existing or future need in Newport
Beach. The resulting project ranking determines each
project’s relative importance in funding and scheduled
construction.
Prioritization Criteria
The following criteria are used to evaluate each proposed
bicycle facility, its ability to address demand and
defi ciencies in the existing bicycle network., and its ease of
implementation The criteria is organized into “utility” and
“implementation” prioritization factors.
Utility Prioritization Factors
Utility criteria include conditions of bicycle facilities that
enhance the bicycle network. Each criterion is discussed
below.
Bicycle Incidents
Bicycle facilities have the potential to increase safety
by reducing the potential confl icts between bicyclists
and motorists, which often result in incidents. Proposed
facilities that are located on roadways with past bicycle-
automobile incidents are important to the City. Locations
where bicycle fatalities have occurred will receive
increased priority ranking.
Public Input
The City solicited public input through community
workshops and an online survey. Facilities that community
members identifi ed as desirable for future bicycle facilities
are of priority to the network because they address the
needs of the public.
Gap Closure
Gaps in the bicycle network come in a variety of forms,
ranging from a “missing link” on a roadway to larger
geographic areas without bicycle facilities. Gaps in the
bikeway network discourage bicycle use because they
limit access to key destinations and land uses. Facilities
that fi ll a gap in the existing and proposed bicycle network
are of high priority.
Connectivity to Existing Facilities
Proposed bikeways that connect to existing bicycle
facilities in the City and to adjacent jurisdictions’ bikeways
increase the convenience of bicycle travel. Proposed
facilities that fi t this criterion are of high importance to the
City.
Connectivity to Regional Facilities
Linkage to existing and future regional bikeways in
Orange County will enhance future connectivity between
the City and surrounding communities. For the purposes
of this evaluation, linkage to the following facilities would
be identifi ed as regional connections:
•OCTA Districts 1 & 2 Bikeways Collaborative
Corridor B – Bristol-Bear;
•OCTA Districts 1 & 2 Bikeways Collaborative
Corridor C – Pacifi c Coast Highway;
•OCTA Districts 1 & 2 Bikeways Collaborative
Corridor K – Indianapolis-Fairview;
•OC Parks Mountain to Sea Trail (San Diego Creek
Trail & Peters Canyon Regional Bikeway)
•OC Parks Bayview Trail
•OC Parks Santa Ana River Trail
•Crystal Cove State Park Coastal Trail
Connectivity to Activity Centers
Improved linkage to key employment, recreational, and
civic destinations within the community can increase
bicycling activity and reduce in-town vehicular travel for
short-distance trips. These activity centers generate many
trips which could be made by bicycle if the proper facilities
were available. The following activity centers will be
reviewed for improved access related to the recommended
bikeway improvements:
•Newport Center employment/commercial area
•Airport employment area
•Newport Beach Civic Center
•Libraries (Central, Mariners, Balboa, and Corona
del Mar)
•Community Centers (Balboa, Bonita Creek, Carroll
Beek, Cliff Drive, Youth Center, Newport Coast,
OASIS Senior Center, and West Newport)
•K-12 public schools
•Orange County Museum of Art
•Back Bay Science Center
•Peter & Mary Muth Interpretive Center
•Hoag Hospital
•Regional Parks (Upper Newport Bay Nature
Preserve, Arroyo Park, Bob Henry Park, Bonita
Canyon Sports Park, Bonita Creek Park, Buff alo
Hills Park, Coastal Peak Park, Crystal Cove State
Park, Eastbluff Park, Grant Howald Park, Irvine
Terrace Park, Lincoln Athletic Center, Mariners
Mark & VJ Community Center, Peninsula Park, San
Miguel Park)
215
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
198 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
lower. Examples include collaboration with adjacent
jurisdictions, approval by Caltrans, or permitting by the
California Coastal Commission. The following is a list of
potential agencies where coordination, collaboration,
and/or permitting may be required to implement bikeway
projects:
•City of Costa Mesa
•City of Huntington Beach
•City of Irvine
•City of Laguna Beach
•California State Parks
•Caltrans
•Orange County Parks
•Orange County Waste & Recycling
•California Coastal Commission
•OCTA
Project Cost
Projects that are less expensive do not require as much
funding as other projects and are therefore easier to
implement. Projects that cost less are of higher priority to
the City.
Project Ranking
Table A-9 shows how the criteria described in the previous
section translate into weights for project prioritization and
ranking. Weights are based on direct, secondary, or no
service at all. Direct service means that a facility intersects
with a facility/destination, whereas secondary access
occurs when the primary facility runs in close proximity to
an existing or proposed facility/destination.
Connectivity to Beaches
•Given the scenic beauty of the Newport Beach
coastline, connectivity to beaches is identifi ed
as a key attraction. Improved bicycling access to
the beach has repeatedly been identifi ed by the
community and the recommendations will be
reviewed for enhanced access to the following
beaches and beach-related destinations:
•Beaches along the Peninsula
•Corona del Mar State Beach
•Little Corona Beach
•Crystal Cove State Park
•Newport and Balboa Piers
Connectivity to Multi-Modal Transportation Centers
Bicycle facilities that link to modes of public transportation
increase the geographical distance bicyclists are able to
travel. Proposed bicycle facilities that connect to transit
stops and centers improve bicyclists’ mobility and are
therefore key pieces of the bicycle network. Priority
ranking will be given to bikeways that connect to the
Newport Transportation Center (NTC) located at 1550
Avocado Avenue.
Implementation Prioritization Factors
Implementation criteria address the ease of implementing
each proposed project. Each criterion is discussed below.
Permitting
Projects that can be implemented by the City of Newport
Beach have higher readiness factors, and those that
require permitting and approvals from other agencies
governing roadways and land within the City will score
Table A-9 Ranking Criteria and Weighting
Criteria Ra
w
S
c
o
r
e
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
r
To
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
Description
Utility Prioritization Factors
Bicycle Incidents 236Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 3 or more bicycle
incidents or a bicycle fatality between 2008-2013
133Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 1-2 bicycle incidents
between 2008-2013
030Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that did not experience any bicycle
incidents between 2008-2013
Public Input 224Roadway was identifi ed by the public as desirable for a future facility multiple
times
122Roadway was identifi ed by the public as desirable for a future facility once
020Roadway was not identifi ed by the public as desirable for a future facility
216
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 199
APPENDICES
Criteria Ra
w
S
c
o
r
e
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
r
To
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
Description
Gap Closure 2 36Fills a network gap between two existing facilities
133Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a proposed facility
030Does not directly or indirectly fi ll a network gap
Connectivity:
Existing
236Provides direct access to an existing bicycle facility
133Provides secondary connectivity to an existing bicycle facility
030Does not directly or indirectly access an existing bicycle facility
Connectivity:
Regional
212Provides direct access to a regional existing/proposed bicycle facility
111Provides secondary connectivity to a regional existing/proposed bicycle facility
010Does not directly or indirectly access a regional existing/proposed bicycle facility
Connectivity:
Activity Centers
224Provides direct access to more than 3 activity centers
122Provides access 1-3 activity centers
020Does not provide access to an activity center
Connectivity:
Beaches
224Provides direct access to a beach
122Provides secondary connectivity to a beach
020Does not directly or indirectly connect to a beach
Connectivity:
Multi-Modal
224Provides direct access to the Newport Transportation Center
122Provides secondary connectivity to the Newport Transportation Center
020Does not directly or indirectly access to the Newport Transportation Center
Implementation Prioritization Factors
Permitting 212Does not require permitting from agency (other than City of Newport Beach)
111Requires permitting or approval from 1 agency (other than City of Newport
Beach)
010Requires permitting or approval from 2 or more agencies (other than City of
Newport Beach)
Project Cost 212Will cost $40,000 or less to implement
111Will cost between $40,000 and $200,000 to implement
010Will cost over $200,000 to implement
Table A-10 shows that the maximum potential score for recommended projects is 40 points.
Table A-9 Ranking Criteria and Weighting (continued)
217
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
200 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Table A-10 Ranking Maximum Score
Criteria Maximum Score
Utility Prioritization Factors
Bicycle Incidents 6
Public Input 4
Gap Closure 6
Connectivity: Existing6
Connectivity: Regional2
Connectivity: Activity
Centers
4
Connectivity: Beaches4
Connectivity: Multi-Modal4
Implementation Prioritization Factors
Permitting 2
Project Cost 2
Total 40
A total of 116 bicycle facility projects were identifi ed and grouped into the following three tiers by each projects
prioritization score
•Tier 1 (29-40 points): Tier 1 projects have the highest potential for addressing the City’s goals for bicycle
transportation and are intended for near-term project implementation. The highest score received by a
project was 32 points. A total of 27 projects are listed in Tier 1.
•Tier 2 (24-28 points): Tier 2 projects are intended for mid-term implementation. A total of 31 projects are listed
in Tier 2.
•Tier 3 (0-23 points): Tier 3 projects are not currently ready for implementation but are included as long-term
potential bicycle-specifi c projects. A total of 61 projects are listed in Tier 3.
218
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 201
APPENDICES
Appendix J: Recommended Bicycle Facilities and
Prioritization Rankings
219
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
202 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
1
Tie
r
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
9
-
4
0
)
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
En
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
II
W
e
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Orang
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6
4
6
6
2
2
4
0
1
1
32
Sp
o
t
3
2
nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
6
4
6
6
1
0
4
0
2
2
31
II
B
a
l
b
o
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
4
3
rd
S
t
r
e
e
t
64
6
6
2
0
4
0
2
1
31
II
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Pe
l
i
c
a
n
P
o
i
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
2
m
i
l
e
s
w
e
s
t
o
f
E
a
s
t
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
64
6
6
2
2
4
0
1
0
31
II
I
r
v
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
17
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
Unive
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
i
v
e
6
4
6
6
2
4
0
0
2
1
31
II
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
V
i
a
L
i
d
o
32nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
6
4
6
6
1
0
4
0
2
2
31
II
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
/
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
)
Jamb
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
6
4
6
6
0
2
0
4
2
1
31
II
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Orang
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
a
l
b
o
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6
4
6
6
1
0
4
0
2
2
31
Sp
o
t
S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
We
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
--
64
6
6
2
0
4
0
1
2
31
II
W
e
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
O
r
a
n
g
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
6
4
6
6
2
0
4
0
1
2
31
Sp
o
t
W
e
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(f
r
o
m
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
R
i
v
e
r
Tr
a
i
l
t
o
O
r
a
n
g
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
--
--
64
6
6
2
0
4
0
1
2
31
II
B
a
c
k
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Sh
e
l
l
m
a
k
e
r
R
o
a
d
E
a
s
t
b
l
u
f
f
R
o
a
d
6
4
6
6
2
2
2
0
2
0
30
220
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 203
APPENDICES
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
En
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
II
I
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Popp
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
e
a
w
a
r
d
3
4
6
6
2
2
4
0
1
2
30
II
I
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Al
l
e
y
Vi
a
L
i
d
o
3
2
nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
64
6
6
1
0
4
0
2
1
30
Sp
o
t
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
P
i
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
--
--
64
6
6
1
2
4
0
1
0
30
II
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
i
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
A
v
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
6
0
6
6
2
2
4
0
2
2
30
II
I
W
e
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Dove
r
D
r
i
v
e
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6
4
6
6
2
2
2
0
1
1
30
II
3
2
nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
Newp
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
V
i
a
L
i
d
o
64
6
6
1
0
2
0
2
2
29
II
I
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
Ea
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
l
a
s
s
I
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
Co
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
64
6
6
2
2
0
0
2
1
29
Sp
o
t
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
E
a
s
t
Co
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
6
4
6
6
2
0
2
0
1
2
29
Spot
B
a
y
v
i
e
w
T
r
a
i
l
-
-
-
-
6
4
6
6
2
2
0
0
1
2
29
I
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
D
o
v
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
6
4
6
6
2
2
2
01
0
29
Sp
o
t
D
o
v
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
/
W
e
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
6
4
6
6
2
2
0
0
1
2
29
II
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
e
a
w
a
r
d
R
o
a
d
P
e
l
i
c
a
n
P
o
i
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
3
4
6
6
2
2
4
0
1
1
29
IE
a
s
t
b
l
u
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
B
a
y
v
i
e
w
T
r
a
i
l
/
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
Ro
a
d
Back
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
6
4
6
6
2
2
2
0
1
0
29
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
1
Tie
r
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
9
-
4
0
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
221
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
204 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
En
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
Sp
o
t
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
We
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
6
4
6
6
2
0
2
0
1
2
29
II
I
W
e
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(f
r
o
m
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
t
o
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
Dr
i
v
e
)
--
-
-
6
4
6
6
2
2
2
0
1
0
29
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
1
Tie
r
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
9
-
4
0
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
222
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 205
APPENDICES
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
2
Tie
r
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
4
-
2
8
)
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
En
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
II
I
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
0.
2
m
i
l
e
s
w
e
s
t
o
f
E
a
s
t
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Easte
r
n
C
i
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
3
2
6
6
2
2
4
0
1
2
28
II
I
r
v
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ea
s
t
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
1
6
th
Stree
t
6
4
6
6
1
2
0
0
2
1
28
Sp
o
t
I
r
v
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
S
a
n
t
i
a
g
o
Dr
i
v
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
6
4
6
6
2
0
0
0
2
2
28
II
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
B
a
y
v
i
e
w
W
a
y
B
r
i
s
t
o
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o
r
t
h
6
2
6
6
2
2
0
0
2
2
28
II
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
East
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
R
-
7
3
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
6
4
6
6
2
2
0
0
1
1
28
I
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Se
a
s
h
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
Ea
s
t
B
a
n
k
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
l
y
Te
r
m
i
n
u
s
64
6
6
2
0
4
0
0
0
28
Sp
o
t
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
T
r
a
i
l
a
t
Ru
b
y
’
s
S
h
a
k
e
S
h
a
c
k
--
--
04
6
6
2
2
4
0
1
2
27
II
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Dove
r
D
r
i
v
e
A
v
o
c
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
4
6
6
2
2
0
0
1
0
27
II
I
G
o
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
(E
n
h
a
n
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Ea
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
E
d
g
e
of
H
a
r
b
o
r
V
i
e
w
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
30
6
6
2
2
4
0
2
2
27
III
M
a
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
c
e
a
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
F
i
f
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
0
3
6
2
2
4
0
2
2
27
I
N
e
w
C
l
a
s
s
I
T
r
a
i
l
t
o
Ar
r
o
y
o
P
a
r
k
No
r
t
h
o
f
M
a
c
A
r
t
h
u
r
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ford
R
o
a
d
64
6
6
1
2
0
0
2
0
27
III
P
o
p
p
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
i
f
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
2
6
6
2
0
4
0
2
2
27
III
S
a
n
t
i
a
g
o
D
r
i
v
e
P
o
l
a
r
i
s
D
r
i
v
e
I
r
v
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
4
6
6
2
0
0
0
2
1
27
II
I
B
a
l
b
o
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
3
2
nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
G S
t
r
e
e
t
64
3
3
1
2
4
0
2
1
26
223
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
206 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
En
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
II
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
M
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
S
i
g
n
a
l
M
a
r
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
4
6
6
2
0
0
0
1
1
26
III
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
6
2
6
6
2
0
0
0
2
2
26
II
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
S
a
n
M
i
g
u
e
l
D
r
i
v
e
S
a
n
M
i
g
u
e
l
D
r
i
v
e
6
0
6
6
1
2
0
2
2
1
26
II
3
2
nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
Balbo
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6
4
3
6
1
0
4
0
1
0
25
I
B
a
y
v
i
e
w
T
r
a
i
l
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
B
a
c
k
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
6
2
6
6
2
2
0
0
1
0
25
I
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
C
o
v
e
P
a
r
k
T
r
a
i
l
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
Br
i
d
g
e
)
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
E
n
d
o
f
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
f
f
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
r
a
i
l
El
M
o
r
o
S
t
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Si
g
n
a
l
32
6
6
2
2
4
0
0
0
25
III
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
R
o
a
d
S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
l
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6
0
6
6
1
2
0
0
2
2
25
III
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
P
a
t
h
E
d
g
e
w
a
t
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
0
3
6
0
2
4
0
2
2
25
II
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
B
a
c
k
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
6
0
6
6
0
2
0
2
2
1
25
II
I
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
Ea
s
t
B
a
n
k
Oran
g
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
6
0
3
6
2
0
4
0
2
2
25
II
I
4
7
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
Balbo
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
6
0
3
6
1
0
4
0
2
2
24
II
A
v
o
c
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
2
6
6
2
2
0
2
2
2
24
Sp
o
t
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
i
n
e
Av
e
n
u
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
--
32
6
6
1
0
2
0
2
2
24
C
o
n
s
t
e
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
l
C
o
n
s
t
e
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
B
a
y
v
i
e
w
T
r
a
i
l
6
4
3
6
2
2
0
0
1
0
24
III
M
a
r
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
B
a
y
F
r
o
n
t
A
l
l
e
y
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
6
4
3
6
1
0
0
0
2
2
24
III
O
r
c
h
i
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
c
e
a
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
F
i
f
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
0
6
6
2
0
4
0
2
1
24
II
P
e
l
i
c
a
n
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
6
2
6
6
1
0
0
0
2
1
24
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
2
Tie
r
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
4
-
2
8
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
224
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 207
APPENDICES
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
3
Ti
e
r
3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
3
o
r
l
e
s
s
)
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
E
n
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
II
B
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
M
a
c
A
r
t
h
u
r
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
6
4
3
6
0
0
0
0
2
2
23
I
C
o
y
o
t
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Off
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
t
h
Bo
n
i
t
a
C
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
/
Ch
a
m
b
o
r
d
Sa
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
/
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
62
6
6
0
2
0
0
1
0
23
III
F
i
f
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
a
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
O
r
c
h
i
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
0
3
3
2
4
2
0
2
1
23
II
M
a
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
i
f
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
3
0
6
6
1
2
2
0
2
1
2
23
II
I
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
H
i
l
l
s
D
r
i
v
e
We
s
t
Fo
r
d
R
o
a
d
B
u
f
f
a
l
o
H
i
l
l
s
T
r
a
i
l
3
2
6
6
0
2
0
0
2
2
23
III
S
a
n
t
i
a
g
o
D
r
i
v
e
I
r
v
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
2
3
6
2
0
0
0
2
2
23
II
I
W
e
s
t
c
l
i
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
I
r
v
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
D
o
v
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
6
0
6
6
1
0
0
0
2
2
23
III
F
e
r
n
l
e
a
f
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
2
3
6
0
0
4
0
2
2
22
I
N
e
w
B
r
i
d
g
e
o
v
e
r
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
B
a
n
n
i
n
g
R
a
n
c
h
Cl
a
s
s
I
60
3
6
1
2
2
0
2
0
22
II
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
R
o
a
d
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
T
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
6
2
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
22
II
S
a
n
N
i
c
o
l
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
A
v
o
c
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
0
3
6
0
2
0
4
2
2
22
II
M
a
c
A
r
t
h
u
r
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
C
a
m
p
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
3
4
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
21
Sp
o
t
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
R
-
7
3
O
n
-
Ra
m
p
/
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
Dr
i
v
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
3
4
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
21
I
P
o
r
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
O
f
f
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
Tr
a
i
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
F
o
r
d
R
o
a
d
0
4
6
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
21
Sp
o
t
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
R
-
7
3
O
f
f
-
Ra
m
p
/
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
Dr
i
v
e
--
-
-
3
4
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
21
225
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
208 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
E
n
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
II
I
4
6
th
Stree
t
Balbo
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
S
e
a
s
h
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
0
2
3
6
1
0
4
0
2
2
20
Sp
o
t
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
E
l
P
a
s
e
o
Dr
i
v
e
--
--
02
6
6
1
0
2
0
1
2
20
II
I
C
l
a
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Or
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
a
s
t
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
E
a
s
t
o
f
St
.
A
n
d
r
e
w
s
R
o
a
d
)
60
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
20
II
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
B
r
i
s
t
o
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
m
p
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
0
4
6
6
1
2
0
0
1
0
20
II
I
M
e
s
a
D
r
i
v
e
B
i
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
a
y
v
i
e
w
T
r
a
i
l
(
1
5
0
’
so
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
o
f
B
a
y
v
i
e
w
Av
e
n
u
e
)
00
6
6
2
2
0
0
2
2
20
I
N
e
w
C
l
a
s
s
I
T
r
a
i
l
a
l
o
n
g
Ol
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Av
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
l
a
s
s
I
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Br
i
d
g
e
U
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
60
3
6
1
0
2
0
1
1
20
I
N
e
w
C
l
a
s
s
I
T
r
a
i
l
(
A
v
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
)
Old N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
A
v
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
6
0
3
6
1
0
2
0
2
0
20
II
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
R
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
Ea
s
t
/
W
e
s
t
San J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
3
0
6
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
20
Sp
o
t
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
(f
r
o
m
M
a
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
e
Av
e
n
u
e
t
o
S
p
y
g
l
a
s
s
H
i
l
l
Ro
a
d
)
--
-
-
0
4
6
6
0
0
0
0
2
2
20
III
A
v
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
T
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
6
2
3
3
1
0
0
0
2
2
19
II
I
T
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
i
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
E
a
s
t
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
6
0
3
6
1
0
0
0
2
1
19
II
V
i
s
t
a
R
i
d
g
e
R
o
a
d
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
R
o
a
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
3
4
3
6
0
0
0
0
2
1
19
III
B
e
a
c
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
I
r
v
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
2
18
III
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
a
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
3
0
3
6
0
0
2
0
2
2
18
III
G
o
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
e
a
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
c
e
a
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
0
0
3
6
1
0
4
0
2
2
18
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
3
Ti
e
r
3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
3
o
r
l
e
s
s
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
226
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 209
APPENDICES
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
E
n
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
Sp
o
t
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
C
o
a
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
/
Ri
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
--
-
-
3
2
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
0
18
II
C
a
m
p
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
M
a
c
A
r
t
h
u
r
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
0
0
6
6
0
2
0
0
1
2
17
II
D
o
v
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
B
r
i
s
t
o
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o
r
t
h
0
0
6
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
17
II
B
i
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
i
s
t
o
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
o
u
t
h
J
a
m
b
o
r
e
e
R
o
a
d
3
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
1
1
16
III
G
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
a
l
b
o
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
O
c
e
a
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
3
2
3
0
0
0
4
0
2
2
16
II
I
V
i
a
L
i
d
o
L
a
f
a
y
e
t
t
e
R
o
a
d
/
3
2
nd
St
r
e
e
t
Via L
i
d
o
S
o
u
d
0
4
3
3
0
0
2
0
2
2
16
II
I
E
a
s
t
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
T
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
P
l
a
c
e
n
t
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
2
15
III
E
a
s
t
O
c
e
a
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
G
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
R
o
a
d
0
4
0
3
0
0
4
0
2
2
15
III
G
o
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
i
r
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
e
c
o
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
0
3
3
1
0
4
0
2
2
15
II
I
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
W
e
s
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
Margu
e
r
i
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
2
15
II
P
a
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
P
a
t
h
B
a
l
b
o
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
0
0
3
6
0
0
4
0
1
1
15
II
I
P
o
r
t
S
e
a
b
o
u
r
n
e
P
l
a
c
e
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
H
i
l
l
s
D
r
i
v
e
We
s
t
Bu
f
f
a
l
o
H
i
l
l
s
T
r
a
i
l
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
2
15
II
S
p
r
u
c
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
r
i
s
t
o
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o
r
t
h
Q
u
a
i
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
2
15
III
A
g
a
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
B
a
y
F
r
o
n
t
N
o
r
t
h
B
a
y
F
r
o
n
t
6
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
14
II
I
M
a
r
g
u
e
r
i
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
0
0
3
6
1
0
0
0
2
2
14
III
O
c
e
a
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
F
e
r
n
l
e
a
f
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
o
p
p
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
2
0
0
1
0
4
0
2
2
14
III
P
a
l
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
a
l
b
o
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
E
d
g
e
w
a
t
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
0
3
3
0
0
4
0
2
2
14
II
Q
u
a
i
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
D
o
v
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
14
II
I
S
t
.
A
n
d
r
e
w
s
R
o
a
d
C
l
i
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
E
a
s
t
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
2
1
14
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
3
Ti
e
r
3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
3
o
r
l
e
s
s
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
227
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
210 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Facility Type
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
r
t
E
n
d
Bicycle Incident
Public Input
Gap Closure
Connectivity: Existing
Connectivity: Regional
Connectivity: Activity Centers
Connectivity: Beaches
Connectivity: Multi-Modal
Permitting
Project Cost
Total Score (40 max)
IL
i
n
c
o
l
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
T
r
a
i
l
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
H
i
l
l
s
R
o
a
d
0
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
1
1
13
II
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
i
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
32
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
13
II
I
F
u
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
i
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
Ea
s
t
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
0
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
2
1
12
I
N
e
w
C
l
a
s
s
I
T
r
a
i
l
N
e
a
r
Su
n
s
e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
r
i
d
g
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
B
l
u
f
f
R
o
a
d
C
l
a
s
s
II
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
02
3
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
10
III
P
a
r
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
B
a
y
F
r
o
n
t
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
F
r
o
n
t
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
10
II
I
W
e
s
t
m
i
n
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
l
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
E
a
s
t
1
5
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
2
10
III
N
o
r
t
h
B
a
y
F
r
o
n
t
A
l
l
e
y
M
a
r
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
g
a
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
9
II
I
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
l
d
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
C
l
i
f
f
D
r
i
v
e
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
2
9
III
S
o
u
t
h
B
a
y
F
r
o
n
t
A
l
l
e
y
A
g
a
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
a
r
i
n
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
9
II
W
e
s
t
e
r
l
y
P
l
a
c
e
Q
u
a
i
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
D
o
v
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
6
II
V
o
n
K
a
r
m
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
P
l
a
c
e
D
r
i
v
e
Dove
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
5
III
O
r
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
a
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
a
s
t
1
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
3
Ti
e
r
3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
S
c
o
r
e
o
f
2
3
o
r
l
e
s
s
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
228
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 211
APPENDICES
Appendix K: Potential Funding Sources
229
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
212 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Grant Source Remarks
Federal
Bus and Bus Facilities
Program: State of Good
Repair
Can be used for projects to provide access for bicycles to public transportation facilities,
to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in or around public transportation
facilities, or to install equipment for transporting bicycles on public transportation
vehicles.
Bus Livability InitiativeCan be used for bicycle and pedestrian support facilities, such as bicycle parking, bike
racks on buses, pedestrian amenities, and educational materials
Federal Transit ActTypical funded projects have included bike lockers at transit stations and bike parking
near major bus stops. Guideline for the use of 10% of the annual CMAQ funds starting
in fi scal year 2012-2013 for bike/pedestrian projects through a competitive call to local
agencies.
Land and Water
Conservation Fund
Federal fund provides matching grants to state and local governments for the acquisition
and development of land for outdoor recreation use. Lands acquired through program
must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use. Individual project awards are
not available. Recent call deadline was February 2014.
MAP-21 – Surface
Transportation Program
A wide variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements are eligible, including on-street
bicycle facilities, off -street trails, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals,
parking, and other ancillary facilities.
MAP-21 – Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
Projects must address a safety issue and may include education and enforcement
programs. This program includes the Railroad-Highway Crossings and High Risk Rural
Roads programs.
MAP-21 – Pilot Transit-
Oriented Development
Planning Program
Provides funding to advance planning eff orts that seek to increase access to transit hubs
for pedestrian and bicycle traffi c.
MAP-21 – Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program
(CMAQ)
The amount of CMAQ funds depends on the state’s population share and on the degree
of air pollution. Recent revisions were made to bring CMAQ in line with the new MAP-21
legislation. There is a broader emphasis on projects that are proven to reduce PM-2.5.
Eligible projects include: “Constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (paths, bike
racks, support facilities, etc.) that are not exclusively recreational and reduce vehicle trips;
(and) non-construction outreach related to safe bicycle use.” Studies that are part of the
project development pipeline (e.g., preliminary engineering) are eligible for funding. “An
assessment of the project’s expected emission reduction benefi ts should be completed
prior to project selection.”
National Center for
Environmental Health –
Health Impact Assessment
for Improved Community
Design
The grant program aims to increase the capacity of public health departments to include
health considerations in transportation and land use planning decisions. The grant will
provide an average of $145,000 per year for 3 years to 6 awardees. The most recent Letter
of Intent Deadline was March 28, 2014. It appears that the grant is available every 3 years.
New Opportunities for
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Infrastructure Financing
Act
A proposed bill in Congress to set aside 1% of TIFIA’s $1 billion for bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure projects, such as the conversion of abandoned rail corridors for trails,
bicycle signals, and path lighting. For these projects, TIFIA’s minimum project cost would
be $2 million. Eligible costs include: planning & feasibility studies, construction, and land
acquisition. The bill reserves 25% of project funding for low-income communities.
Table A-14 Potential Funding Sources
230
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 213
APPENDICES
Grant Source Remarks
Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance
Program
RTCA staff provides technical assistance to communities so they can conserve rivers,
preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways.
Transportation
Investments Generating
Economic Recovery (TIGER)
Program
Can be used for innovative, multimodal and multi-jurisdictional transportation projects
that promise signifi cant economic and environmental benefi ts to an entire metropolitan
area, a region, or the nation. These include bicycle and pedestrian projects. Project
minimum is $10 million.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency –
Brownfi elds Program
Assessment grants provide funding for a grant recipient to inventory, characterize, assess,
and conduct planning and community involvement related to brownfi elds sites (locations
that have been host to a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant). Revolving
Loan Fund (RLF) grants provide funding for a grant recipient to capitalize a revolving
loan fund and to provide sub-grants to carry out cleanup activities at brownfi eld sites.
Cleanup grants provide funding for a grant recipient to carry out cleanup activities at
brownfi eld sites.
State
Caltrans Active
Transportation Program
(ATP)
Funds construction, planning, and design of facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
non-motorized forms of transportation. The next application cycle has not yet been
fi nalized, but it is expected to open in late 2014 or early 2015.
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program
The CWSRF program off ers low interest fi nancing agreements for water quality projects,
which can include “implementation of nonpoint source projects or program.” Annually,
the program disburses between $200 and $300 million. Stormwater management
components of bicycle infrastructure projects may be eligible for this funding source.
Applications are accepted on a continuous basis.
Climate Ready Grant
Program
Climate Ready grants are available for projects located along the coast and coastal
watersheds. Multi-use trails are eligible. $1.5 million total; $50,000 minimum grant;
$200,000 maximum. Managed by California Coastal Conservancy. More information is
available at: http://scc.ca.gov/2013/06/21/announcing-climate-ready-grant-opportunities/
Community Based
Transportation Planning
Grants
Eligible projects that exemplify livable community concepts including enhancing bicycle
and pedestrian access. Administered by Caltrans. $3 million, each project not to exceed
$300,000.
Environmental
Enhancement and
Mitigation Program (EEMP)
Funds may be used for land acquisition. Individual grants limited to $350,000.
Environmental Justice:
Context-Sensitive Planning
Funds projects that foster sustainable economies, encourage transit-oriented and mixed
use development, and expand transportation choices, including walking and biking.
Projects can be design and education, as well as planning. Administered by Caltrans. $3
million, each grant not to exceed $250,000.
Habitat Conservation FundProvides funds to local entities to protect threatened species, to address wildlife corridors,
to create trails, and to provide for nature interpretation programs which bring urban
residents into park and wildlife areas. $2 million available annually. Application deadline is
typically in October.
Offi ce of Traffi c Safety
(OTS) Grant Program
Funds safety improvements to existing facilities, safety promotions including bicycle
helmet giveaways and studies to improve traffi c safety. The grant cycle typically begins
with a Request for Proposals in October, which are due the following January. In 2009,
OTS awarded $82 million to 203 agencies.
Table A-14 Potential Funding Sources (continued)
231
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
214 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Grant Source Remarks
Petroleum Violation
Escrow Account (PVEA)
Funds programs based on public transportation, computerized bus routing and ride
sharing, home weatherization, energy assistance and building energy audits, highway
and bridge maintenance, and reducing airport user fees.
Public Access ProgramFunds the protection and development of public access areas in support of wildlife-
oriented uses, including helping to fund construction of ADA trails.
Recreational Trails ProgramAdministered in California as part of the ATP. $5.8 million guaranteed set-aside. Managed
by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Safe Routes to School
(SRTS)
In 2014, federal SRTS funds were rolled into the State’s ATP to streamline grant allocation.
$24 million combined in ATP for state and federal Safe Routes to School projects for the
2014 cycle. SRTS is primarily a construction program to enhance safety of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities near schools. A small percentage of funds can be used for programmatic
improvements. Improvements can be made to target students of all grade levels.
Sustainable Communities
Planning Grant and
Incentives Program
Funded by Prop 84 bond funds, this grant program funds the development and
implementation of plans that lead to signifi cant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
such as rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and the enhancement of recreational
resources. The minimum grant award is $50,000; the maximum award is $500,000, unless
the application is a joint proposal, in which case the maximum award is $1 million.
The 10% local match requirement is waived for a proposal that qualifi es for the
Environmental Justice set-aside.
Watershed Protection
Program (Proposition 13)
Grants to municipalities, local agencies, or nonprofi t organizations to develop local
watershed management plans (maximum $200,000 per local waters hed plan) and/or
implement projects (maximum $5 million per project) consistent with watershed plans.
Sixty percent of the funds will be allocated to projects in the Counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Administered by the Division
of Financial Assistance.
Regional
Clean Air Fund (AB
434/2766 – Vehicle
Registration Fee
Surcharge)
Administered by SCAQMD. Local jurisdictions and transit agencies can apply. Funds can
be used for projects that encourage biking, walking, and/or use of public transit. For
bicycle-related projects, eligible uses include: designing, developing and/or installing
bikeways or establishing new bicycle corridors; making bicycle facility enhancements/
improvements by installing bicycle lockers, bus bike racks; providing assistance with bike
loan programs (motorized and standard) for police offi cers, community members and the
general public. Matching requirement: 10-15%.
Orange County Measure
M2 Local Return
The Measure M2 half-cent sales tax provides funds for major transportation
improvements for Orange County freeways, streets and roads, transit and environmental
programs. Roadway improvements can include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Funds are distributed quarterly to cities that meet the annual eligibility requirements.
More information is available at: http://www.octa.net/Measure-M/Then-and-Now/
Measure-M-%282011-2041%29/
OCTA Bicycle Corridor
Improvement Program
(BCIP) Call for Projects
The BCIP Call for Projects is a $4.3 million bicycle program available to local Orange
County agencies. The call for projects typically occurs every other year. The previous
application cycle closed in Fall 2013. Guidelines and application are available at: http://
www.octa.net/BCIPcall.aspx
SCAG Sustainability
Program
SCAG provides assistance to member agencies for integrated land use and transportation
planning. More information is available at: http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Pages/Grants%20
and%20Local%20Assistance/GrantsLocalAssistance.aspx
Table A-14 Potential Funding Sources (continued)
232
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 215
APPENDICES
Grant Source Remarks
Private
Health FoundationsFocus pedestrian improvements for an obesity prevention strategy. Examples include
California Wellness Foundation, Kaiser, and the California Endowment.
PeopleForBikes PeopleForBikes (formerly Bikes Belong) provides grants for up to $10,000 with a 50%
match that recipients may use towards the engineering, design, and construction of bike
paths, lanes, bridges, and end-of-trip facilities, as well as programs.
Surdna FoundationThe Surdna Foundation makes grants to nonprofi t organizations in the areas of
environment, community revitalization, eff ective citizenry, the arts, and the nonprofi t
sector.
Table A-14 Potential Funding Sources (continued)
233
APPENDICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
216 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Appendix L: Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Compliance Table
234
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BICYCLE MASTER PLAN DRAFT
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 217
APPENDICES
Table A-15 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Compliance
Requirement Section
a. The estimated number of existing bicycle trips in the plan area and the estimated increase in the
number of bicycle trips resulting from implementation of the plan.
Ch. 4
b. The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suff ered by bicyclists 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.
Ch. 2, 4, 6
c. A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall
include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers,
public buildings, major employment centers, and other major destinations.
Ch. 3
d. A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities.Ch. 3, 5
e. A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall
include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
Ch. 5
f. 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.
Ch. 2
g. A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for
connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to,
parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride
lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
Ch. 5
h. A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and
equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near
bicycle parking facilities.
Ch. 5
i. A description of proposed signage providing wayfi nding along bicycle networks to designated
destinations.
Ch. 5,
Appendix
j. A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle facilities,
including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching
vegetation, maintenance of traffi c control devices including striping and other pavement markings,
and lighting.
Ch. 2
k. A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the
plan, eff orts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffi c law enforcement responsibility
in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the
resulting eff ect on accidents involving bicyclists.
Ch. 3
l. A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan,
including disadvantaged and underserved communities.
Ch. 4
m. A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with
other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not
limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan.
Ch. 2
n. 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.
Ch. 5, 6,
Appendix
o. A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and programs, and future fi nancial needs
for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicycle riders in the plan area.
Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding.
Ch. 3, 6,
Appendix
p. 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.
Ch. 6
q. A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county, or district.Pending
235