Kings County Association of Governments CROSS COUNTY PATH … · CROSS COUNTY PATH PLAN Final Report January 2006 Prepared for the Kings County Association of Governments 1400 W

FIN

AL

R

EP

OR

T0

4-8

47

JANUARY 2006

Kings County Association of Governments

CROSS COUNTY PATH PLAN

VISALIA

FRESNO

SAN LUIS OBISPO

TEXAS

222 N. Garden Street, Suite 100 Visalia, California 93291 T 559.739.8072 F 559.739.8377

770 E. Shaw, Suite 120 Fresno, California 93710 T 559.439.4881 F 559.439.1142

560 Higuera Street, Suite E San Luis Obispo, California 93401 T 805.547.9498 F 805.547.9596

6807 Leameadow Dallas, Texas 75248 T 903.566.3150 F 903.566.3510

[email protected] www.tpgconsulting.net

ConsultingIncorporated

TPG

S:\Projects\04-847\Report\Revisions to Final Report 12-05\Final Report (Revised 12-05).doc

Kings County Association of Governments CROSS COUNTY PATH

PLAN

Final Report January 2006

Prepared for theKings County Association of Governments

1400 W. Lacey Boulevard Hanford, CA 93230

Telephone: (559) 582-3211, Ext. 2670 Fax: (559) 584-8989

Prepared by:

Lead ConsultantTPG Consulting, Inc.

222 North Garden Street, Suite 100 Visalia, CA 93291

Telephone: (559) 739-8072 Fax: (559) 739-8377

www.tpgconsulting.net

Sub ConsultantAlta Planning + Design, Inc.

707 C Street San Rafael, CA 94901

Telephone: (415) 482-8660 Fax: (415) 482-8603

www.altaplanning.com

This report and the data contained herein has been prepared expressly for the purposes of this project. The use of this data, the conclusions contained in the report or the information provided herein by individuals or agencies is done so at their sole discretion and at their own responsibility. Publication of this document does not warrant the use of the data, the conclusions or the information for any purpose other than that described within the report.

TPG Consulting, Inc. Page i

Kings County Association of Governments CROSS COUNTY PATH PLAN

Table of Contents

Page

I - INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1

PROJECT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................1PLANNING, ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ..............................................................................................1

FIGURE 1 – CONCEPTUAL PLAN..............................................................................................................................2PATHWAY CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS................................................................................................................6CONCEPTUAL PLAN....................................................................................................................................................7

FIGURE 2 – GENERAL BIKEWAY CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................................................................8

II – BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................9

EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................................................9LOCAL/REGIONAL BIKEWAYS ..................................................................................................................................10

III – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................11

ROUTE OPTIONS ELIMINATED ..................................................................................................................................11PREFERRED ROUTE ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................................................12

FIGURE 3 – SEGMENT 1 (WEST HILLS COLLEGE TO LEMOORE AVE.) ...................................................................15FIGURE 4 – SEGMENT 2 (LEMOORE AVE. TO HANFORD-ARMONA RD.) ................................................................16FIGURE 5 – SEGMENT 3 (FRONT ST. TO 13TH AVE.) ...............................................................................................17FIGURE 6 – SEGMENT 4 (13TH AVE. TO 11TH AVE.) ................................................................................................18FIGURE 7 – SEGMENT 5 (11TH AVE. TO 10TH AVE.) ................................................................................................19FIGURE 8 – SEGMENT 6 (10TH AVE. TO HWY 43)..................................................................................................20

RIGHT-OF-WAY........................................................................................................................................................21

IV – DESIGN STANDARDS............................................................................................................................................23

REGULATORY CONTEXT...........................................................................................................................................23DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS & TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS ............................................................................................26

TABLE 1: CLASS I BICYCLE PATH SPECIFICATIONS ..............................................................................................27FIGURE 9 – TYPICAL CLASS I BICYCLE PATH CROSS SECTION .............................................................................29FIGURE 10 – CLASS I BIKE PATH CROSS SECTION (FRONT STREET – ARMONA)...................................................30FIGURE 11 – CLASS II BIKE LANE CROSS SECTION (D & E STREETS – LEMOORE) ...............................................31FIGURE 12 – CLASS III BIKE ROUTE CROSS SECTION (6TH STREET – HANFORD)...................................................32FIGURE 13 – MINIMUM RAIL WITH TRAIL DIMENSIONS........................................................................................34

CROSSING & SUPPORT FEATURES ............................................................................................................................35TABLE 2: BASIC CROSSING PROTOTYPES APPROPRIATE FOR THE CROSS COUNTY PATH .....................................36FIGURE 14 – RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSING (TYPE I – UNPROTECTED) ...................................................................37FIGURE 15 – RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSING (TYPE I – UNPROTECTED/ANGLE).......................................................38FIGURE 16 – RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSING (TYPE II – RE-ROUTE) ........................................................................40FIGURE 17 – RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSING (TYPE III – NEW SIGNAL) ...................................................................41FIGURE 18 – CROSSING PROTOTYPE .....................................................................................................................42FIGURE 19 – CROSSING PAVEMENT MARKINGS....................................................................................................43TABLE 3: UNPROTECTED CROSSINGS ...................................................................................................................44

ADDITIONAL AMENITIES ..........................................................................................................................................45

TPG Consulting, Inc. Page ii


TABLE 4: REGULATORY SIGNAGE ........................................................................................................................48FIGURE 20 – FENCING TYPES................................................................................................................................49FIGURE 21 – FENCING TYPES (6 OPTIONS) ............................................................................................................50FIGURE 22 – UNCONSTRAINED RAIL WITH TRAIL SECTION ON LEVEL GROUND...................................................51FIGURE 23 – INFORMATION KIOSK .......................................................................................................................52FIGURE 24 – REGULATORY SIGN ..........................................................................................................................53

PATH ACCESS POINTS...............................................................................................................................................54FIGURE 25 – REGIONAL INFORMATION MAP ........................................................................................................56FIGURE 26 – INTERPRETIVE SIGN .........................................................................................................................57FIGURE 27 – PATH ENTRY STAGING AREA ...........................................................................................................58FIGURE 28 – TRAILHEAD WITH SMALL PARKING AREA........................................................................................59FIGURE 29 – MAJOR TRAILHEAD..........................................................................................................................60

V – IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................................................................61

RIGHT-OF-WAY & ESTIMATED COSTS......................................................................................................................61TABLE 5: ORDER OF MAGNITUDE RAILROAD ROW ACQUISITION COST BY LAND USE .......................................61TABLE 6: ORDER OF MAGNITUDE RAILROAD ROW ACQUISITION COST BY SEGMENT ........................................62

CONSTRUCTION & ESTIMATED COSTS......................................................................................................................62TABLE 7: ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CONSTRUCTION COSTS....................................................................................64

VI – FUNDING OPTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................66

TABLE 8: RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES .....................................................................................................66FEDERAL ...............................................................................................................................................................66STATE.......................................................................................................................................................................67REGIONAL ................................................................................................................................................................69LOCAL FUNDING.......................................................................................................................................................69

TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAMS.......................71

VII – MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT APPORTIONMENTS .....................................................................................76

MAINTENANCE STANDARDS.....................................................................................................................................76TABLE 10: BIKEWAY MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST.................................................................................................76

MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................................................................................77

APPENDIX A – Sample Joint Powers Authority AgreementAPPENDIX B - Sample Easement Agreement APPENDIX C - Kings County 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan: Section II (Design Standards) APPENDIX D – City of Lemoore Bikeway Plan: Chapter IV (Bikeway System Standards)APPENDIX E – City of Hanford StandardsAPPENDIX F – A Guide to Bridge System Types

TPG Consulting, Inc. Page iii


Plan Definitions

Following is a list of terms and their meanings as used throughout this document:

Segment: This term refers to discreet sections of the Cross County Path that were designated for planning purposes and graphic display purposes. For instance, the text and accompanying maps refer to “Segments” 1-6. The segments are somewhat homogenous by nature of their design or Caltrans classification (i.e. Class I, II or III).

Phase: This term refers to discreet sections of the Cross County Path that would logically be built or implemented at a given time. The plan recommends an ordering to these identified “Phases”; however, depending on source and availability of funding, the phases are not bound to be built in the order recommended. The order only reflects the relative ease (in terms of financial and construction control) with which each Phase might be implemented.

TPG Consulting, Inc. Page 1


I - INTRODUCTION

PROJECT SUMMARY This plan identifies the primary route alignments, design components, funding options and implementation strategies for a multi-use (pedestrian/bicycle) pathway traversing a major portion of Kings County. The Kings County Cross County Path would run between West Hills Community College on the westerly edge of Lemoore and State Highway 43, east of Hanford, for a total distance of approximately 13 miles. The path would pass through the cities of Lemoore and Hanford, and the community of Armona. The alignments would generally follow surface streets inside the urbanized portion of Lemoore, Armona and Hanford and railroad right-of-way within the more rural areas of the County territories. The conceptual path alignment is shown in Figure 1.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of this plan are to set forth an understanding of the various planning, engineering, and environmental constraints and issues of the general cross-county alignment. Further, with this understanding, this document presents a plan to establish a preferred on-the-ground route that logically and feasibly avoids or resolves these constraints and issues.

This plan is intended to be used for planning purposes only, and is not intended to be used as a project document. While this plan sets forth a proposed route and intended crossings, the actual design and all associated costs (including costs for desired amenities) will come at the project stage. An engineering design plan will be the next logical phase in the development of the Path.

PLANNING, ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section provides a discussion of the various planning, engineering, and environmental constraints/issues associated with this project.

Planning Issues & Constraints

Railroad ProximityRailroad proximity along the pathway created both impediments and opportunities for the preferred alignment. In the urbanized areas of Lemoore, Armona and Hanford, where industrial/business enterprises adjacent to the railroad rely on that adjacency and specifically negotiated lease arrangements for their business activities and operations, the integration of a pathway was not feasible or practical for a number of reasons:

Lease prohibitions or restrictions within the railroad right-of-way The property has already been sold, or is under contract to be sold Safety of pathway users Unacceptable interference with business activities Lack of usable area or area to provide acceptable separation from tracks

Similarly, the railroad operations within urbanized areas provide certain impediments of their own, including a denser concentration of railroad facilities, such as additional sidings, spurs, turnouts, crossovers, loading docks, etc.



Consequently, in the urbanized areas, safer locations along surface streets with adequate right-of-way were sought where shared use along the railroad right-of-way was not desirable or feasible, due to conflicts with railroad or business activities. In addition, utilization of surface streets for the Cross County Path allowed use of and integration with, Class II bike lane facilities already existing or planned within the cities.

Conversely, the railroad right-of-way in the more rural areas (largely the areas of County jurisdiction with the exception of the urbanized area within the Community of Armona) do not currently contain leases accommodating a shared use, and thus do not contain land use conflicts or restrictions for a potential pathway alignment within the railroad right-of-way; according to a UPRR representative all of the railroad right-of-way between Lemoore and Armona is Act of Congress right-of-way which can be long-term leased. Also, because the railroad right-of-way width is generally straight, level and a consistent width, it often provides a superior location for a Class I path. Furthermore, many of the rural roadways within the County were found to contain impediments to safety and feasibility, such as irrigation ditches and the State Highway 41 overhead.

Neighborhood Privacy A community’s sensitivity to neighborhood privacy issues must always be considered when planning a public-use pathway, particularly in residential neighborhoods. When properties and homes abut a railroad right-of-way or public street, attention must be given to how that property may be impacted by the proximate location of a bike lane or pathway. The design standards contained herein contain provisions for walls, landscaping or other barriers where appropriate or necessary to incorporate an additional element of separation to preserve the privacy of the property owner.

Aesthetics (for path users) For the recreational bicyclist or walker, the overall quality of the aesthetic experience is an element that can determine the level of repeat usage. Consequently, the pathway location and improvements should compliment and integrate with surrounding land uses, landscapes, design and architectural features and themes in order that the pathway not be an aesthetic detraction in the community. The alignment location and design features were developed to compliment both the user and community aesthetic experience.

Functional Use The ultimate functionality of the path relates to a variety of factors, including path surfacing, path design speed, lighting, markings and striping, drainage, signage, trailhead improvements, comfort stations, rail and street crossings, gradients and land or path width. The design standards contained herein have been developed with all of these factors, and others, in mind. To enhance the pathway as a community asset, features including directional signage, interpretive signage, erosion control measures, “comfort stations”, benches, crossing improvements at roadways and rail tracks, sidewalks and other features will be utilized.

Liability for Public Agencies The establishment of a “shared use” corridor, whether utilizing an existing County (Kings) or City (Lemoore and Hanford) roadway right-of-way, or utilizing the railroad (Union Pacific) right-of-way, entails the assumption of certain liabilities by these public agencies. As such, it is important that design of the path comply with any previously adopted design standards that may be applicable. Such design standards, whether adopted by the City, County, California Public Utilities Commission,



Caltrans, Federal Rail Authority, etc., have been developed, in part, with express attention given to reducing liability to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, it is logical to employ those already adopted standards where applicable rather than create new standards. Where an already-adopted standard does not address or resolve a site specific circumstance, a design standard that has been employed with success by another jurisdiction will be offered, or a new design standard will be proposed.

Need for Property Acquisition In localized instances additional right-of-way to accommodate the preferred alignment may need to be acquired. While the alignment location has been identified, in part, to reduce the potential for property acquisition, it still may not be totally avoidable. Potential examples of this would be where additional property would help to achieve necessary setbacks around railroad infrastructure at intersections, or where limited property acquisition would allow for the continuation of the Class I pathway within the city’s built environment. In instances where a lease agreement or easement would accomplish a need and be mutually agreeable to the parties involved, a purchase in fee title may be avoided.

Crossings and Safety Of all the aspects of designing and implementing a public pathway for bicycle and pedestrian usage, safety for the users as well as the travelers they may interface with is one of the most important elements of the pathway location and design. In light of this, crossing designs and support features are critical in controlling the environment where the pathway must safely transport users across county and city roadways or rail lines. Where the path must cross a county or city roadway, the interface between the bicyclist or pedestrian and vehicles, oftentimes traveling at relatively high speeds, becomes a critical safety concern. Similarly, where the pathway must cross a rail line, the potential for dangerous interface with trains is also present. In all these circumstances, the design and location of crossing support features is extremely important. Features including fencing, signing, striping, lighting, and landscaping can all be utilized in different situations to enhance adequate and early warning of the potential interface while not detracting from motor vehicle capacity and safety or pathway user needs and capacity. These crossing design features will also maintain consideration of the desired aesthetic experiences and functional use.

Engineering Issues & Constraints

Construction Costs Cost estimates for the Cross County Path include a detailed breakdown of construction items proposed for the ultimate construction of the pathway. Construction costs were developed based on comparable experiences in communities around California.

Maintenance Access (for path) Maintenance access to the path will be performed via direct vehicle access on the path. The pathway will be constructed to bear the load of maintenance vehicles, emergency vehicles, railroad

Typical Track Section



maintenance vehicles, and occasional construction equipment. Class II and Class III portions of the path will be part of the existing roadway system, and accessible by all maintenance vehicles.

Maintenance Access (for UPRR/SJVRR) Consultation with the UPRR and SJVRR revealed that routine track maintenance is performed from rail mounted vehicles. While maintenance is currently performed from the track, it is anticipated that the proposed pathway will provide improved access for maintenance and emergency services; this has been the experience of other operators of similar facilities around the nation. The pathway will be designed structurally to support the loads of maintenance and emergency vehicles.

Maintenance Costs Maintenance costs are an issue of concern for all local entities. While outside fund support can typically be found for the design and construction of non-motorized transportation facilities, maintenance costs become the responsibility of the operating agency. Bicycle facility maintenance costs are based on per mile estimates, which cover labor, supplies, amortized equipment costs for weekly trash removal, monthly sweeping, and bi-annual resurfacing and repair patrols. The average cost per mile for a Class I bike path in California is in the range of $8,000 - $10,000 per year. It is expected that the cost per mile for this project would fall below that range, based on local estimates.

It is expected that maintenance for Class II and Class III portions of the path will fall under the jurisdiction of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA will be comprised of member communities and shall be created through the adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement (see sample JPA Agreement in Appendix A). The JPA will be empowered to construct, operate, and maintain the Cross County Path and its amenities. Maintenance costs will be in addition to current street sweeping, trash removal, and general upkeep costs.

Site Disturbance Due to the existing nature of the railroad right-of-way which is generally level and denuded of vegetation, site disturbance associated with the development of the Cross County Path would be limited. Grading, including cut and fill activities would be minimal since the site is already relatively level, and soil erosion would be limited since the project will be stabilized with pavement and landscaping. No adverse surface or groundwater impacts are anticipated as a result of project construction.

Environmental Issues & Constraints

Environmental Impacts Utilization of existing rights-of-way whether city or county roadways or the railroad, will serve to minimize environmental impacts to a certain degree. However, crossings at waterways and development along riparian zones will entail the need to implement sensitive construction techniques as may be required by governing agencies (i.e. State Department of Fish and Game, County or City Public Works Departments or irrigation districts). Construction within these sensitive areas also provides an opportunity to enrich the pathway use experience through the integration of signage and text that educates the path user of the surrounding environment and associated wildlife that may be observed, as well as the cultural heritage, historic sites, and events associated with early Native American and early farming settlements (see Figure 23). Consideration to maintaining and limiting disturbance of traffic flows will also be necessary to eliminate/avoid potential traffic safety impacts.



Permitting Requirements Certain permits may be needed for construction of the path. For instance, construction activities within a city or county roadway or State highway require encroachment permits. For such permits, the extent of roadway disturbance is detailed, and then stipulations and conditions of constructions are spelled out by the governing agency. Generally these stipulations and conditions are intended to minimize hazards to the public and the environment, maintain safe controlled traffic movement during the construction period, and require return of the roadway to pre-construction conditions (or better). While no actual permits may be required, local agencies will need to develop an agreement with the rail corridor owner (Union Pacific Railroad), the operating entities (San Joaquin Valley Railroad) and possibly utility companies for use of the rail corridor as a pathway. Generally, such an agreement spells out the terms and conditions of shared use of the right-of-way, covering relevant areas including maintenance, access, utilities, responsibilities, terms, liability and generally any other items necessary to protect the safety and interests of the activities of the operating railroad and the safety, interests and activities of the pathway user. A sample Easement Agreement has been included as Appendix B to provide a comprehensive look at the issues such agreements can include. It is the policy of the Union Pacific Railroad to review, assess, and apply site specific conditions to each individual project.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), while not involved on lateral sections of the path where adequate setback from the tracks is provided, will be involved wherever the path interfaces with existing legal grade crossings. Where the path crosses a roadway next to a railroad crossing, the design of the path crossing, access to the path along the roadway, and any signals or other improvements for the path crossings will involve the CPUC review and approval. The following are road crossings associated with the railroad along the proposed Path:

Lemoore Avenue – Segment 1 (see Figure 3) 12th Avenue – Segment 4 (see Figure 6) 11th Avenue – Segment 4 (see Figure 6) 10th Avenue – Segment 6 (see Figure 8) Lacey Boulevard – Segment 6 (see Figure 8)

The CPUC review process generally includes a field review, a mandate that specific crossing plans adhere to their standards, and completion of a Grade Crossing Permit. The CPUC rarely grants exceptions to its policy of no new railroad grade crossings, except where it can be shown that it is absolutely not possible or cost effective and there is an existing pattern of trespassing at the location.

PATHWAY CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS The three types of bikeways identified by Caltrans in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual are shown in Figure 2, and are as follows:

Class I BikewayTypically called a “bike path”, a Class I bikeway provides bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway.

Class II BikewayOften referred to as a “bike lane”, a Class II bikeway provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.



Class III Bikeway Generally referred to as a “bike route”, a Class III bikeway provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signing.

CONCEPTUAL PLAN Utilizing the initial findings of a feasibility study conducted in 2002, combined with restrictions and obstacles discernable from aerial photography, windshield surveys, and on-the-ground investigations of existing conditions, as well as a needs analysis and community input, a “first cut” Conceptual Plan was developed (see Figure 1). This process included the development of route segments, alternative trail concepts for each segment (section II discusses route options eliminated), and the culmination of the Conceptual Plan. The Conceptual Plan presents a depiction of the cross-county route in generalized fashion, beginning at West Hills Community College at the westerly terminus of the pathway, and continuing east, to the pathway’s easterly terminus at State Highway 43. The pathway at this stage is shown to align with the railroad right-of-way for the most part through the rural county territories, and diverts to city streets within the urbanized areas of the City of Lemoore, the (unincorporated) Community of Armona, and the City of Hanford. This Conceptual Plan was presented to the Cross County Path Task Force on September 7, 2004, who indicated its consensus acceptance of the concept as the preferred alignment at that meeting. Based upon this consensus, no further alignment options were developed.

04

-84

7

Figure 2

GENERAL BIKEWAY CLASSIFICATIONS

Cross County PathKings County

(Class I)

(Class II)

(Class III)



II – BACKGROUNDIn 2002, the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) retained TPG Consulting, Inc. to complete a Cross-Valley Bicycle Path Feasibility Study. The study served to examine and prove the viability of creating a multi-use path within the County of Kings based on a variety of economic and design factors. The results of that study were used to develop and refine the proposed pathway, and serves as the basis for this document.

EXISTING CONDITIONS The following is an explanation of existing conditions found to be typically present along the proposed route during the field investigations of the Feasibility Study (only those applicable to the currently proposed route are listed here):

Rural Areas The majority of the existing railroad route passes through rural farmland planted with row crops and orchards. The existing railroad route is generally straight and level. The railroad track is typically centered on 100-foot wide right-of-way. Impediments to the proposed path exist at County crossroads and numerous irrigation ditches.

Urban Areas The majority of the existing railroad route passes through commercial and industrial, as opposed to residential, areas of the cities and communities. The existing railroad route is generally straight and level. The railroad track is typically centered on a wider right-of-way than found in rural areas. Typical widths are in the 150 – 200 foot range. Impediments to the proposed path exist at crossroads of city streets, median barriers within city streets and intersecting rail lines. Additional impediments exist in the form of a significantly denser concentration of railroad facilities, such as sidings, spurs, turnouts, crossovers, loading docks, etc.

In addition to the above, it is important to note the following developments that have occurred along the proposed route since the completion of the 2002 study, which have helped to shape the route location within the City of Lemoore:

West Hills Community College

Located west of State Highway 41, at the intersection of Bush Street and College Avenue, the West Hills Community College Lemoore Campus opened its doors to students in early 2002. The current student body is comprised of 3,200 undergraduate students, and the campus houses Kings County’s largest library.

Lemoore Historic Depot/Multi-Mode Transit Center

Located on the north side of E Street (Historic Front Street), between Fox and Follet Streets, the Multi-Mode Transit Center (AKA the depot) officially opened its doors to the public on Saturday, August 14th, 2004. The site is the heart of the Front Street Historical



District, and includes the Lemoore Chamber of Commerce, Transit hub, Visitor’s center, Water Park and other tourist attractions.

LOCAL/REGIONAL BIKEWAYS In an effort to improve route planning and to integrate the path with local and regional planning efforts, this plan utilizes the information developed in the 2001 Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan. All existing and planned bicycle routes within the County were reviewed for proximity to the proposed cross county path. Following is a list of bikeways which were determined to interface with the proposed pathway (see Figures 3 through 8):

Local Bikeways 19th Avenue south of D Street (Lemoore) – Class II Olive Street between D Street and E Street (Lemoore) – Class III with stripe E Street between Olive Street and Fox Street (Lemoore) – Class III with stripe Hill Street south of E Street (Lemoore) – Class II Fox Street north of E Street (Lemoore) – Class II Follett Street south of E Street (Lemoore) – Class II Lemoore Avenue (Lemoore) – Class II Daphne Lane south of railroad tracks (Lemoore) – Class II Hanford-Armona Road (Armona) – Class III 14th Avenue (Armona) – Class III 12th Avenue (Hanford) – Class III Douty Street (Hanford) – Class III with stripe 10th Avenue (Hanford) – Class III with stripe

Regional Bikeways State Highway 43 – Class II

Lemoore Multi-Mode Transit Center



III – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

ROUTE OPTIONS ELIMINATED Through the course of conducting the feasibility study and in-the-field site investigations it was determined that certain path alignments would not be fiscally or physically feasible and were thus eliminated. The entire west to east extent of the conceptual Cross County Path was field inventoried to determine and assess any existing geometrical constraints including physical impediments such as ditches and river channels, sidings, spurs and crossovers within railroad rights-of-way, or other improvements adjacent to the main rail line within the existing railroad right-of-way. The conceptual path was also evaluated to determine which segments of the railroad right-of-way could reasonably accommodate the introduction of a Class I Bike Path. Following is a list of brief statements regarding the route options eliminated.

Within Segment 1 Utilization of the UPRR alignment between West Hills College and Fox Street was rejected for various reasons. Numerous sidings and parallel track are located on the railroad right-of-way from Olive Street to Fox Street. The multiple tracks are not conducive for a bike path to traverse. Compounding the problem is the State Highway 41 overhead structure crossing the railroad. This structure was built to only accommodate lateral clearances for the tracks with no additional width compensation. No bike paths can be located through this structure unless the rails are abandoned or possibly if the sloped concrete embankment protection is cut back and replaced with a retaining wall.

Within Segment 2 Continuing the alignment north on Lemoore Avenue past the railroad tracks to Hanford-Armona Road was rejected in favor of the railroad alignment in this instance due to the railroad being better able to accommodate a Class I bike path, as opposed to a Class II bike lane along public roadways (Lemoore Avenue and Hanford-Armona Road) where vehicle interface increases safety issues and thereby reduces the overall quality of the user experience. The railroad alignment is also more efficient in terms of reducing the number of crossings with intersecting streets and the safety issues inherent therein.

Within Segment 3 Utilization of the railroad right-of-way within the Community of Armona was rejected in favor of public road right-of-way along Front Street, located just north of the tracks. An alignment along the southern Front Street right-of-way creates a myriad of favorable conditions: it brings the path closer to urban uses; creates a dual-use by serving both the county and the Community of Armona; allows for a Class I path without interfacing with the railroad.

Within Segment 4 No options were eliminated within this section of the pathway.

Within Segment 5 Several geometric constraints were identified within the City of Hanford along the railroad right-of-way between Redington Street and Green Street. Several loading docks were built immediately adjacent to parallel sidings in multiple locations. The feasibility study recommended bypassing these constraints by deviating from the railroad right-of-way via surface streets between Phillips Street and 10th Avenue,



routing westbound bicycle traffic along 6th Street, and eastbound traffic along 5th Street. However, since publication of the feasibility study, the City of Hanford has legally abandoned (by City Council action) the section of 5th Street between 11th Avenue and the Amtrak tracks to the east, by City Council action, for use and expansion by Marquez Brothers International, Inc. Certain conditions of approval have to be satisfied, however, before the street will appear physically abandoned. In addition, Marquez Brothers utilizes the railroad right-of-way between 11th and the Amtrak line, for business purposes. Therefore, the entire 5th Street alignment has been eliminated in favor of two-way bike lanes along 6th Street.

A crossing adjacent to the tracks at 11th Avenue was also eliminated due to median constraints; the median running the length of 11th would need to be modified in order to facilitate cross traffic.

Within Segment 6 Locating the alignment south of the railroad tracks between 10th Avenue and Highway 43 was rejected in favor of a northern alignment, so as to avoid crossing the tracks, as well as to facilitate future access to planned developments north of the railroad right-of-way.

Additional Eliminations The feasibility study proposed a Cross County Path which would begin at the Lemoore Naval Air Station (LNAS) and terminate at State Highway 43. The initial path segment from the Naval Air Station to the western city limits of Lemoore along the railroad right-of-way was eliminated from this plan due to a variety of constraint issues, including the infeasibility of crossing the Kings River; crossing of the river would require a 145 foot long bridge structure that would be cost prohibitive at about $400,000. Even if the cost could be justified, the bike path would enter the LNAS at a location that does not have a sentry station. These constraint issues could be resolved in the future by routing the alignment north to the back sentry gate of the LNAS, or south to the main entry, should the need/opportunity arise for extension of the Path.

PREFERRED ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

Segment 1 & Westerly Trailhead The alignment traveling east from the Cross County Path’s westerly terminus at West Hills Community College is proposed as Class II bike lanes (striped) on Bush Street to D Street, then from D Street to E Street where the Path connects to existing Class II bike lanes along E Street, then north along Lemoore Avenue to the intersection with the UPRR tracks. This segment of the Cross County Path is depicted in Figure 3.

This plan proposes that the path’s westerly trailhead be located at the Lemoore Historic Depot/Multi-Mode Transit Center, the focal point of Downtown Lemoore. The depot would provide the necessary amentities, such as parking, restrooms, trash, water, and commuter access, and would help to tie the pathway to downtown facilities and tourist attractions. The section of the path between West Hills College and downtown Lemoore would serve primarily as a commuter leg.

Front Street in Armona



Segment 2 This segment transitions from Class II bike lanes along Lemoore Avenue to a Class I bike path on the north edge of the UPRR right-of-way. The transition would take place at the intersection of E Street at Lemoore Avenue. The Class I bike path remains on the UPRR right-of-way alignment easterly to where the railroad, Hanford-Armona Road and Front Street converge and cross. This segment of the Cross County Path is depicted in Figure 4.

Segment 3 At the juncture of the UPRR, Hanford-Armona Road and Front Street, the path remains a Class I path but transitions from off the railroad right-of-way to the south side of Front Street. Front Street has sufficient right-of-way at this location to accommodate the alignment as a Class I path along Front Street all the way to 13th Avenue. This segment of the Cross County Path is depicted in Figure 5.

Segment 4 The alignment remains a Class I path between 13th and 11th Avenues. At 13th Avenue the path transitions south back to the UPRR right-of-way, and continues east along the north edge of the right-of-way all the way to 12th Avenue. At 12th Avenue, the path diverts south (along the sidewalk) to a street crossing at Glendale Avenue, and then back up (along the sidewalk) to the north edge of the railroad right-of-way. The Glendale Avenue intersection is currently unsignalized, but is planned to be signalized at some future time. At 11th Avenue the path is diverted south (along the sidewalk) around an existing median to 5th

Street, and then back north (along the sidewalk), past the tracks to 6th Street. This segment of the Cross County Path is depicted in Figure 6.

Segment 5 At 6th Street the path transitions back to Class II bike lanes along the north and south sides of 6th Street east to Redington Street. At Redington, the lanes transition to a Class III bike route (signed) within the block containing the Comfort Inn Hotel east to Douty Street. At Douty the path reverts to Class II lanes continuing east along 6th Street to 10th Avenue. This segment of the Cross County Path is depicted in Figure 7.

Segment 6 & Easterly Trailhead At 10th Avenue the path turns south and crosses 10th within the UPRR right-of-way (along the sidewalk) as a Class I path. Further analysis will be needed at the time of the final path design to determine the most appropriate control for the path crossing at 10th Avenue. Once across 10th, the path continues east as a Class I path along the north edge of the railroad right-of-way to its easterly terminus at State Highway 43. This terminus will serve as the site of the path’s easterly trailhead. This segment of the Cross County Path is depicted in Figure 8.

Conditions Considered The most important considerations in all of these segments are the transition points from one Class of path to another, and where the path interfaces with vehicle traffic or must cross a roadway or the railroad, doing so in the most safe and cost effective way. Other conditions considered were waterway crossings and whether sufficient right-of-way or bridge width existed within which to construct the path or whether

Comfort Inn Hotel on 6th Street



additional right-of-way or structural widening was necessary. In circumstances where sufficient right-of-way or structure width was not available, and expense to acquire it too cost prohibitive, an alternate alignment was determined. Also of important consideration were crossings or intersections with State Highways (SR 41 and SR 43). Figures 14 through 19 depict typical design solutions to these various conditions.

Alternate Choices & Conditions to Consider As time goes by, and as KCAG is faced with changing conditions or circumstances (i.e. with City or County General Plans and Zoning, development build out schemes or funding availability) alternate alignments or design solutions may become necessary. This Plan, like most, proposes a solution based upon a set of circumstances and assumptions known or made at the time of the Plan’s adoption. That being said, this Plan, like others, is just a “plan” and can therefore be modified; this Plan can be implemented differently than as projected and it can be amended, as circumstances may warrant. KCAG certainly has the authority to undertake a different phasing of implementation and may see fit to amend the Plan from time to time as warranted by the findings of subsequent project stages.

Wes

tHill

sC

olle

ge

Bush

St.

DS

treet

LemooreAve.

19thAve.

Mul

ti-M

ode

Tran

sitC

ente

r

OliveSt.

ESt

reet

FoxSt.

HillSt.

FollettSt.

41

198

SEG

MEN

T1

Wes

tHills

Col

lege

toLe

moo

reA

venu

e

Cro

ssC

ount

yP

ath

King

sC

ount

y

Figu

re3

04-847

Lege

ndC

lass

I-B

ike

Pat

hC

lass

II-B

ike

Lane

Cla

ssII

-Exi

stin

gBi

keLa

neR

ailro

adLo

calB

ikew

ay

0.3

00.

30.

15M

iles

LemooreAve.

Han

ford

-Arm

ona

Rd.

17thAve.

DaphneLn.

15thAve.

198

Lege

ndC

lass

I-Bi

kePa

thC

lass

II-B

ike

Lane

Rai

lroad

Loca

lBik

eway

Loca

lCon

nect

ion

0.4

00.

40.

2M

iles

SEG

MEN

T2

Lem

oore

Aven

ueto

Han

ford

-Arm

ona

Roa

d

04-847

Cro

ssC

ount

yP

ath

King

sC

ount

y

Figu

re4

13thAve.

14thAve.

Fron

tSt.

198

Lege

ndC

lass

I-B

ike

Pat

hR

ailro

ad

Loca

lBik

eway

0.1

00.

10.

05M

iles

SEG

MEN

T3

Fron

tStre

et(a

tHan

ford

-Arm

ona

Roa

d)to

13th

Ave

nue

04-847

Cro

ssC

ount

yP

ath

King

sC

ount

y

Figu

re5

13thAve.

11thAve.

12thAve.

198

Lege

ndC

lass

I-B

ike

Pat

hC

lass

II-B

ike

Lane

Rai

lroad

Loca

lBik

eway

Loca

lCon

nect

ion

0.25

00.

250.

125

Mile

s

SEG

MEN

T4

13th

Ave

nue

to11

thA

venu

e

Cro

ssC

ount

yP

ath

Kin

gsC

ount

y

Figu

re6

04-847

11thAve.

10thAve.

Lace

yB

lvd.

6th

Stre

et

DoutySt.

Hot

el

5th

Stre

et

AMTRAK

RedingtonSt.

198

Lege

ndC

lass

I-Bi

kePa

thC

lass

II-B

ike

Lane

Cla

ssIII

-Bik

eR

oute

Rai

lroad

Loca

lBik

eway

0.07

50

0.07

50.

0375

Mile

s

SEG

ME

NT

511

thA

venu

eto

10th

Aven

ue(o

n6t

hSt

reet

)

04-847

Cro

ssC

ount

yP

ath

Kin

gsC

ount

y

Figu

re7

10thAve.

9thAve.

Lace

yB

lvd.

43

198

Lege

ndC

lass

I-Bi

keP

ath

Cla

ssII

-Bik

eLa

neR

ailro

ad

Loca

lBik

eway

Reg

iona

lBik

eway

Loca

lCon

nect

ion

0.25

00.

250.

125

Mile

s

Cro

ssC

ount

yP

ath

King

sC

ount

y

Figu

re8

04-847

SEG

MEN

T6

10th

Ave

nue

toH

ighw

ay43



RIGHT-OF-WAY As depicted in the preceding Figures, the proposed Class II facilities (fuchsia lines) will be accommodated as bike lanes on public streets, within City controlled rights-of-way. Consequently, acquisition of additional right-of-way in these circumstances is presumed to not be necessary. The Class I facilities (yellow lines) are proposed as combination bike and pedestrian paths within railroad right-of-way, with the exception of Segment 3 (see Figure 5) which is proposed within the Front Street right-of-way. The utilization of the railroad rights-of-way are typically achieved by either out-right purchase or lease of the right-of-way (occasionally, there may be other options as noted in the individual scenarios below). Several options/strategies are available in these regards:

1. Condemnation: This option may only be available for certain railroad properties that are non-congressional grant lands.

2. Purchase: Negotiate an offer to the railroad to buy, agree on a price, secure a funding source (can be a grant) to fund the purchase, or, alternately, secure funding/grant first for purchase of right-of-way based upon best-estimate value of the right-of-way, then negotiate with the railroad for purchase price.

3. Lease: Negotiate an offer to the railroad to lease the right-of-way, agree on a price, seek funding source or, alternately, secure funding first, then negotiate lease agreement with the railroad.

Local Experiences with Railroad Right-of-Way Acquisition

Local Condemnation Scenario Currently, there are no known local experiences with the condemnation option.

Purchase ScenarioIn 1997, the City of Visalia began the negotiation process to acquire 100-feet of right-of-way being abandoned by the Santa Fe Railroad for utilization for City public road and Class I trail purposes. A price for the purchase was set in 1998 and a Purchase & Sale Agreement was signed (details of the price arrangement are not public information at the time of writing this document). The purchase is currently in escrow; details regarding status of reversionary rights of prior easements within the right-of-way are being resolved. No grant funds are being utilized for this purchase. The anticipated funding sources for acquisition or construction could not currently be confirmed; it is speculated that the City’s Development Impact Fees may contribute to the funding.

In 1990, the City of Visalia purchased right-of-way along the then Southern Pacific Railroad (now Union Pacific) from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company along Goshen Avenue from Road 76 to Giddings Street (approx. 5.5 miles), primarily for the construction of a Class I trail. The right-of-way purchase consisted of the southerly 28-feet of the railroad’s southerly 50-feet. The 28-feet acquired has ultimately been used for construction of an 8-foot wide paved meandering trail, associated shoulders, landscaping, some build-out of Goshen Avenue right-of-way and storm drain facilities. No resource was found to confirm the funding source for the acquisition, however, it was determined that CMAQ and REMOVE grants funds were utilized for the construction of the trail. According to City sources, negotiations for acquisition of the right-of-way were “lengthy”. The purchase was recorded on December 7th, 1990.

The City of Lemoore in western Kings County is in the process of on-going negotiations with the Union Pacific Railroad to either purchase or lease right-of-way from West Hills College on the west side of town (see Figure 3) east to the canal east of Lemoore Avenue (see Figure 4). In this instance,



the City first applied for and obtained (in 2005) a grant totaling $1.6 million dollars, funded by Bicycle Transportation Account-BTA funds, Congestion Management & Air Quality Improvement Program-CMAQ funds, Transportation Enhancement Activities-TEA funds, State Match funds for TEA funds-for amenities only, local Redevelopment Authority money and gas tax money. The City of Lemoore has so far had difficulty getting the railroad to the negotiating table. In August of 2005, when efforts by local legislators (Dean Florez, Nicole Para and Jim Costa) and local legislative lobbyists failed to dislodge stymied negotiations between the City and railroad during review of proposed construction drawings and irreconcilable liability concerns regarding a lease option, City Council directed staff to seek assistance from California Senator Barbara Boxer’s office. Currently, Senator Boxer’s staff is preparing a letter to the UP Chairman on behalf of the City, requesting his assistance in facilitating the negotiation process. As of the writing of this document the letter had not been sent.

Other Experiences In 2004, the City of Tulare in central Tulare County developed an extensive (5+ mile) Class I trail across the City, as a “Rails-to-Trails” project. In this instance, the stretch of railroad right-of-way was abandoned by the railroad (the rails were removed) and gifted to the City. The trail was then built with a combination of CMAQ and REMOVE grant funds acquired by the City.



IV – DESIGN STANDARDSThis section provides design and implementation guidelines and standards to ensure that the Cross County Path is developed according to the best standards currently available in the United States. The majority of the standards included in this section focus on Class I bikeways simply because they are a bit more designer specific than Class II and Class III bikeways, which tend to be more “by the book”. Planning, design and implementation standards are derived from the following sources:

Caltrans: Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design) AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) USDOT, FHWA: Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles USDOT/FHWA: Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails ITE: Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities RTC: Rails-with-Trails, Sharing Corridors for Transportation and Recreation

Rails-With-TrailsIt is useful to note that while there are a considerable number of trails on active railroads around the United States, there are few design guidelines that have been developed specifically for this type of facility to date. The sources listed above provide details on many aspects of a rail trail, but (a) may contain recommendations that conflict with each other, (b) are not, in most cases, officially recognized “requirements,” and (c) do not cover all conditions on most rail trails. Except for the Caltrans guidelines, all design guidelines must be considered as simply design resources for the Cross County Path, to be supplemented with professional judgment.

In addition to the aforementioned published resources, we have drawn from the experiences of active rail trails around California and the United States to establish accepted practices. Rails-With-Trails: Lessons Learned (2002) was prepared at the direction of the U.S. Department of Transportation for the purpose of examining safety, design, and liability issues associated with the development of shared-use paths and other trails within or adjacent to active railroad and transit rights-of-way. This document is intended to explore lessons learned from the experience of rails-with-trails (RWTs), and suggest practices to enhance safety and security for railroads, transit, and trail users. Information from that document was also used for these design recommendations.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

CaltransThe California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed specific design guidelines in the Highway Design Manual for Class I bike paths. The Cross County Path will be designed to Class I standards wherever possible. These standards are intended to be a guide to engineers in their exercise of sound judgment in the design of projects. Design standards should meet or exceed the Caltrans standards to the maximum extent feasible. Lower standards may be used “when such use best satisfies the concerns of a given situation”. Mandatory design standards “are those considered most essential to achievement of overall design objectives. Many pertain to requirements of law or regulations such as those embodied in the FHWA’s controlling criteria”. Mandatory standards are identified in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual with the word “shall”.

Advisory standards are important but allow for greater flexibility and are identified by the word “should”.



Permissive standards are identified by the words “should” or “may”, and can be applied at the discretion of the project engineer. Controlling Criteria, as defined by the FHWA, consists of 13 specific criteria to be used in the selection of design standards. They are:

1. Design speed 2. Lane width 3. Shoulder width 4. Bridge width 5. Horizontal alignment 6. Vertical alignment 7. Grade8. Stopping sight distance 9. Cross slope

10. Super elevation 11. Horizontal clearance 12. Vertical clearance 13. Bridge structural capacity

Designs that deviate from the mandatory Caltrans design standards shall be approved by the Chief, Office of Project Planning and Design, or to delegated Project Development Coordinators. These standards represent the basic guidelines set forth by Caltrans. There are many conditions that are not explicitly covered in the Caltrans or AASHTO guidelines.

County Standards The County of Kings has a Regional Bicycle Plan, which was adopted in 2001. This Plan is unique in that it was developed to serve dual purposes: (1) To provide a regional bicycle plan which ensures that the facilities planned within all five local jurisdictions are integrated and compatible; and (2) To provide “stand alone” bicycle plans for each jurisdiction which are independent and can be used by each agency to secure funding and implement individual bicycle plans. As such, the 2001 Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan provides a single source of information to help integrate the bikeway facilities in the cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore, as well as the unincorporated areas of Kings County. This Plan, in addition to design standards for various types of bikeways, provides: goals and policies to encourage a uniform approach County-wide to achieving suitable bicycle and pedestrian travel; guidance in transportation control measures to achieve objectives of pollutant reductions (air quality benefits) through non-vehicle commuter, recreation and transit travel alternatives; bicycle/pedestrian safety and educational awareness through organized programs and information distribution; a menu of available funding sources to assist in full implementation of the Plan; and a comprehensive list of criteria to be utilized in selecting and ranking projects to be considered pursuant to the Plan. Section II (Design Standards) of the Regional Bicycle Plan is attached as Appendix C.

City Standards

City of Lemoore The City of Lemoore has adopted The City of Lemoore Bikeway Plan which contains standards used by the city in designing and constructing paths for joint use by bicyclists and pedestrians. In development of its standards the City relied upon the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000) as a guiding reference for safety standards. The City’s Bikeway Plan states: “Where the City of Lemoore’s standards are proposed to be more stringent [than the Caltrans standards], then those [City] standards should apply. A careful evaluation of conditions for a specific bikeway may justify



Bikeway DESIGN Standards

By law, bicycles are allowed on all roadways in California. (The State can prohibit bicyclists from freeways if a suitable alternate route exists.) However, some roadways are better suited for bicycling than others. Caltrans has developed three “classes” of facilities with design recommendations to designate preferred bikeways.

Class I: Typically called a “bike path,” a Class I bikeway provides bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from nearby streets or highways. They are intended to provide opportunities not available on streets and roads, including recreation or high-speed bicycle commuting. The recommended width of a shared use path is dependent upon anticipated usage:

8’ (2.4 m) is the minimum width, most applicable to unpaved and/or rural facilities 8’ (2.4 m) may be used for short neighborhood connector paths (generally less than one mile in length) due to low anticipated volumes of use 10’ (3.0 m) is the recommended width for a two-way bicycle path 12’ (3.6 m) is the preferred width if more than 300 users per peak hour are anticipated, and/or if there is heavy mixed bicycle and pedestrian use A minimum 2’ (0.6 m) wide graded area must be provided adjacent to the path to provide clearance from trees, poles, walls, guardrails, etc. A yellow centerline stripe is recommended to separate travel in opposite directions.

Class II: Often referred to as a “bike lane,” a Class II bikeway provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. Bike lanes delineate separate rights-of-way for bicycles and vehicles to provide more predictable movement for both. The width of the bike lanes vary according to parking and street conditions:

5’ (1.5 m) minimum when parking stalls are marked 11’ (3.3 m) minimum for a shared bike/parking lane where parking is permitted but not marked on streets without

curbs; or 12’ (3.6 m) for a shared lane adjacent to a curb face 4’ (1.2 m) minimum if no gutter exists, measured from edge of pavement 5’ (1.5 m) minimum with normal gutter, measured from curb face; or 3' (0.9 m) measured from the gutter pan seam

Other important bike lane requirements involve signing, striping, and stenciling:

A bike lane should be delineated from motor vehicle travel lanes with a solid 6" white line, per MUTCD. An 8" line width may be used for added distinction. Word and symbol pavement stencils should be used to identify bicycle lanes, as per Caltrans and MUTCD specifications. The R81 “Bike Lane” sign is required at the beginning of all bike lanes, at all major changes in direction, and at a maximum of 1 km intervals.

Class III: Usually referred to as “bike routes,” Class III bikeways are facilities shared with motor vehicles but which provide - through signage, design, and connection to other facilities - advantages to bicyclists not available on other streets or roadways.

Class III facilities can also be shared with pedestrians on a sidewalk although it is strongly discouraged. There are no recommended minimum widths for Class III facilities, but when encouraging bicyclists to travel along selected routes, traffic speed and volume, parking, traffic control devices, and surface quality should be acceptable for bicycle travel.

Bicycle boulevards are a type of Class III facility that have certain design features that give preference to bicyclists. Commonly used devices found on bicycle boulevards are traffic diverters that allow through access for bicyclists, two-way bicycle travel on one-way streets, and special signage. Resources:

Caltrans Highway Design Manual, “Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design,” 2001.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, “Part 9 – Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities,” 2001.

Guide For The Development Of Bicycle Facilities, American Association Of State Highway And Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1999.



easing a requirement, or necessitate a more stringent requirement, as the case may be, for the appropriate reasons. Therefore, these [City] standards are not absolute, but rather a guide to be used as a starting point when planning new facilities or improving existing facilities”.

Chapter IV (Bikeway Plan Standards) of the Lemoore Bikeway Plan is attached in Appendix D. These standards, in addition to setting forth the design and construction standards for bike lanes also include standards for bike racks, lighting, and landscaping standards. For those areas where the Cross County Path is aligned on surface streets within the city limits, the City adopted standards should be utilized to maintain consistency with the City’s adopted Plan.

City of Hanford Although the City of Hanford does not yet have an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan, it’s adopted City Improvement Standards do contain standards for Class II and Class III bike lanes. These include distinct standards for bike lane integration on streets where on-street parking is permitted and where on-street parking is prohibited, for both Class I and Class II lanes in each scenario. Standards for benches and trash receptacles can be found in the City’s Downtown 2010 Streetscape Master Plan. These adopted standards are attached in Appendix E. In addition, the City has adopted the 2001 Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan (Appendix C). This plan provides an umbrella plan by which the City of Hanford can further its bike lane implementation.

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS & TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS

WidthThe minimum width for paved Class I multi-use paths in California is 8 ft, with 2 ft of lateral clearance on each side and 8 ft of vertical clearance. If the pathway is projected to have higher volumes of bicyclists and other users, or if maintenance vehicles will be using the rail path on a regular basis, a minimum width of 10 ft is recommended with the same lateral and vertical clearances. Typically, 3-ft wide unpaved shoulders with a compacted surface (often decomposed granite) are located on each side of the paved surface to accommodate joggers and others who prefer a softer surface. See Figure 9. The recommended paved width of the Cross County Path will be 10 ft with 2-ft shoulders on each side and 10 ft of vertical clearance. In locations where right-of-way constraints prevent the development of the 10 ft standard, an 8-ft paved cross section with 2-ft shoulders may be implemented. Narrower pathway widths may be required in select locations due to right-of-way constraints.

Figures 10 through 12 depict cross sections of specific Class I, Class II, and Class III examples along the Cross County Path.

Structural Section Bike path construction should be conducted in a similar manner as roadway construction, with sub-base thickness to be determined by soil condition and expansive soil types requiring special structural sections. Minimum asphalt thickness should be three inches (3") of Type A or Type B as described by Caltrans Standard Specifications, with one-half inch (0.5") maximum aggregate and medium grading. Another option, and often a preferred pathway material for rail trails, due to the desire to minimize maintenance costs, is a four-inch (4") reinforced concrete material with sub-base or six inches (6") of reinforced concrete on compacted native material (if suitable).



The recommended structural cross section for the Cross County Path will be three inches (3") of Type A or Type B as described by Caltrans Standard Specifications, with one-half inch (0.5") maximum aggregate and medium grading. This structural cross section is meant to withstand maximum pathway loads, which will include city, railroad, and County maintenance vehicles, emergency vehicles, and occasional construction equipment.

Signing and Marking The Cross County Path should be designed to include all of the required and recommended signing and marking standards developed by Caltrans in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual. In addition, all signs and markings should conform to the standards developed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The final striping, marking, and signing plan for the pathway should be reviewed and approved by a licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer. Finally, the project partners could identity the Cross County Path with a consistent, unique logo or design that will help guide people to and on to the path.

In general, all signs should be located 3 to 4 feet from the edge of the paved surface, have a minimum vertical clearance of 8.5 feet when located above the path surface and be a minimum of 4 feet above the path surface when located on the side of the path. All signs should be oriented so as not to confuse motorists. The designs (though not the size) of signs and markings should be the same as used for motor vehicles.

An optional four inch (4") yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate users on a Class I bike path. The stripes may be desirable on sections of the rail trail that have heavy usage, curves with restricted sight lines, at approaches to intersections, and/or where nighttime riding is expected.

Table 1: Class I Bicycle Path Specifications

Pavement Type: Recycled Asphalt 3” (75 mm)

Asphalt 1 3” (75 mm)

Concrete2 3” (75 mm)

Sub-Base: Granite 4-6” (100-150 mm)

Gravel 4-6” (100-150 mm)Stru

ctur

al S

ectio

n

Shoulders: Decomposed Granite 2-4” (50-100 mm)

Width: Minimum 1-way Path 5’ (1.5 m)

Minimum 2-way Path 8’ (2.4 m)

Preferred 2-way Path 12’ (3.6 m)

Shoulders: 2-3’ (0.6-1.0 m)

Lateral Clearance: 2-3’ (0.6-1.0 m)

Vertical Clearance: 8-10’ (2.5-3.0 m)

Path

way

Wid

ths

with Equestrians: 12’ (3.6 m)



Table 1 cont.

Striping:

Centerline (none, dashed yellow, solid yellow)

4” (100 mm) St

ripin

g

Edgeline (none or solid white) 4” (100 mm)

Sign

ing Signing: See Caltrans Traffic

Manual and MUTCD

Dra

inag

e Minimum Cross Slope:

2%

Sepa

ratio

n Minimum Separation from Roadway:3

5’ (1.5 m)

Des

ign

Spee

ds

Design Speed: 20-30 mph (40-50 kph)

Supe

r-el

evat

ion Maximum

Superelevation: 5%

Gra

des Maximum Grades

(over 100’): 5%

Barrier Posts (minimum spacing):

5’ (1.5 m)

Anc

illar

yFa

cilit

ies

Lighting (if night use expected): 5-22 LUX

Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 1 Asphalt may be unsuitable for bike paths in stream channels due to asphalt oils. 2 A 6” concrete thickness may be used directly on compacted native materials.3 Unless physical barrier provided.

04

-84

7

Figure 9

TYPICAL CLASS IBICYCLE PATH CROSS SECTION

Lemoore to Armona, Armona to Hanford andEast Hanford Segments


04

-84

7

Figure 10

FRONT STREET, ARMONACROSS SECTION

Class I Bike Path


04

-84

7

Figure 11

“D” & “E” STREETS, LEMOORECROSS SECTION

Class II Bike Lane


04

-84

7

Figure 12

6TH STREET, HANFORDCROSS SECTION

Class III Bike Route




Setbacks

Roadway Setback Class I bike paths parallel to roadways should be located no closer than five feet from the edge of the roadway, unless a physical barrier is provided. Minimal barriers will provide suitable separation. Generally, bikeways are not recommended directly parallel to roadways, as most experienced bicyclists will find it less usable than the street itself, assuming there is adequate width on the street.

CPUC Railroad Setback

The California Public Utilities Commission has specific minimum railroad track setbacks for any structures or improvements (including any sidewalk or trail that parallels active railroad tracks). These standards are typically applied to the minimum distance that crossing guard equipment is located from the tracks. Minimum distances from the centerline of an active railroad to the outside edge of a trail or bikeway is 8 ft 6 in on tangent and 9 ft 6 in on curved tracks (General Order No. 26-D). Wherever possible, it is recommended that the path be set back at least 25 feet from the centerline of the tracks, to deter trespassing and provide adequate protection to pathway users. However, in many locations along the proposed Cross County Path, this setback distance is not possible due to the narrow right-of-way (ROW) width and physical constraints. At all locations, an absolute minimum setback of 15 feet is specified to allow for normal railroad maintenance practices and equipment dimensions, and a 5-foot solid fence or a vertical separation of more than 10 feet is recommended to block the flow of wind, dust, and debris that is blown up by a passing train as well as to deter trespassing. See Figure 13.

Design Speed The minimum design speed for bike paths is 20 miles per hour, except on sections where there are long downgrades (steeper than 4%, and longer than 500 feet). Speed bumps or other surface irregularities should never be used to slow bicycles.

DrainageThe 2% cross slope will resolve most drainage issues on a bike path, except along cut sections where runoff water must be collected in a ditch and directed to a catch basin, where the water can be directed under the pathway in a drainage pipe of suitable dimensions.

Utilities and Lighting Surface and sub-surface utilities are located within the railroad right-of-way, and may impact the location and construction of the Cross County Path. Known utilities include active and abandoned railroad communications; cable, signal and communication boxes; and fiber optic cable. The Cross County Path would be designed to avoid having to move most active surface utilities. The path may be located directly over existing sub-surface utilities assuming (a) adequate depth exists between the path surface and utility to prevent damage, and (b) agreements can be reached with the utility owner regarding access for repairs and impact to the pathway.

The project developers may choose to install path lighting, especially where there is considerable evening pedestrian and bicycle commuter traffic. There will be some lighting benefit from existing lighting along adjacent roadways, land uses, and at crossings.

04

-84

7

Figure 13

Cross County PathKings CountyMINIMUM RAIL WITH TRAIL DIMENSIONS

(CALTRANS & CPUC)



Entrance Features Major entrances to the Cross County Path may contain a variety of support facilities and other items, depending on available resources and local support. Recommended entrance feature locations include Lemore Avenue, Front Street, 13th Avenue, 11th Avenue, 10th Avenue, and SR 43. Typical entrance features include:

Trailheads. The path may draw substantial numbers of users during peak times. Path users could be directed to specific trailheads where parking and other amenities are provided, helping to relieve some of the pressure on residential and commercial areas. Trailheads may also contain drinking fountains, telephones, restrooms, bike lockers, and other features. Trailheads should be accessible by transit and rail service.

Bollards. A single 48" wood or metal bollard (post) should be placed on the centerline of the path at all entrances to prevent motor vehicles from entering the path. The bollard should be designed with high reflective surfaces and be brightly painted. The bollard should be locked to a ground plate and be easily removable by emergency vehicles.

Entrance Features. The path alignment should have a sharp (20-ft or less radius) curve at all major roadway intersections wherever physically possible, to help slow bicycles. Entrance circles may be constructed with a 20-ft inside radius to help slow bicycles. Public art and/or entrance signs may be placed in the circle. Entrance signs should include regulations, hours of operation (if any), and path speed limit. Entrance signs may also include sponsorships by local agencies, organizations, and/or corporations. Signs may be placed at the entrances or at appropriate locations along the path that provide brief descriptions of historic events or natural features.

CROSSING & SUPPORT FEATURES

CrossingsWhen considering a proposed separated pedestrian/bike path and required roadway crossings, it is important to remember two items: (1) path users will be enjoying an auto-free experience and may enter into an intersection unexpectedly, and (2) motorists will not expect to see bicyclists shooting out from an unmarked intersection into the roadway. In most cases, pathway crossings at-grade can be properly designed to a reasonable degree of safety and to meet existing traffic and safety standards. Ideally, path crossings should occur at established pedestrian crossings wherever possible, or at locations completely out of the influence of intersections. Ramps should be placed on sidewalk curbs for users.

Evaluation of bikeway crossings involves analysis of traffic patterns of vehicles as well as path users. This includes traffic speeds (85th percentile), street width, traffic volumes (average daily traffic, and peak hour), line of sight, and path user profile (age distribution, destinations). A traffic safety study will need to be completed as part of the actual civil engineering design of the proposed crossings to determine the most appropriate design features, during the engineering/design stage of the project. This plan identifies the most appropriate crossing options given available information (see Table 2), which must be verified and/or refined through the actual engineering and construction document stage.

CPUC Coordination The California Public Utilities Commission oversees all public and private railroad crossings in California. While there are no proposed new crossings of the SJVRR tracks as part of the Cross County Path, the path will cross the tracks at existing roadway crossings in several locations. The



CPUC will review the engineering drawings at these locations once the final design process has begun. The trail may use existing sidewalks to cross the tracks in some locations, but in others a new pathway or wide sidewalk will be required. The implementing agency will need to use a CPUC-approved design for these crossings. Existing crossing protection at the crossings should be sufficient, and no upgrades of crossing equipment are anticipated.

Roadway Crossings In General, Class I pathway alignments should take into consideration the frequency and condition of at grade roadway crossings. Grade separations, such as bridges or undercrossings, are recommended if traffic volumes and speeds, along with pathway usage volumes and site conditions combine to create public safety considerations. Appendix F contains a guide to pre-fabricated bridges, which are becoming the industry standard for clear span structures. In such situations, engineering evaluations along with a cost benefit analysis is typically performed to identify improvement solutions to ensure adequate separation of pathway users from vehicle traffic. If grade separation is not feasible, a number of design considerations must be addressed to provide safer crossings for pathway users, as detailed below. The recommended crossing types by intersection are identified in Table 2, however these recommendations could change during the engineering/design stage of the project, with the findings of the traffic study.

Table 2: Basic Crossing Prototypes Appropriate for the Cross County Path

Suggested Crossing Type Route Crossing Description

1. Unprotected Lemoore Avenue

10th Avenue

Lacey Boulevard

Unprotected crossings include mid-block crossings of residential, collector, and sometimes major arterial streets.

2. Routed to Existing/Planned Intersection

11th Avenue

12th Avenue

Bikeways, which emerge near existing intersections, may be routed to these locations.

3. Signalized/Controlled Bikeway crossings, which require signals or other, control measures due to traffic volumes, speeds, and path usage.

Type 1 or uncontrolled crossings (unsignalized, but with other traffic control devices) are recommended for streets with 85th percentile travel speeds below 45 mph and ADTs below 10,000 vehicles. See Figures 14 and 15.

04

-84

7

Figure 14


RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSINGTYPE 1 - UNPROTECTED

17th Ave and 9th Ave

*See Figure 18 for sign prototypes.

*

04

-84

7

Figure 15


RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSINGTYPE 1 - UNPROTECTED (ANGLE)

East Lacey Blvd

*




Type 2 crossings within 250 feet of an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian crosswalks are typically diverted to the signalized intersection for safety purposes. In order for this option to be effective, barriers and signing would be needed to direct path users to the signalized crossings. In many cases, the intersections are directly adjacent to the crossings and are not a significant problem for path users. See Figure 16.

Type 3 (new signalized crossings) are identified for crossings more than 250 feet from an existing signalized intersection and where 85th percentile travel speeds are 45 mph and above and/or ADTs are above 10,000 vehicles. Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed or volume, requires additional review by a registered engineer to identify sight line and other factors. See Figure 17.

Standard Roadway Crossing Features

SignageCrossing features for all roadways include warning signs both for vehicles and pathway users. The type, location and other criteria that are used to select the appropriate crossing warning sign are identified in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Consideration must be given for adequate warning distance based on vehicle speeds and line of sight, with visibility of any signing absolutely critical. Catching the attention of motorists inattentive to roadway signs may require additional alerting devices such as a flashing light, roadway striping, or changes in pavement texture. Signing for path users must include a standard STOP sign and pavement markings, sometimes combined with other features such as bollards or a kink in the rail path to slow bicyclists (see Figure 18). Care must be taken not to place too many signs at crossings lest they begin to lose their impact.

Directional signing may be useful for pathway users and motorists alike. For motorists, a sign reading “Cross County Path Xing” along with a path emblem or logo helps both warn and promote use of the path itself. For path users, directional signs and street names at crossings help direct people to their destinations.

StripingA number of striping patterns have emerged over the years to delineate path crossings. A median stripe on the path approach will help to organize and warn path users. The actual crosswalk striping is a matter of local and state preference, and may be accompanied by pavement treatments to help warn and slow motorists. The effectiveness of crosswalk striping is highly related to local customs and regulations. In communities where motorists do not typically defer to pedestrians in crosswalks, additional measures may be required such as warning signs, flashing beacons, pavement applications, or other treatments (see Figure 19). While there is a trend to remove unprotected crossings, it is the author’s opinion that they serve a valuable function and, at the very least, provides the path user with legal recourse.

04

-84

7

Figure 16


RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSINGTYPE 2 - RE-ROUTE

11th Ave and 12th Ave

*


04

-84

7

Figure 17


RAIL WITH TRAIL CROSSINGTYPE 3 - NEW SIGNAL

New (future) Roadways with Signalized Crossings

*


04

-84

7

Figure 18

Cross County PathKings CountyMULTI-USE TRAIL

CROSSING PROTOTYPE

Removable Bollards: 5’ Spacing(Handicap Accessible)

04

-84

7

Figure 19

Cross County PathKings CountyRAIL WITH TRAIL

CROSSING PAVEMENT MARKINGS



Unprotected at-grade Roadway Crossings An unprotected crossing consists of a crosswalk and signing, but no other devices to slow or stop traffic (see Figure 14). The approach to designing crossings at mid-block locations depends on an evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, path traffic, use patterns, road type and width, and other safety issues such as nearby schools. The Table 3 identifies the general thresholds below which unprotected crossings may be acceptable.

On residential and collector streets below 10,000 ADT, crosswalks and warning signs (“Bike Xing”) should be provided for motorists, and STOP signs and slowing techniques (bollards/geometry) used on the path approach. Care should be taken to keep vegetation and other obstacles out of the view line for motorists and path users.

Table 3: Unprotected Crossings

Criteria Threshold

Maximum Traffic Volumes 10,000-15,000 (ADT), 1,000-1,500 peak hour

Maximum 85th Percentile Speeds 35-45 mph

Maximum Path User Volumes 50-75 per hour, 300-400 per day

Maximum Street Width 60 feet (no median)

Minimum Line of Sight 25mph zone: 100 feet 35 mph zone: 200 feet 45 mph zone: 300 feet

Collector streets up to 15,000 ADT require a higher level of treatment for crossings than residential streets. In addition to the features described for residential streets, signing locations may need to be moved further upstream and made more visible for motorists. A flashing yellow beacon costing between $15,000 and $30,000, may be used, preferably one that is activated by the path user rather than a beacon that operates continuously. The East Bay Regional Park District is successfully using a flashing beacon that is activated by motion detectors on the path, triggering the beacon as path users approach the intersection. This equipment, though slightly more expensive, helps to keep motorists alert (see Figure 18).

Higher volume arterials over 15,000 ADT may be unprotected in some circumstances, for example if they are located near a signalized intersection and there are substantial “gaps” in the traffic, and/or there is a median island. This type of crossing would not be appropriate if there are a significant number of school children using the path.

Signalized Crossings When a path must cross a roadway that exceeds the maximum thresholds identified for unprotected crossings, generally 10,000 ADTs, some type of signalized control must be installed to protect the path users. Signals require the input of local traffic engineers, who review potential impacts on traffic progression, capacity and safety. On corridors with timed signals, a new pathway crossing may need to be coordinated with adjacent signals to maximize efficiency. Path signals are normally activated by push buttons, but also may be triggered by motion detectors as well. The maximum vehicle delay



for activation of the signal should be two minutes, with minimum crossing times determined by the width of the street and path volumes. The signals may rest on flashing yellow or green for motorists when not activated, and should be supplemented by standard advance warning signs. Typical costs for a signalized crossing range from $75,000 to $150,000.

ADDITIONAL AMENITIES

Pathway Amenities A key project goal is to have the path appeal to a wide variety of users. To achieve this, the Cross County Path should be designed to provide a high level of user conveniences. The general topography of the rail alignment is flat, with greatest slopes being in the magnitude of one to two percent. Longitudinal slopes on the Pathway can easily be designed within ADA standards of less than five percent.

Following are general recommendations for path amenities. Amenities along segments of the pathway that run through urban areas will adhere to City standards (see Appendices D and E), in an effort to achieve visual cohesion with adopted City streetscape plans.

Benches: These should utilize metal or composite materials.

Covered Bench Areas: Use of metal and composite should be encouraged. Design of cover structure should be reflective of the former rail station and include a metal sign identifying the former station name.

Drinking Fountains: Should meet ADA requirements.

Fixed Bollards: Should be used at intersections to minimize unwanted vehicle access. Bollards should be heavy timber or metal structures.

Removable Bollards: Used to allow maintenance and emergency service vehicle access onto the path. Recommend use of metal, keyed to allow access.

Mile Post Markers: Mileposts greatly increase use of the Pathway by joggers and cyclists looking for set work out distances. Recommend incorporation of milepost markers onto fixed bollards.

Garbage Cans: The Pathway should establish a “pack it in, pack it out” policy. However, garbage cans should be provided at key pathway access points.

Dog Refuse Bags: Dog refuse bags should be used on the Cross County Path to encourage its users to keep the pathway clean. Post design should be consistent with other path design features.

Restrooms: Restrooms are necessary along the pathway and represent a significant capital and maintenance responsibility. Locations should be selected at key activity areas such as parks or trailheads. The design of the restroom structures should be reflective of the local architectural vernacular. In lieu of constructing new restroom buildings, the use of porta-potties should be considered.

All materials should receive approval from the path’s managing authority.

Bench Style used within the City of Hanford



LightingInstallation of lighting along the Cross County Path is strongly recommended as a means of enhancing the pathway as well as a deterrent to crime. In general, lighting should be placed at path access points and mid-points between blocks. This will help facilitate security surveillance of the path from police vehicles. Light cut-offs should be used to minimize unwanted light onto private property. Lighting along segments of the pathway that run through urban areas will adhere to adopted City standards (see Appendices D and E).

FencingThere are two main issues relevant to fencing design along the Cross County Path: railroad separation and pathway fencing. The general public often perceives fencing as a means of assuring safety by prevention of unwanted access. In general, there is limited residential development immediately adjacent to the Cross County Path. Fencing of both sides of the right-of-way may also result in a “tunnel” effect with the perception of being trapped, resulting in a detrimental effect to the path user experience. Additionally, with the goal of enhancing public safety by providing good lighting and surveillance of the path, fencing could literally have the opposite effect of this goal.

As a general policy, fencing requests from private property owners should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If credible evidence exists that trespassing and crime issues on a specific property is a result of the development of the path, then installation of fencing should be considered. There are numerous fencing types that can be considered. Solid fencing that does not allow any visual access to the path should be discouraged. Fencing that allows a balance between the need for privacy, while simultaneously allowing informal surveillance of the path should be encouraged. If fencing is requested purely for privacy reasons, vegetative buffers should be considered.

A barrier fence may be required to separate the path from the active rail line in specific locations. The recommendation is to use 5-6 ft high stock fence; however, specific fencing requirements will be determined by the rail operations including path/track setbacks, train speeds, and the SJVRR. Current cost for 5’ chain-link fencing is $18 per linear foot. Figures 20 and 21 depict various fencing styles available for use along the pathway.

LandscapingLandscape plant materials should be located along the Cross County Path to provide a sequence of visual landmarks, and with SJVRR’s approval, they may be utilized as a barrier between the pathway and tracks (see Figure 22). Selection of an appropriate plant palate can enhance gateway and entry features and provide the path with a strong identity. Specific species suitable for planting will be selected with the assistance of the SJVRR (for segments within the railroad right-of-way) and appropriate City/County staff (for segments within urban/rural areas).

Choices of plants will respect the sharing of the right-of-way with the rail or roadway (Front Street), and will introduce seasonal color and shade. Groundcovers and shrubs will be water efficient and capable of withstanding the periodic wind stream created by passing trains, existing contaminants within the corridor and sub soils, and vegetation control methods employed by SJVRR. Trees should be a mix of deciduous and evergreen species, and should be located at the edges of the rail corridor, also providing a wind screen in places.

Trail lighting can be artistic, utilitarian, or both.



Irrigation should be predominately drip, and plant materials will be capable of self-sustainability within two to three years. Solar controllers and other stand alone equipment should be used throughout the Cross County Path, eliminating costly trenching for electric. Irrigation will be minimal after establishment of plant material.

SignageA comprehensive signage system includes three sign types: regulatory, directional and interpretive. Consistency of signage image is important in providing the path user with a sense of continuity of the path, general path user orientation and safety. As a general rule, caution should be exercised to not “over sign” the path. Incorporation of signage into planned pathway vertical elements such as bollards should be encouraged. This will avoid “visual pollution” of too may signs along the path and an excessive number of sign poles.

Trailhead Access Signage Since trailheads will serve as the access point to people that may not be familiar with the path, information signage should be provided that includes a “You Are Here” map and path etiquette signs. These should be placed on an information kiosk, designed to be consistent with other path design elements. See Figure 23.

Path Etiquette Signage The path etiquette sign will clearly spell out proper rules and customs for path users. This will be based on national standards and accepted path practices. The path etiquette sign should be utilized at key access points.

Regulatory Signage The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices clearly spells out how regulatory signage should be incorporated into the path. Table 4 lists the appropriate regulatory signage needed on the Cross County Path. Figure 24 depicts an example.

Directional Signage Directional signage provides orientation to the path user and emphasizes the continuity of the path. Street names, mileage markers, and place names are key elements that should be called out along the path. Street names should be called out at all path intersections with roadways. Mileage markers should be based on the historic railroad mileposts, with mileage call outs at quarter mile increments. In addition to providing path users with a distance reference, mileage markers are an attraction to joggers and walkers that target exercise for set distances. Directional signage should be used to call out key destinations on along the path route and include the following:

Schools/West Hills Community College ParksDowntown Commercial District Train Depot (Intermodal Transit Facility) Other Paths



Table 4: Regulatory Signage

Item Location Color AASHTO Designation

MUTCD Designation

No Motor Vehicles Entrances to path B on W R44A R5-3

Use Ped Signal/Yield to Peds At crosswalks; where sidewalks are being used

B on W N/A R9-5R9-6

Bike Lane Ahead: Right Lane Bikes Only

At beginning of bike lanes B on W N/A R3-16 R3-17

STOP, YIELD At path intersections with roads W on R R1-2 R1-1 R1-2

Bicycle Crossing For motorists at path crossings B on Y W79 W11-1

Bike Lane At the far side of all arterial intersections

B on W R81 D11-1

Turns and Curves At turns and curves which exceed 20 mph design specifications

B on Y W1,2,3 W4,5,6,14W56,57

W1-1,2 W1-4,5 W1-6

Path Intersections At path intersections where no STOP or YIELD required, or sight lines limited

B on Y W7,8,9 W2-1,W2-2 W2-3,W2-3 W2-4, W2-5

STOP Ahead Where STOP sign is obscured B,R on Y

W17 W3-1

Signal Ahead Where signal is obscured B,R,G YW41 W3-3

Pedestrian Crossing Where pedestrian walkway crosses path

B on Y W54 W11A-2

Directional Signs At intersections where access to major destinations is available

W on G G7 G8

D1-1b(r/l)D1-1c

Path Regulations All path entrances B on W n/a n/a

Multi-purpose Path: Bikes Yield to Pedestrians

All path entrances n/a n/a n/a

Bikes Reduce Speed & Call Out Before Passing

Every 2,000 feet B on W n/a n/a

Please Stay On Path In environmentally-sensitive areas near Norton Slough

n/a n/a n/a

Path Closed: No Entry Until Made Accessible & Safe for Public Use

Where path or access points closed due to hazardous conditions

n/a n/a n/a

Speed Limit Signs Near path entrances: where speed limits should be reduced from 20 mph

B on W n/a n/a

04

-84

7

Figure 20

RAIL WITH TRAIL FENCING TYPES


04

-84

7

Figure 21

Cross County PathKings CountyFENCING TYPES

6 OPTIONS

04

-84

7

Figure 22

UNCONSTRAINED RAIL WITH TRAILSECTION ON LEVEL GROUND


04

-84

7

Figure 23

Cross County PathKings CountyBIKE PATH

INFORMATION KIOSK

04

-84

7

Figure 24


REGULATORY SIGN

Demountable post withPath/Trail identification colors marked in reflective tape.



Interpretive Signage The Cross County Path could provide a wide variety of interpretive opportunities, primarily through the use of informational signs that explain local features, history, and other elements, along with general facts about the area. The location, style, and content of markers will need to be developed in the final design for the project (project stage), but concepts for interpretive signs are shown in Figures 25 and 26. Interpretive subjects may include:

History of the Railroad (San Joaquin Valley Railroad, Southern Pacific Railroad, etc.) Settlers and Pioneers (Dan Rhoads (Donner Party rescuer), etc.) People Behind Local Place Names (Dr. Lovern Lee Moore, James Madison Hanford, etc.) Local Cultures (African-Americans, Chinese, Dutch, English, Japanese, Native Americans, Portuguese, Spanish/Latin Americans, etc.) Animals and Plants (San Joaquin kit fox, Fresno kangaroo rat, etc.) Agriculture (milk, cotton, cattle, etc.) Geography and Geology Industry Local Economy Local City History Lemoore Naval Air Station History Water Resource History

In addition to traditional signs, interpretive opportunities may include actual places and activities visible from the path. For example, a sign may be placed next to active agricultural fields explaining the rotation and harvesting of crops, and explaining the importance of staying out of these fields. Innovative interpretive ideas include the use of artwork embedded in the path surface, showing, for example, a scale map of the San Joaquin River from source to endpoint.

PATH ACCESS POINTS

Issues and Improvements Access points, whether at the westerly or easterly extremities of the path or at points along the path where other existing City, County or Regional pathways, lanes or paths intersect the Cross County Path, require special design consideration so that the improvements are responsive to the variety of interface concerns, including signage or other features to alert the user to the intersection, features to slow bicyclists so that the transition can be made as safely as possible, and features to restrict inadvertent entrance by prohibited vehicles, etc.

Easterly Trailhead The easterly terminus of the Cross County Path, where it approaches State Route 43 creates certain challenges that will ultimately require further work and coordination with Caltrans.

As a state highway, State Route 43 handles fairly high-speed traffic which requires standardized solutions to control crossing and intersecting traffic. It is highly unlikely that Caltrans will allow either parking within the State right-of-way or other direct access to the pathway where the UPRR intersects SR 43, because there is no way at that location to safely accommodate an interface of SR 43 traffic with bicyclists or pedestrians. Consequently, further dialogue and negotiations with Caltrans will be needed to identify a suitable alternate location for safe ingress and egress of vehicles transporting bicyclists and pedestrians to and from the path, as well as bicyclists and pedestrians who



may desire to transition onto and off the path via SR 43. State Route 43 is designated as a Regional Class II Bike Lane within the 2001 Kings County Regional Bicycle Plan.

As intimated above, the trailhead will need provisions for off-highway parking of vehicles which may be transporting users to the path. This need may require the introduction onto the highway or a connecting County roadway of a driveway serving the off-highway parking. The location of such a driveway will be of significant concern to Caltrans. If a driveway location can be identified and agreed upon, it may result in the Pathway being extended to this approximate trailhead location either north or south of the UPRR alignment. It is possible that a connection to Grangeville Boulevard to the north, or Lacey Boulevard to the south may be needed; such that the trailhead can be accommodated near an intersection where reasonable traffic control signage or devices can be provided to meet County or State standards. Negotiations for acquisition of private property sufficient to develop the trailhead at one of these alternate locations would also be necessary.

Features and Amenities Path entry features include a wide variety of potential improvements, depending on the location and amount of available land. Figures 27 through 29 depict various trailhead layouts. Minimum trailhead elements should include (items 1 – 6 are typically provided on entry signs):

1. Path Name 2. Local Agency 3. Hours of Operation (if necessary) 4. Trail Protocol (pass on left, stay to right) 5. No Trespassing Signs and Penalty (for railroad and agriculture property) 6. Emergency Contact Phone Number 7. Bollards

Additional entry features could include:

1. Directional Signs (to nearby destinations) 2. Trailhead Parking 3. Drinking Fountains 4. Garbage Cans 5. Restrooms 6. Landscaping7. Public Art 8. Benches

The selection of these treatments is most heavily related to available budget for both capital and maintenance. Drinking fountains and landscaping may require expensive routing of water pipes to the corridor. Restrooms and garbage cans require routine maintenance. Often times these elements are programmed in at a later date once the trail has been established.

04

-84

7

Figure 25


REGIONAL INFORMATION MAP

04

-84

7

Figure 26


INTERPRETIVE SIGN

04

-84

7

Figure 27


PATH ENTRY STAGING AREA

04

-84

7

Figure 28


TRAILHEAD WITH SMALL PARKING AREA

04

-84

7

Figure 29


MAJOR TRAILHEAD



V – IMPLEMENTATION

RIGHT-OF-WAY & ESTIMATED COSTS The railroad right-of-way needed for implementation of the Cross County Path is assumed to be an easement. According to the UPRR, all of the railroad property between Lemoore and Armona is Act of Congress right-of-way which can be long-term leased. Compensation would be based on the fair market value of the land as determined and approved by the UPRR during lease agreement negotiations. A sample Easement Agreement has been included as Appendix B. All other right-of-ways associated with the pathway occur within City and County roadways.

Tables 5 and 6 detail the order of magnitude costs associated with acquisition of the railroad ROW. Land use along the ROW was based on the segment aerials used within this study (flown September of 2002), and potential development. All residential land along the path was assumed to be of equal value (residential values were based on Hanford land values), and land prices were based on estimated fair market land value ranges obtained from a local real estate appraiser. The highest estimated value for “finished” residential land was used to represent all residential land.

Raw residential = $2-$4 per Sq. Ft. Finished residential = $8-$10 per Sq. Ft. Commercial = $5-$10 per Sq. Ft. Agricultural = $0.69 per Sq. Ft. or $10,000-$30,000 per acre

The length of path within each of the above land use categories along a segment was first determined and multiplied by 16 ft., the width of the bike path, and then multiplied by the highest estimated fair market land value. Please note that these prices do not include severance, damages, or construction costs, and are based on 2005 land values which are expected to increase over time.

Table 5: Order of Magnitude Railroad ROW Acquisition Cost by Land Use

Residential Commercial Agricultural LF LF LF

SEGMENT 1* 0 0 0 SEGMENT 2 4,765 0 14,151 SEGMENT 3* 0 0 0 SEGMENT 4 3,042 1,950 6,642 SEGMENT 5* 0 0 0 SEGMENT 6 0 3,277 7,694 Total (LF) 7,807 5,227 28,487 ROW (width - LF) 16 16 16 Total (SF) 124,912 83,632 455,792 $/Ft $10.00 $10.00 $0.69 Sub-total $1,249,120.00 $836,320.00 $314,496.48

TOTAL = $2,399,396 *Note: No ROW acquisition is required for these sections - Segments 1 and 5 are comprised entirely of Class II – Bike Lanes; Segment 3 is

proposed within public road ROW.



Table 6: Order of Magnitude Railroad ROW Acquisition Cost by Segment

SEGMENT 1* SEGMENT 2 SEGMENT 3* SEGMENT 4 SEGMENT 5* SEGMENT 6

Residential (LF) 0 4,765 0 3,042 0 0 Commercial (LF) 0 0 0 1,950 0 3,277 Agricultural (LF) 0 14,151 0 6,642 0 7,694 Sub-total1 $0.00 $918,627.04 $0.00 $872,047.68 $0.00 $609,261.76 TOTAL = $2,399,936

*Note: No ROW acquisition is required for these sections - Segments 1 and 5 are comprised entirely of Class II – Bike Lanes; Segment 3 is proposed within public road ROW.

1Based on 16 ft. wide ROW and the following land acquisition prices: (residential = $10/sq ft; commercial = $10/sq ft; agricultural = $0.69/sq ft)

CONSTRUCTION & ESTIMATED COSTS This1 section includes construction cost estimates in the form of order of magnitude costs (see Table 7). Cost estimates were calculated for the 6 pathway segments defined in the Preferred Route Alternatives section of this plan (section III). See Figures 3 through 8. The segments are characterized by somewhat homogeneous construction by nature of their design or Caltrans classification (i.e. Class I, II or III). Cost estimates were based on the following design assumptions:

All right-of-way easements are already attained Relatively flat (consistently) terrain Alignment is buildable (no construction delay/interference) All existing paths are sufficient as is No street lighting required (not on commuter route) All railroad crossings are at grade Number of bridges needed Intersection signalization not accounted for in Order of Magnitude, and should be considered at a later time (>20k ADT)

Phased Development of Pathway It is anticipated that construction of the overall Path will occur in phases over time. The following implementation order is based upon constructability and cost issues, but the Path is not bound to be built in the order recommended; phased development of the pathway may change to depending on the source and availability of funding, as well as local issues and needs.

Phase 1The initial development of the Cross County Path will involve the construction of Segments 1 and 5, which run through the heart of downtown Lemoore and Hanford respectively. These segments comprise the Path’s Class II and Class III bike lanes, thus offering the lowest constructions costs and ease of constructability.



Phase 2 This phase calls for the construction of Segment 3 to provide a bike path within the Community of Armona. This Class I segment would be relatively easy to construct, and its development would create pathway gaps which could lead to favorable funding scenarios for Segments 2 and 4.

Phase 3The third phase of the development plan calls for the construction of Segments 2 and 4. Development of these segments will serve to create commuter routes between urban areas and to lengthen existing recreational paths. Delaying construction of these Class I segments within the railroad right-of-way, until this third phase, will provide for additional time to procure grants and to negotiate with the Railroad.

Phase 4This final phase will involve the construction of Segment 6. Currently, there is not enough activity along this portion of the proposed route to justify earlier development. Delaying construction of this Class I segment will allow for ample time to work out design issues involved with the 10th and Lacey crossing, as well as the Path terminus at Highway 43.

TPG

Con

sulti

ng, I

nc.

P

age

64

Kin

gs C

ount

y A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Gov

ernm

ents

C

RO

SS C

OU

NT

Y P

AT

H P

LA

N

Tab

le 7

: Ord

er o

f Mag

nitu

de C

onst

ruct

ion

Cos

ts

SE

GM

ENT

1 SE

GM

ENT

2 SE

GM

ENT

3 SE

GM

ENT

4 SE

GM

ENT

5 SE

GM

ENT

6 To

tal

Tota

l C

ost

STR

IPIN

G

LF

LF

LF

LF

LF

LF

(1-

dir.)

(2-

dir.)

(p

er fo

ot)

Sub-

tota

l

si

ngle

sol

id (6

”)

1336

9

4397

1776

6 35

533

$0.1

7 $6

,041

urba

n (a

dditi

onal

4”)

6961

4397

1135

8 22

716

$0.1

2 $2

,726

dash

ed y

ello

w

18

916

8162

11

634

10

971

4968

4 49

684

$0.1

4 $6

,956

sing

le s

olid

(6”)

$4

,546

$1,4

95

ur

ban

(add

ition

al 4

”)

$1,6

71

$1

,055

dash

ed y

ello

w

$2

,648

$1

,143

$1

,629

$1,5

36

Su

b-to

tal

$6,2

17

$2,6

48

$1,1

43

$1,6

29

$2,5

50

$1,5

36

$1

5,72

3

SIG

NIN

G

# #

# #

# #

(1-

dir.)

(2-

dir.)

(p

er s

ign)

Su

b-to

tal

inte

rsec

tions

14

3

3

9 6

35

70

$200

$1

4,00

0in

terc

hang

e cr

ossi

ngs

2

2 10

$2

00

$2,0

00ra

ilroa

d cr

ossi

ngs

1

4

5 10

$2

00

$2,0

00ch

ange

of d

irect

ion

4

1

5 10

$2

00

$2,0

00ar

teria

l cro

ssin

gs

1 2

2 2

1

8 32

$2

00

$6,4

00km

spa

n 1

2 2

1 6

12

$200

$2

,400

begi

nnin

g/en

d bi

ke p

ath

1

1

2 4

$200

$8

00br

idge

cro

ssin

gs

3

3

6 24

$2

00

$4,8

00tra

nsiti

ons

1

1

2 4

$200

$8

00

Su

b-to

tal

$11,

200

$6,4

00

$2,4

00

$7,2

00

$5,2

00

$2,8

00

$35,

200

P. M

AR

KIN

GS/

LEG

END

S #

# #

# #

# (1

-di

r.)(2

-di

r.)Su

b-to

tal

inte

rsec

tions

14

3

3

9 6

35

70

$2

,835

inte

rcha

nge

cros

sing

s 2

2

4

$162

railr

oad

cros

sing

s 1

4

5

10

$4

05ch

ange

of d

irect

ion

4

1

5 10

$405

TPG

Con

sulti

ng, I

nc.

P

age

65

Kin

gs C

ount

y A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Gov

ernm

ents

C

RO

SS C

OU

NT

Y P

AT

H P

LA

N

Tab

le 7

con

t.

SEG

MEN

T 1

SEG

MEN

T 2

SEG

MEN

T 3

SEG

MEN

T 4

SEG

MEN

T 5

SEG

MEN

T 6

Tota

l

Cos

t

arte

rial c

ross

ings

1

2 2

2 1

8

$648

km s

pan

1 2

2

1

6

$4

86be

ginn

ing

bike

pat

h 1

1

2

$162

brid

ge c

ross

ings

3

3

6

$486

trans

ition

s

1

1

2

$162

Sub-

tota

l $1

,944

$8

91

$324

$1

,053

$9

72

$567

$5

,751

R

OA

D W

OR

K

Su

b-to

tal

clas

s 1

(ft)

18

916

8162

11

634

10

971

$ pe

r LF

(EX

)

$15.

38

$15.

38

$15.

38

$1

5.38

$

per L

F (A

/C)*

$8.7

5 $8

.75

$8.7

5

$8.7

5

$

per L

F (A

B)

$2

.30

$2.3

0 $2

.30

$2

.30

E

xcav

atio

n (E

X) C

ost

$2

90,9

80

$125

,560

$1

78,9

53

$1

68,7

67

$7

64,2

59A

spha

lt/C

oncr

ete

(A/C

) Cos

t

$165

,517

$7

1,42

2 $1

01,7

93

$9

5,99

9

$434

,732

Agg

. Bas

e (A

B) C

ost

$4

3,54

7 $1

8,79

1 $2

6,78

1

$25,

257

$1

14,3

76

Sub-

tota

l

$500

,044

$2

15,7

72

$307

,528

$290

,023

$1,3

13,3

67

* R

efle

ct 5

0% in

dust

ry in

crea

se

SU

B-T

OTA

L C

OST

$1

9,36

1 $5

09,9

83

$219

,639

$3

17,4

10

$8,7

22

$294

,926

$1

,370

,041

FEN

CIN

G @

$18/

LF

$1

66,4

28

$9

6,17

4

$97,

218

$3

59,8

20B

RID

GES

$125

,000

$95,

000

$2

20,0

00TR

AFF

IC C

ON

TRO

L $1

,200

$9

00

$1,0

00

$900

$4,0

00EN

GIN

EER

ING

(10%

) $2

,056

$6

3,49

8 $2

1,96

4 $4

1,33

1 $9

72

$29,

583

$1

59,4

04C

ON

TIN

GEN

CIE

S(1

5%)

$3,3

92

$104

,772

$3

6,24

0 $6

8,19

6 $1

,604

$4

8,81

1

$263

,015

TOTA

L C

OST

$2

6,00

9 $9

69,6

81$2

77,8

43$6

19,0

11$1

2,29

8 $4

71,4

38$2

,376

,280



VI – FUNDING OPTIONSNon-motorized transportation is gaining support across the nation. Accordingly, policy support and additional funding have recently been made available for bicycle transportation improvements. This has been true on the local and state level thanks to the 1994 California Bicycle Transportation Act. This has also been the case on the federal level through:

1990 Clean Air Act,1991 Inter-Modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21).

These laws have called for increased spending on bicycle travel and allow communities more flexibility in spending highway funding on alternative modes, such as bicycling, walking, and transit. Already, these laws have led to over a billion dollars in bicycle, path and pedestrian projects nationwide, and thousands of miles in new bicycle lanes, sidewalks, multi-use paths and other non-motorized enhancements. Several of the major potential competitive source grant funding programs which may be used to implement the Cross County Path are described in this section. Table 8 outlines funding sources recommended for each Segment of the Pathway.

Table 8: Recommended Funding Sources

Segments Funding Sources

1, 5 Safe Route to Schools (SB 10) TDA Article III (SB 821)

2, 3, 4, 6 Bicycle Transportation Account Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA) Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program(CMAQ) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Bike Grant TDA Article III (SB 821)

FEDERAL

Tea-21Federal funding through the TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) program has provided much of the funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. TEA-21 currently contains three major programs, STP (Surface Transportation Program), TEA (Transportation Enhancement Activities), and CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) along with other programs such as the National Recreational Trails Program, Section 402 (Safety) funds, Scenic Byways funds, and Federal Lands Highway funds.

TEA-21 funding is administered through the state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and regional governments (KCAG). Most, but not all, of the funding programs are transportation versus recreational oriented, with an emphasis on (a) reducing auto trips and (b) providing an intermodal connection. Funding criteria often includes completion and adoption of a bicycle and/or pedestrian master plan,



quantification of the costs and benefits of the system (such as saved vehicle trips and reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, CEQA compliance, and commitment of some local resources. In most cases, TEA-21 provides matching grants of 80 to 90 percent, but prefers to leverage other moneys at a lower rate.

All TEA-21 funds have been programmed. TEA-21 was to expire on September 30, 2003, but was recently extended into 2004. The successor legislation, which is currently known as SAFETEA (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003), will be a future source of funds. This new legislation is expected to come with additional categories of funding and guidelines, several of which are anticipated to be dedicated to non-motorized transportation.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds are programmed by TEA-21 for projects that are likely to contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard, and congestion mitigation. These funds can be used for a broad variety of bicycle and pedestrian projects, particularly those that are developed primarily for transportation purposes. The funds can be used either for construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways or for non-construction projects related to safe bicycle and pedestrian use (maps, brochures, etc.). The projects must be tied to a plan adopted by the State and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

National Highway System National Highway System funds are for improvements to the National Highway System (NHS), which consists of an interconnected system of principal arterial routes that serve major population centers, international border crossings, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities as well as other major travel destinations. These funds can be used to provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities constructed on NHS routes.

Federal Lands Highway Funds Federal Lands Highway funds may be used to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities in conjunction with roads and parkways at the discretion of the department charged with administration of the funds. The projects must be transportation-related and tied to a plan adopted by the State and MPO.

STATE

Bicycle Transportation Account The state Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit for funding bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. Funding that is available on a statewide basis amounts to $7.2 million annually.

Safe Routes to School (SB 10) The Safe Routes to School program is a State program using federal transportation funds. This program is meant to improve school commute routes through construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. A local match of 11.5% is required for this competitive program, which will allocate $18 million annually. Since it is a construction program, planning grants are not available



through this program. Programs or activities related to education, enforcement, or encouragement may be eligible for reimbursement if they are related to the construction improvement.

Office of Traffic Safety The California Office of Traffic Safety has the mission to obtain and effectively administer traffic safety grant funds to reduce deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from traffic related collisions in California. OTS distributes federal funding apportioned to California under the National Highway Safety Act and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Grants are used to mitigate traffic safety program deficiencies, expand ongoing activity, or develop a new program. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction.

OTS grants address several traffic safety priority areas including Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. Eligible activities include programs to increase safety awareness and skills among pedestrians and bicyclists. Concepts may encompass activities such as safety programs, education, enforcement, traffic safety and bicycle rodeos, safety helmet distribution, and court diversion programs for safety helmet violators.

National Recreational Trails FundThe Recreational Trails Program provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other non-motorized as well as motorized uses.

Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:

Maintenance and restoration of existing trails; Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages; Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment; Construction of new trails (with restrictions for new trails on federal lands);Acquisition of easements or property for trails; State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a State's funds); and Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a State's funds).

Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Funds are allocated to projects that offset environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities including streets, mass transit guideways, park-and-ride facilities, transit stations, tree planting to equalize the effects of vehicular emissions, and the acquisition or development of roadside recreational facilities, such as trails. State gasoline tax money funds the EEMP.

Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) These funds are a portion of the State Transportation Improvement Program. Kings County Association of Governments, acting as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency in the area, is responsible for allocating Kings County’s share of the funding. Funds from this source can be attributed to bicycle transportation projects.



REGIONAL

TDA Article III (SB 821) Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds are awarded annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. These funds originate from the state sales tax and are distributed according to population by the Kings County Association of Goverments on a yearly basis to local jurisdictions.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Mobile Source Emission Reduction Incentive Program-Bicycle Infrastructure Component)

The SJVAPCD is providing incentives to municipalities, government agencies, pubic education, private companies and organizations in the development of:

Class I Bicycle Path Class II Bicycle Lane

LOCAL FUNDING

Direct Local Jurisdiction Funding Local jurisdictions can fund bicycle and pedestrian projects using a variety of sources. A city’s general funds are often earmarked for non-motorized transportation projects, especially sidewalk and ADA improvements.

Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bike lanes and sidewalks. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide these facilities where needed, appropriate, and feasible, it is important that an effective review process is in place so that new roads meet the standards and guidelines presented in this Plan.

Impact fees Another potential local source of funding is developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site pedestrian and bikeway improvements, which will encourage residents to walk and bicycle rather than drive. In-lieu parking fees may be used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project’s impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsuit.

Special Taxing Districts Special taxing districts, such as redevelopment districts, can be good instruments to finance new infrastructure, including shared use trails and sidewalks, within specified areas. New facilities are funded by assessments placed on those that are directly benefited by the improvements rather than the general public. In a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, taxes are collected on property value increases above the base year assessed property value. This money can then be utilized for capital improvements within the district. TIF’s are especially beneficial in downtown redevelopment districts.

These districts are established by a petition from landowners to a local government. The districts can



operate independently from the local government and some are established for single purposes, such as roadway construction.

OtherLocal sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Parking meter revenues may be used according to local ordinance. Volunteer programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways. Use of groups such as the California Conservation Corp (who offer low-cost assistance) will be effective at reducing project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the bikeway or pedestrian project as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may be formed to help clear the right-of-way where needed. A local construction company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations “adopt” a bikeway and help construct and maintain the facility.

Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time, which may be used to implement the pathway. Table 9 summarizes a number of funding sources available for both bicycle and pedestrian projects.

TPG

Con

sulti

ng, I

nc.

Pag

e 71

Kin

gs C

ount

y A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Gov

ernm

ents

C

RO

SS C

OU

NT

Y P

AT

H P

LA

N

Tab

le 9

: Sum

mar

y of

Cal

iforn

ia N

on-M

otor

ized

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fund

ing

Prog

ram

s

Fund

ing

Prog

ram

s

Mod

es(B

icyc

le,

pede

stri

an-

wal

kway

s,tr

ails

)

Trip

Typ

es

(Com

mut

e/

Tran

spor

tati

on,

Recr

eati

onal

)

Proj

ect

Type

s (C

onst

ruct

ion,

N

on-

cons

truc

tion

,bo

th)*

Requ

ired

Mat

chin

gFu

nds

Dea

dlin

esA

vaila

ble

Ann

ual

Fund

ing

Cont

act

& W

ebsi

te

Info

rmat

ion

FED

ERA

L FU

ND

ING

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Enha

ncem

ent

Act

iviti

es (T

EA)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n 11

.5%

V

arie

s by

MPO

/RTP

A$6

0 m

illio

n ov

er th

e 6-

year

le

gisl

ativ

epe

riod

ww

w.d

ot.c

a.go

v/hq

/Tra

nsEn

hAct

Reg

iona

l Sur

face

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Prog

ram

(RST

P)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h 20

% fo

r bi

ke a

nd

ped.

Proj

ects

Var

ies b

y M

PO/R

TPA

App

roxi

mat

ely

$320

mill

ion

stat

ewid

e

ww

w.d

ot.c

a.go

v/hq

/tran

spro

g/cm

aqrs

tp.h

tm

Con

gest

ion

Miti

gatio

n &

Air

Qua

lity

Impr

ovem

ent

Prog

ram

(CM

AQ

)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h 11

.5%

V

arie

s by

MPO

/RTP

AA

ppro

xim

atel

y $4

00 m

illio

n st

atew

ide

to

achi

eve

natio

nal

ambi

ent a

ir qu

ality

stan

dard

s

ww

w.d

ot.c

a.go

v/hq

/tran

spro

g/re

ports

/Off

icia

l_C

MA

Q_W

eb_P

age.

htm

Nat

iona

l Hig

hway

Sy

stem

(NH

S)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h 20

%

Var

ies b

y M

PO/R

TPA

App

roxi

mat

ely

$500

mill

ion

annu

ally

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/tea

21/fa

ctsh

eets

/nhs

.htm

Fede

ral L

ands

H

ighw

ay F

unds

B

oth

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

onst

ruct

ion

Non

e Ju

ly

App

roxi

mat

ely

$165

mill

ion

annu

ally

*C

onst

ruct

ion

fund

s are

exc

lusi

vely

for c

apita

l im

prov

emen

ts. N

on-c

onst

ruct

ion

fund

s can

be

used

for d

esig

n, e

ngin

eerin

g, a

nd in

som

e ca

ses m

aint

enan

ce.

TPG

Con

sulti

ng, I

nc.

Pag

e 72

Kin

gs C

ount

y A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Gov

ernm

ents

C

RO

SS C

OU

NT

Y P

AT

H P

LA

N

Tab

le 9

con

t.

Fund

ing

Prog

ram

s

Mod

es(B

icyc

le,

pede

stri

an-

wal

kway

s,tr

ails

)

Trip

Typ

es

(Com

mut

e/

Tran

spor

tati

on,

Recr

eati

onal

)

Proj

ect

Type

s (C

onst

ruct

ion,

N

on-

cons

truc

tion

,bo

th)

Requ

ired

Mat

chin

gFu

nds

Dea

dlin

esA

vaila

ble

Ann

ual

Fund

ing

Cont

act

& W

ebsi

te

Info

rmat

ion

Rai

lroad

/Hig

hway

A

t-Gra

de C

ross

ing

Prog

ram

Bot

h B

oth

Con

stru

ctio

n up

to 1

0%

Mar

ch 1

an

nual

lyA

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

0 m

illio

n an

nual

ly

ww

w.d

ot.c

a.go

v/hq

/Loc

alPr

ogra

ms/

sect

130/

sect

130.

htm

Nat

iona

l Rec

reat

ion

Trai

ls F

und

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h 20

%

Oct

ober

A

ppro

xim

atel

y $3

mill

ion

stat

ewid

e,co

mpe

titiv

e

ww

w.p

arks

.ca.

gov/

gran

ts/i

ndex

.htm

Hig

hway

Saf

ety

Prog

ram

B

oth

Tran

spor

tatio

n N

on-c

onst

ruct

ion

11.5

O

n go

ing

App

roxi

mat

ely

$165

mill

ion

ww

w.o

ts.c

a.go

v

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d C

omm

unity

and

Sy

stem

Pre

serv

atio

n Pi

lot P

rogr

am

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h N

/A

A

ppro

xim

atel

y $2

5 m

illio

n an

nual

ly

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/tcs

p/in

dex.

htm

l

STA

TE F

UN

DIN

G

Stat

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Impr

ovem

ent

Prog

ram

(STI

P)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n no

ne

Dec

embe

r 15

, odd

nu

mbe

r ye

ars

Var

ies

ww

w.d

ot.c

a.go

v/hq

/tran

spro

g/st

ip/s

tipgu

id/2

000g

uid.

pdf

Bic

ycle

Tran

spor

tatio

nA

ccou

nt

Bic

ycle

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n 10

%

Dec

. 1

annu

ally

$7.2

mill

ion

ww

w.d

ot.c

a.go

v/hq

/Loc

alPr

ogra

ms/

Safe

Rou

tes t

o Sc

hool

sB

oth

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

onst

ruct

ion

10%

C

ycle

var

ies,

Feb-

04cy

cle

5

$20

mill

ion,

ea

ch p

roje

ct

not t

o ex

ceed

$5

00,0

00

ww

w.d

ot.c

a.go

v/hq

/Loc

alPr

ogra

ms/

TPG

Con

sulti

ng, I

nc.

Pag

e 73

Kin

gs C

ount

y A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Gov

ernm

ents

C

RO

SS C

OU

NT

Y P

AT

H P

LA

N

Tab

le 9

con

t.

Fund

ing

Prog

ram

s

Mod

es(B

icyc

le,

pede

stri

an-

wal

kway

s,tr

ails

)

Trip

Typ

es

(Com

mut

e/

Tran

spor

tati

on,

Recr

eati

onal

)

Proj

ect

Type

s (C

onst

ruct

ion,

N

on-

cons

truc

tion

,bo

th)

Requ

ired

Mat

chin

gFu

nds

Dea

dlin

esA

vaila

ble

Ann

ual

Fund

ing

Cont

act

& W

ebsi

te

Info

rmat

ion

Petro

leum

Vio

latio

n Es

crow

Acc

ount

(P

VEA

)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n N

one

Req

uire

s le

gisl

ativ

eap

prov

al,

June

30,

an

nual

ly

Var

ies

Cal

trans

Fed

eral

R

esou

rces

Off

ice,

Bud

gets

Pr

ogra

m (9

16) 6

54-7

287

Hab

itat

Con

serv

atio

n Fu

nd

Gra

nt P

rogr

am

Bot

h B

oth

Con

stru

ctio

n 50

%

Oct

ober

$5

00,0

00

avai

labl

eth

roug

h st

atew

ide

com

petit

ion

http

://pa

rks.c

a.go

v/gr

ants

/hc

f/hcf

.htm

Land

and

Wat

er

Con

serv

atio

n Fu

nd

Bot

h B

oth

Con

stru

ctio

n (I

nclu

ding

land

ac

quis

ition

)

50%

M

ay

Each

pro

ject

no

t to

exce

ed

$200

,000

ww

w.p

arks

.ca.

gov/

gran

ts/l

wcf

/lwcf

.htm

Mel

lo-R

oos

Com

mun

ity

Faci

litie

s Dis

trict

s

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h

N/A

Cal

iforn

iaC

onse

rvat

ion

Cor

ps

Bot

h B

oth

Con

stru

ctio

n N

one

On

goin

g

ww

w.c

cc.c

a.go

v

Com

mun

ity B

ased

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Plan

ning

D

emon

stra

tion

Gra

nt P

rogr

am

Bot

h B

oth

Non

-con

stru

ctio

n 20

%

Pend

ing

re-

auth

oriz

atio

nA

ppro

xim

atel

y $3

mill

ion,

ea

ch p

roje

ct

not t

o ex

ceed

$3

00,0

00

http

://w

ww

.dot

.ca.

gov/

hq/t

pp/g

rant

s.htm

TPG

Con

sulti

ng, I

nc.

Pag

e 74

Kin

gs C

ount

y A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Gov

ernm

ents

C

RO

SS C

OU

NT

Y P

AT

H P

LA

N

Tab

le 9

con

t.

Fund

ing

Prog

ram

s

Mod

es(B

icyc

le,

pede

stri

an-

wal

kway

s,tr

ails

)

Trip

Typ

es

(Com

mut

e/

Tran

spor

tati

on,

Recr

eati

onal

)

Proj

ect

Type

s (C

onst

ruct

ion,

N

on-

cons

truc

tion

,bo

th)

Requ

ired

Mat

chin

gFu

nds

Dea

dlin

esA

vaila

ble

Ann

ual

Fund

ing

Cont

act

& W

ebsi

te

Info

rmat

ion

Hig

hway

-Rai

lroad

G

rade

Sep

arat

ion

Prog

ram

Bot

h B

oth

Con

stru

ctio

n 20

%

Apr

il 1

annu

ally

$15

mill

ion,

ea

ch p

roje

ct

not t

o ex

ceed

$5

mill

ion

Cal

trans

Rai

lroad

A

gree

men

ts B

ranc

h (9

16)

227-

5203

Off

ice

of T

raff

ic

Safe

ty G

rant

s B

oth

Tran

spor

tatio

n B

oth

N/A

O

ctob

er

N/A

w

ww

.ots

.ca.

gov

INN

OVA

TIVE

FIN

AN

CIN

G

Gra

nt A

ntic

ipat

ion

Rev

enue

Veh

icle

B

onds

(GA

RV

EE)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h 11

.5%

O

n go

ing

Tota

l deb

t not

to

exc

eed

30%

of

fede

ral

fund

s rec

eive

d an

nual

ly

http

://w

ww

.dot

.ca.

gov/

hq/i

nnov

finan

ce/g

arve

ebon

d.h

tm

Stat

e H

ighw

ay

Acc

ount

Loa

n Pr

ogra

m (S

hort

Term

Loa

ns)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h 11

.5%

O

n go

ing

Tota

l ou

tsta

ndin

g lo

ans c

an n

ot

exce

ed $

500

mill

ion

St

atew

ide

http

://w

ww

.dot

.ca.

gov/

hq/i

nnov

finan

ce/s

ha.h

tm

Tran

spor

tatio

nFi

nanc

e B

ank

(TB

F)

Bot

h Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h 11

.5%

O

n go

ing

$3 m

illio

n st

atew

ide

http

://w

ww

.dot

.ca.

gov/

hq/i

nnov

finan

ce/T

_F.h

tm

TPG

Con

sulti

ng, I

nc.

Pag

e 75

Kin

gs C

ount

y A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Gov

ernm

ents

C

RO

SS C

OU

NT

Y P

AT

H P

LA

N

Tab

le 9

con

t.

Fund

ing

Prog

ram

s

Mod

es(B

icyc

le,

pede

stri

an-

wal

kway

s,tr

ails

)

Trip

Typ

es

(Com

mut

e/

Tran

spor

tati

on,

Recr

eati

onal

)

Proj

ect

Type

s (C

onst

ruct

ion,

N

on-

cons

truc

tion

,bo

th)

Requ

ired

Mat

chin

gFu

nds

Dea

dlin

esA

vaila

ble

Ann

ual

Fund

ing

Cont

act

& W

ebsi

te

Info

rmat

ion

REG

ION

AL

FUN

DIN

G

Loca

l Air

Dis

trict

Pr

ojec

ts F

unde

d by

V

ehic

le R

egis

tratio

n Fe

es

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h V

arie

s by

juris

dict

ion

Var

ies b

y ju

risdi

ctio

nV

arie

s by

juris

dict

ion

Con

tact

you

r loc

al a

ir di

stric

t

Tran

spor

tatio

nD

evel

opm

ent A

ct

(TD

A) A

rticl

e 3

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h N

one

Var

ies b

y ju

risdi

ctio

n2%

of

the

Loca

lTr

ansp

orta

tion

Fund

Loca

l MPO

/RTP

A

Loca

l Sal

es T

ax fo

r Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h N

one

Var

ies b

y ju

risdi

ctio

nV

arie

s by

juris

dict

ion

Loca

l MPO

/RTP

A

PRIV

ATE

FU

ND

ING

D

evel

oper

Impa

ct

Fees

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Loca

l Jur

isdi

ctio

n

Bik

es B

elon

g C

oalit

ion

Bic

ycle

B

oth

Bot

h N

/A

On

goin

g Ea

ch p

roje

ct

not t

o ex

ceed

$1

0,00

0

ww

w.b

ikes

belo

ng.o

rg

Am

eric

an

Gre

enw

ays K

odak

A

war

ds

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h N

/A

Early

June

Ea

ch p

roje

ct

not t

o ex

ceed

$2

,500

http

://w

ww

.con

serv

atio

nfu

nd.o

rg/

Pow

erba

r's D

irect

Im

pact

on

Riv

ers

and

Trai

ls (D

IRT)

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h N

/A

Early

June

Pr

ojec

t aw

ards

be

twee

n $1

,000

- $5

,000

http

://w

ww

.pow

erba

r.com

/

Rec

reat

iona

lEq

uipm

ent,

Inc.

(R

EI)

Bot

h B

oth

Bot

h N

/A

On

goin

g Ea

ch p

roje

ct

not t

o ex

ceed

$2

,500

ww

w.re

i.com



VII – MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT APPORTIONMENTS

MAINTENANCE STANDARDS Bikeway maintenance includes cleaning, resurfacing and surface restriping, sign upkeep, pavement repairs, drainage systems cleaning, trash removal, graffiti removal, and landscaping. As discussed previously in the Introduction, maintenance of the Cross County Path will fall under the jurisdiction of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA will be responsible for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Path and its amenities. Maintenance of the pathway should include regular activities as shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Bikeway Maintenance Checklist

Item Frequency

Sign replacement/repair 1-3 years

Pavement marking replacement 1-3 years

Tree, Shrub, & grass trimming/fertilization 5 months- 1 year

Pavement sealing/potholes 5-15 years

Clean drainage system 1 year

Pavement sweeping Monthly - annually as needed

Shoulder and grass mowing as needed

Trash disposal as needed

Lighting replacement/repair 1 year

Graffiti removal Weekly - monthly as needed

Maintain furniture 1 year

Fountain/restroom cleaning/repair Weekly - monthly as needed

Pruning 1-4 years

Bridge/tunnel inspection 1 year

Remove fallen trees As needed

Weed control Monthly - as needed

Maintain emergency telephones, CCTV 1 year

Maintain irrigation lines/replace sprinklers 1 year

Irrigate/water plants Weekly - monthly as needed



MANAGEMENT

Security Providing a safe environment for bicycling requires law enforcement to ensure motorists and bicyclists are adhering to the State Vehicle Code. While protecting the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians is important, police should also make sure that bicyclists and pedestrians are behaving in a safe manner.

The presence of law enforcement on pathways can help to improve the sense of path security. The following actions are recommended to address these concerns.

1. Enforcement of applicable laws on the bike path will be performed by the local jurisdiction’s Police Department, using both bicycles and vehicles. Enforcement of vehicle statutes relating to bicycle operation will be enforced on Class II and Class III bikeways as part of the department’s normal operations. No additional manpower or equipment is anticipated for Class II or III segments.

2. Normal bike path hours of operation should be 6am to 9pm, unless otherwise specified.

3. Bike paths should be accessible by police, fire, and maintenance vehicles to ensure adequate security.

4. Mile post markers should be located along pathways and shown on maps for emergency purposes.

5. Cellular call boxes should be located at regular intervals and at all undercrossings.

6. Landscaping should be clear of the path.

7. Undercrossings and bridges should be designed with no place to hide or sit; of materials that resist graffiti; and visible for the entire length prior to users entering the facility.

Local police should issue warnings to bicyclists as a method of educating violators. Violations to enforce include riding in the wrong direction, riding on sidewalks where prohibited, not wearing helmets, riding without lights at night, and failing to stop at stop signs and signals. Police should enforce proper motorist behavior with citations for not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, driving too close to bicyclists, harassing bicyclists and pedestrians, and other discourteous behavior.

Pathway Operations The following operations are recommended for the Cross County Path:

Maximum 5-minute response times are desired to all points on a path by local police and fire departments. Regular police and maintenance patrols. Regular trash, weed, and graffiti abatement. Establish a volunteer safety patrol. Enforce speed limits through warnings, tickets, and radar.



Liability Liability concerns are raised for any facility, such as bike lanes or routes, which are not built or maintained to accepted or required standards. Liability concerns for Class I bike paths and multi-use paths include potential complaints from adjacent landowners who claim that the path or bikeway impacts their safety and security, or exposes them to potential lawsuits on the basis of being an ‘attractive nuisance’. Other liability concerns are related to maintenance programs and claims to ‘safety’ made by the County or cities regarding any improvements.

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE EASEMENT AGREEMENT

APPENDIX C

KINGS COUNTY 2001 REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN:SECTION II (DESIGN STANDARDS)

APPENDIX D

CITY OF LEMOORE BIKEWAY PLAN:CHAPTER IV (BIKEWAY SYSTEM STANDARDS)

APPENDIX E

CITY OF HANFORD STANDARDS

APPENDIX F

A GUIDE TO BRIDGE SYSTEM TYPES

Documents

Kings County Association of Governments CROSS COUNTY PATH … · CROSS COUNTY PATH PLAN Final Report January 2006 Prepared for the Kings County Association of Governments 1400 W