UCSD Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLANNING STUDY

University of California, San Diego

30 April 2012

Acknowledgements: This Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Study was prepared for the University of California, San Diego and the City of San Diego.

Project Working Group members were: Tom Allen Jamie Bohannan Bruce Bowers Erika Dominguez Yvonne Firing Michael Goliner Ian Happle Petr Krysl Cary Landt Curt Lutz Tyler Nelson Brian Parent Todd Pitman Deborah Steger Kris Wells Brad Werdick, Chair

Academic Affairs Facilities Design and Construction Environment Health and Safety UC San Diego Police Department Graduate Student Representative Graduate Student Representative UC San Diego Police Department Faculty/Community (UCPG) Student Affairs, Sports Facilities Transportation Services Undergraduate Student Representative Bike and Pedal Club Physical and Community Planning, Project Manager Health Sciences Student Affairs, UCSD Bike Shop Physical and Community Planning

Additional input was provided by participants at two Community Workshops, the staff of the Stuart Collection and almost 2,000 respondents via the project opinion survey.

Prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture of San Diego, California Principal:

Mike Singleton, AICP-CTP, ASLA, LEED AP

Project Manager:

John Eric Holloway, ASLA, LEED Green Associate, LCI

Mobility Planners:

Joe Punsalan, GISP, LCI

Catrine Machi, AICP, LCI

Bicycle and pedestrian planning and transportation engineering support provided by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants.

Senior Transportation Engineer:

Charles Alexander, P.E.

Table of Contents

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Executive Summary

1

Introduction

2

Bicycle Circulation

3

Pedestrian Circulation

4

Related Transportation Modes

5

Project and Program Recommendations

6

Safety and Regulatory Recommendations

7

Implementation and Costs

Study Scope 1 Study Area 1 Study Goal, Objectives and Policies 3 Existing Plans Summary 4 Universal Access 15 Complete Streets 16

Understanding User Needs 16 Cycling and Walking Benefits 17 Field Work 20 Community Input 20 Safety Analysis 22 Opportunities and Constraints 26

Bicycle Facility Types 32 Existing Infrastructure 34 Existing Conditions 35

Pedestrian Facility Types Walk Time Analysis

Bicycle Parking Assessment 37 UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center 38 Bicycle Improvements 39

UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center Pedestrian Improvements

48 54

Commuter Rail 65 Other Planned Transit 66

Shuttle Services 62 Bus Services 64

Top 3 Priority Programs 116 Additional Programs 118 Emerging Technologies 120

Top 5 Priority Projects 68 Other On-Campus Projects 93 Off-Campus Projects 102

Regulatory Policies 123 Regulatory Signage 123

56 57

Enforcement 124 Utility Vehicles/Golf Carts 124

Cost Estimates 127 Candidate Funding Sources 129

i

Table of Contents

Figures 1. Introduction

Figure 1.1: Campus and Regional Setting 2 Figure 1.2: User Types 16 Figure 1.3: Cyclist/Vehicular and Pedestrian/Vehicular Collisions 23 Figure 1.4: Site-specific Survey Comments 25 Figure 1.5: Average Daily Traffic (ADTs) 27 Figure 1.6: Speed Limits 28 Figure 1.7: Topographic/Slope Categories 29 Figure 1.8: Environmental Constraints 30

2. Bicycle Circulation Figure 21.: Existing Bicycle Facilities 34 Figure 2.2: Existing Dismount Zones 35 Figure 2.3: Activity Centers 36 Figure 2.4: UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center Bicycle Facilities 38 Figure 2.5: Conceptual Framework for Campus Connections and Regional Pass-through Facilities 40 Figure 2.6 Conceptual Framework for On-campus Connection 41 Figure 2.7: Proposed Bicycle Network 42

3. Pedestrian Circulation

Figures 3.1-3.5: Pedestrian Facility Types 49 Figure 3.6: Existing Walk Times 54 Figure 3.7: Future Walk Times 55 Figure 3.8: UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center Walking Facilities 56 Figure 3.9: Proposed Pedestrian Network 58 Figure 3.10: Off-street Trail and Pathway Surface Suitability Matrix 60

4. Related Transportation Modes Figure 4.1: Shuttle Routes 63 Figure 4.2: Bus Zones 64 Figure 4.3: Commuter Rail 65 Figure 4.4: Planned Light Rail 66

Appendices Design Guidelines APP-1 Top 5 Project Cost Estimates APP-27

ii

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Executive Summary This Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study will guide design and implementation of mobility infrastructure and programs as the campus population grows and facilities are planned and sited. The overall approach for this master plan study is summarized in the following paragraphs, which also constitute the planning goals for this study.

• It is imperative that a “cycling and walking perspective,”

guide bike and pedestrian planning. The unique characteristics, needs and priorities of these users must be taken into account when making walking and cycling decisions on use policies or facilities.

• Cycling and walking are fundamental components of

campus transportation planning, which addresses bicycle facilities on and off streets, pedestrian facilities of all types, as well as modal integration at transit centers and parking facilities.

Mobility Vision The study vision is a campus where the majority of its students, staff, faculty and visitors commonly walk, bike or use public transit to get to and around the campus, instead of automatically reaching for their car keys. Many other campuses and communities are pursuing a similar vision, but this study proposes a mobility blueprint tailored for this university’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 walk as well as lowered transportation costs and in many cases, time savings. Benefits are also available for those who do not walk or bike. These benefits include reduced traffic, lowered parking congestion, cost savings for the campus from lower parking infrastructure investments, improved air quality and lowered green house gas emissions.

• Planning for bicycles should not be focused on any par-

ticular facility type so much as it should be focused on the safe and efficient travel of cyclists, while addressing pedestrians’ needs where shared use is appropriate.

This will generally require both the use of the existing transportation infrastructure and the construction of special facilities for cyclists.

• The coexistence of pedestrians, cyclists and 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.

“UC San Diego is intent upon becoming a state-of-the-art, carbon-neutral campus that embraces sustainable facility designs and maximizes “green” operations.”

Source: LRDP

• Facility maintenance, monitoring and performance assessment are critical for ensuring safe and efficient travel for cyclists 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.

iii

Executive Summary

Findings and Recommendations

Bicycle Circulation

Pedestrian Circulation

Improved campus connections with the overall regional bike network will become increasingly valuable as commuting by bicycle increases and access to the campus from surrounding areas is sought as a mobility option. 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 bike facilities accessing the campus.

All trips involve walking at some point. Within the campus itself, the eucalyptus-shaded 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.

Bike-specific facilities on the campus are difficult to find and do not represent a connected network between origins (student housing, parking hubs and transit stops) and destinations (classrooms, support facilities and employment centers).

Community and Regional Connections Connections across Interstate 5, with surrounding communities and the overall region are of paramount importance for enabling the university community to make bicycle circulation a viable commuter mode. This will require close coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the City of San Diego 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.

Intra-campus Movement Once on campus, bicycles also play a significant intra-campus travel role since the campus is large enough to make cycling convenient, but small enough to put all campus destinations within a reasonable cycling range. Quality facilities, including clear wayfinding and convenient bike parking, can make the difference between riding and not riding. Support programs can also help to encourage bicycle 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 cycling more convenient.

iv

Some routes would benefit from improved lighting and better surfaces. Other routes are not direct between destinations while some are too steep to meet universal accessibility goals.

Others lack adequate distinction between pathways and driving surfaces and some pathways end abruptly.

Other Mobility Modes Linking these improvements with other mobility modes, such as shuttles, buses and light rail, 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.

Long-range Planning With adoption of the 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), the UC San Diego campus is anticipating significant enrollment growth and an increase in the proportion of undergraduate students living on campus with the stated goal of 50 percent on-campus housing for these undergraduates.

This study’s recommendations support the university’s longterm vision of a more sustainable footprint with a substantially smaller reliance on the automobile, as well as implications for a genuine evolution in land use planning, particularly since it will no longer be necessary to house the numbers of parked vehicles assumed in the past. The reduction in parking lots and structures from what was once envisioned will provide the space for more efficient multi-functional development, such as buildings that combine housing, classrooms and services and inspiring outdoor spaces that take advantage of the university’s climate and unique character.

1

Introduction Study Scope

Study Area

The University of California, San Diego wishes to promote a safe, convenient and efficient environment for bicycle and pedestrian travel to and across campus. According to the SANDAG grant that is financing this study, the goal is to integrate this Bicycle Pedestrian Master Planning Study (BPMPS) with the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Master Plan Update to enhance access, improve safety and increase the percentage of bicycle and pedestrian commuters. This BPMPS will provide for improved safety through education and training programs and identifies prioritized bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.

The project study area included the University of California, San Diego campus and the UC San Diego Hillcrest Medical Center, as well as the surrounding community where opportunities for cycling and walking connections to the campus system were possible. The inclusion of the off-campus study area was to ensure that the university’s bikeways and pedestrian routes would be part of a viable regional system to specifically support non-motorized transportation modes.

A connected system would allow students, faculty, staff and visitors an option to walk or bike to UC San Diego without needing to drive. This study therefore addresses on-street bicycle facilities and multi-use walkways and trails both onand off-campus (see Figure 1.1: Regional Setting).

This study is intended to provide a vision for bicycle and pedestrian circulation. It was developed through understanding current conditions, identifying bicycle and pedestrian needs throughout UC San Diego and examining potential improvement options. The study also looks at opportunities to connect and integrate existing and proposed facilities and prioritizing implementation strategies in accordance with viable funding sources. Since this study provides a framework for the university’s bicycle and pedestrian network development it also supports eligibility for local, state and federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

With the implementation of the recommendations of this study, the resulting network will create a more bicycle and pedestrian-friendly university community, especially if supported by driver, cyclist and pedestrian education, enforcement and promotional programs. The anticipated result is an increase in students, faculty, staff and visitors choosing to ride a bicycle or walk to and from UC San Diego destinations. Precise alignments and details will be developed during subsequent implementation phases. This study sets the foundation for decisions and identifies a blueprint for future bicycle and pedestrian development of UC San Diego so that opportunities are not lost through other infrastructure, land use and facility development decisions.

“The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study (BPMPS) will provide a comprehensive framework to support non-motorized transportation at the La Jolla and Hillcrest campuses. ”

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Source: Project Scope of Work

1

1 Introduction Figure 1.1: Regional Setting

Encinitas

Rancho Bernardo Black Mountain Ranch

Solana Beach Fairbanks Country Club Torrey Highlands Pacific Highlands Ranch

Del Mar

Rancho Penasquitos

56

Sabre Springs

Carmel Valley Del Mar Mesa Torrey Pines

Miramar Ranch North Torrey Hills Mira Mesa

15

UCSD Campus

University Miramar Air Station

805 5 La Jolla

52

San Diego

163 Kearny Mesa Tierrasanta

Clairemont Mesa

Pacific Beach Serra Mesa Navajo Linda Vista Mission Beach

Orange County

Mission Bay Park

UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center

Ocean Beach

Midway-Pacific Highway

Mid-City:City Heights Uptown

Lindbergh Field

Peninsula

San Diego County

Mid-City:Normal Heights

8

Old San Diego

Riverside County

College Area

Mission Valley

Greater North Park

Balboa Park Greater Golden Hill

Imperial County

Centre City

City of San Diego

Coronado Harbor

94

Barrio Logan 32nd Street Naval Station

National City

2

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Study Goal, Objective and Policies

Through discussions with university staff and extensive Project Working Group input, a primary goal and objective was developed to help guide the progress of this study and subsequent implementation. Note that the chapters on bicycle and pedestrian circulation list specific actions tailored to their respective transportation types. This chapter discusses general goals, objectives and policies.

Overall Project Goal Provide a university-wide system of safe, efficient, connected and attractive bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as clear programs, policies and educational efforts to promote walking and cycling.

Objective Promote the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, while promoting the use of these and other forms of alternative transportation, by adhering to university-wide standards and practices.

Policies

• Where appropriate, require projects adjacent to proposed bikeway routes to include bicycle paths, bicycle lanes or bicycle routes as well as including bicyclesensitive traffic signals and pedestrian crossings in all adjacent roadway development plans.

• Require the installation or rebuilding of inaccessible pedestrian and bicycle facilities with all new roadway construction projects or when significant reconstruction of existing roadways are proposed.

• Require the installation of appropriate bicycle parking infrastructure with all new facility construction and significant reconstruction of existing facilities.

• Give priority to bicycle and pedestrian facilities to

provide continuity and close gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network. Give priority to pedestrian and bicycle facilities over parking.

• Encourage the provision of showers, changing rooms, lockers and bicycle storage at locations convenient to the commuting cyclist.

Education • Support programs for providing education and training for bicycle road safety and sharing facilities with motor vehicles and other non-motorized transportation.

Safety • Review new infrastructure to avoid introducing new dangers or exacerbating existing problems.

• Employ an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental ap-

state ADA requirements as well as meeting generally accepted universal access requirements.

proach to increasing campus awareness and education.

Planning • Develop university-wide standards for construction and maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

• Develop and adopt a planned bikeway system, consis-

• Ensure all new pedestrian facilities meet federal and

• Ensure vehicular regulations promote safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

• Plan for and accommodate safe passage for cyclists and pedestrians during construction wherever possible.

tent with other adopted master plans, to assure that local bicycle routes will be compatible with routes of neighboring jurisdictions.

• Construct safe, convenient paths for bicycles and pedes-

• Consider cycling routes to and through campus dur-

ty maintenance and monitoring programs to promote usage and safety.

ing planning to maximize safety and use.

trians to encourage alternate forms of transportation.

• Establish bicycle and pedestrian transportation facili-

• Provide a method for reporting maintenance problems and safety issues.

3

1 Introduction Existing Plans Summary

Campus Planning Long Range Development Plan (2004) The Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) is a general land use plan and capacity analysis to guide UC San Diego physical development through 2020-21. Based upon academic and student life goals, the LRDP identifies institutional and development objectives, delineates UC San Diego land uses and estimates campus building capacity. Chapter 3 is particularly relevant to the BPMPS since it addresses pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation and parking.

Master Plan Study (1989) This study forms the basis for the other documents in this section. It lists five guiding principles:

• Maintain “neighborhoods” as the “building blocks” of campus development.

• Maximize the benefits of interdisciplinary contiguity with “academic corridors.”

• Make an easily accessible “University Center” the heart of campus social and academic life.

• Preserve and protect ecologically sensitive natural resources like the eucalyptus groves as a “great park.”

• Maintain connecting links critical to an overall sense of

coherence of place and as a community. It is also critical that the campus beneficially connect with the larger community.

The study concludes that a university’s physical setting is an integral part of the educational experience for all who come to live, learn and work there. It notes that the qualities most critical to UC San Diego identity need to be preserved and enhanced as the campus has grown.

4

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Physical Design Framework (2009) UC San Diego’s Physical Design Framework was designed to provide an effective and valid basis for developing new facilities to address key academic, strategic and auxiliary program objectives. The Physical Development Framework is a synthesis of existing plans to enable effective stewardship of UC San Diego’s physical environment and implementation of individual capital projects.

Neighborhood Planning Studies (Various Dates) To facilitate planning, UC San Diego is subdivided into college neighborhoods with distinct character. These studies guide anticipated growth within these neighborhoods and provide more detailed analysis and recommendations for development, including mobility. Connections and outdoor spaces tend to be regarded as quality of life hallmarks within these plans.

5

1 Introduction

Bicycle Circulation and Bicycle Parking Planning Study (1993) To facilitate the growing use of bicycles at UC San Diego, the campus conducted a study to evaluate then-current bicycle circulation and parking conditions and to determine the improvements needed to serve the campus community through the year 2005.

The recommended plan consisted of the following components:

• A comprehensive network of bicycle routes comprised of existing and new paths to link all areas of the campus and connect to public bicycle routes adjoining campus.

• Proposed improvements to resolve safety conflicts occurring between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists along some bicycle routes.

• Type, quantity and location standards for bicycle parking.

• Funding and phasing strategies for new routes and parking facilities.

Routes shown in the study differ in places from current conditions, primarily due to the significant level of redevelopment that has occurred since its adoption.

Open Space Planning Study (In Progress) While this study is still underway, many of the issues it is addressing correlate with those of non-motorized mobility. It seeks to ensure that the campus landscape reflects UC San Diego’s commitment to sustainable practices and that “open spaces” need to be multifunctional by providing the foundation for roads, walks, courts and plazas that also support the systems to move the people that make up the UC San Diego community.

Since all bicycle and pedestrian circulation system components lie within designated open space areas, implementation will be within the scope of the Open Space Committee.

6

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Park Grove Development Guidelines (2002) These guidelines define the type and scope of development allowed within the Park Grove. While it does not preclude new access paths, it does specify certain restrictions in terms of location and material types and “no net loss” of space.

Sustainability Assessment Report (2008) This document addresses 11 areas of concern and 35 indicator metrics. Each metric sets a baseline for future performance, as well as provides ideas on where the UC San Diego community can most improve. One of the areas of concern is transportation, under which are the following relevant indicators: Indicator T1 is “Transportation Modal Split.” In 2008, 53 percent of the UC San Diego population commuted to campus using alternative forms of transportation and the percentage of single occupancy vehicle commuting has continuously declined since 2001.

Indicator T2 is “Campus Size and Population Density,” which addresses the idea is that the higher the campus density, the more campus users can commute to UC San Diego using alternative modes, such as biking or walking. By living on campus, students and others can more easily walk, bike, or take a bus to their classes and meetings. This is also benefited by density and UC San Diego is much denser than San Diego County as a whole.

Indicator T4 is “Inventory of Automobile and Bicycle Parking Spaces.” Although the UC San Diego population has been growing since 2001, automobile parking space numbers have remained fairly constant.

7

1 Introduction

Climate Action Plan (2008) This document is a sustainability planning document with a 2050 planning horizon and builds on the Sustainability Assessment Report. However, this report goes a step further by creating goals, time lines and actions for achieving those goals. For example, this document considers how sustainability can be integrated throughout the curriculum so that all students gain an understanding of sustainability issues during their academic career at UC San Diego. Although called the Climate Action Plan, this document considers many topics not directly related to climate change and GHG emissions.

Relevant to this study, the document identifies goals for reducing emissions and impacts from transportation and mechanisms for tracking progress. It also creates a firm baseline of GHG emissions to compare against future reductions.

Among the actions it lists is to improve bicycling programs.

UC San Diego Hillcrest Medical Center Long Range Development Plan (1995) Like the La Jolla campus LRDP, this document is a general land use plan and capacity analysis guide for physical development. This LRDP establishes campus boundaries, provides guidance for organizing campus functions and suggests some urban design concepts to improve campus ambience for both the UC San Diego and the surrounding communities.

Of relevance to this study are LRDP circulation goals to address limited vehicular access and a circuitous circulation pattern.

8

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Regional Transportation Planning Riding to 2050, San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan (2011) Prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), this plan outlines a regional strategy for making the bicycle a useful form of transportation for everyday travel. It supports implementation of the both the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RCP calls for more transportation options and a balanced regional transportation system that supports smart growth and a more sustainable region. The RTP calls for a multimodal regional transportation system that includes a regional bicycle network.

Implementation of the plan will help the region meet its mandates to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to improve mobility goals. It also provides benefits to public health by encouraging more people to adopt a physically active mode of transportation for at least some of their trips. The plan provides detailed information on the structure of the regional bicycle network, the supporting policies and programs and the benefits of implementing the plan.

This plan specifically addresses existing and planned longerrange regional corridors through and around UC San Diego, including the following:

• Central Coast Corridor (6) coastal route between Del Mar and downtown San Diego

• Gilman Connector (7) links Corridors 11 and 6 just south of UC San Diego

• Coastal Rail Trail Corridor (11) inland route between Del Mar and downtown San Diego

• Mira Mesa Corridor (25) joining Corridor 11 from the east near Interstate 5/805 merge

• SR-52 Bikeway Corridor (36) joining Corridor 11 from the east just south of UC San Diego

These corridors are Class 1 bicycle paths or Class 2 bicycle lanes (see Chapter 2 for facility descriptions). A relevant map from the document is included on the following page.

9

1 Introduction

SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan - Riding to 2050: Subarea map

10

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update (2011) This recently updated plan provides direction for expanding the existing bikeway network, connecting gaps, addressing constrained areas, improving intersections, providing for greater local and regional connectivity and encouraging more residents to bicycle more often: “...as a policy document to guide the development and maintenance of San Diego’s bicycle network, including all roadways that cyclists have the legal right to use, support facilities, and non-infrastructure programs over the next 20 years.”

This plan illustrates existing and proposed facilities serving communities surrounding UC San Diego. The sole high priority project is the provision of Class 2 lanes on La Jolla Village Drive between Villa La Jolla Drive and Torrey Pines Road. Two unprioritized Class 3 routes are noted on La Jolla Village Drive east of Villa La Jolla Drive and on Villa La Jolla Drive from Gilman Drive southward. (Note that the plan indicates existing Class 2 lanes on Gilman Drive north of La Jolla Village Drive, but this is not currently the case.) A map excerpt is shown on the following page.

11

1 Introduction

DR

SAN PASQUAL INSET

Unincorporated County

Figure 6-1 Proposed Bicycle Network with Classifications (North)

O

H RANC

DO RD

City of Escondido

POMERA

2 Miles

NAR DO

1

W. B ER

0

BERNARDO RD

NORTH SAN DIEGO DO CE N AR

T

RN

City of Poway

ER

DR CA M IN O

BE

CAM INO DE L SUR

O RD MERAD PO

15

Unincorporated County

DE LN OR

TE

City of Poway

UNT AIN

VIA DE LA VALLE

TS IGH HE AR LM DE

DR

56

R CA

IL LI A

Y

EL

LLE VA EL RM CA

M

O

O RE A L IN M CA EL

City of Del Mar

RD

M

TE D

PKWY MS

0

W

RD

POWAY RD

1 Miles N. TORREY

R SO

L YB

MIRA MESA BL

15

R SO

PINES RD

Proposed Bicycle Network Classifications

O NT RE

Existing

LLE VA TO REN

Proposed

V

Class I - Bike Path Class II - Bike Lane

AL LEY

R DO

D

RD

RD

GILMAN DR

Cycle Track

GE NE S

NO

Bicycle Boulevard

BE L

DR

Class II or III SE E

805

City of Santee

KEARNY VILLA RD

MIRAMAR

Freeway Shoulder

AV

52 RD TORREY PINES

City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update: North San Diego map

12

RA ME PO

5

Class III - Bike Route

Source: SANDAG (2009) Alta Planning + Design (2011)

BLACK MOUNTAIN RD

0.5

CAMINO RUIZ

0

SCRIPPS POWAY PKWY

3.5

7 Miles

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Interstate 5 North Coast HOV/Express Lanes Project The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is planning High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and express lanes on Interstate 5 to reduce congestion and increase capacity.

The southern end of the project extends through UC San Diego with an HOV lane Direct Access Ramp (DAR) planned at a re-built Voigt Drive bridge. Of particular significance to this study is a Class 1 bicycle path along the west side of the freeway, providing a direct bikeway connection between the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station and Voigt Drive. As currently envisioned, this path will cross over Genesee Avenue via a shared-use path separated from the roadway.

Interstate 5/Gilman Drive Bridge With the growth of the East Campus Health Sciences neighborhood, a second bridge over Interstate 5 is needed to connect the West Campus and the East Campus medical, teaching and housing facilities. It will reduce commute times through UC San Diego, crossing between Voigt Drive and La Jolla Village Drive. This bridge is also needed to relocate major utilities from the Voigt Drive Bridge to this location to accommodate the demolition and replacement of the Voigt Drive Bridge. Based on the major construction period needed to rebuild the Voigt Drive Bridge, the Gilman Drive Bridge is likely to be the only connection between the west and east sides of the campus for the length of the construction period.

13

1 Introduction

Local Community Planning University Community Plan (1987) This plan encouraged the development of “housing for students and employees of the University,” but UC San Diego has had to ascribe more importance than originally planned to providing housing, as well as other services and amenities, on campus.

Plan transportation goals include encouraging public transit between major activity areas such as UC San Diego, Towne Centre and La Jolla Village Square, providing pedestrian paths and bikeways to citywide systems and encouraging alternative transportation. According to the plan: “The University campus will no longer be an island within the community. Transit loops, bicycle and foot paths will greatly improve movement within the large campus and connect with the rest of the community…an LRT system will be used by the majority of people who work at, reside in and attend UCSD.” Within the plan area, Class 1 bikeways include the Rose Canyon Bikeway and portions along North Torrey Pines Road.

Class 2 bicycle lanes include La Jolla Colony Drive, Palmillas Drive, Arriba Street, Governor Drive, Genesee Avenue, Gilman Drive, Miramar Road, Eastgate Mall, North Torrey Pines Road and Nobel Drive. Without a parallel roadway from Sorrento Valley Road to Genesee Avenue, cyclists are permitted on the of Interstate 5 shoulder between these exits.

The proposed Coastal Rail Trail project will traverse the University Community with a route planned for Genesee Avenue from Rose Canyon to north of Eastgate Mall, where a Class 1 path is planned to connect to Sorrento Valley Road.

La Jolla Community Plan (2002) In general, this plan seeks to preserve the predominantly single-family residential character of the La Jolla area. The plan specifically calls for modification of the Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Parkway and La Jolla Shores Drive intersection to accommodate bicycles. It also illustrates four existing bikeway facilities connecting the community with UC San Diego, but it should be noted that they are all affected to some extent by significant grades.

14

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Universal Access

Federal and State Disabled and Universal Access Guidelines 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 the state 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.

Cities in California use two technical standards for accessible design: the 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.

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.

State of California Title 24 Summary 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.

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 on UC San Diego and provides the state leverage for implementing the federal ADA through the building review, approval and inspection process.

15

1 Introduction Complete Streets

Understanding User Needs

Complete Streets Act - AB 1358

This study was developed with a “cyclist’s and pedestrian’s perspective” by planners who routinely commute by bicycle, as well as walk and fully understand the implications of alternative travel. For example, potential bicycle routes were ridden to experience them firsthand, particularly routes or locations noted in public comments as forbidding to most users due to high motor vehicle speeds or volumes. Pedestrian needs were identified during field work, through review of existing documents and substantial community input.

The Complete Streets Act of 2007 (AB 1358) is intended to ensure that the transportation plans of California communities meet the needs of all users of the roadway including pedestrians, cyclists, users of public transit, drivers, children, the elderly and the disabled. It does so by requiring the legislative body of a city or county, upon revision of the circulation element of their general plan, to identify how the jurisdiction will provide for the routine accommodation of all roadway users.

The bill also directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to amend guidelines for the development of general plan circulation elements so that the building and operation of local transportation facilities safely and conveniently accommodate everyone, regardless of their mode of travel.

Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1 Deputy Directive 64-Revision #1: Complete Streets: Integrating the Transportation System (DD-64-R1) is Caltrans’s guidance on how to provide for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations and maintenance activities on the State Highway System. The directive instructs Caltrans personnel to address all transportation improvements (new and retrofit) as opportunities to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers, as well as recognize bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.

The directive goes on to state that Caltrans is to develop integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans and values and that addressing the safety and mobility needs of cyclists, pedestrians and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives.

Bicycle, pedestrian and transit travel is to be facilitated by creating “complete streets,” beginning early in system planning and continuing through project delivery, maintenance and operations. Finally, the directive makes it clear that developing a network of complete streets will require collaboration among all Caltrans units and stakeholders.

16

Figure 1.2: Typical User Types

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Cycling and Walking Benefits

Increasing levels of cycling and walking to/from UC San Diego would have several positive impacts on local and regional air quality, UC San Diego and student finances and the health of the campus community.

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand The UC San Diego Survey of Pedestrian and Vehicle Traffic is the best available data source to describe existing bicycle and pedestrian trips. The survey has been conducted annually since 2001. At that time, cyclists and pedestrians represented 5.3 percent and 2.1 percent of persons entering UC San Diego, respectively and the survey indicates that cycling and walking have steadily increased since 2001. According to the most recent data available (winter 2011), cyclists and pedestrians represent 2.8 percent and 8.0 percent of all persons entering UC San Diego, respectively, making their combined mode share 10.8 percent.

According to the survey, the campus entrances with the largest numbers of cyclists and pedestrians are Torrey Pines Road (578), Gilman Drive (593) and La Jolla Shores Drive (840).

Output from the SANDAG Travel Demand Model was used to estimate existing vehicle trips to and from the UC San Diego campus and the associated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for those trips. Analysis showed that approximately 91,000 daily vehicle trips are made to and from the campus and that these vehicle trips result in approximately 878,000 VMT daily. The average trip length for vehicle trips to and from UC San Diego is 9.6 miles, but almost 30 percent of daily vehicle trips are less than three miles. Shorter vehicle trips, those less than three miles, are the ones most responsive to conversion to bicycle or walking trips.

Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Improved cycling and walking infrastructure and programs should have a positive effect on the UC San Diego bicycle and pedestrian mode share. To estimate the future UC San Diego bicycle and pedestrian mode share, mode share data was collected for other California universities and universities well-known for their levels of cycling and walking. The following table illustrates the cycling and walking mode share data for these universities.

The Riding to 2050 – the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan includes weekday morning and evening peak hour bicycle counts, but none of the counts were on streets on or immediately surrounding the campus. The nearest count location at the intersection of Gilman Drive and the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path had 26-45 cyclists during the morning peak hour and 41-80 cyclists during the evening peak hour.

University Mode Share Data University Bicycle Walking Mode Share Mode Share

Total

UC Santa Barbara 39.5% 12.9% 52.4% UC Davis 41.0% 6.0% 47.0% Colorado State Univ 31.0% 11.0% 42.0% Univ of Oregon 15.0% 22.0% 37.0% Univ of Washington 8.0% 25.0% 33.0% University of Arizona 20.0% 11.0% 31.0% CSU Chico N/A N/A 28.1% Humboldt State Univ 9.0% 15.6% 24.6% Stanford University 21.0% Unknown >21.0% UCLA 3.4% 14.6% 18.0% San Jose State 3.5% 13.3% 16.8% CSU Channel Islands 3.9% 12.1% 16.0% CSU Northridge N/A N/A 11.0% Source: Fehr & Peers 2011 17

1 Introduction

UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis and Colorado State University have cycling and walking mode shares that exceed 40 percent, but their settings are very different from UC San Diego’s.

Universities with similarly suburban settings, such as UCLA and CSU Northridge, have cycling and walking mode shares of 18 percent and 11 percent, respectively. This data suggest improved cycling and walking infrastructure and programs can help UC San Diego achieve a combined cycling and walking mode share of 15 percent by 2025.

Shorter vehicle trips, those less than three miles, would be most affected by an increased cycling and walking mode share. Based on analysis of the SANDAG Travel Demand Model, the average trip length for vehicle trips likely to be converted to cycling or walking trips is 2.25 miles. Increasing the cycling and walking mode share to 15 percent by 2025 would result in over 4,000 fewer daily vehicle trips to and from UC San Diego and 9,000 fewer VMT daily.

Greenhouse Gas Reductions Climate change is a growing problem in the United States and around the world. In California, 40 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions come from the transportation sector, making the commute to campus a major opportunity for the UC San Diego campus 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 green house gases (comparing them in terms of CO2), 95-99 percent of vehicle emissions are CO2. The EPA found that 423 grams per mile of CO2 are emitted from an average vehicle.

At UC San Diego, 0.95 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided each day if an individual with a 2.25 mile commute switched from driving to an active mode of transportation. Increasing the cycling and walking mode share to 15 percent by 2025 would result in 3,800 kilograms less CO2 emissions daily.

Environmental Benefits

Air Pollution

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. Motor vehicle traffic is a significant contributor to air pollution, leading to many negative effects on the environment, such as increased emissions of harmful greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants and irritants in the air can cause asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia and decreased resistance to respiratory infections. Increased cycling, walking and using public transportation helps to reduce fossil fuel emissions, which helps to clean the air and reduce traffic congestion.

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. The following table shows the average pollutant emissions in grams per mile from passenger cars and light trucks, as well as the potential emissions savings if the combined cycling and walking mode share reached 15 percent by 2025.

Potential Air Pollution Reductions Emission Rate

2025 Daily

Savings

Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Oxides of Nitrogen VOCs

5.15 g/mi 24.05 g/mi 1.6 g/mi 1.65 g/mi

46.4 kg 216.5 kg 14.4 kg 14.9 kg

Source: EPA

18

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Economic Benefits

Health Benefits

Transportation projects are often expensive and are becoming more difficult to fund. Increasing the cycling and walking mode share decreases transportation costs for UC San Diego, students, faculty and staff. Increasing the cycling and walking mode share to 15 percent by 2025 (thereby decreasing the automobile mode share by four percent) could decrease the need for additional parking spaces. Given the university’s current growth projections, this decrease in parking demand could be as significant as 1,370 parking spaces. Since structured parking typically costs a minimum of $20,000 per space, building 1,370 fewer parking spaces could save UC San Diego approximately $27.5 million.

Two thirds of Americans are obese and the epidemic has shown few signs of improving. To combat this trend and prevent a variety of diseases, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) suggests a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity five days per week. Walking and cycling qualify as moderate intensity physical activity. On average, people can walk 1.2 miles and bicycle 6.25 miles in 30 minutes. An average adult burns 3.5 calories per minute while walking and 4.25 calories per minute while cycling.

Therefore, members of the campus community can burn between 105 and 130 calories every 30 minutes by cycling or walking to UC San Diego.

Cycling and walking are low cost activities that can be easily incorporated into an individual’s daily life, such as commuting to work or running errands. In mild climate areas, such as UC San Diego’s, cycling and walking can occur year round.

Cardiovascular Fitness and Weight Loss

Students, faculty and staff can all benefit financially from improved cycling and walking infrastructure. Cycling or walking to and from work can also save money. Students who bring cars to UC San Diego and drive them to campus have higher costs of going to college than students who bike and walk to campus. Individuals who drive to campus must pay for the up front cost of their car, maintenance, insurance and a parking permit, among other costs. According to data available from the American Automobile Association (AAA) and UC San Diego, bringing a car to campus and driving it daily could cost more than $2,000 annually. Based on an wage of ten dollars an hour, a driver must work 300 hours per year to pay for his or her commute. A cyclist only has to work about 30 hours per year to commute by bicycle. Walking is even more cost-effective for shorter distances.

Outdoor activities that encourage cycling and walking are great ways to help lose weight since 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 noninsulin dependent diabetes, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.

Exercise also relieves symptoms of depression and improves mental health.

Stress Reduction Exercise in general has been shown to decrease anxiety and stress levels. Cycling, running and walking on a regular basis are fun ways to exercise and take advantage of their stress-reducing capabilities.

19

1 Introduction Field Work

Community Input

Initial field work conducted during the fall and winter of 2011 consisted of walking and cycling the campus and surrounding routes to obtain first-hand experience. The majority of the field work was conducted during the fall quarter on weekdays to fully understand peak use conditions. Follow-up field work involved examining specific areas about which community input had been received, as well as detailed analysis of sites for potential recommendations.

As a UC San Diego and City of San Diego planning effort, community involvement was instrumental in the analysis of existing conditions and formulation of recommendations for this study. Several techniques were employed to gather information and perceptions from as broad a range of perspectives as possible.

Project Working Group A Project Working Group (PWG) was formed including faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, as well as staff representatives of the Police Department, Facilities Design and Construction and Physical and Community Planning. PWG meetings were held throughout the course of the study, taking advantage of the group’s familiarity and experience with the campus to formulate and review goals and objectives, suggest policies and actions and review draft documents.

The PWG was also instrumental in directing the study, providing guidance on appropriate analyses and in developing recommendations.

Community Stakeholder Workshops

Consultant team conducting field work

20

From the roster of people who had originally expressed an interest in participating in this study, additional community stakeholders were invited to two workshops. At the first workshop, participants were divided into small groups and supplied with large, high resolution aerial plots of the entire campus that were used to draw ideas and write comments about their knowledge of the campus walking and cycling environment. This included where they currently did or did not walk or ride and why, any existing facility gaps or other deficiencies, as well as where they would like to see additional facilities. For the second workshop, participants were again divided into groups, but his time to specifically address six focus topics generated from review of the first workshop’s results. These were education outreach, east-west movement, north-south movement, Gilman Drive, community connections and bicycle parking.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Website and Surveys Website A study website was maintained through the draft phase of the project, on which all meeting products and notices were posted. For example, the large meeting maps were scanned at high resolution and uploaded onto the web site and were later used for discussion at subsequent PWG meetings.

On-line Survey On-line surveys allow respondents to compose their thoughts at their leisure, often resulting in more comments overall and more in-depth insight about specific locations than what is generally provided at public meetings alone. The on-line survey for this study was developed with the PWG input. To reach as broad a campus constituency as possible, an e-mail request to complete the survey was distributed to the campus community. More than 2,000 respondents completed the survey and submitted hundreds of individual comments.

Community stakeholder workshop

On-line Mapping Application Finally, an on-line mapping application was developed for this study that allowed respondents to post comments about specific locations directly on a campus map.

Community Input Analysis Some survey respondents noted that as walkers they felt uncomfortable at times due to wheeled user speeds. Even so, the majority felt that shared use was acceptable.

While useful information came from compiling the survey question responses, even more came from a meta-data analysis of the accompanying comments. Of particular interest were locations users felt were unsafe or uncomfortable, which were defined by sorting for comment key words and phases and then mapped based on associated location descriptors.

These were often specific sites, while others were simply existing routes or more generalized areas, such as “Gilman Drive.�

This information was used, along with stakeholder, PWG and on-line mapping input, to help define where recommended improvements should occur, as well as where potential future ones could be considered for implementation. For more information, see the following section on safety analysis.

Sample screen image of on-line mapping application

21

1 Introduction Safety Analysis

Improving a mode’s safety or perceived safety can increase its appeal and potentially produce desired modal shifts. Cyclistvehicle and pedestrian-vehicle collision data analysis can be a useful tool for identifying strategies, either infrastructure enhancements or programmatic measures, to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety. However, because such collisions are generally under-reported, this data can not be relied upon exclusively. Cyclist and pedestrian surveys can augment collision data with anecdotal evidence. For example, multiple respondents noting locations as having “close calls” often indicates an unsafe situation that merits further evaluation.

Collision Data Analysis Data on all reported cyclist-vehicle and pedestrian-vehicle collisions within one mile of the UC San Diego campus between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 was accessed from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

Within the period, 46 cyclist-vehicle collisions and 39 pedestrian-vehicle collisions occurred. Figure 1.3 shows the number and severity of collisions near UC San Diego. Most of the collisions (99 percent) resulted in some form of injury and two fatalities were recorded during the three year period.

Note that due to under-reporting, these numbers should be considered low and that collisions on off-street paths and trails are not generally included in SWITRS data, since they do not involve pedestrian/bicycle collisions with vehicles.

22

Figure 1.3 shows that the majority of cyclist-vehicle and pedestrian-vehicle collisions were on the campus periphery (La Jolla Village Drive, Torrey Pines Road, Genesee Avenue) or south of campus. Locations that experienced more than one collision during the period included:

• Regents Road/Eastgate Mall intersection • La Jolla Village Drive/Interstate 5 interchange • Torrey Pines Road/La Jolla Village Drive intersection • Torrey Pines Road/La Jolla Shores Drive intersection • Torrey Pines Road/Torrey Pines Scenic Drive intersection • Torrey Pines Road/Genesee Avenue intersection The SWITRS data described what a pedestrian was doing immediately before a collision occurred and the most common action was “crossing in crosswalk at intersection.”

The data also showed that the cyclist was at fault in 74 percent of cyclist-vehicle collisions and the pedestrian was at fault in 65 percent of pedestrian-vehicle collisions. These at-fault statistics suggest that education efforts targeted at drivers, cyclists and pedestrians may improve safety.

The data did not indicate if collision victims were UC San Diego students, but 11 cyclist-vehicle collision victims (23 percent) and 13 pedestrian-vehicle collision victims (33 percent) were of college age.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Figure 1.3: Cyclist/Vehicle and Pedestrian/Vehicle Collisions

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

r

Vo ig t

Dr

M a tth ew s Ln Muir Ln

d

Easte r Wy

y Pin

John Jay Hopkin s Dr

No rr e

Ridge Walk

To

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

er ent

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

lC ic a ed M

Gilman Dr

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

r

u Eucalypt s Ln

e Bl

Ve rd Cos ta

Cargill Av uer ta

3

mH

3

Ca

Blair St

Kilb

r

ttin

2

tD

Camto Dia

Glenwick

D

No

Via P as

1

io sco Cam K

allorca

s

Bicycle Collisions 2

aM

s rne

i ll a g e D r

r

ic Wy

In v e

aV

UCSD Boundary Pedestrian Collisions

1

Sug arma n Dr Pl

oll

Vi

Discover y Wy

Ln

r

Cam Del Collado

am gh

La J

5

C harman o u rn Dr

D

Dr

d

La Jo lla Scen

nw

in

Torr ey P

D ow

J olla

ine s R d

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

V illa La

E

Villa Norte

Lebon Dr

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Executive Dr Genesee Av

O

s ler Ln

23

1 Introduction

Site-specific Survey Comment Analysis

Voigt Drive Bridge over Interstate 5

An on-line opinion survey prepared for this study was completed by over 2,000 students, faculty and staff and their responses were used to augment the collision data analysis.

Respondents’ open-ended responses were queried for terms suggesting safety concerns (unsafe, dangerous, scary, collision, etc.). Over 200 responses noted safety issues and/ or lack of infrastructure or facilities. Some responses noted specific locations on or near campus, such as the Voigt Drive Bridge over Interstate 5, while other responses referred to general corridors, such as Gilman Drive or Library Walk. Issues concerning frequently mentioned facilities are addressed in the following summaries and survey summary locations are shown on Figure 1.4 on the following page.

The Voigt Drive Bridge was one of the most frequently mentioned locations. The lack of bicycle lanes on the bridge was of concern to cyclists due to vehicle volumes and shuttles passing too closely to cyclists. Respondents also noted that the Voigt Drive Bridge is not a convenient route over Interstate 5 to access many campus destinations.

Library Walk

Regents Road

This heavily traveled corridor has high levels of both pedestrian and cyclist use, as well as university carts. Being a vital corridor creates conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians with no designated space for either. Many respondents said cyclists should have designated lanes on Library Walk, while others thought that bicycle facilities should be provided elsewhere and the corridor should remain exclusively pedestrian. Several respondents reported having experienced near-misses or actual collisions here.

Regents Road’s primary issue was poor pavement quality causing cyclist discomfort and increased potential for flat tires. Respondents asked that the bicycle lanes be repainted and made safer and requested additional crosswalks.

Gilman Drive

Villa La Jolla Drive

Cyclists noted the lack of bicycle detection at traffic signals, the lack of bicycle lanes north of La Jolla Village Drive and high vehicular speeds. While bicycle lanes are present on some of Gilman Drive, respondents reported brush, sand and mud within the lanes. The “dooring” of cyclists by inattentive drivers exiting their parked cars (especially south of La Jolla Village Drive) and poor lighting were also noted.

Cyclists felt unsafe riding along this corridor without bicycle lanes, forcing them to ride in the gutter or on the sidewalk.

Pedestrians noted that shrubs and fallen leaves have encroached upon sidewalks.

Gilman Drive/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange Mostly referring to Gilman Drive at La Jolla Village Drive, cyclists described the on- and off-ramps as difficult to maneuver due to high vehicle speeds and low lighting levels.

Some respondents recommended signage to warn drivers of the presence of cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrians noted the lack of sidewalks on the east side of Gilman Drive under La Jolla Village Drive and the lack of marked crosswalks at intersections.

24

Ridge Walk Some respondents indicated that cyclists need designated space due to unsafe interactions between cyclists and pedestrians on this route while others suggested cyclists should be restricted to roads. Other complaints included low light levels and utility vehicles on Ridge Walk during peak travel times.

La Jolla Village Drive/Interstate 5 Interchange Both cyclists and pedestrians felt unsafe at this intersection.

Cyclists have requested defined bicycle lanes while many pedestrians noted that they felt unsafe in crosswalks.

Nobel Drive Respondents said that the bicycle lane and parking lane alternate, causing confusion when the bicycle lane disappears. Riding next to the intermittent parking lane also made cyclists feel unsafe.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Figure 1.4: Site-specific Survey Comments UCSD Boundary Locational Concerns 1-5 y Pin

es S c

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

1-5 6-10

r

11-15

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

tD

North Torrey Pines Rd

in Po

Rd

Corridor Concerns

pus

J olla Farms

16-23 Cam

Salk Institute Rd

La

6-10

r John Jay Hopkins Dr

No rr e

Ridge Walk

To

16-22 Vo igt

Dr

M atthew s Ln Muir Ln

v Lyman A Russell

Scholars

lC

e ent

rD

r

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

M

ica ed

Gilman Dr

Athena Wy

ate M Eastg

l

Mira ma r St

r D ho re s

Bl

Cos Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

Cam

allorc

Kilb

tD

aM

o u rn Dr

Charm an

a

Rd Pines Torrey

ill a g e D r

r

Glenwick Ln

aV

Vi

Discovery Wy

r

S

Dr

dD

Jolla

nw

in

La Jolla Scen ic Wy

Do w

Jo ll

V il la L a

Exp

y d Re n W t io ed i

5

ta V

d Dr

La

Villa Norte

erd e

S lla Jo

w oo

L

r

Sq

a

d Gildre

Schol a rs D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

25

1 Introduction Opportunities and Constraints

Following community and staff input, field work, mapping and data analysis, it became clear that certain opportunities and constraints affect the planning and implementation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure on the UC San Diego campus.

Opportunities Regional Climate The coastal southern California climate is ideal for non-motorized mobility. It is an important asset that can be used to encourage biking or walking instead of driving, to the benefit of the entire campus community.

Campus Arterials with Bicycle Facilities There are approximately 11 miles of roadways through campus, of which 43 percent support bicycle lanes. Villa La Jolla and Health Sciences Drive are the most heavily used roads without bicycle facilities. Gilman Drive and Voigt Drive have bicycle lanes, but significant gaps exist to complete the connection with Health Sciences Drive.

Bicycle Parking There is ample bicycle parking across most of the campus. In 2009, a Bicycle Parking Survey noted areas where bicycle racks either did or did not meet demand, identified peak bicycle parking use and the type and supply of bicycle racks on campus. Bicycle parking needs were then identified at individual facilities, including how many racks were needed. The survey serves as a starting point for determining where bicycle racks are needed and for moving racks where demand is low.

Bicycle Police UC San Diego employs police officers on bicycles, which directly supports enforcement efforts and an institutional understanding of bicycle-related safety and access issues.

Pedal Club The Pedal Club is campus-sponsored commuter incentive program that challenges member bicycle commuters to commit to cycling for most of their commutes to UC San Diego in exchange for a complimentary occasional use parking permit and other benefits to promote commuting by bicycle instead of driving to campus.

26

Constraints High Volume and High Speed Streets Some cyclists will choose not to ride on streets with higher vehicular volumes or higher speeds. Others will choose to ride these streets but special treatments to make these streets safer are warranted. The streets that fit these categories are shown on Figures 1.5 and 1.6.

Topography Campus hills affect walking and cycling. Expedition Way to Scripps Institution of Oceanography, for example, represents the extreme with sections of 14 percent grade, but many other areas of campus also have steep zones (see Figure 1.7). This means that cyclists and walkers may experience significant grades around and across the campus, depending upon route. In some cases, these grades may be steep enough to discourage more casual cyclists and walkers from using them, but less hilly alternate routes may not be readily available. In addition, disabled persons find some areas very difficult to access due to excessive slopes. In some areas, universal accessibility standards may require elevators.

An additional issue directly related to local topography is inexperienced or careless cyclists and skateboarders traveling too fast downhill and endangering other users, particularly pedestrians.

High Volume Pathways Cycling is currently restricted to specific hours in certain high volume pedestrian areas, such as Library Walk and portions of Ridge Walk. Cycling is allowed throughout the campus at night and on weekends. Skateboarding is similarly restricted with additional regulations addressing specific campus areas.

Grove Reserve The eucalyptus groves within the campus “park� also have specific restrictions that could affect recommended routes (see Figure 1.8). However, according to the LRDP, development of suitable bicycle and pedestrian paths in the Grove Reserve is allowed. Several routes exist in these areas and are heavily used.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Figure 1.5: Average Daily Vehicle Traffic (ADTs) UCSD Boundary

Average Daily Trips (ADTs) y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Scholars Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

> 20,000 int Po pus

J olla Farm s

10,000 - 20,000 Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

< 10,000

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

No

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

lC ic a ed M

Scholars

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

er ent

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r

D

e Bl

Ve rd Cos ta

Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

uer ta

o u rn Dr

Ln

Kilb

io sco Cam K

Sug arma n Dr Pl

allorca

g

m ha

tD r

Glenwick

C harman aM

ttin

i ll a g e D r

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

No

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

La Jo lla Scen

nw

in

J olla

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

mH

Villa Norte

Ca

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

27

1 Introduction

Figure 1.6: Speed Limits UCSD Boundary

Speed Limits y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Scholars Dr

Hopkins Ln

North Torrey Pines Rd

Voigt Dr

Vo ig t

Dr

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

50 mph

Dr

R

45 mph

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

35 mph Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

25 mph

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

No

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er ent

Dr Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

e M

a dic

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r

D

e Bl Ve rd

Cos ta Lebon Dr

Cargill Av uer ta

o u rn Dr

Ln

Kilb

io sco Cam K

Sug arma n Dr Pl

allorca

g

m ha

tD r

Glenwick

C harman aM

28

ttin

i ll a g e D r

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

No

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

La Jo lla Scen

nw

in

J olla

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o d e p x

La J

5

mH

Villa Norte

Ca

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Figure 1.7: Topographic/Slope Categories UCSD Boundary

Slope y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

Vo ig t

Dr

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

>25%

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

10-25% Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

0-10 %

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

No

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er D ent

r

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

ic a ed M

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

i ll a g e D r

Cos ta Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

io sco Cam K

Kilb

r

Dr

allorca

Sug arma n

tD

aM

o u rn Dr

C harman Vi

ic Wy

Glenwick

Ln

r

Discover y Wy

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

e Bl

Villa Norte

Ve rd

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

29

1 Introduction

Figure 1.8: Environmental Constraints UCSD Boundary

Environmental Constraints y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

Preserve Lands int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Grove Reserve Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Ecological Reserve

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

No

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er D ent

r Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

ic a ed M

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r

D Ln

Cos ta

Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

o u rn Dr

io sco Cam K

allorca

Kilb

aM

Dr

tD r

Glenwick

i ll a g e D r

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

C harman

Sug arma n

30

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

e Bl

Villa Norte

Ve rd

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Executive Dr

ler Ln

Genesee Av

Os

Bicycle Circulation

This chapter highlights existing bicycle conditions and defines the importance of providing bicycle facilities within the overall campus circulation network.

With the typically high demand for limited transportation infrastructure funds, the value and need for bicycle facilities needs to be justified and prioritized. The goal and policies established in this study provide the justification for this component of overall circulation planning. The study also indicates priorities. When well planned and properly integrated into the university’s circulation network, bicycle facilities improve safety, vehicular carrying capacity, parking reduction as well as environmental and personal health benefits.

From a transportation perspective, campus routes need to connect with regional routes, as noted in the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Master Plan Update and the SANDAG’s Riding to 2050, San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. This also includes ensuring continued access to other transportation systems, such as bus, express bus, commuter rail and planned light rail.

2

For most cyclists, direct campus routes with the least challenging grades are desirable. Routes need to connect to neighboring areas as well as regional destinations. For some riders, UC San Diego’s terrain may impose limits to easy and direct access to key destinations.

Based on a campus 1996-2008 Commute Mode Split survey, bicycle commuters make up a maximum of five percent of commutes to campus. For major universities that have invested in bicycle facilities and integrated them into their circulation network, the bicycle commuter mode split is substantially higher, up to 40% for UC Davis and 46% for UC Santa Barbara.

On average, 56 percent of students and faculty use alternative transportation such as campus shuttles, public transit, carpooling, bicycling, walking and carpooling, or some combination of these.

Proposed on-street facilities and bicycle paths must fulfill Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 requirements for bicycle facilities to be eligible for funding. The following section illustrates the facility types to consider.

“UC San Diego aggressively encourages the use of bicycles for commuting and oncampus transportation...

UCSD will continue to add designated bike lanes throughout the campus on major roads and provide other appropriate bicycle routes and bicycle parking facilities.”

Source: LRDP

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

31

2 Bicycle Circulation Bicycle Facility Types

The State of California currently recognizes three types of bikeway facilities. For more details and information on other innovative facility types, see Appendix: Design Guidelines.

Class 2: Bicycle Lanes

Class 1: Bicycle Paths

Bicycle lanes must be one-way facilities and carry traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. In unique situations, it may be appropriate to provide a contra-flow bicycle lane on the left side of a one-way street where it will decrease the number of conflicts (e.g., those caused by heavy bus traffic). Where this occurs, the lane should be marked with a solid, double yellow line and the width of the lane should be increased by one foot.

Class 1 bikeways (frequently referred to as bicycle paths) are facilities physically separated from motor vehicle routes, with exclusive right-of-way for bicycles and pedestrians and with motor vehicle cross flows kept to a minimum. Anywhere there is the potential for motor vehicles to encroach onto a Class 1 bicycle facility, a barrier should be provided. Any separation of less than five feet from the pavement edge of an adjacent motor vehicle route requires a physical barrier.

Unlike on-street facilities that already have defined minimum design speeds, this is a factor to consider for Class 1 facilities.

On relatively flat routes, this is 25 mph.

Class 1 facilities are often important commuter connections and any proposed paths should be designed for multipurpose use. Paths should be wide enough to accommodate multiple user types. Caltrans requirements call for eight feet minimum paved width with two feet of clear space on each side. Adding two feet of additional width to these facilities to make them 10 feet wide helps prevent pavement edge damage from maintenance or patrol vehicles and accommodates higher use volumes.

Class 1: Bike Path 32

Class 2 facilities are marked lanes within roadways adjacent to the curb lane, delineated by appropriate striping and signage for preferential use by cyclists.

Under ideal conditions, the minimum bicycle lane width is five feet, but certain edge conditions can dictate additional width.

However, even where the roadway width is available, Class 2 bicycle lanes should be no wider than six feet to prevent the appearance of a travel lane that could encourage motorists to drive or park within them. Additional width can be striped as a buffer on the travel lane side.

Bicycle lanes should always be placed between the parking lane and the motor vehicle lanes. If parking volume is substantial or turnover is high, an additional one or two feet of width, as a striped buffer, is desirable.

Class 2: Bike Lane

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Class 3: Bicycle Routes

Climbing Lanes

A Class 3 facility is a suggested bicycle route marked by signs designating a preferred route between destinations. They are recommended where traffic volumes and roadway speeds are fairly low (35 mph or less).

A climbing lane is a hybrid bicycle facility comprised of a Class 2 lane in the uphill direction and a Class 3 route in the downhill direction. This facility type is particularly useful on steep roads where existing pavement width cannot accommodate Class 2 lanes in both directions, but where safer bicycle facilities are desired.

Bicycle route guide signs are provided at decision points along designated bicycle routes, including signs to inform cyclists of bicycle route direction changes and confirmation signs for route direction, distance and destination. These signs are repeated at regular intervals so that cyclists entering from side streets will know they are on a bicycle route.

Shared roadway pavement markings (or “sharrows”) are an optional signage method where posted speed limits are 35 mph or less to alert motorists to the expected presence of cyclists, as well as to direct cyclists to the proper distance out from the curb to ride to avoid suddenly opened car doors.

The designation of a roadway as a Class 3 facility should be based primarily on the advisability of encouraging bicycle use on that particular roadway. While the chosen roadways may not be free of problems, they should offer the best balance of safety and convenience of the available alternatives.

In general, the most important considerations are pavement width and geometrics, traffic conditions and appropriateness of the intended purpose. How appropriate a particular roadway is for a bicycle route includes directness and connectivity with other bicycle facilities. Directness is important for commuting cyclists, but not the case for recreational riders, for whom scenery or fitness may be the primary factor in selecting a route.

Class 3: Bike Route

In general, the preferred configuration is Class 2 lanes in both directions. The climbing lane is only recommended on steep roads where dual Class 2 lanes cannot be accommodated.

Where there is enough room for a bicycle lane in only one direction, it should always be provided on the uphill side because the effort of climbing slows all cyclists and causes them to weave more. Because it is on the uphill direction that the speed differential is greatest between vehicles and cyclists, it is prudent to provide more maneuvering space that facilitates easier and safer passing by motor vehicle drivers.

The downhill Class 3 bicycle route also allows faster-moving cyclists to share the lane with motor vehicle traffic since many can actually match vehicle speeds.

The Class 2 lane in the uphill direction should employ standard pavement markings (including directional arrows) and signage as directed by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD). In addition, “sharrows” should be provided as part of the Class 3 facility in the downhill direction.

Climbing Lane (Class 2 Lane uphill and Class 3 Route downhill) 33

2 Bicycle Circulation Existing Infrastructure

Existing bicycle system mapping was derived from the SANDAG regional bikeway geographic information systems (GIS) data, field review and input from university staff and the Project Working Group. There are no Class 1 paths on campus, and four miles of Class 2 lanes. Note that most campus pathways are also currently used by cyclists, as well as all campus streets, including those not specifically designated as bicycle facilities (see Figure 2.1 below).

Figure 2.1: Existing Bicycle Facilities UCSD Boundary

Existing Bike Facilities y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Scholars Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Class 3: Bike Route Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Class 2: Bike Lanes

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

No

Vo ig t M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er ent

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

ic a ed M

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r

D

e Bl

Ve rd Cos ta

Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

uer ta

o u rn Dr

Ln

Kilb

io sco Cam K

g

Sug arma n Dr Pl

allorca

ttin

m ha

tD r

Glenwick

C harman aM

No

i ll a g e D r

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

34

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

La Jo lla Scen

nw

in

J olla

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o d e p x

La J

5

mH

Villa Norte

Ca

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Existing Conditions

The two following figures illustrate data gathered for use in study analyses. Note that several of the constraints mapped in Chapter 1 also directly affect cycling, such as topography.

Dismount Zones Dismount zones are highly pedestrian-oriented areas where bicycle riding is not considered suitable (see Figure 2.2 below).

The most prominent dismount zone is Library Walk, which runs southward from the Geisel Library to Gilman Drive. Others occur on Ridge Walk and around the Mandeville Center within John Muir College.

Figure 2.2: Existing Dismount Zones UCSD Boundary Bicycle Dismount Zones

y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

Vo ig t

Dr

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Class 3: Bike Route

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Class 2: Bike Lanes Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Existing Bike Facilities

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

No

Ridge Walk

To

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er D ent

r

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

ic a ed M

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

i ll a g e D r

Cos ta Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

io sco Cam K

Kilb

r

Dr

allorca

Sug arma n

tD

aM

o u rn Dr

C harman Vi

ic Wy

Glenwick

Ln

r

Discover y Wy

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

e Bl

Villa Norte

Ve rd

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

35

2 Bicycle Circulation

Activity Centers Activity centers are locations likely to generate bicycle use, such as the Price Center and other campus services, major classroom buildings, student housing areas and recreational facilities (see Figure 2.3 below).

Figure 2.3: Activity Centers

No

y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Scholars Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er D ent

r

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

ic a ed M

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

ine s R d

e Bl

Ve rd

Class 2: Bike Lanes

Campus Services

Class 3: Bike Route

Cargill Av

uer ta

Blair St

mH

Ca

o u rn Dr

Kilb

Sug arma n Dr Pl

Activity Centers Camto Dia

Torr ey P

Recreational Facilities

io sco Cam K

g

Existing Bike Facilities

r

ttin

UCSD Boundary

i ll a g e D r

C harma

allorca

No

aV

nt D Major Classrooms aM

36

m ha

oll

Student Housing Vi

ic Wy

Glenwick

Ln

r

Discover y Wy

Dr

D

La Jo lla Scen

nw

d

J olla

D ow in

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o d e p x

La J

5

Cos ta

Villa Norte

Lebon Dr

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Bicycle Parking Assessment

Adequate bicycle parking is essential for a bikeway network to be used to its full potential. UC San Diego Transportation Services conducts bicycle parking surveys to determine bicycle parking supply and to identify facilities where supply is not meeting demand. The 2011 survey registered a total of 2,788 racks with capacity for up to 6,957 bicycles. Racks are provided at or near most UC San Diego buildings.

There are currently several rack types on campus, including inverted-U racks, wave racks, two types of wheel slot racks and single arm clamp racks. The dominant rack and current standard is the inverted-U rack. There is also secured bicycle parking in the Rita Atkinson Residences complex, Village East Building 1 and the Arbor Parking Structure at the Hillcrest Medical Center campus. Such secure parking is especially valuable for occupants of buildings that operate on a 24 hour basis.

Not only do most campus destinations provide bicycle parking, the majority is located with the cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s convenience and security in mind. Campus bicycle parking is generally near building entrances and in high visibility areas to discourage theft. However, some racks are located within dismount zones, which makes enforcing these zones difficult. Campus policy does not allow bicycles in offices, but this practice is known to occur.

Wave rack

Single arm clamp rack

Finally, while conveniently located throughout the campus, many of the existing inverted-U racks were installed improperly, perpendicular to their proper orientation. They therefore provide only one support point for the bicycle frame instead of two, as recommended by bicycle parking authorities and the instability allows bicycles to slide down the rack (see American Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Edition).

Slot rack

Inverted-U rack (properly installed)

Slot rack 37

2 Bicycle Circulation UC San Diego Hillcrest Medical Center

Bicycle connectivity to the Hillcrest Medical Center campus is primarily via Bachman Place from the north or Washington Street from the south. Neither roadway has bicycle facilities.

Bicycle parking is available on Dickinson Street and at a secure bicycle cage within the Arbor Parking Structure.

Figure 2.4: UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center Area Existing Bicycle Facilities

38

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Bicycle Improvements

Recommended Conceptual Framework

Proposed Bicycle Network

Two very important factors must be addressed for a wellconnected bicycle system at UC San Diego: connections with the adjacent community and connections to UC San Diego’s colleges and neighborhoods. Additionally, the campus plays a role in accommodating north/south regional bicycle traffic.

Some of this traffic is commuter and some is recreational, especially on weekends. Because of UC San Diego’s topography and limited roadway options, cyclists need to traverse parts of the campus for coastal routes. Connections with the community are not just important for those passing through the campus, but are essential for providing bicycle commuters connections with the adjacent community and with regional bicycle facilities (see Figure 2.6).

Based on stakeholder, staff, Project Working Group and survey input, as well as mapping, analysis and field work, a bicycle network was delineated that employs existing on-street facilities and shared-use pathways to support bicycle travel to and across the campus. Routes on multi-use pathways were carefully considered and are recommended to occur in conjunction with supporting education, encouragement and enforcement initiatives (see Figure 2.7). This bicycle network corresponds with the on-street facilities shown in the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Master Plan Update, as well as ensures connections with important planned regional facilities such as the Class 1 path parallel with Interstate 5 north of Voigt Drive that will connect with the Sorrento Valley Coaster station as part of the Interstate 5 widening project, and the Gilman Drive Bridge over Interstate 5, which is planned to have Class 2 lanes.

Connections between the various destinations and undergraduate colleges are also critical for both bicycle use and walking. These connections have been emphasized in previous master plans and neighborhood studies, as well as in the 2004 Long Range Development Plan. A conceptual framework of bicycle and pedestrian connections are shown in Figure 2.6.

39

2 Bicycle Circulation

Figure 2.5: Conceptual Framework for Campus Connections and Regional Campus Pass-through Facilities

No

y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Scholars Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

lC ic a ed M

Scholars

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

er ent

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

ine s R d

e Bl

Ve rd

Class 2: Bike Lanes Class 3: Bike Route

Cargill Av

uer ta

Blair St

mH

Ca

o u rn Dr

Kilb

Community Bicycle Connections and Regional Campus Pass-through Routes

io sco Cam K

Sug arma n Dr Pl

Activity Centers

Camto Dia

Torr ey P

Existing Bike Facilities

Campus Services

r

g

i ll a g e D r

Recreational Facilities

C harma

allorca

40

ttin

aV

UCSD Boundary

nt D Major Classrooms aM

No

m ha

oll

Student Housing Vi

ic Wy

Glenwick

Ln

r

Discover y Wy

Dr

D

La Jo lla Scen

nw

d

J olla

D ow in

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

Cos ta

Villa Norte

Lebon Dr

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Executive Dr Genesee Av

O

s ler Ln

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Figure 2.6 Conceptual Framework for On-campus Connections

Important Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections

(Underlying image from 2004 LRDP)

41

2 Bicycle Circulation

Figure 2.7: Proposed Bicycle Network UCSD Boundary

Proposed Bicycle Network y Pin

es Sc

enic

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Future Off-Street Dr

R

Off-Street int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Future On-Street Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

On-Street

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

rth p oint D Ridge Walk

To

No

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er ent

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

ic a ed M

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r

D Ln

Cos ta Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

o u rn Dr

io sco Cam K

allorca

Kilb

aM

Dr

tD r

Glenwick

i ll a g e D r

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

C harman

Sug arma n

42

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

e Bl

Villa Norte

Ve rd

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Other Bicycle Facility Recommendations Bicycle Wayfinding System A wayfinding system to direct cyclists to the most appropriate routes for bicycle use could employ simple directional “tags” applied to signs panels (see simulated example at right). Primarily when implementing the priority projects (discussed in Chapter 5), several locations will require additional directional signage oriented to cyclists to direct them to designated preferred routes. An example is Priority Project 3A (Page 82), where at least one sign will be needed to help direct cyclists to a new proposed bicycle-specific facility.

Proposed Bicycle Parking Improvements Based on PWG input and other public comment, UC San Diego should implement policies to increase bicycle parking education and options for students and faculty. Examples include:

• Provide fee-based indoor bicycle parking for faculty who wish to park their bicycle in their workspace.

• Bicycle racks should meet all standards and guidelines for parking access, safety and fire codes.

• Provide secured long-term bicycle parking cages at parking garages and major on-campus transit hubs.

• Add secure bicycle parking facilities (i.e., cages or interior rooms) and shower facilities with lockers at new and significantly remodeled buildings. Provide adequate temporary bicycle parking and circulation during construction.

Proposed bicycle wayfinding tag

• When funds become available or when site reconstruction occurs, re-align existing inverted-U bicycle racks to their proper orientation.

• Colleges and departments should coordinate bicycle

parking needs, design and placement to support uniform bicycle parking capacity, including the potential for re-allocation of underused racks.

43

2 Bicycle Circulation

Proposed Bicycle Parking Rack Types Is does not make economic sense to recommend a new campus-wide rack standard, especially where large numbers of serviceable inverted-U racks are already in place.

Even if a single campus-wide rack type is not feasible, in general, groups of racks within view of each other or within the same building complex should be of the same type. This should be the case within colleges, for instance. In areas where large of numbers of the current standard inverted-U racks are already in place, additional racks should be of the same type.

However, whenever a significant number of new racks are being considered, it is generally recommended to use Peak Racksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; products (www.peakracks.com) because these are reasonably priced, one-piece racks that support bicycles very well and allow easy locking of the frame and front wheel.

Specifically designed for space efficiency and ease of use, Peak Racks feature a vertical stagger to minimize handlebar tangling. The racks are available in multiple configurations holding from two to eight bicycles, including space-saving angled and double-sided models, in a number of finishes.

The smaller capacity versions are especially useful for providing bicycle parking spaces in otherwise unusably small or irregular areas.

Where aesthetics are a greater concern, Park-a-Bike (www. parkabike.com) type racks should be considered. These are also superior to standard inverted-U type racks and their simple angular design can be attractive, especially in groups.

These are available exclusively as two-bike racks, but are designed for ganged installation using a horizontal stagger. Park-a-Bike can also be ordered with customized frame padding, as well as a Quick Response (QR) tag on the top of the rack, scannable via a smartphone equipped with a QR reader app. The default tag directs users to a video on how to properly lock a bicycle. (See Page 121 for more information on QR codes.)

44

Peak rack

Park-a-Bike rack

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Proposed Bicycle Parking Requirements Residence Halls For each residence hall room, provide two covered bicycle parking spaces. Wherever possible, secure parking, such as a lockable room within the building, is preferred.

Classroom, Office and Other Buildings Provide bicycle parking for at least five percent of the building occupancy, or as otherwise stated in the campus Bicycle Parking Survey, whichever is greater.

Transit Stations and Parking Lots/Structures Providing bicycle parking at transit centers and parking lots and structures is intended to encourage more campus community members to use bicycles to move around the campus, even if they do not ride there from home. This may be particularly effective at the planned light rail stations.

For short-term parking, provide spaces for five percent of projected morning peak period daily ridership.

For long-term parking, provide covered spaces for 1.5 percent of morning peak period daily ridership.

Long-term parking at transit stations can consist of a wide variety of fixture types and site plan layouts and includes both racks in cages and bicycle rooms, as well as lockers located in a variety of different settings, both indoors and outdoors.

Site design should focus is on ensuring the safety of users while maintaining exclusive access to these areas. Outreach to users to educate them about the presence of the facilities.

Campus long-term parking may include:

• Easy access via effective guide signage • Free-standing shelter • Indoor cage or room • Safeguards for users such as effective lighting and visible surveillance

Higher security long term bicycle parking may include:

• Leased (keyed or smartcard) lockers • On-demand (self-lock or smartcard) lockers • Keycard/code access garage cage or bicycle room Long-term parking, whether bicycle lockers or cages, should be approved by the Design Review Board to coordinate aesthetics with the surrounding area. Bicycle cages should incorporate properly installed campus-approved racks.

Secure bicycle parking at Rita Atkinson Residences

Locker/Shower/Changing Facility Awareness An essential element for making bicycle commuting from off-campus possible is shower and changing facilities within a reasonable walking distance of the commuter’s final destination. There are a number of changing rooms and shower facilities on the campus, but better awareness of their locations may encourage more of the campus community to bike instead of drive. A publicity and wayfinding program is recommended, such as highlighting the locations on campus maps, both on-site and on websites. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits are available for projects that incorporate bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities.

45

2 Bicycle Circulation

46

Pedestrian Circulation

At some point, all trips involve walking and UC San Diego is an inherently pedestrian campus. The eucalyptus-shaded walking environment of the central campus is and will continue to be a distinctive university feature. Planning decisions can take advantage of the campus pedestrian attributes to fulfill mobility and sustainability goals.

The current pedestrian network employs a combination of paved and unpaved pathways of varying dimensions and materials. Pedestrian bridges provide access across La Jolla Village Drive to and from the major developments south of the campus, at Scripps Institution of Oceanography across La Jolla Shores Drive, across Villa La Jolla Drive at the Veterans Administration Medical Center and across Gilman Drive just north of Osler Lane.

3

“UCSD’s topography, surroundings, and climate make walking a practical and enjoyable way of navigating the campus. ” Source: LRDP

Campus policies regulate bicycle and skateboard use on certain pedestrian pathways. In addition, in terms of both facilities access and programmatic accommodation, UC San Diego planning is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

47

3 Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian Facility Types

College campuses require differing levels of pedestrian improvements based on campus roadways, pathways, levels of use, user type, topography and land uses. This section defines the pathway classifications and the corresponding design treatment levels appropriate for each type.

UC San Diegoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s facilities fit into the following walking facility categories (see Figures 3.1 through 3.5 on the following pages for details).

Campus Roads Campus roads may or may not have sidewalks that support heavy pedestrian levels in mixed-use areas. These roads are the campus connections from adjacent neighborhoods and are required to meet California MUTCD requirements.

Gilman Drive, Campus Point Drive, Northpoint Drive and La Jolla Shores Drive are examples of this type of route. They provide both the connection to off-campus destinations and intra-campus connections.

This route type is primarily used by motor vehicles and often has adjacent 4-5 foot sidewalks. These roads are sometimes the most convenient way to connect to the different schools on campus. An example is Voigt Drive connecting Warren and Roosevelt Colleges.

Campus Walks and Corridors Campus walks and corridors are the backbone network of the UC San Diego campus. They support high volume pedestrian traffic and moderate bicycle and skateboard traffic. Campus delivery and maintenance vehicles also use these routes.

These routes connect major housing, classroom, athletic and research facilities. They are typically concrete and occasionally are designed with interlocking paving or decorative concrete.

Because these corridors connect to all the other route types, access and safety treatments will vary at their connections.

Bicycles are not allowed Monday to Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on two major corridors, Ridge Walk and Library Walk. Skateboards are not allowed on Peterson Hill, Library Walk or Warren Mall.

48

Ancillary Connectors Connectors are routes that connect major corridors, campus roads and plazas between buildings, parking lots and structures and pedestrian bridges. These pathways form the largest portion of the campus route network as they meander around larger buildings, connect smaller buildings and residence halls and pass through the eucalyptus groves and landscaped areas. They are typically paved, but in some instances are unpaved as a natural-surface trail to retain the rustic feel of the area. Asphalt is generally used within the eucalyptus grove. A few connectors, such as one immediately north of the Eleanor Roosevelt College Administration Building that crosses Scholars Drive North, double as fire lanes with a sustainable landscape design that provides both open space and a meandering pathway.

Plazas Plazas are campus social gathering places that generate high pedestrian use and, when allowed, bicycle use. Plazas typically have amenities that allow students to stop, socialize, eat and study. Amenities include benches, tables, grassy open spaces, shade structures, bicycle parking and nearby cafes or restaurants. Plazas can be found throughout campus such as near the Price Center, Thornton Hospital, within colleges and between most residence hall buildings. These open spaces usually accommodate wheelchairs in paved, flat areas.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Figure 3.1: Pedestrian Facility Types UCSD Boundary Pedestrian Route Types

y Pin

es Sc

enic

Campus Walks and Corridors rth p oint D

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

Plazas

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Campus Roads Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Ancillary Connectors

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

No

Ridge Walk

To

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

lC ic a ed M

Scholars

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

er ent

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

i ll a g e D r

Cos ta Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

io sco Cam K

Kilb

r

Dr

allorca

Sug arma n

tD

aM

o u rn Dr

C harman Vi

ic Wy

Glenwick

Ln

r

Discover y Wy

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

e Bl

Villa Norte

Ve rd

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Executive Dr Genesee Av

O

s ler Ln

49

3 Pedestrian Circulation Campus Walks and Corridors

Heavily used intra-campus routes that connect major destinations and residence halls - typically a multi-use facility.

Figure 3.2: Campus Walks and Corridors

Primary Surface: Typically concrete (plain or decorative) or interlocking paving.

Restrictions vary by location. Typically used by all modes except private vehicles.

Ridge Walk 50

Library Walk

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Ancillary Connectors

Pathways that connect major corridors, campus roads, plazas, buildings and pedestrian bridges.

Figure 3.3: Ancillary Connectors

Primary Surface: Concrete, asphalt and in some cases, unpaved. Typically less than ten feet wide. Some restrictions on bicycle and skateboard use.

Sustainable treatments can include: Decomposed granite (DG) buffer, infiltration trench, core joints on the pathway, root barriers and four foot minimum distance from trees.

Unpaved pathway near Moores Cancer Center

Paved pathway at Muir College 51

3 Pedestrian Circulation Plazas

Campus gathering place that generates high pedestrian and bicycle use.

Figure 3.4: Plazas

Primary Surface: Concrete or decorative paving. Landscaped areas, with trees, seating and tables.

Typically near larger classrooms/lab buildings. Some restrictions on bicycle and skateboard use.

Warren College 52

Town Square

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Campus Roads

On-campus roads supporting moderate bicycle and pedestrian levels.

These roads are primarily used for motor vehicle traffic across campus.

Typical adjacent street for on-campus and off-campus connections used by campus shuttles and public transportation. Bicycle lanes adjacent to sidewalk, when they occur.

Scholars Drive

Figure 3.5: Campus Road Sidewalk Facilities

Primary Surface: Concrete curb. Moderate pedestrian and skateboard use.

GIlman Drive at Osler Lane 53

3 Pedestrian Circulation Walk Time Analysis

The model utilized data collected from UC San Diego planning staff, the City of San Diego, SANDAG and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). It utilized the existing pathway network to connect activity areas likely to attract pedestrians. These included student housing, recreation facilities, student services, major attractions (Price Center, Geisel Library, etc.) and transit stops.

A geographic information systems-based (GIS) walk time analysis was performed to determine the relative levels of walking likely to occur both currently and if missing connections were added, particularly the Gilman Bridge over Interstate 5. To help preserve the campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; highly pedestrian oriented nature, the analysis model was created to help identify areas for prioritizing improvements where the largest pedestrian concentrations can be expected (see Figures 3.6 and 3.7 below).

Figure 3.6: Existing Walk Times Existing Walk Times

High Pedestrian Activity

No

y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Low Pedestrian Activity

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er ent

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

e M

a dic

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D Ln

Cos ta Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

o u rn Dr

io sco Cam K

allorca

Kilb

aM

Dr

tD r

Glenwick

i ll a g e D r

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

C harman

Sug arma n

54

aV

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o d e p x

La J

5

e Bl

Villa Norte

Ve rd

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Walk times of three, five, seven and ten minutes were used from these locations and overlaid to create a composite of each walk time. Three miles per hour was used as an average walking speed. In the resulting maps, areas in red reflect higher pedestrian levels based on the accumulated walk times of the affected activity areas. Areas in blue are likely to have the least relative amount of pedestrian activity due to the small amount of walk time overlay. Activity areas closer together, between 0-5 minutes apart, scored higher because of their proximity to each other. The longer the walk times to access an area, the lower the score.

Not surprisingly, the model identified the campus center as having the highest level of pedestrian activity since the majority of the activity areas are located there.

The model was then modified to include future conditions, specifically the Light Rail Transit (LRT) stations and the planned Gilman Bridge over Interstate 5, as well as all planned medical buildings on the East Campus. The resulting model graphic illustrates the potential increase in pedestrian activity and connectivity when these new activity areas and important connections are completed.

Figure 3.7: Future Walk Times Future Walk Times

High Pedestrian Activity

No

y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Low Pedestrian Activity r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

lC ic a ed M

Scholars

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

er ent

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

Wy

i ll a g e D r

Cos ta Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

io sco Cam K

Kilb

r

allorca

Dr

tD

aM

o u rn Dr

C harman

Sug arma n

e Bl

aV

Vi

ic Wy

Glenwick

Ln

r

Discover y Wy

oll

Camto Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

La J

5

V illa La

E

d Re n i ti o xp e d

Villa Norte

Ve rd

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

55

3 Pedestrian Circulation UC San Diego Hillcrest Medical Center

Pedestrian connectivity within the Hillcrest Medical Center campus employs sidewalks along area streets. There is a single campus walk joining the Arbor Parking Structure to the Medical Center entrance. A walkway from the upper level of the Bachman Parking Structure provides a connection to Dickinson Street, which also carries heavy pedestrian traffic.

Figure 3.8: UCSD Hillcrest Walking Facilities

Bachman Parking Structure Dickinson Street

Arbor Parking Structure

Campus Walks and Corridors Ancillary Connectors Plazas Campus Roads 56

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Pedestrian Improvements

Recommended Conceptual Framework

Proposed Pedestrian Network

Pedestrian connections are needed at the beginning and end of every trip, no matter what mode of transportation is used in between. Therefore, pedestrian connections are needed across campus. The level of pedestrian connection is based upon the demand in a particular location. The higher the traffic through an area, the more space and accommodations are needed in the pedestrian environment. Refer to Figure 2.3 for major activity centers as they relate to primary destination points on the campus. Refer to Figure 3.6 and 3.7 for areas of intensive pedestrian activity and future need.

Refer to Figure 2.6 for important pedestrian connections (and bicycle connections) needed to connect major destinations, neighborhoods and the undergraduate colleges.

This plan recommends several new projects to be added to the pedestrian network (see Figure 3.9). Some of these projects are new connections while others are improvements to existing pedestrian facilities. Some provide better routes between destinations, while others provide more accessible and safe connections.

Within the campus itself, the eucalyptus-shaded 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.

Likewise, the campus does function with a series of pedestrian protected plazas, walks, promenades and corridors and is therefore not in need of major new pedestrian facilities.

However, care must be given to those pedestrian-dominant areas being considered for additional bicycle traffic as multiuse trails to make certain this does not negatively affect pedestrian use in these areas.

57

3 Pedestrian Circulation

Figure 3.9: Proposed Pedestrian Network Proposed Pedestrian Improvements Proposed Intersection Improvements No

y Pin

es Sce

rth p oint D

nic D r

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

Scholars Dr

North Torrey Pines Rd

Campus Roads

r

R

Ancillary Connectors D int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Campus Walks and Corridors Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Existing Pedestrian Route Types

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

Vo ig t

M a tthew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er ent

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

e M

a dic

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r D

Wy

Kilb

e Bl Cos ta

Lebon Dr

Cargill Av

io sco Cam K

allorca

Dr

tD

aM

o urn Dr

Ln

i ll a g e D r

r

Glen wick

aV

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

C harman

Sug arma n

58

oll

Camt o Dia

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

J olla

nw

in

La Jo lla Scen

D ow

La J

5

V illa La

E

d Re n i ti o xp e d

Villa Norte

Ve rd

S

d Dr

lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Other Pedestrian Facility Recommendations

Trail Surface Suitability

Other possible pedestrian recommendations include the addition of improved lighting, surface treatments, signage and regulatory restrictions requiring walk zones for cyclists.

Within the central campus area, UC San Diego employs asphalt for paving within the eucalyptus groves. In other areas, such as the Ecological Reserve at the north end of the campus, the pathways are natural surface.

• Lighting improves wayfinding, security and visibility of trip hazards. Some routes would benefit from improved lighting and better surfaces. Intersection safety will also improve with increased lighting.

• Many pedestrian facilities lack adequate distinction be-

tween walkways and driving surfaces. Striping, curbs and other vertical delineators are advisable in some areas on the campus.

• Some areas are too congested for safe shared use.

These areas have been recommended as areas marked as “Dismount Zones” and should be signed as such.

Regulations prohibiting cycling currently exist, but the locations are not clearly signed or are inconsistently mapped. Additionally a “pedestrian only” marking or stencil may be developed to further communicate the regulations in these congested areas.

While asphalt has probably been in use for some time due to its ease of repair, it is not a particularly sustainable product. It is a by-product of petroleum refining, releases hydrocarbons and is impermeable, concentrating and channeling rainfall instead of allowing it to be absorbed into the underlying soil.

The matrix on the following page lists potential off-street trail and pathway surface types and their inherent characteristics, primarily in terms of their sustainability.

Campus Roads The interface between pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic must be examined closely to provide the appropriate balance of safety measures for all users. Traffic calming measures can be important amenities for cyclists and pedestrians using this route type. A “Complete Streets” approach to design that accommodates all roadway users, not just vehicle drivers, is recommended for campus roadway planning.

Campus Walks and Corridors These support high volume pedestrian traffic and moderate bicycle and skateboard traffic. Campus delivery and maintenance vehicles also use these routes. In areas with high levels of activity, such as special events on Library Walk, high pedestrian traffic and limited space, traffic may be limited to pedestrian only.

Ancillary Connectors These pathways are the largest network of routes on campus because they meander around larger buildings, connect smaller buildings and residence halls, particularly through the eucalyptus groves and landscaped areas. These are to be considered shared facilities where users must travel at prudent speeds and those traveling faster need to yield to slower users.

59

3 Pedestrian Circulation

Figure 3.10: Off-street Trail and Pathway Surface Suitability Matrix Water Quality Impacts (Sediments)

Surface Material

Maint Cost

Asphalt

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Mod

Roadways/ Parking

High

Mod

Pervious Asphalt

Mod

High

Mod

Mod to High

High

High

Low

Roadways/ Parking

Mod

High

Concrete

Mod

Low

Mod

Low

Low

Low

Low

Minor Walkways

Low

High

High

Mod

Low

Low

Low

Major Walkways/ Plazas

Low

High

Low

Parking/ Plazas/Nat Areas

Low

High

Low

High

Enhanced Concrete

Pervious Concrete

Mod to Low to High Mod Mod

Mod

Mod

Low

High

Low

Appropriate Tree Root / ADA Setting Trip Hazards Compliance

Integral Color with Rustic Materials such as DG/Sands

High

Low

High

Mod

High

Low

Mod

Landscaped/ Nat Areas and Groves

Grouted Pavers

High

Low

Mod

Low

Low to Mod

Low

Low

Urban Plaza

Low

High

Ungrouted Pavers

High

Low

Low

Low

Low to Mod

Low

Mod

Urban Plaza

Mod

High

Compacted Native Soil

Low

Mod

Low

Low

High

Low

High

Rustic Grove

High

Low

Decomposed Granite

Low

Mod

Low

Low

High

Low

High

Rustic Grove

Mod

Low

Mod

Mod

Low

Low

Low

Low

Mod

Rustic Grove

Low

Mod to High

Stabilized Decomposed Granite (Polymerbased Stabilizer)

60

Low Water Repair Reflectivity/ Stormwater Quality Cost Heat Island Permiability Impacts Effect (Hydrocarbons)

Material Cost

Related Transportation Modes

Regional and local transit is an important component of campus mobility access. The campus works to discourage the use of private vehicles in a positive way by making other mobility modes equally convenient. Connecting different modes, such as shuttles with commuter rail, is one way the campus accomplishes this. Encouraging the use of transit instead of driving and parking on campus also supports the university’s “green” goals and reduces congestion and green house gas emissions. For the purposes of this study, consideration of other transportation modes is an opportunity to expand bicycle and pedestrian use through convenient linkages and potential collaboration to serve all users. Likewise, transit ridership is increased when a walkable and bikeable destination is provided.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

4

“Regional and local transportation systems are playing an ever larger role in efforts to ensure access to the campus. UCSD is working closely with regional public transit agencies to ensure service improvements will occur at the earliest possible date.”

Source: LRDP

61

4 Related Transportation Modes Shuttle Services

UC San Diego Transportation Services operates an extensive shuttle system for students, faculty and staff. Routes are designated by letter on the UC San Diego Shuttle Map (Figure 4.1) as follows:

• A: Arriba Shuttle connects Mandeville Auditorium and Regents Road area

• N: Nobel Shuttle connects Mandeville Auditorium and Nobel Drive area

• L: Campus Loop connects West Campus parking structures and colleges

• W: Coaster Shuttle West connects West Campus and Sorrento Valley Coaster Station

• C: Coaster Shuttle East connects southern portion of West Campus and medical center area with Sorrento Valley Coaster Station

• P: East/Regents Shuttle connects Regents Road area and campus center

• H: Hillcrest/Campus Shuttle connects Hillcrest and La Jolla medical centers

• OT: Hillcrest/Old Town Shuttle connects Hillcrest Medical Center and Old Town Transit Center

• M: Mesa Housing Shuttle connects Mesa Housing and campus center

• S: Scripps Institution of Oceanography connects SIO and campus center

• TP: Torrey Pines Center Shuttle connects Torrey Pines Center and campus center

There is also a seasonal Holiday Airport Shuttle for students only from Peterson Hall to Lindbergh Field.

62

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Figure 4.1: Shuttle Routes TP

CE LA

E

T TA RS

TE IN 5

ss

St

.

Pacific Ocean

Revelle College

L

L

L C

L

L

S

W

S

S

S S IGPP

Hall

S

itio

d pe

S

UCSD Medical Center La Jolla

Ché Cafe

M

1 Miramar St.

Mesa Housing

M North Mesa Housing

South Mesa

M Housing

Early Childhood Education Center

LM

La Jolla Villa

Ex

W

ge Dr.

La Jolla Villa

La Jo

lla Vi

llage

Dr.

Arriba Shuttle

Nobel/ Lebon

N

e Nobel/ age Squar La Jolla Vill

Nobel Shuttle

nd ay W

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

P P704

Mesa Housing Shuttle

N

Nobel Dr.

Aquarium-Museum SIO Director’s Office

L

r.

Gilman/Osler

S

S S

M

Eye Center

L

ge Dr.

S

C H

Coaster East Shuttle

wi wn Do

S S SIO Library

S SNierenberg

Shellback Way

Isaacs Hall

Coast Apartments

ay nW

Pepper Canyon an D

School of Medicine

North Torrey Pines Rd.

SIO Shuttle

Southwest Fisheries

t Dr.

Poin

P703

Gilman Parking Structure Gilm

L HMC

Theatre District

S

pus

Cam

Matthews Ln

L H Gilman/ Myers

P

P702

L

P

Dr.

S

Gilman/ Scholars S.

Revelle Parking Scholars Drive S.

LC

P C

an

S

Gilman Dr.

P701

Dr.

Gilm

N

re

Dr.

L

Lot P510

Gilman/ Mandeville

Old Student Center

Pacific Hall

Voigt

Price Center & Book Store

Gilman Dr.

ng

L M

S L

Scholars Drive S.

Co

S L

Muir College

P

t Voig

Canyonview Aquatics & Activities Center P

Dr .

Tw igg

sS

t.

OT

NA Mandeville Auditorium

L

L

on

Scholars Drive

t.

Trolley Route

Muir Apartments

Warren Apartments

Dr.

T H IR D AV E N U E

an S

S Faculty Club

S.

S L

Warren College

East/Regents Shuttle

Le b

S L

Dr.

Geisel Library

Peterson Hall

TP

Muir Ln.

Campus Services Complex

Hopkins Structure

University Center

L

5

Gilman

F O UR T H AV E N U E

AV E N U E

T H IR D AV E N U E

BA C H M A N P LAC E

F IR S T AV E N U E

F R ONT S TR E E T

F O UR T H

L

North Torrey Pines Rd.

t. rS lo Ta y

Ju

Old Town Transit Center

Thurgood Marshall College Muir College Dr.

W

OLD TOWN

L

Voig t

Muir To Freeway 163 Dr. College

r St.

Taylo

L

L

Oceanview Apartments

WASHINGTON STREET

inset 2

TP

Campus Loop Shuttle

RIMAC Arena

Pangea Parking Structure

LEWIS S TREET

ALB AT R O S S S T R E E T

B R A N T S T R EE T

F IR S T

Medical Gr oup Practice

Eleanor Roosevelt College

e.

Av

To Fr eeway I-5

MONTECITO WAY

L

see

RIV

SD

OS

TR

BA

AL

W

L

ne

E

Institute Rd.

Transportation Services

Ge

UCSD Medical Center Hillcrest

Ambulatory Care Center

North Campus L

TP

ARBOR DRIVE Salk

ACE Public Parking

Library Walk

Main Entrance

Arbor Drive Parking Structure

Coaster West Shuttle

L Bachman Surface Lot

Scholars Drive N.

Outpatient Center

South Wing

EMERGENC Y

North Point

Hopkins Drive

UCSD Medical Center

(Inpatient Tower)

L

North Point Dr.

Villa La Jolla Dr.

Staff Parking

North Torrey Pines Rd.

West Wing

OT

UC San Diego Shuttle Routes

Ave.

To Del Mar

Bachman Canyon Parking Structure

DICKINSON STREET

H

esee

Gildred Facility Parking

Multipurpose Facility

Visitor & Patient Parking

Gen

Hillcrest/Campus Shuttle (see inset 1) Auxiliary & Plant Services Marketing & Web Communications

Lebon Dr.

Reserved Parking MRI Parking

Torrey Pines Center South

Regents Rd.

Clinical Teaching Facility

Sorrento Valley C Coaster Station W

A

Regents Rd.

NP MA CH BA

inset 1

N

W

Torrey Pines

Regents/Nobel

Palmilla/ Lebon

A

A Arriba St.

Regents/ Arriba

63

4 Related Transportation Modes Bus Services

HO CARME L

RANC

EL

PK WY SPR INGS

C

EMERALD

THUNDER DR

EL O RO D R

RA NC HO D

JE

RD

L

R

CA

KELLY DR

CINAS

43RD ST

SAXONY RD

VIL LA GE W PK WY SPRILLO IN W G DR

CERRO ST

AV

TE R

OR IA

REGAL

CH

TH

LVD

TE B

U YD

54

94

ST

HT

60TH

RO

51ST ST

AKINS AV

ER IMP

AV

61ST ST

47TH ST

G ro ve 916/917

ST LTO ELL N SW

3

V RA A OLVE

AVA ST

43RD ST

4TH

A PL

IPOS MAR

ST

8TH

ST BL V

4TH

ST

G

W

BAYVIE

805

ION

R

R SD

IAL

DIVIS

OL RO LEGE VE D

EUCLID AV

41ST

LA R PO P

EA V HO M 38TH ST

LA N

LAKE

BONITA

NARDO

WA RIN GR D

MISRANCHO SION RD

FERN

32ND ST

DELTA

929

GR

63RD

KEARNY VILLA RD

RUFFIN RD

30TH ST

TEXAS ST

PARK BLVD

30TH ST

32ND ST

Euclid Ave. Trolley Station EUCLID AV

CAMINO DEL ESTE

PARK BLVD RICHMOND ST

25TH ST 26TH

EUCLID AV

FRAZEE RD

5TH AV O

AV

RAL BLVD

LOGAN AV

VE ST STA

MEM DR

ORA

FEDE

E

AP

AV

D AV

A

PLAZ

MUNDA RD

NGE

LV D

MISSION GORGE RD

LLA RD

CT R MISSIO N

MI

OVERLAND AV

MERCURY ST

RD VIS TA

DA LIN

1ST AV 4TH AV

S

REYNARD WY

FRONT ST

N

GOLDFINCH ST

NO EL L WAS

NY VI KEAR

ARMSTR ONG ST

BLVD

TA CAD IA IST DRA

AR

BALOUR

NTOR ST KA DR

QUENTIN ROOSEVELT BLVD

EUCLID AV

AV

AL

ME

E AV

DR

C

ISON

AM ED AB

COL

GRANT ST

BL MTNACK RD MITSCHER WAY

BARN E

VD ST S CR AN

RO SE

TON

CLAIREM

CLAIREMONT DR

SOLEDAD

TOWNE CENTRE DR

LEBON

STRESEM ANN ST

DR D AN TL JU

RD

CH AT SW

E AV

COLLEG IEW STREAMV

HARB

5 ST

BLVD

10

KE

ST

COLLEG

54TH ST

CRAN S

VALLEY

VD JON BL

HO

NATIONAL AV

ON AJ EL C

LVD

ROSE

AV

DB

ST

STEVENS

Crest Canyon Park

TEZU101 MA RD

WOO COLL

LE

NA SOLALLS HI DR

Alvarado Medical Center 5

MONROE AV

MYRTLE AV

15

IN

VIA DE LA VALLE

N RA

SDSU

805

MA

Lomas Santa Fe CC

M JIM

LANDIS ST

MARKET ST

MURRAY PARK DR

LOMAS SANTA FE DR

SAN O OLF RODDR

Del Mar Fairgrounds/ Racetrack

8

EL CA

WIGHTMAN

OCEAN VIEW BLVD

Base San Diego (32nd Street)

AV

GE RID Naval

SIERRA

CABRILLO

SAN DIEG

B COR ONADO

HWY 101

S CLUNS BL IFFSET VD

AV

D

LE

ST

75

ST

101

UNIVERSIT Y AV

94

ST

EL CAMINO REAL

WCA

NE

A BLV

SAB RE

RD

L CYN RD

CA RM E

HIGH BLUFF D R

TORREYANA ILL A LA JOLLA DR

TORREY PINES RD

N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR

GILMAN DR

LA JOLLA SHORES DR

R L

TEBRIA

ELIJO

IN

VIA CAN

SAN

15

EL CAJON BLVD

FAIRMOUNT AV

AV

EN V W

AV

ADAMS AV

MADISON AV

UPAS

S HE NC MA

Mira Costa College ER T ES San Elijo N Lagoon MA Park & Reserve

ZION AV

Mission San Diego de Alcala

IMPERIAL AV AN

MA

DR HAM ING

Del Mar MON

C ST

LO G

V MTN VISTA A

ENCINITAS BLVD

ALVARADO CANYON RD

Y EWA GAT R D

ry

MELBA

Solana Beach

18

163

3

EL CAMINO REAL

GA RD

AN VULC

CA B

101

Solana Beach Station BREEZE, COASTER, Kaiser AMTRAK

REDWOOD ST

Balboa Park

REQUEZA

Cardiff-bythe-Sea

O RT MIN (Not NO to scale) CA

3

904

E ST

Hospital

RIO

OLIVENHAIN RD

Quail Botanical Gardens

SANTA FE DR

TH

ST

NA CELO BAR CALLE

M BIR

T ES

NTE

RD

LEVA

R

HWY

AD

D

JOL

BLV

La Costa CC LA COSTA AV

LA COSTA AV

Encinitas

Scripps Memorial Hospital

RY NDA BOU ST

CATALIN

IQ

BAD

UI TOS DR

Batiquitos Lagoon

AERO DR

RD

No rth Park

1ST ST DS T

Hotel Del Coronado

KW Y

CARLS

LA

AS CIN

M DE L CA

TE

DR

AV EN

RIOIEGO D

LN NSETTIA POI

EL FUERTE

E

ROBLE

ALICAN

DA

R

BAT

ANDREW AV

10

3R 4TH

LN

IA ET T

AV EN

101

CR

NE

ST0

UNIVERSITY AV

Zoo

Fer

IN B

LV D

VID A

Carlsbad

S POIN

AVIA RA P

Encinitas

ST

ter

NO

PALOMAR AIRPORT

GATEW AY

CM DE LAS ONDAS

BREEZE, COASTER

NILE

Mc CA

mu

CA MI

D RT R AIRPO PALOMAR

CITY

ST

Santa Fe Depot Com

Palomar Airport

N SIO MISWY PK

150

SAUFLEY ST

RUTHERFORD

BLVD

YARROW

MA

NO

N SIOE DR MISLAG VIL

RS

R PARK CTR D

LOK ER AV

ASTON AV E EG

Encinitas Station

IA FR

G HIN WAS

3

R HARBOR D

Naval Base Coronado (NASNI)

AV ADAY FAR

Legoland

Continuation of BREEZE N R Rt.SA101 toH Oceanside D DEL RIO SOU

COMM AL QU WY

UCSD Medical Ctr., Hillcrest

ARBOR

30

Harbor Island

ON Y NT A FEARKW P

EY RD

ION

VALL

FASH

10

Y

RD

8

RS

EL CI

HOT

San Diego Int'l Airport

San D ie go Bay

DR

THE CROSSING DR

EL

AR

RE AL

Leucadia

Se rra M e sa

N

RS RD

HW

GRAMERCY DR

IDEGE RD

V EE A

SSIO V ALLE Y RD

ST

IC

Sharp & Children's Hospital

163

FRIA

83

AERO DR

HEALTH CTR DR

DR

Fashion Valley Transit Ctr.

FT LEWIS ST ST RE OC SS KTON S DR T 5 STD AV O E GT H IN

PA CIF

LLE GE

GENES

ULRIC

DE

K PAR

GE DR

MELROSE DR

ED

T

1

CO

41

T

NG

ETT AV

ON NN EL CAM INO

N RD

D EO PAS

Y 10

BEAGLE ST

S

CO

O LL MI SE

15

O NN CA

HW

SA

AY R

CK COMSTO

LVD

Old Town

E COLLEG

HI LL SID

Agua Hedionda Lagoon

5

SHADOWRID

BL VD

DR

E

R DR TAMA ACK AV

5

Montgomery Field

M URR

R ST

OSLE

RD TA VIS

LVD

ST

DR

H LA HIG

PICO

ING

101

RO

AC TI PON

N MO

PIO

RD

ND

K AV

CANYON RD IN R D FF RU

ME

ASHFORD ST

AV

Mesa College

Old Town HOTEL CIR N Transit Ctr.

C o ro nado

Sub Base

NUT EST CH LIA NO MAG

AC MAR

TA

BALBOA AV

ST

ESEE

GEN

BLVD

LINDA

ST

LIGHTWAVE

CONVOY

V

NER B GE BUR

MO

N BAR

AV

15

BALBOA AV

78

ITA

ND

GRA

MURPHY

805

LE R

BL VD

CARLSBAD VILL DR

WY

H

EC

BE

HA

CHA ND

N

DE AN AVD

AR

LEUCADIA BLVD

163

N RD

ARD DR

LAKE B N RSO FE

AM

52

ES APEAKE

NYO

S cri p p s R a n ch

RANCH BLVD

W

VD LSBAD BL CAR

52

M

NT

NG CA

CR EEK RDGLASER

RD

F LAS FLORES

MIR

15 Shelter Island

INO REAL EL CAM

ST

BREEZE, COASTER, SPRINTER, METROLINK, AMTRAK, RTA

LO

LAUREL RD

ST

IDY CASS

Oceanside Transit Ctr.

PO

KEARNY VILLA RD

DR

AA BO

L BA

ENA MOR

FR OU

S ITO SQU ÑA D PE BLV

WESTVIEW PKWY

CK MTN RD BLA

IFIC PAC

RD

SPRI

78

ST

OT S T

RD

WIL

O MERAD

Carlsbad Poinsettia 15Station

V AA AG MOR

TALB

BL VD

ST RNIA

RT ST WA STE Y T HW COAS

41

L

Z NIMIT

N ÑO CA

HILL ST

AR

M IRA

CH

A

B TH OR

RK D R YL A SK

IFO CAL

Marine Corps Air Carlsbad Village Station Station Miramar

LIMERICK AV

CL

TA V

KELOWNA RD

RD NTS

DR BAY

ET

UI Z CAMINO R

N TO AN

REGE

I ON MISS

LVD

E

NS

E O SANTA F CAMIN

R SC

EE AV

RD

VD BL

150

ITZ B

OR C PO HAR D INT LO MA AV

CARROLL CYN RD

MIRAMAR RD

CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD

MILTON ST

5

BAR N

VO LTA IR

ST

ONSIN WISC

BREEZE, COASTER

150

TS AREN AB POR MID S LVD WA YD R

NIM

AG A

AZE SEAG

BREEZE, COASTER

T DR ON

PA

BLVD PT LOMA

RR

RIDER SURF N AV MISSIO

921

T MESA BLVD

AM ST INGRAH

NA

O E F

WY

PK ES GEN MON

SSC Main Gate

64

MI

30

Sea World

W

Mira Me sa

SCRIPPS

GOLD COAST DR

RD

RAMAR

USD

Robb Field

P o i nt

B HTS LVD

TO

IVE DR

C laire mo nt

8

Occ e an O BBe e ac h

C

TA EN VISORR S A EN OR

ET AV AND AV GR

R

OLL OAK KN

PS PO WAY P KWY

VD BL

H NC

Miramar Reservoir

Miramar College

U nive rsity C ity

E CLAIR

LVD MISSION B

crest, North Park, City Heights, College Avenue

S a b re S p ri n g s D Y R WA PO

SCRIPPS RA

HILLERY

921

MALL

NA

BA YD

15

15

MIRA MESA BLVD

CAM SAN IN TA

921

TRADE ST

Fiesta Island

IS SI ON

CAPRICORN WY

41

Missio n Bay

WES TM

O

RD IRE

M

T ST LAMON

ON

Mi s s i o n Be ac h

ZAPATA AV

C

CARROLL R D

EXECUT

R RD GO V ERNO

GARN

FELS

BCH DR

IC PACIF

Kate Sessions Mem Pk

PAR ST

EL ST

MISSI

FANU

30

OT BL HILL ST BERYL

DR

ARRIBA ST REGENTS

MALLOR CA

PALMILLA

VIA

D BLV

TURQUO

• 10: Old Town, Mission Hills, Hill-

Outside the Bus Zone, other transit options are provided by the rest of the MTS system, including all city bus routes and the trolley. MTS also offers on-line trip planning.

RD EY LL VA

RD

MES

ISE ST FO

P ac i f i c Be ac h

NOBEL

52

5

S

LIAM WIL TEDPKWY

CH

SCRIP

UTC Transit Ctr.

201/202

N MT

LA JOLLA

A

E DR LA JOLL A VILLAG

NOBEL DR

150

D EDA SOL

R

L BA TO RIS

M

E

TGAT EAS

Thornton Hospital

D

LAND SD

NA UTILUS ST

D NR CY

S

Scripps Memorial AV Hospital VA 805 UCSD Medical VO Medical Ctr., IGT Ctr. DR La Jolla

V

Soledad Park

L CA

BLVD ESA AM MIR

PA

SEE

HR

MUIR

PRI

921

UCSD 201/202

T DA AR

VIA C A

RI

V FAY A

Euclid Avenue Trolley Station

TO EN RR SO

RD

P CA

PE

ES

PIN

VIA

ARL ST

30

REY

TOR

So rre nto Valle y

LVD YB ALLE ENTO V SO R R

89

GILMAN

OS CT PR

D AV

• 3: Hillcrest, downtown San Diego,

EL CAMINO REAL

N TORREY PINES RD

La Jolla Cove PE

LE

Los Peñasquitos Canyon Preserve

LVD LUSK B

VIA ALICANTE

RD

M AR

RCY RD ME

SCIENCE PARK RD

30

RAN

56

C

T LM ME D R

GEN E

La Jolla

RD

R CA

30 41 101 150 921

844

56

D YR

101

Stephen Birch Aquarium Museum

UNTR Y

N

Scripps Hospital Torrey Pines

GIRAR

Two routes serve the UC San Diego Hillcrest Medical Center:

5

CALLAN

• Route 201/202 SuperLoop: UTC area • Route 921: UTC, Mira Mesa

CO

TO

S RD INE EY P

Torrey Pines State Reserve

Carlsbad,

Town, downtown San Diego

A SG WN DR

LE AL LV ME CAR

101

Clairemont, Fashion Valley

• Route 150: UTC, VA Hospital, Old

ME (via Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas &ARCarlsbad) TE L

K EE CARMEL CR

Torrey Pines State Res

Beach, Old Town, downtown San Diego

Beach, Encinitas, Oceanside

GHTS

ME CAR

DEL MAR HEI

• Route 41: VA Hospital, UTC,

IGHTS RD

BREEZE Rt. 101 continues to Oceanside

101

• Route 30: UTC, La Jolla, Pacific

• Route 101: UTC, Del Mar, Solana

DEL MAR HE

CARMEL MTN RD

LV ALLEY

EL CAMINO REAL

arme UCSD Pass: RoutesCValle 3, 10,l 30, 41, 101, 150, 201/202, 921 y

M TN

DR

Figure 4.2: Bus Zones

N TORR

UC San Diego Transportation Services works closely with the regional public transit agencies SANDAG and MTS to encourage faculty, staff and students to use public transit. One example is a subsidy for students to purchase a “College Pass” from MTS, which allows unlimited use of public transit throughout San Diego. Another example is the UC San Diego Bus Zone. Staff, faculty and students with a free Bus Zone sticker on their current, valid photo ID card ride free for unlimited stops on six bus routes serving the La Jolla campus:

NY GHA ALLE

BROOKLYN

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Commuter Rail

The North County Transit District (NCTD) operates a commuter rail line whose closest stop to UC San Diego is at the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station just north of the campus. This line connects eight stations between Oceanside and downtown San Diego. The Coaster then connects with multiple transit systems in Oceanside and the MTS bus and trolley system at the Old Town and downtown San Diego stops. The Sorrento Valley Station is currently connected to the campus via the Coaster Shuttles noted previously. Plans are underway to provide a bicycle path along Interstate 5 to Voigt Drive as part of the Interstate 5/Genesee Avenue interchange project.

Figure 4.3: Commuter Rail

65

4 Related Transportation Modes Other Planned Transit

Planning is underway to expand the MTS trolley system to include a route through the UC San Diego campus. The MidCoast Corridor Transit Project will extend light rail transit (LRT) service from the Old Town Transit Center to the University City community serving major activity centers such as UC San Diego, Westfield UTC, Old Town and downtown San Diego.

The route follows the existing railroad right-of-way north Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project from Old Town Transit Center to Gilman Drive, then crosses to the west side of Interstate 5 El C to a station at Nobel Drive and a Reamino l ain Rd al Mount lvd continues on to serve the UC tob Carmel yB alle Cris to V lle ren Ca r o San Diego campus, the mediS cal center on the east side of lvd Interstate 5 and terminates at aB es aM ir M SORRENTO the Westfield UTC transit center.

Figure 4.4: Planned Light Rail

ee Ave

ta F

e

nto

ll Va

ey

Rd

Ave

VA Medical Center Rd

Carroll Rd

Miramar

ar

am

Mir

UCSD East

r

Executive Drive

Rd ents Via A

lican

te

Gilman Dr

Torrey Pines Rd

University Towne Centre (Future Transit Center)

Reg

UNIVERSITY CITY

Gilman Dr

Joll

Dr

Nobel Dr

Nobel Dr

La

Governor Dr

aP

kwy

Gen

Via

tla

Ju

Clairemont Mesa Blvd

CLAIREMONT

Rd

Balboa Ave

ire r

e

tD

e Av

n mo

r Rd

Morena r

Trolley Station rs Fria

Rd

COASTER Station Transit Center

a World Dr

ma Blvd

MISSION VALLEY

cra se St

Ro

Washington St University Ave

5th Ave

z Nimit Blvd

Old Town Transit Center

Park Blvd

ns

Sports Arena Blvd ic Pacwif y H

Cl Sun iffs se Bl t vd

Se

Point Lo

COASTER Line

d ta R

is aV

Lind

yD

Trolley – Blue Line

Mission

t

Tecolote Ba

Trolley – Green Line

Cente

Blvd

Mission Bay

Existing Rail

Ulric S

ion

Trolley Station Potential Trolley Station

LINDA VISTA

Clairemont

am St

ss

Light Rail Transit

Transit Center

Ingrah

Mi

Locally Preferred Alternative

ese

Gen

Cla

Balboa t Ave Garne d Ave Gran

July 2011

Aero Dr

lvd

lb

Ba

St

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Kea

e Av oa Mt A cad ia B

Beryl

LA J O LL AP KW Y

lvd

B na

re Mo

rny Rd Villa

n.

Clairemont Mesa Blvd

Dr

St

Mt

v Go

Convoy

ad

nd

Ave

led

or

ern

esee

pri

Regents Rd

Ca

So

all

ate M

Eastg

La Jo

lla V illage

Nobel Drive

Rd

age D

lla Vill

La Jo

Fo Blvothill d

66

nes

San

rre

Pines Rd

ee

N Torrey Pines Rd

A shuttle and bus transit center is also planned for Gilman Drive at Myers Drive within walking distance of the planned UC San Diego West Station.

nes

Dr

UCSD West

VALLEY

Ge

Ge

Camino Ruiz

ino

Cam

So

N Torrey

Two c amp us s t atio ns are planned. The UC San Diego West Station will be located in the central campus east of Russell Drive and north of Gilman Drive. The UC San Diego Campus East Station will be located east of Interstate 5 on Voigt Drive, south of Genesee Avenue.

t Voig

LRT route and station locations are approximate and for illustrative purposes only.

Dr

Project and Program Recommendations

5

Priority Projects and Programs Within the overall recommended network, a number of discrete projects emerged as particularly important in achieving active transportation improvements. Of these selected projects, five were chosen as the top priorities and addressed to a higher degree of detail to support near-term implementation.

The remaining projects are included as longer-term improvements, but all are intended to support active transportation by encouraging more members of the UC San Diego community to bike or walk to and around the campus, instead of driving. Bicycle and pedestrian icons indicate which mode each project serves, with most serving both to some degree.

Projects not within UC San Diegoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction are grouped following the on-campus projects. These include a number of intersection improvements on streets immediately around the campus and within the right-of-way of adjacent Interstate 5. Implementation of these projects will require coordination with appropriate agencies, primarily the City of San Diego and Caltrans.

A series of encouragement and education programs are also included, with more detailed descriptions of the top three priority programs.

Based on project scope and the number and variety of project and program types, the top five projects and top three programs represent the top priority recommendations and have been highlighted in the following sections of this chapter.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

67

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Recommended Projects

Top 5 Priority Projects

1A. Hopkins Lane/1B. Library Walk bicycle bypass 2. Warren College/Voigt Drive crossing 3A. Peterson Hill wheeled bypass/3B. Grove Path connection 4. Gilman Drive/Interstate 5 bicycle path connection 5. Gilman Drive bicycle lane connection

Page 69 75 81 84 89

Other On-Campus Projects

6. Myers Drive walkway 92 7. Library Walk crossing at Gilman Drive 93 8. North Entrance improvements 94 9. Ridge Walk bicycle improvements 95 10. La Jolla Shores/Scripps Institution of Oceanography 96 11. Matthews Lane and Voigt Drive intersection 97 12. Campus Point Drive to East Campus LRT Station 98 13. Campus-wide signage 99 14. Campus-wide bicycle parking 99

Off-Campus Projects

A. Regents Road bicycle lanes 103 B. Torrey Pines Road and La Jolla Village Drive 104 C. N. Torrey Pines Road/Expedition Way 105 D. John J. Hopkins Drive/Genesee Avenue 106 E. N. Torrey Pines Road/Pangea Drive 107 F. La Jolla Shores Drive/N. Torrey Pines Road 108 G. N. Torrey Pines Road/Muir College Drive 109 H. Gilman Drive/La Jolla Village Drive 110 I. La Jolla Village Drive bridge access 111 J. Interstate 5/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange 112 K. Genesee Avenue/Campus Point Drive 113 L. La Jolla Shores Drive/Scripps Institution of Oceanography 114

68

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

1A. Hopkins Lane Walkway Improvements

Bike Ped

Problem:

• Missing sidewalk on west side of Hopkins Lane.

• West leg stop bars too far into Voigt Drive/Hopkins lane intersection.

Proposed Improvement:

• Change parking configuration to parallel parking and add sidewalks and sharrows and move stop bars back an appropriate distance. (This route would provide a direct route to the library from Voigt Drive via Hopkins Lane.)

1B. Library Walk Bicycle Bypass (north of Library) Problem: • Need alternate bicycle routes around Library Walk.

Proposed Improvement:

• Investigate connection between Hopkins Lane and

Warren College as a formalized multi-modal connection. Would require lighting and paving upgrades. (May require removal of parking spaces on Hopkins Lane to make entrance more visible.)

69

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

Background

Project Description

Hopkins Lane and the pathway north of the Geisel Library connect large amounts of student housing in Eleanor Roosevelt College and North Campus to the academic buildings in Warren College. Hopkins Lane is also the primary pathway to the central campus from the Hopkins Parking Structure.

Just south of the Geisel Library, Library Walk is a bicycle dismount zone. Both facilities are used by cyclists, pedestrians and electric carts. Hopkins Lane is also used by vehicles. The proposed improvements would improve Hopkins Lane for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as improve the pathway north of the Geisel Library to alleviate congestion on Library Walk.

Improving Hopkins Lane and the pathway north of the Geisel Library would give students traveling by bicycle between Eleanor Roosevelt College, North Campus and Warren College a high-quality facility that bypasses Library Walk. To make path access more visible, two parking spaces should be removed where it intersects with Hopkins Lane and lighting should be increased at the path entrance.

This project is one of the BPMPS Top 5 priority projects.

In BPMPS community workshops and online surveys, the campus community indicated Hopkins Lane and the pathway north of the Geisel Library as an area for improvement, especially to alleviate congestion on Library Walk.

Description of Need Library Walk is one of the campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; foremost activity centers.

It is an open space, a transportation corridor and an event programming space. It is typically packed with students between classes. Because of its high use levels, Library Walk is a bicycle dismount zone to reduce the possibility of cyclist versus pedestrian conflicts.

No suitable and direct facilities for cyclists or pedestrians exist between Eleanor Roosevelt College, North Campus and Warren College. Voigt Drive is a relatively direct connection with bike lanes and sidewalks, but it is not well-used by cyclists or pedestrians because of its somewhat indirect path, higher traffic speeds and steep grades.

In its existing condition, Hopkins Lane has narrow sidewalks on its east side only. It has a combination of student parallel parking and 90 degree parking on both sides. Street lighting is intermittent. There is a book drop-off loop frequently used by drivers to drop-off books or passengers. Pedestrians often walk in the middle of the street. Due the high rate of parking turnover and traffic volumes, the roadway configuration is currently not suitable for cyclist or pedestrian transportation.

The pathway north of the library has a varying width of approximately six to eight feet. Pavement quality is generally poor and adjacent landscaping encroaches on the path.

Pathway lighting is intermittent.

70

The proposed project would add sidewalks along Hopkins Lane to encourage pedestrians away from walking in the street. It would add sharrows on Hopkins Lane to indicate a shared lane for bicycles and vehicles and to encourage proper cyclist positioning. The proposed project would also improve the pathway north of the Geisel Library by widening it to eight to 10 feet, replacing the worn asphalt and improving the connection to the Snake Path and Warren College. Lighting would be added along Hopkins Lane and the pathway north of the Library, where a two foot decomposed granite sidepath would be added adjacent to the eight feet of asphalt paving.

This sidepath would be compacted and polymer-stabilized to prevent loose material from drifting onto the asphalt portion.

Cost Estimate $282,350

Candidate Funding Sources â&#x20AC;˘ UC San Diego infrastructure project

Top 5 Projects

Voigt Drive

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Sharrows indicate a shared Voigt lane Drive for bicycles and vehicles and recommend proper bicyclist positioning

1A. Hopkins Lane Walkway Improvements

e for mmend

Match Line 1A 8

2

Wide sidewalks allow pedestrians to comfortably walk side-by-side and should discourage walking in the street

ns

itio

Match Line 1A g

stin

tos

Pho

xi of e

d con

3 4 Truncated domes are typically yellow to contrast with concrete sidewalks; they alert blind pedestrians of roadway crossings

6

rive

gt D

Voi

5

Legend 1 Add eight foot sidewalk and retaining wall.

8

2 Replace existing asphalt sidewalk with new asphalt sidewalk.

3 Remove two parking spaces to improve bicycle path visibility.

7

ns e

Lan

re com sha dfixtures re a light should match the 5 Add sharedNew n g (Sharrows). e t a lane markings a s c di existing nin shoebox fixtures found cle tiblack i n o i h e osi ws d vthroughout the area p rro wayfinding 6 haAdd s an yclist signage.

S e l c c y i bic per b existing disabled parking spaces and 7 pRetain ro

pki

park4 Convert existing 90ยบ parking or parallel fto d ing and add sidewalk.d lane men

Ho

h the s found

Hopkins Lane

w to hey alert ngs

Hopkins Lane

ians to e and the

1

book drop.

8 Provide lighting to campus standards.

to ans i r t d s ede ide an p s ythe low s al side-b ing in k l a alk alk ew sid bly w age w e id ta ur

6 71

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

Hopkins Lane

Photos of existing conditions 1B. Library Walk Bicycle Bypass (north of Library)

1

2

3

Match Line 1B

72

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Legend 1B 1 Widen path to ten feet.

2 Trim encroaching vegetation.

3 Add curb ramp to Geisel Library service entrance.

4

Widen path to eight feet with two foot polymerstabilized decomposed granite side path.

5 Add native soil and mulch to both sides of Snake Path to achieve ten foot width.

6 Provide lighting to campus standards.

6

4

Match Line 1B

5

N NOT TO SCALE Note: Lighting should conform to existing campus requirements for fixture type and illumination levels; intersections and path transitions should be especially well lit.

73

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

Shared lane markings (Sharrows) indicate a shared lane for cyclists and vehicles and recommended cyclist positioning within the roadway.

Wide walkways allow pedestrians to comfortably walk side-by-side and encourage walking on them instead of in the street.

Tuncated domes alert the sight-impaired to roadway crossings. Typically yellow to contrast with concrete walkways, thyey can be other colors as long as they provide sufficient contrast with the surface.

New light fixtures should match the existing black â&#x20AC;&#x153;shoeboxâ&#x20AC;? style found throughout the area.

(Polymer-stabilized)

No new pavement will be added adjacent to the Snake Path. Instead, vegetation should be trimmed back and native soil and mulch added along the sides.

74

The path will be asphalt with polymer-stabilized decomposed granite on one side.

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

2. Warren College/Voigt Drive Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing

Problems:

• Crossing conflict. (May need to “calm” bicycle, skateboard and pedestrian traffic. Some drivers do not yield to crossing cyclists, skateboarders and pedestrians. Likewise, many cyclists, skaters and pedestrians cross without hesitation or regard for right-of-way.)

• Constant flow of traffic in all directions from all uses.

• Poor crosswalk visibility to approaching eastbound drivers on Voigt Drive due to vertical curvature.

Proposed Improvements:

• Add truncated domes (resolves one problem only).

• Remove existing speed table and replace with California MUTCD-compliant design. (US Traffic Calming Guide includes suggested best practices for bicycle-compatible speed tables.)

• Existing signage at crossing not standard nor consistent with California MUTCD and California Vehicle Code. (California law requires drivers to yield (not stop) for pedestrians within crosswalks.

• Install functional chicanes where pedestrians and cyclists approach street to induce them to slow before crossing. (Such diversions need to be highly visible and allow for emergency vehicle access.)

• Consider stop sign or signal if pedestrian volumes meet California MUTCD warrant.

75

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

Background

Project Description

The Voigt Drive crossing in Warren College is heavily used by students since it connects large quantities of student housing north of Voigt Drive with academic buildings south of Voigt Drive. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and other users.

Two options are proposed for the crossing across Voigt Drive at Warren College:

The project is one of the BPMPS Top 5 priority projects. In BPMPS community workshops and on-line surveys, this crossing was noted as a location for improvement. Collisions occurred here during the course of the study.

Description of Need The Warren College Apartments and the Warren College Residence Halls provide housing for a significant portion of the UC San Diego campus population north of Voigt Drive.

South of Voigt Drive, highly-used academic buildings within Warren College include Warren Lecture Hall and the engineering buildings. Anyone who walks between the residential and academic buildings in Warren College must use this crossing.

The existing crossing features a raised crosswalk with signage for both drivers and cyclists/pedestrians, full-time flashing beacons in advance of the crosswalk and several clusters of “Bott’s dots.” Voigt Drive has two vehicle lanes and carries hundreds of vehicles per hour. The speed limit on Voigt Drive is not well-defined. Westbound, there are signs that clearly indicate the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. However, the nearest eastbound speed limit sign is over 1,000 feet away and indicates that the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. Closer to the crosswalk, there are “25” stencils on the roadway. Because of existing vertical and horizontal curvature, eastbound sight distance is limited to approximately 160 feet. Downhill pathways leading to the crosswalk often result in cyclists, skateboarders and other wheeled users crossing Voigt Drive at unsafe speeds.

UC San Diego staff and participants in the community workshops indicated that the existing speed table is not performing well because of its gentle slope and height. They noted incidences of close calls and at least one recent collision.

Pedestrians and cyclists at the crosswalk are often inattentive.

Yield compliance by drivers is moderate.

Crosswalk improvements would provide students, faculty and staff with a safe crossing between the residential and academic buildings.

76

Option A would remove the existing raised crosswalk and replace it with high-visibility crosswalk striping and curb ramps. It would add California MUTCD-compliant signage including “State Law: Yield to Pedestrians Within Crosswalk.”

Within the pathway south of the crosswalk, sections of paving would be replaced with cobbles mortared in place to create a chicane effect to slow downhill cyclists and skateboarders as they approach the crossing.

West of the crosswalk, speed humps would be added to Voigt Drive to slow eastbound vehicles. The proposed speed humps are designed to produce acceptable vehicle speeds for the available eastbound sight distance. As an optional enhancement, Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) with remote detection are recommended.

Option B would remove the existing raised crosswalk and replace it with high-visibility crosswalk striping, curb ramps and a traffic signal with pedestrian-friendly timing. California MUTCD-compliant signage would be provided to alert drivers of the traffic signal. On the pathway south of the crosswalk, sections of paving would be replaced with mortared cobbles to provide a chicane effect to slow downhill cyclists and skateboarders.

Option A could be implemented in the near-term to address existing need. Given the anticipated increase in traffic volume associated with the Voigt Drive Direct Access Ramp (DAR), Option B should be implemented with the Caltrans North Coast Project.

Cost Estimate Option A: $26,770 ($74,770 with optional RRFB installation) Option B: $196,480

Candidate Funding Sources Option A:

• UC San Diego infrastructure project • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Option B:

• Caltrans North Coast Project

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Photos of existing conditions

2. Warren College/Voigt Drive Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing - Option A N 1

NOT TO SCALE

e

riv

tD

ig

Vo

2

1

W17-1

W17-1

7

5 W11-2 W16-7pL

6

4

6

R1-6

5

3 W11-2 W16-7pL

Legend 2 - Option A (Yield-controlled Crossing) 1 Add 14 foot long, four inch high sinusoidal speed humps.

5 Add MUTCD-compliant crosswalk signage.

2 Remove existing flashing beacon.

6 Optional: Install Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) with remote detection.

Add chicanes to reduce approach speeds. Employ fixed-in3 place cobble to maintain emergency access.

7 Provide lighting to campus standards.

4 Replace existing raised crosswalk with at-grade crosswalk and high-visibility striping.

77

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

otos of existing conditions

2. Warren College/Voigt Drive Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing - Option B N NOT TO SCALE

e

riv

tD

ig

Vo

1

W3-3

6 4 3

5 2

Legend 2 - Option B (Signalized Crossing) 1 Remove existing flashing beacon.

2

Add chicanes to reduce approach speeds. Employ fixed-inplace cobble to maintain emergency access.

3 Replace existing raised crosswalk with at-grade crosswalk and high-visibility striping.

78

4 Add truncated domes.

5 Add traffic signal with pedestrian-friendly phasing/timing 6 Provide lighting to campus standards.

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

The traffic signal should have vehicle and pedestrian-controlling indicators and should be timed to prioritize pedestrian travel during class change periods.

The chicane is intended to coordinate with the existing paving scoreline pattern. Specific concrete sections would be replaced with fixed-in-place cobble.

Cobble should be large enough to discourage riding across them by cyclists and skateboarders, but small enough to allow continued access for emergency vehicles.

79

5 Project and Program Recommendations 3A. Peterson Hill Stairways/Wheeled Bypass

Bike Ped

Problems:

• Steep grade encourages excessive wheeled vehicle speeds.

Proposed Improvements:

• To reduce bicycle and skateboarder speed, add stairs to the central, main connection between Peterson Hall and Library Walk. This will divert wheeled traffic to the north and both separate and slow bicycle and skateboard traffic.

• To improve pedestrian circulation to the south of Peterson Hall, improve crosswalk with high-visibility crosswalk markings, add truncated domes and in-pavement “knockdown” signs directing drivers to yield to pedestrians.

80

Top 5 Projects

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

3B. Grove Path Connection Problems:

• Bicycles currently not allowed Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Some lack of compliance likely due to lack of alternate routes.)

• No skateboarding allowed.

• High pedestrian activity area with numerous conflict points.

Proposed Improvements:

• Create parallel path for cyclists within adjacent eucalyptus grove utilizing existing asphalt paving. (Need to consider impact, design, materials and precise alignment within grove for no net loss of trees. Must recognize multiple user types and multiple potential crossing points.)

• Future rebuilding of International Center may allow for direct connection to central campus via Rupertus Way.

Background Peterson Hill and paths through the Stuart Collection’s “Two Running Violet V Forms” connect Thurgood Marshall and Muir Colleges to Library Walk, which is a bicycle dismount zone. These pathways are used by cyclists, pedestrians and campus carts. The proposed improvements would reduce bicycle, skateboard and other wheeled traffic speeds down Peterson Hill, provide a bicycle route alternative to Library Walk and a direct connection to Warren College.

This project is one of the BPMPS Top 5 priority projects. In BPMPS community workshops and online surveys, members of the campus community indicated the area west of Library Walk as an area for improvement, especially to alleviate congestion on Library Walk.

Description of Need Library Walk is one of the campus’ foremost activity centers.

It serves as an open space, a transportation corridor and an event programming space. It is typically packed with students between classes. Because of its high level of use, to reduce the possibility of cyclist versus pedestrian conflicts, Library Walk is a bicycle dismount zone.

In its existing condition, the pathway on Peterson Hill is 12-14 feet wide and fairly steep. Downhill bicycle and skateboard speeds are high, but most users walk their bicycles and skateboards when going uphill. Cyclists, skateboarders and other wheeled users going down Peterson Hill at high speed meet the pedestrian-congested Library Walk at the bottom.

No suitable and direct alternatives to Library Walk exist for north-south bicycle travel. Mandeville Lane, the driveway to Parking Lot P415 and a path near the Stuart Collection’s “Two Running Violet V Forms” parallel Library Walk, but none have amenities for cyclists. Mandeville Lane and the shuttle loop near Mandeville Auditorium are busy with shuttle bus traffic. Additionally, the driveway to Parking Lot P415 is usually congested with pedestrians during times between classes.

Improvements to the area would provide a north-south route for bicycle travel so that cyclists can conveniently avoid Library Walk. East-west pathway improvements would benefit both cyclists and pedestrians.

Project Description The proposed project would use stairs on the pathway up Peterson Hill to overcome the path’s steep grade. Pedestrians could continue to use the pathway, but cyclists, skateboarders and other wheeled users would use the less-steep existing wide path to the north to access Library Walk. By separating wheeled and pedestrian users and slowing downhill cyclists and skateboarders, the project would improve safety for all pathway users. Grading for implementation may need to address subsurface utilities in this area.

The proposed project would also create a north-south route for bicycle travel by adding wayfinding signage, bicycle route signage and sharrows to Mandeville Lane and the driveway to Parking Lot P415. Sharrows indicate a shared lane for bicycles and vehicles, as well as recommend proper cyclist positioning within the roadway. Where the driveway to Parking Lot P415 is currently congested with cyclists and pedestrians, a median bio-swale will separate the two user types, with a paved crossover to allow vehice turnaround. Sharrows will clearly indicate on which side of the median cyclists should ride.

The proposed project would also improve the pathway north of the of the shuttle bus loop by widening it to eight feet and replacing the worn asphalt. Landscaping or a median at the west wide of the pathway would discourage cyclists from riding through the shuttle bus loop.

Cost Estimate $88,600

Candidate Funding Sources • UCSD infrastructure project

81

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

3A. Peterson Hill Stairways/Wheeled Bypass

2 1

3

1 4 3

Photos of exi

3B. Grove Connection Path Legend 3B

1

1 Improve path connecting to Peterson Hill to ten feet wide.

2

2 Regrade path connection to parking lot P415.

3 Add sharrows to parking lot P415 driveway and Mandeville Lane.

4

Extend median to separate driveway/bikeway and pedestrian paths.

Design as bio-swale with vehicle turnaround of fixed-in-place cobble.

5 Improve path to Sun God Lawn area to eight feet wide.

6 Add landscaped diverter to separate wheeled and foot traffic.

7 Move existing bollards and boulders closer to street.

8 Add wayfinding signage.

3

Railings will be tubular steel and 10 painted black

tairs will be made of concrete with high-visibility crosswalk.

4â&#x20AC;? treads and9 6â&#x20AC;?Add risers 10 Provide lighting to campus standards.

8 8 6 7

5

4 8

9 Match Line 3B 82

Match Line 3A

5

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Legend 3A 1 Add stairs east and west of pathway intersection, approximately 13 stairs per flight (six inch risers and 14 inch treads suggested). Provide reflective detailing and anti-skateboard devices at stairs.

2 Add landscaping and boulders in this area.

3 Add Eucalyptus to grove as appropriate.

4 Add wayfinding signage.

5 Provide lighting to campus standards.

Match Line 3A

4

Match Line 3B

N NOT TO SCALE

9

Note: Lighting should conform to existing campus 10 requirements for fixture type and illumination levels; intersections and path transitions should be especially well lit.

3

le Ro

devil

Man ad

Concept 3A - Peterson Hill

N NOT TO SCALE

Note: Lighting should campus require illumination lev transitions shou

83

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

4. Gilman Bicycle Path Connection

Problem:

â&#x20AC;˘ With construction of Class 1 bicycle path along Interstate 5 corridor, terminus of bicycle path is at Voigt Drive.

Proposed Improvement:

â&#x20AC;˘ Continue Class 1 bicycle path along Gilman Drive via joint-use agreement between UC San Diego and Caltrans. (Bicycle path would connect north to Class 1 at new Voigt Drive bridge and south to bicycle facility on new Gilman Drive bridge.)

84

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Background

Project Description

The Interstate 5/Genesee Avenue Interchange Project, funded

by Caltrans, SANDAG and the City of San Diego, will include the construction of a Class 1 bicycle path between the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station and UC San Diego. The path will generally follow the west edge of Interstate 5. As planned, the path will terminate north of Voigt Drive near the Campus Services Complex. This planned project is highly anticipated by the community.

The proposed project would add a Class 1 bicycle path on the east side of Gilman Drive between Voigt Drive and the future Gilman Drive bridge over Interstate 5. This segment is approximately 2,000 feet in length and would better connect to key campus destinations and the Veterans Administration Medical Center. The path would connect directly to the Voigt Drive/Gilman Drive intersection and the intersection of Gilman Drive with the new Gilman Drive Bridge over Interstate 5.

This project is one of the BPMPS Top 5 priority projects.

In BPMPS community workshops and online surveys, the campus community indicated a desire for a bicycle path to connect to the future Caltrans bicycle path.

Gilman Drive Options

Description of Need UC San Diego is one of the region’s top universities and a major employer and students, faculty and staff travel to the campus from throughout the region. Campus commuters predominantly drive. Approximately 11 percent of the campus community currently walks or bikes to campus and another 11 percent currently takes transit. The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) is the primary commuter transit provider on campus. Regional commuter rail, provided by the North County Transit District, comes within 1.5 miles of the UC San Diego campus, but has no convenient connection for commuters who wish to walk or bike to campus The proposed bicycle path west of Interstate 5 will provide a basic connection between the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station and UC San Diego. However, as proposed, the bicycle path in Caltrans’ right-of-way will stop just north of Voigt Drive, far from key campus destinations.

Extending the bicycle path south of Voigt Drive will offer students, faculty, staff and visitors a safe and viable transportation option for biking to the UC San Diego campus from the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station. Members of the campus community would use the facility year-round.

North End At the north end of the project, the Class 1 bicycle path along Interstate 5 could connect to Voigt Drive with an underpass of Gilman Drive immediately south of their intersection in addition to an at-grade crossing at the intersection. This would provide a safer connection to the campus for cyclists transitioning to Voigt Drive westward into the campus, if a Class 1 pathway was also provided.

South End At the south end of the project, the Class 1 bicycle path could pass under the proposed Gilman Drive alignment at the bridge over Interstate 5 and loop around to align with the proposed north-south leg of Gilman Drive to form a fourway, stop-controlled intersection. The fourth leg would be the southern terminus of the Class 1 bicycle path. This would be a safer transition for cyclists leaving the bicycle path and proceeding on Gilman Drive.

Mid-segment If North Coast Project construction of does not leave enough space for the development of both a Class 1 bicycle path and Class 2 bicycle lanes on Gilman Drive, Class 3 bicycle route could instead be designated and defined by signage and sharrows since they do not require additional space like Class 2 bicycle lanes. In any case, the Class 1 bicycle path should be included. If, for some reason, it can not be implemented, a Class 2 or 3 facility on Gilman Drive must be maintained to support this regionally significant route.

Cost Estimate $407,640

Candidate Funding Sources • Caltrans North Coast Project

85

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

4. Gilman Drive Bicycle Path Connection

Photos of existing c

1

r.

tD

ig Vo

4

5

3

6

2

9

Match Line 4

86

10

I-5

Gilman Dr.

7

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Gilman Dr.

Top 5 Projects

I-5

Match Line 4

Legend 4 1 Connect to future Caltrans Class 1 path.

2 Add underpass at Gilman Drive.

3

Add advanced stop bars to intersection south and west legs.

4

Cross under Voigt Drive to connect to Voigt/ Gilman intersection.

Add landing at corner for cyclists to position 5 themselves where they are most visible to motorists.

7

6 Add stairs with bicycle tray.

7 Construct 10-12 foot wide shared-use (Class 1) path.

9

8 10

Connect to future GIlman Drive Bridge over Interstate 5.

If Class 2 lanes can not be accommodated 9 on Gilman Drive due to Interstate 5 widening impacts, provide Class 3 route.

10 Provide lighting to campus standards.

8

Not Ligh requ leve be e

N NOT TO SCALE

Concept 4 87

5 Project and Program Recommendations 5. Gilman Drive Bicycle Lane Connection

Problems:

• Gap in bicycle facility network on Gilman Drive between Villa La Jolla and Osler Lane.

• Pedestrians cross Gilman Drive outside marked crosswalk.

Proposed Improvement along Gilman Drive:

• Extend Class 2 bicycle lane by narrowing median and travel lanes

between Osler Lane and Villa La Jolla Drive.

Proposed Improvement at Myers/Gilman intersection:

• Add traffic signal.

• Square-up intersection with smaller radii curb extensions.

• Install median barrier to direct pedestrians to crosswalk.

• Implement Gilman Transit Hub plans for re-alignment and

median planting to create natural barrier to control crossings.

88

Top 5 Projects

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Background

Project Description

Gilman Drive is the most traveled roadway on campus. It connects to off-campus housing south of La Jolla Village Drive and runs through the core of campus. It also provides access to the Veterans Administration Medical Center. Gilman Drive has bicycle lanes along most of its alignment through the UC San Diego campus, but it does not along this 2,800 foot segment between Osler Lane and Villa La Jolla Drive.

The proposed bicycle lanes would safety accommodate cyclists of varying skill levels. Adding bicycle lanes to Gilman Drive would offer students, faculty and staff a safe and viable transportation option for bicycling to or through campus.

The bicycle lanes would also benefit visitors or staff of the Veterans Administration Medical Center.

This project is one of the BPMPS Top 5 priority projects.

In BPMPS community workshops and online surveys, the campus community indicated Gilman Drive as a location for improvement, especially for cyclists.

Description of Need Gilman Drive goes through the core of the UC San Diego campus. It provides access to many of UC San Diego’s colleges and carries student, faculty, staff and commercial traffic. Gilman Drive is a bus route for UC San Diego shuttles and for Metropolitan Transit System buses.

No suitable facilities for cyclists currently exist on Gilman Drive between Osler Lane and Villa La Jolla Drive. Anyone who currently bicycles on Gilman Drive shares the lane with vehicles.

This segment of Gilman Drive has four vehicle lanes (two in each direction) and carries over 900 vehicles per hour during peak hours. The speed limit on Gilman Drive is 25 miles per hour. However, vehicles exceed this speed limit, especially west of Mandeville Road. This roadway configuration and traffic volume is not suitable for bicycle transportation, especially for inexperienced cyclists.

The proposed project would provide space for bicycle lanes on both sides of Gilman Drive between Osler Lane and Villa La Jolla Drive by narrowing the existing median and lanes.

Lane narrowing as part of this project may also serve as a traffic calming measure by reducing motor vehicle speeds.

This project also proposes to enhance the Myers Drive intersection with “bike boxes,” special bicycle-only advance stop areas. Bike boxes encourage cyclists to position themselves in the optimum location when waiting for the traffic signal to turn where they are most visible to drivers.

Cost Estimate $775,520

Candidate Funding Sources

• SANDAG TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects grants • SANDAG Transportation Development Act Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects grants

• California Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

89

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 5 Projects

nditions 5. Gilman Drive Bicycle Lane Connection

s Myer

Match Line 5

3

Legend 5 1 Provide â&#x20AC;&#x153;bike boxesâ&#x20AC;? at Myers Drive intersection.

2

Add bicycle lanes on Gilman Drive, taking width from existing median where possible.

3 Provide lighting to campus standards.

Design median to discourage pedestrian crossing 4 at the median east of the crosswalk

2

r.

D ler

Os

N NOT TO SCALE

90

Bike lanes on G more bike-frien

Top 5 Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Gilman Dr. 1

3

4 2

Match Line 5

Russell Dr.

s Dr. Myer Note: Lighting should conform to existing campus requirements for fixture type and illumination levels; intersections and path transitions should be especially well lit.

Bicycle lanes on Gilman Drive will make this high-volume route more bicycle-friendly.

Bike lanes on Gilman Drive will make it more bike-friendly for novice bicyclists

Bicycle detection will ensure cyclists can trip signal sensors when needed at newly signalized intersections on Gilman Drive.

At new signalized intersections on Gilman Drive, bicycle detection ensures that bicyclists receive a green light Bike boxes provide an advance stop position for cyclists to ensure their visibility to drivers and to encourage proper cyclist positioning when traveling straight through an intersection that allows vehicle turning.

91

5 Project and Program Recommendations

9 Other On-Campus Projects

6. Myers Drive Walkway Improvements

Problem:

â&#x20AC;˘ Pedestrians walk within Myers Drive because existing walkway is narrow and hidden behind parked vehicles.

Proposed Improvement:

â&#x20AC;˘ Widen sidewalk along east side of Myers Drive by moving parking back to make room for walkway and narrowing oneway roadway.

92

9 Other On-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

7. Library Walk Crossing at Gilman Drive

Problems:

• Pedestrian crossing conflict occurs at crosswalk with multi-lane, multi-threat crossing issue.

• High traffic volumes in both directions.

• Vehicles approach Library Walk crosswalk at high speeds.

Proposed Improvement:

• Install planned signal since traffic counts and pedestrian crossings meet California MUTCD warrant.

93

9 Other On-Campus Projects

5 Project and Program Recommendations

8. North Entrance (North Point Lane) Bicycle and Ped Improvements

1

2

C

Shared Use

Problems:

• (A) Cyclists regularly access campus via path between intersection’s southeast corner and North Point Lane.

• (B) Obstacles at intersections southeast corner (signal pole, signal controller box, landscaping embankment) make it difficult to maneuver a bicycle between the crosswalk and path.

• (C) Path connection and geometry at North Point Lane encourages wrong-way bicycling.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• (1) Add additional flat, paved space at the intersection’s southeast corner (requires a short retaining wall)

A

• (2) Re-route path to enter North Point Lane at its north end and add “one-way” signage for southbound cyclists.

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

B

94

9 Other On-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

9. Ridge Walk Bicycle Improvements

1

2

Problems:

• Apparent discrepancy in on-line policy: (http://blink.ucsd.edu/safety/emergencies/security/bike.html), which states first that cycling is not allowed on: “The section of Ridge Walk from the south edge of the Social Sciences complex to the north edge of the Institute of the Americas complex.” However, the same website page also states: “Biking also is not permitted on Library Walk and Ridge Walk weekdays 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m.,” which appears to apply to all of Ridge Walk.

• Critical north/south connection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Allow bicycles. (20 foot width is sufficient for shared multi-modal path.)

• Improve wayfinding and identity. (Scholars Drive (1) will remain preferred north/south route for cyclists, but speed tables within bicycle lanes need to be remedied. Ridge Walk (2) will remain secondary, but important.)

95

5 Project and Program Recommendations

9 Other On-Campus Projects

10. La Jolla Shores Drive/SIO Bicycle Improvements

Shared Use

Problems:

• Need more direct off-street connections with SIO while limiting environmental impacts • No ADA access available.

• Existing trails too steep, resulting in erosion.

Proposed Improvements:

• Formalize connection between short-cuts in disturbed area between Expedition Way and La Jolla Shores Drive. (Any proposed route would need to be somewhat circuitous due to steep grades and to avoid planned SIO development footprints.)

96

9 Other On-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

11. Mesa Housing Multi-Use Trail Connections

Shared Use

Problem:

• Missing pedestrian connections.

• Incomplete multi-use pathway.

Proposed Improvements:

• Connect multi-use pathway with proposed Gilman Bridge approach.

• Install multi-use pathway on north side of Miramar Street to connect to existing pathway.

• Provide pedestrian connection south of Mesa Housing to La Jolla Village Drive.

• Provide multi-use pathway connection between Mesa Housing and future Gilman Bridge.

97

5 Project and Program Recommendations

9 Other On-Campus Projects

12. Realigned Campus Point Dr. to East Campus LRT Station with New Bike/Ped Connections

Shared Use

Problem:

• Missing pedestrian connections.

Proposed Improvement:

• Re-align Campus Point Drive incorporating “Complete Street” amenities such as adequate space for bicycles and pedestrians to address anticipated high-use multi-modal connection between major employer/destination and future East Campus LRT station.

98

9 Other On-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

13. Campus-wide Recommendations • Implement California MUTCD-standard regulatory signage, lighting and striping.

• Post dismount zone signage such as “Walk Zone“ or “Dismount Zone” where appropriate.

• Install bicycle ramps on high-use stairways.

14. Bicycle Parking Recommendations Problem:

• Inadequate quantity of parking in some locations.

Proposed Improvements:

• Extend dismount zone and add parking east of Library

Walk towards Matthews Lane. (Compliance may be improved if users must dismount at bottom of hill.)

• Install additional bicycle parking near Price Center Plaza and Warren College and other areas where demand warrants (see following graphic and table).

99

5 Project and Program Recommendations

9 Other On-Campus Projects

The following deficiencies in bicycle parking spaces were derived from UC San Diego’s Transportation Services’ Bicycle Parking Survey and field work. The “deficit” column represents the number of bicycles per location subtracted from the “capacity” column. The zeros in the capacity column represent locations where bicycles were being parked, even though there were no racks. Locations with deficiencies are shown in the figure on the following page, as well as a blow-up of the area proposed for additional bicycle parking and an extension of the dismount zone.

FACILITY Scripps Institution of Oceanography Experimental Aquarium Old Scripps Roger Revelle Student Center Sumner Auditorium Thomas Wayland Vaughan Hall IGPP 2000 - Revelle Laboratory IGPP Munk Laboratory Isaacs Hall Fred N. Spiess Hall Nierenberg Hall Theater District Joan and Irwin Jacobs Center for La Jolla Playhouse Mandell Weiss Theatre Shop Revelle College Argo Hall Challenger Hall Galathea Hall Mayer Annex Muir College Applied Physics and Mathematics Biology Building Crafts Center/Grove Gallery Faculty Club Expansion McGill Hall Recreation Gymnasium Student Center A - Building 2 Student Center A - Building 3 Addition Student Center A - Northeast Expansion Student Center B Humanities and Social Sciences Marshall College 102 Marshall College 103 Marshall College Extended Studies and Public Programs - Building A Marshall College Residence Hall Center Marshall Upper Apartments G Marshall Upper Apartments H Marshall Upper Apartments J Marshall Upper Apartments K Marshall Upper Apartments M Sequoyah Hall Thurgood Marshall College Residence Hall R Oceanview Terrace Roosevelt College Africa Hall Asante House Meeting Rooms Asante House West Asia Hall Cafe Ventanas Copley International Conference Center Cuzeo House West Earth Hall ERC Administration South Europe Hall Geneva Hall East Geneva Hall West Great Hall Hopkins Parking Institute of the Americas Addition Kathmandu House East Kathmandu House West Latin America Hall Middle East Hall North America Hall Oceania Hall Pangea Parking Structure Robinson Building 1 - Administration San Diego Supercomputer East Expansion San Diego Supercomputer Office Addition

100

Capacity Max Bikes

Deficit

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0

4 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 12 1

-4 -1 -1 -1 -4 -2 -2 -1 -4 -1

0 0

1 1

-1 -1

92 16 16 0

102 19 18 7

-10 -3 -2 -7

56 57 -1 16 19 -3 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 2 -2 0 1 -1 8 9 -1 0 1 -1 0 4 -4 0 1 -1 2011 recommendation 0 3 -3 0 2 -2 0 1 -1 10 11 -1 0 2 -2 0 2 -2 0 6 -6 0 5 -5 0 5 -5 6 7 -1 3 4 -1 2011 recommendation 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 0 0 32 0 0 0

20 3 3 22 4 4 4 36 5 23 10 5 1 8 1 4 4 29 10 14 1 45 1 3 2

-10 -3 -3 -12 -4 -4 -4 -36 -5 -13 -10 -5 -1 -8 -1 -4 -4 -19 -2 -14 -1 -13 -1 -3 -2

Bicycle Parking Deficiencies FACILITY North Campus North Campus Housing Phase I North Campus Tennis Courts Recreational and Intramural Athletic Complex Annex B Spanos Athletic Training Facility Torrey Pines Center North Warren College Computer Science and Engineering Building Engineering Building Unit II Frankfurter Hall B Harlan Hall Irwin Mark and Joan Klein Jacobs Engineering Hall Stewart Hall Warren Administrative Module Warren Lecture Hall Campus Services Complex Campus Services Complex - Building C Campus Services Complex - Building D Campus Services Complex - Building H Campus Services Complex - Trailer 7 Campus Services Complex Fleet Services Building Campus Services Complex Shops Sixth College 413A University Center 789 Sixth College Canyonview Recreation and Athletics Administration Foodworx Matthews Apartments A Matthews Apartments B Matthews Apartments C Matthews Apartments D Matthews Apartments E Sixth College Apartments 600 Sixth College Apartments 700 Sixth College Apartments 900 Sixth College Apartments 1000 Sixth College Apartments 1300 Sixth College Apartments 1400 Sixth College Apartments Lodge Sixth College Residence Hall 706 Visual Arts Facility- Building 2 West Campus LRT Station School of Medicine Biomedical Sciences Building Addition Cellular and Molecular Medicine East George Parade Laboratories for Cellular and Molecular Medicine Leichtag Family Foundation Biomedical Building School of Medicine - Building 4 W.M. Keck Building Pharmaceutical Science Building Rita Atkinson Graduate Housing University Center 201 University Center 301A University Center 303 University Center 409 University Center Price Center East Expansion Price Center West University Center 106 Expand existing bike parking at Library Walk and Peterson Hill Gilman Drive Transit Center Health Sciences Radiation Oncology PET/CT Center Thornton Modular Office Building 2 Thornton Modular Office Building 3 Moores Cancer Center East Campus LRT Station

Capacity Max Bikes

Deficit

16 0 8 10 0

20 1 9 23 4

-4 -1 -1 -13 -4

36 0 8 22 0 16 0 24

60 7 26 33 4 25 2 65

-24 -7 -18 -11 -4 -9 -2 -41

8 0 0 0 0 0

9 1 1 3 1 1

-1 -1 -1 -3 -1 -1

0 6 -6 0 1 -1 0 3 -3 16 22 -6 8 15 -7 8 10 -2 17 23 -6 0 2 -2 0 1 -1 0 4 -4 0 2 -2 0 2 -2 24 25 -1 8 11 -3 5 6 -1 6 8 -2 24 26 -2 0 1 -1 Long-term enclosed parking 0 1 -1 8 15 -7 8 9 -1 16 18 -2 0 2 -2 0 1 -1 2011 recommendation 2011 recommendation 0 1 -1 0 4 -4 0 2 -2 0 8 -8 24 32 -8 80 91 -11 0 1 -1 2011 recommendation Long term enclosed parking 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 2011 recommendation Long-term enclosed parking

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Proposed Dismount Zone Extension (See location on map below)

Bicycle Parking Deficiencies Secured Bike Cage Locations UCSD Boundary y Pin

es Sc

enic

rth p oint D

Dr

Scholars Dr

Voigt Dr Hopkins Ln

North Torrey Pines Rd

Dr

R

int Po pus

J olla Farm s

Ca m

Salk Institute Rd

La

Bike Parking Needs

r John Jay Hopkin s Dr

rr e

Ridge Walk

To

No

Vo ig t

M a tth ew s Ln

Muir Ln

d

Dr

Lym an A

v

Russell

Scholars

lC

er ent

Dr

Health Sciences Dr

Dr

Dr

Gilman Dr

e M

a dic

Athena Wy

a te M Ea stg

l

Miram ar St

r

D

o u rn Dr

Camto Dia

Blair St

e Bl

Ve rd Cos ta

Lebon Dr

Ln

Kilb

Sug arma n Dr Pl

io sco Cam K

allorca

m ha

tD r

Glenwick

C harman aM

tt

i ll a g e D r

Vi

ic Wy

Discover y Wy

r

No

in g

aV

Cargill Av

ine s R d Torr ey P

D

Dr

d

La Jo lla Scen

nw

in

J olla

D ow

oll

V illa La

E

y d Re n W i ti o xp e d

La J

5

uer ta

Villa Norte

mH

d Dr

S lla Jo

w oo

L

a

Sq

ho

re s

r

d Gildre

Schol a r s D

Genesee Av

Executive Dr

ler Ln Os

101

5 Project and Program Recommendations

12 Off-Campus Projects

Off-Campus Projects

Bicycle and pedestrian trips at a college campus can be classified as intra-campus trips from an on-campus origin to a destination on-campus, or off-campus trips from an offcampus origin to a on-campus destination (and vice versa).

Enhancement of on-campus roadways and paths will improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians making intra-campus trips. However, enhancements are also needed on off-campus streets to improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians making off-campus trips. Off-campus trips commonly include commutes to/from campus residences. Common UC San Diego off-campus trip origins/destinations include:

• Residential and commercial uses south of La Jolla Village Drive

• Residential uses east of Regents Drive • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • Commercial uses north of campus along Torrey Pines Road

102

From these origins/destinations, cyclists and pedestrians typically travel through one of several campus gateways where enhancements can improve cycling and walking conditions.

The following projects address these gateways.

12 Off-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

A. Regents Road Bicycle Facility Improvements

Problems:

• Narrow bicycle lanes between La Jolla Village Drive and Eastgate Mall.

• No bicycle lanes between Eastgate Mall and Genesee Avenue.

• Poor bicycle lane pavement quality, especially north of Executive Drive.

• Insufficient lighting, especially between Eastgate Mall and Genesee Avenue.

• Missing crosswalks across Regents Road/Eastgate Mall intersection’s west and north legs.

• Missing bicycle detection at several intersections.

• Numerous curb cuts.

Proposed Improvements:

• Where pavement quality is poor, overlay roadway with new asphalt.

• Widen bicycle lanes between La Jolla Village Drive and Eastgate Mall with 11 foot travel lanes.

• Add bicycle lanes between Eastgate Mall and Genesee Avenue.

• Improve lighting on Regents Road, especially between Eastgate Mall and Genesee Avenue.

• Add crosswalks at Regents Road/Eastgate Mall intersection west and north legs.

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

• Install “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signage on approaches to Regents Road/Eastgate Mall intersection.

103

5 Project and Program Recommendations

12 Off-Campus Projects

B. Crossing at Torrey Pines Road and La Jolla Village Drive

Problems:

• Missing crosswalk across intersection west leg.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Improve bicycle and pedestrian amenities at intersection, including adding missing crosswalk.

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes and install Type D limit line detector loops.

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

104

12 Off-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

C. Crossing at North Torrey Pines Road and Expedition Way

Problems:

• Missing crosswalk across intersection south leg.

• Both sides of Revelle College Drive missing sidewalks between North Torrey Pines Road and Scholars Drive.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Improve bicycle and pedestrian amenities, including adding missing crosswalk.

• Add sidewalks to both sides of Revelle College Drive between North Torrey Pines Road and Scholars Drive.

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes and install Type D limit line detector loops.

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

105

5 Project and Program Recommendations

12 Off-Campus Projects

D. John J. Hopkins Dr./Genesee Ave. Intersection Bike/Ped Improvements

1

2

3

Problems:

• (1) Missing crosswalk across intersection west leg.

• (2) Geometry creates large crossing distance on west side.

• (3) No median refuges. No middle crossing actuator.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Add crosswalk at intersection west leg. (This should have minimal effect on traffic operations since “walk” phase will be concurrent with southbound left-turn green.)

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

106

12 Off-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

E. North Torrey Pines Road/Pangea Drive Bicycle Improvements

Problem:

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvement:

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

107

5 Project and Program Recommendations

12 Off-Campus Projects

F. La Jolla Shores Dr. and North Torrey Pines Rd. Bike and Ped Improvements

Problems:

• Pedestrians cross outside marked crosswalk due to oblique angles and large crossing distance.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

• Reduce crosswalk length in conjunction with project to close La Jolla Shores Drive campus entrance.

108

12 Off-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

G. North Torrey Pines Road/Muir College Drive Bicycle Improvements

Problems:

• Missing crosswalk across intersection south leg.

• South side of Muir College Drive missing sidewalks east of North Torrey Pines Road.

• East side of North Torrey Pines Road missing sidewalks.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Add crosswalk at intersection south leg.

• Construct sidewalks on south side of Muir College Drive east of North Torrey Pines Road.

• Construct sidewalks on east side of North Torrey Pines Road.

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

109

5 Project and Program Recommendations

12 Off-Campus Projects

H. Gilman Drive/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange Ped Improvements

2

1

3

Problems:

• (1) No sidewalks through intersection on east side of Gilman Drive.

• (2) At Gilman Drive/La Jolla Village Drive westbound intersection, high vehicle speeds at free southbound right-turn and some drivers do not yield to pedestrians, as well as conflicts between cyclists and vehicles.

• (3) At Gilman Drive/La Jolla Village Drive eastbound intersection:

• High vehicle speeds at free northbound right-turn and some drivers do not yield to pedestrians.

• Eastbound right-turn drivers often do not obey stop sign.

• Conflicts between cyclists and vehicles.

Proposed Improvements:

• Add sidewalks on east side of Gilman Drive. (May require retaining walls under La Jolla Village Drive overpass.)

• Reconfigure southbound right turn with smaller turn radius at Gilman Drive/La Jolla Village Drive westbound intersection. (If possible, control movement with traffic signal.)

• Reconfigure northbound right-turn with smaller turn radius at Gilman Drive La Jolla Village Drive eastbound intersection.

110

12 Off-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

I. Villa La Jolla Dr. Ped Bridge and La Jolla Village Dr. Ped Access Improvements

1

2 4

3

Problems:

• Missing crosswalk across intersection east leg. (May be too much left turning traffic to allow.)

• No bicycle lanes on Villa La Jolla Drive or La Jolla Village Drive.

• (1) Difficult to find bicycle/pedestrian bridge from School of Medicine.

• (2) Narrow path to bicycle/pedestrian bridge (north of La Jolla Village Drive) .

• (3) Narrow sidewalk on south side of La Jolla Village Drive between bicycle/pedestrian bridge and Villa La Jolla Drive.

• (4) No connection between sidewalk on north side of La Jolla Village Drive and bicycle/pedestrian bridge.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Add crosswalk at intersection east leg. (Should have minimal effect on traffic operations since “walk” phase will be concurrent with northbound through and right-turn green.)

• Improve wayfinding to/from bicycle/pedestrian bridge.

• If possible, widen path north of La Jolla Village Drive to bicycle/pedestrian bridge.

• Widen sidewalk on south side of La Jolla Village Drive between bicycle/pedestrian bridge and Villa La Jolla Drive.

• Add connection between sidewalk on north side of La Jolla Village Drive and bicycle/pedestrian bridge.

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

111

5 Project and Program Recommendations

12 Off-Campus Projects

J. Interstate 5/La Jolla Village Drive Interchange Bike and Pedestrian Safety

5

2 1

2 1

4

2

3 2

Improvements Problems:

• (1) No bicycle lanes east or west of interchange make navigation by bicycle difficult.

• (2) On-ramps (both slip on-ramps and loop on-ramps) encourage drivers to make high speed movements with little attention for cyclists and pedestrians.

• (3) No crosswalks across La Jolla Village Drive at interchange. (Nearest crosswalks across La Jolla Village Drive are on west side of La Jolla Village Drive/Villa La Jolla Drive intersection and La Jolla Village Drive/Lebon Drive intersection.)

• (4) Missing sidewalks on north side of La Jolla Village Drive east of Interstate 5.

• (5) Missing formal connection from Mesa Housing.

Proposed Improvements:

112

• Reconfigure on-ramps with smaller turn radii to slow vehicles. (If possible, control right turns with traffic signals.)

• Improve bicycle lanes at on-ramps.

• Enhance crosswalks with appropriate measures to improve yield compliance.

• Construct sidewalks on north side of La Jolla Village Drive east of Interstate 5.

• Add crosswalks to each ramp terminal intersection:

• At Interstate 5 southbound/La Jolla Village Drive intersection, add crosswalk across intersection west leg.

• At Interstate 5 northbound/La Jolla Village Drive intersection, add crosswalk across intersection east leg. (Requires reconfiguration of Interstate 5 northbound slip on-ramp.)

• Add formal pathway connection between Mesa Housing and La Jolla Village Drive.

12 Off-Campus Projects

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

K. Genesee Avenue/Campus Point Drive Bicycle and Ped Improvements

Problems:

• Missing crosswalks across intersection west leg.

• Missing bicycle detection.

Proposed Improvements:

• Add crosswalks at intersection west leg.

• Install bicycle detection in all appropriate lanes (Type D limit line detector loops).

• Modify signal timing to accommodate minimum green splits for cyclists.

113

5 Project and Program Recommendations

12 Off-Campus Projects

L. La Jolla Shores/SIO Bicycle Improvements

Problems:

• Steep grades allow cyclists to descend at high speeds, but makes climbing difficult.

• Grade combined with 40 foot width and parallel parked vehicles causes conflicts with some safety concerns.

Proposed Improvements:

• Install Class 3 route with “Sharrows” southbound and Class 2 “climbing lane” northbound with appropriate signage in downhill direction.

• Remove parking on one side to accommodate configuration.

“Climbing lane” configuration: Class 2 lane uphill and Class 3 route downhill with “Sharrows” positioned at least four feet from curb (per California MUTCD) 114

R4-11 Sign

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

UC San Diego Hillcrest Medical Center

The sole recommendation for this area in the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update is a Class 3 bicycle facility on the upper segment of Bachman Place only, south of the Bachman Parking Structure. This would connect with a proposed bicycle boulevard continuing southward into Hillcrest.

However, considering the relative importance of this bicycle connection between Mission Valley and Hillcrest, it is recommended that an enhanced Class 3 bicycle route be extended north along the length of Bachman Place to Hotel Circle South, as shown in SANDAG’s San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. In this case, sharrows and “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” regulatory signs are appropriate enhancements (see bottom of previous page for example). In addition, pathways are needed on each side of Bachman Place, south of the parking structure.

Proposed UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center Area Bicycle Facilities

115

5 Project and Program Recommendations

Top 3 Programs

Top Three Priority Programs

Like the top five projects, the top three priority programs were developed with substantial Project Working Group assistance.

These top three programs are intended to be implemented in sequential order and were chosen based on the principle that these efforts would provide a solid foundation that will serve to support future programs as they are implemented.

• Website – Maintain a portal for all information relating to active transportation programs and policies.

• Marketing Campaign – Create a consistent message and

branding to unify the outreach effort for active transportation at UC San Diego. This will influence the website design and supply outreach and education materials.

• UC San Diego Bicycle Instructors – Train faculty, staff,

students, RAs and affiliates as UC San Diego bicycle instructors.

Prior to implementing the three priority programs, it is important to transition the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study’s Project Working Group (PWG) into a UC San Diego Active Transportation Committee (ATC). The Commute Solutions and Transportation Services marketing manager will chair the ATC, with membership from Physical and Community Planning, Environmental Health and Safety, Facilities Management, UCSD Pedal Club, Campus Police and faculty and student representatives. The chair of the ATC is responsible for the development and implementation of campus programs. The committee would provide appropriate oversight for these programs and would continue the PWG’s collaborative environment between campus departments, faculty, staff and students.

a. UCSD Active Transportation Website Program Goals A successful UCSD Active Transportation Website will be a place to locate digital education and outreach materials, maps, policies and general information about cycling and other active transportation modes on and around UC San Diego. It will also be a place to post event notices and information about campus resources such as the Triton Bikes program, Pedal Club bicycle commuter incentive programs, or the campus Bike Shop. It will provide a single location for events, notices and clubs housed under different campus departments and programs. It will also serve as a place to promote social rides and clubs, new outreach and education programs and notices of new facilities.

Program Actions Website as Program Priority #1 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.

Utilizing Campus Resources In an effort to utilize the existing resources on campus, it would be ideal if a web-design project could emerge from a UC San Diego marketing or computer science class. Efforts should be made to reach out to interested faculty and students to design and build the website.

Website Administration

A second step to take prior to implementing these programs, is to make contact with interested faculty and staff to provide implementation assistance. These resources could include Rady School of Management faculty who may be able to help with website and marketing, the Recreation Program for adding “effective cycling” classes and the Department of Education Studies to assist with finding instructors and helping to develop curriculum. Wherever possible, it is important to utilize existing campus resources.

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 the Active Transportation Committee.

The following pages describe the top three programs and their suggested goals and actions.

Examples • Bicycling at Stanford: http://transportation.stanford. edu/alt_transportation/BikingAtStanford.shtml

• UC Davis Bicycling Program: http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/ • Biking at UC Irvine: http://bike.uci.edu/default.cfm • Bike Long Beach: http://www.bikelongbeach.org/ 116

Top 3 Programs

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

b. Marketing Campaign

c. UC San Diego Bicycle Instructors

Program Goals

Program Goals

A marketing campaign will provide direction for branding the UC San Diego’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.

UC San Diego bicycle instructors would serve as a resource for teaching bicycle education at orientation events, recreational classes or as diversion programs to reduce a citation fine.

Targeting faculty, staff, students, RAs and affiliates to become UC San Diego bicycle instructors utilizes campus resources as suggested in previous goal statements. A group of trained instructors will be critical to draw upon as additional education programs come to fruition.

This project can also be a collaboration with a marketing class through the Rady School of Management, or a project utilizing UC San Diego Creative Services and Publications in University Communications and Public Affairs.

Program Actions 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 and pedestrian safety must be properly vetted by the necessary campus officials, committees and ideally, local bicycling advocates at the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and WalkSanDiego.

It will also be important to work within existing campus branding guidelines by working with the UC San Diego Marketing Council and consulting the UC San Diego Graphic Guidelines. The Council is currently working on a campus wide branding initiative that can provide a framework to guide an active transportation-specific campaign.

Links • UC San Diego Graphic Guidelines: http://www.publications.ucsd.edu/

• UC San Diego Marketing Council: http://blink.ucsd.edu/ go/marketingcouncil

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, Traffic Skills 101, taught on-campus with curriculum tailored to UC San Diego. 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.

Program Actions A bicycling education program will need to be selected or created. 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.

Additionally, existing bicycling educators of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition should be consulted for their input on bicycling education in the region. 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 entice 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.

Examples • League of American Cyclists (LAB) – League Certified Instructors (LCI): http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/ education/index.php, http://www.bikeed.org/

• Savvy Cycling: http://cyclingsavvy.org/

• San Diego County Bicycle Coalition: http://www.sdcbc.org/ • WalkSanDiego: http://www.walksandiego.org/

117

5 Project and Program Recommendations

17 Additional Programs

Additional Programs

Following establishment of the top three programs, the following could then be implemented:

d. 60 Minute Introductory “Effective Cycling” Class Offer this class to gauge interest in full-day classes. Provide “credit” or incentive for attendance.

e. Employ Colleges to Reach Students During Orientation Coordinate orientation outreach and bicycle registration.

Orientation is an excellent opportunity to reach new students.

They can be educated about proper bicycling, UC San Diego rules and policies, where to and not to ride and park their bicycles. This could be best accomplished through each college. Develop funding for a program to distribute vouchers for lights, helmets and locks for students who register their bicycles and/or complete an “effective cycling” course. Give out maps, route finding apps, regulations and other bicycle commuting information.

f. Bicycle Ambassador Program Bicycle ambassadors provide safety and public awareness outreach. Their “job” is to promote safety for all users - cyclists, skateboarders, drivers and pedestrians - and encourage all campus community members to ride their bicycles more.

Ambassadors can employ “guerilla marketing” techniques to connect with students and staff, such as approaching cyclists seen riding inappropriately, or talking to people with bicycles at shuttle stops or at parking lots to suggest routes they could ride for more of their commutes. 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.

118

g. Bicycle Violation Diversion Program Diversion programs usually offer citation recipients the opportunity to attend an educational class in exchange for reducing or removing the citation. According to Risk Management, UC San Diego is not required to utilize the City of San Diego’s programs and should create its own internal campus program.

Example: Stanford University

h. Bicycle Map A bicycle map provides an opportunity to inform users where best to ride and park their bicycle, showers/changing facility location and the back panel is a great place to incorporate bicycle safety information. This map should be re-printed as often as facilities change and should be distributed free-ofcharge as well as made available on-line for downloading.

Examples: University of Arizona, Princeton University

i. Bicycle Share The existing Triton Bikes program would benefit from a dedicated maintenance program, expanded bicycle refurbishment services and more promotion. It could also be more formalized by providing new, branded bicycles, such as systems in place at several universities. Many of these bicycle 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.

Examples: UC Irvine, NYU

17 Additional Programs

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

j. Bicycle Registration

m. Green Campus Program

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. UC San Diego requires California state registration, but with some other registration systems, users can track their commute distance, as well as other statistics, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or carbon saved by not driving.

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

Examples: UC Irvine, University of Oklahoma

From the UC San Diego Green Campus website:

k. Commuter Incentives Users can participate in Bike to Work Week, track their miles and compete for prizes. This can be incorporated with the existing UC San Diego commuter incentive program via the Pedal Club. Give users an incentive not to use their parking passes.

“If you usually drive to work or school, commit to carpooling, taking public transit, biking, or walking several times a week to cut down on the greenhouse gases emitted when you drive a car.”

Example: Stanford University

l. Campus Bike Station A bike station is a facility designed for bicycle commuters that typically requires membership to use secure bicycle parking, and often showers, changing rooms or lockers. Bike stations are usually located in conjunction with multi-modal transit centers. Some are staffed and offer free valet parking during the day, and most are secured by key or electronic card access after normal business hours. Other services can include electronic bicycle route-planning kiosks, fee-based or self-repair services, parts and accessory sales, bicycle rentals, educational opportunities such as Smart Cycling courses and bicycle maintenance classes and distribution of general educational and promotional materials.

Examples: University of Minnesota, UC Davis

119

5 Project and Program Recommendations

17 Additional Programs

Emerging Technologies

Because the world of emerging technologies is ever-changing, this section should be considered merely a snapshot in time of what exists at the time of this writing. As a university, there is constant pressure to keep up with the “latest and greatest” technologies to stay competitive with other campuses and relevant in the eyes of students. These tools can help to supplement the sharing of information between students, faculty and staff at UC San Diego. Information sharing continues to be faster, easier, more customizable and more convenient.

n. Route Tracking Route tracking can employ a smartphone’s global positioning system (GPS) capabilities to later map on-line where the riding, walking or running occurred and see the routes others use. This can help route planning, as well as track mileage, calories burned or reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and green house gas (GHG) emissions. This can be a basis for competition between student groups for prizes or tracked for commuter incentives.

This can be done on-line through SANDAG’s iCommute website, with a general app like Map My Ride or Endomondo, or this functionality could be added to UC San Diego’s existing app. The benefit of a customized app is that the campus can use the data for tracking active transportation trips to be used for incentives, prizes and awards, but also general knowledge about those trips on campus. It can be helpful for learning popular routes students use, when and how often facilities are utilized and to track changes as encouragement programs are implemented and facilities are expanded. This can provide excellent benchmarking data over time similar to how the campus bicycle parking survey is utilized now. This type of information can also be particularly useful for future grant applications.

Example: iCommute - http://www.icommutesd.com/

o. Wayfinding A custom map app created for UC San Diego could also include information about where to ride on campus and where bicycle 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 currently provides an online/smartphone app function to acquire directions to an address and allows the user to select from various transportation modes, including walking or biking. As the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study is implemented, it will be important to update Google with the latest biking and walking routes on campus.

Additionally, Street View in Google Maps allows the user to virtually move through a place with 360 degree streetlevel imagery. A university 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.

Examples: University of Oregon, Google Maps - http://maps. google.com/help/maps/streetview/partners/

Google Street View tricycle 120

17 Additional Programs

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

p. Quick Response (QR) Codes

q. Condition Reporting

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.

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 sidewalks, 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. Locally, their app directs reported issues to the City of San Diego. It may be possible to coordinate with the City to receive information on reports from on-campus or to contract with City Sourced for a campus-specific version of their app.

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, one bicycle rack manufacturer employs a QR code sticker on its racks that links to an instructional video on how to properly lock a bicycle.

Example: City Sourced - http://www.citysourced.com/default.aspx

r. 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 “close-calls” 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.

Example: City of Louisville, Kentucky - http://www.louisvilleky. gov/BikeLouisville/close_call_form.htm

Example QR code

121

5 Project and Program Recommendations

s. RFID Tags Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a widely used technology employed in many ways. It is a data collection and marking technology that uses electronic tags for storing data and a reader device to retrieve the data. Tags are made up of an RFID chip attached to an antenna and most derive their power from the radio frequency waves coming from the reader.

Like bar codes, RFID tags identify items. However, unlike bar codes, which must be in close proximity and line-of-sight to the scanner for reading, RFID tags do not require line-of-sight and can be embedded within objects, such as bicycle frames.

Depending on the type of tag and application, they can be read at a varying range of distances.

A common use of RFID tags is commuter tracking for incentive programs, but it is also used for bicycle registration programs.

Installing RFID tags on or in bicycle frames allows them to be easily scanned and compared with a “hot list” of stolen bicycles. The tags may not deter thieves, but they are connected to the police database, which aids bicycle recovery.

A downside to using RFID technology for incentive programs and use level surveys compared to smartphone apps is that signals must be tracked via readers installed in specific locations, such as at campus gateways.

One sophisticated use of RFID tags is a system that involves embedding tags in bicycles whose owners are registered in a university’s theft-prevention program. When parking their bicycles in designated “safe zones,” users call in their location to a server with their GPS-enabled smartphones. On their return, they call to check out. If the bicycle is moved without calling and entering a pin code to check out, closed circuit cameras zoom in on the area. One downside is that students using the system have started to forgo the check-in/checkout procedure because the safe zones have experienced far less crime and theft.

Example: University of Portsmouth, Ohio State University

122

17 Additional Programs

Safety and Regulatory Recommendations

On campuses, where there is substantial annual population turnover, it is important to provide a structured environment where expectations are clear. This is not the place for the “less is more” design philosophy. An important aspect of this is developing and enforcing consistent policies, programs and enforcement, which also helps prevent signage “overkill.”

Regulatory Policies On shared facilities, all users must travel at a prudent speed and those traveling faster must yield to slower users.

It is recommended that Ridge Walk be opened to mixed use as a shared facility.

It is also recommended that Library Walk continue to be closed to bicycles and skateboards.

6

Regulatory Signage To effectively enforce regulations, supporting signage must be consistently posted. The following recommendations address conditions known to occur on the campus.

• Utilize signs for their proper purpose.

• Place signs appropriately and facing the intended direction.

• Signs on roadways must be California MUTCD-compliant.

• Particularly for dismount zones, signs must be installed

at every potential entry and exit. In situations where a sign is not feasible, a pavement marking may be appropriate. If pavement markings are used, they should be as close in design to the signs as possible (see example system below).

Finally, there should not be regulations specific to the day of week or time. Instead, use should be simply allowed or not allowed on a 24 hour, seven day basis. This will improve users’ understanding of the regulations, as well as simplify regulatory signage and enforcement.

Example dismount zone sign system (Ft. Collins, CO) University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

123

6 Safety and Regulatory Recommendations Enforcement

Golf Cart/Utility Vehicle Policies

With the likelihood of increased use on mixed use facilities, the campus should increase the number of police officers on bicycles. This could also provide the capacity to manage the recommended bicycle diversion program.

While a study should be conducted and subsequent policy adopted regarding golf cart/utility vehicle use on campus, this study can provide guidance as it relates to non-motorized campus traffic.

In addition, the following are programs that have proven effective in deterring bicycle theft and illegal parking.

In general, utility vehicles/golf carts should be operated with the utmost courtesy, care and consideration for the safety and convenience of other pathway users. All other users, including inline skaters, skate boarders, cyclists and wheelchair or mobility assistance devices users, should have the right-of-way at all times. Under no circumstances should a utility vehicle/ golf cart operator force another user off a pathway.

Bait Bicycles Among the theft-deterrent actions that have been employed at universities are “bait bicycles.” Police fit bicycles with a covert tracking system and leave it (insecurely) locked at a prominent location. If the bicycle is moved, police are alerted to track the stolen bicycle. This type of initiative can also aid in intelligence-gathering. For example, tracking the signal may provide insight into the offender’s movements after thefts and potential locations of stolen goods and markets.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that such interventions increase arrest rates.

Examples: University of Toronto

Booting Locking bicycles to trees or street furniture is generally less secure than locking to purpose-built racks. A university implemented an enforcement campaign in which police and student security monitors first issued warnings to cyclists who illegally locked their bicycles. Repeat offenders then had their bicycles “booted” with a bright orange U-lock with instructions on where to pay a fine to have the lock removed.

Bicycle theft has fallen from around 350 incidents per year before intervention to fewer than 150 per year for the twoyear period afterward.

Example: University of Minnesota

On UC San Diego streets, operators should not exceed posted speed limits for motorized vehicles. On off-street pathways, operators should not exceed the speed of other pathway users. Operators also should not attempt to pass other users if they cannot do so without making the other user change their route of travel.

Utility vehicle/golf carts should be prohibited from parking where they would impede or interfere with pathway user or vehicular traffic flow on roadways, ramps or off-street pathways. Utility vehicle/golf cart use should be restricted to specific permitted areas or routes and violation of posted rules shall result in revocation of the cart permit.

In addition to policies, UC San Diego should determine where utility vehicle/golf cart use is to be permitted. For example, vehicles could be limited to paths no narrower than twice their width. This would preclude use on many of the existing grove pathways and the route north of the library.

If it is difficult to develop a written description of the permitted use area, a map depicting this area can be used, which would be required to be posted in all utility vehicles. Additionally, if vehicle use must be permitted on narrow paths for necessary building access, the “no passing rule” should be strictly enforced.

Overall, UC San Diego should aim to reduce the amount of utility vehicles on campus. Permits should be limited to those who require a vehicle to perform a critical function. If a utility vehicle is not essential, applicants should be encouraged to utilize other campus options, such as the UC San Diego Triton Bikes program. The reduction of utility vehicles on UC San Diego will simplify enforcement and help to reduce utility vehicle conflicts with other pathway users.

Examples: Florida Atlantic University, Tulane University and the University of Missouri.

124

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Proposed Regulations

Parking

General

Parking is allowed only on hard, paved surfaces (e.g. asphalt, concrete, brick) or on packed gravel surfaces. Parking in any non-designated area, including but not limited to the following, is strictly prohibited and will result in the issuance of a citation:

Utility vehicles/golf carts shall be operated with the utmost courtesy, care and consideration for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other pathway users. Pedestrians, cyclists, inline skaters, skate boarders, or wheelchair or mobility assistance device users have the right-of-way at all times and under all circumstances. Under no circumstances may a utility vehicle/golf cart operator force another user off a pathway. Utility vehicle operators shall maintain a distance of at least ten (10) feet behind any pedestrian or cyclist.

Golf carts/utility vehicle drivers must be especially attentive to the needs of disabled persons, due to their vision, hearing or mobility limitations.

Utility vehicles shall not be operated in a manner that may endanger passengers, other individuals or damage UC San Diego property. All utility vehicles must travel in the direction of the flow of traffic (when traveling on streets) and must obey all UC San Diego traffic regulations and signs.

At no time shall utility vehicles/golf carts be operated on public streets or city sidewalks, except as may otherwise be permitted on the attached map to access certain UC San Diego property that is not adjacent to other campus property, or that is not easily accessible.

Designated UC San Diego Use Areas The use of utility vehicles is restricted to designated UC San Diego routes. A laminated copy of a map of designated use areas must be carried in all utility vehicle at all times.

As necessary, revised routes and/or maps will be sent out via e-mail to the contact person for each department with a utility vehicle to advise of temporary route changes due to construction or other projects or events. It will be the responsibility of the contact person to distribute this information to all utility vehicle operators within their department.

• Parking on soft surfaces such as landscaping, unpaved

surfaces (except for packed gravel surfaces designated as permitted parking areas on the attached map), and natural covered areas such as those areas covered by mulch

• Parking in front of entrances to buildings, stairways, handicap ramps, or main thoroughfares

• Parking so as to impede or interfere with normal pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow on roadways, ramps or sidewalks

• Parking to block fire lanes, entrances to buildings, stairways, disability ramps, main thoroughfares, or fire suppression equipment

• Parking in designated parking spaces without a valid permit

Speed Limits On UC San Diego streets, operators shall not exceed posted speed limits for motorized vehicles.

Speed must be reduced to a minimum when driving along or near pedestrians or other users.

On off-street pathways, operators shall not exceed the speed of other user traffic present. Operators shall not attempt to pass pedestrians or cyclists at any time.

The recommended speed on off-street pathways is five (5) mph and in a congested area, the speed should be no faster than that of other users moving in the same area.

Except in emergencies, carts and utility vehicles may be operated only on roadways and sidewalks at least six (6) feet wide.

125

6 Safety and Regulatory Recommendations

126

Implementation and Costs

Implementation is crucial to the success of any plan and identifying a project funding source is the most important step towards project implementation. The goal of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study is to implement all of the recommended projects and programs within 20 years.

Implementation support is anticipated from competitive grants, new building projects and other campus programs.

Noted that the funding sources for many BPMPS projects have yet to be identified and/or committed. The BPMPS is not a programming document, but instead a prioritization of the campus’ bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure needs.

7

Cost Estimates Detailed cost estimates were developed the for the Top 5 priority projects. Planning-level cost estimates were developed for all other projects in the Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks (Figures 2.7 and 3.9).

Unit Costs The following table shows the unit cost assumptions for typical bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements used to develop cost estimates for the Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks (Figures 2.7 and 3.9). These cost estimates were developed based on recent construction bid results in California. All costs are assumed to be in 2012 dollars. More disaggregated cost estimates were used to develop cost estimates for the Top 5 priority projects.

Description Unit Cost

Description Class 1 bicycle path (assumes 4” HMAC over 8” Class 2 AB) Linear Foot $150 Class 2 bicycle lanes (minor restriping) Linear Foot $13 Class 2 bicycle lanes (major restriping with slurry seal) Linear Foot $40 Class 2 bicycle lanes (streetscape reconstruction) Linear Foot $600 Class 3 bicycle route Linear Foot $1 Sidewalks (assumes minimal grading) Square Foot $5 Sidewalks (assumes grading and retaining wall) Square Foot $24 Curb and gutter Linear Foot $21 Signs Each $150 Decomposed granite Square Foot $2.50 Bicycle rack Each $225 Restriping, minor Linear Foot $13 Restriping, major (includes slurry seal) Linear Foot $40 Retaining wall Linear Foot $80 Bicycle detection (Type D detectors within vehicle lanes) Intersection Approach $4,000 Crosswalk at signalized intersection (no detector modifications) Each $2,200 Crosswalk at signalized intersection (with detector modifications) Each $5,000 Traffic signal Each $120,000 - $250,000 Roundabout Each $1.5 million New roadway Mile $4.9 million University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

127

7 Implementation and Costs

The following table shows all projects proposed in the BPMPS and provides an estimated cost for each project. The entire list of bicycle and pedestrian projects is estimated to cost $13.9

million. Of that, the Top 5 priority projects are estimated to cost $1.7 million, and the remainder is $12.2 million.

Project Name Project Type Est. Cost Top 5 Priority Projects 1. Hopkins Lane walkway improvements 2. Warren College/Voigt Drive crossing 3. Peterson Hill/Grove Path wheeled bypass 4. Gilman Drive/Interstate 5 bicycle path connection 5. Gilman Drive bicycle lane connection

Streetscape and path improvements Crosswalk improvements Path improvements Class 1 bicycle path Class 2 bicycle lanes

$283,000 $27,000 $92,000 $487,000 $775,000

Other Proposed Projects Bicycle parking (campus wide) Bicycle parking $59,000 Crossing at North Torrey Pines Road and Expedition Way Intersection/streetscape improvements $237,000 Crossing at Torrey Pines Road and La Jolla Village Drive Intersection improvements $19,000 Expedition Way Bicycle lanes and route Class 2 bicycle lanes/Class 3 route $35,000 Genesee Avenue/Campus Point Drive Intersection improvements $24,000 Gilman Drive/Interstate 5 bridge bicycle lanes Class 2 bicycle lanes N/A Gilman Drive/La Jolla Village Drive Intersection improvements $5,000,000 Interstate 5/La Jolla Village Drive Intersection improvements $72,000 John J. Hopkins Drive/Genesee Avenue Intersection improvements $19,000 La Jolla Shores/SIO bicycle facilities Class 2 bicycle lanes/Class 3 route $85,000 La Jolla Shores Drive/N. Torrey Pines Road Intersection improvements $21,000 La Jolla Shores Drive/SIO path Path improvements $11,000 Library Walk crossing at Gilman Drive Crosswalk improvements $156,000 Lyman Avenue bicycle route Class 3 bicycle route $1,000 Mesa Housing multi-use trail Path improvements $297,000 Muir College Drive bicycle lanes Class 2 bicycle lanes $546,000 Muir Lane bicycle lanes Class 2 bicycle lanes $624,000 Myers Drive Streetscape improvements $14,000 North Entrance Path and intersection improvements $26,000 North Point Lane bicycle route Class 3 bicycle route $2,000 North Torrey Pines Road/Muir College Drive Intersection/streetscape improvements $348,000 North Torrey Pines Road/Pangea Drive Intersection improvements $16,000 Osler Lane bicycle route Class 3 bicycle route $2,000 Villa La Jolla Drive and La Jolla Village Drive bridge access Intersection and path improvements $43,000 Realigned Campus Point Drive to East Campus LRT Station Roadway realignment $826,000 Regents Road bicycle lanes Class 2 bicycle lanes, etc. $916,000 Revelle College bicycle path Class 1 bicycle path $177,000 Ridge Walk bicycle improvements Path improvements $4,000 Rupertus Way bicycle route Class 3 bicycle route $1,000 Russell Drive bicycle route Class 3 bicycle route $1,000 Scholars Lane - La Jolla Shores Drive and Muir Lane Class 2 bicycle lanes $495,000 Scholars Lane - Muir College and Pangea Drives Class 2 bicycle lanes $582,000 Scholars Lane - Scholars Drive South and Bio. Bldg.

Class 3 bicycle route $1,000 Torrey Pines bicycle path Class 1 bicycle path $62,000 UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center Class 3 bicycle route $3,000

128

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Candidate Funding Sources

This section describes the many potential sources of funding for financing the recommended bikeway network and related programs. A variety of funding sources, including federal, state, regional and local funding programs, can be used to construct the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Many of the federal, state and regional programs are competitive and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project need, costs and benefits. These competitive funding programs provide one-time grants for use on capital projects and, for the most part, cannot be used for ongoing programs.

Federal and State Programs The majority of public funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects are derived through a core group of federal and state programs. Federal funds from the Surface Transportation Program (STP), Transportation Enhancements (TE) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) programs are allocated to SANDAG and distributed accordingly.

Limited amounts from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), derived from a quarter cent of the general sales tax collected statewide, can be used for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Off-campus projects that could also benefit local schools may be competitive for Safe Routes to School funding. State and federal Safe Routes to School programs are potential funding sources for both bicycle and pedestrian planning and infrastructure projects that improve access to schools.

Caltrans administers two Safe Routes to School programs: the state-legislated program (SR2S) and the federal program (SRTS). Each program has unique differences that affect project selection.

Bicycle facilities can also be funded through the California Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA). Annually, $7.2 million is available for projects through the BTA. In 2010, the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) awarded $20 million through the Proposition 84 Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program. The SGC will award $20 million more in grants in both 2011 and 2012 (totaling $40 million). Eligible projects include plans that support greenhouse gas emission reduction and sustainable communities.

Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants are available to jurisdictions and can be used for planning or feasibility studies. The maximum funding available per project is $300,000.

The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) administers the General OTS Grant opportunities. Pedestrian safety is a priority area for grant funding. Funding can be used for certain law enforcement equipment, for signage (vehicle speed feedback signs) and for outreach materials and campaigns.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core federal-aid program that aims to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. Caltrans administers the program in California and received $74.5 million for the 2010/11 federal fiscal year. HSIP funds can be used for projects such as bicycle lane or sidewalk projects on local roadways, improvements to Class 1 multi-use paths, or for traffic calming measures. Applications that identify a history of incidents and demonstrate their project’s improvement to safety are most competitive for funding.

New policies at the federal level have resulted in a series of programs that promise to provide increased funding in the coming years for bicycle projects. The HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities has generated a series of new grant programs, including Urban Circulator, TIGER and Sustainable Communities Planning grants. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood recently announced a new DOT policy initiative, indicating: “well-connected walking and bicycling networks [are] an important component for livable communities.”

Regional and Local Funding The primary source of San Diego region funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and programs is TransNet, the half cent sales tax for local transportation projects. The passage of the TransNet Extension Ordinance committed two percent of TransNet annual revenues for active transportation of traffic calming infrastructure projects and programs (beginning Fiscal Year 2009). TransNet funds can be used as matching funds for other federal and state funding sources.

However, not all federal and state funding sources allow the use of TransNet funds as matching funds. TransNet estimates that over $4 million will be available each year for active transportation projects in the San Diego region. The TransNet program will end in 2048, pending further reauthorization.

129

7 Implementation and Costs

SANDAG administers Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding, using funds from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from a quarter cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. SANDAG allocates two percent of TDA funds for facilities provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians and cyclists.

TransNet and TDA funds are distributed through a competitive process on an annual basis. In 2010, the programs made a total of approximately $7.7 million available for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the region.

Many campus bicycle and pedestrian improvements are funded through the budgets of new building or infrastructure projects. For example, when new buildings are being planned, budgets often include funding for new bicycle parking and any new roadway or pathway improvements needed to allow for changes in bicycle and pedestrian circulation associated with the projects.

Potential Future Funding Sources UC San Diego can implement its own funding mechanisms for infrastructure projects and programs. Candidate funding sources used at other universities include a dedicated campus parking fee increment or a dedicated student fee increment.

Either source could be used for new bicycle or pedestrian programs. A full-time Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator position would be an effective use of funding from these sources.

Project Partnering UC San Diego can leverage its own funds by partnering with appropriate agencies on relevant projects. The most likely project partners include the City of San Diego for improvements to City of San Diego roadways and intersections and Caltrans for improvements to state highways. Project partners can agree to project fair-share contributions or can coordinate on grant application efforts.

130

Implementation Responsibility The study’s comprehensive approach to UC San Diego’s bicycle- and pedestrian-related issues will facilitate the implementation of improvements on campus, at gateways with the City of San Diego and with other bicycle-related organizations and businesses.

In general, the Office of Resource Management and Planning will manage implementation, primarily through Transportation Services, Community and Physical Planning, Facilities Management, and Facilities Design and Construction. The UC San Diego capital project development process, which consists of six phases, will most likely to apply to projects proposed through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Study:

• Initial planning • Preliminary plans • Working drawings • Construction • Equipment • Post-occupancy

• Appendix

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Design Guidelines

These facility guidelines are intended to guide development of all bikeway facility types. The following section discusses general physical design guidelines.

Facility design guidelines have been tailored to local conditions, but are also consistent with national guidelines, such as the AASHTO Guide to Development of Bicycle Facilities. State guidelines are also referenced, specifically, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design and the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Elements of these guidelines without relevance to the campus have been excluded.

Other documents referenced for specific guidelines and requirements can be found in the following links.

• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD, 2012)

• http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2012.htm

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2009), http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009.htm

• Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, http://www.dot. ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf

• AASHTO Guide to Development of Bicycle Facilities, http:// www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf

• Innovative Bicycle Treatments: An Informational Report.

Jumana Nabti and Matthew Ridgeway. ITE, Washington DC, 2002.

• Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd Ed. Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals www.apbp.org

• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, http://nacto.org/ cities-for-cycling/

• Design Guidelines

Class 1 Multi-use Path Guidelines

Class 1 facilities are generally paved multi-use paths separated from motor vehicle traffic. Off-street routes are rarely constructed for the exclusive use of cyclists since other nonmotorized user types will also find such facilities attractive. For that reason, the facilities recommended in this study should be considered multi-use routes that cyclists will share with other users. Recommended Class 1 paths are intended to provide commuting and recreational routes unimpeded by motor vehicle traffic.

No matter what their primary focus, most cyclists will find bicycle paths inviting routes to ride, especially if travel efficiency is secondary to enjoyment of cycling. Since these paths can augment the existing roadway system, they can extend circulation options for cyclists, making trips feasible that would not otherwise be possible if the cyclists had to depend exclusively on roadways, especially in areas where usable roads are limited. Casual riders and children would likely also appreciate the relative freedom from conflicts with motor vehicles compared to riding on typical roadways.

By law, the presence of a Class 1 route near an existing roadway does not justify prohibiting bicycles on the parallel or nearly parallel roadway. Where a bike plan calls for Class 1 routes parallel to the alignments of planned roadways, these roadways should still be designed to be compatible with bicycle use. Two reasons to retain parallel facilities are that an experienced cyclist may find Class 1 paths inappropriate because of intensive use by a number of user types, or the route may not be direct enough. By the same token, the Class 1 path will likely be much more attractive to less experienced cyclists than a parallel facility on an adjacent street.

and separated from it by a physical barrier. These measures are intended to promote safety for both cyclists and drivers by preventing unintended movement between the street and the Class 1 facility. (See Section 1003.1 (5) of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.)

Shared Use Issues

Since off-street paths (Class 1) are generally regarded as multi-use and not for the exclusive use of cyclists, they must be designed for the safety of both cyclists and other expected user types. Heavy use on multi-use trails can create conflicts between different types of users. These conflicts can include speed differentials between inexperienced and experienced cyclists, as well as between pedestrians, joggers and in-line skaters, differences in the movements typical of particular user types, and even the kinds of groupings common to the different user types as they casually move down the pathway.

As long as volumes are low, the level of conflict between different user types can be managed without enforcement.

However, even moderate increases in user volume can create substantial deterioration in level of service and safety.

Conflicts between different user types are especially likely to occur on regionally significant recreational trails that attract a broad diversity of users. In general, paths expected to receive heavy use should be a minimum of 14 feet wide, paths expected to experience moderate use should be at least 12 feet wide and low volume paths can be 10 feet wide.

Caltrans Class 1 requirements call for eight feet minimum paved width with a two foot clear zone on each side.

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities suggests the following grade restrictions and grade lengths for Class 1 facilities:

• 5-6 percent up to 800 feet • 7 percent up to 400 feet • 8 percent up to 300 feet • 9 percent up to 200 feet • 10 percent up to 100 feet • 11+ percent up to 50 feet In general, Class 1 facilities should not be placed immediately adjacent to roadways. Where such conditions exist, Class 1 facilities should be offset from the street as much as possible Rose Canyon Class 1 bike path APP-2

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Methods to reduce trail conflicts have included providing separate facilities for different groups, prohibiting certain user types, restricting certain uses to specific hours, widening existing facilities or marking lanes to regulate traffic flow. Examples of all of these types of actions occur along southern California’s trails where conflicts between different user types can be especially severe during peak periods.

Compatibility of Multiple Use of Paths

Class 1 bike path and adjacent natural surface trail (San Diego, CA)

Joint use of paths by cyclists and equestrians can pose problems due to the ease with which horses can be startled. Also, the requirements of a Class 1 bikeway facility include a solid surface, which is not desirable for equestrian use. Therefore, where either equestrian or cycling activity is expected to be high, separate trails are recommended. On facilities where Class 1 designation is not needed and the facility will be unpaved, mountain bikes and horses can share the trail if the is adequate space for passing, the expected volume of traffic by both groups is low and available sight distances allow equestrians and cyclists to see and anticipate each other. Education of all path users in “trail etiquette” has also proven to be successful on shared paths.

Roadside Obstacles

To make certain that as much of the paved surface as possible is usable, obstructions such as sign posts, light standards, utility poles and other similar appurtenances should be set back with at least a two foot minimum “shy distance” from the curb or pavement edge with exceptions for guard rail placement in certain instances. Three feet or more is desirable. Where there is currently insufficient width of paved surface to accommodate bicycle traffic, any placement of equipment should be set back far enough to allow room for future projects (widening, resurfacing) to bring the pavement width into conformance with these guidelines.

Vertical clearance to obstructions should be a minimum of eight feet. Where practical, a vertical clearance of ten feet is desirable (See Section 1003.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.)

CAMUTCD Figure 9B-1: Sign placement on shared-use paths

APP-3

• Design Guidelines

Class 2 Bike Lane Guidelines

California MUTCD (FHWA’s MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)

Page 9C-14

The following are typical guidelines, as well as enhanced treatments for bike lanes. Other treatments not listed in these guidelines can be considered on a case-by-case basis when warranted.

Bike Lanes

Class 2 facilities are striped lanes for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. The are nstalled along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. In streets with on-street parking, bike lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes.

Design Guidelines • Five foot minimum width for bike lanes located between the parking area and the traffic lanes.

• Four foot minimum width if no gutter exists.

• With a normal two foot gutter, the minimum bike lane width is five feet.

Recommendations • Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep downgrades, where bicycle speeds greater than 30 miles per hour are expected. If bike lanes are to be marked, additional width should be provided to accommodate higher biFigure 9C-6(CA): Bicycle Lane Markings (CAMUTCD) Chapter 9C – Markings cycle speeds.

Part 9 - Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities

• If parking volume is substantial or turnover high, an additional one to two feet of width is desirable.

References Caltrans HDM Chapter 1000, CAMUTCD, MUTCD

Sign R81 (CAMUTCD)

Sign R81-A (CAMUTCD)

Sign R81-B (CAMUTCD)

APP-4

September 26, 2006

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Colored Bike Lanes/Weaving Areas

Description Color is applied to bike lanes to enhance the visibility of cyclists on the bike lanes themselves, particularly at busy intersections where drivers must cross the bike lanes to make right turns. Color can be applied to the entire bike lane at high-risk locations where drivers are permitted to merge into or cross bike lanes.

Design Guidelines • Signage and dimensional guidelines are the same as for standard Class 2 bike lanes

• Avoid using blue, which is commonly designated for disabled facilities. Green is now the standard color for colored bike lanes.

Recommendations • Provide additional signage with matching color.

• Use color and markings consistently.

• Consider different coloring materials based on the lo-

Buffered Bike Lanes

Description: Space between the bike lane and traffic lane, parking lane or both. Provides a more protected and comfortable space for cyclists than a conventional bike lane.

Design Guidelines • Signage and dimensional guidelines are the same as for Class 2 bike lanes.

• Provide an additional two to four foot buffer or “shy zone” between the bike lane and traffic or parking lane.

Recommendations • Add diagonal striping on the outer buffer adjacent to the traffic lanes every six feet.

• On-street parking remains adjacent to the curb.

• A travel lane may need to be eliminated or narrowed to accommodate the buffers.

References City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan Update, City of Los Angeles

cation of the bike lanes, amount of traffic, road and weather conditions.

References Innovative Bicycle Treatments: An Informational Report - ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council Portland’s Blue Bike Lanes: Improved Safety through Enhanced Visibility – City of Portland, 1999 Evaluation of a Green Bike Lane Weaving Area in St. Petersburg, Florida – University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center, 2008

Colored bicycle lane at location with high potential for conflict with motor vehicles

Buffered bike lane - (Huntington Beach, CA)

APP-5

• Design Guidelines

Class 3 Bike Route Guidelines

Back-in/Head-out Diagonal Parking

Description Back-in/head-out parking is considered safer than conventional head-in/back-out parking due to better visibility when leaving. This is particularly important on busy streets or where drivers may find their views blocked by large vehicles or the tinted windows of adjacent vehicles when trying to perform head-in/back-out angled parking.

Design Guidelines Based on existing dimensions from test sites and permanent facilities: 16 feet from curb edge to inner bike lane stripe and a five foot bike lane.

Recommendations Test the facility on streets with existing head-in angled parking and moderate to high bicycle traffic. Additional signs to inform drivers how the back-in angled parking works are recommended. (Note: This design treatment is not currently present in any state or Federal design standard, but it is now a standard configuration in Seattle, WA.) References Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2005 City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan Update, City of Los Angeles

The following are typical guidelines for installing bike routes, including enhanced treatments. Other treatments not listed in these guidelines can be considered on a case-by-case basis when warranted.

Class 3 Bike Route

Signing When designating a bicycle route, the placement and spacing of signs should be based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities. For bike route signs to be functional, supplemental plaques can be placed beneath them when located along routes leading to high demand destinations (e.g. “To Downtown,” “To Transit Center”). Since bicycle route continuity is important, directional changes should be signed with appropriate arrow sub plaques. Signing should not end at a barrier. Instead, information directing the cyclist around the barrier should be provided. If used, route signs and directional signs should be used frequently because they promote reasonably safe and efficient operations by keeping facility users informed of their location.

“BIKE ROUTE” - This sign is intended for use where no unique designation of routes is desired. However, when used alone, this sign conveys very little information. It can be used in connection with supplemental plaques giving destinations and distances. (See Section 1003-3 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and Part 9B-20 of the MUTCD for specific information on sub-plaque options.)

Roadways not designated for bicycle use usually do not require regulatory, guide or informational signing in excess of what is normally required for drivers. However, in certain situations additional signing may be advisable to advise both drivers and cyclists of the roadway’s shared use status.

Back-in/head-out angled parking with bike lane

APP-6

“BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE” - California Vehicle Code Section 21202 allows cyclists to ride in the center of a travel lane when that lane is too narrow to safely share with passing motor vehicles. The sign (R4-11) is intended to alert road users to this law and encourage cyclists to take the lane on streets with narrow lanes. This sign can be used on bicycle routes lacking a wide shoulder in conjunction with the shared roadway bicycle marking (sharrow), to improve bicyclist safety. This sign is recommended where the following roadway conditions occur:

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Enhanced Class 3 Bike Route

Sign D11-1

Sign R4-11

Shared Lane Marking or “Sharrow” Design Criteria The shared lane marking is an additional component of Class 3 routes, but not required. When used, it shall be as shown on the following page and in the photo below. At locations where parking is allowed adjacent to the travel lane, the center of the marking should be located a minimum of 11 feet from the curb face or edge of the road.

Sign D1-1b (R)

Typical Class 3 Route signage (CAMUTCD)

• Shared lanes with relatively high posted travel speeds of 40 mph or greater

• Shared lanes in areas of limited sight distance • Situations where shared lanes or demarcated shoulders

or marked bike lanes end and bicycle and motor vehicle traffic must begin to share the travel lane

• Steep descending grades where bicycle traffic may

be operating at higher speeds and requires additional maneuvering room to shy away from pavement edge conditions

Shared lane marking

• Steep ascending grades, especially where there is no paved shoulder, or the shared lane is not adequately wide and bicycle traffic may require additional maneuvering room to maintain balance at slow operating speeds

• High volume urban conditions, especially those with travel lanes less than the recommended width for lane sharing

• Other situations where it is determined to be advisable

to alert drivers of the likely presence of bicycle traffic and to alert all traffic of the need to share available roadway space

Green stripe w/shared lane marking (Green stripe not in CAMUTCD)

APP-7

• Design Guidelines

Design Considerations Shared lane markings may be considered in the following situations: • On roadways with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less (CAMUTCD)

• On constrained roadways too narrow to stripe bicycle lanes • To delineate space within a wide outside lane where cyclists can be expected to ride

• On multi-lane roadways where cyclists can be expected

to travel within the outside lane and drivers should be prepared to change lanes to pass cyclists

• On roadways where it is important to increase driver awareness of cyclists

• On roadways where cyclists frequently ride the wrong way • On roadways where cyclists tend to ride too close to parked cars

A further Class 3 enhancement is a solid green lane used in conjunction with the shared lane marking. This enhancement is currently being used by the cities of Long Beach, Salt Lake City, New York City and Philadelphia. (Note: This design treatment is not currently present in any state or Federal design standard.)

Shared Lane Marking Guidelines The following is the suggested pavement marking configuration for Class 3 bike routes from the CAMUTCD.

Figure 9C-104(CA): Shared roadway bicycle marking (CAMUTCD) APP-8

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Final Design and Facility Selection

Class 2 facilities are usually more suitable in urban settings on roads with high traffic volumes and speeds. Class 3 facilities are often used in urban settings to guide cyclists along alternate or parallel routes that avoid major obstacles, or have more desirable traffic operational factors.

In rural settings, Class 2 facilities are not usually necessary to designate preferential use. On higher volume roadways, wide shoulders offer cyclists a safe and comfortable riding area. On low volume roadways, most cyclists prefer the appearance of a narrow, low speed country road.

The lane width table recommends the type of bikeway and pavement width for various traffic conditions. For locations where pavement widths do not meet the criteria listed in the table, the local municipal bicycle authority should be consulted to assist in the decision making process.

Where physical obstructions exist that can be removed in the future, the roadway facility should be designed to meet bikeway space allocation requirements and upgraded and designated when the physical constraint is remedied (e.g., bridge is replaced and improved to allow designated facility).

The final design should be coordinated with the bicycle coordinator for review and approval prior to construction. The following factors should be considered:

• Existing and projected traffic volumes and speeds • Existence of parking (Can parking be restricted or removed to allow better sight distances? Although parallel parking is considered acceptable along streets with bike routes or adjacent to bike lanes, back-out angled parking has been found to conflict with bicycle traffic and should be avoided when planning bike facilities on a roadway. Angled parking next to bike lanes should be coordinated and further studied. Angled back-out parking means that vehicles park with their rear ends into the roadway and is impossible to determine where the parking lane ends and the bike lane would begin. Additionally, back-out diagonal parking requires a person leaving a parking space to back out into traffic, often without a good view of oncoming cyclists and vehicles.

Back-in angled parking can be an option where vehicles back into the angled parking. Back-in angled parking provides better visibility when leaving and is particularly important on busy streets where drivers find their views block by large vehicles, or tinted windows on adjacent parked vehicle.

• Excessive intersection conflict points (Can intersection conflict points be reduced along roadways?)

• Turn lanes at intersections that can be designed to allow space for cyclists

• Sections with insufficient sight distance or roadway geometrics

• Traffic operations changed or “calmed” to allow space and increased safety for cyclists

APP-9

• Design Guidelines

Traffic Control Devices

As legitimate roadway users, cyclists are subject to essentially the same rights and responsibilities as drivers. For cyclists to properly obey traffic control devices, those devices must be selected and installed to take their needs into account.

All traffic control devices should be placed so cyclists properly positioned on the road can observe them. This includes programmed visibility signal heads.

Traffic Signals and Detectors

Traffic-actuated signals should accommodate bicycle traffic. Detectors for traffic-activated signals should be sensitive to bicycles, should be located in the cyclist’s expected path and stenciling should direct the cyclist to the point where they will be detected.

It is common for bicycles to be made of so little ferrous metals that they may not be easily detectable by some currently installed types of loop detectors. As a convenience for cyclists, the strongest loop detection point should be marked with a standard symbol. Since detectors can fail, added redundancy in the event of failure is recommended in the form of pedestrian push buttons at all signalized intersections. If possible, these buttons should be mounted in a location that permits their activation by a cyclist without having to dismount.

Figure 9C-7 (CAMUTCD) Bicycle Detector Symbol

Where left turn lanes are provided and only protected left turns are allowed, bicycle-sensitive loop detectors should be installed in the left turn lane. Where moderate or heavy volumes of bicycle traffic exist, or are anticipated, bicycles should be considered in the timing of the traffic signal cycle, as well as in the selection and placement of the traffic detector device. In such cases, short clearance intervals should not be used where cyclists must cross multi lane streets.

A speed of 10 mph and a perception/reaction time of 2.5 seconds can be used to check the clearance interval. Where necessary, such as for particularly wide roadways, an all red clearance interval can be used.

Quadrupole Loop

Protected left turns are preferred over unprotected left turns. In addition, traffic signal-controlled left turns are much safer for cyclists than left turns at which drivers and cyclists must simply yield. This is because motor vehicle drivers, when approaching an unprotected left turn situation or planning to turn left at a yield sign, tend to watch for other motor vehicles and may not see an approaching cyclist. More positive control of left turns gives cyclists an added margin of safety where they need it most.

• Used in shared lanes

APP-10

• Detects most strongly in center • Sharp cut-off of sensitivity • Used in bike lanes

Diagonal Quadrupole Loop • Sensitive over whole area • Sharp cut-off of sensitivity

Standard Loop • Detects strongest over wires • Gradual cut-off • Used in advanced detection

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Video Detection

Bicycle Signals Bicycle signals are typically used at intersections with heavy bicycle traffic in conjunction with high peak vehicle traffic volumes, high conflict intersections or at the connections of shared use bike lanes and busy roads. These signals separate conflicting movements between pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists. Bicycle signals also provide priority movement for cyclists at intersections and alternates rights of way between the different road users.

Some advantages to video detection include adjusting signal timing, once activated, to allow cyclists sufficient time to cross the intersection. This treatment enhances safety for this mode of transportation. Cameras can detect bicycles that do not contain iron, unlike some loop detectors, and in some cases can detect pedestrians fairly well. Video detection is also not affected by street repair work and can be used to help direct traffic during construction.

A bicycle signal is an electrically powered traffic control device that may only be used in combination with an existing traffic signal. Bicycle signals direct cyclists to take specific actions and may be used to improve an identified safety or operational problem involving bicycles.

Video detection can pick up a cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presence at an intersection over a larger area. A video detection setup consists of a video detector, usually mounted on a riser or mainline pole and a computer with video image processing capability. Existing video detectors have a flexible detector layout allowing for fairly easy reprogramming of detection zones.

Video detection technology has advanced to detect bikes with the same accuracy as loop detectors.

Only green, yellow and red lighted bicycle symbols are to be used to implement bicycle movement at a signalized intersection. The application of bicycle signals shall be implemented only at locations that meet Department of Transportation bicycle signal warrants. Bicycle movement has its own signal phase.

Bicycle signals (Tucson, AZ)

APP-11

• Design Guidelines

Design Considerations

Guidance Alternative means of handling conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles should be considered first.

Two alternatives to be considered are:

• Striping to direct cyclists to a lane adjacent to a traffic

lane, such as a bike lane to the left of a right-turn-only lane

• Redesigning the intersection to direct cyclists from an off-street path to a bicycle lane at a point removed from the signalized intersection

A bicycle signal must meet specified warrants before being considered for installation, according to the following formula or either of the other two criteria below: Volume: When W = B x V and W > 50,000 and B < 50.

Where: W is the volume warrant B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the intersection V is the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the intersection (B and V shall use the same peak hour.)

• Collision: When two or more bicycle/vehicle collisions

of types susceptible to correction by a bicycle signal have occurred over a 12 month period and the responsible public works official determines that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of collisions.

• Geometric: (a) Where a separate bicycle/multi-use path intersects a roadway. (b) At other locations to facilitate a bicycle movement not permitted for a motor vehicle.

APP-12

Locating Bicycle Facilities on Roadways

The appropriateness of a bicycle facility is influenced by a number of factors classified into the following categories:

Land Use and Location Factors

These factors represent the most significant category affecting compatibility. Since bicycle trips are generally shorter than motor vehicle or public transit trips, there must be a manageable distance between origins and destinations, such as between residential areas and places of employment. There are certain key land uses especially likely to generate bicycle traffic if good bicycle facilities are available. These consist of, but are not limited to, transit centers, schools, employment centers with nearby residential areas, recreation areas and mixed use areas.

Physical Constraint Factors

These consist of roadway geometric or physical obstacles to bicycling difficult or costly to remedy. For example, a roadway may be appropriate because of location factors, but not appropriate because of the existence of physical constraints to bicycling such as a narrow bridge, insufficient right-of-way or intersections with restricted lane widths resulting from lane channelization. The feasibility of correcting these physical constraints must be weighed in designating bikeways.

Traffic Operations Factors

These include traffic volume, speed, the number of curb cuts or conflict points along the roadway, sight distance and bicycle-sensitive traffic control devices. Experienced cyclists will use roadways even if they have limiting traffic operational factors, but less confident cyclists will perceive such roadways as unsafe and intimidating. These roadway facilities should be designed or improved to accommodate cyclists. However, they are likely to be inappropriate for full designation as bikeways.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Other Safety Issues

Other safety issues such as maintenance and pavement repair are also important considerations in the designation of bikeways, but do not directly affect the planning aspects of appropriate facilities.

Class 3 Pavement Width

At a minimum, all roadway projects shall provide sufficient width of smoothly paved surface to permit the shared use of the roadway by bicycles and motor vehicles.

Considerations in the selection of pavement width include traffic volume, speed, sight distance, number of large vehicles (such as trucks) and grade. The dimensions given in the table for shared lanes are exclusive of the added width for parking, which is assumed to be eight feet. On shared lanes with parking, the lane width can be reduced if parking occurs only intermittently. On travel lanes where curbs are present, an additional one foot is necessary.

On very low volume roadways with average daily trips (ADTs) of less than 1,200, even relatively high speed roads pose little risk for cyclists since there will be high probability that an overtaking motor vehicle will be able to widely pass a bicycle. When an overtaking car is unable to immediately pass a bicycle, only a small delay for the driver is likely. Both cyclists and drivers jointly use these types of roadways in a safe manner and widening of these roads is not usually recommended. Costs of providing widening of these roads can seldom be justified based on either capacity or safety.

Similarly, moderately low volume roadways with ADTs between 1,200 and 2,000 generally are compatible for bicycle use and will have little need for widening. However, since there is a greater chance of two opposing cars meeting at the same time as they must pass a cyclist, providing some room at the outside of the outer travel lane is desirable on higher speed roadways. On low speed roadways, drivers should be willing to accept some minimal delay.

With ADTs from 2,000 to 10,000, the probability becomes substantially greater that a vehicle overtaking a bicycle may also meet another oncoming vehicle. As a result, on these roads, some room at the edge of the roadway should be provided for cyclists. This additional width should be two to three feet added to a typical 10 foot outer travel lane. At low speeds, such as below 25 mph, little separation is needed for both a cyclist and a driver to feel comfortable during a passing maneuver. With higher speeds, more room is needed.

At volumes greater than 10,000 ADTs, vehicle traffic in the curb lane becomes almost continuous, especially during peak periods. As a result, cyclists on these roadways require separate space to safely ride, such as a Class 2 facility. In addition, improvements to the roadway edge and the shoulder area will be valuable for drivers as well.

Caltrans guidelines for highways recommend that a full eight foot paved shoulder be provided for state highways. On highways having ADTs greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, or on which more than five percent of the traffic volume consists of trucks, every effort should be made to provide such a shoulder for the benefit of cyclists, to enhance the safety of motor vehicle movements and to provide â&#x20AC;&#x153;break downâ&#x20AC;? space, as well as a Class 2 facility. Otherwise, the highway should probably not be designated as a bicycle facility.

APP-13

• Design Guidelines

Sight Distance

Roadways with adequate sight distance will allow a driver to see, recognize, decide on the proper maneuver and initiate actions to avoid a cyclist. Adequate decision sight distance is most important on high speed highways and narrow roadways where a driver would have to maneuver out of the travel lane to pass a cyclist.

The pavement widths given in the table are based on the assumption that adequate sight distance is available. In situations where there is not adequate sight distance, provision of additional width may be necessary.

Truck Traffic

Roadways with high volumes of trucks and large vehicles, such as recreational vehicles, need additional space to minimize cyclist/driver conflicts on roadways. Additional width allows trucks to overtake cyclists with less maneuvering and the cyclists will experience less lateral force from passing truck drafts. This additional width will also provide greater sight distance for following vehicles.

Although there is no established threshold, additional space should be considered when truck volumes exceed five percent of the traffic mix, or on roadways that serve campgrounds, or where a high level of tourist travel is expected using large recreational vehicles. Where truck volumes exceed 15 percent of the total traffic mix, widths shown on the table should be increased by one foot minimum.

Steep Grades

Steep grades influence overtaking of cyclists by drivers. Inexperienced cyclists climbing steep grades are often unsteady (wobbly) and may need additional width. Also, the difference in speed between a slow, climbing cyclist and a motor vehicle results in less time for the driver to react and maneuver around a cyclist. Motor vehicle slowing on a steep grade to pass a cyclist can result in a diminished level of service.

APP-14

Unavoidable Obstacles

Short segments of roadways with multiple unavoidable obstacles that result in inadequate roadway width are acceptable on bicycle compatible roadways if mitigated with signing or striping. Typical examples include bridges with narrow widths and sections of roadway that cannot be widened without removing significant street trees. These conditions preferably should not exist for more than a quarter of a mile, or on high speed highways. Warning striping should be installed to shift traffic away from the obstacle and allow for a protected buffer for bicycle travel.

In situations where a specific obstacle such as a bridge abutment cannot be avoided, a pavement marking consisting of a single six inch white line starting 20 feet before and offset from the obstacle can also be used to alert cyclists that the travel lane width will soon narrow ahead. (See Section 1003.6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual for specific instructions.)

In either situation, where bicycle traffic is anticipated, a “SHARE THE ROAD” sign should be used to supplement the warning striping. On longer irrevocably narrow sections of roadway, edge striping should be employed to narrow the travel lane and apportion pavement space for a partial shoulder. In situations where even these measures may not provide adequate roadway space for cyclists, it is recommended that an alternate route be designated.

Pavement Design

Though wider tires are now very common and bicycle suspension systems are becoming increasingly prevalent, bicycles still require a riding surface without significant obstacles or pavement defects because they are much more susceptible to surface irregularities than are motor vehicles.

Asphalt is preferred over concrete where shoulders are employed. The outside pavement area where bicycles normally operate should be free of longitudinal seams. Where transverse expansion joints are necessary on concrete, they should be saw cut to ensure a smooth transition. In areas where asphalt shoulders are added to existing pavement, or where pavement is widened, pavement should be saw cut to produce a tight longitudinal joint to minimize wear and expansion of the joint.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Raised Roadway Markers

Drainage Facilities

Pavement Painting and Striping

All drainage grate inlets pose some hazard to bicycle traffic. The greatest hazard comes from stream flow drainage grates that can trap the front wheel of a bicycle and cause the cyclist to lose steering control, or allow narrow bicycle wheels to drop into the grate. Another type of hazard may be caused by cyclists swerving into the lane of traffic to avoid a grate or cover. Riding across any wet metal surface increases the chances of a sudden slip and fall.

Raised roadway markers such as reflectors or rumble strips should not be used on roadway edges where bicycles are most likely to operate because they create a surface irregularity that can be hazardous to bicycle stability. Painted stripes or flexible reflective tabs are preferred. In no case should strips of raised reflectors intended to warn drivers to reduce vehicle speeds prior to intersections be allowed to cross through the bicycle travel lane.

Although adding pavement legends to indicate a bike lane or path is recommended, the colorization of the bike lane pavement with paint to indicate non vehicular use is recommended in certain situations to further delineate bicycle facilities from the vehicular lane. Certain paint materials have greater degrees of glossiness that can contribute to the slippery nature of their surface. As an alternative to painting, dye treated colored asphalt or stained concrete overlays have equivalent friction levels and can be used if the selected colors do not interfere with the pavement striping legibility or conflict with MUTCD intentions.

Utilities

Because bicycles are much more sensitive to pavement irregularities than motor vehicles, utility covers should be adjusted as a normal function of any pavement resurfacing or construction operations. Failure to do so can result in the utility cover being sunken below the paving surface level, which creates a hazard experienced cyclists refer to as “black holes.” Also, it is common practice to excavate trenches for new utilities at road edges, the same location as bicycle facilities. When such trenching is completed, care should be given to replacing the full surface of the bicycle lane from the road edge to the vehicle travel lane instead of narrow strips that tend to settle or bubble, causing longitudinal obstructions. Replacement of the bike lane striping should also be required.

Storm water drainage facilities and structures are usually located along the edge of roadways where they can create hazards for cyclists. Careful consideration should be given to the location and design of drainage facilities on roadways with bicycle facilities.

Only a “bicycle safe” drainage grate with acceptable hydraulic characteristics should be used. The inlet grate should be used in all normal applications and should be installed flush with the final pavement. Where additional drainage inlet capacity is required because of excessive gutter flow or grade (greater than two percent), double inlets should be considered. Depressed grates and stream flow grates should not be used except in unique or unusual situations that require their use and only outside the lane sharing area. Where necessary, depressed grates should only be installed on shoulders six feet wide or greater. Where projects offer the possibility for replacement of stream flow grates located in the lane sharing area, these grates should be replaced with the “bicycle safe” grate.

When roads or intersections are widened, new bicycle safe drainage grates should be installed at a proper location at the outside of the roadway. Existing grates and inlet boxes should be removed and the roadway reconstructed. Drainage grate extensions, the installation of steel or iron cover plates or other “quick fix” methods that allow for the retention of the subsurface drain inlet are unacceptable measures since they will create a safety hazard in the portion of the roadway where cyclists operate.

Manholes and covers should be located outside of the lane sharing area wherever possible. Utility fixtures located within the lane sharing area, or any travel lane used by bicycle traffic, should be eliminated or relocated. Where these fixtures cannot be avoided, the utility fixture cover should be made flush with the pavement surface.

APP-15

â&#x20AC;˘ Design Guidelines

Combination Curb and Gutter

These types of curbs reduce space available for cyclists. The width of the gutter pan should not be used when calculating the width of pavement necessary for shared use by cyclist. Caltrans includes the gutter as part of its calculations of bike lane widths and uses a larger minimum width when adjacent to vertical curbs and parking. See Figure 1003.2A of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000. Although acceptable, this is not ideal. On steep grades, the gutter should be set back an additional one foot to allow space to avoid crashes caused by the longitudinal joint between the gutter pan and pavement. Where the combination curb and gutter is used, pavement width should be calculated by adding one foot from the curbed gutter.

Bridges

Bridges provide essential crossings over obstacles such as rivers, rail lines and high speed roadways, but they have been almost universally constructed for the expedience of motor vehicle traffic and often have features not desirable for cycling. Among these features are widths narrower than the approach roadways (which are especially troublesome when combined with relatively steep approach grades), low railings or parapets, high curbs and expansion joints that can cause steering problems.

Though sidewalks are generally not recommended for cycling, there are limited situations such as on long or narrow bridges where designation of the sidewalk as an alternate bikeway facility can be beneficial to cycling, especially when compared to riding in the narrow bridge roadway. This is only recommended where the appropriate curb cuts, ramps and signage can also be included. Using the bridge sidewalk as a bikeway facility is especially useful where pedestrian use is expected to be minimal. Appropriate signage directed to all potential users should be installed so that they will be aware of the shared use situation. Bridge railings or barrier curb parapets where bicycle use is anticipated should be a minimum of 4.5 feet high.

Short of wholesale replacement of existing narrow bridges over rail lines and highways, there are a few measures to substantially improve safety for cyclists. Signage warning drivers of both the presence of cyclists and the minimal bridge width should be installed at the bridge approaches.

Warning stripe areas should be painted along high curbs to deter cyclists from riding too close to them, which can result in a pedal striking these high curbs, causing a crash. This situation is of particular concern since less experienced cyclists will probably want to stay as far to the right as possible to avoid passing motor vehicles traffic, even though riding far to the right increases the chances of hitting the high curb.

Though the first alternative mentioned above, bridge replacement, is the preferred alternative for bridges that are too narrow, it is the least likely to occur due to cost. A second alternative is to direct cyclists to alternate, safer routes, but this will not always be practical since highway and rail crossing points are usually limited in number and considerable distances apart. In any case, these other crossing points may well have similar width restrictions.

A third alternative is to build separate bridges for cyclist and pedestrian use. Where access warrants a workable solution, this could be a cost-effective long-term solution compared to rebuilding a motor vehicle bridge. This additional bridges could be built adjacent to the motor vehicle bridge, or be installed well away from it, depending upon where best to conveniently accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. An advantage to constructing the bridges away from motor vehicle bridges is that only one bridge would be needed since building bicycle/pedestrian bridges immediately adjacent to existing motor vehicle bridges would require constructing two spans, one on each side of the roadway, for optimum user safety.

If sidewalk widths are sufficient, directing cyclists to use the sidewalks and installing ramps at the bridge ends is a possible solution. In general, sidewalks are not recommended as a cycling venue, but in cases where narrow bridges are not expected to be rebuilt for an extended period of time, this may be a reasonable alternative. If possible, a railing should be installed between the roadway and the sidewalk.

Finally, it should be noted that all the other alternatives are inherently inferior to the first alternative of rebuilding narrow bridges in terms of safety and should only be considered where the first alternative cannot be implemented.

APP-16

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Intersections and Driveways

High speed, wide radius intersection designs with free rights turns, multiple right turn lanes and wide radius turns increase traffic throughput for motor vehicles by minimizing speed differentials between entering and exiting vehicles and through vehicles. However, these designs are dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians) by design since they exacerbate speed differential problems faced by cyclists traveling along the right side of a roadway and encourage drivers to fail to yield the right-of-way to cyclists. As a result, Caltrans District 11 (San Diego County area) no longer allows such wide radius free right turns at interchanges.

Where they already exist, specific measures should be employed to ensure that the movement of cyclists along the roadway will be visible to drivers and to provide cyclists with a safe area to operate to the left of these wide radius right turn lanes. One method to accomplish this is to stripe a bicycle lane through the intersection, or even to paint a solid bike lane. Also, “BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE” signs should be posted in advance of the intersection to alert existing traffic. In general, however, curb radii should be limited to short distances, which helps to communicate to the driver that he or she must yield the right-of-way to cyclists and to pedestrians walking along the sidewalk or roadway edge approaching the intersection. Even so, wherever possible, such intersection conditions should be eliminated. Reconstruction of intersections to accomplish this is a legitimate use of bicycle program funds.

Sand, gravel and other debris in the cyclist’s path present potential hazards. To minimize the possibility of debris from being drawn onto the pavement surface from unpaved intersecting streets and driveways, during new construction, reconstruction and resurfacing, all unimproved intersecting streets and driveways should be paved back to the rightof-way line or a distance of 10 feet. Where curb cuts permit access to roadways from abutting unpaved parking lots, a paved apron should be paved back to the right-of-way line, preferably 10 feet from the curb line. These practices will decrease the need for maintenance debris removal. The placement of the paved apron should be the responsibility of those requesting permits for access via curb cuts from driveways and parking lots onto the roadway system.

Access Control

Frequent access driveways, especially commercial access driveways, tend to convert the right lane of a roadway and its shoulder area into an extended auxiliary acceleration and deceleration lane. Frequent turning movements, merging movements and vehicle occupancy of the shoulder can severely limit the ability of cyclists to utilize the roadway and are the primary causes of motor vehicle-bicycle collisions.

As a result, access control measures should be employed to minimize the number of entrances and exits onto roadways. For driveways having a wide curb radius, consideration should be given to marking a bicycle lane through the driveway intersection areas. As with other types of street intersections, driveways should be designed with sufficiently tight curb radii to clearly communicate to drivers that they must fully stop and then yield the right-of-way to cyclists and pedestrians on the roadway.

Traffic Calming

There exist roadway conditions in practically all communities where controlling traffic movements and reducing motor vehicle speeds is a worthwhile way to create a safer and less stressful environment for the benefit of non-motorized users such as pedestrians and cyclists. These controlling measures are referred to as traffic calming. These measures are also intended to mitigate vehicular traffic impacts such as noise, crashes and air pollution, but the primary link between traffic calming and bicycle planning is the relationship between motor vehicle speed and the severity of crashes. Studies have shown that instituting traffic calming techniques significantly decreases the number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in crashes involving motor vehicles, as well as the level of injuries and air pollution, without decreasing traffic volume.

APP-17

• Design Guidelines

Stop Signs/Yield Signs

The installation of stop signs is a common traffic calming device intended to discourage vehicular through traffic by making the route slower for drivers. However, stop signs are not speed control devices, but rather right-of-way control devices. They do not slow the moving speed of motor vehicles and compliance by cyclists is very low. Requiring motor vehicles to stop excessively also contributes to air pollution. Cyclists are even more inconvenienced by stop signs than drivers because unnecessary stopping requires them to repeatedly re-establish forward momentum. The use of stop signs as a traffic management tool is not generally recommended unless a bicycle route must intersect streets with high motor vehicle traffic volumes. Controlled intersections generally facilitate bicycle use and improve safety while stop signs tend to facilitate bicycle movement across streets with heavy motor vehicular traffic. An alternative to stop signs may be to use yield signs or other traffic calming devices as methods to increase driver awareness of crossing cyclists.

Speed Humps

Bicycle-friendly speed humps (and speed lumps, the same as humps, but with cutouts for emergency vehicle access) address two design specifics:

• Sinusoidal profile – to eliminate pavement lip • Not extending the speed hump/lump into the bike lane

Recommended sinusoidal speed hump profile

Not recommended parabolic speed hump profile Speed humps on bikeways should be designed to slow motor vehicles while minimizing the disruption to cyclists. Cyclists feel the lip of the speed hump, the edge of the paving where the speed hump meets the street as an abrupt jolt.

While the overall height of the speed hump has comparatively little impact on cyclists, drivers are less impacted by an abrupt lip because of a vehicle’s greater shock absorbency.

APP-18

Bicycle-friendly speed humps eliminate this lip by providing a smooth transition from the street to the speed hump. Such speed humps still have the intended effect of slowing motor vehicles because the height of the speed hump remains the same. More specifically, bicycle-friendly speed humps have a sinusoidal profile to avoid the abrupt lip created by speed humps with parabolic profiles. The installation of speed humps on bikeways should seek to minimize this lip by providing a smooth pavement transition.

Typical speed humps extend to the edge of concrete gutter while bicycle-friendly speed humps extend only to the edge of the bike lane. However, more drivers can be expected to drive around speed humps when they extend only to the edge of the bike lane. The need to extend speed humps to the edge of the bike lane or the edge of the concrete gutter should consider the overall need for traffic calming and the associated impacts on cyclists.

Standard advance warning signs and markers must be installed as well.

Permeable Pavement

Traditional impervious surfaces such as asphalt and concrete can be damaging to the local environment. Stormwater runoff collects dirt and debris and even oil from the asphalt itself and washes them into the streams, lakes and oceans.

Stormwater runoff is the leading source of non point-source pollutants entering our waterways. This stormwater runoff does not get treated, but instead is directly transported into the local water system.

An alternative to an impervious surface for bike paths is a porous pavement such as pervious concrete or asphalt.

Pervious pavement assists water filtration into the soil by capturing rainwater in a network of voids and allowing it to percolate into the underlying soil. This material is a carefully controlled mix of water and cementing material used to create a paste that forms a thick coating around aggregate particles. A pervious pavement mixture contains little or no sand that would otherwise fill voids. Using this paste to coat and bind the aggregate particles together creates a system of highly permeable, interconnected voids that drains quickly by allowing rainwater to seep into the ground. Porous pavement is instrumental in recharging groundwater, reducing stormwater runoff and meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stormwater regulations.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

By capturing the first flow of rainfall and allowing it to percolate into the ground, soil chemistry and biology can then filter the polluted water naturally, allowing stormwater retention areas to be reduced or eliminated. In some cases, pervious pavements can double as water retention structures, reducing or eliminating the need for traditional stormwater management systems such as retention ponds and sewer tie-ins. Furthermore, by collecting rainfall and allowing it to infiltrate, groundwater and aquifer recharge is increased, peak water flow through drainage channels is reduced and flooding is minimized. In fact, EPA named pervious pavements as a best management practice (BMP) for stormwater pollution prevention because they allow surface runoff to percolate into the soil.

Maintenance Priorities

Bikeway maintenance is easily overlooked. The paving and surface maintenance schedule of bicycle facilities should be increased to the levels of arterial roads to ensure a safe, comfortable surface for bicycling.

The “sweeping” effect of passing motor vehicle traffic readily pushes debris such as litter and broken glass toward the roadway edges where it can accumulate within an adjoining bicycle facility. Since the potential for loss of control can exist due to a blowout caused by broken glass, or through swerving to avoid other debris, proper maintenance is directly related to safety. For this reason, street sweeping must be a priority on roadways with bike facilities, especially in the curb lanes and along the curbs themselves. The police department could assist by requiring towing companies to fully clean up crash scene debris, or face a fine. This would prevent glass and debris from being left in place after a motor vehicle crash, or simply swept to the curb or shoulder area.

A suggested minimum monthly sweeping schedule is recommended for heavily used Class 1 and 2 facilities and twice a year where use is light. Class 3 facilities should be swept at least twice a year.

Bikeway Reconstruction

Since roadways with designated bicycle facilities carry the largest volumes of users, their reconstruction should be of particular concern. Unfortunately, bicycle facilities are often installed piecemeal and users can find themselves facing construction detours and poor integration of facilities where facilities begin and end.

Bicycles facilities also sometimes seem to “disappear” after roadway construction occurs. This can happen incrementally as paving repairs are made over time and are not followed by proper bikeway re-striping. When combined with poor surface reconstruction following long periods out of service due to road work, this can result in the eventual loss of affected bikeway facilities and decrease the number of cyclists regularly using the facilities.

Adjacent construction projects that require the demolition and rebuilding of roadway surfaces can cause problems in maintaining and restoring bikeway function. Construction activities controlled through the issuance of permits, especially driveway, drainage, utility, or street opening permits, can have an important effect on the quality of a roadway surface where cyclists operate. Such construction can create hazards such as mismatched pavement heights, rough surfaces or longitudinal gaps in adjoining pavements.

Permit conditions should ensure that pavement foundation and surface treatments are restored to their pre-construction conditions, that no vertical irregularities will result and that no longitudinal cracks will develop. Stricter specifications, standards and inspections designed to prevent these problems should be developed, as well as more effective control of construction activities wherever bikeways must be temporarily demolished. A five year bond should be held to assure correction of any deterioration that may occur as a result of faulty roadway surface reconstruction.

Spot widening associated with new access driveways frequently results in the relocation of drainage grates. Any such relocation should be designed to permanently close the old drainage structure and restore the roadway surface. New drainage structures should be selected and located to comply with drainage provisions established in these guidelines.

APP-19

• Design Guidelines

Bicycle Parking Facilities

Marginal Improvements and Retrofitting Existing Roadways

There may be instances or locations where it is not feasible to fully implement guidelines pertaining to the provision of adequate pavement space for shared use due to environmental constraints or unavoidable obstacles. In such cases, warning signs and/or pavement striping must be employed to alert cyclists and drivers of the obstruction, alert drivers and cyclist of the need to share available pavement space, identify alternate routes (if they exist), or otherwise mitigate the obstruction.

On stretches of roadway where it is not possible to provide recommended shoulder or lane widths to accommodate shared use, bicycle traffic conditions can be improved by:

• Striping wider outside lanes and narrower interior lanes • Providing a limited paved shoulder area by striping

a narrow travel lane. This tends to slow motor vehicle operating speeds and establish a space (with attendant psychological benefits) for cyclists.

Where narrow bridges create a constriction, striping should be used to shift traffic away from the parapet and provide space for bicycle traffic.

Other possible strategies include:

• Elimination of parking or restricting it to one side of the roadway

• Reduction of travel lanes from two in each direction to one in each direction, plus a center turn lane and shoulders

• Reduction of number of travel lanes in each direction and inclusion or establishment of paved shoulders

APP-20

Whenever possible, the racks should be placed within 50 feet of building entrances where cyclists would naturally transition to pedestrian mode. The rack placement would ideally allow for visual monitoring by people within the building and/or people entering the building. The placement of the racks should minimize conflicts with both pedestrians and motorized traffic. All bicycle parking should be on paving and located a minimum of two feet from a parallel wall, and four feet from a perpendicular wall (as measured to the closest center of the rack).

The following paragraphs and graphics focus on outdoor installations using racks intended to accommodate conventional, upright, single-rider bicycles and a solid, U-shaped lock, or a cable lock, or both.

Rack Element

The rack element is the part of the bike rack that supports one bicycle. It should support the bicycle by its frame in two places, prevent the front wheel from tipping over, allow the frame and one or both wheels to be secured and support bicycles with unconventional frames.

“Inverted-U” and similar type racks are most recommended because each element can support two bicycles. Commonly used “wave” type racks are not recommended because they support the bicycle at only one point. Also, cyclists often park their bikes parallel with such racks, instead of perpendicular as intended, which reduces the rack capacity by half.

The rack element must resist being cut or detached using common hand tools, especially those that can be concealed in a backpack. Such tools include bolt cutters, pipe cutters, wrenches and pry bars. Square tubing is highly recommended.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Rack

The 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.

The rack elements may be attached to a single framework or remain single elements mounted in close proximity. They should not be easily detachable from the rack framework or easily removed from the mounting surface. The rack should be anchored so that it cannot be stolen with the bikes attached, such as with vandal-resistant fasteners.

The rack should provide easy, independent bike access.

Typical inverted-U rack elements mounted in a row should be placed on 30â&#x20AC;? centers. Normally, the handlebar and seat heights will allow two bicycles to line up side by side in opposite directions. If it is too inconvenient and time-consuming to squeeze the bicycles into the space and attach a lock, cyclists will look for alternative places to park or use one rack element per bicycle and reduce the projected parking capacity by half.

Custom bicycle rack (Oceanside, CA)

See Page 44 for specific bicycle rack type recommendations.

Custom bicycle rack (San Diego, CA)

Bike corral (Fort Collins, CO) APP-21

â&#x20AC;˘ Design Guidelines

Rack Area

The rack area is a bicycle parking lot where multiple racks are separated by aisles. The distance between aisles is 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 college campuses, the recommended aisle width is 72 inches. The depth of each row of parked bicycles should also be 72 inches.

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations adjacent to walls

APP-22

Large rack areas in high turnover areas should have more than one entrance. If possible, the rack area should be protected from the elements. Even though cyclists are exposed to sun, rain and snow while en route, covering the rack area keeps cyclists more comfortable while parking, locking their bicycles and loading or unloading cargo. A covering will also help keep bicycles dry, especially the saddles.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations parallel to curb

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations perpendicular to curb APP-23

â&#x20AC;˘ Design Guidelines

Rack Area Site

The rack area site is the relationship of a rack area to the building entrance or approach. In general, smaller, conveniently located rack areas should serve multiple buildings, rather than a larger combined, distant one. Racks far from the entrance or perceived to be where bicycles will be vulnerable to vandalism will not receive much use.

Rack area location in relationship to the building it serves is very important. The best location is immediately adjacent to the entrance it serves, but racks should not be placed where they can block the entrance or inhibit pedestrian flow. The rack area should be located along a major building approach line and clearly visible from the approach.

Bicycle rack dimensions for installations to serve large areas

APP-24

The rack area should be no more than a 30 second walk (120 feet) from the entrance it serves and should preferably be within 50 feet. A rack area should be as close or closer than the nearest car parking space, be clearly visible from the entrance it serves and be near each actively used entrance. In some cases, an appropriate location may be within the adjacent right-of-way as a bike corral, as shown in the graphic on the facing page.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Bike corral dimensions - Converts one car parking space into 8-10 bike spaces

APP-25

• Design Guidelines

Typical bicycle locker dimensions

Long-term Parking

Bicycle parking facilities intended for long-term parking must protect against theft of the entire bicycle and its components and accessories. Three common ways of providing secure long-term bicycle parking are:

• Fully enclosed lockers accessible only by the user, either

coin-operated, or by electronic, on-demand locks operated by “smartcards” equipped with touch-sensitive imbedded RFID chips.

• A continuously monitored facility that provides at least

medium-term type bicycle parking facilities generally available at no charge.

• Restricted access facilities in which short-term type bicycle racks are provided and access is restricted only to the owners of the bicycles stored there.

APP-26

Perhaps the easiest retrofit is the bicycle locker. Generally, they are as strong as the locks on their doors and can secure individual bikes with their panniers, computers, lights, etc., left in place. Some bike locker designs can be stacked to double the parking density. Weather protection is another benefit. Bike lockers tend to be used most for long-term bicycle commuter parking in areas without continuous oversight. On the downside, if lockers have coin-operated locks, they can be a target of theft and may attract various unintended uses. This can be mitigated by installing lockers with mesh sides to allow periodic inspection.

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

Priority Project Costs

The following are detailed cost estimates for the five selected priority projectrs described in Chapter 5.

Note that Project #1, which combines facilities along Hopkins Lane with a connection north of the Geisel Library has been sub-divided into two separate estimates.

This is also the case with Project #3, which combines the Library Walk bicycle bypass (Grove Path) and facilities on Peterson Hill.

Also, Project #2 (Voigt Crosswalk at Warren College) contains two options, one with a pedestrian crossing and speed humps, (Option A) and one with a traffic signal (Option B).

APP-27

â&#x20AC;˘ Top 5 Priority Projects Costs UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study Cost Estimate - For Planning Purposes Only

Hopkins Lane Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Description Remove asphalt Remove concrete curb and gutter Excavation Remove existing light fixtures Retaining wall Curb and gutter Concrete sidewalk Accessible ramp Striping Stencils Light fixtures Traffic control and mobilization (10%) Design of improvements (10%)

Qty. 2,400 650 90 3 200 650 7,200 5 1,000 7 12 1 1

Unit SF LF CY EA LF LF SF EA LF EA EA LS LS

Unit Cost $ 3.0 $ 5.0 $ 60.0 $ 500.0 $ 80.0 $ 21.0 $ 5.0 $ 1,500.0 $ 0.5 $ 200.0 $ 2,000.0 $ 12,000 $ 12,000

Total Cost $ 7,200 $ 3,250 $ 5,400 $ 1,500 $ 16,000 $ 13,650 $ 36,000 $ 7,500 $ 500 $ 1,400 $ 24,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000

Subtotal

$ 140,400

Contingency (20%)

$

TOTAL

28,080

$ 168,480

UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study Cost Estimate - For Planning Purposes Only

Notes and assumptions: 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based on aerial graphics and is for planning purposes only.

Connection North of Library 2. Costs do not include drainage improvements or utility relocation.

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Description Remove asphalt Clearing and grubbing Excavation Hot mix asphalt Aggregate base Decomposed granite Light fixtures Mobilization (10%) Design of improvements (10%)

Qty. 4,530 1 60 170 180 400 8 1 1

Unit SF LS CY TON CY SF EA LS LS

Unit Cost $ 3.0 $ 5,000.0 $ 60.0 $ 110.0 $ 120.0 $ 2.5 $ 2,000.0 $ 8,000 $ 8,000

Subtotal

$

95,490

Contingency (20%)

$

19,100

TOTAL

$ 114,590

Notes and assumptions: 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based on aerial graphics and is for planning purposes only.

2. Costs do not include drainage improvements or utility relocation.

APP-28

Total Cost $ 13,590 $ 5,000 $ 3,600 $ 18,700 $ 21,600 $ 1,000 $ 16,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study Cost Estimate - For Planning Purposes Only

Voigt Crosswalk at Warren College - Option A Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Description Remove asphalt Remove existing signage and flashing beacon Remove sidewalk Remove pavement marking Hot mix asphalt (pavement underneath existing speed table) Hot mix asphalt (speed humps) Accessible ramp Cobblestone/landscaping Striping (4" painted) Striping (12" painted) Signage Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon w/Remote Detection (optional) Traffic control and mobilization - without optional RRFB (10%) Design of Improvements - without optional RRFB (10%) Traffic control and mobilization - with optional RRFB (10%) Design of improvements - with optional RRFB (10%)

Qty. Unit 1,440 SF 4 EA 350 SF 400 SF 35 TON 16 TON 2 EA 1 LS 200 LF 240 LF 6 EA 2 EA 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS

Unit Cost $ 3.0 $ 150.0 $ 2.0 $ 1.5 $ 110.0 $ 110.0 $ 1,500.0 $ 2,000.0 $ 0.5 $ 2.0 $ 150.0 $ 15,000.0 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Total Cost $ 4,320 $ 600 $ 700 $ 600 $ 3,850 $ 1,760 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 100 $ 480 $ 900 $ 30,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Subtotal - without optional RRFB Subtotal - with optional RRFB

$ $

22,310 62,310

Contingency - without optional RRFB (20%) Contingency - with optional RRFB (20%)

$ $

4,460 12,460

TOTAL - without optional RRFB TOTAL - with optional RRFB

$ 26,770 $ 74,770

Notes and assumptions: 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based on aerial graphics and is for planning purposes only.

2. Costs do not include drainage improvements or utility relocation.

APP-29

â&#x20AC;˘ Top 5 Priority Projects Costs UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study Cost Estimate - For Planning Purposes Only

Voigt Crosswalk at Warren College - Option B Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Description Remove asphalt Remove existing signage and flashing beacon Remove sidewalk Remove pavement marking Hot mix asphalt (pavement underneath existing speed table) Accessible ramp Cobblestone/landscaping Striping (4" painted) Striping (12" painted) Signage Traffic signal Traffic control and mobilization (10%) Design of improvements (10%)

Qty. Unit 1,440 SF 4 EA 350 SF 400 SF 35 TON 2 EA 1 LS 200 LF 130 LF 2 EA 1 EA 1 LS 1 LS

Unit Cost $ 3.0 $ 150.0 $ 2.0 $ 1.5 $ 110.0 $ 1,500.0 $ 2,000.0 $ 0.5 $ 2.0 $ 150.0 $ 120,000.0 $ 14,000 $ 14,000

Subtotal

$ 163,730

Contingency (20%)

$

TOTAL - with optional RRFB

$ 196,480

Notes and assumptions: 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based on aerial graphics and is for planning purposes only.

2. Costs do not include drainage improvements or utility relocation.

APP-30

Total Cost $ 4,320 $ 600 $ 700 $ 600 $ 3,850 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 100 $ 260 $ 300 $ 120,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000

32,750

University of California San Diego Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study

UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study Cost Estimate - For Planning Purposes Only

Grove Path Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Description Remove asphalt Remove concrete curb and gutter (existing median) Excavation Curb and gutter (new median) Hot mix asphalt Aggregate base Landscaping Accessible ramp Stencils Signage Traffic control and mobilization (10%) Design of improvements (10%)

Qty. 1,200 130 10 500 38 40 1 1 12 10 1 1

Unit SF LF CY LF TON CY LS EA EA EA LS LS

Unit Cost $ 3.0 $ 5.0 $ 60.0 $ 21.0 $ 110.0 $ 120.0 $ 10,000.0 $ 1,500.0 $ 200.0 $ 150.0 $ 4,000 $ 4,000

Total Cost $ 3,600 $ 650 $ 600 $ 10,500 $ 4,180 $ 4,800 $ 10,000 $ 1,500 $ 2,400 $ 1,500 $ 4,000 $ 4,000

Subtotal

$

47,730

Contingency (20%)

$

9,550

TOTAL

$ 57,280

Notes and assumptions: UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based onPlanning aerial graphics andOnly is for planning purposes only.

Cost Estimate - For Purposes 2. Costs do not include drainage improvements or utility relocation.

Peterson Hill Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Description Remove concrete path Excavation Concrete stairs (includes AB and formwork) Tubular handrailing Landscaping Stencils Mobilization (10%) Design of improvements (10%)

Qty. 900 50 65 90 1 3 1 1

Unit SF CY CY LF LS EA LS LS

Unit Cost $ 2.0 $ 60.0 $ 160.0 $ 50.0 $ 5,000.0 $ 200.0 $ 2,000 $ 2,000

Total Cost $ 1,800 $ 3,000 $ 10,400 $ 4,500 $ 5,000 $ 600 $ 2,000 $ 2,000

Subtotal

$

29,300

Contingency (20%)

$

5,860

TOTAL

$ 35,160

Notes and assumptions: 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based on aerial graphics and is for planning purposes only.

2. Costs do not include drainage improvements or utility relocation.

APP-31

â&#x20AC;˘ Top 5 Priority Projects Costs UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study Cost Estimate - For Planning Purposes Only

I-5 Bike Path Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Description Clearing and grubbing Excavation (import borrow) Retaining wall Hot mix asphalt Aggregate base Accessible ramp Concrete stairs (includes AB and formwork) Striping (12" painted) Mobilization (10%) Design of improvements (10%)

Qty. 1 1,100 1,150 640 660 2 35 750 1 1

Unit LS CY LF TON CY EA CY LF LS LS

Unit Cost $ 20,000.0 $ 60.0 $ 80.0 $ 110.0 $ 120.0 $ 1,500.0 $ 160.0 $ 2.0 $ 34,000 $ 34,000

Total Cost $ 20,000 $ 66,000 $ 92,000 $ 70,400 $ 79,200 $ 3,000 $ 5,600 $ 1,500 $ 34,000 $ 34,000

Subtotal

$ 405,700

Contingency (20%) TOTAL

$ 81,140 $ 486,840

Notes and assumptions: 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based on aerial graphics and is for planning purposes only.

2. Costs do not include drainage improvements or utility relocation.

3. Costs assume Voigt Drive bridge replacement (with bike path underneath and Gilman Drive realignment) 4. Costs assume Gilman Drive bridge construction and Gilman Drive underpass construction UCSD Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Planning Study Cost Estimate - For Planning Purposes Only

Gilman Drive Bike Lanes Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Description Remove concrete curb and gutter Excavation Remove pavement marking Curb and gutter Hot mix asphalt (for bike lane) Aggregate base (for bike lane) Slurry seal Roadway restripe (4" painted stipes, crosswalks, legends) Signage Traffic control and mobilization (10%) Design of improvements (10%)

Qty. 4,720 870 8,100 4,720 630 760 160 2,700 18 1 1

Unit LF CY SF LF TON CY TON LF EA LS LS

Unit Cost $ 5.0 $ 60.0 $ 1.5 $ 21.0 $ 110.0 $ 120.0 $ 500.0 $ 40.0 $ 150.0 $ 54,000 $ 54,000

Total Cost $ 23,600 $ 52,200 $ 12,150 $ 99,120 $ 69,300 $ 91,200 $ 80,000 $ 108,000 $ 2,700 $ 54,000 $ 54,000

Subtotal

$

646,270

Contingency (20%) TOTAL

$ $

129,250 775,520

Notes and assumptions: 1. This construction cost estimate is preliminary based on aerial graphics and is for planning purposes only.

2. Costs do not include drainage improvements, utility relocation, new traffic signals or traffic signal modifications.

APP-32