OCC Bicycle and Skateboard plan

Orange Coast College

Bicycle and Skateboard Plan

June 2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was prepared for Orange Coast College by KTUA with the help of the following contributors:

• OCC Sustainability Committee • OCC Facility Planning Committee • OCC Bikeways Club • Rich Pagel, Vice President - Administrative Services • Dean Abernathy, Instructor - Architectural Technology • James Farrow, Accounting/Fiscal Specialist - Administrative Services • OCC Students, faculty and staff outreach participants • City of Costa Mesa

KTUA contributors included: • John Holloway, Principal Project Manager • Joe Punsalan, Senior Associate Mobility Planner • Alison Moss, Associate Mobility Planner • Juan Alberto Bonilla, Planner and Graphic Artist • Diana Smith, Associate GIS Analyst • Jacob Leon, Mobility Planner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 01

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 3

02

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 17

03

RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................... 37

04

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.............................................................................................................103

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Understanding User Needs .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Study Area Planning................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Study Goal and Objectives..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Guidelines......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Local and Regional Connections ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Intra-campus Travel .................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Pedestrian Circulation ............................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Other Mobility Modes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Universal Access..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 Active Mobility Benefits..........................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Existing Conditions and Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................................18 VISION 2020 Facilities Master Plan...................................................................................................................................................................................18 Previous OCC Student Work................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Campus Community Input .................................................................................................................................................................................................21 Existing Facilities.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 Bikeway Facility Types..............................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Campus Access............................................................................................................................................................................................................................26 Parking Assessment .................................................................................................................................................................................................................27 ZIP Code Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Related Transportation............................................................................................................................................................................................................30 Safety and Collision Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................................31 Ability to Serve Intra-campus Destinations...............................................................................................................................................................32 Intra-campus Network Completeness..........................................................................................................................................................................33 Ability to Serve Diverse Users types...............................................................................................................................................................................34 Analysis Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................................................................................38 Priority Projects............................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 Other Recommended Projects..........................................................................................................................................................................................72 Other Facility Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................................................74 Potential Programs....................................................................................................................................................................................................................83 Example Campus Programs.................................................................................................................................................................................................90 Other Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................................................................................97 Suggested Rule Changes......................................................................................................................................................................................................98 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................................................................100

i

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

FIGURES

ii

01

Figure 1-1: Regional Setting................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 1-2: City of Costa Mesa - Draft Master Plan of Bikeways.....................................................................................................................10 Figure 1-3: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Existing Bikeway Facilities Near OCC...........................................11 Figure 1-4: Fall 2016 OCC Campus Map.......................................................................................................................................................................13

02

Figure 2-1: Existing Buildings and Planned Demolitions...................................................................................................................................19 Figure 2-2: Suggested Mobility Hub Locations.......................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 2-3: Existing Facilities................................................................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 2-4: Campus Access Points...................................................................................................................................................................................26 Figure 2-5: Bicycle and Vehicular Parking....................................................................................................................................................................27 Figure 2-6: Zip Code Analysis..............................................................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 2-7: Bus Stops................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 Figure 2-8: Ability to Serve Intra-Campus Destinations.....................................................................................................................................32 Figure 2-9: Intra-Campus Network Completeness................................................................................................................................................33 Figure 2-10: Insufficient Widths.........................................................................................................................................................................................34

03

Figure 3-1: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Proposed Projects...................................................................................39 Figure 3-2: Priority Projects...................................................................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 3-3: Suggested Pathway and Dismount Zone Signage and Pavement Markings.............................................................46 Figure 3-4: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone - Key Map...................................................................................................................47 Figure 3-5a: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone .......................................................................................................................................48 Figure 3-5b: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone .......................................................................................................................................50 Figure 3-5c: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone .......................................................................................................................................52 Figure 3-6: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Project #1 (Adams Avenue) Detail................................................58 Figure 3-7: Adams Lot Improvements - Key Map...................................................................................................................................................59 Figure 3-8a: Adams Lot Improvements........................................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 3-8b: Adams Lot Improvements........................................................................................................................................................................62 Figure 3-9: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Project #8 (Merrimac Way) Detail..................................................67 Figure 3-10: Merrimac Lot Improvements - Key Map..........................................................................................................................................67 Figure 3-11a: Merrimac Lot Improvements...............................................................................................................................................................68 Figure 3-11b: Merrimac Lot Improvements...............................................................................................................................................................70 Figure 3-12: Other Recommended Projects..............................................................................................................................................................73

01

Introduction

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

INTRODUCTION With such significant changes coming, OCC wants to pro-actively address transportation issues, including improving active transportation circulation on the campus and to identify opportunities for improving access from surrounding communities. The intent is to integrate this Master Plan with the City of Costa Mesa’s mobility planning to enhance access, improve safety and increase bicycle and skateboard commuting.

Orange Coast College (OCC) is a community college in Costa Mesa, California with an enrollment of approximately 24,000. OCC provides education in the trades, licensed trades and skilled professions, remedial and transferable lower-division courses for students who plan to transfer to other colleges, awards two year associate of art and science degrees and certificates of achievement. The college is one of three in the Coast Community College District (CCCD), chartered by the state of California to provide administrative services and funding for post-secondary education.

OCC wants a safe, convenient and efficient environment for bicycle and skateboard travel to and across campus, as well as for service vehicles. Many campuses and communities are pursuing a similar vision, but this study proposes a mobility blueprint tailored for this college’s unique mix of topography, layout, transportation infrastructure and climate. The expected benefits include physical, social and mental health improvements for those who choose to bike or skate, as well as reduced transportation costs and, in many cases, time savings. Benefits are also available for those who do not bike or skateboard, including reduced traffic and parking congestion, cost savings for the campus from less need for parking infrastructure investments, improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

CCCD’s recently adopted VISION 2020 Facilities Master Plan describes a number of development projects, including removal of early buildings in the campus core to open up a large central park around which newer buildings will be clustered. According to the plan: “The internal plan of the College will seek to resolve conflicts that currently exist between service vehicles, bicycles, skateboards and pedestrians.” As well as increased enrollment, the plan also includes the campus’ first on-site student housing at OCC’s northwest corner, with 2019 occupancy.

4

IDC Phase 1 Theater (Robert B. Moore) Photo & Digital Photo Labs Science Hall Math Lecture Halls 1 & 2 Lewis Center for Applied Sciences Consumer Science & Design Allied Health Sciences Biological Sciences Horticulture Forum Student Health Center Technology Center Technology Annex Early Childhood Lab School Children’s Center Maintenance & Operations Information Technology Arts Center Technology Center Technology Center Frank M. Doyle Arts Pavilion Starbucks Library / Media Center Fitness Complex

Adams Avenue A

Monitor Way 183 D

C

F B

C

Fairview Road

IDC1 2 5 40 41 42 43 44 45 64 81 89 114 115 146 152 155 156 158 171 172 180 181 182 183

Recycling Center Student Housing (Phase 1) Pad Student Housing (Phase 2) Pad Solar Covered Parking Parking Structure Adaptive PE / Gym / Pool / Division Office Complex Pad Future Building Pad Chemistry Replacement Building Pad IDC Phase 2 / Student Success Building / Academic / Senate Complex Pad Watson Hall Renovation / Repurpose Skill Center Renovation Planetarium Business Education Building Renovation / Repurpose Dance Building Pad Student Union / Student Services Building Pad Future OCC Village Building Pad

eet e Str Driv S

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

eek ecr Pin

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE MASTER PLAN REV. 1 Building Identification

E

64 156

171 172

64

115 64

G

114 45 44 43

VISION 2020

K

IDC1

H

J

41

81 L

42

182 181

5 158

180

REV. 1 2 0 1 5

O

M N

155 146

J u l y

Pirate Way

40

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT : CAMBRIDGE WEST PARTNERSHIP LLC : HPI ARCHITECTURE

89

I

152

Merrimac Way

Arlington Drive 2 P

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

The link between land use, transportation and greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly clear.

Transportation is responsible for nearly half of southern California’s carbon dioxide production (Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: 2000-2012). Although vehicles emissions have been dramatically reduced in recent decades due to regulations and technological improvements, they still contribute to poor air quality and negative human health effects, and the most significant advancements will come from making changes to where we live, work, play and learn and how we get to and from those places.

0.05 lb 0.95 lb

Vehicles produce approximately a pound of CO2/passenger/mile traveled of carbon emissions. Bicycling only produces 0.05 lbs of CO2/passenger/mile traveled

Today, half of all trips are three miles or less, but fewer than two percent are made by bicycle, while 72 percent of them are driven. Private vehicles like cars, pick-up trucks and SUVs account for 60 percent of trips of a mile or less (National Household Travel Survey.) Analysis of recent campus travel modal summaries reveal that vehicle trip length to and from campuses averages 9.6 miles each way, but almost 30 percent of these trips are less than three miles.

If so, the OCC area’s mode share shift threshold may actually be greater than three miles and therefore amenable to increase through appropriate infrastructural and programming support on and around the campus.

This, in turn, may be influenced by research findings showing that time spent bicycling in mixed traffic is considered more onerous than time spent bicycling on facilities separated from vehicles: “The most important measure in making cycling attractive is the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily traveled routes and intersections.” (Pucher, Dill, and Handy, 2010).

This is significant because drivers regularly driving less than three miles have been found to be the most likely to shift to an active transportation mode, particularly bicycling. Based on research conducted during development of the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) travel demand model, the threshold at which drivers were most likely to switch from driving their vehicle to bicycling or walking for transportation was 2.25 miles. Note that this result was probably affected by San Diego’s significantly hillier terrain than that around the OCC campus. Hilly terrain is known to discourage bicycling and may explain SANDAG’s lower threshold.

Some California campuses experience high bicycling and walking mode shares. (Skateboard use has generally not been tracked.) For example, UC Santa Barbara and UC Davis have combined mode shares exceeding 40 percent, but their settings are very different from OCC’s. Yet campuses with similarly suburban settings, such as UCLA and CSU Northridge, have bicycling and walking mode shares of over 25 percent. The success of their active transportation infrastructure and associated program investments indicate that campuses in suburban contexts like OCC’s can also achieve improved active transportation mode share.

Main Quad

5

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

The OCC Bikeways Club has prepared overall concept plans that were a valuable starting point for this study. The Campus Sustainability Committee acted as an advisory group for this study, primarily to define implementation priorities, and the Campus Facilities Planning Committee was consulted throughout the project.

OCC’s architectural classes conducted study assignments over the last several years addressing bicycle and pedestrian mobility intersection improvements around campus that were included in this study’s analysis. Representative examples from three of these studies are shown on these pages.

STUDY SCOPE This study’s primary focus was to improve active transportation circulation on the campus, particularly bicycling and skateboarding, and to identify opportunities for increasing active transportation access from surrounding communities. Its focus was to promote a more sustainable transportation system and to assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, to save energy and to promote healthier low impact lifestyles and transportation modes.

This Bicycle and Skateboard Master Plan will guide design and implementation of mobility infrastructure and programs as the OCC campus population grows and facilities are planned and sited. The overall approach for this master plan is summarized as follows: »» It is imperative that an “active transportation perspective,” guide mobility planning. The unique characteristics, needs and priorities of these users must be taken into account when making transportation policy or facility decisions. »» Bicycling, skateboarding, walking and service vehicles are fundamental components of campus transportation planning, which can address dedicated bicycle facilities on and off streets, pedestrian facilities of all types, and skateboard facilities, as well as the potential for modal integration at transit centers and parking facilities.

6

»» Active transportation planning should not be focused on any particular facility type so much as it should be focused on safe and efficient travel, while addressing bicyclist, pedestrian, skateboarder and service cart operation needs where shared use is appropriate. This will generally require both using of the existing transportation infrastructure and the construction of special facilities. »» The coexistence of pedestrians, skateboarders, bicyclists, service vehicle operators and vehicle drivers on roads and pathways requires that all are sensitive to and recognize a common set of rules. Training, education and enforcement are as important as physical planning and design. »» Facility maintenance, monitoring and performance assessment are critical for ensuring safe and efficient travel for bicyclists, skateboarders, service vehicle operators and pedestrians. Planning for them is an ongoing process. »» Campus land use and transportation planning should continue to support projects that reduce automobile dependence. This study acknowledges and supports future land use and population projections with facility and program recommendations to continue to reduce auto reliance.

This study’s focus was to identify appropriate and safe campus routes convenient to bicyclists and skateboarders that also have the potential for shared use with service vehicles, as well as travel from off campus. However, pedestrians must be taken into account. The campus is very pedestrian-friendly and this travel mode is the most common travel mode.

Pedestrian right-of-way is reflected in campus regulations. The visually impaired and those with other physical challenges must also be accommodated, so safety must be the primary priority.

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

UNDERSTANDING USER NEEDS

GUIDELINES

This study was developed with a “cyclist’s and skateboarder’s perspective.” Bicyclists’ and skateboarders’ needs were identified during field work, through review of existing documents and campus community input. For example, potential routes around the campus were ridden to experience them firsthand, particularly routes or locations noted in public comments as uncomfortable to most users due to high motor vehicle speeds or volumes.

Education

STUDY AREA PLANNING The project study area included the OCC campus and its immediate surroundings. The inclusion of off-campus areas was to help ensure that the college’s bikeways and skateboard routes would be part of a viable regional system to specifically support active transportation modes. A better connected system will allow students, faculty, staff and visitors the option to skateboard or bicycle to OCC without needing to drive. This study therefore addresses onstreet bicycle facilities and multi-use pathways and trails both on and off campus.

STUDY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The following primary goal and objective was developed to help guide plan development and subsequent implementation.

Overall Project Goal Provide a college-wide system of safe, efficient, connected and attractive bicycle and skateboard facilities that also accommodate service vehicles, as well as programs, policies and educational efforts to promote bicycling and skateboarding as viable alternatives to driving.

Objective Promote the safety of all users, while promoting the use of bicycles and skateboards and other forms of transportation, by adhering to college-wide standards and practices.

»» Provide education and training programs about safely sharing active transportation facilities. »» Employ an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to increasing campus awareness and education. »» Work with the City of Costa Mesa to coordinate efforts with surrounding retail and dining establishments to promote available bicycle services and associated education opportunities.

Planning »» Develop college-wide bicycle and skateboard facility construction and maintenance standards. »» Develop and adopt a bicycle and skateboard system, consistent with other adopted plans, to assure that routes will be compatible with those of neighboring jurisdictions. »» Consider routes to and through campus to maximize safety and use. »» Require the restoration of any bicycle and skateboard facilities impacted by construction projects and the inclusion of such facilities as part of applicable new facility construction »» Require the installation of appropriate bicycle and skateboard parking infrastructure with all new facility construction and significant reconstruction of existing facilities. »» Give priority to bicycle and skateboard facilities to provide continuity and close gaps in the active transportation network. Give priority to bicycle and skateboard facilities over vehicle parking. »» Encourage the provision of showers, changing facilities, lockers and bicycle/skateboard storage at locations convenient to commuting bicyclists and skateboarders.

7

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Safety »» Review new infrastructure planning to avoid introducing new problems or exacerbating existing ones. »» Ensure all new facilities meet federal and state ADA requirements, as well as meeting generally accepted universal access requirements. »» Ensure vehicular regulations promote safety for bicyclists and skateboarders. »» Plan for and accommodate safe passage for bicyclists and skateboarders during construction wherever possible. »» Construct safe, convenient routes for bicycles and skateboards to encourage alternate forms of transportation. »» Establish bicycle and skateboard transportation facility maintenance and monitoring programs to promote usage and safety. »» Provide a method for reporting maintenance problems and safety issues.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONNECTIONS Connections with surrounding communities and the overall region are of paramount importance to enable the OCC community to make bicycle circulation in particular a viable commuter mode. This will require close coordination with the City of Costa Mesa, the metropolitan planning organization, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure that planned improvements are implemented in a timely manner and that they connect with the campus in a way that will make potential bicycle commuters seriously consider riding instead of driving.

Decisions by students, faculty and staff on where they choose to live and how they access the campus will be influenced by the perceived completeness and safety of bicycle and skateboard facilities accessing the OCC campus. Improved campus connections with the overall regional bicycle network will become increasingly valuable as commuting by bicycle and skateboard increases and access to the campus from surrounding areas becomes a more viable mobility option.

8

The following three figures portray bikeway facilities in the campus vicinity in increasing detail, beginning with the Orange County region around the City of Costa Mesa. Figure 1-1: Regional Setting illustrates SCAG’s regional bikeway network. Facilities exist along the southern and eastern sides of the campus, but there are significant gaps to the north, including Adams Avenue, as well as to the southwest.

Figure 1-2 illustrates the City of Costa Mesa’s latest draft bikeway planning. (Description of the bikeway facility types noted on these maps can be found in Chapter 2.) Of particular interest are the planned facilities around the campus intended to fill significant gaps within the immediate area network. This includes connecting popular existing regional routes to the east and west of the campus (the purple lines at the far left and right of the map). While the map shows a significant number of available routes, many of these are on high speed, high volume roadways that many bicyclists do not find comfortable and prefer not to use.

To address this issue in this area, the City recently completed a SCAG-funded analysis of potential connections between the extremely popular Santa Ana River Trail and the Bayview Trail along Upper Newport Bay (the two purple lines noted previously), which necessarily addressed the area immediately around the campus. The study’s primary focus was defining comfortable, “low stress” non-motorized travel employing off-street routes as much as possible, specifically including developing paths to help encourage OCC students, faculty and staff living in the surrounding neighborhoods to ride to campus instead of drive. Figure 1-3 is from the plan, illustrating existing bikeway facilities within that study’s area.

This bicycle and skateboard study’s recommendations make substantial use of that City planning document since OCC lies at the center of the area it addressed, and is addressed in more detail in Chapter 3: Recommendations) Figure 1-4 is the latest (fall 2016) version of OCC’s official campus map and served as the basis for project field work wayfinding and analysis.

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-1: Regional Setting

9

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 1-2: City of Costa Mesa - Draft Master Plan of Bikeways

Legend Existing

Proposed

Bike Trail (Class 1)

Bike Trail (Class 1)

Bike Lane (Class 2)

Bike Lane (Class 2)

Bike Route (Class 3)

Bike Route (Class 3)

Regional Trail

Regional Trail

Draft Master Plan of Bikeways 10

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

INTRA-CAMPUS TRAVEL

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

On campus, bicycles and skateboards play a significant intra-campus travel role since OCC is large enough to make bicycling and skateboarding convenient, yet small enough to put all campus destinations within a reasonable bicycling and skateboarding radius. Quality facilities, including clear wayfinding and convenient bicycle and skateboard parking, can make the difference between deciding to get around by bicycle or skateboard or not.

Support programs can also help to encourage bicycle and skateboard use, such as a centralized web portal where users can access information on bicycle facilities, suggested routes, parking, training, classes and other services to make bicycling and skateboarding more convenient.

All trips involve walking at some point. Within the campus itself, the walking environment is and will continue to be a distinctive campus feature and should be carefully maintained and employed as the backbone that supports the overall mobility network.

OTHER MOBILITY MODES

Bristol St

Figure 1-3: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Existing Bikeway Facilities Near OCC Paularino School

Mesa Verde Golf Course

73 Å Ä

Baker St

rde a Ve Mes Dr E

The Farm Soccer Complex

Adams Ave

Tanager olf C G Park

se our

Dr

Orange Coast College

Costa Mesa High School

Tanager Dr

Arlington Dr

Placentia Ave

Costa Mesa Golf Course

Davis Soccer Field Davis School

TeWinkle Memorial Park Hil

Merrimac Way

Fairview Park

OC Fair & Event Center

Civic Center Park

Santa Ana Country Club

po rt B

Av e

ty D

r

23 rd

Fairground

Class II: Bicycle Lane

Golf Course

Class III: Bicycle Route

Park Schools Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve City Boundary

21 st

Bir

ch

St

Lindbergh School Park

An a

t

St

Hamilton St Vic tor ia

on S

SW

Av e

Irv i

Vis ta

ers i

Sa nta

Placentia Ave

EW ils

College/University

St

Newport Beach Golf Course

ne Av e

Ne w

Mo nte

Wilson Street Park

Victoria St

Existing Bicycle Facilities Class I: Shared Use Path

Un iv

lvd

Estancia High School

W Wilson St

Br ist ol

Fair Dr

Vanguard University Parsons School

55

lA ve

Estancia Park

Å Ä

Sonora Elementary School

Re d

Mesa Verde Park

Mendoza Dr

Fairview Rd

D

Bear St

rW

Harbor Blvd

rd e Ve sa Me

Bear St

Linking these improvements with other mobility modes, such as shuttles, buses and commuter rail where possible, enhances the effectiveness of all since some intra-campus trips and many commuting trips involve more than one mode. Making the connections between modes as seamless as possible will do much to encourage faculty, staff, students and visitors to arrive via some other mode than driving their own vehicle.

Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve

St

St

B Back

r ay D

Kaiser School

11

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

UNIVERSAL ACCESS The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) effectively set the federal standard for disabled accessibility. Prior to this, California had some of the most comprehensive standards regarding accessibility. The standards are contained in California’s Title 24, first enacted in 1978 and updated periodically. Newly constructed facilities must be free of architectural barriers that restrict access or use by individuals with disabilities.

California employs technical standards for accessible design: Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for places of public accommodation and commercial facilities covered by Title 3 of the ADA and the State Architectural Regulations for Accommodation of the Physically Handicapped in Public Facilities, found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Standards Building Code.

The federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines and California Title 24 differ in several technical respects, but the most important distinction between the two is that the ADA is civil rights legislation and Title 24 is a building code. Another important difference is that ADA applies to existing facilities, while Title 24 only applies when alterations, additions or new construction takes place. Therefore, if remedial work is performed to eliminate a physical barrier, the more stringent of ADA Accessibility Guidelines or Title 24 applies.

Wide pathway north of Building 45 - Biological Sciences

12

The ADA and Title 24 are also enforced differently. The ADA can be enforced only in a court of law when no other resolution is possible, while Title 24 is enforced by state and local building departments, either when a building permit is obtained or when a citizen complaint is filed in regard to an existing facility. Title 24 is the regulation that most directly affects the built environment at OCC and provides the state leverage for implementing the federal ADA through the building review, approval and inspection process.

Although local building agencies are limited in that they can only enforce the provisions of the State of California (Title 24), a provision was added to the California Civil Code that determines that a violation of ADA is also a violation of the California Civil Code. Compliance with Title 24 does not preclude a potential violation of the federal ADA standard.

At the time of this writing (fall 2016), the campus was preparing an ADA transition plan. Recommended improvements related to such planning are likely to marginally impact bicycle and skateboard use, primarily through supporting them with improvements such as correcting significant paved surface irregularities, standardizing access ramp widths and slopes and removing pathway obstacles.

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-4: Fall 2016 OCC Campus Map

Scan code with your Smartphone to download map

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE CAMPUS MAP 2701 Fairview Rd. Costa Mesa CA 92626 • 714-432-0202

FAIRVIEW RD.

ADAMS AVE. Soccer Field

CONSTRUCTION 121 ZONE Recycling Softball Field Center

Coast Community College District Offices

Baseball Field

MONITOR WAY

Lot G

183

Adams Lot

(Red Box Blue Light)

CHARGING STATION PAY PHONE PARKING PERMITS

Weight Room

District Transportation

157

Horticulture Tree Arboretum

Gym

64

Biological Sci. 45

Allied Health Sci. 44

41

Consumer Sci.& Design

Math Lecture Halls 1&2

43

Jo

CO

ur

NS

TR

TIO

N

ZO

rri s Ce on nt Ho er no r

Global Engagement Center

181

m

81 &

La

s

Le

ga

cy H

all

10 12

Arts Center 158

9 Special Services

11

Main Quad

7

Admissions, Records, Counseling & Financial Aid

87

Lot A

Watson PIRATE WAY Hall Bursar’s 149

The Grove

Office

Captain’s Table

Student Center

Lot B Faculty & Staff Parking

86

ASOCC

8

Admin.

1

Faculty House

ARLINGTON DR.

5 Fine Arts Lect. Halls

4

Moore Theater

2

Drama Lab/Studio

Lot C

Campus Public Safety

147

180

oo

ENROLLMENT CENTER

s

Children’s Center 152

Starbucks

Frank M. Doyle Arts Pavilion

sr

Forum

b

Hot Dog Cart

Library

Early Childhood 146 Lab School

as

89

s ce uc t S ter en en ud C

Merrimac Lot

14

182

Cl

13Ga

72

NE

155

Lot E

m

83

Social & Behavioral Sciences

St

M & ain Op te er nan Receiving at c ion e s

lis

150

Classroom & Lab

om ro ss ab Cla & L

48

Graphics

na

Social & Behavioral Sciences 80

73

Center Writers Row 71 Clark Repro

UC

42

r te en ied s C pl es wi Ap c Le for cien S

Aviation Technology

40

144

97

FAIRVIEW RD.

g in ogy eld ol W chn Te

47

Coast Snack Shack

Science Hall

Mathematics Business & Computing Center

74

70

69

Horticulture

114 Skill Center

Literature & Languages

Chemistry

Student Health Center

Handball

Men’s Locker 96

Women’s Locker 92

91

Horticulture

ex

Technology Center 116

Track Storage

Bookstore

nn

115

Construction Technology

110

ESCORT STATION

Te ch A

171 172

Field House

Horticulture Gardens

Music

Information Tech 156

Game On

Horticulture

Horticulture Garden Lab

Fall2016

Track & Field

Dance

Boat Storage

Tennis

LeBard Stadium

Pools

EMERGENCY PHONE

Fitness Complex

Lot C

Lot D Lot D Lot D Additional parking at Fairgrounds lot ➔ MERRIMAC WAY

13

Administration Admissions, Couns Records ( Allied Health Scien Arts Center Assessment Center Associated Student Athletics (91) Aviation Technolog Biological Sciences Bookstore & Wareh Bursar’s Office Business Education Cafeteria (Student Campus Public Safe Captain’s Table Res Career Education (W Chemistry Children’s Center Clark Center Classrooms & Labs Construction Techn Consumer Sciences Consumer & Health Counseling (Watso Counseling Division Dance Disabled Students

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

ACTIVE MOBILITY BENEFITS Increasing levels of bicycling and skateboarding to and from OCC has several positive impacts on local and regional air quality, campus community health, as well as OCC and student finances.

Environmental Benefits Fewer people per capita cycle or walk in the United States than in most other parts of the world and the nation is a leader in petroleum consumption. Vehicle traffic is a significant air pollution contributor, leading to many negative environmental effects, such as increased harmful greenhouse gas emissions including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds. These air pollutants can cause asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia and decreased resistance to respiratory infections.

Increased bicycling, walking and using public transportation helps to reduce fossil fuel emissions, which helps to clean the air and reduce traffic congestion.

In California, transportation emits 40 percent of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, making the commute to campus a major opportunity for OCC to reduce its carbon footprint. While CO2 might not be the most harmful greenhouse gas, it is the most abundant. Even after accounting for the global warming potentials of other greenhouse gases (comparing them in terms of CO2), 95-99 percent of vehicle emissions are CO2. The EPA found that an average vehicle emits almost a pound of CO2 per mile. That amount of CO2 emissions could be avoided per mile each day if an individual switched from driving to an active transportation mode like bicycling or skateboarding.

Economic Benefits Bicycling and skateboarding are low cost activities that can be easily incorporated into an individual’s daily life, such as commuting to or moving around the campus. In mild climate areas like OCC’s, bicycling and skateboarding can occur year round.

Students, faculty and staff can all benefit financially from improved bicycling and skateboarding infrastructure. Bicycling or skateboarding to and from campus can also save money. Those who drive cars to campus pay more for transportation than those who bicycle and skateboard due not just to the up-front cost of car purchase or lease, but other costs like mainte-

14

nance and insurance. According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), owning a car and having to drive it daily now costs more than $9,000 a year.

Based on a wage of ten dollars an hour, a driver must work 900 hours per year to pay for his or her commute. A bicyclist only has to work about 90 hours per year to commute by bicycle. Skating is even more cost-effective for shorter distances.

Vehicle parking projects are costly. Increasing active transportation mode share decreases costs for OCC students, faculty and staff, and could decrease the need for additional parking spaces. Any decrease in parking demand could be significant because structured parking typically costs a minimum of $20,000 per space. Having to build fewer parking spaces could save OCC significant resources, as well as reduce the amount of space committed to vehicle storage.

Health Benefits Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in America and elsewhere. To combat this trend and prevent a variety of diseases, the Centers for Disease Control recommend a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity five days per week, for which bicycling and skateboarding qualify. An average adult can bicycle 6.25 miles in 30 minutes and burn 4.25 calories per minute at that pace. Campus community members can therefore burn about 130 calories for every 30 minutes by bicycling to and around OCC. Skateboarding burns calories at a very similar or slightly higher rate.

Outdoor activities like bicycling and skateboarding are great ways to help lose weight because they burn fat, which helps individuals feel and function better.

Exercise improves heart and lung fitness, as well as strength and stamina. Regular exercise reduces the risk of high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes.

In addition to heart disease, regular exercise can also help to prevent other health problems such as non-insulin dependent diabetes, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. Exercise has also been shown to relieve symptoms of depression and improve mental health, improve cognition, decrease anxiety and stress. Bicycling, skateboarding and walking on a regular basis are fun ways to exercise and take advantage of their stress-reducing capabilities.

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY With adoption of its VISION 2020 Facilities Master Plan, OCC is anticipating significant enrollment growth, as well as students living on campus. This study’s recommendations take into account and support OCC’s long-term access vision to enhance vehicular, bicycle and service vehicle circulation, as well as the stewardship vision to: “Reduce resource consumption and support environmentally responsible practices to change behavior in the campus community and beyond.”

To take advantage of these opportunities, this study forms a long term vision supported by a variety of implementation measures. While addressing campus existing conditions and issues, this study also considered connections to the larger regional context. Its recommendations offer an improved campus active transportation system, better connected with City of Costa Mesa and regional systems. This travel network, coupled with education, enforcement and promotional programs, will create a more bicycle and skateboard-friendly campus. The anticipated result of implementing the recommendations

is an increase in bicycle and skateboard use. It is likely that commuting increases will be primarily via bicycle, and intra-campus travel increases will be via both bicycle and skateboard. Implementation will result in fewer daily vehicle trips to and from OCC and fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Since this study provides a framework for OCC’s active transportation network development, it also supports eligibility for regional, state and federal funding for active transportation projects. This resulting document initiated the formal integration of active transportation modes into campus policies and will support identifying prioritized bicycle and skateboard infrastructure projects and help to improve safety through education and training programs.

This study sets the foundation for decisions and identifies a blueprint for future bicycle and skateboard development of OCC so that opportunities are not lost through other infrastructure, land use and facility development decisions. Precise alignments and details will be developed during subsequent implementation phases.

Pathway south of Building 80 - Social and Behavioral Sciences

15

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

16

02

Existing Conditions and Analysis

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS This chapter examines access to OCC and travel within the campus itself. The goal is to provide better connectivity between campus destinations, most of which are classroom buildings or buildings housing other student services, and between the campus and the surrounding community.

VISION 2020 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN The first step in existing conditions analysis was to review previous OCC planning efforts. The recently adopted VISION 2020 Facilities Master Plan was particularly important because it was a major driver behind this mobility planning effort.

Its recommendations include access objectives such as enhanced vehicular, bicycle and service vehicle circulation. A related Student and Employee Engagement objective is to “Create a defined/sustainable campus quad.”

This “quad” is referred to in this document as the campus core, where existing older buildings are slated for demolition because: “…they are now out of date for today’s delivery modalities. They are also largely in disrepair and inefficient in terms of energy, maintenance and upkeep. The planning concept for the future has been to replace these smaller, inefficient buildings with larger structures that consolidate space and house like disciplines and programs in one building.” New structures are planned to be built around the resulting open quad.

These building removals and new facility construction projects will dramatically change the campus configuration and make it even more supportive of active transportation. Figure 2-1 summarizes planned demolitions and existing structures.

Pathway north of Building 80 - Social and Behavioral Sciences 18

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

Figure 2-1: Existing Buildings and Planned Demolitions

19

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

PREVIOUS OCC STUDENT WORK One of the most important resources for this project was the Wheels Way Project documents, produced by the OCC Bikeways Club in partnership with Dean Abernathy (Bikeways Advisor), James Caughill (Facilities), Calvin Tsang (Inter-Club Council) and Tung Lampham (Student Senator). This student work proved very informative and was ultimately consistent with many of this planning effort’s recommendations. The Wheels Way Project identified the following deficiencies: »» Spread out bike racks with limited surveillance »» No other accommodation for alternative transportation »» No alternative transportation path on campus »» No educational workshop/program for student and the community regarding bike/skateboard safety The report also included a Suggested Biking Infrastructure Plan to address the previously mentioned deficiencies. This report included a “Recommended Bike Path,” similar to the multi-use pathways recommended by this plan, as well as mobility hubs. Mobility hubs (bicycle service areas) were recommended at the center of 500 foot circles surrounding major campus attractors (Tech Hub, Chemistry Hub, Library Hub, Student Center Hub) and would include enhanced bicycle and pedestrian amenities (Figure 2-2: Suggested Mobility Hub Locations).

Figure 2-2: Suggested Mobility Hub Locations

20

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

CAMPUS COMMUNITY INPUT OCC architecture and planning students have been conducting bikeway studies as part of their curriculum for several semesters, including user surveys and counts at important campus access points and nearby intersections, followed by conceptual design. These studies were incorporated into project analysis and contributed to recommendations.

A well-attended campus outreach event was held shortly after project kick-off. Attendees provided a wealth of information on current conditions on and around campus and their input was collected on two large aerial photo maps.

The OCC Sustainability Committee acted as the project working group and provided institutional background and advice on analysis and recommendations. Interim results were also presented to the Facilities Planning Committee.

OCC Biking and Skating Master Plan outreach event poster

OCC Campus outreach workshop 21

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

EXISTING FACILITIES The campus is bounded by City of Costa Mesa arterial and collector streets, two of which have bicycle lanes.

The majority of active transportation facilities addressed in this plan are pathways of varying width within the campus core (see Figure 2-3: Existing Facilities and the following section: Bikeway Facility Types).

While campus pathways form a dense and connected network, they are largely disconnected from the City’s active transportation network by large parking lots. Several of the pathways that connect the City and campus networks are sub-standard in terms of width, curb ramps and other accessibility measures and some also provide little to no shade or cooling by way of trees and other landscaping. Additionally, despite the campus core’s pedestrianized appearance, its pathways support significant service vehicle use.

The campus’ relatively few roadways are mostly related to parking or logistics, such as at the southwest edge of campus within the Construction Technology complex and around the athletic facilities off Fairview Road and Adams Avenue. This development pattern and limited number of vehicle routes directly supports and encourages active transportation modes like bicycling and skateboarding and OCC plans to maintain it as part of future development.

Figure 2-3: Existing Facilities

22

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

BIKEWAY FACILITY TYPES The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standard for designated bikeway facility types is used throughout this document. Standardized designation is required for consideration for Caltrans-administered bikeway funding. The following are general descriptions of each facility type. Note that these descriptions are provided to help describe existing and planned bikeways around the campus, and that not all of these types are in place.

Multi-use Path (Caltrans Class I) Multi-use paths are Caltrans-specified, non-motorized routes physically separated from vehicular roadways.

They must be a minimum 12 feet wide, of which eight feet (10 feet preferred) are paved with two feet clear on each side. Specific horizontal and vertical clearances also apply. All non-motorized uses are allowed, but wider cross section is recommended if multiple uses are to be accommodated or if higher volumes are expected. In practice, virtually all new multi-use pathways are built 10 feet wide, both to accommodate the variable dynamics of diverse user groups and to provide additional strength to protect edges from breakage under the weight of patrol and maintenance vehicles. Many of OCC’s central campus pathways are 10 feet wide and fulfill the Caltrans standard.

23

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Bicycle Lane (Caltrans Class II) Bicycle lanes are Caltrans-specified, on-street facilities designated by striping and signage with a minimum width of five feet from face of curb or roadway edge where parking occurs, and four feet where parking does not occur. Where parking occurs, buffering is recommended between the bicycle lane and parking lane. Buffering from vehicle traffic is also recommended where width is available.

Many municipalities and campuses are upgrading bicycle lanes by widening them to six feet measured from the gutter pan edge instead of the curb face. The additional width is generally repurposed from the vehicle travel lanes, proportionally narrowing them to provide for wider bicycle lanes, while also providing a vehicle “traffic calming” effect. This additional width functions as buffer space that also allows bicyclists to ride away from the “door zone.” Wherever possible, this additional space is striped as a visual buffer.

Bicycle Route (Caltrans Class III) Bicycle routes are Caltrans-specified, on-street facilities designated by signage only, but may include shared lane markings (“Sharrows”) and/or “Bikes May Use Full Lane (“BMUFL”) signs. Bicycle routes are usually installed on roadways with low traffic volumes and speed limits of no more than 35 mph.

24

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

Cycle Track (Caltrans Class IV) Cycle tracks are Caltrans-specified exclusive bicycle facilities separated from vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Cycle tracks may be one- or two-way with design treatments that demarcate them from adjacent sidewalks, travel or parking lanes. Their physical separation from roadways may employ parked vehicles, planting areas, bollards, raised lanes or a combination of these elements. These treatments reduce the risk of conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians and parked and moving vehicles. By providing physical separation from vehicle traffic, cycle tracks offer a higher degree of security and are attractive to a broader public spectrum.

Urban Trail (Wide Pathway) Urban trails are generally concrete pathways, wider than standard sidewalks, usually along roadways or within parks or open space, intended for both pedestrian and bicyclist use. Recommended width is 10 feet minimum.

25

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

CAMPUS ACCESS Campus access addresses both access to and within OCC. Primary access for all modes is via Fairview Road, Merrimac Way and Adams Avenue into several large vehicle parking lots. Streets accessing the campus all have sidewalks. Both Merrimac Way and Fairview Road have Class II bike lanes.

The actual number of campus access points is limited based on the adjacent roadway network with its long blocks and heavy vehicular traffic volumes. According to campus input, high volume and high speed traffic on the streets surrounding the campus inhibit campus skateboard and bicycle access (see Figure 2-4: Campus Access Points).

Once on OCC, access is driven primarily by established campus land use planning and most classroom building destinations are located within the campus core. As discussed in the Existing Facilities section, large vehicle parking lots surround the campus core, separating it from the City’s transportation network. Access through the parking lots is primarily through parking lot lanes and spaces. Pathways of varying width are provided along the edges of the Adams Avenue and Merrimac Way parking lots. Disjointed pathways exist in the Merrimac Way and Fairview Road parking lot areas.

The campus is quite flat, which directly supports active transportation modes, but which especially supports more bicycling. Flat terrain tends to be safer for all users since there are no hills on which inexperienced bicyclists, skateboarders or service vehicle operators can inadvertently gain excessive speed and lose control. The campus is just slightly too large to walk across during normal class breaks, but not too large to traverse by bicycle in a few minutes. Current campus policies prohibit skateboard use.

Figure 2-4: Campus Access Points

26

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

PARKING ASSESSMENT Parking assessment considered bicycle and vehicle parking as incentives and barriers to bicycle use, respectively. Both parking types are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Bicycle parking is available across most of the campus, with the highest concentrations within the campus core. According to a 2012 analysis prepared by the OCC Bikeways Club, the campus provided parking for approximately 350 bicycles. Few bicycle parking locations are weather-protected and many are not well lit.

Existing rack types are highly variable, but OCC is in the midst of updating its bicycle parking, employing durable, high quality, visually appealing racks in a standardized configuration. No skateboard parking is currently provided, but some is planned as part of the bicycle parking upgrade project.

As previously noted, the campus provides abundant vehicular parking in several lots. Surface parking constitutes nearly 30 percent of campus land and separates the pedestrianized campus core from the City’s transportation network.

This parking creates not only physical, but also psychological or motivational barriers since large parking lots tend to discourage walking and bicycling and encourage driving (see Figure 2-5: Bicycle and Vehicular Parking).

Figure 2-5: Bicycle and Vehicular Parking

27

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

ZIP CODE ANALYSIS The home address ZIP codes of the 24,702 students enrolled during the Fall 2015 semester were acquired from the Coast Community College District, scrubbed of identifying information to ensure privacy. These data were analyzed to determine typical distances most students commute to campus to help define and prioritize recommendations about campus connections and other potential improvements.

The analysis showed that the ZIP codes immediately around the OCC campus that lie largely within Costa Mesa are home to almost 30 percent of the total student enrollment. Just beyond those ZIP codes significant portions of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach are home to about 15 percent of students (see Figure 2-6: Zip Code Analysis).

Additional GIS analysis showed that 8,150 students, fully a third of enrollment, live within a 15 minute bicycle ride of the campus, which is widely considered to be within reasonable bicycle commuting range. An additional 8,481 or 67 percent of students live within a 30 minute ride. While this encompasses all of Costa Mesa and portions of surrounding cities, 30 minutes is typically the limit of what most bicycle commuters are willing to ride before turning to other modes like driving or transit.

As noted in the study introduction, drivers regularly making vehicle trips of shorter than three miles have been found to be the most likely to shift to bicycling. Based on this threshold, analyzing the area lying within a three mile travel distance of the campus showed that it encompasses 9,498 student home addresses.

Especially considering the area’s mild climate and flat terrain, both of which support bicycling, the distance threshold is actually likely to be greater than three miles, meaning that additional students living somewhat farther away may also be willing to consider shifting their commute to bicycling if adequate facilities or appropriate incentives were provided.

Pathway along Adams Lot southern boundary 28

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

Figure 2-6: Zip Code Analysis

29

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

RELATED TRANSPORTATION Transit service is provided by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) via buses equipped with dual bicycle racks. OCTA provides students enrolled in Orange County community colleges with unlimited travel on OCTA’s routes through a low cost College Pass program priced at $1.50 per day.

OCTA bus stops are located on Fairview Road and Adams Avenue, all at the campus periphery. The stops along Fairview Road are within easy walking distance of a number of OCC services, including those provided in the Student Center, Watson Hall and the sport facilities, but are far from destinations at the western end of the campus. The Adams Avenue stops at the Pinecreek Drive intersection are roughly a quarter mile from the campus core, which is a very reasonable distance to bicycle or skateboard, but a significant walking distance via the length of the Adams Lot (see Figure 2-7: Bus Stops).

Figure 2-7: Bus Stops

30

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

SAFETY AND COLLISION SUMMARY Improving real and perceived safety is essential to increasing the number of people skateboarding and bicycling. Collision data analysis can be a useful tool for identifying strategies, either infrastructure enhancements or programmatic measures, to improve bicyclist and skateboarder safety. However, because such collisions are generally under-reported, this data cannot be relied upon exclusively, and collisions are likely to have occurred that were not included in the data. Some estimates are as high as two unreported incidents for each reported one.

Campus Public Safety provided information on reported injury collisions involving bicyclists, skateboarders, vehicle drivers and pedestrians on the OCC campus between January 1, 2014 and September 2015. There were four such collisions, all involving vehicles. Two involved bicyclists, one a pedestrian and one a skateboarder. All four occurred in the Adams Lot and two were hit-and-run incidents. Review of the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWTRS) database revealed two other collisions adjacent to the campus on Fairview Road during the most recent available data year of 2013, one involving a pedestrian and the other a bicyclist.

However, campus community input indicated that walking and biking through campus parking lots was perceived as uncomfortable due to unsafe vehicle movements. This is significant because the perception of safety issues is often cited for why people do not walk or bike more, even when the number of recorded collisions has been historically low. Many of these walkers and bikers may have seen or actually experienced close calls, which affects their impression of whether the location is safe or not. This was particularly noted in relation to the Adams Lot.

Pathway across Adams Lot 31

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

ABILITY TO SERVE INTRA-CAMPUS DESTINATIONS The majority of intra-campus active transportation facilities were developed to serve destinations. In terms of cost effectiveness, the more destinations a facility serves, the better. Campus pathways were assessed for their ability to serve campus destinations, their “level of service.” In practice, level of service was defined as the number of campus buildings (destinations) within 50 feet of pathways. Since all campus pathways lead to buildings, level of service is effectively a measure of building density. Level of service is greatest in the southeast and northeast corners of the central campus, where building density is greatest (see Figure 2-8: Ability to Serve Intra-Campus Destinations).

Figure 2-8: Ability to Serve Intra-Campus Destinations

32

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

INTRA-CAMPUS NETWORK COMPLETENESS Intra-campus network completeness or connectivity is a crucial component of an active transportation network.

Network completeness ensures that skateboarders and bicyclists have multiple routes and shorter distances between destinations, both of which encourage skateboarding and bicycling. In practice, intra-campus network completeness was defined by dividing the campus into 200x200 foot cells, and calculating the percent pathway coverage per cell.

Not surprisingly, based on its previously stated pedestrian orientation, the campus core area has the highest degree of intra-campus network completeness. Conversely, the automobile-oriented campus periphery has many cells devoid of pathways and the lowest degree of intra-campus network completeness (see Figure 2-9: Intra-Campus Network Completeness).

Figure 2-9: Intra-Campus Network Completeness

33

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

ABILITY TO SERVE DIVERSE USERS TYPES The ability to serve diverse user types is essential to OCC active transportation network equity. Diverse users include pedestrians, people with disabilities, bicyclists and, though currently prohibited on campus, skateboarders. “Serving needs” was based on the California Department of Transportation preferred multiuse path (Class I) standard of 10 feet. This is the multi-use facilities width necessary to be eligible for Caltrans administered funding, and has therefore become an important standard (see Page 21.) Facilities were measured using a high-resolution aerial image and pathways less than 10 feet in width mapped (see Figure 2-10: Insufficient Widths). While this was only a “high altitude” analysis, most of the areas highlighted in the figure generally coincide with the older areas of the campus.

In contrast to the pathways addressed in OCC’s draft ADA transition plan, this study also addressed campus and adjacent roadways, highlighting where less that 10 feet appeared to be available. This assessment indicated an inability to serve diverse user needs throughout the campus and to connect with City streets. While surrounding City streets and parking lots are fairly uniform, the campus core is more heterogeneous with both wide segments and pinch points. Addressing such pinch points can support overall ADA compliance.

Figure 2-10: Insufficient Widths

34

CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS SUMMARY College campus bicycle and skateboard use usually exceeds that of their surrounding area. Other campuses have experienced increased bicycle use, thanks in part to proactive measures taken to support active transportation, especially to reduce vehicle parking demand and congestion. Trends associated with health and physical activity, economic issues and environmental awareness also contribute to this increase. Though OCC has a substantial amount of bicycle and skateboard usage, its current mode rates appear to be smaller than on other similar campuses. Especially considering its mild coastal climate and flat terrain, OCC should be supporting much higher bicycle and skateboard use than is currently observed.

Following campus community input, field work, mapping and data analysis, the primary reason bicycle use in particular is low appears to be the surrounding City streets’ traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds and lack of comfortable bicycle facilities. Even so, other opportunities and constraints also affect bicycle and skateboarding at OCC: »» Previous student work identified deficiencies in, as well as opportunities for, low-stress bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle/skateboard parking. »» Campus input indicated a desire for more “lowstress” bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, especially within the large campus parking lots. While reported collision numbers are low, the perception of safety concerns on the OCC campus is strongly associated with vehicles, and the Adams Avenue parking lot in particular.

»» Campus input indicated a desire for more secure bicycle and skateboard parking. »» Comfortable bicycling and skateboarding access from off-campus is hampered by the surrounding multi-lane, high speed, high volume streets. »» Intra-campus access within the campus core is strong while access between the campus and City of Costa Mesa is weak, impeded primarily by an automobile-oriented peripheral layout and a lack of comfortable active transportation facilities. »» Vehicle parking is readily available and relatively cheap for users, which both encourages driving and discourages active transportation. »» Though OCC is currently a predominantly vehicle commuter campus, commute distances for many students are well within widely accepted limits for bicycle commuting. This discovery holds promise for substantial increases in bicycling, provided supportive projects and programs are provided. »» Subsidized (OCTA) transit serves the OCC campus at its periphery, along Adams Avenue and Fairview Road, but large parking lots between OCTA’s bus stops and the campus core may act as barriers to transit use. »» Campus pathways were all designed to access campus destinations, but those in the campus core provide the greatest access. »» The overall pathway network is fairly complete, but some pathway segments are narrower than desired to serve diverse users.

Main Quad 35

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

36

03

Recommendations

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

RECOMMENDATIONS Active transportation, such as bicycling and skateboarding, can be vital components of the campus fabric, important means of on-campus movement and bicycling, in particular, a valuable commute mode.

Shared facilities for bicyclists, skateboarders and pedestrians are feasible in most areas and can be enhanced with appropriate programming and education.

Even so, nothing should be done to decrease OCC’s high quality urban form, pedestrian environment, or the safety of campus visitors and users.

Although college campuses can be said to resemble cities in many ways, the significant difference that distinguishes them is that campuses give priority to pedestrians rather than vehicles. In this respect, campuses are more like parks within a city where active transportation modes dominate. Further compared with a city’s vehicular traffic, campus traffic is generally of lower volumes and slower moving.

Pathway across Adams Lot 38

Though the campus has less bicycle and skateboard use compared to other campuses, there is ample opportunity to increase them. Students want to bicycle and skateboard to campus to save money, to improve their physical health and to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but more use is not likely to occur unless improved campus access is provided. Bicycling on nearby City of Costa Mesa roadways can be a challenge, because high volume, high speed roadways form significant physical and perceptual barriers. Addressing this will require close coordination with the City to address recommended facility and policy changes.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

PRIORITY PROJECTS A number of projects are recommended in this study, and the scope called for refinement of the top three, as selected by the OCC Sustainability Committee.

The selected priority projects address the campus core, the Adams Lot and the Merrimac Lot areas.

The campus core recommendation are intended to improve safety through clear wayfinding and bicycle and skateboard route consolidation.

SCAG has recognized the value of the City’s approach by awarding grant funding for its recent mobility planning efforts, especially addressing the area that lies between the very popular Santa Ana River Trail west of the campus and the Bayview Trail to the east.

Providing connections within the area between these two regional routes necessarily involved the OCC campus because it lies in the middle of this zone, to the potential benefit of students, staff and faculty who live there and may want to consider riding to and from campus instead of driving. The City’s mobility planning expressly addresses this latent demand through facility prioritization, siting and design.

Figure 3-1 illustrates the City’s overall recommendations, and shows how OCC occupies the nexus of its planning efforts between the Santa Ana River Trail to the west and the Bayview Trail along Upper Newport Bay at the eastern City limits.

Ln

Drake Ave

Loreto Ave

!!

Vela sco

Ave alle La S

Blv d o rt Ne wp

ill A ve dH

!

!

! !

!

! !!

!

! !

!

!

Av e !

Sa n

 ! (

!

!

!

!

!

Newport Beach Me Golf Course sa Dr

!U !n

iv!e !rs !ity !D

!r

!

!

!

Av e

!

eA ve

 ! (

Irv in

!

Fa irw ay Dr We stm ins ter Av e

Or an ge

Av e

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ta An a

!

!

!

!

Sa n

!

Or an ge

Blv d Eld en Av e

o rt Ne wp !

!

!

Av e

!

!

!

!

Vis ta

ta An a

!

Lindbergh School Park

Av e

!

Fairview Rd

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Placentia Ave

Re

!

Vanguard Way

Dr

Peterson Pl

Harla Ave

!!!

!

! ! ! !!

!

Canary

!!

Sandpip er Dr

! !! ! !!

!! ! !

Harbor Blvd

!! !

Placentia Ave

!

t

!

!

!

!

St

!

!

r!A !ve !

!

n!S! t!

Golf Course Park Schools Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve City Boundary

!Is !ab !el !A ve ! !

!a

!!

s!o

!

!il

l!M

!

!

!Sa !n !ta

!!

D!e

!

! ! Bicycle Boulevard

!

!

!

Miles 0.5

!

!

!

0.25

!

 ! ( W

!

!

!

0.125

21 st S

!

!

!

! ! Separated Bike Lane 0

Fairground

!

 ! (

!

! ! Bike Route

College/University

!

!

 ! (

!

O

Class III: Bicycle Route

St

!

!

!

Vic t or ia

Class II: Bicycle Lane

!

!

!

!

! (

23 rd

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

Victoria St

Rea School

Mo nte

 ! (

Avocado St

Existing Bicycle Facilties Class I: Shared Use Path

Vanguard University

!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Hamilton St

!

 ! (

 ! (

Wilson St

Proposed Facilities

!

55

Fair Dr

Civic Center Park

Wake Forest Rd

 ! (

Santa Ana Country Club

Å Ä

Bucknell Rd

Wilson Street Park

! ! Buffered Bike Lane

!

OC Fair & Event Center

Princeton Dr

Estancia High School

! ! Bike Lane

!

! !

Merrimac ! ! ! !Way ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

Villanova Rd

! ! Multi-Use Path

!

! ( Hanover Dr

r

!

!

us D

!

! (

!

Fair Dr

Parsons School

TeWinkle Memorial Park

!!!!!!!!!!!

Arlington ! ! ! !Dr !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! !!!!!!!

Costa Mesa Golf Course

Kalm

 ! ( !

!!

ve

!

! (

! ! ! !! ! !

ero Co Dr ro n ado Dr Presidio Dr

Davis School

 ! (

!!

 ! (

Davis Soccer Field

Costa Mesa High School

Jun ip

er A

!

Orange Coast College

The Farm Soccer Complex

Fisc h

!

! !! ! ! Mesa ! ! !Verde ! ! ! Dr

! (

!

C

!!

!!

!!

lf Go

 ! (

 ! (

!

!

 ! (

! (

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !Tanager ! ! ! !D !r ! !

se our

Dr

!!!!!

!!!

Tanager Park

!! ! !! !!!

!!

Kinglet Ct

!

! ! ! ! ! !!!!

Fairview Park

! ! ! ! !D!r ! ! ! ! !Oriole

!! !!! !

!

!!

Swan Dr

Hummingbird Dr

! !

!

Phalarope Ct

Dr net Gan s Dr tros Alba

Mandarin Dr

Pelican Pl

!

!

Fairview Rd

Dr E

Goldeneye Pl

! (

!

 ! (

Sonora Elementary School

!! !!!!

rde

! (

!

!

! (

Mendoza Dr

a Ve

Estancia

!

Park Adams ! ! !Ave ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Adams ! ! ! !Ave ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Mission Dr

!!!!

Camino Dr! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! El ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!!

Harbor Blvd

Mes

Mesa Verde Park

Pinecreek Dr

Village Way

t rS

Baker St

Mendoza Dr

Fairview Rd

e

a Be

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

s Me

erd aV

73

Paularino Ave

Bristol St

College Ave

Baker St

W Dr

Å Ä

Paularino School

Figure 3-1: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Proposed Projects

!!!! !

Mesa Verde Golf Course

! !!!

While all three priority projects are intended to improve the on-campus biking, walking and skateboarding environment, the Adams Lot and Merrimac Way Lot projects were also designed to address off-campus connections and to directly link with the City of Costa Mesa’s planned facilities around the campus. In turn, these City projects have been purposefully planned to connect with SCAG’s regional bikeway system (see Figures 1-1: Regional Setting, and 1-2: City of Costa Mesa - Draft Master Plan of Bikeways).

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve

D Bay Back

39

r

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-2: Priority Projects

40

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Main Quad

Note that most planned City projects along major roadways are to be separated facilities away from vehicle traffic. This is significant because campus community input for this project revealed that the primary constraint preventing more students, staff and faculty from biking, walking or skateboarding to OCC was not the campus environment itself, but the high traffic volumes and speeds on Costa Mesa’s roadways around the campus. Traffic volumes on Adams Avenue adjacent to the campus, for instance, range up to 36,000 vehicles per day, where there are no bikeway facilities.

This issue resonates in mobility planning and has driven significant widespread change in facility recommendations and design. So while the City’s planned improvements were intended to provide active transportation connections between two regional routes, the City’s projects were also specifically designed to address user concerns by providing more comfortable “low stress” routes acceptable to more potential bicyclists, such as employing more off-street paths and bikeways physically separated from roadways, such as along Adams Avenue and Merrimac Way.

The on-campus priority projects recommended in this plan are intended to link with these off-campus planned facilities, employing the same level of quality in materials, landscape and amenities, with the aim of creating a seamless off-campus to on-campus transition that will encourage more bicycling, walking and skateboarding.

The following sections conceptually describe the three priority projects. Figure 3-2 illustrates their locations in relation to the rest of the campus. The priority project infrastructural components include campus-wide improvements like bicycle/skateboard parking and fix-it stations proposed in the Wheels Ways Project prepared by the OCC Bikeways club.

The primary difference from their original bicycle parking plans is that bicycle and skateboard parking is not provided within the proposed campus core dismount zone, but instead be confined to its periphery to encourage compliance. Also, skateboard parking docks are recommended in more locations as components of larger bicycle parking areas. Most bicycle and skateboard parking and fix-it station locations are existing facilities to be improved that also reflect Facilities Management input. 41

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone To better accommodate bicycles and skateboard and to improve safety for all users, especially walkers and the disabled, a suggested bicycle and skateboard loop accessing the entire campus is recommended in association with a defined dismount zone where wheeled use (other than mobility devices) would be prohibited at all times. The intent is to direct bicyclists and skateboarders to use this recommended loop route as the best choice for accessing campus destinations, while reserving the campus core as a dismount zone in the interests of safety and comfort for all.

The suggested loop route would be primarily on existing wide pathways (see Figures 3-5a to 3-5c: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone). This proposed route was observed to be in steady use by all user types and provides efficient access to key campus destinations on pathways wide enough to accommodate their current use levels.

While this study addresses bicyclist and skateboarder access across the campus, it is understood that certain areas should be treated as dismount zones based on their high pedestrian volumes and physical impediments that limit sight distances, such as the campus core.

A 100 yard access zone is suggested as a campus goal, meaning that bicyclists and skateboarders should only have to dismount, secure their bicycle or skateboard and walk no more than 100 yards to reach their destinations. The proposed dismount zone’s width of less than 600 feet fulfills this accessibility goal and allows campus core access while preserving it as a pedestrian-designated dismount zone. The suggested campus core shown on Figures 3-5a to 3-5c lies within the recommended loop path, which is located on existing wide pathways and roadways and provides a number of access points into the campus core.

Pathway delineation methods are recommended, especially combined with appropriate signage. Because of the volume of pedestrian use, a highly visible marking system is warranted. Sensitivity to these markings’ appearance in an important campus area is essential to making them fit in, and yet stand out enough to be readily visible. The proposed route would be delineated by central pavement striping, along with new signage and stenciling. A dual mid-line employing the campus colors is recommended. Because this route is primarily high quality concrete and not a typical roadway subject to a high level of motor vehicle tire scuffing, paint is recommended as a cost-effective and visually appropriate route marking that should be fairly durable. The route is photo-simulated to show how it would look from the user’s viewpoint in Figure 3-3.

Bicycle and skateboard parking locations should reinforce this configuration by concentrating them at the periphery of this zone and readily visible from the suggested route around the dismount zone. Users should be able to leave their bicycles and skateboards as close to their final destinations as possible, but outside the dismount zone itself.

Bikeway centerline striping (University of Arizona)

Bikeway centerline striping (Queens Quay, Toronto)

42

These recommendations would bring clarity to routes already in use, but would also make clear where wheeled users must dismount by using signage and pavement markings along the dismount zone boundary. This would also allow for more effective, consistent enforcement, minimizing the confusion on where wheeled use is permitted or not. Signage should clearly designate the dismount zone’s extent, including on campus maps and orientation materials.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Campus Core - Covered pathway southwest of Building 80 - Social and Behavioral Studies

Campus Core - Pathway north of Building 80 - Social and Behavioral Studies 43

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Signage Regulatory signs should be placed along all plazas and pathways where they intersect with the campus core dismount zone. A widely used pavement marking is shown as an example. Anyone using a wheeled vehicle within this area would be subject to a fine. Service vehicle operators would be exempt, though they would have to adhere to the policies noted previously. Users of disabled assistive devices such as wheelchairs would also remain exempt.

Bicycle and skateboard parking areas should be located where pathways adjoin the dismount zone.

As an integral part of the on-campus route recommendations, associated informational signage is also highly recommended. This includes pole-mounted signage addressing all users, as well as high contrast tactile strips (raised truncated dome panels) at intersections accessing the dismount zone to help define its boundary. These strips should be a color consistently applied across the campus that strongly contrasts with the warm gray of the typical existing concrete paving. Typical colors are shown below.

The pole-mounted signage would define the campus core loop’s purpose, emphasize that pedestrians have the right-of-way wherever the two modes intersect and that wheeled users must yield. A speed limit should be included on these signs and enforced.

The current campus speed limit outside of parking lots is five mph. Though it may be difficult to discern bicycle and skateboarder speeds, posting a speed limit provides Public Safety personnel a gauge by which to assess unsafe behavior or conditions.

Example signage and pavement markings, like those shown on these pages in use at other institutions, should form the basis for OCC’s regulatory signage system. It is recommended that OCC’s regulatory signs reflect its existing campus signage system colors, font and graphic style. Conceptual designs employing these existing standards are shown on the following page.

Typical truncated dome colors 44

Dismount zone signage (University of Arizona)

Dismount zone signage (Arizona State University)

Dismount zone pavement marking (Coronado, CA)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Dismount zone pavement marking (Arizona State University)

OCC Signage Concepts

OCC dismount zone pavement marking

OCC dismount zone sign

OCC “Yield to Pedestrians” sign

45

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-3: Suggested Pathway and Dismount Zone Signage and Pavement Markings

46

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

S St

Figure 3-4: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone - Key Map

Adams Lot Improvements

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Figure 3-5a

Figure 3-5b

Merrimac Lot Improvements

Figure 3-5c

47

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-5a: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Dismount Zone

48

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path Striping

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Conflict-Area Striping

Raised SpeedTable Crossing

Trees (Optional)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Ave

Dismount Zone

am

s

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Fairview Rd

S St

Ad

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Bicycle Parking

Skateboard Parking

Fix-it Station

0'

40'0'

80' 40'

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Way

49

80'

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-5b: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Dismount Zone

50

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path Striping

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Conflict-Area Striping

Raised SpeedTable Crossing

Trees (Optional)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

See Other Recommended Projects (Page 72)

Ave

Dismount Zone

am

s

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Fairview Rd

S St

Ad

0'

40'0'

80' 40'

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Bicycle Parking

Skateboard Parking

Fix-it Station

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Way

Key Map

51

80'

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-5c: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Dismount Zone

52

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path Striping

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Conflict-Area Striping

Raised SpeedTable Crossing

Trees (Optional)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Ave

Dismount Zone

am

s

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Fairview Rd

S St

Ad

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Bicycle Parking

Skateboard Parking

Fix-it Station

0'

40'0'

80' 40'

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Way

Key Map

53

80'

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Adams Lot Improvements The Adams Lot is the campus’ largest vehicle parking area. Its primary entrance is from Adams Avenue at Pinecreek Drive, almost a quarter of a mile from the south end of the parking lot adjacent to the campus core. There are limited pedestrian improvements within the Adams Lot or connecting with the core pathway network.

Recommendations are intended to address two issues highlighted in campus outreach comments.

One is to make walking through the parking lot to and from a vehicle a safer and more pleasant experience. The second is to improve the connection between where bicycle commuters enter the campus from Adams Avenue and the campus core.

54

Improving the walking environment while traveling between a vehicle and the campus core is addressed by improving the existing central pathway through the Adams Lot that connects with the campus core between the Chemistry and Literature and Language buildings. Recommended improvements include enhanced pavement, widening, raised speed tables at all parking lot aisle crossings (see Figures 3-8a and 3-8b: Adams Lot Improvements).

Similar enhancements are also recommended along both sides of the lot, as well as street trees.

This network of three similarly designed northsouth pathways are intended to initially draw parking lot users to them by being visually prominent.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Adams Lot - View southeast to Mathematics, Business and Computing Center

Adams Lot - View north to Adams Avenue

Adams Lot - Eastbound entrance off Adams Avenue at Pinecreek Drive 55

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Once they have reached a pathway, it is anticipated that users will find them such an improvement compared to walking between rows of cars that they will continue to use them. The peripheral pathways are fully physically separated from the parking lot itself.

While this much improved walking environment will be perceived as safer, consolidating walkers within these pathways will also literally improve safety by making walkers’ movements more predictable to drivers.

Pathway improvements are also proposed along the lot’s northern edge, which would necessitate re-striping the northernmost two rows of parking. This re-striping is feasible within the available space without losing parking capacity because the affected aisles are wider than needed.

Improving the bikeway connection between Adams Avenue and the campus core is addressed by a new protected bikeway along the west edge of the Adams Lot that parallels the west side pathway noted previously. This protected bikeway will provide a much higher quality route than exists because it is physically separated from the parking lot, with many of the same enhancements suggested for pathways noted previously. The number of vehicular intersections with the new protected bikeway have been reduced and enhanced with safety improvements such as special pavement markings and signage.

The intent is a much less intimidating route that dramatically raises the quality of the experience of entering the campus from Adams Avenue.

Parking lot central pathway (3rd Marine Air Wing Headquarters, MCAS Miramar, San Diego, CA) 56

This will be especially important as the City of Costa Mesa implements its own improvements around the campus, including along Adams Avenue, which will raise the standard of area bikeways. Specifically, Costa Mesa’s recent active transportation planning includes the removal of the high speed off-ramp from Adams Avenue into the campus and adding 10 foot wide paved pathways (urban trails) on both sides intended for walking and biking, as well as other streetscape enhancements such as parkway landscape and street trees separating the pathways from Adams Avenue (see 3D section image below and Figure 3-1: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Proposed Projects Multi-Purpose Trails Plan).

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

an use to and from the campus by improving the riding and walking environment through physically separating them from Adams Avenue’s high vehicular traffic volumes and speeds. This parallel bikeway and adjoining pathway will also directly serve the planned on-campus housing to be built at the northwest corner of the campus, adjacent to the Adams Lot.

The Adams Avenue facility (labeled Project #1 in Figure 3-6), in particular, is included in the City’s planning to encourage more bicycle and pedestri-

Due to the size of the Adams Lot, a bikeway route marked with green-backed shared lane markings crossing it east to west is also recommended within an existing parking lot aisle, connecting the west side of the lot with the Mathematics, Business and Computing Center at the lot’s southeast corner.

This location was noted as an important entrance node into the campus core, and would directly connect with the core loop system noted previously.

Bikeway/driveway intersection signage (UC Irvine)

Green-backed shared lane marking (“Sharrow”)

Preferred Adams Avenue reconfiguration - Dual multi-use pathways 57

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-6: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Project #1 (Adams Avenue) Detail

Typical peripheral pathway/driveway intersection conflict area markings (Adams and Merrimac Lots)

58

Bicycle/ Pedestrian Signal

Enhanced Crossing

Enhanced Pathway

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Av e

Figure 3-7: Adams Lot Improvements - Key Map

s

Monitor Way

S St

A

m da

Figure 3-8a

Adams Lot Improvements

Figure 3-8b

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Merrimac Lot Improvements

Wa y 59

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-8a: Adams Lot Improvements

City of Costa Mesa planned project: Adams Avenue • Dual multi-use pathways along Adams • Eastbound high speed right turn removal • Intersection crossing improvements

See Other Recommended Projects (Page 72)

60

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path Striping

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Conflict-Area Striping

Raised SpeedTable Crossing

Trees (Optional)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Ave

See Other Recommended Projects (Page 72)

am

s

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Fairview Rd

S St

Ad

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Bicycle Parking

Skateboard Parking

Fix-it Station

0'

40'0'

80' 40'

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Way

Key Map

61

80'

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

See Other Recommended Projects (Page 72)

Figure 3-8b: Adams Lot Improvements

62

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path Striping

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Conflict-Area Striping

Raised SpeedTable Crossing

Trees (Optional)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Ave

See Other Recommended Projects (Page 72)

am

s

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Fairview Rd

S St

Ad

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Bicycle Parking

Skateboard Parking

Fix-it Station

0'

40'0'

80' 40'

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Way

Key Map

63

80'

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Merrimac Lot Improvements The primary difference between the improvements suggested for the Merrimac and Adams Lots is that no central pathway is proposed across the Merrimac Lot because there are entrances at both corners off Merrimac Way and they are not as far from the campus core. This decreased depth and dual entries call for a slightly different approach, but the Merrimac Lot exhibits essentially the same issues as the Adams Lot on a smaller scale and is therefore addressed similarly to achieve the same goals.

64

The City of Costa Mesa’s Multi-Purpose Trail Plan calls for an off-street multi-use pathway (Class I) on the north side of Merrimac Way connecting Harbor Boulevard and the western campus boundary (see Figure 3-9). Buffered bicycle lanes (Class II) are also planned for the remainder of Merrimac Way to Fairview Drive as part of a “lane diet.” This would mean repurposing Merrimac Way’s existing paving from dual vehicle lanes each way to single vehicle lanes and parallel buffered bicycle lanes. This is feasible because Merrimac Way supports far less vehicle traffic volumes than its width merits.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Merrimac Lot - North end

Merrimac Lot - East side near Child Care Center

Merrimac Lot - South end along Merrimac Way 65

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

The primary suggested on-campus improvement is therefore a network of peripheral separated bikeways around the entire lot, including enhancing the existing pathway along Merrimac Way (see Figures 3-11a and 3-11b: Merrimac Lot Improvements). Because City of Costa Mesa planning in this area calls for a multi-use pathway (Class I) between Harbor Boulevard and the Merrimac Lot western entrance, emphasis was placed on continuing a high quality connection into the campus core at the north end of the lot. This is the most significant single reconstruction item within this plan’s recommendations since it requires moving the western peripheral aisle and adjacent parking lot islands to the east. This would result in a loss of 16 parking spaces, though this is offset by 18 new spaces near the southeast corner where a redundant entrance off Merrimac Way is closed, for a net gain of two spaces.

The eastern peripheral multi-use pathway is an enhancement with minor additions to an existing pathway to directly connect the campus core and the southeast parking lot entrance off Merrimac Way. The east and west peripheral pathways would join at the existing northern entrance into the campus core, connecting there with the core loop noted previously. Upgrading the existing sidewalk along Merrimac Way to a separated pathway connection is also recommended to take advantage of available undeveloped space between the roadway and the parking lot, both to improve skateboarding, walking and biking connections, but also to visually enhance and define this edge of the campus.

Multi-use pathway (Class 1) adjacent to community college campus (San Marcos, CA) 66

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Av e

s Figure 3-9: City of Costa Mesa - Multi-Purpose Trails Plan - Project #8 (Merrimac Way) Detail

m

S St

a Ad

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Bike Box

Bicycle/ Pedestrian Signal

Enhanced Crossing

Traffic Calming

Figure 3-10: Merrimac Lot Improvements - Key Map

Figure 3-11a

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Figure 3-11b

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Wa y

67

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-11a: Merrimac Lot Improvements

68

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path Striping

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Conflict-Area Striping

Raised SpeedTable Crossing

Trees (Optional)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Ave

am

s

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Fairview Rd

S St

Ad

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Bicycle Parking

Skateboard Parking

Fix-it Station

0'

40'0'

80' 40'

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Way

Key Map

69

80'

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN Figure 3-11b: Merrimac Lot Improvements

City of Costa Mesa planned project: Merrimac Way • Multi-use pathway on north side • Lane diet (Repurpose outside travel lane to bicycle lanes) • Buffered bicycle lanes • Crossing improvements

70

Multi-Use Path

Multi-Use Path Striping

Bicycle Lane

Buffered Bicycle Lane

Shared-Lane Marking

Conflict-Area Striping

Raised SpeedTable Crossing

Trees (Optional)

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Ave

am

s

Monitor Way

Adams Lot Improvements

Fairview Rd

S St

Ad

Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone

Bicycle Parking

Skateboard Parking

Fix-it Station

0'

40'0'

80' 40'

Merrimac Lot Improvements Me rrim ac Way

Key Map

71

80'

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

OTHER RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Besides the three priority projects, five other smaller improvement projects are recommended, as shown in Figure 3-12: Other Recommended Projects. Four are proposed within the campus eastern half to improve connectivity from off campus: A Monitor Way on-street bicycle lanes B Bicycle route through parking lots C Pirate Way multi-use pathway D Arlington Drive multi-use pathway E Merrimac Way multi-use pathway to campus core The remaining project F is a bicycle route to improve the existing north-south pathway west of the Adams Lot.

The bicycle/skateboard parking and fix-it station locations (mobility hubs) in Figure 3-12 are a compilation of those shown on the priority project conceptual plans on previous pages.

Finally, the category of “future opportunities” are potential connectivity projects related to larger planned redevelopment noted in the OCC master plan. The intent is to assure that non-motorized connectivity is considered during planning and design, specifically of the Student Union/Student Services building at the southeast corner of the campus, and the planned gym and pool complex adjacent to the eastern edge of the Adams Lot.

Monitor Way at Adams Lot (West end of recommended Project A)

Roadway adjacent to Technology Center (Near south end of recommended Project E) 72

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 3-12: Other Recommended Projects

A

F B

C

D

E

73

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

OTHER FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS

be frustrating and discourage bicycling. The following guidelines should be employed when planning and installing bicycle and skateboard parking.

Bicycle and Skateboard Parking

Development Review Developments should be carefully reviewed for transportation impacts where on-site bicycle and skateboard facilities are planned. Bicycle and skateboard storage racks should be provided at locations convenient to building entrances and ideally covered from the elements. For long term outdoor parking, bicycle lockers are preferred because they completely secure the bicycle from theft of the entire bicycle or its parts and are weatherproof. More

According to a 2012 analysis prepared by the OCC Bikeways Club, parking exists for approximately 350 bicycles in several different types of rack configurations. Some of the existing racks fulfill the criteria recommended by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), but some do not. In particular, some do not support the bicycle via both wheels, do not support the bicycle by its frame or do not provide for easily locking the frame. Some of these racks are also within the recommended dismount zone, which would make future enforcement more difficult unless they are removed and replaced at appropriate locations at the dismount zone periphery. The campus is in the process of replacing existing bicycle racks with a high quality version that meets APBP criteria. This should be coordinated with dismount zone implementation.

There are no bicycle lockers on campus. Lockers are recommended where regularly used, long-term, secure parking is needed. For example, some students and faculty may be encouraged to use transit if they know they can safely leave their bicycle on campus overnight in a secure locker. Selected lockers should allow visual access to ensure that the lockers are being used for their intended purpose while still providing for secure locking.

The selection and placement of bicycle parking is important because research shows that lack of secure parking at destinations keeps more people from using their bicycles for transportation than any other reason. Leaving a bicycle unattended, even for short periods, can easily result in theft of the bicycle or its parts. Not being able to find adequate parking or having to use inconveniently located parking can

Old bicycle rack to be removed (OCC)

New campus standard bicycle racks (OCC) 74

detailed rack and location guidelines are addressed in the following sections, taking into account OCC’s ongoing bicycle parking rack replacement program.

Rack Area Siting The rack area siting addresses the relationship of rack areas to the building entrance or approach. In general, conveniently located rack areas should serve multiple nearby buildings, rather than a distant one. Racks far from the entrance or perceived to be vulnerable to vandalism will not receive much use. Whenever possible, bicycle and skateboard parking should be placed near building entrances, or where bicyclists and skateboarders would naturally transition to walking mode, such as at the boundary of dismount zones.

Rack area location in relationship to buildings it serves is very important. The best location is adjacent to the

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

entrance it serves, but racks should not be placed where they can block the entrance or inhibit pedestrian flow. The rack area should be along a major building approach line, readily visible to passersby, and include campus standard lighting. Rack areas should be as close or closer than the nearest vehicle parking, be clearly visible from the entrance they serve and be near actively used entrances, wherever possible.

On many campuses, bicycle parking is now being consolidated into fewer, larger bicycle parking lots that often include skateboard racks. Consolidation is a more efficient use of space and enhances security, especially when enhanced with quality lighting. This technique is especially useful when the consolidated parking can be within easy walking distance of multiple buildings. This methodology is recommended

Consolidated parking using OCC standard rack type (Top - California State University, Chico, Bottom - Michigan State University) 75

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

for OCC, especially at the periphery of the campus core dismount zone (see example photos below).

reducing irrigation needs, of which turf is particularly demanding.

Some campuses are simultaneously addressing increased bicycle parking demand and sustainability issues by replacing relatively unused lawn areas with bicycle and skateboard parking (see case study below). This frees up pavement for other uses while

OCC campus locations where bicycle and skateboard parking is planned may be able to employ this practice to generate the same benefits driving other campuses to place their new racks in former lawn locations. Also, increased bicycle parking demand can be relatively easily met by expanding into lawn

University of California, Irvine (UCI) UCI recently transformed a little used lawn into an innovative Bike Parking Center with 300 bicycle parking spaces, locking skateboard parking towers, two bike repair stands, as well as reserved a future expansion site for their bike share system, ZotWheels.

The area was developed with sustainability in mind. Contractors removed soil and dying sod and installed decomposed granite instead of concrete to help reduce UCI’s water consumption, stormwater runoff and pavement’s urban heat island effect.

The project also included adaptive LED lighting.

Built-in motion detectors automatically dim the fixtures when no movement is being detected, minimizing energy consumption when bright lighting is not needed, but returning to safe lighting levels when users are there, as well as helping to deter theft and vandalism.

76

areas. The Landscape Committee should be consulted to help select appropriate locations.

Rack The bicycle rack itself is one or more rack elements joined on a common base or arranged in a regular array and fastened to a common mounting surface.

Rack elements may be attached to a single frame or remain single elements mounted in close proximity.

They should not be easily detachable from the rack frame or easily removed from the mounting surface.

The rack should be anchored so that it cannot be

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

stolen with the bicycles attached, such as with vandal-resistant fasteners.

The rack should provide easy, independent bicycle access. The high quality pedestal type rack elements OCC is installing supports two bicycles each and avoid interference by offsetting the bicycles. Typical pedestal elements mounted in a row should be placed on roughly three foot centers, but the manufacturer suggests this can be reduced to as little as 24 inches where necessary. However, if it is inconvenient and time-consuming to squeeze their bicycles into the available space and attach a lock, bicyclists will look for an alternative place to park or use one rack element per bicycle and reduce the projected

OCC campus standard bicycle parking rack

77

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

parking capacity by half.

Rack Area A rack area is the “bicycle parking lot” area where more than one rack is installed separated by aisles measured from tip to tip of bicycle tires across the space between racks. The minimum separation between aisles should be 48 inches, which provides enough space for one person to walk one bicycle. In high traffic areas where many users park or retrieve bicycles at the same time, such as at campuses, the recommended minimum aisle width is 72 inches. For multiple rows, the depth for each row of parked bicycles should also be 72 inches. Skateboard parking docks

should also be provided in larger bicycle rack areas.

Where possible, rack areas should be protected from the elements. Even though bicyclists are exposed to sun and rain in route, covering the rack area keeps them more comfortable while parking, locking the bicycle and loading or unloading cargo.

A covering will also help keep bicycles dry, especially their saddles. There may be opportunities to provide cover as part of future projects. For example, parking structures often have oddly shaped “leftover” spaces suitable for bicycle parking, especially where they are highly visible, such as near entrances. Any proposed parking structures would be desirable loca-

Suggested rack area dimensions and offsets (See Page 76 for skateboard parking details)

Permeable surfaced parking area with signage depicting proper locking instructions (UC Davis) 78

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

tions for secure bicycle parking cages.

Student Housing Bicycle Storage OCC is planning its first on-campus student housing near the campus’ northwest corner immediately west of the Adams Lot. The priority project recommendations discussed previously address this planned housing complex by including high quality facility connections with the rest of the campus. To further encourage more students to consider bicycle travel, it is recommended that the housing complex provide bicycle storage.

University of California - San Diego (UCSD) student housing bicycle parking has generally been provided via secure on-site bicycle storage rooms built into dormitory structures and accessed by key cards. Users provide their own locks.

UCSD is also developing a new student housing complex comparably sized to OCC’s and has developed detailed design programming requirements addressing bicycle storage. Of particular note is UCSD’s requirement for bicycle storage for a minimum of 75 percent of bed count, with 100 percent preferred, and the racks to be used are the same as OCC’s new standard. UCSD’s list of specific requirements is as follows: »» All bike storage areas must be easily accessible and promote the use of bicycles. »» Minimum bike storage to accommodate 75 percent of final bed count. Bike storage for 100 percent of final bed count preferred.

Manufacturer’s recommended rack dimensions and offsets (UC San Diego)

»» Bike storage should be dispersed. Indoor and outdoor storage can be utilized. Minimum covered spaces to meet at least LEED requirements. »» Incorporate as much bike storage as reasonable near active spaces. »» Bike racks provided immediately adjacent to the project food court. »» Bike storage must be well lit and designed to promote safety and security. »» Incorporate a minimum of one bike repair station, additional stations preferred. »» All bike racks will be Park-A-Bike (now Ground Control Systems) rack systems.

79

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Skateboard Parking To accommodate skateboard parking on par with bicycle parking, it is recommended that “skate docks” be provided at larger bicycle parking lots. Skateboard docks are very space efficient, and initially, a ten board dock per parking area should be sufficient. If demand merits, additional docks are relatively easy to install and can be planned for in future parking area design.

Surveys indicate that most skateboarders would prefer not to carry their boards into buildings and would welcome skate docks. Campus rules should reinforce dock use by prohibiting skateboards and scooters in buildings. Knowledge of skate docks is not widespread, but education about their availability, how to properly use them and that skateboards are prohibited inside buildings should therefore be part of orientation.

Long-term skateboard parking should be provided at OCC’s planned student housing complex within its indoor bicycle parking. These docks can be wall-mounted and should be conveniently located as close to the parking area entrance as possible.

Recommended skateboard dock type

Skateboard dock locking 80

Skateboard dock signage

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

recognized and therefore recommended.

Fix-it Stations Virtually all bicycle repair station installations incorporate turn-key repair stands with the tools necessary to make simple adjustments and repairs. However, these installations should be modified to address the needs of skateboarders and other wheeled users, as well as bicyclists. This could be done by including the relatively simple but specific set of tools skateboarders generally need to tighten their wheel bearings and deck fasteners, for examples. Because skateboard tools are not the same as the tools generally provided with turn-key bicycle repair stations, it is recommended that the following specific tools be added as part of any repair station installation: »» 3/8”, 1/2” and 9/16” sockets »» 7/32” and 1/8” Allen wrenches »» Phillips head screwdriver Finally, how repair stations are identified should reflect that they serve all wheeled users, including wheelchair users. The term “Fix-it Station” is widely

Fix-it station (Miami University)

Showers and Changing Rooms An essential element to encourage more students, staff and faculty to consider commuting by bicycle from off-campus is shower and changing facilities within a reasonable walking distance of their final destination. Especially for potential commuters traveling relatively long distances, showers and changing rooms are welcome amenities.

Awareness of changing rooms and shower facilities may encourage more of the campus community to consider commuting by bicycle. A publicity program is recommended, such as highlighting the locations on campus maps, both on-site and on websites.

For example, existing sports facility showers can be made available to commuters for little or no charge.

If a bike station is planned (see following section), showers and changing rooms could be incorporated into its design. Ample nearby bicycle parking is also recommended near wherever showers and changing rooms are provided. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits are available for projects that incorporate bicycle parking and

Fix-it station provided by local bike shop (Knoxville, TN) 81

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

shower and locker facilities.

Bike Station/Bike Co-op/Bike Kitchen A centralized bicycle service location may a desirable landmark amenity to support active transportation. Bike stations are generally situated at a highly visible location to support and encourage bicycle commuting and “bike and ride” multi-modal transport, usually at the end of typical commutes such are in city centers, universities and employment centers.

Bike stations may offer services such as bicycle repairs, advice, parts, secure parking and customer serving facilities such as showers, changing rooms or lockers. Larger bike stations are usually staffed.

Some require users to join as members while others employ a per use basis or are free of charge. Some bike stations provide rental bicycles or may provide space for a bike library where bicycles can be checked out for short-term use. Many bike stations provide instruction and tool use for little or no charge.

To accommodate after-hours needs, some provide bicycle parts vending machines and fix-it stations.

Bike stations may also function as a bicycle cooperative (“bike co-op” or “bicycle kitchen”), an assisted-service bicycle repair shop, usually organized as a volunteer cooperative. Bike co-ops help individuals in need of bicycle repair or maintenance. They may sell new and used bike parts, as well as refurbished bikes, and often offer scheduled bicycle repair and assembly classes. Members can learn repair skills to address breakdowns on the road and for home repairs. Staff and instructors are generally volunteers.

Some campuses centrally locate bike kitchens or coops, such as in student centers.

Bike kitchen information (The Bike Kitchen, Los Angeles, CA) 82

Bike Station Long Beach

Bike station service/instruction area (Long Beach, CA)

Bicycle parts vending machine with tube recycling

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL PROGRAMS Bike Share Many campus bike share programs brand themselves by employing custom-painted bicycles. Some are quite sophisticated, using automatic locking stations accessible via smartphone apps that provide real-time information on both available bicycles and parking slots, such as UC Irvine’s ZotWheels system.

Several are addressed in the following paragraphs.

ly used programs such as B-Cycle can even track riders by their associated membership numbers.

Data such as distance, duration, calories burned and carbon offset can be captured and uploaded to personal web pages at Bcycle.com. This data can also be helpful for those commuting and exercising at the same time.

Bike share programs have been popping up and expanding in mid-sized to large cities and universities across the US. Among cities where bike share has been implemented, significant benefits in terms of health, the economy and mode share have been documented.

Since bike sharing’s inception, providers have included governments, quasi-governmental transport agencies, universities, non-profits, advertising companies and for-profits. The four primary models are described in the following paragraphs.

Most bike share programs exist within large cities and universities with constrained vehicle access, compact land use patterns and populations accustomed to circulating without vehicles. Bike share systems also tend to thrive in places with robust transit systems, like big cities and universities, because the modes complement each other (i.e. transit helps cover longer distances and bike share helps cover the “first/last mile” connections).

Government Model Under this model, the campus would operate the bike-sharing service like it would any other transit service and, as operator, has greater control over the program. On the other hand, it may not have the management experience of an existing bike sharing program operator. Also, OCC would maintain liability, which can be less desirable from the its perspective.

Successful bicycle sharing programs have been implemented worldwide, including in southern California cities and universities in recent years. Most of these systems are highly advanced using key cards, online advanced purchase, GPS and radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies making it possible for bicycle sharing to be simple for all users. Wide-

Transit Agency Model A quasi-governmental organization provides the service and the agency’s customer is a jurisdiction. Some transit agencies have incorporated bike sharing as an extension of their other transport offerings to be a more comprehensive mobility provider. An example is Bay Area Bike Share, managed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA).

Bay Area Bike Share (San Francisco, CA)

Capital Bikeshare (Washington, D.C.) 83

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Non-profit Model A non-profit model is created to operate the service or folds bike sharing into its existing systems, such as Washington D.C.’s Capital Bikeshare. While the non-profit operates the program, it usually receives funding from the jurisdiction for the service it provides to the public in addition to collecting the revenues generated by membership and usage fees and sponsorships.

For-profit Model A private company provides the service with limited or no government involvement. While similar to the advertising company model, this model differs in that there is no on-street advertising contract with the locality and the for-profit keeps all revenues generated. Decobike is a prime example of this model, a business running the service using an off-the-shelf flexible station system.

Advertising Company Model Companies offer a bike sharing program to a jurisdiction, usually in exchange for the right to use public space to display revenue-generating advertisements on billboards, bus shelters and kiosks, for examples. To date, this model has been the most popular. New York City ‘s Citibike is a prime example.

Potential factors determining which model to use include the size of the jurisdiction and availability of both bike sharing systems able to operate in the locality and local entrepreneurs to run the program.

Jurisdiction size is an important factor because the predominant advertising company providing bike sharing service model tends to occur mostly in larger cities where the potential for advertising views, and therefore advertising revenue, is the greatest.

DecoBike (San Diego, CA)

Bike share (Princeton University)

CitiBike (New York, N.Y.)

Bike share (University of Arizona)

84

It is important to note that all of the systems noted in the previous paragraphs are in large cities. However, there are system operators providing bicycle sharing for individual businesses, institutions and universities. An example is a company (Zagster) operating a system for a General Motors’ technology campus, a 710 acre site with 38 buildings housing 21,000 employees. The site’s scale and compact arrangement makes bike sharing a viable alternative to employees having to move vehicles from place to place during the course of their work day, including having to locate a parking space each time they move. Access to shared bikes allows them to pick up transportation at will and conveniently drop it off.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

The University of California - Irvine (UCI) has its own proprietary bicycle sharing system similar to many large urban systems, called ZotWheels, that employs just four Wi-Fi-connected dock locations. The system server releases and notes return of each bicycle, recognizes each user and tracks each bicycle via RFID technology. The system sends text message reminders to return the bicycle to a locking station prior to the end of the maximum three hour use period. ZotWheels bicycles sport a custom paint scheme incorporating UCI’s colors and anteater logo.

Other system operators specialize in smaller cities and college campuses. Further simplifying bike share system use and management, Social Bicycles (Sobi) has done away with docking stations and kiosks altogether and integrated their functions directly onto their bikes. Sobi’s system employs no infrastructure.

Instead, users find and reserve a bicycle using a web browser or mobile device and users without internet access can make a reservation directly from the keypad interface on the bike.

System scale and market area are important factors to consider. Successful systems have tended to be ones that cover larger areas with an adequate distribution of bicycles and docking stations. A bike share program can be of value to OCC, but may initially see limited use due to the relatively small size of the campus. Many urban campuses address this through cooperative management agreements with their surrounding city’s overall transportation system to help support seamless travel to and around the campus. The planned student housing complex may be a good location to headquarter such a service since it can provide a ready market for bike sharing.

Sobi’s proprietary GPS-enabled bicycles are equipped with built-in U-locks and users can pick up and leave them at any public bike rack. Some systems charge a small additional fee for random parking, but provide free parking at “hubs,” signature racks placed where additional bike capacity is desired. Compared to other systems previously described, Sobi’s is more easily scaled and costs less to manage since it requires minimal additional infrastructure, but to be viable, it relies on an adequate distribution of bicycle racks across the system’s range.

For a campus the size of OCC’s, whose system would be relatively small-scale and cover a limited range, the flexibility of an arrangement with Zagster or Sobi may be advisable, since they can be easily expanded as demand increases. While Zagster requires additional infrastructure like docking stations, Sobi does require the purchase of their proprietary bicycles, but does not require users to have internet access to use the system. Sobi also gives users the convenience of leaving bicycles anywhere within the specified service area.

Bike share (GM Tech Center, Warren, MI)

GPS-enabled SobiBike bike share system with built-in U-lock 85

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Active Transportation Website A successful OCC Active Transportation Website can be a place to put digital education and outreach materials, maps, policies and general information about cycling and other active transportation modes on and around the OCC campus. It can also be a place to post event notices and information about campus resources such as a campus bike co-op, bike share program, bicycle commuter incentive programs, or local sponsoring bike shops. It provides a single location for events, notices and clubs housed under different campus departments and programs. It can also serve as a place to promote social rides and clubs, new outreach and education programs and notices about new facilities.

A website is the critical first step for success in reaching the campus community with further outreach programs. Without this information foundation, the promotion and education efforts would be missing the follow-up resource a website provides.

Active transportation services website (UC Davis) 86

In an effort to utilize the existing campus resources, it would be ideal if a web-design project could emerge from an OCC marketing or computer science class.

Efforts should be made to reach out to interested faculty and students to design and build the website.

Additionally, there will be a need for designated website administration who will be not only responsible for content, relevancy and website updates, but also ensure the collaborative spirit of an all-inclusive site is maintained. It is counterproductive to administer multiple pages of disparate information housed under the individual departments responsible for each element.

It would be best if the website administrator was in close communication with, or actual member of an organization like an active transportation committee.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Marketing Campaign A marketing campaign can provide direction for branding OCC’s active transportation image and provide an outreach campaign with ideas on how best to reach and communicate basic education or event promotion to the campus community. Outreach can include a public education campaign message series about campus “rules of the road,” safe cycling and other information for campus-wide distribution.

Messages can be distributed via campus newspapers, websites, smartphone apps, information kiosks, bus stop signs, etc.

It is important that this effort be concurrent with the website creation so that the branding is consistent across all efforts. At minimum, the website will need to be updated with the branding guidance if the programs must happen sequentially.

The development of educational marketing materials about bicycle, skateboard and pedestrian safety must be properly vetted by the necessary campus officials, committees and ideally, local bicycling advocates. It will also be important to work within existing campus branding guidelines. OCC can develop a campus wide branding initiative that can provide a framework to guide an active transportation-specific campaign.

Education Programs Bicycle instructors can serve as a resource for teaching bicycle education at orientation events, recreational classes or as diversion programs to reduce a citation fine. A group of trained instructors made up of faculty, staff and students will be critical to draw upon as additional education programs come to fruition.

To recruit and train a group of instructors through the League of American Cyclists, the first step is to hold a two day introductory safe cycling skills course taught on-campus with curriculum tailored to OCC. This course can be taught by an active League Certified Instructor. Interested participants are then eligible to be trained as bicycle instructors, League Certified Instructors (LCIs), in a follow-up three day course.

A bicycling education program will need to be selected or created, but there are existing, nationally known programs to utilize as samples. A campus insurance representative or risk management employee should be consulted on the merits of selecting the desired method of training and certification. Ad-

ditionally, existing bicycling educators of the Orange County Bicycle Coalition should be consulted for their input on bicycling education in the region. Initially, a one hour introductory “Effective Cycling” Class can be offered to gauge interest in full-day classes.

Collaboration can be beneficial with finite resources and time. Providing this class at a reduced rate at a convenient location and time would help to encourage users to attend. As precedent, there has been a successful bicycle education partnership between Cal State Long Beach and the City of Long Beach’s bicycle education campaign.

Reach Students During Orientation Orientation is an excellent opportunity to reach new students and should be coordinated with outreach and bicycle registration. Students can be educated about proper bicycling and skateboarding, OCC rules and policies, where to and not to ride and park their bicycles and skateboards. This can include a program to distribute vouchers for lights, helmets and locks for students who register their bicycles and/or complete an “effective cycling” course. Other actions could include handing out maps, route finding apps, regulations and other bicycle and skateboarding commuting information.

Ambassador Program Ambassadors provide safety and public awareness outreach. Their “job” is to promote safety for all users - bicyclists, skateboarders, drivers and pedestrians and encourage all campus community members to ride their bicycles or skateboard more. Ambassadors can employ “guerilla marketing” techniques to connect with students and staff, such as approaching bicyclists or skateboarders seen riding inappropriately, or talking to people with bicycles or skateboards at shuttle stops or at parking lots to guide them to suggested routes. This could also include invitations to scheduled instructional group rides and maintenance clinics or other more direct assistance, such as on-the-spot minor repairs and adjustments.

Violation Diversion Program Diversion programs usually offer citation recipients the opportunity to attend an educational class in exchange for reducing or removing the citation, such an LAB “effective cycling” class.

87

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Other Programs and Services Bicycle Map A bicycle map provides an opportunity to inform users where best to ride and park their bicycle or skateboard, showers/changing facility location and the back panel is a great place to incorporate bicycle and skateboard safety information. This map should be re-printed as often as facilities change and should be distributed free of charge, as well as made available online.

Bicycle Registration Bicycle registration aids in the retrieval and identification of stolen bicycles and helps campus parking and police to make sure bicycles are properly locked in designated areas. It can help in creating a bicycle-commuting database to track trends. Some registration systems allow users can track their commute distance, as well as other statistics, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or carbon saved by not driving.

Commuter Incentives Users can participate in Bike to Work Week, track their miles and compete for prizes. This can be incorporated with campus commuter incentive programs. OCC can also give users an incentive not to bring their cars onto campus.

Scannable bicycle registration tag (Arizona State University) 88

Green Campus Program Green Campus is a program supported by the Alliance to Save Energy that works with campus communities to integrate energy efficiency through education and outreach, green workforce development, academic infusion and projects that target measurable energy savings. Implementing this study’s recommendations correlate with Green Campus objectives and can form the basis for collaborative marketing and outreach mentioned above.

Online Wayfinding A custom map app created for OCC could also include information about where to ride on campus and where bicycle and skateboard parking is located. It can provide information beyond the standard racks and provide information on long-term or indoor storage solutions, as well as provide the ability to report problems with racks, facilities or even report close-calls.

Google Maps provides online directions and allows the user to select from various transportation modes, including walking or bicycling. As this plans recommendations are implemented, it will be important to update Google with the latest biking, skating and walking routes on campus.

Additionally, Google Maps’ Street View allows the user to virtually move through a place with 360 degree street-level imagery. A campus can request the Street View team to visit their location and collect imagery using a special tricycle that can access campus pathways that their other vehicles can not. Once the images are added to Street View, students will be able to explore the campus virtually. This can be a great asset, particularly for new and prospective students.

Quick Response (QR) Codes A Quick Response or QR code is an image that functions similar to a barcode, readable by smartphones equipped with an appropriate reader app. The most widely used type consists of black squares arranged in a pattern on a white background that make up a code containing letters, characters and numbers.

The QR code can therefore contain a link to a website or video or other digital content on-line. Users encountering a QR code scan it with a smartphone or tablet camera enabled with a QR Code reader app and the device will load an encoded Web URL onto the device’s Web browser. Posting a QR code assumes the user will recognize what to do with the QR code and have a smartphone and QR reader app. Therefore, it is best to reserve the use of these codes for added information or convenience.

For example, a QR code posted on a campus map could be encoded to direct users to the campus active transportation website to find more information about campus routes.

QR Codes can be used to provide additional information for wayfinding, bicycle parking and transit information, as well as instructional videos, contact information and more. For example, the campus standard bicycle rack manufacturer employs a QR code sticker on its racks that links to an instructional video on how to properly lock a bicycle.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Condition Reporting With the power of a smartphone, it is now easy to take a photo, record the time, date and location and add a text description. Pairing this functionality with an app can allow individuals to report issues such as graffiti, overgrown plantings, roadway problems, broken pathway pavement, lighting problems, trash, irrigation leaks, etc. The most widely used such app is City Sourced, which produces apps customized for a number of cities across the country. It may be possible to coordinate with the City of Costa Mesa to contract with City Sourced for a city-wide version of their app that includes the campus.

Close-Call Reporting Crash data provides a wealth of information regarding locations with safety concerns. This can help to determine if an education campaign or engineering fix can address crash patterns. However, this is a reactionary measure. A method for reporting “closecalls” where crashes nearly happened can help to capture valuable information before there is a serious incident. Additionally, this can be a venue to report a crash that results in no damage or injury and therefore would have otherwise gone unreported.

QR tag 89

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

EXAMPLE CAMPUS PROGRAMS A review of the programs, policies and facilities at other campuses reveals that the issues addressed in this study are not unique to OCC. Other campuses are implementing a number of approaches and solutions to provide and even encourage more equitable on-campus active transportation access. A flurry of innovative campus transportation initiatives across the country are aimed at reducing carbon footprints and parking demand by encouraging students, faculty and staff to use their cars less in favor of bicycles, public transit, ride sharing or car-sharing programs. A number of these ongoing efforts are occurring on California campuses.

The following sections describe noteworthy highlights at some of these campuses that may be applicable to OCC, including physical improvements, pol-

icies and programs intended to reduce reliance on motor vehicles as the primary transportation mode wherever possible. These include incentives offered to on-campus students to help reduce the need for additional parking infrastructure by encouraging them not to bring a car to campus.

For example, some campuses offer shared car benefits like Zipcar, or even give faculty or students free bikes in lieu of a parking permit. The following campus descriptions were selected as examples of facilities, programs or policies, or a combination of these, designed to shift travel mode from driving a vehicle to active transportation (with a few exceptions, most campuses with established bicycle or active transportation plans have generally not addressed skateboard use).

League of American Bicyclists (LAB) • Bicycle Friendly University (BPU) Program In 1880, two decades before cars came into wide use, 100,000 “wheelmen” organized to advocate for better roads and an equal footing with other road users as the League of American Wheelmen. Now 330,000 members strong, the LAB continues to draw on its unique history to advocate for all bicyclists.

As part of this advocacy, the League’s Bicycle Friendly America (BFA) program provides assistance and recognition for states, communities, universities and businesses to make bicycling a real transportation and recreation option for all people.

A bicycle friendly community, business or university welcomes bicyclists by providing safe bicycling accommodations and encouraging people to bike for transportation and recreation. A bicycle-friendly place makes bicycling safe, comfortable, and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.

Campuses are high density, stimulating environments with defined boundaries, factors that make them ideal to incorporate bicycles. Many colleges have built upon these conditions and embraced the enthusiasm for more bicycle-friendly campuses by incorporating bike share programs, bike co-ops, clubs, education and policies to promote bicycling as a preferred means of transportation.

90

With the goal to build on this momentum and to inspire more action to build healthy, sustainable and livable institutions of higher education, the LAB created the Bicycle Friendly University (BFU) program.

The BFU program recognizes institutions of higher education for promoting and providing more bikeable campus environments for students, staff and visitors. It provides the roadmap and technical assistance to create great campuses for bicycling.

The Bicycle Friendly University program evaluates applicants’ efforts to promote bicycling in five primary areas: engineering, encouragement, education, enforcement and evaluation/planning, known as the Five E’s, starting with an online self-assessment (http://bikeleague.org/university).

At the time of this writing, most of the universities noted in the following section are BFU awardees, but only one community college (in Pennsylvania) has been so honored. Can OCC be next?

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

University of California – Irvine (UCI)

University of California - San Diego (UCSD)

UCI is a League of American Bicyclists’ gold level Bicycle Friendly University. UCI has made significant infrastructure investments to encourage active transportation. It’s transportation policies focus primarily on rules and regulations that pertain to bicyclists, but there are also regulations for service vehicle use on campus, which limit their use to certain times of the day and to certain areas. Riding bicycles and skateboards is banned from the hours of 8:30am to 5:00pm in the campus center, except for a few through-ways where they are allowed to cross the central campus Ring Mall. All first-time infractions receive a warning after which students must complete a mandatory online safety quiz.

UCSD maintains a loaner bicycle program supplied by bicycles abandoned on campus and refurbished at an on-campus bicycle and skateboard shop and covered with yellow vinyl tape. To participate, students must show their driver’s license and student ID to check out a free bicycle at stations around campus. Departments or campus organizations can also host a loaner for their staff’s exclusive use. Triton Bikes delivers bicycles, helmets, locks and bicycle racks and performs needed repairs. The department or organization performs routine maintenance like keeping tires inflated.

UCI recently completed a 300 space Bicycle Parking Center that also includes skateboard racks and repair stands (see Page 72). While the racks themselves are mounted in concrete footings, the rest of the parking area is decomposed granite.

UCI’s Transportation and Distribution Services department collects abandoned bicycles on a monthly basis and holds them for 90 days. As part of UCI’s goal is to provide affordable means of transportation to UCI students and the rest of campus community, they are then made available for sale at very low cost. Unsold bicycles and parts are regularly donated to local charitable organizations.

ZotWheels bike share station (UCI)

UCSD is also trying other ways to encourage students and employees to ride instead of drive. Among them is the popular Pedal Club available to students and others who live off-campus who commit to riding their bicycles to campus most of the time instead of driving. Incentives include discounted services and parts at the campus bicycle and skateboard shop, 10 free days of parking each quarter, free shower access and guaranteed emergency rides home. As UCSD has added programs, campus officials have seen a gradual shift in commuting behavior. Transportation data show that single-occupant vehicle usage around campus has dropped year over year.

The campus’ most recent Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study was prepared with the support of extensive faculty, staff and student input via a steering committee that helped to select five priority projects, all of which have been implemented.

Grove Path (UCSD) 91

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

University of California - Berkeley (UCB)

University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA)

UCB is a League of American Bicyclists’ silver level Bicycle Friendly University. While bicycle racks are provided at convenient locations throughout the central campus area, the campus is also equipped with secure, covered bicycle parking facilities free of charge to current students, staff and faculty. Parking enforcement monitors these facilities during business hours. Access is also controlled through personal codes that make parking available for use at any times. Enclosed lockers are also available through funding provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District at a cost of five cents an hour.

UCLA is a League of American Bicyclists’ silver level Bicycle Friendly University and maintains a comprehensive commuter support system called the Bruin Commuter Club (BCC). A BCC feature is their Earn-ABike program designed to “…get employees to ride a bicycle to campus as a sustainable, economical and healthy alternative to driving alone.” Qualified UCLA staff and faculty members can trade in their parking permit for a free $400 bicycle package from a local bike shop, including lights, a lock and helmet.

UCB also has a student founded and cooperatively run organization (BicyCAL) whose mission is to empower UCB students, faculty and staff to successfully integrate the bicycle into their daily lives. They provide campus community members instruction in how to operate and maintain their bicycles through peerto-peer bicycle repair and maintenance education.

UCLA’s bicycle infrastructure’s connections with the surrounding city is of particular concern, similar to OCC’s situation. Nurit Katz, UCLA’s sustainability coordinator, notes that current bicycle commuters have concerns that extend beyond campus. “One of the chief complaints from cyclists is that it’s not about the campus, it’s about the routes to campus.” This is echoed by UCLA professor Madeline Brozen, “Doing things on campus is great, but if people don’t have a safe way to bike to UCLA, we won’t see a return on our investments on campus.” To help address these issues, the campus transportation department is working with the Interstate 405 widening project manager to increase the focus on pedestrian and cyclist safety at nearby underpasses, entrances and exits. The department also hopes to pair UCLA’s 1,750 experienced bike commuters with newer bicyclists to share their know-how about the fastest and safest side streets as desirable commuter routes.

BicyCAL free maintenance clinic (UCB)

Dismount zone sign and Earn-A-Bike program poster (UCLA) 92

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Arizona State University – Tempe (ASU) Arizona State University is a League of American Bicyclists’ gold level Bicycle Friendly University that actively advertises the benefits of bicycling as a reliable, timely and convenient commuter mode, that also happens to be “…good exercise and great for the environment.” ASU has implemented a number of measures to encourage bicycling to campus and touts the use of alternate modes of transportation as contributing to community quality of life and local air quality. In keeping with its mission to provide sustainable transportation and access solutions, ASU’s Parking and Transit Services’ (PTS) Commuter Options Program provides a number of transit options, most of which are free.

These have been quite successful with more than 15,000 people riding to campus daily. ASU’s Parking and Transit Services, through its Helmets and Headlights Program, offers high-quality bicycle helmets, headlights and U-locks at half the retail price. For example, a helmet, headlight/tail light set, U-lock and cable lock package costs students $50. Registered bicyclists can purchase a U-lock alone for $20. The campus also offers used bicycles for sale.

ASU’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) offers free two week bicycle rentals to the ASU community, as well as provides the campus with a lowcost alternative to bicycle maintenance and repair at its Bike Co-Op with reduced-cost tools, parts (both new and used) and bicycle repair assistance.

ASU is further supported by the City of Tempe, which has 175 miles of bikeways, including bicycle lanes, paths and racks on the Tempe campus. In addition, the local transit provider, Valley Metro, provides bicycle racks on all buses and light rail trains to make it more convenient to combine getting around by bicycle with using public transit.

ASU enforces walk-only zones that apply to all wheeled vehicles on weekdays during peak foot-traffic times of 8:00am to 4:00pm. The walk-only zones are intended to relieve congestion, as well as enhance safety in heavy foot-traffic areas. During enforcement times, no one may ride, drive, or park a wheeled vehicle in walk-only zones. This includes delivery and university vehicles, carts, bicycles, skateboards, scooters, Segways and other related transportation types. At major entry points, the campus employs a Walk-Only Zones ambassador program to educate users about zone restrictions. The walk-only zones are not intended to limit or redirect use of mobility devices by individuals with disabilities.

Dismount zone signage and ambassador (ASU) 93

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

University of Arizona – Tucson (UA)

Ripon College – Ripon, Wisconsin

The University of Arizona (UA) is a League of American Bicyclists’ gold level Bicycle Friendly University that has become one of the largest activity centers within metropolitan Tucson, attracting tens of thousands of person trips every weekday via a number of transportation modes. The population increase in both UA and the region, coupled with the university’s location along major commuting arterials within the City of Tucson has resulted in significant congestion and conflicts between travel modes both within and around the campus.

Initially conceived solely to mitigate campus parking congestion, Ripon College’s Velorution Project (RVP) focus was expanded to address student wellness, fuel costs, pollution and safety. Incoming freshmen are offered a Ripon-branded mountain bike, a helmet and a U-lock if they pledge to leave their cars at home. The school raised about $50,000 from alumni, trustees and donors to pay for the bicycles, which was approximately the cost of building two structured parking stalls.

The congestion has increased even with significant efforts by both UA and the City of Tucson to provide multimodal transportation system improvements to increase the supply of transportation, separate alternative modes of travel and manage travel demand.

The rapid growth has simply outpaced the effectiveness of the implemented transportation supply and demand management measures.

The number of freshmen bringing cars to campus dropped from 75 to 25 percent over the first two years of the program. In response to the program’s success, the school installed 32 new bicycle racks.

More than half of students said their bicycle use increased as a result of the RVP program and 82 percent said they would encourage future students to sign up for the program. Variations have been implemented at several other college campuses.

In response to these issues, UA conducted a needs assessment study that concluded that more travel demand management (TDM) measures were needed. The top measures were: »» Provide universal transit passes to all students and university staff. »» Increase parking cost. »» Freshman orientation packets should contain only alternative transportation modes. »» Increase marketing of alternatives modes to incoming students’ parents. »» No parking permits for on-campus students. »» Prohibit freshman from bringing cars to campus. »» Institute campaign to increase awareness of alternative modes available.

UA also maintains five “bike stations” where the campus community can pick up a bicycle through a free bicycle share program, as well as other free services such as minor maintenance at the core bike station.

The campus Parking and Transportation Services department also provides secure, long-term bicycle parking for an additional fee.

Bike fix-it station (UA) 94

Michigan State University – East Lansing (MSU) MSU is a League of American Bicyclists’ silver level Bicycle Friendly University. It has adopted a comprehensive bicycle master plan whose key elements include the following: »» Provide a consistent system of safe bicycle lanes on campus roads. »» Improve bicycle lane treatments and transitions at intersections. »» Provide bicycle paths along major desired routes through campus open space.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

»» Improve safety through separation of bicycles and pedestrians. »» Underscore pedestrian’s right-of-way where pedestrian and bicycle routes coincide. »» Identify long-term bicycle parking options for future consideration.

In addition, its on-campus bicycle co-op rents bicycles at such economical rates that renting is competitive with ownership, especially since rentals include maintenance and a lock. For example, a semester bicycle rental is $90.

Bike Service Center (MSU) 95

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

University of New England – Portland and Biddeford, Maine (UNE) UNE is a League of American Bicyclists’ bronze level Bicycle Friendly University. UNE’s approach to curbing the campus carbon footprint, vehicular volume and parking demand includes offering free bicycles or free Zipcar usage to incoming freshmen who agree not to bring cars to campus, as well as free on-site bicycle tune-ups several times during the school year. The program also provides free shuttle service and discounted taxi or limo service on the Biddeford campus and free taxi vouchers to students at the Portland campus.

Most of UNE’s Biddeford residential students bring cars to campus. The university lost vehicle parking due to facility expansion and was faced with having to pave over open space to accommodate the lost parking. UNE instead found ways to reduce vehicular parking demand by motivating students to choose active transportation through attractive and convenient access to off-campus destinations, essentially changing the local transportation culture.

This included encouraging incoming resident freshman not to bring cars to campus. To do so, UNE increased parking permit fees to $300 (upperclassmen pay $90). As an added incentive, resident freshman who agreed to leave their cars at home are given either of two alternatives. One was a bicycle, helmet and lock and the other was access to Zipcars on the Biddeford campus, along with a gift card for 28 hours of free use and at a minimal hourly cost thereafter. Since these programs were initiated, the Biddeford campus has been able to close a parking lot and convert it to recreation space without the need to replace the parking elsewhere.

Freshman bicycles (UNE) 96

University of Missouri - Kansas City (UMKC) UMKC is a League of American Bicyclists’ bronze level Bicycle Friendly University. UMKC operates the Clean Commute bicycle programs to encourage students to ride bicycles instead of driving their vehicles with the primary goal being to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips to campus. The program provides loaner bicycles for full semesters to students, staff and faculty, including lights, lock and fenders.

Along with other transit programs, Clean Commute is intended to work with a carpooling program and with public transportation to help reduce the university’s carbon footprint.

The bicycles are loaned out for the length of a semester with the only requirements being that the bicycle is ridden and returned in decent condition. A credit card is required as a deposit, but nothing is charged unless the bicycle is not returned at the end of the semester. An e-mail notice is sent out prior to the card being charged. The program has been so successful that additional bicycles are being added to keep up with demand. The program is managed out of an on-campus bicycle shop where students, staff and faculty pick up their bicycles and where most basic repairs are offered at no cost to Clean Commute participants.

Loaner bike (UMCK)

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the specific facility, program and policy recommendations that make up the bulk of this study, the following are general recommendations to help guide implementation of a bicycle and skateboard system compatible with OCC’s high quality pedestrian environment, consistent with other adopted plans, and that ultimately encourages more students, staff and visitors to travel by methods other than driving.

Education »» Education about safely sharing campus pathways should be provided as part of new student orientation, perhaps in collaboration with OCC Bikeways and the Orange County Bicycle Coalition. »» To maintain message continuity, the campus should employ an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to increasing campus awareness and education about bicycling and skateboarding, such as a mobility advisory council.

Travel Demand Management (TDM) »» To reduce vehicle parking demand, the campus should consider modifying parking policies, such as raising parking permit fees for first year students or rewarding those who do not buy permits. »» The campus should encourage more students and staff to consider commuting by bicycle through programs and incentives, such as Bike to Work Week promotions and give-aways. »» The campus should consider a loaner bicycle program at nominal cost to users, perhaps supported through a air quality improvement grant program.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Collaboration »» The campus should work with the City of Costa Mesa to coordinate efforts and to assure that on-campus facilities will be compatible with those of surrounding neighborhoods. »» The campus should work with the City of Costa Mesa to implement routes to and through campus to maximize safety and use. »» The campus should work with the City of Costa Mesa to coordinate with surrounding retail and dining establishments to promote available bicycle services and associated education opportunities.

Planning »» Bicycle and skateboard parking and associated amenities should be provided at locations convenient to new major buildings and other facilities, as demand warrants. »» Developments should be carefully reviewed for transportation impacts where on-site bicycle and skateboard facilities are planned to include the restoration of bicycle and skateboard facilities impacted by construction projects. »» New infrastructure planning should be carefully reviewed to avoid introducing new problems or exacerbating existing ones. »» College-wide bicycle and skateboard facility construction and maintenance standards should be developed and adhered to. »» Bicycle and skateboard facilities should be given priority over vehicle parking to improve overall continuity and to close gaps in the existing network. »» Safe passage for bicyclists and skateboarders during construction should be provided wherever possible. »» Bicycle and skateboard facility maintenance and monitoring programs should be established to promote usage and safety. »» A method for reporting maintenance problems and safety issues should be provided, such as an online portal available to the entire campus community.

97

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

SUGGESTED RULE CHANGES The planning and construction of OCC campus facilities should consider the provision for usable and reasonable wheeled routes to and around the campus. These bicycle and skateboard facilities should be provided without obstacles, while considering pedestrian safety and the access needs of the physically challenged. Circulation improvements should include bicycle and skateboard parking facilities and regulatory/warning signage. Signage needs to inform bicyclists and skateboarders that they must yield to pedestrians and to caution pedestrians when they are about to cross or mix with faster moving bicycle or skateboard users. These preferred routes should accommodate the access needs and requirements of those using assistive devices like wheelchairs, as well as service vehicle operators. The proposed facilities should be designed to allow pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders, wheelchair users and service vehicle operators to utilize the facilities safely and efficiently.

“Usable and reasonable” facilities should be defined to include the following criteria: »» Dismount zones should be limited in distance and used only if other options for safe and effective pedestrian and bicycle intersections are not feasible. Parallel routes should be provided to allow bicyclists, skateboarders and service vehicle operators to travel around the dismount zone.

Maintenance cart (OCC) 98

»» Bicycle and skateboard routes should not have long detours. Bicyclists and skateboarders should not have to detour more than 100 yards at either end, compared to a direct route. »» There should be reasonable bicycle and skateboard routes to and within the campus core connecting most destinations. Providing access near the campus core is essential to effectively enforcing a dismount zone. The goal should be to provide penetration into the campus core to a point where the walking portion of the trip is no more than 100 yards to the final destination.

OCC’s current bicycle and skateboard access rules are recommended to remain in effect except for the removal of the following portion of Section 206 of the Coast Community College District’s Administrative Procedures: “No person shall ride skateboards within the confines of the campus.” The remainder of Section 206 should remain in effect: “No person shall roller-skate or use rollerblades on campus.”

In addition, the following rules are recommended to be added. (The dismount zone prohibited use period was suggested by the OCC Sustainability Committee):

No Skateboarding sign (OCC)

Campus Wheeled Vehicle Use Wheeled vehicle use is prohibited in the campus core (marked “Dismount Zone”) during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, except weekends and holidays. Bicycles, skateboards, scooters, Segways and other related transportation types are included in this section. Campus service vehicles are exempt from Dismount Zone restrictions, but operators must to adhere to the requirements noted at the end of this section.

Riding bicycles or skateboards is prohibited in all campus buildings.

This section does not apply to users of disabled assistive devices such as wheelchairs, or to Public Safety personnel in the performance of their duties.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

A map depicting the allowed use area should be posted in all service vehicles. Additionally, if vehicle use must be permitted on narrow paths for necessary building access, the “no passing rule” must be strictly enforced, and access should also be restricted during class change periods.

Overall, OCC should aim to reduce the amount of service vehicles on campus. Permits should be limited to those who require a vehicle to perform a critical function. If a service vehicle is not essential, applicants should be encouraged to utilize other campus options. Standardized orientation and at least a brief training period should be required of all operators.

These rules and operational recommendations will simplify enforcement and help to reduce service vehicle conflicts with other pathway users.

Service Vehicle Operations Service vehicles shall be operated with the utmost courtesy, care and consideration for the safety and convenience of other pathway users.

All other users, including inline skaters, skateboarders, bicyclists and wheelchair or mobility assistance devices users, have the right-of-way at all times. Under no circumstances may a service vehicle driver force another user off a pathway.

On roadways, service vehicle operators shall not exceed posted speed limits for motorized vehicles.

On off-street pathways, service vehicle operators shall not exceed the speed of other pathway users.

Service vehicle operators also shall not attempt to pass other users if they cannot do so without making the other user change their route of travel.

Service vehicles are prohibited from parking where they would impede or interfere with pathway user or vehicular traffic flow on roadways, ramps or offstreet pathways.

Service cart use shall be restricted to specific permitted areas or routes and violation of posted rules shall result in revocation of the cart permit.

Service carts operators shall pull over and park for the period between five minutes before and after class change times.

99

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

CONCLUSIONS This study supports a college-wide system of safe, efficient, connected and attractive bicycle and skateboard facilities that also will accommodate service vehicles, as well as programs, policies and educational efforts to promote bicycling and skateboarding as viable alternatives to driving. It also promotes the safety of all users to help maintain Orange Coast College’s high quality pedestrian environment, while promoting the use of bicycles and skateboards and other forms of transportation.

This study’ recommendations are intended to help Orange Coast College take advantage of both planned campus infrastructure changes and off-campus mobility planning to better connect the campus with its surrounding community in ways that will encourage more students, faculty and staff to consider commuting by methods other than driving. This, in turn, will help improve sustainability, health and safety for both OCC and the City of Costa Mesa.

No campus bicycle and skateboard access can function efficiently without addressing connections from outside the campus. There are relatively few access points around the OCC campus from the adjoining area and the roadways that serve the campus are generally wide and carry high volumes of high speed vehicular traffic. This makes these roadways less than ideal for bicycling, but the City of Costa Mesa is committed to improving its walking and biking environment and recently completed a mobility connectivity planning study focused on the area around the OCC campus.

Also, GIS analysis of ZIP codes indicates that more than a third of students live within three miles of the campus. Bicycle route improvements like those the City of Costa Mesa is planning could help to encourage more students to switch from driving their vehicles to commuting by bicycle. The City plan’s goal was to make attractive active transportation connec-

Pathway between Building 73 - Clark Center and Building 74 - Mathematics, Business and Computing Center 100

tions across Costa Mesa to connect the very popular Santa Ana River Trail to the northwest and the Bayview Trail to the southeast, using as many “lowstress,” off-street routes as possible. OCC was literally the nexus of this planning area, so its connectivity needs were carefully considered and accommodated, especially to encourage students living in the area to consider biking, walking or skateboarding, instead of driving.

Beyond the City plan’s recommended facilities on Adams Avenue and Merrimac Way adjacent to the campus, connections are planned with existing offstreet paths and on-street bicycle lanes, as well as a separated bikeway on Fairview Drive south to Wilson Street. Once this plan is implemented, OCC will be connected with its surround neighborhoods with much improved active transportation routes accessing local open spaces and other attractions.

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

The campus’ immediately surrounding roadways are especially important to address if this study’s recommended improvements are to be successful. Recommendations address the north and south boundaries of the campus in both this study and a City mobility connectivity study, but none address Fairview Road adjacent to the campus. This is problematic because Fairview’s traffic volumes are the highest of the campus’ surrounding streets and the City needs to maintain its current configuration of three lanes each way with bicycle lanes on both sides. While these bicycle lanes technically meet State standards, they put cyclists on five feet of paving between high volumes of relatively high speed vehicle traffic and curbs with numerous driveways on the east side, and with gutter seams to negotiate. This is not the “low-stress” facility type preferred by most cyclists and will not encourage more people living to the east to consider bicycling instead of driving to campus.

Pathway south of Building 80 - Social and Behavioral Studies 101

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

OCC and City collaboration is key. A bike share system, for instance, is more likely to succeed if established and managed in partnership with the surrounding city because a campus community alone may not achieve the demand threshold required to sustain a system without substantial subsidy. In OCC’s favor is Costa Mesa’s long-standing relationship with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the metropolitan planning organization that is the transportation entity mandated by the State of California to administer most of the State’s regional grant funding for mobility planning, design and construction. Costa Mesa has successfully applied for SCAG-administered funding, particularly for the mobility connectivity study for the area around the campus mentioned previously that directly affected this study’s recommendations.

Collaboratively addressing mobility issues affecting OCC and the City will enhance future grant funding efforts. Any reductions in vehicle traffic to the campus will benefit the City through reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. This study’s recommendations and conceptual facility design plans are specifically intended to support grant application.

102

OCC should also collaborate with the City on other area initiatives, such as coordinating efforts with surrounding retail and dining establishments to promote available bicycle services and associated education opportunities. The City, as the local municipal entity, has the authority to launch such an initiative, but OCC’s support is critical to its success.

Such programs may be of particular value to OCC since the GIS analysis of ZIP code data performed for this study showed such a significant portion of the student population living within relatively short distances of the campus and may therefore be more easily reached through the establishments they likely regularly visit around OCC. Finally, the efforts of OCC’s own bicycle advocacy organization, OCC Bikeways, and architecture students in Dean Abernathy’s classes over the last several years, were instrumental in bringing this study to life and in developing preliminary ideas underpinning its recommendations.

04

Implementation Costs The following are planning level cost estimates for the three “Priority Projects” and six “Other Recommended Projects” described in Chapter 3. All costs include materials and installation.

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Primary Priority Project: Adams Lot Improvements Demolition Items

Unit Cost $1 $15 $4 $3 $25

Unit SF LF SF LF EA

QTY 36,510 2,434 36,510 3,777 100 Demolition Totals:

Cost Estimate $36,510 $36,510 $146,040 $9,443 $2,500 $231,003

Concrete

Unit Cost $14

Unit SF

QTY 36,510 Paving Totals:

Cost Estimate $511,140 $511,140

Trees (24" Box)

Unit Cost $250

Unit EA

QTY 150 Landscape Totals:

Cost Estimate $37,500 $37,500

Unit Cost

Unit

Cost Estimate

$480

EA

QTY 30

Unit Cost

Unit EA

Clear and Grub Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Asphalt Remove Aisle Stripes Remove Parking Stripes

Paving Items

Landscape Items

Site Furnishings Items Bike Racks

Furnishings Totals:

$14,400 $14,400

Bicycle Facility Markings Items Sharrow Marking, MMA Pavement Markings, 6" Solid Blue and Orange Thermoplastic Bike Lane Green, MMA

$940 $3 $11

QTY 20

Cost Estimate

LF SF

2,434 800 Signage Totals:

$18,800 $6,085 $8,800 $33,685

Road Striping Items

Aisle Striping Aisle Striping with Reflectors Parking Stripes, Thermoplastic

Unit Cost $1 $2 $1

Unit LF LF LF

QTY 680 3,777 2,820 Striping Totals:

Cost Estimate $408 $5,666 $2,256 $8,330

Painted/Patterned Speed Table

Unit Cost $9,000

Unit EA

QTY 26 Safety Measure Totals:

Cost Estimate $234,000 $234,000

Enhanced Safety Measures Items

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

Base Line Cost:

$1,070,057

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $214,011 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $80,254 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $294,266 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $107,006 Environmental Clearance (4%): $42,802 Permitting (2%): $21,401 Bid Support Services (3%): $32,102 Project Management (3%): $32,102 Traffic Management Services (3%): $32,102 TOTAL SOFT COST: $267,514 TOTAL COST:

104

$1,631,837

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Primary Priority Project: Campus Core Loop and Dismount Zone Site Furnishings Items

Bicycle Racks Skateboard Racks Fix-It Stations Dismount Zone Sign Dismount Zone Thermoplastic Sign

Unit Cost $480 $1,350 $2,100 $500 $1,000

Unit EA EA EA EA EA

QTY 132 11 4 12 12 Furnishings Totals:

Cost Estimate $63,360 $14,850 $8,400 $6,000 $12,000 $104,610

Items Pavement Markings, 6" Solid Blue and Orange Thermoplastic OCC Roundabout Logo

Unit Cost $3 $4,000

Unit LF EA

QTY 4,425 3 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $11,063 $12,000 $23,063

Base Line Cost:

$127,673

Bicycle Facility Markings

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $25,535 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $9,575 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $35,110 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $12,767 Environmental Clearance (4%): $5,107 Permitting (2%): $2,553 Bid Support Services (3%): $3,830 Project Management (3%): $3,830 Traffic Management Services (3%): $3,830 TOTAL SOFT COST: $31,918 TOTAL COST:

$194,701

105

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Primary Priority Project: Merrimac Lot Improvements Demolition Items

Unit Cost $1 $15 $4 $3 $25

Unit SF LF SF LF EA

QTY 22,650 1,510 22,650 785 50 Demolition Totals:

Cost Estimate $22,650 $22,650 $90,600 $1,963 $1,250 $139,113

Concrete Curb

Unit Cost $14 $17

Unit SF LF

QTY 22,650 960 Paving Totals:

Cost Estimate $317,100 $16,320 $333,420

Trees (24" Box)

Unit Cost $250

Unit EA

QTY 60 Landscape Totals:

Cost Estimate $15,000 $15,000

Bike Racks Skateboard Racks

Unit Cost $480 $1,350

Unit EA EA

QTY 10 2 Furnishings Totals:

Cost Estimate $4,800 $2,700 $7,500

Items Pavement Markings, 6" Solid Blue and Orange Thermoplastic OCC Roundabout Logo Bike Lane Green, MMA

Unit Cost $3 $4,000 $11

Unit LF EA SF

QTY 1,510 1 800 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $3,775 $4,000 $8,800 $16,575

Aisle Striping with Reflectors Parking Stripes, Thermoplastic

Unit Cost $2 $1

Unit LF LF

QTY 785 240 Striping Totals:

Cost Estimate $1,178 $192 $1,370

Painted/Patterned Speed Table

Unit Cost $9,000

Unit EA

QTY 2 Safety Measure Totals:

Cost Estimate $18,000 $18,000

Clear and Grub Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Asphalt Remove Aisle Stripes Remove Parking Stripes

Paving Items

Landscape Items

Site Furnishings Items

Bicycle Facility Markings

Road Striping Items

Enhanced Safety Measures Items

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

Base Line Cost:

$530,977

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $106,195 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $39,823 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $146,019 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $53,098 Environmental Clearance (4%): $21,239 Permitting (2%): $10,620 Bid Support Services (3%): $15,929 Project Management (3%): $15,929 Traffic Management Services (3%): $15,929 TOTAL SOFT COST: $132,744 TOTAL COST:

106

$809,740

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Other Recommended Projects: A (Monitor Way Buffered Bike Lanes) Demolition Items

Removing Traffic Stripes

Unit Cost $3

Unit LF

QTY 1,040 Demolition Totals:

Cost Estimate $2,600 $2,600

Items

Bike Lane Markings, MMA Bike Lane, Solid 6" White Thinmill Thermoplastic Bike Buffer Paint Bike Lane Green, MMA

Unit Cost $1,380 $1 $3 $11

Unit EA LF SF SF

QTY 12 2080 4160 450 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $16,560 $1,664 $12,480 $4,950 $35,654

Items Centerline Striping with Reflectors

Unit Cost $2

Unit LF

QTY 1040 Striping Totals:

Cost Estimate $1,560 $1,560

Base Line Cost:

$39,814

Bicycle Facility Markings

Road Striping

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $7,963 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $2,986 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $10,949 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $3,981 Environmental Clearance (4%): $1,593 Permitting (2%): $796 Bid Support Services (3%): $1,194 Project Management (3%): $1,194 Traffic Management Services (3%): $1,194 TOTAL SOFT COST: $9,954 TOTAL COST:

$60,716

107

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Other Recommended Project: B (East Side Bike Route with Green-Back Sharrows) Bicycle Facility Markings Items

Sharrow Marking, MMA

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

Unit Cost $940

Unit EA

QTY 30 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $28,200 $28,200

Base Line Cost:

$28,200

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $5,640 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $2,115 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $7,755 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $2,820 Environmental Clearance (4%): $1,128 Permitting (2%): $564 Bid Support Services (3%): $846 Project Management (3%): $846 Traffic Management Services (3%): $846 TOTAL SOFT COST: $7,050 TOTAL COST:

108

$43,005

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Other Recommended Projects: C (Pirate Way Multi-Use Pathway) Demolition Items

Unit Cost $1 $15 $4 $25

Unit SF LF SF EA

QTY 4,500 300 4,500 12 Demolition Totals:

Cost Estimate $4,500 $4,500 $18,000 $300 $27,300

Concrete

Unit Cost $14

Unit SF

QTY 4500 Paving Totals:

Cost Estimate $63,000 $63,000

Trees (24" Box)

Unit Cost $250

Unit EA

QTY 14 Landscape Totals:

Cost Estimate $3,500 $3,500

Items Pavement Markings, 6" Solid Blue and Orange Thermoplastic

Unit Cost $3

Unit LF

QTY 300 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $750 $750

Unit Cost $9,000

Unit EA

QTY 1 Safety Measure Totals:

Cost Estimate $9,000 $9,000

Clear and Grub Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Asphalt Removing Parking Stripes

Paving Items

Landscape Items

Bicycle Facility Markings

Enhanced Safety Measures Items

Painted/Patterned Speed Table

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

Base Line Cost:

$103,550

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $20,710 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $7,766 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $28,476 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $10,355 Environmental Clearance (4%): $4,142 Permitting (2%): $2,071 Bid Support Services (3%): $3,107 Project Management (3%): $3,107 Traffic Management Services (3%): $3,107 TOTAL SOFT COST: $25,888 TOTAL COST:

$157,914

109

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Other Recommended Projects: D (Arlington Drive Multi-Use Pathway) Demolition Items

Unit Cost $1 $15 $4

Unit SF LF SF

QTY 3,000 200 3,000 Demolition Totals:

Cost Estimate $3,000 $3,000 $12,000 $18,000

Concrete

Unit Cost $14

Unit SF

QTY 3,000 Paving Totals:

Cost Estimate $42,000 $42,000

Trees (24" Box)

Unit Cost $250

Unit EA

QTY 14 Landscape Totals:

Cost Estimate $3,500 $3,500

Items Pavement Markings, 6" Solid Blue and Orange Thermoplastic

Unit Cost $3

Unit LF

QTY 600 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $1,500 $1,500

Unit Cost $9,000

Unit EA

QTY 1 Safety Measure Totals:

Cost Estimate $9,000 $9,000

Clear and Grub Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Asphalt

Paving Items

Landscape Items

Bicycle Facility Markings

Enhanced Safety Measures Items

Painted/Patterned Speed Table

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

Base Line Cost:

$74,000

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $14,800 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $5,550 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $20,350 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $7,400 Environmental Clearance (4%): $2,960 Permitting (2%): $1,480 Bid Support Services (3%): $2,220 Project Management (3%): $2,220 Traffic Management Services (3%): $2,220 TOTAL SOFT COST: $18,500 TOTAL COST:

110

$112,850

CHAPTER 3 | RECOMMENDATIONS

Other Recommended Projects: E (Merrimac Connector Multi-Use Pathway) Demolition Items

Unit Cost $1 $15 $4

Unit SF LF SF

QTY 5,100 340 5,100 Demolition Totals:

Cost Estimate $5,100 $5,100 $20,400 $30,600

Concrete

Unit Cost $14

Unit SF

QTY 5,100 Paving Totals:

Cost Estimate $71,400 $71,400

Trees (24" Box)

Unit Cost $250

Unit EA

QTY 24 Landscape Totals:

Cost Estimate $6,000 $6,000

Items Pavement Markings, 6" Solid Blue and Orange Thermoplastic

Unit Cost $3

Unit LF

QTY 550 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $1,375 $1,375

Unit Cost $9,000

Unit EA

QTY 1 Safety Measure Totals:

Cost Estimate $9,000 $9,000

Clear and Grub Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter (includes grading) Asphalt

Paving Items

Landscape Items

Bicycle Facility Markings

Enhanced Safety Measures Items

Painted/Patterned Speed Table

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

Base Line Cost:

$118,375

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $23,675 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $8,878 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $32,553 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $11,838 Environmental Clearance (4%): $4,735 Permitting (2%): $2,368 Bid Support Services (3%): $3,551 Project Management (3%): $3,551 Traffic Management Services (3%): $3,551 TOTAL SOFT COST: $29,594 TOTAL COST:

$180,522

111

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE BICYCLE AND SKATEBOARD PLAN

Other Recommended Projects: F (West Side Bike Route with Green-Back Sharrows) Bicycle Facility Markings Items

Sharrow Marking, MMA

* Cost estimate does not include land acquisition or utilities

Unit Cost $940

Unit EA

QTY 46 Signage Totals:

Cost Estimate $43,240 $43,240

Base Line Cost:

$43,240

CONSTRUCTION COST Contingency (20%): $8,648 Bonding / Mobilization / Contractor Internal Management (7.5%): $3,243 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $11,891 DESIGN / MANAGEMENT / PERMITTING / ENGINEERING Engineering / Design (10%): $4,324 Environmental Clearance (4%): $1,730 Permitting (2%): $865 Bid Support Services (3%): $1,297 Project Management (3%): $1,297 Traffic Management Services (3%): $1,297 TOTAL SOFT COST: $10,810 TOTAL COST:

112

$65,941